EIC Accelerator

Navigating the EIC Accelerator’s Evaluation Process: Challenges and Strategies for Success

by

The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator stands as a beacon of support for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) seeking funding. With a potential total financing of €17.5 million, comprising €2.5 million in grants and up to €15 million in equity financing, the EIC Accelerator is a lucrative opportunity for European innovators. However, navigating its complex evaluation process can be daunting. The Three-Step Evaluation Conundrum The EIC Accelerator’s evaluation process is divided into three distinct steps, each with its unique set of challenges. The first two steps involve a detailed written evaluation of the project, while the third and final step is a face-to-face or online interview. 1. Written Evaluation (Steps 1 and 2): These initial stages focus on the project’s technical and commercial viability. However, the limited interaction with evaluators and the reliance on written communication can lead to misunderstandings or underestimation of a project’s potential. 2. Face-to-Face Interview (Step 3): This stage introduces a new set of evaluators, often with a different focus and expertise from the initial reviewers. Here, the project’s commercial strategy and the team’s ability to execute it come under scrutiny. This shift in evaluation criteria can catch applicants off guard, leading to inconsistent outcomes compared to the written stages. Overcoming the Evaluation Hurdles Success in the EIC Accelerator’s evaluation process requires a strategic approach that addresses the nuances of each step: 1. Mastery of Written Communication: In the first two stages, clarity and conciseness in the proposal are crucial. Applicants should focus on articulating their technology’s uniqueness, market potential, and commercial strategies effectively. 2. Preparing for the Interview: Understanding that the interview stage will have a different focus is key. Applicants should be prepared to discuss their commercial strategy in depth and demonstrate a clear understanding of market dynamics. 3. Consistency Across Stages: Ensuring that the project presentation is consistent across all stages, yet adaptable to the focus of each evaluation step, is vital. This requires a deep understanding of the project and the ability to communicate its value proposition effectively in both written and verbal forms. Leveraging Expert Assistance For many applicants, navigating the EIC Accelerator’s evaluation process can be overwhelming. Seeking assistance from professional writers, consultants, and advisors familiar with the EIC Accelerator’s intricacies can be invaluable. These experts can provide guidance on tailoring the application to meet the specific criteria of each evaluation step and offer insights into the expectations of the evaluators and jury members. Conclusion The EIC Accelerator presents a significant opportunity for startups and SMEs in Europe. However, the complexity of its evaluation process cannot be underestimated. A strategic approach that addresses the unique challenges of each evaluation step, coupled with expert guidance, can enhance an applicant’s chances of success in this highly competitive arena.

The Misleading Comfort of Passing Step 1 in the EIC Accelerator: Bracing for the Rigors of Step 2

by

Introduction: Understanding the EIC Accelerator’s Step 1 and Its Implications For many startups and SMEs, passing Step 1 of the European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator application process can be a moment of significant accomplishment. However, this initial success may prove misleading as applicants progress to the more demanding Step 2. The transition from Step 1 to Step 2 involves a shift from a concise presentation of the business plan to a detailed and thorough analysis, which can significantly alter the evaluators’ perceptions of the project. Step 1: The Deceptive Simplicity Step 1 of the EIC Accelerator is designed to capture the evaluators’ interest with a short version of the business plan. It lacks detailed information on finances, work packages, and other critical aspects of the innovation project. The pitch deck in this step is condensed to a 10-slide document, which is not presented but read by the evaluators. The threshold for success in Step 1 is relatively low, as only 2 out of 4 (3 out of 4 since 2024) remote evaluators need to provide a favorable review for an applicant to proceed to Step 2​​. The Reality Check of Step 2 Step 2 presents a stark contrast to the preliminary stage. It requires a comprehensive business plan, composed almost entirely of text, with minimal visual data. Applicants must provide detailed answers to numerous questions covering value chain, product descriptions, technical backgrounds, market analyses, and commercial strategies. This stage is significantly more selective and labor-intensive, demanding a level of detail and depth not required in Step 1​​. The Risk of Misinterpretation The ease of passing Step 1 can lead applicants to overestimate their chances of success in the subsequent stages. This misconception arises from the fundamental differences in the depth and type of information required at each stage. While Step 1 focuses on engaging the evaluators’ interest with a broad overview, Step 2 scrutinizes the finer details of the project. The shift in expectations between these stages can result in a drastic reevaluation of the project’s viability and potential. Preparing for Step 2 To navigate this transition effectively, applicants should: Anticipate Increased Scrutiny: Understand that the evaluators in Step 2 will delve deeper into the project’s specifics, and prepare accordingly. Enhance Detail and Clarity: Ensure that the business plan for Step 2 is comprehensive, addressing all potential questions and concerns in detail. Seek Professional Assistance: Consider consulting with professionals experienced in EIC applications to refine the application for Step 2. Stay Realistic: Maintain realistic expectations about the chances of success, even after a positive outcome in Step 1. Conclusion: Navigating the EIC Accelerator with Caution Successfully passing Step 1 of the EIC Accelerator is an important milestone, but applicants must be wary of the challenges ahead in Step 2. Understanding the increased demands and preparing meticulously for the detailed scrutiny of Step 2 is crucial for maintaining the momentum gained in the initial stage.

