Comparing Transition Management and Backcasting

Method as Tools for System Innovations

Composed by:
Fadhila El Discha 4417135
as an individual assignment for System Innovation and Strategic Niche
Management Course
Technical University of Delft
2015
A. Introduction
System innovations towards sustainability are gradual processes that need
multilevel and multi-actors support in order to gain stable stance in the system.
However, future proceedings are inherently uncertain and ambiguous where
different perspectives and frameworks may lead to different interpretations (Quist,
2013). Often scientists seek for approaches to better explore the possibilities of
innovations course or to drive the changes towards the desirable directions. These
approaches provide tools to estimate how trends will develop, map the
uncertainties and complexities of such system, and examine the possible scenarios
for the innovations to take place (Quist, 2013). Backcasting and transition
management are amongst the approaches thus used, which are combining the longterm vision and short-term actions, involving a broad range of stakeholders,
incorporating the environmental as well as economic and social components, and
finally taking into account both demand and supply chain as well as the related
production and consumption system (Quist, 2013). This essay aims to compare the
approach of backcasting and the transition management in catalyzing innovations
regard. Thus overviews of both theories are outlined to understand the nature of
each approach, and furthermore the identified similarities and differences will be
pointed out as well as the possibility of combining both methods as an approach to
accelerate system innovations.
B. Short Overview of both methods
1. Backcasting
The origin of backcasting dated back to 1970s when Lovins (1976) used
the method to develop alternative plans for electricity supply and demand.
Robinson (1982) similarly studied the same method and proposed the term of
energy backcasting. The method derived by defining a desirable future and
accordingly assessing how such future could be achieved instead of merely
focusing on likely future (Lovins, 1976). By having identified the objectives in
a particular future, one would be able to strategically work backwards and
determine the policy measures needed to induce the change towards that future
(Quist and Vergragt, 2006). Nevertheless Robinson (1990) emphasized that the
purpose of backcasting is not to produce blueprints, but to specify the feasibility
and implications (including social, environmental, and political implications) of
certain schemes in the future. The backcasting theory rely on the assumption
that future setting is mainly a function of current policy decisions (Lovins,
1976). Furthermore, Robinson (1990) added that such approach is not only
applicable to assess how desirable futures can be achieved, but also possible to
analyze to what extent undesirable futures could be avoided or responded to.

In regard to its normative and problem-addressing features, Dreborg

(1996) argued that backcasting approach is well suited for long-term problems
and long-term sustainability solutions. However he pointed out that the
perception of what is possible and reasonable might present hindrances to the
change itself, which is agreed by Robinson (1990) remarks about the presence
of dominance and existing perspectives. Therefore, the scope should be broaden
by describing alternative options and futures to avoid such obstacles. Therefore
Dreborg (1996) concluded that backcasting is particularly useful in solving
complex problems, when there is a need for major change, when dominant
trends are part of the problem, and when there are externalities that cannot be
satisfactorily addressed in markets and long time horizons.
The dynamic of stakeholder participation, the sequence and methods that are
used, and the visions that have been developed varies as the function of the case
where the backcasting method is to be implemented on (Quist, 2013). Three key
elements, are identified on participatory backcasting based on earlier literatures
(Quist and Vergragt, 2006; Quist, 2013):
a. The development of desirable future visions or normative scenarios;
b. Extensive participation of multiple stakeholders and the embedded
learning processes;
c. Combining process, participation, analysis, and design using a wide
range of methods within an overall backcasting framework.
Accordingly, five steps are derived from these key elements and used as
the sequence upon performing backcasting analysis (Quist and Vergragt, 2006;
Quist, 2013).
a. Step 1: strategic problem orientation;
b. Step 2: development of sustainable future visions or scenarios;
c. Step 3: backcasting analysis;
d. Step 4: elaboration of the alternatives and defining follow-up agenda;
e. Step 5: embedding of results and generating follow-up actions and
implementation.
Iteration cycles are likely to occur and one may also observe mutual
influence between the steps succeeding one another (Quist, 2013). Furthermore
four groups of tools and methods are identified, which all could be applied on
each methodological steps (Quist, 2013).
a. Participatory tools and methods, useful for involving stakeholders as
well as inducing dialogue and interaction among the stakeholders. This
group includes tools for workshops, creativity, discussion, and for
supporting stakeholders to conduct envisioning.
b. Design tools and methods, useful for scenario construction, elaboration
and detailing the future systems, as well as designing stakeholder
involvement process.
c. Analytical tools and methods, useful for assessing scenarios and designs.
It includes consumer acceptance methods, environmental assessments,
economic analyses, evaluation of stakeholder interaction, and
stakeholder analyses.
d. Management, coordination, and communication tools and methods,
useful for managing the project and stakeholder involvement process. It
includes methods that can be applied for shaping and maintaining
stakeholders networks, communications, and coordination.

