Judging Process

Products were installed by category in environments
closely matching the products' intended applications.
Reference materials were included for each product for
judges to review.

A total of 68 products arrived at the judging facility in Research Triangle Park, NC ready for the judging event on Nov 6-7, 2008. Underwriters Laboratory staff spent 3 weeks installing products by category in environments closely matching the products' intended applications.

The products were first grouped by application. This determined the specific performance categories and criteria used in their evaluation. A panel of 14 judges, drawn from across the architectural lighting design community, independently evaluated the products by assessing their lighted performance and appearance, construction, and photometric data.

Mike Grather reviews product reference material as
part of the judging process.

The judges reviewed submitted reference materials including photometric files (LM-79 test reports), LED data sheets, driver specifications, and other material. Particular attention was focused on serviceability/replacement issues as judges evaluated extra product samples provided by the entrants. At the end of the individual judging each day, the entire group reviewed the group scores and discussed each product. The first consideration was whether each judge would recommend the product for specification, the prerequisite for recognition in the market-ready category. Any '0' score (meaning that judge considered the product not ready for specification for that evaluation criteria) by any judge was discussed by the group until consensus was met.

Nancy Clanton (left) assesses the luminance of a
luminaire under consideration, as Ron Kurtz (center) and
Jeff McCullough (right) study product specifications.

Twenty-two products were eventually recognized with the "market-ready" designation. Among the market-ready products, the judges then considered best-in-class selections for each category. The judges were not required to select a best-in-class winner in any category; these selections were at the group's discretion. The group only selected three best-in-class winners from the group of 22 market-ready products considered. The group then considered the emerging products and selected several products as "noteworthy". Since these products are not yet ready for specification and did not require the same product testing requirements, no "winners" were selected in this category. Five emerging products were selected for recognition.

Samantha LaFleur (center) and John Gebbie (right)
inspect product samples as Avi Mor (left) evaluates
an installed product.

After the on-site judging event, competition organizers verified photometric information for all products designated for recognition by the judges. For some luminaires, photometric testing had been conducted by independent testing laboratories using IESNA test method LM-79-08. Luminaires lacking independent photometric data were tested through DOE's CALiPER testing program.

Testing revealed several products had significantly lower efficacy values than the values initially reported in the product submittals. These products were therefore re-evaluated by the judges using the data provided by CALiPER testing. This re-evaluation resulted is some products not being recognized and some shifting in award designations. Ultimately, twenty-two products were designated as market ready, including three best-in-class. Five products were recognized in the emerging category.

Entire judging panel gathers to review scores and select products for recognition.

Avi Mor (left) takes illuminance readings of the installed cove as Samantha LaFleur, Charles Thompson, and Mike Grather observe.

The competition sponsors wish to thank the entire judging panel for their outstanding work. Back row, left to right: Michael Hennes, Ron Kurtz, Dan Blitzer (steering committee), Samantha LaFluer, Gregg Ander, Mike Grather, Stefan Graf, Frank Florentine, Avi Mor, Jeff McCullough, John Gebbie. Front row, left to right: Charles Thompson, Melissa Hertel (steering committee), Melanie Taylor, Nancy Clanton, Naomi Miller, Ruth Taylor (steering committee).

Judging Process

09 Competition

08 Competition