The Grant

Erasmus+ Audits – Lump Sums, Fear & Audit Culture
An Erasmus+ Therapy panel on compliance, trust and what must change

Check out the episode website

In 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 change

42:25 The toughest challenge

BalticSeaH2, project implementation and the future of hydrogen in Europe

Check out the episode website

In 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 in

05:28 What is a Hydrogen Valley?

15:12 From Idea to Funded Flagship

25:03 Replication From Day One – The Structural Innovation

38:21 Midpoint Reflection – Is It Delivering?

49:40 Nordic Perspective: Security, Supply and Policy

56:26 Reflections and advice

01:00:31 The toughest challenge

Scale-up, impact, replication and the long road after submission

Check out the episode website

The 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 in

04:14 From Idea to Proposal

13:38 From Proposal to Implementation – The Demonstration

22:11 Results and Future Impact

24:14 Reflections

Power-to-X, green growth, infrastructure and local strategy

Check out the episode website

In 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 in

08:30 Introducing Aabenraa

21:00 Motivation for funding

26:48 The new EIB project

41:55 How you work?

56:33 Reflections and advice

01:01:10 The toughest challenge

How UMCG helps researchers move from reactive to strategic grant planning

Check out the episode website

In 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 in

04:40 The recurring problem: strong science, weak planning

15:31 Why traditional funding guidance falls short

22:33 From need to solution: introducing strategy-building

39:56 Scaling up: from individuals to departments

49:32 Reflections and advice

55:15 The toughest challenge

Using a national RM programme to test the handbook in practice

Check out the episode website

In 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 in

05:13 The NARMA Training Model

09:08 Approaching the Pilot: Reviewing the Handbook

19:53 The Quality Label

25:37 Expectations & Final Reflections

Erasmus+ Therapy – Rising Proposals & Harsh Evaluations
A panel on frustration, burnout and what needs to change

Check out the episode website

In 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 codes

02:21 Guest introduction and fly in

06:11 What is driving the surge in proposals?

18:40 System-level consequences

31:05 Community and individual impact

48:56 Are experienced organisations still welcome?

56:46 Closing reflections and messages

01:03:54 The toughest challenge

Clean Tech in CEE – Funding, Gaps & Policy Shifts
Slovenia, Innovation Fund, widening, deep tech and raw materials

Check out the episode website

In 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 Adoption
Why so many results die after funding, and what must change

Check out the episode site with more information

In 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 in

06:45 TICBIOMED’s experience on the ground

11:37 When innovation becomes counterproductive

21:29 Structural reasons behind the problem

34:36 What needs to change: from pilots to impact

44:13 Reflections and advice

48:11 The toughest challenge

Juniors in Research Management – Between Research and Support
Leaving research, identity, skills and the job market reality

Check out the episode website

In 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 in

03:42 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 advice

57:28 The toughest challenge