Tag Archives: EIC Accelerator help

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, Phase 2, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

February 6, 2023 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) by the European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) funds European Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) and startups.

The provided funding per project can reach €17.5 million in total (€2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity) and there are a variety of freelancers, professional writers and consultants who can help assess the project’s success chances and perform the submission.

This article presents a short list of areas that can make a candidate stand out and gain a positive assessment in the EIC Accelerator evaluation.

1. Sexy Topic

The EIC is a public institution and is fully subject to political, technological and social trends. For better or for worse, it gives preferential treatment to certain industries and technologies which are en vogue or are gaining significant public approval. While some of these causes and technologies are always welcome, specific focus areas are updated annually and outlined in the current Work Programme (see 2023 Challenges).

In 2023, the EIC Accelerator Challenges are:

Novel biomarker-based assays to guide personalised cancer treatment
Aerosol and surface decontamination for pandemic management
Energy storage
New European Bauhaus and Architecture, Engineering and Construction digitalisation for decarbonisation
Emerging semiconductor or quantum technology components
Novel technologies for resilient agriculture
Customer-driven, innovative space technologies and services

But the topic selection is not limited to the EIC Accelerator Challenges outlined above since certain themes such as environmental protection, certain medical technology, artificial intelligence, energy, climate mitigation and others are evergreen and will always have a “wow-effect” on evaluators.

If the problem to be solved by the EIC Accelerator project is immediately understandable and evidently has a high impact then it will have higher chances of success compared to an obscure solution to a problem that is significant but not well understood outside of the industry.

Every evaluator will be aware of climate goals, cancer treatments, autonomous vehicles, quantum computing, green hydrogen, lithium-ion batteries and similar high-profile topics which means that they will have an easier time understanding the problem and the solution.

2. Impressive and Unique Technology

For the EIC Accelerator, there is no way around the fact that a project must have an impressive technology. No matter how interesting the problem and solution are, a simple App or an easy-to-copy hardware device bought from external manufacturers will likely have low success chances.

While there are always cases that slip through the cracks and get funded under the EIC Accelerator even though they are not an ideal fit (see Breaking the Rules), they are an exception and not the norm.

It must be clear to the evaluator that the technology is unique, hard to copy and perfectly designed to address the identified market pain point. For the EIC Accelerator, a sophisticated technology background is beneficial.

3. Easy to Understand

The EIC is using thousands of remote and anonymous evaluators who are underpaid considering the workload of the proposal assessments which limits the incentives to become an evaluator since neither prestige nor financial gain are presented as value propositions.

This creates a self-selection process for evaluators and limits the scope of who would be interested in and available for this type of work. It is not guaranteed that each complex technology and business case will have experts in the field available for an assessment. It is more likely that at least one evaluator tasked with grading an application will be uninformed or uneducated on the subject.

This leads to a double bind where an EIC Accelerator project should be complex enough to be impressive but cannot be so complex that the evaluator does not understand how it solves all of the problems outlined in the application.

This is exacerbated by the limited space found in key application sections where the 1,000 characters to quantify all Unique Selling Points (USP)’s or innovativeness might not be enough in some cases.

No matter what the project is about, it should be understandable to the layman and especially the problem and solution should be clear and easily understood.

4. Clear Commercial Strategy and Traction

Even though Step 2 of the EIC Accelerator is dubbed “The Business Plan” with a Go2Market section that is more comprehensive than most other sections, it is often the commercial strategy that is neglected by evaluators.

This can be a hint that many evaluators have a University or research background or can be based on the vague phrasing of the evaluation criteria (see Evaluation Criteria).

As a result, there is often a lack of understanding regarding the commercial plan and the nature of what is represented as commercial traction in the Step 2 evaluation. This can seem like a blessing for pre-revenue startups or companies lacking a commercial plan but it can lead to a reality check once the company is invited to the Step 3 interviews.

The Step 3 Jury members have a very strong commercial focus and will often identify within a few minutes what Step 2 remote evaluators have missed over days of looking through an application.

The commercial strategy should be clear and justified. If distributors are needed then they should be verifiably on board and their reach should be quantified. If the company wants to start marketing and sales, it should be explained why customers will buy from them, ideally through commitments and Letters of Intent (LOI).

While the Step 2 evaluators will likely miss the nuances and risks associated with market entry, the Step 3’s EIC Jury will not. It is beneficial to enter the Step 3 interview with a strong commercial plan outlined in the Step 2 proposal.

5. Great Team and Corporate Identity

Not every company has a LinkedIn profile with thousands of followers, a YouTube channel and an active Twitter account. The same is true for EIC Accelerator beneficiaries since not having a social media presence does not exclude a company from receiving funding.

Still, in the same way a person without any social media or online representation will appear odd, a company that has no website, uses Gmail accounts and has no social media accounts at all will seem dubious to investors.

This is aggravated by the fact that no due diligence is done prior to the successful passing of all three application steps of the EIC Accelerator. So, if the Step 3 Jury is suspicious of the claims of a company regarding staff size, experience, current customers and other metrics, it can impact a funding decision.

Since setting up a website and social media accounts is very easy and cheap, it is recommended to create a corporate identity across all sites including logos, a design theme for the pitch deck and private-domain email addresses for at least the CEO and the person who creates the account on the Funding & Tenders Portal and EIC Platform.

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:

~~January 11^th 2023~~ (only EIC Accelerator Open)
~~March 22^nd 2023~~
June 7^th 2023
October 4^th 2023

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, PhD
Professional 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:

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

Developing the Unique Selling Points (USP) for the EIC Accelerator

February 3, 2023 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Commission (EC) has a clear focus on high-risk startups with high commercial potential. It is ideal for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) since the funding per project can reach €17.5 million in total (€2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity) and is ideal to finance scale-up activities.

The EIC Accelerator grant proposal template is very detailed and specific with multiple questions aiming to gauge the level of innovation and disruptiveness of the presented technology. Due to the complexity of these grant proposal templates, startups often rely on freelancers, professional writers or consultants to support the development of the documents.

This article provides a simple guide for prospective applicants regarding the development of Unique Selling Points (USP).

Developing Unique Selling Points (USP)

One of the EIC Accelerator proposal sections is dedicated to the USP’s of the company’s product or service which is an essential part of identifying the commercial impact of the technology.

Startups often struggle with such definitions since many EIC Accelerator applicants are in the early stages (i.e. Technology Readiness Level 5/6 – see TRL) with many companies being pre-revenue and pre-product-launch.

Starting With the Innovation

The USP’s are often at the intersection between the innovativeness of the company’s technology, the business model and the market’s current offerings.

Begin by listing 1-5 unique technological features that you view as the core innovation of your product or service. These are technical mechanisms of your hardware, software features or any other unique aspect of what your technology is capable of while current market alternatives fail to offer them.

