Skip to content

Award Nomination Form

Specifications

Pages
1 page
File format
Word (.docx)
Font
Calibri
Version
1.0
Editing
Fully editable
Primary color
#0369A1

About this template

A nomination is decided on evidence

This Word form is laid out so that every claim carries a number and every number carries its calculation. The label above the title reads Award nomination · record of merit, and the gray line under the title reads “Complete it in order, from Summary of merit through the List of supporting evidence.” The page runs label, title, gray lead, a four-cell information table, three numbered sections, a Key metrics table, and a Confirmation and approval row.

Filling order

  1. Fill the four information cells: Award, Nominating dept., Nomination date and Period of merit. They ship as Founding Anniversary Merit Award, Quality Management Team, 2026-04-20 and 2023-01 ~ 2026-03. Write the period as start and finish month and year – a period given only in years is the first thing a committee queries.
  2. 1. Summary of merit is written in three sentences: what was done, and what changed because of it.
  3. 2. Quantified results and how they were calculated repeats those claims as numbers, with the arithmetic beside each one.
  4. 3. Wider effect and spread shows whether the result traveled beyond the nominee’s own job.
  5. Fill the Key metrics table, then print the Confirmation and approval row – Nominator, Dept. head, Awards Committee – empty for signature.

How the three sections read

  • Summary of merit. Name the task assigned and the part the nominee personally owned, show the numbers before and after side by side, and separate their contribution from the team’s. That last line is what distinguishes a nomination from a project report; a committee that cannot see the individual contribution usually returns the form rather than rejecting it.
  • Quantified results. Savings need the formula and the unit price used, periods need start and finish months, and every figure needs the source of the underlying data and where it is kept. Write the calculation even when it is obvious – the reviewer who checks it is not the one who did the work.
  • Wider effect and spread. Cases where other teams or sites adopted it, the document numbers of the standards or procedures it went into, and outside confirmation such as awards or certification. The document numbers are the strongest evidence on the page, because a standard that cites the work is a claim nobody has to take on trust.

The four metric cells

Key metrics is a two-row, four-column table, values on top and labels below: KRW 240m / Annual savings, 38% / Defect rate cut, 14 / Written into standards, 3 years 3 months / Period of merit. Amounts stay in won, so convert nothing and change only the number. Each of the four should appear again in section 2 with its calculation attached; a figure that lives only in this table is the one that gets challenged. If you have three figures rather than four, delete a column and redistribute the widths evenly rather than merging cells.

What the form deliberately leaves out

There is no cell for disciplinary history or for prior awards, and no scoring grid. Both are checked before a nomination goes forward rather than inside it: whether the same achievement has already been recognized, whether the nominee is inside a restricted period, and how any disciplinary record is treated. Confirm those against your own award rules and note the result in the covering message, not on the form. Keep the supporting files together with the form as well – the tally sheet and its raw data, any third-party confirmation, and photographs or drawings with the date they were taken. The questions that come back from a committee are almost always about the evidence, not the wording.

Before you submit

  • Adjectives without arithmetic. A significant reduction is not a result; 38% with the formula beside it is.
  • Claiming a team result as an individual one. Split the two explicitly in section 1.
  • Leaving the period of merit at the sample dates while the numbers are already your own.
  • Quoting a saving with no unit price. The reviewer cannot reproduce the number and will assume the worst.
  • Sending the form without the tally sheet it refers to.