Win UK Advanced Manufacturing Funding: How to Get a Slice of the £5 Million Feasibility Study Grant for Supply Chain Innovation

Supply chains have a funny way of becoming “strategic priorities” the moment they break. A late shipment of a single component, a raw material price spike, a port delay, a supplier that quietly goes under—and suddenly your brilliant manufacturing plan is held together with hope and expedited freight.

That’s why this upcoming UKRI/Innovate UK competition matters. It’s aimed at feasibility studies that make advanced manufacturing supply chains more resource efficient and more resilient—not with vague promises, but with early-stage projects designed to prove something can work in the real world (or at least in a credible pilot).

There’s up to £5 million in total funding available across the competition. You’re not applying for “the £5 million”; you’re applying for a share—meaning multiple projects will likely be backed. And that’s a good thing: it usually signals the funder is looking for a portfolio of ideas across different sectors, pain points, and technical approaches.

This is also one of those opportunities where the right feasibility study can punch above its weight. If you can show a compelling problem, a smart approach, and a believable route to a larger demonstration project, this kind of funding becomes the first domino in a very satisfying chain reaction.

Advanced Manufacturing Supply Chain Innovation Grant at a Glance

What This Funding Is Really For (And Why Feasibility Studies Matter)

A feasibility study is the funding equivalent of a serious first date. You’re not getting married (that’s your later-stage scale-up project), but you are proving there’s enough substance to justify a bigger commitment.

In practical terms, feasibility studies often cover things like: whether a proposed technical approach is workable, whether data is available and reliable enough to support decision-making, whether a new process will actually reduce waste instead of just moving it upstream, or whether suppliers will adopt a new digital tool without mutiny.

The competition’s north star is more resource-efficient and resilient supply chains in advanced manufacturing, especially by tackling cross-cutting challenges. Translation: they’re interested in ideas that don’t just polish one tiny corner of one factory. They want projects that can travel—across tiers of suppliers, across processes, across sectors.

Strong themes (without putting words in the funder’s mouth) tend to include things like improved visibility, better materials use, smarter planning, reduced dependency on fragile single points of failure, and credible pathways to adoption. If your idea can help a supply chain keep moving when conditions get ugly—and do so with less waste and lower resource intensity—you’re speaking the right language.

Also: a feasibility study is not a literature review with a fancy budget. You’ll want a plan that produces tangible outputs—proof points, prototypes, test results, partner commitments, validated assumptions, and a clear next-step investment case.

Who Should Apply (With Real-World Fits)

This competition is open to single applicants and collaborations, but eligibility has teeth, so read this carefully.

If you’re a UK registered business of any size, you can apply alone. That includes startups with a strong technical proposition, SMEs with a niche capability, and large manufacturers with complex supplier networks and a clear problem to solve.

If you’re a UK registered research and technology organisation (RTO), you can apply, but not solo. You must be part of a collaboration (and the lead of that collaboration can be a business or an RTO). In plain terms: RTOs need an industry anchor so the work doesn’t float off into “interesting research” territory without a route to implementation.

Who is this a good fit for?

A strong candidate might be a Tier 1 supplier that constantly gets whiplash from demand swings and wants to test a new planning approach that reduces inventory waste while improving on-time delivery. Another might be a materials-focused SME proposing a way to cut scrap rates through better process monitoring, paired with a manufacturer willing to run a small pilot.

It could also fit a digital manufacturing company building a tool for traceability, provenance, or carbon/resource accounting—so long as the feasibility work is grounded in a real supply chain and not just a product demo. The funder is likely to want to see that you understand the unglamorous parts: data sharing agreements, incentives for supplier participation, interoperability with existing systems, and how you’ll handle messy inputs.

And if you’re an RTO, the sweet spot is bringing deep capability—testing facilities, modelling expertise, systems engineering, industrial digitalisation—into a partnership where a business partner can say, “Yes, this problem is real, and yes, we’ll trial it.”

What This Opportunity Offers (Beyond the Headline Pot)

Let’s be honest: “a share of up to £5 million” is the flashy part, but it’s not the only value.

First, feasibility funding buys you time with purpose. The best early-stage projects aren’t about moving fast; they’re about finding the truth quickly. Does the idea work? Will suppliers play ball? Can you access the data you assumed existed? Can you quantify resource efficiency improvements in a way that doesn’t collapse under scrutiny?

Second, the competition structure pushes you toward industry relevance. Even if you’re highly technical, you’ll have to frame the work around supply chain outcomes: resilience, efficiency, resource use, and broader applicability. That focus can make your later fundraising, customer conversations, and internal buy-in much easier because you’ll have a funder-backed storyline and results.

Third, collaborations (especially business + RTO) can create a practical division of labour: businesses bring operational reality and adoption pathways; RTOs bring methods, validation capability, and technical credibility. When it works, it’s like pairing a great architect with a great builder—ideas meet gravity, and the survivors become real projects.

