1. Summing up: what exactly was different in Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe?

Concisely, the new programme saves a great deal of unwarranted administration and sheds light on whether your work is leaving an impression. This includes your experience with larger lump-sum financing, more explicit logic for showing your impact, greater open-science policies, and management procedures that emphasize sound delivery over reams of paperwork.

2. Lump-sum grants continue to emerge. How does it differ from the day-to-day operations of coordinators?

There is a difference in the project rhythm. You do not follow every receipt; you do not have to argue on hourly rates, but when a work package is completed, you receive the pay, and that is it. No half-credit. It implies a narrower scope, extremely defined milestones, and self-validation prior to declaring a WP. It is more straightforward in many respects, yet it is more black-and-white; either the WP is done, or it is not.

3. Is risk management more difficult in the case of lump-sum funding?

It certainly increases the ante. Under actual-cost grants, you might sometimes act on your feet in spite of a slip being made somewhere. Under lump-sum, a single late or incomplete deliverable may suspend payment of the entire WP. The solution is clever design: big or riskier WPs can be broken down into smaller ones, visible proof points (such as a prototype or a data drop) should be included, and an internal process to reassign effort should be in place in case anything goes amiss.

4. What are some ways that impact pathways transform how we write and report projects?

The Horizon Europe would have you strike a straight line between what you will do, what you will produce, who will use it, and what difference it will make. It implies the labeling of solid outputs – datasets, prototypes, software, training – and putting numbers on what you say. Panels like promises that do not specify the number of datasets to release or the placement of the device in three labs will not be satisfied with vague promises. Clarity really pays off.

5. And what really cannot be compromised with regard to open science?

Three things stand out. To begin with, the publications should be open access immediately. Second, your Data Management Plan must be a living entity, something real, not a piece of buzzword. Third, you must make your work reproducible: you must be able to find and cite code and protocols, including negative results when appropriate. When handling sensitive or personal information, plan early for how to access it securely.

6. What is new in management and the Model Grant Agreement that impacts daily work?

The rules for personnel are simplified, less time is spent on lump-sum actions, and internal checks are addressed to delivery rather than accounting. In dissemination and exploitation, the demands are more acute: find out what your key results will be, demonstrate how and by what they will be used: through standards, through licensing, through open hardware, through follow-on funding, through partnerships.

7. In which direction does an SME such as the Microfluidics Innovation Center set the needle?

In feasibility and impact. MIC not only discusses instruments but also designs, constructs, and validates them. Proposals are realistic and not dreamy because of their chips, fluidics, control software, and prototypes. In practice, this is likely to increase the success rate of calls in this space, since the reviewers have confidence that the consortium will deliver on the first day.