In Pursuit of Design-led Transitions

Abstract

This paper contributes to the growing maturity of transition design. A Dutch transition design project with the Dutch Government and food sector is presented and reveals the challenges of designing at a system level. Reflection on the project reveals two insights that were not factored within the project but in retrospect require the attention of transition designers; (1) the timing of the transition relative to the surrounding environment and; (2) the velocity or speed at which a transition can be fully enacted. The paper shifts to investigating change theories to identify possible directions to address these challenges. Theoretical implications are concluded from this investigation. This paper deals with politics, power, democracy, leadership, and enablers and inhibitors of change.

Full text

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0
International License.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
In Pursuit of Design-led Transitions
PRICE, Rebecca Anne*
Delft University of Technology, Netherlands
*Corresponding author e-mail: r.a.price@tudelft.nl
Contribution ID: 260
This paper contributes to the growing maturity of transition design. A Dutch transition
design project with the Dutch Government and food sector is presented and reveals the
challenges of designing at a system level. Reflection on the project reveals two insights
that were not factored within the project but in retrospect require the attention of
transition designers; (1) the timing of the transition relative to the surrounding
environment and; (2) the velocity or speed at which a transition can be fully enacted. The
paper shifts to investigating change theories to identify possible directions to address
these challenges. Theoretical implications are concluded from this investigation. This
paper deals with politics, power, democracy, leadership, and enablers and inhibitors of
change.
Keywords: power, policy, leadership, ecosystem, pluralism
Introduction
It is a time of unrest described in various strong rhetorical forms as a time of many problems (Margolin, 2015),
an increasingly complex world (Buchanan, 2015), a time of rapid changes (Bucolo, 2015), and transience
(McGrath, 2013). The successful processing of this subject matter has elevated design (and designers) to areas
of organisational reform, system
1
design, policy reform and technology related transformations (Muratovski,
2015). The witnessed rise in the statue of the design discipline is eloquently described by Richard Buchanan as
the design movement (2015). In short, it has been a busy period for designers.
One particular growth area in the design movement is the increasing popularity of design-led innovation.
Design-led innovation provides organisations with the means to negotiate uncertainties and innovate to create
and capture value. Design becomes a source of new thinking and action and informs the strategic direction of
an organisation. Yet focus is shifting again. Design is now being explored beyond the scale of individual
organisations. Questions such as ‘how might design assist national economies to thrive during uncertainty’,
and; ‘how will international carbon emission be lowered while maintaining social and economic stability’ are
now open to designers (Irwin, 2018). Such an increase in scope has led to methodological developments within
the discipline. Transition design is one such emerging methodological development (Irwin, Kossof &
Tonkinwise, 2015). In particular, guidance on how to apply transition design given the inherent scaling
challenges and political implications associated with working at a system-level remain an area for further
attention.
The aim of this paper is to contribute toward the methodological emergence of transition design. The paper
reveals how the urgency for transition design can be arrived at from an alternative path to social innovation -
via design-led innovation. Design-led innovation is acknowledged as a means to drive organisational
1
The terms system and ecosystem will be used interchangeably from herein

2
transformations.
2
Transitions do require the collective transformation of public and private organisations
together (Geels, 2002) which acts as an interaction point for design-led innovation. This logic is explored
through a review of literature before the paper shifts to describing a Dutch case of transition design in effort to
explore the current state of the methodology. Literature on policy making (e.g., Bason, 2013), technology
forecasting (e.g., Adner & Kapoor, 2017), innovation (e.g. Christensen, 1997), management (e.g., McGrath,
2013) and ecological economics (e.g., de Jesus & Mendonça, 2018) is consulted in order to draw upon
multidisciplinary perspectives that reflect the complexity of transitions literature. Based on these insights,
theoretical implications for designing transitions are presented.
The Design Movement
Central to design, is the notion of design being capable of addressing wicked problems (Buchanan, 1992; Rittel
& Webber, 1973). Designerly strategies (such as problem-framing) are particularly, if not uniquely suited to
dealing with ill-defined or wicked problems (Cross, 2007; Forlizzi, Stolterman, & Zimmerman, 2009; Gaver,
2012; Stolterman, 2008). Buchanan presents the four orders theory of design in which wicked problem-solving
are encountered (1992; 2015), see Figure 1. Buchanan’s four orders deconstructs the nature of design
problems, relating activities required to prescribed solutions. As Buchanan states of the four orders, “the
evolution of the design professions from graphic and industrial design to interaction design and, then, to the
design of systems, environments and organisations is the hallmark of the current design movement” (2015, p.
11). Since the turn of the century, a series of new approaches to design have evolved from human-centred
foundations. From transformation design to service design, design-led innovation and strategic design (see
e.g., Calabretta, Gemser & Karpen, 2016; Jones, 2017; Bucolo et al. 2012). This diversification away from a
heritage of industrial design is an indication of the discipline’s increasing maturity, a journey supported by the
positive reception of the designers within newfound contexts of organisational reform (Elsbach & Stigliani,
2018) and policy arenas (Yee & White, 2016).
Figure 1: Four Orders of Design - Buchanan, 2015
Design-led Innovation to Design-led Transitions
Design-led innovation as a concerted approach was realised in response to growing pressure on the Australian
manufacturing sector from nearby high-productivity and low-wage competitors based in Asia. A design-led
approach to innovation encapsulates the methods, skills and culture of design throughout the entire process
of creating and capturing value within an organisation. The approach conceptualised by Bucolo, Matthews and
Wrigley (2012) assists an organisation to diversify by gathering and acting upon novel insights from customers
and stakeholders. Novel insights become a basis for differentiating innovation and a vital source of top line
growth for firms experiencing the pressures of market competition. Cases reveal that design-led innovation
2
I choose to make a distinction here for clarity. Transformations are changes at an organisational-level, and transitions are changes at the
system-level.

