The Triplet Challenge

[rourke]

I take it as a good sign that this thread didn’t need to get moved into the moderated section.

I’ve had a number of private messages and e-mails from mentors who really like this approach to growth. As many of you have pointed out, there are endless ways of packaging collaborative approaches depending on the circumstances.

Woodie declares FIRST “a microcosm of the real-world experience”. The real-world is moving towards global collaborative enterprises. GM & Ford will share a 6-speed Transmission in 2007. GM & Toyota manufacture Vibe’s and Matrix’s in the same plant together. The Chevy Equinox is built in a joint venture between GM and Suzuki. And when you examine the explosive growth of the automotive industry in Asia, you will encounter a complex set of alliances and strategic partnerships all collaborating together for the purpose of GROWTH. Collaborating in FIRST Robotics is a microcosm of what is already transforming society, for all the same reasons. I’m concerned that if we take a hard line and insist that teams try to do everything on their own, then we are burying our heads in the sand. Collaboration is happening in the real-world at an accelerated pace.

Now, back to the challenge. For those of you that are working on growth initiatives in your region, when you begin with the premise that collaboration is a means to get a new team off the ground you will be more successful in attracting school administrators and sponsors. You will be more successful in getting them to put some money down on a venture that already has some sort of successful support system. You will more likely be able to get a teacher to sign up for a new school robotics club when they know they have a sure thing.

This thread has generated some healthy and enlightening debate. But in addition to debate, I was seeking to hear from those teams that are actively pursuing applying collaboration to their region to help with growth. Or I was seeking to hear from teams who are now comfortable with the concept and will consider it in the future. I know from some of your private messages that there are unique and creative collaborative approaches brewing. Let’s hear from some visionaries on some plans…..

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by rourke

I was seeking to hear from those teams that are actively pursuing applying collaboration to their region to help with growth. Let’s hear from some visionaries on some plans…..[/size][/font]

Here is what we (234) did last year. I would not call it "collaboration", but merely helping a new school get a team moving.

We had been working with a nearby school (who is a rival in everything else) to help them get started. They had a few students come to our meetings, they went to the Indiana Forums, and were getting interested and excited. So to help them, we invited them to the 2005 IRI. Then, we worked with 217, who usually builds 2 robots, and asked if they could bring robot #2 to the IRI. They could and they did. So we kept working with the new school, and had a few summer sessions for them to make some controllers, and then we put their pit between us and 217 at the IRI. And we had two of our just graduated seniors be mentors for them and help them.

They learned from us, from 217, and everyone else at the event. They did not build their robot, but learned immensely from being a part of a FIRST event and seeing what everyone could and would do to help them.

They became a team for 2006 #1741), and designed, manufactured, built and competed with their own robot. We still gave them some help, but they worked considerably on their own. They competed at Boilermaker, even winning some awards (Rookie Inspiration and Regional Finalists). They are truly an inspired team and I amsure will be successful in many ways in the near future.


Another way to create some growth.

[Andy Grady]

Originally Posted by rourke

Keep on track here. Collaborate for growth.

If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always gotten. FIRST’s growth may flatten out into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.....

I’m suggesting we change the shape of the curve to: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256.....

Here is FIRST’s growth percentages taken from their 2005 Annual Report:

1996 – 59% more teams than previous year
1997 – 61%
1998 – 32%
1999 – 36%
2000 – 38%
2001 – 38%
2002 – 25 %
2003 – 22%
2004 – 18%
2005 – 7%
(and I understand 2006 is around 5%)

Must change the inflection of the curve!!!

Ya know...alot of people look at me awkwardly when I say...growth isn't exactly a good thing.

My take is...growth is great when there is enough money in the pot to take from. While the idea of having every high school in a state with a FIRST team may sound nice, financially it is just not feasable. In a time where the job market is flat, sponsors are also very hard to come by. I feel this is why Dean is putting pressure on the politicians...but once again, money from the government will only take you so far. Not only that, but once again, growth means more teams, more teams means more regionals, more regionals means more money needed, more money needed means higher registration fee's.

