Ireland Disruptive Technologies Innovation Fund

At a glance

What this opportunity is

This fund is for groups of organizations that can work together on a disruptive technology project where no single partner can solve the problem alone. The fund supports high-impact collaboration for innovation that changes markets, changes how firms operate, or supports new business models, and then moves towards commercial outcomes.

The first thing to understand is that this is not about purely academic research. It is about industrial research and experimental development that can be used commercially. The official DTIF overview and guidance describe the scheme as a challenge-based funding stream under the national innovation and development framework, with managed delivery by Enterprise Ireland.

A practical way to judge fit is to test two filters:

1. Can your idea be defined as disruptive enough to justify public co-funding?
2. Can your consortium actually deliver the project as a shared execution plan, not as fragmented statements?

If both are true, your readiness work is likely worth continuing.

Why this is not a generic grant

Applicants often assume all innovation grants are similar. DTIF is intentionally different for three reasons.

1. The programme is collaborative by design, and solo-company applications are outside the model.
2. It is outcome-oriented, so review asks for commercialization-ready planning, not only technical novelty.
3. Partner structure, governance, and financial compliance are heavily checked, because DTIF is public aid.

For many teams this is useful: you are not only asked to sell an idea, you are asked to prove a project, a consortium, and a credible route to impact.

Official status and practical relevance now

The official pages state that DTIF Call 7 is closed. They also indicate that more calls are expected. That means you should treat this information as a preparation guide for a next round, not as an active submission checklist right now.

If you are reading this in 2026, your immediate actions are:

• monitor the official DTIF pages for a new call opening;
• keep your consortium work in progress so you can move quickly when it opens;
• use the Call 7 documents as your baseline for preparation standards.

Who should apply

Good candidates usually show all of the following:

• a consortium of at least three independent partners;
• at least one SME and at least one additional enterprise partner;
• strong reason for collaboration, with clear division of responsibility;
• a project centered on industrial research and/or experimental development.

This is a good fit when the project needs partner depth. A partner that can do research, a partner that can validate and deploy, and a commercial partner who can move to market are typical patterns.

Who should avoid applying

You should avoid DTIF if any of these are true:

• Your concept is mostly fundamental research with no concrete development plan.
• You cannot show that your main activity can be delivered mainly in Ireland.
• You have no shared ownership model for a real collaboration.
• You cannot provide the required partner financial declarations and governance sign-offs.

In many failed applications, the technical team is strong but consortium feasibility is weak. That is usually harder to fix at submission time.

Eligibility requirements confirmed in official guidance

The Call 7 guide lists strict requirements. Use this as your baseline, and cross-check each point before building the final proposal.

Consortium and partner rules

• Minimum 3 independent partners.
• At least one SME and at least one other enterprise partner.
• Enterprise partners should be based in Ireland and have the required client status or be eligible research-performing organizations.
• The majority of project activity and funded work must happen in Ireland, with exceptions justified.

Activity and project scope rules

• DTIF focuses on industrial research and experimental development.
• Fundamental research is not funded.
• Expected TRL scope is generally between 3 and 9.
• The minimum DTIF grant request requirement was EUR 1.5 million in Call 7.
• Maximum duration is 3 years, and proposals under 2 years were described as unlikely to be funded.

Funding rates and financial limits

• SMEs can claim up to 50% of eligible costs.
• Large enterprises can claim up to 40% of eligible costs.
• RPOs can claim up to 100% of eligible costs.
• RPO grant share is capped at 50% of total DTIF grant aid in the project.
• The consortium should show realistic co-funding and match funding, with clear budgets.

Compliance constraints

• Applications must not be submitted at the same time to other NDP funds.
• All relevant enterprise partners must support Undertaking in Difficulty checks.
• The application must be complete and signed by each consortium participant.

This is an explicit compliance list: missing any one item can make an application ineligible before quality review.

How to apply: practical sequence

Use the sequence as a readiness timeline, not as a final submission flow only.

1. Confirm whether a new call is active and check all active documents.
2. Set partner roles, ownership, and governance.
3. Confirm agency status or RPO authorization for each partner.
4. Prepare project objectives and business impact in plain language.
5. Build a 24-36 month plan with clear milestones and measurable outputs.
6. Prepare budget tables with eligible costs and co-funding assumptions.
7. Complete UID-related submissions where required.
8. Submit through ei.submit.com, with all signatures present.
9. Final check: once submitted, the form cannot be edited.
10. Prepare for review and panel where technical and collaboration quality will be tested.

Review and approval pipeline

The process has known checkpoints:

• Eligibility check for completeness.
• Remote expert review by independent reviewers.
• Panel interview for those meeting the required threshold.
• DTIF advisory board review.
• Ministerial approval.

The scoring system shown in official materials has four weighted criteria:

• Disruptive technology dimension (100)
• Overall proposal and approach (50)
• Economic impact and sustainability (100)
• Collaboration quality and efficiency (50)

Any category below 60 is removed from progression.

This means you need balanced quality: not only scientific strength, but also a practical and well-governed collaboration story.

How reviewers usually score these criteria in practice

The scoring model is explicit, and you should treat each criterion as a section with its own evidence trail.

1) Disruptive technology dimension

This is the first filter, and teams often overinvest in general novelty claims. Reviewers look for concrete change, not broad ambition.

Useful evidence includes:

• What problem is solved that existing approaches cannot solve.
• Why industrial research or experimental development is necessary before commercialization.
• Why the concept is not incremental engineering work only.

