EIC Accelerator results

Unveiling the Latest EIC Accelerator Results: A Comprehensive Analysis (November 8th 2023 Cut-Off, February 2024 Release)

by

FIND THE NEWEST RESULTS HERE The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator program stands as a system of support for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) across Europe, aiming to fuel innovation and technological advancement. With its latest results published on February 28th, 2024, the EIC Accelerator has once again demonstrated its commitment to fostering groundbreaking projects with a total budget allocation of €285 million. This analysis delves into the distribution of grants and blended financing, the success rates across different stages, and the geographical spread of the winning companies. Funding Breakdown: A Closer Look at the Allocation In the latest funding cycle, the EIC Accelerator has supported 42 companies, showcasing a diverse range of financing options tailored to meet the varied needs of Europe’s innovators. The distribution of funding types is as follows: Grant First: 12 companies (29%) were awarded grants as an initial funding step, highlighting the EIC’s flexibility in supporting early-stage innovations. Blended Finance: Dominating the funding landscape, 26 companies (62%) received blended finance, combining grants and equity to provide a robust backing for ventures ready to scale up. Equity Only: A single company (2%) secured equity financing, underscoring the EIC’s role in taking a stake in promising enterprises. Grant Only: 3 companies (7%) received grants without the equity component, focusing on projects with specific needs that can be met with direct funding. The Path to Success: Analyzing the Success Rates The EIC Accelerator’s selection process is rigorous, designed to identify projects with the highest potential impact. The success rates at each stage of the application process are as follows: Step 1: Approximately 70% of applicants pass this initial stage, though exact figures are not disclosed. Step 2: Only 22% of projects make it through, reflecting the increasing scrutiny applications undergo. Step 3: The final step sees a further narrowing, with a 17% success rate. Combined Success Rates: The cumulative success rate for applicants passing through Steps 2 and 3 is a mere 3.9%, while the overall success rate across all three stages is approximately 2.7%. Geographical Diversity: A Pan-European Impact The latest round of funding has benefited companies from 15 different countries, showcasing the EIC Accelerator’s pan-European reach. Germany leads the pack with 7 companies funded, followed closely by France with 6, and Spain and Sweden each with 5. Other countries with successful applicants include Finland (4), Italy (3), Israel (2), Netherlands (2), Norway (2), and several others with one company each, demonstrating the EIC’s commitment to fostering innovation across the continent. Conclusion The EIC Accelerator’s latest funding results highlight the program’s critical role in supporting the European innovation ecosystem. With a total budget of €285 million, the program has backed 42 companies across a wide range of sectors and countries, underlining the diversity and potential of Europe’s technological landscape. As the EIC Accelerator continues to evolve, its impact on fostering groundbreaking projects and scaling up SMEs is undeniable, making it a cornerstone of Europe’s innovation policy. With meticulous attention to supporting diverse financing needs, rigorous selection processes, and a commitment to geographical inclusivity, the EIC Accelerator is paving the way for a more innovative and resilient Europe. As we look forward to future rounds of funding, the results from February 2024 serve as a testament to the vibrant entrepreneurial spirit that thrives across the continent. Funding Data Type of Funding Grant first: 12 companies (29%) Blended finance: 26 companies (62%) Equity only: 1 company (2%) Grant only: 3 companies (7%) Total: 42 Companies Budget Total Budget: €285 million Cut-Off Date and Results EIC Accelerator Step 2 cutoff date: November 8th 2023 Publication of results: February 28th 2024 Success Rates Step 1: (approximately 70% since results are not published) Step 2: 22% Step 3: 17% Step 2 & Step 3 combined: 3.9% Step 1 & Step 2 & Step 3 combined: (approximately 2.7%) Funded Countries There are 15 different countries among the funded companies. Germany: 7 companies France: 6 companies Spain: 5 companies Sweden: 5 companies Finland: 4 companies Italy: 3 companies Israel: 2 companies Netherlands: 2 companies Norway: 2 companies Belgium: 1 company Bulgaria: 1 company Denmark: 1 company Ireland: 1 company Portugal: 1 company Slovakia: 1 company All 42 EIC Accelerator Winners from November 8th 2023