Another aspect of the backcasting theory is the demand, in which three types of
demands are introduced (Quist, 2013).
a. Normative demands, which reflects the goal-related requirements for the
future visions, how sustainability is defined, and how sustainability is
turned into criteria to be met.
b. Process demands, regards the stakeholder involvement and their level of
influence.
c. Knowledge demands, distinguishes the scientific and contextual
knowledge in question and how they are valued.
It is important to define the demands in the beginning of the backcasting study.
2. Transition Management
Rotmans et. al (2001) defined transition as a set of connected changes
that take place in several different areas such as technology, economy,
institutions, behavior, culture, ecology, and belief system, but reinforce each
other. He furthermore argued that it is possible to combine the insights about
transitions with management strategy for both public decision makers and
private actors. The transitional action perspective is based on process-oriented
philosophy that balances coherence with uncertainty and complexity, which is
in general could be identified with five distinct characteristics (Rotmans et al.,
2001).
A long-term thinking as a framework for making short-term policy,
Thinking in terms of multi-domain, multi-actor, and multi-level,
Focus on learning aspects and a special learning philosophy,
Bring about system innovation alongside system improvement,
Leave a large number of options available.
As described by the characteristics, the aim of transition management is
not necessarily the realization of specific transition to take place but also on
improving the existing systems or alleviation of problems (Rotmans et al.,
2001). Collective benefits and accommodating rather than controlling
complexity are also amongst the key values on transition management
approach. Therefore, general management stages are identified as below
(Rotmans et al., 2001).
a. Transition objective. The objectives need to be aimed for multitude of
policies, actors, and dimensions. Moreover, it is imperative to keep the
goals flexible, semi-quantitative or qualitative to ensure re-evaluation
and re-adjustment are possible.
b. Transition visions. Long-term visions are taken as the base in
formulating short-term objectives and evaluating the existing policy.
Composing inspiring final visions is necessary particularly for engaging
social actors. Accordingly the visions need to be open for adjustment
based on the learning in various transition experiments, making it as a
dynamic variable that changes over time.
c. Interim objectives. Interim objectives are derived from the long-term
ones (as in backcasting approach) and containing qualitative as well as
semi-quantitative measures for the content objectives, process
objectives, and learning objectives.
d. Development rounds. These are one of the aspects that distinguish
transition management where evaluation and learning take place. Three

aspects to be concerned are the interim objectives, the transition process,

ant the amount of learning that has taken place throughout the transition.
e. Creating public support. Both top-down and bottom-up approaches
should be examined to gain the mobilizing support and problem-solving
activities from the society.
In general, the transition management provides complement for the
current policy by putting it in a more long-term perspective. It favors for system
optimization and innovation to go hand-in-hand, rather than taking them
exclusive one another. One of the key values in transition management is the
achievement of gradual change without considerable destructive frictions in the
form of social resistance. Therefore, transition management seeks for
synchronization with the ongoing dynamics in the existing system rather than
forcing changes and planned creation of a new system (Rotmans et al., 2001).
C. Comparison
After gaining some overview on backcasting and transition management
approaches, one could identify that both methods are closely related to each other.
The two main aspects that could be looked into when comparing these methods are
their key elements and the framework or mechanism respectively. Table 1 provides
the summary of points for the two aforementioned parameters.
Table 1. Comparison of the Aspects between Backcasting with Transition
Management
Aspects
Backcasting
Transition Management
Key elements
Normative visions;
Long-term
thinking
approach;
Stakeholders participation;
Multi-domain, multi-actor,
Learning process.
and multi-level;
Learning process;
Equal concern on system
improvement;
Keeping options open.
Framework/steps 1) Strategic
problem 1) Set transition objectives;
orientation;
2) Develop
pong
term
2) Development
of
visions;
sustainable future visions 3) Define interim objectives;
or scenarios;
4) Development rounds;
3) Backcasting analysis;
5) Creating public support.
4) Elaboration
of
the
alternatives and defining
follow-up agenda;
5) Embedding of results and
generating
follow-up
actions
and
implementation.
1. Similarities
In terms of key elements, both approaches share a firm concern on
actors involvement, learning processes, development as well as assessment of
desirable future visions, and converting long-term visions into short-term

