The Evolution of Chairman's Teams

[New Lightning]

Here my thought on this. My senior year I was part of team 1987 the Broncobots and the team in its seven years had won multiple chairman's and EI awards. And even though the scale of our outreach was not as far and as wide as some of the teams today we had a good program because all of our students new that we were making a difference in our community. We might not have had large numbers but we were able to consistently from year to year provide real and meaningful help to people within the community.

I tend to agree with the issue that Chairman's is not about how far away your making a difference or how many teams that you have set up, but more on the impact that your actions have had on the community as a whole. While its great to set up x number of teams, if those teams don't last or have a very low impact than what have you really accomplished. More can be done with a few strong actions, than any number of weak ones.

[TikiTech]

Interesting discussion. Especially after reading the previous link about chairman's award.

Chairman's:
The most prestigious award at FIRST, it honors the team that best represents a model for other teams to emulate and best embodies the purpose and goals of FIRST

Engineering Inspiration:
Celebrates outstanding success in advancing respect and appreciation for engineering within a team’s school and community.

My feeling is that working as a community inspiring program (EI) is the path towards earning a chairman's. It is why there is the common thought of the EI being a runner up to the CA. In many ways that thought is true, since the process of the earning the EI is a natural progression of a program to moving on to earn the CA. If you are not able to change your school and community recognition of STEM then the CA is unattainable. Taking your team to that next level of outreach and working to start FIRST related programs is where you earn the distinction need for chairman's (CA).

With all the definitions regarding the terms used in the Chairman's Award submission, about team starting, mentoring, etc. It seems even more so in black and white that IS the message FIRST wants teams to hear.

The spreading of FIRST programs is the biggest difference between the two. Whether it is in your own community or abroad. Continual outreach to grow FIRST programs as a whole no matter where logistically is becoming seemingly essential to earning the chainman's.

I think that in certain states, like ours, there is not much ability to grow much more. There is a finite amount of schools in the area, and the amount that do not have some type of robotics program is shrinking exponentially.

On our island there is not very many school that isn't involved in a FIRST program, if any now... This is due to all of us working hard to make it that way. The only schools that do not have a FRC program are mostly due to the existing team disbanding. Loss of a key mentor or sponsor is the biggest contributor to defunct teams on our island.

The only option is to reach beyond our borders. This is not an easy task for almost all the local teams. The ability to raise funds dwindles as more programs blossom. The lack of businesses here and the extreme remoteness to any corporation sure makes it difficult for us at times.

But to me this is what the students can and will face in real life. Such a challenge is a great learning opportunity that we love to embrace. To succeed over these type of obstacles makes it worth it.. award or not.

This is what drives the broader outreach outside the country we are seeing.

Just my two cents.. if that.

Aloha!

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by MysterE

Hi all,

I know we are all neck-deep in build right now but I had a question that I am hoping might clarify to the community what is generally necessary to win a RCA.

How has the image of what a Chairman's team changed over the last five to ten years? What was expected of a team in 2005 or earlier compared to 2010 and so on?


Best -
Daniel

To directly answer your questions, I would say that over the whole country, the RCA has undergone incremental change over the last 5 years when comparing 2011-2016 to 2005-2010. Comparing 67 in 2005 to Daisy in 2010 requires you to traverse an ocean of impressive outreach programs (not to say 67 isn't a role model team, but I am unaware of any flagship outreach they do). Comparing 359 to 27 would require you to literally traverse an ocean, but the difference in scope of program outreach is much different.

I think to win an RCA in 2016 you need to be an organization that has a diverse but focused identity. When you think of an RCA candidate, what are 2, 5, 10 things this team is the best team to go to for in the whole venue? Need fundraising tips? Need a problem fixed on your robot or just need it running? Want help with something in the offseason? Diverse but focused means you can accomplish things across the whole spectrum of FIRST from outreach to operations to technical and be considered a resource for those things. It's a roundabout way of saying that the role model teams at regionals are obvious and reveal themselves. If you aren't that, it makes Chairman's hard. I've seen teams who don't fit these ideas at all, but to be worthy of the honor this is probably a good way to look at it.

