EIC Accelerator

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 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.

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.

Presenting ChatEIC: The AI Co-Pilot for EIC Accelerator Applications

by

Imagine you could simply generate an entire EIC Accelerator application based on a single company file and a few prompts. ChatEIC, a custom AI based on GPT-4, is able to do exactly just that. EIC Accelerator Modules The EIC Accelerator Training Program utilizes a Module-based approach to grant writing where specific sections are combined into Modules to facilitate the learning and writing process. Using the same approach for teaching companies how to write a grant application and apply for the EIC Accelerator, ChatEIC is able to learn how each section must be structured and can simply apply its learnings to any company. In this scenario, the user has to provide only minimal input, if any. Ideally, the user only needs to upload an investor deck or a long pitch deck and ChatEIC will take it from there. The Case Study: Generating Proposal Sections As an example, one can use publically available data such as an investor deck by the publically-traded synthetic biology company Ginkgo Bioworks. While this deck is by no means complete, it contains 66 pages of valuable information and, most importantly, describes a DeepTech project that is very much aligned with the EIC Accelerator. Ginkgo Bioworks, while it is a US business, is an excellent case study to test the capabilities of AI-generated grant proposal sections since the main performance standard for any AI grant writer is minimum input. Using an AI text generator is only useful if it reduces the workload which makes minimal prompt work a must. Now, let’s see how well ChatEIC will perform with its general knowledge regarding the writing of EIC Accelerator proposals. A major challenge is to turn general knowledge into specialized knowledge since each company, market and industry are different. So, is ChatEIC able to create specialized sections or will it end up being generic? Example: Market, Abstract and Risks Note: The modules contain pre-defined context that ChatEIC will recognize and use to write for this project. ChatEIC does not need to be reminded what each Module means since it knows them by heart and just needs to hear the number. In this case, the first input prompt only contains the Ginkgo Bioworks Investor Deck as a PDF attachment. The following chat conversation represents the entire conversation, prompts and information exchanged with ChatEIC without any edits or omissions. ChatEIC has no prior knowledge regarding grant applications for Ginkgo Bioworks or specialized knowledge of synthetic biology companies outside of the GPT-4 base. Input: Write Module 56 (Ginkgo.PDF attached) ChatEIC: After reviewing the document provided, I didn’t find specific information related to Market Size & Growth (Module 56) for Ginkgo. However, based on the nature of Ginkgo’s work and industry, I can draft a generic Module 56 for your review. Module 56: Market Size & Growth Market Size and Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) Ginkgo operates in the rapidly evolving biotechnology sector, focusing on cell programming and bioengineering. The Total Addressable Market (TAM) for the global biotech industry is estimated to be over €XX billion, driven by increasing demand for innovative healthcare solutions, sustainable agricultural practices, and novel bio-based products. Serviceable Addressable Market (SAM) Within this broad market, Ginkgo’s SAM can be segmented into specialized areas like synthetic biology, genome engineering, and biosecurity, totaling around €XX billion. This segment is characterized by a robust growth trajectory due to technological advancements and increasing adoption of bioengineered solutions across various industries. Serviceable Obtainable Market (SOM) Ginkgo’s SOM, considering its current product and service offerings, is projected to be in the range of €XX million to €XX million. The company is well-positioned to capture a significant portion of this market, given its innovative platform, strategic partnerships, and advanced capabilities in cell programming. Market Trends and Future Outlook The market is witnessing a significant shift towards sustainable and environmentally friendly solutions, where Ginkgo’s expertise in bioengineering is highly relevant. Upcoming regulatory changes, increased investment in biotech research, and a growing focus on personalized medicine and sustainable practices are likely to further drive market growth. Ginkgo’s ability to adapt and innovate positions it favorably to leverage these trends for sustained growth. This module is a general depiction based on the typical market environment for companies like Ginkgo. For a more accurate and detailed module, specific market data and growth projections related to Ginkgo’s products and services are required. Do you have any additional information or specific data points that you would like to include in this module? Input: Use Bing to search for market reports for the SAM and SOM as well in the broader synthetic biology space ChatEIC: Based on a quick search, here’s what I discovered. The search for specific market reports on the Serviceable Addressable Market (SAM) and Serviceable Obtainable Market (SOM) in the synthetic biology space for 2024 didn’t yield precise results. The available information primarily covers the overall Synthetic Biology Market. Here’s what I found: The Synthetic Biology Market size is estimated to be USD 79.39 billion in 2024 and is expected to reach USD 145.49 billion by 2029, growing at a CAGR of 12.88% during the forecast period (2024-2029)​​.[ref] According to another report, the Synthetic Biology Market was valued at USD 13.1 billion in 2022 and is projected to expand at a significant growth rate​​.[ref] A different source mentions that the global synthetic biology market size was valued at USD 13.09 billion in 2022 and is expected to expand at a CAGR of 18.97% from 2023 to 2030​​.[ref] One more report supports the estimation of the Synthetic Biology Market size at USD 79.39 billion in 2024, with a growth forecast up to USD 145.49 billion by 2029​​.[ref] Lastly, another study valued the Synthetic Biology Market at USD 9.4 billion in 2022 and expected it to reach USD 47.4 billion by 2029, with a CAGR of 26% during the forecast period 2023-29​​.[ref] These findings provide a broad overview of the market size and growth rate in the synthetic biology sector. However, for a more precise estimation of SAM and SOM for Ginkgo … Read more

