SayPro Event Execution: Oversee the scoring and feedback process.

SayPro Event Execution: Oversee the Scoring and Feedback Process

Program: SayPro Monthly January SCDR-3
Project: SayPro Monthly Final Judging
Office: SayPro Development Competitions Office
Division: SayPro Development Royalty SCDR

---

Objective:

To ensure an accurate, fair, and transparent scoring and feedback process during the SayPro Monthly Final Judging event. This involves managing judge submissions, monitoring consistency in evaluations, collecting qualitative feedback, and compiling results for final decisions and post-event reporting.

---

1. Pre-Event Preparation of Scoring Tools and Guidelines

a. Development of Scoring Rubric

Create a standardized scoring rubric aligned with SayPro’s mission. Typical evaluation categories include:

Criteria	Weight (%)	Focus
Innovation and Creativity	25%	Uniqueness of the idea and originality of the approach
Social and Community Impact	25%	Alignment with SayPro values and potential for meaningful contribution
Feasibility and Implementation	20%	Practicality, resource use, scalability, and clarity of execution plan
Presentation Quality	20%	Delivery, communication, visuals, and audience engagement
Collaboration and Inclusion	10%	Engagement with community or team inclusivity

b. Digital Scoring System Setup

• Use Google Forms, Airtable, or a dedicated judging software.
• Assign each judge a private scoring form with:
  • Auto-calculated totals
  • Required written feedback fields
  • Submission time stamps for transparency

c. Training Judges on the Process

• Provide written and video tutorials on:
  • How to score using the platform
  • How to give constructive written feedback
  • Common scoring pitfalls (e.g., bias, score inflation)

---

2. Real-Time Oversight During the Event

a. Scoring Supervision Team

Appoint a Scoring Coordinator and assistants to:

• Monitor live score submissions
• Follow up with judges if:
  • A score is missing
  • Feedback is unclear or not submitted
  • Anomalies appear (e.g., unusually low/high scores)

b. Time Management

• Allocate scoring time between presentations (e.g., 5 minutes)
• Communicate reminders clearly to judges and keep the event running on schedule

c. Judge Support

• A technical support team remains on standby
• Judges can submit clarification questions through private chat or a hotline

---

3. Score Compilation and Quality Control

a. Automated and Manual Checks

• Compile scores automatically through the digital platform
• Manually review scores to:
  • Spot inconsistencies or missing data
  • Flag outliers (e.g., one judge scores 95 while others average 65)

b. Conflict Resolution Protocol

• If major discrepancies are found:
  • Notify the Chief Judge or Judging Panel Lead
  • Review justification or initiate a score review
  • Ensure this process is conducted impartially and quickly

---

4. Feedback Collection and Consolidation

a. Written Feedback from Judges

• Judges are required to provide at least 2–3 sentences of feedback per finalist
• Feedback is assessed for tone, helpfulness, and clarity before being shared

b. Participant Feedback Packets

• Compile each finalist’s:
  • Average score and category breakdown
  • Anonymous feedback quotes from judges
• Deliver feedback via email within 5 days post-event

---

5. Winner Determination and Transparency

a. Final Scoring Review

• Use either:
  • Mean Score Method (total score divided by number of judges)
  • Rank Aggregation Method (in case of tie or close scores)

b. Record Keeping

• Store scoring sheets, forms, and compiled data in secure cloud storage
• Retain for at least 12 months for audit purposes

c. Winner Announcement

• Present winners with:
  • Final score
  • Summary of category performance
  • Public recognition at the end of the event

---

6. Post-Event Evaluation

a. Internal Review

• Hold a debrief with judges and scoring coordinators
• Assess:
  • Clarity and fairness of the rubric
  • Effectiveness of the platform
  • Overall satisfaction with the judging process

b. Process Improvement

• Document lessons learned and recommended updates to:
  • The scoring form structure
  • Judge briefing materials
  • Feedback requirements

---

Conclusion:

Overseeing the scoring and feedback process is critical to maintaining SayPro’s commitment to fairness, credibility, and professional integrity. A structured system backed by transparent oversight ensures that every finalist is evaluated justly and that constructive feedback fosters growth and motivation.