The Triplet Challenge

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[Koko Ed]

I'm going to stick with Rourke's focus on the concept on the idea of teams working as Triplets and not the creation of the Triplets which is the source of so much controversy.
In a way the Xerox robotics program is similar to the Triplet's design financially. Xerox handles the budget for us, Sparx and XQ Robotix. As for robot design each team is pretty much left on their own with varying results. This to me is an ideal design for a robotic program. The biggest worry many robot teams have is fiances and to have a centralized system to handle the financial needs is essential. Teams can readily share information and design ideas if they so please but are not required to do so.
I think teams can also collaborate on other projects from website design,animation and team spirit if they are lacking the resources to do so on their own but they should be options not requirements.
I do wonder if people would have such a big problem with the concept if the Triplets (actually only 1114 and 1503 have tasted on field success. 1680 has only a finalist award so they haven't been so beneficial of this arrangement as the other two have) if they haven't won three regionals.

[Starke]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

I'm going to stick with Rourke's focus on the concept on the idea of teams working as Triplets and not the creation of the Triplets which is the source of so much controversy.
In a way the Xerox robotics program is similar to the Triplet's design financially. Xerox handles the budget for us, Sparx and XQ Robotix. As for robot design each team is pretty much left on their own with varying results. This to me is an ideal design for a robotic program. The biggest worry many robot teams have is fiances and to have a centralized system to handle the financial needs is essential. Teams can readily share information and design ideas if they so please but are not required to do so.
I think teams can also collaborate on other projects from website design,animation and team spirit if they are lacking the resources to do so on their own but they should be options not requirements.
I do wonder if people would have such a big problem with the concept if the Triplets (actually only 1114 and 1503 have tasted on field success. 1680 has only a finalist award so they haven't been so beneficial of this arrangement as the other two have) if they haven't won three regionals.

Well put Koko Ed. This is also how 340 and 1567 work. We are both Rochester NY areas teams that are sponsored by Bausch & Lomb. We have the option of working together if we would like, but are not required to.

[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

[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

[rourke]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

What I see are warlords, which if you’ll excuse the expression, is downright un-American.

C'mon Jack. You're getting a little carried away with some fear mongering. But you are right about one thing, it is downright un-American. The Triplets are Canadian.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

If your team equates winning a regional with team-success then FIRST is standing on the wrong foot.
.....
When teams feel like losers because they go home without a plastic trophy then we have failed to make them understand what this is all about.

First, good points Ken, especially about remaining focused on the goal - inspiration. "It's still not about the robots".

But nobody said anything about "winning".

Our team placed 61st out of 65 teams in 2005, but came home feeling like HUGE winners, as Rookie All-Stars. Not for the award (just a hunk of plastic!), but for WHY: We were a rookie team, but we reached out to at least half a dozen teams and helped them with their robots, including rewiring & replumbing the robot from the (also rookie) team next to us in the pits. This was unplanned, and not initiated by the adults. The KIDS did this on their own, because they knew that helping others is the right thing to do. The award made it official, but the THANKS from those teams was what made us into winners.

In 2006, we moved up: 34 out of 65 or so at NJ. We still came home BIG winners: Judge's award for "Building Traditions" - the kids went and did the same thing (helping other teams), again. On their own, again. The other teams' gratitude, again.

Turns out, the kids like building robots, and they don't really care whose it is. Who'da thunk it?

That Finalist thing in Palmetto: Honestly, it wasn't from our stellar performance on the field. Our scouting team finally Got It and gave us great strategy, which we followed. Team 16 must have seen us as consistent (we hardly scored, but we seemed to to the right thing a lot), or maybe 16 had temporary insanity (more likely) but they picked us. We rode their coattails, along with 95 with their innovative and awesome shooter.

The point is, I guess, that JVN's comment is something i really believe in, but perhaps the "on the field" part can be taken out without changing its validity. I guess 'teams that are proud of their accomplishment are more sustainable than ones that do not' might be a better statement.


Regarding the 'discouraged' team - well said from a 'good' team. It suchs to think of yourselves as losers, and whether you and I like it or not, they do. Those hypothetical teams you mention sometimes never improve, because the best players put their energies into something else, and (sadly) so does the Administration. I completely agree, it is wrong, and we have failed, but it's still true in some cases. I, for one, am going to help correct that for next year: They also have a need for more, higher-quality mentors. (Anyone in the north-central NJ area thinking about it, PM me.)

Don

[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!