The Grant

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