Occasionally judges reach an award and no team on the shortlist clearly meets every criterion. When judging occurs at an event, the Excellence, Design, and Judges Awards are required and are still presented. This article explains how Judge Advisors guide judges to reach that decision.
Award criteria are published in Award Descriptions, and which awards an event offers is covered in Awards Offered at Competition Events. For how deliberations run, see Participating in Judging Deliberations and Facilitating Judging Deliberations.
Confirm the Gap is Real
This situation may arise from incomplete information rather than an absent candidate. Before concluding that no team meets the criteria, confirm that:
- Notebook evaluations and interview rankings are complete, and every team has been evaluated using the published criteria and processes.
- The judges who met each candidate have spoken. A team looks weaker than it is when the group that interviewed it hasn't shared what they heard.
- Qualification and Skills rankings are final and correct. For Excellence, review the Excellence Award Eligibility Report after the last Qualification Match.
Focus on the Intent of the Award
The awards should recognize the teams that best represent the spirit and intent of the respective awards. Most award criteria describe qualities that teams demonstrate more or less strongly. "No team meets this" may mean "no team met it as strongly as we expected," which is a comparison to make, not a barrier.
Return to the strongest candidates and compare them directly. Consider which team most clearly demonstrates:
-
For the Design Award:
- A strong, student-driven Engineering Design Process.
- A Fully Developed Engineering Notebook that clearly documents design decisions, testing, and iteration.
- Consistency between the notebook, interview, and robot design.
- Effective communication, teamwork, professionalism, and project management.
-
For the Excellence Award:
- The qualities of the Design Award.
- Overall excellence across judged and performance areas.
- Positive conduct, professionalism, and teamwork.
- Strong and consistent on-field performance relative to the event.
Weigh the full body of evidence: notebook, interview, robot design and performance, and rankings where the award uses them. A single weakness is not a reason to eliminate a team that is strong everywhere else. Compare finalists against each other, criterion by criterion, rather than against an ideal team that isn't at the event.
Decide on evidence from this event only. Reputation, past seasons, and tournament results are not criteria, and the criteria are never adjusted to fit a preferred team.
Document the Decision
Once the room decides, the Judge Advisor write a short note recording which criteria no team fully met, why the selected team was the strongest candidate, and anything unusual that affected deliberations. A few sentences is enough. Submit it to the Event Partner along with the award winners.