Managing failure in European design: practical tips for learning from your mistakes and presenting winning projects.
The competition factor and the management of failure
We cannot deny it: European projects can be very competitive indeed, and an unfunded project is a “normal” occurrence that you have to learn how to handle.
In programs such as Horizon Europe, Creative Europe and Erasmus+, the success rate is often very low, in some cases even below 10 percent. In other words, you are more likely to encounter failures than victories: two sides of the same coin that Rudyard Kipling, in a famous poem, advised to treat equally. We propose today some tips on how to do this, avoiding getting burned by first experiences and making failures a growth factor, for yourself and your organization.
You can get an idea of the percentage of projects accepted by consulting annual reports (as in the case of Erasmus+) or interim evaluations (as in the case of Horizon Europe) of European programs.
For those working in European project design, such a high level of competition means first and foremost that the quality level of projects submitted must aim for excellence, because often the gap between a funded project and an unfunded one is measured in very few deviation points. This dynamic is made even more evident by the increasing application of Artificial Intelligence tools to project writing, which has increased the average number and quality of projects submitted.
Feedback is golden: some tips for evaluation report analysis
If the project is not approved, it is important not to stop at disappointment. In European projects, each project is accompanied by an Evaluation Summary Report (ESR), which assigns each evaluation criterion a numerical score and a summary commentary, highlighting the project’s strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement.
Depending on the program, the ESR may change or be called something slightly different, but it still remains an established practice. Evaluation criteria vary by program, but typically address relevance, impact, quality, and coherence of the project design.
The ESR represents a summary of the analysis conducted by external evaluators who are qualified in the specific area targeted by the call: if the project was not eligible for funding, the ESR is the most valuable resource for understanding where to improve the proposal for future reapplication.
Here are some tips for making the most of this analysis.
- Separate emotionality from judgment. Learn not to take it “personally”: as we said, competition is very high and funds are limited. Sometimes an excellent project is discarded just because of a lack of funds. Even in the case where the project did not score well, it is important to understand, with a cool head, what the weaknesses are: often the problem is not the idea, but the formal consistency or the description of the long-term impact.
- The second/third attempt rule. The ESR is the basis for creating the strategy for the next attempt. Many projects are approved only on the second or third application, after incorporating this feedback. The advice is to start working on a new application well in advance, keeping in mind that in most cases it is possible to know in advance at what time of the year the new calls will be published, thanks to the Programs of Work (for 2026 we talked about it here). Beware of some possible reservations, for example, in case the project is placed on a waiting list of “reprofitable” projects (reserve list), it will not be possible to send it again as long as the list remains valid. Also, some programs (such as Horizon Europe) have a “standstill” period (which in some cases is 1 or 2 years) before you can resubmit a project that has been rejected.
- From “evaluators’ code” to critical reading. Evaluators’ language is often formal and can appear “sweetened.” It is important to be able to read between the lines, giving due weight to the ritual compliments (e.g., “the project is well written”) and focus mainly on the “buts,” “howevers,” and “neverthelesss.” Sometimes the comment may appear positive overall but the score is low: this happens when the evaluator has found a “fatal error” that has invalidated the rest, and which it will be crucial to be able to identify.
- Structural defects vs. minor shortcomings. Structural defects (major shortcomings) may include, for example, a lack of expertise within the consortium to be able to carry out the project, or a lack of European added value (the rationale for adding value to the project at the European level). These are problems that often make it necessary to reset the very structure of the project. In contrast, minor shortcomings (minor shortcomings), are usually missing details or unclear explanations. If your score is close to the threshold, correcting these points in the next call will greatly increase your chances of winning.
- Study countermeasures. A useful exercise may be to create a matrix containing, for each weakness, the possible countermeasure or correction to be implemented. For example, if the criticism is about “unclear timelines,” it may be useful to include a timeline (Gantt chart) as an attachment in the next application. The analysis should be carried out for every single negative sentence in the evaluation, even those that may appear “unfair.”
The learning curve and lessons learned from European design
Participating in a European project is a transformative journey that goes far beyond writing a form or obtaining funding. In addition to the generative impact of evaluation, which enables the submitting organizations to implement improvements for the next application, project development can be a true capacity-building exercise that allows:
- Improve awareness of your structure: preparing a project for a European call for proposals is a complex process. You need skills and coordination, for example between those who are in charge of the project and those who are in charge of the administrative aspects. Planning allows you to test your level of capacity and coordination, and to see if you are really ready;
- Develop an internal culture of comparison at the European level: working on a European scale means breaking out of self-referentiality and accepting, for example, that one’s own local solution is not the only one possible. Comparison with partners in other countries allows one to understand how much a common problem (e.g., youth unemployment) can be addressed with radically different tools used in areas different and distant from one’s own;
- Learning from European partners: being part of a European partnership(last Guidearticle on the topichere ), allows you to observe how other, more experienced organizations work, importing good practices and knowledge and dealing with types of entities other than your own. Even an unfunded project leaves a legacy of networking. A partner you met during an unsuccessful application may become the lead partner of a winning project the following year;
- Developing European design languages and tools: there is a specific language of European design, a glossary of terms that are acquired in developing a project and that remain in the organizational culture of the entity, even if the project has not been funded. Participation in a project also provides a way to create and refine one’s own “toolbox” useful for developing new projects, including under other calls and programs (examples: profile of the entity and staff, their strengths, projects carried out, practices developed, partner networks);
- Identify mature projects to bring to the European table: the European call for proposals can function as a test for ideas developed within the organization. It allows one to see whether that idea that seemed brilliant locally might instead turn out to be outdated or, conversely, extremely cutting-edge when compared to the European state of the art. At the same time, planning allows the distillation of what of a local initiative is replicable and potentially exportable to the rest of Europe.
In summary: The value of “positive failure”
We have seen how, even when a project receives a poor score, the organization comes out empowered. Design should be seen as a long-term investment: the entity comes out with a clearer vision of its role, a larger network, and a stronger working methodology. Each negative Evaluation Summary Report is, paradoxically, a “free guide” from the experts that can lead to victory in the next call.
The key is not to dissipate the work you have done: keep your contacts with the partnership alive, treasure criticism, and continue to track publication dates through the work schedules (and our Calls Portal updates). The only real “failure” in European planning is to stop applying after the first attempt.
