Transitions Hub

EIT Climate-KIC

Challenge-led System Mapping

A knowledge management approach
Handbook for the design and implementation of participatory system
mapping processes fostering system innovation
An initiative of EIT Climate-KIC edited by the
Transitions Hub

Editor
Cristian Matti

Authors
Cristian Matti
José Manuel Martín Corvillo
Irene Vivas Lalinde
Blanca Juan Agulló
Eusebiu Stamate
Gianluca Avella
Alice Bauer

@EIT Climate KIC, 2019

Please cite this publication as follows:

Matti, C., Martín Corvillo, JM, Vivas Lalinde, I., Juan Agulló,
B., Stamate, E., Avella, G., and Bauer A. (2019). Challenge-
led system mapping. A knowledge management
approach. Transitions Hub series. EIT Climate-KIC,
Brussels

ISBN 978-2-9601874-3-4

The activities leading to this guide were carried

out as part of a collection of projects and actions
that received funding from the EIT Climate-KIC
Innovation Framework..
 Foreword

A slow revolution is underway in how we think about and act upon the This handbook is an impressive contribution to the fulfilment of such as-
challenges of climate change and environmental sustainability. From a pirations. It combines knowhow in practical participatory methods with
past preoccupation with promoting specific supply-side technologies, insights and methods of knowledge management and social network
a new research and policy focus is instead on transforming end-use so- analysis. The result is a powerful handbook for transition practitioners. It
cio-technical systems. The International Energy Agency sees three urban offers an original and useful mix of insights into processes and tools for
systems – mobility, buildings, and energy – as the key to a low carbon system mapping. Utility has been the overarching principle in its design.
transition. The European Environment Agency highlights food as a fourth
critical system for a sustainability transition. The genesis of this guidebook lies in activities supported by
EIT Climate-KIC, including the Transition Cities project in which I was
Enabling transitions in this core set of sociotechnical systems requires privileged to be a participant. Further projects and programmes imple-
radically novel advances in actionable knowledge to underpin a new mented in the northwest, south and east of Europe followed the same
type of transformative innovation policy. In its recent strategy document approach of bringing together local officials with transition specialists to
‘Transformation in Time’, EIT Climate-KIC expresses exactly this ambi- promote transformation of their urban and regional systems of mobili-
tion, i.e. to develop knowledge and innovation capabilities to enable sys- ty, buildings, energy and circular economy. The challenge was to situate
tems innovation. Actionable knowledge requires a synthesis of actor-ori- the diversity of ongoing climate actions in a sociotechnical systemic per-
ented practices such as ‘learning by doing’ with analytical frameworks to spective to facilitate more effective strategic transition management by 3
understand ‘the properties of systems’. stakeholders, regional and local authorities.

The EIT Climate-KIC Transition Hub team have done an impressive job
to transform the insights and innovations of a portfolio of projects sup-
ported by EIT Climate-KIC into a coherent and accessible handbook. It
deserves a wide audience.

Fred Steward
Emeritus Professor, University of Westminster, London
Visiting Professor, Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College, London
Member of the Scientific Committee, European Environment Agency

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 12

 Background

The scale and urgency of the challenge of cli- Adopting a system perspective means ana- System mapping enables the engagement of
mate change requires a new model of innova- lysing the relationships between projects and people who recognise knowledge as an asset.
tion. The commitment of the European Union their contexts to determine whether projects These are communities with shared practices
and member states to ambitious targets for can go beyond their experimental status to be- and motivated by collective learning experi-
greenhouse emission reductions and a transi- come mainstream. However, there are barriers ences. EIT Climate-KIC and its partners have
tion to a low-carbon society has been accom- to understanding complex systems. Participa- worked hand-in hand with challenge owners
panied by an increasing recognition that these tory processes can be considered a reliable who seek to better understand the challenge
targets must be implemented at the regional source of information with controlled biases. of fostering transformative change in a low
and local level. carbon economy.
Knowledge management can help to signifi-
New practices based on increasing the partic- cantly improve the participatory processes by
ipation of multiple stakeholders and promot- harvesting the information and transforming Communities of practice are groups
ing bottom-up initiatives are thus emerging. it into systematised knowledge. That knowl- of people who share a concern, a
They focus on the co-creation of local solu- edge, often describing system components set of problems or a passion for a
tions for systemic transformation. As a result, and network mapping, can help to better un-
4 there is increasing demand among local chal- derstand complex systems and, thereby, con-
certain topic and who deepen their
lenge-owners for flexible tools that are adapt- tribute to decision-making and planning. knowledge and expertise in this area
able and transferable to local challenges. by interacting on an ongoing basis.
Figure 1: Pilots and experiments on
system mapping (2015-2020)
 An evolving methodology

The challenge-led system mapping approach This methodology is in constant evolution and Since 2015 the EIT Climate-KIC Transition Hub
has been developed through the implemen- should not be considered an exact formula. has contributed to these actions with new in-
tation of different EIT Climate KIC activities Indeed, it is precisely its adaptability to new sights into participatory methods, knowledge
since 2016. Key insights were originated as environments that has been fundamental to management and visualisation. More recent-
part of learning processes from 2012 embed- its success. The first experiment with socio- ly, new areas of action include multilevel and
ded in several EIT Climate-KIC projects, such technical mapping by city challenge-owners cross-regional policy-driven processes as well
as Pioneer Cities (2012-2014), Transition Cities was introduced by the Pioneer Cities project in as co-creation spaces for joint programming.
(2014-2017) and Circular Cities (2018-2019), 2012 when multiple stakeholders were able to Throughout the co-creation and learning pro-
as well as the EIT RIS Programme. The ap- identify solutions on the ground, while Transi- cess, empirical and methodological aspects
proach was tested in the latter programme as tion Cities project (2014-2017) entailed a ma- were simultaneously presented and discussed
one of over 40 initiatives in European and Latin jor investment in multi-city collaboration built in a variety of academic and policy forums. The
American cities, realised in collaboration with on these results. It explored a mechanism to resulting methodology included in this hand-
EIT Climate-KIC and both policy and scientif- facilitate the development of practice-based book harvests the lessons learnt from what we
ic actors. See the timeline for the spread and knowledge to help cities facing climate-change have achieved. It is aimed to foster “learning by
variety of themes of the different workshops challenges to focus on a systemic innovation doing” practices to encourage practitioners to
where this approach has been used. approach. improve and move forward together. 5
 Content

8 19
Chalenge-led
6

11 29
Start system mapping

Socio-technical systems Design and implementation

 75 96
7

49 91
Network analysis Credits

Knowledge management Epilogo

 Start

Why this handbook? knowledge and make it accessible for practi-

tioners (PRINCIPLES). Practitioners are users of prac-
This handbook summarises what we have tice-based knowledge who are
learnt. It was designed to be simple for prac- Additionally, networks as analytical tool is in- active in SMEs, applied research
titioners to use as a complementary tool for cluded based in lessons learnt from different projects, NGOs and local or regional
participatory processes based on visual tools. projects (TOOLS). governments.
It makes a good companion to The Visual
Toolbox for System Innovation, a booklet of As a practitioner you might wish to:
ready-to-use visual tools for system analysis • visualise the diversity of innovation projects as
and network mapping. These tools, along with a manageable set of clusters;
other tools designed by organisations such as • mediate and facilitate a dialogue on priori-
the Joint Research Centre, have been applied ty setting and opportunities for innovation
throughout the development of this handbook amongst multiple stakeholders;
in defining challenges, analysing and visualis- • identify priorities for financial and political
ing systems, and, by extension, exploring op- suport;
8 portunities for system Innovation. • replicate projects in new contexts or connect
them with other innovation initiatives;
The handbook follows a co-design logic in • embed projects in a wider system to then
terms of process, principles and practical tools scale up and foster transformation;
to support practitioners in the design and im- • create a space protected from external
plementation of system mapping process- pressure and early failure.
es by highlighting the knowledge manage-
ment component. The Challenge-led system
mapping approach responds to the need to
improve the practitioner’s capacity to move
towards transformational system change by
providing mechanisms by which to work more
horizontally with challenge owners and other
actors (PROCESS).

Knowledge management as good practices

for analysis and communication responds to
the increasing needs for making participato-
ry methods a way to co-produce actionable
Start Challenge-led System Mapping
 How to read the handbook are highly encouraged to dive into the different
examples and concepts.
This handbook offers a step-by-step process to
guide practitioners, from simple concepts and Chapter 2 captures the essence of the
examples to key elements for practical applica- challenge-led system mapping process by pro-
tion. viding an explanation of the overall approach and
a practitioner-oriented narrative.
Chapter 1 focuses on defining key elements and
creating a framework of common understand- Chapter 3 focuses on the practical aspects of
ing. Practitioners without facilitation experience the system mapping process and the narrative
regarding the modular format and specific com-
ponents.

Chapter 4 covers the knowledge management

process, from the design of a session to the anal-
ysis and data management of the outputs.
9

Chapter 5 consists of an in-depth look at network

analysis and its application in visualisation. This
chapter includes practical knowledge regarding
network maps and how to interpret them.

This handbook comes with complementary ma-

terial, including 200 slides with detailed step-by-
step explanations of visual tools and examples.
Posters and different knowledge visualisations
are also available in the online knowledge reposi-
tory of EIT Climate-KIC Transitions Hub.

Challenge-led System Mapping Start

 A system can be described, broadly speaking, as anything that is
not chaos. A structure formed by several elements and the rela-
tionships established between them. These structures can change
according to the influence and evolution of individual elements.
Consequently, there is a need to develop a coherent framework, as
well as methods of analysis, to establish existing internal and ex-
ternal processes.

Chapter 1

Socio-technical systems

In this chapter:
• System innovation
• Regions and cities as socio-technical systems
• A transition example for mobility system
 System innovation

Technological innovation is an important driving System innovation is defined as a transition from by themselves. Actors play a key role in shaping
force in addressing the problems of our societies one socio-technical system to another. System desirable transitions through transformative
today. However, technology alone does not innovation requires active learning and continual activities.
change social structures and human behaviour. evolution, but innovation and learning are two
Understanding socio-technical systems is sides of the same coin; when leveraged together Transformative activities can be defined as col-
thus fundamental to pursuing the goal of they are the most effective means to catalyse lection of related innovation capacities and ac-
transformative change. transformation. tions, extracted from existing structures and
oriented toward a certain direction of change.
Socio-technical systems are complex because Some historical examples are the transition They are intended to bring about breakthrough
they combine two different system types: social from sailing ships to steam ships, the transition demand-led logic through the application of port-
and technical. Social and technical systems from horse and carriage to automobiles, and folios of deliberate, connected innovation exper-
complement and shape each other. Interactions the transition from piston engine aircrafts iments that address the socio-technical system
within social structures need technical to jetliners in American aviation. Much more across entire value chains.
infrastructure, while the creation of new profound examples of system innovation are the
technologies serves to mobilise social systems. agricultural and the industrial revolutions, both A portfolio approach can be designed to gener-
12 of which fundamentally changed how societies ate viable pathways to change and rapid learning
Social systems do not have structures, but they operate. while reducing the risks that come with a system
do exhibit structural properties as a result of innovation approach.
emergent social and behavioural changes. The We are currently experiencing another profound
development of their characteristics cannot system innovation determined by the rapid
Transformation in time, EIT Climate KIC defines
be planned and controlled with respect to the development and dissemination of information
system(s) innovation as integrated and coordinated
outcome; the changes within sociotechnical and communication technologies. Throughout
interventions across whole value chains in
systems are a matter of contingency and can this transition, product and innovation
economic, political and social systems, based on
only be understood retrospectively and not in processes are affected but changes also occur
a portfolio of deliberate and connected innovation
advance. Social systems mainly serve their own in user practices, markets, policy, regulations,
experiments (i.e. a portfolio approach).
needs. culture, infrastructure, lifestyle, and corporate
management.
Technical systems are produced and continuously
adapted to provide a reliable, anticipatable Transformative changes are complex, long-term
relationship between user input and the system’s and messy processes in which dominant practices
output. This relationship is engineered and pre- become replaced. Complex socio-technical
planned to serve the needs of users. systems such as cities do not normally change

Chapter 1 Challenge-led System Mapping

 The learning process and a collective
understanding of the system are both critical
in identifying options, social and behavioural
inflexion points, and in scaling transformative
solutions as part of system-embedded
knowledge processes.

Innovative practices for the co-production of

knowledge include:
• A multi-actor process that involves a range of
different actors with varying interest;
• Open-ended logic to address a multi-
dimensional perspective in which different
elements of the socio-technical system (e.g.
technologies, markets, policies, behaviours,
etc.) can co-evolve; 13
• Facilitative, practice-based learning
mechanisms that support the design of
portfolios of transformative activities.

