Frequently Asked Questions

The proposal needs to be a well-written business plan, but it also needs to tell an exciting story. Connect all sections, even seemingly unrelated ones, to create a consistent and logical narrative. Fill in the gaps between sections to ensure a natural flow and address any missing aspects.

One of the biggest mistakes is treating the application template as a questionnaire. Applicants should view the template as a guide and develop a comprehensive, unique proposal that tells a compelling story about their innovation, market opportunity, and team.

To improve your chances, dedicate ample time to writing, understand the evaluation criteria, and customize your proposal to your specific project. Don't be afraid to resubmit your application after making improvements based on feedback. Also, ensure all annexes are professional and well-designed.

No, the template is just a guideline. Don't treat it like a questionnaire. Instead, use it to structure a comprehensive and unique application. None of the text from the original template, outside of the headlines, should appear in your written application.

While Document 1 is the most important part, don't neglect the annexes, including the pitch deck and financial documentation. These influence the overall impression of your application. Make them look professional and well-designed to maximize your chances of success.

Evaluators use a specific checklist of criteria, outlined in the Evaluation Summary Report (ESR). Make sure your application addresses all of these points, even if they aren't explicitly mentioned in the template. Understanding the evaluation criteria is crucial for a successful application.

No, the template is intentionally vague and general. It doesn't account for the individuality of each project. You need to proactively elaborate on sections according to your specific case, adding details relevant to your business model and commercial strategy.

The EIC Accelerator wants to fund projects that have a high likelihood of success. Traction provides evidence that customers want your product or service, reducing the risk for the EIC. Demonstrating traction validates the market need and increases the chances of commercial success, making your project more attractive to investors.

Non-bankability means that your project is unlikely to receive traditional bank loans due to its high-risk nature or innovative technology. This is an important criterion for the EIC Accelerator, as they aim to fund projects that wouldn't otherwise receive funding. Highlight why your project needs the EIC's support to overcome these financial barriers.

It's perfectly acceptable to have paying customers while still being in the prototype stage. Just make sure to clarify that the EIC funding is needed to fully develop and commercialize the product. Emphasize that the funding will help you scale and reach your full potential.

No, it's crucial to be honest about your company's traction and financial status. While demonstrating traction is important, overstating it can be detrimental. Remember that the EIC Accelerator is looking for projects that still require funding to fully realize their potential, so highlight the need for their support.

Paying customers and LOIs are the most powerful forms of validation because they represent a concrete commitment to your product. They demonstrate that customers are willing to invest in your solution, making your commercial strategy more plausible. This significantly increases your chances of securing EIC Accelerator funding.

A strong value chain, including distributors, retailers, and industry opinion leaders, can validate your project. These stakeholders are familiar with customer needs and can act as multipliers for your product. Their support strengthens your commercialization strategy and demonstrates a clear path to market.

Pilot tests demonstrate that your prototype is being tested in a real-world environment. They provide tangible data on efficiency, cost, and benefits, proving the value and ease-of-use of your innovation. Successful pilot tests show that your product addresses customer pain points and is accepted by the target user group.

Surveys and customer contact are the minimum requirement for demonstrating traction. They show that you're actively engaging with your target audience and gathering feedback. This is crucial for validating the customer need, which is a key aspect of the EIC Accelerator evaluation process.

You can show traction through various methods, including surveys and customer contact, pilot tests, and securing paying customers or Letters of Intent (LOIs). These actions validate customer interest and demonstrate the potential for commercialization. The more concrete the evidence, the stronger your application will be.

Traction refers to the customer demand and industry interest in your innovation. It demonstrates that there's a market need for your product or service, which is crucial for commercialization and scaling. Without traction, it's difficult to prove the market potential and justify the investment from the EIC Accelerator.

Evaluators look for innovations that are both user-friendly and offer a compelling value proposition. When describing your innovation, emphasize its ease of use and how it provides excellent value for the investment. Highlight the key benefits and competitive advantages that make your product or service attractive to customers.

