CLIENT PROJECT / ENGM 178 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT / HEALTH TECH

EMRLD Health: Choosing a Partner for a Medical Simulation Game. SCOPE teaches medicine through cases. Students needed it to also be fun.

27 moTo breakeven, 3.8 : 1 benefit-cost

EMRLD Health / Choosing a Partner for a Medical Simulation Game

Team
Sahej Jhamvar, Aayush Gujrathi, Vaishnavi Appaya, Shriya Desai, Daxay Sanghavi
Timeline
Sep to Nov 2025
Stack and methods
Weighted decision matrix, Ad revenue model, Competitive teardown, Risk scoring

We owned the project end to end as a team.

  • 5 vendors scored
  • $25K vs $75K vs $90K build cost
  • 3.8 : 1 benefit-cost ratio
  • ~27-month breakeven

Game ROI calculator

Interactive / try it

The problem

EMRLD built SCOPE, a case-based learning tool for medical education, and wanted to expand its product line with a 2D medical simulation game. The key question: which development partner fits best on cost, integration, support, and user experience?

What we did

  • Researched game development partners down to a shortlist of five.
  • Scored them on a weighted decision matrix (development cost, integration, services, customizability, user experience, post-launch support), which recommended SDLC Corp.
  • Compared build models for five developers: $25K with SDLC at $20/hr, $75K with freelancers at ~$60/hr, $90K with full-time hires at ~$72/hr.
  • Built an ad revenue model (rewarded, interstitial, programmatic healthcare, and banner ads): blended $8 CPM at 20 ads per user per month, about $1,600 per month per 10,000 users.
  • Projected a ~66.3% ROI and ~27-month breakeven at 1% monthly user growth.
  • Estimated a 3.8 : 1 benefit-cost ratio from burnout mitigation for medical students ($47,125 fixed costs vs $178,497 in benefits).
  • Tore down three competing games (Happy Clinic, Dream Hospital, Full Code) plus SDLC's own Chef Life to define six must-have features.
  • Scored risks (overall risk factor 40.3 for SCOPE vs 24.25 for the game) with a mitigation for each, and laid out a 12-week delivery timeline.

Decisions worth asking about

Decision 01

A weighted matrix, not a gut call.

Six weighted criteria made the vendor choice defensible to the client.

Decision 02

Ads over subscriptions.

Rejected: A subscription model like Full Code's.

Rewarded ads carry the highest CPMs and keep the game free for students.

Decision 03

Price the human benefit.

Rejected: An ROI-only case.

Quantifying burnout mitigation showed benefits outweigh costs 3.8 to 1, which is the argument an education company actually needs.