# data[].attributes.body
Notes by: Carla Alvial

# data[].attributes.body
Notes by: Bipashyee Ghosh
Summarised in TIP proto RA report

# data[].attributes.body
Notes by: Victoria Pellicer
Summarised in TIP proto RA report

# data[].attributes.body
Notes by: Sandro Gaichi
Summarised in TIP proto RA report

# data[].attributes.body
Notes by: Victoria Shaw
Summarised in TIP proto RA report

# data[].attributes.body
Notes by: Francisco Dominguez
Summarised in TIP proto RA report

# data[].attributes.body
Notes by: Oscar Romero Goyeneche
Summarised in TIP proto RA report

# data[].attributes.body
Notes by: Kejia Yang
Summarised in TIP proto RA report

# data[].attributes.body
Notes by: Blanche Ting
Summarised in TIP proto RA report

# data[].attributes.body
Notes by: Pablo F. Mendez
Summarised in TIP proto RA report

# data[].attributes.body
PS: 1) Crisis of forestry (economically, ecologically); working with 6-7 regions; loss of momentum of innovations for providing sustainable forestry services; using what is in the region instead of transporting. Policy issue: too narrow focus on cooperation, need for broadening networks for developing activities further; policy has not look enough to frustrations, needs for methodology for assessment, stakeholder analysis, etc.

= Regionally based space for generating momentum for sustainable forestry services directional pathways with a broad scope to be performed locally having local resources in mind.

AG: mission-oriented policymaking, tied to the Dutch policy mainstream, many sectors/fields; how to implement mission-oriented policies in organisations in an efficient and integrated way, issues of triple helix approach, evaluation, risk, etc. Paradox that we have criteria for mission-oriented but not the means for achieving them; context of implementation is key.

= governance issue: how do you design the governance for such policies? Tensions in conflict management

FS: mobile/nomadic education in Kenya as an option; they increased access to school and the transition rate from informal to formal education; governance of informal mobile school is not clear; sectoral policy links to the development; currently they rely on simple tools, how can innovation improve the sustainability mobile schools?

= New configurations of the education system: 1) Sustainability of formal school more sustainable; 2) Tensions between formal and informal schooling; 3) governance of the education system

IL: technology paradigm in South Korea; challenge: relation between transformation for SGDs and transparency of socio-technological systems; issue that the semiconductors industry poses to the country economy (use of energy, pollution, etc.); issue of air quality; monitoring air quality; discontinuation across systems; open data infrastructure for better air quality monitoring system is currently structured for the manufacturing system and not the semiconductors industry. Searching for survivors in the socio-technological systems to gather partnerships and opportunities.

= 1) Necessity to create more space for innovators that can challenge the prevailing data infrastructure system and which business model for open data infrastructure; 2) steps for creating new infrastructure

EA: science diplomacy and societal challenges; is science collaboration supporting diplomacy, or the opposite? International component of societal challenges. Goals: 1) understanding these concepts (theoretical); 2) governance framework for the policy domain, the conditioning conditions (practical). Tension between the international endeavour of science and the country-based nature of policy.

= Creating an entry point for science diplomacy, tensions between collective interests and national interests.

JW: mission-oriented innovation policy laboratory; platform for information and knowledge exchange; dealing with governance issues: legitimation of directionality, selection of solutions, how to engage in upscaling, including the demand-side of the policy.

= Stakeholder engagement: decisions and choice in multi-agency settings. Making policymakers struggling with missions, translating from transition thinking for making decisions about selecting solutions, etc. Exploration of new governance processes for collective choices in the characteristic setting of mission-oriented policy with many stakeholders and civic society actors.

MM: expectations and social processes of transitions governance. What is the role of governance and government instruments for explicitly co-constructing futures and expectations about future? Are road-mapping and foresight adequate for transitions? How do you connect the opening-up and closing-down in one process?

PS: the mission goal is still unclear, so there is a tension between this lack of clarity and the tentative process of building the future

MW: adaptive and reflexive governance issue

MM: there is a real demand for road-mapping. But how to consider multiple alternative pathways in practice?

MW: ‘pathways of hope’ (in Kirsten Dunlop’s words) issue. Keeping alternative pathways open.

# data[].attributes.body
Interdisciplinary collaboration high quality - criteria for the research ; ambitious transformational passionate

Big ideas - not incremental research

Focus on the challenge rather than the solution - tools that can help

Local context - having the right assessment and evaluation tools that reflect application to a particular context
Local incentives

Trans disciplinary and Co created research

Problems versus opportunities _ big difference on how we think and work

Politicians need to translate into hope for the  people- relates to narratives comments from Kirsten

Also focusing on implementation - realising opportunities

researchers who  have a vision and a big agenda - not just incremental

Need to focus on changing behaviors - how do we monitor and evaluate contributions to system change?
Understanding impact on behavioral change and the impact of those behavioral changes

Research on innovation actors - problem owners, suppliers, other actors

Inspired by vinnova policy labs involving problem owners

Would like to see research on whether that actually works

What does a systems perspective mean for research and innovation?

Agencies have a role in understanding the systems - not just researchers

Need a broader view of how you connect projects to deliver impact - portfolio approach highlighted by climate kic

Research needs to be accessible to the change makers - politicians, civil society (ports management?) - can you summarise things in a way that is accessible for the relevant change makers?

Need platforms where actors spend enough time together to appreciate one another's perspective. Platforms for co-creation

Need intermediary actors, yet funding is often project based

Review process impedes new thinking- review process is a conservative process;

Nice ambitions but funders- what are the barriers?

# data[].attributes.body
Bipashyee Ghosh (BG)
Imraan
Klaus
Per Koch
Mike Asquith
Sandra Boni
Ralf Linder
Taran Thune

# data[].attributes.body
Sandra -
Grassroots initiatives in energy and food production in Spain
Experiment with Colombia university - way of experimenting with the regime itself - EPE mode 5

Andrea - Experience of three different cities involves different actors working on SDG projects - how the experiments are niches, identify bottom up initiatives

Bruno -  Socio-technical transitions, interested in defining understanding what we mean by systems, transformation.
Question of TIP through a lens of phasing out systems. Unsustainable, undesirable systems, unlearning

Ian Hughes - Working at interface of ministry and research; disruptive initiatives as against policy as usual. New approaches to changing economic and tech systems from the perspective of gender, religion etc

Mike Asquith - Policy regimes and challenges to affect change

Natalia Graz - Uruguay 's research council and role of public universities. Universities transforming itself, complex and different kinds of collaboration.

Imraan - 2019 White paper - new policy direction with the development of a plan - mission driven, socio-technical change. Reintroduce democracy in policy experimentation which has an innovation focus . Portfolio approach - looking at a set of policy experimentation, institutional requirements for TI (role of developmental state)

Klaus - regulating experimenting in smart grid, supporting policy makers in acceleration of transformation - Regulatory sandboxes, ex-ante and ex-post, horizontal collaboration and mission oriented,
Identify system readiness level

Bipashyee -
Rules of system transformation
Deep transtions - multi-system
Democratic ways of transformation

Ralf - new department looking into innovation policy and society
Project funded looking at Germany's national high tech strategy - 12 missions defined by government - implementation and impact measurement
conceptual issues - measuring transformative change?
how can we do that 'intelligently' by not wrecking the whole system?
policy and governance capacities for transformation - democratic way require certain capacities

Taran - discrepancy between transition logic and industrial change, challenge between policy tied to existing structure and changing whole structure. 8 year grant research centre on understanding linkages between industrial transformation and socio-technical transition. Destabilising mean changing fundamental processes. change in traditional industries like maritime

Per - editor of nordic journal on research and innovation policy. Agencies and research
responsible research and innovation - TIPC work package, future literacy and collaboration with UNESCO on methodology of foresight

Lea - Knowledge paltform funded by VINNOVA - bioeconomy and smart cities - contrasting areas where change should eb happening
Three area - role of different actors like intermediaries, policy making, consultancies maintaining the rules of the game
2. Multi-scalar transition dynamics - global value chains interacting with regional and local experimentation. 3. Policy evaluation - how to understand impact and indicators
Scio-technical regimes - understanding stability - leverage points and how it works in order to understand change
Better operationalise regimes - analysis of regimes - what keep it together

# data[].attributes.body
Fundamentally new ways of doing impact and evaluation
What would be the conceptual foundations - stability, acceleration..

