EIC Accelerator Writer The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) by the European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) is a complex funding instrument for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME). It is often supported by professional writers, freelancers or consultants since it can be challenging for startups to navigate the lengthy assessment and proposal writing process. This article aims to provide a brief but comprehensive overview of the program to help future applicants decide if the EIC Accelerator is the right instrument for them. What is the EIC Accelerator? The EIC Accelerator is a funding program by the European Commission (EC) and the European Innovation Council (EIC) as part of Horizon Europe. It funds innovative DeepTech companies with grant and/or equity financing of up to €2.5 million and €10 million, respectively. Note: Previously, the maximum equity contribution was €15 million. Applicants can be from the EU-27 countries or from countries associated with Horizon Europe. The company’s technology should have completed Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 5 at least and be able to reach TRL8 within 24 months but exceptions can apply. What does the EIC Accelerator provide? Next to business acceleration, coaching and networking opportunities, it provides funding in the form of 4 different application options: Grant-only: A non-dilutive grant with the company reaching TRL8 at the end of the project and subsequently reaching TRL9 without the help of the EIC. Equity-only: Dilutive equity funding from the EIC Fund to reach TRL9. Blended finance: A mix of non-dilutive grant and dilutive equity financing to reach TRL9 at the end of the project. Grant-first: A non-dilutive grant with the company reaching TRL8 at the end of the project. There is an option to apply for dilutive equity financing from the EIC Fund afterward to reach TRL9 (see Grant-First). Note: This option has been removed in 2024. How do the different funding options finance development work? In general, grant funding can only be used for activities up to TRL8 (i.e. TRL5 to TRL8) while equity funding can be used for developments up to TRL9 including innovation activities (i.e. TRL5 to TRL9). What industries can apply and are there topic limitations? The EIC publishes topics every year in the EIC Work Programme which outlines specific budget allocations. Generally, the budget is split between the options of an “Open” and a “Challenge” Call which are usually available on the same cut-off dates (see Deadline). A company can therefore decide which topic they would like to apply for. The two options are: EIC Accelerator Open: This call is open to applicants of all industries provided they are not violating the agendas of the European Union (EU) in terms of climate, human rights, ethics and other political and social targets. EIC Accelerator Challenges: These topics are clearly defined technology and industry themes that must be achieved or covered by the applicant. The applicant can select the respective Challenge during the Step 2 submission process. When and how can I apply? The EIC Accelerator generally has 3-4 cut-offs per year which are set for Step 2 submissions (see Deadline). The following conditions apply: Step 1: This step encompasses a short application including a pitch deck (see Pitch Deck), a video (see Pitch Video) and a short proposal. Submitting a proposal is possible at all times since the call is continuously open. Step 2: This step requires a very detailed business plan in addition to multiple annexes such as financials, Letters of Intent (LOI), a Freedom to Operate (FTO) analysis, a Data Management Plan (DMP), a pitch deck and a customizable company profile. After Step 1 has been passed, the applicants can apply to Step 2 to any of the designated deadlines (see Deadlines). Step 3: This step is an interview with the EIC Jury that is usually conducted online through a video call. It encompasses a 10-minute pitch by the applicant using the pitch deck submitted in Step 2 and an up to 35-minute Question and Answer session by the jury (see Interview Preparation). If Step 2 has been passed successfully, the interview dates are generally a few weeks after the Step 2 evaluation was completed. The EU application is performed on the Funding & Tenders Portal where applicants obtain the proposal template. Each applicant can create the appropriate proposals and begin writing applications although it is recommended to use more detailed templates and training materials to prepare all documents in collaboration with a team and then upload the content for the submission. Note: The application was previously performed using an “AI Platform” for Step 1 and Step 2 (since 2021) but this was abruptly discontinued in 2023 without notice. Step 2 moved back to the Funding & Tenders Portal while Step 1 obtained a new EIC online submission platform, albeit temporarily. This new platform was also discontinued in 2024 and both Step 1 and Step 2 are now using standard Funding & Tenders Portal submission templates and systems. What does the result of an application look like? The EIC has increased the level of transparency compared to earlier years and has introduced detailed feedback from evaluators. For Step 1 and Step 2, four or three evaluators will grade the application, respectively, and leave feedback for the applicants. Each evaluator will be able to grade the proposal with a GO or NO GO rating. For Step 1, at least 3/4 of evaluators have to provide a GO for the application to be successful. Note: Previously, the threshold was 2/4. For Step 2, at least 3/3 of evaluators have to provide a GO for the application to be successful. Note: For close rejections, a fourth evaluator will be consulted and a 3/4 will be sufficient. Feedback is provided to the applicants irrespective of the GO or NO GO grading through detailed responses by the evaluators for all evaluation criteria (see Evaluation Criteria). For the Step 3 interviews, a unanimous decision by the EIC Jury is presented and the applicants likewise receive responses regarding the evaluation criteria as well as the GO or NO GO result. If the applicant passes all three steps, the preparation for the Grant Agreement Contract (GAC) and a due diligence process are initiated. How long does it take to apply for the EIC Accelerator? The time it takes to apply for the EIC Accelerator will differ depending on the number of resubmissions and the efficiency of preparing an application. It can be further delayed if the due diligence process is slowed down from the side of the EIC. In general, one can expect a timeline of 2-4 weeks for the preparation of Step 1 followed by a 5-50 day average assessment period. For Step 2, a 50-70 day preparation period followed by a 30-50 day assessment period should be expected. With the Step 3 interviews following approximately 2-6 weeks after the Step 2 result is obtained, one can add an additional 3-5 weeks to receive the final grading by the EIC Jury. A fast application process can go from the Step 1 start to Step 3 approval within 6 months if no rejections have occurred and if all documents were prepared efficiently without waiting times. In case of rejections and multiple resubmissions, the total process can also take multiple years and there is never a guarantee that a project will be funded. What are the success chances for the EIC Accelerator? Since the 3-Step application process is complex, it is difficult to estimate exact numbers for success rates. If 1,000 companies apply for Step 1 and 70% receive a GO over multiple weeks then it cannot be determined based on the published data how many of these exact companies proceed to the subsequent Step 2 deadline (see Deadlines). The metrics are further obscured through the previous batch being able to resubmit their applications or abandon the application entirely. Based on past data, the following estimations can be made (see 2021, 2022A, 2022B): Step 1: ~67% pass rate Step 2: ~22% pass rate Step 3: ~32.5% pass rate Total EIC Accelerator success rate: 4.8% What limitations exist regarding the submissions? The EIC Accelerator has introduced freezing periods for resubmissions whereas every applicant generally receives three attempts for each written proposal step (i.e. “three strikes, you’re out”). This means that a company that has failed three times in Step 1 will be blocked from submitting the same application until the end of Horizon Europe in 2027. The same is true for Step 2 applications. There are nuances in the case of the Step 3 interviews which are explained here: Resubmission Process Explained. Note: The “three strikes, you’re out” rule that is in force now was previously “two strikes, you’re out”. The previous freezing period of 12 months has likewise been extended until the end of Horizon Europe in 2027. What types of companies actually win the EIC Accelerator grant? The companies that generally win the EIC Accelerator are often DeepTech hardware businesses but there are likewise software and IT industry winners among the funded projects (complete beneficiary lists are linked here: 2021, 2022A, 2022B). How do I know if I should apply or not? Predicting who will receive funding under the EIC is difficult even for seasoned consultancies. While it is possible to estimate the chances, the level of randomness during the evaluation process and the unknown variables introduced by the company during the proposal writing process render any estimate to be speculative. If the company has an excellent technology, a great team, a scalable business model and is aligned with EU interests then the EIC Accelerator is worth pursuing. Here is a list of general considerations for an ideal project: A Winning EIC Accelerator Candidate This article was last modified on Oct 30, 2024 @ 07:27 These tips are not only useful for European startups, professional writers, consultants and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) but are generally recommended when writing a business plan or investor documents. Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are: Step 1 Open now: Apply as soon as possible to be eligible for the next Step 2 submission deadline Step 2 (closing 17:00 Brussels Time) 1st cut-off 2025: - 2nd cut-off 2025: March 12th 2025 3rd cut-off 2025: - 4th cut-off 2025: October 1st 2025 Step 3 4th cut-off 2024: January 13th to 17th 2025 1st cut-off 2025: TBD 2nd cut-off 2025: TBD 3rd cut-off 2025: TBD 4th cut-off 2025: TBD The Step 1 applications must be submitted weeks in advance of Step 2. The next EIC Accelerator cut-off for Step 2 (full proposal) can be found here. After Brexit, UK companies can still apply to the EIC Accelerator under Horizon Europe albeit with non-dilutive grant applications only - thereby excluding equity-financing. Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant. EU, UK & US Startups: Alternative financing options for EU, UK and US innovation startups are the EIC Pathfinder (combining Future and Emerging Technologies - FET Open & FET Proactive) with €4M per project, Thematic Priorities, European Innovation Partnerships (EIP), Innovate UK with £3M (for UK-companies only) as well as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants with $1M (for US-companies only). Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section. Want to see all articles? They can be found here. For Updates: Join this Newsletter! by Stephan Segler, PhDProfessional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles: A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush 2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Success Cases Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1) Reach out to Segler Consulting: Your Name Company Name Country Your Email Industry Website Message Optional: Summary or pitch deck (<10 MB - PDF) Articles: Zombie Innovation: EIC Accelerator Funding for the Living Dead The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) is designed for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) and provides €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in venture financing per project. This article investigates the importance of timing and market alignment to assess the future potential of a company. Timing is Everything The EIC is generally looking for dynamic companies that are young (i.e. 50% are under 10 years old), timely and have high growth potential. Since timing is a critical component of every new technology development and commercialization, an EIC Accelerator project should generally present a time-limited opportunity to invest in the next big thing. The timing will often be influenced by factors such as regulatory trends (i.e. climate change), new technology breakthroughs (i.e. scientific developments) or an increased consumer and market demand (i.e. semiconductors). As a result, timing is generally a critical component since it means that there is a strong reason to assume that there will be a significant business opportunity and product market fit in the future even if the company is in the early stages and revenues have remained elusive. The Living Dead In contrast to the case described above with excellent timing, there are companies that have been around for a long time, have been continually developing a new ground-breaking technology and have filed an endless number of patents to support their commercial exploitation but without a clear product-market fit. There is no real timing for their solution, no apparent market need and no regulatory pressure to implement the product. Additionally, they often have a track record of starting and stopping their developments based on their funding status whereas a new fund-raising round will spring a phase of excitement followed by months or years of silence once the funding runs out. And the technology developments are never quite finished. Traction: A Zombies Cryptonite Obtaining early revenues is not always feasible, especially in medical technology or hardware-heavy industries where certifications and regulatory clearance are essential but a company should aim to generate revenues as quickly as possible. If a company has a finished prototype that can be commercialized to some degree then they should aim to generate revenues as quickly as possible to validate the product-market fit. If a product can be purchased but is not in demand then this generally reveals a poor investment opportunity. Alternatively, the first step can also consist of prototype testing with customers or end-users to demonstrate the market need and usability even if no revenues are generated. But this should not be an excuse to hand out the product for free since no customer would buy it. Zombie Innovation Zombie Innovators generally lack the commercial expertise, customer demand or market incentives to generate any traction which leads to a bottomless budget for research and development that every investor will stay away from. In their business plans, such companies will often highlight their technology, Intellectual Property (IP) and related benefits (i.e. sustainability, energy, costs) but they will rarely mention customer demand or pilot customer negotiations. Any commercial plan will likely be reduced to the inflated market size with little or no practical plan to reach it or evidence that the market has an interest in the product. Do Not Bite the Zombie As a consultant, professional writer or freelancer, it is essential to identify Zombie Innovators quickly and to assess their level of traction as well as their utilization of past financing, especially when targeting the EIC Accelerator program. If investors avoid such businesses then so will the EIC Jury. Even if early revenues are impossible, there should be an extensive number of customer relationships, early testing with end-users, agreements with value chain stakeholders and impressive Letters of Intent (LOI) to demonstrate the market need. Zombie Innovators generally have none of these. This article was last modified on May 26, 2023 @ 14:03 These tips are not only useful for European startups, professional writers, consultants and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) but are generally recommended when writing a business plan or investor documents. Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are: Step 1 Open now: Apply as soon as possible to be eligible for the next Step 2 submission deadline Step 2 (closing 17:00 Brussels Time) 1st cut-off 2025: - 2nd cut-off 2025: March 12th 2025 3rd cut-off 2025: - 4th cut-off 2025: October 1st 2025 Step 3 4th cut-off 2024: January 13th to 17th 2025 1st cut-off 2025: TBD 2nd cut-off 2025: TBD 3rd cut-off 2025: TBD 4th cut-off 2025: TBD The Step 1 applications must be submitted weeks in advance of Step 2. The next EIC Accelerator cut-off for Step 2 (full proposal) can be found here. After Brexit, UK companies can still apply to the EIC Accelerator under Horizon Europe albeit with non-dilutive grant applications only - thereby excluding equity-financing. Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant. EU, UK & US Startups: Alternative financing options for EU, UK and US innovation startups are the EIC Pathfinder (combining Future and Emerging Technologies - FET Open & FET Proactive) with €4M per project, Thematic Priorities, European Innovation Partnerships (EIP), Innovate UK with £3M (for UK-companies only) as well as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants with $1M (for US-companies only). Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section. Want to see all articles? They can be found here. For Updates: Join this Newsletter! by Stephan Segler, PhDProfessional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles: A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush 2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Success Cases Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1) Steering the EIC Accelerator: Lessons Learned from the Pilot Program The EIC Accelerator funding (with blended financing option) by the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Commission (EC) is providing startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) with up to €2.5 million in grants and €15 million in equity financing per project (€17.5 million total). The program is often supported by professional writers, freelancers or consultants to navigate the complex proposal template and EIC requirements. This article presents a summary of the 2022 EIC Accelerator report and is discussing insights regarding the success of the pilot program leading up to 2020. Note: An explanation of the EIC Accelerator terminology can be found here: Explaining the EIC Accelerator. 1. The EIC Fund 1.1 Delays “It needs to considerably speed up the process leading to the signature of the financing agreement. In the pilot phase, delays were due to the novelty of the instrument, both for the EC and the beneficiaries, whereas in the current programming period there were legal difficulties in transitioning the Fund under Horizon Europe.” The current status of the EIC Fund, with all its troubles and delays, is on display in a recent 2022 impact report on the EIC Accelerator (see How Deep Is Your Tech?), the EC website (here) and in a recent media article (here). While over 90 investment decisions have been made, the funding has not reached the bank accounts of beneficiaries in most cases. While grant payments have been made effectively, albeit with some delays, the equity investments have been hampered, likely due to a combination of structural difficulties and the inexperience encountered by the EU operatives. Of course, including the beneficiaries as a reason for the delays is not entirely accurate since the delays were caused by the EIC, primarily. 