Call 9 Evaluation Criteria
All applications will be assessed against all criteria at the first, sift stage. Reviewers will complete a rubric and indicate whether they think the application is well suited to Pilot, Discovery, or neither. The Dragon’s Den is an opportunity to dig deeper into each criteria. Applications are not expected to be assessed as ‘strong’ against all criterion. Nascent ideas are welcomed however ideas that are not ready for real world testing are more likely to be awarded discovery phase support, in the first instance. This is a pre pilot phase that enables FCDO to validate elements of an idea through exploration or experimentation, following which the idea may graduate to become a pilot. See our FAQs for more information about the difference between pilots and discovery phase projects.
The evaluators will select, from the highest scoring applications, a cohort of discovery projects and pilots that complement the existing portfolio. The Hub is interested in supporting projects which build on the learning generated to date, and in supporting applications exploring outstanding problems and research gaps that have not been explored by previous pilots to generate new learnings.
If you’re considering an application for an idea which has a focus on any of the following technologies, consider looking into the relevant pilots in the FT Hub’s current pilot portfolio through the links below:
1. Clear problem statement
-
A problem is well considered and demonstrated with examples and or evidence. The problem definition identifies:
The current impact of the problem
The underlying causes of the problem.
Which users are affected.
The problem is a priority in the context or regionally. This can be demonstrated by referencing alignment with other initiatives in the sector, or other supporting evidence.
[ODA] The problem is focused on addressing development challenges (e.g. SDGs).
[Non ODA – Mission capabilities] The problem is focused on addressing a challenge faced by FCDO in its operation or its ability to deliver on its mission.
-
A problem is identified, but application may lack clarity on what aspects of the problem are being addressed by the proposed solution.
-
The problem is poorly articulated with little identification of the current impacts, underlying causes, or unserved user needs within the problem space – or of the ‘addressable’ aspects of the problem space that this pilot will seek to address.
2. Proposed solution
-
A proposed solution is identified that comprehensively and credibly addresses the problem. The application outlines a solution whereby:
It is clear what the core elements of the solution are (e.g. new technologies, processes data).
It is clear who the users of the solution are, and what user needs the solution helps to address.
It is clear how the solution could fit into the local context (e.g. existing users, wider stakeholders, processes, technologies and data), and clear how the solution is additional to solutions that already exist.
Intended impacts of the solution are clearly outlined.
-
A solution is articulated with identified elements (assumed technologies, assumed users, etc) but may lack clarity on how the solution fits into the existing context, is additional to existing solutions, or will be shaped by the context.
-
It’s unclear how the solution would apply, or it is unlikely that a technological solution will help to address the identified problem.
The proposed solution is weak or does not adequately address the problem.
3. Genuinely frontier
-
Globally innovative application of a frontier technology.
Solution is innovative either because it uses an emerging technology, or it applies an established technology in a new way or context.
-
Technology is relatively new to the country or sector in question.
Similar applications of this technology may already exist, but at a very early stage, and in different geographies or for different use cases.
Examples provided.
-
Technology already frequently used in both the country and sector in question, for similar use cases.
Similar applications of the technology exist and are ongoing.
4. Clear demand for the solution, which is contextually appropriate
-
Identifies a clear use case for the innovation. Identifies the different users and end beneficiaries of the innovation (noting that these actors may be different) and articulates how it will help to solve a problem for them that isn't already being met by other solutions.
-
Identifies users and / or ultimate end beneficiaries for the innovation - but without providing clarity on how the innovation solves a problem that can't already be met by other solutions.
Shows some awareness of contextual factors that will need to be considered for innovation to be successful, without clearly articulating the areas of opportunity, or context-specific needs for innovation.
-
Lacks clarity on the likely users of the innovation or the problem the innovation helps to solve.
Limited clarity on how the innovation will work in the local context, or how it will be adapted to meet specific contextual requirements.
5. Strategic alignment with FCDO priorities
-
The application demonstrates clear links to FCDO priorities and ongoing / future programming or policy work, including links to team, directorate, FCDO or HMG strategies.
[ODA] Transformative and/or lifesaving potential for beneficiaries or communities to improve their lives and livelihoods. Accelerates progress towards solutions to critical development challenges.
[Non-ODA – Mission capabilities] The solution fits with FCDO’s strategic priorities, operating context and constraints (e.g. legal, ethical, security etc.)
-
Some links to FCDO programmes, policy work or partnerships.