Harnessing EIC Accelerator Training: A Cost-Effective Strategy for In-House Application Preparation

by

Embracing In-House Expertise for EIC Accelerator Applications In the quest for securing EIC Accelerator funding, startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) often face a daunting challenge: crafting a compelling application that meets the stringent criteria of the European Innovation Council (EIC). The process, intricate and demanding, typically involves navigating through complex grant proposal templates, developing a robust business plan, and convincingly presenting the innovation’s Unique Selling Points (USPs). Given the intricacies involved, many companies turn to external consultants, professional grant writers, or freelancers, incurring significant costs in the process. However, there’s a cost-effective alternative: EIC Accelerator training programs designed to empower companies to prepare applications in-house. These training programs are a boon for companies looking to reduce upfront fees associated with the application process while building internal expertise. The Advantages of EIC Accelerator Training Programs Cost-Effective: Training programs offer a more economical solution compared to hiring external consultants. They eliminate hefty consultancy fees, allowing companies to allocate resources more efficiently. Building Internal Expertise: By training in-house teams, companies develop a sustainable skill set that can be leveraged for future applications and other grant opportunities. Customized Approach: In-house preparation ensures that the application genuinely reflects the company’s vision and innovation, providing a personalized touch that external consultants might not capture. Enhanced Understanding of EIC Criteria: Training programs demystify the EIC’s expectations and evaluation criteria, enabling companies to tailor their applications more effectively. Control Over the Process: In-house preparation allows for greater control over the application timeline and content, enabling adjustments and refinements as needed. Implementing an Effective Training Strategy Selecting the Right Training Program: Choose a program that covers all aspects of the EIC Accelerator application process, including proposal writing, financial planning, and pitch preparation. Dedicated Team for Application Preparation: Allocate a team within the organization to undergo training and lead the application process. Continuous Learning and Adaptation: Encourage the team to stay updated on EIC updates and changes, ensuring the application remains aligned with the latest criteria. Leveraging EIC Resources: Utilize resources provided by the EIC, such as official templates, guidelines, and case studies, to supplement the training. Practical Application of Training: Apply the skills learned in training immediately to the preparation of the application, allowing for real-time learning and improvement. Conclusion EIC Accelerator training programs offer a strategic path for companies seeking to prepare their applications in-house. By investing in training, companies not only save on upfront fees but also build valuable internal expertise, increasing their chances of success in the highly competitive arena of EIC funding.

Demystifying EIC Accelerator Technology Readiness Levels in Pharmaceuticals: From Concept to Market