The system mapping process facilitates learning

by enabling a collective understanding of societal
problems as part of the combined system
assessment and co-design process for a portfolio
of transformative activities. System mapping
uses the collective intelligence and credibility of
a community, emphasising the role of individual
and collective agency. It this critical first step,
intermediary roles, leadership and brokering
relations can emerge, catalysing transformative
change in complex systems..
System innovation as integrated
and coordinated intervention.
Source: Transformation in time (EIT
Climate-KIC, 2019)

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 1

 Regions and cities as complex socio-technical systems

Regions and cities are complex socio-technical embedded in those multiple relations as well as
systems that are critical contributors to their own emergent dynamics – independent of
greenhouse gas emissions. In cities, there is often the complex processes that created them.
a combination of different sub-systems:
• Physical: buildings, infrastructure such as Those dynamics involve changes in technology,
energy, waste, transport and water; knowledge, economic and physical structures as
• Social: human behaviour, interaction and well as cultural and social aspects, such as habits,
activity; preferences and needs. System innovation seeks
• Economic and political; transformative change involving all the elements
• Natural: vegetation, water, animals and and structure of socio-technical systems as part
landscape. of interrelated multi-actor processes.

Complexity can be considered the effect of Socio-technical systems often focus on a

multiple connections, i.e. the interconnectivity of specific technology. From a system innovation
interactions between the different subsystems perspective, relations across economic sectors
14 and their broader environment. Two questions and technologies need to be considered in order
very often arise when we try to understand this to achieve a maximal dissemination of innovation.
complex interrelationship: A systemic perspective thus enables technology
• The relations within a subsystem: how to unfold to its full potential.
complexity at one level or in one set of
interrelated elements becomes elementary at Networks can be used as a metaphor to
the next level. shape a socio-technical system. In the context
• The dynamics of the broader system: how of innovation, a network can be defined as
systems with different internal dynamics the linkages between companies and other
interact with each other (e.g. relations between organisations to enable actors to benefit from
mobility infrastructure, energy network and information on opportunities and threats, to
human behaviour) and evolve or adapt in a acquire technical and market knowledge and to
changing environment. gain better access to different inputs. In practice,
networks can be defined within a geographic area
The notion of socio-technical systems can help (a city or region) and/or relate to a specific sector
to explore and analyse that complexity by looking (e.g., energy). See Chapter 4 for more information
at the different elements and the complexity about network analysis. Building Network Connecta Energia
Transition cities Project
Valencia, June 2017

Chapter 1 Challenge-led System Mapping

 Building Network Connecta Energia Building Network Connecta Energia
Transition cities Project Transition cities Project
Valencia, June 2017 Valencia, June 2017

15

Building Network Connecta Energia Building Network Connecta Energia

Transition cities Project Transition cities Project
Valencia, June 2017 Valencia, June 2017

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 1

 A transition example for mobility system

“Will cities ever have sustainable mobility sys-

tems? Well, technology will be ready for this in 20
years – but, it’s way too expensive for the mar-
ket!”

This is something we often hear people saying,

if we talk about the future of mobility. But is this
really true? Let’s take the ownership of individu-
al cars as the starting point for our example. Ac-
cording to the German mobility study, the overall
distance covered by a car per day is around 40 km
amounting to 84 minutes net travel time per day.
This means that cars are parked for more than
22 hours per day! How expensive is this for each
16 car owner, compared to an electric vehicle that is
shared by different users throughout the day?

What does this socio-technical mobility

system look like?

Economic and policy context. Variables such as

policy frameworks, economic growth, geography Figure 3:
and demography affect demand as well as Mobility system example (I)
related technology and energy alternatives. These
variables are embedded in a broad socio-technical supports terrestrial networks and terminals, and if the electricity is still generated from burning
system where economic and political aspects also provides interconnectivity between them fossils, emissions are only shifted out of the cities
shape the general rules of society, markets and the (multimodal terminals). to where the power is generated. From a global
allocation of resources. perspective, the overall amount of emissions is
There are cars that can run on electricity, renewable not reduced.
Physical infrastructure. If we look at public natural gas and fuel cells. But what if we changed
transportation, it is possible to identify the all fossil-fuelled cars to electric ones? A real transition is thus only feasible if sufficient
technological components and infrastructures electricity from low-carbon-renewal energy
that are part of the service. Physical infrastructure Our cities would still be full of traffic jams. Moreover technologies is available to charge the vehicles.

Chapter 1 Challenge-led System Mapping

 mined by many factors, such as culture, status,
routines and belief systems.

For some, their personal vehicle feels almost like

a second home, always at their disposal. As such,
they fear that by abandoning it they stand to
lose out on comfort and convenience. However,
with fewer cars, one can only imagine how much
urban space we would gain for green areas, safe
bike lanes, pedestrian areas and food produc-
tion. In this way it is worth looking at what we
stand to gain, rather than what we stand to lose,
in order to encourage behavioural change.

Digital infrastructure. This is where digitalisation

comes in and adds an additional piece of the socio-
17
technical transition puzzle.

If car-sharing systems are developed to meet

the variety of users’ needs, and if autonomous
driving enables us to summon cars in the same
time it would take to walk to one’s own car, much
Figure 4:
Mobility system example (II) less CO2-intense mobility practices could be the
missing piece of the puzzle, allowing people and
goods to be moved to wherever they need to go in
the best possible way.
Therefore, fuel companies in the future will most also giving rise to the need for novel service infra-
likely be very different from what we are used to structure for recharging. Digitalisation will allow for the provision of much
nowadays. Furthermore, car manufacturing is cur- more convenient services than we know today. For
rently undergoing substantial change to meet the Social & Cultural Dimension. Ultimately, we example, using a mobility integrator (see image),
requirements of making cars drive with different are all subject to long-grown, which delineate one would be able to use their smartphone to
engines. These changes in turn effect the way our individual comfort zone, when it comes to summon a vehicle that would take both them and
customers refuel (recharge) their vehicles, while many aspects of our daily lives. These are deter- their bike home.

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 1

Regional innovation and low carbon economy
EIT Climate-KIC & Joint Research Centre
Ljubljana, March 2018
 System mapping is an interactive, participatory approach whereby
multiple actors use visual tools as well as open, facilitated and dynamic
discussions to collectively create a common understanding of the socio-
technical system in which they are embedded.

Chapter 2

Challenge-led system mapping

In this chapter :
• The approach
• System mapping process
• Collective construction of socio-technical systems
• A system mapping story
 The approach

The challenge-led system mapping process essential aspect in the process, since any
is intended to help tackle design sustain- single piece of information can be used to
ability challenges and support the creation contribute to a collectively created notion of
of a proactive and interactive environment the socio-technical system.
for a wide range of participants, in which
different actors – such as managers, re- The value proposition of this approach is
searchers, civil servants, business and civil the creation of a knowledge-based pro-
society representatives – explore a com- cess as a service for challenge owners and
mon understanding of the system in which the broader community aimed at enabling
they are embedded. These actors have a them to better understand their system
variety of interests and hold differing levels and recognise opportunities for innovation.
of influence in the system. These knowledge services take the form of
mechanisms that contribute to the collec-
The overall approach takes as its starting tive understanding of societal problems as
point an existing or new, collectively creat- part of the combined process of system as-
20 ed challenge, often defined using input from sessment and co-design for creating trans-
an entire community as part of an open and formative activities that tackle systemic
inclusive process. This approach seeks to failures and institutional gaps.
aid the representation of communities and
their common goals by bringing their local
knowledge and perspectives to the atten-
tion of governmental authorities and deci-
sion-makers.

It adopts practitioner-oriented visual tools

Mindset. System mapping
for use by non-expert participants, avoid-
throughparticipatoryprocesses
ing the use of jargon or technical language.
The materialisation of that learning process
is driven by practitioners who
into practice-based knowledge is facilitat- recognise knowledge as an
ed by co-created ‘concept maps’ where asset and collectively engage in
concepts and elements regarding specific a process of building a shared
understanding of the socio- Circular economy, cities and utilities
topics can be written down – usually in one
word – and connections drawn between technical system. Circular Cities project
them. Knowledge management is thus an Sofia, February 2019

Chapter 2 Challenge-led System Mapping

 The system mapping process combines expert The participatory process is a collec-
advice, technical assistance and participatory tive process in which knowledge is created
processes to bring ‘analysts’ and community through executive workshops, exchange of
‘actors’ together to co-produce a shared ‘sys- information and facilitated dialogue between
tem map’ around a certain challenge. different stakeholders. It is managed by the
experts’ team, together with the challenge
Expert advice is provided through different owner. A mix of techniques and visual tools
mechanisms and conceptual frameworks, thus are used to facilitate the dialogue
integrating and combining specialised knowl- and harvest valuable infor-
edge from local and international communi- mation to address the
ties. In this way, expertise from different policy challenge and ex-
areas and topics can be drawn upon, ensuring plore opportuni-
a broader scope. It is essential to direct the dia- ties for transfor-
logue in a specific direction when the challenge mative change
is defined together with the challenge owner.
This becomes more relevant during intensive
21
exchanges of contextual information.
These three mecha-
Technical assistance is defined by nisms are combined
the combination of tailored design as part of a tailored
tools and thematic experts that process in which the
facilitate the engagement of different actors are
different stakeholders, op- guided through the sys-
erationalise conceptual tem mapping process.
frameworks and orches-
trate the whole system At the same time, the roles of partici-
mapping process. It also pants, experts and speakers is redefined, the
introduces innovative experts’ role subtly shifting to increase the
practices grounded in horizontality of the team’s interactions. Each
translational and applied system mapping process thus needs to be
research to enable learn- co-designed together with the challenge own-
ing processes with regard to ers to ensure it relates closely to their perspec-
Figure 5: Challenge-led institutional capacity develop- tive.
approach mechanism ment.
Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 2
 Blueprint for the system mapping process

Challenge definition is about understanding The design of the system mapping process • Challenge is addressed through framing ques-
the context and, in doing so, it is important to should rely on a framework with basic principles tions by using the information and indicators
align with the challenge owners on some critical to better guide the overall process: (measurements or variables) gathered in the
elements: mapping process.
• Involving different stakeholders is highly bene- • Prototyping contribute to select and adapt
• Problem analysis. A good understanding of the ficial for a systemic approach as the outcomes tools and methods for the mapping based on
context for system mapping and the maturity tend to be more accepted and sustainable the defined challenge and according to the po-
of the challenge is fundamental. when the process is inclusive. tential to provide information in answer to the
• Input and resources. Input needs to be made • Specific policy contexts (e.g. Smart Speciali- framing questions.
available regarding the context and the chal- sation, Covenant of Mayors) can contribute to
lenges in question, as well as resources such as some directionality in terms of output, expec- Figure 6: System mapping process
time, access to relevant actors and funding. tations, available resources and long-term vi-
• Good challenges start with simple questions; sion.
the search for answers will drive the system
mapping process.
22 • Challenge definitions, resources and questions
should help to set expectations and direct out-
put with regard to new information, com-
mon understanding and the expected
system map.

Chapter 2 Challenge-led System Mapping

 The participatory process is the culmination of • Policy-driven processes tend to be more guid- The knowledge management process involves
the challenge-led approach to system mapping; ed. They require more attention to establishing the curation of the output from workshops based
at this point, all stakeholders gain a collective un- the right mindset, managing expectations. in the data gathered using the tools.
derstanding of their system. • The core activity is the workshop, but the pro-
cess includes preparation, implementation and • IData management facilitates harvesting and
• Blueprints integrate workshops, team design follow-up, as well as managing relations with documentation to transform data inputs into
and resource allocation (tools, materials, phys- challenge owners and participants. information.
ical space) for guiding the implementation of the • The system maps are the initial output of the • Analysis is guided by the framing questions
system mapping process. workshops, but the knowledge management while intermediates visualization and feedback
• The facilitation style depends on the maturity process serves to improve these results. loops activate deeper discussion with practi-
of the challenge. Early stages are more explor- tioners.
atory than advanced ones, which require more • Synthesis and framing seek to improve the un-
directionality and coordination. derstanding of information through data that
can be measured (indicators) and
patterns of logical relations be-
tween elements (networks).
23
• Visualisation enables sim-
plification and a new visual
narrative while allow the
discovery of new insight and
hidden structures.
• Communication involves guiding
conversations around a map with
stakeholders. They are support-
ed by posters and reports as well
as webinars where feedback
loops enable reflections on plans
or actions aimed at tackling the
challenge.

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 2

 Collective construction of socio-technical systems

The challenge-led approach to system map-

ping combines bottom-up exercises with a
top-down approach to achieve a broad-ranging
system analysis. Focusing on territorial sustain-
ability challenges – sustainable mobility, energy
efficiency, circular economy, etc. – activities are
designed to highlight critical aspects of gover-
nance and complementary relations between dif-
ferent stakeholders and innovation opportunities.
Tools and methods should facilitate a dialogue on
the opportunities and constraints with regard to
pre-identified challenges. The approach improves
skills in system analysis, placing an emphasis on
upgrading certain professional competences.