Unveiling the Future of European Innovation: A Deep Dive into the EIC Work Programme 2024

by

The European Innovation Council (EIC) Work Programme 2024, detailed in the document, outlines its comprehensive strategy and components designed to foster innovation within the European Union. Here are the main components and highlights: Strategic Goals and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): The EIC aims to support breakthrough technologies and companies critical for achieving the green and digital transition, ensuring open strategic autonomy in critical technologies. It has set six strategic goals, including becoming the investor of choice for high potential startups and entrepreneurs, bridging financing gaps for deep tech companies, supporting high-risk technologies, increasing the number of European unicorns and scale-ups, catalyzing innovation impacts from European public research, and achieving operational excellence. Overview of the 2024 Work Programme: The Work Programme organizes its funding and support across three main schemes: EIC Pathfinder: For advanced research to develop the scientific basis for breakthrough technologies. EIC Transition: To validate technologies and develop business plans for specific applications. EIC Accelerator: To support companies in bringing innovations to market and scaling up. Each scheme is augmented with access to Business Acceleration Services, providing expertise, corporates, investors, and ecosystem actors. Main Changes of the 2024 Work Programme: Adjustments, improvements, and simplifications have been made based on feedback and the reduced budget. These changes include the introduction of a lump sum cost model for most calls, reinforced measures against economic security risks, and adjustments in eligibility and funding criteria across different schemes. Key Features of EIC Support: A blend of financial and non-financial support is offered to accelerate and grow EIC innovations and companies. This includes proactive project and portfolio management, a tailored approach to proposal evaluation, policies on open access and Intellectual Property rights, and measures to ensure economic security. Collaboration with the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT): The document outlines the increasing collaboration between EIC and EIT to strengthen the European Innovation Ecosystem, including shared services, the Fast Track process, and the new innovation intern scheme. Outlook for 2025 and Future Years: Future strategies and potential new synergies are discussed, including the possibility of increased budgets for larger investments through the EIC Fund in key focal areas. Glossary and Definitions: The document concludes with a detailed glossary and definitions section, explaining the terminology and acronyms used throughout the Work Programme. These components collectively aim to support the European Union’s strategic objectives in innovation, research, and technological development, emphasizing high-risk, high-gain research, and breakthrough technologies with the potential for significant societal and economic impact. 1. Strategic Goals and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) In a landmark move to propel European innovation into the future, the European Innovation Council (EIC) has laid out a bold vision with its Work Programme 2024, focusing on identifying, developing, and scaling up breakthrough technologies and companies that are pivotal for the EU’s green and digital transition. This vision is underpinned by strategic objectives designed to ensure Europe’s open strategic autonomy in critical technologies, fostering a vibrant ecosystem where high-potential startups and entrepreneurs can thrive. The programme’s ambition is not just to bridge the financing gaps faced by deep tech companies but to position the EIC as the investor of choice for visionary ideas, thereby influencing the allocation of private assets in support of these innovations. At the heart of the EIC’s strategic vision are six ambitious goals, each accompanied by clear Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that aim to measure progress and guide the implementation of the programme: Becoming the Investor of Choice: The EIC seeks continent-wide recognition, attracting high-potential startups, entrepreneurs, and innovative researchers, with a special emphasis on underrepresented groups such as women innovators and those from less developed ecosystems. Crowding in €30-50 Billion Investment into European Deep Tech: By addressing the critical financing gap, the EIC aims to leverage its fund to significantly impact the deep tech ecosystem, fostering a climate where private investment flows more freely to support groundbreaking innovations. Supporting High-Risk Technologies: In areas critical for society and strategic autonomy, the EIC is committed to taking calculated risks to support the most promising deep tech opportunities from the earliest stages to commercial scale-up, ensuring Europe’s independence in key technologies. Increasing the Number of European Unicorns and Scale-ups: The EIC is on a mission to nurture the growth of European startups and SMEs to match and surpass their global counterparts, fostering an environment where European innovations can lead on the world stage. Catalyzing Innovation Impacts from European Public Research: By building partnerships across the EU, the EIC aims to commercialize the best ideas from the research base, creating a fertile ground for startups to scale up and make a global impact. Achieving Operational Excellence: The efficiency, agility, and responsiveness of the EIC’s operations are designed to meet the high expectations of applicants, investors, and the market at large, ensuring a smooth path from innovative idea to market success. These strategic goals are not just ambitious targets but represent a comprehensive blueprint for Europe’s innovation landscape, aiming to create a fertile ecosystem for breakthrough technologies that will define the future of the EU’s economy and society. Through a combination of financial and non-financial support, the EIC is setting the stage for a transformative impact that extends far beyond the immediate horizon, ensuring that Europe remains at the forefront of innovation and technology. 2. Overview of the 2024 Work Programme The 2024 European Innovation Council (EIC) Work Programme represents a pivotal stride towards fostering innovation and technological breakthroughs within the European Union. Structured to address the critical needs of the green and digital transition, it leverages over EUR 1.2 billion in funding, orchestrating a comprehensive strategy to empower researchers, startups, and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Here’s an in-depth look at its structural overview: EIC Pathfinder, Transition, and Accelerator: The Three Pillars The Work Programme is ingeniously segmented into three primary funding schemes, each tailored to different stages of innovation and development: EIC Pathfinder: Dedicated to advanced research, the Pathfinder is the birthplace of scientific exploration aimed at developing the foundational elements of breakthrough technologies. It encompasses both open calls for any field of scientific inquiry and targeted challenges addressing specific, strategic interests of the … Read more

