We are looking for entries that will enhance a compelling conference program, and when nominating entries for the shortlist we pay attention to the same criteria attendees use at conference.
On the entry form we request a synopsis that comprises up to 100 words on an overview, and on each of the following four judging criteria. Always include any metrics and anecdotal evidence you feel relevant.
What you have done and why this is great.
We plan to use the first 30 to 40 words as the basis of our executive summary of your entry. Express this so an outsider can see why what you have done is special.
The difference this is making for the target community and how you know.
We are looking here for real outcomes please. It’s okay to include evidence about how people like what you have done, but we also want to see anecdotal or metric evidence of real outcomes.
What’s new, distinctive or original about your project, and why this innovation was necessary.
All we are looking for is an idea that your fellow professionals might not have thought of. We are not looking for the next Steve Jobs. The innovation does not need to be about technology.
What has not worked as you hoped; what you would do differently with the benefit of hindsight.
Perversely the greater the breakdown and the more dramatic the learning outcome, the better. Ideally though it is a learning insight that would be of value to the conference audience to hear about, so they could avoid the same pitfall.
What is it about what you have done that would inspire people in the conference audience to adopt your ideas?
Explain how your organisation has benefited from your entry. Those listening may want the same benefits for their organisations, and so be inspired by how you achieved the benefits.