Chairman's Award Concerns

[JaneYoung]

If the Chairman's Award has become mired in an atmosphere of distrust and needs policing, then it is the teams that should be held accountable for creating that atmosphere. All of the teams.

I have been on the receiving end of being told that our team has exaggerated what it has done in our community. The person who made the accusations was invited to spend time with our team and to see what we do in our shop and in our community. He did not take me up on my offer.

You can ask for videos of presentations and you can crowdsource the fact-checking if necessary. You can display the presentation teams on the field before eliminations and push them into an atmosphere of being fed to the lions.

Or, you can allow the process to work and rely on the credentials and credibility of the judges. Yes, there are ways to make the process more transparent - such as the suggestions that Jeff and Dr. Cameron have made. Their suggestions remind us of the value of our community not the need for self-appointed police.

Jane

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Jedward45

Making things more transparent does not need to include an active process of teams criticizing or judging other teams. It could be as passive as teams choosing to be more honest in their presentations because they have to present their accomplishments to others.

Pretty much.

In a manner that improves our FRC community as a whole.

Jane

[Jedward45]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

In a manner that improves our FRC community as a whole.

Just for clarification, what specific methods of improving transparency wouldn't improve the FIRST community? —what effective alternatives do you support?

[elemental]

I might be wrong, but I believe I read that, starting next year, Regional Chairman award winner's essays will be posted on usfirst.org. This might be an incentive for submitting teams to evaluate their claims before submitting.

From a team's vantage point, the best way to demonstrate impact is through documentation. Take lots of pictures and get written feedback. Make scrapbooks of events, news items, flyers, etc. Leave the notebooks in your pit area and allow other teams to look through them.
If a regional is local, invite FLL and FTC teams that you mentored and give them a tour of your pit. (I gave a tour to an FLL team last year and it turned out to be one of my favorite parts of the regional!)

Judges also can talk to rookies that older teams mentor and ask about level of support.

Edit: Here is the post that mentions posting essays on usfirst.org: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...6&postcount=12

[JaneYoung]

This:

Originally Posted by N7UJJ

Excellent idea!
I've toyed with the idea of asking if a team could videotape their presentation so other teams could see the presentation process and perhaps be inspired to come up with more effective presentations. However, there are drawbacks if teams focus too much on their 5 minute presentation rather than how the team works towards their vision of FIRST core values.

Watching a voluntary "live" presentation allows teams to not only see some good presentations, but to interact with team members who are striving to change the culture. That interaction and exchange of ideas and issues would really be one public display of what FIRST is all about.

Any team could find a place at a competition (even the parking lot!) and publicize the time and place. Saturday would be a good time since the presentations to the judges would be completed and the presenters would have chance to give their impressions on what the judges focused on.

I really like this idea! I would love to see the presentations!

If any proposals are made to FIRST HQ regarding more transparent opportunities involving the Chairman's Award process, they should be done in a thoughtful manner that highlights the integrity aspect of the teams that submit for the Award and the desire to maintain the quality and integrity of the Award, itself.

I am not in favor of crowdsourcing and fact-checking in an arena-type atmosphere. It would open our community to more subjectivity, not less, in my opinion.

Jane

[N7UJJ]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

This:



If any proposals are made to FIRST HQ
...
I am not in favor of crowdsourcing and fact-checking in an arena-type atmosphere. It would open our community to more subjectivity, not less, in my opinion.

Jane

The reason I liked Wetzel's idea of teams volunteering to publicly perform their Chairman's presentation:

As long as we have been hosting FLL competitions, we have live video feeds of the kids presentations streamed to room(s) so parents and others can see the presentations. It is very popular. It is amazing to see the performances and creativity of teams. It is especially informative for rookie teams to see the variety of presentations.

As for FRC, I've always been a bit bothered by the almost secrecy of Chairman's presentations. On the whole, team 842 has found that sharing information about robots, robot designs and our Chairman essays have helped others and has been an asset to us as we build communications with other teams.

