SME instrument: more than 1,900 new applications received

Printer-friendly version PDF version

24 September 2014 was the second cut-off date for Horizon 2020’s SME Instrument phase 1 . EASME received 1,944 new proposals, which makes in total more than 4,600 when adding up the applications submitted in June.

The ranking by country remains the same as in June, with Italy in the lead in terms of number of applications (351), followed by Spain (283), United Kingdom (149), Germany (128), France (93) and Hungary (91).

The Open Disruptive Innovation (ODI) scheme attracted the biggest number of proposals (608), followed by low carbon energy systems (268), nanotechnologies (234) and eco-innovation/raw materials (199).

The result of the evaluation should be available towards the end of November 2014.

The list of the first 155 beneficiaries of the SME Instrument phase 1 has been published on 18 September. They will receive €50,000 to finance feasibility studies for their projects; they can also benefit from up to three days of business coaching.

The next deadline for phase 1 is on 17 December 2014.

Horizon 2020 SME Instrument Phase 1 September 2014 Number of proposals submitted per country
Horizon 2020 SME Instrument Phase 1 September 2014 Number of proposals submitted per country

Horizon 2020 SME Instrument Phase 1 September 2014 Number of proposals submitted per topic
Horizon 2020 SME Instrument Phase 1 September 2014 Number of proposals submitted per topic
Published on
  • Budimir | Mon, 27/10/2014 - 11:02
    evaluation deadline

    Does anyone have any idea when the results from the latest cut-of date will be announced ???

  • martizr | Wed, 05/11/2014 - 14:39
    For phase 1 (cut-off date 24

    For phase 1 (cut-off date 24/09), the applicants will be informed at the end of November. The names of the beneficiaries should be published early January.

  • Spartak | Mon, 02/11/2015 - 15:19
    ict-37-2015-1 open disruptive innovation scheme

    Can somebody say when the results for phase 1 (cut-off dates September 17th/2015) would be announced?

  • Spartak | Mon, 02/11/2015 - 15:19
    ict-37-2015-1 open disruptive innovation scheme

    Can somebody say when the results for phase 1 (cut-off dates September 17th/2015) would be announced?

  • Spartak | Mon, 02/11/2015 - 15:19
    ict-37-2015-1 open disruptive innovation scheme

    Can somebody say when the results for phase 1 (cut-off dates September 17th/2015) would be announced?

  • faturma | Tue, 03/11/2015 - 10:46
    Results Phase I

    Dear Spartak, the ultimate letters from the Phase I September cut-off should arrive today, Tuesday 3/11. We apologize for the delay. Marie @EASME

Jonny | Thu, 27/11/2014 - 10:40
Update on results

I understand that the evaluation results are now delayed until mid December from your twitter feed ( and potentially only 2 days before the next cut-ff date.

Can you please explain why this is taking longer than the first period (without pointing the finger at SMEs, please - it's your process!) and what steps you are taking to improve this process?

  • chladag | Thu, 27/11/2014 - 15:16
    We are doing our best.

    We are doing our best. Finishing evaluation within 2 months after the cut-off is not a rule. This is what we aim for, but it's not always possible. Best,
    Agnieszka, Easme

  • Michael Weber | Fri, 05/12/2014 - 10:50
    Evaluation Deadline

    So now the evaluation deadline for the 24/09 cut off date is June 2015 according to the PP? Is this correct?
    Michael Weber

  • martizr | Fri, 05/12/2014 - 16:21
    The applicants for phase 1

    The applicants for phase 1 deadline 24/09 will be informed very soon.

  • M Clayton | Mon, 08/12/2014 - 10:40


    We were unfortunately unsuccessful (by half a point) for the recent Phase 1 scheme. Are resubmissions accepted?

  • martizr | Mon, 08/12/2014 - 10:58

    Yes resubmissions are accepted. Next deadline for phase 1: 18/03/2015

    Erwan @ EASME

  • kris | Mon, 08/12/2014 - 15:01
    Why is next deadline for

    Why is next deadline for Phase 1 18/03/2015, not 17/12/2014?

  • martizr | Mon, 08/12/2014 - 15:07
    You're right

    Next deadline is indeed on 17/12...

    Erwan @EASME

  • Jeff Turner | Thu, 11/12/2014 - 13:31

    Is there a limit to the number of times an organisation can apply?

  • martizr | Thu, 11/12/2014 - 13:34

    No limit to the number of times an organisation can apply, but only one application at the time.

