[moderated] Collaboration

[Katie Reynolds]

Originally Posted by dlavery

...Because they have just made my job 50% easier!

...Their solutions to the game are always so good, and so creative, that we have to spend a very great amount of time trying to figure out how to defeat them should we ever oppose them in a match ...
... if we can figure out how to beat one of them, then we know how to beat the other. We get twice the benefit for half the work!
... A concern was expressed earlier in the thread about what would happen if five or ten teams all worked together to build identical machines. ...they would also have ten copies of the same weaknesses. If we can find it, we have just figured out how to defeat ten teams all at once.

Wow ... I guess I never really thought about it from that point of view - Thanks, Dave! I feel enlightened.

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

That said, I was against it initially, because I couldn't see how it was legal within the rules given to us at the beginning of the competition. However, once again, FIRST has amazed me because they were able to find a happy medium. They have an interpretation which allows 254 and 60 to compete, and also uphold the rules.

When I first heard about the collaboration of 60 and 254, I felt the same way. After the ruling stating the legality of the collaboration of two teams, I'm not totally for or against the idea of this type of collaboration. If that's what teams want to do, and they feel it's the best way to learn, teach and be inspired, go for it! That's what this is all about, anyway! Thinking about it, it takes the 'real world' side of FIRST to a whole new level - communicating between two cities is hard, imagine how hard it is to communicate between two states! Congrats to the teams that are able to do this, and do it well.

That said, I don't think I would personally want my team to participate in this sort of collaboration with another team. Why? *shrug* I like trying to build a new, innovative, robot that performs the same tasks as everyone else's in a different way than others. Seeing my robot on the field compete with or against its twin would be ... different. I don't think I would care for that.

But that's me and just me. Like I said before, if teams want to go ahead and do it, I have no problem with it.

Good luck to everyone this season!

Originally Posted by dlavery

** note: a few times in past years, our response strategy has been to build a machine that falls apart before we can ever compete against these guys, and we therefore avoid the entire issue altogether - perhaps not the brightest strategy, but hey, it works for us!

Haha, very nice. *makes a mental note - "team 116 will fall apart if they feel the competition is as tough as 60 & 254

[KenWittlief]

I agree that a flaw or weakness in a design of a super collaboration would mean a weakness in all ten teams on the field

but I think the weaknesses that show up on the field are largely due to the fact the we have a limited amount of time and resources, and we have to design a whole robot in 6 weeks

so by having a ten team design alliance, each team only has to build one tenth of the robot - they will have plenty of time to perfect it in 6 weeks

it would be like playing against a team that has 300 students and 30 mentors, who are entering 10 robots into the contest, instead of playing against 10 individual teams with 30 students and 3 mentors each.

I dont like those odds. If we are on the opposite side of the field, It would feel like you are going against a team that had 330 members and $300,000 in funding.

[dlavery]

Hmmmm.... I am getting even further convinced that any group that goes down this road will quickly discover the point of diminishing returns.

I'm thinking about 300 studnets and 30 engineers, spread across 10 different locations, working on the same project, trying to set interface standards for at least 10 different subsystems, establishing production procedures for at least 10 copies (20 if you want a spare robot, 30 if you want spare parts) of everything, setting up communications infrastructures, the required layer of management and bureaucracy to get everything coordinated, shipping and logistics for all the parts, quality control for the production runs, new facilities needed for parts production (you are no longer in "one-off" mode here), etc. etc etc.

Then there is the fact that you need to get 330 team members to agree to the design approach (that will take at least two weeks of negotiation - just try to get a group that size to agree on ANYTHING). At least 30 engineers need to converge on the design details (there goes another ten days). Develop the interface specifications (one week), and control theory. Assuming you actually want to practise with your completed robot for at least 48 hours, that least one week for actual construction of parts, shipping them around the country, assembling and integrating them, finding out the specs were wrong, and iterating through the whole thing at least one more time. They are going to spend most of their $300,00 budget just on paperwork, logistics, communications and shipping. The net investment in the actual robot should be about $1.97.

As I said before, if some group wants to go through all that, I say "BRING IT ON!!! )

-dave

[KenWittlief]

Id like to propose an idea that takes collaboration almost up to this point, but still allows each team to create a unique machine.

When you have a regional in your hometown its much easier to form new teams - the travel and shipping expenses dissapear, unless you want to goto more than one event.

a couple years ago I was talking with other engineers during the championship at epcot, and came up with the idea of cities that have regionals also having a year round FIRST facility. A place with a single machine shop, a single playfield, computer room, lunch room, parts room, electronics equipment

but separate meeting and assembly rooms for individual teams. this would allow small teams with no real resources to meet in a common location and share a great deal of facilities and resources, while still being able to be independant teams with regards to their robot design. Engineers and mentors could choose to be team mentors or site mentors (im sure they would all end up helping all the teams as needed).

