This is being actively revised due to thread feedback, you may want to wait to print this
In an attempt to intermingle Maslow’s hierarchy of needs with FRC I have created this poster I plan to hang in our lab. Thoughts? Corrections? Below the poster is my notes on how I would use this with my team and our subteams in examples.
Focus: Developing a basic but reliable control system for the robot. This includes coding for basic movements, basic mechanisms and driver interface.
Subteams’ Role:
Programming & Code: Write and test code for driving and basic operations.
Drive Team: Train on driving the robot, provide feedback for control system adjustments.
4. Strategic Design Features
Focus: Adding game-specific mechanisms and features that align with the team’s strategy for the competition.
Subteams’ Role:
CAD & CAM: Design and fabricate key components and mechanisms.
Scouting & Strategy: Develop game strategies, provide input on design features based on game analysis.
5. Advanced Functionalities and Automation
Focus: Implementing advanced features like autonomous capabilities, complex mechanisms, and improved control systems.
Subteams’ Role:
Programming & Code: Develop autonomous routines and advanced control features.
Build & CAD/CAM: Integrate and refine advanced mechanisms and features.
6. Aesthetics and Branding
Focus: Enhancing the robot’s appearance with team branding and aesthetics without compromising functionality.
Subteams’ Role:
Business & Marketing: Develop branding elements for the robot, coordinate with build team for implementation.
Media: Document the process, create content showcasing the robot’s design and features.
7. Optimization and Enhancement
Focus: Fine-tuning all aspects of the robot for peak performance. This includes revisiting each layer for improvements.
Subteams’ Role:
All Subteams: Review and refine their respective areas, looking for improvements in functionality, efficiency, and reliability.
edit: In case it wasn’t clear the bottom is your most basic and foundational steps that everything else relies on. Here is an example from Maslow’s hierarchy. You have to fulfill the basic needs before you can worry about the rest and so on.
Nicely done. You could almost make another one based on mechanism development. We started improving as a team when we focused our off season time on developing specific mechanisms (i.e. ball launcher, intake, elevator) to develop our skills.
For me, “Strategic Design” would probably need to be a more foundational aspect of any FRC Robot hierarchy of needs. I can definitely understand your approach here, but for an effective FRC robot, strategic design should dictate pretty much all other elements from your drivetrain to your auto modes etc.
So if there was a layer 0 of research, selection of an overall team strategy and robot ability goals would that be more inline? Or you’re suggesting later 4 is really layer 1?
Thank goodness for 0 being acceptable as the start in programming terms at least.
While I think that’s valid for brainstorming and approaching the overall design for the season, I think as far as execution goes I would agree with this pyramid. You want to have a solid chassis, robust electronics, and controls in place at the very least.
This pyramid is similar to the approach I’m taking with my rookie team: focusing on the basics to get a robot moving and not disconnecting during a match for our off-season robot (while building some basic fab and assembly skills). Now that we have laid the foundation of skills, we can start to focus our efforts on expanding our strategic design abilities.
Prompt: uploaded the pyramid image, discussed a layer 0 and then
“Using this knowledge of layer 0 through 7 how close are we to an OSI model for an FRCFIRST Robotics Competition robot?”
Response
The OSI (Open Systems Interconnection) model is a conceptual framework used to understand network communication with seven layers, each serving specific functions that build upon the one below it. Similarly, the FRCFIRST Robotics Competition Robot Hierarchy of Needs Pyramid we discussed has a layered structure where each layer represents a stage in robot development with distinct focuses that contribute to the overall function.
Comparing the two:
Layer 0 (Conceptualization and Planning) can be likened to the OSI model’s Layer 7 (Application), where the initial planning and strategy are akin to the high-level protocols in networking that define the type of communication or data transfer to occur.
Layer 1 (Basic Mechanical Structure) parallels the OSI’s Layer 6 (Presentation), which translates data into a usable format. In FRCFIRST Robotics Competition, this layer translates the conceptual plan into a tangible mechanical structure.
Layer 2 (Reliable Electrical System) is similar to OSI’s Layer 5 (Session), establishing connections and sessions. In FRCFIRST Robotics Competition, it’s about establishing electrical connections and power distribution.
Layer 3 (Effective Drive & Control System) is akin to OSI’s Layer 4 (Transport), ensuring reliable data transfer, just as the control system ensures reliable movement and operations of the robot.
Layer 4 (Strategic Design Features) could be compared to OSI’s Layer 3 (Network), determining data paths in networking, while in FRCFIRST Robotics Competition, it’s about designing robot features that align with strategic paths and objectives in the game.
Layer 5 (Advanced Functionalities and Automation) is like OSI’s Layer 2 (Data Link), which encodes and controls data flow. In FRCFIRST Robotics Competition, this layer is about encoding strategic decisions into advanced functionalities.
Layer 6 (Aesthetics and Branding) can be seen as similar to OSI’s Layer 1 (Physical), which is the hardware and tangible media in networking; in FRCFIRST Robotics Competition, this layer adds the physical branding and aesthetic appeal.
Layer 7 (Optimization and Enhancement) encompasses the ongoing process of improvement and doesn’t have a direct OSI counterpart but is essential for the iterative process of refining a robot’s performance.
While there are parallels in the layering concept, the OSI model is about data communication, whereas the FRCFIRST Robotics Competition Robot Hierarchy of Needs is about building a physical robot. The OSI model layers are more interdependent, with each layer only interacting with its adjacent layers, while in the FRCFIRST Robotics Competition pyramid, the process is more fluid and iterative, with frequent revisiting of earlier stages as the project progresses.
Not awful, but not really the best comparison probably
I think that for a lot of teams, I would even say the majority, (not including 1339 obviously) Layer 7 (Optimization and Enhancement) should come before Layer 6 (Aesthetics and Branding)
Nice chart. Thank you.
If you don’t have your needs met through levels “X” (pick what your team wants) by your first competition, you can’t have a winning season. “Schedule” is a “high need” in an FRC season.
I mostly agree and maybe there shouldn’t be a true layer 7 in the way I was picturing it but rather an arrow showing you loop back through it all again with refinements including all of the layers. Aesthetics are last, but you can improve how you apply them. In our case we end up carving our numbers into parts of the structure or panels and this can affect the rigidity or stability of a mechanism. So in our case the aesthetic planning had to happen earlier on and then we refine it further in testing and make tweaks to get it perfect.
The refinement of crucial mechanisms and drive train comes before adding any aesthetics at all though. So a layer of refinement but then a loop to go back through it again maybe?
