Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 48 (2023) 100760

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eist

Forging a sharper blade: A design science research approach for

transition studies
Paul Moritz Wiegmann, Madis Talmar *, Sjoerd Bastiaan de Nijs
Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, the
Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Research on socio-technical transitions often recognizes the need for change in order to make
Design science research society and the economy more sustainable. Yet, much of transition studies focuses on developing
Transition studies explanatory knowledge. There is a scarcity of tools and other prescriptive knowledge that is
Research methodology
directly relevant to practice to induce the needed change. In line with recent calls to introduce a
Design principles
Socio-political work
design perspective in the transitions field, we present Design Science Research (DSR). DSR is well
Tools established in other areas, such as organization studies and information sciences, and has the
potential to support important contributions to transitions research. In this paper, we introduce
the approach, present an example where DSR is used to develop design knowledge about socio-
political work in the Dutch geothermal energy niche, and discuss how DSR adds to existing
research approaches in the field.

1. Introduction

Over recent years, the domain of transition studies (TS) has undergone rapid growth both in terms of the sheer numbers of research
projects, and in the diversity of perspectives taken by researchers. With its roots in analyzing socio-technical change from a systems
point of view (Grin et al., 2010), transitions have been studied from a multitude of perspectives, including urban development (e.g.,
Rohracher and Späth, 2014), political science (Hess and Mai, 2014), management (Walrave et al., 2018), psychology (de Haan et al.,
2014), organization design (Talmar, 2018), economic history (Geels and Raven, 2006), and sociology (Geels, 2005). A recent sys­
tematic literature review of 217 transition studies (Zolfagharian et al., 2019) also pointed to a diversity of research paradigms within
TS, with studies adopting positivist, interpretivist, critical realist, as well as pragmatist paradigms. Some transition scholars have
modelled their work from natural sciences – i.e., considering processes/phenomena in socio-technical transitions as empirical objects
whose properties and relationships can be explained on the basis of objective variables (e.g., Choi and Anadón, 2014). Others have
based their work on the traditions of humanities – i.e., assuming transition phenomena and processes to be too complex and rich to be
represented in objective research models (Geels, 2011), instead focusing on the subjective interpretive capacity of agents in transitions
(e.g., Bakker, 2014).
Contrasting to these research modes oriented to describing and explaining the phenomena and processes of socio-technical tran­
sitions, there has been a relative scarcity of transition research that focuses on using scientific methods to explicitly design and test

* Corresponding author at: Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, P.O. Box 513,
5600 MB Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
E-mail address: m.talmar@tue.nl (M. Talmar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2023.100760
Received 10 November 2021; Received in revised form 24 July 2023; Accepted 11 August 2023
2210-4224/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
P.M. Wiegmann et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 48 (2023) 100760

practice-oriented interventional knowledge (Zolfagharian et al., 2019). Interventional knowledge as such is not uncommon with all
major branches of TS (i.e., MLP, TM, SNM, and TIS) analyzing and supporting types of interventions (e.g., Raven and Walrave, 2020;
Rotmans et al., 2001; Schot and Geels, 2008, Geels, 2006), especially in the area of policy (e.g., Caniëls and Romijn, 2008; Jacobsson
and Bergek, 2011; Kivimaa and Kern, 2014). Furthermore, some TS projects have taken a pragmatist perspective (e.g., Bos and Brown,
2014; Martin and Rice, 2015), developed prescriptive frameworks (e.g., Loorbach, 2010; Raven et al., 2010), suggested Mode 2
research (Rotmans, 2005), as well as created practitioner tools (e.g., van Rijnsoever and Leendertse, 2020). But the field is yet to adopt
a consistent methodological framework on how academics within TS would tackle emergent problems from the field while remaining
scientifically rigorous (cf. Loorbach, 2022). This is somewhat surprising since most of the objects of interest in TS – e.g., socio-technical
regimes being upheld by human generated sub-systems (Geels, 2004), sustainability policy frameworks, as well as technological niches
– are human created. As such, one could consider TS as what Herbert Simon (1969) referred to as a ‘science of the artificial’ – a domain
where human made systems are seen as improvable by the systematic scientific design and testing of field interventions.
In this regard, we propose that transition scholars would find support in solving field problems by formally adopting design science
research (DSR) as part of the methodological toolbox of TS. In this paper, we build on how a design approach has been incorporated in
other fields with human-generated systems at their core (e.g., management studies, organization studies, operations research)
(Holmström et al., 2009; March and Smith, 1995; Romme, 2003; Tranfield et al., 2003). We propose, and (to a limited extent)
demonstrate a DSR approach for TS. While some work in TS (e.g., Hoogma et al., 2005; van Rijnsoever and Leendertse, 2020; Weber
et al., 1999; Wolfram, 2016) already integrates elements of DSR, we are not aware of previous research in the field that fully applies
this approach. We focus, in particular, on how DSR would be performed on the interface of TS and the practice of agency in transitions
via the development and testing of boundary objects (Star and Griesemer, 1989) that mediate and maintain a body of explicit design
knowledge within TS (Romme, 2016).
The argument proceeds and contributes to TS as follows. First, we draw from DSR in other domains to develop a generic model for
performing DSR. This model is built around two levels of ‘boundary objects’, which span the boundary between theoretical and
practical/applied knowledge. It helps our own as well as future DSR efforts within the domain to be coherent and clearly positioned.
We then provide an illustrative example of how design knowledge could be developed in the transition studies design science research
cycle. In particular, we focus on how niche advocates perform socio-political work (Raven et al., 2016), and develop a self-evaluation
instrument, which can support actors in the Dutch geothermal energy (GE) niche (and possibly other niches) to structure and
self-assess their socio-political work to enhance political and societal support for their activities. We substantiate the identified ac­
tivities performed by niche advocates to influence their socio-political environment through a comprehensive set of causal statements
on socio-political work in previous TS literature. We finish with a discussion and concluding remarks, where we reflect on DSR’s
potential role in the TS field.

2. Design science research

2.1. What is design science?

Building on the work of Simon (1969), design science research (DSR) has emerged across different scientific disciplines (e.g.,
engineering, law, architecture, management, information systems research). DSR aims to develop knowledge in support of solving field
problems (You and Hands, 2019). It does so by complementing knowledge from both the sciences (i.e., discovering general patterns
and forces that explain and predict phenomena) and the humanities (i.e., understanding and critically reflecting on the human
experience of actors inside social practices) with a focus on developing explicitly prescriptive and instrumental knowledge (van Aken
and Romme, 2009). Correspondingly, DSR takes a pragmatic view on epistemology (Romme, 2003) with its highest order test being
whether the product of research serves its intended real-world purpose (i.e., is useful).
DSR uses formal and replicable methods, often adapted from the methodological approaches used in descriptive/explanatory/
predictive research. The grounding and validation of design knowledge can, therefore, vary, depending on the methodological rigor
applied to its development (Tranfield et al., 2003). With a focus on pragmatic validity, empirical evidence is central to developing new
design knowledge, as well as to evaluating how well specific design knowledge (e.g., a decision-making tool) produces the intended
real-world outcome (Holmström et al., 2009; March and Smith, 1995). Consequently, design science research is closely linked to the
idea of evidence-based decision-making, which sees synthesizing and maintaining an easily accessible, empirically validated
knowledge-base to support professionals in decision-making, as a core task for research (Romme, 2016; Rousseau et al., 2008). To
summarize, the design science research mode has four basic characteristics (adapted from van Aken and Romme, 2009):

• research questions are driven by field problems (as opposed to pure knowledge problems);
• there is an emphasis on solution-oriented (prescriptive) knowledge that addresses said field problems;
• design knowledge is developed and validated methodologically rigorously;
• the justification of research products is based on pragmatic validity.

