Our Assumptions
Revisited
IMPRINT
This document was developed in the context of
a joint project of the Wuppertal Institut and
the Centre for Social Investment (CSI) called
the System Innovation Lab.
It combined sustainability transformation
research insights with those of social innovation
in order to design an on-the-job training and
coaching that would enable participants to take
a systemic approach to innovation and test
what this means in their respective work settings.
Focussing on the topic of sustainable energy
futures in Europe it addressed young European
leaders in government, the private sector and
civil society working on energy issues and
combined latest theoretical insights with novel
innovation and leadership methods to spread the
capacity and courage that transforming entire
sectors requires.
For more information see: www.sysinnolab.org
Project Team:
Dr. Maja Göpel
Verena Hermelingmeier
Dr. Konstantin Kehl
Dr. Volker Then
Dr. Daniel Vallentin
Timon Wehnert
Contact: [email protected]
Editing: Claudia Bierschenk
Design: Nikola Berger | nikobe.net
2
SYSTEM INNOVATION LAB – SHAPING EUROPE’S ENERGY FUTURE
n
o
i
t
a
v
o
n
s
n
’
I
e
p
m
e
o
r
e
r
t
u
u
s n E Fut
y
S
o ergy
A
En
b
a
L
OUR ASSUMPTIONS REVISITED
Europe’s energy future requires us to master a substantial transformation
towards sustainability. We are caught in national ways of thinking, yet we need
a joint European vision to design a future energy system. Europeans across
all sectors – public policy, corporate, civil society and individual citizens –
need to work together towards a sustainable energy system in order to secure
prosperous living conditions for themselves and future generations.
For this purpose the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy (WI)
and the Centre for Social Investment (CSI) of Heidelberg University have merged their
expertise and established the System Innovation Lab. The System Innovation Lab
promotes a training and capacity building approach and is aimed at young and
mid-career professionals working in staff positions across Europe, in areas of energyrelated decision-making in politics, economy and civil society, with the drive to be
part of a large-scale transformation by enforcing concrete change.
This was the Lab’s mission:
Understand different paradigms in energy policy between EU member states
Design a common vision for a sustainable European energy system
Implement and evaluate concrete ideas and solutions in the professional environment of the participants that will shape Europe’s energy future
The Lab offered an extraordinary opportunity for participants to exchange, co-create
and reflect in an international setting. It combined scientific expertise, practical
insights and innovative methods such as Design Thinking, Presencing or Gaming
with Leadership and Advocacy Coaching.
3
SYSTEM INNOVATION LAB – SHAPING EUROPE’S ENERGY FUTURE
The Lab consisted of three parts:
A six days kick-off seminar in Berlin in February 2016 with experts on
energy systems and system innovations including field visits and coaching
An exploration phase of ten weeks in which participants tried to test
their prototypes in the context of their professional environment
A five-day reflection seminar in Warsaw in May 2016 where results were
presented and participants had the chance to reflect on what they learned
Apart from participating in the seminars, we also expected the participants to spend the
equivalent of one working week on the project during the ten-week exploration phase.
Twenty-one participants from ten different countries, among others Poland,
Germany, Sweden, Estonia, Austria, were approved. It was a remarkable experience
for them and a learning experience for the two institutions in charge. The two
partners contributed their particular competences resulting in a joint capacity
building programme, which can be applied to other sustainability issues such as
housing or mobility. Hence, the project served as a “product development” and this
document summarizes our lessons learned.
We will present eight initial hypotheses and share our practical experience with the
chosen format (lab) and the actual participants from different European countries.
A: General hypotheses
Hypotheses referring to the overall conception of the lab
B: Hypotheses regarding kick-off, exploration, and reflection
Hypotheses focusing on the three core parts of the approach
C: Conclusion
Summary and recommendations
4
SYSTEM INNOVATION LAB – SHAPING EUROPE’S ENERGY FUTURE
A: GENERAL HYPOTHESES
INITIAL HYPOTHESIS
1.
