•   about 5 years ago

App assessment at prototype stage

Our team is considering developing a functional prototype for submission in the Challenge. We had a clarifying question about "completeness of implementation" as noted in the rules.

If a submission is a functional prototype with certain functionality intentionally disabled or not yet developed, will that be considered "complete" for purposes of judging? For instance, if a team deliberately disabled capture of personal health information in order to avoid HIPAA compliance issues, is this acceptable?

  • 7 comments

  • Moderator   •   about 5 years ago

    Hi Squishymedia,

    Thanks for writing. As long as the disabled functionality is not the *main* functionality of your app, then intentionally disabling it to comply with HIPAA requirements should be fine.

    Please keep in mind, though, that your app must also comply with the following rules in order to be eligible:

    "Makers must create (or have created) a *working software application* that focuses on maximizing engagement and value for patients enrolled in clinical trials (each an "Application")."

    "The Application must be capable of being successfully installed and running consistently on the platform for which it is intended, and must function as depicted in the video and/or expressed in the text description."

    If a non-essential feature won't be developed by the challenge deadline, then you're welcome to make a note of it in your video or text description and explain any plans for future development.

    Thanks, and please let me know if I can clarify anything!

    All the best,
    Megan

  •   •   about 5 years ago

    Eric - thanks for posting this question, as it's important in a contest like this.

    Megan, thanks for your quick response.

    As I look at Judging Criteria (II) "Includes visual appeal and COMPLETENESS of implementation. Is the hierarchy and density of information user-friendly and digestible? How COMPLETE, robust and practical is the idea?", I assume that higher scoring will be given to apps that are fully realized. If functional elements are missing, the app may still be considered, but that it will likely receive a lower score in this judging criteria, particularly if the incomplete functionality is central to the overall value of that app.

    Does that sound right to you?

    Thanks!

    Jeff

  •   •   about 5 years ago

    I agree with Jeff -- interpretation of the rules here makes a critical difference regarding where efforts should be directed by participants. If functional prototypes are allowed, that allows teams to focus on their concepts and design. But if apps need to be release-grade, that shifts emphasis to implementation and QA. So a lot depends on what the Challenge sponsors want to see...

  • Moderator   •   about 5 years ago

    Hi Jeff and Squishymedia,

    Thanks for the follow up questions. Jeff, you are correct that your app would still be considered. Unfortunately, I can't comment on how highly it would score with the judges — I can only advise you on it's eligibility and compliance with the challenge requirements.

    I think the eligibility criteria and the judging criteria are being slightly confused here, so I want to clarify the difference. The eligibility criteria define what you need to make — the minimum requirements for getting your app accepted to challenge. The judging criteria, on the other hand, define how apps will be evaluated by the judges *after their eligibility has already been determined.*

    As I mentioned, the rules state that, "Makers must create (or have created) a *working software application* that focuses on maximizing engagement and value for patients enrolled in clinical trials (each an 'Application')" and that, "The Application must be capable of being successfully installed and running consistently on the platform for which it is intended, and must function as depicted in the video and/or expressed in the text description." If your apps meet those requirements (in addition to the other eligibility requirements) there should be no problem accepting your apps into the competition.

    Again, please let me know if I can clarify anything.

    All the best,
    Megan

  •   •   about 5 years ago

    Megan

    Thanks for the clarification. We actually have a fully operational iOS/Android app that we're planning to submit. That said, we're thinking about making a second submission for a newer project we're working on, thus our interest in this thread.

    One question on the working app. It's in several app stores, but in order to use it, you must have an activation code sent by our system. This control is necessary to make sure that proprietary study protocol information is not publicly available in the app stores...and also to have the app offer a customized experience for each study patient.

    Our system typically distributes the activation code via SMS. This makes it very easy to send a message to the phone that will help with the download process. I assume that it'll be possible for us to have our system send an SMS message to the judges (We already have the mobile phone numbers of several judges) with their individual activation codes. I assume that will be an acceptable way of helping the judges review the app on their phone? Please advise.

    Thanks for your help clarifying these details.

  • Moderator   •   about 5 years ago

    Hi Jeff,

    You sent an email to support@challengepost.com about this, correct? I'll respond to your email there and address the additional questions you posed here. I'm just working on getting answers to some of the questions that we don't know off hand.

    All the best,
    Megan

  •   •   about 5 years ago

    Thanks Megan. Yes, that was a question about whether SMS could be considered a platform.

    This question is about whether we could use SMS to send the activation codes to the judges for the iOS/Android app.

    So, they're similar but slightly different.

    Happy to take the answer via email. Thanks again for your help with this!

Comments are closed.