In recent months, in the Ukrainian Cluster Alliance (UCA), we have been talking a lot about the need for effective working groups (WG). This topic became especially relevant after graduation Clusters Project Management Excellence Program, where we have combined Agile Lean Leadership approaches with our practice of cluster and inter-organizational projects management.

One of UCA’s requirements for program graduates today sounds simple: Do not start a new complex project until a team is formed capable of implementing it. 

But there was an interesting problem. As soon as we say ‘Create a working group’, a significant part of the participants almost automatically continues: ‘To prepare the project’. And the word ‘project’ is very quickly transformed into an even narrower concept – ‘grant application’. That is, we are now following the algorithm: WG → Project → Grant.

This so-called communication is so firmly entrenched in our paradigms that we have almost stopped noticing it. This is a serious management trap in my opinion. Even after studying, it always sounds –Tell me, what projects should we prepare, according to what criteria?”, – and behind this is the same logic (paradigm) mentioned above.

However, the problem is not in grants. They were and remain an important source of cluster development, especially today in Ukraine. The problem arises when the grant project becomes the main and sometimes the only form of collective action. In this case: 

We do not notice or do not know how to realize the potential for cooperation in our community, no matter how significant it may be. 

And it is Problem 1.

Clusters do not exist for grants

In the new UCA Playbook «How to create collective value in clusters» We consciously move away from the interpretation of the cluster organization as a regular service organization, project bureau or development agency.

The main logic is wider: A cluster is an institution of collective action. Its role is to help independent organizations – companies, universities, experts, government agencies, service structures – to do together what they can not or can do much more difficult, longer, and even worse.

That is why in the operating model the mechanisms for creating collective value are not limited to projects. We are also talking about several key mechanisms such as networking and matchmaking, coordination of joint actions, exchange of knowledge, joint assets and services, expert work, internationalization, protection or promotion of interests (advocacy), innovative interaction – and, of course, joint projects. Moreover, during the training at the Cluster Management School and in the Playbook itself, we argue the various nuances of these mechanisms, which as a result show all the richness of the palette of different forms of interaction between the cluster members.

So a simple question arises: If these mechanisms of interaction are much wider than projects, why should working groups be created only for projects? – Obviously they shouldn’t.

A working group is not an appendix to the project

In the new UCA guide, we have already recorded another logic:

The working group is one of the basic units of any joint activity in the cluster.

it could be a project. But also – a service, event, analytical document, road map, B2B-mission, educational program, joint stand, expert position or technology pilot, etc.

Today, especially after studying using the ALL methodology (Agile Lean Leadership), we can formulate this even more:

The working group is not a tool for project preparation. This is the basic operating unit of effective cooperation and collective action of the cluster. The project is only one of the possible results of its work.

The traditional grant logic looks something like this:

The contest appeared → The idea arose → We write an application → Assemble the team → Looking for funding → Implementing.

In a healthy cluster ecosystem, the sequence should be different:

Shared problem or opportunity → Initiator → Group of interested actors → Trust and shared vision → Joint action → Result → Next cycle.

And one of the stages, the forms of such development can already be a grant project.

What can a WG give out in two months?

This question is quite practical for us today. In Clusters4Regions, we set a task for the new WG in two months to demonstrate the results of our work. Previously, a natural result was considered to be a project, or rather a project application for grant funding. And then – as lucky, or at best, it all comes down to managing the progress of the portfolio of projects in a different phase of readiness (Project Pipeline). But if we change the approach and say ‘in the beginning of WG’, it is necessary to change the criterion of effectiveness.

Moreover, the experience of the first wave of Clusters4Regions is significant – out of 13 prepared regional projects, none has yet received funding!

So, it is better to ask:

What collective value can WG create in 60 days?

Our experience gives very specific answers. APPAU conducted Brokerage Event Agrifood-2026 and created a number of direct results, deliverables – reports, portfolio of business challenges and warm leads, new program, etc. – without grant funding, Instead, due to the mechanics of the joint costs of the members themselves. The event simultaneously revealed significant gaps in market awareness of modern technologies. As a reaction the plan of the White Papers series appeared, and the first White Paper was prepared in just a few weeks.

Today, UCA organizes joint international missions to Warsaw, Dublin and Prague, and a series of Matchmaking sessions is being prepared with Czech clusters.

In Khmelnytsky, together with EDIH Kyiv Hitech and the Astar agency, the first was held Corporate mini-hackathon.

The new one itself Hyde ‘How to Create Effective Working Groups’ It is also the result of the work of several experts, which was not provided by the initial plan of Clusters4Regions, instead it was created to solve the real problem during training.

Another example is the Hackathon of the Heat and Power Cluster of Ukraine at the Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”y (KPI) in April 2026. It was not a grant project: the resource basis of the event was formed by members’ contributions and partnership with the university.

All these are examples of collective action. And they demonstrate an important thing: The source of funding and the availability of value are not the same thing.

From Project Pipeline to Collective Action Pipeline

Clusters are accustomed to showcase ‘conveyor’, ‘portfolio’ (Pipeline) projects: how many ideas, how many of them were turned into applications, how many were submitted, won, financed. That’s right. We at UCA for years have encouraged this approach.

But if we evaluate the viability of the cluster community only through the projective Pipeline, it is very easy to get into the ‘Project Bureau trap’.