24 Bottom-up exercises serve to facilitate open dis-

cussion and a dynamic that promotes definite
conclusions through a combination of science and
practice in skill-building processes. The horizon-
tality of actions is key in all stages of the road-
map (preparation, workshop, reporting, analysis,
follow-up) and prevents hierarchies and specific
roles from forming. In this way, basic elements
of system innovation are introduced through the
adaptation of visual tools to the needs of the or-
ganisers and participants.

Climate finance
Climate Mitigation Fund project
Frankfurt, October 2016

Chapter 2 Challenge-led System Mapping

The top-down perspective is based on the sum of Establishing an understanding of
the actions and projects implemented at the lo- socio-technical systems
cal level as well as different elements stemming
from the broader policy and regulatory frame- The overall system mapping process allows
work. To summarise: participants to assess the results using the bot-
tom-up exercises, the top-down elements and
• The portfolio perspective allows for the explo- the co-created system maps. The stakeholders
ration of strengths and patterns of connection can collectively establish their own understand-
in the existing system. Tools such as Exaptive ing of the socio-technical system as part of the
(see figure on Portfolio Visualisation) can help combined system assessment and the explo-
to map existing connections and, by doing so, ration of opportunities based on available local
help the challenge owner to identify gaps in assets.
existing projects, funding, and alignment of
further actions centred on important projects The materialisation of that learning process into
and ongoing work. practice-based knowledge is primarily enabled
• The multilevel policy framework should be by the conceptual framework provided by the
25
analysed to enable practitioners to better visual tools. The tools’ visualisations help par-
understand the conditions enabling change ticipants to better understand and express what
in the specific context of processes driven they already know by writing down concepts
by the European Union. More specifically, in and aspects of a given topic in a few words.
the context of member states, the challenge
owner and participants should be able to al- In transition projects, outcomes have to be
locate the defined challenge and available linked to the societal challenge; they are shared
resources as part of an ongoing process that and communicated with the network of stake-
relates to high-level commitments as well as holders both inside and outside the project.
complex interrelations between different poli-
cy-processes priority settings and the context
of application (see figure on multilevel policy
framework).
Figure 7: Exaptive visualization (Top)
Figure 8: EU’s multilevel policy framework (Bottom)

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 2

 A system mapping story

The workshop choreography Visioning exercise Network analysis

A three-hour workshop was organised in Modena The first exercise aimed to get participants in- The second activity consisted of presenting the
with the goal of identifying gaps within the local volved in depicting current mobility problems and network map related to the local transport clus
mobility cluster and exploring opportunities for building a shared vision of the future. This collec- ter. As the maps were built on a limited set of data
action, which could then receive targeted support tive portrait was defined by different indicators (sourced mainly from public information and inter-
through seed funding. and possible trajectories to achieve the vision. A views), the workshop offered a chance to validate
simple canvas was used, with concentric circular the overall structure of the cluster. Hence, the first
The event was designed as a participatory hands- timelines going from the present (the outermost part of the activity consisted of exploring the map
on workshop based on three major activities: circle) to the future (the innermost circle) through all together. The map comes with a code where
a set of intermediate actions (in-between circles). stakeholders are distinguished by type, projects,
• Engaging participants in a visioning exercise; Those intermediate actions were a key output of financial value and geographical pertinence. All
• Presenting the network map created over the the activity, as they represented the directions of this information must be interpreted and shared.
course of previous project activities; intervention agreed upon by participants. It is from
• Analysing its gaps and highlighting possible op- that selection that the priorities for funding were The final activity consisted of a validation exercise:
26 portunities with the participants. finally chosen. participants were asked to integrate into the net-
work map missing actors and/or actions that they
The Municipality of Modena had already estab- found relevant to the cluster. The integration was
lished a consultation table with quite a large num- done directly on a poster-size printed map. Par-
ber of local stakeholders, the so-called Tavolo per ticipants were keen to integrate specific projects
la Mobilità Sostenibile, gathering civil society rep- and stakeholders into the map using sticky notes.
resentatives, third sector associations and citizens’
committees, as well as trade and industrial associ-
ations, the Chamber of Commerce, the University
and others.

From an operational point of view, it involved three

The guiding principle is to ask
facilitators. Two from AESS (Agenzia per l’Energia
participants to contribute individually
e lo Sviluppo Sostenibile) and one from the Tran-
first, with three written ideas, and
sition Hub, with the support of the Municipal gov-
erment to run a workshop with fourteen partici- then to discuss and cluster them as a
pants, divided in two groups.` group.

Chapter 2 Challenge-led System Mapping

Gaps and opportunities
As a final experiment, participants were invited
to add two possible future actions (“Education at
Schools” and “Velostazione”) to the network map
and to connect them to all existing stakeholders
and projects. In this way, the network map was
used as an unconventional “planning tool”.

Workshop activities were able to involve and en-

gage participants in a proactive manner. They left
with the feeling of having contributed to defining
the priorities for funding.

After the workshop a report was sent to all par-

ticipants, including their three selected priorities
27
around which the call for ideas would need to be
developed:

• Promotion of innovative products/services for

bike mobility, in order to make it more secure,
accessible and affordable;
• Promotion of products / services for sustain-
able mobility of tourists;
• Development of ICT systems to plan and pro-
mote intermodality.

Mobility Cluster
Transition Cities
Modena, April 2017

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 2

Energy Transitions in Malta
EIT RIS Programme
Valetta, December 2017
 Co-creation is an essential process at the core of challenge-led
system mapping. Each co-creation process is a unique participatory
meeting that pools the value of the knowledge and perceptions held by a
diverse group of actors.

Chapter 3

Design and implementation

of the participatory process
In this chapter 3:
• Tailor-made process
• Prototyping and implementation
• Team, resources and materials
 Tailor-made process

In designing the extension and components of decision-making process regarding the visualisa- more about the socio-technical system by inter-
the knowledge service, the main elements to be tion or type of outcome (e.g. a webinar) is part of acting with the maps in a more efficient way. Ide-
identified are the challenge, priorities and avail- the knowledge service. ally, the roadmap format will result in a potential
able resources. The approach of challenge-led portfolio of actions in the short and medium term.
system mapping can be implemented gradually A snapshot can be made of a system during a
as part of a process of learning by doing. preliminary workshop. Thereafter, information
is processed and knowledge is shared through
Depending on the needs and context with re- a visualisation. The level of complexity can vary
spect to the challenge, the participatory process from descriptive to analytical data based on the
will have different learning goals, formats and maturity of the challenge and the oppeness of the
outcomes. The performance of the process can setting.
also lead to further steps as part of a flexible and In follow-up workshops, the participants will learn Figure 9: Modular format
modular format.

The modular format

30
The blueprint of the system mapping process can
be seen as a flexible combination of three posibil-
ities : teaser, pilot and roadmap, each with its own
particularities (see table right). The process fol-
lows a building block logic formed by stand-alone
modules that can be incrementally added up to
get the full learning pathway: the roadmap.

The modularity of this approach benefits its

adaptability to various environments. However,
this chapter captures the basic elements that are
relevant for the design and implementation of any
system mapping process.

As indicated in Chapter 2, the potential outcomes

are to be mutually agreed on in advance by the ex-
perts and the chalenge owners. The dialogue and

Chapter 3 Challenge-led System Mapping

 The process should be designed to meet partic-
ipants’ expectations without getting lost in an
endless series of workshops, discussions and
useless conclusions. These are essential in facilitating dialogue
with challenge owners all through the
System mapping processes driven by a sys- roadmap process. Some examples:
tem innovation logic are conceived to address
complex situation where uncertainty, ambigu-
ity shape the overall context. Simple framing Challenge definition and current system
questions can help to address that complexity • Is there any strategic plan or policy
by laying down the boundaries for the system framework on this area?
mapping process itself, as well as clear rules for
decision-making. • Are there alternatives to the current
practices?
In most of the cases, the mapping process is • Who are the right actors to address this?
designed to contribute to an existing process or
31
Why?
action plan. Thus, it can be explained as a stra-
tegic input or an intervention that contributes to • What do we need (e.g. resources, funding,
the understanding of the socio-technical system knowledge, skills) to resolve it?
and the present innovation opportunities..
Future action
• What could be done differently next time?
• What can be the relevant leverage points
or intervention points.?
• How can we introduce change and
transformation? When?
• What does it need to be achieved in the
short and long term?

Urban transitions
EIT RIS Programme
Brussels, June 2016

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 3

 Challenge definition as a starting point

A challenge definition illustrates the need for Questions. Simple trigger questions can help to
change in the form of a statement on the will- address the dynamics elements behind the chal-
ingness to transform the system surrounding a lenge. Common question topics include (1) system
problem. Challenge definition can be facilitated components and relations, (2) existing process,
by some key elements from the overall system actions and resources, (3) conflicts, confronting
context: ideas, interests and co-existing narratives and
(4) innovation opportunities and potential priority
Inputs and resources. Elements for understand- areas.
ing the context and further supporting the sys-
tem mapping process: Output. Agreements on the overall expected re-
sults of system mapping process are fundamen-
• Background. Indicators and general informa- tal success factors for the design and implemen-
tion regarding the context. tation. Common outputs can be:
• Access to experts in terms of knowledge, stra-
tegic support and allocation of time during the • New intermediation and orchestration roles and
32 whole process. mechanisms.
• Challenge ownership that may rely on a gov- • Participation to enable multi-actor dialogue and
ernment, a project consortium or community. A community building.
lack of ownership can lead to excess complexity.
Managing expectations on the use of
Problem analysis. A challenge can be analysed co-produced knowledge is a required step to
from various different or combined perspectives: highlight the value of system mapping as a tool.

• Top-down. This may be policy-driven or tar- If the challenge cannot be defined in advance (e.g.
get-driven and may follow high-level man- due to lack of ownership, no pre-existing target or
dates or established and validated objectives. vision, coexisting narratives) it can be addressed
• Bottom-up. This may be community-driven and in the first workshop. It should be clearly commu-
framed by a clear vison in unstructured gover- nicated as a goal. Tools such as the ‘pentagonal
nance logic (no hierarchies, organisation) or problem’ can facilitate the discussion.
more structured organisation behind an existing
project or formalised action plan or programme.

Chapter 3 Challenge-led System Mapping

 Prototyping as a design principle

The system mapping process is driven by a chal- Framing and mindsetting. The overall concepts Directionality and challenge context. System
lenge, fundamental to which is the understanding and ideas driving the process should be defined mapping is part of decision-making process and
of the context, including policy background and as pillars for the full process. For example, system takes place in specific policy background; the
motivation. The framework should help to give innovation is the overarching concept used by strategic direction of the dialogue and the expec-
some direction in terms of the emerging ques- EIT Climate-KIC when setting the values, causal tations should thus be set accordingly. The output
tions and the potential indicators to be harvest- relations and when mindsetting with the stake- in terms of consensus, the level of stakeholder in-
ed through tools during the activities. Together holders. Framing then helps to provide a basic volvement over time and the potential impact on
these elements will form the prototype for the understanding of innovation and transformative the policymaking process are critical elements in
system mapping process. mechanisms as part of the mapping process. defining the tools, indicators and the mechanism
for interaction while considering the typology of
the stakeholders involved.

Tools as process enablers. The decision to use

(adapted) existing tools or new tools will depend
on different questions and framings, and will be
also be influenced by the competences of the de- 33
livery team and the time considerations for each
workshop as well as the overall process.

Prototyping is defined as the simu-

lation of a system mapping process.
Such simulations can range from
informal ideas sketches to more de-
tailed concept maps with initial sets of
questions, tools, team composition,
resources and timelines..

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 3

 Framing through blueprints

Prototypes facilitates the space for brining all the

pieces together from an open ideation perspective. A blueprint is a guide that can be fol- Interrelation is presented as the nat-
Moving to a detailed process design for running a lowed for making something. It helps ural flow by which the output of one
pilot require a full-scale recreation including fewer
to ensure that the course material is action contributes to the develop-
variables, team responsibilities, clear outcomes and
on point by absorbing the image of ment of the others.
detailed timeline.
the project in its entirety. It serves as
For doing so, a blueprint such as a protocol or cho- a course guide to conveys all the crit-
reography needs to be developed to frame and ical information (specifications) of the
integrate the challenge with the different steps by project and to asses required inter-
making explicit the interrelations between framing ventions at stages with problems.
questions, tools, workshops and knowledge flows
across the entire system mapping process.
Workshop 1 Challenge & Design Workshop 2
Framing questions helps to breakdown the chal- Challenge Design

34
Directionality
Inputs/
Questions
resources

lenge into the elements of the system to be ad- Session 1 Framework

Context Indicators

Problem
Outputs
Tools
analysis

dressed during the mapping process

Prototype
format

Mapping tool

Interrelated sessions and tools based in the fram- Framing questions

ing questions are adapted to maximise the learning
process, the effectiveness of the results and the Results & W3
knowledge flows (inputs) between them. Clusters

Interrelated workshops follow the logic of the flex-

Inputs
ible modular roadmap of the tailored made process
Session 2
along a proposed timeline.
Mapping tool W4
Framing questions
Knowledge management (See chapter 4) contribute
to make those interrelation effective through data
and knowledge flows. Inflows involves document-
Results & Inflows
ing and harvesting data while outflows focus on Clusters
conceptualization and analysing including visualiza- Outflows
tions and developing bottom up indicators. Figure 12: Interconnected tools

Chapter 3 Challenge-led System Mapping

Knowledge managment
 Learning by doing

The challenge-led mapping approach has been de- ology favour learning; each iterative process is thus Primary loops concern the use and implementation
signed based on the lessons learnt from several a learning loop. of the original framework by considering goals, chal-
experiences in a variety of contexts, involving a di- lenge definition and decision-making practices. Sec-
versity of topics and challenges. These learning loops are fed by the feedback and ondary or double loops are intended to analyse how
evaluation of the experiences in the different con- a given framework might be reconsidered.
Practitioners applying this approach should consid- texts of application as well as new insights coming Upon repetition, cumulative experience and reflec-
er it as a jumping-off point when developing their from internal and external exchange. tion, the process becomes simpler and can reach its
own practice-based knowledge through experi- full potential.
mentation and a ‘learn by doing’ approach. Each Figure 13: Learning loops & prototyping
challenge, each process and each workshop will be
different but, at the same time, each of them will be
an opportunity to experiment and learn.

