View Full Version : California District Proposal
On the continuing line of Volunteer C's:
Is there a body willing at this time to step up to the task? I ask because if we want some minimal District roll-out in 2018, names and titles and skills must go in the org chart in order to pull it off with a fine degree of Professionalism.
It wouldn't hurt too to have a like-minded person/group who would like to take on the several off-season FRC events so there is minimal clash of dates and locations. Unfortunate that Chezy Champs and Fall Classic conflict.
Off-season events in the CA:
Chezy Champs by FRC 254
Battle at the Border by FRC 1538
MadTown Throwdown by FRC 2073
CalGames
Capital City Classic?
Fall Classic by FRC 4470 & LA Robotics
Spring Scrimmage by FRC 4470 & LA Robotics
Did I miss any? Don't think the list is up to date. (and spelling?) Need some help from the research-minded.
Joe Petito
Machinist
Battle at the Border by FRC 1538
and 2485
Michael Corsetto
05-07-2016, 14:25
Indiana has Carolyn Beyer (https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/member.php?u=31915) as the Chair of our Volunteer Committee, member of the BOD, and "master" VC. She helps manage the VC's for our district events and helps place key volunteers at each event.
Having her in this position also makes it easier for new event VC's, since she can use her experience to help mentor the new VC.
In Michigan, each event has a VC, though many VCs cover more than one event, especially in SE Michigan where the events are much closer together.
In Michigan, due to the number of events, we have also been assigning key position leads. These leads help with organizing key volunteer coverage for events as well as mentor for the new key volunteers.
In FIRST Mid-Atlantic, each event has their own VC, including the DCMP. We also have a VC Coordinator who serves as a coordination point for all the VCs in the region, and helps out where needed, especially training new VCs as they adjust to their role.
In and out of season, the group of district VCs get together on conference calls and quite a few email chains to sync up on any issues or new instructions from FIRST that may come up. We're also connected via a few email chains & encouraged to check in if we need more people for an event (especially trained roles - We had some referees drop last-minute before Montgomery this year and being able to email the other VCs with 'can you contact your referees and see if they're free, pretty please?' was a godsend), or to report after our event on any hiccups, or things future-week VC's could help streamline for the upcoming events.
Huge thank you to each of you for the valuable feedback!
It seems like some sort of "Chair of the Volunteer Committee" or "VC Coordinator" role is important to manage the existing volunteer base and help out new VC's as they develop. Does the individual in this "VC management" role also VC an event, or do they remain as purely top-level organizational support?
Also seems like mixed results on whether or not VC's cover multiple events, although it seems that a unique VC for each event would minimize the load.
Thanks again for all the help!
-Mike
AdamHeard
05-07-2016, 14:29
Chezy Champs by FRC 254
Battle at the Border by FRC 1538
MadTown Throwdown by FRC 1323
CalGames
Capital City Classic by FRC 1678/2073/3859
Fall Classic by FRC 4470 & LA Robotics
Spring Scrimmage by FRC 4470 & LA Robotics
Minor corrections.
Off-season events in the CA:
Chezy Champs by FRC 254
Battle at the Border by FRC 1538
MadTown Throwdown by FRC 1323
CalGames
Capital City Classic by FRC1678/2073/3859
Fall Classic by FRC 4470 & LA Robotics
Spring Scrimmage by FRC 4470 & LA Robotics [Note: Pre-bag, so last weekend of build season--multiple scrimmages this weekend can't be avoided]
Beach Blitz by OCRA & FRC3309/3476/4276 [New this year]
Michael Corsetto
05-07-2016, 14:43
Off-season events in the CA:
Chezy Champs by FRC 254
Battle at the Border by FRC 1538
MadTown Throwdown by FRC 1323
CalGames by WRRF
Capital City Classic by FRC1678/2073/3859
Fall Classic by FRC 4470 & LA Robotics
Spring Scrimmage by FRC 4470 & LA Robotics [Note: Pre-bag, so last weekend of build season--multiple scrimmages this weekend can't be avoided]
Beach Blitz by OCRA & FRC3309/3476/4276 [New this year]
Another adjustment.