Honestly, Rourke's explanation and take on collaboration was so good that I am finding it hard to come up with a counterpoint other than what I just said, and the ol' "I think seeing a bunch of robots that look the same is boring" idea. That, and I feel that it is also essential for teams to learn how to fail. Failure is in my eyes, the key to success. If you can deal with failure, look it in the eye, and conquer it, the hard stuff won't really intimidate you any more...and you can only get better. That is what the charm of a good ol small market or traditional rookie team is. They don't get much help, they have to scrape, and search to get by monetarily, designwise, strategy wise, and everything...but you know, that is a wonderful thing for a team to experience.

You really haven't experienced FIRST until you have something bring a team together like having almost nothing. Thats why I am against collaboration.

-Andy Grady

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

I think the spirit and intent of this thread, to start new teams and make it as easy as possible for them, is excellent. The thing that seems to be getting people fur ruffled is the idea of giving the new team a robot design.

That's not the only objection. None of the Niagara triplets are rookies this year. Why does an experienced team need to have a paint-by-numbers solution to building a robot? If each of the triplets had designed a robot for one or two rookie teams I might buy the argument. As it is, when all the layers are peeled away, most of the multi-robot collaborations look -- to me -- like a way for multiple teams to leverage engineering expertise to build successful robots. It's a program to develop robots that play the game successfully, which I will admit is a part of FIRST, but let's not kid ourselves that it has some unique ability to help the program grow. There are a lot more ways to achieve that than to hand a team a robot. I also question the underlying assumption that winning tournaments produces excellent teams. I thing it is just as likely that they causal flow is in the reverse direction -- excellent teams produce successful robots, not that successful robots produce excellent teams.

Teach rookies how to build robots and then turn them loose to innovate. Why teach writing when we can hand them literature? Why build your own cabinet when you can buy one built by James Krenov? Why learn to tie a fly when you can buy them at sporting good stores? Why not have Dave Lavery and the game committee commission a complete robot design and provide it to all the robots competing in FIRST? Because variety is generally better than uniformity, and because the learning value is in the process and not in the result.

This multi-robot collaboration thing is going to grow, and it's bad for the sport. I would like to see FIRST take a stand against it.

[Jherbie53]

Originally Posted by rourke

• I only support collaboration when without it there would be no second or third team.
• My vision and application of collaboration is “participative”. Students that want to be involved in the design phase have the opportunity – they work hand-in-hand with the multi-school design team. Students that want to build parts get to – they work side-by-side building parts or make their own. Students that want to write programs get the chance to load their code into the robot and test it out. No one gets hand-outs. No one gets short changed.
• My vision of collaboration does not have super teams wiping out smaller teams, or hundreds of robots all looking identical. If it is used for growth, then this is of no concern. Be responsible with it. Use GP as a sense check.

Having the students do as much of the work is really what I want. Tooting my own teams horn, we always try and have the students do as much of the work as they can. This gives them confidence and lets them know that they have a part in building the robot. It also lets them know that they can go out and do whatever they want. From designing buildings to making nanotechnology to whatever interests them. This is the goal of FIRST, to give high school students the inspiration to go do anything they want.

[Jack Jones]

Let’s forever end the debate on collaboration – and commit to use it for the purpose of growing and sustaining FIRST.

You can’t simply beg the result of the debate by declaring victory and implying that we who oppose “Tripletism” are somehow against growing FIRST. I, for one, am not about to let you do that.

If what you say about Collaboration's intention of getting new teams up and running quickly, with a high level of capability, then why did you align yourselves against all of the rest at every event? Was it about building teams, or was it about compiling victories? All that you say about helping them with registration, travel, spare parts, batteries, tools, organizational structure, marketing and financial planning, scouting, me play, and mentor expertise could be done without turning it into a competitive advantage. I can’t say that I blame you; it’s just human nature, which is exactly why I’m dead set against identical robots and a game plan conspiracy.

There are a couple of models that show where Tripletism could take us. NASCAR is one, and the Afghan warlords the other. The NASCAR model wouldn’t work. There’s no profit incentive without television contracts. But if it somehow caught on, would it be FIRST, or just another Saturday afternoon where some couch potatoes got inspired by watching team FORD take on TOYOTA?

