Tag Archives: EIC Accelerator rejection

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

Explaining the Resubmission Process 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 undergone significant changes over the past years. While it used to be a simple program for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) to access €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in venture financing per project, it has significantly grown in complexity.

Startups often rely on professional writers, freelancers or consultants to support them but this article aims to reduce the complexity regarding the resubmission mechanisms of the EIC Accelerator application process.

The SME Instrument Pre-2021

The EIC Accelerator has long allowed applicants to resubmit applications in case of a rejection. In 2020 and earlier, it was possible to infinitely resubmit grant proposals and there was no inherent restriction for applicants.

This allowed companies who were unsuccessful in the first submission to become successful through persistence in the sixth submission. It likewise meant that the same company could attend the EIC Accelerator interviews as many times as they were invited and led to an increased workload for all remote evaluators who had to reassess the same proposals again and again.

The 2021+ EIC Accelerator

Since 2021, this process has changed through the introduction of freezing periods which prohibit a company from submitting the same or a similar proposal for 12 months. For better or worse, this has introduced higher stakes for applicants but has also added an additional layer of complexity.

In general, the rule is that each applicant obtains a second chance for every submission stage. If the first application to Step 1 of the EIC Accelerator was unsuccessful, they obtain a second chance. If that is likewise unsuccessful then the company will be unable to apply for 12 months.

The same is true for Step 2 whereas companies that have been rejected twice are frozen for 12 months.

If a company has not been rejected twice in any particular Step then it will not be prohibited from submitting a proposal and if a company has reached a certain Step then it will generally not be sent back to a previous step unless the rejection occurred during the Step 3 interview.

A rejection in Step 1 means that a company has to reapply to Step 1. A second rejection in Step 1 triggers a freeze period.
A rejection in Step 2 means that a company has to reapply to Step 2. A second rejection in Step 2 triggers a freeze period.
A rejection in Step 3 means that a company has to reapply to Step 2 (or directly to Step 3 if invited to do so).

Example of a Typical Case

A company is approved in Step 1 but then rejected in Step 2. Upon resubmitting to Step 2, it then passes successfully and is invited to the Step 3 interview where it is rejected. It is then sent back to Step 2 and asked to reapply.

Since it has only been rejected a single time in Step 2 and once in Step 3, it can still resubmit to the next Step 2 cut-off even though this is technically the third Step 2 submission. This company had one “successful” Step 2 submission and one Step 2 rejection even though the former ended up being rejected in Step 3.

In practice, the “second chance” rule is more akin to a “two strikes, you’re out” rule where two rejections in one Step trigger the freeze period for Step 1 and Step 2 while Step 3 has specialized rules.

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

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

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 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

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Interviewee Considerations (Part 4)

October 31, 2021 stephanseglerphd

In this fourth part of the EIC Accelerator interview guideline, the focus is shifted to specific training tools targeted at improving how questions are answered. Startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) can use these tools to better prepare for their own pitch event, investor conversations and, of course, interviews by the European Innovation Council (EIC) or European Commission (EC).

Introduction

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) is a highly selective funding program and, even though the chances of receiving funding in Step 3 can be as high as 50%, it should not be left to luck if one will be successful or not since up to €17.5M are at stake.

Note: If the previous steps are included, the overall success rate is 5% or below.

The ideal scenario is to have a consultant, professional writer or pitch coach take the lead in the preparation process since identifying weak spots and fixing them with improved answers or arguments can be difficult for a company.

The following training tools are presenting a way of preparing for interviews but they are by no means the only way and not using them will not lead to a guaranteed rejection. Examples for each segment of the training tools and recommendations on how to practise them will be given in a future article. This article will only provide a general description of such training tools.

What To Practise (Improving Answers)

No Flaws

One important rule for the EIC Accelerator Questions and Answers (Q&A) session is to not display critical flaws. This has been elaborated in earlier parts of the guide and it is relating to every time the interviewees are caught off-guard, have no answer or are unable to refute a negative point (i.e. you are not innovative).

While the jury will be perfectly polite and respectful, there might be one or two jury members that have already decided that the project is insufficient and are finding fault in everything they hear. As a result, they might swing the opinion of the other jury members which will, inevitably, lead to a rejection.

Address the Concern

This is one of the greatest tools for an EIC Accelerator pitch interview. It is too easy to neglect the concern behind a question and just answer it on a surface level which can lead to a dissatisfied questioner or, in the worst case, unwanted follow-up questions. The idea of this tool is to ask yourself: “What concern does the jury member have to ask this question?” And to then address that as opposed to the question being asked. One could say that you are exchanging the posed question with what you deem to be the real question.

Pitfall Answers

Answers can be worse than questions because, instead of addressing the original concern, they can create many additional concerns.

Why? Because an answer can unwillingly reveal ignorance, weaknesses or present an attack vector for critical jury members. It is impossible to prepare for every single question since, while some will be foreseeable, the majority will be unpredictable. This is especially true for follow-up questions since, while the starting question can be obvious, the two or three follow-ups afterwards can be entirely unpredictable since they can have little to no relationship with the original question.

This can be viewed as a chaotic system where prediction is possible in the early stages but becomes increasingly difficult and eventually impossible the further the system progresses. An example of this is the Double Pendulum which can be predicted in its earliest swings but rapidly becomes too chaotic to make any accurate predictions.

To avoid pitfall answers, the strategy should be to (1) control the topics of the conversation as much as possible and (2) avoid giving any answers that can render the jury members less confident in the team or project.

Zoom Out

While someone like Elizabeth Holmes (former CEO of the disgraced blood-testing BioTech company Theranos) is a poor role model for entrepreneurs due to her history of deception and ongoing fraud trial, she was able to demonstrate that you can raise $1.4B in financing without providing any real answers, technology or even allowing due diligence.

Being the technical lead of a BioTech company as a college drop-out was clearly a warning sign but she would have likely excelled in marketing or investor-relations positions since she accomplished what most companies cannot. There are many excellent companies that are applying for €2M under the EIC and are rejected while Holmes raised 700-times that amount without as much as a proof of concept.

Even though the source of this insight literally has blood on its hands, there are lessons to be learned. The way she emotionally directed conversations exceeds the scope of this guide (i.e. slowed speech, staring to trigger a change of topic, very long answers without specifics) but the simple tactic she often used was this: Zooming out.

When asked a specific question on how the technology worked, she would elaborate on her vision. When asked about her customers, she would expand on what she wants to bring to the world. She would always zoom out and take a birds-eye or distant view.

While this approach should not be used by any entrepreneur as a default response (i.e. Pfizer and other consultancies caught her very early on during their due diligence), there is one part that builds trust with investors that many DeepTech companies lack. It is the confidence and the great vision.

