EIC Accelerator help

Navigating the Unpredictability: The Randomness in Grant Evaluations

by

Introduction The journey to secure substantial funding, particularly through competitive programs like the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator, is fraught with unpredictability, largely due to the reliance on a vast network of remote evaluators with diverse backgrounds. As startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) vie for opportunities like the €17.5 million total financing available through the EIC Accelerator, understanding and navigating the inherent randomness in evaluations becomes crucial. This article delves into the complexities of the evaluative process and the randomness that stems from its reliance on a multitude of remote evaluators. The Complexity of Remote Evaluations The EIC Accelerator, like many grant programs, employs a large cohort of remote evaluators to assess the influx of applications. These individuals come from various fields, bringing a wide array of expertise, perspectives, and biases to the table. While this diversity is intended to ensure a broad understanding and fair judgment of proposals across different industries, it inevitably introduces a level of unpredictability and randomness into the evaluation process. The Double-Edged Sword of Diversity The diversity among evaluators is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it ensures that a wide variety of projects can be understood and appreciated from different angles. On the other, it can lead to inconsistencies in evaluations, as different evaluators might prioritize different aspects of a proposal or interpret criteria differently based on their background. This variability can be particularly challenging for applicants, who may receive vastly different feedback or scores with each submission attempt. The Role of Expert Guidance In navigating this landscape of unpredictability, the role of professional writers, consultants, and freelancers becomes even more critical. These experts understand the common pitfalls and variables in the evaluation process. They help in crafting proposals that not only meet the structured criteria of the official proposal template but also appeal to a broad range of evaluator preferences and perspectives. Their experience and strategic insights are invaluable in mitigating the randomness of evaluations and enhancing the application’s chances of success. Striving for Consistency and Fairness Programs like the EIC Accelerator continually strive to enhance the consistency and fairness of their evaluation processes. This includes rigorous training for evaluators, clear guidelines, and structured templates. However, the human element inherent in any evaluative process ensures that a degree of randomness and subjectivity remains. Applicants must be prepared for this reality and approach the application process with a strategy that accounts for variability. Conclusion The randomness in grant evaluations, resulting from the reliance on a wide network of remote evaluators with diverse backgrounds, is an inherent challenge in securing competitive funding. It demands a strategic and well-informed approach from applicants, underpinned by expert guidance and a deep understanding of the evaluative landscape. As funding programs continue to evolve and refine their processes, applicants too must adapt, ready to navigate the unpredictability with resilience and strategy. In doing so, they increase their chances of cutting through the randomness and securing the vital funding needed to propel their innovations forward.

