Bearings BetaFunding & opportunities · North West UKGet email alerts

Guides › People and relationships

The team: what funders and investors look for, and why naming your gaps wins

What every assessor, reviewer and investor tests in a team, quoted from their own scoring bands, and a team answer to copy. Naming your gaps scores higher than hiding them.

FoundersSMEsResearchers14 min readChecked 18 October 2026
On this page
  1. Name your gaps: the rule most applicants get backwards
  2. The reality: how heavily the team is weighed
  3. The six tests every decider runs
  4. How each funder phrases it
    1. Innovate UK: "Team and resources"
    2. KTP: cohesiveness is a quarter of the marks
    3. EIC Accelerator: skills, gaps, gender balance and incentives
    4. UKRI research grants: one narrative CV for the whole team
    5. Arts Council England and the trusts: management is a gate
    6. Investors: the team is the first question and the last
  5. Write the team answer
    1. Step 1: the team table
    2. Step 2: the gaps table
    3. Step 3: one sentence per partner
    4. Step 4: governance, and every partner throughout
    5. For researchers: the R4RI by module
    6. For investors: the team slide
  6. Weak and strong, side by side
  7. Real examples, and what they show
  8. Diversity is scored, not decorative
  9. Solo founders and two-person teams
  10. Academic spin-outs: who will be CEO?
  11. Pitfalls
  12. Checklist
  13. Questions
    1. Should I admit gaps in my team on a grant application?
    2. What is an R4RI and how many does a team submit?
    3. Do investors fund solo founders?
    4. What do VCs look for in a founding team?
    5. What does Innovate UK mean by "passengers" in a consortium?
  14. Sources

Every funder and investor asks whether these people can deliver. This guide quotes what each scores and gives you a team answer to copy. Naming what your team lacks scores higher than pretending it is complete.

  • Innovate UK's Smart guidance scored a team whose gaps were "evident but are not identified or mitigated" at 4–5 out of 10. The top band needs gaps "identified" with recruitment plans in place.
  • Six tests recur everywhere: evidenced track record, named gaps with a plan, project and risk management, commitment including money, partners who each matter, and governance.
  • UKRI teams submit one narrative CV (the R4RI). Modules are never scored separately, and skills put in "Additional information" are ignored.
  • 95% of venture capitalists rate the founding team important and 47% rate it most important.
  • Write evidence, not CVs: "X delivered Y, which shows we can do Z", with % time and the work package each person leads.

Name your gaps: the rule most applicants get backwards

Innovate UK's Smart assessors scored "Who is in the project team, why do you have the right skills and experience to succeed, and how will you successfully deliver your project?" against five bands1. Smart has been paused since January 202541, but current competitions use the same wording family on a 9–10 to 1–2 scale2. Read the gaps line in each band, weakest first1.

Smart "Delivering your project" bands, September 2023 guidance (quoted)
  1. 58–10"relevant skills, expertise and experience, and give confidence that they will successfully deliver"; "A comprehensive risk register… including mitigation plans"; "evidence of true collaboration"; "Post-project plans for commercialisation are fully resourced"; "Any gaps in knowledge and expertise are identified, and appropriate recruitment plans are in place"
  2. 46–7The right skills, "but some areas are weaker than others"; gaps identified but not necessarily planned for
  3. 34–5Gaps "evident but are not identified or mitigated"; post-project route unclear; partner roles not defined
  4. 22–3The team "does not have the skills… with significant gaps"; no post-project planning
  5. 11Delivery unclear; no credible plan or risk register

Two applications with the same hole can land four points apart. Name the hole, the hire and the month and you can reach the top band; stay silent and you sit at 4 or 5, because the assessor sees the hole anyway (an EIC evaluator's guidance tells evaluators to read the CVs for missing competencies7). Innovate UK's current 3–4 band is "significant gaps in the project team, with little or no information about how these will be filled"2.

In the deciders' words

"Be upfront about the gaps and explain your plan to fill them." KTN (now Innovate UK Business Connect), Good Application Guide, 20203. The EIC checks whether gaps, "including adequate gender balance", are identified "with a credible plan to fill the gaps" (November 2025)6. Business Connect: "Don't downplay risk, since this can harm your application"5.

