The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'

[waialua359]

Perhaps I may be a little biased being where we're from.
Since participating in FIRST in the 2000 season, and from personal observations, I think the #1 reason new/fairly new teams quit is because of money.
Many grants and/or regionals have startup funds to get teams going. After that, the real struggle begins on addressing sustainability, as opposed to mentor retention and being "not-inspired" as the primary reasons.

I personally like the 6 week build season. It teaches a lot of life lessons and skills for everyone on the team.
However, I am not opposed to eliminating Bag/Tag and allowing for continuous improvement throughout the season. Less time and less resources building a practice bot.

[Tetraman]

I see a lot of posters tossing around the word 'inspiration' as if it blusters an argument. The assumption of "something that could add inspiration being inherently good for FIRST" is not a healthy one. Remember what inspires students more than any other part of the FIRST program: Mentors/teachers/coaches/parents/people. I really don't care if additional time to the build season inspires these kids - I want to know if this additional time actually solves the problem of mentor burnout so our mentors can continue to be the main source of leadership, innovation and inspiration for students.

And I think the answer is pretty basic: We don't know. As some of the mentors have already posted, if the build season does become extended they will feel hurt even more to keep up with the added time demands. On the other hand, other mentors say the additional time will increase their flexibility. So ultimately we won't know the true effect on ourselves and our teams if the build period is extended.

I think the worst part about this issue is that changing it will anger a lot of people but not changing it keeps a lot of people angry. The true answer is for FIRST to choose in what direction the program wants to take. If FIRST doesn't want to alter the system then that's fine with me. If FIRST does change I may not like it but I'll still do everything I can for my team and the problem because I believe in the program.

Otherwise I really have no answers to solve the problem of mentor burnout - except one: Is FIRST really the program for you?

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

I see a lot of posters tossing around the word 'inspiration' as if it blusters an argument. The assumption of "something that could add inspiration being inherently good for FIRST" is not a healthy one. Remember what inspires students more than any other part of the FIRST program: Mentors/teachers/coaches/parents/people. I really don't care if additional time to the build season inspires these kids - I want to know if this additional time actually solves the problem of mentor burnout so our mentors can continue to be the main source of leadership, innovation and inspiration for students.

And I think the answer is pretty basic: We don't know. As some of the mentors have already posted, if the build season does become extended they will feel hurt even more to keep up with the added time demands. On the other hand, other mentors say the additional time will increase their flexibility. So ultimately we won't know the true effect on ourselves and our teams if the build period is extended.

I think the worst part about this issue is that changing it will anger a lot of people but not changing it keeps a lot of people angry. The true answer is for FIRST to choose in what direction the program wants to take. If FIRST doesn't want to alter the system then that's fine with me. If FIRST does change I may not like it but I'll still do everything I can for my team and the problem because I believe in the program.

Otherwise I really have no answers to solve the problem of mentor burnout - except one: Is FIRST really the program for you?

I like how you summarized the sentiment on this subject. I can't help but draw a parallel to when Michigan proposed the district model and piloted it. There were a lot of oppositions, both inside and outside of Michigan. I don't need to repeat what people had said. I am sure there are still people who think the district model is a bad idea and they oppose it, but a majority of people finally saw the benefits of it and especially after Jim Zondag explained the thinking behind every change.

Change is always hard for some people when they don't know if it will benefit them. By allowing teams the option to access their robot any time if they want to, I don't see how it can hurt any team that does not build a practice robot. The only thing I can think of is for teams that do not build a practice robot thinks it will benefit teams that build a practice robot more than it benefits them. Because it will give these teams more time to concentrate on improving their robot rather than building and wiring another robot and raising more money to pay for it.

For my team, we plan everything to death. Right now in our build schedule, I see days to assemble the practice robot and to wire it. Based on our resources for each year, we decide what kind of robot to design and build so we can finish on time. Then we schedule enough work sessions to finish what we planned to do. We do not meet 7 days a week. In our first two years, we only met 4 days/17 hours a week. In the last few years, we increased it to 5 days/20 hours a week. My goal is to create a sustainable program, hence mentor/student burnout is part of my consideration when I decide on the meeting schedule.

How will it affect us if we have unlimited access to the robot? The first thing I will do is to reduce the number of meetings back down to 4 days 17 hours a week because we can accomplish the same tasks in 6 and a 1/2 weeks. It takes us about 20 hours to build a second robot. That will allow me to take out 3 hours of meeting time each week. On top of that, I will be a lot less stressed out when the two robots behave differently due to quality of build by students and some mentors.

