|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#31
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [moderated] Collaboration
What I am most intrigued about is the cooperation in the offseason. I had suggested this to a friend on another local team, that we may collaborate in the off season to develop technologies that would then be used in the season.
We are both rookie teams, we figured we could pool our resources and come up with some very successful technologies. Such as autonamous, the electrical folks on both teams when they first met (at a Georgia Tech TES) were very excited about their dashboard programs, encoders and inertial guideance. Also we wished to develop a form of machine vision that could sense the location of the playing pieces on the field and create a digital map of where every fied piece is. This system would also allow the robot to calibrate its sensors to the field. This endevor would be both very costly and require much expertise that neither team on its own had. However, we felt that if we collaborated we could solve our problems together. To make a long story short, final exams rolled around, then it was the winter break, and then the build season started. We had not collaborated. I feel this is an excellent form of collaboration. Take the car example, Porche and VW collaborated to build the Chyanne and the Touraeg respectively. The cars systems are very similar, technologies were developed jointly as a result of their cooperation. They share a very similar chassis and transmission, however, the Porche looks nothing like the VW. They each took the base level technologies and developed something unique. It would be pointless to have the same identical car because then they would not be in competition. That is why I ask, if both teams were to be yearning for the last spot in the finals. They were trying to get choosen, by a finalist team, what would set one team apart from the other? They are the same. That is why there are different quirks about the two SUVs. The Porche is pricier but also more powerful. The VW is cheaper but lacks some of Porche's "umph". Which one would you pick? Good luck! -Andy |
|
#32
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [moderated] Collaboration
I still see a few problems with this. The main one is that collaboration on this scale really does make it possible for a team to solely focus on perfecting a part of the robot. I realize that collaborating across state lines was difficult, but I think that would be the exception, rather than the norm. Collaborating with a team in the same city would make things much, much easier, while keeping all the advantages of the collaboration.
Mostly, however, my real issue is that this effectively allows a team to enter multiple robots into the same competition. Once this ruling has been made, I don't see much standing in the way of a school forming two teams, buying two kits and building identical robots and entering them both into the same competitions. Finally, I slightly disagree about making FIRST teams more business-like. If FIRST really is trying to make teams into businesses, I can't think of a quicker way to make kids lose interest. With all the advantages of collaboration come highly structured meetings, procedures for making changes to the robot, loads of paperwork, diluted involement in the design of the robot, etc. Two teams collaborating could gain large advantages to making a competitive robot, at the expense of losing the interest of the kids. I don't think that's a good trade-off to make teams consider. |
|
#33
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [moderated] Collaboration
Quote:
-dave |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [moderated] Collaboration
To further a point made by KenWittlief and others earlier...
Ohio State this year sponsors *3* teams, each at a different high school (one public, one private, one home school). Each team operates semi-autonomously - each design/build their own robot, but at the mentor level there is a lot of cooperation (especially since we're all friends/classmates). We/they (I've graduated or something) run integrated fall training sessions (in conjunction with other Central Ohio teams), which is amazing. This is way better than each team developing and implementing essentially the same material. By sharing it across our teams and with the others in the area, we're able to leverage the combined expertise of the group. We're electrically heavy, so we teach most of the electrical/controls related materials. Mentors from other teams share their mechanical knowledge, or 3DStudioMax, or fundraising, or.... The class/team ratio is such that some teams don't even have to contribute - they can just show up and participate. To me, this really starts hitting at the spirit of FIRST - since it's all about inspiring/teaching, who cares who's at the front of the room or gets the credit? We even extend this, to some degree, to the build season. One of our fall sessions is a "lessons learned", where we share how we go about the design/build process and some pitfalls we've come across - other teams do the same. This isn't to say we're dictating "here's how we run design week, you must do it this way", but rather we're just sharing our (unique) way of viewing the "FIRST problem". This is fairly recent so I can't comment on how well this is worked (unless some of the other CORA teams want to jump in here and say something), but I view this as a good thing. The area-wide collaboration dies down once build starts, mostly b/c teams are too busy doing their own things. The idea has been floated to have design review sessions of sorts. The idea here would be for teams to present their high-level designs to some moderated (or un-moderated) panel, which would hopefully catch major design flaws and pass on advice. For example, if a team said they wanted to build a time travel device, the panel might caution against that. A similar idea has been proposed for exchanging strategy ideas. The big problem we've found so far is that the inner culture of each team is different -number of hours expected from the students, days of the week they meet, pace of the design schedule - those are prohibitively different enough that unless the need is really clear, most teams shy away. The comparisons to industry start to break down here – all TRW/Ford/Wherever employees share (well, in theory) the same vision, purpose – and they are paid to do so. That’s not always