Tag Archives: EIC Accelerator template

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

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 Europe, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

The Risk of Presenting all Risks in the High-Risk EIC Accelerator Program

April 17, 2023 stephanseglerphd

High-Risk Businesses

The EIC Accelerator grant financing (with blended equity option) by the European Commission (EC) awards up to €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity financing per project (€17.5 million total). It is targeting high-risk projects as defined in the EIC Work Programme and strongly advertised by the European Innovation Council (EIC) in its communications and marketing:

“…And the ‘EIC Accelerator’ for individual companies to develop and scale up breakthrough innovations with high risk and high impact.”

This preference is likewise reflected in the EIC Accelerator’s Step 2 proposal template where a large section is dedicated to risks, probability assessments, impacts and mitigation strategies. The remote evaluators will analyze and assess this section carefully and provide grades according to the following criteria (see Work Programme):

“Have the main risks (e.g. technological, market, financial, regulatory) been identified, together with measures to take to mitigate them?”

“Does the nature and level of risk of the investment in your innovation mean that European market actors are unwilling to commit the full amount alone?”

It is therefore essential to present key risks in the proposal template and, if risks are presented in an insufficient manner for financial, commercial and technical areas, the project will likely receive a poor score for this aspect.

Risking Rejection

One of the downsides of using thousands of remote evaluators in Step 2 of the EIC Accelerator application process in combination with a unanimous approval process to pass this step is that a single critical evaluation will lead to rejection. Since each evaluator has their own unique background with an uncertain degree of knowledge on the project’s subject matter, the risk section can attract unwanted scrutiny.

This is aggravated by the freezing periods introduced by the EIC which limits project applicants to only two rejections in Step 2 and greatly increases the stakes of a single critical evaluation (see Resubmissions).

Additionally, the EIC Accelerator Step 3 jury is very risk-averse and aims to make traditional investment decisions (i.e. low-risk, high-reward) for the companies available to them through the Step 1 and Step 2 evaluation process (see Breaking the Rules).

When it comes to the EIC Accelerator, it is therefore prudent to be just risky enough to pass Step 1 and Step 2 but not too risky to pass Step 3, especially in terms of commercial and financial risks.

Presenting Risk

While all sections in the EIC Accelerator Step 1 or Step 2 application generally benefit from more content and more text, the risk section is unique since it is detrimental to either introduce too much or too little content.

If a company neglects to introduce financial, commercial or technical risks, the project’s evaluation can conclude that it is out of scope for the high-risk EIC Accelerator program in Steps 1 and 2. It is likewise possible for evaluators to criticize that obvious risks have been neglected in the application.

If a company introduces too many risks, even with thoughtful mitigation strategies, the evaluators can criticize the level of risk management and the capability of mitigating these risks – justified or not.

It is therefore advisable for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) as well as professional writers, freelancers or consultants to add essential risks for each project aspect (i.e. commercial, financial, technical) but to be conservative. It is beneficial to not maximize the presentation of possible risks in the same way development, market or technology sections are maximized since it provides an unnecessary attack surface for criticism in the evaluation.

In some cases, it can even be advisable to remove risks presented in the EIC Accelerator’s Step 1 when preparing the Step 2 documents if they have led evaluators to be overly critical without providing any substantial feedback or reason for their criticism (i.e. “that is too risky”). Such changes often go unnoticed.

Conclusion

This is a major flaw in the application process since it forces applicants to be less transparent and under-present their risks even though the EIC Accelerator should welcome high-risk projects with suitable mitigation strategies.

Interestingly, the EIC and EC representatives can even ask beneficiaries that have successfully passed all evaluation steps to introduce additional risks to project documents to be better aligned with the EIC Accelerator program even though the funding decision has already been made.

Such sleight of hand illustrates that there could be a mismatch between the EIC’s funding rules and the application’s incentives.

This article was last modified on Mar 30, 2023 @ 20:40

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 to Prepare an EIC Accelerator Resubmission

April 13, 2023 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) provides startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) with detailed feedback for every stage of the evaluation process (see What is the EIC Accelerator).

