What is meant by “new knowledge”?
Clarifying the requirement to generate new knowledge as a substantial purpose of Core R&D activities.
1. Overview
For an activity to qualify as a Core R&D activity under Division 355, a substantial purpose of conducting the activity must be to generate new knowledge.
Generating new knowledge does not need to be the sole purpose of the activity. However, it must be a substantial purpose.
New knowledge can be:
- General (advancing understanding in a field), or
- Applied (new knowledge used to develop or improve a product, process, material, device, or service)
Importantly, the knowledge must not already exist and be readily available to a competent professional in the field.
2. Why This Matters for R&D Compliance
“New knowledge” is often misunderstood.
It does not mean:
- New to your company
- New to your team
- A new feature for your product
It means knowledge that was not already available or able to be determined using existing publicly available information.
If the outcome could be achieved using standard industry practice, documentation, or known solutions, the activity is unlikely to meet the requirement.
It is also important to understand that:
- The knowledge may relate to a process rather than the final product
- The knowledge may still qualify even if the experiment fails
If experimentation demonstrates why an approach does not work, that can still generate new knowledge.
3. How It Works in Synnch
When defining a Core R&D activity in Synnch, the description should clearly demonstrate:
- What knowledge gap existed at the outset
- Why the outcome could not be known in advance
- What experimentation was undertaken
- What technical insight was gained
Avoid describing:
- Commercial objectives
- Product roadmap items
- Incremental improvements without technical uncertainty
The “new knowledge” requirement should be visible in how the activity is structured and documented within the Projects module.
Clear articulation at the activity level strengthens the defensibility of the claim.
4. Practical Example
A company is attempting to improve the durability of a composite material under extreme temperature conditions.
Existing industry literature does not demonstrate whether a particular combination of materials can achieve the required performance threshold.
The team designs controlled experiments to test different formulations.
If the experimentation reveals that none of the formulations meet the required threshold, the company has still generated new technical knowledge about material limitations.
This may satisfy the “new knowledge” requirement.
5. Common Mistakes
- Assuming “new to us” is sufficient
- Confusing product novelty with technical uncertainty
- Failing to explain why the outcome could not be known in advance
- Describing implementation work instead of experimentation
- Omitting documentation of unsuccessful experiments