Forma for Construction Ideas - Page 6

jkarben · ‎09-22-2026

Our hub admins are responsible for creating Project Templates for use across the company. The Project Admins are responsible for creating the individual projects (due to the vast amounts of projects needed) so that the Hub Admins are not a bottleneck. Therefore, it would be great if we had separate Project Admins permissions for creating Projects and for creating Project Templates.

wim_de_winter · ‎09-14-2026

Sorting issues by location, both on the web and in the app, is a key feature request. In addition, it would also be desirable for users to be able to sort by sublocations, such as Levels, apartment number,room type etc..., from the tree structure.

annetteXF8V7 · ‎09-11-2026

BuildingConnected currently allows users to upload bid documents with file and folder names that exceed common Windows, OneDrive, and SharePoint path length limitations. As a subcontractor, we frequently receive bid packages that cannot be downloaded or managed properly because the combined folder path and filename exceed supported limits. Depending on the workflow, documents may fail to download, be truncated, or be renamed in a way that makes them difficult to identify and organize. This appears to be a recurring issue caused by how project teams name folders and files, not by individual subcontractor workflows. We understand that Autodesk products may be subject to Windows path length limitations. However, because BuildingConnected controls the upload and distribution process, it is in a unique position to prevent these issues before documents are distributed to bidders. Requested Enhancements: Offer a flattened-folder download option for subcontractors. Warn users when uploaded files or folder structures exceed common Windows/SharePoint path limits. Prevent uploads that exceed supported limits. Provide a report identifying files with excessive path lengths. Offer automatic filename shortening options. Business Impact: Lost time managing bid documents. Increased risk of missing or misidentifying bid documents. Additional support burden for subcontractors and GCs. Potential bidding errors resulting from inaccessible project documents. BuildingConnected is widely used throughout the construction industry, and addressing this issue would improve document accessibility and reliability for all project participants.

f.bernardi · ‎09-30-2026

Regarding problem statuses, it should be possible to: - add new ones and assign them to specific project phases—whether in the data management section for reviews or the build section for on-site issues; - rename existing ones to align with team members' workflows, thereby facilitating adoption of the tool.

shubham_shindeYTJS6 · ‎09-24-2026

Currently in a form template, only a single member/role/company can be assigned to a particular section. Typically on projects, multiple contractors and roles use the same standard template, which currently requires multiple form templates for the same activity for different companies and roles. This is very tedious on large scale with 30-50 projects and each project having multiple buildings/clusters. Each building may have separate teams, increasing the number of form templates required. Another problem is, the contractor and the developer team, both may need to edit the same section - For example, the contractor selects Yes/No to a checkpoint and the developer want to change the yes/no selection to reject the checkpoint. This ensures structured data capture. Currently, the role/company that is not added as section assignee can only comment on such checkpoints, leading to lack of structured data which can be used for analytics in BI Dashboards. I propose the availability of below options: 1. There should be no mandate to add a fixed section assignee in form template and can be assigned wherever fixed stakeholders are required (like Quality, safety, execution teams). 2. Option where we assign a role or company, and the user (typically contractor) initiating the form can select a user or multiple users from the assigned role or company to whom the current section shall be assigned, or next section shall be assigned. 3. Different levels of permission within section assignee - Example, the contractor role shall only be able to edit his own section, another role (developer) can be given permission to edit multiple selected/all sections to change/add any data and reject the section. 4. Permission levels for authority to submit a section - Only select roles can be given access to submit a particular section so that the contractor completes the section and selects "Completed" post which the section is sent to the role/user/company with access to submit/reject section. This will ensure step wise approval and ability to make any changes or rejection for each checkpoint within a section