This feedback system is relatively new among funding programs since it enables applicants to understand why their project was positively assessed or what it was lacking.

Since the EIC Accelerator awards up to €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity financing per project (€17.5 million total), it is important for applicants to gain a deeper understanding of what the evaluations and the obtained scores mean to increase their chances of success.

Applicants are often less experienced in grant processes and, since the EIC Accelerator is unique in its structure, it is often useful to utilize professional writers, freelancers or consultants who have a greater depth of knowledge regarding the program (see Contact).

Evaluation Summary Report (ESR)

The ESR of the EIC Accelerator’s Step 2 generally provides applicants with detailed feedback on the evaluation in the form of 9 GO or NO GO ratings that account for 3 evaluators who address 3 distinct criteria, namely:

Excellence
1. Breakthrough and market-creating nature
2. Timing
3. Technological feasibility
4. Intellectual Property
Impact (or: Scale-up potential)
1. Scale up potential
2. Broader impact
3. Market fit and competitor analysis
4. Commercialization strategy
5. Key partners
Level of risk, implementation, and need for Union support
1. Team
2. Milestones
3. Risk level of the investment
4. Risk mitigation

Each of these criteria will display comments from the evaluators which are directly addressing the positive aspects or shortcomings of the EIC Accelerator proposal and therefore form the basis of the resubmission (see EIC Accelerator Evaluation Criteria).

The Effort of Resubmissions

In general, the higher the score of an EIC Accelerator Step 2 application is, the less effort an applicant has to put into the resubmission process whereas an 8/9 score will only require minimal improvements while a 1/9 score will require substantial changes (see EIC Accelerator Resubmissions).

Since each resubmission allows the applicants to provide an answer to the previous evaluation as well as a list of changes included in the resubmitted proposal, it is likely that the new evaluators will not carefully reread the entire application but focus mainly on the rebuttal and the sections that are new or changed.

As a result, the writer has a great deal of influence over the perception of the project through the responses and directions given to the new evaluators. Since the evaluators are not the same individuals who issued the initial rejection, there is likewise the benefit of not having to face evaluators who have already made up their minds or formed critical views of the project.

Very often, a previous criticism that has been unfair or incorrect can be easily addressed through a simple response and the fact that the new evaluators have no attachment to the old evaluation.

The Focus of Resubmissions

While each individual EIC Accelerator application is different, it is possible to draw general conclusions regarding the ESR. The Step 2 business plan is exceptionally long but it can be broken down into critical and less important sections to simplify the improvement process.

In many cases, it is possible to estimate the proposal quality and sophistication of sections based on the individual scoring for each of the three major ESR criteria.

This article will generalize proposals from different industries and of different quality levels so it should be noted that the recommendations will not be true for every application. It will also focus on the larger sections rather than listing every possible eventuality suggested by a negative ESR assessment.

1. Excellence

The excellence section focuses on the criteria of (1) Breakthrough and market-creating nature, (2) Timing, (3) Technological feasibility and (4) Intellectual Property.

Very often, a lacking excellence section reflects (i) the description of the technology, (ii) the need for the technology and (iii) how the technology is compared to existing solutions.

There are a variety of overlaps between all criteria since the market is mentioned in Excellence while it is also part of the Impact section and even the Risks through the mentioning of market risks. This, of course, makes it difficult to identify the source of the criticism but it can be helpful to imagine the highest level of the main criteria:

Is this an excellent technology?

If NO GO gradings were obtained then the evaluators had their doubts. Often, these stem from:

1.1 Features and Use Cases

This section is the purest technology section of the EIC Accelerator grant proposal since all other sections are heavily focused on the value chain, competition or development roadmaps.

While the features and use cases are likewise touching on these aspects, they are most suitable to explain why this technology is sophisticated and difficult. The EIC Accelerator is aiming to fund DeepTech projects that have a long time-to-market and require extensive capital investments before significant revenues can be generated.

