Funding

The Consistency Challenge: Impact of Different Evaluators in Multi-Step Grant Processes

by

Introduction In multi-step grant application processes like those of the EIC Accelerator, the involvement of different evaluators at each stage presents a unique challenge. This system can lead to inconsistencies in evaluations, affecting the outcome for applicants. Understanding the implications of this structure is crucial for startups and SMEs navigating the grant application landscape. The Multi-Step Evaluation Process and Its Challenges Varied Perspectives: Different evaluators bring their own perspectives, expertise, and biases to each stage. This diversity, while valuable for comprehensive assessment, can lead to differing opinions on the same application. Inconsistency in Feedback and Scoring: As applications progress through various stages, they may receive conflicting feedback or varying scores, creating confusion for applicants and making it difficult to address evaluators’ concerns effectively. Strategic Difficulty for Applicants: Applicants may find it challenging to develop a consistent strategy when facing different sets of evaluators. What appeals to one group may not necessarily resonate with another, complicating the preparation of pitch decks, interviews, and responses. Uncertainty in Outcome: The involvement of different evaluators at each stage introduces an element of unpredictability, making it difficult for applicants to gauge their application’s progress and potential success. Navigating the Challenge of Diverse Evaluators Comprehensive Preparation: Prepare a well-rounded application that addresses all aspects of the project – innovation, market potential, team capability, and feasibility. This holistic approach can appeal to a broad range of evaluators. Adaptable Communication Strategies: Develop flexible communication strategies for different stages. Tailor your pitch and responses to suit the focus of each evaluation round, whether it’s technical details, business potential, or implementation strategies. Seeking Feedback and Learning: After each stage, seek feedback, regardless of the outcome. Use this feedback to understand different evaluators’ perspectives and refine your application for future stages or other grant opportunities. Engaging Professional Assistance: Consider consulting with professionals who have experience with multi-stage grant processes. They can provide insights on effectively navigating the changes in evaluator panels. Maintaining Consistency in Core Message: While adapting to different stages, maintain a consistent core message about your project’s value proposition. This consistency helps in building a strong, coherent narrative throughout the application process. Conclusion The involvement of different evaluators in each stage of grant applications, such as the EIC Accelerator, introduces a significant challenge in achieving a consistent outcome. By preparing comprehensively, adapting communication strategies, actively seeking feedback, and maintaining a consistent core message, applicants can better navigate this complexity and enhance their chances of success.

Adapting to the EIC Application System Changes: Navigating the ESR Feedback Process

by

Introduction In June 2023, the European Innovation Council (EIC) implemented significant changes to its application system, particularly affecting the Evaluation Summary Report (ESR). Now, the ESR only shows the final score and comments without specifying which evaluator provided a ‘Go’ or ‘No-Go’ decision. This article explores the implications of these changes for applicants and how they can effectively navigate the revised feedback process. Understanding the Impact of EIC’s Revised ESR Feedback Less Specific Feedback: The new format of the ESR, showing only the final score and generalized comments, makes it more challenging for applicants to discern specific criticisms that led to their proposal’s rejection. Increased Difficulty in Tailoring Resubmissions: Without clear indications of individual evaluator concerns, applicants may find it more difficult to address specific criticisms in their resubmissions, potentially affecting their chances of future success. Greater Emphasis on General Appeal: The change shifts the focus towards developing proposals with a more general appeal, capable of satisfying a broader range of evaluator perspectives, rather than addressing individual critiques. Strategies for Effective ESR Feedback Analysis Comprehensive Review of Comments: Carefully review all comments in the ESR to identify common themes or recurring concerns. Even without individual evaluator tags, patterns in feedback can provide valuable insights. Consultation with Experts: Seek advice from professionals or consultants experienced in EIC applications. They can offer a more nuanced interpretation of the feedback and guide effective strategies for resubmission. Internal Team Discussions: Engage in thorough discussions with your team to analyze the feedback from multiple perspectives. This collaborative approach can uncover insights that might be missed by a single individual. Focus on Strengthening Core Areas: Concentrate on enhancing the core aspects of your proposal, such as the innovation’s impact, market potential, and implementation strategy. Strengthening these areas can address a broad range of potential concerns. Seek Clarification When Possible: If the ESR is particularly vague, consider reaching out to the EIC helpdesk or relevant contacts for clarification, while being mindful of their guidelines on feedback interpretation. Adapting to the New Normal Developing Resilience to Ambiguity: Accepting and adapting to the level of ambiguity in the new feedback system is essential. Developing a resilient approach to feedback interpretation can be advantageous. Continuous Learning and Improvement: Use each application experience as a learning opportunity. Even if specific criticisms are unclear, every round of feedback contributes to a deeper understanding of what makes a successful proposal. Conclusion The changes to the EIC’s application system, particularly in the presentation of the ESR, present new challenges in understanding evaluator feedback. By employing comprehensive review techniques, consulting with experts, focusing on strengthening core proposal areas, and developing resilience to feedback ambiguity, applicants can effectively navigate these changes and enhance their chances of securing EIC funding.

