The main workflow, step by step
The window follows one drawing through review, comment, revision and approval, across the disciplines that must sign it. Pick a step to see its screen. The engineering firm, the project and the drawing are invented for the demonstration.
Submission
STR-DWG-0412Revision A- Title
- Level two slab reinforcement
- Project
- Quayside offices
- Route
- Structural drawing, three stages
- Needed by
- Date tied to the pour
Off the pathA document submitted with the wrong numbering or without its title block details is rejected before it enters review.
Technical check
STR-DWG-0412 AComments raised| Comment | Status |
|---|---|
| Bar spacing at grid C | Open |
| Lap length note | Open |
| Section reference | Open |
Off the pathThe checker cannot approve while any of their own comments is open, which prevents approval subject to comments by accident.
Revision
STR-DWG-0412 BResubmitted| Comment | Response |
|---|---|
| Bar spacing at grid C | Corrected |
| Lap length note | Corrected |
| Section reference | Explained, no change |
Off the pathA response of no change returns to the commenter, who either accepts it or keeps the comment open with a reason.
Coordination review
STR-DWG-0412 BIn review- Mechanical
- No clash, accepted
- Electrical
- Sleeve position queried
- Architecture
- Accepted
- Overdue
- Electrical, one day
Off the pathA reviewer who does not respond by the due date is reminded, and the lead may reassign the review to a deputy.
Approval
STR-DWG-0412 CApproved for construction| Record | Detail |
|---|---|
| Approved by | Project director |
| Revision | C, supersedes A and B |
| Issued to | Contractor, via transmittal |
Off the pathOnce approved, the file is locked. Any change needs a new revision, which starts the route again.
Who uses it, and what each role can do
Approval carries professional responsibility, so the system has to be exact about who may do what. The roles follow the way design offices already work.
| Role | Sees | Can do |
|---|---|---|
| Author | Their documents, comments and revisions | Submit, respond to comments and issue revisions |
| Checker or reviewer | Documents routed to them | Comment, accept responses and recommend approval |
| Discipline lead | Reviews across their discipline | Assign reviewers and resolve disagreements |
| Approver | Documents at the final stage | Approve, reject or return with conditions |
| Document controller | Every document, route, transmittal and register | Set routes, issue documents and maintain the register |
When the work leaves the usual path
Review cycles go wrong in predictable ways, and each costs time on site. The platform is designed around these as much as around the smooth case.
| Situation | What the system does | Who decides |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewer does not respond in time | Reminds, then lets the lead reassign | Discipline lead |
| Author disagrees with a comment | Returns it to the commenter with a reason | Discipline lead |
| Urgent issue needed before full review | Allows an issue with a recorded status and limits | Approver |
| Two revisions edited at once | Blocks the second and shows who holds the first | Document controller |
| Approved document needs a change | Requires a new revision through the route | Author |
| Reviewer is away | Passes their reviews to a named deputy | Discipline lead |
| External party must review | Gives limited access to that document only | Document controller |
What it connects to
Documents are created in design tools and consumed on site and by clients. The links below are the usual ones, depending on what your practice runs.
| System | What moves | Direction |
|---|---|---|
| Design and drawing tools | Files and their title block data | Into the platform |
| File storage or document system | Controlled copies and archives | Both ways |
| Project management system | Programme dates that set review deadlines | Into the platform |
| Email and calendar | Review requests and reminders | Out of the platform |
| Client or contractor portal | Issued documents and transmittals | Out of the platform |
What a first release includes
Review routes
Routes per document type and project, with stages, reviewers, deputies and due dates.
Markup and comments
Comments placed on the drawing or page, each with an owner, a response and a status.
Revision control
Numbered revisions with a clear current version, and superseded ones kept but marked.
Approval and status
Sign-off with name, date and the status codes your practice and its clients use.
Register and transmittals
A live document register and transmittals that record what was issued to whom.
Audit trail
A complete history of every action on every document, which nobody can alter after the event.
Often added after the first release
- Comparison of two revisions side by side
- Requests for information linked to documents
- Approval on a phone or tablet
- Client review with its own route
- Reporting on review times by discipline
What we need from you
- Your document numbering and revision conventions
- The review routes used today, by document type
- The status codes your clients and contracts require
- The design tools and file storage in use
- A document controller and a discipline lead to test on a live project
Ownership and licensing terms are defined in the project agreement.
What to do next
Send us your document register for one project and a description of how a drawing is approved today. We reply with the routes we would configure and a proposal. Start a conversation or book a 30-minute call.
Common questions
How is this different from the review features in a file sharing tool?
File sharing tools let people comment on a file. They do not enforce a route, stop approval while comments are open, control revisions, apply your status codes or produce a register and transmittals. For controlled documents that carry professional or contractual weight, those are the features that matter, and they are what this platform is built around.
Can it handle large drawings and models?
Drawings in common formats are displayed in the browser with markup, including large sheets. Three-dimensional models are heavier and are usually reviewed in their own tools, with the approval and its record kept here. We test with your real files early, since file size and format decide the viewing approach.
Does an electronic approval have legal standing?
In many jurisdictions electronic approvals and signatures are recognized, with conditions that vary by country, document type and contract. Some documents still require a specific form of signature or a seal. We build the level of signature your legal adviser and your contracts require, and record the evidence behind each approval.
Can clients and contractors take part in reviews?
Yes. An external reviewer can be given access to specific documents and a stage in the route, without seeing anything else. Their comments and decisions enter the same record. Issue to contractors is by transmittal, so that there is evidence of exactly which revision they received and when.