Author: Brandon Moore

  • Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD: What I learned from a minor teardown

    Tools needed:

    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD First Steps

    First I cleared all the debris from the bottom of my Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD unit. I used an air compressor blow attachment to do this. A clean underside makes everything easier. Easier to see screws, easier to see screw holes, less junk in the way. Clean it out. You’ll thank yourself later.

    Then I started removing the screws. There are lots of screws. When you think you’re finished, check again because there are likely to be more.

    There are 3 different types of screws in the mower. Most of them are small machine-type screws in 2.5mm. Every little indention in the mower has a screw in it. Take them all out.

    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD underside preparing for a teardown

    Some of the screws are a more coarse thread with 3mm allen/hex head. All of the machine-threaded screws have blue threadlocker. This is everything I removed. There was one 2.5mm screw hole that was empty, so I should technically have one additional screw in the bunch.

    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD screws, all removed from the unit.

    The 3mm screws at the front of the machine have the non-threaded section at the top.

    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD front screws with non-threaded section

    There are two screws at the back of the Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD in the white body area that are easy to overlook. Make sure you get those.

    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD body screws at the back of the unit
    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD body screws at the back of the unit

    I also removed the four motor screws that keep the motor attached to the assembly. I don’t think it’s required to remove these, but I was replacing the motors anyway, so I removed them.

    If you are replacing your motors, pay attention to the shape of the motor mounts to make sure you install correctly. There is a rounded bump on one side and a small dent on the other side.

    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD Removing the Cover

    Once you have all the screws out, you can turn the mower over on its wheels and remove the top.

    BE CAREFUL. THERE ARE FRAGILE ANTENNA WIRES THAT NEED TO BE REMOVED BY HAND BEFORE FULLY REMOVING THE TOP. Trust me.

    The most fragile wires are the two black antenna wires on either side of this black frame (top and bottom in the photo below). These are panel-style antennas and the connectors are very small.

    When you slowly lift the lid off the Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD, you must be careful to disconnect the antenna wires from the system board. The black frame is spring loaded, so it puts pressure on the antenna wires. These connectors wiggle to snap on/off the board, but they’re very small and fragile. I ended up replacing my antennas because I broke one of the wires by accident.

    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD inside the unit without the cover. Black frame above motors

    Disconnect the antenna wires from these two chips on either side of the system board.

    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD chip for wifi or bluetooth
    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD chip for wifi or bluetooth

    Here is what you see when you start to lift the top off the Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD.

    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD inside the unit, just after removing the cover.

    The ribbon cable above needs to be removed by hand. There are clips on both sides. Press them outward gently to release the ribbon cable. If you ever worked on computers with an IDE connector, this will feel familiar.

    The other wire that needs to be removed is the gold colored antenna wire that can be disconnected from the board. Gently wiggle it free. It just snaps on/off.

    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD system board

    Another view of the system board. There is another system board below this one, but I didn’t want to risk breaking anything to get to it.

    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD system board

    More photos of the sytem board. Below, I’m removing one of the motor connectors that attaches to the system board. There is one of these connectors on each side.

    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD removing the motor connectors from the system board.

    My entire reason for pulling the mower apart was to replace the motors, so I disconnected more wires and removed the black frame from the top.

    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD Motor Assembly

    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD inside without the black frame. Photo shows the motor assembly, system board, and battery.

    The motors connect to the system board with two connectors that snap on/off, along with what I assume to be a small ground wire. The ground wire is a 2.5mm screw to attach the lead. The wires are bundled with zip ties, so I cut those free and replaced them with new zips after replacing the motors.

    The motor is labeled as a Linix Brushless DC Motor, 57ZWN24-55-58, at 24V DC, 3.5A 55W running at 5850r/min. My bearings seemed to have gone bad, so I replaced with a new (to me) pair of motors I found on eBay.

    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD motor, labeled Linix Brushless DC Motor, 57ZWN24-55-58, at 24V DC, 3.5A 55W running at 5850r/min

    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD Battery

    While I was in the mower, I removed the battery unit (4x 3mm hex/allen screws holding it in place) and snapped a pic of the battery specs underneath the battery housing, just in case I or anyone else needs it. Specs for the Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD battery are: Lithium ion type, with 21.6v DC, rated at 9.6Ah / 207.36Wh, with limited charge voltage of 25.2V DC.

    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD battery. Lithium ion type, with 21.6v DC, rated at 9.6Ah / 207.36Wh, with limited charge voltage of 25.2V DC.

