ASSESSMENT CRITERIA BUSINESS CHALLENGE
Appendix 1: Assessment criteria step 1
Name of company:
| 0 | Is there a concrete project proposal | Yes / no |
| 1 | Consistency with BSD Design Principles | |
| 1. | BSD and its residents promote quality of life (including happiness, cohesion and health); | |
| 2. | Everyone feels safe, secure and welcome in BSD society; | |
| 3. | Activities meet global challenges; | |
| 4. | Residents share facilities and services and use them freely; | |
| 5. | BSD does not emit greenhouse gases or produce waste; | |
| 6. | Only renewable energy sources are used that produce excess energy. No natural gas is used in BSD; | |
| 7. | New sources and materials are only used if there is no alternative; | |
| 8. | Mobility is accessible for all; | |
| 9. | Residents are empowered when it comes to healthcare and illness prevention; | |
| 10. | All data generated and associated income is shared among and managed by BSD residents; | |
| 11. | Developments are implemented as a co-creation process (including residents, researchers, business and government) and can be adapted to future changes. | |
| 12. | Developments not only apply to BSD, but also to other districts in Helmond, cities in the Netherlands, and globally. | |
| Score | ||
| Insufficiently consistent with the design principles | ||
| Sufficiently consistent with the design principles | ||
Highly consistent with the design principles
|
| 2. Consistency with BSD programme lines | ||
| 1. | Attractive Circular District | |
| 2. | Participation | |
| 3. | Social and Safe District | |
| 4. | Healthy District | |
| 5. | Digital District | |
| 6. | Mobile District | |
| 7. | District with Energy | |
| 8. | District with Water | |
| Score | ||
| Insufficiently consistent with one or more programme lines | ||
| Sufficiently consistent with one or more programme lines | ||
| Highly consistent with one or more programme lines |
| 3. | Outcome of assessment |
| Is the proposal consistent with the principles and parameters as stated in the inspiration book | YES / NO |
| 4. | Outcome of assessment |
| Does the proposal offer a significant new innovative and/or disruptive perspective compared to the parameters already defined? | YES / NO |
Appendix 2: Assessment criteria step 2
| Weighting | Score | |||
| 1. | Innovative value | The degree to which the proposal focuses on a new product, service, process or concept. | 15% | |
| 2. | Contribution to Brainport Smart District | The degree to which the proposal fits the BSD Design Principles and BSD programme lines, as well as the BSD planning. | 25% | |
| 3. | Outline of the approach | Does the proposal comply with the outlines of project -based working with MROTICQ parameters (Money, Risk, Organisation, Time, Information, Communication and Quality)? | 10% | |
| 4. | Market test | Is there a vision on the market perspective and is there any prospect of a revenue model and is the product/service scalable? | 10% | |
| 5. | (Technical) feasibility | Is there any outlook on the technical feasibility? | 5% | |
| 7. | Project funding | Prospect of a plan for funding and requirements? | 10% | |
| 8. | Project organisation | Are the necessary knowledge, skill and experience available? | 15%. | |
| 9. | Project planning | Planning of preparation; projected start? | 10% | |
| Total score | Weighted score | xx points | ||
Assessment:
- = Unsatisfactory
- = Satisfactory
- = Good
MOTIQ = Money, Organisation, Time, Information and Quality