The numbering of things

I think the ordering is effective. Thanks for catching that important detail!

I think its effective and having some kind of shorthand is essential. 

Being ignorant enough to ask (possibly) stupid questions, I'd want to know a little more to answer this. Is there any logic to the current order? Is there a reason we'd want to change that, or create new logic? I could see trying to organize them by some kind of typical sequence of engagement, or by priority level, or group them by content area... Also, it might be handy to make them move of a code system rather than just numbers, like "BP01, BP02, etc." Just gives them more of stand-alone identify.

Great points, Nadav. Thanks. I’d like us to avoid adopting too many LEED-like qualities to keep the brand as distinct as possible, but the naming convention does work well. M. Shane Totten, AIA, LEED AP BD+C Program Director, Research + Incubation office: 404.604.3588 F

Those are great questions. My thoughts:  1. The current order is a combination of 'importance' and similarity. The BP's are front-weighted - we are much more concerned with Performance Data Tracking and the Audits than we are Landscaping and D&C Guidelines. There's also clustering to have consistent credit models grouped together. I think that makes it very clear that the approach is the same to each issue.  Sequence of engagement is a good idea, but its been our experience that folks engage with these things in all different orders and that the order isn't critical to success.  In terms of naming, I can imagine using graphic design to emphasize numbering for the BPs. Even if we don't refer to them at BP#15, we can prominently title them in the Program Manual with the number and a shorter label - '16. D&C Guidelines' for example. Keep asking these kinds of questions! It's good for us to reconsider these things with a critical eye.    D