Inside the New Innovate UK Format: Breakthrough Next Wave vs. SMART Grants

Innovate UK's decision to pause the open-call SMART grant programme marked a major pivot in how R&D funding is distributed in the UK. In its place, the new sector-specific "Breakthrough" Next Wave competitions represent the future of public funding. While many founders were concerned that this restructure would introduce a completely unrecognisable format, a close analysis of the new assessor guidelines reveals that the core requirements are still there; they are now packaged with a distinctly VC-style twist and some strict word count constraints.

1. The VC-Style Focus on the Team

Under the old SMART template, details about the founders and project delivery were typically lumped together into a single, generic question. In the new format, Innovate UK has elevated "Team and Resources" into its own standalone 10-point scored question (Question 10).

Crucially, applicants must now submit a dedicated 2-page PDF appendix exclusively summarizing the team. This functions exactly like a VC pitch deck's team slide. Assessors are instructed to grade you heavily on who is building the project, checking for clear skills, gaps in expertise, and recruitment plans to ensure the project can realistically be executed.

2. Granular Deconstruction (10 Questions vs. 6)

Instead of 6 broad, sprawling scored questions, the application is now split into 10 distinct, scored sections. The old combined sections have been deconstructed so that assessors can mark them independently:

• Market: Split into "Market Awareness" (drivers, segmentation, and barriers) and "Outcomes & Route to Market" (IP protection, route to market, and business model growth).
• Innovation: Split into "Need or Challenge" (the market opportunity and motivation) and "Approach & Innovation" (technical approach and Freedom to Operate).
• Delivery: Split into "Team and Resources", "Project Management" (work packages and reporting), and "Risks" (technical/commercial risks and mitigations).

3. The Word Limit Paradox: Tighter but Longer

This is the most counter-intuitive change. Every scored question in the new format is strictly capped at 400 words. Under the old SMART call, key sections like Innovation and Impact allowed up to 600 words.

However, because there are now 10 scored questions instead of 6, the total scored narrative length has actually ballooned. Under SMART, you wrote 2,800 words of scored content. Under the new layout, you must write 4,000 words, which is a 43% increase in total written content.

This means you have 1,200 more words to write overall, but you have less room in each individual question to explain complex technical ideas. It forces extremely dense, concise writing.

4. Work Package and Subcontractor Scrutiny

Project Management (Q14) and Risks (Q15) now have their own dedicated 10-point sections and individual 2-page appendices (Gantt chart and Risk Register). Assessors will be scrutinising these tables closely. In Q14, you are now required to explicitly state the total cost of each work package inside the text, and provide heavy, clear justification for any subcontractors, proving why the work cannot be handled by the core partners.

SMART vs. Next Wave Mapping

Assessor Red Flags to Avoid

• Generic Team Roles: Avoid writing "John Doe will manage the project." Instead, outline specific qualifications and past delivery experience in the text, and use the Q10 appendix to back up your claims with short, dense bios.
• Unquantified Market Sizing: Assessors will penalise statements like "The market is huge." You must provide specific customer segmentation and references in Q11, backed by data.
• Mismatched Financial Figures: Ensure the numbers mentioned in Q14 (work package costs) and Q17 (taxpayer value) perfectly align with the numbers submitted in the finance section. Any discrepancy will lead to immediate markdown.