RL - RRI how to measure?
Presence of indicators, but in effects, things may not change
How to design in an intelligent way

evaluation in TIPC - process oriented theme, foster reflexivity and learning, Outcome oriented perspective - proxies for TC

Taran - Another magnitude of change? quality of change ? how do we formulate change?
Sharper delineation of what we are looking for?

Klaus - sandbox is new in terms of institutional change

Lea - Why do we need to evaluate? Accountability? Lot of political conflicts. Whom do we evaluate? We can see why are certain indicators taken up than others.
Peer review as a system in innovation projects ? What does public money mean?
Any form of evaluation should be connected to the goal articulated before.

Ian - magnitude of change - social systems has to change - normative part to it - are we reducing inequality? Need for a roadmap

Sandra - normative question is the goal - does transition frameworks help?

Per  - example : innovation norway
you can't measure companies on the basis of individual instruments -  numbers as form of legitimising public work

Klaus - we can steer it if we evaluate ex-ante - break it down to questions and tasks
Neo-liberals disnt want to evaluate certain aspects since they didnt want it to change - understand the DNA and change it - which parts are possible to evaluate

ralf - normative underpinning - old models persists staying in the comfort zone - small community of innovation policy scholarship. Now IP is much more politicised with opening up of the scholarship to other areas

Sandra - evaluation has a power as a learning process in itself - dealing with political power -

Lea - changing from accountability to learning process - a researcher has access to a room for policy -

Bruno - evaluation as a window into understanding conceptual weakness - magnitude, direction of change, stability aspects
Industrial transformations - what bits of knowledge do we miss? qualities of change

Policy systems are layered with multiple logics - policy and politics

Mike - policy will take it up is naive - we have regimes of policy - understanding policy making processes
There may be fundamental political levers that can be changed

Andrea - minister for STI -
changing the narrative vs competitiveness, growth narratives - posing conflict
Local government understand that change is needed - conflict with the national level

Academics who decide the rules of the game are not us - economist and engineers  - sectors are still dominant

Mike - the scale issue is real - transition happening in local level, at EU level, we dont have the knowledge system and infrastructure to explain whats going on.

taran - more consumer oriented transformation? - social networks shape behaviour

Common worries - how do we ensure TIP is not the next catchphrase that is not politically captured? What can we do to avoid this?
answer could be better knowledge infrastructure, better quality of knowledge , interpretive flexibility is a wonderful concept but how much to harness it to become more clear?

Lea - not a job of any one framework - transition frameworks doesn't help you in normative positionality. Choosing certain solution

Taran - theoretical economists - behavioral and envrionemtnal economist - sustainability is cross cutting

Per - co-learning and co-creation, not what researchers can do - research - policy and industries
break down the logic of research - policy silos

# data[].attributes.body
TIP Engagement II

Evolution of the national innovation strategy in Chile: first strategy focused on economic growth, to the last strategy that includes some elements of mission oriented. We are working on the new strategy, practical examples, pilot experiences in region and communities, to show how it can be done, policy makers are very traditional

What is example? Three mission oriented topics: climate change, ageging pollution, and natural disasters. We don’t know how to do it. How to do it is the question, how to go to he practice.

What did the high policy level? Where there is initiative?

We had a economic strategy focused in clusters: not to do any of those, focus on things that are obvious, everybody agrees on that.

I have three projects - TIP a major project in the country has been implementation. Implemetation has always been challenge. If you cannot implement you cannot transform anything.

Put a point for the implementation - majority of the work, we do implementation - bringing actors together to experiment. When you do that you can get transformation

Ghana - Ewaste

Kenya - education - 44 countries, 20 something are nomadic, it is hard to do public education, formal education in buildings in doesn’t work. It has a lot pf ripple effects, justice issues, security

Senegal Virtual University - 20000 students, these are at the cases, that they are using, how long it takes

I think implementation is what we should talk about it

Three projects - blockchain in the energy sector, AI in healthcare, wastewater treatment

Innovation practices in different sectors - strategically , CIE in several companies, develop lessons on process, and the meaning of the projects, and inform innovation process  in the Netherlands.

Lack of legitimacy of this initiatives, regulatory barriers, and positioning, comprising corporations, not allowed legally and de facto not allowed, now given more type to do what I do.If they want to upscale, problems will arrays,

Regulatory - example of the constrains - management is a public affair, it is publicly organised, public actors are not legally allowed with private actors, if they do that they will disturb the market.

Legitimacy - 4 big energy companies - very centralised - smaller actors that are disturbing  the system - the original position is nibbled at - the position of these different actors - the position of different actors is taken for granted.

health Innovation systems - national traditional, globalise traditional, we are lacking quality control of traditional plants, for wellcome.

Incorporate these systems, rural populations depend on traditional medications, national health missions. Lacking in trade, we are given trade barriers to export these medicines. Innovation in reverse protocol.

Diana, LALICS framework - we are working on a project to put science at the center of national problems: three main challenges equity, democracy and sustainability. Unequal regions of the worlds - gender and industry of 4.0 means of reaching more equal society.

Third problem is democracy, big data, Cambridge Analytics, talk about democracy differently, there are some groups working on this. STI we think linearly, were you assume spill over , What if? if we reverse the logic of this system. We need a more democratic problem definition, we need to think of the state as a actor of the system, we think of it an intervention, but as an actor.

You are using the word problem, not mission - mission refers to a different reality, you put a man on the moon, the machine of Gods, we need to think of smaller problems

Industrial innovation - new theoretical framework to work on the needs and capabilities, and specify, to deal with this diversity and cope with the specific goals. 4 cases - technological development, start-up changes, and possible, we are trying to help our policy makers to see how these investments become, how these are dealing with the SDGs. It is not easy

The third is an implementation of policies in lagging regions in Europe, for industrial transitions, Romania, Bulgaria, Andalucía, transitions towards a sustainable energy - better framework for experimental policies, before putting in practice, we should create a solid shared framework where the policy should be tested and experimented. Attached to this - there is also codifying a number of assumptions, SDGs, goals, bringing back to industrial activities industrial policies, somebody should.

How to motivate the private sector to be competitive and address sustainability, how to do it, should you stimulate the demand, should you stimulate rules and regulations, should you fight against global competition

Scientific advice to the govemnert - High Tech strategy 2025, move it closer to Mission Orientation. Some framework - we are the early strategy - now we have a typology of different missions. Some of are not missions, but narrowly defined, the most problems that I see now, you have this big challenges and the translation processes, and you have instruments and goals, how do you cascade down

One mission is to cut CO2, this is very comprehensive, but you see the description it is very narrow, how to make sense of t

There is some embedded translation process - however broad the project is you push for societal solutions

Costa Rica - innovation policy, in Costa Rica innovation is a goal itself - innovation for what? what are the objective for what?

