[moderated] Collaboration

[Paul Copioli]

I have supported the 254/60 collaboration from the start. With that said, I obviously agree with the FIRST ruling.

Collaboration will not reduce your workload by 50%. Effective collaboration is not easy. Collaboration is not for everyone. Team 217 will probably not collaborate in the future, because we have a very large team which is hard to manage.

For those of you that do not support collaboration, let me leave you with this scenario:

Here is team A (the ThunderChickens, for example) with several CNC mills, lathes, grinders, etc at their disposal. Also, they have 14 CAD workstations with SolidWorks and a 36" laser plotter. They can design and build pretty much anything they want. They also have several software mentors and students that are awesome at C programming.

Here are teams B and C. Team B has an awesome machine shop that has CNC mills, etc. They have no CAD design to speak of (everything on a napkin), but they have mad software writing skills. Team C has design workstations and students who can run them, but no high tech machining capability. Teams B & C team up to do a collaborative effort. Together they design some simple parts, some complicated parts, and some parts in between. They divide the machining up by who has the ability to machine each part, they divide the software development up based on who has the ability, and they divide the detail design (not concepting) by who has the ability. The result is the combined capacity to do what team A can do by themselves. With the ruling on cost to machine not counting against teams, we may even machine parts for people in the future.

I, personally like to be in the team A situation. If I wasn't, you bet we would collaborate with another team that matched our weaknesses with strengths.

-Paul

[Pat Roche]

I applaud FIRST decision on collaboration. It enhances the FIRST experience ten fold. I think Paul put it best in his description. FIRST in a sense is trying to get teams to be like a business. Teams split up between marketing and technical aspects. Teams have leaders that essentially act like the boss. And now teams have to learn to work together. In the real world, companies are constantly working together. This just adds a new challenge for teams to work more as a business.

-Pat

[kevinw]

Wow. A lot's been said, and before it's done, I believe a lot more will be said.

As so many have pointed out, collaboration will allow two teams which are at a disadvantage to overcome that and raise the bar. And inspire more students.

But I can definitely see the point at which this begins to fall apart.

Many companies have engineering centers across the world that work together today. Removing obstacles of language translation and time zone differences, I don't believe collaboration is as difficult as some team's make it out to be. It's been going on in the real world for some time, and while there may be a short adjustment period, it makes things easier across the board.

Where's the downside?

If two teams collaborating is good, wouldn't three teams collaborating be better? It would create a better performing robot, and more students would be inspired by the awesome experience. Wouldn't five teams be better than three? What about ten?

At some point it becomes more impractical because it's difficult to coordinate several sites, but it can be done without too much difficulty on every Saturday, even for five to ten teams.

If these are teams with real complimentary abilities (as in Paul's post), that is one thing. However, as teams become better equipped and as more teams are added to the "super-alliance", I see some sort of regulation being necessary - to prevent one "super-alliance" from becoming so dominant that other teams feel there is no point in participating, and students of the remaining teams become uninspired.

I know that TRW has the ability to coordinate several facilities via NetMeeting, video conferences, etc. and does this with US facilities as well as locations throughout Italy, Germany, Korea, and Japan just to name a few. Designs are shared, reviewed, improved, etc. Again, choosing the proper time becomes an issue with time zones, but it can be worked out.

And based on my experience, I strongly believe that when designing a subsystem or component, it is a lot easier to optimize for weight, strength, performance, etc. over a certain period and coordinate with other facilities as to how it will work with the entire system, than to optimize an entire system for the same characteristics given the same time constraints.

I would be shocked if Delphi / GM / Ford didn't have this ability. This is not to single out companies that I expect would be collaborating in the future, but more to mention some teams (or sponsoring companies) that, if they did collaborate in the future would make it incredibly difficult for a rookie team to be competitive against. Perhaps difficult enough to persuade teams to not form or drop out.

It is true that today there are teams with little to no engineering support. But if collaborating continues , let alone grows, I would hate to listen in on the brainstorming and concept generation meetings that these teams would have, as I imagine they'd go something like:

"What about a robot that grabs the goals and pulls them around?"
"What about a robot that collects balls and delivers them to the player station?"
"What's the point? You know we won't be able to compete with the Delphi Super-Alliance, or the GM Super-Alliance, or ..."

