deliverable 2.2 title: ecice report and second open call · ** deliverable type: r= document, dem=...

PROJECT Nº H2020 - 731391 Cross4Health

Deliverable 2.2

Title: ECICE Report and Second Open Call

* Dissemination Level: PU

** Deliverable Type: R

Date: 31.05.2019

Distribution: WP2

Editors: AV, NHT, BIOTECYL, EUROB

Contributors: NHT, AV, BIOTECYL, EUROB

* Dissemination Level: PU= Public, CO= Confidential, only for members of the Consortium (including the

Commission services), EU-RES= Classified information: RESTRAINT UE

(Commission Decision 2005/444/EC), EU-CON= Classified Information:

CONFIDENTIEL UE (Commission Decision 2005/444/EC), EU-SEC= Classified

Information: SECRET UE (Commission Decision 2005/444/EC)

** Deliverable Type: R= Document, DEM= Demonstrator, pilot, prototype, DEC= Website, patent filling,

videos, etc., OTHER, ETHICS= Ethics requirement

Abstract: The deliverable D2.2 provides information about the ECICE Idea Contest, the results

of the 2nd Open Call, improvements implemented from the previous Open Call, lessons

learned and related administrative material.


2

DISCLAIMER

The work associated with this report has been carried out in accordance with the highest technical

standards and Cross4Health partners have endeavored to achieve the degree of accuracy and

reliability appropriate to the work in question. However, since the partners have no control over the

use to which the information contained within the report is to be put by any other party, any other

such party shall be deemed to have satisfied itself as to the suitability and reliability of the information

in relation to any particular use, purpose or application.

Under no circumstances will any of the partners, their servants, employees or agents accept any

liability whatsoever arising out of any error or inaccuracy contained in this report (or any further

consolidation, summary, publication or dissemination of the information contained within this report)

and/or the connected work and disclaim all liability for any loss, damage, expenses, claims or

infringement of third party rights.


3

Table of Contents

List of Authors .......................................................................................................... 4

Document History ..................................................................................................... 4

Consortium ............................................................................................................... 4

List of Figures ........................................................................................................... 5

Glossary ................................................................................................................... 5

Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 6

1 ECICE Idea Contest - Madrid ........................................................................... 7

1.1 VENUE and AGENDA ............................................................................................. 8

1.2 DISSEMINATION ................................................................................................... 8

1.3 APPLICATIONS ...................................................................................................... 9

1.4 CROSS4HEALTH IDEA HACKATHON CONTEST EVALUATION PROCESS ...................... 9

1.5 JURY SELECTED ................................................................................................... 11

1.6 AUDIENCE ........................................................................................................... 12

1.7 RESULTS: FINALISTS AND WINNERS ..................................................................... 13

1.8 IDEA HACKATHON SURVEY RESULTS .................................................................... 14

1.9 PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL .................................................................................. 15

1.10 LESSONS LEARNT (Consortium Meeting Deliverances) .......................................... 15

2 The 2nd Open Call ........................................................................................ 16

2.1 Improvements from the 1st Open Call .................................................................. 16

2.2 Challenges .......................................................................................................... 16 2.2.1 Documentation ................................................................................................... 17

2.2.2 Eligibility Criteria ................................................................................................. 18

2.2.3 Registration Platform .......................................................................................... 20

2.3 Proposals ............................................................................................................ 20 2.3.1 Proposals Screening and Pre-Selection ............................................................... 21

2.3.2 Avoiding double funding ..................................................................................... 24

2.3.3 Evaluation Committee ......................................................................................... 24

2.3.4 Evaluation by External Experts ............................................................................ 24

2.4 Results................................................................................................................ 26 2.4.1 Preparation for Acceleration ............................................................................... 27

2.5 Lessons Learned .................................................................................................. 28


4

List of Authors Partner Authors

NHT Mette Aastad, Waqar Ahmed, Claudia Marx, Sergio Ferreira

AV Pauline Theopane, Diego Carballo

ZENIT Juan Carmona-Schneider, Anne-Lise Hohenstatt

BIOTECYL Anna Jorquera, Mercedes Becerra

EUROB Roberto Giménez, Leonor Cueva

HCN Joanna Lane, Edit Sebestyen

IS Magnus Wallengren, Fred Kjellson

Document History Date Version Editors Status

18.03.2019 0 Claudia Marx Draft

08.05.2019 1 Claudia Marx Draft

31.05.2019 1 Mette Aastad Draft

Consortium

Part Short Name Partner Full Name

NHT (Coordinator) Norway Health Tech

AV Aerospace Valley

BIOTECYL Cluster de Salud de Castilla y Leon

EUROB Eurob Creative

HCN Health ClusterNET

IS Innovation Skåne

ZENIT ZENIT - Zentrum für Innovation und Technik in NRW


5

List of Figures Figure 1: Promo about Cross4Health Hackathon Event Prizes ............................................................... 7 Figure 2: Madrid Work and Evaluation Process .................................................................................... 10 Figure 3: Second Stage Evaluation Criteria / Jury Evaluation Criteria .................................................. 11 Figure 4: Cross4Health Jury Panel ......................................................................................................... 11 Figure 5: Cross4health Hackathon Idea Contest participation registered ............................................ 12 Figure 6: Selected Applicants to pitch at the CROSS4HEALTH HACKATHON IDEA CONTEST ............... 13 Figure 7: Madrid Cross4Health Hackathon Idea. Finalists and Winners ............................................... 13 Figure 8: Hackathon Cross4Health survey results ................................................................................ 14 Figure 9: Distribution of (eligible) Proposals per Country .................................................................... 20 Figure 10: Distribution of proposals per challenge ............................................................................... 21 Figure 11: Organizations represented in the Open Call ........................................................................ 21 Figure 12: Cross4Health 2nd Open Call Evaluation Process ................................................................... 22 Figure 13: Evaluation Setup 2nd Open Call ............................................................................................ 23 Figure 15: Distribution of Selected Projects per Country ..................................................................... 27

