[dlavery]

Originally Posted by rourke

Let’s forever end the debate on collaboration – and commit to use it for the purpose of growing and sustaining FIRST.

Not to make too fine a point of it, but why there is even anything to debate on this topic any more? FIRST has been explicitly clear about this: collaboration is a good thing. It is an excellent way to grow the program, increase technical competence, share resources, and increase the inspriational effectiveness of multiple teams. It is not only permitted within the rules, it is encouraged. To be sure, teams are free to choose to collaborate or not for just about any reason they like. But to be blunt: at this point, for someone to state that they are against collaboration and then to demean any other team for participating in the practice is an indication that they just don't "get it." To whit (excerpted from the FIRST Q&A system):

Q: Is collaboration between 2 teams acceptable and encouraged by FIRST?
A: Absolutely. Teams are encouraged to share their knowledge, experience, and innovations with each other on and off the play field, as well as before, during and after the competition season. Without inter-team collaborations, many of the central elements of the FIRST philosophy - such as distribution of technical innovations, team workshops, shared designs, software code-sharing, teams mentoring teams, team-run off-season events, etc. - would all be impossible. The whole concept of "coopetition" is based on the idea of teams helping each other to compete.

and

Q: If high school students on my team make parts for another team, does the team receiving the parts need to bill out our high school students at a typical labor rate as part of the $3,500 limit?
A: Gracious professionalism, "coopetition" and collaboration are some of the hallmarks of FIRST. We have all been amazed at the level that FIRST teams aid each other - not just at competitions, but throughout the year. By working together, we have increased our effectiveness inspiring youth and recognizing the value of science and technology. For the case when one team assists another team, this is viewed as "coopetition" - teams helping each other inspire youth. ... We are trying to create a community where working together helps us collectively achieve our goal of inspiring and recognizing science and technology.

Anyway, let's move on to JVN's excellent post. I am in agreement with almost everything that John has to say (oh, dang, I am sure that I will regret that statement!), with just a few exceptions.

Originally Posted by JVN

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.

OK, this is one area where John and I differ a bit. I don't think that he is out of line for saying it, and I can see how based on his experience it certainly can be a true statement. The comment I will add is that this is not the ONLY way to have a sustainable team. There are many examples of long-lived, sustained team efforts that have never put a primary focus on the playfield performance of the robots they build. I am not saying that they intentionally try to do badly. It is just that building a kick-butt hyper-competitive super robot may not be their highest priority. Instead, they may focus on experimenting with innovative new technologies, trying new team organizations, focusing on outreach efforts, concentrating on pulling certain groups of students into the team, or (back to the original point of this thread) helping new teams in their area to get started. Given a finite set of resources, they may not be able to do everything, and so they choose to let the desire to be highly competitive become a secondary consideration in favor of other priorities. They may not push too hard to win on the field, and they may not care that they don't "win" - because there are a lot of other ways that they can be successful. This is not to say that when they do win on the field that they don't enjoy the process and celebrate along with everyone else - it is just that it may not be their cause celebre.

Just as I do not think that the "you have to win on the playfield to have a successful program" method is the ONLY way to have a sustainable team, I also don't think that the "focus on the off-field activities" method is the ONLY way for a team to be successful. But I do maintain that both approaches are equally valid, and neither one should be discounted.

Originally Posted by JVN

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.

And this is the real key to the whole concept of "collaboration" and how it is used to grow successful teams and the FIRST program overall. When teams share successful ideas with others, everyone comes out ahead. It doesn’t matter if it is a team sharing their shifting transmission designs, or helping another team without manufacturing facilities to build a few parts, or in a full-blown cooperative design process like 254/60 in years past or The Triplets this year. If the result of the cooperation is that a new team gets the knowledge they need to become successful (by any definition), they how could this not be a good thing?

Originally Posted by JVN

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.

Awww – don’t stop now!! This is actually the most important part!!! You could ignore everything said up to this point, if instead you REALLY described how to make an effective, efficient collaboration work in terms that other teams could understand and use. The real value to be added here is the experiences that the collaborating teams have had and they can describe – warts and all – to other teams so they know what to do and what to avoid should they decide to attempt a collaboration.

-dave