Option B: Re-evaluate Everything
The Argument
The objective of CapDev is to genuinely increase R&D capability. If the original activities no longer serve that purpose - or if better opportunities exist - we should pursue what actually builds capability, not tick boxes.
Key changes since application:
- Commercial AI maturity - We're now integrating APIs rather than training models
- Compliance complexity increased - Using third-party AI with health data raises new questions
- Integration is the challenge - Connecting to NZ practice management systems (MedTech, MyPractice)
- Data sovereignty matters more - Client expectations around NZ-resident data handling
Full Category Assessment
If we're building novel integration approaches or compliance frameworks, IP protection may be valuable. Not urgent but worth considering.
Est: $10-20K for IP strategy development
Critical. Using commercial AI APIs with NZ patient data requires deep understanding of Privacy Act, Health Information Privacy Code, and data sovereignty requirements. This is foundational.
Est: $25-40K for comprehensive compliance advisory
Useful but not critical. Internal processes can be developed without significant external spend.
Est: $5-10K for methodology training
Good practice but team likely has sufficient experience. Not a capability gap.
Est: $5-15K for training
Already committed. Systematic capture of R&D learnings remains valuable. Work in progress (Gitcode refactoring). Continue execution.
Est: $5-10K for external training component
Team upskilling on cloud AI integration, healthcare informatics, or NZ compliance could be valuable. Depends on specific skill gaps.
Est: $5-20K for training courses
Valuable. External expertise on: NZ practice management system integration (MedTech, MyPractice APIs), data sovereignty architecture, production ML deployment.
Est: $20-40K for technical consulting
Recommended Option B Package
| Category | Activity | Est. Cost | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory & Compliance | Healthcare AI compliance advisory (Privacy Act, HIPC, data sovereignty) | $30,000 | Critical |
| Technical Advisory | NZ Practice Management System integration consulting | $25,000 | High |
| Information Management | R&D documentation system + training (continue original) | $10,000 | Medium |
| People Development | Healthcare informatics / NZ compliance training | $10,000 | Medium |
| Total | $75,000 | Exceeds $49K minimum | |
Change Request Implications
Clause 8: Capability Development Change Request
To pursue Option B, you must submit a formal Change Request to Callaghan Innovation. Key points:
- Must justify why original activities are no longer appropriate
- Must demonstrate new activities better serve capability building objective
- Callaghan has discretion to approve, modify, or reject
- Process takes time - factor into timeline
- Approved Eligible Costs will NOT be increased (Clause 8.3)
Suggested Framing
Don't say "the original plan was wrong." Instead:
"The rapid maturation of commercial AI capabilities has created new capability requirements we could not have anticipated. While our original CapDev activities remain partially relevant, we have identified additional high-value capability building opportunities that would better position Bridge Point for ongoing R&D in the healthcare AI space."
Summary
Pros and Cons
Pros
- Activities aligned with actual capability needs
- Higher genuine value to the business
- Addresses real gaps (compliance, PMS integration)
- Better positions for future healthcare AI work
- Demonstrates proactive engagement with Callaghan
Cons
- Requires formal Change Request
- Callaghan may reject or modify
- Takes time - adds to timeline pressure
- May trigger closer scrutiny of R&D activities
- Must explain why original activities aren't being completed as planned
Recommendation
If you choose Option B:
- Prepare a Capability Development Change Request document
- Frame as "enhanced" rather than "replacement" - acknowledge original commitments, propose additions
- Identify specific providers and get indicative quotes before submitting
- Engage proactively with your Callaghan contact before formal submission
- Be prepared for negotiation on scope and activities
Hybrid Approach?
Consider a middle ground:
- Complete original Information Management commitment (no change needed)
- Reframe Healthcare Compliance to explicitly cover AI/API compliance (arguably within original scope)
- Add Technical Advisory via Change Request for PMS integration consulting
This minimises Change Request scope while still addressing genuine capability gaps.