    Erwan @EASME

  • John | Tue, 09/12/2014 - 09:37
    Rigged Evaluations

    We believe the whole eval procedure is rigged and basically there is no way to be accepted because of purely subjective reasons. Me and my colleagues made 3 submissions for different projects whereas we used identical definitions (only company name difference) for parts of this submissions. The results were stunning: for one and the same text (only company name difference) the evaluations will vary from Good to Excellent. As a result one of the submissions will qualify and the rest will not. This is not an objective evaluation and frankly we do not see any reason for further submissions as the evaluation process is corrupt. SME may own the process but this is not their money -- this is the money of the European tax payers and they should implement better (less subjective) evaluation procedures to select approved projects.

  • Roberto | Tue, 09/12/2014 - 11:12
    Rigged Evaluation

    Dear John,
    i agree with you. I updated three different projects.
    Results obtained are different of what i was expecting.
    For example what i considered weaknesses of the project (from mine point of view and i konw the field) reached "Excellent" as evaluation and viceversa.
    I think that project are evaluated by good people and evaluators but in many cases they really don't have ANY experience or knowledge in the field they are evaluating (especially if their CV is Universitary). I think that in reality is a English grammar correction.
    Is needed to standardize evaluation and give detailed information of what is excellent/very good/fair and why is worthy or unworthy.
    We respect standards in fullfilling projects tamplates but also EC should respect it.
    What i can do is trying to submit other project and hope to find (in the meantime) private investors that support my idea!
    I love science and technology so really i cannot loose time and money in writing probably perfect proposals to make evalutors "dream" about my technology i need to develop project.
    I wish to both of you, evaluator and attenders, a good work.

  • martizr | Wed, 10/12/2014 - 11:40

    The fact that only one out of the 3 same proposals was selected show that the project can still be improved. You can't say the evaluation process is corrupt because there's still a bit of subjectivity involved. 12 independent human beings have evaluated the project; you can't expect all of them to have exactly the same opinion. We look forward seeing you during the grant preparation process.

    EASME SME Instrument team

  • SportoAMULA | Mon, 26/02/2018 - 23:29
    ансомон цена

    Если вы упражняетесь спортивными нагрузками и желаете привести организм в достойную форму, советуем начать использовать спортивные добавки .

    Ассортимент спортпита hgh somatropin цена . Вы сможете купить BCAA, л-карнитин и другие товары для спортпита по недорогой цене.

    Если вы интересуетесь фитнесом и хотите в сжатые сроки высушиться, рекомендуем начать употреблять жиросжигатели. Выбрать и приобрести их реально через

    На портале можно выбрать разные товары по низким ценам дешево. Ко всем препаратам добавлены фото. Вы сможете посмотреть полное описание и советы на веб-странице какого-либо препарата, как на 5lb.

    Спортивные биодобавки продаются как в форме жидкости, так и в форме добавок. Если вы давно мечтали стать успешным в бодибилдинге, советуем стартовать пользоваться услугами самого большого интернет-магазина Качоси в Москве, СПб или всему РУ сегменту!

  • Andrew | Tue, 09/12/2014 - 10:57

    I propose to EASME to improve the evaluation process and provide more information within the evaluation reports. This could be easily done by defining an evaluation grid to be used by evaluators, breaking down at least some more indicators for the evaluation scores within the 3 main areas (excellence, impact, implementation). This would not take any longer for the evaluation and allow participant to know how to improve their proposals. I know timing is important in these calls, but improved transparency is also VERY important and it could be achieved with nothing but a simple evaluation grid (an excel file) for the evaluators. EASME's speakers always state that due to timing contraints they need to have evaluations done this way but I really think improvements are needed and mandatory, since they would just make things easier for evaluators and proposers without taking longer processing times. Thanks.

  • Mark Clayton | Tue, 09/12/2014 - 17:40
    Evaluation and Feedback

    Thanks for the information on resubmission. I have to agree with the comments about feedback however, our proposal scored Excellent in 13 sections and Very Good in the remaining 5, making it difficult to know exactly which sections need improving.

  • Cristina | Thu, 11/12/2014 - 15:29

    If we submit a project proposal next January, and we receive an evaluation with the fact that the proposal is under the treshold. Can I improve my application and resubmit it by the same cut-off date?

  • martizr | Thu, 11/12/2014 - 15:48

    you can resubmit if time allows

  • Portugal | Sun, 14/12/2014 - 12:52
    2nd cut off results

    When will the results by country be published? It seems that last time there was a huge effort on publishing the results (even if the names of the selected companies/projects would be published later) and at this time, there is nothing yet and it seems that the candidates have already been informed about their results. It is truly important to have a view on the countries and topics with better results...