Accelerating EIC Accelerator Applications: The Advantages of Rasph Training for In-House Team Collaboration

by

Introduction For startups and SMEs aiming to apply for the EIC Accelerator, the Rasph training program offers a strategic advantage. By equipping an in-house team with the necessary skills and knowledge, the program enables companies to write their applications collaboratively and efficiently. This approach can often lead to a faster final result compared to relying on a single writer or outsourcing the task. The Benefits of Rasph Training for In-House Application Writing Team Collaboration and Efficiency: Training an in-house team creates an environment of collaboration, where different members can contribute their specific expertise to the application. This collaboration can significantly speed up the writing process compared to relying on a single writer. Comprehensive Understanding of the Business: An in-house team, well-versed in the company’s operations and strategy through the Rasph training, can effectively translate the business’s nuances into the application. This deep understanding ensures a more coherent and compelling proposal. Rapid Response and Iteration: With an in-house team, revisions and iterations can happen quickly. Direct communication and immediate feedback loops enable the team to adapt and refine the application promptly, responding to evolving needs and insights. Cost-Effective Approach: Training an in-house team is often more cost-effective in the long run compared to outsourcing. While there’s an initial investment in training, it eliminates the recurring costs associated with hiring external consultants for each application. Building Long-Term Capacity: The Rasph training program builds long-term grant application skills within the team. This capacity remains within the company, benefiting future applications and reducing dependency on external sources. Implementing the Rasph Training Effectively Selecting the Right Team Members: Choose team members with diverse skills – including technical, business, and writing expertise – to undergo the Rasph training. This diversity ensures a well-rounded approach to the application. Integrating Training with Application Development: Align the training schedule with the application timeline. Apply learnings from the training directly to the application process, ensuring real-time benefits. Encouraging Cross-Departmental Collaboration: Foster a collaborative environment where team members from different departments can contribute their insights, leading to a more comprehensive and multifaceted application. Leveraging Digital Tools and Resources: Utilize digital tools for project management, document collaboration, and version control to streamline the application writing process and enhance team efficiency. Conclusion Using the Rasph training program for preparing EIC Accelerator applications empowers companies to harness their in-house capabilities, leading to faster and more effective application writing. This approach not only accelerates the application process but also builds a sustainable skill set within the organization, proving beneficial for both current and future funding opportunities.

Balancing Scale and Quality: The Challenges Faced by Large EIC Accelerator Consultancies

by

Introduction In the realm of EIC Accelerator applications, the largest consultancies often face a paradoxical challenge: maintaining high-quality services while managing a vast pool of freelance writers. This article examines how the scale of operations in these consultancies can impact quality control and the implications of their need to take on a broad range of applicants. The Quality Control Dilemma in Large Consultancies Diverse Freelance Writers: Large consultancies typically employ numerous freelance writers to handle the volume of work. While this allows for handling a large number of applications, it introduces variability in writing quality and expertise. Challenges in Maintaining Consistency: Ensuring consistent quality across a wide array of freelancers can be daunting. Quality control becomes more challenging as the number of writers and projects increases. Difficulty in Specialization: Large consultancies, due to their size, might struggle to match writers with specific industry expertise to relevant projects. This lack of specialization can affect the depth and accuracy of the applications. The Pressure to Accept Diverse Applications Volume-Oriented Business Model: Many large consultancies operate on a volume-based model, where taking on a high number of clients is necessary to sustain the business and provide work for their large pool of writers. Compromise on Applicant Fit: This model can lead to consultancies accepting applicants who may not be the best fit for the EIC Accelerator program. The focus shifts from quality and suitability to quantity. Impact on Success Rates: Accepting a wide range of clients without thorough vetting can lead to lower success rates, as not all projects may align well with the EIC’s objectives and criteria. Strategies for Overcoming These Challenges Rigorous Quality Control Processes: Implementing strict quality control measures and regular training sessions for freelance writers can help maintain a high standard of applications. Selective Client Onboarding: Adopting a more selective approach in client onboarding, focusing on the suitability and potential of the projects for the EIC Accelerator, can enhance the overall success rate. Fostering Specialization: Encouraging or requiring writers to specialize in certain industries or sectors can lead to more informed and tailored applications. Balanced Growth Strategies: Large consultancies should balance their growth strategies with a focus on quality, ensuring that scale does not compromise the effectiveness of their services. Conclusion While large EIC Accelerator consultancies benefit from the ability to handle a high volume of applications, they face significant challenges in quality control and client fit. By focusing on rigorous quality processes, selective client onboarding, writer specialization, and balanced growth strategies, these consultancies can overcome these challenges, ensuring that their size becomes an asset rather than a liability in delivering high-quality grant application services.

