The evaluation criteria involve:

Problem Definition:  Does the candidature express a clear and deep understanding of the problem? Is it addressing a clear idea? Is the societal need clearly articulated? Does the candidature understand the ecosystem that surrounds the problem?

5 = The candidature has clearly defined the problem and demonstrates a deep understanding of how the idea fills the need

3 = The candidature is clear on the problem, but not articulate on how the idea meets the need (or vice versa)

1 = The candidature is unclear or demonstrates a limited understanding of the problem

Target Definition:  Does the candidature define the targets well? Does the candidature express a clear understanding of its targets’ needs? 

5 = The candidature has properly identified and clearly defined the target, reaching out and listening to a range of potential stakeholders in effective ways, learning from their experiences, and making significant adjustments when necessary.

3 = The candidate has conducted some discovery and has made some adjustments based on what they have learned.

1 = The candidate has not conducted significant (or effective) discovery about the target and its needs.

Method Definition:  Has the candidature clearly defined a method or a solution to a problem? Is the value proposition clear? Does the method address a clear point and the needs of its defined targets?

5 = The candidate has a clearly defined solution that is well matched to target needs.

3 = The candidate has a clear solution, but is not clear on how it meets the needs.

1 = The candidature has an unclear method definition.

Innovation or uniqueness:  Is the solution distinctive or fundamentally different from existing approaches? Could the solution be implemented and sustained in the real world? Would the solution inspire people to support it – and you?

5 = Breakthrough innovation that potentially changes how the impact is achieved; generates enthusiasm and support.

3 = Moderately innovative; different but not game-changing.

1 = Interesting idea, but not fundamentally or distinctively innovative.

Sustainability:  Has the candidature developed a plan for the sustainability of its innovation? (For this competition, sustainability means the ability to continually generate revenue to sustain the operations of the implemented method.)

5 = The candidature displays a solid plan to make the operations sustainable.

3 = The candidate has thought about how to make the operations sustainable, but still has significant gaps in its plan.

1 = The candidate does not have a viable plan for how to sustain the operations.

Potential for social impact:  Does the candidature clearly define a societal problem? Does the solution demonstrate the potential to change how the impact is achieved? Does the solution make life better for the target population? How much potential exists for scaling the candidate's social impact?

5 = The candidature has clearly defined the potential for exceptional impact.

3 = The candidature demonstrates a believable impact on a modest scale.

1 = The candidature demonstrates unclear or limited impact.