EIC Accelerator success

The Consultancy Hive: Navigating the World of Freelance Writers in Grant Applications

by

Introduction In the competitive realm of grant funding, particularly within programs like the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator, the reliance on consultancy firms that utilize a network of freelance writers is becoming increasingly prevalent. This article explores the dynamics of how consultancies are employing a hive of freelance writers to meet the growing demand for expertly crafted grant applications, especially for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) seeking significant funding. The Consultancy-Freelancer Nexus Grant consultancy firms have become crucial players in the landscape of funding applications, offering strategic guidance and writing expertise to enhance the chances of success. To meet the diverse and voluminous needs of applicants vying for opportunities like the EIC Accelerator’s total financing of up to €17.5 million, many consultancies have turned to outsourcing their writing tasks. This approach involves building a network of skilled freelance writers who bring a range of expertise and perspectives to the table. Why Outsourcing Writing is Common Diverse Expertise: Freelance writers often specialize in various fields and industries, enabling consultancies to match the specific needs of a project with a writer who has relevant expertise. Scalability: The use of freelancers allows consultancies to scale their operations up or down based on the flow of applications, ensuring efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Quality and Fresh Perspectives: Freelancers bring fresh eyes and new ideas to each application, enhancing the quality and creativity of the proposals. Meeting Tight Deadlines: The flexibility of freelancers is key in meeting tight application deadlines, a common scenario in grant funding processes. The Challenges of the Hive Model While the hive model offers numerous benefits, it also presents challenges. Ensuring consistency in writing quality and maintaining a cohesive voice throughout the application can be difficult when multiple writers are involved. Furthermore, managing a network of freelancers requires effective coordination and clear communication to ensure that all aspects of the application align with the funding program’s criteria and objectives. The Role of Consultancies in Quality Assurance Consultancies play a pivotal role in quality assurance, overseeing the work of freelance writers to ensure it meets the high standards required for successful applications. This involves thorough editing, alignment with the official proposal template, and strategic refinement to meet evaluative criteria. Consultancies also ensure that the unique vision and voice of the applicant are preserved, even when the writing process is outsourced. The Importance of Expert Guidance The complexity of grant applications, especially in prestigious programs like the EIC Accelerator, necessitates expert guidance. Whether it’s understanding the nuances of the funding program or crafting a compelling narrative, the expertise provided by consultancies and their network of freelancers is invaluable. They help transform innovative ideas into fundable proposals, navigating the intricacies of the application process with professionalism and strategic insight. Conclusion The trend of consultancies employing a hive of freelance writers to manage the demands of grant applications reflects the evolving landscape of funding acquisition. This model brings together diverse expertise and flexibility, crucial for crafting high-quality applications. As the competition for funding like the EIC Accelerator intensifies, the role of consultancies and their network of talented freelance writers becomes increasingly vital. Their collective effort not only aids startups and SMEs in securing essential funding but also contributes significantly to the advancement of innovation and progress in various sectors.

The Marathon to Non-Dilutive Funding: Why Applying for the EIC Accelerator is Worth the Effort

by

Introduction The journey to secure non-dilutive grant funding through the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator program is undoubtedly long and challenging. Despite the daunting process, avoiding the opportunity to apply is a misstep for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs). This article examines why, despite the arduous nature of the application process, the pursuit of the EIC Accelerator’s funding is a venture worth undertaking. The Rigorous Path of EIC Accelerator Applications Applying for the EIC Accelerator involves navigating a complex maze of requirements and stages. The process demands meticulous preparation, a deep understanding of the evaluation criteria, and often, the involvement of professional consultants. The demanding nature of the application can be overwhelming, with detailed templates and a rigorous evaluation process that scrutinizes every aspect of the proposed innovation and business plan. The Value of Non-Dilutive Funding Non-dilutive funding, like that offered by the EIC Accelerator, is a rare and valuable commodity in the startup world. It provides essential capital without requiring equity in return, allowing founders to retain control over their companies while accessing funds that can significantly accelerate growth and development. In a landscape where funding often comes with strings attached, the allure of non-dilutive financing is undeniable. Overcoming Hesitation: The Mistake of Not Applying Many startups and SMEs hesitate to apply for the EIC Accelerator, daunted by the intense competition and the rigorous application process. However, not applying is a missed opportunity. The potential benefits of receiving the grant far outweigh the challenges of the application process. Even unsuccessful attempts can provide valuable insights and preparation for future funding opportunities, making each application a learning experience. The Strategic Approach to Application To increase the chances of success, applicants need to adopt a strategic approach. This includes thorough research, meticulous preparation of the application, and potentially seeking assistance from professional grant writers or consultants. A well-crafted application not only increases the likelihood of securing funding but also helps in refining the business model and strategy. Conclusion While the path to securing funding through the EIC Accelerator is fraught with challenges, the value of non-dilutive grant funding makes it an endeavor that should not be overlooked. The process, albeit demanding, offers a significant opportunity for growth, development, and financial support without equity loss. For startups and SMEs aiming to make a mark in their respective industries, applying for the EIC Accelerator is a worthwhile pursuit, promising not just funding but also strategic development and invaluable experience.