agendas (Quist et al., 2013). Learning process is indeed significantly

emphasized as it allows continuous improvement throughout the transition.
In terms of working framework, both approaches derive the transition
strategies by setting up the future objectives or in essence using backcasting
approach. Moreover, they agree on the notion that transition is a dynamic
agreement between visions and strategies, therefore might take place in
multiple future pathways. Transitions or societal changes in general are
progressing in loop cycle of vision settings and evaluation activities, thus are
non-linear processes (Quist et al., 2013). Both approaches also keen on
evaluating the results of transition progress where the learning process takes
place and follow-up agendas being put forth.
2. Differences
Despite the overlapping elements between both approaches, the
backcasting and transition management have their own distinction that
presents a tailored implementations on the policy-making field. The key
elements of transition management include the concern towards system
improvement in parallel with system innovation, which is not considered
significantly on the backcasting method.
Oh the framework perspective, several differences could be identified.
Firstly, backcasting method is embedded as one of the stages on transition
management, particularly in defining the interim objectives. Therefore one
may conclude that transition management sees backcasting as a method in
defining strategies, not necessarily as a full approach for intervention.
Secondly, the transition management pays more attention on the loop of
setting goals and evaluation of the following transition process and learning
activities that is reflected by the interim objectives establishment and the
development rounds. On the other hand, backcasting approach is more
interested on developing alternatives to achieve the desirable future. Thirdly,
transition management has a strong root on multi-level perspective that
defined that novelty starts in niches level and bring about changes on the
higher level (Grin et al., 2010). Meanwhile the backcasting theory does not
firmly rely on particular social system theory, and furthermore questions
whether the novelty indeed starts at niche or regime level. Fourthly, transition
management reckons public support creation as one of the important part on
ensuring a successful transition, whereas the backcasting framework does not
include this aspect explicitly. To summarize, the transition management
approach has a more focused profile compared with the backcasting approach,
where larger methodological diversity is observed (Quist et al., 2013).
3. Strengths and weaknesses
Having identified the similarities and differences, one may
subsequently conclude the strengths, weaknesses, and the suitable field of
implementation for each approach. The transition management approach
appeared to have a wider scope of implementation for its strongly structured
stages and characteristics. On the other hand, the backcasting approach
presents a distinct characteristic in addressing complex problems, problems
where there is a need for major change, where there are aspects that cannot be
satisfactorily solved in markets and long time span, and where dominant
trends are part of the problem (Dreborg, 1996).

Nevertheless, both approaches may provide complementary elements for

each other in shaping intervention schemes for a transition towards the desirable
future. Therefore it would be possible to combine both method and taking the
strength of each method upon designing strategies for such transitions to take
place. Backcasting strength on diversity and alternatives of pathway could enrich
the interim objectives development on the transition management. Thus the
strategic backward planning approach will not only implemented on drawing the
plans for reaching the final future target, but also the intermediate objectives. On
the other hand, the transition management could strengthen the action plan
development of backcasting approach with its strong focus on development
rounds and follow-up activities.
Quist et al. (2013) had explored the possibility of combining both
approaches, which finds its implementation on to the community arena
methodology. The latter method is a newly developed approach for sustainable
consumption and lifestyle diffusion at local communities, which was studied in a
deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam (Quist et al., 2013). From this study, it is
understood that the combination of backcasting and transition management
method had been tried and resulted on a thorough tool that even included an
enhanced participation at the local level. Therefore it may indicate that further
exploration of the methods combination would find implementation in a broad
range of innovation and transition challenges.
D. References
Dreborg, K.H., 1996, Essence of Backcasting, Futures 28 pp.813 828.
Grin, J., Rotmans, J., and Schot, J.W., 2010, Transitions to Sustainable
development Part 1. New Directions in the Study of Long Term
Transformative Change, New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis
Group.
Lovins, A., 1976, Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?, Foreign Affairs 55
pp 63 96.
Quist, J., 2013, Backcasting and Scenarios for Sustainable Technology
Development as part of Handbook of Sustainable Engineering,
Dordrecht: Springer.
Quist, J., et al., 2013, Combining Backcasting and Transition Management in
the Community Arena: A Bottom-up Participatory Method for Visions
and Pathways for Sustainable Communities and Consumption,
SCORAI Europe Workshop Proceedings.
Quist, J. and Vergragt, P., 2006, Past and Future of Backcasting: The Shift to
Stakeholder Participation and A Proposal for A Methodological
Framework, Futures 38 pp. 1027 1045.
Robinson, J., 1982, Energy Backcasting: A Proposed Method of Policy
Analysis, Energy Policy 10 pp. 337 344.

Robinson, J., 1990, Futures under Glass: A Recipe for People Who Hate to
Predict, Futures 22 pp. 820 843.
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., and van Asselt, M., 2001, More Evolution than
Revolution: Transition Management in Public Policy, Foresight vol. 3
no. 1 pp. 15 31.