The 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

The New Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) for the 2021 EIC Accelerator

by

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) has made significant changes in 2021 and has successfully passed its first submission- and approval-cycle for new beneficiaries (read: Re-Inventing the EIC Accelerator). Out of over 1,500 startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) that have applied since April 2021 (read: AI Tool Review), 65 have now been selected for funding since they have successfully passed Step 1 (short application + video), Step 2 (long application) and Step 3 (VC-type in-person interview). Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) in 2021 While many changes have been made, one of the changes most relevant to prospect applicants, professional writers and consultants are the Technology Readiness Levels (TRL). An analysis of the previous iterations of the TRL’s can be found here: Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) for the EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument) How the EIC Accelerator Funds Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) (SME Instrument) Since 2021, their new definitions are as follows: Basic Research: Basic principles observed Technology Formulation: Technology concept formulated Needs Validation: Experimental proof of concept Small Scale Prototype: Technology validated in lab Large Scale Prototype: Technology validated in relevant environment (industrially relevant environment in the case of key enabling technologies) Prototype System: Technology demonstrated in relevant environment (industrially relevant environment in the case of key enabling technologies) Demonstration System: System prototype demonstration in operational environment First Of A Kind Commercial System: System complete and qualified Full Commercial Application: Actual system proven in operational environment (competitive manufacturing in the case of key enabling technologies; or in space) The Starting-TRL for the EIC Accelerator For the EIC Accelerator, it is recommended to start with a TRL of 5 or 6 since this is generally the prototype level that warrants further grant financing and subsequent equity investments for the scaling of operations. Since the EIC Accelerator also allows equity-only applications, the upper limit for the starting point of an EIC application is TRL8. The specific rules for this process are outlined in the Work Programme published by the European Commission and the EIC: The EIC Accelerator supports the later stages of technology development as well as scale up. The technology component of your innovation must therefore have been tested and validated in a laboratory or other relevant environment (e.g. at least Technology Readiness Level 5/6 or higher). This extract indicates the starting point for technologies financed under the EIC Accelerator. All innovations must have reached TRL5 at least. Differences Between Equity and Grant Financing Up to EUR 2.5 million grant component for technology development and validation (TRL 5/6 to 8); EUR 0.5 – 15 million investment component for scaling up and other activities. This means that the grant component is strictly targeted at all activities that end at TRL8 or lower. The equity component does not have any restrictions and can be applied towards the whole life-cycle from TRL5 to TRL9. You may request a grant component only or grant first (i.e. maximum EUR 2.5 million to cover TRL 5/6 to 8 and without requesting an investment component for TRL 9) if you have not previously received EIC Accelerator grant-only support. If only a grant is requested (and no equity) then the end of the project will be TRL8 as far as the EIC is concerned. Further justifications on how TRL9 is reached must be included by the applicants. If the proposal receives a GO and is recommended for funding, the jury may recommend lowering the grant amount if activities above TRL 8 are detected The TRL8-rule for the grant financing is strictly enforced so no applicant should aim to circumvent this (i.e. by trying to finance TRL9 activities through a grant). [Equity] is intended to finance market deployment and scale up but may also be used for other purposes (including co-financing or even fully financing innovation activities) It is clearly stated that the EIC Accelerator’s equity financing is also applicable to activities between TRL5 and TRL8 (innovation activities). Summary In short, the respective funding provided by the EIC for an EIC Accelerator project is separated into: Equity (by the EIC Fund): Finances TRL5 to TRL9 activities Grant (by the European Commission): Finances TRL5 to TRL8 activities When applying to the financing, requesting both grant and equity is possible (i.e. blended financing) while either is optional since an applicant can also request one without the other (i.e. equity-only, grant-only or grant-first).

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.

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