The Grant

A Novel MSCA PF Training Model – The MSCA Catalyst Approach w/Rita Gil Mata from FUNDamentally SCIENCECheck out the episode websiteIn this new episode of The Grant Collaboration, produced in paid collaboration with FUNDamentally SCIENCE, I’m joined by Rita Gil Mata to talk about a structural problem in MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships: Europe has talent, but too often the preparation system around applicants is not strong enough. Rita brings more than 20 years of experience supporting researchers in European funding, and she explains why the sharp rise in MSCA PF submissions and the drop in success rates should be read as a warning sign. In her view, the issue is not a lack of excellent researchers, but the fact that applicants, supervisors and institutions are often not prepared in a sufficiently aligned and strategic way. That is exactly why she created the MSCA Catalyst training model. We unpack how it works in practice: a structured applicant training built around the real template, supervisor mentoring so the academic side is fully engaged, and expert review for the strongest proposals selected by the institution. What I like in this conversation is that it goes beyond “another training offer” and instead treats MSCA preparation as an ecosystem challenge. If Europe wants to keep strong young research talent in the system, then programmes like this matter — not only for better proposals, but for the long-term health of the research landscape itself.Time codes:02:05 Guest introduction and fly in05:44 Motivation - A Spark to Build Something New10:31 Why Traditional Support Is Not Enough 16:48 The Training Concept 25: 47 Why This Matters

Life Cycle Assessment in EU Projects – Sustainability by Design w/Mirko Busto from ENCO ConsultingCheck out the episode websiteIn this final episode of The ENCO Series produced in paid collaboration with ENCO Consulting, I’m joined by Mirko Busto to talk about life cycle assessment and why it has become such an important part of EU-funded research and innovation. Mirko explains that sustainability is not something you can judge from one isolated number or one nice-looking innovation claim. A solution may reduce emissions in one place while creating problems somewhere else. That is why life cycle thinking matters: it forces you to look at the whole picture — from materials and manufacturing to use, disposal and possible recycling — and ask whether the innovation really improves the system overall. We also go into the practical side of the work. Mirko explains the three connected methodologies used in sustainability assessment: life cycle assessment, life cycle costing and social life cycle assessment. We talk about how they enter both proposal writing and project implementation, why data collection and benchmarking are so difficult in innovative projects, and how these methods help technical teams avoid hidden trade-offs. Using the SEEDS project as a case, Mirko shows how this plays out in practice when comparing agricultural systems in different MENA contexts and trying to assess future sustainability under climate and resource pressure. Time codes:01:56 Guest introduction and fly in 04:05 Why sustainability assessment matters 08:12 Sustainability methodologies in EU projects10:48 Integrating sustainability in innovation projects17:14 Practical challenges25:12 Success Story – The SEEDS project

Strategy, partnerships and proposal work with limited resourcesCheck out the episode websiteIn this episode I’m joined by Alessio Caracci from Unknown Group to talk about what it really means to work across multiple funding schemes at the same time. Alessio’s role touches different parts of the organisation — the university, the campus and startup-related activities — so he has to navigate very different programme logics, target groups and funding opportunities. We talk about how that changes the work compared with specialising in a single scheme, and why the first task is not writing proposals but building a strong map of what is relevant, what is strategic and what the organisation actually wants to become in the next few years.From there we move into the practical side: how a small team can survive this complexity, why trusted external partners matter so much, and how long-term collaboration makes proposal work faster and more realistic under pressure. Alessio explains how Unknown works through a mix of self-led initiatives, alliances, consultants and ecosystem relationships, and how this lets them stay involved in different programmes without pretending they can do everything alone. We also talk about deadline clustering, the danger of tunnel vision, and why the most important discipline is often not chasing more opportunities but staying close to your organisation’s real mission and strengths.Time codes:01:55 Guest introduction and fly in 12:21 Working Across Many Programmes21:09 Managing Complexity – Systems, Shortcuts and Survival38:51 Partnerships and Collaboration as Strategy49:44 Reflections and advice 54:21 The toughest challenge

How EU projects can move from visibility to real use and impactCheck out the episode websiteIn this episode of The Grant, I’m joined by Borut Razbornik for a conversation about dissemination in EU projects — and why the traditional approach often does not work.We talk about the difference between simply making a project visible and actually getting people to use, adopt or engage with the results. Too often, dissemination becomes a matter of quantity: posting on websites, sharing on social media, counting impressions and promoting outputs one by one. Borut argues that this misses the real point. Dissemination should be about impact, usefulness and action.The episode then moves into Borut’s marketing perspective. We discuss attention as a scarce resource, why generic project messages fail, and why dissemination needs to speak directly to the needs of a target group. Borut also introduces his “flagship strategy”: identifying the most useful project result and building a focused dissemination pathway around it, instead of scattering attention across too many isolated outputs.We also cover LinkedIn, stakeholder engagement, project constraints, partner dynamics, creative thinking and why dissemination should be embedded in implementation from the start.A practical episode for anyone working with EU project communication, dissemination, exploitation or impact.Time codes:01:47 Guest introduction and fly in 06:09 The Problem: Dissemination That Doesn’t Work16:06 Understanding Attention – A Marketing Perspective26:05 A Different Approach – The Flagship Strategy41:42 Embedding Dissemination in the Work Itself48:12 Working Within Constraints57:06 Reflections and Advice58:47 The toughest challenge

How ENCO works with visibility, stakeholder engagement and market uptakeCheck out the episode websiteIn this second of the ENCO Series, produced in paid collaboration with ENCO Consulting, I’m joined by Rosanna Buonfiglio and Marco de la Feld to talk about one of the most important but often blurred areas in EU projects: communication, dissemination and exploitation. We unpack the differences between the three and why it matters to keep them distinct. Communication is about making the project visible and understandable. Dissemination is about making sure the right people can actually access and use the results. Exploitation is about what happens when you want those results to go further into strategy, market positioning, business models and real uptake. We then move into how ENCO works with these areas in practice. Rosanna explains how communication and dissemination strategies are built from the proposal stage by identifying audiences, messages and the right channels, while Marco shows how exploitation connects project results to business plans, competitor analysis, IPR strategy and post-project development. Using the SYMBA project as a case, they show how these three dimensions can reinforce each other when they are designed together from the start. It’s a practical episode for anyone writing proposals, managing EU projects or trying to make sure that project results do not just sit on a website after the funding ends.Time codes:02:05 Guest introduction06:26 Why communication matters10:37 Communication, dissemination and exploitation14:16 ENCO’s approach to C&D&E strategy23:54 Delivering communication in practice - the SYMBA case32:28 Outro

Young Professionals in EU Funding – Careers, Challenges & Growth w/Oliver Cressall from VenturenomixCheck out the episode websiteIn this episode I’m joined by Oliver Cressall from Venturenomix to talk about young professionals in EU funding. Oliver shares what it feels like to enter the field from the proposal support side — helping with consortium building, partner coordination and the administrative backbone of bids — while still learning the language, structures and unwritten rules of the system. We talk about the invisible barriers juniors face: feeling “not experienced enough”, struggling with jargon, and assuming that everyone else in the room understands far more than they do. We then move into the bigger picture: where young people can actually enter this world, what they are looking for when they do, and what too many employers still get wrong. Oliver speaks very clearly about meaningful work, climate motivation, flexibility, mobility, autonomy and the need for managers who support rather than exploit young staff. We also talk about LinkedIn pressure, the lack of safe spaces to share doubts, and why this sector needs to take junior well-being and development much more seriously if it wants to keep good people. Time codes:02:12 Guest introduction and fly in09:05 The invisible barrier: “I’m not experienced enough”22:25 Entry points into EU funding: more paths than you think33:38 What young professionals are really looking for44:37 Safe spaces and communities: why they matter59:43 Advice to young professionals – and to the system01:05:31 The toughest challenge

