Timeline

The Long and Winding Road to EIC Accelerator Funding: Start Early, Avoid the Rush

by

Understanding the EIC Accelerator Timeline The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator program, a beacon of hope for startups and SMEs in the EU, offers a promising avenue for securing funding. However, it’s crucial to recognize that the path to this funding is often a long and unpredictable journey. With an average processing time of 300 days1, the EIC Accelerator stands as a testament to the rigorous and demanding nature of securing EU grants and equity financing. The Reality of Multiple Submissions and Rejections An insightful case study reveals that a significant number of projects analyzed required three to five submissions before receiving funding2. This high frequency of re-submissions underscores the unpredictability and randomness of the process, where many worthy projects face rejection due to various factors, including the subjective evaluations of jury members and evaluators. Why Starting Early is Crucial Given the extensive duration of the EIC Accelerator application process and the likelihood of facing rejections, it is paramount for applicants to start their journey well in advance. Waiting for the perfect timing or trying to align with specific deadlines may result in missed opportunities and added pressure. Starting early allows for adequate preparation, refinement of proposals, and the chance to re-submit if necessary. Navigating the Evaluation Process The current EIC evaluation process restricts re-submissions, making each attempt crucial. Ensuring that the application is as robust and thorough as possible is key. Companies should focus on presenting a strong case that addresses all evaluation criteria, demonstrating innovation, market potential, and team capability. Mitigating the Luck Factor Given the inherent unpredictability of the process, applicants should aim to reduce the impact of luck in their submissions. This can be achieved by thoroughly understanding the evaluation criteria, seeking feedback from previous rejections, and continuously refining the proposal based on this feedback. Conclusion The journey to securing funding through the EIC Accelerator is neither short nor straightforward. It requires persistence, thorough preparation, and an understanding that rejections are part of the process. Starting early and being prepared for multiple submissions can significantly increase the chances of success. As applicants navigate this challenging path, they must remain focused on their goal, using each step as a learning opportunity to enhance their proposals. Recommended Further Reading For a deeper insight into the EIC Accelerator application process and tips for success, interested readers can refer to related articles available on Rasph.com and Segler Consulting. Footnotes The average duration of 300 days for the EIC Accelerator application process is highlighted in previous reports on the EIC Accelerator program. The need for multiple submissions, often three to five attempts before being funded, is discussed in previous reports on the EIC Accelerator program.

