SayPro Judge Evaluation Form.

SayPro Judge Evaluation Form
SayPro Monthly January SCDR-3
SayPro Monthly Final Judging: Competing in Final Rounds with Selected Finalists by SayPro Development Competitions Office under SayPro Development Royalty SCDR

---

Introduction

The SayPro Judge Evaluation Form is designed to collect detailed, structured feedback from judges during the SayPro Monthly Final Judging. It ensures that the evaluation process is consistent, fair, and transparent, while providing comprehensive insights into each finalist’s performance. This form helps maintain high standards in judging and provides valuable feedback for participants, organizers, and stakeholders. Judges will assess competitors based on a set of criteria aligned with the competition’s goals, using a standardized scoring system that reflects each participant’s strengths and areas for improvement.

The following form captures both quantitative and qualitative feedback, allowing for detailed assessments of the finalists’ presentations, technical work, creativity, problem-solving skills, and overall contribution to the competition.

---

Judge Information

1. Judge Name:
   (Please enter your full name.)
2. Event Date:
   (Enter the date of the final judging event.)
3. Category of Evaluation:
   (Select the category of the competition for this evaluation.)
   • Engineering/Technology
   • Business/Entrepreneurship
   • Arts/Design
   • Other (Please specify): ___________

---

Competitor Information

4. Competitor/Team Name:
   (Enter the name of the competitor or team you are evaluating.)
5. Round Number:
   (Enter the round number in which the competitor is participating, e.g., “Final Round.”)

---

Evaluation Criteria

Please evaluate the competitor’s performance based on the following criteria. For each section, assign a score from 1 to 5, where 1 represents “Poor” and 5 represents “Excellent.” In addition, please provide specific comments on your observations and the reasoning behind your score.

1. Innovation & Creativity (20% of total score)

• Description: This criterion evaluates the originality and innovative aspects of the competitor’s concept, idea, or project. Consider the uniqueness of their approach and how they push boundaries or introduce new perspectives in the field.
• Score (1-5):
  [ ] 1 – Poor
  [ ] 2 – Fair
  [ ] 3 – Good
  [ ] 4 – Very Good
  [ ] 5 – Excellent
• Comments:
  (Provide feedback on how creative and innovative the competitor’s work is. Were new ideas introduced? Did they offer a unique solution?)

---

2. Technical Execution (20% of total score)

• Description: Evaluate how well the competitor’s project or idea was executed. Consider the accuracy, technical depth, and craftsmanship demonstrated in their work. This includes the quality of any product, design, prototype, or process involved.
• Score (1-5):
  [ ] 1 – Poor
  [ ] 2 – Fair
  [ ] 3 – Good
  [ ] 4 – Very Good
  [ ] 5 – Excellent
• Comments:
  (Provide feedback on the competitor’s technical proficiency. Did they demonstrate a solid understanding of the necessary tools, methods, or techniques? Were there any flaws or areas for improvement?)

---

3. Presentation & Communication (20% of total score)

• Description: This criterion assesses how effectively the competitor presents their idea or product to the judges and audience. This includes clarity of communication, structure of the presentation, and the ability to engage the audience.
• Score (1-5):
  [ ] 1 – Poor
  [ ] 2 – Fair
  [ ] 3 – Good
  [ ] 4 – Very Good
  [ ] 5 – Excellent
• Comments:
  (Evaluate the competitor’s ability to communicate their ideas clearly and persuasively. Did they engage well with the judges? Was the presentation organized and easy to follow?)

---

4. Relevance & Impact (20% of total score)

• Description: This criterion evaluates how well the competitor’s project or solution addresses the competition’s theme or problem. Consider the real-world relevance and potential impact of the idea, product, or solution.
• Score (1-5):
  [ ] 1 – Poor
  [ ] 2 – Fair
  [ ] 3 – Good
  [ ] 4 – Very Good
  [ ] 5 – Excellent
• Comments:
  (Provide feedback on how relevant and impactful the competitor’s work is. Does it address a current challenge? How feasible and effective is the solution in solving real-world problems?)

---

5. Problem-Solving & Critical Thinking (10% of total score)

• Description: This criterion assesses the competitor’s ability to identify problems, develop solutions, and demonstrate logical, critical thinking throughout the project. This includes their ability to approach challenges and overcome obstacles.
• Score (1-5):
  [ ] 1 – Poor
  [ ] 2 – Fair
  [ ] 3 – Good
  [ ] 4 – Very Good
  [ ] 5 – Excellent
• Comments:
  (Evaluate how well the competitor demonstrated problem-solving skills. Were their solutions logical and effective? Did they show strong critical thinking throughout their work?)

---

6. Overall Feasibility & Sustainability (10% of total score)

• Description: This criterion evaluates how practical and sustainable the competitor’s idea or solution is in the long term. Consider the feasibility of implementation, scalability, and sustainability of the project.
• Score (1-5):
  [ ] 1 – Poor
  [ ] 2 – Fair
  [ ] 3 – Good
  [ ] 4 – Very Good
  [ ] 5 – Excellent
• Comments:
  (Provide feedback on the feasibility and sustainability of the competitor’s idea. Does it have the potential for long-term viability? What challenges could arise in its implementation?)

---

Additional Comments

7. What are the strengths of this competitor’s work?
   (Open-ended text box for response)
8. What areas could the competitor improve upon?
   (Open-ended text box for response)
9. Overall Impression of the Competitor’s Performance
   (Please provide any additional remarks about the competitor’s performance in the final rounds. Was there anything particularly noteworthy about their presentation or work?)

---

Final Score Calculation

• Innovation & Creativity (20%)
  (Score x 0.20) = _______
• Technical Execution (20%)
  (Score x 0.20) = _______
• Presentation & Communication (20%)
  (Score x 0.20) = _______
• Relevance & Impact (20%)
  (Score x 0.20) = _______
• Problem-Solving & Critical Thinking (10%)
  (Score x 0.10) = _______
• Feasibility & Sustainability (10%)
  (Score x 0.10) = _______
• Total Score (out of 100) = _______

---

Final Remarks and Recommendation

10. Would you recommend this competitor for recognition or an award?

• Yes
• No
• Maybe

11. Other comments or suggestions for the competition organizers (if any):
    (Open-ended text box for response)

---

Judge Signature (Optional)

(Signature, if applicable for record-keeping purposes.)

---

Conclusion

Thank you for taking the time to complete the SayPro Judge Evaluation Form. Your detailed feedback is invaluable in ensuring a fair and thorough assessment of each competitor’s performance in the SayPro Monthly Final Judging. The SayPro Development Competitions Office (SDCO) uses this feedback to maintain high standards, celebrate top performers, and identify opportunities for improvement in future competitions. Your role as a judge is crucial to upholding the integrity of the evaluation process and supporting the growth of the SayPro community.