This should be used sparingly but it can be essential if the jury feels like the team lacks the ambition to implement a project or see it through until the end. It can also be a great last resort in case the interviewee is stuck and has to answer a difficult question on something not entirely relevant to the project or catches the team off-guard.

Controlling the Follow-Up

A simple but effective habit in answering questions is to carefully consider what a follow-up question could be. If someone responds to my question on the financials and mentions low-profit margins then I will follow up on it. If someone, instead of the profit margins, mentions the year-by-year growth potential of the company then I would be inclined to follow up on that.

The point of controlling the follow-up question is to only mention things that you want to be asked about. The question will, by design, ask for information on a certain topic but the interviewee can decide which angle to take. This especially goes for the ending of the sentence. If one says “We do A and B but we currently mostly focus on C because C is very important” then it is more likely to get a follow-up question on C rather than A and B.

Being Self-Centered

Every company should have a balanced view of their competitors, industry trends or market threats but it can be a significant flaw to overly focus on them. Especially when it comes to startup’s in highly technical fields, there is often a sense of respect for other companies who are innovating in similar areas or for new technology trends that are unrelated to the applicant’s business.

No matter what the reason would be, if a company only has 35 minutes to convince an EIC jury to make a funding decision then the interviewees should refrain from overly focusing on other things. In fact, if a CEO were to praise their competitors and mention that they are “developing amazing technologies” and starts to describe them then this will likely be a poor use of the available time.

Every question has an underlying concern and it will never be “Is your competitor good at what they do?” but more likely be “Can you overcome competitive threats?”. While both questions have their topic in common, they will have very different answers. Whatever the question might be, the interviewee should lead it back to why the project is great.

Are you asked about the market? End with why you are perfectly positioned to enter or create it. Asked about competitors? Mention who they are and then elaborate on why you are better. Asked about your co-investors for the EIC Fund? Mention who they are and then highlight how further de-risking through the EIC is needed before they will invest.

Always bring the conversation back to what is beneficial to you.

The Confused Question

Every once in a while, a jury member will not be an expert on a certain technology but still ask a highly technical question. If this happens, there is a possibility that they have already misunderstood certain aspects of said technology but ask a follow-up question regardless. The interviewee has to always ask themselves: “Does their question reveal their ignorance on a certain subject?” If the answer is yes, then one must take a step back and first explain the concept again but in the simplest terms possible.

This part is critical since highly technical founders with not only a high level of expertise in a scientific field but also exclusive knowledge regarding the innovation will often be too far ahead to understand the viewpoint of someone entirely new to the field. Just answering the question and highlighting the benefits of the technology might not be enough which is why a simplified explanation is in order.

Practise “Dumb” Questions

The EIC jury members are intelligent and highly competent professionals with a great deal of experience. Still, one should prepare for questions that a startup might not view as relevant or simply disregards as unimportant. This can be a question on the safety of using AI if the application is simplistic or the gender balance among the engineering team. There can be many questions that can catch the interviewees off-guard so it is beneficial to practise them.

Prepare Standard Answers

There are many questions that will certainly be asked (i.e. business model, traction, non-bankability, risk, …). While it is not possible to know all questions in advance, one should script out the answers to questions that have a high likelihood of being posed. The same is true for all questions that have been revealed as critical during the practice sessions.

Demeanour of the Answering Person

Depending on the personality of the interviewees, there can be issues that should be addressed in advance. These can be dismissive body language, disengagement from the conversation (i.e. turning away, sighing) or a generally combative nature when faced with criticism.

While the pitch preparation will not be comprehensive enough to change such long-standing habits, it is beneficial to avoid negative body language during the interview.

Short Answers to Pre-Empt Interruptions

A general rule for the EIC Accelerator Q&A is:

There will be more questions than answers.

Often, answers are too elaborate or aim to explain too many things before getting to the point. This will prompt the questioners to keep interrupting and ask follow-up questions because, while the pitch time limit of 10 minutes can be stressful for the interviewees, the Q&A time limit of 35 minutes can be stressful for the jury.

The interviewees are only focusing on presenting their project but the jury members have the difficult job of making a significant funding decision within only 45 minutes. If answers are too long and never get to the actual question then this might frustrate the jury members – something that should be avoided. If you are asked a specific question then answer it briefly first and only then elaborate.

If you are interrupted while you elaborate then you have at least given a short but precise answer in the beginning already. If the brief answer were to be missing and you are interrupted by a follow-up then this would mean that the question was not answered at all.

The Process

Have fun. While being nervous (or excited) is normal in a stressful situation, one should always remember to have some enjoyment for the process. One must have the attitude: “I am happy to explain what we do to an interested audience.” While the jury will heavily assess the technology and suitability of the project for the EIC, it will also be screening the team and its motivation. Both aspects can make or break a funding decision which is why developing some natural enthusiasm is essential.

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

Gender Equality Targets in the Age of Gender Identification (EIC Accelerator)

March 14, 2021 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) is a competitive funding program by the European Commission (EC) and has always been heavily affected by European Union (EU) policies. Examples for this are the requirements to meet sustainability targets, address societal challenges and other recent developments such as the Green Deal and strict gender equity goals (read: EIC Accelerator 2021 Work Program).

Gender Equity Targets

Especially the latter has been strongly advertised by the European Innovation Council (EIC) and has proven to be very beneficial for female entrepreneurs (read: Being a Female Entrepreneur) since their normal funding rates of under 5% were effectively increased to 35% or higher (read: EIC Impact Report).

Such a strictly followed target has a tremendous impact since a female Chief Executive Officer (CEO) will have a slight but important advantage over a male CEO which can, due to the tight competition at the EIC Accelerator interviews, make the difference between being funded successfully and being rejected (read: EIC Pitch Week).

This not only affects the startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) applying for grant financing in the EU but is also impacting the focus of professional writers and consultancies since female CEO’s who are excellent and have a great project now have a lower risk profile than their male counterparts if all other variables are matched.

Unfortunately, this special advantage for women, in addition to the newly introduced coaching support for female entrepreneurs, might be shorter-lived than anticipated.

EU Definitions

In the past, the designation of the CEO’s gender in the Funding & Tenders Portal was optional and could be omitted since undisclosed was presented as an alternative option.

In 2021, the newest Horizon Europe grant proposal template changes this and asks their applicants to select their gender among the choices of male, female and non-binary. While, previously, the selection of undisclosed was effectively equal to choosing male when it comes to the evaluation process, it is difficult to imagine that choosing non-binary will have the same effect.

Gender identification and non-binary genders have emerged in recent years with more political power and influence than gender equality and feminism itself which is why this new option might radically change the EIC’s female CEO targets over the coming decade. After all, in today’s times, policies and political opinions are only one viral social media campaign away from being changed overnight.