It is recommended to try and focus only on the most innovative aspects of the technology and to keep them clear and to the point rather than trying to inflate them through using as many small features as possible.

The following questions will help to focus on the most innovative features since the less innovative components will likely fail to produce suitable answers. For each of the listed technological features, answer the questions below so that each feature is going through all questions in succession:

Question	Innovation 1	Innovation 2	Innovation 3
Why does your technology have this feature but not others?
Is it hard to copy?
Is it patentable?
How do you quantify the benefit per unit? (i.e. 50% less time-spent or €50K lower costs per device)
What does this benefit mean for your customer? (i.e. €250K saved p.a. and 100 MWh of additional capacity)

1. Why does your technology have this feature but not others?

Explain why you were able to achieve this technology milestone or develop this feature and why other companies or institutions have failed. This question is aiming to identify why it is new and why this product or service does not exist on the market.

If the answer is a technical innovation, a high level of complexity or any other undeniable head-start then this question will have a positive answer. If the answer is vague as in “no other company has tried this yet” or “other companies could create it but do not view it as valuable” then this is not a promising innovation.

2. Is it hard to copy?

This is a core question that any evaluator or jury member will be interested in. If we invest in you, will you be able to guard your Intellectual property (IP) and capitalize on it?

For this question, it is useful to identify under which conditions competitors could copy your solution and what their limitations are. How many years would it take? Are there IP barriers? How much financing would a competitor need to copy you?

3. Is it patentable?

For any DeepTech company with long development times, IP is a very important factor. Can this particular feature be IP protected, globally? If not, how can you assure that the IP remains in-house and does not leak out?

Software is often more difficult to patent than hardware in the European Union (EU) but it is important to have a clear IP protection strategy regardless since this is a core technology feature that the entire business model will stand on.

4. How do you quantify the benefit per unit? (i.e. 50% less time-spent or €50K lower costs per device)

Quantifications are the flavor of every EIC Accelerator application and any investor presentation. Without it, all a company is presenting is a story. Quantifying the business model, the technology benefit, the customer interest and the product-market fit are essential.

For this question, answer what exactly the benefits are over conventional alternatives for each feature. Compared to what exists on the market, how is your feature better? How can you quantify this benefit? Does this benefit also apply to direct competitors with similar technologies?

5. What does this benefit mean for your customer? (i.e. €250K saved p.a. and 100 MWh of additional capacity)

This is a key question that can often be neglected. Just because your feature can reduce the time spent on a certain production task or the costs of a device does not explain what this means for your customer. Maybe the time reduction is irrelevant since the time savings of 50% only add up to 5 seconds since the production step is simple. Maybe you save your customer 5 months with this feature.

Quantify the benefit by using a pilot customer or imaginary customer as an example. If they implement your product, they can reduce the production time by 50% which means that a 20-hour production process now only takes 10 hours. For that particular customer, €500K are saved annually if they produce 1,000 devices a year.

Not every benefit has to be financial but it is still advisable to create a financial assessment regardless. Emission savings can be expressed financially due to carbon taxes. Improved workflows can likewise be expressed financially since they will impact productivity.

Conclusion

This simple list allows you to identify the USP’s of a multi-faceted project and should yield a table where every feature has answered every question.

For less unique features, the questions will be difficult to answer and these should not be counted as unique selling points for the EIC Accelerator. It is also possible that a single feature (i.e. the automation of a certain task) can lead to multiple USP’s.

This article can act as a good starting point to clarify and brainstorm on the unique components of a product or service.

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:

~~January 11^th 2023~~ (only EIC Accelerator Open)
~~March 22^nd 2023~~
June 7^th 2023
October 4^th 2023

Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant.

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, PhD
Professional 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:

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, Phase 2, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

Investing in Well-Funded Projects: How the EIC is Breaking its Own Rules (EIC Accelerator)

January 30, 2023 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) by the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Commission (EC) awards up to €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity financing per project (€17.5 million total) to startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME).

It is advertised as a risk-taking DeepTech fund that nurtures European innovation and allows companies that are early stage and too high risk for private investors to gain substantial financial investments and scale up to reach the market.

Startups often rely on consultants, professional writers or freelancers to help them assess their success chances since it is well-known that success rates for the EIC Accelerator are as low as 5% (see 2022 Results).

The EIC Accelerators Mission

The 2023 Work Programme 2023 explains the mission of the EIC Accelerator as follows (see Work Programme Analysis):

“The EIC Accelerator focuses in particular on innovations, building on scientific discovery or technological breakthroughs (‘deep tech’) and where significant funding is needed over a long timeframe before returns can be generated (‘patient capital’). Such innovations often struggle to attract financing because the risks and time period involved are too high. Funding and support from the EIC Accelerator is designed to enable such innovators to attract the full investment amounts needed for scale up in a shorter timeframe.“

This means that the EIC Accelerator, especially in the case of grant contributions, is designed to:

Fund DeepTech with high capital needs
Bridge the funding gap until revenues can be generated
Support projects that are too risky to attract private capital
Signaling to investors that a project is investable

This describes the ideal case for the EIC Accelerator since any technology that does not fit such criteria but has a groundbreaking and disruptive product would be financed through private markets. The EIC is a special vehicle to support high-risk and high-reward projects rather than to invest in “safe bets” which is not its role.

Breaking the Rules

An interesting exception to this mission has occurred in 2022 and, while this is likely not the only exception, it is an obvious one since it seems to be so far removed from the scope of the EIC that it warrants a discussion.

Note: The name of the company is omitted since this article is focusing on the EIC’s decision-making process and not on any individual beneficiary. Every company funded under the EIC Accelerator is likely well deserving and presents an impressive technology and business case irrespective of the EIC’s original mission. The exact cut-off and industry are likewise obscured.

What Is DeepTech?

The company is operating a software platform used in varying industry applications. Generally speaking, software products exhibit higher difficulty in receiving financing from the EIC Accelerator compared to hardware products due to the lower capital requirements and, generally, the higher availability of funds from private investors who expect faster Return on Investments (ROI) from software products compared to lengthy DeepTech developments.

This was likewise true for the software company in question which, by 2021, had already raised over €24 million in financing. Among EIC Accelerator beneficiaries, this is at the higher end of past funding amounts since most companies at Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 5-7 are struggling to raise substantial capital.

The company then applied to a Step 2 cut-off in 2022 of the EIC Accelerator for grant-only support. This is an interesting choice since grant-only applications are for a maximum amount of €2.5 million which is dwarfed by the already raised amount in excess of €24 million.

It could have made more logical sense from the EIC’s perspective if the company had difficulty raising a follow-up financing round and required a co-investment from the EIC Fund in the form of equity. This would have translated to blended financing or equity-only support rather than grant-only.

