by Katia Ernst | Jun 2, 2026 | Articles
Program managers who only start thinking about judging rounds once entries are already rolling in are losing valuable time. More than that: an unplanned judging structure puts at risk what every award program is fundamentally about: fair, credible outcomes. Thankfully, with the right preparation, none of this is inevitable.
Multi-round judging is an awards evaluation process where entries are assessed across two or more distinct stages, rather than in a single review round.
Each round serves a different purpose. Early rounds typically focus on eligibility or broad scoring, while later rounds involve deeper evaluation, discussion or final ranking.
This approach helps award programs manage large entry volumes, reduce judge workload and improve the consistency and transparency of outcomes.
The answer depends on three factors:
With high entry volumes, a first round dedicated to screening makes sense. The central question here is simply: does this entry qualify? Does it meet the minimum requirements? This phase doesn’t need complex criteria. Whether eligibility screening is handled by judges or the program team depends on program size and available resources.
The second round is often where in-depth evaluation comes in. Experienced judges assess entries individually against clearly defined criteria. This is where detailed scoring frameworks earn their place.
There might also be a final decision round where judges rank their favourites from a shortlist. A public voting round might also make sense, if you want to bring the community in and give the program additional visibility.
Programs with fewer but more complex entries can sometimes manage with a single round. Even then, it’s worth distinguishing phases within that round. For example, independent individual scoring followed by a group discussion.
Awards programs need enough rounds to ensure every entry receives the right level of evaluation, but no more than necessary. Award Force supports all of these structures with configurable judging modes that can be set and combined per round. More detail on our four different judging modes available here.
A well-planned judging structure counts for little if judges don’t know what’s expected of them at each stage. That’s why round-specific briefings are essential to a well-run judging process.
What should be assessed in round one? What is explicitly out of scope at this stage? Clear boundaries help judges stay focused.
Rather than lengthy written explanations, it’s helpful to provide weighted criteria overviews or short explainer videos to help judges quickly understand what matters.
How long should an individual assessment take? What’s the deadline for the round? Realistic time estimates help judges plan their own capacity.
Particularly in multi-round programs, a brief introduction to the platform goes a long way. Judges who don’t have to figure out the tool can focus on the judging. Award Force places particular emphasis on data privacy and security: judges only see the entries released for their specific round, and entrant details can be anonymised where needed.
Before judging begins, the program team should have the following in place:
Round structure: the number of rounds, progression criteria and timeline are fully defined.
Scoring forms: tailored to each round: round one with a small number of clear questions; later rounds with more differentiated criteria.
Judge assignments: who evaluates what, in which round? Potential conflicts of interest have been identified and resolved.
Privacy settings: it’s clear which information is visible to whom at each stage.
Entry tags: tagging entries before judging opens is a simple but effective way to bring order to the process. Tags can mark entries as qualified, flag duplicates or segment entries by type, making judge assignments cleaner and ensuring each judge sees only what’s relevant to their round. Award Force supports both manual and automated tagging. Read the full guide to entry tagging.
Settling these points before launch saves considerable time during the live judging period and avoids corrections mid-process.
The goal is simple: give strong entries a fair chance and make the judges’ work manageable. Planning the round structure in advance, choosing the right mode for each phase and briefing judges thoroughly creates the conditions for credible, defensible results.
This plays out in practice. The Country Music Awards of Australia report that since moving to Award Force, their members can clearly see that the process is fair and transparent:
People can see how it is fair and equitable, transparent and that it provides a very much more even playing field.
— Meryl Davis, Awards Manager.
Program size doesn’t determine this. Smaller award programs benefit just as much from a structure that’s been thought through from the start.
Award management works best when process and technology stay quietly in the background, allowing judges and entrants to focus on an evaluation they trust. Award Force is designed around that principle—treating configurability, data security and ease of use as inseparable.
Articles
Feature focus
How-to-guides
Press releases
Product updates