FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

I hope I'm not the only person that caught the strategic plan that came out July 16th...
http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default...tegic_Plan.pdf

It is a very interesting document to read, gives a lot of insight into what is in store for us over the next few years.. at least from a very top level perspective.

Some key takeaways from the "The path to achieving our vision" section

• Make FRC, the ultimate robotics program, more available, accessible, and sustainable
• Better leverage our four programs to enhance the progression of learning
• Build and strengthen the FIRST leadership team
• Create a more efficient, responsive organization

I really like the last point they mentioned there, but the verbiage in regards to FRC I do not think I have seen in writing before.

In the program growth section the numbers seem pretty constant for FLL and FTC, but JFLL and FTC are supposed to grow by 6 and 3 times their current size!

Also, in the Financials section, there were some very interesting numbers explaining how the money that goes to FIRST works out. I am actually kind of surprised by the budget numbers, some are actually lower than I predicted, but most surprisingly, I didn't actually think it was the most efficient 501c3 Charity in the US, but in actuality, overhead costs are very efficient as proven by this watchdog: http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ary&orgid=9402.

And when you compare those statistics to some popular charities: http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ail&listid=148, looking pretty great! And this does not include all the teams that raise their own funds, meaning that in fact the organizational impact efficiency is probably a little bit better than the numbers show! (Assuming teams are using all monies raised by teams are used the "right way").

But all in all this was a very interesting document to read. If you are planning on running for a chairman's award its a must read and it tells you what kinds of teams we should be starting up!

Great job HQ!

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

FLL growth makes sense because they have a natural trend that's working well for the organization.

The growth factor for JFLL/FTC makes me cringe a bit .... FIRST needs to be careful to let growth happen organically instead of handing out money to schools. I have seen many teams started in FRC based on a multi-year attractive STEM grant without carefully vetting the teacher's commitment to FIRST.

These numbers look good, I'm happy to see FIRST is taking care of their finances. Maybe one day we can actually see a reduction in the entry fee for FRC teams.

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

I noticed that FTC is targeting middle school which is interesting. We had two middle school FLL graduates on our rookie FTC team and the team reached the World Championship, so they can handle the competition (although the kids were an accomplished FLL team that won a state championship). However, going younger doesn't quite mesh with the rule change introducing welding and machining parts into the FTC game.

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

I have a lot of comments on this plan.

a) Can we all agree that the photo of the picture on the title page is probably the best image of the previous season?

(now for serious comments)

b) "..lower-cost competition structure.." Good news for any team. The cheaper the program is to be part of, the more teams you can maintain over time, specifically new teams. But HOW is the question. What is it that will help teams with the cost of being in FIRST?

c) Looking over the progression of learning, I really wish there was some sort of "everyone robotics" for after high school. Like a FTC, but for college students who want in, or a group of parent mentors who want to try their hand at their own robotics know-how.

d) I see a great jump in projected teams from 2015 to 2016, I wonder why that is? They also have a large projected jump in funding in 2016 as well. Is there something happening in 4 years we don't know about, or are they projecting that 2016 is the "year" that their plans are fully implemented?

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

My best guess is that this is a reference to the District system, though FIRST doesn't seem to have any published qualms about the difficulties of implementing it in low-FRC-density areas.

I'm personally wondering how they plan to double the size of FRC in 5 years while remaining sustainable.

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

My initial reaction is that FRC gets simplified. Simpler games beget simpler fields beget lower costs.

Do we back off on the control system (multiple Arduinos?), limits on the number of motors/actuators? Too many options, too little time for this discussion here.

But then there seems to be a lot of growth planned in "in-kind" support. More in the KOP? More in the post-KOP shopping vouchers? Larger incentives (beyond $, competitive?) to use particular parts/systems?

On growth projections: it looks like the growth plan is through *FLL. FTC+FRC seems to just barely match the previous years' *FLL numbers. Are they planning for attrition, as opposed to growth up the line? I think FIRST is the kind of thing that should become more appealing as young minds gel.

It's nice to see the organization has the Grand and Worthy Plan. Now lets see the thinking behind the projections, and figure out how to do it. The reason for being is worth it.

Tim

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

I feel like the "budget" point looks towards Districting to counter the cost issue. I feel like having districts will also make the FRC experience much better for newcoming teams, and promote growth in the areas (the huge growth in estimated number of teams by 2016 could be attributed to this). Though, i sort of felt like this was more of a skimming of the actual strategy, and doesn't discuss much implementation. Maybe that's for the eyes of those in FIRST only?

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

I think the number one way to grow FRC's standing in the community and participation is to televise completions like Championships like a sporting event. Robotics will simply be "another club" without it becoming a serious spectator event. Yes, I know that matches for many regional are live streamed online, but it just doesn't get the same diverse viewership that television would.

In the past, there have been small features on morning TV about regionals, but those tend to be simply documenting their existence, not the gameplay. Serious sports coverage would help attract new sponsors and new teams. And it's not like watching matches would be boring, especially with only the best ones being broadcast. FIRST already designs them to be spectator friendly, it just doesn't seem to do a very good job of getting people not involved in robotics to watch them.

