Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

Yesterday was a mess for many teams including mine. Ultimately AndyMark was very helpful and made good on their mistake (shipping weight error on the window motors). However, for many other teams, the problems were not fixed to the same level as mine. This lead to a long rethinking of FIRST Choice.

Currently, unless a teams main or alt contact is ready and waiting at 12 PM EST for the opening, they will lose out on the best parts. Since these individuals are always adults, it can be assumed they have jobs to do elsewhere at that time. This disadvantages them significantly. The other issue is lack of quantity limits this year on the most valuable items (Talons, Classmates, Sidecars).

After thinking about this, I believe FIRST should implement a ranked choice draft. Basically, FIRST would release the point costs for all items and the credits per team about a month in advance. Teams would then have about three weeks to submit a ranked list of choices to FIRST. This list might look this for my team:

1. cRio
2. Sidecar
3. FESTO Valve
4. FESTO Valve
5. Talon
6. Left Window Motor
etc.

With these lists in hand FIRST would then do a random draft order. Each round every team would get the next highest item on their list that they have the credits to afford. In my case, since there were 30 sidecars this year, I might not get one in the second round, so FIRST would give my team a FESTO Valve (third on my list). The draft would end when all teams list were empty, or all teams credits were gone, or all the parts were gone.

Teams would be allowed to submit list for any number of credits. You could go way over the amount of credits given to make sure you participate late into the draft, or you could only submit for a few items to save credits for later. After the draft is complete, FIRST can then open up the remaining items and credits for purchases at a predetermined time (like Kickoff, when game pieces are available).

I think this would lessen the impact on all teams when things go wrong. It would also eliminate the need for this crazy mad dash to the parts.

John

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

One must remember, there are now 2,500 teams in FIRST. This would require employees of FIRST to dedicate much time towards this, instead of other possible work.

Also, some might say that if they implement this, why wouldn't they do this for Regionals as well? Have teams send in lists of what competitions they want to attend and then do a draft based on that, instead of everyone logging on right at 12 noon when registration opens.

(Just trying to play Devil's advocate)

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

Actually, it can be done algorithmically with very little involvement from FIRST staff.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

It sounded to me like we had a volunteer to collect the orders, write and then put them into a program that would sort / random draw the orders and then electronically send them to Andy Mark for processing.

I love it when people step up to help!

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

It should be possible to automate this task. This is a great data manipulation task for a computer.

The only question would be:
-What happens if they run out of the sidecar half way through the second round? How do you rank which teams get them? Do you claim that item out of stock for everyone in that round, and save the extra for next year, or do the current auction system for the excess?

If you implemented a similar system for regionals, you could set rules to prioritize teams based on geography when there are conflicts. Then, the teams that need to go there for travel reasons get in first. You could also prioritize further away teams in the later rounds, to promote more geographical diversity at regionals.




Seems like it would work, as long as they do proper numerical comparisons on numbers.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

You would think the same thing about signing up for events. However, in Michigan we had to wait a 2 weeks to sign up for an event if we did not plan on attending our home event. Then those teams had to rush to sign up for two events on the same day.

But yes having teams create priority list for Events and FIRSTChoice would help relieve some of the system load, as well as, increase the level accessibility for teams (ie. mentors that have jobs that don't allow for them to have internet access at a specific time).

-Clinton-

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

Randomize the team order list at the start of each round (so you may be the first team in round 1, but the last team in round 2). Then whoever gets the items first gets them.

You could also do a semi-randomization algorithm that would weigh being highly ranked in early rounds more, so those who are unlucky and ranked near the bottom in the first round have a higher chance of being ranked near the top in the second, and so on.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

I WOULD. However, my logical assumption would be that minimizing travel distance would be my priority metric. This is a naive assumption though since it could throw people into events they cannot attend for other reasons (timing for example). Whereas parts selection is relatively simple and doesn't have as many constraints. It'd be a simple matter of optimizing the top choices for teams. I guess I could apply this logic to events too.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

I disagree this would simply be an update the the FIRST choice system it would be a relativity easy update to implement.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

Yes.

The priority should be set by the individual team (both for Events and FIRSTChoice). If team think the travel distance is important then they would use that metric when organising it. If traveling to events they have never attend then the sort their list accordingly.

As for Michigan and "home" events you easily run through teams that have signed up for their home event. Then you go to the teams pick list for events.

I still think you can still have people make a list for their 1st event. Then wait 2 weeks to use a new or same list for their 2nd events.