2.2. Model for performing DSR

Performing design science research can be best thought of as continuously trying to bridge the boundary between research and
practice/application. Research produces theoretical knowledge, which aims to be generalized, whereas practice usually requires
knowledge that is adapted to the specific context where it is applied. Fig. 1 shows the DSR cycle, which supports translating between

2
P.M. Wiegmann et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 48 (2023) 100760

these types of knowledge in a structured manner.

At the core of these efforts are so-called ‘boundary objects’. These boundary objects structure information and translate knowledge
between research and practice/application for the benefit of both sides (Carlile, 2004; Star and Griesemer, 1989). In particular, we
suggest distinguishing two levels of boundary objects, which represent different grades of specificity and contextualization of design
knowledge (Romme, 2003; van Burg and Romme, 2014). At the first level, design principles structure knowledge into generic solutions
which are relevant for relatively broad contexts such as a certain class of field problems. Building on this at the second level, design
solutions apply this knowledge to a specific context.
Below, we discuss in more detail what characterizes these boundary objects and how the generated design-knowledge can be
further used in the academic discourse. In Section 3, we then demonstrate in our example of applying DSR to the Dutch geothermal
energy niche how we developed (1) design principles for socio-political work and (2) a design solution in the form of a self-assessment
instrument for actors in the niche.

2.2.1. Design principles

Design principles are statements, which outline expected causal links between certain interventions and outcomes within a certain
(broad) context, as a basis for developing real-world interventions (Denyer et al., 2008; Van Burg et al., 2008). They are “generic
solution[s] for a type of field problem” (van Aken and Berends, 2018, p.228), which have not yet been applied to a specific case.
Typically, sets of (inter-)related principles inform different aspects of such a generic solution, implying that impact at the system level
is tied to combinations of several/many design principles (Romme and Endenburg, 2006).
As a normative statement on causality, a design principle is complete if it outlines four components: (1) The contextual boundaries
(C) in which the principle is expected to apply, (2) the intervention/agency (I) which is implemented, (3) the generative mechanism
(M) which is triggered by the intervention, and (4) the expected outcome (O) which this achieves. Rooted in Bunge’s (1967) concept of
the ‘technological rule’, this so-called CIMO-format serves as a template for expressing a detailed understanding of causality (Denyer
et al., 2008; Pawson and Tilley, 1997). Such a CIMO-statement denotes the explanatory and the instrumental nature of a causal
relationship, serving as the link for explanatory/predictive and design science to inform each other (Denyer et al., 2008).
Design principles can be generated through synthesizing existing theoretical knowledge and/or by evaluating and generalizing
practices in the field (Van Burg et al., 2008) (see Fig. 1). A set of design principles strives to represent (all) possible pathways that
contribute to reaching a desired outcome, regardless of the theoretical or methodological underpinnings of the knowledge.

2.2.2. Design solutions

Design solutions are a second level of boundary objects, which build on CIMO-based design principles. Design solutions translate the
causality embedded in the design principles into a format that can be easily applied in a specific problem context. They are, therefore,
informed and justified by the interests and circumstances of the users involved in the (future) application of the design knowledge
(Romme, 2003). To facilitate employing the underlying knowledge in practice, design solutions also often go beyond the verbal form,
and may adopt diverse formats, such as schemes, process designs, simulations, decision-making tools, computer games, and lists of
potential actions (Romme and Endenburg, 2006).
Developing design solutions inherently involves users in composing, testing, evaluating, and improving a design (Worren et al.,
2002). Thus, DSR researchers often iterate between consulting users and developing the design solution. Ideally, such iterations begin
early in the process, where users should be involved in identifying requirements (e.g., relating to how users should be able to
implement it; or boundary conditions of the design’s context) (van Aken and Berends, 2018). They may also be asked to evaluate
concepts of the solution at various in-between stages, to contribute own ideas to the process, to participate in alpha and beta testing,
and/or to contribute to an evaluation after implementation (van Aken and Berends, 2018). The ultimate proof of a design solution’s
quality lies in how well it addresses the problems faced by the users.

2.2.3. Interaction between design knowledge and the theoretical discourse

Fig. 1 shows distinct activities that researchers perform at each interface of the DSR cycle (e.g., synthesizing knowledge to derive
design principles from literature and further adjusting it to specific contexts to develop design solutions). Within the DSR cycle, a single
research project can take one or several steps (Baskerville et al., 2018; Romme, 2003). Especially developing coherent and compre­
hensive design principles can be a substantial task, involving significant efforts in systematically synthesizing previous research (e.g.,
Tanskanen et al., 2017) or in codifying practice (e.g., Talmar et al., 2022). In doing so, design science researchers should focus on the
transferability of their research output (e.g., design principles) for further development in other projects and/or in other steps in the
DSR cycle (e.g., the development of a managerial tool). Design knowledge on achieving a particular goal matures over time as it is
recombined and tested for pragmatic validity in yet new design solution formats and contexts. Using the CIMO-format as a common
approach to formulating design principles helps transfer design knowledge across projects.
This implies that the two levels of boundary objects serve purposes beyond the specific problem-context in which they are
developed: (1) synthesizing existing research findings into design principles may also reveal gaps in current research, and may thus
inspire new work (“defining research needs” in Fig. 1); and (2) repeat applications of a particular design solution (e.g., an analytical or
evaluation tool) to codify and/or support practice can be an effective approach to scientific research. For example, much of the
research on (sustainable) business models has employed the Business Model Canvas tool (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010) to sys­
tematically map business models and infer generic tendencies in business models and their development. In this case, the “applying”
activity in Fig. 1 thus feeds back into the “research” activity.
Rather than viewing DSR and the science- and humanities modes of research as opposites, it is, therefore, better to think of them as

3
P.M. Wiegmann et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 48 (2023) 100760

complementary. Development of research knowledge and design knowledge is symbiotic and connects in a number of interfaces (i.e.,
synthesizing existing research results, defining new research needs, using design products to conduct research, and generalizing from
DSR results to descriptive/explanatory/predictive research).

3. Applying design science research to transition studies: example of socio-political work in niches

To illustrate how DSR can be employed in transitions research, we provide an example on the topic of niche advocates’ socio-
political work in transitioning domains. We developed this example based on a study in the Dutch geothermal energy (GE) niche. We
explain how we used both levels of boundary objects (design principles and design solutions, see Section 2.2) to develop prescriptive
knowledge on the interface of academic research and practice. In line with the earlier discussion (Section 2.2), the first level boundary
object (design principles) explain how socio-political work can be carried out and which effects this has in a relatively broad context
(technological niches in transitions), whereas the second level (design solution, in our example an evidence-based self-assessment
instrument for actors in the niche) applies this to the much more specific context of the Dutch GE niche.
Section 3.1 introduces the setting for this example in the Dutch GE niche. Section 3.2 explains how we developed design principles
in the study (links shown as *1 in the DSR research cycle in Fig. 1), and Section 3.3 discusses our solution design (links shown as *2 in
the DSR research cycle in Fig. 1).

