A Request for transparency from FIRST

[Adam Y.]

Expecting change is fine, I don't think that anyone wants FIRST to tell us exactly what it will do in 5 yrs time and for us to hold them to that. That would be a disaster. Things do change and we need to realize that. The aim here, as far as I can tell, is to see where FIRST is planning on going. The example that is mentioned a lot is the FTC/FVC debacle. Knowing ahead of time that FVC was only temporary and would be replaced with an entirely new system within 5 years would have saved teams a lot of money.

I thought that it was made readily evident the change could happen in that the original program was a pilot.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

I thought that it was made readily evident the change could happen in that the original program was a pilot.

MI pilot and Israel Regional pilot come to mind. They worked, and are still going. That's not exactly the same as the FTC pilot seasons.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

I thought that it was made readily evident the change could happen in that the original program was a pilot.

I first became aware of a pending change away from the VEX platform in FTC when the name was changed from FVC to FTC. By that point we had already invested several thousand dollars into VEX kits and components.

VEX and Tetrix parts have a longer "investment timeline" than most FRC parts do, as they are intended to be re-used from year-to-year. That is one of the beautiful things about the system... the cost can be amortized over several years of competition. In fact... they kind of have to be in order to make them a good investment of scarce educational funding.

IFI has demonstrated how having a long term plan to gradually transition from one technology to another can allow teams and schools to plan for, and budget for, changes and improvements. They have been clear about what technologies are under development and made it possible for teams to do incremental upgrades. Not only that... but IFI appears to be going to great pains to make sure that their technology advancements actually work before releasing them for sale and competition. For instance we have known that wi-fi was on its way for well over a year, and have just purchased two Wi-Fi upgrades to transition two of our five VEX kits from crystals to the VEXNET system. Next year, I hope to purchase three more upgrades... but I'll probably hold off purchasing a new kit until the new controller is available.

FIRST's idea of a long term strategy was announcing "Your equipment might be obsolete next year." No transition plan, no gradual upgrade path... not even a description of what the new technology was going to be. That made it pretty difficult to plan or budget for the future. It also made it difficult to encourage new teams to sign up... in fact we held off recuiting rookie FTC teams in BC that year because we really didn't know what the future would hold for them. (Turns out the future was quite rosy... but as VRC teams!)

Generally the FIRST directors do a really good job, and I'm willing to believe that they thought they had been sufficiently transparent -- I might have, too, had I been in their shoes -- but that is why I think it was a good idea to politely ask for them to try just a bit harder at sharing their plans and vision for the future of FRC, FTC and FLL.

Jason

[JesseK]

Thanks for the letter Don. It truly reflects what I believe, that our team (well, entire organization...) is flexible so long as FIRST is honest with us. Yet I do believe the example for the FRC control system is in danger of being taken as irrelevant.

============================================

In FRC, when you think about it, what exactly changed?
Did we have to pay more to compete in last season? No.
Did some teams get the opportunity to play 60 matches before they made it to Atlanta? Yes. Some of the rest of us are quite irked by our own lack of opportunity to do so.
Did we get additional options for control? Yes. Were they always better? Not exactly, but that's just life as an engineer tbh.
Do things change for those of us who try to keep old robots running? Yes.
Would you rather FIRST come up with a transition plan to a new control system for teams over 2 years or get it all done in 1 year? In all honesty, I'm particularly grateful we did it in one.
Additionally, NI may have asked FIRST to keep things under wraps until NI was able to make everything official from their perspective. So why exactly are we complaining about this lack of transparency to FIRST?

To me, the complaints that we changed to a new system are just like a lobbyist session on Capitol Hill. Every lobbyist has a say in what they want yet they forgo their rights to listen to others or the big picture. They want what they want, that's all they care about, and they'll explode even an infinitesimal irrelevant detail into a big deal if they think it will help them get it.

==============

For the FTC-FVC debocle ... well, I don't know if we'll ever get the truth out of that one. There are many rumors, and (to me) one of them makes complete logical sense no matter how I look at it. Yet the only concrete fact from it all is that now FIRSTers now have other options for a small robotics platform, and either platform has its pros and cons.

[ebarker]

getting back to basics, from the FIRST website

Vision
"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology heroes."

Mission
Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

My comments:

Above are the stated goals of FIRST. However, caveat galore.... The 1st instinct of any institution is self-preservation. And that can create behavior that overrides the stated mission of the institution.

It is particularly annoying when success is measured by the simple metric of 'numbers of teams started' and not by the much tougher metric of 'cultural change'. Number of teams started (kept) should be evidence of cultural change and not necessarily that change has occurred.

The goal is to promote FIRST values and missions, not 'growth' numbers. Promoting programs for the sake of hitting 'sales' targets isn't helpful, at all !!

In our team travels and ventures we make recommendation to folks. It includes FIRST and non-FIRST programs. It may in fact may not even include robotics. The world of STEM is much larger and much richer than robots.

If we need to make a recommendation for VEX or MATE or something else then that is the way it has to roll. It is just confusing and painful for FIRST'ers and the public to digest the 'brand identity' problems.

The word 'debacle' seems to becoming FTC's middle name and with some justification.

On the issue of the new control system for FRC - I think it is a good thing. It is making presentations to high level policy makers, mover, and shakers real easy and effective. That along with other features of FRC help make it easy for these policy makers to really focus on the value of programs like FIRST, VEX, and all the rest.

.

[Adam Y.]

It is particularly annoying when success is measured by the simple metric of 'numbers of teams started' and not by the much tougher metric of 'cultural change'. Number of teams started (kept) should be evidence of cultural change and not necessarily that change has occurred.