I can also envision the FIRST landscape being filled with Twins and Triplets with monikers like: Pinklettes, Division by Triplets, TribeDelphi, Wildstang Posse, Huskie Platoon, The Beastie Boys, Trucktown Thunder & Lightening, Killer Beehive, HOT-HOTTER-HOTTEST, Thunder Henhouse, The Bomb Squadron, and RUSH! RUSH! RUSH! What I see are warlords, which if you’ll excuse the expression, is downright un-American.

Go ye forth and multiply, but be careful what you wish, for ye may also divide!!!

[Adam McLeod]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

If what you say about Collaboration's intention of getting new teams up and running quickly, with a high level of capability, then why did you align yourselves against all of the rest at every event? Was it about building teams, or was it about compiling victories?

I think you should ask teams 33, 201, 67, 1901, 931, 1281, 1305, 1419, 1620, and 865 if the triplets did indeed "align (them)selves against all of the rest at every event".

Not to mention alliance partners from the qualifiers.

Not to mention all the other teams aided and inspired by Niagara First (mine included).

If 1114 was as antagonistic as you say, would they have won the Chairman's award in Waterloo?

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Adam McLeod

If 1114 was as antagonistic as you say, would they have won the Chairman's award in Waterloo?

I did not say it was antagonistic. Nor did I say that no good has come of it. What I said was that it was just human nature to go for the win. And I would hope that we find a way to keep that instinct in check.

[DonRotolo]

This thread shouldn't be about whether collaboration is good or bad. Collaboration is essential, but at what level is open to debate. But not here, please.

Rourke presented a possible way of bringing a team into FIRST, and growing FIRST is something with which we (probably) can all agree is a good thing. His approach is not a universal fit, but elements can be modified to work in many cases, and I think that's why he started the thread.

Good idea, I disagree with some parts of it, but will steal other parts and use them this year already...


I also agree with JVN's statement "Teams that perform well on the field are more sustainable than ones that do not." It is true in many cases, and if collaboration helps a rookie team gain some measure of success, good.

From personal experience, an unnamed team in its second year performed poorly last year, and again this year. The students, mentors and even teachers left the regional so discouraged, I fear for their survival. The worst of it, they left thinking of themselves as losers. What could have changed that is a plan like Rourke's, where a powerful team adopted them and helped them improve.


Lastly, a comment on the growth statistics: Chart the number of teams, not the percentage. Yes, still could be better, but not as ugly. The attachment (from a 2004 booklet) shows mild exponential growth, even ignoring the 2007 prediction.

Don

[Steve W]

I agree wholly with helping rookie teams. I have made it known that I am willing to help anyone that asks. I have gone to schools, worked over the internet and on the phone. Team 188 is not a powerhouse. We are however a team that does "well" and has learned from trail and error. We are not above collaborating with teams on certain components (not my choice) or using others ideas to improve. We do however build and design our own robots and those we help also build their own robots.

The teams that we have helped one year come back less and less for help or advice as they grow and improve. Heck some are better than us and we are learning from them.

Growing FIRST does not come from just robot build. How many times this year have we seen teams that have been around for a long time fold up because of lack of funds. MONEY is a big key to success. Without being taught to stand on their own, teams will never stop crawling. FIRST is about the real world. What would happen tomorrow if the triplets lost all of their GM sponsorship? I know that 1680 has EDS as a sponsor and that they would probably be around. Would they be at the same competitive level? Who knows. This is a hard time for teams raising money. I think that it is great that GM puts so much into teams. Do they go out and bang on the doors of their suppliers, dealerships, advertising agencies to get them too pitch in? How many teams have been started from this type of involvement? Have the kids had to worry as much about affording a part as those that have to sell 10 more cases of candy to purchase the same part? These are all FIRST experiences.

I may come off as someone that is jealous. Not so. Our team does fairly well. We have long time sponsors and constantly seeking new ones. The kids and mentors do fund raising activities. We are probably classified as one of the better off teams. We do work for it and we do have to consider all purchases and decisions. Our team is not going to Championships this year as we did not earn our way and the students were given a choice of extra regional or Championship. Our team does help others (as does 1114, they even helped us out) and we give supplies to other teams.