The System Innovation Lab is a capacity building endeavour to address the
divides, normative conflicts and policy deadlocks in the European sustainable
energy field. It contributes to building bridges across these divides and to
organising both cross-sectoral as well as cross-cultural communication and a
better understanding of diverse interests in this field in the EU countries.
REVIEW
In the project proposal we assumed that the format of a System Innovation Lab is an
appropriate instrument to prepare (future) decision-makers in order to allow them to
develop more effective approaches towards the desired sustainability goals. This
starting-point assumed that all those involved in the project share the normative goal
of sustainability but allow for very different paths of change to reach this goal. At the
same time, this also means that these different paths have to factor in situations and
circumstances which require a systemic view rather than opting for one single
approach only
The lab format let the diverging normative assumptions, conflicts of interest, cultural
and political divides become far more visible for the participants from ten different
European countries. It allowed them to develop a more balanced understanding of
system contexts and the emerging diversity of change strategies and resulting
options for initiating change. The lab experience enabled participants to develop their
personality and skills beyond gathering new knowledge on the level of intellectual
exchange. It stimulated a process in which the participants with all due consideration
for the above-mentioned differences in the system could develop common grounds of
systemic questions to be considered when working on making change possible. They
developed an awareness of the different dimensions with regard to the “bull’s eye view”
of systemic change.
For a number of participants the lab process stimulated considerations of changing
their professional positions – or strengthening respective intentions – in order to
obtain better and more effective opportunities with regards to their personal agenda.
This observation to some extent qualifies our assumption in the proposal that
participants would improve their capacity to work for change in their professional
environment: They remain in the field, but some of them move on to a different
organisation with a more promising professional outlook.
5
SYSTEM INNOVATION LAB – SHAPING EUROPE’S ENERGY FUTURE
INITIAL HYPOTHESIS:
2.
The System Innovation Lab combines the three terms “Europe”, “Energy” and
“System Innovation” to an understanding of change following the idea of
system innovations on the way towards a sustainable transformation of the
European energy system. For such a comprehensive systemic concept of
innovation, an awareness and a better understanding of European energypolitical approaches and challenges (or: action needs) is needed.
REVIEW:
The hypothesis refers to the weight and relationship between the different contents
of the lab.
According to the initial project proposal, the three terms “Europe”, “Energy” and
“System Innovation” are crucial in the search for human solutions to climate change
and the need for a sustainable energy transformation. It postulated that system
innovations are needed in order to overcome political and social barriers; “system
innovation” being defined as a strategic combination of technical, economic, sociocultural, ecological and political change processes (i.e. the participatory development
of windmill parks, where financial returns are administered by a cooperative and
used for educational and cultural institutions in the municipality).
Leading on from this, the idea of system innovation becomes a leitmotif that can be
applied through an interest in European differences and similarities with the aim to
foster mutual understanding and develop a concept of transformation – a political,
social, ecological, and cultural process (beyond technical and economic aspects). This
initial perspective outlined in the project proposal is followed by a careful reflection
of European approaches. As stated in the document, the lab’s aim was to transfer
knowledge about natural, political, socio-economic and cultural factors of the different
energy-political approaches in the EU member states and, in a second step, to discuss
and develop options for systemic innovations in the different European settings.
Due to the review of international lab concepts and
similar approaches, the aspect of basic knowledge
transfer with regard to the varieties of energy
systems in Europe lost some weight in our own
thinking about the lab contents. Consequently,
concepts and methods concerning system innovation
dominated the agenda at the kick-off in Berlin while
comparing different European energy systems
was less emphasized. The German energy transition
was the only case in the European context that
we discussed more in depth as an exemplary energy
system.
The feedback after the kick-off showed that
participants would have wished for more explicit
input on different European energy approaches and
perspectives. We took on the feedback and gave the
energy- and Poland-related contents much more
room at the seminar in Warsaw (to create a certain
counterbalance to the Germany-focused discussions
in Berlin). Meanwhile, the quality and depth of the
discussion in Warsaw also showed that a deeper dive
into a system’s approach did open up perspectives
with which such comparisons were undertaken.
