Chairman's Award Concerns

Competition FIRST Impact Award
21

The reason I liked Wetzel’s idea of teams volunteering to publicly perform their Chairman’s presentation:

As long as we have been hosting FLL competitions, we have live video feeds of the kids presentations streamed to room(s) so parents and others can see the presentations. It is very popular. It is amazing to see the performances and creativity of teams. It is especially informative for rookie teams to see the variety of presentations.

As for FRC, I’ve always been a bit bothered by the almost secrecy of Chairman’s presentations. On the whole, team 842 has found that sharing information about robots, robot designs and our Chairman essays have helped others and has been an asset to us as we build communications with other teams.

We have always offered and have been willing to help other teams with “Chairman’s advice”. This year, as always, the Coconuts previewed their presentation to some of our team. The Coconuts were awarded their 3rd CA this year. Intrateam cooperation creates a better Chairman’s presentation just like it creates better robots.

Our team, 842, has not done a Chairman’s presentation for a few years since we were awarded the Championship Chairman. Otherwise, I would suggest our team plan to voluntarily perform our presentation, and a Q&A on Saturday of the regional and world so newer teams and veteran can learn, criticize, interact and share. It would take some of the mystery out of a process that only three members of a team experience.
I would think other teams would want to do the same.
Not required, not dependant on FIRST approval, not resource costly… Just sharing experiences.

22

To me this is very similar to an interview process. Knowing the people who conduct interviews at my company, a large part of the thought process about of the potential candidate is being able to determine if the person actually did what they claimed. It involves a lot of follow up questions, calling up references and requesting the citation of sources. I remember in my interview showing my CAD drawings to demonstrate my proficiency.

I feel all the FIRST judges are experienced enough to go through this very same process. Asking detailed questions would sort out most situations. If we wanted more fact checking. Perhaps being able to cite references would help. If a team had a newspaper article describing their community work, seems to me like a good thing to put in a chairmans essay as a reference. If a team started an FLL team, list the contact info of those teams.

Overall, I feel the judges already know that the truth can be stretched. I am positive they ask the right questions and find the truth. I doubt a team would lack enough integrity to try to deceive the judges. If they did, i feel it would be obvious.

23

It is not the FIRST public’s job to judge the validity of a team’s statements. That is in the hands of the judges, many of whom have been judging Regional and Championship Chairman’s Awards for years now, I’d like to think they are pretty good at what they do.

What I advocate instead is to talk to the teams who have submitted a Chairman’s Award, wether you are entering or not. While simply watching presentations are all well and good, please keep in mind that a 5 minute presentation cannot come close to explaining an entire team’s history. Going to a team’s pit and talking to students and mentors who helped plan and execute their events will provide you with much more information.

This year while in St. Louis or at your respective regionals take the time to talk to students and learn how they ran their events, started other teams, and gave back to their community. Learn from each other, isn’t that what FIRST is all about? Inspiring others to spread the word and give back to the communities that have already given so much to the teams. Rather than wasting time fact checking every little comment to disqualify someone’s claim why not do something more in your community? Strive to inspire more! If you’re upset a team claimed they helped the same rookie you did, create another rookie team next year, host an offseason event! Tell people about FIRST at Pancake Breakfast’s! Alert the presses! Take Photos! Get your team out there in public, once you see everyone you help along the way their thanks will be more important to you than winning a trophy, and sooner or later the judges will take notice. Winning the Chairman’s Award should not be all about the trophy, it’s about the journey to get there and celebrating your team’s accomplishments.

24

It was announced in Oct. 2011 that starting in 2012, all winning RCA written submissions would be posted on the usfirst.org site within a week of earning the award.

The recording can be found here: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/frc-senior-mentor-teleconference-recordings

When I inquired a couple of weeks ago I was told that it was not being implemented this year.

I was disappointed. It’s not the fact-checking I am interested in. It’s the inspiration.

25

I respect this thread for bringing up the elephant in many rooms and addressing it, even though the immediate response can potentially be that the OP is unGP.

A true chairman’s team will share their paper and presentation with anyone who asks, because its not about the award but the process teams go through (competition for the chairman’s award is the best). I can’t imagine a team who is chairman’s caliber not sharing their wealth of knowledge for the thrill of the win.

My $.02.

26

For starters, thanks for not labeling me unGP. GP has truly changed the way i perceive competitions and robotics. It pains me when people assume any criticism is malicious and/or ungracious. I may be on a bit of a tangent here, but personally I view constructive criticism as essential to GP, as people who bury their concerns can sometimes have an explosive outburst later on… as we’ve all seen on this forum before.

On to the issue at hand:
While most chairmans teams do rightfully serve as an inspiration for others, I see the potential for teams that feel their projects or events were claimed to loose that valuable sentiment.

