The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'

[Mr. Van]

Jim brings up some valid points. Obviously teams that are not successful are not inspired to continue, but I don't believe that extending the build season will help these teams to the extent hoped. The reasons a team is not able to build a functioning robot (a drivable base with some articulated hooks on it, for example) are many and varied, but I would argue that a build season that is too short is not one of them.

One of the major reasons is that teams perpetually "bite off more than they can chew". Another is that they refuse to use items like the kit-bot chassis, or they may simply not have the technical skills necessary to build a working robot at all. These problems will happen if the season is opened-ended or if there is a time limit, unless the teams have better mentorship.

As Jim notes, real improvements occur when teams get on an official game field, play against other teams and gain the experience of driving a robot in a competition. It is a real shame of our system is that half of the teams are "one-timers". At least we agree on that! It seems that the district system will help in that basic registration includes two events, but overall, this is a major problem.

To me, however, the solution to improving robot (and therefore team) performance is to improve mentorship and provide more opportunity to actually play the game. This does not require a longer build season.

I doubt that the CD community will be able to come to any sort of consensus on this issue, but I'm glad that we've brought this question up for debate.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[Siri]

First, Jim, thank you very much. This offers very, very valuable perspective on the matter that we've only really alluded to thus far. I'd look forward to any MAR/FiM exclusive data you might have. It might not be as dramatic--among other causes, they're quite competitive regions, both due to and resulting in the district model--but I'd bet it's something.

Originally Posted by Tetraman

Open build would give too much advantage to teams with the capability to travel long distances to their events or have events nearby for attending both a week 1-3 and week 4-6.

I would hope that in many if not most places, an open season would make FRC practice more like FLL., FTC and VEX: scrimmages aren't for "off-season". If some off-seasons moved to off-event weeks (in their area) during competition season, teams wouldn't have to travel so far or pay so much just to play on an at least semi-real field with other teams. (Semi-real given the logistics of getting a real field in competition season.) It might make easier replicablity/shippablity a constraint on the FRC GDC the way it is on the others--but heck, shouldn't it be anyway? It's certainly well past worth it.

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

One of the major reasons is that teams perpetually "bite off more than they can chew". Another is that they refuse to use items like the kit-bot chassis, or they may simply not have the technical skills necessary to build a working robot at all. These problems will happen if the season is opened-ended or if there is a time limit, unless the teams have better mentorship. [emphasis mine]

Another culture change I find likely--perhaps naively--if the season got more open is further inter-team mentorship. If the strong teams weren't trying to cram so much into so little time, there'd be more of a chance to help others. This would be particularly potent if the powerhouses we're all trying to keep up with decided it was a good use of their time--which I suspect many would.

We helped and worked with a few teams a bit even with build, but if I look at what FLL does and the scrimmage we host, I know it could be a lot more. We couldn't add more more collaboration meetings or get more people on our pyramid in 6 weeks--but we did have one team that actually used their unbag time with us. A open season makes scheduling stuff like this much more doable. There's only so much you can do to help before the game comes out--so many of the struggles (though not in the teams we collaborated with directly) I see come from misinterpreting the game or mis-prioritizing what one's team is capable of managing.


In short, it's not just the time itself; it's the culture change it could catalyze.

[dtengineering]

I was originally planning to post my expression of support for the six week build period... but Jim's well-researched posts, in particular, have caused me to re-think this. Having an extended build season with some form of milepost along the way might be a worthwhile experiment.

One thing that bothers me during tech inspection is that there are teams that clearly have not read the rule book. It would be great to announce the game, publish the rule book, and then require teams to pass on online rules test before receiving their KoP. (I wish I could remember who originally posted this suggestion... I think it is brilliant.)

I've also thought that it would be good to have a pre-build, design-only period, where teams are allowed to design, model, sketch and plan, but not actually build anything. Unfortunately, this would be difficult to define and impossible to enforce... however with a longer build period I could have told my team, "no one builds anything for the first two weeks". As it turns out, the more experienced we got at the game, the more time we spent on CAD and the less time we spent re-building... more time for design would have been nice.

