Group Builds Going Forward

[PaulBradley]

in putting together the Group Build calendar for 2023, I wanted to try to avoid concurrent GBs. To me, a major problem with overlapping GBs is "Bright, Shiny New Things Syndrome" and the already-running GB seems to run out of steam as the new one starts. And it seems that we have a core groups that does all GBs with some others joining in sometimes. What we have seen in the past year or two is some GBs with barely enough participants to make it a goer, and sometimes we only get a handful of completions; oftentimes we have participants not finish a model to start on a new one for another GB. And for me, it's no fun to see a bunch of unfinished models - I have enough of those in my life without seeing other people's!

So I'd like to avoid concurrent GBs if possible going forward, so that each GB has undivided attention. By having fewer GBs, I hope that we can have better, more concentrated participation and hopefully less incompletions as folks move onto other things.

But before I put this in stone, what do you guys think? What directions would you like to take GBs going forward?

[fredk]

c

[DavidWomby]

I agree with your observations about the effect of concurrent GBs and I suggest we try your suggestion for 2023 (assuming the Blitzbaus can run concurrent with other regular GBS?).

I do see it negatively affecting my participation though I can live with it as it's my choice. I limit my modelling to Cold War UK Air Arm subjects plus Rhodesian Air Force and the odd sci-fi thing. I also try hard not to add to the stash and so have very few new moulds. So any new moulds, armour, ship or other air arms and periods builds I can't usually sign up for. (An exception is the 2023 USAF GB as I happen to have 3 candidates languishing at the very back of the stash cupboard).

David

[PaulBradley]

Cheers, guys.

Fred - interesting thoughts, but I'm inclined to try to encourage folks to finish to their satisfaction rather than rush job it at the end of a build. While this might lead to less completions within the set time period, I don't want to dampen enthusiasm by making folks rush to a drop-dead deadline. If anything, it would be nice if folks could better plan their builds to alleviate any last minute rush, but that's an individual thing. I really want to avoid discouraging folks from building and enjoying GBs, while encouraging participation and enthusiasm.

David - Blitzbaus are always separate and their own beast! They don't really interfere too much with standard GBs as it's only a day for each person.

And I certainly understand about each person's willingness to participate in certain GBs - there are certain areas I won't touch; it's the same for others and that's fine. What has happened to me in the past is signing up for everything and over-participating and never finishing anything. It really dampened my enthusiasm so I had to learn to limit my ambitions a bit so I would at least get something done!

[VickersVandal]

I agree that sequential rather than concurrent GBs are the way to go. I have focused on my own build priorities these past 2 years but when I do GBs I often struggle to get one completion within the month let alone two if they are overlapping.

[JamesPerrin]

Not allowing overlap would dramatically reduce the number of GB we run. Also there are a number who complete their build well within the period. I suggest a compromise: "no two GBs should overlap more than a week"

[DavidWomby]

Not allowing overlap would dramatically reduce the number of GB we run. Also there are a number who complete their build well within the period. I suggest a compromise: "no two GBs should overlap more than a week"

I like the sound of that.

David

[PaulBradley]

That's an interesting idea, James; I'll see how that might look within the bounds of the 2023 calendar.

Of course, reducing the amount of GBs is one of the aims. In past times, we had a lot more active members than we do today and could easily support a lot more GBs. Now, we have less active members participating, and too many GBs are poorly subscribed and there are too many DNFs. So how can we create better focus is a question.

With overlapping GBs, while there are of course those who finish well within the confines of the GB dates, (and indeed some finish more than one model!) this is really aimed at those who don't work as fast, and those who aren't done but are distracted by the bright, shiny new GB that's started a couple or three weeks before the previous one ends, which leads to quite a few DNFs.

[iggie]

I like the sound of this as I try to support as many GBs as possible, but sometimes that means what I build is too often dictated by the GB subjects rather than what I fancy building at the time. By reducing the overlap, it should mean that I'm able to complete a GB entry and then do a build or two to suit me before the next GB starts

[JohnRatzenberger]

Not allowing overlap would dramatically reduce the number of GB we run. Also there are a number who complete their build well within the period. I suggest a compromise: "no two GBs should overlap more than a week"

Before I even start, there are real-world issues that can impact any of us - I know that full well - however ...

