KEMs

System change

GOAL

Change from a systems perspective
Understanding and shaping transitions through a future-oriented and systems-oriented approach.

PHASE IN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

This category operates at a different level than the development process and therefore cannot be classified as Double Diamond.

APPLICATION

Help model the system and understand its dynamics.
Assist in developing and selecting interventions to bring about the necessary change.
Helping to organize transitions.
Helping to learn from the change.

What does it entail?

Social systems
When changing a system, complex issues are addressed social systems looked at. A social 'system' is a coherent system of thinking (values and ideas), organizing (structures and networks) and practices (routines and behavior). Examples of current themes for social system change are energy, mobility, care and water management. It can also concern an area (city, neighborhood or region) or organization (university, company or government department).

System change
System change is about how the abrupt transition process can be influenced. To do this, one must be able to understand the dynamics within systems: a holistic perspective is needed in which all elements that are important for the transition can be considered in relation to each other. Historical transition research shows that fundamental system change is abrupt: a system can be stable for a long time and only improve gradually. But when the environment changes, people start looking for alternatives and the pressure for change can increase. Initially, parties within the system resist change, but there may come a point where it becomes untenable, after which an abrupt change occurs and a shift to a new equilibrium. The design of interventions therefore first requires insight into the historical developments, the build-up of transition pressure and the possible future dynamics. Subsequently, it requires a much more design-oriented and experimental form of intervention to influence those dynamics.

What does this category entail?
KEMs within the System Change category offer methods to create transition space in participatory processes and methods to give direction and speed to the desired transitions. This can be divided into instruments to increase the pressure on the transition (which are more analytical, explanatory and confrontational) and instruments to make the desired transition visible (which are more designing, exploratory and experimental). In doing so, they elicit debate and support the social learning of influential parties within the context of the transition. KEMs in this category also help to understand and 'steer' system change by anticipating more intelligently, responding more quickly and 'learning by doing' and 'doing by learning'.

Why is that important?
Transitions imply a change or tilting of an existing system, which parties from the existing system naturally resist. At the same time, a transition provides the necessary momentum to achieve social and ecological goals within a relatively short period of time. With regular policy and muddling through, we will never make the existing sustainable enough (we only maintain it with crises and deadlock as a result). By developing space for imagination, transformative innovation and new collaborations for transition, we increase the chance of a desired transition.

Characteristic of systems is that they are difficult to define and unpredictable. They have a multitude of elements and (mutual) relationships that lead to a complexity that is difficult to control or change. Developing for and on systems is therefore a dynamic issue – which requires a transdisciplinary approach. KEMs in this category help to embrace this complexity and to steer a long-term course.

When do you apply these KEMs?
For questions such as:

What drives system change?
How do we organize system change processes?
How and where can we best intervene in the system to accelerate the desired transition?
How can conditions be created that enable social systems to change and develop themselves (continuously)?

What methods are there?

1. Methods to model the system (understanding dynamics)
In order to determine the strategy to influence a desired system change, it is necessary to understand what the current playing field looks like. Based on a chosen system lens or conceptual framework, questions are asked such as: who are important players (in terms of power or interest), what are the important frameworks, how is value exchanged and what innovations are being worked on? The connections and relationships between these system elements are particularly important here, and their effect on the dynamics of the system. Methods for this are provided from various disciplines:

Multi-Level Perspective: this method proposes that we can understand transitions as interactions between 'the landscape' (i.e. developments in politics, culture, worldviews and paradigms), 'the regime' (i.e. the dominant frameworks, institutions and infrastructure) and 'niches' (i.e. places within which deviant practices take place). From this conceptual framework, innovative movements and conservative forces are analysed through historical analysis and qualitative research (Geels, 2002).
Process Method TIS Analysis: this method falls within the perspective of technology-innovation systems (TIS). In other words, 'the network of interacting agents in the economic field that operate within a certain institutional infrastructure and are involved in the generation, diffusion and use of technology'. The process method studies the underlying mechanisms of technology change over time, through data analyses of events at the micro level (e.g. minutes of meetings and organizational reports) or at the system level (newspaper archives and trade journals) (Hekkert et al., 2006).
Gigamapping: this method falls within the pluralistic systemic design approach, in which a conceptual lens is always pragmatically chosen based on the properties of a complex issue. This can involve ecological, technological, social, personal, cultural, political, legal and economic as well as demographic lenses and both micro and macro perspectives. Based on a mixed-method approach with, for example, stakeholder interviews, user observations and dialogue sessions, different perspectives and the elements and relationships that flow from them are mapped and interpreted in a gigamap (Sevaldson, 2011).