Discuss the environmental impact of your project and how it aligns with principles of sustainability and a circular economy. Explain how your innovation reduces waste, conserves resources, or promotes environmentally friendly practices. Highlighting these aspects can significantly improve your application's appeal.

Gender equality is a priority for the EU, so highlight any ways your company, project, or innovation benefits women. This could include having a diverse management team, addressing female-specific needs, or promoting equal opportunities. If applicable, explain how your project contributes to improving outcomes for women in relevant fields.

The EU prioritizes job creation, so emphasize the direct and indirect job opportunities that your project will generate. Quantify the number of jobs you expect to create and explain how your project will contribute to economic growth and employment in relevant sectors. You can also discuss how your innovation might prevent job losses in certain industries.

While you don't need to explicitly state that you'll become a unicorn, your company's vision should reflect the potential for significant scale and impact. Demonstrate a clear path to substantial growth and market leadership. Showcase the potential for your innovation to disrupt existing markets and create significant value.

'Non-bankable' refers to the difficulty or impossibility of securing traditional financing for your project. To address this, explain the risks involved and why conventional lenders are hesitant to invest. Emphasize the efforts you've already made to secure funding and how the EIC Accelerator grant is crucial to de-risk the project.

In the context of EIC Accelerator applications, 'buzzwords' are specific keywords or phrases that the European Commission and EIC often look for. While not necessarily essential to a good business model, including these terms can help evaluators recognize key aspects of your project and score it favorably against predefined criteria. Using these terms demonstrates that you understand the EIC's priorities and can strengthen your proposal.

Acknowledging the risks associated with your project is crucial, as the EIC Accelerator is designed to support high-risk, high-reward ventures. Clearly identify the potential challenges and uncertainties. Then, explain how the EIC Accelerator grant will help mitigate these risks and enable you to reach the desired Technology Readiness Level (TRL).

The term 'game-changing' should be used to describe the potential impact of your product or service. Highlight how it significantly alters the existing market or addresses customer needs in a revolutionary way. Provide concrete examples of how your innovation will disrupt the status quo and create a new paradigm.

Scalability is a key focus for the EIC Accelerator, so demonstrate how your innovation can be rapidly and efficiently expanded. Discuss scalability in the context of your commercial strategy, work packages, and overall scale-up potential. Show how your business model is designed to handle significant growth without compromising quality or efficiency.

Yes, the reviewing process allows for some creative liberties in writing and design. You can place objects in the margins, move sections around, and use smaller font sizes for graphics or footnotes without negatively impacting your score. However, always ensure readability and professional presentation.

The only strict limitations are on the page length of Document 1 and the document file sizes. Within those constraints, you have some flexibility in the creative aspects of your proposal. This allows you to present your project in the most compelling way possible, as long as it remains clear and comprehensive.

Use the template as a guide, but don't feel constrained by it. Your primary goal is to create a comprehensive and convincing proposal, even if it means deviating from the template's exact structure or wording. Prioritize clarity, completeness, and alignment with the evaluation criteria.

Yes, you can creatively structure your proposal, including the positioning of sub-sections. As long as you maintain the general sections (Excellence, Impact, Implementation) and the proposal remains logical and comprehensive, you have flexibility in how you present the information. Tailor the structure to best suit your project's specific needs.

Yes, you can use a full page for a single Work Package, even though the template suggests limiting them to half a page. The evaluators are more concerned with the content and quality of the information than strict adherence to this specific length guideline. Ensure the information is well-presented and addresses the evaluation criteria.

No, EIC Accelerator evaluators are instructed to ignore information in Document 2 if it appears to be an attempt to circumvent the page limits of Document 1. Focus on adhering to the page limits and content requirements for each document as specified in the official guidelines. Prioritize clarity and conciseness within the allowed space.

A professional writer or consultant should use the template as a guide but focus on creating a comprehensive and convincing proposal. They should tailor the content to the specific project, even if it means deviating from the template. The ultimate goal is to present the project in the best possible light, regardless of how closely the template is followed.

