Introduction: The Dichotomy between Steps 2 and 3 in EIC Accelerator Evaluations
The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator’s application process is a rigorous and multi-staged journey, culminating in the final and crucial Step 3 – the interview phase. A closer examination of the evaluation process reveals a significant shift in focus between Step 2 and Step 3, which can often mislead applicants who have successfully passed Step 2.
The Eroding Evaluation Process
Initially, the EIC Accelerator employs thousands of remote evaluators for the first two steps, who assess a vast number of applications. This process is designed to vet good technologies in Steps 1 and 2. However, the final and decisive Step 3 uses a smaller group of commercially-oriented jury members. This transition marks a significant change in the evaluation criteria – from a technology-focused assessment to a more business-oriented scrutiny.
The Increasing Dependence on the EIC Jury
There has been a noticeable trend in the EIC Accelerator process, where the reliance on the EIC Jury in the interview stage (Step 3) has increased. This shift implies that the quality and approach of the EIC Jury are crucial in the final selection of projects.
Jury Jeopardy: The Unpredictability of Step 3
The goal of using a small, highly qualified group of experts in the EIC Jury is to increase the quality of final funding decisions and reduce randomness. However, as the number of jury members increases to accommodate more interviews, the selection process potentially becomes more random. This randomness is particularly problematic as it introduces a significant luck factor, influenced by the interpersonal skills of the applicants, which are challenging to assess and train within a short period.
The Misleading Path from Step 2 to Step 3
For applicants who pass Step 2, the journey to Step 3 can be misleading. The approval in Step 2 may give a false sense of security or high chances of success. However, the change in focus to a more business-oriented assessment in Step 3, along with the increased randomness of the jury’s decisions, means that even strong technological projects might face unexpected challenges or rejections during the interview stage.
Conclusion: Navigating the Transition from Step 2 to Step 3
Applicants must be aware of the significant shift in focus from Step 2 to Step 3 and prepare accordingly. Understanding that the final step places greater emphasis on the business viability and market potential of the project, along with the inherent unpredictability of the jury’s decisions, is crucial. This awareness will enable applicants to better strategize their approach in the interview stage, focusing on both the strength of their technology and its business potential.
About
The articles found on Rasph.com reflect the opinions of Rasph or its respective authors and in no way reflect opinions held by the European Commission (EC) or the European Innovation Council (EIC). The provided information aims to share perspectives that are valuable and can potentially inform applicants regarding grant funding schemes such as the EIC Accelerator, EIC Pathfinder, EIC Transition or related programs such as Innovate UK in the United Kingdom or the Small Business Innovation and Research grant (SBIR) in the United States.
The articles can also be a useful resource for other consultancies in the grant space as well as professional grant writers who are hired as freelancers or are part of a Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (SME). The EIC Accelerator is part of Horizon Europe (2021-2027) which has recently replaced the previous framework program Horizon 2020.
This article was written by ChatEIC. ChatEIC is an EIC Accelerator assistant that can advise on the writing of proposals, discuss current trends and create insightful articles on a variety of topics. The articles written by ChatEIC can contain inaccurate or outdated information.
- Contact Us -
EIC Accelerator Articles
All Eligible EIC Accelerator Countries (including the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Ukraine)
Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator
A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator
The EIC’s One-Stop Shop Funding Framework (Pathfinder, Transition, Accelerator)
Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator
A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator
The Challenge with EIC Accelerator Open Calls: MedTech Innovations Dominate
Go Fund Yourself: Are EIC Accelerator Equity Investments Necessary? (Presenting Grant+)
Digging Deep: The New DeepTech Focus of the EIC Accelerator and its Funding Bottlenecks
Zombie Innovation: EIC Accelerator Funding for the Living Dead
Smack My Pitch Up: Changing The Evaluation Focus Of The EIC Accelerator
How Deep Is Your Tech? The European Innovation Council Impact Report (EIC Accelerator)
Analyzing A Leaked EIC Accelerator Interview List (Success Rates, Industries, Direct Submissions)
Steering the EIC Accelerator: Lessons Learned from the Pilot Program
Who Should Not Apply To The EIC Accelerator And Why
The Risk of Presenting all Risks in the High-Risk EIC Accelerator Program
How to Prepare an EIC Accelerator Resubmission
How to Prepare a Good EIC Accelerator Application: General Project Advice
How to Craft an EIC Accelerator Rebuttal: Explaining Grant Proposal Resubmissions