From my experience over the years the competition part of FIRST is extreemly important. When we have tried to get students to work on ideas in the off season, participation drops through the floor - nobody is interested.

There is something about human nature that makes us want to compete with each other - Im worried that having too many teams working together on a single design will take that away from FIRST, and the energy will drop like it does in the off season.

Having a single central location for multiple teams to work on their machines allows the maximum amount of cooperation, without loosing the element of competition. FIRST needs both.

[Shawn60]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Hmmmm.... I am getting even further convinced that any group that goes down this road will quickly discover the point of diminishing returns.

I'm thinking about 300 studnets and 30 engineers, spread across 10 different locations, working on the same project, trying to set interface standards for at least 10 different subsystems, establishing production procedures for at least 10 copies (20 if you want a spare robot, 30 if you want spare parts) of everything, setting up communications infrastructures, the required layer of management and bureaucracy to get everything coordinated, shipping and logistics for all the parts, quality control for the production runs, new facilities needed for parts production (you are no longer in "one-off" mode here), etc. etc etc.

Then there is the fact that you need to get 330 team members to agree to the design approach (that will take at least two weeks of negotiation - just try to get a group that size to agree on ANYTHING). At least 30 engineers need to converge on the design details (there goes another ten days). Develop the interface specifications (one week), and control theory. Assuming you actually want to practise with your completed robot for at least 48 hours, that least one week for actual construction of parts, shipping them around the country, assembling and integrating them, finding out the specs were wrong, and iterating through the whole thing at least one more time. They are going to spend most of their $300,00 budget just on paperwork, logistics, communications and shipping.

As I said before, if some group wants to go through all that, I say "BRING IT ON!!! )

-dave

We were two teams and it took us about two weeks to get the CAD and desing done, let alone build a thing. Mistakes are worse when they are done at long distaces. Here are just two examples. After the gear boxes were designed, 254 made the side plates and 60 made the gears. 254 shiped the plates to us, 6o, and we realized they were designed wrong. We, 60, then had to re-engineer and build new paltes and ship them back to 254 (both teams losing time), Secondly, 254 made the plates for the wench. They made side plates and not the mounting paltes. OOOPS again. I think we sent 254 the wrong drawing, I still don't know what happened. Collaboration like this is easier in some ways and harder in others.

I have found over the years that when you try something new you solve some problems but also trade old problems for new problems.

My experience so far this year is that is has been as challenging, exciting, stressful, and rewarding as my previous 5 in FIRST. My students are equally happy and excited.

13 Days until the Phoemix Regioanl

Shawn
Team 60

[Glenn]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Hmmmm.... I am getting even further convinced that any group that goes down this road will quickly discover the point of diminishing returns.

I'm thinking about 300 studnets and 30 engineers, spread across 10 different locations, working on the same project, trying to set interface standards for at least 10 different subsystems, establishing production procedures for at least 10 copies (20 if you want a spare robot, 30 if you want spare parts) of everything, setting up communications infrastructures, the required layer of management and bureaucracy to get everything coordinated, shipping and logistics for all the parts, quality control for the production runs, new facilities needed for parts production (you are no longer in "one-off" mode here), etc. etc etc.

Then there is the fact that you need to get 330 team members to agree to the design approach (that will take at least two weeks of negotiation - just try to get a group that size to agree on ANYTHING). At least 30 engineers need to converge on the design details (there goes another ten days). Develop the interface specifications (one week), and control theory. Assuming you actually want to practise with your completed robot for at least 48 hours, that least one week for actual construction of parts, shipping them around the country, assembling and integrating them, finding out the specs were wrong, and iterating through the whole thing at least one more time. They are going to spend most of their $300,00 budget just on paperwork, logistics, communications and shipping. The net investment in the actual robot should be about $1.97.

As I said before, if some group wants to go through all that, I say "BRING IT ON!!! )

-dave

This hits the nail on the head doing a project with one other team is hard enough. You might be able to bring a third team into the mix but it would take a very special group to make that work.

For those of you who know team 60 we try to get our design and strategy complete seven to ten days after kick off, and our robot complete in week four. This year we were more than two weeks into the design and we finished up on the night before we shipped.

When you are building four robots you do save some time because of increased production quantities, but don’t forget we are proto typing at the same time so when something goes wrong you have to fix it four times and believe me this happened.

