Transition experiments vs classical innovation experiments

In the previous chapter it was concluded that the literature lacks a systematic comparison of how transition experiments diff er from other types of innovation experiments. This section fi rst presents a new defi nition of transition experiments, which is the outcome of this theoretical and empirical research. Based on this defi nition the distinguishing characteristics of transition experiments can be defi ned.

Building on literature on transitions (Rotmans, 2005, Loorbach and Rotmans, 2010), innovation (Rogers, 1995) and learning (Argyris, 1976, Leeuwis, 2003), the following defi nition can be developed: “A transition experiment is an innovation project with a societal challenge as a starting point for learning aimed at contributing to a transition”. This defi nition positions transition experiments as a specifi c kind of innovation project, which makes it possible to compare transition experiments with other types of innova- tion projects. The defi nition emphasises that while the starting point of classical innova- tion experiments is often a pre-defi ned result or solution, the starting point in transition experiments is a societal challenge related to overcoming persistent societal problems. Apart from the category innovation projects and the starting point societal challenge, the defi nition also describes that the objective of a transition experiment is contributing to a specifi c transition and the main means for this is learning. This section fi rst elaborates on these three central concepts in the defi nition of transition experiments: (i) societal chal- lenge, (ii) innovation and (iii) learning. Based on this, a table is presented that compares the characteristics of transition experiments with classical innovation experiments.

1. The mechanisms are completely derived from the literature (section 3.3).

(i) Societal challenge

The starting point of a transition experiment is a long-term societal challenge at the level of a societal sector or region (Rotmans, 2005). These societal challenges provide a direction for experimenting and learning aimed at a sustainability transition, in which specifi c sectors or regions develop in such a way that they can meet societal needs (such as health care or energy needs) in the present and nearby future. A societal challenge can be defi ned as a question related to a persistent societal problem, which guides the search and learning process in a transition experiment. Examples of societal challenges are questions related to the problem of the ageing population and rising costs in health care (Box 3.1) or the question how to overcome the problem of climate change and realise a clean, reliable and aff ordable energy supply system. When these questions are formulated in a positive and challenging way they can be regarded as transformed perceptions of persistent problems. Because of their complexity and uncertainty, it is not possible to learn about these persistent problems from classical innovation experiments that typically start from a priori defi ned and well-structured problems or a possible solution. Furthermore, because persistent problems are embedded in the dominant structure, culture and practices of society (Dirven, Rotmans and Verkaik, 2002), solutions

Societal challenge of transition experiment ‘Housing and care for the elderly’ (2)

The societal challenge “How can the elderly live independently with a higher quality of life, at acceptable costs?” was defi ned as the starting point of the “Housing and care for the elderly” project in Hubertus Drieschoten. This societal challenge is related to persistent problems regarding the ageing population, increasing costs and a decreasing workforce in the care sector (Chapter 2, Box 2.1). The societal challenge is diffi cult to realise within the dominant structure (e.g. fi nancing, rules and regulation) of the existing Dutch care sector, which assesses and fi nances care institutes on the number of care ‘actions’ that are taken. This dominant ‘production paradigm’ has not been able to overcome the persistent problems in the care sector. Moreover, the production paradigm increases the workload of care workers, which puts further pressure on the decreasing workforce. An innovative concept for sustainable ‘housing and care for the elderly’ therefore requires a radically diff erent structure and culture. Central in the development of the innovative housing and care concept in Hubertus Drieschoten, is the quality of life of the elderly and the quality of the interaction between the elderly and the care workers (instead of the quantity of care and housing services provided by institutions).

To support the quality of life and working in Hubertus Drieschoten, TNO has developed and tested several innovations, such as technologies that facilitate easy communication among residents and care workers and technologies that provide a ‘personal indoor climate’, which increases the comfort of both residents and professionals. However, the main challenge in this experiment is not realising technological changes, but realising changes in structure, culture and practices (Box 2.1).

60 Chapter 3

to these problems cannot be found within the dominant way of thinking. Therefore, to explore new directions for solutions, the search and learning process needs to be guided by a challenging question (and not a preconceived answer) that is related to a persistent societal problem (and not a possible solution).

(ii) Innovation

The second central concept in the defi nition of a transition experiment is innovation, which can be understood as anything that is perceived as new (based on Rogers, 1995:11). A transition experiment is a specifi c type of innovation project3 _{in which} the nature of the innovation diff ers from conventional innovation projects. The type of innovation in a transition experiment can be characterised as a ‘system innovation’. System innovations are organisation-transcending innovations that drastically alter the relationship between the companies, organisations and individuals involved in the system (Rotmans, 2005:11). The ‘system’ can be understood as the overarching level at which individuals, companies and organisations have organised themselves (e.g. a sector, societal domain, town or region). System innovations involve changes in these societal systems and subsystems that go beyond conventional types of innovations such as a product-, service- or process innovation. The underlying notion of typologies of innovations is that an innovation fulfi ls a new or existing need in a new way. A diff er- ence between innovations and system innovations is that a system innovation fulfi ls an existing or future societal need in a fundamentally diff erent way. Also the societal need itself can change fundamentally.4 _{For example, system innovations are necessary to fulfi l} the changing needs for health care (Broerse and Grin, forthcoming).