Through the continuous adaptation of ideas, tools

and practices, practitioners will test and experiment
their way to their own collection of consolidated 35
prototypes for system mapping processes.

Prototyping, piloting and learning loops

The adaptation process involves transforming ex-
isting tools and methods for new system mapping
processes. It can take different pathways depending
on the topic of the exercise and expertise and com-
position of the team.

The consolidation of lessons learnt arises from the

iterative process by which the teams co-create, test
and implement the prototypes in pilots. Throughout
the continuous redesign, implementation, evalua-
tion and follow-up of the system mapping process-
es, the dialogue amongst different members of the
team facilitates learning at the individual and group
level. The modularity and flexibility of the method-

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 3

 The roadmap stages

The roadmap process is a logic construct that The roadmap format has three main objectives:
guides the phases of the system mapping. The
process needs to be adapted to different situa- • To facilitate a guided dialogue with a view to build-
tions irrespective of the context and the challenge ing a shared vision of common problems or prior-
in question by ensuring that practitioners have a ities through a challenge-led system mapping ap-
guide through the unexplored territory of explor- proach.
ing their own system. Design elements provide • To spot and set out trajectories of change, inspired
direction and logic towards the defined challenge, by different potential scenarios and a portfolio of
allowing practitioners to know where they are in related actions as part of existing strategies (e.g.
the system mapping process at any point in time. Smart Specialisation, Sustainable Energy and Cli-
Technical assistance, expert advice and knowledge mate Action Plans).
management are part of the necessary scaffold to • To aid in developing transition competences linked
build that process. to objectives for skills development set out by proj-
ect managers and governmental officials, among
The roadmap’s basic structure follows the logic other participants.
36 described in the blueprint for challenge-led system • Finally, a roadmap format allows participants from
mapping. The process consists of three stages: the same context to recognise themselves as a
system of stakeholders, building up the sense of a
The design stage establishes the basic context in community of shared practices, while facing their
which the team will co-create, before identifying inner conflicts of interest.
the existing tools and desired outcomes.

The system mapping stage comprises the core ac-

tivity, in which visual tools are used to facilitate the
dialogue between participants and bottom-up data
is gathered.

The roadmapping stage is when participants get to

grips the first system mapping results and go from
planning actions to implementing actions.

Chapter 3 Challenge-led System Mapping

 Design System mapping Roadmapping
The design phase involves in-depth interaction This stage seeks to initiate the mapping process In this more advanced stage, the participants
with the challenge owner and the stakeholders. through a system assessment guided by the de- gain a deeper understanding of the socio-tech-
The aim behind this exchange is to identify the fined challenge, specific tools and expert advice. nical system by analysing its various elements.
needs of local practitioners and to co-create the The co-produced ‘system map’ is developed as They do so based on their co-created under-
blueprint of the full process according to the ma- part of a sensemaking exercise with the pur- standing of the socio-technical system and
turity of the challenge. As it was explained in the pose of giving meaning to a collection of ongoing the opportunities for innovation. The aim is to
last section, the blueprint is obtained through processes and actions and, thereby, achieving a explore what further action could be taken in
framing the interrelation between the inputs, common understanding of the components and terms of identifying resources, capacities and
mapping steps, and outputs of each activity by relations of the socio-technical system in which ongoing mechanisms at different levels. The
considering the knowledge management ele- they are embedded. short, medium and long term are all consid-
ments. ered. A combined project and strategic-man-
agement perspective should be adopted,
The collective construction is navigated through
Managing expectations and facilitating the path taking into account social commitment and
simple notions of system innovation by applying 37
to the right mindset is critical in nurturing a dia- political willingness as key enabling factors.
participatory tools, such as the ones included in
logue on systemic transformation that includes
the Visual Toolbox for System Innovation, to work
differing perspectives. Resources, including hu-
on the defined challenge.
man resources, time, information and funding
will provide the scaffolding for the blueprint.

Mind setting is the process for en- Strategic management is the pro-
abling a set of values, behaviours and Sensemaking is the interplay be- cess of setting priorities, allocating
perspective that guide the way a col- tween giving meaning to a notion of resources and ensuring that stake-
lective process is put in place to ad- the system – and its ongoing actions holders are working toward common
dress the defined challenge and adopt – and achieving a conversational, goals. This is done by establishing
a deeper understanding of a systemic motivated understanding as a spring- agreements regarding the intended
perspective. board to action. outcomes.

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 3

 The roadmap stages

38

Figure 10: The roadmap

In this stage the blueprint is developed for the Participants create an initial system analysis First of all, the results of the first workshop are
system mapping process, considering (1) the and seek to achieve consensus on common analysed, as well as any follow-up webinars
context, challenge definitions and expected priorities. Information is gathered, analysed regarding system configuration and priority
outputs, (2) the framework, including tools and and transformed into infographics and res- areas for potential change. Future-orientated
indicators, (3) participatory process, including haped into system maps (e.g. networks). Fol- exercises can be carried out to co-create a long-
team, activities and resources and, (4) a know- low-up webinars are held to share the informa- term perspective. The information is again co-
ledge-management proposition. tion gathered. dified and shared.

Chapter 3 Challenge-led System Mapping

 Moving into action
Towards the end of the process: synthesis, strate-
gy and leadership are important factors in direct-
ing the participants’ mindsets towards concrete
actions. Challenge owners should:

• acknowledge the value of what was collectively

created, such as actionable knowledge and pro-
totyped transformative activities;
• reflect on what was learnt from the mapping
experience and the opportunities for collabora-
tion;
• encourage participants to communicate and ar-
ticulate what they intend to do next. For exam-
ple, following steps that can be accomplished in 39
the short term plus bigger steps that may take
many years;
• make reflection on potential local pilot schemes
and experiments based on the linkages be-
tween the defined challenge, the proposed
portfolio of actions and the existing strategy,
the ongoing policy process and existing projects
and initiatives);
• evaluate how proposed actions can be reshaped
The broad socio-technical roadmap is co-creat- Specific inputs are presented, such as targets, into project proposals using the available re-
ed with relevant actors and using the available outputs and related activities for action plans. sources identified during the road mapping
resources, allowing a specific timeframe for Dialogue sessions are organised to explore how stage;
action. Prototyped actions can be included by the various elements can be reshaped and inte- • think about society engagement actions such as
applying project and innovation management grated into existing policy mixes and strategies, an “ideas competition” as a simple mechanism
tools. Between the third and fourth workshop a as well as into proposals for local pilots and ex- to stimulate innovation at the local level.
portfolio is drafted of a prototyped action scan. periments.

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 3

 The workshop implementation process

Each workshop is different; its design depends on

the conditions and the stage of the process when
it is implemented. However, there is a general logic
to organising and running them. There are consid-
erations to be made before, during and after the
workshop.

Starting up
Workshops are an essential part of the system
mapping, but they are only one part of a broader
process comprising many actions. The following
preparatory steps are common to most situations:

Initializing. It helps to come to an agreement with

40 the challenge owner regarding the overall goal and
expectations for the workshop, as well as for the
application of the system maps as an output.

Framing. A more technical discussion where the

overall architecture of the workshop is formulated
to address the needs of the overall challenge.

Mind setting and detailed planning. This is an it-

erative, design-orientated stage, where the work-
shop team and challenge owner co-produce the
workshop plan and tailor-made content. They
must prepare the team and set the conditions with
participants.

Setting the scene. Just before the workshop

starts, actions are implemented to get the partic-
ipants and the team ready for the workshop im-
plementation.

Chapter 3 Challenge-led System Mapping

 41

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 3

 The workshop implementation process

During the workshop Facilitation Visual tools to guide conversation

Introduction Facilitation style may differ depending on the The participatory process takes the form of guided
workshop framework, early stages being more conversations, where science-based visual tools fa-
• Facilitate an informed consent. Explain verbally exploratory and more advanced stages requiring cilitate the process for transforming participants’ con-
or with a leaflet: more direction. However, there are some general tributions into shared knowledge. System mapping
- why you are running the session; aspects to consider: relies on the use of visual tools in co-creating new
- how the maps and recordings will be knowledge based on individual input and other layers
used; of information.
• Enough facilitators should be available to make
- that participants are free to leave the ses- the session run smoothly. There is no fixed nu-
sion at any time. merical ratio, but one facilitator for each group • Visual tools facilitate individual contributions and
• Negotiate consent to record the session. of 8 to 12 participants maximum usually leads the sharing and exchange of knowledge in a hori-
• Explain how the session will work and how the to fluid dynamics. zontal and open space.
information produced with be gathered and • IAs individuals or in pairs, each participant fully ex-
• Help participants to define the problem. Asking
analysed and shared. presses their thinking and individual view as part of
42 them open questions can be a good strategy.
the group setting. Each individual input should be
• Introduce each participant (ice breaker activity). Sometimes, using examples is also useful. The
noted down.
strategy to use relies on the behaviour of each
• Repetition of items is good, it means consensus.
Mapping sessions group.
Encourage it!
• The facilitator’s role is to manage the process,
• System mapping is an interactive and inclusive
• The aim of the mapping sessions is not just to not direct the content.
process that constantly shifts between individual,
produce a series of maps, but to use them as a • Get individuals to talk about what they are paired, group and whole workshop discussion.
tool to encourage discussion. mapping and why. • Any similarity or difference between individual nar-
• Map experiences or ideas about the topic in a • Ask questions that enable participants to ask the ratives is an opportunity to reflect from multiple
visual fashion. right questions or to challenge assumptions. perspectives on the connections drawn.
• Ask each table to present their maps to the rest • Ensure participants follow through with their • The evolving conversation contributes to the collec-
of the group or ask each participant to offer a own emergent ideas; remind them that they tive understanding of the challenges, the questions
final comment. are not looking for consensus, but for the ex- and the mapped system itself.
• End the session on a positive note and thank pression of their diversity.
the participants. A simple, three-step process can be used to imple-
• Explore implications of connections that are
ment these guided conversations by combining the
• Reporters should take notes during the map- mentioned to create clusters.
value of the interactive dialogue from the workshop
ping session to support the further interpreta- • Ensure the essence of conversations is record- and any harvested data relevant to the continued
tion and analysis of results. ed or noted down. knowledge management process.
Chapter 3 Challenge-led System Mapping
 Step 1 – Individual inputs. Participants should
write down at least three ideas for each question,
elements or step suggested by the tool. Different
shapes and colours help to highlight variety of ele-
ments and become highly valuable for knowledge
management. Pre-printed cards and stickers can
also be used.

Step 2 – Group discussion. Group dialogue is facil-

itated to identify differences & common elements
in the whole picture. Participants regroup the ele-
ments based on affinity relations.

Step 3 – Clustering. Participants analyse relations

between elements and agree on new groups con-
taining clusters of different elements where con- 43
cepts and ideas are thematically grouped. They
decide on new broad labels that better represent
the aggregation and layers. Large Post-it notes or
stickers can be used for visual representation.

Different layers of information – from individual

input to clusters – enable participants, experts
and analysts to gain a deeper understanding and
arrive at valuable conclusions regarding the par-
ticipants’ input during workshops and during the
continued knowledge management process. In
practice:
• Layers help in negotiating meaning and setting
priorities.
• Layers facilitate the ranking of elements by
type.
Figure 15: 3-steps for • Macro layers can be used as key inputs for the
a guided conversation next step or tool in the mapping process.