  • martizr | Mon, 15/12/2014 - 10:57
    This time...

    ... statistics will be publish together with the names of the beneficiaries; by the end of January.

    Erwan @EASME

  • Pierre | Wed, 24/12/2014 - 12:53
    Interesting Experience to be part of!

    So far, my company has submitted thrice, the current Phase 1 being under evaluation again.

    First round score was 13.30, second round 13.35. None got funding!

    The first round, my company wrote the entire proposal on their own.
    The second time, we had a review meeting with 2 consultants from the EEN.

    They gave us logical-, constructive feedback on how to especially improve the IMPACT section (which btw counts 1.5 times but is nowhere reflected in the ESR/consensus reports!)

    Funny enough, though tremendous improvements were made from version 1 to 2, the impact dropped from 4.5 to 4.44 in the second round.

    That's where I got frustrated, especially since the EEN gave very valuable feedback to improve and two weeks prior to the 2nd failure notice, we received requests form the EC to provide LEAR & company information.
    Still got turned down in the end.

    Let's see what the third round brings!
    Perseverance is a huge part of the entrepreneurial journey and I hope our company will be rewarded for it this time! ;)

    If this does not work out, I am inclined to accept US VC money in exchange for equity to move our innovation forward!

    Hence, I will not surprised anymore that if the next evalutation outcome is negative, too, that European companies walk off to the US for technical innovations as VC money is faster & easier accessible!
    I take pride in being a European and would love to give back to our community, but innovation seems to be taking place elsewhere and therefore making talented people leave...

    As an idea to EASME, to avoid evaluators' conflict of interest, proposal ghostwriter or consultants etc. should be excluded from the evaluation process!
    This is an open invite to fraud. Imagine these people create a black market for giving their points accordingly or they happen to evaluate a proposal they get paid based on a succcess rate!

    Seriously, Good Luck Europe!

  • Ruth | Mon, 29/12/2014 - 17:19
    Evaluation - Points

    Could you please specify the range of points per level? Or is the median used as stated here:, page 11?
    From the grant manual of submission and evaluation of Horizon 2020 (linke above), I learned that 5 points are "excellent", 4 points are "very good" and so on. In our evaluation, we could see that in one category, we have always excellent except vor one sub-category with "very good". But the points of this category add up to only 3.98. How is it possible that the average is below the lowest number of a single category? Or would e.g. 4.6 still be called "excellent"? But this would be contrary to the grant manual, wouldn't it? And it would even make it more difficult to resubmit, since we are very confused not meeting the threshold (although it is by less than half a point) although more than 80% of all subcategories are marked as "excellent"?!

  • Capu | Wed, 07/01/2015 - 13:04
    Evaluation - Points

    Hi, we had the same situation and we did not understand our grades. Indeed we have only excellent and very good in all the sub-categories, but our points for each category are below 4/5. We do not understand how the average can be below the lowest number of the category. Could you please provide some explanations?

  • martizr | Wed, 07/01/2015 - 13:49
    Evaluation - Points

    We have used this appraisal phrase per sub-criteria system for the first time in this cut-off and we are grateful for any feedback which allows us to improve it.

    The range of scoring and its relevance to the appraisal phrase is the following:

    0-0.99 - Poor
    1-1.99 - Fair
    2-2.99 - Good
    3-3.99 - Very Good
    4-5 - Excellent

    This means that we were possibly slightly too positive in our feedback, because every score above threshold is communicated as “excellent”. We might have to change this in future rounds.

    Each sub-criteria and the subsequent overall score are derived from the individual scores of 4 experts, coming from both technical as well as financial backgrounds.

    This means in order to reflect on eventual improvements of your proposal, you should definitely try to improve the areas not marked as “excellent”.

    Furthermore, we would recommend to discuss, if you haven’t done so, the project with your Enterprise Europe member in your region or the National Contact Point as stipulated in our letter announcing the outcome of the evaluation.

  • Dusan | Tue, 20/01/2015 - 16:28
    In which official document was this scoring published ?

    Self evaluation manual says following:
    Scores must be in the range 1-5. Half marks may be given. Evaluators will be asked to score proposals as they were submitted, rather than on their potential if certain changes were to be made. When an evaluator identifies significant shortcomings, he or she must reflect this by awarding a lower score for the criterion concerned.
    Interpretation of the scores
    0 — The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.
    1 — Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.
    2 — Fair. The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses.
    3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present.
    4 — Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present.
    5 — Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion. Any shortcomings are minor."
    This is quite a difference from above table.
    It should be clear to everybody and it seems it is not.

