ACC Build - RFI workflows should be as flexible as Submittal workflows
Announcements
Welcome to Forma for Construction Ideas! View the Forma for Construction Product Roadmap here. Top-voted ideas may be considered for future development. Learn more about the feedback process here.
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
ACC Build - RFI workflows should be as flexible as Submittal workflows
Often, RFIs and submittals follow the same exact workflows. Currently, the RFI module is just to rigid. We would like to add steps, assign a role or company as responsible reviewer, etc. The current set-up just doesn't work. Have the submittal and RFI teams work together!
Please!!! ^^^ multiple people from the same company should be able to post responses and still easily have the ball in court change. Procore does this and ACC needs the same functionality or the ability for anyone from a company to post a response and have BIC shift. Were so often left with RFIs being left open because we're not getting notifications because ball in court isnt shifting
To be clear we need the flexibility to add additional review steps. It isn't enough to just have a singe "Review" step for a GC and/or AE team. Owners want to be a part of the process as well. We can't make an owner an "RFI Manager" because it kicks out the CA Manager and we can't have them as a "Coordinator" because it kicks out the PM role and responsibility. This is a high profile request with multiple AE firms I am working with.
My company deals with a lot of Multi-trade reviews.
Items I'd like to see addressed
Having a cap on the number of concurrent reviewers at 10 is not practical. There is no reason why RFIs cannot be assigned to Roles or Companies.
The ability to have multi-step reviews as mentioned above
The ability to have Reviewers and Optional reviewers on the same step. The feedback we get on Co-reviewers is that no one understands how to use it and that it is not an acceptable substitute.
Response fields should support rich text like the correspondence feature
The question, suggest answer and response fields should be readable and always expanded, with an option to truncate. Readability throughout Build is an issue, this also pertains to response fields in the Submittal UI
When exporting, a file picker for what to include and exclude in references.
When exporting, the system should remember selections across RFIs so they do not have be selected each time
I completely agree. Our project teams continually ask (complain) about the lack of flexibility in the RFI tool. Would love for ACC development to address this.
No additional items to add to all of the above. Would just like to note that we have seen the customizable RFI workflows help streamline in the past, specifically Procore as the Owner required it per contract. In the Government programs we are required to use, they are also very rigid and are a contributing factor to the process taking longer than it should. Would love to see the RFI workflows at least match the submittal workflow. Thanks!
Yes. Adding my support for the need to assign Companies as RFI reviewers rather than having to pick individuals. Workflows should be the same as Submittals.