cking29 · ‎08-10-2026

Operating as a global company requires access to multiple currency types within a Bidding and Sourcing Platform. The following currency types are missing from Building Connected which is limiting our ability to successfully utilize the application. Missing Currencies Needed in BC CRC ₡ – Costa Rican Colón CHF Fr – Swiss Franc GBP £ – Great British Pound JPY ¥ – Japanese Yen CNY ¥ – Chinese Yuan KRW ₩ – South Korean Won TWD NT$ – New Taiwan Dollar THB ฿ – Thai Baht VND ₫ – Vietnamese Dong SGD $ – Singapore Dollar IDR Rp – Indonesian Rupiah MYR RM – Malaysian Ringgit RUB ₽ – Russian Ruble PHP ₱ – Philippine Peso

sara8USLW · ‎09-23-2026

It would be beneficial if a series of additional questions would be prompted to the user for completion pending on the dropdown response selected. For example, if "XYZ Company" selected, then questions 1.1-1.5 are required but if "Other" is selected, then no further action is required and question 1.1-1.5 are not required for completion.

edavisonH7JF7 · ‎09-29-2026

When using Forma’s Send for Signature feature with SignNow, information entered in the subject line is not reflected in the document name displayed in SignNow. Currently, signees see only the contract number and SCO title. Since most signees identify the subcontractor by name rather than contract number, it would be helpful if the subcontractor/company name could also be included in the SignNow document name. This would make it easier for signees to quickly identify who the SCO is being issued to.

daniel_mora1ER7GF · ‎09-29-2026

Details M.O. Flowe would like a more flexible way to manage contacts when creating Forma Build projects from project templates. Currently, project templates replicate the members included in the template. However, M.O. Flowe has a core group of internal users who should be included on every project, while external contacts such as subcontractors, reviewers, and other companies participating in RFIs and submittals vary from project to project. The requested workflow is: Maintain a master list of contacts/members at the account or hub level. Keep only the core/default project team in the project template. When creating a new project from the template, allow the project administrator to select additional existing contacts from the hub and add them to that specific project. Ideally, allow multiple contacts to be selected and added at once, or provide an Import Members by Spreadsheet option directly within the project. Users who are not selected for that project should not receive notifications or gain access to the project. Currently, spreadsheet member import is available at the hub/account level, but the customer would like similar functionality available directly at the project level. This would eliminate the need to preload every possible external contact into a template or manually add project-specific contacts one at a time. Business Value: This would make project templates more reusable, simplify onboarding project-specific external collaborators, reduce manual administration, and help customers control which external users receive access and notifications on each project.

sara8USLW · ‎09-23-2026

Currently, "No action", "Require a photo", "Require an issue", "Suggest a photo" and "Suggest an issue" are the only options available when Conditional Logic is selected for a form. It would be beneficial if Hub Admins could add additional Conditional Logic actions pending on the selection from the dropdown response. For example: If "XYZ Company" selected, then "No Action" but if "Other" selected, then "Require a text response" with a space where text can be added in the same form section by the user.

LMRVQ3DX · ‎09-11-2026

An issue occurs when exporting the version comparison report for an NWD file in Autodesk Forma (formerly Autodesk Construction Cloud/ACC): the .csv file exports the generic element from the selection tree (Geometry, Operation, Volume, etc.) rather than the actual element name in the "Name" column. Consequently, the report provides no useful information; it should display the actual names of the elements.

anne-susann_linde9DVG7 · ‎09-23-2026

For a current project I'm working on we have implemented forms to that have to be filled out and reviewed. Those forms have multiple sections that each contain a different question. It would be great if the reviewer could review each question individually and afterwards review the form as a whole depending on how many sections where approved or declined.

