Skip to main content

Our Judging Process

The portal for submissions opens in December and remains open for entries until 19 February. During this time judges are contacted and briefed on the process and timing.  

Once the portal is closed for submissions, the Chair of the judging panel allocates the award categories to each judge, based on their expertise and category preferences. If the allocations cause conflict of interest, appropriate changes are made. The judges have between 3 and 4 weeks to score their allocated award categories. They score the submissions on their own, with no interference or conferring. At no stage is there any contact with the Datacloud commercial teams.

Once all the scores are added up, the shortlists are created based on a minimum score that needs to be attained to qualify. The top aggregate score per category is the winner. In cases of a tiebreaker, the Chair will conduct it by scoring the tied submissions. If the Chair has a conflict of interest, another judge is selected to break the tie. On the rare occasions where the tie cannot be broken, more than one winner may be named.  

If a category does not receive the required about of submissions/meet the minimum score, the category will be dropped to ensure it stays fair and consistent.

Grading Criteria

Each question will be able to gain up to 5 points, following the below criteria:

 

5 points - Excellent

  • All points in the question are fully answered and clearly tailored to the specific award category
  • The submission is convincing, well structured, and easy to follow
  • Data and examples are relevant, specific, and directly support the entry
  • The written response flows clearly and concisely
  • The video presentation stays within the two‑minute limit and reinforces the submission effectively


4 points - Above Average

  • All points in the question are answered
  • Data and examples are relevant but not always clearly articulated
  • Language lacks clarity in places and the overall argument is less convincing
  • A video is included and communicates the right message
  • The video exceeds the two‑minute limit


3 points - Average

  • Around two‑thirds of the question is addressed
  • Data and examples lack clarity or relevance
  • Language is fragmented and impacts overall understanding
  • A video is included but does not clearly explain the submission and/or exceeds the time limit


2 points - Below Average

  • Less than half of the question is answered
  • Data and examples do not meet the expected standard
  • Language is fragmented and difficult to follow
  • The video does not clearly explain why the business or individual should receive the award


1 point - Poor

  • The response appears copied directly from corporate marketing material
  • The submission is not tailored to the specific award category or criteria
  • The content lacks specificity and does not reflect the intent of the award
  • The video is not original to the submission and fails to support the entry

Meet Our Judges

Loading
  • All
  • 0 - 9
  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • Letter
    • S