UK priorities and how the pilot would accelerate progress on these priorities is less clear.
[ODA] Potential development impacts are identified, but the nature of impact on individual lives / livelihoods is not necessarily transformative.
Equity considerations around implementing the innovation are referenced (without necessarily setting clear goals or targeting specific vulnerable groups), if applicable.
-
Not well integrated, risks being a satellite project, with limited value to the Proposer, Country Office, team or FCDO.
6. Sustainability and scalability
-
Application demonstrates an understanding of cost and feasibility of the innovation.
Application provides a vision for how the innovation will be sustained in the longer term, including either a vision for a commercially sustainable business model or a business case for long-term public or donor investment.
Solution has potential to reach scale by either impacting large numbers of people or significantly improving delivery of programmes or policy work.
Vision (if not early progress) on engaging key stakeholders and partners, and potential to leverage additional investment.
-
Applicant struggles to demonstrate cost and feasibility analysis.
Application provides a vision for how the innovation will be sustained in the longer term, but understanding of ecosystem, demand and funding / business case could be strengthened.
While no clear path to scale has been identified, the solution shows scaling potential.
-
Not yet clear how the project could be sustained beyond the pilot stage, with little consideration or understanding of the wider ecosystem.
Unclear leadership and buy-in to the bid.
No clear path to scale the solution beyond what is achieved in the pilot.
7. Quality and feasibility of learning plan
-
Learning questions critically test the proposed solution and get to the root of the problem the pilot is trying to solve.
Evidence and insights generated through the project will inform FCDO priorities and programmatic work. Proposer(s) clearly demonstrates relevance of the anticipated learning to FCDO and their partners and indicates opportunities to promote uptake of learning.
[ODA] Learning questions aim to produce new, cutting-edge evidence on the potential for emerging technologies to address a social or development use case through in field testing.
Appropriate risks and mitigating actions are clearly articulated.
-
Evidence generated by pilots may be relatively new, but it is less clear how this evidence is of value to FCDO in terms of its development priorities or relation to global insight and analysis work.
Clear and focused learning questions are set out - but may not help to test the most uncertain elements of proposed solution.
Some appropriate consideration of risks and/or mitigating actions.
-
Learning questions may have already been answered elsewhere / evidence generated is not new.
No uptake linkages or demand demonstrated.
Lack of realistic consideration of risks and/or mitigating actions.
8. Commitment and motivation of Pioneer
-
Proposer(s) clearly demonstrates their motivation for exploring the technology and use case.
Proposer (and partner) are committed to generating and sharing evidence on ‘what works’ both within FCDO and beyond. The proposer(s) (and partner) are open to sharing details of the solution and how it works in line with FCDO’s open-source policy.
Proposer is well connected to relevant networks and is enthusiastic about disseminating learning within them.
Proposer has demonstrable support from manager/department, and other interested parties within the FCDO who can support their pioneer journey and help develop and disseminate learning.
Proposer (and proposed partner) are aware of the Hub’s use of lean and agile methods and are interested in how this approach might enhance their pilot.
Proposer has at least 18 months remaining in their role, or has a clear successor in mind who is also supportive of the application.
-
Proposer (and partner) are unfamiliar with the Hub’s method and show limited interest in exploring lean and agile ways of working. Some gaps in applicants' willingness to share details of solution design as it’s developed, or insights and learnings from project activities.
Proposer demonstrates strong individual commitment to testing the technology and use case but has limited support from team, relevant cadre or others in the technical area of the proposed solution.
Proposer is aware of relevant networks but isn’t necessarily well-connected within them.
Proposer will be leaving post in the near future.
-
Idea seems to be have been generated from implementing partner, or the Proposer’s connection/buy-in to the idea is not clear.
Reservations from team on sharing details of solution as it is developed through the pilot or disseminating insights and learning on findings from project activities.
Proposer will be leaving post in the near future.
If a partner is proposed as part of the application, their suitability to deliver the pilot will be assessed only if the FCDO applicant’s pilot is selected. IF the pilot is selected, the Hub will work will FCDO to confirm if the proposed supplier is best suited to deliver the engagement or, if there are potential reasonable alternative suppliers. The Hub may select the FCDO applicant’s idea but not approve sole sourcing of the proposed partner, recommending instead that a tendering process is undertaken to identify an alternative implementing partner(s). Implementing partner(s), either sole sourced or selected via an open tender, will be contracted by DT Global, subject to due diligence checks. See our FAQs for more information.