EP02 - What We Are Really Building With UniPrisma

When Karoly asked me on the podcast what we are doing at UniPrisma, the short answer was easy.

We co-build startups with founders and help them grow into scalable, investable companies. At the same time, we are building an ecosystem around universities so these companies do not die in PowerPoint or bureaucracy.

That is true. But it is not the full story.

To explain what we are really building, we have to start with the gap we kept seeing from two different angles.

The gap between research, founders, and capital

Karoly came from the university venture capital side. He built one of the first university VC funds in the region. He saw how much potential sits in European universities, and how fragmented that entire space is. Some universities spin out great companies and even run their own funds. Many others struggle to get even one commercial success out of years of research.

I came from a different corner. Hospitality first, then recruitment, then building HR and talent systems inside a Big Four firm, then my own recruitment and people business. I worked with startups and scaleups across Europe and kept seeing the same pattern: founders did not just need money, they needed hands-on, senior people who were willing to build with them, not just advise from the sidelines.   

By the time we met, both of us were frustrated with the same thing for different reasons.

• Early stage, often university-linked startups had very limited resources, both in cash and competence.

• Investors wanted exposure to deep tech and research-based innovation, but could not go hands-on at the level these companies needed.

• Everyone was trying to solve this in isolation. Each university, each fund, each startup is building its own mini model, with almost no shared data or shared playbooks.

The result is simple: in Europe, we leave a lot of value on the table.

Advice is not enough

There is no shortage of advice in this ecosystem. There are accelerators, mentors, consultants, and pitch trainers everywhere.

The problem is that advice does not ship product, close key hires, or structure a complex deep tech round. Founders do not need ten more opinions. They need people who will help them write the messages, build the processes, and join the calls.

That is why the idea of a venture studio model clicked for both of us.

A venture studio does not just invest. It co-builds. It shares risk, takes equity, and works with a limited number of companies in a very hands-on way. It brings in operators, not just partners, and it focuses on building the company around the founder, not the other way around. 

When we started to talk, it became clear that we were already thinking along the same lines. I had assembled a team around this idea before, without even calling it a venture studio. Karoly was spinning a similar concept out of his university VC platform. At some point, he joked that we had a choice: compete or collaborate.

For me, the answer was obvious.

If you want to fix a fragmented ecosystem, you do not add another island. You connect the ones that are already there.

What we actually do with founders

In simple terms, there are two big phases where we work with startups.

Phase 1: Before the investment

This is where we help founders become investable.

That word is often misunderstood. Investable is not about having the perfect pitch deck or the trendiest buzzwords. It is about reducing risk and increasing clarity for everyone around the table.

We help founders:

• Clarify their story and strategy. Not just the vision, but the realistic steps between today and the next 18 to 24 months.

• Get their structure in order: cap table, governance, documentation, basic financials.

• Build or complement the team so investors see real execution capacity, not just one heroic founder.

• Understand the logic and language of venture capital so they know why investors ask what they ask, and how power and incentives shift behind the scenes.

Many founders either ignore the VC logic or become obsessed with it. Both extremes are dangerous.

If you ignore it, you waste time in meetings you will never convert. If you obsess over it, you become a fundraising-driven company and forget that the real job is to build a business that customers pay for.

We bring the VC lens in, but we always connect it back to the market. The company is not built for the next round. It is built for the next real milestone in the market.

Phase 2: After the investment

Raising money is not the finish line. It is the starting gun.

Once a startup has raised, there is a different problem. There is suddenly more pressure, more stakeholders, and more chances to misallocate time and capital.

Here we help with:

• Translating the use of funds into an operating plan: who to hire, in what sequence, at what cost.

• Go to market strategy and first execution loops.

• Building the internal systems around HR, finance, and operations so the founder does not become the bottleneck.  

We take a lot of the heavy lifting around fundraising follow-up and investor relations, so founders can focus more on the product and the customer.

They still need to be at the center of investor conversations, of course. It is their company. But they do not need to manually reinvent the process for every single interaction. We bring in frameworks and momentum.

The right money versus any money

One thing we are very intentional about is the composition of the investor circle.

It is easy to say yes to the first term sheet. It is harder, but much more powerful, to assemble the right mix of investors around a round.

