Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz
How do you tell a team that they have the wrong motor when their entire design relies on the use of the illegal motor. There is no easy way to do that but it must be done. I find that openly discussing it with the mentors and students in their pit is the best way.
|
This is absolutely the most difficult task of the robot inspector. How this sort of situation is handled can impact a team's entire FIRST experience, positively or negatively.
From my experience, this sort of dramatic non-compliance happens 2-3 times at each regional. I have found that the EARLIER this situation is detected, the better the outcome will be. This is why we inspectors ask the teams to begin their inspections as early as possible, and this is also why we go out to the teams as soon as we can, to find these things.
Finding a major non-compliance and addressing this with the team is a delicate and sensitive situation. How the detection came about is really beside the point. Sometimes this comes from another team, sometimes the inspectors see it first. I feel that if another team sees this, they should immediately come to the Lead Robot Inspector, as this can be a difficult situation to handle. Here is how I usually handle it:
1. Gather the team's pit members around the robot (adults and students), and point out the infraction (for example: this Globe motor is not legal this year). Point out that this motor is not allowed on the robot.
2. I am ready to cite the rule. The immediate reaction of the team is to be defensive. They don't believe that I am correct. I listen to them, and explain the facts of the rule and possibly some background as I know it. ("yes, I was frustrated that this motor left the kit this too, but it is simply not legal")
3. I offer them ways to help. For example, another team has a similar mechanism done with a legal motor, maybe they can talk to that team to get assistance. This step is key in getting them to look at this situation as positively as they can, instead of just fighting about it.
4. I remind them that they will not be legal to pass inspection with that motor on their robot. I tell them that I will check back with them later. At this point, I usually leave them alone for 15-20 minutes, to let them go through an acceptance process on their own. This lets them get over their frustration (hopefully), and allows them to devise a preliminary plan. I know that I just dropped a bomb on them, and I need to let them recover without me micro-managing the situation.
5. Usually, one of the team members find me and they want to show me what has happened before I get back with them (LRI's tend to get busy with other teams). At this point, 90% of the time, the attitude of the team has changed from defensiveness and disbelief to understanding and productiveness. They usually appreciate the help already provided in #3 above. If not, they may need more help. Sometimes, they are very discouraged since this motor may be an integral part of their strategy. If needed, I may ask questions and try to get them to look at a simpler strategy. ("can you push balls into the goal?")
I have seen inspectors who don't do much work on #3 and #5. They just cite the rule, dropping a bomb on the team and then walk away. This easily damages the experience of the team. If the inspector listens to the team and works with them to suggest ways to be compliant, and then pays attention to their progress, then the team can have a very positive experience. Just how positive this experience depends on how early this situation is detected and how tactful the inspectors and other teams (if they detected it) handled the situation.
I hope this helps the discussion, from an inspector's viewpoint.
Andy B.