Goals for Judges Engagement:
Value for the Judge
Value for Crowdsourcing Sponsor
Profiles of Judges:
The judges selected to participate on the judges’ panel represent one of the most important aspects of a collaborative competition.
Topic Relevance: Judges should have significant experience and expertise in the competition’s area of focus. They should be well-versed in the issue both from a theoretical and pragmatic angle and be able to speak to overarching issues for the sector.
Diversity: The judges panel should be representative of the global innovation community and of the many people and organizations who would have a stake in the competition. Judges are ideally a slate of individuals with high profiles and/or financial and marketing resources (or who represent organizations with high profiles/resources). All efforts should be made to consider the panel as a whole and ensure it represents a diverse range of the following characteristics:
Innovation: The best evaluators of innovation are themselves innovators; therefore, judges should be not only familiar with and committed to the topic, but also leaders/innovators in their own work and sector.
Engagement opportunity: Careful selection of judges should take into account additional engagement opportunities. These may include investment or marketing partnerships, experts for the knowledge/learning process, prize/funding for entrants, media promotion, etc.
The ideal number of judges on the panel is five. This number allows for a tie breaker and provides an important balance between representing a range of experiences and perspectives while also allowing ample time for each judge to contribute to the panel. Four judges are often too few when considering diversity of opinion and experience on the panel; six judges is too many. Given that at least one judge often is unable to participate on the judges panel due to last-minute scheduling difficulties, six judges should be invited and selected for participation. Each submission will get three judges randomly assigned to it for scoring. This helps normalize the scores for judges who tend to grade on the higher or lower ends.