27

Chairman’s is really hard to discuss online, because so many people tie so much emotion to their views about the award and judging of the award. Plain text just can’t carry the full weight of the discussion, without being misinterpreted by a few participants.

This being said, my team just won their second RCA this weekend at Las Vegas. We weren’t expecting this award, as there were so many great teams at that regional.

Our team had been in existence since 2000, and when my wife and I joined, in the 2009 season, they had not yet won the award. Winning a RCA was an all-consuming obsession for the outgoing advisor and head mentor. My wife was the new advisor, and we were both rather put-off with constantly hearing “this will look good for Chairman’s” while the discussed act was superficial and usually external to the team’s activities.

We forced a culture change within the team. All mention of the Chairman’s award was banished. The team started STEM outreach programs, with real commitments of time from the team members. We gave talks to civic groups and industry conferences, to explain FIRST and the importance of STEM education. The team expanded to a year-round club, instead of just meeting during build and competition season. We instituted mentor conduct rules, and emphasized Gracious Professionalism. We did our best to help a neighboring team that self-destructed during build. With all of this, we saw ourselves on the path to becoming the team we thought we could be someday, but nothing really special, yet.

As a NASA team, we submitted a Chairman’s essay as required, and presented on our actual efforts. At the 2010 Las Vegas regional, we won our first RCA. We were stunned, and sincerely humbled by the recognition.

What does this rambling mean for the RCA and judging? Not much. Just that this was our path for success. Ignore the award. Do the right things, and set the right culture in your team. Document your real efforts, set high expectations for conduct embracing Gracious Professionalism, and have fun!

– Len

28

I’m disappointed as well. I really wanted to see what smaller teams who may have won the chairman’s award had done to see if there is anything our team could be doing better with limited resources.

Also, a point one of the speakers made on that phone call is that sometimes teams who do exaggerate their role in doing something get caught. Team X may take full credit for mentoring a rookie or FLL team and a few presentations later Team Y may present specifics showing how they actually played a major role in mentoring that same team --so sometimes teams get weeded out pretty easily. I’d be surprised to find many teams crossing the line from exaggeration to blatantly lying.

29

If you’re interested in smaller teams that have won Chairman’s take a look at our thread here

I’ve posted just about all of our Chairman’s stuff there. I’m hoping to get a video of the team practicing the presentation up with in the next few weeks.

We really didn’t expect to win Chairman’s this year, so anything we can do to help other small and upstart teams have a shot, we are happy to do.

30

CA is suppose to be the top award in FIRST. We are here discussing teams that maybe stretch the truth. Maybe the real issue is that more time MUST be taken with the teams to discuss, question and evaluate. 10 minutes for the top award. Are you kidding? If there are a lot of teams then have 2 or 3 panels of judges. Each panel could choose the top of their group and then have all judges present for a second presentation (can be shorter) of the 3 in contention. A decision could then be made with all judges present.

Maybe I am wrong but how can a judge make an informed decision in 10 minutes. I have seen judges spend way more than that talking to teams about other awards. Give them the time they need and throw away the clock. Better decisions can be made with more time for questions and answers. Will this be perfect, no BUT it will be 100% better.

31

I would hope that FIRST is looking into changing the judging process for Chairman’s. I imagine the video submission will soon be due at the same time as the essay, that way we can almost get rid of the presentation and just have question and answers at the regional. I think that’s how the judges truly learn what a team is about anyway.

32

I sometimes question this for several reasons, one of which IMO, FIRST didnt deliver when it came to promoting its goals at its highest moment this year.

33

the whole process is the most valuable part, not the award itself …

  1. as a team, engage in the process as deeply as you can - you won’t regret it.
  2. Learn from others as much as you can (and, yes, FIRST needs to deliver on helping spread that information - ESPECIALLY WHEN IT’S WRITTEN IN THE RULES :P). Perhaps some of the HofF teams might get together and help push the agenda and/or begin to create and share like the WFA’s have - http://themobius.wordpress.com/ ???
  3. As for the potential misrepresentations? Water off a duck’s back. As soon as you start worrying or even thinking about that, you’re losing focus on maintaining your own team’s efforts and managing the how your team best represents itself - which is the only part you’ll ever truly know or control anyway.
34

I don’t know about teams making ‘stretched’ or ‘inflated’ or ‘misleading’ or ‘not-totally-true’ claims in their Chairman’s bid, but what I DO see, frequently, is teams reusing the same wonderful things they did years ago over and over again in their Chairman’s videos, effectively using the same accomplishments to win the award multiple times.