Furthermore, justifying the need for grant support by the EIC is not helped by the fact that the company already has substantial revenues.

A Drop In The Ocean

The EIC Accelerators’ mission is to bridge the financing gap for companies that have difficulties leveraging sufficient funding and are “stuck” in the valley of death between rounds due to lacking investor interest.

This particular software company could not be further from that mission since it had significant revenues, had raised substantial funding and does not obviously meet the general DeepTech case found in capital-intensive hardware projects.

A Role for the EIC

It could still be argued that the grant investment was essential to de-risk the project and to attract additional private financing. But, this would be questionable since the company has high staff numbers with a high burn rate that does not match the financing via grant-only support.

This new financing would be capped at €2.5 million since this is the maximum amount provided by the EIC grant and, since every company has to fill out and justify form fields regarding their difficulty in raising that financing, it should be expected that the same was true for this particular company.

The question becomes – what difference would this grant make for a company in that position? According to the EIC’s mission, it would be to help them if they “struggle to attract financing” or help to “attract full financing”.

As will be evident below, neither option is applicable.

Why Funding From Other Sources Was Not Available

Contrary to the EIC’s mission, funding was clearly available and de-risking the project with a comparatively small grant seemed unnecessary.

The application deadline for the Step 2 submissions is generally multiple weeks ahead of the Step 3 interviews which creates a waiting period between the steps. Right within that time frame, the company raised an additional €25+ million which it announced a few weeks before the Step 3 interview on its website.

This means that the company has raised at least 10-times as much funding as they would request a month later in front of the EIC Jury. It also meant that there was no role for the EIC to play since equity was not requested, funding was available and private investors were willing to invest already.

The EIC Jury was likely aware of the funding round and, even if this was not the case, the due diligence following the successful approval of the EIC Accelerators Step 3 would have identified this fact.

150+ Rejectees

This article is not designed to call out any particular company which is why the name was omitted. A company receiving the EIC Accelerator grant is always a cause for celebration and it shows that it has a timely, disruptive and excellent innovation.

What this article is about is the investigation of the EIC’s decision-making progress.

For the respective Step 2 deadline, 200+ companies were invited to the Step 3 interviews while 150+ companies ended up being rejected. All 150+ rejectees have successfully passed Step 1 and Step 2 which means that they are excellent innovation and business cases.

Some of them have likely resubmitted their applications and obtained the EIC Accelerator funding at a later date (see Resubmissions).

The question becomes: Were there no companies among the 150+ rejectees that fit the EIC’s mission more than the company discussed in this article?

Conclusion: Hypocrisy or Poor Communication?

It is important for the EIC to address cases that are outliers from the general scope of the EIC Accelerator to build trust with the ecosystem and to clearly manage the expectations of future applicants. This likewise extends to the large number of consultancies that are often the first stakeholders to interact with prospective applicants and must make accurate recommendations.

In conclusion, there are a variety of potential motives for this funding decision. The company was largely US-funded and the EIC could have tried to add financing to manufacture a closer relationship to the EU. Equity financing would be preferable but it appears that the beneficiary rejected that by applying for grant-only support.

Another likely explanation is that the Step 3 Jury selects the most investable companies irrespective of the EIC’s mission. The most investable companies are low-risk, have a good business model, have high scale-up potential, have existing revenues and have significant investor interest.

In contrast to the typical DeepTech case.

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:

~~January 11^th 2023~~ (only EIC Accelerator Open)
~~March 22^nd 2023~~
June 7^th 2023
October 4^th 2023

Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant.

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, PhD
Professional 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:

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

ChatGPT for the EIC Accelerator: Will the Real AI Please Stand Up

January 25, 2023 stephanseglerphd

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.

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.

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:

~~January 11^th 2023~~ (only EIC Accelerator Open)
~~March 22^nd 2023~~
June 7^th 2023
October 4^th 2023

Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant.

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, PhD
Professional 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:

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, Phase 2, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

January 21, 2023 stephanseglerphd

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 €15 million, respectively (see 2023 Budget).

Applicants can be from the EU-27 countries or from countries associated with Horizon Europe (see Eligibility).

The company’s technology should have reached Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 5 at least and be able to reach TRL8 within 24 months but exceptions can apply (see Technology Readiness Levels).

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.
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).
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.

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 (see EIC Accelerator Challenges). 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 process is performed on a dedicated website provided by the EIC where an online form is acting as the proposal template. Each applicant can create the appropriate proposals and begin writing applications inside the web browser although it is recommended to use off-platform templates to prepare all documents in collaboration with a team and then upload the content for the submission.

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 2/4 of evaluators have to provide a GO for the application to be successful.
For Step 2, at least 3/3 of evaluators have to provide a GO for the application to be successful.

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 5-30 day average assessment period. For Step 2, a 50-70 day preparation period followed by a 30-40 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 two attempts for each written proposal step (i.e. “two strikes, you’re out”). This means that a company that has failed twice in Step 1 will be blocked from submitting the same application for 12 months. 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.

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

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:

~~January 11^th 2023~~ (only EIC Accelerator Open)
~~March 22^nd 2023~~
June 7^th 2023
October 4^th 2023

Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant.

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, PhD
Professional 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:

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

The New EIC Ecosystem, Fast-Track and Pilot Plug-In Schemes (2023 EIC Accelerator Work Programme Part 8)

November 5, 2022 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) awards up to €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity financing per project (€17.5 million total). It is a popular funding instrument specializing in DeepTech startups and small mid-caps which aim to finalize their product developments, enter the market and scale globally.

The EIC’s 2023 Work programme

While the European Innovation Council (EIC) has remained silent regarding the 2023 Work programme that is yet to be released, ScienceBusiness has published the second draft of the highly anticipated document dated July 2022. This article series is exploring some changes and interesting aspects of the EIC Accelerator that are relevant for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) and for professional writers, freelancers or consultants.

ScienceBusiness has likewise published the entire library of Horizon Europe documents by the European Commission (EC) that are mostly in draft form and can be found here.

All the information and conclusions provided in this article are subject to change and the opinion of the author. The following statement by the EIC is part of the 2023 EIC Work Programme draft that this article is based on:

“This document represents a working draft of the EIC work programme for the purpose of feedback and comments from members of the Horizon Europe Programme Committee for the EIC and European Innovation Ecosystems. This draft has not been adopted or endorsed by the European Commission. Any views expressed are the views of the Commission services and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the Commission. The information transmitted is intended only for the Member State or entity to which it is addressed for discussions and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.”

The EIC Ecosystem

In 2021, it was leaked that the EIC is aiming to create an ecosystem not only for DeepTech companies but also for investors, consultancies, coaches and other relevant stakeholders.

