FIRST - Reason for existance

Originally Posted by M. Krass

I didn't have the benefit of being able to attend the Championship this season, so I did not hear Kamen's speech and cannot write about it with any accuracy. Given its topic, however, I can surmise that two things might have been happening.

First, Kamen may just be immensely hypocritical and playing the role of propagandist and recruiter for the corporations who back FIRST. It's all too easy to forget that, while the engineers, scientists and technology professionals we work with through the build season are often talented, engaging, inspiring people, the corporations and companies they work for are often engaged in some unsavory business practices, questionable political lobbying efforts and manufacturing processes that damage the environment -- among other things. It's important that Ford is inspiring students to pursue engineering, but do we really want those students to go on engineering sport-utility vehicles that travel only ten miles for each gallon of gas burned? Is that what we're inspiring students to do with this program?

The other possibility is that Kamen sought to apply pressure to these corporations to change their business practices; to become environmentally conscious, to end outsourcing of jobs, and to research and develop technologies that will benefit the entire world -- not just the United States. That is a goal I can stand behind and am hopeful that someone with a little less fervor about their American nationalism can assure me that this was the case.

As you say yourself, Dean is representing the organization of FIRST as a whole. Is it not, then, appropriate for his feelings to mirror FIRST's intent (which did start, at least, partly from his vision)? Therefore, I think it is safe to say with at least some certainty that FIRST does try to follow what he envisions (what that is, I'm not arguing about).

In addition, FIRST is a business venture like any other. The primary goal for a business is to succeed (whether non-profit or profit). In order for FIRST to suceed it needs financial backing. What we do if our sponsors stopped giving us money? If Dean needs to help FIRST's sponsors by being their advocate, good for him! Its helping us keep the funding we need.

Originally Posted by M. Krass

The foreigners who are taking these outsourced jobs are doing so at a fraction of the salary that an American expects -- and they can do so often because they're simply grateful that their family can eat. Those people deserve such jobs far more than someone who wants ten times as much so their kids can wear Nike shoes and get driven to school in the family's Ford Excursion.

I don't think FIRST's role is to play as moral/ethics policeman in the American economy. Instead of scolding others from "bad" things, FIRST is inspiring the future generations to do "better".

Originally Posted by M. Krass

If Dean Kamen or any of the other CEO's represented through sponsorship of FIRST want to send a real message to this program's participants that says, unequivocally, their focus is on preserving jobs for Americans, the best thing they can do is to take a pay cut. When they can prove that they're motivated by something other than increased profit margins and shareholders returns, that sentiment will shift the paradigm of what it means to operate a business in this country.

Until I see that happen, I'm content in believing the stated purpose of the FIRST organization, not the remarks of Dean Kamen, and will continue to believe that FIRST is about inspiring the next generation to conduct business, value achievement, and support each other differently than the generations before it. Should it happen, I believe that it will also set an admirable example worthy of emulation and will be happy to remain involved in the program.

I never once saw in FIRST's mission statement a desire to make people less greedy. On the About Us page of usfirst.org comes:

Originally Posted by usfirst.org

Our mission: FIRST designs accessible, innovative programs to build self-confidence, knowledge and life skills while motivating young people to pursue opportunities in science, technology and engineering.

Does it say that FIRST wants better business practices? No. If FIRST "keeps its eye on the ball" (where the ball is inspiring a recognition of science & technology) I think it would be far more successful than becoming a behemoth that can't keep its focus.

Another thing I see in these posts is the tendency to lower the respect/admiration for the "rich and famous" in order to increase respect for science/technology/etc. If FIRST is trying to decrease respect of other people in order to meet its ends, then it is using the same quote-unquote "unethical" practices that some on this thread seem to abhor.

It is my belief and hope that FIRST never does that, and I don't think it will.

[mtrawls]

When they can prove that they're motivated by something other than increased profit margins and shareholders returns, that sentiment will shift the paradigm of what it means to operate a business in this country.

Shift it from, oh I don't know, capitalism? Maybe I misunderstand you, but currently "what it means to operate a busness in this country" is all based on capitalism ... try to provide the best product as cheaply as possible so as to maximize profits. It sounds awfully greedy, sure, but are you saying it is a bad thing? Those increased profit margins that "motivate" people are what keeps innovation going (granted when people stop playing by the rules this isn't necessarily the case). If you'd prefer profit to stop being the motivating factor, what would you put in its place? Love, compassion, sympathy, pity, etc.? Is a farmer in the mid-west supposed to get up before the crack of dawn because he loves New York? Just look at the type of organizations that operate on these utopian principles ... you'll find a lack of competition and real motivation creates complacency, which is A Bad Thing. Increased profit margins, however "evil," create an incentive to do better. I'll refrain myself for now ... I think maybe I don't understand what you are saying. Are you suggesting that capitalism is somehow bad? You say "when they can prove that they're motivated by something other than incresed profit margins" ... but why should the by motivated by anything else, as a business? Success and history are hard to argue with; those organizations motivated around utopian goals have largely failed, or done worse than those motivated by profit.