This is not in the discussion and the policy, direct and indirect policy - what are the real impacts that it has. It is more about evaluation, Multi-criteria analysis, impacts in social welfare and economic aspects. Individual framework to promote these framework.

Innovation is creating inequality - not every technology, innovation for needs,

We have Pinneable - the main exporter, this is not development, is concentrated in a multinational firm, this is the more poor population around.

We have other products, Coffee, rules to avoid the concentration fo the land - the firms used to have the power to define the price. We avoided that with a simple price, fixed prices, organizations, define the prices together, coffee is one of the sector.

Can Innovation help that? Innovation in institutional framework - develop innovation that we want-

Organisation is a public

There is a shared interest - we are unconvinced so far on how to implement it - we need something specific.

Transforming a system allowing other options

Brought to basics

Design

We need to involve beneficiaries at the definition of the problems - we took the German definition, the problem with eh definition of the problems is that we do not talk the beneficiaries, innovation for what, innovation for who.

EC we think about that, sustainability is not technological development, is about the impact of employment, to welfare,

Traditional actors can redefine their identity, in participation, in defining their role, new positions for people -

Some of them are resisting - that’s creative destruction

Challenge traditional actors

Changing the rules to trying to make it easy

Transformation - globalization

We have to straighten the checks in our system

Big challenge is to analyze the problem in a systemic way - the systemic analysis is very different. I liked the portfolio approach, you see all the projects together.

You can contrast two approach - actor led approach; embrace the beneficiaries, the new actors, you constitute the system in actor way

An alternative approach - you analiza the system,

If you want to transform something -

In order to implement the policy you need metrics, analizys, these are different moments of policy

and then you need to consult with the actors again

Calibrate the definition of the problems

Actors - as part of the solution, because you need strategic positioning

Recognize the position of this - reposition that actor in a way that they can take lead and create change.

Participatory objective setting

Framework approach - perspective on policies, measurements, lens and eyes on experimentation

Monitoring and analysis

and based on that repositioning and objective setting

You need some space in which to try this approach

Any space, what kind of space do you need?

The basic practical example, if you want to change the energy

High tech - missions, moving away from technological missions - is the high strategy the right place to put those missions. The result is a bit predictable.

One side openesses- but also to close, you need to find consensus on that.

Technological innovation and such - systemic problems in the background, some leadership is also important

There is another approach - were systems are complicated

You have to start defining these system

Context is important and it matters

The policy world there is also opportunity

Context is also about opportunity - window of opportunity is also part of it. That is being strategic

The space is gonna vary in different places, it is articulating what are the characteristics of when that opportunity arises. And that is a competitive world.

High Tech - institutional innovation - we need to find institutional arrangements, then you don’t have a solution. Institutional innovation and technological innovation is two sides of the same coin, often comprises changes in organisational contexts, changes the position of the actors in the system.

Health sector - the patent system is maybe is not the best approach - maybe we have to think about it differently

Consequences of technological innovation - critique to the patent system, might provide focal points of how the system should change

There is a whole bangle of changes -

We are not finding the niches to take it forward.

# data[].attributes.body
-        Barbara Kieslinger (Austria)

-        Christoph Auch (Climate KIC)

-        Dimitros Pontikakis (EC)

-        Hakan Burden (Sweden)

-        Paula Kivimaa (Finland)

-        Paulina Terrazas  (Mexico)

-        Sergio Belda Miquel (Spain)

-        Victoria Pellicer-Sifres (Spain)

-        Wilhemina Quaye (Ghana)

# data[].attributes.body
General ideas emmerging to the question: what is the experimentation for Transformative Change?

-        How to capture learning

o   Key words: bottom-up, 1rst and 2nd order learning, sharing learning across experiments

o   Debates emerging: the importance of focus on process versus focus on outcomes

-        Evaluation challenges and potential solutions:

o   Key words: second-order learning, accountability, the quality of KPIs, metrics

o   Debate emerging: the tension between centralise the definition of the indicators, versus give to the experimentation the freedom to define their own indicators à In any case, flexibility is needed

-        The actors: the role of different actors

o   Kew words: the importance of trust, the recognition of failure, the coordination between actors

o   Debates emerging: the importance of mapping the expectation of different actors

-        The role of public policy

o   Kew words: To create spaces for innovation, such as sand boxes, public procurements, policy labs, frameworks for defining indicators

-        What actually does transformative means?

o   Key words: reflexive, unlearning

# data[].attributes.body
Matthias Weber (MW)
Sandro Giachi (SG)
Amber Geurts (AG)
Ewert Aukes (EA)
Frank Sawanga (FS)
In keon Lee (IL)
Joeri Wesseling (JW)
Michal Miedzinski (MM)
Peter Stegmaier (PS)

# data[].attributes.body
In depth round: What is transformative in experimentation?

-        Attributes of transformative experimentation: Directionality, participation, learning, anticipation, experimentation

-        Synonyms of Systemic change, and impact on socio-technical systems

-        Led by a vision

-        Multi stakeholders perspectives

-        Empowerment itself as an outcome of transformative experiment

-        Incorporate indigenous knowledge

-        Link to SDG and to societal impacts

-        Transformative experiments are already taken place outside the radar of academia and public policy (grassroots initiatives)

-        Characteristics of transformative experiment: democratised systems, decentralised system, collective process, decommodified goods and service, empower citizens

# data[].attributes.body
-        The need to rethink the role and the approach of evaluation, in transformative experiments. Open questions:

o   How do we define frameworks and indicators?

o   Evaluation for what and for whom?

o   When to evaluate?

o   Theory of change behind evaluation?

o   How to capture second-order learning?

# data[].attributes.body
-        Topic for the AGORA: What is transformative experimentation and how do we evaluate it?

# data[].attributes.body
MW: several questions:

-        How do you generate momentum? E.g. for marginalised roads

-        Relation between dominant systems and alternative; how do create relationships between them?

-        Tension between formal and informal(-local) systems

-        Conflict mediation for governance?

-        How do you nurture expectations that can on a longer period generate momentum?

EA: framing futures, each one with its organisational forms?

PS: what is framing, very generic. Specify. Alternative frames shapes problem perception.

MM: I am concerned for the performativity of the future. This is key, the reason for the loss of momentum.

PS: what is the problem and for whom? As scientists, we should be very sceptical even if concerned for the future. Need for negotiating the problem.

MW: what is in these frames? This brings up normative questions.

MM: alternatives mobilising along different pathways: what is the role of policy for co-creating these pathways, bring in their voices, considering directionality, and keeping the balance between opening-up and closing-down? Changes assessment, evaluation, etc.

PS: a metaphor is the difference between parliament and government, i.e. problems and solutions.

EA: you can model current international science collaboration processes as reference for framing futures.

MM: alternative pathways not only for shared visions but also for experimentation.

MW: maybe alternative experiments leading to alternative pathways.

PS: experimentation gives you a kind of flexible stability

MW: we need to deliver enough stability in experimentation for opening the door for larger scale investments.

MM: are transitions people really scared by scaling-up? I have some concerns

PS: portfolio management in time

MM: carrying to resilience debate. But here we are talking about deliberation.

PS: yes, but we should consider the difference between discussing the problem and taking a decision. Deliberation is too open term. We should specify.