“The idea of the platform is to allow […] any applicant at a given moment where he needs […] support from someone […] access to an ecosystem platform […] where he will find different actors but also those private companies, consultants who want to partake into the exercise to be referenced in this in the system and to offer their service. Now, they will have to pay something, a fee to be referenced.”

– Nicolas Sabatier (General Counsel & Adviser to the EIC/EISMAE) via AI Tool EIC Training for NCPs 11^th12^th March 2021, quoted at 1:52:09

While the vision of a subscription-based service might still be far in the future, its first iteration is on the way.

“From 2023, the EIC BAS services will be expanded through EIC Ecosystem Partners which can include, for example, investors, business angels, mentors and coaches, innovation agencies, business associations, clusters, accelerators, incubators, technology transfer offices, venture builders, etc. EIC BAS services provided by Ecosystem Partners includes access to existing incubation and acceleration programmes as well as services specifically designed in collaboration with EIC.”

Especially the search for co-investors is an exciting prospect for applicants since it can help them gain access to EIC Financing without being forced to find private lead investors by themselves.

“The EIC will also continue to directly manage a core set of business acceleration services which provide a clear added value, which include: A platform for EIC Accelerator companies in receipt of equity investment to find co-investors”

Fast Track and Pilot Plug-in Schemes

The EIC’s 2023 Work Programme continues to offer fast-track and plug-in schemes whereas a company funded under specific EU grant or equity financing projects can cross-migrate into the EIC Accelerator application process without having to start from scratch.

“Full proposals to the EIC Accelerator stemming from the Fast Track scheme will be assessed as set out in Section IV, and will be treated in exactly the same way as all other full proposals.“

“In 2023, the funding bodies and schemes which are eligible for the Fast Track for EIC Accelerator cut-off dates are:

The EIC Pathfinder and EIC Transition projects (including under EIC pilot);

The Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) supported by the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT);

The Eureka secretariat for SMEs supported under the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme and the Partnership on Innovative SMEs;

Companies supported by the WomenTech.EU programme.”

“Under the Plug-in scheme, applicants do not apply directly to the EIC Accelerator call (Section IV). Instead, a project review is carried out by the certified national or regional programme to assess the innovation or market deployment potential of an existing project supported by the programme, and to decide whether the project is suitable for support under the EIC Accelerator.”

Both mechanisms seem beneficial to applicants on the surface but they are, unfortunately, of limited use. Fast track and plug-in schemes only allow applicants to skip the first of the three evaluation steps (i.e. the Step 1 short application) but this is also the easiest step in the entire process.

If a company can skip Step 1 which consists of a pitch deck, a video and a written proposal then this also means that there is no video for the project that the Step 2 evaluators and the Step 3 jury can look at which can be a disadvantage (read: EIC Accelerator Pitch Video).

Of course, a company can decide to upload a Step 1 video retroactively even if they have been allowed to skip this step which is highly recommended.

“Applicants will then be invited to prepare a full proposal for the EIC Accelerator to one of the cut-off dates within the next 12 months following initial review. […] Full proposals to the EIC Accelerator stemming from the Plug-in scheme will be assessed as set out in Section IV (above) and will be treated exactly the same way as all other full proposals.”

Note: The term “full proposal” refers to the Step 2 application consisting of a detailed business plan.

What further questions the usefulness of the fast track and plug-in programs is the fact that the Step 2 application re-uses a substantial amount of the text from the Step 1 application. In fact, one can use 100% of the text written in Step 1 for the Step 2 application which means that, even if a company skips Step 1, they still have to fill all of these Step 2 sections from scratch.

Considering the limited effort required for the preparation of a Step 1 proposal, their high success rates and the fact that the text, video and pitch deck would need to be prepared for Step 2 anyways, the fast track and plug-in schemes are of little practical benefit. An exception would be a case where a company has significant time restrictions and must unlock the Step 2 EIC Accelerator template in the online platform as soon as possible to meet the next cut-off.

Outlook

A truly useful fast track or plug-in scheme would allow a direct application to the Step 3 interviews especially if the plug-in scheme has already performed additional due diligence on the project specifically for the EIC Accelerator. Step 2 is the most difficult step of the EIC Accelerator program but it is understandable that the EIC aims to retain the integrity of the full application process since it could otherwise compromise the quality of projects reaching the Step 3 interviews.

This article is part of a series whereas the remaining articles can be found here, once published:

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:

~~January 11^th 2023~~ (only EIC Accelerator Open)
~~March 22^nd 2023~~
June 7^th 2023
October 4^th 2023

Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant.

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, PhD
Professional 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:

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

The EIC’s 2023 Strategic Challenges and Topics (2023 EIC Accelerator Work Programme Part 7)

November 5, 2022 stephanseglerphd

The EIC’s 2023 Work programme

ScienceBusiness has likewise published the entire library of Horizon Europe documents by the European Commission (EC) that are mostly in draft form and can be found here.

“This document represents a working draft of the EIC work programme for the purpose of feedback and comments from members of the Horizon Europe Programme Committee for the EIC and European Innovation Ecosystems. This draft has not been adopted or endorsed by the European Commission. Any views expressed are the views of the Commission services and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the Commission. The information transmitted is intended only for the Member State or entity to which it is addressed for discussions and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.”

The EIC Accelerator Open and Strategic Challenges

The 2023 Work Programme of the EIC is outlining the newest Strategic Challenges for the EIC Accelerator. These are renewed every year alongside the new Work Programme implementation and have separate allocated budgets. It is common that the EIC Accelerator Open and the EIC Accelerator Challenges have a comparable budget while the chances of success could be higher in the thematic challenges due to the strict topic limitations.

This is due to the smaller number of applicants compared to the EIC Accelerator Open which has no thematic restrictions but this might be irrelevant since the EIC has announced that the Strategic Challenges budget will be transferred to the EIC Accelerator Open if there are not enough applicants available. Of course, the applicants for the Strategic Challenges still retain first priority for their respective budgets.

“However, if there is insufficient applications selected for funding for a Challenge, the budget will be transferred to the other Challenges. In case there is insufficient applications selected for all the Challenges, the remaining budget will be transferred to the Accelerator Open.”

As given in the EIC’s draft Work Programme 2023, the seven new EIC Accelerator Challenges are:

Challenge 1: Novel biomarker-based assays to guide personalised cancer treatment

Specific objectives

“The overall goal of this Challenge is to support and accelerate the preclinical validation and/or clinical phase 1 work carried out by innovative SMEs (including start-ups, spinouts) and small midcaps to develop novel predictive, prognostic and companion diagnostic assays to guide cancer treatment. This Challenge has the following specific objectives:

develop novel companion diagnostic assays , including through liquid profiling; to identify who, among cancer patients, is more likely to benefit from a given treatment (guided treatment);develop novel predictive biomarker-based assays to identify who, among patients with potentially precancerous lesions, is more likely to develop cancer;

develop novel prognostic assays including through liquid profiling to identify who, among the cancer patients who underwent treatment, is more likely to recur;

develop novel companion diagnostic assays, including through liquid profiling to identify who, among the cancer patients receiving treatment, is more likely to develop side effects as a result of the treatment and

to develop novel monitoring biomarker-based assays to effectively monitor the clinical course of the disease.”