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 3

 The workshop implementation process

After the workshop be addressed through co-created bottom-up

indicators based in the information generated
Analysis during the workshops. Chapter 4 will explore
this process, where a variety of actions including • Invite enough participants and ensure di-
• Save a reasonable amount of time (an hour data gathering, analysis, knowledge visualisation versity.
or two) after the mapping session to type up and communication process will be explained. To • Have a gender-balanced team or panel (if
notes and record your reflections. achieve success at this stage: any).
• Hold a group analysis session with the people • Invest time and resources on marketing
who took part in the mapping session. • All the outputs of the mapping session should
be managed properly to guarantee the best
and communication for the event.
• Analyse the maps produced, the content of
possible conditions for the knowledge man- • Consider developing a selection process
conversations and the field notes or reflections
produced by all the facilitators. agement process. criteria for participants.
• Be sure that each canvas has been labelled. • Be sure that visual tools (canvas) are properly • Send invitations through multiple channels.
labelled and organised by group, table, session, • Book a room large enough to allow peo-
Follow-up topic and workshop. ple to walk around freely.
44 • Guarantee that you have enough complemen-
• Order enough materials in advance (stick-
A variety of actions can be implemented depend- tary materials, such as reporting notes and
team reflections. ers, pens, markers, paper and so on).
ing on the stage of the participatory process. The
most common and recommended actions are: • Take pictures of each canvas, even when you • Organise the disposition of the room
can keep them. during the workshop planning stage.
• Facilitate conversations between experts and- • Secure a camera to record the session or
challenge owners to better contextualise and- to take pictures.
consolidate the results of the workshop. • Consider making audio recordings of the
• Organise executive meetings with challenge speeches, session wrap-up and individu-
owners to define potential next steps.
al group presentations.
• In the most advanced stages of a participatory
process, specific actions can be designed and • Think about branding: roll-up banners,
implemented. flyers and posters.
• Keep a good track of participation and
Knowledge management and visualisation representation with additional consider-
ations, such as a signature list and name
Curation of the data harvested during a participa-
cards.
tory process is highly valuable for system map-
ping. The questions defined by the challenge can
Chapter 3 Challenge-led System Mapping
 Teams and resources

Team Thematic experts. They are responsible for Cross-functional team

providing the input needed on specific topics such
From the beginning of the process, different types as transition management, sustainable mobility Members from different organisations should be
of roles can be identified. This does not mean that or green business models. They can also directly part of the delivery team, including the challenge
each of the roles below must be assumed by an participate during the delivery, encouraging the owner’s organisation. Their input will be important
individual, but that they must be filled either in- debate and answering the questions raised by to the challenge’s definition and implementation as
dividually or by multiple persons for the process participants. well as the analysis of the results and communica-
to work. tions.
Reporter. Responsible for collecting data and
Project manager. Responsible for the overall information developed during the workshops and Roles and responsibilities can be combined inter-
organisation of the activity and the logistics of for gathering feedback or lessons learned. This changeably throughout the roadmap process, tak-
the entire process. role is usually filled by the team’s communica- ing into account content and logistical elements as
tions person. well as the specific setup of the team and the avail-
Facilitator. Responsibilities may include the able resources. This setup depends on the frame-
design of the roadmap, interactions with the Communication officer.. It works closely with work designed for the system mapping process,
challenge owner and the implementation of the project managers, facilitator and data analyst
45
the available resources and the participation of the
the workshop. They are most likely to be the to understand and prepare the communication challenge owner’s staff in the implementation pro-
methodological expert in the team. that can be shared with external audiences cess.

Coach. They are of central importance to the Materials and IT. Materials to run the A combination of local and international experts is
roadmap, being responsible for guiding partici- workshops include this handbook, as well as a strongly recommended to ensure a broad scope of
pants through the workshops activities, struc- complementary set of learning materials cove- approaches is addressed during the roadmap pro-
turing and facilitating the learning. ring all the stages of the roadmap format. For cess.
knowledge visualisation, a variety of statistical
Data Analyst. Responsible for systematisation tools and visualisation software can be used, in- Regarding knowledge visualisation, competencies
of results by gathering, codifying and analysing cluding freeware for network analysis or online in data management, applied research and sta-
the data coming from the different system map- dashboard platforms for managing significant tistics are essential and may be outsourced to a
ping exercises. They are also responsible for pro- amounts of data and the complex decision- specialist. It is also highly recommended to involve
ducing infographics and network maps as main making process. The decision of which software challenge owners in the analysis of results since it
inputs for workshops and reports. to use should take into account the overall goals guarantees better interpretation and inclusiveness
and expectations of the team with respect to the over the whole process.
Local expert/Liaison. Responsible for en- roadmap process.
abling the linkages with local context and contri-
buting to the adaption of the tools.
Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 3
 Complementary materials

To supplement this handbook, support materi-

als are included, such as detailed explanations A: Challenge definition – System mapping,
of aspects of sustainable transitions and walk- Workshop 1
throughs for the visual tools. This more practical D: Low
material can be used to build capacities in system W1: Systemic components of the problem
mapping, team training for a mapping process or W2: Inputs on challenge status from challenge
in-situ explanations for workshop participants. owners
W3: KM + system mapping session. Two versions
Below you’ll find a summary of the most fre- are included: standard and policy-oriented sec-
quently used tools, following the roadmap nar- tions.
rative and focusing on key aspects of the design
and implementation processes:

• Application (A): indicates the stage of the pro- A: System mapping, Workshop 1
46 cess: system mapping or road mapping D: Medium
• Difficulty (D): low, medium or high W1: Ranked priority areas and key system ele-
• What you get (W1): relates to challenge ques- ments
tions, type of data and indicators W2: List of existing actions by area or topic
• What you need (W2): Inputs and resources W3: KM + Visioning exercise. Two versions are in-
• What is next (W3): Knowledge management cluded: standard and policy-oriented sections.
(KM), relations between steps, related tools
and actions

KM includes Knowledge visualisation, exchange A: System mapping, Workshop 1-2

and dissemination with practitioners and D: Medium-high
challenge owners. W1: List of potential actions, driving forces and
trends
The complementary materials also include refer- W2: Selected cases and sectors as priority areas
ences to and examples of different tools from EIT W3: Prototyping business model and actions
Climate-KIC partners and the Joint research Cen- Two complementary tools: system simulation
tre applied during the system mapping process. and driving forces and trends exploration

Chapter 3 Challenge-led System Mapping

 Future radar Socio-technical roadmap A: Road mapping
A: System mapping, Workshop 2 D: Medium-high
D: Medium-high W1: Resource mapping and prioritisation of inno-
W1: List of potential actors and driving forces vation areas
W2: Selected cases and sectors as priority areas W2: Existing system map and info about local
W3: Prototyping business model and actions. available assets
Two versions with different layout are included W3: KM and action/project prototyping session
Two versions are included: Standard and multi-
level governance setting

A: System mapping, Workshop 2 A: Road mapping with focus on value proposition

D: Medium-high D: Medium-high
W1: List of potential actors and driving forces W1: List of key elements for action/programme
47
W2: Selected cases and sectors as priority areas prototyping
W3: Prototyping business model and actions W2: Selected cases and sectors as priority areas
Network elements and illustrative cases are pro- W3: Prototyping business model and resource
vided allocation

Gap analysis Platform prototyping

A: System mapping, Workshop 2 or beginning of A: Road mapping with focus on portfolio of actions
road mapping D: High
D: Medium-high W1: List of potential actors and driving forces
W1: List of potential actors and driving forces W2: Selected cases and sectors as priority areas
W2: Selected cases and sectors as priority areas W3: Prototyping business model and systemic
W3: Prototyping business model and actions relations between actions
Network elements and illustrative cases are
provided

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 3

Sustainable Land use
Forestry Flagship
Brussels, January 2018
 Knowledge management is the systematic management of
knowledge assets for the purpose of creating value and meeting tactical
and strategic requirements. It is the process of creating, sharing, using and
managing the knowledge and information of an organisation.

Chapter 4

Knowledge management,
analysis and dissemination
In this chapter:
• Management as learning
• Science-based tools
• Creating a shared understanding
• Step-by-step process
 Management as learning

Knowledge services with simple questions supported by an overall

framework. Data science. is an interdisciplin-
The system mapping process can be defined as ary field that uses science-based
a knowledge service where a team of facilitators, The participatory process and the application
of visual tools allow new data to be harvested methods to extract knowledge and
experts and practitioners facilitate a guided con-
towards a better understanding of the over- insights from both structured and
versation, enable the exchange of information
and support an iterative curation process. Driven all system. This chapter introduces knowledge unstructured data. Data science is re-
by a problem-solving process based on specific management to facilitate the curation of the data lated to data mining and big data but
tools and methods, practitioners move from tra- gathered during the system mapping sessions can be applied to any data source, e.g.
ditional “learning to manage” practices to “man- through the practices of documentation and sub-
to harvest data from the visual tools
agement as learning” while “recycling what is al- sequent knowledge co-production.
used during the mapping process.
ready known”.
This horizontal learning process integrates links
System maps works then as “artefacts” to pro- between interpretation, cognitive transformation
vide information and to focus the conversa- and analysis to introduce practitioners to simple
50 iterative mechanisms for creating practice-based
tion into the specific areas around the defined
challenge and related decision-making process. knowledge or enabling a shared understanding
Knowledge is incorporated as an input for pro- of the system in which they are embedded. The
ductive use, which can be adapted and trans- process facilitates the identification of new pat-
formed as part of the system mapping process.. terns and connections while seeking to visualise
hidden insights, recurrent loops and unexpect-
ed elements. In doing so, common data science
From data curation to knowledge
practices are applied.
co-production
Data curation combines expert advice and techni-
cal assistance to ensure the knowledge manage-
ment process maintains a focus on the stakehold-
er’s challenges. It is guided by the system mapping
framework (see Chapter 2) and the output from
the interaction with various actors over time.

Chapter 2 and 3 have introduced the rationale re-

garding the connection of the defined challenge

Chapter 4 Challenge-led System Mapping

 Science-based tools as a guiding framework

Creating practice-based
knowledge through visual tools
System mapping processes rely on science-based
visual thinking techniques. Visual tools help to
simplify a variety of components and concepts of
the socio-technical system through metaphors
while facilitating an interactive dialogue process
to enable the design of co-created maps.

The science-based visual tools provide (1) guiding

principles to allow the interplay of different ele-
ments, such as the attributes and variables of the
socio-technical system in the spaces and sec-
tions defined by the visual tools and (2) the pos- 51
sibility to introduce layers of information through
affinity and clustering. To facilitate these possi-
bilities, layers can be classified by colour, shape
and size, using Post-it notes, stickers or any other
input device.

By following the principles suggested in Chap-

ter 2 and 3, tools can be chosen and adapted to
perform a systemic process for capturing and
systematising system elements. That adaptation sion-making process for the challenge at hand.
should be done by following the questions coming
from the challenge definition. Relational information is essential in order to Visual tools grounded in translational
transform data into relevant knowledge on and applied research facilitate the
The choice of visual tools is an essential step in system composition and relations. Knowledge interpretation and analysis of data
the design framework.Tools provide facilitate the management contributes to the analysis of the gathered by following a question-
communication of key variables and data types. layers of information and the different levels of driven process and indicator-based
They also help to identify the indicators needed to aggregations and patterns of relations gathered
decision-making process.
answer the main question and support the deci- through system maps.

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 4

 The journey to create a shared understanding

The knowledge management process proposed Figure 17: Authors’ adaptation

of the Knowledge Management
for the challenge-led system mapping approach is
Cognitive Pyramid (DIKW)
inspired by the Knowledge Management Cognitive
Pyramid (DIKW). It is aimed to improve the struc-
ture and understanding of the knowledge devel-
oped throughout the system mapping process.

Structure ranges from the analogic structure pro-

duced with participants during the mapping
exercise to more complex data sets and indicators
based on the framework provided by the science-
based tools.

Understanding involves a learning process driven

by the challenge and includes system compo-
52 nents, relations as well as more complex relations
coming from the analysis driven by the mapping
framework.

Knowledge management depends on the capac-

ity and willingness of the audience to absorb, ex-
change and internalise information. Two stages
are proposed to enable a pluralistic understanding:
(1) harvesting and documentation and (2) concep-
tualisation and analysis.

Intermediate outputs are provided based on the it-

erative feedback loops, which enables a pluralistic
understanding of the system and a broader per-
spective in terms of conceptualisation. At the
same time, the examination of connections be-
tween small elements introduces basic practices
for co-producing actionable knowledge with and
for practitioners.

Chapter 4 Challenge-led System Mapping

 Harvesting and documentation
This stage goes from material results (Canvas /
analogic structures) to physical data structuring
by starting right after the participatory process, it
compounds two steps: STEP 1 Source manage-
ment (DATA) and, STEP 2 Extracting and framing
(INFORMATION). It includes a series of techniques
coming from data science such as data mining and
data processing.

It focuses on transforming data into information

from which intermediate structured data visual-
izations are generated to activate discussion on
the connections with the questions and indicators
introduced by the framework (e.g. tools). It helps to
53
draw reflections with challenge owners and partic-
ipants and to identify focus areas for further ana-
lytical steps.

