Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson
I see what you were getting at regarding costs now. I agree with Eric's summary of the benefit: extending the build season gives you more options for scheduling parts build and delivery.
In my experience, power is not the limiting factor. Energy is. You're trying to argue that doing less for a longer time is preferable to doing more for a shorter time. The counterarguments come at that from both directions: a team that "needs more time" isn't going to benefit from doing the same amount of work across more weeks, and a team that already manages their time effectively is not likely to reduce their power in the way you're suggesting that "struggling" teams will be able to benefit from. You haven't obviously helped anyone, and you have very likely increased the divide between "low-tier" and "high-tier" teams.
I also disagree with your claim that "burnout is burnout". In isolation, that might be true. But add in mentors' families and you will find that it's often calendar days that matter, not just days of high effort. Even if I work with the team only three days per week for eight weeks instead of four days per week for six weeks, I'm still spending concentrated time on robotics for two more weeks according to the people at home who are counting.
This probably makes sense to you, but it's just number salad to me. I can see where the 54 comes from, but no matter how I look at it, I can't find a way to get any of the other hours or percentages you list. Six weeks gives 54, but adding two more weeks "with the same number of weekday meetings" somehow gives six fewer hours? Where does the "as opposed to just 36hrs" come from?
The first sentence seems to say you aren't working within the property manager's preferences, so how is any of this relevant anyway? And what the heck does "push it up because school" mean?
Based on the changes you made to your first two arguments, I figure there's just something in your head that didn't quite make it out your fingers clearly enough for me to work with.
This would be true if the only reason a student can't attend is an absolute lack of hours in the week to spend on the team.
But if the problem is a conflict between the meeting times and either a job or some other extracurricular activities, simply cutting out some of those meetings isn't necessarily going to help. And if the problem is that the student just is not sufficiently committed to the team, spreading out the meetings won't change the situation.
You also ignore the fact that teams are already meeting after bag & tag day. For many teams, if you reduce the frequency of meetings during the first six weeks after kickoff, all you've done is reduce the total number of times they meet.
|
You seem to be just barely missing the main point. "extending the build season gives you more options for scheduling parts build and delivery." Change that to, "extending the build season gives you more options for scheduling everything about how you run your team between Jan and April"
As for power I literary mean work over time which is my example. X amount of work in 1 unit time vs X amount of work in 2 units time. If you would rather do X work in 1 unit time than how am I stopping you? If a team can function better doing X work in 2 units time then you are hurting them.
"This would be true if the
only reason a student can't attend is an absolute lack of hours in the week to spend on the team." And? That's one more sub group of students that can attend that couldn't. Meanwhile the examples you mentioned aren't even hurt by the change. Explain how that is not a net gain.
"You also ignore the fact that teams are
already meeting after bag & tag day. For many teams, if you reduce the frequency of meetings during the first six weeks after kickoff, all you've done is reduce the total number of times they meet."
If you already meet after bag and tag then this doesn't affect you. My argument isn't about how much extra time you get to build a robot it's about how much extra time you get to do everything else since you can focus on the robot a little less. If you are already meeting after bag & tag day then don't change your schedule unless you want to. Again how is that not a net gain?
"I can see where the 54 comes from..."
Yes I spelled it out. I'll do it farther.
3 weekdays, 3hrs each, 6 weeks. 3*3*6=54 hrs
Management of X property would rather you end your weekday meetings 1 hr sooner. You can't make up the time by meeting earlier in the day because it is a school day.
If the build is still six weeks:
3 weekdays, 2hrs each, 6 weeks. 3*2*6=36 hrs or 67% of the amount of time you had when your meetings were 3hrs long
If their is no bag and tag (we'll use 8 weeks as an example).
3 weekdays. 2hrs each, 8 weeks. 3*2*8=48 hrs or 89% of the amount of time you had when your meetings were 3hrs long and you had 6 weeks.
A difference of 22%.
If management of X property doesn't care how long you stay than it doesn't matter and you lose nothing. Net gain.
I'm not saying everyone should or can do anything I'm writing rather I'm giving you some examples of how someone can use the added time to improve their specific situation. If you would rather not spread out your meetings then don't. If you want to meet every day anyway then do. You seem to think I think that everyone will benefit significantly and that for this idea to be valid everyone needs to. Of course everyone won't take advantage of it properly but their are people who will and if that ends up saving that team it was worth it.