View Single Post
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-02-2007, 00:42
kmcclary's Avatar
kmcclary kmcclary is offline
Founder 830/1015;Mentor 66/470/1502
FRC #0470 (Alpha Omega Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1994
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 491
kmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond reputekmcclary has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 4 inches vs. 1 foot

This is how we handle this kind of situation:

At the start of each season, we always have our team define from three to five design goals for the robot, and arrange them in priority order. (The robot must accomplish task #1 before tackling task #2, etc...)

Our mentors are a part of the brainstorming process, but only the students vote on the goals. Mentors may override/veto a goal due to physical impossibility (nope, no levitating robots again this year, darn...), or lack of resources to accomplish it (no money, time, tools, space, insufficient programmers available, etc), but our Mentors' primary job is really to facilitate the students (via training, advice, etc.) to allow them to build the robot of their choice.

Next: The method by which the goals are accomplished is totally under control of the sub-group that is responsible for doing it! Example: our goals imply that the drivetrain has to achieve certain performance requirements, but only the Drivetrain group determines HOW that'll be done. Same for the Manipulation ("Payload") group, etc... This prevents one group (or even a majority of the team) from telling another to do something this way, then walk away leaving a small group of students (and their mentor[s]) holding the bag. As long as the machine accomplishes its goals, it's all good!

Had we found ourselves in your situation, we'd let the subgroup decide on a new method to accomplish it (wings vs ramps vs bot top, etc). If that's the top priority, then be we'd shift resources (from everything else if need be) to help them solve it, so we didn't have to abandon the goal.

BTW... Our robot's volume is negotiated as we go along, but most subgroups have very specific "volumes of control" and hardpoints established early on, as soon as they figure out HOW they're going to accomplish their task(s). If a subgroup later must impinge on another's volume area or change a hardpoint, those two subgroups need to talk it out.


Here's how this year worked for us (so far): We brainstormed the day after kickoff. The students created five goals, and sorted them by priority. This list was then quickly ratified by a general consensus of the student body the following day at a general meeting. That meant we had our guideline goals and priorities established within two-three days after kickoff!

Now we had no clue of HOW to accomplish any of it at that point, but we firmly knew WHAT we wished to do! Then, the subgroups all started making their design decisions, and met with whatever other student subteam leaders as need be, to work out gory details.

Status: As of today, Goals #1 and #2 are definitely being accomplished by our machine. #3 was abandoned when testing proved it wasn't a good idea after all, and we determined by the end of week 3 that we'd be out of weight allowance way before we can accomplish #5, so we're not even wasting any more time on it. #4 may still be a possibility, but it's so doubtful at this point we're not worrying about it anymore, and students have already been moved from it to more pressing tasks.

So... Even though we may end up with a machine that'll only do our top couple of items, those two are so strong the students are very satisfied with the machine we're creating. NONE of our goals needed to be modified in any way.

Now Mentors often had to point at the goal priority list when things started to drift or disagreements arose, but that guideline was a fantastic aid to focus our attention, and efforts. It allowed the students to quickly (and peacefully!) resolve conflicts amongst themselves, because they set the priority list in the first place! (Variants of "Oh yea, I forgot that was our first goal" etc... was heard.)

Once established, if someone wishes to CHANGE those goals, it had to be done via agreement by EVERYONE. That typically doesn't happen. The Methods often change, but the goals themselves don't change.

Now, all that said, let's address your situation...

IMHO it's really late in the build to be completely changing your strategy! Would four inches be your ONLY goal left? If not, and you haven't done it yet, please consider prioritizing *all* of your goals, asap!

The biggest problem I often see (without priorities being set) is you tend to end up with "kitchen sink bots" that do nothing well, because groups of students are all working on different things, and no one has a clue until the very end what will be on the bot. OR, people end up fighting at the END of the build as to what is going onto the bot when they've run out of resources (weight, money, space, the ability to accomplish some task, etc...) because there was no GUIDE established.

Also, because the order of what they should be working on things was never established, you end up in a situation where a lot of subteam time was wasted (or hurt feelings arose because their idea wasn't used). Or, the robot completely transformed after all of their work was done because someone had to step in and change something major to make sure the robot is "deliverable".

That is a shame, and can even tear a team apart.

Is this your case now?

So, my question really becomes: Is going for 4" what the students wish to do now as their top priority? Was lifting (one bot? two bots?) 12" your highest priority, or is (was) something else your highest priority, like "manipulating ringers & spoilers", or "climbing upon another bot"?

If for example "manipulating the ringers and spoilers well, at the top level" was your #1, AND you've accomplished it, I wouldn't really sweat the 4" vs 12" thing at all!

OTOH, if this is the ONLY thing you're doing, then I'd really wonder if there isn't a way to still accomplish the 12" with whatever you have on hand, by shifting resources.


Bottom line: IMO, you need to let your student established priorities decide what the bot should do, whatever that may be. Unless that is physically impossible, I'd hope that your mentors can be convinced to strive hard to support your goals.

But this is just my $0.02... Don't get me wrong, teams work very well with many other organizational configurations. Many use "competing design mini-teams", "centralized design with CAD and simulation first", and other methods. All are perfectly valid methods to approach this contest.

However, this is just how we avoid the entire "NOW what'll we do" dilemma late in the build when something goes horribly wrong. Whenever we run out of something, we simply just drop as many of the lower priority tasks as we have to, to allow us to shift resources (weight, student manpower, money, etc.) to focus on the higher priority goals! Our organizational method allows student subgroups the autonomy to decide on methodology, and to explore alternatives at will, without stopping everyone to involve them in making decisions on things they won't be held responsible to accomplish.

This seems to work for us.

Does this discussion of our methodology help you at all?

- Keith McClary
Chief Engineer, Team 1502 "Technical Difficulties"
__________________
Keith McClary - Organizer/Mentor/Sponsor - Ann Arbor MI area FIRST teams
ACTI - Automation Computer Technologies, Inc. (Sponsoring FIRST teams since 2001!)
MI Robot Club (Trainer) / GO-Tech Maker's Club / RepRap-Michigan) / SEMI CNC Club
"Certifiably Insane": Started FIVE FRC teams & many robot clubs (so far)!
2002: 830 "Rat Pack" | 2003-5;14: 1015;1076 "Pi Hi Samurai" | 2005-6: 1549 "Washtenuts"/"Fire Traxx"
2005-(on): 1502 "Technical Difficulties" | 2006-(on): FIRST Volunteer!
2009-(on): 470 "Alpha Omega" | WAFL | Sponsor & "Floating Engineer" for MI Dist 13 (Washtenaw Cnty)
2011: 3638 "Tigertrons" | 2013-(on): 4395 "ViBots" | 2014-(on) 66 "Grizzlies"
"Home" Teams: 66, 470, 1076, 1502, 4395
Local FIRST alumni at or coming to Ann Arbor (UM/EMU/WCC/Cleary)?
...We Want YOU as a Mentor! Please email me for info!
Support CDF Reputation - If a posting helped, thank 'em with rep points!
"It must be FRC build season when your spouse and children become 'Action Items 8 & 9'..."