G13 HACKATHON / JUDGING CRITERIA
What judges look for.
Every team is evaluated against the same six criteria for a total of 100 points. The strongest evidence is a working solution the team can explain, not a polished slide deck.
01Relevance to G13 problems & problem solving20 / 100
02Innovation & creativity15 / 100
03Technical execution25 / 100
04Feasibility & scalability15 / 100
05Pitch & presentation15 / 100
06Teamwork & collaboration10 / 100
Maximum score100 points
THE RUBRIC EXPLAINED
How to prepare your demonstration
Judges choose a band first, then award a whole-number score within that band's range. A clear link to the stated problem and a working MVP both matter.
01Relevance to G13 problems & problem solving
How directly the solution targets one of the G13 problem statements, how well the team understands the problem’s root cause, and the quality of their problem-solving approach.
Excellent16–20
Good11–15
Developing6–10
Limited0–5
Read the four performance standards
- Excellent 16–20
- Solution targets a clearly identified G13 problem statement. The team can name who is affected and why the problem persists, and their approach demonstrably addresses the root cause — not just a symptom.
- Good 11–15
- Solution is aligned to a G13 problem and the problem-solving logic is sound, though partly assumed rather than evidenced.
- Developing 6–10
- Loose or retrofitted link to a G13 problem. The approach treats a symptom, or the problem-solving reasoning is thin.
- Limited 0–5
- No clear connection to any G13 problem statement, or the solution does not address the problem the team named.
Team preparation: Name the exact challenge, explain who is affected and show why your solution addresses the cause rather than only the symptom.
02Innovation & creativity
Originality of the approach. New thinking applied to the problem, or an existing technology applied in a genuinely new way.
Excellent12–15
Good8–11
Developing4–7
Limited0–3
Read the four performance standards
- Excellent 12–15
- A genuinely fresh approach — a new idea, or a known technology combined or applied in a way the judges have not seen for this problem.
- Good 8–11
- Solid adaptation of existing approaches with at least one original element or local twist.
- Developing 4–7
- A familiar solution pattern with minimal adaptation to the local context.
- Limited 0–3
- Direct copy of an existing product or template with no original contribution.
Team preparation: Explain what is original or what local improvement your team adds to an existing idea.
03Technical execution
What was actually built during the hackathon: functionality, working demo, appropriate use of 4IR technologies (AI, IoT, robotics, data, automation).
Excellent20–25
Good13–19
Developing6–12
Limited0–5
Read the four performance standards
- Excellent 20–25
- Working demo of core functionality, built during the event. Sound technical choices, appropriate use of 4IR technologies, and the team can explain how it works under questioning.
- Good 13–19
- Partial working demo — key features function, some are mocked or simulated. Technical choices are reasonable and the team understands their own build.
- Developing 6–12
- Concept demo only (slides, wireframes, or video) with limited working functionality, or working code the team struggles to explain.
- Limited 0–5
- No demonstrable build, or the demonstrated work was clearly not produced during the hackathon.
Team preparation: Demonstrate your MVP working and explain how it was built and tested during the event.
04Feasibility & scalability
Whether the solution could realistically be deployed and sustained: cost, infrastructure, skills, and potential to scale across Gauteng and beyond.
Excellent12–15
Good8–11
Developing4–7
Limited0–3
Read the four performance standards
- Excellent 12–15
- Clear, realistic path to deployment — costs, infrastructure, and skills needs are understood. Credible case for scaling across Gauteng or a sector.
- Good 8–11
- Deployment is plausible with identified gaps. Scaling is considered but not fully costed or evidenced.
- Developing 4–7
- Major practical barriers (cost, data, connectivity, regulation) are unacknowledged or unaddressed.
- Limited 0–3
- Solution is not implementable in the intended context as presented.
Team preparation: Describe the people, costs, technology, data and support needed to run it and whether it could work in other areas.
05Pitch & presentation
Clarity of the pitch, quality of the demo, structure of the story, and the team’s handling of judges’ questions.
Excellent12–15
Good8–11
Developing4–7
Limited0–3
Read the four performance standards
- Excellent 12–15
- Clear, structured story — problem, solution, demo, impact — delivered within time. Confident, specific answers in Q&A.
- Good 8–11
- Coherent pitch covering the essentials, mostly within time. Q&A answers are adequate if sometimes vague.
- Developing 4–7
- Pitch is disorganised, significantly over or under time, or key elements (demo, impact) are missing. Weak Q&A.
- Limited 0–3
- Pitch does not communicate what the solution is or does.
Team preparation: Prepare a brief problem, solution, live demo and impact story; practise answering questions.
06Teamwork & collaboration
Evidence that the whole team contributed, roles were shared, and the team worked constructively under time pressure.
Excellent8–10
Good5–7
Developing2–4
Limited0–1
Read the four performance standards
- Excellent 8–10
- Every member can speak to their contribution. Roles were clearly shared across design, build, and pitch.
- Good 5–7
- Most members contributed visibly; one or two carried more of the load.
- Developing 2–4
- One member dominated the work and the pitch; others contributed little.
- Limited 0–1
- No evidence of collaboration as a team.
Team preparation: Be ready for each member to explain what they contributed across designing, building and presenting.
Important judging principles
Show real work. Teams are scored on what they demonstrate during the event. A working prototype outweighs polish.
Judges score independently. Each judge scores before discussion and declares any conflicts of interest.
Your experience level matters. School learners, students and SMMEs are judged according to their track, not a professional benchmark.
Scores stay confidential. Raw scores and team ideas are private. Feedback identifies one strength and one improvement.
How scores become results
Independent sheets. Each judge completes a separate whole-number score sheet after each team's Q&A, before the next pitch.
Panel averages. The team's panel result averages the totals from judges who did not recuse, rounded to one decimal place.
Tie-breaks. Compare technical execution first, then G13 relevance, then a panel vote chaired by the head judge.
Final approval. The head judge and judging coordinator sign off the ranked tally before the results are announced.
Scoring criteria, weights, bands and judging principles adapted from the supplied Gauteng G13 Hackathon Judging Rubric & Criteria Guide v1.0 and Judges' Scoring Pack v1.0 (June 2026). Preparation tips are NIBS learning guidance, not additional scoring criteria.
