Have your software project assessed View the WBSO requirements
BY PETER KLAREN · UPDATED 19 SEPTEMBER 2026 · SOURCE: RVO WBSO GUIDE 2026
ON THIS PAGE
When does software qualify? Formal programming language Technically versus functionally new Project versus technical problem Algorithms Performance and scalability Distributed and real-time systems Embedded software AI and machine learning APIs, databases and integration What usually does not qualify? Software examples Description in the application Project records WBSO software in 2027 Frequently asked questions
When does software development qualify for WBSO?
There must be technical risks or uncertainties and the solution must not be readily achievable using existing technology. For software, RVO explicitly assesses whether you develop technically new software yourself in a formal programming language, identify programming-technical problems and resolve them yourself.
01
Technical objective
What must become technically possible?
02
Programming-technical bottleneck
What cannot be achieved technically using existing technology?
03
In-house solution approach
Which technically new software do you develop yourself?
04
Realising the operating principle
In which programming language is the principle implemented and tested?
Software must be developed in a formal programming language
A model, architecture, algorithm or technical description can be intellectually highly innovative, but that alone does not automatically qualify as WBSO software development. The qualifying development work must be realised in software in a formal programming language. The same applies to an algorithm: formulating it alone is insufficient; it must actually be implemented in software.
| Situation | Sufficient for WBSO? |
|---|---|
| Working out a new optimisation algorithm mathematically | Not sufficient on its own |
| Actually developing the algorithm in, for example, Python, C++ or Rust while resolving programming-technical bottlenecks to achieve the required performance | Potentially WBSO |
Technically new versus functionally new
This is the key distinction in software WBSO. RVO explicitly makes this distinction: building new functionality using available technology is not technically new software.
| Software development | Likely WBSO? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Building a new user interface | Usually not | Functionally new, no technical development. |
| New SaaS feature using existing framework components | Usually not | Known technology is being applied. |
| New matching algorithm because existing methods do not meet performance requirements | Possible | Programming-technical bottleneck with uncertain feasibility. |
| Configuring a new database environment | Usually not | Application of existing technology. |
| Proprietary data structure/indexing method because of latency or memory limits | Possible | Technically new operating principle. |
| Connecting two existing systems through an API | Usually not | Implementation/integration of existing technology. |
| Proprietary real-time protocol because available protocols do not meet latency requirements | Possible | Concrete technical bottleneck. |
| Training a new AI model using an existing framework | Not in itself | Application of existing technology. |
Your software product is not the WBSO project problem
RVO gives the example itself: the project is a route-planning system; the information-technological problem is that the existing algorithm does not meet the required specifications.
Not sufficient: “We are developing a new SaaS platform.”
Concrete: “The current search structure requires linear comparison of 15 million records, resulting in response times above 800 ms; available indexing methods do not satisfy our memory limit.”
When can algorithm development qualify for WBSO?
It is not the idea for an algorithm that is decisive, but the software development by which a technical bottleneck is resolved. Relevant categories include:
route planning
matching
scheduling
constraint solving
search/indexing
compression
image processing
real-time optimisation
anomaly detection
resource allocation
Matching platform
Objective: compare 250,000 candidates in real time. Bottleneck: the existing matching approach does not scale above 50,000 records within the required latency. Solution approach: new partitioning and scoring method. Uncertainty: it is not known in advance whether the required recall and latency can be achieved simultaneously.
Performance and scalability
Does a proven approach demonstrably fail at your volumes? Concrete measurable bottlenecks make an application stronger:
| Category | Example |
|---|---|
| Latency | From 800 ms to <50 ms. |
| Throughput | 100 transactions/sec → required 10,000/sec. |
| Memory | Dataset no longer fits within available memory. |
| Concurrency | Deadlocks/race conditions at high parallelisation. |
| Storage | Existing indexing becomes exponentially too heavy. |
| Real time | Event processing must take place within 5 ms. |
Important nuance: a demanding performance requirement alone is not WBSO. The issue is that existing techniques demonstrably fall short and you must develop a technically new software solution yourself.
Distributed systems and real-time processing
WBSO may become relevant for new solutions involving:
distributed consensus
concurrency
data consistency
fault tolerance
state replication
real-time synchronisation
distributed scheduling
messaging under strict latency requirements
Important: using Kafka, Kubernetes, Redis, PostgreSQL replication or an existing consensus protocol is not in itself technically new software. The technical uncertainty must lie in what you develop yourself, not merely in the complexity of the architecture.
Embedded software
Embedded software can fit the WBSO criteria well where strict constraints in timing, memory, energy use or hardware interaction lead to concrete programming-technical bottlenecks for which no known solution is available.
real-time motor control
sensor fusion
memory-constrained devices
low-power scheduling
real-time machine communication
FPGA/MCU interaction
RVO itself gives real-time synchronisation and adjustment of machines using proprietary software in C as an example of possible R&D.
AI, machine learning and computer vision
In the 2026 Guide, RVO gives the example of a company using TensorFlow to train a model: because no proprietary software development takes place, this is not technically new software. At the same time, RVO gives self-developed bots/AI technology in Python and R as possible R&D.
| AI activity | WBSO software? |
|---|---|
| Integrating an OpenAI, Anthropic or Gemini API | Generally not |
| Prompt engineering | Not in itself |
| Fine-tuning an existing model | Not automatically |
| Using TensorFlow/PyTorch and training a standard model | Not automatically |
| Proprietary technically new inference pipeline because of latency/memory problems | Possible |
| Proprietary algorithms for model compression or scheduling | Possible |
| Technically new software developed in-house around multimodal processing | Possible |
| Building a RAG app with a standard vector database and framework | Generally not for that reason alone |
| Proprietary indexing/retrieval method because of a demonstrable technical problem | Possible |
Current: possible expansion for AI and software in 2027
RVO reported on 15 September 2026 that the coalition agreement announces an expansion for AI/software. The government is still investigating how that adjustment should be structured within the generic WBSO; this is therefore not yet a definitive new eligibility criterion. We will update this page when new criteria are known. See the RVO announcement.
