Geoff Meads Marks 15 Years as CEDIA Smart Home Judge

How It Began

My journey as a CEDIA Smart Home Awards judge started in 2010, thanks to a conversation with Peter Aylett, who was then CEDIA’s Education Manager. At the time, I was establishing my own business and was looking for opportunities to contribute to the industry. Peter mentioned the ongoing challenge of finding technically proficient judges who were not affiliated with specific manufacturers or integrators and invited me to volunteer as a judge for that year’s awards.

My first judging experience took place at ISE in Amsterdam. Alongside Peter and a small team, we spent hours poring over hundreds of printed documents in hefty ring binders – a stark contrast to today’s streamlined digital submissions. As Peter transitioned away from his CEDIA role, I took on more responsibility in the judging process, turning what began as a one-time volunteer opportunity into a longstanding commitment as Chair judge.

The Evolution of the Awards

Over the years, the CEDIA Smart Home Awards have evolved significantly. In the early days, groundbreaking innovations such as IP control were met with awe. The industry has since matured, with networking and smart home integration becoming standard practice. While foundational technologies have remained relatively unchanged in recent years, the scale and complexity of installations have grown.

One of the biggest transformations has been in project documentation. When I first started judging, only a few high-end integrators used professional design tools like AutoCAD. Many relied on hand-drawn diagrams, which, while effective, lacked the clarity and ease of distribution provided by digital formats. Today, detailed and well-organised documentation is an expectation rather than an exception, ensuring long-term system maintainability and serviceability.

A common critique of the CEDIA Smart Home Awards is the extensive documentation required for submission. However, the judging panel does not request documentation that is not critical to the success of a project or key to the judging process. The process is designed to reflect industry best practices. If a company finds itself needing to create new documentation solely for the awards, it may indicate areas for improvement in their project management processes. We have had feedback from many award entrants to say that entering the awards has helped them streamline their documentation and improve their project processes.

Regional Differences in Judging

To maintain objectivity, the awards judging process has evolved. For the last few years, the three regional judging panels are responsible for judging entries from outside of their local region. This approach further anonymises the entries, reducing any potential bias.

I’d say that one of the most striking differences between regions is the size and scope of projects. A home cinema in London, for example, often occupies far less space compared to one in Texas or Australia, where expansive properties allow for larger installations. Cultural preferences also play a role in design and styling, influencing the aesthetics and functionality of integrated systems.

Another critical factor in regional differences is labour costs. The proportion of project expenditure allocated to equipment versus human services varies significantly. For instance, labour costs in India or Pakistan are dramatically lower than those in New York City, even though equipment prices may be comparable. This distinction impacts the overall project budget and is a crucial element in fair judging.

Advice for Award Entrants

Here’s my advice to those who are looking to submit entries this year:

Do:

1. Maintain Thorough Documentation – Regardless of awards, keeping comprehensive documentation improves communication and project management. It also means that when the time comes to enter, much of the necessary material is already available.
2. Follow Industry Standards – Recognised best practices exist for a reason. While they may sometimes differ from personal approaches, they are the result of extensive research and experience, ensuring quality and consistency.
3. Explain Compromises – The best integrators don’t just follow best practices; they know when and how to adapt. Acknowledging and explaining compromises showcases an understanding of real-world constraints and creative problem-solving.
4. Focus on Unique Challenges – Highlight aspects of the project that made it different, whether it was an unusual client requirement, technical innovation, or overcoming limitations such as budget or space.
5. Present Clear and Engaging Text – Judges must assess numerous entries, often from professionals writing in different styles and languages. Ensuring clarity and focus – while remaining concise – in the written submission is crucial.

Don’t:

1. Assume Usability is a Differentiator – While ease of use is important, it is an expectation, not a unique selling point. I’ve never heard a client ask for a system that is hard to use.
2. Overstate Perfection – No installation is without challenges. Claiming a project was flawless can raise scepticism, while detailing obstacles and how they were overcome makes an entry more compelling.
3. Rely Solely on High Budgets – A great installation isn’t just about money. While large-scale projects can be impressive, smaller projects that achieve excellence within constraints can be equally, if not more, commendable.

Time for Reflection

This year will be my last year as a CEDIA Smart Home Awards judge. As my tenure comes to an end, there are several things that I will miss about this role. To start, it’s the camaraderie amongst judges. Getting to collaborate with industry leaders provides invaluable learning opportunities – every day is a learning day, and I certainly discovered a lot from spending time with the other judges.

The role also provided me with great insights into industry trends. Judging entries offered a real-world perspective on emerging technologies, standards and best practices beyond marketing claims.

And lastly, the awards ceremonies themselves. I’m lucky enough to have attended all three regional award events and this has been thoroughly enjoyable.  These events were not just celebrations but also opportunities to witness innovation and excellence firsthand.

A Legacy of Excellence

After 15 years of judging, Geoff remains as passionate as ever about recognising excellence in smart home integration. His experience and dedication have helped shape the CEDIA Smart Home Awards into the prestigious programme it is today.

If you want to enter the 2025 CEDIA Smart Home Awards, visit www.cedia.org/awards.

The CEDIA Smart Home Awards programme will remain open for entries until 11^th April 2025 for Integrator categories and 6th June for Business, Individual, and Manufacturer Product categories.

The early bird deadline for Manufacturer Product categories is May 6, 2025