The Challenge
EU programme success rates below 15%. Five or six rejected proposals. Hundreds of thousands spent on consultants, staff time, and partner coordination. The question: Is this sound strategy or sunk cost fallacy? Each rejection consumes resources without return, breeding internal scepticism and eroding commitment. Cumulative costs may exceed eventual funding value—transforming resource development into resource drain.
Why It Happens
Highly competitive programmes receive more strong applications than available funding. Horizon Europe and LIFE fund only top scorers within each call. The brutal truth: Proposals good enough for funding in less competitive contexts get rejected because others scored marginally higher. You can't distinguish genuinely weak proposals from competitive ones unsuccessful due to oversubscription—so you keep investing in approaches facing structural disadvantage from competition intensity.
Our Solution
Realistic programme selection matching your capacity to opportunities where you have genuine competitive advantage: Honest assessment of whether you have the consortium strength, track record, or institutional profile funded proposals demonstrate Redirection toward opportunities where your capabilities represent competitive strengths, not relative weaknesses Prioritising funding success over application volume
The Outcome
Improved ROI through higher success rates from selective targeting. You pursue opportunities where you can genuinely compete—not contests where structural disadvantages limit success regardless of proposal quality. Strategic selectivity reduces application cycles before funding success, lowering cumulative costs while improving acquisition efficiency. The acceptance: Not all EU funding is accessible to all organisations. Focus on programmes where your specific strengths create competitive advantage.
How We Deliver
Programme competitiveness assessment evaluating your positioning relative to successful applicants: Analyzing funded project profiles identifying common characteristics Assessing whether your attributes align with successful applicant patterns Candid guidance about realistic opportunities versus programmes where structural factors limit success probability The result: Strategic pursuit focused on programmes where you have genuine competitive potential—avoiding continued investment in applications facing fundamental disadvantage regardless of quality improvements.