Quote:
Originally Posted by T^2
You're advocating removing the ability to improve robots between events? Would that change make the FIRST experience reflective of an actual engineering process? I'm just an ignorant student, but I was under the impression that engineers don't usually just throw their first prototype out the door, without testing in real-world conditions, and then later decide not to make improvements when they are able to.
|
FIRST's build season does resemble a competitive proposal sprint, and other real-world business activities.
Using the business analogy, those that would wait until the 44th day to finish and then throw their first prototype out the door wouldn't be businesses for very long. Who said you had to use the entire build season producing one prototype that you throw out the door?
Iterate during the 44 days. During those 44 days use simulations, and other methods to predict and test performance. Use those 44 days be an engineer, or a whatever. That is more than enough time to take care of that part of the inspiration process.
OK - Now for the post-build-season part of the discussion.
At the competitions, I recommend spending as much of your time as you can, focusing outward, rather than inward. There is an excellent pay-off.
Yes, businesses, computer scientists, cooks, engineers, farmers, etc. all improve their products when they have a chance. With that in mind, if FIRST was focused on being a competition, instead of on *using* a competition, I would be making a strong case for placing maximum emphasis on the competing (the scramble to claim a banner). But it's not and I'm not. Other people have different opinions.
In my way of looking at things, there is nothing at all (well, very little *) wrong with telling teams that they will be given a challenge, that they will be given 44 days to create a solution to that challenge, and that when they go to the competitions they will be able to see how their solutions measure up against what the other teams bring.
Is it necessary to make it possible for teams involved in FRC to do everything they possibly can (outside of or inside of the 44-day window) to win a banner??? The answer is, "no." The universe does not require it. Instead it's a choice FIRST can take, or not.
Is it useful to allow for teams involved in FRC to do some iterating after 44-day window? The answer is, "maybe." There are strong arguments in favor of it, but there are also strong arguments that anything more than the the bare minimum puts the program on a slippery slope that can lead to plenty of unnecessary problems that can poison the well. Again, that's a choice FIRST can take, or not.
FIRST can say when you should put your pencil down. FIRST can say that once the pencils go down, the solutions get graded. FIRST can say that further iteration occurs in between then and the next season. FIRST doesn't have to operate that way; and they sort-of do, sort-of don't, operate that way at the moment, but they could operate that way if they cared to.
If I understand things correctly (I might not), some people I respect began the program wanting teams to spend 44 days producing their solutions, and to then test those solutions during a few high-excitement competitions. Reading between the lines, I think that those founders wanted the teams to invest time outside those 44 days in fruitful pursuits other than full-tilt (or even half-tilt) revamping, completing, etc. of their solutions. I like that model. I think it is wise.
Does that clear up my point of view for you? Mine isn't the only viable point-of-view, but I like it, and I think it's a very useful one.
Blake
* If a team shows up at a competition unable to play, sure help them put something useful onto the field (and make a note about helping them before the competition next year). That is an entirely different kettle of fish than using the withholding allowance to lug in wholesale replacement mechanisms or extensive modifications.