Conceptualization and analysis

This stage seeks to provide a more analytical per- standing can then be facilitated by addressing the build up narratives based on collective intelligence.
spective by navigating from cognitive to analytical questions and indicators introduced in the frame- Therefore, the final co-created result is much more
structuring and, by doing so, enabling knowledge work. Step 4 applies visualisation and communica- than the sum of all the single elements.
co-production with practitioners. tion tools to help identify nuances, trigger reflec-
tions and, most importantly, incorporate different Trust. The purpose of curation is to enable better
The following step is (3) analysis and conceptualisa- views into the co-created narratives (WISDOM). knowledge flows for challenge owners and partici-
tion by means of a coding process (KNOWLEDGE) pants. The system mapping process, broadly speak-
whereby interactions are made between coding Collective intelligence. The whole process is imple- ing, involves managing expectations and problems
categories to reveal hidden INSIGHTS, recurrent mented through an active exchange with challenge such as conflicts of interest. Intermediate steps for
loops and unexpected elements based on the stan- owners and participants. By doing so, different ele- data curation and knowledge co-production con-
dard descriptive result. As a result, a shared under- ments and layers of information are transformed to tribute to achieving transparency and creating trust.

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 4

 Step-by-step process for knowledge management

Figure 19: Four-steps knowledge management process

54

Chapter 4 Challenge-led System Mapping

 55

Urban Cleantech strategy

Apeldoorn, June 2016

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 4

 Step 1: source management

Source organisation: a matter of

scales

The organisation of sources coming from the

system mapping process will follow the logic of
the activities designed for the participatory pro-
cess.

• A single workshop is organised in several map-

ping sessions based on selected tools.
• Each session may include several groups or-
ganised by simple numerical division or topics
such as energy, mobility and water as part of
the defined challenge.
56 • Canvases are the materials on which tools are
drawn or printed for producing and capturing
data from participants’ inputs during workshop
sessions.

In practice, each workshop can be designed by

including one or more session. Each group is as-
signed one canvas for the mapping session. What
follows is a simple example based on the roadmap
narrative. Workshop 1 comprises 2 sessions with
different tools (S1: stakeholder analysis, S2: vi-
sioning) and 25 participants divided equally into 5
groups. This yields 10 canvases (2 X 5) at the end
of the workshop.
Data inputs gathered. Each tool/canvas can Labelling. Name and/or number the canvases
Scale. Three workshops following the same harvest an average of 60 inputs divided into 2 or before the workshop. Clear tagging is essential to
structure will then account for a total of 30 can- 3 variables. In total, the example described could a valid data management process.
vasses, from which data will be harvested and or- produce 600 inputs per workshop, which is a me-
ganised for the knowledge management process. dium size data set.

Chapter 4 Challenge-led System Mapping

Source preparation
Following the tool logic. The data and relations
The data and relations harvested can be under-
stood in terms of the guiding principles provided
by the science-based visual tools, such as those
of the different elements of the socio-technical
system, as well as layers of information based on
clustering and coding (e.g. colour coding, shapes
and sizes).

Tools then enable challenge questions to be ex-

plored though bottom-up created indicators
based on the type of data gathered. Chapter 5
presents insights into the application of network
57
analysis techniques in sociotechnical systems.
Figure X presents an example of the ‘ocean of Urban Sustainable Mobility
opportunities’ tool, which applies three guiding Malaga, June 2018
principles for the exploration of on-going actions:

1 Cross shape: two axes (V, initial vs advanced

stage, and H, system vs sector level); Figure 21: Caption: Ocean of
2 Different colour-coded elements (actions, ac- opportunities: canvas example
showing multiple elements and
tors and opportunities) and layers
3 Layers of information created through groups
and clusters (in the example, big stickers repre-
sent clusters of ideas).

This logic is part of the overall workshop framing.

The team should organise meetings before and
right after the participatory process to check im-
plementation issues. The clearer the elements
(e.g. colour coding) are, the better the knowledge
management process will be.
Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 4
 Step 2: extracting and framing

The primary information identified using the tools between experts, facilitators and problem repetitions.
should be gathered and collected by extracting owners.
any single data input following the tool’s logic. • The coding process at this stage is limited to This data set format is suitable for gathering data
This step involves the digitisation of the results to the indication of general tags such as colour from mapping exercises since science-based vi-
create data sets. and size, action, opportunity, resource, etc. sual tools include multiple elements that can be
• Various scales, such as workshop and canvas, organised in different sections and levels.
The data set already described in the last section, should be
considered in the structure of the data. The figure below shows an example of the panel
The extraction and management of all that data will data format with data gathered from the ‘ocean
produce a data set from each workshop that could Data structuring through panel data of opportunities’ tool implemented in Sofia. The
be integrated into existing data. Data units such as panel comprises the basic data set structure, raw
Post-it notes and stickers are digitised, maintaining The panel data format is used to better organise data and the coding process results in the last
the sectional structure of the tool/canvas. all these levels and components and to guaran- column.
tee optimal use of the data for statistical analysis.
58 • The process requires management of the
feedback loops between the extraction and Panel data contains observations and attributes
interpretation of inputs as well as exchange of multiple phenomena obtained over multiple Figure 22: Panel data template

Chapter 4 Challenge-led System Mapping

 Basic elements for the analysis

The panel data format allows the data to be

structured by organising the information on the
canvases in line with the guiding framework of
the science-based tools. The visual tools are de-
signed to address questions based on a variety
of variables, with the possibility of grouping data
based on tools, sections and clustering.

Different scales, types of data and layers of infor-

mation are organised in panel data format while
allowing further statistical analysis, from sim-
ple counting to more complex network analysis.
The figure to the right shows how the different
components of a canvas (‘ocean of opportunities’
tool) are covered in an excel sheet designed with 59
the panel data format. The standard format for a
worksheet is as follows:

Data set Structure

• ID: a unique identifying number for each ele-
ment, used to avoid duplications and to ma-
nipulate relations, run statistical processes
and clustering.
• Workshop name: used to organise different
origins. The formula Location + Topic is mostly
applied.
.• Canvas: refers to the analogue artefact, such
as a flipchart or printed canvas, used by a
group of participants during the participatory
process for a specific tool, and indicates the
grouping logic (e.g. topic, city, sector).

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 4

 Tools framework and layers of data
Bottom-up indicators are mea- Data entry. Any member of the
• Quadrant or Section: indicates the different surements taken by means of the team can be assigned to enter
spaces represented by the visual tool, which
simultaneous conceptualisation of data, i.e. to extract and digitise it
serves as a guiding principle for the expected
indicators. Generally these are scales and sub-
data given by a cognitive frame- into a data set. Several iterations
sections based on the main concepts provided work (codes) and the quantification and review processes can be made
by the visual tool. of these codes into comparative based on additional materials pro-
• Cluster: indicates a collection of elements quantitative magnitudes. Concep- duced by coaches, reporters and
grouped under a meta-category by follow- tualisation also helps to make a con- experts before the analytical stage.
ing affinity relations referring to thematic nection between data and to create
or geographical proximity (see Chapter 5, p.
relational indicators that could be
XX). Isolated elements can be categorised as
‘non-clustered’, warranting further analysis. used for stakeholder analysis and
•. Type of element: expresses as an attribute the relations between them.
60
the kind of information on the Post-it note or
sticker, such as action, actor, resource or out-
put.

Inputs and indicators

• Text: the most accurate translation of the
written input/unit of data such as a Post-it
note or sticker. Data entry involves an iterative
translation process requiring data cleaning,
merging and the consolidation of inputs and
elements
• Coding/category: ithe codes assigned to
written input through the coding or tagging
process.

Chapter 4 Challenge-led System Mapping

 Basic elements for the analysis

Visualising physical data structures

Once the data have been organised in the panel
data format, intermediate visualisation can be
produced to explore general patterns together
with the practitioners and activate feedback and
reflection on the workshop results.

Simple visualisation using cluster logic helps to

organise exchange with problem owners and ex-
perts about early results.

• The intermediate structured data visualisation

allows the discussion and overall priorities to
be revisited.
• Visualisation helps to get an idea of the amount 61
and complexity of the data, such that decisions
can be made regarding focus areas or emerging
topics.
• Visualisation also enables focus and explora-
tion of patterns and new insights.
• It is helpful to compare overlay data (canvas,
cluster, element type, inputs) and the trigger
questions and indicators driving the mapping
exercise.
• Structured data visualization is an output of the
and, and in some cases could match the chal-
lenge owner’s expectations.
• At this stage, the data set itself is an output of
the system mapping process..

The figure to the right below shows and example

of visualisation of a single topic, comprising two
clusters and five different types of element.

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 4

 Step 3: analysis and coding

Once the data extracted from the workshop has versity, local government) to broader elements
been organised in the panel data format, the next such as actions and opportunities (see figure). The
step is data analysis. To this end, each input is re- workshop topics can help to anchor the analysis in
viewed in terms of the conceptual definitions and specific fields (e.g. energy efficiency, circular econ-
attributes by following the guiding principles of omy).
the workshop framework and the science-based
visual tools. Conceptual values are then assigned Cognitive frameworks are very often co-designed
through a simple coding or ‘tagging’ process by challenge owners, thematic experts and the
based on content analysis techniques to produce analyst in charge of the knowledge management
bottom-up indicators for further analysis. process. They are dynamic and new categories can
be designed to describe different elements of the
The coding process seeks to unpack the informa- subsystem, process and innovation fields. In prac-
tion included in the data set into a more compre- tice, this family of words enables the systematisa-
hensive and simple set of elements to be anal- tion of information into actionable knowledge. To
ysed. Data analysts, practitioners and thematic be useful for practitioners, cognitive frameworks
62 experts regroup the inputs from the workshop should be:
by relying on a cognitive framework such as a
lexicon-based set of categories (i.e. a structured • systemic by including system elements and
family of words). Two actions are important in their common process;
this step: (1) synthesis and framing and (2) estab- • accessible to different contexts and needs (pol-
lishing bottom-up indicators. icy makers, researchers, business); and
• grounded in terms commonly used in the field
Synthesis and framing through in question.
coding process
Coding helps to conceptualise and synthesise in-
formation by structuring it into categories based Coding is the process of assigning
on cognitive frameworks. It helps to improve the words or short phrases (CODES or
understanding of information through the iden-
CATEGORIES) to short texts for-
tification of patterns between different elements
now represented and conceptualised by catego- mats such as words or sentences
ries. Cognitive frameworks can include elements with the aim of transforming text
with different levels of difficulty, from a simple list data into practice-based knowl-
of categories such as actor type (business, uni- edge.
Chapter 4 Challenge-led System Mapping
 63

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 4

 Step 3: analysis and coding

Establishing bottom-up indicators

The coding process enables the systematisation
of information by following the combination of
content analysis and affinity relations between
different elements contained in the data set.

Quantification. The use of simple mechanisms to

count the number of elements per category as a
simple frequency distribution is the first step in
the data representation. That distribution (see
example of tables on the right) provides an over-
all estimation of variety and balance of elements
64 gathered with the mapping tool.

Elements can be counted by means of simple

steps like pivot tables in Excel, which allows the
results to be sorted and compared. The example
on the right shows two tables, with the distribu-
tion of actors mapped using the ‘ocean of oppor-
tunities’ tool.

Table 1 shows the distribution of actors found in

one working group. Row labels show the data in-
put provided by participants. Table 2 shows the
distribution of actions found in the same exercise
after an initial coding iteration to reduce the num- some elements. It can facilitate the estimation of cautions since – depending on the tool applied,
ber of elements. rankings and comparative shares as bottom-up the repetition and the amount of information
indicators to measure the importance of actors, – they might not have statistical significance.
In practice, taking the mapping exercise as a start- actions and other elements in the data set. However, they are essential input when it comes
ing point, the counting of elements can provide to providing insight in further knowledge visuali-
an indication of the relevance or irrelevance of These measures should be considered with pre- sation.

Chapter 4 Challenge-led System Mapping

Segmentation is the process of dividing a popula-
tion into groups, or segments, based on different
characteristics.

In practice, counting elements allows for the

aggregation of multiple elements into common
categories, subgroups or segments, which can
be applied to describe more complex relations
and multiple levels of system elements, such as
actors or policy instruments. The example shows
the distribution of elements in a cluster where the
actions (A) and actors (B & C) are re-categorised
into simple categories.

Segmentation is possible where a cognitive

framework is applied to the data produced during 65
the mapping exercise. Technical assistance is crit-
ical at this stage as the process can include sev-
eral iterations to get to the final coding categories
based on the feedback loops between experts,
the technical team, problem owners and other
people included in the mapping process. Those
iterations provide higher value to the curation
process by enabling links between perception, in-
terpretation and cognitive transformation into a
simpler and more reduced list of elements.

An encoded data set is a collection

of translated, organised and con-
ceptualised data, ready to use in a
statistical or qualitative analysis.
It is an intermediate output of the
Figure 27: Example of coding and segmentation as part of cluster composition
knowledge management process.

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 4

 Natural resource management & mining
EIT Climate-KIC and EIT Raw Materials
Leoben, October 2016

66
 Step 4: Visualization and communication

Designing for information and

decision-making
The process for designing information address-
ing the needs of the challenge owners involves
a series of iterative feedback loops that inte-
grates interpretation and cognitive transforma-
tion. Those feedback loops represent the main
aspect of the knowledge co-development pro-
cess since they validate the results of analyses,
translating them from data and narratives into
visual forms to aid in communication.