In an official report by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers from June 2020, the term non-binary is defined as follows:

“An umbrella term for people whose gender identity is not encompassed or represented by ‘man’ or ‘woman’. Non-binary identities are varied and can include people who identify with some aspects of binary identities, while others reject them entirely.”

By simply introducing this option to the evaluation process of a financial instrument such as the EIC Accelerator, the EU might have opened the door for exploitation since gender identity is explicitly not based on biological sex or the time spent within a certain identity. To clarify this, the EC defines gender identity as follows:

“A person’s gender identity is defined as each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of their own gender, whether as a man, a woman or non-binary, which may or may not correspond to the sex assigned at birth.”

When the beneficial treatment of female CEO’s was announced, it was also made clear that the respective person would have to be in the CEO position for a longer timeframe and not be elected CEO just for the purpose of the EIC Accelerator submission. This covered the obvious weakness of the gender-targets and allowed female CEO’s to receive the benefits as they were intended.

Non-Binary Applicants

By including non-binary genders and by defining gender as, in the EC’s words, a “deeply felt […] experience” without limiting the time spent within that identity, the EC could be opening the door to a reshaping of the playing field. If the status of non-binary becomes equal to the status of a female due to political pressures, then there could be an incentive for all-male CEO’s to designate themselves as non-binary since being non-binary does not need to come alongside a certain lifestyle, look or behaviour.

In fact, being non-binary is subject to no restrictions or societal norms by design.

Conclusion

Of course, such a development is pure speculation and most male CEO’s would have no interest in explaining their gender in front of a jury even if a multi-million grant is at stake. Although, to think that no CEO would make that decision even after a previous rejection is unlikely as well if any critical jury question can simply be dismissed by saying “I would prefer not to discuss my gender identity“.

It will be interesting to see how the EC is handling this new development since balancing a culture of inclusion and social rights with clear-cut targets such as gender equity might not be possible in the long-term. When it comes to democratic government organisations, political pressure will always win over old policies which means that excellent female entrepreneurs should seize their opportunity to apply to the EIC Accelerator now as long as high funding rates of 35% are still enforced.

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

The 2021 EIC Accelerator Work Programme and Newest Updates (SME Instrument Phase 2)

March 7, 2021 stephanseglerphd

Update 1: The EIC Accelerator Work Programme 2021 was published on March 17^th 2021.

Update 2: The EIC has presented the latest news in a YouTube leak which reveals information not found in the published Work Programme.

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity financing) is being re-invented and is transitioning from its initial pilot phase into a fully-fledged investment arm of the European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC). With the launch of the EIC Accelerator in 2021 having been announced for March 18^th 2021, this article discusses the most important aspects of the new Work Programme (read: EIC Accelerator Introduction).

The new Work Programme includes a different application process, additional evaluation steps and significant technical changes that are relevant for both Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) and startups as well as for professional writers and consultants focusing on preparing successful grant applications (read: Hiring a Consultant).

While the official template for the proposal documents is not published yet, conclusions regarding their set-up can be drawn from the evaluation criteria themselves. All information given in this article is still preliminary but is expected to accurately reflect how the EIC Accelerator will look like under Horizon Europe (2021-2027).

1. General Changes

1.1 Open Calls vs. Strategic Challenges

The EIC Accelerator will follow the previous SME Instrument’s strategy of imposing certain topic restrictions on applicants whereas all applicants will remain eligible for Open Calls but only select projects can apply to the Strategic Challenges. Accordingly, each funding arm will receive its own budget and be subject to specific guidelines with respect to the types of companies that are selected as well as their impact on the EU’s key policy targets.

1.2 Scoring & Ranking System

While the EIC Pathfinder and the EIC Transition will still include scoring and ranking systems, the EIC Accelerator will entirely omit such evaluation methods and solely rely on YES/NO gradings for every step. As discussed in a previous article (read: Analyzing Success Rates for Each Step), this might lead to a non-transparent evaluation process whereas rankings will have to be established internally since this is the only way of controlling the number of beneficiaries.

If there were truly neither thresholds nor rankings then there would likely be an excess of applications successfully progressing to the third evaluation step since the previous EIC Accelerator instalment already saw 30+% of all companies reaching the quality threshold of 13. Only a subsequent ranking process was able to reduce that number to a manageable amount for the interview stage.

1.3 UK Participation

After Brexit, the UK will participate in the EIC Accelerator grant but will not be eligible for equity financing (read: The United Kingdom under Horizon Europe). This, of course, is not to the detriment of UK companies since non-dilutive grants are increasingly sought after and there is no additional risk of receiving an equity-counter-offer that would replace the requested grant.

2. The Application Documents

2.1 Step 1: The Short Application

This first stage will require the preparation of a 5-pager to summarize the project in written form, a 3-minute pitch video and the conventional pitch deck which will later be used for the Step 3 interview.

≥ 5-Pager: The 5-pager does not currently have an official proposal template yet but conclusions can be drawn from the Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) criteria in the newest EIC Accelerator work packages (not shown here). The document will likely focus on the Excellence and Impact of the technology with very broad questions regarding its key aspects and why the EU should be interested in the project (see DARPA’s Heilmeier Catechism). The Implementation will receive less attention and only address the quality of the team and the overall risk level of the project (read: Assessing an EIC Accelerator Project).

The EU has additionally given hints at the 5-pager template through its public tender for an Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven writing support tool which further illuminates the direction it will take. All in all, the 5-pager should be viewed as a compressed version of the previous full application with a stronger focus on being impressive rather than being detailed or feasible (read: Identifying a Broad Vision).

≥ Pitch Video: The 3-minute pitch video will likely have no restrictions and give full creative freedom to the applicants (read: Pitch Video Production) but it should be treated as a project pitch that is addressing all criteria rather than an advertisement (read: Pitch Video Resources).

≥ Pitch Deck: The pitch deck will likely follow the exact same structure as the previous installations of the Step 3 interviews (read: Pitch Deck Creation).

2.2 Step 2: The Full Application

Once Step 1 is passed, the applicants will be invited to submit a full application to the evaluators which will likely be a 20-30 page document that includes the business plan, financials, work packages as well as annexes that contain information on the company (read: EU Work Packages).

2.3 Step 3: The Remote or In-Person Interview

This step will follow the same structure as previous interviews (read: Preparing for an Interview & The Biggest Mistakes).

3. The Application Process

The application process will likely see great changes with the introduction of an online tool supported by an AI-interface similar to web-based word processors, a re-invented Funding and Tenders Portal as well as the introduction of freezing periods for unsuccessful applicants. It is evident that the EIC has put great thought into increasing the quality of applications but also into filtering out low-quality projects early.

3.1 AI Tool

Similar to GoogleDocs, this web-interface is meant to be used for the writing of the proposal and should give useful assessments and guidelines to support the process. The exact details and its release date are not clear yet but it could be a valuable way of providing immediate feedback to low-quality applications.

