Pilot access schemes to Technology Infrastructures for European startups, scaleups and innovative SMEs (CSA)

Expected outcomes

• The topic does not say whether all outcomes must be addressed; treat them all as relevant.
• For each outcome (EO1 to EO4), name who will use or adopt your results (a specific group, not “industry” or “society”), how they get them, and the indicator that shows the change, with baseline, target and date.
• Use the topic's own words for each outcome, so the evaluator can tick it off.

What the scope asks for

Evaluators check the proposal against these sentences of the scope. Answer each one visibly, in the call's own words.

• “Startups, scaleups and other innovative SMEs require access to state-of-the-art research and technology facilities, equipment and expertise to test, upscale, validate new products and technologies, shortening the time-to-market and increasing the chances for a successful commercialisation.”
• “It should build on existing initiatives with already developed single access points to a comprehensive set of facilities and services in a selected technology area, like for example Open Innovation Test Beds or other integrated networks, that allow for a quick deployment of a common access scheme.”
• “The action should include setting-up a pilot centrally managed and funded access programme, allowing companies quick access to the needed services, with simplified and standardised access conditions applicable across the EU, to be coordinated and in line with the work on the envisaged European Charter of access for industrial users to research and technology infrastructures.”
• “The action should aim at significant broadening of the user base of the technology infrastructures to address the needs of startups and scaleups that do not have access to such facilities in their local ecosystems.”
• “To this end, proposals should include the development and implementation of activities to increase the visibility and promote and demonstrate the uptake of technology infrastructures services provided to users across the EU.”
• “Furthermore, proposals should aim to enhance transnational and multisite collaboration among Technology Infrastructures fostering the building of technology infrastructures ecosystems, the sharing of experience, resources, and best practices in management, service offer, staff exchange and networking.”

Conditions that shape the proposal

• Part B, sections 1–3: 28 pages (standard application form). Text beyond the limit is not read; tables and figures count.
• Lump sum: the budget is fixed per work package and paid when each work package is completed. Every work package needs activities and deliverables an evaluator can verify, and the effort must match the money.
• Coordination and support action: no research is funded. Evaluators look for coordination, networking, dissemination or policy support with a clear audience.

Impact pathway and traps

• The scope expects pilots or demonstration. Name the sites, the partners who run them and what is measured there.
• Standardisation is mentioned. Name the committees or bodies and the partner who engages with them.
• Market uptake is part of the scope. Evaluators look for a credible route to market with named first adopters.
• Keep outputs, outcomes and impacts apart: what you deliver, what changes when others use it, and the long-term effect.
• For each destination impact you claim, show which of your outcomes feeds it. Destination impacts are long-term effects, not project deliverables.
• Name the barriers outside the project (regulation, markets, user behaviour) that could block uptake, and what you will do if they do.
• Section 2.3 (the summary canvas) is optional on this call; the old split into scientific, economic and societal impact is no longer required.