EIC Accelerator rejection

EIC Accelerator Resubmissions: The Good, The Bad and The Randomness

by

Navigating the EIC Accelerator: Understanding the “3 Strikes, You’re Out” Rule The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator is a pivotal funding mechanism under Horizon Europe, aimed at startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) that are pushing the boundaries of innovation. With a blend of grants and equity, it represents a critical opportunity for groundbreaking projects to come to life. However, navigating the application process is no small feat, especially with the stringent “3 strikes, you’re out” rule in place. This policy mandates that applicants can be rejected a maximum of three times in any of the three steps of the evaluation process. Once this limit is reached, reapplication is barred until the conclusion of the current Horizon Europe work programme in 2027. The Three Steps of EIC Accelerator Evaluation Short Application: The initial step involves a written application and a pitch video. It’s the first hurdle where your project gets screened. Full Application: Successful projects move on to submit a detailed proposal, outlining the innovation, impact, and implementation strategy. Interview: Finalists are invited to pitch their projects to a jury of experts, the last chance to convince before funding decisions are made. Implications of the “3 Strikes” Rule This rule underscores the competitive nature of the EIC Accelerator and the importance of meticulous preparation. It’s a clear message that only the most compelling and well-prepared applications stand a chance. This policy also encourages applicants to critically assess their readiness and the potential of their innovation before applying, potentially saving time and resources for both the applicants and the evaluation committees. Strategies for Success In-depth Preparation: Before applying, ensure your project aligns with the EIC’s priorities: high impact, innovation, and market potential. Professional Support: Consider engaging consultants or professional writers who specialize in EIC applications to enhance your submission. Feedback Utilization: If rejected, use the feedback to strengthen your project’s weak points before reapplying. The Horizon Europe Framework The current work programme, Horizon Europe, runs until 2027, setting the timeframe for this rule. It’s a period rich with opportunities but also limitations, as the “3 strikes” rule makes clear. Applicants must navigate this landscape with strategic foresight, ensuring their innovations are not just groundbreaking but also meticulously presented. Conclusion The EIC Accelerator’s “3 strikes, you’re out” rule is a critical factor for applicants to consider. It emphasizes the need for excellence in every aspect of the application, from the innovation itself to the way it’s communicated. As we move through Horizon Europe, this rule will undoubtedly shape the competitive landscape, pushing companies towards not just innovation, but excellence in articulation and strategy. Maximizing Your EIC Accelerator Proposal with the Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) The journey to securing funding from the European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator can be arduous, with each application step scrutinized by expert evaluators. A crucial tool in this journey is the Evaluation Summary Report (ESR), provided after every rejection. This report is not merely a notification of unsuccessful attempts but a goldmine of constructive feedback directly from the evaluators’ perspectives. Understanding the ESR The