Glossary Acronym Meaning

€ Euros

C4H Cross4Health

EU European Union

H2020 Horizon 2020

SME Small and Medium Enterprise

WP Work Package

PO Project Officer

KAM Key Account Manager


6

Executive Summary This document consists of two main parts, the first one describes the 2nd European Cross4Health Idea Contest Event (ECICE) that took place in Madrid during January 2019 in the form of an Ideas Hackathon Contest. The event was arranged to enhance public visibility for the associated 2nd Cross4Health Open Call and initiate team building for potential project proposals. All documentation from the 2nd ECICE can be found in Annex B to this document. The Second part of this document describes the preparations and execution of the 2nd Open Call, including the supporting documentations prepared by the consortium. The full version of each supporting document can be found in Annex A to this document. The report also gives an overview of the proposals that were submitted to the Open Call and describes the following pre-screening and evaluation of the received proposals. In total, the 2nd Cross4Health Open Call received 66 proposals, of which 57 were considered eligible. These proposals went through an evaluation executed by external experts. After the evaluation process, 18 projects were invited to enter the Sub-Grant Agreement process to be enrolled in the 2nd Cross4Health Acceleration Programme. 5 projects are still on the reserve list, with the aim of receiving support.


7

1 ECICE Idea Contest - Madrid

The Ideas Hackathon Contest took place at the Hospital Clínico San Carlos in Madrid, from the 21st to 23rd of January 2019 (Annex I). This was the third large event of Cross4Health project and it was organized for various purposes, promote the Cross4Health 2nd Open Call, present the Open Call challenges and help SMEs in the project building process. The Cross4Health Ideas Hackathon Contest was a great opportunity for SME-led teams to work towards developing solutions to specific healthcare challenges. The event provided them the chance to improve and demonstrate their creative-thinking, innovation, pitching and business skills while working on a challenge that covers real healthcare needs. The event was focused for SMEs and entrepreneurs belonging to the Aerospace, Energy, Creative Industries, ICT for Healthcare, Biotechnology and Medical Devices sectors. In addition, it was oriented for teams as well as for individuals who would like to form a team at the event. This event was not only a competition, but also an opportunity to gain guidance from expert coaches, to create and build ideas and to meet challenge-owners facing these needs on a daily basis, as well as other SMEs working in a related field. It has covered the challenges of the cross4Health 2nd Open Call:

1. EARLY DETECTION AND DIAGNOSIS: remote monitoring and self-testing solutions to provide reliable save and accurate diagnostic measurements which benefits improve ability to detect and treat sickness at an earlier stage.

2. REMOTE PATIENT SUPPORT: Smarter individualized tools to encourage treatment adherence and consistency increasing health care efficiency for the individual patient and for the health care system.

3. PATIENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS: logistic support solutions and diagnosis/decision support systems to improve planning and patient flow for better use of proper allocation resources.

Cross4Health Ideas Hackathon Contest was designed to offer the opportunity to take part in interesting training sessions, while at the same time participants can improve their pitch, increase their networking, etc. Moreover, participants were able to discover why they should apply for future Cross4Health Open Calls (Annex II), and at the same time, they get first-hand information and guidance on how to prepare a successful proposal for future Cross4Health Open Calls. We must not forget that the three best Innovative Ideas pitched were awarded with cash prizes, allowing them to go a step further in their project development. Cross4Health Ideas Hackathon Contest Winners were awarded as follows:

Figure 1: Promo about Cross4Health Hackathon Event Prizes


8

To encourage their participation the following key messages at the CROSS4HEALTH website were displayed:

- Learn about the Cross4Health project and how it can help boost your idea, project or SME.

- Improve your idea-design abilities with support from experienced coaches

- Engage with potential partners, end-users and challenge owners looking for disruptive

solutions

- Network with other SMEs and entrepreneurs in the field

- Come up with an idea and the possibility to apply to the Cross4Health 2nd Open Call

- Gain experience in pitching your idea

- Win a prize

- Have fun

1.1 VENUE and AGENDA

The Cross4Health Ideas Hackathon Contest took place in Madrid during the 21st, 22nd and 23rd of January. The event was hosted in the Hospital Clínico San Carlos with the aim to involved in the event the challenge owners. The final Agenda containing all the activities that took place during these three days can also be found at the end of this document (Annex III) along with the Idea guided Building B2B Meeting (Annex IV) and 2nd Open Call Brochure (Annex II). During the first session, from 16.10h to 18.30h individual participants attended a ‘Matchmaking’ Session run in parallel with an ‘Idea Review & Support´ Session. In this Session, each participant did a brief presentation of their project or their background and afterwards they were teamed up in three different project categories (the same as the challenges), for searching greater synergies between them. On the other hand, at the ‘Idea Review & Support´ Session, Cross4Health representatives and speakers were willing to provide personalized advice and guidance about proposed ideas. The goal of these sessions was to support participants and ease their way towards the Cross4Health 2nd Open Call. In the second day of the event, the teams formed during the first event day and team applicants attended. This day a ‘Training in design thinking’ and a ‘Training in Project Building’ took place, from 11.45h to 19.00h. That morning participants benefit from several conferences headed by high level experts. In the afternoon, the network exchange continued, and the selected projects were working to participate in the next day's contest. During the third and last day, the pitching contest took place from 9.30 to 12.30 and after all the voting process the winners were announced (more information can be found at the Evaluation Process Section and at the Winners and Finalists Section).

