Assessment Criteria

The judges assessing the submissions require simplification of the key components of what could be a large complex project so we have provided the guidelines below to help you frame your project objectives. 

Innovation

This is the primary outcome of the competition so we have expanded the definitions to include the following essential elements:
  1. Innovation means something new that has not been widely used or recognized as a valuable contribution to exploration.It may have been published as a method, but illustration of the method in a valid exploration context with clear demonstration of the incremental value is important.
  2. Application of existing off the shelf techniques to produce new insights in an exploration context. The techniques could come from other disciplines.
  3. Innovation could be associated with either visualisation or data integration or both together with the latter scoring higher.
 

Judging Criterion

 
Criterion Subcriterion   Weighting   Description Total
Visualisation 1 20 Novelty - New, uncommon, common use  
    35
2 5 Hardware simplicity (high good, low poor)
3 5 Software simplicity (high good, low poor)
4 5 Degree of difficulty (low good, high poor)
Integration 1 20 Data types  
    30
2 5 Ease of understanding
3 5 Degree of difficulty (low good, high poor)
Impact & Exploration Significance 1 15 Improvement on exploration project outcomes     25
2 10 Probable impact on global uptake
Team Collaboration 1 5 No of discipline specialists     10
2 5 Level of joint sittings for collaboration
 

Visualisation – Novelty (weight =20)

There are numerous visualisation software products available to participants and we have deliberately not defined what software technologies they use, whether existing or new. The way in which they are used to deliver the innovative story behind the data is a key element of the project.  Innovation examples could include new methods of visualization in 2D and 3D formats, innovative use of existing methods or the presentation of new data types in ways not commonly used.

Visualisation - Hardware (5)

Visualisation methods can be performed on a sub $1,000 tablet or a plus $100,000 3D immersion studio. Affordability becomes important to ensure that the method has wide accessibility. Simplicity (high good, low poor).

Visualisation - Software simplicity (5)

Software costs and technical training requirements vary widely across the industry, but affordability and ease of use is important for accessibility to the widest possible range of users. (high good, low poor).

Visualisation - Degree of difficulty (5)

The degree of difficulty in preparing the data for visualisation impacts upon the methods ultimate acceptance. (low good, high poor)

Integration - Data types (20)

The integration of diverse data types to enhance the comprehension of important exploration relationships can quickly clutter the view and obscure the desired linkages. The integration must demonstrate the insights of the geoscientists in relation to the specific exploration objective and their understanding of the most innovative way to view the concepts.

Integration - Ease of understanding (5)
How well does the integrated view(s) convey the key exploration concepts?

Integration - Degree of difficulty (5)

How difficult was it to create the integrated view in terms of manipulating the data and its visual characteristics. (low good, high poor)

Impact - Improvement on exploration project outcomes (15)

Explains clearly how the visualisation and integration changed or would change the exploration outcomes of this specific project.  A comparison with conventional approaches could help illustrate this point.

Impact - Probable impact on global uptake (10)

What impact will the innovative visualisation and data integration methodology have on the global exploration community if it is easily accessible on a commonly used software/hardware platform?

Collaboration - Number of discipline specialists (5)

Identify the individual participants, their specialisation and their approximate percentage time commitment to the project.  The inclusion of other geoscience disciplines and non-geoscience disciplines will rate highly.

Collaboration - Level of joint sittings for collaboration (5)

Identify how the individuals collaborated to achieve the project outcome.  This could be the frequency of one on one meetings, group meetings or project leaders calling on individual specialists.  The efficiency of the teamwork and identification of significant outcomes is rated highly.

Our judges will use their discretion for outstanding contributions that may fall outside these specific criteria.


Please note: To guarantee fair and non-biased judging, all submissions will be presented to the judging panel on an anonymous basis. The team name, location and category specifics will not be revealed to the judges. Please ensure you do not include any embedded logos or watermarks.