Proposal: A New Way to Run FIRST Choice

[Brandon Holley]

The people at HQ and AM work very hard, I don't think anyone in this thread or involved in FIRST is questioning their efforts. However, I do think teams who have been deeply affected by this (my team included) have a right to look at the system and ask how it can be improved (many of us ARE engineers, or think like engineers....).

I think the draft system is an obvious leap to take, and is probably closer to the "ideal solution" than the current system. I do think there is an intermediate step that could be taken as well.

Market-driven ranking of the products is a good start. Poll all of the teams in October and ask them to rank what their top 5 selections would be given the catalog of FIRST choice options. Based on quantity of votes and quantity of product available, rank the choices more logically.

The Talon would obviously be high up on the ranking. Although there were 400 available, no hard limit allowed teams to buy them up ~10 at a time. By implementing a hard limit for this item, or a more cost prohibitive limit (25 credits?) the # of Talons available to each team would have been reduced. This allows more teams to get their hands on useful equipment. Maybe teams won't end up with enough speed controllers to outfit their entire robot, but now more teams will be able to outfit 30-50% of their robot with speed controllers.

I think there are many options available, and my hope is that we can provide constructive feedback without it being misconstrued as "attacking" staff members. We're all very passionate about this program, and we all invest a lot of time and money into it.

I have a duty to my team and our sponsors to ensure we are being put in a fair position with regards to how our finances are spent. Luckily- we are a team who can absorb the cost of a misfired FIRST Choice without it devastating our team, however I know for a fact many teams are not in this fortunate position.

-Brando

[tsaksa]

The issue with FIRST Choice seems to be one of too many teams chasing too few resources. Perhaps the solution is not a draft or lottery, but one of scaling back the intent of the program. As was already mentioned, it is getting harder and harder to solicit donations that can benefit teams equally when there are now so many teams. I hope I do not offend anyone out there, but do I do not know if all the teams really need FIRST Choice, while for others it may mean the difference between being able to compete.

If we really want to have FIRST grow to the point where it can reach students in every school can we expect FIRST Choice to continually serve all of those teams equally? Right now there is an extreme discrepancy in the funding available to teams in smaller towns, rural areas, or economically depressed areas. And yet there are a lot of teams out there with budgets that should allow then to build a robot even without FIRST Choice. Allowing early access to resources based on need might be a way to more equitably distribute scarce resources.

I know that FIRST Choice was intended to be a part of the KOP, and not a funding program. But I for one would rather see early access to ordering on FIRST Choice offered to rookie teams and teams demonstrated financial need rather than a random drawing if that is being considered. The other teams could be offered access to what is left a few days later. Just trying to consider a new way to look at the issue. I hope no one takes offence.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by tsaksa

I know that FIRST Choice was intended to be a part of the KOP, and not a funding program. But I for one would rather see early access to ordering on FIRST Choice offered to rookie teams and teams demonstrated financial need rather than a random drawing if that is being considered. The other teams could be offered access to what is left a few days later. Just trying to consider a new way to look at the issue. I hope no one takes offence.

I like the sentiment, but I regret to inform you that your idea is even less likely to be implemented than the draft system proposed in this thread.

Two reasons:
1. Determining who has a greater need for the resources would be a bit of a nightmare. Even if you assume single regional teams are the most needy, you're going to have a hard time prioritizing.
2. FRC has had a pretty constant position on things like this, oft repeated at the kickoff: Life's not fair. I don't think it's meant in a mean-spirited way, but there really doesn't seem to be much interest in doing things to level the resources field among teams. The GDC's advice to low resource teams is pretty consistently that they should work harder and find more resources.

The latter point is the main reason I doubt the draft process has much chance of getting implemented, regardless of how good an idea it seems.

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

2. FRC has had a pretty constant position on things like this, oft repeated at the kickoff: Life's not fair. I don't think it's meant in a mean-spirited way, but there really doesn't seem to be much interest in doing things to level the resources field among teams. The GDC's advice to low resource teams is pretty consistently that they should work harder and find more resources.

I was going to post something similar but refrained from doing so. Thanks for getting it out there. It's easy to feel sorry for teams without the fortunate circumstances others enjoy. However, we'd be in a much worse state if we embraced the idea that everyone who needs help is entitled to it. Then you basically enter a competition of who can prove to be more needy than the next, which is not at all where we want to go. I'd rather compete for resources than lack thereof.

[billbo911]

I hate to say it, and really don't want to see it happen, but there really is only one way to make the parts distribution in the KOP "fair". That is to go back to the old model where everyone gets the same KOP. The only exception is for rookie teams who also get a controller and extra battery.

I understand why FIRST moved away from this model, but these parts issued have been around ever since the change to some degree. It just seems to have hit a peak this time around.


Here's a slightly off topic but related question.

How do you define what "fair" is?

Here are two versions I see a lot, but are by no means definitive.
"Equal outcome for all regardless of effort applied." I see this one used in reference to socioeconomic conversations.
"Outcome proportionate to effort applied." This one is used more often when applied to employment and income.

What I would like to believe in means in respect to this specific thread is:
"The same resources are equally available to choose from, for all teams."

So, what do you think? (Or maybe this needs to be in a thread by it's self.)

[JohnChristensen]

Life is not fair and never will be. If there is one thing that really irks me is how often I see and hear that "Everyone is a Winner." That attitude does not improve anything, I believe it makes things worse. I don't believe the ideas presented in this thread by everyone who has participated are about making FIRSTChoice perfectly fair. Nothing will ever be perfectly fair and that does not need to be a goal.