1.2 DISSEMINATION

The Cross4Health Ideas Hackathon Contest in Madrid was widely promoted through the project website (see Annex V) and all the partner’s networks. At the same time, Cross4Health network as a whole was also enlarged as maximum as possible. For this purpose, a specific newsletter was


9

developed promoting the Idea Hackathon event. EUROB and BIOTECYL were responsible for dissemination on both sides, according to their databases. The content and design of this promotional bulletin can be checked at the end of the document (Annex V). The newsletter was sent to more than 174 different email addresses, in order to invite SMEs that might be interested, as well as other different entities (Clusters, Enterprises Accelerators, Business Schools, Universities Office for Transfer of Research Results (OTRI), that could promote CROSS4HEALTH project and its events through their members. In addition, we did more dissemination by mails, LinkedIn, twitter and website in order to increase visibility of the event and informed different SMEs who might be interested in participating in the event. In addition, local experts were contacted by BIOTECYL and EUROB and among them, it was chosen according to their knowledge in innovation and business.

1.3 APPLICATIONS

The Cross4Health Ideas Hackathon Contest application period was opened from the 17th of December until the 15th of January for already formed teams and the 17th of January for individual applicants who wanted to form a team during the event. The Contest Regulations, as well as all relevant materials and information, regarding the Ideas Hackathon Contest were available through the website:

• Guide for Applicants (Annex VI): https://www.cross4health.eu/docs/20190109-Cross4Health_MadridHackathon_GuideForApplicants.pdf

To apply, Teams must complete a pdf form with details on: team leader, team composition, the challenge to tackle, and a brief description of their idea. To register as an individual applicant searching for a team, participants completed a pdf form which includes: expertise they bring to the team and type of partner searched for. . A guidance template was also provided for proposer’s commodity. As a result, we received: - 3 team requests and 14 individual participants corresponding to a total of 20 organizations,

which resulted in a total of 10 teams.

- A total number of attendees of 50, of which 32 were participants, 3 doctors from the hospital (only

came to the pitch), 6 jurors, 3 facilitators (DCOM) and 6 members of C4H.Besides all the attendees,

additional doctors from San Carlos Hospital were also invited to the lunch, in order to promote

networking (Annex VII).

1.4 CROSS4HEALTH IDEA HACKATHON CONTEST EVALUATION PROCESS

The full Selection and Evaluation Process is described in the following Figure.

https://www.cross4health.eu/docs/20190109-Cross4Health_MadridHackathon_GuideForApplicants.pdf

https://www.cross4health.eu/docs/20190109-Cross4Health_MadridHackathon_GuideForApplicants.pdf


10

Figure 2: Madrid Work and Evaluation Process

All the applications received was assessed in the following way: The selection of the participants was done based on the fulfillment of the eligibility criteria. EVALUATION CRITERIA: During the 23rd of January, the 10 contestants performed a 4-min pitch in front of the Jury. Presently and during the Contest, all Jury members evaluated and marked each of the pitching performances by fulfilling the Evaluation Template (Annex X) provided and based on the following criteria:

o Innovation of the Idea: Under this criterion, it was evaluated the soundness of the concept

proposed in the pitch, as well as the innovation or progress beyond state-of-art.

o Team Composition: The commitment of the team, as well as the quality and balance of

the team members was also evaluated.

o Proposal Impact: Here it was considered if the proposal was tackling a pressing societal

issue or and innovative application regarding the challenge proposed, as well as if the

exploitation measures explained were effective.

o Implementation Plan/Traction: Under this point the marketing strategy and revenue

model were evaluated.

CRITERIA SCORE WEIGHTING FINAL SCORE

Innovation of the Idea (0-10) (x 1) 10

Team Composition (0-10) (x 1) 10


11

Proposal Impact (0-10) (x 1,5) 15

Implementation Plan /Traction (0-10) (x 1) 10

Figure 3: Second Stage Evaluation Criteria / Jury Evaluation Criteria

Among all the pitches performed during the contest, each participant had the opportunity to reinforce their proposal answering jury questions for 3 minutes. In order to select the 3 winners, a voting round took place, were each Jury member had to ranked the 10 proposals following the provided template (Annex X). After the voting session, the winners were announced. (More information can be found at the Finalists and Winners Section on the website.)

1.5 JURY SELECTED

Local experts were contacted by BIOTECYL and EUROB and among them, they were chosen according to their knowledge in innovation and business. As a result of all this process, the Jury Panel selected for the Cross4Health Idea Hackathon resulted as follows

Figure 4: Cross4Health Jury Panel

In order to provide the Jury Members with all relevant information before the contest event, the following documents were developed:

- Declaration of Impartiality (Annex IX)

- Jury Voting Sheet (Annex X)

All pertinent details about the contest procedure, the criteria needed to be followed during the pitching evaluation, as well as the responsibilities and commitments of becoming a Cross4Health Jury


12

Member were collected in these documents. Besides, before the pitching session the jury attended a seminar where CROSS4HEALTH partners (EUROB and BIOTECYL) explained all above mentioned.