Therefore, next to Project Pipeline We need a wider one Collective Action Pipeline:

Shared Challenges and Opportunities → Initiators → Working Groups → Quick Wins → Sustainable interaction mechanisms → Results → Outcomes → Scaling.

The projects are inside this stream, but do not exhaust it. A cluster organization can have at least 20 grant ideas and have almost no real effective WG, actual interaction between members of the cluster.

The cluster can have only 3 applications, but at the same time 7 active WGs, regular B2B sessions, international initiatives, expert group, training program, new service and several business pilots.

Which of these clusters is stronger? – The answer is obvious.

WG translates intent into action

We can talk endlessly about internationalization, collaboration with universities, export or innovative search for partners (Matchmaking). But as long as there are no specific people who have taken responsibility and act together regularly, it’s just intentions.

It is the WG that translates the intention into collective action:

• Networking can either remain a one-time conference – or turn into a regular selection of partners (Matchmaking) with professional support (Follow-up);
• Internationalization can be just a trip to an exhibition – or the work of a team that selects markets, prepares companies, organizes B2B cooperation and brings contacts to agreements ;
• The analyst may remain a conversation ‘We need research’ – or expert WG will publish a ‘White Paper’ in a few weeks, an official or informational document that describes in detail a particular problem, technology or product and suggests ways to solve it. And will create a basis for greater research and iterative self-improvement ;.
• Innovations can remain a word in the strategy – or WG companies, the university and technology experts will launch a specific pilot.

Who pays for it?

The second dangerous formula for grant-dependent thinking:

No grant → No budget → No activity.

In fact, collective action can have different resource models: participants’ contributions, (in-kind), joint cost, direct business financing, partnership financing of local or regional authorities, commercial income, investment, etc. And, of course, donor funds.

The willingness of participants to contribute their own resource is an important signal co-ownership of the result.

If 3-5 experts invest time in White Paper, companies co-finance the B2B mission, the university provides a platform, and business takes over the organization – it already shows real interest.

Hence the important principle: 

External funding does not create co-ownership. But it should scale the Ownership, which It has already arisen.

This understanding is important – in the Playbook ED-APM we pay a lot of attention to the issue ‘Who will be the co-owner of long-term consequences (Outcomes)” Because without this understanding and definition during the project there will be no outcomes (higher order consequences).

A small victory at first – a big project later

When we assemble 5 or 7 organizations, it’s not a team yet. The ability to act together arises through practice: the group takes a small obligations, connection, agrees, distributes roles, contributes, makes, shows the result, conducts a retrospective – and takes a more difficult task.

This is how quick wins are born and trust is built. A good result of the first 60 days is not necessary at all. Definitely a grant of € 500,000. Much more important may be the first thing in common that participants can say:

‘We agreed – and we did it.’

After several cycles, the chance to successfully implement a large project will be much higher.

Here is one of the latest examples. On July 15, the AgriFood brokerage event highlighted the low level of awareness of the company’s market with a number of modern technologies. Already at the event itself, the thesis was said that EDIH Kyiv Hitech partners need to significantly enhance market education activities. and already in early August Draft version of the White Paper about mes/mom system created by 3 experts of the consortium. This Quick Win is the basis for WG expansion. 

Projects consume capacity. WG create that

Good proof is GDT Textile – one of the most sustainable projects of UCA in recent years.

In fact, several small groups worked within it: on methodology and surveys, on analytics, market involvement, organization and logistics. In parallel, sprints, backlog, constant backwards were usedMarket communication, adaptation of plans and retrospectives – what we later systematized in ED-APM.

In four months, this system gave a whole chain of results:

Research → Analytics → Business cases → Brokerage → Business solutions → Industry road map → First commercial deals → New initiatives.

A strong team did not just complete one project. It has created a capacity for subsequent cycles.

Hence an important addition to our operating model:

The minimum operating unit of cluster capacity is not a project, but an effective working group.

This is not about the number of WG. Ten ‘dead’ groups in Telegram do not create any value. The question is different:

How many groups are able to regularly turn a common interest into a common result?

What to measure then?

To assess the effectiveness of WG, we see three levels.

Capacity: Is there a stable kernel of the team, a regular rhythm of work, a real obligation connection of participants and contribution of own resources.

Collective action: Which Quick Wins and Outputs are created – B2B, analytics, pilots, services, events, training products, international partnerships.

Outcomes: What has really changed – new projects, contracts, partnerships, investments, services, behavior of participants, value chains or policies.

These criteria should become the basis for the evaluation of WG in our competition in early October.

A new question to our teams

So, we are actually changing the agenda set for graduates of the program and cluster teams. Now the wrong question is:

“Which grant project will you prepare in two months?”

And the right one is:

‘What collective value will your work group create in two months?’

For one WG, the answer will be a quality project application. For another – Brokerage Event with proven B2B Follow-up. For the third – White Paper. For the fourth – a new service. For the fifth – a technology pilot or trained international mission. All these results and their combination can be correct – it all depends on the context and framework of the chosen market issues and the organization of the WG itself.

So our final formula today is:

Not every working group should end with a grant project. But each effective working group must complete each of its cycles with the creation of the tested collective value.

WG itself is also not a result. The result occurs when several independent organizations have learned together to turn intent into action, and action into value.

If we want to have strong clusters, it is the ability to systematically create such commands that can be one of the best indicators of their real maturity.

First, the ability to act together. Then – the scale.
First – the team, then – the project. And this project does not always have to be a grant.