    Mammotion Luba 5000 AWD Teardown Conclusion and Additional Photos

    The partial teardown I performed provided access to many of the serviceable parts (maybe not truly serviceable according to the manufacturer, ha!), including the motor assembly, battery, antenna wires, and system board. I didn’t have a need to go any further into the teardown, but I hope this information is helpful for the Mammotion community.

    More photos below.

  • Two worlds, one playbook: what higher education and corporate roles taught me about marketing and digital work


    After experience working in both higher education and corporate environments, I have been reflecting on what each has taught me. The differences are real. But so are the parallels.

    A few observations I keep coming back to:

    The core challenge is the same everywhere.

    More work than resources. More priorities than capacity. Every organization I have been part of, regardless of size or sector, has navigated this tension. The challenge is not unique to any one environment. What varies is how organizations respond to it.

    The tools for making decisions look different, and both have something to offer.

    Corporate environments tend to have clearly defined P&L structures that create natural forcing functions for ROI measurement. Market values, business cases, and financial accountability are built into the operating model. That clarity can accelerate decisions.

    Higher education operates under a different financial and mission-driven model. ROI is harder to isolate when you are serving students, communities, accreditors, and public trust simultaneously. That complexity is not a weakness. It reflects a genuinely broader definition of value. The challenge is developing the discipline to measure that value intentionally rather than letting it go unmeasured.

    Both environments are better when they borrow from each other.

    Prioritization is a skill, not a default.

    Every environment I have worked in has had urgent requests that competed with strategic work. The organizations that handled this well had an actual prioritization process, not just good intentions. They revisited priorities consistently, communicated them clearly, and protected the work that mattered most. The ones that struggled treated every request as equally urgent, which meant nothing was truly prioritized.

    This is equally true in higher education and corporate settings. The method may look different. The discipline required is the same.

    Scalability is contextual, and that matters.

    What works at one organizational scale does not automatically transfer to another. A lean team at a smaller institution may be remarkably effective within its scope. That same team structure applied to a larger institution with significantly more programs, audiences, and enrollment goals would be stretched past the breaking point. The same logic applies in corporate environments. A governance model built for a large enterprise does not always translate cleanly to a smaller, faster-moving team.

    Understanding the scale you are operating at, and designing your processes accordingly, matters more than importing best practices from a different context.

    Measuring value has to go deeper than the obvious metrics.

    Enrollment numbers matter. Revenue matters. These are real and necessary measures of organizational health. But in education especially, the most important outcomes extend well beyond them. Whether graduates are prepared for meaningful work. Whether programs serve the communities they are designed for. Whether the investment individuals make in their education returns real value to their lives.

    Organizations that take this seriously tend to build better programs, not just bigger ones. That pursuit of deeper value is one of the things I most respect about the best higher education institutions I have worked with.

    Collaboration across organizational lines is always worth the effort.

    Silos exist in every environment. I have seen them in large corporations and small colleges alike. The teams that consistently deliver the best work find ways to build meaningful connections across those lines anyway. Not by eliminating structure, but by investing in relationships and shared goals that cut across it.


    What has your experience taught you across different sectors or environments? I would be glad to hear what sounds familiar or looks different from where you sit.

    This article originally appeared on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/two-worlds-one-playbook-what-higher-education-roles-me-moore-ed-d–bqt6f/

  • What a Reality TV Show About Buried Treasure Taught Me About Work

    What a Reality TV Show About Buried Treasure Taught Me About Work


    I’ll be honest. When my friend Cody first told me about The Curse of Oak Island, I was not exactly encouraging. A reality show about two brothers digging holes on a Canadian island looking for treasure? I gave him a hard time about it. Respectfully, of course.

    Eventually I started watching. Season one was slow. There was a lot of poking around, a lot of theories that felt like a stretch, and not much to show for it. I kept it on in the background while doing other things around the house, half paying attention.

    Then something shifted. Slowly, and I mean very slowly, which felt appropriate given the pace of the show, I found myself actually invested. I am currently at the end of season eleven, and while I am still not fully convinced they are going to find what they are looking for, I need to see how it ends. Cody wins this round.

    Here is what surprised me along the way. The Curse of Oak Island kept making me think about work. Not in a forced, everything-is-a-business-lesson kind of way. More like I kept noticing things on screen and thinking, yes, that. That is something I have seen play out in a conference room or a planning session or a team meeting. Here are the ones that stuck with me.


