[Aur0r4]

Our design process is very similar to Don's where we brainstorm a game play strategy, then develop a list of what we want the robot to do, prioritize them, and then begin designing and prototyping several mechanisms in parallel. We set goals on how long we want to prototype before selecting the most promising mechanism.

We found it is very helpful to emphasize constantly that the game play strategy and capabilities list should not include discussions of mechanisms. This sidetracks and often narrows people's vision of the machine. We also find it helpful to remind the students that EVERY strategy they even think of will be thought of by others, and most of the ones we eliminate will still be done very well by someone else and may beat what we select. We try to remind them that most of what determines success is the quality of what is implemented, and not necessarily on whether the "right" strategy is selected.

Come up with a "good" strategy, narrow your focus, and get to work prototyping! We got through game play strategy and capability selection during the first meeting on kickoff day. We were prototyping shooters the next day! It can be tempting to spend too much time selecting a strategy, but some of the magic of engineering is seeing how most ideas can be designed well enough to work, and most can work very well. Yes, some are easier to make work in our timeframe, but I've rarely seen strategy selection trump design and build quality as the Number 1 component of success.

We try to keep multiple mentors involved in brainstorming to prevent one authority figure from dominating the discussion. The team benefits from watching us disagree too! It keeps a "balance of power" and shows the team that engineers rarely agree on the "right solution". We also strictly allow them to chose the final design strategy. We will add our opinions to the discussion, but once the team decides, all of the mentors work to make the chosen idea work. Often things you disagreed with work better than you expected!