Even though you didn't ask, others thought it might be good to weigh in on CCA so I will too. The CCA is a whole different and far more prickly beast. I'm probably someone who is in denial, but I think to be a CCA-worthy team you need to take the idea of being a go to for many different aspects of FIRST but make that a much broader reach. A CCA candidate team should be one of the best 10 teams not in the HoF at being a community resource for a variety of different things. On top of that, a tentpole/flagship outreach initiative or cohesive outreach plan would make you a worthy team.

The competition for this award has become so tight lately that I've wondered what kind of paradigm shift we can expect with the championsplit.

Something this thread has and will continue to verge into is the evolution of the Chairman's Award itself. It's a hard discussion for me to get into when I'm neck deep in the actual submission process (and the robot building thing too) and something that usually bubbles up in the pre or post champs lull. With the shift to #2champs how it will affect the award in the future is interesting.

[bEdhEd]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

On one, having overheard discussion of RCA vs EI among judges, they are considered "close."

International outreach may not be an official criteria, but universally in California seems to be becoming a de facto standard.

Mr. McCann, yes! Thank goodness someone else confirms the trend in California with international outreach.

[waialua359]

This is an interesting topic to read and reflect on, even as we constantly evaluate our own program. Often times I think about what would happen if the 2016 version of 359 were to compete with the one that won in 2011.
The one thing that hasn't been discussed are the student presenters themselves. Yet, I believe it is one of the most important factors in competing for the Chairman's Award.
Similar to drivers/coach for the robot, the performance of your robot is only as good as the ones controlling/directing it.
Til this day, I believe we had one of the best trio of presenters back then. They knew our program and had the ability to present better than any mentor in our program. Our 2016 program would be at a disadvantage with respect to that. But today, there are many facets of our program that allows us to do more with less in terms of resources, mentor support (alumni), and outstanding students. Experience counts for a lot.

IMO, programs with similar characteristics of previous winners or within close proximity of other HOF teams can be at a disadvantage.

Teams from unique and different areas face many incomparable challenges. Its why we do what we do, to raise funds, to provide outreach services, to building a good robot, and ultimately our entire program.
Being from Waialua brought some tough challenges. We could never compete for the same talent pool of engineering mentors, funding support, and use of facilities from Honolulu businesses and private schools. But on the same note, it provided a greater opportunity for our team to not make excuses, work harder than the rest, and try to tackle the challenges that FIRST presented with much success.

In summary, I dont think the formula has changed over the years. The critical elements in what embodies the RCA or CCA are still there.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

To directly answer your questions, I would say that over the whole country, the RCA has undergone incremental change over the last 5 years when comparing 2011-2016 to 2005-2010. Comparing 67 in 2005 to Daisy in 2010 requires you to traverse an ocean of impressive outreach programs (not to say 67 isn't a role model team, but I am unaware of any flagship outreach they do). Comparing 359 to 27 would require you to literally traverse an ocean, but the difference in scope of program outreach is much different.

Among other things, 67 started both FLL & Jr FLL in Michigan and oversaw them (running state tourneys, etc.) for several years.

[Katie_UPS]

Originally Posted by itsjustjon

It's kind of disheartening for teams like us who can't afford trips to China, yet we do our hardest to change our community.

The Chairman's Award, at times, seems to have a price tag attached to it. And along with the price tag comes a sort of "number supersizing" where one team has to start/assist/mentor X amount of teams and reach out to X amount of people to be worthy.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Outreach efforts are allowed to start small and grow organically over time. A team may not have a budget for outreach and they probably won't acquire a large one overnight.

When my high school team (1675 - UPS) won our first RCA my senior year at the 2011 Midwest Regional, I was ecstatic. I thought we finally made it. But when we went to champs and the questions asked were about our efforts on a totally different scale than we had previously thought, I was a little broken. I remember watching 365 win and hearing about their work and thinking that we could never do that. Maybe in 10 years with proper planning, sustainable growth, and continuous improvement, UPS could have a shot at being a serious contender for CCA.

