Tag Archives: EIC Accelerator results

The European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) provide €2.5 million in grants and €15 million in venture financing per startup or Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprise (SME).

This article discusses highlights from the 2022 impact report on the new EIC Accelerator program (grant and equity, with blended financing option).

1. The EIC Fund’s Mission

“In 2022, the EIC made a major development by establishing the EIC Fund as an investment vehicle for high risk, high-potential startups in their early stages of development.”

The EIC Fund is a great addition to the EIC’s portfolio of funding arms since it enables larger funding amounts and closer relationships with companies through ownership stakes, deep due diligence and board seats.

Unfortunately, it is currently not aligned with the needs of high-risk and early-stage startups due to many delays, a long backlog of unfunded companies spanning multiple years into the past and a distorted selection process that often abandons the idea of DeepTech (see Breaking the Rules).

2. Industries and the EIC’s Role

“Whether it’s the energy crisis, the food crisis, or the path towards economic resilience, the EIC is helping to find solutions to these deep societal challenges by identifying investment opportunities and catalysing private investments in deep tech startups that can scale in global markets.”

It is clear that many of the EIC Accelerator portfolio companies focus on very technical fields in the areas of health, energy, computing, space technology and others, often including hardware developments. This is a great accomplishment since pure software companies would be less risky and easier to scale in comparison.

Still, it remains to be seen if the EIC is crowding-in private investments or if private investors are crowding-in the EIC.

There are cases in which companies raised substantial capital before or during the EIC Accelerator approval process so it is likely that the EIC is pursuing a safe strategy of piggybacking on private markets while also following a risky approach of betting on disruptive technologies in parallel.

This is, of course, a very reasonable approach since disruptive DeepTech is too risky to be the exclusive priority of any investment vehicle, including the EIC.

While it is easier for the EIC to advertise results from EIC Pathfinder and EIC Transition due to the filing of patents and the publications of scientific papers, the EIC can only advertise results from the EIC Accelerator through valuations, scaling and revenues which are difficult to achieve (see The EIC Portfolio).

This places a major burden on the EIC since obtaining financial success cases is extremely difficult and creates distorted incentives where the evaluation prefers companies that are already successful rather than those that will (potentially) be. It also requires a near-unreasonable level of risk mitigation from companies that are expected to have signed contracts with major industry stakeholders or customers even at TRL5.

3. Stealing Thunder

“To date, the EIC has supported a portfolio of over 1 600 startups that have helped generate 12 deep tech Unicorns and 112 Centaurs here in Europe. EIC companies have attracted over EUR 10 bn of follow on investment and the valuation of the EIC portfolio of companies stands at over EUR 40 bn.”

Interestingly, the EIC lists a company called TWAICE as an example of a centaur but this is quite deceptive since, according to Crunchbase and public data, the company raised $30 million before obtaining EIC funding and no funding afterward. This would suggest that their valuation had already reached the centaur status, potentially exceeding the status of an SME, while the EIC support had little or no effect.

This casts doubt on the EIC’s unicorn or centaur claims and a thorough investigation of the EIC’s role in their growth and success is warranted.

4. Diversity

“The EIC also continues to outperform the market in supporting women-led companies and entrepreneurs from all regions of the EU – factors essential for a balanced and diverse innovation chain better addressing the needs and reflecting capabilities of our citizens.”

It is quite clear that the EU member states and associated countries are not equally represented in the portfolio of EIC-funded companies. Of course, this is not avoidable since different countries have varying startup ecosystems and low-GDP countries will generally struggle to create cutting-edge DeepTech startups.

Diversity goals, including gender targets, are generally driven by political agendas and it remains to be seen if such goals, as they are applied to technology investments, will have a positive impact on all citizens in the long term.

5. No Country for Old Companies

There is a preference for companies within a certain age range whereas the majority of funded businesses are 6-10 years old and a total of 50% of companies are below 10 years of age. This, of course, can stem from the fact that many older businesses are not incentivized to innovate while it is often startups that are in a position to disrupt industries with ground-breaking technologies.

6. Congesting Innovation

“The first EUR 260 m in investments through the EIC Fund has resulted in 92 investment agreements. 48 investments by the EIC Fund have been sufficiently mature to leverage just under EUR 500 m in co-investments by private and other funds, resulting in a leverage of 2.6 times the value of the EIC Fund equity investments. 2022 also saw the largest investment round involving the EIC Fund: a EUR 100 m fundraising round by SiPearl. 44 investment agreements signed by the EIC Fund have taken the form of convertible loans. These act as a bridge to the next fundraising round, which is expected to fall within 12-18 months of receiving EIC support.”

It is no secret that the EIC Fund has had a difficult past (see An Inside Look). Confusion and disappointment among beneficiaries as well as delays in the issuance of funds are still plaguing startups even 4 years later.

Most companies are still waiting to receive their equity investments and the EIC is still making structural changes to the fund which will likely lead to more delays – i.e. handing the EIC Fund to the European Investment Bank (EIB).

“Since September 2022 it has been fully functional and is in the process of taking investment decisions on 179 companies selected by the EIC Accelerator for equity support in 2021 and 2022.”

It is likely that the EIC Accelerator will undergo substantial changes over the coming years which will reshape the evaluation process and especially the selection procedure.

Considering the current evaluation process, the EIC is putting the cart before the horse by performing the due diligence on a company after the funding decision has already been made.

While the EIC Fund can still decide not to invest in a company, it is not how the program was intended to function.

Currently, a subjective assessment process using conflicting criteria in 3 steps screens companies while final investment decisions are made based on a 35-minute interview. Only then will months of due diligence be performed. This is, of course, highly uncommon in the investment industry.

7. Turtles Investing In Hares

“Operational Excellence: Including time from application to grant for Accelerator, 6 months for Transition, and 8 months for Pathfinder”

Days-to-Grant by Program

	2021	2020
EIC Accelerator	300	152
EIC Transition	91	–
EIC Pathfinder	167	207
Due Diligence*	>720	180-360

*Days-to-Termsheet

The statistics on the application durations are quite revealing since they suggest that the average beneficiary was rejected at least once in the process. For a company applying to the EIC Accelerator, it is possible to move from the beginning of Step 1 to the final funding decision in Step 3 within 6 months if no rejections are received. Afterward, 2+ months can be expected to access the funding.

Since the average duration given by the EIC is 300 days or 10 months (100% higher than in 2020), it seems that either the projects are rejected before obtaining funding, applicants skip deadlines due to the higher workload or the EIC caused substantial delays in the issuance of the financing.

Still, it is unclear what this timeline actually represents since it does not clarify the start and end points (i.e. Step 1, Step 2, Step 3, money in the bank).

But it is possible that the numbers reflect rejections faced by beneficiaries which highlights the inaccuracy of the evaluation process and the persistent luck factor of obtaining funding.

This article was last modified on May 1, 2023 @ 19:40

These tips are not only useful for European startups, professional writers, consultants and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) but are generally recommended when writing a business plan or investor documents.

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

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:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

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

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)

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

Steering the EIC Accelerator: Lessons Learned from the Pilot Program

May 2, 2023 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator funding (with blended financing option) by the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Commission (EC) is providing startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) with up to €2.5 million in grants and €15 million in equity financing per project (€17.5 million total).

The program is often supported by professional writers, freelancers or consultants to navigate the complex proposal template and EIC requirements.

This article presents a summary of the 2022 EIC Accelerator report and is discussing insights regarding the success of the pilot program leading up to 2020.

Note: An explanation of the EIC Accelerator terminology can be found here: Explaining the EIC Accelerator.

1. The EIC Fund

1.1 Delays

“It needs to considerably speed up the process leading to the signature of the financing agreement. In the pilot phase, delays were due to the novelty of the instrument, both for the EC and the beneficiaries, whereas in the current programming period there were legal difficulties in transitioning the Fund under Horizon Europe.”

The current status of the EIC Fund, with all its troubles and delays, is on display in a recent 2022 impact report on the EIC Accelerator (see How Deep Is Your Tech?), the EC website (here) and in a recent media article (here). While over 90 investment decisions have been made, the funding has not reached the bank accounts of beneficiaries in most cases.

While grant payments have been made effectively, albeit with some delays, the equity investments have been hampered, likely due to a combination of structural difficulties and the inexperience encountered by the EU operatives.

Of course, including the beneficiaries as a reason for the delays is not entirely accurate since the delays were caused by the EIC, primarily.

1.2 Communication

“Stakeholders’ expectations about the benefits and implications of receiving the Fund’s support could be managed by further communication through national contact points, SME and start-up associations.”

The EIC has historically struggled with properly communicating what the EIC Accelerator is seeking and what applicants should expect. This is likely due to the nature of public institutions that often prioritize political agendas and communications over clear and pragmatic advice.

As an example, it is in the interest of the EIC to communicate how it funds disruptive innovations that the private market is ignoring but it is not in their interest to admit that the evaluation process often prioritizes low-risk investments, even going as far as giving grants to companies that received €20M+ from private markets just days before (see Breaking the Rules).

The EIC has even listed a portfolio company as an example of a supported centaur (i.e. €100M+ valuation) even though the company likely had this status before the EIC funding was obtained, according to public data.

Since the EIC has encountered difficulties in clearly communicating with future applicants, likely due to potential conflicts with political appearances, it is increasing its reliance on National Contact Points (NCP). The EIC has already made data sharing on the platform mandatory for all applicants and NCP’s often have access to beneficiary lists before results are officially published.

To communicate more clearly, the EIC should publish detailed but anonymous information regarding the rejection reasons of applicants especially in the interview stage. If the evaluation process is in fact consistent, then it should be possible to give superior guidance directly.

