THE JUDGING PROCESS

In the highly subjective arena of design work, it is crucial for the sake of fairness that particularly opinionated or high profile judges do not become overly influential in the process. Our numerical system in which votes are cast on an individual basis, eliminates the need for judges to meet or confer with each other until absolutely necessary. In the case of Product, judges will be able to view entries independently online, and raise questions through the Product Convenor, prior to final assessment during the actual two day Product judging process.

The following levels will be recognised by the judges:

Bronze - Entries that are selected as finalists in their category.

Silver - Entries that are highly commended in their category.

The Gold Pin - The best entry(s) in an individual category

The Purple Pin - A supreme overall award selected from the Gold award winners in each category. The Purple Pin celebrates an entry identified by all judges as being the best entry of all entries presented in any one year.

No limit has been set for the number of awards that can be conferred for each of the above levels, i.e. there may be more than one Silver or Gold award conferred in each category.

One Purple Pin will be awarded in each of the four disciplines except, in exceptional cases, when all the judges in that discipline agree that more than one Purple Pin should be awarded.

The Purple Pin, Gold, Silver and Bronze entry boards will remain the property of the Designers Institute and may form part of the Best Design Awards Exhibition.

Judging will take place from 23rd to 27th August 2010.

JUDGING

1. Each discipline (Graphic, Interactive, Spatial and Product) will have its own panel of judges.
2. Each entry will be judged in accordance with each sectors criteria identified below
3. Entries will be presented to the judges with no marks, symbols, or labels that can readily identify the designer/s.
4. Finalists will be assessed using all available material accompanying the entry.
5. The judges reserve the right to relocate an entry from one category to another if they deem it necessary.
6. The judges' decision is final and no correspondence concerning the results can be entered into.
7. If judges feel entries in a particular category do not reach an appropriate standard, an award will not make Gold, Silver or Bronze as the case may be.
8. Where there is a likelihood of conflict of interest in the judging procedure, then that judge will step down from evaluating that entry.
9. The judges reserve the right to contact the client/referee for examination or clarification of the work entered.

GRAPHICS CRITERIA (judging guidelines)

Please note that, where appropriate, you can enter the same project in multiple categories. Each entry incurs the relevant entry fee.

1. Originality, creativity, appropriateness, technical innovation, craftsmanship, skill, use of resources and ability to meet the brief.
2. Judges will take special account of how well the design solution meets the requirements of the client and the needs of the end user/viewer.

INTERACTIVE CRITERIA (judging guidelines)

1. Concept
   Judges will consider design thinking, conceptual development, research, innovation and creativity. Successful projects will chart an intersection between clients’ requirements, user needs and technological opportunity.
2. Design
   More than simple aesthetics, judges will assess the complete user experience including look and feel, context, brand alignment, and ease of use.
3. Technical Resolution and Craft
   Communicate any technical aspects of the site, including challenges overcome, or novel uses of technology. Judges will assess the quality of execution including responsiveness, use of standards, consideration of accessibility and appropriateness of technology

SPATIAL CRITERIA (judging guidelines)

Please note that, where appropriate, you can enter the same project in multiple categories i.e. A Built Environment entry may also be entered into another category . Each entry incurs the relevant entry fee.

1. Aesthetic/style (Appearance)
   The judges will look, not only at the aesthetics, but the consideration and resolution of the elements that drive the aesthetics, e.g. context/location, brand alignment and choice and use of materials in support of design
2. Concept ( Creativity)
   This encompasses design thinking, conceptual development creativity, originality, and critical reasoning, e.g. appropriateness of response to the brief, relevant research and themes for inspiration
3. Answering the brief to client and user satisfaction (fit for purpose)
   i.e. what was important to achieve as an outcome for the client and how does the design achieve this, and fit for purpose from a user experience point of view
4. Technical resolution and innovation
   This is the opportunity to communicate any technical aspects. It may include special details, challenges or opportunities and how they have been overcome or used to their advantage. Explain if innovation was important or a driver in the design.
5. Consistency and clarity
   Have all the elements been resolved with consistency and clarity through the process.

Project budget To assist jury deliberation, please indicate the project budget range.(This information is not for publication.)

• Under $50,000
• $50,000 - $150,000
• $150,000 - $300,000
• $300,000 - $500,000
• $500,000 - $1,000,000
• More than $1,000,000 - please advise For commercial interiors, please indicate cost per square metre.

Spatial entries are open to site visits where the panel deems it necessary.

PRODUCT CRITERIA (judging guidelines)

Please note that, where appropriate, you can enter the same project in multiple categories. Each entry incurs the relevant entry fee.