While this mission is not entirely matching reality for Step 3 (see Breaking the Rules), it is still a focus of the evaluation process at least in Step 1 and Step 2. This means that the evaluators must see why the project fits this mission.

The features and use cases should be used to explain the technology from scratch and not be limited to the way it is used by customers.

For example, smartphone use cases would focus on the way users interact with the device but would not describe the Operating System (OS) development, data usage, app ecosystem, hardware specifications and other parts.

It is possible to prepare an EIC Accelerator application that perfectly answers all of the questions given in the lengthy proposal template but never really explains what the backend looks like and what is unique about the technology.

This is what the features and use cases can be perfect for.

1.2 Value Chain

The value chain is another example of a section where the excellence of a technology can be highlighted since it heavily focuses on the innovation of the product, the customer pain points and the unique value presented to the customers. While it is less suitable to elaborate on the technology back-end, it is highly suitable for the contextualization of the innovation.

This section will define why the innovation is unique, why it is delivering value to the customers and how it fits into the current economic, environmental and social environment.

If the excellence criteria was insufficient, it could likely be caused by an insufficient presentation in these sections.

1.3 Competitors

The competitor section is very comprehensive in the EIC Accelerator Step 2 proposal since it is distributed into two large sections as well as a variety of other sections that are directly connected to it.

The excellence of a technology and project is often assessed in contrast to existing technologies since it will directly impact its novelty. The iPhone 1 was groundbreaking in 2007 but it is barely usable as an alarm clock today.

If the competitor section is not sufficiently contrasting the excellence of the product and services then it can be responsible for a low grading in this aspect.

2. Impact (Scale-up Potential)

The impact section focuses on the criteria of (1) Scale-up potential, (2) Broader impact, (3) Market fit and competitor analysis, (4) Commercialisation strategy and (5) Key partners.

In short, it answers the following question:

How will this product change the market and lives of customers?

There are a variety of sections that are touched on by this criteria but the following key aspects are often lacking if a low score is obtained. Since it is impossible to generalize such vague criteria, the following list will not be true for all projects.

2.1 Traction

The greatest argument for why a product is needed by the market is a long list of customers, either prospective or paying, that have only good things to say about the technology. Commercial traction is proof that there is, in fact, a product-market fit and that the customers find the new product superior.

If a company has obtained a low impact score then customer traction is an important section to investigate since it might have been lacking. This includes Letters of Intent (LOI), existing customers, case studies, early revenues and general customer feedback or validations.

2.2. Market

Since the remote EIC Evaluators are not psychics, the market dynamics and current state have to be explained in detail to reflect why the project will have a strong impact. If the market analysis is poor or lacks quantifications as well as insights that support a large-scale customer deployment then this can cause a low score.

2.3 Technology Adoption Lifecycle (TALC)

While there are many other sections that will influence the impact criteria such as the scale-up potential or the partners, the TALC will greatly influence the perceived sophistication and strategy of the scale-up.

While commercial strategies do not receive substantial scrutiny in Step 2 due to the technology-heavy backgrounds of the EIC Accelerator’s remote evaluators, it is still important to clearly explain how the product will be commercialized.

3. Level of risk, implementation, and need for Union support

This section focuses on the criteria of (1) Team, (2) Milestones, (3) Risk level of the investment and (4) Risk mitigation.

There are clear objectives for the EIC Accelerator regarding the risk and need for support by the EIC since the program is aiming to fund projects that are otherwise not able to raise investments (see To Disrupt or Not To Disrupt).

In reality, the projects funded under the EIC are not all fulfilling this criterion since only funding high-risk projects is, well, too risky even for the EIC (see Breaking the Rules).

Still, great care should be placed into the sections relating to the need for EIC support since the evaluators will read them carefully and assess if the EIC is the only viable option to fund this project.

Other important sections that are commonly insufficient if a low score is obtained for this segment:

3.1 Workpackages

Many of the questions under this evaluation criterion are targeting the implementation of the project and aim to assess if the competencies of the team fit the ambitious goals and work plan. It is therefore essential to have clear and detailed workpackage descriptions.

