SWE - Winter 2009 - (Page 64) CAREER TOOLBOX Writing a Successful Award Nomination BY DEB O’BANNON, PH.D., P.E., F. SWE, SWE EDITORIAL BOARD Whether you’ve successfully submitted nominations or are considering doing so for the first time, these pointers will be helpful. I lenges has she or he overcome? How can you best tell this story? Don’t be afraid to be mildly redundant; remember that you know your candidate better than the reviewers do. Obtain internal reviews by people who can be constructively critical before submitting your nomination. For SWE awards, SWE Fellows in your section can be very helpful in this regard. Writing an award nomination is an investment of your time. Make it worthwhile. Approach the award nomination as if you were submitting a proposal from your work. Hit all the requirements and sell your wares. I Deb O’Bannon, Ph.D., P.E., F. SWE, is an associate professor of civil engineering in the School of Computing and Engineering at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. A member of the SWE Magazine Editorial Board, Dr. O’Bannon became a SWE Fellow in 2002. hope this column finds you planning to write an award nomination (SWE individual award nomination packets are due in March each year). It is always gratifying to see worthy people receive awards and hear the wonderful stories that accompany them. Having been on a significant number of awardreview panels over the years and written successful nominations, both in and out of SWE, I have some pointers for nominators: Choose an excellent candidate. If you don’t have a dynamite candidate, don’t spend all the time putting together a lengthy nomination package. Because few nominees are put forth who are not terrific candidates, reviewers quickly eliminate runners-up. If your candidate would be stronger in another year (and still eligible), it may pay to wait. Start early. Take the time to interview your candidate (unless it’s a surprise). Give yourself enough time to formulate a strategy for approaching the nomination procedure. This is a game you can win. When choosing people to write letters of support, give them enough lead time to do a good job. Provide them with examples or particular points you’d like them to address. include (boring) figures and case histories. Data are objective. If you make a good case for someone with data that back up your glowing adjectives, most reviewers will be sold. Communicate your need to include data to those writing letters of support. This additional information will increase the credibility of your nomination packet. Create a story about your award nominee. What do I mean? Try to find a strategic thread that will bind your nomination package together. It’s hard for reviewers to read relatively unconnected letters and narratives and come to the understanding that you have about your nominee. Why is this person so special? What chal- Solution to puzzle on page 68 Solution: Be evidence-based. The difference in a reviewer’s eyes of glowing adjectives for a candidate versus compelling statistics and hard evidence for another candidate are instantly recognized. Show the reviewers exactly why your candidate is the best. Don’t be afraid to C STORM M H A A O BL SNEEZY W PEA R ME G DOC W SLEEP L STO W UFF R L I GHT G H H LT A F P RUMPY L Y U N PP I NG Q BRUSH A E S H L FENCE D U O O L P P FLAKE I R Y R D MOB I L E Y 64 SWE WINTER 2009
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.