Quote:
Originally Posted by George1902
Our strategy team is structured in a hierarchy. All SPAM members at the event (minus the drive team and pit crew) work in data collection. Our actual strategy team members act as shift managers. We sprinkle them into the shift rotations so there's always an expert on hand to answer questions and for quality control. Our strategy team leaders are our super-scouts. They look at the data, draw conclusions, and then research why those things are true.
For example, our super-scouts might notice a team has a particularly high standard deviation of their effective score. They would then do more research to find out why that is the case. Is their effective score trending upward because they've been adding functionality to their robot? Was there a dip in their middle matches because something broke? Has it been fixed?
Most teams do a good job of collecting useful data. It's the sort of problem that can be solved with sufficient manpower. What will set you apart is analyzing that data, drawing useful conclusions.
|
We're also implementing a similar 'Super Scout' system for our strategy team after testing it out last year at IRI. Over the years our students have done a great job collecting data, but when it comes down to actually talking about the teams during pre-match strategy planning and pick list meetings, they have struggled to remember much about the teams other than the data and the few comments on the scouting sheet. So, our strategy team will serve as Super Scouts and will be responsible for 10-20 teams at the event and record qualitive information (how quick is their pickup, how is their passing, where do they shoot from, where do they fit in an alliance...). The rest of the team (other than driveteam, core pit crew and chairmans) will serve as regular scouts and take shifts recording data. I think this system will give the students more owernship of our scouting/strategy while providing some accountability and better results.