Expected outcomes and impacts

“As expected outcomes from this Challenge, clinicians will be able to:

Identify, who among cancer patients, is more likely to benefit from a given treatment (guided treatment)

Identify, who among patients with potentially precancerous lesions, is more likely to develop cancer

Identify, who among the cancer patients having underwent treatment, is more likely to recur

Identify who among the cancer patients receiving treatment, is more likely to develop side effects as a result of the treatment, affecting their quality of life and

More effectively monitor the clinical course of the disease”

Challenge 2: Aerosol and surface decontamination for pandemic management

Specific objectives

“The proposals should target the development and commercialisation of technological solutions facilitating social interaction in the context of pandemic emergencies, by means of one or more of the three following approaches:

Full systems for high-efficiency aerosol capture, pathogen deactivation and air circulation management in closed-environments (e.g., office space, in-flight, retail stores, etc.), including advanced air-filtering architectures and dynamic air circulation optimisation.

Next-generation face mask technologies with smart filtration materials to exceed N95 performance at low airflow resistance, with improved retention/rejection of sub-micron particles.

Rapid surface decontamination devices beyond state-of-the-art UV-C irradiation systems and biocidal agent dispersion.

Where advantageous, pathogen profiling sensors and sub-systems could be integrated with air renewal systems, face masks or surface decontamination devices to provide quasi- real-time information on pathogen presence for rapid decision making and/or autonomous optimisation of air circulation.

The proposals should provide preliminary evidence demonstrating that social distancing can be avoided or substantially reduced, under realistic pathogen infectivity assumptions, with the targeted technologies.”

Expected outcomes and impacts

“By reducing the need for social distancing in the event of infectious pandemics, this Challenge will empower society at large to sustain unaltered economic and social dynamics in the event of pandemic outbreaks.”

Challenge 3: Energy storage

Specific objectives

“This Challenge targets groundbreaking innovations in any field of technology that have a high potential to meet the following goals:

to store electric and/or thermal energy at low cost, high density, high charging/discharging efficiency and enhanced durability.

technological approaches (chemical, electrical, electrochemical, mechanical, thermal) for energy storage at different scales (centralized at large industrial facilities premises or distributed and at small scale level – mobile electronics), duration (short – millisecond to day, medium – days to month and long term – months to seasons) and uses (from stationary to mobile).

technologies that, without using critical raw materials or ensuring their full recycle/reuse, minimize their carbon footprint measured through a life-cycle analysis (including cost and social impact evaluation). The proposed technologies could also address the smart operation and control of storage assets, their integration with demand response strategies, predictive maintenance, load forecasting and decentralized renewable energy technologies.”

Expected outcomes and impacts

“The possibility to store electrical or thermal energy at low cost, high density, high charging/discharging efficiency and for different duration (from short to long) will:

enable a strong penetration of intermittent renewable energy resources by addressing the spatial and temporal mismatches between generation and demand,

set up decarbonized, interconnected, sector-coupled and flexible energy systems.

Increase Europe’s energy independence from unreliable suppliers”

Challenge 4: New European Bauhaus: Digitisation for sustainable and inclusive built environment

Specific Objectives

“The call aims to enable a paradigm by supporting deep tech ventures that can deliver disruptive new products and services for a digitised value chain with a focus on:

Computational design. ventures that develop and scale radical new products for mass-adoption of parametric, generative and algorithmic design, pushing the boundaries of physical simulation, digital twin;

Alternative materials. ventures active in the development, production, advanced application of alternative building materials, or building concepts, building elements, design+fabrication concepts (e/g stereotomy 2.0) based on advanced uses of alternative materials.

Digital fabrication. ventures developing and commercializing scalable 3Dprinting, robot assisted composites, factory and field robotics, automation products, digital molds, distributed building factories.”

Expected Outcomes and Impacts

“The overarching objective of this Challenge is to provide transformative digitally enabled solutions for the construction sector that can help it achieve climate neutrality while providing inclusive and high quality products.

The focus will be on achieving a reduction in embodied rather than operational carbon emissions. Socio-economic impacts include higher productivity, higher product quality, reduced material consumption and waste, improved construction logistic in the urban environment and increased economic impact without compromising on quality or safety.

This approach will also lead to higher quality jobs in a more progressive and appealing sector that can deliver a step-change in the overall quality of the social experience with the built environment.”

Challenge 5: Quantum computers hardware and real environment quantum sensors

Specific objectives

“The objective of this Challenge is to support ground-breaking innovations that have a high potential to develop:

Next-generation fault-tolerant quantum computer(s) with:
1. improved performance;
2. significantly simplified QC integration with control electronics;
3. scalable control systems (scalable to tens of thousands of qubits, needed for meaningful practical applications);
Quantum sensors to function in real/harsh environment for various application areas, such as ecotoxicology, pharmaceuticals, biomedical, space, corrosion detection in power plants, gas/oil tanks, raw material detection, medical imaging, automotive and many more.”

Expected outcomes and impacts

“This Challenge is expected to support EU in taking a leading role in the development of cutting edge quantum computing and quantum sensors that can be used in real environment and deployed in various areas such as medical devices, pharmaceuticals, materials science, defence, space, etc.

In mid and long term, this challenge is expected to expand the quantum capabilities of Europe, underpin its economic resilience and digital sovereignty. It should pave the way for Europe to be at the cutting edge of quantum capabilities by 2030 as envisioned by the 2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade.”

Specific conditions

“Applications to this EIC Accelerator Challenge may request an investment component of above EUR 15 million in duly justified cases.”

Challenge 6: Sustainable and resilient agriculture

Specific objectives

“Design, development and evaluation of interdisciplinary solutions for regenerative agriculture and soil health in the areas of
1. Fertilisation
2. Crop protection
3. Irrigation
4. Tillage
5. Soil and crop management
Radical innovations in precision fermentation for the food sector, including but not limited to mycoproteins.
Radical innovations in the area of natural solutions for carbon management and valorisation (carbon farmingcarbon stock in the soil, etc)
Novel processes, materials, equipment, crops and microorganisms adapted to harsh environments, climate adaptation needs and resource scarcity.”

Expected outcomes and impacts

“This Challenge aims to improve the resilience and security of the European food supply chain, notably by maintaining and improving crop yield with environmentally friendly technologies, all while regenerating and increasing soil health. By aiming to valorise crop residues, this Challenge also aims to contribute to better carbon and nitrogen management practices, to mitigate climate change.