A gap named without a plan is the middle band. "We will recruit as needed" is barely better. Month, cost and route move the score.

The reality: how heavily the team is weighed

  • 4–5 out of 10 for unidentified gaps (Smart guidance, September 2023)1
  • 95% of VCs rate the founding team important; 47% rank it first (almost 900 VCs, 2019 summary)20
  • 1 R4RI per team at UKRI; modules never scored separately (April 2026)9
  • 84% of founder shareholdings vest in SeedLegals rounds (March 2025)23
  • 67% of new spin-out founding teams were all male in 2021 (spin-out review, 2023)31

At Innovate UK the team recurs in project management, risks and value for money12; at UKRI it is one of five criteria10. For investors it is the first filter: the average VC firm screens about 200 companies a year and backs about four20. At Arts Council England it is a gate15.

Change Since What it means for your team answer
Smart grants paused; last round closed 22 January 202541 January 2025 Use the specific competition's assessor guidance; band wording varies2
One R4RI per team; no journal metrics or h-indices912 Guidance updated April and July 2026 Show collective capability, not publication lists
Future Leaders Fellowships (FLF): Co-Leads no longer permitted; Visiting Researchers and Specialists "by exception only"11 Changes since Round 10 (reviewers' guidance, July 2026) The fellow's own capability carries the application
EIC one-hour technology-expert interview: at most three company people, "no consultants allowed"6 Work Programme 2026 The team must defend every claim itself

The six tests every decider runs

Test Who asks it, in their words What counts as evidence
1. Relevant, evidenced skills and track record Innovate UK: "relevant skills, expertise and experience"1. UKRI: "Why are you the right individual or team to successfully deliver the proposed work?"10. Esmée Fairbairn: "we look at successes, but also what was learned when things don't go to plan"18 A past delivery with a date, a number and an outcome, matched to a work package
2. Gaps, and the plan to fill them Smart top band: gaps "identified" with "recruitment plans" in place1. EIC: "a credible plan to fill the gaps"6 Gap, route, month and cost, with the cost in the budget
3. Project and risk management Smart: "A comprehensive risk register… including mitigation plans"1. FLF: does the approach identify risks "and how they will be managed"11 Work-package table with lead and cost, Gantt chart, risk register with owners
4. Commitment, including money Smart: partners "fully committed"1. EIC: is the team "sufficiently incentivised"6. UKBAA: "how much you stand to lose if the business fails"21 Match funding source, founders' % time, vesting, post-project resourcing
5. Partners who each matter KTN: partners "not mentioned throughout the bulk of the proposal"3. Arts Council England: "Are there appropriate partnerships"16 One essential role per partner, in the work packages and the budget
6. Governance EIC: governance6. Esmée: at least three trustees or directors, mostly non-executive18. KTP: a Local Management Committee14 Who decides, how often you meet, how disputes and IP are handled

How each funder phrases it

Innovate UK: "Team and resources"

The question asks for roles, skills, facilities, vital external parties and roles still to recruit; bios go in an optional appendix of at most two A4 pages2. Assessors do not click links3 and "are not necessarily experts in your specific sector"4. Subcontractors must be essential, bring expertise the team lacks and be named with their location39: that is your gaps plan, in the budget.

KTP: cohesiveness is a quarter of the marks

A Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) is submitted by the university or college with one business. Impact, challenge, innovation and cohesiveness are each scored "out of 10 marks, for a maximum total of 40"14. Draft with the Knowledge Transfer Adviser so business need, academic expertise and work plan tell one story. See KTP and the EIC Accelerator.

Start with a university, not Innovate UK44. Manchester Metropolitan calls itself "among the top ten UK universities for knowledge transfer partnerships"43.

