Centre for Quantum Commercialisation Skills

Centre for Quantum Commercialisation Skills

This 2026 UKRI funding opportunity is designed for a very specific gap in the UK quantum sector: organisations can be technically excellent in quantum science and technology, but still lack the commercial and translational pathways to move promising ideas into deployment. The Centre for Quantum Commercialisation Skills offers a dedicated, large-scale route to build that missing capacity.

The award is open, has publication and opening activity in May 2026, and a stated closing date of 7 July 2026 at 4:00 pm UK time. The funding is a grant with award range £10,000,000 to £11,300,000. A notable detail for budgeting is that it is described as a non-FEC grant, with 100% of eligible costs funded up to £11.3M, while estates and indirect costs are explicitly not funded.

Key details

What this opportunity funds and why it is distinctive

Most grant calls in this space fund a specific technology programme, a scientific facility, or a defined mission R&D project. This call is different. It funds a nationally oriented centre whose purpose is to improve commercialisation capability across the UK quantum research community.

The stated outcomes are not the typical “deliver one technology” goal. They are workforce and ecosystem outcomes:

• build a stronger quantum commercialisation workforce,
• expand skills and entrepreneurship capability for UK researchers,
• support translational thinking, IP protection, licensing, and spin-out formation,
• connect researchers to industry and investor perspectives,
• run activities that are open beyond the host and produce wider national benefit.

The centre is expected to act as a hub that supports national-scale access and shared commercial learning, including placements, exchanges, early opportunity exploration, and structured activities that improve readiness for real-world impact. The opportunity text also places this within a broader UK strategy context, tying it to the UK quantum strategy and ecosystem investments.

For applicants, this means the narrative should not read like a narrow technical grant. It needs to sound like a capability platform with measurable, transferable outputs across the national quantum community. If your concept is only about one lab experiment or one prototype, this is likely too narrow for this structure.

Who this is for

The page is clear that this is not a fellowship and not a standard trainee-funded studentships call. It is an organisational infrastructure-like award for a centre, with a clear national remit.

It is strongest for teams that can do all of the following:

1. Host a high-quality, EPSRC-eligible UK research organisation.
2. Propose leadership able to coordinate across universities, research teams, and industry-facing activities.
3. Show that the centre will benefit more than one lab or one project.
4. Design practical training and commercialisation actions, not only academic outputs.
5. Build governance that can operate at national scale for four years.

Potentially strong matches include:

• research-performing universities wanting to lead a UK quantum skills hub,
• organisations with strong links to industry, investors, or translational pathways,
• institutions with professional capability to run training, mentoring, advisory boards, and partner engagement.

Likely weak matches include:

• groups seeking only direct experimental equipment funding,
• institutions without EPSRC eligibility,
• applications focused mostly on grant-generated individual project work without a broader community-facing design,
• projects that appear to duplicate normal departmental training or standard UKRI training grants but do not add distinct national benefit.

Eligibility and compliance requirements in practice

The official requirements are explicit around eligibility boundaries and administrative compliance. The application must be submitted by a lead organisation with standard UKRI eligibility and EPSRC funding eligibility for this area. You should confirm this on EPSRC eligibility pages before committing major write-up time.

Important eligibility/compliance points pulled from the call text:

• The opportunity is run for organisations and uses UKRI standard roles.
• A project lead role is defined and regulated by the Funding Service role model.
• You cannot include a Norway-based co-project lead under the UKRI-RCN Money Follows Cooperation arrangement mentioned on the page.
• Only one application per research organisation is allowed.
• A nominated project lead may be project lead only on one application.
• The call is run through the UKRI Funding Service, not Je-S.
• This is a non-FEC structure, which impacts planning for cost categories and indirect support.

For teams used to standard UK grants, this is an important nuance: this is not mainly a “can we get enough money for costs” exercise. It is an “can we build a sustainable programme model” exercise. The eligibility framing makes this clear.

Budget structure, restrictions, and what can be costed

The page states EPSRC can fund up to £11.3 million in eligible costs, with a stated floor of £10,000,000 and an expected non-FEC basis. Estates and indirect costs are excluded, so your budget narrative must distinguish what is core to the centre from what would fall into standard institutional infrastructure support.

The page also sets explicit exclusions that are easy to miss and should be reflected in your cost sheet:

• no direct tuition funding,
• no stipends,
• no RTSG-style student cost support,
• no public engagement activities in scope,
• no equipment above £25,000 through this award,
• no costs for filing IP itself (for example, patent/tm/design filing fees).

Funding categories that are explicitly discussed as potentially eligible include:

• leadership salaries and project leadership administration,
• exchange and movement of staff/skills between academia and industry,
• early-stage research accelerator activities,
• training and workshops on commercialisation, translational pathways, and responsible innovation,
• events, mentorship, coaching, and specialist facilitation,
• travel and subsistence where justified,
• software and delivery tools,
• flexible funds for challenge-led activities, ideation, and opportunities.

A strong budget does three things:

1. Keeps a clear separation between ineligible and eligible spend.
2. Connects each spend line to centre activity logic from the call.
3. Explains how impact scales to the wider UK quantum community, not only to one host laboratory.

The call text mentions that only one centre will be funded, so budget concentration and coherence are essential. A fragmented budget with many disconnected pilots is often interpreted poorly unless tied to a clear national model.

