A Personal Reality Check
Over the past three months, we have worked with eight companies that had nearly lost hope in securing grants after having bad experiences with funding consultants. We successfully helped them submit winning applications. However, at least as many companies never even reach us because they have been burned by failed applications to such an extent that they either no longer consider working with consultants or have written off grants as a financing tool altogether.
This is not an isolated case – it is a structural problem.
Why This Is a Problem – Not Just for These Companies, but for the Entire Innovation Landscape
Grants are one of the most crucial sources of capital for deep tech startups and SMEs. They enable companies to develop groundbreaking technologies, advance high-risk research projects, and bring innovations to market that would otherwise never receive funding. However, when these funds are misused, the result is not progress, but the opposite: innovation bottlenecks, failed projects, and a gradual loss of trust in the entire grant system.
We see this time and again: Companies with excellent ideas that should be eligible for funding abandon the process entirely after a bad experience. They have invested time, money, and resources into an application that was rejected due to technical flaws or a lack of scientific substance. The consequence? Instead of refining their approach with a better strategy, they lose faith in the entire system.
But This Problem Extends Beyond Individual Companies
When innovative firms stop applying for grants after one failed attempt, the consequences extend far beyond their own business. Potentially groundbreaking technologies are never developed, promising research projects remain unrealized, and, in the long run, society as a whole loses out on critical technological advancements.
The real issue is not the grant system itself – but the way it is often approached incorrectly. Grants are not a guaranteed source of funding, but rather a strategic financing instrument that requires a deep understanding of scientific, regulatory, and economic factors. Those who treat grant applications as a mere financial aid program without considering the technological and market realities not only increase rejection rates but also damage trust in the system as a whole.
This issue affects all of us – companies, funding institutions, and consultants alike. The key question is: How can we ensure that grants are used as they were intended – as a powerful financial instrument to drive real innovation?
The Challenge: How Poor Grant Consulting Harms the Entire Market
Companies Lose Trust
A rejected grant application can cost more than just financial resources—it can change an entire company’s mindset about grants. When a business experiences a failed application, it often assumes that the problem lies within itself, rather than recognizing that the failure may have been due to poorly prepared proposals. The result? Companies begin to avoid grants altogether.
We hear the same concerns repeatedly in conversations with clients and stakeholders:
“Grants are not worth the effort.”
“Only large corporations or well-connected companies get funded.”
“The application process is too complicated.”
-> nothing is more far away from the truth.
These beliefs do not arise without reason. Companies that have received poor grant consulting often experience unnecessary rejections—whether due to insufficient scientific justification, flawed cost calculations, or unrealistic project timelines. As a result, they withdraw from the grant system entirely and seek alternative financing, even when grants would have been an ideal solution for their innovation projects.
This is not just a problem for individual businesses—it weakens the entire innovation ecosystem. If the very companies developing transformative technologies withdraw from the grant landscape, valuable potential is lost.
Funding Agencies Become More Skeptical & Tighten Their Criteria
Another issue is that some applicants may perceive grants as easily accessible funding rather than as a strategic tool for technological development, which can lead to poorly structured applications. The potential long-term consequence? Granting institutions may become more skeptical and tighten their selection criteria.
When agencies are flooded with poorly structured applications that lack realistic planning or solid technological reasoning, it increases their workload. Reviewers become stricter, application requirements become more detailed, and approval hurdles get higher—even for companies that would otherwise be perfectly eligible for funding.
While causality is difficult to establish, some industry experts have observed that increasing submission volumes, higher rejection rates, and growing complexity in grant programs may reflect a shift in funding dynamics.
If this pattern continues, the companies with the most transformative technologies may face increasing barriers in securing funding, while some consultants may not experience the same direct impact.
The Market Becomes Inefficient
One of the biggest challenges is that some consultants, who may not have specialized experience in deep tech grants, do not always align their application strategies with the specific expectations of funding bodies. Many suggest that it is enough to simply copy existing applications, tweak a few numbers, and apply standard economics / business administration principles.
This approach can increase the likelihood of rejection, especially when applications lack the detailed technical justifications required by funding agencies. - eM.
Grant applications are not copy-paste documents—they must be tailored to the technological and strategic specifics of a company. A deep tech startup follows completely different rules than a traditional SME in the manufacturing industry.
The Consequences: A Damaged System and Lost Opportunities
The challenge is that some consultants who take on a high volume of applications may exit the market after a series of unsuccessful attempts—leaving affected companies with lost time and resources. Companies that have relied on them lose not only time and money but often also trust in the entire grant system. Challenges in the grant application process can sometimes contribute to the perception that funding is bureaucratic and difficult to access.
And who ultimately pays the price? The companies with real, innovative projects.
If we want grants to remain a powerful instrument for technological development, we as an industry must actively work to change this narrative. This means moving away from short-term, low-quality consulting and toward a strategic, scientifically grounded grant acquisition approach that drives sustainable innovation.
Why Many Consultants Approach Grants the Wrong Way
Misconceptions That Reinforce the Problem
“Anyone can do grant consulting.” – Wrong!
Writing grant applications for Deep Tech is not just about financial spreadsheets—it requires a combination of scientific expertise, strategic planning, and market understanding.
A deep understanding of both business strategy and technological feasibility is critical in grant applications. Consultants who focus primarily on business planning may not always fully capture the scientific rigor that funding bodies expect.
“A business plan is enough.” – Wrong!
Funding agencies are not investors—they don’t want a startup pitch deck, but a deeply researched, scientifically and technologically sound justification for the project.
Many applications fail because consultants treat them like a VC pitch, instead of thoroughly highlighting the depth of the innovation.
“Speed is more important than quality.” – Wrong!