Hi Michael C:
For the org chart thing:
Would it be safe to say the large part of us in the discussion have our fingers on the robots of local teams? The next level is an organization like (in my case) LA Robotics-- or VEX, or FLL/FTC, BotBall, various Arduino groups, Maker groups, etc.
A possibility: the Volunteer Coordinator on the state level would be something of an intelligence gathering and disseminating position/organization, having contact with the individuals/groups sponsoring the events themselves. We again return to the stretching of volunteers.
Not an aficionado of politics, I'm out of the loop of BIG FRC decision making. Who is it in the Cal who makes decisions on dates/sites for events?
Joe
Building Contractor
One other note on the whole "scheduling offseasons" thing:
There was one year that a whole bunch of offseasons were back-to-back-to-back and using the same field. Could be really nice to run that system again, and send any robots competing week-to-week along with the field (maybe in caravan).
On the VC element, I know there's some VCs who cover multiple events, but in most of those cases that I'm aware of, they're working with other VCs who are only doing one event. And at at least one regional, there are two VCs, just for that regional, independent of anybody coming in to work with them.
smurfgirl
05-07-2016, 15:23
To minimize volunteer workload and prevent burnout, ideally we would have unique VCs for each District Event in California. Being a VC is a lot of work, especially for brand new events.
Also, if/when we switch to Districts in CA, if we bring events to new locations not currently near any regionals, and we involve mentors/volunteers from those areas in the event planning committees, we should be able to tap into new pools of volunteers. I know there are a lot of people here in the Antelope Valley, for example, who would be great key volunteers. I am sure the same applies to other areas around the state.
Pauline Tasci
05-07-2016, 15:36
Just a note, VC is a very difficult job that involves a lot of work, constant updating, and constant push to get more volunteers. For OCR, we had a new VC, (who did an amazing job and got us everyone we needed) but I wish she would have people under her so it was not just her trying to facilitate everything. That's actually something we plan to implement on the RPC. I would really love to see more than one VC at one event. Taking an intense load off one person and spreading it out makes people more likely to help out. And that fact is true with most large volunteer roles. :)
Michael Corsetto
05-07-2016, 15:49
Hi Michael C:
For the org chart thing:
Would it be safe to say the large part of us in the discussion have our fingers on the robots of local teams? The next level is an organization like (in my case) LA Robotics-- or VEX, or FLL/FTC, BotBall, various Arduino groups, Maker groups, etc.
Hi Joe!
All District Areas (to the best of my knowledge) have a non-profit entity that assumes the liability from FIRST HQ for their District. FIRST in Michigan, Indiana FIRST, etc are all examples of this. I assume California would follow a similar model. I believe Jim Beck has established a FIRST California 501c3, although I do not know the details.
A possibility: the Volunteer Coordinator on the state level would be something of an intelligence gathering and disseminating position/organization, having contact with the individuals/groups sponsoring the events themselves. We again return to the stretching of volunteers.
It looks like this is roughly the model that other regions operate under. Are you proposing a similar model be implemented in CA, or are you suggesting something different?
Not an aficionado of politics, I'm out of the loop of BIG FRC decision making. Who is it in the Cal who makes decisions on dates/sites for events?
Joe
Building Contractor
For Regionals: the California RD's work with FIRST HQ and SRE to schedule and book venues.
For Off-Season Events: I email 254 and RC (1323) to double check that we won't be interfering with their events (Cal Games usually announces dates before we are scheduling CCC). I generally don't consider scheduling conflicts with SoCal because of the distance.
-Mike
Michael Corsetto
05-07-2016, 16:00
Just a note, VC is a very difficult job that involves a lot of work, constant updating, and constant push to get more volunteers. For OCR, we had a new VC, (who did an amazing job and got us everyone we needed) but I wish she would have people under her so it was not just her trying to facilitate everything. That's actually something we plan to implement on the RPC. I would really love to see more than one VC at one event. Taking an intense load off one person and spreading it out makes people more likely to help out. And that fact is true with most large volunteer roles. :)
Great feedback, it seems like VC's working in a vacuum can be burdensome. While doubling up (or more) is one good way to go, it seems like some top level support (especially to arrange KV's, etc) could also help lessen the load.