2. Methods for developing and choosing interventions (how to intervene)
Steering system change is complex. This requires methods that help develop interventions and provide guidance in making strategic choices. What is our shared vision of how change should be achieved? Which interventions do we see as most effective? Which initiatives exist and should we try to scale up?

Leverage Points: the concept of leverage points indicates places in a complex system where a small change can lead to a large impact in a system (Meadows, 1999). Meadows identified twelve leverage points in order of effectiveness, where at the least effective level we can exert influence through constants, parameters and numbers (such as subsidies or standards). The most effective levels are about the mindset or paradigm from which the system emerges, and the power to transcend paradigms.
Transition Design: transition design is a framework that promotes a design-driven societal transition for a sustainable future, based on a concept for a completely new lifestyle that is developed locally and on a human scale, and at the same time globally networked in terms of information and technology exchange. The framework encompasses four key areas (i.e. vision for transition, theory of change, attitudes and mindsets, and new ways of designing) for which a narrative, knowledge, skills and actions can be developed (Irwin, 2015).
Multicriteria Mapping: this method helps to map different perspectives on various policy options for system changes. By means of a structured interview technique and computer analysis, all options are viewed in a symmetrical way by different actors. In doing so, they look at both social and technological aspects (Stirling et al., 2007).

3. Methods for organizing transitions
It is impossible to realize system change as an outsider without entering into relationships with the system. This means that actors or companies that want to drive system change must strategically consider how to enter into and shape the relationship with the existing system. How do you form a network with a shared mission? How do you organize the process? How do you divide the roles among yourselves and build new structures of cooperation? And how can you, as a network of stakeholders, 'pilot' system change, as it were, by experimenting together with new resources and processes?

Transition Arena is a method in which a selective group (an innovation network) with diverse perspectives and roles works on a vision for the future and transition path for a specific transition (Loorbach, 2014).
Sociotechnics shows how you can integrally change (networks of) organizations so that they can make a social contribution. To do this, you have to start with the structure (the way in which tasks are divided and linked). What better structures exactly entail, differs per specific context – the KEM sociotechnics offers a framework for designing and/or redesigning structures per context (de Sitter, 1994).
Transformative Practices: this is a design-driven approach that helps multi-stakeholder teams to investigate complex systemic societal challenges, design solutions for them and thus innovate. By consciously playing with different compositions of people and interactions (using products, systems, environments, services, policy instruments) the personal and social ethics and related behavior of (groups of) people are transformed.

4. Methods to learn together from the change
Complex dynamic systems cannot be controlled. That is why we must learn to 'dance' with systems. Learning from Eastern philosophies, we must try to use our Western knowledge - often from reductionist paradigms - in our practices to guide transitions. This requires flexibility and 'reflexivity'. How can we learn as effectively as possible from our actions, during our actions?

Pragmatic reflexivity: Traditional reflexive approaches focus on generating consensus. Pragmatic reflexivity, on the other hand, is an open, transformative and action-oriented collective process of reframing the issue and underlying values, ideologies and power structures. The method consists of joint experimentation and social learning with both scientific and non-scientific expertise (Popa et al., 2015).
Dialogic Design: this is a method as part of co-design in which different stakeholders bring in their specific ideas, skills and culture and can take action. The problems and tensions that may arise from this are discussed using a dialogue technique, in which actors apply listening skills, can change their minds and eventually converge to a shared perspective (Jones, 2014; Manzini, 2016).

System change in practice