As an example, if companies are rejected because of their small teams, then there should be a clear cut-off that applies to all companies. If a company is rejected because they have raised €15 million just before the interview, then this should be consistent among applicants as well.

1.3 Conflicting Agendas

“A contentious point on the Fund structure pivots around the interpretation of two eligibility rules: non-bankability and co-investment. The two criteria respond to the need to identify investment-worthy projects with traction from private investment, but that cannot be financed through traditional debt instruments. The first criterion addresses the lack of additionality observed in the SMEI and reflects the need to ensure that the Fund is not competing with the market by supporting projects that financial intermediaries could have financed. The second criterion ensures that market players do not see the recipient companies as publicly subsidised entities. It also guarantees that the European Commission remains a dormant investor in the company, till it may exit, due to the entrance of new investors.”

In the previous EIC Accelerator pilot phase, the non-bankability criterion was still present but it has now been removed from both the official EIC Work Programme and from the evaluation criteria. The term was used to refer to companies that cannot receive funding from private sources such as banks or institutional investors since they are too high risk.

Regardless, the current proposal template is still asking all applicants to explain why they need funding from the EIC which is consistent with the removed non-bankability rule.

The independent report points out that forcing companies to obtain co-investments for the EIC Fund on their own opposes the narrative of being solely dependent on the EIC. Upon closer investigation, there is a narrow role for the EIC to play even if a company is non-bankable since the grant and equity components can de-risk the project for outside investors.

In reality, the EIC has not honored that role and, by diluting the non-bankability criterion, has allowed itself to provide grants for companies that have easy access to private capital (see Investing in Well-Funded Companies).

It is interesting to see that the independent investigators were able to predict such an outcome based on 2020 data. The EIC had to decide between risk (non-bankability) and success (co-financing, private investor interest) and it chose the latter.

2. Gender

2.1 Changing the Goal to Reach the Goal

“The EIC Pilot has made commendable efforts in trying to achieve more balanced participation, especially for women.”

The EIC has set mandatory targets for female participation in the EIC Accelerator even during its pilot period but it is unclear to which degree they have increased the number of female-led applicants as opposed to the number of female-led winners.

In 2020 and prior, the EIC used different thresholds for male and female participants which effectively increased the difficulty for male while reducing the difficulty for female CEO’s. The EIC has further loosened its criteria on what a female-led company means and expanded the definition to also include CTO and CSO positions instead of just the CEO position.

This is an interesting development since changing the definition of the goal is not the same as reaching the goal.

It is also unclear if such outcome-driven goals will benefit future female founders or if they create the wrong incentives and hurt the long-term diversity of the ecosystem.

Increasing the number of applicants from widening countries and the number of applying female CEO’s could be a more sustainable option rather than changing the definition of the goal or forcing certain outcomes. Additionally, the EIC could subsidize consulting fee’s for female CEO’s or implement similar programs to encourage an increase in applicants instead of distorting evaluation criteria.

2.2 Eroding DeepTech

“Nevertheless, identifying attraction and inclusiveness as the programme’s KPIs creates possible conflicts with the award criteria for project selection and in particular with excellence in science and innovation.”

Interestingly, the above quote from the independent report was given twice in the document, verbatim. It highlights the general conflict of impact investments or Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) policies since they can erode investment decisions.

Investors generally have to prioritize profits and shareholder value but introducing an additional target can jeopardize such priorities. This is true for both the focus on DeepTech and gender targets since they present impacts outside of financial success.

For the EIC, it is unavoidable to have such conflicts since it is not a typical investor but focuses on difficult-to-finance and high-impact DeepTech projects. As such, profits are already being jeopardized.

Introducing gender targets to this equation is further eroding potential profits since it presents additional restrictions on investment decisions.

In the end, something will have to give since the EIC must now:

Maximize success for political appearances (i.e. unicorns, centaurs, follow-up funding)
Focus on high-risk DeepTech
Increase female participation

Of these three targets, the second goal of high-risk DeepTech investments is the most endangered since it is very easy to sweep inconsistencies under the rug (i.e. Breaking the Rules) while advertising success and diversity.

This has already been predicted by the independent report based on 2020 data from the EIC Accelerator Pilot.

Ironically, the incentives created by the EIC might hurt the DeepTech ecosystem in the long term because it is unlikely that any institutional investor will take more risks than the EIC. If the EIC Fund avoids high-risk projects to prioritize diversity and fast success then it might send the wrong signals to private markets.

This would render the advertised €2.6 of private capital for every €1 invested by the EIC a crowding-out of innovation funds into regular investments rather than a crowding-in of private capital into high-risk DeepTech.

3. Industries

The projects funded under the EIC Accelerator Pilot are aligned with the general focus on technology-driven projects with strong representations of optics, robotics, energy, health and climate tech.

4. Evaluation

4.1 Luck and Randomness

“The outcomes of the evaluation process were often unpredictable, especially for the Accelerator. In interviews, participants reported a sense of randomness in project selection. Some beneficiaries reported that it was possible to succeed with a resubmitted proposal including minimal or no changes at all. This fact has somehow undermined the credibility of the evaluation process and created a sense of haphazardness in project selection where the “luck factor” determined the difference between a selected and a non-selected high-quality proposal. Feedback provided by the evaluators was not considered sufficient to improve rejected proposals. At the same time, case study feedback on the jury panel was mixed. Whereas in some instances, the selected teams were impressed by the competence of the jury members, in other cases, they were left disappointed by the insufficient understanding of the more technical aspects.”

Unfortunately, the luck factor and randomness in the evaluation process have remained intact throughout the entire EIC Accelerator program. It is still a reality that companies are rejected or funded with inconsistent feedback. A company can be rejected because it raised €10 million in funding while a company can be funded even though it just raised €30 million.

Since there is no accountability for the EIC regarding the consistency of the process and the rejected applicants are generally not incentivized to make their rejections public, it is often only consultancies and professional writers who collect such case studies.

Still, the feedback from evaluators has greatly improved after 2020 and it is a positive sign that the EIC is rising to the ambitious challenge of reinventing itself.

4.2 Third Time’s a Charm

“In the case studies, 9 of the 15 projects analysed required 3 to 5 attempts before being funded. Similar feedback was also collected through the survey and the interview programme.”

The current evaluation process is restricting re-submissions but, back in 2020, it was still possible to re-submit proposals indefinitely. Even though the evaluation process has changed dramatically since 2021, it is still a reality that funded projects will encounter rejections along the way.

Considering that the majority of projects required 3 to 5 submissions means that the process is too random to deliver consistent and desirable results. Unfortunately, this likewise means that there are many projects that are eligible for funding but were unlucky in the evaluator or jury selections.

The EIC could aim to mitigate such issues if they were to assess which evaluators and jury members provided wrong assessments.

As an example, a NO GO grading by an evaluator in Step 1 or Step 2 for a project that would succeed in Step 3 can be represented as a strike for that evaluator. In the same way, a GO grading for a project that would be rejected twice in the interview can likewise be represented as a strike.

The same can be implemented for individual jury members who reject a project in the first interview which is then funded in the second interview with no meaningful changes.

This would allow a degree of communication between the Step 1 and 2 remote evaluators and the Step 3 jury members who have very different backgrounds and funding criteria.

There should likewise be a degree of consistency among all evaluation steps regarding rejection reasons. If a company is rejected for a specific factor then the evaluators and jury cannot fund projects that exhibit the same factor (i.e. team size, amount of funding, etc.).

This would reduce the luck factor.

4.3 High-Risk, Low-Reward

“Low success rates were not commensurate with the efforts required by the application process. Oversubscription was driven by the programme’s success and popularity, but also by a large number of re-submissions, with more than one out of 10 applicants applying more than five times between 2018 and 2020. Two-thirds of the Accelerator participants were successful at their first, second or third submission.”

Figure: Funded applicants that had to submit multiple times.

Since resubmissions have now been restricted, this graphic is generally cut after the first two attempts which shows that there are likely a variety of eligible applicants that are being rejected. This is aggravated by the tendency of most companies to lose interest over time which leads to an even higher number of companies that could have been funded with more persistence.

4.4 A Fair Lottery

“The fully-fledged EIC has significantly improved the EIC application process. According to [consultants], the new application system saves considerable time and effort for both the implementing agency and the applicants. Moreover, the new system is likely to favour the best applicants by reducing the “noise” of unsuitable applications that also contributed to reducing the programme attractiveness by keeping unnecessarily low success rates.”

The confirmation by consultants that the application process saves time is quite odd since the system established in 2021 is significantly longer and requires more effort than the 2020 system. It has increased the reliance of applicants on consultants greatly since the time to prepare an application now takes multiple months instead of weeks.

While success rates started out higher than in 2020, they are gradually falling and have recently fallen below 5%, thereby reaching similarly low levels compared to the old system. Over time, the success rates might become as competitive as the previous EIC Accelerator Pilot.

4.5 The Pitch

“Finally, success in the interview requires personal skills (e.g., English fluency, presentation and communication skills) that are difficult to acquire in a short time.”

There is likewise a strong likeability factor in the interviews where the interviewers will be more inclined to fund a project if they like the team. Agreeable and friendly speakers are often favored over disagreeable speakers which is rather unfortunate since many of the great entrepreneurs of our era, if not all, were highly disagreeable (see EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation).

5. Pay-to-Play

“More than 70% of survey respondents stated that they hired a consultant to prepare an application for the EIC.”

The EIC Accelerator is time-consuming, complex and obscure. Applicants generally start by reading the official EIC communications but, due to their focus on promotional materials, this often leads prospective applicants to have more questions than answers.

