Because of your commitment to making a difference as a FIRST ® volunteer, the future of FIRST is bright. As we look ahead, we are proud to share with you a preview of our new Purpose & Mission statements, which underscore our promise to build a thriving global robotics community and to remain at the very forefront of STEM education. They retain and reaffirm our core identity and the foundational principles that guide us, and refine the way we express who we are and why we exist:
Purpose:FIRST exists to prepare the young people of today for the world of tomorrow. Mission: The mission of FIRST is to provide life-changing robotics programs that give young people the skills, confidence, and resilience to build a better world.
These statements will be updated on firstinspires.org next week. With the FIRST vision, values, and ethos of Coopertition ® and Gracious Professionalism ®, they are a commitment to our community that we will continue to grow and improve. Together, let’s keep building a better future for all!
The mission of FIRST® is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders and innovators, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering, and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.
Vision
“To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders.” Dean Kamen, Founder
They’re clearly focusing less on science and technology in particular. Given the “A in STEAM” focus of the FIRST in Show season, it’s fitting. I doubt that much will actually change about the programs.
It’s definitely interesting that the mission has been changed to emphasize providing the programs rather than inspiring young people through the programs. I’m not sure how I feel about that, even if it is just a cosmetic change. It seems to conflict with FIRSTs historical message of “it’s not about the robots”.
Edit: whether you agree with how the focus is shifting. (that was FIRSTs decision), it’s analysis of how the statements were changed I think holds true. For people who were curious the starting prompt was my prompt and then the OP post.
FIRST updated their mission and purpose statements. I will show them below but I want you to highlight the key changes and how this changes the meaning as well.
The updates to FIRST’s Mission and Purpose Statements reflect a refined and more focused approach towards their goals in STEM education and robotics. Here are the key changes and their implications:
New Purpose Statement:
Old: No explicit purpose statement was provided earlier.
New: “FIRST exists to prepare the young people of today for the world of tomorrow.”
Change: This new purpose statement is more concise and future-oriented. It emphasizes preparing youth for the future, which aligns with evolving global challenges and the need for adaptable skills.
New Mission Statement:
Old: “To inspire young people to be science and technology leaders and innovators, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering, and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.”
New: “The mission of FIRST is to provide life-changing robotics programs that give young people the skills, confidence, and resilience to build a better world.”
Change: The new mission is more specific about the means (robotics programs) and the desired outcomes (skills, confidence, resilience). It shifts from a broad focus on science and technology leadership to a more targeted emphasis on life-changing experiences and building a better world.
Shift in Focus:
From General to Specific: The previous statements were broader, encompassing science and technology in general. The updated statements focus specifically on robotics as a tool for life skills and global preparation.
From Inspiration to Preparation: The old mission was about inspiring leadership and innovation, while the new statements pivot towards preparing young people practically for future challenges.
Reaffirmation of Core Values:
Both the old and new statements reaffirm FIRST’s commitment to STEM education, innovation, and developing well-rounded skills. However, the new statements seem to offer a more streamlined and direct approach to these goals.
In summary, the updated statements reflect a shift from a broad, inspirational approach to a more focused, practical methodology, emphasizing robotics as a key tool in preparing the youth for future challenges. This change indicates a strategic evolution in FIRST’s approach to align with the changing educational and global landscape.
One positive change, to me, is the change from inspiring youth to be “science and technology leaders and innovators” to preparing youth for “the world of tomorrow.”
I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again. Not everyone is a leader. Not everyone wants to be a leader. Not everyone enjoys being a leader. FIRST has the capacity to prepare students for whatever they want to do next from highly technical roles to creative ones, from advanced education to placement in the workforce, and from leadership positions to line workers. All of these are valid, and all should be celebrated.
It’s great when FIRST produces amazing leaders. It’s also great when FIRST produces amazing human beings capable of great things, regardless of if they lead.
I think this is true though more than ‘inspire young people to be science and technology leaders and innovators’. How many FRCFIRST Robotics Competition teams are spending time on biology and chemistry? We use robotics specifically as a method of applying all sciences in a practical manner. We focus on their skills in training, building their confidence in outreach & student leadership and helping them learn resilience from mistakes and losses and turning it around.