3.2 Freezing Periods

≥ Two Attempts: The general approach is to give rejected companies a second attempt while they will be blocked for 12 months from further submissions if they cannot succeed in a respective evaluation Step on their second try. The rules are more complex when it comes to the rejections in Step 3 but all applicants should assume that two attempts are all they will have available and that no submission should be wasted.

Consultants and professional writers often receive inquiries from companies who have applied to the EIC Accelerator on their own but failed, prompting them to seek support from an expert. This was always a great option for startups because there was no risk in preparing an application in-house since professionals could still be hired down the road (read: Should you apply on your Own? & Getting Good at Grant Writing).

Unfortunately, this is currently changing since the risk of failing is now associated with being blocked from any further applications for at least one year and maybe even indefinitely when it comes to a particular company or project. It is expected that many applicants will now seek professional help before even applying on their own to minimize their risk while there could also be a large number of unsuccessful companies seeking out writing support with one out of two rejections already received (read: EIC Accelerator Consulting Industry).

≥ Virgin Projects: Since such freezing periods are a new concept, there will likely be a new focus among professional writers and consultants on virgin projects which have not applied to the EIC Accelerator yet and have a lower risk for rejection. This is expected to become a major factor since success-fees and -rates are key for consultancies while investing time and resources into a project with only one remaining attempt can become an unreasonable risk.

Undoubtedly, the latter risk consideration will prompt consultancies to adjust their pricing model specifically for one-time EIC Accelerator rejectees. As with everything, good intentions can backfire and the EIC’s radical changes to the evaluation process, depending on how they will unfold, could end up harming the startups and SME’s they aim to support.

4. The Evaluation Process

Without scoring, without a transparent ranking system and with automated AI-tools, the evaluation process will change drastically. In the past, the pool of evaluators used for the assessment of applications has frequently faced criticism but the new installation of the EIC Accelerator might mitigate this depending on how the changes will be implemented. One major improvement is the introduction of concrete feedback for rejected applicants, although its exact nature is unknown at this point.

4.1 Step 1

Two evaluators will decide, unanimously, if the application is approved or rejected. If their opinions differ, two new evaluators will be added and the application will be successful if only one of them approves all evaluation criteria. This means that a proposal can win Step 1 if the result is 2/2 or if it is 2/4, provided the approvals are given for all evaluation criteria.

4.2 Step 2

Three evaluators will assess all criteria as in the previous EIC Accelerator installation. They will now also gain access to automated data analysis tools to cross-reference metrics and collect relevant data but the details for this AI tool are not known yet.

4.3 Step 3

6 jurors will evaluate the pitch and have access to all previous applications and feedback. They can also suggest lower grant amounts to be offered in case TRL8+ activities are detected or make a counter-offer consisting of equity financing but they are unable to provide more funding than has been requested (read: Technology Readiness Levels & How the EU Funds TRL’s).

5. Strategic Challenges (Topics)

≥ Outside of the open calls, the newly introduced topics will focus on (1) the green deal, (2a) digital technologies and (2b) health care.

≥ For (1) the Green Deal, 50% of companies invited to the Step 3 pitch have to address (a) batteries and energy stage, (b) green hydrogen and (c) renovation (read: A Proposal Narrative). For (2a) digital technologies and (2b) health care, 40% of interviewees have to address each sub-topic.

≥ Open calls and specific topics will be available in parallel which means that companies have to decide which call they apply to.

5.1 The Green Deal Strategic Challenge (1)

The Green Deal will aim to target the following environmental goals in a similar fashion as the dedicated cut-off in May 2020 (read: The Green Deal EIC Accelerator):

Climate mitigation
Clean, affordable and secure energy
Clean industry & circular economy
Efficient building and renovating
Sustainable and smart mobility
Fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system’s
Preserving and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity
Zero pollution and a toxin-free environment

Specifically, the following technologies and areas are sought after under the 2021 EIC Accelerator Strategic Challenges for the Green Deal:

Batteries and Energy Storage: Strategic battery value chain • critical raw materials • recycling • chemical as well as physical storage (including ultracapacitors) • stationary and transport applications.
Green Hydrogen: Produce and store renewable hydrogen • different scales • centralized to on-demand • stationary and transport applications.
Renovation: Accelerate the growth of the renovation market • energy-efficient buildings • innovative technologies • financial schemes or business models.
Low-carbon Industry: De-carbonisation of industries • electrification • circularity • industrial symbiosis • industrial processes • carbon capture storage • digitisation of industrial processes.

5.2 The Digital Technology Strategic Challenge (2a)

≥ Digital technologies: Information and communications technology (ICT) • advanced high-performance computing • edge computing • quantum technologies • cybersecurity • artificial intelligence • block-chain • cloud infrastructure technologies • Internet of Things (IoT).

5.3 The Healthcare Strategic Challenge (2b)

≥ Healthcare technologies: AI-driven diagnostics • point-of-care (POC) diagnostics • cell and gene therapy (esp. cancer) • novel biomarkers for clinical prognosis • patient stratification/monitoring • bioprocessing 4.0 (digitalisation) • healthcare intelligence services • e-health solutions.

6. Ambitions to Control the Outcome

While the evaluation of all EIC Accelerator applicants is expected to be fair and prioritize the Excellence of the project, it is undeniable that there are policies in place that will fix the outcome. These are coming in the form of gender targets, societal impacts and related EU political agendas (read: EU Policies).

≥ Gender Outcomes: 40% all EIC Accelerator interviewee’s in Step 3 of the evaluation process must have female Chief Executive Officers (CEO) while 35% of all funded businesses must meet this criterion (read: Why it’s Great to Be a Woman). To facilitate this, special coaching will be given to female founders and the pool of evaluators, while 40% are already female, will be expanded to meet a 50% female share.

Considering that, without outcome-interventions by the EC, only <5% of beneficiaries had female CEO’s, this new target is an exceptional change but it is not clear how exactly the first two evaluation steps are affected by this Step 3 quota (read: The EIC Accelerator Performance Report).

≥ Sustainable Development: Amongst other targets, the EIC wants to support impact-oriented companies out of which 90% have to address sustainable development goals such as the Green Deal or similar targets. It is not clear how this focus will affect the EIC Accelerator.

≥ Geographic Diversity: A staggering change to the Step 3 pitch is that each EU member state and each associated country has to be represented in the interview stage with a number that is proportionate to the total number of applicants in earlier steps. This means that, for the first time, the EIC Accelerator is imposing geographic restrictions on its beneficiaries. This can be a double-edged sword since it has long been shown that some countries easily meet the 13-score funding threshold (i.e. 50% of applicants) while other countries have a more difficult time (i.e. 10%).

