Skip to content
MedTech · Case study

Manufacturing allowance: three projects, one strategy.

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
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 characterized, 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 optimization, 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 this yields an eligible base in the order of magnitude of around EUR 2.6 million. Across the term and the three projects, the research allowance is in the high six-figure range. 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 optimization, 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.

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

Your questions, answered

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 optimization, 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 characterized with an open outcome. Merely selecting known materials from a catalog is routine.

Free eligibility check

See if your R&D qualifies for the Research Allowance

Tell us about your project. One of our funding advisors reviews your case by hand, then either comes back with feedback or a few follow-up questions. No obligation.

  • Whether your R&D qualifies for the allowance
  • A first read on the amount you could reclaim
  • What to prepare, including for 2022 and 2023

We reply within one working day. Your details go straight to our funding team.