- RBS financial mess seeks digital redress 24 February 2017 | 4:12 pm
- Input Output goes to uni for blockchain lab 24 February 2017 | 2:53 pm
- Isbank partners with PPRO for cross-border payments 24 February 2017 | 1:46 pm
- Mizuho takes another step towards blockchain adoption 24 February 2017 | 12:55 pm
- R3 turns its back on blockchain? 24 February 2017 | 11:46 am
Entering the Judged Awards – Guidelines from the editor
This involves a written entry describing a project that fits into the various categories outlined in the entry form.
The Judged Awards are open to any company operating worldwide who provide IT services to the banking sector, so financial services institutions, banks and technology suppliers.
Over the years we’ve learnt that different institutions have different views of where their projects fit in – is it a payments project, or a transaction banking system? Innovative technology, or an outstanding retail service underpinned by new technology? As part of the judging process, the panel takes this into consideration and moves entries where appropriate.
All qualifying entries are considered by the Banking Technology Awards judges. Judges are not allowed to comment on or vote for entries from their own institutions, and they are not allowed to disclose details of other entries – brief details of all short-listed entries will be published on our website and in the official Awards brochures, so all entries should include a short (50-100 word) description that can be published in this way. All other information will be treated in strictest confidence.
So what are these judges looking for? Generally, the more detail the better, but the perfect entry will include as much of the following information as possible. (I don’t think we’ve ever seen the perfect entry – many close decisions have come down to the fact that one entry has included a detail that another hasn’t).
- Dates of the overall project: all entries should be for the period from June 2015 to June 2016. In practice, this means that the projects should have been completed and in production during that period. We realise that many large projects will run over several years and several geographies, but if it isn’t out of user acceptance testing in its first location it probably isn’t ready for entry. (Similarly, the final phase of a three-year project that achieved it’s main milestones in year two is probably too late.)
- The unique points of the project – what makes this implementation/project different
- Performance metrics – how were the project benefits measured and monitored? By how much did the project improve process performance or reduce process time?
- Project team size and mix – how many people were involved at different stages? How did this vary between internal staff, contractors or outside consultants?
- User breakdown by number – how many internal/external users? How did this vary over the life of the the project? For instance, a project many have started in London with 50 users and then been rolled out across Europe to 200.
- Financial impact/return on investment – this is particularly useful to the judges in distinguishing costly Tier 1 juggernaut projects from smaller
- Functional diagrams/screenshots– where appropriate these can be helpful, but not too many please
It is also worth noting that over the years we have become more relaxed about accepting entries from systems vendors as institutions have moved more towards buy rather than build.