Seed Fund

10: The resources required for the project are fully described. Strong justification is made for why they are all required to meet the project outcomes. Where necessary funds are used to enable the team to fully participate in the project. The funding requested is only what is needed. The project impacts are significantly greater than the funds requested. The project provides excellent value for money.

8-9: The resources required for the project are described. There is good justification made for why they are needed. Where necessary funds are used to enable team members to participate in the project. The project impacts are much greater than the funds requested. The project provides great value for money.

5-7: Most of the resources required for the project are outlined. Justification is made for why some are needed. Some funds may be used to enable participation in the project. The project impacts are more than the fund requested. The project provides some value for money.

1-4: The resources required are not well described or not mentioned at all. There is little or no justification for the resources. Funds are not used to support the needs of team members. The project impacts do not exceed the funds requested. There is little or no value for money.

10: The project outcomes are fully described and the route to achieving them is planned. Partners and their roles are described in detail, and their benefits and impacts explained. How impact in Central Scotland will be realised is detailed and is highly likely to occur. The long-term impacts are described and credible pathways to achieving them.

8-9: Project outcomes and routes to achieving them are detailed. The role of partners is explained and how they will benefit from the project. Impact in Central Scotland is explained and is credible. Long-term impacts are considered, with a plan to achieve them.

5-7: Project outcomes are outlined, but no clear plan to realise them is provided. Partners are discussed, but it isn’t clear what their role is or how they benefit from participating. There could be impact in Central Scotland, but how this will be achieved requires more work. Long-term impacts are mentioned, with some explanation how they might be achieved.

1-4: Project outcomes are missing or not detailed, there’s little or no plan on how they will be realised. It is unclear why partners are involved and what they will do. Impact in Scotland is tenuous or highly unlikely. Long-terms impacts need more explanation or are not detailed at all.

10: The project has a detailed and well-managed plan. A Gantt chart is provided with work packages explained and clear roles for the team. Credible Project Milestones are provided and risks mitigated. There is confidence the plan will be run well and completed on time.

8-9: The project has a well-managed plan. A Gantt chart details the task and timeline. Project Milestones are set and risks highlighted. The plan is good, will likely complete on time.

5-7: The project plan requires more work. A simple Gantt chart is provided. Milestones and risks require more rigour in their assessment; key risks are missing. The plan is functional and may finish in time.

1-4: There is not enough detail about the project plan. No Gantt chart is provided. Only a few milestones and risks are provided and not well assessed. It is unlikely the project will finish in time.