FIRST Five-Year Strategic Plan (2013-2017)

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by hiyou102

That's what I was thinking. Coming from a non-middle of the pack country I really wonder if it's within FIRST's plan to really help us. Since we are a competing nation that ranks higher in education wouldn't it make things harder for America if we became even more educated?

I also thought it was odd at Champs when they kept on talking about Americas success even though there plenty of non-Americans there. It seems strange that we come to a competition in which the host country keeps on talking about beating us.

Please excuse our politicians. Even we really don't like them.

Do foreign political figures not talk about wanting to win all the time?

I guess the question is: “If we raise the level and interest in STEM significantly in all those 60 plus countries, but the USA is still in the middle of the pack, is this success?” To what extent is it okay to help other countries build their technical capability?

That's an interesting question, and the answer really depends on who you ask. If you ask the Dow 30 I would think the answer would be, "No time to talk, have to go hire new workers!" If you ask an American politician, I've got imagine the answer is no.

Winning is awesome, but I think most of us would rather win in a situation where the bar has been raised to new heights than one where its sitting in the mud.

I think it is absolutely FIRST's plan to elevate everyone, but I think they'd rather it slip under the radar at events since they seem to be heavily courting Uncle Sam.

[richardyun]

Good points Ian. thanks

[Astrokid248]

Originally Posted by Wing

I feel like the "budget" point looks towards Districting to counter the cost issue. I feel like having districts will also make the FRC experience much better for newcoming teams, and promote growth in the areas (the huge growth in estimated number of teams by 2016 could be attributed to this). Though, i sort of felt like this was more of a skimming of the actual strategy, and doesn't discuss much implementation. Maybe that's for the eyes of those in FIRST only?

On the one hand, you're definitely right about the cost aspect. But I know a lot of the more competitive teams have to travel away from their "home" regional just to have a balanced field of play. Losing the travel and the higher level of competition is a major barrier to getting the district model working outside of Michigan and MAR. I hope FIRST is prepared for that, and I wish there was a compromise solution that allows both rookies and veterans a fair competition. Maybe the district model, but with a way to qualify for out of state competitions?

Originally Posted by jcarr

I noticed that FTC is targeting middle school which is interesting. We had two middle school FLL graduates on our rookie FTC team and the team reached the World Championship, so they can handle the competition (although the kids were an accomplished FLL team that won a state championship). However, going younger doesn't quite mesh with the rule change introducing welding and machining parts into the FTC game.

Here in Houston, we ignore the ages FIRST gives. For the most part it's JrFLL/EARLY for young elementary, FLL for old elementary, BEST/VEX/FTC for middle school and the fall season in high school, and then FRC in high school for spring. The model works really great for kids who start at the elementary level and move all the way up. I'd like to think that FIRST noticed, and is hoping it can work in other regions.

One of the issues I wish FIRST would focus on is the lack of a mentor base. Starting new teams everywhere is all fine and dandy, but those teams need mentors. I think a slower growth model, with a focus on getting both new mentors and FIRST alumni who have graduated college to join new teams, would be more beneficial in the long run. It creates a feedback loop, and I think it's important for rookies to see that FIRST has that kind of staying power in an individuals life.

[BJC]

Originally Posted by Astrokid248

On the one hand, you're definitely right about the cost aspect. But I know a lot of the more competitive teams have to travel away from their "home" regional just to have a balanced field of play. Losing the travel and the higher level of competition is a major barrier to getting the district model working outside of Michigan and MAR. I hope FIRST is prepared for that, and I wish there was a compromise solution that allows both rookies and veterans a fair competition. Maybe the district model, but with a way to qualify for out of state competitions?

The solution to this is actually fairly intuitive. If everywhere has the "district" model and everyone is being ranked based on the "district" point system then there is no reason that any team could not go to any other competition. It would be, essentially, how it is now, but less expensive and with a better ranking system that rewards teams for performing well - not just for winning. It's only in the transition period into the "district" model (where we are now) that there are there boundaries on where teams can attend.

* I put "district" in quotes because it really isn't a good term to describe the model. It is and always has been a system designed to cut costs and increase play time. There doesn't actually have to be anything location specific about it.

Regards, Bryan

[Astrokid248]

Huh. I never thought of it that way. Well, I hope that, if the district model becomes the standard, they'll allow travel like you stated.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by BJC

* I put "district" in quotes because it really isn't a good term to describe the model. It is and always has been a system designed to cut costs and increase play time. There doesn't actually have to be anything location specific about it.

That isn't how I understood the original FiM push for district events when it was being done. During the brief time between my hearing rumors of it and the official announcement, I always heard one dominant reason: the quantity of teams in Michigan was too high for all of them to be able to participate in one of the three "local" regional competitions, and there weren't any good places to add more full-scale regionals.