AG: context of futures

MW: not only contestation to critiques, but also constructive proposals. Negotiations for transformations? We need to resume:

-        Future frames

-        Need for normative debates

-        Frames need to be performative

-        Second layer: experiments are needed for making these future frames concrete

-        Final issue: opening-up of portfolio experiments and closing-down for investments for scaling-up experiments

JW: metaphor of the stones and the arch. We have the stone

MM: the weakness of this metaphor is that if you remove one stone the arch collapses

PS: sceptical governance?

MW: reflexive governance?

JW: urgent but reflexive governance

# data[].attributes.body
Don't have funding for citizen science-

Need to change regulations  about engaging civil society- change the role of actors and activities in the research process

How researchers engage with communications and engaging different actors is also part of the process but often not funded

Funders often supply driven - asking researchers what do you need funding for? Rather than other actors

Current approach does not involve  funders taking risks. Having a theory of change at a programme or agency level

Would it be possible for funders time excitement with new types of funding?

Eg different review process, citizen participation, different regulations around  funders

One response - Regulations can be changed- takes political will and understanding

A new call with a new set of rules?

One example- can't fund businesses. Eventually developed voucher system for businesses to invest in universities. Took a lot of time to set up but different way

Is your theory of change strong enough to get the buy in?

Funding process itself is a system. Members of governing organisations are often being lobbied by scientific communities - well established communities benefit

example - bringing AI into climate change - traditional scientific communities might resist change

Question - do you have the right instruments? Do you create new instruments and platforms?

I'if your are in innovation and you can't deal with the unknown you are in the wrong business'

Need different actors to work together and not scientists alone

why do citizens need to fund  you to have two more publications? Need to do more - create networks, engaged in co creation

Can a farmer, in Africa's or Europe, take something from  research on climate? It has to be something that WILL SERVE THEM

You cannot spread around innovation if you are not innovating yourself

We are living in a completely Different world now. On Climate, for example, there is great urgency

# data[].attributes.body
Recommendations - focus more on demonstrations

Questions on whose behalf are we innovating?

Accessible to the change makers

Example- funding programmes.'realty laboratory' ', living lab' Stakeholders reply. Research consortiums. Meet with planners, pedestrians, local businesses, users, etc

Researchers may not be able to deliver? They have to do a lot of work to set up the infrastructure to respond to this type of approach

researchers need to show experience of building up living labs. How do funders help them to start working in that way

example - a call that was set up to bridge the gap between research and innovation - support networks and co creation

Example - innovation partnership. Grant public bodies money to make competitions to solve particular problems, emg. Hospitals. Can construct consortiums with  business and research you solve problems from different angles. Challenge driven. Improves trust and communication

Do we need to improve current practice or make a step change in the way we fund research for global challenges?

Need risk money for early phase ideas - university researchers don't have the time or resource

Funding agencies are over burdened and path Dependent just like everybody else

Missions is nothing radical - the very word  mission orientation brings a sense of proactive directionality

Mission orientation makes us see needs to be more focused on the process and the system

We need the  impulses for change

Funders need to work on a different way

Accessible to change makers mentioned again

Can we work more on making research accessible? E.g. As mission

What is needed for us to think and work in a different way?

The  notion of working in a mission orientated mode had made us realise that we are not necessarily equipped to work in that mode

Accessible to change makers

Need to reflect on how we need to work differently

Accessibility to change makers mentioned again

How can you be a strategic actor? Build strategic alliances? What is the role of the funders? Do you leave it to the researchers? Are you just grant givers or active participants? Ares you just checking the quality of research?

If funders need to move from product innovation to system innovation need to play more active role in the activity - the venture capitalist model

How can funders mimic the incentives of benefited capitalists?

# data[].attributes.body
Many of the participants would be Interested in sharing information on zero emission conference- different  models, experience, guidelines

# data[].attributes.body
Astrid Martens (Holland)

Francisco Dominguez (UK)

John Muyega Ayisi (Kenya)

Joseph Saturnin Dieme  (France)

Leonardo Pamplona (Brazil)

Nonhkanhla Mhkhize (South Africa)

Rik Braams (Holland)

Rob Byrne (UK)

Tatiana Fernandez Sirera (Spain)

# data[].attributes.body
John:

Project on education in Kenya. Case study on mobile schools, 80% of Kenya arid or semi arid, societies often move in search for water. Education aligned to lifestyle not a priority, unable to achieve SDG 4 as result. Education currently favours static societies. Leaving behind nomadic society, but mobile school can help solve the issue. Mobile school structure where materials like tents and canvas can be pitched, teachers move around communities. Relates to TIP to see how mobile schools can lead to transformation, education key to transform nomadic communities. Investigates if mobile schools are bottom up or top down initiative, was it community led initiative? Government’s role to make the schools effective and functional. Policies needed to introduce them, and political will to create institutes that addresses concerns of nomadic communities as special group. Government ministry for education has introduced a committee to address nomadic education, make nomadic education equivalent to rest of Kenya. Providing tents, ensuring water, food, security for mobile schools.

Leonardo:

Research focuses on if and how government can coordinator faster directions between institutions for social capacity to bring development to poorer territories. What methodologies help to understand networks in quantitative way, flows and lack of flows between institutes and people. How to promote dialogue and systemic view.

Rik:

Mix of public administration theories and informative theories, government looks at administration theories for legitimacy, base for government actions. Mechanism needed for government action. Transition literature assigns very specific tasks to government, are these legitimate to be acted upon based on these theories? Work finds some difficulties, particularly concerning directionality.

Delivery mechanism in current public administration theories are simple currently, sees selves as tool as politician, allows action. Setting direction needs more discretionary room to provide long lines of transition, new public management needs efficiency and effectiveness, introduces question mark over new theories, collaborative theories. Increased focus on inclusivity and local communities can diffuse tradition of picking “winners” too.

Rob:

At beginning of project with South Africa and Kenya. Looking into four broad areas: industrial production systems, ways in which 4IR may affect Africa. Transformation of energy systems, new business models combining emergence of mobile banking/ict innovations with getting solar home systems etc into off grid households. Agricultural biotechnology, ag still big part of African economy. Mobile banking, implications for IR, transformations involved.

Critical, not just looking in terms of disruption and economic benefits. Diversity of Africa is enormous, challenge in how to understand and account for it. Can’t speak for entire continent but aims to derive useful insights to be tested elsewhere.

Stream of work on TIP involves government ministries. How can governments across Africa on top of other challenges understand and navigate, even exploit opportunities of 4IR, and avoid the problems. Social justice, achieving SDGs etc.

Joseph:

The case study is of the virtual university in Senegal.  The issue with higher education in the country is that demand is larger than supply of education, the virtual university helps solve the problem of capacity. Federal budget gives priority to basic education, not higher education. Trying to achieve basic indicators of higher education, people in university out of total population. Government created conference with NGOs, private sector, and many other actors to find a solution to the problem. More than 50 recommendations came out of that conference. President of the country took 11 of the recommendations to become public policy. One decision was for ICT to become the heart of education system, virtual university a part of this. Model they chose was distance learning. The minister of education was hugely important, was not possible without him. President was also a part of the policy. 15 units for classes, 30,000 people now in university because of policy over the last 6 years.

Nonhkanhla Mhkhize (South Africa):

Role to support and also engage, a new white paper on innovation is founded on inclusive development. How to align and comply with public policy with capacity for transformative, disruptive change without exposing themselves. Ten policy experiments aligned with development priorities, targets spaces where change is desperately needed. Funding and creating spaces where colleagues involved have safe spaces allowed to learn and be mindful that it may not always work. Very important to document. Using TIP approach to make sure policy experiments will assist that policies themselves are pro innovation. White paper shows support for STI policy and response to development challenges.