Better Grant Proposals – Impact, Training & Research CommunicationCheck out the episode websiteIn this episode I’m joined by Elaine Massung, founder of Academic Smartcuts, to talk about how researchers can write better grant proposals and communicate their ideas more effectively. Elaine has worked as a researcher, postdoc, funding agency professional at EPSRC and now as an independent trainer. That gives her a very practical view of where proposals go wrong: researchers often do not give themselves enough time, do not read the guidance carefully enough, start with a solution before defining the problem, or fail to explain their work in language reviewers can actually use. We also dig into impact — one of the most repeated but still weakest parts of many proposals. Elaine and I talk about why “publish in high-impact journals, attend conferences and host a workshop” is not enough, and how researchers can think more creatively about visibility and use: trade magazines, teaching materials, podcasts, blogs, stakeholder meetings, existing networks and other channels that actually fit the project. We also discuss proposal audits, training, time pressure, networking challenges and why getting help early is not weakness — it is often what makes the proposal stronger.Time codes:01:47 Guest introduction and fly in 06:20 The Core Insight: Everyone Makes the Same Mistakes14:51 Teaching Researchers to Think Differently 24:57 The Impact Problem 44:27 New Ways of Creating Visibility 53:24 Reflections and advice 56:42 The toughest challenge

How consultants translate innovation into strong EU proposalsCheck out the episode websiteIn this first episode of the ENCO Series, produced in paid collaboration with ENCO Consulting, I’m joined by Antonietta Pizza to talk about the consultant perspective on proposal writing. We unpack what European project consultants actually do beyond the clichés: finding the right call, understanding the innovation behind the idea, building a strong consortium, shaping a realistic work plan and translating highly technical content into a proposal language that evaluators can follow. Antonietta explains how this process begins with listening carefully to the client, understanding how they work and then building a proposal process that is both structured and collaborative. From there we move into the real-life complexity of proposal development: different partner rhythms, holiday periods, timeline pressure, templates, impact logic and the challenge of keeping the whole application coherent. Antonietta shares how ENCO works through repeated calls and co-creation with key partners to make sure the proposal is ambitious but still feasible, and why the consultant’s external eye can be so valuable in identifying weak spots early. We also touch on a concrete funded hydrogen case, showing how a highly technical concept can be turned into a convincing EU proposal when the right structure, consortium and narrative come together. Time codes:01:56 Guest introduction and fly in05:10 The consultant perspective08:56 Translating ideas into EU projects12:56 Designing a strong proposal22:28 Common proposal pitfalls28:32 Success Story – LIGNOFUN

A book conversation on diversity literacy, leadership and global researchCheck out the episode websiteIn this episode I’m joined by Jakob Feldtfos Christensen, Director of DIVERSIuniTY and co-host of the Diversity in Research Podcast, to talk about his new book: Diversity Leadership in Research Management: A Practical Guide. We unpack why he felt the need to write it now: research management is maturing as a profession, diversity is becoming more deeply embedded in research funding and project work, and yet many of the conversations around it remain too abstract, too polarised or too detached from the practical reality of running international collaborations. Jakob wanted to write something different — a short, practical book that research managers can actually use in their everyday work. From there we go into the substance of the book. Jakob explains why diversity literacy is one of the key concepts: not just representation or values statements, but a real professional skillset for people working in research support, project development and international collaboration. We talk about how the book moves from leadership to the research support office and then to the individual research manager, and why this matters more and more in a world of Horizon Europe gender analysis requirements, expanding global collaboration, AI-supported writing and growing geopolitical tension. It’s a conversation about a book — but also about the future of research management as a people profession. Time codes:01:40 Guest introduction and fly in06:03 Background and Motivation 18:42 The Book 32:45 The Work48:46 Finalization and Release54:59 The toughest challenge

Erasmus+ Audits – Lump Sums, Fear & Audit CultureAn Erasmus+ Therapy panel on compliance, trust and what must changeCheck out the episode websiteIn this episode I’m joined again by Henriette Hansen, Daiana Huber and Alessandro Melillo for another Erasmus+ Therapy session — this time focused entirely on audits. We talk about a feeling many practitioners will recognise: that the audit discourse has shifted from something closer to good faith and improvement towards something more punitive, suspicious and bureaucratic. Henriette reflects on how the move to lump sums originally sounded like a welcome shift towards outputs and project quality, only to find that her first lump-sum audit still felt dominated by error-hunting and a low tolerance for honest explanations about difficulties and adaptations in implementation. From there we go deeper into the paradox that many coordinators now live with: yes, projects may be called lump sum, but if you want to survive an audit you still behave as if you are in a real-cost universe. Daiana and Alessandro describe the mountain of documentation that can still be requested in practice, the confusion this creates for newcomers, and the wider damage of fear-driven compliance on innovation, trust and motivation. We end by asking what should change: clearer expectations, more constructive audit cultures, more room for appreciation of what projects actually achieved, and stronger policy dialogue between agencies, auditors and the people running Erasmus+ projects on the ground.Time codes:02:21 Guest introduction and fly in 05:14 The old logic vs. the new logic 11:49 Presumption of guilt and fear-driven compliance 26:18 Who is this audit discourse really protecting? 37:03 What needs to change42:25 The toughest challenge

BalticSeaH2, project implementation and the future of hydrogen in EuropeCheck out the episode websiteIn this episode I’m joined by Susanna Kupiainen from CLIC Innovation in Finland to talk about hydrogen valleys through the lens of one of the most ambitious projects in Europe: BalticSeaH2. Susanna explains the valley concept in practical terms: bringing hydrogen production, transport and multiple end-use industries close enough together to create real integrated value chains. From there we explore why Hydrogen Valleys have become such a flagship under the Clean Hydrogen Partnership, and why the Baltic Sea region is such an interesting place to build them - with strong renewable energy potential, cross-border infrastructure links and growing pressure to create green hydrogen value chains inside Europe rather than rely on imported fossil inputs. We then dive into implementation. BalticSeaH2 spans 9 countries and 40 partners, with a main valley between Finland and Estonia plus seven connected valleys included from the start. Susanna shares how that choice has shaped replication, social acceptance work and collaboration across different national contexts. We also talk about real project-life issues: investment delays, amendments, reporting across a huge consortium, hydrogen off-take, green ammonia and the question that hangs over the whole sector — how to move from promising production cases and pilots towards enough demand, market certainty and policy continuity to make a true European hydrogen economy possible. Time codes:01:57 Guest introduction and fly in05:28 What is a Hydrogen Valley?15:12 From Idea to Funded Flagship25:03 Replication From Day One – The Structural Innovation38:21 Midpoint Reflection – Is It Delivering?49:40 Nordic Perspective: Security, Supply and Policy56:26 Reflections and advice01:00:31 The toughest challenge

Scale-up, impact, replication and the long road after submissionCheck out the episode websiteThe Grant has established a collaboration with PNO Innovation Italy. In the first episode of this PNO Innovation Series I’m joined by Francesca Di Bartolomeo from SINTEF and Anna Franciosini from PNO Innovation Italy to talk about what happens after a strong EU proposal gets funded. We use PyroCO2 as the case: a project that started from years of scientific groundwork, multidisciplinary collaboration and industrial networking, and then moved into a full proposal and now into implementation. Francesca explains the scientific and organisational background at SINTEF, while Anna shares how the proposal was shaped from the consultancy side, especially around impact, market positioning and the broader European relevance of the project. We then move into the practical reality of the project itself. PyroCO2 is about taking CO2 as a waste stream and, through biotechnology and catalysis, transforming it into a more useful molecule that could support future industrial decarbonisation. But the real story here is the move from idea to scale-up: building demonstration infrastructure, coordinating a large consortium, handling exploitation and replication thinking early, and making sure the project results can live beyond the funding period. It’s a grounded conversation about proposal development, industrial innovation and the difficult but necessary path from an approved application to something real. Time codes:01:56 Guest introduction fly in04:14 From Idea to Proposal13:38 From Proposal to Implementation – The Demonstration22:11 Results and Future Impact24:14 Reflections