3.1. Introduction to the case example: applying a design-science-research approach to socio-political work in the Dutch geothermal energy
niche

Corresponding to the first of the four characteristics of DSR outlined earlier (research questions being driven by field problems, see
Section 2.1), we were triggered to perform DSR by a field problem brought to our attention by the branch organization for geothermal
energy (GE) advocacy in The Netherlands.1 In 2019, the branch organization identified and voiced a desire for developing a planning
and evaluation framework that they can use to structure activities by which geothermal energy can gain more political and societal
support in The Netherlands.
This request from practice coincided with a gap in scientific research in the TS field, as identified by Raven et al. (2016). They noted
that, although the importance of public policy in supporting socio-technical transitions is widely emphasized, TS research has turned
relatively little attention to the relationships between advocates of upcoming technologies and public policy. In response, Raven et al.
(2016) coined the term ‘socio-political work’ to refer to ‘strategic activities, organized from within a technological niche, that
anticipate on social developments and political considerations, and aim to inform political arenas on the fitness of the niche and to
improve its socio-political conditions’. We found that, despite emphasizing some aspects of what socio-political work entails (Raven
et al., 2016), TS to date lacks a comprehensive understanding of (1) the activities involved in socio-political work of niche advocates
and (2) the expected results of these activities. Thus, the answer to the request from practice did not appear readily available or
obvious. As a ‘how to’ question with potentially a wide array of answers, it did appear a suitable challenge for developing prescriptive
knowledge through DSR.
To proceed with DSR in this context, we devised the following research steps from the DSR cycle (Fig. 1):

1 Develop design principles for performing socio-political work

a Empathize with the problem context of the case and scope the purpose of the design exercise
b Synthesize the design principles from previous research results and empirical evidence in the case, using the CIMO-format
2 Develop a design solution
a Contextualize the design principles into the first version of a particular instrument (i.e., a design solution) that practitioners can
interact with and find useful in monitoring and/or planning socio-political work in their niche
b (To a limited extent) apply and evaluate the instrument’s ability to serve its intended purpose

3.2. Developing design principles

In the first phase of our study, we developed design principles in the CIMO format (see Section 2.2.1). Below, we first outline our
methodology for doing so (Section 3.2.1) and then briefly present an overview of the findings (Section 3.2.2.).

1
Geothermal energy (GE) is a technology that extracts heat, which in some cases is subsequently converted into electricity, from the earth’s crust.
As such, it is seen as promising for the transition to more sustainable energy. In The Netherlands, focus is on applications drilling over 500 meters
into the ground (EBN et al., 2018), with GE having been applied since 2006 and 20 plants being operational as of 2020 (Wiebes, 2020). However, in
2019 when this research began GE remained a niche technology in the Netherlands, being mostly applied in the horticultural sector where heat
demand is relatively constant. Niche advocates aim to expand the technology’s use into the wider built environment and have stated the ambitious
goal of covering 22% of national heat demand by 2050 (EBN et al, 2018). Nevertheless, these ambitions were challenged by a number of bottlenecks
including: a) a lock in of the built environment to natural gas, which also has a strong cultural significance for Dutch society (Rotmans et al., 2001),
b) a relative lack of (less than 5% of connected buildings) heat networks (Niesink and Rösler, 2015), c) an array of technical risks of potential
pollution of drinking water, of causing seismic activity, of transporting small amounts of radioactive material to earth’s surface, and of causing local
temperature drops in the earth’s crust, d) political uncertainty associated to the historic adverse effects of natural gas extraction.

4
P.M. Wiegmann et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 48 (2023) 100760

Fig. 1. The design science research cycle (adapted from Van Burg et al., 2008, p. 117).

3.2.1. Methodology for developing design principles, based on literature and empirical evidence
To synthesize and structure existing knowledge on socio-political work and produce a relevant framework of causal relationships
that could be triggered by niche advocates (cf. Raven et al., 2016), we applied two blended methodological approaches. First, we
conducted a case study to develop a contextual understanding and an overview of the current state of activities in the Dutch GE niche.
In parallel, to substantiate a wide array of design principles for performing socio-political work, we conducted a systematic literature
synthesis of empirical evidence from previous scientific research. These steps reflect the links marked by *1 in the DSR research cycle
(Fig. 1). Based on them, we used the CIMO-format to formulate design principles about socio-political work in niches.

3.2.1.1. Exploring the Dutch geothermal energy case to develop contextual understanding. The case study was performed qualitatively,
drawing data from interviews, documents, and observations, enabling triangulation of different data sources. All data was collected
over an eight-month period from November 2019 to June 2020.

Table 1
List of all interviewees.
Code Role in the organization Duration

(G) GLOBAL NICHE ACTORS (GEELS AND RAVEN, 2006)

G1 Manager – public enterprise < 30
G2 Manager – public enterprise 30–60
G3 Manager – public enterprise 60 <
G4 Manager – public enterprise 60 <
G5 Consultant 60 <
G6 Consultant 60 <
G7 Project manager – private enterprise 60 <
G8 Consultant 30–60
G9 Consultant 60 <
G10 Consultant 60 <
G11 Manager – private enterprise 30–60
G12 Manager – private enterprise 30–60
G13 Project manager – private enterprise 30–60
G14 Operational manager – private enterprise < 30
G15 Consultant 30–60
G16 Manager – private enterprise 30–60
(L) LOCAL NICHE ACTORS (GEELS AND RAVEN, 2006)
L1 Project manager – private enterprise < 30
L2 Project manager – private enterprise < 30
L3 Manager – private enterprise 30–60
L4 Manager communication – private enterprise < 30
L5 Manager – private enterprise < 30
L6 Geologist – private enterprise 30–60
(LG) REPRESETATIVES OF GOVERNMENTAL BODIES
LG1 Policy officer 30–60
LG2 Policy officer 30–60
LG3 Policy officer 30–60
LG4 Policy officer 30–60
LG5 Policy officer < 30
LG6 Policy officer 30–60
LG7 Policy officer 30–60

5
P.M. Wiegmann et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 48 (2023) 100760

We first performed two exploratory interviews with experts involved in niche governance and investigated archival material to
build a contextual understanding of the niche technology, its complimentary and competing technologies, the composition of the
industrial domain, and the national context. Based on the initial inquiry, we identified further GE niche stakeholders, archival ma­
terials, and events. Over the eight-month period, we conducted a total of 29 interviews. The final list of interviewees is presented in
Table 1. The interviews proceeded in a semi-structured approach, with a focus on niche participants’ perception of the consequences of
their efforts to promote the niche with societal and political stakeholders. Whenever permitted, the interviews were recorded and
transcribed.
In addition to the interviews, we identified and coded 16 key documents (e.g., the Vision document on Dutch Geothermal Energy –
published in 2018, and the upscaling plan of GE within Dutch heat networks – published 2018). We also participated at four major
events organized around GE in The Netherlands. Extensive notes were taken there and added to the pool of data to be coded in the
software package NVivo, alongside the interview transcripts/notes and documents.

3.2.1.2. Methodology for synthesizing theoretical knowledge from literature. In DSR, systematic literature synthesis is a commonly used
approach to develop design principles. Correspondingly, we derived the process of conducting the literature synthesis from Tranfield
et al. (2003) as seen in Fig. 2. We aimed to identify literature which describes both what socio-political work in niches entails, and what
outcomes it eventually leads to. To achieve this, we used the following criteria in identifying sources: (1) we selected for TS works by
their use of one or several of the four main frameworks in TS (Köhler et al., 2019); (2) we applied implicit quality standards (Tranfield
et al., 2003) via selecting only peer reviewed papers with >5 citations; (3) we selected all relevant domains on Web of Science with a
relationship to sustainability; (4) we focused on longitudinal or cross-case analyses where links between attributes and causal

Fig. 2. Systematic composing of the final pool of articles for CIMO-coding.

6
P.M. Wiegmann et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 48 (2023) 100760

Fig. 3. Design principles for performing socio-political work in niches.

arguments are most likely to be found; (5) we aimed for relative institutional comparability (i.e., controlling for context, to some
extent) by selecting papers that presented empirical evidence from Europe and/or N-America. Furthermore, we focused the scope of
our search on keywords related to the political and policy aspects of socio-political work to keep the number of design principles
manageable. This may limit the work in terms of non-politics/policy-related aspects of socio-political work not being covered.

