EIC Accelerator template

The Asymmetry in AI Application and Evaluation in Grant Processes

by

Introduction In the realm of grant applications, particularly in programs like the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator, there exists a significant asymmetry between the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in writing applications and its capacity to evaluate them. This article explores the dichotomy where AI can streamline the application writing process but falls short in the evaluation phase due to the EIC’s stringent and nuanced approval guidelines. AI in the Writing Process AI technologies have significantly advanced, offering tools that can assist in drafting grant applications. These tools can analyze large datasets, identify successful writing patterns, and even suggest content improvements. For startups and SMEs, this means a more efficient writing process, ensuring compliance with key application elements like the official proposal template. The Limitation of AI in Evaluation Despite AI’s proficiency in aiding the writing process, its role in the evaluation phase is limited. The EIC’s evaluation criteria involve complex decision-making processes that require human judgment, understanding of context, and strategic thinking. AI, in its current state, cannot replicate these nuanced assessments, particularly in understanding the innovative essence and potential impact of a project. The Importance of Human Evaluators The EIC’s strict guidelines for project approval necessitate a level of comprehension and judgment beyond AI’s capabilities. Human evaluators bring in their expertise, industry knowledge, and the ability to interpret innovative ideas within a broader societal and economic context. This human touch is crucial in assessing projects for their feasibility, scalability, and potential to drive change. The Asymmetry and Its Implications This asymmetry between AI’s role in application writing and human evaluators in the approval process highlights the unique challenges in the grant application landscape. While AI can enhance efficiency, the human element remains irreplaceable in evaluating the nuances of innovation. This dynamic underscores the need for a balanced approach, leveraging AI for efficiency while relying on human expertise for strategic decision-making. Conclusion In conclusion, the asymmetry in the use of AI in the EIC Accelerator grant process reflects the complex interplay between technology and human judgment. While AI can simplify the application writing process, the critical role of human evaluators in the approval phase upholds the integrity and depth of the evaluation process. For startups and SMEs, understanding this dichotomy is key to effectively navigating the grant application landscape, balancing the use of AI tools with the insights and expertise of human evaluators.

Unlocking Potential: The Strategic Value of Non-Dilutive Grants for Startups

by

Introduction In the vibrant ecosystem of startup financing, non-dilutive grants emerge as a cornerstone, offering vital oxygen for innovation without the compromise of equity loss. This article navigates through the labyrinth of non-dilutive financing, emphasizing its importance for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs), especially within the context of the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator program. The Lifeline of Non-Dilutive Financing Non-dilutive grants are essentially a form of financing where startups receive funds without relinquishing any ownership or control over their company. This type of funding is particularly appealing as it preserves the equity of founders, allowing them to retain full control over their business’s direction and future. For startups in the EU, grappling with the high-risk nature of innovation, non-dilutive grants like those offered by the European Commission (EC) through the EIC Accelerator program provide not just funds but a seal of credibility and a competitive edge in the market. EIC Accelerator: A Model of Non-Dilutive Financing The EIC Accelerator stands out as a prime example of non-dilutive financing, offering up to €2.5 million in grants. This program is tailored to elevate high-impact innovations across the EU by providing the necessary funds to reach market readiness and scale-up. The non-dilutive nature of the EIC grant ensures that entrepreneurs can push their innovations to the next level while maintaining equity and autonomy over their business decisions. The Role of Professional Expertise Securing non-dilutive grants, especially competitive ones like the EIC Accelerator, demands a high level of expertise and understanding of the application process. This is where professional writers, consultants, and freelancers become invaluable. Their knowledge of the official proposal template, coupled with their ability to craft compelling narratives, significantly increases the chances of a successful application. They navigate the technicalities of the grant application process, ensuring that the innovation’s value is effectively communicated to the evaluators. Strategic Advantages of Non-Dilutive Grants Preservation of Equity: Non-dilutive grants allow founders to fuel their growth without diluting ownership or control, preserving the company’s long-term value for existing shareholders. Risk Mitigation: Startups inherently come with high risk. Non-dilutive grants provide a financial cushion that allows startups to undertake bold, innovative projects with reduced financial risk. Market Validation: Receiving a grant, especially from reputable institutions like the EIC, serves as a testament to the innovation’s potential, enhancing the startup’s credibility and attractiveness to future investors. Focus on Core Business: With funding secured that doesn’t demand immediate returns, entrepreneurs can focus on perfecting their product and strategy without the pressure of investor expectations. Conclusion Non-dilutive grants represent more than just financial aid for startups and SMEs; they are a strategic tool that can significantly alter the trajectory of an innovation. By allowing entrepreneurs to retain full control while mitigating risk and enhancing their market position, non-dilutive grants like those offered through the EIC Accelerator program are invaluable. However, navigating the complex landscape of non-dilutive financing requires expertise and precision, highlighting the critical role of professional assistance in the journey towards innovation and growth. As the startup ecosystem continues to evolve, the strategic utilization of non-dilutive grants will undoubtedly play a pivotal role in shaping the future of emerging businesses across the European Union and beyond.