the case in the FIRST world – if it was, these forums would be pretty boring. The OSU teams, however, still collaborate a little during build season. This is mostly limited to an exchange of ideas (again at the mentor level), leveraging off the experience of the collective group. We're all college students, so we don't have the years of experience built up to help us out. Instead, we do have years of making really stupid mistakes designing FIRST robots, so we pass those stories along hoping we don't repeat them. Each team has a machinist-type (a college student that has some experience), so we can leverage off the experience of another team's "machinist". For us, this is just a logical step. The number of mentors keeps increasing, so we keep spawning new teams. The relationships are there, so why not capitalize on them? In fact, for us it's one of the few ways we can really be competitive against teams with "real" engineers. (well, that and we have no families and lots of machine shop access, but that's for a different thread) So, back to Ken's point, we nearly fit what he's saying - we're several teams, working together, but still semi-autonomously. At the mentor level, I think this is a great idea. The individual teams still have ownership of their designs, but we can leverage off of the collective experience of the group. For us, it's pretty natural because of the way the team(s) were founded/structured. For disjoint industry teams, the integration might not happen so seamlessly. Our biggest problem has just been a lack of workspace. The mentors play nicely (well, as much as you could hope for anyway ), and the students seem to enjoy it. We did have an issue a few years ago where the "gracious professionalism" bit didn't take hold, but once they got it, things have been fine ever since. We don't, however, completely share designs/prints/parts, though I suppose I could envision instances where this could/would happen. What I don't see, however, is that this ruling will "require" such collaboration in the future. To us, the most important thing is exposing the students to the realm of engineering. If we happen to build a robot to do that, so be it. The robot is just a delivery mechanism to make that happen. Would I like to have a competitive machine? Of course I would. Our team has had both the lows of not moving for most of a competition, to the highs of making the semi's at the Chicago regional a few years ago, so I know what it’s like to be on both ends of the spectrum. Performing well is much better than not moving. But does it really matter if we win? Of course not. To me, the basis for a collaboration decision shouldn't be to remain competitive, but rather to have your students get the most out of the experience. If your situation is such that a collaborative effort makes sense, then by all means. If not, so what? That doesn’t mean you won’t be competitive, and so what if you don’t win? (ignoring sponsorship concerns, of course) |
|
#35
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [moderated] Collaboration
Quote:
|
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [moderated] Collaboration
Just a few notes.
1 - Emery is entering 2 robots into the Canadian Regional this year. One robot built by the girls and the 2nd by the guys. This should prove very interesting. 2 - My belief is that I am against teams building for other teams. I work for a company that has 1 group of people that do all leading edge installations and all major installations. What this has caused is a serious weakness in the system. There are a lot of technicians that have dwindling skills, abilities and confidence. The longer that you are away from something the harder it is to rebuild your skillsets. With multiple teams doing their own functions they will be able to improve on their part but what happens to the rest of their skillsets? 3 - I am proud to be part of a team that builds it's own robot. Each year the students learn new skills and pass on to others what they have learned in the past. That does not stop us from helping other teams solve their problems. We are more than willing to share ideas and resources with other teams to help them improve on their ideas but we don't build their robot for them. 4 - Not all decisions that are made by FIRST are right. They are still the rules but they are also made by people that will, can and do make errors. Everyone of us (I am #1 in line) makes mistakes. This is how we improve and learn. This is how we make the best product around. Just ask any engineer and I am sure that they will say that nothing is perfect and the best possible design, on the first time around. FIRST is a great organization and does a great job. I believe that they also listen. There are decisions made that may not be liked by all of us but need to be made and evaluated at a later date. Let's continue to discuss and support one of the best informational, educational and inspirational organizations in the world. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [moderated] Collaboration
As has been noted:
1. There is no rule prohibiting multiple entries from single "groups" (schools, districts, pairs of schools, etc.). 2. The collaboration between 254 and 60 this year is no different than the collaboration that exists WITHIN a single team. (Yes, they did it across a long distance, but there are teams made of students that come from across cities, from different schools, etc.) It seems to me that 60*254 is functioning as a single team with multiple entries - which is perfectly legal. As would be any "super-partnership" made of what were previously single teams. Which brings up the question: Why don't those teams which have the resources to do so enter multiple times? I mean some teams have budgets two or three TIMES larger than others - they could easily enter multiple robots at single events, or travel to many different regionals in a season using different robots... Just asking. -Mr. Van Coach, 599 |
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [moderated] Collaboration
I only have one small problem with the 254/60 collaboration, its not that they did it its that I think one of the coolest parts of FIRST is that everyone has the same task and the same parts and I love to see what ideas other teams thought of. Yea, I know sometimes the robots do the same general thing but collaborations kinda take away from that by having 2 of the same robots there. Just thought I had to say my part. Good Luck!
