EIC Accelerator success

Navigating the EIC Accelerator’s Evaluation Process: Challenges and Strategies for Success

by

The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator stands as a beacon of support for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) seeking funding. With a potential total financing of €17.5 million, comprising €2.5 million in grants and up to €15 million in equity financing, the EIC Accelerator is a lucrative opportunity for European innovators. However, navigating its complex evaluation process can be daunting. The Three-Step Evaluation Conundrum The EIC Accelerator’s evaluation process is divided into three distinct steps, each with its unique set of challenges. The first two steps involve a detailed written evaluation of the project, while the third and final step is a face-to-face or online interview. 1. Written Evaluation (Steps 1 and 2): These initial stages focus on the project’s technical and commercial viability. However, the limited interaction with evaluators and the reliance on written communication can lead to misunderstandings or underestimation of a project’s potential. 2. Face-to-Face Interview (Step 3): This stage introduces a new set of evaluators, often with a different focus and expertise from the initial reviewers. Here, the project’s commercial strategy and the team’s ability to execute it come under scrutiny. This shift in evaluation criteria can catch applicants off guard, leading to inconsistent outcomes compared to the written stages. Overcoming the Evaluation Hurdles Success in the EIC Accelerator’s evaluation process requires a strategic approach that addresses the nuances of each step: 1. Mastery of Written Communication: In the first two stages, clarity and conciseness in the proposal are crucial. Applicants should focus on articulating their technology’s uniqueness, market potential, and commercial strategies effectively. 2. Preparing for the Interview: Understanding that the interview stage will have a different focus is key. Applicants should be prepared to discuss their commercial strategy in depth and demonstrate a clear understanding of market dynamics. 3. Consistency Across Stages: Ensuring that the project presentation is consistent across all stages, yet adaptable to the focus of each evaluation step, is vital. This requires a deep understanding of the project and the ability to communicate its value proposition effectively in both written and verbal forms. Leveraging Expert Assistance For many applicants, navigating the EIC Accelerator’s evaluation process can be overwhelming. Seeking assistance from professional writers, consultants, and advisors familiar with the EIC Accelerator’s intricacies can be invaluable. These experts can provide guidance on tailoring the application to meet the specific criteria of each evaluation step and offer insights into the expectations of the evaluators and jury members. Conclusion The EIC Accelerator presents a significant opportunity for startups and SMEs in Europe. However, the complexity of its evaluation process cannot be underestimated. A strategic approach that addresses the unique challenges of each evaluation step, coupled with expert guidance, can enhance an applicant’s chances of success in this highly competitive arena.

The Misleading Comfort of Passing Step 1 in the EIC Accelerator: Bracing for the Rigors of Step 2

by

Introduction: Understanding the EIC Accelerator’s Step 1 and Its Implications For many startups and SMEs, passing Step 1 of the European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator application process can be a moment of significant accomplishment. However, this initial success may prove misleading as applicants progress to the more demanding Step 2. The transition from Step 1 to Step 2 involves a shift from a concise presentation of the business plan to a detailed and thorough analysis, which can significantly alter the evaluators’ perceptions of the project. Step 1: The Deceptive Simplicity Step 1 of the EIC Accelerator is designed to capture the evaluators’ interest with a short version of the business plan. It lacks detailed information on finances, work packages, and other critical aspects of the innovation project. The pitch deck in this step is condensed to a 10-slide document, which is not presented but read by the evaluators. The threshold for success in Step 1 is relatively low, as only 2 out of 4 (3 out of 4 since 2024) remote evaluators need to provide a favorable review for an applicant to proceed to Step 2​​. The Reality Check of Step 2 Step 2 presents a stark contrast to the preliminary stage. It requires a comprehensive business plan, composed almost entirely of text, with minimal visual data. Applicants must provide detailed answers to numerous questions covering value chain, product descriptions, technical backgrounds, market analyses, and commercial strategies. This stage is significantly more selective and labor-intensive, demanding a level of detail and depth not required in Step 1​​. The Risk of Misinterpretation The ease of passing Step 1 can lead applicants to overestimate their chances of success in the subsequent stages. This misconception arises from the fundamental differences in the depth and type of information required at each stage. While Step 1 focuses on engaging the evaluators’ interest with a broad overview, Step 2 scrutinizes the finer details of the project. The shift in expectations between these stages can result in a drastic reevaluation of the project’s viability and potential. Preparing for Step 2 To navigate this transition effectively, applicants should: Anticipate Increased Scrutiny: Understand that the evaluators in Step 2 will delve deeper into the project’s specifics, and prepare accordingly. Enhance Detail and Clarity: Ensure that the business plan for Step 2 is comprehensive, addressing all potential questions and concerns in detail. Seek Professional Assistance: Consider consulting with professionals experienced in EIC applications to refine the application for Step 2. Stay Realistic: Maintain realistic expectations about the chances of success, even after a positive outcome in Step 1. Conclusion: Navigating the EIC Accelerator with Caution Successfully passing Step 1 of the EIC Accelerator is an important milestone, but applicants must be wary of the challenges ahead in Step 2. Understanding the increased demands and preparing meticulously for the detailed scrutiny of Step 2 is crucial for maintaining the momentum gained in the initial stage.

