Listen to the audio version on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
The Zero Project has just concluded two important phases of its selection process and published this year’s Shortlist: 159 nominations, plus 10 nominations related to the arts. In this blog, I will look behind the scenes at how we started with 615 nominations this year and arrived at the Shortlist. I will also give a preview of how we will continue from here to identify this year’s approx. 75 Zero Project Awardees.
The Initial Screening Phase
615 nominations from 94 countries: this was a record number of nominations received from the Zero Project Network this year.
By end of June, the Zero Project Team starts its daily meetings to screen each nomination. Before the meeting, one team member familiarizes herself/himself with the nomination and briefly presents it to the group, who then discusses it.
Firstly they look at three basic knockout criteria:
- Stage of Development: Is it a project in the Zero Project’s sense of the term—or is it still only an idea, concept paper, or problem description? In Zero Project terminology: is it „too early-stage“?
- Information Quality: Does the nomination contain enough information to be assessed properly?
- Relevance: Most importantly: is it on topic? A nomination that does not fit the year’s research topics cannot advance, even if it describes excellent work. This is often a tough call.
In parallel, the team requests additional information from around half of all organizations. This is needed to help fill obvious gaps, for example on the number of beneficiaries, the organization’s background, or what happens in practice when a nominator uses broad terms such as “capacity-building”, “training activities”, or “structural improvements”.
What Does “On Topic” Mean?
The Zero Project methodology follows a four-year research cycle: Employment, Accessibility, Independent Living and Political Participation, and Education. Assistive Technology (AT) innovations and inclusive arts are additional research topics every year.
For AT and arts, it is comparatively easy to decide whether a nomination is in or out. The four core themes are more complex. We have them defined through the relevant Articles of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). For Independent Living (§19) and Political Participation (§29), we add other related Articles like Equal recognition before the law (§12), Freedom of expression and access to information (§21), Adequate standard of living and social protection (§28) and Participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport (§30).
As a resource for the Call for Nominations, the Zero Project provides subtopics every year. These provide guidance on what we are looking for and accept. But they are not meant to be strict limits. If a project supports the annual themes through a different but convincing method, it can still be accepted.
These distinctions are crucial because many solutions can be viewed through more than one lens. A project may create accessibility, offer education and training, or provide jobs. All of these can help people with disabilities lead more self-determined lives.
The Zero Project tries to understand a project’s main activity and mission. If it focuses on job training and hiring, we classify it under Employment—even though having a job is an important element of self-determination. On the other hand, if a comprehensive programme works on deinstitutionalization and support models, while also including job support, it falls into the theme of Independent Living.
There are further examples of boundaries that have developed as part of the Zero Project strategy in the past. Peer-learning platforms are a specific type of solution that we do not classify as Independent Living. Rehabilitation devices are generally not considered within the Zero Project’s scope, even if they include elements of independent living or assistive technology. The same applies to screening devices for medical diagnosis.
These are long-term decisions, and I may return to them in a future blog.
Why Thematic Boundaries Matter
You may ask why this classification is important in the first place. It is usually not important to the people behind a project, nor to its users. But it is crucial to several parts of the Zero Project methodology—and to how we create impact.
The Zero Project is built around co-creation, mutual learning, good practices, and community-building. We need to understand and categorize innovative solutions to offer connections to relevant people in our network, with the right approach. This connects directly to my two previous blogs on the importance of clustering (Michael's Blog: Disability Innovation Insights | Zero Project).
Almost 15 years ago, the Zero Project decided to work with four main research themes because we understood that a broad but recognizable frame brings more people together at the Zero Project Conference in ways that allow meaningful exchange.
If the theme is too broad, too many people with very different needs and resources may not find common ground, and thus, not find each other. If it is too narrow, much of the community is not addressed—and community-building does not happen either.
The research theme becomes the Conference theme each year, with assistive technology and arts added every year. The session topics and speaker lists can then be built around these shared topics, and clustering the innovative approaches we found. We consider this one of the most fundamental elements of the Zero Project strategy, and it cannot be done without categorization and clustering.
This does not mean that every solution must be assigned to exactly one—and only one—theme. A solution can support Independent Living and Education at the same time. It may also be driven by technology at the same time. For the Zero Project, that part is perfectly fine.
From Basic Screening to Peer Review
When applying the three basic knockout criteria, we usually lose more than 30 percent of nominations. We are always surprised by this high number, especially when it comes to the “off-topic” decision, and it is not desirable. An excellent organization may have invested substantial effort in a nomination that, in the end, does not fit the research topics of the year.
This is one reason why we have invested in AI capabilities in this field. From next year onwards, we plan to offer nominators a “Nomination Buddy” that can be used in parallel with completing the nomination form. It will comment on the quality of answers, point out gaps, and give clear advice on whether the nomination meets the criteria and fits the research topics of the year.
For nominations that pass the first screening, the team assesses the three core Zero Project selection criteria: Innovation, Impact, and Scalability.
For each of these three criterion, the Zero Project has developed and continuously refined a set of “boxes that need to be ticked” for a solution to advance.
For example, a solution is also considered innovative when it is “only” new in a particular geography, or when it is implemented by a new type of organization, even when its key elements existed before. The innovation may be additional availability, affordability, or quality.
Impact always needs to be measurable, including through numbers of users and beneficiaries. Scalability means that the organization can explain its business model and growth strategy.
The Peer Review Process
From mid-July to mid-August, six peer-review sessions were organized, involving on average 15 experts with and without disabilities from at least three different continents. The Zero Project aims for at least 25 percent of participants in each session to be persons with disabilities.
Their role is to help the Zero Project better understand innovative solutions, their context, and whether they should advance to the Shortlist.
Peer reviewers are usually close to the nomination’s subject matter—whether through region, theme, or disability type.
They vote on each nomination, providing their qualified input on whether a solution demonstrates innovation, impact, and scalability. In addition, they provide their comments immediately after each session.
In recognition of their contribution, they receive an online badge that certifies them as #ZeroCall peer reviewer. The are also invited to attend the next global Zero Project Conference in Vienna and are named in the annual Zero Project Report.
By mid-August, the Zero Project Team brings together all available information, peer review voting results and comments to determine approximately 160 nominations that make it to the Shortlist.
A Separate Pipeline for Early-Stage Technology and Arts Initiatives
Since 2022, the Zero Project has also operated a parallel selection process for early-stage assistive technology innovations.
Every year, we receive fascinating AT innovations that are still “too early-stage” for the main selection process. At the same time, these solutions can generate considerable interest among technology-oriented stakeholders—precisely because they are still at an early stage.
For these nominations, the Zero Project has created an additional pipeline, with the possibility of presenting at the Zero Project Technology Forum in Vienna.
Finally, nominations in the arts follow a specialized selection process, in cooperation with the Zero Project Inclusive Arts Community.
The Shortlist is therefore not simply a list of promising projects. It is the result of a disciplined process of screening, discussion, clarification, expert input, and strategic choices about how the Zero Project can best bring a global disability-inclusion community together