But I don't think every team has what it takes to win CCA, in the same way not everyone has what it takes to win the Olympic Pole Vaulting event. Winning a CCA takes a lot of time and effort and a very solid group of motivated people that sustain their efforts over multiple years. I think CCA has a lot to do with a team having strong leadership that continues for many years.

Originally Posted by MysterE

How has the image of what a Chairman's team changed over the last five to ten years? What was expected of a team in 2005 or earlier compared to 2010 and so on?

When teams have been existing for 20+ years, it's not that unrealistic to see that the bar for winning chairmans is getting higher. If we assume that most teams' outreach has grown at a steady rate, a team that has been around 15 years will probably have a more impressive resume that a team that is 10 years old. In 2005, no teams were 20 years old and consequently didn't have the resume and growth of programs like a 20 year old team would have. Nowadays, a large number of teams are older and it's reflected by the large number of teams with very impressive programs*.

*which is not to say a younger team is incapable of being as impressive as an older team, they just didn't have as much time to grow.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by MysterE

I know we are all neck-deep in build right now but I had a question that I am hoping might clarify to the community what is generally necessary to win a RCA.

What is generally needed to win an RCA varies greatly by geography. I've noticed that different regions have different "RCA cultures". Similar to how different regions of FRC have different styles of robots, Chairman's programs and submissions often take the feel of what has been done successfully by the leaders in the community. In addition, judging philosophies seem to vary, with certain regions putting a greater emphasis certain criteria.

[angelah]

Originally Posted by Basel A

Among other things, 67 started both FLL & Jr FLL in Michigan and oversaw them (running state tourneys, etc.) for several years.

Here is their Chairman's Essay from 2005 which states that they started and were currently running FLL and Jr. FLL in Michigan at the time: Chairman's Essay

[Alex2614]

Originally Posted by bEdhEd

We view EI as a Chairman's runner up. I'm not implying that the award itself is of "close" value, just that getting IE is a step closer to getting Chairman's. If you read my post carefully, I only claim that my team has gotten close, not that IE itself is close. A lot of the things we present for Chairman's is considered for IE. I did not claim that international outreach was required criteria. It surely is not, but from what I have seen, it's a trend and it is increasingly difficult to contend with teams who do international outreach.

My apologies for not being clear on that.

I want to point out that NOTHING you say in the chairman's room, nor any of your chairman's submission items or chairman's binder is seen by ANY of the other judges, including judges deciding Engineering Inspiration. The only way any of your chairman's information is seen by any judge outside of the chairman's room is if you give it to them in the pit area. The chairman's judges aren't even allowed to discuss with other judges what they saw in the chairman's room, so they have absolutely no say in who gets EI.

Also, not only are the awards judged by two completely separate groups of judges, the awards are actually quite different, if you look at the official FIRST descriptions of the awards.

Engineering Inspiration:

Celebrates outstanding success in advancing respect and appreciation for engineering within a team’s
school or organization and community.
■ Extent and inventiveness of the team’s efforts to recruit students to engineering with particular
emphasis on the most recent year’s efforts. Measurable success of those efforts.
■ Extent and effectiveness of the team’s community outreach efforts with particular emphasis on
the most recent year’s efforts. Measurable success of those efforts.
■ A commitment to science and technology education among the team, school, and community.
■ Achievement of the FIRST mission and ability to communicate that at the competition and away
from it.
■ Efforts are ongoing, not strictly concentrated on the build and competition season.

