MedTech · Case study

Research allowance in manufacturing: three projects, one strategy.

Practical example based on real projects · anonymised, figures rounded · Last updated: 24 September 2026

A MedTech manufacturer bundled three independent projects, process, material and system, on an eligible base over €2.6 million, with the production boundary drawn cleanly.

€910,000

research allowance granted

€2.6M

eligible base

Up to 35%

SME funding rate

Get a free funding assessment Read the story

At a glance

The mandate in figures

IndustryMedTech / manufacturingLaser fabrication, sterile systems

Research allowance granted€910,000High six figures over the term

Eligible base€2.6M

ScenarioThree projects, all certified

Projects3 (all certified)

SME funding rateUp to 35%

About the company

The company, and the R&D underneath

The company develops both a new laser-based joining process for thin, multilayer polymer films and the matching materials specifically tuned to that process, as well as a modular system for sterile surgical environments. These are three different technical worlds, process engineering, materials development and system construction, that converge in the product.

Each of these fields holds genuine development work with an open outcome. A new joining process must work reproducibly, a material tuned to the process must first be developed and characterised, and a modular system concept must be stable under real requirements.

The challenge

Where the funding really sat

In manufacturing and MedTech, the biggest source of error is the line to production. Eligible is the experimental development up to the functional prototype and up to proof that the process is fundamentally controllable. Not eligible are the subsequent production optimisation, the pilot series, commissioning and approval. This line runs right through many real projects.

On top of this comes structuring. Forcing three technically very different development strands into a single project would dilute novelty and risk. Each strand deserves its own precise presentation.

Novelty Technical risk / uncertainty Systematic approach

Our approach

How we built the case

We structured the development into three independent projects: the joining process, the materials development and the modular system concept. For each we worked out the technical objective, the scientific-technical uncertainty and the solution path separately, each with concrete metrics and abort criteria.

Special attention went to the line to production. We clearly separated the eligible experimental development from the non-eligible phases, everything after the proof of fundamental controllability stays out. Where external partners solved an independent technical problem, we classified the contract research as eligible. All three projects were certified.

How the case moved

↻

Three projects

Process, material, system

↻

Boundary drawn

R&D vs production

✓

Certified

All three granted

What made up the eligible base

In-house ~75%Contract research ~25%

In-house personnel workContract research

Eligible base around €2.6 million from in-house work plus recognised contract research across three projects. Split shown is illustrative.

The result

A €910,000 research allowance.

In total, across two fiscal years (2024 and 2025), this yields an eligible base of around €2.6 million, almost all of it incurred after 27 March 2024. At the 35% SME rate, the research allowance across the three projects comes to around €910,000. For a manufacturing Mittelstand company, this is a considerable, non-repayable contribution to financing its own development.

Eligible base €2.6M · SME rate Up to 35%

Three projects, all certifiedThe outcome of the mandate.

Eligible base €2.6MRecognised cost the allowance is calculated on.

SME rate Up to 35%Applied to the eligible base.

Key takeaways

What other companies can learn

Hardware and process development is well fundable, if the boundaries are right. Three points are decisive:

01

Draw the line to production

Eligible is the experimental development up to the functional prototype. Production optimisation, pilot series, commissioning and approval do not belong in the application.

02

Separate different development strands

Process, material and system are their own technical worlds. As separate projects they carry their respective novelty and risk better.

03

Name metrics and abort criteria

Especially in process engineering, the application convinces through concrete parameters and the honest naming of where the project could fail.

More on Research Allowance: The guide Research Allowance: requirements, rates and application explains the programme step by step. How we support your project is covered under Research Allowance consulting.

“

Hardware and process development is classic territory for the research allowance, and demanding at the same time, because the line to production must be drawn cleanly.

BeFunded On the research allowance

FAQ

Research Allowance: your questions

The most common questions on this kind of case. Short answer first, detail after.

Yes. Experimental development up to the functional prototype and up to proof of fundamental technical controllability is eligible, provided genuine technical risk exists.

At the transition into production. Production optimisation, pilot series, commissioning, marketing and approval are not eligible. The delineation should be unambiguous in the application.

Yes, and that is usually sensible. Different technical objectives each with its own risk are easier to certify as independent projects.

Yes, if a new or substantially improved material is developed and characterised with an open outcome. Merely selecting known materials from a catalogue is routine.

Keep reading

More case studies

Biotechnology

Mechanics, control and biology funded as one interdisciplinary R&D project.