Short & Sweet:
I think collaboration is a good thing, and I hope lots of teams take Steve's challenge.
I predict 1114 will have us all amazed with the success of this experiment, and will have a Chairman’s Award within 4 years.
(For those who care about my opinion),
Here is a longer philosophical analysis:
There are many ways to form collaborations. We have seen several different collaborative examples within FIRST already and there are many more out there. For discussion purposes, I will divide these methods into two major categories:
- Collaboration to Grow FIRST (Start New Teams)
- Collaboration to Sustain FIRST (Sustain & Improve Veteran Teams)
The triplet model falls heavily into the first category. A successful veteran team spreads itself thin, and in the process helps start one (or more) rookie teams. These rookie teams get to (ideally) play at the same level as the successful veteran team almost immediately. This success then helps them build into a sustainable program.
Now I’m going to say something that may be unpopular:
Teams that perform well on the field are more sustainable than ones that do not. A rookie that is “competitive” (insert whatever definition you’d like, but the one I’m thinking of involves some success on the field) stands a better chance of coming back than one that doesn’t. This does not just apply to rookie teams (which is something I will discuss below). This is not a universal, but it is true MOST of the time.
There are many people, who will disagree with the above paragraph, and many would accuse me of being out of line for saying it, but based on my experiences it is all true. “Winning cures all” – This can be very true. Sponsors, school administration, community members, everyone likes to see a team with a chance to win gold. Everyone likes telling the story about coming out there and playing hard, and having a shot at winning. No one talks about the team that doesn’t move.
The triplet model gives teams the “taste of success”, and also gives them hands on experience with some proven methods. They fly up through the learning curve, and within a few years, are ready to become a separate, self-sustaining program.
Now, how much collaborative-meddling-involvement is required?
This depends on the situation. In some cases, it requires no more than quick phone call every few weeks. In others, it requires you hold their hand through every step of the process, and/or build identical robots. This is the way of life; every situation is different, and every situation requires a different way of doing things. This is not black & white, as many people seem to think it is.
Some will argue that you could choose a more hands-off approach if you will accept a less competitive showing from your rookie. This is probably true, but why would you? A FIRST team does not need to learn for itself how to be successful. This Darwinian approach to survival is dangerous, and the attrition is killing teams. Let’s face it, there are a LOT of teams that couldn’t figure out how to be successful, and didn’t last in this program. What if we could save them? Collaborative support could have kept them around. Again, the amount of support is not black & white.
So now we’ve got teams collaborating, and spawning new super-teams, who will eventually grow-up and spawn their own super-teams. This is good (will anyone argue that more good teams is a bad thing?). Now how do we save the veteran teams?
Let’s talk about Division by Chicken.
This was an alliance formed between two veteran teams (217 & 229). Why did these teams form this alliance? For 3 main reasons:
- Enhance & Sustain both teams through the use of resource sharing.
- Provide the unique long-distance collaborative opportunity for students on both teams to experience.
- So Paul and John could have fun working together.
Both teams participated (equally!), both teams benefited, all students benefited. These veteran teams came together and became stronger from collaboration. Both teams did well, and both teams had fun with the partnership (and the mentors on these teams, had a LOT of fun). Some may argue the point, but I think THIS is a good thing. This is an example of the second type of collaboration. (Remember when I divided it up, waaaaay up at the top of this post?)
This is not the only example of this type of partnership; this is merely the one I’m most familiar with (obviously). Another famous example is 254+60 in 2004 (there are many others).
How much collaboration is required in this type of example? Do the robots need to be identical? No. Teams can collaborate on something as small as a gearbox or something as small as a motor-mount. Again, this is not black and white, there is an entire spectrum of collaborative involvement, any amount of which can be used to help a team; depending on the particular situation.
Now, there is one major catch here. 90% of arguments against collaboration come down to one thing. It needs to be done right, to be effective. How is collaboration done effectively? I think this is a topic for another time, I’ve been rambling for long enough. If there is demand, maybe I'll help put together a "collaboration methodology" paper.
Based on the potential to GROW, and SUSTAIN this wonderful program, not to mention the unique and beneficial experiences it can provide a team, I believe collaboration is a good thing, and I hope you will feel the same way.
$.02
-JV