Raising the bar for robot performance is good. Inspiring more students is better. But inspiring select students on superior teams with significantly overlapping capabilities at the cost of the future of the competition (and all it stands for) is, in my opinion, not worth it. I don't mean to imply this is what happened this year. I'm speaking of where I see this leading to.

Some people have even compared this to NASCAR. Where all teams have the same robots (because they all worked in the same Super Alliance) and the competition comes down to which students operate the robot the best. This might still be exciting to watch, but I doubt it will still inspire students to pursue scientific and technological fields.

[KenWittlief]

Personally I think this decision from FIRST has crossed a new boundary, and in the long run it might not be a good thing.

In the past teams have always helped each other out, sharing knowledge, experience, resources, spare parts, designs from previous years - primarilly sharing knowledge and resources.

the thing that is different now is not only can you tell another team how to do something (shared knowledge) you can actaully DO it for them. Brainstorm, design, fabricate, build, test, debug, and then say "here you go - here is your completed arm, drivetrain, tranny, SW, or the whole machine!"

that will reduce FIRST from a robotics design competition to a robotics sporting competition - you no longer have to account for who built your robot, or where you got it from - another team can build the whole thing for you now, and you only drive it during the matches (that is not what has happened so far, but it is the extreem of what this new ruling allows)

thats the line FIRST has crossed, from showing other teams HOW to design and build, to DOING it for them.

I know that FIRST already supplies default transmissions and default code - enough to get a basic frame up and running - but that is only a starting point - you could not compete very effectively if you only assembled what came in the KOP and added nothing to it

but now things have changed. Now you can get a very sophisticated transmission, or have someone else write very complex code for you, and you can use it in the games, never having to do any design, build, test, debug work yourself - why is this different?

Now there is no incentive to do it yourself - almost anyone could design something better than the stock FIRST drivetrain, but can you design a drivetrain better than teams who win regionls or chamionships repeatedly? Why push yourself out of your comfort zone? why push yourself to learn something new, to work on something you have never done before when you can get a final product from another team that is probabally better than what you can do on your own?

Is this the direction FIRST really wants to take, to eliminate the design competition and focus only on the playfield competition?

And what about the design awards? if 3 or 4 teams show up with identical robots, how can you give a design award to one of them without giving it to all 4 teams? how do you know which team designed the part of the robot that the award is being granted for?

I dont mean to be the devils advocate on this subject - there are many areas within FIRST for teams to work together and make the experiece more rewarding on all sides. Personally I think that allowing one team to DO the work for another will dilute the experience of the receiving team. You learn so much more by trying to solve a problem yourself, even if your solution is not very good or effective on the playfield - at least by then you will know intimately WHY it did not work and have some idea of what you could have done better. If someone else builds all or part of your bot for you then what have you gained?

Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life :c) To really set someone on fire with a passion for engineering and science, you have to let them struggle through the design cycle, to push themselves past everything they have done before. And most important, to see for themselves "I can do this!" I believe this is one of the core value of FIRST.

[Venkatesh]

The entire collaboration issue reminds me greatly of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program. The fact that two teams were able to make this work is impressive.

I also think that FIRST's answer is very professional and makes good sense. Kudos to them.

[Joe Ross]

I'm still undecided about collaboration as a strategy. I can see how it can damage the game in the future, but I also see how much it can help to inspire students.

That said, I was against it initially, because I couldn't see how it was legal within the rules given to us at the beginning of the competition. However, once again, FIRST has amazed me because they were able to find a happy medium. They have an interpretation which allows 254 and 60 to compete, and also uphold the rules.

Now, of course, this ruling only stands for this year. I'm sure that FIRST is watching this thread, and they will be listening closely at the Team Forums this year. So, this discussion has shifted from whether it is illegal or not, but whether it should be legal in the future, and more importantly WHY it should be legal or illegal in the future.

