The ERC Proof of Concept, PoC, grant is not a continuation of an ERC research project. It is also not a general innovation grant.
It sits in a very specific place: between frontier research and the first serious attempt to understand whether something that emerged from that research can move toward use.
That use may be commercial. It may be societal. It may involve industry, public policy, culture, public services, civil society, patients, citizens, educators, regulators or other stakeholders. The point is not that the pathway is already fully clear. The point is that there is a credible opportunity worth testing.
The ERC describes the PoC as a grant for ERC grantees who want to explore the commercial or social innovation potential of ideas generated through their ERC-funded research. It can support activities such as testing, experimenting, demonstrating, validating, clarifying IPR or knowledge transfer strategy, and involving relevant stakeholders. (ERC)
A strong ERC Proof of Concept proposal should therefore answer one central question:
What has emerged from the original ERC project, and what needs to be tested now to understand whether it can become useful beyond the research setting?
Start from the ERC result, not from a general idea
The proposal must be clearly rooted in the original ERC grant.
It is not enough to say that the new idea is “related to the field” or “based on the PI’s expertise”. The proposal should identify the specific result, method, insight, tool, dataset, material, model, process or concept that came out of the ERC-funded work.
A useful internal test:
- What exactly did the ERC project produce?
- Why does this result now suggest a possible innovation pathway?
- What is new or distinctive about it?
- What is still uncertain?
The link to the ERC project should be obvious to the reader. It should not require interpretation.
Define the potential, but do not overclaim it
The Proof of Concept stage is not about proving that the idea will become a product, policy, service or spinout. It is about checking whether such a pathway is realistic.
This means the proposal should avoid both extremes.
It should not sound like another research project with vague future impact.
But it should also not pretend that the innovation is already market-ready or adoption-ready.
A good proposal is honest about the current stage:
The ERC research created a promising opportunity. The PoC will test whether that opportunity can credibly move toward commercial or societal use.
Be specific about commercial or societal use
Commercial potential may include, for example:
- patenting
- licensing
- a spin-off
- collaboration with industry
- research contracts
- consultancy
- a software tool, platform, process, material, diagnostic method or service
Societal potential may include:
- policy contribution
- public-sector use
- work with NGOs or cultural organisations
- educational or clinical implementation
- public engagement
- standards, guidelines, reports or decision-support tools
- adoption by communities, institutions or professional groups
The proposal does not need to force the idea into a commercial route if the natural pathway is societal. But it does need to show that the pathway is real, not just a broad statement about impact.
The key question is:
Who might use this, adopt it, implement it, rely on it or benefit from it, and why?
Build the project around the uncertainties
The strongest PoC proposals are built around what still needs to be understood.
For example:
- Does the idea work outside the original research context?
- Can it be demonstrated or validated?
- Who are the likely users or adopters?
- What problem does it solve for them?
- What barriers might prevent uptake?
- Is the IP position clear?
- Is patenting, licensing, a spinout, consultancy, policy work or another route most appropriate?
- Which stakeholders need to be involved?
- What evidence is needed before taking the next step?
The project activities should not be a random list. Each activity should reduce uncertainty and help the PI, the institution and potential partners decide what comes next.
Consult the right people early
An ERC PoC proposal should not be developed in isolation. The scientific idea belongs with the PI, but the pathway from research to innovation usually requires other kinds of expertise.
The first and in many times the most important conversation should be with the institution’s Technology Transfer Office (TTO) or Knowledge Transfer Office (KTO). This is especially important when the proposal involves IP, patentability, licensing, spin-off potential, confidentiality, ownership of results, partner engagement or broader knowledge transfer strategy.
For societal innovation projects, the KTO role may be wider than IP. It may include support for public-sector uptake, policy engagement, work with NGOs, cultural organisations, communities, professional bodies or other non-commercial routes.
To be clear – the TTO/KTO might be the main source of advice when writing this grant proposal. It is essential to keep them in the loop through the entire process.
But the TTO/KTO is not the only relevant source of advice.
Applicants can also benefit from speaking with grant experts who understand how ERC PoC proposals are evaluated and how to translate a promising research-based idea into a focused, credible and competitive proposal. This can be especially useful when the challenge is not the science itself, but the framing: defining the innovation potential, clarifying the right uncertainties, selecting suitable activities, and avoiding a proposal that reads either as “more research” or as overdeveloped commercialisation language.