-Clinton-

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

Or simply write an algorithm that minimizes a Badness. And we define Badness as the rank on the team's list. If everyone got their first choice the badness would be 2500. If everyone got their 3rd choice it'd be 7500. From then we just run any of a handful of optimization processes on it until we get an acceptable solution.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

A draft order system would be fine with me. It would solve the race issue that we have this year. Fantasy sports leagues do this; it's not a big deal for computers to sort that out and generate a list of who gets what after the ranking lists are finalized. You just pick your draft system's rules and run the algorithm. The most difficult thing would probably be communicating how it works to the team main contacts and getting them to properly fill out the ranking form online. But that's certainly doable.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

They do something similar for FLL qualifiers already. I don't know how FIRST runs the "draft" (FLL teams only get 1 official event), but each team picks their 1st-3rd venue choices. This could be automated similarly to the proposed FIRST Choice draft, while still retaining the override procedures that FRC uses now in terms of late-registering rookies, teams having to attend a specific event for travel reasons, sponsorship, etc.

These two ideas (FIRST Choice and event selection) may actually decrease the workload for FIRST HQ after the capital investment in design--which doesn't have to be done <1mo before kickoff. It would certainly mean less "clean up" than issues like this cause. Even if the system does break, it wouldn't be such a time crunch.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

The most interesting idea posed to me so far was a blind bidding process.

The 'auction' lasts a week. You place your bids up to some maximum (say 100 points). At the end of the week the items are 'awarded' to the teams who bid the highest for that item. Ties are broken randomly. The process then goes into another round of bidding, with teams allowed to redistribute their remaining points if they lost a bid.

Another idea was to start all teams at 0 points, and start adding them over time- say 10 points a day, such that each team might be able to afford one 'high value' item a day. really desirable things, like a class mate or Crio might cost a couple days allowance.

Or we could just get randomized kit or parts- it'd be at least as fair as the current system, which seems largely depending on how fast you can click through check out forms and whether the Server gods smile upon you that moment.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

I would rather see FIRST spend their time fixing other issues...

If teams can't figure out a way to handle FIRST Choice with GP (come together and agree to not horde the best items), then a simple limiting of items teams can get would do.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

Each team gets assigned a random number, 1...27xx.

Each team created a prioritized list of things they would like to order (in qty 1). Ex:

1. Talon
2. Talon
3. Talon
4. Talon
5. Drill
6. Video card
etc.

The system automatically goes through a serpentine draft, assigning one item at a time. First pick in the first round is last pick in the second, etc.

Draft continues until all lists are empty, all credits are spent, or all stocks are depleted - whichever comes first for each team. The whole draft would take seconds.

After the draft, each team is presented with a voucher for the products they were assigned along with shipping information. At this step, a team has a chance to remove any products they no longer want from their order and then check out.

A couple days after the draft, FIRST Choice opens up ala yesterday, with a free for all to spend remaining credits on remaining merchandise. But without some teams getting 11 Talons and others getting stuck with low value items.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

My original thought process was to have a draft order and if the part is available when your team number is up you get the part.

I saw that in the other thread. My issue is yesterday I had to miss a college lecture to order parts. Now if everyone gets new points at 12 PM EST for a week, I have to miss a week of lectures to get parts. I really think FIRST needs to look to a system that allows for the adults on teams to work our day jobs during the day.

The auction system would be interesting, but I think there would be the potential for a lot of items to go unclaimed. If I bid 35 credits for a cRio and the next lowest bid is 25 credits, I lose out on 10 credits and can't get a second item. If this was implemented, I think the auction would need to play with the same rules as the clearing of US national electric grid on the regional ISOs.

No matter what happens, I still believe we need an updated system. As much as we call for gracious professionalism, the prisoners' dilemma will still exist because of the secrecy surrounding the current system. I think it is fair to say someone got 11 talons yesterday, but no one knows who they are. Without that knowledge being public, calling for gracious professionalism will do almost nothing.

Just my two cents...

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

I think we would be better served with an introduction of lower points pre-season (we still have 24 credits we picked what we wanted) and quantity limits. One cRIO, one Classmate, four Talons, etc. We all have needs and desires for our teams but with limited quantities available, limits should be in place.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

The simplest solution is to convince Cross-the-Road to give every team 8 Talons in the kit. That's not going to happen, but...