Adapting EIC Accelerator Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) to SaaS, Hardware and Industrial Innovations

by

In this comprehensive exploration of the EIC Accelerator program, a pivotal initiative by the European Commission (EC) and the European Innovation Council (EIC), we delve into the remarkable opportunities it presents for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) across the European Union (EU). This program is a beacon of hope for innovative businesses, offering blended financing options, including up to €2.5 million in grant funding and up to €15 million in equity financing, culminating in a potential total financing of €17.5 million. The EIC Accelerator stands out not only for its financial support but also for its commitment to elevating the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of pioneering projects. It is overseen by the European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA), ensuring a streamlined and efficient application process. Prospective applicants can benefit from the guidance of professional writers, freelancers, and consultants, utilizing the official proposal template to craft compelling proposals. Additionally, the EIC Accelerator Video and Pitch deck components provide innovative platforms for applicants to showcase their projects. A successful application culminates in an interview, a critical step towards securing an EIC Grant or EIC Equity, marking a significant milestone in the journey of any ambitious enterprise seeking to make a mark within the EU and beyond. Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) In this article, we embark on a journey to tailor the traditional Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) for different types of business models, ranging from Software as a Service (SaaS) companies to those involved in developing new industrial processes and hardware products. Recognizing that the original TRL framework, primarily designed for hardware technologies, does not seamlessly apply to the varied landscapes of today’s business ventures, we adapted these stages to better align with the specific needs and characteristics of each business model. Whether it’s a SaaS company operating in a B2C environment, an enterprise developing an innovative industrial process, or a firm creating a new hardware product, each scenario demands a unique approach to the TRL stages. This adaptation not only demonstrates the versatility of the TRL framework but also underscores the importance of customizing developmental benchmarks to suit the specific nature of a business’s products, services, and market environments. The TRL’s in 2024 are: basic principles observed technology concept formulated experimental proof of concept technology validated in lab technology validated in relevant environment technology demonstrated in relevant environment system prototype demonstration in operational environment system complete and qualified actual system proven in operational environment Adapting Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) for a SaaS Company with a B2B Model Navigating the Adapted Technology Readiness Levels for SaaS B2B Companies Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) are a method for estimating the maturity of technologies during the acquisition phase of a program. Originally developed for hardware technologies, these stages require adaptation for Software as a Service (SaaS) companies, especially those operating in a B2B model. The traditional TRL stages, which begin in a laboratory setting and progress through to full-scale operation, need modification to suit the unique development path of SaaS products. This article outlines the adapted TRL stages for a SaaS B2B company and explains the rationale behind these changes. 1. Concept and Application Defined (Adapted TRL 1) Original TRL 1: Basic principles observed. Adapted for SaaS: The initial concept of the SaaS product is formulated. This includes identifying potential applications and the primary corporate customer base. Reason for Change: SaaS development starts with a conceptual phase focusing on market needs and potential applications, rather than basic scientific research. 2. Technology Concept Formulated (Adapted TRL 2) Original TRL 2: Technology concept formulated. Adapted for SaaS: A more detailed outline of the SaaS solution is developed, including preliminary software architecture and potential user interfaces. Reason for Change: The focus is on planning the software architecture and user experience early in the process. 3. Proof of Concept Developed (Adapted TRL 3) Original TRL 3: Experimental proof of concept. Adapted for SaaS: Initial software prototypes are developed. These may be limited in functionality but demonstrate the core concept. Reason for Change: For SaaS, proof of concept often involves creating a minimal viable product rather than laboratory experiments. 4. Beta Version Developed (Adapted TRL 4) Original TRL 4: Technology validated in lab. Adapted for SaaS: Development of a beta version of the software, which is tested in a simulated or limited operational environment with beta users. Reason for Change: Unlike hardware, SaaS enters the operational environment earlier with beta versions tested by real users. 5. Beta Testing with Initial Users (Adapted TRL 5) Original TRL 5: Technology validated in relevant environment. Adapted for SaaS: Beta testing is expanded with a broader group of users. Feedback is collected to refine and optimize the software. Reason for Change: Direct user feedback is crucial for SaaS development, and the software is often tested in the context of its intended market early on. 6. System Model Demonstrated in Operational Environment (Adapted TRL 6) Original TRL 6: Technology demonstrated in relevant environment. Adapted for SaaS: A fully functional version of the software is tested in the actual operational environment with selected corporate clients. Reason for Change: SaaS products typically reach operational testing quicker, with emphasis on real-world application in the target market. 7. System Prototype Operational (Adapted TRL 7) Original TRL 7: System prototype demonstration in an operational environment. Adapted for SaaS: The software is refined based on extensive testing and feedback. It operates under real-world conditions and demonstrates its value to business users. Reason for Change: Emphasis on refining user experience and functionality based on in-depth operational feedback. 8. System Completed and Qualified (Adapted TRL 8) Original TRL 8: System complete and qualified. Adapted for SaaS: Full-scale deployment of the SaaS product. The software is now reliable, fully functional, and integrated into the business processes of the end-users. Reason for Change: Full-scale deployment is a critical stage, demonstrating the software’s capability to integrate seamlessly into corporate workflows. 9. Actual System Proven in Operational Environment (Adapted TRL 9) Original TRL 9: Actual system proven in operational environment. Adapted for SaaS: … Read more

