Create Resource Types automatically

[TiberiusB]

My practice with the system tells me there is a recurrent Resource types structure, and it is probably good to have that be created automatically.

For example, we can classify resources according to their value chain status into

• Idea - needs to be documented and contextualized
• Design - needs to be documented in some form, ex. CAD file for 3D modeling, SPICE file for electronics, ...,
• Prototype - a physical thing that is somewhat fulfilling a planned function.
• Product - a physical thing that represents a solution to a problem
• Ideas and designs are immaterial but tangible, see below. Prototypes and products can be material goods or services.

http://valuenetwork.referata.com/wiki/Resource_types

I just added another one named "Study" for reasons that will be explained elsewhere.

A mature product will have associated with it all these types of resources, which are in fact contributions pulled into the value stream of the product.

In the past, in the exploratory mode, I created resource types in a more unorganized way. Slowly I found myself replicating this same structure for all out products in development.

Questions

What is the best way to represent it? Are these just resource types? Are they types of resource types?

To my knowledge, the system cannot directly represent the relations between ideas, prototypes, designs... other than as inputs and outputs to processes, which doesn't really tells us much about the true relation between them from a value chain, or product development perspective.

One thing is clear, when we end up recreating manually the same structures this is a sign that we can improve the system.

[bhaugen]

A couple thoughts for now.

• That's what you and Lynn once talked about that was called "Stage" at one time, and then became a Facet, and then got renamed "Deliverable" and got somewhat different values. Lynn once wanted to create Stage as an explicit object in the system, but the whole idea never quite came together in any computable way. She may still want to do so. Maybe you guys can figure it out.
• The other way the system can directly represent those ideas is through recipe relationships. Both process and recipe relationships can tell us the true relations from a value chain perspective, but not very clearly from a product development perspective.

Anyway, I will leave further conversations on this topic to you and Lynn, because she has thought about it more than I have.

[fosterlynn]

I would like to re-consider making "stage" a separate concept at some point, different than the facets. I understand and agree with Tibi's comment that when you find yourself creating things using the same pattern all the time, it indicates another look at the data structure is needed. When I looked at this before, it seemed that the pattern was not necessarily consistent enough and people had not used the system enough to move forward with it. But now this is starting to change.

However, I would at this point see this as a low priority vs. the other things we have on our plate.

[TiberiusB]

I propose to use the information on the wiki page on Resource Type to parametrize Resources into the system http://valuenetwork.referata.com/wiki/Resource_type

There are more than one perspective to look at a resource, and somehow the system should represent them all. If we want to stick with Facets for some time, I would create a Facet for all these perspectives and I would use the items in each one as values of each Facets. Facet and Perspective are similar concepts...

[fosterlynn]

Discussion: It is possible that "stage" should be something separate from a facet. The system can't tell one facet from another in terms of system behavior, so they are pretty generic, and basically used for filtering in various ways.

Possible uses for "stage":

1. Tibi's original suggestion, to create a resource type for each stage (like Piezo Design, Piezo Prototype, Piezo Product).
2. On the All Work page (or elsewhere), Francois once suggested aligning the processes as sticky notes in columns based on dependencies. If you look at a typical scrum board, you will see the sticky notes for work aligned in columns such as In Process, In Test, Completed. These are stages. We could use the Sensorica stages to visually manage the work.

Note these are just ideas right now, not recommendations. Further thought and discussion needed. (Whenever I have tried to work this into the system in the past, I come up with enough messiness in the actual R&D process that it isn't clear this would help.)

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:37 PM, TiberiusB notifications@github.com wrote:

I propose to use the information on the wiki page on Resource Type to parametrize Resources into the system http://valuenetwork.referata.com/wiki/Resource_type

There are more than one perspective to look at a resource, and somehow the system should represent them all. If we want to stick with Facets for some time, I would create a Facet for all these perspectives and I would use the items in each one as values of each Facets. Facet and Perspective are similar concepts...

