At ACED, we’ve spent years asking a fundamental question: how can knowledge be made truly useful for policymaking?
Working in Francophone Africa over the past 15 years, we’ve learned that it’s not just about producing evidence. What matters just as much is how that evidence is framed, shared, and applied. This insight has shaped our approach as a knowledge translation organization dedicated to helping African policymakers and practitioners design and implement better policies for better jobs, gender equality, and well-being.
To guide our work, we developed a framework we call the RAU Model, which stands for Relevance, Accessibility, and Use.
We start with relevance. Research, however rigorous, won’t have much impact if it’s disconnected from the real questions policymakers are facing. That’s why we work early with researchers and decision-makers to co-create research agendas that reflect actual policy priorities.
Then comes accessibility. Knowledge that sits behind paywalls, is written in overly technical language, or is presented in formats that don’t engage policymakers, rarely gets used. We focus on simplifying research outputs so they are clear, targeted, and aligned with decision-making needs.
Finally, we emphasize use. Making evidence matter requires more than just making it available. It requires timing, responsiveness, and practical support. We offer on-demand knowledge services like rapid evidence syntheses, policy inputs, and technical advice whenever decision-making windows open.
But working through this model has also led us to re-examine one of the most common tools in the field: the policy brief.
Policy briefs are everywhere. They are the go-to product for many research teams hoping to inform policy, and for good reasons. They are short, digestible, and focused. Yet in our experience, they often fall short of helping policymakers take real action. Time and again, we hear from decision-makers that what briefs offer isn’t enough.
Here’s the problem. Many policy briefs present well-intentioned, broadly framed recommendations. Things like “improve farmers’ incomes through collective action” or “create inclusive financing mechanisms.” While important, these kinds of recommendations tend to remain abstract. They don’t address critical questions like who should implement them, what structures are needed, how much they cost, or how they align with existing political and institutional realities.
When faced with that level of generality, policymakers often don’t know where to begin. And researchers, having delivered their recommendations, are already moving on to the next project. The structure of the brief itself – its length, its format – limits its ability to offer deeper guidance.
That’s what led us to propose a different tool: the Solution Brief.
The idea behind Solution Briefs is simple. If we want knowledge to inform action, we need to go further than outlining problems and broad solutions. We need to dig into the "how."
Our process starts with mapping out the relevant policy actors. Then we take a deeper look at the recommendations. We examine the technical requirements, assess institutional feasibility, explore legal and political constraints, and identify the costs and financing options. We also consider stakeholder dynamics and communication strategies to ensure that implementation is not just possible, but realistic and inclusive.
This deeper analysis allows us to help policymakers prioritize what’s actionable. Where needed, we provide technical support to translate those priorities into implementation steps.
Doing this has taught us three things.
- First, knowledge translation shouldn’t stop at the policy brief. If we want to influence action, we must go beyond.
- Second, Solution Briefs are more of a process than a product. They’re co-developed with policymakers through dialogue and iteration. It’s in those interactions that real alignment with decision-making realities occurs.
- Third, this kind of work requires a different skill set. It’s not just about research. It involves understanding political economy, navigating institutions, communicating clearly, and working across sectors and interests.
The core message we’ve taken from all this is that we need to rethink the role of the policy brief. It can be a good starting point, but on its own, it’s rarely enough to move from ideas to action. If we want to support meaningful change, we need approaches and tools that engage with the messy, complex work of implementation.
That’s what we’re trying to do with Solution Briefs. And we know others across the evidence-to-policy field are also experimenting, learning, and pushing the boundaries of what’s possible.
So, should we do away with policy briefs altogether? Not necessarily. But we do need to question their limits and push ourselves to create better tools and better processes that bring evidence closer to the decisions that shape people’s lives.