Transition experiments can contribute to transitions within a sector or region (e.g. Parkstad Limburg and Flanders in Loorbach, 2007), but the experiments take place at a smaller scale (e.g. at the scale of several organisations, a neighbourhood or municipal- ity). In transition experiments, actors experiment with radically new and sustainable ways to fulfi l an existing or future societal need in a small part of the overall societal system. Based on recent transition literature (Loorbach and Rotmans, 2010 and Van Raak, forthcoming) the nature of the innovation in a transition experiment can be char- acterised as a novelty in terms of interrelated (radical) changes in structure, culture and practices (Chapter 2).

3. An innovation project is regarded as a temporary endeavour undertaken to develop a new way to fulfi l a need or function.

4. Hence, at the start of a transition process future societal needs are often unknown and it can be diffi cult to identify these latent needs (both at the individual and the collective level).

(iii) Learning

The third central concept is learning. In general, learning can be understood as an active or interactive process of obtaining and developing new knowledge, competences or norms and values.5 _{The aim of learning in transition experiments is to contribute to a} transition: a fundamental change in structure, culture and practices. The learning process in transition experiments is therefore characterised by a process in which multiple actors across society develop new ways of thinking (culture), doing (practices) and organising (structure). An important characteristic of a transition experiment is that the experiment does not take place in a controlled or partly controlled “laboratory” environment, but in a real-life societal context, which makes high quality learning possible. Based on the literature on sustainability transitions three characteristics of a high quality learning process can be identifi ed. Research within Strategic Niche Management (section 2.4) explains that successful experiments have learning processes that are (i) broad - learning about many dimensions of a problem (e.g. institutional, technological, socio-cultural, environmental, economic) and the alignment between these dimensions; and (ii) refl ex- ive - there is attention for questioning underlying assumptions such as social values, and the willingness to change course if the innovation does not match these assumptions (Raven, 2005). Furthermore, literature on sustainability transitions emphasises the im- portance of (iii) social learning - a process in which multiple actors interact and develop diff erent perspectives on reality (Leeuwis, 2003). In transition processes social learning is specifi cally aimed at ‘reframing’, changing the ‘frame of reference’ (Schön and Rein, 1994) and perspective of actors involved (Rotmans and Loorbach, 2006). Refl exive and social learning can also be understood as a ‘second order learning process’ (Hall, 1993) or ‘double-loop learning’ (Argyris, 1976) (Figure 3.2). A second order learning process fundamentally changes existing frames of reference, assumptions and ways of looking at a problem or solution.

Figure 3.2 Second order or double-loop learning (Argyris, 1976)

From the literature it can be concluded that an adequate learning process in transition experiments facilitates: broad learning about diff erent dimensions of a broad societal

5. This general defi nition of learning is also used in a practitioner oriented publication on transition experi- ments published by the Competence Centre on Transitions (Raven, Van den Bosch et al., 2008).

62 Chapter 3

challenge; refl exive learning that questions existing ways of thinking, doing and or- ganising; and social learning to develop an alternative perspective on reality through interaction in heterogeneous groups. This type of learning is one of the distinctive characteristics of transition experiments, as presented in Table 3.1.

Comparing transition experiments with classical innovation experiments

Based on their previously discussed defi nition, transition experiments can be system- atically compared with other types of innovation experiments. In this section transition experiments are compared with ‘classical innovation experiments’, which refer to the dominant instruments to stimulate innovation (e.g. pilot projects and demonstration projects that are supported by subsidies or private R&D investments). Table 3.1 com- pares the characteristics of the TM instrument transition experiments with classical innovation experiments by placing both types of innovation projects at extreme ends. This table is applied in several case studies of innovation projects and transition experi- ments (Chapters 4, 5 and 7). Table 3.1 is therefore the outcome of both theoretical and empirical research.

In practice the diff erences between characteristics appear to be more subtle and dif- ferent characteristics can co-exist in one project. For instance, in transition experiments not only second order learning takes place (rethinking the frame of references) but also fi rst order learning (optimising within an existing frame of reference). Transition experiments also do not always start with an explicit long-term perspective (illustrated in Chapter 7). This results in the existence of many hybrid forms, in between classical innovation experiments and transition experiments. Furthermore, in practice many potential transition experiments are set up in a classical project management context. An ideal type of transition experiment would require a Transition Management context that supports transition experiments with other TM instruments (e.g. a complex systems analysis, long-term sustainability vision, transition arena and transition pathways).

Before many existing innovation projects can qualify as transition experiments, a process of ‘transitioning’ (Chapter 5) is needed to create the conditions for contributing to a sustainability transition. Experiences with applying Table 3.1 in existing innova- tion projects show that it can provide a new way of looking at innovation projects and can support a refl ection and reframing process, which can lead to transforming the characteristics of an ongoing innovation project into the characteristics of a transition experiment.