Professional Documents
Culture Documents
83
DATE: 12 MARCH 2018
Through:
DR. MOHD HANAFI BIN AHMAD DAMANHURI
Principal,
Tun Dr. Ismail Residential College
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
With all due respect, the Student’s Council of Tun Dr. Ismail Residence is honoured to have you as
our adjudicator for our event, Intervarsity Invention and Innovation in Medicine Idea Challenge
(MIIC) 2018.
2. MIIC 2018 is an intervarsity program, aimed to create a platform for undergraduate students
from various allied science fields to showcase their talent in brainstorming and innovation that is
closely related to the medical field so that the current medical field can be improved through the
existing technology. It is also organized with the aim of bridging universities throughout Malaysia
through intellectualism and innovation.
3. 16 teams will be shortlisted, after a screening process by the appointed scientific committee
members. They will be evaluated based on the criteria listed in Appendix A according to your
judiciousness. Following each team’s 5-minute pitch, there will be a 10-minute Q&A session for the
panel of adjudicators to interact with the participants. The adjudicators will then provide constructive
criticism and feedback on the teams’ performance after all the teams have pitched.
5. We would like to express our deepest gratitude once again for your willingness in contributing
your expertise to the success of MIIC 2018. We truly believe your sagacity will set a standard of
quality for our program. See you on the 21st of April 2018.
Thank You.
Sincerely,
GROUP NAME
TITLE
JUDGE
The categories and criteria for winning innovations are listed below. Each team will receive a score in all
categories, and the winners will be those with the highest overall scores. While scoring is defined here as 1, 3,
or 5, judges will just have to circle the score which is relevant to the performance of the team. Comments are
welcomed to improve the quality of the idea.
1. Problem Definition: Does the team have a clear and deep understanding of the problem? Is there a
clear pain-point their idea is addressing? Is the societal or market need clearly articulated? Do they
understand the ecosystem that surrounds the problem?
Score Evaluation Criteria
5 Team has clearly defined the problem and demonstrates a deep understanding of
how the idea fills the need.
3 Team is clear on the problem, but not articulate on how the idea meets the need
(or vice versa).
2. User and Customer Definition: Did the team talk to users and customers to validate assumptions? Is
their user and customer well-defined? Does the team understand their user's need?
Points Evaluation Criteria
5 Team has conducted excellent customer discovery, reaching out and listening to a
range of potential stakeholders in effective ways, learning from their experiences,
and making significant adjustments when necessary.
3 Team has conducted some customer discovery and has made some adjustments
based on what they have learned.
3 Team has a clear solution but is not clear on how it meets the need.
4. Innovation: Is their solution distinctive or fundamentally different from existing approaches? Could
their solution viably be implemented and sustained in the real world? Would their implementation
strategy inspire people to support it - and you?
Score Evaluation Criteria
5. Sustainability: Has the team developed a plan for the sustainability of their innovation? (For this
competition, sustainability means the ability to continually generate revenue to sustain the operations
of the team's innovation/venture.)
Score Evaluation Criteria
5 Team displays a solid plan to make the project’s operations sustainable.
3 Team has thought about how to make the project’s operations sustainable, but still
has significant gaps in its plan.
1 Team does not have a viable plan for how to sustain the project’s operations.
6. Potential for social impact: Does the team clearly define a societal problem? Does their solution
demonstrate the potential to change how impact is achieved? Does their solution make life better for
their target population? How much potential exists for scaling their product’s social impact?
Score Evaluation Criteria
5 Team has excellent experience, a solid base of partners and advisors, and is clearly
passionate.
3 Team has some experience, has begun to reach out to partners, and displays passion
for its innovation.
1 Team is inexperienced, has not connected with potential partners, and/or does not
display much passion.
8. Presentation and Other Strengths: Was the presentation professional and well-practiced? Is there
anything else that the team has done exceptionally well?
Score Evaluation Criteria
5 Team demonstrates exceptional, participatory presentation skills that integrate all
team members' strengths and abilities. Team is professional in appearance and is
strong in its overall cohesion and related skills
3 Team demonstrates moderate presentation and team cohesion/related skills but
would benefit from further guidance and practice.
“Negaraku”
“Varsiti Kita”
DK 1, Pre-Clinical Building
i. Dr Mohd Hanafi Ahmad
Damanhuri
ii. Dr Tan Toh Leong
iii. Choo Yung Wei
iv. YBhg. Prof. Dato’ Noor Aziah
Mohd Awal (TNC HEPA UKM)
9.00 am – 9.30 am Breakfast Lobby, Pre-Clinical Building
9.30 am –9.45 am Keynote address
9.45 am – 10.00 Intermission and Briefing
am
10.00 am – 1.00 Idea presentation DK 1, Pre-Clinical Building
pm
10.00 am – 11.00 Pitching A – Group 1 - 4 * 10 minutes break in between each
am group
11.10 am – 12.10 Pitching B – Group 5 - 8
pm
12.20 pm – 1.20 Pitching C – Group 9 - 11
pm
1.20 pm – 2.30 pm Lunch & Prayer
Lobby, Pre-Clinical Building
2.30 pm – 3.45 pm Pitching D – Group 12 - 16