The know how to implement theory (KIT) framework for practitioner social impact programs

“Experience rich, theory poor” – Malcolm Gladwell

Social impact is gaining importance globally, with the Australian government investing over AUD$199.8m (Australian Government The Treasury, 2024), the UK investing £58bn (Frohling et al., 2022), and the USA investing US$96bn into solving social issues (Technavio, 2024). With more societal and governmental pressure, business schools have increasingly shifted from focusing solely on economic efficiency towards creating social impact (Aiello et al., 2021). As such, social marketing has emerged as a key discipline dedicated to creating value for society (Russell-Bennett et al., 2019); this is emphasised in the social marketing definition (ISMA, 2013), but the shift can also be seen in the American Marketing Association’s most recent definition of marketing which specifies “societal value” (AMA, 2007).

However, despite the increased interest in large social impact campaigns, such programs can carry significant financial, social and political risks (Australian Government The Treasury, 2024). As both government and industry can have conservative attitudes towards risk, it has become more important than ever to ensure that social impact initiatives are effective. While practitioners try to integrate risk-mitigation into their campaign frameworks (see, for example, the Australian government’s social impact principles, which include “risk and return” (Australian Government The Treasury, 2024)) there is often a distinct lack of one of the most effective techniques for risk mitigation and ensuring effective results: the application of theory.

It is generally well accepted that theory is best practice for social campaigns (Foote et al., 2024; French and Blair-Stevens, 2006; Manikam and Russell-Bennett, 2016), as theory can provide a robust, evidence-based grounding from which effective interventions can be designed and implemented (Manikam and Russell-Bennett, 2016; Rundle-Thiele et al., 2019). Theory-based campaigns can shield against the risk of an unsuccessful campaign such as wasted investment, continuation of the social issue or the campaign even potentially backfiring and the issue worsening (Manikam and Russell-Bennett, 2016). Theory offers robust frameworks that can clarify why behaviours occur and how to change these behaviours, offering the knowledge and guidelines on how to make implementation succeed (Lynch et al., 2018; Aguinis and Cronin, 2026). By engaging with these abstract mechanisms (such as underlying motivations, capability constraints and structural barriers), practitioners are able to account for deeper behavioural drivers and think critically; without this, they may be limiting the extent of social impact by addressing surface symptoms rather than root causes (Aguinis and Cronin, 2026). In addition, rather than relying on implicit assumptions, theory allows practitioners to engage in a structured and systematic approach, which can enhance rigour and objectivity (Lynch et al., 2018).

Yet, theory remains underutilised in practice (Brennan et al., 2014; Lynch et al., 2018; Rundle-Thiele et al., 2019; Rundle-Thiele et al., 2021). Dietrich et al. (2022) found that theory was one of the least applied principles among the studied 238 interventions with only 19% explicitly using it, and Prestwich et al. (2015) found that between 36 and 89% of health social campaigns do not use theory explicitly. This problem is evident from even well-respected entities such as large consultants (e.g. Ernest and Young, Deloitte) (Fairlie, 2020), and government-led projects lacking theory in their reports or interventions (Banks, G, 2018). While previous literature has attempted to support practitioners in applying theory in practice (e.g., Manikam and Russell-Bennett, 2016; Rundle-Thiele et al., 2019), there is still misalignment between the belief that theory-based approaches are effective and actual implementation.

This research undertakes a theory adaptation approach, which problematises an existing theory and introduces another to resolve the identified issues (Jaakkola, 2020). To do this, current theories and frameworks are assessed to examine their limitations. This paper focuses on Manikam and Russell-Bennett’s social marketing theory-based framework, which proposes a process practitioners can use to integrate theory into their interventions (2016). While it proposes four broad stages and provides a good basis for theory-based procedure, it does not include the motivational mechanisms underpinning the adoption of theory and lacks sufficient nuance to address the major barriers to adoption. Specifically, it assumes that practitioners have a sufficient knowledge of theories they can choose from or are able to perform a literature review to identify theories; these are academic techniques that are unusual in many industry contexts due to their time and labour-intensive nature. In addition, the social marketing theory-based framework assumes that practitioners have the skills to critically apply theory, however while this is a skill generally acquired in post-graduate degrees, there is a concerning “theory deficit” growing in higher education (Nieminen et al., 2023).