Tatiana: Policymaker, reflections from different interventions. Spaces needed for actors to meet, policymakers, governments etc, researchers, need to translate and make communal spaces. Framework and tools that are meaningful for governments, need for governments to feel legitimised by these tools. Missions are easy to understand, innovation policies are harder. Challenge to incorporate mission in research, and gov to incorporate innovation policy. Hard to connect with local level, posters show interesting initiatives, having impact and achieving results, but government led missions do not connect to them. Generate commonality.

Astrid: Need to evaluate and analyse policy. TIP focus has meant their previous methods are not as effective, now working on a project on changing perspectives and how to evaluate in light of these developments. Mix of experts, statisticians, psychologists, language can make focus and progress difficult because of interdisciplinarity.

# data[].attributes.body
Transformative innovation administration:  how to transform public administration institutions so as to be better able to facilitate transformative innovation.

# data[].attributes.body
Challenge of transformative change, what would be number one change in your sector, is it legitimacy, political will, or is it complicated set of challenges?

Mix of political will and administrative will needed, disconnect, needing to work on different levels to make sure change is supported.

Institutional culture often a barrier. Need to reflect on the structure of the problem, how we look at it. May not be asking the right questions, need to deepen what we are talking about. Psychology, how people see selves as part of systems, how they understand impact on these systems. Structural problems, as many visions to the problem,

Need to focus on things that really matter: Govs and companies and researchers have different incentives, not focusing on what matters in society. Don’t see institute versus admin, it is institutional structure not allowing innovators within institutes to surface.

For transformation, strong evaluation is needed: what actions were taken, what was the outcome. Focusing on process. Need to identify which interventions have the higher impact, value for money, outcome on overall population.

We as government talking about need to prove connections between institutions. Current reflection on how we as a public institutions are structured to do this job, but we are not structured to think systemically yet. How to change structures to be more open and inclusive and self understood, see ourselves as part of a system.

We say we need political will and administrative will. That will depends on system too, do you have legitimacy to pursue this direction. Leader must justify policy. Government ministry structures have evolved, but still very rigid, systemic view. Can organisations be changed to achieve declared political goals.

Theories can be seen as Russian dolls. All there within administration, people with different lenses, producing different concerns re: legitimacy, is it legal, inclusive, efficient? One lens currently missing is: is this transformative? Literature on public administration does not say much on transition and innovation. Hard to convince people to work through traditional mechanism of legitimacy, but a changing focus on mechanisms such as the urgency of sustainability could be effective.

Problem with sustainability is costs are now, benefits are later. Urgency won’t also work on all people, difficult mechanism, some voters won’t be persuaded.

A theme of the discussion has been not talking about governments in societies producing transformative change, but talking about government transforming as an institute to in turn be able to make change.

Legitimacy a core concern. Whatever policy result from transformation must require public participation for a certain period of time. Make sure information is cascaded in a way that participation is reached.

Change can happen in space of five years. Government cannot talk about self reflection, are we structured for the changes needed?

# data[].attributes.body
Ed Steinmueller
Elise Randstad
Guillermo Ivan Pereira
Jeremy Hall
José Maria Peiro
Oscar Romero Goyenche
Robin Gustafson
Sazzad Parwez

# data[].attributes.body
ES  -Positionality of business and entrepreneurship in relation to transformative change raises questions of identity and purpose.
It also suggests that ideas about transformative change may need to be considered in our discussion.

# data[].attributes.body
How much research on Bottom of the pyramid (BoP) entrepreneurship will not be published because it doesn't follow the traditional model of entrepreneurship research required by journals. How much grassroots based innovation and entrepreneurship research does not get in front of policymakers? The untold stories that are happening on the ground.

Overarching question What could we gain from directing more research attention and resource towards a better understanding of???

Allocating data and resources, facilitating via digital technology

Big data - we need to recognise that this creates inequalities - access to data and also knowledge. Need to understand the risks and the mis-use. They bring opportunities and solutions but we need to recognise and understand the risks

Need to understand peoples mindsets and practices - the forms and frameworks. How to change midgets and look at the reality from different perspectives. This is difficult because it is uncomfortable

Unintended consequences, unanticipated outcomes from the good intentions of  a transformative change focus.
Not should we change but when we change what are the unintended consequences. What new problems are being created? Solve some problems and create new ones. What are we thinking about that?

Migration - what new problems need to be addressed, inequality, infrastructure, mobility

Regarding institutions: How do the institutions we look up to (UN, EC etc) support the things we want to do either with policy or funding.  Can they move along with the necessary shifts that we need to make or will incumbents retain the lions share of resources

Are incumbents key partners in transformative innovation policy or will they fade away during the transformation? Will and can incumbents change?

So what research would be useful in this area?

Thoughts from the group:
1. Are incumbents investing in the long term strategy of transformation or are they just 'playing the game'  e.g. utilities and the smart home platforms. The implementation and the strategy behind it. Is it really shifting gears or is it all PR and business as usual motivation

2. We know that platforms operate in winner takes all economies e.g. Uber, Facebook. Monopoly situation, inhibits certain types of innovation e.g. local platforms for healthcare. One or two big companies control the interface. EU has taken the view that we need to regulate in advance and work in tandem with innovation policy. What are the most pressing reasons to invest in digital and platforms today?

3. Who are the most important and powerful global actors in this discussion at the moment. What about those that represent the incumbent industries, lobbying EU institutions and policymakers for example. Where are the global third sector organisations, how are they being represented?

Unintended consequences of NGO campaigning: Example of transgenics was given: The unintended consequences of NGO activity on transgenics was given as an example. Greenpeace opposition to Monsanto. Their efforts resulted in something they did not want - 4 big companies controlling the whole market. Concentration of food production.

Big multi nationals like high regulatory barriers because It keeps out the smaller innovators, from the developing world, SMEs etc because of high (regulatory) barriers to entry.

Research topic - the role of lobbying  - the unintended consequences of NGO lobbying and the high barriers to entry for niche innovators created by high regulatory barriers which plays into the hands of incumbents and multi-national companies

Hidden influences, power

We came to three common themes:

1. Unanticipated consequences

We lack a good dynamic theory of institutional organisation and evolution. How do institutions evolve over time as a dynamic process and power.

2. The hidden world.
The world that we don't see because research often focuses on available indicators, data and narratives. As a consequence there is much in the world that is relevant to transformation/transition but remains hidden. These can be signifiant barriers to the transformation we seek. e.g. the environmental pollution created by textile production is one that is largely hidden from view. CSR focus of textile companies has created the unintended consequences that unsustainable practices have become hidden even though they are part of the formal system

Also, Grassroots innovation that may be presenting solutions to sustainable development but are hidden because the innovators may not be following the formal structures and norms  of innovation funding and scaling, commercialisation. How politically this can be looked at and seen as a solution. When you scale up you are obligated to join the formal structure and institution of innovation.

Scaling up and diffusion is a traditional way to look at innovation.  An alternative idea  we propose in TIP is circulation.

3. Configuration of actors
(brings in discussions of power)
To evoke the type of research in which you are mapping and identifying actors, their positionality, the degree of distance and closeness, conflict. Not just at the local level but at the global level

How we identify the needs (of our research) and who are the actors?
This point links to the tension we face with missions. Who is designing the mission. Who is the agency that lies behind the mission definition.

What role do traditional consultative processes of Governments (often involving incumbent actors) have in developing TIP type policy.

