Hackathon judging is one of the most difficult tasks during hackathons. How do you ensure that great ideas aren’t overlooked and that evaluations remain fair and consistent?
This is why it’s so important to define a clear hackathon judging process and outline the judging criteria. In this article, we explore six key criteria that can guide judges to evaluate projects fairly and effectively.
Why you should have a hackathon judging plan
A well-defined hackathon judging plan may be your best ally. This plan describes the criteria and scoring system used to evaluate projects. Without it, judges risk applying criteria inconsistently across projects, making the process exhausting and ineffective.
Here are some of the benefits of a well-thought hackathon judging plan:
- Fairness: All teams are assessed on the same grounds according to a systematic judgment process with impartial standards, leveling the playing field.
- Efficiency: Judges have a structured approach to follow, which speeds up decision-making and makes it easier to compare projects systematically.
- Consistency: By following clear rules, judges assess projects consistently, lowering the possibility that one project may receive a higher or worse rating as a result of erratic judgment.
- Credibility: A well-planned judging framework adds credibility to the hackathon and attracts high-quality participants who trust their efforts will be evaluated fairly.
The goal and scope of hackathons differ, but here are the main hackathon judging criteria every hackathon judging process should look for.
Criteria 1: Creativity and innovation
The underlying premise of a hackathon is to promote innovation and let builders explore creative ideas, so of course these should be important criteria to consider when judging a hackathon project.
Creativity can manifest in different ways. Sometimes, it’s in the approach to solving a known problem in a new or unexpected way. Other times, it’s in the conceptualization of a new tool or product that hasn’t been explored before or in the user experience design.
The important thing is to look for originality and assess if participants have approached problems with ingenuity and fresh perspectives.
Criteria 2: Technical execution
Technical quality is another core aspect when assessing a hackathon project. After all, an idea is only as good as its execution.
When evaluating technical execution, judges should assess how well the team has implemented their idea in terms of functionality, scalability, and usability. This involves understanding how the project works, what technologies were used, and the quality of the implementation across different parameters.
- Core features: Does the project address the problem statement and perform the tasks it was intended to do?
- Code quality: Is the code well-organized and easy to read? Has the implementation been thoroughly tested to ensure reliability and minimize bugs?
- Performance: How efficiently does the solution work? Performance optimization is crucial when considering scalability.
- Architecture: Is the solution’s structure built to accommodate growth over time? Architecture is another fundamental aspect to ensure the system can handle future increases in demand and evolving requirements.
- Functionality: Are all the key features working as intended? Is the solution reliable, with minimal bugs or technical issues? A high-quality technical project should deliver on its promises and meet the objectives set out by the team.
- Technology stack: Has the team chosen the right technologies for the problem?
Criteria 3: Functional MVP (Minimum Viable Product)
Hackathons often involve tight time constraints but a functional MVP is an important criterion to consider when evaluating hackathon projects. The MVP doesn’t have to be perfect or feature-complete, but it should at least showcase the core functionality of the project and validate the concept.
- Core functionality: Does the MVP include the main features that address the project’s goal or problem statement?
- Proof of Concept: Does the MVP demonstrate the viability of the idea? Can the project scale or evolve into a complete solution?
- Extra features: While not essential for an MVP, additional features can improve a project and demonstrate the team’s creativity, ambition, and technical skills, all of which can be valued by judges.
Criteria 4: Problem-solving and relevance
Most hackathon projects begin with a problem statement, but when working under pressure for many hours or days, developers may lose focus of the main objective of the project and become overly fixated on features or technical details rather than remaining focused on the challenge they decided to tackle in the first place.
For that reason, it’s important to benchmark the submitted solution against the problem statement or core goal of the project.
- Solution impact: How effectively does the solution address the problem?
- Audience fit: Who will benefit from this solution? Does it serve a specific group or industry, and how well does it meet their needs?
- Feasibility: Is the proposed solution realistic in terms of resources, timeline, and scalability?
Criteria 5: Impact and potential
Delivering a project that shows great technical skill but with little practical applicability does not produce the kind of substantial, long-term value that is desired during a hackathon. For a hackathon project to truly stand out in terms of long-term impact, here are a few considerations to consider:
- Real-world adoption: Can the project provide a workable, actionable solution to real-world needs?
- Economic viability: Can the solution create long-term value through cost reductions, improved productivity, or new revenue streams?
- Community or stakeholder engagement: Can the solution engage stakeholders and partnerships to increase the chances of success and scalability?
- Long-term sustainability: Is the project flexible enough to adapt over time to ensure its impact?
Criteria 6: Final pitch
Even if a project has all the technical components in place, it’s the hackathon pitch that ultimately allows judges to evaluate how well teams can justify their ideas and decision-making.
- Understanding the vision: The pitch is the opportunity to hear how the solution solves a real-world problem and why the team believes their approach is unique and impactful.
- Holistic evaluation: The pitch gives judges a more comprehensive view of the project, potential market fit, and overall perspective of the project’s value.
- Making final decisions: When making final decisions, a compelling pitch can highlight a project that might have been overlooked and highlight important details of the solution that aren’t immediately clear in the written submission or prototype. Besides, the pitch can also make a project stand out to judges and influence the final decision after reviewing dozens or hundreds of projects.
A final word
Organizing a high-quality hackathon requires planning and the judging process should not be overlooked.
Given the process of working on a hackathon project is lengthy and full of decision-making moments, it’s important to develop a hackathon judging plan to ensure that all ideas are assessed fairly and thoroughly.
If you’re planning to host or be a judge in a hackathon, TAIKAI is your best go-to option.
TAIKAI is an all-in-one hackathon hosting platform that provides an efficient, user-friendly solution to simplify the entire process, from event planning to project evaluation.
Evaluating projects and picking winners has never been easier.
If you would like to see how TAIKAI streamlines the entire hackathon planning and project evaluation, reach out to our team and book a demo. We’re here to help :)
