Advanced manufacturing supply chain innovation: CRD – UKRI Grant Opportunity
Innovate UK’s 2026 competition funded collaborative industrial research to make advanced manufacturing supply chains more productive, resource efficient, and resilient. The competition closed on 10 June 2026 and is retained here as a historical reference.
Advanced manufacturing supply chain innovation: CRD – UKRI Grant Opportunity
Historical status
This page records the 2026 Advanced manufacturing supply chain innovation: CRD competition run by Innovate UK, part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). The official UKRI opportunity page now marks the opportunity as Closed, and the linked Innovation Funding Service (IFS) record says that the competition is closed. The official pages checked for this update do not announce a subsequent CRD cycle or a replacement deadline. This entry is therefore a historical reference, not an invitation to submit a new application.
The closed round opened on 27 April 2026 and closed on 10 June 2026 at 11:00am UK time. The official timeline also listed applicant notification on 20 July 2026 and project start from 1 October 2026. Those dates belong to the closed round and should not be treated as a live application window.
What the 2026 competition funded
Innovate UK allocated up to £6.5 million for collaborative industrial research projects. The purpose was to explore new or not-yet-widely-used ways to make supply chains more productive, resource efficient, and resilient. The award was a grant, subject to the availability of sufficient high-quality applications and to Innovate UK’s competitive assessment and funding decisions.
The competition was not a general manufacturing grant. A proposal had to connect a defined innovation to supply-chain outcomes in the Advanced Manufacturing frontier industries. Applicants had to explain how the work would improve productivity, resource efficiency, resilience, or a combination of those outcomes. The proposal also had to show that a product or service could scale from its initial use into adjacent advanced manufacturing frontier industries.
The total competition budget was not an automatic award for every applicant. Each project’s total eligible grant funding request had to be between £250,000 and £1 million. Under the funding rules shown on the IFS page, no more than £3 million could be awarded to one enterprise in the competition. Commercial or economic work was subject to maximum intervention rates for industrial research: up to 70% for a micro or small organisation, 60% for a medium-sized organisation, and 50% for a large organisation. Research organisations undertaking non-economic activity could account for up to 30% of total eligible project costs across the consortium, with the applicable funding rules depending on organisation type.
Eligible applicants and consortium rules
The lead applicant had to be a UK registered business of any size. The competition was collaborative only. At least one other organisation had to participate as a funded collaborator: the lead and at least one other organisation had to apply for funding, provide a rationale for the collaboration, and describe the consortium structure in the application.
Eligible collaborating organisation types listed by the IFS included UK registered businesses, academic institutions, charities, not-for-profit organisations, public sector organisations, and research and technology organisations. The lead had to invite each partner through IFS. After accepting the invitation, a partner was responsible for signing in or creating an IFS account, entering its own project costs, and completing its Project Impact questions.
The consortium had additional controls. No single partner could account for more than 70% of total eligible costs. Non-funded partners could participate, including organisations from the UK, the European Union, and other countries, but their costs had to be covered from their own resources. Their role and contribution still had to be described clearly. Subcontractors were allowed up to 30% of total eligible project costs. UK subcontractors had to be selected through the applicant’s normal procurement process. An overseas subcontractor required a specific justification, evidence of UK contractors approached, and reasons those contractors could not undertake the work; a cheaper overseas price alone was not sufficient.
Funded organisations had to carry out project work in the UK and intend to exploit the results from or in the UK. Projects had to last from 12 to 36 months, start on 1 October 2026, and end by 30 September 2029. The IFS instructions said projects must start on the first day of a month and must not begin before Innovate UK approved the Grant Offer Letter. The listed start date was therefore a condition of this specific round, not a general start date for future competitions.
Required scope
Each proposal had to choose exactly one of five competition themes:
- measurement, sensing and instrumentation;
- additive manufacturing;
- digital manufacturing and industrial AI;
- robotics and intelligent automation; or
- power electronics.
The proposal also had to select at least two different Advanced Manufacturing frontier industries from the official list:
- automotive;
- aerospace;
- advanced materials;
- batteries;
- agri-tech; or
- space.
