[moderated] Collaboration

[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?

[Redhead Jokes]

Originally Posted by dlavery

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

Our alliance came up with a strategy to beat them last year, and we almost succeeded. We remain coopetitors with Team 60.

I was puzzled by all the controversy over their collaboration. I didn't feel threatened by it. I didn't feel it meant we had to collaborate in the same way to compete well, or that the sky was falling and everyone would be making the same robot. Creative solutions, realizing "life" isn't fair...all went thru my head - that it was still going to be fascinating to see their designs and how it all panned out.

Many, many years ago in high school modeling the teacher said that Cosmopolitan Magazine does all kinds of crazy things in order to get it's readership to make one tiny change, make a little purchase, move a tiny step forward in some area...

I can be fascinated by Martha Stewart - but certainly can't hold a candle to her. However she's taught me a thing or two that I can incorporate into my life.

60 inspires our team.

[Dan Richardson]

With the collaboration issue now ruled on it will open up a new can of worms. I can't help but agree with everyone a little on this subject. Yes its a hard feat to accomplish, Yes if you build Identical robots its 50% the strategy, and yes you have to work hard at the infustructure to pull it off.

But now picture with me if you will. Teams will soon realize that to have any chance at winning it is almost nescessary to form some sort of alliance or a super-alliance. Everyone seems to believe that this would be a nearly impossible feat to accomplish, but think with me for a second. What if remote kickoff's turned into nearly ":Alliance Summits". Each team in the alliance ( maybe every team within 60 miles which in certain areas could be as many as 40 or more teams! )

Team sends delegates, maybe 2 mentors and 2 students to meet. Then those delegates present their ideas for strategies on the game. Depending on the game 2 or 3 different robots will chosen to be designed. Alliance appointed heads would then brake off and coordinate with each group to make robots that worked perfectly together. For instance, this year, if a 1 of the robots did the hanging and another robot latched on to it to hang. Or 2 years ago in 2002 2 robots latching onto eachother forming a super bot to push everyone and everything off the field. The possibilities are endless.

Each team leaves the summit with the plans in hand and begin building their bot. Now they only have to collaborate with the 8 or so teams that are building the same robot those 8 robots which work perfectly with another 8 robots, which in turn also can work perfectly with another 8 robots.

Regionals turn into basically giant practice matches, and with that many robots, the possibility that you would get a pair at nationals is huge.

Now this example is blown way out of proportion. But even if it is done with 2 or 3 teams. The odds of 1 of those teams to get into top 8 are pretty great. ( Even if they don't get into the top 8, what team in their right mind would not want to pick the 2 super alliance bots )They then pick the rest of the alliance to work with. Teams then start dominating regionals, which are quite possibly the most integral part of FIRST. Many smaller teams that make up the majority of FIRST would be discouraged from coming back, because the way they see it, the regional level is they only place they can win. But now they are dominated by super-allainces who rejoice in collaborated winning.

I am not worried about identical robot collaboration even tho it seems a bit unfair. I realize that 60 and 254 would have produced amazing robots anyways. Infact I never was upset with either of these teams.

I am worried about what ELSE can come from collaboration. Because FIRST ruled that teams can work like this together. This rulings allows teams to work together how I described. It gets rid of the uniqeness of FIRST, and creates a bland mediocrity in which superbly built robots crush the little guy. I've always enjoyed seeing 950 different robots every year. Now I imagine in the future I'll have to look forward to seeing 600 or 425, or 300, or 150.

However I still believe FIRST gave just reason for their rulling, so this is why I'll be doing a lot of talking regional events. Making friendships that hopefully will begin to form great partnerships. Now I could be wrong, the masses of FIRST might decide against such a route.

However I will not sit quietly and let my team or friends teams be pushed out of the competitive aspect of FIRST. I will take FIRST's descision and run with it. Even if it begins to make my worst FIRST nightmare a reality. I stand behind it and will work hard and continue to promote FIRST in its new avenue, where ever it may take us.

[IMDWalrus]

My biggest problem with collaboration? Feeling involved.

Last year, I was on 818's "Robot Support" team. We did all of the odd jobs that the team needed someone to do - building the playing field, making the crate, and so on. The biggest problem I had with Robot Support was that the five of us that made up the group had almost no input in the robot design. I ended up feeling useless and uninvolved in the small successes 818 had during last year's game. Needless to say, that's not a good feeling.

This year, I moved to our team's Electronics group. Almost immediately, things were different. My group was asked to contribute ideas, and we did so. We were presented with the final design...and then, four weeks into the build, discovered that our work so far had to be redone because someone had decided to change the design of the robot without informing us.

I'm not sure how to best communicate my point...I guess it'd be that it's hard enough to feel involved on your own team at times, and even a minor change can spell disaster. Collaboration would definitely make it much harder for students to take a part in robot design. I may just be pessimistic, but the end result I see for collaboration woud be a small group of experienced students and engineers from various teams making the majority of design decisions and leaving the rest of the teams' members feeling useless.

As far as design goes...This is a rather extreme example, but let's say that Team A, who is working on the drive train, decides to deviate from the original plan and give the robots treads instead of wheels. The message gets through to several of the teams in the alliance...but Team E, who is working on the chassis, never finds out. Now all of the teams involved would be stuck with treads that won't fit onto their chassis. Not good in any way.

Communication and involvement are hard enough to control on a single team...it would be a nightmare if you had to get four or five teams on the same track.

I have a feeling that I'm not alone when I say that I'd much prefer to be involved in a team where the students make the entire robot instead of becoming specialized in a smaller area - say, electronics - and allowing others to design the majority of their robot.