Tag Archives: EIC Accelerator video

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

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

Step 1: The Short Application

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

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

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

1.1 Proposal Text

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

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

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

1.2 Pitch Deck

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

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

1.3 Pitch Video

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

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

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

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

Scripting
Recording
Editing

1.3.1 Scripting

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

1.3.2 Recording

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

1.3.3 Editing

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

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

1.4 Financials & Deliverables

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

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

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

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

1.5 Total Time for Step 1

1.5.1 Duration

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

1.5.2 Evaluation

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

Step 2: The Business Plan

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

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

2.1 Proposal Text

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

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

2.2 Annexes

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

2.2.1 Letters of Intent (LOI)

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

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

2.2.2 Pitch Deck

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

2.2.3 Freedom to Operate Analysis (FTO)

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

2.2.4 Data Management Plan (DMP)

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

2.2.5 10-Pager

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

2.2.6 Financials

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

2.3 Total Time for Step 2

2.3.1 Duration

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

2.3.2 Evaluation

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

Step 3: The Jury Interview

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

3.1 Duration

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

3.2 Evaluation

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

Resubmissions and Freezing Periods

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 1 (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, 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)

EIC Accelerator, Horizon Europe

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

October 30, 2021 stephanseglerphd

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

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

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

Core Rules

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

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

How To Practise (The Mock-Jury)

Rapid-Fire Questions

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

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

– Archilochus

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

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

Example (Interviewee / Mock-Jury)

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

Recommendation

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

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

The Devils Advocate

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

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

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

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

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

Example (Interviewee / Mock-Jury)

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

Recommendation

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

Looking for Flaws

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example (Interviewee / Mock-Jury)

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

Recommendation

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

Learn the Rules & Read the Application

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

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

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

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

Example (Interviewee / Mock-Jury)

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

Recommendation

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

Choose Who Answers What

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

Give each person a topic

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

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

Sit in the same room

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

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

Practise question allocations

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

Conclusion

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

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

EIC Accelerator Interview Preparation Process: The Importance of the Q&A (Part 2)

October 29, 2021 stephanseglerphd

This article is the second part of the interview preparation guide for the EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity). It provides a perspective on how an applicant, Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprise (SME) or startup could prepare for the EIC Accelerator pitch interview but it is not a pre-requisite to succeed in front of the jury.

While there is no official guidance or template on the preparation process for the EIC pitch, most professional grant writers or consultancies have developed their own processes to prepare their clients for a successful Step 3. This series of articles provides an example for such a process.

Introduction

Introduced in 2018, the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Commission (EC) have created a Jury-system for the evaluation of successful written applications which acts as the final step before the grant approval. This illustrates the desire of the European Union (EU) to fund real companies that not only have interesting projects but also have the desire, confidence and motivation necessary to implement said project. In addition, it allows the EIC to supplement their remote evaluator’s pool with experts in the investment field.

Since most startups have rich experience in talking to investors, giving presentations during pitch events or hosting workshops and seminars themselves, it often comes as a surprise that they need to practise for the EIC Accelerator pitch at all. But consultants understand that this is absolutely necessary since the EIC pitch week differs from a normal Venture Capital (VC) or investor interaction in the following ways.

No Specialised Knowledge

The Jury members might not be experts regarding the technology or might not know the industry dynamics. The EIC Jury is a well-balanced collection of business experts including consultants, angel investors, educators (i.e. business schools), VC partners and entrepreneurs but, while the EIC aims to segment the Jury into thematic groups to facilitate the interview process, one must assume that half or more of the audience neither has previous knowledge about the technology or the market that is being targeted. This also extends to the European Investment Bank (EIB) members which are allowed to sit in and ask questions.

Not Investing Themselves

A second consideration to make is that, while the Jury might contain investors, they are not investing their own money. Usually, startups will be in contact with people who are able to make investment decisions and who are directly benefitting or suffering from a good or a bad funding outcome. This is not the case with the EIC Jury since these generally do not invest in the startups they interview and, if the investment turned out to be poor (i.e. bankruptcy, fraud, failure) then the Jury will face no negative repercussions since the EIC is responsible for the funding approval.

This creates an interesting dynamic where the Jury members have no skin in the game but select companies based on the profile outlined by the EIC (i.e. DeepTech, unicorns, non-bankability, high-risk). This does not mean that their assessments will be lesser than in the private market or that they will not be as stringent as they would be if their own financing or career was at stake but it is worth considering since Jury members might pose different questions compared to conventional investors.

Ambiguous Evaluation Criteria

While many investors have a certain focus (i.e. industry, technology, geography), they all have one primary goal in common: To make a return on their investment within a given time frame while minimizing their risk. But the EIC is turning that on its head with ambiguous criteria that most normal investors would not consider prioritizing: Non-bankability and high-risk.