PROJECT EXAMPLE I:
Sustainable Energy Innovation Platform
6
SYSTEM INNOVATION LAB – SHAPING EUROPE’S ENERGY FUTURE
INITIAL HYPOTHESIS:
3.
The Lab will be tested in the energy context for the development of a didactical
approach to the qualification of future decision-makers. In a sense of a “product
development”, the two partners bring their particular competences to the table
resulting in a joint capacity building programme which can be applied to other
sustainability issues such as housing or mobility.
REVIEW:
In general, the System Innovation Lab was perceived as a highly valuable experience
by the participants. The didactical approach based on the joint competences of two
different institutions dealing with questions of sustainability in research and
practice was much appreciated. There is considerable potential for a similar
programme focusing on related issues like mobility or housing, which need systemic
solutions considering technical, and economic, social, political, and cultural aspects.
However, it will be important to underline what “product” the lab intends to develop
and to adjust the didactical approach accordingly. Our first attempt to create a lab
with a systemic perspective on energy-related sustainability issues proved to be a
learning experience for the two institutions in charge. A major learning point from
this process is that the focus (conceptual or content focus) has to be very clear and
decided upon by the entire team of organisers. Otherwise, the communication with
participants might be confusing and the objectives unclear. Furthermore, a concrete
and commonly shared focus can help to facilitate internal communications and
important decisions.
7
SYSTEM INNOVATION LAB – SHAPING EUROPE’S ENERGY FUTURE
INITIAL HYPOTHESIS:
4.
A lab format consisting of a two-week attendance phase and an exploration
phase equalling one working week fits with the demand and possibilities of
young professionals in staff positions of public institutions, companies and civil
society organisations.
REVIEW:
The recruitment of young professionals was more difficult than expected. A major
concern was that investing three weeks of working time in total was too demanding
in some cases (especially for small and medium-size companies), because either the
employer needed to somehow benefit from the programme or participants had to
dedicate a substantial part of their holiday entitlement to the lab. That might be the
reason why many Master and Ph.D. students as well as more senior people from the
field of research and academia applied for the programme (of which those with
practical work experience were admitted, even if this was not set out to be).
It would in fact be useful to look more closely at the participants’ employers’
expectations and perceptions of the lab, as this would help investigate the lab’s value
even further. If it turns out that that the lab is a long-term capacity building format
rather than a programme oriented at concrete projects or “results” we could assume
that the lab is used (and can be promoted) as an (on or off-the-job) training in order to
prepare for strategic changes and/or higher individual positions (or professional
changes) in the long term. This will be important for future communication since,
during applications stage, participants noted that they were unclear about the
concrete procedures and goals of the lab when they applied.
However, given the necessary time investment, it is remarkable how many young
professionals and (future) decision-makers from many different European countries
eventually participated. Most notably, we observed benefits for both groups – the
professionals and junior participants. Whereas the professionals seemed to pick out
specific tools and contents of the agenda, the younger participants gained in terms of
awareness and a general sense of innovation and change.
It’s also worth mentioning that invitations to the lab received more responses from
the corporate and civil society sectors than from public policy and public
administration. Public policy participants (in a broader sense) and administration
representatives were difficult to recruit, and targeted efforts at attracting more of
them were met with scepticism or unavailability due to time constraints, even when
approaching their senior or executive levels to send staff members.

PROJECT EXAMPLE II:
A Technology and Creative
Innovation Hub in Moldova
8
SYSTEM INNOVATION LAB – SHAPING EUROPE’S ENERGY FUTURE
INITIAL HYPOTHESIS:
5.
The lab contributes to the planning and structuring of individual projects in
participants’ professional environments and home countries. The lab process
requires that the specific projects are an effective learning and capacity
building experience. At the end of the lab process concrete projects can be
evaluated and compared.
REVIEW:
The lab proposal postulated that work on participants’ own individual projects or
initiatives rooted in their professional environment would be at the heart of the
learning and capacity building process. It was not assumed that participants would
primarily work independently on their projects. The aim of the lab was to enable
participants to learn about practical cases and develop real experiments in diverse
teams made up of participants from many European countries. It was initially
considered that they would stimulate discussions set in their professional and
national contexts regarding the practicability of their initiatives, and that they would
gather experience for the project design and implementation (in a process moderated
and mentored by WI and CSI staff guaranteeing a continuous exchange in the groups).