1.2 Communication “Stakeholders’ expectations about the benefits and implications of receiving the Fund’s support could be managed by further communication through national contact points, SME and start-up associations.” The EIC has historically struggled with properly communicating what the EIC Accelerator is seeking and what applicants should expect. This is likely due to the nature of public institutions that often prioritize political agendas and communications over clear and pragmatic advice. As an example, it is in the interest of the EIC to communicate how it funds disruptive innovations that the private market is ignoring but it is not in their interest to admit that the evaluation process often prioritizes low-risk investments, even going as far as giving grants to companies that received €20M+ from private markets just days before (see Breaking the Rules). The EIC has even listed a portfolio company as an example of a supported centaur (i.e. €100M+ valuation) even though the company likely had this status before the EIC funding was obtained, according to public data. Since the EIC has encountered difficulties in clearly communicating with future applicants, likely due to potential conflicts with political appearances, it is increasing its reliance on National Contact Points (NCP). The EIC has already made data sharing on the platform mandatory for all applicants and NCP’s often have access to beneficiary lists before results are officially published. To communicate more clearly, the EIC should publish detailed but anonymous information regarding the rejection reasons of applicants especially in the interview stage. If the evaluation process is in fact consistent, then it should be possible to give superior guidance directly. As an example, if companies are rejected because of their small teams, then there should be a clear cut-off that applies to all companies. If a company is rejected because they have raised €15 million just before the interview, then this should be consistent among applicants as well. 1.3 Conflicting Agendas “A contentious point on the Fund structure pivots around the interpretation of two eligibility rules: non-bankability and co-investment. The two criteria respond to the need to identify investment-worthy projects with traction from private investment, but that cannot be financed through traditional debt instruments. The first criterion addresses the lack of additionality observed in the SMEI and reflects the need to ensure that the Fund is not competing with the market by supporting projects that financial intermediaries could have financed. The second criterion ensures that market players do not see the recipient companies as publicly subsidised entities. It also guarantees that the European Commission remains a dormant investor in the company, till it may exit, due to the entrance of new investors.” In the previous EIC Accelerator pilot phase, the non-bankability criterion was still present but it has now been removed from both the official EIC Work Programme and from the evaluation criteria. The term was used to refer to companies that cannot receive funding from private sources such as banks or institutional investors since they are too high risk. Regardless, the current proposal template is still asking all applicants to explain why they need funding from the EIC which is consistent with the removed non-bankability rule. The independent report points out that forcing companies to obtain co-investments for the EIC Fund on their own opposes the narrative of being solely dependent on the EIC. Upon closer investigation, there is a narrow role for the EIC to play even if a company is non-bankable since the grant and equity components can de-risk the project for outside investors. In reality, the EIC has not honored that role and, by diluting the non-bankability criterion, has allowed itself to provide grants for companies that have easy access to private capital (see Investing in Well-Funded Companies). It is interesting to see that the independent investigators were able to predict such an outcome based on 2020 data. The EIC had to decide between risk (non-bankability) and success (co-financing, private investor interest) and it chose the latter. 2. Gender 2.1 Changing the Goal to Reach the Goal “The EIC Pilot has made commendable efforts in trying to achieve more balanced participation, especially for women.” The EIC has set mandatory targets for female participation in the EIC Accelerator even during its pilot period but it is unclear to which degree they have increased the number of female-led applicants as opposed to the number of female-led winners. In 2020 and prior, the EIC used different thresholds for male and female participants which effectively increased the difficulty for male while reducing the difficulty for female CEO’s. The EIC has further loosened its criteria on what a female-led company means and expanded the definition to also include CTO and CSO positions instead of just the CEO position. This is an interesting development since changing the definition of the goal is not the same as reaching the goal. It is also unclear if such outcome-driven goals will benefit future female founders or if they create the wrong incentives and hurt the long-term diversity of the ecosystem. Increasing the number of applicants from widening countries and the number of applying female CEO’s could be a more sustainable option rather than changing the definition of the goal or forcing certain outcomes. Additionally, the EIC could subsidize consulting fee’s for female CEO’s or implement similar programs to encourage an increase in applicants instead of distorting evaluation criteria. 2.2 Eroding DeepTech “Nevertheless, identifying attraction and inclusiveness as the programme’s KPIs creates possible conflicts with the award criteria for project selection and in particular with excellence in science and innovation.” Interestingly, the above quote from the independent report was given twice in the document, verbatim. It highlights the general conflict of impact investments or Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) policies since they can erode investment decisions. Investors generally have to prioritize profits and shareholder value but introducing an additional target can jeopardize such priorities. This is true for both the focus on DeepTech and gender targets since they present impacts outside of financial success. For the EIC, it is unavoidable to have such conflicts since it is not a typical investor but focuses on difficult-to-finance and high-impact DeepTech projects. As such, profits are already being jeopardized. Introducing gender targets to this equation is further eroding potential profits since it presents additional restrictions on investment decisions. In the end, something will have to give since the EIC must now: Maximize success for political appearances (i.e. unicorns, centaurs, follow-up funding) Focus on high-risk DeepTech Increase female participation Of these three targets, the second goal of high-risk DeepTech investments is the most endangered since it is very easy to sweep inconsistencies under the rug (i.e. Breaking the Rules) while advertising success and diversity. This has already been predicted by the independent report based on 2020 data from the EIC Accelerator Pilot. Ironically, the incentives created by the EIC might hurt the DeepTech ecosystem in the long term because it is unlikely that any institutional investor will take more risks than the EIC. If the EIC Fund avoids high-risk projects to prioritize diversity and fast success then it might send the wrong signals to private markets. This would render the advertised €2.6 of private capital for every €1 invested by the EIC a crowding-out of innovation funds into regular investments rather than a crowding-in of private capital into high-risk DeepTech. 3. Industries The projects funded under the EIC Accelerator Pilot are aligned with the general focus on technology-driven projects with strong representations of optics, robotics, energy, health and climate tech. 4. Evaluation 4.1 Luck and Randomness “The outcomes of the evaluation process were often unpredictable, especially for the Accelerator. In interviews, participants reported a sense of randomness in project selection. Some beneficiaries reported that it was possible to succeed with a resubmitted proposal including minimal or no changes at all. This fact has somehow undermined the credibility of the evaluation process and created a sense of haphazardness in project selection where the “luck factor” determined the difference between a selected and a non-selected high-quality proposal. Feedback provided by the evaluators was not considered sufficient to improve rejected proposals. At the same time, case study feedback on the jury panel was mixed. Whereas in some instances, the selected teams were impressed by the competence of the jury members, in other cases, they were left disappointed by the insufficient understanding of the more technical aspects.” Unfortunately, the luck factor and randomness in the evaluation process have remained intact throughout the entire EIC Accelerator program. It is still a reality that companies are rejected or funded with inconsistent feedback. A company can be rejected because it raised €10 million in funding while a company can be funded even though it just raised €30 million. Since there is no accountability for the EIC regarding the consistency of the process and the rejected applicants are generally not incentivized to make their rejections public, it is often only consultancies and professional writers who collect such case studies. Still, the feedback from evaluators has greatly improved after 2020 and it is a positive sign that the EIC is rising to the ambitious challenge of reinventing itself. 4.2 Third Time’s a Charm “In the case studies, 9 of the 15 projects analysed required 3 to 5 attempts before being funded. Similar feedback was also collected through the survey and the interview programme.” The current evaluation process is restricting re-submissions but, back in 2020, it was still possible to re-submit proposals indefinitely. Even though the evaluation process has changed dramatically since 2021, it is still a reality that funded projects will encounter rejections along the way. Considering that the majority of projects required 3 to 5 submissions means that the process is too random to deliver consistent and desirable results. Unfortunately, this likewise means that there are many projects that are eligible for funding but were unlucky in the evaluator or jury selections. The EIC could aim to mitigate such issues if they were to assess which evaluators and jury members provided wrong assessments. As an example, a NO GO grading by an evaluator in Step 1 or Step 2 for a project that would succeed in Step 3 can be represented as a strike for that evaluator. In the same way, a GO grading for a project that would be rejected twice in the interview can likewise be represented as a strike. The same can be implemented for individual jury members who reject a project in the first interview which is then funded in the second interview with no meaningful changes. This would allow a degree of communication between the Step 1 and 2 remote evaluators and the Step 3 jury members who have very different backgrounds and funding criteria. There should likewise be a degree of consistency among all evaluation steps regarding rejection reasons. If a company is rejected for a specific factor then the evaluators and jury cannot fund projects that exhibit the same factor (i.e. team size, amount of funding, etc.). This would reduce the luck factor. 4.3 High-Risk, Low-Reward “Low success rates were not commensurate with the efforts required by the application process. Oversubscription was driven by the programme’s success and popularity, but also by a large number of re-submissions, with more than one out of 10 applicants applying more than five times between 2018 and 2020. Two-thirds of the Accelerator participants were successful at their first, second or third submission.” Figure: Funded applicants that had to submit multiple times. Since resubmissions have now been restricted, this graphic is generally cut after the first two attempts which shows that there are likely a variety of eligible applicants that are being rejected. This is aggravated by the tendency of most companies to lose interest over time which leads to an even higher number of companies that could have been funded with more persistence. 4.4 A Fair Lottery “The fully-fledged EIC has significantly improved the EIC application process. According to [consultants], the new application system saves considerable time and effort for both the implementing agency and the applicants. Moreover, the new system is likely to favour the best applicants by reducing the “noise” of unsuitable applications that also contributed to reducing the programme attractiveness by keeping unnecessarily low success rates.” The confirmation by consultants that the application process saves time is quite odd since the system established in 2021 is significantly longer and requires more effort than the 2020 system. It has increased the reliance of applicants on consultants greatly since the time to prepare an application now takes multiple months instead of weeks. While success rates started out higher than in 2020, they are gradually falling and have recently fallen below 5%, thereby reaching similarly low levels compared to the old system. Over time, the success rates might become as competitive as the previous EIC Accelerator Pilot. 4.5 The Pitch “Finally, success in the interview requires personal skills (e.g., English fluency, presentation and communication skills) that are difficult to acquire in a short time.” There is likewise a strong likeability factor in the interviews where the interviewers will be more inclined to fund a project if they like the team. Agreeable and friendly speakers are often favored over disagreeable speakers which is rather unfortunate since many of the great entrepreneurs of our era, if not all, were highly disagreeable (see EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation). 5. Pay-to-Play “More than 70% of survey respondents stated that they hired a consultant to prepare an application for the EIC.” The EIC Accelerator is time-consuming, complex and obscure. Applicants generally start by reading the official EIC communications but, due to their focus on promotional materials, this often leads prospective applicants to have more questions than answers. Unfortunately, this fact can also be exploited by consultancies since many applicants are greatly overestimating their chances of success based on their review of the EIC guidelines regarding innovation, high risk, a lack of funding and DeepTech definitions. 6. The Reality 6.1 Does the EIC Accelerator Work At All? “The majority of Accelerator projects included in the case studies showed progress with their core technology assets but with no evidence yet of scaling up. At the time this evaluation was carried out, almost all projects achieved a TRL between 8 and 9. Two projects were expected to licence production and four to achieve production on a larger scale.” The EIC Accelerator is designed for the purpose of scaling up disruptive innovations. The guidelines are clear in that TRL8 has to be reached after a grant project and an equity injection should propel the project to TRL9 (see Technology Readiness Levels). Defining the TRL’s is often very subjective but if, after 2 years, no evidence of scaling has been observed then this could be a negative sign. “Case study analysis showed that projects progressed in upgrading and improving their core technology assets, but there is no evidence yet on commercialisation, although some companies reported that they were ready to scale up production and staff or to licence production.” In contrast, this lack of scaling is likely a positive as opposed to a negative result since it shows that these projects are, in fact, difficult to execute and require extensive development times. If the EIC Accelerator funds high-risk and disruptive innovations then this is exactly the result one would expect. Most DeepTech projects cannot be completed in 2 years which is why they are called DeepTech. DeepTech will require more time than a SaaS business that can scale vertically in a matter of months. What is ironic is that this lack of scaling is seen as negative while it should be viewed as a good first step since the TRL8 levels were effectively reached. The EIC generally expects 2-year projects but this should not be the norm. It should be aware that DeepTech projects can take 5 years to reach TRL9 and should inform the jury and remote evaluators that the length of the project should have no impact on the evaluation, especially in the final interview. Now, the EIC has 2 general options: (1) Improve their support for commercialization such as custom business coaches who are industry authorities, helping companies to gain more customers at TRL6-7 and adjusting the EIC communication to focus on commercial/scaling strategies and not on vague concepts such as disruption, innovation and diversity which are not helping companies to succeed. (2) Abandon DeepTech investments and fund companies that are already scaling to gain success cases quickly. Unfortunately, it seems like the EIC is gradually moving toward the second option. 6.2 Do EIC Portfolio Companies Grow? “Based on Dealroom data, in July 2021, 27 Accelerator beneficiaries reached a valuation of more than €100M. They represent 7% of the sample on which data are available in Dealroom (N=410) and 4% of all Accelerator beneficiaries (N=768).” Such a result should not be negatively assessed. EIC Accelerator beneficiaries can have valuations as low as €1 million at TRL6 since there are few restrictions regarding the project maturity, company age and team size. “Around 30% of the companies receiving a grant in 2018 saw their employees grow, on average, at a rate above 20% in the three following years” The problem with any KPI introduced by the EIC is that it will become the focus irrespective of the EIC’s mission. Diversity, gender ratios, valuations, global scaling and similar metrics are all used by the EIC to assess companies but this will, in the long term, only encourage the evaluators to select companies that already score high in these areas instead of helping SME’s to reach that target or to foster innovation. KPI’s are important but they need to be part of the project execution (i.e. actively supporting business growth) rather than the application process since it will otherwise exclude many startup companies that are genuinely at TRL6 rather than TRL8-9 companies pretending to be. 6.3 Are the EIC Accelerator and the EIC Fund Actually Supporting DeepTech? “Literature shows that deep tech VCs need to work with a 10-15-year lifetime investment. The profitability of equity investments also tends to be negative in the first years (generally up to five) because the investee company is not able to yield a positive return.” The romance of DeepTech is well presented by the EIC through unicorns (€1 billion valuation), centaurs (€100 million valuation), disruption and events where much is said about innovation but the reality looks different. Disruption starts at a point where very few, if anyone at all, can see the vision or wants to invest. If they do recognize a superstar in the making and want to invest, they usually do so with smaller amounts since the risk remains too high. Peter Thiel saw the immense potential of Facebook in 2004 but only invested $500,000 into the company regardless. He understood that success will take more validation and he can always invest more later. Negative profits for 5 years are to be expected in DeepTech but the EIC’s selection criteria seem to favor commercial success more and more after every submission cycle. Even the mandatory financial template that the EIC uses only accounts for 5 years of predictions. According to DeepTech literature, no company should break even during this time but the EIC Jury would not fund such companies. It would be beneficial for applicants if the EIC would publish statistics regarding the financials submitted by EIC beneficiaries and provide information regarding break-even-points, annual growth rates, start-end-revenues and margins to assess what the EIC is looking for and how much DeepTech they are comfortable with. 6.4 What Happens To Rejectees? “Around 60% of high-scoring declined Accelerator proposals were implemented at a smaller scale, with less substantial results and benefits, resorting to private financing (business angels, friends or family, or venture capital investors) or a combination of private and public funds. The absence of alternative forms of funding is the most common reason why declined proposals were not implemented.” This is quite interesting since it demonstrates that there is a role to play for the EIC and that even the high-scoring companies (i.e. above the funding threshold but rejected) will struggle to attract financing and are therefore truly non-bankable. Through the EIC Fund and its pressure on companies to demonstrate extensive traction (i.e. customers, signed contracts, LOI’s) as well as source co-investors for the EIC Fund even before the project is granted, the EIC is clearly starting to align with private markets rather than the other way around. One statistic that would be an interesting and insightful addition to this report would be to identify which companies have raised financing right before obtaining the EIC Accelerator grant or those who have been part of a due diligence process leading up to the funding. Such statistics would reveal the dark number of how many companies could have succeeded without the EIC and can be contrasted to the number of projects that are not implemented without EIC support. This article was last modified on Apr 17, 2023 @ 19:57 These tips are not only useful for European startups, professional writers, consultants and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) but are generally recommended when writing a business plan or investor documents. Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are: Step 1 Open now: Apply as soon as possible to be eligible for the next Step 2 submission deadline Step 2 (closing 17:00 Brussels Time) 1st cut-off 2025: - 2nd cut-off 2025: March 12th 2025 3rd cut-off 2025: - 4th cut-off 2025: October 1st 2025 Step 3 4th cut-off 2024: January 13th to 17th 2025 1st cut-off 2025: TBD 2nd cut-off 2025: TBD 3rd cut-off 2025: TBD 4th cut-off 2025: TBD The Step 1 applications must be submitted weeks in advance of Step 2. The next EIC Accelerator cut-off for Step 2 (full proposal) can be found here. After Brexit, UK companies can still apply to the EIC Accelerator under Horizon Europe albeit with non-dilutive grant applications only - thereby excluding equity-financing. Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant. EU, UK & US Startups: Alternative financing options for EU, UK and US innovation startups are the EIC Pathfinder (combining Future and Emerging Technologies - FET Open & FET Proactive) with €4M per project, Thematic Priorities, European Innovation Partnerships (EIP), Innovate UK with £3M (for UK-companies only) as well as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants with $1M (for US-companies only). Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section. Want to see all articles? They can be found here. For Updates: Join this Newsletter! by Stephan Segler, PhDProfessional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles: A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush 2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Success Cases Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1) How long does it take to apply for the EIC Accelerator? (Grant proposal timeline) The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) is designed for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME). It provides €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in venture financing per project and is often supported by professional writers, freelancers or consultants (see Comprehensive Explanation). This article presents a brief explanation of the timeline for the EIC Accelerator and aims to clarify how much time is needed to prepare all documents and go through the complete process. Step 1: The Short Application The Step 1 proposal for the EIC Accelerator requires 3 core documents, namely the proposal text, the pitch deck and a short video. In general, one can begin the writing and preparation process with any of these documents but it is recommended to begin with the written proposal, followed by the pitch deck and, lastly, the pitch video. The reason for this order is that the written proposal will be the frame for how the application is presented to the EIC which will likely require adjustments of existing presentations and documents that a company might have available. An existing pitch deck might not be suitable for the EIC Accelerator so it is advisable to first frame the text in the most beneficial way and then move toward the annexes. Since the pitch video is the most difficult to change in post-production, it is recommended to record it in the end so that there are no open questions regarding the presentation of the project to the EIC. 1.1 Proposal Text The proposal text follows an online form on the EIC’s website which consists of a variety of questions. Each question provides a certain space (i.e. 1,000 or 500 characters) for a response which inherently limits the comprehensiveness of the application. The total number of text boxes that need to be written will depend on a variety of interactive functions such as the number of features & use cases, the risks and the staff. In general, if a writer has a deep understanding of the company and the technology beforehand and is a fast as well as efficient writer then the text can be prepared in less than one week. If the project still lacks research and requires re-developments or customizations of the market, technology or the overall narrative then at least two to three weeks are necessary. Note: Many companies have large amounts of data and texts from other proposals or presentations available but these generally cannot be used directly in an EIC Accelerator application without re-writing them due to the specific questions and space restrictions. 1.2 Pitch Deck The pitch deck for Step 1 of the EIC Accelerator is generally limited to 10 slides (i.e. 11 slides incl. the title page). This reduces the amount of work needed for this document but can also introduce additional restrictions in case a company only has a variety of longer pitch decks available (see Read Deck). The pitch deck often requires the professional grant writer to summarise existing pitch decks and to re-shape them into a narrative that is aligned with the EIC Accelerator. Even with a broad set of existing slides and pitch decks, this task can still require at least one or more days. 1.3 Pitch Video While shooting a video for the EIC Accelerator can seem like a complex task, it is relatively simple and the process complexity will largely depend on the desired outcome. Since the EIC Accelerator videos will not be graded on their production quality, it would be sufficient to simply record a video call and upload it (see Video Preparation). Still, some minimal production quality and editing are recommended since the video will likely be watched in each subsequent step of the evaluation process even up to the final Step 3 interviews. In some cases, companies already have certain video footage available and, since there are no rules regarding what is and what is not allowed, they are free to simply use advertisements, interviews or other footage to present their project without recording any new material. For all companies that do not have sufficient footage available, the general tasks for the pitch video creation are: Scripting Recording Editing 1.3.1 Scripting Once the main proposal document has been completed, the scripting for a 3-minute video can be completed within a single day (see Scripting the Video). 1.3.2 Recording The recording session with the key team members can likewise be performed in a single day since the footage per team member will be limited to one minute on average in the case of three participants. 1.3.3 Editing The editing of a video generally requires more time than other parts but, since the video will have a maximum length of 3 minutes, it will still be possible to complete the post-production (i.e. cutting, titles, footage, color grading, audio) in a single day. This timeline would increase if the editor creates animations or uses external footage to improve the video which is a creative process and will require more work. 1.4 Financials & Deliverables While not part of the submitted Step 1 documents, it is critical to plan certain aspects of the project in Step 1 even though they will only be requested in Step 2. Such documents are related to the budget, the financials and the deliverables. While it is unlikely that the evaluators would care if these aspects have been changed from Step 1 to Step 2, it is useful to already align all project cornerstones in the first Step. If this point is neglected, an evaluator might leave a criticism in the Step 1 evaluation which will be read by the Step 2 evaluators and might add additional scrutiny. It is useful to decide on the general budget of the project (i.e. grant and equity – see Explanation), the financials of the company (i.e. preparing preliminary financial projections) and to prepare a general structure of the workpackages which must be presented as deliverables in Step 1. These tasks are part of the writing process for the main proposal text. 1.5 Total Time for Step 1 1.5.1 Duration An EIC Accelerator applicant should plan 1 month for the Step 1 document preparations but it is possible to prepare the documents in under 2 weeks if no research or re-development are needed. 1.5.2 Evaluation The evaluation of the Step 1 proposal can take just a few days or multiple weeks depending on the workload experienced by the EIC’s remote evaluators. In general, a duration of 3 weeks should be expected but, if an applicant already has all the necessary templates, they can begin the Step 2 writing process as they wait for the Step 1 result. Step 2: The Business Plan The business plan is the most difficult and lengthy step in the EIC Accelerator process which consists of a main document and a variety of annexes such as: Letters of Intent (LOI) Pitch Deck Freedom to Operate Analysis (FTO) Data Management Plan (DMP) 10-Page Annex Financial Spreadsheet 2.1 Proposal Text The proposal text is provided through an online form similar to the Step 1 application. In fact, some sections from Step 1 are automatically added to Step 2 since they present the same questions. In general, the proposal text for Step 2 is very long and far exceeds the length of the documents prior to 2021 when the complete EIC Accelerator application template was reshaped. 2.2 Annexes The EIC Accelerator’s Step 2 application allows a variety of mandatory and optional annexes to be uploaded which include Letters of Intent (LOI), a Freedom to Operate Analysis (FTO – see FTO Guide), a Data Management Plan (DMP), a financial spreadsheet, a pitch deck (see Pitch Interview) and a free 10-page overview. 2.2.1 Letters of Intent (LOI) It can generally take weeks or even months to obtain LOI’s from relevant stakeholders since every company is busy and will likely not act rapidly. It is therefore advisable to send out requests for LOI’s as early as possible to maximize the chances of obtaining them before the Step 2 deadline (see Cut-Off’s). This upload section dedicated to LOI’s can also be used to include documents such as contracts, customer lists, patent applications or other critical documents (i.e. translations). 2.2.2 Pitch Deck The Step 2 pitch deck will follow a similar structure as the Step 1 pitch deck, albeit the page restriction has been removed which allows longer presentations and a rich appendix. 2.2.3 Freedom to Operate Analysis (FTO) Most companies in the DeepTech or innovation space have an FTO available since it is a critical component of any innovative venture. For any company without an FTO, it is advisable to either prepare one in-house (see FTO Analysis) or to contract a law firm for the preparation. 2.2.4 Data Management Plan (DMP) The DMP can be easily obtained through an online template but, in case a company has no DMP prepared, the EIC Accelerator allows a simple description of data handling to be added through a few sentences that can be prepared in under 30 minutes. 2.2.5 10-Pager A 10-page annex can be uploaded which can be prepared in a single day since it will heavily feature images and photographs rather than additional text. This is due to the restriction of the EIC Accelerator’s main proposal text which is devoid of any images. The 10-pager, therefore, acts as a visual guide to the proposal, a company overview and a reference library. 2.2.6 Financials The financial template consists of a single spreadsheet that must be filled. Since every company should have ample financial data in-house, it can be prepared rapidly. For applicants inexperienced with the EIC Accelerator, it can still be difficult to adjust to the particular format but an experienced grant writer can prepare the document in a single day. 2.3 Total Time for Step 2 2.3.1 Duration Each applicant should allocate at least two months for the preparation of the EIC Accelerator Step 2 application. 2.3.2 Evaluation The evaluation will approximately take 3-6 weeks after the submission of the EIC Accelerator Step 2 application but can also take longer. Since the Step 2 deadlines are set, in contrast to the Step 1 application which is open anytime, there are pre-defined time slots for the Step 2 applications and Step 3 interviews. As a result, the evaluation of Step 2 can take longer or be faster depending on the duration until the next Step 3 interviews. Step 3: The Jury Interview The preparation for the jury interview should be extensive and contain at least 5 practice calls while more are advisable (see Interview). It should likewise include a detailed analysis of all proposal materials in case some of the interviewees are unfamiliar with them. 3.1 Duration The time needed for this preparation will depend on the speed of the EIC’s Step 2 evaluations and the available time until the interview week. At least 2 weeks should be planned for the interview preparation. 3.2 Evaluation It generally takes 3-6 weeks until the Step 3 results will be published. Resubmissions and Freezing Periods The presented timelines in this article are indicative and there are a variety of factors that have not been discussed but can greatly change the time required for an application. There are fast-track programs that allow applicants to skip Step 1 of the application process, freezing periods of 12 months that block further submissions in case of multiple rejections, Step 2 deadlines that might be removed and other variables that must be taken into account. There is no normal EIC Accelerator timeline for rejected or funded companies since there is a high degree of randomness in the evaluation process. Rejections and resubmissions are very common and can easily prolong the duration by multiple months. For example, if a freezing period that prohibits further submissions for 12 months is reached then the application timeline will be prolonged by a year. Conclusion The EIC Accelerator remains a high-risk program and it is generally advisable to contract an external consultant for the preparation (see Contact) since it is lengthy, unpredictable and often tedious. Additionally, any company that has a high chance of obtaining the EIC Accelerator funding is often too busy working on their innovation to spend multiple months or years with the EIC’s lengthy application process which renders outsourcing an essential step. A company starting in Step 1 and obtaining the Step 3 GO grading (i.e. approval of funding) within 6 months is considered fast and this is generally only possible if no rejections occur in any of the three Steps. In contrast, obtaining at least one rejection in Step 2 or Step 3 is common and timelines for most applicants are often significantly longer than 6 months. Additionally, the issuance of the grant and equity financing will likewise incur certain delays whereas the former is often obtained fast while the latter will be subject to additional due diligence. This article was last modified on Mar 27, 2023 @ 18:56 These tips are not only useful for European startups, professional writers, consultants and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) but are generally recommended when writing a business plan or investor documents. Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are: Step 1 Open now: Apply as soon as possible to be eligible for the next Step 2 submission deadline Step 2 (closing 17:00 Brussels Time) 1st cut-off 2025: - 2nd cut-off 2025: March 12th 2025 3rd cut-off 2025: - 4th cut-off 2025: October 1st 2025 Step 3 4th cut-off 2024: January 13th to 17th 2025 1st cut-off 2025: TBD 2nd cut-off 2025: TBD 3rd cut-off 2025: TBD 4th cut-off 2025: TBD The Step 1 applications must be submitted weeks in advance of Step 2. The next EIC Accelerator cut-off for Step 2 (full proposal) can be found here. After Brexit, UK companies can still apply to the EIC Accelerator under Horizon Europe albeit with non-dilutive grant applications only - thereby excluding equity-financing. Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant. EU, UK & US Startups: Alternative financing options for EU, UK and US innovation startups are the EIC Pathfinder (combining Future and Emerging Technologies - FET Open & FET Proactive) with €4M per project, Thematic Priorities, European Innovation Partnerships (EIP), Innovate UK with £3M (for UK-companies only) as well as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants with $1M (for US-companies only). Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section. Want to see all articles? They can be found here. For Updates: Join this Newsletter! by Stephan Segler, PhDProfessional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles: A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush 2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Success Cases Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1) ChatGPT for the EIC Accelerator: Will the Real AI Please Stand Up The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Commission (EC) has been largely reinvented in 2021. The previous application process of preparing and submitting a 30-page PDF file has been overhauled and replaced with a very comprehensive online platform that uses AI features and visualizations. While it still funds Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) and startups with €17.5 million in total funding per project (€2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity), it is now compartmentalizing and standardizing the entire application process. The EIC website prominently uses the term “EIC AI Platform” but calling it Artificial Intelligence (AI) seems like an overstatement. In reality, all texts and annexes must be prepared manually by applicants and no automation or intelligence seems relevant to the process which is why applicants often rely on consultants, professional writers or freelancers. The AI features likely refer to back-end assessment features relevant to the evaluators but not to the applicants or visualizations of the innovativeness expressed through graphics. This article is investigating the usability of ChatGPT for EIC Accelerator applications which could bring true AI and text generation to the application process. ChatGPT ChatGPT is a chat-based interface for AI-generated text developed by Open.AI and popularised in 2022. It has made waves in all industries that rely on written content creation since the chatbot is able to instantly generate complex texts based on user instructions. Of course, grant writing is a major application area for such AI-generated texts since it is complex but follows very specific structures that could be standardized and automated. Especially the EIC Accelerator could potentially be a major target for AI automation since it has replaced a free business plan submission with specific and compartmentalized questions that are easier to generate compared to complex structures. While it is to the detriment of the remote evaluators who have to read the AI-generated proposals, it is of interest to applicants and consultants to identify if a technology such as ChatGPT can save time and deliver high-quality output. Potentially, it could even increase the quality of the final application. What is needed to write an EIC Accelerator proposal? Assessment An EIC Accelerator proposal differs greatly from a simple market analysis, a business plan or any content creation around mainstream subjects. The very first step and job of every consultant is to identify if the project can win the EIC Accelerator or not. This requires a significant amount of due diligence to identify if there are any problems with the company or the project that could present a flaw in any of the application steps. The application process is complex and, through the 3-step approach taken by the EIC, it is necessary to consider how the evaluations will differ in each step. In the first two steps, there is generally a focus on the technology and the attractiveness of the innovation to the EU with appealing industries winning over those that are lesser known (see Winning Candidates). The commercial strategy and traction are often poorly assessed in the first two steps but are becoming key in the Step 3 interviews. Structuring Once the project has been assessed, the next step is the structuring of the EIC Accelerator proposal according to the unique technical aspects and commercial plan of the applicant. This can present a challenge to many companies since the template questions are often vague, some proposal sections are interconnected and many individual sections are repetitive due to very similar template questions. Writing Finally, the writing and preparation of all proposal texts and annexes that are needed for the EIC Accelerator will follow which includes the development of all sections and the ongoing consistency verification between sections. What can be automated with ChatGPT? Selection and assessment process As of today, the assessment process will be difficult to automate through technologies such as ChatGPT. If it was possible, there would be no need for an application process for the EIC Accelerator since the AI could simply select the winners based on unstructured documents or public website data. While the Artificial Intelligence (AI) is designed to understand the context of what is requested, the context of companies seeking to apply for the EIC Accelerator is currently too nuanced to automate at this stage. The EIC Accelerator is both broad and narrow in its scope (i.e. all industries can apply but not all companies) and is contradictory in many ways. It is designed for groundbreaking technologies and companies that have difficulties in raising private financing but well-financed companies can win as well (i.e. Breaking the Rules). There are likewise many cases where companies have to resubmit multiple times before they are approved for funding which questions the accuracy and consistency of the process. The EIC claims to seek high-risk projects but often prefers to fund low-risk business cases with proven revenue generation and industry partnerships in the final selection step which uses external angel investors and venture partners as the jury. In general, the assessment is currently too multifaceted to automate in any meaningful way. It is likewise inconsistent by design and any standardization and automation would likely raise questions regarding the validity of the selection process and mission of the EIC. Planning and structuring The planning and structuring of an EIC Accelerator application is a creative task and could be a promising candidate for automation. If the AI understands the task and the parameters then it can become a useful guide. Here is an example from ChatGPT for the structure of the “Features and Use Cases” section of an EIC Accelerator application: Input: I want you to segment a topic into multiple sub-levels. I want you to pick 4 top-level titles and each title has 4 sub-level titles. The topic I want you to structure is a technology that allows RedOx flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization. Output: Introduction to RedOx flow Batteries Basics of RedOx flow Technology Advantages of RedOx flow Batteries Current State of RedOx flow Battery Development Future Potential of RedOx flow Batteries Tin-based Electrolytes for RedOx flow Batteries Chemistry of Tin Electrolytes Performance Characteristics of Tin Electrolytes Development and Production of Tin Electrolytes Applications of Tin Electrolytes in RedOx flow Batteries Big Data and AI for RedOx flow Battery Management Role of Big Data in RedOx flow Battery Operations Artificial Intelligence for Predictive Maintenance Data Processing for Battery Health Monitoring Data Visualization for Battery Performance Optimization Implementing Software Solutions for RedOx flow Batteries System Architecture for RedOx flow Battery Management Software Integration of Tin Electrolytes and Big Data/AI Deployment and Testing of Software Solutions Case Studies and Best Practices for Software Implementation The result is surprisingly good but here is the catch: The input is already guiding the chatbot into a structure that is most useful. A 4×4 structure is always a good starting point. From there, one can include or change the structure since it is unlikely that 4×4 will be ideal for every project. What is especially impressive is that ChatGPT autonomously introduced keywords such as “Predictive Maintenance” and “Battery Health Monitoring”. It likewise segregated the hardware and software components well which is exactly what is needed for a technology description. Improving the Structure What is not ideal is the general introduction to RedOx flow batteries and the redundant segments that are unnecessary for a clean technology description. But overall, it is an excellent result based on minimal input. With the structure above for the imaginary tin-data-RedOx flow battery technology, the following adaptations would be necessary for the EIC Accelerator: RedOx flow Battery Hardware RedOx flow Stack and Module Design RedOx flow Battery Manufacturing Process RedOx flow Battery Operation Tin-based Electrolytes for RedOx flow Batteries Proprietary Tin Electrolytes Synthesis and Manufacturing Process of Tin Electrolytes Safety and Environmental Impact of Tin Electrolytes Big Data and AI for RedOx flow Battery Management Big Data in RedOx flow Battery Operations Artificial Intelligence for Efficiency Optimization and Predictive Maintenance Data Processing for Battery Health Monitoring Data Visualization for Battery Performance Insights While it is impressive that AI was associated with predictive maintenance, this was not the intended primary use. Efficiency optimization and data processing were closer to the intended use case while the same is true for other associated features. The last section regarding the implementation was likewise impressive but it did not lend itself to a good technology description since any further explanations would already be part of previous sections. Nonetheless, with a small amount of editing, the initial 16 segments were reduced to a useful structure containing 10 segments. One can then add another top-level topic to include other omitted parts of the process (i.e. emissions, transport, logistics, installation). Usefulness of ChatGPT for Structuring This approach can be useful for inexperienced writers who need support for the structuring of the application. The downside is that it requires a detailed input that already tells the chatbot what the output is supposed to look like while it also requires extensive editing of the output. This defeats the purpose of using a chatbot but it can still be useful to ask ChatGPT to generate ideas related to a certain topic or get multiple variations of structures. The same approach can be used for competitor sections, commercial strategies, value propositions and even work packages since these will also rely on top-level structures. But with all of the information provided above, there is still one major flaw: These text generations only relate to the structure of an application but do not help in generating the bulk of the proposal text. Writing the Proposal Now, we will test ChatGPT with the same level of information but will ask it to answer a key question found in the EIC Accelerator Step 2 grant proposal template. We will choose the question “What is your unique selling point?” which is quite simple: Input: I need you to write me a text with a length that is as close to 1000 characters as possible. The content is supposed to answer the following question “What is your unique selling point?“. The topic I want you to write about is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialized electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization. Output: Our technology allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialized electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization. This results in improved performance and longevity of the batteries, as well as better management and prediction of their performance. This can lead to cost savings and increased reliability for businesses and organizations that use redox flow batteries. In addition, our technology can also open up new applications for redox flow batteries that were previously infeasible. It managed to generate 610 characters which is quite impressive since the input was minimal. Unfortunately, the text is vague and has followed the input very closely with little to no creative elaborations that would be relevant for an EIC Accelerator application. Improving the Output Now, we will improve the output to be more aligned with the EIC Accelerator by introducing instructions on how USP’s should be presented. Input: I need you to write me a text with a length that is as close to 1000 characters as possible. The content is supposed to answer the following question “What is your unique selling point?“. I want the answer to contain a list with the 3 most important selling points and you should add placeholders for numbers to be added regarding the cost savings, efficiency increases and total energy capacity. The topic I want you to write about is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialized electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization. Output: Our technology allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialized electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization. This results in improved performance and longevity of the batteries, as well as better management and prediction of their performance. Our top 3 selling points are: 1) cost savings of up to [number]%, 2) efficiency increases of up to [number]%, and 3) total energy capacity increases of up to [number]%. These benefits make our technology an attractive solution for businesses and organizations that use redox flow batteries, and can also open up new applications for these batteries. This is already better since we now have a list of selling points and can add quantifiers that were omitted from the first version. We also exceed 700 characters on this answer which shows that there are ways of increasing the output with additional input. Again, the problem for inexperienced writers is that the input is already leading the chatbot in the right direction. It is not obvious to ChatGPT that a list of selling points and qualifications are needed to answer this question but it is obvious to professional writers and consultants who work with EIC Accelerator grants. Improving the Input Now, the second problem that we encounter is quite obvious: Our input is almost as long as the output. This is obviously a problem since we are here to save time and not to teach ChatGPT how to write. Still, one can prepare a general text that describes the technology, commercial strategy, team, market and other aspects which can then be copy-pasted while asking ChatGPT to convert the text into an answer to a specific question. For example: Input I need you to write me a text with a length that is as close to 1000 characters as possible. The content is supposed to answer the following question “What are your strengths?“. The topic I want you to write about is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualisation. The main customers are 3 groups, namely wind-farm owners, hotels and charging stations for electric vehicles. Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings. We have 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. We also have 3 additional patents in development. We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform. We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Please add placeholders for our pricing so we can add numbers later. I want you to include placeholders for quantification such as cost savings, efficiency increases and total energy capacity. Output Our technology allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization. Our technology is particularly well-suited for wind-farm owners, hotels, and charging stations for electric vehicles. Our main strength is our ability to provide significant cost savings, efficiency increases, and total energy capacity increases for our customers. We achieve this through our 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. Additionally, we have 3 additional patents in development. Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings. We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Our pricing models include a [placeholder for pricing of the redox flow battery hardware], [placeholder for pricing of the electrolyte], [placeholder for pricing of the maintenance costs], and [placeholder for pricing of the data and software access]. We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform. The ChatGPT output is generally ignoring the character restriction given in the first part of the input. It likewise always tries to enter all information that was given instead of only choosing what is relevant to meet the character limit. It does account for the question regarding the “strengths” but it does not lead with the answer and always tries to summarise the input rather than to answer the question. Input I need you to write me a text with a length that is as close to 1000 characters as possible. The content is supposed to answer the following question “Is your technology creating a new value chain?“. The topic I want you to write about is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualisation. The main customers are 3 groups, namely wind-farm owners, hotels and charging stations for electric vehicles. Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings. We have 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. We also have 3 additional patents in development. We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform. We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Please add placeholders for our pricing so we can add numbers later. I want you to include placeholders for quantification such as cost savings, efficiency increases and total energy capacity. Output Our technology allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization. Our technology is particularly well-suited for wind-farm owners, hotels, and charging stations for electric vehicles. Our technology is creating a new value chain for the energy storage industry by providing significant cost savings, efficiency increases, and total energy capacity increases for our customers. We achieve this through our 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design, and for the software mechanisms and control system. Additionally, we have 3 additional patents in development. Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings. We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Our pricing models include a [placeholder for pricing of the redox flow battery hardware], [placeholder for pricing of the electrolyte], [placeholder for pricing of the maintenance costs], and [placeholder for pricing of the data and software access]. We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform. Our technology creates a new value chain by providing customers with cost savings, efficiency increases and total energy capacity increases, by working with battery system manufacturers and by generating revenues through selling of hardware, electrolyte, maintenance costs and data and software access. The text is clearly very repetitive. This is not ideal if our goal is to generate most of the input with only minor adjustments. Of course, one can try to force ChatGPT to be more precise and ask it to only use the input that is useful to answer the question but this would likely increase the input and customization even further. Input I need you to write me a text with a length that is as close to 1000 characters as possible. The content is supposed to answer the following question “What is your innovation?“. The topic I want you to write about is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualisation. The main customers are 3 groups, namely wind-farm owners, hotels and charging stations for electric vehicles. Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings. We have 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. We also have 3 additional patents in development. We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform. We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Please add placeholders for our pricing so we can add numbers later. I want you to include placeholders for quantification such as cost savings, efficiency increases and total energy capacity. Output Our innovation is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualisation. Our technology is particularly well-suited for wind-farm owners, hotels, and charging stations for electric vehicles. Our innovation is creating significant cost savings, efficiency increases, and total energy capacity increases. We achieve this through our 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. Additionally, we have 3 additional patents in development. Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings. We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Our pricing models include a [placeholder for pricing of the redox flow battery hardware], [placeholder for pricing of the electrolyte], [placeholder for pricing of the maintenance costs], and [placeholder for pricing of the data and software access]. We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform. Our innovation allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently, providing significant cost savings, efficiency increases, and total energy capacity increases through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualisation. This time, ChatGPT led with the requested answer albeit the text is still far too long and repetitive. Input I need you to write me a text with a length that is as close to 1000 characters as possible. The content is supposed to answer the following question “What is your unique positioning or place on the market?“. The topic I want you to write about is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualisation. The main customers are 3 groups, namely wind-farm owners, hotels and charging stations for electric vehicles. Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings. We have 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. We also have 3 additional patents in development. We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform. We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Please add placeholders for our pricing so we can add numbers later. I want you to include placeholders for quantification such as cost savings, efficiency increases and total energy capacity. Output Our unique positioning in the market is that we provide a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialized electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization. Our technology is particularly well-suited for wind-farm owners, hotels, and charging stations for electric vehicles. We provide significant cost savings, efficiency increases, and total energy capacity increases for our customers. Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings. We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Our pricing models include a [placeholder for pricing of the redox flow battery hardware], [placeholder for pricing of the electrolyte], [placeholder for pricing of the maintenance costs], and [placeholder for pricing of the data and software access]. We have 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. We also have 3 additional patents in development. We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform. Our unique positioning in the market is that we provide a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently with significant cost savings, efficiency increases, and total energy capacity increases and working with battery system manufacturers to distribute our products. The general problem is that the chatbot is not trying to create an answer to the question primarily but is aiming to always summarise the input in its entirety while ignoring character limits. But this effect could be remedied with better input instructions. Still, ChatGPT does not understand that the “position in the market” must be contrasted with current market dynamics. Unfortunately, it seems like each input will require substantial customization and generating 100+ unique inputs for the EIC Accelerator proposal with extensive post-editing is unfeasible. Annexes For ChatGPT, is it impossible to present a useful Freedom To Operate (FTO) analysis from scratch since it is based on dated data sets among other limitations and it is likewise infeasible to generate financials and documents such as Letters of Intent (LOI). Although, it can aid in creating templates for the Data Management Plan (DMP) or LOI’s: Input: I want you to create a template text for a customer (use a placeholder) who sends me a letter of intent to purchase my redox flow battery. Please include benefits such as the lower cost, higher efficiency and increased energy capacity. I need four different versions of the letter. Output 1 Dear [Placeholder for Customer Name], We are writing to express our interest in purchasing your innovative redox flow battery technology. Our company [Placeholder for company name] is actively seeking new solutions to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of our energy storage systems. We have been impressed by the benefits of your technology, such as the lower cost, higher efficiency and increased energy capacity, and we believe it would be a valuable asset to our operations. We would like to move forward with the purchase of your redox flow battery technology and request more information on the details of the product and the purchasing process. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you and to the potential benefits that this technology will bring to our company. Please let us know your next steps, and we are happy to start the purchase process. Sincerely, [Placeholder for Customer Name] Output 2 Dear [Placeholder for Customer Name], We are writing to express our interest in your redox flow battery technology. Our company [Placeholder for company name] specializes in [placeholder for company’s specialization] and we are always looking for new ways to improve our operations. We have been impressed by the benefits of your technology, such as the lower cost, higher efficiency and increased energy capacity, and we believe it would be a valuable asset to our company. We would like to move forward with the purchase of your redox flow battery technology, and we would appreciate if you could provide us with more information about the product and the purchasing process. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you, and to the potential benefits that this technology will bring to our company. Please let us know your next steps, and we are ready to start the purchase process. Sincerely, [Placeholder for Customer Name] Output 3 Dear [Placeholder for Customer Name], We are writing to express our interest in your innovative redox flow battery technology. Our company [Placeholder for company name] operates [placeholder for company’s operations] and we are always looking for new ways to improve our efficiency and cost-effectiveness. We have been impressed by the benefits of your technology, such as the lower cost, higher efficiency and increased energy capacity, and we believe it would be a valuable asset to our operations. We would like to move forward with the purchase of your redox flow battery technology and we would appreciate if you could provide us with more information about the product and the purchasing process. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you, and to the potential benefits that this technology will bring to our company. Please let us know your next steps, and we are ready to start the purchase process. Sincerely, [Placeholder for Customer Name] Output 4 Dear [Placeholder for Customer Name], We are writing to express our interest in your redox flow battery technology. Our company [Placeholder for company name] is a leader in [placeholder for company’s specialization] and we are always looking for new ways to improve our operations. We have been impressed by the benefits of your technology, such as the lower cost, higher efficiency and increased energy capacity, and we believe it would be a valuable asset to our company. We would like to move forward with the purchase of your redox flow battery technology, and we would appreciate if you could provide us with more information about the product and the purchasing process. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you, and to the potential benefits that this technology will bring to our company. Please let us know your next steps, and we are ready to start the purchase process. Sincerely, [Placeholder for Customer Name] Unfortunately, the templates are quite repetitive even though it is quite easy to be more creative with the provided input. With different input instructions, it is likely possible to gain more versatile letter templates but this article is investigating if satisfactory results can be generated with minimal work effort. Conclusion: Is ChatGPT useful for the EIC Accelerator? Yes. ChatGPT has great potential for structuring and brainstorming applications, especially for new writers. What would be necessary to increase the usability of chatbots is a version of ChatGPT that is familiar with successful grant proposals for the EIC Accelerator so that it understands what types of answers do well in certain sections. The problem with that approach is that ChatGPT is making editorial decisions such as including “predictive maintenance” or trying to add the development plan to the question about the company’s strengths. Unfortunately, ChatGPT is not a time saver at this stage. There can also be serious concerns regarding plagiarism since, while the text is AI generated, it is based on data sets that can be from proprietary sources. This is a risk carried by anyone who uses ChatGPT for professional use. But ChatGPT can be a useful tool if used appropriately. This article was last modified on Jan 21, 2023 @ 15:24 These tips are not only useful for European startups, professional writers, consultants and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) but are generally recommended when writing a business plan or investor documents. Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are: Step 1 Open now: Apply as soon as possible to be eligible for the next Step 2 submission deadline Step 2 (closing 17:00 Brussels Time) 1st cut-off 2025: - 2nd cut-off 2025: March 12th 2025 3rd cut-off 2025: - 4th cut-off 2025: October 1st 2025 Step 3 4th cut-off 2024: January 13th to 17th 2025 1st cut-off 2025: TBD 2nd cut-off 2025: TBD 3rd cut-off 2025: TBD 4th cut-off 2025: TBD The Step 1 applications must be submitted weeks in advance of Step 2. The next EIC Accelerator cut-off for Step 2 (full proposal) can be found here. After Brexit, UK companies can still apply to the EIC Accelerator under Horizon Europe albeit with non-dilutive grant applications only - thereby excluding equity-financing. Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant. EU, UK & US Startups: Alternative financing options for EU, UK and US innovation startups are the EIC Pathfinder (combining Future and Emerging Technologies - FET Open & FET Proactive) with €4M per project, Thematic Priorities, European Innovation Partnerships (EIP), Innovate UK with £3M (for UK-companies only) as well as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants with $1M (for US-companies only). Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section. Want to see all articles? They can be found here. For Updates: Join this Newsletter! by Stephan Segler, PhDProfessional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles: A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush 2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Success Cases Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1) EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Interviewee Considerations (Part 4) In this fourth part of the EIC Accelerator interview guideline, the focus is shifted to specific training tools targeted at improving how questions are answered. Startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) can use these tools to better prepare for their own pitch event, investor conversations and, of course, interviews by the European Innovation Council (EIC) or European Commission (EC). Introduction The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) is a highly selective funding program and, even though the chances of receiving funding in Step 3 can be as high as 50%, it should not be left to luck if one will be successful or not since up to €17.5M are at stake. Note: If the previous steps are included, the overall success rate is 5% or below. The ideal scenario is to have a consultant, professional writer or pitch coach take the lead in the preparation process since identifying weak spots and fixing them with improved answers or arguments can be difficult for a company. The following training tools are presenting a way of preparing for interviews but they are by no means the only way and not using them will not lead to a guaranteed rejection. Examples for each segment of the training tools and recommendations on how to practise them will be given in a future article. This article will only provide a general description of such training tools. What To Practise (Improving Answers) No Flaws One important rule for the EIC Accelerator Questions and Answers (Q&A) session is to not display critical flaws. This has been elaborated in earlier parts of the guide and it is relating to every time the interviewees are caught off-guard, have no answer or are unable to refute a negative point (i.e. you are not innovative). While the jury will be perfectly polite and respectful, there might be one or two jury members that have already decided that the project is insufficient and are finding fault in everything they hear. As a result, they might swing the opinion of the other jury members which will, inevitably, lead to a rejection. Address the Concern This is one of the greatest tools for an EIC Accelerator pitch interview. It is too easy to neglect the concern behind a question and just answer it on a surface level which can lead to a dissatisfied questioner or, in the worst case, unwanted follow-up questions. The idea of this tool is to ask yourself: “What concern does the jury member have to ask this question?” And to then address that as opposed to the question being asked. One could say that you are exchanging the posed question with what you deem to be the real question. Pitfall Answers Answers can be worse than questions because, instead of addressing the original concern, they can create many additional concerns. Why? Because an answer can unwillingly reveal ignorance, weaknesses or present an attack vector for critical jury members. It is impossible to prepare for every single question since, while some will be foreseeable, the majority will be unpredictable. This is especially true for follow-up questions since, while the starting question can be obvious, the two or three follow-ups afterwards can be entirely unpredictable since they can have little to no relationship with the original question. This can be viewed as a chaotic system where prediction is possible in the early stages but becomes increasingly difficult and eventually impossible the further the system progresses. An example of this is the Double Pendulum which can be predicted in its earliest swings but rapidly becomes too chaotic to make any accurate predictions. To avoid pitfall answers, the strategy should be to (1) control the topics of the conversation as much as possible and (2) avoid giving any answers that can render the jury members less confident in the team or project. Zoom Out While someone like Elizabeth Holmes (former CEO of the disgraced blood-testing BioTech company Theranos) is a poor role model for entrepreneurs due to her history of deception and ongoing fraud trial, she was able to demonstrate that you can raise $1.4B in financing without providing any real answers, technology or even allowing due diligence. Being the technical lead of a BioTech company as a college drop-out was clearly a warning sign but she would have likely excelled in marketing or investor-relations positions since she accomplished what most companies cannot. There are many excellent companies that are applying for €2M under the EIC and are rejected while Holmes raised 700-times that amount without as much as a proof of concept. Even though the source of this insight literally has blood on its hands, there are lessons to be learned. The way she emotionally directed conversations exceeds the scope of this guide (i.e. slowed speech, staring to trigger a change of topic, very long answers without specifics) but the simple tactic she often used was this: Zooming out. When asked a specific question on how the technology worked, she would elaborate on her vision. When asked about her customers, she would expand on what she wants to bring to the world. She would always zoom out and take a birds-eye or distant view. While this approach should not be used by any entrepreneur as a default response (i.e. Pfizer and other consultancies caught her very early on during their due diligence), there is one part that builds trust with investors that many DeepTech companies lack. It is the confidence and the great vision. This should be used sparingly but it can be essential if the jury feels like the team lacks the ambition to implement a project or see it through until the end. It can also be a great last resort in case the interviewee is stuck and has to answer a difficult question on something not entirely relevant to the project or catches the team off-guard. Controlling the Follow-Up A simple but effective habit in answering questions is to carefully consider what a follow-up question could be. If someone responds to my question on the financials and mentions low-profit margins then I will follow up on it. If someone, instead of the profit margins, mentions the year-by-year growth potential of the company then I would be inclined to follow up on that. The point of controlling the follow-up question is to only mention things that you want to be asked about. The question will, by design, ask for information on a certain topic but the interviewee can decide which angle to take. This especially goes for the ending of the sentence. If one says “We do A and B but we currently mostly focus on C because C is very important” then it is more likely to get a follow-up question on C rather than A and B. Being Self-Centered Every company should have a balanced view of their competitors, industry trends or market threats but it can be a significant flaw to overly focus on them. Especially when it comes to startup’s in highly technical fields, there is often a sense of respect for other companies who are innovating in similar areas or for new technology trends that are unrelated to the applicant’s business. No matter what the reason would be, if a company only has 35 minutes to convince an EIC jury to make a funding decision then the interviewees should refrain from overly focusing on other things. In fact, if a CEO were to praise their competitors and mention that they are “developing amazing technologies” and starts to describe them then this will likely be a poor use of the available time. Every question has an underlying concern and it will never be “Is your competitor good at what they do?” but more likely be “Can you overcome competitive threats?”. While both questions have their topic in common, they will have very different answers. Whatever the question might be, the interviewee should lead it back to why the project is great. Are you asked about the market? End with why you are perfectly positioned to enter or create it. Asked about competitors? Mention who they are and then elaborate on why you are better. Asked about your co-investors for the EIC Fund? Mention who they are and then highlight how further de-risking through the EIC is needed before they will invest. Always bring the conversation back to what is beneficial to you. The Confused Question Every once in a while, a jury member will not be an expert on a certain technology but still ask a highly technical question. If this happens, there is a possibility that they have already misunderstood certain aspects of said technology but ask a follow-up question regardless. The interviewee has to always ask themselves: “Does their question reveal their ignorance on a certain subject?” If the answer is yes, then one must take a step back and first explain the concept again but in the simplest terms possible. This part is critical since highly technical founders with not only a high level of expertise in a scientific field but also exclusive knowledge regarding the innovation will often be too far ahead to understand the viewpoint of someone entirely new to the field. Just answering the question and highlighting the benefits of the technology might not be enough which is why a simplified explanation is in order. Practise “Dumb” Questions The EIC jury members are intelligent and highly competent professionals with a great deal of experience. Still, one should prepare for questions that a startup might not view as relevant or simply disregards as unimportant. This can be a question on the safety of using AI if the application is simplistic or the gender balance among the engineering team. There can be many questions that can catch the interviewees off-guard so it is beneficial to practise them. Prepare Standard Answers There are many questions that will certainly be asked (i.e. business model, traction, non-bankability, risk, …). While it is not possible to know all questions in advance, one should script out the answers to questions that have a high likelihood of being posed. The same is true for all questions that have been revealed as critical during the practice sessions. Demeanour of the Answering Person Depending on the personality of the interviewees, there can be issues that should be addressed in advance. These can be dismissive body language, disengagement from the conversation (i.e. turning away, sighing) or a generally combative nature when faced with criticism. While the pitch preparation will not be comprehensive enough to change such long-standing habits, it is beneficial to avoid negative body language during the interview. Short Answers to Pre-Empt Interruptions A general rule for the EIC Accelerator Q&A is: There will be more questions than answers. Often, answers are too elaborate or aim to explain too many things before getting to the point. This will prompt the questioners to keep interrupting and ask follow-up questions because, while the pitch time limit of 10 minutes can be stressful for the interviewees, the Q&A time limit of 35 minutes can be stressful for the jury. The interviewees are only focusing on presenting their project but the jury members have the difficult job of making a significant funding decision within only 45 minutes. If answers are too long and never get to the actual question then this might frustrate the jury members – something that should be avoided. If you are asked a specific question then answer it briefly first and only then elaborate. If you are interrupted while you elaborate then you have at least given a short but precise answer in the beginning already. If the brief answer were to be missing and you are interrupted by a follow-up then this would mean that the question was not answered at all. The Process Have fun. While being nervous (or excited) is normal in a stressful situation, one should always remember to have some enjoyment for the process. One must have the attitude: “I am happy to explain what we do to an interested audience.” While the jury will heavily assess the technology and suitability of the project for the EIC, it will also be screening the team and its motivation. Both aspects can make or break a funding decision which is why developing some natural enthusiasm is essential. Previous Articles EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting The Pitch (Part 1) EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: The Importance of the Q&A (Part 2) EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Jury Considerations (Part 3) This article was last modified on Dec 23, 2024 @ 15:12 These tips are not only useful for European startups, professional writers, consultants and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) but are generally recommended when writing a business plan or investor documents. Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are: Step 1 Open now: Apply as soon as possible to be eligible for the next Step 2 submission deadline Step 2 (closing 17:00 Brussels Time) 1st cut-off 2025: - 2nd cut-off 2025: March 12th 2025 3rd cut-off 2025: - 4th cut-off 2025: October 1st 2025 Step 3 4th cut-off 2024: January 13th to 17th 2025 1st cut-off 2025: TBD 2nd cut-off 2025: TBD 3rd cut-off 2025: TBD 4th cut-off 2025: TBD The Step 1 applications must be submitted weeks in advance of Step 2. The next EIC Accelerator cut-off for Step 2 (full proposal) can be found here. After Brexit, UK companies can still apply to the EIC Accelerator under Horizon Europe albeit with non-dilutive grant applications only - thereby excluding equity-financing. Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant. EU, UK & US Startups: Alternative financing options for EU, UK and US innovation startups are the EIC Pathfinder (combining Future and Emerging Technologies - FET Open & FET Proactive) with €4M per project, Thematic Priorities, European Innovation Partnerships (EIP), Innovate UK with £3M (for UK-companies only) as well as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants with $1M (for US-companies only). Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section. Want to see all articles? They can be found here. For Updates: Join this Newsletter! by Stephan Segler, PhDProfessional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles: A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush 2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Success Cases Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1) EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1) The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) has introduced mandatory, in-person interviews in 2018 which marked the first multi-step installation of this financing instrument. For the first time, it was necessary to present and justify the innovation project in front of a jury that consisted of different experts such as coaches, consultants, angel investors, VC partners and others. With success rates for the EIC Accelerator having historically been well below 5%, the interviews tended to be the last but also the least selective step of the evaluation process. These exhibited success rates ranging between 25-50% (i.e. 50% in June 2021) and, if a startup or Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) was invited, it was likely that they would obtain the grant financing. Approaches to Pitch Practise Often, startups that apply to the EIC Accelerator assume that their past experience from event pitches or conversations with Venture Capitalists (VC) or other investors is sufficient to be prepared for the EIC jury. While it is true that this is a great asset to fall back on and presents an invaluable experience, it is often not enough to increase the success chances of a project above the average since this experience is shared among most founders. Note: A company can succeed in the EIC Accelerator interviews without any practice or preparation but this approach is risky and not recommended. What to Expect in a Pitch Interview Previous articles on the pitch interviews can be found here: Structuring an EIC Accelerator Pitch Deck for the Jury Interview (SME Instrument) How to Prepare for an EIC Accelerator Pitch Interview (SME Instrument Phase 2) – Part 1 How to Prepare for an EIC Accelerator Pitch Interview (SME Instrument Phase 2) – Part 2 What to Expect in an EIC Accelerator Interview (SME Instrument Phase 2) In a nutshell, the pitch interview, online or in-person, will consist of a 10-minute pitch by the presenting team (i.e. usually 3 senior and balanced team members) followed by a max. 35-minute-long Questions and Answers (Q&A) session. The topics, considerations and descriptions of such a session are described in the articles above. To sufficiently prepare for this event, the presenting team has to focus on two distinctly different segments: The pitch: A 10-minute pitch that should be entertaining and use understandable language, simple sentences and easy-to-digest slides while telling an enticing story as opposed to overly complex content. The Q&A: A 35-minute questioning round that can range from pleasant and supportive to unpleasant and critical, depending on the luck and response the presenting team receives. How to Prepare for the Pitch The pitch deck that is submitted in Step 2 of the evaluation process will be used for the EIC Accelerator interview week in Step 3. Unfortunately, this pitch deck cannot be changed later on and it is even forbidden to update numbers or names if they are incorrect. The pitch deck has to be used exactly as it was submitted even if the delay between submission and the actual pitch date can amount to three months or more. This places an additional limitation on the team since, quite often, a detailed script has not been prepared on the day of submission and, during the script-writing process, one might feel that it is necessary to adjust parts of the pitch deck. Since this is not possible, the team and the consultant or professional writer have to work around the pitch deck and deliver a spoken pitch that works well, is clear and explains all aspects of the technology even if the slides do not perfectly match the communicated content. The general structure of pitch decks has been discussed in the articles linked above but the following presents a more comprehensive list of the slides that can be used: Note: Not all items need to be part of a pitch deck but they should all be covered by the spoken script to assure a well-rounded pitch. Problem Solution Products Innovation Patents Customers and customer value Case study Competitor comparison Business model Revenue streams Commercial strategy Traction Market Timing Growth rate Current state Prototype Past financing Development tasks Financial projections Funding needs Risk Non-bankability Team Partners Vision Why invest in us There are different approaches to preparing such a pitch deck but two simple strategies for slides can be: Prepare slides with complex content (i.e. a complicated graphic, concept or text) and spend at least 1 minute per slide. Prepare short slides that the presenter shows for 10 to 30 seconds and use them for fluent, fast-paced story-telling. Since the number of slides in the pitch deck document is unlimited, it is advisable to use this opportunity and create a highly visual pitch deck aimed at leading the audience through a story. Based on the two segments above, it can be a good approach to have 75% of slides fall into the second category while the minority of slides are in the first one. This way, the interviewees have enough opportunities to explain the core and complex technical aspects while the shorter slides can be utilised to tell an engaging and entertaining story. Even though many presenters focus on the 1-minute-per-slide rule, in reality, a 10-minute pitch deck can easily be 20-slides in length if the following durations are chosen: 5 x 60-second slides 5 x 30-second slides 5 x 20-second slides 5 x 10-second slides Total: 20 slides and 600 seconds = 10 minutes Note: These durations are suggestions and each presenter has to adjust the length to their own personal style. It is also designed for a pitch that is followed by a long Q&A session which allows presenters to show content briefly since the audience can follow up afterwards. How to Construct Slides Pitch decks are often a matter of Corporate Identity (i.e. design, content), choices based on the particular technology or market as well as personal taste but the following presents a general suggestion on the types of slides that can be used without delving into their detailed design. One eye-catching sentence A single sentence can be displayed on a slide to focus the audience on a core concept of the technology, a problem in the market or anything that the team thinks is important. Such a slide can easily be presented in 10 seconds. An example could be: “10,000 citizens die every day and there is still no treatment for condition X.” Very often, audience members are not listening to every word the presenter says but they try to make sense of what they see on the current slide. As a result, showing one large sentence can be a sure way of gaining the jury’s attention and transmitting a key message. One image or graphic It can be useful to add multiple short slides with single images or graphics if they illustrate the problem, the benefits of the solution or any other related segments such as the market or traction. The presenter can even speak a single sentence over multiple slides while showing simple graphics to support each point they make. An example can be: “The problem in the current medical industry is Describe A (skip to the slide with a simple chart or image), Describe B (skip) and Describe C (skip)”. If this is well-paced and sufficiently understandable then it can be an engaging way of presenting many aspects of a business model, technology or market dynamic. A complex concept There is no way of avoiding complicated slides in a DeepTech pitch event since being highly technical is what allowed the project to reach this point in the first place. Any graphic that is shown should be simplified as much as possible but only up to a point where it does not omit key aspects or renders the innovation too simplistic. It should not contain text that is impossible for the audience member to read (i.e. too much or too small) and it should also not require them to be experts in the field to understand it. To avoid losing the audience after one technical slide, it can be useful to utilise multiple slides and explain the concepts through a story. An example can be to lead into the slides by saying: “So, how do we accomplish this?” after the solution has been introduced since this will pick up the audience members that were lost during the technical slide. The graphic can show the magic of what the company does, potentially even directly compared to how it is conventionally performed. Examples can be: Conventional vs. quantum computing Biologically extracting compounds from animals vs. genetic modifications of E. Coli via synthetic biology Manual labour vs. Artificial Intelligence-based automation A detailed look There are slides that are difficult to simplify but are not overly complex in nature. There can also be cases where it is advisable to not skip too rapidly because the audience members are especially interested in them. Examples for this can be a market analysis, the business model (i.e. partners, traction, commitments), the competing technologies or the financials. Resting longer on such slides can be essential in gaining the viewer’s confidence and can also be timed in such a way that they are balanced with the fast-paced slides. Generally speaking, it is advisable to prepare a word-for-word script and practise it until one can deliver a well-paced and natural version of it even if the final result will deviate. One can likewise focus on delivering one key message that needs to be transmitted on each slide. The only restriction that must be honoured is the length of the pitch: Under no circumstances should it exceed 10 minutes since this will be strictly enforced by the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Commission (EC). Continuation EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: The Importance of the Q&A (Part 2) EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Jury Considerations (Part 3) EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Interviewee Considerations (Part 4) This article was last modified on Dec 23, 2024 @ 15:12 These tips are not only useful for European startups, professional writers, consultants and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) but are generally recommended when writing a business plan or investor documents. Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are: Step 1 Open now: Apply as soon as possible to be eligible for the next Step 2 submission deadline Step 2 (closing 17:00 Brussels Time) 1st cut-off 2025: - 2nd cut-off 2025: March 12th 2025 3rd cut-off 2025: - 4th cut-off 2025: October 1st 2025 Step 3 4th cut-off 2024: January 13th to 17th 2025 1st cut-off 2025: TBD 2nd cut-off 2025: TBD 3rd cut-off 2025: TBD 4th cut-off 2025: TBD The Step 1 applications must be submitted weeks in advance of Step 2. The next EIC Accelerator cut-off for Step 2 (full proposal) can be found here. After Brexit, UK companies can still apply to the EIC Accelerator under Horizon Europe albeit with non-dilutive grant applications only - thereby excluding equity-financing. Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant. EU, UK & US Startups: Alternative financing options for EU, UK and US innovation startups are the EIC Pathfinder (combining Future and Emerging Technologies - FET Open & FET Proactive) with €4M per project, Thematic Priorities, European Innovation Partnerships (EIP), Innovate UK with £3M (for UK-companies only) as well as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants with $1M (for US-companies only). Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section. Want to see all articles? They can be found here. For Updates: Join this Newsletter! by Stephan Segler, PhDProfessional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles: A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush 2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Success Cases Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1) Lessons from the EIC Accelerators Pitch Video Shooting (SME Instrument) The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) has recently introduced pitch videos into the evaluation process which presents a new challenge for professional grant writers, freelancers and consultancies (read: New Application Process). While there are no official guidelines or templates for the process of shooting a pitch video, this article looks at some brief lessons learned from preparing such videos with clients in a remote fashion. Information on how to structure a pitch video (read: Video Selection), how to script the video (read: Video Scripting) and how to remotely organize the shooting (read: Video Shooting) can be found elsewhere. 1. The Video Script is Everything One of the restrictions of the EIC Accelerator pitch video is the length which is limited to only 3 minutes. This can be a surprisingly difficult challenge if the footage recorded by the Step 1 applicant, a Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise (SME) or startup, is very difficult to shorten without losing the storyline or making certain sections non-sensical. Having a clear script that goes over all relevant sections of the project and is brief but succinct is important since it allows to cut out segments without impeding the overall story. Since it is advisable to always record more than the needed footage, cutting the length of content becomes an important task for the proposal writer. If a great script has been prepared in advance, the video editor can always fall back on it and never needs to worry about the 3 minutes not telling a cohesive story. Not being able to include every single part of the project’s story is to be expected but the script should be holding up even if certain parts are omitted in the final cut (read: Story Lines). 2. Simple Tips for Pitch Recordings Go a Long Way Applying SME’s and startups need sufficient guidance for the video recording. A video editor or videographer might take certain things for granted but these aspects could be entirely foreign to the management team of a technology company. Every consultant or freelancer should present their clients not only with a pre-written script and instructions as to which members should partake in the shooting but also prepare guidelines for best practices. Information on ideal camera choice, settings (framerates, ISO, shutter speed, etc.), lighting and background setup can easily increase the video quality. A limitation to this is the presentation of the CEO and the management team in general since preparing extra coaching for an exciting and enthusiastic video will likely be exceeding both the time and resources one should spend on the video. Still, giving some guidance as to how to transmit personality and excitement can be very helpful. 3. Small Editing Techniques are Key Just cutting recorded footage together is one way of preparing the video but small additions such as stock footage, effects, titles and similar techniques can significantly increase the quality of the content. Every applicant can assume that all the selected evaluators will watch the videos from start to finish at least once but this does not mean that boring videos will make the same impression as entertaining ones. Having a professionally produced video is by no means a requirement but producing an entertaining video does not require professional production quality. Understanding what the listener wants to know as well as making sure that there is a start, a middle and an end while constantly keeping the viewer’s attention is key. The thought after watching the video should be: “Wow, the project seems really interesting and the team seems great!“. A video that is bland and uninviting might make the first impression of the team less favourable since motivation, alongside competence, is an important criterion in the evaluation as well (read: Design Resources). 