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

Enable the creation of transmittals via API and integration with reviews and markups.   This would allow for process automation. 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     This improvement would reduce the risk of reviewing outdated information.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

  Allows you to configure the subject line and content of automated emails. This helps ensure that communication is aligned with internal processes.   It should be customizable and provide quick and direct access to the information in the notification. Show More

Enable multi-select in the Projects and Members filter tools at the Hub Admin level, matching the functionality already available at the Project Admin level. Show More

Please make it possible to sign in on Forma via fingerprint reader or face detection.   Thank you. Show More

Define rules for identifying asset attributes at the template level. This would ensure consistency and save time Show More

Correctly apply the attribute visibility defined in templates. This would standardize projects and reduce manual configuration. Show More

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

Export document lists with attributes, status, workflows, and revision marks.   This would facilitate analysis, audits, and reporting. Show More

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

It's great that we can now add Custom Fields in Submittals, but we need the option to set the custom field as Required, like in the Issues tool.  We also need the ability to choose which Submittal Type a custom field is added to. Show More

If you're checking emails on your phone and get a notification with a link, it should allow you to open the app to that RFI, form, etc. When clicking the link, it will open on your default browser on your phone. It will prompt if you want to open the app, but then it takes you to the home page. It would be beneficial to have a link to open it on the app and have it go directly to that section/tool. Show More

Review markup is currently limited to viewable file types (PDF/models). Add markup/comment support directly on Excel files within a review, without converting to PDF first. Show More

Prevent Duplicate Asset Uploads Through Automated Validation in ACC Assets Module Idea Description: Currently, when uploading assets into the ACC Assets Module, duplicate asset records can be uploaded if they exist in the source spreadsheet. While the system performs validation checks for mandatory fields such as Status, Category, Location Missing, etc and restricts uploads when these are missing, there is no validation to identify or prevent duplicate assets. Proposed Enhancement: Implement a duplicate asset validation check during the asset upload process. Before completing the upload, the system should automatically scan the incoming dataset and compare it against existing assets and duplicate records within the upload file. Expected Benefits: Prevent unintentional duplicate asset creation. Improve overall asset data quality and integrity. Reduce manual effort required to identify and clean duplicate records. Ensure more reliable asset registers for downstream processes and reporting. Align duplicate validation with other existing upload validation checks. This enhancement would be a valuable addition to the ACC Assets Module and help organizations maintain accurate and consistent asset data from the point of upload. Show More

When adding a user in a Project why doesn't the Company and Role sync to the Hub list? The majority of our member list at the Hub level is missing Company and Roles that have already been determined in the project.  Show More

Revision/transmittal numbers currently must be added manually via attributes, which is time-consuming and error-prone. Automatically include the current review ID and current transmittal ID as file metadata/filename info, similar to how file versions display, so reviewers can see status directly from the Files module. Show More

Currently, exported sheets from Build > Sheets, including issues and markups, visually display the issues, but it is not possible to identify which specific issue is being referenced. Although the exported PDF contains a hyperlink to the corresponding Forma issue, this is only useful for users and companies who have access to Forma. For documentation purposes, especially when sheets are printed, it is essential that the Issue ID is also displayed directly on the sheet. This allows users to correlate the issue shown on the drawing with the corresponding issue detail report (PDF). I am aware that the Issue Detail Report provides an option to include a sheet overview. However, the embedded sheet is only available as a reduced-size overview, and the created markups are not displayed. As a result, it is not suitable for accurately locating and identifying issues on the drawing. We require the ability to export sheets at their actual scale and size, including all visible markups and issues, with a clear display of the corresponding Issue IDs. This would ensure that users can easily locate and match issues within a PDF issue report and maintain a complete and usable project record, even without access to Forma. Below is an example of how we would like exported sheets to be displayed, including the Issue ID directly on the drawing for easy reference and documentation purposes:   Show More

A recent update in the Review Workflow Settings allows users to assign Key Reviewers within the review interface. However, the "Minimum Number of Key Reviewers Should Review" option is currently available even when the workflow is configured as "Every Key Reviewer Must Review". This behavior appears to be a bug or configuration error because the minimum reviewer count is not applicable when all key reviewers are required to complete the review. Having this option available creates a workflow inconsistency and may lead to incorrect review completion behavior. Expected Behavior: The "Minimum Number of Key Reviewers Should Review" option should only be available when the corresponding workflow condition supports minimum reviewer selection. "Every Key Reviewer Must Review" is selected, the "Minimum Number of Key Reviewers Should Review" option is still available. If the system is designed to support this option in this workflow type, then the configured minimum number of reviewers should be respected and function correctly when reviewers are added through the review interface. Please investigate this issue and implement a fix to ensure the workflow settings are aligned with the intended review logic. Show More