EU funding an evaluators view

amazon.com/author/raygarcia Ray Garcia, Buoyant Capital, NYC, US Copyright 2016, all rights reserved

EU Funds - Horizon 2020 SME Instrument

notes from an evaluator Ray Garcia

It is a business plan!• Phase 1 = feasibility study 50k award, 6 months, 10 pages

• Phase 2 = commercialization, 2.5 Million, 2 years, 30 pages

• Getting a Phase 1 increases chance of Phase 2

• Only 6% of all submissions get grants

UniPi PhD Plus 2016 - Pisa, Italy

http://amazon.com/author/raygarcia


What is the bad news?• You get the award after you did the work

• You get the award if you really do not need it

• It is for SME not Startups, so bootstrap first

• The award is almost random odds of being granted

• You likely have to apply multiple times

• Part of the award will go to some consultant that help you write it

• The internal cost of the award is really high due to EU tracking

• The quality of the coaches are also somewhat lacking

• Getting an award is not guarantee that you have a viable business




What does not get an award?• R&D projects or labs

• single researchers

• single person businesses

• old dead businesses that have stalled

• domestic or local focused businesses




What looks viable?• Existing business that is growing

• Business innovation for growth of new product

• Pan-EU and globally relevant

• Real Intellectual Property, backed by research and patents

• Managed risk profile

• Experienced team, both business and technically

• Demonstrated progress with product

• Consortium, but not sub-contractors

• Some private funding or re-invested revenue




What are some common proposal mistakes• Who is the customer, for what product, and what will they pay?

• No linkedin profiles or other sites with credible reputation

• No website for the product, more than landing page

• Over explaining the problem or solution

• Not addressing the criteria the evaluators need to assess

• Lack of ambition, impact, or resources

• Not framing why it matters, then what is it, then how it works

• Asking for money without explaining how it will be used

• Overly complex or simplistic work-package




Any tricks that can help?• Use all the space available but make sure it is easy to scan and read

• Use the appendix to add more information

• Include customer and partner letter of endorsement

• Include prior proposal score if passed threshold

• Use bullets points for clarity

• Use diagrams and charts but make sure they are easy to read

• Include links in the PDF to all references like customer websites

• Include a thorough IP analysis and statement

• Address the risk honestly

• Show the use of the funding

• Include evidence of progress that leads to success

• Show the unit cost of goods sold, and other metrics




An evaluators candid view• The reason to do evaluations is not money, it is to gain insight on EU innovation activity

• The compensation is such that no time to actually study the proposals, these are reviewed really fast.

• Get to the point, the proposal will only be scanned and not read in every detail, it would take too long

• The proposals become a blur and the sequence of review influences and biases the ratings

• The comments are tedious and mostly subjective, evaluators are forced to enter them even if not applicable

• An evaluator starts with No first, then looks for signals that the proposal is coming from serious people with

competencies, a network, and are focused on business goals.

• It is easy to spot nonsense, so don’t fake it

• The reality is that the evaluators cannot check everything, not enough time and they cannot ask questions

• The evaluators do not know who else is doing them so they cannot influence each other, have a discussion,

and deliberate on the processes

• Evaluators are limited to only 2 years

• Evaluators cannot be coaches during the same year

• Strict confidentiality and no conflicts of interest are expected




Other observations• It is very hard to find any help from people who are successful entrepreneurs and

went through this process and are willing to help

• It is possible to improve the odds of an award with a professional proposal but it is

never guaranteed

• Proposal teams from North and Southern EU likely do better than either alone.

• Magically all proposal ask for an amount that is exactly equal to 70% at 50k which is

71,429. This does not look valid but asking for less does not either.

• Few of the proposals explain where the difference in the money will come from.




Comparing the EU Funding to venture financing reviews• What the EU does is nothing like the evaluations from private investors

• Venture Capitalist want to speak to the entrepreneurs directly and understand who

they are and what motivates them

• The presentation and business plans are only reviewed after the initial screening for

basic fit of the business model to the investment hypothesis

• The phases of funding are also radically different between the EU and VC's

• The EU is not looking for a direct financial return and therefore does not have a mar-

ket orientation



EU funding an evaluators view

Documents

Transcript of EU funding an evaluators view