LEARNING FROM DATA & USERS
Where architects actually lose time
“
“The moment the ask left the schedule,
it stopped being connected to it.”
Architects need pricing, lead times, and compliance docs that aren't published online. Every workaround — email chains, shared spreadsheets, manual copy-paste — happened outside the tool, breaking the link between request and schedule.
Average calendar days to resolve one RFI
Today’s manual process vs. the on-platform design target
→
Source: workflow audits and industry benchmarks · goal reflects the design target, not yet a measured result
Some fields were requested far more than others, suggesting architects consistently need certain manufacturer data more than the rest.
What architects ask manufacturers for
Share of RFIs, by request type — representative distribution
Confirms the Acelab focus: material/product substitution is the single largest slice — and the one our schedule data already touches.
Two research passes, one conclusion
LIGHT USERS
Primary research
Have you left the tool to chase manufacturer data?
Yes
79.4%
Why did the request stall?
Busy — deprioritized it
68.2%
What got in the way most often?
No clear contact to send it to
14.3%
POWER USERS
Secondary research
Did the request journey feel painful?
Yes
58.8%
Where did friction concentrate?
Re-keying answers into the schedule
68%
What got in the way most often?
Finding the right product data
23.1%
Architects preferred managing RFIs from within Schedules, not a separate tool
Despite two decades of digital transformation and the widespread adoption of construction management platforms (such as Procore, Autodesk Construction Cloud, and Bluebeam Revu), architects consistently rank RFI processing as their most frustrating, least rewarding, and most anxiety-inducing task.
What we heard
Where the gap is