In doing so, the results arising from this challenge will foster the EU technological autonomy and leadership via focused support of innovations in the areas of sustainable and resilient agricultural production, food security, biodiversity and environmental protection. The challenge also aims to reduce the EU dependency from critical supply chains and strengthen the EU innovation ecosystem competitiveness in the strategic sectors of ecologic transition and clean, secure and cheap energy provision.”

Challenge 7: Customer driven, innovative space technologies and services

Specific objectives

“The overall goal of this challenge is to ensure Europe is able to service and protect its own Space infrastructure, avoiding the risk of losing its strategic autonomy over its own space assets, while enhancing the competitiveness of its space industry through encouraging the emergence of innovative, interoperable, scalable, and autonomous “customer-driven” innovative space technologies.

In terms of technological developments, the specific objectives of the call are:

To have the means to inspect spacecraft in orbit, to augment satellite capabilities and resilience;
To develop autonomous and in-space collision avoidance capabilities e.g., use of AL/ML for collision avoidance manoeuvres, space debris positioning data and develop in-space mobility propulsion capabilities;
To further mature self-assembly of spacecraft in orbit with different applications (e.g., in-orbit, cis-lunar exploration, Earth observation, space debris inspection, space situational awareness, etc.);
To collect and recycle space debris or recovering intact components from nonoperational satellites or cut dysfunctional satellites turning them into metal rods for potential fuel;
To refurbish upper stage of launchers and transform them into microgravity platforms;
To design and construct a R&I low Earth orbit unmanned modular platform assembled in orbit and to host in-orbit microgravity experiments or collect/reuse space debris;
To develop innovative technologies for Earth observation, navigation, satellite communications (SATCOM), space science, space situational awareness (SSA) and in-space logistics needing in-orbit demonstration and in-orbit validation (IOD/IOV).”

Expected outcomes and impacts

“This Challenge aims at developing:

an EU servicing and re-use/recycling capability for servicing EU space infrastructure, while contributing to the management and reduction of space debris;
timely and cost-effective Space Traffic Management services for on-time collision avoidance manoeuvres;
the re-use, refurbish or recycling of a spacecraft components or launchers upper stages scientific and technological solutions for in-orbit services and reuse/ refurbishing and recycling of old spacecraft (e.g. satellites, rockets upper stages, etc.);
Innovative propulsion solutions for in-space mobility of spacecraft”

Specific conditions

“Where relevant, companies supported under this Challenge will have access to in-orbit demonstration and testing facilities financed under Horizon Europe.”

This article is part of a series whereas the remaining articles can be found here, once published:

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:

~~January 11^th 2023~~ (only EIC Accelerator Open)
~~March 22^nd 2023~~
June 7^th 2023
October 4^th 2023

Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant.

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, PhD
Professional 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:

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, Phase 2, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator, Success

EIC Accelerator 2022 Results and the Vanevo GmbH Success Case

October 19, 2022 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Commission (EC) has recently closed its latest financing cut-off with a total budget of €396.7 million (read: Diverse Grant Strategy).

The 75 winners are startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) from 21 countries who requested grant and blended financing support back in June 2022 and, after passing all evaluation steps, they have finally been rewarded (read: Interview Preparation Process).

An #EUeic double feature! ?

Presenting the selected #SMEs and most recent applications from #eicAccelerator:

? 75 companies chosen to receive €396 M from June cut-off
? 1092 proposals received requesting €6.3 B from October cut-off

More details ? https://t.co/XQTcb5hsej pic.twitter.com/oJDMIKTFd3

— European Innovation Council (@EUeic) October 14, 2022

The EIC program awards up to €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity financing per project (€17.5 million total) which provides a lucrative option for startups that are currently building innovative projects, especially those in the DeepTech space.

With the official proposal template having grown in size due to the latest change in the application framework, many companies rely on external consultants, professional writers or freelancers to help them prepare a successful application but it is very feasible to perform such a grant proposal in-house (read: Consultancies for the EIC Accelerator).

EIC Accelerator Results June 2022

The EIC has announced the latest cut-off results online (PDF, Web, Twitter) and the following statistics can be extracted.

Success Rates

986 Step 2 applications were received in the June 15^th cut-off with 74% applying for the EIC Open as opposed to the Strategic Challenges. 638 companies (65%) requested blended financing while 158 (16%) requested grant-only and 190 (19%) grant-first.

When regarding the success rates from Step 2, this yields the following percentages for each application type:

Grant-first: 24 of 190 applicants succeeded with a 12.6% success rate.
Grant-only: 8 of 158 succeeded with a 5.1% success rate
Blended financing: 43 of 638 succeeded with a 6.7% success rate
Overall: 75 of 986 gives an average success rate of 7.6%

It is important to note that the Step 1 success rates of 50-80% have to be included in the assessment which will lower success rates slightly. It is also interesting to consider that 7 out of the 8 grant-only winners are from the UK who only had the grant-only option. This can be a sign that the EIC wants to avoid handing out pure grants without the chance of following up with the EIC Fund’s equity at a later stage (grant-first) or right away (blended).

Grant vs. Equity

Grant-first: 24 Companies (or 32%) are receiving grant-first contributions which is the model where a company is looking to cover innovation activities up to TRL8 with the EIC contribution. These companies can choose to apply for the EIC Fund’s equity at a later date to reach TRL9 (read: Inside Look into the EIC Fund).

Blended financing: 43 Companies (or 57%) are receiving blended financing which includes both the grant and the EIC Fund’s equity contribution and the expected end of the project is TRL9 (read: Technology Readiness Levels).

Grant-only: 8 Companies (or 11%) have decided to apply for grant-only support with the goal of reaching TRL9. Since this is the only available funding option for UK companies, it is unsurprising that 7 out of the 8 grant-only winners are from the UK.

In total, 43% of all funded companies receive a pure grant while 57% are receiving a mix of grant and equity financing while there are no companies who will receive equity-only support.

Geography

From a geographical perspective, the winners are located in:

13 in France,
8 in Germany,
7 in the United Kingdom,
6 in the Netherlands,
5 in Sweden,
4 in Austria,
4 in Ireland,
4 in Israel,
3 in Belgium,
3 in Finland,
3 in Norway,
3 in Spain,
2 in Denmark,
2 in Italy,
2 in Portugal,
1 in Czechia,
1 in Estonia,
1 in Greece,
1 in Iceland,
1 in Romania,
1 in Slovenia.

Only 21 countries are represented among the winners which means that countries such as Luxembourg, Bulgaria, Latvia or Cyprus as well as all other third countries have had no approved projects during this cut-off.

Budget

Considering the EIC’s statement that 88% of applicants receive grant and equity financing and that there are no equity-only projects during this cut-off, the 32 companies receiving grant-only or -first support are sharing 12% of the total €396.7M budget yielding an average grant of €1.49M.