1. Concept design creativity and innovation Does the product pioneer or lead the market? Does it anticipate latent (existing but dormant or not yet developed or not yet realised) and emerging trends in similar or related products, services or technologies? Is the design novel and creative in relation to its competitors?
2. Fit for purpose and ergonomics Is it highly likely to satisfy the requirements of stakeholders in the value chain from manufacturing to the end user? Is the product fit for its intended purpose? Is it safe to use, does it comply with appropriate standards and is it easy to use? Does it comply with ergonomic requirements in terms of operation, experience, convenience and well-being.
3. Aesthetic/Appearance and style Is the product form, shape, size, proportions, composition, colour, texture and graphics appropriate for its intended purpose and context of use? Is there harmony between the technical, functional (including user interaction) and aesthetic resolution of the product? Does the design express appropriate brand qualities including product identity and differentiation from others of its type? Is the product aesthetic, meaningful, attractive and desirable and is it structurally convincing with no unwanted visual disturbances? Does the design appropriately stimulate our intellect and senses?
4. Technical resolution, sustainability and quality Is the product made to a high standard of construction, fit and finish? Does it satisfy appropriate performance and quality standards? Does it use materials, processes and technology in innovative, sustainable and desirable ways?
   
   
   On a case-by-case basis, the above criteria may need to be supplemented by additional product specific considerations as deemed appropriate by the judges.

5. Proposed definition of Concept / Experimental category: A product that is fundamentally speculative in its nature and execution and that has not entered production.

   The product may be an experimental work or take a critical position that explores specific design questions, issues, topics, opportunities or problems. It may propose as part of its resolution new and emerging technologies, materials or processes that are not yet available for manufacture but which are feasible or highly desirable.

   It may also explore social or cultural issues and propose new and innovative approaches that challenge, extend or refine current products, services and systems.

   It need not address all of the above, but it must demonstrate high levels of design refinement and innovation in its resolution.

   Typically products in this category are presented in the following ways:

   • Final design form studies or prototypes either to scale or full size.
   • Display panels explaining the final design and the design thinking behind the work.
   • Computer generated material including renderings, animations, and technical diagrams or illustrations.

Online Viewing:
Product entries will be viewed online by the judges prior to final assessment during judging week.

Stage 1 – First assessment
All Stage 1 Product entries must be supplied in an electronic format only.

When entering on-line, product entrants are to load an A4 size document containing information in support of their entry and one “hero” image (to be used - in the case of becoming a finalist - for the website and audio visual presentation and Best Design Awards Annual) and no more than 9 other images of their product. Format: Image specs are 300 dpi at 210mm x 148mm.

Prior to judging week, the Product judges will review each entry and provide written comments against each entry for the other judges to review.

In some cases, entrants will be contacted by phone for the purpose of clarifying any issues that have not been addressed in an entrant’s submission.

Stage 2 – Selection of Bronze, Silver, Gold awards,Category winners and Purple Pin awards
For the purposes of judging all entrants will be required to either supply a sample of the product, or provide access to the product or provide an A2 board (up to 2xA2 boards).

If the product is too large to transport, every effort will be made to view in situ. The cost of transporting the product to and from the Auckland judging venue is the entrant’s responsibility.

Product entrants should be available for judging on August 26th in case the judges need to contact them to discuss their product.

For each category, the judges will collectively assess the entry against the criteria.

By consensus agreement, they will determine those entries that will be awarded Bronze, Silver and Gold awards for each Product category and for the Product winner of the Purple Pin category.

If your entry is selected as a finalist, you will be asked to provide the organizers with a brief written description and images of your work, displayed on two A2 boards.

The boards are to be sent to the: Designers Institute of New Zealand (DINZ), C/- TAFE College, 41 Gillies Ave, Newmarket, no later than Friday 1 October and will become the property of DINZ.

These boards may form part of a national exhibition of the Best Design Awards Exhibition 2010.

Product samples may be displayed along with the A2 boards at the Best Design Awards Exhibition in Auckland (or the other venues) but it is the responsibility of the entrant to get the product to and from the exhibition. All care is given to the Exhibition but the responsibility rests with the entrant.

PRODUCT SUSTAINABLE AWARD

The Sustainable Product Design Award The environmental and social impact of the products and services that we design is coming increasingly under the spotlight regarding issues of social responsibility, regulations and compliance.

As designers we have a responsibility to think carefully about the impact of the products we are designing, and apply the principles of sustainable product design to deliver new ideas to the market.

To recognize, celebrate, and encourage the increasing efforts being made in this area, the BeST Design Awards now includes a Sustainable Product Design category in the Product Design award section.

This award recognises successful examples of sustainable product design and helps inform designers and product developers of significant work being done in this area.

The award also highlights the contribution that concern for sustainability and the environment can make to best design practice.

Guidance on the award

Sustainable product design (SPD) is characterised by the consideration of functional, economic, environmental and social factors.

The SPD award winner will be chosen from finalists in product design categories.

This is being done to ensure that products addressing sustainability issues are also effective in all aspects of good design.

The award primarily focuses on the functional, economic, and environmental factors of the product because currently there is a lack of developed measures to assess the social sustainability aspects of product design.

Credit will, however, be given to products that can demonstrate a positive social outcome.

Product entries should objectively explain the measures undertaken to reduce the environmental impact of the product presented.

This may be explained by the application of basic tools and techniques or through the use of more advanced techniques such as life cycle assessment (LCA). Measurable improvements will enable the judges to value the sustainability outcomes and issues achieved.

