[SpaceProgram] Communication / Collaboration tool
cole santos
cksantos85 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 16 21:37:35 CEST 2012
I wasn't thinking fancy software, I was thinking it was more of an
organizational principal and common grant theme.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Jerry Isdale <jerry at mauimakers.com> wrote:
> The area where I can see us needing a PM package is in the management of
> SpaceGAMBIT iteself
> We will have multiple projects with various deadlines and gating events
> (grant submission, selection, negotiation, award, reporting etc) that will
> need to be tracked, as well as the fundraising, and annual symposium.
>
> Again though, these task do not require the elaborate engineering PLM/PM
> tools.
> We do have Prolific.com as one option. It is a commercial tool but for
> use on this project I could probably negotiate a deal. The principle
> behind it is a good friend and supporter of Maui Makers. (Reichart von
> Wolfsheild).
>
> Jerry Isdale
> http://MauiMakers.com
> http://www.mauimakers.com/blog/thursday-public-meeting/
>
> On Sep 16, 2012, at 2:23 AM, Jerry Isdale wrote:
>
> If we were doing the full Build A Starship project, then yes definitely
> we would need a PLM/PM package. Most of the HSP/SpaceGAMBIT projects are
> going to be far too small to utilize a large PLM (product life cycle
> management) or Program Management package. This sort of software, with its
> requirements management and resources, etc can be quite useful on big
> projects, but often requires dedicated staff to maintain it. There are
> much lower effort ways to manage a small project... especially with a very
> small team (1-3 people).
>
>
> Jerry Isdale
> http://MauiMakers.com
> http://www.mauimakers.com/blog/thursday-public-meeting/
>
> On Sep 15, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Paul Szymkowiak wrote:
>
> I have mixed feelings about the relevance of PLM as defined in the
> referenced wikipedia page to a hacker/ maker based approach to some notion
> of product, but also generally as it relates to the kinds of discovery and
> problem solving this SpaceGAMBIT effort is wanting to encourage.
>
> As we step towards more and more complex solutions, I think some of the
> PLM tools will be helpful in managing inventories of parts for projects or
> solutions. This will be especially useful where the tool can support
> complex solutions with many thousands of parts, and where distributed,
> parallel and collaborative solution development will occur, such as
> multiple teams working in parallel on subsystems as part of a larger
> product. If a product doesn't readily support that, it's probably of less
> use to us.
>
> Of course, our SpaceGAMBIT projects - and probably ultimately products and
> services - will have life cycles, but I think good life-cycle models are
> largely a reflection of the underlying philosophy and culture or the people
> involved.
>
> In my view, PLM as described in the referenced Wikipedia article, appears
> as a cleanly phased, sequential approach, where a product passes through a
> series of stage gates from concept through to use and finally disposal. Of
> course, these phases do describe things that happen during the life cycle
> of a typical product-development effort, however they aren't necessarily
> relevant as phases. Although the Wikipedia page mentions that LCE is
> iterative, the PLM defined here doesn't reflect that well. It does briefly
> refer to "backing up" into earlier phase, but as an experienced method
> author, I find it kind of sloppy when a method is idealised to a point
> where it doesn't suitably reflect and support reality, appears to address
> real world concerns by passing reality off as an exception, and then claims
> to be practically useful to enact PLM.
>
> From a method architecture perspective, I think there is little value in
> having an overarching product lifecycle model that simply reflects the
> detailed activity that obviously needs to occur: for me, it's equivalent to
> having a "hammer nail" activity within a "hammer nail" phase. Phases for me
> need to speak to useful and important strategic goals. But more to the
> point, I think this type of PLM philosophy doesn't reflect the reality of
> PLM in exploratory, evolutionary prototyping - the very approach that makes
> hacker and maker spaces what they are.
>
> My closing critique is that the definition here appears to be based
> predominantly on information drawn from the field of automotive
> engineering, a context where the basic product is arguably very well
> understood. I tread with caution when applying methods and practices
> suitable in one context to different context. How much does the building of
> cars using standardised assembly line production have relevance to hacker/
> maker creation of new products in the context of space exploration?
>
>
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Szymkowiak
>
>
> On 16 September 2012 09:39, Jerry Isdale <jerry at mauimakers.com> wrote:
>
>> Couple very interesting Project Management talks here at 100YSS relating
>> to this.
>> One on a product, one on use of general PMBOK to address physics advances.
>> more later.
