Begutachtungskriterien KMU-Instrument

Links im Bild ist ein roter Buntstift und ein rotes Minus-Zeichen zu sehen, auf der rechten Bildseite einen grünen Buntstift und ein grünes Plus-Zeichen

Die Begutachtungskriterien im KMU-Instrument sind im Arbeitsprogramm des Europäischen Innovationsrats (EIC) 2018 - 2020 veröffentlicht. Sie können und sollten diese bei der Erstellung eines Antrags im KMU-Instrument berücksichtigen.

Die Begutachtungskriterien sind im KMU-Instrument im Arbeitsprogramm des EIC 2018 - 2020 veröffentlicht. Zu beachten ist, dass die Kriterien in die drei Bereiche 'Excellence', 'Impact' und 'Implementation' eingeteilt und unterschiedlich gewichtet sind. Excellence und Implementation werden zu je 25 % und Impact zu 50 % berechnet.

Folgende Kriterien liegen den Gutachtern zur Bewertung vor:

Impact (50% Weighting)

  • Convincing specification of substantial demand (including willingness to pay) for the innovation. Total market size envisaged.
  • Convincing description of targeted users or customers of the innovation, how their needs have been addressed, why the users or customers identified will want to use or buy the product, application or service, including compared to what is currently available.
  • Phase 1 (only): Good understanding of need for a realistic and relevant analysis of market conditions, total potential market size and growth-rate, competitors and competitive offerings, key stakeholders, clear identification of opportunities for market introduction (or a plan for obtaining this information).
    Phase 2 (only): Realistic and relevant analysis of market conditions and growth-rate, competitors and competitive offerings, key stakeholders, clear identification of opportunities for market introduction (such as potential new value-chains, or new markets).
  • Realistic and relevant description of how the innovation has the potential to scale-up the applicant company or companies. This should be underpinned by a convincing business plan with a clear timeline, and complemented, where possible, by a track-record that includes financial data.
  • Alignment of proposal with overall strategy of applicant SME or SMEs and commitment of the team behind them. Demonstration of need for commercial and management experience, including understanding of the financial and organisational requirements for commercial exploitation and scaling up (and - Phase 2 only (if applicable): as well as key third parties needed.
  • Phase 1 (only): Outline of initial commercialisation plan and how this will be developed further (in-house development, licensing strategy, etc.).
    Phase 2 (only): Realistic and relevant strategic plan for commercialisation, including approximate time-to-market or deployment. Activities to be undertaken after the project.
    The 'commercial strategy' aspect is particularly examined in Step 2 of the evaluation of Phase 2 proposals.
  • European / international dimension of innovation with respect to both commercialisation and assessment of competitors and competitive offerings.
  • Phase 1 (only): Realistic and relevant description of knowledge protection status and strategy, need of 'freedom to operate' (i.e., possibility of commercial exploitation), and current IPR situation or a plan for obtaining this information. Where relevant, description of potential regulatory requirements.
    Phase 2 (only): Evidence of or realistic measures to ensure 'freedom to operate' (i.e., possibility of commercial exploitation), convincing knowledge-protection strategy, including current IPR filing status, IPR ownership and licensing issues. Regulatory and / or standards requirements well addressed.
  • Taken as whole, to what extent the above elements are coherent and plausible.

Excellence (25% Weighting)

  • High-risk / high-potential innovation idea that has something that nobody else has. It is potentially much better than any alternatives and/or could create new markets or new value-chains.
    Its high degree of novelty comes with a high chance of either success or failure.
  • Realistic description of current stage of development (Phase 2 only: TRL 6, or something analogous for non-technological innovations), and clear outline of steps planned to take this innovation to market.
  • Solution goes beyond the state of the art in comparison with existing or competing solutions, including on the basis of costs, ease of use and other relevant features as well as issues related to climate change or the environment, the gender dimension, any other benefits for society, or (Phase 1 only) includes plans for obtaining this information.
  • Very good understanding of both risks and opportunities related to successful market introduction of the innovation from both technical and commercial points of view or (Phase 1 only) includes convincing plans for obtaining this information.
    Phase 2 only: Documentation on the technological, practical and economic feasibility of the innovation.
    The 'feasibility' aspect is particularly examined in Step 2 of the evaluation of Phase 2 proposals.
  • Phase 1 (only): Objectives for the feasibility study and the approach and activities to be developed are consistent with the expected impact of the project.
    Phase 2 (only): Objectives for the project as well as the approach and activities to be developed are consistent with the expected impact (i.e. commercialisation or deployment resulting in company growth). Appropriate definition provided of specifications for outcome of project and criteria for success.
  • Taken as whole, to what extent the above elements are coherent and plausible.

Quality and efficiency of implementation (25% Weighting)

  • Technical / business experience of the team, including management capacity to lead a growing team
    Only Phase 1: If relevant, the proposal includes a plan to acquire missing competences.
    Only Phase 2: If relevant, the proposal includes a plan to acquire missing competences, namely through partnerships and/or subcontracting*, and explains why and how they are selected (subcontractors must be selected using 'best value-for-money' principles).
    The 'team' aspect is particularly examined in Step 2 of the evaluation of Phase 2 proposals.
  • Availability of resources required (personnel, facilities, networks, etc.) to develop project activities in the most suitable conditions.
    Where relevant, complementarity of partners in a consortium.
    Only Phase 2:
    Where relevant, realistic description of how key stakeholders / partners / subcontractors could be involved* (subcontractors must be selected using 'best value-for-money' principles).
    Where relevant, the estimated budget and the procedure planned for selecting the subcontractors are appropriate*.
  • Realistic timeframe and comprehensive description of implementation (work-packages, major deliverables and milestones, risk management) taking the project's ambitions and objectives into account.
  • * Subcontracting is acceptable to the extent required for the implementation of the proposed activities. Subcontracting may be an essential part of the implementation of the project, but should not be a disproportionate part of the total estimated eligible costs. Subcontractors must be selected using 'best value-for-money' principles.
  • Taken as whole, to what extent the above elements are coherent and plausible.

Das genaue Verfahren zur Begutachtung ist hier beschrieben.