Power-to-X, green growth, infrastructure and local strategyCheck out the episode websiteIn this episode I’m joined by Hanne Klintøe, Head of PtX Development in Aabenraa Municipality, to talk about how a local authority works with EU funding, investment attraction and green growth in practice. Aabenraa is building around Power-to-X, renewable energy and strong transport and port infrastructure — but the real opportunity, Hanne argues, lies in sector integration: using surplus heat from electrolysis for district heating, linking wastewater to technical water for hydrogen production, and creating circular business growth around food production, materials and other industries that can plug into the energy system. We then dive into the funding and project side: why municipalities with limited resources have to be highly selective, how Hanne works with clusters, EU offices, consultants and knowledge institutions rather than trying to master every funding scheme alone, and how Aabenraa uses the European Investment Bank’s advisory services under the Just Transition Fund to mature a cross-border hydrogen ecosystem with Northern Germany. We also discuss hydrogen valleys, pyrolysis, technical water, stakeholder networks and the hard truth that in municipalities, strategy and funding only matter if they lead to the right infrastructure decisions for citizens and businesses. Time codes:01:49 Guest introduction and fly in08:30 Introducing Aabenraa21:00 Motivation for funding26:48 The new EIB project 41:55 How you work?56:33 Reflections and advice01:01:10 The toughest challenge

How UMCG helps researchers move from reactive to strategic grant planningCheck out the episode websiteIn this week's episode I’m joined by Eszter Ashlock-Kéthelyi, Laura Damiano and Miriam Boersema from the UMCG Grant Office to talk about a challenge that sits underneath many failed proposals: not weak science, but weak planning. We explore why researchers often apply for the grants that happen to land in their inbox instead of building a longer-term funding strategy around their real goals, and how UMCG responded by developing a broader training approach alongside one-to-one support. Their Grant Navigator series is designed to help researchers understand the funding landscape, think several years ahead and connect their research ambitions to the right funding paths. What I really like in this conversation is how practical it gets. The team explains how they help researchers zoom out, define long-, mid- and short-term plans, break their research into core building blocks, group those into meaningful projects and then match these with suitable grants. We also talk about must-have versus nice-to-have grants, why networking is part of strategy rather than an optional extra, and how research support offices can scale this kind of thinking from individual researchers to departments and research lines. It’s a rich episode for anyone working in grant support, research strategy or academic leadership.Time codes:01:57 Guest introduction and fly in04:40 The recurring problem: strong science, weak planning15:31 Why traditional funding guidance falls short22:33 From need to solution: introducing strategy-building39:56 Scaling up: from individuals to departments49:32 Reflections and advice55:15 The toughest challenge

Using a national RM programme to test the handbook in practiceCheck out the episode websiteIn this episode 6th episode in RM Framework Series I am joined by Nicole Elgueta Silva and Hiwa Målen from NARMA – the Norwegian Association of Research Managers and Administrators to talk about one of the pilots in the RM Framework project. NARMA has been running a national training and capacity-building programme for research managers since 2017, funded by the Norwegian Research Council, with three levels (entry/intermediate, advanced and management) and participants from universities, colleges and research institutes across Norway. The programme focuses on soft skills, best practice and networking; it does not yet award ECTS, but has the scope and structure of a 10-ECTS course and has built a strong reputation nationally and abroad. We discuss how this existing programme is now used to pilot the RM Framework handbook and quality label: what already aligns, where new elements such as assessment and interoperability might be added, and how the quality label functions as a structured self-assessment and a peer-recognised “stamp” on training programmes. Nicole and Hiwa share how closely they’ve followed European work on research management (ERA Action 17, RM Roadmap, RMcomp) and how humbling it is to sit in a European community that keeps learning together. We close on the culture of sharing among research managers, and their hope that the handbook and quality label will live on as a permanent reference point for RM training long after the project ends. Time codes:02:23 Guest introduction and fly in05:13 The NARMA Training Model 09:08 Approaching the Pilot: Reviewing the Handbook19:53 The Quality Label25:37 Expectations & Final Reflections

Erasmus+ Therapy – Rising Proposals & Harsh EvaluationsA panel on frustration, burnout and what needs to changeCheck out the episode websiteIn this episode I’m joined by Henriette Hansen, Daiana Huber and Alessandro Melillo for what we ended up calling “Erasmus+ Therapy Session”. Over the last two calls, many in the community have seen record-high proposal numbers, tougher evaluations and rejections even with very strong scores. We talk about what’s driving the surge - cuts in national funding, more actors turning to Erasmus+, AI making it easier to generate applications – and how changes at national agency and Commission level around newcomers and “project factories” are playing out on the ground. From there we move into the system and human consequences. On the system side: over-stretched evaluators, opaque feedback, the risk that quality drops if consortia are built mainly for policy optics, and the danger that people start losing trust in the evaluation process itself. On the human side we talk honestly about burnout, heartbreak and responsibility: writing seven big proposals in a year and failing them all; trying to hold together ecosystems built over 20 years when funding dries up; and feeling guilty for having developed expertise in a system that seems to punish experience. We finish with concrete suggestions – from two-step submissions and better support for evaluators to structured public conversations about evaluation practices – and an invitation for the Erasmus+ community to share failures and speak with a stronger, collective voice. Time codes02:21 Guest introduction and fly in 06:11 What is driving the surge in proposals?18:40 System-level consequences31:05 Community and individual impact48:56 Are experienced organisations still welcome?56:46 Closing reflections and messages01:03:54 The toughest challenge

Clean Tech in CEE – Funding, Gaps & Policy ShiftsSlovenia, Innovation Fund, widening, deep tech and raw materialsCheck out the episode websiteIn this episode I’m joined by Nina Meglič, director of ACT-SI – Association CleanTech Slovenia, project manager at a deep tech spin-out from the National Institute of Chemistry and part of the national contact point team for the STEP platform on strategic technologies. We start with the clean tech reality in Central & Eastern Europe: structural differences with Western Europe, missing infrastructure to decarbonise, investor scepticism and the fact that R&D in Slovenia is heavily dependent on EU grants. Nina uses the Innovation Fund as a concrete example – Slovenia has only one funded project, companies are intimidated by complexity, and some technologies (like CCS) are hardly realistic given the current legislative and infrastructure context. From there we zoom out to competition, AI and policy shifts. Proposal numbers rise as AI speeds up writing; at the same time Nina sees signs of AI being used in evaluations, sometimes producing nonsense comments. Budgets per project shrink as more partners are packed into consortia, and access to key European partnerships is limited by high membership fees that smaller CEE organisations can’t justify. We talk about widening, the EIC pre-accelerator, policymaker capacity, raw materials and trade policy, and how deep tech startups in Slovenia struggle to raise investment when there is no campus infrastructure and investors prefer to fund similar companies in Western Europe. The episode closes with Nina’s message for the next EU financial framework: acknowledge the two-speed reality, adjust instruments, and keep clean tech and industrial capacity firmly on the agenda even as attention shifts to security and AI.

Impact in EU Projects – From Innovation Theatre to AdoptionWhy so many results die after funding, and what must changeCheck out the episode site with more informationIn this episode I’m joined by Jorge Gonzalez, director of Ticbiomed in Spain, to talk about impact in EU projects – not as a buzzword in a template, but as the messy reality after the pilot ends. Jorge has worked in more than 20 EU projects, many of them cascade funding schemes in health, and sees the same pattern again and again: projects deliver working solutions, clinicians and partners are excited, and then… nothing. No tender, no contract, no deployment. We discuss how this repeated non-adoption doesn’t just waste taxpayers’ money – it also kills the innovation mindset in hospitals and other public organisations as professionals conclude “this was a waste of my time, never involve me again.” From there we dig into structural causes and possible fixes. On the organisation side: innovation units joining projects without strong links to business owners or budgets, governance gaps between pilot teams and those responsible for long-term deployment, and decisions left until after the project when everyone has moved on. On the funding side: EU projects as the “best money in Europe”, prescriptive call texts that create Frankenstein consortia, and impact sections that can be written by ChatGPT without any real accountability. Jorge shares the ideas behind his Impactful Innovation initiative – including policy papers and lobbying in Brussels – and concrete proposals: putting serious weight on credible post-project uptake in selection criteria, asking for governance and budget commitments, following up on exploitation during and after projects, and using carrots (visibility, awards) rather than only sticks to reward real adoption.Time codes:01:24 Guest introduction and fly in06:45 TICBIOMED’s experience on the ground11:37 When innovation becomes counterproductive21:29 Structural reasons behind the problem34:36 What needs to change: from pilots to impact44:13 Reflections and advice48:11 The toughest challenge