I guess what I am saying is that I don't want mega teams but teams that help build FIRST one step at a time. I respect JVN but I know that we disagree about winning being a way to grow teams. There are over 1000 teams and only about 100 winners. If you take away multiple winners then the number is even worse. Some teams have never won. I have also seen brighter lights shining in the eyes of a rookie team that just got their robot running than in some of the teams that winning has become second nature. We must remember that we keep those that participate and can see results of their actions and we lose those that are only watchers. We MUST have teams that encourage independent thinking and self sustainment otherwise FIRST will start a downward trend.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Steve W

I respect JVN but I know that we disagree about winning being a way to grow teams. There are over 1000 teams and only about 100 winners.

Clarification:
I don't think I ever said "winning" was required.

In my mind, being competitive is important. Being "in the hunt" is important.
There are only 100 winners, but there are significantly more teams "in the hunt". In my ideal world, everyone would be "in the hunt". (Unpopular statement: this is not true at the average FIRST regional.)

Example:
188 did not win, but they were "in the hunt" at all three of their events.

My argument is that teams who consistently play at this top level are more sustainable than teams that do not. Not winners, but teams who have a chance of winning and know it. I will again emphasize that I am saying this applies to MOST cases, but is not universal.

Steve,
Do you disagree with this?

-JV

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by JVN

Clarification:
I don't think I ever said "winning" was required.

In my mind, being competitive is important. Being "in the hunt" is important.
There are only 100 winners, but there are significantly more teams "in the hunt". In my ideal world, everyone would be "in the hunt". (Unpopular statement: this is not true at the average FIRST regional.)

Example:
188 did not win, but they were "in the hunt" at all three of their events.

My argument is that teams who consistently play at this top level are more sustainable than teams that do not. Not winners, but teams who have a chance of winning and know it. I will again emphasize that I am saying this applies to MOST cases, but is not universal.

Steve,
Do you disagree with this?

-JV

John, I apologize for putting words in your mouth. Yes I do agree with your eloquently put statement.

OH, my bad!

[Lil' Lavery]

I shall use this post to offer partial points, opinions, and empirical data, as my own stance on this is somewhat divided. What I will say is that I prefer partial collaboration, such as 217/229 sharing arm/tower designs but creating individual drivetrains to total collaboration.

Not counting the BAE Regional (Award sheet wasn't up) or the Israeli regional (all teams are >1000), there were 39 regional wins (not winners) by teams numbered >1000 this year. That is more than 1/3 of the regional wins. Perhaps collaboration isn't essential to creating a winning team. Although, many of these teams most likely did have some level of collaborative effort. Also consider that 6 of these 39 wins are from 1114 and 1503.

While the % of growth may be little, the number of teams created is relatively high during the past few years. I beleive it was 2003 that we saw the first 4-digit teams. In 2007 we will have teams with #s >2000. Although how many of these teams have dropped out during this span is also a concern, as voiced by Stephen and John.