During the preparation of the lab, and the Berlin kick-off seminar in particular, the
approach to the lab slightly changed: The learning curve became more centred on
participants’ individual experiences and situations – at the expense of the mixed team
approach. Participants were intended to come up with a range of readily available
projects and respective results – such as a concrete advocacy campaign established by
one of the participants or an energy-related business model launched in a real
economic context. Thus, the objectives of the lab were to understand different cultural
and sector-specific perspectives but especially to design and implement innovative
solutions. High value was placed on the development and testing of prototypes for
change, and the reflection seminar was intended to create space for sharing the
“story” with the group, accordingly (see, e.g., the lab description on the website).
Already during the kick-off, and even more so during
the exploration phase, we realized that in the
conceptualization of the lab we put too much emphasis
on the development of individual initiatives during the
kick-off, tested in the exploration phase and to ideally
be implemented later on (output focus). Throughout the
course of the lab and the feedback we got from
participants, we found our way back to the initial idea of
the lab being a capacity building programme rather
than a programme for project development (outcome
focus). With that in mind, we sharpened the idea that
the lab was a catalyst for individual impact in the
system rather than an incubator of projects.
PROJECT EXAMPLE III:
Digitalization Strategy
of an Energy Provider
This observation supports the conclusion that one
major aspect of the learning and capacity building
developments of participants originated in shared
experience and diversity rather than in individual
projects. For the development of concrete and instantly
marketable projects, the project run-time (and especially
the time between the kick-off and the reflection seminar)
turned out to be too short. We realized that the value
of the lab is more about transfer of knowledge and skills
regarding the promotion of transformative action.
9
SYSTEM INNOVATION LAB – SHAPING EUROPE’S ENERGY FUTURE
B: HYPOTHESES REGARDING KICK-OFF,
EXPLORATION, AND REFLECTION
INITIAL HYPOTHESIS:
6.
The kick-off seminar will focus on different European energy systems and
system innovation approaches. It will lead to a better understanding of
individual contributions to larger systems change and help to develop
prototypes for change.
REVIEW:
In accordance with the project proposal, the kick-off seminar was intended to convey
academic input on different European energy systems and system innovation
approaches, practical examples/case studies, and the skills for conceptualizing own
ideas for real experiments. The first half of the kick-off focused on conceptual
approaches, tools and methods for understanding and describing systems and their
innovation. During the second half of the programme, we put more emphasis on
individual initiatives and their development, whilst applying theoretically founded
methods like Design Thinking, Collective Leadership Compass or Advocacy Training.
We also reserved a day for inspiration from the field, which was strongly focused on
the German case of the energy transition. Therefore, what we missed in this first
week was an explicit discussion on different country perspectives and a more explicit
debate on the need for joint European energy vision and what this might look like
As for the prototypes, all participants developed an idea for an initiative, and they
seemed well prepared for the exploration phase. However, as the feedback especially
in Warsaw showed, some felt overwhelmed with the (perceived) task to come up with
an initiative on the spot and to develop their idea within two days. This again proves
our lack in clarity on the significance of the initiatives in the overall lab concept. In
order to take pressure from participants, or to improve the approach of the lab, a
number of options could be used:
• The work could be based on initiatives as exemplary interventions that participants
test in order to apply what they learn in the kick-off.
• Participants could work on project ideas of other participants, which would create
co-creative teams without bringing their own project to the lab.
• Alternatively, participants could plan many small interventions in their work
environment instead of having them develop one coherent “project”.
10
SYSTEM INNOVATION LAB – SHAPING EUROPE’S ENERGY FUTURE
INITIAL HYPOTHESIS:
7.
In the exploration phase the participants will spend five days in addition to the
seminars in Berlin and Warsaw and test their prototypes jointly with peers.
REVIEW:
In the exploration phase the problem of time constraints became most obvious. The
participation rate and intensity of exchange varied between the working groups.