Not saying doubling up your OCR VC is a bad idea, just proposing that the model other regions operate could produce similar results.
Both seem like fair options, the obvious challenge of the "double up" approach is finding more KVs. Please let us know how 2+ KV's works for OCR!
In general, I'm hoping we can organize a push to double up KV roles at 2017 CA Regionals, or at least have a KV and one or two "shadows" in each role. We can grow our Volunteer base in preparation for the transition, but growing the pool in general seems like a healthy goal no matter what. This 2+ KV approach that is OCR is taking seems like a great way to grow the volunteer base.
Thanks!
-Mike
Huge thank you to each of you for the valuable feedback!
It seems like some sort of "Chair of the Volunteer Committee" or "VC Coordinator" role is important to manage the existing volunteer base and help out new VC's as they develop. Does the individual in this "VC management" role also VC an event, or do they remain as purely top-level organizational support?
Also seems like mixed results on whether or not VC's cover multiple events, although it seems that a unique VC for each event would minimize the load.
Thanks again for all the help!
-Mike
The person I believe helps coordinate the VCs here also covers 2 or 3 events in the VC role.
Here, the VC role seems to have a couple flavors.
VC Event specific: We have a couple events that are clearly sponsored by a particular company and they bring in a decent chunk of volunteers, especially in judging role. Their corporate connection is very valuable to those events, and they often just do the one event.
We also have a few extremely remote events where a local VC may only cover that event.
VC Generalists: These are long time FIRST people that tend to know a lot of FIRST volunteers and could literally staff a FIRST event with only a week or two of notice. They have the amazing personal skill of asking people to jump through crazy hoops when needed, and the person will thank them for the opportunity when done.
Again, I need to emphasize the number of events and proximity of events here in SE Michigan. I attended an event every weekend (not recommended) that was within 1 hour of my home, and several weekends, I could have attended a different event within an hour of my home (http://www.firstinmichigan.org/FRC_2016/frc_2016_season.html) . With the convenience of proximity it is often less of a hassle to cover more than 1 event.
This is pretty special now, but I imagine other areas will be similar in the future.
Jon Stratis
05-07-2016, 16:56
Just a note, VC is a very difficult job that involves a lot of work, constant updating, and constant push to get more volunteers. For OCR, we had a new VC, (who did an amazing job and got us everyone we needed) but I wish she would have people under her so it was not just her trying to facilitate everything. That's actually something we plan to implement on the RPC. I would really love to see more than one VC at one event. Taking an intense load off one person and spreading it out makes people more likely to help out. And that fact is true with most large volunteer roles. :)
If you can't find additional people to serve as VC "assistants" (we have a few of those here in MN helping our primary VC with each event), recruit your key volunteers to help the VC. While a VC may be in charge of the entire event, having the LRI, Head Ref, Field Supervisor, and other such positions actively helping with recruitment can go a long way. I personally maintain a list of people that have inspected in MN in the past few years so I can approach them again this fall when our 4 events are scheduled. From past experience, that is usually good enough for ~80% of our inspector needs - recruiting the last 1-2 people for each event is a lot easier than coming in and seeing a need to recruit 10!
In addition to the list I keep, as an LRI I get to interact with a TON of mentors in the pits, and actively help recruit new volunteers from those interactions - I've found plenty of inspectors and CSA's that way!
To elaborate on Libby's post, FIRST Mid-Atlantic continues to work towards having a "coordinator" for each of the key volunteer roles (FTA, Field Supervisors, Head Refs, LRI, etc) that helps take some of the burden off of VCs by identifying volunteers, spreading them out to events, and working training of new individuals in the roles. We're far from perfecting it, but it does seem to be helping so far.
