The Grant

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