Since the EIC Accelerator Step 2 proposal has gained in complexity over the years, it seems excessive to introduce many workpackages, tasks, costs, intermediary deliverables, final deliverables, mandatory milestones, custom milestones and even thoughtful descriptions for each but it will increase the chances of a good evaluation.

3.2 Risks

The EIC Accelerator is designed for high-risk and high-reward projects (see EIC Accelerator Risks). Still, this section is unique since it should not be too comprehensive and not be too lacking. It should be well balanced so that the project appears risky but very well mitigated.

There should always be extensive risk mitigation strategies for each risk and it is not advisable to include as many risks as possible.

If the criticism in the ESR notes that the project is “not risky enough” then this generally means that the financial, commercial and technological risks were not well presented.

If it is claimed that the project is “too risky” then either the mitigation strategies were lacking or the applicant was oversharing everything that could possibly go wrong and edged on pessimism.

3.3 Team

Of course, the team section is a highly important part of the evaluation since it is presenting the members that will implement the action. It is always critical to present a large team with all required competencies as well as to identify how missing competencies will be filled through hiring.

Since the EIC Accelerator application requires each team member to be added individually through an interactive form field, it might seem tedious to add dozens of team members but it is still recommended to present them in full except for larger companies.

Conclusion

The tips presented in this article are simple suggestions as to how certain sections can impact the scores of the EIC Accelerator grant proposal but they will not be true for every project. A successful EIC Accelerator application will depend on a variety of factors that are often unique to a particular project.

Standardizing the structure of an EIC Accelerator proposal is possible to some degree but it is often the customization and creative writing that will present a grant proposal in the best possible light.

This article was last modified on Apr 6, 2023 @ 19:24

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, SME Instrument / EIC Accelerator

How to Prepare a Good EIC Accelerator Application: General Project Advice

April 10, 2023 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Commission (EC) is a selective program designed for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME).

The funding per project can reach €17.5 million in total (€2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity) and applicants often rely on professional writers, freelancers or consultants to support their applications since the evaluation criteria are often obscured in the EIC’s communication (see Evaluation).

This article presents a short list of what a company needs to succeed in the EIC Accelerator program. While the following list will not be true for every successful company, it is a useful guide to adhere to when venturing into the lengthy and high-risk EIC Accelerator evaluation process (see Winning Candidate).

1. Letters of Intent (LOI) and Traction

While it is possible to succeed in Step 1 and Step 2 of the EIC Accelerator with a poor commercial description, it is very difficult to succeed in the Step 3 interviews without clear commercial traction and strategies (see Interview Preparation). This is due to the background of the remote evaluators for Step 1 and 2 in comparison to the Step 3 jury whereas the former often lacks commercial expertise while the latter lacks technical expertise.

Still, LOI’s are helpful in Step 2 and Step 3 of the evaluation process since they demonstrate a market need and real customers who have an interest in purchasing a product. They also allow the applicants to introduce case studies that can further elaborate on the impact of the innovative solution.

Any EIC Accelerator applicant should assure that they have commercial traction in some capacity since the program is designed to scale up rather than seed-fund companies. The general rule is to obtain as many support documents as possible whereas contracts, letters of intent, letters of support, customers lists and even informal email requests are helpful.

2. Clear Disruption Potential

There should be clear evidence that the innovation has the potential to disrupt the status quo which can be based on political pressures (i.e. climate, semiconductors, vaccines, AI) or can be focused on an isolated industry (i.e. real estate, computing, diagnostics).

The narrative should contain a broad explanation of the current state of the industry and clearly explain what is missing or what the lynchpin of disruption will be. If an industry is saturated, has many competing offerings and differentiation is not easily understood (or absent), then a disruptive potential will be difficult to argue for.

Clarity and simplicity are the keys in this aspect since, if the evaluator is confused about why the project is important, they will not provide a good review.

