Software

The Crucial Role of Face-to-Face Interviews in Grant Approval

by

Introduction In the intricate and competitive realm of securing grants, particularly within esteemed programs like the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator, the importance of face-to-face interviews is increasingly recognized. As startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) vie for substantial funding, including the EIC Accelerator’s total financing of up to €17.5 million, the personal touch and depth provided by in-person interviews are invaluable. This article explores the pivotal role that face-to-face interviews play in the grant approval process. The Power of Personal Interaction While written proposals are crucial for detailing the technicalities and potential of a project, face-to-face interviews offer a dynamic platform for applicants to showcase their passion, vision, and the real people behind the innovation. These interviews allow evaluators to gauge the team’s commitment, understanding, and readiness to bring their project to fruition. In settings like the EIC Accelerator’s interview stage, it’s often the personal conviction and professional presentation of ideas that can sway decisions, making these interactions a critical component of the funding journey. Unveiling the Team Behind the Innovation Face-to-face interviews provide a unique opportunity for evaluators to meet the minds behind the innovations. This interaction goes beyond the written text, allowing the team to demonstrate their expertise, enthusiasm, and the cohesive force driving the project forward. The ability to ask probing questions and receive immediate, thoughtful responses adds an invaluable layer of depth to the evaluative process, ensuring that funding is not just about the idea but also about the people ready to bring it to life. The Role of Expert Preparation Given the high stakes of these interviews, especially when substantial funding like the EIC grant or equity is on the line, the preparation undertaken by startups cannot be understated. Professional writers, consultants, and freelancers often play a crucial role in coaching teams, refining their pitch, and strategizing responses to potential questions. Their expertise can significantly enhance the quality of interaction during the interview, ensuring that the team presents a compelling and cohesive narrative. Bridging Communication Gaps Face-to-face interviews allow for real-time clarification and elaboration, bridging gaps that might exist in the written proposal. They offer a dynamic space to address evaluators’ concerns directly, provide additional context, and highlight aspects of the project that might not have been fully captured on paper. This interactive dialogue can often be the defining factor in convincing evaluators of the project’s worthiness for funding. Conclusion In the pursuit of grants and funding, the importance of face-to-face interviews cannot be overstated. They provide a vital platform for startups and SMEs to bring their written proposals to life, showcasing the real people, passion, and professionalism behind each project. As programs like the EIC Accelerator continue to shape the future of innovation funding, the value of personal interaction in the evaluative process remains paramount. With the right preparation and presentation, face-to-face interviews can turn hopeful applications into successful funding stories, driving innovation and progress across industries.

AI and Grant Writing: Revolutionizing the Landscape of Startup Funding

by

Introduction The advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has touched and transformed various sectors, including the meticulous and strategic domain of grant writing. This article explores the burgeoning role of AI in the field of grant writing, particularly for securing funding through programs like the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator. It highlights how AI tools and technologies are becoming invaluable assets for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) seeking non-dilutive grants and equity financing. The AI Revolution in Grant Writing AI in grant writing represents a paradigm shift, offering a spectrum of capabilities from data analysis and pattern recognition to language generation and optimization. As startups compete for funding in programs offering substantial financial backing, such as the EIC Accelerator’s €17.5 million in total financing, AI becomes a powerful ally. It helps in crafting compelling narratives, identifying alignment with funding criteria, and optimizing proposals to enhance their persuasive power. Enhancing Narrative Craft with AI One of the primary contributions of AI in grant writing is its ability to assist in creating powerful, compelling narratives. AI tools can analyze successful grant applications and learn the patterns, styles, and key phrases that resonate with evaluators. By integrating these insights, AI can guide expert writers in crafting applications that are not only technically robust but also engaging and impactful. Streamlining the Structured Template Process The EIC Accelerator and similar funding programs rely on structured templates to ensure consistency and comprehensiveness in applications. AI can streamline this process by suggesting content organization, highlighting critical sections that need attention, and ensuring all necessary elements like Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and market strategy are effectively communicated. This ensures that the application is not only complete but also resonates with the evaluators’ expectations and program objectives. Predictive Analytics and Strategic Insights AI’s ability to analyze large datasets extends to predicting trends and providing strategic insights. For startups navigating the complex landscape of grant applications, AI can offer predictions on funding opportunities, evaluator preferences, and success rates based on historical data. This predictive capability allows startups to strategize their applications more effectively, increasing their chances of success. The Role of Expert Writers in an AI-Driven World While AI brings remarkable tools to the grant writing process, the role of expert writers, consultants, and freelancers remains irreplaceable. They bring a human touch, understanding the nuances of storytelling, and ethical considerations that AI cannot fully grasp. The synergy between AI tools and human expertise creates a powerful combination, enhancing the quality and success potential of grant applications. Conclusion AI’s integration into grant writing marks an exciting development in the field of startup funding. It offers the promise of enhanced narratives, streamlined processes, predictive insights, and strategic optimizations. However, the human expertise of professional writers and consultants remains at the heart of this process, ensuring that the application not only meets the technical criteria but also tells a compelling innovation story. As AI continues to evolve and become more sophisticated, its partnership with human intelligence is set to revolutionize the grant writing landscape, opening new doors of opportunity for startups and SMEs seeking to secure vital funding for their innovative projects.