1.6 AUDIENCE

Details of the participation and audience who were involved or attended the Cross4Health Idea Hackathon Contest can be found down below:

CROSS4HEALTH HACKATHON IDEA CONTEST

21st January 22nd January 23rd January

Nr people registered to attend 21 31 27

Nr audience attended 25 37 43

Nr of Organizations involved 20

Nr of SMEs involved 12

Figure 5: Cross4health Hackathon Idea Contest participation registered


13

1.7 RESULTS: FINALISTS AND WINNERS

During the third day of the event, all teams realized their pitch in the following order:

Figure 6: Selected Applicants to pitch at the CROSS4HEALTH HACKATHON IDEA CONTEST

After the thrilling pitches morning and the Questions and Answers sessions, the 3 winners were announced. Following is a summary of the Winners and Finalists:

Figure 7: Madrid Cross4Health Hackathon Idea. Finalists and Winners


14

1.8 IDEA HACKATHON SURVEY RESULTS

In order to acknowledge the audience level of satisfaction, a specific survey was designed and handed to each attendee during the registration process. The survey format can be found at the end of this document (Annex XI), and the information gathered from the received surveys is collected as follows:

SURVEY QUESTIONS AVERAGE MARKS

(Range 1-5)

Overall: PROGRAMME 4.5

Overall: DURATION 4.5

How satisfied are you with the event venue? 4

How satisfied are you with the training? 4.5

How satisfied are you with the catering? 5

HACKATHON SESSIONS (Range 1-5)

How satisfied are you with the Design Thinking Session? 4.5

How satisfied are you with the Project Building Session? 3.5

How satisfied are you with the Pitch Training Session? 4

MOST VALUABLE (Range 1-5)

Networking possibilities 5

2nd Open Call Information 5

Hackathon event 5

Prizes 5

Organization Staff 5

OUTCOMES

Did you manage to come up with good idea? 4.5

Are you likely to submit the same idea to the Open Call? 3

Will you submit a different idea? 3

What is the maturity level of your idea? 4

Would you come to the Hackathon again? 4.5

Figure 8: Hackathon Cross4Health survey results


15

1.9 PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL

All the promotional material designed and produced to be used during the Ideas Contest Event is listed hereunder and it can be found at the end of this document, in Annex XII. Basically, the promotional material consisted on: - Roll ups

- Notebooks

- Pens

- Lanyards

1.10 LESSONS LEARNT (Consortium Meeting Deliverances)

• Audience absence has to be considered. For this event in particular, we experienced around a

13.5% absence, even after confirmation.

• Dissemination and getting people involved is also hard. Events need to be planned 3 months in

advance at least. It is important to keep in mind Deadlines, Reminders, etc., as well as possible

causes of trouble that applicants might have.

• For upcoming competitions, we can go further in terms of follow-up, but this needs to be

communicated. The approach to these companies should be from the angle of demonstrating

interest in collaborating, supporting project dissemination and gathering success stories.

Several alternatives were proposed:

• Deliver us a small video explaining how was their experience of the event, etc.

• Ask them to embed CROSS4HEALTH logo, and the EU logo and sentence in their website.

• Invite them to apply for the next Open Call

• Invite winners to attend the next consortium remote meeting, in order to explain their

impressions and achievements.


16

2 The 2nd Open Call

The 2nd Cross4Health Open Call was launched on the 18th of November 2018 and was open until the

18th of February 2019. In the 2nd Open Call we were looking for and aiming at supporting project

proposals that transfer technology or know-how from either Aerospace, Energy or Creative Industries

to the Healthcare sector for the innovation of new disruptive ideas. New for this Open Call was the

aspect of technology transfer from Creative Industries. Sub-sectors of the Creative Industries were for

example audio-visual (AR, VR etc.) or gaming technology, multimedia and design.

2.1 Improvements from the 1st Open Call

As a measure to increase the number of applicants from the 1st to the 2nd Cross4Health Open Call,

“Creative Industries” was included to expand the scope of cross-sectorial collaboration potential.

The design-led thinking innovation of the creative industries has potential to improve experiences

and solving problems within the Healthcare landscape. With using design and technologies arising

from Audio Visual and Gaming Industries we can enable better healthcare outcomes and provide

new smart tools that can be applied to Medical Devices. Deliverable D5.4 explores the creative

industries to healthcare collaboration opportunities further.

2.2 Challenges

When applying to the 2nd Cross4Health Open Call, one or more of the following specific challenges

needed to be targeted in order to be considered an eligible project for the 2nd acceleration

programme. The following challenges is a result of the need-identification process performed in WP6

to ensure that the selected projects are solving challenges based on real needs in the European

Healthcare Sector.

1. Early detection and diagnoses:

• Remote monitoring and self-testing solutions to provide reliable save and accurate diagnostic measurements which benefits improve ability to detect and treat sickness at an earlier stage.

2. Remote patient support:

• Smarter individualized tools to encourage treatment adherence and consistency increasing health care efficiency for the individual patient and for the health care system.

3. Patient management process:

• Logistic support solutions and diagnosis/decision support systems to improve planning

and patient flow for better use of proper allocation of resources.

The table below provides a detailed description of the challenges including some examples collected during the Open Innovation Spaces. The table was published in the Guide for Applicants, which publicly available via the Cross4Health website:

Challenge Description/example.

Early detection and diagnoses

Remote monitoring. Benefits involve enabling patients, within high-risk groups, to a higher degree going about their ordinary lives with fewer doctor visits, while at the same time providing security and safety in the acute situation. E.g. EEG measurements for early seizure detection.