EIC Accelerator: skills, gaps, gender balance and incentives

The short proposal checks skills and gaps "including adequate gender balance"6. The full proposal asks how the team is governed and whether it is "sufficiently incentivised"; a jury of up to six then questions up to three of you for 35 minutes after a 10-minute pitch6. In June 2026, 38 of 87 interviewed companies were selected, five of them from the UK, and 21% were women-led8. At interview the team is tested in person.

EIC Accelerator, January to March 2026 cut-off (announced June 2026)
87Interviewed by the jury
38Selected44% of those interviewed
5UK companies selectedall grant only

UKRI research grants: one narrative CV for the whole team

The Résumé for Research and Innovation (R4RI) has four modules: ideas and knowledge; developing others; the wider research community; users and society9. Three rules catch people out:

What the UKRI reviewer is told

Future Leaders Fellowship reviewers judge "the individual or team as a whole", value "skills and outputs of all types, not just academic outputs", check for the "right balance of skills", and may not weight modules or consult metrics sites (July 2026)11. On staffing: "is the amount of work achievable within the timescale for someone with that level of expertise?"11

See Winning research grants.

Arts Council England and the trusts: management is a gate

For Project Grants of £30,000 and under, Arts Council England rates planning and budget before the decision meeting: "We will not fund your project if we consider any aspects of your project's management or finances to be major risk"15. Above £30,000 panels may contact partners to check16. Success averaged 30% in 2025/2617. Trusts read track record as the team question; Garfield Weston's 2019 fund rewarded "clear leadership"19. See Arts, heritage and community funders.

Investors: the team is the first question and the last

In a survey of almost 900 mostly US venture capitalists (summarised August 2019), 95% rated the founding team important and 47% most important, ahead of business model (83%), product (74%) and market (68%)20.

Share of VCs rating each factor important (almost 900 VCs, 2019 summary)
Founding team95%
Business model83%
Product74%
Market68%

UK funds agree: Haatch wants "Founders with Grit"25; Playfair, "hustle, heart and humility"26.

Probe What they are checking What answers it
Founder-market fit Seedcamp's "why they are the right person to solve it"24 Years inside the problem, customers you already know
Cofounder dynamics UKBAA: "the 3 P's: The People, their Passion and their Perseverance"21 How you split the work and decide, and what each of you has put in
Commitment on paper Founder shares vest in 84% of SeedLegals rounds, most often over three years; where there is a cliff it is usually 12 months (March 2025)23 Vesting terms on the slide, not negotiated later
Self-knowledge UKBAA flags founders who "cannot identify the weaknesses and threats in your business plan"21 The gaps paragraph, in investor form
Paperwork Employment contracts, IP assignments, board minutes; delays look "disorganised or ill-prepared"22 A data room before the first meeting

PXN Ventures' PraeSeed (£150k–£200k into up to eight start-ups a year; next applications early 2027) wants "Strong management" and founders "willing to go the distance"27. NorthInvest's free pitch coaching for Northern tech founders raising £50k to £2m says angels want "a team that can deliver"28. Northern Gritstone lists "visionary teams"29. See Investors.

Write the team answer

Five moves, in this order; the templates follow.

Writing the team answer
  1. Team tablerole, % time, one dated proof, work package led
  2. Gaps tablewho fills each gap, when, and the budget line
  3. Partner sentencesone essential role, work package and cost each
  4. Governance linewho chairs, how often, disputes and IP
  5. Search the draftevery partner named in every section

Step 1: the team table

Replace prose CVs with a table: person, role, share of time, one dated, numbered achievement that proves they can do the job, and the work package (WP) they lead.

Name | Role on this project | % time | The achievement that proves it | Leads
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Name], [job title] | Project lead | 50% | Delivered [project] to [stage] in [year], on time, within [budget] | WP1, WP5
[Name] | Technical lead | 80% | Built [system] now used by [n] customers / cited in [standard] | WP2, WP3
[Name], [partner org] | Validation lead | 30% | Ran [n]-site trial for [client] in [year]; results published [where] | WP4
[Name] | Commercial lead | 40% | Closed [n] contracts worth £[x] in [sector] (2023–25) | WP5

Step 2: the gaps table

For each gap: who fills it, when, and the cost, which must also appear in the budget.

Gap we do not cover in-house | Who fills it | When | Cost and budget line
Regulatory (medical device QMS) | [Named consultancy], Daresbury | Months 3–9, 20 days | £14,000, subcontract
Data engineering at scale | Permanent hire, advert live [date]; interim via [partner] | Hire by month 4 | £38,000 pro rata, labour
Clinical validation | [Named NHS trust] as project partner | WP4, months 10–18 | In partner's costs
Commercial (first sales hire) | Post-project; in the exploitation plan | Month 19 | £55,000, own funds

Step 3: one sentence per partner

Each partner needs an essential role, a work package, a cost line and a benefit of its own.

[Partner] is essential because it brings [capability / facility / data / customers] that no other partner has.
It leads WP[n] ([what]) and contributes [x] days to WP[m]. It benefits by [new product line / licence / first-mover access].
Its costs are £[x] ([y]% of the total); its contribution is financed from [source].

Step 4: governance, and every partner throughout

Say who chairs, how often partners meet, how disputes are resolved, and that IP terms sit in a collaboration agreement (signed within 30 days of an offer, so agree heads of terms first)40. Then search the draft for each partner's name: it should appear in the approach, work packages, risk register, budget and exploitation plan.

For researchers: the R4RI by module

Hypothetical team R4RI, one line per module

Ideas and knowledge: "Our 2022 open-source toolkit for [method], used by 14 groups, underpins WP2."

Developing others: "The co-investigator coordinated a 12-partner consortium (2021–24) that met every milestone, and will manage WP1 to WP3."

Wider community: "Chair of the UK network for [field] since 2023; organised the 2025 workshop for 90 participants."

Users and society: "Co-designed a 6-week oral-history programme with 3 Liverpool community groups (2024), reaching 410 people."

Check that every discipline is covered ("expertise missing in one area" is a typical ERC failure)13, that each person's time matches the work11, and that nothing you want assessed sits in "Additional information"9.

For investors: the team slide

Five things: each founder's role and one proof; founder-market fit in a sentence; full-time status and money in; equity split and vesting; the next two hires. An adviser counts only with named time on named tasks. See The maths investors do.

Weak and strong, side by side

Both pairs are invented.

Weak (invented)

"Our highly experienced team has over 50 years of combined experience and a proven track record of delivering innovative projects. We have all the skills needed."

Strong (invented)

"The project lead (50%) ran our 2024 feasibility study to technology readiness level (TRL) 5 on time and within budget (£148k). The technical lead (80%) built the scheduler 23 Merseyside venues have used since May 2026. We have no in-house regulatory experience: [named consultancy], Daresbury, covers the quality system in months 3 to 9 (20 days, £14,000)."

Weak (invented)

"We are a passionate team of two founders with complementary skills and a shared vision for transforming the industry."

Strong (invented)

"I spent nine years buying freight for two Manchester manufacturers; my cofounder wrote the routing engine at [company]. Both full-time since January 2026, £40,000 in between us, shares vesting over three years with a 12-month cliff. Our gap is sales: the first hire, budgeted from this round, starts in month two."

Real examples, and what they show

Innovate UK publishes what it funds, not the answers, so no scored team answer is public42.

Versarien, a University of Liverpool process, 2015 case study

Founded in 2010 on a University of Liverpool metallic-foam process, Versarien grew after an early Innovate UK grant (details not stated) "from 2 people working out of a garage to a £5m business working on 4 sites". Its chief executive: the grant "took the risk out for our shareholders and created a huge amount of validation"37. The source does not say how the team was judged; it shows a two-person team can win.

What the Smart evaluation found, July 2026

Ipsos's evaluation for Innovate UK says a Smart award "provides a quality signal that demonstrates the credibility of the innovation and team to external parties". 35% of projects were collaborations, most often to obtain capabilities the lead lacked36.

Diversity is scored, not decorative

The EIC checks gaps "including adequate gender balance"6; Innovate UK's wider impacts question lists diversity among social impacts2; Arts Council England asks whether the team "reflect the people and communities" served15. Write it as actions: who is on the team, how you recruit, who you consulted.