Unfortunately, this fact can also be exploited by consultancies since many applicants are greatly overestimating their chances of success based on their review of the EIC guidelines regarding innovation, high risk, a lack of funding and DeepTech definitions.

6. The Reality

6.1 Does the EIC Accelerator Work At All?

“The majority of Accelerator projects included in the case studies showed progress with their core technology assets but with no evidence yet of scaling up. At the time this evaluation was carried out, almost all projects achieved a TRL between 8 and 9. Two projects were expected to licence production and four to achieve production on a larger scale.”

The EIC Accelerator is designed for the purpose of scaling up disruptive innovations. The guidelines are clear in that TRL8 has to be reached after a grant project and an equity injection should propel the project to TRL9 (see Technology Readiness Levels).

Defining the TRL’s is often very subjective but if, after 2 years, no evidence of scaling has been observed then this could be a negative sign.

“Case study analysis showed that projects progressed in upgrading and improving their core technology assets, but there is no evidence yet on commercialisation, although some companies reported that they were ready to scale up production and staff or to licence production.”

In contrast, this lack of scaling is likely a positive as opposed to a negative result since it shows that these projects are, in fact, difficult to execute and require extensive development times. If the EIC Accelerator funds high-risk and disruptive innovations then this is exactly the result one would expect. Most DeepTech projects cannot be completed in 2 years which is why they are called DeepTech.

DeepTech will require more time than a SaaS business that can scale vertically in a matter of months. What is ironic is that this lack of scaling is seen as negative while it should be viewed as a good first step since the TRL8 levels were effectively reached.

The EIC generally expects 2-year projects but this should not be the norm. It should be aware that DeepTech projects can take 5 years to reach TRL9 and should inform the jury and remote evaluators that the length of the project should have no impact on the evaluation, especially in the final interview.

Now, the EIC has 2 general options:

(1) Improve their support for commercialization such as custom business coaches who are industry authorities, helping companies to gain more customers at TRL6-7 and adjusting the EIC communication to focus on commercial/scaling strategies and not on vague concepts such as disruption, innovation and diversity which are not helping companies to succeed.

(2) Abandon DeepTech investments and fund companies that are already scaling to gain success cases quickly.

Unfortunately, it seems like the EIC is gradually moving toward the second option.

6.2 Do EIC Portfolio Companies Grow?

“Based on Dealroom data, in July 2021, 27 Accelerator beneficiaries reached a valuation of more than €100M. They represent 7% of the sample on which data are available in Dealroom (N=410) and 4% of all Accelerator beneficiaries (N=768).”

Such a result should not be negatively assessed. EIC Accelerator beneficiaries can have valuations as low as €1 million at TRL6 since there are few restrictions regarding the project maturity, company age and team size.

“Around 30% of the companies receiving a grant in 2018 saw their employees grow, on average, at a rate above 20% in the three following years”

The problem with any KPI introduced by the EIC is that it will become the focus irrespective of the EIC’s mission. Diversity, gender ratios, valuations, global scaling and similar metrics are all used by the EIC to assess companies but this will, in the long term, only encourage the evaluators to select companies that already score high in these areas instead of helping SME’s to reach that target or to foster innovation.

KPI’s are important but they need to be part of the project execution (i.e. actively supporting business growth) rather than the application process since it will otherwise exclude many startup companies that are genuinely at TRL6 rather than TRL8-9 companies pretending to be.

6.3 Are the EIC Accelerator and the EIC Fund Actually Supporting DeepTech?

“Literature shows that deep tech VCs need to work with a 10-15-year lifetime investment. The profitability of equity investments also tends to be negative in the first years (generally up to five) because the investee company is not able to yield a positive return.”

The romance of DeepTech is well presented by the EIC through unicorns (€1 billion valuation), centaurs (€100 million valuation), disruption and events where much is said about innovation but the reality looks different.

Disruption starts at a point where very few, if anyone at all, can see the vision or wants to invest. If they do recognize a superstar in the making and want to invest, they usually do so with smaller amounts since the risk remains too high.

Peter Thiel saw the immense potential of Facebook in 2004 but only invested $500,000 into the company regardless. He understood that success will take more validation and he can always invest more later.

Negative profits for 5 years are to be expected in DeepTech but the EIC’s selection criteria seem to favor commercial success more and more after every submission cycle. Even the mandatory financial template that the EIC uses only accounts for 5 years of predictions.

According to DeepTech literature, no company should break even during this time but the EIC Jury would not fund such companies.

It would be beneficial for applicants if the EIC would publish statistics regarding the financials submitted by EIC beneficiaries and provide information regarding break-even-points, annual growth rates, start-end-revenues and margins to assess what the EIC is looking for and how much DeepTech they are comfortable with.

6.4 What Happens To Rejectees?

“Around 60% of high-scoring declined Accelerator proposals were implemented at a smaller scale, with less substantial results and benefits, resorting to private financing (business angels, friends or family, or venture capital investors) or a combination of private and public funds. The absence of alternative forms of funding is the most common reason why declined proposals were not implemented.”

This is quite interesting since it demonstrates that there is a role to play for the EIC and that even the high-scoring companies (i.e. above the funding threshold but rejected) will struggle to attract financing and are therefore truly non-bankable.

Through the EIC Fund and its pressure on companies to demonstrate extensive traction (i.e. customers, signed contracts, LOI’s) as well as source co-investors for the EIC Fund even before the project is granted, the EIC is clearly starting to align with private markets rather than the other way around.

One statistic that would be an interesting and insightful addition to this report would be to identify which companies have raised financing right before obtaining the EIC Accelerator grant or those who have been part of a due diligence process leading up to the funding.

Such statistics would reveal the dark number of how many companies could have succeeded without the EIC and can be contrasted to the number of projects that are not implemented without EIC support.

This article was last modified on Apr 17, 2023 @ 19:57

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

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:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

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

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

How long does it take to apply for the EIC Accelerator? (Grant proposal timeline)

March 28, 2023 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) is designed for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME). It provides €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in venture financing per project and is often supported by professional writers, freelancers or consultants (see Comprehensive Explanation).

This article presents a brief explanation of the timeline for the EIC Accelerator and aims to clarify how much time is needed to prepare all documents and go through the complete process.

Step 1: The Short Application

The Step 1 proposal for the EIC Accelerator requires 3 core documents, namely the proposal text, the pitch deck and a short video. In general, one can begin the writing and preparation process with any of these documents but it is recommended to begin with the written proposal, followed by the pitch deck and, lastly, the pitch video.

The reason for this order is that the written proposal will be the frame for how the application is presented to the EIC which will likely require adjustments of existing presentations and documents that a company might have available. An existing pitch deck might not be suitable for the EIC Accelerator so it is advisable to first frame the text in the most beneficial way and then move toward the annexes.

Since the pitch video is the most difficult to change in post-production, it is recommended to record it in the end so that there are no open questions regarding the presentation of the project to the EIC.

1.1 Proposal Text

The proposal text follows an online form on the EIC’s website which consists of a variety of questions. Each question provides a certain space (i.e. 1,000 or 500 characters) for a response which inherently limits the comprehensiveness of the application. The total number of text boxes that need to be written will depend on a variety of interactive functions such as the number of features & use cases, the risks and the staff.

In general, if a writer has a deep understanding of the company and the technology beforehand and is a fast as well as efficient writer then the text can be prepared in less than one week. If the project still lacks research and requires re-developments or customizations of the market, technology or the overall narrative then at least two to three weeks are necessary.

Note: Many companies have large amounts of data and texts from other proposals or presentations available but these generally cannot be used directly in an EIC Accelerator application without re-writing them due to the specific questions and space restrictions.

1.2 Pitch Deck

The pitch deck for Step 1 of the EIC Accelerator is generally limited to 10 slides (i.e. 11 slides incl. the title page). This reduces the amount of work needed for this document but can also introduce additional restrictions in case a company only has a variety of longer pitch decks available (see Read Deck).

The pitch deck often requires the professional grant writer to summarise existing pitch decks and to re-shape them into a narrative that is aligned with the EIC Accelerator. Even with a broad set of existing slides and pitch decks, this task can still require at least one or more days.

1.3 Pitch Video

While shooting a video for the EIC Accelerator can seem like a complex task, it is relatively simple and the process complexity will largely depend on the desired outcome. Since the EIC Accelerator videos will not be graded on their production quality, it would be sufficient to simply record a video call and upload it (see Video Preparation).

Still, some minimal production quality and editing are recommended since the video will likely be watched in each subsequent step of the evaluation process even up to the final Step 3 interviews.

In some cases, companies already have certain video footage available and, since there are no rules regarding what is and what is not allowed, they are free to simply use advertisements, interviews or other footage to present their project without recording any new material.

For all companies that do not have sufficient footage available, the general tasks for the pitch video creation are:

Scripting
Recording
Editing

1.3.1 Scripting

Once the main proposal document has been completed, the scripting for a 3-minute video can be completed within a single day (see Scripting the Video).

1.3.2 Recording

The recording session with the key team members can likewise be performed in a single day since the footage per team member will be limited to one minute on average in the case of three participants.

1.3.3 Editing

The editing of a video generally requires more time than other parts but, since the video will have a maximum length of 3 minutes, it will still be possible to complete the post-production (i.e. cutting, titles, footage, color grading, audio) in a single day.

This timeline would increase if the editor creates animations or uses external footage to improve the video which is a creative process and will require more work.

1.4 Financials & Deliverables

While not part of the submitted Step 1 documents, it is critical to plan certain aspects of the project in Step 1 even though they will only be requested in Step 2. Such documents are related to the budget, the financials and the deliverables.