[dlavery]

I have some more comments on the subtleties of collaboration that I will post later. But I do have one thought about the "full-blown" version of collaboration (to the point of co-design and co-building) that has caused all the uproar, and I am very surprised that this has not come up anywhere in the various discussions so far.

As a COMPETITOR, I just absolutely LOVE the fact that these two teams have essentially built the same machine this year, and I hope they continue to do so forever! Why? Because they have just made my job 50% easier!

Huh?

OK, here goes. Every year I get to praise the heavens because our team rarely has to go up against 254 and 60 (thank goodness they are on the wrong side of the country!). Their solutions to the game are always so good, and so creative, that we have to spend a very great amount of time trying to figure out how to defeat them should we ever oppose them in a match (the same can be said for Team Hammond, Chief Delphi, Team 122, and many others). When considering these two teams, we always had to come up with two counter-strategies, develop two sets of plays, practice two sets of scenarios, etc. **

But now, if we can figure out how to beat one of them, then we know how to beat the other. We get twice the benefit for half the work! Everyone posting concerns about how closely teams have collaborated has intimated the result of the collaboration will always be an unbeatable machine. I am not convinced that is the case. We have seen in the past that every "unbeatable" machine has a weakness, and it is just a matter of exploiting it (e.g. even the mighty Beatty Machine in 2002 lost a few rounds). The result of teams collaborating (to the point of co-designing) may be better machines, but I am a long way from assuming they will be unbeatable (or even the "best" machines). Given that, our job is to look for the weaknesses in the design - and if we find it, then we can "kill two birds with one stone."

A concern was expressed earlier in the thread about what would happen if five or ten teams all worked together to build identical machines. Well, they would build ten identical machines, with ten implementations of the same strengths. But they would also have ten copies of the same weaknesses. If we can find it, we have just figured out how to defeat ten teams all at once. So if I hear about ten teams that want to get together, my only response will be "BRING IT ON! "

At the end of the day, I think that the off-the-playfield ramifications of the "full-blown collaboration" are a very positive thing, for the reasons stated in the FIRST answers, and many others. As a potential competitor ON the play field, I like it even more!

-dave

** note: a few times in past years, our response strategy has been to build a machine that falls apart before we can ever compete against these guys, and we therefore avoid the entire issue altogether - perhaps not the brightest strategy, but hey, it works for us!

[Elgin Clock]

(Yay!! I finally get to (maybe) post this!!)

I have decided to offer an idea into play that just may be able to come to be with the advances FIRST is making with this whole collaboration ruling.
I think everything that needed to be said about that whole 254-60 thread has already been said. So, I am going to pose a question for all of you and you tell me what you think about it.

Two years ago I talked with a member of a very competitive and good spirited FIRST team from California. (No, sorry, it wasn't team 254 - I cannot reveal my source - yet - unless they want me to.)

Anyways, we talked about the fact that in 2002 it was the first year that a team could make a custom electronics board. (With, I believe, it was a $100 limit.)

The idea that was proposed was to work together with a team, like 60 and 254 are doing this year, but allow your two robots to link physically and electronically somehow during competition and make one robot that is

a) possibly double the weight limit
b) double the electrical power - hence the intergration of the custom circuit board
c) allowing a sort of partnership to form over the six weeks between team members of the two teams
d) allow the robots to possibly compete together in the competition and just possibly win it all - together (with the current qualifying structure that exists you could do this - alliance pickings are NOT random as of yet)
What do you think of this as a possibility of happening, or the legality of this under FIRST jurisdiction now or in the future???

While I wondered over the technical aspects of this possibility it never came to my mind that members of an organization such as FIRST who are on the cutting edge of technology at such a young age, would have such a problem of trying to have an open mind and "thinking outside of the box" as I have seen in that closed thread about 254 & 60.

While in this particular case team's 254 and 60 are not essentially linking together their robot's to "win it all", in the scenario that was concieved a few years ago on a Saturday night in Epcot after a few days of heavy competing, trading information with fellow teams, wins, losses and some major bonding and heartbreaks, a few assumptions can and will more than likely be made for the two, or more, teams that do this.

