Product case study · Hacking for MOD (H4MOD) · Team Navy 99
Product strategy for military-civilian integration in the Royal Navy. I was a product and strategy team member. I led the Knowledge Transfer pillar and contributed to discovery, the Mission Model Canvas, prototype design and the roadmap.
Product and strategy team member. I led the Knowledge Transfer pillar.
Royal Navy (UK Ministry of Defence), through Hacking for MOD, with a named problem sponsor and an industry mentor
Lasting structural and cultural divides between military, civilian and contractor staff, working against the "One Navy" ambition
Three-pillar programme designed and costed. Piloting was not completed within the project.
Client brief & challenge
"One Navy" is a shared cultural ambition. Interviews showed fragmented training, rigid hierarchies, few shared experiences, and gaps in psychological safety and gender inclusion. Cultural change depended on rotating leaders rather than embedded practice, so well-meant efforts risked staying isolated and short-lived.
Discovery & insight
Interviewees ranged from Lieutenants to senior leaders, civil servants and contractors. I added Defence research papers and academic literature. Root causes fell into four groups: people, process, place/culture and policy.
No standard joint induction for military and civilian staff, so expectation gaps form early. Without uniform or rank, civilian roles were unclear.
Military leadership development is structured; civilian development is fragmented. The flagship course takes about 18 months, so people use the learning for only about half their time in role.
Frequent rotations cause knowledge loss. Civilians become the only long-term knowledge holders, and tacit knowledge needs 3–6 months of hands-on transfer.
Shared definition of successAcross every group, people described One Navy as feeling valued, heard and clear on their role, regardless of rank.
Hypotheses & pivots
| Hypothesis | Test | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Joint induction is needed to close the military-civilian gap | Interviews and literature | Supported; became the onboarding pillar |
| Civil dress days or uniform days will reduce perceived hierarchy | Follow-up interviews and survey design | Partly validated, then retired: seen as symbolic, and the uniform carries identity value |
| Two-year rotations drive knowledge loss and weaken integration | Interviews on continuity and workload | Validated; became the knowledge transfer pillar |
| Mid-level leaders lack joint development | Interviews, Defence research, curriculum review | Supported; became the leadership pillar |
Product decisionRetiring the dress-code idea is the kind of decision I want to show: evidence over a popular idea.
Product solution
A 5-day joint cohort programme called "Step In. Belong. Thrive." It includes leader storytelling, role-mapping, EDI and ethics sessions, a military-civilian panel, buddy pairing and a commitment ceremony. Runs quarterly with 15–20 people per cohort.
For middle and lower-level leaders: workshops on communication, feedback, emotional intelligence, conflict resolution, psychological safety and inclusion, plus changes to the Major Projects Leadership Academy (MPLA) curriculum. 2–3 days, quarterly, 10–15 leaders per session.
A standard handover process built on the SECI model (socialisation, externalisation, combination, internalisation). It includes a handover checklist, mentor shadowing, a handover pack, a learning journal and a knowledge base that the incoming team updates.
MVPThe smallest testable set: an onboarding toolkit, leadership modules and a mentorship-based handover model. We drafted the first onboarding prototype and the knowledge handover template.
Prototype to production
Run the structured joint onboarding with one cohort.
Gate: before/after new-joiner survey.
Trial the handover pack and checklist on live rotations.
Gate: compare time-to-productivity.
Embed the leadership content in existing MPLA schedules.
Gate: participation and usefulness feedback.
Build the programme into HR and learning policy.
Gate: process and culture assessment.
| Cost item | Estimate |
|---|---|
| Quarterly onboarding cohort (external trainer, facilitator prep, video, materials, logistics, kits) | £6,250 per quarter |
| Mission Connect leadership workshop (trainer, venue, kits, reflection tools) | About £5k |
| Scaling MPLA places (up to £24k per person) for 100 middle managers | About £2.4m for the pilot |
| Knowledge transfer and onboarding set-up | Mostly staff time, not cash |
Product maturity assessment
30 interviews plus research; root causes mapped
Four hypotheses tested; one retired
Three pillars defined; MVP scoped and costed
Onboarding prototype and handover template drafted: reached here
One cohort, one rotation, one region
Built into HR and learning policy
Risks & measurement
| Pillar | Risk | Mitigation | How measured |
|---|---|---|---|
| Onboarding | Inconsistent delivery | Standard toolkit; an assigned HR contact and buddy | New-joiner satisfaction survey |
| Leadership | Low participation; the people who attend already care | Real-world scenarios; senior sponsors; certificates and visibility | Pre/post surveys; participation rate; usefulness feedback |
| Knowledge transfer | Reluctance to share; poor handovers | Mandatory templates; a shared repository | Process and culture assessment; manager follow-up during probation |
Change managementI planned for resistance to change (loss of status, predictability and belonging) using Lewin's unfreeze-change-refreeze model.
Impact & what I would do next
Target outcomesNo measured results yet. These are targets, not delivered results.