Introduction: The Unpredictability of EIC Accelerator’s Evaluation Process
The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator program’s evaluation process, particularly in Steps 1 and 2, is fraught with unpredictability and a sense of randomness, leading to frustration among applicants. The lack of clear consequences for evaluators who provide inconsistent, incorrect, or uninformed assessments exacerbates this issue.
The “Luck Factor” in Project Selection
Applicants have reported instances where resubmitted proposals with minimal or no changes succeeded, undermining the credibility of the process. This randomness, dubbed the “luck factor,” is a significant determinant in the selection of high-quality proposals. This inconsistency is further highlighted by cases where companies are rejected for raising a certain amount of funding, while others are selected despite having raised significantly more.
Lack of Accountability and Inconsistent Feedback
The EIC Accelerator program lacks a mechanism to hold evaluators accountable for the consistency of their assessments. Rejected applicants are generally not motivated to publicize their rejections, leading to a lack of transparency in the evaluation process. This situation leaves professional consultants and writers as the primary collectors of case studies detailing these inconsistencies.
Proposal Resubmission: A Testimony to Randomness
Historically, many projects required multiple submissions (3 to 5 attempts) before being funded, suggesting that the evaluation process is too random to yield consistent and desirable results. Despite improvements in evaluator feedback post-2020, the randomness remains a significant issue.
Potential Solutions to Mitigate Randomness
- Evaluator and Jury Member Accountability: Implementing a system where evaluators and jury members are assessed based on their decision accuracy could mitigate some of these issues. For example, a ‘strike’ system could be introduced for evaluators who incorrectly assess projects, with strikes assigned for inconsistent grading compared to later stages.
- Enhanced Communication and Consistency: Improved communication between remote evaluators of Steps 1 and 2 and the Step 3 jury members, who have different backgrounds and funding criteria, could help. Ensuring consistency in rejection reasons across all evaluation steps would also reduce randomness.
- Publicizing Detailed Evaluation Criteria and Results: More transparent communication of evaluation criteria and detailed, anonymized results of evaluations could provide applicants with clearer expectations and reduce the element of surprise in decisions.
Conclusion: Addressing the Randomness for Better Outcomes
The randomness in the EIC Accelerator’s evaluation process presents a significant challenge that needs addressing. Introducing accountability measures for evaluators and ensuring consistency and transparency in the evaluation process are crucial steps towards making the EIC Accelerator a more fair and reliable funding opportunity for European innovators.
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
