Srikant Mehra

Case study 01 / 06iDesign.MarketDocument management2023–2025Shipped

File Manager

Architecture and interior firms store, approve and send out their drawings here, and I designed it on my own. Over five versions between 2023 and 2025 I took it from a files table to reviews, transmittals, GFC sets and settings each firm controls.

The files screen, redesigned in 2026: a rail with a Waiting on me view, a status chip per file, and a detail panel with the approval chain.
Role
Lead and sole designer, research to handoff
Worked with
Founders, product, engineering
Platform
Web, inside iDesign.Market
Scale
5 versions · ~240 screens

Small design firms revise and approve drawings all the time, and the approvals live in chat. Nobody can say which version is current, what it was approved for, or who has it.

48%

of rework on US job sites came from poor communication and poor project data, in FMI and PlanGrid’s 2018 survey of nearly 600 construction leaders.

Communication 26%Project data 22%

1 in 5

Fewer than one in five firms consistently used anything beyond email, text and phone calls to share project data.

Product context

Where firms on iDesign.Market keep their drawings, get them approved and send them to site.

Terms used on this page

  1. VersionEach upload of a drawing, kept in order.
  2. ReviewWho has to approve it, and in what order.
  3. Approval reasonWhat it’s approved for.
  4. GFC setGood for construction: safe to build from.
  5. TransmittalThe numbered note it goes to site with.
DWG

Bedroom_Drawing.dwgDrawn by Hardesh · Designer

V2
GFC

Review

  1. MS

    Mansi ShahProject lead

    ✓ Approved
  2. RO

    Rahul OjhaClient

    ✓ Approved

Approved for Construction

TR-009 to site team

User research

I watched session recordings and spoke to designers, leads and admins. This sample follows one drawing through six hand-offs, mostly on WhatsApp.

1Designer · Exports a PDF

‹ Sharma Residence / Drawings

  • PDFBedroom_V3_final.pdf19 Mar
  • PDFBedroom_V3_final_new.pdf26 Mar
  • PDFBedroom_V3_FINAL_rev2.pdf2 Apr

1The version is in the file name. Which one is current?

2Project lead · Reviews on WhatsApp

Sharma Residence · Team

Hardesh · DesignerPDFBedroom_V3_FINAL_rev2.pdf3 pages

Page 2: move the wardrobe 150 mm, it hits the door.

2Comments sit in chat, away from the drawing.

3No order of approvers, and no due date.

3Client · Says “OK” in chat

Rahul Ojha · Client

Sharing the bedroom drawing for your approval.

Rahul · ClientLooks fine. OK

4The OK doesn’t say what it covers: tender, permit or construction?

4Designer · Sends a new PDF

Sharma Residence · Team

Hardesh · DesignerPDFBedroom_V4.pdf3 pagesSmall change on the wardrobe. Rest is the same.

5Does the client’s OK still stand for V4? Nobody asks.

5Project lead · Forwards it to site

Site · Sharma Residence

↪ ForwardedPDFBedroom_V3_FINAL_rev2.pdf3 pages

6No record of who got which version. Here, rev2 went out a day after V4.

6Site team · Builds from a print

SITE COPY

Bedroom · 17th Floorrev2

The site builds from whichever print reached it: the drawing before the client’s last change.

Pain points

Each problem, and the hand-off where it shows up.

Pain points, and the hand-off where each one shows up
No.What goes wrongWhere
1The version lives in the file name.Designer exports a PDF
2Comments sit in chat, away from the drawing.Project lead reviews on WhatsApp
3No order of approvers, and no due date.Project lead reviews on WhatsApp
4An OK doesn’t say what it covers.Client says “OK” in chat
5A new version arrives mid-approval.Designer sends a new PDF
6Nothing records what went to site.Project lead forwards it to site

Competitor analysis

I compared four tools using their public pages and help docs in 2026, looking at drawing controls and the firms they serve.

  1. Chat and drivesWhat most firms use

    Versions only in file names. No ordered approvers, purpose or transmittals. Free and familiar.

  2. PowerplayIndian site teams

    Indian and mobile. None of the four is described on its public pages.

  3. Autodesk DocsDesign and build teams

    Compares versions, runs multi-step and group reviews, keeps a status per file and sends transmittals from a review. An admin sets it up.

  4. ProcoreGeneral contractors

    Automatic revisions, submittal steps, purpose on the transmittal, numbered transmittals. Priced on volume.

  5. File ManagerInside iDesign.Market

    Versions grouped per file, one, group or chain approvals, a reason on every review, transmittals of approved files only. Set up in settings.

