Talent Development Assessment and Scoring Guidance - Transition Research Fund 2027 Investment Round
Your proposal will be assessed using the guidance, criteria, and scoring tables below.
On this page I tēnei whārangi
All assessment criteria will be assessed in line with the policy intent of the Transition Research Fund 2027 as outlined in the Transition Research Fund 2027 Investment Plan and Gazette Notice.
Impact (33% weighting)
The extent to which the proposed research has the potential to deliver meaningful outcomes for New Zealand’s economic, social or environmental benefit, appropriate to the applicant’s discipline and career stage. Assessment must have regard to the extent the proposal:
a. aligns with the National Pillar Priorities
b. articulates credible potential impact benefits and potential pathways to impact from the proposed research, science or technology or related activities, even where impacts are uncertain, longer-term or indirect
c. will build individual, institutional, or system capability that strengthens New Zealand’s ability to realise impact over time
d. has identified and appropriately considered potential impacts for Māori where relevant.
If there is clearly no alignment with the National Pillar Priorities, a score of 1 will be recorded.
Note that proposals may range from exploratory, discovery-led research through to applied research. Applicants’ responses should be appropriate to the nature, maturity, and expected timeframe of the proposed work.
The scores in the table below range from 1 (low quality) to 7 (high quality).
| Score | Keywords | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | (Low quality) None Not fit for purpose Negligible Missing Not credible |
The proposal does not align with the National Pillar Priorities. The potential (direct or indirect) impact benefits and potential pathways of the proposed work are negligible. Potential capability build (individual, institutional, or system) is negligible. Where relevant, the project has not identified and considered the potential impacts for Māori. |
| 2 | Minimal Poor Inadequate Insufficient Doubtful Lacking Unlikely |
The proposal shows minimal alignment with the National Pillar Priorities. The potential (direct or indirect) impact benefits and potential pathways of the proposed work are minimal. Potential capability build (individual, institutional, or system) is insufficient. Where relevant, the project has poorly identified and considered the potential impacts for Māori. |
| 3 | Limited Uncertain Some Partial Incomplete Lacks detail Possible |
The proposal shows some alignment with the National Pillar Priorities. The potential (direct or indirect) impact benefits and potential pathways of the proposed work are limited. Potential capability build (individual, institutional, or system) is partially identified. Where relevant, the project has partially identified and considered the potential impacts for Māori. |
| 4 | Acceptable Sufficient Suitable Adequate Reasonable Quite likely |
The proposal shows adequate alignment with the National Pillar Priorities. The potential (direct or indirect) impact benefits and potential pathways of the proposed work are sufficient. Potential capability build (individual, institutional, or system) is reasonable. Where relevant, the project has adequately identified and considered the potential impacts for Māori. |
| 5 | Significant Good Substantial Well Clear Large Probable |
The proposal shows clear alignment with the National Pillar Priorities. The potential (direct or indirect) impact benefits and potential pathways of the proposed work are substantial. Potential capability build (individual, institutional, or system) is significant. Where relevant, the project has clearly identified and considered the potential impacts for Māori. |
| 6 | Strong High Comprehensive Very good Very well Extensive Certain |
The proposal shows strong alignment with the National Pillar Priorities. The potential (direct or indirect) impact benefits and potential pathways of the proposed work are comprehensive. Potential capability build (individual, institutional, or system) is certain. Where relevant, the project has comprehensively identified and considered the potential impacts for Māori. |
| 7 | (High quality) Excellent Exemplary Impressive Outstanding Total Definite |
The proposal shows excellent alignment with the National Pillar Priorities. The potential (direct or indirect) impact benefits and potential pathways of the proposed work are exemplary. Potential capability build (individual, institutional, or system) is outstanding. Where relevant, the project has outstandingly identified and considered the potential impacts for Māori. |
Science Excellence (33% weighting)
The extent to which the proposed research is fit for purpose, rigorous, innovative, ethically conducted and internationally benchmarked, and addresses areas of clear national need.
Assessment must have regard to the extent the proposal:
a. is ambitious, new to New Zealand, and fit for purpose; it must be able to advance New Zealand beyond the current state of knowledge and practice to deliver the intended outcomes
b. will generate and disseminate new knowledge, data, or methods or deliver scientific, technical, or innovative outcomes
c. has a well-designed, coherent, and credible research plan, including appropriate identification and management of risk (noting that higher levels of uncertainty may be appropriate for exploratory research)
d. is well positioned within the domestic and international research context; and where applicable, demonstrates clearly how the proposal builds on, complements, or differentiates from existing national and international research
e. appropriately considers the relevance of the Vision Mātauranga policy and, where relevant, demonstrates a fit-for-purpose approach; where not relevant, this is clearly stated.