>>
>> Jerry Isdale
>> http://MauiMakers.com
>> http://www.mauimakers.com/blog/thursday-public-meeting/
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2012, at 9:20 AM, cole santos wrote:
>>
>> Using this as a framework for developing our grant/prize structure would
>> be useful as well. Each project will be responsible for their own
>> management styles, by structuring the contest to support PLM we could
>> encourage success. Stages of competition could be as in the Wikipedia. (i
>> added theoretical prize/grant amounts). Moving up stage wise would require
>> previous success at a lower level to be assessed by the
>> members/peers/backers.
>>
>> - Conceive - Stage 1 (10-100$)
>> - Specification <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specification>
>> - Concept design
>> - Design - Stage 2 (100-1000$)
>> - Detailed design
>> - Validation and analysis (simulation)
>> - Tool design
>> - Realize - Stage 3 (1000-10000$ + outside funding)
>> - Plan manufacturing
>> - Manufacture
>> - Build/Assemble
>> - Test (quality check<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quality_check&action=edit&redlink=1>
>> )
>> - Service - Stage 4 (incorporation of ideas into GAMBIT
>> superstructure)
>> - Sell and deliver
>> - Use
>> - Maintain <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance> and support
>> - Dispose
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Brent Shambaugh <
>> brent.shambaugh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a bit of a long read, but it gives some idea of what Product
>>> Lifecycle Management is:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_lifecycle_management
>>>
>>> I think you'll be impressed by what's out there, if you haven't seen
>>> it already. I keep thinking that stuff like this will help out in the
>>> long run. Boeing used it. See Dassault Systemes at
>>> http://www.3ds.com/.
>>>
>>> I've started a group that is into this sort of stuff, but it may be
>>> awhile before anything cool comes out of it. I'll start digging into
>>> it more.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Brent Shambaugh
>>> <brent.shambaugh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I like Rizzoma's semantic web ideas. I've also found a number of open
>>> > source tools in the Product Lifecycle Management arena. Aras
>>> > (http://www.aras.com/) has its own open source license and is
>>> > available for Windows. OpenPLM is available under GPLv3
>>> > (http://sourceforge.net/projects/open-source-plm/), and Sparta is
>>> > available under AGPL (https://github.com/scientia/sparta).
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Bradley Grzesiak <listrophy at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> It's *kinda* open source. You have to ask for the source... which is
>>> kinda
>>> >> weird.
>>> >>
>>> >> :brad
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Jerry Isdale <jerry at mauimakers.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "All existing communication and collaboration tools display messages
>>> >>> chronologically and in a linear way making a context fragmented and
>>> >>> difficult to comprehend.... Rizzoma allows communication within a
>>> certain
>>> >>> context permitting a chat to instantly become a document where
>>> topics of a
>>> >>> discussion organized into branches of mind-map diagram and minor
>>> details are
>>> >>> collapsed to avoid distraction."
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Free and open source. Hmmm.
>>> >>> Worth watching and checking into deeper.
>>> >>> Not sure about the 'everyone writes everywhere' model. Sometimes
>>> you want
>>> >>> a semi-closed project, that others might comment but not edit or be
>>> hidden
>>> >>> from view. Might be a way to do that too. Heck it is Open Source.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Jerry Isdale
>>> >>> http://MauiMakers.com
>>> >>> http://www.mauimakers.com/blog/thursday-public-meeting/
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Sep 12, 2012, at 7:21 AM, Brent Shambaugh wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> > Here's a collaboration tool.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > http://rizzoma.com/
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > -Brent
>>> >>> > _______________________________________________
>>> >>> > SpaceProgram mailing list
>>> >>> > SpaceProgram at lists.hackerspaces.org
>>> >>> > http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/spaceprogram
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> SpaceProgram mailing list
>>> >>> SpaceProgram at lists.hackerspaces.org
>>> >>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/spaceprogram
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Bradley Grzesiak
>>> >> co-founder, bendyworks
>>> >> http://bendyworks.com/
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> SpaceProgram mailing list
>>> >> SpaceProgram at lists.hackerspaces.org
>>> >> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/spaceprogram
>>> >>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> SpaceProgram mailing list
>>> SpaceProgram at lists.hackerspaces.org
>>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/spaceprogram
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SpaceProgram mailing list
>> SpaceProgram at lists.hackerspaces.org
>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/spaceprogram
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SpaceProgram mailing list
>> SpaceProgram at lists.hackerspaces.org
>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/spaceprogram
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> SpaceProgram mailing list
> SpaceProgram at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/spaceprogram
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SpaceProgram mailing list
> SpaceProgram at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/spaceprogram
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SpaceProgram mailing list
> SpaceProgram at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/spaceprogram
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/spaceprogram/attachments/20120916/ca112dd0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the SpaceProgram
mailing list