It would have also been nice to have more time to spend refining the control system. We tried building practice bots, but usually by the end of build we were so burned out (and often getting things ready for our first event) that we never really used them to full potential. Perhaps we could have teams document their robot photographically, uploading the photos on a certain date, and allow no physical changes to the machine other than wiring and sensors between that date and the team's first event. (At which point they could bring in 30 pounds of withholding allowance and make physical changes at the event.) Again, it would be awkward to define, and difficult to enforce, but our programmers deserved more time with the machine. Heck, even a few more days of driver practice would have helped sometimes.

It was also difficult to find working professionals who could make the comittment to attend build sessions three or four nights each week. Without that kind of comittment, it is hard to have a real impact on robot design, especially in the first couple weeks when prototypes and models are created, evaluated, modified and replaced in very short order.

Perhaps most disappointingly, however, we were so busy building our robot that I was only able to get out to assist other local teams a few times during build season.

There are good things about the six-week window, and once we learned to build the best robot that our team could build, rather than trying (unsucessfully) to build the best robot that 1114 could build, it actually wasn't as crazy as it was our first few years. Like I say, I was originally planning to post my support for continuing the six-week limitation.

But I think the arguments put forth in this thread have convinced me that it might be worth trying something new.

Jason

[Zuelu562]

I think we're reaching a crossroads with this issue. In the world where Regionals exist and teams exist that only go to one, I think the 6 week build is necessary. With the proliferation of the district system (FiM, MAR, and this year, NE), I think that an open build is not only plausible, but probably the correct solution. I don't think we need to go to that now, nor need to segment the teams that participate in the district system from the rest of the FRC world via rules changes.

Granted, if we allow open build in the district system, going to a week 1 and week 6 district to allow for the "most" time on field and for fixes. Just as the initial 6 week rule was added for a logistical issue, so too will another system accounting for districts. Do I like the 6 week system, even if it is a marketing slogan at this point? Yes. Do we need it forever? No. Do we need to change now? Not necessarily.

[Bongle]

We are not. 13% of the league has a sub-zero OPR at their first event. This means that our league is producing over 300 teams per year who NEVER EVEN SCORE AT ALL in their first event. This is a design failure of our system. (and I doubt than any of those teams are represented here).

To build a running, driving kitbot takes an experienced team about a day. If another team is seriously 40 times slower than an experienced team, the problem here isn't the time available, it's that the slower team simply isn't using the knowledge available to them over the internet and from more experienced teams.

Really, the teams that haven't managed to score 10 points probably DO have a kitbot, and probably DO have hooks, but for some reason (electrical, programming, broken chains, etc) maybe don't move in a given match.
The problem is that they, like every team I've ever been on, plan their robot build to fill the available time minus about a minute, and never plan on sustained testing. Given a 7, 8, or 9 week build time, they'll build a more-complicated robot that does more stuff, again spend 30 seconds on testing, then again be surprised when it fails on field.

[pfreivald]

It seems to me that some of these arguments are better formulated as, "Week zero events are critical for robot success".

Instead of extending the build time, FIRST could put an extra week between stop build day and the first regional in order for more teams to plan and execute week zero events -- and allow unbagging and work at those events...

...and directly encourage/foster/help ensure that every area has an event that teams can attend.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Isn't that confounded by the likelihood that many of the worst teams only participate in one event (and thus their badness isn't reflected in the event 2 statistics)?

To measure the actual improvement, we'd want to separate out the event 1 performance of teams that participate in 2 or more events, and compare that to those teams' 2nd events. (And even after doing that, you wouldn't expect this 2-or-more-week group to be representative of the 1-week teams, because attendance at a second event—especially outside of district play—is probably strongly correlated with greater resources and organization.)

Here's just the teams that attended 2 or more events.