3
can positively contributes to, and can even drive organisational transformations (Doherty, Wrigley, Matthews
& Bucolo, 2015; Townson, Matthews & Wrigley, 2016; Krabye, Wrigley, Matthews, & Bucolo, 2013).
While design-led innovation began with a motive to support the Australian manufacturing sector, interest
quickly grew from the broader business community. Of note is the mobility sector (Garret, Straker & Wrigley,
2017; Price & Wrigley, 2016). General findings from these initial years of research are contained in the work of
Wrigley (2016) and Price, Wrigley and Straker (2015). Design-led innovation has also transferred successfully to
the European context, involving partnerships with an automotive company (Bryant & Wrigley, 2014) and
software developer (Bastiaansen, Price, Govers & Machielsen, 2018). Parallel efforts to bring design-led
innovation into the public sector have also been positive (Bason, 2013; Camacho, 2016).
Focus has turned progressively from the scale of individual organisation and impact of design, toward a macro
perspective of the potential impact of design across networks of organisations. This shift entails scaling design-
led innovation, and more broadly design as a source of improved competitiveness for single organisations, to
the resilience of a network of organisations – an entire sector, industry or indeed a national economy. Fraser
(2012) raises the potential of design to be a source of an economic prosperity, describing an innovation
economy where enterprises compete with and through design. Similarly, Bucolo (2015) extends the design
ladder (Figure 2) to describe design as national competitive strategy (step 6) whereby a government designs
and implements macro-economic strategies that promote national resilience. The Australian paradigm prevails
in the work Peppou, Thurgood and Bucolo (2017). Yet there are also parallel international efforts to elevate
design to source of system-level impact. Of note are methodology developments that address:
 The socio-technical  thing-centred design (Giaccardi, Speed, Cila and Caldwell, 2016), DesignX
(Norman & Stappers, 2015);
 The socio-cultural  infrastructuring design (Hillgren, Seravalli & Emilson, 2011), and;
 The socio-economic  Design-led innovation (Bucolo, Matthews & Wrigley, 2012), design driven
innovation (Verganti, 2009).
Another emergent methodology is transition design. Transitions are more prominent within fields such as
policy development and technology forecasting. Journals such as Futures, World Development, Research Policy
and Technological Forecasting and Ecological Economics contain work that is topical to the transitions of
developing nations and adoption of new technology innovation systems. Transitions represent the collective
shift of multiple levels of a system (Geels, 2002). Geels describes three levels that must be aligned for a
transition to take place. These levels are
1. The ‘niche’ level where innovation occurs;
2. The ‘regime’ level where policy frameworks operate, and;
3. The ‘landscape’ level where megatrends and collective motivations reside.
As Geels, (2011, np) writes:
Although each transition is unique, the general dynamic pattern is characterised by transitions
resulting from the interaction between processes at different levels: (a) niche-innovations build up
internal momentum, (b) changes at the landscape level create pressure on the regime, and (c)
destabilisation of the regime creates windows of opportunity for niche-innovations.
As an example, the sustainable energy transition requires innovation to develop renewable energy products
and services that are attractive to citizens (niche). The organisations that are responsible for that innovation
must also undergo a transformation. New policy frameworks (regime) that promote renewable energy sources
are required too so that the existing finite energy system is phased out. Finally a collective movement toward
acceptance of the need to act on climate change (landscape) creates a sense of urgency (Kivimaa & Kern,
2016). A window of opportunity is opened and a transition can take place. When these layers realign and
stabilise to a new state, a transition is said to have been enacted. For this reason, transitions require
overcoming ‘lock-ins’ or entrenched ways of operating, thinking and being at each level (Lachman, 2013).
Hence, transitions also require a build-up of forces for change that move dynamically between citizens,
industries and political division (Frantzeskaki & de Haan, 2009). This build-up takes time and inherently
involves tension (Jorgensen, 2012). Overtime the existing system is creatively destroyed and replaced with a
new system and accompanying paradigm (Kivimaa & Kern, 2016).
The strength of transition theory is in the comprehensive way retrospective cases are described. However,
Lachman (2013) also describes this as a ‘catch 22’, as literature offers limited practical guidance for designing