We have always offered and have been willing to help other teams with "Chairman's advice". This year, as always, the Coconuts previewed their presentation to some of our team. The Coconuts were awarded their 3rd CA this year. Intrateam cooperation creates a better Chairman's presentation just like it creates better robots.

Our team, 842, has not done a Chairman's presentation for a few years since we were awarded the Championship Chairman. Otherwise, I would suggest our team plan to voluntarily perform our presentation, and a Q&A on Saturday of the regional and world so newer teams and veteran can learn, criticize, interact and share. It would take some of the mystery out of a process that only three members of a team experience.
I would think other teams would want to do the same.
Not required, not dependant on FIRST approval, not resource costly… Just sharing experiences.

[Mark Sheridan]

To me this is very similar to an interview process. Knowing the people who conduct interviews at my company, a large part of the thought process about of the potential candidate is being able to determine if the person actually did what they claimed. It involves a lot of follow up questions, calling up references and requesting the citation of sources. I remember in my interview showing my CAD drawings to demonstrate my proficiency.

I feel all the FIRST judges are experienced enough to go through this very same process. Asking detailed questions would sort out most situations. If we wanted more fact checking. Perhaps being able to cite references would help. If a team had a newspaper article describing their community work, seems to me like a good thing to put in a chairmans essay as a reference. If a team started an FLL team, list the contact info of those teams.

Overall, I feel the judges already know that the truth can be stretched. I am positive they ask the right questions and find the truth. I doubt a team would lack enough integrity to try to deceive the judges. If they did, i feel it would be obvious.

[KelliV]

It is not the FIRST public's job to judge the validity of a team's statements. That is in the hands of the judges, many of whom have been judging Regional and Championship Chairman's Awards for years now, I'd like to think they are pretty good at what they do.

What I advocate instead is to talk to the teams who have submitted a Chairman's Award, wether you are entering or not. While simply watching presentations are all well and good, please keep in mind that a 5 minute presentation cannot come close to explaining an entire team's history. Going to a team's pit and talking to students and mentors who helped plan and execute their events will provide you with much more information.

This year while in St. Louis or at your respective regionals take the time to talk to students and learn how they ran their events, started other teams, and gave back to their community. Learn from each other, isn't that what FIRST is all about? Inspiring others to spread the word and give back to the communities that have already given so much to the teams. Rather than wasting time fact checking every little comment to disqualify someone's claim why not do something more in your community? Strive to inspire more! If you're upset a team claimed they helped the same rookie you did, create another rookie team next year, host an offseason event! Tell people about FIRST at Pancake Breakfast's! Alert the presses! Take Photos! Get your team out there in public, once you see everyone you help along the way their thanks will be more important to you than winning a trophy, and sooner or later the judges will take notice. Winning the Chairman's Award should not be all about the trophy, it's about the journey to get there and celebrating your team's accomplishments.

[RoboMom]

Originally Posted by elemental

I might be wrong, but I believe I read that, starting next year, Regional Chairman award winner's essays will be posted on usfirst.org. This might be an incentive for submitting teams to evaluate their claims before submitting.

Edit: Here is the post that mentions posting essays on usfirst.org: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...6&postcount=12

It was announced in Oct. 2011 that starting in 2012, all winning RCA written submissions would be posted on the usfirst.org site within a week of earning the award.

The recording can be found here: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...nce-recordings

When I inquired a couple of weeks ago I was told that it was not being implemented this year.

I was disappointed. It's not the fact-checking I am interested in. It's the inspiration.

[Katie_UPS]

I respect this thread for bringing up the elephant in many rooms and addressing it, even though the immediate response can potentially be that the OP is unGP.

A true chairman's team will share their paper and presentation with anyone who asks, because its not about the award but the process teams go through (competition for the chairman's award is the best). I can't imagine a team who is chairman's caliber not sharing their wealth of knowledge for the thrill of the win.

My $.02.

[Jedward45]

Originally Posted by Katie_UPS

I can't imagine a team who is chairman's caliber not sharing their wealth of knowledge for the thrill of the win.

