Theoretical background
2.3 Transition Management
Related to the development of Transition Dynamics concepts, the governance approach Transition Management (TM) was developed to infl uence transitions towards sustain- able directions (Rotmans et al., 2000, 2001, Rotmans, 2003, Loorbach, 2007). Transition experiments are on of the key TM instruments, therefore, this section introduces what
8. Underlying these patterns are three elementary mechanisms: creation, co-evolution and clustering (De Haan and Rotmans, 2009). Transitions can occur through the creation or clustering of niches into a niche- regime or through the co-evolution of niches with the regime.
44 Chapter 2
Transition Management is, including its main concepts and framework, how it has been developed and how it is related to and also diff ers from Strategic Niche Management. Transition Management is a new mode of governance for sustainable development that is aimed at enabling, facilitating and guiding transitions to sustainability (Loorbach, 2002, Kemp and Loorbach, 2003, Loorbach, 2007). The underlying assumption is that full control and management of transitions is not possible, but Transition Management claims that it is possible to infl uence the direction and pace of transitions in subtle ways by a series of interventions at diff erent levels using diff erent instruments (Rotmans and Loorbach, 2010).
The Transition Management approach does not start with focusing on a solution, but is explorative and design-oriented. Transition Management uses the concept of sustain- able development as a normative frame to develop a future orientation (vision) and to structure and organise a search-and-learning process (Loorbach, 2007:25). Important characteristics of Transition Management, in comparison to classical process manage- ment approaches, are that it is selective in who participates in this process (‘frontrunners’ and ‘fi rst movers’) and that it focuses on the content as well as on the process.
The development of the TM approach can be characterised as a co-production process, in which theory development and implementing TM in practice reinforced each other. In 2000 initial TM principles were formulated in a report on transitions and Transition Management by Rotmans et al. (2000). In 2001 the concepts of ‘transition’ and ‘Transition Management’ were fi rst applied by national policy-makers in the Netherlands. In the fol- lowing years TM was applied and further developed in multiple case studies in diff erent sectors and regions in the Netherlands and Belgium (Loorbach, 2007). Theoretically, the concept of Transition Management is grounded in two scientifi c disciplines: complex systems science and research on new forms of governance.9 Based on a combination of deducing concepts from complex systems theory and new forms of governance and in- ducing new concepts and practical guidelines from case studies, a practical management framework was developed (Rotmans and Loorbach, 2001, Loorbach, 2002, Loorbach and Rotmans, 2006). The TM framework encompasses a portfolio of systemic instruments: a complex systems analysis, sustainability visions, transition arena & transition pathways, a transition agenda, transition experiments, monitoring & evaluation and transition coalitions & networks. The Transition Management cycle (Figure 2.5) integrates and structures the diff erent TM instruments in four activity clusters (Loorbach, 2002, Rot- mans, 2003, Loorbach and Rotmans, 2006, Loorbach, 2007): (i) structuring the problem in question, establishing the transition arena and envisioning; (ii) developing coalitions and transition agendas (transition images and related transition paths); (iii) establishing
and carrying out transition experiments and mobilising the resulting transition net- works; (iv) monitoring, evaluating and learning lessons from the transition experiments and, based on all these, adjust the vision, agenda and coalitions. According to Loorbach (2007) there is no fi xed sequence of the steps in Transition Management as Figure 2.5 suggests and the steps can diff er in weight per cycle: “In practice the transition manage- ment activities are carried out partially and completely in sequence, in parallel and in a random sequence”. However, most examples of Transition Management in practice, such as in Parkstad Limburg and Flanders (Loorbach, 2007) and in Zeeland (Henneman, 2008), start at the ‘top’ of the TM cycle: fi rst a transition arena10 is set up, which develops a long-term sustainability vision and related transition pathways and only later in the process transition experiments are selected. This can be labeled as a ‘top-down TM approach’ (which refers to the top of the TM-cycle, and not to conventional top-down policy approaches).
The development of the TM-approach was related to, and in some ways also co-evolved11 with the development of the Strategic Niche Management (SNM) approach (Schot et al., 1994, Kemp et al., 1998, Weber et al., 1999, Hoogma et al., 2002). The concept of SNM was invented by Arie Rip, a Dutch philosopher and sociologist of technology, and was further developed by Johan Schot, Remco Hoogma, René Kemp, Frank Geels, Matthias
10. “The transition arena as a multi-actor governance instrument intends to stimulate and coordinate inno- vation through creating shared (new) problem defi nitions and shared long-term goals. The transition arena is a virtual arena, an open and dynamic network in which diff erent perspectives, diff erent expectations and diff erent agendas are confronted, discussed and aligned where possible” (Loorbach, 2007: 132-133).
11. “The co-evolution between SNM and TM is especially visible in the analytical work on transition dynam- ics [transition patterns] and in some operational experiments” (Loorbach and Rotmans, 2009). This is also illustrated in Figure 2.1.
Problem structuring, establishment of the transition arena and
envisioning
Mobilizing actors and executing projects and
experiments Monitoring, evaluating and learning Developing coalitions and transition- agendas
46 Chapter 2
Weber, Bernard Truff er, Barbara van Mierlo and Rob Raven. SNM is aimed at stimulating learning processes and processes of societal embedding of socio-technical innovations. A core element of SNM is to experiment in practice in (partly) protected niches. SNM can be applied as a policy tool to support initiatives and protect them, temporarily, from selection pressure from the dominant regime (Figure 2.6).
Both SNM and TM use similar concepts (e.g. sustainable development, transitions, regimes, niches, providing space for experimentation) and try to translate these theoreti- cal notions into a managerial perspective on sustainability transitions. This ‘managerial perspective’ encompasses theoretically grounded and practice-oriented guidelines and recommendations that are targeted at specifi c actors. For SNM the typical central actor is in most cases the relevant policy-maker, whereas for TM it might be any actor with signifi cant resources that wants to further a transition (e.g. a Ministry, local government, NGO or a company) (Loorbach and Rotmans, 2009:6). However, SNM has been mainly applied in ex-post analyses of technological innovations (e.g. Hoogma, 2000, Van Mierlo, 2002, Raven, 2005). A typical SNM study analyses how a technological innovation, which is regarded as a sustainable alternative to the dominant socio-technical regime, contrib- utes to niche development. Because of the evaluative nature of these SNM studies, their outcomes mainly include lessons learned (regarding how SNM was or was not success- fully applied) and recommendations for future policy. Though neither the TM approach nor the SNM approach off er a fully operational and empirically validated management model, it can be concluded that the managerial perspective in SNM is less developed than in TM. In a recent discussion paper about SNM and TM, Loorbach and Rotmans (2009:10) bring up the following questions: “What SNM aims at is clear, but how this should be done and who should do what remains unclear. In SNM no indication or analysis is given if or how the selected technologies are likely to change a regime because of whose actions.”
While TM and SNM share the ambition to stimulate sustainability transitions, the ambition, focus and scope of TM are broader than SNM: TM aims to stimulate ongo- ing and future transition processes in societal systems, while SNM aims to set up and
-iiVÌÊv>VÌÀÃÊÊ`>ÌÊÀi}i
V iÆÊ«>ÀÌ>ÊÃ i`}
Figure 2.6 A niche off ers selective protection against selection pressure from the regime (Hoogma,
analyse protected spaces for experimentation with technological innovations. Loorbach and Rotmans (2009) explain how this diff erence in focus and goal is related to historical diff erences, diff erences in analytical basis and diff erences in prescriptive basis.
The next section will specifi cally elaborate on the similarities and diff erences regard- ing the role of transition experiments in TM and SNM.