Description

A focused course, tailored for you

The Defence Innovation Governance Research-to-Policy Playbook

Turn your panel papers and chair remarks into briefs a Ministry of Defence acquisition lead will actually circulate before the next capability review.

The research is rigorous, the panels are well attended, the chair remarks land in the room. The defence policy still gets written without any of it in the citation list, because the format a peer-reviewed paper takes is not the format an assistant secretary's submission process accepts.

$199 one-time

Tailored to your situation. Access within 24 hours. 30-day money-back.

Includes a hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access, generated for your specific situation.

Why this course

If you work on defence innovation governance and Mediterranean security from a research seat, the bottleneck is not the quality of the analysis. The bottleneck is the translation step. A defence policy reader has fifteen minutes between meetings, reads in the house template their submission process enforces, and needs evidence presented in the columns their advice-to-minister form requires. A twenty-page paper does not survive that filter. A one-page issue note in the right house style, an options memo with cost ranges and a recommendation column, and a six-slide deck that opens with the capability question rather than the literature review will. The same evidence base, repackaged into the artefacts a programme board, a defence committee secretariat, or a NATO Joint Force Command planning cell can metabolise, is the difference between being cited in the next defence review and being absent from it.

What you walk away with

Reformat a peer-reviewed defence governance paper into a one-page issue note an MoD private office will read in the first ten minutes of the morning.
Build an options memo with capability cost ranges, risk columns, and a defensible recommendation that a programme board can carry into a ministerial submission.
Produce a six-slide policy briefing deck that opens with the capability question and closes with the recommendation, ready for a permanent secretary's read-out.
Place your evidence inside the citation set of the next defence review by routing it through the think tanks, parliamentary committee submissions, and partner-nation defence policy briefings that policy drafters actually read.
Co-author with a serving officer, a former J5 planner, or a defence industry analyst without diluting your independence or your evidence standards.

The 12 modules

Module 1. The defence policy reader: who actually reads the brief and what they need on page one

Maps the readers in the chain from a desk officer in the capability directorate to the permanent secretary's submission box. Covers the assistant secretary's format expectations, the advice-to-minister template, and the seven-minute attention budget. Identifies the three sentences the reader needs in the first paragraph of any defence brief to keep reading: the capability question, the decision before them, and the recommendation.

Module 2. The one-page issue note: the artefact that travels furthest inside a ministry

Builds the one-page issue note from scratch using a Mediterranean defence innovation example. Covers the house style markers that signal the note was written by someone who has worked in the system: the heading bar, the classification line, the summary box, the four-paragraph body, and the recommendation column. Includes templates for the UK MoD, an EDA-style EU defence agency note, and a NATO ACT-format brief.

Module 3. The options memo with cost ranges, risk columns, and a defensible recommendation

Walks through structuring an options memo for a defence innovation procurement decision. Covers how to build a capability cost range without classified data using published programme budgets, parliamentary committee returns, EDF call values, and PESCO project commitments. Shows how to write a risk column the programme board will accept, with explicit treatment of strategic, schedule, integration, and political risk.

Module 4. The six-slide policy briefing deck for a permanent secretary read-out

Constructs the briefing deck slide by slide. Slide one names the capability question. Slide two frames the strategic context in the language the senior reader uses (DOTMLPF, NATO DPP cycle, EU strategic compass). Slide three presents three options. Slide four shows the recommendation with the decision criteria visible. Slide five answers the obvious objection. Slide six lists the next three decisions and their owners.

Module 5. Sourcing defence governance signals beyond the literature: where the real evidence lives

Catalogues the open-source corpus a defence policy researcher should be reading weekly. Parliamentary defence committee transcripts, EDA annual work programmes, NATO STO publication lists, capability development plan iterations, EDF and PESCO project pages, national defence reviews, GAO and equivalent national audit office reports. Shows how to set up structured monitoring so the evidence base refreshes faster than the publication cycle.

Module 6. Mediterranean security framings translated for capability planners and acquisition leads

Takes a Mediterranean security argument (whether it is on maritime domain awareness, southern flank deterrence, EU naval cooperation, or innovation absorption inside southern European defence ministries) and reformats the framing for a capability planner who thinks in force generation cycles and acquisition milestones. Covers the vocabulary translations and the structural moves that keep the substance intact while changing the surface that lands.