One additional "role" that isn't traditional for FRC and I'm not sure if any other areas do it is the "MAR Equipment Representative (MER)". MERs are volunteers with a thorough knowledge of all of the MAR equipment and assets. These personnel share some responsibility with the event FTA for supervision of equipment unloading and load out as well as field set-up and teardown. By having this, the burden on local event committees and the FTA is lessened and allows more work to be done in parallel (ex. MER is loading cases in the PODS outside while the FTA is finishing packing and OKing cases inside). This role is especially important for our offseason events as they do not always have the same volunteer level of experience as official events.
Distillation of points:
* What we do now in the CA is pretty good, with provisos.
* Going to the district model means we do more of it, to equal high standards, meanwhile acquiring the volunteers to make it so.
* The District model in the CA will be idiosyncratic, in that it will probably not conform to what's happening in the MI., MA, IN, etc. It will be helpful that those there understand that we (not the exclusive "we") must make the thing work in our weird environment:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-downtown-traffic-20160702-snap-story.html
Variables and outstanding obstacles:
* Corporate sponsorship: educate my ignorance-- teams go to two District events for the same entry price. Do the fees paid by teams fund their two venue plays, and the event contracting and facilities costs are covered? Or is there need for more cash, thus more fundraising?
* Going after sponsorship, as was done for the last few years for the LA Regional in Long Beach-- how do we coordinate not stepping on one another's outreach entreaties while we grub for the cash? The money pile is so enormous that I can visualize districts competing with one another for sponsors, not conducive to the Gracious Professionalism we aspire to.
*Event scheduling globally (within CA., with input by NV., AZ., HI., Chile, MEX) so as to avoid conflicts. These western states have their own ways of doing things...
We all despise more meetings. Looks like we have to have more meetings.
Joe Petito
Wind Turbine Mechanic
Wow. Usually bringing up the role of the Volunteer Coordinator is a thread killer. ;)
There is actually an "official" role for Districts with the title of "Senior Volunteer Coordinator". The position description from HQ leaves a lot to be desired (doesn't take any planning into account for starters). Attached.
I spent hundreds of hours doing this role.
What I discovered going into the roll out of FIRST Chesapeake this past season was that documentation from other areas was sparse, other District VCs were generous to share, and that everyone was doing things a bit differently. What works for a single Regional doesn't for Districts. Communication and "pitching in" around volunteer coordination to help across each of the events to benefit the District as a whole is vital. The VCs really do need to work together.
I recruited and trained 4 VC's (3 local events and District CMP) for Maryland/DC which was my assigned territory. Truthfully not sure how it was done in VA where I had a counterpart. Merging MD/DC/VA this year had a lot of positives, especially for the teams. And some major heartache for those of us tasked with planning HOW to do things, organizing, documenting and especially communicating across 2 regions who had been doing their own thing quite capably for years. (Shout out to Anne Shade who documented the whole process for roll out of our District events in MD/DC.)
I brought all the VC's together once in-person and we had phone meetings on a regular basis. The VC's worked in partnership with other "Senior" positions for their assigned District event- Senior Head Ref(s), Senior LRI, Senior Judge Advisor(s), FTA pool. Recruitment was a team effort between me, the Seniors and the VC's. The Seniors signed off on any key position before any assignment was made and we utilized shared document files and lots of color coding as we moved along. And like MAR we had "Equipment/Logistics" role - someone designated to be the lead for all the stuff. For MD/DC events we also had Event Managers who worked together on some things across the events - like a common caterer for volunteer food.
I have a lot I could write here. I learned a tremendous amount this past year. In Maryland, I am the overall Volunteer Director where I work with all 4 programs and cross-program volunteering is something I pay attention to. (Note: one of the VCs actually came from the FLL world where he was a VC. Two were FRC alumni and the 4th had worked with me on the Chesapeake Regional and agreed to cover the District CMP.)I do lots of broad level recruitment with companies and organizations, and I offer the total "buffet" of programs. There are so many factors that go into a decision where/when/what to volunteer and we need to think outside of the current pool.
