Q1. What is a Research and Innovation Action(RIA) in Horizon Europe?

An RIA will finance research work which is still premature to market implementation. Consider exploratory technology, method development, or significant advancements in state of the art-which will usually have ended up in a working prototype but not a product on the shelves. Common target maturity at the project termination is Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 2-6.

Q2. What is the difference between an RIA and Innovation Action (IA)?

Two large levers: financing and maturity. The result of RIA should be approximately TRL 2-6; IA result is higher, approximately TRL 6-8. Funding regulations are also different: RIA pays 100 percent of the allowable expenses to all organisations. IA usually covers 70 percent of profit-making organizations and 100 percent of non-profits (there are other regulations, but that is the bottom line).

Q3. How common are the RIA budget ranges and times?

The RIA projects have a cost range of 4-15 million euros in total cost, and a run time of 36-48 months. Such an envelope should be spacious enough to sustain the development of multi-partner methods and validation in laboratory or other applicable settings, and a plausible route to TRL 5-6.

Q4. What are the acceptable costs under RIA?

Direct research expenses (Staff, materials, equipment depreciation, travel) and dissemination, communication and exploitation. Budgeting is also done in management and coordination. The 100% funding rate is for eligible direct costs; indirect costs are normally a flat rate of 25% of eligible direct costs (except in a few categories including subcontracting- see the specific work programme and model grant agreement).

Q5. Who is to be involved and who is to coordinate?

The minimum number of independent legal entities that should be a part of a standard RIA consortium is three, and these entities should belong to three different EU Member States or Associated Countries. Other third-country organisations are frequently invited to become associated partners (in most cases, without EU funding) or on individual national co-funding arrangements. A participant in the EU or Associated Country would have to provide coordination.

Q6. And what specifically is desired at the conclusion of an RIA?

The idea has been proven to be more than just theory: confirmed in practice, examples of demonstrators, or models in a realistic context. Criticizers seek a clear step past the state of the art, quantifiable results (precision at the KPI level facilitates this), and plausible pathways to adoption -scientific, societal, or economic.

Q7. What is the format of RIA proposal?

Three sections, one firm page heading.

-Part A: administrative data (partners, budget, ethics).

-Part B1: the essence science and strategy–Excellence, Impact, Implementation- 0-5 each. One-stage submissions have a limit of 45 pages, and two-stage calls require approximately 10 pages on the preliminary submissions, followed by a 45-page full proposal under invitation.

-Part B2: capacities and resources (profiles, facilities, personnel, risk, etc.).

Q8. What do evaluators mean by Impact in an RIA that is still in the early stages?

They desire a persuasive theory of change and initial promises: who is going to use the outputs, what impediments to adoption may be encountered, how are you going to check on the latter assumptions. Add quantified paths (e.g., number of datasets published, activity in standardisation, anticipated citations/downloads, anticipated TRL, industry interaction benchmarks, early freedom-to-operate evaluations). A plausible way to uptake even low-TRL work is important.

Q9. Are there RIA-type calls external to the main clusters?

Yes. RIA is not a topic area; it is a type of funding action. You will have RIA format in clusters and instruments, an example of a popular one would be EIC Pathfinder, useful in high-risk/high-gain investigations.

Q10. What glossary items would you nail before you begin?

One of the fastest shortlists that can easily get each team off track:

-TRL (Technology Readiness Level): maturity scale of the solution.

-WP (Work Package): your work plan consists of building blocks; 4-8 WPs is a typical number of scientific core, management, and impact.

-KPI (Key Performance Indicator): quantifiable criteria of success (e.g., flow-rate within +-2% List, LoD < 10 ng/mL, [?]1e6 cells/hour processed).

-PM (Person-Month): unit of effort, e.g. 2 people working at 33 percent during six months = 4 PM.

Q11. What is the position of a microfluidics SME in an RIA–and what does MIC actually do?

RIA consortia enjoy the advantage of having partners who can turn ideas into working arrangements quickly. The Microfluidics Innovation Center (MIC) excels in microfluidic engineering, chip design, microfabrication (glass, silicon, polymer), custom flow control and automation, sensing integration, and turnkey experimental rigs for biology, chemistry, or physics. We prototype scale-up paths, which are fast and de-risked, and we have a common ownership of the work that glues, i.e., test benches, calibration, and data capture, which is often the difference between an opinion of the plan on one hand, and one on the other. In many of our RIA/IA propositions that we have participated in, we have, on average, approximately doubled the chances of success over those of official baseline data, especially due to improved experimental design, better TRL paths, and vigorous exploitation packages.

Q12. Near infrared: Practical suggestions to get a microfluidics-heavy RIA to lift off threshold?

Yes, three which should disproportionately matter:

-Early lock KPIs include flow stability, shear profiles, limit of detection, sample-to-answer time, yield, and device-to-device variability. Numbers, not adjectives.

-Map physical fallback risks: alternative channel geometry, backup materials (e.g., COC vs. PDMS), redundant sensing modalities, and a Plan B of bonding/packaging.

-Demonstrate integration discipline: staged prototypes (v0.1 bench test, v0.2 integrated module, v0.3 application demo) with particular TRL and pass/fail criteria.

Q13. What is a good RIA consortium in the case of microfluidics?

A balanced triangle: (1) good academic units around fundamentals and assays; (2) an industrial microfluidics partner (such as MIC) to make the hardware a reality, routines automatic and reproducible; (3) application stakeholders (clinical labs, agri-food, energy, or environment) to demonstrate relevance and feed exploitation. A data/AI node should be added in case inference, control, or QC is central. Maintain lean governance; a board that is sluggish in decisions.