What I took from it

What other tools showed me about reviews and transmittals.

Finding 1

Small firms need the same three steps

Versions, ordered reviews and transmittals. Large-contractor tools have them; File Manager has all three.

Finding 2

The purpose belongs on the approval

Procore puts it on the transmittal, ISO 19650 in a status code. I made it part of the approval.

Finding 3

A small firm has no document controller

So reasons and folder templates are settings the firm fills in once.

Design goals

Drawn from the six pain points and the other tools: what the redesign had to do for a firm.

Goal 1

Show which version is current

The latest version up front, the earlier ones kept behind it.

Goal 2

Say what each approval covers

Who approved, in what order, and what they approved it for.

Goal 3

Record what went to site

Which version went to which contractor, and why.

File states

I mapped each file state with engineering, including what happens when a new version arrives during approval.

No status Pending · Mansi Approved · Mansi Not approved In GFC set New version: status resets Request withdrawn Approve Reject Send

Design principles

Four rules I set with the state map, and checked each screen against.

Rule 1

Every status names a person

Every row says who it’s waiting on and who approved it.

Rule 2

Check files before they’re sent

A transmittal flags any file not approved for its reason.

Rule 3

Firms set the rules in settings

Reasons and folders are set per firm, never built for one customer.

Rule 4

Every action is logged

Uploads, requests, rejections and moves, with who and when.

User flow

Four people move a drawing from upload to site. Rejections return to the designer; nothing reaches site until every approver signs off.

Reason · approvers in order · due date Status resets, review again No · a note on the file No Yes Yes Only files approved for GFC Uploads the drawingV1, numbered for you Asks for a review Reviews in the viewerComments pin to the drawing Approves? Uploads a new version Approves? Moves it to GFCThe set the site builds from Issues a transmittal Builds from TR-009Recipients on record
  • Start and end
  • A decision
  • Rejected: back to the designer
  • nFixes pain point n from the research

Information architecture

Folders, reviews, approvals, transmittals and the archive all point to the same files, so each drawing keeps one status.

Top level Inside One level down Any view, folder or the archive opens the same file File Manager · in every project ViewsFoldersArchiveSettings All filesWaiting on meShared with clientTransmittalsGFC setWorking drawingsClient approved drawingsPermit & complianceSite photosArchived filesApproval reasonsTransmittal reasonsFolder templatesFrom the firm’s templateSet once by the firm A file · opens in the viewer Preview and commentsVersionsActivityApproval chain

Edge cases

I worked through each file state with the team on a FigJam board in May 2024. This table maps what happens when a new version arrives.

What happens when a new version is uploaded, for each state the file is in and each choice
The file is…Upload onlyUpload and self-approveUpload and send for approvalSelf-approve and send to GFC
No statusV2 becomes current. No prompt; it’s just a version.Later, from the file menu.Later, from the file menu.—
In approvalThe open request is withdrawn, with a warning first. V2 has no status.Request withdrawn. V2 approved, with the reason on record.Request withdrawn. V2 goes out for approval.—
ApprovedV2 becomes current; status resets.V2 approved.V2 goes out for approval.—
Not approvedV2 becomes current; status resets.V2 approved.V2 goes out for approval.—
Approved, in GFCV2 uploaded. GFC keeps V1 until something happens.V2 approved. GFC keeps V1 until it’s sent.V2 in approval. GFC keeps V1 meanwhile.GFC updates to V2, in both places.

Clouded: the two cases to read first. In every case the GFC set changes only when someone approves the new version and sends it to GFC.

A warning before the choice

This is the second row of the table as a screen. When someone uploads a new version of a file that is waiting for approval, this dialog opens before anything changes.

  1. It says the file is already waiting for approval.
  2. It warns that any choice cancels that request.
  3. Three choices: upload only, upload and approve it yourself, or upload and send it for approval.
  4. Cancel leaves the file and its request as they were.

Layouts

The files workspace, the viewer and the transmittal. Almost every screen sits on one of them.

Layout A

The files workspace

  1. One side panel for views and folders. A new project gets its folders from a template.
  2. Filters instead of tabs: reviews, transmittals and archive filter the same table.
  3. Status in the last column, written in full, with names.
  4. The version sits beside the name, so it doesn’t need a column.
  5. One “New” button for upload, folder and import.

Layout B

The viewer

  1. Approve and reject in the header, so a reviewer decides without leaving the drawing.
  2. The reason sits beside the status: GFC, tender or municipal.
  3. Comments pin to a page and a point.
  4. Previous and next, to work through a set without going back to the list.

