BCI Awards Judging Guidance

At the BCI, we value transparency in all our processes. This page provides information about the judges' role and the judging process. Our aim is to create a clear and inclusive environment where all participants understand how the awards are judged and what is expected from the judges.

Regional allocation of judges

  • The regional allocation of the Judges is determined once the number of entries for the year is known.
  • Judges reserves will be used if a judge is unavailable or a conflict of interest exists.
  • Judges are not allowed to nominate or be nominated for an award while they are active Judges during their tenure.

Head Judge Information

The BCI Board appoints the Head Judge position without a fixed tenure. The position is reviewed every three years to ensure that it continues to meet the organization's needs.

The responsibilities for this role include:

  • Providing guidance on the administration and development of the BCI Awards program in collaboration with the BCI Central Office/Board.
  • Adjudicating any complaints regarding award entries.
  • Judging entries as needed.
  • Representing the BCI at the annual Global Awards ceremony.
  • Participating in the selection and training of new awards judges.

Overview of the judging process

  • All submissions are first evaluated by the BCI Central Office (CO) to ensure eligibility and compliance with award criteria.
  • Eligible entries are sent to the judging panel. Each entry is evaluated by 3 Judges and each criterion is scored on a scale of 0-5 as below:
  • Exceptional: Score of 5 – Outstanding evidence; measurable impact; strategic value; exemplary professionalism.
    • Strong: Score of 4 – Well-developed example with clear impact and strong alignment to competencies.
    • Good: Score of 3 – Clear, relevant example showing solid professional competence.
    • Adequate: Score of 2 – Basic example with some relevance but lacking detail or depth.
    • Limited: Score of 1 – Weak, vague, or generic example with minimal relevance.
    • Not Evident: Score of 0 – No answer or does not address the question.
  • A total average score from the 3 judges is calculated for each entry. All scores are reviewed by the Head Judge before confirming the winners.
  • If a moderation meeting is required, the relevant judges and Head Judge will convene virtually to discuss the entry and agree on the winner.

BCI initial application assessment

  • The BCI Central Office (CO) reviews all initial applications to ensure they meet award criteria.
  • Applications that do not meet criteria are removed from consideration, and applicants are informed.
  • An application will not be considered if it breaches any of the following criteria:
    • It goes against the application checklist.
    • It contains defamatory statements.
    • It contains conflict of interest statements*.
    • It has out-of-date or non-dated information.
       

. *Conflict of interest statements disclose relationships that could compromise impartiality. For example, personal, familial, professional, or financial relationships with applicants.  

Judge's responsibilities

  • Judges must read the judging panel application rules, familiarise themselves with the competency framework, and understand the learning outcomes from the judges’ training programme to fully understand their role.
  • Judges must treat all application materials, discussions, scores, and outcomes as confidential and must not share information outside the judging process.
  • If a judge identifies false, misleading, or defamatory statements in an application, they must promptly notify the BCI Central Office in writing and provide details of their findings.
  • Judges must declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest as soon as they are identified and recuse themselves from judging affected applications.
  • Judges must assess all applications objectively and consistently, applying the scoring criteria and competency framework fairly across all entries.
  • Judges are only allowed to score applications based on the given evidence and cannot conduct any additional research.
  • Judges must provide a detailed explanation of their opinion as to why their top-scoring applicant should win the award, for each allocated category.
  • Judges must comply with all BCI Awards timelines, processes, and instructions issued by the BCI Central Office or Head Judge.
  • Applicants must achieve a score of more than 50% of available marks to be eligible for an award. This rule applies to categories with a single entrant as well.
  • Judges should make every effort to attend the virtual regional awards ceremonies, when possible, as it is an important opportunity to recognize and celebrate the achievements of the award winners.
     

Moderation Meetings

Moderation meetings provide an opportunity for judges and the Head Judge to convene virtually to discuss any ambiguous issues related to judging. The Head Judge leads the meetings, reviewing the evidence, scores, and judges' comments to ensure a transparent, fair, and equitable application process. The goal is to select the most deserving award recipients while maintaining consistency, impartiality, and inclusivity. If a consensus cannot be reached, the Head Judge will make the final decision.

Moderation meetings will take place at the discretion of the Head Judge if discrepancies or ambiguities in scoring are identified. These may include, for example, situations where there are significant differences in scores between judges or where top applicant scores are tied.