Presenting ChatEIC: The AI Co-Pilot for EIC Accelerator Applications

by

Imagine you could simply generate an entire EIC Accelerator application based on a single company file and a few prompts. ChatEIC, a custom AI based on GPT-4, is able to do exactly just that. EIC Accelerator Modules The EIC Accelerator Training Program utilizes a Module-based approach to grant writing where specific sections are combined into Modules to facilitate the learning and writing process. Using the same approach for teaching companies how to write a grant application and apply for the EIC Accelerator, ChatEIC is able to learn how each section must be structured and can simply apply its learnings to any company. In this scenario, the user has to provide only minimal input, if any. Ideally, the user only needs to upload an investor deck or a long pitch deck and ChatEIC will take it from there. The Case Study: Generating Proposal Sections As an example, one can use publically available data such as an investor deck by the publically-traded synthetic biology company Ginkgo Bioworks. While this deck is by no means complete, it contains 66 pages of valuable information and, most importantly, describes a DeepTech project that is very much aligned with the EIC Accelerator. Ginkgo Bioworks, while it is a US business, is an excellent case study to test the capabilities of AI-generated grant proposal sections since the main performance standard for any AI grant writer is minimum input. Using an AI text generator is only useful if it reduces the workload which makes minimal prompt work a must. Now, let’s see how well ChatEIC will perform with its general knowledge regarding the writing of EIC Accelerator proposals. A major challenge is to turn general knowledge into specialized knowledge since each company, market and industry are different. So, is ChatEIC able to create specialized sections or will it end up being generic? Example: Market, Abstract and Risks Note: The modules contain pre-defined context that ChatEIC will recognize and use to write for this project. ChatEIC does not need to be reminded what each Module means since it knows them by heart and just needs to hear the number. In this case, the first input prompt only contains the Ginkgo Bioworks Investor Deck as a PDF attachment. The following chat conversation represents the entire conversation, prompts and information exchanged with ChatEIC without any edits or omissions. ChatEIC has no prior knowledge regarding grant applications for Ginkgo Bioworks or specialized knowledge of synthetic biology companies outside of the GPT-4 base. Input: Write Module 56 (Ginkgo.PDF attached) ChatEIC: After reviewing the document provided, I didn’t find specific information related to Market Size & Growth (Module 56) for Ginkgo. However, based on the nature of Ginkgo’s work and industry, I can draft a generic Module 56 for your review. Module 56: Market Size & Growth Market Size and Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) Ginkgo operates in the rapidly evolving biotechnology sector, focusing on cell programming and bioengineering. The Total Addressable Market (TAM) for the global biotech industry is estimated to be over €XX billion, driven by increasing demand for innovative healthcare solutions, sustainable agricultural practices, and novel bio-based products. Serviceable Addressable Market (SAM) Within this broad market, Ginkgo’s SAM can be segmented into specialized areas like synthetic biology, genome engineering, and biosecurity, totaling around €XX billion. This segment is characterized by a robust growth trajectory due to technological advancements and increasing adoption of bioengineered solutions across various industries. Serviceable Obtainable Market (SOM) Ginkgo’s SOM, considering its current product and service offerings, is projected to be in the range of €XX million to €XX million. The company is well-positioned to capture a significant portion of this market, given its innovative platform, strategic partnerships, and advanced capabilities in cell programming. Market Trends and Future Outlook The market is witnessing a significant shift towards sustainable and environmentally friendly solutions, where Ginkgo’s expertise in bioengineering is highly relevant. Upcoming regulatory changes, increased investment in biotech research, and a growing focus on personalized medicine and sustainable practices are likely to further drive market growth. Ginkgo’s ability to adapt and innovate positions it favorably to leverage these trends for sustained growth. This module is a general depiction based on the typical market environment for companies like Ginkgo. For a more accurate and detailed module, specific market data and growth projections related to Ginkgo’s products and services are required. Do you have any additional information or specific data points that you would like to include in this module? Input: Use Bing to search for market reports for the SAM and SOM as well in the broader synthetic biology space ChatEIC: Based on a quick search, here’s what I discovered. The search for specific market reports on the Serviceable Addressable Market (SAM) and Serviceable Obtainable Market (SOM) in the synthetic biology space for 2024 didn’t yield precise results. The available information primarily covers the overall Synthetic Biology Market. Here’s what I found: The Synthetic Biology Market size is estimated to be USD 79.39 billion in 2024 and is expected to reach USD 145.49 billion by 2029, growing at a CAGR of 12.88% during the forecast period (2024-2029)​​.[ref] According to another report, the Synthetic Biology Market was valued at USD 13.1 billion in 2022 and is projected to expand at a significant growth rate​​.[ref] A different source mentions that the global synthetic biology market size was valued at USD 13.09 billion in 2022 and is expected to expand at a CAGR of 18.97% from 2023 to 2030​​.[ref] One more report supports the estimation of the Synthetic Biology Market size at USD 79.39 billion in 2024, with a growth forecast up to USD 145.49 billion by 2029​​.[ref] Lastly, another study valued the Synthetic Biology Market at USD 9.4 billion in 2022 and expected it to reach USD 47.4 billion by 2029, with a CAGR of 26% during the forecast period 2023-29​​.[ref] These findings provide a broad overview of the market size and growth rate in the synthetic biology sector. However, for a more precise estimation of SAM and SOM for Ginkgo … Read more

A New Approach to Developing EIC Accelerator Projects under Horizon Europe (SME Instrument)