I think it is important to have a Senior VC(s) for a District. Sometimes it is hard keeping up with all the conference calls and updates coming from HQ and the job starts in Sept. so good to have one person covering. And I dealt with all the issues with the VIMS/VMS.
It is also important to have one person be the "heavy". For example, one of the unexpected challenges was gearing up positions for 7 District events all leading into one District CMP meant not everyone could have the job they wanted/deserved at the CMP. I had to turn away over 30 volunteers. It was very stressful, and there are volunteers who yelled at me and criticized me in public and in feedback. I took this on, but it was hard. My idea of the perfect volunteer is the one who checks their ego at the door and says "assign me as needed". And means it. You will get the adult beverage of your choice from me and my gratitude. I have stories! About team players and about prima donnas (definition: a very temperamental person with an inflated view of their own talent or importance".
But I digress.
We used the offseason Battle O'Baltimore last year to train a VC as well as some other key positions.
It is gratifying to see this conversation. Happy to answer any questions.
Variables and outstanding obstacles:
* Corporate sponsorship: educate my ignorance-- teams go to two District events for the same entry price. Do the fees paid by teams fund their two venue plays, and the event contracting and facilities costs are covered? Or is there need for more cash, thus more fundraising?
* Going after sponsorship, as was done for the last few years for the LA Regional in Long Beach-- how do we coordinate not stepping on one another's outreach entreaties while we grub for the cash? The money pile is so enormous that I can visualize districts competing with one another for sponsors, not conducive to the Gracious Professionalism we aspire to.
*Event scheduling globally (within CA., with input by NV., AZ., HI., Chile, MEX) so as to avoid conflicts. These western states have their own ways of doing things...
We all despise more meetings. Looks like we have to have more meetings.
Joe Petito
Wind Turbine Mechanic
In the Regional System all of your $5000 initial (and $4000) registration fee goes to FIRST HQ. The actual event costs are payed for with the funds raised by the RD. Note FIRST HQ does act as a back stop and will step in and provide the remaining funds for a Regional if there is a shortfall.
In the District System $1000 of your initial registration fee is given to the District and the district keeps all 3rd play $1000 registration fees.
The typical district event costs between $10k and $30k to produce while the typical Regional starts at $100~200K and can cost significantly more than that in places where the cost of the venue is high. The typical District Championship runs around the price of a Regional
This is what FIRST is talking about when they say that Districts are cheaper than Regionals. So putting on say 10 district events and a DCMP can cost about the same as putting on 2 Regionals. Note this does vary greatly because venue costs vary greatly as well.
Switching to the District System alleviates those stepped on toes since the fund raising is for the entire district instead of for what may be one of multiple Regionals which may have different RDs in a general geographic area. Note you will find that some districts events the host team may find a local sponsor to provide food, coffee, or bottled water for the volunteers.
Concerning scheduling you really only have to worry about the timing of the events in your District and do not have to worry about neighboring Districts or Regionals. Non District teams are not allowed to compete in a District event and the few teams that choose to do an inter-district play just have to figure out what works with the home events they wish to attend out of the available remaining spaces.
In the Regional system FIRST owns the fields so scheduling around other events so that a field is available in the area is important, as well as the desire to allow teams to compete at 2 events if desired. You don't want two Regionals in the same general area to happen on the same weekend.
With the district system the "normal sized" District typically owns two fields and it is common for 2 events to happen the same weekend. Smaller districts like IN will only have one field and one event per weekend while FiM has 3 or more events per weekend and the corresponding number of fields.
RoboMom & Mr. V---
In my small perspective, two of the most valuable posts. Thank you for your time and effort and the "checking the ego at the door" thing.
Joe Petito
Facilities Maintenance
PS- the photo is what my head feels like sometimes…Very flat, very featureless
In the Regional system FIRST owns the fields so scheduling around other events so that a field is available in the area is important, as well as the desire to allow teams to compete at 2 events if desired. You don't want two Regionals in the same general area to happen on the same weekend.