The two-industry requirement was substantive. Applicants had to explain how the proposed product or service would be used in both selected frontier-industry supply chains, even if the project team initially operated in only one of them. The project had to address a supply-chain challenge rather than simply present a technology demonstration with no identified industrial route.
A named end user was mandatory for supply-chain validation. The official guidance gave examples such as an original equipment manufacturer, a Tier 1 supplier, or another organisation further downstream that would use or directly benefit from the innovation. The end user could be a funded collaborator, a non-funded collaborator, or a member of a project advisory board, but it needed a clear and defined role in project governance or the work plan. A letter of support alone was not accepted, and a consultancy could not serve as the end user. A government organisation, regulator, or academic institution could qualify only where the application clearly justified its role as a system integrator or service provider for the innovation.
The application had to show a route to scale in the UK, assess the commercial, technical, and operational viability of the innovation, and explain how the project would support company growth in future UK resource-efficient and resilient manufacturing supply chains. The IFS scope also excluded proposals focused solely on defence, food and beverages manufacturing, beauty and cosmetics manufacturing, or other excluded areas unless the specific advanced-manufacturing conditions were met. It would not fund projects whose main exploitation route was outside the listed frontier industries, projects without significant resource-efficiency improvement, or projects framed around regulations, educational resources, behavioural science, policy, skills, or relationships as enabling areas.
How applications were submitted
Applications were made through the Innovation Funding Service. The official instructions required the lead applicant to read the guidance on applying for a competition, identify the project team, and invite the partner organisations in IFS. Before submission, the lead was responsible for checking that the information was correct, that the proposal met the eligibility and scope criteria, that every section was marked complete, and that all partners had completed their assigned sections and accepted the terms and conditions.
The application was divided into four sections:
- Project details. This covered the project title, start date, duration, research category, project summary, public description, and scope. The public description had to be suitable for publication and contain no commercially sensitive information. The scope response had to name the selected theme, identify at least two frontier industries, and explain the named end user’s defined governance or work-plan role.
- Application questions. Applicants had to answer all questions. The form included non-scored questions on the chosen theme, the two frontier industries, applicant locations, animal testing, permits and licences, international collaboration, export controls, and Trusted Research and Innovation. The IFS instructions also stated that website addresses and links were not to be included in application answers.
- Finances. The consortium had to enter eligible costs and ensure that the total grant request sat within the £250,000 to £1 million range. Partner shares, research participation, subcontractor limits, and the applicable intervention rates had to be reflected in the cost plan.
- Project Impact. Each partner had to complete its Project Impact questions before the application could be submitted. This section supplied background on the expected effects of the project and the participating organisations.
The lead could reopen a submitted application before the deadline, but it had to resubmit the application before the competition closed. That workflow is retained here to document how the 2026 call operated; the closed IFS record should not be used to assume that a new submission is possible.
Planning record for the closed round
The official dates were publication on 21 April 2026, opening at 9:30am UK time on 27 April 2026, an online briefing event on 1 May 2026, a consortia-building event on 11 May 2026, closing at 11:00am UK time on 10 June 2026, applicant notification on 20 July 2026, and project start from 1 October 2026. The project end date had to be no later than 30 September 2029.
For an applicant reviewing an archived proposal, the useful preparation sequence is to begin with scope rather than budget. First identify one theme, two different frontier industries, and a named downstream end user with a real governance or delivery responsibility. Then test whether the innovation improves productivity, resource efficiency, resilience, or several of these in both target supply chains. Next assemble a lead and funded collaborator structure that respects the 70% partner-cost ceiling, decide whether any non-funded partners or subcontractors are necessary, and build the cost plan around eligible activities. Finally, check the IFS form section by section, including the non-scored compliance questions and every partner’s assigned work.
Archive note
There is no confirmed current deadline for this opportunity. The value in deadline remains the closed round’s actual closing date so the archive record preserves the source fact, while historicalReference = true distinguishes it from a live opportunity. Do not replace that date with a guessed 2027 or 2028 round. If Innovate UK announces a new competition under this or a related title, it should be verified as a separate current cycle before this record is changed again.
Official links
- Official UKRI opportunity page: https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/advanced-manufacturing-supply-chain-innovation-crd/
- Closed competition record on the Innovation Funding Service: https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2453/overview/79b9483b-140e-44e9-86af-db7792c594d2