by

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) can be viewed as an entirely new funding program under Horizon Europe (2021-2027). It has not only changed its grant proposal submission process but also its evaluation which will likely see significant changes in the types of companies selected as beneficiaries (read: Re-Inventing the EIC Accelerator). This article aims to contrast the previous workflow of professional grant writers and consultants with this newest iteration of the European Innovation Councils (EIC) startup and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprise (SME) funding arm (read: AI Tool Review). Since innovation is on the minds of both writers and evaluators at all times, making necessary changes and adapting to a new and unpredictable environment comes as second nature. As such, even large consultancies have already adapted their workflow and have started to change their internal processes to retain efficiency and quality. How Grant Proposal Writing Looked Like In 2020 In 2020 and the years under Horizon 2020 (2014-2020), the process of writing EIC Accelerator (or then SME Instrument) applications was rather straightforward. The collaboration would begin with a Kick-Off Meeting (KOM), the transfer of relevant files and then the writers would get to work – mostly autonomously. Due to the limited space available and the lack of depth regarding the technology, there was little reason to have excessive input from the company themselves since the proposal focused on a short, narrative description over technical segmentations. In 2021, this approach has changed since the application itself is structured differently. This article aims to highlight how the old way of proposal writing is now replaced by a more modern and nuanced approach that requires more collaboration, depth and sophistication. Why The Old Approach Stopped Working 1. Text Requirements and Length The 2020’s EIC Accelerator proposal was relatively long with 30 pages as the main document but the 2021 version has increased that number tremendously. This is due to the abundant text boxes of mostly 1,000 characters that must be filled throughout the application while some segments also amount to 5,000 characters, 10,000 or unlimited spaces. As such, descriptions are much more detailed and must often be developed for the proposal itself since companies do not always use certain types of segmentations. Examples are the features and use-cases, Technology Readiness Level (TRL) milestones, Total Available Market (TAM), Serviceable Available Market (SAM), Serviceable Obtainable Market (SOM) or the Technology Adoption Life-Cycle (TALC). 2. Technical Detail & Depth Many sections in 2020 were rather surface-level and writers often struggled to allocate more than 1 DINA4 page for the technology description, including images, due to the strict limitations. With the new features and use cases model, one can easily set up 10 features with 7,000 characters each, yielding 70,000 characters for the technology description alone. Considering the need to describe the Freedom to Operate (FTO), the currently existing knowledge, bottlenecks and the added value for each feature, it is evident that there is an unprecedented level of depth that is required. Assuming 140 words per 1,000 characters and 750 words making up a block of text on a DINA4 page (using the 2020’s EIC Accelerator margins without images), this would yield 13 DINA4 pages of pure text for the features alone. Comparing this to the previous single page which had to include images, the change is quite drastic and the 13 pages would not even cover the entire description of the solution since it must be described elsewhere as well. This level of depth is impossible to fill without strong collaborations with the Chief Technical Officer (CTO) and sufficient research. Considering that all sections that are covering the market, financials, commercial strategy and others have likewise increased in size, it is clear that the 2021 EIC Accelerator proposal has easily quadrupled in size compared to 2020. 3. More Scrutiny Towards Commercial Strategies Commercial strategies and market analyses were usually quite limited due to the page restrictions of the 2020’s EIC Accelerator. With the now bloated Step 2 process, this has changed significantly. The market sections and especially the TALC require a detailed breakdown of how customers will be reached with specific market penetration expectations. As such, the strategy will require plans that exceed simplified notions like: We want to start in the European Union (EU) and then go global We have local distributors who can help us We expect to reach 100 customers in 3 years We will develop a customer network The new template asks the applying startups and SME’s to define each penetration segment and even to give cash flows (operating, investing and financing) for each, including a timeline and Profit and Loss (P&L). Especially the P&L, even though the new spreadsheet is now simplified, will need an additional breakdown to account for the figures given in the TALC which can span 10+ years into the future while the P&L usually only views 5 years. 4. Other Sections Outside of the Go2Market and the technical parts, there are a variety of figures and considerations that need more input from applicants since they were more surface-level in 2020. Especially the risk section, the investment needs and the competitors (i.e. pains and gains) require strong input from the companies management team. How To Structure Project Development in 2021 As a result, the previous hands-off approach of outsourcing proposal writing to a consultant is impossible but it is replaced by a more collaborative approach where the company must be actively engaged in discussing the needed input and be brought in for the structuring of the entire application. The greatest change in 2021 is the collaboration between consultants (or professional writers) and clients. Instead of drafting a business plan autonomously, the consultants have to bring their clients into the process and, since the management team of a scale-up is usually quite busy, display excellent project management throughout the process. These changes are still quite new but major improvements over the old methods could be: Multiple Kick-Off Calls for Dedicated Sections … Read more

