Beyond the PDF: Mastering "Exploitation" in EU Grant Documents (EU grant exploitation strategy)
- yly120
- Mar 31, 2019
- 3 min read
Updated: Mar 23
We just wrapped up an incredible few days at the EARMA 2019 conference in Bologna. Between the amazing Italian food and the endless networking, one topic clearly struck a nerve with the deeply frustrated Research Managers and Administrators (RMAs) in attendance.
My brilliant co-presenter, Katrin, and I had the pleasure of taking the stage to tackle one of the most chronically misunderstood sections of any EU Framework Programme proposal: Exploitation.
Why did our session draw such a crowd? Because as RMAs, we read countless drafts where brilliant researchers confidently state, "We will exploit our results by publishing three open-access papers and building a project website." Evaluators read that, sigh heavily, and dock points.
Here is a breakdown of our EARMA 2019 session, highlighting how to actually address exploitation in your grant documents to keep the European Commission (and your reviewers) happy.

e Great Mix-Up: Dissemination vs. Exploitation
The biggest hurdle Katrin and I discussed during the session is the conceptual blur between Dissemination and Exploitation. In the Plan for the Exploitation and Dissemination of Results (PEDR), these two are often treated as identical twins. They are not.
Dissemination is about sharing. It is making your results public so others know what you did (e.g., the website, the conference presentation, the open-access paper).
Exploitation is about using. It is the actual utilization of those results in further research, in creating a product, or in changing a policy.
If Dissemination is handing out a recipe for a new type of cake, Exploitation is someone actually baking that cake and opening a bakery.

Shifting the Mindset: Identifying Key Exploitable Results (KERs)
In our presentation, we emphasized that you cannot exploit a project; you exploit the results of a project.
To write a strong exploitation strategy, the consortium needs to sit down early in the drafting process and identify their Key Exploitable Results (KERs).
A KER isn't just "we did good science." It is a specific output that has the potential to be used. This could be:
Commercial: A new software tool, a prototype, or a patentable technology.
Academic/Research: A novel methodology or dataset that will serve as the foundation for future grants.
Societal/Policy: A set of recommendations that will be adopted by local municipalities to improve urban planning.

The "Who, What, and How" of the Document
When translating this into the actual proposal or grant agreement documents, Katrin and I highlighted a simple framework for RMAs to guide their consortia. For every KER identified, the document must clearly state:
Who will use it? (Is it a specific partner in the consortium? Is it an external stakeholder?)
What are the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) implications? (Who owns the background? Who will own the foreground?)
How will it be sustained after the EC funding stops?
If your exploitation section doesn't answer what happens on "Day 1 after the project ends," it isn't finished.

The Orientos Approach
As we look ahead to the next iterations of EU funding, the push for concrete impacts and utilization is only going to get stronger. The struggles with Exploitation aren't going anywhere.
At Orientos, we specialize in untangling this exact web. We help consortia distinguish their dissemination activities from their exploitation strategies, ensuring that the European Commission sees a clear, viable, and actionable plan for the project's results.
Because at the end of the day, excellent research deserves to be used, not just filed away in a portal.
Beyond the PDF: Mastering "Exploitation" in EU Grant Documents (EU grant exploitation strategy)
Beyond the PDF: Mastering "Exploitation" in EU Grant Documents (EU grant exploitation strategy)


Comments