17

Remote monitoring/self-testing. Risks involve precise enough methods to assure quality, while benefits include fewer doctor visits and improved ability to detect and treat sickness at an earlier stage. E.g. At home self-testing for urine protein indicator detection connected to Uremia, within high-risk groups.

Remote monitoring. Providing reliable diagnostic measurements in an emergency setting is difficult, since most measurement methods have been developed for a clinical setting. E.g. Hypothermia detection. Research show that e.g. inner ear measurements provide a reliable indicator for core body temperature. A solution for use outside of the clinical setting would substantially improve patient safety in emergency care.

Remote patient support

Patient support. Lifestyle app/platform for preventive purposes specified per condition/diagnoses/identified high risk group. Encouraging individuals to understand how lifestyle adjustments lower the risk for severe disease in the long-term, is beneficial both for the health care system, and for the individual patient. E.g. A way to target preventive care with lifestyle adjustments is through encouraging methods, such as gamification.

Patient support. Failure to adhering to suggested treatment results in risks for the individual as well as reduced efficiency in the health care system. Platforms for encouraging adherence increases health care efficiency for the individual patient as well as for the health care system. E.g. Easily accessible platform/app for increasing adherence of patient to treatment.

Rehabilitation, assistance at home. It is expected that “smarter”, more individualized, tools for assistance and rehabilitation at home will improve treatment consistency and quality for patients, while also reducing the need to regular physio visits. E.g. Solutions may include assistive tools supporting the daily life of patients with physical/cognitive limitations, as well as products targeting patients undergoing treatment for injuries. E.g. Individualized tools for personal use, e.g. VR, robotics, exoskeletons.

Patient management process

Logistics support. From initial triage the resulting assessment/diagnoses can use data from a real-time logistic support which through care guidelines and big data modelling can with high probability predict internal patient journey, with treatments and diagnostical events, but also estimated discharge time for the individual patient. This improves planning and patient flow and better understanding of input & output through caregiver system.

E.g. Since accumulated data can present better understanding of input/output through caregiver system, better use of proper allocation of resources can be suggested accordingly. E.g. An extension to the described example could also integrate, add collaborative interfaces, between different levels of health care providers, such as between specialist care, primary care, and home care.

Diagnosis/decision support. With the use of e.g. AI/big data and/or national care guidelines, from triage most symptoms can be detected, and appropriate diagnosis measures suggested. This may result in improved standardization of assessments and generally improved efficiency.

Table 1: 2nd Open Call Challenges

2.2.1 Documentation

With the launch of the Open Call potential applicants had access to a package of relevant

information, documents and templates prepared by the Cross4Health consortium. The package was

updated from the 1st Open Call to fit the scope of the 2nd Open Call, especially taking into

consideration the new aspect of Creative Industries for potential Cross-over collaborations.

The 2nd Open Call package consists of the documents listed below. The full documents are enclosed

in Annex A to this document.

- Open Call – Fact sheet (¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.)


18

- Open Call – Summary (¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.)

- Open Call – Guide for Applicants (¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.)

- Open Call – Proposal Template (¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.)

- Open Call – Lean Canvas Template (¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.)

- Open Call – Pitch Deck Template (¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.)

- Open Call – Declaration of Honour (¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.)

- Open Call – Evaluation Guidelines ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.)

- Open Call – Consortium Agreement Template (¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la

referencia.)

- Open Call – FAQ (¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.)

2.2.2 Eligibility Criteria

The Cross4Health Open Calls, for being cascade funding and using public funds provided by the

H2020 program of the European Commission, have to follow the same principles to guarantee the

good and transparent use of the grants. Further, these need to operate within the boundary

conditions set for the INNOSUP program. In this light, to apply to the 2nd Cross4Health Open Call, the

teams had to ensure that they comply with the eligibility criteria listed below, in order to get

through to the evaluation process.

For the 2nd Open Call, the eligibility criteria were altered to fit the scope of the 2nd Open Call and to

allow more cross-sectorial and cross-border projects apply for funding.

• The teams had to be led by an SME (under de EU definition)1 and composed of minimum two

legal entities, legally based in two different EU member states (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,

Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,

Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,

Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom2) or H2020 associated

countries (Iceland, Norway, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Montenegro,

Serbia, Turkey, Israel, Moldova, Switzerland, Faroe Islands, Ukraine, Tunisia, Georgia and

Armenia).

• Beyond the minimum requirement to have one SME as leading partner, the consortium could

consist of up to four legal entities. The other partner(s) may have been an end user, a large

enterprise, an additional SME, etc, so long as they were a legal entity based in an EU member

state or H2020 Associated country. It was however important to note that support could only

be offered to SMEs and, irrespective of the composition, the team leader remains responsible

for driving the project and reporting on progress

• For the project teams with more than two participating SMEs, only two would receive direct

financial support. In this case, the consortium needed to indicate at application stage which

two SMEs would receive direct financial support.

1 What is an SME? (http://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/business-friendly-environment/sme-definition_en) 2 Companies originating from the UK, applying to the 2nd Open Call, would be no longer eligible for any funding or support by the Cross4Health consortium in the event that the Brexit took place. A note was added to the Guide for Applicants (¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.) and in the prepared Sub-Grant Agreements.


19

• It was a requirement that teams demonstrate the implementation of ideas and solutions from

aerospace, energy and creative industries in addressing the specific healthcare challenges

listed in the call text.