Industry Insights from EIC Accelerator Winners in 2021-2023

by

The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) is designed to fund startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) and awards up to €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity financing per project (€17.5 million total). Beneficiaries are often supported by professional writers, freelancers or consultants since the EIC Accelerator application process is highly complex and lengthy. Additionally, the program is generally opaque and confusing for most first-time applicants since its documentation is very general while statistics and reports are mostly focusing on a few case studies and the top industries rather than presenting a big picture. Analyzing EIC Accelerator Beneficiaries ChatEIC, a custom AI based on GPT-4, is focusing on the EIC Accelerator and is able to analyze large datasets as well as extract valuable information that can help EIC Accelerator applicants and policymakers gain insight into the types of companies that are being funded by the program. Since all EIC Accelerator Beneficiaries are made public, it is possible to derive insights regarding their industries and products. All EIC Accelerator applicants who have been funded since 2021 fall into the following high-level categories in order of popularity: Medical Devices Environmental Technology Pharmaceuticals Biotechnology Semiconductor Technology Artificial Intelligence Agricultural Technology Healthcare Technology Space Technology Renewable Energy and Storage Quantum Computing Food Technology Construction Technology Battery Technology Automotive Technology Cybersecurity Clean Technology Recycling Technology Industrial Automation Electric Vehicles Telecommunications 3D Printing Nanotechnology Water Treatment Technology Textile Industry A More Granular Approach But of course, these high-level industry overviews are what has already been reported numerous times. Very often, companies innovate at the intersection of existing technologies and it is often impossible to pigeonhole them into a single industry. Thus, the following list presents a more detailed approach regarding all funded EIC Accelerator companies since 2021 and their respective industry: Biotechnology (75 Companies) Medical Devices (52 Companies) Medical Technology (22 Companies) Quantum Computing (9 Companies) Semiconductor Technology (8 Companies) Agricultural Technology (7 Companies) Renewable Energy (6 Companies) Environmental Technology (6 Companies) Pharmaceuticals (5 Companies) Medical Imaging (5 Companies) HealthTech (5 Companies) Medical Diagnostics (5 Companies) AgriTech (4 Companies) Artificial Intelligence (4 Companies) Biotechnology / Pharmaceuticals (3 Companies) Construction Technology (3 Companies) Medical Robotics (3 Companies) Battery Technology (3 Companies) Digital Health (3 Companies) Automotive Technology (3 Companies) Environmental Monitoring (3 Companies) Renewable Energy Storage (3 Companies) Space Technology (3 Companies) Packaging Materials (2 Companies) Biomedical Engineering (2 Companies) Green Technology (2 Companies) Transportation Technology (2 Companies) Cleantech HVAC (2 Companies) Cybersecurity (2 Companies) Food Technology (2 Companies) Semiconductors (2 Companies) Additive Manufacturing (2 Companies) Oncology Biotech (2 Companies) Clean Energy Technology (2 Companies) Textile Technology (2 Companies) Assistive Technology (2 Companies) Telecommunications (2 Companies) Recycling Technology (2 Companies) Biotechnology AI (2 Companies) Medical Imaging AI (2 Companies) Energy Storage (2 Companies) Aquaculture Technology (2 Companies) Augmented Reality (2 Companies) Aerospace Engineering (1 Company) Analytical Instrumentation (1 Company) AgriTech / BioTech (1 Company) Photonics (1 Company) Oncology Biotechnology (1 Company) Electric Vehicle Charging (1 Company) Dermatological Diagnostics (1 Company) Biotechnology Dyes (1 Company) Materials Technology (1 Company) LiFi Aerospace Communication (1 Company) Artificial Intelligence Imaging (1 Company) Space Tech (1 Company) Green Energy Storage (1 Company) Biomedical Imaging (1 Company) Biodegradable Materials (1 Company) Transportation Optimization (1 Company) Indoor Air Quality Monitoring (1 Company) Computer Vision (1 Company) Healthcare Technology (1 Company) Sportstech or Wearable Technology (1 Company) Wireless Charging (1 Company) Bioinformatics SaaS (1 Company) Synthetic Speech Technology (1 Company) FoodTech / AgriTech (1 Company) Oncology Therapeutics (1 Company) Thermo-Acoustic Heat Pumps (1 Company) Medtech Robotics (1 Company) Aquaculture (1 Company) Sustainable Maritime Tech (1 Company) Radiation Filter (1 Company) Agricultural Biotechnology (1 Company) EdTech (Educational Technology) (1 Company) AgriTech AI (1 Company) Sustainable Packaging (1 Company) Power Electronics (1 Company) Orthopedics Biotechnology (1 Company) Green Construction Tools (1 Company) Space Safety (1 Company) Photonics Technology (1 Company) Aerospace Manufacturing (1 Company) Insulation Materials (1 Company) Gas Analysis Technology (1 Company) Biotechnology or Medical Devices (1 Company) Gaming Content Platform (1 Company) Bio-based Additives (1 Company) Pharmaceutical Technology (1 Company) Marine Technology (1 Company) Electric Vehicles (1 Company) Music Technology (1 Company) Biotechnology / Pharmaceutical Industry (1 Company) Industrial Automation (1 Company) Thermodynamics/Cooling Technologies (1 Company) Internet of Things (IoT) (1 Company) Drone Navigation Technology (1 Company) Digital Media Distribution (1 Company) Biocontrol Production (1 Company) Biotechnology Software (1 Company) Exoskeleton Technology (1 Company) Energy Technology (1 Company) Energy Management (1 Company) Quantum Communications (1 Company) Analytical Instruments (1 Company) Mobile Networking (1 Company) Thermodynamics (1 Company) Footwear Manufacturing (1 Company) Foodtech (1 Company) Financial Technology (FinTech) (1 Company) Medical Equipment (1 Company) Optical Metrology (1 Company) Mining Technology (1 Company) Aerospace Technology (1 Company) Waste Management (1 Company) Textile Recycling (1 Company) Automotive Sensors (1 Company) Aerospace Logistics (1 Company) Logistics Technology (1 Company) Biofuel Technology (1 Company) Nuclear Energy (1 Company) Climate Tech (1 Company) Pharmaceutical Biotechnology (1 Company) Solar Energy (1 Company) Battery Materials (1 Company) Dental Technology (1 Company) Semiconductor IP (1 Company) HVAC Solutions (1 Company) Geospatial Analytics (1 Company) Climate Data Analytics (1 Company) Mycotechnology (1 Company) Electricity Transmission (1 Company) Battery Analytics (1 Company) E-commerce Technology (1 Company) Analytical Technology (1 Company) Biotechnology Sensor (1 Company) Personalized Medicine (1 Company) Electroplating (1 Company) Orthopedic Devices (1 Company) Winery Technology (1 Company) Geotechnical Engineering (1 Company) Photonics Industry (1 Company) Wireless Communications (1 Company) Biotech Manufacturing (1 Company) Livestock Tech (1 Company) Robotics Construction (1 Company) Cellular Agriculture (1 Company) Marine Conservation (1 Company) Agricultural Biotech (1 Company) AgriTech/BioTech (1 Company) Predictive Maintenance (1 Company) Green Packaging (1 Company) Ocean Acoustics (1 Company) Supply Chain Technology (1 Company) Biotechnology or Agribiotech (1 Company) Green Tech (1 Company) Building Materials (1 Company) Advanced Sensor Technology (1 Company) AI Visual Assistance (1 Company) Insect Farming Technology (1 Company) Photovoltaic Manufacturing (1 Company) Energy Storage Manufacturing (1 Company) Audio Technology (1 Company) Water Treatment (1 Company) Electronic Recycling (1 Company) Wearable Technology (1 Company) Optoelectronics … Read more