One metric is actually measurably and debatably not that far off from cultural change. The other metric is completely arbitrary in terms of being able to subjectively make any sort of goal off of.

It may in fact may not even include robotics. The world of STEM is much larger and much richer than robots.

If you want a problem that applies to as many engineering discipline as possible then you should build a robot.

I first became aware of a pending change away from the VEX platform in FTC when the name was changed from FVC to FTC. By that point we had already invested several thousand dollars into VEX kits and components.

Im not disagreeing with you in any way shape or form but didn't you ever find it odd that the several thousands of dollars was prominently labeled v.5 in some places? To me that either implied a funky numbering system or that the hardware was actually going to change in some respects in the near future.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

Im not disagreeing with you in any way shape or form but didn't you ever find it odd that the several thousands of dollars was prominently labeled v.5 in some places? To me that either implied a funky numbering system or that the hardware was actually going to change in some respects in the near future.

That v5 labeling was on the IFI product, meaning change to "v6" would be within the Vex platform and not related to FTC directly.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

That v5 labeling was on the IFI product, meaning change to "v6" would be within the Vex platform and not related to FTC directly.

It was v.5, as in 0.5.

[EricH]

Guys, the long and the short of it is that for whatever reason, the teams didn't get the memo that the VEX system was temporary, whatever that memo was or if there was one. So they invested lots of money in the VEX system, only to have the change to Tetrix happen. Whoever's fault it was, what's done is done, and many people are annoyed. It would have been better to know in advance, but we didn't.

It is certainly nice to know about things that will affect us substantially ahead of time. SAE Aero Design switched to the 2.4 GHz control channel this year. However, for at least two years before the change, there was a notice in the rules to the effect of: "We are changing to 2.4 GHz, probably around 2010. This is so you can plan your budget to get a 2.4 Ghz system. Be ready. To prepare, 2.4 GHz is allowed at competition." It would be kind of nice to get similar warnings from FRC as early as possible (noting that this may be Kickoff for some items).

[Foster]

I'd like to see the "number of students" number too. We are growing, our FRC team has gone from 10 to 30 students per year (this is year 6). Our VRC teams have gone from 1 team 5 students in 2005-6 to 9 teams with 50+ students this year. So we are reaching out to more students, the growth is good. This is our first year for a FLL team and that's another 12 students.

One of the things about FLL, FTC and VRC is that when we get more roboteers it's a smaller upfront cost to spin up another team. With FRC that's a harder prospect, the base cost is much higher. I like to see everyone engaged and thats a tough thing to do with a large FRC team. Some teams (and you know who you are) have students that are always focused, for some of us it's a much bigger challenge.

And all roboteers don't all groove on the bigger robots. I have high school students that want to work on the VEX bots, the big bot does not interest them. On the other hand I have 7th graders that would dump the small bots in a heartbeat to work on the big one.

Run the program that works for you and your roboteers. There are 50+ million students NOT in a robot program, so we have room for everyone. And remember there are robotic programs for the air and water, they are also worth doing.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

One metric is actually measurably and debatably not that far off from cultural change. The other metric is completely arbitrary in terms of being able to subjectively make any sort of goal off of.

How about a compromise between the two, number of students involved. If memory serves correctly TIMS asks for the number of students on the team. Assuming there is some correlation between number of students involved and cultural impact this number would show us impact of teams new and old. It would allow FIRST to see if teams are starting and then slowly dying off or if teams are growing over time.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

The other metric is completely arbitrary in terms of being able to subjectively make any sort of goal off of.

One of the things that has surprised me is how it is relatively straightforward to measure how well the community 'embraces' teams and their efforts to promote STEM education. The Chairman's submission works to assess that by reviewing indicators like partnerships, communication, and other support factors.

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

If you want a problem that applies to as many engineering discipline as possible then you should build a robot.

Sure, if you ignore things like chemical engineering, biological engineering, earth & atmospheric sciences, nuclear physics, environmental eng., electromagnetics, solid state physics, industrial engineering, material science engineering, aerospace engineering, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, information and modulation theory, and so on.

Engineering and science are huge fields, we barely even touch the tip of the iceberg.

[JaneYoung]

In my opinion, introducing students to robotics programs and interesting them in science and technology is a short-term goal. The long-term goal would be looking at and assessing the results of the college graduates and their degree choices and career decisions stemming from the experiences with FIRST programs in elementary, middle, and high school years.
--
There are many areas that can be addressed when requesting more transparency. To continue to strive to expand at a very fast rate without a clear course of sustainability and therefore, direction - is one that I think is very important.

[GaryVoshol]

Regarding the switch in the controller, part of the concern was also with making it reusable, and not including it and other parts in the Veteran KoP.

A good transition was the way FLL handled RCX --> NXT. Both systems were allowed to be used, so teams with legacy RCX's could still use them; it was pointed out that there would be less and less support for the RCX. Compare that to the abrupt switch away from VEX. I don't recall seeing any RCX during the last season; the transition has pretty much been complete.

Obviously we couldn't use two different control systems in FRC because of the field controls, so the analogy isn't exactly parallel. But if it was known at the beginning that teams would not get as many parts in their kit this year, they may have made some different decisions last year. With advance knowledge comes more options and opportunities. That's all that is being asked for.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by EricH

It would be kind of nice to get similar warnings from FRC as early as possible (noting that this may be Kickoff for some items).

Getting back on topic: This thread may be just a coincidence, but here we have an excellent example of FIRST trying to be more transparent. Couple that with the new driver station announcement & last year's cRio beta project, and I think we're already seeing some things different from as recently as 3 years ago.