The Grant

Inside the Proposal Deadline – Life at a Grant Consultancy
An in-person recording with Søren Houmøller, Maria Battistel and Tereza Marie-Jo Berk from 1st Mile
Check out the episode website with links, photos from the session etc.

What does a grant consultancy actually look like when several proposal deadlines are approaching at once?
For episode #243, I visit 1st Mile at DTU during a busy proposal period. Together with founder Søren Houmøller and team members Maria Battistel and Tereza Marie-Jo Berk, I look behind the scenes at how a small consultancy organises several applications in parallel: who manages the proposal, who writes what, how budgets and work plans are handled, how people move between teams, and what happens when something goes wrong close to submission.

But this episode is just as much about people as proposals. We talk about the relationships with clients, why team fit matters, how 1st Mile tries to create enough redundancy for colleagues to step in when needed, and why being able to say “no” early can be healthier than promising something you cannot deliver. Finally, Søren explains how he thinks about leadership, recovery after deadlines and building a workplace where intense periods do not become the permanent norm.

Time codes:
00:00 Arrival & Introduction
04:40 What's on the Table?
13:31 Building Proposals as a Team
33:32 When the Deadline Takes Over
52:20 Managing the People Behind the Proposals
01:03:24 After the Deadline
01:12:03 Goodbye

Testing the RM Framework – What the Pilots Taught Us
RM Framework Series #10 with Marcos Gomes

Check out the episode website for more information

In episode #10 of the RM Framework Series, I’m joined again by Marcos Gomes from the University of Coimbra to look at the first lessons from the project’s pilot-testing phase. Different training providers across Europe have been using the draft handbook, working with RM Comp and testing elements of the proposed quality label in real training environments. The purpose was simple: does the framework actually work outside the project consortium?

Marcos shares the patterns emerging from the feedback. The framework provides useful structure, but testers also asked for more practical examples, templates and guidance. And one message comes through particularly strongly: the goal is not to create one standard European training programme. It is to establish a shared foundation that different organisations can adapt to their own educational, institutional and national realities.

Time codes:
01:50 Guest introduction and fly in
05:24 How the Pilot Testing Was Done
09:15 What Did the Pilots Tell Us?
30:20 Reflections & Next Steps

From Idea to Market – Building Walk With Path with EU Funding
An in-person conversation with founder Lise Pape

Check out the episode website

For episode #242, I travelled to Walk With Path’s Copenhagen office for an in-person conversation with founder Lise Pape. We start with the technology and the story behind it: a medtech journey influenced by Lise’s experience of her father’s Parkinson’s disease, followed by more than a decade of product development, clinical validation and work with users. Today, Walk With Path develops wearable technology including a connected sensor-based insole for mobility, gait analysis and diabetic foot care.

Then we follow the funding journey. Smaller grants eventually led to a €2.3 million SME Instrument project, and Walk With Path has since built experience across several European funding schemes and collaborative projects. Lise explains how a five-person company manages multiple funded projects alongside the commercial business, when external consultants make sense, how public support services can help, and why the long-term goal is increasingly to move from project funding towards commercial growth.
Time codes:
00:00 Arrival in Copenhagen
05:47 Guest introduction and fly in
08:22 The Company and the Story Behind
16:35 Experience with Funded Projects
39:12 Help and Support
44:40 What Have You Learned?
49:47 Future
52:33 Reflections and The Toughest Challenge

Innovation Fund Proposal Writing (2) – Writing & Submission
With Irene Larroy from EY and Marco Molica Colella from Hydrogen Europe

In the second half of our Innovation Fund proposal-writing double episode, we move from preparation to actually building the application. Irene Larroy and Marco Molica Colella take us through the documents, annexes and evaluation criteria that make an Innovation Fund proposal such a substantial exercise. One of the first lessons: don't necessarily start with Part B. Build the feasibility study, business plan, financial model and other underlying elements first, then use them to create a consistent Part B.

We go through project concept and innovation, GHG emission avoidance, technical, financial and operational maturity, risk, replicability, knowledge sharing, cost efficiency and work packages before finishing with the submission process itself. Throughout, Irene and Marco stress consistency, evaluator-friendly writing and rigorous document control. And the toughest challenge? Time. This is an application process that requires serious planning and significant internal capacity.

Time codes
02:04 Pen to paper - The Annexes
28:12 Pen to paper - Part B
01:01:17 Submission
01:10:59 Reflections and advice
01:22:50 The toughest challenge

Innovation Fund Proposal Writing (1) – Preparation & Innovation

With Irene Larroy from EY and Marco Molica Colella from Hydrogen Europe

Check out the episode website

In this first of two episodes on Innovation Fund proposal writing, I’m joined by Irene Larroy from EY and Marco Molica Colella from Hydrogen Europe. We focus on the traditional Innovation Fund grants and Net-Zero Technologies calls rather than the auction mechanism. And the first lesson comes before the writing starts: because this programme is highly competitive and resource-intensive, applicants need to determine whether their project genuinely fits the Innovation Fund before investing heavily in the proposal. Irene explains how she starts by testing projects against the five evaluation criteria: degree of innovation, GHG emission avoidance, maturity, replicability and cost efficiency.

We then zoom in on the degree of innovation. Marco explains why innovation cannot be assessed in isolation: it depends on the sector, competing technologies and what the Innovation Fund has already supported. Irene shows why applicants should study the Innovation Fund dashboard and compare themselves carefully with previous funded projects—including previous projects from their own corporate group. We also discuss the importance of the innovation annex in the call documentation and why a successful proposal process may require applicants to redesign parts of the project itself in order to build a stronger case.

Time codes:
01:55 Guest introduction and fly in
06:00 Preparation
31:35 Shaping of proposal concept with consortium