Hackathons and Sprints

A hackathon or innovation sprint is an intensive, clearly structured form of teamwork focused on a single challenge, carried out within a limited timeframe and according to previously agreed criteria. The key mechanism of this method is not creativity itself, but the pressure to make decisions. Students must choose, simplify, abandon some ideas, and act despite incomplete data.

The process typically includes several stages: understanding the challenge, rapidly developing ideas, selecting a solution, preparing a minimal version of a concept or prototype, and delivering a short presentation. Unlike traditional projects, there is little room for lengthy analysis or gradual refinement of every element. The value of the method lies in helping students move from uncertainty to decision-making, and from decision-making to a concrete outcome.

However, the method is often reduced to an intensive brainstorming session or a presentation competition. In such cases, it loses its educational value because it overlooks what matters most: selection, decision-making, simplification, and the conscious limitation of the solution’s scope. It is therefore essential to introduce clear criteria, such as value, feasibility, simplicity, potential impact, and fit with the challenge.

The most common mistake is treating a hackathon like a long-term project. Teams then spend too much time on analysis, refining details, and expanding the idea instead of making decisions and simplifying the solution. Yet the real value of this method comes precisely from working under time pressure and from the need to move quickly from problem to action.

Course: Entrepreneurship
Topic: New Digital Services for the City
Students work in teams to develop a digital service that addresses a specific problem faced by city residents. The challenge is to create a solution that could realistically be implemented within six months and with a limited budget. The emphasis is on moving quickly from identifying the problem to making decisions and developing a simplified but workable solution.

Introduction (5-10 min)
The teacher presents the challenge, constraints and assessment criteria. They may explain that the solution should be useful, feasible, simple and possible to present in a short pitch. The teacher emphasises that teams will not be able to analyse everything, so they need to make decisions based on incomplete data.

Stage 1 – Problem Selection (15–30 min)
Teams receive a set of short problem descriptions, for example mobility, access to city services, communication with local authorities, safety, support for older residents or use of public space. They choose one problem that they consider important and possible to address under the given conditions. The teacher emphasises that choosing the problem is the first strategic decision and will shape the whole project.

Stage 2 – Idea Development and Selection (30–60 min)
Students quickly develop possible solutions and then select one using simple criteria such as feasibility, implementation time, simplicity, cost and potential value. Teams are encouraged to reject ideas that are too complex, expensive or difficult to implement within the agreed timeframe.

Stage 3 – Solution (45–90 min)
Teams develop one simplified solution. They focus on its minimum viable version: what needs to work for the idea to be understood, assessed and developed further. They prepare a short description of the solution, its main value, key functions, implementation assumptions and limitations.

Stage 4 – Pitch (approx. 5 min per team)
Teams present their solutions in a short, dynamic format, for example three minutes for the presentation and two minutes for questions. They explain which problem they selected, what solution they propose, why it is feasible, what value it offers and what they consciously decided to leave out. The teacher or other students ask questions focused on the simplicity, feasibility and value of the solution.

Iteration and Reflection (15–30 min)
Students analyse the process by reflecting on which decisions were most difficult, which ideas they abandoned and what influenced their choices. The teacher concludes by emphasising that the value of the method lies in the ability to simplify, make decisions and act despite uncertainty.

• When the aim is to move quickly from a challenge to an initial solution.
• When students need to practise decision-making under time pressure.
• When the topic requires intensive collaboration, division of roles, and rapid agreement on the direction of work.
• When you want to demonstrate how to create a minimum viable version of a solution rather than a fully developed project.
• When you want to simulate real working conditions in innovation, start-up, project-based, or interdisciplinary teams.

• When students do not have the basic knowledge needed in the given area and are unable to make meaningful decisions even at the stage of an initial concept.
• When the task requires in-depth, long-term data analysis, field research, or expert diagnosis.
• When the expected outcome must be highly detailed, formal, or fully developed.
• When the problem is too abstract to be translated into a concrete solution, prototype, operating model, or pitch.

• Teams spend too long on analysis → set clear time limits and remind them that the aim is to make a decision, not necessarily to produce a full diagnosis.
• Students develop many ideas but cannot choose one → provide simple selection criteria, such as feasibility, simplicity, value, and implementation time.
• The solution becomes too complex → require a minimum viable version and ask the team to indicate what they have consciously decided to leave out.
• The team focuses on an impressive presentation rather than the quality of the solution → assess mainly relevance, simplicity, feasibility, and the justification of decisions.
• One person dominates the team’s work → assign roles, such as timekeeper, prototype lead, argumentation lead, and pitch lead.

Easier → Provide a clearly defined problem and assessment criteria, and reduce the number of stages.
More Challenging → Introduce real constraints, such as budget limits or implementation deadlines, and require students to test the solution or validate it with users.

• Establish the assessment criteria before the work begins.
• Use a visible timer — time pressure is a key element of the method.
• Make sure teams do not spend too long analysing the problem.
• Encourage simple prototypes rather than highly polished solutions.
• Conclude the process with a short reflection on the decisions made under time pressure.

Formative Assessment
Provide brief feedback after each stage and observe how the teams work. Feedback should help teams narrow down their solutions, simplify them, and justify their decisions more effectively.

Summative Assessment
Assess the quality of the solution, the justification of decisions, and the clarity of the presentation.