Based in part on my initial readings on the subject of cognitive interviewing, I have concluded that there is something to be gained by the application of improved interviewing techniques to SR&ED practice. Which leads me to consider a second question: how essential is it that the SR&ED practitioner be a scientist, expert developer, or an engineer?
A quick scan of the recruitment advertising for the world of SR&ED Practioner Firms identifies three distinct types of posting. Apart from SR&ED experience, often considered a “nice-to-have”, the Practitioner Firms tend to be seeking either engineers and scientists (all kinds), tax accountants, and, less frequently, technical writers. In-house SR&ED teams follow a similar pattern.
Given that SR&ED practice divides down the middle between the “science” and “costing” sides of the work, the allocation of these skill sets is easily done: scientists do the science bit, and the accountants ensure that the costing and taxation sides align. Technical writers seem to be more frequently employed under the auspices of smaller practitioner firms, and often assigned the role of “wordsmith-ing” a project description, with or without the input of an advisory “science expert” who would have pronounced on the eligibility of the work. (Occasionally, a technical writer will be asked to write up the project in complete ignorance of the scope or nature of the costs actually being claimed – almost a guarantee of a sub-standard project description.) In general, the technical writer types are a kind of “poor relation” or second-class citizen in the world of SR&ED practice, unless they happen, also, to possess some of the “scientist” qualifications discussed.
However, before we take that thought any further, we should consider the roles of those whose scientific expertise is commonly recruited. Most Practitioner Firms (and the CRA itself) argue strongly that it takes a SR&ED Scientist (using the phrase generically to mean a Technical SME of any background) to assess the scientific eligibility of claims. Usually, the Practitioners and the CRA will put forward the notion that SR&ED Scientists are assigned to help prepare or review claims based on a technically relevant skill-set and experience.
In practice, it’s not true.
To be continued...
Bruce Madole