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

That takes us back to the old days when the KOP provided the same elements to everyone but as we grew a supplier providing 10,000 (4 per kit) was a large investment to make especially in this economy. Additionally, as more and more products have developed and been introduced to FRC less teams use whats in the KOP.

When I first started we only used Victors. Now we can use Victors, Jags, and now Talons. Many teams use one and one only either trading them for other parts or throwing them up on a shelf.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

The best solution to the problem we face has to avoid the time crunch. I don't really care what the algorithm is - auction, draft, limits, whatever. But we need a sufficiently broad time window (lets say 24 hours) to let teams log in and indicate their choices, without giving preference to the teams that log in first.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

The random draft proposal sounds really good, actually. It's not that complicated of an idea to explain to people, and if you really wanted, you could run a mock draft sometime in November or something to both test the system and familiarize people with how it works. Heck, you could even send reminder emails to people who haven't submitted their draft list yet.

There's a potential problem/benefit, however:
Teams that aren't fully paid up can't participate in FIRSTChoice. There's a fair number of teams already this year that missed out on this initial rush because grants haven't cleared or similar. If the draft system moves the date up, even more teams will be left out. On the other hand, the less rushed nature of the process might mean that you could push the dates back a bit to give more teams a chance to participate.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

I don't like that as a mentor I am doing a crazy thing like WORKING when FIRST Choice opens up. I don't like being penalized because a meeting runs over and I am late logging in by 30 minutes. That has always been my gripe about this system. This year it looks like that technically would not have mattered because we probably would have had a problem anyway if we logged in right on time. I am also glad I am helping a team that got the standard KOP it seems like the voucher system is going to hurt some teams since they were not able to buy what they wanted to buy. Hopefully lots of restocks happen between now and kick off.

I agree there has to be a better way. I think the draft system sounds interesting and again gets us closer to a real sport. Just think if football teams got the best player based on who was able to login first and click submit. There also has to be a limit on items for the first week. It is not fair for a team that logs in right away to snatch up all the Talons and not leave any for a rookie team that logs in at 12:30 or 1p. I think every week until kickoff you should be able to have another order if you want more but only be able to get one or two of each item per week. I think after kick off having the limit lifted could be OK but who knows maybe the first week after kickoff have a limit as well so that the non-voucher teams can't sweep all the Talons off the shelf.

Lets hope that the next few weeks smooth out for this process I would hate for teams to be at a disadvantage just because a new system was unprepared for FIRST Onslaught. Reminds me of looking for lunacy balls the day after kickoff. Man that sucked.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

Exactly.

Do you know how many people work at FIRST, on staff?
I think they MAYBE hit 100 total employees this year.
(Source: I interned in the Marketing department this summer).

That divides many ways, into each of the programs (Jr.FLL, FLL, FTC, FRC), and then things like HR, IT, Volunteer Resources, Marketing, Finance, and the list goes on...

There's not a whole lot of people who actually WORK FOR FRC.
When people get fired up about change not happening fast enough (this is not to say that change doesn't need to happen, I absolutely agree- FRC needs some fixes...), I think this point needs to be brought up:

Please remember that the FRC staff is smaller than the average FRC team.
There are 2500 of you, and one of them.

When you (the royal 'you', not anyone in this thread specifically- I'm talking really generally, here) say that that 'FRC ISN'T DOING THIS RIGHT', you're not calling out some big corporate structure. You're literally calling out a group of ...15, 20 people, maybe? Who all work REALLY hard at their jobs. Implementing any big change requires a lot of work from those 15.

I'm all for improving things and making changes, but you've got to remember you're dealing with humans on the other end of this. Human beings who work really hard on their jobs and quite frankly could use a lot more 'thank you's' than they currently get. Piling more work onto their plates isn't a great solution, unless FRC were to suddenly hire 15 more people. (I've always said FIRST could use a cloning machine - so many great and ambitious people, so little time.)

That said, I like the draft system idea - and I definitely think the current method needs some change! It would just have to be developed and implemented in a way that doesn't bog down FRC staff with more stuff to do in such a crazy time of year. (Also keep in mind, just because it's a computer system doesn't mean it can just be ignored - someone has to keep an eye on that too- computers aren't perfect.)

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

(Also when you say something like "that is an easy software fix/feature".... it usually isn't in practice ;) )

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

Libby,

I know that FIRST HQ is not staffed like a large corporation. I don't know how much time was spent yesterday and overnight to fix FIRST Choice and get things running again. I am guessing most of the work was handled by the AndyMark team, but I am sure that things were upset for a while in NH as well... They had to issue two official responses. That limits time to do things which need attention.