The EIC aims to close the gap between companies that are too risky to finance and those that have been sufficiently de-risked to warrant substantial Series A investments. As a result, it seeks out companies that are:

Non-bankable: A company that can’t leverage financing from other public or private sources (i.e. national grants, bank loans, VC’s, angel investors, etc.)
High-risk: A project that is too risky and deters investors.

Why these criteria could be viewed as being ambiguous:

Many of the companies that are funded under the EIC have raised substantial financing above €1M prior to receiving the EIC grant. As such, there is no reason why they could not raise similar financing amounts again even if one-time public grants were a major financing source.
Most companies have access to other grants since there are many options available and a majority of companies apply for more than one grant at a time.
The project must be feasible and the risks must be well-mitigated or it will be rejected by the EIC. The remote evaluators heavily screen for feasibility and a product-market-fit (i.e. traction and willingness-to-pay) which excludes many high-risk projects by default.

Note: The three points above can be argued but it is likely that most EIC Accelerator beneficiaries would have raised financing from other sources if they were rejected by the EIC since they are excellent business cases.

Why These Criteria Still Benefit the EIC

High-Risk Projects

The EIC likely understands that it’s nonsensical to select projects with an unreasonable level of risk (i.e. projects with almost no chance of success) but it does not want to attract easy-to-finance projects, specifically. It uses the term high-risk to inform applicants that they should not be afraid to apply even if they have been rejected by many investors or grants prior because of their risk profile.

This way, the EIC creates a space where highly ambitious and cutting-edge projects gather because they are riskier than others when viewed from an investors perspective. Of course, there will also be applicants who are too high risk and lack the expertise, a product-market-fit or the competence to execute the project but these are filtered in Steps 1 and 2 of the EIC Accelerator evaluation.

Non-Bankability

The EIC wants to be an exclusive financing instrument because it has the goal of turning science into innovation as EU Commissioner Mariya Gabriel said during her Keynote in 2021:

The so-called European innovation paradox that Europe is a world leader in science and research but that other regions lead on innovation so the EIC will build on the amazing research base in Europe to support disruptive DeepTech and market creation startups. This will be a priority role for the EIC.

– Mariya Gabriel, EU Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth

In addition, the EIC aims to de-risk such highly technical projects sufficiently to warrant private industry investments which would have been elusive otherwise. This renders the EIC a catalyst for the European DeepTech ecosystem:

We will crowd in private investment. Private investment in European DeepTech. The 10 billion budget of the European Innovation Council aims to crowd in at least €50 billion from the private sector.

– Mark Ferguson, Chair of the EIC Advisory Board

This means that the EIC does not aim to be the first choice for all startups in the European ecosystem but seeks to attract a small group of excellent, DeepTech companies that do not have access to capital. The criteria of non-bankability is a way of selecting for this goal.

In reality, the EIC can never know how easy or difficult it is for a company to raise substantial investments since this highly depends on connections, the geography and the ingenuity of the management team. While it can ask for it in a grant proposal template, it is difficult to investigate statements such as “We are unable to raise private financing from VC’s or local grants due to the following rejections…”. In practice, non-bankability often means:

We will invest unless someone else invests before us.

If a company raises €20M right before the Step 3 interview then it will likely be rejected because the EIC would rather spend their budget on companies that have not reached this point yet. If the company describes the difficulty in raising financing to get the EIC funding (i.e. it is non-bankable) and raises €20M only 6 months after the grant has been approved then this will be a great success case for the EIC to announce. Even if the grant did not affect the €20M funding round (i.e. this is extremely difficult to verify).

Introducing the criteria of non-bankability is thus a great way for the EIC to assure that the financing is allocated where it is able to further the goals outlined by Commissioner Gabriel and EIC Chair Ferguson.

Rejecting Over Funding

The EIC Accelerator process is highly selective and, with approval rates of 67% in Step 1 and 16% in Step 2, it can be said that all applicants successfully reaching Step 3 are excellent. With such an in-depth evaluation process that includes video pitches, pitch decks, support documents and, most importantly, a business plan with a length that is greater than most other grant proposals, it would be almost impossible for bad projects to reach the final stage.

As a result, the EIC Jury is faced with the difficult task: Finding the projects with the highest potential among a pool of excellent businesses. And, while this is a reductive perspective, one can view the task of the Jury in a simplified manner: Reject 50% of the applicants.

The EU and the EIC set the budget ahead of time and, even though it should be statistically possible to see 10% or 90% selection rates In the interviews, it is not a realistic outcome. The Jury will have to meet a quota that, even if it can deviate slightly, should match the set budget. As a result, many great projects will be rejected.

An applicant would be well advised to have the following attitude to the pitch interviews:

Under no circumstances can I give the jury a reason to reject us.