4. Adapting to the Client Every client is different and has a different starting point when it comes to content creation. Some have extensive footage available and routinely do interviews or pitch their products in video format while others have been in stealth mode and have never recorded a single second of footage. This project diversity likewise extends to the video structuring and editing process since two projects can require different coverage durations for their unique segments. The same is true for the technology itself since not all projects can be easily translated into video format. Showing how an Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm looks in an appealing manner is nearly impossible while demonstrating a hardware production process or data visualisation tool lends itself far more readily to the video format. Time and geographic constraints are other determining factors since many teams are operating remotely and there might be a lack of time or accessibility to collect all the needed footage. A laboratory might be empty and in sleep mode until the regional COVID-19 lockdown is completed while team members could be busy with core business activities. Summary The following key lessons apply to the EIC Accelerator pitch video shooting for Step 1 of the evaluation process: Scripting: Having a solid script prepared will make sure that the final video has a distinct storyline. Guidance: Most applicants will need help with the pitch recording and this should be provided by the consultant or writer. Editing: This will be valuable in order to give the footage a semi or fully professional look and grab the viewers attention. Adapting: Every startup or SME has different footage available and different capabilities which means that guidelines must be adapted if needed. This article was last modified on Apr 21, 2021 @ 10:16 These tips are not only useful for European startups, professional writers, consultants and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) but are generally recommended when writing a business plan or investor documents. Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are: Step 1 Open now: Apply as soon as possible to be eligible for the next Step 2 submission deadline Step 2 (closing 17:00 Brussels Time) 1st cut-off 2025: - 2nd cut-off 2025: March 12th 2025 3rd cut-off 2025: - 4th cut-off 2025: October 1st 2025 Step 3 4th cut-off 2024: January 13th to 17th 2025 1st cut-off 2025: TBD 2nd cut-off 2025: TBD 3rd cut-off 2025: TBD 4th cut-off 2025: TBD The Step 1 applications must be submitted weeks in advance of Step 2. The next EIC Accelerator cut-off for Step 2 (full proposal) can be found here. After Brexit, UK companies can still apply to the EIC Accelerator under Horizon Europe albeit with non-dilutive grant applications only - thereby excluding equity-financing. Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant. EU, UK & US Startups: Alternative financing options for EU, UK and US innovation startups are the EIC Pathfinder (combining Future and Emerging Technologies - FET Open & FET Proactive) with €4M per project, Thematic Priorities, European Innovation Partnerships (EIP), Innovate UK with £3M (for UK-companies only) as well as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants with $1M (for US-companies only). Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section. Want to see all articles? They can be found here. For Updates: Join this Newsletter! by Stephan Segler, PhDProfessional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles: A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush 2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Success Cases Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1) The 2021 EIC Accelerator Work Programme and Newest Updates (SME Instrument Phase 2) Update 1: The EIC Accelerator Work Programme 2021 was published on March 17th 2021. Update 2: The EIC has presented the latest news in a YouTube leak which reveals information not found in the published Work Programme. The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity financing) is being re-invented and is transitioning from its initial pilot phase into a fully-fledged investment arm of the European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC). With the launch of the EIC Accelerator in 2021 having been announced for March 18th 2021, this article discusses the most important aspects of the new Work Programme (read: EIC Accelerator Introduction). The new Work Programme includes a different application process, additional evaluation steps and significant technical changes that are relevant for both Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) and startups as well as for professional writers and consultants focusing on preparing successful grant applications (read: Hiring a Consultant). While the official template for the proposal documents is not published yet, conclusions regarding their set-up can be drawn from the evaluation criteria themselves. All information given in this article is still preliminary but is expected to accurately reflect how the EIC Accelerator will look like under Horizon Europe (2021-2027). 1. General Changes 1.1 Open Calls vs. Strategic Challenges The EIC Accelerator will follow the previous SME Instrument’s strategy of imposing certain topic restrictions on applicants whereas all applicants will remain eligible for Open Calls but only select projects can apply to the Strategic Challenges. Accordingly, each funding arm will receive its own budget and be subject to specific guidelines with respect to the types of companies that are selected as well as their impact on the EU’s key policy targets. 1.2 Scoring & Ranking System While the EIC Pathfinder and the EIC Transition will still include scoring and ranking systems, the EIC Accelerator will entirely omit such evaluation methods and solely rely on YES/NO gradings for every step. As discussed in a previous article (read: Analyzing Success Rates for Each Step), this might lead to a non-transparent evaluation process whereas rankings will have to be established internally since this is the only way of controlling the number of beneficiaries. If there were truly neither thresholds nor rankings then there would likely be an excess of applications successfully progressing to the third evaluation step since the previous EIC Accelerator instalment already saw 30+% of all companies reaching the quality threshold of 13. Only a subsequent ranking process was able to reduce that number to a manageable amount for the interview stage. 1.3 UK Participation After Brexit, the UK will participate in the EIC Accelerator grant but will not be eligible for equity financing (read: The United Kingdom under Horizon Europe). This, of course, is not to the detriment of UK companies since non-dilutive grants are increasingly sought after and there is no additional risk of receiving an equity-counter-offer that would replace the requested grant. 2. The Application Documents 2.1 Step 1: The Short Application This first stage will require the preparation of a 5-pager to summarize the project in written form, a 3-minute pitch video and the conventional pitch deck which will later be used for the Step 3 interview. ≥ 5-Pager: The 5-pager does not currently have an official proposal template yet but conclusions can be drawn from the Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) criteria in the newest EIC Accelerator work packages (not shown here). The document will likely focus on the Excellence and Impact of the technology with very broad questions regarding its key aspects and why the EU should be interested in the project (see DARPA’s Heilmeier Catechism). The Implementation will receive less attention and only address the quality of the team and the overall risk level of the project (read: Assessing an EIC Accelerator Project). The EU has additionally given hints at the 5-pager template through its public tender for an Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven writing support tool which further illuminates the direction it will take. All in all, the 5-pager should be viewed as a compressed version of the previous full application with a stronger focus on being impressive rather than being detailed or feasible (read: Identifying a Broad Vision). ≥ Pitch Video: The 3-minute pitch video will likely have no restrictions and give full creative freedom to the applicants (read: Pitch Video Production) but it should be treated as a project pitch that is addressing all criteria rather than an advertisement (read: Pitch Video Resources). ≥ Pitch Deck: The pitch deck will likely follow the exact same structure as the previous installations of the Step 3 interviews (read: Pitch Deck Creation). 2.2 Step 2: The Full Application Once Step 1 is passed, the applicants will be invited to submit a full application to the evaluators which will likely be a 20-30 page document that includes the business plan, financials, work packages as well as annexes that contain information on the company (read: EU Work Packages). 2.3 Step 3: The Remote or In-Person Interview This step will follow the same structure as previous interviews (read: Preparing for an Interview & The Biggest Mistakes). 3. The Application Process The application process will likely see great changes with the introduction of an online tool supported by an AI-interface similar to web-based word processors, a re-invented Funding and Tenders Portal as well as the introduction of freezing periods for unsuccessful applicants. It is evident that the EIC has put great thought into increasing the quality of applications but also into filtering out low-quality projects early. 3.1 AI Tool Similar to GoogleDocs, this web-interface is meant to be used for the writing of the proposal and should give useful assessments and guidelines to support the process. The exact details and its release date are not clear yet but it could be a valuable way of providing immediate feedback to low-quality applications. 3.2 Freezing Periods ≥ Two Attempts: The general approach is to give rejected companies a second attempt while they will be blocked for 12 months from further submissions if they cannot succeed in a respective evaluation Step on their second try. The rules are more complex when it comes to the rejections in Step 3 but all applicants should assume that two attempts are all they will have available and that no submission should be wasted. Consultants and professional writers often receive inquiries from companies who have applied to the EIC Accelerator on their own but failed, prompting them to seek support from an expert. This was always a great option for startups because there was no risk in preparing an application in-house since professionals could still be hired down the road (read: Should you apply on your Own? & Getting Good at Grant Writing). Unfortunately, this is currently changing since the risk of failing is now associated with being blocked from any further applications for at least one year and maybe even indefinitely when it comes to a particular company or project. It is expected that many applicants will now seek professional help before even applying on their own to minimize their risk while there could also be a large number of unsuccessful companies seeking out writing support with one out of two rejections already received (read: EIC Accelerator Consulting Industry). ≥ Virgin Projects: Since such freezing periods are a new concept, there will likely be a new focus among professional writers and consultants on virgin projects which have not applied to the EIC Accelerator yet and have a lower risk for rejection. This is expected to become a major factor since success-fees and -rates are key for consultancies while investing time and resources into a project with only one remaining attempt can become an unreasonable risk. Undoubtedly, the latter risk consideration will prompt consultancies to adjust their pricing model specifically for one-time EIC Accelerator rejectees. As with everything, good intentions can backfire and the EIC’s radical changes to the evaluation process, depending on how they will unfold, could end up harming the startups and SME’s they aim to support. 4. The Evaluation Process Without scoring, without a transparent ranking system and with automated AI-tools, the evaluation process will change drastically. In the past, the pool of evaluators used for the assessment of applications has frequently faced criticism but the new installation of the EIC Accelerator might mitigate this depending on how the changes will be implemented. One major improvement is the introduction of concrete feedback for rejected applicants, although its exact nature is unknown at this point. 4.1 Step 1 Two evaluators will decide, unanimously, if the application is approved or rejected. If their opinions differ, two new evaluators will be added and the application will be successful if only one of them approves all evaluation criteria. This means that a proposal can win Step 1 if the result is 2/2 or if it is 2/4, provided the approvals are given for all evaluation criteria. 4.2 Step 2 Three evaluators will assess all criteria as in the previous EIC Accelerator installation. They will now also gain access to automated data analysis tools to cross-reference metrics and collect relevant data but the details for this AI tool are not known yet. 4.3 Step 3 6 jurors will evaluate the pitch and have access to all previous applications and feedback. They can also suggest lower grant amounts to be offered in case TRL8+ activities are detected or make a counter-offer consisting of equity financing but they are unable to provide more funding than has been requested (read: Technology Readiness Levels & How the EU Funds TRL’s). 5. Strategic Challenges (Topics) ≥ Outside of the open calls, the newly introduced topics will focus on (1) the green deal, (2a) digital technologies and (2b) health care. ≥ For (1) the Green Deal, 50% of companies invited to the Step 3 pitch have to address (a) batteries and energy stage, (b) green hydrogen and (c) renovation (read: A Proposal Narrative). For (2a) digital technologies and (2b) health care, 40% of interviewees have to address each sub-topic. ≥ Open calls and specific topics will be available in parallel which means that companies have to decide which call they apply to. 5.1 The Green Deal Strategic Challenge (1) The Green Deal will aim to target the following environmental goals in a similar fashion as the dedicated cut-off in May 2020 (read: The Green Deal EIC Accelerator): Climate mitigation Clean, affordable and secure energy Clean industry & circular economy Efficient building and renovating Sustainable and smart mobility Fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system’s Preserving and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity Zero pollution and a toxin-free environment Specifically, the following technologies and areas are sought after under the 2021 EIC Accelerator Strategic Challenges for the Green Deal: Batteries and Energy Storage: Strategic battery value chain • critical raw materials • recycling • chemical as well as physical storage (including ultracapacitors) • stationary and transport applications. Green Hydrogen: Produce and store renewable hydrogen • different scales • centralized to on-demand • stationary and transport applications. Renovation: Accelerate the growth of the renovation market • energy-efficient buildings • innovative technologies • financial schemes or business models. Low-carbon Industry: De-carbonisation of industries • electrification • circularity • industrial symbiosis • industrial processes • carbon capture storage • digitisation of industrial processes. 5.2 The Digital Technology Strategic Challenge (2a) ≥ Digital technologies: Information and communications technology (ICT) • advanced high-performance computing • edge computing • quantum technologies • cybersecurity • artificial intelligence • block-chain • cloud infrastructure technologies • Internet of Things (IoT). 5.3 The Healthcare Strategic Challenge (2b) ≥ Healthcare technologies: AI-driven diagnostics • point-of-care (POC) diagnostics • cell and gene therapy (esp. cancer) • novel biomarkers for clinical prognosis • patient stratification/monitoring • bioprocessing 4.0 (digitalisation) • healthcare intelligence services • e-health solutions. 6. Ambitions to Control the Outcome While the evaluation of all EIC Accelerator applicants is expected to be fair and prioritize the Excellence of the project, it is undeniable that there are policies in place that will fix the outcome. These are coming in the form of gender targets, societal impacts and related EU political agendas (read: EU Policies). ≥ Gender Outcomes: 40% all EIC Accelerator interviewee’s in Step 3 of the evaluation process must have female Chief Executive Officers (CEO) while 35% of all funded businesses must meet this criterion (read: Why it’s Great to Be a Woman). To facilitate this, special coaching will be given to female founders and the pool of evaluators, while 40% are already female, will be expanded to meet a 50% female share. Considering that, without outcome-interventions by the EC, only <5% of beneficiaries had female CEO’s, this new target is an exceptional change but it is not clear how exactly the first two evaluation steps are affected by this Step 3 quota (read: The EIC Accelerator Performance Report). ≥ Sustainable Development: Amongst other targets, the EIC wants to support impact-oriented companies out of which 90% have to address sustainable development goals such as the Green Deal or similar targets. It is not clear how this focus will affect the EIC Accelerator. ≥ Geographic Diversity: A staggering change to the Step 3 pitch is that each EU member state and each associated country has to be represented in the interview stage with a number that is proportionate to the total number of applicants in earlier steps. This means that, for the first time, the EIC Accelerator is imposing geographic restrictions on its beneficiaries. This can be a double-edged sword since it has long been shown that some countries easily meet the 13-score funding threshold (i.e. 50% of applicants) while other countries have a more difficult time (i.e. 10%). Countries that prioritize quantity over quality will be unfairly rewarded while countries that prioritize quality are being punished. It is still unclear at this point how strictly this rule will be enforced (read: Pre-Requisites for an EIC Accelerator Application). 7. Technical Changes 7.1 Coaching ≥ 3 days of coaching will be provided to all successful Step 1 applicants but at the costs of €1,000 per coaching day for the EC. The coaches will likely be external contractors and it is not clear how their experience could contribute to the preparation of the Step 2 application or to the practice of a successful Step 3 pitch. 7.2 Seal of Excellence (SOE) ≥ SOE’S are awarded based on the Impact and Excellence criteria while the Implementation (i.e. risk-level and need for EU support) will be the determining factor to decide if the project is funded or if it is rejected (read: Evaluation Summary Report Analysis). 7.3 Applicants ≥ Applicants can now, for the first time, be natural persons instead of only being Value Added Tax (VAT)-registered companies as long as an SME or Small-Mid Cap is formed prior to signing the EIC Accelerator contract. Of course, the natural person has to be a citizen of the EU or of an associated country (read: Associated Countries). 7.4 Equity ≥ Next to direct equity investments by the EIC Fund in financing rounds initiated by the SME’s themselves (read: Inside Look into EIC Fund), convertible notes and other debt-related funding can be provided to beneficiaries. It is also finally clear that the obscure 30% co-financing of the EIC Accelerator grant can be financed through a parallel equity investment-request, thereby requiring no existing funding sources or revenues to fill the gap. ≥ Direct equity applications without the request for grant support are now possible for applicants although the evaluation and proposal submission will differ. ≥ Equity components can also be postponed by first opting for a grant application (i.e. grant-first) and later re-applying directly for equity-support. 7.5 The Pitch Video ≥ This document will likely be submitted through a link since the cloud storage-needs and the requirement of government institutions to store files long-term would exceed existing capacities. One important repercussion of this decision is that, if startups can self-host their videos, enforcing a 3-minute restriction is extremely difficult since it is not possible to have an automated restriction as it exists for PDF page-limitations (read: Pitch Video Types). The fairest way of implementing this would be to have direct file uploads to the EU platform and an automated time-trimmer to assure that all applicants only have 3 minutes to work with. If the EIC is using an AI-tool for the proposal development then introducing cloud video-hosting is only a minor challenge. 