Proposal initiation

Strong cases follow a structured approach to align objectives, activities, outcomes, and added value. Start from the call priorities and show how each core activity contributes to them. Avoid generic claims such as supporting sustainability or innovation unless they are translated into concrete outputs, measurable improvements, target groups, and expected effects in the tourism ecosystem.

SMEs can lose because they underplay evidence and feasibility compared to stronger competitors. A compliant proposal is not necessarily a competitive proposal. Make the evaluator see why this SME, this project, this timing, and this funding route are the right combination. Use specific evidence, credible figures, concrete outputs, and a clear delivery logic to move beyond minimum eligibility.

Strong lessons show you must show numbers, delivery plan, and supporting evidence. Evaluators cannot award points for assumptions. Include evidence of demand, operational readiness, supplier availability, permits or constraints, internal roles, milestones, risks, and budget logic. This is especially important for small tourism SMEs, where evaluators may otherwise question whether the team can deliver the proposed ambition.

Successful cases avoid over-scaling beyond operational capacity. A smaller, well-defined project with clear outputs is often more credible than an ambitious package that stretches staff, budget, partners, and timing. Scope should be calibrated to the SME's resources, delivery track record, administrative capacity, and ability to maintain normal business activity during implementation.

Proposal quality improves when specialised support helps shape the application. Expertise should be used to sharpen the intervention logic, define credible indicators, structure work packages, validate costs, and align the narrative with evaluation criteria. The aim is not to make the proposal sound more sophisticated, but to make it easier to understand, verify, and score.

ENNOV Solutions structured its proposal around a clear problem–solution fit aligned with EU priorities (low-carbon mobility), but its experience showed that competitiveness requires strong feasibility documentation, robust cost justification, and well-articulated delivery evidence to compete effectively against larger applicants.