ESR offers a transparent view into the evaluators’ comments across all proposal aspects, including excellence, impact, and implementation. This feedback is invaluable for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of your submission. Step 1 Feedback: In the first step of the evaluation, your proposal is reviewed by four evaluators, providing a broad range of insights into the initial impression your project makes. Step 2 Feedback: The full application phase involves three evaluators, or four in cases of closely contested rejections. This stage offers a deeper dive into your proposal’s details, assessing how well it aligns with the EIC Accelerator’s objectives. Leveraging ESR for Success Actionable Insights: Each evaluator’s comments guide you in refining your proposal, highlighting areas for improvement in clarity, impact, and feasibility. Tailored Revisions: By addressing specific critiques, you can tailor your resubmission to directly confront previous shortcomings, enhancing your proposal’s appeal. Strategic Approach: Understanding recurring feedback themes allows for a strategic overhaul of your proposal, ensuring that every aspect, from innovation to market strategy, is robust and compelling. Conclusion The ESR is a critical feedback mechanism that, when used wisely, can significantly increase your chances of success in future EIC Accelerator applications. By thoroughly analyzing and acting on evaluator comments, applicants can transform their innovative projects into winning proposals that align with the EIC’s high standards for excellence, impact, and implementation. Remember, every piece of feedback is a step closer to securing the support needed to bring your innovation to the forefront of European industries. The EIC Accelerator Rebuttal Process: Turning Rejection into Opportunity The path to securing funding from the European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator is fraught with challenges, one of which is the possibility of rejection. However, the EIC Accelerator offers a unique rebuttal process that not only allows applicants to respond to evaluator comments but also provides a platform to correct misunderstandings and strengthen the proposal based on valid criticisms. The Essence of the Rebuttal This process is more than a mere appeal; it’s an opportunity for dialogue. By rebutting the comments of previous evaluators, applicants can directly address any false assessments and elaborate on the aspects of their proposal that may have been misunderstood or underestimated. This direct communication is crucial for setting a positive tone for the resubmission, making it a strategic tool for persuasion beyond the written proposal itself. Strategic Advantages Clarification: It allows applicants to clarify points that may have been misinterpreted, ensuring that the proposal is evaluated on its true merits. Improvement: Valid criticisms become opportunities for refinement, allowing applicants to improve their proposals based on expert feedback. Engagement: The rebuttal process creates a dialogue between applicants and evaluators, personalizing the application process and potentially swaying future evaluations in their favor. Navigating the Rebuttal Process To make the most of this opportunity, applicants should approach the rebuttal with a constructive mindset. Acknowledging valid criticisms while diplomatically addressing any inaccuracies can demonstrate professionalism and a commitment to excellence. Moreover, this process underscores the importance of resilience in the face of rejection, encouraging applicants to view setbacks as … Read more

