Assessment and scoring guide Te Pūnaha Hihiko: Vision Mātauranga Capability Fund 2024

Your proposal will be assessed using the scoring tables.

Assessors will consider how the proposal addresses the following questions.

Development of People, Relationships, and Skills

(25% Weighting)

Key Question: To what extent are longer-term skills, capability, networks, relationships, and research opportunities likely to emerge and be sustained from the proposed work programme?

When assessing this question, Assessors will consider:

  • Will the proposal go beyond ‘business as usual’ for the organisations involved?
  • Will the proposal lead to the formation of capability, networks, and relationships, for example the formation of a new partnership between a Māori organisation and a Research organisation?
  • To what extent will the work programme substantially develop capability and skill of the individuals involved?
  • Will this new partnership lead to long-term collaboration and benefits beyond the term of the proposed work programme?

1

(Low quality)
None
Insufficient
Not relevant
No information
Missing

Little or no relevant information has been provided in the proposal.

For example, the proposal does not outline any plans to develop skills or capability.

2

Vague
Unclear
Unlikely
Dubious
Little relevance

The information provided in the proposal is unclear or not supported.

For example, plans to develop skills are vague 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, plans to develop skills have been outlined but there is some uncertainty about their effectiveness.

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 skills are adequate.

5

Significant
Clear
Multiple
High level
Robust

Clear, succinct information is provided, delivering a solid proposal with relevant evidence.

For example, plans to develop skills are well outlined and robust.

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 skills will be developed, and the plans are comprehensive.

7

(High quality) Excellent
Exemplary
Detailed
Impressive

The proposal is exemplary, excellent, comprehensive, and well explained and detailed in all respects.

For example, excellent skills will be developed and will provide a step-change.

Ability to Deliver

(25% Weighting)

Key Question: What is the likelihood that the proposed outputs of the work programme will be achieved?

When assessing this question, Assessors will consider:

  • Does the team have the appropriate mandate to conduct this work?
  • Are all involved parties appropriately resourced and supported?
  • Will the plan for carrying out the proposed work programme achieve the intended outcomes and capability development?
  • How does the calibre, experience, and skills of the team relate to the subject area(s) proposed for the work programme?
  • Is the work programme appropriately resourced, including management, mentoring and support arrangements?
  • Have challenges to delivery been identified and mitigated?

1

(Low quality)
None
Insufficient
Not relevant
No information
Missing

Little or no relevant information has been provided.

For example, there’s little or no information about the work programme. Significant challenges in the project have not been identified or addressed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Vision Mātauranga Outcomes

(25% Weighting)

Key Question: To what extent does the proposal support the Vision Mātauranga policy and support unlocking the science and innovation potential of Māori knowledge, resources and people for the benefit of New Zealand?

When assessing this question, Assessors will consider:

  • Do the expected benefits align with the aspirations of the Māori organisation?
  • Will the capability and leadership of Māori researchers be developed?
  • Will the project outcomes be disseminated to participating or wider Māori groups?
  • How does the proposal address the Vision Mātauranga theme(s) selected?
  • Will the proposal integrate science and technology and mātauranga Māori?
  • Will the proposal result in ‘distinctive’ or ‘innovative’ deliverables?

1

(Low quality)
None
Insufficient
Not relevant
No information
Missing

Little or 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 excellent Vision Mātauranga outcomes that are substantial and represent a step-change.

Benefits to Research, Science and Technology

(25% Weighting)

Key Question: How will the increased capability, capacity, skills and networks benefit the Research, Science and Technology (RS&T) sector, and achieve the objectives and outcomes of the Vision Mātauranga policy?

When assessing this question, Assessors will consider:

  • Will the proposal increase skills, capacity, capability, and networks between Māori and the science and innovation system?
  • Will the project increase understanding of how RS&T can contribute to the aspirations of Māori organisations?
  • Will the project generate future RS&T relevant to the Vision Mātauranga policy?

1

(Low quality)
None
Insufficient
Not relevant
No information
Missing

Little or no relevant information has been provided.

For example, insufficient information is provided, or no benefits to RS&T will be achieved.

2

Vague
Unclear
Unlikely
Dubious
Little relevance

The information provided is unclear or not supported.

For example, benefits to RS&T 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 RS&T 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 RS&T are adequate.

5

Significant
Clear
Multiple
High level
Robust

Clear, succinct information is provided, delivering a solid proposal with relevant evidence.

For example, benefits to RS&T are adequate.

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 RS&T 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 RS&T are excellent and will result in a step-change.