by Katia Ernst | Oct 20, 2026 | Articles
More than 59,000 entries from 3,778 photographers across 141 countries, judged in several rounds: at the World Press Photo Contest 2025, a jury of 31 international experts made the selection. First in six regional juries that shortlisted entries in their regions, then in a global jury that decided on the 42 winners.
Figures like these from this Award Force client show just what goes on behind professional awards programs. Entries must be assessed in a structured way, different jury phases must be coordinated, and decisions must be traceable.
Anyone who has managed submissions involving spreadsheets and email inboxes is probably familiar with these problems:
Each of these problems puts fairness and efficiency at risk. They also burden jury members, who usually give their time on a voluntary basis or alongside their day-to-day work.
When you look for a judging app or judging software, think beyond the scoring screen. Pay attention to the following criteria:
Professional awards often work with a preselection, a specialist jury and a final jury. The software should map each round separately, with its own jury panels, criteria and time windows.
You should be able to assign entries manually, automatically or by category. An even distribution of workload is part of this.
Jury members must be able to report conflicts before they see any entries. Administrators need a clear overview of these reports.
Weighted criteria, comment fields and different scales should be configurable per category and round.
Progress indicators, reminders and an analysis of the scores help you spot deviations early and document decisions.
Entries often contain confidential information. Role-based access rights, encrypted transmission and GDPR-compliant handling of personal data should be a priority. More on that here: The ultimate SaaS security checklist for evaluating any platform.
The market for online judging software can be roughly divided into four groups.
Form and submission tools with a scoring module. These suit small programs with a single round. Judging is usually an add-on to submission management. For multi-round processes, this kind of solution is generally not enough.
Voting tools. They often offer many voting types, such as public voting, ranking or point allocation. That is useful, but it does not solve the core task of professional judging: who scores what, when and under which rules? Which scoring method suits your awards program depends on exactly these questions, not on the sheer number of available voting types.
Custom-built solutions. Some organisations have a solution programmed individually or build one in-house. This promises maximum fit, but it brings structural disadvantages. You become dependent on individual developers or an agency, further development and security updates rarely happen automatically, and every adjustment costs time and budget again. Above all, you do not benefit from the combined experience of many other awards programs that has gone into an established SaaS solution. What looks flexible on paper often becomes a maintenance and cost risk in day-to-day operation.
Specialised awards platforms. Award Force belongs to this group. These solutions cover the entire process, from submission through judging to the announcement of winners. They are built for complex programs with multiple categories and rounds.
When you do your own market research, test every provider with the same questions. Request a demo and run through your most difficult scenario, for example a category with three rounds and changing juries.
Many providers advertise a long list of voting types. That variety has its value, as different categories or rounds often call for different approaches. But that is often only half the battle: how well the software maps your actual judging process matters at least as much.
At the Victorian School Design Awards, a jury of six to eight members first scores each entry individually. They then meet to discuss the scores and determine the winning entry. Before the switch to Award Force, this was paper-based: every entry, including high-resolution images on CD, had to be duplicated for each jury member. Awards Manager June Graham describes the result plainly:
The CDs didn’t always work for the jury members, it was hard to judge, and it became a cumbersome process.
Today, entrants submit online and the jury scores digitally. Her advice to other program managers:
It’s more cost-effective and eases the jury’s workload.
What improved this process was not a particular voting type, but a workflow that reliably brings together submission, scoring and discussion. The strongest platforms give you both: the judging methods your categories need, built on a process that holds them together.
Start with the process, not the tool. Define rounds, criteria and responsibilities in writing. Only then is it worth configuring anything.
Keep scoring forms lean. Five to seven clearly worded criteria usually produce better results than long questionnaires. Describe what each score means. You can find more tips on creating a good form here.
Clarify conflicts of interest in advance. Ask about them before the assignment begins. This helps you avoid reassignments later.
Plan a calibration session. Have all jury members first score the same two or three sample entries. Discuss deviations together. Research on expert panel review shows that joint calibration discussions in particular noticeably affect the differences between scores. This creates a shared understanding of the criteria.
Distribute the workload realistically. Ask how many entries per person are reasonable. A manageable number leads to more careful scoring.
Use reminders and progress indicators. If you can see early which scores are missing, you can follow up in good time.
Test before launch. Invite one or two jury members to a trial run. Their feedback shows where instructions are missing. It also helps to view the process once from the jury’s perspective: seeing step by step what a jury member sees quickly shows where explanations or examples are needed.
Programs like the World Press Photo Contest mentioned at the outset show just how complex professional awards can be: many entries, multiple rounds, changing juries and high expectations around fairness and confidentiality. The right judging software carries that complexity instead of passing it on to program managers. It reliably maps your rounds, categories and roles, protects confidential data and makes decisions traceable.
Award Force helps organisations run awards at this level: secure, configurable and with respect for everyone’s time. Because recognizing excellence calls for a process that meets the highest standards.
Articles
Feature focus
How-to guides
Press releases
Product updates