Even if the EIC would disagree with this statement, it is still a useful approach for the applicant since, although the project and business are great, they will fail if the presenters are not aware of all the factors that can be perceived as negative by the jury.

Limited Time & Forced Decisions

No investor wants to make a short-notice funding decision. With very few exceptions (i.e. Masayoshi Son’s gut investment in Jack Ma’s Alibaba), investors will take their time, perform due diligence over many weeks or months and will have multiple in-person conversations with the company.

The EIC is different in this regard since a Jury has to make a decision based on a 45-minute interview without having performed any due diligence up to this point. Since the remote evaluation has been completed ahead of time, it can be viewed as partial due diligence but the selected evaluators are likely neither experts in due diligence proceedings nor do they have access to the applicants for the request of additional data or feedback. And while the jury members have access to the application documents, there is no guarantee that they have studied them.

Still, the EIC has multiple due diligence mechanisms:

Step 1

Step 1 will identify the general suitability of a project for the EIC Accelerator. With funding rates of 67% in 2021, it is not very selective but aims to only peak the evaluator’s interest. Projects can be approved even though 50% of the evaluators reject them which renders Step 1 a very low threshold.

Note: Choosing a minimum of 3 out of 4 GO’s by the evaluators (i.e. 75% consensus) or switching to a 2/3 threshold (i.e. 66%) might be a better choice but the EIC has not published scoring correlations between all three steps. If no project with 2/4 GO’s has succeeded in Step 2 or Step 3, then it might be a good sign to raise the bar of Step 1 and save the applicants months of work.

Step 2

Step 2 is much more in-depth and is a great way of looking at the project from multiple angles but it suffers from the evaluator’s pool which might not provide the level of due diligence found in a VC firm. Still, it is a very useful way of filtering for the EIC-set criteria.

Step 3

There is a high chance that neither the Jury members nor the EIB representatives have read the Step 1 and Step 2 applications in full. This means that they strongly rely on the pitch event and will have to make a funding decision based on a 45-minute pitch alone. While some might have read substantial parts of the application, the due diligence done by the Jury members ahead of the pitch will likely be a fraction of what a VC firm would perform before making a funding decision.

Post-Approval

The EIC will perform detailed technical, commercial and financial due diligence for the equity component of the grant but this is after the public financing announcement. It is very unlikely that a company would be rejected after the EIC has already announced their identity on its website and social media accounts unless there is a strong reason to do so. Still, it is a formal due diligence process with a great level of depth.

Conclusion

This article presents a perspective on the EIC Accelerator pitch and does not represent the opinion of the EIC or the EC. An applicant should be aware of the conditions the jury interviews will be conducted under and should pitch their project as if it was assessed for the first time. They should also consider the following notes on the EIC jury:

They are likely unfamiliar with the project’s details
They are potentially not experts in the technology or industry
They are not investing their own money or face negative repercussions for a misselection
They make a funding decision based on only 45 minutes of pitching and questioning although they have access to all previous documents if they chose to review them post-interview
They must prioritize criteria set out by the EC and EIC (i.e. high-risk, DeepTech and non-bankability)
The due diligence performed pre-interview was limited

The June 2021 EIC Accelerator Results and the STABL Energy GmbH Success Story

October 26, 2021 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) has finally completed its first iteration in 2021 despite the delayed launch of Horizon Europe (2021-2027) and only two deadlines in this first year. With the application process having changed dramatically after Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) ended, many professional writers and consultants had to adapt their approach to grant preparations (read: Re-Inventing the EIC Accelerator). With a longer proposal document, new templates, pitch videos, read-only pitch decks and more supporting information being requested, it was an interesting experiment for both the applicants and the European Innovation Council (EIC).

Many Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) and startups have applied to the EIC’s grant and, as has always been the case, only a fraction has been successful. The following article describes one of these success cases as well as the overall statistics of the June 2021 EIC Accelerator call.

The June 2021 EIC Accelerator Call

With the application process having changed dramatically, it comes as no surprise that there were many differences compared to the 2020 cut-offs. One of these differences is that the final statistics for the June deadline are not as clear as they were in 2020 since the new 3-Step process has an obscured number of total applicants.

This is due to the fact that there is no Step 1 deadline and it is unknown how many of the approved Step 1 projects actually applied to Step 2 in June since a significant number might have delayed the application to October 2021. The information communicated by the EIC is also limited with makes a detailed look at the overall statistics difficult.

