What happens when Dean’s homework assignments work? Do we have a system in place to handle it? There is a lot of discussion in this thread and I’d like to see if some of the concerns and suggestions or solutions can be further explored in this thread. Are we ready for the next step in achieving FIRST’s goals and if not, what can be done to strengthen the process and the program?
Jane
Ideally, the result is more people who “get it”, with many of them in positions having the authority and the resources to realize FIRST’s purpose.
I would hope that any public money spent is not merely to bribe people into forming FRC teams, nor even to reward them for having done so. If the homework is done correctly, I expect funding to be used to celebrate science and technology, and to help recognize scientists and engineers and their achievements.
You get what you pay for, but you usually stop getting it when you stop paying. You also get what you celebrate, and that can be a positive feedback process.
Jane,
I believe your question gets to the core of something I’ve been thinking/feeling for a long time. Is the goal just more FIRST teams (specifically FRC) or something broader?
I do not believe we have the infrastructure to support gobs more FRC teams really, really fast, nor do I believe that it’s possible to put an FRC team in every high school - ever. I believe that if we do indeed try to succeed at achieving this mission this way really quickly we will eventually crumble at our foundation. Does FIRST’s founder agree with me here? Most decidedly, No. Is that a problem? That remains to be seen. I will forever be grateful for the fire Dean lit under my butt when I first heard him speak about our societal needs and how FIRST could help address those needs. Though, when he talks about the details of how to accomplish the mission, I will admit that I sometimes wince.
However, I’ve always seen the goal of “putting FIRST’s ideals” in every school a very attainable one in broader ways and it’s what I spend part of every day working at - really hard. Only a small part of what I do however is “starting” or “helping to start” new FRC teams.
There’s “FIRST the organization” and then there’s “FIRST the vision for the future through a set of ideals”. I’ve grown somewhat skeptical of the former in recent years, but, after 10 years, I’d still throw myself in front of a bus for the latter.
How about Woodie’s concept of an organic growth of FRC teams from the “bottom” up? He says to imagine a triangle with FLL at the base, FTC in the middle and FRC at the top. (I will add VEX to the middle - I will not speak to his opinion of this - but we are using VEX for 7-12th graders.)
I can say for an absolute fact from my personal experience in 8 years of mentoring/ coaching/ supporting FLL, FVC, FTC, FRC and now VRC teams that the students who are most engaged, productive, rewarding and rewarded are the ones who start robotics activities BEFORE high school.
I also believe it is these “organically-grown” students who keep me personally doing this in spite of every sane reason to quit. Instead of wondering how to get and keep mentors, we need to reach and inspire students who encourage us to go on year after year. Every time I am so discouraged and overwhelmed I get a message or call from one of these kids with a question or message. “Miss Meredith, Miss Meredith!” in an excited (or sometimes pretty hysterical) voice is the one thing I cannot seem to walk away from 
I don’t know what happens when Dean’s assignments work but I do have a few questions relating to them:
How can we make Dean’s homework successful?
How do we start sustainable teams?
How do we help existing teams become sustainable?
What defines a sustainable team?
How can we determine if a sustainable team is a succesful team?
How can sustainable teams become succesful?
Should we focus on long term sustainability or short term success?
Should we focus on inspiring the current students MORE or inspiring future
students at all?
Is Dean’s vision feasible?
Is Dean’s vision logical?
I ask these as someone who wants to help but does not know what direction to focus.
If you have $1,000,000 - where would you focus? Why? How? What resources would need to be in place? What resources would need to be created?
–
I like these questions, Andrew, and may take a shot at all of them after I doing some thinking. In the meantime, I’ve countered with my own. 
The ripple in the pond effect.
Oh Oh … I’m ready to play the spend a million dollars from the government game … may I?
and for the record I’m after the “FIRST ideals” here not necessarily “FIRST programs”
No one gets anything without applying for it. Money toward an unwilling or unprepared participant is a complete crapshoot and I’m all about eliminating as many unknowns as possible and inspiring as many students as possible. Now, encouraging folks to apply and educating them on the front end is fine. Helping them fill out the application is also fine as long as you are doing this “with” folks instead of “for” them.