While it is unlikely that the evaluators would care if these aspects have been changed from Step 1 to Step 2, it is useful to already align all project cornerstones in the first Step. If this point is neglected, an evaluator might leave a criticism in the Step 1 evaluation which will be read by the Step 2 evaluators and might add additional scrutiny.

It is useful to decide on the general budget of the project (i.e. grant and equity – see Explanation), the financials of the company (i.e. preparing preliminary financial projections) and to prepare a general structure of the workpackages which must be presented as deliverables in Step 1.

These tasks are part of the writing process for the main proposal text.

1.5 Total Time for Step 1

1.5.1 Duration

An EIC Accelerator applicant should plan 1 month for the Step 1 document preparations but it is possible to prepare the documents in under 2 weeks if no research or re-development are needed.

1.5.2 Evaluation

The evaluation of the Step 1 proposal can take just a few days or multiple weeks depending on the workload experienced by the EIC’s remote evaluators. In general, a duration of 3 weeks should be expected but, if an applicant already has all the necessary templates, they can begin the Step 2 writing process as they wait for the Step 1 result.

Step 2: The Business Plan

The business plan is the most difficult and lengthy step in the EIC Accelerator process which consists of a main document and a variety of annexes such as:

Letters of Intent (LOI)
Pitch Deck
Freedom to Operate Analysis (FTO)
Data Management Plan (DMP)
10-Page Annex
Financial Spreadsheet

2.1 Proposal Text

The proposal text is provided through an online form similar to the Step 1 application. In fact, some sections from Step 1 are automatically added to Step 2 since they present the same questions.

In general, the proposal text for Step 2 is very long and far exceeds the length of the documents prior to 2021 when the complete EIC Accelerator application template was reshaped.

2.2 Annexes

The EIC Accelerator’s Step 2 application allows a variety of mandatory and optional annexes to be uploaded which include Letters of Intent (LOI), a Freedom to Operate Analysis (FTO – see FTO Guide), a Data Management Plan (DMP), a financial spreadsheet, a pitch deck (see Pitch Interview) and a free 10-page overview.

2.2.1 Letters of Intent (LOI)

It can generally take weeks or even months to obtain LOI’s from relevant stakeholders since every company is busy and will likely not act rapidly. It is therefore advisable to send out requests for LOI’s as early as possible to maximize the chances of obtaining them before the Step 2 deadline (see Cut-Off’s).

This upload section dedicated to LOI’s can also be used to include documents such as contracts, customer lists, patent applications or other critical documents (i.e. translations).

2.2.2 Pitch Deck

The Step 2 pitch deck will follow a similar structure as the Step 1 pitch deck, albeit the page restriction has been removed which allows longer presentations and a rich appendix.

2.2.3 Freedom to Operate Analysis (FTO)

Most companies in the DeepTech or innovation space have an FTO available since it is a critical component of any innovative venture. For any company without an FTO, it is advisable to either prepare one in-house (see FTO Analysis) or to contract a law firm for the preparation.

2.2.4 Data Management Plan (DMP)

The DMP can be easily obtained through an online template but, in case a company has no DMP prepared, the EIC Accelerator allows a simple description of data handling to be added through a few sentences that can be prepared in under 30 minutes.

2.2.5 10-Pager

A 10-page annex can be uploaded which can be prepared in a single day since it will heavily feature images and photographs rather than additional text. This is due to the restriction of the EIC Accelerator’s main proposal text which is devoid of any images. The 10-pager, therefore, acts as a visual guide to the proposal, a company overview and a reference library.

2.2.6 Financials

The financial template consists of a single spreadsheet that must be filled. Since every company should have ample financial data in-house, it can be prepared rapidly. For applicants inexperienced with the EIC Accelerator, it can still be difficult to adjust to the particular format but an experienced grant writer can prepare the document in a single day.

2.3 Total Time for Step 2

2.3.1 Duration

Each applicant should allocate at least two months for the preparation of the EIC Accelerator Step 2 application.

2.3.2 Evaluation

The evaluation will approximately take 3-6 weeks after the submission of the EIC Accelerator Step 2 application but can also take longer. Since the Step 2 deadlines are set, in contrast to the Step 1 application which is open anytime, there are pre-defined time slots for the Step 2 applications and Step 3 interviews. As a result, the evaluation of Step 2 can take longer or be faster depending on the duration until the next Step 3 interviews.

Step 3: The Jury Interview

The preparation for the jury interview should be extensive and contain at least 5 practice calls while more are advisable (see Interview). It should likewise include a detailed analysis of all proposal materials in case some of the interviewees are unfamiliar with them.

3.1 Duration

The time needed for this preparation will depend on the speed of the EIC’s Step 2 evaluations and the available time until the interview week. At least 2 weeks should be planned for the interview preparation.

3.2 Evaluation

It generally takes 3-6 weeks until the Step 3 results will be published.

Resubmissions and Freezing Periods

The presented timelines in this article are indicative and there are a variety of factors that have not been discussed but can greatly change the time required for an application. There are fast-track programs that allow applicants to skip Step 1 of the application process, freezing periods of 12 months that block further submissions in case of multiple rejections, Step 2 deadlines that might be removed and other variables that must be taken into account.

There is no normal EIC Accelerator timeline for rejected or funded companies since there is a high degree of randomness in the evaluation process. Rejections and resubmissions are very common and can easily prolong the duration by multiple months.

For example, if a freezing period that prohibits further submissions for 12 months is reached then the application timeline will be prolonged by a year.

Conclusion

The EIC Accelerator remains a high-risk program and it is generally advisable to contract an external consultant for the preparation (see Contact) since it is lengthy, unpredictable and often tedious.

Additionally, any company that has a high chance of obtaining the EIC Accelerator funding is often too busy working on their innovation to spend multiple months or years with the EIC’s lengthy application process which renders outsourcing an essential step.

A company starting in Step 1 and obtaining the Step 3 GO grading (i.e. approval of funding) within 6 months is considered fast and this is generally only possible if no rejections occur in any of the three Steps. In contrast, obtaining at least one rejection in Step 2 or Step 3 is common and timelines for most applicants are often significantly longer than 6 months.

Additionally, the issuance of the grant and equity financing will likewise incur certain delays whereas the former is often obtained fast while the latter will be subject to additional due diligence.

This article was last modified on Mar 27, 2023 @ 18:56

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

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:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

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

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

February 10, 2023 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator grant financing (with blended equity option) by the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Commission (EC) is interesting to many Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) and startups but it demands extensive preparation and work.

While it provides €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in venture financing per project, applicants often rely on freelancers, professional writers or consultants to support them throughout the process since it takes many months to prepare all of the content that is needed for a high-quality submission.

An important part of the EIC Accelerator annexes is the Freedom To Operate (FTO) analysis. This article aims to provide a simplified guide on how to prepare an FTO in-house for companies that cannot afford to contract a patent law firm or lack the time.

The Importance of a Freedom To Operate (FTO) Analysis

An FTO analysis is a mandatory part of EIC Accelerator grant proposals and must be attached as a complete PDF. It is likewise referenced in multiple sections of the application which further increases its importance and renders it a highly relevant part of the EIC Accelerator application.

Often, FTO analyses are expensive since they are conducted by experienced patent law firms. This can present a challenge for startups that are in the early stages and pre-revenue as well as pre-product launch.

It can also present an unnecessary expense for certain software products since such technologies are generally more difficult to patent in Europe.

Still, an FTO analysis is very important for any IP-heavy business and, once a company has reached Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 5, it should have already analyzed the current IP landscape for the purpose of patenting its technology and preparing for commercialization.

What is an FTO analysis?

An FTO analysis is a way of assessing the existing Intellectual Property (IP) landscape to confirm that (1) a company is able to patent its technology and (2) it is able to commercialize its product without infringing on third-party patents. It is a core document that any DeepTech startup should be aware of since it can present a major risk if it is neglected.

A startup might think that they have unique IP but, if they have never analyzed what has already been patented, they might be wrong and might not be able to patent any of their past research and development efforts.

In general, an FTO analysis will be based on databases such as Espacenet to identify the available patents in certain technology segments which can be filtered through targeted keywords. It will then identify third-party patents that could potentially present an IP barrier and discuss them in detail to investigate how the existing patents impact the IP strategy of the company.

What if you do not have an FTO analysis?

Not having an FTO analysis when applying to Step 2 of the EIC Accelerator is a problem since it is a mandatory attachment to the proposal. In general, there are two options:

Contact a patent law firm and request an FTO analysis
Prepare a general FTO analysis in-house

The first option is always the safest approach since experts are experienced in this space and can add a level of assurance to the result of the analysis. Unfortunately, it is also relatively expensive and some companies would prefer to contract the preparation of an FTO analysis after the EIC Accelerator project funding is secured rather than taking the risk of not obtaining funding and paying for an expensive analysis beforehand.

This article will further elaborate on a simplified approach for the second option but it should be noted that contracting a patent law firm is recommended and the best path forward. This article is only designed to provide guidance regarding a surface-level FTO analysis for grant applications and should not be used by any company as the only assessment of third-party IP or patentability. For a thorough analysis, it is highly recommended to contract an IP law firm.

How do I prepare an FTO analysis?

An FTO analysis should look professional and have a thorough discussion of third-party patents that are relevant to the company’s IP. It should then conclude that the IP strategy of the applicant is valid and feasible.

To achieve this, it should have the following segments:

1. Company identity

Even though the FTO has not been prepared by a patent law firm, it should still have a professional look by featuring the company logo, address and whatever design is reflective of the corporate identity.

The EIC Accelerator’s remote evaluators will assess if this FTO is comprehensive and professional while a clean look and design can significantly improve that assessment.

