Assessment and scoring guidance Rangapū Rangahau 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: Development of People, Partnerships, and Skills (25% Weighting)
Key Question: To what extent are longer-term capabilities and networks likely to emerge to generate excellent science which support economic and/or environmental outcomes?
When assessing this question, Assessors will consider:
- Will the project build research capability networks and partnerships for generating excellent science?
- Will the project go beyond ‘business as usual’ for the organisations involved? For example, establish a new long-term research collaboration.
- To what extent will the project substantially develop capability and skill of the participants?
The scores in the table below range from 1 (low quality) to 7 (high quality).
| 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 capabilities and partnerships, or these are not beyond ‘business-as-usual’. |
| 2 | Vague Unclear Unlikely Dubious Little relevance |
The information provided in the proposal is unclear or not supported. For example, plans to develop capabilities and partnerships are vague or unlikely, and/or these are unlikely to be beyond ‘business-as-usual’. |
| 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 capabilities and partnerships have been outlined but there is some uncertainty about their effectiveness, and/or these are minimally beyond ‘business-as-usual’. |
| 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 capabilities and partnerships are adequate and/or these are acceptably beyond ‘business-as-usual’. |
| 5 | Significant Clear Multiple High level Robust |
Clear, succinct information is provided, delivering a solid proposal with relevant evidence. For example, plans to develop capabilities and partnerships are well outlined and robust, and/or these are clearly beyond ‘business-as-usual’. |
| 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 capabilities and partnerships will be developed, and the plans are comprehensive, and/or these are well beyond ‘business-as-usual’. |
| 7 | (High quality) Excellent Exemplary Detailed Impressive |
The proposal is exemplary, excellent, comprehensive, and well explained and detailed in all respects. For example, excellent capabilities and partnerships will be developed and will provide a step-change, and/or there is a complete shift above and beyond ‘business-as-usual’. |
Excellence: Ability to Deliver (25% Weighting)
Key Question: What is the likelihood that the outputs of the proposed project will be achieved?
When assessing this question, Assessors will consider:
- How does the calibre, experience, and skills of the team relate to the subject area(s) proposed for the work programme?
- 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 and facilities?
- Have challenges to delivery been identified and mitigated?
The scores in the table below range from 1 (low quality) to 7 (high quality).
| 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 insufficient, and/or team science capability is inadequate. |
| 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 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, work programme details are provided. There’s some uncertainty around challenges and mitigations. Team information is minimal, and/or team science 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 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 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 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 capability is exemplary. |
Impact: Science, Innovation and Technology Outcomes (25% Weighting)
Key Question: Will the project deliver science, innovation and technology (SI&T) relevant research leading to economic and/or environmental outcomes and what are the expected impacts of the research?
When assessing this question, Assessors will consider:
- Does the SI&T relevant research have the potential to lead to tangible economic and/or environmental outcomes and impacts?
- Will the project uplift Māori science capability and capacity to benefit the Māori facing organisation(s)?
- Do the expected science outcomes align with the aspirations of the Māori facing organisation(s)?
- Will the science outcomes be disseminated to wider Māori and/or other stakeholders?
The scores in the table below range from 1 (low quality) to 7 (high quality).
| 1 | (Low quality) None Insufficient Not relevant No information Missing |
No relevant information has been provided. For example, insufficient information is provided, or no science outcomes and expected impact/s will be achieved. There is no evidence of capability and capacity uplift at an individual or organisational level. |
| 2 | Vague Unclear Unlikely Dubious Little relevance |
The information provided is unclear or not supported. For example, science outcomes and expected impact/s are unclear or unlikely, and/or there is little evidence of capability and capacity uplift at an individual or organisational level. |
| 3 | Limited Minimum -acceptable level Uncertainty Lacks detail |
Some useful information is provided, however significant gaps and lack of detail remain. For example, science outcomes and expected impact/s are uncertain or limited, and/or there is minimal evidence of capability and capacity uplift at an individual or organisational level. |
| 4 | Acceptable Sufficient Adequate Suitable |
Solid information is provided, however there is room for further information and evidence to improve the proposal. For example, science outcomes and expected impact/s are acceptable, and/or there is adequate evidence of capability and capacity uplift at an individual or organisational level. |
| 5 | Significant Clear Multiple High level Robust |
Clear, succinct information is provided, delivering a solid proposal with relevant evidence. For example, science outcomes and expected impact/s are good, and/or there is clear evidence of capability and capacity uplift at an individual or organisational level. |
| 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, science outcomes and expected impact/s are very good and will be enduring, and/or there is strong evidence of capability and capacity uplift at an individual or organisational level. |
| 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, science outcomes and expected impact/s are substantial and will result in a step-change, and/or there is exemplary evidence of capability and capacity uplift at an individual or organisational level. |
Impact: Science, Innovation & Technology Benefits and Vision Mātauranga (25% Weighting)
Key Question: Will the increased science 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 develop excellent science and partnerships which enables Māori organisations to deliver benefit to New Zealand?
- Will the project uplift Māori science capability and capacity to benefit the SI&T sector?
- Will the project identify and support future opportunities for Māori to participate in the SI&T sector?
- How well does the project address the Vision Mātauranga theme(s) selected?
The scores in the table below range from 1 (low quality) to 7 (high quality).
| 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 science capability/capacity and Vision Mātauranga outcomes. The science is absent. |
| 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 science capability/capacity and Vision Mātauranga outcomes, or 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, the work programme will deliver limited increased science capability/capacity and Vision Mātauranga outcomes, and/or 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, the work programme will deliver adequate increased science capability/capacity and Vision Mātauranga outcomes, and/or 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, the work programme will deliver clear increased science capability/capacity and Vision Mātauranga outcomes, and/or the science described is of good quality. |
| 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 science capability/capacity and Vision Mātauranga outcomes, and/or the science described is of very good quality. |
| 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 science capability/capacity and excellent Vision Mātauranga outcomes that are substantial and represent a step-change, and/or the science described is of excellent quality. |
Last updated: 11 June 2025