The European Innovation Council (EIC) Pathfinder is a flagship programme under the Horizon Europe framework, designed to support high-risk, high-reward research projects aimed at developing breakthrough technologies. Understanding the evaluation criteria for EIC Pathfinder proposals is crucial for applicants seeking funding. This article provides a detailed overview of the EIC Pathfinder evaluation criteria, offering insights into what evaluators look for in proposals and how applicants can align their projects to meet these expectations.
Overview of the Evaluation Process
The evaluation process for EIC Pathfinder proposals is rigorous and involves multiple stages. Proposals are assessed by independent expert evaluators based on three main criteria: Excellence, Impact, and Quality and Efficiency of the Implementation. Each criterion has specific sub-criteria that provide a structured framework for evaluation.
Stages of Evaluation
- Individual Evaluation: Each proposal is first evaluated individually by at least four expert evaluators.
- Consensus Group: Evaluators discuss their individual assessments and reach a consensus on scores and comments.
- Panel Review: A panel of evaluators reviews the consensus reports and finalizes the rankings.
Detailed Evaluation Criteria
1. Excellence
The Excellence criterion assesses the scientific and technological quality of the proposal. It is the most heavily weighted criterion, reflecting the EIC Pathfinder’s focus on groundbreaking research.
Sub-criteria:
- Long-term Vision:
- Key Question: How convincing is the vision of a radically new technology?
- Expectation: Proposals should articulate a clear and ambitious vision for a novel technology that can transform the economy and society.
- Science-towards-Technology Breakthrough:
- Key Question: How concrete, novel, and ambitious is the proposed breakthrough?
- Expectation: The proposed research should represent a significant advancement over current technologies, with the potential for a major scientific breakthrough.
- Objectives:
- Key Question: How concrete and plausible are the objectives?
- Expectation: Objectives should be clearly defined, achievable, and aligned with the overall vision. The research approach should be high-risk/high-gain.
- Interdisciplinarity:
- Key Question: How relevant is the interdisciplinary approach?
- Expectation: Proposals should demonstrate a well-integrated interdisciplinary approach, combining expertise from different fields to achieve the breakthrough.
2. Impact
The Impact criterion evaluates the potential of the proposed technology to generate significant economic, societal, and environmental benefits.
Sub-criteria:
- Long-term Impact:
- Key Question: How significant are the potential transformative effects?
- Expectation: The envisioned technology should have the potential to create new markets, improve quality of life, or address global challenges.
- Innovation Potential:
- Key Question: To what extent does the technology have potential for disruptive innovations?
- Expectation: Proposals should outline a clear pathway to innovation, including measures for intellectual property protection and exploitation.
- Communication and Dissemination:
- Key Question: How suitable are the measures to maximize expected outcomes and impacts?
- Expectation: Proposals should include a robust plan for disseminating results and raising awareness about the project’s potential.
3. Quality and Efficiency of the Implementation
This criterion assesses the feasibility of the project plan and the ability of the consortium to deliver the proposed research.
Sub-criteria:
- Work Plan:
- Key Question: How coherent and effective are the work plan and risk mitigation measures?
- Expectation: The work plan should be detailed and well-structured, with clearly defined tasks, deliverables, milestones, and timelines. Risk management strategies should be in place.
- Allocation of Resources:
- Key Question: How appropriate and effective is the allocation of resources?
- Expectation: Resources, including budget and personnel, should be appropriately allocated to ensure the project’s success.
- Quality of the Consortium:
- Key Question: To what extent does the consortium have the necessary capacity and expertise?
- Expectation: The consortium should consist of high-quality, complementary partners with proven expertise and capabilities to carry out the proposed research.
Scoring and Thresholds
Each sub-criterion is scored on a scale from 0 to 5:
- 0: The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.
- 1 (Poor): The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.
- 2 (Fair): The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses.
- 3 (Good): The proposal addresses the criterion well, but there are a number of shortcomings.
- 4 (Very Good): The proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present.
- 5 (Excellent): The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion. Any shortcomings are minor.
Thresholds
- Excellence: Minimum threshold of 4/5
- Impact: Minimum threshold of 3.5/5
- Quality and Efficiency of the Implementation: Minimum threshold of 3/5
Proposals must meet or exceed these thresholds to be considered for funding.
Tips for Applicants
- Clarity and Vision: Clearly articulate your long-term vision and how your project represents a significant advancement in technology.
- Interdisciplinary Approach: Highlight the interdisciplinary nature of your consortium and how it enhances the project.
- Impact Pathway: Provide a detailed impact pathway, including plans for intellectual property protection, exploitation, and dissemination.
- Detailed Work Plan: Ensure your work plan is detailed, with clear tasks, deliverables, milestones, and risk mitigation strategies.
- Resource Allocation: Justify the allocation of resources and demonstrate that your consortium has the necessary expertise and capacity.
Conclusion
The EIC Pathfinder’s evaluation criteria are designed to identify projects with the highest potential for groundbreaking innovation and significant impact. By understanding and aligning with these criteria, applicants can enhance their proposals and increase their chances of securing funding. The EIC Pathfinder offers a unique opportunity to transform visionary ideas into reality, driving scientific and technological progress for the benefit of society.
About
The articles found on Rasph.com reflect the opinions of Rasph or its respective authors and in no way reflect opinions held by the European Commission (EC) or the European Innovation Council (EIC). The provided information aims to share perspectives that are valuable and can potentially inform applicants regarding grant funding schemes such as the EIC Accelerator, EIC Pathfinder, EIC Transition or related programs such as Innovate UK in the United Kingdom or the Small Business Innovation and Research grant (SBIR) in the United States.
The articles can also be a useful resource for other consultancies in the grant space as well as professional grant writers who are hired as freelancers or are part of a Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (SME). The EIC Accelerator is part of Horizon Europe (2021-2027) which has recently replaced the previous framework program Horizon 2020.
This article was written by ChatEIC. ChatEIC is an EIC Accelerator assistant that can advise on the writing of proposals, discuss current trends and create insightful articles on a variety of topics. The articles written by ChatEIC can contain inaccurate or outdated information.
- Contact Us -
EIC Accelerator Articles
All Eligible EIC Accelerator Countries (including the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Ukraine)
Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator
A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator
The EIC’s One-Stop Shop Funding Framework (Pathfinder, Transition, Accelerator)
Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator
A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator
The Challenge with EIC Accelerator Open Calls: MedTech Innovations Dominate
Go Fund Yourself: Are EIC Accelerator Equity Investments Necessary? (Presenting Grant+)
Digging Deep: The New DeepTech Focus of the EIC Accelerator and its Funding Bottlenecks
Zombie Innovation: EIC Accelerator Funding for the Living Dead
Smack My Pitch Up: Changing The Evaluation Focus Of The EIC Accelerator
How Deep Is Your Tech? The European Innovation Council Impact Report (EIC Accelerator)
Analyzing A Leaked EIC Accelerator Interview List (Success Rates, Industries, Direct Submissions)
Steering the EIC Accelerator: Lessons Learned from the Pilot Program
Who Should Not Apply To The EIC Accelerator And Why
The Risk of Presenting all Risks in the High-Risk EIC Accelerator Program
How to Prepare an EIC Accelerator Resubmission
How to Prepare a Good EIC Accelerator Application: General Project Advice
How to Craft an EIC Accelerator Rebuttal: Explaining Grant Proposal Resubmissions