Vanevo: Successful Grant Application

Vanevo is setting a new standard for RedOx flow batteries through their platform technology approach. By reinventing and simplifying the manufacturing process of the battery stack and delivering a uniquely versatile and scalable business model, they are able to accelerate the mass adoption of RedOx flow technologies in critical sectors that require long-term energy storage.

Supported by Segler Consulting, Vanevo was awarded the EIC Accelerator grant in October 2022 which will allow them to reach commercial readiness and realise their vision of low-cost, sustainable and low-emission energy storage.

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:

~~January 11^th 2023~~ (only EIC Accelerator Open)
~~March 22^nd 2023~~
June 7^th 2023
October 4^th 2023

Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant.

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, PhD
Professional 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:

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Jury Considerations (Part 3)

October 30, 2021 stephanseglerphd

One could argue that the Question & Answers (Q&A) session that is part of the EIC Accelerator interviews requires a significant amount of the overall preparation time. With a length of up to 35 minutes after the 10-minute pitch by the startup or Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME), it can make or break a fund-raising application.

In this third part of the EIC Accelerator interview guide, the focus will be on the Q&A. This article aims to provide suggestions as to how a company can prepare and be in the ideal position to succeed during the EIC’s pitch week.

Since most companies are used to having long-lasting investor conversations prior to facing a final investment decision, even experienced management teams often have to adjust and practise for this particular, fast-paced interview session.

Core Rules

Be aware of EIC rules and agendas (i.e. what the jury is looking for)
Do not give the jury a reason to reject you (i.e. no red flags)
Do not get cornered on a topic that is of no benefit (i.e. no wasted time)

Note: This article focuses on strategies for practising Q&A sessions while the next articles will focus on how answers can be improved and developed.

How To Practise (The Mock-Jury)

Rapid-Fire Questions

When practising for the pitch interview, it is often difficult to simulate a stressful environment or have supporters who can project the demeanour that is needed for such a practice. But this is an essential part since:

We don’t rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training.

– Archilochus

If a startup is working with a consultancy or professional writing team then they can take this role but, as a precaution, every applicant team should also make an effort to create such sessions internally. Since nobody wants to alienate their co-workers or partners with a stressful questioning session, a simple way of creating pressure is to add interruptions.

As an example: When the mock jury member asks a particular question on a certain aspect of the project which the interviewee then responds to, the questioner proceeds to cut off the answer with a follow-up question within 10-20 seconds, at a point where it is confusing, too slow or irrelevant. By using this approach, one can simulate being caught off-guard since the follow-up questions will inevitably force the interviewee to make their answers more succinct. It will likewise allow the questioner to quickly screen for weaknesses in the responses and, through multiple follow-ups, find additional areas that must be prepared in detail prior to the pitch.

Example (Interviewee / Mock-Jury)

What is your business model?
We have a SaaS business. We sell access to our software mainly to Universities and research institutes so–
How do universities pay you? Have you demonstrated willingness-to-pay or do you face long tendering processes?
Well, we do not have revenues yet but we have pilot tests with some institutes and they have told us that they would pay for this. We also have–
So this is unproven. Have you demonstrated willingness-to-pay in any core customer segment?
Well…

Recommendation

During the entire Q&A practice, it is beneficial to make interruptions a habit since these will help everyone involved to self-correct their answers and polish them in their minds before they answer. The worst practice environment for a Q&A is one where the team has unlimited time and is allowed to brainstorm as they answer the question or even discuss the answers with their colleagues. The idea is to generate a sharp answer and then move on to the next one. Developing better answers can be done afterwards.

For the mock-jury, the rule is to make almost no answer go uninterrupted.

The Devils Advocate

It is often very difficult to find someone who is able to ask good and tough questions. Consultants and writers will know the project very well while employees, investors and others will likely also be overfamiliar with the company. Additionally, since many DeepTech companies have to guard their Intellectual Property (IP), they often do not want to include additional parties in the process just to ask a few questions.

A solution can be to hire an external party since there are a variety of pitch coaches who specialise in this type of training and can be a suitable support option.

Playing the devil’s advocate can also be done with existing consultants or internal team members since the rule is simple:

Pretend that you do not know the answer and ask the worst possible questions.

Especially if you already know the technology in and out, you will know the business model, the customers and all of the weaknesses, risks and uncertainties. To develop good questions, one should look at the project in the most negative light possible. The idea is to take the side of the competitors or those who would criticise the project.

Example (Interviewee / Mock-Jury)

What is your product?
We produce and sell battery cells based on a new material.
What’s innovative about it?
With our approach, we can reduce the energy needed during battery production by 15% as well as the related costs. We–
Is the new battery as long-lasting as the conventional materials?
We do not have long-term studies yet but we expect that it will have a comparable half-life. So–
But if it does not then wouldn’t it be a pointless product? What half-live benchmark do you have to reach to make sure that the 15% upside remains relevant for customers?
We have not calculated that yet but do not see this as an issue.
It sounds to me that your competition is still the better alternative until you can validate your half-life. Is that wrong?
Well…

Recommendation

As a mock-jury member, highlight the weaknesses of the innovation and overexaggerate the benefits of competing products. Question the existence of the innovation in the market to create a robust set of answers.

Looking for Flaws

The EIC Jury interview might be a pleasant experience but it can also turn stressful and be riddled with criticism. As an old saying goes:

Prepare for the worst. The best will take care of itself.

There might be one Jury member who is looking to criticise, who accepts no response to be good enough and who has already made the decision that they do not like the project. Unfortunately, there are many accounts of rejected applicants who found the interview to be stressful and at least one of the EIC jury members to be unpleasant.

If this happens then it is unfortunate but it is one more reason to prepare for such a case.

The principle of practising to look for flaws is simple: Try to entrap the interviewees and corner them in a place where they do not want to be. This can be because they do not know the answer, they have never thought about this or because the answer might lead to even worse questions.

Being critical does not mean that the questioner needs to be unpleasant. On the contrary, playing the role of someone who is looking for flaws can be good practice for everyone involved. If one of the interviewees just stepped into a trap and looks confused while the other two interviewee’s try to suppress their laugh then the practise session is going well.

Example (Interviewee / Mock-Jury)

How much financing have you raised so far?
In total, €2.5M from grants and angel investors.
Are you in discussions with other investors now or expect other investments in the coming months?
Yes, we are talking to Venture Capitalists regarding a bridge round at the end of the month.
How much are they considering to invest?
We are discussing a €1M investment but it can also be higher.
Then is it not best if we wait until they have made the decision and you apply again to the EIC in 3 months?
…

Recommendation

Have one person (the mock-jury) ask questions and follow-ups that progressively become more difficult to try and entrap the interview candidates. These traps will be the basis for the improvement strategies for answers discussed in the following articles.