So, create a program with an application process using the types of questions we’ve seen on NASA grant applications.
Now, what the participant would apply for …
“STEM/Robotics Education Grants” $1M awarded over a two year period.
Category 1 - K-6 STEM Program Grants (may or may not be “robotics”) - up to $5K each. This might be a curricular or co-curricular or after school STEM program run by a school and or school district. A second year may be applied for if all grant conditions are satisfied and further need is demonstrated.
Category 2 - Robotics Curriculum Grants (middle or high school)- up to $5K each. This is specifically to fund a course in the school, schools, or district. A second year may be applied for if all grant conditions are satisfied and further need is demonstrated.
Category 3 - Robotics Competition Grants (middle or high school)- up to $6K each. This is specifically to fund a robotics competition team or teams. The ceiling on this grant is $3K UNLESS:
a. The school or district has applied for and received a Category 1 OR Category 2 Grant the year before OR it can document and prove it already has a viable K-6 STEM program in place OR robotics course(s) operating in the school/district. Meeting this criteria will increase the available grant award to $4500.
b. Available grant award for Category 3 can reach the full $6K only when the school or district can document/prove it has both a viable K-6 STEM program in place AND a middle and or high school robotics course in place.
A second year of Category 3 may be applied for if all conditions are met and need is shown, however the second year ceiling is $2K.
All applications must include approvals/statements of support/signatures from at least one school staff member, school principal, and district superintendent or a direct agent of his/her office. In addition, all Category 2 grants application must include a letter of support from the school board that the course is already/will be approved. No Category 2 funds will be awarded until the course is board approved.
That’s how I’d spend the million, you can all figure out how many schools/districts we may be able to reach with that.
Ok, let’s see…
**How can we make Dean’s homework successful?
**
I’m wondering if you mean: after we have attained some of the goals, how do we implement them to achieve a standard of success? So - I would think that we would want to succeed in implementing programs or having them already in place that can continue to self-develop and manufacture/produce the desired results. For example, by having a FIRST team in a school, it would bring awareness to the goals and mission of FIRST. Is that the desired result or do we want more? Do we want graduates of that FIRST team to move on into fields that involve science and technology? Do we want to track those graduates and see how they are doing? Do we want to see the impact that it is making and the inroads that FIRST is making regarding diversity and cultural change?
How do we start sustainable teams?
Is a sustainable team ever a given? If there is that possibility of creating a given, what are the key factors involved? Location? Facility? Mentors? Financial support in the way of sponsors? Enthusiasm? Students? Parents? Commitment?
How do we help existing teams become sustainable?
I would ask the questions that I’ve added to the sustainable teams question but I would add: is the existing team open to help/assistance/mentoring? Is the existing team willing to be flexible and adapt to changes that would help it become more sustainable? Are there teams in the area that are willing to step out of their team-centric mindset and contribute time, energy, help, assistance, and mentoring to the team? Are there sponsors in the area that are willing to step up to the plate and go to bat with this team?
What defines a sustainable team?
Stability in the areas of membership, mentorship, finances, sponsorship, community support? What else?
How can we determine if a sustainable team is a successful team?
How do we determine what success is? Is that something each team determines and what does it mean to them, individually, and to the community that they a part of? What does it mean to the competition, in general? What does it mean to the graduates of the team that have moved on?
How can sustainable teams become successful?
I have to know the answers to the other question’s questions in order to know what to ask for this one.
Should we focus on long term sustainability or short term success?
What is the difference and how does that apply? Does that mean a team is created and wins a bunch of awards and then flames out - disappears? I have to understand these questions more.
**Should we focus on inspiring the current students MORE or inspiring future
students at all? **
I’ll tell you a story with this one. We have a current team member who knew about LASA Robotics when she was in 4th grade. There was a robotics team in her middle school but they were not as receptive to having girls as involved as she knew they could be. She waited and joined LASA Robotics her freshman year. She couldn’t wait to be a part of the team. It must have seemed like a lifetime to wait from 4th grade until 9th grade. So, you tell me. How do we control inspiration? Do we want to?