Juniors in Research Management – Between Research and SupportLeaving research, identity, skills and the job market realityCheck out the episode websiteIn this episode I’m joined by Marina Kliuchko, who has done “everything right” in research – biology degree, PhD in psychology/brain science, several postdocs and big collaborative projects – and is now in a transition towards research support and administration. We talk about the moment of realisation that the classic professorship track didn’t actually feel attractive, even though everyone around her assumed it was the only logical next step. Marina describes the doubts that followed (“is there something wrong with me as a scientist?”), the conservatism of the academic ladder, and the feeling of running up a hill without ever stopping to ask whether this is really where she wants to go. From there, we move into the world of juniors in research management: what it means to prefer a supporting role, to enjoy turning other people’s ideas into concrete tasks, and then to meet a job market where hiring panels worry she’ll be bored or “run back to research”. Marina shares honestly how rejections hurt, how lonely the process can be, and what has helped her hold on: soft-skill and entrepreneurship bootcamps, mentoring conversations, trying out funding strategy work, and eventually going to a career consultant to get her story straight. We close on the bigger picture: why PhD students and postdocs need earlier, better career development support, and why recognising their broader skills isn’t a luxury but a responsibility. Time codes:01:49 Guest introduction and fly in03:42 Why leave research? The moment of realisation 14:00 From doing research to supporting research 18:59 Being young, experienced, and stuck in between 35:11 The job market reality for junior research managers 48:05 Reflections and advice57:28 The toughest challenge

Microcredentials in Erasmus+ – Concept, Policy & PracticeLearning outcomes, assessment and making it work in real projectsCheck out the episode siteIn this episode I’m joined by Daiana Huber and Samuel Bogdan to talk about micro-credentials – a term that now pops up in Erasmus+ calls, policy papers and conferences, but is still fuzzy for many of us. Daiana starts from the pedagogical side: what a credential is as an artifact of learning, why microcredentials are not the learning process itself, and how they sit on top of competences (knowledge, skills and attitudes) and learning outcomes. We talk about the difference between “I attended a workshop” and “I can actually do something in a defined context”, why a participation certificate is not a microcredential, and why proper microcredentials require clear outcomes, evidence and an assessment process. Then we move into EU policy and practice. We place microcredentials in the context of the Year of Skills, Union of Skills and the policy push for portability of skills, and discuss the role of the European Digital Credential Issuer. From there, Daiana walks through the proposal phase: when it makes sense to include microcredentials in Erasmus+ projects, what evaluators are (and aren’t) looking for, and how to design work packages that cover competence frameworks, learning outcomes, pedagogy, learning experiences and assessment instead of just throwing the word into a paragraph. Sami takes over for the implementation phase: reading pedagogy and policy, experimenting in the digital credential sandbox, assigning issuer/assessor/QA roles to partners, and discovering that nobody will hand you a recipe – you have to build, test and iterate your own process. The episode is both a conceptual deep dive and a practical reality check for anyone tempted to add “microcredentials” to their next proposal. Time codes:01:41 Introduction and fly in09:57 Why has microcredentials been introduced16:47 What is a microcredential? Defining the term27:51 Microcredentials in the proposal phase 39:11 Microcredentials in the implementation phase53:28 Recommendations and advice57:55 The toughest challenge

Proposal writing, project delivery, compliance and the human impactCheck out the episode siteIn this episode I’m joined by Chiara Liguori to talk about Erasmus+ from the perspective of small organisations, where a “team” can mean two paid staff and a group of volunteers. Chiara’s career started in a Brussels-based youth NGO working on Erasmus+ with just a Secretary General, herself and sometimes an intern, plus a group of volunteers. We talk about the capacity challenge: long, technical forms, a parallel universe of jargon, and a programme that often assumes internal systems and trained staff that tiny NGOs simply don’t have. Chiara shares how she learnt proposal writing on the job – from googling basic terms and taking trainings to using previous grants as templates – and what it feels like to be the person slowly taking over full responsibility for drafting an entire application. We then move into the funded side of Erasmus+: balancing project delivery with administrative compliance when the same person who runs a workshop in the morning uploads all the evidence in the afternoon. Chiara walks through the simple tools that made a huge difference - a big, colour-coded office calendar and a live Excel sheet linking each work package to concrete activities, dates and metrics - and how treating compliance as a habit instead of a once-a-year scramble helped protect institutional memory when people moved on. Finally, we discuss the human impact: late nights, stacked deadlines, volunteers and staff juggling other jobs, the risk of burnout, and the emotional weight of knowing that if something goes wrong, you’re not disappointing a faceless department but real people you care about. At the same time, we talk about what keeps people in this space: mission, community and the very real skills and confidence you gain from wearing multiple hats.Time codes:01:41 Introduction03:59 Fly in05:14 The capacity challenge13:59 The proposals28:17 The projects43:16 The human impact55:08 Advice56:59 The toughest challenge

Validation, diversity and learning with real training providersCheck out the episode websiteIn this fifth episode of the RM Framework Series, I’m joined by Marcos Gomes, Research and Innovation Manager at the University of Coimbra and co-lead of the RM Framework pilot work package. Marcos explains why the consortium made pilot testing a central activity: the new handbook for research management training providers should not be written in isolation and then “rolled out”, but tested in real training contexts as the primary validation mechanism. Building on RM Roadmap’s mapping of roles, pains and backgrounds and the RMcomp competence framework, the project now needs practical evidence: which parts of the handbook are clear, which are confusing, what’s missing, and where different national and institutional contexts require adaptation. Marcos folds out the pilot concept and describes how a diverse first wave of pilot testers was selected: universities in Spain, Hungary and Italy, a regional funding agency in Catalonia, and a professional association in Norway, covering everything from pre- and post-award to research infrastructures, innovation, open science and hybrid roles. Each pilot receives the draft handbook plus a guiding document with structured questions, and is asked to “recreate” an existing training programme on paper using the handbook, keeping a learning diary of what they use, skip or modify. This isn’t about forcing conformity; it’s about co-creation. The diaries and follow-up interviews feed back into the drafting team so the final handbook becomes a living document filled with real examples, good practices and even failures – a tool that supports local nuance while building a common language and recognition for research management as a profession across Europe.Time codes: 02:44 Introduction and fly in11:00 Why pilot testing is central to the RM Framework 13:43 Diversity of pilots and training contexts20:00 How pilots work in practice27:43 Key lessons from the pilots 31:39 Closing reflections

Stress, boundaries and sustainable ways of running EU projectsCheck out the episode websiteIn this episode I’m joined by Alessandro Carbone to talk about a side of EU projects that rarely appears in work plans: the well-being of project managers. We look at why this role sits in a permanent pressure zone – between funders, coordinators, partners, finance, HR and researchers – and how that plays out in daily life: inboxes that never sleep, deliverables stacked on top of each other, shifting expectations from above and below, and the unspoken assumption that the project manager will just “make it work”.From there we move into what can help in practice: setting boundaries around availability, agreeing realistic internal timelines, sharing ownership for risks and decisions, and creating team habits that support rather than erode well-being. We also talk about the personal side: perfectionism, guilt, imposter feelings and the difficulty of asking for help when your job is to be the organised one. The goal is not to paint project management as a victim role, but to show how caring for your own well-being is part of doing the job well – for yourself, for the team and for the project.Time codes:00:01:57 Introduction00:04:09 Fly in00:06:23 The findings: A profession under pressure00:12:00 What’s driving the pressure00:29:35 The human impact00:40:17 How do we move forward00:51:26 The toughest challenge

