EP04 - Origin Story of UniPrisma: Why Co-Working Matters More Than Ever

Most origin stories look cleaner in hindsight than they felt in the moment. The origin of UniPrisma is not a dramatic pivot or a sudden epiphany. It is the result of two people looking at the same problem from different angles and realising that the industry needed a different model.

The early-stage venture ecosystem is full of ambition, research, and good intentions. It is also full of inefficiencies. Founders are under-supported. Universities are fragmented. Investors cannot see the context behind the deals they review. And almost everyone is forced to improvise more than they admit.

This is the environment where UniPrisma was born.

Founders Need More Than Advice

One of the most consistent problems we saw was that founders are expected to perform as if they already have a full team behind them. They are asked to fundraise, build the product, validate the market, manage the operations, and lead the company, all at the same time.

Advisors can give input.
Consultants can run a project.
But none of that replaces having someone who carries the weight with you.

Founders do not need more people telling them what to do.
They need people who will do it with them.

This was the first common point between us. Both of us had seen founders drowning in pressure that had little to do with their core mission. Many of them became fundraising-driven instead of customer-driven. That is a dangerous path. It may get you money, but it does not get you a sustainable company.

Co-building became the foundation of UniPrisma because it solves this imbalance. It gives founders a partner who takes responsibility, not only gives advice.

The Burden of Fundraising Is Real

Inside the transcript, we talked about something that rarely gets acknowledged publicly. Fundraising can become a full-time job. It is demanding, time-consuming, and unforgiving. Every hour invested in fundraising is an hour taken away from product development and customer validation.

The irony is that founders need to focus on the product to raise money.
But they need to raise money to work on the product.

This loop is what drains many early-stage teams.

At UniPrisma, we take a significant part of that burden off the founders. They are still part of the process, but they are no longer alone. We bring the structure, the investor logic, the network, the flow, and the discipline of moving through the pipeline. And more importantly, we bring clarity to the founders. They know where they stand, what to expect, and what must happen next.

This is not a theory. It is execution. It is making the process predictable, structured, and survivable.

Universities Are Doing Their Best

But they are doing it alone.

The university spinoff landscape in Europe is full of talent and groundbreaking research. The issue is not the ideas. The issue is the lack of alignment. Each university has its own processes, its own rules, its own understanding of what a venture should look like, and its own interpretation of how to collaborate with investors.

Some universities do this exceptionally well.
Others are still in the early stages of building their models.
The distance between the two is growing.

This fragmentation is a huge missed opportunity.

Researchers who try to become founders face a steep learning curve. Universities that want to commercialise their IP often lack the structures of venture building. The deal flow becomes inconsistent, and the ability to attract capital varies dramatically across the ecosystem.

In the transcript, we discussed exactly this. The absence of shared playbooks. The lack of data exchange. The fact that everyone is solving the same problem separately.

UniPrisma was designed to address this by creating alignment, shared tools, and shared expertise. It is not about changing universities. It is about giving them a platform to work more efficiently and collaboratively.

Complementary Expertise

The origin story also contains something very simple. A combination of two different backgrounds that clicked.

Thijmen came with deep experience in talent, operational execution, and understanding what founders need on the ground. He was already helping startups navigate the operational load that can overwhelm a team.

I came with venture capital experience and venture building experience. I understood fundraising, investor relations, deal structuring, and the logic behind how capital moves in early-stage venture ecosystems.

We met because he was helping a startup within the portfolio of the university venture capital firm where I was COO at the time. The first collaboration was not meant to create a company. But the overlap in thinking was obvious. We both believed that founders needed real partners, not just advisors.

Thijmen even pitched his idea for a venture studio without using the word venture studio. I was already working on spinning one out from the university fund. It was natural. Not forced. We saw the same problem and the same solution.

Why Co Building Works

Co-building is not a buzzword. It is a model where you share risk, responsibility, and outcome. It requires trust. It requires speed. It requires the ability to make decisions in an unstructured environment.

Founders can focus on the product.
We focus on the trajectory.
Together, we build a company that is fundable and market-ready.

Many VCs say they invest in teams. We take that literally. We build the team around the founders. We become part of the execution. We bring in experts for legal, finance, market intelligence, and go-to-market strategy. We ensure that the company does not get stuck in the early stage.

What Makes the Difference

The transcript captured one more important point. Early-stage success is often decided by the people around the founders, not only by the founders themselves. Talent matters. Mindset matters. Responsibility matters.

When Thijmen asked how our expertise connects, the answer was straightforward. We both deal with talent. He does it from the perspective of acquisition and operational support. I do it from the perspective of evaluating teams for investment and building the structure around them.

Talent is what drives early-stage success.
Not pitch decks.
Not spreadsheets.
People.

Ecosystem Building

UniPrisma does more than co-build startups. It builds layers of the ecosystem. We are creating a platform where universities can share knowledge and data. We are building relationships with investors who want real alignment. And we are building systems where founders do not have to choose between building and fundraising.

The goal is not to change the entire ecosystem directly. The goal is to give it a way to work better.

The Real Origin

No drama. No myth.
Just two people looking at reality without illusions.

Founders need hands-on co-builders.
Investors need context and alignment.
Universities need shared frameworks.
Europe needs stronger collaboration in deep tech and research-based innovation.

UniPrisma is the result of accepting that the current model is not enough.
So we built the model we wished existed.

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/

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 mergers and acquisitionsbut 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.