The Importance of Starting Your ERC Grant Early: 5 Key Tips (Including a key tip from recent awardee)

If you’re thinking about having a go at an ERC grant, do me a favour and read these tips. But before you do, know this: it’s all irrelevant if you don’t start early. Much earlier than you think!

 

People often ask me, ‘how long does it take to write an ERC grant?’. Wrong question, I would say. Okay, how long does it take to write a competitive application? Closer, but still not quite right. The only relevant question is, ‘what does it take to write a winning ERC grant’? Writing a competitive grant is nice, but nobody really wants just a competitive application, do they? Given the massive investment an ERC grant is, you should have your eyes firmly set on the ultimate prize—the money and the award letter.

​

Every single year, I say the same thing: you cannot pull this off in four weeks. And yet, time and again, people try. They can’t. Writing a winning ERC grant requires thinking through all the stages, planning for the interview even as you’re writing it, and approaching the process with the right strategy from the outset. This is what sets successful applicants apart from the rest.

​

Maximise Your Chances of Success

Before we start, consider dropping me an email about your idea—let’s see if I can help. Whether it’s a quick review of your B1 or full support leading to a winning ERC grant, I’ve worked with many successful applicants. I’m happy to have a free initial chat and offer some pointers. You can find my email and testimonials from past ERC awardees on my website. Many people seek my help for the interview stage, which is great—but it’s far easier to apply winning strategies during the application process rather than patching gaps in B2 later. As Laura Grestenberger, a recent ERC CoG applicant said in her public feedback: I wholeheartedly recommend working with Simon if you’re planning on submitting a larger grant proposal (or any grant proposal!), but maybe learn from my mistakes and contact him a bit earlier than two weeks before the deadline :)

​

5 Proven Tips for a Winning ERC Grant

Here are five crucial tips to help you get ahead in your ERC application journey. Stay tuned—I’ll be sharing five more next week!

1. A Well-Written Proposal Can Secure Your Top Ranking Before the Interview

It’s easy to think the hardest part of an ERC application is the interview. After all, standing before a panel and defending your research in 25–30 minutes is no small feat. However, your written proposal—B1 and B2, which together span 19 pages—is your real opportunity to convince reviewers. A strong written application can put you at the top of the ranking before you even step into the interview room. Use this to your advantage by crafting a proposal that leaves no doubts about the excellence of your project.

2. Get Hold of Successful Proposals—As Many As Possible

One of the most valuable resources you can have is access to successful ERC proposals. While your university may maintain a repository, it’s rarely enough. The format has remained largely unchanged for years, so even older proposals (6–8 years) can provide invaluable insights. Leverage your network—most researchers are willing to share their proposals if asked. Those who have access to a wealth of examples have a clear edge. These contacts can also be invaluable later for mock interviews or proposal reviews. So step out of your comfort zone and start reaching out!

3. Start With B2, Not B1

It may seem logical to start with B1—the section that outlines the big picture. But that’s a false sense of security. If you haven’t tackled the detailed work required in B2, your B1 will lack conviction. Instead, start with B2, focusing on the knowledge gap and methodology. Give yourself a page limit (e.g., 10 pages) to start, and write with a level of detail that almost makes you uncomfortable. You can always refine later, but this approach forces you to confront critical questions early. Once B2 is solid, writing B1 will be far easier.

4. Don’t Postpone the Budget—Tackle It Early

Many applicants leave the budget to the last minute, but this is a mistake. Thinking through your budget early—how many PhDs and postdocs you need, when they should start and finish, materials, travel, and other costs—will make your proposal stronger. A well-structured budget also improves your relationship with the Research Office, ensuring a smoother submission process.

5. Build a Strong Relationship With Your Research Office

Your Research Office is one of your greatest assets in the ERC application process. If you leave your budget to the last minute, you risk frustrating them. But if you engage early and make their job easier, they will reciprocate with invaluable support and feedback. Many research officers have had successful research careers themselves or have dedicated their expertise to facilitating others' success. If they take an interest in your work, acknowledge their efforts—perhaps even invite them for lunch. Involve them in discussions and seek their advice. Their insights can make a real difference.

