Process Expert Review

In terms of the evaluation rubric, the area that was most lacking in the Profectly Showcase presentation was that off #3 "Was there evidence given that the team researched and reviewed current and past solutions before deciding to pursue their own unique solution to the problem?" This was likely the lowest scoring criteria due to the team only presenting examples of solutions, but not detailing as much so with what the solutions were and how they may help with the problem. It is, therefore, understandable why this was a weaker part of the presentation. This result further highlights the need to gain a better understanding of the competition, their positives and negatives, and how profectly can effectively innovate in the self-improvement market. In contrast, on the presentation rubric, the highest-scoring point was that of #7 stating "Was the method for testing the prototype a well-defined procedure designed to yield unbiased data?" Because the team used two different types of testing in regards to both quantitative and qualitative the presentation demonstrated how both were used cohesively and achieved very similar results. This illustrates the degree to which unbiased data could be achieved using these testing methods. Furthermore, this shows how the project testing was effective in determining points of accomplishment and missed objectives due to the lack of such biases that could jeoprodize results.

Tech Expert Review

For the Tech Expert Review, the lowest point of scoring in regards to the rubric was that of #7 which states "Was the method for testing the prototype a well-defined procedure designed to yield unbiased data?" This directly contrasts with the other expert review that provided a 10/10 in contrast to a 6/10. This was likely a point of extreme difference because although the Profectly project testing wasn't explicitly defined nor detailed during the presentation, it was implied through the explanations of the tests themselves. As a result of this, the low score most likely came down to the lack of an explicit explanation, whilst in contrast, the high score provided in the previous review was determined from the implied testing methods. This contrast highlights how the team should be mindful and critical of the data obtained through testing, especially in regards to potential biases that could be made through such. On the other hand, the highest-scoring pieces criteria were that of #2, #5, and #6, which can be seen above in the left image. Addressing the problem and its relation to the objectives and design with the prototypes was the stronger part of the showcase presentation due to their prioritization and thorough knowledge of the topics. The team's understanding of the problem and its relation to various aspects was a strong point throughout the year and was further enlightened during the presentation. Although this was done well, there is still room for improvement not only with these points but also with the knowledge and fluency with others, such as that mentioned early with bias in testing.

The reviewer also pointed out some questions regarding rewards and their functionality in the prototypes which were mostly answered during the questions portion of the presentation. The questions and answers will be listed below.

• Q: "Who's giving the reward?"

  • A: The rewards are provided through the system displayed in prototype #2, so we would be the ones providing the rewards, but the user could also provide for themselves if they choose to make custom rewards.

• Q: "What is the reward?"

  • A: Essentially these would mainly be that of cosmetics, raids, etc. that the user could do and share through the social aspect of the app. In addition, the team brainstormed some ideas regarding charitable donations or deeds that could be done for the user when they redeem a reward, similar to the app Forest, which plants real trees when users complete challenges. Profectly also considered providing gift cards and vouchers, but this could pose some problems for the reward system itself.