• A Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 5 (in the sector which the technology is being transferred

from) was required. In addition, the selection was based on the excellence of the proposed

idea to address the identified healthcare challenge, the maturity and the management

capacity of the team to drive project to the market, and the potential of the proposed solution

to scale-up in the international market.

• Already existing products without a clear advance or innovation beyond the state-of-art were

rejected.

• Project activities that have already been funded or were being funded contemporaneous were

rejected. Double funding was not allowed.

• SMEs could be part of more than one application but could only be funded in one of those

A TRL of 5 implies that the technology/solution’ prototype has been tested and validated in a relevant environment, in the sector of origin. The application process consisted of the following steps:

1. Compliance check with the eligibility criteria for participating in the Cross4Health Open Call.

2. Registration on the Cross4Health website (www.cross4health.eu).

3. All the proposed projects should address at least one of the Open Call Challenges, providing

solutions to and/or addressing the defined problems.

4. Preparation of the electronic application – it was possible to update or revise the uploaded

proposal documentation until the closing date.

5. If there were ethical issues to be considered in the proposal, a specific box needed to be

checked during the electronic application.

6. Completion and electronical submission of the application before February 18th, 2019 at

17:00, CET (Central European Time). All applications were processed through the private

website.

7. Once the proposal was submitted and validated a confirmation email was sent out to

acknowledge the application submission.

Applications were only submitted via the Cross4Health website. The application needed to contain the following documentation:

• 10 pages application form, including a detailed description of the project idea, overall concept and the potential contribution, progression or disruption of state-of-the-art technology. In addition, the proposal should describe the technology and tools expected to be used, as well as the expected impact at European level. The methodology and milestones used to develop and implement the project within the acceleration period had to be described.

• 10 slide pitch deck, a brief description of the project idea in “pitch-format”.

• Short video, presenting the project team. The video was not mandatory but highly recommended. Two minutes per project were considered appropriate.

• Declaration of Honour signed by each project member eligible for funding to certify that all information provided is correct. Applicants must be fully committed to participate in the project and comply with the eligibility criteria.

• Declaration of an internal Consortium Agreement (CA), with mandatory signatures of all project consortium partners in order to establish the main rules, roles and obligations on the internal management of the project. It included rules on dissemination and IPR issues.


20

However, the teams were not required to submit the CA, a submission of existence declaration was sufficient.

The official language for the Open Call and required language for provided documentation was English. Applications containing documents in other languages were not evaluated. The required documentation per project had to be submitted by the leading SME (project coordinator).

2.2.3 Registration Platform

All applicants for the 2nd Cross4Health Open Call submitted their project proposals via the Cross4Health website using a platform specifically designed for that purpose, which allowed to follow the registration and validation of proposals. To guide the registration process, a tutorial was provided as an annex to the Guide for Applicants. The platform was as well used for the allocation of the eligible proposals to the experts and collecting the final evaluation reports.

2.3 Proposals

In total, 66 proposals from 17 different countries were submitted, of which 57 proposals were considered eligible after the initial screening performed by the Cross4Health Evaluation Committee. The 9 proposals that was considered ineligible were due to lack of the required partners a lack of required documents, the demonstration of a crossover or issues with potential double funding of activities. The following figure (¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.) illustrates the distribution of the eligible proposals per country.

Figure 9: Distribution of (eligible) Proposals per Country

The proposals covered technology/knowledge transfer from the three sectors in scope of the Open Call. The Creative Industries were highly represented with 68% of the proposals followed by Aerospace with 18% of the proposals and Energy with 11% of the proposals. The remaining 3% had no given sector and was therefore ineligible.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Distribution of (eligible) Proposals

submitted eligible


21

Of the three Open Call challenges, the call received most proposals addressing the “remote patient support” challenge. The distribution of challenges addressed is illustrated in figure 10 below:

Figure 10: Distribution of proposals per challenge

A large variety of organizations were represented in the proposals, as illustrated in figure 11:

Figure 11: Organizations represented in the Open Call

2.3.1 Proposals Screening and Pre-Selection

For the determination of prospectively Cross4Health funded projects, the submitted proposals were pre-screened on complete documentation and fulfilment of the eligibility criteria by the Cross4Health Evaluation Committee. Subsequent, all eligible proposals were evaluated by external experts to extract a final ranking and therefore awarded SMEs for the second acceleration period. The following figure (Figure 12) illustrates the entire evaluation process:

Early detection

and diagnoses

27%

Remote patient support

54%

Patient management process

19%

SMEs59%

Start Ups32%

Large organizations

2%

Universities3%

Hospitals2%

Others2%


22

Figure 12: Cross4Health 2nd Open Call Evaluation Process

1) Eligibility Check. A first internal screening was performed by the Cross4Health Evaluation Committee by reviewing all submitted documents for completeness and the compliance with the call requirements in terms of scope and teams’ composition.

2) External Expert Evaluation. The submitted applications were separately evaluated by three independent experts. In case of considerable discrepancy in the obtained scores of more than 30% of one of the values to the average score, the value with the discrepancy was excluded from the calculation of the final average score. Part of the assessment were the proposal and the provided pitch deck.

3) The Cross4Health Evaluation Committee would oversee and validate the evaluation process, and check that there was no conflict of interest, fraud, double funding or any of the partners exceeding the €60 000 threshold.

In order to ensure a well-organized and lean evaluation process and acceleration kick-off, the consortium worked efficiently according to the scheme presented below (Figure 13: Evaluation Setup 2nd Open CallFigure 13).