2. Statement and Disclaimer

The FTO should begin with a paragraph that explains the nature of this document, what it contains and how it was prepared. It should act as an introduction and it should be clear that you have prepared this FTO analysis in-house and are planning to contract an IP firm for an additional FTO analysis during the EIC Accelerator project. This can also be part of the Work Packages where a service for the FTO analysis can be listed as a cost item.

The statement should likewise summarise the findings of the FTO analysis which should conclude that relevant third-party patents have been identified and discussed but no IP or commercial barriers were encountered. If barriers were encountered, the strategy to mitigate them should be explained.

The evaluators will understand that a lack of financing can be a factor in contracting an IP law firm so explaining that the FTO analysis will be repeated should be sufficient in most cases.

A table of contents should follow the statement to simplify the navigation within the document.

3. Methodology

In this section, it should be explained how the FTO analysis was prepared and what methods were used. In general, it is sufficient to explain that a database such as Espacenet was used for a global patent analysis and that specific keywords were chosen based on technology descriptions.

It is important to note that no FTO analysis is perfect since the number of patents keeps growing every day and the chosen keywords might not fully cover the entirety of the IP landscape. The quality of the FTO analysis will depend on the comprehensiveness of the keywords used and the amount of time spent researching lists and individual patents.

4. Keywords

A very simple approach to an FTO analysis is to identify innovation keyword groups based on the innovative features of the technology (see USP Development).

List the innovations of your technology and then attach multiple keywords to each list item. As an example, one could group the following keywords:

(a) Innovation: Green hydrogen generation from algae

Keywords for (a):

Green hydrogen (12,234 results)
Hydrogen algae (1,264 results)
Hydrogen biomass (9,234 results)
Hydrogen natural (13,120 results)
…

(b) Innovation: Autonomous drone

Keywords for (b):

Autonomous drone (1,876 results)
Artificial intelligence drone (879 results)
Autonomous aviation (2,456 results)
Autonomous flight (3,120 results)
…

The lists above present general examples but it is evident that the complexity of an FTO analysis will increase exponentially based on the comprehensiveness of the methodological approach.

Assuming that a company has selected 1-5 innovative components of their technology (incl. future developments), it is then recommended to list multiple keyword groups for each component and subsequently prepare multiple individual searches for each group.

Patent databases will often already sort keyword results based on relevance but it is recommended to investigate the relevance of patents and potentially use second- or third-level keywords to further filter the results and increase relevance. Since search platforms generally offer more filters (i.e. geography, date, filing status), it can also be advisable to use other means for further segmentation including the exclusion of certain keywords, if needed.

This process is tedious and iterative since it will be the responsibility of the analyst to assure that all relevant third-party patents are discovered.

A quick FTO analysis can be generated within just one hour but its validity and meaningfulness would be highly questionable. It is recommended to invest multiple days in the preparation of even a preliminary analysis.

If filtering methods were used or additional keywords were chosen to further segment the results, this information should be included in the Methodology section of the FTO analysis. The number of search results should also be included if additional filters were used.

5. Selection and Discussion of Third-Party Patents

Once the patent search has been completed, the analyst should have identified a number of patents that require closer scrutiny. Most platforms allow the selection and export of patents during the research process but it can be easiest to directly list the flagged patents in a spreadsheet.

The selected patents that require further discussion should be segmented according to their innovation in the same manner as the keywords for the patent search were categorized.

Each patent should be listed and the relevant metadata should be added (i.e. inventor, assignee, filing status, territories, etc.). For each respective patent, a discussion should be included explaining how the patent differs from the developed innovation and why this patent is neither an IP nor a commercial risk for the company.

The number of selected patents can vary widely based on the depth of the patent search and the number of selected innovations. Still, a comprehensive FTO analysis should at least have 15 patents to discuss if it is a complex and highly sophisticated technology.

6. Appendix

With all of the information presented above, the FTO analysis will already have a comprehensive and sophisticated look. With the statement provided on the first page, it should also be clear that the FTO analysis is preliminary and will be repeated during the EIC Accelerator project.

To further increase the value of the analysis, it is recommended to attach all IP information relevant to the company which will allow the evaluator to have all details relevant to the company’s IP in one single document.

Such attachments can include the following:

A list of all IP assets owned by the company including patents, trademarks, domain names, etc.
Technical graphics or image excerpts of discussed patents to support the discussion above
A legal analysis of certain patents, innovative features or the patentability of the company’s innovation(s)
Patent applications by the company that have been confirmed but not published yet
Scientific publications if they were relevant to the discussions above
Other relevant IP documents

This article was last modified on Feb 19, 2023 @ 23:39

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

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:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

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

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)

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

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

January 30, 2023 stephanseglerphd

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

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

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

The EIC Accelerators Mission

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

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

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

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

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

Breaking the Rules

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

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

What Is DeepTech?

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

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

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

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

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

A Drop In The Ocean

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

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

A Role for the EIC

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

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

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

As will be evident below, neither option is applicable.

Why Funding From Other Sources Was Not Available

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

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

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

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

150+ Rejectees

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: Hypocrisy or Poor Communication?

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

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

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

In contrast to the typical DeepTech case.

This article was last modified on Jan 23, 2023 @ 20:46

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

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:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

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

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

January 27, 2023 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Commission (EC) is one of the multiple programs available to Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) and startups. It awards up to €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity financing per project (€17.5 million total) and applications are often supported by consultants, professional writers or freelancers.

Still, there are alternative options for project financing available under the EIC framework.

EIC Funding Programs

The EIC’s funding programs can be complex and there is limited structured information that can support and guide a selection process. There are different funding arms (i.e. EIC Pathfinder, EIC Transition, EIC Accelerator), different topics (i.e. Challenges), varying budget allocations (see EIC Budget 2023), different funding modes (i.e. grant, equity, mixed) and even different application systems (i.e. written applications, videos or interviews).

To reduce the complexity, this article aims at providing a guide for selecting the right EIC financing.

The three flagship EIC grant funding programs are EIC Pathfinder, EIC Transition and EIC Accelerator. For an explanation of the differences between them, please view this article: EIC Funding Framework

The core selection criteria for the EIC funding options are (1) the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of the innovation, (2) the topic or industry, (3) the number of applicants and (4) the financing needs and investor availability.

Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

To decide between EIC Pathfinder, EIC Transition and EIC Accelerator, the prospective applicant must first identify the level of their current technology according to the TRL’s:

basic principles observed
technology concept formulated
experimental proof of concept
technology validated in lab
technology validated in relevant environment
technology demonstrated in relevant environment
system prototype demonstration in operational environment
system complete and qualified
actual system proven in operational environment

While the descriptions for the TRL’s are rather vague, the general cornerstones are easily differentiated when considering that TRL5 accounts for validating the key technology in a test setting while TRL6 accounts for the testing of a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) in a customer environment (i.e. actively testing the prototype)

After identifying an applicants TRL, it is then straightforward to make a decision regarding the funding program whereas:

EIC Pathfinder starts at min. TRL1 and ends at max. TRL4
EIC Transition starts at min. TRL4 and ends at max. TRL5-6
EIC Accelerator starts at min. TRL5-6 and ends at max. TRL9

Topics

The EIC’s Work Programme is renewed and adopted each year which means that the budgets and thematic topics will change annually.

Why is the budget relevant?

The total budget defines how much funding is available in any given year and for any given cut-off. If 1,000 applicants compete for €100 million then it will be more difficult than if 100 applicants compete for €1,000 million since the average funding per project increases.

It is advisable to identify the general competitiveness of a funding program prior to planning an application which includes the number of total applicants, the number of winning projects and the overall budget size (see 2022 Results).

Why are the topics relevant?

In general, there are always “Open” and “Challenge” Calls for the respective funding arms whereas the former is available to all types of technologies and industries while the latter is only available to specific projects that fulfill certain criteria.

To elaborate, topics or Challenges are a specialized focus of the respective funding program whereas the total budget is divided into multiple buckets. While the “Open” bucket is available to all applicants, the “Challenges” bucket is only available to those who fulfill the criteria regarding the technologies and industries outlined in the Work Programme.

In practice, it is always preferable to apply to the “Challenges” if possible since it can be less competitive while providing higher success chances.

This can be illustrated in a simple example:

The EIC Accelerator budget for 2023 is €1.1 billion in total but it is divided into the “Open” call with €611 million and the “Challenges” with €523 million. The strategic challenges for the EIC Accelerator in 2023 are (see 2023 EIC Budget):

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

From a statistics perspective, there are likely fewer companies that fall into these particular topics while there is a high probability that the majority of applicants are only eligible for the Open call.

It is therefore advisable to identify the current topics for each funding program prior to preparing a submission. Considering that resubmissions are a common occurrence in case of rejections, it is likewise preferred to apply in a timely manner to account for at least 3 Step 2 submissions in the case of the EIC Accelerator (see Resubmissions).

Consortia vs. Single Applicant

The EIC Accelerator is a single-applicant instrument which means that only a single entity is receiving the funding and must be located in the EU or a country associated with Horizon Europe. For EIC Pathfinder and EIC Transition, the applicants can either be single entities or consortia consisting of multiple entities.

Financing Needs and Availability

Each funding program has a dedicated budget and a general budget amount per project. For the EIC Accelerator, the general funding allocations are a maximum of €2.5 million for grant funding and €15 million for equity funding while the average ticket sizes are generally below the maximum.

For the last cut-off of 2022, the average ticket size for all projects (incl. grant-only, grant-first, equity-only and blended finance) was €6.03 million (see 2022 EIC Accelerator Results).

