The people
behind the rubric.
GQC is governed by two councils. The academic council, chaired in each region by a host-university faculty member, sets the brief and the rubric. The industry council, drawn from venture, civic and senior practice, funds the prizes and supplies most of the jury pool. Membership is published in full.
Faculty chairs.
Chairs the academic council and the Asia regional jury. Co-founded GQC in 2019.
Programme leader, Hong Kong edition. Designs the methods clinic curriculum.
Programme leader, London edition. Engineering lead for Digital & AI.
Faculty director, New York edition. Chairs the Global Final senior jury.
Reviews entries touching health, fairness and safety-critical systems.
Designs the qualitative-methods workshops shared across all three editions.
Practitioners on the jury.
Convenes the Invitational Track. Funds the Founder’s Prize.
Chairs the Impact Prize jury. Convenes cross-edition bursaries.
Leads the Brand & Communication track jury.
Co-leads the Brand & Communication track in the Americas.
Reads engineering write-ups for the London track.
Convenes the New York Digital & AI jury and prototype reviews.
Reviews entries focused on public-sector services and civic infrastructure.
Chairs the Research Prize jury. Underwrites the prize on behalf of Atlas Bench.
The people who run it day to day.
Leads the foundation. Reports to the academic council.
Designs and runs the eleven-week Learning Experience.
Runs the three regional showcases and the Global Final.
First point of contact for sponsorship and partner enquiries.
Runs the alumni council and the post-programme mentorship year.
Manages applications, travel bursaries and the Sign-In platform.
Published names, declared conflicts, no celebrity casting.
City juries are drawn from the academic and industry councils plus guest practitioners nominated by host universities. Guests are published on this page before the showcase week. We do not recruit public figures for their name recognition; we recruit people who will read a twenty-page pack. If a name is not on this page, they are not judging GQC.
Conflicts: a juror who taught a team member, shares a family relationship, has invested in a related venture, or is employed by a sponsor with a direct interest in the outcome, files a declaration and leaves the room for that team. The scribe records the recusal. Scores are independent; panels do not average in public. Written critiques are signed.
What good judging looks like from the team’s side of the table: questions about evidence and operators, not about valuation; time kept; no mentoring-in-disguise during the defence (that belongs in clinics). Complaints about process go to the city chair. Complaints about a score not matching a team’s self-image are not a process issue. The permanent team does not sit on juries.