Is it a platform? Is it a template? Both! The EISMEA launched on 4th July the new version of the website to prepare and submit step 1 proposals for EIC Accelerator. I share a quick #analysis with you.
You access through the F&T Portal. Be careful to select the right topic (Open call or the applicable Challenge). Only then, click on "Start Submission"
You need to introduce the PIC of the organisation. The PIC search functionality was not available when I tried, so be sure to have your PIC number written down.
Once you create the proposal, you will see the menu on the left column displaying the different sections. The structure is simple and intuitive:
- General - General info including an abstract of 1.000 characters.
- Opportunity (a.k.a. The Problem) - 1 box of 5.000 ch
- Solution - 20.000 ch
- Competition - 10.000 ch
- Impacts - 10.000 ch
- Company - Basic data from the company, many of them taken from the PIC + a box of 5.000 ch for history, vision and ambition
- Team: a short box per each member of the team indicating area of expertise + a single box of 10.000 ch to address gender balance, missing skills, recruitment plans...
- Funding: a box of 10.000 ch to explain your financial needs + a second box to indicate the requested EIC support, in €. (Confusing, see below.)
- Documents: you need to attach a pitch deck and the 3 min video. (See comment below about the pitch).
- Submission: declarations, consent and a confusing message not clarifying if the same proposal can be improved and submitted again.
There is a clear effort to simplify. No more use cases, features and restrained models that are not applicable to all projects. No more "intelligent" system who tells you if your proposal is innovative. The structure of this platform is simple, clear and in general, enough space is allocated to the sections. Congratulations!
As always, there is room for improvement. Here my suggestions about what is not yet perfect:
- We return to a format with no possibility to edit. No bold, italic, hierarchy of sections. No images, tables or graphs can be inserted. Maybe for step 1 this makes sense but I really wish they keep the open work format for step 2.
- Section Funding is a ambiguous. When we created the proposal, we were never asked if we're applying to grant only, grant first or blended finance. This section requests: "Describe your financial needs for grants and investment, explain why you have not been able to raise sufficient investment to carry out the project, and why you need the support of the EIC. Please note that the figures are indicative at this stage, and you will have the possibility to modify this within your full (step 2) proposal". My interpretation is that the applicant should explain here the preferred model and in the box "Please indicate which EIC Support you intend to request" should include the total requested (grant + EIC Fund equity).
- For some particular projects, 5.000 ch may not be enough to describe the problem (especially without images). It is not clear why this section is shorter than competition, impacts, or the team gender balance and skills.
- It is not clear if we can submit more than once the same proposal (I mean improve it until the deadline), or the first submission is the final one. The message appearing is not helpful in this sense: "Please note that only one Submission form can be submitted per Participant Identification Code (PIC). You will therefore not be able to submit another proposal with the same Participant Identification Code (PIC)".
- Pitch deck. The instructions for the pitch seem to indicate this will be the same pitch you will use in the interview stage. I hope this is not the case, there are already too many members of the Jury that look at this first version of the pitch, but now with this message, most applicants will be confussed: "There is no pre-defined template nor limit of slides, however, please keep in mind that you will have 10 minutes to present this pitch deck if you are invited to the face-to-face interviews. The pitch deck should be provided in PDF file format". So what happens if we change the financial provisions in step 2? Clearly this message does not belong here and refers to the pitch deck submitted with the step 2 proposal.
Very good template with few things to improve. Let's hope the evaluators are well trained to filter the proposals, as there is no point in having 2 steps if all projects approve the step 1.
The EIC, under the influence of the new Board lead by
Michiel Scheffer ??
, have made a terrific work in improving the submission templates/systems.
Once again, I encourage them to make deep changes also in the evaluation process. Those who know me are aware of my obsession about evaluations: it doesn't matter how good a template is if you don't allocate the best experts and facilitate exchange of opinions among them, so the result is fair, consistent and reproducible.
Grant writer and scientific editor @Strategic Science Writing | R&D Collaborations Manager @BioBetter
1 年Thanks for sharing - super helpful!
Co-founder and Director @ More Perfect Union | Strategic Communications, EU Funding
1 年Irene Larroy, nice one, a solid analysis. I respectfully disagree with you about 5000 characters not being sufficient to describe a serious problem to solve. The leader of a start-up should be able to explain their reason for existing in a page of text. If they can’t, they suffer from a grave lack of communication skills. It’s like “features vs benefits”, in which an engineer insists that their target customers will acquire their tech because it’s the best tech. Anybody familiar with business and innovation in the real world knows that nobody cares how it works (features), they care about what it does (benefits). If it's not a communication issue, then the applicants are simply not serious people. If you can’t explain in 3 minutes what motivated you to dedicate your professional life to create an organization and solve an urgent issue through a truly novel solution, that should be a huge red flag. The European Commission wants #horizoneurope to fund projects that benefit society in important ways, beyond increasing the wealth of shareholders. As consultants we should help make that happen by supporting real players, not the pirates out to make a quick buck off public funds. Thanks for sharing! Sean For a More Perfect Union
Innovation & Funding consultant, born in 336 ppm
1 年Thanks Irene! I fully agree with the need for experts to share their opinions to increase the consistency of evaluation
Innovation consultant-EU Funding for SMEs and start-ups companies
1 年Thanks Irene for this first very useful analysis.
European Project Manager at Lain Tech | R&D Project Management | R&D and Industry
1 年Thank you very much for it, very useful! It is clear that they want to adapt EIC to the same format as other Horizon calls but now we will have to see the evaluation criteria that they take, especially in points such as "solution" with 20k characters, it will be difficult for them to put a unified criteria for all projects in such long writing points.