Timing Challenges: The Impact of Short-Notice Applicant Info Days on EIC Accelerator Applications

by

Introduction The scheduling of applicant information days for the EIC Accelerator on January 15th and 16th, just less than two months before the critical March 13th deadline, poses significant timing challenges for applicants. This tight timeline can lead to rushed preparations and potential disappointments, especially considering the extensive amount of time required to craft a thorough application for both Step 1 and Step 2 of the process. Analyzing the Time Constraints Preparation Time for Step 1: Typically, applicants need at least one month to prepare for Step 1 of the EIC Accelerator application. This phase involves developing a concise yet comprehensive innovation project proposal, which requires in-depth research, planning, and documentation. Extensive Work for Step 2: Step 2 of the application is even more demanding, often necessitating a two-month preparation period. This step requires a detailed business plan, pitch deck, and other supporting documents that demonstrate the project’s feasibility, market potential, and innovation. Cumulative Preparation Time: Combining the time needed for both steps, applicants generally require a minimum of three months to prepare a competitive application. This timeline is crucial for ensuring that all aspects of the proposal are well-researched, thoughtfully presented, and align with the EIC’s stringent criteria. The Impact of Short Notice Rushed Preparations: With less than two months from the information days to the deadline, applicants are forced into a condensed preparation period. This rush can lead to suboptimal applications, with potential compromises in quality and thoroughness. Increased Stress and Pressure: The short notice increases stress and pressure on the teams responsible for preparing the applications, which could impact their well-being and the overall quality of the application. Potential for Overlooking Key Details: Under time constraints, there’s a higher risk of missing crucial details or failing to fully develop certain aspects of the proposal, which could be detrimental to the application’s success. Strategies to Mitigate Timing Challenges Early Preparation: Start preparing for the application well in advance of the information days. Gather necessary data, begin drafting key documents, and formulate strategies ahead of time. Efficient Time Management: Develop a strict timeline for application preparation, allocating specific periods for each component of the application process. This structured approach can help maximize efficiency under time constraints. Leverage Expert Assistance: Consider engaging with professional grant consultants or writers who can expedite the preparation process without compromising on quality. Prioritize Key Application Components: Focus on the most critical elements of the application first, ensuring they receive the attention and detail required. Conclusion The scheduling of the EIC Accelerator applicant info days with less than two months before the deadline presents a significant challenge, particularly in terms of the time needed to prepare a strong application. By starting early, managing time efficiently, leveraging expert assistance, and focusing on key components, applicants can better navigate these time constraints and improve their chances of success.

The High Workload Challenge: Navigating Diverse Templates and Requirements in Grant Applications

by

Introduction For startups and SMEs applying for various grant programs, such as the EIC Accelerator and others within the European Union (EU), the variance in templates and requirements can be a major source of workload and complexity. This article examines how these differences affect applicants and offers strategies to efficiently manage the diverse documentation demands. Diverse Templates and Requirements: A Double-Edged Sword Increased Complexity: Different grant programs often have unique templates and specific requirements. This diversity can increase the complexity of the application process, as applicants must tailor their proposals to meet each program’s unique criteria. Time-Consuming Adaptations: Adapting applications to suit different templates and requirements is a time-consuming process. It requires a thorough understanding of each program’s guidelines and often necessitates significant revisions to existing documents. Risk of Errors: The need to constantly modify documents increases the risk of errors, such as overlooking program-specific details or failing to meet certain criteria, which can jeopardize the application’s success. Resource Drain: Small organizations, in particular, may find the high workload challenging due to limited staff and resources. This can lead to strained resources and affect other business operations. Strategies for Efficient Document Management Create a Modular Application Framework: Develop a modular approach to your application documents. Create a core set of materials that can be easily adapted to different templates and requirements. This reduces the need to start from scratch for each application. Leverage Technology: Utilize document management tools and software that allow for easy editing, formatting, and version control. This can significantly reduce the time and effort required to adapt applications to different templates. Stay Organized and Plan Ahead: Maintain a well-organized system for tracking different grant programs’ requirements. Planning ahead and starting the adaptation process early can mitigate last-minute rushes and associated errors. Engage Expert Assistance: Consider hiring professional writers or consultants who specialize in EU grant applications. Their expertise in navigating diverse templates and requirements can alleviate the workload and improve the quality of applications. Continuous Learning and Improvement: Learn from each application process. Collect feedback and use it to refine your approach, making future adaptations more efficient and effective. Conclusion While the varying templates and requirements of different grant programs create a high workload for applicants, adopting a strategic approach can make this challenge manageable. By developing a flexible framework, leveraging technology, staying organized, seeking expert assistance, and continuously improving, startups and SMEs can navigate these complexities more effectively, enhancing their chances of success in securing grants.

