FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix

[Rich Kressly]

Alright,

Some discussion about FRC team design collaboration became very judgmental and hurtful in another thread. This is the respectful remix. Feel free to discuss collaboration here, the right way. What worked for you, what didn't work, what can be improved, what's unique to your situation, what difficulties exist in collaboration, what benefits you saw, etc...

However, the discussion needs to refrain from personal attacks, negative assumptions about teammates and other teams, and statements about one way being "better" than another. This is also not the thread to apologize, make amends, or explain yourself from the other thread that was closed. As I asked over there, please do those things privately and allow for healing. Perhaps, when the time is right, some of you may want to begin a thread in "thanks/congrats" once common ground and peace are found. Learn, share, grow - do NOT judge.

Carry on...

[JackN]

I am glad that my teams do collaboration on robot build and design. We are a very unique situation, different than every collaboration I have heard about, except for 340 and 424. We began the collaboration idea when team 494 became to big for one team. We were running out of jobs for students to have a hands on experience in our build room, so when team 70, a nearby team was going to fold due to the loss of a mentor, team 494 came in and took the team under our wing, inviting all of their members to join us and work at our shop with us. Only a handful of members came so to fill out the members of the team, we added any student that wanted to be on 70. Mainly these were the new students to the team that joined that year, but several experienced members went over to help our as well. The partnership we had helped build a playful rivalry that existed all throughout last season, even into the offseason. This collaboration has created a bond that we hope will never break.

[Doug Leppard]

The space shuttle is built by multiple teams working together to make the shuttle.

So it makes sense some teams want to do this. You learn real world experience by splitting up things between teams.

To be a really good team you need to have lots of depth. You can do this two ways, have a very strong team or split it up between a partnership like we did.

[Doug G]

I can understand those who have a critical view of collaborations and the "Triplet challenge". I'm all for any collaboration that brings in a new team(s) OR a collaboration that prevents a team from dropping out. With the huge number of teams in FIRST, sustaining existing teams is very important and collaborations may provide yet another solution. After all, there are several FIRST teams that merged into one team and we aren't critical of that - so don't be critical for a collaboration that keeps some struggling teams alive. I think the long distance collaborations offer a new look at doing business in a global economy, a skill that will be (is) highly sought after. Any cross-continental collaborations next year??

[bmusser]

Thanks Rich for refocusing the previous thread. Our collaborative situation this year was purely a decision to help two teams that would have folded otherwise. We have a lost a lot of mentors over the years and are left with a handful of mentors that can help on a daily basis. The decision to build three identical robots was one made purely on our available resources. We would have loved to support three distinctly different designs, but were unable to do so.

Personally, I did not know what to expect out of this collaboration at first. I will tell you that it has been one of the most rewarding experiences that I have had in my 9 years with FIRST (besides meeting my wife). I saw students from completely different backgrounds work together where they maybe would not have had the chance otherwise. Pretty much all team members selflessly helped on all the robots. I am very proud of everyone on all three teams and I hope it was as rewarding experience for all of you as it was for me. I wish all the FIRST teams good luck this year. We will see you at GLR, Detroit, and West Michigan.

[Joel Glidden]

I can understand, and I support teams sharing resources. I would just like the hear some of these teams weigh in on their rationale for building identical robots?

[Mike Starke]

We are in a very unique situation...
340 and 424 are out of the same high school.... yes, two FRC teams in one high school.

We share mentors, but built two totally different robots....

It's a very cool experience!

[Jeremiah Johnson]

Team 648 is fairly close to team 107, Team ROBOTICS from Holland, MI. We haven't collaborated and the issue has never come up. That would be a difficult thing to do being fairly far apart. However, we do mesh together some of our other situations. For example, we have stayed in the same hotel together in Chicago for three years now. The first year it was by pure accident but last year and this year we've intentionally done this, as well as shared nightly meals. Last season, when we were in Michigan for WMR, team 107 invited us to their school for a movie and some Halo. It was a great time. We're very close for teams that are so far away. I thank Lav and my mother for that.

Back to the robots. Hypothetical situation, hopefully it can come real. When 648 gains the resources and interest in the area or somewhere around, it would be great for us to begin a new team. I will propose the idea that we could enlist the help of our "sister" team in 107 to help design a fairly unique robot, but with the major resemblances to our (648+107) bots. Kind of mix two designs. Nice run-on sentence, huh?

Not necessarily triplets in the Niagara sense, but in a similar way. Three different robots, but the rookie team has a similarity to the two mentoring teams.

[rees2001]

This year we set out to do things a little differently than the usual collaboration. What we wanted to do was form an independent collaboration where each team worked on their own robot but we all worked together to help one-another. The plan was to have the 2 teams work independently to build 2 different robots but share the same resources, tools, & equipment. As the season progressed team 73 joined us more frequently and further contributed to design ideas. The nice thing about creating different robots was we could look at each others plans and help critique the designs. We made sure that communication between teams was open and allowed everyone to speak their minds. I would think that if all 3 teams set out to build the same robot we could have designed & built a better robot quicker but that is not why WE do FIRST. (not saying this is right or wrong, it’s just the way we do it.