Harnessing EIC Accelerator Training: A Cost-Effective Strategy for In-House Application Preparation

by

Embracing In-House Expertise for EIC Accelerator Applications In the quest for securing EIC Accelerator funding, startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) often face a daunting challenge: crafting a compelling application that meets the stringent criteria of the European Innovation Council (EIC). The process, intricate and demanding, typically involves navigating through complex grant proposal templates, developing a robust business plan, and convincingly presenting the innovation’s Unique Selling Points (USPs). Given the intricacies involved, many companies turn to external consultants, professional grant writers, or freelancers, incurring significant costs in the process. However, there’s a cost-effective alternative: EIC Accelerator training programs designed to empower companies to prepare applications in-house. These training programs are a boon for companies looking to reduce upfront fees associated with the application process while building internal expertise. The Advantages of EIC Accelerator Training Programs Cost-Effective: Training programs offer a more economical solution compared to hiring external consultants. They eliminate hefty consultancy fees, allowing companies to allocate resources more efficiently. Building Internal Expertise: By training in-house teams, companies develop a sustainable skill set that can be leveraged for future applications and other grant opportunities. Customized Approach: In-house preparation ensures that the application genuinely reflects the company’s vision and innovation, providing a personalized touch that external consultants might not capture. Enhanced Understanding of EIC Criteria: Training programs demystify the EIC’s expectations and evaluation criteria, enabling companies to tailor their applications more effectively. Control Over the Process: In-house preparation allows for greater control over the application timeline and content, enabling adjustments and refinements as needed. Implementing an Effective Training Strategy Selecting the Right Training Program: Choose a program that covers all aspects of the EIC Accelerator application process, including proposal writing, financial planning, and pitch preparation. Dedicated Team for Application Preparation: Allocate a team within the organization to undergo training and lead the application process. Continuous Learning and Adaptation: Encourage the team to stay updated on EIC updates and changes, ensuring the application remains aligned with the latest criteria. Leveraging EIC Resources: Utilize resources provided by the EIC, such as official templates, guidelines, and case studies, to supplement the training. Practical Application of Training: Apply the skills learned in training immediately to the preparation of the application, allowing for real-time learning and improvement. Conclusion EIC Accelerator training programs offer a strategic path for companies seeking to prepare their applications in-house. By investing in training, companies not only save on upfront fees but also build valuable internal expertise, increasing their chances of success in the highly competitive arena of EIC funding.

