A quantum strategy on one page: watch, learn, partner or invest
A one-page way to decide what to do about quantum computing, per use case: watch, learn, partner or invest, with post-quantum migration kept separate.
What you’ll learn
- Explain watch, learn, partner and invest as options to choose between, not stages.
- Explain why post-quantum migration isn't one of the options.
- Record the evidence behind a choice and what would trigger a rethink.
Recommended background: Evaluating a quantum pilot, Two quantum programmes
On this page
Sooner or later a steering committee is asked what the bank's quantum computing strategy is. For most banks the honest answer isn't "go big" or "do nothing", but a deliberate choice between four options: watch, learn, partner or invest. This piece explains each option, the conditions that justify it, what it costs in people and governance, and when to revisit it. It ends with a one-page framework a committee can use as it stands.
First, take post-quantum migration off the table
The four options are about exploring quantum computing as a possible business tool. They are not about defending the bank against quantum attacks. Moving to post-quantum cryptography is risk work the bank has to do whatever it decides about exploration, with its own accountable lead, identifiable funding and milestones. The two can share a sponsor or an investment portfolio, as long as each can be traced. Two quantum programmes, not one explains why the two need to stay separate. A bank can reasonably choose "watch" for quantum computing while running a full-scale migration programme; the two decisions don't depend on each other.
Four options, not a ladder
It's tempting to read the options as a maturity ladder that every bank should climb. They aren't. A bank with no quantum team can sensibly partner with a university on one well-defined question, and a bank that has invested can step back to watching if the evidence stalls. Different use cases can sit under different options at the same time: a bank might watch developments in fraud models while partnering on one payment-liquidity study.
The four options
Watch
Someone is named as accountable for tracking quantum computing developments and briefing the committee on a set cycle. There is no hands-on work. Watch fits when the bank has no specific business problem that published evidence suggests quantum computing could help with, which is the position of most banks for most use cases today, as Quantum use cases in banking shows. Watching is a decision, not neglect: it should come with written criteria for what would change it.
Learn
The bank builds a small amount of internal understanding: training for a few people in technology, risk and the business, and small, contained experiments on simulators or cloud-accessed hardware using synthetic or public data. Learn fits when the bank expects to need informed judgement later, for example to assess vendor proposals or to brief the board, but has no near-term use case. Its success is measured in capability and better questions, not business results.
Partner
The bank works on one defined question with an outside party: a university, a research consortium, a hardware or software vendor. Partner fits when there is a specific business problem, a credible reason to test it, and a need for expertise or hardware the bank doesn't have. It brings supplier, data, intellectual property and publicity questions, which How to evaluate a quantum computing pilot covers in detail. A partnership can be valuable even when the answer is "not yet", if the result is recorded honestly.
Invest
The bank commits a dedicated team and multi-year funding to building its own capability, usually alongside partners. Invest fits when quantum computing is judged strategically important to the bank's business, for reasons it can state: talent, research positioning, intellectual property, or a use case where the evidence is moving. On the evidence published so far, no use case banks are commonly pitched has shown a production advantage, so an investment case rests on those strategic reasons and on staged commitments, not on near-term financial returns. Each stage should have its own decision point.
The one-page framework
The framework covers quantum computing exploration only. It isn't a measure of the bank's overall maturity, and it says nothing about cybersecurity or regulatory compliance, including post-quantum readiness.
| Watch | Learn | Partner | Invest | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fits when | No specific business problem with evidence behind it | Judgement will be needed later, but no near-term use case | A defined problem, a credible reason to test it, and missing expertise or hardware | Quantum computing is judged strategically important, for stated reasons |
| Evidence it rests on | Published research and independent reviews | The same, plus what staff learn first-hand | Published results for the problem, a classical baseline, and the partner's track record | A documented strategic case and the evidence for each use case, plus results from earlier research or experiments where the bank has them |
| Resource commitment | Part of one person's role | Training time and a small experiment budget | Staff time, partner fees or contributions, and data preparation | A dedicated team and a multi-year budget, released in stages |
| Governance | A named owner and a regular evidence note to the committee | Learning objectives, and rules on what data experiments may use | Contract terms on data, intellectual property and publicity; success and exit criteria; third-party risk management where an external arrangement exists | A committee-approved mandate, stage gates, funding, accountability and milestones distinguishable from post-quantum migration, and model risk management where the bank's framework applies |
| Reassess when | The review date arrives, or a trigger below fires | Learning objectives are met, or a use case emerges | The pilot reaches its decision point | Each stage gate, or a trigger below fires |
What should trigger a rethink
Whatever option a bank chooses, the decision should be revisited on a set cycle and whenever one of these happens:
- New competitive evidence. A published comparison against the best classical method, on a problem close to one the bank cares about, that shows an advantage or clearly fails to.
- Lower resource estimates. A credible paper that substantially reduces the machine needed for a relevant problem.
- Hardware milestones. Error-corrected qubits running longer calculations, met early or late against public roadmaps; Quantum threat indicators explains how to read them.
- A change in the bank. A new business priority, a merger, a change in risk appetite or budget, or loss of the people who held the knowledge.
- A pilot's result. The decision at the end of a partnership, whether to stop, repeat or scale.
Where Canada's National Quantum Strategy fits
Canada launched its National Quantum Strategy in January 2023, with $360 million committed over seven years from 2021–22. It has three missions, covering quantum computing, secure communications including post-quantum cryptography, and quantum sensing, and three pillars: research, talent and commercialisation. It names banking among the early focus sectors for quantum computing. It is a government investment strategy: it funds research, training and companies, and places no obligation on banks to invest or adopt. For a bank, its practical relevance is the ecosystem it supports, such as university research groups, training programmes and Canadian companies, which can make the learn and partner options easier to pursue.
What you’ve learned
- Watch, learn, partner and invest are options to choose between, per use case, not stages to climb.
- Post-quantum migration isn't one of the options; it's required risk work in its own programme.
- Whatever the choice, write down the evidence behind it and what would make you change it.
Check your understanding optional
Must an organisation go through watch and learn before it can partner?
Show the answer
No. The four options are choices made per use case, not stages to climb, and several can apply at once.
Written by Muhammad Atif · Reviewed 17 October 2026 · How sources are chosen and checked · Report a correction
Sources and further reading
Tags show what kind of source each one is. A standard or government guidance is an official document; a peer-reviewed paper has been checked by other experts; a preprint has not been peer-reviewed yet; an experiment reports a real-world demonstration; a company announcement is the company's own account; vendor documentation is a supplier's own technical guide; expert commentary is a specialist's published analysis or opinion; a news report is a journalist's account. Dates and figures were checked against these sources on 17 October 2026. Spotted an error? Email hello@plainquantum.com and it will be corrected, with a note.
- Government guidanceCanada's National Quantum StrategyInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, 2023
- Government guidanceGovernment of Canada launches National Quantum Strategy to create jobs and advance quantum technologiesInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, news release, 2023
- Government guidanceGuideline B-10: Third-Party Risk ManagementOffice of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI), 2023
- Government guidanceGuideline E-23: Model Risk Management (2027), effective 1 May 2027Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI), 2025