Screening Policy

1) Basic screening concept

The Good Design Awards program is not a design competition in which entries compete solely on the relative merits of their design techniques, nor does it evaluate hit products on the basis of their performance on the market. The understanding of design achievements that underlies the Good Design Awards is "What value does this bring to society?" Outstanding designs are chosen on this basis, and by raising awareness of such achievements within society, the program aims to enrich industry, lifestyles and the social environment. Accordingly, this screening process is carried out from the perspective of identifying "outstanding aspects" that indicate in practical terms what value the design of an entry has created.

In our contemporary world with its diversity of values, the existence of a great variety of outstanding aspects should also be expected. The jury members gather in front of the entries themselves to debate whether or not such aspects are discernable based on a broad range of standpoints, and the Screening Criteria plays the role of providing the range of perspectives.

Through such debate, entries for which the jury has identified outstanding aspects and aspects for commendation are awarded a Good Design Award. The outstanding aspects identified by the jury are recorded as "evaluation points," and their appearance on the Good Design Awards Website or in the Yearbook serves as the information for consumers in choosing the particular product.

2) Screening policy

Since the privatization of the Good Design Awards program in 1998, it has adopted a system that incorporates a type of "director-led" management, by which a leading figure among the members of the jury is selected to be the chair and the screening policy is determined on the basis of his/her design philosophy.

The following gives a broad outline of the policies of jury chairs since 1998. Motoo Nakanishi (1998-2000): Under the slogan, "Good Design is good business," supported business creation with design at its core.
Kazuo Kawasaki (2001-2003): Looked for "Design that brings about a dialogue with a sense of tension with the user." Rather than design with the sole intention of increasing sales, he demanded design quality and the designer's talent that are in touch with the 21st-century society.

The chair of the jury since 2004 is Toshiyuki Kita. His stated policy is: "it is the development that fuses high technology and good taste that offers the road to survival for Japanese industry, and I am looking for design to bring this about." From 2005 the overall program will be internationalized from this perspective.

The screening policy does not in fact change greatly with a new jury chair. It should rather be said that the past screening policies undergird and add depth to each new one. This depth is embodied in the fact that the policies of previous jury chairs still form the underlying position for the Good Design Awards: "We want to select design that has the power to lead the way for new businesses and a new society." "The role of the Good Design Awards should be to foster design that possesses this power." "If Japan is to play an appropriate international role in the future, it must be internationalized itself."

This type of multilayered fundamental policy is also the desire of the program administrators and members of the jury. We believe that most business managers, designers, and members of the public will also relate fully to this way of thinking.

3) Recent trends in screening

A recent trend in the screening process has been for high points to be ascribed to "powerful design" with the clearly identifiable "outstanding aspects" described above. Even for such entries, however, it appears that the jury is looking for design that makes a clear point, even if this may be somewhat controversial (although of course products that harm the user are out of the question), rather than design that aims for the average.

The screening criteria have also changed during the history of the Good Design Awards in line with the degree of maturity of the area to which entries belong, from the perspective of their goal of increasing social value. For example, in fields that are still socially undeveloped regardless of the need for design in such areas, our position is to carry out more in-depth screening. This trend has become even more pronounced since the privatization, with screening carried out proactively in light of a fuller understanding of the areas concerned.

For information on screening trends in different entry fields, as well as facts about the winners, see the links below. You can search for award-winning products by product name, company name, designer name or other key words.