This page has been created to help Anthill’s ‘maven’ judges navigate the judging process of the SMART 100.
THE PROCESS SO FAR
Our anonymous preliminary judges (essentially Anthill staff and close affiliates of the ‘crew’) have already read through the hundreds of applications submitted and chosen 100 innovations to appear as this year’s finalists.
Some are highly innovative. Others are simply quirky. Some are clever commercial technologies. Others are technologies looking for a commercial purpose.
Some are… well… still finding their feet.
For one reason or another, each appealed to one of our judges. However, we also realise that the opinions of a few can not possibly be relied upon to judge how these finalists will ultimately rank. Indeed, our anonymous preliminary judges found themselves in disagreement as often as they were in accord.
So, don’t be surprised if you too question the ‘worthiness’ of any particular application.
Through your collective wisdom, the most impressive, according to your combined experiences and collective interpretation of our criteria, will rise to the 20 of the list, while the least impressive, again according to your combined experiences and collective interpretation of our criteria, will slip to the bottom.
THE PROFILE PAGE
Australian innovators were invited to submit a detailed online form, asking participants to complete open-ended questions. This question format has been used as the template of the online profiles that you will be asked to read and judge (and soon will get to know quite well).
Applicants were asked to submit images and/or videos. Some took advantage of this offer, while some did not. What you will see is a direct duplication of content submitted by the applicant during the entry process. Some entrants were talented with the written word. Others were not.
As a function of entry, applicants were required to declare that “all details are factually correct, do not infringe on another’s intellectual property and are not unlawful, threatening, defamatory, invasive of privacy, obscene, or otherwise objectionable”.
While we tried to avoid interfering with profiles, some have been edited slightly for reasons of clarity, spelling and grammar. Given the size of the task (200 profiles!), we apologise in advance if any errors or typos slipped through.
SOME FACTORS TO CONSIDER
Not every submission is likely to ‘blow your mind’. However, each of the applicants selected by Anthill Magazine should have an element of remarkability (worthy of being remarked about). The FINALIST LIST is selected in this way to reflect Anthill’s editorial needs, in addition to the core purpose of the awards — to identify, support and showcase Australian innovations with commercial potential.
The awards were developed to recognise innovations — not innovative organisations. Please try not to confuse this distinction. While many applicants are likely to ‘wax lyrical’ about the innovative nature of their business — or their business model — please direct your observations to the innovative product or service submitted. Focus on the PRODUCT or SERVICE.
Please consider the ‘target market’ when evaluating submissions. While an innovation may not be relevant to you, it could represent a significant step forward for its industry. Furthermore, most applications are not the product of marketing managers and are likely to lack marketing finesse. Please try to focus on the target market and look beyond the quality of the application.
HOW IT WORKS IN TWO STEPS
- In the email we sent you, you will find a link to the profiles. You don’t need to judge all of them… it would be great if you did… but that’s a lot! Simply click the link to access the profiles. And smash through as many as possible. The links will rotate randomly.
- At the foot of each profile is a judging form. It’s password protected. You’ll need to insert your password, enter your details, the name of entry and start judging!
WATCH THE VIDEO (FROM 2013)
This section is a living document.
What if a particular profile answer is not complete?
In this instance, the applicant has decided to not answer a question for one reason or another. You may allow this to guide your reasoning when judging the entry.
How do I know that what is said in the application is factually correct?
While we have asked applicants, as a function of entry, to declare that “all details are factually correct, do not infringe on another’s intellectual property and are not unlawful, threatening, defamatory, invasive of privacy, obscene, or otherwise objectionable”, we can not be certain that everything said is true and accurate. Should an organisation be selected (through your collective wisdom) to appear in the top 20, Anthill will then undergo editorial due diligence.
How many am I supposed to judge?
We’re encouraging mavens to tackle at least 10. But, if you’re on a roll, don’t stop! You can judge as many as you want!
If we don’t have to judge all of them, isn’t there a risk that we’ll cherry pick the most interesting looking projects to spend our time judging? Do you include a score for projects which actually get judged as opposed to ones that do not?
If some applications generate less questionnaire submissions than others, then we will need to return to our pool of mavens and ask them (you guys) to judge these ‘less interesting’ submissions. Our goal is to have every submission judged an equal number of times. So, please try not to skip the submissions that don’t reflect your interests. Just judge with your gut… quickly… and then move.