Currently, Autodesk Forma Reviews does not allow notifications to be sent independently to users added under "Notify other project members".   We would like users explicitly added to this field to receive the notification for that specific Review action, even if they are not assigned to the current workflow step.   At the same time, users assigned to later steps of the Review should not receive notifications until their step is reached. Currently, enabling "Review updated" can be used as a workaround, but it generates notifications for other Review updates as well, such as comments and subsequent changes. This can result in unnecessary emails for users who are part of the overall workflow but are not involved in the current step. Requested improvement: Allow "Notify other project members" to trigger a notification specifically for the action in which those users are selected, independently from the general "Review updated" notification setting. This would provide more granular control over Review notifications and allow project teams to notify specific users when needed without generating unnecessary notifications throughout the entire Review workflow. Show More

Currently, the only way in which Key Reviewers can approve documents in a review workflow using the Revies tool is via comments. This method often causes confusion, particularly for users with no prior experience using Autodesk Forma, and comments indicating approval, rejection or approval with comments tend to get lost amongst the document’s comment threads, mark-ups or general comments on the steps of the review workflow. It would be useful to have a drop-down menu allowing users to simply select either ‘Proposed for approval’ or ‘Proposed for rejection’ for each document. The final reviewer could then use these references to finalise the workflow. Show More

The problem In Docs → Reviews, a review package containing multiple documents can only be actioned as a whole. At the Final Review step the reviewer must give every document a status before the package can close. There is no way to approve a subset, return the remainder for revision, and keep the package open while the outstanding documents are reworked.   Use case On a national gas infrastructure programme, the contractor submits transmittal packages to the client's consultant for design review. Partial release is standard practice on projects of this type: documents that pass review are released immediately so downstream work can continue, while the rest stay under review.   Worked example. A contractor submits 10 drawings. The consultant completes review of 3 and wants to release them so the contractor can proceed, while the remaining 7 are still being assessed. Today the only options are: Hold all 10 until the slowest document is finished, delaying 3 drawings that are ready, or Close the package, approving 3 and returning 7 — which forces a new submission cycle for documents that were already validly submitted and still under review, not rejected. Neither reflects how design review actually runs. The first delays work; the second creates avoidable resubmission churn and makes the audit trail read as though 7 documents were returned for revision when in fact they were simply not yet reviewed.   Why the current workarounds don't solve it Splitting into single-document or single-discipline packages reduces the blast radius but doesn't remove the problem, and it multiplies package administration. It also can't be applied retrospectively once a package is in flight. Stamping documents at Initial Review marks status visually but doesn't change the workflow mechanics — the package still cannot progress partially, and the contractor gets no formal status transition to act on. Requested behaviour At a review step, allow the reviewer to: Action a subset of documents in the package (approve, or return for revision) and have those statuses take effect immediately, and Leave the remaining documents in their current review state, with the package staying open until every document has been actioned. Effectively: per-document progression within a package, rather than package-level progression only. Approved documents release downstream; returned documents start their revision cycle; undecided documents remain pending without penalty. This would bring Reviews in line with how staged design review is contractually structured on most large infrastructure programmes. Show More

It is currently possible to apply an auto-trigger to multiple folders at the same time by selecting these folders (individually) within the auto-trigger.  A massive improvement for us would be to select all applicable folders in Document Management (select the check boxes next to the folders) and apply/create an auto-trigger from there.  We have several examples of a sub-subfolder that repeats approx. 80 times in our workspace - I'd like to be able to search for that folder, select them all and apply all to an auto-trigger.  This would save our team a lot of time. Show More

"Autodesk Forma Data Management currently provides a "Copy Approved Files" action upon completion of the Edit Approval Workflow in the Review section. While this functionality supports file transfer to a target location, it can result in multiple copies of the same approved file being created, leading to repository clutter, increased storage usage, and potential confusion over the authoritative document.   We request the addition of a "Move Approved File" option within the Edit Approval Workflow. This enhancement would allow approved files to be transferred to the designated destination without creating duplicate copies, helping organizations maintain a single source of truth, improve document governance, reduce redundancy, and simplify ongoing file management." Show More

