Accelerated Knowledge Transfer Partnerships 6 (AKT 6) 2026 — Closed: £35,000 Eligible Grant Costs per Project
Archived Innovate UK competition that closed on 15 July 2026, offering £35,000 in eligible grant costs for three-month projects led by UK knowledge bases with eligible UK business partners.
Accelerated Knowledge Transfer Partnerships 6 (AKT 6) 2026 — Closed: £35,000 Eligible Grant Costs per Project
Accelerated Knowledge Transfer Partnerships 6, usually shortened to AKT 6, was an Innovate UK collaboration competition for a UK knowledge base and a UK business to work together on a short innovation project. The competition is now closed. Innovate UK Business Connect lists an opening date of 26 May 2026 and a closing date of 15 July 2026 at 11:00. No AKT 7 deadline or replacement open round is announced on the official opportunity page, so this entry is retained as a historical reference rather than as an active application listing.
The archived opportunity is still useful for organisations reviewing the Accelerated Knowledge Transfer model. It records the funding shape, the partnership conditions, and the delivery constraints that defined AKT 6. It should not be read as an invitation to register or submit an application for AKT 6. The deadline has passed, and the source page’s original application links do not reopen the closed competition.
Key details
| Field | Historical AKT 6 details |
|---|---|
| Status | Closed |
| Organisation | Innovate UK |
| Official opportunity page | Innovate UK Business Connect |
| Opening date | 26 May 2026 |
| Closing date | 15 July 2026 at 11:00 |
| Overall competition funding | Share of up to £2.5 million |
| Eligible grant costs | £35,000 per project |
| Project duration | Three months only |
| Lead organisation | UK registered higher education or further education institution, research and technology organisation, or Catapult |
| Business partner | UK registered business with four or more full-time employees |
| Business cash contribution | At least 10% of the project, in addition to the business’s own project costs |
| Current successor deadline | None announced on the official AKT 6 page |
What AKT 6 was designed to support
The Accelerated Knowledge Transfer scheme was intended to connect a knowledge base with a business around a specific innovation challenge. The official description calls the intervention short, rapid, and targeted. In practical terms, that meant a project had to be narrow enough to deliver useful work within three months, while still addressing a meaningful business need.
The knowledge base supplied specialist capability, academic or technical support, and the lead organisation for the grant application. The business partner supplied the commercial or operational problem, access to the context in which the work would be used, and the staff support needed to host the project. The arrangement was therefore more substantial than a referral or an informal advisory relationship. It was a time-limited working partnership with defined responsibilities on both sides.
The official page described the intervention as a way to accelerate the evaluation or development of an innovation project or concept with the potential for significant impact for the business partner. That wording explains why the competition could cover projects at different stages, while still requiring a concrete challenge and a credible route to a useful result. A broad research programme without a clear business application would have been a poor fit for the three-month format.
Funding and delivery constraints
AKT 6 offered a share of up to £2.5 million across the competition. The project-level figure was more specific: total eligible grant costs were £35,000 per project. Projects had to last three months only. The official page also stated that there was no upper limit to total project costs, but costs above the £35,000 eligible grant amount had to be met by the Business Partner.
The Business Partner also had to commit to a minimum 10% cash contribution to the project, in addition to resourcing its own project costs. This distinction matters. The business contribution was not simply an expectation that staff would spend time on the work; the business needed to provide cash as well as its own project resources. The condition made the partnership a shared commitment and helped show that the proposed challenge had practical importance to the company.
The source page specified that the Knowledge Base had to recruit an Associate role in a demonstrably fair manner. It could recruit an Associate at either 0.5 or 1 full-time equivalent, and the Knowledge Base had to provide at least 0.25 day per week of academic support. The Business Partner had to be able to host the Associate and provide supervisory support. These details show that the funding was tied to people and delivery arrangements, not just to a research institution’s general overhead.
The three-month limit also shaped the kind of work that made sense. A suitable project could investigate a defined technical question, test a focused approach, assess an innovation opportunity, or prepare evidence for a larger follow-on effort. It was not designed to fund an open-ended transformation programme or a multi-year research plan. The value of a project lay in reducing a specific uncertainty or creating a concrete next step for the business within the funded period.
Eligibility recorded for the closed cycle
Each AKT partnership required two sides. The lead had to be a UK Knowledge Base, specifically a UK registered higher education or further education institution, research and technology organisation, or Catapult. The Knowledge Base was responsible for leading the project and submitting the application. It was also the sole grant recipient.
The other side had to be a UK registered business with four or more full-time employees. A UK subsidiary of an overseas parent could qualify if it was individually registered in the UK. Where a business was not registered at Companies House, the official guidance said it would need to provide evidence of its legal status and ownership. The business partner had to be able to host the Associate and provide supervisory support during the project.
The official eligibility list also described organisations that were excluded from the cycle. These included UK Research and Innovation organisations and businesses owned or operated wholly or partly by UKRI or one of its councils, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, central government departments and the devolved administrations in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, and charitable and third-sector organisations. The Knowledge Base could not have ownership of 50% or more of the Business Partner, or a controlling interest through a shareholder agreement. Proposed academic team members also could not be directors, consultants, or otherwise engaged by the business or its group.
