🚀 Process · All Roles · Kickoff Season

The 3-Day Design Sprint

A structured team workflow for the first 72 hours after game reveal. Teams that run this sprint arrive at their first competition with a documented design and working code. Teams that skip it typically rebuild once before their first event.

The stakes: Game reveal happens once. The teams that treat Day 1 as a structured engineering session — not a free-for-all build — produce better robots and better notebooks. This guide gives you the exact workflow, hour by hour.

🗺 Sprint → EDP Mapping

3-Day Sprint covers all 5 EDP steps with documented evidence

Define

Day 1

Research

Day 1–2

Brainstorm

Day 2

Select

Day 2

Build Plan

Day 3

Game Reveal Day — Define the Problem

~4 hours · Everyone attends

Watch Together (1 hour)

Watch the reveal video once freely — reactions only, no decisions
Watch it again with the game manual open — pause to look up every scoring rule
List every scoring action and its point value on a whiteboard

Score Analysis (1 hour)

Maximum theoretical score: How many points if you scored every element every match?
Realistic ceiling: What can a top team actually score in 2 minutes?
AWP conditions: What exact actions are required?
Skills ceiling: What's achievable in 60 seconds with ideal autonomous + driver?

Notebook Entry — Define the Problem (1 hour)

Write constraint statements — specific, measurable: "Robot must fit 18"×18"×18" at start position"
Write objective statements — "Robot must score 3+ rings per driver control period to be competitive"
Define success — Developing / Proficient / Expert robot score targets

Day 1 deliverable: Notebook entry dated today with scored game analysis table, constraint list, and success metrics. This is your "Identify the Problem" rubric evidence.

Concept CAD & Decision Matrix

~5 hours · Engineers lead, everyone inputs

Individual Concepts (2 hours)

Each member sketches at least one mechanism on paper — different approaches, not variations of the same idea
In Onshape, build a rough concept layout (30 min each) of your top 2 ideas using the VEX V5 parts library
Take isometric screenshots with key dimensions annotated — these are your "Brainstorm" notebook images

Research Phase (1 hour)

Watch 3–5 reveal videos from previous seasons with similar game mechanics
Note what worked and what didn't — cite these in the notebook Research entry
Look up physics: roller grip, gear torque requirements, link geometry for the mechanism type you're considering

Decision Matrix (1 hour)

Open the Decision Matrix tool — define 4–5 weighted criteria including cycle speed, consistency, build complexity, and cost
Score each concept honestly — the matrix is evidence, not a rubber stamp
Write a conclusion that explains the result AND confirms the team's decision to follow it (or documents why they didn't)

Driver Track — Parallel to Engineer Track (Day 1–2)

Day 1 — Game analysis questions: What is the fastest possible cycle? What are the scoring priorities? What does the endgame require physically? Start the Offensive Driving guide to set up your cycle approach
Day 1 — Field layout study: Where are the high-value zones? What are your home positions vs. contested zones? See Field Positioning
Day 2 — Set up practice drills: Based on the cycle analysis, design specific drills for the first practice session. See Driver Practice
Day 2 — Tune drive response curve: This game's movement demands — tight turns? long sprints? — inform whether to use tank, arcade, or curvature drive and what curve to apply. See Driver Tuning
Day 2 — Study match structure: How do the three match states (ahead / tied / behind) change your driver's behavior in this game? See Match Reading
Day 2 — Plan endgame execution: What is the endgame maneuver? When should the driver commit? Calculate the commit threshold for this season. See Endgame Execution
Day 3 — Coordinate with alliance strategy: Set the default field split and pre-agree communication signals. See Alliance Coordination
Ongoing — Build recovery reflexes: Drill intake jam and collision recovery sequences until automatic. See Recovery Driving
Pre-competition — Elimination mindset: Understand how risk tolerance changes in eliminations before your first event. See High-Stakes Driving

Day 2 deliverable: Notebook entry with paper sketches + Onshape screenshots of 3+ concepts, research citations, and completed decision matrix with written conclusion.

Detail CAD, Build Prep & EZ Setup

~6 hours · Everyone has a role

Detail CAD — Primary Mechanism (3 hours)

Build the selected mechanism in Onshape with real VEX V5 parts at correct dimensions
Run the 18"×18"×18" clearance check (see Robot Layout guide)
Create version "v1 — initial design after Day 3 sprint" in Onshape version history
Generate BOM from the Onshape assembly, export to CSV for the notebook cost table

EZ Template Setup — Programmers (2 hours)

Follow the EZ Template Setup guide — get a working project from the example repo
Enter motor ports from the Onshape assembly annotations into robot-config.cpp (see CAD to Code)
Build and upload — robot should drive before end of Day 3

Team Assignments & Notebook (1 hour)

Assign build responsibilities: who builds drivetrain, who builds intake, who owns programming
Write Day 3 notebook entry: final CAD screenshots, team assignments, build schedule for next two weeks
Open the notebook to next entry — leave it ready for the first build session

Day 3 deliverable: Notebook entry with final design documentation, BOM, version history screenshot, and team assignments. Working EZ Template project with correct motor ports and robot that drives.

🧰 Tools Used in This Sprint

🔄 Onshape Setup 📐 Robot Layout 🔀 Version Control ⚖ Decision Matrix 🔌 CAD to Code ⚡ EZ Setup 📝 Notebook Guide 📊 BOM Export

Why 3 days of notebook entries before metal is cut matters: At your first competition judges ask "when did you decide on this design?" You pull out the notebook and show Day 1 constraints analysis, Day 2 decision matrix, Day 3 CAD. Three dated, sequential, rubric-aligned entries before a single piece is cut. That's Expert-level EDP evidence from week one of the season.

📖

OFFICIAL DOCUMENTATION — TOOLS IN THIS SPRINT

All external references used across the 3-day workflow

📐 Onshape for VEX → ⚡ EZ Template Install → 🎓 Onshape Curriculum →

⚙ STEM HighlightEngineering: Divergent & Convergent Thinking in Design

The design sprint applies divergent and convergent thinking — two distinct cognitive modes in engineering. Divergent thinking (brainstorm phase) deliberately suspends judgment to maximize the number of ideas generated. Convergent thinking (selection phase) applies structured criteria to reduce that space to the optimal solution. Teams that skip divergent thinking anchor on the first workable idea. Teams that skip convergent thinking never decide. The sprint structure forces both modes in sequence — the same process used in IDEO design sprints, Google Ventures design sprints, and professional product development.

🎤 Interview line: “We separate idea generation from idea evaluation. In brainstorm phase, no one argues for a favorite — we generate at least three concepts before evaluating any of them. Then we switch to convergent mode and score each concept against our weighted criteria. This structure prevents anchoring on the first idea that sounds good, which is the most common cause of weak design decisions in student engineering.”

Your team brainstorms 5 intake concepts in 20 minutes but cannot agree which to CAD. What is the correct next step?

⬛ Let the head engineer decide — they have the most fabrication experience

⬛ CAD all five and pick whichever looks best in 3D

⬛ Define evaluation criteria and weights, score each concept in a decision matrix, select the highest-scoring option, and write a conclusion paragraph citing the scores

📝

Notebook entry tip: Select Best Solution — Purple slide — Document every design sprint: list all concepts generated (even weak ones), the criteria used to evaluate them, and the matrix scores. The brainstorm section with rejected ideas is as important as the chosen design — judges look for evidence that alternatives were seriously considered, not that the team always knew what to build.