URC2026 INCOSE Foundation

The Mars Society and INCOSE Foundation Announce Systems Engineering Award for University Rover Challenge

The Mars Society is proud to welcome the INCOSE Foundation as an Educational Partner of the University Rover Challenge (URC). The INCOSE Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, charitable organization affiliated with the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). The INCOSE Foundation is committed to rewarding skills through scholarships for those engaged in finding solutions to complex technical challenges at all stages of their education or career.

Together the organizations are pleased to announce the establishment of the INCOSE Foundation Excellence in Systems Engineering Award. This year, the INCOSE Foundation will honor one URC Team in recognition of their exemplary incorporation of systems engineering methods into the design and construction of their rover – demonstrating that a disciplined, holistic engineering approach, encompassing requirements definition, interface management, and rigorous testing across mechanical, electrical, and software subsystems is as essential to success on the competition field as it is to real-world space exploration.

Dedicated systems engineering judges will assess Preliminary Design Review and System Acceptance Review materials already submitted for URC2026, and conduct in-field evaluations of award finalists during the URC2026 Finals. Up to five of the winning team members competing on site will receive a one-year complimentary INCOSE student membership, a recognition certificate and award plaque, an invitation to present at an INCOSE chapter event or webinar, and mentorship opportunities with INCOSE professional members.

INCOSE Foundation to Judge Excellence in Systems Engineering Award at URC2026 Finals

URC and the Mars Society are pleased to welcome the INCOSE Foundation on-site at URC2026 Finals to evaluate teams for the Excellence in Systems Engineering Award. This award recognizes outstanding systems engineering (SE) practices demonstrated by student teams and is separate and independent from URC competition scoring — it focuses exclusively on SE maturity and process.

How finalists were selected

All 38 URC2026 Finalist SAR reports were pre-screened by the INCOSE Foundation against a 100-point, 8-category pre-screening rubric aligned with the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK), the INCOSE Systems Engineering Competency Framework (ISECF), and Graduate Reference Curriculum in Systems Engineering (GRCSE) expected outcomes. The pre-screening categories were:

1. Systems Thinking & Stakeholder Focus (15 pts)

2. Requirements Engineering (15 pts)

3. System Architecture & Design (15 pts)

4. Verification & Validation (V&V) Strategy (12 pts)

5. Technical Management & Planning (10 pts)

6. Risk & Configuration Management (10 pts)

7. Systems Modeling & Analysis (8 pts)

8. Documentation Quality & Professionalism (15 pts)

Each category was scored at one of four performance levels: Initial → Emerging → Developed → Highly Developed, with specific evidence cited from each SAR. 13 teams scoring 80 or above have been selected as finalists for on-site evaluation.

Excellence in Systems Engineering Award Finalists

• A.S.T.R.A.; University of Alabama in Huntsville (United States)

• BYU Mars Rover; Brigham Young University (United States)

• Husky Robotics; University of Washington Seattle (United States)

• KNR Rover Team; Warsaw University of Technology (Poland)

• Mars Rover Design Team; Missouri University of Science and Technology (United States)

• Michigan Mars Rover (MRover); University of Michigan (United States)

• Monash Nova Rover; Monash University (Australia)

• MR2; KAIST (Republic of Korea)

• Northeastern University Mars Rover Team; Northeastern University (United States)

• Queen's Space Engineering Team; Queen's University (Canada)

• Robotics for Space Exploration; University of Toronto (Canada)

• Team Mountaineers; West Virginia University (United States)

• Team RoSE (Robotic Space Exploration); University of Hawaii at Manoa (United States)
  
  

What the finalist evaluation entails

Each of the 13 finalist teams will participate in a 30-minute structured interview with two INCOSE Foundation evaluators:

• 20-minute team presentation — Overview of your SE approach, key design decisions, and results. Multiple team members are encouraged to present; evaluators will note breadth of participation.

• 10-minute Q&A — Evaluators will probe depth of understanding using tailored questions drawn from your SAR.

In addition, INCOSE evaluators will observe teams during competition tasks from an appropriate distance, without interrupting operations.

The Finals Rubric is a separate 100-point, 10-category instrument:

# Category Points Type

1 Systems Thinking Demonstration 12 Interview

2 Requirements Traceability & Validation 10 Interview

3 Architecture & Design Rationale 12 Interview

4 V&V Execution & Results 10 Interview & Observation

5 Risk Management Application 8 Interview

6 Team Collaboration & Roles 10 Interview & Observation

7 Technical Communication 10 Interview

8 Operational Readiness & Field Execution 12 Observation

9 Lifecycle & Sustainability Thinking 8 Interview

10 SE Process Application 8 Interview

78 points come from the interview, 22 points from competition observations. The same four performance levels apply.

Scoring and award decision

• Combined Score = Pre-Screening (50%) + Finals (50%)

• Teams must achieve a Combined Score of ≥75 for award consideration

• Tiebreakers: Systems Thinking → Requirements → Architecture

• Final selection is subject to INCOSE Foundation Board approval

• Possible outcomes: Winner, Honorable Mention, or No Award if no team clears the threshold
  
  

Lessons learned and the path to URC2027

The INCOSE Foundation views this URC2026 cycle as the foundation for a continually improving SE award program. The Foundation will:

• Capture lessons learned from the 2026 pre-screening and the on-site interviews/observations

• Refine the rubric based on what differentiated finalists from non-finalists, what interview evidence meaningfully updated pre-screening scores, and where the SAR format made SE practices hardest to assess

• Publish aggregate findings on SE education trends observed across the cohort to help teams and faculty advisors strengthen programs year over year
  
  

Preview: URC2027 SE Award criteria

• Based on 2026 experience, teams preparing for URC2027 should expect the following directional changes (final criteria will be published well in advance of the 2027 SAR deadline):

• Clearer guidance on demonstrating SE within the SAR format — including examples of how top teams communicated requirements traceability, trade studies, and V&V rigor

• Possible introduction of a short written Q&A or supplementary SE appendix to give teams room to demonstrate SE practices the current format constraints

• Earlier publication of the rubric so teams can self-assess during development and design, not just after submission
  
  

What to prepare for the 2026 interview

Finalist teams should be ready to speak to the specific evidence and decisions presented in their SAR — requirements traceability, architecture rationale, trade-off analyses, V&V results, risk mitigations, and lessons learned. Evaluators are looking for genuine understanding across the team rather than rehearsed responses, so encourage breadth of participation.

Interview scheduling will be coordinated as part of the detailed URC Finals Schedule.

Congratulations to all 38 finalist teams on reaching the URC2026 Finals, and best of luck to the 13 teams advancing to the INCOSE SE Award finals.