Judging criteria

The projects will be appreciated through the materials submitted online and at the exhibition, and via an in-person (or Video call) presentation. The panel of juges will access an individual on-line form to submit their ratings on the list of criteria in the 4 categories below. The ratings will be aggregated by categories and the judges will then debate and reach a consensus for the prizes attributions.
From experience, an average of 2.75/4 or above, on 3 or 4 categories is likely necessary to be in the "top tier" for a chance of winning one of the 3 top prizes.
The attributions of the 5 Outstanding submissions, will be informed by the ratings achieved on the relevant criteria below, but judged independently of the 3 prizes.

All projects will be judged on the following 4 categories.

1. Communication

2. Designed solution

3. The bigger picture

4. Design thinking

Communication

Each team has up to 10 minutes at the exhibition to tell the story of their project. The presentation should explain how the design functions, the subject it addresses, the science behind it, and how it may be adopted. The presentation and slides should be engaging while treating the project seriously.

How well has the team explained the design, the needs to which it responds, the science driving it, and how it may be adopted, and the process by which it arrived at the idea?

Oral Presentation

Live Dialogue

Following the presentation, teams will discuss and answer questions about their projects with the judges for up to 5 minutes.

How well has the team prepared for and responded to judge questions?

Visual Rendering and Physical Model

Each team is asked to create visual renderings or illustrations that capture the look, functionality, and possible uses of their design. Teams may also create a physical model or prototype that demonstrates their design work.

How well do the visual rendering and physical models illustrate the vision, including its look, functionality, and uses?

VIDEO (Compulsory. Judges will not score this component, but may refer to it as they judge)

All teams will produce a 1-5 minute video about their project. We ask that students be creative here: this is meant to be a trailer for the project rather than a recording of a virtual presentation. This video will be evaluated only as part of the Outstanding Communication & Outreach; it is not part of the in-person judging evaluations, but may be referred to by the judges during deliberation.

WEBSITE (recommended – Judges will not score this component)

Teams are encouraged to create a website that describes their project. This site can serve as a record of their work and a place to highlight team members’ biographies, achievements, and future goals. It also makes their work discoverable by the wider community.

SOCIAL MEDIA (recommended – Judges will not score this component)

We ask students to actively participate in promoting their projects online by developing creative social media campaigns. We recommend making use of Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, but teams are welcome to post on the platforms they prefer. We ask teams to tag @Volta27.org where possible.

The Designed Solution

Originality

Is the project original and does it approach the theme in an innovative way?

Design

How effectively and completely does the project respond to the theme?

Feasibility

A. Scientific

How well has the team demonstrated that current science makes the project possible?

C. Technological

What are the technologies that allow this project to be developed? How clearly does the proposed technology serve the intention of the project? How realistic is the proposed use of the technology in the project?

B. Cultural

Has the team considered how the project fits with or replaces current products/solutions? How does the project integrate into existing cultural values and norms in its proposed context? Are the Esthetic choices made reinforcing the proposition acceptability to its target audience and fitting to the lake Como cultural context?

The "Bigger Picture"

Human Impact

A. Adoption and Use

What factors might motivate potential users to access, adopt, or engage with this project? Has the team considered the people who manufacture and dispose of the product?

B. Scalability and Levels of Impact

Has the team considered how widely the project might be used in regards to demographic change and growth? Has the team communicated the intended scale of the project, and how can the scale of engagement change over time? What external factors can influence the scale and adoption of the proposed product or solution?

C. Ethics

How deeply has the team considered the project’s impacts on the lives of those who do and do not have access to it? How deeply has the team explored the implications of working with other organisms, if any, in their project? Has the team engaged with established ethical precedents when developing the project? If there are no precedents, how has the team proposed to move forward with the ethical considerations of the project?

Sustainability and Regeneration

A. Environmental Impact

How deeply has the team considered the project’s interaction with living environments? How might the project change the living environment, both immediately and gradually, locally and globally?

B. Resources and Life Cycle

How well does the team consider the sourcing and use of resources (e.g. water, feedstocks, living material, energy, labor, etc.)? Has the team considered the project’s entire life cycle? Has the team demonstrated an understanding of the project’s outputs, and does the project necessitate addressing waste streams through principles such as circular design thinking?

C. Safety/Dual Use

Has the team considered the potential negative effects of its project? Has the team accounted for possible harm to human health and the living environment associated with its product or process malfunctioning? Has the team considered how its design could be negatively exploited? Has it considered how to mitigate the risks?

Design Thinking

Process

How much experimentation and exploration has the team done and how well has this been communicated in the presentation? Did the team identify new questions during the process? How well did the team incorporate learnings into their iteration process?

Self Appraisal

How clearly does the team demonstrate an awareness of their own unique positioning, circumstances, and biases? Has the team recognized all the voices—experts and otherwise—necessary to inform the project? Has the team recognized strengths and weaknesses of its vision? Has it suggested ways to address them? What might next steps be to progress toward the next iteration of the idea?

Critical Perspectives

How clearly does the team demonstrate an awareness of their own unique positioning, circumstances, and biases? Has the team recognized all the voices—experts and otherwise—necessary to inform the project? Has the team recognized strengths and weaknesses of its vision? Has it suggested ways to address them? What might next steps be to progress toward the next iteration of the idea?

Our special thanks to Paul Rubery from the Bio Design Challenge (https://www.biodesignchallenge.org/), for his advice and for the judging criteria reused here and prize category suggestions.