    Respect the work that came before you.

    In one of the later seasons, the team uncovered a stone pathway dating back to around 800 CE. The discovery required them to stop, step back, and think carefully about how to proceed without destroying something that had survived for over a thousand years. The instinct on a dig site — and honestly, in a lot of organizations — is to keep moving forward. But sometimes the most important thing you can do is pause and treat what you have inherited with care.

    I think about this in the context of taking over a web platform, a team, or a process that someone else built. It is easy to look at what exists and immediately want to change it. Sometimes change is necessary. But there is almost always a reason things are the way they are, and the person who takes time to understand that context before making changes tends to make better decisions than the person who arrives with a plan already written.

    Oak Island stone pathway overhead angle. Original screenshot from Amazon Prime video.

    Your environment will surprise you. Plan for it anyway.

    Oak Island is not a cooperative place to work. Over the course of the series, the team has dealt with hurricanes, flooding, shafts filling with water, and roads washing out entirely. In one stretch, they had to rebuild a road from scratch before any other work could continue. That was not in the original plan.

    What struck me was not that the setbacks happened — it was how the team responded. They acknowledged what was in front of them, addressed it, and found a way to keep moving toward the goal. They did not let the road washout stop them. They built a new one.

    Most projects I have been a part of have had a version of a washed-out road. Something that was not in the plan and required real work before the planned work could continue. The teams that handled those moments well were the ones who had built enough flexibility into their approach that an unexpected obstacle did not become a reason to stop.

    Follow the data, even when it is inconvenient.

    Some of the most compelling moments in the series are when the team connects chemical and metallurgical evidence from specific artifacts on the island to physical locations of interest. These are not loose associations. They are documented scientific data points that, taken together, are genuinely difficult to dismiss. The team does not ignore evidence because it complicates or confirms the narrative. They follow it.

    This is harder than it sounds in practice. Data that confirms what you already believe is easy to act on. Data that challenges your current interpretation requires something more — the willingness to adjust your thinking and, sometimes, your plan.

    Map from Oak Island showing boreholes. Original screenshot from Amazon Prime.

    When the plan does not work, adapt without losing sight of the goal.

    Following the data and interpreting it correctly are two different things. The Oak Island team has been wrong before. Theories that seemed well-supported turned out to point in the wrong direction. When that happens, the choice is to abandon the effort or recalibrate and keep going. They recalibrate.

    I have seen this play out on web platform projects, brand initiatives, and content strategies. The data said one thing. The interpretation was off. The implementation did not produce the expected result. The teams that treated that as information to use in the future rather than failure were the ones that made meaningful progress over time.

    Do not be afraid to get uncomfortable.

    The triangle swamp is a recurring location in the series. It is muddy, it smells, and it is genuinely unpleasant to work in. It has also yielded some of the most interesting findings of the entire project. For many seasons, the team kept coming back to it because the evidence suggested it mattered — even though working there was miserable.

    Some of the most rewarding work I have been a part of required wading through something difficult before it paid off. A messy governance situation. A platform migration that kept surfacing unexpected problems. A stakeholder relationship that required more patience than felt reasonable at the time. The discomfort was not incidental. It was part of the process.

    Oak Island swamp overhead view on a foggy day. Original screenshot from Amazon Prime.

    Get the right experts involved.

    The Oak Island team does not try to figure everything out themselves. Over the course of the series, they have brought in archaeologists, metallurgists, historians, geophysicists, excavators, and (my personal favorite) a metal-detecting ninja. Each expert brought something the core team did not have. Each one contributed something that moved the work forward.

    I have found this to be one of the most consistently underutilized instincts in organizational work. There is a version of the problem that the existing team can solve. And then there is a version of the solution that becomes possible when you bring in someone who has spent their career thinking about exactly this kind of challenge. Those are not the same version.


    I am still watching. I have made no promises to Cody about what I will conclude when I reach the end of season fourteen. But I will say this: a show I dismissed as a long shot turned out to be more substantive than I initially expected. There is probably something to learn from that too.

  • Lexmark Brand Central Case Study | Brand Guidelines Content Strategy & Team Leadership

    Lexmark Brand Central Case Study | Brand Guidelines Content Strategy & Team Leadership


    Leading the Creation of Lexmark Brand Central

    Every brand needs a place where the rules live — not locked away in a PDF someone emailed two years ago, but somewhere anyone can find them, use them, and trust them. That was the problem we set out to solve with Lexmark Brand Central.