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.

Exploring the Intersection of DeepTech and Equity Financing: The EIC Accelerator’s Role

by

Introduction In the bustling corridors of innovation and entrepreneurship, the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator program stands out as a beacon of support for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs). By offering a combined package of up to €17.5 million in grants and equity financing, the EIC Accelerator has become a pivotal player in the European innovation landscape. This article delves into the dynamics of this program, its impact on the European Union’s (EU) technology readiness, and the critical role of professional support in securing its benefits. Blended Financing: A New Era for Startups The EIC Accelerator offers blended financing, a revolutionary approach combining a €2.5 million grant with up to €15 million in equity financing. This model addresses a critical gap in the market where innovative, high-risk projects often struggle to secure funding through traditional channels. By aligning with the European Commission (EC) and the European Innovation Council (EIC), the program aims to propel high-potential projects, pushing the boundaries of what’s achievable in various sectors, including health, energy, and digital technologies. The Role of Professional Support The journey to securing EIC Accelerator funding is intricate, involving a robust application process, a compelling pitch deck, and an intense interview stage. Here, the expertise of professional writers, freelancers, and consultants is invaluable. These experts navigate the official proposal template, articulate the project’s value proposition, and ensure that the application resonates with the program’s objectives and criteria. Their involvement often spells the difference between a successful application and a missed opportunity. Technology Readiness and Market Impact At its core, the EIC Accelerator is about elevating projects with a high Technology Readiness Level (TRL). The program is particularly interested in innovations that are close to market entry but require that final push to reach commercialization. By doing so, it fosters a more robust and competitive EU market, driving forward technologies that can address societal challenges and position Europe at the forefront of the global innovation race. Conclusion The EIC Accelerator represents a transformative opportunity for European startups and SMEs. Its blended financing approach, focus on high-TRL projects, and substantial financial support make it an attractive proposition for innovators across the continent. However, navigating its complexities requires expertise and strategic insight, underscoring the importance of professional support in the application process. As the program continues to evolve, it will undoubtedly play a crucial role in shaping the future of European innovation, one project at a time.

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.

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.

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

by

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

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

by

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

Recommendations for Selected Changes on the EIC Accelerator Platform (SME Instrument)

by

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) has transformed greatly in 2021 and its new AI tool has been used by thousands of applicants in a matter of weeks. While the previous article pointed out some of its shortcomings and the overall experience, the following article aims to make suggestions for its improvement (read: Reviewing the EIC Platform). From a business perspective, startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME)’s have to, by necessity, pursue a realistic and business-focused approach to succeed in their venture but if a grant application forces them to create a project analysis that is neither relevant for their business nor to investors or customers then it cannot be a useful approach overall. From the public funding agencies perspective, the great challenge of creating a framework for grant applications is to encourage the right companies to apply but to also have sufficiently high barriers in place that can filter based on factors other than the budget alone (i.e. we do not want to fund you vs. we do not have enough money for you). Many companies look at the EIC Accelerator and immediately dismiss it because it is time-consuming and the chances for success are too low for the current stage of their business. They need to protect their time and resources since what they work on is cutting-edge and has a high risk of failure. There is a risk that competitors are getting ahead and it can often be more valuable for the company to convince risk-averse Angel investors or customers as opposed to spending many months in filling out EIC form fields just to fail because the CEO has the wrong gender, an evaluator does not understand the 1,000 characters on the customer pain or the Technology Adoption Lifecycle (TALC) just makes no sense for their particular commercial model. While many great companies have been funded by the SME Instrument and EIC Accelerator, there clearly is room for improvement for the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA). Here are some suggestions as to what could make the process easier of applicants and evaluators: Guidelines and Templates While working with an official proposal template for the EIC Accelerator is now redundant since the EIC platform acts as an on-the-fly guideline, there is still a need for further explanations as to what is needed in each section. What is a suitable gender equality strategy in the eyes of the EIC? Since this is not taught in MBA’s and practically no VC would ever ask this question – what does a DeepTech cutting-edge business working on a disruptive innovation need to display to satisfy the EU? How does the EIC want applicants to quantify their cash flow projections for The Chasm or The Gap between Early Adopters and the Early Majority? How is the space between two market adoption segments meant to be quantified in the eyes of the EIC? What market activities are needed before TRL8 in comparison to market activities in TRL9 as these are mandatory? How should the mandatory project management differ between TRL5-8 and TRL8-9? These are examples of questions that could be addressed in a grant application template or guideline which helps applicants to address questions they, frankly, will never need to answer outside of the European Commissions (EC) funding arms. Being More Reader and Writer Friendly When the EIC announced that it would create an AI Tool and interactive application platform that aims to make everything easier – it seemed like a great idea. Writing a business plan was tedious and took a lot of time which meant that applicants had to spend valuable resources on writing that could have been spent on growing their business or technology. Adding video pitches, a short application as a teaser and integrating an automated AI assessment that screens patent and scientific databases seemed like great news for applicants. For a brief moment, it seemed like many applicants could finally prepare great applications on their own without the reliance on professional writers or consultancies. But this turned out to be a very short-lived scenario. As opposed to making the applications more writer- and reader-friendly, it became even harder to read and to write. Instead of adding more audiovisual content to the applications, heavily relying on graphics and making things easy to digest, the EIC removed all of the images, formatting, hyperlinks and headings to yield an application that is 99% plain text. No formatting. No colour. No graphics. No hyperlinks. No references. Just plain text. More Images The solution is simple: Allow the upload of graphics and illustrations in key sections. Do you have a software with a UI? Upload up to 5 screenshots, please. Do you have a reactor? Please provide photos of the prototype. Do you have an AI-driven infrastructure innovation? Please upload a schematic view that conceptualises your product. Do you have competitors? Please upload a comparison table. Note: There is an auto-generated competitors table on the Step 2 platformin but it only shows checkmarks or crosses – no nuance. It comes as a surprise to many that allowing image uploads was not in the top 5 of features to be added to the EIC Accelerator platform as soon as it was launched. Yes, there is a pitch deck and yes, there is an Annex in Step 2 of 10 pages but there is no guarantee that the evaluators will read the text and then search for a relevant graphic in the other documents. In fact, graphics are supposed to compliment the text as it is being read. They should not be an afterthought. It is hard to believe that the EIC consulted their evaluators regarding the AI platform in any way. No evaluator would have ever supported the removal of all visual support materials just to end up with a 99% plain block of text. Minimize the Text What is urgently needed is to remove text segments that have … Read more

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

by

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

Rasph - EIC Accelerator Consulting
en_US
fr_FR de_DE el it_IT es_ES pl_PL et pt_PT da_DK sv_SE fi bg_BG hr cs_CZ nl_NL hu_HU lv lt_LT ro_RO sk_SK sl_SI uk he_IL tr_TR is_IS sr_RS ka_GE nb_NO en_US