To resolve the barriers preventing practice theory-based implementation, theory adaptation suggests applying another established theory (i.e. a method theory) that is strong where the existing one is weak to supplement and potentially extend it (Jaakkola, 2020). This research turns to social practice theory (Shove et al., 2012) as a method theory that can be folded into the social marketing theory-based framework to bolster its theoretical capacity and improve its managerial applicability. Specifically, social practice theory suggests that to be able to practice (i.e., implement theory), three criteria must be satisfied: meaning (a belief that using theory is effective), competences (the skills required to implement theory) and materials (the tools required to implement theory) (Shove et al., 2012; Spotswood et al., 2015). The first element of meaning in this case is already fulfilled, as there is a well-established positive attitude and understanding that the inclusion of theory improves a social outcome campaign (French and Blair-Stevens, 2006; Manikam and Russell-Bennett, 2016). However, many practitioners lack a knowledge of relevant theories, presenting a competency barrier (Manikam and Russell-Bennett, 2016; Muurinen and Kääriäinen, 2022). In addition, there is a lack of hands-on, practitioner resources such as templates, guidelines and information sheets, presenting a materials barrier.

Written by a hybrid academic-practitioner for practitioners, this research aims to understand the key drivers underpinning practitioner barriers to adoption of theory-based approaches, and suggest a new theoretical approach and practical tools to overcome these. To do this, firstly the social marketing theory-based framework (Manikam and Russell-Bennett, 2016) is extended by using elements of social practice theory (Shove et al., 2012), and a new, more robust framework is introduced: the know how to implement theory (KIT) framework. In addition, this research includes two tools that directly address key barriers. The first is a behavioural change strategy template which provides clear guidelines on how to effectively incorporate theory into their interventions in a time-efficient, approachable and simplified way (provides material support). Secondly, a card deck of key, simple theories to choose from is provided, and details of how these can be applied are within the template (provides competency support). Through these contributions, this research can improve social impact by increasing the likelihood of the use of a theory-based approach and thus can improve effectiveness and risk-mitigation in social impact campaigns. This research also demonstrates the contribution of behavioural disciplines such as social marketing to achieving social impact.

As a hybrid academic-practitioner, the author has experienced the challenges of implementing theory in the design of programs and social interventions. In industry settings, particularly within the technology sector, the author often found that theory was entirely absent, even among colleagues with PhDs. This disconnect between academic knowledge and practical application limits the depth and rigour of many initiatives, leading to strategies that rely more on intuition than evidence. The author’s experience has shown a real need to normalise theory and take many of the highly practical, well-tested frameworks off their academic pedestal so they can be genuinely useful to practitioners. As an academic, the author is uniquely positioned to bridge this gap, demonstrating how to use theory to apply real-world consumer insights and behavioural observations to create strategies that are both grounded and impactful.

This section begins by broadly outlining prior literature that aims to promote the use of theory in practice, before using an organising framework to articulate the key barriers and propose a new framework to amend the limitations of existing theories.

Despite research acknowledging the importance of implementing theory in practice to not only de-risk strategies but to improve overall social impact and outcomes (Davis et al., 2015; Truong and Dang, 2016), there is generally a lack of guidance that is straightforward and grounded, as well as a lack of practical tools for practitioners on how to choose and implement theories (Rundle-Thiele et al., 2019). Key existing frameworks are outlined in Table 1.

Van de Ven and Johnson (2006) propose that to close the widening gap between theory and practice a coproduction of knowledge between academics and practitioners is needed, where they use their different lenses to work together to solve problems. However, this solution compartmentalises their respective roles, where academics are the owners of theory and practitioners are the owners of managerial concerns. While this can ensure theory application is high quality, academics are not involved in every social impact campaign, and so restricting the use of theory only to academics relinquishes an opportunity to empower practitioners to understand and use theory themselves. This in turn can contribute to low rates of theory-based approaches in social impact campaigns.