The source page made an additional structural point: an organisation eligible to become a KTP Knowledge Base could not apply into AKT as the Business Partner. The roles were intentionally distinct. One organisation led with knowledge-base capability, while the other supplied the business challenge and operating environment.
Scope and priority sectors
The closed call asked for a specific, strategic innovation project tackling one or more challenges faced by the Business Partner. Innovate UK said applicants should first consider alignment with six Industrial Strategy priority sectors: advanced manufacturing, clean energy industries, creative industries, defence, digital and technologies, and life sciences.
The page gave examples within those areas. Advanced manufacturing included aerospace, advanced materials, agri-tech, automotive, batteries, and space. Clean energy included wind, fusion energy, nuclear fission, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and heat pumps. Creative industries included advertising and marketing, film and television, video games, music, and the performing and visual arts. Defence included drones and autonomous systems, combat air, directed energy weapons, complex weapons, and maritime capabilities.
Digital and technologies included artificial intelligence, engineering biology, advanced connectivity technologies, quantum technologies, semiconductors, and cyber security. Life sciences included pharmaceuticals and medical technologies. The page also allowed a project outside the six priority sectors to remain eligible where it exploited a novel area of research and the Business Partner met the criteria for high growth potential. Even in that case, priority was given to projects aligned with the Industrial Strategy.
This sector guidance was not a requirement to force every project into a fashionable label. Its practical purpose was to help the partnership explain why the innovation mattered, which national or industrial need it addressed, and why the proposed knowledge exchange was timely. A project outside the named sectors would have needed a particularly clear explanation of novelty and business growth potential.
What the original application structure tells future applicants
There are no current AKT 6 application steps to follow. The competition closed on 15 July 2026, and this page does not announce a new round. However, the original structure is worth preserving for historical comparison if Innovate UK publishes a future opportunity under the same scheme.
The application had to be submitted by the Knowledge Base and developed with the Business Partner. That arrangement meant the partners needed to agree the challenge, project boundaries, roles, budget, Associate arrangements, and expected result before submitting. A business could not treat the Knowledge Base as a name attached at the end of an otherwise finished proposal, and the Knowledge Base could not define a useful project without access to the business’s actual need.
The strongest historical fit would have been a partnership able to explain four things plainly: what the business needed to understand or change, what specialist contribution the Knowledge Base would provide, what the Associate would deliver during the three months, and what decision or next stage the work would support. The cash contribution, hosting arrangements, academic support, and fair recruitment requirement all reinforced that delivery model.
The official page also pointed businesses without an existing Knowledge Base relationship toward their local Knowledge Base and described an applicant briefing. Those were support routes for the 2026 cycle, not live registration instructions now. Anyone assessing a future call should wait for a new official competition page and use only the dates, rules, and application route published for that cycle.
Why this archive entry remains useful
A closed opportunity can still help a university, RTO, Catapult, or business understand whether the Accelerated Knowledge Transfer format suits a future project. The key test is not whether an idea sounds innovative in the abstract. It is whether a real business partner has a defined challenge, whether a knowledge base can supply the missing capability, and whether a meaningful result can be delivered in three months.
The archived funding terms also provide a useful scale reference. £35,000 in eligible grant costs per project, combined with a minimum 10% business cash contribution and additional business resourcing, points to a focused intervention rather than a large capital programme. The arrangement may be relevant when a business needs applied expertise to evaluate an option, prepare a technical route, or create evidence for a larger investment decision.
The eligibility rules are equally important as a planning filter. A potential team needs an eligible UK knowledge base, a separately eligible UK registered business with at least four full-time employees, suitable independence between the partners, and a practical way to host and supervise the Associate. If any of those conditions change in a future round, the new official guidance should take precedence over this archive entry.
Frequently asked questions
Is AKT 6 still open?
No. Innovate UK Business Connect lists the closing time as 11:00 on 15 July 2026. This entry is historical and does not provide an active registration route.
Was the funding £2.5 million for every project?
No. The competition offered a share of up to £2.5 million overall. The official page specified £35,000 in total eligible grant costs for each project, with any costs above that amount met by the Business Partner.
How long was an AKT 6 project?
Three months only. The Knowledge Base also had to arrange an Associate at either 0.5 or 1 full-time equivalent and provide at least 0.25 day per week of academic support.
Who could lead the closed competition?
A UK registered higher education or further education institution, research and technology organisation, or Catapult acting as the Knowledge Base could lead and submit the application.
What business partner was required?
The Business Partner had to be a UK registered business with four or more full-time employees. It also had to provide a minimum 10% cash contribution, in addition to its own project costs and project resources.
Has an AKT 7 date been announced here?
No. The official AKT 6 opportunity page does not announce an AKT 7 deadline. Do not substitute a new date until Innovate UK publishes a successor competition.
Official reference
- Innovate UK Business Connect: https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/opportunities/accelerated-knowledge-transfer-partnerships-6-akt-6/
The official page remains the source of record for the closed AKT 6 cycle. Future applicants should rely on a newly published Innovate UK notice if another Accelerated Knowledge Transfer competition opens.