[SpaceProgram] Communication / Collaboration tool

Tue Sep 18 06:56:05 CEST 2012

Yeah - I'm sure each project will require it's own criteria of tools and
methods.  So we should just determine that on a case-by-case basis.

On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Paul Szymkowiak <paulszym at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Psy,

I use Trello a lot. It's pretty good for a bunch of things, but has some
definite limitations.

(Not so great for large teams, managing dependencies, integration with
other external tools, and producing schedule/ time line/ gantt views, and -
pretty annoyingly - limited label assignment).

Paul

On 18 September 2012 14:26, Psy Tek <psytek at alphaonelabs.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120918/50d97598/attachment.html>