For example, in a medtech spinout, you might need:

• A specialist medtech fund that understands regulatory and clinical pathways.

• A network investor with strong hospital or clinic relationships in a key market.

• An investor who can provide access to lab infrastructure, equipment, or manufacturing.

• Maybe a family office that is mission-aligned and patient on timelines.

Put the right people around the table, and you increase the probability and speed of success. Pick the wrong mix, and you can slow everything down or create conflicting expectations that drain the team.

We work with founders to think through this composition early. It is not about delivering “a VC”. It is about building a circle that strengthens the whole story instead of fragmenting it.

For investors, this is attractive too. They end up in rounds with complementary partners who bring different strengths, rather than random co-investors who happened to be in the same deal flow list.

Our origin story in practice

The funny part is that our collaboration started with something very practical.

I was running my own headhunting firm, focused on building high-performing, value-driven teams. One of my clients was a startup in Karoly’s portfolio at his university VC firm. I came in to help with a senior hire. We worked well together. From there, we realized we saw the same systemic problem: early-stage companies needed co-builders, not just more introductions.   

I began to assemble a team and a model. I pitched it to several funds, including his. At the same time, he was already preparing to spin out a venture studio from the VC platform.

Instead of having two half-built studios competing in the same ecosystem, we decided to align our strengths.

He brought a deep understanding of the university VC landscape, fund design, and capital flows. I brought my background in building teams, recruitment, and human systems inside high-pressure environments. Together, we designed UniPrisma as an ecosystem, not a single entity.   

• A venture studio that co-builds with founders.

• A venture capital arm focused on deep tech with a human lens.

• A European university VC platform that connects funds, shares data, and aligns incentives.

Each part feeds the others. When one moves, the rest move with it.

Why universities are such an important piece

University-linked venture is one of the biggest underdeveloped opportunities in Europe.

There are already more than a hundred university-linked funds and well over a thousand tech transfer offices across the continent, all trying to commercialize research. Some do it extremely well. Many struggle. The differences in quality and outcome are huge and growing. 

The challenge is that most of them operate as silos.

• Data is not shared.

• Playbooks are not shared.

• Talent is not shared.

• Deal flow is rarely co-developed.

At a European level, that is a problem. It slows down deep tech, weakens our competitive position, and wastes public and private resources.

We are not trying to redesign academia or overhaul VC regulation. That is not our job.

What we can do is build a platform where university VCs, funds, and founders can:

• Share data and best practices.

• Learn from each other’s successes and mistakes.

• Collaborate on spinoffs, EIR programs, and ventures that cross borders.

• Co-invest in a structured, transparent way.

In other industries, change has often come from an external player who connects the dots that insiders do not have the time or incentive to connect. When it is done well, everyone later wonders why it did not exist earlier. It feels obvious in hindsight.

That is the role we want UniPrisma to play in this specific corner of venture.

Will this fix everything?

No.

Nothing will magically solve all the issues in European deep tech or university commercialization. Culture, regulation, mindset, and risk appetite all play a role.

What we can do is tilt the field.

If we can help create:

• More spinoffs that are truly investable, not just “nice projects”.

• Better conversion from research and patents into real companies.

• Stronger, more diverse investor circles around each deal.

• A European network where university VCs actually learn from each other and co-build,

Then we have already changed the game for a lot of founders, investors, and universities.   

Who this is for

We are building UniPrisma for three types of people.

1. The Authentic Investor

Investors and capital partners who are tired of bureaucracy, herd thinking, and surface-level ESG, and who care about real, long-term value. They want access to unique early-stage opportunities in deep tech and university ecosystems, but they also want to know that someone is actively co-building behind the scenes. 

2. The Builder Partner

Experienced founders and operators who have been through the chaos of startups and now want to build systems, not just give occasional advice. They want skin in the game, real co-building roles, and a culture without politics where their experience is respected. 

3. The Resilient Visionary

Founders, often with a university or deep tech angle, who have pushed through setbacks and still want to build something meaningful. They are looking for partners who understand both the human side and the system side of building, who do not just talk but work shoulder to shoulder when it matters most. 

If you recognize yourself in any of these, UniPrisma might be a good place to plug in.

