Programmes Assessment and Scoring Guidance - Transition Research Fund 2027 Investment Round

The scale and extent of the potential (direct or indirect) benefits of the proposed work is negligible.

The outcomes have no alignment with National Pillar Priorities.

Where relevant, the project has not identified and evaluated the potential impacts for Māori.

The scale and extent of the potential (direct or indirect) benefits of the proposed work is minimal.

The outcomes have doubtful alignment with National Pillar Priorities.

Where relevant, the project has poorly identified and evaluated the potential impacts for Māori.

The scale and extent of the potential (direct or indirect) benefits of the proposed work is limited.

The outcomes have some alignment with National Pillar Priorities.

Where relevant, the project has partially identified and evaluated the potential impacts for Māori.

The scale and extent of the potential (direct or indirect) benefits of the proposed work is adequate.

The outcomes have reasonable alignment with National Pillar Priorities.

Where relevant, the project has adequately identified and evaluated the potential impacts for Māori.

The scale and extent of the potential (direct or indirect) benefits of the proposed work is significant.

The outcomes have good alignment with National Pillar Priorities.

Where relevant, the project has clearly identified and evaluated the potential impacts for Māori.

The scale and extent of the potential (direct or indirect) benefits of the proposed work is extensive.

The outcomes have very good alignment with National Pillar Priorities.

Where relevant, the project has comprehensively identified and evaluated the potential impacts for Māori.

The scale and extent of the potential (direct or indirect) benefits of the proposed work is outstanding.

The outcomes have outstanding alignment with National Pillar Priorities.

Where relevant, the project has outstandingly identified and evaluated the potential impacts for Māori.

The indicative implantation pathway(s) is not credible because:

The understanding of the enablers and barriers for potential implementation pathways is missing.

It will not deliver public benefit to New Zealand, as benefit is limited to a single firm or end-user.

No credible evidence and identification of relevant strong relationships with end/next-users, beneficiaries and stakeholders.

There are no skills or experience within the team relevant to achieving impact.

For proposals with Mātauranga Māori, the proposal has no input from Māori at the appropriate stage(s) or levels to ensure effective implementation, given the focus of the research plan.

The indicative implementation pathway(s) has minimal credibility because:

The understanding of the enablers and barriers for potential implementation pathways is lacking.

It will inadequately deliver public benefit to New Zealand, as benefit is not limited to a single firm or end-user

Lacking evidence and identification of relevant strong relationships with end/next-users, beneficiaries and stakeholders.

There are doubtful skills or experience within the team relevant to achieving impact.

For proposals with Mātauranga Māori, the proposal has minimal input from Māori at the appropriate stage(s) or levels to ensure effective implementation, given the focus of the research plan.

The indicative implementation pathway(s) has limited credibility because:

The understanding of the enablers and barriers for potential implementation pathways is uncertain.

It will deliver limited public benefit to New Zealand, as benefit is not limited to a single firm or end-user.

Partially credible evidence and identification of relevant strong relationships with end/next-users, beneficiaries and stakeholders.

There are possible skills or experience within the team relevant to achieving impact.

For proposals with Mātauranga Māori, the proposal has partial input from Māori at the appropriate stage(s) or levels to ensure effective implementation, given the focus of the research plan.

The indicative implementation pathway(s) has acceptable credibility because:

The understanding of the enablers and barriers for potential implementation pathways is acceptable.

It will suitably deliver public benefit to New Zealand, as benefit is not limited to a single firm or end-user.

Reasonable credible evidence and identification of relevant strong relationships with end/next-users, beneficiaries and stakeholders.

There are adequate skills or experience within the team relevant to achieving impact.

For proposals with Mātauranga Māori, the proposal has reasonable input from Māori at the appropriate stage(s) or levels to ensure effective implementation, given the focus of the research plan.

The indicative implementation pathway(s) has good credibility because:

The understanding of the enablers and barriers for potential implementation pathways is good.

It will clearly deliver public benefit to New Zealand, as benefit is not limited to a single firm or end-user.

Substantial credible evidence and identification of relevant strong relationships with end/next-users, beneficiaries and stakeholders.

There are clear skills or experience within the team relevant to achieving impact.

For proposals with Mātauranga Māori, the proposal has good input from Māori at the appropriate stage(s) or levels to ensure effective implementation, given the focus of the research plan.

