Dates
November 15th, 2025 @ 8:15 am - 8:00 pm
Eligibility
Women in engineering at the University of Waterloo and eligible to participate! Projects must align with one of the two hackathon themes: Healthcare or Education.
SUBmission Requirements
At the end of the hackathon, teams should be prepared to:
-
Submit their project through Devpost by 5pm
- All pitches must be 3 minutes in length (2 minutes for Q&A) - 5 minutes in total
-
Include a link to their GitHub repository or other relevant project files.
-
Prepare a demo or presentation showcasing their solution.
-
Explain the technologies used and highlight any innovative features.
Additional submission instructions will be communicated to participants during the event.
JUDGING rUBRICS
Projects will be evaluated by industry professionals and judges from PointClickCare and Avanade. Each hackathon theme has its own judging rubric, while all projects are also eligible for Best Overall.
🏥 PointClickCare Challenge: Collaboration for Patients and Healthcare Workers
This challenge focuses on improving communication and collaboration between patients and healthcare workers.
WiE Hackathon | Judging Rubric
| Category | No Credit (0 pts) | Developing (1 pt) | Effective (2 pts) | Excellent (3 pts) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Problem Definition & Healthcare Context | The problem is unclear, unrealistic, or does not address collaboration between patients and healthcare staff. | Identifies a healthcare challenge, but lacks clear understanding of clinical or patient workflows. | Clearly defines a specific communication or care bottleneck with realistic user needs for patients and clinicians. | Sharply defined, realistic healthcare problem showing strong empathy for both patient experience and clinical workload. |
| User Experience | Only one side of the interaction exists, or the interface is confusing and impractical for clinical use. | Both patient and clinician views exist, but logging information feels clunky or disconnected. | Clean, practical interfaces for both sides; patients can log status and staff can track observations smoothly in one place. | Intuitive, empathetic UI tailored to both user groups; drastically simplifies data entry and makes reviewing patient history effortless. |
| Data to Insights | Data is collected but never analyzed; outputs are purely raw numbers or decorative charts. | Shows simple totals or summaries, but fails to extract clear meaning or help users make decisions. | Effectively turns collected logs/vitals into useful alerts, clear trends, or actionable takeaways for care staff. | Delivers smart, practical insights (e.g., spotting potential outbreaks, flagging deteriorating vitals, or highlighting critical patterns). |
| Workflow Simplification & Multimedia | Relies entirely on tedious manual forms with no effort to simplify user input. | Mentions multimedia or easier workflows, but the execution is barely functional or feels unnecessary. | Effectively integrates voice, images, or audio/video to cut down on typing and streamline care steps. | Seamless multimedia integration (e.g., voice dictation, photo symptom logging) that genuinely speeds up routine tasks for busy staff. |
| Use of AI (In-App or Development) | No AI used anywhere, either within the app or in the process of designing and building it. | AI use is minimal or unclear, with little explanation of how it aided the product or build workflow. | Clear, purposeful use of AI—either integrated into app features or used effectively to speed up development and prototyping. | Creative and thoughtful use of AI; whether powering smart product capabilities or leveraged skillfully to build a complex, polished prototype fast. |
| Presentation & Live Demo | Disorganized pitch; the live demo fails to demonstrate how data moves between patient and staff. | Functional demo, but explanations of technical decisions and workflow lack clarity or structure. | Clear, confident walk-through showing a working end-to-end flow from patient input to healthcare worker review. | Polished and engaging delivery; team smoothly demonstrates the live tool, clearly highlights clinical value, and explains their build approach well. |
This challenge focuses on addressing educational barriers and creating more inclusive, accessible learning experiences through technology.