Is Dean’s vision feasible?
I’m still thinking here. You might add some insight as to what you are thinking. I’m not sure.
Is Dean’s vision logical?
Ditto.
I ask these as someone who wants to help but does not know what direction to focus.
This could take a while. Thank you.
Jane
I concur.
How can we determine if a sustainable team is a successful team?
How do we determine what success is? Is that something each team determines and what does it mean to them, individually, and to the community that they a part of? What does it mean to the competition, in general? What does it mean to the graduates of the team that have moved on?
I sustainable team IS a successful team. Teams that keep going means the inspiration keeps going. Now, is the real question how to make them a winning team? That’s something entirely different.
Just want to point out, as often those of us who are multi-year FRC folks hear FIRST and think only FRC, the million dollars is for both FRC and FTC teams in Texas. I was not part of the TWC negotiations but will likely play a role in helping formulate a plan. I believe that there will be more than a significant emphasis on starting FTC teams as well as FRC. So I expect we will see this Woodie Organic growth concept in action.
Really I was curious if there was a predetermined way of judging if it was successful (as is required for it to be a goal). For example, if the homework was, “inspire students” How many? What defines inspiring? Can we count students who as a result of FIRST decide NOT to go into FIRST related fields as inspired?
I always felt a sustainable team was a team that planned for the worst and could adapt, take 47 for example, their school closed. Yet they are coming back next year, didn’t even take time to cope. THAT is a sustainable team. I guess I really want to know how a team can become that prepared.
Really the same question as above, how can we help teams be prepared to cope with disaster?
Thanks, now to get to work on figuring out how to get those for every team in the world. Uhh, Im going to get back to you on that 
Ok, I was curious if we as a community had any standard definition of success. Would there be any benefit in developing one?
I suppose without a definition of success it would be impossible to answer.
I guess this goes back to defining success too. This question springs out of a debate I was involved with in the past, is it better to go to Atlanta and give the current students a better glimpse of what FRC stands for and risk not having the funds to compete in the near future or should we not go and be assured of the funds to compete another year?
See my above story for clarification. We can inspire without knowing it (in fact I would contend that it is the things we do without the intent of inspiring that are often more inspiring)
Is it possible to put a FRC team in every high school in America? What cost do we have to pay to make that a reality?
Do we REALLY want to pay that cost? Face it, not everyone is cut out to be an engineer, or a teacher, or a scientist. Some people are cut out to be janitors or construction workers (I am not bad mouthing anyone who chooses those jobs I tried long and hard to come up with a better way of saying this but in the end I failed) Is it cost effective to provide these kids with this program?
I have to add one more question as well, Dean wants FRC everywhere, he wants every student to have access to it. Should we make the barriers to entry low so that anyone can participate or should we make them high so as to encourage only those who are really interested? I think this question boils down to, “Would you rather have 10 passionate students or 100 mildly disinterested students?” I guess this sounds elitist, jeez, I guess it IS elitist. Shouldn’t we be elitists? We aren’t talking about kids playing a game here, we are talking about our future. I think I am quoting Dave when I notice the irony in having tryouts for kids who run into each other and chase a ball but we don’t have tryouts for kids who will make our future cars.
Well, let’s think about 3 scenarios:
A team driven to set ambitious goals to be on a winning alliance at a regional and to win at least one other award within a certain time frame. The plan is when that is achieved then they move their goals towards being on two or more winning alliances because they are planning on attending 2 or more competitions. And they focus on bringing home the RCA and the WFFA. Then they move their goals to achieve winning multiple Chairmans at regional level and focus on winning the CCA - the Championship Chairman’s. They also focus on winning the WFA. This team plots out their goals on a timeline, and strategy is a big part of how they go about achieving these goals over a set number of years.
A team is under the leadership of a teacher who views the FRC build season and competition as an opportunity for the students to learn and to better prepare themselves for their futures. If the team garners any awards or is a part of a winning alliance at any of the competitions, then the team feels that it has surpassed its goals.
