International Paper's Social Impact Challenge

Congratulations to the following competition winners!
Awards were presented at the Awards Ceremony March 28, 2025. 
1st Place: Arizona State University, GreenLink

2nd Place: Temple University, LoveHurts

3rd Place: Florida International University, EcoSisters

The paper and packaging industry is committed to healthy and abundant forests. Example goals include sourcing 100% of fiber from sustainably managed forests or recovered fiber while safeguarding forests, watersheds, and biodiversity and conserving and restoring 1 million acres of ecologically significant forestland.

How can the paper and packaging industry advance towards its targets utilizing technology? Define what potential problem(s) could be in the paper and packing industry’s supply chain and share how technology could be implemented to solve.

Analysis should be targeted and presented to environmental business leaders in the form of a project proposal.

Deliverables

  • 5-7 minute Video Presentation – the following should be included:
    • Team Introduction
    • Methodology Used (ex. Agile or Waterfall, why and how it worked, strengths and opportunities)
    • Problem Definition and Why it was selected
    • Technology Leveraged (and why you selected that technology)
    • Share concept mockup or wireframes/demo of functional product ok but not required
    • Cost and Benefit Analysis
  • Wireframes/Mockups/Software(if developed)
  • Supporting Documentation (e.g. requirements, functional specs, test sets, etc.)
    • Executive Summary – one pager; an introduction of your team, what your project does, who your project is for, what platform features your project uses, and how your proposal could be implemented.

Suggested Languages / Frameworks / Tools

No prescribed technology or framework. Teams are free to take any approach and will be assessed on methodology and technical choices made to support the concept.

Submission Expectations

  • 5-7 minute Video Presentation and supporting documentation described above
  • Microsoft or PDF files expected for written document
  • MP4 file expected for video presentation

TIMELINE
  • Competition details announced - November 2024
  • February 20, 2025 (11:59 PM Eastern) - Preliminary submissions due 
  • February 28, 2025 – Finalists notified
  • March 28-29, 2025 – Final presentations (during SCLC) and winners announced
PRIZES
  • First place: $2,000 USD
  • Second place: $1000 USD
  • Third place $500 USD
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT
Only teams from current AIS Student Chapters are eligible to complete.   

Rules

  • The project submissions should be the work of the project team. If faculty and/or other individuals have significantly contributed to the submission, please be sure to note their contributions.
  • Alpha / Early development system solutions are completely acceptable.
  • Submissions that are based on pre-beta solutions and/or from pre-existing on-going coursework projects are acceptable as well.
  • The contest materials must be submitted by the due dates.
  • Teams must be members of an AIS Student Chapter.
  • If the number of submissions allow, graduate and undergraduate groups may be judged separately. In this case, a team with a 50% or more graduate student composition will be classified as a graduate student team.
  • No deliverable can identify the university or school to which the team belongs. The team must refrain from using school colors in the submitted documents. The video should not indicate to which school the team belongs. If school identification is included in any of the submitted documents or video, the team will be eliminated from the competition. 

Submit Here

Final Round

The top submissions, as scored by the judges, will move on to the final round, to be held in person during the 2025 Student Chapter Leadership Conference at the University of Alabama. 

In this round, the teams will be required to make a 15-minute presentation of their report to a panel of judges. After the presentation, there will be a 10-minute Q&A with the panel of judges.  Each slide deck must contain a title slide including the names of the team members (no email addresses or other contact information). The team should not identify its school affiliation on the title slide or anywhere else in the slide deck, nor should it mention that affiliation (directly or indirectly) during its presentation. Team members should refrain from wearing school colors.

Judging Criteria

Quality of the analysis/solution proposed (Word document submission evaluation criteria):