EIC Accelerator: Empowering Breakthrough Innovations with Exciting Funding Opportunities!

by

Discover the Opportunities with the EIC Accelerator: Igniting Innovation and Growth! Discover a world of opportunity with the EIC Accelerator, an empowering funding program brought to you by the European Innovation Council (EIC), a key player within the Horizon Europe framework. This dynamic initiative is dedicated to uplifting innovative companies that are at the forefront of technological breakthroughs and scientific discoveries in the DeepTech domain. With the EIC Accelerator, your visionary project could secure up to €2.5 million in grant funding, complemented by the potential of an additional €15 million in equity financing. Let’s propel your pioneering ideas into tangible successes and shape the future together! Explore the Exciting Range of Technologies Eligible for EIC Accelerator Funding! Since its inception in 2021, the EIC Accelerator has proudly empowered a dynamic portfolio of over 400 beneficiaries, showcasing a vibrant tapestry of sectors from trailblazing capital-intensive hardware to revolutionary pure software ventures, all with an emphasis on the cutting-edge realm of DeepTech. With open arms, the EIC Accelerator embraces a wide array of technological innovations, provided they harmonize with EU policies, steering clear of military applications among others. What’s more, the EIC Accelerator annually spotlights certain pioneering technologies with its Technology Challenges, celebrating and accelerating the drive towards a brilliant, tech-forward future. Discover the Ideal Technology Maturity Level for EIC Accelerator Success! Elevate your innovative technology to new heights with the support of the EIC Accelerator! If your technology is at or beyond Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 5, where it has already been validated in a relevant environment, you’re in an excellent position to apply. The EIC Accelerator champions the advancement of prototypes and proof-of-concept demonstrations, actively seeking to propel your breakthroughs from TRL 5 onwards. And that’s not all! The journey continues seamlessly with grant opportunities available for technologies that have achieved TRL 6 or 7, ensuring a smooth progression towards market readiness. For those outstanding innovations that have matured to TRL 8, the EIC Accelerator offers the unique prospect of pure Equity investments. Get ready to accelerate your technology with the dynamic and supportive backing of the EIC Accelerator! Explore the Exciting Funding Opportunities with the EIC Accelerator! Welcome to the dynamic world of the EIC Accelerator, where we supercharge innovative companies with a suite of funding options tailored to propel your business to the forefront of your industry! Dive into our generous Grants of up to €2.5 million to kick-start your ventures without giving up equity. Or, if you’re looking to bolster your growth with a significant capital injection, explore our Equity option with investments of up to €15 million, where the EIC Fund becomes a proud stakeholder in your success. Can’t choose between the two? Our Blended Finance combines the best of both worlds, offering up to €17.5 million in funds, ensuring you have the flexibility and resources to scale new heights. Choose the type and amount of funding that aligns perfectly with your company’s ambitions, and in those extraordinary instances where your vision requires an even broader financial canvas, we’re ready to discuss larger funding opportunities. With the EIC Accelerator, your business potential knows no bounds! Unleash Your Innovation: Start Your Applicant Journey! Discover the Trailblazers: Celebrating Recipients of EIC Accelerator Funding! Get ready for a thrilling opportunity with the EIC Accelerator! If you’re a dynamic for-profit company registered in one of our designated eligible countries, you’re in the right place to fuel your innovation and growth. But that’s not all – visionary individuals and forward-thinking investors are also warmly invited to join the ride! Just make sure you set up your company before the ink dries on the Grant Agreement Contract. Your enterprise should be an independent Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (SME), characterized by a vibrant team of fewer than 250 people, and robust financial health with a turnover of €50 million or less and a balance sheet total that doesn’t exceed €43 million. Come aboard and let the EIC Accelerator propel your business to new heights! Discover the Exciting Opportunities: All EU Countries Welcome to Apply for the EIC Accelerator! The EIC Accelerator presents an exciting opportunity for innovative companies and entrepreneurs across the entire EU-27, including Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden, as well as their respective territories. This vibrant platform offers a gateway for visionaries from all corners of the EU to bring their groundbreaking ideas to the forefront and drive Europe’s innovation landscape into a bright and dynamic future! Discover How International Innovators Can Join the EIC Accelerator Adventure! We’re thrilled to announce that through our association agreements with Horizon Europe, a world of opportunities has been unlocked for companies and individuals in an impressive array of countries! If you’re based in Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Faroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Kosovo, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Morocco, or the United Kingdom (Grant only), get ready to bring your innovative ideas to life with the EIC Accelerator. This is your chance to join a vibrant community of forward-thinkers and game-changers. Apply now and let’s shape the future together! Discover How the EIC Accelerator Can Propel Your Innovation Journey! Discover Your Potential: Unveiling Success Stories with the EIC Accelerator! Embark on an exciting journey with the EIC Accelerator, where every application is an opportunity to shine! While we cherish the competitive spirit, exact success rates for each of our three dynamic evaluation steps remain a well-kept surprise. Nevertheless, it’s estimated that a dazzling 5% of applicants or more move triumphantly from Step 1 to Step 3, demonstrating true innovation and potential. Keep in mind, success rates may soar depending on the EIC Accelerator’s annual budget and the spirited number of applications for each call-off. Plus, whether it’s an Open Call or tailored to Challenges, the chances to succeed can vary, highlighting that with the right idea and excellent execution, your project … Read more

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.

The Randomness in EIC Accelerator’s Evaluation: Frustration and Lack of Accountability