When this section is weak, reviewers usually say it is not clearly different from what existing suppliers already provide.

2) Overall proposal and approach

This part rewards structure. A strong technical concept fails here if the narrative is fragmented.

Look for:

• A clear and realistic scope that is neither too broad nor too narrow.
• Transparent assumptions in the TRL pathway.
• A schedule where work packages are linked, not isolated bullet points.

A frequent penalty here is missing the causal chain between research activity and business output. Even good science cannot substitute for weak execution logic.

3) Economic impact and sustainability

This is often where large calls differentiate, because DTIF is asked to show regional and economic effect.

Good applications show:

• expected productivity or process improvement in target sectors;
• export, growth, and job potential with credible magnitude;
• low-carbon or sustainability alignment where relevant.

Teams should avoid generic statements such as “will create jobs.” Instead, pair each claim with a mechanism. For example: “new process reduces energy cost by X,” or “reduces cycle time by Y,” or “supports scale to Z users.”

4) Collaboration quality

This is where consortium governance is tested. A strong science team can still lose this criterion if partner roles are vague.

Reviewers prefer:

• clear reason for every partner joining;
• realistic ownership of workstreams and budgets;
• documented decision framework and escalation path;
• demonstrated match-funding and resource mobilisation across partners.

When collaboration quality is weak, proposals look like partner lists rather than active teams.

What makes a proposal cross the 60-point floor

Because a score below 60 in any criterion can remove a project from progression, you can use this practical check:

1. If any criterion lacks evidence and instead has assertions only, mark it red.
2. If deliverables have no owner, mark it red.
3. If partner responsibilities overlap without accountability, mark it red.
4. If financial logic is implied and not evidenced, mark it red.

Your target is not a perfect proposal, but a complete one with no red gaps. Remediating a few weaknesses early improves the chance of reaching the threshold.

A useful internal habit is to map each section to one criterion. That mapping is often more helpful than polishing wording alone.

What your consortium should prepare before submission

Use this as a pre-submission bundle:

• A clear technical narrative, with evidence of disruptive potential.
• A realistic commercialization pathway and target outcomes.
• A full partner map with specific responsibilities.
• A budget model and co-funding evidence.
• UID-related financial materials from each enterprise partner where required.
• A risk and governance plan.
• SMART deliverables with owners and timing.

For the budget and project documents, most teams underestimate financial specificity. Spend time on these points:

• Break costs by partner and cost category in a way that matches the official eligible-cost logic.
• Include partner-specific co-funding commitments and explain why each contribution is realistic.
• Keep signed approvals ready from RPO leads where required.
• Include an appendix or section that states your management controls, milestones, and audit readiness.

In many cases, teams score higher in collaboration and approach when those elements are visible and traceable. Do not hide governance inside one paragraph; show it in a practical structure.

Timeline planning for a future call

Since Call 7 is closed, treat the timeline as a readiness exercise.

• Weeks 1-2: finalise consortium and eligibility mapping.
• Weeks 3-4: define workstreams, TRL route, and commercial pathway.
• Weeks 5-7: build budget and governance documents, and resolve signatures.
• Weeks 8-10: complete completeness checks and internal review.

This timeline is practical because rushed applications usually fail on avoidable administration gaps.

Common mistakes that cost teams the most

1. Treating the application as a technical report instead of a commercial collaboration plan.
2. Submitting without partner eligibility certainty.
3. Failing to show how each deliverable is owned by a named partner.
4. Ignoring the financial checks and UID requirements.
5. Assuming one strong SME and one strong large partner is enough if roles are unclear.
6. Presenting a timeline that is too short for a 24-36 month scope.
7. Not preparing a strong collaboration narrative around decision-making and escalation.
8. Leaving room for correction after submission, even though edits are not allowed once formally submitted.

Avoiding these mistakes is as important as innovation quality itself.

Is this worth your time?

Use this quick self-check:

• Can your consortium prove a real division of labor?
• Can you show both technical disruption and path to market?
• Can your budget logic show realistic eligible costs and co-funding?
• Can you pass all partner and compliance rules without assumptions?

If most answers are yes, prepare now for the next call window. If the answers are weak, continue partner-building and pre-application planning.

FAQ

Is Call 7 still open?

Call 7 is closed, and the official status page says more calls are expected.

Can I still use this document to apply now?

No, not if you are planning immediate submission. Use it as a preparation tool.

Can I submit to Call 7 and another NDP fund at the same time?

No, Call 7 requires exclusivity.

What is the minimum requested amount?

At least EUR 1.5 million was required in Call 7.

What is the maximum project duration?

Up to 3 years.

Can projects include international partners?

Yes, but funded activity and the project core must still align with the rule that most activity occurs in Ireland and exceptions are justified.

What if we are new applicants with no past funded projects?

You can still apply if eligibility and governance are robust. Reviewers focus on fit, execution structure, and commercial potential.

Who should we contact?

DTIF program queries are directed to [email protected]. UID financial submissions for companies are directed to [email protected].

What happens after approval?

Approved projects have start deadlines that must be met; funding letters can be withdrawn if project start timelines are not met.

Official links

• DTIF programme page on enterprise.gov.ie
• DTIF Call 7 publication page on gov.ie
• DTIF Call 7 guide for applicants (PDF)

For the latest call, use the official pages above to navigate to active forms and templates.