3. Innovative Technology

In the EIC Accelerator program, there is no way around a sophisticated technology. While it is clear that not all funded companies fall into the DeepTech category, no company’s technology will be funded if it was not complex and very difficult to copy.

While the narrative should be broad but easy to understand, the technology should be explained in all of its complexity. The EIC Accelerator template often requests that no jargon is used but no evaluator will ever admit that they are too ignorant to understand something.

If a technical description is too sophisticated for them, evaluators will often accept it at face value and leave a positive review. Of course, this is only true if the technical description is well-structured and -written, even if complex.

On the other hand, if a technical description is simplistic and not comprehensive, the evaluators will claim that it is not innovative or that it is incremental rather than ground-breaking.

4. Consistent and Detailed Descriptions

A very common cause of a bad evaluation in the EIC Accelerator program is a lack of text and arguments. Since the proposal is extremely lengthy (see Timeline), applicants who do not contract professional grant writers or consultants often try to cut corners.

This is, of course, to the detriment of the perceived project quality.

It is important to decide, in the beginning, on the clear messages and quantifiers that need to be presented. The problem should be well quantified from a global, EU and customer perspective. The same is true for the solution which must have clear quantifiers for the benefits of the product and the needs of the market.

These numbers and facts should be used throughout the application and can be repeated in every section which benefits from them. If something is true and impactful, evaluators will generally not complain even if they have read the same statistic dozens of times.

Since the application is very long, the most important numbers and facts should be repeated the most often so that they will not be missed. Of course, this should not be an excuse to copy/paste the same text everywhere but should be an incentive to answer questions in a new way using consistent data.

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

How to Craft an EIC Accelerator Rebuttal: Explaining Grant Proposal Resubmissions

April 5, 2023 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator by the European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) awards up to €2.5 million in grant and €15 million in equity financing per project (€17.5 million total).

Startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) often rely on consultants, professional writers or freelancers to support them in preparing impactful grant applications due to the many difficult aspects that have been introduced in 2021.

The Evaluation

The EIC Accelerator grant financing (with blended equity option) is a highly selective funding program and, due to the high degree of subjectivity combined with a pool of anonymous and remote evaluators, rejections are a very common occurrence (see Resubmissions).

Due to the difficulties that the EIC encounters in creating an efficient and affordable evaluation process, it is often a necessary evil to use evaluators who are not experts in a field or are too busy to read the entire application carefully.

As a result, each evaluation can contain criticisms that are wrong or simply reveal ignorance regarding core industry functions. This, of course, does not mean that evaluators are always wrong since there are many projects that do not fit the program and are rightfully rejected because of a lack of innovation, company traction or a poor business model.

This article focuses on projects that are a great fit for the EIC Accelerator but are, often unfairly, rejected by a close margin in Step 2 of the application process (see Evaluation Criteria).

It also focuses on the second step of the process since Step 1 is very easy to pass and any rejection in this stage is a clear sign that a company has little appeal to the EIC or has not prepared a diligent application.

The Rebuttal

The rebuttal is a special section of the proposal template that allows applicants to (1) respond to the evaluation of the previously rejected proposal and (2) explain what is different about the current application. This is an essential section since it will be prominently displayed on top of the proposal as it is viewed by the evaluators and the reviewers might focus their assessment largely on the rebuttal rather than reading the entire application as closely as the first reviewers did.

Evaluations can be frustrating since the reviewers can make critical mistakes in their evaluation by misquoting LOI’s, misreading FTO’s, claiming that data is missing even though it was present or simply making logical flaws in their arguments which are easily identified through critical thinking.

Yet, the EIC is generally declining any re-evaluations for applicants who complain of material mistakes made by the evaluators and just refers them to the rebuttal in the next application deadline. But of course, if a company has been rejected twice, it will have to wait another 12 months until they are able to re-apply.

Note: There are rare exceptions where the EIC will allow Step 2 proposals to be re-evaluated in case the evaluators made a critical mistake regarding the rules of the EIC but it is extremely rare and decided on a case-by-case basis.