Criteria Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Needs Improvement Inadequate
Novelty/Creativity/Innovativeness 4 – The team demonstrated an original and potentially unexpected approach to the analysis and/or proposal of solution(s). 3 – The team demonstrated a mostly original approach to the analysis and/or proposal of the solution(s). 2 – The team demonstrated a mostly original approach to the analysis and/or proposal of the solution(s), with several elements that were not particularly innovative. 1 – The team developed an unoriginal approach to the analysis and/or proposal of the solution(s), with few or no elements of innovation.
Insight 4 – The team provided interesting and meaningful findings and interpretations. 3 – The team provided mostly interesting and meaningful findings and interpretations. 2 – The team provided somewhat uninteresting findings and weak interpretations. 1 – The team provided uninteresting or weak findings and interpretations.
Relevance 4 – The team’s analysis relates to the problem statement and utilizes the appropriate tools and techniques. 3 – The team’s analysis mostly relates to the problem statement and utilizes mostly appropriate tools and techniques but may have some areas of irrelevance. 2 – The team’s analysis is somewhat unrelated to the problem statement, and/or utilizes inappropriate tools and techniques, with several areas of irrelevance. 1 – The team’s analysis is unrelated to the problem statement and/or utilizes inappropriate tools and techniques, with numerous areas of irrelevance.
Business Acumen 4 – The team incorporated an adequate amount and variety of data analysis and/or research used appropriately in the solution proposal(s). 3 – The team incorporated a mostly adequate amount and variety of data analysis and/or research but may have had a few minor areas where more research or data was needed, or the data or the research was not utilized as effectively as it could have been. 2 – The team incorporated a somewhat inadequate amount or variety of data analysis and/or research, with several areas where more data or research was needed or where the data or the research was not utilized effectively. 1 – The team incorporated an inadequate amount or variety of data analysis and/or research with numerous areas where more data or research was needed or where the data or research was used ineffectively.
Utility 4 – The team drew accurate conclusions and were clear about the implications for the proposal. 3 – The team drew mostly accurate conclusions and were mostly clear about the implications for the proposal but may have had a few instances of inaccuracy or unclearness. 2 – The team drew somewhat inaccurate conclusions and/or were unclear about the implications for the proposal, with several areas of inaccuracy or unclearness. 1 – The team drew inaccurate conclusions and/or were unclear about the implications for the proposal, with numerous areas of inaccuracy or unclearness.

Quality of the presentation of the analysis and/or solution (PowerPoint + presentation):

If a team is selected as a finalist, they will be required to present and will be evaluated per the following rubric. The following rubric will be used to determine the winners of the overall competition.

Criteria Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Needs Improvement Inadequate
Clarity 4 – The presentation and analysis provided a well-organized, complete, and clear description of the approach taken, research conducted, data utilized, and conclusions reached. 3 – The presentation and analysis provided a generally clear description of the approach taken, research conducted, data utilized, and conclusions reached, but may have had a few minor areas of confusion. 2 – The presentation and analysis provided a somewhat unclear description of the approach taken, research conducted, data utilized, and conclusions reached, with several areas of confusion. 1 – The presentation and analysis provided an unclear description of the approach taken, research conducted, data utilized, and conclusions reached, with numerous areas of confusion.
Consistency 4 – The presentation and analysis delivered conclusions and proposed solution(s) that were logically and reasonably consistent with the data analysis and research conducted. 3 – The presentation and analysis delivered conclusions and proposed solution(s) that were mostly logically and reasonably consistent with the data analysis and research conducted. 2 – The presentation and analysis delivered conclusions and proposed solution(s) that were somewhat inconsistent with the data analysis and research conducted, with several inconsistencies. 1 – The presentation and analysis delivered conclusions and proposed solution(s) that were inconsistent with the data analysis and research conducted, with numerous inconsistencies.
Quality and Effectiveness 4 – The presentation and analysis utilized suitable visuals and delivery styles that work together to create a convincing and compelling narrative. 3 – The presentation and analysis utilized mostly suitable visuals and delivery style, to create a somewhat convincing and compelling narrative. 2 – The presentation and analysis utilize somewhat unsuitable visuals and delivery style that inadequately create a convincing and compelling narrative. 1 – The presentation and analysis are of poor quality and do not effectively communicate the intended message.
Engagement 4 – Multiple team members presented. Overall, the team members exhibited command of the topic and a sense of passion and enthusiasm for the ideas presented. 3 – Multiple team members presented, but some team members may have struggled to command the topic or show passion and enthusiasm for the ideas presented. 2 – Not all team members presented, and the team struggled to command the topic or show passion and enthusiasm for the ideas presented. 1 – Not all team members presented, and the team did not show command of the topic or passion or enthusiasm for the ideas presented.
Documentation 4 – The team identified all sources of data and research and provided links to data sources and other documents, with all supporting research properly cited. 3 – The team identified sources of data and research and provided links to data sources and other documents but may have had a few minor errors in citations. 2 – The team identified most sources of data and research and provided links to some data sources and documents but had several errors in citations. 1 – The team did not identify all sources of data and research and provided few or no links to data sources or documents, with numerous errors in citations.

Questions? Contact ais2025@ua.edu