Navigating Uncertainty: The Challenge of Inconsistent Deadlines in Grant Applications

by

Introduction The application process for grants, particularly in programs like the EIC Accelerator, is fraught with complexities. One significant challenge that applicants face is the inconsistency in the number and timing of deadlines. This article delves into how such irregularities create uncertainty and the strategies applicants can adopt to mitigate these challenges. The Impact of Inconsistent Deadlines Planning Difficulties: Inconsistency in deadlines makes it challenging for startups and SMEs to plan their application process. Long-term strategic planning becomes difficult, affecting the quality and timeliness of proposals. Resource Allocation Issues: Fluctuating deadlines can lead to inefficient allocation of resources. Companies might either rush to meet a sudden deadline or experience idle periods waiting for the next opportunity. Increased Stress and Pressure: Uncertainty in deadlines can lead to heightened stress for teams responsible for preparing applications. This pressure can adversely affect both the mental well-being of staff and the quality of the applications. Opportunity Costs: With unpredictable deadlines, companies might miss out on other opportunities, including alternative funding options, due to their focus on preparing for a potentially imminent deadline. Strategies to Overcome Deadline Uncertainty Stay Informed and Updated: Regularly check official sources for updates on deadlines. Subscribing to newsletters or alerts from the European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA) can provide timely information. Develop Flexible Plans: Create adaptable project plans that can be adjusted according to changes in deadlines. This flexibility can help maintain momentum regardless of deadline shifts. Allocate Resources Wisely: Instead of overcommitting resources at the last minute, adopt a staggered approach. Allocate a dedicated team to work on the application in phases, ensuring continuous progress without overwhelming resources. Leverage Professional Support: Engage with professional writers, consultants, or agencies that specialize in EU grant applications. Their expertise and experience can provide a buffer against the uncertainties of changing deadlines. Prepare a Contingency Plan: Have a backup plan in case of missed deadlines. This could include targeting alternative funding sources or adjusting project timelines. Conclusion The inconsistency in the number and timing of deadlines for programs like the EIC Accelerator presents a significant challenge for applicants. However, by staying informed, planning flexibly, and leveraging professional support, startups and SMEs can navigate these uncertainties more effectively. Adopting these strategies can lead to a more resilient and prepared approach to grant applications, turning a challenge into an opportunity for strategic planning and execution.