NorthInvest points women founders to Fund Her North28. Innovate UK's ICURe programme lists a Women's ICURe Explore cohort for January 202734.

Solo founders and two-person teams

Solo applicants are not barred: Innovate UK accepts sole traders who can show trading activity38, and the Royal Academy of Engineering's Enterprise Fellowship (up to £75,000; "Around 20% of applicants are accepted") requires the researcher to be the spin-out's CEO33. Y Combinator accepts solo founders but warns "one-person startups are tough"35.

Test How a solo founder answers it
Track record Your own, with numbers, plus named subcontractors who have already worked for you
Gaps The big one (often commercial for a technical founder) and a dated route: cofounder search, budgeted first hire or named partner
Commitment Full-time or not, money in, a named deputy in the risk register for "founder unavailable"
Governance An adviser who chairs a monthly review; "I will consult experts as needed" is not governance

If you need a cofounder, say when you will have one and what you will do if you do not. A dated plan B scores.

Academic spin-outs: who will be CEO?

The Independent Review of University Spin-out Companies (November 2023) says some founders "may feel more suited to act as Chief Technical/Scientific Officer and the spin-out may also seek a more commercially experienced individual for CEO"31. Answer it before an investor asks:

See From research to company.

Pitfalls

See also Why applications fail.

Checklist

Questions

Should I admit gaps in my team on a grant application?

Yes. Smart guidance scored gaps "evident but are not identified or mitigated" at 4–5 out of 10, and kept the top band for gaps "identified" with recruitment plans1. Name the gap, who fills it, when, and the cost.

What is an R4RI and how many does a team submit?

UKRI's narrative CV, with four modules. A team submits one for the whole team. Modules are not scored separately, and skills placed in "Additional information" are not assessed9.

Do investors fund solo founders?

Some do. Y Combinator regularly accepts them but says "you're more likely to succeed with a co-founder"35. Give a dated plan for the gap and show commitment.

What do VCs look for in a founding team?

In a survey of almost 900 VCs, 95% rated the team important and 47% most important20. Show founder-market fit, commitment and self-knowledge.

What does Innovate UK mean by "passengers" in a consortium?

Partners "included in the consortium but not mentioned throughout the bulk of the proposal"3. Give each an essential role, a work package and a cost line.

Sources

  1. Innovate UK, Smart Assessor Scoring Guidance, September 2023 (question 6, "Delivering your project", and question 8, "Value for money"). https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/IUK-290923-SmartAssessorScoringGuidanceSeptember2023.pdf ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  2. Innovate UK, Growth Catalyst Investor Partnerships Round 2 assessor guidance (Innovation Funding Service): "Team and resources", "Project management", "Wider impacts" and appendix rules. https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2360/download/26392 ↩↩↩↩↩↩

  3. KTN (now Innovate UK Business Connect), Good Application Guide, 2020. https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/KTN-Good-Application-Guide.pdf ↩↩↩↩↩

  4. Innovate UK Business Connect, Good Application Guide 2024. https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Business-Connect-Good-Application-Guide_2024.pdf ↩

  5. Innovate UK Business Connect, "Write a winning grant application". https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/how-we-help/innovation-funding-and-support/write-a-winning-grant-application ↩

  6. European Innovation Council, EIC Accelerator Guide for Applicants v6.0, 19 November 2025 (Work Programme 2026). https://eic.ec.europa.eu/document/download/9d96fbf3-4d85-4ad0-9483-c77ce348111d_en?filename=EIC+Accelerator+guide+for+applicants_WP26.pdf ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  7. Rebeka Kovačič Lukman, "The Evaluator's Perspective: Full proposal", EIC Accelerator evaluator deck for the Slovenian Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Innovation, about 2023. https://gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MVZI/Znanost/EIC/Rebeka-Kovacic-Lukman-The-Evaluators-Perspective-Full-proposal.pdf ↩

