How to develop a winning Erasmus+ project idea

Most Erasmus+ applications are not rejected because of poor writing or weak budgets. They are rejected because the project idea itself is not strong enough — it is too vague, too generic, not clearly grounded in a real need, or not differentiated from the thousands of similar proposals submitted in the same call.

A winning Erasmus+ project idea is not simply a good intention. It is a specific, justified response to a documented need — one that the right partners are uniquely positioned to address, through a clear set of activities that produce something genuinely useful for a defined target group. Developing that kind of idea takes structured thinking, not inspiration. This guide walks you through the framework step by step.

1. What Makes an Erasmus+ Project Idea Fundable

Erasmus+ evaluators are not looking for the most creative idea or the most ambitious vision. They are looking for evidence that a real problem exists, that the proposed approach is the right response, and that the consortium has the capacity and the positioning to deliver it. Fundability is about credibility and fit — not novelty.

A fundable project idea has four characteristics that distinguish it from an unfundable one:

It addresses a documented, not assumed, need. The need must exist in the real world and must be demonstrable — through data, research, policy documents or direct practitioner experience. An idea built on “we believe there is a problem” without evidence to back it up will score poorly on relevance regardless of how well-written the proposal is.

It has a clearly defined target group. “Youth” is not a target group. “Young people aged 15–24 who have dropped out of VET programmes in rural areas of Southern Europe” is. The more precisely you define who the project is for, the more credible your needs analysis, the more realistic your reach estimates, and the stronger your impact case becomes.

It produces something transferable. Erasmus+ funds projects that produce outputs others can use — not just activities that benefit the participants directly involved. The project idea must include a transferable deliverable: a curriculum, a methodology, a tool, a framework. If the project produces nothing that outlasts the grant period, it is not an Erasmus+ project idea — it is a local activity.

It requires a transnational partnership to be delivered. This is the most frequently overlooked test. If your project could be delivered by a single organisation in a single country, it does not require Erasmus+ funding. The transnational dimension must be genuinely necessary — because the problem exists across countries, because different partners contribute different expertise that is not available in one country alone, or because the comparative dimension strengthens the output.

2. The Five Elements of a Strong Project Idea

Before you write a single word of the application, your project idea must be able to answer five questions clearly and specifically. If you cannot answer all five, the idea is not ready to develop into a proposal.

1. What is the problem? State the challenge your project addresses in one or two sentences. It must be specific, documented and relevant to the Erasmus+ sector you are applying in. Avoid generalities — “improving education quality” or “supporting youth” are not problems, they are aspirations. A problem is: “Youth workers in Southern and Eastern Europe lack validated digital facilitation competences, limiting their ability to deliver effective remote youth work.”

2. Who is the target group? Define your primary target group — the people who will directly benefit from or participate in the project — and your secondary target group — the wider audience that will benefit from the project’s outputs after the grant ends. Both must be specific. The primary group should be reachable: you or your partners must have direct access to them.

3. What is the gap? Why does this problem persist despite existing solutions? What is missing — a specific competence, a validated methodology, an accessible tool, a cross-sectoral connection? The gap analysis is what justifies the project’s existence. If adequate solutions already exist and are accessible to your target group, the project has no gap to fill.

4. What is your approach? How will your project address the problem? What activities will you carry out, what outputs will you produce, and how will these translate into measurable change for the target group? The approach must be proportionate to the problem — a €200,000 project addressing a narrowly defined local issue, or a €30,000 project claiming to transform a sector, both raise credibility questions.

5. What is the added value? What does this project achieve that existing initiatives do not? Why does it require a European partnership? Why now? The added value question is what connects your idea to the Erasmus+ programme logic — and it is what evaluators look for when assessing whether the project justifies European funding.

3. The Idea Validation Framework

Before investing time in proposal development, run your project idea through this six-point validation framework. Each test is a question your idea must pass. If it fails two or more, the idea needs significant development before it is ready to become a proposal.

Test 1 — The evidence test. Can you cite at least two external sources — research, policy documents, sector reports or data — that document the problem your project addresses? If the answer is no, you either need to find the evidence or reconsider whether the problem is as significant as you believe.

Test 2 — The target group test. Can you name a specific, reachable group of people who will participate in or directly benefit from this project — and confirm that at least one partner has direct access to them in sufficient numbers? If the target group is vague or inaccessible, the project has no delivery mechanism.

Test 3 — The gap test. Search for existing Erasmus+ projects that have addressed a similar problem. If you find five funded projects that have already produced exactly what you are proposing, you need to either differentiate your approach significantly or reconsider the idea. If you find no prior work in this area, that is either a genuine gap or a signal that the problem is not considered a priority — find out which.

Test 4 — The transnational necessity test. Ask honestly: could this project be delivered by one organisation in one country? If yes, it does not require a transnational partnership and does not belong in Erasmus+. The transnational dimension must be genuinely necessary, not added to meet the eligibility requirement.

Test 5 — The output test. What specific, named output will this project produce that practitioners outside the consortium can use after the project ends? If you cannot name it clearly — “a 6-module training curriculum for youth workers on digital facilitation, published open-access in 3 languages” — the idea is not sufficiently developed.

