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

No clear alignment with the National Pillar Priorities.

The scale and extent of the potential (direct or indirect) impact and pathways to use of the proposed work is negligible.

Fails to identify any meaningful capability building with no evidence of future ability to realise impact over time.

No identification or poorly defined end-users, beneficiaries and stakeholders with no understanding of barriers to uptake.

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

Poor alignment with the National Pillar Priorities.

The scale and extent of the potential (direct or indirect) impact and pathways to use of the proposed work is minimal.

Insufficient identification of any meaningful capability building with inadequate evidence of future ability to realise impact over time.

Poor identification of end-users, beneficiaries and stakeholders with inadequate understanding of barriers to uptake.

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

Partial alignment with the National Pillar Priorities.

The scale and extent of the potential (direct or indirect) impact and pathways to use of the proposed work is limited.

Partial identification of any meaningful capability building with limited evidence of future ability to realise impact over time.

Limited identification or only some defined end-users, beneficiaries and stakeholders with limited understanding of barriers to uptake.

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

Sufficiently aligns with the National Pillar Priorities.

The scale and extent of the potential (direct or indirect) impact and pathways to use of the proposed work is reasonable.

Adequately identifies any meaningful capability building with reasonable evidence of future ability to realise impact over time.

Suitable identification of defined end-users, beneficiaries and stakeholders with reasonable understanding of barriers to uptake.

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

Clear alignment with the National Pillar Priorities.

The scale and extent of the potential (direct or indirect) impact and pathways to use of the proposed work is probable.

Identifies substantial capability building with clear evidence of future ability to realise impact over time.

Good identification of end-users, beneficiaries and stakeholders with clear understanding of barriers to uptake.

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

Strong alignment with the National Pillar Priorities.

The scale and extent of the potential (direct or indirect) impact and pathways to use of the proposed work is certain.

Very good identification of meaningful capability building with strong evidence of future ability to realise impact over time.

Extensive identification of end-users, beneficiaries and stakeholders with very good understanding of barriers to uptake.

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

Excellent alignment with the National Pillar Priorities.

The scale and extent of the potential (direct or indirect) impact and pathways to use of the proposed work is impressive.

Exemplary identification of meaningful capability building with definite evidence of future ability to realise impact over time.

Impressive identification of end-users, beneficiaries and stakeholders with excellent understanding of barriers to uptake.

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

The proposed approach is not fit for purpose and is missing evidence it will achieve the stated outcomes.

Expected outputs and new knowledge appear to be missing, with no scientific and technical novelty, or innovative outcomes.

The research plan and methodology are not credible.

Risk is not identified and managed.

The research is not well positioned domestically and internationally and is not above and beyond 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.

The proposed approach is inadequate and there is insufficient evidence it will achieve the stated outcomes.

Expected outputs and new knowledge appear unlikely, with scientific and technical novelty, or innovative outcomes, lacking.

The research plan and methodology are insufficient.

Risk is poorly identified and managed.

The research is poorly positioned domestically and internationally, and it is doubtful it is above and beyond existing work.

Where relevant, there is insufficient 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.

The proposed approach is lacking detail with some evidence it will achieve the stated outcomes.

Expected outputs and new knowledge appear to be missing, with no scientific and technical novelty, or innovative outcomes.

The research plan and methodology are not credible.

Risk is not identified and managed.

The research is not well positioned domestically and internationally and it’s uncertain if it’s above and beyond existing work.

Where relevant, there is some 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.

The proposed approach is reasonable and there is sufficient evidence it will achieve the stated outcomes.

Expected outputs and new knowledge appear quite likely, with adequate scientific and technical novelty, or innovative outcomes.

The research plan and methodology are suitably credible.

Risk is reasonably identified and managed.

The research is suitably positioned domestically and internationally and is sufficiently above and beyond 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.

The proposed approach is clear and there is good evidence it will achieve the stated outcomes.

Expected outputs and new knowledge are significant, with good scientific and technical novelty, or innovative outcomes.

The research plan and methodology are largely credible.

There is significant risk, but it is clearly identified and managed.

The research is well positioned domestically and internationally and is clearly above and beyond 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.

The proposed approach is comprehensive and there is strong evidence it will achieve the stated outcomes.

Expected outputs and new knowledge are extensive, with very good scientific and technical novelty, or innovative outcomes.

The research plan and methodology are highly comprehensive.

There is high risk, but it is very well identified and managed.

The research is strongly positioned domestically and internationally and is certainly above and beyond 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.

The proposed approach is exemplary and there is excellent evidence it will achieve the stated outcomes.

Expected outputs and new knowledge are extensive, with impressive scientific and technical novelty, or innovative outcomes.

The research plan and methodology are highly impressive.

There is outstanding risk, but it is excellently identified and managed.

The research is excellently positioned domestically and internationally and is definitely above and beyond 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 team has none of the skills, knowledge, or resources needed.

The team gives no confidence in their ability to deliver the research or manage risks.

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

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

The team gives minimal confidence in their ability to deliver the research or manage risks.

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

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

The team gives some confidence in their ability to deliver the research and manage risks.

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

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

The team gives adequate confidence in their ability to deliver the research and manage risks.

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

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

The team gives good confidence in their ability to deliver the research and manage risks.

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

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

The team gives high confidence in their ability to deliver the research and manage risks.

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

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

The team gives outstanding confidence in their ability to deliver the research and manage risks.

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.