Same or adjacent weekends...Last year:
Week 3 UT
Week 4 CO; SAC
Week 5 ID; LV
Week 5* WCan
These events are the closest candidates for second events for teams in the intermountain west area.
cbale2000
06-07-2016, 15:18
To add to a few points...
This is what FIRST is talking about when they say that Districts are cheaper than Regionals. So putting on say 10 district events and a DCMP can cost about the same as putting on 2 Regionals. Note this does vary greatly because venue costs vary greatly as well.
This is one of the key things FiM has sought to address with districts in Michigan, by moving to High School venues, most if not all of the venue rental costs are eliminated (as many school do not charge for the use of the facilities), typically leaving only maintenance and staffing costs for custodial and security services. While these costs do also vary by venue, they are still, for the most part, orders of magnitude lower than the costs for a traditional regional venue.
Switching to the District System alleviates those stepped on toes since the fund raising is for the entire district instead of for what may be one of multiple Regionals which may have different RDs in a general geographic area. Note you will find that some districts events the host team may find a local sponsor to provide food, coffee, or bottled water for the volunteers.
Also not entirely true, FiM encourages districts to find local sponsorship for their events and will simply fill in any gaps in funding on an as-needed basis. Most events are geographically far enough away that they avoids overlap in requests for sponsorship, and because the costs are less, it makes more sense to seek out smaller sponsorships from smaller local businesses. Also by placing some of the burden of finding sponsors on the events, it causes district event planing committees to be more frugal with their money, further reducing costs (after all, what incentive do you have to cut costs if you know you're getting a blank check).
With the district system the "normal sized" District typically owns two fields and it is common for 2 events to happen the same weekend. Smaller districts like IN will only have one field and one event per weekend while FiM has 3 or more events per weekend and the corresponding number of fields.
In the case of Michigan, I believe FiM actually owns 1 or 2 fields and rents/borrows the rest from FIRST. This year we had 4 fields in use across the state, and going forwards FiM is already looking at the possibility of getting a 5th field to run 5 events on one weekend (from what I've heard anyways). That said, FiM handles all of the transportation from all of the fields, rather than paying for them to hauled around via Tractor Trailers every week.
nikeairmancurry
06-07-2016, 15:24
In the case of Michigan, I believe FiM actually owns 1 or 2 fields and rents/borrows the rest from FIRST. This year we had 4 fields in use across the state, and going forwards FiM is already looking at the possibility of getting a 5th field to run 5 events on one weekend (from what I've heard anyways). That said, FiM handles all of the transportation from all of the fields, rather than paying for them to hauled around via Tractor Trailers every week.
FiM owns 3 fields. Was looking to purchase the fourth. Still a year or two away from needing 5 fields, especially if inter district play will count for points.
We also have some very awesome people who like to drive big trucks around the state :) But some good scheduling can limit that. Multiple weekends in a row with west coast events, or northern Michigan events, etc.
Jon Stratis
06-07-2016, 15:37
Switching to the District System alleviates those stepped on toes since the fund raising is for the entire district instead of for what may be one of multiple Regionals which may have different RDs in a general geographic area. Note you will find that some districts events the host team may find a local sponsor to provide food, coffee, or bottled water for the volunteers.
Out of curiosity, where do we have this problem? I dare say MN has some of the closest regionals around (the two in Duluth are in the same building, the two in Minneapolis are across the street from each other!, and those pairs are only a 2 hour drive apart), but we've never had those sorts of problems. Everyone involved is dedicated to making all 4 events work.
cbale2000
06-07-2016, 16:32
FiM owns 3 fields. Was looking to purchase the fourth. Still a year or two away from needing 5 fields, especially if inter district play will count for points.
Well I was close, anyways. :rolleyes:
I work with some of the guys who put together the electrical boxes and breakers that come on the FiM trucks, and they had mentioned at one point that FiM had been interested in having a 5th set made, so we may have assumed there would soon be a 5th field.
