| |
| Judging Process |
| |
| JUDGING PANEL |
| |
| PIA-Development would like to extend its gratitude to the following water industry professionals who have volunteered to serve on the global judging panel. |
| |
Mr. Carlos Alberto Rosito
Inter-American Director of DIRSA/AIDIS
Brazil
Dr J. E. Burgess
Research Manager
Water Research Commission
South Africa
Mr.John Briscoe
World Bank Water Specialist
World Bank
USA
|
|
Ms Li Chen
China-Northern Design and Research Institute of China's Municipal Engineering
China
Mr. Roland Liemberger
Regional Director, Asia, Miya- Arison Group
Philippines
Dr. Pawan Labhasetwar
Scientist & Head, GEM Division
NEERI
India |
|
| |
| AWARDS |
| |
| The nomination and judging of the Project Innovation Awards - Development are based on one global heat. Only one Award winner will be given to the highest scoring entry of each category. |
| |
| HONOUR AWARDS |
| |
| In addition to the Regional Award in each category, judges may grant one Honour Awards to other entries deserving of commendation. Honour Awards are granted to those entries which achieve a score equal to or greater than 90 percent of the score in that category. |
| |
| JUDGING CRITERIA |
| |
Each judge will individually score each entry according to the programme criteria. Judges are free to work at their own speed. Experience suggests that sufficient information can be gleaned from the entry to permit scoring in 30 minutes or less per entry.
Tabulation of scores and assignment of awards based thereon is performed by IWA. The judging sheets of each judge will be combined and averaged by the number of judges for the entry to eliminate bias in scoring, i.e., one judge scores all entries high and another low. Prizes will be awarded based on these average scores consistent with competition rules. In the event of a tie score, judges will be consulted to break the tie. |
| |
| Entries in each primary award category should: |
| |
| • |
Demonstrate integrated development which considers social, technical, financial, economic, environmental and institutional issues within each project; |
| • |
Focus on towns, cities and peri-urban and urban environments. |
|
| |
| Judging of each entry is to be based on the four (4) criteria listed below: |
| |
| • |
Originality or innovativeness; |
| • |
Complexity of the problem or situation that the project addresses; |
| • |
Social and economic benefits and overall sustainability; |
| • |
Potential for replication/up-scaling based on local conditions |
|
| |
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 |
|
| |
| SPECIFIC GUIDANCE |
| |
| Each judge is to assess each project against the four criteria according to his/her own experience. However, the following guidance is provided to inform the judges of certain Academy standards that are to be used by all judges. |
| |
| Each judge is to assess each project against the four criteria according to his/her own experience. However, the following guidance is provided to inform the judges of certain IWA standards that are to be used by all judges. |
| |
Originality and Innovation
Assessing the extent to which the proposed project or research introduces a new or significantly improved product, production or delivery method, marketing method or organisational practice in an affordable, replicable and sustainable manner; |
| |
Complexity
Often, but not always, complexity is associated with scale, i.e., the larger the project, the more complex. Judges should seek to reward projects based on the complexity of the specific technical/non-technical challenge(s) presented, and award extra points to simpler sustainable solutions to complex problems. |
| |
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, and sustainable development benefits? Is the public's health, safety, or welfare significantly improved as a result of the entrant's, and/or affected environments, contribution to the project? |
| |
Potential for replication/up-scaling or actual replication
Is crucial to implementation of successful innovation in development. Innovative projects are all well and good, but can the project experiences, policy lessons, validated techniques/methodologies, etc, be applied in larger and different development contexts. Judges will consider and compare each project's effectiveness of the techniques and methods used in up-scaling innovations in a development context. Suitable evidence should be presented to support this component, including, for example, capital and recurrent cost related data. |
| |
| 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 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 |