ChatEIC Explains the EIC Accelerator Work Programme 2024

by

European Innovation Council (EIC) 2024 Work Programme This comprehensive document details the EIC’s strategic approach, funding opportunities, and support services for groundbreaking innovations and technologies in various fields.   Introduction and Overview (Pages 5-6): Start with the introduction and overview sections to gain a foundational understanding of the EIC’s goals, key performance indicators, and an outline of the 2024 Work Programme. This will provide context for the rest of the document. EIC Pathfinder (Pages 22-49): If you’re interested in advanced research with the potential to develop breakthrough technologies, the EIC Pathfinder section is essential. It covers the EIC Pathfinder Open and Pathfinder Challenges, offering insights into the types of projects supported, application criteria, and support available. EIC Transition (Pages 49-60): For those looking to translate advanced technologies into marketable innovations, the EIC Transition section is highly relevant. It details support for bringing these technologies closer to market readiness. EIC Accelerator (Pages 60-96): If you’re focused on start-ups or SMEs with innovative technologies ready for scaling, the EIC Accelerator section is crucial. It provides information on how the EIC supports market-creating innovations, including funding and investment details. EIC Business Acceleration Services (Pages 96-100): This section is valuable for understanding the additional support offered by the EIC, including coaching, mentoring, and networking opportunities. EIC Prizes (Pages 100-113): This part details various innovation prizes, providing opportunities for additional recognition and funding. Glossary (Pages 16, 806-835): Finally, the glossary offers clear definitions of terms and concepts used throughout the document, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the content. Each of these sections offers unique insights and information depending on your specific interests, whether it’s in deep-tech research, transitioning technologies to the market, scaling up innovative startups, or understanding the broader EIC ecosystem.   What exactly are the EIC Challenges about? The EIC Challenges in the 2024 Work Programme are focused initiatives aimed at solving specific, high-impact problems through breakthrough technologies and innovations. They are part of the EIC Pathfinder scheme, designed to support interdisciplinary research and development at the cutting edge of science and technology. Here are the key details of the EIC Challenges:   Specific Objectives: Each EIC Challenge has a distinct objective addressing critical societal, environmental, or economic issues. These objectives are formulated based on their potential to create significant impacts and foster pioneering innovations. Targeted Research Areas: The challenges are aligned with specific research areas that require novel approaches and innovative solutions. These areas are carefully chosen based on current technological gaps and future potential. Interdisciplinary Approach: The challenges encourage a cross-disciplinary approach, combining expertise from different scientific and technological fields. This is essential for tackling complex problems that cannot be addressed through a single discipline. Funding and Support: The EIC provides substantial funding and support to selected projects. This includes financial support for research activities, as well as access to a range of innovation support services and networking opportunities. Collaboration and Consortia: Applicants are often encouraged to form consortia, bringing together diverse teams from academia, industry, and other sectors. This collaborative approach is key to driving innovation and ensuring the applicability of research outcomes. Expected Outcomes: The EIC Challenges aim for tangible, high-impact outcomes that can lead to breakthroughs in their respective fields. This could include the development of new technologies, processes, or products that have the potential for significant societal or economic benefits. Application and Evaluation Process: The challenges have a specific application process, where proposals are evaluated based on their innovative potential, the capability of the team, and the potential impact of the project. Long-Term Vision: Beyond immediate research goals, the challenges are part of the EIC’s broader vision to foster a vibrant European innovation ecosystem and maintain Europe’s competitive edge in strategic technology sectors. These challenges represent an opportunity for researchers and innovators to contribute to transformative projects with the potential for far-reaching impacts.   What are the EIC Accelerator Challenges? The EIC Accelerator Challenges for 2024 are focused on supporting high-impact innovations in several key areas. Here’s a detailed look at each of these challenges: Human Centric Generative AI Made in Europe: This challenge emphasizes the development of artificial intelligence technologies that prioritize ethical considerations and human-centric principles, ensuring that AI development aligns with European values and standards. Enabling Virtual Worlds and Augmented Interaction in High-Impact Applications to Support the Realisation of Industry 5.0: This challenge aims to advance technologies in virtual and augmented reality, contributing to the evolution of Industry 5.0. It focuses on applications that can significantly impact various sectors, including manufacturing, healthcare, and education. Enabling the Smart Edge and Quantum Technology Components: This challenge is centered around the development of advanced technologies in the realm of edge computing and quantum computing. It seeks to foster innovations that can enhance computational power and efficiency, especially in applications requiring rapid data processing and analysis. Food from Precision Fermentation and Algae: Here, the focus is on innovative methods for food production, particularly through precision fermentation and algae-based systems. This challenge addresses the need for sustainable and scalable food production techniques, which are crucial for meeting global food demand and reducing environmental impact. Monoclonal Antibody-Based Therapeutics for New Variants of Emerging Viruses: This challenge is in the field of biomedicine, specifically the development of monoclonal antibody treatments for emerging viral diseases. It aims to accelerate the creation of effective therapies to combat new variants of viruses, enhancing pandemic preparedness and response. Renewable Energy Sources and Their Whole Value Chain Including Materials Development and Recycling of Components: This challenge focuses on the entire value chain of renewable energy, from materials development to the recycling of components. It seeks to promote innovations that can improve the efficiency, sustainability, and scalability of renewable energy sources. Each of these challenges is designed to address critical areas where innovation can have a profound impact on society, the environment, and the economy​​.   EIC Accelerator Challenge 1: Human Centric Generative AI made in Europe The “Human Centric Generative AI made in Europe” challenge, as part of the EIC Accelerator 2024 Work Programme, addresses … Read more

