ABOUT US
From Houses
To HOMES
Alternative models to deliver improvements to Service Families’ Accommodation
Client Brief
The UK Ministry of Defence tasked us with exploring alternative models for Service Families’ Accommodation (SFA). Years of underinvestment, limited housing ownership, and funding constraints have resulted in poor-quality homes, challenges in meeting Net Zero goals, and negative impacts on family wellbeing, recruitment, and retention.
Strategic Intent
To investigate whether a new housing support model could give service families greater autonomy, transparency, and stability - shifting from a fragmented, outdated system to one that is community-driven, accountable, and future-ready.
Role:
Design Strategist and researcher
Duration:
1.5 - 2 months
Industry
UK - Public Sector & Defence Housing
Team:
5 members
-
A decentralised maintenance and housing support model structured as a Government-supported CIC
-
A locally empowered, digitally enabled service system improving accountability, transparency, and response times
-
A mock-up platform demonstrating case tracking, issue mapping, and maintenance performance visibility
-
A community-building framework inspired by proven civic housing models
Key Outputs
Our Reframed Problem
“The UK Armed Forces are constrained by an outdated model of SFA, raising the urgent question of whether an alternative exists. Poor-quality housing, from years of underinvestment, limited ownership, and lack of funding, holds us back from achieving sustainability goals, harms health and wellbeing, blocks better recruitment and retention, and potentially createing problems in the transition to civilian life.”
How is this a problem?
“We’re trained to make do but when my boiler broke for three weeks, I felt invisible.” – Army personell
“If we keep increasing the defence budget, but spend it only on the arsenal, we won’t have the personnel to operate the weapons.” - Army officer
The number one reason service personnel leave the Armed Forces is family.
In a world of rising geopolitical tension, investing in families is investing in national security.
-
Poor to variable quality housing
-
Restrictions on applying for retrofitting grants
-
Multiple layer contractors
-
Lack of longtermism- maintenance providers
-
Lack of understanding in the system as to who has power and influence
-
Lack of communication/information flow
-
Lack of autonomy in house maintenance (Personnel & base)
-
Resource waste on repetitive processes
Frustration chain
Core Problems
The research journey and methods
106
Stakeholders Reached
40
1-hour+ Interviews
MOD personnel
Service personnel & families
DIO personnel
7
Sponsor meeting
2
Base visits
Snapshots of a housinf society. Other pics not visible for security reasons
.jpeg)
Stakeholder Mapping
Helped Us:
-
Understand misaligned incentives across MOD, Pinnacle, subcontractors, and service familiesIdentify missing or underrepresented voices (e.g. civilian spouses, children, local school liaisons)
-
Spot leverage points: e.g. WhatsApp groups as informal communication networks, not officially recognised
-
Map the emotional and relational disconnection embedded in the system
When paired with the Assumption Matrix, this helped us: -
Reframe the problem in terms of voice, power, and trust
-
Develop HMW statements
Key Insights:
-
MOD and contractor responsibilities appear clear on paper but blurry in lived experience
-
Families often felt powerless, lacking clear feedback channels and responsiveness
Systems Mapping
Helped Us:
-
Visualise housing as part of a wider system of influence, centralisation, inefficiency and constraint
-
Uncover feedback loops between physical infrastructure, social cohesion, and service engagement
-
Spot leverage points: e.g. WhatsApp groups as informal communication networks, not officially recognised
-
Examine the contracting structure: Pinnacle, as the primary maintenance provider under a long-term MOD contract, was frequently cited as a pain point, with interviewees describing layers of subcontracting (e.g. to Vivo and Mears) leading to delays and loss of accountability
Helped Us :
Understand key takeaways from our visual network map:
-
Who the real beneficiaries and decision-makers were within the systemWhat metrics of success mattered to service families (e.g. trust, clarity, safety)
-
Trust is not evenly distributed, it clusters around informal social structures
-
Responsibility is formally top-down, but resilience emerges bottom-upInterventions that enable horizontal communication (like the dashboard) reinforce visibility and voice
Network and Systemic Value Mapping +Mission Model canvas
The Intervention
CIC Local Branch Model
-
Community-owned reporting + oversight on repairs
-
Empowered local decision-making linked to satisfaction metrics
Transparency Dashboard
-
Real- time service request tracker
-
User-facing status updates + direct escalation option
1
2
Key Insight:
Accountability and transparency are necessary - but real change comes from shifting power and choice closer to families
How might we improve accountability and transparency in maintenance performance?
How might we empower service families to have more autonomy over their HOME life?
-
The "Perk" vs. "Right" of SFA explains why SFA might not be eligible for certain civilian housing grants (as it's part of a "remuneration package") and why the standard might be perceived as "good enough" rather than excellent. It's a deep-seated cultural and policy barrier to change.
-
The Hidden Cost of "Cheap" SFA although SFA rent is heavily subsidised the true cost is borne elsewhere: stress, impact on retention, deferring planned maintenance leads to far more expensive, urgent repairs later.
-
Current model “forgets” the veterans as soon as they walk out of the door.
-
The "Black Box" of Contractor Accountability if performance isn't transparently measured and shared it's hard to hold anyone truly accountable.
Mock up website - Landing Page
Original Repair Request Form
Our revised repair request form
Case tracker to have visibility of the process
Dashboards - Management
Next Steps
