The Analysis Division Innovation of the Year Award criteria, judging information and other requirements are listed below, so get your word processor out and prepare your applications!

The successful candidate shall be eligible to use the receipt of the award as a promotional vehicle for the winning product.

Criteria

The following criteria will be used in evaluating both the eligibility and merits for the award:

1. Expansion or innovative execution of one or more analytical technologies.
1. A design or designs improving the reliability, maintainability and selectivity or performance of an analytical technology.
1. New analytical techniques or a combination of analytical methodologies for an unique application.
1. Technology has to have been demonstrated as operational within the last 3 years. (For the 1999 award this means no sooner than calendar year 1996)

Technology as used in the above criteria refers not only to hardware and software developments but also the development of new analytical techniques or methods.

The finalist for the award will normally be asked to prepare a technical paper for presentation at either the following Spring Symposia.

Judging

The decision of the judges shall be based on the above criteria and all decisions shall be final.

The judging committee shall consist of five Division members to be appointed annually by the immediate Past-Director who shall serve as chairman of the Judging Committee.

If in the opinion of the Judging Committee, no satisfactory submissions are received the award may not be awarded.

Application/Nomination

Applications are to be submitted to the Judging Committee care of the Past Division Director to arrive at least 1 week prior to the start of the Society’s Annual President’s Winter Meeting.

Nominations can be submitted by individuals for the work of others as well as work of themselves or their employer.

All nominations shall be accompanied by a minimum of three and a maximum of five references of actual operational applications of the innovation being nominated for the award.

Additional Information

Important: Because such a diversity of products is entered, you should assume that the judges will not be as expert in your technical area as you are. You should make your entry as easy to understand as possible. We encourage you to be technically sophisticated, but make your answers clear to a nonexpert!

As the judges review all the entries, they are also looking for that "something special." These are products that leapfrog current technology, that provide simple, elegant solutions to complex or long-standing technical or practical problems — products that are so interesting or clearly superior to existing technology that they make you say "How did they do that?" or "How did they think of that?" or "What a neat idea!"

You must show that the product truly exists and is being applied in industry. Proof-of-concept models, breadboards, or laboratory experiments are not acceptable.

As a minimum, you should include a photograph of the product. For software entries, you may include a copy of the program; if this is impossible, include descriptive screen shots of the program.

Other examples of evidence you can provide to show the product’s existence are:

• graphs (such as spectrograms) showing the product's output
• testimonials from users, customers, or industrial partners

The best evidence you can show is actual sales or use of the product. Include sales data or customer lists if this is appropriate (you may mark this information proprietary). You could include beta-site testing (although that would be minimal), provided you can produce evidence that the product is moving into actual commercialization.

If you do not win, we will be glad to discuss the possible reasons why you didn't win. Call the Program Chairman after the Spring Symposia to discuss how to improve your subsequent entries.

How to improve your presentation:

DO watch your jargon. Certain terminology may be quite familiar to you, but may be unknown to others outside your area of expertise. We recommend that you define unusual or special technical terms. Or provide a glossary of terms in an appendix. Don't expect the judges to know every arcane term in your area of specialization.

DO explain acronyms. Again, don't expect the judges to be familiar with all the acronyms in your field of specialization. Spell them out in first reference. Remember, too, that acronyms can vary in meaning depending on your area of interest. PCB, for example, could be polychlorinated biphenyls to a chemist and printed circuit board to an electrical engineer. Avoid confusion and ambiguity by spelling acronyms out.

DO use large type. We recommend at least 12—point type. Make it easy for the judges to read.

DO use "bullets" — or number (1,2,3) key points. Make your chief points stand out.

English is not my first language. Will this hurt my chance of winning? No! We make every possible consideration for idiosyncrasies of language, idiom, and style, particularly from non-English-speaking entrants.

Final Checklist:

• Did you sign the entry?
• Is your entry legible?
• Did you provide backup material, that verifies the claims you are making for your product?
• Is your illustrative material labeled and described so that the judges can understand what you are showing them?
• Did you demonstrate an application for your product?
• Did you quantify this application, or demonstrate its importance in some other way the judges can appreciate?
• Did you include a photograph, sample of the product, or other evidence of its actual existence?

Remember: If you have a specific question, please call Jim Tatera or Ian Verhappen for advice.