Grant opportunity matching

Buyer

University research support offices

Problem

Researchers miss suitable calls or pursue ineligible ones.

Format

Transparent opportunity matching and shortlist platform

Also fits

Education; Executives and Strategy; Sales

USP

Eligibility and collaboration requirements are explicit alongside topic fit.

The product

Key screens: Funding watchlist, eligibility evidence, deadline calendar. Open with a filterable opportunity feed and clear fit explanations. Each profile shows source evidence, eligibility conditions and missing information. Keep saved, rejected and needs-review states. Include a deadline or next-action view without hiding the basis of recommendations. In this product, the first view is funding watchlist, followed by eligibility evidence and deadline calendar.

Core functionality

1. Match research themes.
2. Extract eligibility.
3. Compare institution constraints.
4. Identify partner requirements.
5. Track call revisions.
6. Save pursuit decisions.

Customer workflow

Define buyer-selected criteria, gather authorized opportunity information, apply explicit eligibility rules, propose matches with evidence, let the user review uncertain conditions, save a shortlist and track the resulting conversations or applications. Start with published funding calls and researcher-declared project profiles and finish with research funding shortlist.

AI and human review

Extract criteria, normalize opportunity descriptions and explain possible fit. Use explicit rules for hard requirements. Do not invent missing eligibility facts or represent a suggested match as a verified qualification.

What the customer puts in

Published funding calls and researcher-declared project profiles

What the customer gets

Research funding shortlist

Accounts and administration

Editable criteria, dated sources, eligibility evidence, missing-data flags, saved shortlists, rejection reasons, deadline alerts and owner follow-up.

MVP scope

Begin with university research support offices and one recurring use case. Build the first two modules: match research themes; extract eligibility. Provide operator assistance for the third module: compare institution constraints. Deliver research funding shortlist through a manual review queue. Perform other necessary full-scope functions manually during the pilot. Include all applicable access, accuracy and professional-review controls from the start.

After the MVP is validated

After paid pilots establish value, automate the remaining modules: identify partner requirements; track call revisions; save pursuit decisions. Add one validated source integration, reusable customer configuration and recurring delivery. Expand to additional teams, document formats or languages only after testing the new scope.

Build dependencies

Current source information, explicit eligibility rules, entity identity checks and inspectable fit reasoning. Sparse evidence limits match quality.

Integrations and data access

Authorized datasets, papers, protocols, code and research records. Permitted opportunity feeds, customer profiles, calendars and CRM exports. Keep initial outreach or applications as user-reviewed drafts. These are candidate integration categories, not verified supported connectors.

Defensibility

A maintained niche opportunity dataset and documented relevance feedback, supported by relationships with the intended buyer community. For this idea, build around eligibility and collaboration requirements are explicit alongside topic fit. This advantage requires execution and accumulated customer trust; the base model alone is not a defensible asset.

Alternatives and positioning

Manual research, directories, generic databases, referrals and existing opportunity marketplaces. Differentiate on this specific proposed advantage: eligibility and collaboration requirements are explicit alongside topic fit. Test it against the buyer's current method on the same task. Competitor coverage and uniqueness have not been established.

Revenue model and test pricing

Test USD 150-600 monthly for one narrow opportunity feed, or USD 750-2,500 for a bespoke researched shortlist. Price manual verification and custom research explicitly. These are pricing hypotheses.

Main delivery costs

Source collection, profile updates, entity resolution, eligibility verification, analyst research and customer feedback review.

Marketing message to test

Grant opportunity matching for university research support offices. Eligibility and collaboration requirements are explicit alongside topic fit. Demonstrate the claim through a documented funding shortlist for one research group.

Acquisition channels

Research administration networks

Lead magnet

A documented funding shortlist for one research group

The first 30 days of marketing

1. Week 1: interview five prospective buyers in this segment: university research support offices. Ask to see a recent example of the problem and their current process.
2. Week 2: prepare this demonstration using authorized or synthetic material: a documented funding shortlist for one research group.
3. Week 3: present it through research administration networks and seek one narrowly scoped paid pilot.
4. Week 4: review eligible match rate, useful opportunities, total delivery effort and a concrete renewal decision before increasing scope.

Paid pilot and validation

Produce a small shortlist and ask the buyer to verify fit independently. Record why each option is accepted or rejected and whether it leads to a useful next step. Review missed eligible options too. For this idea, use published funding calls and researcher-declared project profiles and evaluate research funding shortlist. Agree success thresholds with the buyer before starting; collect a baseline for eligible match rate, useful opportunities. A positive signal is payment and repeat use with acceptable quality and delivery cost, not a favorable demo reaction alone.

Success metrics

Eligible match rate, useful opportunities

Retention and expansion

Refresh opportunity profiles, improve criteria from accepted and rejected matches, and offer deeper verification for shortlisted options.

Operating controls and limitations

Preserve original data, methods, citations and research limitations. Use researcher review and document every substantive transformation. Validate source access and reviewer availability during the pilot. Maintain customer-level access, data deletion controls and a record of final approvals.

Investment indication

What it would take to build, from a first MVP to the full product. A planning range to start the conversation, not a quote. Running costs (model usage, hosting, reviewer hours) come on top.

Brand style (concept)