Group builds focus

[Thorvic]

Just wondering if the Group Builds concept is being best utilised ?

In the old days we tended to go for larger more generalised Group Builds that took up about half a year at a time (yeap even that timetable was a little too hasty for some of our builders  ).
Over the years as our number have swelled, the frequency and the variety of the Group Builds has greatly increased whilst the subjects tend to be more focused.

However i was wondering how many actually participate in the group builds and if the subjects too specific and too frequent for the membership. Should we continue with the specific smaller themes that appear to get a small number of regular members participating, or go back to the more generalised broader theme in an attempt to encourage more of the membership to get involved by keeping the theme as generalised as possible to cater for all genre's ?.

This is just a general question to see what the membership feels about the current Group Build system, no changes are planned, its just a case of seeing what people prefer so we can perhaps improve the process to highlight the GB's a bit more.

Cheers

Geoff

[Weaver]

I've voted for fewer-but-broader since, of the available options, I think it represents the way to go. The inevitable pleas for extensions and the number of non-finishers on just about every GB show that folk generally need more time.

What I really think would be best is a mixture: broad GBs with a long schedule that give many members a chance to participate, with a smattering of quicker, more focussed ones to give quirky subjects a chance. This would also address the problem of multiple GBs running at the same time: you can take a fortnight out of a six-month long GB to do something oddball that appeals to you, but taking the same fortnight out of a two-monther means losing 25% of your build time on it.

[JayBee]

How few is few?

[Ed S]

I tend to agree with Weaver.  Have a some longer builds that give more time to do a more involved or difficult build.  But we need some quick ones as well.  Especially the "One Week" or the "Profile" GB's. Those have had surprisingly good participation and as seen during the last one, a large number of completed models.  Also, we need to look at how we schedule them. Having 4 or 5 builds going on simultaneously (like we did this past spring) may be a little too much.  And now we don't have anything going on.  Some overlap is fine.  It's easy to be painting and finishing one model and starting assembly and PSR on a different one.  In my opinion, if we do the HOG memorial GB, it should be at least 6 months to give people time to work out their ideas and create something that isn't just a minor kit modification.  I think a combination of specific themes (such as the "Spiffire" GB or "Trainers with Teeth" GB) as well as general ones (like "Styrene Junkyard") will probably get the most participation.

Ed

[Spey_Phantom]

i have to agree, the time frame for the GB's are good, but having 4 or 5 going on at the same time can be a bit to much.
if we were to narrow it down to 3, with a timframe of 4 months, that would be nice  

[nev]

I voted "fewer but broader", although that is not quite my total feelings on the subject.

I quite like the "specialised" trend towards GBs - but even they tend to offer scope for innovative thinking.  But at the end of the day, these are voted on by the members and I think we reflect the diversity of intrests of our members in the choiced we make.

I do feel we need to strike a balance with the length.  2 months is too short, 6 months is too long.  Most of us struggle to finish a build in 2 months, but in most 6 month GBs they are dead by the last couple of months.   3 months is about right IMO, with a 2-4 week extension at the discretion of the mods.

And Nils & Ed make a good point, after the last round of voting there were too many GBs compressed into too small a space of time with not enough overlap.  I would like to always see two GBs on the go, so as to give members choice, with 3 occasionally as a new one starts just as another is finishing.

Now all we need is to get the next round of GBs started!  Too many idle hands itching to build something!

[Taiidantomcat]

Im the one guy who said the more the merrier so far 

[kitnut617]

As I tend to get really involved with my builds, I found the 1 week GB a bit too short, probably won't do another one.  If there's too many GB's going then I find I have a lot of un-finished ones on the bench as I get distracted by all of them as I have non-GB builds going too. I went with fewer and broader but as others have said, some over-lap as one winds down and another gets going.

[Sauragnmon]

I think Weaver hit the nail on the head - have one long GB in the background, with smaller, shorter themed builds in the process as well.