Is it fair? Probably not. But is the FIRST competition fair as it stands?
As it was quoted before, even Dean himself said that FIRST was not fair to all, even though they try to give everyon a level playing field so to speak.

Does every team get the same knowledge coming into the competition every year?
Does every team have the same facilities and/or resources that all other teams have?

Does every team have the same number of students and engineers?

The bottom line and question I want you to think over is:

Do you think FIRST will ever write a rule that says something like:
"You can not pool resources together with another team and help each other. You can not build similar robots, or ones that interact with each other?"

I personally think not....
But, that is just my opinion!

[Katie Reynolds]

Originally Posted by dlavery

...Because they have just made my job 50% easier!

...Their solutions to the game are always so good, and so creative, that we have to spend a very great amount of time trying to figure out how to defeat them should we ever oppose them in a match ...
... if we can figure out how to beat one of them, then we know how to beat the other. We get twice the benefit for half the work!
... A concern was expressed earlier in the thread about what would happen if five or ten teams all worked together to build identical machines. ...they would also have ten copies of the same weaknesses. If we can find it, we have just figured out how to defeat ten teams all at once.

Wow ... I guess I never really thought about it from that point of view - Thanks, Dave! I feel enlightened.

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

That said, I was against it initially, because I couldn't see how it was legal within the rules given to us at the beginning of the competition. However, once again, FIRST has amazed me because they were able to find a happy medium. They have an interpretation which allows 254 and 60 to compete, and also uphold the rules.

When I first heard about the collaboration of 60 and 254, I felt the same way. After the ruling stating the legality of the collaboration of two teams, I'm not totally for or against the idea of this type of collaboration. If that's what teams want to do, and they feel it's the best way to learn, teach and be inspired, go for it! That's what this is all about, anyway! Thinking about it, it takes the 'real world' side of FIRST to a whole new level - communicating between two cities is hard, imagine how hard it is to communicate between two states! Congrats to the teams that are able to do this, and do it well.

That said, I don't think I would personally want my team to participate in this sort of collaboration with another team. Why? *shrug* I like trying to build a new, innovative, robot that performs the same tasks as everyone else's in a different way than others. Seeing my robot on the field compete with or against its twin would be ... different. I don't think I would care for that.

But that's me and just me. Like I said before, if teams want to go ahead and do it, I have no problem with it.

Good luck to everyone this season!

Originally Posted by dlavery

** note: a few times in past years, our response strategy has been to build a machine that falls apart before we can ever compete against these guys, and we therefore avoid the entire issue altogether - perhaps not the brightest strategy, but hey, it works for us!

Haha, very nice. *makes a mental note - "team 116 will fall apart if they feel the competition is as tough as 60 & 254

[KenWittlief]

I agree that a flaw or weakness in a design of a super collaboration would mean a weakness in all ten teams on the field

but I think the weaknesses that show up on the field are largely due to the fact the we have a limited amount of time and resources, and we have to design a whole robot in 6 weeks

so by having a ten team design alliance, each team only has to build one tenth of the robot - they will have plenty of time to perfect it in 6 weeks

it would be like playing against a team that has 300 students and 30 mentors, who are entering 10 robots into the contest, instead of playing against 10 individual teams with 30 students and 3 mentors each.

I dont like those odds. If we are on the opposite side of the field, It would feel like you are going against a team that had 330 members and $300,000 in funding.

[dlavery]

Hmmmm.... I am getting even further convinced that any group that goes down this road will quickly discover the point of diminishing returns.

I'm thinking about 300 studnets and 30 engineers, spread across 10 different locations, working on the same project, trying to set interface standards for at least 10 different subsystems, establishing production procedures for at least 10 copies (20 if you want a spare robot, 30 if you want spare parts) of everything, setting up communications infrastructures, the required layer of management and bureaucracy to get everything coordinated, shipping and logistics for all the parts, quality control for the production runs, new facilities needed for parts production (you are no longer in "one-off" mode here), etc. etc etc.

