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

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

The 2026 to 2027 Round 2 KTP competition is an Innovate UK-led UK public funding pathway for applied innovation projects co-delivered by universities, FE providers, RTOs, Catapults, and UK businesses. On the official UKRI competition page, the opportunity is open, with a stated competition budget of £10,000,000 and a competitive outcome process where not every high-quality proposal can be funded. The official portal also shows the close date as 24 June 2026 at 11:00am UK time and a shared funding structure tied to eligible project costs.

This opportunity is explicitly different from traditional academic grants where the lead institution carries the entire award. A KTP is a structured collaboration instrument: the knowledge base partner and the business partner each play defined roles, and the business contributes financially to delivery. You are buying a pathway for transfer, not a one-way grant injection.

Key details at a glance

What this competition actually funds

KTP is not a grant that only pays for experimentation. It is designed to fund knowledge transfer capacity in a real operating business context. The core proposition is simple:

• A UK knowledge base partner contributes expertise, method, and supervision.
• A UK business contributes an operational context, staff engagement, and matching financial commitment.
• The associate role sits inside a strategic project focused on implementing identifiable capabilities in the company.

The IFS competition documentation describes the mechanism in practical terms: project duration and eligible costs create a structured, costed collaboration. Grants are not given on a “free money” basis. The business partner is expected to contribute, and the split is tied to size, geography, and project design.

In this context, the strongest KTP projects are those where the knowledge base and business can articulate one thing clearly: what specific knowledge is missing inside the business today, what changes through the project, and what new capability will remain after project completion.

Who this opportunity is for (and who should not apply)

Round 2 is for applications where the applicant is clearly a knowledge base lead and the business partner is a real commercial participant with skin in the project.

Eligible lead organisations

The knowledge base partner must be one of:

• a UK-registered higher education (HE) institution,
• a UK-registered further education institution,
• a UK research and technology organisation (RTO), or
• a Catapult.

That lead organisation must:

• be registered as a KTP knowledge base,
• recruit the associate role through the KTP model,
• submit the proposal in collaboration with the business partner,
• have a Knowledge Transfer Adviser supporting the application,
• agree to provide supervision and dissemination commitments and required governance.

Eligible business partners

The business partner needs to be UK-registered and typically should have:

• at least two full-time equivalent employees,
• sufficient financial footing to pay project contribution,
• ability to host associate supervision and mandatory meetings,
• demonstrable growth potential and practical implementation context.

If the business is part of a group, group-level size can matter for funding percentage and contribution calculations.

Who should avoid this route

Avoid applying if any of the following are true:

• there is no real operational partner committed to implementation;
• the work can be done as internal consultancy or routine contract research without real transfer;
• the partner cannot supply timely evidence for accounts and contribution;
• your team cannot commit to the reporting and governance requirements;
• you require subcontractors for core project delivery (not allowed in this round).

Even before scoring starts, these mismatches can move your proposal out of scope.

Eligibility and exclusions in more detail

The competition documentation sets a direct line between eligibility and project credibility. Important details to treat as hard constraints:

• No organization previously blocked by outstanding obligations to UK public funding bodies can assume a frictionless pass.
• UKRI, ARIA, and certain government administrations are excluded from applying in this framework.
• A lead knowledge base cannot also be the business partner in ways that violate ownership/conflict expectations.
• Both lead and business must complete a joint effort, and the business name must be consistent with official records (including register details).
• The business must demonstrate ability to sustain financial contribution and future exploitation.

You are expected to submit a complete, complete application where one of the decisive non-negotiables is scope fit. If the proposal is not in scope, it can be withdrawn before scoring.

Funding logic and financial expectations

The official data confirms the competition budget of £10 million for this round and that grant support is a contribution to eligible costs, not a blanket reimbursement at any requested level.

What usually drives contribution percentage

Publicly stated rules indicate grant contribution depends on:

• project duration,
• location and geography of project activity,
• business size/type,
• virtual/physical delivery context,
• and whether additional project costs can be considered eligible under KTP rules.

The same source states that up to 50% can be supported for large organisations, while SMEs can receive up to 67% of eligible project costs.

Why your budget narrative matters as much as technical quality

The application is scored holistically, but all assessed sections still rely on credible arithmetic. The most common reviewer friction points in this style of competition are:

• weak affordability narrative,
• unclear contribution schedule,
• missing evidence for accounts where requested,
• weak links between costs and expected capability outcomes.

Given this, even with a strong technical idea, you should treat the budget as an argument that your project can be delivered and then embedded.

Application process, scoring, and timing

The opportunity is managed through the Innovation Funding Service competition page. The official portal indicates the process is split into three sections:

1. Project details (including scope)
2. Application questions
3. Finances

Applications are scored across four criteria: impact, challenge, innovation, and cohesiveness, with a maximum of 10 each and up to 40 marks, plus portfolio-level funding decisions.

Important practical points from the official guidance

• You need to complete all partner sections in the application.
• You must support the application with a nominated KTP Knowledge Transfer Adviser.
• Applications may be reopened and resubmitted before the final deadline if corrections are needed.
• Missing templates or mandatory fields can lead to withdrawal.
• The close date is fixed and competitive; late support requests are unlikely to change the outcome.

Recommended timeline

Since this competition is technical and process-heavy, many strong applicants fail due to sequencing rather than content quality.

• 8–10 weeks before close: freeze business and knowledge base pairings, and confirm KTP title format and partner details.
• 6 weeks before: complete project narrative draft and confirm all mandatory registrations and company details.
• 4 weeks before: align budget with contribution logic and upload any required non-scored pre-requisites.
• 2 weeks before: run internal review against every eligibility condition and scope statement.
• Final 72 hours: finalize templates, ensure all text fields meet limits, verify no URLs are embedded where prohibited, and test sign-off with all collaborators.

