Originally Posted by
BlackPeter
Hi Roger, good to see this year some information and criteria on the web (though nothing of relevance testable - except that nominees have to sit in NZ or Australia) ... you will find that it is much more difficult to find anything for the previous years.
I remember the forum discussion in February about these awards and I contacted at that stage Julian Cook as well as senior-housing. Julian responded within 24 hours indicating that these awards have now been running for 15 years and are quite well known in the sector. He mentioned that previous NZ winners have been Ryman (6 years in a row) and Metlifecare (1 year). He didn't know about the selection and judging criteria but confirmed that they (SUM) have no relationship with the organisation running the awards. So far, so good, but than - he would say that, wouldn't he?
I contacted as well "seniors housing" aka "age care housing australia" aka "Worldwide Resources" (all using the same St. Kilda PO Box, in which they as well seem to live (I never got a physical address from them, despite having to surrender my own. I don't know either with whom I communicated other than "Awards Secretariat" - they always responded per anonymous email - they must have something to hide). Felt quite funny - I had to identify myself basically down to my physical address, profession and passport number (actually - the last claim is an exaggeration, but it felt that way) before they started to respond other than "please identify yourself, we want to know, with whom we are dealing", and then they didn't answer my questions (related to award decision criteria), but promised me that the judge will contact me to arrange a meeting when he is in March 2014 in Christchurch anyway. I never heard from them again.
So - no, I found no evidence for a connection between Summerset and Worldwide Resources aka whatever, and I don't believe there is one. I found however as well no evidence of Worldwide Resources aka whatever's respected standing in the industry, and the real performance criteria for this award are unknown other that the editor makes a not contestable decision based on ... well I guess whatever drives him (we know his sex - this is the one information worldwide resources revealed when they talked about the judge as "Him"). Obviously we can only assume that it is nor money nor ads or personal relations he values, but that he is driven by the desire to find the best age care provider in Australasia.
At this stage I am still not sure, whether (and why) it is appropriate to crow about having received this award, given that it is absolutely unclear why the editor would choose one nomination over some other. And that is not because of lack of trying. I would prefer if my company (SUM) could not just claim to receive awards from independent, respected and fully qualified organisations, but if these attributes would be as well visible to everybody to see.
Discl: holding, though preferring to have a board which not just claims to act above board, but is as well always seen in doing so.