Begutachtungskriterien EIC Accelerator Pilot

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 für den EIC Accelerator Piloten sind im Arbeitsprogramm des Europäischen Innovationsrats (EIC) 2018 - 2020 veröffentlicht. Sie können und sollten diese bei der Erstellung eines Antrags berücksichtigen.

Die Begutachtungskriterien für den EIC Accelerator Piloten sind im Arbeitsprogramm des EIC 2018 - 2020 veröffentlicht. Zu beachten ist, dass die Kriterien in die drei Bereiche 'Excellence', 'Impact' und 'Implementation' eingeteilt werden. Bisher wurde das Kriterium Impact mit 50% und die Kriterien Excellence und Implementation zu je 25 % gewichtet. Ab dem Stichtag 5. Juni 2019 werden alle drei Kriterien zu gleichen Teilen mit jeweils 1/3 gewichtet.

Folgende Kriterien liegen den Gutachtern zur Bewertung vor:

Impact

50% WEIGHTING – following the cut-off date of 5 June 2019 1/3 WEIGHTING for Phase 2

  • Convincing specification of the potential to create new markets or create market disruption together with a convincing specification of the 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, service or business model, including compared to what is currently available if anything at all.
  • 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: potential for market creation is particularly sought after.
    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, market creation or disruption (e.g. via new value-chains).
  • 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 (following the cut-off date of 5 June 2019: including financial needs to ensure the company’s success).
    The ‘potential to scale-up’ aspect and associated financial needs are particularly examined in Step 2.
  • 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 (Phase 2 only) as well as key third parties needed.
  • Phase1 (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/global 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 for '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 addressed.
  • Taken as whole, to what extent the above elements are coherent and plausible.

Excellence

25% WEIGHTING – following the cut-off date of 5 June 2019 1/3 WEIGHTING for Phase 2

  • High-risk/high-potential innovation idea that has something that nobody else has. It should be better and/or significantly different to any alternative. Game-changing ideas or breakthrough innovations are particularly sought after.
    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: at least TRL 6, or something analogous for non-technological innovations), and clear outline of steps planned to take this innovation to market.
  • Highly innovative solution that 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 innovation proposal 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 – following the cut-off date of 5 June 2019 1/3 WEIGHTING for Phase 2

  • Following the cut-off date of 5 June 2019 and for Phase 2 only: Evidence that the applicant company cannot leverage sufficient investments from the market and/ or, particularly for applicant companies requesting blended finance support, evidence that the applicant company is deemed 'non- bankable' by the market, in view of the activities to be developed.
    The 'leveraging of investments' and 'bankability' aspects are particularly examined in Step 2 of the evaluation of Phase 2 proposals.
  • 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 company's or applicant's innovation 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.