Public Case Study
Posti · Sustainable Packaging Venture
Making venture uncertainty actionable through an evidence-led weekly cadence
As Product Lead and Lead Designer, I connected customer and stakeholder research with service concepts and a practical experiment cadence. Across multiple sprints, it gave the seven-person team a shared way to turn objectives into owned weekly work and recorded learning.
- Situation
- A new venture needed to test sustainable-packaging directions across customer value, digital capability, physical logistics, commercial viability, and team operations.
- My role
- Product Lead and Lead Designer, responsible for product direction, service design, research synthesis, experiment structure, and the weekly learning cadence.
- Contribution
- Focus Area
- Validated direction
- Period
- February 2024–January 2025
- Verified change
- Across multiple sprints, the experiment system became the team’s working cadence. Boxless was piloted.
Early evidence
Every week could be traced to an underlying decision
The recreated map condenses the operating logic visible across the source boards. It shows how objectives and venture risks became hypotheses, experiments, sprint work, and recorded learning—without exposing names, customer details, or internal strategy.
Decision atlas
Three decisions made uncertainty actionable
The venture needed more than a collection of research activities. These decisions connected a broad evidence base to explicit hypotheses, team ownership, and the next week of work.
- 01 Frame a broad challenge as testable directions Research scope → three levers → concept decisions
- 02 Define the evidence before starting an experiment Assumption → target criteria → owned test
- 03 Make recorded learning part of the weekly operating rhythm Sprint goals → written learning → next decision
Consequential decision
Frame a broad sustainability challenge as testable directions
The problem
The venture spanned packaging materials, e-commerce, warehouses, parcel logistics, digital capabilities, customer behaviour, and commercial questions. Without a shared structure, the team could gather substantial research without knowing which uncertainty to reduce next.
Evidence and reasoning
The evidence base records 134 stakeholders, 118 companies, five countries, and more than 100 interview hours. Journey mapping and synthesis surfaced opportunities to eliminate, reuse, or reduce secondary packaging.
Design response
I led synthesis, helping the team turn the broad challenge into comparable service directions and concepts. AI-assisted summaries, quote pulls, topic maps, and risk surfacing supported the analysis; they did not replace source evidence or team judgement.
Proof
The concept set made three materially different levers visible, so the team could compare what each direction required before committing to an experiment.
Consequential decision
Define the evidence before starting an experiment
The problem
Broad objectives such as customer value or sustainability were not enough to decide whether a concept warranted further investment. The team needed to agree what it expected to learn and what result would change the direction.
Evidence and reasoning
The source boards connected venture risks to hypotheses, owners, test groups, setup, resources, timing, and target outcomes. This made assumptions visible before work began and revealed where a test still lacked a decision rule.
Design response
I adapted Mach49 structures into a consistent experiment format and helped the team use it systematically. Each experiment connected a hypothesis with a practical test, named ownership, and predefined evidence criteria.
Proof
One customer-value experiment defined material and cost comparisons, a sustainability relevance rating, ROI confirmation, and continued-use interest before pilot work began. These were success criteria, not achieved results.
Consequential decision
Make recorded learning part of the weekly operating rhythm
The problem
An experiment board could still become a one-off planning artefact. The seven-person team needed weekly visibility into intent, ownership, help needed, KPI progress, and what the latest evidence meant for the next sprint.
Evidence and reasoning
The source material shows repeated sprint boards and weekly learning frames across multiple sprints. The team-operations experiment connected target outcomes to sprint goals, tasks, synthesis, and preparation for the next sprint.
Design response
I facilitated the cadence, kept the system in active use, and made sure weekly learning was recorded. When enough evidence accumulated, the team could refine a hypothesis, define a new experiment, or change the next sprint’s priorities.
Proof
The operating rhythm continued across multiple sprints. It kept goals, ownership, dependencies, KPIs, and learning in one inspectable sequence rather than separating strategy from delivery.
Results
What changed
Across multiple sprints, the experiment system became the team’s shared working cadence. It connected strategic objectives, risks, hypotheses, target outcomes, ownership, weekly work, and recorded learning. Boxless was piloted. The team also prepared a reusable-box pilot, but it did not begin after venture funding was cut.
Evidence boundary
What this does not establish
This evidence does not establish a production rollout, commercial success, environmental impact, or achievement of every experiment target. The recreated diagrams explain the operating logic; they are not original client artefacts.
Collaboration and constraints
Product leadership inside a cross-functional venture
My responsibility
I led product and design work, facilitated synthesis and weekly decision-making, developed and maintained the experiment cadence, and connected customer evidence with service concepts, KPIs, and sprint priorities.
Wider team
I worked within a seven-person cross-functional venture team and with relevant business, technical, logistics, warehouse, customer, and pilot stakeholders. The venture’s experiments, pilots, and wider programme outcomes were team work.
Material constraints
The work had to connect digital and physical service ideas, logistics realities, customer value, regulation, data availability, commercial viability, and finite venture funding without treating a promising concept as a proven service.
Start a conversation
What has become fragmented, difficult to use, or hard to decide?
Tell me briefly about the situation. I’ll reply with an initial perspective and a sensible next step.