Digital transformation is a journey that impacts the entire higher education ecosystem. It requires specific capabilities and well-crafted strategies that can be defined from multiple perspectives. Submissions are expected to demonstrate a clear, institution-wide approach, supported by evidence of implementation and measurable impact.
⚠️ Important Note: All claims must be supported by clear evidence (data, examples, documentation, or outcomes). Submissions that are purely descriptive, without demonstrated impact, will not be considered competitive.
1. Digital Transformation Strategy
Considers how the institution transforms or operates to increase its competitive advantage through digital initiatives and how this is integrated within its strategic priorities and plans.
Expectation:
• Clear articulation of a digital transformation strategy aligned with institutional vision and strategic priorities
• Evidence of leadership commitment and governance structures supporting digital transformation
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Institutional strategy documents or digital transformation roadmaps
• KPIs linked to digital initiatives
• Governance structures (e.g., digital committees, leadership roles such as Chief Digital Officer)
2. Student Experience
Reflects on how digital technologies have been adopted to create/enhance a student-centric learning experience; this involves, but is not limited to, new modes of digital delivery and digitally enabled student services.
Expectation:
• Demonstrated improvement in student engagement, access, personalization, and learning outcomes through digital solutions
• Consideration of inclusivity, accessibility, and equity in digital delivery
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Student satisfaction data or survey results
• Retention, progression, or success rates linked to digital initiatives
• Examples of personalized/adaptive learning, virtual labs, or digital advising systems
3. Technology
Looks at the digital technologies and innovations that have been harnessed to implement digital transformation and how they align with institutional strategic priorities, including considerations of equity and access.
Expectation:
• Strategic selection and integration of technologies (not just adoption)
• Demonstration of how technology choices address institutional needs and challenges
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Description of platforms used (e.g., LMS, AI tools, data analytics systems) and their purpose
• Integration across systems (e.g., LMS with SIS, analytics dashboards)
• Evidence of accessibility features or initiatives to bridge the digital divide
4. Implementation & Results
Considers the execution and sustainability of the digital transformation strategy and how digital technologies are driving and enhancing the student learning experience, institutional management, and overall efficiency and effectiveness.
Expectation:
• Clear evidence of implementation (not just plans or intentions)
• Demonstrated measurable outcomes and impact over time
• Evidence of sustainability and scalability of initiatives
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Before-and-after data (e.g., efficiency gains, cost savings, improved outcomes)
• Performance dashboards or institutional reports
• Evidence of scaling initiatives across faculties or campuses
5. Institutional Culture & Capacity Building
Reflects on how the institution has developed an organizational culture to support digital transformation at all levels and how it strives to build capacity among different stakeholders.
Expectation:
• Evidence of cultural change and stakeholder engagement (faculty, staff, students)
• Structured capacity-building initiatives to support digital adoption
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Faculty development programs related to digital pedagogy
• Staff training initiatives and participation rates
• Change management strategies or communication plans
• Incentives or recognition schemes for digital innovation
This award seeks to highlight the outstanding achievements of higher education institutions that demonstrate excellence in engaging with the community, including areas such as volunteerism, community-based learning or research, outreach, fostering community partnerships, and building institutional commitment to serving the community and the public good.
Submissions are expected to clearly articulate the context in which the institution operates, including the community being served, prior to describing the initiatives undertaken and how students, staff, and other stakeholders have been actively involved in creating meaningful impact.
⚠️ Important Note: All claims must be supported by clear evidence (data, examples, documentation, or outcomes). Submissions that are purely descriptive, without demonstrated impact, will not be considered competitive.
1. Stakeholders’ Engagement
Considers the extent to which the institution engages various stakeholders in community-based activities and the types of opportunities and incentives available for students, alumni, and staff to participate.
Expectation:
• Clear demonstration of active and inclusive engagement of students, staff, alumni, and external stakeholders
• Evidence of structured opportunities and incentives to encourage participation
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Participation rates of students, staff, and alumni in community initiatives
• Volunteer programs, service-learning courses, or community-based research initiatives
• Incentive schemes (e.g., recognition, credits, awards) to encourage engagement
2. Significance and Needs
Reflects on the extent to which institutional community-based activities focus on a clearly identified community need or opportunity.