Then there is the fact that you need to get 330 team members to agree to the design approach (that will take at least two weeks of negotiation - just try to get a group that size to agree on ANYTHING). At least 30 engineers need to converge on the design details (there goes another ten days). Develop the interface specifications (one week), and control theory. Assuming you actually want to practise with your completed robot for at least 48 hours, that least one week for actual construction of parts, shipping them around the country, assembling and integrating them, finding out the specs were wrong, and iterating through the whole thing at least one more time. They are going to spend most of their $300,00 budget just on paperwork, logistics, communications and shipping. The net investment in the actual robot should be about $1.97.

As I said before, if some group wants to go through all that, I say "BRING IT ON!!! )

-dave

[KenWittlief]

Id like to propose an idea that takes collaboration almost up to this point, but still allows each team to create a unique machine.

When you have a regional in your hometown its much easier to form new teams - the travel and shipping expenses dissapear, unless you want to goto more than one event.

a couple years ago I was talking with other engineers during the championship at epcot, and came up with the idea of cities that have regionals also having a year round FIRST facility. A place with a single machine shop, a single playfield, computer room, lunch room, parts room, electronics equipment

but separate meeting and assembly rooms for individual teams. this would allow small teams with no real resources to meet in a common location and share a great deal of facilities and resources, while still being able to be independant teams with regards to their robot design. Engineers and mentors could choose to be team mentors or site mentors (im sure they would all end up helping all the teams as needed).

From my experience over the years the competition part of FIRST is extreemly important. When we have tried to get students to work on ideas in the off season, participation drops through the floor - nobody is interested.

There is something about human nature that makes us want to compete with each other - Im worried that having too many teams working together on a single design will take that away from FIRST, and the energy will drop like it does in the off season.

Having a single central location for multiple teams to work on their machines allows the maximum amount of cooperation, without loosing the element of competition. FIRST needs both.

[Shawn60]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Hmmmm.... I am getting even further convinced that any group that goes down this road will quickly discover the point of diminishing returns.

I'm thinking about 300 studnets and 30 engineers, spread across 10 different locations, working on the same project, trying to set interface standards for at least 10 different subsystems, establishing production procedures for at least 10 copies (20 if you want a spare robot, 30 if you want spare parts) of everything, setting up communications infrastructures, the required layer of management and bureaucracy to get everything coordinated, shipping and logistics for all the parts, quality control for the production runs, new facilities needed for parts production (you are no longer in "one-off" mode here), etc. etc etc.

Then there is the fact that you need to get 330 team members to agree to the design approach (that will take at least two weeks of negotiation - just try to get a group that size to agree on ANYTHING). At least 30 engineers need to converge on the design details (there goes another ten days). Develop the interface specifications (one week), and control theory. Assuming you actually want to practise with your completed robot for at least 48 hours, that least one week for actual construction of parts, shipping them around the country, assembling and integrating them, finding out the specs were wrong, and iterating through the whole thing at least one more time. They are going to spend most of their $300,00 budget just on paperwork, logistics, communications and shipping.

As I said before, if some group wants to go through all that, I say "BRING IT ON!!! )

-dave

We were two teams and it took us about two weeks to get the CAD and desing done, let alone build a thing. Mistakes are worse when they are done at long distaces. Here are just two examples. After the gear boxes were designed, 254 made the side plates and 60 made the gears. 254 shiped the plates to us, 6o, and we realized they were designed wrong. We, 60, then had to re-engineer and build new paltes and ship them back to 254 (both teams losing time), Secondly, 254 made the plates for the wench. They made side plates and not the mounting paltes. OOOPS again. I think we sent 254 the wrong drawing, I still don't know what happened. Collaboration like this is easier in some ways and harder in others.

I have found over the years that when you try something new you solve some problems but also trade old problems for new problems.

My experience so far this year is that is has been as challenging, exciting, stressful, and rewarding as my previous 5 in FIRST. My students are equally happy and excited.

13 Days until the Phoemix Regioanl

Shawn
Team 60

[Glenn]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Hmmmm.... I am getting even further convinced that any group that goes down this road will quickly discover the point of diminishing returns.