I’m not really sure how to reconcile this, because those things are clearly a part of the team’s history, and clearly a part of how they do things, and even clearly a part of what makes the team deserve Chairman’s. On the other hand, it seems to me like the very best teams should have enough material from the current year that makes them awesome, that the older stuff, especially content from a previous Chairman’s bid that resulted in an RCA, warrants little more than a cursory mention.

35

I don’t think there is any mystery here as the award is about a long-term (more than one year) sustained effort. Quoting the 2012 manual,
“6.4.3 Submission Information
The criteria for the 2012 Chairman’s Award are essentially identical to those in the past, with special emphasis on recent accomplishments in both the 2011/2012 year and the preceding two (2) years. The judges focus on teams’ activities over a sustained period, as distinguished from just the six (6) week design and build time frame.”

So in other words the judges want to know about all of your efforts, no matter how “old”, with special focus/emphasis on the most recent three years.

In addition to that, a team may have begun an outreach activity six years ago, but they still continue to participate/organize/execute it today - making it a recent activity with a long and rich history (which, coincidentally, are things that judges love - and they should)

-my .02, namaste.

36

Absolutely !!

They can’t. If the judges have not really studied the submissions before the competition then the process is broken. I’m sure it works well at some events and is probably broken at other events.

The PRIMARY purpose of the video is not and has never been used to do RCA judging. The primary purpose was for other teams to see how the team that is earning an award do their work. It is in the spirit of communicating, inspiring, training others to become an RCA team. FIRST has had to implement language that enforces submission of the video.

Glenn, I agree - they really dropped the ball on this on !!! I don’t know what to say. I had the same thoughts in my head when I was standing there.

Chairman’s allows a team to use this year plus the prior two years as part of the submission. I have seen teams go back even further than that. Sometimes it makes sense to do that.

We try to add ONE MAJOR initiative each year and a couple of lesser initiatives each year and hopefully maintain the prior initiatives as ongoing efforts. That way there is a pipeline of fresh stuff. But yes not all teams do that.

So an RCA teams has to do things consistently over a few years. A CMP CA team has to do it over 5 or even 10 years.

$ 0.02

37

FIRST needs to stop saying the video is required but doesnt count towards judging.
I dont believe it anyway.

No one can argue that a 3 minute video about your program is more compelling and with greater impact, than a 10 minute presentation with Q&A.

While I think teams may win an RCA without a “good” video at a regional level, it better be “good” at the CMP level. I cant see FIRST showcasing the team earning the “Highest Award” in FIRST with a video that isnt representative of the goals they set forth…whatever that may be.:rolleyes:

38

I partially agree. I ask all teams that I work with to make up a CA submission even if they know they can’t win. I believe that it is an exercise to keep track of team progress and goal setting.

If the award is not important then they should stop saying that it is the top award in FIRST. If is not important then why celebrate it and strive to win it?

39

I don’t agree. I have not done any real survey but I have know RCA judges to say they they don’t and have not watched the video.

I think the RCA teams need to do a video and eventually they will get better at it just like teams get better a building robots. The videos produced this year, at least the sampling I’ve looked at, are substantially better than in the past.

Teams need to learn how to communicate. I’ve got a whole thesis on that subject.

40

As I said, I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing, using old accomplishments. I would prefer to see current accomplishments, though.

I’m going to pick on 1114 here for a minute, just because they’re the perennial RCA team that I have the most experience with.

1114 has won RCAs 6 out of the last 7 years, and they currently have their 2009, 2010, and 2011 Chairman’s videos on their website, and the 2012 one is expected to be posted soon.

If you watch the three videos that are there, there is a TON of re-used footage, and re-used accomplishments. The 2012 video (which I saw at the GTR East regional after they won the RCA with it), has many of the same accomplishments covered.

I would agree that older accomplishments ARE getting smaller mentions as time passes, which I think is the correct approach, though one in specific struck me as kind of odd this year.

1114 is responsible for FLL kits getting into every Niagara district elementary school. That’s a fantastic accomplishment, and one to be proud of for sure. As someone who didn’t know that this accomplishment was actually a couple years old already, Karthik’s speeches, and their 2012 video made it seem to me as though that was an accomplishment this year. I don’t think their intention was to mislead, but I certainly assumed that it was a 2012 accomplishment, until I started watching their older Chairman’s videos. Perhaps such things should be presented with dates or something. I don’t really know, maybe I’m picking on something that is by-and-large a non-issue.

I’m not saying that they don’t continue to do great things, or don’t deserve to be winning RCAs perennially, in fact, I know it to be quite the opposite. They ARE probably the most deserving team in the region. They DO continue to sustain many of the efforts mentioned, and they DO continue to do new and exciting things in the community-at-large. I just don’t like the feeling I get from the videos that seem to make it sound as though certain accomplishments are ‘current’ when they are older, whether or not that interpretation was intentionally easy to make.