Countries that prioritize quantity over quality will be unfairly rewarded while countries that prioritize quality are being punished. It is still unclear at this point how strictly this rule will be enforced (read: Pre-Requisites for an EIC Accelerator Application).

7. Technical Changes

7.1 Coaching

≥ 3 days of coaching will be provided to all successful Step 1 applicants but at the costs of €1,000 per coaching day for the EC. The coaches will likely be external contractors and it is not clear how their experience could contribute to the preparation of the Step 2 application or to the practice of a successful Step 3 pitch.

7.2 Seal of Excellence (SOE)

≥ SOE’S are awarded based on the Impact and Excellence criteria while the Implementation (i.e. risk-level and need for EU support) will be the determining factor to decide if the project is funded or if it is rejected (read: Evaluation Summary Report Analysis).

7.3 Applicants

≥ Applicants can now, for the first time, be natural persons instead of only being Value Added Tax (VAT)-registered companies as long as an SME or Small-Mid Cap is formed prior to signing the EIC Accelerator contract. Of course, the natural person has to be a citizen of the EU or of an associated country (read: Associated Countries).

7.4 Equity

≥ Next to direct equity investments by the EIC Fund in financing rounds initiated by the SME’s themselves (read: Inside Look into EIC Fund), convertible notes and other debt-related funding can be provided to beneficiaries. It is also finally clear that the obscure 30% co-financing of the EIC Accelerator grant can be financed through a parallel equity investment-request, thereby requiring no existing funding sources or revenues to fill the gap.

≥ Direct equity applications without the request for grant support are now possible for applicants although the evaluation and proposal submission will differ.

≥ Equity components can also be postponed by first opting for a grant application (i.e. grant-first) and later re-applying directly for equity-support.

7.5 The Pitch Video

≥ This document will likely be submitted through a link since the cloud storage-needs and the requirement of government institutions to store files long-term would exceed existing capacities. One important repercussion of this decision is that, if startups can self-host their videos, enforcing a 3-minute restriction is extremely difficult since it is not possible to have an automated restriction as it exists for PDF page-limitations (read: Pitch Video Types).

The fairest way of implementing this would be to have direct file uploads to the EU platform and an automated time-trimmer to assure that all applicants only have 3 minutes to work with. If the EIC is using an AI-tool for the proposal development then introducing cloud video-hosting is only a minor challenge.

7.6 Timelines & Feedback

≥ The Step 1 call will be open continuously and have no specified deadline. It will approximately take 4-6 weeks to receive feedback on the Step 1 5-pager whereas both successful and rejected applications will receive comments from the evaluators. For the Step 2 full application, the feedback is expected to be received 5-6 weeks from the cut-off date.

A 4-6 week feedback cycle for Step 1 does seem underwhelming since it is supposed to be a screening Step and not act as a full assessment. The estimated timing will potentially be different in practice and could be as fast as 2-3 weeks.

≥ Face-to-face interviews will be 8-9 weeks after the Step 2 cut-offs (read: Deadlines) while 6 jury members will be responsible for the questions and assessments. EIC Fund associates can also join the pitch but they will not be in a position to ask questions or influence the evaluation result. The interview results will be ready within 2-3 weeks.

7.7 Reimbursement Advances

≥ For short innovation life-cycles, SME’s can apply for a reimbursement advance that matches the grant condition but has to be paid back. With a 70% maximum contribution of €2.5M, the EU can provide financing that has to either be paid back (interest-free) or is converted into equity after a certain time period. The exact nature of the funding opportunity will be published soon but it will likely be at the discretion of the jury members who can directly assess the innovation life-cycle and time-to-market to make a recommendation.

7.8 Budget

≥ Initial communications by the EC suggest that there were meant to be 3 cut-offs for Step 2 in 2021 but they then were reduced to two deadlines. The budget is already set and will be distributed across all topics. As of today, the total budget for 2021 is €1.109BN while the open calls have a €602M budget and the strategic calls share a €507M budget. Considering two parallel calls, namely the open call and the strategic challenges, this would give each cut-off an approximate budget of €554M which is significantly higher than even the COVID-relief and Green Deal cut-offs in 2020 (read: COVID and Green Deal 2020).

7.9 Inclusion of Small-Mid Caps

≥ Historically, the SME Instrument and the EIC Accelerator have focused on SME’s, exclusively, but this will change under Horizon Europe. While SME’s are subject to specific size-restrictions that include the number of employees (max. 250), turnover (max. €50M) and balance sheets (max. €43M), Small Mid Caps can exceed these amounts. While restricted to only equity investments under the EIC Accelerator, companies can be 499-employees in size.

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

An Inside Look into the EIC Accelerator Fund and its Equity Financing (SME Instrument)

February 5, 2021 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity financing) is a highly competitive program that is slowly evolving into a fully fletched startup financing initiative (read: EIC Accelerator Introduction). Unfortunately, the latest developments regarding its equity financing have led to confusion and criticism as it was expressed in a recent Politico article.

The first startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) who have successfully obtained EIC Accelerator financing under the blended funding program in 2019 had to wait for over a year to receive their first equity payment which means that the funding was promised but only provided with a significant delay while some companies are still waiting for their first payment.

This, of course, can be detrimental to many businesses that have passed the exceedingly difficult evaluation process and managed to win the EIC Accelerator grant against odds of 1-5%. With the 2021 template seeing the introduction of even more steps to the process (i.e. a small application and a video pitch) and more restrictions (i.e. freezing periods upon rejection), many applicants are requesting additional clarifications before even considering to apply for the blended financing program (read: Proposed 2021 Process)

To inform applicants as well as professional grant writers and consultancies, Stéphane Ouaki, the chair of the investment committee of the EIC Fund, has been answering the most critical questions on the TechEU Podcast regarding the internal process of equity financing under the European Innovation Council (EIC) Fund as well as the remote evaluation performed by the European Agency for SME’s (EASME). This article presents a short summary of the key takeaways of the conversation.

Grant vs. Equity

> While the grant funding process is fast and has been perfected over the past decade, the equity financing is still very new for the European Commission (EC) since it is a government body and not a private investor (read: Grant vs. Equity).

> The grant financing is usually provided within one or two months through an initial upfront payment but the equity financing must undergo additional due diligence which should last 6 months on average but can also last 9-12 month in some cases. Comment: This could likely be accelerated significantly if the EIC presents a list of required materials ahead of time so that 80% of files can be uploaded as soon as the equity financing is awarded.

Due Diligence and Timing

> The equity payment is not provided in a stand-alone fashion like the grant payment but is envisioned to be supplementary to a financing round with other investors which has to be planned by the company itself. Comment: This means that, if there are no financing rounds with other investors planned, the EIC Fund will likely not invest. It also means that the financing is delayed depending on the timing of the next financing round.

