Can someone explain Issues vs. Transmittals?

[Richard Morrison]

Just when I thought I had Issue Management down in AC23, I am struggling to understand the intended use of Issues vs. the new AC24 concept of Transmittals. As far as I can see, they sort of do the same thing, and I can't determine when one should be used instead of the other. There must must be some sort of overarching concept for these that GS had in mind, but I haven't found the explanation yet. And then there is Change Management which relates somehow to both.

[Barry Kelly]

Forgive me if I don't explain this well as I have never had the need for using issues/change management or mark-ups.

Transmittals is the new term for what used to be issues in older versions.
As far as I know it is pretty much the same as what it was before.

Issues are now 'problems' and has replaced the old mark-up tool.

So you can have transmittals that flag changes that have been made and in the issue management you create issues that may result in the changes.

There is a bit of a problem with the English meaning of 'issue'.
An issue can be a new delivery of a document or it can be a problem that needs to be solved.
So GS made the decision to change the delivery (issue) of new documents to transmittal, so they could use the term 'issue' for problems in the documentation that need to be resolved.


Barry.

[vistasp]

I think much the confusion has been introduced due to the overlap in terminology. As I understand it, issue sets are now transmittals, and issues are, well, issues that need to be addressed. Nathan Hildebrandt has (briefly) described it here.

Edit: Just saw that Barry has already explained it.

Personally, I always had an issue with calling a transmittal an issue, so I'm actually happy with the change.

[Lingwisyer]

Which will confuse everyone in Australia and probably a few other places as neither align to how we define them... Do the US or UK use Issue and Transmittal in this way?

[vistasp]

Lingwisyer wrote:
Which will confuse everyone in Australia and probably a few other places as neither align to how we define them... Do the US or UK use Issue and Transmittal in this way?

What do you guys call them down under?

[Lingwisyer]

https://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=56333&p=315741&hilit=transmittal#p315741

(Document) Transmittal being a record of who Issues have been sent to.

*I do not have access to AC24 so my interpretation of that post and this thread maybe skewed...

[DGSketcher]

Lingwisyer wrote:
Which will confuse everyone in Australia and probably a few other places as neither align to how we define them... Do the US or UK use Issue and Transmittal in this way?

Personally in the UK I think it was a sensible move to limit the confusion in the split definition of "issues". I don't think anything has materially changed in the publishing process and Barry nicely summarises what was said during Beta by GS.

[Richard Morrison]

Guys, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Changing what was once an "issue" set to a "transmittal" set and then using "issue" in a completely different way without really mentioning this anywhere for past users strikes me as pretty confusing and a little tone-deaf. I went back to try to find a document that clearly discusses this change in usage, and I can't find anything. Maybe it's there, but I can't find it. But how hard is it to draw attention to the fact that Issue Sets have been renamed and now "Issue" is being used for a completely different purpose? It's like coming home to discover that Aunt Sally is now your mother and your previous mother is now taking care of a different family. What?!

[vistasp]

Richard wrote:
It's like coming home to discover that Aunt Sally is now your mother and your previous mother is now taking care of a different family. What?!

To add to the confusion, the HelpCenter page on Transmittals still has old videos, that refer to them as issues.
https://helpcenter.graphisoft.com/user-guide/128650/