The evaluation criteria:

1. Use of systems thinking

The understanding and use of relevant systems thinking tools and concepts in researching, mapping and describing a system to present a coherent understanding of a complex problem is assessed. This includes identifying the interconnections, relationships, patterns, events and behaviours that create the problem.

2. Understanding the problem

An understanding of the problem, root causes, symptoms and a portrayal of what contributes to the current state is assessed. This includes identifying the key actors involved in the problem (directly and indirectly) and the relationships between them, the power dynamics between those involved, those contributing to the problem and those with the most power to make a difference.

3. Understanding existing solutions

An understanding of existing efforts to address the problem (both locally and globally) is assessed, as well as an exploration of the linkages between them. This may include business, government, non-profit, or marginally related solutions.

4. Identifying levers of change and opportunities for intervention

Assesses how well potential leverage points have been identified , from which system change can be driven, and ideas on what is missing and what can have a positive impact on change. These may be improvements to the current solution, suggestions for improving the activities of public authorities, businesses, non-profit organisations, researchers and others, or new initiatives. Ideas should be based on lessons learned from implementing solutions in other areas or addressing potential peripheral problems, areas of concern that appear to be overlooked, or models of systemic change that have not been used to address the chosen problem.

The recommendations formulated should bring about system change by proposing an intervention option (or two or three complementary interventions). Please keep in mind that the proposed "solution" can be any lever in the system with a market/intervention opportunity; it does not have to be a specific product.

5. Key insights and lessons learned

Assess whether lessons learned from the system analysis and insights gained during the research were identified. Lessons shared are very valuable, go to the heart of the problem and include self-reflection relating to any assumptions tested or a change of opinion that demonstrates the importance of the experience. The insights identified should be insightful, understandable to a wider audience, and should represent possible action points for all those working in the field.

Map the System! Evaluation criteria

Purpose of the document: This document can be used as a basis for evaluation.

Guidelines: The combination of visual, written and oral materials together form a single body of knowledge that must be assessed comprehensively. Therefore, the judges will base their final decisions on the visual and written evidence as well as on the oral presentation and the answers to questions posed during any project presentation.

The evaluation is carried out in three steps:

- Step 1: Evaluation of written documents - presentation of outputs

- Step 2: Evaluation of written submissions - key questions and approach

- Step 3: Evaluation of the oral presentation and answering questions

The submissions are evaluated numerically. Each bullet represents one criterion and is worth 5 points. Each criterion is scored on a scale of 1 to 5 as follows:

Rating

Guidance for scoring each criterion

1 - Very weak: The supporting documents for this criterion are insufficient, i.e. they lack important data.

2 - Weak: The evidence for this criterion is of poor quality, i.e. it does not contain sufficient data, is not sufficiently detailed or contains obvious inaccuracies.

3 - Average: The evidence for this criterion is average or borderline, i.e. it contains the minimum required level of detail.

4 - Good: The evidence for this criterion is rated as very good, i.e. above average in terms of level of detail.

5 - Exceptional: The submissions for this criterion are 'best in class' and demonstrate exceptional depth and breadth of research/reflection.

Step 1: Evaluation of written submissions - presentation of outputs

Criteria:

System Map:

- Clearly identifies the key components and dynamics of relationships within the system, including justification of the boundary of the system and its environment.

- It goes beyond a network map, actor map or stakeholder map and shows how the different parts of the system interact to create the problem (e.g. feedback loops). Attempts should be made to illustrate the dynamics of influence, power dynamics, root causes and/or experiences of those operating in the system.

- Meets an adequate level of detail and presents the information in an informed, compelling and understandable manner.

Research Summary :

- Provides a useful and compelling summary of the research that completes the system map, including exploration of root causes, key findings, and lessons learned.

- The written report is clear, logical and informative.

- Opinions are firmly supported by research and referenced to sources.

Bibliography and sources :

- Demonstrates the use of diverse research sources (i.e., not only locating, collecting, processing, and evaluating existing data, but also a mix of academic sources from different disciplines, media articles or opinions, community-generated reports, and practitioner/user perspectives).

- The bibliography is sufficiently cited/sourced.

Step 2: Evaluation of written submissions - key questions and approach

Criteria:

Understanding of the problem:

- Demonstrates an in-depth understanding of the identified problem and presents a macro view of the industry (including an outline of the scope and impact of the problem) with justification for the chosen threshold.

- It addresses the key underlying factors (root causes) of the problem and includes both a hypothesis as to why the problem persists and a position on the trajectory and history of systemic change.

- It demonstrates an understanding of the relationships, linkages and power dynamics of the direct and indirect key actors involved in the issues.

Use of systems thinking:

- Demonstrates an understanding and use of relevant systems thinking tools and concepts in researching, mapping, and describing systems.

- Demonstrates a broad perspective and the ability to perceive the whole system.

- Understands key relationships and networks of interconnections within and across the system.

- Considers mental models, embedded structures, power dynamics, and critical reflection on personal and/or popular assumptions.

Understanding of existing solutions:

- Thoroughly describes different interventions or solutions within a system and explores different perspectives.

- Draws on a wide range of different approaches at local and global levels, including those that address the same problem or are closely related to it.

- Demonstrates an understanding of the nature and diversity of existing solutions, including an evaluation and justification of their success or failure and a rationale for why existing options do not address the identified problem.

Identification of levers for change and options for intervention:

- Identifies potential impact opportunities and leverage points in the system that could be leveraged for positive system change.

- It not only looks for untapped (market) opportunities or ideas for new start-ups, but also identifies potential leverage points, such as missing linkages or relationships, structural changes, policy changes, opportunities or initiatives to change behavior that involve broader actors such as government, nonprofits, or researchers.

- Uses this analysis to formulate recommendations by suggesting options for interventions (or two or three complementary interventions). Note that the proposed "solution" can be any lever in the system with an existing market opportunity/opportunity for intervention; it does not have to be a specific product or service.

- Identifies potential implementation issues in promoting change through this intervention and analyzes expected outcomes of possible future scenarios.

Key insights, reflections and lessons learned:

- Demonstrates a deeper awareness and honest reflection of key insights and lessons learned during the research and mapping process.

- Demonstrates an understanding that complex problems cannot be viewed from a single perspective and without context, and that multiple perspectives and contexts are necessary to properly understand the problem. The lessons learned are very valuable, insightful and understandable and are possible points of action for all those working in the field.

Step 3: Evaluation of the oral presentation

Criteria:

Content:

- Provides a concise, clear, and understandable overview of the problem and solution, identifying key relationships, systemic patterns, interconnections, and power dynamics.

- Includes the data necessary to explain the current state of the system (gaps and root causes) and propose the essential elements necessary for its transformation (levers of change).

- Demonstrates an understanding of the wider ecosystem in which the problem exists.

- The lessons learned are very valuable, insightful and understandable and include possible calls to action for all those working in the field.

Presentation:

- The presentation was compelling, coherent, engaging and thoughtful. The presenter(s) showed enthusiasm and passion for the research area.

- Visually, the presentation included a systems map that went beyond a simple listing of actors.

- The findings are articulated in a way that people can meaningfully understand and learn from.

Answering questions:

- Questions were answered adequately and concisely.

- Where answers were not known, the response was modest and honest.

- Teams were well prepared for questions about ethics and research approach.