Finally, Innovate-style competitions reward applicants who think like implementers. If you can leave the feasibility study with a clear plan for demonstration, scale, and commercial adoption, you’ve built a runway—one you can use for future UKRI/Innovate calls, private investment, or internal capital allocation.

Choosing a Feasibility Study That Actually Wins

A winning feasibility study usually has three traits: a painful problem, a believable approach, and results you can measure without squinting.

Think of it this way: your application is making a promise. Not “we’ll solve supply chain resilience forever,” but “we’ll test and validate these assumptions, generate evidence, and decide the next step with confidence.”

Good feasibility questions sound like:

• Can we reduce material waste by X% by implementing Y process change, and can we verify it across two production settings?
• Can we improve resilience by qualifying an alternative supplier or material route without sacrificing quality or compliance?
• Can we build a model that predicts disruption impacts and recommends actions, and will planners actually use it under pressure?

The point is specificity. Reviewers trust applicants who name the dragon they’re fighting.

Insider Tips for a Winning Application (The Stuff People Learn the Hard Way)

1) Write the problem like someone has to live with it

Avoid “UK manufacturing faces challenges.” True, but bland. Instead, describe the operational pain: long lead times, volatile inputs, obsolescence risk, quality escapes, energy intensity, scrap, rework, or poor visibility beyond Tier 1.

Then quantify it. Even rough numbers help: percentage scrap, downtime hours, expedited shipping costs, inventory write-offs, supplier lead time variance. Reviewers don’t need your entire ERP export—just enough to prove this is real and worth public funding.

2) Make “cross-cutting” concrete, not decorative

The brief mentions cross-cutting challenges. That’s not an invitation to add buzzwords; it’s a prompt to show your idea can travel. Explain how your approach could apply across sectors (aerospace, automotive, medical devices, electronics, etc.) or across multiple tiers (OEM, Tier 1, Tier 2).

If your work is very specific, that’s okay—but then show how the method is reusable: a repeatable assessment framework, a modular tool, a replicable supplier onboarding model.

3) Treat partner selection like product design

If you’re collaborating, don’t pick partners because they’re famous. Pick them because they complete the picture.

A good consortium usually has:

• A business with the problem and the adoption pathway
• A technical builder (could be the same organisation)
• A validation/testing capability (often the RTO role)
• If needed, a supply chain participant who proves this isn’t only theoretical (a supplier, logistics partner, or data provider)

And make roles explicit. Vague partnerships read like LinkedIn networking, not a delivery plan.

4) Design your outputs so they can’t hide

Feasibility studies die when outputs are foggy. Define what “done” looks like: prototype demonstrator, test report, modelling results, pilot design, supplier engagement outcomes, data architecture, or a quantified business case.

If you can, include a go/no-go logic: “If metric A and metric B aren’t met by month 4, we pivot to option C.” That signals maturity, not doubt.

5) Build in evidence of adoption early

A lot of supply chain innovation fails because it ignores human behaviour. Planners won’t use a tool that adds clicks. Suppliers won’t share data if there’s no payoff or trust.

So put adoption inside the feasibility scope: user interviews, workflow mapping, incentives analysis, data governance, interoperability testing. The “boring” work is often the work that makes the project fundable.

6) Don’t confuse novelty with value

You don’t need a moonshot. You need a smart, credible solution to an expensive problem.

If you’re using AI, say what it’s doing and why simpler methods don’t work. If you’re proposing new materials routes, explain compliance, qualification, and risk. If it’s digital traceability, tackle data quality and supplier onboarding head-on.

7) Write like a grown-up about risk

Supply chain projects have risks: supplier withdrawal, data access, integration complexity, test facility availability, long lead times for components. Name the risks and show mitigations. Reviewers back teams who look prepared.

Application Timeline (Working Backward From 11 March 2026)

Treat the deadline—11:00 UK time on 11 March 2026—like a flight departure, not a dinner reservation. The portal won’t care that your PDF “was basically done.”

A sensible plan starts 8–10 weeks out. In early January, lock your project concept and confirm eligibility (especially if an RTO is involved). Use the next two weeks to line up partners, agree roles, and draft a one-page scope that everyone signs off on—informally, but clearly.

By early February, you should be drafting the full narrative and building the project plan. This is when you pressure-test feasibility: are you trying to do too much for a feasibility study? Are your outputs measurable? Do you have access to the sites, data, and people you need?

Late February is for reviews: one technical reviewer, one commercial reviewer, and one “smart outsider” who can spot jargon and missing logic. In the final week, you’re polishing, checking portal requirements, validating numbers, and submitting early enough to survive technical hiccups.