Expectation:
• Evidence that initiatives are aligned with community-identified needs rather than institution-driven assumptions
• Clear articulation of the relevance and significance of the targeted need or opportunity
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Needs assessments or community consultations
• Baseline data or contextual analysis of the community served
• Alignment with local, national, or global development priorities (e.g., SDGs)
3. Impact and Sustainability
Looks into how HEIs demonstrate a long-term commitment to community engagement that is measurable, relevant, sustainable, and which offers tangible, long-lasting benefits to the community. It also takes into consideration evidence of community satisfaction and the impact created on the community.
Expectation:
• Clear evidence of measurable impact on the community
• Demonstration of sustainability and long-term commitment beyond short-term initiatives
• Evidence of community satisfaction and perceived value
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Impact data (e.g., number of beneficiaries, improvements in community outcomes)
• Testimonials or feedback from community partners or beneficiaries
• Longitudinal data demonstrating sustained impact over time
• Evidence of scaling or replication of initiatives
4. Institutional Culture
Looks into how the institution has developed an organizational culture to support community engagement at all levels and how it strives to support various institutional stakeholders in engaging with the community.
Expectation:
• Evidence of institutional commitment to community engagement embedded in mission, strategy, or policies
• Demonstration of internal support mechanisms enabling stakeholder participation
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Institutional policies or strategies related to community engagement
• Dedicated offices, centers, or units supporting outreach and engagement
• Training or capacity-building initiatives for staff and students
5. Community Partnerships
Emphasizes long-term partnerships and collaborations established to maximize the institution’s potential for community engagement.
Expectation:
• Evidence of sustained and mutually beneficial partnerships with community organizations
• Demonstration of collaboration beyond transactional or short-term engagements
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Memoranda of understanding (MoUs) or formal partnership agreements
• Joint initiatives or co-created programs with community partners
• Evidence of continuity and growth of partnerships over time
This award recognizes higher education institutions that distinguish themselves through engaging in groundbreaking research that addresses real-world challenges—whether social, economic, political, cultural, or other—and that has made a meaningful impact on communities and/or had a significant influence on the field or discipline. The Award recognizes and celebrates outstanding achievements in research.
It highlights notable research activities by higher education institutions that demonstrate tangible benefit and impact. Submissions are expected to provide clear evidence of exceptional performance against relevant indicators such as research output, innovation, external funding, and impact.
⚠️ Important Note: All claims must be supported by clear evidence (data, examples, documentation, or outcomes). Submissions that are purely descriptive, without demonstrated impact, will not be considered competitive.
1. Research Priorities & Strategy
Refers to the key research priorities identified by the institution and translated into its research agenda, aimed at addressing local, regional, or global challenges across disciplines, including outcomes such as policy development, product creation, or advancements that significantly impact the discipline.
Expectation:
• Clear articulation of institutional research priorities aligned with societal, economic, or global challenges
• Evidence of a coherent research strategy translating priorities into actionable agendas Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Institutional research strategies, strategic plans or priority frameworks
• Alignment with national agendas or global frameworks (e.g., SDGs)
• Examples of targeted research programs addressing defined challenges
2. Innovative Approaches
Considers the innovative approaches adopted by the institution to achieve real impact and how it sustains and grows its research activities.
Expectation:
• Evidence of innovative research methodologies, models, or interdisciplinary approaches
• Demonstration of how innovation contributes to sustained and scalable research impact
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary research initiatives
• Use of emerging technologies (e.g., AI, data analytics) in research
• Novel funding models, incubation, or research commercialization approaches
• Global or subject-specific rankings (e.g., research rankings) as supporting indicators of research performance
3. Research Culture & Leadership
Focuses on the established institutional culture and environment supporting research, the type of support available for research and scholarly activities, and demonstrated vision and leadership for research.
Expectation:
• Evidence of a supportive research environment and enabling infrastructure
• Demonstrated leadership commitment to advancing research excellence Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Research policies, funding schemes, or incentive structures
• Faculty development and research capacity-building initiatives
• Leadership roles, governance structures, or strategic research units
4. Impact and Results
Considers institutional research output (e.g., publications, citations, patents, external grants) in terms of quality and the impact achieved.
