Difference between revisions of "Judging/Rubric categories"

Line 99: Line 99:
 
</p>
 
</p>
  
−
<h3> <a id=""> </a>Track Specific -  </h3>
+
<h1> <a id="Specialprizes"> </a>Special Prizes</h1>
 +
 
 +
<h2> <a id="Wiki"> </a>Wiki </h2>
 
<p>
 
<p>
 
<ol>
 
<ol>
 +
<li>Do I understand what the team accomplished? </li>
 +
<li>Is the wiki attractive and easy to navigate?</li>
 +
<li>Does the team provide convincing evidence to support their conclusions? </li>
 +
<li>How complete is the team's effort to attribute work? </li>
 +
<li>Will the wiki be a compelling record of the team's project for future teams?  </li>
 +
</ol>
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<h2> <a id="Poster"> </a>Poster</h2>
 +
<p>
 +
<ol>
 +
<li>Clarity: Could you follow the poster flow?</li>
 +
<li>How professional is the graphic design in terms of layout and composition? </li>
 +
<li>Did you find the poster appealing? </li>
 +
<li>How complete is the team's effort to attribute work? </li>
 +
<li>How competent were the team at answering questions?</li>
 +
</ol>
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<h2> <a id="Integratedhp"> </a>Integrated Human Practices</h2>
 +
<p>
 +
<ol>
 +
<li></li>
 +
<li></li>
 +
<li> </li>
 
<li> </li>
 
<li> </li>
 
<li> </li>
 
<li> </li>
Line 107: Line 134:
 
</p>
 
</p>
  
−
<h1> <a id="Specialprizes"> </a>Special Prizes</h1>
+
<h2> <a id="Educationpubicengagement"></a>Education and Public Engagement</h2>
 +
<p>
 +
<ol>
 +
<li></li>
 +
<li></li>
 +
<li> </li>
 +
<li> </li>
 +
<li> </li>
 +
</ol>
 +
</p>
  
−
<h2> <a id=""> </a> </h2>
+
<h2> <a id="Model"> </a>Model</h2>
 +
<p>
 +
<ol>
 +
<li>How impressive is the mathematical modeling?</li>
 +
<li>Did the model help the team understand their device? </li>
 +
<li>Did the team use measurements of the device to develop the model? </li>
 +
<li>Does the modeling approach provide a good example for others?</li>
 +
</ol>
 +
</p>
  
 +
<h2> <a id="Measurement"> </a>Innovation in Measurement</h2>
 
<p>
 
<p>
 
<ol>
 
<ol>
−
<li> </li>
+
<li>Is the measurement potentially repeatable?</li>
 +
<li>Is the protocol well described?</li>
 +
<li>Are there web-based support materials? </li>
 +
<li>Is it useful to other projects? </li>
 +
<li>Was a standard reference sample included?</li>
 +
</ol>
 +
</p>
  
 +
<h2> <a id="Supportingentrepreneurship"> </a>Supporting Entrepreneurship</h2>
 +
<p>
 +
<ol>
 +
<li>Customer Discovery - Has the team interviewed a representative number of potential customers for the technology and clearly communicated what they learned?</li>
 +
<li>Based on their interviews, does the team have a clear hypothesis describing their customers' needs?  </li>
 +
<li>Does the team present a convincing case that their product meets the customers' needs?  </li>
 +
<li>Has the team demonstrated a minimum viable (MVP) product and had customers to commit (LOI, etc.) to purchasing it / using it? </li>
 +
<li>Does the team have a viable and understood business model/value proposition to take their company to market?</li>
 
</ol>
 
</ol>
 
</p>
 
</p>
 +
 +
<h2> <a id="Applieddesign"> </a>Applied Design</h2>
 +
<p>
 +
<ol>
 +
<li>How well did the project address potential applications and implications of synthetic biology? </li>
 +
<li>How creative, original, and compelling was the project?</li>
 +
<li>How impressive was the project installation in the art & design exhibition space? </li>
 +
<li>How well did the team engage in collaboration with people outside their primary fields?</li>
 +
</ol>
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<h2> <a id="Supportingsoftware"> </a>Supporting Software</h2>
 +
<p>
 +
<ol>
 +
<li>How well is the software using and supporting existing synthetic biology standards and platforms?</li>
 +
<li>Was this software validated by experimental work?</li>
 +
<li>Did the team use non-trivial algorithms or designs? </li>
 +
<li>How easily can others embed this software in new workflows? </li>
 +
<li>How user-friendly is the software?</li>
 +
</ol>
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<h2> <a id="Newbasicpart"> </a>New Basic Part</h2>
 +
<p>
 +
<ol>
 +
<li>How does the documentation compare to BBa_K863006 and BBa_K863001? </li>
 +
<li>How new/ innovative is it?</li>
 +
<li>Did the team show that it works as expected? </li>
 +
<li>Is it useful to the community?</li>
 +
</ol>
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<h2> <a id="Newcompositepart"> </a>New Composite Part</h2>
 +
<p>
 +
<ol>
 +
<li>How does the documentation compare to BBa_K404122 and BBa_K863005? </li>
 +
<li>How new/innovative is it?</li>
 +
<li>Did the team show that it works as expected? </li>
 +
<li>Is it useful to the community?</li>
 +
</ol>
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<h2> <a id="Partcollection"> </a>Part Collection</h2>
 +
<p>
 +
<ol>
 +
<li></li>
 +
<li></li>
 +
<li> </li>
 +
<li> </li>
 +
<li> </li>
 +
</ol>
 +
</p>
 +
  