Navigating the Maze: The Rise of the Consultancy Ecosystem in the Grant Industry

by

Introduction The grant industry, particularly for programs like the EIC Accelerator, is characterized by its complexity and uncertainty. These factors have given rise to a substantial consultancy ecosystem, designed to bridge the gap between grant agencies and applicants. This article explores how this ecosystem operates and its significance for startups and SMEs navigating the grant application process. The Complexity and Uncertainty of the Grant Industry Intricate Application Requirements: Grant applications often involve complex forms, detailed project descriptions, financial plans, and evidence of innovation and market potential. Understanding and meeting these requirements can be daunting for many applicants. Changing Policies and Criteria: Grant agencies frequently update their policies and evaluation criteria. Keeping up with these changes requires continuous monitoring and adaptability. High Competition and Low Success Rates: The competitive nature of grant programs, coupled with relatively low success rates, adds to the uncertainty. Applicants often face stiff competition from numerous other innovative projects. The Role of Consultancies in Bridging the Gap Expert Guidance: Consultancies offer expertise in navigating the complex landscape of grant applications. They are well-versed in the latest requirements and trends, providing valuable insights to applicants. Customized Application Assistance: Consultants work closely with startups and SMEs to tailor their applications to meet specific grant program criteria. This customization increases the chances of application success. Time and Resource Management: By handling the intricate details of the application process, consultancies save valuable time and resources for companies, allowing them to focus on their core business activities. Risk Mitigation: Professional consultants help in identifying potential pitfalls in applications and advise on risk mitigation strategies, thereby enhancing the quality and competitiveness of the proposals. Networking and Insider Knowledge: Consultancies often have networks and insider knowledge that can be beneficial. This includes understanding evaluator preferences and the subtleties of the review process. Challenges and Considerations Cost Factor: Hiring consultants can be costly, which might be a significant consideration for startups and SMEs with limited budgets. Dependency Risk: There is a risk of becoming overly dependent on consultants, which might affect the long-term capability of the company to handle grant applications independently. Quality Variance: The quality and effectiveness of consultancy services can vary widely, making the selection of a reliable consultant crucial. Conclusion The complexity and uncertainty of the grant industry have indeed fostered a large consultancy ecosystem, serving as a crucial intermediary between grant agencies and applicants. While consultancies can significantly ease the application process, startups and SMEs should weigh the costs and benefits carefully, ensuring they choose quality advisors while also building their own capacity to navigate the grant landscape.

The Impact of Evaluator Feedback in the EIC Accelerator Application Process

by

Introduction Navigating the application process for funding opportunities like the EIC Accelerator can be a daunting task for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs). A critical aspect of this process is the feedback from evaluators, which has undergone notable changes in recent years. This article explores how getting written feedback from evaluators and being able to respond to them significantly alters the application process. The Importance of Evaluator Feedback Insight into Evaluation Criteria: Evaluator feedback offers valuable insights into how applications are assessed. Understanding the evaluators’ perspectives on aspects like innovation, market potential, and technological feasibility can guide applicants in refining their proposals. Opportunity for Improvement: Detailed feedback provides specific areas for improvement. Applicants can address these areas in their resubmissions, increasing their chances of success. Greater Transparency: Feedback demystifies the evaluation process. Applicants get a clearer understanding of the funding body’s priorities and expectations, fostering a sense of fairness and clarity. The Changed Dynamics of the Application Process Enhanced Engagement: The opportunity to receive and respond to feedback encourages a more interactive process. Applicants are no longer passive participants but engaged players who can adapt their strategies based on evaluators’ input. Strategic Resubmissions: Feedback allows for strategic resubmissions. Applicants can specifically target the weaknesses identified by evaluators, making their resubmission more robust and aligned with the evaluators’ expectations. Learning Curve: Startups and SMEs can learn from the feedback, gaining valuable insights into the funding body’s criteria. This learning curve can be pivotal for future applications, both within and outside the EIC Accelerator. Increased Accountability: The feedback process holds evaluators accountable for their assessments. It ensures that evaluations are thorough, fair, and provide constructive criticism. Challenges and Considerations Interpreting Feedback: Understanding and effectively implementing feedback can be challenging, especially if it’s complex or technical. Time and Resource Constraints: Responding to feedback and preparing resubmissions require additional time and resources, which can be a strain, particularly for smaller organizations. Variable Evaluator Perspectives: Different evaluators may have varying opinions, leading to mixed feedback. Applicants must discern which advice to prioritize. Maintaining Original Vision: While addressing feedback, applicants must balance making changes with maintaining the core vision and objectives of their project. Conclusion Receiving and responding to evaluator feedback in the EIC Accelerator application process fundamentally changes the dynamics of grant applications. It creates a more interactive, transparent, and strategic process, though it comes with its own set of challenges. This evolution in the application process is a significant step towards a more applicant-friendly and effective funding ecosystem.

The Essential Role of Consultancies in Leveling the Playing Field for DeepTech Companies in EIC Applications