Where previous literature has attempted to encourage practitioners to use theory themselves, there is a trend of relatively abstract recommendations that presume practitioners have a familiarity with relevant theories and the skills to apply them in strategy. Understanding the importance of practitioner use of theory, Van Ryn and Heaney (1992) provide a guide on how to apply theory at each stage of a campaign. However, while they give a general outline of criteria that should be considered when choosing a theory, the guidance remains relatively high level and non-specific about theories to choose from. Recognising the need for a collation of useful theories, Rundle-Thiele and colleagues (2019) provide a useful review of explanatory and predictive theories, however their research communicates these via highly academic language that also assumes a base level of knowledge on what these theories are and how they can be used. Similar to these studies, Manikam and Russell-Bennett (2016) developed the social marketing theory-based framework, which offers a step-by-step guide on how to find and select a theory for a campaign. However, while they (and also Van Hierden et al. (2022)) provide processual steps of using theory, they lack a motivational dimension that considers the barriers of a practitioner and why they may or may not be able to engage with theory. Amongst previous literature there is an assumption that readers would have a base knowledge of possible theories to select from or would have the ability to conduct a literature search (e.g., Manikam and Russell-Bennett, 2016; Rundle-Thiele et al., 2019; Van Hierden et al., 2022). However, these are skills developed and often refined during post-graduate education and are unusual in industry due to time and budgetary constraints (Muurinen and Kääriäinen, 2022). Furthermore, the growing “theory deficit” further points to a concerning trend away from using theory in practice (Nieminen et al., 2023). While these previous papers attempt to target practitioners, they may reach only highly educated “pracademics” who are already well-versed in theory application.

Current ways of communicating with practitioners on how to use theory appear to fall short, where theory is either unused in campaigns or where the use of theory is reported, the quality is low (Pang et al., 2017; Rundle-Thiele et al., 2019). Despite previous literature attempting to educate practitioners on how to choose and apply theory in practice, there is still a gap between the belief that theory-based approaches are effective and the actual implementation of theory in strategy. Therefore, there is an opportunity to offer more support to practitioners by explicitly considering a motivational dimension that helps to identify and address their barriers to understanding and using theory.

This research undertakes theory adaptation, which is a conceptual approach that aims to understand the limitations of an existing theory (domain theory) and use another theory (method theory) that is strong where the existing one is weak to supplement it (Jaakkola, 2020). The domain theory of this research is the social marketing theory-based framework (Manikam and Russell-Bennett, 2016). It was selected as the focal framework to adapt as it is based on the well-established consumer decision-making model, focuses solely on theory choice and application, and provides a solid basis for theory evolution. The social marketing theory-based framework has four stages:

1. information search;

2. evaluation of theories;

3. theory selection; and

4. theory-based design.

However, while the social marketing theory-based framework offers a foundation for a theory selection and implementation process, there are underlying flawed assumptions that limit its impact. To describe and overcome the limitations of the social marketing theory-based framework, this research uses social practice theory as the method theory. By integrating social practice theory with the social marketing theory-based framework, we are able to add a motivational dimension that articulates the key barriers to the adoption of theory-based approaches ^[1].

Social practice theory describes how practices (or tasks) can be encouraged (Heidenstrøm, 2022; Shove et al., 2012), suggesting three criteria that need to be satisfied to be able to act: meanings, competences and materials. These criteria represent a motivational dimension as they capture the drivers that enable a practitioner to be able to adopt a theory-based approach. Meanings can describe beliefs an individual has towards behaviours, and reflect which behaviours are right and fit in with personal and social norms (Spotswood et al., 2015; Shove et al., 2012). Meanings are attitudes directed towards a specific behaviour (Spotswood et al., 2015). Competences refer to knowledge and skills required to succeed at this behaviour (Spotswood et al., 2015; Shove et al., 2012). To be able to perform a behaviour, one must be able to properly understand how to do it (Spotswood et al., 2015). Materials are the tools and tactile entities required to practice (Spotswood et al., 2015; Shove et al., 2012). This can manifest in the form of guides, tutorials, worksheets, or other artefacts that can assist practitioners in performing a behaviour. While previous research has defined materials as tactile (Spotswood et al., 2015), given that the digital age has allowed many useful learning tools that are relatively intangible in the physical sense, we broaden this definition to also include tools such as AI, chatbots or applications.

There are generally positive attitudes towards the use of theory in practice, indicating that the first element of social practice theory, meanings, may already be fulfilled. This is evidenced by a push for evidence-based approaches (Australian Government The Treasury, 2024; Frohling et al., 2022; Technavio, 2024), as well as an understanding that the use of theory improves a social outcome campaign (French and Blair-Stevens, 2006; Manikam and Russell-Bennett, 2016). However, gaps remain within the other elements, which may inhibit the adoption of theory by practitioners.