The Disparity in EIC Accelerator Evaluation: Remote Evaluators vs. Jury Members

by

The EIC Accelerator’s Evaluation Process: A Shift in Focus Across Steps The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator program utilizes a distinct approach for evaluating applications at different steps of the process. This approach significantly impacts the consistency and predictability of the evaluations, posing challenges for applicants. Steps 1 and 2: Thousands of Remote Evaluators: The first two steps of the EIC Accelerator process involve the use of a vast number of remote evaluators. These evaluators are tasked with handling the high volume of applications, focusing on vetting the technological aspects of the projects. This stage is designed to identify good technologies and viable projects​​. Step 3: A Select Small Number of Jury Members: In contrast, the final step employs a small group of commercially-oriented jury members. These members are responsible for making the final funding decisions, ideally based on the business potential of the projects. The intention is to select the best business cases, ensuring the long-term success of the program​​. Challenges Arising from This Approach Increased Randomness in Final Selection: The smaller number of jury members in Step 3, combined with their commercial focus, introduces a higher degree of randomness in the selection process. This randomness is further exacerbated by the inability of applicants to directly rebut or respond to the comments of the jury members​​. Lack of Consistency Across Steps: The shift in focus from technological viability in the first two steps to commercial potential in the final step can lead to erratic evaluations. Projects that pass the technological scrutiny of the remote evaluators might struggle with the commercial orientation of the jury members. Influence of Interpersonal Skills in Step 3: The final interview stage relies heavily on the presentation and interpersonal skills of the applicants, factors that are difficult to prepare for within the short time frame between steps. This reliance can overshadow the project’s intrinsic merits, adding to the unpredictability of the process​​. Conclusion The EIC Accelerator’s evaluation process presents a unique challenge for applicants due to the disparity between the initial stages, which use a large number of remote evaluators focusing on technology, and the final stage, which relies on a small jury with a commercial focus. This disparity can result in inconsistent evaluations and increased randomness, particularly in the final decision-making stage. For applicants, this means navigating a process where the criteria for success can shift significantly from one stage to the next.

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 EIC Accelerator’s Ecosystem: A Consultancy-Focused Framework

by

Consultancy Dominance in the EIC Accelerator Process The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator program, designed to support innovative startups and SMEs, appears to have inadvertently fostered an ecosystem where consultancies play a more central role than the applicants themselves. This situation arises from a combination of the program’s complexity and the EIC’s communication strategies. Complexity and Obscurity Leading to Consultancy Reliance: Over 70% of survey respondents indicated that they hired a consultant to prepare their EIC Accelerator application. This high percentage reflects the program’s complexity and obscure nature, which can be overwhelming for many applicants. The official EIC communications, often focused on promotional materials, leave prospective applicants with more questions than answers, leading them to seek external expert assistance​​. EIC’s Communication Challenges: The EIC has struggled to communicate effectively what the Accelerator seeks and what applicants should expect. This difficulty is likely a result of the public institution’s tendency to prioritize political agendas and communications over pragmatic advice. There is a dichotomy in the EIC’s messaging: promoting funding for disruptive innovations while simultaneously favoring low-risk investments. This conflicting communication increases the reliance on National Contact Points (NCPs) and consultancies for clearer guidance​​. The Impact on Applicants The current ecosystem puts individual applicants at a disadvantage, especially those without the resources to hire consultants. This reliance on consultancies can lead to a skewed understanding of the application process, with many applicants overestimating their chances based on the EIC’s guidelines. It also creates a barrier for those who cannot afford consultancy fees, potentially sidelining innovative projects that lack the means for professional guidance. Recommendations for a More Balanced Approach Enhanced Transparency and Direct Communication: The EIC could improve its direct communication with potential applicants, providing clear, pragmatic advice and realistic expectations about the application process. Accessible Resources for All Applicants: Developing resources and tools that demystify the application process could help reduce the over-reliance on consultancies. This could include detailed guidelines, examples of successful applications, and comprehensive feedback on rejected applications. Greater Support for Independent Applicants: The EIC might consider establishing support mechanisms for applicants who choose to navigate the process independently. This support could take the form of workshops, webinars, or direct consultation sessions. Conclusion While consultancies play a vital role in guiding applicants through the EIC Accelerator’s complex process, the current ecosystem seems to favor those who can afford such services. A more balanced approach, with enhanced direct communication and support from the EIC, could level the playing field, ensuring that all innovative ideas, regardless of their resource backing, have a fair chance at success.

Navigating the EIC Accelerator Application Process: Understanding the Challenges of Meeting Deadlines

