[SpaceProgram] Communication / Collaboration tool

Tue Sep 18 07:40:03 CEST 2012

>So we should just determine that on a case-by-case basis.

+ 1 :)


Paul

On 18 September 2012 14:56, <psytek at alphaonelabs.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120918/44f9f92e/attachment-0001.html>