Test 6 — The priority alignment test. Open the current Erasmus+ Programme Guide and identify the horizontal and sector-specific priorities for your Key Action. Does your project idea connect to at least two of them? Prioritised projects score higher on relevance. If your idea does not connect to any current priority, it is either ahead of its time or misaligned with the programme.

4. How to Connect Your Idea to EU Priorities

Every Erasmus+ call specifies horizontal priorities — themes that apply across all Key Actions and sectors — and sector-specific priorities that apply within each field. Projects that explicitly address these priorities score higher on the Relevance criterion. The connection must be genuine and demonstrable, not decorative.

The current Erasmus+ horizontal priorities include inclusion and diversity, digital transformation, environment and climate, and participation in democratic life. At least one of these should connect naturally to your project idea. If none do, consider whether your idea can be developed in a direction that incorporates one without distorting the core concept — but do not force a connection that does not exist, as evaluators recognise superficial priority alignment.

Beyond the programme priorities, connect your idea to EU-level policy frameworks that are relevant to your sector. The European Skills Agenda, the Digital Education Action Plan, the European Youth Strategy, the European Pillar of Social Rights — each of these provides a policy context that strengthens the case for European funding. Reference the specific document and the specific objective it sets that your project contributes to.

Do not reference EU policy documents generically — “our project contributes to the European Skills Agenda” is not a connection. “Our project directly addresses Priority 3 of the European Skills Agenda — improving the quality and supply of vocational education and training — by developing a validated upskilling curriculum for VET practitioners working with early school leavers” is a connection.

5. Weak vs Strong: Project Idea Comparison Table

The difference between a weak and a strong project idea is almost always a matter of specificity. The following table shows the same five elements expressed weakly and strongly — the contrast makes clear what evaluators are looking for in each case.

6. Idea Scope: KA210 vs KA220

One of the most common early mistakes in Erasmus+ idea development is mismatching the project idea with the wrong Key Action. Not every good idea belongs in KA220 — and not every small idea belongs in KA210. The scope, ambition and deliverable complexity of your idea should determine which Key Action you apply for.

KA210 is designed for focused, small-scale ideas — a specific challenge, a small partnership, a limited but concrete output, a shorter timeframe. A KA210 project that tries to address a broad sector-wide challenge, produce three major intellectual outputs and involve six partners will be judged as disproportionate to the lump sum available. The idea must fit the scale — and KA210’s scale is defined by its maximum grant of €60,000.

KA220 is designed for systemic, higher-impact ideas — ideas that require a larger partnership, more complex intellectual outputs, a longer development period and a credible reach beyond the consortium. A KA220 project built around a single modest output and a two-partner consortium will be seen as under-ambitious for the Key Action. The idea must justify the investment — and KA220 investments are significantly larger.

7. Most Common Idea Development Mistakes

Starting from the solution rather than the problem. “We want to develop an app for youth workers” is a solution looking for a problem. Strong project ideas start from a documented need and work forward to the most appropriate response. Starting from a solution means the needs analysis will be retrofitted — and evaluators recognise retrofitted needs analyses immediately.

Targeting everyone. A project for “all young people in Europe” has no credible delivery mechanism, no realistic reach estimate and no compelling needs analysis. The more broadly you define your target group, the weaker every subsequent section of the proposal becomes. Narrow the target group until it is specific enough to be genuinely reachable by your partnership.

Ignoring existing work. Proposing a project that duplicates work already funded and published on the Erasmus+ Results Platform signals either poor research or poor judgement. Search the Results Platform before finalising your idea. If similar projects exist, either differentiate your approach explicitly or build on the existing work — referencing it as a foundation strengthens rather than weakens your application.

Overpromising on impact. A 24-month KA220 project claiming it will “transform youth work practice across Europe” or “fundamentally change the VET landscape” will not be believed. Evaluators are experienced professionals who can assess realistic impact. Make specific, proportionate impact claims — “reach 2,000 practitioners through open-access publication in the first year” is credible; “transform European youth work” is not.

Developing the idea alone and then finding partners to fit. The best project ideas are developed collaboratively with the partners who will deliver them. Partners bring contextual knowledge about the problem in their country, access to the target group and methodological expertise that shapes the idea into something more robust and credible than one organisation can develop alone. Involve at least your core partners in idea development before the proposal is written.

8. Project Idea Checklist

• ✅ Problem statement is specific, documented and supported by at least 2 external sources
• ✅ Target group defined precisely — not “youth” or “educators” but a specific profile with age range, context and geography
• ✅ Gap analysis completed — existing solutions identified and their limitations explained
• ✅ Erasmus+ Results Platform searched — no directly duplicating funded projects without clear differentiation
• ✅ Approach is proportionate to the problem — not over- or under-ambitious for the Key Action
• ✅ At least one specific, named transferable output defined
• ✅ Transnational necessity test passed — project genuinely requires a European partnership to be delivered
• ✅ Idea connects to at least 2 current Erasmus+ priorities (horizontal or sector-specific)
• ✅ Connection to at least one EU-level policy framework made specifically — not generically
• ✅ Three-sentence summary written — problem/target group, approach/output, added value/EU dimension
• ✅ Key Action matched to project scope — KA210 for focused small-scale, KA220 for systemic higher-impact
• ✅ Core partners involved in idea development before proposal writing begins