PNC FinTech Challenge

This prompt is targeted toward potential interns and full-time employees. Participants will need a computer, coding software and critical thinking skills to solve the listed problem.

  • Other than the credit score, create a solution that helps measure financial trustworthiness of consumers. 
  • Solving this challenge ties into current FinTech trends leveraging innovative technologies and utilizing data to enhance financial capabilities and the services offered to customers.

Deliverables:

  • The expected deliverables include a 3-5 minutes video demo in a .mp4 format and/or documentation of the solution in a .pdf.

Midpoint Judging / Check-In:

Optional virtual Office Hours TBD

Submission Expectations:

The student-created solution should score well on the listed rubric of Impact, Implement ability, Innovation, Storytelling and Appeal.

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 5 4 3 2 1
Impact Transformative – Major effect on business Significant effect on business Moderate effect on business Minor effect on business Ineffective – No effect
Implementable Achievable – Realistic and beneficial Mostly achievable Somewhat achievable Challenging to implement Impractical – Not feasible
Innovative Cutting edge – Highly novel and exciting New and interesting Moderately innovative Somewhat conventional Conventional – Not innovative
Storytelling Transformative – Provides deep insights Offers valuable insights Provides some insights Limited insights Ineffective – No insights
Appeal Ideal – Visually outstanding Highly appealing Moderately appealing Somewhat appealing Lackluster – Visually weak

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 utilized 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