arjan.zwart · ‎09-18-2026

Summary Please extend the Autodesk Forma Issues API "Issue Placements" beta to support placing issues on Sheets (the published 2D drawing set), not just 2D files and 3D models. We need third-party and field-capture tools to be able to write an Issue's x,y pushpin position onto a Sheet through the API, so the pin shows up in the Forma Build Sheets/drawings experience exactly where it was captured. The workflow we need Our team captures issues in the field using OpenSpace. Those issues sync into Forma Build with their title, description, photos, and metadata — but they arrive WITHOUT a location pin on the drawing. Someone then has to manually re-place each pin on the correct Sheet, which doesn't scale and defeats the purpose of capturing the location in the first place. What we're asking for We understand the new Issue Placements beta already lets applications create, read, update, and delete issue pins on 2D files and 3D models. We're asking Autodesk to add the same capability for SHEETS — i.e. allow an API client to create/read an Issue with a pushpin and x,y coordinates tied to a specific published Sheet, so the issue appears pinned in the Forma Build drawings/Sheets module. Why it matters - Location is the whole point. An issue without a pin on the sheet is just a to-do item; an issue pinned to the exact spot is actionable for the crew. - It closes the loop between field capture and the office's source-of-truth drawings. - It removes hours of manual, error-prone re-pinning on every project. - It lets the field tools our teams already use deliver a complete, automatic experience inside Forma Build. Impact Our field teams log a high volume of issues every week. Automatic sheet-pinning would save our superintendents and engineers significant time on every project and keep our drawing set as the single source of truth. OpenSpace's development team has told us they are ready and willing to dedicate engineering resources to building this integration as soon as the API is available. Thanks for considering this — happy to be a beta tester for Sheet placements.

f.caldwell · ‎09-15-2026

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.

simonvuBW75B · ‎09-22-2026

When a document fails to process it gets flagged with a red warning triangle next to the file name. There is no way to filter or sort by that flag, so in a package of 4,000 documents the only way to find them is to scroll the whole list and hover over every file name one at a time. The icon also sits next to the file name rather than in the Indicators column, so the list cannot even be sorted to group the flagged files together. Flagged files cannot be viewed, compared, published or marked up, and do not show on mobile at all, so missing one carries real risk on a large package. Please add an easy way to surface them in bulk. A processing status filter in Files and inside packages, or the status as a sortable column, so the whole flagged set can be pulled up at once instead of hunted for.

mfriel3FSC3 · ‎09-07-2026

When opening a folder containing a large number of files, the total file count is not immediately visible. To obtain the file count, users must either scroll to the bottom of the file list so that all files load, or export the file list. Currently, only the first 200 files are displayed initially. This recently caused an issue where a user attempted to copy files from a folder; however, the "Select All" function only selected the files that had been loaded and displayed. To select all files, the user was required to scroll to the very bottom of the folder so that the remaining files became visible. This is impractical for folders containing thousands of files and creates a risk of files being unintentionally omitted. It would be beneficial if: The total file count was displayed immediately when a folder is opened. All files were available for selection without requiring users to scroll through the entire list. The "Select All" function selected every file within the folder, regardless of how many files have been loaded on screen. Also, when using the search and filter functionality, users can only scroll through a maximum of 5,000 files, which limits usability when working with larger folders. Additionally, collective file sizes are not visible and can only be viewed through Desktop Connector. As part of our internal processes, files are regularly transferred to another system that imposes limits on the size of uploaded ZIP files. Having visibility of the total size of selected files within Forma would help users manage transfers more efficiently and avoid exceeding upload limits. For example, it would be useful to display information such as: 800 / 3,000 files selected - 345 MB selected out of 2.2 GB total This would allow users to quickly identify both the number of files selected and their combined size before downloading or creating ZIP files.

pedro_medeiros2BT2V · ‎09-25-2026

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.

coeclancy · ‎08-19-2026

Dashboards created with Insight Builder currently are only visible in Build, within the Home tool. For Cost Management specific dashboards, we should have the ability for these to only be visible in Cost Management. It is intuitive and in some ways necessary for CM information to be in the CM product.

