Judging Process
Investigating sometimes required a closer look at the
product. This product had blinking indicator lights
that the judges wanted to know more about.
The products were first grouped by application. This determined the specific performance categories and criteria used in their evaluation. A panel of 12 judges, drawn from across the architectural lighting design community, independently evaluated the products by assessing their lighted performance and appearance, construction, and photometric data.
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.
 Dr. Kevin Houser takes apart a luminaire |
 Each judge was provided with a reference list of common |
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 the "recognized' winners. Forty-seven products were eventually "recommended" by the judging panel. |
|
 To review the outdoor fixtures the UL team setup a |
 Once all the 'hands on' judging was complete a "round table" lively discussion took place to select products for the Showcase catalog and choose a best in class. Judges really were opinionated and what you see in this book is really the consensus "best". |
Among the recommended 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 four best-in-class winners from the group of 47 recommended products considered. |
|
 Our wonderful panel of judges, they worked hard in two days reviewing 126 products and finding the best of the best.
|
|
The competition organizers wish to offer special thanks the Underwriters Laboratory for hosting the 2009 judging event. Without UL staff patience and attention to detail in installing the 126 submitted products, the competition would not have been possible.