Regarding competencies, practitioners may have a general awareness of theories from their tertiary education, however there is evidence that many leave university without the skills to apply these theories in a critical and useful way (Heimbrock, 2023; Nieminen et al., 2023). While there is generally a low rate of theory use in behavioural campaigns, when it is reported, the details of how the theory was applied is limited or flawed (Rundle-Thiele et al., 2019). There can also be a reliance on familiar yet often outdated theories (e.g., the theory of planned behaviour) which reflects a lack of awareness or ability to use more robust, contemporary theories (Manikam and Russell-Bennett, 2016). There is a lack of clear guidance on how to practically apply theory and support development of the skills required to successfully integrate it into social impact campaigns.

Regarding materials, there is a lack of resources designed specifically for practitioners such as templates, guidelines and information sheets. Many previous efforts to educate practitioners provide high-level guidance but not the hands-on tools required. Given trends in time-poorness in workers (Giurge et al., 2020), and that many employees say they do not have time for learning and development (Ratanjee, 2025), practitioners may not have time to search for and read through large academic articles. Practitioners require templates that are written in an accessible way that are easy to quickly understand and apply. It is important to speak the language of practitioners in such materials, as academic jargon and verbosity can create resistance to learn (Rundle-Thiele et al., 2019).

Therefore, we propose a new theoretical approach and practical tools to overcome these identified barriers.

Drawing on social practice theory (Shove et al., 2012), this research extends the social marketing theory-based framework (Manikam and Russell-Bennett, 2016) and proposes the KIT framework (see Figure 1). The first row of KIT draws from the social marketing theory-based framework which provides the stages of the theory selection process. The second row articulates the key barriers to the adoption of theory using social practice theory, and how it can be used to address the limitations of the social marketing theory-based (Manikam and Russell-Bennett, 2016) framework. The final row describes the practical tools that have been developed to operationalise solutions to the identified barriers in a grounded and practical way.

Meanings may be considered prior to the social marketing theory-based framework model as the belief that theory is useful is a prerequisite to an attempt to integrate it into practice, and thus has not been included as an extension.

Information search refers to the step of identifying possible theories or methods that can be used to promote behaviour change (Manikam and Russell-Bennett, 2016). Given that a barrier for many practitioners is a lack of knowledge of relevant theories or how to conduct a search for theories, it is imperative that more competency support is given at this stage. Specifically, this research provides a card deck of robust yet accessible behaviour change theories (see web Appendix A). While there are many relevant and useful business theories for behaviour change, given that practitioners may have limited time and cognitive effort available for learning, the deck includes a selection of theories that are not overly complicated, and are practical and relatively intuitive. The deck reflects the results of a literature review, theories taught in a first-year business behaviour change class which illustrates their accessibility and ease to understand, and feedback from four behaviour change experts. Perhaps one of the most important considerations during curation of the list was to ensure a practitioner would be able to quickly understand and start using the theories. The theories therefore tend towards grounded rather than abstract qualities, with clear steps included for understanding what the theories are and how to implement them. It is more important for a practitioner to understand a theory at a high level and begin to practice applying theory and learn via praxis, rather than requiring them to gain a deep academic knowledge of theory first.

The deck categorises theories as explanatory theories, change theories, or both, to help with integration into the later discussed behaviour change strategy template. An explanatory theory is used to explain why the behaviour occurs (e.g., drivers, influencers or factors involved in behaviour), while a change theory is used to influence or shift behaviours (e.g., strategies, levers or processes to change behaviour). This list is not exhaustive of all possible practitioner theories (see research such as Rundle and colleagues (2019) for more detailed lists).

Evaluation of Theories and Selection refers to the shortlisting of theories based on their appropriateness to the campaign and social issue, and deciding on one to use (Manikam and Russell-Bennett, 2016). It is suggested that practitioners choose theories based on their predictive capability, effectiveness on outcomes and focus on behaviour change rather than attitudes (Manikam and Russell-Bennett, 2016; Rundle-Thiele et al., 2019). This list shortlists theories already based on these qualities, reducing the cognitive load for practitioners. The theories included in the list were chosen for their non-industry or problem-specific qualities; that is, they are widely applicable and flexible in contextual relevance. This ensures a shorter, more curated list that is applicable to a wider range of practitioners and problems, and empowers practitioners to understand theory themselves. Therefore, it is recommended that practitioners should focus on considering which theory may be useful in terms of fit with their problem, target group and campaign objectives.