The SET Plan & EU Funding – Inside the Machine RoomHow EU energy R&I priorities are made, funded and implementedCheck out the episode websiteIn this episode I’m joined by Eric Lecomte from the European Commission’s DG Energy – the first time I’ve had a Commission representative on the podcast – to unpack the SET Plan, or Strategic Energy Technology Plan, and its role in EU funding. Eric explains how the SET Plan started in 2007, was reshaped in 2015 as the research & innovation pillar of the Energy Union, and has since been anchored in the European Green Deal, the Net-Zero Industry Act and the Draghi report on competitiveness and coordination. We talk about the overall aim: aligning national and European R&I priorities on energy technologies so Member States, associated countries, industry and research are not all pulling in different directions. We then zoom into the “machine room”: a steering group plus 14 Implementation Working Groups covering renewables, energy systems, efficiency in buildings and industry, transport, carbon capture and nuclear. Eric walks through how these groups co-develop Implementation Plans with concrete R&I activities that feed into Horizon Europe Cluster 5 topics, inspire national R&I programmes, and even shape calls in LIFE and discussions with the Innovation Fund. We explore concrete examples – industrial heat pumps and waste heat recovery topics, cooperation between the paper and heat pump sectors now replicated in the food & drink industry, and large-scale projects like green steel – before ending on the big challenges: mobilising national funding, avoiding duplication, overcoming Europe’s fear of failure and turning world-class technology into market uptake and manufacturing in Europe.Time codes:00:01:32 Introduction00:03:44 Fly in00:07:23 Introduction to the SET Plan00:11:36 The SET Plan structure and governance 00:23:16 The role of the SET Plan in funding and competitiveness 00:45:26 Challenges and future outlook 00:48:09 The toughest challenge

Supporting Postdoctoral Fellowships at FAU’s EU Research OfficeMasterclasses, proposal review, internal services and rising competition⁠Check out the episode siteIn this episode I’m joined by Svenja Talv and Martina May, who run the EU research office at FAU (Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg). We start with the backstory: how FAU’s leadership decided to set up a dedicated EU pre-award office, how Martina began alone and later teamed up with Svenja, and how they defined their service package from first idea to submission. They describe the amount of internal networking it took to find their place in the university: talking to post-award, ethics, export control, open science, data management, graduate services and faculty-level research support – and then doing the hard work of presenting themselves in meetings, newsletters and events so researchers know they are not alone in the EU jungle.We then dive into postdoctoral fellowships as a concrete example. Svenja and Martina explain why this scheme has become a central focus: postdocs are highly motivated but often first-time EU applicants, demand is very high, and success rates are dropping as applications grow from around 10,000 to 17,000 with a slightly decreasing budget. They describe how they partnered with a German national support provider running a Postdoctoral Fellowship Masterclass, reached out via supervisors to identify potential fellows, and brought applicants together for an online workshop that goes beyond basics. After the masterclass, they keep in touch with participants, offer structured proposal review and feedback, and try to manage expectations honestly in such a competitive setting – all while juggling everyday support for many other EU calls.Time codes:00:02:05 Introduction00:06:04 Fly in00:08:35 Complementary backgrounds and team setup 00:12:34 Building the research office and strategy00:23:21 Postdoctoral Fellowships support00:42:12 Expanding the strategy00:51:51 Reflections and advice00:54:24 The toughest challenge

From Bird View clusters to objectives, WPs and a realistic structure⁠Check out the episode siteIn this third and final episode of the Idea Development Workshop series, I’m joined by Ana-Marija Špicnagel (IPS Konzalting) to build what we call the project spine of a Horizon Europe proposal. We start from where episode 2 left off – with a Bird View canvas full of challenges, opportunities, stakeholders and future logic – and show how to distil that into a clear backbone: the main objectives, the key results you want to see, and a small number of work package lines that together can actually deliver the call’s expected outcomes.We then use the spine as a decision tool: what clearly belongs inside the project and what should be parked or moved to a different idea; which strands need which types of partners; where coordination, impact and exploitation work should sit; and how to sequence activities so the story makes sense for evaluators and for the people who will have to run the project. The aim is to leave you with a simple structure that you can explain in a few minutes – and that can grow into a full Part B without collapsing under its own weight.Time codes:00:02:45 Introduction and fly in00:05:05 The project shaping workshop00:36:55 Closing remarks

Idea Development Workshop (2) – Outlining the canvas modelObjectives, outcomes, logic and what belongs in your Horizon ideaMore info and presentation: https://www.thegrant.eu/204-206In this second episode of the Idea Development Workshop mini-series, I’m back with Ana-Marija Špicnagel (IPS Konzalting) for an episode where Ana will share the and explain the canvas model she is using for idea development - the Bird View Canvas Model, an innovative tool developed by IPS Konzalting and adapted here for Horizon Europe proposals. Instead of jumping straight from the call to work packages, we stay at “bird’s-eye” level and map a concrete case on the Bird View canvas: internal and external challenges, opportunities that sound like a project, the unique selling proposition, who the “customers and channels” really are, and what a plausible future (including business logic and sustainability) might look like.From there we follow the real process: a messy Bird View sheet full of notes and arrows (like the one on slide 10) gradually turning into a more structured concept where emerging work packages are sketched around the central idea (slide 11). We talk about who to invite to a Bird View session, how to keep the discussion anchored in the call’s expected outcomes and scope, and how this step makes it easier to talk honestly about exploitation, long-term collaboration and what should not be in the project. The goal is simple: use Bird View to create a shared project model before anyone starts fighting over templates and task lists.Time codes:00:02:45 Introduction and fly in00:05:02 The Bird View Canvas Model00:25:05 How to run the brainstorm

Idea Development Workshop (1) – Reading a Horizon Europe CallBudgets, outcomes, scope and decoding the fine printHere you find all the information you need for this episodeIn this first episode of this three-part Idea Development Workshop mini-series, I sit down with Ana-Marija Špicnagel (IPS Konzalting) to take the time to read and analyse a Horizon Europe call text, line by line. Using an old Horizon Europe Mission Soil call on soil biodiversity, we start with the basics that shape your whole idea – budget per project, number of projects to be funded, type of action and co-funding rates (including what 70% means for SMEs and how grants to third parties change your consortium logic). We then look at how the call anchors itself in EU strategies like Farm to Fork, the EU Biodiversity Strategy and the SDGs, and why that matters for partner choice and story-telling. From there we unpack expected outcomes, scope and proposed activities: what the Commission really expects you to deliver, how to read the small words (“need to”, “should”, “may”), and how to see when you must cover all bullets rather than “at least some”. We also touch on demonstration and on-field work vs purely lab research, multi-actor requirements, links to sister projects and platforms, and why exploitation planning is now baked into the call text. Throughout the episode, Ana shares practical habits like re-reading the call every two weeks during proposal development to make sure your great idea still fits what is actually being asked.Time codes:00:02:35 Introduction00:06:18 Fly in00:08:52 Call at a glance00:17:18 The Expected Outcomes00:21:20 The Scope (what you actually have to do)

The RM Training Handbook – from competences to programmesProgramme guides, RMComp clustering and a living European standardMore: www.thegrant.eu/rm4This episode in the RM Framework Series is all about the handbook for research management training providers. I’m joined by Prof. Dr. Frank Ziegele and Niklas Rauterberg (CHE – Centre for Higher Education), who lead the handbook work package in the Horizon Europe RM Framework project – designed to create a European qualification system, handbook and quality label for RM training. We start with the “why”: professional identity for research managers, shared reference points across Europe, and the shift from supply-driven “what can trainers offer?” to demand-driven “which competences do specific roles actually need?”. From there we unpack the Programme Development Guide (a checklist from programme conception and business model to curriculum design, delivery and continuous improvement) and the Curricular Component Method, which makes RMComp project's 800+ learning outcomes usable by clustering them into areas, identifying competences relevant for all RMs and then narrowing down to what a specific training should cover. Using a pre-award training example, we walk through how to pick competences, translate them into learning outcomes and build concrete session topics. We close on the handbook as a living document – connected to pilot testers, national ambassadors and evolving topics like AI – and how it could eventually support self-assessment and personalised career paths for research managers across Europe. Time codes:00:02:48 Introduction00:04:49 Fly in00:05:26 Why we need the handbook? 00:14:10 The purpose and structure00:20:25 How to use the handbook00:39:28 The added value and final reflections