The callout that applications may be rescoped in the portfolio even when technically good means competitive preparation must account for funding scarcity.

What to submit: a practical section-by-section view

Not every official field will be visible without signing into IFS, but the published text gives several actionable requirements.

Section 1: Project details

You should expect to provide:

• project delivery team,
• concise 20-word title format requirements,
• 20-word (or other) constrained fields,
• scope justification tied to business need and knowledge transfer,
• industrial strategy alignment where relevant.

A major practical point: the title format is enforced. Incorrectly formatted titles can be rejected before assessment.

Section 2: Application questions

This section is long and specific, with mandatory responses on:

• permits and licences,
• whether permits are in place by project start,
• market opportunity and route to market,
• use of knowledge and exploitation outcomes,
• partner supervision structure,
• TR&I and export control considerations where relevant,
• and whether the project involves animal use (where applicable).

The platform also asks for partner information with strict formatting expectations and constraints. Some questions are marked “not scored” but are still mandatory, and unresolved compliance issues can negatively affect an otherwise strong technical proposal.

Section 3: Finances

Expect scrutiny on:

• contribution split,
• business funding realism,
• and whether additional investment needed for commercialisation is realistic.

Even where scoring emphasises impact and innovation, unconvincing commercial viability reduces funding confidence quickly.

Documents and preparation strategy that usually prevent avoidable issues

Although this is not a classic “attach a grant budget and go” process, it behaves like a rigorous contract application. A practical preparation strategy:

1. Assign one owner each for scope, finances, and commercial impacts.
2. Verify legal identity details early for both partners (registered names, addresses, registration numbers).
3. Map contributions in two columns: eligible costs vs non-eligible costs.
4. Create a one-page budget rationale before entering IFS forms.
5. Convert all claims into auditable statements with evidence source (accounts, letters, board approvals).
6. Draft exploitation and embedding plan with post-project continuity, not only outputs.
7. Track character limits per field to avoid truncation.
8. Use the required templates for commercial impacts and any additional statements.

This is worth saying plainly: a high-quality idea can still fail if the field limits and proof requirements are not respected.

Common mistakes to avoid

1) Weak business-led problem definition

Reviewers need to see why the business needs this partnership specifically. If the proposal reads like an academic exercise with optional business relevance, it becomes vulnerable.

2) Missing evidence of business commitment

A KTP without matched business contribution risk is often rejected by implementation logic rather than by scientific quality.

3) Fuzzy exclusion assumptions

The portal states exclusions and ineligible scenarios explicitly. If your project can be done by contract services, direct consultancy, or generic service procurement, it may be flagged as weak fit.

4) Incorrectly structured supervision model

The associate pathway requires business and knowledge base supervision structures. The split is not cosmetic; it is central to the grant mechanism.

5) No exploitation pathway

Innovation outcomes must be embedded, not merely delivered. Applications that cannot describe sustained operational use often look unsuited to impact goals.

6) Template drift and deadline pressure

If your final draft misses templates, mandatory partner data fields, or partner T&Cs acceptance, the system can reject it before assessment.

Reviewer expectations and decision reality

The competition is competitive with a fixed portfolio budget. That means two proposals can be technically strong and only one is funded, depending on scoring profile and portfolio fit.

Reviewers and programme staff typically want:

• clear scope fit,
• credible growth potential,
• robust affordability,
• practical project governance,
• strong commercialisation pathway,
• and demonstrable fit with UKRI/Innovate UK expectations around research integrity and compliance.

Another important point: in competitive rounds, this is a portfolio decision model. Even high-scoring submissions can lose if funds are insufficient or strategy priorities shift to other high-quality projects.

FAQ

Is this suitable for new partnerships?

Yes, but partnerships should show joint readiness. The documentation is written to support collaboration through the KTA pathway, and new teams can still be competitive if governance and contribution commitments are clear.

Can businesses apply without a knowledge base partner?

No. The framework requires a knowledge base lead application with a formal UK business partner.

Are subcontractors allowed?

No. The competition states subcontractors are not allowed.

Can two associates be included?

Yes, depending on application structure, but you must select one or two associates in the application form.

Must the business have a minimum size?

Yes, at least two full-time equivalent employees are required.

Does funding guarantee cover all costs?

No. It is a partial contribution. Contribution rates for SME vs large organisations differ and are based on the established cost model.

Where should I start if the timeline feels too tight?

Start with a joint eligibility checklist, then submit a draft in IFS. The platform allows reopening before the deadline; late panic should not be your primary plan.

Official links and support points

Primary official sources used for preparation:

• https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/knowledge-transfer-partnership-ktp-2026-to-2027-round-2/
• https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2398/overview/318a8834-930f-4577-9069-26459a0def93
• KTP programme information: https://www.ktp-uk.org/
• Innovate UK support contact: phone 0300 321 4357 (09:00-12:00, 14:00-17:00 UK time, Mon–Fri)

For most applications, contact support at least 15 working days before the close date for any accommodation or process support, especially if you need accessibility adjustments.

Practical next steps

1. Confirm the lead is an eligible UK knowledge base and that the business partner is UK-registered with matching register details.
2. Ask both institutions to confirm financial capacity and project ownership.
3. Register and invite both parties in IFS under a single, well-structured draft.
4. Build the scope section around measurable business outcomes, not general innovation narratives.
5. Align grant request, project duration, and costs with KTP contribution rules.
6. Include exploitation and post-project sustainability planning in the same document flow as project management.

If you are planning a second submission wave, track the outcome timeline and gather reviewer feedback against assessment criteria rather than just overall score.

For teams with real strategic fit, this competition is not a funding wildcard. It is a structured route to translate academic expertise into business capability with explicit accountability.