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

I think need to think a bit more internationally. They talk about it's importance to American education and seems to disregard it's impact abroad. If they talk more about it's impact on culture around the world in addition to the United States that would help solidify it as an international organization.

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

I echo your words as an Australian FRC student. Something that one of my team mates was able to ask Woodie Flowers in person was what FIRST was doing to cater for metric teams, and Woodie gave a very encouraging answer, which has slipped my mind. :ahh:

I would be quite interested to find out just what percentage of Americans make up the total FIRST community too, just to see =P

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

I talked to someone who works with VirginiaFIRST back in May and told me that the state was looking to jump on putting FTC in middle schools. I don't know if that will result in a Jr FTC and an FTC, but the JrFLL/FLL kids will be using the same programming. Maybe they will be far limited to make it more like a programmable erector set and FTC gets its mini-machining for high schools on a budget.

I believe points b) and d) are connected specifically with the district system. Maybe we will see FIRST start a mandated roll out of the district structure across the continental US and possibly roll out a new pricing structure with it.
Regardless, the district model allows for more local exposure which can equate to more teams in an area.

Registering an FRC team, affording an FRC team, and being able to commit to it are things FIRST never seems to measure together. I think to be competitive a rookie team should look to operate under at least double their registration fee. Even a team that runs $25-30k will be pinching pennies if they are going to multiple events.

As it stands, the program has no reason to shrink in any of its divisions. The problem they are hopefully noticing is making sure FIRST is built more like a house and less like a house of cards going into a hopeful period of economic growth and education reinvestment in the country.

This is a great resource teams can use to use as a supplement for sponsor presentations. A fiscally responsible and efficient organization targeting growth of students of all ages is something any business would want to be a part of. A corporation being a major partner in that would be even better. When/if the lid blows off the secret jar of FIRST jelly, companies would want their name on it to say "we were there".

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

@hiyou102

You have raised a good point. On the one hand, the origin of FIRST, and continuing vision as expressed in this strategic plan, is to foster the development of technical innovation in the USA to "benefit the nation's economic competitiveness" and to address the concern that "the United States consistently ranks in the middle of the pack, or lower, in student performance in science and mathematics when compared with other developed nations". On the other hand, FIRST takes pride in having grown beyond the USA and says "Although our primary emphasis is on North America, we operate in more than 60 countries."

Even when talking about North America, there are at least two countries, that are not the USA, with active FIRST programs. This strategic plan talks at times about just the US and at other times includes Canada so it is not clear if the vision is for one nation, two nations or all of North America.

I guess the question is: “If we raise the level and interest in STEM significantly in all those 60 plus countries, but the USA is still in the middle of the pack, is this success?” To what extent is it okay to help other countries build their technical capability?

Bottom line - In the big picture, are we still talking Coopertition or is it Competition?

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

That's what I was thinking. Coming from a non-middle of the pack country I really wonder if it's within FIRST's plan to really help us. Since we are a competing nation that ranks higher in education wouldn't it make things harder for America if we became even more educated?

I also thought it was odd at Champs when they kept on talking about America's success even though there were plenty of non-Americans there. It seems strange that we come to a competition in which the host country keeps on talking about beating us.

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

To the international sentiments here:

I agree with you. FIRST isn't USFIRST anymore (except in URL). But just like some people still call it 'nationals', some little bits of the statements about FIRST's vision are very US-centric, and that takes some time for adjustment.

Keep in mind that FIRST the non-profit is based in America and therefore, documents its service to US schools and students. However, FIRST the competition has clearly expanded out into the world and encourages that expansion. Don't worry, non-USA teams - FIRST knows you're there, and they couldn't be happier about it.

Changing messaging just takes time.

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

Another aspect is getting governmental funding and some sponsorships. FIRST is probably more likely to gain funding by stressing the idea of investing in the future of America opposed to having the money go help those in Canada, Mexico, Isreal and so on.

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

Please excuse our politicians. Even we really don't like them.

Do foreign political figures not talk about wanting to win all the time?

That's an interesting question, and the answer really depends on who you ask. If you ask the Dow 30 I would think the answer would be, "No time to talk, have to go hire new workers!" If you ask an American politician, I've got imagine the answer is no.

Winning is awesome, but I think most of us would rather win in a situation where the bar has been raised to new heights than one where its sitting in the mud.

I think it is absolutely FIRST's plan to elevate everyone, but I think they'd rather it slip under the radar at events since they seem to be heavily courting Uncle Sam.

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

Good points Ian. thanks

On the one hand, you're definitely right about the cost aspect. But I know a lot of the more competitive teams have to travel away from their "home" regional just to have a balanced field of play. Losing the travel and the higher level of competition is a major barrier to getting the district model working outside of Michigan and MAR. I hope FIRST is prepared for that, and I wish there was a compromise solution that allows both rookies and veterans a fair competition. Maybe the district model, but with a way to qualify for out of state competitions?