Nonetheless, with the information that is available today (Linkedin: Nicolas Sabatier and EIC Support), one can conclude that:

Step 1

On May 17^th, 67% or 755 out of 1,114 applicants had passed the threshold and received a GO for Step 1. With the Step 2 deadline having been on June 16^th, this number continued to increase since at least 1,523 total Step 1 applications had been submitted at this point in time (but not all were evaluated yet). It is unlikely that all Step 1 successes decided to apply to the June deadline since, due to the limited time, many might have postponed the application to October 2021. If the success rate of selected applications has remained the same and 801 applicants eventually applied to Step 2 then an approximate 1,196 applicants have applied to Step 1 with the intention to apply to Step 2 in June 2021, yielding 801 approved projects and a 67% success rate for Step 1.

Note: To calculate a success rate for June 2021, one has to filter the number of applicants who applied to Step 1 and aimed for the June 2021 cut-off. It must also be considered that many rejected companies might not have applied to Step 2 even if they were selected. Since there is no publically available data on this, the numbers given here are estimated.

Step 2

With the deadline having been on June 16^th 2021 (it was delayed by 7 days from its original date), the number of applicants amounted to 801. It was later announced that 130 applicants were selected for the interviews, thereby yielding a 16% success rate for this Step.

Step 3

The EIC Accelerator pitch week occurred via remove video calls with the EIC Jury and was conducted in mid-September 2021. Out of the 130 candidates, 65 were able to convince the Jury and succeed in gaining the EIC Accelerator funding. This yielded a 50% success rate for this Step although 24 Swiss applicants were excluded from the process due to the political developments between the EU and the Swiss government.

Step 1-3 Total

With success rates of 67%, 16% and 50% for the respective Steps, the overall success rate for the June 2021 EIC Accelerator was an approximate 5.4% with 65 out of an estimated 1,196 applicants having been successful.

Additional Statistics

Budget

The original budget in the official EIC Accelerator Work Programme (read: The 2021 EIC Accelerator Work Programme) was set at €500M+ but, due to the lack of excellent cases, it was reduced in retrospect (i.e. only €360M+ were allocated to successful candidates). This is a very interesting development since the 2020 applications tended to have far more suitable candidates while budgets were generally too low.

In fact, all 2020 projects with a score of over 13 out of 15 were technically eligible to receive funding, pending the Jury assessment, and the total budgets requested by said projects were, as an example, €1.8B in January 2020 or €2.7B in May 2020. If a Jury assessment were to be applied and only 50% of selected companies were approved, it would still yield budgets that far exceed the 2021 numbers.

It is clear that the EIC Accelerator has become more selective. But it has also become less selective in some ways.

It is more selective since it had an excess budget but deemed most companies to be unsuitable to receive this funding. It has become less selective since success rates have exceeded 5% while 2020 saw rates between 1% and 3%.

A reasonable conclusion to make is that the new barrier for the EIC Accelerator is not the chasing of decimal points (i.e. a 2020 score of 13.7 could be invited to the interviews while 13.6 is not) but the effort applied to preparing the proposal documents for each step. Since many companies have no interest in spending such an extreme effort for almost a year, the pool of serious applicants will be minimized. If this is a good process will remain to be seen but, clearly, the European Innovation Council is not afraid to innovate.

Note: As this was the first cut-off of the new EIC Accelerator, the success rates and budget allocation might differ greatly for the October deadline and those in 2022.

Gender

The EIC has managed to gain a 20% ratio for female entrepreneurs amongst all beneficiaries (i.e. female CEO’s) due to its strict gender equity goals.

Top 3 Countries

Clear winners during this 2021 Call in June were France (18% of the successful beneficiaries), Germany (17%) and the Netherlands (12%).

Type of Funding

92% of successful applicants received both grant and equity financing (blended finance) according to the EIC’s Twitter account but this data does not seem to fit the beneficiaries list. The more accurate and official list of all beneficiaries shows the following statistic:

31/65 blended (48%)
5/65 grant-only (8%)
24/65 grant-first (37%)
5/65 equity-only (8%)

Note: The given statistics of 92% of applicants receiving grant and equity financing would fit if either the 8% grant-only or the 8% equity-only was excluded from the total. Although, this does not seem to yield an accurate statement and is likely an error.

EIC Accelerator Success: STABL Energy GmbH

One of the 11 funded German projects is STABL Energy GmbH which has been among the 5% of selected applicants. During the 6 month process after Step 1 opened in April 2021, they were able to successfully pass all three Steps of the EIC Accelerator evaluation and succeed in securing blended financing under the EIC.

STABL is developing innovative power electronics for Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) and, with their modular approach, they are able to deliver unprecedented benefits to the industry such as higher energy efficiency, software control, unique data services and lifecycle extensions through second-life use cases.

Why STABL was the perfect fit for the EIC Accelerator

STABL is enabling a sustainable, versatile and future-proof energy storage ecosystem that serves all relevant industries such as utilities, renewables and electric transport. As such, it was able to be part of the Green Deal Strategic Challenge and was an ideal fit for the subsegment of Battery and Energy Storage which was amongst the preferred project types (read: EIC Accelerator Work Programme).