My goal with this proposal was to do two things: (1) To propose a solution that would take less human capital to run (teams time and schedules as well as AndyMark/FIRSTs) and (2) propose a solution that would limit the public exposure to things going wrong. With a draft, the orders can be checked and then released publicly.

Finding a complicated solution to a problem is easy, solving the same problem with a simple solution takes a great deal more thought. This change (if FIRST is even interested) would have to be an offseason change. I would personally volunteer to help out with the project (I am serious). I am not trying to criticize anyone from the teams, to AndyMark, or even FIRST. I am only trying to improve the system for everyone in a way that does not overly burden anyone.

John

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

Libby,

I don't believe that the OP was intending to insult the hard-working people that make FRC happen, I think he was merely trying to suggest a possible improvement to the system that is in place. I think we are all very grateful for what they do, and don't say thank you enough. So THANK YOU FRC staff!

Most people would probably agree that FIRST Choice as a concept is a really good thing, and has a lot of tangible benefits. However, there were many perceived problems with the implementation this year. The technical problems were handled very professionally by AndyMark, however, the underlying problems with the system are the current concern.

The OP is trying to help FRC staff by adding an idea that may or may not solve the problem. I for one think that it is good when the Chief Delphi community begins to brainstorm a problem, as often time a solution is found. It's no secret that at least one person in FIRST leadership reads these forums (Frank). And if I were running a company, I would find it very helpful to know what my customers were dissatisfied with. Here, however, we don't just have people complaining (well, sometimes we do :rolleyes: ), but we have people trying to help generate solutions. Will every solution work? No. Is every solution feasible? No. But, the OP posted here so that he could get other points of view, which could possibly point out flaws in or improvements to his proposed system. And to be fair, the OP probably didn't know how few people work in just FRC; I sure didn't.

To get back on topic though, I like the idea behind the system, but can see significant hassle in actually maintaining this. Others may know of simple ways to implement it though. I still am in favor of a slower release of credits, quantity limits, or more accurate pricing on high demand items, all of which I see as positive tweaks to the current system (and all of which have been debated in other threads). Feel free to disagree! In the end the decision comes down to FIRST and AndyMark.

$0.02
Alex

Edit: Well I clearly missed the boat on this one! haha

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

John,

The original post I made (which has now been edited quite a few times) certainly sounded a little more "stop picking on them, they try really hard." That's not what I meant, AT ALL. Hopefully, I've changed it to be closer to my point.

Take Two: "Productive changes are awesome, but FRC isn't as big as some of us think - it takes some time."

I love the idea of changing things and improving, and I actually really like the idea proposed - it seems like you've got something here. Some of the later posts in the thread (as well as PM's I've been sent on this subject, as well as others) was "FIRST could totally do this, why haven't they changed it yet, it's so easy."... That's what sparked my first reaction. I've learned over my years on CD to write a post, walk away, and read it later before posting - but I guess I didn't wait long enough. Thank goodness for the edit tool.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

As a software engineer I understand what you are saying. But these are pretty well known solutions. Truth be told, I probably have code I could repurpose fairly simply sitting in one of my hard drives. From there it'd be more a function of writing test cases and probably a decent UI... I'd be willing to say it's about 80 hours of work for someone familiar with the tools. Probably a little more if you want to make it enjoyable to use.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

I like the draft option, and I bet the FIRST community would be able to do a good chunk of the technical work. If creating a new system isn't a good option, it's possible to quickly improve the existing system in the following ways:

1) Point values that more accurately reflect the value and utility of items (this would have solved a lot of the problem by itself... example, classmate computer costs 100 points - automatically it becomes more of a decision and less of a race)
2) Fewer points available in the early round of shopping
3) Passwords given out early for people to test; add credits to accounts to "go live"

That still doesn't eliminate the time crunch element of this process, though, and I agree that it would be highly desirable to fix that problem.

I'll say this again: I really like the concept of more choice in the Kit of Parts, so I hope this trend can continue in the future despite the problems we've experienced this year.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

The people at HQ and AM work very hard, I don't think anyone in this thread or involved in FIRST is questioning their efforts. However, I do think teams who have been deeply affected by this (my team included) have a right to look at the system and ask how it can be improved (many of us ARE engineers, or think like engineers....).

I think the draft system is an obvious leap to take, and is probably closer to the "ideal solution" than the current system. I do think there is an intermediate step that could be taken as well.

