Curation

Each contribution to the Maker’s Village Design Alliance is curated in person by a select group of experts from around the world. This is done in two stages; first by anonymous shortlisting, then by interviews with the finalists.

SHORTLISTING

  • Experts review all the entries submitted to each brief and agree on a shortlist to interview.

  • Contributions are evaluated by the entire panel of related experts until the shortlist is agreed upon. 

  • The shortlist is usually 6-8 entries per brief, but can be as many as 10 or as few as 5. In some cases specific elements of a submission maybe considered.

  • The Design Alliance curation team contacts all competition contributors to let them know whether or not they have been shortlisted.

INTERVIEWS

  • Shortlisted candidates are invited to a 30 minute interview at the RSA.

  • Entrants are asked to spend 5 minutes presenting their project to the jury and then answer questions about their work and career aspirations.

  • Once all interviews have been completed, the panel deliberates and selects winners.

  • Students can also be Highly Commended or Commended. Reaching the final shortlist is seen as an achievement in itself, and can enhance their CVs.

AWARDS

All finalists will be invited to become a member of the board of trustees… via  a paid position tasked with overseeing the final design and execution of the initial prototype campuses.

In addition:

  • Finalist contributors will receive a financial award of no less than $5000 (depending on brief sponsorship levels).   
  • All finalists are invited to the Awards Ceremony in San Francisco – which includes a keynote talk, the presentation of awards a drinks reception and celebration. 
  • All contributors (selected or not) will receive access the the Design Alliance’s network, resources and mention on the website. 

Judging Criteria

There are seven criteria that your entry will be measured against – make sure that your submission materials demonstrate that your solution meets these criteria:

  1. User interface – Is the use and maintenance as simple and intuitive as possible? How and how well is information about the use and maintenance of the systems, tools and resources conveyed?
  2. Research and insights – How did you investigate this issue? What were your key insights? What were some of your inspirations?
  3. Replicability– Are the materials and resources used readily available? Is your proposal capable of being adapted to different environments?
  4. Efficiency – Are the least amount of energy and resources being used for the maximum amount of benefit? Are regenerative/recyclable materials applied where possible? Is it cost effective?
  5. Deployability – How might the system expand and integrate into a larger whole? What kind of additional structures are used to expand the capacity and usability of the tools and resources?
  6. Ecology – How much impact is made on the environment? How regenerative is it? How self sufficient are the systems?
  7. Aesthetics- Is it functionally beautiful? Does it visually inspire?