FIRST, the second

The first day of actual tournament play at the GTA FIRST Regional is done, and it was just incredible. I could go on about the kids and their gracious professionalism, which is under documented, but I'll instead focus on a very small portion of the behind the scenes adult collaboration.

My role there is as a judge. There are nearly 20 of us. Each of the rest is my senior and infinitely more wise and accredited. They are all keen to mentor and very welcoming though, so it was a very positive learning experience for me. We have to interview teams and assign awards for such things as gracious professionalism, entrepreneurial activity, and efforts/successes in advancing the FIRST values and the profile of the engineering profession with youth. Not only is this all somewhat subjective, but there are many more complexities.

Among the complexities is the fact that every judge cohort interviews only a fraction of the teams before presenting their suggestions for winners to the rest. It's easy to fall in love with the teams and feel a bias for the team that you brought forth, as their fate is in your hands. Despite this and other confidential matters, the selection process for the day 1 awards went very well. This is in large part due to moderation and good intentions.

The judge advisor is University of Waterloo's Rob Gorbet. One would expect that he's an engaging presenter, but he is also a masterful facilitator. He exceeds every judge in terms of knowledge of the teams, but manages to reserve his input and not lead the group. He is great at asking questions to clarify and ensure that we are following the purpose and criteria appropriately. A good moderator is a marvelous addition to a meeting.

The "good intentions" come from the judges and everyone at FIRST. While we can feel an inclination to act in the interests of the teams we nominated, we ultimately all want what's best for the kids, and the deserving winner is what's best. Coming to consensus in this group was never a compromise, but rather was a truly collaborative process. Some good debate and our complete commitment to making the right decision, but nothing uncomfortable for anyone.

Why can decision making be so difficult in other situations? These were not simple decisions we were making. Could it be that less pure intentions and objectives influence the quality of the process by their impact on motives?