Things we discovered as the season progressed.
There was a lot of sharing of ideas
The Bridgeport was very busy.
The welding machine was very busy.
We used a lot of aluminum, welding rod, and argon.
Everyone was VERY busy.
We (including our friends on 73) were able to build 3 competitive robots (plus we are almost finished with 2 practice bots)
We can eat a lot of food
There are some great people out there willing to mentor kids
We have good friends at 73
I must be nuts for taking this project on

[RoboMom]

I’ve had the pleasure of watching another kind of collaboration this year. The 9 Baltimore area teams formed the “Baltimore Area Alliance.”
There are BAA teams that have lots of mentoring help, and others that have little. Each team has its own strengths and challenges. They want to have their own identity and build their own robots, but they have joined forces to help with fundraising and to help share resources. A local foundation donated the use of their 501©3, and there were grants to the BAA divided by the group. There were students from one team that did a fundraising presentation on behalf of the others. They held a common fundraising dinner. They are trying to help each other while competing. I believe this fits into Dean’s vision of “coopertition.” This group is still testing the waters and getting to know each other, figuring out what will work for them.

FIRST is all about partnerships, and each team has to figure out what works for them. What works one year, may not the next as teams often have to reinvent themselves. I hope everyone involved this year can realize the gift they have been given.

[Doug Leppard]

Originally Posted by Joel Glidden

I can understand, and I support teams sharing resources. I would just like the hear some of these teams weigh in on their rationale for building identical robots?

We built identical robots:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ight=1902+1369

1369 built two bases, 1902 built two arms. Idea is that building two of something is easier than building one of something. 1369 is great at drive trains, 1902 is good at top end and programming. By building it this way we were able to finish hardware and wiring at end of week 5, and that allowed us to have a good auto mode and driver practice.

We should have a strong start at florida regional.

[Gary Dillard]

Originally Posted by Doug Leppard

We built identical robots:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ight=1902+1369

1369 built two bases, 1902 built two arms. Idea is that building two of something is easier than building one of something. 1369 is great at drive trains, 1902 is good at top end and programming. By building it this way we were able to finish hardware and wiring at end of week 5, and that allowed us to have a good auto mode and driver practice.

We should have a strong start at florida regional.

How are you accounting for cost of the parts that the other team built for you? In previous year's I believe the ruling was that you have to include cost of labor for parts that were not built by team members. I seem to remember that when Kingman & the Cheesy Poofs first did this they shared the design but each built their own parts.

btw I am very much in favor of collaboration - it is not as easy to execute successfully as it sounds.

[Mr. Van]

Originally Posted by Doug Leppard

1369 built two bases, 1902 built two arms. Idea is that building two of something is easier than building one of something. 1369 is great at drive trains, 1902 is good at top end and programming.

To me, this brings up the question of awards. Many awards are given for specific design features (Delphi "Driving Tomorrow's Technology", GM Industrial Design, Rockwell Automation Innovation in Control, Motorola Quality, etc.). How are Judges to evaluate teams that have designed and developed part of a robot (say a drive train) in 6 weeks (and field a complete 'bot via collaboration) with a team who have designed and fabricated a complete robot by themselves?

I know that FIRST is not fair, but it is "borrowing a page from sports" and is a "competition" with numerous rules to keep something of a level playing field for our "superbowl of smarts". I also understand that teams that collaborate are perhaps giving members a closer example of what "real-world" engineering is like with multiple companies working on a single project. Still, I believe there is a fundamental question to look at here: How does collaboration (as described by Doug) effect the competition aspect of FIRST?

-Mr. Van

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

To me, this brings up the question of awards. Many awards are given for specific design features (Delphi "Driving Tomorrow's Technology", GM Industrial Design, Rockwell Automation Innovation in Control, Motorola Quality, etc.). How are Judges to evaluate teams that have designed and developed part of a robot (say a drive train) in 6 weeks (and field a complete 'bot via collaboration) with a team who have designed and fabricated a complete robot by themselves?

I know that FIRST is not fair, but it is "borrowing a page from sports" and is a "competition" with numerous rules to keep something of a level playing field for our "superbowl of smarts". I also understand that teams that collaborate are perhaps giving members a closer example of what "real-world" engineering is like with multiple companies working on a single project. Still, I believe there is a fundamental question to look at here: How does collaboration (as described by Doug) effect the competition aspect of FIRST?

-Mr. Van

If I were 1902 (which I'm not, and thus can't speak for), I'd just ask the judges not to consider their drivetrain for any technical awards, similar to a team that's already won Rookie All-Star at one event telling the judges at their next one that they don't want to win again. Doesn't seem like a particularly big deal.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

To me, this brings up the question of awards. Many awards are given for specific design features (Delphi "Driving Tomorrow's Technology", GM Industrial Design, Rockwell Automation Innovation in Control, Motorola Quality, etc.). How are Judges to evaluate teams that have designed and developed part of a robot (say a drive train) in 6 weeks (and field a complete 'bot via collaboration) with a team who have designed and fabricated a complete robot by themselves?-Mr. Van

Not all collaborations work with team X building the base and subsystem 1 and team Y building subsystem 2. It's very plausible that collaborating teams both worked on all parts of the robot.