The indicative implementation pathway(s) has very good credibility because:

The understanding of the enablers and barriers for potential implementation pathways is high.

It will strongly deliver public benefit to New Zealand, as benefit is not limited to a single firm or end-user.

Certain credible evidence and identification of relevant strong relationships with end/next-users, beneficiaries and stakeholders.

There are very good skills or experience within the team relevant to achieving impact.

For proposals with Mātauranga Māori, the proposal has extensive input from Māori at the appropriate stage(s) or levels to ensure effective implementation, given the focus of the research plan.

The indicative implementation pathway(s) has outstanding credibility because:

The understanding of the enablers and barriers for potential implementation pathways is excellent.

It will highly likely deliver public benefit to New Zealand, as benefit is not limited to a single firm or end-user.

Outstanding credible evidence and identification of relevant strong relationships with end/next-users, beneficiaries and stakeholders.

There are impressive skills or experience within the team relevant to achieving impact.

For proposals with Mātauranga Māori, the proposal has excellent input from Māori at the appropriate stage(s) or levels to ensure effective implementation, given the focus of the research plan.

No new knowledge will be progressed or disseminated.

The research plan and methodology are not credible.

Risk is not managed.

There is no scientific or technical risk, ambition, and or novelty.

Rationale for conducting the research in New Zealand is missing.

The proposal is not fit for purpose and does not advance New Zealand beyond its current state.

The research is not credibly positioned domestically and internationally, and does not build on, complement or differentiate from existing work.

Where relevant, there is no recognition of the distinctive research, science and innovation contributions of Māori people, knowledge, and resources, including Mātauranga Māori. Where not relevant, appropriate explanation is missing.

Minimal new knowledge will be progressed or disseminated.

The research plan and methodology are inadequate.

Risk is poorly managed.

There is little scientific or technical risk, ambition, and or novelty.

Rationale for conducting the research in New Zealand is lacking.

The proposal is inadequately fit for purpose and doubtful that it advances New Zealand beyond its current state.

The research is poorly positioned domestically and internationally, and minimally builds on, complements or differentiates from existing work.

Where relevant, there is minimal recognition of the distinctive research, science and innovation contributions of Māori people, knowledge, and resources, including Mātauranga Māori. Where not relevant, appropriate explanation is lacking.

Limited new knowledge will be progressed or disseminated.

The research plan and methodology lack detail.
Risk management lacks detail.

There is some scientific or technical risk, ambition, and or novelty.

Rationale for conducting the research in New Zealand is uncertain.

The proposal is partially fit for purpose and uncertain that it advances New Zealand beyond its current state.

The research is partially positioned domestically and internationally, and possibly builds on, complements or differentiates from existing work.

Where relevant, there is limited recognition of the distinctive research, science and innovation contributions of Māori people, knowledge, and resources, including Mātauranga Māori. Where not relevant, appropriate explanation is incomplete.

Suitable new knowledge will be progressed or disseminated.

The research plan and methodology are adequate.

Risk management is reasonable.

There is sufficient scientific or technical risk, ambition, and or novelty.

Rationale for conducting the research in New Zealand is acceptable.

The proposal is adequately fit for purpose and is quite likely that it advances New Zealand beyond its current state.

The research is reasonably positioned domestically and internationally, and suitably builds on, complements or differentiates from existing work.

Where relevant, there is suitable recognition of the distinctive research, science and innovation contributions of Māori people, knowledge, and resources, including Mātauranga Māori. Where not relevant, appropriate explanation is acceptable.

Significant new knowledge will be progressed or disseminated.

The research plan and methodology are good.
Risk management is clear.

There is substantial scientific or technical risk, ambition, and or novelty.

Rationale for conducting the research in New Zealand is clear.

The proposal is largely fit for purpose and clear that it advances New Zealand beyond its current state.

The research is largely positioned domestically and internationally, and significantly builds on, complements or differentiates from existing work.

Where relevant, there is good recognition of the distinctive research, science and innovation contributions of Māori people, knowledge, and resources, including Mātauranga Māori. Where not relevant, appropriate explanation is clear.

Extensive new knowledge will be progressed or disseminated.

The research plan and methodology are comprehensive.

Risk management is comprehensive.