> If the applicant has been successfully awarded the EIC Accelerator blended financing and coincidentally also performs a financing round at that time, the EIC Fund can directly invest in the startup, provided the due diligence has been completed.

> The full equity financing will be paid in 2-3 separate trenches in most cases.

> If the due diligence for the equity financing has a positive result but no financing round is in progress, the EIC Fund can immediately invest through a convertible note which averages 50% of the agreed-upon equity financing. Less is given through the convertible note if the due diligence deems the company to be sufficiently financed.

> Since blended financing always includes a grant component that is paid in a much faster manner, no company should be in financial difficulties once the EIC Accelerator has been granted.

Behind the Scenes

> The advisory board of the EIC Fund is having weekly meetings and is working hard on making the equity process as smooth as possible but mistakes will be made throughout this pilot phase.

> If the company performs a financing round with non-EU investors then this will not negatively impact the EIC’s equity investment.

> The due diligence can directly impact the granted equity financing whereas the amounts could be reduced or entirely cancelled if the EIC deems the beneficiary to not fit their criteria any longer.

> The EIC can place a private industry representative in the company board if it deems this to be necessary but there is currently no infrastructure available to facilitate this process at scale.

> Equity applications have not been prioritized over grants even though many rumours and experiences might suggest otherwise. If equity financing was used to fund grant-applicants then this was directly related to the Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) of the funded activities (read: TRL and TRL Funding). Comment: The TRL designations are often up for interpretation and it is possible that TRL’s were effectively used to funnel more applicants towards equity financing due to limited grant budgets.

Comments on the Politico Article

> The complaints expressed in the Politico article have not reached the EIC Fund representatives. Comment: This is understandable since business-making or -breaking money is involved and complaints will only make things worse – not better.

> Complaints regarding the due diligence and long delays are likely stemming from a comparison to the EU’s smooth grant approval process which is much simpler and faster. Comment: Saying that startups are „used to the smooth grant process“ and that this is the reason for complaints is unlikely since many funded companies are first-time EU-applicants. Even though they can directly compare grant and equity proceedings through the blended financing program, they are more likely to be used to a private due diligence process and compare the EU’s performance to that.

> Companies who were awarded the equity financing in the highly competitive process expected to receive the promised awards from the EIC Fund but were told to find other investors first. The EIC Fund’s position is that companies have to be proactive in raising investments while the EIC Accelerator beneficiaries were shocked that they did not receive the funding after having been promised a specific amount. Comment: Both are correct but the EIC should have been transparent about this from the very beginning since the way it described equity investments in its guidelines, in hindsight, was deceptive.

Vague Answers

> The question regarding the discrepancy between the grant and the equity due diligence did not receive a direct answer but it is an excellent question since both are government funds and should face similar scrutiny. The answer detailed how the due diligence for equity financing is more in-depth but it does not clarify why the grant payout is possible without it. Comment: Since equity stakes, long term associations with the EU and the potential placements of board members are involved, it is evident why a due diligence process would be necessary. In addition, the mentioned ranking system for grant evaluations performed by EASME will likely disappear in 2021 due to the absence of a scoring system. This can make the grant evaluation process less transparent and likely more ‘bumpy’ as well.

> As the last interview question, the criteria of non-bankability was further investigated. The interviewer simply asked if the EIC is looking for success cases or for non-bankability cases as their first priority (read: EU Buzzwords). The answer is: Success cases. Comment: This answer was given in a very vague manner and evaluators, either remote or in the pitch jury, might not share this priority.

Conclusion

In summary, the negative experiences of the companies that have applied for equity financing under the EIC Accelerator all stem from a lack of communication from the side of the EIC but this is understandable since the funding is called the ‘EIC Accelerator Pilot’ for a reason. The governing bodies are still in the learning process and the 2021 version of the EIC Accelerator under Horizon Europe (2021-2027) will likely remedy most of the reported issues.

Still, the EC and EIC clearly neglected their responsibility to explain the nature of the funding ahead of time. Even though equity guidelines were available specifically for this purpose, they did not include any of the critical information provided above.

Moving forward, companies have to be aware of the timing of payments, the ongoing scrutiny (i.e. pulling of funds can potentially happen at any time), the delays caused by a slow due diligence process and of the EIC’s preference to only invest in existing or planned financing rounds. The advisory board and decision-makers of the EIC Fund have learned valuable lessons in this initial pilot phase of the EIC Accelerator and are expecting to launch a more transparent and smooth version of the program soon.

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

Why It Could Be Beneficial to Apply Early to the 2021 EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument)

January 6, 2021 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity financing) will be reinstated in 2021 under Horizon Europe (2021-2027) with an updated evaluation process (read: Proposed 2021 Process). This will likely present new challenges to the evaluation procedure as lead by European Agency for SME’s (EASME) and the European Innovation Council (EIC) but it can also present improved opportunities for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME).

Consultants and professional writers should be aware that such a new process can artificially tilt the success chances of grant applications since a continuously open call (i.e. Step 1) can lead to a bottleneck in Step 2 which makes the timing of the application essential. The following presents a list of considerations and assumptions that can impact the evaluation process:

Open deadline: Since Step 1 will be continuously open, each applicant that applies early and receives a YES will have a guaranteed spot for the Step 2 evaluation
YES or NO grading only: Since there is no numeric scoring, it is likely that proposals will not be ranked which means that every YES will have to be invited to Step 2 (i.e. no retrospective rejection due to rankings)
Limited spots for Step 2: If the EIC and EASME realize in April or May 2021 (i.e. the next deadline for Step 2 is in June 2021 – see Cut-Off) that there are too many YES gradings for Step 1 already, this might significantly impact the success chances of late Step 1 applicants.

The above reasoning is highly speculative but it is likely that the new evaluation process will undergo an equilibration phase during which the thresholds need to be adjusted in some way. In the past, a score of 13 acted as the official funding threshold while the unofficial threshold (i.e. 13.5 to 14.1) was determined through rankings enabled by the scoring system. Without such a scoring system to determine the rankings, the EIC has no way of limiting the numbers of applications other than to increase the strictness of the YES/NO evaluations dynamically which can lead to unfair results.

Assuming that the EASME will not, in secret, employ an internal ranking system with scores (i.e. without communicating this to applicants) then the same logic would apply to Step 2. A single evaluation round of the full step 2 proposals could lead to an excess of applications for step 3 and, since there is no ranking, the Step 2 evaluation process must be repeated but more strictly. What strictly would mean in this case is not clear but it seems like a less transparent method of evaluating proposals compared to the 2020 process.

Conclusion

It is impossible to estimate the impact of the 2021 EIC Accelerator grant application process but this uncertainty could be mitigated through clear communication from the EASME and the EIC as to how certain thresholds are set and enforced (i.e. by providing real-time updates on YES and NO counts and thresholds). This extends to clear communication if evaluation steps are repeated internally in case applications exceed the capacities for subsequent evaluation steps. This is especially useful if an applicant can choose less competitive EIC Accelerator topics or if the timing of the application is not fixed (i.e. postponing an application to avoid the freezing period).

