[SpaceProgram] Communication / Collaboration tool

Tue Sep 18 06:26:14 CEST 2012

www.trello.com is awesome

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Jerry Isdale <jerry at mauimakers.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120918/9a8a5e38/attachment.html>