Module 7. Placing chair and panellist framings into published outputs that survive the conference

Most chair remarks die in the room. Module covers the three pathways that keep them alive: a structured short paper published with a defence think tank within two weeks, a co-authored op-ed in a defence-sector outlet within ten days, and a working paper version archived in a citable repository. Includes outreach templates for RUSI, IISS, CSIS, GCSP, and Mediterranean-focused outlets like EuroMeSCo and IAI.

Module 8. Routing your evidence into a defence review citation set

Defence reviews and capability refreshes have a citation drafting window of roughly six months. Module covers how to identify when that window opens (signals in parliamentary calendars, ministerial speeches, and committee inquiry announcements), how to place a written submission in the format the secretariat accepts, and how to follow up with the drafters so the submission is not filed and forgotten. Covers the UK Integrated Review process, EU strategic compass refreshes, and NATO Defence Planning Process iterations.

Module 9. Co-authoring with serving and former defence practitioners without diluting independence

Working with a serving officer, a former J5 planner, or a defence industry analyst expands reach and credibility but introduces evidence and independence risks. Module covers the co-authorship agreement language that protects your evidence standards, the handling of classified-adjacent material so the published output stays unclassified and citable, and the credit structure that builds your reputation rather than erasing it under a more senior co-author.

Module 10. FOI returns, procurement data, and the public evidence trail a policy reader can defend

A policy submission lives or dies on whether the drafter can defend the evidence trail in a ministerial setting. Module covers how to write and lodge FOI requests that return useful procurement and capability data, how to triangulate against published programme budgets and parliamentary committee returns, and how to present the trail so a permanent secretary's office sees an audit path rather than a research artefact.

Module 11. Working with defence-sector think tanks that publish faster than peer review

Peer review takes twelve to twenty-four months. A defence policy window often closes in six. Module covers the institutions that publish short policy outputs on a six-to-twelve-week cycle (RUSI, IISS, CSIS, ECFR, IAI, EuroMeSCo, NATO Defence College, GCSP), the editorial relationships that get a piece commissioned, and the formats they expect. Includes pitch templates and a worked example of placing a Mediterranean-defence-innovation argument with two outlets simultaneously.

Module 12. The personal operating model: research outputs that compound across the next three years

Closes the loop. Covers the publishing cadence, the relationship map, the speaking and chairing schedule, and the artefact library a defence governance researcher should be building so each new paper, panel, and brief reinforces the previous ones. Includes a worked twelve-month plan combining a peer-reviewed paper, two think-tank short papers, four policy briefings, two committee submissions, and a co-authored chapter, with the evidence base feeding all of them.

How this addresses your situation

Specific modules that map to what you said you are dealing with.

You have a peer-reviewed paper or working paper on defence innovation governance that no policy desk has cited. Modules 1, 2, and 8 reformat it into artefacts that survive a ministry filter and route it into the next review's citation set.

You are chairing or panelling a session at ISA, EISA, RUSI, or a NATO Defence College workshop and want the framing to outlive the room. Modules 7 and 11 give you the two-week publication pathway with a defence think tank.

You are writing for a Mediterranean security audience and need the same argument to land with a northern European capability planner or a NATO ACT cell. Module 6 does the framing translation without diluting the substance.

You are weighing a co-authored output with a serving officer or a former planner. Module 9 covers the agreement structure, the handling caveats, and the credit terms that keep your independence intact.

What you get with this course

Twelve written modules in the Art of Service learning environment, every module with worked examples drawn from defence innovation governance and Mediterranean security cases.
Downloadable templates: the one-page issue note (three house-style variants), the options memo with cost-range and risk columns pre-populated, the six-slide policy briefing deck.
A working list of defence-sector think tanks, journals, and committee secretariats with pitch templates and lead-time guidance for each.
Worked example written submissions for a UK Integrated Review iteration, an EU strategic compass refresh, and a NATO Defence Planning Process consultation.
Co-authorship agreement and handling-caveat language drafted for research outputs co-authored with serving or former defence practitioners.
The hand-built implementation playbook, written for your specific research portfolio, delivered alongside course access.

