- Why the award jury process is decided in the first 48 hours
- Hours 0–6: close the deadline, count, screen
- Hours 6–16: eligibility before the jury, not inside it
- Hours 16–24: allocation and conflicts of interest
- Hours 24–42: the scoring window
- Hours 42–48: consolidation, ranking, borderline cases
- What a platform takes over — and what it does not
Why the award jury process is decided in the first 48 hours
Between the entry deadline and the shortlist sits the part of an award nobody outside the organising team sees — and the part that decides everything said afterwards. Until the deadline you work on reach; after it, on defensibility. Every figure in the later press release, and every rejection you have to justify, is made here.
The schedule below counts your team's working hours, not calendar days. In German-speaking markets awards are mostly run by trade associations, chambers of commerce and specialist media, with jurors serving unpaid alongside a day job; their scoring window usually spans two weeks. The order of the steps holds regardless. Move one — allocation before the eligibility check, say — and the work lands with the jury, where it costs most.
| Window | Step | Who | Typical failure without a system |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hrs 0–2 | Close the deadline, count what arrived | Organising team | Late entries by email, decided case by case |
| Hrs 2–6 | Screening: completeness, duplicates, files | Organising team | Attachments in inboxes, unclear file versions |
| Hrs 6–12 | Eligibility check against the rules of entry | Organiser + subject expert | The jury filters out what should never have arrived |
| Hrs 12–16 | Correct categories, notify reassignments | Organising team | A wrong category quietly distorts the ranking |
| Hrs 16–20 | Allocation and conflict-of-interest check | Jury lead | A juror scores their own client |
| Hrs 20–24 | Briefing, access, scoring sheets issued | Organising team | Ten emails with ten spreadsheets |
| Hrs 24–42 | Scoring window | Jury | Nobody knows who has finished |
| Hrs 42–46 | Consolidation, weighting, normalisation | Jury lead | Scores added up across unequal scales |
| Hrs 46–48 | Ranking, borderline cases, shortlist decision | Jury chair | Debate without the numbers |
Hours 0–6: close the deadline, count, screen
The entry deadline is as much a political moment as a technical one. The stragglers arrive in the hours after it: the upload failed, the time zone was read differently. Decide those cases against a rule written down in advance, not by sympathy. A documented 24-hour grace period for everyone is defensible; three individual exceptions are not.
Screening is stocktaking: how many entries are in, how they spread across categories, which mandatory fields are empty, which attachments will not open. Without a system the first hours vanish here — files sit in inboxes, names collide, and nobody can say whether “entry_final_v3.pdf” is the current version.
Hours 6–16: eligibility before the jury, not inside it
The eligibility check tests entries against the rules of entry, not against quality. Is the organisation eligible? Does the project fall inside the stated period? Is the category right? This belongs with the organising team: a rulebook answers it, and it has to be minuted.
The common mistake is handing it to the jury. Ten busy people then argue formalities instead of substance, and excluding an entry becomes a matter of taste. Expect entries in the wrong category too — entrants pick the category where they rate their chances. Reassigning is legitimate, but it must happen before allocation and be communicated to the entrant. When to schedule each of these steps is covered in the award season timeline.
Hours 16–24: allocation and conflicts of interest
Allocation turns a pile of entries into a scoring plan. Three figures have to fit together: how many scores each entry gets (below three, one outlier decides), how many entries each juror carries (beyond roughly 15, care drops visibly), and which expertise matches which category. With 100 entries and 10 jurors, three scores per entry means exactly 30 entries each — the point at which you find out whether the jury is big enough.
Conflict of interest is not a formality; it is the only thing you can produce if a result is challenged. Collect declarations before allocation is fixed: own organisation, any client or consulting relationship in the past two years, involvement in the entry itself. An email declaration is formally sufficient, but it helps little in an inbox while the allocation sits in a spreadsheet. The exclusion has to bite technically: a conflicted juror should not see the entry, not merely refrain from scoring it. Under the GDPR this is also an access question, covered in the data protection review of your entry process. Settle in advance what a conflict reported after scoring means: strike the score and average the rest, or rescore. Either works if decided beforehand.