There was a lot of discussion between FiM and FIRST about how to deal with the money part of it, and what to do about robot shipping and drayage. Eventually it worked out that the large number of smaller/cheaper district events was a way to give teams nearly twice as much competition time for a single entry fee. The "bag & tag" experiment was a success and is now the standard for all of FRC. But the first information I heard about the Michigan region was based on the need to accommodate more teams, and the benefits of lower cost and more play time were listed as desireable outcomes of the plan rather than primary goals.

[BJC]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

That isn't how I understood the original FiM push for district events when it was being done. During the brief time between my hearing rumors of it and the official announcement, I always heard one dominant reason: the quantity of teams in Michigan was too high for all of them to be able to participate in one of the three "local" regional competitions, and there weren't any good places to add more full-scale regionals.

There was a lot of discussion between FiM and FIRST about how to deal with the money part of it, and what to do about robot shipping and drayage. Eventually it worked out that the large number of smaller/cheaper district events was a way to give teams nearly twice as much competition time for a single entry fee. The "bag & tag" experiment was a success and is now the standard for all of FRC. But the first information I heard about the Michigan region was based on the need to accommodate more teams, and the benefits of lower cost and more play time were listed as desireable outcomes of the plan rather than primary goals.

Sorry, I'm a bit late to the party in responding to this.

I am fairly knowledgeable on the topic as I have all my information firsthand from Jim Z but I am by no means an expert. Because I don't have an answer for you that I know is correct I am not going to speculate about exactly what FIM's goals were in the beginning. I'll only to say that it has become an engine to do what I described if it is allowed to be by FIRST.

While I don't have all the answers about FIM I do know that Jim Zondag was going to release a paper about FIM: how it works, what it’s purpose is, etc. Unless things have changed that should be released sometime between now and kickoff. (but don't hold me to it)

Regards, Bryan

[Jim Zondag]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I always heard one dominant reason: the quantity of teams in Michigan was too high for all of them to be able to participate in one of the three "local" regional competitions, and there weren't any good places to add more full-scale regionals.

Not True:
The primary motivation behind FiM was financial.
It was a financial consideration on several fronts, but trust me, the reason it happened when it did, the way it did was because the traditional system would have likely bankrupted FRC in our region in 2009 if we had not done this.

The District System saves money for teams and the regional committees in several ways: reduced travel costs, lower entry fees, lower cost per match, no shipping, 2 day events; but the really, really big item is lower event production costs. The low cost events as we piloted them in 2008-2009 can often be run for less than 10% of traditional FRC event costs. In 2012, the annual savings from doing this in our State is nearly one Million Dollars! Per Year! This is huge because we can still raise much of this money from the sponsoring companies, but instead of blowing it all on lights, AV, and roadies from the East coast, we can use this money to fund teams and new local growth.

All of the competitive restructuring we did at the same time was related to other goals and motivations we had desired for years, so we included all of this in the system we proposed in 2008 and are much better for it. We want to increase opportunity and availablity of events for our teams, and increase the competitive level of the sport, so we did.

Increasing the Return on Investment of FRC is one of our primary goals at FiM. To increase ROI, you can reduce costs, you can improve returns, or ideally you do both. The District system does both very effectively. Our hope is that as more regions migrate, that collectively we can discover even better ways of operating. FRC is filled with some of the smartest people on Earth, and together we can make anything better than it is today. FRC in its traditional form is simply too expensive. We took a big first step toward reducing the price point of participation, but there are many more opportunitites for futher improvement.

100 years ago Henry Ford, one of the great innovators of the modern age, was viewed as a genius with his revolutionary business model to lower a product's cost and the company's profit margin in exchange for increased sales volume. The result made the automobile available to many, many more people instead of just the rich, made Ford Motor Co. very wealthy, and changed the culture of our society. Win, Win, Win,

This century old idea applies well to FIRST:
We want FRC available to everyone, just as Henry Ford did.
We want to change our society, just as Henry Ford did.
He dramatically reduced consumer costs to achieve the accessability needed to achieve this goal. FIRST should do the same if they ever want to achieve the results Dean envisions. High costs are a deterent to growth, and rounding up grants from big companies is not the same as systemic cost reduction. Some of the statements in the 5 year plan give me hope that the leadership of FIRST have finally realized this, but we will have to wait an see.

BJC is right, I have been writing a District description paper with some of this back history and justification on and off for a while. Life keeps getting in the way, and every time I pick it back up, I feel the need to rewrite it all over again. I will complete and post this someday soon.