I can handle 4 days a week. 5 days is a stretch for me. Not building a second robot is not an option for me being in Michigan and trying to field a somewhat competitive robot and have a sustainable program. My goal is not to have the most competitive robot and stress everybody out by doing so. I know it is not all about the robot but I also know students joined the robotics team to compete in robotics.

If teams do not want to build a second robot with the current rules, that is their choice. How many hours they meet is their choice. By removing the artificial stop build date, it does not change what teams have to do. It is still their choice. Removing the barrier to access the robot will make my life easier and a better experience for my students.

If you are wondering why it will be a better experience for my students, I will elaborate. Very few of them comes 5 days a week during build season. When students cannot attend all work sessions, they get lost. Things move so fast during build season that it is hard to keep up with the design and decisions if you miss too many meetings. Some students would loose interest and feel disconnected. If I can reduce the number of meetings to 4, a bigger percentage of students will be able to attend most meetings. Our team will be more cohesive. Everybody will be on the same page. We do have weekly team meetings where each subgroup will report on their work but it is not the same.

So for those of you who oppose this possible change, were you opposed to the district model before also? Would you be willing to give it a chance?

[Steve W]

Mentor burnout is a big problem. Making the build season longer will enhance the problem. I may be wrong about what I am about to say but I doubt it. The longer we make the season, the longer people will take to do exactly what they do now. Procrastination is the biggest issue I see with so many people. How many students do you know that are given 6 weeks to do an essay or project and they don't start until the last minute. As an inspector I can see how much thought and time has been put into most robots. A few minutes talking to mentors, students and parents will usually confirm my suspicions.

The idea of pre inspections is a great one to help fix problems before events. It also helps to find teams that are in trouble and hopefully time to find a remedy. Problem is will teams allow inspectors (usually from another team) to see their robot. I have volunteered, visited, helped and inspected before seasons end teams that have requested and it has proved to be a benefit.

Quick build for rookies could also be quick build for any team. This year we had one in our area. I believe that there was 17 teams that came and over half had a moving robot when they left. That was Saturday right after kickoff. Those teams all had a big head start and what I saw at events were improved teams. I believe that after our success that there will be a quick build in Montreal next season.

There are many ways to improve the process but I firmly believe that extending the build season is not one of them. Having a due date is both sensible, realistic and meets the demands that we see in the "real world" .

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Having a due date is both sensible, realistic and meets the demands that we see in the "real world" .

I don't think I'm advocating removing the competition events. As long a everyone is attending a competition, a "due date" still exists.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Mentor burnout is a big problem. Making the build season longer will enhance the problem. I may be wrong about what I am about to say but I doubt it. The longer we make the season, the longer people will take to do exactly what they do now. Procrastination is the biggest issue I see with so many people. How many students do you know that are given 6 weeks to do an essay or project and they don't start until the last minute.

If we don't start until the last minute, how is a longer build season increasing burnout?

[Tom Ore]

Originally Posted by Nemo

If we don't start until the last minute, how is a longer build season increasing burnout?

I think we're mixing different issues here. My take on the mentor burnout issue was that some teams are doing more work than they should be in the time available and that leads to burnout. The proposed solution is to give them more time, they'll keep the amount of work the same, hours per unit time goes down, and burnout reduces. Some say they would stop building a practice bot which reduces the total work. Other say they would still build a practice bot to reduce wear and tear on the competition bot.

Overall, I'm not convinced it will have significant effect on burnout. The burnout is driven more by a desire to be competitive than by the task at hand. There will always be ways to push yourself harder to be competitive.

The other issue is how to best help consistently under performing teams. The "give them more time" argument fits nicely in this thread. However, as some have pointed out, it isn't necessarily that easy. In general we don't know what drives these teams. If they are in a place they are happy with, feel they are inspiring their students, they may not need help. Others may need help but don't know how to get it. Time may or may not be an issue.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Nemo

If we don't start until the last minute, how is a longer build season increasing burnout?

The same way I write an essay. Have Word open for 3 weeks and type in about 5 words an hour while browsing CD, so I feel like I'm working when I'm not, then doing it all in one weekend.

[Mr. Van]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

Not building a second robot is not an option for me being in Michigan and trying to field a somewhat competitive robot and have a sustainable program.

And yet, many people here are saying that the extra time spent in an extended build season is used "by choice". Clearly, the level of competition demands that you build a 2nd robot. How is that different than the level of competition demands using the time in an extended build season?

