Application Evaluation

Applicants are evaluated equally on the three core components that make a technology disruptive: Innovation, Impact, and Commercialization. Applications should include information that allows the reviewers to clearly see the underlying science and evaluate the questions below. An equal number of points is available in each of the three categories and will be awarded based on the contents of the entire application.

Be sure to keep these factors in mind when creating your application. Applications will be reviewed by the faculty.

Innovation (5 points) 

Points are awarded for applicants that demonstrate an innovative solution in laboratory medicine. Factors the reviewers consider include:

  • Has the applicant developed a new and exciting diagnostic tool or technology that is in the field of laboratory medicine?
  • Are the technology and the underlying science clearly described?
  • Has the applicant articulated their technology’s uniqueness compared to current solutions?
  • Has the applicant identified their competition, either direct or indirect, and demonstrated how the technology will provide a better solution?
  • Is the intellectual property protected and can the applicant prevent others from recreating its technology?

Impact (5 points) 

Points are awarded for technologies that show how the solution will have a great impact if adopted by the laboratory medicine community. Factors the reviewers consider include:

  • Has the applicant identified an unmet need in laboratory medicine that their technology will solve?
  • Will the technology affect healthcare costs and/or change current clinical practice?
  • Is the target market underserved, either because of historical patterns or lack of current diagnostic solutions?
  • Does it consider sustainability in product development, production, and/or use? Examples of appropriate sustainability factors include those outlined in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
  • Has the applicant demonstrated other recognition for their technology, such as prominent publications, industry awards, or competitive grants?

Commercialization (5 points) 

Points are awarded for technologies that illustrate good business practices that will help it succeed in the clinical laboratory medicine market. Reviewers will consider where your technology is in its development, the primary geographic location where the company operates and/or technology is planned to be deployed, and the audience and audience size among other factors when evaluating the application. Factors the reviewers consider include:

  • Has the applicant articulated a vision for how their technology will be commercially successful?
  • Is the team well positioned to support the vision?
  • Is the technology scalable, or on an appropriate pathway towards reaching scalability?
  • Is the identified target market appropriate and realistic as adopters of this solution?
  • Has the applicant addressed their pricing plan and a path to obtaining reimbursement?
  • Has the applicant identified the regulatory pathway and how far along they are?
  • Is there potential to expand to international markets?

Rating System

Each component (Innovation, Impact, and Commercialization) is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best. The reviewers will use the following rating system: 

  • 5: Outstanding: The application demonstrates clear and compelling evidence that the technology meets most or all of the factors. The information presented exceeds expectations for the level of the technology’s development. 
  • 4: Above average: The application demonstrates somewhat clear and compelling evidence that the technology meets most of the factors but the reviewer sees room for improvement. The information presented meets expectations for the level of the technology’s development. 
  • 3: Average: The application demonstrates evidence that the technology meets some or most of the factors. The information presented meets some expectations for the level of the technology’s development.
  • 2: Needs improvement: The application states that the technology meets the factors but did not include specific evidence. The information presented does not meet expectations for the level of the technology’s development. 
  • 1: Unsatisfactory: The application is missing key information for the reviewer to evaluate most of the factors and/or does not fit the competition’s mission.