Was the project a success? Absolute both team 60 and 254 learned many valuable lessons. We had to work had but we had a lot of fun designing and building together and I believe I can speak for both teams when I say we would do it again.

I’m a businessman in Kingman, my competitors know when we go head to head for a job that I’m a tough competitor, but they also know if they need help they can count on us. This is what has made us successful company.

If we are going to put man on Mars and learn more about the creation of the Universe or find a cure for cancer and so on. It will take people working together and I believe this is one of the most important aspects I can share with my students.

I do not think you will ever see ten of the same robots nor do I believe you will see many team take this to the level that our two teams did.

As JFK said we did not do this because it was easy, we did it because it was hard.

[Crop-Circles]

Originally Posted by dlavery

We have seen in the past that every "unbeatable" machine has a weakness, and it is just a matter of exploiting it (e.g. even the mighty Beatty Machine in 2002 lost a few rounds). The result of teams collaborating (to the point of co-designing) may be better machines, but I am a long way from assuming they will be unbeatable (or even the "best" machines).

Our team was allied with Beatty that year in nationals. I agree that there is no such thing as an unbeatable machine. However, if I recall correctly, when we and beatty were on the field, we never lost. Almost the only way to stop Beatty's beautiful robot was to turn it before it got to their scoring zone. Our robot was enough of a tank that we were able to stand behind them and keep them from turning. Our strategies complemented each others perfectly.

What does this have to do with collaboration?

It's true that FIRST provides enough of a challenge that it's not likely a single robot could be completly unbeatable. But an alliance built to function together might be close. Granted, two teams could do this in the strategy part of build season, it would likely be easier if the teams work closely all during build season. Besides, once teams get used to working together on robots, they'll likely be looking for more challenges. Building the "perfect" alliance may be that challenge.

Another problem could arise if teams start helping rookie teams through collaboration, but end up basicly building a robot for them. There is a certain balance created by the amount of competitive teams vs. the number of rookie teams. If more and more rookies are as powerful as veterans, it will raise the bar for veterans even further and could (as was mentioned before) intimidate rookie teams. If this was a widely established program, that wouldn't be to much of a problem. However FIRST still has a good amount of growing to do.

On the other hand, collaboration could be the next challenge for veteran teams that would get them concentrated on something other then building a better robot. It would then keep powerful teams from intimidating rookies while encouraging them to help the rookies, and further balance the playing field.

I think the real question is, is the threat of even more overpowered robots greater then the potential positive changes of increased gracious professionalism?

[Redhead Jokes]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Every year I get to praise the heavens because our team rarely has to go up against 254 and 60 (thank goodness they are on the wrong side of the country!). Their solutions to the game are always so good, and so creative, that we have to spend a very great amount of time trying to figure out how to defeat them should we ever oppose them in a match

Our alliance came up with a strategy to beat them last year, and we almost succeeded. We remain coopetitors with Team 60.

I was puzzled by all the controversy over their collaboration. I didn't feel threatened by it. I didn't feel it meant we had to collaborate in the same way to compete well, or that the sky was falling and everyone would be making the same robot. Creative solutions, realizing "life" isn't fair...all went thru my head - that it was still going to be fascinating to see their designs and how it all panned out.

Many, many years ago in high school modeling the teacher said that Cosmopolitan Magazine does all kinds of crazy things in order to get it's readership to make one tiny change, make a little purchase, move a tiny step forward in some area...

I can be fascinated by Martha Stewart - but certainly can't hold a candle to her. However she's taught me a thing or two that I can incorporate into my life.

60 inspires our team.

[Dan Richardson]

With the collaboration issue now ruled on it will open up a new can of worms. I can't help but agree with everyone a little on this subject. Yes its a hard feat to accomplish, Yes if you build Identical robots its 50% the strategy, and yes you have to work hard at the infustructure to pull it off.

But now picture with me if you will. Teams will soon realize that to have any chance at winning it is almost nescessary to form some sort of alliance or a super-alliance. Everyone seems to believe that this would be a nearly impossible feat to accomplish, but think with me for a second. What if remote kickoff's turned into nearly ":Alliance Summits". Each team in the alliance ( maybe every team within 60 miles which in certain areas could be as many as 40 or more teams! )

Team sends delegates, maybe 2 mentors and 2 students to meet. Then those delegates present their ideas for strategies on the game. Depending on the game 2 or 3 different robots will chosen to be designed. Alliance appointed heads would then brake off and coordinate with each group to make robots that worked perfectly together. For instance, this year, if a 1 of the robots did the hanging and another robot latched on to it to hang. Or 2 years ago in 2002 2 robots latching onto eachother forming a super bot to push everyone and everything off the field. The possibilities are endless.