Hours 24–42: the scoring window
The scoring window is the one block you do not control. Everything you can do for it happens earlier: a scoring sheet that needs no explanation, a fixed scale, and one sentence per criterion on what the lowest and highest value mean. Without those anchors, strict jurors work in the 2-to-4 band and generous ones in the 4-to-5 band, and the gap later decides places. Which criteria hold up is set out in the jury scoring sheet template.
The second point is visible progress. Without a system nobody knows who is where, and you learn on the final day that two people have not started. A progress view and automatic reminders 72 and 24 hours before the close move the problem from “too late” to “still fixable”. Plan for one dropout: with ten jurors, one usually falls away at short notice. Agree the replacement in advance, not on the Friday evening.
Hours 42–48: consolidation, ranking, borderline cases
Consolidation is not adding scores up. Three things need settling first: how criteria are weighted, how missing scores are handled, and whether you normalise. Normalisation takes individual scoring behaviour out of the result — it corrects the scale, not the opinion. A small jury with clear anchors can do without it; ten people from different backgrounds usually cannot.
What you get is a ranking plus a list of borderline cases: entries on the shortlist cut-off, and entries with unusually wide spread between jurors. Both belong in the chair's session, with the numbers rather than from memory. A tie for sixth place when there are five slots is not an edge case. Decide in advance what applies: casting vote of the chair, a wider shortlist, or the higher score on the leading criterion. Only then does communication start, and it is staged: shortlist first, winners later.
What a platform takes over — and what it does not
Most blocks above are administration and can be automated: deadline closure, completeness checks, rule-based allocation, blocking conflicted access, progress tracking, consolidation and normalisation. In Laureo, jury allocation, conflict handling and multiple jury rounds sit in the Professional package (€3,490 net per award season); Starter (€1,790) covers one jury round without allocation logic. For a small jury and few categories that is enough; for an association jury with real conflict-of-interest exposure it is not. Which function sits in which package is listed openly on the features page.
What no software takes over is the rules. Whether three scores per entry suffice, when someone counts as conflicted, how a tie is broken: those are board decisions, and they have to exist before the entry deadline. A system can enforce a rule and log it; it cannot supply one. That is why the model calculation for 100 entries and 10 jurors still leaves around 10 hours of work with a platform — against roughly 200 hours on email and spreadsheets, about €10,000 at an internal rate of €50 an hour. The 10 hours that remain are the ones about content.
Timings are experience values for an award with around 100 entries and 10 jurors (as of July 2026); actual effort varies. This article is not legal advice. Laureo is a product of State of Innovation GmbH, Vienna.
Frequently asked questions
How many jurors should score each award entry?
Three scores per entry is the working minimum: with two, a single outlier decides the result, and beyond three the workload rises sharply. Check the arithmetic: 100 entries at three scores each is 300 scores, or 30 entries per person across a jury of ten. That is roughly the ceiling for unpaid jurors.
How do you handle conflicts of interest on an award jury?
Collect declarations before allocation, not after: own organisation, any client or consulting relationship in the past two years, involvement in the entry itself. The exclusion should block access, not just scoring. For conflicts reported after scoring, fix the rule in advance: strike that score and average the rest, or rescore.
How long does it take from entry deadline to shortlist?
About 48 working hours for the organising team, covering screening, the eligibility check, allocation, consolidation and ranking. In calendar terms it takes longer, because a volunteer jury usually needs a scoring window of ten to fourteen days. Allow extra time between the shortlist decision and publication for queries.
What happens if two entries tie in the jury scoring?
The rule has to exist before scoring starts. Three options are common: a casting vote for the jury chair, widening the shortlist by the contested place, or deciding on the most heavily weighted criterion. With ten jurors, a tie right on the shortlist cut-off is closer to normal than to exceptional.
Related reading
Planning an award right now?
In 20 minutes we walk through your process: entry, jury round, invoice.
Book a demo