Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP): 2026 to 2027 Round 2 — Historical Reference

Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP): 2026 to 2027 Round 2 — Historical Reference

This page is a historical reference, not an open call. Innovate UK’s official Innovation Funding Service record marks the Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP): 2026 to 2027 Round 2 competition as closed. Its published closing time was 24 June 2026 at 11:00am UK time, and the official record does not announce a replacement deadline or a successor round. A new application cannot be started for this cycle.

The round offered a share of an Innovate UK budget of up to £10 million for KTP projects with businesses. The programme is a structured partnership rather than a solo business grant: a registered knowledge base leads the application, a UK business partner supplies the business challenge and contribution, and an associate transfers knowledge into the business during a project lasting between 12 and 36 months. The information below records what applicants had to meet and prepare for this closed round.

At a glance: verified closed-round details

The official competition page distinguishes the total competition budget from an individual award. The £10 million figure was the amount allocated to this round across individual projects; it was not a guaranteed award for every applicant. Project costs were normally calculated around £8,500 per month, with the precise eligible costs and contribution depending on duration, business size, location, and the project’s cost structure.

What the KTP round was designed to fund

KTP connects a UK business with a knowledge base that has expertise the business needs but cannot readily build on its own. The project must address a specific and strategic innovation challenge. The knowledge base recruits an associate to work on the project, while the business hosts the associate and provides day-to-day support. The purpose is not simply to buy a report or commission short-term consultancy. The application had to explain what knowledge was missing, how it would be transferred, and what lasting capability would remain in the business.

The official scope required applicants to show:

• why the business needed a KTP for the proposed challenge;
• what new knowledge, technology, or expertise the knowledge base would provide;
• how that knowledge would be embedded in the business;
• how the project aligned with the Industrial Strategy; and
• what characteristics showed that the business had high growth potential.

Projects were expected to have a genuine market opportunity and a viable route to market. The competition would not fund a project that was not strategic for the business, could be delivered just as well through contract research, lacked a clear knowledge-embedding plan, or failed to provide enough information to show that the business could afford its contribution. Projects also had to avoid the prohibited subsidy and selective-advantage conditions described in the competition rules.

The six Industrial Strategy sectors prioritised by Innovate UK were Advanced Manufacturing, Clean Energy Industries, Creative Industries, Defence, Digital and Technologies, and Life Sciences. A project outside those priority sectors could still be eligible if it exploited a novel area of research and the business partner met the high-growth-potential test, but priority was given to projects aligned with the Industrial Strategy.

Eligibility and partnership responsibilities

The lead had to be a UK registered higher education or further education institution, research and technology organisation, or Catapult. It also had to be registered as a knowledge base with the KTP programme. The knowledge base could not apply alone: it had to invite one UK registered business into the Innovation Funding Service application and invite a Knowledge Transfer Adviser to support the proposal.

The knowledge base had several operational responsibilities. It had to complete the application with the business, recruit the associate through an open and fair process, provide at least half a day of academic support each week, arrange the project secretariat, agree intellectual property terms with the business before the project started, and support required meetings. It also had to submit the application with KTA agreement before the competition closed. The official application record states that the knowledge base must provide a case study at project completion and publicly share outcomes under the round’s no-subsidy arrangements.

The business partner had to be a UK registered business with two or more full time equivalent employees. It had to demonstrate characteristics of a high-growth business, declare the size of its business or group, complete the form with the knowledge base, and provide evidence that it could support its share of the costs. It also had to host the associate, provide day-to-day supervision, pay for mandatory business-side meetings, demonstrate that it could finance exploitation of the project, and reach a written intellectual property agreement with the knowledge base.

The business was required to provide financial accounts for the current financial year and the previous two years, subject to the additional guidance for businesses that were less than three years old. A UK subsidiary of an overseas parent could be eligible if it was individually registered in the UK. An organisation eligible to become a KTP knowledge base could not apply as the business partner. The competition also excluded UKRI organisations and businesses owned or operated wholly or partly by UKRI, ARIA, central government departments, and the devolved administrations listed in the official eligibility rules.

Funding and contribution rules

The competition was designed to provide funding on a no-subsidy basis. Innovate UK said that the final eligibility for a no-subsidy award would be determined after submission, and applicants were advised to obtain independent legal advice if they were uncertain about their obligations. Where funding was provided on that basis, project outputs had to be published or made openly available on a non-selective basis, and commercial exploitation could not give a selective advantage.

