Enhancing Building Sequencing UX in cmBuilder

Defining and building toolsets to support the workflow

Project Type: New Feature Development

Time: 2023

Skill Highlights: Requirements Definition, Stakeholder Management, UX Design, UX Research

Introduction to cmbuilder and building sequencing

cmBuilder is a web-based construction logistics planning platform.

Users use the app to storyboard their construction flow, and they use it to show the sequence of how the buildings will be constructed. To do so, users connect the construction of the building components to the respective milestone dates. They will be able to flip through the different milestone dates and see the building being constructed.

For this project, the goal is to improve the ease and confidence of users to “create and update building sequencing.”

Understanding the problem of building sequencing

The image below shows the user flow for managing the building model, and the pain points related to creating a building sequence.

One of the primary challenges stem from the lack of user control over the original 3D file, typically received from collaborating parties. These files are frequently disorganized and difficult to manage.

The image below illustrates two primary challenges when users work in cmBuilder:

1. Folder navigation: it is complex to manage a vast number of components buried within layers of folders.

2. Selection difficulty: it requires excessive clicking if users rely solely on the 3D scene for selection.

Process that I took, and the paths that did not work

Below is a concise overview of the project process.

In the process, initially, we explored a solution inspired by industry-standard software, Navisworks, which involved using "selection sets." (left branch in the image labeled “path 1”.) While recommended by expert users, testing revealed the approach of using selection sets could lead to confusion and would not fit well.

Subsequently, we pivoted to a second opportunity path:

Leveraging metadata for improved organization.

Details of path 2 is the focus shown in the rest of this project page.

RESEARCH & DEFINE

❓ Key Questions that drove the project

To understand the problem in order to create a fitting solution, these were key questions I had going into the research and initial phase.

1. 🗂 Relevant Information :

   • What information do users typically utilize when creating their sequence?

   • How do users gather and organize this information?

2. 🧠 User Knowledge:

   • What are the typical skills and expertise levels of users engaged in sequencing tasks?

   • Are there any specific tools or methodologies they commonly use?

3. 📉 Context and Workflow:

   • What is the typical context in which users perform sequencing tasks? Is it done in one sitting or across multiple review sessions?

   • How do interruptions or changes in workflow affect the building sequencing process?

4. 📑 Metadata Utilization:

   • How can existing metadata attached to files be effectively exposed to users?

   • What metadata fields are most relevant to their tasks, and how can they be prioritized?

5. 🦋 Adaptability to Changes:

   • How can the system ensure ease of editing when designs and planning undergo revisions?

   • What features or functionalities do we have the most confidence in, and least affected by changing user requirements?

🧐 Insights from user interviews

During our user interviews, we uncovered valuable insights into the challenges and preferences of our target audience:

1. 🗂 Relevant Information:

   • Users often find the default folder structures unreliable for navigating and locating desired items. However, they occasionally find helpful cues within file naming conventions to aid in their search.

   • Some users resort to opening files in other software to access useful metadata or maintain a separate Excel sheet to track logic.

2. 🧠 User Type/Knowledge:

   • Our target users exhibit a diverse range of software experience. While some lean towards automation, others prefer simpler operations akin to PowerPoint and Paint. This highlights the necessity for flexible customization options within the application to accommodate varying user needs and skill levels.

3. 📉 Current Workflow:

   • Users navigate using a combination of 3D view and folder structure due to distrust in folder layouts.

   • Sequencing is often attempted in a single session, with users needing to mark progress before interruptions occur.

4. 📑 Metadata:

   • Users express a desire to reuse metadata from other software. However, they caution that this metadata can be prone to errors or frequent updates.

   • Key metadata properties, such as “building storey” and “IFC class”, are deemed crucial by users. “Worksets” are also frequently mentioned.

Competitive analysis

We conducted competitive analysis to get inspiration:

• Firstly, we explored 3D software like Revit and Solibri, common software used by the more “techy” users.

• Secondly, we investigated software like Product Board and Premiere Pro, seeking insights into effective data categorization methods.

The analysis results were condensed, and recommendations were presented to guide our design decisions.

DESIGN AND DELIVERY

Ideation of two directions

For the opportunity of focus - leveraging metadata for improved organization for building sequencing, we explored and ideated with two main directions.

• Path A: utilizing filters to search through properties to quickly find items.

• Path B: establishing a sorting hierarchy based on properties, to quickly organized items in similar groups.

The images below gives highlights of some of the ideas generated.

Picking the path of “dynamic tree grouping” and converging on the mvp

After our ideation phase and drawing inspiration from competitive research, we decided to focus on the idea of "dynamic tree grouping" (path B) to swiftly navigate through items in the desired hierarchy.

The decision was driven by the recognition that while filters excel at locating specific items, they are less efficient for swiftly navigating through extensive datasets and making numerous selections.

With this, we further focused our design efforts to create the MVP, which composes of two main components:

1. Property editing: allow users to edit properties and create values

2. Flexible tree grouping: allowing the tree to sort by desired hierarchy (dynamic tree)

User flow - mapping out current opportunities

With the direction chosen, the user flow was created. It illustrates how users would use property and the dynamic tree groupings to work faster and to have more confidence when creating building sequencing.

The key improvement lies in users' ability to utilize metadata and tree grouping to easily select groups of similar items, such as “all exterior walls of floor 3”. This contrasts with the old flow of needing to select individual items in the 3D scene, or trying to navigate arbitrary folder structures. In other words, selecting “all exterior walls of floor 3” previously entailed a laborious process of clicking or name searching. Most importantly, the selection could not be easily redone.

User flow - mapping out future opportunities

User flow was also created to map out future opportunities in order to ensure the core design would work out long term. The future flow involves the bulk execution of property override and the ability to have reusable rulesets.

The main reasons we mapped out these future flows is to ensure the current design has future expansion capabilities, and also to have discussions with the developers so that they can plan ahead for the data structure to be adaptable for these future updates.

Users want default presets, and how we defined them

For the “dynamic tree grouping”, user interviews revealed a strong need for presets, expected to be used 80% of the time. We gathered initial ideas from competitive software and user discussions.

Quick prototypes with mock data were created for user feedback, leading to the refinement of presets. This iterative process allowed us to refine our presets, with one initially proposed preset being discarded based on user input.

The implemented feature with realistic use case

The video below showcases a typical use case for the 'dynamic tree grouping' feature, complemented by editable metadata properties. Quite often, these properties were already present in the original source file but were inaccessible for editing or practical use prior to the current design. With this enhancement, users can seamlessly select all elements of a single floor by grouping them according to the 'IFC Structure' preset. Furthermore, they have the flexibility to rectify incorrect or outdated data as needed without the need to go to the source file and reupload.

A short reflection of this project

This project launched a core functionality to the software, and we also generated many ideas for future enhancement for the “building sequencing” theme. I want to touch a little bit here on the main challenges, and also comment on the nature of this project.

In this project, I encountered several significant challenges that shaped its trajectory:

1. Navigating diverse input formats: Understanding the varied array of input formats and structures provided by users, including different file types and varying levels of completion, proved to be a significant hurdle.

2. Understanding user mental models: Delving into the intricate mental models of users to comprehend their typical file organization and management methods was crucial for designing an intuitive solution.

3. Managing solution complexity: Breaking down the expansive solution space into manageable units of work in collaboration with stakeholders was essential to ensure alignment and effectiveness.

In summary, this project prioritized understanding user needs over flashy UI, focusing on defining precise feature requirements. Extensive testing allowed us to identify ineffective paths and prioritize immediate solutions. The final delivery reflects user feedback and meticulous attention to detail to address edge cases and user expectations.