Eligibility and programme integrity

General eligibility

• PMI membership and certification are generally optional, across industries, public bodies, non-profits, academia, start-ups and social enterprises.
• Project awards prefer completion within 36 months of the nomination deadline. A completed phase of a longer initiative may qualify when it has a clearly bounded scope and evidenced outcomes.
• Ongoing work must show substantial realised outcomes for the nominated scope.
• Submissions use English, unless the published annual rules explicitly permit another language with an English summary.
• The nominee must authorise the entry and have permission to submit the evidence.
• The same project or initiative may enter one competitive project or domain category in this cycle. Different, materially distinct projects may be submitted separately.
• An individual should normally enter one individual professional category. The same accomplishment cannot be re-entered if it previously won a DiSHA award.
• Grand Project uses automatic consideration. Distinguished Contribution uses confidential invitations.

Project Scale and Complexity Index

Use the SCI for Project of the Year and Social Impact size categories. The index totals 100 points and is reviewed by the Secretariat. It is not a set of rupee-based budget bands.

Scroll the table horizontally to see additional columns, if needed.

Small: 0–34. Medium: 35–64. Large: 65–100.

Applicants provide evidence behind each factor. Reclassification is an administrative decision with recorded reasons, communicated before judging and before a shortlisted entrant agrees to a fee. The nomination draft tool includes an indicative SCI calculator.

Assessment standards

The proposed 2027 standard uses three independent written reviews for every eligible entry, followed by category-jury moderation and a Grand Jury. Reviewers assess the same published category criteria and provide evidence-based reasons.

Each criterion is scored 1–5, then weighted to 100. Scores of 1 or 5 require written reasons. A spread greater than 15 points triggers investigation, conflict checks and documented moderation or reassignment. A 70/100 quality threshold supports judgement. The jury can confer no award and should normally select one winner with up to three finalists per competitive category.

Recommended finalist format: Premier categories 1, 5–7, 13 and 17 use 15 minutes plus 15 minutes of Q&A; other open categories use 10 minutes plus 10 minutes of Q&A. The final invitation must state the approved format. Jury and Grand Project honours use the existing evidence and any requested clarification.

Conflicts and independence

All evaluators, jurors and personnel with entry access sign confidentiality and conflict declarations before assignment. Employment, financial interests, material client or vendor relationships, direct involvement, personal ties and competitive interests can require recusal. A material relationship within the preceding 24 months normally requires recusal from the relevant nomination.

A conflicted person does not access the evidence, score, discuss or vote on that nomination. The Secretariat records the recusal and substitute allocation. Sponsors cannot buy judging rights or approval over outcomes. Administration, evaluation and final judging for the same award family must remain separated.

Evidence and responsible AI

Use measurable results, baselines, proportionate governance records, stakeholder references and verifiable exhibits. Redact confidential and personal material, while preserving enough context for fair evaluation. Testimonials supplement objective evidence.

AI can assist drafting, but nominees remain responsible for accuracy, originality and permissions. Fabricated claims, sources, testimonials or outcomes can disqualify an entry. Confidential submissions must not be uploaded to public generative AI tools by assessors.

Procedural appeals and disqualification

Submit a procedural appeal within five business days of the relevant notification to the Secretariat, requesting independent Ethics and COI review. Grounds are material process errors, undisclosed conflicts, eligibility mistakes or demonstrable factual errors in administration. Disagreement with professional judgement or scores is not a ground.

Reviewers of an appeal should be independent of the original decision wherever possible. False evidence, plagiarism, unauthorised disclosure, lobbying judges, prohibited duplicate entries, refusal of material verification or serious integrity concerns can result in disqualification or withdrawal of recognition.

For confidential procedural concerns, email disha.awards@pmipunechapter.com with “Confidential procedural concern” in the subject and request routing to the Ethics and COI Panel. Panel appointments and the independent alternate escalation route must be confirmed before launch.

Recognition and brand use

Use the official award title, year and chapter name. Finalists must describe themselves as finalists and must not imply they won. Winners may use approved badges and wording without implying endorsement of unrelated products or PMI Global conferral. Publicity uses a separately approved summary and authorised photos.

Conference tickets, sponsorship, exhibitions and table purchases are separate from adjudication. The proposed post-shortlisting fee terms will be published before launch.