For successful applications, large companies could receive a grant contribution of up to 50% of eligible project costs. Micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises could receive up to 67%, with the business paying the balance. These percentages were maximum contribution rates, not automatic awards. The business also had to fund its own staff time, additional costs listed in the application, non-eligible costs such as capital equipment, and commercialisation of project outputs. Innovate UK noted that the contribution could be funded wholly or partly by KTP financial supporters, including UKRI KTP, Invest Northern Ireland, and the Welsh Government.

The cost of a project depended on its duration, where it was delivered, the size of the business or group, and whether the business operated virtually. The typical £8,500-per-month figure was a planning reference rather than a fixed payment. Applicants needed a costed workplan that connected associate employment, development, travel, consumables, academic supervision, estates, and other costs to the work required.

How applicants applied in the closed cycle

There is no current submission route for this round. The following steps describe the official process that applied before the deadline:

1. Form the partnership. The knowledge base identified the business partner and agreed the business challenge, project roles, associate model, contribution assumptions, and intellectual property approach. A business without a suitable knowledge base could seek help identifying one through the KTP support network.
2. Appoint and involve a KTA. The application had to be supported by an Innovate UK appointed Knowledge Transfer Adviser. The adviser could set a development timetable, and the application could be withdrawn if the KTA did not support it before submission.
3. Read the required guidance. Applicants had to read the Innovate UK General Guidance, KTP guidance, KTP costs guidance, all application sections, the Terms and Conditions, and the UKRI Good Research resources. The rules also warned that knowledge base applicants should note differences between UKRI grants and Innovate UK awards.
4. Prepare the project case. The proposal needed a specific strategic challenge, the missing knowledge, the transfer and embedding method, Industrial Strategy alignment, high-growth evidence, a market opportunity, an exploitation route, and a credible 12-to-36-month delivery plan.
5. Complete the Innovation Funding Service form. The knowledge base led the application and invited the business partner and KTA. Partners completed their assigned sections. The form covered project details, application questions, and finances, including the business’s staff, accounts, contribution, and affordability.
6. Upload the required evidence. The application required a current workplan template and a joint commitment statement. The financial section required itemised and justified costs, while supporting-document sections could be used for additional evidence such as business financial information. The workplan had to cover project stages, benefits realisation, exploitation, technical work, and knowledge-embedding activities.
7. Check declarations and submit. Before submission, the lead had to confirm that the information was accurate, the proposal met eligibility and scope requirements, all sections were complete, all partners had accepted the terms, and the KTA supported submission. The final submission had to arrive before 24 June 2026 at 11:00am UK time.

The official schedule listed 27 August 2026 for applicant notification and 3 September 2026 for feedback. Those dates describe the closed round’s decision process; they are not a new application window.

Practical lessons from the archived call

The partnership structure should be treated as a delivery plan, not as an eligibility formality. A strong historical application would have made it clear who owned the business problem, who supervised the associate day to day, who provided academic support, how the monthly project meeting would operate, and how knowledge would remain after the project ended. It also needed to explain why a KTP was more suitable than direct recruitment, contract research, or a conventional consultancy engagement.

Financial preparation was equally important. The business contribution depended on the project and company profile, so a team needed to test affordability before investing heavily in narrative drafting. The business had to account for its own staff time, non-eligible items, commercialisation costs, and the balance not covered by grant support. A proposal that described a valuable innovation but could not show how the business would fund delivery would not meet the competition’s practical standard.

The sector test also required substance. Merely adding a reference to artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, clean energy, defence, creative work, or life sciences would not establish alignment. The project needed to show how the technology or research would be applied to a business challenge and how the resulting capability would support growth. If the project fell outside the priority sectors, the proposal needed a stronger explanation of the novel research and the business’s high-growth potential.

The no-subsidy conditions affected planning beyond the application form. Knowledge bases had to consider publication and open sharing of outcomes, while businesses had to understand how exploitation could occur without creating a selective advantage. Intellectual property terms, publication plans, associate recruitment, supervision, and financial evidence therefore belonged in early partnership discussions rather than being left to the final submission pass.

Status and future-round caution

This 2026 to 2027 Round 2 opportunity is closed. The official Innovation Funding Service page and the UKRI opportunity record retain the competition details, including the £10 million budget, eligibility rules, and closed deadline. The official records checked for this update do not announce a next KTP round or a new deadline. Readers should not infer that a later round is open from the recurring nature of the KTP programme.

If Innovate UK or UKRI publishes another KTP competition, its title, budget, eligible partners, contribution rates, priority sectors, supporting documents, and dates must be checked separately. The next competition may change the rules. This page should therefore be used to understand the closed round only, not as permission to submit a late application or as evidence of a current funding window.

Official records

• Innovation Funding Service competition record
• UKRI funding opportunity summary
• Innovate UK Business Connect opportunity information