4
and enacting transitions. Further transition literature points generally to the collaborative effort and
engagement between niche and regime actors. However, actual description of practices required to facilitate
this interaction are vague (Kemp & Rotmans, 2009). Martens and Rotman (2005) do point toward anticipatory
approaches that are reflexive, test assumptions and drive innovation. An opportunity for design is apparent.
From a design perspective, transitions theory shifts rhetoric from commercial principles such as viability and
competitiveness associated with design x innovation (Dong, 2015) to a holistic perspective – an
‘interconnectedness’ of social, economic, political and natural systems to address present and future wicked
problems (Irwin et al. 2015). Wicked problems such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, and increasing
wealth disparity require the design and implementation of new products, services and systems. Such change in
rhetoric elevates design to new urgency. Irwin et al (2015) view transition design as a natural extension of
existing design approaches, view visualised in Figure 3.
As Irwin (2018) describes, designing transitions involves three repeating phases; (1) reframing present and
future; (2) designing interventions, and; (3) waiting and observing. The methodology places emphasis on
envisioning long-term futures that are desirable for a holistic range of stakeholders, then backcasting toward
feasible realisation steps. The present context is also reframed, for example how Leitao (2018) reframes the
narrative of western modernity to explore new notions of past and present . These new perspectives inform
envisioning that is intended to break away from conventional ‘lock ins’ described by Lachman (2013) that
reinforce the present ecosystem. Interventions are then built and enacted at various system-levels that are
informed by Geels’ multi-layered perspective (MLP) (2002). These interventions are intended to create
pressure for change between and across levels of a system. Waiting and observing as evaluative activities then
determine the status of the interventions before a series of reframing occurs again.
Figure 2: Design Ladder Extended – Bucolo 2015. Reaching national transitions

5
Figure 3: Emerging Discipline of Transition Design – Irwin et al. 2015
RtD: Dutch Transition Design Case
Presenting a practical example of transition design provides insight into the nuances and emergent state of the
methodology. As part of a collaboration with the Dutch Government’s X-Lab, Youngsil Lee (2018) lead a design
team to create a kitchen-code service to promote healthy and sustainable daily cooking habits for Dutch
citizens. The design team was multidisciplinary; including designers, ecologists, industrial engineers and policy
makers. The project, From things to systems, and back: a thing-centric approach to protein transition in the
Netherlands explored socio-cultural and socio-economic circumstances of food purchase, preparation and
consumption. This construction by Lee involved the integration of commons theory (Ostrom, 2015) as
mechanism to create tension between new daily individual actions and the food industry. This approach is
consistent with Geels’ multi-levelled perspective (2002).
Lee designed a service to encourage changes in how food is produced, regulated and consumed. The strength
of the project lies not only in the outcome – a new service proposition - but in the conceptual construction of a
spatiotemporal axis of the kitchen to which the problem of unhealthy and unsustainable societal eating habits
reinforced by current agricultural and food processing is confronted. Lee establishes a vertical axis from
individual consumer, to family, community and society and uses each level as an interlinked design context
(Figure 4). The kitchen context is reframed as a decision making space and becomes the vertical axis. Kitchen
tools that afford certain cooking techniques and practices are identified as amplifying effects for the diffusion
of change at each horizontal rung of the axis. The home kitchen, the commercial kitchen, the restaurant
kitchen, the farmer’s kitchen all act as decision making spaces that determine supply and demand within the
greater food system.
Lee and her team designed a service intervention that would support policy efforts to reduce meat-based
protein consumption in the Netherlands. Overtime, the home cook would be encouraged to use green protein
(as opposed to animal-based protein) sources in purchasing and cooking decisions. When buying new green
food products, the kitchen-code service would assist individuals and groups to learn new recipes based on
what cooking utensils were available in their own kitchen context. Should the entire Dutch population cease to
purchase and consume meat overnight, a supply-chain induced disaster would occur with waste accumulating
toward crisis point. Under the kitchen code service, policies would need to be devised that would support
farmers to shift their production over time to ensure they were producing food relative to demand and
substituting meat based farming with green alternatives.
The case of protein transition within the Dutch context is an example of the emerging state of transition
design. The project reveals that the task of building conceptual and theoretical integrity within the
methodology must take place in situ while experimenting via research through design. An observation
throughout the project was that the ecosystem was ‘not ready’ to embrace such thinking about the reduction
of meat-based protein sources. More insight about the state of the ecosystem was required to determine
when the transition could be enacted. The production of meat-based protein, especially in the dairy industry,
in the Netherlands is considered part of the socio-cultural identity of the country. The Dutch are proud of their
cheese, milk and dairy products which are exported globally. In this sense, the project felt political resistance.
While the kitchen-code service has not been implemented, the principles underpinning the protein transition
and kitchen code are now informing policy making.

6
Figure 4: System diagram of the Kitchen Concept developed by Lee (2018) and inspired by Geels (2002).
A second key insight gained by the researchers was a sense that how quickly a protein transition could be fully
enacted across an ecosystem. The scale of changes within the agricultural industry in particular would take
many years to stabilise. The protein transition designed by Lee and colleagues provided an idealistic vision of
steps required to move toward a new food-system. Necessary transformative actions and the political
upheaval within each participating organisation was not factored into the design of this greater transition. In
retrospect these two factors of timing and speed were critical. In the next passage of this paper, I look to
theories associated with change and growth to learn more about how timing and speed are addressed in
transitions literature.
Looking to Change Theories for Guidance
Transitions requires daily changes at the scale of the individual. In daily life there are many transitions already
underway. Transitions can manifest in adoption of new products and services; for example from combustion to
electric vehicles or from non-recyclable plastics to organic alternatives such as alginate based materials. These
two transitions can be considered part of the general sustainable transition. This transition involves an
unwinding from an industrialised carbon-intensive economy toward notions of renewable energy, reuse,
repair, repurpose and recycle (de Jesus & Mendonça, 2018). The challenge of this transition is not to change
one individual, but to scale change viably across the entire value chain associated with production to
consumption of goods and services.
Innovation can be an enabler here, as Schot and Kanger (2016, pg 76) note; ‘As Innovation enabled the
development of an industrial, carbon-intensive economy, it is plausible that (“transformative”) innovation may
now be the vehicle for triggering a new, “green” transition’. However, the same approach to innovation
prioritising efficiency and productivity that hailed in the industrial era cannot be repeated. With the power of
retrospect and with the presence of an information economy, it is clear that an approach that integrates
ecological and social factors into an economic and technical ‘transition’ must be championed. Here transition
design as source of innovation that integrates socio-cultural, ecological, economic and technology
developments is of significant relevance.
It is important to note, that I view technology as a scaffold for new types of actions that collectively build
pressure for change. This viewpoint is consistent with technology innovation system theory (TIS) that forms
one direction within transition literature (Hekkert, Suurs, Negro, Kuhlman, Smits, 2007). TIS involves viewing
the co-evolution of technical systems with social and economic institutions. This viewpoint has synergies to the

