Friday, February 07, 2014

Workset Names

Via email I was asked,
"We are probably all familiar with names like Core, Shell; or Core-Wing1, Shell-Wing1 for example. We have been discussing using the Omni-class table 21 with 7 categories and 3 levels. For example a workset name would look like this: 01 10 00 Foundations. Would you agree with taking this approach?"

My fear, whenever we start talking about using coded naming, is that we are going to have too many worksets and create additional bureaucracy. I wrote a post called How Many Worksets do I Need. I described one warning sign as having to scroll the list of worksets.

I don't have any objection to being organized. I do caution against creating extra work for each of us by getting too granular with worksets. Using OmniClass numbering might work well if the highest levels are sufficiently distinct to be useful.

My measure is, "Are we are better off for taking the trouble to do it?" That's a vague answer I suppose. I know enough to know I don't know everything. That means there probably are projects that would benefit from using that approach.

I'd know it is the right choice if we are going to be better off afterward.

2 comments:

ambrozote said...

completely agree with you.
however, most of times we only know that in hindsight.

but that is life, I guess.

Dave said...

I am also of the "the less Worksets the better" mindset.
On a semi-related topic, several years ago, when we were starting a review of our family library, we decided to prefix all of the families with a 5-digit UniFormat name, thinking that would be a great way to keep everything organized.

It was widely despised. Nobody knows what the UniFormat numbers meant and we have since abandoned the idea.