[rick.oliver]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

... So ask yourself, are we really doing something smart with the machine access rules, or is all of this just a collection of old rules, imposed for obsolete reasons which have been forgotten?

What he said!

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

Some mentors/coaches are saying that they are stressed because they spend too much money building a practice robot and have to rush on Thursday mornings to install their 30 lb. withholding allowance mechanism. If only they didn't have to do these things, but could continue working on the actual competition robot, their lives would be less stressful and there would be less mentor burnout.

There is a simple solution here: Don't build a practice robot. Don't use the 30 lb. withholding allowance.

Ah, but you want to stay competitive with those who do. There are teams willing to spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of mentor-hours refining their robots with every nanosecond of time available. These teams turn out the most competitive robots, and to keep up with them, you have to do the same...

Will these teams really put in any less time or effort? Of course not. The primary difference (should we extend the official build season) is that these teams will have an easier time doing what they already do - and they will push the envelope even further.

Those of us trying to keep up with the "elite" teams will be in the exact same situation - little will change. Except that we will loose teams because we will loose mentors who can't keep up with the extended time demands.

I don't know if I follow your logic here and if I do, I don't think I agree with it.

What you're saying is that we remove the withholding allowance and discourage the construction of practice robots in order to decrease the amount of mentor burnout? Will a mentor be less burned out if they are forced to spend a season leading a team with a subpar design into multiple competitions where they have no chance than if they were to lead the same team into their competitions with 30lbs in machine upgrades that they spent the last 2-3 weeks building?

I'd argue that they're both equally stressful and tiring - but in different ways. If the robot is bad or flawed in some way, you'll spend an entire season trying to keep students upbeat, happy and hopeful - not to mention that you may be fixing the machine after EVERY match. I don't know about everyone, but I know that I couldn't deal with that kind of stress without it eating into my personal life. On the other hand, given the same scenario where a team would be allowed to fix their machine via 30lbs of upgrade parts, a mentor would probably spend much of their time trying to keep their students focused, productive and engaged in the task at hand, and if things work out right, an upbeat and hopeful attitude could/would be a by product of that task.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that either way, a problem would still exist in either situation but the problem would be much different. It's kind of like the difference between not sleeping well one night because you're worried about something versus not sleeping because you were working towards a solution to a problem.

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

For those teams that are struggling just to get a robot finished, I believe that teams that having difficulty building a working robot in 6.5 weeks will have difficulty building a robot in 8 or 10 or 16 weeks.

FRC is a game of mentors. The best teams have the best mentors. Period.

Many teams have teacher/mentors who MUST be at EVERY meeting or work session. They can not miss a single day because the team can not meet or work unless they are there - per school district rules. Loose those mentors, loose the team.

Lastly, the only students who have commented on this thread have pointed out that they have other demands on their time outside of FRC.

I'll say it again: FRC is a game of mentors. If you want to maintain and expand the program, you must ensure that the mentors are there - ready, willing and able to do what they do. Any expansion of the build season will lead to loosing mentors - in fact many already find the extensions that so many seem to need to "be competitive" to be so stress inducing that they are forced to make the choice between being "competitive" and mentoring at all.

Maintain the limited build season.

Remove the withholding allowance.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

I agree that FRC is a game of mentors and the amount of time that the head mentor(s)/teacher(s) spend is one of the biggest factors in a teams success. I think the scenario that we're shooting for by 'ending build season' is one where these key mentors/teachers don't have to spend 'as much' time per week on FRC to be successful.

The thing that many people seem to be missing about ending the rigid 6.5 week build season deadline is that no one is FORCING anyone to work more and/or longer than before. It only allows those teams that WANT to spend more time on FRC to do so without some of the more annoying restrictions - and gives those teams that couldn't do certain things like practice driving, make new parts, whatever, a way to do so without necessarily incurring extra expenses.