7
theoretical underpinnings of design-led innovation. Notably how design as an alternative approach to
innovation can stimulate cultural and organisational transformations that benefit society. TIS theory is closely
related to strategic niche management (SNM) which offers another nuanced direction within transitions
literature (Kemp, Schot & Hoogma, 1998).
The S-Curve
The seminal work of Christensen (1992; 1997) provides valuable starting point to explore innovation and
system-level change. The s-curve is a theoretical model that fundamentally describes the phenomena of
growth in relation to time (Christensen, 1991; 1997). The s-curve, named for its approximate shape of an ‘S’,
has been applied to study population growth (with the advent of the pearl function), adoption of products and
services, and the efficiency of technologies during operation (see Figure 5). Growth begins slowly. When the
tipping point or critical mass is achieved, growth accelerates and can even be exponential. Eventually growth
plateaus due to maturity or stabilisation of the phenomena. Martens and Rotmans (2005) contextualise the s-
curve within transition studies, following a similar route to stabilisation. Martens and Rotmans place greater
emphasis on describing the acceleration phase where growth occurs and visible structural changes take place
between interactions of various levels; socio-cultural, ecological, economic and intuitional.
Figure 5: S-curve model; A) growth of product 1 sales; B) growth of product 2 sales and C) inflection point where growth
curves intersect.
Depending on the nature of a growth trajectory (Dosi, 1982) and competitive forces at play (Porter, 2008), a
technology or firm represented by an s-curve will be displaced by another firm or technology of superior
performance. The existing firm or technology is unable to match the performance and capabilities of the
newcomer. The newcomer enjoys market success until its own position is disrupted by a new alternate
product or service of superior performance. A series of creative destructions take place. When observed from
distance, this process is akin to general progress.
The notion of disruptive technologies pioneered in the work of Christensen (1997) has deeply influenced the
direction and shape of management and technology disciplines. For example the positive economic influence
of competitive forces (particularly the threat of the entrant) has been identified as a stimulant for investment
in research and design (R&D). R&D investment has historically been a key metric underpinning prosperous
economies (Foster, 1986). Design is already known to assist organisations to flourish under the associated
innovation challenges of the competitive arena. This position is acknowledged in practice and academic alike
(Rae, 2016; Sheppard, Kouyoumjian, Sarrazin, & Dore, 2018).
The Dynamics of an S-Curve Jump
When the vertical parameter (y axis) is extended and two or more s-curves are represented, discontinuities
can be identified. The transition from one growth curve to another is termed by Asthana (1995) as the s-curve
jump (see Figure 6). The notion of ‘jump’ describes a moment of increased activity associated with springing
into a new mode. Usually this jump requires significant capital outlay and redistribution of resources to change
from one operating system to another. Asthana (1995, p.15) describes, “Properly used, an s-curve analysis
helps reduce the risk of premature dismissal of technology.” This carries implications for transition design such
as when to phase out or replace existing infrastructure, systems and policies associated with the industrial era
or predecessor ecosystem. While the term jump carries the denotation of fast speed, often transitions may
take many years to enact.

8
Conditions surrounding the s-curve are inherently uncertain and unstable. In these conditions it is common to
find a diffuse range of future visions – note plurality. These visions may also be of varying salience, with some
visions of the future already informing decision making. Change becomes difficult as tension builds and
disagreements persist. It is common to find power-structures that both enable and inhibit change based on
individual agenda. Such conditions are ripe for leadership (Asthana, 1995).
Figure 6: Consecutive s-curve models describing human progress informed by the thought leadership of Harari, (2015); A)
growth of the agrarian age; B) growth of the industrial age; C) predicted growth of high-tech age, and; D) scope
of current transition period. Note bene: scale is representative only but as Harari notes, each age has
approximately halved the time period of the previous age.
Timing of Transition
Identifying the timing of a transition implies a reliable reference point. Here, the theoretical relevance of the s-
curve (Christensen, 1991; 1997) returns. Within this article relative the notion of being early, late and a laggard
within an adoption or s-curve emerge as a way to describe the timing of transition. However the notion of an
s-curve ‘jump’ (or transition to new system) also complicates this perspective as the discontinuities occur
across the vertical axis as well as the horizontal axis. The work of Asthana assists in understanding the
dynamics of the s-curve jump. The jump from industrialisation to high-tech era (citing Harari, 2015) is perhaps
the broadest example to contextualise this theory. The dynamics of this jump are further illustrated in Figure
7. The figure caption describes how each transition involves loss as the s-curve jump takes place.
Figure 7: Dynamics of the s-curve jump; A) early mover must make do with an early loss to the performance of the system
yet becomes well positioned (intellectually and with necessary infrastructure) for gains when the system begins to
perform; B) mid mover must invest considerably in order to transition to the lower trajectory of the new system
but can learn from the actions of the early adopter ; C) late mover endures the slowing performance of the older