The Crucial Role of Face-to-Face Interviews in Grant Approval

by

Introduction In the intricate and competitive realm of securing grants, particularly within esteemed programs like the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator, the importance of face-to-face interviews is increasingly recognized. As startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) vie for substantial funding, including the EIC Accelerator’s total financing of up to €17.5 million, the personal touch and depth provided by in-person interviews are invaluable. This article explores the pivotal role that face-to-face interviews play in the grant approval process. The Power of Personal Interaction While written proposals are crucial for detailing the technicalities and potential of a project, face-to-face interviews offer a dynamic platform for applicants to showcase their passion, vision, and the real people behind the innovation. These interviews allow evaluators to gauge the team’s commitment, understanding, and readiness to bring their project to fruition. In settings like the EIC Accelerator’s interview stage, it’s often the personal conviction and professional presentation of ideas that can sway decisions, making these interactions a critical component of the funding journey. Unveiling the Team Behind the Innovation Face-to-face interviews provide a unique opportunity for evaluators to meet the minds behind the innovations. This interaction goes beyond the written text, allowing the team to demonstrate their expertise, enthusiasm, and the cohesive force driving the project forward. The ability to ask probing questions and receive immediate, thoughtful responses adds an invaluable layer of depth to the evaluative process, ensuring that funding is not just about the idea but also about the people ready to bring it to life. The Role of Expert Preparation Given the high stakes of these interviews, especially when substantial funding like the EIC grant or equity is on the line, the preparation undertaken by startups cannot be understated. Professional writers, consultants, and freelancers often play a crucial role in coaching teams, refining their pitch, and strategizing responses to potential questions. Their expertise can significantly enhance the quality of interaction during the interview, ensuring that the team presents a compelling and cohesive narrative. Bridging Communication Gaps Face-to-face interviews allow for real-time clarification and elaboration, bridging gaps that might exist in the written proposal. They offer a dynamic space to address evaluators’ concerns directly, provide additional context, and highlight aspects of the project that might not have been fully captured on paper. This interactive dialogue can often be the defining factor in convincing evaluators of the project’s worthiness for funding. Conclusion In the pursuit of grants and funding, the importance of face-to-face interviews cannot be overstated. They provide a vital platform for startups and SMEs to bring their written proposals to life, showcasing the real people, passion, and professionalism behind each project. As programs like the EIC Accelerator continue to shape the future of innovation funding, the value of personal interaction in the evaluative process remains paramount. With the right preparation and presentation, face-to-face interviews can turn hopeful applications into successful funding stories, driving innovation and progress across industries.

