[SpaceProgram] Communication / Collaboration tool

[Jerry Isdale]

I'd be interested in a small project management discussion.
Larger projects, while relevant to Space Missions, are probably well beyond the scope of what we are going to do near term.
Other than the impending SpaceGAMBIT organization itself that is.

Jerry Isdale
http://MauiMakers.com
http://www.mauimakers.com/blog/thursday-public-meeting/

On Sep 17, 2012, at 6:16 PM, Paul Szymkowiak wrote:

> Hi Brent,
> 
> On 18 September 2012 13:01, Brent Shambaugh <brent.shambaugh at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been thinking about  and researching stuff like this for some
> time.
> 
> Me too :) -  it's my day job, and a regular part of my consulting practice.
>  
> 
> I have many more related things, which I can share if
> appropriate. Is there a place to develop things more? Are there people
> to partner with? Is this the appropriate place?
> 
> Feel free to strike up a conversation with me, maybe off list. As a member of the caretaker team, I can make sure the other team members are across what we discuss, cc them in as needed. As it takes shape, we can feed it back to the broader open list, and invite wider participation as appropriate.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Paul Szymkowiak <paulszym at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >>>
> >>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120917/81699b75/attachment-0001.html>