What you will have in hand by Day 1, Week 1, Month 1

Within 24 hours: account provisioned in the Art of Service learning environment, all twelve written modules and downloadable templates available, hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access.

Week one: complete modules one through four, draft a one-page issue note from an existing paper, draft an options memo skeleton.

Week two: complete modules five through eight, build a personal monitoring set for defence governance signals, identify the next defence review window in your target jurisdiction.

Week three: complete modules nine through twelve, build the twelve-month publication and engagement plan, pitch a short paper to one defence think tank.

Ongoing: the templates and the think-tank and committee map continue to function as a working library.

Before and after

Before

Your defence innovation governance research lives in conference proceedings and a SSRN working paper. The MoD policy reader, the EDA programme manager, and the NATO capability planner who would benefit from your evidence have never read it. The next defence review writes around your work because the format does not fit their submission process.

After

The same research circulates as a one-page issue note inside an assistant secretary's office, an options memo on a programme board agenda, a six-slide deck on a permanent secretary's read-out pile, and a citable short paper in a defence think tank's policy series. The drafters of the next defence review have your evidence in their citation set before the consultation window closes.

What happens if you do not address this

Defence policy windows are short and procedural. A capability review, a defence planning iteration, an EU strategic compass refresh, or a NATO defence planning cycle has a citation-drafting window of roughly six months. Once that window closes, your evidence does not influence the resulting decisions for the next two to four years. Each window missed is a research output that does not change a procurement decision, a capability investment, or a partner-nation policy position that your work was specifically intended to inform.

Who it is for

Independent researchers, Ph.D. candidates, and early-career academics whose work touches defence innovation governance, defence procurement reform, NATO partner policy, EU defence cooperation under PESCO and EDF, Mediterranean security architectures, or civil-military integration. Equally relevant for chairs and panellists at ISA, EISA, ECPR, RUSI, IISS, and NATO Defence College events who want their session framing to outlive the conference programme.

Who this is NOT for. Vendors selling defence capability to ministries (this is a research-to-policy course, not a business development course). Serving uniformed officers writing in-house staff papers under classified handling caveats. Generalist political scientists with no defence-sector substance to translate.

How it arrives

Text-based course in the Art of Service learning environment, plus downloadable templates and worked examples for every module, plus the hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access. No live sessions required, fully self-paced, works around conference travel and panel commitments.

Time investment. Roughly fifteen to twenty hours across three to four weeks for the full course, plus the time spent reformatting your own research outputs as you work through the modules. The implementation playbook is built around your specific research portfolio so the time you spend reading it converts directly into outputs you can publish.

Why $199 is the right number

Free defence policy writing guides from think tanks and government publishing units cover the surface conventions but not the underlying decision logic that a policy reader applies. University policy engagement training tends to be generic across disciplines and rarely covers defence-sector specifics. Working with a communications agency on policy translation costs five to fifteen times this and produces outputs that often miss the substance because the agency does not know the defence governance literature. This course sits in the gap.

FAQ

I publish in peer-reviewed political science journals. Will this course conflict with that pathway?

No. Peer-reviewed publication remains the primary academic credential. The course teaches the parallel pathway that gets the same evidence into policy citation sets while peer review is still in process or after it has completed.

I work on the Mediterranean defence space specifically. Are the examples relevant?

Yes. The worked examples draw from Mediterranean security, southern flank defence cooperation, EU naval and air policy, and innovation absorption inside southern European defence ministries. The translation modules also cover how to make the same arguments land with northern European and NATO capability planners.

Can I co-author the outputs the course teaches with a serving officer or a defence industry colleague?

Yes, and module nine covers this specifically. The course includes the co-authorship agreement language and the handling-caveat structure that protects your independence and evidence standards while expanding the reach of the published output.

I am a Ph.D. candidate. Is this course the right level?

Yes. The course is designed for researchers from the Ph.D. candidate stage through early-career academic positions, and through to mid-career independent researchers and think tank fellows. The artefacts and the routes into policy citation sets are the same at every stage.

30-day money-back guarantee. If after a week of working through the materials this is not what you needed, reply to the receipt email and a full refund is processed. No questions, no forms.

Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.