The Step 2 interview has been covered in earlier videos, but one aspect deserves its own discussion: for the very first time, the EIC Accelerator application process contains a choke point that depends on one person.
Evaluations Used to Be Averaged
Usually, applicants receive the average score or average grading of multiple evaluators.
In Step 1, the short proposal is assessed by four evaluators, and the result is basically averaged across them. The threshold is three out of four, so you can lose one. If one evaluator does not like the innovation or the technology, that is fine, because you only need three. You always get the benefit of the average of four people, and as long as you reach more than 75%, you pass.
Before 2021: Scores Without Comments
In the past it was even more extreme. Before 2021, applicants did not receive comments. You did not know what the evaluators thought about the company, the team or the technology. The only thing you saw was a final score for every aspect of the criteria.
You would see something like intellectual property with a score of 3.52, without knowing exactly what that meant. It was the average of three or four people: you got a number, but not what they were thinking.
Even though this was a little obscure, it was actually quite fair. The numerical score was averaged across around four people, so there was never going to be an extreme bias from one person ruining the entire application.
Step 3: At Least Five Jury Members
The final interview in Step 3 has five or more jury members. The room can include European Investment Bank representatives, programme managers, a moderator and possibly people from the EIC board in the back. With at least five jury members asking questions, whether you get funded depends not on one person but on at least five. Individual biases average out.
Step 2 Is Now Different
In Step 2, you hand in the long proposal and shortly afterwards have an interview. That interview is with one person, who is usually a consultant.
Consider who is paid to conduct interviews like this. It will not be CEOs of companies or active researchers. It will be self-employed people and consultants. That is simply the reality.
These evaluators usually have a background that is not exactly your technology, because they cannot prepare for every technology they assess. The EIC calls them technology experts with extensive expertise, but in reality it is impossible for someone to know your exact technology. Otherwise, you would not be an innovator. If an evaluator could say they know exactly what you are doing, it would not be an innovation. They do, however, have enough background to understand the project from the proposal and the interview.
The Official Process
Officially, the process works like this:
- You hand in the proposal.
- You have the interview with the technology expert.
- A panel of three evaluators assesses the proposal and the technology expert's report, and prepares the evaluation.
What I Have Seen in Practice
In practice, it very much looks like the entire evaluation hinges on the Step 2 interview. If the interviewer thinks the technology is great and everything makes sense, that becomes the evaluation. If the interviewer thinks the project does not make sense, or did not like the answers, that becomes the entire evaluation as well.
Having read many evaluation summary reports over the years, I find that these read like an evaluation from one person. Even if a three-person evaluation panel is behind it, there are no separate comments from each evaluator.
Three Sets of Comments Became One
Previously, a Step 2 evaluation contained the comments of every single evaluator. You could see that evaluator one loved the project, evaluator two was on the fence and evaluator three, for some reason, hated it. You did not know their names, but you could see exactly who was who, with a set of comments for each.
In the current iteration, there is one set of comments, which sounds like it comes from the interviewer. One person appears to be doing the entire evaluation. I have not seen any indication that three people are behind it, because their comments do not appear.
I have also seen at least one Step 2 evaluation that mentioned the interview in almost every comment: they answered this in the interview; in the interview they explained it and it made a lot of sense; in the interview they said this and it did not make sense. It was always about the interview.
The Risk: Extreme Randomness
What makes this dangerous for the EIC Accelerator is the extreme degree of randomness it introduces in Step 2. No matter what you hand in, you face a choke point of one evaluator, and that evaluator can make or break the entire evaluation.
I do not see three evaluators in the background overturning whatever the technology expert said. I see the technology expert as the entire evaluation. This might mean the approach will not last very long, and it remains to be seen how long it continues.
Preparation Is Extremely Important
What this shows is that preparation for the Step 2 interview is extremely important. Every company going to the interview has to be very well prepared, which is difficult precisely because of the randomness. There are, however, certain rules that clearly apply, and they are covered in other videos.
Summary
- Step 1 averages four evaluators and requires three out of four.
- Before 2021, applicants saw averaged scores without comments, which was obscure but fair.
- Step 3 decisions depend on at least five jury members.
- Step 2 introduces a single interviewer, usually a consultant, as a choke point.
- Officially a three-person panel evaluates afterwards, but evaluations now read like one person's view.
- One evaluator can make or break the Step 2 result, so thorough preparation is essential.