Copy-paste grant applications, where standard templates are superficially adapted, destroy approval rates.
A successful grant application requires precision—and, more importantly, a deep understanding of the technology.
What Companies Can Do to Avoid This Pitfall
Do Not See Grants as "Easy Money" – But as Strategic Capital
A common mistake is the belief that grants are simply an additional source of funding that can be "taken advantage of." However, this often leads to poorly planned projects or inefficient use of funding. Grants are not an end in themselves – they must fit into a company's development and financing strategy, not the other way around.
An application should not be submitted just because an attractive grant program is available, but because it is embedded in the company's long-term technology and growth strategy.
Those who want to successfully utilize grants must abandon the idea that it is simply about securing funds – it is about creating a well-structured financial architecture that strategically integrates public funding into the overall financing plan.
Choosing the Right Consultant Is Crucial
A good grant consultant is not just an expert in writing applications – they are a strategic partner who understands both the mechanics of funding and the technological substance of the project.
There are two key skills that a good consultant must have:
They must ask the right questions.
They must provide the right answers – or know how to handle what they do not know.
A consultant does not need to be an expert in every scientific discipline. However, they must be able to identify technological uncertainties, assess them correctly, and collaborate with subject matter experts if necessary. What matters is not whether they know everything – but whether they recognize what they do not know and how they compensate for this knowledge gap.
Questions a Good Consultant Should Ask and Be Able to Discuss:
How exactly can the technological feasibility be justified?
What scientific evidence or preliminary data is available?
What uncertainties still exist, and how can they be addressed in the application?
The consultant should be able to provide well-founded proposals for addressing these uncertainties.
Which scientific uncertainties need to be addressed in the application?
Are there any open research questions or unresolved technological challenges?
How does the scientific community evaluate the current state of the art?
Which aspects must be particularly well documented to be considered for funding?
What reality checks need to happen beforehand to ensure the project is eligible for funding?
Is the project ambitious but realistic?
Are there already initial prototypes, feasibility studies, or simulations?
Which external experts or scientific assessments could enhance credibility?
Many consultants only ask superficial questions such as "Is there a market?" or "What are the estimated development costs?" – but true eligibility for funding only arises when the scientific viability of a project is clearly demonstrated.
This is why companies should ensure that their consultant not only has general experience with grants but also a well-founded scientific mindset or access to the necessary expertise within their team. It is not just about being able to write grant applications – but about having the right people involved who can discuss the technology on equal footing with researchers and investors.
Building Scientifically Sound Grant Applications
Granting institutions expect more than just a compelling narrative – they want a solid technical argumentation proving that the project is based on a robust scientific foundation.
A successful application requires:
Detailed feasibility analyses – What experimental or theoretical evidence already exists?
Clearly defined milestones – What technological hurdles need to be overcome, and in what order?
A realistic financial architecture – How does the funding fit into the company's overall financing concept?
It is not only important whether a consultant has scientific expertise – but also how this expertise is incorporated into the application. Companies should not only ask whether their consultant understands science but who exactly from their team will be involved in the project and how they ensure that scientific arguments are correctly formulated.
If a consultant does not have a scientific background themselves, they should be demonstrably working with experts who can accurately assess and communicate the scientific core of a project. After all, funding institutions do not decide based on well-written phrases, but on technological substance.
How We Can Improve the System
Grants are a powerful tool that enable innovative companies to develop technologies that would otherwise be difficult to finance. However, this potential can only be fully realized if grants are used correctly—with a clear strategy, scientific depth, and a well-structured financial architecture.
Too often, grants are viewed as a quick source of capital, without being properly integrated into a company's long-term financial strategy. This not only leads to failed applications but also results in wasted resources—whether due to high costs for unqualified consultants or lost time and missed funding opportunities.
Why a Poor Grant Strategy Destroys Not Only Innovation but Also Capital
Every failed application is not just a missed funding opportunity but often also a direct financial burden. Companies invest significant amounts of money in consultants who promise successful applications—but if the grant is not awarded, these costs are irretrievably lost.
Lack of scientific depth in applications leads to rejections—even when the technology itself is eligible for funding.
Unrealistic financial and project plans can cause an application to be denied, which ties up capital and delays market entry.
Choosing the wrong consultant often means companies spend large sums on services that ultimately bring no return.
The problem is not just that these mistakes harm individual companies—they also cause funding institutions to become stricter, raising the requirements for all applicants and making it harder for truly innovative businesses to successfully obtain grants.
Good Consulting Goes Beyond Writing Applications
A successful grant strategy is not just about well-written applications—it requires:
Long-term integration into the financial strategy – Grants are not an isolated funding source but must be aligned with other capital structures.
Deep understanding of the technology – Funding agencies expect applications to be scientifically sound and to address all relevant uncertainties.
Risk management – A well-thought-out funding strategy does not just consider approval likelihood but also alternative financing options in case of rejection.
Companies that approach grants with a traditional business mindset—relying on standardized business plans and a pure cost-benefit approach—not only risk application rejection but also inefficient capital allocation. Grants are not "free money"—they are a targeted investment in the future viability of a company.
Our Approach: Scientific, Strategic, and Results-Oriented
We firmly believe that grant applications are most effective when they are scientifically grounded, strategically integrated, and sustainably planned. Our approach ensures that companies do not just submit applications but work with a real chance of success.
Grants can take your company to the next level—when they are used strategically and with scientific precision. - eM.
Let’s talk about how you can optimize your innovation funding! 😊
Did you enjoy this article? Leave us a rating! ⭐
Maria & Arise Innovations Team
LinkedIn: Maria Ksenia Witte | Arise Innovations
Blog: Communications
Comments