Why the project description determines your prospects
WBSO is an entitlement-based scheme with one central substantive question: is the work technically new and do you resolve the bottlenecks yourself? RVO can assess this only on the basis of what you write. A strong project described vaguely can be rejected; a modest project substantiated clearly can receive an S&O-verklaring.
A good description reads as a technical story with a clear arc: this was the problem we faced, this was uncertain, this is what we devised and this is how we started developing it.
What belongs in a project description
- The technical bottleneck: what had to be achieved and why could existing technology not do it?
- The uncertainty beforehand: which solution approaches were conceivable and why was the result not guaranteed?
- The chosen solution approach: which approach did you choose and which alternatives were rejected?
- The activities: what did you actually do — design, experiments, prototypes, testing.
- The hours estimate: which employees, which role, how many R&D hours per period.
- Scope: what is R&D and what explicitly is not (production, implementation, support).
For self-employed professionals, this also includes substantiation of the 500 R&D hours and the relationship with the business.
Example structure (anonymised)
Project: real-time matching algorithm for a B2B platform. Bottleneck: at the expected data volume, response time exceeded the 200 ms requirement; existing indexing and caching did not provide a solution. Uncertainty: three directions — alternative data structure, statistical pre-filtering, hybrid precomputation — each with unpredictable accuracy. Work: prototypes for each direction, benchmarks, ultimately a hybrid approach with a proprietary scoring function. Result: S&O-verklaring awarded without additional questions.
Note the structure: bottleneck → uncertainty → choice → work. No marketing language, no product description — but the technical story behind it.
Common mistakes in project descriptions
- Describing functionality instead of technical problems.
- Claiming market novelty where RVO wants to see technical novelty.
- Jumping directly to the solution without explaining why.
- Estimating hours without substantiation per employee and period.
- Including implementation and maintenance work that does not qualify.
In my practice, I write or rewrite project descriptions daily — for new applications and in response to RVO's additional questions.
Have your project description reviewed
Send your draft — you will receive a substantive assessment of novelty, bottlenecks and assessability.
Have your project assessed without obligation →
SOURCES AND SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW
RVO — WBSO Guide 2026
Reviewed by Peter Klaren, WBSO specialist since 2004. Last substantively updated: 21 September 2026.