by

TRLs in Pharmaceutical Development: A Detailed Walkthrough In the realm of pharmaceuticals, Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) serve as a critical pathway from initial research to the marketing of a new drug. Each level represents a significant step in the journey of drug development. Below is a detailed explanation of each TRL in the context of pharmaceuticals. TRL1 – Findings Reviewed: This initial stage involves reviewing existing research and findings, laying the groundwork for new pharmaceutical developments. TRL2 – Research Idea: At this stage, researchers formulate a specific research idea or hypothesis based on the initial findings. TRL3 – Design Proof of Concept: Scientists design experiments to prove the concept of the proposed pharmaceutical treatment. TRL4 – Demonstrate Proof of Concept: The proof of concept is demonstrated through initial laboratory experiments, validating the research idea. TRL5 – Pilot Drug Produced: A pilot version of the drug is produced, typically in small quantities, for preliminary testing. TRL6 – Phase 1 Clinical Trials: The drug enters Phase 1 clinical trials, where it is tested on a small group of people to evaluate its safety, determine a safe dosage range, and identify side effects. TRL7 – Phase 2 Clinical Trials: In Phase 2 trials, the drug is given to a larger group of people to see if it is effective and to further evaluate its safety. TRL8 – New Drug Registration: After successful clinical trials, the drug goes through the process of registration, where it is thoroughly reviewed and approved by regulatory authorities for market release. TRL9 – Drug Distributed and Marketed: The final stage where the drug is fully approved, manufactured on a large scale, distributed, and marketed to the public. Pharmaceutical TRLs The progression of pharmaceuticals from TRL1 to TRL9 is a complex journey from theoretical research to a marketable drug.

Understanding EIC Accelerator Technology Readiness Levels in MedTech Hardware Products

by

Traversing TRLs in MedTech Development: A Step-by-Step Journey The journey of MedTech hardware products from conception to market availability is meticulously charted through Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs). Each level signifies a critical stage in the development of medical devices, ensuring safety, efficacy, and market readiness. Here is a detailed exploration of each TRL in the context of MedTech hardware products. TRL1 – Define Basic Properties: The journey begins with defining the basic properties and capabilities of the proposed medical device. This stage involves conceptualizing what the device will do and its underlying technology. TRL2 – Analytical Study: Researchers conduct analytical studies to understand how the conceptualized device will work. This includes theoretical analysis and design studies. TRL3 – Proof of Concept: At this stage, a proof of concept is developed. This involves creating initial models or simulations to demonstrate the feasibility of the device. TRL4 – Pre-Prototype: Development progresses to creating a pre-prototype of the device, which is an early version designed to test the basic concept in a non-clinical setting. TRL5 – Pre-Prototype Tested in Lab: The pre-prototype undergoes rigorous testing in a laboratory setting. This testing aims to evaluate the device’s functionality and gather data for further development. TRL6 – Prototype Tested in Relevant Environment: A more refined prototype is developed and tested in an environment that closely replicates real-world conditions where the device will be used. TRL7 – Approved Prototype: The prototype reaches a stage where it is approved for final development. This typically involves passing certain regulatory checks and validations. TRL8 – Pre-Serial Manufacturing: The device moves into pre-serial manufacturing, where small batches are produced to ensure manufacturing processes are ready for full-scale production. TRL9 – Product on Market: The final stage, where the MedTech hardware product is fully developed, manufactured, and available on the market. It has passed all regulatory approvals and is ready for use in healthcare settings. MedTech TRLs The progression from TRL1 to TRL9 in MedTech hardware product development is a methodical and critical process, ensuring that medical devices meet the highest standards of quality and safety.

Understanding Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) in the Context of the EIC Accelerator

by

Understanding TRLs: The Pathway from Concept to Implementation Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) provide a systematic framework to assess the maturity of a technology. This scale, ranging from TRL1 to TRL9, outlines the evolution from basic research to a fully operational system. Below is a detailed example for each TRL, using a hypothetical technology type, such as a new solar panel system. TRL1 – Basic Principles Observed: At this initial stage, basic scientific research is conducted, focusing on observing the principles that could underpin the new technology. For example, discovering a new photovoltaic material that could potentially increase solar panel efficiency. TRL2 – Technology Concept Formulated: Here, the initial concepts for applying the new material in solar panels are developed. This stage involves theoretical work and early design, without any experimental testing. TRL3 – Experimental Proof of Concept: The new material is tested in a laboratory setting to validate the concept. This includes small-scale experiments to demonstrate its efficiency in converting sunlight to electricity. TRL4 – Technology Validated in Lab: The technology undergoes further development in the lab, with tests conducted to refine the concept and improve its functionality in controlled conditions. TRL5 – Technology Validated in Relevant Environment: A prototype solar panel using the new material is tested in a controlled, but more realistic environment, such as a simulated outdoor setting with varying light conditions. TRL6 – Technology Demonstrated in Relevant Environment: The prototype is now tested in a real-world environment, like on a building’s rooftop, to assess its performance under actual operating conditions. TRL7 – System Prototype Demonstration in Operational Environment: A more advanced prototype, close to the final product, is tested in an operational environment. This involves extensive testing for durability, efficiency, and reliability under different weather conditions. TRL8 – System Complete and Qualified: The solar panel system is now finalized, with all components tested, qualified, and ready for commercial production. Rigorous testing ensures that the system meets all industry standards. TRL9 – Actual System Proven in Operational Environment: The final stage, where the solar panel system is fully operational and deployed in the market. It is proven to work reliably and efficiently in various real-world settings, like residential buildings, commercial properties, and solar farms. TRLs The journey of technology from TRL1 to TRL9 can be visualized as a progression from basic research to practical, real-world applications.

