Run Your Entire Awards Programme Without the Spreadsheet Archaeology
From the first nomination form to the final winner announcement, every stage lives in one place. Your judges get a focused review queue, your nominees get clear status updates, and you spend your time on decisions, not file management.
Don’t Launch an Industry Award to Spend Half the Cycle Chasing Judges for Scores.
Inconsistent Nominations
Every nominator answers differently, so comparison is manual and slow. Conditional forms collect structured data from the start.
Judges Who Drop Out
Busy executives disengage when the process is disorganised. A personal review queue and automated reminders keep the panel on track without you chasing anyone.
Results Nobody Sees
The winner is announced in a newsletter and the programme’s credibility stays invisible. Score breakdowns, analytics, and branded public pages give sponsors and executives something concrete.
How the Platform Handles the Full Programme Lifecycle
Structured Intake
The nomination or application form is the first thing nominees touch, and it sets the tone for everything that follows. A no-code form builder with conditional branching means you decide what gets asked, in what order, and under what conditions. A field for annual revenue only appears if the organisation type is corporate. A supporting document upload is required only if the nominee answers yes to a specific question. Nominees who do not meet your criteria can be filtered before they reach a judge’s queue, not after.
AI Document Extraction takes it further. When a nominee uploads a supporting PDF, the platform reads it and maps the relevant data directly into the form fields. Nominees type less. Reviewers inherit cleaner data.
Features:
No-Code Form Builder · Conditional Branching · AI Document Extraction · Deadline Scheduler · LinkedIn Auto-Fill
Judging That Finishes
The most common reason judging drags past its deadline is that judges do not know what they are supposed to do next. A personal review queue shows each judge only the submissions assigned to them at their current stage. They click in, read the full formatted application, flag it red, yellow, or green, and leave a timestamped note. That is the whole interaction for a first pass.
For panels reviewing the same submissions, the judge anomaly view surfaces every submission where scores diverge and ranks them by standard deviation. The disagreements that need a conversation are at the top. AI-Assisted Scoring proposes a score with written reasoning for each submission, so judges start from a considered first opinion rather than a blank field. They can accept it, adjust it, or override it entirely.
Features:
Personal Review Queue · Flag & Tag · AI-Assisted Scoring · Judge Anomaly View · Score Summaries by Stage and Judge · Automated Reminders
Integrity by Default
In a competitive programme with many submissions, two patterns create credibility problems: duplicate or near-identical nominations submitted through different accounts, and scoring that diverges so sharply between judges that the outcome looks arbitrary. Both are detectable, and both are worth catching before winners are announced.
Semantic similarity detection compares submissions by meaning, not just shared vocabulary, and surfaces matches side by side with a similarity score. Two nominations for the same project filed by different departments will appear as a match even if the wording is completely different. The judge anomaly view handles the scoring side, ranking every submission scored by multiple judges by how far apart those scores are. A panel can resolve disagreements while judging is still open, rather than after a shortlist is published.
Features:
Semantic Similarity Detection · Judge Anomaly View · Score Summaries · Granular Permissions
Automated Communications
A programme with fifty nominees and eight judges generates a predictable set of communications: confirmation of receipt, stage advancement notifications, judging reminders, shortlist announcements, and ceremony logistics. Writing and sending each of these manually is not programme management. It is clerical work.
The platform’s automation engine handles it. Confirmation emails trigger the moment a submission is received. Judging reminders go out on a schedule you set, via email and WhatsApp, to judges who still have outstanding reviews. Status updates reach nominees automatically when their submission moves to a new stage, with AI-assisted translation available for multilingual programmes. Every send, open, and click is tracked so you can see exactly who has and has not received what.
Features:
Automated Reminders · Email & WhatsApp Campaigns · Conditional Branching & Automation · Built-In Multi-Language · Notifications Center
Stakeholder Visibility
Programme managers are not the only people who need to see what happened. Sponsors funded the programme and want to know about reach, participation, and outcomes. Executives want a defensible record of how winners were chosen. Compliance reviewers need to confirm that access controls and scoring processes were sound.
Granular permissions let you configure exactly what each of these groups can see. A sponsor logs in to a live analytics dashboard with 20-plus charts covering entries, geographic reach, submission velocity, and judging progress. An auditor gets a read-only view of every application, every score, and every form version change, each timestamped and attributed to a named user. Neither group can edit anything. Every AI operation, including scoring, is logged with the model, token count, and cost, giving you a transparent record if questions arise later.
Features:
Analytics Dashboard · Granular Permissions · Read-Only Application Review · Complete Audit Trail · Form Version History · AI Usage & Cost Ledger · Seasons & Award Cycles · Branded Public Pages
Trusted by leading foundations and enterprises