 

Well, How Long Does It Take?

It depends on how developed your idea is, your teaching load, caring responsibilities, and other commitments. But let’s be clear: anything less than three months is a joke. Most people end up working on their application for 6–9 months. And remember, it’s not just about writing—it’s the thinking, exploration, and constant tweaking that make the difference.

​

​

Winning the ERC Starting Grant Interview – What Successful Applicants Did Differently (And a Bonus Tip You Might Hate!)

​

The ERC Starting Grant interview is the final hurdle between you and up to €1.5 million in funding—an opportunity that can define your research career. With a panel of top experts scrutinizing your project and your ability to lead it, this high-stakes conversation is about more than just defending your proposal. In the last round, I saw Dr Tim Bodt and the amazing Lo-Rig project through to the end. Based on this, and numerous other successful (and unsuccessful) ERC Interviews, I've decided to write down what I think you should focus on to make it through.

​

1. Work with people who have a proven track record

Granted, I kind of have to say this; after all, this is what I do for a living. But I genuinely believe working with someone who has guided multiple ERC candidates to success gives you a critical advantage. First, they have seen the patterns—what successful applicants do well, the common pitfalls, and how panels tend to challenge proposals. Second, they bring an external perspective, helping you identify weaknesses or blind spots that you might overlook after working on your project for so long. Finally, experience also means knowing how much work goes into preparing for the interview. You need someone who has the capacity and time to dedicate to your preparation—because rushed or superficial feedback won’t get you across the finish line and makes for an unnecessarily stressful preparation period.

​

2. Prepare a list of potential questions and brainstorm potential answers

 

• Brainstorming answers is the real preparation – Many candidates focus on listing possible questions but neglect the crucial step of working through their answers. The goal isn’t to script responses but to think through key arguments, anticipate challenges, and refine clarity.

• Practice delivering short and concise answers - The panel may have something like 5-10 questions (based on the expert reviews) and you need to make sure you give yourself an opportunity to answer them all. Practicing quality answers delivered in less than 2 minutes is hard. Really hard and my experience from both successful and unsuccessful candidates is that this is where you need honest and critical feedback about what to cut in the answer.

• Be systematic: write down answer components, don’t just keep them in your head – It’s easy to think you’ll remember your answers, but that’s an illusion. I’ve had great success with applicants using a spreadsheet to jot down key points for each question. This allows you to refine answers over time and revisit them systematically rather than relying on memory.

• Keep your question list realistic—30 is the limit – More than 30 questions become unmanageable. You won’t have time to properly work through them, and you won’t remember your responses under pressure. Focus on quality over quantity, prioritising the most likely and most challenging questions.

​

3. Pace yourself: Preparing smartly to avoid burnout and proposal fatigue

 

• Think like an athlete—training for peak performance, not exhaustion – Olympians don’t train at full intensity every day; they strategically build up, peak at the right time, and allow for recovery. Preparing for an ERC interview is no different. If you push too hard too soon, you risk burning out before the interview. Structure your preparation so you gradually refine your answers, rather than cramming everything in the final weeks.

• Be realistic about your other commitments – Most applicants have ongoing research, teaching, or personal responsibilities, and trying to prepare as if the interview is your only focus will only lead to stress. With three months (sometimes more) between invitation and interview, map out a plan that balances preparation with your workload. A well-paced approach ensures you stay sharp and confident on the day, rather than exhausted and frustrated.

