Idea Development Workshop (1) – Reading a Horizon Europe Call
Budgets, outcomes, scope and decoding the fine print
Here you find all the information you need for this episode: https://www.thegrant.eu/204
In 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 Introduction
00:06:18 Fly in
00:08:52 Call at a glance
00:17:18 The Expected Outcomes
00:21:20 The Scope (what you actually have to do)
The RM Training Handbook – from competences to programmes
Programme guides, RMComp clustering and a living European standardMore: www.thegrant.eu/rm4
This 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 Introduction
00:04:49 Fly in
00:05:26 Why we need the handbook?
00:14:10 The purpose and structure
00:20:25 How to use the handbook
00:39:28 The added value and final reflections
Missioner på AAU – fra strategi til hverdagspraksis
Seed funding, impact frameworks og projektportefølje i et missionsdrevet universitet
Mere information: www.thegrant.eu/aau-missioner
Dette 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 Introduktion
00:08:07 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 Rates
Data, AI, evaluators and the future of proposal-based funding
More: www.thegrant.eu/205
In 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 Introduction
00:03:46 Fly in
00:07:03 The numbers and the trends
00:14:48 What’s driving the surge?
00:25:18 The consequences: For organisations and the system
00:38:11 How do we move forward?
00:56:06 The toughest challenge
IP in Projects (Part 2) — damage control in real life
AI tools, ownership claims, documentation & dispute resolution
More: www.thegrant.eu/201-202
In 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 recommendations
00:22:26 The toughest challenge
IP in Projects — the hard part after grant signature
Consortium agreements, background, access rights, patents vs publications
More: www.thegrant.eu/201
This 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 Introduction
00:03:21 Fly in
00:05:48 The starting point: Consortium Agreement
00:19:39 IP in real-life-implementation
00:28:15 Conflict points and case examples
Episode 200 — Guest reflections & the power of conversation
What it felt like to be on The Grant, what they learnt, and why it works
I 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 matters
RMcomp, roles & skills, and a practical path to European-level training
What 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 proposals
CORDIS, brokerage & LinkedIn sourcing; shortlisting; outreach that gets repliesLink to episode website
Finding 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.
We 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.
Here in the second half of the episode on collaboration architecture, Monica Exposito-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 advantage
Practical tools and why they work
Reflections and advice
The toughest challenge
Building 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 Introduction
00:03:59 Fly in
00:06:52 A consortium's "typical story"
00:17:33 The diagnosis: Symptoms of a weak architecture
00:30:36 The solution: Designing the system for success
Episode site
In 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 Introduction
00:05:22 Fly in
00:06:40 Monitoring and evaluation
00:16:15 Pitfalls
00:25:03 Behavioral change and management
In 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 Introduction
00:05:26 Fly in
00:08:30 From the proposal writer’s view
00:23:26 From the evaluator’s view
00:37:33 The middle ground
01:16:01 Advice
01:26:28 The tougest challenge
In 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 Introduction
00:07:07 Fly in
00:14:02 Defining the profession
00:19:01 Current training landscape
00:29:47 Challenges and gaps - RM Framework contribution
00:45:03 Towards a common framework
00:51:19 Reflections
In 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 people
Time codes:
00:01:41 Introduction
00: 04:10 Fly in
00:06:40 Personal skills in practice
00:24:25 The competence framework
00:43:37 Hiring and training challenges
01:01:25 Reflections and advice
01:06:22 The toughest challenge
Episode site
It 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 Introduction
00:05:38 Fly in
00:06:43 Project introduction, background and motivation
00:21:53 Core activities and services
00:49:53 Structural challenges in Widening countries
01:01:28 Outcomes, policy impact and future potential
01:13:39 Outro
In 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 Introduction
00:04:23 Incorporating impact goals
00:13:31 Strategies for outcomes
00: 25:15 Strategies for outcomes
In 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 Introduction
00:03:16 Fly in
00:05:52 Why IP matters at the proposal stage
00:13:40 When and how to start the IP conversation
00:32:41 Building a robust IP strategy for your proposal
01:02:32 Key lessons and recommendations
01:09:30 The toughest challenge
Episode site
In 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 Introduction
00:05:29 Fly in
00:09:53 What a consortium meeting looks like
00:20:31 Planning
00:37:56 The formal agenda: key elements
01:10:29 Involving external stakeholders
01:21:26 Project culture starts here
01:28:22 Advice
01:30:51 The toughest challenge