Learn the Rules & Read the Application

It can be assumed that a majority, if not most, of the applications that are selected for the Step 3 interviews of the EIC Accelerator have either been written by consultants, professional writers or with the strong support of the startup’s employees (i.e. delegation of tasks). No matter how the company reached this last stage, it is likely that the three interviewees are not entirely familiar with all the application documents.

While many might think “I know my company in and out already!”, it would be a fatal error to not be perfectly familiar with the application. With three team members being invited to the EIC’s pitch week, it is not necessary for everyone to know everything but, as a collective, all three team members should know the entire application like the back of their hand.

The CFO should know the financial spreadsheet, the cashflows given in the Technology Adoption Lifecycle (TALC), the work package budgets and all related financial aspects. The CTO should know the development tasks, should be familiar with all the features and uses cases as well as know what the exact pain points described in the application are.

The team should distribute all proposal documents to assure that at least one person knows the relevant information. In addition, all three interviewees must know the EU’s and the EC’s rules which are described in the previous article to avoid displaying red flags (i.e. non-bankability, strategic challenges, risk-level).

Example (Interviewee / Mock-Jury)

What developments are you planning under the EIC?
We want to optimize our production process, get certifications for the resulting hardware and develop the AI software.
What budget are you allocating for the production process optimization?
We expect this to cost approximately €0.8-1M.
I have seen your Work Package 5 and it shows a very different number there. It list €450K for the production process. Why the discrepancy?
…

Recommendation

Practice asking precise questions on the proposal documents. These can include the Freedom to Operate (FTO) report, the budget, the competitors and many more sections.

Choose Who Answers What

It is critical for the team to assure that the most suitable expert will be answering the questions in their field of expertise. This can be difficult due to time constraints and it can also be hindered by the most confident member of the team taking the answering role out of pure habit (i.e. the CEO answering a financial question while the CFO remains silent). Suggestions to mitigate any problems are:

Give each person a topic

As an example, the CEO answers business model and market questions, the CTO answers technical questions and the CFO answers budget, investment and financial questions. This sounds simple but there can be significant issues that only become obvious during practice.

What if the question is financial in nature but it asks why the technical development costs are so high? This question might be too technical for the CFO. What if the commercialisation question overlaps with technical customer pain-point or the willingness-to-pay? There are many situations in which the ideal person will be ambiguous. Thus, it should be practised diligently.

Sit in the same room

It is much easier to transfer questions if the team sits right next to each other. The CEO can nod at the CFO and if one person decides to jump in then this can be well-timed as opposed to yielding awkward interruptions or confusion during a video call.

Note: This is only applicable for video calls and not for in-person pitch events in Brussels where all team members are in proximity by default.

Practise question allocations

Since questions will likely overlap greatly when it comes to the themes or topics, it is beneficial to practise this in every pitch session. What must be avoided is that the CEO or the most vocal team member ends up answering all questions. If one person has already answered questions for 15 minutes then it is likely that no other team member will dare to jump in since they are not used to it. It will be beneficial if the team members become accustomed to answering questions as a unit and have an almost immediate response without any awkward looks or confusion as to who should answer.

Conclusion

This practice routine illustrates how the team can integrate critical questioning into their mock sessions while it likewise hints at methods for their preparation. It is recommended to select one or more questioners who can play the devil’s advocate and aim to pressure the team through frequent interruptions.

The following articles will present strategies to develop perfect answers to questions and, most importantly, develop a framework to master unpredictable questions that would catch the team off-guard. This will help the interviewees to not end up in the critical situations given in the examples above.

Lessons from the EIC Accelerators Pitch Video Shooting (SME Instrument)

April 23, 2021 stephanseglerphd

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.

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:

~~January 11^th 2023~~ (only EIC Accelerator Open)
~~March 22^nd 2023~~
June 7^th 2023
October 4^th 2023

Contact: You can reach out to us via this contact form to work with a professional consultant.

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, PhD
Professional 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:

1. Sexy Topic

2. Impressive and Unique Technology

3. Easy to Understand

4. Clear Commercial Strategy and Traction

5. Great Team and Corporate Identity

Developing Unique Selling Points (USP)

Starting With the Innovation

1. Why does your technology have this feature but not others?

2. Is it hard to copy?

3. Is it patentable?

4. How do you quantify the benefit per unit? (i.e. 50% less time-spent or €50K lower costs per device)

5. What does this benefit mean for your customer? (i.e. €250K saved p.a. and 100 MWh of additional capacity)

Conclusion

The EIC Accelerators Mission

Breaking the Rules

What Is DeepTech?

A Drop In The Ocean

A Role for the EIC

Why Funding From Other Sources Was Not Available

150+ Rejectees

Conclusion: Hypocrisy or Poor Communication?

ChatGPT

What is needed to write an EIC Accelerator proposal?

Assessment

Structuring

Writing

What can be automated with ChatGPT?

Selection and assessment process

Planning and structuring

Improving the Structure

Usefulness of ChatGPT for Structuring

Writing the Proposal

Improving the Output

Improving the Input

Annexes

Conclusion: Is ChatGPT useful for the EIC Accelerator?

What is the EIC Accelerator?

What does the EIC Accelerator provide?

How do the different funding options finance development work?

What industries can apply and are there topic limitations?

When and how can I apply?

What does the result of an application look like?

How long does it take to apply for the EIC Accelerator?

What are the success chances for the EIC Accelerator?

What limitations exist regarding the submissions?

What types of companies actually win the EIC Accelerator grant?

How do I know if I should apply or not?

The EIC’s 2023 Work programme

The EIC Ecosystem

Fast Track and Pilot Plug-in Schemes

Outlook

The EIC’s 2023 Work programme

The EIC Accelerator Open and Strategic Challenges

Challenge 1: Novel biomarker-based assays to guide personalised cancer treatment

Challenge 2: Aerosol and surface decontamination for pandemic management

Challenge 3: Energy storage

Challenge 4: New European Bauhaus: Digitisation for sustainable and inclusive built environment

Challenge 5: Quantum computers hardware and real environment quantum sensors

Challenge 6: Sustainable and resilient agriculture

Challenge 7: Customer driven, innovative space technologies and services

EIC Accelerator Results June 2022

Success Rates

Grant vs. Equity

Geography

Budget

Vanevo: Successful Grant Application

Core Rules

How To Practise (The Mock-Jury)

Rapid-Fire Questions

The Devils Advocate

Looking for Flaws

Learn the Rules & Read the Application

Choose Who Answers What

Conclusion

Other Articles

1. The Video Script is Everything

2. Simple Tips for Pitch Recordings Go a Long Way

3. Small Editing Techniques are Key

4. Adapting to the Client

Summary