The DeepTech Dilemma: Investing in the Absence of Commercial Traction

by

Introduction DeepTech startups, known for their groundbreaking technological innovations, often face a significant hurdle in attracting investment, especially when commercial traction is not yet evident. This article delves into the challenges of funding DeepTech ventures within the context of programs like the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator and discusses the implications for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) navigating this complex landscape. Understanding DeepTech Investments DeepTech refers to companies that offer substantial scientific advances and high-tech engineering innovation. These ventures are typically characterized by long R&D cycles, significant capital requirements, and a longer time to market. The absence of immediate commercial traction — a common scenario for many DeepTech startups — makes it challenging for investors to gauge the potential return on investment, leading to a cautious approach or outright reluctance in funding these high-risk endeavors. The EIC Accelerator’s Role in DeepTech Funding Programs like the EIC Accelerator are crucial for DeepTech startups. They provide a blend of grants and equity financing, up to €17.5 million, recognizing the substantial financial support required for such ventures. The EIC Accelerator aims to mitigate the risk for investors by providing non-dilutive funding and by thoroughly vetting the technological innovations and business plans presented by startups, thus encouraging subsequent private investments. The Commercial Traction Conundrum Commercial traction is often a key indicator for investors, demonstrating market demand, feasibility, and the potential for return on investment. However, due to the nature of DeepTech innovations, achieving early commercial traction is often not feasible. The technology might still be in the development phase, or the market might not be ready for such an advanced solution. This lack of early traction poses a significant challenge in attracting traditional investment, necessitating a more visionary approach from investors. Navigating the Investment Landscape For DeepTech startups lacking commercial traction, navigating the investment landscape requires a strategic approach: Leveraging Non-Dilutive Funding: Programs like the EIC Accelerator become lifelines, providing the necessary funds to reach significant milestones without diluting equity. Building Strategic Partnerships: Collaborating with industry partners can provide validation, resources, and potential early adopters, enhancing the startup’s appeal to investors. Focusing on Technology Validation: Demonstrating the scientific viability and potential impact of the technology can attract investors interested in being at the forefront of innovation. Articulating a Clear Vision: Investors need to understand the long-term potential and the path to market. A compelling vision and a well-defined roadmap can bridge the gap created by the lack of immediate commercial traction. Conclusion Investing in DeepTech startups, especially those without evident commercial traction, is fraught with challenges. However, the potential for substantial impact and long-term returns makes these ventures attractive to a certain breed of investors. Programs like the EIC Accelerator play a critical role in supporting these high-risk, high-reward endeavors, providing the funds and validation needed to attract further investment. As the technology landscape continues to evolve, the approach to DeepTech investment must also adapt, embracing a long-term perspective and recognizing the transformative potential of these groundbreaking innovations.

The Confusion Conundrum: Why Applicants Turn to Consultants for Grant Applications

by

Introduction Navigating the labyrinth of official application guidelines for grant programs, such as the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator, can be a daunting task for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs). This complexity often leads applicants to seek the expertise of consultants even before attempting the process themselves. This article discusses the reasons behind this trend and the implications it holds. The Intricacy of Official Guidelines The official guidelines for programs like the EIC Accelerator are often dense and intricate, filled with specific requirements and technical jargon. These guidelines, while intended to provide clarity, can inadvertently create confusion, leaving applicants uncertain about how to proceed. The complexity is compounded by the high stakes involved, as the EIC Accelerator offers substantial funding opportunities, up to €17.5 million. The Immediate Turn to Consultants Confronted with the daunting task of interpreting these guidelines, many applicants opt to engage consultants right from the outset. These professionals possess the expertise to decipher complex guidelines, ensuring that applications are compliant and strategically aligned with the program’s objectives. For many startups, this approach seems more pragmatic, saving time and reducing the risk of misinterpretation or errors. Implications for Startups and SMEs While turning to consultants can enhance the chances of success, it also raises concerns about accessibility and dependence. Smaller startups or those with limited resources might find themselves at a disadvantage, unable to afford consulting services. This dependence on external expertise can also impede the development of in-house skills crucial for navigating similar processes in the future. Conclusion The reliance on consultants for grant applications reflects a broader issue in the grant funding ecosystem – the need for clearer, more accessible guidelines. While consultants play a vital role in guiding applicants through complex processes, efforts should be made to simplify application guidelines, making them more approachable for all potential applicants. As grant programs continue to evolve, striking a balance between detailed guidance and accessibility will be crucial in ensuring a diverse and inclusive innovation landscape.

The Grant Writing Paradox: Balancing Business Commitment with Proposal Development

by

Introduction In the competitive world of grant funding, particularly for programs like the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator, there exists a paradoxical expectation for applicants. On one hand, they are required to spend months meticulously crafting proposals, and on the other, they are expected to remain 100% committed to their business operations. This article explores how this dual demand can be counterproductive, potentially distracting entrepreneurs from their core business activities. The Time-Intensive Nature of Grant Proposals Crafting a grant proposal, especially for substantial programs like the EIC Accelerator, is no small feat. It demands an in-depth understanding of the application guidelines, a compelling presentation of the project, and often, the intricacies of aligning with specific funding criteria. This process can span several months, requiring significant time and attention from applicants. The Business Commitment Dilemma While dedicating time to grant writing is crucial for securing funding, it can lead to a diversion of focus from the day-to-day operations and growth of the business. For startups and SMEs, where resources are often limited, this diversion can impact their ability to maintain business momentum, innovate, and respond to market needs. Navigating the Paradox To balance the demands of proposal writing and business operations, applicants often resort to external help such as consultants. This approach allows them to maintain their business focus while ensuring that their grant applications are professionally managed. However, this solution might not be feasible for all, particularly smaller startups with limited budgets. Conclusion The expectation for startups and SMEs to invest extensive time in grant proposals while simultaneously running their business is a challenging paradox. It highlights the need for more streamlined and efficient application processes, as well as support systems that can assist applicants in managing this dual demand. As funding bodies evolve, acknowledging and addressing this paradox will be essential in fostering a supportive environment that enables innovators to thrive both in their business pursuits and in securing vital funding.

