So I am in charge of creating teams for my school’s robotics team this year and I am keep falling into the same question of the ideal team size. I’ve been on teams of 4, 6, and 12 (yes 12 people) and I have no idea as to what is the ideal team size is. I am leaning more toward 4 people, but that means that the club can’t futureproof itself (due to smaller team sizes) and less people overall get to participate. What do you guys think?
In our organization, we try to have teams from 3-5 people. At six, we would form two new teams of 3 each. We’ve tried a “large team” and, even with the best of intentions (like some of the members would have extra roles) didn’t work well. With only two on a team, you can end of with a “team of 1” at an event if anything (sickness, etc) happens to the other member.
Yeah 2 people is too little. A potential benefit I see with 6 person teams is that multiple people can work together to build different mechanisms. I see that there os a common trend to go with 4-5 ppl so I will probably go with that
Having personally been on a team solo, with one teammate, with three teammates, and with four teammates (on different seasons), I can say that three people is probably the most ideal. Going solo or only having two people per team is a lot of work and requires a ton of time, plus having to fill every role of robotics with only one or two people is challenging. On the other hand, I’ve found that having four or more people on a team is too many hands. Each individual doesn’t get to do much, and having to clearly communicate with more people isn’t always easy. Unless your team doesn’t have lots of time to spend on robotics (in which case having more members might be useful), three is a good number, as everyone gets to participate and share the tasks.
I have found that 12 is a good number as long as everyone works together effectively. Having more members lets you divide the team into sub-teams to work on different subsystems/ alternate robots. This greatly speeded up robot development and let our team do frequent rebuilds without much effort from any individual about once every 3 weeks. My opinion is that bigger teams are better as long as it is well coordinated. FRC teams get much larger than 12 members but many of them still work very well.
I will add to the discussion - what will an ideal team look like for Worlds? the research/design/build cycle prior is well understood - what is ideal to have operationally end of season?
early season, a lot of design, building, programming, testing, and practice for qualifying events - next step is state/regional/nation championship - and then what? Worlds is a lot of execution and problem solving on the spot. very much a tactical profile. What roles are needed to make it successful in a multidivisional competition? How does that impact scouting, judging interviews, and operational making it to the field with different alliance partners over multiple days.
One of the biggest questions I have to organizations are: Why hasn’t there been a consideration for departmentalized structures?
Like… If an organization consists of 25+ members, why not split the organization into departments as compared to teams. And for each department, they would have their own leader which the mentor chooses. Additionally, everything is documented online in a department-based notebook structure. and the notebook department combines all of the resources into one notebook.
Allow me to elaborate the process…
Let’s suppose we have 25 members:
10 members are in the mechanical department
5 members are in the computer science department
5 members are a part of the lead-driver department
5 members are a part of the notebook department
Bear in mind, this is just a proof-of-concept and there can be modifications such that one member can choose two departments to take part of or something. For each department there would be a head member. So that also means…
4 members are in the development and think-tank department (This will constitute the head members of all 4 departments)
Day 1 and 2:
Teachings and make sure everyone memorizes sensors, components, and structure.
Day 3 and 4:
Teaching and make sure everyone reads the game manual
Day 5 and 6:
Teaching the 5 members of the think tank department how to CAD. The think-tank will utilize CAD to improve design alongside test concepts before they go into action. During this time, the rest of the members are continuing to memorize the vex robot structure and components
Day 7 and 8:
Computer Science Department learns how to code. If a computer science teacher is available they will teach the computer science department proper ways to code and how to code with modularity so the department can build their code off of eachother, and through documentation make their own API to follow. Additionally, the mechanical department will learn about build quality and how to build good robots.
Day 9 and 10:
The think tank gets to work and starts developing and CADding the design. During this process, the notebook department will be with the think tank to jot down all of the ideas.
Day 11 and 12:
When a final idea is developed, the idea is sent to the mechanical department to work together to make the bot a reality. They start working on 1 prototype. If a problem emerges, the think-tank department would work with the mechanical department to work on a solution.
Day 13 and 14:
After the robot is built, the computer science department would wire up the robot (with documentation on how everything is wired) alongside coding the robot. During this time, computer science department will work with the lead driver department to make sure the code meets the needs of the driver.
Day 15 and 16
After the robot is coded, 5 members of the mechanical department will work with the lead-driver department to test-drive and share suggestions on tweaking the design for robot 3, which will be documented, approved by the think tank, then sent to the other 5 members of the mechanical department to build.
Day 17 and 18
This is the day a fourth robot would be replicated, and all of the robots would be made up-to-date and the computer science department would then build autonomouses for the robot design (and it should be a copy and paste for the other robots ± some tweakings.
