Precious tips from 4 SME Instrument evaluators

Precious tips from 4 SME Instrument evaluators

Printer-friendly versionPDF version

Enterprise Europe Network Scotland just released 4 video interviews of evaluators of Horizon 2020 SME Instrument. A 'must watch' for anyone planning to submit a proposal!

Judith Pretty

  • "After writing, get feedback."
  • "Look closely at sub-criteria"
  • "Stay business-like"

Gerhart Kohl

  • "Business-oriented approach"
  • "Show awareness of potential obstacles"
  • "Your technology is only one element of your business"

Fabrizio Amarilli

  • "Clear description of the market"
  • "Proposal should be consistent with type of innovation"
  • "What have you achieved so far?"

Jordi Cusido Roura

  • "Keep the focus on business"
  • "Is your business disruptive?"
  • "Evaluators don't have much time - be succint and convincing"


Visit Enterprise Europe Network Scotland website

Follow Enterprise Europe Network Scotland on Twitter





  • Anonymous's picture

    Great advice! Paul Phelan

  • Paul Lefrere's picture

    These videos by EASME evaluators are excellent and very motivating

  • Eyal Lavin's picture

    As getting help from H2020 is a VERY competative market, these gold nuggets are much appreciated!
    Many thanks @judith @gerhart @fabrizio @jordi

    Eyal Lavin (@alkemics)

  • Miguel Martins - itrust consulting, Luxembourg's picture

    I suggest that all of us apply as proposal reviewers. You are paid a few hours per proposal but you don't have to read them. At the end you rate the proposal randomly, making sure it is under the thresholds, and give the following comment: "Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary". That sentence for Impact, Excellence and Quality of Implementation. And you have the ESR after 30 seconds.

    We were victims, of course. I can criticise any abstract in less than 5 minutes, but that would take too long for them.

  • oscar's picture

    ESR should give information in order to avoid this situation...but it is true that one proposal is evaluated by several people...so if scoring was random that average would be very strange and I want to believe that his situation would be supervised.
    It is true that we have ESR unfair that I don't agree...not the entire evaluation, but incoherent points: like having innovation scored as excellent in one section and fair in other point very related to innovation, or having excellent and very good in all bullet points of a criterion and then fair the one related to overall perception of this criterion. It doesn’t make sense in my opinion, and ask for a second revision is useless. At least in this last case, it would be necessary an explanation of why overall perception has been badly score when all specific points are score very good or excellent

  • Bas Huiszoon's picture

    Such behaviour would be spotted since multiple reviewers treat a proposal and the standard deviation is measured.

    Honestly, an investor or in this case the EU reviewer spots in a minute whether or not a 10-page business plan makes sense. Most time is typically spent on the borderline cases since obvious good and bad is easy to judge.

    Also take note that the EU is stricktly asking for disruptive and excellence. Acceptance is therefore expected low, competition is fierce, and reviews make very tough calls.

    Be up to the game and strive for highest.quality. The barrier is very high.

  • Anonymous's picture

    I'm not able to watch the videos both using Explorer and Firefox (the message is: private video!!). What's going on?

  • martizr's picture

    It works now.

    Erwan @EASME

  • Ifigeneia Metaxa's picture

    Thank you for the interesting input. Do these points apply to Phase 1 or Phase 2 proposals?

  • martizr's picture

    To both phases

    Erwan @EASME

Add new comment

Please answer this question
Enter the characters shown in the image.