7
P.M. Wiegmann et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 48 (2023) 100760

Table 2
Final list of coded articles.
N◦ Article Year Journal Authors

1 Niche construction and empowerment through socio-political work. A meta-analysis of six low- 2016 EIST Raven et al.
carbon technology cases
2 Renewable Energy Technology and Path Creation: A Multi-scalar Approach to Energy 2012 European Planning Essletzbichler
Transition in the UK Studies
3 The (non-)politics of managing low carbon socio-technical transitions 2009 Energy Policy Scrase and Smith
4 Spaces for sustainable innovation: Solar photovoltaic electricity in the UK 2014 TFSC Smith et al.
5 Assessing innovation in emerging energy technologies: Socio-technical dynamics of carbon 2010 Energy Policy Stephens and Jiusto
capture and storage (CCS) and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) in the USA
6 The role of narratives in socio-technical transitions—Fukushima and the energy regimes of 2016 Energy Research and Hermwille
Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom Social Science
7 Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy transition policy in the Netherlands 2008 Energy Policy Kern and Smith
8 The Interplay of Urban Energy Policy and Socio-technical Transitions: The Eco-cities of Graz 2014 Urban Studies Rohracher and
and Freiburg in Retrospect Späth
9 Navigating the transition to sustainable bioenergy in Sweden and Brazil: Lessons learned in a 2016 Energy Research and Silveira and
European and International context Social Science Johnson
10 Local niche planning and its strategic implications for implementation of energy-efficient 2012 TFSC Quitzau et al.
technology
11 The ongoing energy transition: Lessons from a socio-technical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch 2007 Energy Policy Verbong and Geels
electricity system (1960–2004)
12 Analysis of institutional work on innovation trajectories in water infrastructure systems of 2015 EIST Rogers et al.
Melbourne, Australia
13 A new regime and then what? Cracks and tensions in the socio-technical regime of the Swedish 2017 Energy Research and Dzebo and Nykvist
heat energy system Social Science
14 Perspectives on Norway’s supercharged electric vehicle policy 2017 EIST Figenbaum
15 Making it experimental in several ways: The work of intermediaries in raising the ambition 2017 Journal of Cleaner Matschoss and
level in local climate initiatives Production Heiskanen
16 Competing innovation systems and the need for redeployment in sustainability transitions 2018 TFSC Magnusson and
Berggren
17 Incumbent actors, guided search paths, and landmark projects in infra-system transitions: Re- 2019 Research Policy Turnheim and
thinking Strategic Niche Management with a case study of French tramway diffusion Geels
(1971–2016)
18 Anticipating constraints on upscaling from urban innovation experiments 2018 Sustainability Dijk et al.
19 Niche entrepreneurs in urban systems integration: On the role of individuals in niche formation 2017 Environment and Pesch et al.
Planning
20 The role of intermediaries in low carbon transitions e Empowering innovations to unlock 2017 Journal of Cleaner Bush et al.
district heating in the UK Production
21 Creating change through pilot and demonstration projects: Towards a valuation policy 2017 Research Policy Huguenin and
approach Jeannerat,
22 The development of solar PV in The Netherlands: A case of survival in unfriendly contexts 2013 RSER Verhees et al.

The initial database search was conducted in February of 2020 on Web of Science. We proceeded to composing the final pool of
articles, which formed the basis for developing design principles, as seen in Fig. 3. The final list of 22 articles is presented in Table 2.
We coded the 22 articles to identify claims about cause-effect relationships rooted in some agency of niche advocates. To outline
relationships clearly, we followed the instructions regarding coding protocols that aim to identify causality, as described by van Burg
and Romme (2014) and Tanskanen et al. (2017). Each of the 22 articles was coded by two of the co-authors. Any ambiguity in the
coding was discussed collectively.

3.2.1.3. Deriving CIMO-based design principles about socio-political work in niches from literature and empirical evidence. To obtain design
principles about activities that constitute socio-political work and the social mechanisms triggered by them, we identified relevant
information in the literature and GE case. Based on CIMO-logic (see Section 2.2.1), we translated this into generic statements about
interventions that are likely to lead to desirable outcomes for niche actors (cf van Aken and Berends, 2018).2 The CIMO-logic,
therefore, formed the basis for coding both literature and empirical data, with several iterations between the two.
To formulate relevant CIMO-based design principles, the desirable outcome(s) needs to be well-defined. Subsequently, researchers
can identify relevant interventions and mechanisms, which contribute to these outcomes. In our case, this was a challenge because the
TS literature does not specify a stable set of results successful socio-political work could lead to. Since socio-political work aims to
influence policymaking favorably, relevant niche-level interventions can only be identified if it is known what aspects of policy need to
be targeted. We could either (1) inductively derive relevant aspects from the literature, or (2) search for an existing framework, which
defines and describes the desirable state that results from successful socio-political work. In search of a complete internally consistent
framework, we chose the latter approach, and found a suitable framework outside the TS field.
The policy framework of Loomis and Helfand (2003), which was developed to analyze and develop environmental policy, proved to

2
The results of this are shown in Fig. 3.

8
P.M. Wiegmann et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 48 (2023) 100760

Table 3
Niche/technology evaluation criteria, based on Loomis and Helfand (2003).
Evaluation criterion Definition and coding cues

Inherent uncertainty The extent to which there is uncertainty whether the technology/niche brings about assumed costs/benefits in reality
Outcome coding cues: any indication of reduced uncertainty concerning the technology/niche. For example: compliance with established
entities, and transparency (e.g., in documentation and demonstrations).
Social and cultural The extent to which the technology/niche could conflict with the current values of civil society and, therefore, invite opposition
acceptability Outcome coding cues: any indication of improved social and cultural acceptability. For example: buy-in of local actors, and improved
legitimacy.
Economic efficiency The extent to which the technology/niche would produce (monetary and non-monetary) benefit over cost
Outcome coding cues: any indication of improved benefits. For example: validated efficiency, and success in launching a new business
proposition.
Distributional equity The extent to which the technology/niche could disturb the prevailing distributional balance in society and, therefore, produce
winners/losers
Outcome coding cues: any indication of maintaining distributional balance. For example, acceptance and involvement by incumbents, and
indication of synergies.
Operational practicality The extent to which the technology/niche would be embeddable within current structures of public administration, and, therefore,
administratively more or less feasible
Outcome coding cues: any indication of administrative/operational convenience. For example: compatibility with existing systems, and buy-
in of governmental actors.
Legality The extent to which the technology/niche would conflict with present laws and regulations
Outcome coding cues: any indication of maintaining legality. For example, compliance to regulation and standards, and demonstrated
safety.

be suitable for our purposes, both for deriving design principles about factors contributing to successful socio-political work and for
developing a design solution in the form of a self-assessment tool for niche actors. Loomis and Helfand (2003) argue that political
analysis and decision-making on environmental policy follows six evaluation criteria (see Table 3). This framework is particularly well
suited because it clearly indicates which criteria policymakers are likely to employ when deciding about how to deal with green
technologies in transitions, where they are often assessed in the environmental-policy context. Because socio-political work aims to
favorably influence political decision-making related to a niche, these criteria can be operationalized as desirable outcomes (see coding
cues in Table 2): Successful socio-political work would improve policymakers’ assessment of a niche on these criteria, and subse­
quently lead them to take positive decisions for the niche. The model of Loomis and Helfand was unique in providing such a clear
operationalization of the desired outcomes. Loomis and Helfand’s focus on evaluation criteria also proved to be helpful when moving
on to the second-level boundary object (design solution, in our case an evidence-based self-assessment tool for niche actors, see Section
3.3): It would make sense for niche actors to apply the same evaluation criteria against which the niche is also likely to be assessed by
outsiders. We considered but deemed other frameworks as less suitable – because they were designed to analyze the macro-context
instead of a specific niche/technology (e.g., PESTLE), or because of a focus on the actors and actions within the niche (e.g., the
framework by Hoogma et al., p.231).
Based on Loomis and Helfand’s (2003) framework, we derived CIMO-statements (see Fig. 3 in Section 3.2.2). To synthesize the final
set, we compared all statements, and pooled together ones with very similar or identical meaning. To ensure traceability, the system of
integrated CIMO-statements as presented in Fig. 3 also carries references to each individual source that underlies it.