Day 19 and 20
After its all said and done, a final and polished design of four robots are made in which 4 lead drivers will drive. They will get used to the robot, but if a driver is absent to a competition there would be a fifth driver (the fifth driver, or the head of the lead drivers, during practices would swap with a random driver every practice match to gain experience)
Day 21 and 22
While the drivers are practicing, the think tank department would start working on tweaking the design even more using a 5th clone of the robot. Or, if the design becomes outdated in the future the think tank will work on another robot design that the process will be repeated once-more.
Honestly I feel like this is the most beneficial for both the organization and teams. If a student does not find their department interesting, they can swap departments and try out another aspect. This falls in line with college ‘Majors’ and prepares students to find out what they would want to be involved with. Additionally, it would give business-esque experience due to the structure, alongside the concept of collaboration rather than self-entitlement and untrustworthy of others.
Anyways, screw the idea that clonebots are a bad idea. In all honestly, if done correctly I think they would be an excellent idea. I have never seen apple rely on one single person to make one single iPhone solely for the sake of non-replication. In what company would I ever see someone decide “huh, might as well make only one apple watch,” that never happens. So, to be honest, I feel like this idea would educate students FAR more than what is in-place. And if documentation was digital it would make robotics more ideal, easier, and realistic to what is in the business world.
Actually I totally dislike this departmentalised approach.
I have seen organisations doing that (with good results too), but I don’t agree to this.
Personally I don’t think this is the best approach to groom an engineer.
Engineers supposed to be jack of all trades, and master of some.
My school is fortunate that we are a 6-year school. So for the first two years, I expect the members to pick up both mechanical and programming skills and learn about design process, etc.
The milestone and goal that I give to the members is always the same - all of them should be competent enough to build and programme a simple robot individually by the time they reach end of the 2nd year.
And what I notice is that as the students get older and work together long enough, they will naturally gravitate towards their strengths and interest. So there is no need to compartmentalise them too early.
To be a good builder, you will need to understand the constraints faced by the drivers and programmers, and vice versa.
They don’t need to be expert in every area, but need to know enough to appreciate the other sides of the fence.
By splitting them into departments, I just feel that it will limit their learning and also too factory-like to encourage innovation and creativity.
The idea does not express that individuals are limited to what they are in. All the idea consists of is departments. This was merely a suggestion, and if an organization existed using this idea they can state that a student can take part in as many departments as they please.
If there were departments in place, it would allow more educational opportunities such as specialized lectures. By specializing, it makes learning much quicker and focused for what a student wishes to master. This will better prepare students and equip them far quicker than a traditional approach of ‘do whatever you want’ and ‘hands-off approach.’ Sure, hands-off is a good thing and allows those to test their intellect. But without the knowledge, intelligence is limited. If students were given more efficient opportunities to learn aspects of engineering, they would have more fun in competition as compared to being continuously slammed by those in competition who have a structure already in place.
This ‘department’ thing is already utilized for the competitive teams. It is just on a lower scope where one person codes, another person drives, and 1-2 build usually. The difference is instead of having someone be stuck into their one mono-department isolated to their own ideas, they can pair up with 4-5 other students alike who are working together on one single project. In essence, it further teaches teamwork.
Why not?
If students can learn what they enjoy earlier, then they can gain an edge in learning what they want to pursue. This, ultimately, can help them rather than cause a deficit would it not?
Yet again, if this were implemented, what’s stopping a student from switching which ‘department’ they want to be involved with or having multiple departments they are involved with?
I feel like it is a stretch to call something that provides structure ‘factory-like.’ And even if something is related to ‘factory-like’ why does it have to be a bad thing?
If you are involved with a larger group that have similar interests as you, and you share ideas as a larger unit, wouldn’t that rather instead encourage creativity and innovation if used correctly?
I feel as though my approach can enourage innovation, rather than the opposite by making students more united as a student-body as compared to small individual teams that will compete against eachother in competitions.
I have been team solo for the past 3 years in vex because all my team mates I’ve had gave up after a few days building. I would think that it’s ideal for 2-3 people because sharing ideas helps a lot. Also solves issues easier.
Anyway - regarding OP question of ideal size, personally i will keep to max 6 pax for beginner teams, and I found 4 to 5 pax a good number for worlds.
ok, back to the model of training / education.
What I have mentioned is nothing revolutionary. Increasingly, more and more curriculum and colleges are shifting towards what is known as the T-model (and even Pi-model) of learning.
Just google it - lots of research articles and material regarding it.
The gist of this model is that the horizontal bar (of the T or Pi symbol) is the “common/general” knowledge, while the vertical bar(s) down represents the specialisation whereby students have deeper learning in specific area(s).
So that horizontal bar or the common/general knowledge also represents broad-based curriculum that helps to “unify” all the different areas of specialisation.
There are lots of benefits and plus points for using this T or Pi model.
