M
Michael Griffin
I am curious as to what the actual target for this project is. There has been some mention of an MMI system. Is this project primarily directed towards process industry applications, or what is it exactly? I think this is important to define precisely, otherwise different people will see what they want to see and you will end up with arguements as to what the original
objective was. Whatever it is, I don't think it can be all things to all people.
Maybe the first thing that should be done is a bit of "market research" to see what is that the potential contributors want out of it at
the end. Before discussion of this project dissappears off list, perhaps this could be defined more clearly.
I would also suggest that if discussion does eventually move to a separate forum, then this list should receive regular updates on
developments. This will help sustain interest from non-participants which may help later on in gaining acceptance of the finished system. It will also help in providing additional recruits to work on it later on as new people join this list and learn about this project.
There has been some mention in other letters about that this project would be nice because the end product would be "cheap". I think it would be a mistake to tout "cheapness" as one of the virtues. I don't think this project will be accepted in the market unless enough people can figure out how to make money out of it after it is done. They may not be able to charge for the actual software, but they need to be able to make a reasonable living out of installing, configuring, customising, commissioning, etc. This
is where the real cost of most complex systems is anyway. We should make sure we don't attach a "cheap" label to this system or we may create
unreasonable cost expectations or unjustified quality concerns among end customers.
A lot of people talk about the need for standards in this business. Its nice to see someone out to actually create a defacto open standard - because that's exactly what the end result would be.
**********************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
[email protected]
objective was. Whatever it is, I don't think it can be all things to all people.
Maybe the first thing that should be done is a bit of "market research" to see what is that the potential contributors want out of it at
the end. Before discussion of this project dissappears off list, perhaps this could be defined more clearly.
I would also suggest that if discussion does eventually move to a separate forum, then this list should receive regular updates on
developments. This will help sustain interest from non-participants which may help later on in gaining acceptance of the finished system. It will also help in providing additional recruits to work on it later on as new people join this list and learn about this project.
There has been some mention in other letters about that this project would be nice because the end product would be "cheap". I think it would be a mistake to tout "cheapness" as one of the virtues. I don't think this project will be accepted in the market unless enough people can figure out how to make money out of it after it is done. They may not be able to charge for the actual software, but they need to be able to make a reasonable living out of installing, configuring, customising, commissioning, etc. This
is where the real cost of most complex systems is anyway. We should make sure we don't attach a "cheap" label to this system or we may create
unreasonable cost expectations or unjustified quality concerns among end customers.
A lot of people talk about the need for standards in this business. Its nice to see someone out to actually create a defacto open standard - because that's exactly what the end result would be.
**********************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
[email protected]