Application process: what the sequence usually means

The page gives a staged process through the Funding Service:

1. Select start application from the page.
2. Confirm project lead and create/sign into a Funding Service account.
3. Complete answers directly in application fields.
4. Use save/review options and read-only checks.
5. Send the completed file through internal research office checks.
6. Submit through the lead organisation.

The deadline is fixed at 7 July 2026, 4:00 pm UK time, and applications are not allowed after that exact close.

The call text also indicates internal institutional deadlines matter. That means even if the Funding Service is open late, your own internal compliance and finance routes can close earlier.

Documentation and response format

For this specific opportunity, the page requires:

• a clear narrative in the Vision and Approach section,
• attention to length and formatting expectations,
• references in appropriate places,
• evidence of team capability and governance,
• full treatment of how the centre delivers expected outputs,
• and practical alignment to the centre’s mandatory remit.

The Funding Service also states links in applications should be used only where they directly support references and that applications should stand on their own. That means avoid relying on external URLs to carry your evidence.

Strategic preparation plan

To convert this into a winning-style submission, most teams should approach prep as three tracks.

Track 1: organisational and role architecture

Before writing, finalise the core roles required by the Funding Service and the opportunity:

• project lead (PL) and project co-lead where applicable,
• operational and strategy co-director roles,
• commercialisation capability lead,
• advisory and governance capacity,
• finance/administration support.

The call emphasises leadership and capacity to run a multi-year national programme. If your role split is unclear, the panel sees this as implementation risk.

Track 2: programme design with impact pathways

Your centre design should describe concrete activity families and where each sits in a user journey:

• skill transfer pathways for early and mid-career researchers,
• industry interface modules with measurable outputs,
• support mechanisms for opportunity discovery and testing,
• knowledge exchange formats that do not become isolated one-offs,
• independent advisory governance with strong membership and reporting structure.

You should include concrete outputs you can monitor quarterly:

• number and type of participants,
• number of exchanges/placements completed,
• number of ideas tested through early accelerator mechanisms,
• number of IP or collaboration outcomes seeded,
• quality of partner engagement across regions.

Track 3: compliance and policy alignment

Because the opportunity is non-FEC and non-subsidy in intent, include clear statements on subsidy control, equal opportunity commitments, and governance.

At minimum, explicitly address:

• how national benefit is delivered beyond the host,
• how project leadership remains equitable and open,
• how funds from flexible streams are governed,
• how you will report on diversity, inclusion, and user engagement plans,
• how TR&I and risk controls are embedded for international collaboration.

Common mistakes to avoid

This section is often the difference between a strong draft and one that fails review or gets returned quickly. Based on the call wording, watch for these pitfalls:

1. Submitting an application that reads like a research project rather than a centre design.
2. Ignoring the non-FEC model and adding costs that should be excluded (estates, indirect costs, patents).
3. Underestimating internal governance and partner management requirements.
4. Proposing activities outside the national benefit remit, for example an internal-only training programme with no broad access.
5. Treating the centre as a vehicle for student stipend funding or fee support.
6. Treating images/links as a way to replace narrative detail.
7. Missing the single-application rule per organisation.
8. Assuming “large budget” implies flexible spend categories.

If the core team itself is strong but the operational architecture is weak, applications often stall in review. This opportunity asks for a full system architecture, not only scientific merit.

FAQ

What is the real objective of this grant?

It is to establish one UK centre that builds commercialisation capability for quantum researchers and connects academia to industry and translational pathways.

Can this be used by one university only?

The centre may be hosted by one organisation or consortium, but the intended design is to serve the wider UK quantum community and provide broad, equitable access.

Is this a studentships programme?

No. The page explicitly says it is not a standard training grant and that typical training grant studentship elements (stipends, tuition, student registrations) are not funded here.

What is the best way to avoid non-compliance on budget?

Use the non-FEC rule strictly and exclude ineligible lines (estates, indirect, patent filing, tuition, stipends, excessive equipment). If in doubt, keep budget notes explicit and map every line to one of the permitted activity areas.

Can international collaborators apply?

Yes, but there are constraints. A Norway-based co-project lead is specifically excluded in the linked statement of eligibility context from this specific page. Core eligibility still pivots on a UK EPSRC-eligible host.

What are key dates to plan around?

Current status is open, opening 6 May 2026 and closing 7 July 2026 (4:00 pm UK time). The page also states project start by 1 December 2026 and four-year duration.

Where can I get support?

The official page includes contact points for scheme questions and submission support from EPSRC and the funding service helpdesk.

What to do next if you want to apply now

If your timeline is still active, move in this order:

• verify organisational EPSRC eligibility first,
• secure internal sponsor signatures before drafting final costed outputs,
• map every activity to the published objectives,
• assign role types early and prevent any duplicated or conflicting role assignments,
• prepare governance, advisory board, and EDI plan before budget finalisation,
• draft Vision and Approach in one coherent PDF with the required constraints,
• run an internal read for compliance and language consistency at least 48 hours before your internal deadline.

This opportunity is large, visible, and consequential. It is not designed for ad-hoc applicants. It rewards teams that can present a coherent, national-scale commercialisation system with strong execution, not only technical brilliance.

Official links

• UKRI opportunity page: https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/centre-for-quantum-commercialisation-skills/
• Funding service application: Start application link on the page
• EPSRC contact for scheme questions: [email protected] (include opportunity name in subject)
• Funding Service helpdesk: [email protected] (phone 01793 547490 on published support hours)