WiE Hackathon | Judging Rubric
| Category | No Credit (0 pts) | Developing (1 pt) | Effective (2 pts) | Excellent (3 pts) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Problem Definition | The problem is unclear or does not address educational barriers or student diversity. | The challenge is identified, but lacks depth or clear focus on who the solution supports. | The problem is clearly defined and supported by research, user reasoning, or clear lived experience. | The problem is sharply defined, thoroughly researched, and targets a specific educational barrier with strong context. |
| Inclusivity & Accessibility | Shows little to no consideration for diverse learners or basic access needs. | Includes a few accessibility features, but they feel like an afterthought rather than a core focus. | The design intentionally supports accessibility (e.g., clear fonts, high contrast, screen reader compatibility) and diverse user needs. | Deeply committed to accessibility and universal design, supporting accommodations like neurodiverse learning needs, multiple languages, or assistive tools. |
| Technical Implementation & AI Use | The project has little to no technical function or working code. | The tech stack or AI components are very basic, poorly integrated, or secondary to the solution. | The project builds a working prototype that uses tech, data logic, or AI effectively to tackle the problem. | The code is well-built, runs reliably, and uses AI or data in a smart, practical way that is central to the project's success. |
| Solution Quality & Feasibility | The solution does not realistically solve the targeted problem. | The solution addresses the issue on paper, but lacks originality or practical real-world execution. | The solution is practical, creative, and offers a clear improvement over current tools or methods. | The solution is original, viable, and has a clear path to being implemented or scaled in real classrooms or schools. |
| Educational Impact | The tool does not provide any clear educational value or help students learn better. | The learning benefits are minimal, vague, or tough to pinpoint. | The project clearly helps students learn, stay engaged, or gain skills more effectively. | The project shows strong potential to tangibly boost academic success, student belonging, or access to education at scale. |
| Presentation & Live Demo | The presentation is disorganized and the live demo fails to show how the project works. | The demo shows basic functionality, but the team's explanations lack clarity or structure. | The team presents clearly and comfortably, walking through the demo and explaining their decisions well. | The pitch is sharp, confident, and professional, clearly explaining the tech, the live demo, and how it directly helps students. |
The Best Overall award is open to projects from either theme. This rubric recognizes the most complete and well-executed solutions, considering functionality, technical execution, user experience, innovation, impact, and presentation.
WiE Hackathon | Judging Rubric
| Category | No Credit (0 pts) | Developing (1 pt) | Effective (2 pts) | Excellent (3 pts) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Functionality & Completeness | The project has little to no working functionality or does not address the stated problem. | Some core features work, but the project is incomplete or has noticeable gaps. | The main features work as intended, and the project provides a complete solution to the problem. | The project is fully functional, polished, and demonstrates a complete end-to-end solution. |
| Technical Execution | The technical implementation is unclear, unreliable, or shows little technical development. | The project demonstrates basic technical implementation, but has reliability issues or limited integration. | The project is well-implemented, with effective use of technologies and reliable core functionality. | The technical execution is robust, reliable, and demonstrates strong integration and thoughtful engineering decisions. |
| User Experience & Design | The interface is difficult to use, confusing, or lacks consideration for its intended users. | The interface is usable but has inconsistencies or areas that could be improved. | The design is intuitive, organized, and supports a positive user experience. | The experience is polished, accessible, and exceptionally intuitive, with thoughtful design throughout. |
| Innovation & Insights | The project offers little originality or does not provide meaningful insights. | The solution includes some original ideas, but its features or insights are limited. | The project introduces creative features or provides useful insights that improve the solution. | The project demonstrates exceptional creativity, with standout features or insights that meaningfully distinguish it from existing approaches. |
| Impact & Problem-Solving | The project does not clearly address the problem or demonstrate meaningful potential impact. | The project addresses the problem, but its potential benefits are limited or unclear. | The solution addresses a meaningful problem and demonstrates clear potential to benefit its intended users. | The solution has strong potential for meaningful, lasting impact and could significantly improve the experience of its intended users. |
| Presentation & Live Demo | The presentation is disorganized, and the demo does not clearly demonstrate the project. | The team explains the basic idea, but the presentation or demo lacks clarity and structure. | The team presents clearly, demonstrates the main features, and explains the project's value and technical approach. | The pitch is polished and compelling, with a strong live demo that clearly communicates the project's functionality, technical execution, and impact. |
Winner Selections
Projects will be evaluated using the rubric corresponding to their selected hackathon theme. All projects are also eligible for Best Overall, regardless of their chosen theme.
The following awards will be presented:
-
Best Overall (1st, 2nd, and 3rd Place): Open to projects from either theme. Recognizes the most complete and well-executed solutions based on the Best Overall judging rubric.
-
Best Technical Implementation of AI: Sponsored by Avanade. Recognizes the strongest backend logic or AI component, including rule-based systems or simple machine learning that delivers relevant, insightful outputs.
-
Best User Experience & Design: Sponsored by PointClickCare. Recognizes the most intuitive, clean, and accessible user interface, prioritizing ease of use and visual clarity.
-
Most Innovative Feature in Healthcare: Sponsored by PointClickCare. Recognizes a standout feature that goes beyond core requirements and demonstrates creativity and value in healthcare.
-
Most Innovative Feature in Education: Sponsored by Avanade. Recognizes a standout feature that goes beyond core requirements and demonstrates creativity and value in education.
For Best Overall, judges from both PointClickCare and Avanade will evaluate projects using the shared Best Overall rubric. Their scores will be used to determine the final rankings for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place.
Judges will also consider each team's project demonstration, creativity, and overall execution when determining winners for the sponsored award categories. Projects may be considered for multiple awards.
The judges' decisions will be final. Good luck to all our hackers — we can't wait to see the incredible solutions you create! 💜