Those people deserve such jobs far more than someone who wants ten times as much so their kids can wear Nike shoes and get driven to school in the family's Ford Excursion.

I'm refraining from a lot, but I will respond to this. How can you measure how much someone deserves a job? Or who is more worthy? Who gives you the moral superiority to say without a doubt that "those people deserve" the job "far more" than the greedy American who wants to "wear Nike shoes" and own a "Ford Excursion"? So far as I see it, if a person does honest and hard work, he deserves just compensation. If he wants to wear Nike shoes while some other poor person is lacking, is that so evil of him? The thing that really gets my blood boiling is these bleeding heart statements of "compassion." I won't say too much more. I'll show some restraint, and before I continue I'll ask for a clarification. You say they deserve the jobs more ... can you please tell me why? Do you have anything that these poor people do not have (be it Nike shoes or something else)? Would you give it up, or give up a job or job opportunity because they deserve it more? I'm sensing that you are trying to take a view of moral superiority ... maybe I'm wrong, and if so I'd like to be corrected (and I'm sure you'll be more than happy to correct me ).

[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by mtrawls

Shift it from, oh I don't know, capitalism? Maybe I misunderstand you, but currently "what it means to operate a busness in this country" is all based on capitalism ... try to provide the best product as cheaply as possible so as to maximize profits. It sounds awfully greedy, sure, but are you saying it is a bad thing? Those increased profit margins that "motivate" people are what keeps innovation going (granted when people stop playing by the rules this isn't necessarily the case).

Yet at the same time, it's the drive for increased profit margins of this Capitolist society which as at the heart of all this "outsourcing" debate.

you'll find a lack of competition and real motivation creates complacency, which is A Bad Thing. Increased profit margins, however "evil," create an incentive to do better. I'll refrain myself for now ... I think maybe I don't understand what you are saying. Are you suggesting that capitalism is somehow bad? You say "when they can prove that they're motivated by something other than incresed profit margins" ... but why should the by motivated by anything else, as a business? Success and history are hard to argue with; those organizations motivated around utopian goals have largely failed, or done worse than those motivated by profit.

Historically, the bohemoths of companies that have succeeded have done so through less than scrupulous means. Standard Oil was busted up for having a trust in the oil industry, and inflating prices. Bell was broken up for having a monopoly on the phone system (and are now slowly merging back together), and charging unfair prices. Microsoft gets money for virtually every computer built in the world, and has essentially been declared a monopoly by virtually every major world government, and slapped with countless fines and lawsuits, yet they continue to be "successful." I'd argue those organizations motivated around utopian goals have largely failed by being pushed around or bought out by the Big Guys through underhanded means. I know many small independant shops with utopian goals struggling to compete with the Walmarts of the day. Not because their products are inferior, but because Walmart has the buying power to undercut them in virtually everything they sell. Same with computer shops like the one I work in. We can't compete price wise with Dell or Compaq. The only reason we're in business is we provide one thing the big companies can't- personlized service. Capitolism is great in theory, but so was the Republic in Rome- which eventually fell for a number of reasons. Once any given market is dominated by companies large enough to control virtually every aspect of that market, choice slowly degrades as independant shops are wiped out as consumers choose lower prices over local business. Once all the competition is wiped out, the king of the hill is awarded the satisfaction of a high investor payout, while the owners of the independant shops file for chapter 11.

I think FIRST is a step in the right direction in this sense- if enough students are touched by the conept of gracious professionalism, those students will take those ideas and fundamentals with them into the business world. I hope the lessons learned about teamwork at the competitions play a role in the relationships the future leaders of this and other countries will create. I'd like to see world business and politics function as our own robotics competitions operate- teams willing to help each other out whenever possible- because in the end, everyone can win in some way. Teams learn new designs and techniques from one another, and grow and prosper with one another, even if in direct competition with each other. Idealistic- yes, but not unfeasable. The only thing preventing it from working is the current infrastructure of cut-throat competition of megacorporations. I'm hoping enough FIRSTers rise the ranks of these companies to steer them back in the direction of true capitolism- with visions for the long term, not just the quick payoffs of the present.

How can you measure how much someone deserves a job? Or who is more worthy? Who gives you the moral superiority to say without a doubt that "those people deserve" the job "far more" than the greedy American who wants to "wear Nike shoes" and own a "Ford Excursion"? So far as I see it, if a person does honest and hard work, he deserves just compensation.

No one has the moral intellect to decide what's best for everyone. But as you yourself stated, the drive of a company is to cut costs to inrease profit, even if it means expending hard working employees in favor of cheaper labor. The facts show that outsourced labor is a fraction of the cost of local labor, and of very comperable quality. As everything in our capitolist society, the contract typically goes to the lowest bidder.


Note- I apologize if I offend anyone in my posts... it's certainly not my intention. I like to look at the world from a global perspective... and I can't help but wonder what we, as a common species, humanity, are capable of if we all were to work together for the betterment of all, regardless of country, race, religion, or whatever.

[Jessica Boucher]

Have you ever read Microsoft's mission? "To enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential."

Huh? I thought they were a computer software company!