Navigating Shifting Sands: The Increasing Reliance on Consultants in Grant Applications

by

Introduction In the ever-evolving landscape of grant funding, particularly within the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator program, the constant changes in application processes and templates present a significant challenge for applicants. As startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) endeavor to secure substantial funding like the EIC Accelerator’s total financing of up to €17.5 million, the shifting requirements make them increasingly reliant on the expertise of consultants. This article explores the implications of continual changes in grant applications and how they are amplifying the need for professional consulting services. The Flux in Application Processes and Templates The grant application landscape is characterized by its dynamic nature, with frequent updates and revisions to processes and templates. These changes are often driven by the desire to improve the application experience, align with emerging technologies or industries, or refine evaluative criteria. While these updates can lead to a more efficient and targeted application process in the long run, they often introduce a level of uncertainty and complexity that can be daunting for applicants. The Growing Dependence on Consultants In response to these constant changes, startups and SMEs are finding themselves increasingly reliant on professional consultants. These experts bring a deep understanding of the current landscape, the ability to interpret and navigate new requirements, and the strategic insight to tailor applications to the evolving criteria. Their services have become almost indispensable for applicants looking to enhance their chances of success amidst the shifting sands of grant applications. The Implications for Startups and SMEs The increasing reliance on consultants has several implications for startups and SMEs. On the one hand, it can level the playing field, providing access to expertise that can significantly boost the quality and competitiveness of applications. On the other hand, it can introduce additional costs and dependencies, with the success of applications becoming closely tied to the quality and availability of consulting services. For many startups, especially those with limited resources, this can pose a significant challenge. The Need for Stability and Resources The growing dependence on consultants underscores the need for greater stability and predictability in the application process. Funding bodies like the EIC might consider implementing longer intervals between changes, providing more comprehensive guidance, or offering resources and training to help applicants adapt to new requirements. These measures can help reduce the overwhelming reliance on external consultants and make the application process more accessible to a wider range of innovators. Conclusion As the grant funding landscape continues to evolve, the reliance on professional consultants is becoming an increasingly prominent feature of the application process. While consultants provide valuable expertise and strategic guidance, the dependence on their services highlights the challenges and complexities inherent in navigating constant changes in application processes and templates. For funding programs like the EIC Accelerator, finding a balance between innovation in the application process and stability in requirements will be key to supporting a diverse range of applicants and fostering a dynamic and inclusive innovation ecosystem. As the journey towards funding continues, the role of consultants remains a critical factor, shaping the outcomes of countless applications and the future of innovation funding.

Navigating the Unpredictability: The Randomness in Grant Evaluations

by

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

The Blueprint of Success: Navigating the Importance of a Structured Template in Startups

by

Introduction In the intricate world of startup development and grant applications, a structured template emerges as a silent protagonist, shaping narratives and guiding innovation towards success. This article explores the significance of a well-crafted, official proposal template, particularly within the realms of funding programs like the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator, and highlights its pivotal role in securing non-dilutive grants for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs). The Role of a Structured Template in Startup Success A structured template is much more than a document; it’s a strategic framework that organizes thoughts, showcases innovation, and communicates value proposition succinctly and effectively. For startups vying for competitive grants like the EIC Accelerator, which offers up to €17.5 million in total financing, the template acts as a roadmap, leading the way through the complexities of application and evaluation processes. The EIC Accelerator’s Structured Approach Within the EIC Accelerator program, the official proposal template stands as a testament to the importance of structure in conveying technological breakthroughs and business potential. It ensures that all applicants adhere to a standardized format, making the evaluation process more streamlined and focused. The structured template demands clarity, conciseness, and precision, compelling startups to distill their vision into a compelling narrative that resonates with the evaluators. The Value of Professional Expertise Navigating the structured template of the EIC Accelerator or any other grant program is no small feat. It requires an understanding of the nuances of grant writing and a deep insight into what evaluators are looking for. This is where the expertise of professional writers, freelancers, and consultants becomes crucial. They bring to the table their experience with the European Union (EU) grant application processes, their skill in articulating complex technologies, and their strategic understanding of how to position a startup for success. Advantages of a Structured Template Consistency and Fairness: A structured template levels the playing field, ensuring that all applicants are judged by the same standards, thus maintaining fairness in the competitive evaluation process. Efficiency in Evaluation: For programs like the EIC Accelerator, dealing with thousands of applications, a structured template allows for quicker, more efficient evaluation, facilitating a smoother decision-making process. Focused Narrative: It compels startups to focus on the most critical aspects of their innovation and business plan, ensuring that they effectively communicate their unique selling points (USP) and market strategy. Guided Preparation: A structured template acts as a guide for startups, outlining the necessary information and helping them organize their application in the most impactful way. Conclusion In the high-stakes world of startup financing and innovation, a structured template is not just a document but a strategic ally. It brings order to ideas, guides the narrative, and ensures that the innovation’s value is effectively communicated to the evaluators. For startups aiming to secure non-dilutive funding like the EIC grant or equity financing, understanding and mastering the official proposal template is a critical step towards success. While the journey may be complex, with the right expertise and a structured approach, startups can navigate the path to innovation funding, transforming their visionary ideas into market-ready realities. As the startup ecosystem continues to evolve, the significance of a structured template in shaping the future of innovation and entrepreneurship remains more pertinent than ever.