Contextual information that provides judges with a background picture regarding the degree of difficulty of achieving improvements, would also be useful.

SPD can be broadly broken into four types, each with an increasing eco-efficiency factor. This provides the applicant with guidance about where their product sits.

A successful Type 4 project would have a higher degree of difficulty and a higher eco-efficiency improvement than a Type 1, and would be rated accordingly by the judges.

• Type 1: Product improvement:
  Partial changes and environmental improvements to products that already exist on the market
• Type 2: Product redesign:
  Although the existing product concept stays the same the components of the product are fully improved or replaced
• Type 3: Function innovation:
  Is not restricted to the existing product concept. In this case the way the function is fulfilled is changed
• Type 4: System innovation:
  The entire technological system (product, production chain and associated infrastructure and institutional infrastructure) is replaced by a new system.

SPD requires a designer to think about the ‘Product Life Cycle’ from both a functional and environmental perspective.

Entries that can demonstrate a clear understanding of the product life cycle and that have successfully integrated SPD within the (client/design) business enterprise will be viewed positively in the judging of the award.

The following checklist and list of Do’s and Don’ts have been compiled from the IDSA/ design week IDEA05 awards. They are a useful guide for what should be included in an application to the Sustainable Product Design category.

They also highlight some of the areas that will be considered for the award.

The checklist consists of the following categories: - Ecodesign Opportunities - Product System Innovations - Comprehensive Environmental Assessments - New Product Models.

Ecodesign Opportunities

• Reduce the amount of material in the product, and material wasted during production
• Minimise material types to reduce separation time during recycling
• Use renewable, reusable, recycled and/or materials, refurbished components, and specify renewable, recyclable and/or less toxic materials
• Use recycled materials and/or refurbished components
• Design disposable products to minimize material content and for recycling
• Design for fast, easy (economical) disassembly of products, including separation of major components and dissimilar materials prior to recycling
• Eliminate and find alternatives for toxic materials (chemical content), toxic components (electronics, etc.), treatments and processes (chrome plating, lead solder)
• Design so that unavoidable toxic components (batteries, electronics) are easily removed prior to disposal /recycling
• Design to reduce the energy consumption across the product life-cycle(engage development team in reducing energy use)
• Design to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the product life-cycle
• Design to ensure compliance with relevant standards and legislation
• Reduce the shipping weight and size of products to reduce energy consumption during transportation, and use packaging materials from sources local to production site.
• Eliminate or reduce wasteful packaging and collateral materials or accessories (manuals, inserts)
• Use efficient transportation methods (trains and ships are better than trucks which are better than airplanes)

Product System Innovations

• Design for reuse, not disposal after single use
• Design the product for 'take back' systems that enable product upgrading/refurbishing/recycling
• Design product for use in delivering a service - a leasing or shared use system
• Design for product life extension - improve durability, ease of repair, upgrade, eliminate causes of product failure or obsolescence

Comprehensive environmental assessment
Where possible, provide life-cycle assessment information to support environmental claims. This can include:

• Explore all of the environmental impacts of all the components in the product over its entire life cycle; include extraction of materials from nature, conversion of materials into products, product use, disposal or recycling and transport between these phases
• Determine key areas of environmental impact from the lifecycle of the product, including global warming, acid rain, smog, habitat damage, human toxicity, water pollution, cancer causing potential, ozone layer depletion and resource depletion
• Identify and address priority areas to reduce the product's life-cycle environmental impact.
• Where possible, provide any other relevant environmental certification. For example, does the product carry an eco-label (e.g. Environmental Choice)?

New Product Models

• Design for reuse, not disposal after single use
• Design the product for 'take back' systems that enable product upgrading/refurbishing/recycling
• Design product for use in delivering a service - a leasing or shared use system
• Design for product life extension - improve durability, ease of repair, upgrade, eliminate causes of product failure or obsolescence

IMPORTANT DO'S AND DONT'S

DO

• Include a summary of environmental impact research to describe your consideration of environmental impact in more depth, detailing what you learned, what lead you to make design improvements, what options you considered, and what improvements you made.
• Discuss designer initiatives to improve product impact in the design phase and their results. Describe them even if small steps, especially if they will lead to greater improvements and/or awareness in the company in the future.
• List the materials used in the product in detail (ie: what type of plastic - ABS, poly propylene, what percentage of recycled content, what type of flame retardants or other additives, if present).
• Show 'Before' and 'After' stories to highlight improvements if the product is a redesign.
• Describe how energy efficient this product is compared to competitors (if it consumes energy). Include images highlighting environmental aspects of the design (such as design for disassembly, reduced scrap waste in the factory, etc.) to make your point clear to the jurors.

DON'T

• Specify that materials (especially plastics) are recyclable without calling out what type of plastic they are!
• Claim recycled content without specifying the percentage of recycled content in each of the predominate types of material in the product.
• Claim the technology of the product as a design contribution (ie: energy efficiency) unless you can demonstrate the designer's involvement. However, do explain how the designer was critical in building awareness to facilitate technology improvements, and in improving acceptance of a new, better technology or product approach, if applicable.