    Project Snapshot

    Over about six months, our global marketing design team — fifteen people spread across the U.S. and the Philippines, including UX designers, collaborated with technology partners to build Lexmark’s first public-facing brand standards platform on Adobe Experience Manager. It became the first site launched on Lexmark’s new AEM environment and, ultimately, the official source of truth for Lexmark’s brand identity worldwide. I led the content strategy and the team coordination that made it happen. The technical build and UX were a cross-functional effort — this was very much a team win.

    Lexmark Brand Central homepage

    The Problem

    Lexmark’s brand guidelines had gotten a bit outdated and overly complex. They were also tucked behind a login that created friction for the people who needed them most — regional teams, agencies, and internal stakeholders trying to stay on-brand across dozens of markets. The goal was to replace all of that with something cleaner, more accessible, and built to last.

    What made this project interesting was that it wasn’t just a content project. Brand Central was being built on a brand new AEM environment, which meant content development had to move in parallel with platform setup. The technology team was still establishing the environment while we were trying to fill it with content.

    And to make things more complicated, content development had been stalled for a few months. Competing priorities and limited bandwidth had slowed things to a crawl.

    Getting the Work Moving

    The instinct when a project is stalled is usually to push harder. I went a different direction. Rather than spreading the work across the whole team and hoping momentum would build, I concentrated the effort. I organized a dedicated sprint week for four team leads — people who had subject matter ownership over the content areas that mattered most for launch.

    The sprint had a simple structure: we opened with a collaboration session to align on goals and priorities, then moved into focused deep-work time. We ran morning and afternoon standups to share progress, talk through challenges, and keep the guidelines consistent across contributors. We wrapped the week with a demo to gather feedback and identify what needed to happen next.

    That week produced the core content foundation for the entire platform. After the sprint, four more team members joined the effort, bringing the total to eight contributors. The work that had been stalled for months found its rhythm.

    Lexmark logo usage guidelines

    What We Built

    The content strategy came down to three principles: simplify, prioritize, and make it usable. The old guidelines had tried to cover everything in exhaustive detail. We focused on making the core standards scannable and practical for the people applying them day to day.

    We also made a deliberate choice about how to publish the content. Essential guidance went on the web pages themselves — easy to find, easy to read. Deeper documentation went into downloadable PDFs for teams and partners who needed more detail. That hybrid model gave us flexibility without overwhelming the site.

    The final scope covered brand overview, logo usage, color, typography, photography, illustration, video and motion, and web components. The messaging team joined later in the process to add writing and messaging guidance.

    Lexmark illustration guidelines

    How It Came Together

    Launching Brand Central required close coordination across a lot of moving parts. Content was drafted in Word documents, then designed and laid out as both web pages and PDFs. The final implementation used AEM’s out-of-the-box capabilities, eventually expanding to include DAM support for asset management.

    Because this was the first site on the new AEM environment, the technology team was working through platform setup at the same time the team was designing the site, establishing page templates, and finalizing content. That meant constant communication between global marketing leadership, UX, design, art direction, video production, technology partners, and messaging stakeholders. It was genuinely collaborative work — no single person or team could have pulled it off alone.

    From kickoff to launch, the project took about six months.

    The Outcome

    Lexmark Brand Central replaced an outdated, inaccessible set of brand guidelines with something the whole organization could actually use. Internal teams and third-party agencies gained a clear, centralized resource for brand standards. The platform launched before the Xerox acquisition and became Lexmark’s official source of truth for brand identity — a foundation that could keep evolving as the brand continued to grow.

    The friction didn’t disappear overnight, but the platform gave everyone a shared starting point. That matters more than it might sound.

    Lexmark Brand Central video and motion guidelines

    What This Project Demonstrates

    This project is less about any one deliverable and more about a leadership approach. I found a way to help the team make progress on work that was stalled and the path forward wasn’t obvious. What moved things forward was creating the right structure — a focused sprint, a clear process, and a team that felt supported enough to do their best work.

    The individual contributors on this project are the ones who made it real. My job was to build the conditions for that to happen and keep the cross-functional pieces moving together.

    Capabilities Demonstrated

    • Content strategy and governance
    • Enterprise brand systems
    • Agile team facilitation
    • Cross-functional collaboration
    • AEM content planning
    • Stakeholder alignment across global teams