In the end, it is about how we build

For me, this all comes back to how I was raised and how I learned to work.

Hospitality taught me that leadership is service and that every system is a human system first. Recruitment and corporate life taught me that people are the real infrastructure of any business. Venture building is simply where these lessons meet capital and innovation.     

At UniPrisma, we are not chasing hyper growth or the next hype cycle. I do not believe in that. It breaks people, and it breaks trust. We are here to build something that lasts, with people who care, at a pace that is sustainable and still ambitious.

We build systems that work because people care. The rest follows.

If you want to explore how you, your fund, or your startup might connect into what we are building, reach out.  The best way to understand this model is to step into it and start building together.

Timecode:

00:00 Introduction to UniPrisma

00:37 Identifying the Inefficiency Gap

01:30 Building Ecosystems for Startups

02:51 Making Startups Investment Ready

03:29 The Importance of Market Intelligence

08:15 The Origin Story of UniPrisma

14:29 The Role of Talent in Startup Success

15:39 Challenges in University Spin-offs

17:31 The Future of University Venture Capital

Links:

Uniprisma: https://uniprisma.com/

Meijer & Co.: https://meijerandco.com/

Personal Website: https://www.thijmenmeijer.com/

Transcript:

Karoly: What are we doing at UniPrisma, Thijmen?

Thijmen: Good question. So, I think that we are building co-building, actually startups together with the founders into more scalable and growth-focused opportunities. In a short answer. Next to that, we are also building ecosystems that help basically these startups also to grow, together with universities, and we built a platform around that. I would say that's in a nutshell what we are doing. Do you agree?

Karoly: Yes. Which brings us back to why we all started this, right? Because we, both you and me, recognized that there is an inefficiency gap indeed in building ventures and that's actually early-stage startups or spinoffs. Very limited resources, both financially, but as well as in competence. They require a lot of additional help to make the miracle happen. As opposed to just having consultants or advisors tell them what to do, they actually need a hands-on executive co-builders. Co-builders, exactly. Who can share the risk and also, you know, build it up shoulder to shoulder. That's what we are doing. Yeah.

Thijmen: Yeah, indeed. And also to bring in experts from the market regarding specific topics like legal and finance that we have already a very good experience with. Yeah. 

Karoly: And apart from that, what we got ourselves into is building layers of ecosystems above startups or, I don't know, maybe under them, I don't know, it doesn't matter which connects ecosystem players that are currently fragmented and hence, they're missing out on a huge opportunity, which is actually, as we identified, in the university venture capital sector or segment. All these universities are trying to spin off more and more innovative companies, research-based companies. There are different playbooks, but it seems like everybody's trying to do it on their own instead of, you know, pulling together, sharing playbooks, blueprints, data data is a big part of it and then later maybe even deal flow, investments, and so on.

Thijmen: And there are two steps in what we are doing next to the ecosystems. But we are helping startups in the beginning phase to make them investment ready, right? Investible. Yeah. And we have as well, after they have gotten investment, how to actually utilize those funds.

Karoly: Mm-hmm.

Thijmen: Where do you think that we excel the best in that specific segment?

Karoly: I would say there are many people out there who are doing a good job in advising startups, honestly. I think what's missing is the right combination of truly understanding the venture capital like how venture capital works. You, as a startup, you need to deeply understand the powers that are actually shifting behind the scenes because those powers have an immense impact on the fundraising and everything. So that's one part. And many startups can be good at this, but then the danger is that you become a fundraising-focused startup, which is a huge mistake because, yes, you may get funded, but then you don't focus on your clients, and eventually the whole goal would be to, you know, become a successful startup on the market. So I think what we excel at is that we bring in the venture capital logic and lingo and connections, and I would say compliance with the venture capital world, but also the market. So we bring in the market intelligence. And how do we do that, or why are we doing that? Is because we both have entrepreneurial backgrounds. So we know what it takes to build a company. And we also have the venture capital background. So when combined, we believe it's still not a dreamy, hazy dream like, "We're gonna fundraise for you" but it's actually building up the company to become successful on the market as well. Yeah.

Thijmen: Indeed. So that the founders actually can focus on the product and making it better, and that we are taking care of the next round fundraising, indeed, and co-building the rest around them.