Expectation:
• Clear evidence of research outputs and their quality
• Demonstrated impact beyond academia (e.g., societal, economic, policy, or industry impact)
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Publications in high-impact journals, citation metrics, or rankings
• Patents, licenses, or commercialization outcomes
• External research funding and grants secured
• Evidence of policy influence, industry uptake, or societal benefit
5. Research Partnerships and Collaborations
Considers productive partnerships established within or outside the sector to support the research priorities and agenda of the institution and for knowledge co-creation.
Expectation:
• Evidence of strategic and impactful collaborations supporting research priorities
• Demonstration of co-creation of knowledge with partners across sectors
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Joint research projects with industry, government, or international institutions
• Collaborative publications or co-funded research initiatives
• Formal agreements (e.g., MoUs) and long-term research partnerships
This award recognizes higher education institutions that demonstrate innovative and disruptive approaches to shaping and re-imagining the future of higher education in response to the rapidly changing global landscape.
For the purpose of this Award, “disruptive education” refers to transformative approaches that fundamentally rethink and redesign traditional models of higher education—rather than incremental improvements. These approaches challenge conventional structures related to curriculum design, delivery modes, assessment, credentials, and the role of the learner.
Examples of disruptive education (indicative, not exhaustive) may include:
It considers institution-level initiatives and projects that promote innovative and experimental approaches to education, whether through the design of new, responsive, agile, and non-traditional programs, or through the reinvention of pedagogical methods that empower learners, focus on 21st- century skills, and align with employability and evolving market needs.
Submissions are expected to demonstrate concrete examples of disruption in practice, rather than incremental improvement, supported by clear evidence of effectiveness and impact.
⚠️ Important Note: All claims must be supported by clear evidence (data, examples, documentation, or outcomes). Submissions that are purely descriptive, without demonstrated impact, will not be considered competitive.
HEIs applying for this award are required to provide at least three examples of programs/projects as evidence, demonstrating effectiveness, efficiency (where applicable), and relevance to their institutional context.
1. Forward Looking
Considers how higher education institutions are introducing new ideas in relation to programs and innovative approaches to delivering learning while addressing 21st-century challenges and the evolving context of the sector. It also examines how these ideas are translated into practice.
Expectation:
• Evidence of bold, forward-looking thinking that challenges traditional higher education models
• Demonstration of how innovative ideas are operationalized and implemented in practice
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• New program models (e.g., modular, stackable, interdisciplinary, competency-based)
• Innovative delivery formats (e.g., hybrid, immersive, experiential, work-integrated learning)
• Institutional initiatives responding to emerging global trends (e.g., AI, sustainability, future of work)
2. Relevance
Considers how the initiative/project addresses a significant issue or problem within the context of a given country or region.
Expectation:
• Clear alignment between the initiative and a defined contextual challenge or opportunity
• Evidence that the initiative responds to real needs (e.g., workforce, societal, economic)
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Labor market data or skills gap analysis informing program design
• Alignment with national or regional priorities
• Stakeholder input (e.g., employers, industry, community)
3. Transferable & Replicable
Takes into consideration the possibility of transferring and replicating the initiatives/projects (curriculum, pedagogical approaches, etc.) as best practices in different settings or contexts.
Expectation:
• Evidence that the initiative can be adapted or scaled beyond its original context
• Clear articulation of key success factors enabling transferability Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Adoption of the model across faculties, campuses, or programs
• Interest or uptake by other institutions
• Documentation of frameworks, toolkits, or models enabling replication
4. Effective & Impactful
Looks into the success and tangible positive impact of the initiatives/projects and the types of changes and transformations observed since implementation.
Expectation:
• Clear evidence of effectiveness and measurable outcomes
• Demonstration of tangible transformation at the student, program, or institutional level
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Student outcomes (e.g., employability rates, skill attainment, progression)
• Program performance indicators or institutional performance improvements
• Evidence of innovation leading to improved learning experiences or efficiencies
5. Learners’ Empowerment
Reflects on how the initiatives/projects empower learners to succeed in a disruptive and evolving landscape. It considers how the institution prepares learners with in-demand skills for the future, including but not limited to critical thinking, lifelong learning, and adaptability.