There is extensive scientific or technical risk, ambition, and or novelty.

Rationale for conducting the research in New Zealand is very good.

The proposal is certainly fit for purpose and strongly advances New Zealand beyond its current state.

The research is strongly positioned domestically and internationally, and extensively builds on, complements or differentiates from existing work.

Where relevant, there is very good recognition of the distinctive research, science and innovation contributions of Māori people, knowledge, and resources, including Mātauranga Māori. Where not relevant, appropriate explanation is strong.

Impressive new knowledge will be progressed or disseminated.

The research plan and methodology are exemplary.

Risk management is impressive.
There is definite scientific or technical risk, ambition, and or novelty.

Rationale for conducting the research in New Zealand is excellent.

The proposal is outstandingly fit for purpose and definitely advances New Zealand beyond its current state.

The research is impressively positioned domestically and internationally, and definitely builds on, complements or differentiates from existing work.

Where relevant, there is outstanding recognition of the distinctive research, science and innovation contributions of Māori people, knowledge, and resources, including Mātauranga Māori. Where not relevant, appropriate explanation is excellent.

The mix of interdisciplinary skills needed for the research is missing.

The team has none of the skills, knowledge, or resources needed.

The required partnerships and collaborations (national and/or international) are missing.

When you would otherwise expect it, appropriate Māori expertise in the team is missing.

The mix of interdisciplinary skills needed for the research is lacking.

The team has an inadequate mix of the skills, knowledge and resources needed.

The required partnerships and collaborations (national and/or international) are insufficient.

When you would otherwise expect it, the team is lacking appropriate Māori expertise.

The mix of interdisciplinary skills needed for the research is limited.

The team has a partial mix of the skills, knowledge and resources needed.

The required partnerships and collaborations (national and/or international) are limited.

When you would otherwise expect it, there is limited appropriate Māori expertise in the team.

The mix of interdisciplinary skills needed for the research is adequate.

The team has a suitable mix of the skills, knowledge and resources needed.

The required partnerships and collaborations (national and/or international) are suitable.

If applicable, there is reasonable or appropriate Māori expertise in the team.

The mix of interdisciplinary skills needed for the research is good.

The team has a good mix of the skills, knowledge and resources needed.

The required partnerships and collaborations (national and/or international) are clear.

If applicable, there is significant appropriate Māori expertise in the team.

The mix of interdisciplinary skills needed for the research is very good.

The team has a comprehensive mix of the skills, knowledge and resources needed.

The required partnerships and collaborations (national and/or international) are strong.

If applicable, there is comprehensive appropriate Māori expertise in the team.

The mix of interdisciplinary skills needed for the research is very excellent.

The team has an impressive mix of the necessary skills, knowledge and resources needed.

The required partnerships and collaborations (national and/or international) are impressive.

If applicable, there is exemplary appropriate Māori expertise in the team.

• Seeks to advance New Zealand beyond the current state of knowledge and practice through challenging, novel or high-value research.
• May involve a greater degree of scientific or technical uncertainty where justified by the potential significance of the outcomes.

Impact being the strong positive effect or influence of a research outcome. Example impacts include:

• protecting New Zealand’s reputation or diversifying the economy
• economic gains – e.g., from the attraction of multinational businesses to, or retention of business in, New Zealand
• improved social well-being or preservation of cultural heritage and values
• improved or better environmental outcomes
• increased resilience to natural hazards and adaptation to climate change
• better informed government policy
• better use of resources or more efficient processes, e.g., via creation of a research platform that has additional utility for users
• support for emerging and new sectors or upskilling existing industry
• job creation, e.g., via new start-ups or development of a cluster of businesses
• new, or improvement to existing, standards or approaches for regulators
• generation of new knowledge, insights, methods or capabilities that enable future applications, pathways to use, or downstream economic, environmental, or social benefits for New Zealand
• strengthening New Zealand’s research capability, including specialist expertise, emerging researchers, partnerships and research platforms that contribute to future innovation and impact.

Benefit to New Zealand should be in context of the scale and extent of the impact (see below).

• When assessing benefit, consider the value of the investment over the cost of performing the research, recognising that benefits may be direct or indirect, immediate or long-term, and may arise through future application of new knowledge rather than a foreseeable commercial outcome.

