Introduction
A curious paradox exists in the realm of grant applications for the European Innovation Council's (EIC) Accelerator program. While the EIC generally recommends submitting concise, shorter proposals, it's often observed that longer proposals, packed with extensive information, tend to perform better. This article examines this phenomenon and its implications for startups and SMEs.
The Recommendation for Brevity
The EIC often advises applicants to be succinct in their proposals, aiming to communicate their ideas clearly and efficiently. The rationale is to provide evaluators with a focused and coherent narrative that addresses the key aspects of the project without overwhelming them with excessive details.
The Success of Lengthier Proposals
In practice, however, proposals that are more comprehensive and longer often have a higher success rate. These detailed proposals provide a depth of information that can effectively showcase the project's nuances, potential impact, and thorough planning. They allow applicants to address multiple aspects of their innovation, from technical details to market strategies and risk assessments.
Balancing Length and Clarity
This situation presents a challenge for applicants: balancing the need for a thorough, detailed proposal with the EIC's preference for conciseness. Achieving this balance requires skill in distilling complex information into a clear, compelling narrative without sacrificing the depth and breadth that a detailed proposal offers.
Conclusion
The contradiction between the EIC's recommendation for shorter proposals and the apparent success of lengthier submissions highlights a key challenge in the grant application process. It underscores the importance of strategic writing that can weave a comprehensive yet clear narrative. For startups and SMEs, understanding this paradox is crucial in crafting proposals that not only meet the EIC's guidelines but also effectively communicate the full potential of their innovative projects.
