[callout1]Everyone at your conference is also a judge – hence “Peer” in the Peer Awards.
The judges are invited to base their decision on three key criteria, and the finalists are encouraged to address each of these as well.[/callout1]
When deciding which entries to shortlist, you should pay attention to how they address these judging criteria, and how their inclusion could enhance a compelling conference programme for your people.
Because the entry form is for selection purposes only (the judging takes place at the conference), it is necessary to request simply a synopsis of up to 100 words on each of the three criteria, plus a similar sized overview.
The difference this is making for the target community and the benefit experienced by your organisation.
Look here for real outcomes. It’s okay to include evidence about how people like what what’s been done, but it’s great to have anecdotal or metric evidence of real outcomes.
What’s new, distinctive or original about a project, and why this innovation was necessary.
Look for an idea that the entrant’s fellow professionals might not have thought of. It’s not that you are looking for the next Steve Jobs, and the innovation does not need to be about technology (unless the category or sub-category is technological).
What is it about what’s been done that would inspire people in the conference audience to adopt the ideas?
The key idea or ideas that others in your organisation could apply for themselves in their own quite different context.
When it comes to preparing conference presentations, we would then encourage candidates to in addition share about something has not worked as they had hoped, and that they would do differently with the benefit of hindsight. Even though this is an awards, it is also a conference, and we find that this is generally much appreciated by an audience (the judges).