Chairman's:

The Chairman’s Award is the most prestigious award at FIRST, it honors the team that best represents a
model for other teams to emulate and best embodies the purpose and goals of FIRST.
It was created to keep the central focus of FIRST Robotics Competition on the ultimate goal of transforming
the culture in ways that will inspire greater levels of respect and honor for science and technology, as well as
encouraging more of today’s youth to become scientists, engineers, and technologists.
The concept of the Chairman’s Award includes Regional and District Championship Chairman’s Awards,
which enable FIRST to recognize more teams for their exemplary efforts in spreading the FIRST message,
as well as their talents in organizing materials for their presentations.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Alex2614

IThe chairman's judges aren't even allowed to discuss with other judges what they saw in the chairman's room, so they have absolutely no say in who gets EI.

Do you have an official source on this? I've never seen it in any documentation. I have no idea it's true or not, but if it is, it would seem strange to me that the judges wouldn't be allowed to share the information they learned during the presentation.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Karthik

What is generally needed to win an RCA varies greatly by geography. I've noticed that different regions have different "RCA cultures". Similar to how different regions of FRC have different styles of robots, Chairman's programs and submissions often take the feel of what has been done successfully by the leaders in the community. In addition, judging philosophies seem to vary, with certain regions putting a greater emphasis certain criteria.

Out of curiosity, do you think this is more of a bug or a feature?

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Out of curiosity, do you think this is more of a bug or a feature?

Both? Sorry to be non committal, but I see both good and bad from this variance. On the positive side, you get a lot of different types of teams competing for Chairman's at the Championship. As has been stated by many wise people over the years, there's no "right" way to run an FRC team. Thus the way the system has evolved allows multiple types of teams to be rewarded. I like that. Now on the negative side, there is a lack of consistency from region to region. I can see how that would be frustrating for a submitting team who hasn't had much success within their own region.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Both? Sorry to be non committal, but I see both good and bad from this variance. On the positive side, you get a lot of different types of teams competing for Chairman's at the Championship. As has been stated by many wise people over the years, there's no "right" way to run an FRC team. Thus the way the system has evolved allows multiple types of teams to be rewarded. I like that. Now on the negative side, there is a lack of consistency from region to region. I can see how that would be frustrating for a submitting team who hasn't had much success within their own region.

It's a point I've wavered on pretty regularly in the past with frequency in the wave of personal opinion increasing significantly around the 15 week crunch. Asking someone from a team who very, very likely has a much deeper perspective of the award than myself I wanted to see if I would get a different response.

I try to take a very unconventional approach to going through the submission process, taking various abstract concepts of voice, history, and culture and calling it identity. The current result of judging variances linked to geography does get different kinds of teams competing for the award, which is great! I understand the idea of different standards exist with respect to geography. Just like how you can point to x areas of FIRST's footprint to find markedly better robotic ability, you can point to y areas and see higher standards to win the award than the global average.

I express confusion when it comes to wholly different perspectives on the meaning of the award, where regions will heavily weight certain topics and nearly discard some others. As someone who tries to keep up with what all different kinds of teams are doing, I can picture the identity of a role model team at the CCA and RCA levels. It's hard for me to explain (which probably explains why I don't perceive the award being judged this way), but you see teams and you know they are unequivocally the best team in the venue. Yet they miss out on the award because the goalposts get moved not just north and south, but frequently to the east and west.

The TLDR is that I like the idea of getting unique teams together to present for the CCA, but I lean towards the perception that the system gets there in an incomplete and inconsistent method that cheapens the results at the expense of other teams and maybe even FIRST overall.

As a PS of sorts, I wonder if judges take into consideration how they award Chairman's one year at an event can carry a lasting effect on how teams operate themselves for the next 3-6 years.

[MysterE]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Do you have an official source on this? I've never seen it in any documentation. I have no idea it's true or not, but if it is, it would seem strange to me that the judges wouldn't be allowed to share the information they learned during the presentation.

I believe this may also be a regional to regional thing. I know at the Bayou Regional this is true - coming from the Head Judge himself. The RCA judges do not go through the pits at all and make all decisions based on what they learn in the Interview Room and in the Essay and Executive Summary.

But I've also been to regionals where our presenters have seen RCA judges walking around the pits.