The Disparity in EIC Accelerator Evaluation: Remote Evaluators vs. Jury Members

by

The EIC Accelerator’s Evaluation Process: A Shift in Focus Across Steps The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator program utilizes a distinct approach for evaluating applications at different steps of the process. This approach significantly impacts the consistency and predictability of the evaluations, posing challenges for applicants. Steps 1 and 2: Thousands of Remote Evaluators: The first two steps of the EIC Accelerator process involve the use of a vast number of remote evaluators. These evaluators are tasked with handling the high volume of applications, focusing on vetting the technological aspects of the projects. This stage is designed to identify good technologies and viable projects​​. Step 3: A Select Small Number of Jury Members: In contrast, the final step employs a small group of commercially-oriented jury members. These members are responsible for making the final funding decisions, ideally based on the business potential of the projects. The intention is to select the best business cases, ensuring the long-term success of the program​​. Challenges Arising from This Approach Increased Randomness in Final Selection: The smaller number of jury members in Step 3, combined with their commercial focus, introduces a higher degree of randomness in the selection process. This randomness is further exacerbated by the inability of applicants to directly rebut or respond to the comments of the jury members​​. Lack of Consistency Across Steps: The shift in focus from technological viability in the first two steps to commercial potential in the final step can lead to erratic evaluations. Projects that pass the technological scrutiny of the remote evaluators might struggle with the commercial orientation of the jury members. Influence of Interpersonal Skills in Step 3: The final interview stage relies heavily on the presentation and interpersonal skills of the applicants, factors that are difficult to prepare for within the short time frame between steps. This reliance can overshadow the project’s intrinsic merits, adding to the unpredictability of the process​​. Conclusion The EIC Accelerator’s evaluation process presents a unique challenge for applicants due to the disparity between the initial stages, which use a large number of remote evaluators focusing on technology, and the final stage, which relies on a small jury with a commercial focus. This disparity can result in inconsistent evaluations and increased randomness, particularly in the final decision-making stage. For applicants, this means navigating a process where the criteria for success can shift significantly from one stage to the next.

The Confusion Among EIC Accelerator Applicants: Communication and Evaluation Challenges