Missioner på AAU – fra strategi til hverdagspraksisSeed funding, impact frameworks og projektportefølje i et missionsdrevet universitetMere information: www.thegrant.eu/aau-missionsDette afsnit er lavet i samarbejde med Aalborg Universitet.Aalborg Universitet har de seneste år truffet et klart valg: AAU vil arbejde missionsdrevet og samle kræfterne om udvalgte missioner, hvor store samfundsudfordringer omsættes til konkrete mål, indsatser og samarbejder på tværs af fagmiljøer. Sammen med tre gæster – Frede Blaabjerg (professor på AAU Energi og formand for Danmarks Forsknings- og Innovationspolitiske Råd), Niels Bech Lukassen (afdelingschef ved Missionssekretariatet) og Paw V. Mortensen (Energy Mission Officer) – folder jeg den missionsdrevne tilgang ud fra tre vinkler: strategi og forskning, ledelse og organisation samt hverdagen tæt på kommuner og virksomheder.Vi går bag om begrebet “missionsdreven”: Hvad adskiller det fra “bare” at lave gode projekter? Hvordan tager man afsæt i konkrete samfundsudfordringer og samtidig værner om faglighed og nysgerrighed? Undervejs deler gæsterne eksempler på missionsdreven forskning og samarbejder, nye roller for forskere, projektledere og støttefunktioner, og hvordan seed funding og projektporteføljer kan bruges til at samle kræfterne om nogle få, tydelige missioner. Episoden er tænkt som en invitation til AAU-medarbejdere – uanset om du arbejder med forskning, undervisning, administration eller eksterne samarbejder – til at se din egen rolle i AAU’s missioner.Tidskoder:00:02:32 Introduktion00:08:07 Hvorfor taler vi om missioner?00:12:24 Hvad betyder “missionsdreven” egentlig?00:25:29 Hvordan ser missionsdrevet forskning ud i praksis?00:51:02 Hvad kræver det af os som universitet?00:59:10 Hvad kan vi lære af erfaringerne indtil nu? 01:06:37 Afslutning og opfordring

Erasmus+ Rising Proposals, Falling Success RatesData, AI, evaluators and the future of proposal-based fundingMore: www.thegrant.eu/205In this episode I’m joined by Roberto Zanon (Solvere) to dig into what’s actually happening with Erasmus+ success rates. Roberto has analysed national agency and centralised call data and the picture is stark: in just a couple of years, success rates have collapsed in many actions, with some calls now around 5–10%. We talk about what’s driving the surge in proposals - NGO funding crises, organisations submitting dozens of applications, template convergence across EU programmes, Covid-era online consortia and, of course, AI tools that make it much easier to write applications at scale. We then look at the consequences: overwhelmed evaluators and agencies, inconsistent assessments that can feel like a lottery, big geographic differences between countries, and the risk that people start seeing the system as unfair. Finally we explore ways forward: better evaluator training in logical framework and theory of change, clearer and more consistent policies on AI in evaluation, more flexible programme management (caps, two-stage calls, better stakeholder feedback) and why genuinely well-rooted, mission-driven projects still stand out.Time codes:00:02:06 Introduction00:03:46 Fly in00:07:03 The numbers and the trends00:14:48 What’s driving the surge? 00:25:18 The consequences: For organisations and the system00:38:11 How do we move forward?00:56:06 The toughest challenge

IP in Projects (Part 2) — damage control in real lifeAI tools, ownership claims, documentation & dispute resolutionMore: www.thegrant.eu/201-202In 2nd half of this episode on IP in projects, I continue the conversation with Juan Luis Rodríguez Quintero (RTDS Group) looking at IP once things get messy: ownership claims, conflicts, blocking patents and results nobody planned for in the grant. We talk about why you should never leave everything to the lawyers, how to combine legal expertise with an understanding of research collaboration, and what to do when AI tools and prompts enter the picture. Who can actually claim ownership, and how do you get the consortium to recognise it? We then move into damage control and good practice: transparent documentation of results and contributions (lab notebooks, photos, minutes), using the EU IPR Helpdesk and neutral IP managers, and putting business models on the table before running to the patent office. The goal: keep projects out of court, protect real commercial value, and still let researchers publish and build their careers.Time codes:00:01:49 Damage control and good practices 00:14:12 Lessons learned and recommendations00:22:26 The toughest challenge

IP in Projects — the hard part after grant signatureConsortium agreements, background, access rights, patents vs publicationsMore: www.thegrant.eu/201This episode is a practical guide to IP in project implementation with Juan Luis Rodríguez Quintero (RTDS Group). We start with the consortium agreement: why it’s the day-to-day rulebook, how to document background in Attachment 1 (including restrictions), and how access rights work for implementation and exploitation. We also discuss managing publications vs patent filings, what counts as active contribution, and how to keep a clean record of who did what as results emerge. Then we tackle conflict points and fixes: joint ownership without a plan, partners exiting or going bankrupt, and when to use mediation/arbitration. The takeaway is a simple playbook - regular IP check-ins, novelty checks before fighting, and early negotiation of post-project access on fair and reasonable terms - so you protect value without blocking dissemination.Time codes:00:01:41 Introduction00:03:21 Fly in00:05:48 The starting point: Consortium Agreement 00:19:39 IP in real-life-implementation00:28:15 Conflict points and case examples

Episode 200 — Guest reflections & the power of conversationWhat it felt like to be on The Grant, what they learnt, and why it worksLink to episode websiteI used the opportunity for an in-person recording at The Grant Meet-Up in September 2025 in the midst of chats and drinks with a group of dedicated listeners to celebrate 200 episodes . I brought back two former guests - Angels Orduna, Executive Director of A.SPIRE and Science Journalist Thomas Brent - to Place du Luxembourg to ask them two simple questions: how was it to be on the show and what stayed with you after being on The Grant? Their answers are candid and practical - having time to slow down, being asked the follow-up questions that sharpen thinking, and discovering new ways to explain complex work to colleagues, partners and funders. We also talk about the medium podcast itself: why a calm, long-form conversation cuts through noise in EU funding, how stories carry lessons better than slides, and why honest reflections - successes and stumbles - help the whole community learn. If you listen for human, useful insight you can take back to your day job, this is a warm thank-you and a peek behind the curtain of The Grant.00:00:17 A special opening 00:10:07 Fly in 00:12:45 200th episode recap 00:18:02 How was it to be on The Grant?00:27:50 Reflections that the participation gave you.00:40:05 The toughest challenge

The Research Management Ecosystem — what it is and why it mattersRMcomp, roles & skills, and a practical path to European-level trainingLink to episode siteWhat does the research management ecosystem look like in Europe—and why does it vary so much by country and institution? In this episode I’m joined by Frank Ziegele (CHE - Higher Education Management and Policy) and Henning Rickelt (Center for Science & Research Management) to map the landscape: from funding complexity and cross-border collaboration to open science, knowledge valorisation and the growing set of cross-cutting requirements (data, ethics, gender, integrity). We discuss institutional and societal impact, and why recognition and resources for research managers still lag in many places.We also dive into RMcomp, the Commission-endorsed research management competence framework with RM1–RM4 levels and clear learning outcomes; the vision for an interoperable European training market using Bologna-style modularity and credits; and the training handbook this project is developing as a process guide rather than a fixed syllabus. Plus: upcoming pilot testing, how job profiles shape training needs, and why professionalising research management is ultimately about making expectations and skills transparent across Europe.

Finding the Partners — a practical playbook for EU proposalsCORDIS, brokerage & LinkedIn sourcing; shortlisting; outreach that gets repliesLink to episode websiteFinding partners—without wasting weeks. In this solo episode I break down exactly how I source reliable EU project partners: start broad with CORDIS and old brokerage/matchmaking sites, scan funded projects and call topics, then narrow to organisations with proven EU experience. I show how to build a shortlist fast, log everything in one Excel, and use AI for keywording (without ever uploading personal data).Then we get practical on contact hunting and outreach: when project pages help, how to use Google + LinkedIn effectively, why a quick phone call beats a cold email, and what to write when you do email. Plus: GDPR hygiene, LinkedIn pitfalls, and the one thing that saves every search—keeping a clean, reusable database so each partner hunt gets easier.