• The skills, knowledge, experience, expertise and resources required to successfully undertake and deliver the proposed research, science or technology, or related activities.
• May include individual, team, organisational or system capability, including specialist expertise, research infrastructure, partnerships and the development of future capability.

• Realistic, evidence-based and sufficiently justified, with assumptions, claims and expectations supported by appropriate information.
• Demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of being successfully delivered within the proposed timeframe, resources and risk settings.

Contains all of the expected elements, in a way which can be managed and effectively implemented. Expected elements include:

• the research methods/methodology, design and proposed outputs
• a risk management and mitigation plan
• provision for access to and use of the facilities and equipment for carrying out the research.

• Making the research results available for potential end- or next-users so that impact and benefits can be achieved.
• May vary according to the situation and should not be confined to publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals. For example, a patent publication is a form of dissemination.

• The area or degree of coverage of the benefits, irrespective of scale.
• Consider whether benefits are narrow (for example, individual organisations), widespread (for example, across multiple sectors), or enabling (for example, increasing uptake of investments already made). Benefit should not solely be to a single firm or end-user.

• Appropriate and well matched to the research objectives, intended outcomes, and stage of the research.
• Uses methods, resources, partnerships and approaches that are suitable for delivering the proposed research and its intended outcomes.

• Bringing in new methods or ideas for adaptation to New Zealand context or applications.
• Degrees of innovation range from minor innovations of existing processes/techniques to the implementation of completely new processes/techniques that significantly challenge the status quo.
• Can include the application of existing processes or techniques in new or unexpected areas.
• Advances knowledge, understanding, methods, data or capabilities beyond the current state of research and practice.

• The National Pillar Priorities set out the science and research investments required to lift New Zealand’s economic growth and productivity, environmental resilience, and living standards. Opportunities are clearly defined investment areas, to enable system performance and national impact.
• The priority opportunity areas identified within the four pillars of the Science Investment Plan: Technology for Prosperity, Primary Industries and Bioeconomy, Environmental Sustainability and Resilience, and Healthy People and a Thriving Society.
• Alignment should be demonstrated through a clear and meaningful contribution to one or more priority opportunities, rather than by broad or incidental relevance.

• A new method or idea.
• All or some elements of a proposal may be novel.
• Novelty can range from making incremental to ground-breaking advances, and from novelty in science approach to intended outcomes.

• A plan that outlines, in sufficient detail, the steps a team will take in the goal to disseminate and realise impact from research outputs.
• A credible implementation pathway should cover the ‘who, what and how’ within the plan, including identified end-users and beneficiaries, potential partners, and key events or milestones required to deliver.
• The implementation pathway should be appropriate for the research stage. Thus, a pathway for a talent development project is likely to be more speculative in approach and detail than a pathway for a programme.
• Examples used should be credible and specific (such as identifying the form or requirements of regulatory approvals).
• Consider the relevant skills and experiences of the team and how the plan will leverage existing or future relationships/networks for maximising outcomes.

• Extremely thorough and accurate, allowing little to no room for error.

• Risk is defined as the effect of uncertainty on objectives, both research and outcomes.
• Scientific and technical risk is the basis of an ambitious proposal. This includes assumptions based on current knowledge or scientific principles.
• A project that involves risk may seek to apply scientific techniques in an unproven or speculative way.
• The level of risk taken should be justified by the magnitude of the impact benefits sought. The level of risk should be matched by appropriate risk management.

• The coordinated activities used to direct and control a project or its’ objectives when regarding risks. Risk should be managed through risk mitigation strategies and/or contingency plans.
• Residual risk should be considered against the potential additional scientific value.

Relative size, in context, for example:

• an economic development project may express scale in financial worth or as a share of a market
• social and environmental projects may use statistics on population size, the number of people or organisations affected, or level of emissions reduced
• in assessing scale, consider the value over and above business as usual.

The research takes account of existing knowledge and research, either by:

• avoiding redundancy or overlap, or
• using existing knowledge/research as a platform for achieving more significant advances in knowledge than would otherwise be the case
• describing links with key related science activities (often funded separately) which are complementary or synergistic
• has international links that provide leverage and additional value.
• being well matched to the outcome opportunity that it is intended to address
• demonstrates an understanding of the domestic and international research context, including how the proposed research builds on, complements or differs from existing work.