[GeeTwo]

I hope to get to that point in a few years - where we're seriously considering implementing a formal quality process. That doesn't mean I haven't thought about it, so I'll share these, with the understanding that I haven't actually tried to implement any of it.

Quality takes time. Any formal process takes time. And while FRC has definite dollar limits and weight limits and current limits and pressure limits and height limits and (most years) width and depth limits, development time is the most restrictive resource for the vast majority of teams. Ensure that whatever quality procedures you implement, that they are done in parallel with rather than in sequence with development. And don't forget that you can't QC end performance if you aren't performing prior to competition. This means driver practice, and in the best case, a practice robot that is essentially indistinguishable from the competition robot.

As far as quality issues as you described (irregular scoring), if you have a scouting department, put them to work gathering as much data at your practices as they do at competition. Not only is it good practice for them, but it will provide the info that there is a problem early, and should help to identify whether it is a machine, driver, or other problem. Along these lines, 3946 is planning to have a Game Analysis / Scouting / Strategy group next year, which will include the drive team. As self-scouting our drive practice is part of this group's function, perhaps we really are taking a step down the same road.