by

Introduction: The Unpredictability of EIC Accelerator’s Evaluation Process The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator program’s evaluation process, particularly in Steps 1 and 2, is fraught with unpredictability and a sense of randomness, leading to frustration among applicants. The lack of clear consequences for evaluators who provide inconsistent, incorrect, or uninformed assessments exacerbates this issue. The “Luck Factor” in Project Selection Applicants have reported instances where resubmitted proposals with minimal or no changes succeeded, undermining the credibility of the process. This randomness, dubbed the “luck factor,” is a significant determinant in the selection of high-quality proposals. This inconsistency is further highlighted by cases where companies are rejected for raising a certain amount of funding, while others are selected despite having raised significantly more​​. Lack of Accountability and Inconsistent Feedback The EIC Accelerator program lacks a mechanism to hold evaluators accountable for the consistency of their assessments. Rejected applicants are generally not motivated to publicize their rejections, leading to a lack of transparency in the evaluation process. This situation leaves professional consultants and writers as the primary collectors of case studies detailing these inconsistencies​​. Proposal Resubmission: A Testimony to Randomness Historically, many projects required multiple submissions (3 to 5 attempts) before being funded, suggesting that the evaluation process is too random to yield consistent and desirable results. Despite improvements in evaluator feedback post-2020, the randomness remains a significant issue​​. Potential Solutions to Mitigate Randomness Evaluator and Jury Member Accountability: Implementing a system where evaluators and jury members are assessed based on their decision accuracy could mitigate some of these issues. For example, a ‘strike’ system could be introduced for evaluators who incorrectly assess projects, with strikes assigned for inconsistent grading compared to later stages. Enhanced Communication and Consistency: Improved communication between remote evaluators of Steps 1 and 2 and the Step 3 jury members, who have different backgrounds and funding criteria, could help. Ensuring consistency in rejection reasons across all evaluation steps would also reduce randomness. Publicizing Detailed Evaluation Criteria and Results: More transparent communication of evaluation criteria and detailed, anonymized results of evaluations could provide applicants with clearer expectations and reduce the element of surprise in decisions. Conclusion: Addressing the Randomness for Better Outcomes The randomness in the EIC Accelerator’s evaluation process presents a significant challenge that needs addressing. Introducing accountability measures for evaluators and ensuring consistency and transparency in the evaluation process are crucial steps towards making the EIC Accelerator a more fair and reliable funding opportunity for European innovators.

The Confusion Among EIC Accelerator Applicants: Communication and Evaluation Challenges

by

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

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

by

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

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.

The Road to Approval: Navigating Rejections in Startup Funding

by

Introduction Securing funding in the highly competitive landscape of startup grants, especially through prestigious programs like the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator, is often a journey marked by initial rejections. This article explores the common trajectory of startups facing rejections before finally achieving approval, highlighting the resilience required in the pursuit of non-dilutive grants and equity financing for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs). The Inevitable Hurdle of Rejection In the quest for the EIC Accelerator’s significant financial backing of up to €17.5 million in total financing, startups are bound to encounter rejection. These setbacks are not merely obstacles but are part and parcel of the rigorous selection process designed to identify the most innovative and market-ready projects. Rejections often serve as critical learning opportunities, providing insights and feedback that can significantly refine and strengthen subsequent applications. Understanding the Dynamics of Rejection The reasons behind rejections are as varied as the projects themselves. They might be due to a misalignment with the program’s current focus, lack of clarity in the proposal, or simply the incredibly high competition. The official proposal template provided by the EIC Accelerator demands precision, a clear articulation of the project’s impact, and a demonstration of market potential – areas where many applications may fall short on the first attempt. The Role of Expert Writers in Overcoming Rejections Professional writers, freelancers, and consultants specializing in the EU grant application process play a crucial role in navigating through and learning from rejections. They possess the expertise to dissect evaluator feedback, identify weaknesses in the application, and strategize a more compelling resubmission. Their experience in understanding the nuances of the EIC Accelerator’s structured template and evaluative criteria is invaluable in turning past rejections into future successes. Resilience and Persistence: Key to Success The journey to securing funding is a testament to resilience and persistence. Most successful startups have faced one or more rejections before finally achieving approval. Each rejection, when approached correctly, is a stepping stone to refining the business model, technology, or strategy presented. It is a rigorous process of evolution and improvement, demanding startups to continuously enhance their proposals in alignment with evaluators’ expectations and market needs. Conclusion Rejections are an inherent aspect of the competitive funding landscape. They are not the end but rather an important part of the journey toward securing startup grants. The ability to learn from rejections, coupled with expert guidance and a resilient mindset, significantly increases the chances of success in subsequent rounds. As startups navigate this challenging path, the experiences and lessons learned from each rejection enrich their growth, culminating in a refined, compelling application that stands out to evaluators. In the world of startup funding, particularly within the EIC Accelerator program, embracing and overcoming rejections is a crucial step on the road to approval and innovation success.

