This is 100% my experience too. Something has to give when you're developing a tool for in-house use only. The same practices you'd use for developing a tool for a larger audience can't apply because you don't have endless resources, personnel or time when developing in-house. Thanks for this information. It's super helpful!
Yes! Super excited about this too. We love seeing information being shared about this industry more freely than before! And an increased interest doesn't hurt either. =)
Lol, thanks Pat. I keep telling the team that we won't allow acronyms. That feature is 100% on the list. Currently they are allowed, however future revisions might not allow acronyms, or might force you to define them. Certainly keep your eyes peeled for this new *feature*.
Joseph, for #1, I've worked on in-house tools and:
1. They never get enough developers.
2. They usually get deprioritized in lieu of other projects.
3. Many small space companies don't have resources to build awesome in-house tools.
It can be really time consuming and take the team's focus off of the primary goal as well, so we try to get teams to focus on the things that they are uniquely qualified to do, rather than build software to support their operation.
Most certainly! We are planning to integrate with all software packages that our customers are using to enable really efficient operations for them. We have a few Next Gen DOORS customers, as well as other requirements tracking tools. I love the suggestions!
In addition, we can comment and actively redline running procedures. If you want me to show you I'd be happy to. You can email me at [email protected] and in addition I'll make a small tutorial and link it here when complete.
Yes, it's been accomplished with paper in the past, but at great expense as many of the teams of the past were large. Take for example any control room of the 1960s, which had 40-60 people in it. Today's teams are scattered (and working from home much of the time), and much smaller (think less than 5) and must be able to accomplish the same tasks as those larger teams of the 1960s. Our software enables the teams to be smaller, more agile, and communicate better from anywhere in the world.