Crafting the Rebuttal

1. Read the Evaluation Summary Report (ESR)

The first step in crafting an impactful rebuttal is to read the ESR carefully. Based on the score obtained in the evaluation, it will be evident if a rebuttal can make a positive impact or not since a narrow rejection will be more malleable while an overwhelming rejection will not be.

Step 2 of the EIC Accelerator provides 9 individual GO criteria which are distributed over 3 evaluators and 3 topic areas, namely:

Excellence
Scale-Up Potential
Level of risk, implementation, and need for Union support

If an ESR signifies that an application has obtained 1 out of 9 possible GO criteria (i.e. 8 NO GO) then no rebuttal will be likely to convince future evaluators. In fact, the lower the number of GO gradings is, the more the main Step 2 proposal must be improved to compensate for the lacking presentation.

The higher the number of GO criteria is, the less the application needs to be adjusted and the more can be conveyed through a rebuttal.

There are a variety of tips regarding the improvement of the main proposal which can be found in the articles on this website (see Articles).

2. Extract the Criticism (and Sometimes Praise)

Every ESR will contain criticism. It is even a common occurrence that an evaluator provides a GO grading but still introduces critical points that place the project in a negative light. While it would be convenient to ignore such harmless criticisms, one must still address them in the rebuttal since these will raise doubts in the next evaluator’s minds.

It is important to go through the entire evaluation and carefully mark every single negative point. Less important but still useful is searching for positive remarks by the evaluators that have additional weight attached to them.

An example could be that an evaluator identifies themselves as part of the customer group, a scientific researcher in that field or suggests they have any other source of insider knowledge which gives credibility to their positive assessments.

Such statements should be highlighted in the rebuttal, if positive.

In the case of narrow rejections, it is very often one evaluator who continually criticizes the project while the remaining two evaluators remain positive. Nonetheless, all criticisms must be addressed irrespective of the GO or NO GO criteria.

3. Highlight the Good

A powerful start to any rebuttal is to first highlight the positive. This, of course, is generally reserved for projects that have been rejected narrowly with 7 or 8 out of 9 possible GO’s. The first sentence can then stress that the response was overwhelmingly positive with a few minor criticisms by a single evaluator who did not fully understand the project.

It should then be followed, if available, by positive remarks from an evaluator with insider knowledge. Highlight how an evaluator who has insider information immediately grasped the impact of the product while an evaluator who was unaware of the industry used, as an example, Google for a quick search which led to misinformed comments.

If an evaluator added a powerful quote, it should be added to the rebuttal since it can preempt the following evaluators with a perception of high quality.

4. Highlight the Ignorance

Since the thousands of EIC evaluators are subject to only minimal due diligence and their work is generally underpaid with an increasingly high workload, the evaluations are often not of the highest quality.

In general, the tone of the rebuttal should be professional and polite with an objective view of what was missing and the changes that have been made. It should also objectively clarify misunderstandings or criticisms that were encountered in the ESR.

Still, there is a place to highlight the ignorance of particular evaluators if they made obvious logical flaws. This can be in cases where an evaluator mentioned a competing product but misrepresents the product offering, misquotes a Letter of Intent (LOI), calculates a fictitious case study but makes a numerical error or simply presents an argument based on publicly available data which, after investigation, was incorrect.

In such cases, the rebuttal should use every chance to state that this evaluator was factually incorrect. It is beneficial to make clear and logical arguments why this evaluator was wrong.

The rebuttal should also point out whenever information that the evaluator claimed was missing was already part of the previous submission. This casts additional doubt on their critical comments.

It has the impact of (1) showing future evaluators that the previous negative assessment was wrong and (2) communicating to evaluators that they should think deeply before criticizing the project since they must be sure to not make logical errors.

Still, the rebuttal should be fair even to the critical evaluators so as to not antagonize future evaluators but, in all likelihood, the new evaluators will be on your side if the rebuttal uses logic to dismantle previous criticisms – even if it is harsh.

