The Grant

Microcredentials in Erasmus+ – Concept, Policy & Practice
Learning outcomes, assessment and making it work in real projects

Check out the episode site

In 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 in

09:57 Why has microcredentials been introduced

16:47 What is a microcredential? Defining the term

27:51 Microcredentials in the proposal phase

39:11 Microcredentials in the implementation phase

53:28 Recommendations and advice

57:55 The toughest challenge

Proposal writing, project delivery, compliance and the human impact

Check out the episode site

In 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 Introduction

03:59 Fly in

05:14 The capacity challenge

13:59 The proposals

28:17 The projects

43:16 The human impact

55:08 Advice

56:59 The toughest challenge

Validation, diversity and learning with real training providers

Check out the episode website

In 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 in

11:00 Why pilot testing is central to the RM Framework

13:43 Diversity of pilots and training contexts

20:00 How pilots work in practice

27:43 Key lessons from the pilots

31:39 Closing reflections

Stress, boundaries and sustainable ways of running EU projects

Check out the episode website

In 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 Introduction

00:04:09 Fly in

00:06:23 The findings: A profession under pressure

00:12:00 What’s driving the pressure

00:29:35 The human impact

00:40:17 How do we move forward

00:51:26 The toughest challenge

The SET Plan & EU Funding – Inside the Machine Room

How EU energy R&I priorities are made, funded and implemented

Check out the episode website

In 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 Introduction

00:03:44 Fly in

00:07:23 Introduction to the SET Plan

00:11:36 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 Office

Masterclasses, proposal review, internal services and rising competition

⁠Check out the episode site

In 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 Introduction

00:06:04 Fly in

00:08:35 Complementary backgrounds and team setup

00:12:34 Building the research office and strategy

00:23:21 Postdoctoral Fellowships support

00:42:12 Expanding the strategy

00:51:51 Reflections and advice

00:54:24 The toughest challenge

From Bird View clusters to objectives, WPs and a realistic structure

⁠Check out the episode site

In 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 in

00:05:05 The project shaping workshop

00:36:55 Closing remarks

Idea Development Workshop (2) – Outlining the canvas model

Objectives, outcomes, logic and what belongs in your Horizon idea

More info and presentation: https://www.thegrant.eu/204-206

In 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 in

00:05:02 The Bird View Canvas Model

00:25:05 How to run the brainstorm

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

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