Inadequate understanding of the dynamics of evolution - by which power and control become more centralised and unintended consequences could be to create more centres of power.

Money - the link to all the topics - unintended consequences, power, hidden world. Are we just looking for optimum shareholder value or is the story changing. How finance and the sources of funding have to change and are perhaps already changing

# data[].attributes.body
Structures of the meeting:
First 40 mins to discuss

start with the Introductions- name & projects & how the projects/experience relate to the thematic project;

Then second 40 mins- to map the ideas- to see the common topics of the group- to get in-depth insights.

Then pick one topic to present in Agros, decided be hosted- by Samantha Sharpe.

Lina Sonne, India- work on inclusive innovation- what are the different inclusive innovation we see, for innovation policy in general, from start-ups, social practices, different policy governments, typology.

Fatou Cisse (Sengegal)

Public policy- first experience on TIPC, case study on ICT at high level education, focus on how using ICT led to more access to high education, bring equality on access. The ICT for remote education as the main case study, which can lead to transformative innovation- more access, quality, and other social goals. Local population access to ICT and medicine, local university to help the local community. Offer the digital course, women who has baby could access to the education without going to the university. The interest is to see how the policy relevant to enable this happen.

Karen (Mexico)

Main research topic- political economy of transition,

Suggest- how can social innovation could push the TIP further.

Diana (Colombia)

Regional university- doing experimentation at university for the regional development. Towards the development, implications for the policy in long- term to guide the university at different stages.

Adrian Smith- at SPRU, Sussex,

Work on the technology innovation, grassroots innovation. The poster project - how research makes spaces to fabrication and design of technology, how these contribute to the redistribution, and the socio-ecological redistribute. In the research, criticizes on the technology, lots of claims made on the benefits, access to knowledge. Remanufacturing in the localised context. Through the human capability framework, how technology affects the human capability, research on grass-roots, in Colombia, and India context. Use the Q method- to ask the participants on the benefits. Three findings, the capabilities for lively and sustainability, across all three. For policy- open spaces to support, and connect the local infrastructures, need to think go beyond. Connect for circular economy. One policy relevant would be the democracy investment.

Marivanda (Brazil),

Socio-technical transitions, biogas, sustainable. We would like to know more about the actors’ work, how the actors can have a voice with the politicians to develop the energy towards sustainability. Energy sector, and TIS function.

Sieglinde (Brazil)

The same project with Marivanda. The energy project for community. One case is production power, poverties.

Samantha (Australia)

Impacts of climate change, how we medicate for the world-, the poster project brought- look at the characteristics of environmental innovation, production, some supply chain – replication of the good practices, understand the role of the labour actors, and the role they play in design to accelerate the transformation in the sector.

Roberta Rabellotti, Italy

Technology catch-up- with focus on China, taken several case studies on solar wind, and hydro power. Use the framework- technology catch up- that the wind power offers opportunities, focus on specifically both on windows of opportunity, in the case of China, most of the cases, initial push is the creating of the market, what specific windows of opportunity and responsibilities, both in China and incumbent countries,

Relevant for the TIP- although focus on China, we are trying to take in account of the later comers countries catch up, what are the opportunities for both technology catch up, and in terms of transforming the technology in the sector to offer the clean energy. To understand China- whether it is relevant towards more sustainable development in China and other later comer countries. grand challenges and the adoptions.

Not straightforward to understand the top-down approach. Whether it can interact with the bottom-up.

Workshop in Beijing, also with in China, it is different of the industries in the local context, the local government intervene is different from the central government.

Ann- (SA)

How the initiatives can be the bottom-up, the framework- that we ;

The department that in the policy making.

Any adding point? No

Common topics discussion

Summary of the group topics:

Capacity building (universities and other collaborations);

Energy sector; (technology catch up and the transformative innovation)

Technology for the local development (social and grassroots innovation);

The following are the topics emerged during the discussion:

1-      What are the development context? (We had the debate on the concept- the development context;)

[based on the discussion of Adrian and the question from Lina Sonne]

[Huge amount on the learning and catch up literature already there in the literature, what are the relevant for the developmental context]

2-      The implementation of the TIP approach. Whether it is top-down and bottom-up?

[quote of discussion: TIP approach, Some are the top-down; some are the bottom-up, both can lead to the social impact, but may diversified in the ways to reach the objectives.]

3-      How is the relationship of the experimentation lead to the co-production of the knowledge;

[who are the actors involved and why the catch up happening, co-production of innovation; policy experimentation]

[Adrian smith, experiment spaces, the co-production is the aim, but sometimes is about the challenging the different knowledge, experiments.]

Subtheme: 1) what are the values of the co-production, lots of experimentations anticipate the institutions / policy un-exist. Problems in time. And also the temporality, and particular experimentation and activities related.

[Samantha: Temporality is a significant issue if you think about the role of the actors play and their role in the future, how you anticipate that the institutional and policy changes, that would be the significant challenge.]

[Lina: local context, India, there are prior knowledge, for example, would be challenged by the literature from European country. How to - Knowledge from the local context or the other contexts.]

4-      Context and implementation

[context relate to the implementation and analysis, do you see that different from other people’s analysis.]

[Brazil input: Social and culture context, not have a model, objectives, context]

[how the culture and social diversity]

[challenges- in the developing countries, what works in other context not necessarily work in other context, we need to agree on the local reality, how to implement in the local and regional successful.]

[not one size fits all policy] policy as disadvantage, or the policy

[co-learning process, we need to support this, it is the concept of the co-learning]

5-      Capability building and learning for transformation

how our projects relate to the development context?

Can we transform the capability? How can we transform the capability towards the transformation at the local level? How transformable of the learning?

[transferring capability can lead to the transformation. Capability from where, we are trying to understand the implementation, transfer the capability, for example, from China, towards, the other relevant context, relevant to the type of institutions and the actors; for example, in China the capability in mainly in the firms, also in the specific case of Energy, there are manufacturing companies, and project managers. The type of actors and institutions is relevant to what could be transformed]

[Fatou- capacity building- is a key issue on this project, even for the policy design, for the social issues, to do this, we need the champion, either in the public or the private sector, maybe in the beginning it is not easy, after several years, success with the cases, it is possible to engage with different actors to achieve the policy with the social impact, that is why the capability building is useful to get the champion. For example, doctors for the diseases, more involved in the system]

[development context, and the specific strategy- recommended the champion, Ganna, and Kenya]

6-      Scaling up and scaling down for the transformative change

[this is also the sustainable development goals, this is not the catch up , geographical, and transformation, the local, regional or supply level, and how this  influences the actors, and the roles, the interrelationships, it would be different on the different context. ]

how much of the scales could contribute to the transformation.

Also the define the boundary of the scale, not necessarily to the large scales

Roberta: clarification of the catch-up, not the technological catch-up, from the technology leadership, could be different. The pathways could be different for the late-comers. A good example is that all the sectors, example, on the concentrate of solar power industry, China is the country invest more in the industry. The evolution is at the beginning, there are lots of investment in the US, but decided to give up, then in Spain and later on in China.  It is not clear whether there is market for this technology, who is creating the market opportunities, the market opportunities could be from the late-comers. The technological leadership, still not clear whether there is market opportunity, and who is going to decide whether there is market opportunity.

Scaling up and catch-up in the developmental context

Learning, and also what works for the others and whether they work for us.

Sub-themes: The values of Social innovation, grassroots innovation;

Research institutes- more about the big scale, but other project based, more on the ground innovation, larger amount of actors. How to accelerate these innovations towards transition, empower the local projects.