Theory-based design refers to using the selected theory in the design of a social impact campaign (Manikam and Russell-Bennett, 2016). Given that the other major barrier for practitioners was a lack of templates, guidelines and information regarding how to apply and integrate theory, there is a need for more materials support. To provide this, this research offers a behaviour change strategy template and guide (see web Appendix B and Table 2). Alongside the blank template provided in the web appendix is an example filled-out template, to further assist practitioners. The template is based on the idea of a pitch such as that in a hackathon or case competition, where practitioners fill out each step in the template to guide them in ideating a behaviour change strategy using theory. The steps are as follows in Table 2.

The template was developed in a way that ensured theory is embedded throughout the strategy, requiring the practitioner to choose one or two theories to integrate into their campaign. First, a theory that describes behaviour in terms of why we act as we do should be used to categorise the main barriers and motivators to change. This enables practitioners to better articulate the underlying “why” a behaviour has not been adopted and identify leverage points for change. Secondly, a theory that describes how to change behaviour (rather than merely describing it as the first one does), should be chosen to guide the intervention and overall campaign ideas. Such theories provide built-in pathways to influence behaviour that have been rigorously tested and validated. There are also a selection of theories that can describe both the why and the how.

Overall, this template allows practitioners to ideate a strategy and integrate theory in a relatively short amount of time. When a similar template was tested with first-year students, they were able to ideate a strategy in under an hour, demonstrating how the use of theory does not equate to copious amounts of time or energy. Instead, theory can save time by drawing on approaches already proven to work, provide a sense of certainty and de-risk decision-making, and spark new creative ideas.

While prior research has attempted to align theory and practice (e.g., Manikam and Russell-Bennett, 2016; Rundle-Thiele et al., 2019), the continued low uptake of theory-based approaches in behavioural campaigns suggests significant barriers remain. Written from a hybrid academic–practitioner perspective, this research aims to articulate the key barriers preventing theory use and provide targeted support. In doing so this research also outlines how social marketing as a behavioural business discipline can contribute to social impact.

This research used a theory adaptation approach to amend the limitations of an existing framework through the integration of another framework which is strong where the first is weak (Jaakkola, 2020). Specifically, this research amends the social marketing theory-based framework using social practice theory to articulate the barriers to adoption of theory in practice and suggest how these barriers can be mitigated. While the social marketing theory-based framework provides a foundational decision-making process for theory selection, it lacks a motivation dimension to explain the drivers behind theory adoption behaviour, and lacks the explicit guidance to sufficiently address the major barriers to adoption. Lynch and colleagues (2018) state that “it is important that information about how and why to select and apply theoretical approaches is made accessible” (p. 2). Yet, as prior literature has attempted to close the gap between theory and practice, it tends to provide abstract, high-level guidance that presumes both familiarity with theory and time to apply it correctly (e.g., Rundle-Thiele et al., 2019; Rundle-Thiele et al., 2021; Van Hierden et al., 2022). These assumptions fail to address key practitioner barriers such as limited knowledge and time constraints (Giurge et al., 2020; Ratanjee, 2025).

This research firstly contributes by identifying and articulating the key barriers and the limitations of current frameworks (MacInnis, 2011). Specifically, there are two particularly problematic parts of the social marketing theory-based framework that require more detail for usability by practitioners. In the first stage, information search, there is an assumption that practitioners have sufficient knowledge of useful theories or can perform a literature review to identify such theories (an academic technique that is extremely time-intensive). Using social practice theory, this research argues that there is insufficient competency support for practitioners at this stage, where they may not have the skills to find useful theories (Rundle-Thiele et al., 2019). Secondly, in the last stage, theory-based design, there is an assumption that practitioners know how to successfully and critically apply elements of a theory however this is a skill generally acquired in post-graduate degrees and even then there is a concerning “theory deficit” growing in higher education (Pang et al., 2017; Van Hierden et al., 2022; Nieminen et al., 2023). Using social practice theory, this research argues that there is therefore insufficient material support for practitioners at this stage, as there is a lack of guidance, templates or practical resources available for practitioners to gain grounded and accessible advice. By identifying these key barriers, this research challenges the assumptions of prior literature and provides some key theoretical mechanisms that explain why theory has low adoption rates in practice. In doing so, we propose the elements of social practice theory are potential causal mechanisms (Cornelissen et al., 2021) that have been underacknowledged and underserved.