[rick.oliver]

Originally Posted by thefro526

... The thing that many people seem to be missing about ending the rigid 6.5 week build season deadline is that no one is FORCING anyone to work more and/or longer than before. It only allows those teams that WANT to spend more time on FRC to do so without some of the more annoying restrictions - and gives those teams that couldn't do certain things like practice driving, make new parts, whatever, a way to do so without necessarily incurring extra expenses.

I agree with your assessment of the benefit of eliminating the restrictions. I am not sure that any of those posting in favor of retaining the current system are missing the point that those of us in favor of eliminating the restrictions are trying to make. All have offered valid points and I am sure that there may be consequences which none of us has considered.

I appreciate the varied participation and respect folks for sharing their honest perspectives. I sincerely believe that the subject will be discussed by FIRST; perhaps it is discussed on a regular basis already.

I understand the value of a marketing slogan and if that is really the only reason the rules remain the same I can accept it and will work to grow our team's resources so that we become more competitive. I know that it will also make us a stronger team, as was pointed out in a previous post.

The argument which creates angst with me is the notion that I must be saved from myself. That simply runs counter to my value system.

[Bob Steele]

To be honest I got a little tired of the "Built in six weeks" mantra at CMP

NASA doesn't get a "30 lb allowance" when it sends something to MARS

I appreciate the idea of a finite build season.... but it truly does not exist.

Really good teams work 12 months a year.
Really good teams work 2 months a year.

FIRST is about inspiration...
I can be equally inspired by what a team does with limited resources including time or by what a team does that is organized and has greater time and resources.

This thread was begun to discuss Mentor Burnout..
No amount of changing the rules will stop that... Mentors choose how much they participate for a number of reasons. If you changed the build season you would still get mentors putting in hours and hours because they want to inspire students.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. You can mentor a team once a week or 7 days a week. 2 months a year or 12 months a year.

It all comes down to the individual mentor.
I know mentors whose schedules would be total burnout for most mentors yet they are ready for more.

I know mentors who get burned out with schedules that are relatively short.

In my opinion, you have to like students and challenges.
You also have to see the results of your time and effort and feel valued.

As a coach I spend a great deal of my time making sure everyone on the team knows how valued and important they truly are.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. You can mentor a team once a week or 7 days a week. 2 months a year or 12 months a year.

It all comes down to the individual mentor.
I know mentors whose schedules would be total burnout for most mentors yet they are ready for more.

I know mentors who get burned out with schedules that are relatively short.

In my opinion, you have to like students and challenges.
You also have to see the results of your time and effort and feel valued.

As a coach I spend a great deal of my time making sure everyone on the team knows how valued and important they truly are.

This fantastic

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. You can mentor a team once a week or 7 days a week. 2 months a year or 12 months a year.

I want to be there for the team when I am needed. Being needed more than a few days a week for longer than a month and a half exceeds my willingness to make FRC a priority.

If the build season were to be extended, I would have to scale back my involvement significantly. I think that is true of most mentors on the team. I am certain that a longer build season would make teachers more wary of participating. I believe the team -- and the students -- would suffer because of it.

[rick.oliver]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

... If the build season were to be extended, I would have to scale back my involvement significantly. I think that is true of most mentors on the team. I am certain that a longer build season would make teachers more wary of participating. I believe the team -- and the students -- would suffer because of it.

I understand Alan's point and I respect his perspective. I agree that the outcome Alan describes is, for some - perhaps many, a real possibility. I maintain that it becomes a choice. I have made the choice in some cases to invest significantly more time and effort beyond the first 6 weeks.

I also recognize that the outcome is an uncertainty at this point. I believe that if the bag deadline were eliminated, then wise adults would adapt appropriately and that the net impact would be a benefit to FRC.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by rick.oliver

I understand Alan's point and I respect his perspective. I agree that the outcome Alan describes is, for some - perhaps many, a real possibility. I maintain that it becomes a choice.

Of course it's a choice. The question is whether or not we want to foster a reality where you either build competitive FRC robots or do anything else.