Key Criteria for Assessing WBSO Applications
When assessing your WBSO application, the RVO considers several key factors that determine whether your project qualifies for the R&D tax benefit. These criteria focus on the level of innovation, the technical challenges, and the quality of the documentation you provide. Here are the main criteria:
Innovation Level: The project must demonstrate a high degree of technological innovation and advancement. The RVO looks for projects that aim to develop new or significantly improved products, processes, or services. It is important that the innovation represents something technically new for your company, not just incremental improvements.Technical Challenges: The project should involve substantial technical challenges and uncertainties. The RVO assesses whether your project includes solving technical problems that require investigative work or experimentation. Routine development work, bug fixes, or minor updates are not considered substantial enough for WBSO eligibility.Feasibility and Scope: The RVO evaluates the feasibility of achieving the project objectives within the proposed timeframe and budget. They check whether your company has the technical capability and resources to successfully execute the project.Systematic Approach: Your R&D activities must be systematically organized, documented, and focused on achieving the technological advancements described. This includes having a clear research methodology, timelines, and milestones.Documentation Quality: The quality and completeness of the provided documentation are critical. You must provide detailed technical descriptions, clear project objectives, technical uncertainties, and a structured timeline. Incomplete or vague documentation could result in delays or rejection.
Example 1: A Successful Application
A company submits a project with a high level of innovation, addressing significant technical challenges such as the development of a new AI algorithm. They provide comprehensive and well-organized documentation, including detailed descriptions of the technical uncertainties and milestones. The RVO assesses the project positively due to the thorough documentation and the clear demonstration of substantial technical challenges.
Example 2: High-Quality Documentation Leading to Approval
A research team presents a feasible project with clear objectives and substantial technical challenges, such as developing a new material for renewable energy. Their detailed and high-quality documentation, including a systematic approach to solving technical problems, supports a successful evaluation by the RVO.
Negative Example 1: Lack of Innovation
A project proposal lacks clear innovation and focuses on incremental updates to existing software. The application fails to demonstrate significant technical challenges, and the insufficient documentation results in a negative assessment by the RVO.
Negative Example 2: Poor Documentation
An application is submitted with poor-quality documentation, making it difficult for the RVO to assess the feasibility and technical challenges of the project. The lack of a clear research methodology and incomplete technical descriptions lead to the rejection of the application.