• Intermediate structured data visual-

isation (STEP 3) and Synthesis and 67
framing through the coding process
(STEP 4) introduce the first two
feedback loops, which help to recon-
nect with the framing questions and
tool components within the frame-
work of the mapping process.
• The Visualization process seeks,
through system maps and infographics,
to simplify and develop a visual narrative
to facilitate the discovery of new insights and
hidden structures.
• System maps and Infographics are guided by
a visualisation framework, drawing key ele-
ments from all the previous STEPS.

Figure 28: Iterative feedback loops for

knowledge visualisation

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 4

 Visualisation framework • System map for the macro-level workshop and (5) spatial. Each category can help illustrate
narrative, made by combining all sessions and different components of the system map. Espe-
The visualisation framework for presenting data tools. It is based on the other maps and is in- cial attention is paid to relational data. See Chap-
on system maps relies on three components the tended to contribute to a more comprehensive ter 5 for a full explanation of the use of network
first two being: understanding at the system level. maps for mapping systems.
• Thematic submap. If the workshop is organised Figure 29: Three components
• The science-based visual tools that provide by thematic group, narratives can be created by of the visualization frameworkon
the guiding principles to allow the interplay of combining all the canvases or tools for a given
the framing questions with different elements topic.
of the socio-technical system.
• Conceptualisation and analysis through the cod- Data science methods generally suggest five
ing process, which helps to address the ques- overall categories for data visualisation: (1) cate-
tions and indicators introduced in the framework. gorical, (2) hierarchical, (3) relational, (4) temporal

The third component is the workshop narrative,

68 Technical assistance provided by a
through which different levels of analysis are
possible, such as canvas, session and workshop workshop team is fundamental to
(see STEP1). The visualisation of system maps understanding the possible break-
and related infographics can take different forms, down of the system map into step-
either considering the whole system or the com- by-step narrative and components
ponents and elements that help to understand a
for creating stories with data, as
single aspect or a collection of them. Small por-
tions of the system map can illustrate different well as managing time for absorbing
aspects in the form of submaps, nested maps or new insights and making reflections
complementary infographics. based on the exchange with practi-
tioners. Being able to consider the
• Submap by tool and theme: 1 canvas = 1 group. variety of informatics resources for
It helps to focus on very specific insights at the
displaying the information, a team
level of framing questions.
• Nested maps through the whole session/tool: with strong technical capacities will
multiple canvas = multiple groups (and Themes). open up a wide range of possibilities
Suitables for illustrate transversal elements or from simple charts to complex info-
patterns of relations across different themes. graphics.

Chapter 4 Challenge-led System Mapping

 Step 4: Types of data visualization

69

Categorical Hierarchical

Application: comparing categories and the distribution of quantitative values. Application: charting part-to-whole relationships and hierarchies.

Different groups of data (e.g. divisions of actors, actions and opportunities) Proportions and distributions as a measure of balance and composition in an
can be further divided to reflect the ranking within each group using simple organisation or system. Can be represented using pie charts or cumulative
bar charts. bar charts to express aggregated values. Tree maps and sunburst charts can
also be used, with layers representing different hierarchical levels.
Framing questions:
What are the components and elements of the system? Framing questions:
Which are the predominant thematic areas? What is the relative weight between elements?
How is data thematically grouped? Which are the main conditioners within the system?
What hierarchies can we find within the elements of a system?
Bottom-up indicators:
Distribution of different elements (actors, actions, opportunities, gaps). Bottom-up indicators:
Rankings of typology of elements and composition of groups at different
levels (clusters, categories, subcategories).
Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 4
 Step 4: Designing for information and decision-making

Relational

Application: graphing relationships to explore correla-

tion and connections.

The layout of the network maps draws on techniques

from social network analysis to place more prominent
actors at the centre of the map and to place more close-
ly linked actors nearer to each other. This approach is
intended to reveal interrelationships and the role of dif-
ferent actors in the process of change.

Social network analysis can be used to visualise the

socio-technical systems in the form of network maps,
which can show the relationships between actions
70 and stakeholders involved in each action within a city.
The socio-technical mapping method is not only about
specific network actors but also their attributes, rela-
tionships and social exchanges between them, while
considering their links, proximity, ties, etc. Additionally,
matrices, scatter plots, chord maps and Sankey graphs
are good alternatives for showing the relationship pat-
terns.

Framing questions:
How are the elements within the system intercon-
nected?
What are the relevant structures and positions ac-
cording to the interrelations among different ele-
ments?

Bottom-up indicators:
Number of connections and nodes, more complex
measures relating to connectivity and diversity.
Chapter 4 Challenge-led System Mapping
 Temporal Spatial 71

Application: showing trends and activities over time. Application: mapping spatial patterns and geographical elements through
the use of overlays and distributions.
The distribution of data over time can be expressed using line and area charts,
while Sankey diagrams are suitable for showing data over broad timeframes. Maps are the most common charts where patters can be explored in terms
Pathways and collections of activities can also be represented with arc dia- of location and agglomerations. Geographical categories and locations can
grams, where the time is often reflected with a line, showing the distribution also be compared in terms of distribution of multiple elements by using sim-
of events that were punctual or part of larger processes. ple XY charts (scatter), displaying plot points along an XY grid.

Framing questions: Framing questions:

How have activities and outputs been distributed over time? How are actions and changes distributed geographically?
What are the connections between element over time? Which is the location with more ongoing projects, relevant actors and op-
What is the amount and distribution of actions or changes yet to come? portunities?
Which common elements appear or influence different locations?
Bottom-up indicators:
Timeframes with an evolving number of elements, such as actions, re- Bottom-up indicators:
sources and outputs. Distribution of variables and shares across geographical locations

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 4

72
 Communication and dissemination

The communication surrounding system mapping perform communication as a tailor-made process

involves guiding conversations around a map and based on the challenge owner’s needs. They utilise
infographics that work as artefacts to allow some system mapping as a knowledge service in differ-
direction in the conversation. In this way, new ideas ent types and levels of communication throughout
can be discussed, interpretations exchanged, col- the process. Goals, content, formats and audience
laborations enabled and an action plan proposed. will determine the type of communication.

The system mapping process involves intercon- Communication as part of knowledge co-pro-
nected sessions and tools. Tracking these relations duction. Intermediate outputs of the knowledge
is critical for guiding communication, for which a management process are exchanged between
complete set of resources is needed beyond the different actors as part of the facilitated dialogue
visualisations. and feedback loops (see Step 4). These internal
reports include the encoded data set, preliminary
The communication team visualisations as well as some course of actions
for further analysis.
The roles and responsibilities of the team (Chapter
73
3) are reinforced in this stage by the provision of a Communication to support challenge-related
strategic direction to the conversation at any stage processes. Simultaneous construction and ne-
of the system mapping process. gotiation of meaning are important in such con-
versations where direction and flows of infor-
Those in the leading roles of project manager, mation may go back and forth between different
facilitator or coach provide the backbone of the stakeholders or groups. Information should help
communication process by giving the system to identify alternative actions, support effective
maps and infographics a facilitating role in the planning based on the overall defined challenge
exchange. Furthermore, leaders guarantee the and framing questions.
appropriate alignment between the challenge
owners and the broader context of the system Communication for dissemination. The results
mapping process. The thematic experts, the data of the system mapping process are consolidated,
analyst and reporters provide the specific con- adapted and disseminated to the target audi-
tent-related elements and highlight any insights ence: citizens, policymakers, experts, etc. In this
coming from the system maps. way, further dialogue and the exchange of knowl-
edge is enabled across different communities.
The whole team works in a coordinated fashion to

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 4

 Step 4: Designing for information and decision-making

Some simple principles can facilitate conversa- system mapping process and the broad action
tions: plans supports the challenge-based narrative
of the communication.
• Challenge is the anchor of the system mapping
process. It is a reference to guide the conversa- Content of communication
tion throughout the process.
• Highlight the stage in the system mapping pro- Among other things, they can include:
cess (e.g. intermediate inputs) helps to manage • a summary of the tool used
expectations. • a description of the knowledge management
• The use of the framing questions and indica- process
tors helps to stimulate the conversation. • the cognitive framework
• Unpacking the system map into different types • a description of results
of information contributes to create a storyline • bottom-up indicators
behind the data. • an analysis and synthesis of results
• Information is relevant around a context. Ex- • if agreed, the data set*
74 plaining the context will help to communicate *Check GDPR requirements first
more effectively.
• Lexical simplification helps to eliminate poten- Communication formats Reports provide a detailed description of the full
tial divergent interpretations and guarantee process for system mapping to be used in the
effective communication. Managing the communication surrounding sys- monitoring and learning process.
• Consistency in the use of indicators and visual- tem maps requires consideration of the type of
isation for similar questions and exercises can communication, the maturity of the challenge and
add value through the understanding of multi- the particular moment in the system mapping
ple stories created from similar data, variables process. This last refers to the communication of
and measures. intermediate outputs, the facilitation of feedback
• Horizontal interactions through interactive for- loops or a more advanced decision-making stage.
mats support the construction of a shared un-
derstanding. Intuitive and interactive elements make visual
• Feedback loops and interactions contribute to formats more effective at triggering essential
the creation of an evolving narrative through- conversations on new action plans or project pro-
out the process. posals. Software and online resources can pro-
• Keeping track of that narrative facilitates the vide several options to foster exchange and inter- Webinars serve as an interactive mechanism for
anchoring and consolidation of the main result. action but also provide a practical mechanism to sharing data representations and full narratives
• Information regarding next steps for both the analyse indicators and facilitate decision making. through knowledge visualisation.

Chapter 4 Challenge-led System Mapping

 75

Posters illustrate a single infographic or two to Dashboards allow users to explore dynamic Online platforms such as Miro, Kumu or EIT
showcase overall results or complex elaborations analyses of multiple variables as part of a series Climate KIC Exaptive facilitate the interactive
for systems such as socio-technical network of inquiries, representations of a collection of dif- dialogue as part of a community of practice nar-
maps. ferent tools and dimensions of system elements, rative. They could be used to participate autono-
timeframes and rankings. mously or as part of group-coached sessions in
which team facilitation skills are critical.
Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 4
 Network maps can be tools for practitioners to better understand
their socio-technical systems. Social network analysis (SNA) is the process
of investigating socio-technical structures by using networks and graph
theory. The application of social network analysis as a participatory
visualisation method seeks to bring analysts and actors together to co-
produce a system map.

Chapter 5

Network Analysis as a
participatory visualisation method
In this chapter :
• Networks maps as analytical tools
• Key elements for network analysis and interpretation
 Network maps as analytical tool

Social network analysis (SNA) can provide a System mapping with network maps can be an
new framework for understanding systems by iterative learning process that evolves along
highlighting interrelationships and the role of time through combining processes of harvesting
different actors. data and understanding the pattern of relations
between different elements. Interactions with
Network maps can be used to visualise the stakeholders and feedback loops also bring new
socio-technical systems by representing the insights and redirect conversations to focus on
relationships between actions and stakeholders the local challenge (See Chapter 4 Step 4 Visual-
embedded in the system. Interactions between ization and communication).
different actors (i.e. business, academic, society
etc.) around a collection of projects related to a
Figure X illustrates the learning by doing jour-
knowledge area or subsystem (i.e. low emission
ney among several interactions during a system
buildings, energy demand, mobility etc.) can be
mapping process for mobility system in Bologna
analysed as clusters.
and Modena during 2015: January (1), April (2),
78 May (3) and October (4). The sequence shows
Network maps applied to socio-technical
the variations in the visualization formats coming
systems can help to analyse change and system
from feedbacks, reinterpretations and highlights
dynamics over time (see figure), as well as
of a variety of network aspects such as structure,
comparable elements of subsystems within and
scales and clusters.
between cities or regions.

Using network maps – starting with the This chapter is aimed to provide a simple visual
basic information about a project and related explanation of the set of concepts and key ele-
organisations – the system mapping process can ments of networks maps that can help practi-
capture key systemic dimensions, such as: tioners to apply and easily manage network anal-
ysis as a participatory visualisation method.
• the engagement level of different actors;
• brokering relations and governance configura-
tions;
• the systemic business model;
• sectoral and knowledge specialisation;
• financial and procurement models; and
• active policy and regulatory frameworks. Figure XX: Several Rounds of Network Mapping –
Bologna/Modena Mobility Cluster 2015

Chapter 5 Challenge-led System Mapping

 Network maps: key elements

Network maps can facilitate the understanding System mapping seeks to provide an analytical
of socio-technical systems in cities and regions, space for understanding the role of network ac-
applying a system innovation approach to aid tors and their attributes and relationships. It also
interaction between different thematic clusters, seeks to understand levers of change, such as
such as buildings, mobility, circular economy, sus- policy, skills, technology and market elements.
tainable land use and energy networks. In this section, science-based explanations re-
garding network maps and clusters are provided
Challenge-led system mapping offers a in simple language. This is intended to aid practi-
participatory approach, enabling a learning pro- tioners in challenge-solving situations. Some key
cess that unites local actors and experts. To- elements to understanding network maps and
gether they can co-create network maps of so- clusters are:
cio-technical subsystems, which take the form
of thematic clusters. Critical concepts from the • nodes and attributes;
sociology of innovation, such as diversity and re- • links and ties;
lationship brokering, can also be considered in the • structural holes and brokers;
analysis of the system configuration. • density and proximity. 79

This methodology seeks to be different to the

The following definitions have been reinterpret-
traditional cluster approach, which is focused on
ed and adapted from their original technical and
technological distinctiveness. Instead it looks at
academic background with the purpose of pro-
subsystem configurations, enabling comparison
viding practice-based knowledge and facilitating
between them and thus providing analytical el-
its application.
ements by which to identify the actors who can
facilitate pathways for system transition.

