Posted by Jerry Eckert, Engineer on team #140 from Tyngsboro, MA High School and New England Prototype/Brooks Automation.
Posted on 3/31/99 9:27 AM MST
In Reply to: PERFECT WORLD posted by Bill Beatty on 3/31/99 8:16 AM MST:
: After much thought, I think my preference would be to make the alliance selection an automatic thing. The No. 1 seed would be paired with the No. 17 and No. 33 seed, the No. 2 seed would be paired with the No. 18 and No. 34 seed and so on. The only option would be for a team to withdraw for mechanical or personal reasons, and then the short alliance would pick from the remaining field. This process would eliminate pre-alliances, backroom deals, and rejections, while saving precious time in Florida. The alliances could meet during the entire lunch period and map out strategy.
I believe the process of selecting an alliance partner for the elimination
rounds is a significant part of the design of this contest. It wouldn't
surprise me if Dean and Woody anticipated the pre-arranged alliances, or
even intentionally allowed them.
Many people, myself included, have criticized FIRST for putting more
emphasis on show than providing an opportunity to teach the students
about engineering. Dean has been quoted by a number of people as saying
that this is precisely his intention -- to _expose_ students to technology
in a manner which will catch their attention.
Let's take this paradigm one step further.
As most of you have probably observed, for the past few years the business
world has been dominated by mergers and takeovers. No longer are the most
successful companies the ones with the best products, they are the ones
who swing the best deals. Sometimes the deals are purely financial
transactions (hostile takeovers and buyouts), other times they are
arranged partnerships based on mutually complementary products and
strategies.
Consider the parallels to the alliance selection process.
In FIRST, wealth is measured by seeding position rather than money.
Mergers can be formed on the basis of wealth (picking or accepting
alliances based on the teams seeding position), or by looking deeper
at the other teams' products and seeing which best complement your own.
Some teams may value their increased contribution in an alliance with a
lower ranked team over being a more passive partner in an alliance with
a higher ranked team which may stand a better chance of winning.
Perhaps Dean and Woody have intentionally designed the competiton
to expose the students to all of these factors and to let them see
the results first-hand (no pun intended

. To give them some insight
into the non-technologic factors which drive the buisness of technology.
As much as we engineers (and I include myself here) may not like it,
the business of technology is a lot different today than it was 20 or
30 years ago. Then, the companies with the best products were at the
top: IBM, ATT, DEC, etc. Today, the product is a much smaller factor
in the equation for success than it was then.
As an example, consider Microsoft. They may be #1, but they are far
from being the best product. They have succeeded by Marketing.
Many superior products have come and gone, yet MS is still here because
they have better strategy and better marketing.
It may not be pretty, but that's the way it is.
Entertainment and competition are both important and very obvious aspects
of FIRST -- but they are only the vehicle, not the message. The primary
mission of FIRST is to expose students technology and it's importance
in the world. It would certainly make sense that as part of that exposure
they are also introduced to some of the factors that are inevitably
linked with technology in the real world. To intentionally isolate them
from these factors would be a doing them a disservice.
When I went to school we were taught a lot about engineering but little
about the 'real world'. The hardest part of my first jobs was not the
technical aspects, but rather dealing with the business factors. I have
to imagine this would be even more so today. If we're going to steer
students towards career in science and technology it's only fair that
we let them see the whole picture so they can make a better informed
decision about whether this the _career_ for them, rather than just being
an interesting subject to master.
As an engineer, I'd like FIRST to be more of an engineering project.
To have more time to be able to teach the students and teachers how
to design a robot rather than just show them how.
But that's not how it is. And for that I highly commend Dean and Woody --
and whoever else may have has a role behind the scenes -- for the tremendous
insight and foresight, to say nothing of the dedication, they have brought
to FIRST.
Well, I guess I've rambled long enough. I hope this all makes sense to
someone...
- Jerry