by

The EIC Accelerator’s Three-Step Application Journey The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator’s blended financing program, a critical initiative for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) seeking funding, underwent significant changes in 2021. These changes introduced a structured, three-step application process, each with its distinct requirements and timelines. Understanding these steps is crucial for applicants to effectively plan and execute their applications. Step 1 – Short Application: This initial phase involves a mini-proposal, including a written grant application, a video pitch, and a pitch deck. Remarkably, Step 1 can be prepared in less than 30 days and submitted at any time, as it doesn’t have a fixed deadline. This flexibility allows applicants to enter the process when they feel most prepared. Step 2 – Full Application: This phase presents a more significant challenge. It requires a detailed application and can only be submitted once Step 1 is approved, and the EIC announces a fixed deadline. Historically, in 2021, there were two such deadlines – in June and October. Preparing for Step 2 is a substantial undertaking, with a recommended preparation time of at least 60 days. Step 3 – Face-to-Face Interview: The final hurdle, Step 3, involves a face-to-face interview using the pitch deck from Step 2. This step is only available to projects approved in Step 2. The interview dates are set shortly after the Step 2 evaluations, and applicants typically have around 14 days to prepare for this stage. The Challenge of Planning and Time Management For first-time applicants, understanding and managing this three-step process can be daunting. The flexible nature of Step 1’s submission contrasts sharply with the rigid and demanding nature of Step 2. The preparation times, although seemingly ample, can be challenging, especially for startups and SMEs not familiar with the intricacies of the process. Step 1: While the preparation for Step 1 is relatively less time-consuming, the absence of a fixed deadline means applicants must self-regulate their submission timing. This phase requires strategic planning to ensure readiness for the subsequent, more demanding steps. Step 2: The leap from Step 1 to Step 2 is significant. The minimum 60-day preparation time for Step 2, following the approval of Step 1, requires applicants to swiftly transition from a short application to a detailed, comprehensive proposal. This transition can be overwhelming, particularly for first-time applicants unfamiliar with the depth and detail expected by the EIC. Step 3: The final step, while shorter in preparation time, is crucial and can be intense. Applicants must be ready to pivot quickly from submitting their full application in Step 2 to preparing for an in-depth interview. Conclusion Navigating the EIC Accelerator’s application process requires careful planning, awareness of deadlines, and an understanding of the effort required at each stage. Particularly challenging is the transition from the short, flexible Step 1 to the intensive and deadline-driven Step 2. First-time applicants must approach this process with diligence and thorough preparation to enhance their chances of success.

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 Gap in Guidance: EIC Accelerator Step 3 Interview Preparations

by

The application process for the European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator program is a multifaceted journey, with each step designed to bring innovative startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) closer to receiving crucial funding. However, there is a notable discrepancy in the support provided to applicants at different stages, particularly between Step 2 (business coaching) and Step 3 (the interview stage). This disparity not only affects the applicants’ preparedness but also questions the overall efficiency of the process. The Gap in Guidance: Step 3 Interview Preparations Lack of Structured Support In Step 3 of the EIC Accelerator process, applicants are invited to an interview, a crucial stage where they pitch their innovation and business plan to a panel of experts. Surprisingly, there is a significant lack of formal guidance or structured coaching available for applicants to prepare for this critical step. This absence of support stands in stark contrast to the business coaching offered in Step 2, leaving applicants to navigate the complexities of the interview process largely on their own. The Importance of Effective Interview Preparation The interview stage is pivotal for applicants, as it’s an opportunity to bring their written proposals to life and convince the panel of their project’s worthiness. Effective communication skills, clarity in presenting the business model, and the ability to answer challenging questions are essential components of a successful pitch. Without proper guidance or coaching, many applicants may find themselves ill-prepared for this high-stakes situation. Step 2 Coaching: Is It Meeting Applicant Needs? Business Coaching Versus Grant Writing Expertise In Step 2, the EIC Accelerator program provides business coaching to applicants, focusing on business development and growth strategies. However, a critical point of contention is the perceived mismatch between the coaching offered and the actual needs of the applicants. Many of these coaches, while proficient in business strategies, lack expertise in the specifics of writing successful grant proposals. This mismatch can leave applicants underprepared for the intricacies of the EIC Accelerator’s requirements and expectations. A Proposal for Efficiency: Focusing on Step 3 Coaching Rethinking the Coaching Strategy To enhance the effectiveness and relevance of the support provided, it would be more beneficial to allocate resources towards coaching for Step 3 interview preparations. This shift would ensure that applicants receive targeted guidance on how to effectively communicate their vision, address potential questions from the panel, and present their projects in the most compelling manner. The Benefits of Step 3 Coaching Enhanced Preparedness: Tailored coaching for the interview stage would equip applicants with the necessary skills and confidence to excel in their presentations. Increased Success Rates: Better-prepared applicants could lead to a higher success rate in securing funding, ultimately benefiting the EU’s innovation landscape. Resource Optimization: Redirecting coaching resources to where they are most needed would result in a more efficient use of the EIC Accelerator’s resources. Conclusion The current structure of the EIC Accelerator program, with its focus on business coaching in Step 2 and lack of formal interview preparation in Step 3, appears misaligned with the needs of applicants. A strategic shift towards providing targeted coaching for the interview stage could significantly enhance the preparedness of applicants and improve the overall efficiency of the funding process. Such a change would not only benefit the applicants but also align more closely with the EIC’s goal of fostering innovative and impactful projects across Europe.