Karoly: Yeah. Not to say that they are not involved in the fundraising or the market because, for sure, they have to be in the focus of the client and as well as the investor. But, yes, it's a lot of burden, a lot of very time-consuming work to fundraise. So we take that burden. And also, I think just by providing a framework around it, like to be able to explain that, gives confidence and some security for the founders that it's not just improvising from meeting to meeting, but, yeah, we know what we are doing, and eventually, we build it up step by step.

Thijmen: Yeah. And also finding the right investor as well. That says a lot, I think, for the specific areas, as a med tech or SaaS, or not just the general VC or investor, but really focused on that specific topic that actually can bring value as well on top of the funds.

Karoly: So in what ways do you think, what's the difference between delivering the right investor, or not delivering, but introducing, maybe engaging with the right investor, as opposed to having just a need investor?

Thijmen: Well, if the value is beyond just money, let's say, and then increasing the ROI, it's the win-win situation as well. So if the investor has already an ecosystem or has already a focused point on MedTech or on SaaS, or has already several SaaS companies in the portfolio, it would make sense to actually connect the specific MedTech founder to the MedTech VC to have a win-win situation and to generate that synergy.

Karoly: Hmm.

Thijmen: And not just in funding, but also in connecting the right markets and having the right opportunities and go-to-market strategy.

Karoly: Also, I think assembling the right circle of a group of investors into one deal that's another skill because the composition of like what type of investors because there could be several different types of investors in the same round, strengthening each other and the whole story. Or even sometimes it can be counterproductive and it's gonna slow down the process. So you need deep expertise. You need network investors who can do introductions or deliver on laboratory infrastructure, as you just mentioned.

So, yeah. Also, maybe we can go back to our origin story, like how we started and why we started. So, of course, if it was a movie from the seventies, the screen would split into two. And we would see Thijmen and Karoly doing their own thing, and then eventually the screen will be unified. So, what's your story before we met? How did you end up focusing on the Venture Studio model?

Thijmen: Yeah. It's indeed a funny story. I have my own headhunting firm, as you know. And one of my clients actually was a company, a startup, in your portfolio in OUVC. This is the first time we met, actually. And we are working with several other startups as well. And I realized that startups are not just looking for funds and investment, but also expertise, co-building facilities that help them to focus on their products. Think about M&A mergers and acquisitions but also think about marketing, legal, etcetera. I saw a lot of startups focusing only on fundraising, and they forgot about their own products. This is actually how I assembled a team, and I thought I would pitch this to several VCs. You were one of those. Due to personal circumstances, relocation, and other aspects, the team fell apart, but we got to know each other a bit more thorough, I would say, building up a relationship and to see where we could see synergies. I believe you were actually at the point to spin off the Venture Studio actually from the OUVC, and this would be a very good synergy actually to start with.

Karoly: Yeah, and I will explain mine. About two years ago, when I started to build up OUVC, which was the first university venture capital firm in the region, we started it with and we both agreed that this should be more than just a VC, it should be a venture studio and VC. And by that, we meant exactly the same that you just explained. So we also noticed that early-stage startups need a wider, stronger team, but they cannot afford the stronger team. So there should be some kind of collaboration model or business model that enables them to engage with very experienced people that cannot be paid from their budget. So from their perspective, that is a clear win. From a venture building perspective or an investment point of view, how do you actually invest and ensure that the milestones are met, the KPIs are hit? How do you actually make that happen? The only way is to actually support the startups very actively, like every day or every week. But can a venture capital firm do that? Usually not. They don't have the capacity. They also don't have the budget, as funny as it sounds. But they don't. So that's how Venture Studio comes into play because Venture Studio's model is actually selecting a few startups and then sharing equity, sharing risk, building it together.

Yeah, not so much before we met. I've been already working on spinning off the venture studio. Then you came and pitched me your idea, which was exactly a venture studio. And I still remember you asking me, "So are we going to compete now, or what?" And of course, we immediately started to explore ways of cooperation. And then taking the next step. I think for me, what was important is your character. I think it's very rare to find somebody who is always trying to find a solution, like not delaying it. Like, "Oh, yes, let's talk about it next week." You hear it very often. I hate next weeks. I like to make things happen today. And I think you are with the same mindset. And I think it's very important because we can have the same business vision, but if our personal approach is different, then there will be a misalignment and asymmetry, and then it doesn't work. Also, both of our mindsets or approaches are very much applicable in the early-stage startups, which is high speed, very quick decision-making, and speed, and flexibility to iterate.