3.2.2. Result: design principles for socio-political work

Based on the steps described in Section 3.2.1, we derived design principles to translate insights from the case study and literature
review into actionable knowledge. We summarize these findings about socio-political work in niches and its effects in Fig. 3. The left-
hand side of the model presents interventions that niche advocates can employ in their socio-political context (e.g., I5: organizing
pilots and demonstration projects). Moving to the right, the model shows the social mechanisms triggered by these interventions (e.g.,
M5: developing practical/implementation know-how), and what outcomes these mechanisms contribute to (e.g., O1.2: developing
knowledge on the effects of a niche technology). To clearly show how the logic in Fig. 3 emanates from the systematic literature
synthesis and our case (see Section 3), we indicate on each link what evidence that link was grounded in (either article number from
Table 2, or “GE” if grounded in our own case study).

3.3. Developing a design solution for socio-political work

DSR approaches are often used with the aim of improving the situation in a specific practical context. As outlined in Section 2.2.2,
design solutions bring the insights that are summarized in design principles closer to practice. Solutions need to convert knowledge
from design principles into suitable formats, which facilitate this knowledge’s application in the specific context. The ultimate proof of
design solutions’ quality lies in their usefulness for users.
Building on the design principles identified in the earlier phase of our study (Fig. 3), we developed a design solution in the Dutch GE
case. In Section 3.3.1, we describe the steps which we took to do so (links marked as *2 in the DSR research cycle in Fig. 1). Section
3.3.2 gives a brief overview of our solution, which takes the format of a self-evaluation instrument.

9
P.M. Wiegmann et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 48 (2023) 100760

3.3.1. Methodology for developing a design solution

Based on the design principles synthesized in previous steps of the research, many formats for design solutions could be used,
including redesigned processes, practitioner manuals, decision-making tools, and information systems (Romme and Endenburg, 2006).
We engaged with niche advocates to understand which format would be most suitable to improve the situation in our specific context.
This revealed that a key challenge lies in niche-actors simultaneously engaging in socio-political work, creating a need to coordinate
activities for the niche overall. Our solution, therefore, takes the format of a self-evaluation instrument that supports users in collecting

Fig. 4. Self-assessment and discussion facilitation instrument on socio-political work.

10
P.M. Wiegmann et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 48 (2023) 100760

information about involved parties’ efforts, and supports discussions among niche actors.
In interaction with niche actors, we developed ‘design requirements’ for this instrument (cf van Aken and Berends, 2018). Based on
their needs, we derived several explicit targets against which to measure the quality of the design solution. For example, it was
established that the solution should facilitate discussion among niche-actors in moderated sessions about the current and the future
state of the niche.
To produce the instrument (Fig. 4), we embedded the CIMO-based design principles (Fig. 3) into a more user-friendly interface. This
supports evaluating interventions, which contribute to the six categories of outcomes (Loomis and Helfand, 2003; see Section 3.3.2 for
details). Again, in interaction with niche actors, we identified the most relevant information from the design principles. Based on this
interaction, the design solution focuses on interventions and outcomes in the GE niche-context (i.e., the C, I, and O aspects of the
CIMO-statements) while omitting the mechanisms between them.
We also performed a first validation loop (i.e., alpha testing). This was based on interactions with four academic experts in TS and/
or tool development in DSR, and with two industry professionals from the Dutch GE niche. Each expert was asked to use the instrument
to assess the Dutch GE niche’s socio-political work. In further interviews, we collected feedback on (1) the instrument’s degree of
coverage of the niche’s socio-technical work, and (2) its user friendliness in terms for non-expert use. For our example, we limited the
sample of alpha testing to six informants. In most other circumstances, a larger and more diverse sample and/or several smaller and
more frequent cycles of testing and improvement would be advisable.

3.3.2. Self-evaluation instrument for niche advocates

Niche advocates may have diverse capabilities, personal experience, perceptions, and resources. They may also be spread out
geographically, and their socio-political work may change over time. Mapping a niche’s socio-political work thus requires collecting
and synthesizing information from various sources. To facilitate taking a deeper stock of the niche’s socio-political activities, we
propose the self-evaluation instrument presented in Fig. 4. The instrument helps identify both the stakeholders carrying out the activity
and the ones targeted by it, as well as assessing its performance (see Fig. 4).
This approach stays close to the original list of interventions from Fig. 3, but instead of outlining causality, focuses on the positive
effect of inducing conversations about a wide range of intervention areas among niche advocates (Worren et al., 2002). We structured
the instrument (Fig. 4) around Loomis and Helfand’s (2003) policy evaluation criteria, which socio-political work would aim to
address. In line with the observation that mechanisms from the CIMO-based design principles were less relevant for niche actors, our
instrument only addresses the interventions and relates them to the potential outcomes to which they can contribute.
To assess the niche’s socio-political work, the instrument can be applied in two steps: First, users assess the niche’s current per­
formance on each policy criterion through a SWOT analysis. This can help identify which areas are most important and/or need the
most work. Second, a detailed analysis of the activities of socio-political work can be undertaken. Fig. 4 lists each intervention from the
CIMO-model that can contribute to improving performance on a specific evaluation criterion. For each intervention, an analysis would
identify which niche actors are involved, which actors outside the niche are targeted, and what is the perceived performance of the
activity.
Through these two steps, the instrument helps identify both what is already being done in terms of socio-political work, but also
which mismatches between the niche and outsiders’ expectations may still need to be addressed. Depending on the application, the
instrument may be adapted for use in, e.g., surveys, workshop processes, and interviews. As such, it may be used individually, or to
structure discussions among multiple parties.

4. Discussion

TS research has developed a rich body of theoretical knowledge about how transitions unfold. However, it has been criticized for
making limited contributions to actually supporting the economy and society in becoming more sustainable (Loorbach, 2022). Sug­
gested recently by Loorbach (2022) and Zolfagharian et al. (2019), one way to increase the impact of TS could be to adopt a design
perspective. Our paper has proposed to incorporate into TS a design science research approach that focuses on developing (two levels
of) boundary objects: (1) design principles, which lay down generic ways of solving a type of field problems, and (2) design solutions,
which apply this to a specific context. Together, these boundary objects mediate knowledge exchange between the domains of research
and practice. We illustrated the application of this approach using the example of sociopolitical work in the Dutch GE niche, where we
developed both levels of boundary objects: (1) design principles about socio-technical work and its effects on policymakers’ assessment
of the niche, and (2) a design solution in the form of a self-evaluation tool for niche actors.
Past TS research already contains a range of work which includes elements of our proposed approach (e.g., Hoogma et al., 2005;
van Rijsnoever and Leendertse, 2020; Weber et al., 1999; Wolfram, 2016). However, none of the work we are aware of incorporates all
key elements of DSR. For example, van Rijnsover & Leendertse (2020) and Wofram (2016) propose frameworks which are similar to
what DSR-based solution designs may look like. However, both frameworks are developed without the context-specific empirical
founding used in DSR. Furthermore, van Rijnsover & Leendertse (2020) specifically focus on the multi-level perspective and do not aim
to integrate insights from multiple theoretical streams. Another example is the work on Strategic Niche Management (SNM) as a policy
tool (Hoogma et al., 2005; Weber et al., 1999), which formulates advice to practice, but lacks the context specificity of DSR-based
design solutions.
By combining aspects, such as using field problems as the starting point, focusing on a specific context, and drawing on knowledge
from different theory streams, the DSR approach provides one manner of translating knowledge between theory and practice, which is
scientifically rigorous and replicable. In the following sections we reflect on the insights gained from our illustration of DSR in the case

11
P.M. Wiegmann et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 48 (2023) 100760

of socio-political work in the Dutch GE niche, as well as how DSR can contribute to TS overall. We do so by focusing on six features of
DSR, as shown in our case (Sections 4.1-4.6). Finally, Section 4.7 briefly points towards other DSR approaches, which may complement
the one outlined in this paper.

