Quantum has a messaging problem

The industry’s next breakthrough must be in explaining why it matters

When Google unveiled Sycamore, its quantum processor, in 2019, it thought it had produced a moment for the history books. The machine had completed in 200 seconds a calculation that, Google reckoned, would occupy the world’s fastest classical supercomputer for 10,000 years. The firm declared “quantum supremacy”.

Then IBM objected. Its rival disputed the calculation and questioned whether the experiment justified the claim. What should have been a victory lap for quantum computing became a seminar-room quarrel about terminology and methodology. The science was remarkable. The story was a muddle.

This little episode illustrates a problem that still troubles the quantum industry. Its practitioners tend to communicate from the inside out. They begin with the ingenuity of the science, the intricacies of the hardware or the significance of a technical milestone. The people they hope to win over tend to begin elsewhere. They want to know what problem the technology solves, when it will work and whether it will be worth the money.

That disconnect was the subject of a dinner hosted by Memetic during Cambridge Tech Week to mark the launch of our new Communicating Quantum report. Scientists, investors, business leaders and communicators gathered to consider how the industry should explain its next phase. We are grateful to Meredith Bell of Phasecraft, Gemma Chapman of NPL, Stuart Nicol of Quantum Exponential, Sara Duodu of techUK, Joe Spencer of IoniQ Consulting and Roger McKinlay of UKQuantum for contributing to a lively discussion. 

A dominant conclusion was that quantum companies should spend less time focusing on sharing scientific breakthroughs and more time learning about their customers. A logistics company may care about optimisation; a security chief about exposure and migration; a defence customer about operational advantage. None needs a lecture on superposition before the conversation can begin.

Nor is quantum a single proposition. Computing commands most of the attention, but sensing, communications and timing are arguably more commercially mature, and answer different needs. Treating them as one market may be convenient for conference organisers. It is less useful to buyers. Each technology needs a story rooted in the priorities, vocabulary and evidence of the industry it hopes to serve.

That requires communication to move away from being treated as the final stage of innovation: first build the technology, then find a way to describe it. In fact, conversations with prospective customers should help shape product strategy as well as publicity. This is especially important because quantum expertise inside large companies is often concentrated among a handful of enthusiasts. They must persuade their own boards, procurement teams and operational colleagues, all of whom have other technologies competing for their attention and budgets. If the internal case is weak, adoption will stall long before the science is tested.

The other task is to balance excitement with evidence. Quantum needs ambitious stories to attract capital, customers and talent. But an endless succession of breakthroughs, elastic measures of progress and receding promises can exhaust even the most patient audience. A sector seeking trust should not require a leap of faith from its audiences.

But responsible communication need not be dull. Companies can distinguish between what is available, what has been demonstrated and what remains experimental without emptying the field of excitement. Clear milestones, independent verification, peer review and common terminology give ambitious claims more weight. Candour about the journey makes the destination more believable.

This will become more important as quantum companies cease to be judged merely as clever research ventures. Customers and investors will also look for commercial leadership, delivery capability, partnerships and a plausible route to scale. The winners will be those that can present impressive science as part of a serious business.

In this environment, the best measure of progress will not be a public able to explain entanglement. It will be a customer who arrives with a problem and believes quantum might help solve it. When conversations routinely begin there, rather than with a remedial physics lesson, the industry may finally have achieved a form of quantum advantage that everyone can understand.

Our new report, Communicating Quantum, sets out a five-point plan for getting there. Read the report and assess your own quantum communications.