We live in a context of multiple and deeply interconnected economic, social and political challenges that we cannot tackle alone, nor do we have perfect and linear solutions. We therefore need collaborative and innovative approaches to help transform the systems in which we live, from our neighbourhoods and cities to our regions and countries. How can we mobilise our technological and research capacities, public policies, infrastructures, investments, cultural and social resources to transform systems that are sustainable, equitable and resilient?
The ISE Mission aims to articulate shared goals and common directionality amongst the innovation ecosystem in the Mediterranean and coordinate efficiently and effectively our innovation efforts supporting sustainable transitions. We discuss with Míriam Acebillo-Baqué, researcher at INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), why and how we can engage in a Transformative Innovation Policy (TIP) framework as it is crucial to achieve the Mission’s objectives.
Míriam Acebillo-Baqué works as a researcher at INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), specialising in political science, governance and public policy. She works in the field of transformative innovation policy, as INGENIO is member of the Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium( TIPC), an international consortium dedicated to advancing this approach to innovation, policymaking, and systemic transformation.
Check the TIP Resource LAB for tools and learnings: https://tipresourcelab.net/.
Thank you Míriam for joining the ISE Mission in this spotlight. To start the interview, we wanted to understand, from your experience and your work related to transformative innovation, what does TIP mean to you, and why do you think it is important for governance?
To me, transformative innovation is about understanding and guiding change processes towards more equitable and ecologically sustainable futures. We think that we need to follow these transitions to maintain our life support systems, that underpin the way we function socially. We need to rethink and change how we move, we produce our food, we eat, the way we create and consume energy, our healthcare. We are living in particularly challenging times, marked by inequality, pollution, and climate change. Viewing these crises through the lens of transformative innovation helps us explore – and hopefully better understand – the entrenched ways of delivering services and meeting human needs that have contributed to these issues. To build up alternatives that are fit for both present and future generations, we must unpack and rethink these unsustainable practices. Transformative innovation supports this type of thinking.
Implementing transformative innovation policies requires governance processes that are collaborative and inclusive and consider multi-actor and multi-level dimensions. I think that those individuals and organisations that are interested in experimenting with new approaches to address complex challenges or wicked problems, also can find valuable insights and tools in transformative innovation policymaking to do that.
To support transitions, we need to nurture spaces where alternatives are taking place. But, from a transformative innovation policymaking point of view, this is not enough. We also need to open up those established mainstream practices, rules, routines that underpin the way current unsustainable systems work. This is called the multi-level perspective theoretically, and this informs the way we think about how we can govern these transitions towards fairer, and sustainable worlds. Therefore, this implies that we need to empower innovative alternative practices, and at the same time, we need to foster the opening up of these dominant ways in which systems work.
For policymakers, and those involved in transformative innovation policies, such governance processes present numerous challenges. I would highlight two of them. One is that there is an inherent uncertainty when navigating complex contexts. To navigate these processes, beyond foresight processes aimed at preparing for change, there is also a need to emphasise agency – acting on the belief that the future can and should be shaped. The future can be changed and the idea that we are not doomed leads us to imagine new ways of doing things without really knowing where we are going so this is a very tricky process. A second challenge involves questioning and transforming existing power relationships. Transitions will entail changing power relations, and we must assume and see how we tackle the resistance that these changes will or can generate. Place-based, local, and context-sensitive approaches are crucial to ensure that these governance strategies are effective and inclusive.
From the perspective of the Mission, one of the main activities in the governance platform is to build capacities and the abilities of agents and actors in the innovation ecosystem. You mentioned several capacities in your previous answer (envisioning, adapting to flexibility, assume and manage changes…). Our second question is: what do you think that are the main skills that innovation agents need to enhance?
Some of the basic and most important capacities is the need to work with an ecosystemic perspective. This means that it is important to foster capacities where agents embrace ecosystemic perspectives rather than “siloed” or egocentric approaches. This demands a shift in how individuals interact, how people and organisations perceive themselves, and how they understand their relationship with others and the surrounding environment. Taking an ecosystemic perspective implies recognising that we cannot transform our context by ourselves. Complex problems need to be faced in a multidimensional way, and with all the forces we can count on, taking into account the different knowledges that there are and can contribute to finding new ways of facing and addressing the challenges we have. Systemic transformations imply learning, and changing ourselves.
It is also essential to work in participatory ways. We also know that transitions are inherently conflictual. Managing this type of processes requires understanding this and having the skills to deal with the conflictual dimension. We also think that it is important to embrace uncertainty, to have humility in the sense that we do not know everything, and we need to be open to what we do not know and try to have this experimenting approach to learning. And I think it is important to encourage an ethic of care, valuing that we need to foster well-being in all aspects of work with other people.
What should we take into account when evaluating and monitoring these processes, not only the impact of the actions, but also ourselves, from this ecosystemic perspective?
This is also a very important question and an ongoing discussion. We have worked with a specific approach towards evaluation, which is called formative evaluation. Often, we are required to follow certain procedures in the way we evaluate our processes, but the governance of complex processes cannot rely on certain or deterministic goals. So, being able to be coherent with all this, the uncertainty and the openness implied in this type of policymaking that we just mentioned, also requires looking at the evaluation in another way.
When we talk about formative evaluation, we are referring to an evaluation that is conducted with the participation of all stakeholders, the main purpose of which is to improve the definition and implementation of the interventions as they are being undertaken. This is coherent with the experimental approach towards policymaking in these uncertain and complex systems. It can be understood as a reflective practice aiming at supporting actors to navigate the implementation of transformative innovation policies. We also understand that this type of approach implies integrating evaluation, not only at the end of the policy cycle, but throughout the whole process, while policies are designed and implemented. Because of this understanding, we propose using a flexible theory of change. We say that it is flexible because it is a theory of change that changes throughout the policy process, according to the monitoring process and learnings achieved.
This is interesting because it allows agents to make better decisions. Sometimes, if you have a linear project, you already set the decisions before knowing the information, but monitoring from a formative evaluation process, agents can take the decisions as they have the information.
Yes, it is a different approach than an “ex post” evaluation. When we talk about formative evaluation, we are talking about monitoring or assessing whether there has been any change in people, organisations, and relationships. We understand outcomes as changes in people’s relationships and people’s views or behaviours, and organisational behaviour. If we want to transform systemically, there needs to be a transformation of the way people behave and how people and organisations relate and behave. This is a key understanding based on the theory of transitions.
In conclusion, to wrap up the interview, which are some takeaways for agents or projects within the mission that are engaging in a transformative innovation process, for their day-to-day work?
The first takeaway would be to think ecosystemically, meaning understanding collectively how systems work, and how the challenges you want to address work from a systemic perspective.
The second one would be to build shared goals and act collectively. A transformative process is place sensitive. Actors get mobilised when they feel, they see, they understand that what is at stake is very close to their lives and to their realities. That is the place sensitiveness of the approach, which is very important. And this is a huge takeaway and learning point from the case of the Catalan Shared Agendas.
The final one would be to embrace experimentation and uncertainty. To be open to experimentation, to recognising that failure can be an inevitable part of a learning process, that systemic change is inherently complex and unpredictable. Iteration can be an opportunity to reflect, adapt, improve strategies, foster resilience and innovation in the face of challenges we want to address.