The scores in the table below range from 1 (low quality) to 7 (high quality).
| Score | Keywords | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | (Low quality) None Not fit for purpose Negligible Missing Not credible |
The proposal is not fit for purpose, ambitious or new to New Zealand. No new knowledge or outcomes will be generated and disseminated. The research plan is not credible, and risk management is missing. Is not positioned within or aligned with domestic and international research. 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. |
| 2 | Minimal Poor Inadequate Insufficient Doubtful Lacking Unlikely |
The proposal is minimally fit for purpose, ambitious or new to New Zealand. Insufficient new knowledge or outcomes will be generated and disseminated. The research plan is insufficiently credible, and risk management is lacking. Is poorly positioned within or aligned with domestic and international research. 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. |
| 3 | Limited Uncertain Some Partial Incomplete Lacks detail Possible |
The proposal is somewhat fit for purpose, ambitious or new to New Zealand. Limited new knowledge or outcomes will be generated and disseminated. The research plan is partially credible, and risk management is limited. Is somewhat positioned within or aligned with domestic and international research. 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. |
| 4 | Acceptable Sufficient Suitable Adequate Reasonable Quite likely |
The proposal is sufficiently fit for purpose, ambitious or new to New Zealand. Adequate new knowledge or outcomes will be generated and disseminated. The research plan is reasonably credible, and risk management is acceptable. Is adequately positioned within or aligned with domestic and international research. 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. |
| 5 | Significant Good Substantial Well Clear Large Probable |
The proposal is clearly fit for purpose, ambitious or new to New Zealand. Significant new knowledge or outcomes will be generated and disseminated. The research plan is clearly credible, and risk management is clear. Is well positioned within or aligned with domestic and international research. 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. |
| 6 | Strong High Comprehensive Very good Very well Extensive Certain |
The proposal is strongly fit for purpose, ambitious or new to New Zealand. Comprehensive new knowledge or outcomes will be generated and disseminated. The research plan is highly credible, and risk management is very good. Is strongly positioned within or aligned with domestic and international research. 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. |
| 7 | (High quality) Excellent Exemplary Impressive Outstanding Total Definite |
The proposal is impressively fit for purpose, ambitious or new to New Zealand. Outstanding new knowledge or outcomes will be generated and disseminated. The research plan is impressively credible, and risk management is exemplary. Is impressively positioned within or aligned with domestic and international research. 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. |
Talent Potential (34% weighting)
The extent to which the Principal Investigator demonstrates existing research capability and future potential, and the likelihood that the proposed outputs will be achieved. This will be considered relative to opportunity and their research discipline and career stage. Assessment must have regard to:
a. the Principal Investigator’s skills, experience, and capability to undertake excellent research and contribute effectively, including the quality and relevance of research contributions to date
b. the clarity and credibility of the Principal Investigator’s career development intent, including potential to build research capability and leadership
c. appropriate organisational support, such as access to appropriate mentorship and appropriate facilities, space, equipment, and other necessary resources.
The scores in the table below range from 1 (low quality) to 7 (high quality).
| Score | Keywords | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | (Low quality) None Not fit for purpose Negligible Missing Not credible |
The Principal Investigator has none of the skills, experience, or the capability needed. The Principal Investigator gives no confidence in their career development intent and potential. Appropriate organisational support is missing. |
| 2 | Minimal Poor Inadequate Insufficient Doubtful Lacking Unlikely |
The Principal Investigator has inadequate skills, experience, or the capability needed. The Principal Investigator gives minimal confidence in their career development intent and potential. Appropriate organisational support is lacking. |
| 3 | Limited Uncertain Some Partial Incomplete Lacks detail Possible |
The Principal Investigator has some of the skills, experience, or the capability needed. The Principal Investigator gives some confidence in their career development intent and potential. Appropriate organisational support is limited. |
| 4 | Acceptable Sufficient Suitable Adequate Reasonable Quite likely |
The Principal Investigator has suitable skills, experience, or the capability needed. The Principal Investigator gives acceptable confidence in their career development intent and potential. Appropriate organisational support is adequate. |
| 5 | Significant Good Substantial Well Clear Large Probable |
The Principal Investigator has good skills, experience, or the capability needed. The Principal Investigator gives significant confidence in their career development intent and potential. Appropriate organisational support is good. |
| 6 | Strong High Comprehensive Very good Very well Extensive Certain |
The Principal Investigator has strong skills, experience, or the capability needed. The Principal Investigator gives very good confidence in their career development intent and potential. Appropriate organisational support is very good. |
| 7 | (High quality) Excellent Exemplary Impressive Outstanding Total Definite |
The Principal Investigator has excellent skills, experience, or the capability needed. The Principal Investigator gives exemplary confidence in their career development intent and potential. Appropriate organisational support is excellent. |
Guidance on Terms
| Ambitious |
|
| Benefit (as it relates to Impact) |
Impact being the strong positive effect or influence of a research outcome. Example impacts include:
Benefit to New Zealand should be in context of the scale and extent of the impact (see below).
|
| Capability |
|
| Credible/Credibility |
|
| Credible research plan |
Contains all of the expected elements, in a way which can be managed and effectively implemented. Expected elements include:
|
| Dissemination |
|
| Extent |
|
| Fit for purpose |
|
| Innovation/Innovative |
|
| National Pillar Priorities |
|
| Novelty |
|
| Pathway(s) to impact/Implementation Pathway |
|
| Rigorous |
|
| Risk |
|
| Risk Management |
|
| Scale |
Relative size, in context, for example:
|
| Well-positioned |
The research takes account of existing knowledge and research, either by:
|