Skip to main content

Assessment guidelines - Cultural Heritage Program - Project Category

These guidelines are designed to:

  • help applicants understand the sorts of things assessors may consider when assessing applications
  • serve as prompts for assessors to consider in assessing applications against the criteria of quality and reach.

The prompts are provided only as examples of the things that assessors may consider. Applicants are not required to address all the prompts one by one in their application, but if they are relevant, consider how they are reflected in their applications.

It is very important to note that not all of the prompts will apply to each application and the prompts may vary slightly or be weighted differently between the different programs.

Application assessment guidelines

Criteria Indicator The panel may consider
Quality 60%

Quality of the proposal's aims, content and rationale in accordance with current museums best practice and standards

  • How strong is the proposal's aims and concept/content?
  • What is the cultural heritage merit of the organisation and its collection?
  • If the proposal is for a collections management project, does the museum have a collections policy?
  • Does the museum have a significance assessment? If so, does the proposal reflect the recommendations of this assessment in terms of interpretation and preventative conservation?
  • How strong is the proposal in accordance with current museum best practice?
  • How interesting/exciting/developmental/inventive/original is the proposal?
  • If the proposal is for a visitor experience, or is an educative, signage or publication proposal, does the museum have an Interpretation Plan to guide it?
  • How important is the proposal to the preservation of the cultural heritage of Tasmania? Objects of state significance should be given special consideration in looking at this indicator.

Currency - timeliness, relevance and positioning in the sector

  • How does the proposal fit with the stage of development of the museum's policy documents?
  • What is the context of the project or program - why this, why now?
  • What is the significance of the project/program?

Capacity - calibre of personnel, resource and financial management, planning

  • How viable is the proposal?
  • Are the timelines, planning, use of resources realistic and achievable? Has sufficient evidence of this been provided?
  • Does the organisation demonstrate good governance?
  • Are there other confirmed contributions from other sources?
  • Is the budget realistic and accurate?
  • What is the calibre of the people involved and do they have the right personnel for the project?
  • Does the organisation have a volunteer induction policy and procedures in place?
Reach 40% What are the outcomes of the project?
  • Does the project result in specific outcomes, e.g. professional development, audience/industry development, profile development?
  • What is the impact of these outcomes?

Audience - numbers, marketing strategy, diversity and connection
  •  Does the museum promote itself well? Is the level of marketing appropriate for the proposal? Is there a marketing or promotional plan or is the museum working towards this?
  • Are the opening hours/visitor numbers adequate to warrant the investment?
  • If the museum is using social media as a promotional tool, how strong is the organisation's social media presence? What is the quality of their online presence and engagement?
  • Does the proposal potentially engage a diverse audience?
  • Does the proposal satisfy an existing audience/market demand? If so, how? If not, should it?

Engagement - participation, access, involvement of the public and/or specific audience or market sectors
  • Does the proposal improve access to the objects of the collection?
  • Does the proposal demonstrate audience development or engagement? What is the depth/breadth of that engagement?
  • Does it increase or diversify opportunities for participation and access?
  • Does it engage communities of interest and/or communities of practice? How does it demonstrate this? How effectively has it done this in the past?
  • Is there a benefit to the community created by this proposal?