Assessment and scoring guidance Ara Whaihua 2026 investment round - He Ara Whakahihiko Capability Fund
Your proposal will be assessed using the guidance, criteria, and scoring tables below.
On this page
The Fund invests in the development of people and organisations with the skills and capacity to develop high quality, innovative solutions through science, innovation and technology that promote economic growth and support the Vision Mātauranga Policy.
Excellence: The Fund seeks excellence by developing, retaining, and attracting talented people and organisations through undertaking high quality scientific research, and innovation solutions relevant to science, innovation and technology.
Impact: The Fund seeks impact through programmes of work that explore the ways in which scientific research and its development and commercial application can benefit whānau, communities, the Māori economy and New Zealand.
Assessors will consider how the proposal addresses the following questions.
All assessment criteria will be assessed in line with the policy intent of the Fund as outlined in the He Ara Whakahihiko Investment Plan.
Excellence: Leveraging Excellent Science (15% Weighting)
Key Question: To what extent does the activity build on or leverage excellent science to support commercialisation and/or economic growth?
When assessing this question, Assessors will consider:
- Does the activity leverage existing scientific research, capability, networks, and relationships?
- Will the activity go beyond ‘business as usual’ for the organisations involved, for example by building on excellent science?
| 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 leverage or build on science. |
| 2 | Vague Unclear Unlikely Dubious Little relevance |
The information provided in the proposal is unclear or not supported. For example, plans to leverage science are vague or unlikely, and the science described is of substandard quality. |
| 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 leverage science have been outlined but there is some uncertainty about their feasibility, and the science described is of minimum quality. |
| 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 leverage science are adequate and the science described is of acceptable quality. |
| 5 | Significant Clear Multiple High level Robust |
Clear, succinct information is provided, delivering a solid proposal with relevant evidence. For example, plans to leverage science are well outlined and robust, and the science described is of good quality. |
| 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 science will be leveraged and the plans are comprehensive, and the science described is of very good quality. |
| 7 | (High quality) Excellent Exemplary Detailed Impressive |
The proposal is exemplary, excellent, comprehensive, and well explained and detailed in all respects. For example, science will be leveraged and built on, and the outcome will provide a step-change. The science described is of excellent quality. |
Excellence: Ability to Deliver (35% Weighting)
Key Question: What is the likelihood that the outputs of the proposed project will be achieved?
When assessing this question, Assessors will consider:
- Are all involved parties and the work programme appropriately resourced and supported, including management and facilities?
- Will the plan for carrying out the proposed work programme achieve the intended outcomes?
- 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?
- Does the team have the appropriate mandate to conduct this work?
| 1 | (Low quality) None Insufficient Not relevant No information Missing |
No relevant information has been provided. For example, there is no information about the work programme. Significant challenges in the project have not been identified or addressed. Team information is absent, and/or team science translation capability is missing. |
| 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. Team information is vague, and/or team science translation capability is substandard. |
| 3 | Limited Minimum -acceptable level Uncertainty Lacks detail |
Some useful information is provided, however significant gaps and lack of detail remain. For example, minimum work programme details are provided. There is some uncertainty around challenges and mitigations. Team information is minimal, and/or team science translation capability is limited. |
| 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. Team information is sufficient, and/or team science translation capability is acceptable. |
| 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. Team information is good, and/or team science translation capability is evident. |
| 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. Team information is very good, and/or team science translation capability is strong. |
| 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. Team information is excellent, and/or team science translation capability is exemplary. |
Impact: Outcomes from Science, Innovation and Technology Translation (25% Weighting)
Key Question: What are the impact pathways of the project and expected benefits to the applicant organisation?
When assessing this question, Assessors will consider:
- Does the proposal describe the expected post contract impact pathways of this activity?
- Do the expected benefits align with the aspirations of the applicant organisation?
- Will the project develop new or enhanced science, innovation and technology (SI&T) translation capability in the applicant organisation?
| 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 the applicant organisation and future impact pathways will be achieved. |
| 2 | Vague Unclear Unlikely Dubious Little relevance |
The information provided is unclear or not supported. For example, benefits to the applicant organisation and future impact pathways 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 the applicant organisation and future impact pathways 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 the applicant organisation and future impact pathways are adequate. |
| 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 benefits to the applicant organisation and future impact pathways. |
| 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 the applicant organisation and future impact pathways 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 the applicant organisation and future impact pathways are substantial and will result in a step-change. |
Impact: Science, Innovation & Technology Benefits and Vision Mātauranga (25% Weighting)
Key Question: How will the increased translation capability and capacity benefit the science, innovation and technology (SI&T) sector, and to what extent does the project support the Vision Mātauranga policy?
When assessing this question, Assessors will consider:
- Will the project increase science translation capability and networks between Māori and the SI&T system to deliver benefit to New Zealand?
- How does the project address the Vision Mātauranga theme(s) selected?
| 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 increased translation capability/capacity beyond the applicant and 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 increased translation capability/capacity beyond the applicant and 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 increased translation capability/capacity beyond the applicant and 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 increased translation capability/capacity beyond the applicant and 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 increased translation capability/capacity beyond the applicant and 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 increased translation capability/capacity beyond the applicant and 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 significant increased translation capability/capacity beyond the applicant and excellent Vision Mātauranga outcomes that are substantial and represent a step-change. |
Last updated: 11 June 2025