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/valnet/valuenetwork/issues/83#issuecomment-26869621 .

[TiberiusB]

I remember having a discussion about resources and stages. There a different eays to look at resources.

1. We can think in terms of evolution of a product, from idea to market and improvements afterwords. This view is based on a continuity. Something is tuere as a ssed, an idea, and this same thing evolves into a product, which continues to adapt to market conditions. This view gives materiality to the evolving thing, as if the physical product morphs into something else.
2. We can also see it as a process through which something immaterial is refined, adapted, which is the design, and in the course of this process different resources material or immaterial, are created, and take a life on their own.

So we can see ''stage'' as a developmental state within a continuous development process on a thing, the same thing that develops. Or we can see ''stage'' as a type of a resource: idea, study, design, prototype, product, which exist as independent entities, can be reused/remixed in other projects, etc.

Note that for us humans, it is easy to distinguish between an idea and a prototype. But the computer has no way to distinguish. We usually log an idea as a text doc, or a diagram, and a prototype as a picture of the real thing. But in any case, these items need to be tagged ''idea'' or ''prototype'' so that the system can handle them properly.

I prefer the second view, because what really evolves is not a physical thing, but a design. This is the same for animals: it is not the same individual that evolves, but rather the genetic makeup and the culture, which is in the realm of information. Moreover, looking at stage as a type of a resource that can be used in other contexts is closer to reality. Ideas get mixed all the time and one design can inspire another, or one prototype, through its design, can improve an old idea in another context. This doesn't stop us from creating higher order entities by clustering resources together into streams of development, as if a real thing was evolving. But at the most fundamental level, I believe, the system heeds to deal with independent ideas, designs, prototypes... Because the reality is that we treat them as individual entities, we fork and remix them. On Oct 24, 2013 11:27 AM, "fosterlynn" notifications@github.com wrote:

Discussion: It is possible that "stage" should be something separate from a facet. The system can't tell one facet from another in terms of system behavior, so they are pretty generic, and basically used for filtering in various ways.

Possible uses for "stage":

1. Tibi's original suggestion, to create a resource type for each stage (like Piezo Design, Piezo Prototype, Piezo Product).
2. On the All Work page (or elsewhere), Francois once suggested aligning the processes as sticky notes in columns based on dependencies. If you look at a typical scrum board, you will see the sticky notes for work aligned in columns such as In Process, In Test, Completed. These are stages. We could use the Sensorica stages to visually manage the work.

Note these are just ideas right now, not recommendations. Further thought and discussion needed. (Whenever I have tried to work this into the system in the past, I come up with enough messiness in the actual R&D process that it isn't clear this would help.)

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:37 PM, TiberiusB notifications@github.com wrote:

I propose to use the information on the wiki page on Resource Type to parametrize Resources into the system http://valuenetwork.referata.com/wiki/Resource_type

There are more than one perspective to look at a resource, and somehow the system should represent them all. If we want to stick with Facets for some time, I would create a Facet for all these perspectives and I would use the items in each one as values of each Facets. Facet and Perspective are similar concepts...

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub< https://github.com/valnet/valuenetwork/issues/83#issuecomment-26869621> .

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/valnet/valuenetwork/issues/83#issuecomment-27002124 .

[TiberiusB]

The case of "products". I propose to restrict the definition of "product" only to a resource that is READY to be sold (exchanged on the market). If we adopt this definition, we should add some rules for creating "products" into the system. These roles should include the existence of the capability to manufacture, distribute and service the resource to a customer.

[fosterlynn]

I believe the new workflow recipe (stages a resource will go through, using one resource type) fulfills this basically. Leaving this issue open so we can see if we can integrate the workflow type recipe with the recipes for assembly, for example for make/test. Right now it should work for idea/design/prototype, all of which produce a design document. Except we don't support secondary outputs yet, probably need that.