As an engineer, I am always interested in improving efficiency and performance. The reason for this thread is not to have pity party about unfair things in life, but to discuss ways to improve a system. I have be discouraging by all the negative comments in all the other threads today (and while I am not blaming anyone who feels cheated by what happened) I think the best course of action is to discuss solutions.

My idea is only that, an idea. I would also fully support another idea if it would eliminate the major short comings that affect teams' mentors who have to order parts and meet budgets.

[Patrick Flynn]

I think that a possible way to improve this process would be to split the stock of FIRST choice products into thirds or even more. Have the first third of teams be allowed into first choice at 10-am and then close at 11:50-am, the second set of items for the second third of teams would be open 12-1:50 and so on. After all the divisions of teams had received their allowed time, the store could open back up and everyone could pick over the left over items.
This process could have avoided the <1000 team number problem be having those teams all be in the first third. After it was realized no of them could log in all the time slots could have been pushed back.
There is also the possibility that the times could fall between 4pm-8pm when most mentors wouldn't have to be in work. Or even have then happen on different days, during the same time period.
All the teams would initially have access to the same number of parts, and after the whole process you would still be allowed to chose an item that all of the teams from a different ordering block didn't want.

I think a lot of people are forgetting that many FIRST choice products are donated. It is not possible for AndyMark to just add more of these products to their stock as they disappear they only have a limited quantity of donated products.

[jspatz1]

In my mind the solution to making this process both fair and orderly seems obvious. There is only one aspect missing, and the solution does not require drafts or algorithms or ranking or limits. It is the same system used by the entire commercial and retail world every day, and it works very well: Pricing. Pricing which matches value.

Who understands the logic of all items having roughly the same price regardless of their real value? A flat ribbon cable has the same price as a laptop computer? Huh? Obviously insane. A yet this is how FIRST Choice was set up. This situation simply invites teams to overwhelm the system in a panic rush to hoard high-value items. Why would you not gobble up all the high-value items when it costs you no more? It should be expected. There is no normal law of supply and demand because there is nothing to make you consider how much to spend on each item.

The inventory of high value items would last much longer, perhaps even to every team that wanted them, if their price was related to their value. If credit prices were related to value, every team's 100 credits would buy approximately the same total value of parts, and every team would end up with an equivalent KOP comprised of the items they chose to spend them on. If credit prices were properly assigned, all supplies could potentially last until every team had there chance for them, with no mad rush to see who could get there first. High value items would remain available, and low value items would be bought up instead of being left virtually untouched. Every retail operation functions this way. Value is reflected in price, price regulates demand, demand matches supply. It is not a problem when a store has 400 of an item in a town with a population of 2800. They simply price it accordingly so that the supply matches the demand at that price. If properly balanced the entire inventory could be distributed AND every team could end up largely with what they choose.

I already used this analogy in another post: Imagine a store where 2800 customers standing outside are each given $100 to spend, and everything in the store is $10. The ones who make it through the doors first and can run the fastest get 10 flat-screen TVs. The ones who were behind 2800 others trying to get through the doors 1 minute later get 10 pairs of socks. Most of the 2800 are frustrated and disappointed with what they got. Exactly what you would expect to happen. And yet real stores operate every day without any of this happening. The reason is PRICE matching VALUE. Merchandise is available to everyone no matter when they get there, and everyone is able to choose what they want, because the prices regulate the demand.

What am I missing?

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by billbo911

I hate to say it, and really don't want to see it happen, but there really is only one way to make the parts distribution in the KOP "fair". That is to go back to the old model where everyone gets the same KOP.

I have 12 years of unused parts accumulated here. I have 3000 square feet, and 260 linear feet of shelving, and we're short on space. Unless a building expansion appears on the 2014 FIRST Choice, I could never agree with going back to the old standard KOP and no FIRST-Choice model.

[Alex.q]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

In my mind the solution to making this process both fair and orderly seems obvious. There is only one aspect missing, and the solution does not require drafts or algorithms or ranking or limits. It is the same system used by the entire commercial and retail world every day, and it works very well: Pricing. Pricing which matches value.

Who can understand the logic of all items having roughly the same price regardless of their real value? A flat ribbon cable has the same price as a laptop computer? Huh? Obviously insane. A yet this is how FIRST Choice was set up. This situation simply invites teams to overwhelm the system in a panic rush to hoard high-value items. Why would you not gobble up all the high-value items when it costs you no more? It should be expected. There is no law of supply and demand because there is nothing to make you consider how much to spend on each item.

I definitely agree here, and with the idea someone else presented of informing FIRST of the demand before the items are released for sale. Interestingly enough, I just saw a youtube video on price gouging that was very similar to this same topic. By inflating prices, you can ensure that a product is more evenly distributed to teams and prevent hoarding and mad rushes.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWTsq7F25kg


On the topic of FIRST's small staff: I know that ideas discussed in these forums are at least seen by some FIRST staff, but has FIRST ever considered formally crowdsourcing this type of problem? I have absolutely no idea of the feasibility or how this would work, but it seems that with a given problem, the CD community could present several valid ideas and FIRST could pick one or a few that they liked, give feedback, and teams or groups on the forum could work together to more fully design and implement these solutions. Maybe this would be incredibly hard to do, but if it worked, it could be very interesting.