Your work sits close to the early stages of building new research and innovation projects. What do you find most interesting about that?
What I find most interesting is that this is the stage where the direction is still open, and the decisions made early on can fundamentally shape what a project becomes. A strong research project is rarely just a good idea on paper; it also depends on the right framing, the right partners, the right timing, genuine scientific novelty, and a clear sense of why the work matters.
For me, a big part of the appeal is turning an early idea into something concrete and compelling: identifying the core research question, understanding how it fits into the wider scientific and funding landscape, and thinking carefully about what kind of consortium can realistically deliver meaningful results. That work requires both analytical depth and strategic perspective.
At the same time, this work also reveals some of the broader tensions that shape academic research. Good ideas do not automatically become funded projects, and even successful proposals take a long time to move from submission to implementation, which can reduce momentum. Funding call topics also have a major impact on the direction of academic research, which is not always unproblematic.
Overall, I see this early–stage work as one of the most creative parts of research. This is where you can connect disciplines, spot opportunities that others may overlook, and help build projects that are ambitious while still grounded in real needs. In that sense, proposal development is not separate from research; it is one of the places where future research agendas begin to take shape. In many ways, it also resembles entrepreneurship: you are shaping an idea, bringing the right people together, and building something with real potential to grow and create impact.