23

Figure 13: Evaluation Setup 2nd Open Call


24

2.3.2 Avoiding double funding

Each of the projects submitting their proposals to the two Open Calls of Cross4Health are required to sign a Declaration of Honour to be considered eligible for funding. In this document they sign that there is no double funding of the same activities in the proposed project. In addition to this, the Evaluation Committee ensured that there was no double funding of projects by checking that:

- SMEs that have already received finding do not participate with the same or similar project;

- Checking all projects in the final ranking list against previously funded projects in the 1st

Cross4Health Open Call or any call under the INNOLABS project.

The check for double funding were executed during the pre-screening and again after the final ranking was ready. After deliberation with the Project Officer, it was decided to exclude 5 projects from the final ranking list (including reserve list) due to potential double funding issues.

2.3.3 Evaluation Committee

The internal Evaluation Committee of the 2nd Cross4Health Open Call was built up by the consortium partners NHT, EUROB and BIOTECYL. Those partners ensured a proper execution of the evaluation process and guaranteed coherence, fairness and transparency. Responsibilities included:

- The pre-screening of the proposals as described earlier

- Allocation of eligible proposals to the experts

- Collecting evaluation results

- The development of a final ranking list of supported projects

- Checking each proposed project for double funding issues.

- Assure that the maximum amount that a SME receives is limited to 60k€

- The communication of the results to the Cross4Health consortium and Open Call applicants

The Committee ensured the avoidance of potential conflicts of interest during the evaluation, potential double funding or funding exceeding the limit of 60k€ per SME. When communicating the results to the applicants, a summarized expert feedback was provided containing recommendations for the improvement of the proposed ideas.

2.3.4 Evaluation by External Experts

To ensure a good pool of expert evaluators, the Cross4Health consortium reached out to their networks early in the project to invite experts to register their profile via the Cross4Health website. For the 2nd Open Call, the experts that evaluated proposals in the 1st Open Call were invited to participate again. Since the 2nd Open Call received a substantially higher number of proposals, the consortium also invited new experts from their network whom we trusted to have the right experience to evaluate the proposals. The experts were selected based on the following criteria:

- Understanding of the healthcare sector - Experience with Business Development - Understanding of the aerospace, energy sector and/or creative industries.

Prior to the start of the evaluation process, every expert had to sign a declaration of impartiality including confidentiality clauses and confirming absence of conflict of interest. The confidentiality rules applies at all times: before, during and after the evaluation. Further, evaluators were bound to inform if a conflict of interest became apparent during the course of the evaluations. There were one case where one expert had a potential conflict of interest, where another expert were assigned


25

to the specific proposal mentioned. The experts also had to attend one of the two Expert Briefing Webinars offered by the Cross4Health Consortium. In addition, a registration on the Cross4Health website was necessary in order to access the proposals and deliver the review results. Once the number of proposals to be evaluated was known, these were allocated to the evaluators, ensuring a good distribution of expertise and that proposals were not being evaluated by experts from the same nationality of the coordinating partner of the proposal to avoid potential conflict of interest. The experts were not allowed to contact the applicants at any stage of the evaluation nor disclose to them the fact that they were evaluating their proposal. The experts were not allowed to discuss the proposals among each other during the evaluations. Each of the submitted applications were remotely evaluated by three independent experts. The mean of the two scores which were more aligned was used to determine whether the third score differed more than 30% and therefore needed to be excluded from the computation of the final score. The evaluation criteria and the associated online tool to be filled out by the experts was adjusted and improved to avoid possible misunderstanding and ease the rating leading to the evaluation score. The result is shown below (Table 2):

Criteria Evaluation Marks

(0 – 10) 1 Innovation of the Idea

1.1 Soundness and feasibility of concept and methodology 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1.2 Progress beyond state-of-art; min TRL 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1.3 The Applicants have a good understanding of the competitive environment they will realize their idea in

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2 Potential impact of the solution

2.1 Positive impact on targeted audience 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2.2 Respect of the social sustainability, environmental sustainability, data ethics and privacy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2.3 Effectiveness of the exploitation measures proposed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2.4 Market opportunity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3 Growth plan during and BEYOND the Cross4Health support period

3.1 Marketing strategy fitting to business plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3.2 Revenue model is solid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3.3 Development barriers (legal/market/users' acceptance, etc.) well identified and mitigation measures proposed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3.4 Investment potential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4 Short-term implementation plan for the Cross4Health support period (the upcoming 9 months)

4.1 Clear and realistic objectives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4.2 Soundness of milestones 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4.3 Feasibility of the work plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4.4 Added value from Cross4Health support is clearly explained and is adequate to the situation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5 Fit with Cross4Health priorities

5.1 Proposal in line with the Cross4Health priorities and call challenges

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5.2 Cross sectoral approach to the benefit of healthcare 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6 Team and competitive advantage

6.1 Management capability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


26

6.2 Competitive advantage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7 Overall impression of the idea and the presentation

7.1 Overall impression of the idea and the presentation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

FINAL MARK Table 2: Evaluation Criteria

2.4 Results

Out of the 57 eligible proposals, the 18 highest ranked proposals were invited to enter the 2nd Cross4Health Acceleration Programme by signing the Sub-Grant Agreement. In addition, the following 5 projects on the ranking list were selected for the reserve list. Projects on the reserve list will be invited to enter the Acceleration programme during summer/fall 2019. The Cross4Health consortium are working on a solution to ensure full funding for these projects as well.

