e.g. A usable but buggy system is fine, a set of Photoshop layouts of a system is not.It was done over the weekend
If people are adding functionality to an existing service, it is only the additional functionality from the weekend that can be considered.
Submissions offering a (semi-)commercial app that they’ve worked on for 6 months is an immediate, automatic, non-appealable, disqualification from consideration.
These are open, flexible, and non-exhaustive.
- Most help to the most in need
- What is the real world benefit to those who need the most support? Does this submission offer a disproportionate outcome to effort?
e.g. A very flashy iPhone app for booking your Private Hospital dinner should rate much lower than a text message notification reminding people without smartphones of their critical appointments/medication.
- Do you like it?
- Humour also works. Is it actually funny?
- Will it actually work?
Either in practice, or, if you’re not sure, at least generate a conversation that is worth having.
- A less comprehensive attempt on a very hard problem is at least as good as a flashy attempt on an easy problem.
- Something incredible by one person is better than something mediocre by a team.
- Who built something irrelevant; what is built matters; why it was built can be taken into account (and this may feed into other areas much more strongly).
Minimally invasive procedures
- Submissions that do a more practical job of a key critical aspect, with immediate benefit, even if nothing else at all changes, should be preferred over submissions that require large scale, immediate, fundamental process change.
- Submissions that severely damage a Government Policy, or a well-funded project, simply by existing, should get at minimum an honourable mention (and their presentation sent to the appropriate bit of Government).