Looking at Innovation From a New Angle: Changing the Evaluation of EIC Accelerator Proposals (SME Instrument)

by

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (grant and equity) has undergone a dramatic transition from its first inception out of the now obsolete SME Instrument Phase 2 in 2019 and its following test phase as the EIC Accelerator Pilot in 2019/2020. With a new application process that includes multiple steps, an online AI platform for the submission and a video pitch, it has changed not only its process but also its outcomes (read: AI Tool Review). With the evaluation and the proposal template having changed alongside this newest iteration, it is clear that what worked in 2020 and earlier phases might not be applicable in 2021. Clearly, the proposal looks different, prioritises a pre-determined structure over a free business plan narrative and defines a specific roadmap that all companies have to adhere to. But the factor that might have the most significant impact on the newest changes of the EIC Accelerator might be the evaluation itself. Moving away from the SME Instrument Phase 2 and EIC Accelerator Pilot The aim of the new Step 1 of the EIC Accelerator is a quality check of applications to identify if the project is of interest to the EU and if it fits the general risk, innovation, team and market criteria. As such, it was initially advertised as being a way of emulating the old Seal of Excellence* which was awarded to 2020 projects with an evaluation score of at least 13 out of 15. Historically, 30% to 50% of all submitted projects between 2018 and 2020 reached this level. The current Step 1 success rates of 60-70% match this threshold rather well although one could argue that the equivalent old score would rather correspond to a 12.5 and not a full 13. Still, Step 1 acts as a threshold that is partially replacing the old scoring but also has a distinctively different focus when it comes to project quality. This quality aspect can be investigated through a simple question: Will resubmissions of 12.5+ scored applications from 2020 automatically do well in the 2021’s Step 1? *Note: The new Seal of Excellence is now only awarded to some companies that reach Step 3 of the evaluation process, namely the interview stage. The 2021 Seal of Excellence is not associated with the Step 1 short application or with any type of scoring but acts as a useful analogy to the previous iterations of the funding program prior to 2021. Transitioning from 2020 to 2021: Thresholds and Quality The EIC has stated that Step 1 is designed to “trigger the interest of evaluators” which means that it is a very surface-level assessment compared to even the old SME Instrument Phase 1. There are only 5 simplified evaluation criteria in Step 1 while the 2020 evaluations had to address 17 very detailed criteria. One could argue that the newest evaluation criteria which directly define the success of projects are now heavily favouring innovation, risk and the market while the old criteria were looking at every aspect of the company and project with equal weights. Without a judgement as to the benefit or tradeoffs of this approach, it clearly impacts what types of projects will succeed and it will likely be very different from what was observed in 2020 as well as the decade before (read: Recommendations for the EICA). Some interesting cases of applicants who have applied to the EIC Accelerator have surfaced whereas a 2020 submission that showed low scores of 10 to 11 out of the maximum of 15 passed Step 1 in 2021 with very positive reviews. What is interesting is that such low scores in 2020 were often treated as a lost cause in the eyes of professional writers or consultancies since it means that either the project lacks the sophistication needed to convince the European Innovation Council (EIC) or the startup or Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprise (SME) does not have a well-thought-out business model or financial planning. Changing the Evaluation Criteria With the first stage being designed to only peak the evaluator’s interest, many projects which would not have been considered for funding in 2020 even if the European Commission (EC) had excess financing available can now easily pass the first stage. How this will change in Step 2 is unclear but what can be said is that the evaluation criteria have changed significantly. In 2020, there were 17 detailed criteria that covered the entire business model ranging from the subcontracting over the partner network to the details of the customer base (read: Companies That Should Not Apply). Questions were highly detailed and covered: Why would customers buy from you? Is your business model able to scale your company? Is the strategic plan for the commercialisation sufficient? Are any IP or licensing issues addressed? Is the product easy to use? … This has been replaced by 13 criteria in Step 2 and only 5 in Step 1. Instead of asking very nuanced questions to the evaluators who have to grade the complete project in increments, the new criteria are simplified and focus on many of the same questions albeit with less detail. Interestingly, the new criteria omit gender equality, broader benefits in the EU and societal challenges. These were explicit in the old evaluation criteria but are now non-existent even though they must be described in the Step 2 application. This is likely due to the new Strategic Challenges and female-CEO quota that is enforced in the back-end and must not be re-iterated in the evaluations front-end. The “Go” Criteria There clearly is a different focus in the new evaluation criteria with a strong preference for the risk, market, innovation and the team with instructions for evaluators being that a Step 2 Go should correspond to what would have been a 4.5 to 5 score under the 2020 rules.** To revisit the anecdote mentioned above, an application with a score of 10.5 would have had average scores of 3.5 for each section which means that it should not stand a chance to … Read more

