evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

ICT Voucher Scheme for SMEs — Bulgaria's BG16RFOP002-2.083

Bulgaria · Sofia · See the Bulgaria profile · See the Sofia profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 96% 38/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Bulgaria's SME agency issued 516 fixed-value vouchers for websites, e-commerce, digital marketing and cybersecurity services, co-financed by the EU's 2014-2020 Innovation and Competitiveness programme and confirmed complete by an independent contractor's own case study.

~7% (Bulgaria) vs 18% (EU average)
Bulgarian SMEs selling online, 2019-2020 (baseline vs EU average)
516 vouchers
Vouchers awarded and completed (by scheme closure, 2021)
10 vouchers
Type 2 vouchers completed by one approved provider (DevScale.bg)

Details

Maturity
Discontinued
Promoter
Bulgarian SME Promotion Agency (ИАНМСП)
Period
2020–2021
Region (NUTS)
BG41
Keywords
SME digitalisation, ICT vouchers, e-commerce, cybersecurity

Context

In 2019-2020 only around 7% of Bulgarian SMEs sold online, against an 18% EU average, prompting the Ministry of Economy to fund a dedicated ICT voucher line for small firms.

Objectives

The scheme aimed to increase SME adoption of digital technologies including e-commerce, digital marketing and cybersecurity.

Activities

Procedure BG16RFOP002-2.083, run by the Executive Agency for the Promotion of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (IANMSP) under Bulgaria's Ministry of Economy and co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund through Operational Programme 'Innovation and Competitiveness' 2014-2020, offered Type 1 vouchers for web-based ICT services (platforms, websites, mobile apps) and Type 2 vouchers for digital marketing, process optimisation and cybersecurity, redeemable only with a pre-approved list of private ICT providers.

Results

The agency's own closure notice states that all 516 vouchers awarded to approved SME beneficiaries had been provided and were in implementation when the scheme concluded in 2021. Independent confirmation comes from DevScale.bg, an approved ICT provider, whose own account describes completing 10 Type 2 vouchers for clients across food production, leather processing, printing and advertising-stand manufacturing within the required six-month window.

Conclusions

Public sources document the completed voucher count and delivery mechanism but not downstream digital-maturity or revenue outcomes for beneficiary firms, and the scheme ran as a single fixed-term call rather than a recurring instrument.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — Fixed-value vouchers per beneficiary (exact unit values not stated in the source); co-financed by the ERDF through Operational Programme Innovation and Competitiveness 2014-2020.
Time to results
Short (< 1 year) — Procedure launched under the 2014-2020 programming period; concluded as a single call in 2021, with a six-month delivery window per voucher.
Staffing & skills
Executive Agency for the Promotion of SMEs (IANMSP) under the Ministry of Economy administered the scheme, Pre-approved roster of private ICT providers delivered services (e.g. DevScale.bg)

Conditions for success

  • Redemption restricted to a pre-approved, vetted list of ICT providers
  • Two voucher types (Type 1 web-based, Type 2 marketing/process/cybersecurity) matched to differing SME digitalisation needs
  • A required six-month delivery window enforced timely completion

Common failure modes

  • Ran as a single fixed-term call with no confirmed recurring successor
  • No downstream digital-maturity or revenue outcome data was collected or published for beneficiary firms

Where it fits

Governance type
national government agency delivery with EU ERDF co-financing
Scale
national SME programme (516 vouchers)
Income level
EU member state (Bulgaria), cohesion-fund recipient

Commonly funded by

ERDF — European Regional Development Fund National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful