EIC Accelerator template

On the EIC Accelerator’s New AI Platform – Bugs and Review (SME Instrument)

by

In 2021, the EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) launched its new AI Tool which is an online platform for proposal submissions. Due to its delayed launch and the interactive nature of the tool, many bugs and errors were encountered by prospect applicants. While it is clear that both the European Innovation Council (EIC) and Innovation Loop have put great work into this elaborate project – it still left many applicants confused and frustrated. Reviewing the Platform If the aim of the EIC was to reduce the reliance of startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) on third parties such as professional writers or consultancies then this might have backfired. While every CEO understands the need to create a business plan and upload the document, very few have the time or patience to fill out seemingly endless forms that far exceed the work placed into writing a grant proposal. In fact, feedback from CEO’s has been that the mandatory milestones, the 12 pre-defined steps of the innovation and, especially, using the Technology Adoption Life Cycle (TALC) to define a market entry and financial projections was not applicable to their business. The overall structure of the platform, especially for the full application in Step 2, gives the impression of an MBA student having been assigned to try and make all innovation businesses fit into a single mould. This one-size-fits-all approach has led to the objectification of innovation which, by definition, defeats the purpose of seeking out innovators in the first place. It assumes that every company will inevitably face customer segments characterized as innovators, early adopters, the chasm, early majority, late majority and laggards which is not a relevant distinction for the boots-to-the-ground commercial strategy of most businesses. On this particular point, not only must market and financial projections such as revenues and cashflows be planned for each listed step but it is mandatory to address each of these segments without exception. Frequent complaints on this part have been: What if a company has no interest in spending significant marketing and sales expenses on reaching laggards who are hard to convince? What if the chasm is not relevant for a specific commercial strategy that has large scale distributors and retailers – thus allowing vertical scaling? What does the cash flow of the chasm look like if it is supposed to be a gap between two segments and not a segment of its own? It seems like the TALC is an analysis tool that is conventionally used to look backwards at an innovation rather than a tool that is integrated into an early-stage business plan to estimate an innovation and its market uptake. Identifying what a future barrier or risk could be is important but to include a gap between the early adopters and the early majority according to a book published in 1991 (“Crossing the Chasm” by Geoffrey A. Moore) seems redundant. Estimating a cash flow and revenues for a potential gap seems unnecessary at best. The Template and Content While the official proposal template and guide for applicants do reflect the content needed for the full application, the platform requests a high quantity of content with very strong overlaps between sections. While it was clear that the 2020’s EIC Accelerator applications were already very text dense, the EIC seems to have asked themselves: How about we remove all images, formatting and links from the application and have even more text? Needless to say, it is obvious that evaluators were not consulted in this decision. The EIC should, for the sake of their applicants and evaluators, update the platform and allow applicants to add images and graphics into key sections of the applications. Many sections should also be removed since they likely frustrate evaluators more than applicants but a future article will follow with specific recommendations. Bugs and Errors The following list of errors and bugs is by no means complete but reflects the experience of a small number of applicants who have used the platform thus far. The European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA) have already been notified of these bugs and some of the errors have already been fixed in the past weeks. Note: It is easy to point out 1% of mistakes if 99% was very well executed. The EIC Platform looks very well-designed, is elaborate and does present a well-planned snapshot of an innovation. Still, it remains to be seen if this is the right path for the EIC moving forward. 1. Deleted Text One applicant had all their risks in Step 1 removed during the submission. This was evident when comparing the screenshots of the submission window with the resulting proposal as it is shown after the submission. Risk analysis is a critical issue for the EIC Accelerator which makes such a glitch extremely harmful but, luckily, the applicant presented a strong case in other sections and passed regardless. 2. Auto-Save Often, the platform in Step 1 and 2 did not auto-save properly which resulted in the browser window scrolling back up to the top and displaying a generic error message. Reasons for this were entirely bug-related since trial and error showed that, very often, having 1000/1000 characters blocked auto-save while 999/1000 passed successfully. Alternatively, removing all the line breaks from a paragraph also worked in some cases if the window did not auto-save properly. This, of course, made the text hard to read for the evaluator but applicants had no other option. 3. Error-Messages In the value-chain, the main stakeholder could be declared as both “part of the problem” (mandatory for the main stakeholder) and as “impacted by the solution” (optional). If both options were selected, the item received an error message regardless of where it was in the value chain – before or after the solution. 4. Team Allocation The team in Step 2 did not save its data when it came to the work package allocation (i.e. selecting the specific work packages for each … Read more

Why an EIC Accelerator Video Editor Should be a Proposal Writer or Story Teller (SME Instrument)

by

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) has recently introduced a video pitch for Step 1 of the evaluation process. This has placed an additional level of storytelling on top of the written application and the pitch deck. Since there is no useful guideline or proposal template for the video pitch, this article aims to share thoughts on the storytelling and the overall process of the editing of a pitch video for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME). Editing is an extremely important part of the video creation process since it can completely change the entire narrative, can alter the story or make things seem less or more plausible. Many famous writers and producers have long recognized the importance of the editing process and are performing or administering the process carefully. Editing and Writing The relationship between filming and editing is the one between creating a raw proposal outline and the writing of an actual application. What needs to be considered is that the editor must have the same skillset as the scriptwriter to assure that the final narrative is aligned with its initial intention. Yes, changes can be requested but the decision as to which word will be cut out due to time constraints or which sentence is more important will lie in the responsibility of the editor. This means that the editor should not only be familiar with general storytelling but should also be familiar with the EIC Accelerator application process and its specific focus on disruptiveness, innovation, risk and non-bankability. Professional writers and consultancies are already deeply familiar with this process but many third party filmmakers or editors who are being hired in 2021 due to the sudden need for video pitches might not be. The Editors Tasks The main task of the editor is to take the raw footage and turn it into the required 3-minute video as defined by the European Innovation Council (EIC)’s recommendation. The general workflow and segmentation for this are: Selecting the video and, if needed, synching the external audio with the video Cutting the video down to the needed segments and length Audio enhancement Video enhancement (colour grading) Adding effects (titles, transitions, overlays of logos, etc.) Exporting the footage Feedback and revisions are quite simple but the early tasks of footage selection and the cutting to the respective times are very difficult to control if a writer does not understand editing and the editor does not understand the writing. It is common that editions are in the form of: Can you add a logo here? Can we get this part first? Can you use a different camera angle? (if multiple were recorded) Can we change the title? But what is almost impossible to edit as a non-editor is: Can you add the deleted sentence back in and remove the one you kept? Can you remove these 10 pauses throughout the video and add this sentence at the end? Can you change the order of these parts? It is hard to identify what will work best if you do not have an overview of all raw material and knowledge as to what can work in a video setting. The scriptwriter gives an outline of the story but the editor creates a story that is different from the original script due to time constraints, the quality of the material and the availability of supplementary material such as logos, footage or animations. How to Improve the Editing A key factor in preparing a well-edited pitch video is to already account for the editing in the scripting and not only prepare a script and hope that it will work in 3 minutes. Key factors to plan for the editing inside the script preparation are: Sentences that can be trimmed if needed or can be removed without hurting the narrative. Segments that allow the addition of relevant logos, animations or titles without overlapping with non-relevant sections. Omitting transitional sentences that force the editor to keep them in succession as opposed to having the freedom to change their order. Short sentences as opposed to ones that are long and complex. Thinking of visual support for certain aspects (i.e. already preparing stock or in-house footage to be used ahead of time).

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