As for extensions, I find the deadline helps me crack down and get the job done - I'd stalled out on Tirpitzski until the deadline started looming up and then I got my nose to the grindwheel to finish all that detailwork on getting everything placed and set and figured out, just to have the extension jump in on me.

I think two months is about a good timeframe for the shorter GB's with the bigger themes encompassing a longer stretch, more like six months possibly.  Two months should get the lollygaggers time to finish their builds without an extension, any longer just gets silly as I see it.

[ChernayaAkula]

I can't really vote here. A pretty narrow GB such as a single-type GB (such as the proposed F-14 Tomcat GB) could be cool, while a more open GB encompassing different fields (aircraft, armour, figures, ships...) such as the "Let it snow"-GB would be pretty cool as well.

<...>
I do feel we need to strike a balance with the length. <...> 3 months is about right IMO, with a 2-4 week extension at the discretion of the mods.
<...> I would like to always see two GBs on the go, so as to give members choice, with 3 occasionally as a new one starts just as another is finishing.

Now all we need is to get the next round of GBs started!  Too many idle hands itching to build something!

What Nev said!  

[AeroplaneDriver]

I'm leaning towards agreeing with TT...the more the merrier.  Though I can see the downside of it becoming unwieldy.  Most of the jet-builders on here often talk about a hi-lo fighter mix, such as Typhoon-Gripen, Raptor-Viper, etc.  I think this hi-lo philosophy would work for GBs too, with a few "F-22-class" builds that are long and general with a lot of interest and participation, but with a handful of smaller "F-16-class" builds going at the same time with a more limited scope (hence lighter participation) and timescale. 

For example, HOG Memorial GB and Tomcat GB running for 3-4 months while at the same time shorter builds such as Steampunk, Landship, Super Hero, and EZ Build run, though with maybe no more than 3-4 at any one time. 

I hope this analogy makes some sort of sense.  I'm just itching for a GB!

[philp]

Well,
This year was the first time I tried (repeat, tried) to do a GB, 4 of them in fact.  So far, I have not finished one of the models that I planned.  Even with 3 months, I could not find the time. 

I like the idea of a couple of 6 month builds scheduled for the year mixed with a couple of quicker builds.  I really like the 1 week GB but just happened to be a bad week for me.

[McGreig]

I voted for the more the merrier.

There are quite a few GB proposals that generate lots of interest (30+ replies and 1,000+ views) when first suggested but then fade from sight because the timing is wrong for the GB voting schedule.

I think that it's a question of organisation and routine - a couple of years ago we had a system where there were regular GB votes and GBs would kick off on a roughly monthly basis. This meant that you could plan more easily which ones you wanted to do, that there weren't too many running at one time, that the overlap between GBs was reasonable and that new ones would be starting as the old ones finished. If we went back to this we could probably fit in more GBs and proposals would have less chance of getting lost.

The current system, where a block of four or five GBs run pretty much simultaneously and then we have nothing at all, seems the worst of all worlds - you can't really participate in more than a couple of GBs at one time and you certainly can't participate if none are running 

And I agree with Weaver and Ed - some GBs could usefully be longer than three months and some shorter - if we ever did another Phoenix build, for example, a shorter time scale might encourage people to actually get something finished.

[Taiidantomcat]

I see what you mean Aeroplane and I agree with McGrieg--very well said. The worst is time wasted. The idea of having a few longer running GBs along with some shorter GBs and the occasional annual GB (like 1 week GB, styrene junkyard, or profiles) would mean there is always about 4 or 5 going on. assuming folks take interest in just half of the GBs, someone can do a long GB, a short GB, and one of the annuals.

I know BDB likes to include already started models as much as possible, and more GB options can motivate and bring an old, stalled project new life too.

[AeroplaneDriver]

Great points from everyone.  Seems like a consensus for a system which allows for at least a couple of GBs going at any given time. 

Time for a GB Vote I think!! 

Comrade??