In addition, STABL is a startup with high-level partnerships, traction and an excellent management team. The EIC aims to fund ambitious companies such as STABL that have a strong vision and the capability to realise them as well as the ability to change the European technological landscape for the better.

Note: Segler Consulting has supported STABL Energy GmbH for the entire application process.

This article was last modified on Feb 19, 2023 @ 23:34

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

Balancing Content for the EIC Accelerators Step 1 Video, Deck and Proposal (SME Instrument)

April 25, 2021 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) has recently introduced a novel Step 1 to the application process. This is presenting a new challenge to professional writers, consultancies and freelancers but it is also an interesting new way of displaying an innovation project (read: New Process).

With many startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) seeking guidance for this process due to the absence of useful templates by the European Innovation Council (EIC), it is useful to explore the balance between the content presented in the 3 required proposal documents – the deck (‘read deck‘), the pitch video and the written application (read: Pitch Deck Guideline).

Should You Repeat Yourself?

Since there is no strict structure for the read deck or the video, these can either match the content of the proposal text or aim to only show content that is not found anywhere else. Both approaches have a risk.

On the one hand, matching the content of the 3 documents with each other can have an opportunity cost since space is limited. Omitting all of the content found in the written parts of the proposal from the deck and video, on the other hand, can lead to confusion if these are reviewed first.

You can only make a first impression once and no applicant can predict which document the evaluator will pick up first. Will they read the abstract? Watch the video? Read the deck? The decision regarding the order that will be chosen is so personal that all speculation would be pure guesswork (read: A Broad Project Vision).

In the end, it is hard to predict what will be used to gain a first impression which means that every single document should be able to tell the whole story – in its own way and format. But, instead of simply repeating the same content in each media, there is another way of viewing this challenge.

Matching the Presentation to the Media

Instead of simply repeating yourself in each document, it is useful to consider how things are presented rather than what. As an example, each document must contain some type of beginning which can also be viewed as the problem, the introduction or the motivation. Without it, the entire project would make no sense. But does this mean that it will always sound the same independent of the media? Well, that depends on the imagination of the writer.

Quantified – The Written Proposal

Due to the nature of its content, the written proposal should be precise, quantified and in-depth enough to give a technical understanding of the innovation, team and overall market opportunity. From a content perspective, this will be the technical basis for the evaluation and will likely be studied with the most scrutiny (read: Proposal Narrative).

Numbers should be used wherever possible, narratives should be waterproof and the overall impression should be that the applicant is highly competent.

Visual – The Read Deck

The read deck is a highly visual way of presenting a narrative since it can heavily rely on graphics, charts and imagery. While it still requires quantifications and needs to be waterproof, it can bring everything together in a way plain text cannot.

This visual representation can be used to connect the different aspects of an application and to simplify it in a way that makes the investment opportunity seem more straightforward.

Vision – The Pitch Video

The pitch video has the unique opportunity to give a human touch to an application in a way the writing and pitch deck are unable to. It presents similar content to both other documents but it focuses rather on the mission, the motivation of the team and the behind-the-scenes.

Instead of requiring the focus on a simple market problem, it can paint a vision for the way the world will change because of the innovation rather than how the innovation will change because of the funding.

Balancing the Content

Professional writers understand that the amount of content for a single project always far exceeds any space limitation for a grant application. Distilling content into a small section of text is a challenge and it always leads to tough edits where great parts must be omitted. Having multiple media choices at hand that have overlapping content is, in this regard, a blessing in disguise.

If a narrative has multiple lanes that could be taken (i.e. Point 1 can lead to Point 2A or to 2B) or has different emphases (i.e. a cold view on EU policies can be exchanged with a warm view on the health of citizens) then using multiple media to express them is ideal.

In the same way in which the employees inside a company should be uniform in their culture but diverse in their skillsets, the different media of the EIC Accelerator Step 1 application should be uniform in their storyline but diverse in their content (read: Assessing a Project).

Overlaps cannot be avoided but the different opportunities in each media should be embraced to maximize the chances of success in Step 1.

Conclusion

In summary, the following balance can be pursued for the Step 1 EIC Accelerator application:

Written proposal: Focusing on a waterproof narrative with quantifications.
Read deck: Focusing on a visual presentation that brings complex parts together.
Pitch video: Focusing on the vision, motivation and team behind the project while giving a human touch.

This article was last modified on Apr 20, 2021 @ 13:18

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

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

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

Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section.

Want to see all articles? They can be found here.

