Assessment and scoring guide Te Pūnaha Hihiko: Vision Mātauranga Capability Fund 2025
Your proposal will be assessed using the scoring tables.
On this page
Pānuitia te putanga Reo Māori
Aratohu aromatawai me te tuku piro a Te Tahua Whakakaha a Te Pūnaha Hihiko: Vision Mātauranga 2025
The Fund focuses on achieving Excellence and Impact by investing in the development of people and organisations with the skills and capacity to develop high quality research programmes that are relevant to implementing the Vision Mātauranga policy.
Assessors will consider how the proposal addresses the following questions.
Excellence
Investment through the Fund will help the science, innovation and technology system develop, retain, and attract talented individuals, develop people and organisations to benefit from new knowledge, increase relevant skill levels to carry out Vision Mātauranga relevant research.
Development of People, Relationships, and Skills
(25% Weighting)
Key Question: To what extent are longer-term skills, capability, networks, relationships, and research opportunities likely to emerge and be sustained from the proposed project?
When assessing this question, Assessors will consider:
- Will the project build scientific research capability, networks, and relationships. For example, the formation of a new partnership between a Māori organisation and a Research organisation?
- Will the project go beyond ‘business as usual’ for the organisations involved?
- To what extent will the project substantially develop capability and skill of the individuals involved?
- Will this partnership lead to a long-term collaboration?
| 1 | (Low quality) None Insufficient Not relevant No information Missing |
No relevant information has been provided in the proposal. For example, the proposal does not outline any plans to develop skills or capability. |
| 2 | Vague Unclear Unlikely Dubious Little relevance |
The information provided in the proposal is unclear or not supported. For example, plans to develop skills are vague or unlikely. |
| 3 | Limited Minimum -acceptable level Uncertainty Lacks detail |
Some useful information is provided, however significant gaps and lack of detail remain. For example, plans to develop skills have been outlined but there is some uncertainty about their effectiveness. |
| 4 | Acceptable Sufficient Adequate Suitable |
Solid information is provided, however there is room for further information and evidence to improve the proposal. For example, plans to develop skills are adequate. |
| 5 | Significant Clear Multiple High level Robust |
Clear, succinct information is provided, delivering a solid proposal with relevant evidence. For example, plans to develop skills are well outlined and robust. |
| 6 | Certain Enduring Effective Comprehensive Strong Experience |
Significant information is provided and is backed up by relevant and effective evidence. For example, it is certain that skills will be developed, and the plans are comprehensive. |
| 7 | (High quality) Excellent Exemplary Detailed Impressive |
The proposal is exemplary, excellent, comprehensive, and well explained and detailed in all respects. For example, excellent skills will be developed and will provide a step-change. |
Ability to Deliver
(25% Weighting)
Key Question: What is the likelihood that the proposed outputs of the project will be achieved?
When assessing this question, Assessors will consider:
- Does the team have the appropriate mandate to conduct this work?
- Are all involved parties and the work programme appropriately resourced and supported, including management, mentoring and support arrangements?
- Will the plan for carrying out the proposed work programme achieve the intended outcomes and capability development?
- How does the calibre, experience, and skills of the team relate to the subject area(s) proposed for the work programme?
- Have challenges to delivery been identified and mitigated?
| 1 | (Low quality) None Insufficient Not relevant No information Missing |
No relevant information has been provided. For example, there’s no information about the work programme. Significant challenges in the project have not been identified or addressed. |
| 2 | Vague Unclear Unlikely Dubious Little relevance |
The information provided is unclear or not supported. For example, work programme details are missing or unclear. There are challenges in the project that have not been identified or addressed. |
| 3 | Limited Minimum -acceptable level Uncertainty Lacks detail |
Some useful information is provided, however significant gaps and lack of detail remain. For example, work programme details are provided. There’s some uncertainty around challenges and mitigations. |
| 4 | Acceptable Sufficient Adequate Suitable |
Solid information is provided, however there’s room for further information and evidence. For example, work programme details are sufficient but further explanation could be provided. Identification of challenges and mitigations are adequate. |
| 5 | Significant Clear Multiple High level Robust |
Clear, succinct information is provided, with relevant evidence. For example, the work programme is well developed. Key challenges and mitigations are clearly identified. |
| 6 | Certain Enduring Effective Comprehensive Strong Experience |
Significant information is provided and backed up by relevant and effective evidence. For example, the project plan is comprehensive and addresses challenges well. |
| 7 | (High quality) Excellent Exemplary Detailed Impressive |
The proposal is exemplary and detailed in all respects. For example, the work programme is impressive and will clearly achieve its intended outcomes. Identification of challenges and mitigation is excellent. |
Impact
The Fund seeks programmes of work that explore the ways in which scientific research and its development and application can benefit individuals, whānau, Māori communities and Māori organisations.
