[SpaceProgram] Communication / Collaboration tool
Paul Szymkowiak
paulszym at gmail.com
Sun Sep 16 23:52:03 CEST 2012
Let's take what lessons we can from product life cycle management, and
apply what seems appropriate as we explore a maker solution management
approach.
Having a way to assist our management of activities and their associated
milestone events and deadlines will be helpful. Lot's of simple software
will help us do that: Google apps: Calendar plus one or two plugin's will
work pretty well.
On 17 September 2012 05:37, cole santos <cksantos85 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120917/d9eeeb02/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the SpaceProgram
mailing list