y_kuroiwa · ‎09-28-2026

Currently, we are converting 3D models created in EYECAD to Navisworks format (NWD) and viewing them in Forma. However, we are encountering an issue where we cannot view the tag numbers for piping fittings and instrumentation components in Forma’s Properties window. Forma offers two selection methods: “First Object” and “Last Object,” but we are unable to view the desired tag numbers regardless of which one we use. When “First Object” is selected, the parent hierarchy at the line level is selected, so the tag numbers for piping fittings and instrumentation components cannot be verified. When “Last Object” is selected, the geometric symbols that make up the instrumentation components and piping fittings are selected, but that hierarchy does not contain the tag number attribute. Necessary attributes, such as tag numbers, are stored in a hierarchy level between the two mentioned above. However, in the current version of Forma, it is not possible to navigate between hierarchy levels after selecting an object; therefore, we cannot access the intermediate hierarchy and, as a result, cannot verify the tag numbers. For this reason, we request the addition of a feature that allows users to navigate to parent or child hierarchy levels after selecting an object, or a feature that allows users to view attributes in the intermediate hierarchy. We believe that this feature will make it easy to verify the tag numbers of piping fittings and instrumentation devices on-site, thereby significantly improving the usability of the model.

abreckenridge · ‎10-02-2026

Forma needs a more flexible way for organisations to define and manage project-level metadata across their account. For organisations managing a large portfolio of projects, the current Project Information fields and fixed Project Type values are too restrictive. Different organisations have their own project classifications, business structures, delivery models and governance requirements and these cannot always be represented using Autodesk-defined fields. As a result, important project information often has to be embedded within project names or maintained in separate spreadsheets, registers or external systems. This limits the ability to consistently govern, search, filter, report and automate projects across a Forma account. Proposed capability Allow Account Administrators to configure an organisation's project metadata schema at the account level. This should include: Custom project attributes – Allow administrators to create fields such as text, dropdown, multi-select, number, date and yes/no fields. Configurable Project Type – Allow the existing Project Type field to use an organisation-defined list rather than a fixed Autodesk list. Controlled values – Allow administrators to centrally manage dropdown values so that project classifications remain consistent across the account. Mandatory attributes – Allow selected attributes to be made mandatory when creating a project. Project template integration – Allow attributes and default values to be associated with project templates. Portfolio filtering and reporting – Make these attributes available when searching, filtering, grouping and reporting across projects. API and integration access – Expose custom project metadata through the Autodesk APIs so it can be used for automated project creation, integrations and synchronisation with enterprise systems. Example An infrastructure organisation may need every project to contain information such as: Unique Work ID Project Type Business Unit / Project Responsibility Delivery Partner Project Phase Program Asset Class Project Manager These values should be structured project metadata rather than information that has to be encoded into the project name or maintained externally. Business value Configurable project metadata would make Forma considerably more scalable as an enterprise CDE. It would enable organisations to establish a consistent project taxonomy, improve portfolio reporting, automate project provisioning and integrate Forma more effectively with ERP, project management, document management and other enterprise systems. It would also support organisations implementing structured information management approaches, including ISO 19650-aligned environments, where consistent classification and metadata are fundamental to managing information at scale.

Community

Hub Permissions - Separate create Project and create Project Templates

Sort Issues by Location and SubLocations

Prevent Upload of File and Folder Structures That Exceed Common Windows/SharePoint Path Limits (244 to 250 characters)

ISSUE STATUS - CUSTOMIZATION OPTIONS

Forms - Additional Permissions for Section Assignee

Add currency types to Building Connected

Prompting a series of additional questions pending on response

Show Subcontractor Name When Sending SCO for Signature

Allow Bulk Import and Selective Addition of Project Members from Hub Contacts

Addtional conditional logic actions pending on selected dropdown response

Include actual element names in the NWD file version comparison report in Autodesk Forma.

Review of Forms

Support Issue placement on Sheets via the Autodesk Forma Issues API (extend the Issue Placements beta beyond 2D files & 3D models)

Apply auto-trigger to multiple workflows using conditions

Filter and sort files by processing status (process for viewing)

File Visibility and Folders Restrictions

Allow independent notifications for "Notify other project members" in Reviews

Insight Dashboards - Cost Management

I would like to be able to view the attributes that exist in the intermediate layer.

Enterprise Project Metadata and Configurable Project Classification

Forums Links