Then you have a team who consistently receives the kit of parts a couple of weeks after teams on the mainland do and has to get it built in the same timeframe as everyone else does. This team has to meet financial demands for the team to be able to travel long distances to any competitions outside of its country, state, or region, including the occasional trip to the Championship. If the robot is built in time for shipping, it is a good thing. If the team is consistently set financially, that is an even better thing.
These are 3 scenarios and 3 approaches to competing in an FRC season. These are hypothetical teams but reflect some of the approaches and challenges that teams may have. And there are many many more, including combinations of these. So how do we set a standard definition of success?
Another thought - sustainability. Concerns are and have been consistently made here in CD regarding the fast growth of FRC teams. There is also concern regarding the sustainability of veteran teams and the new teams that are growing in areas where the resources have not made themselves readily available or even identifiable. This is the current concern. It’s possible that in a few years, this will not be a concern or a primary concern in FRC because the FIRST community will have worked to strengthen this weakness in the program and in the local communities and regions that the teams are a part of. But - there will be new concerns. We don’t know what they are now because we aren’t there yet, but there is always another layer of the onion that reveals itself when one layer is removed.
So - one way to look at a FIRST team as a successful team at the moment, is to view them from a sustainability perspective. Does that mean they have the best shop or the best closet to build out of? Does that mean their team shirts are donated by a sponsor or that they are made by the team? Does that mean that everyone brings a brown bag for snacks or that the team is catered by another generous sponsor during build? My thinking is that the team that holds together, gets itself organized, builds a robot that follows the guidelines and rules laid out for the current season, and has worked to the best of its ability in the areas of the robot competition and any other award areas that it could work in, all the while meeting financial demands - is working towards being self-sustaining and is achieving success. When that becomes consistent and stabilizes - then the team can seriously begin to focus on winning awards, garnering achievements, building their reputation, creating that wow factor that we all admire so much in the greats. Then we’re made of win. All of us who worked together to find ways to help teams reach levels of sustainability that are consistent. And that’s when the vision that our FIRST founder can become realistic and attainable. I’m not ever sure that a vision is logical so I may never be able to answer that one, but I do know that it is fed by passion, desire, and a can-do commitment.
How do we help existing teams become sustainable?
How can we help teams be prepared to cope with disaster?
There are lots of ways to help, here is one.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/download/2488
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/download/2489
Here are two papers that offer some ideas on this. One is a white paper that is a business plan and team continuity plan. The other is a PowerPoint of a presentation given at the 2009 CHP.
Continuity Plans are common in big businesses and usually focus on big events and how the business will deal with them. These plans might include weather issues (hurricane, tornado, flood), attacks, impairment of key leaders. They might also include items like loss of a computer network, corruption of data, or failure of a major supplier or customer. Companies then put together plans to address the issues that can be addressed. This might include giving everyone a laptop so they could work at home, having a backup computer system in another location, restrictions on how many executives can fly together, having a big line of credit at the bank, etc. All are meant to allow the business to sustain itself if some sort of major event happens.
For a FIRST team, the same process can be put in place. Teams can consider the issues that put them at risk. This might be loss of a key mentor, loss of a key sponsor, loss of their school, some socially unacceptable event that occurs that threatens the stability of the team, etc. I can name several teams that have faced these occurrences in the past 2 years.
The next step is to identify the likelihood and impact of some of these bad things happening. Some might be unlikely, some might be very likely. Some may have no real impact, others could have a huge impact. Then, the team can identify what actions can be taken to either minimize the likelihood or reduce the impact of the top items. Sometimes, there is really no action the team can take and they just have to assume the risk.
The final steps are then to put the plans in place, and to comtinually review the issues and risks.
We did this last year and modeled our process after a corporate template from one of the team mentors.
This activity takes time and effort, and can be a challenge for teams because it has nothing to do with building a robot. It is a different type of activity. And, most of us don’t like to think about what can go wrong.
Some of the risks we identified included:
Loss of a key mentor (has happened)
Loss of our school build space (at risk every new year)
Loss of a major sponsor (always a potential)
Loss of all major sponsors (lower risk, but disasterous)
Loss of our teacher leader (has happened twice)
Major injury in our machine shop (not gonna say)
We did this last fall, but we need to repeat it this fall and be sure we are current and have identified any new concerns. A continuity plan is a “living document”.