I've been looking at ways that we could reduce the number of auto-triggers that we currently create EACH TIME we create a workspace.  Once way would be to allow them to be built into the workspace template (I've raised this already).  Another idea that I've had is for the auto-trigger to be improved to allow multiple workflows to be built into the trigger with conditions used to point the trigger to the correct workflow, e.g. if condition A is met trigger workflow A, if condition B is met trigger workflow B, etc. The time that we are spending creating auto-triggers is quite significant - any improvements to help reduce this time would be most gratefully received, Autodesk. Show More

Many projects have roles such as Information Managers, Document Controllers and Project Leads who need visibility of all reviews for governance, reporting and oversight purposes, but do not need to participate in the review workflow. Could Autodesk introduce a dedicated "Review Viewer" permission that allows nominated users to view all project reviews and associated comments without being added to each workflow or requiring Project Administrator rights? Benefits: Improves project oversight and reporting. Reduces the need for elevated admin permissions. Maintains governance and segregation of duties. Allows key project roles to monitor review progress and bottlenecks more effectively. Minimises administration associated with managing review distribution lists. Show More

Allows you to add or remove key reviewers from active workflows without restarting the review.   This would reduce rework and accommodate changes in the team. Show More

Notify users before closing a review if there are any unpublished markups. This prevents information loss. Show More

Advanced filters and customisable views in Reviews Add advanced filters by role/user, pending action and involvement, and allow columns with custom attributes. Improves usability and reduces the time spent managing reviews. This is necessary, for example, so that each user can see the review workflows they actually have open. Show More

Allow access to the latest version of the document directly from the review workflow.     This improvement would reduce the risk of reviewing outdated information. Show More

Introduce dedicated permissions for managing revisions.   Allows you to delegate responsibilities whilst retaining control. Show More

As an admin I understand I can move the workflow forward and backwards even if I am not an initiator. My problem is that the review has 3 initiators in the workflow ex. (X,Y,Z), initiator (X) started the review workflow then this workflow was then sent back to initiator. Initiators Y and Z can’t forward the review workflow again as it locked only to the original initiator X (X is not available anymore in the project for now). As an admin I am not authorized to move a review forward on behalf of a design consultant, but at least I can give permission to Y and Z to do this which is not possible on Forma now ! Show More

Notify users when notifications are not delivered due to their personal settings.   This would improve transparency in communication. Show More

As a Project Admin, I would like to be able to assign a Project Member as a Transmittals Tool Manager and/or Reviews Tool Manager, allowing them to manage and monitor all Transmittal Items and Review Items without upgrading their overall role to Project Administrator. These permissions should be assignable to selected Project Members independently of their overall project role. This would allow Project Admins to grant access to specific tools without upgrading users' overall roles unnecessarily. Could Autodesk consider introducing these tool-level manager permissions in a future update? This enhancement would provide greater flexibility in managing project permissions and improve the efficiency of document control workflows. Thank you for considering this suggestion. Show More

Users have reported that the document review process involves too many configuration settings, making it time-consuming. There is a need to simplify the process to improve efficiency and make it easier for users to complete document reviews. Show More

Some users have expressed concerns about the limitations with the current review workflow process. In multi-step approval workflows, only the final approval step supports a formal approval decision, while intermediate reviewers can only provide comments. They would like every review step to be able to issue a formal approval or rejection decision, not just comments. Show More

In the settings for approval workflows, once the reviewers have been selected, there should also be a default field for observers or, upon completion, a default group of recipients that can be edited Show More

It would be valuable to make the review function available to people external to a project. There are several key examples where we have clients/sub-contractors or 3rd party agencies that we need to get a formal review/approval of documents but are not members of the project.   A very recent example of this relates to our HV Safety Plan. We have to prepare a plan which confirms the cross-boundary agreement for works – this is then circulated to other contractors that are working for the same GC but on a separate package of work. They have no need  to be part of our project, but it is a critical document that needs to be signed and stored on the project. The same document also needs to be reviewed by project members.   It would be a game changer for Tool Engagement if Reviews could be internal and external to the project. Show More