For starters, thanks for not labeling me unGP. GP has truly changed the way i perceive competitions and robotics. It pains me when people assume any criticism is malicious and/or ungracious. I may be on a bit of a tangent here, but personally I view constructive criticism as essential to GP, as people who bury their concerns can sometimes have an explosive outburst later on.... as we've all seen on this forum before.

On to the issue at hand:
While most chairmans teams do rightfully serve as an inspiration for others, I see the potential for teams that feel their projects or events were claimed to loose that valuable sentiment.

[Levansic]

Chairman's is really hard to discuss online, because so many people tie so much emotion to their views about the award and judging of the award. Plain text just can't carry the full weight of the discussion, without being misinterpreted by a few participants.

This being said, my team just won their second RCA this weekend at Las Vegas. We weren't expecting this award, as there were so many great teams at that regional.

Our team had been in existence since 2000, and when my wife and I joined, in the 2009 season, they had not yet won the award. Winning a RCA was an all-consuming obsession for the outgoing advisor and head mentor. My wife was the new advisor, and we were both rather put-off with constantly hearing "this will look good for Chairman's" while the discussed act was superficial and usually external to the team's activities.

We forced a culture change within the team. All mention of the Chairman's award was banished. The team started STEM outreach programs, with real commitments of time from the team members. We gave talks to civic groups and industry conferences, to explain FIRST and the importance of STEM education. The team expanded to a year-round club, instead of just meeting during build and competition season. We instituted mentor conduct rules, and emphasized Gracious Professionalism. We did our best to help a neighboring team that self-destructed during build. With all of this, we saw ourselves on the path to becoming the team we thought we could be someday, but nothing really special, yet.

As a NASA team, we submitted a Chairman's essay as required, and presented on our actual efforts. At the 2010 Las Vegas regional, we won our first RCA. We were stunned, and sincerely humbled by the recognition.

What does this rambling mean for the RCA and judging? Not much. Just that this was our path for success. Ignore the award. Do the right things, and set the right culture in your team. Document your real efforts, set high expectations for conduct embracing Gracious Professionalism, and have fun!

-- Len

[nobrakes8]

Originally Posted by RoboMom

It was announced in Oct. 2011 that starting in 2012, all winning RCA written submissions would be posted on the usfirst.org site within a week of earning the award.

The recording can be found here: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...nce-recordings

When I inquired a couple of weeks ago I was told that it was not being implemented this year.

I was disappointed. It's not the fact-checking I am interested in. It's the inspiration.

I'm disappointed as well. I really wanted to see what smaller teams who may have won the chairman's award had done to see if there is anything our team could be doing better with limited resources.

Also, a point one of the speakers made on that phone call is that sometimes teams who do exaggerate their role in doing something get caught. Team X may take full credit for mentoring a rookie or FLL team and a few presentations later Team Y may present specifics showing how they actually played a major role in mentoring that same team --so sometimes teams get weeded out pretty easily. I'd be surprised to find many teams crossing the line from exaggeration to blatantly lying.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by nobrakes8

I'm disappointed as well. I really wanted to see what smaller teams who may have won the chairman's award had done to see if there is anything our team could be doing better with limited resources.
.

If you're interested in smaller teams that have won Chairman's take a look at our thread here

I've posted just about all of our Chairman's stuff there. I'm hoping to get a video of the team practicing the presentation up with in the next few weeks.

We really didn't expect to win Chairman's this year, so anything we can do to help other small and upstart teams have a shot, we are happy to do.

[Steve W]

CA is suppose to be the top award in FIRST. We are here discussing teams that maybe stretch the truth. Maybe the real issue is that more time MUST be taken with the teams to discuss, question and evaluate. 10 minutes for the top award. Are you kidding? If there are a lot of teams then have 2 or 3 panels of judges. Each panel could choose the top of their group and then have all judges present for a second presentation (can be shorter) of the 3 in contention. A decision could then be made with all judges present.

Maybe I am wrong but how can a judge make an informed decision in 10 minutes. I have seen judges spend way more than that talking to teams about other awards. Give them the time they need and throw away the clock. Better decisions can be made with more time for questions and answers. Will this be perfect, no BUT it will be 100% better.