This research provides a second contribution through the introduction of the novel KIT framework. The KIT framework is an extension of the social marketing theory-based framework which includes the elements from social practice theory discussed previously. This framework improves upon the original framework’s theoretical capacity by leveraging the criteria described in social practice theory as a motivational dimension that can explain the key decision-making and learning elements relevant to a practitioner’s theory selection process. A framework with stronger explanatory power can allow researchers and practitioners to more rigorously identify and address the key mechanisms involved in theory-based approach adoption, which can consequently improve overall social impact in campaigns. In addition, this extension enhances the framework’s practical applicability by directly addressing barriers to theory adoption in practice. Thus, the KIT framework offers a framework that is more nuanced and strengthened in terms of its theoretical robustness and utility.

This research makes a significant practical contribution by directly addressing two of the most persistent barriers to practitioner use of theory in practice: a lack of knowledge and skills in selecting appropriate theories, and the lack of guidance and tools to be able to apply them. The KIT framework, alongside two major practitioner tools, overcomes these challenges. The KIT framework provides a step-by-step process that practitioners can follow to guide both theory selection and the design of theory-based strategies. By offering a structured approach, the framework reduces the uncertainty that often surrounds theory use by providing guidance. An overview of the stages and their associated steps is presented in Table 3, offering practitioners a clear pathway from identifying relevant theories to embedding them in intervention design.

To further address these barriers, the two major tools are provided, which can be found in web Appendix A and B and the full versions are free on the author’s website: https://www.brittanycurrenti.com/kit. The first major tool is the curated card deck of theories, used to improve practitioner competency. Although there are many potential theories, time and budget constraints can often limit the ability to perform literature reviews, therefore this list shortcuts some useful theories that are practical, intuitive and grounded rather than abstract. Each theory is accompanied by straightforward explanations, steps for understanding and implementation, and an example, helping practitioners quickly identify suitable options. This card deck reduces cognitive load and overcomes search costs, choice overload, and the risk of using outdated or theoretically weak alternatives. Other recommendations for practitioners to improve their competency with theory-based approaches includes:

• Start by using only one theory, or a very small set, that they understand well and applying that a few times before venturing out to other (Lynch et al., 2018);

• Pair practitioners with academics or theory experts until comfortable using theory on their own (Van de Ven and Johnson, 2006); and

• Focus on applying theory rather than mastering the deep theoretical knowledge underpinning it.

The second major tool is the behaviour change strategy template. This two-page template provides concise, accessible guidance on how to incorporate theory into campaign planning and design, with a walk-through of the integration process. Available in Web Appendix B and Table 2, practitioners can use this template to guide them through the key stages of theory selection through to intervention design. It offers practitioners the kind of tangible, easy-to-use resource that has been largely absent in literature, addressing the barrier of a lack of practical templates and guidelines for theory application. By simplifying the process of translating theory into practice, this tool enables practitioners to embed theory in their work in a time-efficient and approachable way.

This research has made efforts to ensure that the chosen theories are both robust and accessible, for example by refining the list based on feedback from conference presentations and academic peers. Nevertheless, practitioner involvement has been limited beyond the author’s own professional experience and informal observations when teaching these concepts in practice. As such, systematic practitioner feedback has not yet been incorporated, and future research would benefit from validation of the usefulness of selected theories and to amend the provided list of theories based on such feedback.

Furthermore, the presented framework and tools were developed conceptually, and while it identifies key barriers and mitigation strategies to theory adoption, there is a need for empirical validation. Specifically, future research may wish to test the effectiveness of the KIT framework and in driving theory use in real-world contexts. This could include case studies that examine how KIT is implemented within actual behavioural strategies and the resulting social impact outcomes, as well as comparative studies that evaluate differences in effectiveness between interventions developed with KIT, those developed without theory or drawing on theory in less structured ways.

Finally, the KIT framework is designed to support the selection and application of theory but does not extend through to the later stages of implementation. As such, while it provides valuable guidance on identifying and integrating theory into strategy design, it does not address the practical challenges of translating these strategies into action or evaluating their impact. Future research may therefore seek to embed KIT within a broader process model for theory-based approaches from planning through the implementation and post-project stages, ensuring that theory-informed strategies are not only designed effectively but also delivered and sustained in practice.

The KIT framework and accompanying tools provide a simple and grounded way to integrate theory into strategy, helping practitioners take the first steps. The right toolKIT for the job.

Feedback on the tools created was received from behavioural experts: Dr. Kate Letheren, Dr. Jimmy Tarbit, Dr. Gauri Laud and Melanie Fineberg. I thank them for their valuable insights.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.