Whereas some teams managed to have regular Skype meetings with most people
attending, others had difficulties finding time slots and to get people engaged. Even
when participants valued the exchange of regular group communication (Skype
meetings), they still expressed their failure to invest more time into their own project.
INITIAL HYPOTHESIS:
8.
The reflection seminar serves as space for the reflection on the experiences
made during the exploration phase.
REVIEW:
The reflection seminar in Warsaw turned out to be much more than initially envisaged.
As it seemed essential to us to incorporate the feedback received in Berlin, we planned
two full days of the five for a deep-dive into the Polish energy system, a comparison of
different energy systems from a cultural perspective and a visioning process, in
which we discussed a sustainable European energy system in 2050 as well as the way
towards it. We therefore opened up for some more exploration rather than sticking to
reflection only, which afterwards proved to be highly appreciated by the participants.
Also, we framed the entire process more strongly as a capacity building journey
rather than a project development programme. That way there seemed to be much
less pressure and thus less focus on developing concrete next steps. We wanted
participants to feel equipped for taking next steps in their individual post-lab journey
as a “change agent”. The overall experience clarified that the system innovation lab is
not so much an incubator but more of a catalytic programme to develop changemaker capacity among the participants. This leaves open whether they enact their
change contributions in their own pre-lab professional environment or in a different
professional setting. Several participants either set out for creating new
organisations (interesting: hub-structures, which could be taken as additional
evidence for this notion of the lab as catalyst rather than incubator) or reported that
they were going for changing positions.
11
SYSTEM INNOVATION LAB – SHAPING EUROPE’S ENERGY FUTURE
C: CONCLUSION
Our experience has shown that the lab approach is an appropriate tool for
familiarizing participants with the complexity of so-called “wicked problems”
and preparing concrete action. It provides them with the intellectual
foundations of change and with a structuring framework in which they learn
to perceive the normative premises, interests, power positions and cultural as
well as political and economic traditions of the system in a more sophisticated
way. By adopting a systemic perspective they develop a common understanding
of the issue.
The System Innovation Lab process, however, led to tensions between systemic and
transformation content on the one hand and empirical knowledge of the system on
the other. This became obvious both through debates among the organising teams of
the two different research institutions and from participant feedback. After the first
workshop with a stronger focus on systemic transformation competences, they asked
for more analytical and comparative knowledge regarding the European energy
system. We acknowledged this feedback with regard to the reflection workshop but
also had to keep in mind the information load at the end of the lab. We therefore
focused on the case of Poland as a proxy.
During the lab process the initial focus on the participants’ projects and initiatives
gave more and more way to a capacity building approach to system innovation. This
emerged due to the time constraints of young professionals, which suggests that
future labs should allow for more time. Apart from that, the participants developed
personal competences far beyond their prototype ideas and some even decided to
change their professional position.
Our experience shows that the system innovation lab format does not so much focus
on an incubator role, i.e. the establishment of new projects or organisational
(entrepreneurial) structures, but develops its strengths in the strategic preparation of
comprehensive innovation. This insight is appealing to employers since the approach
can be used as a training effort for intrapreneurship. At the same time the number of
projects currently worked on shows that the lab has sufficient output by the standards
of innovation and venture situations (roughly an estimated third of the participants’
projects will be further developed and finally implemented).
The System Innovation Lab is a feasible tool to be applied in other contexts of system
innovation; be it in the context of sustainability, be it in fields of social innovation.
Each of the two institutions will go on working with the system innovation lab
approach and bring the conceptual experience in the development of such lab formats
to a European level.
12
SYSTEM INNOVATION LAB – SHAPING EUROPE’S ENERGY FUTURE
PUBLISHED BY
Wuppertal Institute for
Climate, Environment and Energy
Centre for Social Investment
www.wupperinst.org
www.csi.uni-heidelberg.de
CORE FUNDING
CO-FUNDING
Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt
Stiftung für deutschpolnische Zusammenarbeit
www.dbu.de
www.sdpz.org
WWW.SYSINNOLAB.ORG