What to do when mentors are leading the team in the wrong direction?

[jgerstein]

You really have two separate questions here. There's a lot of good advice here, but here's my input as well.

Originally Posted by The Doctor

Last year our team was made up of a bunch of upperclassmen, and this year we lost almost all of them, leaving only 4 people who have been on the team more than 2 years. This has made it increasingly difficult to compete with two of our mentors (unnamed) who seem increasingly intent on running the team themselves. I mean, shouldn't the team be student-led?

Your team should be run in a way that works well for your team. That will depend on the nature of your team as well as your goals, and the exact balance of leadership between students and mentors is likely to change a bit from year to year. Over the years, we've come to an arrangement that works for us, in which the mentors provide guidance to the student leaders, and help them lead the rest of the team. The amount of guidance depends on the leadership team that year, but even the most capable students can benefit from the experience of the mentors. You said yourself that you lost most of your experienced members - you're likely to be in a position in which more guidance from the mentors is appropriate.

I've had experience with a team pushing to be 100% student-led as a reaction to students feeling that the previous season had been too mentor-driven. I'd like to caution you against that - it was not a good experience for anybody on the team, particularly not the students. With that said, I don't know your team, and I've only heard one side of your story, so I'm not in a position to judge how things are going on your team.

My recommendation for handling the situation with your mentors would be to sit down and have a talk with your lead mentor about the concerns you've expressed here. If you don't feel comfortable having this discussion with them, pick a mentor you are comfortable talking with. It's important to stay calm and to remember that your mentors want this to be a good experience for everyone. Explain the problems as you see them, and be prepared to listen as well, not just talk.

Originally Posted by The Doctor

Take for example the issue of robot add-ons. Our original design (we actually did it in cad this year!) called for a 6wd chassis short enough to go under the low bar with the ability to pick up balls with an attachment at the front end. However, these two mentors got the idea in their heads that we should have an arm on the front to open door and gate-based defenses, because going over 5 isn't enough apparently? They also decided it would be a good idea to prototype an arm to climb the tower. Neither of these were part of our original design and strategy.

The worst part is that these mentors are leading several students in prototyping these add-ons, which leaves us with no fabricators to build our frame. In my opinion, the frame is kinda important, don't you think?

I'm not really in a position to comment on your strategy or design, aside from saying that the frame is indeed important. My best recommendation would be to sit down with your mentors and ask if your team can do a review of how well you're addressing the design requirements for the strategy you're working towards.

[tindleroot]

Information and communication are two of the most important aspects of getting a team to work coherently together (mentors and students alike). During my two years, especially last year, my team has been extremely student-driven, and that worked well for us. However, I've seen teams that are mentor-driven, too, for good reason. There is no perfect balance, no "one-size-fits-all" scenario, and I think it's unfair to say "Student-driven is better" or "Mentor-driven is better" because both can be the case in different situations.

I disagree with the idea of voting given that most cases of that allow uninformed students to vote. Last year, my team made a great offseason tank drive that improved upon the previous season's drive train, which we were planning to use. However, when RR was revealed, the whole team suddenly convinced themselves that a swerve drive was the only good option, and that we should build one. I was in the tiny minority (less than 5 students, pretty sure) that believed that swerve would cost us more than the benefits we would receive (especially since holonomic drives were a better overall option when defense isn't present). In response, those opposed to swerve made a clear list explaining the pros and cons of each drive system, and we were able to convince the team to go with something a bit more manageable, mecanum. If we had voted on a drive system, swerve would have probably happened and we wouldn't be sitting with our district win blue banner now.

Communication is important. You mention that the mentors are pushing these prototypes that you feel aren't in line with your team strategy. Ask them why! I'm sure they have a good reason behind their choice, and if they don't, maybe they will re-evaluate their choice. Also tell them how you feel. Information is important, too - explain logically (e.g. cost, time, effectiveness) why you feel their choice is unwise. Offer an alternative, and explain why you feel it's right. Put everything on the table, and make sure everyone is coming to a decision together, since no one should be getting "their way" on a team.

[hrench]

I'm pleased to see that a good deal of the advice I see being given here I agree with. My own team has this squabble recurring. I think declaring one group (students/mentor) 'runs' the team is wrong. You need to get together.

Technical adults that volunteer their time (and money?) to a robotics team do expect some kind of a return for it. Mostly the good feeling of cooperation and teaching, spreading the 'engineering bug', but winning can be nice too. So when an engineer has what he/she thinks is a good idea, of course he/she should be allowed to prototype it. But the same for the newbie/rookie. I'll help everyone prototype to the best of my ability. Even if I don't like their idea, I'll still do my best with it. What we do is brainstorm ideas and then vote on the ones to prototype to keep it manageable.

The reason they're 'mentors' is presumably they have training and experience that gives them more knowledge than young people about this specific subject. As a mentor, I've seen thousands of machines and hundreds of FRC robots. Please stop thinking you're better at this than me.

But you said you're 'prototyping' and I think that's a great sign. When my team prototypes (which I really think should be called 'proof of concept', because we're not going into production), then we compare the different designs and try to use objective data--can drive train 1 cross the rough terrain 6 of ten times, while drive train 2 can only cross one of ten.

This way its not 'voting' and 'opinions' that rule the decision making process, but instead something approaching "Science." This is the way to get buy-in from the 'minority' voters. Yes, some criteria is weighted and there is always 'sway' toward one idea or another. But if you've 'proved' one idea is better, then you have to agree.

As for prototyping half-way into build season, I think you should've been done with it a week ago. Good luck!

As for the frame being important, I personally think the mechanisms are more important and the frame just ties them together. You can't design the frame--using CAD or cardboard--until you've compared and chosen the mechanisms. We use a kit frame often and still make good robot.

Anyway, just don't lose heart. You guys gotta get along and telling mentors that you students run the team isn't the way to do it. It's about working together.

[The Doctor]

Originally Posted by hrench

So when an engineer has what he/she thinks is a good idea, of course he/she should be allowed to prototype it. But the same for the newbie/rookie.

I agree with this, except that most of the ideas that have come up at this point have been taken directly from Ri3D, which makes me think that the people are promoting them are going mainly for the "OMG, we could do all of the defenses if we want to" idea... and not the "let's build a working robot before bag-and-tag this year" one.