First Place

Solaris (Schneider challenge)

Second Place

Mean Green Machine (MIT Office of Sustainability challenge)

Third Place

MasSave (MIT Office of Sustainability challenge)

Finalists

TraffiX (MassCEC challenge)

H-EDGE (NICE challenge)

All Challenges and results

Cimetrics (problem statement)

Teams: BlueHouse, ElctHackers, Photons

Winner: Photons

Customer First Renewables (problem statement)

Teams: Wen^2, Enerdy

Winner: Wen^2

Iberdrola/Avangrid (problem statement)

Teams: Team BADAS, Crown Joules, Energineers, Hard Rock, Green Elephant

Winner: Crown Joules

Marathon Oil (problem statement)

Teams: Netflix & Drill, iLatin, B-Hive

Winner: iLatin

MassCEC (problem statement)

Teams: Dayton Flyers, TraffiX

Winner: TraffiX

McKinsey (problem statement)

Teams: EnergyMiles, Cuatro, Whatever

Winner: EnergyMiles

MIT Office of Sustainability (problem statement)

Teams: MasSave, A, Mean Green Machine

Winners: MasSave and Mean Green Machine

NICE (problem statement)

Teams: Crystalline, H-EDGE, Clean Energy Addicts

Winner: H-EDGE

Schneider (problem statement)

Teams: I-Spark, Solaris, DESIGreeN

Winner: Solaris

TEA/Candor (problem statement)

Teams: OR '1'='1, BBT, Cyan

Winner: OR ‘1’=’1

WiTricity (problem statement)

Teams: The Green Wolves, Energy Tartans, Wi5

Winner: The Green Wolves


Event details

For the event schedule and booklet, see here. Thank you to all of our company sponsors for enabling us to run such a fantastic event, and thank you to everyone who traveled from places as far as across town to across the globe in order to participate in the Engerhack 2018.

Presentation Details

On Sunday, November 4, hackers pitched their final presentations to the judges. The semi-finals round ran from 10:00 to 11:20, and each team gave a 5 minute presentation with 4 minutes for questions to 3-4 different judges.

Afterwards, 5 teams from the entire hackathon were selected to present and compete at the Grand Finals, with 4 minutes to present with 3 minutes for questions in front of all participants and the 4 Grand Finals Judges.

A winner was selected for each challenge, and 3 overall winners were selected from the Grand Finals.

Judging Criteria

Judges were asked to evaluate the solution based following criteria using a numerical rating 1 – 7 (1 – very weak; 7 – very strong).

1) Content – How well do you think the proposed solution addresses the selected challenge? Is the solution clear? Has the team identified gaps in their knowledge and methods to fill these?

2) Validity – This criteria aims to identify whether a solution can actually work, independent of whether it answers the problem. For technical challenges, is the solution technically sound and plausible? For business challenges, does the solution address pain points of customers?

3) Feasibility – We want to know whether the solution can be implemented and how easy it is to implement. We are asking judges to identify how likely the team is to build their solution into a successful business. Are there numerous gaps in their knowledge? Does their team gel and align in various areas? Are they solving a viable problem they can get paid for?