​

4. Scrutinise your proposal: identify weaknesses before the panel does

Scrutinising your proposal with fresh eyes is one of the best ways to anticipate the panel’s toughest questions. Print it out with 4 cm margins on the left, put your phone away, and go somewhere nice—away from distractions. With a good old-fashioned pen, highlight weaknesses, tricky areas, and anything that might invite critique. Enjoy being the dreaded Reviewer 2 (if you know, you know). Then, ask colleagues to do the same, but be strategic—don’t just ask for generic feedback, ask them for specific questions. Many won’t have time to read your entire proposal in detail, but they might be happy to fire off a few challenging questions if you make it easy for them. If you don’t ask, you don’t get—and the worst they can say is no.

​

5. One mock isn’t enough: why you need at least 2–3 practice panels

Mock interviews are invaluable, but spacing them out is just as important as having them in the first place. Each mock should be followed by time to process the feedback, refine your answers, and implement improvements before the next round. There’s no point in cramming back-to-back mocks if you don’t have time to adjust in between. And don’t schedule the final one too close to the real thing—if you do, make sure it’s with people who will only say nice things to boost your confidence!

When assembling your mock panels, variety is key. The real ERC final will comprise researchers who won't have a clue about what you're on to (and maybe won't care that much). So get researchers from different backgrounds who can challenge your clarity and argumentation, but also ensure you have a good handful of ERC grantees in the mix. Even if they’re not in your field, they’ve been through the process and know exactly what it feels like to be in the hot seat. They can evaluate how you handle questions better than anyone—probably even better than me!

While formal mocks are useful and important, it's also vital that you engage your networks in 'informal grilling'. Presenting questions and answers to one or two friends and colleagues and hearing their assessment of your answer provides an invaluable feedback loop. Based on their feedback, you can have them reiterate the question and try out an improved answer structure. Do that regularly and you'll see a massive improvement in your quality of answers.

​

6. Set yourself up for success: eliminate stress factors before the big day

The ERC Starting Grant interview can be career-defining, so it’s worth creating the best possible conditions for success. The day before, remove all unnecessary stress—make sure your workspace is tidy, your WiFi is reliable, and you won’t be distracted by last-minute logistics. If you have caring responsibilities, consider staying in a hotel for the night to ensure uninterrupted rest and a calm, focused morning. It may seem extreme, but being well-rested and stress-free can make all the difference in how you perform.

​

BONUS: A risky move? Why overpreparing your presentation could hurt your interview

This might feel counterintuitive—after all, a polished presentation seems like the best way to make a strong first impression. However, the real danger is that overpreparing the presentation can give a false sense of security, while leaving the candidate underprepared for the real test: thinking on their feet, handling unexpected questions, and defending their project with confidence. In some panels, the presentation is as short as three minutes—just enough to remind the panel which proposal is coming up next. Of course, you need to clearly convey the high-reward elements of your project, but refining your slides from 80% good to 99% good takes up far too much time for too little gain.

Preparing for the questions, on the other hand, is much harder and more frustrating—it requires you to confront weaknesses, articulate complex ideas under pressure, and stay composed in the face of tough critique. But ultimately, it’s this ability—not a perfect presentation—that will win you the grant.

​

Conclusion (and good luck if you are interviewing!)

Preparing for an ERC interview is challenging, but you don’t have to do it alone. I have helped applicants across all ERC schemes—Starting, Consolidator, and Advanced Grants—refine their arguments, tackle tough questions, and enter the interview room with confidence. Together, we will lay down a plan for making your perform at your best on the day.

If you want to hear how I’ve supported successful candidates and how I can help you, get in touch. And don’t forget to check my website to see how others have benefited from working with me.

 

Good luck!

Best wishes, Simon

​

Written for Professors: How to Approach the ERC Advanced Grant

​

If you're even considering an ERC Advanced Grant, you're already in rarefied company. You’ve built a career, led projects, supervised PhDs, sat on panels. But the ERC Advanced Grant isn’t just another feather in the cap; it’s an opportunity to reshape your field.

So how do you approach it when you're already established? How do you tap into the ambition required to win up to €2.5 million (or even €3.5 million), especially when you’re used to doing more with less?

