Implementing Solutions

Chronic Diseases

How can we help people prevent, detect and manage chronic diseases, especially in resources-limited settings?

Submissions are Closed

Leadership

Linda Bauld

Professor, School of Management, University of Stirling

Aya Caldwell

Head, Innovation and Partnerships, Novartis Foundation

Gillian Christie

Health Innovation Manager, The Vitality Group

Jonathan Gruber

Ford Professor of Economics, MIT

Dr. Corinna Lathan

CEO, Co-Founder, and Board Chair, AnthroTronix, Inc.

Arvind Rajan

Co-Founder and CEO, Cricket Health

Dr. Nalini Saligram

Founder & CEO, Arogya World

Amy Siegel

Co-Founder, S2N Health

Dr. Jeffrey Sturchio

President & CEO, Rabin Martin

Judging Criteria

Solve judges will consider a few key dimensions as the evaluate a heterogeneous group of proposals submitted for each challenge. In addition to the criteria outlined below, judges will evaluate how proposals are uniquely appropriate for the Solve community by considering how they integrate technology, rely on cross-sector partnerships, and/or utilize the MIT community.


Novelty 

Judges will evaluate each proposal for their innovation, discovery, and originality to prioritize the most additive solutions, rather than rewarding traditional thinking or encyclopedic knowledge.

1 - Concept exists - no unique application 

2 - Concept partially exists - some unique application 

3 - Concept partially exists - unusual or imaginative application 

4 - Entirely novel concept - challenges existing paradigm

Feasibility 

Judges will evaluate each proposal’s economic, social,  political, legal, and technical feasibility to ensure winning solutions are implementable.

1 - Infeasible economically, socially, politically, legally, or technically; Potential concerns and barriers not addressed 

2 - Questionably feasible economically, socially, politically, legally, or technically; Potential concerns and barriers insufficiently addressed 

3 - Likely feasible economically, socially, politically, legally, and technically; Potential concerns and barriers partially addressed 

4 - Feasible economically, socially, politically, legally, or technically; Potential concerns and barriers fully addressed

Impact 

Judges will evaluate each proposal’s projected impact to identify which solution best meets the stated goals and objectives of each challenge. For example, for Learn challenges, impact may be evaluated based on the projected number of children reading at grade level. 

NOTE: Proposals should clearly define both their projected impact and their monitoring and evaluation metrics.

1 - Impact and benefits unclear 

2 - Limited benefits; minimal impact 

3 - Modest benefits; moderate impact 

4 - Large-scale benefits; high-impact  

Quality 

Judges will evaluate the quality of presentations, including the quality of writing, use of graphics and visual elements, and any inclusion of compelling artistic representations. Proposals that are well-presented will be favored.

1 - Unclear; lacks persuasiveness and visual appeal 

2 - Somewhat clear, persuasive, and visually appealing 

3 - Clear, persuasive, and visually appealing 

4 - Highest-quality; very clear, persuasive, and visually appealing 



Submit a Solution
Back
to Top