Usually missions/visions are pretty broad, they're conveyed in that way so that a multitude of people can relate with them. Thus, Microsoft isn't just making software, they're enabling people. Pharma companies aren't making drugs, they're changing lives. The means to that vision usually change more frequently, since the vision hardly ever changes at all.

I see the whole changing society thing as FIRST's mission/vision. Dean says it here: “…to create a world where science and technology are celebrated….where young people dream of becoming science and technology heroes….”.

Point is, the means to that end may have changed, but the vision/mission stays the same. So whether we be part of a national or an international organization, we're still changing the culture no matter what.

The reason why I structured my previous argument as such is that the conversation was more about the means change of broadening from a national org to an international org, not about why FIRST exists.

I think that this thread is a bit misleading in the title (but I can see why it was listed as such...so I mean no offense, Steve ). I think it's a great thing that FIRST is international now, and I primarily think that because it reflects the state of industry today.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Sean Schuff

I think if you want to understand the reason for FIRST’s existence you need to look more at the big picture. All of the little things like keeping America on the cutting edge or inspiring our young people or filling jobs from within are all great goals but what is the ultimate goal? My view is that, whether we believe it or not, FIRST has the ability to impact entire societies, and even the whole world. Pie in the sky? Maybe – but we all need to dream and DREAM BIG!

I agree 110 percent. FIRST has the ability to change the world. However, I have an issue with the semantics of the situation.

In FIRST, your primary goal is to build a robot; with intended consequences, such as positively changing lives. Dean Kamen's vision for FIRST is to bolster America's tech companies, which will create technology that will have the intended consequence of bettering lives all over the world.

Currently FIRST and Kamen's visions...are blurry. In the press, FIRST claims how they are looking to better the world; in speeches, Kamen's focus is the US. I don't think you can simply dismiss them as separate identities since he is the founder and the most influential member on the board of directors.

EDIT:
I also don't see how FIRST is really going international. Sure, there are teams from other countries participating. And those mentors who represent those countries are providing great experiences and opurtunities for their students. However, there isn't a single member on the board of directors who represents another country.

[JoeXIII'007]

Originally Posted by Steve W

I started this thread to extend the debate found in the Reputation points thread. The question being debated is whether FIRST's mission is that of US or worldwide base. Originally FIRST was based on improving things in the US. What are your thoughts now that so many teams are from outside of the US and growning in numbers?

I believe that FIRST should continue to focus on operations in the US. Sure, teams from other countries should continue to enter, but the main focus of FIRST should remain in the US. Plain and simple.

[Sean Schuff]

It strikes me that this conversation could be titled "________ - Reason for existence", the blank could be filled in with any of 100 different company or organization names, and the conversation would be strikingly similar. FIRST is what it is and the cool thing is that it can be something different for each person who gets involved.

We've got/had students on our team who have absolutely no intention of getting into a tecnology/engineering related career. They have an interest in business (just like Jessica Boucher! ) or a talent at putting together awesome videos for team sponsors and awards banquets or they're just looking for a place to fit in and belong! Whatever the "reason" for their wanting to be a part of something really cool, it's their reason and just as valid as anyone elses.

Usually missions/visions are pretty broad, they're conveyed in that way so that a multitude of people can relate with them.

This feeds the premise that FIRST is what it is to every person depending on what THEY want to get out of it.

For me, I just want to see students learn something. Every one of the kids on our team will be able to regurgitate my canned speech for our team banquets but the message holds true every year and it is just as general as a mission/vision statement. I tell them it doesn't matter if we come home with a trailer full of awards or we come home empty handed, it's the process and experience that is important. Then I ask them the same question I've been asking for 5 years - "Did you learn something new?" If the answer is "yes" it doesn't matter if what they learned is directly related to engineering or is something else that has personal relevance to them. They've learned something and grown as an individual AND as a member of the team.

Garrison Keillor said it best when he said "I'm 56 years old and no longer question the motives of those who ask me to do what I want to do." I WANT to mentor young people in FIRST and I don't worry about my motives or theirs...unless they're looking for a cheap trip to Atlanta!

Just a little different twist on the discussion.

[MPblankie]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Originally FIRST was based on improving things in the US. What are your thoughts now that so many teams are from outside of the US and growning in numbers?

This question almost seems obvious since the are teams from everywhere, including the US, Canada, and even Brazil. So I supose FIRST is striving to improve things outside the US too. The only thing that I question is that the Website is usfirst.org.

[Marc P.]

Jess' post above quotes the reason for the name change from USFIRST to just FIRST, and someone else posted the link to first.org, which shows it's already in use by another organization. I think any other domain that could represent FIRST (frc.org, etc.) are already registered to other things as well, so I think they're stuck with usfirst.org, until the other domains expire and aren't renewed.

[Jessica Boucher]

Yeah, FRC.org is owned by the Family research Council out of Washington DC.

At this point, I don't think it's a huge issue that the domain name is usfirst.org. It can't really be FRC.whatever, because FIRST is more than just the competition, its FIRST Place, FLL, and other stuff. And all the FIRST.whatevers are taken.