Layout C

Create transmittal

  1. Automatic numbering: no gaps, and nobody types transmittal numbers by hand.
  2. The reason for sending decides which files qualify, from the rules in settings.
  3. Files that don’t qualify stay visible, greyed out, with the reason.
  4. One primary action. A subject, a reason and the files are enough.

Design system

For version 3.0, I built the design system around file status.

95 colour styles, three style libraries, four icon sets. One palette, one type family, one radius, one icon set.

The paletteInter · 8px corners · 56px rows · 4-point grid

01Action#0084EF
02Heading#333333
03Text#41424A
04Muted#717789
05Line#D9D9D9
06Surface#F2F5F8
Approved · Mansi#287D3C on #EDF9F0
Pending · Mansi#B95000 on #FFF4EC
Approved 1 of 2#2E5AAC on #EEF2FA
Rejected · Naomi#DA1414 on #FEEFEF
Draft#55575F on #F2F5F8

Version history

Five versions shipped from 2023 to 2025, each used on live projects. Select a row to see its screen.

Versions of File Manager, 2023 to 2025
RevDateWhat changedScreens
1.02023Ver 1.0A files table in the old dashboard: a status per file, version history, a feedback thread, an activity log, a gallery, and internal and client sharing.39
1.22023Ver 1.2Version numbers on every file, feedback kept per version, counts of feedback and approvals, who a file was sent to, a project activity panel and move to folder.30
2.02023–24Ver 2.0Four rounds of enhancements: comments, file details, reviews with single, group or hierarchy approval, transmittals, GFC, site issues, permissions, archive, and the rules for uploading a new version.73
2.12024Ver 2.1The firm’s rules moved into settings: approval reasons, transmittal reasons and folder templates. Plus empty states, help, client views, copy and move, and Google Sheets import.Handed over 22 Jul and 26 Aug67
3.02025Redesign 3.0A redesign with fewer separate screens: one table with filters, a full-screen viewer with approve and reject in its header, and a log for every file.27

Screens per version, to scale236 in all

Ver 1.0 files table.
Ver 1.2: the files table with who each file was sent to, its status, and feedback kept per version in a side panel.
V2.0: approval status as a sentence on every row.
V2.1: approval status as its own view.
File Manager 3.0.

Final design

Version 3.0 shipped in 2025 with a filtered file table, a full-screen viewer, file logs and simplified settings.

Before: the V2.1 files table with an icon rail, a create button and five tabs.
V2.13.0
01

File logsWho did what, and when.

02

Create reviewReason, single or chain, due date.

03

UploadWhere it goes, then what each file is.

04

SettingsThe firm’s own approval reasons.

Design audit

I marked eight issues in the shipped 3.0 screen and redrew it in 2026. The redesign is a proposal and hasn’t shipped.

The 3.0 files screen, marked up in red in eight places.
  1. “Waiting on me” first

    A view and a tab with a count, so pending approvals are visible without filtering.

  2. One status format

    Every status is one coloured label: state first, person second. “Approved 1 of 2 · with Rahul”.

  3. A colour per state

    Waiting, partial, approved, rejected and draft can be told apart without reading.

  4. Views apart from folders

    So “Shared with client” no longer looks like a folder.

  5. Fewer columns

    The Destination column repeated the folder path above it, and Type repeated the file icon. The reason gets its own column.

  6. The approval chain in a side panel

    A reviewer can approve from the list when a quick look is enough.

  7. Bulk actions

    Review, transmit, move and download appear when files are selected.

  8. Correct counts

    The 3.0 footer said “4 files” above five rows. On a screen people treat as a record, that matters.

The proposal

The files screen redrawn with all eight changes, and one file on a phone.

The redesigned files screen.

What shipped

Five versions turned a file list into a record of reviews, decisions and transmittals. Here’s what shipped and what I’d do differently.

One file in 3.0, and the version that added each part

DWGBedroom_Drawing.dwgV2Added in
VersionsV1 and V2, kept in order1.0
Feedback3 comments, kept on V21.2
ReviewMansi, then Rahul, due Friday2.0
GFC setV1 stays in it until V2 is approved2.0
SentTR-009, to the site team2.0
ReasonGood for construction2.1
LogEvery upload, request and move, with who and when3.0

What worked

  1. File states mapped together. The board gave the team one place to discuss uploads, approvals and rejections during design.
  2. Special cases as settings. A new firm could be set up with no new development.

Next time

  1. One design system, sooner. Three design kits ran side by side until 3.0, and every round paid for it.