Scale down investment and methodologies to make it work for locality. It is interesting in social innovation the market

Grassroots innovation, for example, it is temporality, whether that could lead to the transformative change.

Some of the grassroots innovation may not necessarily required.

There are debates of the scaling up and scaling down. What are the values of the grassroots and social innovations.

Even there are transformations that we can see- that would be questionable and debatable.

Diana- local challenges from the global agenda, thinking about the scaling up and scaling down. This is the basic for the transformation. We can’t do business as usual. In that way, I am thinking about the local context, and the projects. One of the basis is how the transformative change could learn from the different experience, how to create the inter-local practices, and we can also have trans-local learning, for policy to set up the global agenda, and we need to do the experimentations. We can set up the platform to learn from the different contexts.

How the policy practices could be learned? Replications.

Conceptual debates of the issue- the developmental context;

Sieglinde- agree with Diana, transformation needs to set the platform and experimentation. Social innovation, developing in the community. Principle for the transformation.

Marivanda- how we can implement the different governance in the different contexts. Need to think about the Multi-level governance for the transformation.

From Ann - Question for Adrian- how do you think our discussion fits for the mission-oriented innovation in the development context?

What are the mission-oriented policies?

The directionality. We have suggested several issues that we target.

Reply from Adrian: Mariana recent paper in Nature sustainability- on the six transformations to achieve the SDGs. They identified six themes, universal transformation. Very general level, heath, education, digital innovation. The transformation is prescribed, then needs everyone to work on that, and recognise that as the universal.

Simply focus on the methodology. [can you use the same methodology to deal with the new problems, that would be problematic, and may lead to the social problems]

Framing the transformative, and the missions.

Conclude, picked the topic:

Context and learning for the implementation of the TIP;

# data[].attributes.body
Matias Ramirez (UK)
Blanche Ting (South Africa)
Agata Dembek (Poland)
Antti Silvast (Norway)
Luciano Gallon (Colombia)
Marina Szapiro (Brazil)
Miriam Richter-Tokar (Germany)
Polina Ermolaeva (Russia)
Rebecca Hanlin (South Africa)
Richard Hanna (UK)
Sander Happaerts (DG Regio)

# data[].attributes.body
Argyro Almpanopoulou (LUT Finland)
Cristian Matti (Climate-KIC)
Jenny Witte (Utrecht)
Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia (Spain)
Jordi Molas Gallart (Ingenio)
Karin Fink (FOEN Switzerland)
Mireille Matt (INRA Paris)
Pablo F. Méndez (INGENIO)
Patricio Montesinos (Valencia)
Philippe Larrue (OECD) Attended
Robert van der Have (VTT- Finland)

# data[].attributes.body
Step 1- broadening horizons (Chatham house rules)

Cities as potential transformative innovation hub- e.g. what is about the city as an organism- could be seen as a hub for change. Behavioural change- energy usage(efficiency)  energy sources, visible and problematise it.  Different cities as comparisons. (Poland)

Nation state- national teams (e.g. Norway). How do centres work- interlinkages/ collaboration. Knowledge management in virtual centres. National strategy of energy transitions (links are virtual)   Centres on Energy systems (CCS, RE etc). National boundaries.

Local problems needs to be taken into consideration. In terms of sustainability- The articulation is I’m not alone, but the action is translated into I am alone. (Colombia, Medellin)

Role of researchers, collaboration and learning as they inter relate, and their impacts on the activities. Reflexivity is important.

LIPS- heterogenous- local innovation production systems. Mapping 200 lips in Brazil- results, try to combine these local demands into national level. Diversity/ Planning STI policy. Cooperation, learning between the actors to improve the overall system. Policy instruments for example local capabilities- as appropriate to capture the dynamics in the system. (Brazil)

Baltic Sea region- different histories of development- different EU policies has a varying impact on the local region. Different areas develop due to diversity of learning.

Common Issues needs to be addressed- poverty, inequality, social depravity. Common in all- not urban vs rural. How do we have a research agenda that caters to these?

There is un-eveness to Development.

Rural and urban issues- paternalistic approach, performative- infrastructure is created by the government but not by the people/citizens. Russian Sustainably- means security (social, environment etc). Digital industrialisation has been fast, needs are varying. Governance for whom?

3 concepts- 1) projects used for increasing access to energy. Lot of collaboration-as well as  conflict. 2) capabilities- There is learning in this work. Skills and training needs are highlighted.  3) directionality- creation of capabilities,

What is the role- local government in national governance? How much power is there in regional government? What conditions that allow learning to occur? Social justice issue in district heating- there are issues considering these in the U.K.

Regional transformations- circular economy, Carbon neutrality- EU- territorial specificity. E.g. Coastal, Developed or less developed. How do we learn from each other? What do we do- when there is nothing happening? What narratives can we develop-if sustainability is not yet an issue. What kind of capacities are needed?

Emerging issues- Learning, diversity, reflexivity,

# data[].attributes.body
Step 2- delving deeper

Perhaps niches are constructed differently? Spatiality of niches? Learning, direction,

Which region/ context can you learn or not from? What is the learning strategy from this?

How do we learn from territorial diversity?  How is the scale of unevenness in these regions?

We have- Muti scale learning from transformations-Time and space scale. City region- 1 million people problems are about what they eat today. Everyday necessity.  How do our projects can change problem articulation?

Speed of transitions- maybe so fast, that we cannot capture the change. So the research is ex-post. There is a gap in research- if recommendations are relevant for ex-ante.

How do we ‘learn’ from territorial diversity?

Do we have policy instruments that foster learning?

Sub-themes- directionality, capabilities,
Policy.

# data[].attributes.body
Participant 9: Proposes to organize the discussion around “Deming Cycle” management method or “PDCA” framework: Plan, Do, Check, Act.

Participant 5: Notes that PDCA assumes linear model for policy making, which is messier. The policy process is participatory and subject to great uncertainties.

Participant 9: Stresses that PDCA focuses on meta-planning and continuous improvement in the development of processes and products (tools), and understanding what your customer needs are.

Participant 5: Formative evaluation tools for learning were put early on the table (referring to TIPC process) and policy makers accepted their use. They are at the core of TIPC. TIPC is participatory but acknowledges existing power asymmetries. There is need for tools on how to be more participatory. We already have the required participatory philosophy but which are the tools to be truly participatory?

Participant 1: (Describing her project) We use tools to continue the discussion after meetings and workshops that bring the relevant people around the table. We focus on “teams” as new forms of organising participation throughout the project. We use platforms such as Microsoft Teams (https://products.office.com/es-es/microsoft-teams/group-chat-software), as a white-label platform to co-create knowledge.

Participant 2: We use a digital whiteboard for live evolving conceptualization. MIRO (https://miro.com/).

Participant 1: We also use Slack (https://slack.com/intl/es-es/) for team work.

Participant 5: We also use Slack in TIPC.

Participant 1: All tools have advantages and drawbacks.

Participant 11: We use WhatsApp (https://www.whatsapp.com/) groups to exchange ideas very spontaneously.

Participant 1: In our project we have a full Work Package devoted to how you select people that match the problem/challenge. We got it solved. The similar logic is behind MS teams.

Participant 11: Whatever the tool used, it must be secured against data leaks (Privacy Policies). Policy makers will ask about the legal side of tools use?

Participant 1: We have also created a physical space where relevant people from different ministries can meet and discuss parallel initiatives. We just got that started, similar to UK’s One Team Gov (https://www.oneteamgov.uk/).

