Troubleshooting Common Issues in Afinion Project-Viewer

Understand APV’s role in your workflow

Before changing processes, clarify what APV is used for in your team:

Is it the single source of truth for project status, or a supplemental viewer?
Which artifacts (drawings, schedules, reports) does the team publish to APV?
Who is responsible for updating source files versus publishing views?

Establishing these roles avoids duplication and confusion.

Set up a clear folder and naming structure

A predictable, consistent content structure reduces time wasted searching:

Create top-level folders by project and then by discipline (e.g., Architecture, MEP, Structural).
Use a versioning convention in filenames, e.g., ProjectX_DWG_A1_v01.dwg.
Add a “Published” folder for APV-ready exports and a “History” folder for archived versions.

A clear convention ensures everyone knows where to look and where to save.

Define publishing standards and schedules

Not all updates need immediate publishing. Decide:

What qualifies as a publishable change (e.g., design freeze, milestone completion).
A publishing cadence (daily for active sprints, weekly for longer projects).
Who approves publishes — ideally a designated project publisher or lead.

A predictable schedule reduces noise and prevents partial or confusing updates.

Use metadata and annotations consistently

APV’s value increases when content is searchable and annotated:

Require key metadata on files (project code, discipline, author, date, status).
Standardize annotation types and colors for comments, issues, and approvals.
Train team members to include clear, actionable comments (who, what, when).

Consistent metadata and annotations speed navigation and reduce misunderstandings.

Implement role-based access and responsibilities

Limit who can change published views versus who can view them:

Administrators: manage folders, permissions, and integrations.
Publishers: prepare and upload finalized views.
Viewers/Collaborators: comment, review, and flag issues.

This separation prevents accidental overwrites and clarifies accountability.

Integrate APV with your communication tools

Link APV to the platforms your team already uses:

Post published-view links to team chat channels (Slack, Teams) with context.
Use calendar integrations to tie APV publishes to review meetings.
Where possible, automate notifications for new publishes or comments.

Integration reduces friction and keeps stakeholders informed without manual updates.

Establish review workflows and meeting disciplines

Make APV central to reviews:

Use APV views as the artifact for design reviews, not local files.
Record decisions and action items directly in APV annotations or linked issue trackers.
Keep review meetings focused: pre-publish agenda, walkthrough in APV, assign actions.

This keeps meetings efficient and ensures decisions are tied to the exact view reviewed.

Track changes and maintain an audit trail

Auditing who changed what and when avoids disputes:

Use APV’s version history or maintain a changelog for published views.
Capture reviewer approvals and timestamps for milestones.
Keep archived copies of every major release for reference.

A clear audit trail supports accountability and makes rework easier to manage.

Train team members and create quick reference guides

Even the best processes fail without adoption:

Run short onboarding sessions focused on APV essentials: publish, comment, search.
Create one-page quick guides for common tasks (publishing, adding metadata, leaving comments).
Encourage power users to act as internal champions and first-line support.

Regular refreshers help maintain consistent, correct usage.

Optimize performance and file sizes

Slow viewers frustrate users and reduce adoption:

Strip unnecessary layers or high-resolution assets from APV exports.
Use referenced file links instead of embedding large files where possible.
Monitor load times and adjust export settings to balance fidelity and performance.

Faster loading ensures smoother walkthroughs and higher engagement.

Use annotations to drive action, not just discussion

Turn comments into progress:

Require each annotation to include an owner and due date when it’s a task.
Tag annotations by priority (Critical, High, Medium, Low).
Periodically export open annotations into your issue tracker for resolution.

This transforms APV from a passive viewer into an action-driving hub.

Ensure cross-discipline coordination

Prevent clashes and rework by aligning disciplines:

Schedule regular cross-discipline publishes for coordination checks.
Use combined views to spot clashes early and annotate them clearly.
Hold short coordination standups tied directly to APV views when needed.

Early coordination reduces costly downstream fixes.

Establish backup and recovery practices

Published views should be resilient:

Keep backups of published exports in a separate archive location.
Document recovery steps if a published view is accidentally deleted or corrupted.
Test restoration periodically.

Having a recovery plan avoids panic during incidents.

Measure adoption and iterate

Track usage and improve:

Monitor who publishes, who views, and which views get comments.
Survey users periodically for pain points.
Iterate on folder structure, naming, or publishing cadence based on real usage.

Data-driven adjustments keep the system practical and user-friendly.

Example workflow (concise)

Designer completes changes locally and tags files with metadata.
Designer requests publish through a ticketing step.
Project publisher exports APV-ready views, places them in “Published,” and notifies the team.
Team reviews in APV, annotates issues (owner + due date).
Project lead assigns fixes; publisher updates views at the next scheduled publish.

Common pitfalls to avoid

Publishing incomplete or draft views as “final.”
No designated publisher or owner — leads to version chaos.
Overloading views with too much detail that slows performance.
Leaving annotations without owners or due dates.

Final notes

Adopting APV as a collaboration hub requires a mix of clear structure, defined roles, consistent metadata, and regular training. When teams treat APV as the authoritative, well-maintained source for reviews and coordination, it reduces rework, improves transparency, and speeds decision-making.