Grant opportunity matching

An MVP, or minimum viable product, is the smallest version that your users can actually work with. It is not a cheap version of the full solution. It is a test, built to answer the questions that decide whether the rest is worth building.

1. Pick the riskiest assumption. Here: will university research support offices use it to solve "researchers miss suitable calls or pursue ineligible ones"?
2. Build only what tests it. One team, one use case, a few core modules. People do the rest by hand for now.
3. Run a paid pilot. Produce a small shortlist and ask the buyer to verify fit independently.
4. Measure, then decide. Track eligible match rate and useful opportunities. Then expand, change course or stop, with evidence instead of opinions.

MVP scope for this solution. 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. 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.

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

Pricing to test

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.

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.

Where to find buyers

Research administration networks

Lead magnet

A documented funding shortlist for one research group

The first 30 days

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

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 solution, 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.

Why clients would pick it

A maintained niche opportunity dataset and documented relevance feedback, supported by relationships with the intended buyer community. For this solution, 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.

Main delivery costs

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