5. Add Minimal Changes

For close rejections where the number of critical points is limited and the score in Step 2 amounted to 7-8 out of 9 GO’s, it is sufficient to leave the majority of the proposal as is and simply make minor adjustments based on the feedback.

Such changes can be the introduction of new deliverables, milestones, patent information, visual data, case studies or any other points that were identified as lacking by the evaluators.

Often, it is sufficient to introduce very small additions since the new evaluators generally want to see that changes have been made rather than requiring the changes to be extensive.

In contrast, an application that has received a low score in the Step 2 evaluation will likely have to introduce substantial changes and often requires reshaping of key sections of the application such as the features & use cases, competitors, value chain, market and work plan.

This article was last modified on Apr 5, 2023 @ 16:40

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

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

February 3, 2023 stephanseglerphd

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

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

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

Developing Unique Selling Points (USP)

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

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

Starting With the Innovation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Is it hard to copy?

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

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

3. Is it patentable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

This article was last modified on Apr 25, 2023 @ 18:54

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

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

January 21, 2023 stephanseglerphd

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

It is often supported by professional writers, freelancers or consultants since it can be challenging for startups to navigate the lengthy assessment and proposal writing process. This article aims to provide a brief but comprehensive overview of the program to help future applicants decide if the EIC Accelerator is the right instrument for them.

What is the EIC Accelerator?

The EIC Accelerator is a funding program by the European Commission (EC) and the European Innovation Council (EIC) as part of Horizon Europe.

It funds innovative DeepTech companies with grant and/or equity financing of up to €2.5 million and €15 million, respectively (see 2023 Budget).

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

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

What does the EIC Accelerator provide?

Next to business acceleration, coaching and networking opportunities, it provides funding in the form of 4 different application options:

Grant-only: A non-dilutive grant with the company reaching TRL8 at the end of the project and subsequently reaching TRL9 without the help of the EIC.
Grant-first: A non-dilutive grant with the company reaching TRL8 at the end of the project. There is an option to apply for dilutive equity financing from the EIC Fund afterward to reach TRL9 (see Grant-First).
Equity-only: Dilutive equity funding from the EIC Fund to reach TRL9.
Blended finance: A mix of non-dilutive grant and dilutive equity financing to reach TRL9 at the end of the project.

How do the different funding options finance development work?

In general, grant funding can only be used for activities up to TRL8 (i.e. TRL5 to TRL8) while equity funding can be used for developments up to TRL9 including innovation activities (i.e. TRL5 to TRL9).

What industries can apply and are there topic limitations?

The EIC publishes topics every year in the EIC Work Programme which outlines specific budget allocations. Generally, the budget is split between the options of an “Open” and a “Challenge” Call which are usually available on the same cut-off dates (see Deadline). A company can therefore decide which topic they would like to apply for. The two options are:

EIC Accelerator Open: This call is open to applicants of all industries provided they are not violating the agendas of the European Union (EU) in terms of climate, human rights, ethics and other political and social targets.
EIC Accelerator Challenges: These topics are clearly defined technology and industry themes that must be achieved or covered by the applicant (see EIC Accelerator Challenges). The applicant can select the respective Challenge during the Step 2 submission process.

When and how can I apply?

The EIC Accelerator generally has 3-4 cut-offs per year which are set for Step 2 submissions (see Deadline). The following conditions apply:

Step 1: This step encompasses a short application including a pitch deck (see Pitch Deck), a video (see Pitch Video) and a short proposal. Submitting a proposal is possible at all times since the call is continuously open.
Step 2: This step requires a very detailed business plan in addition to multiple annexes such as financials, Letters of Intent (LOI), a Freedom to Operate (FTO) analysis, a Data Management Plan (DMP), a pitch deck and a customizable company profile. After Step 1 has been passed, the applicants can apply to Step 2 to any of the designated deadlines (see Deadlines).
Step 3: This step is an interview with the EIC Jury that is usually conducted online through a video call. It encompasses a 10-minute pitch by the applicant using the pitch deck submitted in Step 2 and an up to 35-minute Question and Answer session by the jury (see Interview Preparation). If Step 2 has been passed successfully, the interview dates are generally a few weeks after the Step 2 evaluation was completed.