Here in Houston, we ignore the ages FIRST gives. For the most part it's JrFLL/EARLY for young elementary, FLL for old elementary, BEST/VEX/FTC for middle school and the fall season in high school, and then FRC in high school for spring. The model works really great for kids who start at the elementary level and move all the way up. I'd like to think that FIRST noticed, and is hoping it can work in other regions.

One of the issues I wish FIRST would focus on is the lack of a mentor base. Starting new teams everywhere is all fine and dandy, but those teams need mentors. I think a slower growth model, with a focus on getting both new mentors and FIRST alumni who have graduated college to join new teams, would be more beneficial in the long run. It creates a feedback loop, and I think it's important for rookies to see that FIRST has that kind of staying power in an individuals life.

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

The solution to this is actually fairly intuitive. If everywhere has the "district" model and everyone is being ranked based on the "district" point system then there is no reason that any team could not go to any other competition. It would be, essentially, how it is now, but less expensive and with a better ranking system that rewards teams for performing well - not just for winning. It's only in the transition period into the "district" model (where we are now) that there are there boundaries on where teams can attend.

* I put "district" in quotes because it really isn't a good term to describe the model. It is and always has been a system designed to cut costs and increase play time. There doesn't actually have to be anything location specific about it.

Regards, Bryan

Huh. I never thought of it that way. Well, I hope that, if the district model becomes the standard, they'll allow travel like you stated.

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

That isn't how I understood the original FiM push for district events when it was being done. During the brief time between my hearing rumors of it and the official announcement, I always heard one dominant reason: the quantity of teams in Michigan was too high for all of them to be able to participate in one of the three "local" regional competitions, and there weren't any good places to add more full-scale regionals.

There was a lot of discussion between FiM and FIRST about how to deal with the money part of it, and what to do about robot shipping and drayage. Eventually it worked out that the large number of smaller/cheaper district events was a way to give teams nearly twice as much competition time for a single entry fee. The "bag & tag" experiment was a success and is now the standard for all of FRC. But the first information I heard about the Michigan region was based on the need to accommodate more teams, and the benefits of lower cost and more play time were listed as desireable outcomes of the plan rather than primary goals.

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

Sorry, I'm a bit late to the party in responding to this.

I am fairly knowledgeable on the topic as I have all my information firsthand from Jim Z but I am by no means an expert. Because I don't have an answer for you that I know is correct I am not going to speculate about exactly what FIM's goals were in the beginning. I'll only to say that it has become an engine to do what I described if it is allowed to be by FIRST.

While I don't have all the answers about FIM I do know that Jim Zondag was going to release a paper about FIM: how it works, what it’s purpose is, etc. Unless things have changed that should be released sometime between now and kickoff. (but don't hold me to it)

Regards, Bryan

Re: FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)
 

Not True:
The primary motivation behind FiM was financial.
It was a financial consideration on several fronts, but trust me, the reason it happened when it did, the way it did was because the traditional system would have likely bankrupted FRC in our region in 2009 if we had not done this.

The District System saves money for teams and the regional committees in several ways: reduced travel costs, lower entry fees, lower cost per match, no shipping, 2 day events; but the really, really big item is lower event production costs. The low cost events as we piloted them in 2008-2009 can often be run for less than 10% of traditional FRC event costs. In 2012, the annual savings from doing this in our State is nearly one Million Dollars! Per Year! This is huge because we can still raise much of this money from the sponsoring companies, but instead of blowing it all on lights, AV, and roadies from the East coast, we can use this money to fund teams and new local growth.

All of the competitive restructuring we did at the same time was related to other goals and motivations we had desired for years, so we included all of this in the system we proposed in 2008 and are much better for it. We want to increase opportunity and availablity of events for our teams, and increase the competitive level of the sport, so we did.

Increasing the Return on Investment of FRC is one of our primary goals at FiM. To increase ROI, you can reduce costs, you can improve returns, or ideally you do both. The District system does both very effectively. Our hope is that as more regions migrate, that collectively we can discover even better ways of operating. FRC is filled with some of the smartest people on Earth, and together we can make anything better than it is today. FRC in its traditional form is simply too expensive. We took a big first step toward reducing the price point of participation, but there are many more opportunitites for futher improvement.

100 years ago Henry Ford, one of the great innovators of the modern age, was viewed as a genius with his revolutionary business model to lower a product's cost and the company's profit margin in exchange for increased sales volume. The result made the automobile available to many, many more people instead of just the rich, made Ford Motor Co. very wealthy, and changed the culture of our society. Win, Win, Win,

This century old idea applies well to FIRST:
We want FRC available to everyone, just as Henry Ford did.
We want to change our society, just as Henry Ford did.
He dramatically reduced consumer costs to achieve the accessability needed to achieve this goal. FIRST should do the same if they ever want to achieve the results Dean envisions. High costs are a deterent to growth, and rounding up grants from big companies is not the same as systemic cost reduction. Some of the statements in the 5 year plan give me hope that the leadership of FIRST have finally realized this, but we will have to wait an see.

BJC is right, I have been writing a District description paper with some of this back history and justification on and off for a while. Life keeps getting in the way, and every time I pick it back up, I feel the need to rewrite it all over again. I will complete and post this someday soon.