Writing Tips

The EIC Proposal Paradox: Length vs. Substance in Grant Applications

by

Introduction A curious paradox exists in the realm of grant applications for the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator program. While the EIC generally recommends submitting concise, shorter proposals, it’s often observed that longer proposals, packed with extensive information, tend to perform better. This article examines this phenomenon and its implications for startups and SMEs. The Recommendation for Brevity The EIC often advises applicants to be succinct in their proposals, aiming to communicate their ideas clearly and efficiently. The rationale is to provide evaluators with a focused and coherent narrative that addresses the key aspects of the project without overwhelming them with excessive details. The Success of Lengthier Proposals In practice, however, proposals that are more comprehensive and longer often have a higher success rate. These detailed proposals provide a depth of information that can effectively showcase the project’s nuances, potential impact, and thorough planning. They allow applicants to address multiple aspects of their innovation, from technical details to market strategies and risk assessments. Balancing Length and Clarity This situation presents a challenge for applicants: balancing the need for a thorough, detailed proposal with the EIC’s preference for conciseness. Achieving this balance requires skill in distilling complex information into a clear, compelling narrative without sacrificing the depth and breadth that a detailed proposal offers. Conclusion The contradiction between the EIC’s recommendation for shorter proposals and the apparent success of lengthier submissions highlights a key challenge in the grant application process. It underscores the importance of strategic writing that can weave a comprehensive yet clear narrative. For startups and SMEs, understanding this paradox is crucial in crafting proposals that not only meet the EIC’s guidelines but also effectively communicate the full potential of their innovative projects.

The Grant Writing Paradox: Balancing Business Commitment with Proposal Development

by

Introduction In the competitive world of grant funding, particularly for programs like the European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator, there exists a paradoxical expectation for applicants. On one hand, they are required to spend months meticulously crafting proposals, and on the other, they are expected to remain 100% committed to their business operations. This article explores how this dual demand can be counterproductive, potentially distracting entrepreneurs from their core business activities. The Time-Intensive Nature of Grant Proposals Crafting a grant proposal, especially for substantial programs like the EIC Accelerator, is no small feat. It demands an in-depth understanding of the application guidelines, a compelling presentation of the project, and often, the intricacies of aligning with specific funding criteria. This process can span several months, requiring significant time and attention from applicants. The Business Commitment Dilemma While dedicating time to grant writing is crucial for securing funding, it can lead to a diversion of focus from the day-to-day operations and growth of the business. For startups and SMEs, where resources are often limited, this diversion can impact their ability to maintain business momentum, innovate, and respond to market needs. Navigating the Paradox To balance the demands of proposal writing and business operations, applicants often resort to external help such as consultants. This approach allows them to maintain their business focus while ensuring that their grant applications are professionally managed. However, this solution might not be feasible for all, particularly smaller startups with limited budgets. Conclusion The expectation for startups and SMEs to invest extensive time in grant proposals while simultaneously running their business is a challenging paradox. It highlights the need for more streamlined and efficient application processes, as well as support systems that can assist applicants in managing this dual demand. As funding bodies evolve, acknowledging and addressing this paradox will be essential in fostering a supportive environment that enables innovators to thrive both in their business pursuits and in securing vital funding.

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

by

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

The Challenge of Defining Exclusion Criteria in the EIC Accelerator

by

Introduction The European Innovation Council’s (EIC) Accelerator program, renowned for its significant funding opportunities for startups and SMEs, faces a unique challenge in defining clear exclusion criteria for applicants. This article delves into the complexities surrounding the program’s inability to publish distinct boundaries for approvals and rejections, attributing it to the inherent randomness in the selection process. The EIC Accelerator’s Selection Dilemma At the core of the EIC Accelerator’s selection process is a level of unpredictability that stems from the diverse backgrounds of evaluators and the subjective nature of innovation assessment. This randomness makes it challenging to establish concrete exclusion criteria that can be consistently applied across all applications. The absence of clear boundaries often leaves applicants in a state of uncertainty regarding their eligibility and the likelihood of their project’s acceptance. Implications for Applicants The lack of transparent exclusion criteria can lead to confusion among potential applicants, who may find it difficult to gauge their project’s fit within the program. This uncertainty can deter some innovators from applying, while others may resort to seeking external assistance, such as consultants, to interpret and navigate the ambiguous criteria. Conclusion The EIC Accelerator’s struggle to define clear exclusion criteria highlights the broader complexities involved in funding innovative projects. While the randomness in selection ensures a diverse range of projects are considered, it also underscores the need for a more transparent and applicant-friendly approach. Balancing the desire for innovation with the need for clear guidelines remains an ongoing challenge for the EIC Accelerator, one that is crucial for fostering an inclusive and dynamic innovation ecosystem.

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

by

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

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.

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.

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).

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