Opflow Publications Award

Opflow Publications Award

2018 Recipients

Winners: Caroline Russell, Philip Brandhuber, Darren Lytle, for Lead in Drinking Water: Past, Present, and Future
Runners up: Randy Moore, Travis Wagner, Nathan Faber, Robert Stanley, and Jessie Allen for Optimize Pipe Renewal Strategies

2017 Recipients

Winner: Randall Roost, Lansing (Mich.) Board of Water and Light, for Get the Lead Out!
Runner up: Laura Dufresne, The Cadmus Group, for Take a Systems Approach to Energy Management

2016 Recipients

Winners: David Hughes, American Water, Voorhees, N.J.; Jeff Oxenford, Oxenford Consulting, Golden, Colo.; and Russell Titus, New Jersey American Water, Hillsborough, N.J., for Locate Your Mains, Find Your Leaks, and Zero in on Water Loss
Runners up: Darlene Garcia and Susan Funchion, Colorado Springs Utilities, Colorado Springs, Colo., for How to Select and Prioritize Water Main Replacement

Award Criteria

Purpose of this award: To recognize the contribution of information directed at operating personnel of water utility systems in the areas of science, technology, and water supply operations as published in Opflow.

The award: An AWWA Opflow Publications Award Plaque will be presented to the first rated paper; the second rated paper will receive a second place certificate.

Frequency of the award: Annually.

Eligibility for the award: All articles published in Opflow with at least one author who is an AWWA member at the time of publication.

Entry requirements: All eligible papers published in Opflow during the award year January to December are automatically considered.

Nomination procedures: Because all papers meeting the eligibility requirements are considered for the award, there is no nomination procedure.

Nomination or submission deadline: A committee nomination report submitted to the committee secretary by Aug. 29.

Award committee membership: The Distribution & Plant Operations Division shall appoint four members from the division, subject to concurrence by the division. The committee shall select its own chair, who shall vote only in case of a tie.

Method of selecting the award recipient: The judges will use a weighted formula in selecting the best paper contributing to the technology and practice of water supply operations and its associated value to operating personnel. Each paper is rated on each of the three criteria by each of the four voting members of the award committee, using the five-point scale shown on the "criteria" sheet. These ratings are entered on the rating form.

Weighted totals are calculated by multiplying the rate (1-5 points) by the weighted value of each criterion (60, 30, or 10). The total weighted rating of each paper is computed by summing the weighted totals of the three criteria for each paper. The total weighted rating obtained through this procedure are used to determine award placements.

Presentation of award: The award will be presented at the AWWA Water Infrastructure Conference.

Criteria for Rating Papers

A. VALUE TO THE OPERATOR AND/OR WATER UTILITY OPERATIONS: 60%
Included in this category would be such considerations as its application; the increased effectiveness or better results it makes possible, and its contribution to operators' knowledge and practical understanding. The reference value of the work would also be recognized in this category, e.g., how often it would serve as a source of information for others.

B. TIMELINESS OF PRESENTATION: 30%
Credit in this category is awarded for the current or contemporary aspects of the presentation. Generally this category would apply to new technology, operating practices and procedures or issues that are influencing water utility operations. In some instances, however, operating problems of a recurring nature presented in a new dimension would score high in this category.

QUALITY OF PRESENTATION: 10%
This category would reward literary value--primarily communicability, clarity of arrangement,and overall understanding, rather than writing as such. Despite the fact that the terms of the award refer to the work rather than its reporting, a good presentation adds value in making the results of the work more readily available.

Each of the above criteria is to be rated on a 5-point scale: Superior-5 Excellent-4 Good-3 Fair-2 Poor-1

Advertisement
Advertisement