As it said above. I agree and think this is a good thing.
To me, this sounds like a practical change prompted by a governing board of directors. A mission is not just a values statement – it’s what the organization is obligated to do with their dollars. It sounds like this is an affirmation of FIRST’s functional/practical role with how they spend their resources. HQ is responsible for providing the programs to achieve their goals, which is a much more concrete obligation than “inspiring.”
I would suspect that this is also part of the rationale for splitting up into a purpose and mission statement. An interesting paper on an organization’s mission – and their obligation to provide one that allows for assesment of their goals.
yeah but remember majority of the people who are helping them carry out their missions are unpaid volunteering mentors - many have spent multiple decades of their own time/resources in help pushing the old vision and mission. If this new change doesn’t align or sit well with these volunteers, how many will HQ lose? Is this what most of the mentors wanted the changes to be? Was this part of the survery??? I mean did they even ask the inputs of any mentors?
Actually I would be more surprised if they DID have any real inputs at all from mentors, especially a lot of the long serving mentors. If they did, I’m sure that they would have mentioned it in there.
There was a meeting of all the Woodie Flowers Award mentors a few weeks ago. I don’t know what they did there or who from FIRST was there, but it really wouldn’t surprise me if they had talked about this.
Because they don’t take care of themselves during build and comp season? Eating junk food and not getting rest or taking time to exercise? That could make hearts die.
This is a new take on defining Purpose vs Mission. A Mission is how you fulfill your Purpose. Our church is going through the process of defining them for us. An example given was NASA. The purpose of NASA is to explore space. A mission of NASA was to land men on the moon. Purpose continues onward. Missions are accomplished and then new missions are defined. (And goals are steps that are taken to accomplish the mission.) This new mission statement is not exactly like that - it doesn’t have a finish - but it is specifics that can be accomplished through a variety of goals.
You’re saying they should have sent out a survey asking for our vote on a mission statement? Looking through my emails I think the best method of feedback is the competition feedback forms after each week. The issue is those are specifically about events more than FIRST guiding values.
I agree this does feel like it could’ve gone through maybe another round of feedback but it’s not practical for organizations like FIRST to ask every member to decide on organizational decisions. That’s why there is a board and people at HQ who’s job it is. They do need to check in and get our perspective but they can’t ask us for every decision or else nothing will get done.
This change may also be something that as FIRST has changed management in recent years they have been waiting to pull the trigger on as part of a much larger plan. If they asked us about one part and we say no then it unravels the next and so on. I think they have a plan and until we see if and how this affects teams on the ground, I don’t know that this will suddenly change how we all interact in FIRST as a community.
Edit: as evidence FIRST program delivery partners sometimes have trouble tracking down teams to find out if they are competing, what events they want etc. if they can’t even get in touch with a lead mentor for something that critical they definitely can’t wait for our feedback on less-critical, global decisions.
I’ll hold full judgement until someone from HQ pipes up on the “why”. I can imagine scenarios where the change is warranted, but the change makes no impact on day to day operations. I’ve spent most of my life as an individual contributor in big organizations, to where mission and vision statements are pretty far removed from the actual day-to-day operations.
But since they are public, first thought - the new ones seem… super generic. As in, the unique value I ascribed to the organization has been removed from the core statements of purpose. I’d argue watching all 9 star wars movies and then having a conversation about “wow isn’t C-3PO cool?” falls within their new Purpose/Mission.
A truism I learned from a very smart man I knew in college: “If we are all getting together to do stuff regularly, stands to reason we should be able to write down why we’re here”.
Maybe short mission statements are all the rage now. But the removal of several key words which formed the basis of why I choose to give my time here and not elsewhere is… troubling.
If anyone from HQ is reading and taking notes, this random joe schmoe on the internet requests that the robotics programs you provide still conform to the following words:
Exciting
Mentor-based
Emphasize science, engineering, technology skills
Innovation
Communication
Celebrated
Echoing jared’s thoughts that leadership isn’t the be-all end-all… but some notion of “at least innovators, possibly leaders” is where we want to be.
These don’t have to be in the core mission and vision and purpose or whatever you want to write on the walls in Manchester. But they do have to be somewhere, because they’re the core of the programs that I want to be a part of.