Since this thread has turned to money, think of it this way: What if teams were asking to be able to spend over the limit on individual components? Or how about the total cost for the robot? (While some teams would find it difficult to do this, others might not.) If teams could gain a competitive advantage by spending $10,000 on a robot, but said "those of you who don't have that much money don't have to spend that amount" I think the discussion might be a bit different. Why is there a cost limit? A motor limit? A battery limit?

Now, I recognize that FRC isn't fair. That's not the way the world works, but there are limits placed on competition (weight classes, salary caps, NCAA limits on practice time, etc.). We have our own in FRC - often for a good reason.

With regards to Jim's low OPR argument, I completely agree. We should be focusing on the teams that need support and help. Clearly, the issue isn't that 6 weeks is too short - the teams we're talking about (and we've all seen them) are the teams that are missing fundamental structure, and that comes down to two major elements - the most important being mentoring, followed by money.

On the tangent discussion regarding overall cost, I agree with Jim - sometimes it seems that FIRST's math doesn't quite make sense.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[Nemo]

A bunch of things gnaw at me. Here's a big one:

Competitive teams will be "forced" to spend more time than they already do if we had an open build season.

If that's true, then those same teams are already "forced" to build a practice robot and continue working on their 30 lbs of parts. It changes nothing.

I am pretty frustrated that when people are confronted with the concept of more flexibility, they twist it into the fatal certainty that they will be "forced" to work to the point of exhaustion.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by Nemo

If that's true, then those same teams are already "forced" to build a practice robot and continue working on their 30 lbs of parts. It changes nothing.

Which is why you see nearly all the "pro-6-week" posts including "remove the withholding allowance". Because you're correct: we already ARE forced to work for 4 months straight to stay competitive. I for one would like to be able to be competitive WITHOUT having to work for 4 months straight. This year, other commitments forced me to not be able to work past mid-february. I felt like I was abandoning my team, even though I had been there most weekday meetings throughout build season.

2012 was the same way: we met at nearly the same tempo between mid-february and mid-march, because the shooter needed tuning/lightening and the aiming code needed changing.

2011 was the same way, but even more intense because we qualified for championships and were doing a "big year": mid-feb to mid-april was minibot revisions, claw revisions, gearbox revisions, code revisions, vision system revisions.

In each year, the revisions that we did between "end of build" and competitions made pretty enormous upgrades in our robot's capabilities and kept us competitive. If we hadn't, we would have done much worse.

The people saying "make it 4 months officially, it'll make it easier" are ignoring a truth: it already is 4 months. It has already burned me (and I'm sure, others) right out. Allowing MORE access to the robot would make it even worse. We have seen the 4 month build beast, and it is awful.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by Bongle

Which is why you see nearly all the "pro-6-week" posts including "remove the withholding allowance". Because you're correct: we already ARE forced to work for 4 months straight to stay competitive. I for one would like to be able to be competitive WITHOUT having to work for 4 months straight.

Removing the 30 lb allowance isn't enough. You'd also need to ban practice robots.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by Nemo

Removing the 30 lb allowance isn't enough. You'd also need to ban practice robots.

Which is why all my posts have said "make it so the operator control software doesn't work between mid-feb and the 1st week of competition"

Even better alternate: make it so the cRio firmware won't run between mid-feb and at competition. Have a "competition dongle" or something that must be installed at competition to make it work. Permit cRios to work after the championship date. People could use past year's firmware all the time (so past robots would be available for demos and whatnot), but if they flash to whatever the latest firmware is, it'd be restricted to the current season's dates. This could also be used to enforce fix-it windows.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by Bongle

Which is why all my posts have said "make it so the operator control software doesn't work between mid-feb and the 1st week of competition"

Althought I disagree, I have to give you credit for having an argument that's internally consistent.

You'd probably be better off banning practice robots if you want to keep people from working after bag day. Your solution doesn't prevent people from working in March, for example.

[pfreivald]

Banning practice robots isn't a consistent part of my argument, certainly. If there was no withholding allowance, a practice robot would allow you to do just that -- but there'd be no need to meet at the grueling build season schedule... You could scale back a LOT and still be competitive.

So I think people are, in essence, correct: it's already a four month schedule, and addressing burnout would include eliminating the withholding allowance. Otherwise, when we got knocked out at Buckeye this year, I wouldn't have simultaneously thought, "Awwww" and "Thank God".