4.1. Focusing on field problems without pre-defined theoretical lenses

The scientific research in our illustration of DSR was motivated by the request of agents within the Dutch geothermal energy niche,
who were looking for guidance on their socio-political work. This pointed to what has been described as a key benefit of DSR (van Burg
and Romme, 2014; Tranfield et al., 2003): Adopting DSR with a field problem in mind naturally leads researchers to take a wide lens
and incorporate knowledge across various sub-streams of a field, in this case TS. Instead of focusing on theoretical categories, tackling
field problems in this manner implies focusing on causal pathways towards the desired future state of a real-world system. DSR,
therefore, reinforces integration of knowledge across sub-streams and research paradigms within TS toward a pool of (design)
knowledge (van Burg and Romme, 2014). DSR-based studies can thus form a horizontal layer across streams of TS, which integrates
detailed causal pathways that contribute to particular outcomes of interest. This can help tackle the problem that research has
developed in parallel across branches of TS, using dissimilar concepts, perspectives and empirics, making it difficult to obtain more
generic insights (Köhler et al., 2019).

4.2. Using outcomes as starting point for identifying causal relationships

At the core of both design principles and design solutions lie the causal relationships, which contribute to a desired outcome. These
can be phrased using CIMO-logic. Building on DSR’s focus on field problems, we suggest to future researchers that, among the four
elements in the CIMO-logic, (O)utcomes are often the best candidate for a first point of control in establishing design principles. This is
because outcomes are the element of CIMO that is closest linked to the desired real world end state. Researchers may thus first identify
a stable set of desired outcomes and compose the rest of the CIMO-statements backward – i.e., track from the outcomes which
mechanisms have been demonstrated to lead to such outcomes, what interventions trigger such mechanisms, and in what contexts.
In our illustrative case, we found that an internally consistent set of outcomes did not arise naturally from the literature on socio-
political work, possibly due to the relatively low number of sources suitable for the literature synthesis (i.e., relative immaturity of the
research on socio-political work). We thus adopted the framework of Loomis and Helfand (2003) that provides a stable set of outcomes
to help outline targets of socio-political work. Doing so enabled deriving a coherent set of design principles. It may thus be a suitable
strategy for DSR work in similarly immature research areas. However, it may also be considered a limitation: We cannot guarantee that
the set of design principles points to all possible outcomes of socio-political work. Future design research on socio-political work may
determine whether our design principles were exhaustive, and whether the choice of framework was justified (e.g., based on pragmatic
validity). Basing further development of design principles on additional cases may also contribute to making them more exhaustive.

4.3. Using CIMO-based design principles to assess the state of the literature

Deriving CIMO-based design principles can also be a useful way to assess the state of the literature, as our illustrative study shows:
Although not our primary goal, tackling the field problem of how advocates of the Dutch geothermal energy niche can monitor and
plan activities to gain more political and societal support led us to integrate diverse literature on the theoretical concept of ‘socio-
political work’ (Raven et al., 2016). We see value arising from an interplay of DSR and descriptive/explanatory research in TS. While
created with the primary aim to develop prescriptive knowledge, integrated sets of design principles (such as our example shown in
Fig. 3) also serve as detailed maps of the research on a certain topic. The references on each arrow connecting the columns in Fig. 3
show to what extent a link between interventions and mechanisms has been triangulated across different studies. In the same vein,
absent links can inspire new hypotheses for further work. We do not claim our synthesis of previous research to be exhaustive, but it
serves as a useful interim reflection on path to fully opening the topic of niche advocacy through socio-political work. Syntheses of
similar kind could fulfill that purpose for other concepts and sub-streams in TS.

4.4. Incorporating contextual specificities through two levels of boundary objects

Practitioner requests may be strongly embedded in their contexts, whereas academic theories usually aim applicability across
specific contexts. This necessitates the two levels of boundary objects (design principles and design solutions), which underlie our DSR
approach. Considering the context of a field problem is necessary for developing field interventions (i.e., design solutions), but restricts
drawing from existing research. This is due to truly analogous cases usually not being abundant. DSR researchers, therefore, need to
abstract from a particular field problem to identify a broader class of problems (see Fig. 1). At that level, a set of design propositions the
can be developed that are applicable beyond the initial practical problem context.
Conversely, such a set by itself typically does not constitute a good plan for field interventions because it is usually too detailed (i.e.,
outlines a large number of pathways to reach the desired end state) and lacks a suitable user interface. Re-inserting context, developing
an accessible user interface for practitioners, and (potentially) removing detailed explanations are needed to outline a design solution.
This makes the knowledge embodied in the design principles more applicable and useful for practitioners. For example, in the Dutch
GE case, omitting information about the causal mechanisms helped to better communicate the essence of the prescriptive knowledge in
our self-assessment instrument. We see (practice-oriented) academic researchers as particularly well positioned to help transition

12
P.M. Wiegmann et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 48 (2023) 100760

stakeholders navigate such knowledge, thereby holding a crucial role in performing design work within transitional domains (cf.
Loorbach, 2022).

4.5. Supporting evidence-based decision-making in transition agency

Unlike most other formats of systematic literature review, synthesizing design principles in the CIMO format has been suggested to
focus predominantly on empirical evidence (Tranfield et al., 2003). The format aims to integrate large pools of empirically grounded
knowledge and translate that knowledge into practice-friendly (and well-tested) tools. This supports decision processes of transition
agents being informed by the entirety of evidence, (potentially) spanning different transitional domains and socio-cultural circum­
stances (Romme, 2016).
Consequently, the design of practical strategies and policies (i.e., design solutions) can have stronger justification, become more
professionalized, and be performed more effectively. We believe that implementing DSR can help agency in transitions rely more on
evidence-based decision-making by emphasizing large scale empirical evidence as source of design knowledge (Rousseau et al., 2008).
Going from experience-based and anecdotal knowledge to grounding policy, governance, and management (Köhler et al., 2019) in a
(large) body of evidence has been strongly associated with increasing the quality of practitioner work (Romme, 2016; Tanskanen et al.,
2017). Our efforts around socio-political work only scratched the surface of the overall potential of DSR in developing a wide range of
tools and processes that mediate previous empirical evidence to agents in and around socio-technical transitions. This particularly to
educate a new generation of transition agents who are intellectually rigorous, empirical, and analytical in designing and testing in­
terventions in transitions (cf. Simon, 1969).

4.6. Supporting comparative research across settings

A further benefit that DSR can provide to TS is to encourage comparative research. The structure of the CIMO-logic as the template
of causality arguments is useful for raising new research questions. For example, a policy intervention in one context may trigger a
different mechanism and outcome combination than a similar policy in another context. Seeking detailed explanations for why this is
the case would force researchers to develop an increasingly fine-grained understanding of how agency in transitions should be cali­
brated (Holmström et al., 2009). Translated to CIMO-terms, in such a study, a researcher would hold some (combination of) (I)in­
terventions fixed while seeking to explain the effects of (C)ontext on the rest on the CIMO elements. Similarly, researchers could also
hold M fixed and seek an understanding for how different C-I combinations can trigger some particular mechanism(s), et cetera.

4.7. Drawing from other DSR approaches

Finally, it is worth noting that the two-stage DSR approach demonstrated in this paper, inspired mostly by DSR in management,
organization studies, and operations research, represent only a section of science-based design methods found across different ‘sciences
of the artificial’ (Simon, 1969). In this regard, future researchers could complement the TS DSR cycle (Fig. 1) with other perspectives
on DSR, as required by a particular field problem. Fruitful transfers might, for example, be made from design sciences in information
systems research (e.g., the detailed breakdown of artifacts as per March and Smith, 1995), in architecture (e.g., focusing on practi­
tioner reflexivity as per Schön, 1988), or in engineering design (e.g., the formulation of ‘design theories’ as per Dym, 1994).

