We asked Brenda Donohoe, Regional Sales Director at ABGi Ireland, to share some practical guidance on both.

Q | Hi Brenda, why are project definition and time tracking getting more attention now?

The increase to a 35% credit means the value of a claim has gone up quite a bit, so naturally, there’s more focus on how those claims are prepared.

At the same time, Revenue has become clearer in what they expect to see. It’s no longer enough to say “we’re doing R&D”. You need to be able to explain what the projects are, where the R&D sits within them, and how you’ve calculated the time spent. For most SMEs, that’s where the difficulty is. The work is happening, but it hasn’t been structured in a way that supports a claim.

Q | Let’s start with projects. What actually counts as R&D under Irish rules?

At its core, Revenue is looking for three things: You need to be working towards a scientific or technological advancement, there has to be genuine uncertainty, and you need to be resolving that uncertainty in a structured way.

In practice, that can cover a lot of activity. It might be developing a new product, improving a process, redesigning software, or trying to get systems to work together in a way that isn’t guaranteed.

The important point is that it’s the technical challenge that matters, not the commercial goal.

Q | Where do SMEs typically get this wrong?

Usually, in how projects are defined. What we see quite often is everything being grouped into one large project. That includes design work, implementation, testing, and rollout, even though only part of that is actually R&D. On the other side, some companies are too cautious and leave out work that does qualify, particularly process improvements or internal development. So, getting that balance right is key.

Q | So where does R&D actually start and stop?

I find that it helps to think of it as a defined window. R&D starts when a technical uncertainty is identified and work begins to resolve it. That’s typically the point where a competent professional doesn’t already know the answer. It ends when that uncertainty is resolved, or when you reach the point where the remaining work is routine.

In longer projects, you might have several of these R&D phases rather than one continuous period. That’s quite normal, but it does need to be mapped out properly.

Q | And what about staff time? That seems to be a sticking point for a lot of companies.

Yes, it is, mainly because people assume it needs to be very detailed. Revenue isn’t looking for minute-by-minute timesheets. What they are looking for is a reasonable and consistent way of allocating time, supported by contemporaneous records. That means being able to show how time was spent while the work was actually happening, rather than trying to recreate it a year later.

Q | When you say contemporaneous records, what do you mean?

It’s usually simpler than people expect. Most companies already have useful records in place, things like project plans, meeting notes, development logs, or even calendar entries.

What’s important is that those records exist at the time the work is carried out, and that they support the time allocations being made. It’s about using what’s already there in a structured way, rather than creating new systems.

Q | What would you say is a practical way for SMEs to approach time tracking without adding too much admin?

We generally suggest starting with a clear list of R&D projects, then mapping staff to those projects and agreeing a reasonable percentage of their time over a given period. That can be done monthly or quarterly. It doesn’t have to be exact, but it does need to be realistic and consistent.

For staff who are almost fully dedicated to R&D, the 95% rule can simplify things further by allowing you to treat their time as fully qualifying.

Q | What happens if this isn’t done properly?

Two things tend to happen: either companies under-claim, because they’re not confident including certain activities or staff time, or they struggle to support the claim if Revenue asks questions.

Even where the R&D is genuine, if the projects aren’t clearly defined or the time isn’t supported, it can become difficult to defend.

Q | What kind of evidence should companies be keeping alongside their time allocations?

Most companies already hold the right information: project plans, meeting notes, development logs, test results, or even calendar records can all support how time was spent.

The key point is that these records exist at the time the work is carried out and link clearly to the R&D projects being claimed. When these records sit alongside a project register and time allocations, they create a clear audit trail without requiring additional systems.

Q | Does this kind of structure help with anything beyond the R&D tax credit?

Yes, it most certainly does! Once companies begin defining projects clearly and tracking technical effort properly, that information becomes useful elsewhere.

It can support applications for other innovation funding programmes, provide visibility on how technical teams are spending their time, and help plan future R&D investment.

So while the immediate benefit is a stronger tax credit claim, the longer-term benefit is better visibility of innovation activity across the business.

Q | Final question: what’s the main advice you’d give to an SME reviewing their approach?

Keep it practical and keep it structured. Define your projects clearly, understand where the R&D starts and stops, and put a simple process in place for tracking time as the work is happening. It doesn’t need to be perfect, but it does need to reflect reality. Once that structure is in place, everything else becomes much easier.

We hope Brenda’s insights have been helpful – If you have any questions about how to define your R&D projects or put a practical approach to time tracking in place, please get in touch with ABGi Ireland.  We are one of Ireland’s trusted and leading R&D consultancies, with a proven track record of preparing robust, compliant claims that stand up to Revenue scrutiny. We help companies clearly identify where R&D starts and stops, implement proportionate approaches to time apportionment supported by contemporaneous records, and prepare accurate, evidence-based claims with confidence.