FP10, decoded with Science|Business editors Goda Naujokaitytė and Florin Zubascu. For applicants, research managers and policy folks: budget scenarios, Pillar II’s tie to ECF, governance/committees, ERC/MSCA signals, bottom-up vs top-down, and how MFF shapes call design and success rates.Link to episode websiteWe separate rumours from reality on budget levels, how Pillar II could connect to the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), and what’s still missing on governance, committees, and who sets work programmes. Then we tackle the politics you’ll feel on the ground: ERC/MSCA independence signals, the evolving bottom-up vs top-down mix, and the MFF dynamics that will influence call design, timelines and success rates to 2028—so you can plan bids, partnerships and careers with eyes open. (For searchers who aren’t regulars: FP10 is the successor to Horizon Europe.)Who it’s for: research managers, PIs, EU project officers, proposal writers, R&I policy professionals.Keywords: FP10, Horizon Europe successor, EU R&I, Pillar II, ECF, governance, ERC, MSCA, MFF, call design, success rates.

Episode siteHere in the second half of the episode on collaboration architecture, Monica Expositor-Glasco looks ahead: as AI tools make “near-perfect” proposals commonplace, the real competitive edge shifts from what you promise on paper to how your consortium proves it delivers together. We discuss why evaluator attention will increasingly gravitate to team track record, collaboration culture and evidence that a consortium can execute complex plans, adapt, and still land results. The message: the “soft” side—social architecture—becomes the hardest differentiator. We then get hands-on with practical tools and the principles behind them. Monica walks through dynamic kick-off designs (gallery walks, “cross-WP speed-dating” with three clarifying questions), flipping monthly calls from update theatre to problem-solving, and building a single source of truth with a lightweight project hub and task-oriented channels. We cover weekly asynchronous “last week I / this week I” updates, rigorous agendas framed as questions, and the core principles that make it all work: design before you build, make the implicit explicit (via a team playbook), engineer serendipity, and move from contract to commitment.Time codes (part 2):The future: collaboration as a competitive advantagePractical tools and why they workReflections and adviceThe toughest challenge

Episode siteBuilding a strong connection - at the social level - is one of the most important things in the implementation of an EU project. Mónica Expositor Blasco is an expert on this and therefor a natural expert guest for my episode on social elements when implementing EU projects in my Implementation Series. There were many things to discuss, so this episode is divided into two episodes.In this first half, we examine the human side of EU project delivery - how teams actually work together once the grant is awarded. We map the “typical consortium story”: euphoric kick-off, then a slide into silent struggle - passive meetings, free-riding perceptions, unclear roles, and coordination teams forced into “babysitting”. Monica’s point is blunt: these aren’t just people problems; they’re architecture problems. Most projects rely on informal habits and administrative project management, but rarely design how collaboration should function. Rhythms, roles, rules, spaces, and norms that help a set of entities act like a team.Monica introduces the role of a collaboration architect - not just facilitating one good meeting, but blueprinting the whole system. We have a look at the symptoms of weak architecture (information-dump kick-offs, passive observers, “update theatre”), then get concrete about solutions: phased kick-offs with online onboarding before the room, interactive formats instead of slide marathons, and a light playbook that sets communication norms, decision paths and “speak-up-early” principles. We close with practical examples like speed-dating across work packages, movement and micro-rituals to get voices in the room, and agenda designs that prioritise sense-making and decisions over presentations.Time codes:00:01:41 Introduction00:03:59 Fly in00:06:52 A consortium's "typical story"00:17:33 The diagnosis: Symptoms of a weak architecture00:30:36 The solution: Designing the system for success

Episode siteIn this sixth episode in the Research Management Shorts Series, that I do together with Stephanie Harfensteller, EU Research Coordinator at FIR an der RWTH Aachen, we explore how you sustain a research management strategy once the initial build is done. We get concrete about monitoring and evaluation: tracking the smooth handling of proposals and projects through trained admin capacity; improving research quality in reporting and deliverables; and smart consortium management to maximise impact while projects run (linking to other initiatives, presenting at conferences, building networks).Further, we look at pitfalls and behavioural change. How do you protect the function when budgets tighten or momentum fades? Stephanie explains diversifying support so parts of research management are funded from projects, clarifying roles between researchers and RM staff, and embedding RM inside proposal teams to keep oversight and pace. Finally, we discuss de-risking the system: moving from person-based know-how to institutional knowledge management, training researchers to handle basics (budgets, gender & ethics blocks) so RM can lift its value add, and cultivating a culture where continuous improvement outlives individuals.Time codes:00:02:00 Introduction00:05:22 Fly in00:06:40 Monitoring and evaluation00:16:15 Pitfalls00:25:03 Behavioral change and management

Episode siteIn this episode I bring together two vantage points on EU proposal writing: exprienced grant proposal writer Diana Huber and expert evaluator Christine Cieslak. We explore the permanent tension for a proposal writer: focus on creative storytelling or technical aspects - and why the answer isn’t either/or but a disciplined both/and. Diana argues that strong proposals begin before writing with ecosystem scanning, coalition building, and policy alignment, then translate end-user needs into a narrative evaluators can actually follow. She stresses reading the EU policy backbone (from the Lisbon Treaty onwards) and co-creating with stakeholders so the story is recognisable, relevant, and implementable - rather than buzzword-heavy fiction. From the evaluator’s chair, Christine underlines how evaluators look for clarity, truthfulness, and fit: answer what is asked, avoid empty jargon, don’t “fake it”, and choose the right funding line. We discuss Erasmus+ complexity (centralised vs. decentralised lines, word-count limits), myths about “secret tricks”, and the risk of AI-generated prose that can’t be implemented or may breach GDPR. The practical bottom line: define what you will do, why it matters, how you’ll deliver it with your partners—and write so an informed non-specialist can see the logic in limited space.Time codes:00:01:50 Introduction00:05:26 Fly in00:08:30 From the proposal writer’s view00:23:26 From the evaluator’s view00:37:33 The middle ground01:16:01 Advice01:26:28 The tougest challenge

Episode siteIn episode #2 of this RM Framework Series, I have Anna Royon-Weigelt (ZWM - Center for Science and Research Management in Germany) in the virtual podcast studio to outline the current state-of-the-art in research management across Europe. We exchange on how research management roles differ widely between institutions and countries - pre-award vs. post-award boundaries, “third-space” identities, and the reality of leading laterally without formal authority. We also look at the training landscape: rich but fragmented, with overlapping offers, uneven quality signals, and a lack of shared terminology that makes recognition and mobility harder than they should be. We discuss the practical anchors that help bring coherence without forcing uniformity using competence frameworks and learning outcomes to design modular, context-sensitive training; clarifying role profiles to match skills with tasks; and strengthening communities of practice so isolated research management professionals have peers to learn from. This podcast episode is focused on what already works in Europe and how institutions can use those elements now to professionalise research management in a way that fits their context.Time codes:00:02:42 Introduction00:07:07 Fly in00:14:02 Defining the profession00:19:01 Current training landscape00:29:47 Challenges and gaps - RM Framework contribution00:45:03 Towards a common framework00:51:19 Reflections