by

Inconsistencies in the EIC Accelerator’s Communication and Evaluation The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator program, a key funding mechanism for innovative startups and SMEs, faces significant challenges in transparently communicating its objectives and expectations to applicants. This situation contributes to confusion and uncertainty among those seeking funding. Communication Gaps and Political Agendas: The EIC has historically struggled with clearly articulating its objectives for the Accelerator program. The nature of public institutions, often driven by political agendas, complicates this further. While the EIC emphasizes funding disruptive innovations overlooked by the private market, it less openly acknowledges a tendency to favor low-risk investments. This dichotomy is evident in cases where the EIC has granted funding to companies that had already secured substantial private investments just days prior. Such mixed messages create uncertainty about the true criteria for funding decisions​​. Unpredictable Evaluation Outcomes: The EIC Accelerator’s evaluation process has been characterized by unpredictability and randomness. There have been instances where previously rejected proposals were accepted upon resubmission with minimal or no changes. This inconsistency raises questions about the credibility of the evaluation process and introduces a “luck factor” in project selection. Moreover, feedback from evaluators has often been insufficient to guide rejected proposals towards improvement. Additionally, the jury panel’s mixed understanding of technical aspects has led to further confusion and disappointment among applicants​​. The Impact on Applicants Overestimation of Chances: Applicants, in the absence of clear and consistent communication from the EIC, may overestimate their chances of success. This leads to misaligned expectations and potential wasted efforts. Need for More Transparent Guidelines: To reduce confusion, the EIC should offer more explicit and detailed guidelines on rejection reasons, especially during the interview stage. Providing such clarity could enable applicants to better align their proposals with the EIC’s expectations. Reduction of Randomness in Selection: Establishing more consistent and transparent criteria for selection and rejection can help mitigate the perceived randomness in the evaluation process. This would enhance the credibility of the program and provide more reliable guidance for applicants. Conclusion The EIC Accelerator program’s challenges in communication and evaluation significantly contribute to the confusion experienced by applicants. To address these issues, the EIC needs to prioritize clear, pragmatic advice over political communications, provide detailed feedback on rejections, and establish consistent criteria for evaluation. Such steps would greatly assist applicants in understanding their realistic chances and what differentiates approval from rejection in the funding process.

The EIC Accelerator’s Ecosystem: A Consultancy-Focused Framework

by

Consultancy Dominance in the EIC Accelerator Process The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator program, designed to support innovative startups and SMEs, appears to have inadvertently fostered an ecosystem where consultancies play a more central role than the applicants themselves. This situation arises from a combination of the program’s complexity and the EIC’s communication strategies. Complexity and Obscurity Leading to Consultancy Reliance: Over 70% of survey respondents indicated that they hired a consultant to prepare their EIC Accelerator application. This high percentage reflects the program’s complexity and obscure nature, which can be overwhelming for many applicants. The official EIC communications, often focused on promotional materials, leave prospective applicants with more questions than answers, leading them to seek external expert assistance​​. EIC’s Communication Challenges: The EIC has struggled to communicate effectively what the Accelerator seeks and what applicants should expect. This difficulty is likely a result of the public institution’s tendency to prioritize political agendas and communications over pragmatic advice. There is a dichotomy in the EIC’s messaging: promoting funding for disruptive innovations while simultaneously favoring low-risk investments. This conflicting communication increases the reliance on National Contact Points (NCPs) and consultancies for clearer guidance​​. The Impact on Applicants The current ecosystem puts individual applicants at a disadvantage, especially those without the resources to hire consultants. This reliance on consultancies can lead to a skewed understanding of the application process, with many applicants overestimating their chances based on the EIC’s guidelines. It also creates a barrier for those who cannot afford consultancy fees, potentially sidelining innovative projects that lack the means for professional guidance. Recommendations for a More Balanced Approach Enhanced Transparency and Direct Communication: The EIC could improve its direct communication with potential applicants, providing clear, pragmatic advice and realistic expectations about the application process. Accessible Resources for All Applicants: Developing resources and tools that demystify the application process could help reduce the over-reliance on consultancies. This could include detailed guidelines, examples of successful applications, and comprehensive feedback on rejected applications. Greater Support for Independent Applicants: The EIC might consider establishing support mechanisms for applicants who choose to navigate the process independently. This support could take the form of workshops, webinars, or direct consultation sessions. Conclusion While consultancies play a vital role in guiding applicants through the EIC Accelerator’s complex process, the current ecosystem seems to favor those who can afford such services. A more balanced approach, with enhanced direct communication and support from the EIC, could level the playing field, ensuring that all innovative ideas, regardless of their resource backing, have a fair chance at success.

Navigating the EIC Accelerator Application Process: Understanding the Challenges of Meeting Deadlines