Here is my father's example of "off the field" success, plain and simple to be used as simple data. 116 is an 11 year veteran team. We have yet to win a regional event, or even an off-season event. The furthest we have ever advanced in a regional is the semi-finals (2001 and 2004). We have only made the elimination rounds 3 times during the alliance era (2001 VCU, 2004 VCU, 2006 Peachtree) at a regional competition. We have been seeded last once at a regional (2003 VCU) and twice at off-season events (2005 IRI, 2005 Capital Clash). Our highest seed ever at a regional was #4 (2001 VCU) and #2 (2004 York Summer Frenzy) at an off-season. We have twice been an alliance captain at regionals (2001 VCU, 2006 Peachtree) and once at an off-season (2004 York Summer Frenzy). We did not win a single award until 2003, where we won the Lonestar Autodesk Award for Visualization. In 2003 there were 3 members working on our animation team. In 2004 there were 11 (beleive that was the number, not positive) and we won the Autodesk Visualization Award twice (VCU and Annapolis). In 2005 there were >20 members on the animation team and we won our only regional event in Annapolis. In 2006 there were once again around 20 (slightly less) members on the animation team and we won the AVA in VCU, and lost to 1414 in Peachtree. In 2005 we spawned a FVC pilot team, FVC 18. FVC 18 had 6 student members and 2 mentors in 2005, and went on to win the FVC pilot event in Atlanta, and were nominees for 2 other awards, including the Vex Challenge Award (FVC's Chairman's). In 2006 FVC 18 had 5 student members, 1 adult mentor, and 1 student mentor. FVC 18 would be finalists at the Duluth regional, and win the Amaze award and top rated Autonomous award.
While that shows 116's limited "on-field success", 116 has had much other success. We developed one of the first shifting gearboxes in FIRST capable of being manufactured with lesser equipped machine shops. 116's "control box" design has enjoyed wide spread popularity over the last two years, and has been part of winning 2 technical awards (2005 Chesepeake Xerox Creativity Award, and 2006 Peachtree Innovation in Control Award, our awesome auto mode helped that). Our 2005 drivetrain, the "cambered holonomic drive", has been called the most innovative drivetrain in FIRST and was part of winning our 2005 Xerox Creativity Award. Multiple teams around FIRST have adopted both 116's shifting gearbox and our control box in part or in whole, and often have improved further upon them (and many may still adopt the cambered holonomic drive in games that better suit it than Aim High). We have also gain tremendous community prestige. We have done extensive outreach to the community through many different mediums. From schools, to community events, to businesses and restaraunts, and even yard sales. Many event organizers even request our presence now (from Herndon Festival, one Parade magazine's top 10 rated town fairs, to the NASA/VCU regional).
Can a collaborative team enjoy off-field sucess as well as on-field sucess? Most certainly, and from what I have heard about the Triplets, they definately do. But is on-field sucess truly necessary to keeping a team alive?

Collaboration does not have to be total. You could collaborate on something much smaller, such an individual robot components, or sub-systems. You could also help out "pre-rookies" and virtual teams design bots, or understand and use your practice bot, at off-season events, and let them design their own for their actual rookie year competition. 341's Team in a Box is another terrific example of how to help rookie teams. Countless other methods exist, and I think each specific team needs to find the one that best suits them.

Explosive growth is not always good either. When funds/sponsors/community interest does not exist, it isn't always a good idea to start more teams. Rather you should work to create these interests, but there are other means than making a winning team. A winning team is guaranteed to spark interest, just like a losing one isnt guaranteed not to. For example, 64, who played on Einstein in 2005, did not compete in 2006. Another example is the struggles many Richmond area teams have when trying to find sponsors. Because of the large amount of Richmond area teams, it is hard for all the teams to receive adequate funding due to teams competiting for the same sponsors. When Computer Assossiates stopped funding teams after only a single year in the Northern Virginia area, many could not continue on for more than 1 or 2 years more (although some, such as 612, 614, and 623 have survived and are excelling).


/sorry about the long winded post

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Steve W

I have also seen brighter lights shining in the eyes of a rookie team that just got their robot running than in some of the teams that winning has become second nature.

Those with the bright lights ARE winners. It's not necessarily winning the competition or an award, but the positive accomplishment - doing something well.

Don

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by rourke

Let’s forever end the debate on collaboration – and commit to use it for the purpose of growing and sustaining FIRST.

Not to make too fine a point of it, but why there is even anything to debate on this topic any more? FIRST has been explicitly clear about this: collaboration is a good thing. It is an excellent way to grow the program, increase technical competence, share resources, and increase the inspriational effectiveness of multiple teams. It is not only permitted within the rules, it is encouraged. To be sure, teams are free to choose to collaborate or not for just about any reason they like. But to be blunt: at this point, for someone to state that they are against collaboration and then to demean any other team for participating in the practice is an indication that they just don't "get it." To whit (excerpted from the FIRST Q&A system):

