How to Nominate

Any APF member who is not currently serving as a judge may nominate a work he or she has written or produced in whole or in part or read, seen, or heard in entirety for consideration as a most important futures work.

The nominating member will submit a written justification to the Core Committee stating why he or she believes the work deserves a most-important-futures-works award and in which category the work should be judged. Submit your nominations to Ken Harris, MSFW Chair.

Submit entries with: title, author, format, date, publisher, category (see list under "Eligible Works"), nominating member, why you think it’s important (no more than 300 words).

Here is the full plan for the 2013 nominations.

Eligible Works

Eligible works shall be in one of three categories. Those that (1) advance the methodology and practice of foresight and futures studies, (2) contribute to the understanding of the future of a significant area of human endeavor or of the natural world, or (3) present new images of the future, e.g., visual arts, films, poetry, or fiction.

The works shall be publicly accessible, but do not have to be formally published. The artifacts may be in the form of books, articles, theses, policy papers, reports, dissertations and speeches in print and online; movies and videos; television and radio programs; works of art; electronic or other games and simulations; websites; software or multimedia presentations.

Current nominations are listed here. A list of possible nominations has been compiled by the Core Team for consideration by members. If you believe any of these works deserve recognition, then please submit for nomination including a statement of reasons to Ken Harris, MSFW Chair.

Criteria for Judging the Nominees

1. Impact on the foresight profession. Does the work advance the foresight profession? Does the author have foresight professional qualifications? does it use futures methods? Was it reviewed or in a peer reviewed journal? is the time perspective at least 10 years out?
2. General impact. Has the work had a discernible, major impact on how the public views the future? Have the media paid attention to and/or debated the work? Have there been calls for or actual legislative or regulatory action as a result of the work? Have business practices changed as a result of the work? Has the work led to invention or construction?
3. Originality. To what extent does the work break new ground either because it is based on primary source material or because it presents secondary material in a new light?
4. Strength of content. How much evidence does the author provide for his or her ideas and how strong is the evidence? For works nominated because they advance the study of the future, does the author present real world examples of approaches he or she is proposing? For works on the future of a subject area, how significant does the work appear to be for that area and for the future in general?

5. Reproducibility Could another APF member use the methodology in further study of the same or a different problem or issue? (Category 1 only)
6a. Effective communication (textual works) Is the work well edited? Does it use clear concise language? Does it contain summaries of the main points?
6b. Effective communication (visual and sound works) Are the graphics compelling? Is the sound clear? Are colors bright and appealing to the eye? Do speakers use varied tones, gestures and expressions and speak with enthusiasm on their work? Do speakers speak at an ordinary conversational pace and in “digestible” sentences? Do they illustrate their points with stories?