5. Conclusions

In this paper, we introduced DSR as a research approach which is established in other disciplines, but novel to transition studies.
DSR focuses on developing prescriptive and instrumental knowledge as a bridge between theoretical and practical/applied knowledge.
As such, we believe it has strong potential for work in response to recent calls for adding a design-perspective to transitions research,
thereby increasing the research community’s impact on practice. Furthermore, while DSR mainly focuses on developing practically
relevant knowledge, it can also deliver insights that contribute to the academic discourse. For example, it can summarize the current
state of research, help identify gaps in existing research, support the formulation of new hypotheses, and provide frameworks that can
help systematizing future data collection efforts.
Research in the DSR approach is typically driven by context-specific field problems and emphasizes prescriptive knowledge to
address these problems. At the core of the DSR approach underlying this paper are two levels of ‘boundary objects’ which form the link
between theoretical and practical knowledge: (1) Design principles (formulated in the CIMO-format) outline expected causal links
between certain intervention and desired outcomes in a wider context. They can be seen as generic solutions that apply to a broader
class of field problems. (2) Design solutions draw on design principles to make the knowledge specific to the context where the field
problem occurs. They can take various formats (e.g., schemes, process designs, decision-making tools) in order to make the knowledge
accessible to practitioners.
We illustrated the DSR approach with a case of socio-political work in the Dutch GE niche. Our research was motivated by the
observation that actors in the niche are aware of the need to influence political decision making related to their technology and its
societal perception favorably, but wish to be more aligned (with each other) and more comprehensive at doing so. In parallel, we found
that in academic literature there was not yet a detailed understanding of which activities are involved in so-called “socio-political
work” (Raven et al., 2016). In this sense, literature offered no immediate answer. Toward tackling the practice problem in this context,
our paper includes the development of two levels of boundary objects: (1) Design principles in the CIMO-format synthesize the

13
P.M. Wiegmann et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 48 (2023) 100760

scattered available academic knowledge on socio-political work; (2) A design solution in the form of a self-evaluation instrument aims
to support discussions among niche actors. With DSR’s focus on practical applicability and field problems, this work makes the ac­
ademic knowledge on socio-political work accessible to GE niche actors and addresses a key challenge that our analysis revealed them
to face, while providing an academic synthesis on niche advocacy through socio-political work. With this, we demonstrate how DSR
can underlie the development of scientifically rigorous knowledge with value for academia and practice.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing
interests
One of the co-authors Sjoerd de Nijs was an intern for three months at a small enterprise operating in the Dutch geothermal sector.
This internship took place after the data collection for this paper, but before submission of this article. The assignment he worked on
was focused on applying the know-how developed during the research project on a practical case within the Geothermal energy in­
dustry (of the Netherlands).

Data availability

The authors do not have permission to share data.

References

Bakker, S., 2014. Actor rationales in sustainability transitions – interests and expectations regarding electric vehicle recharging. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 13,
60–74.
Baskerville, R., Baiyere, A., Gregor, S., Hevner, A., Rossi, M., 2018. Design science research contributions: finding a balance between artifact and theory. J. Assoc. Inf.
Syst. 19.
Bos, J.J., Brown, R.R., 2014. Assessing organisational capacity for transition policy programs. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 86, 188–206.
Bunge, M., 1967. Scientific Research II: The Search For Truth. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Bush, R.E., Bale, C.S.E., Powell, M., Gouldson, A., Taylor, P.G., Gale, W.F., 2017. The role of intermediaries in low carbon transitions e Empowering innovations to
unlock district heating in the UK. J. Clean. Prod. 148 (April 2013), 137–147.
Caniëls, M.C.J., Romijn, H.A., 2008. Strategic niche management: towards a policy tool for sustainable development. Technol. Anal. Strategic Manag. 20 (2),
245–266.
Carlile, P.R., 2004. Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ. Sci. 15 (5), 555–568.
Choi, H., Anadón, L.D., 2014. The role of the complementary sector and its relationship with network formation and government policies in emerging sectors: the case
of solar photovoltaics between 2001 and 2009. Technol Forecast Soc Change 82, 80–94.
de Haan, F.J., Ferguson, B.C., Adamowicz, R.C., Johnstone, P., Brown, R.R., Wong, T.H.F., 2014. The needs of society: a new understanding of transitions,
sustainability and liveability. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 85, 121–132.
Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., van Aken, J.E., 2008. Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organ. Stud. 29 (03), 393–413.
Dijk, M., de Kraker, J., Hommels, A., 2018. Anticipating constraints on upscaling from urban innovation experiments. Sustainability 10 (8), 1–16.
Dym, C.L., 1994. Engineering Design: A Synthesis of Views. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dzebo, A., Nykvist, B., 2017. A new regime and then what? Cracks and tensions in the socio-technical regime of the Swedish heat energy system. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
29 (May), 113–122.
EBN, DAGO, Platform Geothermie, Stichting Warmtenetwerk, 2018. Masterplan Aardwarmte in Nederland, Een brede basis voor een Duurzame Warmtevoorziening.
Essletzbichler, J., 2012. Renewable Energy Technology and Path Creation: a Multi-scalar Approach to Energy Transition in the UK. Eur. Plann. Stud. 20 (5), 791–816.
Figenbaum, E., 2017. Perspectives on Norway’s supercharged electric vehicle policy. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 25, 14–34.
Geels, F.W., 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res.
Policy 33 (6–7), 897–920.
Geels, F.W., 2005. Co-evolution of technology and society: the transition in water supply and personal hygiene in the Netherlands (1850–1930)—a case study in multi-
level perspective. Technol. Soc. 27, 363–397.
Geels, F.W., 2006. Multi-level perspective on system innovation: relevance for industrial transformation. Understanding Industrial Transformation: Views from
Different Disciplines, pp. 163–186.
Geels, F.W., 2011. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 1 (1), 24–40.
Geels, F.W., Raven, R., 2006. Non-linearity and expectations in niche-development trajectories: ups and downs in Dutch biogas development (1973–2003). Technol.
Anal. Strategic Manag. 18, 375–392.
Grin, J., Rotmans, J., Schot, J.W. (Eds.), 2010. Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change. Routledge,
London.
Hermwille, L., 2016. The role of narratives in socio-technical transitions - fukushima and the energy regimes of Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 11, 237–246.
Hess, D.J., Mai, Q.D., 2014. Renewable electricity policy in Asia: a qualitative comparative analysis of factors affecting sustainability transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc.
Transit. 12, 31–46.
Holmström, J., Ketokivi, M., Hameri, A.-P., 2009. Bridging practice and theory: a design science approach. Decis. Sci. 40 (1), 65–87.
Huguenin, A., Jeannerat, H., 2017. Creating change through pilot and demonstration projects: towards a valuation policy approach. Res. Policy 46 (3), 624–635.
Hoogma, R., Weber, M., Elzen, B., 2005. Integrated Long-Term Strategies to Induce Regime Shifts towards Sustainability: the Approach of Strategic Niche
Management. Towards Environmental Innovation Systems. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg.
Jacobsson, S., Bergek, A., 2011. Innovation system analyses and sustainability transitions: contributions and suggestions for research. In: Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.,
1, pp. 41–57.
Kern, F., Smith, A., 2008. Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy transition policy in the Netherlands. Energy Policy 36 (11), 4093–4103.