For Updates: Join this Newsletter!

by Stephan Segler, PhD
Professional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting

General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

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

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

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

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

The New EIC Accelerators Read Deck (SME Instrument)

April 24, 2021 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) has recently introduced a new type of pitch deck for Step 1 of the evaluation process. This can be viewed as a ‘real-only deck‘ or a ‘read deck‘ since it will not be used for the Step 3 interviews (read: Interview Preparation) but simply acts as a reference for the evaluators.

This is an interesting experiment on the side of the European Commission (EC) since the read deck has no technical restrictions outside of the page limit. This means that this is, for the first time, a PDF document that can be uploaded with full creative freedom with regard to font sizes, formatting, margins, sections and all related aspects.

Depending on how this experiment will turn out, it could be short-lived since it needs only a few bold applicants who exploit the lack of restrictions and aim to upload a full 10-page business plan with small font sizes and slim margins. Technically, such an unconventional Step 1 pitch document would have to be evaluated by the reviewers since it does not violate the application requirements.

It can be expected that strict rules, similar to the ones for the previous full applications, will be enforced after 2021 to avoid such exploitations.

Nonetheless, this article explores some ways the read deck could be treated and how it can differ from the pitch reck. A detailed look at the types of slides to choose (read: Pitch Deck) and information on the pitch interviews (read: Pitch Success) can be found elsewhere.

General Information and Restrictions

Must be a PDF
10-page limit
Below 10 MB
This read deck is not used for the Step 3 pitch interview (“read-only deck”)

Changes for the Pitch Interview Deck

Interestingly, the original pitch deck used in Step 3 has fewer limitations since it does not have a page limit. This is likely due to the nature of its use whereas all applicants know that they will be heavily judged for a ‘bad‘ pitch deck and it is their own responsibility to look good in front of the jury.

This changes with the read deck since the impression made on the evaluators will be without the 10 minute time constraints of the interview and entirely lack a verbal component or live feedback. In fact, the read deck, when compared to the pitch deck, has to stand entirely on its own and must hold up to close scrutiny which is not limited by time pressure.

Slides to Omit

Since 10 slides are valuable digital real estate, the title and ending slides should be omitted. There is no need to account for any social aspects such as introducing the speakers or thanking the audience for listening to the pitch since all this information is available to the evaluator already (read: A Broad Vision).

The same is true for extensive product presentations that can be flipped through like a dia show during the interview but take up too much space in a 10-page read deck. If the presentation of the product critically needs to be in the form of multiple angles or images then this should be reduced to a single slide and the remaining footage can be part of the pitch video. In fact, the video is an excellent choice for the presentation of the product in a comprehensive and visual way.

Changing the Text

Since speakers cannot leave certain aspects of the project to the Questions and Answers part of the EIC Accelerator pitch interviews, the text should be comprehensive. To stand on its own, the traditionally scarce text on a pitch deck should be elaborated for the read deck.

Instead of adding only bullet points and keywords, the read deck should have full sentences on each slide to explain the concepts without leaving any doubt in the reviewer’s mind. Since verbally expressing the traction of the company and their pilot customer is impossible in the Step 1 deck, it should be laid out in a written form.

This is likely the most important aspect of the new read deck since most pitch decks aim to avoid text as much as possible and present a clean and elegant design. The read deck, on the other hand, requires a merger of elegant simplicity and a fully fletched text.

Graphics and Photos

Graphics already used to be an important part of every pitch deck but, even though the read deck will contain more text, graphics also become even more important. While an introduction slide could lean heavily on the speaker’s voice and simply present a small chart as support, the read deck will require graphics to transmit a full concept with little to no support (read: Design Resources).

Illustrations cannot be too minimalistic in the read deck but have to be comprehensive enough to transmit a complex idea. This approach is supported by the fact that there is no time limit. The evaluator can stop at a single slide for 5 minutes or more and let a complicated chart sink in. They can also go back to the chart after they have watched the video and have read the entire application – or right before they give their final verdict on the proposal’s success or failure.

It is advisable to put great thought into this aspect and find a balance between easy-to-digest and enough-to-understand.

Summary

Restrictions: 10 slides as a PDF below 10MB
Slides to Omit: Remove title and ending slides to save space.
Changing the Text: Full sentences to explain all relevant concepts in detail.
Graphics: These can be more complex than in a traditional pitch deck since the evaluator can pause indefinitely.

This article was last modified on Apr 20, 2021 @ 13:18

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

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

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

Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section.

Want to see all articles? They can be found here.

For Updates: Join this Newsletter!

by Stephan Segler, PhD
Professional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting

General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

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

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

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

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

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

April 23, 2021 stephanseglerphd

The EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) has recently introduced pitch videos into the evaluation process which presents a new challenge for professional grant writers, freelancers and consultancies (read: New Application Process). While there are no official guidelines or templates for the process of shooting a pitch video, this article looks at some brief lessons learned from preparing such videos with clients in a remote fashion.