  8. ERA Portal Austria, "EIC selects 38 start-ups and SMEs for funding under latest round of EIC Accelerator", 16 June 2026, citing EIC News of 15 June 2026. https://era.gv.at/news-items/eic-selects-38-start-ups-and-smes-for-funding-under-latest-round-of-eic-accelerator/ ↩

  9. UKRI, Résumé for Research and Innovation (R4RI) guidance, updated 30 April 2026. https://www.ukri.org/apply-for-funding/how-to-apply/resume-for-research-and-innovation-r4ri-guidance ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  10. UKRI, EPSRC standard research grant, November 2023: responsive mode (section limits and assessment criteria). https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/epsrc-standard-research-grant-nov-2023-responsive-mode/ ↩↩↩

  11. UKRI, Future Leaders Fellowships Reviewers' Guidance v14, July 2026. https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/UKRI-100726-FLF-Reviewers-Guidance-V14-July-2026.pdf ↩↩↩↩↩

  12. UKRI, "How reviewers use the UKRI Funding Service", updated 7 July 2026. https://www.ukri.org/apply-for-funding/how-to-apply/how-reviewers-use-the-ukri-funding-service ↩

  13. Evi Lianidou, "Practical hints and tips for a successful ERC application", ERC, October 2025. https://erc.europa.eu/system/files/2025-10/Presentation-Practical-hints-and-tips-for-a%20successful-ERC-application-Lianidou.pdf ↩

  14. Innovate UK, Knowledge Transfer Partnerships 2026 to 2027 Round 2 competition page (closed 24 June 2026). https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2398/overview/318a8834-930f-4577-9069-26459a0def93 ↩↩

  15. Arts Council England, National Lottery Project Grants: guidance for applicants, £30,000 and under, updated September 2026. https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/2026-09/Under%20%C2%A330k%20HTML%20ready%20Sep%2026.docx ↩↩↩

  16. Arts Council England, National Lottery Project Grants: guidance for applicants, £30,001 to £100,000, March 2026. https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/2026-03/National%20Lottery%20Project%20Grants%20-%20Guidance%20for%20applicants%20-%20%C2%A330%2C001%20to%20%C2%A3100%2C000%20%28March%202026%29%20%281%29%20%281%29.pdf ↩↩

  17. Arts Council England, Delivery Plan 2024–27: update for 2026/27. https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/our-strategy/delivery-plan-update-202627 ↩

  18. Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, Pre-application Q&A, April 2024. https://esmeefairbairn.org.uk/documents/192/Pre-application_QA-April2024.pdf ↩↩

  19. Fundraising UK, "Garfield Weston Foundation report shares learnings on funding application process", 27 June 2019. https://fundraising.co.uk/2019/06/27/garfield-weston-foundation-report-shares-learnings-on-funding-application-process/ ↩

  20. Paul Gompers, Will Gornall, Steven Kaplan and Ilya Strebulaev, "How do venture capitalists make decisions?", summarised on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, 20 August 2019. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2019/08/20/how-do-venture-capitalists-make-decisions/ ↩↩↩↩

  21. UK Business Angels Association, "The due diligence process" (PDF, 2020). https://ukbaa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/The-due-diligence-process.pdf ↩↩↩

  22. UK Business Angels Association, "The main legal documents" (PDF, 2020). https://ukbaa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/The-main-legal-documents.pdf ↩↩

  23. SeedLegals, "UK founder salaries and share vesting", updated 10 March 2025. https://seedlegals.com/resources/uk-founder-salaries-and-share-vesting/ ↩↩

  24. Seedcamp, FAQs. https://seedcamp.com/faqs/ ↩

  25. Haatch, "Founders". https://haatch.com/founders ↩

  26. Playfair Capital. https://playfair.vc/ ↩

  27. PXN Ventures, PraeSeed. https://www.pxnventures.co.uk/praeseed/ ↩

  28. NorthInvest, "Raise". https://northinvest.co.uk/raise/ ↩↩

  29. Northern Gritstone. https://www.northern-gritstone.com/ ↩

  30. Northern Gritstone, Annual Report 2026 (PDF, 11 June 2026). https://www.northern-gritstone.com/s/NG-AnnualReport-26-SCREEN.pdf ↩