9
system, and must invest considerably to bridge the gap to now highly performing and mature system, and; D)
scope of transition (see Figure 6 for reference point).
Recent work by Adner and Kapoor (2017) builds upon Asthana, using s-curve theory as a way to predict how
and when new technologies should replace predecessors. The paper Right tech, wrong time, identifies four
possible scenarios where technology innovation system transitions occur. These four scenarios are illustrated
in Figure 8. Referring to Figure 8, Adner and Kapoor (2018, pg.60) write;
Traditional substitution of a new technology for an old one is shown with two S curves. (The solid
lines). A more holistic view adds two dynamics. First if the new technology depends on the emergence
of a new ecosystem, it becomes dominant more slowly (tightly dashed line intersecting at A and C
(sic)). Second, the old technology’s competitiveness is extended if it can benefit from performance
improvements in its surrounding ecosystems (loosely dotted line intersecting at B and D (sic)).
Figure 8: Right tech, wrong time – Adner and Kapoor (2017)
Figure 8 contains two s-curves representing the substitution of an old technology by a new technology. The
tightly dashed line (intersecting A and C) represents a delayed arrival of a new technology. The loosely dotted
line (intersection B and D) represents the extension of an old technology. Four circled points are annotated as
A, B, C and D. These points represent:
 Point A - Creative destruction. Described as the classic and fastest substitution of technologies, a new
technology is supported by a new and ready ecosystem. The old ecosystem cannot be significantly
improved. It is the ideal moment to substitute technologies.
 Points B - Robust coexistence. Old technologies have sustained relevance, through improvements to
the existing ecosystem. Old and new technologies temporarily coexist. For example the coexistence of
combustion and hybrid vehicles, yet the general shift toward an electric vehicle supportive ecosystem
is taking place.
 Point C – Illusion of resilience. The substitution of an old technology by a new technology occurs with
little performance gains as the old ecosystem seems outdated. Yet, the new ecosystem seems to be
‘not ready’. It is important to take active steps toward transitioning to a new technology ecosystem.
 Point D – Robust resilience. New technologies encounter strong resistance to adoption. The existing
ecosystem has great potential to be improved, while the new technology ecosystem requires
significant updates before becoming viable. A gradual substitution takes place. Adner and Kapoor
provide the example of the barcode to RFID chip. Barcode technology is still relevant, and indeed has
been resurgent with QR code scanning allowing the consumer to benefit from simple services and
products.
Adner and Kapoor develop a working theory that scales from single technology to implications for the broader
technology ecosystem. This logic provides decision makers with a set of clues to analyse a technology in
relation to the broader ecosystem. The notion of ‘ecosystem’ encapsulates technology, consumers, businesses
and policies that allow new technologies to be commercialised and part of daily life. Consider how solar
technology has been developed, subsidised and adopted, leading to new behaviours and actions that are
crucial to a wider energy transition.

10
Another example of how Adner and Kapoor’s work could be harnessed is as follows. A transition designer may
identify similar to Iansiti and Lakhani (2017), that Blockchain requires an extensive new ecosystem – most
notably total reconfiguration of prevailing financial systems and governance structures to allow peer-to-peer
transactions and distributed databases. This process of change may take twenty to thirty years to fully realise.
From a societal perspective, the designer might identify that significant deinstitutionalisation is required to
shift responsibility and trust to each individual citizen. From this analysis the designer can take reasonable
course of action; perhaps plan for gradual improvement of the current ecosystem toward one more supportive
of Blockchain’s utility – a strategy akin to robust resilience.
In sum, the work of Adner and Kapoor offers a strategic approach to consider how and when an old technology
can be substituted by a new technologies by analysing the state of the broader technology ecosystem. That
ecosystem involves the political, structural, economic and societal elements at play. While technology-focused,
an appropriation of this approach can support the efforts of transition designers to realise sustainable futures
by analysing the conditions of the prevailing social, cultural, political, economic ecosystem.
Velocity of Transition
One factor implied within the work of Adner and Kapoor, is the velocity to which a transition can be enacted
when the timing is ‘right’. For lack of suitable terminology here, I will refer to this as the velocity of transition.
Table 1 contains six transitions drawn from literature used to explore the constructs of timing and velocity.
Enablers and inhibitors of change are noted. As previously identified, the timing of a transition may be early,
late or somewhere in between. The velocity of a transition can occur gradually or abruptly. I note here that
gradual transitions can take more than 10 years. While abrupt transitions occur rapidly below this 10 year time
scale. This 10 year demarcation requires much further inquiry to define but for now is a practical reference
point. In the next paragraphs I will explore more examples that are summarised in Table 1.
Not all transitions occur quickly. In fact many decades may be required to transition from one operating
system to another. These transitions are gradual; for example over the last 40 years, the ‘Energiewende’, or
German energy transition from finite to renewable sources has been taking place. This gradual transition has
occurred to unwind reliance on the infrastructure associated with the existing energy system. The slow
dismantling, reconfiguration or replacement of finite energy infrastructure mitigates social disruption to
employment and gross domestic product (GDP). Strong leadership (and even bipartisan unity) was initially
required to develop policy that could remain protected overtime, thus allowing implementation beyond
electoral cycles.
Similarly, a gradual transition in the Australian energy sector has been occurring for contrasting reasons.
During the global financial crisis, Australia was one of the few developed nations to experience growth. Such
stability came from the export of minerals (coal, iron ore) to nearby developing trade partners such as China
and India. As China’s import of Australian coal has slowed in light of its own energy transition, an increase of
export to Japan has risen in lieu of closure of the nation’s nuclear energy plants following the 2011 earthquake
and tsunami. The inhibitors to change associated with the cost of new infrastructure hold such heavy political
weight that exploring clean energy alternatives was suppressed for many years. In short, sustained success
brought through mineralogy instilled the thinking, ‘why change when something is successful’. The country
now finds itself on a clean energy precipice. Partnership between the South Australian State Government and
Tesla to implement a solar-battery strategy to stablise an unreliable electric grid will be closely followed by
many.
An example of an abrupt change is the Chinese Energy Transition. With fast leadership mechanisms enabled by
a socialist republic model; President Xi Jingping was able to quickly pass reform and begin capital outlay
toward replacing finite energy resources and infrastructure with renewable alternatives. Interestingly, even
with the authoritative governmental model of the People’s Republic of China, it was vocal protest of citizens
living in mega-cities such as Beijing and Shanghai facing serious air quality challenges that encouraged a
transition. China still remains one of the largest polluting nations per capita. However, its investment shows
how seriously the transition is being pursued. In 2017, China invested more than half of the global renewable
energy capita; nearly $280 Billion US dollars (Energiewende Team, 2018). Interestingly, the idea that China’s
authoritarian model of governance being effective during a system-level transition prompts critique of
dialogue-based processes for reform associated with democracy. Such an example does warrant consideration
into how to establish a shared vision through democratic processes like that of preceding unity leading to the
German energy transition. As Hendriks notes, unfortunately sometimes politics just goes on and on (2009).