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

What does the result of an application look like?

The EIC has increased the level of transparency compared to earlier years and has introduced detailed feedback from evaluators. For Step 1 and Step 2, four or three evaluators will grade the application, respectively, and leave feedback for the applicants.

Each evaluator will be able to grade the proposal with a GO or NO GO rating.
For Step 1, at least 2/4 of evaluators have to provide a GO for the application to be successful.
For Step 2, at least 3/3 of evaluators have to provide a GO for the application to be successful.

Feedback is provided to the applicants irrespective of the GO or NO GO grading through detailed responses by the evaluators for all evaluation criteria (see Evaluation Criteria).

For the Step 3 interviews, a unanimous decision by the EIC Jury is presented and the applicants likewise receive responses regarding the evaluation criteria as well as the GO or NO GO result.

If the applicant passes all three steps, the preparation for the Grant Agreement Contract (GAC) and a due diligence process are initiated.

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

The time it takes to apply for the EIC Accelerator will differ depending on the number of resubmissions and the efficiency of preparing an application. It can be further delayed if the due diligence process is slowed down from the side of the EIC.

In general, one can expect a timeline of 2-4 weeks for the preparation of Step 1 followed by a 5-30 day average assessment period. For Step 2, a 50-70 day preparation period followed by a 30-40 day assessment period should be expected. With the Step 3 interviews following approximately 2-6 weeks after the Step 2 result is obtained, one can add an additional 3-5 weeks to receive the final grading by the EIC Jury.

A fast application process can go from the Step 1 start to Step 3 approval within 6 months if no rejections have occurred and if all documents were prepared efficiently without waiting times.

In case of rejections and multiple resubmissions, the total process can also take multiple years and there is never a guarantee that a project will be funded.

What are the success chances for the EIC Accelerator?

Since the 3-Step application process is complex, it is difficult to estimate exact numbers for success rates. If 1,000 companies apply for Step 1 and 70% receive a GO over multiple weeks then it cannot be determined based on the published data how many of these exact companies proceed to the subsequent Step 2 deadline (see Deadlines).

The metrics are further obscured through the previous batch being able to resubmit their applications or abandon the application entirely.

Based on past data, the following estimations can be made (see 2021, 2022A, 2022B):

Step 1: ~67% pass rate
Step 2: ~22% pass rate
Step 3: ~32.5% pass rate
Total EIC Accelerator success rate: 4.8%

What limitations exist regarding the submissions?

The EIC Accelerator has introduced freezing periods for resubmissions whereas every applicant generally receives two attempts for each written proposal step (i.e. “two strikes, you’re out”). This means that a company that has failed twice in Step 1 will be blocked from submitting the same application for 12 months. The same is true for Step 2 applications.

There are nuances in the case of the Step 3 interviews which are explained here: Resubmission Process Explained.

What types of companies actually win the EIC Accelerator grant?

The companies that generally win the EIC Accelerator are often DeepTech hardware businesses but there are likewise software and IT industry winners among the funded projects (complete beneficiary lists are linked here: 2021, 2022A, 2022B).

How do I know if I should apply or not?

Predicting who will receive funding under the EIC is difficult even for seasoned consultancies. While it is possible to estimate the chances, the level of randomness during the evaluation process and the unknown variables introduced by the company during the proposal writing process render any estimate to be speculative.

If the company has an excellent technology, a great team, a scalable business model and is aligned with EU interests then the EIC Accelerator is worth pursuing.

Here is a list of general considerations for an ideal project: A Winning EIC Accelerator Candidate

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

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

November 5, 2022 stephanseglerphd

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

The EIC’s 2023 Work programme

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

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

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

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

The EIC Ecosystem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fast Track and Pilot Plug-in Schemes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Companies supported by the WomenTech.EU programme.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outlook

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

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

This article was last modified on Nov 5, 2022 @ 19:12

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)