By Joe Spencer
The buzz around quantum computing is undeniable. And published reports regularly highlight surges in confidence and investment, with global quantum budgets projected to increase by nearly 20% in 2025.
A recent survey suggests that over 65% of organizations feel prepared to adopt quantum technology within the next 2-3 years. This paints a picture of an industry on the cusp of widespread adoption. But is this optimism truly reflective of the current situation, or are we getting ahead of ourselves?
A recent survey is based on a survey of 770 quantum experts, researchers, and decision-makers, provides valuable insights into the industry. And other surveys conducted throughout 2024 (Results Released from the 2024 Unitary Fund’s Quantum Open Source Survey – Quantum Computing Report) have a similar demographic of participants. The survey reveals a strong belief in the potential of quantum computing across government, academia, and private sectors Neutral atoms and superconducting qubits are emerging as the most promising modalities for scalable applications. The United States is perceived as the global leader in quantum adoption, driven by significant investment and innovation, which through our own work at GQI using our PESTEL Framework, we would agree with.
However, a closer look at survey data reveals a more complex picture. While the headline figure of 65% preparedness is eye-catching, it’s crucial to consider the survey’s demographics. The largest group of respondents were academics, followed by quantum computing vendors (a total of 65% together), whereas users represented 12% of the survey. And this ‘user’ term is vague. This raises an important question: are the opinions of academics and vendors truly representative of the broader business community that would ultimately adopt quantum solutions? It’s likely that those deeply involved in the technology would have a greater perception, and perhaps skewed view of readiness than true end-users who might be less familiar with the specific technical requirements and challenges. In fact, we often hear how end-users are not quantum literate yet.
Further analysis supports this view. Academic users anticipate a higher increase in both budget (21%) and usage (21.4%) compared to end-users (13.7% budget increase and 12.6% usage increase). This suggests that much of the current momentum is driven by research and development rather than immediate, practical applications. This distinction is critical as it highlights a potential disconnect between the enthusiasm of the research community and the actual preparedness of end-users to adopt quantum computing into their business processes.
Additionally, the survey highlights several significant barriers to adoption. These include the high cost of implementation, a lack of a skilled workforce, and unclear business value. Our own data at GQI analysing 177 use-cases show only 6 use-cases for quantum currently in deployment.
These challenges cannot be ignored. These persistent barriers suggest that while organizations may express optimism about being prepared, their actual ability to adopt quantum computing may be limited.
At GQI, we feel surveys are valuable, but when the respondent pool is:
- Too small, limited to 100s of individuals
- Skewed toward those deeply involved in the technology, rather than the solution agnostic end-users
- Bias towards either academics with academic interests, or enthusiasts
With these in mind, and coupled with the non-specific questions or general questions, the bold conclusions can be propagated and misinterpreted by the very market we are seeking to generate interest within.
We’d like to thank all organisations for taking the effort for compiling and publishing these reports and their continued work supporting and growing a healthy quantum ecosystem.
January 27, 2025