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

by

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

The 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 GO/NOGO Conundrum: Balancing Early Success with Interview Challenges

by

Introduction In the intricate world of grant funding, particularly within the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator program, the shift from a numerical ranking system to a binary GO/NOGO approach has significant implications for applicants. This article delves into how this method, while increasing success rates in the early stages, may lead to lower success rates during the interview phase, discussing the dynamics and consequences for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) seeking substantial funding. Understanding the GO/NOGO Approach The GO/NOGO approach is a binary evaluation system used in the initial phases of grant applications to quickly identify promising projects. Unlike the numerical ranking system, which provides a nuanced view of each application’s relative strength, the GO/NOGO method categorizes applications as either fit (GO) or unfit (NOGO) for funding based on a set threshold. This system aims to streamline the early stages of the evaluation process, allowing programs like the EIC Accelerator to efficiently manage the high volume of applications. Increased Early Stage Success Rates By simplifying the evaluation criteria, the GO/NOGO approach often results in higher success rates in the early application stages. Applicants who meet the basic criteria are more likely to proceed to the subsequent stages, fostering a sense of progress and motivation. This increase in early-stage approvals can encourage more startups and SMEs to apply, broadening the pool of innovations and potentially raising the overall quality of submissions. The Challenge of Lower Interview Success Rates However, the binary nature of the GO/NOGO approach can lead to a bottleneck effect during the interview phase. With more applicants progressing from the initial stages, the competition intensifies significantly during the interviews. The lack of nuanced evaluation from earlier phases means that the interview stage becomes the critical juncture where the real differentiation happens, often resulting in lower success rates as the evaluators must make more discerning and difficult decisions. Balancing Efficiency with Effectiveness The transition to a GO/NOGO approach reflects an attempt to balance efficiency with effectiveness in the grant application process. While it allows funding bodies to manage large volumes of applications more efficiently, it also places a greater emphasis on the interview stage, demanding more from both applicants and evaluators. This shift requires applicants to not only prepare a solid written application but also to excel in personal communication and persuasion during the interview, underscoring the importance of comprehensive preparation and possibly increasing reliance on expert consultants. The Need for a Holistic Strategy For startups and SMEs navigating this landscape, a holistic strategy is crucial. Understanding the nuances of both the written application and the interview process is key to success. This includes recognizing the importance of early stage milestones while also preparing rigorously for the critical interview phase. Engaging with professional consultants, practicing pitch delivery, and thoroughly understanding the innovation’s market potential and societal impact are all essential components of this strategy. Conclusion The adoption of a GO/NOGO approach in grant applications has notable implications for the success rates of applicants, particularly in programs like the EIC Accelerator. While it may increase early-stage approvals, the real challenge often lies in the interview phase, where the depth and quality of each project are rigorously scrutinized. For startups and SMEs, navigating this balance requires a comprehensive understanding of the process, strategic preparation, and sometimes the guidance of experienced consultants. As the grant funding landscape continues to evolve, so too must the strategies of applicants, adapting to new evaluation methods and continuously striving for excellence at every stage of the application.

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

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