On a side note,
I think I might be the only person I've seen on CD who's not for inter district play counting for points. IMO, there's a lot of benefit, from a teams perspective, in being able to compete at an event that does not count for points, allowing teams to gain practice or extra out of bag time prior to your in-district events. Granted it might be a bit of an advantage for teams who are financially better off or geographically close to other districts, but the same can be said for a team that would spend the money to attend a regional, which changing the rules for inter district play won't affect at all.
I would very much like to say thanks to you and everyone else who helped work on these documents.
+1
On a side note,
I think I might be the only person I've seen on CD who's not for inter district play counting for points. IMO, there's a lot of benefit, from a teams perspective, in being able to compete at an event that does not count for points, allowing teams to gain practice or extra out of bag time prior to your in-district events. Granted it might be a bit of an advantage for teams who are financially better off or geographically close to other districts, but the same can be said for a team that would spend the money to attend a regional, which changing the rules for inter district play won't affect at all.
I don't like the regional loophole to begin with, but if FIRST isn't going to change that, then I guess allowing the same with inter-district play at least sort of lowers the barrier for entry for it.
"Under the heading of 'How Should One Handle Assumptions:' "
"Perhaps more than anything else, the Walker spy case is a study in assumptions. Time and again, individuals made decisions based on assumptions that proved to be woefully incorrect. In many cases, these assumptions were based on nothing more than wishful thinking, or on the fact that it would be very convenient if certain things were true. There is little or no evidence that decision makers attempted to verify or falsify them, even when such an attempt would be easy to make.
...Another military truism is that successful planners must clearly distinguish between facts and assumptions. All real-world plans will require some assumptions, as information will never be perfect. However, a successful planner will then try to verify or falsify his assumptions, continuing to do so until successful--either proving the assumption true, making it into a fact, or proving it false. 3"
From chapter Educator Bias, in Ditching Shop Class; How Educators Feed the Achievement Gap
Michael Corsetto
13-07-2016, 14:10
"Under the heading of 'How Should One Handle Assumptions:' "
"Perhaps more than anything else, the Walker spy case is a study in assumptions. Time and again, individuals made decisions based on assumptions that proved to be woefully incorrect. In many cases, these assumptions were based on nothing more than wishful thinking, or on the fact that it would be very convenient if certain things were true. There is little or no evidence that decision makers attempted to verify or falsify them, even when such an attempt would be easy to make.
...Another military truism is that successful planners must clearly distinguish between facts and assumptions. All real-world plans will require some assumptions, as information will never be perfect. However, a successful planner will then try to verify or falsify his assumptions, continuing to do so until successful--either proving the assumption true, making it into a fact, or proving it false. 3"
From chapter Educator Bias, in Ditching Shop Class; How Educators Feed the Achievement Gap
Hi Joe,
I suppose I don't understand what the above quote contributes to the discussion? Are you cautioning one person, a sub-set, or the group about making assumptions?
I've made a lot of assumptions in the California Districts Proposal, but I've also been fortunate to have many talented and generous individuals help me get data to verify or falsify those assumptions.
On that point...
I am hoping to release a Rev 2 of the California Districts Proposal this weekend! Updated budget figures, and other structural changes to make the proposal more friendly/compatible with FIRST HQ's goals for FIRST.
**NEEDED** If you are familiar with FRC team data sets and willing to help process some region/district-specific growth/retention rates over the past 10 years, or have analysis about district/regional growth/retention rates, please PM me! I'd like to have some additional figures/numbers to back up some additional theories being added to Proposal Rev 2.
Also, did Joe Ross calculate California District Points for 2016? I remember he calculated CA district points in past years.
Thanks everyone!
-Mike
I am hoping to release a Rev 2 of the California Districts Proposal this weekend! Updated budget figures, and other structural changes to make the proposal more friendly/compatible with FIRST HQ's goals for FIRST.
Awesome! Really looking forward to seeing it.
Hi Michael-
Look forward to rev. 2. And again many thanks for the reflection on hard topics.
The thing on assumptions is for us to make plain what the difficulties are and how to solve them by getting as empirical as we can. As with the Walker spy case, many wished things to be so, assumed they were so, and got burned terribly. Don't mean to do the aspersion thing…
Others with more experience than I, who I respect greatly, with more hands on effort putting together FRC events are extremely leery of getting into a massive mess because some make assumptions about how easy it will be.