For EIC Pathfinder, the limits for projects are €3 million and for EIC Transition they are set to up to €2.5 million per project.

It is therefore beneficial to also assess the funding needs of the project beforehand to assure that the amount of funding that can be granted will allow the project to reach its desired endpoint.

It should also be assured that sufficient follow-up or co-financing is available in relevant cases. For the EIC Accelerator, the projects requesting grant-only, equity-only and blended financing are generally required to demonstrate that additional financing is available.

For grant-only applications which are only requesting funding up to TRL8, the funding to reach TRL9 should be justifiable. The EIC reserves the right to cancel ongoing grant projects in case a lack of additional financing is jeopardizing the project (see Cancelling Funding).

For applications that include equity components such as blended finance, the EIC expects applicants to secure outside investors for a co-financing round. While such rules can change on a year-by-year basis, it is important to be aware of them to meet and manage expectations.

This article was last modified on Feb 19, 2023 @ 23:35

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

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:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

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

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

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

January 25, 2023 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Commission (EC) has been largely reinvented in 2021. The previous application process of preparing and submitting a 30-page PDF file has been overhauled and replaced with a very comprehensive online platform that uses AI features and visualizations.

While it still funds Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) and startups with €17.5 million in total funding per project (€2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity), it is now compartmentalizing and standardizing the entire application process.

The EIC website prominently uses the term “EIC AI Platform” but calling it Artificial Intelligence (AI) seems like an overstatement. In reality, all texts and annexes must be prepared manually by applicants and no automation or intelligence seems relevant to the process which is why applicants often rely on consultants, professional writers or freelancers.

The AI features likely refer to back-end assessment features relevant to the evaluators but not to the applicants or visualizations of the innovativeness expressed through graphics.

This article is investigating the usability of ChatGPT for EIC Accelerator applications which could bring true AI and text generation to the application process.

ChatGPT

ChatGPT is a chat-based interface for AI-generated text developed by Open.AI and popularised in 2022. It has made waves in all industries that rely on written content creation since the chatbot is able to instantly generate complex texts based on user instructions.

Of course, grant writing is a major application area for such AI-generated texts since it is complex but follows very specific structures that could be standardized and automated. Especially the EIC Accelerator could potentially be a major target for AI automation since it has replaced a free business plan submission with specific and compartmentalized questions that are easier to generate compared to complex structures.

While it is to the detriment of the remote evaluators who have to read the AI-generated proposals, it is of interest to applicants and consultants to identify if a technology such as ChatGPT can save time and deliver high-quality output. Potentially, it could even increase the quality of the final application.

What is needed to write an EIC Accelerator proposal?

Assessment

An EIC Accelerator proposal differs greatly from a simple market analysis, a business plan or any content creation around mainstream subjects. The very first step and job of every consultant is to identify if the project can win the EIC Accelerator or not.

This requires a significant amount of due diligence to identify if there are any problems with the company or the project that could present a flaw in any of the application steps. The application process is complex and, through the 3-step approach taken by the EIC, it is necessary to consider how the evaluations will differ in each step.

In the first two steps, there is generally a focus on the technology and the attractiveness of the innovation to the EU with appealing industries winning over those that are lesser known (see Winning Candidates). The commercial strategy and traction are often poorly assessed in the first two steps but are becoming key in the Step 3 interviews.

Structuring

Once the project has been assessed, the next step is the structuring of the EIC Accelerator proposal according to the unique technical aspects and commercial plan of the applicant. This can present a challenge to many companies since the template questions are often vague, some proposal sections are interconnected and many individual sections are repetitive due to very similar template questions.

Writing

Finally, the writing and preparation of all proposal texts and annexes that are needed for the EIC Accelerator will follow which includes the development of all sections and the ongoing consistency verification between sections.

What can be automated with ChatGPT?

Selection and assessment process

As of today, the assessment process will be difficult to automate through technologies such as ChatGPT. If it was possible, there would be no need for an application process for the EIC Accelerator since the AI could simply select the winners based on unstructured documents or public website data.

While the Artificial Intelligence (AI) is designed to understand the context of what is requested, the context of companies seeking to apply for the EIC Accelerator is currently too nuanced to automate at this stage.

The EIC Accelerator is both broad and narrow in its scope (i.e. all industries can apply but not all companies) and is contradictory in many ways. It is designed for groundbreaking technologies and companies that have difficulties in raising private financing but well-financed companies can win as well (i.e. Breaking the Rules). There are likewise many cases where companies have to resubmit multiple times before they are approved for funding which questions the accuracy and consistency of the process.

The EIC claims to seek high-risk projects but often prefers to fund low-risk business cases with proven revenue generation and industry partnerships in the final selection step which uses external angel investors and venture partners as the jury.

In general, the assessment is currently too multifaceted to automate in any meaningful way. It is likewise inconsistent by design and any standardization and automation would likely raise questions regarding the validity of the selection process and mission of the EIC.

Planning and structuring

The planning and structuring of an EIC Accelerator application is a creative task and could be a promising candidate for automation. If the AI understands the task and the parameters then it can become a useful guide.

Here is an example from ChatGPT for the structure of the “Features and Use Cases” section of an EIC Accelerator application:

Input:

I want you to segment a topic into multiple sub-levels. I want you to pick 4 top-level titles and each title has 4 sub-level titles. The topic I want you to structure is a technology that allows RedOx flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization.

Output:

Introduction to RedOx flow Batteries
- Basics of RedOx flow Technology
- Advantages of RedOx flow Batteries
- Current State of RedOx flow Battery Development
- Future Potential of RedOx flow Batteries
Tin-based Electrolytes for RedOx flow Batteries
- Chemistry of Tin Electrolytes
- Performance Characteristics of Tin Electrolytes
- Development and Production of Tin Electrolytes
- Applications of Tin Electrolytes in RedOx flow Batteries
Big Data and AI for RedOx flow Battery Management
- Role of Big Data in RedOx flow Battery Operations
- Artificial Intelligence for Predictive Maintenance
- Data Processing for Battery Health Monitoring
- Data Visualization for Battery Performance Optimization
Implementing Software Solutions for RedOx flow Batteries
- System Architecture for RedOx flow Battery Management Software
- Integration of Tin Electrolytes and Big Data/AI
- Deployment and Testing of Software Solutions
- Case Studies and Best Practices for Software Implementation

The result is surprisingly good but here is the catch: The input is already guiding the chatbot into a structure that is most useful. A 4×4 structure is always a good starting point. From there, one can include or change the structure since it is unlikely that 4×4 will be ideal for every project.

What is especially impressive is that ChatGPT autonomously introduced keywords such as “Predictive Maintenance” and “Battery Health Monitoring”. It likewise segregated the hardware and software components well which is exactly what is needed for a technology description.

Improving the Structure

What is not ideal is the general introduction to RedOx flow batteries and the redundant segments that are unnecessary for a clean technology description.

But overall, it is an excellent result based on minimal input.

With the structure above for the imaginary tin-data-RedOx flow battery technology, the following adaptations would be necessary for the EIC Accelerator:

RedOx flow Battery Hardware
- RedOx flow Stack and Module Design
- RedOx flow Battery Manufacturing Process
- RedOx flow Battery Operation
Tin-based Electrolytes for RedOx flow Batteries
- Proprietary Tin Electrolytes
- Synthesis and Manufacturing Process of Tin Electrolytes
- Safety and Environmental Impact of Tin Electrolytes
Big Data and AI for RedOx flow Battery Management
- Big Data in RedOx flow Battery Operations
- Artificial Intelligence for Efficiency Optimization and Predictive Maintenance
- Data Processing for Battery Health Monitoring
- Data Visualization for Battery Performance Insights

While it is impressive that AI was associated with predictive maintenance, this was not the intended primary use. Efficiency optimization and data processing were closer to the intended use case while the same is true for other associated features.

The last section regarding the implementation was likewise impressive but it did not lend itself to a good technology description since any further explanations would already be part of previous sections.

Nonetheless, with a small amount of editing, the initial 16 segments were reduced to a useful structure containing 10 segments.

One can then add another top-level topic to include other omitted parts of the process (i.e. emissions, transport, logistics, installation).

Usefulness of ChatGPT for Structuring

This approach can be useful for inexperienced writers who need support for the structuring of the application. The downside is that it requires a detailed input that already tells the chatbot what the output is supposed to look like while it also requires extensive editing of the output.

This defeats the purpose of using a chatbot but it can still be useful to ask ChatGPT to generate ideas related to a certain topic or get multiple variations of structures. The same approach can be used for competitor sections, commercial strategies, value propositions and even work packages since these will also rely on top-level structures.

But with all of the information provided above, there is still one major flaw: These text generations only relate to the structure of an application but do not help in generating the bulk of the proposal text.

Writing the Proposal

Now, we will test ChatGPT with the same level of information but will ask it to answer a key question found in the EIC Accelerator Step 2 grant proposal template. We will choose the question “What is your unique selling point?” which is quite simple:

Input:

I need you to write me a text with a length that is as close to 1000 characters as possible. The content is supposed to answer the following question “What is your unique selling point?“. The topic I want you to write about is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialized electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization.

Output:

Our technology allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialized electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization. This results in improved performance and longevity of the batteries, as well as better management and prediction of their performance. This can lead to cost savings and increased reliability for businesses and organizations that use redox flow batteries. In addition, our technology can also open up new applications for redox flow batteries that were previously infeasible.

It managed to generate 610 characters which is quite impressive since the input was minimal. Unfortunately, the text is vague and has followed the input very closely with little to no creative elaborations that would be relevant for an EIC Accelerator application.

Improving the Output

Now, we will improve the output to be more aligned with the EIC Accelerator by introducing instructions on how USP’s should be presented.

