Label
 
The Scoring Process

How the Process Works

A panel of qualified judges will score and comment on your application for the Terra Watt Prize. Our goal is to deliver a transparent, fair, and positive experience for all applicants. Every applicant will receive both their scores and detailed feedback from each assigned judge at the end of the process. Please take a moment to MEET OUR JUDGES and learn about how we offer a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

The Scoring Rubric

The judges will use a rubric to assign a numerical score to your application based on four criteria. Below is the tool that each judge will use to score each application. Feel free to review the rubric to better understand the criteria and scoring system. If you have any questions, please direct them to [email protected].


JUDGING CRITERION #
1
:  
FEASIBILITY
(0 - 5)
Can the applicant deliver results that justify the required investment? Does the applicant offer a realistic understanding of the demand for services and the technology required to meet those needs? Does the applicant account for local conditions, focusing on competitive advantages over existing solutions, such as realistic pricing, higher quality service, and more durable or reliable performance? Does the applicant outline a clear strategy for implementation of the plan?
UNREALISTIC
Misguided by an optimistic understanding of obstacles; underestimated the effort required to deliver results. Addressed basic obstacles to general strategic approach but not with specific or realistic solutions. Demonstrated a realistic and efficient plan with sufficient attention to detail. Addressed specific obstacles with a plan tied to detailed, measurable, and cost-effective strategies. Guided by a practical and concrete plan that is technically sound with detailed timing, funding, and measured outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
(0.1 - 0.9)
1
(1.1 - 1.9)
2
(2.1 - 2.9)
3
(3.1 - 3.9)
4
(4.1 - 4.9)
5
PRACTICAL
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

JUDGING CRITERION #
2
:  
IMPACT
(0 - 5)
Will the applicant deliver the highest possible level of energy access over the short and long term, that meets the needs of the local community and that will ensure a productive use of those services? Does the applicant ensure that the necessary services and support are in place to overcome local challenges, meet consumer demands, and provide ongoing, if not increasing, provision of those services?
TRIVIAL
Delivers only a marginal level of energy access that fails to consider local conditions, lacks basic understanding of challenges, and is limited in use. Attempted to meet basic needs, addressed some challenges, but failed to ensure that services connect to local needs or productive use of energy. Offered a plan to meet the energy needs of the local community with an understanding of challenges and within project parameters. Strived to exceed services that meet basic needs, recognized the most pressing challenges, and ensured that productive uses are within scope. Reaches an ambitious but realistic scope of delivery that considers local needs, addresses critical challenges and maximizes productive use of energy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
(0.1 - 0.9)
1
(1.1 - 1.9)
2
(2.1 - 2.9)
3
(3.1 - 3.9)
4
(4.1 - 4.9)
5
MEANINGFUL
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

JUDGING CRITERION #
3
:  
SUSTAINABILITY
(0 - 5)
Does the applicant propose a technical solution that will endure over time, while appealing to the specific needs of the local community? Will the plan include ongoing service and support of the technology at a price that is based upon an understanding of the resource limitations of the local community? Will the proposed solution survive local conditions that would test the durability and reliability of the system?
PERISHABLE
Offered a temporary solution to meet basic needs that will expire over time and likely exhaust local interests. Proposed a novel technology that presents some risk during implementation with only limited attention to ongoing service or support. Focused on a viable technology that considers local needs and resources while addressing the general need for service and support. Proposed a field-tested technology with awareness of local needs and resources with a plan to maintain services and support. Anchored by a durable technology and grounded by a strong understanding of local needs with a compelling service and support model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
(0.1 - 0.9)
1
(1.1 - 1.9)
2
(2.1 - 2.9)
3
(3.1 - 3.9)
4
(4.1 - 4.9)
5
ENDURING
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

JUDGING CRITERION #
4
:  
SCALABILITY
(0 - 5)
Is the applicant positioned to grow from one site to another, to cover a larger footprint than what may be achieved in the one proposed project? Can the management team expand responsibly, and does the organization have the resources necessary to scale the organization through meaningful and profitable tactics? Can the applicant meet shareholder or other investor expectations, given the talent and technology described?
LIMITED
Limited by an inability to grow over time or to pivot from one project to another without massive changes in talent or technology. Presented a case for expanding the current footprint; only realistic through significant changes in talent and technology. Verified claims that the organization can grow over time and replicate results across a range of sites with only minor changes to the approach. Presented a case for meaningful expansion that is tied to technical methods and other concrete tactics using available talent and technology. Managed by a team of seasoned leaders, capable of expanding the organization dramatically, using innovative methods and technologies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
(0.1 - 0.9)
1
(1.1 - 1.9)
2
(2.1 - 2.9)
3
(3.1 - 3.9)
4
(4.1 - 4.9)
5
EXPANSIVE
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

99
DAYS LEFT
TO REGISTER