This community is in archive. Visit community.xprize.org for the current XPRIZE Community.
Two-phase prize design
Roey
Posts: 160 XPRIZE
We are considering splitting the prize into two phases.
Phase 1: Qualification Round
Teams submit proposals to rapidly reskill workers in one month (or less) for one chosen occupation.
The occupation must be:
Requirements for teams:
From launch, teams would have one month to submit their detailed proposals to XPRIZE for approval. Judges would review each proposal and select the 10 most promising: those with the highest likelihood of success. The finalists would receive $X each to carry out their plans.
Phase 2: Training and Job Placement
Finalists have one month to recruit 1,000 workers to participate in their training programs.
Next, finalists would be given 100 days to recruit and train at least 1,000 individuals, who will need to find work in the relevant occupation and retain it for at least 100 days. Entry costs would need to be zero or near zero.
The winning team is the one that will place the most individuals in a job for the longest period of time.
Additional judging criteria:
Phase 1: Qualification Round
Teams submit proposals to rapidly reskill workers in one month (or less) for one chosen occupation.
The occupation must be:
- Growing faster than the overall occupational average, as measured by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics;
- Unlikely to be automated in the next ten years;
- Medium- or high-skilled, as measured by the National Compensation Survey;
- Carry a living wage, as measured by MIT's Living Wage Calculator; and
- A stepping stone to career advancement.
Requirements for teams:
- Team must place at least 1,000 individuals in the appropriate job.
- The planned training time needs to be at least 50% shorter than the currently established training time (which will be defined once specific occupations are chosen).
From launch, teams would have one month to submit their detailed proposals to XPRIZE for approval. Judges would review each proposal and select the 10 most promising: those with the highest likelihood of success. The finalists would receive $X each to carry out their plans.
Phase 2: Training and Job Placement
Finalists have one month to recruit 1,000 workers to participate in their training programs.
Next, finalists would be given 100 days to recruit and train at least 1,000 individuals, who will need to find work in the relevant occupation and retain it for at least 100 days. Entry costs would need to be zero or near zero.
The winning team is the one that will place the most individuals in a job for the longest period of time.
Additional judging criteria:
- Teams that train for higher-skilled, higher-wage occupations would be ranked higher.
- Teams that create scalable education tools which can be redeployed to rapidly train for other occupations would be ranked higher.
0
Comments
The 2nd question is more tricky. Income definitely shouldn't be considered. However, if we are going after retaining a certain sector for another sector, we may want to understand their existing skills and abilities to increase their chances of success. For example, if the curriculum is in english, we may want to make sure the participants can read/write english.
Again, I'm purely looking at it from the trainee's perspective when they desperately need a work. It would be a catastrophic failure if you waste the time of 1,000 trainees with a faulty curriculum where you could have found that it was a faulty curriculum by just testing it with 100 trainees. It's still terrible, but more manageable if you fail with a smaller group.
How are we going to quantify the requirement above? Are we going based on the hourly wage? I found this list on NCS. According to the link above, the 50th percentile hourly wage is $15.85. Are we saying any kind of occupation that the hourly wage is greater than that, is an occupation we can consider?
Do you have any suggestions on how we might benchmark standard online training cohort sizes?
Now, it could be argued that we are ALL vulnerable to job loss and economic challenges, especially now in light of the situation. However, the goal of this particular prize is to serve people who have traditionally not been able to find work that pays a living wage and people who do not have a secondary education (i.e. lower-skilled, low education, and lower-earning individuals).
So, even though these two requirements are limiters, they also ensure that the right population is being served through the prize.
With that perspective, do you still think we should have no filters for our cohort criteria?
The displacement and perception of automation/tech displacing jobs can be countered with a more inclusive program.
Also, by keeping it broad and less restrictive, you can learn about the program's impact on different levels of income, education, etc. Then you can refine the program in later iterations if it makes sense to do so.
I haven't studied the academic literature on the efficacy and inclusiveness/exclusiveness of different job training programs. Perhaps, you could spend some time doing a literature review to see if there is some evidence to support your decision either way.
I'm conflicted on the education criterion though. If we want to place the candidates in jobs that pay (let's say) $20 or more per hour, some minimum level of education is needed. Usually that minimum level is a high school diploma/GED or vocational school.
If the purpose of this award is to place candidates in a job, let's agree that the job could be a min wage job. If the purpose is to place them in "higher paying" jobs, we should allow to check for minimum education level (i.e.: GED, vocational school, etc.)
Another criterion we should discuss - do we want to allow candidate filtering based on background check/drug test?
Indeed, it's something we're also debating. It raises questions around privacy and time. If we want to retrain/up-skill workers rapidly, I'm not sure it's feasible.
That's aside from the question whether it's even desirable.
I do like your idea of a phased competition, it certainly is audacious. Do you think that individual teams would have the capabilities to train 10,000 people within the 30-day timeframe? What do you imagine the attrition rate would be? We'd really love to hear your insights - they'd be very useful in our design work.
@ukarvind Thank you for your feedback. So, in addition to technical skills, teams should include training in the "soft" skills, such as self-teaching/grit/resilience. Did I get that right? If so, I love that idea. How would you recommend we measure something like this when it comes to judging the teams' performance?