And as I mentioned, increasingly, more and more colleges/universities are adopting this model. They either do not allow the students to specialise too early or they made sure there is a horizontal-bar curriculum to help the students see a broader picture, eg. Harvey Mudd.
If you think about it, what all of us have been doing from elementary to high school is following this T (or Pi) model. When we were in elementary to high school, we learnt different subjects or disciplines. There are a bit of choices, eg. Geography or History? Physics or Biology, etc. But ultimately, it is still a broad-based education. And we only go into specialisation during college/university.
Do not be deceived by thinking that just because I took a course or subject on computing in high school, that means I am an expert in programming. There are a lot more things to learn about programming/coding/computing when you moved on to college/universities and beyond.
And now to address the points…
Sure… and if a student need to join multiple departments, then doesn’t it make more sense to have a common, basic curriculum for all then? It defeats the purpose of departments if the students need to “cross” departments eventually.
And what’s the purpose of the students being able to state which department(s) they were involved in? For college applications? For competition interviews? I have been one of the “selectors” for school admission via talents/skills in Singapore, and honestly, all these “statements” cut no ice with me.
I am not sure how is the situation in USA, but in Asia, I have seen successful (result-wise) clubs/schools that adopted this approach that you mentioned. Some of them are regular winners in worlds as well.
But i have also seen some clubs bring this approach to an extreme, eg. 2 specific students to build all the drive trains for the entire season, another 2 students build all the lifts for the entire season, etc.
This is what I mean by “factory-like”. Yes - it will be very efficient and maybe even effective in ensuring certain minimum standard, but I don’t agree this is the best for students’ learning.
Somehow, when I read this para, it just gave me that feeling that it seems to you that my club is badly run and my students are badly trained, and they have been regularly thrashed in competitions left, right and centre.
Structure comes in many forms.
We have our own structure of training, i.e. curriculum or training programme.
Eg. When new members joined my club at 12 or 13yo, most of them came with zero knowledge of VEX or VEXIQ. We need to start from scratch. And we do have a 5-mth curriculum to teach ALL the members the basic that we think are essential to allow them to build a simple robot, eg, how to build a drive train, building technique, gear ratio, how to do simple programming (in PROS) to move the robot, etc.
And in Singapore, this 5-mth will be during Jan to May.
And comes June, with the release of the new game, that’s when the seniors will take the juniors through game analysis, and discussion of robot designs, etc.
And with the basic they have learnt in the past few months, they will be working in their competition teams. For their first SingVex, usually the new teams (at 12 or 13yo) will be working together on everything… helping each other out in building and also trying to figure out the coding, etc.
I agree - mine is definitely not the most efficient approach. But I believe in exposing the students to as wide or broad-based as possible, and giving them the opportunities to discover their strengths and interests (especially at 12 or 13yo). But I have 6 years with them, I don’t see the need to rush or expect them to produce results right from the start.
So regarding this point -
So we do have a system and structure of training, just not by department that’s all.
I am trying to find a balance of equipping the students to ensure they know enough to enjoy the game and at the same time not interfering with their competition robots’ designs, etc.
Think I have adequately explained above.
In any case, I don’t see how my “traditional” approach will cause any deficit in their learning. In fact, with a proper curriculum in place, I would think that it will cover more gaps than to leave holes behind.
At 12 or 13yo - no… I don’t think specialisation is good for them.
And as I mentioned in the earlier post, as they get older and worked more with the team, etc, they will naturally gravitate towards their interests.
And yes - we do have something more for them (when they want to specialise in something).
Think I have addressed this point as well - regarding why I don’t believe in “factory-like” approach.
I find it strange… why do you think that my students are working in solo? They worked in teams… even during the 1st 5 months of training. And they do help each other out… from building to coding, etc.
I don’t understand where you get the idea that my club are a disunited bunch of kids.
And btw, we get more ideas by having different perspectives and interests, and not just by looking at the problem from one perspective.
So a diverse group will definitely be better over here.
I feel that this is more of a club culture more than the structure?
For my club - we always see ourselves as one big team with many robots.
We helped each other out throughout the season/years.
Eg. We can have different groups prototyping on different mechanisms, and then shared with each other on what worked and what does not work. The training and mentorship are provided by the seniors to the juniors, etc.
So no - we don’t see each other as small individual teams.
But as i said - this is more related to the culture than anything.
Don’t think it is fair for you to think that my “traditional” approach is causing disharmony (especially when you do not know about how my club functioned).
In any case, to each its own.
As i said - there are successful clubs that used your “departmentalised” approach as well.
Just that, as a teacher, I don’t believe this is the best for students’ learning, especially when they are still young and still trying to find their footing.
I am on a team of 7 but most the time there are atleast 3 people standing around doing nothing. So, I think a team of 3-4 dedicated hardworking people is ideal.