In summary, it could be beneficial for applicants to apply to Step 1 of the EIC Accelerator in 2021 as soon as possible since an early YES will guarantee a spot to the Step 2 evaluation while this might be significantly more difficult the later one applies.

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 2020, Horizon Europe, Phase 2, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

How to Select an EU Grant Financing Program such as the EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument) – Part 3

December 28, 2020 stephanseglerphd

This article is a continuation of Part 2 and describes a list of considerations to be made by startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) that seek to raise grant financing from the European Union (EU). One of these options is the EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) by the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Commission (EC) which is highly suitable for innovative companies and has a strong support network of professional writers and expert consultancies (contact a professional writer here).

8. Country Restrictions

Which countries can apply?

Country restrictions have to be considered whenever they could be applicable. As an example, there are funding programs by the EU where only a certain country can apply while others are open to non-EU countries (i.e. Tunesia, Israel, Ukraine) such as most Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe programs (read: Countries for the EIC Accelerator).

There can also be specific restrictions imposed due to special circumstances such as Brexit. Since the United Kingdoms (UK) participation in Horizon Europe was unclear throughout 2020 and 2019, UK applicants were only allowed to apply for grant financing under the EIC Accelerator but not blended financing since the EIC did not want to take equity stakes in foreign entities. Such potential issues have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

9. Submission Process

How is the submission process for the grant applicants?

The requirements for grant applications can vary greatly and have to be assessed based on their submission types, evaluation process and document requirements. Such variations have to be explored for each case but the general scopes for grant application can be summarised as follows:

Submission type: Online submissions (i.e. document uploads) are possible in many cases but the submission to local contact points or federal government institutes can be required as well. The EIC Accelerator uses the Funding &Tenders Portal for fully digitized submissions (read: Financing Timeline).

Evaluation process: The evaluation process will vary depending on the type of evaluators, their numbers, backgrounds and general focus. The EIC Accelerator uses a remote pool of evaluators via the European Agency for SME’s (EASME) and in-person juries for the pitch interviews (read: Interview).

Document types: The document types that are requested under a grant, as defined by the official proposal template, will vary but a normal PDF document like a business plan or a research plan are a must in almost all cases. The EIC Accelerator additionally requests financial spreadsheets, a short summary, a video pitch and a pitch deck (read: 2021 Application Proces).

10. Local Support Networks

What local support is available for companies?

Support on a national level is well organized in the EU due to an abundance of SME contact points in key European areas. These can provide a strong support network and can provide resources that help in future applications. Such help might not be available for all grant opportunities especially if the applicant does not classify as an SME which needs to be assessed beforehand.

11. Available Consultancies

Are there many consultancies specialising in the filed?

Lastly, it is useful to assess the number of consultancies or experienced writers that are available for a specific grant so that each prospect applicant is able to have a variety of options to choose from when hiring such supporters. It can also be beneficial to assess if the consultancies are working with multiple grants so that a more suitable option can be chosen instead of the original one in case of a rejection or if a more thorough assessment warrants such a transition.

For the EIC Accelerator, there are a variety of available consultancies to choose from with varying business models and industry focus (read: Preparing an Application). To reach out to a professional writer or consultant, please use the following contact form.

Summary

When choosing an EU financing program, the following aspects should be considered:

Budget: How much is the total available budget and the financing per application?
Covered Costs: Are all costs covered or only a percentage?
Competitiveness: How high is the success rate?
Thematic Focus: What specific conditions do projects need to fulfil (i.e. innovation, Technology Readiness Levels, industry)?
Local Alternatives: Are there national funding projects available with easier accessibility?
Number of Submissions: How often can an applicant submit an application?
Single Applicant or Consortium: Is it a single-applicant program or exclusively for consortia?
Country Restrictions: What restrictions are imposed on applicants when it comes to their country of origin?
Submission Process: Is an online submission possible or a complex federal process?
Local Support Networks: Are there support networks available or resources for applicants (i.e. templates, proposal examples, annotated guidelines)?
Available Consultancies: Are expert consultancies and professional grant writers available for hire?

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

Proposed Application Process for the EIC Accelerator 2021 (SME Instrument Phase 2)

December 11, 2020 stephanseglerphd

Attention: A new article is available detailing the changes for the 2021 EIC Accelerator Work Program.

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity financing) will be reinstated in 2021 with a higher budget, a new structure and a different evaluation process. For startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME), it is important to be prepared for these changes and to understand what requirements will have to be met for the new templates and a successful EIC Accelerator grant submission.

The exact details of the process, as defined by the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Commission (EC), are not known yet but the general structure for an EIC Accelerator application will likely be similar to the following steps:

Step 1: Short Application & Pitch Video

Each project will begin with a short application that contains a proposal of only a few pages and also includes a pitch video that will likely focus on the founders, the innovation and the business model. The details of this step are not exactly known yet but it does add an extra layer of skill to proposal writing which is in the form of audio/video production and editing (read: Making a Video).

Depending on the restrictions of the video (i.e. what is allowed and what is not), its general competitiveness can vary greatly since larger companies with marketing departments and content creators would have a clear benefit over small DeepTech business that only employ technicians and developers. Restrictions imposed on the videos could level the plane field by disallowing the use of graphics and animations but such a process would be almost impossible to enforce by the remote evaluators.

In some way, this development is great for applicants since less effort is needed to apply for the first step while the final evaluation stage (i.e. the pitch interview in Brussels) is now already part of step 1 (i.e. the video). On the flip side, by adding another evaluation step to the process, applicants will likely have less confidence in the overall success of their application.

Step 2: Long Application

The next stage will likely be the conventional, long application which will be a detailed representation of the project, its business plan and the overall impact. Read: Visual Representation of a Proposal

Step 3: Jury Interview

The last step is expected to follow the same jury-interview model as the EIC Accelerator 2018-2020 while certain changes might be implemented as well. Read: Pitch Deck vs. Proposal

General Changes

Scoring System

Instead of providing Evaluation Summary Reports (ESR) with detailed scores between 1 and 15 as well as up to two decimals, the new EIC Accelerator in 2021 will likely use simple YES or NO gradings to assess each evaluation step. The exact details of this approach are not published yet but it will likely lead to a less transparent evaluation process and increase the perception of black box decision-making.

Freezing Periods

It is expected that freezing periods will be introduced to restrict the number of re-submissions. These can be complex depending on the stage of the initial rejection but it is anticipated that each applicant will at least have two opportunities to hand in a successful grant application.

Seal of Excellence (SoE)

SoE’s will likely remain part of the evaluation results but it is currently unknown how exactly they will be awarded since no scores are expected to be given.