Unequal Distribution of EIC Accelerator Funding: A Closer Look at the European Landscape

by

The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator, a flagship funding program under the European Union’s Horizon Europe framework, has been a beacon of hope for startups and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) across Europe. It offers a unique blend of grants and equity financing, providing up to €2.5 million in grant funding and €15 million in equity financing. However, a closer examination of its funding distribution since 2021 reveals a concerning pattern of geographical inequality. The EIC Accelerator’s Role in Shaping European Innovation The EIC Accelerator, part of the European Union’s broader initiative to foster innovation and growth among startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs), has been instrumental in bringing groundbreaking ideas to fruition. It aims to support high-risk, high-impact innovations, guiding them from the concept stage (Technology Readiness Level – TRL) through to market maturity. Geographical Disparities in EIC Accelerator Funding Since its inception, the EIC Accelerator has been instrumental in fostering innovation and supporting high-potential projects. However, data indicates a skewed distribution of funds favoring certain countries. Nations like France, Germany, and the Netherlands have consistently topped the list of beneficiaries, while countries such as Greece, Slovenia, and Hungary lag behind. This uneven distribution raises questions about the accessibility and fairness of the EIC Accelerator program. France, Germany, and the Netherlands: Leaders in Innovation Funding These countries have historically been at the forefront of receiving EIC funding. Their robust innovation ecosystems, coupled with strong government support and an abundance of professional writers, freelancers, and consultants skilled in drafting successful EU grant applications, have played a significant role in this success. Moreover, these countries’ ability to meet the high Technology Readiness Level (TRL) requirements and effectively pitch their projects during the EIC Accelerator interview process have further solidified their position as leaders in securing EIC funding. Greece, Slovenia, and Hungary: The Struggle for Equal Opportunities In contrast, countries like Greece, Slovenia, and Hungary have faced challenges in securing an equitable share of EIC funds. Several factors contribute to this disparity. Firstly, the lack of awareness and understanding of the official proposal template and application process can be a significant barrier. Additionally, these countries might not have as many consultants or professional writers specializing in EIC grant applications, hindering their ability to compete effectively. Ukraine: A Notable Exclusion Ukraine’s absence from the EIC Accelerator funding landscape is another point of concern. Given the country’s burgeoning startup scene and potential for innovative projects, its exclusion from EIC funding raises questions about the inclusivity and reach of the program. Addressing the Inequality To rectify these imbalances, several steps could be taken: Enhanced Support and Training: Providing specialized training and resources to potential applicants from underrepresented countries could help level the playing field. This includes workshops on drafting compelling proposals and understanding the nuances of the EIC Accelerator’s evaluation criteria. Diversification of Evaluators: Incorporating evaluators from a broader range of geographical backgrounds could reduce inherent biases and ensure a more diverse and equitable selection of projects. Targeted Outreach Programs: Implementing outreach programs in countries with lower application rates could stimulate interest and participation in the EIC Accelerator program. Increased Transparency: Publicly sharing detailed statistics on the geographical distribution of funds and the evaluation process could enhance the program’s transparency and accountability. Conclusion While the EIC Accelerator remains a vital instrument for promoting innovation in Europe, addressing the geographical disparities in its funding distribution is crucial for ensuring a more balanced and equitable landscape. This will not only enhance the credibility of the program but also ensure that innovative ideas from all corners of Europe have an equal opportunity to flourish. The countries that have been funded under the EIC Accelerator since 2021 can be found here: France (80) Germany (68) Netherlands (52) Spain (35) United Kingdom (31) Israel (29) Sweden (25) Finland (22) Belgium (20) Ireland (20) Denmark (19) Italy (18) Norway (13) Austria (12) Portugal (11) Estonia (8) Poland (6) Bulgaria (3) Iceland (3) Lithuania (2) Czechia (2) Romania (2) Luxembourg (2) Slovakia (1) Croatia (1) Greece (1) Slovenia (1) Cyprus (1) Hungary (1) The full list of all EIC Accelerator Beneficiaries since 2021 is available as well.

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.

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