Episode siteIn this episode, I sit down with Viltaré Platzner, Head of the Centre of EU Projects at the Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, to talk about the human side of research management. We unpack the real day-to-day: reading people, building trust with PIs and partners, handling silence and conflict in consortia, and staying resilient when Horizon proposals miss by a whisker. Viltaré shares her route into RM, the reality of covering the full project life cycle in a small team, and why empathy, curiosity and boundary-setting matter as much as technical skills.We also take a frank look at professionalisation: how the European competence framework for research managers helps map skills—but can feel abstract or “de-humanised” compared with lived practice. From hiring (often juniors) and mentoring under tight resources, to retaining talent that private consultancies try to poach, Viltaré lays out the Eastern/Central European context, the role of supportive leadership, and why community (EARMA, peer networks) is a lifeline. The episode ends with practical advice: make time for reflection, keep learning, and find your peopleTime codes:00:01:41 Introduction00: 04:10 Fly in00:06:40 Personal skills in practice00:24:25 The competence framework00:43:37 Hiring and training challenges01:01:25 Reflections and advice01:06:22 The toughest challenge

Episode siteIt is time for another episode in The Widening Series where I have science journalist Thomas Brent as co-host. For this one we have invited Katarzyna Walczyk-Matuszyk - coordinator of the wideraAdvance Facility and long-time advocate for widening participation in EU research - into the virtual podcast studio. Together we zoom in on what dissemination and exploitation (D&E) really look like in the context of widening countries, where visibility, reputation, and research impact are often still being established. We discuss why D&E strategies can’t be one-size-fits-all and how adapting them to the national and institutional context is vital.We also of course have a look at the wideraAdvance Facility project, which supports organisations in strengthening their proposal quality and post-grant impact activities. Thomas shares insights into storytelling and audience targeting, while Katarzyna speaks to the importance of building local ecosystems that can sustain EU-funded innovations. Whether you’re a new institution trying to get into Horizon Europe or a coordinator wondering how to bring your Widening partners into the spotlight, this episode offers concrete tools and reflections to help you get D&E right.Time codes:00:01:50 Introduction00:05:38 Fly in00:06:43 Project introduction, background and motivation00:21:53 Core activities and services00:49:53 Structural challenges in Widening countries01:01:28 Outcomes, policy impact and future potential01:13:39 Outro

Episode siteIn this fifth episode of the Research Management Shorts Series, I continue my conversation with Stephanie Harfensteller, EU Research Coordinator at FIR an der RWTH Aachen, to explore how you embed sustainability and impact thinking in research strategy. Stephanie shares how her institute aligns all EU funding efforts with a long-term goal: enabling value-creating circular economy systems. She unpacks how impact isn’t just a requirement from the EU, but a guiding compass for institutional strategy, shaping everything from project selection to researcher engagement. We talk about how FIR an der RWTH Aachen incorporates social and environmental dimensions into seemingly technical projects - like finding gender impacts in multimodal transport - and how research managers can act as translators between policy and science. Stephanie also shares concrete strategies for research intelligence: how to identify calls with higher success rates, how to balance strategic fit with academic freedom, and how long-term impact grows from well-aligned project portfolios. It’s a must-listen for research managers aiming to move from compliance to purpose-driven impact.Time codes:00:02:00 Introduction00:04:23 Incorporating impact goals 00:13:31 Strategies for outcomes00: 25:15 Strategies for outcomes

Episode siteIn this episode of The Grant, I’m joined by Juan Luis Rodrigues Quintero from RTDS Group to dive into a sometimes underestimated element of EU proposals: intellectual property (IP). Juan brings practical insights from years of proposal writing and implementation support, showing how IP is about much more than legal jargon - it’s about safeguarding your innovation and ensuring your consortium has a clear, credible plan for results exploitation. We explore why so many IP sections fall flat and how to make sure yours doesn't. We also reflect on how freedom to operate, access rights, and foreground/background IP must be considered from the start and not just when the grant is secured. Juan shares the kind of red flags evaluators notice in poorly written IP sections and how strategic thinking here can support your impact narrative. Whether you're an SME, coordinator, or support team, this episode will help you move beyond templates and think IP from a real implementation perspective.Time codes:00:01:57 Introduction00:03:16 Fly in00:05:52 Why IP matters at the proposal stage00:13:40 When and how to start the IP conversation00:32:41 Building a robust IP strategy for your proposal01:02:32 Key lessons and recommendations01:09:30 The toughest challenge

Episode siteIn this new episode in The Implementation Series, I have invited in Nicole Schmidt from EUTEMA to share her insights on consortium meetings. These meetings are rarely just about reporting—they’re where the real dynamics of a project come into play. Nicole brings her long-standing experience in proposal writing and project implementation to the table, reflecting on how roles are clarified (or blurred), how partners position themselves, and how the soft skills of coordination make all the difference. Our conversation highlights that consortium meetings are human systems in action: they are where trust is built, conflicts surface, and alignment is forged. Nicole shares practical tips on structuring agendas, reading the room, and balancing technical content with relational dynamics. For anyone who has ever wondered why some meetings feel energising and others draining, this episode offers both insights and strategies to make consortium meetings a real driver of collaboration.Time codes:00:01:33 Introduction00:05:29 Fly in00:09:53 What a consortium meeting looks like00:20:31 Planning00:37:56 The formal agenda: key elements01:10:29 Involving external stakeholders01:21:26 Project culture starts here01:28:22 Advice01:30:51 The toughest challenge

Episode siteIn this third episode of our SME Series, I speak with Alicja Grzegorzek Carrascosa, an experienced EU funding professional and consultant, about one of the most complex and under-discussed topics in implementation: financial rules, and especially the lump sum model. We unpack how the lump sum rules - designed to simplify - can have the opposite effect for beneficiaries, particularly SMEs and newcomers trying to find their footing in Horizon Europe. Alicja shares real-world examples of how lump sum reporting affects project planning, flexibility, and internal budgeting. We talk about the administrative burden, the risk of rigid work plan structures, and how a lack of clarity from the Commission can leave even experienced coordinators confused. This episode is an honest, practical conversation about what happens after you win the grant - and why we need to speak more openly about implementation bottlenecks and financial stress points in EU projects.Time codes:00:02:14 Introduction00:05:45 Fly in00:12:23 Understanding the shift to lump sum funding00:33:43 Project implementation pitfalls 00:42:51 Best practices & workarounds 00:49:08 The toughest challenge

Episode siteThe Grant and the RM Framework project funded under Horizon Europe has joined a partnership. Over the next 1½ The Grant will support the consortium developing 15 podcast episodes in its own dedicated series exploring and sharing project activities. This episode kicks off the collaboration series. I of course have the project coordinator Nik Claesen, Managing Director of EARMA, in for this introductory episode to the project. He shares the background of the project and where this project fits into the work consolidating the research manager position across Europe. The project will develop guidelines and a handbook for trainings and capacity building within research management and we have a conversation about the elements that the project covers. The aim with this series is to demystify what it means to professionalise research management. It’s not just about systems and templates - it’s about aligning values, roles, and ambitions across the entire institution. Whether you’re setting up your first project support team or rethinking an existing structure, this series will seek a shared language and practical entry points. Over the project period I will be inviting in consortium members and stakeholders to explore the project activities and give an insight into the results. Time codes: 00:02:35 Introduction00:07:45 Fly in00:12:14 Background and former projects00:22:18 Introduction to the project00:49:40 Expectations

Episode siteIn this fourth episode of the Research Management Shorts Series, I continue my conversation with with Stephanie Hafensteller, EU Research Coordinator at FIR an der RWTH Aachen, to dive into capacity building and training in EU research management. Stephanie shares how FIR’s model, where PhD candidates leave after four-and-a-half years, has sparked the need to preserve and structure institutional knowledge around EU funding. Instead of relying on person-based, peer-to-peer learning, the institute is building modular training approaches that include video guides, best practice repositories, peer coaching, and one-to-one support - ensuring continuity and growing strategic capacity within the institute.We also discuss the value of investing in both researchers and administrative staff. Stephanie makes a strong case for continuous learning as an organisational strategy - arguing that EU funding requires more than ad-hoc solutions. From internal toolkits and knowledge management platforms to partnerships with training providers like the national contact points, the institute now offers tailored training options to match different learning styles. Finally, Stephanie outlines how fostering entrepreneurial skills supports spin-outs and start-ups, making the institute a launchpad for both excellent research and real-world innovation. Time codes:00:02:09 Introduction00:07:32 Training modules00:21:50 Investing in training 00:28:58 Entrepreneurial skills