Information on how to structure a pitch video (read: Video Selection), how to script the video (read: Video Scripting) and how to remotely organize the shooting (read: Video Shooting) can be found elsewhere.

1. The Video Script is Everything

One of the restrictions of the EIC Accelerator pitch video is the length which is limited to only 3 minutes. This can be a surprisingly difficult challenge if the footage recorded by the Step 1 applicant, a Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise (SME) or startup, is very difficult to shorten without losing the storyline or making certain sections non-sensical.

Having a clear script that goes over all relevant sections of the project and is brief but succinct is important since it allows to cut out segments without impeding the overall story. Since it is advisable to always record more than the needed footage, cutting the length of content becomes an important task for the proposal writer.

If a great script has been prepared in advance, the video editor can always fall back on it and never needs to worry about the 3 minutes not telling a cohesive story. Not being able to include every single part of the project’s story is to be expected but the script should be holding up even if certain parts are omitted in the final cut (read: Story Lines).

2. Simple Tips for Pitch Recordings Go a Long Way

Applying SME’s and startups need sufficient guidance for the video recording. A video editor or videographer might take certain things for granted but these aspects could be entirely foreign to the management team of a technology company.

Every consultant or freelancer should present their clients not only with a pre-written script and instructions as to which members should partake in the shooting but also prepare guidelines for best practices. Information on ideal camera choice, settings (framerates, ISO, shutter speed, etc.), lighting and background setup can easily increase the video quality.

A limitation to this is the presentation of the CEO and the management team in general since preparing extra coaching for an exciting and enthusiastic video will likely be exceeding both the time and resources one should spend on the video. Still, giving some guidance as to how to transmit personality and excitement can be very helpful.

3. Small Editing Techniques are Key

Just cutting recorded footage together is one way of preparing the video but small additions such as stock footage, effects, titles and similar techniques can significantly increase the quality of the content.

Every applicant can assume that all the selected evaluators will watch the videos from start to finish at least once but this does not mean that boring videos will make the same impression as entertaining ones.

Having a professionally produced video is by no means a requirement but producing an entertaining video does not require professional production quality. Understanding what the listener wants to know as well as making sure that there is a start, a middle and an end while constantly keeping the viewer’s attention is key.

The thought after watching the video should be: “Wow, the project seems really interesting and the team seems great!“. A video that is bland and uninviting might make the first impression of the team less favourable since motivation, alongside competence, is an important criterion in the evaluation as well (read: Design Resources).

4. Adapting to the Client

Every client is different and has a different starting point when it comes to content creation. Some have extensive footage available and routinely do interviews or pitch their products in video format while others have been in stealth mode and have never recorded a single second of footage. This project diversity likewise extends to the video structuring and editing process since two projects can require different coverage durations for their unique segments.

The same is true for the technology itself since not all projects can be easily translated into video format. Showing how an Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm looks in an appealing manner is nearly impossible while demonstrating a hardware production process or data visualisation tool lends itself far more readily to the video format.

Time and geographic constraints are other determining factors since many teams are operating remotely and there might be a lack of time or accessibility to collect all the needed footage. A laboratory might be empty and in sleep mode until the regional COVID-19 lockdown is completed while team members could be busy with core business activities.

Summary

The following key lessons apply to the EIC Accelerator pitch video shooting for Step 1 of the evaluation process:

Scripting: Having a solid script prepared will make sure that the final video has a distinct storyline.
Guidance: Most applicants will need help with the pitch recording and this should be provided by the consultant or writer.
Editing: This will be valuable in order to give the footage a semi or fully professional look and grab the viewers attention.
Adapting: Every startup or SME has different footage available and different capabilities which means that guidelines must be adapted if needed.

This article was last modified on Apr 21, 2021 @ 10:16

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

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

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

Any more questions? View the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section.

Want to see all articles? They can be found here.

For Updates: Join this Newsletter!

by Stephan Segler, PhD
Professional Grant Consultant at Segler Consulting

General information on the EIC Accelerator template, professional grant writing and how to prepare a successful application can be found in the following articles:

A Quick FTO Guide for EIC Accelerator Applicants in a Rush

2023 Budget Allocations for EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

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

Explaining the Resubmission Process for the EIC Accelerator

A Short but Comprehensive Explanation of the EIC Accelerator

EIC Accelerator Success Cases

Deciding Between EIC Pathfinder, Transition and Accelerator

A Winning Candidate for the EIC Accelerator

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

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

Insights from the EU Science & Innovation YouTube Leak (EIC Accelerator, SME Instrument)

March 18, 2021 stephanseglerphd

With the 2021’s EIC Accelerator blended financing (formerly SME Instrument Phase 2, grant and equity) program being adopted shortly, many startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) are eagerly waiting for the call to open (read: EIC Accelerator Introduction).