In practice, useful early consultations may include:
- the TTO/KTO – the first and potentially the most important source
- grant consultants with ERC PoC experience
- potential users or adopters
- industry or public-sector stakeholders
- policy, clinical, cultural or civil society actors, where relevant
- legal, regulatory or IP advisers
- incubators, accelerators or business development units, where appropriate
The purpose of these conversations is not to outsource the proposal. It is to test assumptions before the work plan is fixed.
Include the right kinds of activities
Relevant Proof of Concept activities may include:
- testing, experimenting or demonstrating the idea
- validating a method, tool, prototype, process or model
- testing the idea in a more realistic context
- identifying weaknesses and addressing them
- assessing potential users, beneficiaries or adopters
- analysing competing approaches or existing alternatives
- clarifying the IPR position
- developing a knowledge transfer or exploitation strategy
- engaging with companies, public bodies, NGOs, cultural organisations, policymakers or other stakeholders
- exploring licensing, spin-off, consultancy, collaboration or policy pathways
- preparing a roadmap for what happens after the PoC
Some additional research may be included, but it should serve the innovation pathway. If the activity looks like more academic research without a clear connection to validation or uptake, it may weaken the proposal.
Show what has already been done
It is useful to mention any previous or planned actions that show the idea is beginning to move beyond the research setting.
These may include:
- contact with the TTO/KTO
- invention disclosure or patentability assessment
- early discussions with companies or public bodies
- stakeholder feedback
- public engagement
- policy contributions
- research collaborations
- consultancy discussions
- licensing or spin-off exploration
- informal advice from relevant external actors
These actions do not all need to exist. But the proposal should show that the PI understands what is needed to move from research to innovation.
Think seriously about stakeholders
Stakeholders should not appear in the proposal just as names.
Their role should be clear. They may help test the idea, challenge assumptions, validate the need, provide access to a real-world setting, assess adoption barriers, support policy relevance or become future partners.
Possible stakeholders include:
- industry partners
- SMEs or large companies
- public authorities
- NGOs
- hospitals or clinics
- schools or universities
- cultural organisations
- regulators
- policymakers
- patient groups
- professional associations
- end users or beneficiary communities
The important question is not “Can we list stakeholders?”
It is:
What do we need to learn from them, and how will their input affect the project?
End with a clear next step
A Proof of Concept project should not end with a general statement that “further work will be needed”.
It should produce a basis for decision.
At the end of the project, it should be clearer whether the idea should move toward:
- licensing
- spin-off creation
- further technical development
- EIC or other innovation funding
- industry collaboration
- public-sector adoption
- policy engagement
- societal implementation
- open dissemination
- or a decision not to continue in the current form
This does not mean the outcome must be positive. A good PoC can also reveal that the original pathway is not viable, or that another route is better.
Quick competitiveness checklist
Before writing the proposal, applicants should ask:
- Is the idea clearly derived from the original ERC grant?
- Can we identify the specific ERC result behind it?
- Is the potential use clear enough?
- Do we know who the users, adopters or beneficiaries might be?
- Have we consulted the TTO/KTO? Will they be part of the grant proposal writing process?
- Have we tested the framing with people who understand ERC PoC proposals?
- Are we testing real uncertainties?
- Are the planned activities suitable for those uncertainties?
- Is the project more than additional academic research?
- Is the IP or knowledge transfer route being addressed?
- Are the right stakeholders involved?
- Will the project produce evidence for a concrete next step?
A simple way to test the proposal is to complete this sentence:
The ERC project produced [specific result], which may enable [specific commercial or societal use] for [specific users or beneficiaries]. The main uncertainties are [specific uncertainties]. The Proof of Concept project will test them through [specific activities], leading to [specific next-step decision].
If this sentence is hard to complete, the proposal is probably not mature enough yet.
Final note
A strong ERC Proof of Concept proposal does not need to promise immediate success. It needs to show a credible opportunity, a clear link to the ERC project, a serious understanding of the pathway from research to innovation, and a focused plan for testing what still needs to be known.
The best proposals are not the ones that claim the most. They are the ones that know exactly what needs to be tested next, and who they need to speak with before deciding how to move forward.