jury’s report abstract

Something about jury’s methodology.
We did a preliminary evaluation of the projects, accounting for the competition criteria, and we did a proposals’ first grading, valuating them in 4 levels:
– red: not responding to the competition requirements
– yellow: responding to the competition requirements, but whit evident weakness
– green: well-responding to the competition requirements
– blue: first-rate proposals

after this first evaluation, we zeroed in on some findings:
– “blue” projects are often alternative each other
– we are interested in the teams’ quality, besides proposals’ quality
– we have to select teams able to do the best work for our design process
– “internal” interdisciplinarity is likely to be an obstacle to “external” interdisciplinarity

in order to ease the jury’s work, to we tag every proposals with the following keyword referring to comparable features and focuses:
– parco a ruderi
– management model
– newtork lean
– project management
– local
– set-up partnerships

then, we asked the jury to build up the best team (or team of teams) for the next steps of the process of regional transformation.
Jury did its work (on saturday) on 30 projects upon 56 (the yellow/green to blue ones). Jurors were divided (following their expertise) in three groups, in order to valuate proposals from three points of view:

1_vision
– general compliance of competition requirements
– innovation in proposals
– quality of proposed activities
– quality of proposed devices
– design coherence

2_management
– management compliance to competition requirements
– quality and effectiveness of business or management models
– feasability of the proposals
– coherence in management model

3_sustainability
– coherence with the region
– 360° sustainability (social, economical, environmental)
– sustainability innovation
– integration
– feasability
three groups selected these proposals:
12_vida+facil_le mie idee cercano casa qui!
24_qart progetti_Auletta paese che parla
26_agenzia aste e nodi_scenari possibili
29_allies&morrison urban architects_my Auletta
32_barra A_progetto rewind
41_lucchetti/sghedoni_can Auletta feed itself?
45_festa, stalker, perna, sudlab,vitellio, bertani, daguerre_co-commons Auletta
and then, sunday morning, trying to select the best team for the process, jury reassembled and selected these 5 proposals as winner and invited to the workshop:
12_vida+facil_le mie idee cercano casa qui!
24_qart progetti_Auletta paese che parla
26_agenzia aste e nodi_scenari possibili
29_allies&morrison urban architects_my Auletta
41_lucchetti/sghedoni_can Auletta feed itself?

We are very happy for the team!

Jury wants to mention this proposals for their quality:
13_Articolture, March’ingegno, Emmaboshi Studio_Auletta, energia positiva
32_Barra A_progetto rewind
47_Accurat, francesco librizzi, parco di yellowstone, bonelli vele_strumenti per una nuova ecologia del quotidiano

and the “vision” part of the jury wants to mention these proposals:
51_Sanna, tepedino_i giardini di Auletta
49_UAAAU_senza titolo