Exploring the Intersection of DeepTech and Equity Financing: The EIC Accelerator’s Role

by

Introduction In the bustling corridors of innovation and entrepreneurship, the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator program stands out as a beacon of support for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs). By offering a combined package of up to €17.5 million in grants and equity financing, the EIC Accelerator has become a pivotal player in the European innovation landscape. This article delves into the dynamics of this program, its impact on the European Union’s (EU) technology readiness, and the critical role of professional support in securing its benefits. Blended Financing: A New Era for Startups The EIC Accelerator offers blended financing, a revolutionary approach combining a €2.5 million grant with up to €15 million in equity financing. This model addresses a critical gap in the market where innovative, high-risk projects often struggle to secure funding through traditional channels. By aligning with the European Commission (EC) and the European Innovation Council (EIC), the program aims to propel high-potential projects, pushing the boundaries of what’s achievable in various sectors, including health, energy, and digital technologies. The Role of Professional Support The journey to securing EIC Accelerator funding is intricate, involving a robust application process, a compelling pitch deck, and an intense interview stage. Here, the expertise of professional writers, freelancers, and consultants is invaluable. These experts navigate the official proposal template, articulate the project’s value proposition, and ensure that the application resonates with the program’s objectives and criteria. Their involvement often spells the difference between a successful application and a missed opportunity. Technology Readiness and Market Impact At its core, the EIC Accelerator is about elevating projects with a high Technology Readiness Level (TRL). The program is particularly interested in innovations that are close to market entry but require that final push to reach commercialization. By doing so, it fosters a more robust and competitive EU market, driving forward technologies that can address societal challenges and position Europe at the forefront of the global innovation race. Conclusion The EIC Accelerator represents a transformative opportunity for European startups and SMEs. Its blended financing approach, focus on high-TRL projects, and substantial financial support make it an attractive proposition for innovators across the continent. However, navigating its complexities requires expertise and strategic insight, underscoring the importance of professional support in the application process. As the program continues to evolve, it will undoubtedly play a crucial role in shaping the future of European innovation, one project at a time.

The Pen is Mightier: Unraveling the Essential Role of Expert Writers in Securing Startup Funding

by

Introduction In the dynamic and competitive realm of startup funding, particularly within the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator program, the role of expert writers, consultants, and freelancers transcends mere documentation. Their expertise in navigating the complexities of the official proposal template and their strategic narrative crafting are pivotal in securing non-dilutive grants and equity financing for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs). This article delves into the indispensability of expert writers in the journey towards innovation funding. The Craft of Expert Writing in Startup Funding Expert writers are the architects behind the compelling stories that captivate evaluators’ attention in programs like the EIC Accelerator. With up to €17.5 million in total financing at stake, the narrative woven within the structured template is a critical factor in the success of an application. These professionals bring more than just writing prowess; they bring an understanding of the technological landscape, market strategies, and the nuanced demands of the funding body. Mastering the EIC Accelerator’s Structured Template The EIC Accelerator’s official proposal template is not merely a document; it’s a strategic tool designed to elicit the essence of innovation in a structured and comprehensive manner. Expert writers excel in distilling complex technical jargon into clear, persuasive language that highlights the innovation’s potential impact, market need, and technological novelty. Their mastery of the template ensures that all critical elements, from the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) to the unique selling points (USP) and the envisioned market strategy, are articulated with precision and clarity. The Strategic Edge of Professional Expertise Navigating Complexity: Expert writers adeptly navigate the intricacies of the EIC Accelerator application process, understanding how to tailor narratives to fit the evaluators’ criteria and expectations. Enhancing Credibility: A well-crafted application enhances the startup’s credibility, showcasing the innovation’s value proposition in a manner that resonates with the funding body’s objectives. Saving Time and Resources: Startups often operate under resource constraints. Engaging with professional writers allows the founding team to focus on core business activities, ensuring that the application process is efficient and effective. Increasing Success Rates: The involvement of expert writers has been linked to higher success rates in securing funding. Their experience and understanding of the evaluative landscape increase the likelihood of a positive outcome. Conclusion In the quest for innovation funding, the expertise of professional writers, freelancers, and consultants is an invaluable asset. Their strategic narrative crafting, understanding of the funding landscape, and mastery of the structured template play a crucial role in securing non-dilutive grants and equity financing for startups and SMEs. As the European Union continues to foster innovation through programs like the EIC Accelerator, the demand for expert writers who can bridge the gap between technological potential and market readiness is ever-increasing. Their contribution is not just in writing an application; it’s in shaping the future of innovation, one successful funding story at a time. As the competitive landscape evolves, the importance of expert writers in the world of startup funding becomes increasingly evident, marking them as indispensable allies in the journey towards innovation and growth.

