How EDG Projects Are Evaluated: What Assessors Actually Look For (Beyond the Form)

At a glance

• EDG evaluation is not a box-ticking exercise.
• Assessors judge whether a project is credible, coherent, and executable, not just eligible.
• Strong projects read like well-structured business initiatives, not grant applications.
• Many technically eligible projects fail because they feel low-conviction or poorly thought through.

Table of contents

1. How EDG assessment actually works
2. The assessor’s mental checklist
3. What makes a project “feel fundable”
4. Common evaluation red flags
5. How assessors think about risk
6. Practical examples (strong vs weak projects)
7. References
8. Call us now

How EDG assessment actually works

Although applications are submitted through the Business Grants Portal, evaluation is qualitative as well as technical.

Assessors are effectively asking:

• Does this project solve a real business problem?
• Is the proposed approach logical and proportionate?
• Can this company actually execute what it is proposing?
• Do the outcomes justify the level of support requested?

EDG approval is ultimately a judgement call, informed by evidence.

The assessor’s mental checklist

Assessors typically look for alignment across four dimensions.

1. Problem clarity

• Is the business problem clearly articulated?
• Does the problem matter materially to the company’s operations or growth?
• Or does it sound generic and interchangeable?

Projects framed around real constraints and pain points tend to score better.

2. Solution logic

• Do the proposed activities logically address the stated problem?
• Is the scope coherent, or does it feel stitched together?
• Are the deliverables appropriate for the objectives?

A common failure mode is over-engineering or proposing activities that do not clearly connect to outcomes.

3. Outcome credibility

Assessors ask:

• Are outcomes specific and measurable?
• Do they represent genuine capability uplift, not cosmetic change?
• Are baseline and post-project states logically connected?

Vague outcomes (“improve efficiency”, “enhance capability”) weaken confidence.

4. Execution readiness

Even a good idea can fail evaluation if execution looks weak.

Assessors consider:

• internal ownership and governance
• management attention and decision-making
• whether the company understands what it is committing to

Projects that feel “outsourced entirely to a consultant” often raise concerns.

What makes a project “feel fundable”

High-quality EDG projects tend to share the same characteristics:

• a clear narrative from problem → solution → outcome
• scope that is tight, intentional, and proportionate
• outcomes that reflect real operational or strategic change
• evidence that management has thought through execution risks

Importantly, they read like business projects first, grants second.

Common evaluation red flags

Assessors may flag projects when they see:

1. Generic language
   • interchangeable phrasing with no company-specific detail
2. Outcome inflation
   • grand claims unsupported by scope or deliverables
3. Scope mismatch
   • activities that do not clearly drive stated outcomes
4. Weak ownership signals
   • unclear internal roles or accountability
5. Low conviction narratives
   • proposals that appear written “for funding”, not for execution

How assessors think about risk

EDG assessors are not trying to eliminate all risk—but they are sensitive to execution risk.

They tend to be comfortable with:

• well-defined projects with manageable uncertainty
• transformation initiatives with staged milestones

They are cautious about:

• projects that rely on multiple untested assumptions
• overly ambitious transformations without governance depth

Risk that is acknowledged and managed is viewed more favourably than risk that is ignored.

Practical examples

Example A — Strong evaluation outcome

• problem clearly rooted in operational bottlenecks
• scope directly addresses those bottlenecks
• outcomes tied to specific process changes
• internal owner clearly accountable

Result: smoother approval, fewer clarifications.

Example B — Weak evaluation outcome

• generic “digital transformation” framing
• loosely connected activities
• outcomes that sound aspirational rather than practical
• unclear internal ownership

Result: prolonged clarifications or rejection.

References

Related Resources (Grant-Consulting.org)

• https://www.grant-consulting.org/resources/the-definitive-edg-2026-guide-for-smes
• https://www.grant-consulting.org/resources/how-to-apply-edg-singapore
• https://www.grant-consulting.org/resources/edg-timelines-approval-project-claims

Official references

• https://www.enterprisesg.gov.sg/financial-support/enterprise-development-grant
• https://www.enterprisesg.gov.sg/resources/all-faqs/enterprise-development-grant

Call us now

Book a 20-minute consult (no obligation):
https://www.grant-consulting.org/contact

We help companies:

• stress-test project logic before submission
• sharpen outcomes and execution narratives
• reduce clarification cycles during evaluation

‍