Input:

I need you to write me a text with a length that is as close to 1000 characters as possible. The content is supposed to answer the following question “What is your unique selling point?“. I want the answer to contain a list with the 3 most important selling points and you should add placeholders for numbers to be added regarding the cost savings, efficiency increases and total energy capacity. The topic I want you to write about is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialized electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization.

Output:

Our technology allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialized electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization. This results in improved performance and longevity of the batteries, as well as better management and prediction of their performance. Our top 3 selling points are: 1) cost savings of up to [number]%, 2) efficiency increases of up to [number]%, and 3) total energy capacity increases of up to [number]%. These benefits make our technology an attractive solution for businesses and organizations that use redox flow batteries, and can also open up new applications for these batteries.

This is already better since we now have a list of selling points and can add quantifiers that were omitted from the first version. We also exceed 700 characters on this answer which shows that there are ways of increasing the output with additional input.

Again, the problem for inexperienced writers is that the input is already leading the chatbot in the right direction. It is not obvious to ChatGPT that a list of selling points and qualifications are needed to answer this question but it is obvious to professional writers and consultants who work with EIC Accelerator grants.

Improving the Input

Now, the second problem that we encounter is quite obvious: Our input is almost as long as the output. This is obviously a problem since we are here to save time and not to teach ChatGPT how to write.

Still, one can prepare a general text that describes the technology, commercial strategy, team, market and other aspects which can then be copy-pasted while asking ChatGPT to convert the text into an answer to a specific question. For example:

Input

I need you to write me a text with a length that is as close to 1000 characters as possible. The content is supposed to answer the following question “What are your strengths?“.
The topic I want you to write about is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualisation.
The main customers are 3 groups, namely wind-farm owners, hotels and charging stations for electric vehicles.
Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings.
We have 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. We also have 3 additional patents in development.
We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform.
We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Please add placeholders for our pricing so we can add numbers later.
I want you to include placeholders for quantification such as cost savings, efficiency increases and total energy capacity.

Output

Our technology allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization. Our technology is particularly well-suited for wind-farm owners, hotels, and charging stations for electric vehicles. Our main strength is our ability to provide significant cost savings, efficiency increases, and total energy capacity increases for our customers. We achieve this through our 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. Additionally, we have 3 additional patents in development.
Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings.
We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Our pricing models include a [placeholder for pricing of the redox flow battery hardware], [placeholder for pricing of the electrolyte], [placeholder for pricing of the maintenance costs], and [placeholder for pricing of the data and software access].
We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform.

The ChatGPT output is generally ignoring the character restriction given in the first part of the input. It likewise always tries to enter all information that was given instead of only choosing what is relevant to meet the character limit. It does account for the question regarding the “strengths” but it does not lead with the answer and always tries to summarise the input rather than to answer the question.

Input

I need you to write me a text with a length that is as close to 1000 characters as possible. The content is supposed to answer the following question “Is your technology creating a new value chain?“.
The topic I want you to write about is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualisation.
The main customers are 3 groups, namely wind-farm owners, hotels and charging stations for electric vehicles.
Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings.
We have 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. We also have 3 additional patents in development.
We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform.
We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Please add placeholders for our pricing so we can add numbers later.
I want you to include placeholders for quantification such as cost savings, efficiency increases and total energy capacity.

Output

Our technology allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization. Our technology is particularly well-suited for wind-farm owners, hotels, and charging stations for electric vehicles. Our technology is creating a new value chain for the energy storage industry by providing significant cost savings, efficiency increases, and total energy capacity increases for our customers. We achieve this through our 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design, and for the software mechanisms and control system. Additionally, we have 3 additional patents in development.
Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings.
We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Our pricing models include a [placeholder for pricing of the redox flow battery hardware], [placeholder for pricing of the electrolyte], [placeholder for pricing of the maintenance costs], and [placeholder for pricing of the data and software access].
We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform.
Our technology creates a new value chain by providing customers with cost savings, efficiency increases and total energy capacity increases, by working with battery system manufacturers and by generating revenues through selling of hardware, electrolyte, maintenance costs and data and software access.

The text is clearly very repetitive. This is not ideal if our goal is to generate most of the input with only minor adjustments. Of course, one can try to force ChatGPT to be more precise and ask it to only use the input that is useful to answer the question but this would likely increase the input and customization even further.

Input

I need you to write me a text with a length that is as close to 1000 characters as possible. The content is supposed to answer the following question “What is your innovation?“.
The topic I want you to write about is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualisation.
The main customers are 3 groups, namely wind-farm owners, hotels and charging stations for electric vehicles.
Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings.
We have 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. We also have 3 additional patents in development.
We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform.
We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Please add placeholders for our pricing so we can add numbers later.
I want you to include placeholders for quantification such as cost savings, efficiency increases and total energy capacity.

Output

Our innovation is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualisation. Our technology is particularly well-suited for wind-farm owners, hotels, and charging stations for electric vehicles. Our innovation is creating significant cost savings, efficiency increases, and total energy capacity increases. We achieve this through our 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. Additionally, we have 3 additional patents in development.
Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings.
We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Our pricing models include a [placeholder for pricing of the redox flow battery hardware], [placeholder for pricing of the electrolyte], [placeholder for pricing of the maintenance costs], and [placeholder for pricing of the data and software access].
We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform.
Our innovation allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently, providing significant cost savings, efficiency increases, and total energy capacity increases through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualisation.

This time, ChatGPT led with the requested answer albeit the text is still far too long and repetitive.

Input

I need you to write me a text with a length that is as close to 1000 characters as possible. The content is supposed to answer the following question “What is your unique positioning or place on the market?“.
The topic I want you to write about is a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialised electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses components including big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualisation.
The main customers are 3 groups, namely wind-farm owners, hotels and charging stations for electric vehicles.
Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings.
We have 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. We also have 3 additional patents in development.
We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform.
We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Please add placeholders for our pricing so we can add numbers later.
I want you to include placeholders for quantification such as cost savings, efficiency increases and total energy capacity.

Output

Our unique positioning in the market is that we provide a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently through the use of specialized electrolytes based on tin molecules and software that uses big data, artificial intelligence, data processing and data visualization. Our technology is particularly well-suited for wind-farm owners, hotels, and charging stations for electric vehicles. We provide significant cost savings, efficiency increases, and total energy capacity increases for our customers. Our commercial strategy is to work with battery system manufacturers who will distribute our products to our customers since they still include power electronics such as inverters and casings.
We generate revenues through the selling of the redox flow battery hardware, the electrolyte, the maintenance costs and through data and software access. Our pricing models include a [placeholder for pricing of the redox flow battery hardware], [placeholder for pricing of the electrolyte], [placeholder for pricing of the maintenance costs], and [placeholder for pricing of the data and software access].
We have 3 patents for the electrolyte, the redox flow stack design and for the software mechanisms and control system. We also have 3 additional patents in development.
We need to finish our developments by completing the electrolyte manufacturing process and by improving the AI systems as well as analytics platform.
Our unique positioning in the market is that we provide a technology that allows redox flow batteries to operate more efficiently with significant cost savings, efficiency increases, and total energy capacity increases and working with battery system manufacturers to distribute our products.

The general problem is that the chatbot is not trying to create an answer to the question primarily but is aiming to always summarise the input in its entirety while ignoring character limits. But this effect could be remedied with better input instructions.

Still, ChatGPT does not understand that the “position in the market” must be contrasted with current market dynamics.

Unfortunately, it seems like each input will require substantial customization and generating 100+ unique inputs for the EIC Accelerator proposal with extensive post-editing is unfeasible.

Annexes

For ChatGPT, is it impossible to present a useful Freedom To Operate (FTO) analysis from scratch since it is based on dated data sets among other limitations and it is likewise infeasible to generate financials and documents such as Letters of Intent (LOI).

Although, it can aid in creating templates for the Data Management Plan (DMP) or LOI’s:

Input:

I want you to create a template text for a customer (use a placeholder) who sends me a letter of intent to purchase my redox flow battery. Please include benefits such as the lower cost, higher efficiency and increased energy capacity. I need four different versions of the letter.

Output 1

Dear [Placeholder for Customer Name],

We are writing to express our interest in purchasing your innovative redox flow battery technology. Our company [Placeholder for company name] is actively seeking new solutions to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of our energy storage systems. We have been impressed by the benefits of your technology, such as the lower cost, higher efficiency and increased energy capacity, and we believe it would be a valuable asset to our operations.

We would like to move forward with the purchase of your redox flow battery technology and request more information on the details of the product and the purchasing process. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you and to the potential benefits that this technology will bring to our company.

Please let us know your next steps, and we are happy to start the purchase process.

Sincerely,
[Placeholder for Customer Name]

Output 2

Dear [Placeholder for Customer Name],

We are writing to express our interest in your redox flow battery technology. Our company [Placeholder for company name] specializes in [placeholder for company’s specialization] and we are always looking for new ways to improve our operations. We have been impressed by the benefits of your technology, such as the lower cost, higher efficiency and increased energy capacity, and we believe it would be a valuable asset to our company.

We would like to move forward with the purchase of your redox flow battery technology, and we would appreciate if you could provide us with more information about the product and the purchasing process. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you, and to the potential benefits that this technology will bring to our company.

Please let us know your next steps, and we are ready to start the purchase process.

Sincerely,
[Placeholder for Customer Name]

Output 3

Dear [Placeholder for Customer Name],

We are writing to express our interest in your innovative redox flow battery technology. Our company [Placeholder for company name] operates [placeholder for company’s operations] and we are always looking for new ways to improve our efficiency and cost-effectiveness. We have been impressed by the benefits of your technology, such as the lower cost, higher efficiency and increased energy capacity, and we believe it would be a valuable asset to our operations.

