Judging Criteria

Details on what our panel of judges will be looking for.

50d2b90e-595d-4337-ae5e-7c66e44b73c9-(2).jpeg

Criteria

After an initial screening by Solve staff and community reviewers, the judges will score the screened solutions based on the following criteria:

Alignment: The solution uses technology to address the Prize question.
Potential for impact: The planned solution implementation has the potential to impact the intended population.
Feasibility: The team has a realistic, practical plan for implementing the solution, and it is feasible in the given context.
Innovative approach: The solution includes a new technology, a new application of technology, a new business model, or a new process for addressing the Prize question.
Human-centered design: The solution is designed with and for underserved communities, and the solution team demonstrates that they have the experience, relationships, data, and knowledge to develop and deliver a successful solution.
Scalability: The solution has a plan for financial viability and the potential to be scaled to affect the lives of more people.
Partnership potential: The applicant clearly explains how the solution would benefit from the broad range of resources that Solve and Macquarie Group are positioned to provide.

*This criteria will only be taken into consideration during the finalist stage.
Technical feasibility: If the underlying technology is novel, the applicant has provided convincing evidence that it has been built and functions as they claim it does.

*This criteria will only be taken into consideration during the finalist stage.

Judging Panel

Dan Phillips

Executive Director, Macquarie Capital

Julia Hilbert

Commodities & Global Markets Head of Distribution, Macquarie Group

Liam Gallagher

Associate Director - Sustainability, Macquarie Asset Management

Adam Copp

Chief Executive, Infrastructure Australia

Cathy Robinson

Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO

Natalie Unterstell

President, Talanoa Institute

Zakary Kot

Senior Manager, Climate Risk and Regulatory Reporting, Macquarie

Bruno Girardi

Director of Impact Investment, Sitawi Finance for Good

Sefanaia Nawadra

Director General, Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP)

Melinda Macleod

Founder and Principal, Sprout Collective

Kamila Camilo

Executive Director, Oya Institute

Criteria Scoring Details

How might your application be scored higher or lower? Learn more below.

: A solution would score lower on alignment if it does not convincingly explain why it is relevant to the Prize.
A solution would score higher on alignment if it fits one or more of the Prize dimensions, or is clearly relevant to the overall Prize question.
: A solution would score lower on potential for impact if the theory of how it could change lives does not make logical sense, or if there is existing evidence that it will not work.
A solution would score higher on potential for impact if the theory of how it could change the lives of the intended population makes sense and the applicant provides evidence that it is likely to have the intended impact (either from evaluations of the solution itself or from an existing body of evidence about similar interventions).
: A solution would score lower on feasibility if the team does not have a realistic plan for implementation, or if the plan is unlikely to succeed (even if funding is acquired).
A solution would score higher on feasibility if the team has a realistic plan for implementation and piloting that accounts for the political, economic, geographic, and other relevant contexts, and the team has the necessary skills to implement that plan.
: A solution would score lower on innovative approach if it is an implementation of an existing approach without any context-specific modifications.
A solution would score higher on innovative approach if it is a truly novel approach, or a novel, context-appropriate application of an existing approach.
: A solution should score lower on human-centered design if the solution is not designed with and for underserved populations, and if the team and its leadership are not well-placed to deliver the solution because they are unable to demonstrate that they have the necessary experience, relationships, data, and knowledge.
A solution should score higher on human-centered design if the solution, team, and leadership clearly demonstrate a focus on underserved populations; have clearly designed the solution for and with those populations; and clearly articulate that they have the necessary experience, relationships, data, and knowledge.
: A solution would score lower on scalability if it solves a problem that does not affect other places or populations, if it would not be possible for it to grow in size, or if there is no path to financial viability.
A solution would score higher on scalability if it has the potential to grow to affect the lives of millions and has a viable plan for achieving financial sustainability.
: This criteria will only be taken into consideration during the finalist stage.
A solution would score lower on partnership potential if the only barrier to success is funding or a specific service not provided through the winner support program, or if the team does not show the capacity and willingness to engage with the support program, including connections and mentorship from Macquarie Group colleagues. Additionally, solutions that do not align with Macquarie Group's strategic priorities or business areas may have lower partnership potential.
A solution would score higher on partnership potential if the team is enthusiastic about participating in the support program, including taking advantage of connections and mentorship from Macquarie Group colleagues. Additionally, solutions that align well with Macquarie Group's strategic priorities and business areas should have higher partnership potential.
: This criteria will only be taken into consideration during the finalist stage.
A solution would score lower on technical feasibility if the technology underlying the solution would not be possible to create.
A solution would score higher on technical feasibility if the applicant has provided convincing evidence that the technology underlying the solution has been successfully built and tested.