KEF: Why Your Results Are More Powerful Than You Think

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.22″ da_is_popup=”off” da_exit_intent=”off” da_has_close=”on” da_alt_close=”off” da_dark_close=”off” da_not_modal=”on” da_is_singular=”off” da_with_loader=”off” da_has_shadow=”on” da_disable_devices=”off|off|off”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.25″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.27.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”]The Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF) is an annual reporting exercise for English higher education institutions, run by Research England. It captures how universities engage with businesses, communities, and the public sector across seven perspectives, from working with businesses and IP commercialisation to local growth, CPD, and graduate startups. Data is submitted through HESA’s Higher Education – Business and Community Interaction survey and published publicly at kef.ac.uk.

KEF sits alongside REF (the Research Excellence Framework) in the higher education accountability landscape. Where REF assesses the quality of research, KEF focuses on how universities contribute knowledge and expertise to businesses, public services, and communities. Understanding both is increasingly important for institutions making the case for their broader social and economic contribution.

On 22 April, we brought together professional services staff and academics from across English higher education for a practical session on how to use KEF results more effectively. The central message was that the data exists in the public domain, but it is neither regularly nor widely used to tell a clear, compelling story about how universities contribute to society and the economy beyond teaching and research.

Here are a few of the key points we discussed.

The Cluster Problem

Early in the session, we asked whether institutions use their cluster context when communicating KEF results externally. This matters because KEF doesn’t benchmark institutions against the whole sector, but within clusters of similar universities grouped by size, research intensity, and mission profile.

You can check which cluster your institution sits in and compare your results against cluster peers at kef.ac.uk. A cluster comparison brings meaningful insight.

For example, a quintile 3 result isn’t “average” in a national context — it’s average among cluster peers. So in a high-performing cluster, it represents a strong position and should be communicated as such.

The practical takeaway is straightforward: always name your cluster. Every external communication about your KEF position — whether to a business partner, a local council, or colleagues internally — should include the phrase “among institutions of our type.” Without that context, a quintile score is easy to misinterpret and could present misleading comparisons with universities outside your cluster.

Three Questions Every Metric Has to Answer

KEF produces a standardised set of metrics across the seven perspectives, drawn from HE-BCI data. These metrics are defined by Research England, but universities can control how they use and communicate them externally. Strong KEF performance signals credibility to business partners, supports applications for funding such as KTPs, and can provide evidence of impact for REF purposes.

Before any KEF metric enters an external communication, it needs to pass a three-question test:

• What does this mean?
• Why should this audience care?
• What action does it point to?

A metric that can’t answer all three questions doesn’t tell a story — it’s just uncontextualised data. This test applies whether you’re speaking to investors, public sector partners, or potential collaborators. The audience might change, but the test doesn’t.

KEF Narrative Statements Are an Underused Asset

KEF currently over-represents financial activity that is measurable and countable, but comes from a model of knowledge exchange rooted in 1970s technology transfer thinking. This systematically misses a significant amount of what many institutions actually do.

The HE-BCI Part A dataset, which was designed to capture community and social KE activity, has been paused since 2021. On top of that, NCUB’s 2025 State of the Relationship report finds that professional services KE staff are being cut and not replaced across the sector. This means the gap between what universities actually do and what gets formally measured is likely widening.

The KEF narrative statements offer an opportunity to close this gap, but they have been frozen since 2023. Following the detailed KEF review in 2021, Research England confirmed that narrative statements would be updated approximately every three years.

The narratives displayed in the current KEF dashboards were submitted for KEF3 in 2023, and it has not yet been confirmed when the next narrative update will be incorporated. As a result, whatever your institution submitted for KEF3 is publicly visible on kef.ac.uk today — potentially being read by partners, funders, and journalists.

Research England has not yet confirmed timing for the next narrative submission window, but announcements are published at ukri.org/research-england.

Even if you can’t submit a new statement today, you can prepare for the next round. An evidence bank is a centralised, structured record of your KE activity aligned to KEF’s seven perspectives.

For each case study or activity, capture:

• The partner involved and the nature of the relationship
• The activity undertaken and the resources committed
• Measurable outputs and outcomes, quantified wherever possible
• A direct testimonial quote from the partner

Institutions that collect evidence consistently will produce stronger submissions in less time when the next window opens. Beyond KEF, a well-maintained evidence bank can also support REF impact case studies, funding bids, and collaboration discussions.

Tools like Hivve’s Impact Tracker are designed for capturing activity data with the metadata and taxonomy needed to generate reports quickly, whether for KEF, REF, or partner briefings.

Telling the Story to Audiences Who Don’t Speak KEF

A common challenge is translating KEF results for audiences unfamiliar with the terminology. Business and public sector partners are two of the most important external audiences for a university’s KE story — and often the most likely to disengage when faced with sector jargon.

These relationships generate income through contract research, CPD, and consultancy; create opportunities for student placements; support REF impact cases; and demonstrate an institution’s social and economic relevance beyond teaching and research.

For business partners, the framing is outcomes and returns. Lead with cluster context, then focus on evidence. For example, KTP partnerships deliver an average 1,743% return on investment across the sector (NCUB, 2025).

One strong case study showing how activity leads to impact will usually be more persuasive than a long list of metrics.

For local authority and public sector partners, anchor everything to place through local programmes, local employers, and local jobs. Acknowledge the data gap: the HE-BCI Part A dataset for reporting on community and social KE activity has been paused since 2021, and this area of KE remains widely underreported nationally.

Supplementing national data with your own local evidence is good practice and puts your institution in a stronger position for developing local collaborations.

Looking Ahead

If you’re working on KEF evidence collection and want to explore how Hivve technology can help save time, aggregate activity data, and generate narratives, feel free to reach out. Our team is always happy to answer questions and discuss your specific context. Get in touch via our Contact Us form.
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]