Vision Mātauranga Outcomes
(25% Weighting)
Key Question: To what extent does the project support the Vision Mātauranga policy and support unlocking the science, innovation and technology potential of Māori knowledge, resources and people for the benefit of Aotearoa New Zealand?
When assessing this question, Assessors will consider:
- Do the expected benefits align with the aspirations of the Māori organisation?
- Will the capability and leadership of Māori researchers be developed?
- Will the project outcomes be disseminated to participating or wider Māori groups?
- How does the project address the Vision Mātauranga theme(s) selected?
- Will the project develop and deliver innovative initiatives that encourage Māori organisations and the scientific research community to engage effectively to deliver benefit to Aotearoa New Zealand?
| 1 | (Low quality) None Insufficient Not relevant No information Missing |
No relevant information has been provided in the proposal. For example, there is insufficient information to assess the feasibility, or the project does not deliver Vision Mātauranga outcomes. |
| 2 | Vague Unclear Unlikely Dubious Little relevance |
The information provided in the proposal is unclear or not supported. For example, the work programme is unlikely to deliver Vision Mātauranga outcomes. |
| 3 | Limited Minimum -acceptable level Uncertainty Lacks detail |
Some useful information is provided, however significant gaps and lack of detail remain. For example, the work programme will deliver limited Vision Mātauranga outcomes. |
| 4 | Acceptable Sufficient Adequate Suitable |
Solid information is provided, however there is room for further information and evidence to improve the proposal. For example, the work programme will deliver adequate Vision Mātauranga outcomes. |
| 5 | Significant Clear Multiple High level Robust |
Clear, succinct information is provided, delivering a solid proposal with relevant evidence. For example, the work programme will deliver clear Vision Mātauranga outcomes. |
| 6 | Certain Enduring Effective Comprehensive Strong Experience |
Comprehensive information is provided. The proposal may deliver enduring impacts and is backed up by relevant and effective evidence. For example, the work programme is certain to deliver Vision Mātauranga outcomes. |
| 7 | (High quality) Excellent Exemplary Detailed Impressive |
Excellent information is provided, delivering an exemplary proposal. A high level of confidence/ certainty exists that this proposal will successfully deliver on its outcomes. For example, the work programme will deliver excellent Vision Mātauranga outcomes that are substantial and represent a step-change. |
Benefits to Science, Innovation and Technology
(25% Weighting)
Key Question: How will the increased capability, capacity, skills and networks benefit the science, innovation and technology (SI&T) sector, and what are the expected impacts of the project post contract?
When assessing this question, Assessors will consider:
- How will the project increase skills, capacity, capability, and networks between Māori and the science, innovation and technology system to deliver benefit to Aotearoa New Zealand?
- Does your project leverage any previously funded research?
- Will the project increase understanding of how science, innovation and technology can contribute to the aspirations of Māori organisations?
- Will the project identify and support future opportunities to participate in science, innovation and technology relevant Vision Mātauranga outcomes?
- Does the proposal describe the expected long-term impacts of this research, i.e., 1, 2, 5 years post-contract.
| 1 | (Low quality) None Insufficient Not relevant No information Missing |
No relevant information has been provided. For example, insufficient information is provided, or no benefits to SI&T will be achieved. |
| 2 | Vague Unclear Unlikely Dubious Little relevance |
The information provided is unclear or not supported. For example, benefits to SI&T are unclear or unlikely. |
| 3 | Limited Minimum -acceptable level Uncertainty Lacks detail |
Some useful information is provided, however significant gaps and lack of detail remain. For example, benefits to SI&T are uncertain or limited. |
| 4 | Acceptable Sufficient Adequate Suitable |
Solid information is provided, however there is room for further information and evidence to improve the proposal. For example, benefits to SI&T are adequate. |
| 5 | Significant Clear Multiple High level Robust |
Clear, succinct information is provided, delivering a solid proposal with relevant evidence. For example, benefits to SI&T are adequate. |
| 6 | Certain Enduring Effective Comprehensive Strong Experience |
Comprehensive information is provided. The proposal may deliver enduring impacts and is backed up by relevant and effective evidence. For example, benefits to SI&T are certain and will be enduring. |
| 7 | (High quality) Excellent Exemplary Detailed Impressive |
Excellent information is provided, delivering an exemplary proposal. A high level of confidence/ certainty exists that this proposal will successfully deliver on its outcomes. For example, benefits to SI&T are excellent and will result in a step-change. |
Last updated: 26 August 2024