IBM Education New Zealand

The University of Auckland

Document Processing

University of Auckland researchers were spending too much time navigating grant, ethics, and export-control requirements because funding applications and compliance reviews involved multiple forms, committees, and rules that delayed research work.

85% accuracy in detecting known error types in sample applications
95% success rate in routing test applications to the correct committee
serving over 40,000 students

Reported impact

Business outcome

The hackathon proved that agentic AI can reduce research-administration effort, with high routing accuracy and error detection, and it led directly to continued IBM-university work on production-grade tools for researchers.

  • Productivity Improvement
  • Scalability
  • Speed to Market

Solution

The University of Auckland worked with IBM to frame research administration as an agentic AI problem, then used a hackathon with Master of AI students to prototype solutions on IBM watsonx.ai and IBM watsonx Assistant. IBM and the university supplied use cases from the Research and Innovation Office, along with evaluation criteria, mentorship, and technical support so student teams could build agents that review grant applications, ethics applications, and export permit submissions. The prototypes use publicly available guidance and few-shot prompting to produce context-aware feedback aligned to reviewer expectations, helping route applications to the right committee and detect known errors before human review. After the hackathon, the university and IBM continued collaborating on enterprise versions of the solution hosted on IBM Cloud, turning the event from a one-off exercise into a low-cost, scalable research-administration platform for ongoing use.

Data flow

Research application materials and guidance documents are fed into watsonx.ai-powered agents, which use few-shot prompting to review content, flag known issues, and route submissions to the correct committee; the resulting feedback and workflows are then served through enterprise solutions hosted on IBM Cloud.

Solution architecture

3 components · 2 layers
  1. Compute
    • IBM watsonx.ai Runs the agentic reasoning used to review applications, route submissions, and provide context-aware feedback.
  2. Serving
    • IBM watsonx Assistant Supports the conversational agent experience built around research-administration workflows.
    • IBM Cloud Hosts the emerging enterprise solution so the university can operate it as a low-cost, scalable on-demand service.

Architecture clues

  • IBM and the university continued the work after the hackathon as enterprise solutions on IBM Cloud.
  • The prototypes were built with few-shot prompting against publicly available guidance documents.
  • The source frames the solutions as secure, scalable agentic AI for research administration.

Evidence from the source

“By employing data from publicly available documents and using few-shot prompting to align with reviewer expectations”
“Hosted on IBM Cloud, the solutions using IBM watsonx operate at a low cost, which makes them scalable and on-demand tools for the University.”
“The proof-of-concept solutions developed by the students demonstrated the value and feasibility of agentic AI solutions for research administration”
“Using IBM watsonx.ai, competing student teams set out to create innovative, AI-powered agents to streamline the application and review processes for grant applications, ethics applications and export control permits.”
“the AI agent routed 95% of them to the correct committee and detected 85% of known errors”
Transparency Evidence & methodology 100/100 reference value · 89% confidence · 1 source

Review how this reference was scored and trace each normalized claim back to its documented source.

01

Scoring methodology

How scores are calculated

Customer Reference Value measures usefulness as a customer reference. Evidence Confidence measures the quality and traceability of available evidence, not independent verification.

Customer reference value100/100
  • Problem clarity20/20
    Measures whether the customer's operational problem is specific enough to compare.
  • Implementation depth25/25
    Rewards named components, data flow, integrations, and architecture detail.
  • Outcome specificity20/20
    Measures whether the reported benefit is concrete rather than a generic claim.
  • Quantified impact25/25
    2 metrics describe measurable impact.
  • Deployment scale10/10
    Rewards evidence of a live or scaled deployment and meaningful integration scope.
Evidence confidence89%
  • Source authority20/25
    The main evidence is an official vendor-published customer story.
  • Claim traceability21/25
    10 of 12 key fields link to a named source.
  • Direct evidence20/20
    5 direct source quotes retained.
  • Date provenance10/10
    The publication date comes from the source page or publisher.
  • Source transparency8/10
    1 source reference document publisher, URL, authority, retrieval, and supported fields.
  • Implementation specificity10/10
    Rewards source-backed components, data flow, quantified impact, and a specific outcome.
02

Traceability

Sources & provenance

Field coverage shows which facts each source supports. Dates are shown only when documented by the source.

  1. IBM

    The University of Auckland customer story

    First-party
    https://www.ibm.com/case-studies/university-of-auckland-hackathon
    Source type
    Vendor-published customer story
    Published
    Sep 15, 2025
    Supports
    • Customer
    • Business problem
    • Solution
    • Products
    • Solution components
    • Data flow
    • Integrations
    • technical area
    • use case category
    • Business outcome
    • outcome category
    • Metrics
    • Architecture
    • evidence quotes
    • Publication date

Date evidence

Not separately sourced Industry, Region, Company size. Treat these normalized attributes as lower-confidence until a dedicated source is added.