The Grant

Missioner på AAU – fra strategi til hverdagspraksis
Seed funding, impact frameworks og projektportefølje i et missionsdrevet universitet

Mere information: www.thegrant.eu/aau-missions

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

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