11
Similar abrupt system-level transition occurred in Sweden on 3 September 1967, when driving switched from
left side to right side of the road. Dagen H (Day H) involved a temporary ban of vehicles driving on roads while
intersections were reconfigured. In this case, the existing infrastructure of the road remained a stable factor –
allowing a fast transition to take place. This transition was fully enacted within months. Further, an abrupt
transition occurred when penicillin was discovered by Dr. Alexander Fleming in 1928. It was not until 1940 that
mass production of the drug was achieved. Even today, pharmaceutical development takes many years to
achieve
3
given tight regulations around clinical trials and human testing. Once produced en masse, penicillin
rapidly changed medical practices creating the capability to treat bacterial infections that were otherwise fatal.
One of the great inhibitors to the transition to modern medicine was the ability to mass produce and distribute
penicillin. Once the ecosystem was ready for distribution (timing), the change became widespread and fast
(velocity).
Table 1: Timing and Velocity of Transitions
Transition
Timing of
transition
Velocity of
transition
Enablers
Inhibitors
Australian Solar/Wind
Energy Drive as a
breakaway from
previous reliance on
coal-fired
infrastructure
(present);
Late
Gradual
Abundance of natural
resources; cost benefits to
the consumers with solar in
particular; temporary
government subsidies;
lowering costs of solar
panel technology
Entrenchment of finite energy
providers lobbying power within
the political landscape;
immediate trade opportunities
for coal/gas in nearby
developing nations (for
example: India)
Irish Taxi
Liberalisation (2000)
20 years after the
deregulation and
liberalisation trends
of the 1970-1980s
Late
Abrupt
Deregulation stemming
from new legislation; lower
prices passed onto the
consumer; population
growth; move of
inhabitants to urban
centres
Labour union protest; backlash
from existing industry
Singapore Economic
Reform (1965)
becoming a strong
and independent
economic hub
Late
Gradual
Strong charismatic
leadership and a powerful
vision for independence;
government incentive for
new ventures; geo-political
location on intersection of
major trade routes
Existing economic instability as
an outcome of WWII; lack of
capital reserve
Chinese Renewable
Energy Policy (2017 –
announces 360 billion
dollar investment)
Late
Abrupt
Strong (authoritarian)
leadership and vast capital
reserve; citizen activism
regarding the country’s air
quality; lowering price of
solar panel technology
Significant infrastructure
dismantling requiring massive
job losses and short term
instability
German Energy
Transition
(Energiewende, 1980
to present)
Early
Gradual
Strong leadership and
vision; taking responsibility
for long term stability
Unravelling of extensive and
successful finite energy
resources; criticised publically as
a ‘financial burden’
Integration of
penicillin into
worldwide medical
practices (Between
1928-1929 and 1940)
Early
Abrupt
The ability to survive simple
infections (massive
performance gains);
suitability of penicillin
within existing models of
care (injection or tablet
form)
Disproportionate supply of the
drug to massive demand (scaling
issues); religious pushback
associated with playing ‘god’;
capital within the US economy
post WWII to stimulate mass
production
3
Even today with notable technological developments, it still takes about 10-12 years on average to develop and realise new drugs (US
Food and Drug Administration FDA).