I agree with James (except "dramatically" because there are other factors) but I would amend to "not more than half the scheduled length". This is a modeler problem, not a scheduling problem, and modelers need to fix themselves. Now GB's are a textbook case of Parkinson's Law.

The rigid no-overlap schedule is wasting opportunity (space) and in particular when these SKGB kits are simple single-engine aircraft, some offered in one form as "starter kits". We used to do a lot more in shorter times - we'd do original kits, some horrid and show what could be done with them.

I am not sure just reducing GB's is an aim - again much of this is a modeler problem. But a fixed non-overlapping schedule does so arbitrarily.

We ran a poll/vote and where I thought we were picking a single winner (sorta like ranked-choice), but we had a tie so we took both and burnt up two available GB slots. These two GB's could have half-overlapped each other and whatever was either end by a week. The total span of the 2 SKGB is thus only 9 weeks, not 12. Simple adjustment of start/end dates preserves mostly the same 6-week interval, more-or-less - would have left two slots to fill (or not if there is no demand).

Code: Select all

 prev gb week:  6
  1st gb week:  1 2 3 4 5 6 
  2nd gb week:        1 2 3 4 5 6
 next gb week:                  1 ...  

We then compounded the problem by feeling sorry for 3rd place in the SKGB poll (and some Airfix marketing ploy called Vintage Classic, which subsequent discussion showed to be a distinction without difference in terms of actual modeling) and decided to burn a 3rd GB slot thus filling the calendar.

[Stuart]

I have to say this has been an interesting discussion. I can totally see Paul's point but likewise I can also see how quickly we'd fill up a GB calendar - as there are generally a lot of ideas thrown into the pot.

From a personal point of view, I have suffered a lot from the problems described above, in that I've entered so many GB's that I never get to finish anything and end up with a large SOD which to me is a major mojo killer. & also if I enter too many I find that the GB's are running my build schedule, then I never get to build anything I want so to speak. Both of these are reasons why I try to limit the GB's I enter per year to one or two subjects I'm really interested in - but there are all personal modeller problems as John suggests.

Just to throw something else into the pot, I'm really surprised that, seeing as how many GB ideas we get that end up marginal, that we don't end up with a lot more of the less formal 'Shared Builds' - the last one was ages ago IIRC.

Just my two pennies.

[JamesPerrin]

Largely agree John. We are not short on suggestions but are short on modellers and their time.

I do think GBs need to be based on subjects, an event or the plastic. “Things beginning with the letter P” type GB lack cohesion. Maybe we should go for quality over quantity.

Personally I pick and choose what GBs I enter carefully. Either it aligns within my themes or is a carrot to build something I have in the stash.

[PaulBradley]

I like the sound of this as I try to support as many GBs as possible, but sometimes that means what I build is too often dictated by the GB subjects rather than what I fancy building at the time. By reducing the overlap, it should mean that I'm able to complete a GB entry and then do a build or two to suit me before the next GB starts

Ditto!

So here's the issue as I see it - if we allow 12, 15, or 20 or whatever GBs in a year, we very much run the risk of having very few participants in each of them. Provisionally for 2023 we have 8 plus two Blitzbaus. With a little playing with dates and a bit of overlap, we could make that 9 or 10 plus BB. To me, that a sensible limitation to encourage better participation - not necessarily more participation, because more doesn't lead to more completions, which isn't good for any number of reasons.

We're not going to be able to please all the people all the time and we need to find the best compromise.

[PaulBradley]

I do think GBs need to be based on subjects, an event or the plastic. “Things beginning with the letter P” type GB lack cohesion. Maybe we should go for quality over quantity.

indeed.

[chrism]

Locking a group build doesn't entice me at all and means I can't finish. If I ain't finished in time ..I'm stuffed so . I will not bother from the outset
Why not let participants have extra time quietly like other forum do