I'm thinking about 300 studnets and 30 engineers, spread across 10 different locations, working on the same project, trying to set interface standards for at least 10 different subsystems, establishing production procedures for at least 10 copies (20 if you want a spare robot, 30 if you want spare parts) of everything, setting up communications infrastructures, the required layer of management and bureaucracy to get everything coordinated, shipping and logistics for all the parts, quality control for the production runs, new facilities needed for parts production (you are no longer in "one-off" mode here), etc. etc etc.

Then there is the fact that you need to get 330 team members to agree to the design approach (that will take at least two weeks of negotiation - just try to get a group that size to agree on ANYTHING). At least 30 engineers need to converge on the design details (there goes another ten days). Develop the interface specifications (one week), and control theory. Assuming you actually want to practise with your completed robot for at least 48 hours, that least one week for actual construction of parts, shipping them around the country, assembling and integrating them, finding out the specs were wrong, and iterating through the whole thing at least one more time. They are going to spend most of their $300,00 budget just on paperwork, logistics, communications and shipping. The net investment in the actual robot should be about $1.97.

As I said before, if some group wants to go through all that, I say "BRING IT ON!!! )

-dave

This hits the nail on the head doing a project with one other team is hard enough. You might be able to bring a third team into the mix but it would take a very special group to make that work.

For those of you who know team 60 we try to get our design and strategy complete seven to ten days after kick off, and our robot complete in week four. This year we were more than two weeks into the design and we finished up on the night before we shipped.

When you are building four robots you do save some time because of increased production quantities, but don’t forget we are proto typing at the same time so when something goes wrong you have to fix it four times and believe me this happened.

Was the project a success? Absolute both team 60 and 254 learned many valuable lessons. We had to work had but we had a lot of fun designing and building together and I believe I can speak for both teams when I say we would do it again.

I’m a businessman in Kingman, my competitors know when we go head to head for a job that I’m a tough competitor, but they also know if they need help they can count on us. This is what has made us successful company.

If we are going to put man on Mars and learn more about the creation of the Universe or find a cure for cancer and so on. It will take people working together and I believe this is one of the most important aspects I can share with my students.

I do not think you will ever see ten of the same robots nor do I believe you will see many team take this to the level that our two teams did.

As JFK said we did not do this because it was easy, we did it because it was hard.

[Crop-Circles]

Originally Posted by dlavery

We have seen in the past that every "unbeatable" machine has a weakness, and it is just a matter of exploiting it (e.g. even the mighty Beatty Machine in 2002 lost a few rounds). The result of teams collaborating (to the point of co-designing) may be better machines, but I am a long way from assuming they will be unbeatable (or even the "best" machines).

Our team was allied with Beatty that year in nationals. I agree that there is no such thing as an unbeatable machine. However, if I recall correctly, when we and beatty were on the field, we never lost. Almost the only way to stop Beatty's beautiful robot was to turn it before it got to their scoring zone. Our robot was enough of a tank that we were able to stand behind them and keep them from turning. Our strategies complemented each others perfectly.

What does this have to do with collaboration?

It's true that FIRST provides enough of a challenge that it's not likely a single robot could be completly unbeatable. But an alliance built to function together might be close. Granted, two teams could do this in the strategy part of build season, it would likely be easier if the teams work closely all during build season. Besides, once teams get used to working together on robots, they'll likely be looking for more challenges. Building the "perfect" alliance may be that challenge.

Another problem could arise if teams start helping rookie teams through collaboration, but end up basicly building a robot for them. There is a certain balance created by the amount of competitive teams vs. the number of rookie teams. If more and more rookies are as powerful as veterans, it will raise the bar for veterans even further and could (as was mentioned before) intimidate rookie teams. If this was a widely established program, that wouldn't be to much of a problem. However FIRST still has a good amount of growing to do.

On the other hand, collaboration could be the next challenge for veteran teams that would get them concentrated on something other then building a better robot. It would then keep powerful teams from intimidating rookies while encouraging them to help the rookies, and further balance the playing field.

I think the real question is, is the threat of even more overpowered robots greater then the potential positive changes of increased gracious professionalism?