12
Theoretical Implications
It is necessary to pause now and identify what theoretical implications can be drawn from growth theories
that can aid the maturity of transition design. The implications below hold value to transition designers and
designers seeking to work across ecosystems. Some implications are:
 A transition can be modelled as an s-curve ‘jump’;
 A destabilisation or crisis within an ecosystem during the preceding moments before an s-curve jump
is an opportune time for design leadership;
 Theoretically, a transition requires loss. Loss occurs either through performance or capital outlay
associated with change. The social element of loss is often overlooked in transitions literature;
 A transition begins with the first decisive action toward change, usually policy or legislative reform,
but may also be mobilisation of a population toward change;
 Market mechanisms such as deregulation/regulation can drive very fast changes in supply chain
reconfiguration and consumer preference;
 Early yet gradual transitions require strong (and united) leadership that extend beyond electoral
cycles;
 Some transitions occur rapidly and successfully because a technology, such as penicillin, provides such
a radical performance improvement that it sparks the creation of new ecosystem around it;
 Late transitions often come with the challenge of unwinding entrenched lobbying power between for-
profit organisations and government parties who are ‘locked in’ to the old system, e.g. see the
Australian energy transition;
 The illusion of resilience of an old technology within an ecosystem only prolongs the responsibility of
change to future generations;
 A transition design approach must factor concepts of timing and velocity in order produce robust
design interventions.
Regarding the last implication, ‘how to’ factor timing and velocity of change within a design process remains
an area for further research.
Conclusion
As innovation enabled the development of an industrial, carbon-intensive economy; it is plausible too that
innovation may now be the vehicle for triggering a new, sustainable transition. With the power of retrospect,
it is clear that an approach that integrates ecological and social factors into an economic and technical
‘transition’ must be championed. Here transition design (as source of innovation) is of significant relevance.
While some scholars and practitioners have reached this realisation through the evolution of social innovation,
my research has led me to a similar point through expansion of the logic associated with design-led innovation
– a human-centred yet economic path.
In this paper I have reflected on a transition design project with the Dutch Government. This project revealed
two challenges that were not factored within the design approach; (1) the timing of the transition relative to
the surrounding environment and; (2) the velocity at which a transition could be fully enacted. I inquired into
change and growth theories in order to understand how to manage the complexities of leading transitions by
design. Theoretical implications act as platform for explorative and reflective practice that continues fostering
the maturity of transition design as an emerging methodology.
References
Adner, R. (2002). When are technologies disruptive? A demand-based view of the mergence competition.
Strategic Management Journal, 23(1), 667-688.
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2016). Right tech, wrong time. Harvard Business Review, (4)60-67.
Allen, R. C. (2009). The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Anderson, D. (2017). In New York, a Neighborhood Makes a Pre-Gentrification Plan. Next City. Retrieved
from https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/mayor-wants-to-give-residents-bike-purchase-voucher

13
Asthana, P. (1995). Jumping the technology s-curve. IEEE Spectrum, (June), 59-54.
Bason, C. (2013). Design-led Innovation in Government. Stanford Social Innovation Review, (2), 15.
Bastiaansen, S.J.N.M., Price, R.A., Govers, P.C.M., & Machielsen, T.M. (2018). Design capability in a software
SME: Report from an embedded design innovation catalyst. Proceedings of Design Research Society:
DRS2018: Catalyst. Limerick, Ireland: University of Limerick.
Bryant, S., & Wrigley, C. (2014). Driving Toward User-Centered Engineering in Automotive Design. Design
Management Journal, 9(1), 74–84.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking, Design Issues 8(2), 5-21.
Buchanan, R. (2015). Worlds in the Making: Design, Management, and the Reform of Organizational Culture.
She Ji, The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 1(1), 5-21.
Bucolo, S. (2015). Are we there yet? Amsterdam: BIS.
Bucolo, S., Wrigley, C., & Matthews, J. (2012). Gaps in organizational leadership: linking strategic and
operational activities through design-led propositions. Design Management Journal, 7(1), 18-28.
Calabretta, G., Gemser, G., & Karpen, I. (2016). Strategic Design. Amsterdam: BIS.
Camacho, M. (2016). Christian Bason: Design for Public Service. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and
Innovation, 2(3), 256-268.
Christensen, C. M. (1992). Exploring the limits of the technology S-cure. Production and Operations
Management, 1(4), 334-366.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.
Cross, N. (2007). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Basel; Boston; Berlin: Birkhauser.
de Jesus, A., & Mendonça, S. (2018). Lost in Transition? Drivers and Barriers in the Eco-innovation Road to
the Circular Economy. Ecological Economics, 145(Supplement C), 75-89.
Doherty, R., Wrigley, C., Matthews, J. H., & Bucolo, S. (2015). Climbing the design ladder: Step by
step. Revista D.:Design, Educação, Sociedade E Sustentabilidade, 7(2), 60–82.
Dong, A. (2015). Design × innovation: perspective or evidence-based practices†. International Journal of
Design Creativity and Innovation, 3(3-4), 148-163.
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 11(1),147–162.
Elsbach, K.D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design Thinking and Organizational Culture: A Review and Framework for
Future Research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2274–2306.
Energiewende Team. (2018). As United States looks to coal, China invests in renewable energy. Energy
Transition. The Gloacl Energiewende. Accessed at https://energytransition.org/2018/05/as-united-states-
looks-to-coal-china-invests-in-renewable-energy/
Forlizzi, J., Stolterman, E., & Zimmerman, J. (2009). From design research to theory: Evidence of a maturing
field. In Proceedings of IASDR 2009, Rigor and Relevance in Design. Seoul, Korea.
Foster, R. (1986). Innovation, the Attacker’s Advantage. Simon and Schuster: New York.
Frantzeskaki, N., & De Haan, H. (2009). Transitions: Two steps from theory to policy. Futures, 41(1), 593-606.
Fraser, H. (2012). Design Works: How to tackle your toughest innovation challenges through business
design. Toronto: Rotman - UTP Publishing, University of Toronto Press.
Garret, A., Straker, K., & Wrigley, C. (2017). Digital channels for building collaborative consumption
communities. Journal of Research Interactive Marketing, 11(2), 160-184.
Gaver, W. (2012). What should we expect from research through design?. In Proceedings of CHI 2012 (pp.
937-946). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Geels, F.W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level
perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(1), 1257-1274.