7.6 Timelines & Feedback ≥ The Step 1 call will be open continuously and have no specified deadline. It will approximately take 4-6 weeks to receive feedback on the Step 1 5-pager whereas both successful and rejected applications will receive comments from the evaluators. For the Step 2 full application, the feedback is expected to be received 5-6 weeks from the cut-off date. A 4-6 week feedback cycle for Step 1 does seem underwhelming since it is supposed to be a screening Step and not act as a full assessment. The estimated timing will potentially be different in practice and could be as fast as 2-3 weeks. ≥ Face-to-face interviews will be 8-9 weeks after the Step 2 cut-offs (read: Deadlines) while 6 jury members will be responsible for the questions and assessments. EIC Fund associates can also join the pitch but they will not be in a position to ask questions or influence the evaluation result. The interview results will be ready within 2-3 weeks. 7.7 Reimbursement Advances ≥ For short innovation life-cycles, SME’s can apply for a reimbursement advance that matches the grant condition but has to be paid back. With a 70% maximum contribution of €2.5M, the EU can provide financing that has to either be paid back (interest-free) or is converted into equity after a certain time period. The exact nature of the funding opportunity will be published soon but it will likely be at the discretion of the jury members who can directly assess the innovation life-cycle and time-to-market to make a recommendation. 7.8 Budget ≥ Initial communications by the EC suggest that there were meant to be 3 cut-offs for Step 2 in 2021 but they then were reduced to two deadlines. The budget is already set and will be distributed across all topics. As of today, the total budget for 2021 is €1.109BN while the open calls have a €602M budget and the strategic calls share a €507M budget. Considering two parallel calls, namely the open call and the strategic challenges, this would give each cut-off an approximate budget of €554M which is significantly higher than even the COVID-relief and Green Deal cut-offs in 2020 (read: COVID and Green Deal 2020). 7.9 Inclusion of Small-Mid Caps ≥ Historically, the SME Instrument and the EIC Accelerator have focused on SME’s, exclusively, but this will change under Horizon Europe. While SME’s are subject to specific size-restrictions that include the number of employees (max. 250), turnover (max. €50M) and balance sheets (max. €43M), Small Mid Caps can exceed these amounts. While restricted to only equity investments under the EIC Accelerator, companies can be 499-employees in size. This article was last modified on Oct 26, 2021 @ 11:13 These tips are not only useful for European startups, professional writers, consultants and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) but are generally recommended when writing a business plan or investor documents. Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are: Step 1 Open now: Apply as soon as possible to be eligible for the next Step 2 submission deadline Step 2 (closing 17:00 Brussels Time) 1st cut-off 2025: - 2nd cut-off 2025: March 12th 2025 3rd cut-off 2025: - 4th cut-off 2025: October 1st 2025 Step 3 4th cut-off 2024: January 13th to 17th 2025 1st cut-off 2025: TBD 2nd cut-off 2025: TBD 3rd cut-off 2025: TBD 4th cut-off 2025: TBD The Step 1 applications must be submitted weeks in advance of Step 2. The next EIC Accelerator cut-off for Step 2 (full proposal) can be found here. After Brexit, UK companies can still apply to the EIC Accelerator under Horizon Europe albeit with non-dilutive grant applications only - thereby excluding equity-financing. Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant. EU, UK & US Startups: Alternative financing options for EU, UK and US innovation startups are the EIC Pathfinder (combining Future and Emerging Technologies - FET Open & FET Proactive) with €4M per project, Thematic Priorities, European Innovation Partnerships (EIP), Innovate UK with £3M (for UK-companies only) as well as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants with $1M (for US-companies only). Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section. Want to see all articles? They can be found here. For Updates: Join this Newsletter! by Stephan Segler, PhDProfessional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles: A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush 2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Success Cases Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1) The EIC Accelerator Grant Consulting Industry (SME Instrument) In order to apply to the EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity financing), many startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) are looking for expert consultancies or professional writers to facilitate the ever more complex evaluation process (read: Proposed 2021 Application Process). Navigating the grant writing industry and finding a great partner to hire can be difficult but this article is aiming to shed light on the intricacies of how exactly this sector operates (read: EIC Accelerator Introduction). Consultancies & the EU The European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Agency for SME’s (EASME) seek to facilitate the evaluation process for innovative companies and enable them to apply autonomously but, if more and more evaluation steps with cryptic proposal templates are being added, applicants have no choice but to seek consultancy support (read: Relying on Consultancies). The EIC Accelerator grant writing industry is characterized by a high demand from startups and, with some exceptions, increasingly selective consultancy firms. As a result, an important task that is placed on consultancies and writers is the assessment of the innovation project ahead of a potential collaboration since the requirements for written, video and in-person evaluations are becoming more and more demanding (read: Assessing a Project & Writing Internally). Consultancy Business Models Within this framework, there are a variety of models that consultancies follow ranging from the indiscriminative “we take everyone” to the selective “we wouldn’t even take half of the beneficiaries” approach. The reason for this discrepancy is that consultancies, like all business, have to think of their bottom line. Inevitably, this means that each company has to consider how their fee-structure can remain profitable over time and how they can maximize funded projects while compensating for projects that do not end up receiving a grant. The general approaches are to either charge high retainer fees and low success-fees or to charge low retainer fees and very high success-fees. Variations of this approach are also found in offering extensive project-assessments via multi-day workshops, additional consulting for market scaling or through the addition of project management services for funded projects. Regardless of what the model is, applicants will always carry the risk of investing their time and attention into a project irrespective of how the service is paid for. In the end, opportunity costs are a hidden factor in work-intensive grant applications even if the writing is outsourced to expert consultants. With the newly introduced freezing periods, this opportunity cost is increased further and startups or SME’s are better advised to judge the expertise and dedication of a consultancy rather than its business model. Scaling vs. Quality Scaling a consultancy business within a competitive grant like the EIC Accelerator or the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program can be difficult since expertise can easily be diluted while talented experts on grant writing can be hard to find (read: Hiring a Consultant). Due to the high degree of fluctuation between the numbers of applicants per deadline, the capacities of consultancies at scale could also start to exceed the demand of excellent projects which means that they might onboard clients out of necessity rather than out of confidence. The way most consulting companies mitigate such risks is by diversifying its revenue streams and by employing only a core team of full-time experts with clearly defined responsibilities while most of the writing is outsourced to a pool of freelancers. This can be, of course, a double-edged sword as well since having the freedom to decline clients can also lead to the possibility of onboarding more clients since scaling a consultancy over freelancers is a lucrative business model albeit to the detriment of success rates. Still, such business models have found their own validity in the industry since there are plenty of startups who, after having been told that a grant application would be too high risk, are still determined to move on regardless. Good vs. Bad This assessment does not mean that large consultancies are inferior to small consultancies or vice versa. On the contrary, it sheds light on the fact that the size or business model of the consultancy is less important than its modus operandi and its internal incentive-structure. The traits exhibited by excellent consultancies are selectiveness, transparency and dedication but these are entirely independent of the business model and scale. They are only evident in direct communication with the consultants themselves. Every prospective grant applicant should know who exactly will write the proposal, who else will be involved (i.e. editor, pitch-expert, designer, videographer) and if the team will be changed throughout the duration of the contract. This, in addition to requesting an in-depth project assessment beforehand, can prevent a negative experience for the startup or SME since a consultancy that cannot be transparent in this regard or lacks certainty will likely place less focus on each respective client (read: Assessing an Innovation). Conclusion In summary, each prospect EIC Accelerator grant applicant should pose the following questions to a consultancy prior to beginning a collaboration: How does our company compare to the businesses that typically receive EIC Accelerator funding (i.e. industry, team, innovation)? Who will be writing the proposal and will the writer be exchanged throughout the process? Who will be our fixed contact point at the consultancy for the duration of the project? Has our project been sufficiently vetted prior to beginning a collaboration? Does the writer understand the intricacies of our innovation project and business model? This article was last modified on Feb 4, 2021 @ 14:08 These tips are not only useful for European startups, professional writers, consultants and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) but are generally recommended when writing a business plan or investor documents. Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are: Step 1 Open now: Apply as soon as possible to be eligible for the next Step 2 submission deadline Step 2 (closing 17:00 Brussels Time) 1st cut-off 2025: - 2nd cut-off 2025: March 12th 2025 3rd cut-off 2025: - 4th cut-off 2025: October 1st 2025 Step 3 4th cut-off 2024: January 13th to 17th 2025 1st cut-off 2025: TBD 2nd cut-off 2025: TBD 3rd cut-off 2025: TBD 4th cut-off 2025: TBD The Step 1 applications must be submitted weeks in advance of Step 2. The next EIC Accelerator cut-off for Step 2 (full proposal) can be found here. After Brexit, UK companies can still apply to the EIC Accelerator under Horizon Europe albeit with non-dilutive grant applications only - thereby excluding equity-financing. Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant. EU, UK & US Startups: Alternative financing options for EU, UK and US innovation startups are the EIC Pathfinder (combining Future and Emerging Technologies - FET Open & FET Proactive) with €4M per project, Thematic Priorities, European Innovation Partnerships (EIP), Innovate UK with £3M (for UK-companies only) as well as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants with $1M (for US-companies only). Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section. Want to see all articles? They can be found here. For Updates: Join this Newsletter! by Stephan Segler, PhDProfessional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles: A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush 2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Success Cases Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1) How a Consultant can Produce an EIC Accelerator Pitch Video Remotely (SME Instrument) – Part 2 This article is a continuation of Part 1 and presents a proposed workflow for the creation of a pitch video for the EIC Accelerator blended financing program (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2 – grant and equity financing). Due to the new process under Horizon Europe (2021-2027), the pitch video will be an additional barrier for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) to apply for the grant financing and increase their reliance on consultancies and professional writers (read: Relying on Consultants). Since the official proposal template and work programme will likely not provide sufficient guidance, the following content aims to remedy the most pressing concerns of future applicants (read: EIC Accelerator Introduction). 1.2 Discussing the Resources Available The KOM should likewise be used to clarify the resources and capabilities an applicant has at their disposal. This includes the available footage (i.e. produced videos, features, animations) and the available hardware such as cameras, lights and related equipment (read: Types of Pitch Videos). Many smartphones can already record high-definition (HD) footage while Digital Single-Lens Reflex (DSLR) cameras are quite common as well. Lastly, the SME’s team should clarify the locations and capabilities of their members so that tasks can be distributed accordingly and the shooting of the pitch video can be timed appropriately. If some employees have experience with video production then the process can be facilitated greatly while having all of the team members meet in a single location for a joint video can be beneficial. 1.3 Guidance for Best Practises If no suitable expertise is available in a startup, the consultancy should provide a shortlist of best practises helping the team to maximize the quality of the production. These should include tutorials, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), tips & tricks as well as recommendations for camera settings, lights and related topics. Most of this information is easy to learn and readily available but a brief guideline targeted at short EIC Accelerator grant pitch videos is expected to significantly benefit the production quality. If the team has no time to perform the shooting themselves, an external videography team can also be contracted for an on-site project. 1.4 Creating the Script Before the shooting begins, the script should be prepared by the professional writer or consultant so that the production can be planned in advance. The script should clearly identify the content, speakers and setting so that the applicant understands the requirements and resources that are needed. Preparing a script is complementary to the proposal writing and the pitch deck creation with the exception that the storytelling can be much more creative. The storyline of the video should be clear to all participants and care should be taken that the script is rich enough to not require any additional footage collection at a later stage. It is better to include additional content in the first script but cut it from the final video rather than to shoot less but then require a re-shoot at a later stage. 1.5 Screen Test (optional) After the script has been created, the company should proceed with a first screen test where the team takes a few hours to create the video content to the best of their abilities. This includes the set-up of the lighting, camera settings, microphone and the final recording at the respective set. This stage is supposed to be a low-stakes practise run but, if the footage is high-quality, it could be directly used for the pitch video. Once the screen test has been recorded, it can be reviewed and discussed with the consultant or writer to optimize the content, script and execution of the shoot. 1.6 The Real Recording After the screen test has been reviewed and the script and execution have been corrected, the applicant will take a second day to perform the recording and collect all of the required footage. This 2-stage production will likely provide superior results and allow the creation of a high-quality end product with little effort or overhead. 1.7 Editing and Exporting the Pitch Video Lastly, the editing of the footage can be performed either by the consultancy, a third-party contractor or a team member of the startup depending on how responsibilities have been distributed in the agreement. The editing will be an essential step to assure that colour grading, basic corrections, audio enhancements as well as related aspects are all exhibiting the highest quality. Afterwards, the final video can be exported in the appropriate format and be ready for the first submission. 2. Summary A process for the remote production of the EIC Accelerator pitch video could be structured as follows: Planning the Process: Discussing the core responsibilities of the shoot. Discussing the Resources Available: Reviewing the availability of equipment and skills. Guidance for Best Practises: The provision of guidelines to facilitate the production. Creating the Script: Developing a comprehensive script to avoid re-shoots at a later stage. Screen Test: A practice run (optional). The Real Recording: Recording the final video footage. Editing and Exporting the Pitch Video: Editing to increase the quality and export within file size restrictions. This article was last modified on Feb 4, 2021 @ 14:08 These tips are not only useful for European startups, professional writers, consultants and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) but are generally recommended when writing a business plan or investor documents. Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are: Step 1 Open now: Apply as soon as possible to be eligible for the next Step 2 submission deadline Step 2 (closing 17:00 Brussels Time) 1st cut-off 2025: - 2nd cut-off 2025: March 12th 2025 3rd cut-off 2025: - 4th cut-off 2025: October 1st 2025 Step 3 4th cut-off 2024: January 13th to 17th 2025 1st cut-off 2025: TBD 2nd cut-off 2025: TBD 3rd cut-off 2025: TBD 4th cut-off 2025: TBD The Step 1 applications must be submitted weeks in advance of Step 2. The next EIC Accelerator cut-off for Step 2 (full proposal) can be found here. After Brexit, UK companies can still apply to the EIC Accelerator under Horizon Europe albeit with non-dilutive grant applications only - thereby excluding equity-financing. Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant. EU, UK & US Startups: Alternative financing options for EU, UK and US innovation startups are the EIC Pathfinder (combining Future and Emerging Technologies - FET Open & FET Proactive) with €4M per project, Thematic Priorities, European Innovation Partnerships (EIP), Innovate UK with £3M (for UK-companies only) as well as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants with $1M (for US-companies only). Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section. Want to see all articles? They can be found here. For Updates: Join this Newsletter! by Stephan Segler, PhDProfessional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles: A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush 2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Success Cases Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)