Here are some conclusions and recommendations drawn from a review of past DoD winning packages. Although there are no guarantees, using these pointers during package development will make for some very strong nominations.
Adherence to DoD Criteria: The judges seem to give high points for those accomplishments that relate directly to the primary criteria in guidance: program management, technical merit, orientation to mission, transferability, community involvement, and program breadth. Although an installation can enhance its nomination by using graphics to support text or improving the way text is presented, these factors will not guarantee a DoD-level winner to the degree that adhering to the DoD criteria will. One DoD winner was noticeably unable to fulfill all of the criteria, but the submission addressed all of it and gave logical reasons why they weren't. Other nominations failed to address all criteria adequately and still won. In general, their Army counterparts had also failed to address all criteria adequately, and the winner tended to be stronger in the areas that they did address.
The DoD-level winners overwhelmingly were able to present formidable challenges-seemingly insurmountable obstacles that, by their nature, required unprecedented innovation and ingenuity on the part of the environmental programs. The DoD-level winners presented programs that were forced to go "above and beyond" what is expected of an environmental program. To do so, the programs used innovative management and technology; in doing this, they set precedents and tested prototypes, the success of which often earned points for transferability of approaches, in addition to program management and technical merit. Another "above and beyond" approach was to reach out to the community and other outside institutions in partnerships; this alternative method of reaching goals would of course gain points in the DoD category of community involvement.
Some nominations presented their challenges up front, and used the rest of the submission to show the ways that an installation met the overarching challenges. Others did an effective job of coupling nearly every action or accomplishment with a challenge to be met. Both approaches were effective because they directly linked their actions with a challenge. In addition, the more staggering the challenge, the greater the impetus to "think outside the box" and approach problems in new and different ways. In general, the DoD-level winners painted a clear picture of individuals and programs that responded to formidable challenges in creative ways that involved partnerships, saved money, and achieved positive results in a short time.
Featured Initiatives and Actions that Occurred during the Award Period: The winning submissions gave a real sense that their nominees were "programs and people of action." It wasn't enough just to be a solid program that consistently remained in compliance through sound program management; the winning programs were those who regularly initiated action-whether starting a program, organizing a volunteer effort, or making a real change in the old way of doing things. The winners often were the first in their military branch-or the first in the DoD-to adopt a particular method. They were the proactive ones, the doers who always had long-term effects in mind.
The winning nominations emphasized this in two ways. First, and perhaps most importantly, they made it clear throughout a nomination that the actions and accomplishments had occurred during the award period. Some of the Army nominees featured several "old" or "ongoing" accomplishments-ones that continued to have benefits during the award period but that had been initiated prior to it. Our observations of the winners show programs that consistently initiated actions and saw results within the two- or three-year period for the awards.
Second, the winning nominations used a wealth of "action" words to show that they had been active during the award period. One package, for example, refers to "providing," "establishing," "developing," "chartering," and "implementing." Another winner "championed" efforts, "supervises" others, "demonstrated" under funding and "secured" funding, "devised" interim actions, and "successfully advocated" for use of an alternative technology. The Army nominations use "action" words as well, but we found that the DoD-level winners were more effective in doing so, particularly when they were able to point to more actions that occurred during the award period.
Clear Indication of Results: The winning nominations consistently indicated their results in clear, quantitative terms. Particularly when used with baseline figures, numerical results-numbers of dollars saved, gallons of water conserved, tons of scrap recycled, etc.-can really show that an action has been effective. The winners generally used dates when describing their actions, too; this gave the reader a sense of sequence and showed that an action has been effective over time. DoD seems to value programs that use innovative approaches to solve problems efficiently and economically while preserving the environment. By showing how things improved within the award period, and providing quantitative data as proof, the winners, for the most part, met the DoD standards.
Program Breadth is Clear in the Format of the Nomination: Most of the winning nominations clearly followed the format for the Accomplishments section as listed under their respective category tabs in the DoD Guidance. The Army nominations did not do this as consistently. Our past analyses of DoD-level winners has revealed that adherence to the DoD-suggested format will not guarantee a DoD-level winner. However, such adherence does make information easier to find, and it makes it easier for the judges to see, in a single glance, whether or not all criteria area addressed. The winning nominations, which generally were stronger in program breadth than the Army nominations, made good use of this format in their submissions.
We strongly recommend that installations engage the support of their Public Affairs Office (PAO), or equivalent, as early as possible in the nomination process. Some installations do this and some do not. We feel it is extremely beneficial to have the PAO on the "team" from the beginning.