What Happens When Dean's Homework Assignments Work?

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by rsisk

Has anyone ever done an analysis of why teams fail?

Knowing why they fail would be a good step towards developing a plan to sustain a team.

AWEsome suggestion!

Also, can anyone who has been around and knows the history, give some insight on the elitist question? What I'm thinking is that FIRST was founded, initially, to address the smart kids and their potential. Do I have that right? It's my understanding that eventually, that idea expanded to become more inclusive and open to everyone.

[ChrisH]

Originally Posted by rsisk

Has anyone ever done an analysis of why teams fail?

Knowing why they fail would be a good step towards developing a plan to sustain a team.

Our Senior Mentor keeps track of this for our local teams. The number one reason for a team not coming back is loss of the key mentor. Administrative issues were #2, financial issues are a distant third. Those of us on the regional Committee were quite suprised by this. But it seems that if the will and the personell are there, the money needed can be found.

Note: This is based on the start of the 2009 season, we do not have complete information for this year yet.

[kramarczyk]

What happens when Dean’s homework works? Chaos, confusion and a push system that is created for PR numbers.

Why? There is no plan to deal with it. The homework provides no guidelines for talking to political leadership to deliver a consistent message of what we need. It is like screaming, "help" at the mall. Was your purse snatched? Is it a heart attack? Is the building on fire? How much of the help you get will be what you need.


Rich is right, handing out cash to start teams without verifying the people and facility support creates inherently unsustainable teams. People are always interested in the money if they see it as a free ride. It is the classic chicken and pig scenario.
Sustainable teams have a pig or two involved, but they are difficult to find. I think it is much more likely to find committed individuals with a pull system than a push. The NASA system seems to be a good example.

Even in the cases where you can find an individual off the street that is willing to commit there is still a huge learning curve involved with running a FIRST team. They need to apprentice with someone. Another team that is willing to commit to mentoring (not just be involved when requested) another would be a huge boost to sustainability. This is especially so when the mentoring team can clone its best practices for the rookie team. Perhaps mentoring a new rookie becomes part of the criteria for returning team grants. I think it is well exemplified with the Niagara FIRST triplets. The next logical progression in that might be to grow individual teams to the point of splitting them. With that each team carries a set of established practices and experienced personnel. The Thunderchickens have been doing this for years. They originally covered an entire county as Team Macomb, but over time split off regions as their own independent teams. I think this is the organic growth that Meredith referenced; it is almost cellular division.

Now just because you are sustainable today doesn’t make you sustainable tomorrow. Sustainability is a journey not a destination. You might have super capable and committed mentors, but what happens when they get relocated or run short of time due to work or family commitments? Enter Chris’s contingency planning and continuous improvement reviews. New mentors and sponsors need to constantly be attracted to offset attrition. Additionally, once they are on board you need to make sure they get proper care and feeding so that they stay on board. Don’t just tell the mentors that you appreciate their time, go to the families as well. Keep contact with the sponsors and develop a relationship. Don’t ever forget to say “Thank You!” It is well known in business that keeping a customer costs 10-20% of the cost of attracting a new one. This can be applied to teams as well.

With any dollar amount to invest I would be more interested in the number of individuals (students is too narrow) impacted than the number of teams created, after all this is about people. Consequently, by focusing on sustainability you continue to get compounded inspiration after the money is gone. I’d be curious to see the number of teams that have a third year, but not a fourth. I’d speculate not many. Any team that continues to exist continues to inspire. How many individuals have had their lives changed by some of the original 1992 teams? Hundreds of people for sure, perhaps thousands when you think of all of the families that come to events and talk about them. I like Rich's ideas for tiering based upon age of targeted membership, but I'd also like to see tiering for the age of the program.

This wasn't part of the question, but I'd also like to see the donor organization partnering to make a multi-year commitment, even at a lower dollar figure, to a one-year flash in the pan. Can the $1,000,000 be done over multiple years? There are probably some political consequences of such an action that I do not understand, but it facilitates the ramp in ideas I mentioned earlier.

If you read this far, thank you.