We would like to move forward with the purchase of your redox flow battery technology and we would appreciate if you could provide us with more information about the product and the purchasing process. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you, and to the potential benefits that this technology will bring to our company.

Please let us know your next steps, and we are ready to start the purchase process.

Sincerely,
[Placeholder for Customer Name]

Output 4

Dear [Placeholder for Customer Name],

We are writing to express our interest in your redox flow battery technology. Our company [Placeholder for company name] is a leader in [placeholder for company’s specialization] and we are always looking for new ways to improve our operations. We have been impressed by the benefits of your technology, such as the lower cost, higher efficiency and increased energy capacity, and we believe it would be a valuable asset to our company.

Please let us know your next steps, and we are ready to start the purchase process.

Sincerely,
[Placeholder for Customer Name]

Unfortunately, the templates are quite repetitive even though it is quite easy to be more creative with the provided input. With different input instructions, it is likely possible to gain more versatile letter templates but this article is investigating if satisfactory results can be generated with minimal work effort.

Conclusion: Is ChatGPT useful for the EIC Accelerator?

Yes. ChatGPT has great potential for structuring and brainstorming applications, especially for new writers. What would be necessary to increase the usability of chatbots is a version of ChatGPT that is familiar with successful grant proposals for the EIC Accelerator so that it understands what types of answers do well in certain sections.

The problem with that approach is that ChatGPT is making editorial decisions such as including “predictive maintenance” or trying to add the development plan to the question about the company’s strengths.

Unfortunately, ChatGPT is not a time saver at this stage. There can also be serious concerns regarding plagiarism since, while the text is AI generated, it is based on data sets that can be from proprietary sources. This is a risk carried by anyone who uses ChatGPT for professional use.

But ChatGPT can be a useful tool if used appropriately.

This article was last modified on Jan 21, 2023 @ 15:24

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

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:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

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

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)

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

EIC Accelerator 2022 October Results: Funding Rates and Circu Li-ion & Iris.AI Success Cases

December 21, 2022 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) has recently closed its last funding round of 2022 (see Deadlines). Following the multi-step grant application process, the last Step 2 deadline was set on October 5^th while the interviews for Step 3 were being conducted in December (see Interview Preparation Process).

Designed for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME), the EIC Accelerator awards up to €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity financing per project (maximum of €17.5 million total). This article provides an overview of the latest cut-off results as well as useful information for professional writers, freelancers or consultants (see Eligible Applicants).

While the previous cut-off’s have seen high levels of competitiveness with success rates of approximately 5% for all three evaluation steps, this article analyses the success rates for the latest cut-off (see June 2021 & May 2022).

The October 2022 Cut-Off

In general, the total success rates are obscured through the 3-step application process where not all steps are associated with a deadline and not all applicants successively apply to the next steps. Since there is a possibility for re-submitting proposals and skipping application deadlines, the calculations in this article should be viewed as approximate (PDF, article).

Presenting the #SMEs and #startups selected from the last #eicAccelerator cut-off of 2022! ?

? 1092 applicants
? 78 companies selected
? €470 M in EU funding

Learn more about the companies and #EUeic funding opportunities here ? https://t.co/jU5HzcM2qc pic.twitter.com/d9wrt55VZS

— European Innovation Council (@EUeic) December 19, 2022

Step 1

The exact success rates are difficult to assess but based on past data, an average success rate of 67% can be assumed (June 2021).

Step 2 & 3

Out of 1,092 Step 2 applicants, 240 were invited to the Step 3 interviews (22%) while a total of 78 companies were successfully selected for funding. This yields a total EIC Accelerator success rate of 7.1% starting at Step 2 and an interview selection rate of 32.5% for Step 3.

Multiplying the Step 2 and 3 success rates with the average success rate for Step 1 yields an approximate total success rate for the complete EIC Accelerator application process of 4.8%.

Funding Breakdown

Grant-only: 12 funded companies (15.4%)
Grant-first: 21 funded companies (26.9%)
Equity-only: 1 funded company (1.3%)
Blended finance: 44 funded companies (56.4%)

The total budget allocated to the 78 winners is €470 million which corresponds to an average EIC Accelerator ticket size of €6.03 million.

Circu Li-ion Receives the EIC Accelerator Funding

Circu Li-ion (Luxembourg) is addressing one of the greatest challenges of the coming decade: Sustainable battery energy storage. Renewable energy installations, electric vehicles, power tools, micromobility and utility systems all depend on battery storage but Lithium is becoming increasingly scarce and expensive.

With large quantities of batteries reaching their end-of-life after only a few years of operation, Circu Li-ion has identified that there is an urgent need to establish an upcycling ecosystem that is able to scale with the exponential industry growth.

By reusing end-of-life batteries and giving them a second life, Circu Li-ion is addressing a major industry pain point through its automated, data-driven and AI-controlled upcycling technology.

Note: Circu Li-ion was supported by Segler Consulting throughout the entire application process.

Iris.AI

Special congratulations to Iris.AI (Norway) which has received the EIC Accelerator financing as well and was supported by Segler Consulting in some of the application stages.

This article was last modified on Dec 22, 2022 @ 01:00

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

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:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

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

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)

EIC Accelerator, 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:

This article was last modified on Nov 5, 2022 @ 10:18

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

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:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

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

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

Cancelling Funding and Changing Grant Requests (2023 EIC Accelerator Work Programme Part 5)

November 5, 2022 stephanseglerphd

The EIC’s 2023 Work programme

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

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

Cancelling Approved EIC Accelerator Funding

Horizon 2020 has been plagued by a variety of high-profile fraud cases such as two companies which were beneficiaries of 56 projects funded under the EU’s FP7 and/or Horizon 2020 research programmes. It is only natural that the EIC has implemented clauses which enable them to cancel issued grants or to decline an investment in case certain inconsistencies are encountered during the due diligence.

“In such a case, the Commission may also request amendments or, in the cases of misrepresentation, submission of false information, non-submission of information, suspicion of fraud or any other ground listed in the EIC Accelerator contract, it may terminate your initial EIC contract covering the grant component. The EIC Accelerator contract may also be terminated if the non-investment is likely to affect the implementation of the action or puts into question the decision awarding the financial support.“

For applicants, this presents a certain risk since it is known that the European Investment bank (EIB) and the EIC are very slow when it comes to the issuance of equity investments (read: Inside the EIC Fund). If a company has requested blended finance and is asked to stay in the due diligence process for 12 months, then they might decline the EIC Fund investment but this could jeopardise their received grant financing according to the EIC.

The EIC should make an official and binding commitment that, if an applicant is well-financed from other sources (different from the EIC), they should be allowed to decline the EIC Fund investment while retaining the grant. This should be a company’s right if the due diligence by the EIB is too slow for the speed at which a company has to perform. Slow due diligence can even be detrimental to the company’s financial health if other investors could act faster.

Converting Funding Requests

The EIC’s 2023 Work Programme outlines the option for a conversion of funding modalities whereas the Step 3 EIC Jury can decide that the requested amount or funding type, which has passed Step 1 and Step 2 already, is inappropriate and can change it on-the-fly.

This likewise expands towards the EIC Accelerator Open and Strategic Challenges as well as the funding modes, namely grant-first, grant-only, equity-only and blended financing.

For the EIC Accelerator Open and Strategic Challenges, the Step 3 jury and the Step 2 evaluators can make changes to the proposal:

“If in the course of the interview the jury assesses that your proposal falls within the scope of one of the Accelerator Challenges which is open at the cutoff and meets the relevant criteria for the Challenge, then your proposal may be transferred to be funded under the relevant Challenge.”

“If your application at the full application stage is assessed to be outside the scope of the Accelerator Challenges to which is it is submitted, then it will be transferred to the Accelerator Open.”

To the detriment of the applicants, this can also include the substitution of a grant with a repayable loan.

“Should the jury find the level of risk to be lower than initially identified by the applicant, the jury may also recommend another combination of components, including substitution of the grant component by a reimbursable advance.”

The ability to convert funding requests is likely one of the reasons why the grant-first success rates exceeded other modalities since some blended financing (grant and equity) applicants were converted into grant-first applicants without the EIC officially acknowledging it or releasing this information (read: EIC Accelerator 2022 Results).

While the EIC Jury and Step 2 evaluators can make a counter-recommendation in Step 2 and 3, respectively (i.e. convert blended financing to grant-first or change the topic), this can also be done during the due diligence phase. To understand the impact of this approach, the EIC should release the statistical data of all anonymized beneficiaries with timelines and funding amounts which aids in managing the expectations of future applicants.

“Should the outcome of the due diligence conclude that the innovation or your company is not yet mature for equity investment, the EIC Fund may recommend to the Commission that you start with the grant component first, and that the investment component will be subject to reaching defined milestones that will be included in the contract for the grant component via an amendment.”

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

This article was last modified on Nov 5, 2022 @ 10:16

Deadlines: Post-Horizon 2020, the EIC Accelerator accepts Step 1 submissions now while the deadlines for the full applications (Step 2) under Horizon Europe are:

Step 1 (short proposal)
- open now
Step 2 (business plan)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: -
- 4^th cut-off: October 19^th 2023 (extended)
Step 3 (interview)
- 1^st cut-off: -
- 2^nd cut-off: -
- 3^rd cut-off: October 2^nd to 6^th (extended)
- 4^th cut-off: November 27^th to December 8^th

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:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

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

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: Scripting the Pitch (Part 1)