Expectation:
• Evidence that learners are actively empowered as agents of their own learning
• Demonstration of development of future-ready competencies and skills
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Integration of 21st-century skills within curricula
• Student-led learning approaches (e.g., project-based, inquiry-based learning)
• Evidence of skill development aligned with future workforce needs
The rapid expansion of higher education in recent years, alongside growing technological advancements and the emergence of technology-enabled learning models, has increased access to higher education globally. However, it has also created significant barriers for vulnerable and underrepresented groups. The COVID-19 pandemic further amplified issues of access and inclusion, exposing and widening the digital divide due to unequal access to technology among students at all levels.
Ensuring equitable and inclusive access to higher education is strongly aligned with global priorities, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 4), and remains one of the most critical priorities for higher education institutions worldwide.
For the purpose of this Award, equity and inclusion refer to intentional, systemic, and sustained efforts to remove barriers to access, participation, and success for all learners—particularly those from underrepresented, disadvantaged, or marginalized groups—while fostering an inclusive institutional environment where diversity is valued and supported.
This award honours exemplary higher education institutions (HEIs) that embrace the value of equity and inclusion in their work and activities through sound leadership and well-articulated strategies.
It takes into account how institutions are developing and implementing innovative concepts to maximize access, equity, and inclusion across their core functions, including curriculum, teaching practices, research, community engagement, student support, and institutional culture.
Submissions are expected to demonstrate a comprehensive, institution-wide approach supported by clear evidence of implementation, measurable outcomes, and sustained impact.
⚠️ Important Note: All claims must be supported by clear evidence (data, examples, documentation, or outcomes). Submissions that are purely descriptive, without demonstrated impact, will not be considered competitive.
1. Institutional Commitment
Looks into the institutional short- and long-term commitment to advancing equitable and inclusive access to education, and to supporting diversity among students, faculty, and staff in line with its mission and strategic priorities, with the aim of addressing inequalities and identifying pathways to resolve them.
Expectation:
• Clear evidence of institutional commitment embedded within vision, mission, and strategic priorities
• Demonstration of leadership accountability and governance structures supporting equity and inclusion
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Institutional strategies, policies, or frameworks on equity, diversity, and inclusion
• Leadership roles or dedicated units (e.g., EDI offices, diversity committees)
• Targets, KPIs, or institutional benchmarks related to access and inclusion
2. Institutional Initiatives
Describes the evidence-based efforts (e.g., projects, programs, initiatives) undertaken to promote and practice access, inclusion, and equity. Such work should demonstrate outstanding leadership, be collaborative and sustainable, and be aligned with the institution's vision, mission, and strategic priorities.
Expectation:
• Evidence of well-designed, impactful initiatives addressing equity and inclusion
• Demonstration of alignment with institutional priorities and sustained implementation
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Outreach, recruitment, and retention initiatives targeting underrepresented groups
• Inclusive pedagogical approaches and curriculum design
• Student support programs (e.g., financial aid, mentoring, accessibility services)
• Initiatives improving institutional climate for minorities and vulnerable groups
3. Relevance
Considers how the initiative/project addresses a significant issue or problem within the context of a given country or region.
Expectation:
• Clear alignment between initiatives and identified contextual challenges
• Evidence that initiatives respond to real institutional, societal, or systemic inequities
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Data highlighting disparities or access gaps
• Alignment with national policies or priorities related to inclusion
• Stakeholder input (e.g., students, communities, advocacy groups)
4. Impact and Sustainability
Looks into how HEIs demonstrate a long-term commitment to equity and inclusion that is measurable, relevant, sustainable, and impactful. It also considers how the institution evaluates its efforts and the outcomes resulting from such activities.
Expectation:
• Clear evidence of measurable outcomes and impact over time
• Demonstration of sustainability beyond short-term initiatives
• Evidence of continuous monitoring and improvement
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Changes in access, retention, or success rates among target groups
• Student satisfaction and sense of belonging indicators
• Longitudinal data demonstrating progress
• Institutional reports or evaluation frameworks
5. Transferable & Replicable
Takes into consideration the possibility of transferring and replicating the initiative(s)/project(s) undertaken by the institution as best practices in different settings or contexts.