APIs, databases and integration
Technically new integration or cooperation between existing software components may potentially qualify as R&D, but those components must mainly have been developed in-house and already be used within the company.
Usually no WBSO
- using REST/GraphQL APIs;
- connecting existing SaaS systems;
- transforming data;
- webhook integrations;
- configuring middleware.
Potentially yes
Where the technical challenge lies in a newly developed communication or cooperation principle created in-house and the other conditions are met.
RVO contrast: real-time synchronisation of machines through proprietary C software may qualify as R&D, while connecting machines through available APIs is not technically new software.
What usually does and does not qualify as WBSO software?
Potentially WBSO
- proprietary technically new algorithms;
- new real-time processing;
- new data-indexing method;
- technically new synchronisation;
- embedded software with hard constraints;
- new compression, scheduling or processing method;
- proprietary AI infrastructure with a programming-technical bottleneck.
Usually no WBSO
- standard CRUD applications;
- front-end;
- dashboards;
- CMS configuration;
- standard API integrations;
- implementation of libraries;
- cloud migration;
- standard database configuration;
- functional design;
- architecture documentation;
- prompt engineering;
- model training alone;
- first use of a new technology.
RVO explicitly states that learning to use a development environment that is new to the company is not R&D: “first use” is regarded as a learning phase.
Examples of WBSO software development
The following situations illustrate where software development can become technically uncertain. These are representative anonymised examples, not claims about specific clients.
Matching algorithm
Existing algorithms do not meet the required dataset size and latency. The company develops a new partitioning and scoring method.
BOTTLENECK → IN-HOUSE APPROACH → TECHNICAL EVIDENCE
Real-time machine control
Available protocols produce excessive jitter. The company develops proprietary real-time synchronisation software.
BOTTLENECK → IN-HOUSE APPROACH → TECHNICAL EVIDENCE
Embedded sensor
Memory and energy constraints prevent the existing approach. The company develops a new low-power processing routine.
BOTTLENECK → IN-HOUSE APPROACH → TECHNICAL EVIDENCE
Distributed database
Existing replication strategies provide an insufficient consistency-latency combination. The company develops its own consistency mechanism.
BOTTLENECK → IN-HOUSE APPROACH → TECHNICAL EVIDENCE
Computer vision
The existing inference pipeline does not achieve the required frame rate on edge hardware. The company develops a new processing routine.
BOTTLENECK → IN-HOUSE APPROACH → TECHNICAL EVIDENCE
AI/RAG retrieval
Standard retrieval provides insufficient precision within the latency and memory budget. The company develops its own indexing and ranking technique.
BOTTLENECK → IN-HOUSE APPROACH → TECHNICAL EVIDENCE
See also WBSO examples and the representative WBSO cases.
How do you describe software in a WBSO application?
In its official project form, RVO explicitly asks about programming languages, development environments, tools, technical novelty, risks and uncertainties.
- Technical objective: what must become technically possible?
- Programming-technical bottleneck: what cannot be achieved technically?
- Existing technology: why do frameworks/libraries not solve this?
- Solution approach: what will you develop technically yourself?
- Technical uncertainty: why is it not certain in advance that it will work?
- Software: in which language/environment will the principle be implemented?
Use the detailed guide for a strong WBSO project description and the step-by-step process for applying for WBSO.
Project records for software
Git history, tickets and technical designs are a good basis. Extend this with:
- commits and pull requests;
- issue tracker;
- technical experiments;
- benchmark results;
- performance profiles;
- test logs;
- architecture decision records;
- prototypes;
- measurement results;
- documentation of failed solution approaches.
Not everything needs to be present. The point is that the records make visible which technical activities were actually performed. See the full requirements under WBSO project records.
WBSO software in 2027: what might change?
The government is currently investigating how WBSO can better align with developments in AI and modern software development. The precise changes have not yet been established. We will update this page when new criteria are known.
View all announced WBSO changes for 2027 →
Frequently asked questions about WBSO software
When is software technically new?
When you develop a new information-technological operating principle yourself and implement it in a formal programming language while resolving concrete programming-technical bottlenecks.
Is a new app or feature automatically WBSO?
No. An innovative app is not automatically WBSO. The question is which information-technological problem you solve yourself and which technically new operating principle you actually implement in software.
Can training an AI model qualify for WBSO?
Training a standard model with an existing framework is not in itself technically new software. Proprietary technically new software around it may qualify.
Does API integration qualify for WBSO?
Usually not. It may potentially qualify only where the technical challenge lies in a new communication or cooperation principle developed in-house.
Must software be written in a specific programming language?
No, but the operating principle must be implemented in a formal programming language; an idea or algorithm on paper alone is insufficient.
Does performance optimisation qualify for WBSO?
Only where existing techniques demonstrably fall short and you must develop a technically new software solution yourself.
What does not count as R&D for software?
Among other things, standard CRUD applications, front-end, dashboards, CMS configuration, standard API integrations and learning to use a new development environment (first use).
Want to know whether your software project qualifies for WBSO?
Have us assess, without obligation, which information-technological problem you solve and which technically new operating principle you actually implement in software.
Have my software project assessed View the application process
SOURCES AND SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW
RVO — WBSO Guide 2026
Reviewed by Peter Klaren, WBSO specialist since 2004. Last substantively updated: 21 September 2026.