While the definition of "Design" could differ for each different discipline, here we refer to aesthetics of form and shape, texture, finishing, graphical communication, colors and color options, material, innovation, emotional values, social context, targeted segment relevance, engineering, ease of use, surprise element, timelessness of design, design of the packaging or protective casing, overall complexity or simplicity. For each design competition category, the relevant "design" details are addressed and are voted by three different juries, the juries have equal weight at this point, the questions are answered on a scale from zero to eleven.
The scope of "Engineering" depends for each discipline, however what we refer in general is the function, ergonomics, usability, details, technical engineering, ease of production, efficiency of production, economies of scale, marketability, technological availability, safety, cost advantage, resource friendliness, sustainability, reparability, durability, impact on nature, recyclability, reusability, responsiveness and similar details. The Engineering criteria are discussed and voted by three different juries, the professional and academic jury's votes are given more importance according to the relevant question and criteria, each questions are answered on a scale from zero to eleven.
Presentation of design, visualization of use and maintenance, clearness representation and relevant details are addressed and are voted by three different juries, the focus group jury's votes are given relatively more importance, the questions are answered on a scale from zero to eleven. In addition we have developed a unique methodology and process to remove the "Positive Presentation Bias". We suggest all participants to use the submission optimizer to maximize their presentation scores.
For each different design award category and also for realized and concept stage products, the evaluation criteria will be different or would have different weights, and there is possibility of category specific evaluation criteria to be present. At this step details are discussed and are voted by three different juries and the professional and academic jury's votes are given more importance. The questions are answered on a scale from zero to eleven. Before voting, the jury members are kindly asked to suggest new criteria for evaluation of the entries in their design discipline, this ensures that we annually update and use relevant criteria to judge the designs to judge the entries in a fair manner.
The scoring starts by explaining in detail what the criteria stands for, the scoring continues by explaining what the score ranges means, and it will have necessary notes to make it more clear for all the jury members to clearly understand it. Most of the criteria are scored from a range of 0 to 11, while some of them will be yes or no questions. You can view the example scoring criteria and how the jury members see it by clicking here.
After voting, the scores given by the jury members are normalized and weighted, normalization of the scores helps to eliminate personal biases, while weighting the results make sure that specific questions are answered by the relevant parties; such as the votes of professionals will be higher on engineering and realization related questions and vote of academics will be higher on sustainability etc. To learn more about the standardization process click here.