Each team leaves the summit with the plans in hand and begin building their bot. Now they only have to collaborate with the 8 or so teams that are building the same robot those 8 robots which work perfectly with another 8 robots, which in turn also can work perfectly with another 8 robots.

Regionals turn into basically giant practice matches, and with that many robots, the possibility that you would get a pair at nationals is huge.

Now this example is blown way out of proportion. But even if it is done with 2 or 3 teams. The odds of 1 of those teams to get into top 8 are pretty great. ( Even if they don't get into the top 8, what team in their right mind would not want to pick the 2 super alliance bots )They then pick the rest of the alliance to work with. Teams then start dominating regionals, which are quite possibly the most integral part of FIRST. Many smaller teams that make up the majority of FIRST would be discouraged from coming back, because the way they see it, the regional level is they only place they can win. But now they are dominated by super-allainces who rejoice in collaborated winning.

I am not worried about identical robot collaboration even tho it seems a bit unfair. I realize that 60 and 254 would have produced amazing robots anyways. Infact I never was upset with either of these teams.

I am worried about what ELSE can come from collaboration. Because FIRST ruled that teams can work like this together. This rulings allows teams to work together how I described. It gets rid of the uniqeness of FIRST, and creates a bland mediocrity in which superbly built robots crush the little guy. I've always enjoyed seeing 950 different robots every year. Now I imagine in the future I'll have to look forward to seeing 600 or 425, or 300, or 150.

However I still believe FIRST gave just reason for their rulling, so this is why I'll be doing a lot of talking regional events. Making friendships that hopefully will begin to form great partnerships. Now I could be wrong, the masses of FIRST might decide against such a route.

However I will not sit quietly and let my team or friends teams be pushed out of the competitive aspect of FIRST. I will take FIRST's descision and run with it. Even if it begins to make my worst FIRST nightmare a reality. I stand behind it and will work hard and continue to promote FIRST in its new avenue, where ever it may take us.

[IMDWalrus]

My biggest problem with collaboration? Feeling involved.

Last year, I was on 818's "Robot Support" team. We did all of the odd jobs that the team needed someone to do - building the playing field, making the crate, and so on. The biggest problem I had with Robot Support was that the five of us that made up the group had almost no input in the robot design. I ended up feeling useless and uninvolved in the small successes 818 had during last year's game. Needless to say, that's not a good feeling.

This year, I moved to our team's Electronics group. Almost immediately, things were different. My group was asked to contribute ideas, and we did so. We were presented with the final design...and then, four weeks into the build, discovered that our work so far had to be redone because someone had decided to change the design of the robot without informing us.

I'm not sure how to best communicate my point...I guess it'd be that it's hard enough to feel involved on your own team at times, and even a minor change can spell disaster. Collaboration would definitely make it much harder for students to take a part in robot design. I may just be pessimistic, but the end result I see for collaboration woud be a small group of experienced students and engineers from various teams making the majority of design decisions and leaving the rest of the teams' members feeling useless.

As far as design goes...This is a rather extreme example, but let's say that Team A, who is working on the drive train, decides to deviate from the original plan and give the robots treads instead of wheels. The message gets through to several of the teams in the alliance...but Team E, who is working on the chassis, never finds out. Now all of the teams involved would be stuck with treads that won't fit onto their chassis. Not good in any way.

Communication and involvement are hard enough to control on a single team...it would be a nightmare if you had to get four or five teams on the same track.

I have a feeling that I'm not alone when I say that I'd much prefer to be involved in a team where the students make the entire robot instead of becoming specialized in a smaller area - say, electronics - and allowing others to design the majority of their robot.

[Andrew]

FIRST made the only ruling that it could.

Imagine that you were at a regional and you have gotten yourself into a box on a problem. Someone from another team comes by and says, "Hey, I ran into that problem a couple of years ago. Here's what worked for us." He then sketches a part, grabs some materials from his team's stash, and submits it to the shop for fab.

If FIRST had ruled, "No collaborative design," this assistance would be illegal.

The same argument could be made about fabrication. If a person from one team visits another team's pits and drills a hole, solders a wire, etc., the "donation of labor" would be illegal.

I don't think any of us want to see the world where we cannot assist each other in design or fabrication.

Now, some of you may say, "But these cases are different from one team fabricating all or part of another team's robot." They're different in the scope of collaboration, not the kind.

So, FIRST had no choice but to rule that both design and fabrication collabroation are legal.

The ramifications of disallowing collaboration are far worse than the ramifications of allowing it.

What many of us find uncomfortable is the scope of collaboration. In the extreme, Team X can develop a super design, program a CNC machine to make it, build a bunch of fixtures, and bang out 100 copies in the six week build phase.