  

Revision as of 19:31, 25 June 2015

Project

  1. How impressive is this project?
  2. How creative or novel is the teams project?
  3. Did the project work?
  4. How much did the team accomplish?
  5. Is the project likely to have an impact?
  6. How well are engineering and design principles used?
  7. How thoughtful and thorough was the team's consideration of human practices?
  8. How complete is the team's effort to attribute work?

Track Specific

Track Specific - Standard Tracks

  1. Did the team design a project based on synthetic biology and standard parts?
  2. Are the parts functions and behaviors well-documented in the Registry?

Track Specific - Art & Design

  1. How compelling was the project installation in the art & design exhibition space?
  2. How well did the project address potential applications or implications of synthetic biology?

Track Specific - Community Labs

  1. Did the team design a project based on synthetic biology?
  2. Did the team interact with another iGEM team either through a collaboration or a mentoring relationship?

Track Specific - Hardware

  1. Did the team demonstrate utility and functionality in their hardware prototype?
  2. Is the documentation of the hardware system (design files, bill of materials, assembly instructions and/or software) sufficient to enable reproduction by other teams?

Track Specific - High School

  1. Did the team design a project based on synthetic biology and standard parts?
  2. Did the team interact with another iGEM team either through a collaboration or a mentoring relationship?

Track Specific - Measurement

  1. Is the team's measurement protocol likely to be of use to the synthetic biology community?
  2. Is the protocol well-documented, including the parts functions and behaviors in the registry?

Track Specific - Software

  1. How useful is the software to the synthetic biology community?
  2. Is the software designed to be extended and modified by other developers?

Special Prizes

Wiki

  1. Do I understand what the team accomplished?
  2. Is the wiki attractive and easy to navigate?
  3. Does the team provide convincing evidence to support their conclusions?
  4. How complete is the team's effort to attribute work?
  5. Will the wiki be a compelling record of the team's project for future teams?

Poster

  1. Clarity: Could you follow the poster flow?
  2. How professional is the graphic design in terms of layout and composition?
  3. Did you find the poster appealing?
  4. How complete is the team's effort to attribute work?
  5. How competent were the team at answering questions?

Integrated Human Practices

Education and Public Engagement

Model

  1. How impressive is the mathematical modeling?
  2. Did the model help the team understand their device?
  3. Did the team use measurements of the device to develop the model?
  4. Does the modeling approach provide a good example for others?

Innovation in Measurement

  1. Is the measurement potentially repeatable?
  2. Is the protocol well described?
  3. Are there web-based support materials?
  4. Is it useful to other projects?
  5. Was a standard reference sample included?

Supporting Entrepreneurship

  1. Customer Discovery - Has the team interviewed a representative number of potential customers for the technology and clearly communicated what they learned?
  2. Based on their interviews, does the team have a clear hypothesis describing their customers' needs?
  3. Does the team present a convincing case that their product meets the customers' needs?
  4. Has the team demonstrated a minimum viable (MVP) product and had customers to commit (LOI, etc.) to purchasing it / using it?
  5. Does the team have a viable and understood business model/value proposition to take their company to market?

Applied Design

  1. How well did the project address potential applications and implications of synthetic biology?
  2. How creative, original, and compelling was the project?
  3. How impressive was the project installation in the art & design exhibition space?
  4. How well did the team engage in collaboration with people outside their primary fields?

Supporting Software

  1. How well is the software using and supporting existing synthetic biology standards and platforms?
  2. Was this software validated by experimental work?
  3. Did the team use non-trivial algorithms or designs?
  4. How easily can others embed this software in new workflows?
  5. How user-friendly is the software?

New Basic Part

  1. How does the documentation compare to BBa_K863006 and BBa_K863001?
  2. How new/ innovative is it?
  3. Did the team show that it works as expected?
  4. Is it useful to the community?

New Composite Part

  1. How does the documentation compare to BBa_K404122 and BBa_K863005?
  2. How new/innovative is it?
  3. Did the team show that it works as expected?
  4. Is it useful to the community?

Part Collection