Market-driven ranking of the products is a good start. Poll all of the teams in October and ask them to rank what their top 5 selections would be given the catalog of FIRST choice options. Based on quantity of votes and quantity of product available, rank the choices more logically.

The Talon would obviously be high up on the ranking. Although there were 400 available, no hard limit allowed teams to buy them up ~10 at a time. By implementing a hard limit for this item, or a more cost prohibitive limit (25 credits?) the # of Talons available to each team would have been reduced. This allows more teams to get their hands on useful equipment. Maybe teams won't end up with enough speed controllers to outfit their entire robot, but now more teams will be able to outfit 30-50% of their robot with speed controllers.

I think there are many options available, and my hope is that we can provide constructive feedback without it being misconstrued as "attacking" staff members. We're all very passionate about this program, and we all invest a lot of time and money into it.

I have a duty to my team and our sponsors to ensure we are being put in a fair position with regards to how our finances are spent. Luckily- we are a team who can absorb the cost of a misfired FIRST Choice without it devastating our team, however I know for a fact many teams are not in this fortunate position.

-Brando

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

The issue with FIRST Choice seems to be one of too many teams chasing too few resources. Perhaps the solution is not a draft or lottery, but one of scaling back the intent of the program. As was already mentioned, it is getting harder and harder to solicit donations that can benefit teams equally when there are now so many teams. I hope I do not offend anyone out there, but do I do not know if all the teams really need FIRST Choice, while for others it may mean the difference between being able to compete.

If we really want to have FIRST grow to the point where it can reach students in every school can we expect FIRST Choice to continually serve all of those teams equally? Right now there is an extreme discrepancy in the funding available to teams in smaller towns, rural areas, or economically depressed areas. And yet there are a lot of teams out there with budgets that should allow then to build a robot even without FIRST Choice. Allowing early access to resources based on need might be a way to more equitably distribute scarce resources.

I know that FIRST Choice was intended to be a part of the KOP, and not a funding program. But I for one would rather see early access to ordering on FIRST Choice offered to rookie teams and teams demonstrated financial need rather than a random drawing if that is being considered. The other teams could be offered access to what is left a few days later. Just trying to consider a new way to look at the issue. I hope no one takes offence.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

I like the sentiment, but I regret to inform you that your idea is even less likely to be implemented than the draft system proposed in this thread.

Two reasons:
1. Determining who has a greater need for the resources would be a bit of a nightmare. Even if you assume single regional teams are the most needy, you're going to have a hard time prioritizing.
2. FRC has had a pretty constant position on things like this, oft repeated at the kickoff: Life's not fair. I don't think it's meant in a mean-spirited way, but there really doesn't seem to be much interest in doing things to level the resources field among teams. The GDC's advice to low resource teams is pretty consistently that they should work harder and find more resources.

The latter point is the main reason I doubt the draft process has much chance of getting implemented, regardless of how good an idea it seems.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

I was going to post something similar but refrained from doing so. Thanks for getting it out there. It's easy to feel sorry for teams without the fortunate circumstances others enjoy. However, we'd be in a much worse state if we embraced the idea that everyone who needs help is entitled to it. Then you basically enter a competition of who can prove to be more needy than the next, which is not at all where we want to go. I'd rather compete for resources than lack thereof.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

I hate to say it, and really don't want to see it happen, but there really is only one way to make the parts distribution in the KOP "fair". That is to go back to the old model where everyone gets the same KOP. The only exception is for rookie teams who also get a controller and extra battery.

I understand why FIRST moved away from this model, but these parts issued have been around ever since the change to some degree. It just seems to have hit a peak this time around.


Here's a slightly off topic but related question.

How do you define what "fair" is?

Here are two versions I see a lot, but are by no means definitive.
"Equal outcome for all regardless of effort applied." I see this one used in reference to socioeconomic conversations.
"Outcome proportionate to effort applied." This one is used more often when applied to employment and income.

What I would like to believe in means in respect to this specific thread is:
"The same resources are equally available to choose from, for all teams."

So, what do you think? (Or maybe this needs to be in a thread by it's self.)

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

Life is not fair and never will be. If there is one thing that really irks me is how often I see and hear that "Everyone is a Winner." That attitude does not improve anything, I believe it makes things worse. I don't believe the ideas presented in this thread by everyone who has participated are about making FIRSTChoice perfectly fair. Nothing will ever be perfectly fair and that does not need to be a goal.

