RANKING RULES
International Robotics Olympiad: 'Robots for a Better World'
Video Submission Evaluation Criteria
Core Philosophy:
The judging should reward not just technical proficiency, but also creativity, problem-solving, and the potential for positive impact. The weight of each category should shift based on the participant’s grade level.
I. Core Evaluation Categories & Weightings
The following four categories form the foundation of the judging. The percentage weights can be adjusted for different grade bands as suggested below.
|
Category
|
Description
|
Weight (Grades 3-5)
|
Weight (Grades 6-8)
|
Weight (Grades 9-12)
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A. Relevance to Theme & Impact (30%)
|
How well the project addresses the "Better World" theme and its potential benefit
|
35%
|
30%
|
25%
|
|
B. Creativity & Originality (25%)
|
The uniqueness of the idea and the innovative approach to the problem.
|
30%
|
25%
|
20%
|
|
C. Technical Execution & Engineering (25%)
|
The design, build quality, and programming of the robot.
|
15%
|
25%
|
35%
|
|
D. Presentation & Communication (20%)
|
The clarity, structure, and effectiveness of the video itself.
|
20%
|
20%
|
20%
|
II. Detailed Criteria Breakdown
A. Relevance to Theme & Impact (The "Why")
Problem Identification
Does the video clearly identify a specific real-world problem
(e.g., ocean plastic, assisting the elderly, sustainable farming, education access)?
10 pts
Proposed Solution & Relevance
How directly and effectively does the robot address the identified problem? Is the connection to creating a “better world” clear and compelling?
10 pts
Potential for Impact
How significant is the potential positive effect? Does the project consider scalability, feasibility, and who it helps?
(For older students, a deeper analysis is expected).
10 pts
B. Creativity & Originality (The "Spark")
Uniqueness of Idea
Is the concept novel, or a fresh take on an existing idea? Does it stand out from predictable solutions?
10 pts
Innovative Approach
Is the method of solving the problem creative? This could be in the robot’s mechanism, its use of materials, or its application of technology.
10 pts
"Outside-the-Box" Thinking
Does the project demonstrate a surprising or clever connection that others might not have seen?
5 pts
B. Creativity & Originality (The "Spark")
Design & Construction
Is the concept novel, or a fresh take on an existing idea? Does it stand out from predictable solutions?
10 pts
Programming & Functionality
Is the method of solving the problem creative? This could be in the robot’s mechanism, its use of materials, or its application of technology.
10 pts
Engineering Process
Does the project demonstrate a surprising or clever connection that others might not have seen?
5 pts
C. Technical Execution & Engineering (The "How")
Design & Construction
Is the robot well-designed and stably built? Is there evidence of thoughtful assembly, iteration, and use of materials
(whether LEGO, VEX, Arduino, or custom parts)?
10 pts
Programming & Functionality
Does the robot perform its intended task reliably and effectively? For older students, judges will look for code efficiency, use of sensors, and complexity of automation.
10 pts
Engineering Process
Does the video (even briefly) show evidence of the design process—brainstorming, prototyping, testing, and overcoming failures? This is highly valued.
5 pts
D. Presentation & Communication (The "Story")
Clarity & Structure
Is the video well-organized (e.g., states the problem, shows the solution, demonstrates the robot)? Is it easy to follow and understand?
10 pts
Demonstration & Evidence
Does the video provide a clear, uncut, and honest demonstration of the robot’s functionality? “Seeing is believing.”
5 pts
Engagement & Enthusiasm
Is the presentation engaging? Do the participants communicate their passion and knowledge effectively?
(This is not about professional video quality, but about genuine communication).
5 pts
III. Age-Specific Considerations & Adjustments
Grades 3-5
(Lower Elementary)
Focus
Enthusiasm, simple problem-solving, and clear demonstration.
Expectations
The connection to the theme can be broad (e.g., “a robot that helps my grandma water her plants”). Simpler mechanisms and block-based programming are the norm. Success is about completing a simple task and explaining it clearly. Reward effort and imagination heavily.
