Home > Project Innovation Awards > How to Enter > Judging Process  
 
 
Judging Process
 
JUDGING PANEL
 
PIA would like to extend its gratitude to the following water industry professionals who have volunteered to serve on the regional judging panel.
 
  Europe & West Asia Region
  1. Gertjan Medema, KWR Watercycle Research Institute
  2. Christophe Bonnin, Veolia Water Technical Division
  3. Francisco Cubillo, Canal Isabel II
  4. Vasile Ciosmos, Romanian Water Association
  5. Malcolm Brandt, Black & Veatch
  6. Mike Farrimond, WssTP
  7. Martin Jekel, ACQUEAU
  8. Peter Gammeltoft, European Commission, DG Environment
  9. Luisa Prista, European Commission, DG Research
  10. Margarida Ruas, EPAL
  11. Wouter Stapel, DHV
  12. Brita Forssberg, IWA Sweden
  13. Thomas Michel, CETAGUA
 
  East Asia
  1. Han Wei, Beijing Capital
  2. Ma Lee-Tak, Water Supplies Dept
  3. Hiromichi Sakamoto, Federation of Japan Water Industries
  4. Chen Xiao Hua, Veolia Water Solutions Asia Municipal
  5. Hitoshi Mimura, Nagaoka International Corporation
  6. Felix Fan, Macao Water Supply Co. Ltd.
  7. Wu Yang Long, Taipei Water Department
  8. Hu Nan-Tzer, Taiwan Water Corporation
  9. Atsushi Masuko, Tokyo Metropolitan Waterworks Bureau
  10. Brita Forssberg, IWA Sweden
 
JUDGING CRITERIA
 
For Applied Research, Design, Operations/Management, Planning and Small Projects:
 
• Original or Innovative application of new or existing technology
• Future Value to the water engineering profession
• Social, Economic, and Sustainable design
• The Complexity of the problem or situation the project addresses
• Exceeding client/owner needs. including budgeted costs, actual cost, scheduled and actual date of completion
 
For Marketing and Communications:
 
• Innovative approach to messaging or branding
• Future value to the water engineering profession
• Creativity and clarity in portraying and communicating the messages
• Effectiveness in delivery and achieving desired outcome
• Integrated Design Approach – Narrative and visual elements work together to achieve the communication objectives.
 
Back to top
 
SCORING
 
For each criterion points from 1 to 10 are assigned to each project according to each judge's own standards.  Projects are not be to “curved”, i.e. rated against one another.

Generally, points should be assigned as follows:
 
* Average 0 - 2
* Good 3 - 5
* Excellent 6 - 8
* Outstanding 9 - 10
 
Back to top
 
SPECIFIC GUIDANCE
 
Each judge will assess each project against the five criteria according to his/her own experience. However, the following guidance will be provided to assist the judges in their evaluation of the projects.
 
Originality and Innovation
The judge should assess the project given all possibilities defined in the criterion definition according to his/her experience.
 
Future Value to the Engineering Profession
Will the entry redefine current engineering thinking? Does the entry advance a positive public image of engineering excellence?
 
Social, economic and sustainable design considerations
Do the solutions identified produce secondary benefits of value to the community environment? Does the entrant's approach provide society with social, economic, or sustainable development benefits? Is the public's health and safety, or welfare significantly improved as a result of the entrants, and/or affected environment's, contribution to the project?
 
Complexity
Complexity is often associated with scale, i.e., the larger the project, the more complex. While there is considerable truth in that proposition, it is not necessarily true. To guard against prejudicing the chances of small projects in this regards, the Small Projects category was created. Within the context affordable by the size discrimination according to project category, judges should assess the complexity of the specific engineering challenge(s) presented.
 
Exceeding Client/Owner Needs
IWA desires to recognise those projects where the 'client' is expressly satisfied with the engineer's work and where defined performance objectives have been met. Performance objectives vary with each category; examples of performance benchmarks for each follow:
 
• Applied Research Projects - The primary proof of performance is the testimony of peers regarding the adequacy and relevancy of the research as well as the advance(s) it provides.
• Planning - Proof of performance is primarily indicated by documentation that the plan recommendations are being implemented.
• Design - Proof of performance is evidenced by several attributes:
 
• Project completed on time
• Project completed for budgeted amount
• Proof that performance promised is, in fact, delivered; e.g., if a treatment plant is expected to achieve certain removals then proof of such performance is needed
• Operations and Management - There is a wide range of projects that can be entered. Successful operation and management of a facility or programme needs to have evidence of its success. Examples of evidence which can be used are:
 
• Statements from regulatory officials regarding ongoing compliance by a facility
• Public testimony that program management has achieved specified goals or requirements
• Media accounts documenting specific accomplishments
• Other awards for the project
• Small Projects - Small projects are limited as monetary amount i.e. €4 million (EURO FOUR MILLION) in capital cost or €400,000 (EURO FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND) in annual cost - but are not limited in scope; that is, a Small Project can be only research, planning, design or O&M or it can be a combination of two or more of these project phases. In the case of single-focus Small Projects, the proof of performance criterion provided (above) is to apply in the same manner. For combinations, the last fully complete definable phase in the work entered should be used to judge quality. For example, if the work submitted is primarily planning, then there should be evidence that the plan is being implemented.
 
Back to top
 
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
 
In the event of an obvious conflict of interest between a judge and an entry in the competition, the entry will be assigned to only those judges without a conflict.

Should a judge in his/her opinion believe that a fair, impartial judging of an entry cannot result due to conditions or circumstances not immediately obvious, the judge shall excuse himself/herself from judging that entry.
 
AUTHORITY OF THE JUDGING PANEL
 
The authority to grant awards of any type, or not to grant awards, rests solely with the collective judgment of the panel of judges. Decisions rendered by the panel of judges are final.
 
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE JUDGES
 
The IWA established the Project Innovations Award Programme to recognise excellence and innovation in water engineering projects which is identified by the five (5) key criteria which have been widely publicised. Therefore, it is the judges' responsibility to identify those entries which best satisfy this goal in each category of competition using the IWA's scoring system.
 
Back to top