by

The EIC Accelerator’s Three-Step Application Journey The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator’s blended financing program, a critical initiative for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) seeking funding, underwent significant changes in 2021. These changes introduced a structured, three-step application process, each with its distinct requirements and timelines. Understanding these steps is crucial for applicants to effectively plan and execute their applications. Step 1 – Short Application: This initial phase involves a mini-proposal, including a written grant application, a video pitch, and a pitch deck. Remarkably, Step 1 can be prepared in less than 30 days and submitted at any time, as it doesn’t have a fixed deadline. This flexibility allows applicants to enter the process when they feel most prepared. Step 2 – Full Application: This phase presents a more significant challenge. It requires a detailed application and can only be submitted once Step 1 is approved, and the EIC announces a fixed deadline. Historically, in 2021, there were two such deadlines – in June and October. Preparing for Step 2 is a substantial undertaking, with a recommended preparation time of at least 60 days. Step 3 – Face-to-Face Interview: The final hurdle, Step 3, involves a face-to-face interview using the pitch deck from Step 2. This step is only available to projects approved in Step 2. The interview dates are set shortly after the Step 2 evaluations, and applicants typically have around 14 days to prepare for this stage. The Challenge of Planning and Time Management For first-time applicants, understanding and managing this three-step process can be daunting. The flexible nature of Step 1’s submission contrasts sharply with the rigid and demanding nature of Step 2. The preparation times, although seemingly ample, can be challenging, especially for startups and SMEs not familiar with the intricacies of the process. Step 1: While the preparation for Step 1 is relatively less time-consuming, the absence of a fixed deadline means applicants must self-regulate their submission timing. This phase requires strategic planning to ensure readiness for the subsequent, more demanding steps. Step 2: The leap from Step 1 to Step 2 is significant. The minimum 60-day preparation time for Step 2, following the approval of Step 1, requires applicants to swiftly transition from a short application to a detailed, comprehensive proposal. This transition can be overwhelming, particularly for first-time applicants unfamiliar with the depth and detail expected by the EIC. Step 3: The final step, while shorter in preparation time, is crucial and can be intense. Applicants must be ready to pivot quickly from submitting their full application in Step 2 to preparing for an in-depth interview. Conclusion Navigating the EIC Accelerator’s application process requires careful planning, awareness of deadlines, and an understanding of the effort required at each stage. Particularly challenging is the transition from the short, flexible Step 1 to the intensive and deadline-driven Step 2. First-time applicants must approach this process with diligence and thorough preparation to enhance their chances of success.

The Balancing Act of the EIC Accelerator Jury: DeepTech Funding and Risk Aversion

by

The Dichotomy of EIC Accelerator’s Step 3 Jury Evaluation The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator program plays a pivotal role in nurturing startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs), especially in the DeepTech sector. However, the final step of this funding journey, Step 3, which involves a jury evaluation, presents a unique challenge. The jury’s decision-making process has been observed to oscillate between seeking innovative DeepTech projects and favoring proposals with lower risk profiles. Unpredictable Outcomes and Technical Understanding: The Step 3 jury’s evaluations have sometimes been unpredictable, with instances of proposals succeeding with minimal changes after an initial rejection. This randomness in selection raises questions about the evaluation process’s consistency and the jury’s technical comprehension in some cases​​. Preference for Commercial Success over High-Risk DeepTech: There’s a growing trend in the EIC jury’s criteria leaning towards projects with immediate commercial viability. DeepTech projects, by their nature, often don’t show profits for extended periods, typically up to five years. The jury, however, seems to be increasingly hesitant to fund such high-risk ventures, despite this being a characteristic of the DeepTech domain​​. Implications for High-Risk DeepTech Companies The EIC’s approach presents a paradox for high-risk DeepTech companies. While the council aims to foster innovation in this sector, its jury’s risk aversion may inadvertently sideline truly groundbreaking projects that require longer timeframes to reach commercialization. This tension between fostering cutting-edge innovation and mitigating risk creates a challenging environment for high-risk DeepTech companies seeking EIC funding. Conclusion The EIC Accelerator’s Step 3 jury process is crucial for funding decisions, yet it operates within a complex interplay of seeking innovative DeepTech projects and a preference for less risky investments. This scenario necessitates a more balanced approach, where the transformative potential of high-risk DeepTech is not overshadowed by an excessive focus on short-term commercial success.

Rasph - EIC Accelerator Consulting
en_US
fr_FR de_DE el it_IT es_ES pl_PL et pt_PT da_DK sv_SE fi bg_BG hr cs_CZ nl_NL hu_HU lv lt_LT ro_RO sk_SK sl_SI uk he_IL tr_TR is_IS sr_RS ka_GE nb_NO en_US