Author/udge's Commentary 369 The model should represent human behavior and be plausible all work needs to be al or referenced, a reference list at the end not sufficient Teams can only use inanimate resources--no real people or people con sulted over the Internet Surf the web but document sites where obtained information is used This problem lent itself to a literature search but few teams did one Summar This is the first piece of information read by a judge It should be well written and contain the bottom-line answer or result This summary should motivate the judge to read your paper to see how you obtained your results Judging The judging is accomplished in two phases. Phase I, at a different site, is triage judging. These are generally only 10-minute reads with a subjective scoring from 1(worst)to 7(best). Approximately the top 50% of papers are sent on the final judging Phase II is done with different judges and consists of a calibration and another subjection round based on the 1-7 scoring system. Then the g collaborate to develop a 100-point scale to enable them to"bubble up"the better papers. Four or more longer rounds are accomplished using this scale, followed by a lengthy discussion of the last final group of papers Reflections of Triage Lots of good papers made it to the final judging The initial summary made a significant difference in the papers(results ver- Report to the ceo also made a significant difference in papersAuthor/Judge’s Commentary 369 – Use real data. – The model should represent human behavior and be plausible. • Resources – All work needs to be original or referenced; a reference list at the end is not sufficient! – Teams can only use inanimate resources—no real people or people con￾sulted over the Internet. – Surf the web but document sites where obtained information is used. – This problem lent itself to a literature search, but few teams did one. • Summary – This is the first piece of information read by a judge. It should be well written and contain the bottom-line answer or result. – This summary should motivate the judge to read your paper to see how you obtained your results. Judging The judging is accomplished in two phases. Phase I, at a different site, is “triage judging.” These are generally only 10-minute reads with a subjective scoring from 1 (worst) to 7 (best). Approximately the top 50% of papers are sent on the final judging. Phase II is done with different judges and consists of a calibration round and another subjection round based on the 1–7 scoring system. Then the judges collaborate to develop a 100-point scale to enable them to “bubble up” the better papers. Four or more longer rounds are accomplished using this scale, followed by a lengthy discussion of the last final group of papers. Reflections of Triage • Lots of good papers made it to the final judging. • The initial summary made a significant difference in the papers(results ver￾sus an explanation). • Report to the CEO also made a significant difference in papers