Judging

 
 

Assessment

The judging process will progress in 3 rounds for those who are attending the Summit in person (“Live”) and in 2 rounds for those who are submitting a video to the competition (“Virtual”). 

ROUND 1 (Live and Virtual) 

In the Classroom: At the end of the academic semester, each instructor, in conjunction with the expert consultants who have worked with the classroom, will assess the student projects and pick one team (the Finalist Team) to participate in the BDC Summit in June.

ROUND 2 (Virtual - for those who cannot attend in person) 

Videos Virtually Submitted and Assessed: Finalist Teams who cannot attend the Summit in person are eligible for the Outstanding Digital Submission Prize. Teams have until June 3rd to submit their 1-5 minute video, which will be reviewed and scored by a select group of judges the week before the Summit. The winner of the Outstanding Digital Submission Prize will be showcased at MoMA alongside the Top Teams. Please see the Prizes page for specific parameters of the Outstanding Digital Submission Prize. 

ROUND 2 (Live)

Summit Day 1: At the Biodesign Summit, Finalist Teams from around the world will present their projects at Parsons, The New School. Students present simultaneously throughout the day in front of judging panels in different lecture halls. Each team has 15 minutes in total to present their work and answer judges’ questions. As teams present, judges score and add comments for each team based on the Judging Rubric criteria. At the end of the day, each judging panel meets to deliberate and share scores to put forth their top two teams. These teams will make up our Top Teams who move forward to Day 2 at MoMA.

PLEASE NOTE: Gallery Show displays will not be considered in this decision as the judges will be choosing their top 2 teams before the Gallery Opening. Judges will review Gallery Show displays for the Outstanding Display Prize. 

Round 3 (Live) 

Summit Day 2: The Top Teams present in-person to the full jury of experts. From these Top Teams, judges will choose the Overall Winner and the Runner-Up. They will then choose winners for the Outstanding Prizes from ALL of the in-person participating finalist teams (not just the Top Teams). The judging process lasts about 3 hours and is a combination of score calculation/review and in-depth discussion. 

Post-Summit Feedback

Teams can expect to receive comments from judges in the weeks after the Summit. Feedback might include (but is not limited to) points about the team’s research, presentation, and potential next steps.

Teams will receive recognitions based on their scores from the judges. These recognitions will be indicated on the team’s project page on the BDC website as well as in promotional materials. Medal recognitions are as follows:

Platinum RECOGNITION

  • A majority of judges indicate the project sufficiently addresses rubric requirements under all four sections: Concept, Context, Narrative, and Reflection.

GOLD RECOGNITION

  • A majority of judges indicate the project sufficiently addresses rubric requirements under at least 3 of the 4 rubric sections.

sILVER RECOGNITION

  • Silver: Majority of judges indicate project sufficiently addresses rubric requirements under at least 2 of the 4 rubric sections.

BRONZE RECOGNITION

  • Bronze: Majority of judges indicate project sufficiently addresses rubric requirements under at least 1 of the 4 rubric sections.

Medal System

For a judge to indicate that the team sufficiently addressed a rubric requirement, they will need to score an average above 2.5 out of 4 on that section. For example, their score across all sections under “Concept” will need to average higher than 2.5.

  • For each of the major sections, a majority of the judges (>50%) will need to have indicated a score higher than 2.5 in order to receive a recognition of excellence in that section. 

  • For example, if there are 10 judges and six of them scored a team higher than an average of 2.5 for the Concept and Context sections, but for the Narrative and Reflection sections only four of the judges have awarded scores higher than an average of 2.5, this team would receive the Silver Medal for Recognition of Excellence in Concept and Context.

Scoring

  1. Narrative

  2. Concept

  3. Reflection

  4. Reflection

Judging criteria

Projects will be judged
on:

Communicating THE PROCESS

Narrative

Oral presentation

Each team has up to 10 minutes onstage at the Summit 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?

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 should 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 (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 Digital Submission; 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 @biodesigned where possible. 

the idea

Concept

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?

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?

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?

THE “BIGGER PICTURE”

Context

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?

RISK

A. 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?

THINKING CRITICALLY

Reflection

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

Has the team identified a clear problem or social critique and presented an appropriate response through their project? How does the project engage with complexities and contradictions of their response?