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

by

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

The EIC Accelerator’s Evaluation Problem in 2022

by

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

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

by

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

Keyword and Evaluator Selection for EIC Accelerator Applications (SME Instrument)

by

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) allows all applying startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) to add keywords into the platform which will be used to select expert evaluators (read: AI Tool Review). In the past, this feature was a black box function since professional writers and consultancies did not know how different evaluators would grade an application or if it made a difference at all (read: Re-Inventing the EIC Accelerator). The common approach was to select the most relevant keywords that reflect the project (i.e. battery technology, machine learning, biomass) and hope for the best. While this is still a proven way to follow, this article presents an opinion on how keywords could be selected to maximize the success chances of a submission. Evaluator Pool and Keywords The total evaluator pool contains thousands of experts who will be selected based on availability and, importantly, the keywords entered into the platform. These keywords are selected from a dropdown list whereas multiple parent keywords contain multiple child keywords while a total of 3 parent- and child-keyword-pairs are selected for a project in a specific order. In addition, free keywords can be added to supplement the initial keyword selection. When selecting keywords, there are usually multiple options since an AI-battery startup can lead with Energy followed by Battery and then Machine-learning or could reverse this order. But what if the market is PropTech or real estate in particular since the project provides energy storage solutions for backup systems in commercial buildings? Then keywords could also focus on the real estate industry, certain customer segments (i.e. utility companies) or similar aspects. There are many different options to choose from but, thus far, it was unknown how they would affect the evaluation of the application since trial and error were hindered by the non-transparent evaluations, the randomness of reviews and the scarce deadlines in 2020. Evaluators’ Feedback The European Innovation Council (EIC) has introduced a feedback feature into the evaluation process which allows reviewers to leave comments for the applicants in a very detailed manner. While their identity and background are unknown to the applicant, the specific comments of evaluators often reveal the angle from which an evaluator is looking at the innovation. If it is someone who has a scientific perspective, a technical view or is embedded into the industry then comments will often focus on this aspect. For better or worse, the type of evaluator can have a significant impact on how the proposal is reviewed. After having studied multiple Step 1 evaluations, it is evident that evaluators have very different perspectives. The same aspect of a project can be praised or criticised in the same review which makes the viewpoint, not just the project quality, critical. From experience, positive Step 1 reviews were often praising the impact, feasibility and vision of the project if evaluators saw that there is a strong potential for disruption while critical reviews tended to be focused on isolated technical or commercial aspects. A Different Approach Instead of asking oneself: What keywords describe my project best? It seems to be a better approach to ask: What background does an evaluator need to be the most impressed? Very often, a machine-learning scientist might not be impressed with a certain AI application while someone from the industry it targets would immediately see the benefit and have a positive view. But the opposite could also be true if the industry impact is more difficult to imagine than the cutting-edge nature of the technology which would make a scientist have a better impression compared to an industry participant. The aim of selecting evaluators should be to pick experts who will understand the vision the company has and will view the innovation in a positive light. What should be avoided are thoughts such as: The back-end is sophisticated, follows a unique approach and disrupts a market but I do not think that it is cutting-edge enough from a scientific perspective The product is scientifically sound but how will you convince me to buy it? Especially when it comes to software solutions, there can be purists who neglect the EIC’s focus on industry disruption and new business models just to criticise an isolated aspect of the project. Conclusion It makes sense to think deeply about the keywords one chooses prior to submission and to make sure that the potential background an evaluator will have matches the scope and focus of the application. This approach is not a proven method of getting good evaluators but can clearly impact what the evaluation result will be. Every professional writer has seen applications with evaluations that are contradictory and lack consensus. Often, the reason as to why this is the case is very obvious from the evaluator’s comments and it always comes down to their perspective as defined by their background. Unfortunately, this approach will likely be very short-lived. The EIC is already collecting keywords throughout Step 1 of the EIC Accelerator and manually selecting additional keywords does seem redundant at this stage. Still, as long as the selection of evaluators can still be influenced, it should be done carefully.

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.

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

by

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

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