|
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [moderated] Collaboration
Personally, I feel that it is:
A) Legal, since there is no rule against it. B) Morally acceptable - It's cooperation, isn't that a part of what FIRST is about? C) How do you enforce it, if it was illegal? |
|
#40
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: [moderated] Collaboration
Teams 254 and 60, I applaud you. I'm glad FIRST ruled in your favor.
Getting a robot designed, built and tested in 6 weeks is tough. Doing it successfully with a team that's in another state is incredible. I work for a small division of Lockheed Martin in Florida - I doubt they even know we exist here. We have a sister office in Seattle that works jointly on our programs, but communication is like pulling teeth. It frequently takes more effort to coordinate the work than it would to do it yourself. We wonder why companies waste so much time reorganizing and moving, but studies show that if the guy working with you isn't within about 10 feet you won't talk to him. If he's on another floor or in another building he might as well be in another country. It's always amazing to go into a design review and see everyone surprised by some decision that you thought was common knowledge. Even in procurement - I think the stat was that Lockheed Martin had 34 divisions, 33 of them used a common procurement system and then there was us. I used to be able to walk down to my buyer's desk, show her what I needed and have it on order the next day. But since that didn't use all the wonderful resources available to such a large company we got brought into the fold and now use the common system. Now I'm lucky if I get a part on order within a month and even luckier if it's what I wanted. BTW - I love my job and love working here, just venting a little about the problems with large companies. There are definitely benefits but probably just as many if not more problems. I wouldn't worry about competing against a Mega-Delphi team or Mega-Ford team, I'd worry about being on it and trying to get anything done. I think the reason Beatty is so successful every year is that it's a "small" company atmosphere where everyone works together and communicates. One final thought - although in industry alliances are allowed, there are pretty specific rules to control them so they don't become a monopoly. I think FIRST has the ability to keep them in check so it's always a positive thing. |
|
#41
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [moderated] Collaboration
So the question arose a while back about how the argument would change if one of these teams in question did well...and since 254 won Sacramento (congrats, by the way), I'd like to bring it back up again.
How does this make the discussion change? Does it change the dicsussion at all? Does it make you want your team to collaborate in the future? Ponder. Discuss. ![]() |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [moderated] Collaboration
254 ALWAYS does well...they are simply a superb team. I don't know their exact record, but I want to say they've probably won something like 6 out of the last 8 regionals they've attended. So their victory in Sacramento should not be seen as evidence that collaboration is either good or bad.
Moreover, the students know the robot. When they have trouble, there are about 10 students (and two adults) actively working to get things fixed. In fact, they did have some pervasive problems with their cable. Being an excellent team with an excellent robot, they still performed incredibly well. I've personally decided that collaboration is now just another choice that teams can make, depending on their own philosophy. I think team 60 and 254 are model teams that really "get it". Eric. |
|
#43
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [moderated] Collaboration
Quote:
Did they account for the manafacturing done by the other team? And if so how? EDIT: FIRST ruled on this in the Q&A system (ID:788). Apparently, the manafacturing of components by other teams does not have to be accounted for as long as no labor charges are involved. Only the cost of the raw materials have to be accounted for, as if the manafacturing was actually being done by the team itself. Thanks Ken. Last edited by MikeDubreuil : 22-03-2004 at 17:52. |
|
#44
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [moderated] Collaboration
Just a thought
does anyone actually think that this sort of super collaboration would occur? I think it's great if a more capable team is helping one with less capabilites (machining etc.), but I don't think any team would build a large portion of someone elses robot, or the whole thing. There's too much team pride out there for that.This really dosen't answer the real problem though. If a high level of collaboration happens between teams of common location or sponsorship, first will have to do something to stop it if it happens. Just imagine the capabilites they would have . It would make the game impossible for everyone else, and end up defeating the entire purpose of FIRST if a couple of teams had such a degree of domination. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Collaboration.. | Brandon Martus | Announcements | 34 | 26-02-2004 22:37 |
| FIRST rules on Inter-Team Collaboration | Joel Glidden | General Forum | 3 | 25-02-2004 13:15 |
| Robot Collaboration | Karthik | General Forum | 153 | 18-02-2004 03:40 |