Grades 6-8
(Middle School)
Focus
Deeper problem identification, more complex builds, and evidence of the engineering process.
Expectations
The project should address a more defined problem. Robots should show more sophisticated design and sensor use. The presentation should explain the “how” and “why” behind their design choices.
Grades 9-12
(High School)
Focus
Sophistication, real-world applicability, and technical innovation.
Expectations
Projects should be grounded in research. The solution should be well-engineered, reliably programmed (often with text-based languages), and consider real-world constraints. The presentation should be persuasive, almost like a pitch for a viable solution.
IV. Sample Scoring Rubric (100-Point Scale)
| Criteria | Excellent (9-10 pts) | Good (7-8 pts) | Satisfactory (5-6 pts) | Needs Improvement (1-4 pts) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A1. Problem Identification |
Clearly defines a specific, meaningful problem. |
Defines a problem, but it could be more specific. |
Problem is mentioned but is vague or overly broad. |
The problem is unclear or not stated. |
/10 |
|
A2. Solution & Relevance |
Robot is a direct, well-conceived solution to the problem. |
Robot addresses the problem, but the link could be stronger. |
The connection between the robot and the problem is weak. |
The robot does not clearly solve the identified problem. |
/10 |
|
A3. Potential for Impact |
Impact is significant, well-explained, and considers real-world use. |
Impact is clear and positive. |
Impact is minimal or not well explained. |
Little to no consideration of impact. |
/10 |
|
B1. Uniqueness of Idea |
Highly original and surprising concept. |
A creative twist on a known idea. |
A common idea, executed adequately. |
A very common or derivative idea. |
/10 |
|
B2. Innovative Approach |
Solution method is novel and clever. |
Shows some innovative thinking in its approach. |
Approach is standard and predictable. |
Approach is unclear or ineffective. |
/10 |
|
B3. “Outside-the-Box” Thinking |
Demonstrates a brilliant, non-obvious connection. |
Shows flashes of creative insight. |
Thinking is logical but conventional. |
No evidence of creative thinking. |
/5 |
|
C1. Design & Construction |
Robust, elegant design; excellent craftsmanship. |
Solid build with good attention to detail. |
Functional but may be fragile or messy. |
Poorly constructed and unstable. |
/10 |
|
C2. Programming & Functionality |
Flawless performance; efficient/advanced code. |
Works reliably; code is functional and logical. |
Works inconsistently or with major assistance. |
Does not function as intended. |
/10 |
|
C3. Engineering Process |
Clear evidence of iteration, testing, and improvement. |
Some evidence of design process and problem-solving. |
Little evidence of process beyond the final product. |
No evidence of a design process. |
/5 |
|
D1. Clarity & Structure |
Exceptionally clear, logical, and professional. |
Clear and easy to follow. |
Understandable but disorganized in parts. |
Confusing and difficult to follow. |
/10 |
|
D2. Demonstration |
Clear, honest, and compelling proof of function. |
Good demonstration that shows the robot working. |
Demonstration is unclear or partially successful. |
No effective demonstration is provided. |
/5 |
|
D3. Engagement & Enthusiasm |
Highly engaging; passion is infectious and authentic. |
Communicates with clarity and clear interest. |
Presentation is flat but informative. |
Difficult to understand or disengaged. |
/5 |
|
TOTAL SCORE |
/100 |
||||
International Robotics Olympiad’s grading framework ensures that every participant, from a 3rd grader with a simple, heartfelt idea to a 12th grader with a complex technical solution, can be evaluated fairly and constructively on their own terms. Good luck to all participants.
What is IRO Ranking?
As the name suggests, the ranking is a method of ranking Robotics worldwide used by the Robotic’s Olympiads championships governing body. The ranking applies to member associations and RoboClubs. We publish an updated ranking each quarter (3 months), taking into account recognised robotics championships that have been played during the course of the previous quarter.
In theory, the calculation procedure means that the most successful teams will rise to the top of the ranking.
The World Ranking is a points-based system which takes into account all International championships played over the course of every quarter. A total number of points is calculated by adding the average points gained recently to the average points gained from older championships (which depreciates year-on-year).