The EIC Accelerator’s Evaluation Problem in 2022

by

In 2021, the EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) has completed its first year under the new application framework (read: Application Process). With 2 cut-offs in 2021 (June and October), it presented a steep learning curve for Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME), professional writers and the European Innovation Council (EIC). A new online process for EIC Accelerator applications was rolled out and it was continuously improved in parallel to the first grant submissions which presented unique challenges to the way the EIC and consultants communicated towards potential applicants. Deadlines were shifted, leaked information was more reliable than official EIC press releases and the comments provided by the evaluators led to some controversy. While more transparency is generally a positive step, especially for a public institution funded through the citizen’s taxes, it can backfire if it exposes significant inconsistencies. This article aims to explore some of these inconsistencies. The Application Steps The European Innovation Council and SME’s Executive Agency (EISMEA), European Commission (EC) and EIC have come up with a new application process that involves 3 distinct steps (note: these are unrelated to the Phases of 2020). This new process heavily relies on the use of an online submission form and has phased out most of the PDF/Document-type formats that applicants used prior to 2021. In summary, the current steps are: Step 1: A mini-application (text, video, pitch deck). At least 2 out of 4 evaluators must approve of the application to succeed. Step 2: A long application (text, support documents, pitch deck). At least 3 out of 3 evaluators must approve of the application to succeed. Step 3: A remote or in-person interview. All jury members must approve of the application to succeed. Startups have to successfully pass all three steps in the designated order to receive the EIC Accelerator financing. Each attempted step, successful or not, will likewise receive detailed comments from the evaluators or jury members. Note: Through the fast-track program implemented by the EIC, some companies can skip certain steps if the respective conditions are met. Step 1 Step 1 is designed to pique the evaluator’s interest as the EIC has stated. It is a very short version of a business plan and provides no detailed information on finances, the planned workpackages or other critical parts of the innovation project. Even the pitch deck is reduced to a 10-slide document that will be read and not actually pitched. The Step 1 success threshold is very easy to pass since only 2 out of the 4 remote evaluators must provide a favourable review which will allow an applicant to move towards Step 2 (see success rates). Step 2 Step 2 is a very in-depth presentation of the proposed innovation project since it requires the creation of a business plan which almost exclusively consists of text, provides very little visual data and asks the applying SME’s to answer many detailed questions. These include the value chain, product descriptions, technical backgrounds, market analyses, commercial strategies and many more details. This Step has proven to be the most selective and also the most work-intensive stage of the EIC Accelerator. Step 3 Step 3 is a remote or in-person interview which consists of a 10 minute pitch and a 35 minute Q&A session. The interview will be based on the submitted Step 2 application and pitch deck but the jurors might not be intimately familiar with all of the provided content. Linear Progression Between Steps While the new process for EIC Accelerator applications looks and feels modern, it has added a new layer of problems that is interlinked with its 3-Step structure. When generating an application process that screens companies over multiple months, it is important to make sure that each evaluation step presents a linear progression from its predecessor. If the assessments of Step 1 and Step 2 are too different then this will inevitably lead to wasted effort for both the applicants and the reviewers. To be transparent about this fact, the EIC should publish quality control data where the results of all three steps, if available for each applicant, are correlated to identify if a section was evaluated consistently across multiple steps. If all evaluators approve a very detailed business model in Step 2 but the jury members unanimously question its quality in Step 3 then the process would be flawed. Based on the first applications in 2021, it is clear that the three steps have different degrees of depth, a different focus and they use different evaluator pools which inherently leads to significant limitations. As a result, the process is not fully linear. Conflicts Between Evaluations A linear application process would see a project with a perfect score in Step 1 do well in Step 2. A project which has presented dozens of pages on the commercial strategy and has received a perfect score by evaluators in Step 2 should not have this review be reversed in Step 3. While the difference in quantity between Step 1 and Step 2 is significant and can lead to shifts in the perceived quality, the difference between Step 2 and Step 3 should be minuscule. In a linear process, there should never be a case where a revenue model was graded perfectly in Step 2 only to be rejected with poor reviews in Step 3. But such cases do occur frequently since an approximate 50% of applicants will be rejected in Step 3 with the top reasons being commercial aspects. If the project has not changed in between the two steps then how is it possible that the Step 2 evaluators grade a project so differently from the Step 3 Jury? The Step 2 application is presenting an unprecedented level of detail compared to earlier years so a lack of content would be a poor reason for the discrepancy. It is also unlikely that an applicant will intentionally submit false information or act fraudulently so how can such a result be explained? EIC Jurors … Read more