by

Introduction The European Innovation Council (EIC) operates in a landscape where the intricacies of grant applications can be daunting, especially for DeepTech companies. The presence of a robust consulting ecosystem is not just beneficial but essential in this context. It plays a critical role in leveling the playing field, ensuring that companies with groundbreaking technologies but limited experience in proposal writing can compete effectively with more marketing-savvy or non-deep tech firms. The EIC Consulting Ecosystem: A Necessary Equalizer Complexity of Grant Applications: The EIC’s application process, especially for programs like the EIC Accelerator, is intricate and demanding. It requires a blend of technical detail, market analysis, and strategic planning, often overwhelming for DeepTech companies focused on research and development. Advantage for Marketing-Savvy Companies: Companies with strong marketing teams or non-deep tech firms often have an edge in crafting compelling proposals. They can effectively communicate their ideas and business potential, a skill that DeepTech innovators may lack. Challenges for DeepTech Companies: Many DeepTech companies excel in technological innovation but may not have the expertise or resources to articulate their ideas in a grant-friendly format. This disparity puts them at a disadvantage in the highly competitive grant application arena. How Consultancies Bridge the Gap Expert Proposal Preparation: Consultancies specialize in translating complex technical innovations into clear, compelling proposals. They understand how to present a DeepTech project in a way that aligns with the EIC’s criteria. Leveling the Playing Field: By providing expert assistance, consultancies ensure that DeepTech companies can compete on an equal footing with firms that have more experience in proposal writing or marketing. Focused on Core Strengths: With consultancies taking on the burden of proposal preparation, DeepTech companies can focus on their core strength – technological innovation. This partnership allows for a more efficient allocation of resources. Enhancing Overall Quality of Proposals: Consultancies contribute to the overall quality of proposals submitted to the EIC, ensuring that the best ideas, regardless of the company’s background, get a fair chance at funding. Considerations for DeepTech Companies Choosing the Right Consultant: It’s crucial for DeepTech companies to select consultancies with experience in their specific field to ensure the nuances of their technology are accurately represented. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Weighing the cost of consultancy services against the potential benefits, including higher chances of success, is essential. Collaborative Approach: A collaborative approach between the company and the consultancy can yield the best results, combining technical expertise with professional proposal writing skills. Conclusion In the competitive world of EIC grant applications, the consulting ecosystem plays a pivotal role in democratizing access to funding. It empowers DeepTech companies, often lacking in proposal writing expertise, to present their groundbreaking innovations effectively. This ecosystem levels the playing field, ensuring that the merit of the technological innovation, rather than the prowess in proposal writing, determines the success of an application. By collaborating with skilled consultants, DeepTech companies can enhance their chances of securing EIC funding, enabling them to focus on their core technological advancements while ensuring their groundbreaking ideas are communicated effectively in their grant proposals.

The Misleading Path of EIC Accelerator’s Step 2: Understanding the Shift in Evaluation Focus for Step 3

by

Introduction: The Dichotomy between Steps 2 and 3 in EIC Accelerator Evaluations The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator’s application process is a rigorous and multi-staged journey, culminating in the final and crucial Step 3 – the interview phase. A closer examination of the evaluation process reveals a significant shift in focus between Step 2 and Step 3, which can often mislead applicants who have successfully passed Step 2. The Eroding Evaluation Process Initially, the EIC Accelerator employs thousands of remote evaluators for the first two steps, who assess a vast number of applications. This process is designed to vet good technologies in Steps 1 and 2. However, the final and decisive Step 3 uses a smaller group of commercially-oriented jury members​​. This transition marks a significant change in the evaluation criteria – from a technology-focused assessment to a more business-oriented scrutiny. The Increasing Dependence on the EIC Jury There has been a noticeable trend in the EIC Accelerator process, where the reliance on the EIC Jury in the interview stage (Step 3) has increased. This shift implies that the quality and approach of the EIC Jury are crucial in the final selection of projects​​. Jury Jeopardy: The Unpredictability of Step 3 The goal of using a small, highly qualified group of experts in the EIC Jury is to increase the quality of final funding decisions and reduce randomness. However, as the number of jury members increases to accommodate more interviews, the selection process potentially becomes more random​​. This randomness is particularly problematic as it introduces a significant luck factor, influenced by the interpersonal skills of the applicants, which are challenging to assess and train within a short period. The Misleading Path from Step 2 to Step 3 For applicants who pass Step 2, the journey to Step 3 can be misleading. The approval in Step 2 may give a false sense of security or high chances of success. However, the change in focus to a more business-oriented assessment in Step 3, along with the increased randomness of the jury’s decisions, means that even strong technological projects might face unexpected challenges or rejections during the interview stage​​. Conclusion: Navigating the Transition from Step 2 to Step 3 Applicants must be aware of the significant shift in focus from Step 2 to Step 3 and prepare accordingly. Understanding that the final step places greater emphasis on the business viability and market potential of the project, along with the inherent unpredictability of the jury’s decisions, is crucial. This awareness will enable applicants to better strategize their approach in the interview stage, focusing on both the strength of their technology and its business potential.

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