[Request for Feedback] Mechanical Folder Structure

[kyle.bernhardt]

All,
I wanted to get opinions from anyone interested on a subject we're discussing internally. We realize that the Folder Structure of our Mechanical Content can be improved. And, if we were to add a significant amount of content to it's current form, would be difficult for users to find what their desired piece of content.

Our goal is to create a structure that categorizes things the way that our users think, so they can find what they want (if it exists) the first time.

That being said, the main point of discussion is regarding the "concept" of organization for the content. This really involved how we structure the top level folders. It's easier once you get down to the more specific categories, like VAV Boxes. The way we see it, there are these ways to do it:

1. Keep it Similar - I've attached a screen grab of our current structure. We've created a few general categories for the Mechanical Contents. Logically, we would add more categories as the catalog grows and requires it. The idea here is to use general categorizations of the Type of content as the top-level folders.

2. System Approach - Another proposal would be to categorize things initially by the type of systems they would be placed in. We are thinking the intial categories would be Air-Side, Water-Side, and General Components. The driving factor behind categorization would be what that content produces. For example, an Air Handler may consume Chilled Water or Refrigerant, but it will produce Cold Air, therefore it would be Air Side. General Components would be for things that don't fit into these rules.

3. Get Detailed Fast - Rather than use general categories first, use more specific categories at the Top Level structure. This would place many more folders directly under Mechanical Components, but may also have the benefit of making things readily available.

4. Something you think is better.

I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts or votes. You don't need to do anything more than pick a number, but additional thoughts are always appreciated.

Cheers,
Kyle B

P.S. Let's try to stay focused on just this topic in this thread. We have existing threads regarding additional content, as well as a Wishes forum for requests.

[RobertB]

Kyle,

Perhaps change the word "produces" to the phrase "produces/controls". After all, a valve doesn't really produce anything.

My only concern with the system approach is that the structure doesn't get too deep. If I need to wade thru 5-6 subfolders while browsing for content, I'm going to develop carpal tunnel syndrome (and hate you for it! ).

[kyle.bernhardt]

I hear you there, our designs don't go further than 3 folders in any situation that I know.

[alan.jackson]

i like the idea of getting detailed component folder in the main Mechanical folder, similar to the way it is done in AutoCAD. (ie. Air Terminals, Boilers, Chillers ..)

This way you can quickly get to the components you need, and when more components com available you have a wide variety to choose from within that folder.

Alan Jackson, LEED® A.P.
Mechanical Engineer
Buro Happold Consulting Engineers, PC

[dmb.100468]

I agree with not making it too deep.

Whatever you do, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't change it with every release. I've grown weary of having to find everything again with each new release (thank you ADT/ABS).

[RobertB]

... PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't change it with ... each new release (thank you ADT/ABS).

Don't you mean ACA and ACD-MEP (or AMEP or AcMEP, whatever it's called)?

[Tyveka]

I'm going to vote for number 3 personally.
More detail, earlier on so we can find what we need faster.