  31. Irene Tracey and Andrew Williamson, Independent Review of University Spin-out Companies, November 2023 (pages 11, 13, 25 and 33, and Recommendation 1). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6549fcb23ff5770013a88131/independent_review_of_university_spin-out_companies.pdf ↩↩↩↩

  32. Royal Academy of Engineering, "Spotlight on Spinouts 2026", 3 June 2026. https://raeng.org.uk/news/spotlight-on-spinouts-2026/ ↩

  33. Royal Academy of Engineering, Enterprise Fellowships (programme page and eligibility). https://raeng.org.uk/programmes/enterprise-fellowships/ ↩

  34. Innovate UK Business Connect, ICURe Explore (funding and cohorts) and ICURe Investor Engagement Guide (PDF, October 2025). https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/opportunities/icure-explore/ and https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Innovate-UK-ICURe-Investor-Engagement-Guide.pdf ↩

  35. Y Combinator, FAQ, "Can a single person apply for funding?". https://www.ycombinator.com/faq ↩↩

  36. Ipsos for Innovate UK, Smart Grant Impact Evaluation Report, July 2026. https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/IUK-140726-SmartGrantImpactEvaluationReport.pdf ↩

  37. GOV.UK case study, "Versarien: pre-revenue to £5 million in 3 years", published 17 June 2015, updated 30 November 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/case-studies/versarien-pre-revenue-to-5-million-in-3-years ↩

  38. UKRI, Innovate UK funding rules, updated 12 May 2026. https://www.ukri.org/councils/innovate-uk/guidance-for-applicants/general-guidance/funding-rules/ ↩

  39. UKRI, Innovate UK costs guidance for non-academic organisations, updated 28 August 2026. https://www.ukri.org/councils/innovate-uk/guidance-for-applicants/costs-we-fund/costs-guidance-for-non-academic-organisations/ ↩↩

  40. UKRI, "What happens if you receive a funding offer" (Innovate UK). https://www.ukri.org/councils/innovate-uk/guidance-for-applicants/general-guidance/what-happens-if-you-receive-a-funding-offer/ ↩↩

  41. Myriad Associates, "UK's SME grant scheme paused for evaluation", 30 January 2025. https://www.myriadassociates.com/resources/news/2025/uk-s-sme-grant-scheme-paused-for-evaluation/ ↩↩

  42. UKRI, "Innovate UK funded projects since 2004", dataset last updated 12 October 2026. https://www.ukri.org/publications/innovate-uk-funded-projects-since-2004/ ↩

  43. Manchester Metropolitan University, Research. https://www.mmu.ac.uk/research ↩

  44. Innovate UK KTP, first steps for businesses (contact a knowledge base). https://iuk-ktp.org.uk/start-your-journey/ ↩

Written for businesses, founders and researchers in the North West of England and checked against the sources listed above on 18 October 2026. Funders change their rules, so always read the current call before you apply. Spotted something out of date? Tell us.

Start hereHow funding really works: the honest guide to your odds, your options and where to startWhat each kind of money wants back, the real success rates with dates, the five things that move them, and three first steps for founders, SMEs, researchers, charities and public-sector suppliers.26 min readGrantsWinning Innovate UK grants: how applications are scored, question by questionHow Innovate UK scores the ten questions, the 2026 routes now Smart is closed, the odds printed on each competition, and North West winners.26 min readResearch fundingWinning research grants: UKRI, Future Leaders, Horizon Europe, ERC and NIHRUKRI's real odds by council, the 1 to 6 scale reviewers use, word limits, Horizon Europe and ERC thresholds, and the five failures that lose marks everywhere.25 min readInvestmentInvestors: who they are, what each one needs, and how to find the right oneAngels, crowdfunding, VCs, spin-out funds, NPIF II, loans and grants: what each needs from you, UK benchmarks, and the North West routes as of October 2026.21 min read

Put it to work

Find live opportunities → Get email alerts All guides