Has FIRST Crossed the Chasm?

FIRST General Forum
1

Weird title for a thread, but it’s a positive thing to cross the chasm.

I’m reaching out to the business folks involved in FIRST with this post for your opinions. “Crossing the Chasm” is a staple book in the business world which describes how to market a high-tech products to the mass-market. It’s also a book that I think perfectly describes FIRST right now.

FIRST competitions (FRC, FTC, FLL) are products, and their target markets are changing and growing. Up until maybe two years ago, I considered FIRST something that only appealed to a very niche market: People with engineering backgrounds who were visionaries and innovators, who looked beyond the $6000 price tag, and didn’t need to be sold on the concept of FIRST because they were already ingrained. More importantly, this niche market could inherently see past the rough edges and imperfections in the competitions, because we could justify the “engineering experience” as being far more important than the competition.

As FIRST grows, and the barriers for participating fall, we’re attracting groups closer and closer to the mainstream. This is necessary to grow, but comes at the price of drastically modified expectations. The mainstream is just not as forgiving, and we’re seeing the effects here on Chief Delphi. Reference the numerous threads on reffing, rules, etc. etc. etc. etc. All valid concerns, but generally you’ll see the visionaries being more forgiving, but the mainstreamers not as much.

So hear me out: The FIRST process gets better every year, the rules are better written every year, the preparation of refs improves every year, the kit of parts improves every year, registration, logistics, support improves every year. We are just asking for more than ever, because now the mainstream is starting to look at us, and will point out every little thing that’s wrong. This is a good thing.

But IMO, this is proof that FIRST hasn’t yet crossed the chasm. We’re at a stage where one group can live with the imperfections (visionaries), but the biggest and arguably most important one can’t (mainstream). The fact that mainstreamers are even participating is a HUGE leap in the right direction, but the challenge is whether the mainstream stays, or gets alienated because the remaining imperfections aren’t corrected appropriately, or in a timely fashion. FIRST and the FIRST community CAN pony-up and clean up the last few rough edges - invariably the last ones are the hardest ones to fix. It won’t be easy, but that’s what Crossing the Chasm is all about.

Take it as flattery that FIRST has done a great job so far: more mainstream people than ever are involved in FIRST and are predominantly the ones pointing out these flaws. The flaws are FAR fewer than years before, I personally can attest to that, but more mainstream voices are coming out of the woodwork, so there is more volume of complaints.

But if FIRST is on the cusp of capturing the mainstream… it’d be best served to listen and react carefully to their concerns - even if they are drastically different than us visionaries.

-Shawn T. Lim…

2

Shawn,

You raise a very good point, here. Those of us who have been around FIRST for a long time tend to be a lot more forgiving of its flaws. We are definitely at a critical point in the program’s evolution, and it will be interesting to see how the organization responds to this challenge. Can FIRST bring its programs to the mainstream, while still retaining the elements that make it successful? I certainly hope so, but only time will tell.

3

Great post.
I have one question: What is the purpose of FIRST as it grows larger: to change to match the expectations of the mainstream or to try and change the mainstream to match FIRST’s expectations?

(i’m picking gracious professionalism (GP) because it is the most important aspect of FIRST to me.)
Would you see the unadulterated expression of GP in most larger scale non-FIRST competitions? Would it be o.k. for there to be fewer expressions of GP if that means reaching a larger audience?

Change is good. Critical analysis of your practices is a must. Change that is not driven by your core values to appeal to the masses is a sure path to mediocrity and failure.

4

I disagree. I believe the product is no less than a culture that celebrates science and engineering. FIRST competitions are merely a means to that end.

Bingo. FIRST cannot succeed by changing in order to appeal to “the mainstream”. FIRST has changing the mainstream as a goal.

5

Interesting points on all accounts. IMO, its a very fine line to walk. FIRST has to change enough to attract and retain the mainstream, but then has to effectively change the mainstream to meet its visions.

I think Shawn makes a good point that FIRST is constantly improving, it often seems that we complain, and the next year the problem is fixed or at least improved (remember when checking off the KOP was just from a list?? no photos??) They are doing what they can to make it easier for the average user, perhaps the teams that dont have engineers or experienced FIRSTers to help them out. But I think they are still doing what they can to uphold GP and the “means to the end” philosophy. We all, even us “visionaries” have our complaints day to day, and often rightfully so. As long as we all accept FIRST as a growing business, and do what we can to help rather than just complaining, I think the program will succeed.

I personally would not want to see FIRST grow so much that entire teams may not understand Gracious Professionalism. In my mind, FIRST is just too big then. What makes FIRST different and what makes it so amazing is how it brings teams together for a competition setting, but is not battelbots and is not football. Teams help eachother, they want to have fun, they want to play fair. But it is true that as we bring in the mainstream, it becomes harder and harder to get that message accross. Its more work to understand and present GP, its more work to keep teams from the attitude of hiding things or spying on eachother, its harder and harder to discourage aggressive play.

But so far, they seem to be moving forward. As most rookie teams have mentors or are brought into being by FIRSTers, so far we are succeeding. But in my opinion, I would rather see a FIRST team in 40% of the high schools if it meant we could uphold GP and all of the aspects of FIRST throughout nearly every team than have 100% of the schools have FIRST teams, and only have 40% of them understand GP and the FIRST ideals. To me, thats not success, it will eventually bring FIRST into the mainstream, not the mainstream into FIRST. I think the second is what we need to keep pushing for, and am hoping that is what FIRST is aiming for… bring the mainstream into FIRST and keep walking that ever thinning line…