The Inevitable Disruption: AI’s Role in Reshaping the EIC’s Investment in Innovation

by

Introduction The European Innovation Council (EIC), a beacon of support for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs), is not immune to the disruptive forces of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Known for investing in disruptive innovation, the EIC itself is bound to be revolutionized by AI, altering the landscape of funding, evaluation, and technological advancement. AI as a Disruptive Force AI is transforming industries worldwide, and the realm of innovation funding is no exception. The EIC, with its mandate to foster groundbreaking projects, is witnessing a paradigm shift as AI begins to play a significant role in both the development of innovations and the processes that govern funding initiatives. The Impact on Evaluation and Selection The traditional methods of evaluating grant applications, involving extensive review by human experts, are being challenged by AI’s capabilities. With its ability to process vast amounts of data and identify patterns, AI can potentially streamline the EIC’s evaluation process, making it more efficient and unbiased. However, this shift raises questions about the balance between human judgment and algorithmic decision-making. Challenges and Opportunities The integration of AI within the EIC’s framework presents both challenges and opportunities. While AI can enhance efficiency and objectivity in grant evaluations, there is a risk of losing the nuanced understanding that human evaluators bring. Moreover, as AI reshapes the kinds of projects that are developed, the EIC must adapt its criteria and strategies to stay ahead of the curve in identifying truly innovative ventures. Conclusion The EIC’s journey in embracing AI reflects the broader evolution of the innovation funding ecosystem. As AI becomes an integral part of this landscape, the EIC must navigate the challenges of integrating technology with human expertise. This evolution is not just about adopting new tools but about rethinking approaches to foster and fund innovation in an AI-driven world.

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.

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 EIC Accelerator’s Evaluation Problem in 2022

by

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

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

by

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

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

by

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

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

Workflow for Creating an EIC Accelerator Pitch Video (SME Instrument)

by

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) has gained a mandatory video pitch in 2021 and many applicants are uncertain as to how such a video should look or be prepared. While the official proposal templates and guidelines by the European Innovation Council (EIC) do not give an answer to this question, the following article aims to present a simple workflow that can be used by prospect applicants, professional writers or consultancies. Since many Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) and startups have some experience with video creation or editing due to social media platforms like YouTube, Facebook or Twitter, this article will omit tools like Adobe Spark or Loom which are used to simply record a speaker on top of a slideshow. This article will focus on video cutting and effects tools as well as a simple workflow to bring all essential parts together in an efficient manner. The software that is discussed is exchangeable for the most part but, due to their compatibility, we focus on Adobe Premiere Pro, After Effects and Illustrator. Note: There are excellent tutorials on YouTube for each of these steps and the following article aims at giving an overview of the workflow without detailing the exact mechanics of video editing in Adobe CC. 1. Adobe Premiere Pro (PP) Premiere Pro (PP) is used as the main video creation dashboard and cutting tool. Here, everything is prepared, brought together and will be finalised for export. The most important tasks to be done are: Note: A simplified version of this software is available under the name Adobe Rush. 1.1 Importing the Video Footage Once the video has been recorded, it will need to be imported into PP. What needs to be considered is that every video might have different resolutions and frame rates which will appear different in the respective timeline. The way PP works, a timeline is created that has a defined frame rate and resolution. The frame rate or Frames Per Second (FPS) defines how many frames (or images) are present in each second of video footage. Standard FPS’s are 23.976, 24 or 30. The former two FPS’s yield more of a natural motion blur while the latter (or higher FPS) will appear sharper during motion. For an EIC Accelerator video, using 23.976 or 24 will be sufficient. For the resolution, the video should be at least Full HD which translates to dimensions of 1920×1080. If no FPS or resolutions are specified prior to importing the clips, the sequence will automatically adapt to the clip’s original settings once it is dragged into the timeline. It is advisable to already decide on FPS and the resolution prior to the shooting. 1.2 Synching the Video to the External Audio (optional) If the video has been recorded separately from the audio (i.e. with an external microphone that was not connected to the camera during the recording) then the audio must be matched to the video in post-production. This is optional and not needed in cases where a shotgun microphone is mounted and connected to the camera or a wireless condenser microphone is used. To sync the external audio clips to the built-in audio of the video, they must be placed into the same timeline in PP and the two can be matched with the synchronisation feature. This usually works well but, especially for shorter clips, it can be necessary to manually adjust the positioning. For this, it is always advisable to have an orientation point in the video and in the audio to simplify matching. This can simply be in the form of clapping hands at the beginning of the recording so that the built-in microphone and the external microphone pick up the same sound which can be used as a matching point in post-production. To finalise the linking of the external audio with the video clip, the two can be linked (not grouped) so that all cutting and moving is always applied to audio and video as a joined unit. 1.3 Cutting to 3 Minutes The next step after the video and timeline have been prepared is the cutting to 3 minutes in total which means that all videos must be trimmed to that time. This is also an opportunity to already plan where certain video clips can be inserted to demonstrate the product, showcase the office or related parts. Cutting down the footage is a challenge in and of itself but thoughts on this process can be found here: Why an EIC Accelerator Video Editor Should be a Proposal Writer or Story Teller To circumvent the difficulty of this step, it is also possible to only record exactly 3 minutes of footage but this might be more difficult than the cutting process itself. 1.4 Colour Grading the Footage After the footage has been prepared and trimmed, it should be colour graded by using Lumetri colour or a similar effect. The general goal is to make the lighting and shadows look well contrasted and to have sufficient saturation and balanced skin tones in the final video. As there are plenty of high-quality tutorials out there on colour grading so it will not be detailed here. Note: Adobe Photoshop can be used to create Lookup Tables (LUT) based on a video screenshot which can be directly imported into Lumetri colour inside PP. The LUT’s act as a filter for the video footage inside PP which can use the benefits of the image editing features native only to Photoshop. Note 2: If multiple clips require identical colour grading, an “Adjustment layer” can be placed on top of the respective clips. The effect can then be applied to the adjustment layer alone which will apply it to all clips below in the timeline. 1.5 Audio Enhancement Depending on the source of the audio and the microphone settings, it is usually advisable to perform a voice enhancement. There are a variety of tutorials and guidelines on YouTube but examples of general enhancements are: … 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

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