14
Geels, F.W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms,
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1).
Giaccardi, E., Speed, C., Cila, N. and Caldwell, M. (2016). Things as Co-ethnographers: Implications of a Thing
Perspective for Design and Anthropology, in Smith, R.C. et al. Design Anthropological Futures,
Bloomsbury Academics. Pages.
Harari, Y. N. (2015). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. New York: Harper.
Hekkert, M.P., Suurs, R.A.A., Negro, S.O., Kuhlman, S. Smits, R.E.H.M. (2007). Functions of innovation
systems: a new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
74(1), 413-432.
Hendriks, C. M. (2009). Policy design without democracy? Making democratic sense of transition
management. Policy Sciences, 42(1), 341-368.
Hillgren, P-A., Seravalli, A., & Emilson, S. (2011). Prototyping and infrastructuring in design for social
innovation. CoDesign, 7(3-4), 169-183.
Irwin, T., Kossof, G., & Tonkinwise, C. (2015). Transition Design Provocation. Design Philosophy Papers, 12
(1), 3-11.
Irwin, T., (2018). The Emerging Transition Design Approach. In Proceedings of DRS 2018 Catalyst. University
of Limerick, Ireland.
Jorgensen, U. (2012). Mapping and navigating transitions- The multi-level perspective compared with arenas
of development. Research Policy, 31(1), 996-1010.
Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Rotmans, J. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche
formation: the approach of Strategic Niche Management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,
10(1), 175-195.
Kemp, R., & Rotmans, J. (2009). Transitioning policy: co-production of a new strategic framework for energy
innovation policy in the Netherlands. Policy Sciences, 42(1), 303-322.
Kivimaa, P. & Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for
sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45(1) 2015-217.
Krabye, A. Wrigley, C., Matthews, J.H., & Bucolo. (2013). From Production to Purpose Using Design Led
Innovation to Build Strategic Potential in a Family-Owned SME. Proceedings of IEEE Tsinghua International
Design Management Symposium: Design-Driven Business Innovation Shenzhen, China: Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers.
Lee, Y. (2018). From things to systems, and back: a thing-centric approach to protein transition in the
Netherlands (Master of Science Thesis.) Delft University of Technology, Netherlands.
Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking Design Thinking with Innovation Outcomes through Cognitive Bias
Reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925-938.
Leitao, R. (2018). Recognizing and Overcoming the Myths of Modernity. In Proceedings of DRS 2018 Catalyst.
University of Limerick, Ireland.
Margolin, V. (2015). The Good City: Design for Sustainability. She Ji, The Journal of Design, Economics, and
Innovation, 1(1), 34-43.
Martens, P., & Rotmans, J. (2005). Transitions in a globalising world. Futures, 37(1), 1133-1144.
McGrath, R.G. (2013). Transient Advantage. Harvard Business Review, 91(6), 62-70.
Sheppard, B., Kouyoumjian., Sarrazin, H., & Dore, F. (2018). The Business Value of Design. McKinsey
Quarterly.
Muratovski, G. (2015). Paradigm Shift: Report on the New Role of Design in Business and Society. She Ji, The
Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 1(2), 118-139.
Ostrom, E. (2015). Governing the Commons. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Peppou, G., Thurgood, C., & Bucolo, S. (2017). Designing Competitive Sectors. Design Management Journal,

15
11(1), 3-14.
Porter, M. E. (2008). The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 78–
93.
Price, R., & Wrigley, C. (2016). Design and a Deep Customer Insight Approach to Innovation. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, 28(2), 92–105.
Price, R., Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2015). Not just what they want, but why they want it: Traditional market
research to deep customer insights. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 18(2), 230-248.
Rae, J. (2016). Design Value Index Exemplars Outperform the S&P 500 Index (Again) and a New Crop of
Design Leaders Emerge. Design Management Review, 27(4), 4-11.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2),
155-169.
Schot, J., & Kanger, L. (2016). Deep Transitions Emergence, Acceleration, Stablization and Directionality,
Working Paper 2016-15 SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.
Stolterman, E. (2008). The nature of design practice and implications for interac-tion design research.
International Journal of Design, 2(1), 55-56.
Townson, P., Matthews, J., & Wrigley, C. (2016). Outcomes from Applying Design-Led Innovation in an
Australian Manufacturing Firm. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(6), 49-58.
Verganti, R. (2009). Design-driven innovation. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business Press.
Wrigley, C. (2016). Design Innovation Catalysts: Education and Impact. She Ji The Journal of Design,
Economics, and Innovation, 2(2).
Yee, J.Y., & White, H. (2016). The Goldilocks Conundrum: The ‘Just Right’ Conditions for Design to Achieve
Impact in Public and Third Sector Projects. International Journal of Design, 10(1), 7-19.