The Jury

Lejla Hastor, Program manager @ Swedish Institute

Key competencies:

  • Business / Entrepreneur
  • Labour Market
  • Culture Sector
  • Sustainability

Olle Lundin, Founder @ Swedish JobTech

Key competencies:

  • Business / Entrepreneur
  • Labour Market

Göran Smith, Senior Researcher & Regional Developer @ RISE, Region Västra Götaland & University of Sydney

Key competencies:

  • Design / UX
  • Mobility Sector
  • Sustainability

Mustafa Sherif, Urban Planner @ Urbanistica Podcast

Key competencies:

  • Marketing / Communication
  • Smart City expert
  • Mobility Sector
  • Culture Sector
  • Sustainability

Jerry Löfvenhaft, Product manager @ Trafiklab – Samtrafiken i Sverige AB

Key competencies:

  • Business / Entrepreneur
  • Marketing / Communication
  • Mobility Sector

Kiann Stenkjær Hein, Managing Director @ PUBLIC Danmark

Key competencies:

  • Business / Entrepreneur

Johan Müllern-Aspegren, Innovation Lead @ Helsingborg Stad

Key competencies:

  • Design / UX
  • Health Sector

Elias Arnestrand, Head of Future Mobility @ Nordic Innovation House in Silicon Valley

Key competencies:

  • Mobility Sector

Julia Sandberg, Innovation leader and communication manager @ Helsingborgs stad – environmental section

Key competencies:

  • Marketing / Communication
  • Sustainability

Karl Fjelde Nevland, Project Manager @ Nordic Edge

Key competencies:

  • Technical
  • Business / Entrepreneur
  • Smart City expert

Michael Carlqvist, Senior Global Sales Manager @ WestPay

Key competencies:

  • Technical
  • Business / Entrepreneur
  • Marketing / Communication
  • Other

Johan Rosén, Strategic advisor @ City of Uppsala

Key competencies:

  • Smart City expert

Jury Evaluation Criteria

All solutions in the hackathon are to be judged on the following six criteria by the jury. There is no internal ranking between the criteria, they are all equally important.

The solution does not need to be technical, meaning that you don’t need to build your solution on code. Regardless if you want to participate and create a technical solution based on code or on a concept without code, everyone needs to send in a video demonstrating your solution. The video can consist of either a demo or on a similar way to demonstrate your concept in relation to the criteria (be innovative, examples could be; fly drones to show your solution, create a sketch, a fictional video etc).

  1. Comprehensibility –  Comprehensibility of the solution proposal’s value proposition and main use case –  Is it easy to understand the solution? How it works and how it will be implemented to make our cities smarter? How well is the solution detailed? Does it include a description of the key segments of people that will benefit from it? Will the final users of the solution understand it too or do they need special skills to take part?

  2. Realisability – Realisability of the solution from its current idea stage to product stage, used in production by its intended users in its problem context – Is this a smart solution that we can use? Is it resourceful? Do we have all the needed data? What are the risks? How soon can we get the solution to the intended users? Is the technology mature enough? How much effort is required?

  3. Innovativeness – Innovativeness of the idea behind the solution, as well as the intended technology to be used in an implementation of the solution. Are there existing or similar solutions? How do they differ from this one? Why has it not been done before?

  4. Scalability – Scalability of the solution if it is implemented and realized. How many Nordic citizens are experiencing the problem and pain? What is the expected demand? How many citizens can use this solution? How many are willing to pay for it or use it? How would it manage an exponentially growing user base/Could this solution be scaled if our cities grow even further?

  5. Benefit for society – Benefits that the solution would bring to society if realized, both monetary and non-monetary. How many in the problem context would experience an improvement and how extensive would that improvement be?

  6. Video presentation – Based on the video presentation, is this a well executed solution? How far is the solution developed? How well was it presented? 
    1. If built with code: Is the prototype working fully? If not, how well does it work?
    2. If not built with code: Is the concept detailed enough to implement? Is there a need for further development before one gets started?