The most important sections in Document 1 are Section 1 (Excellence), Section 2 (Impact), and Section 3 (Implementation). These sections cover the core aspects of your project that the evaluators will be assessing. Ensure that each section is well-developed and clearly demonstrates the strengths of your proposal.

Deviations from the template are useful because every project is unique. If the standard questions don't fully capture key aspects of your project, adapt the structure and content to address those areas. Focus on providing a comprehensive and convincing narrative that highlights the strengths of your specific project.

Reviewers primarily focus on the evaluation criteria rather than strictly following the template as a guide. While you should adhere to the general sections and sub-sections of Document 1, the reviewers will be looking for how well your proposal addresses the key evaluation points. Use the Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) to understand these criteria.

The EIC Accelerator program, run by the European Commission and European Innovation Council, offers funding to startups and SMEs. It provides up to €2.5 million in grant funding and up to €10 million in equity financing, for a potential total of €12.5 million per project. This funding is intended to help innovative companies scale up and bring their technologies to market.

The author believes the 'EU Relevance' criterion is often too generic but still important. It should focus on the technology's relevance to European policies, the insufficiencies of European markets, and the innovation's potential impact on Europe. This ensures that the funded projects align with the EU's strategic goals.

While the EIC prioritizes DeepTech, the author argues that no technology is useful if there is no market demand. The 'Opportunity' criterion assesses the market potential, financial projections, customer traction, and commercialization plan. This helps determine if the company can successfully bring its technology to market and capture a significant share.

The author proposes five revised criteria: Technology (scientific nature, complexity, maturity, novelty), Opportunity (market potential, financial projections, customer traction), Team (backgrounds, track record, domain expertise), EU Relevance (alignment with EU policies, impact on Europe), and Developments (work packages, tasks, budget allocations). These criteria aim to provide a more structured and relevant framework for AI-driven evaluation.

The author emphasizes technology because the EIC Accelerator specifically targets DeepTech companies. Therefore, the scientific nature, complexity, maturity, and novelty of the technology should be the primary focus of the evaluation process. This ensures that the EIC is funding truly innovative and groundbreaking projects.

The author is concerned about the inconsistency between the EIC's stated mission and its actual funding decisions. They highlight a case where a company that had already raised a significant amount of funding (€135 million) also received an EIC grant. This raises questions about whether the EIC is truly prioritizing companies in the 'valley of death' that need funding the most.

The author argues that the EIC's criteria are often unrealistic or counterproductive, especially for DeepTech companies. They point out that the EIC's criteria don't reflect the reality of startups, particularly those in engineering and physics, where female representation is often low. The author also suggests that some criteria are too generic and don't accurately assess a company's potential.

The author suggests that the AI evaluation of the 'Team' criterion should be more lenient when assessing past accomplishments in favor of domain expertise. Many DeepTech founders come directly from universities, so a strong scientific background and network are more important than extensive experience in large companies. The focus should be on the team's ability to execute the technical aspects of the project.

The author poses several key questions: Should AI be used for checklists or a holistic view? Should criteria be weighted differently? Which shortcomings can be overlooked, and which are dealbreakers? These questions highlight the challenges of using AI to make complex funding decisions and the need for careful consideration of how AI is integrated into the evaluation process.

The author suggests removing milestones and replacing them with deliverables to have a single way of tracking and validating progress. They also recommend including all risks in this section, rather than splitting them into work package risks and general risks. This simplifies the process and avoids redundant or meaningless sections.

While you request equity as a flat sum, you should still briefly define its purpose in the equity section and relevant work packages. Explain how the equity will contribute to achieving your project goals and scaling your innovation.

Yes, the grant and equity contributions come from different funds managed by the EC and the EIC, respectively. This separation is reflected in the application process and how the budget is structured and managed.

The detailed grant budget, including personnel, indirect, direct, and subcontracting costs, is specified in Part A of the administrative forms. This section requires a clear and well-justified breakdown of your expenses.