Topics

Thematic topics with specific budgets and goals will be reintroduced as they have already been part of the SME Instrument in previous years. These topics will present parallel calls under the EIC Accelerator and each applicant can decide to what specific topic they want to apply to. Topics will likely vary greatly in competitiveness, evaluation and their budgets wich will make careful planning essential.

Conclusion

The new process aims to create a fairer evaluation and also reduce the work-load associated with the exceedingly larger numbers of incoming EIC Accelerator applications but it could lead to new and unforeseen problems. The number of companies receiving a YES in step 1 and 2 might exceed the capacity for the step 3 interviews since it has long been a reality that a large number of projects would reach the funding threshold (i.e. a score of 13) but had to be cut off.

If all companies that receive a YES in step 2 must be invited to an interview then this could lead to week-long evaluations that significantly overload the evaluations. If no scores are given but only a pre-defined number of applicants is making it towards step 3, then the evaluation process would be very non-transparent since it is unclear how the projects were ordered and on what basis since YES and NO should be the only criteria and not BETTER or WORSE.

At this stage, all applicants, consultants and professional writers will have to await the official publication of the EIC Accelerator 2021 Work Programme which will provide answers to the most pressing questions.

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

How to Interpret the Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) of an EIC Accelerator Application (SME Instrument) – Part 1

October 27, 2020 stephanseglerphd

The Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) provides the EIC Accelerator blended financing applicant (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity financing) with feedback regarding the proposal quality. While separating and grading the central sections of Impact, Excellence and Implementation, it gives additional scores on selected subcriteria (read: Using the ESR).

A professional writer or consultant is used to interpreting such documents but, for many startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) who are looking to resubmit a previously rejected application, it can be a difficult task.

The greatest drawback of the ESR is its lack of comments as part of the report. These are only provided for the pitch interview (i.e. step 2 of the evaluation process) but not for rejections in step 1 of the process (i.e. the written application). This will likely be changed under Horizon Europe (2021-2027) by the European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) but, without any useful comments, the EIC Accelerator applicants are in the dark with respect to the cause for the rejection.

Interpreting the Evaluation Summary Report (ESR)

The ESR’s structure does not match the official proposal template and the overlap of the individual sub-criteria can make reading the information rather difficult (i.e. a single criterion is used to score commercialisation, financials and scaling). As a result, interpreting the ESR is not as clear or informative as some would expect but it is still possible to gain some useful information from the overall document.

1. Overall EIC Accelerator Score

A successful EIC Accelerator grant proposal has a very high score but, for companies who have re-submitted unsuccessfully multiple times, reaching a great score can be elusive. With the maximum score being 15, the official threshold lying above 13 and the unofficial threshold being above 13.6, many applicants are in need of advice as to how to interpret the ESR and improve their score.

Assessing such a score just based on a single number is very difficult because the problem could lie in a variety of different areas. From experience, there are some areas that can be adjusted based on the general score but only in the broadest way.

Any score below 12 needs extensive work and it is likely that the project is either not innovative enough for the grant if the proposal is high in quality or the proposal needs serious reworking in order to improve its quality (i.e. improved and clearer writing, design, quantifications and explanations).

An application with a score between 12.5 and 13.5 is usually sufficiently high in quality from a writing perspective but it lacks certain details to break the unofficial evaluation threshold and to receive the pitch interview invitation. These detailed changes to be made are very specific and must be customized to each individual project but below is a shortlist of common flaws found in proposals of certain score margins.

2. Scores for Sections

The second scores to investigate are the scores for the three main EIC Accelerator sections, namely Impact, Excellence and Implementation. The graphic above shows the general average score per section which can provide insight into the balance of the proposal.

Impact

If the Impact section is below the other scores then the proposal has not properly addressed the commercial and peripheral factors of the annotated proposal template such as customer needs, market, commercialisation strategy, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), Freedom to Operate (FTO) and regulations. In addition, the European dimension could have been neglected which dampens the impact of the narrative (read: Visual Guide for an EIC Accelerator Application).

Excellence

With a low Excellence section, it is very likely that the product or service presented is not viewed as sufficiently innovative or the Technology Readiness Levels (TRL), the current stage of development or competing offers have not been presented in a clear manner. If the innovation is lacking then there is not much that can be done and it should be assured from the start that the innovation is suitable (read: Preparing an Application Internally and TRL for the EIC Accelerator).

Implementation

If the Implementation section is far below the other two then the work packages, further stages, tasks, team, partners, timing, budget or any other of the concrete development steps are insufficient. This might be due to a lack of clarification what the grant financing is used for, a lack of detail in the given tasks or major inconsistencies between different parts of the application (i.e non-bankability – read: EIC Accelerator Buzzwords).

Continuation

Part 2 of this article continues under the provided link.

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:

The SME Instrument Pre-2021

The 2021+ EIC Accelerator

Example of a Typical Case

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

Introduction

What To Practise (Improving Answers)

No Flaws

Address the Concern

Pitfall Answers

Zoom Out

Controlling the Follow-Up

Being Self-Centered

The Confused Question

Practise “Dumb” Questions

Prepare Standard Answers

Demeanour of the Answering Person

Short Answers to Pre-Empt Interruptions

The Process

Previous Articles

Gender Equity Targets

EU Definitions

Non-Binary Applicants

Conclusion

1. General Changes

1.1 Open Calls vs. Strategic Challenges

1.2 Scoring & Ranking System

1.3 UK Participation

2. The Application Documents

2.1 Step 1: The Short Application

2.2 Step 2: The Full Application

2.3 Step 3: The Remote or In-Person Interview

3. The Application Process

3.1 AI Tool

3.2 Freezing Periods

4. The Evaluation Process

4.1 Step 1

4.2 Step 2

4.3 Step 3

5. Strategic Challenges (Topics)

5.1 The Green Deal Strategic Challenge (1)

5.2 The Digital Technology Strategic Challenge (2a)

5.3 The Healthcare Strategic Challenge (2b)

6. Ambitions to Control the Outcome

7. Technical Changes

7.1 Coaching

7.2 Seal of Excellence (SOE)

7.3 Applicants

7.4 Equity

7.5 The Pitch Video

7.6 Timelines & Feedback

7.7 Reimbursement Advances

7.8 Budget

7.9 Inclusion of Small-Mid Caps

Grant vs. Equity

Due Diligence and Timing

Behind the Scenes

Comments on the Politico Article

Vague Answers

Conclusion

Conclusion

8. Country Restrictions

9. Submission Process

10. Local Support Networks

11. Available Consultancies

Summary

Step 1: Short Application & Pitch Video

Step 2: Long Application

Step 3: Jury Interview

General Changes

Scoring System

Freezing Periods

Seal of Excellence (SoE)