DatumX and DatumCore solve schedule export and opening coordination the way we'd build them for anyone. Not every workflow problem looks like that — firm-specific parameter setups, one-off data migrations, and QA checks nobody else needs don't fit a packaged plugin. That's the other half of what Datum does: bespoke Revit add-ins and Dynamo/pyRevit scripts, workflow audits, and getting your team actually using what gets built.
Off-the-shelf tools — including DatumX and DatumCore — are built for a workflow shared across firms. Plenty of real time-sinks aren't shared: a parameter naming convention nobody else uses, a data migration that only needs to happen once, a QA check specific to how your firm signs off drawings. Those get a script or an add-in built directly against your models and your process, not a generic plugin with a config panel bolted on.
Typical problems this covers:
The same shape every time, whether the deliverable ends up being a five-line Dynamo graph or a full add-in with a UI.
A conversation about what's actually eating the time — the workflow, the model conditions it needs to handle, and whether it's genuinely automatable before anything gets quoted.
A working proof-of-concept against a real (or representative) model, so you're validating the approach before committing to the full build.
The prototype hardened into something a team can rely on — edge cases handled, error states surfaced instead of silently failing.
An installable add-in or script plus brief documentation covering what it does, how to run it, and what to check if something looks wrong.
An audit of your team's model coordination, QA, and data hand-off — the everyday steps that are slow enough to notice but too embedded in the process to question. The output is a concrete plan, not a slide deck of generic best practices.
Where your team's time is actually going — coordination, QA, data hand-off — ranked by how much time it costs versus how hard it would be to fix.
What's worth automating first, in what order, and roughly what it would take — sized against your actual models, not a hypothetical workflow.
Some workflows genuinely aren't worth automating. Part of the engagement is telling you that plainly instead of selling a build regardless.
If the plan points to a custom tool, that becomes its own scoped engagement — the audit doesn't lock you into a build you haven't seen priced.
A tool nobody on the team knows how to run doesn't save any time. Training covers Datum's own products or anything custom-built for you — walking the team through the workflow directly with the people who built it, not a generic help article.
Tell us what's eating your team's time — we'll tell you honestly whether it's automatable.
Contact Datum