Required Materials (What You Should Prepare Before You Touch the Portal)

The official Innovation Funding Service competition page will spell out exact forms and templates, but most feasibility competitions ask for a familiar set of building blocks.

You should be ready to produce:

• A clear project description that explains the supply chain problem, why it matters, what you will test, and what outputs you will deliver by the end of the feasibility study.
• A project plan/work packages with who does what and when. Keep it realistic—feasibility is about validation, not full industrial transformation.
• A budget and justification that matches the work. If most of the money is on vague “project management,” reviewers get suspicious. If you claim deep technical work but allocate no time to testing or data handling, same problem.
• Partner details and collaboration rationale if you’re not applying solo. Be prepared to explain why each partner is necessary, not merely helpful.
• Evidence of capability (team track record, facilities, prior relevant work). This is especially important for newer companies: show you can execute, even if you’re small.

Practical advice: write your project in plain English first, then translate into application form language. If you start in form-speak, everything comes out stiff and unclear.

What Makes an Application Stand Out (How Reviewers Tend to Think)

Even when criteria aren’t listed in your summary, Innovate-style reviews usually orbit the same planets.

Reviewers typically reward applications that show a sharp definition of the challenge, a credible technical and delivery approach, and a clear route to impact. For this competition, “impact” should connect to resource efficiency and resilience, not just company growth.

They also look for feasibility discipline: is the project the right size for the stage? Are the uncertainties clearly identified? Does the team have access to the environments where the solution must operate? A feasibility study that reads like a phase-one plan for a massive roll-out often scores worse than a tightly scoped validation with crisp outputs.

Finally, they like honesty. If you have assumptions, say so—and then show how the project will test them. That’s the whole point of feasibility funding.

Common Mistakes to Avoid (And How to Fix Them)

One classic mistake is writing a “solution-first” proposal where the problem is vague. Fix it by spending real words on the operational pain, who experiences it, and what it costs—time, waste, carbon, cash, or risk exposure.

Another frequent problem is an overstuffed scope. Feasibility studies aren’t meant to deliver production-ready systems. If you’re trying to build the full platform, integrate with five ERPs, onboard 50 suppliers, and run a national pilot, you’re not doing feasibility—you’re doing fantasy. Reduce scope, increase proof.

Collaborations can also go wrong when partners are ornamental. If you can remove a partner and nothing changes, reviewers will notice. Every partner should have a job that would hurt to lose.

Finally, don’t ignore the “last mile” issues: data governance, change management, supplier incentives, compliance and qualification pathways. Supply chain innovation doesn’t fail because people can’t invent; it fails because people can’t implement.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a UK business apply on its own?

Yes. UK registered businesses of any size can apply as a single applicant, which is great if you can deliver the feasibility study without formal partners.

Can an RTO apply alone?

No. The eligibility notes are explicit: RTOs cannot work alone. If you’re an RTO, build a collaboration with at least one eligible business.

Can an RTO lead a collaborative project?

Yes. A collaborative project can be led by a UK registered business or a UK registered RTO—as long as the RTO isn’t acting solo.

Is the £5 million awarded to one winner?

Highly unlikely. The wording is “a share of up to £5 million,” which usually means multiple funded projects.

What counts as advanced manufacturing here?

The opportunity title points to advanced manufacturing, but the more important clue is the focus on supply chain resource efficiency and resilience. If your project sits in a manufacturing supply chain with meaningful complexity and clear opportunity for improvement, you’re in the right territory.

What does resource efficient actually mean in practice?

Think reduced material waste, lower scrap and rework, better yield, more efficient inventory, fewer expedited shipments, smarter substitution, and processes that use less energy/material per unit output. The key is to define your metric and show how you’ll measure it.

How early should we start?

If you’re collaborating, start at least 8–10 weeks before the deadline. Partner alignment and a coherent plan take longer than people admit.

Where do we submit?

You’ll apply via the Innovation Funding Service, linked from the official UKRI opportunity page.

How to Apply (And What to Do This Week)

Start by reading the official opportunity page closely and clicking through to the Innovation Funding Service listing. Your first job is not writing—it’s confirming you’re eligible and that your project genuinely fits the supply chain efficiency/resilience brief.

Next, decide whether you’re applying solo (business only) or as a collaboration. If you need an RTO for testing, modelling, or validation, approach them early and come with a one-page concept note. Nobody wants to join a consortium held together by frantic emails.

Then write a tight feasibility scope: the question you’re answering, the method you’ll use, the outputs you’ll produce, and the decision you’ll be able to make at the end. If you can’t describe that on half a page, your project is probably too big.

Finally, work backward from the deadline and build in review time. The best applications look “easy” because someone suffered in advance—preferably you, not your future self at 10:42 on deadline day.

Ready to apply? Visit the official opportunity page

Full details and the submission route are here: https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/advanced-manufacturing-supply-chain-innovation-fs/