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

Link to episode website

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

Link to episode site

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.

Link to episode website

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.

Episode site

Here 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 advantage

Practical tools and why they work

Reflections and advice

The toughest challenge

Episode site

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

Episode site

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

Episode site

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