Thijmen: Yeah. And you also don't mind to make your hands dirty, right? To roll up the sleeves and just go for it, basically. Helping with that pitch deck, helping with that outreach for the next investment round. Yeah, indeed. And how do you, because I basically pitched the Venture Studio to you without mentioning the word "venture studio," right? Even though, yeah, if it smells like, if it looks like a venture studio, it probably is. How do you see our expertise basically working together? Because your expertise is rather in the venture capital. Mine is rather into talent acquisition. How do you see us in this sense?

Karoly: So I think there is one sentence you might have heard a lot of times. Many VCs say that, or claim they live by it. It's true in early-stage investment: investors say, "We invest in the team." I think most of the times it's bullshit, but this is how it should be. And if we... And if you think about it, it's talent at the end of the day, and your expertise is in talent. And I would say the most important factor in the success of an early-stage startup is the talent and the mindset, the people head and shoulders above product or ideas, whatnot. So that's how I think your world and your expertise meets with mine, and they somehow become one, because I think we are dealing with the same material, but we are using different tools to work on it.

Thijmen: Yep, absolutely. So, just going back to the university platform and ecosystem, what we see a lot currently is that universities have troubles with spinning off basically startups and making them, yeah, more commercial, basically. And we also see a lot of misalignment in the researchers that want to become founders. How do you see the future of this, in the researchers becoming founders and the universities supporting them with the spinoffs, including with patents and IP that has been built up in the universities?

Karoly: I think this university venture capital market is extremely fragmented. And by that, I mean the entities involved in this sector are not really connected, or loosely connected, or regionally connected somewhere, or by chance. That's one thing. The other is because some of them are very successful. There are universities who are doing an outstanding job in spinning off successful startups, commercializing the research, and attracting venture capital, even attracting LPs to invest into their own venture capital firm.

So, there are many who are doing a great job, and there are even more who are not. And the problem with that is, there are many problems with that, but the market remains fragmented. The difference between the good and the mediocre will increase immensely. And that is actually, if you look at it on the European level, that's not good for Europe, not good for deep tech, not good for how competitive Europe can be in this race of research-based innovation. And so I think it's a common interest that we connect the dots. By that, I mean there should be a platform within this sector for university venture capitals where they can exchange data, share best practices, learn from each other, and then the next level will be to actually co-invest or co-build startups. Some of the universities have now venture studios. It's coming. It's a trend. So co-building is possible, and then entrepreneur-in-residency programs are popping up everywhere. If done right, again, it can provide a huge advantage. So, all in all, there is this fragmented market, huge differences, lack of data exchange, lot of, yeah, lack of working together on the same problem. So I think our mission would be to make that happen.

To say it in another way, what we don't want to do: we don't want to change the academic sector directly. We don't want to change the venture capital world directly. All we want to do is to give them a chance to work a lot more efficiently, to make that happen. And I think it cannot come from the inside of this world. It should come from the outside. As in, throughout history, many industry segments have experienced something similar that an entity came from the outside and sparked an innovative idea, and boom, it happened. And then after when it happened, you almost don't understand how it didn't happen earlier. It's so simple.

Thijmen: Yeah, indeed. Indeed. And then a provocative question: if we have fixed this, let's say, do you think that there will be more spinoffs, or is it also about European mindset? Like in the U.S., for instance, there's hyper-competition in this sense. Do you think that this would solve all issues, or?

Karoly: No, nothing will solve all issues, but it'll put us by us, I mean Europeans it'll put Europe in a lot better position to become stronger and more successful. Success is measured in many forms, right, even in this sector. But, yes, you mentioned the number of spinoffs. I think it's important. The amount of capital that spinoffs can attract is another KPI. Yeah. The amount of exit, the exit value, the amount of research, the conversion rate between patents and research into spinoffs that's another one. So, yeah.