On Hiring a Consultant or Grant Writer for the 2021 EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument)

by

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) has introduced a new stage to the application process in 2021 which acts as a mini-proposal termed Step 1 (read: Re-Inventing the EIC Accelerator). It includes materials such as a written grant application, a video pitch and a pitch deck which must be submitted to the European Innovation Councils (EIC) AI platform (read: AI Tool Review). With this change, the EIC Accelerator now has three Steps that must be passed, namely Step 1 (short application), Step 2 (full application) and Step 3 (face-to-face interview) (read: Recommendations for the EICA) but many startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) are unsure what these Steps mean and what deadlines and timelines are associated with them. As a short guide, applicants can refer to the following notes: Step 1 is a short application that can be prepared in less than 30 days and can be submitted any time without a fixed deadline (read: Pitch Video Workflow) Step 2 is a very long application that can only be submitted if (i) Step 1 has been approved and (ii) the EIC has published a fixed deadline. In 2021, there were two cut-offs, namely June and October. The minimum time to prepare the Step 2 application should be 60 days but more is recommended. Step 3 is a face-to-face interview that uses the pitch deck submitted in Step 2. It is only available to projects that have been approved in Step 2 and the dates for this Step are fixed to be right after the Step 2 evaluations are released (i.e. the pitch week). The preparation for this Step can be performed in 14 days. What to Develop Alone and What to Outsource There is no general rule as to when a consultant or professional writer should be hired or if one is needed at all. The official proposal templates, work program and guidelines (i.e. for the EIC fund and the AI tool) are publically available which means that every company is technically able to apply on their own. Considerations must be made regarding the resources available and the timing of the grant writing. For Step 1, the effort is comparatively small: Benefits of Developing Step 1 In-House Step 1 requires comparatively little time-effort Step 1 is relatively easy to develop No money is wasted in case the project is not suitable for the EIC Accelerator (i.e. some consultancies will onboard low-success cases) Full control over the outcome Benefits of Hiring a Consultant A consultant can shape the project and make it more impactful as well as avoid red flags Being part of Step 1 will simplify the Step 2 process Optimize the automated scoring on the AI platform based on experience Time savings Close contact with the EIC to be prepared for unexpected changes Consultants will re-submit a proposal if rejected while a rejected project will have a difficult time hiring a consultant The downsides of each approach are the reverse of each other meaning that what is a benefit of hiring a consultant will be the downside of preparing an application alone. For Step 2, the comparison would be as follows: Note: The comparison for Step 2 assumes that applicants have successfully applied for Step 1 by themselves and are considering hiring a Step 2 partner. Benefits of Developing Step 2 In-House Cost savings Full control over the outcome Benefits of Hiring a Consultant A consultant can shape the project and make it more impactful as well as avoid red flags Organizing the project development and collaboration between the management team to meet the deadline Time savings Close contact with the EIC to be prepared for unexpected changes There are a variety of considerations to be made alongside the general tradeoffs of hiring a consultancy listed above. One of these is the way companies assess their own capabilities and the way they judge their performed effort. It is not uncommon for a consultant to be contacted by a client who wants to apply to Step 1 by themselves while casually mentioning that they have scored B or C in all AI tool segments even though the project is highly qualified for the EIC Accelerator. Just because Step 1 is relatively easy to prepare does not mean that it is a low hanging fruit. One must place significant effort into the preparation of the application regardless of its simplicity. Yes, the EIC wants to make it easy for applicants to apply and wants to avoid them wasting their time on a long application if there is no chance for them to succeed. But this does not mean that evaluators will get a project with minimal input or read between the lines. Companies that are very busy often think that preparing a quick application will be good enough but this does not apply to EIC grants. A company should be prepared to go the extra mile with the application and fill out every section with a maximum amount of attention and effort. Conclusion The best way to answer the question as to when a consultant should be hired would be to first decide if an in-house proposal preparation is an option at all (i.e. time availability, skilled staff). Secondly, the company should talk to consultancies to identify if the project has appropriate chances for success (i.e. multiple opinions are recommended since some consultancies are not selective enough). Thirdly, the company must weigh the tradeoffs of in-house proposal writing which are the intense time requirements, especially for Step 2, but also the workload on the management team which might be better-advised focusing on business-relevant tasks instead of writing.

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