Digital ID Design Challenge Judging


Judging Criteria: Scoring Rubric

The Digital ID Design Challenge is not expecting full-blown solutions to the use case. Of course, we will be impressed if you can do it! Here’s what our judges will be looking for on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the highest score.

Judging Criteria and Weighting

Context and Relevance – the solution(s) are relevant to the context of the cases provided.  25%
Security and Privacy – the solutions(s) demonstrate security and privacy principles by design.  25%
Economic and Social Benefit – the solution(s) clearly demonstrate economic and social benefit.  15%
Feasibility – the solution(s) may be developed with the right resources and support.  15%
Usability and Convenience – the solution(s) are convenient and easy to use.  10%
Creativity and Presentation – the solution(s) presentation is creative and presented with high quality.  10%

 

Judging Evaluation Rubric

Criteria Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Context and Relevance

(How well the solution demonstrates an understanding of the use case, the context of the use case (i.e., LTSA operations and the technical, legal, social and economic context in which the LTSA operates)

The context and relevance of the solution is not clearly presented or demonstrates a lack of understanding.

The team fails to explain why blockchain technology & Digital IDs is necessary to address the use case. The application of blockchain technology & Digital IDs seem unnecessary and a little gratuitous.

The context and relevance of the solution is somewhat clear.

 

The team is struggling to explain why blockchain &/or Digital IDs is/are necessary to address the use case in a compelling manner, but they give a good shot.

The solution demonstrates an adequate level of understanding about the context(s) of the use case and the relevance of the solution as a response the to the use case challenge.

 

The team is able to somewhat explain why blockchain technology &/or Digital IDs is/are necessary to address the use case in a compelling manner.

The context and relevance of the solution is clearly presented, and demonstrates a good understanding of the operational, technical, legal, social, and economic contexts in which the solution must be implemented. References to appropriate background documents relevant to the contexts of the solution are cited in the submission.

 

The team is able to adequately explain why blockchain technology and Digital IDs are necessary to address the use case in a compelling manner.

The context and relevance of the solution is clearly presented, and demonstrates an excellent and sophisticated understanding of the operational, technical, legal, social, and economic contexts in which the solution must be implemented. It is evident that background research on the contexts of the solution has been undertaken by the team.

 

The team is able to explain why blockchain technology & Digital IDs are necessary to address the use case in a compelling manner.  It’s very clear that blockchain  & Digital IDs together will solve a problem where other technologies will not.

Economic & Social Benefit

(How well the solution demonstrates economic and social benefit)

Proposed solution does not address its economic and social benefits. Proposed solution somewhat addresses its economic and social benefits. Proposed solution adequately addresses its economic and social benefits. Proposed solution elegantly addresses its economic and social benefits, making a solid case for the solution design in relation to these benefits. Proposed solution elegantly addresses economic and social benefits, making a very strong case for the solution design in relation to these benefits.
Security & Privacy The solution overlooks security & privacy considerations. The team solution somewhat considers security & privacy considerations. Privacy & security appear to be afterthoughts. The team solution clearly and effectively incorporates security & privacy considerations. The team solution clearly and effectively

incorporates

security & privacy considerations to a high standard.

The team solution clearly and effectively incorporates security & privacy considerations to a very high standard, including demonstrating adherence to BC Government IMIT standards and principles of privacy by design.
Usability & Convenience

(How usable the solution is in relation to standard software usability criteria, such as intuitive design, ease of learning, efficiency of use, memorability, error frequency and severity, subjective satisfaction, and BC Government IMIT Standards relating to usability)

The solution does not address usability & convenience. The solution gives only a passing nod to usability and convenience. Usability & convenience appear to be afterthoughts. The solution demonstrates a reasonable level of thought about usability & convenience. The discussion of these elements is convincing. The solution demonstrates careful attention to usability & convenience. The solution demonstrates careful and sophisticated attention to usability & convenience, and references authoritative supporting or background documents such as BC Government design standards.
Feasibility

(How relatively easy the solution would be to implement from an operational,  technical, legal, social and economic perspective)

The solution is impractical. The solution is not feasible in the current operational, technical, legal, social or economic context, but could be with some changes. The solution is feasibility in relation to one aspect of the operational, technical, legal, social or economic context, but would require adjustment to be feasible along the other dimensions. The solution is feasibility in relation to more than one aspect of the operational, technical, legal, social or economic context, but would require adjustment to be feasible along the other dimensions. The solution is feasibility in along all dimensions.
Creativity & Presentation

(How creative the solution is, and how engaging the final presentation on the solution is, including how clearly and succinctly it conveys the highlights of the use case(s) and how the design addresses the above criteria as a solution to the use case problems)

The design solution does not demonstrate a significantly new approach.