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 the EIC Accelerator’s 2021 Success Rates (SME Instrument)

by

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) has reinvented itself in 2021 with a new submission process, a larger budget and new success thresholds (read: AI Tool Review). The latter is significant since they directly define how much time companies will need to spend on an application and how much time would have been wasted in case of a rejection (read: Companies That Should Not Apply). With the success rates having approximated 5% for many years and them having seen a steep decline in 2020 from 2.7% in January to <1% in October, it is likely that these success rates are now moving towards an all-time high. A previously published article investigated the potential success rates and predicted workloads of the individual stages, namely Step 1 (short application), Step 2 (full application) and Step 3 (face-to-face interview). The analysis looked at the best outcomes for applicants since the analysis directly correlated the success rates with the workload imposed on applicants and concluded that the most selective barriers should be in the beginning rather than in the end to avoid months worth of wasted effort. The 2021 Success rates With many startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) having applied to the 2021’s EIC Accelerator either by themselves or via consultants and professional writers, it is now possible to draw conclusions on the overall distribution of the success rates (read: Re-Inventing the EIC Accelerator). Since Step 1 is continually open for submissions, the approval rates are constantly changing but as of May 15th 2021, 67% of companies have passed with 755 out of 1,114. This number is expected to remain relatively constant over the coming months since it is also the threshold the European Innovation Council (EIC) had targeted. Step 2 results have only recently been published and they might not be representative for the coming cut-off’s since (i) the preparation time for applicants was less than 30 days, (ii) it was the very first call with a new application process and (iii) the feedback of the Step 3 interview juries might influence future Step 2 evaluations. Nonetheless, in June, 130 out of 801 applicants were selected for Step 3 which means that 16% of companies were successful in this stage. Note: Out of the 130 interview invitations for the EIC Accelerator’s Step 3, 24 Swiss startups were deemed ineligible due to the recent decision of the Swiss authorities in relation to Horizon Europe (2021-2027). This would yield a 13% success rate in this Stage considering that only 106 companies will participate in the interviews in mid-September. Combining the success rates of Step 1 and Step 2 yields a total success rate of 11% leading up to Step 3, and, considering that the success rates of the interview stage (Step 3) have historically been between approximately 50% in 2018/2019, it can be assumed that the overall success rate will regain a 5% total for the EIC Accelerator. Note: While interview success rates were approximately 50% in 2018/2019, they have oscillated between 30% and 50% in Q4 2019 and throughout 2020. Due to the high budgets and the dropout of 24 Swiss applicants (18% of all invitees) after the Step 2 evaluations, Step 3 success rates could potentially reach 70%, yielding a 7%+ funding rate. Conclusion It remains to be seen how the actual success rates will unfold in Step 3 and how future changes in the submission forms, the official proposal template and in the evaluations (esp. with jury feedback) will affect these thresholds. The budget of €1B for only 2 cut-offs in 2021 is likewise extremely high which means that this 2021 gold rush might be short-lived. One thing is for certain: The EIC Accelerator has never been as accessible as it is today with many great projects having higher chances to receive funding. What remains to be seen is if the EIC stands by their commitment and does not rank proposals against each other but retains its individualised GO & NO-GO methodology. If this is the case then the EIC accelerator could stay as accessible as it is now for the entirety of Horizon Europe (2021-2027) since no amount of applicants or competition would impede an individual projects chances of success. Even though this does seem like the ideal scenario, it remains to be seen if this is feasible. If the GO’s in Step 2 or 3 exceed the budgets then there are only three options: (1) Reject GO applicants based on discriminating factors (i.e. industry, costs, gender), (2) create a waiting list for approved proposals either in Step 2 or 3 (i.e. before the interview or after the interview) or (3) change the back-end evaluation prior to publishing the results to reject otherwise funded applicants retroactively (i.e. making the jury evaluation stricter). One last thing to mention is that some government agencies are forced to completely spend their annual budgets since it is directly related to their allocated budget in the following year so the October 2021 cut-off of the EIC Accelerator might see a surprising number of funded companies if the June cut-off does not spend its available €500M.

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