Cleveland, OH
Apr. 25-26, 2017


Meet the Judges                                                         Judging Criteria


Judging Panels

Open Division Team Judges

  • Benny Ayalew, Lead Architect, Google Brain – Healthcare
  • Karim Botros, Chief Strategy Officer, The MetroHealth System
  • Joy Grosser, CIO, University Hospitals
  • Dr. Anil Jain, Senior VP and Chief Medical Information Officer, IBM Watson
  • Mike Maczuzak, CEO and Founder, SmartShape Design
  • Tim Needles, CEO and Founder, Onix Networking
  • Sonja O’Malley, Senior Director, HIT Commercialization, Cleveland Clinic Innovations
  • Sunnie Southern, CEO and Founder, Viable Synergy
  • Srinivasan Suresh, MD, MBA, FAAP, Chief Medical Information Officer, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, UPMC
  • Greg Wolverton, FHIMSS, Chief Information Officer, ARcare/KentuckyCare
  • Michael Zaroukian, MD, PhD, MACP, FHIMSS, Vice President, Chief Medical Information Officer & Chief Transformation Officer, Sparrow Health System


Collegiate Team Division Judges

  • William Fuller, CEO-in-Residence, BioEnterprise
  • Jim Weisman, CEO-in-Residence, BioEnterprise
  • Mangoné Fall, Product Development Manager, HIT Incubator, Cleveland Clinic Innovations
  • David Crane, Director, Innovation Development, Cleveland State University
  • Andy Halko, CEO, Insivia
  • Kyle Frantz, Strategy & Business Development, The MetroHealth System
  • Paula Timco, Partner, nuboHEALTH
  • Patrick Mergler, Director of Cancer Informatics, University Hospitals
  • Gene Groys, EIR and Serial Entrepreneur, Youngstown Business Incubator


Judging Criteria

Judges will be evaluating each idea and presentation based on the following criteria:

  • Commercial viability: assessment of the competitive environment and value proposition.
  • Technical viability: unique features presented, technical feasibility and IP positions.
  • Financial viability: includes cost structure, revenue streams and profit potential.
  • Use of proceeds: teams express how the award will impact their organization.
  • Team dynamics: evaluation of vision, technical competency and industry knowledge.
  • Presentation: stage presence, quality and persuasiveness of the presentation.

Judging will be based on a numeric scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest score for each set criteria. Each judge will be provided a tablet with automated polling software activated to capture each score.


Commercial Viability

  • Includes all aspects of the competitive environment and value proposition – “what market need are you addressing and how?”
  • The potential need for the product/service, addressable market size, market growth, competitors and competing technologies and the solution’s competitive advantage should be addressed.
  • Attention should also be paid to the customer segments and relationships that will need to be forged and the marketing and distribution channels that will need to be exploited.                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Technical Viability

  • Includes the unique features of the product/service, technical feasibility and intellectual property positions.
  • The business plan should speak to the cost and pathway to development, the timeline to complete the work, and some statement of the likelihood and risks in the development.

Financial Viability

  • Includes the cost structure and revenue streams of the business model, profit potential, and invested capital required to achieve specific milestones.
  • Attention should also be paid to the risk and return characteristics of the business.

Team Makeup and Presentation

A startup’s team is its lifeblood so no amount of awesome innovation will ever overcome a misaligned team. Accordingly, each team as a whole will be evaluated in terms of technical competence, business acumen, industry knowledge, and enthusiasm/commitment. During the Presentation phase of the competition, day 2, Judging criteria also will include quality and persuasiveness of the oral presentation. Entries that describe exciting technological breakthroughs but fail to show a clear path to commercialization will not fare well in the competition. Likewise, winners will not be chosen based solely on the potential size or profitability of the projected enterprise, but rather on how well the team has prepared its plan, described the business model, explained the implementation and presented the concept during the live presentation.

Judges will use evaluation forms to guide their decisions; however, the goal of the judging panel is to arrive at a consensus.


Get Updates

Sign up to get the latest information on upcoming events.