 

The team presentation does not effectively tell the story about how their solution will solve pain points.

The design solution demonstrates an incrementally new approach.

 

The team presentation somewhat tells the story about how their solution will solve pain points.

The design solution is somewhat novel and demonstrates creative thinking.

 

The team presentation clearly and effectively tells the story about how their solution will solve pain points. The presentation is needs a little more polish but is otherwise very good.

The design solution is novel and demonstrates creative thinking.

 

The team presentation clearly and effectively tells the story about how their solution will solve pain points. The presentation is polished.

The design solution is very innovative and demonstrates a high degree of creativity.

 

The team presentation clearly and effectively tells the story about how their solution will solve pain points. The presentation is very professionally presented.

The Judging Process

The judging process will be in 2 stages:

  • Stage 1 – Participants will submit their design solution materials by 23:59 PST on October 31, 2017 using the link provided.  A panel of judges will assess the solutions against the material presented and any other artifacts that are uploaded or made available (e.g., videos, documentation, etc.).

    By Friday, November 3, teams will be notified about whether they have been selected as finalists. There will be two finalists chosen.

  • Stage 2 – The top two teams–the finalists–will be invited to give a 15-minute presentation on their design solution at IdentityNORTH (on November 7) at the TELUS Garden in downtown Vancouver. The winners of the Digital ID Design Challenge will be chosen based on their ability to explain and sell a potentially complex idea to the audience and empower the audience to make an informed decision. The final vote for the winner will be split 4 ways, with our three judges each having 25% of the final score, and the audience vote equating to a 4th judge with an additional 25% of the final score.

In anticipation of being chosen as finalists, teams should block the time to attend the conference now.  Teams unable to present in person at the conference may present remotely via video-link. The organizers of the Digital ID Design Challenge are not able to sponsor travel to enable teams to present in person.  Teams who cannot guarantee that they will be able or willing to present on the day of the conference, either in person or via video-link, cannot be selected as finalists.

Our Judges

Joni Brennan

Joni Brennan is the President of the Digital ID & Authentication Council of Canada. She leads the organization in its mission to accelerate the establishment of an ecosystem of trustworthy digital ID solutions in support of Canada’s Innovation Agenda and to the societal and economic benefit of all Canadian governments, businesses, non-profits, and – most importantly – citizens.

Drawing upon 15 years of experience connecting digital ID innovators and policy influencers in the global marketplace, Joni works to further connect the digital ID innovations of Canada to the global marketplace to support Canada’s strategic positioning in the global digital economy.

Joni is sought-after as a thought and action leadership conference speaker for international digital identity innovation and standardization. Joni has participated in international organizational committees including: OECD-ITAC, ISOC, IEEE, OASIS SSTC, ISO SC27 WG5, and ITU-T SG17 Q6. She has testified regarding trusted Identity and Access Management systems for the US Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology Security and Privacy (ONC HITSP).

Aran Hamilton

A successful entrepreneur, Aran is the President and Co-Founder of Vantage Analytics. As one of Canada’s leading digital and mobile economy strategists, with a focus on predictive analytics, Aran has spent the past two decades working with retailers, payment networks, banks, and wireless carriers to shape Canada’s ecommerce environment.

Aran is also an investor in accells technologies and Vello. He is an alumnus of such pioneering firms as Monitor, PSTG, MIST, Digital Cement, m-Qube, VeriSign, and EnStream/Zoompass. He is the past Chair of the Mobile Transactions & Commerce Summit, and co-founder of IdentityNorth.

Aran is a sought-after conference speaker with significant hands-on experience rolling out platforms for web and mobile commerce, m-payments, money transfer and digital ID and authentication.

Al-Karim Kara, Vice President, Business Innovation and Chief Information Officer

Al-Karim Kara, MBA, FCPA, FCMA, C.Dir is responsible for leading the organization in innovation, technology and business process change, business development, as well as leading and overseeing programs related to information security, IT services, and strategic IT planning.

Al-Karim joined the LTSA as the Vice President of Business Transformation and Chief Information Officer in November 2009. He brings the executive leadership and technological experience needed to successfully guide the LTSA’s multi-year business modernization initiative.

Previously Al-Karim was with Xantrex Technology Inc. where he held a number of executive positions, including Vice President of Operations, Interim CFO, and Vice President, Information Technology and CIO.

Al-Karim holds a Master of Business Administration degree from Simon Fraser University and is a Chartered Professional Accountant. He is a fellow of the Chartered Professional Accountants of BC and a member of the Program Advisory Committee of the British Columbia Institute of Technology School of Computing and Information Technology and the Accounting Advisory Committee of Kwantlen Polytechnic University School of Business. 

Back to the DIDC Home