Somewhere in between those two extremes, no collaboration and mass production, lies the correct path. We, as a community, have to find that path. Some teams will err towards no collaboration, others will err towards mass production.

As long as we keep in mind the true goal, inspiring young people to pursue science and engineering, we should be able to get by.

The next question is, "How many engineers, fabricators, and programmers does a team really need in order to be competitive." Three is probably too low; thirty is probably too high. Regardless of the number, the organizational structure has to be well developed in order to make efficient use of its labor pool. I think you'll find that the most competitive teams consist of a moderate sized staff, most of whom have worked together and know each other's strengths and weaknesses.

The "quickie collaboration" of teams that don't really know each other is a disaster waiting to happen. The thing that should worry all of us is two teams that collaborate and end up in a power struggle. Those two teams will end up hating each other in the end. This would be very bad for FIRST.

[MikeDubreuil]

This is my 5th year in FIRST and I have seen a gradual decline to where competiton has become irrelevant.

Long ago, individual robots battled each other. Then allainces were formed and the spontaneos pairings of two robots were exciting and benifetted first year teams. Now, we have teams building robots together to the extent where they are trading manafactured parts. What is the future?

The FIRST purist would say- it doesn't matter. The kids are still being inspired to pursue fields of technology, the program is working.

The competitive FIRST person would say- they are scared. Imagine Joe Johnson's suggestion: a 16 team Delphi alliance. Where a single team had 6 weeks to perfect a single component, a wheel, a goal grabber, a winch. How could another team compete against them?

Just as Joel Glidden has said, this might cause mentors and engineers to stop supporting FIRST. Which would leave FIRST with a dying program. Teams would have difficulty retaining mentors. At some point teams would have to drop out because of lack of support. FIRST would be in a dire situation.

Every mentor loves how they are inspiring America's youth. But which ones see that as a bennifet of creating a robot or the main reason? I think FIRST purists are underestimating just how many people are involved for a competitive robotics program.

How far will FIRST go before they realize that this was supposed to be a competiton? The kids will still be inspired, just keep FIRST competitive.

[Eric Bareiss]

People seem to have more of a problem with how team 60 and 254 went about this rather than what they did. Team 60 and 254 each made an identical robot and entered two regionals each

Here's a hypothetical situation:
Team 60 and 254 merge into one team, say team 1500, they make one robot and enter four regionals. At two regonals the 254 drives the robot and in two regionals 60 drives the robot.

What's different? The difference is that people wouldn't call the second one cheating, they would call it collaboration.

There are some differences between two teams making the same robot and one merged team.

Two teams get twice the number of parts - of course, you can't have more than x of a certain part anyway. But, two teams also receive twice the chance of winning a regional. If 8 teams, for example, collaborate and make the same robot, they have a chance of being the top 8 seeded teams also. However, one super-bot of 8 teams merged into one can only be seeded 1st place, not 1st through 8th.

I agree with Andrew. It is far better to fully allow collaboration than fully prohibit collabortation. Gracious professionalism needs collaboration to work. FIRST made the right decision.

[andy]

What I am most intrigued about is the cooperation in the offseason. I had suggested this to a friend on another local team, that we may collaborate in the off season to develop technologies that would then be used in the season.

We are both rookie teams, we figured we could pool our resources and come up with some very successful technologies. Such as autonamous, the electrical folks on both teams when they first met (at a Georgia Tech TES) were very excited about their dashboard programs, encoders and inertial guideance. Also we wished to develop a form of machine vision that could sense the location of the playing pieces on the field and create a digital map of where every fied piece is. This system would also allow the robot to calibrate its sensors to the field.

This endevor would be both very costly and require much expertise that neither team on its own had. However, we felt that if we collaborated we could solve our problems together.

To make a long story short, final exams rolled around, then it was the winter break, and then the build season started. We had not collaborated.

I feel this is an excellent form of collaboration. Take the car example, Porche and VW collaborated to build the Chyanne and the Touraeg respectively. The cars systems are very similar, technologies were developed jointly as a result of their cooperation. They share a very similar chassis and transmission, however, the Porche looks nothing like the VW. They each took the base level technologies and developed something unique.

It would be pointless to have the same identical car because then they would not be in competition. That is why I ask, if both teams were to be yearning for the last spot in the finals. They were trying to get choosen, by a finalist team, what would set one team apart from the other? They are the same.

That is why there are different quirks about the two SUVs. The Porche is pricier but also more powerful. The VW is cheaper but lacks some of Porche's "umph". Which one would you pick?

Good luck!
-Andy