Participant 10: Before knowing who are the relevant people and to gather them around the same table, we need to know how to attract them around an inspirational challenge. Also, how are stakeholders analysed and selected? We will surely need legitimacy from a broader audience and design the governance system on directionality criterion. Inter-ministerial platforms and spaces are growing in use. In Japan, high-level executive levels provide funding to those willing to participate in those type of spaces. At OECD, we do research about what countries are doing. It’s a political process, with big trajectory effects. Transformative innovation policies is a giant evolutionary leap.

Participant 2: Maturity level of the discussion (TIP) is different in different countries (e.g., Finland vs Japan vs Cyprus). Mission-oriented initiatives must be devised considering “framing” (concept highly regarded in Climate-KIC), so we need another set of tools to facilitate high-level dialogue. And seriously factor institutional maturity in.

Participant 10: Whatever the level of participation, in the end you need a leader. Who will be responsible if failure ensues?

Participant 5: There is always fixation for messiness as we can see from this discussion so far. Ten minutes talking about tools has derived on related themes like the need to regulate the use of tools.

Participant 1: How we do overcome barriers? Responsibility? Information sharing and security?

Participant 5: Normally, interpretation of TIP starts very small at niche level, not attempting to tackle things at inter-ministerial level. In the “Systems of Innovation” frameworks you come from the top, designing policies at inter-ministerial level. We seem to have different tools to address different problems at different levels.

Participant 6: I come from design thinking and, in many instances in my work, we use the “Double Diamond” framework. You open up a messy phase talking to different people and discuss issues. Then we have a discovery phase. Then narrow again, having a defining moment for problem description and enter second messy phase. And continue developing from there. Designers approach is helpful, when you get lost you start discovering new ways of doing things. We experimented that in different settings successfully. People get really engaged. It is a very helpful way to open up possibilities.

Participant 2: You can just pick up the visual tools that better adjust to your problem, but you have to “frame” them to have productive dialogue. In C-KIC, we use a frame that allow you to get to the end of the process. What framing are you bringing at inter-ministerial level to adapt to the context beyond the tool? You have to bring in elements that allow you to make reflections and are able to extract something meaningful for the process.

Participant 6: We also use the metaphor of “garden with patches, seeds to be planted in regime”. Let them grow and evaluate what happens. This is how you imagine the whole thing. You can start at any element of the Double Diamond. We organised a conference on biodiversity loss with young designers and policy makers, getting them through the Double Diamond, letting them physically build things. It worked well. Really fun.

Participant 11: How do you formalize interactions? Piloting with stakeholders and policy makers at different levels of execution. We use modelling exploring mindsets (referring to conceptual mapping), connecting pathways of impact, policy options with outcomes. “Simulation” allows to model complexities. You get something stable you can play with to know what is going to happen without experimenting in the real world, excluding and selecting. Simulation at any level of abstraction, for example defining areas of funding for innovation activities. It can be a live process, continuously re-evaluating situations. Models are not static (referring to combinations of conceptual mapping with system dynamics mathematical models).

Participant 2: There the question is can you start a process that will require a lot of resources?

Participant 11: The models are semi-permanent, so people go back into it. Different ways to visualize: graphs (pathways, trends).

Participant 2: What are we doing about the bottom-up approach? We are going to transform this information into visualization. The power of knowledge management is very important. Making sense of every single element. Mapping priorities or mapping implementation. Different inputs, different tools, different visualization and communication. Important to empower people’s information through not very sophisticated tools.

Participant 6: Yes, making visualization more structured and organized.

Participant 2: Systems of Innovation and Transitions Framework. Stakeholder analysis, foresight, prototyping. You cannot use regime in some countries (the work has a negative connotation in Spain due to 20th century dictatorship). Learning: lot of information harvested simply can be visualized using network maps. Power of knowledge visualization. Learning by doing.

Participant 5: What about learning, evaluation?

# data[].attributes.body
Discussion starts to revolve around how, when or even about the very need to really define/use tools?

Participant 10: Key issue. Vinnova try co-produce mission and intervention with stakeholders. They selected two areas: sustainable food system and urban mobility. Another one, start blank page, which challenge you address? The way you will address your challenge and the evaluation methods that you select are key issues.

Participant 9: Double Diamond into PDCA you can do planning and evaluation (participant 9 seems fixated with PDCA, but wasn’t finally used during the activity).

Participant 5: (responding to participant 9) You still move in mission and challenges (Mission model 1). Richard Nelson, how can we put man in the moon. 30 years later, missions at social level (Mission model 2). Moon, Model 1 missions work well with PDCA. With transformative stuff is more the Vinnova thinking, you design as you do. Learning by doing. Not classical.

Participant 7: Differences between mission 1 vs mission 2, learning is embedded in mission 2. Maybe you are redesigning your mission as well.

Participant 9: Perhaps we should revisit prototyping approach with transformative innovation stuff.

Participant 6: Another important question that we pose is whether can I really spend tax money to have messy conversations? We need to proof that we can also be successful with the prototyping approach.

# data[].attributes.body
TOPIC SELECTION
Tools that embed learning in a process that is not clearly divided in phases.

Participant 5: The problem is not on the availability of tools, but on selection and combination. To select and adapt. The problem of selection is more difficult. Participation is very important. Tools for participation. There are tools out there from different worlds. How do you broaden up? It’s a very practical problem. We must be reasonably satisfied that we are not reinventing the wheel. We have to start from processes and needs. Experimentation, there will be errors from which we can learn. Challenges frame tools selection. Not all the tools are Mission 1, there are many Mission 2 tools. Reconsideration of old problems with existing tools. We need to be aware about what is out there.

Participant 7: (thinking about the current global environmental emergency) Do we have time for solving issues?

Participant 5: Let’s be clear we don’t achieve systemic change in the short-term.

Participant 4: When I think about a tool I think very operationally. Are we talking about operationalisation of tools? How the process is being run and deployed? I would focus on governance; the problems are not the tools. Tools are out there. We have processes that we need to deploy.

# data[].attributes.body
BG -
Klaus: Spain, India, Australia is introducing sandbox programme. What does it entail?

# data[].attributes.body
Further discussion on applying transformative principles to the ways that funders work and the pitch - on how funders can change  the way they work

# data[].attributes.body
-        Barbara Kieslinger (Austria) - 10

-        Dimitros Pontikakis (EC) - 48

-        Hakan Burden (Sweden) - 14

-        Paulina Terrazas  (Mexico) -39

-        Sergio Belda Miquel (Spain) - 3

-        Victoria Pellicer- (Spain)- 3

-        Wilhemina Quaye (Ghana) - 21

# data[].attributes.body
FRAME-MAPPING (“zooming-in, zooming-out), “FRAME”-WORKING (working with, against, beneath, beyond, etc.) AND SCALE-UP EXPERIMENTS

What doing with alternative futures frames?

1st level (Cognitive):

-        Anticipatory framings (reflexive debates with performativity and normativity on alternative frames; expectations are shaped, created; provides mental framework; deliberation process)

2nd level:

-        Frame “working”

o   Opening-up/scaling-down

o   Scaling and generalisation

3rd level:

-        Experimentation

# data[].attributes.body
Questions posed as a guide- Themes that links transformation in regional contexts- spatial,  place based (e.g. cities), could be regional such as EU

# data[].attributes.body
Our agora pitch

# data[].attributes.body
Assessing transformation (Sandra)

# data[].attributes.body
Configuration of actors in the hidden world of business