As an engineer, I am always interested in improving efficiency and performance. The reason for this thread is not to have pity party about unfair things in life, but to discuss ways to improve a system. I have be discouraging by all the negative comments in all the other threads today (and while I am not blaming anyone who feels cheated by what happened) I think the best course of action is to discuss solutions.

My idea is only that, an idea. I would also fully support another idea if it would eliminate the major short comings that affect teams' mentors who have to order parts and meet budgets.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

I think that a possible way to improve this process would be to split the stock of FIRST choice products into thirds or even more. Have the first third of teams be allowed into first choice at 10-am and then close at 11:50-am, the second set of items for the second third of teams would be open 12-1:50 and so on. After all the divisions of teams had received their allowed time, the store could open back up and everyone could pick over the left over items.
This process could have avoided the <1000 team number problem be having those teams all be in the first third. After it was realized no of them could log in all the time slots could have been pushed back.
There is also the possibility that the times could fall between 4pm-8pm when most mentors wouldn't have to be in work. Or even have then happen on different days, during the same time period.
All the teams would initially have access to the same number of parts, and after the whole process you would still be allowed to chose an item that all of the teams from a different ordering block didn't want.

I think a lot of people are forgetting that many FIRST choice products are donated. It is not possible for AndyMark to just add more of these products to their stock as they disappear they only have a limited quantity of donated products.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

In my mind the solution to making this process both fair and orderly seems obvious. There is only one aspect missing, and the solution does not require drafts or algorithms or ranking or limits. It is the same system used by the entire commercial and retail world every day, and it works very well: Pricing. Pricing which matches value.

Who understands the logic of all items having roughly the same price regardless of their real value? A flat ribbon cable has the same price as a laptop computer? Huh? Obviously insane. A yet this is how FIRST Choice was set up. This situation simply invites teams to overwhelm the system in a panic rush to hoard high-value items. Why would you not gobble up all the high-value items when it costs you no more? It should be expected. There is no normal law of supply and demand because there is nothing to make you consider how much to spend on each item.

The inventory of high value items would last much longer, perhaps even to every team that wanted them, if their price was related to their value. If credit prices were related to value, every team's 100 credits would buy approximately the same total value of parts, and every team would end up with an equivalent KOP comprised of the items they chose to spend them on. If credit prices were properly assigned, all supplies could potentially last until every team had there chance for them, with no mad rush to see who could get there first. High value items would remain available, and low value items would be bought up instead of being left virtually untouched. Every retail operation functions this way. Value is reflected in price, price regulates demand, demand matches supply. It is not a problem when a store has 400 of an item in a town with a population of 2800. They simply price it accordingly so that the supply matches the demand at that price. If properly balanced the entire inventory could be distributed AND every team could end up largely with what they choose.

I already used this analogy in another post: Imagine a store where 2800 customers standing outside are each given $100 to spend, and everything in the store is $10. The ones who make it through the doors first and can run the fastest get 10 flat-screen TVs. The ones who were behind 2800 others trying to get through the doors 1 minute later get 10 pairs of socks. Most of the 2800 are frustrated and disappointed with what they got. Exactly what you would expect to happen. And yet real stores operate every day without any of this happening. The reason is PRICE matching VALUE. Merchandise is available to everyone no matter when they get there, and everyone is able to choose what they want, because the prices regulate the demand.

What am I missing?

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

I have 12 years of unused parts accumulated here. I have 3000 square feet, and 260 linear feet of shelving, and we're short on space. Unless a building expansion appears on the 2014 FIRST Choice, I could never agree with going back to the old standard KOP and no FIRST-Choice model.

Re: Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice
 

I definitely agree here, and with the idea someone else presented of informing FIRST of the demand before the items are released for sale. Interestingly enough, I just saw a youtube video on price gouging that was very similar to this same topic. By inflating prices, you can ensure that a product is more evenly distributed to teams and prevent hoarding and mad rushes.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWTsq7F25kg


On the topic of FIRST's small staff: I know that ideas discussed in these forums are at least seen by some FIRST staff, but has FIRST ever considered formally crowdsourcing this type of problem? I have absolutely no idea of the feasibility or how this would work, but it seems that with a given problem, the CD community could present several valid ideas and FIRST could pick one or a few that they liked, give feedback, and teams or groups on the forum could work together to more fully design and implement these solutions. Maybe this would be incredibly hard to do, but if it worked, it could be very interesting.