The Importance of Judges

Judges are crucial to the success of our hackathon; they bring in their invaluable critical thinking and expertise to evaluate and recognize the quality of the participants’ work. Their experience in industry or academia not only puts them in a unique position to identify the most innovative and outstanding projects but also fosters an environment of fairness and transparency for the competition. A diverse panel of judges will ensure that the outcome is fair and well-substantiated, as it will be evaluated from multiple perspectives. This diversity brings a breadth of experience and insight, which enhances the validity and comprehensiveness of the final decision. 

Judging Process

Hackathon goal is to ensure a fair, transparent, and efficient judging process that accurately reflects the quality and innovation of each team’s project. To achieve this, we have designed a two-phase evaluation system that allows for both individual and collective assessments by the panel of judges.

The teams will be invited to present their projects live to the judging panel. Each presentation will be followed by a brief Q&A session, where judges can probe deeper into specific aspects of the project. This stage is crucial for assessing how well teams can articulate their ideas, respond to feedback, and demonstrate the functionality of their solutions in real-time.

During a team’s presentation, each judge will fill in the team’s score in their scoreboard, assigning score points to each criterion. This step will be conducted individually and in private by each judge to ensure an unbiased assessment of every project.

After the final presentations by the teams have concluded, the judging panel will convene in private to discuss and identify the top-performing teams. In this private meeting, judges can ask each other clarifying questions and engage in discussions, and potentially adjust their individual scorecard. This collaborative process is designed to ensure that all perspectives are considered, and that discrepancies in scoring can be addressed through open dialogue. At the end of this private meeting, the judges are expected to have finalized their private scores on their scorecards.

Finally, the scores from all judges will be summed together to produce the final score for each team, thus determining the final scoreboard and the winning teams.

Judging Criteria

 

Idea and conception (weight: 40%)

 

Innovation

The degree of innovation, uniqueness, and forward-thinking in the idea, including its potential to disrupt or significantly advance current solutions.

Impact

The potential positive impact of the idea on society and the environment.

Problem Solving

The extent to which the solution effectively addresses one or more specific United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).

Applicability

The solution’s potential to be implemented in a real-world setting, including its feasibility, scalability, and market readiness.

Extensibility

The ability of the solution to be extended or adapted for additional use cases or markets, demonstrating flexibility and long-term viability.

Approach, design, and implementation (weight: 40%)

Quality

The extent to which the codebase is well-structured, efficient, clean, and scalable; best practices have been followed, including modularity, readability, testing, and potential for integration.

Working Prototype

The team presented a functional and realistic working prototype, mock-up, or code that effectively demonstrates the solution’s feasibility and potential for further development.

Usage of GenAI

The extent to which the team effectively and innovatively utilized GenAI to enhance their solution, considering the appropriateness of the technology and the value it adds to the overall project.

Difficulty

The complexity and technical challenge of the project, including the use of advanced technologies, algorithms, or innovative approaches. The criterion assesses how difficult the project was to build, and the technical expertise demonstrated by the team.

Interaction and User Interface and Aesthetics

The visual appeal, ease of use, navigation, and accessibility of the presented solution, with an emphasis on intuitive design, design coherence, user flow, interaction quality, and overall user experience.

Presentation (weight: 20%)

Clarity and Aesthetics of Written Communication

The clarity, completeness, and professionalism of the written communication (including the presentation and project documentation) making the project understandable and appealing even to those not present at the presentation.

Oral Presentation

The effectiveness of the team’s oral presentation, including clarity, conciseness, audience engagement, and the ability to communicate their work and its impact convincingly.

Meet Our Judges

Judge’s Terms and Conditions