How you’ll be judged.
Every team is scored by the judging panel on the same five criteria. University and school teams are judged against standards that fit what each can achieve in the time.
What judges look for.
Problem understanding
Explains the DXB problem clearly: who is affected, why it matters, and which scenario or users they chose
Innovation and creativity
An original idea or a fresh way of using AI, data or the DXB map, beyond the obvious answer
Solution and execution
How much of the solution works, how well it uses the supplied data, APIs and map, and whether it meets the brief's mandatory requirements
Impact, feasibility and responsible use
Real value for Dubai Airports, a realistic path to adoption, synthetic data only, people stay in control of AI decisions
Presentation and teamwork
A clear pitch within time, a confident Q&A, and every team member contributing
Bars show how many of the 100 points each criterion is worth in each track.
Each criterion scored 1 to 5.
Each score is converted into points using the criterion’s weight for your track, and the five criteria add up to a total out of 100.
Example: a score of 4 on Solution and execution (University weight 30) earns 4 × 30 ÷ 5 = 24 points.
What a 1, a 3 and a 5 look like.
| Criterion | Score 1 looks like | Score 3 looks like | Score 5 looks like |
|---|---|---|---|
| Problem understandingWeight 15 pts | Restates the challenge title; no clear user or pain point | Explains the problem and the users affected, with one or two realistic DXB situations | Sharp insight into the root cause, uses evidence from the brief and data, and clearly scopes what they chose to solve |
| Innovation and creativityWeight 20 pts | Generic chatbot or dashboard with nothing specific to DXB | Some original features or a sensible new use of the supplied data | A genuinely new approach that makes judges think again about the problem |
| Solution and executionWeight 30 pts | Slides only, or a demo that does not run | Working demo of the core flow on supplied data; mandatory requirements met | Robust end-to-end demo, clean design, strong use of the APIs, data and map, handles edge cases |
| Impact, feasibility and responsible useWeight 20 pts | Benefit unclear; uses real personal data or lets AI act unchecked | Clear benefit for DA staff or passengers and a believable path to a pilot; synthetic data only | Benefit is measured (time, cost, passengers), integration path is realistic, AI outputs are explainable with people in control |
| Presentation and teamworkWeight 15 pts | Over time, unclear, one person does everything | Clear story within time; answers most questions | Compelling, well-timed pitch; confident, honest Q&A; every member contributes |
| Criterion | Score 1 looks like | Score 3 looks like | Score 5 looks like |
|---|---|---|---|
| Problem understandingWeight 20 pts | Cannot say who the solution is for | Describes the problem in their own words and who it helps | Explains the problem clearly with a real example from the brief and why it matters to DXB |
| Innovation and creativityWeight 25 pts | Copies an existing app with no new idea | At least one creative idea of their own | A surprising, imaginative idea that judges would want to explore further |
| Solution and executionWeight 20 pts | Idea only, nothing to show | A mock-up, wireframe or partly working demo shows the main idea | A clickable prototype or working demo, even if simple, that uses some of the supplied data or map |
| Impact, feasibility and responsible useWeight 15 pts | No link to how it would help the airport | Explains who benefits and how, and uses only the data provided | Thinks about how it could really be used at DXB and how people stay in charge of the AI |
| Presentation and teamworkWeight 20 pts | Hard to follow; only one member takes part | Clear story; most members take part; try to answer questions | Engaging, well-organised pitch; everyone speaks; thoughtful answers |
Scores of 2 and 4 sit between these descriptions.