14
P.M. Wiegmann et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 48 (2023) 100760

Kivimaa, P., Kern, F., 2014. Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Res. Policy 45 (1), 205–217.
Köhler, J., Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G.,
Hyysalo, S., Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M.S., Nykvist, B., Pel, B., Raven, R., Rohracher, H., Sandén, B., Schot, J.,
Sovacool, B., Turnheim, B., Welch, D., Wells, P., 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions. Environ. Innov. Soc.
Transit. 31, 1–32.
Loomis, J., Helfand, G., 2003. Environmental policy analysis for decision making; the economics of non-market goods and resources. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
New York.
Loorbach, D., 2010. Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Int. J. Nucl. Governance, Econ.
Ecol. 23 (1), 161–183.
Loorbach, D., 2022. Designing radical transitions: a plea for a new governance culture to empower deep transformative change. City Territ. Architect. 9 (1), 30.
Magnusson, T., Berggren, C., 2018. Competing innovation systems and the need for redeployment in sustainability transitions. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 126,
217–230.
March, S.T., Smith, G.F., 1995. Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis. Support Syst. 15, 251–266.
Martin, N., Rice, J., 2015. Improving Australia’s renewable energy project policy and planning: a multiple stakeholder analysis. Energy Policy 84, 128–141.
Matschoss, K, Heiskanen, E., 2017. Making it experimental in several ways: The work of intermediaries in raising the ambition level in local climate initiatives.
J. Clean. Prod. 169 (December 2017), 85–93.
Niesink, R., Rösler, H., 2015. Development of Heat Distribution Networks in the Netherlands. ECN Publication.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Yves, 2010. Business Model Generation. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England.
Pawson, R., Tilley, N., 1997. Realistic evaluation. Sage Publications, London.
Pesch, U., Vernay, A.L., van Bueren, E., Pandis Iverot, S., 2017. Niche entrepreneurs in urban systems integration: on the role of individuals in niche formation.
Environ. Plan. A 49 (8), 1922–1942.
Quitzau, M.B., Hoffmann, B., Elle, M., 2012. Local niche planning and its strategic implications for implementation of energy-efficient technology. Technol. Forecast.
Soc. Change 79 (6), 1049–1058.
Raven, R., Walrave, B., 2020. Overcoming transformational failures through policy mixes in the dynamics of technological innovation systems. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change. 153(119297).
Raven, R., Kern, F., Verhees, B., Smith, A., 2016. Niche construction and empowerment through socio-political work. A meta-analysis of six low-carbon technology
cases. Envir. Innov. Soc. Transit. 18, 164–180.
Raven, R., van den Bosch, S., Weterings, R., 2010. Transitions and strategic niche management: towards a competence kit for practitioners. Int. J. Technol. Manage. 51
(1), 57–74.
Rogers, B.C., Brown, R.R., de Haan, F.J., Deletic, A., 2015. Analysis of institutional work on innovation trajectories in water infrastructure systems of Melbourne,
Australia. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 15, 42–64.
Rohracher, H., Späth, P., 2014. The interplay of urban energy policy and socio-technical transitions: the eco-cities of Graz and Freiburg in retrospect. Urban Stud. 51
(7), 1415–1431.
Romme, A.G.L., 2003. Making a difference: organization as design. Organ. Sci. 14, 558–573.
Romme, A.G.L., 2016. The Quest for Professionalism: The Case of Management and Entrepreneurship. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Romme, A.G.L., Endenburg, G., 2006. Construction principles and design rules in the case of circular design. Organ. Sci. 17 (2), 287–297.
Rotmans, J., 2005. Societal Innovation: Between Dream and Reality Lies Complexity. Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Rotterdam.
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., van Asselt, M., 2001. More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight 3 (1).
Rousseau, D.M., Manning, J., Denyer, D., 2008. Evidence in management and organizational science: assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge
through syntheses. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2 (1), 475–515.
Scrase, I., Smith, A., 2009. The (non-)politics of managing low carbon socio-technical transitions. Env. Polit. 18 (5), 707–726.
Schot, J., Geels, W.G., 2008. Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technol. Anal. Strategic
Manag. 20 (5), 537–554.
Schön, D.A., 1988. Toward a marriage of artistry & applied science in the architectural design studio. J. Architect. Educ. 41 (4), 4–10.
Silveira, S., Johnson, F.X., 2016. Navigating the transition to sustainable bioenergy in Sweden and Brazil: lessons learned in a European and International context.
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 13, 180–193.
Simon, H.A., 1969. The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed. MIT Press.
Smith, A., Kern, F., Raven, R., Verhees, B., 2014. Spaces for sustainable innovation: solar photovoltaic electricity in the UK. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 81 (1),
115–130.
Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R., 1989. Institutional ecology, `Translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology,
1907-39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19 (3), 387–420.
Stephens, J.C., Jiusto, S., 2010. Assessing innovation in emerging energy technologies: socio-technical dynamics of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and enhanced
geothermal systems (EGS) in the USA. Energy Policy 38 (4), 2020–2031.
Talmar, M., 2018. Designing Organizations For Innovation in Transitioning domains. Doctoral dissertation. Eindhoven University of Technology /Aalto University.
Talmar, M., Walrave, B., Raven, R., Romme, A.G.L., 2022. Dynamism in policy-affiliated transition intermediaries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 159.
Tanskanen, K., Ahola, T., Aminoff, A., Bragge, J., Kaipia, R., Kauppi, K., 2017. Towards evidence-based management of external resources: developing design
propositions and future research avenues through research synthesis. Res. Policy 46 (6), 1087–1105.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J.
Manag. 14 (3), 207–222.
Turnheim, B., Geels, F.W., 2019. Incumbent actors, guided search paths, and landmark projects in infra-system transitions: re-thinking Strategic Niche Management
with a case study of French tramway diffusion (1971–2016). Res. Policy 48 (6), 1412–1428.
van Aken, J., Berends, H., 2018. Problem Solving in Organizations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
van Aken, J., Romme, G., 2009. Reinventing the future: adding design science to the repertoire of organization and management studies. Organ. Manag. J. 6, 5–12.
van Burg, E., Romme, A.G.L., 2014. Creating the future together: toward a framework for research synthesis in entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 38 (2),
369–397.
van Burg, E., Romme, A.G.L., Gilsing, V.A., Reymen, I.M.M.J., 2008. Creating university spin-offs: a science-based design perspective. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 25 (2),
114–128.
van Rijnsoever, F.J., Leendertse, J., 2020. A practical tool for analyzing socio-technical transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 37, 225–237.
Verbong, G., Geels, F., 2007. The ongoing energy transition: lessons from a socio-technical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960–2004). Energy
Policy 35 (2), 1025–1037.
Verhees, B., Raven, R., Veraart, F., Smith, A., Kern, F., 2013. The development of solar PV in The Netherlands: a case of survival in unfriendly contexts. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 19, 275–289.
Walrave, B., Talmar, M., Podoynitsyna, K.S., Romme, A.G.L., Verbong, G.P.J., 2018. A multi-level perspective on innovation ecosystems for path-breaking innovation.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 136, 103–113.
Weber, M., Hoogma, R., Lane, B., Schot, J., 1999. Experimenting With Sustainable Transport innovations: a Workbook For Strategic Niche Management. Universiteit
Twente, Seville /Enschede.

15
P.M. Wiegmann et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 48 (2023) 100760

Worren, N.A., Moore, K., Elliott, R., 2002. When theories become tools: toward a framework for pragmatic validity. Hum. Relat. 55 (10), 1227–1250.
Wiebes, E., 2020. Voortgang Geothermie [Directoraat-generaal Klimaat en Energy].
Wolfram, M., 2016. Conceptualizing urban transformative capacity: a framework for research and policy. Cities 51, 121–130.
You, X., Hands, D., 2019. A reflection upon Herbert Simon’s vision of design in The Sciences of the Artificial. Design J. 22, 1345–1356.
Zolfagharian, M., Walrave, B., Raven, R., Romme, A.G.L., 2019. Studying transitions: past, present, and future. Res. Policy 48 (9).

16