The Triplet Challenge

[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!!!

[GaryVoshol]

I read Karthik's explanation of the Triplet Philosophy in an earlier thread, and have to say that I am cautiously supportive of it.

I would encourage anyone entering into such an agreement to do so with an exit strategy in mind from the beginning. One long-term commitment would be to invite students from a school without a team to join your team the first year. Collaborate as two separate teams the second year or maybe third year. Then split apart with separate designs, but share resouces (such as machining) when needed.

It must always be a collaboration though, not a "here's your robot, insert Tab A in to Slot B, have fun driving" thing.

[JVN]

Short & Sweet:
I think collaboration is a good thing, and I hope lots of teams take Steve's challenge.

I predict 1114 will have us all amazed with the success of this experiment, and will have a Chairman’s Award within 4 years.



(For those who care about my opinion),
Here is a longer philosophical analysis:
There are many ways to form collaborations. We have seen several different collaborative examples within FIRST already and there are many more out there. For discussion purposes, I will divide these methods into two major categories:

• Collaboration to Grow FIRST (Start New Teams)
• Collaboration to Sustain FIRST (Sustain & Improve Veteran Teams)

The triplet model falls heavily into the first category. A successful veteran team spreads itself thin, and in the process helps start one (or more) rookie teams. These rookie teams get to (ideally) play at the same level as the successful veteran team almost immediately. This success then helps them build into a sustainable program.

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.

There are many people, who will disagree with the above paragraph, and many would accuse me of being out of line for saying it, but based on my experiences it is all true. “Winning cures all” – This can be very true. Sponsors, school administration, community members, everyone likes to see a team with a chance to win gold. Everyone likes telling the story about coming out there and playing hard, and having a shot at winning. No one talks about the team that doesn’t move.

The triplet model gives teams the “taste of success”, and also gives them hands on experience with some proven methods. They fly up through the learning curve, and within a few years, are ready to become a separate, self-sustaining program.

Now, how much collaborative-meddling-involvement is required?
This depends on the situation. In some cases, it requires no more than quick phone call every few weeks. In others, it requires you hold their hand through every step of the process, and/or build identical robots. This is the way of life; every situation is different, and every situation requires a different way of doing things. This is not black & white, as many people seem to think it is.

Some will argue that you could choose a more hands-off approach if you will accept a less competitive showing from your rookie. This is probably true, but why would you? A FIRST team does not need to learn for itself how to be successful. This Darwinian approach to survival is dangerous, and the attrition is killing teams. Let’s face it, there are a LOT of teams that couldn’t figure out how to be successful, and didn’t last in this program. What if we could save them? Collaborative support could have kept them around. Again, the amount of support is not black & white.

So now we’ve got teams collaborating, and spawning new super-teams, who will eventually grow-up and spawn their own super-teams. This is good (will anyone argue that more good teams is a bad thing?). Now how do we save the veteran teams?

Let’s talk about Division by Chicken.
This was an alliance formed between two veteran teams (217 & 229). Why did these teams form this alliance? For 3 main reasons:

• Enhance & Sustain both teams through the use of resource sharing.
• Provide the unique long-distance collaborative opportunity for students on both teams to experience.
• So Paul and John could have fun working together.

Both teams participated (equally!), both teams benefited, all students benefited. These veteran teams came together and became stronger from collaboration. Both teams did well, and both teams had fun with the partnership (and the mentors on these teams, had a LOT of fun). Some may argue the point, but I think THIS is a good thing. This is an example of the second type of collaboration. (Remember when I divided it up, waaaaay up at the top of this post?)

This is not the only example of this type of partnership; this is merely the one I’m most familiar with (obviously). Another famous example is 254+60 in 2004 (there are many others).

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.

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.

Based on the potential to GROW, and SUSTAIN this wonderful program, not to mention the unique and beneficial experiences it can provide a team, I believe collaboration is a good thing, and I hope you will feel the same way.

$.02
-JV

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by rourke

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%)

The growth rate from 2005 to 2006 is slightly over 10%. In 2005 there were 1024 teams, there are now 1133. Not where we'd like it to be, but better than 5%.

[Kims Robot]

I've been watching this thread for a while, really trying to figure out how to add to this conversation without detracting from the initial idea of starting teams.

I would rather see a veteran team donate one of its senior mentors, college students, or anyone close enough to running the team, to run the rookie team, and let them do it for themselves. I've been through three rookie years now... and the rookie year is the most precious. Its the first year your team really sees the game, its when the amazing enlightenement occurs. I would propose to give them a leader rather than a robot design. Most teams dont want to give up their mentors. I get this... but if you are serious about the growth, let them catch the bug for themselves. I will be sad the day that a rookie team that was lead through everything wins the Championship Rookie All Star. We cherish that award, and its because our team did it all for themselves. Did they have my help? of course! Did they have my past experience? Definitely! Did we get help from teams like 229 & 191? Of course! Did they attempt things no other rookies had? Yup. Did they have a team design a robot for them? No.

Ok, so going back to Steve's point that you should do it where no team would exist or no team would have the courage to pursue/continue FIRST. I would argue that given a good leader, ANY team can succeed in FIRST. Look at all the teams that are starting to spring up from FIRST veterans. They all work, they all have courage, they all attempt FIRST, possibly without design experience.

This year, we adopted a team that lost its sponsor and dropped out of FIRST. We let their students continue with us, and next year, we are helping them start their old team back up. We have already agreed the robots will be completely different, but we will help eachother everywhere else we can.

I really thought the idea of the triplets was cool when I first saw it... but now that I see it popping up more and more, I have my doubts. The dependency scares me. I can see teams sharing designs in the offseason, maybe even building new robots from old designs for offseason competitions... but let the rookies learn what it is like to struggle. Show them how to ask for help from the veterans, show them how to fundraise, how to design an omnidrive, how to build an effective manipulator. FIRST is about growth... but to be honest, I dont think it can sustain the opposite curve of growth Stephen is suggesting. If it becomes too big, too political, too fast, it just wont have the same effect.

I know... I didnt really stay on the topic, but I will be honest, I dont know what is expected in this thread.

[Beth Sweet]

I just want to clarify something that I am pretty sure is true, however people seem to be confusing. With the Niagara Triplets at least, the students, all of them from all teams, work with their mentors to design and build the robot. Steve, correct me if I am incorrect with this, but I don't feel like Steve is in any way insinuating that the veteran does everything and the rookie goes by observation only. I've watched the Niagara Triplets, the kids are assisted and helped by their mentors when they get stuck, but to the best of my knowledge, all team members contribute in all aspects.

[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