Most ERC advice is geared toward early career researchers—but this article is specifically for established scholars thinking about the Advanced Grant. It speaks to the challenges of coming up with a high-risk, high-reward idea when you already know the field inside out—and the opportunity to lead a research agenda at scale.

 

1. How to think differently when you already know the field inside out

By now, your knowledge of your field is likely second nature—but that can make it harder to imagine something radically new. High-risk, high-gain ideas don’t always come from blue-sky thinking. They often emerge from frustration: what feels stuck, stale, taken for granted?

Use your authority not to reinforce what’s already there but to break it open. What if you could upend the questions everyone’s asking? What if you could build the tools your field doesn’t yet have the language for?

​

2. This is your chance to build a team around your big agenda

You’re not applying to do just another project; you’re applying to direct a major research agenda. That means curating a team, mentoring the next generation, and having the time and headspace to think deeply again.

This is the grant that allows you to design the intellectual environment you want to work in, with the kind of postdocs and PhDs who are ready to help shape the field’s future with you. It’s not just about what you want to research; it’s about what you want to lead.

​

3. The competition is you—from five years ago

The bar hasn’t dropped because you’ve got tenure or an impressive CV. If anything, the competition is sharper. The ERC evaluates proposals, not reputations. Many of the people you’re up against are treating this like a once-in-a-career shot, and it shows.

To be competitive, you need the same commitment to clarity, polish, and boldness. Start early. Get feedback from people who will push you. Leave nothing to chance.

​

What does that mean for my approach to the application?

You need to come up with an idea that warrants a whopping €2.5 million (or up to €3.5 million with major equipment). That means thinking bigger than you’re probably used to. It’s not about scaling up your last project; it’s about laying down a vision for what your field should look like five or ten years from now.

Start early. As I wrote in my previous article, a project of this scale requires serious thinking time. The writing is only half of it; it’s the intellectual architecture that takes the most energy. If you’re considering applying this year, now is the perfect time to start: the teaching load is easing, and summer offers rare space to focus.

Don’t approach it vastly differently from any other ERC grant. Focus on the knowledge gap, the methodological clarity, and—above all—the transformative potential. Don’t let the scale distract you from the fundamentals that make ERC applications successful.

​

Common pitfalls that are unique to the Advanced Grant

 

1. Not embracing high-risk/high-gain. Many Advanced applicants have a clear idea of the project they want to do—and that’s often the problem. The ERC rewards intellectual flexibility and boldness. Reviewers can sense when a proposal is too safe, too rehearsed. Be prepared to stretch beyond your comfort zone. Add layers, angles, or collaborations that push you. Embrace the discomfort; it’s usually where the magic happens.

2. Underestimating the challenge. Too many senior scholars assume their track record will carry them. But your competitors—especially younger researchers—are treating this as career-defining. They’re willing to go all in. If you’re a professor, chances are you’re already well-respected, secure, and busy. But ask yourself: Why do you want this grant? That’s the question I ask when I coach Advanced Grant applicants. Are you in it to leave a legacy? To take one last big intellectual risk? To create something you couldn’t have dreamed of ten years ago?

3. Only bringing in support at the interview stage. The ERC Advanced Grant interview is undoubtedly challenging; however, it’s much easier if you've already anticipated potential critiques and addressed them in your written application, particularly in B2. This is where my experience comes in—I've seen and heard nearly every question you could imagine. Rather than waiting until the interview to be grilled, it’s far better to build insights and responses into your application from the start. Bringing in support earlier, whether from me or others, ensures your proposal is robust enough to withstand scrutiny. Many Research Offices will allocate a budget for extra support at the interview stage, but to truly make the interview smoother, you need that help earlier in the application process. Taking the time to get feedback and refine your application before the interview will make your performance much stronger when the time comes.

​

Work Packages: Grant building one package at a time

​

Work packages (WPs) are everywhere. And this is even despite very few funders explicitly ask for them. Furthermore, despite their prevalence, it’s surprisingly difficult to find anything substantial written about them. What are they, why do we need them and what differentiates good WPs from those that just quite frankly don't make any sense at all?