The Profile of a Company That Should Not Apply for the EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument)

by

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) is a highly competitive but also highly popular grant and equity financing scheme by the European Innovation Council (EIC). Many startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) in the EU but also in associated countries such as Israel or Norway are interested in applying to the funds but many would be better off seeking out other options. While grant consultancies and professional writers all have different approaches to the selection of suitable EIC Accelerator applicants, there are some common themes that are shared among success-oriented grant consultants. Since the official grant proposal template for the EIC Accelerator does not clarify such nuanced points in-depth, the following article aims to give an overview of the types of companies that should not apply. For any startup or scaleup that is recognising themselves in any of the points listed below, it would be advisable to refrain from hiring a writer or consultant since time and resources can be better spent elsewhere. Note: The EIC does not primarily select great companies, it primarily selects companies that fit a certain mould. Having low chances for success under the EIC does not mean that the company or project are bad. The EIC would have never financed social networks like Facebook or Twitter and even industry-specific unicorn companies like Epic Games or Instacart. Yet, these are all success cases on a level the EIC dreams of. The list below is designed to highlight the first impression that consultants and grant writers often face when a client first comes into contact. Since the demand for grant writers is generally very high, this first impression will likely define how interested the consultancy is in a particular project. How do they present their company or technology? Why do they need EIC Accelerator support? What needs to be financed? 1. An Inquiry Uses a Gmail or Similar Domain Address While this is not a strong red flag – it suggests that the company or project is not fully formed yet. Buying a domain and creating a private email account usually precedes even the company registration since it is so simple (and cheap). If an inquiry lacks a private domain then this is usually a sign that a project is in the idea stage. Very few founders would contact investors or customers with a Gmail address which means that any inquiry from such an address is a tell for an ineligible project. Since 2021, the EIC Accelerator also funds non-incorporated natural persons but, due to the competitiveness of the grant, this does not mean that a single person without backing, traction or support networks will be able to be successful. Every inquiry that comes from a domain that is not privately hosted and is not attached to a Corporate Identity (CI) will likely be ignored by selective consultancies. 2. The Prospect EIC Accelerator Applicant is in the Idea Stage The new EIC’s AI platform aims to display the journey from Ideation towards Go-to-Market but that does not mean that a natural person can be successful with a pure idea. The Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) clearly outline the stage a technology has to be in with TRL5 being the minimum for the EIC Accelerator and lower TRL’s only being possible in EIC Pathfinder and EIC Transition programs. The current diagnostics and ideation parts of the EIC Accelerator application are misleading since they can give the impression that projects can still be in the idea stage and is then transformed into a commercial product once Step 3 is reached but this is not the case. The applicant’s project will not make significant changes from Step 1 to 3 – the only thing that will change is the amount and depth of data that is provided to the EIC for evaluation purposes. The EIC Accelerator, also a misleading name, is not a traditional accelerator that aims to help startups succeed by helping with product development, investor relationships or customer contact. The primary resource, outside of limited coaching, will be financial which means that the applicants need a business plan, the right commerial strategy and must have all it takes to implement the project. The EIC will not hold the beneficiaries hands albeit they will aim to create networking opportunities if it matches current political agendas such as the Green Deal, COVID-19 relief or similar trends. Having an idea and reaching out to a consultant with a half-formed business plan will likely be insufficient and be ignored by most selective writers. 3. The Company has no Website or Social Presence It is understandable that many companies are in stealth mode especially when it comes to DeepTech products in the area of biotechnology or pharmaceuticals where large competitors spend billions on R&D and could copy a technology quickly – patented or not. Still, even if a company has no interest in marketing itself or in publicising its technology, every company that has sufficient seed funding and the degree of traction needed to succeed in the EIC Accelerator should have a website and a LinkedIn page at the very least. There can be exceptions but no presence at all often means that founders view this project as a side business or are not invested in its success. One additional exception to this is a newly formed company that is a University spin-off or subsidiary of another company. In the latter case, the prospective applicant can usually provide a website link for the parent company while, in the former case, they could be too early stage for the EIC Accelerator but can be eligible for the EIC Pathfinder. 4. Based on Research that is not Theirs (a University Non-Spin-Off) What can often be encountered is a company that is basing its technology on University research that is not theirs but also does not exist in the market yet. This, in and of itself, does not mean that it is ineligible for the EIC Accelerator but … Read more

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