Expectation:
• Evidence that initiatives can be adapted or scaled to other contexts
• Clear articulation of models, frameworks, or practices enabling replication
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Adoption or adaptation of initiatives across faculties or campuses
• Interest or uptake by other institutions or partners
• Documentation of models, toolkits, or frameworks
This award recognizes higher education institutions that are making significant, well-planned, well-executed, impactful, and sustainable internationalization efforts, while embracing innovative and creative approaches. It recognizes and celebrates the outstanding contributions of HEIs that demonstrate institutional commitment to excellence and leadership in internationalization.
For the purpose of this Award, internationalization refers to a comprehensive, strategic, and institution-wide approach to integrating global and intercultural dimensions into teaching and learning, research, partnerships, and the overall student experience—going beyond isolated activities to achieve meaningful and sustainable global engagement.
Submissions are expected to demonstrate a coherent internationalization strategy supported by clear evidence of implementation, measurable outcomes, and sustained impact.
⚠️ Important Note: All claims must be supported by clear evidence (data, examples, documentation, or outcomes). Submissions that are purely descriptive, without demonstrated impact, will not be considered competitive.
Internationalization in higher education requires specific strategies, plans, capabilities, and resources that enable the achievement of impactful internationalization agendas and activities. The following criteria will be taken into consideration:
1. Internationalization Strategy
Looks into the institutional strategy and roadmap through which the institution leverages internationalization to enhance its global positioning and competitive advantage, and how such efforts are reflected in the institution’s mission, strategic priorities, plans, and results. It also considers how sustainability dimensions are integrated within the internationalization strategy.
Expectation:
• Clear articulation of a comprehensive internationalization strategy aligned with institutional mission and priorities
• Evidence of integration of global engagement and sustainability within strategic planning
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Institutional internationalization strategies or roadmaps
• KPIs and targets related to internationalization
• Evidence of alignment with global priorities (e.g., SDGs, global partnerships)
2. Institutional Efforts
Considers institutional projects, initiatives, and efforts undertaken to support the internationalization agenda, including but not limited to international student enrollment, international faculty recruitment, capacity-building initiatives, mobility programs, access to international experiences, campus experience for international students, establishment of international campuses or hubs, and the internationalization of research and knowledge exchange. It also considers how internationalization is embedded within the curriculum and student experience.
Expectation:
• Evidence of diverse and well-implemented internationalization initiatives across institutional functions
• Demonstration of integration of internationalization into teaching, learning, research, and student experience
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Student and faculty mobility programs (inbound/outbound)
• International student recruitment and support initiatives
• Internationalized curricula or joint/dual degree programs
• Global research collaborations or knowledge exchange initiatives
• Global rankings or international reputation indicators as supporting evidence of global positioning
3. Impact and Sustainability
Explores how the institution demonstrates a long-term commitment to internationalization that is measurable, relevant, sustainable, and impactful, and how such efforts create tangible, long-lasting benefits for the institution and the wider community.
Expectation:
• Clear evidence of measurable outcomes and long-term impact
• Demonstration of sustainability and continuous evaluation of internationalization efforts
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Trends in international student enrollment, retention, and success
• Impact of international partnerships on research output or funding
• Institutional reports or dashboards tracking internationalization performance
• Longitudinal data demonstrating sustained outcomes
4. Partnership and Outreach
Takes into consideration how HEIs have developed strategic partnerships and cultivated external relations that contribute to their internationalization efforts, including the models developed through such partnerships and their outcomes.
Expectation:
• Evidence of strategic, mutually beneficial, and sustained international partnerships
• Demonstration of outcomes achieved through partnerships
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Memoranda of understanding (MoUs) and long-term agreements
• Joint programs, research initiatives, or capacity-building projects
• International networks, consortia, or alliances
• Evidence of outcomes achieved through partnerships
5. Institutional Culture
Looks into how the institution has developed an organizational culture that supports internationalization at all levels, how such efforts are recognized and rewarded, and how stakeholders actively participate in planning, developing, and sustaining internationalization across the institution.
Expectation:
• Evidence of an institutional culture that values and promotes internationalization
• Demonstration of stakeholder engagement and support mechanisms
Indicative examples of evidence include, but are not limited to:
• Institutional policies or frameworks supporting internationalization
• Incentives or recognition for international engagement
• Staff and faculty development initiatives related to global competencies
• Evidence of stakeholder participation across institutional activities