No Proposal Project Leader Country Challenge Addressed

AW

AR

DED

1 ADAMO ROBOT FUTURE SENSE SL Spain Remote Patient Support

2 e-Prev iBreve Ltd. Ireland Early Detection and Diagnosis

3 VR-biomarkers Open Mind Innovation France Early Detection and Diagnosis

4 Digital Dental Supply Chain

Protetiko AB Sweden Patient Management Process

5 PAM Device Pam Care, S.L. Spain Remote Patient Support

6 ReHand Healthinn (INNOVAHEALTH)

Spain Remote Patient Support

7 Stroke.AI SYMPTOMA Austria Early Detection and Diagnosis

8 Virtual Recovery Kreativitetsbanken Sweden Remote Patient Support

9 My Health Adventure First&Ten (MyEsteeme) Sweden Remote Patient Support

10 SNIPE Up-Code Italy Early Detection and Diagnosis

11 PhysioPLUX TRAINER PLUX Wireless Biosignals SA

Portugal Remote Patient Support

12 5G+SatCom ECG Carbon Shark Spain Early Detection and Diagnosis

13 KineActiv Edison Desarrollos S.L. Spain Remote Patient Support

14 Eye Check System Eye Check System Norway Remote Patient Support + Early Detection and Diagnosis

15 PREDISPARK GeneticAI Investigacion Spain Remote Patient Support

16 FlowOx Otivio AS Norway Remote Patient Support

17 HealthierHome TechApps Healthier Greece Remote Patient Support

18 Remo Morecognition Srl Italy Remote Patient Support

RES

ERV

E LI

ST 19 SeptiBell Loop Diagnostics S.L. Spain Early Detection and Diagnosis

20 My Butterfly Spacemedex France Early Detection and Diagnosis

21 AgingWell Omniscient Medical AS Norway Patient Management Process

22 Fenomino Asthma Analyzer GoClinic V Netherlands Remote Patient Support

23 Digital Saliva Test Sinfonic Innovation Management Bt

Hungary Early Detection and Diagnosis

Table 3: Selected projects


27

For better illustration the distribution of the 18 selected projects per country is shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14: Distribution of Selected Projects per Country

Notable is that some to the SMEs participating and/or winning a hackathon or idea contest are as well represented in the higher ranked list of the proposals. It demonstrates that named companies benefitted from the organized events that had a focus on team building and Open Call application preparation.

- Loop Diagnostics S.L. - 1st Prize Madrid Ideas Hackathon Contest

- GoClinic V – 3rd Prize Bochum Hackathon

- Spacemedex – 1st Prize ECICE Toulouse

2.4.1 Preparation for Acceleration

As soon as the results were communicated to the selected projects, the preparations for the 2nd Acceleration Programme were initiated with the Sub-Grant Agreement (Sub-GA) preparation process. In order to receive support, each of the selected teams were required to validate their financial and technical operational capacity. The project coordinator and their beneficiary project partner were asked to submit a number of documents to complete the Sub-GA:

- Proof of legal existence

- Financial statement

- Bank account data

- Founders ID

- Signed Sub-GA

The Sub-GA of the beneficiaries of the projects were connected to each other, mentioning the contract number and details of the other partner/coordinator.

To ensure a smooth start of the acceleration period, an Acceleration Kick-off Event was planned for the 13th & 14th of May in Malmö. The intention was to give the awarded projects the chance to meet their KAM, to get an in-depth overview of the available consortium services and to offer a networking

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Distribution of Selected Projects

Awarded Finalist


28

possibility. Attendance of the event was mandatory for ever project leader, and voluntary for other project members. Because of the timing of the event, it was crucial to sign the contract in advance.

2.5 Lessons Learned

Overall the process of the 2nd Open Call was smooth. While the observed challenges during the 1st Open Call were addressed, removed or improved, the consortium have encountered new experiences during the execution of the 2nd Cross4Health Open Call.

Due to the addition of “Creative Industries” for potential cross-over, the interest for the Open Call were increased which also led to more questions from potential applicants. Some of the SMEs found it challenging to understand the necessary crossover aspect or to demonstrate it. Even though the consortium increased the one-to-one support to potential applicants, four proposals were considered not eligible and had to be excluded from the evaluations due to a missing elaborated crossover approach of the proposed project. Another obstacle was the required TRL of 5 in the sector of origin. Although it was explicitly described and communicated during the Open Call, the consortium often had to clarify this to SMEs interested in applying for the Open Call. A reoccurring problem were that the SMEs were not reading the criteria for the Open Call well enough, resulting in the assumption that their proposed project had to have TRL 5, not demonstrating it in the sector where the tech were transferred from as stated in the Open Call documentation. To meet the doubts that were raised by potential applicants, the consortium decided to arrange a third webinar, in addition to the two held in the beginning of the Open Call, towards the end of the Open Call in the form of a Q&A session that opened up for questions from the SMEs.

Challenge Observed Remedy Action

Demonstration and evaluation of a clear crossover

• Define the words “crossover” and

“spillover effect” in detail and offer

examples.

• Indicate how to demonstrate a crossover.

TRL 5 was confusing for applicants Give clear examples of TRL 5 products from the various included sectors.

Misunderstanding of Open Call criteria Increased effort on the one-to-one support for the potential applicants and additional webinar to clarify doubts.

Difficulties to find partners from other countries

Increased effort in matchmaking across the network of the Cross4Health consortium partners and Team Building.

Table 4: Lessons learnt

deliverable 2.2 title: ecice report and second open call · ** deliverable type: r= document, dem=...

Documents