Q: Is collaboration between 2 teams acceptable and encouraged by FIRST?
A: Absolutely. Teams are encouraged to share their knowledge, experience, and innovations with each other on and off the play field, as well as before, during and after the competition season. Without inter-team collaborations, many of the central elements of the FIRST philosophy - such as distribution of technical innovations, team workshops, shared designs, software code-sharing, teams mentoring teams, team-run off-season events, etc. - would all be impossible. The whole concept of "coopetition" is based on the idea of teams helping each other to compete.

and

Q: If high school students on my team make parts for another team, does the team receiving the parts need to bill out our high school students at a typical labor rate as part of the $3,500 limit?
A: Gracious professionalism, "coopetition" and collaboration are some of the hallmarks of FIRST. We have all been amazed at the level that FIRST teams aid each other - not just at competitions, but throughout the year. By working together, we have increased our effectiveness inspiring youth and recognizing the value of science and technology. For the case when one team assists another team, this is viewed as "coopetition" - teams helping each other inspire youth. ... We are trying to create a community where working together helps us collectively achieve our goal of inspiring and recognizing science and technology.

Anyway, let's move on to JVN's excellent post. I am in agreement with almost everything that John has to say (oh, dang, I am sure that I will regret that statement!), with just a few exceptions.

Originally Posted by JVN

Now I’m going to say something that may be unpopular: Teams that perform well on the field are more sustainable than ones that do not. A rookie that is “competitive” (insert whatever definition you’d like, but the one I’m thinking of involves some success on the field) stands a better chance of coming back than one that doesn’t. This does not just apply to rookie teams (which is something I will discuss below). This is not a universal, but it is true MOST of the time.

OK, this is one area where John and I differ a bit. I don't think that he is out of line for saying it, and I can see how based on his experience it certainly can be a true statement. The comment I will add is that this is not the ONLY way to have a sustainable team. There are many examples of long-lived, sustained team efforts that have never put a primary focus on the playfield performance of the robots they build. I am not saying that they intentionally try to do badly. It is just that building a kick-butt hyper-competitive super robot may not be their highest priority. Instead, they may focus on experimenting with innovative new technologies, trying new team organizations, focusing on outreach efforts, concentrating on pulling certain groups of students into the team, or (back to the original point of this thread) helping new teams in their area to get started. Given a finite set of resources, they may not be able to do everything, and so they choose to let the desire to be highly competitive become a secondary consideration in favor of other priorities. They may not push too hard to win on the field, and they may not care that they don't "win" - because there are a lot of other ways that they can be successful. This is not to say that when they do win on the field that they don't enjoy the process and celebrate along with everyone else - it is just that it may not be their cause celebre.

Just as I do not think that the "you have to win on the playfield to have a successful program" method is the ONLY way to have a sustainable team, I also don't think that the "focus on the off-field activities" method is the ONLY way for a team to be successful. But I do maintain that both approaches are equally valid, and neither one should be discounted.

Originally Posted by JVN

How much collaboration is required in this type of example? Do the robots need to be identical? No. Teams can collaborate on something as small as a gearbox or something as small as a motor-mount. Again, this is not black and white, there is an entire spectrum of collaborative involvement, any amount of which can be used to help a team; depending on the particular situation.

And this is the real key to the whole concept of "collaboration" and how it is used to grow successful teams and the FIRST program overall. When teams share successful ideas with others, everyone comes out ahead. It doesn’t matter if it is a team sharing their shifting transmission designs, or helping another team without manufacturing facilities to build a few parts, or in a full-blown cooperative design process like 254/60 in years past or The Triplets this year. If the result of the cooperation is that a new team gets the knowledge they need to become successful (by any definition), they how could this not be a good thing?

Originally Posted by JVN

Now, there is one major catch here. 90% of arguments against collaboration come down to one thing. It needs to be done right, to be effective. How is collaboration done effectively? I think this is a topic for another time, I’ve been rambling for long enough. If there is demand, maybe I'll help put together a "collaboration methodology" paper.

Awww – don’t stop now!! This is actually the most important part!!! You could ignore everything said up to this point, if instead you REALLY described how to make an effective, efficient collaboration work in terms that other teams could understand and use. The real value to be added here is the experiences that the collaborating teams have had and they can describe – warts and all – to other teams so they know what to do and what to avoid should they decide to attempt a collaboration.

-dave