Access = Opportunity.
Opportunity is not equal to guaranteed participation or guaranteed success
Has anyone ever done an analysis of why teams fail?
Knowing why they fail would be a good step towards developing a plan to sustain a team.
AWEsome suggestion!
Also, can anyone who has been around and knows the history, give some insight on the elitist question? What I’m thinking is that FIRST was founded, initially, to address the smart kids and their potential. Do I have that right? It’s my understanding that eventually, that idea expanded to become more inclusive and open to everyone.
Our Senior Mentor keeps track of this for our local teams. The number one reason for a team not coming back is loss of the key mentor. Administrative issues were #2, financial issues are a distant third. Those of us on the regional Committee were quite suprised by this. But it seems that if the will and the personell are there, the money needed can be found.
Note: This is based on the start of the 2009 season, we do not have complete information for this year yet.
What happens when Dean’s homework works? Chaos, confusion and a push system that is created for PR numbers.
Why? There is no plan to deal with it. The homework provides no guidelines for talking to political leadership to deliver a consistent message of what we need. It is like screaming, “help” at the mall. Was your purse snatched? Is it a heart attack? Is the building on fire? How much of the help you get will be what you need.
Rich is right, handing out cash to start teams without verifying the people and facility support creates inherently unsustainable teams. People are always interested in the money if they see it as a free ride. It is the classic chicken and pig scenario. http://www.implementingscrum.com/images/060911-scrumtoon.jpg
Sustainable teams have a pig or two involved, but they are difficult to find. I think it is much more likely to find committed individuals with a pull system than a push. The NASA system seems to be a good example.
Even in the cases where you can find an individual off the street that is willing to commit there is still a huge learning curve involved with running a FIRST team. They need to apprentice with someone. Another team that is willing to commit to mentoring (not just be involved when requested) another would be a huge boost to sustainability. This is especially so when the mentoring team can clone its best practices for the rookie team. Perhaps mentoring a new rookie becomes part of the criteria for returning team grants. I think it is well exemplified with the Niagara FIRST triplets. The next logical progression in that might be to grow individual teams to the point of splitting them. With that each team carries a set of established practices and experienced personnel. The Thunderchickens have been doing this for years. They originally covered an entire county as Team Macomb, but over time split off regions as their own independent teams. I think this is the organic growth that Meredith referenced; it is almost cellular division.
Now just because you are sustainable today doesn’t make you sustainable tomorrow. Sustainability is a journey not a destination. You might have super capable and committed mentors, but what happens when they get relocated or run short of time due to work or family commitments? Enter Chris’s contingency planning and continuous improvement reviews. New mentors and sponsors need to constantly be attracted to offset attrition. Additionally, once they are on board you need to make sure they get proper care and feeding so that they stay on board. Don’t just tell the mentors that you appreciate their time, go to the families as well. Keep contact with the sponsors and develop a relationship. Don’t ever forget to say “Thank You!” It is well known in business that keeping a customer costs 10-20% of the cost of attracting a new one. This can be applied to teams as well.
With any dollar amount to invest I would be more interested in the number of individuals (students is too narrow) impacted than the number of teams created, after all this is about people. Consequently, by focusing on sustainability you continue to get compounded inspiration after the money is gone. I’d be curious to see the number of teams that have a third year, but not a fourth. I’d speculate not many. Any team that continues to exist continues to inspire. How many individuals have had their lives changed by some of the original 1992 teams? Hundreds of people for sure, perhaps thousands when you think of all of the families that come to events and talk about them. I like Rich’s ideas for tiering based upon age of targeted membership, but I’d also like to see tiering for the age of the program.
This wasn’t part of the question, but I’d also like to see the donor organization partnering to make a multi-year commitment, even at a lower dollar figure, to a one-year flash in the pan. Can the $1,000,000 be done over multiple years? There are probably some political consequences of such an action that I do not understand, but it facilitates the ramp in ideas I mentioned earlier.
If you read this far, thank you.