  • martizr | Fri, 23/01/2015 - 15:34
    The scores initially

    The scores initially mentioned refer to sub criteria and not the main criteria. For more information please contact

    Erwan @EASME

  • Julieta Pereda | Wed, 21/01/2015 - 16:00
    Results from the cut-of date 17.12.2014

    Hello, I would like to know when is expected that the results from the latest cut-of date Phase 1 (17.12.2014) will be announced.
    Thanks in advanced.

  • martizr | Wed, 21/01/2015 - 17:13
    If everything goes well, the

    If everything goes well, the applicants will be informed of the outcome towards mid-February and the grants signed mid-March

    Erwan @EASME

  • Julieta | Wed, 04/02/2015 - 10:15


  • Robert Miskuf | Thu, 22/01/2015 - 18:25
    The same projects get funded even 4 times?

    Dear All,

    We have just reviewed the official list of successful beneficiaries of Phase 2 (first cut-off date) and found some, from our point of view, surprising information:

    As you can see, there are quite a few projects with identical names and acronyms funded multiple times, sometimes even within the same country (for instance, project CITRIMACC was funded 4 times, project DEMOS was funded 3 times, project ECO-SILENTWOOD was funded 3 times, CLEAN-HEAT 2 times, project IRWES was funded 3 times, all in the same country, project WINTHERWAX was funded twice, etc.)

    Is this possible?

    If yes, it means that the same identical proposal can be submitted multiple times by different companies.

    Thank you for your comments.

    PEDAL Consulting

  • Katharina | Fri, 20/02/2015 - 16:31

    these are consortia with three or four beneficiaries. I grant you that this is not clear from the table as such...

  • martizr | Fri, 23/01/2015 - 09:10
    A project can't be funded

    A project can't be funded several times under the same phase of the SME Instrument.

    If you see a project appearing several times in the list, it's simply because several participants are involved.

    Erwan @EASME

  • Ralf | Tue, 10/02/2015 - 09:00
    Project Funding

    Hello, I would like to ask, how is it posible for some Phase1 projects to be funded with 200000 or even 800000 instead of 50000 Euro.

    and respectively a phase2 project with 38M

    Thank you in advance.

  • martizr | Tue, 10/02/2015 - 10:12
    No it's not possible. The

    No it's not possible. The pages you were referring to earlier on are still under development using random figures and were not supposed to be accessible by the public. More info soon but for phase 1 it's max 50,000 and for phase 2 2,5 m. (5 for health)

  • Lorenzo | Fri, 13/02/2015 - 11:59

    Hi are there some statistics for this cut-off for phase 1 proposals similar to the ones for the first cut-off:

  • Liam | Tue, 24/02/2015 - 13:30
    Treshold results communicated for Phase 2 (December 2014 call)?

    I was just wondering when applicants will be informed in respect to whether they had passed threshold for Phase 2 (17th December 2014 call)? I thought the results would have been communicated by now.

  • martizr | Tue, 24/02/2015 - 14:43
    It should be around mid-March

    It should be around mid-March if everything goes well (cut-off date + 4 months)

    Erwan @EASME

  • Miroslav | Thu, 05/03/2015 - 09:45
    results from SME Instrument Phase 1 cut-of date 17.12.2014

    Hello, I would like to ask you when will be announced results from the SME Instrument call cut-of date Phase 1 (17.12.2014). We still did´n get any information. Thank you in advance for your reply.

  • Luca | Tue, 10/03/2015 - 10:49

    do you think we'll receive the results by the end of this week?
    Just wondering, in case of negative result, how much we can improve our document having just couple of days before next deadline..

    Thanks in advance,

  • Iacopo Carboni | Mon, 16/03/2015 - 11:56
    SME inst

    Do you konw when phase1 proposals( 17.12.2014 deadline) evaluation results will be comuncated?
    Thanks in advance?

  • William | Wed, 18/03/2015 - 10:38
    Phase 2 threshold results now that Phase 1 are out?

    Hi there,
    Just wondering when Phase 2 threshold results will be out. now that Phase 1 results from December 2014 call are apparently out.

  • martizr | Wed, 18/03/2015 - 10:40
    Phase 2 applicants will be

    Phase 2 applicants will be informed about the result of their application on Friday (hopefully)

    Erwan @EASME

  • Markus | Wed, 18/03/2015 - 13:30
    Phase 1 results from December

    Phase 1 results from December 2014 are still not available, so there is no time to improve our proposal for the cut-off date which ends today.

    It`s really disappointing!



  • New comment