Joe
Slack Cutter
PS- The us above is all of us, me too!
Monochron
13-07-2016, 23:18
"Under the heading of 'How Should One Handle Assumptions:' "
"Perhaps more than anything else, the Walker spy case is a study in assumptions. Time and again, individuals made decisions based on assumptions that proved to be woefully incorrect. In many cases, these assumptions were based on nothing more than wishful thinking, or on the fact that it would be very convenient if certain things were true. There is little or no evidence that decision makers attempted to verify or falsify them, even when such an attempt would be easy to make.......[/U]
It's hard to imagine that anyone involved in process is thinking "boy I hope I never have to double check our methods and assumption with the other people involved in California FRC".
It's hard to imagine that anyone involved in process is thinking "boy I hope I never have to double check our methods and assumption with the other people involved in California FRC".
I think the point is more:
We need to remove assumptions as much as possible. We need more data. But where assumptions are necessary, we need to act on those as soon as possible as far as finding out if they're right or wrong.
What looks really good on paper may or may not actually look really good in practice, and what works in practice is rather more likely to actually work on paper, though maybe not as well in theory as what looks good on paper. Remember that ideal physics problems take place in frictionless vacuums, while real physics has to deal with too much (or too little) friction with all contacting surfaces.
One of the best "rookie" events that I've heard about (or attended) was the O.C. Regional. Kind of helped that they'd eliminated a lot of the assumptions the previous fall at an offseason event, by testing the regional layout--and that test had learned from the same event the previous fall. Sure, there were some new elements to work around--but at the same time, dealing with 5 assumptions can generally beat dealing with 10, 20, or 50!
Dealing with administration:
...snip...
************************************************** **
On the negative:
We also have some 1 hit wonders. I think "floor damage" concerns are one of the primary causes for a venue to not want teams back, though you would have to talk to the FiM management for reasons they don't go back to a venue. I know at least a few of them were dealing with floor damage concerns. Though that is not the only reason.
************************************************** ***
...snip...
I wanted to give an update on this. I got some additional info from someone with FiM who is heavily involved with venue coordination:
Of all the events, I have been informed that only 3 had some actual form of floor damage, and only one did not return (of which floor damage was not the only reason).
I do know it has been a concern and a point of discussion at a few events. For instance, at one event we had a team cart that would tear slits in the tarps when turning/maneuvering. This was a stressful item for a few hours while trying to find the "root cause", but ended up not being a big deal by the time the event ended. Overall though, floor damage has not been substantive reason for venues not returning.
I was given various reasons for venues not coming back with many tied to change in support level of those championing the event. Champions could be a school administrator or a FRC leader.
Michael Corsetto
18-07-2016, 17:35
I wanted to give an update on this. I got some additional info from someone with FiM who is heavily involved with venue coordination:
Of all the events, I have been informed that only 3 had some actual form of floor damage, and only one did not return (of which floor damage was not the only reason).
I do know it has been a concern and a point of discussion at a few events. For instance, at one event we had a team cart that would tear slits in the tarps when turning/maneuvering. This was a stressful item for a few hours while trying to find the "root cause", but ended up not being a big deal by the time the event ended. Overall though, floor damage has not been substantive reason for venues not returning.
I was given various reasons for venues not coming back with many tied to change in support level of those championing the event. Champions could be a school administrator or a FRC leader.
Ike,
Thanks for the feedback on this. All of this experience sharing has really helped the conversation move forward.
All,
I apologize for not posting the Rev 2 of the CA Districts proposal this weekend. I am working to post the updated proposal on Wednesday.
I will say, I owe a huge thank you to many FRC community members from across the continent for their help in collecting and analyzing data for Rev 2. I am humbled and indebted by your support.
Again, apologies for the delay.
Best,
-Mike
Who can say who will be debating and what the format/venue will be?
https://www.facebook.com/FirstUpdatesNow/?fref=nf
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.