For universities and higher education partners
Research can be world class. Commercial progress is often reported as a headcount.
Enterprise and commercialisation funding is often reported through participation: founders trained, teams supported and spin-outs formed. Growth Score measures the commercial capability between forming a spin-out and being ready to win customers, so support can be targeted while there is still time to act.
The evidence gap
A headcount or a line for each team.
Participation is easy to report. It tells you how many people took part, not what changed for each team. Sixty founders trained can describe cohorts with very different levels of commercial movement.
Measure each team at intake and again at exit and you get a position and a movement record for each team, not only a cohort total. Some will move further than others. That difference is useful to the programme and its funder.
Include that evidence in the next bid and the application can describe what changed, not only who took part.
An illustration of cohort movement, not observed data. Upward lines indicate improvement.
The gap
Commercial capability is the missing view.
Technical founders often leave a research environment with strong product expertise and less experience of selling. That is not a criticism; it is a common development need. A programme can target that need more effectively when it can see each team's position.
The method identifies the weakest of four GTM stages and the root cause indicated by the responses. That gives the programme a basis for targeting support, rather than defaulting to the same intervention for all teams.
- A dated position for each participating team at intake across four stages
- The primary constraint indicated for each team, so support can be targeted
- Movement at exit, per team, in a report suitable for the next funding bid
- A common measure across cohorts and years when the same method version and implementation rules are used
The bid
The next funding application, with evidence attached.
A bid that says "we trained 60 founders" competes against one that says "we measured 60 teams, named the blocker for each, and this proportion moved before demo day".
The second bid doesn’t exist today because the measurement doesn’t. After one cohort it does, and every subsequent cohort compounds it, because the instrument is versioned and doesn’t change underneath you.
On procurement: where a new supplier route would take longer than the funding window allows, we contract through an existing procured supplier. The measurement starts inside the window; the paperwork follows the route that already exists.
Evidence a funder can verify
A movement figure is easier to review when the reader can check its provenance. Each result can carry a reference confirming that it is genuine and which method version produced it.
- Attach a reference to a funding bid so the assessor can check the result rather than rely on an unsupported figure
- Show that cohort figures across years use the same instrument and method version
- A team can share a reference with an investor or partner so the result can be confirmed independently
- A check does not disclose student, team or company data that the participant has not chosen to share
A reference confirms four things only: that the result is real, which method version produced it, when it was taken and whether it is still current, and its evidence level. Never the score, the company name or any answer. How the register works. Verification is specified and not yet live
The line you report against
What a funder asks at renewal.
How many ventures were supported, how many were measured, how many were measured twice, how many improved and in which cells, with the exclusions stated rather than averaged away.
The Knowledge Exchange Framework measures institutional activity, not the commercial capability of the companies you support. Nothing here is a KEF metric and this report should not be submitted as one. It is supporting evidence for a working with business narrative, and it is the part of that narrative you currently cannot evidence.
Every underlying result can be checked by the funder without access to your systems, because the method, the version and the conformance vectors are published and each venture holds its own result.
What each participating team receives
A ten-page report each team can use: its position, the primary constraint indicated by the result and three actions with owners, dates and evidence criteria for the next review.
The company is not charged. It keeps its result whether or not it later speaks with the university or delivery partner. The same result can aggregate into institutional reporting, giving both audiences a common record rather than separate views that can diverge.
What changes in the job
- Support can be targeted at intake. Use each team's indicated constraint to choose relevant support, rather than defaulting to one workshop for all teams
- Adviser time has a clearer basis. Allocate scarce time using the reported position and support need, alongside professional judgement
- Cohorts become comparable across years and across departments, on one instrument that does not drift
- The next bid can include movement evidence. Report team-level change alongside participation
- Spin-out readiness is visible before the raise, which is when it can still be fixed
The payoff
| Measure | Current view | After one cohort |
|---|---|---|
| Commercial capability of a spin-out or venture team | Adviser judgement and participation evidence | A dated position across four stages |
| Where enterprise support may focus | Broad provision, with limited team-level evidence | The primary constraint indicated for each team |
| Evidence for the next funding bid | Participation counts | Movement per team, with the method version stated |
| Progress between cohorts and years | Not consistently measured on one scale | The same instrument and scale when the implementation conforms |
Also run an accelerator?
If the programme reports to sponsors or investors rather than a research funder, the measurement question changes: selection at intake, mentor time during delivery and evidence at exit.