There’s an odd silence in formal literature—no authoritative guidebooks, no scholarly discussions unpacking what a well-crafted work package actually looks like in a context of a grant application in a broad sense. For myself, my knowledge came from doing it over and over again, honing an intuitive skill rather than applying explicit rules.

​

What are work packages and why do we need them?

What confuse most people is that structuring a project into work packages isn’t about neatly slicing your project into parts. Rather, it’s about making visible the deeper logic holding your project together. It’s where you show that your project is not just ambitious, but doable in the way you claim. That every research question has a method, and every method leads to insight. If anything floats, sinks, or repeats, it’s a sign to revise—not to simplify, but to clarify.

In high-brow terms, work packages ensure epistemic coherence. Put more plainly, they make sure your methods, questions, and outputs logically align and reinforce each other.

​

How to create work packages from scratch

 

1. Clarify your overarching research aim: Write down your central research question or goal clearly. Work packages only make sense when you know precisely what the whole project is intended to achieve. Keep this visible and continually refer back to it as you move forward.

2. Break your project down into smaller questions: Ask yourself: “What smaller questions or steps must I answer or take in order to address the main aim?”. But don’t fall into the trap of choosing research questions simply because you already like them or have been thinking about them for a while. Instead, take a step back and ask: If I had to build this project from scratch, what would be the logical questions that follow from my overarching aim? It’s common to get attached to questions that are familiar or exciting, but the best proposals are structured around what the project needs to ask, not just what you want to ask.

3. Identify the method(s) required for each question For each smaller question you've identified, clearly specify the methods or approaches needed to answer it. Check that these methods match the questions logically—avoid overly ambitious or vague combinations.

4. Define your outputs clearly For each WP, decide what the specific outcomes (outputs) will be—articles, datasets, presentations, policy briefs. Clearly linking outputs to questions and methods helps ensure your WPs are coherent and feasible.

Sounds easy like that, doesn't it? :)

​

Use work packages as an internal stress test

Now that you've created the WP draft, the real work begins. If there are inconsistencies, you are faced with a choice; do you change the RQs to better fit with the overall aim or are the RQs genuinely the most important ones and thus, the project aim needs to change. Similarly, if you are set on the methodology being novel but it doesn't follow logically from the RQ, do you change the RQ (which then has repercussions further up into the aim). Here's how I think you should do that in practice:

 

• Check for floating questions: Review each WP critically to ensure every research question is genuinely answerable with your proposed methods. If a question seems disconnected from your methodology, reconsider its formulation, method, or even its place in your project. If a question floats freely, anchor it explicitly or remove it.

• Perform a redundancy audit: Map out tasks and methods clearly across your WPs to identify overlaps, repetitions, or gaps. Look for tasks that appear more than once without adding clear value. Redundancy signals unclear thinking—clarify how each WP contributes distinctively.

• Reflect on what’s missing: Step back and examine whether all your WPs collectively build towards answering your overarching research question. Consider if there are crucial sub-questions or complementary methodologies that might have naturally strengthened your project, but which are currently absent. Using your WP structure to notice what's not there can highlight important gaps and opportunities for refinement.

 

Conclusion

Despite everything I’ve outlined here, there’s no single formula for structuring work packages. What works in one proposal might fall flat in another. The right approach depends on your research design, your discipline, and the expectations of the funder. Some projects need tightly sequenced WPs; others benefit from parallel strands. Some call for detailed deliverables, others for open-ended exploration. Over the years, I’ve reviewed and supported hundreds of applications across a wide range of schemes, and I’ve seen just how differently strong proposals can look. If you’re working on a grant and want a clear, critical perspective on how to strengthen your WPs—or your application more broadly—I’d be glad to help you take it to the next level.

 

Good luck with whatever you are applying for :)