Most consultancies and professional writers have likely already gathered significant information on the new template and process but the latest video leak from the EU Science & Innovation YouTube Channel (here, here and here – they were ‘public’, then ‘private’ and are now ‘unlisted’) gives great insight into the details (read: The 2021 Work Programme). The Questions and Answers session served as a training for National Contact Points (NCP) and presented hour-long meetings with a variety of key stakeholders including developers of the AI Tool and Stéphane Ouaki, the chair of the investment committee of the EIC Fund (read: An Inside Look into Equity Financing).

The following presents a shortlist of the insights given in the meetings as they relate to the EIC Accelerator. EIC Pathfinder and Transition sessions are also available but are not covered by this article.

Attention: Since this information was presented informally, some of these points might be inaccurate or are subject to change over the coming weeks. The information was given in mid-March 2021.

The Step 1 pitch video will be fully uploaded to the platform and not be submitted as a link.
No template for the pitch deck will be given but a guide for the video.
The pitch deck from Step 1 will not be used for the Step 3 interview.
The challenge/topic will be chosen in Step 2 and not in Step 1.
The AI Tool for Step 2 will be ready in mid-April 2021.
In the long-term, the EIC envisions consultants to become part of their platform (for a fee, of course). The platform also contains Venture Capitalist’s (VC) and loan agencies.
Involvement of NCP’s will be stronger with them receiving the application once submitted but this can be optional.
The Step 1 threshold will likely be at the same level as the previous score of 13 (30-40% success rates) under Horizon 2020 (read: Interpreting the ESR).
The remote (expert) evaluators have not been briefed yet since the Work Programme is not legally adopted.
New investment guidelines for the EIC Fund will be published at the end of March 2021.
The due diligence for equity investments aims at a 3-4 month duration.
The due diligence looks closely at the capital structure of companies and, if an exit seems complex or impossible, it will not invest.
The equity investments from the EIC fund were presented and showed a majority of funds moving towards MedTech (28%) as well as France as the main beneficiary for equity financing (31 beneficiaries – Israel as the second most-funded has 17).
General steps for the EIC Fund’s due diligence process were presented in 9 steps (letter, contact, compliance, recommendation, discussion, decision, term sheet, agreement, signature).

This article was last modified on Mar 18, 2021 @ 20:44

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)

Step 1: The Short Application

1.1 Proposal Text

1.2 Pitch Deck

1.3 Pitch Video

1.3.1 Scripting

1.3.2 Recording

1.3.3 Editing

1.4 Financials & Deliverables

1.5 Total Time for Step 1

1.5.1 Duration

1.5.2 Evaluation

Step 2: The Business Plan

2.1 Proposal Text

2.2 Annexes

2.2.1 Letters of Intent (LOI)

2.2.2 Pitch Deck

2.2.3 Freedom to Operate Analysis (FTO)

2.2.4 Data Management Plan (DMP)

2.2.5 10-Pager

2.2.6 Financials

2.3 Total Time for Step 2

2.3.1 Duration

2.3.2 Evaluation

Step 3: The Jury Interview

3.1 Duration

3.2 Evaluation

Resubmissions and Freezing Periods

Conclusion

What is the EIC Accelerator?

What does the EIC Accelerator provide?

How do the different funding options finance development work?

What industries can apply and are there topic limitations?

When and how can I apply?

What does the result of an application look like?

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

What are the success chances for the EIC Accelerator?

What limitations exist regarding the submissions?

What types of companies actually win the EIC Accelerator grant?

How do I know if I should apply or not?

The EIC’s 2023 Work programme

The EIC Ecosystem

Fast Track and Pilot Plug-in Schemes

Outlook

Core Rules

How To Practise (The Mock-Jury)

Rapid-Fire Questions

The Devils Advocate

Looking for Flaws

Learn the Rules & Read the Application

Choose Who Answers What

Conclusion

Other Articles

Introduction

No Specialised Knowledge

Not Investing Themselves

Ambiguous Evaluation Criteria

Why These Criteria Still Benefit the EIC

Rejecting Over Funding

Limited Time & Forced Decisions

Conclusion

Other Articles

The June 2021 EIC Accelerator Call

Additional Statistics

EIC Accelerator Success: STABL Energy GmbH

Should You Repeat Yourself?

Matching the Presentation to the Media

Quantified – The Written Proposal

Visual – The Read Deck

Vision – The Pitch Video

Balancing the Content

Conclusion

General Information and Restrictions

Changes for the Pitch Interview Deck

Slides to Omit

Changing the Text

Graphics and Photos

Summary

1. The Video Script is Everything

2. Simple Tips for Pitch Recordings Go a Long Way

3. Small Editing Techniques are Key