The participatory process entails a combination

of bottom-up exercises (stakeholder mapping)
and the application of social network analysis as
a top-down complement. The latter draws on in-
formation gathered from workshops as well as
and secondary information from projects, actions
and other activities implemented at the system
level (e.g. city or region).

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 5

 Network maps and clusters: nodes & attributes

In socio-technical mapping, nodes are the el-

ements of a network represented by polygons.
They can depict stakeholders (of different types
and levels) or projects and actions (as illustrated
by the circles in the figure). Most networks com-
prise different structures in which a central actor
is working as a main or central node to connect
all of them. Stakeholders or projects connecting
the network with nearby actors can draw new
ideas and resources to the network.

80 Attributes are the characteristics which de-

scribe the stakeholders and the actions (differ-
ent shapes and colours). Projects can take place
in specific sectors or arenas in which they seek to
innovate, e.g. low-emission buildings and energy
demand management (blue and green, respec-
tively).

Chapter 5 Challenge-led System Mapping

 Network maps: links & ties

Links describe flows between nodes, repre-

senting information or financial resources, for ex-
ample. The flow direction can be unilateral (emit-
ter and recipient) or bidirectional if relationships
are reciprocal. The strength of the link can be rep-
resented according to some magnitude or index.
For instance, social capital or financial means. In
visual representations, the number of links of a
node is also represented by node size: the more
links a node has, the bigger it is.

Ties have the function of bringing together ac- 81

tors through links. They can vary in direction
or strength. Actors who have multiple ties are
more representative of the resources within the
network, while those considered weak, i.e. with
fewer representations in a network, are useful
for connecting the network to other groups. This
is because they are able to span more than one
sphere of relations without their presence within
the network affecting certain inter-group rela-
tions with regard to resources or attributes (see
structural holes).

Ties can be classified as direct or indirect, re-

flecting whether actors can be linked to others
through third parties.

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 5

 Network maps: structural holes & brokers

Structural holes refer to a lack of links in a

network. Without that connection the network is
disarticulated/divided. If we simulate a connec-
tion (see Brokers) we can identify potential links.

Brokerage is a means of allowing isolated or

unconnected actors or groups of actors to share
information and resources. This promotes great-
er economical, political and social interaction be-
tween these actors and the rest of the network.

82 The broker may connect isolated areas of a net-

work and is therefore the only one to access in-
formation and resources (attributes) from differ-
ent areas.

Chapter 5 Challenge-led System Mapping

 Network maps: brokerage typology

Stakeholders can develop brokerage relations not only in their own projects but Itinerant. This broker facilitates the
also in different arenas or knowledge areas. They can affect the variety of re- connection between different groups of
sources they manage between these arenas. projects. To put it another way, they con-
nect different knowledge areas. The broker
belongs to both groups and manages the
communication between them. In the fig-
ure, Stakeholder A is part of projects 1 and
Coordinator. This type of broker
2 (green arena) as well as project 3 (blue
plays the role of connector between
arena). Stakeholder A connects the blue are-
projects or groups of projects belong-
na (from which it receives resources) with
ing to the same arena. The coordinator
projects 1 and 2 of the green arena (which
manages bilateral flows equally among
it provides resources), acting as an itinerant
all projects. In the figure, Broker A con-
between them.
nects three projects (1, 2 and 3).
Liaison. This broker serves as a hub,
enabling ties between projects from 83
different groups to which the stake-
holder does not belong. In the figure,
Stakeholder A connects three distinct
groups.
Gatekeeper. This broker controls
the information or resources enter-
ing the groups it is a part of. It decides
whether the unconnected actors in the Representative. This type of bro-
groups have access to information or ker is a stakeholder belonging to differ-
resources from the outside. ent groups of projects but represent-
ing only one of them in the case of an
In the figure, Stakeholder A is part of exchange between them. In the figure,
the projects of multiple groups. Proj- Stakeholder A is part of the green group
ect 3 (blue arena) offers resources to (projects 1 and 2). Project 3 receives
Stakeholder A, who is also part of a resources or information from Stake-
different group (green arena, projects 1 holder A and is part of a different group
and 2). In this case, Stakeholder A acts (blue). In this case, Stakeholder A acts
as gatekeeper of the green arena. as a representative of the green group
when dealing with project 3.

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 5

 Network maps: density & proximity

Density represents the degree to which the net-

work is populated, i.e. the number of relations
within it. The connectedness of a socio-technical
system – the proportion of links in relation to the
total possible number of connections – reflects
the quality and health of the whole system.
If there are 20 people participating in a group, each
person could potentially connect to 19 others. A
density of 100% (19/19) is the greatest density
possible in the system. By contrast, a density of
5% would indicate that only 1 out of 19 possible
connections has been made.

Proximity. The concept of proximity usually re-

84 fers to geographical proximity. However, in so-
cio-technical networks, other forms of proximity
exist: institutional, organisational, cultural, social
or technical. Different actors can gain access to
resources – knowledge or interactions – through
each other. In social networks, proximity is deter-
mined by how ‘close’ nodes are to each other in
terms of their relations and project attributes. In
socio-technical systems, a group of actors work-
ing on a common project within the same arena
indicates a high level of proximity, which is repre-
sented visually by the length of the link.

Based on these definitions, a cluster in a so-

cio-technical system can be described in terms of
the agglomeration (density) of similar actors and
projects positioned closely together (proximity) in
the same arena.

Chapter 5 Challenge-led System Mapping

 Gaining a deeper understanding of social network analysis

Network modes Network centrality How can we measure centrality?

Social networks are representations of Network analysis uses the concept of Closeness centrality: this relates to Betweenness centrality: this relates
systems in which the elements (nodes) centrality to describe the way that an ac- the average length of the path between to the structurally advantaged position
are connected by links. Most networks tor is embedded in a relational network. In one node and another. Actors who can of being between other actors and acting
are defined as one-node networks (Fig. other words, to describe the related con- reach others at shorter proximity, or who as a bridge. In the star network, Actor A
A) with sets of nodes that are like each straints and opportunities of its structur- are more reachable by other actors at a is advantaged as it lies between all other
other. al position. Actors in a favourable position shorter proximity, have favoured posi- pairs of actors in the network. As such,
can achieve better bargains in exchanges, tions. In the star network, Actor A is more there are no actors between A and any
However, some networks are in fact
exert greater influence and receive great- powerful than the others as it is closer to other. In the circle network, each actor lies
two-mode networks (Fig. B). These
er deference from less favourably posi- more actors than any other. between each other pair of actors, such
networks are a particular kind, with two
tioned actors. The three simple systems that all actors are equally advantaged or
different sets of nodes, and links which Degree centrality: this refers to the
below illustrate how a given structural disadvantaged. In the line network, the
can exist between nodes with different
attributes.
location can be advantageous or disad- number of links that one node has with end points (A and G) do not lie between 85
vantageous to actors. the others. The more links an actor has, any pairs and thus have no brokering
the more power they (may) have. In the power. Actors closer to the middle of the
star network, Actor A has more opportu- chain lie on more pathways among pairs
nities and alternatives than other actors and are thus at an advantage.
and is thus at a clear advantage in the
star network. In the circle network, each
actor has the same number of alternative
trading partners (or node degrees), so all
positions are equally advantaged or dis-
advantaged. In line networks, the actors
at the end of the line (A and G in this ex-
ample) are at a structural disadvantage,
while the others are apparently equal.

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 5

 Tranformative Innovation policy
TIP Learning workshop
Brighton, May 2019

86
 Network analysis and interpretation

Network analysis is a statistical technique used

to understand how nodes (e.g., actors and proj-
ects in socio-technical maps) can be grouped
together according to the pattern of relation
between them or their shared characteristics
(attributes). It is an exploratory means of data
analysis that aims to sort nodes into groups
such that nodes of the same group have a high
degree of centrality.

Network composition
When analysing clusters, we look at the composi-
tion of the network (diversity) and the overall pat-
tern of relations between the different elements 87
(connectivity).

Diversity is defined as the balance, variety and

degree of difference between the nodes of a
network. Diversity can increase through com-
binations of increased variety, balance and/or
degree of difference with regard to node attri-
butes and size.

Variety describes an increased number of nodes

with different attributes. In a network, diversity
increases along with the increase in the number
of nodes with different attributes. The degree of difference refers to how differ- similarity can be built upon the attributes and
ent nodes are within a cluster in terms of attri- brokerage relations. In the socio-technical sys-
Balance refers to the distribution of nodes in butes and size. tem, this can indicate the extent to which actors
terms of their size. Diversity increases along with and projects are articulated and integrated to the
the increase in balance between node size distri- Connectivity indicates the intensity of similari- benefit of system functionality.
bution. ty relations between nodes in a network, where

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 5

 Understanding network formats Given these constraints, combining network di-
versity (top-down) and network connectivity
A network can be interpreted and analysed by com- (bottom-up) offers perspective with regard to
bining diversity and connectivity to track network the tracking of knowledge integration.
integration in the form of clusters within social-tech-
nical systems.

The concept of connectivity can aid in the analy-

sis of the level of integration in a cluster: one can
identify how compact a configuration is based
on the level of density in the general structure.
Integration in a socio-technical system can be a
dynamic process driven by the diversity of ele-
88 ments in terms of different actors, such as gov-
ernment, industry, business, academic and civil
society working together on projects, combining
multiple capacities and areas of knowledge. As a Low connectivity and high diversity
dynamic process, a cluster could experiment with
a process to increase diversity and/or connectiv- The network above is composed of a high diver-
ity and thus arrive at a new network format. By sity of actors with different characteristics (at-
following this logic, the combination of different Diversity facilitates the under- tributes), stakeholders and projects, all of which
levels (i.e. low and high) of connectivity and diver- standing of the full range of ex- contribute to enabling and shaping the relations
in the socio-technical system and the clusters.
sity can produce four different scenarios. The fig- isting activities, stakeholders and
ure on the right of this page provides a schematic thematic areas in the socio-tech-
representation of this perspective. Here, a broker with a potentially high degree
nical system. of centrality is the main link for all the projects.
Knowledge integration is a dynamic process Connectivity indicates the de- For example, this might be a national NGO act-
characterised by diversity and increases in con- gree to which individual initiatives ing as a coordinator of multiple projects. How-
nectivity. In other words, it is a process in which link together following a coherent ever, connectivity is very low given the lack of
previously different and disconnected nodes be- underlying system. relations between projects, indicating potential
come related. structural holes.

Chapter 5 Challenge-led System Mapping

 89

High connectivity and high diversity Low connectivity and low diversity High connectivity and low diversity
This network shows significant diversity in This network features very similar elements, such This network presents a configuration with very
terms of the characteristics (attributes) of its as actors with similar characteristics (attributes) similar elements and a high level of connectivity,
actors and projects. It describes a socio-tech- and projects belonging to the same area of knowl- which can indicate a good level of density and prox-
nical system that integrates multiple sectors edge or technology. imity. This format could describe a specific industri-
working in multiple knowledge areas, technolo- al sector or network whose relations and resource
gies and actions. Connectivity is low here; potential structural holes flows (e.g., knowledge, technologies) are very ho-
can be found. For example, this might relate to a lo- mogeneous and specialised.
Connectivity is also high, here: nodes are high- cal company running specific projects with provid-
ly interconnected, creating a high-density net- ers and customers who form a local network. The This configuration might relate to an EU R&D net-
work. For example, this might relate to an urban company plays the role of coordinator but could also work specialised in a particular sector, such as
innovation agency that participates in multiple serve as a gatekeeper for managing the resources graphene, with companies and academic/research
projects and whose partners form a consolida- of its own projects. centres actively collaborating to share similar re-
ted network. sources.

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 5

 A practical exemples of network
interpretation

The challenge-led system mapping approach

suggests a socio-technical system as the starting
point, where nodes are actions and stakeholders.
Analysis and interpretation may vary significantly
from case to case due to the variety of inputs (i.e.
the amount and type of available data and cate-
gories).

The following example concerns the Sustainable

Mobility Cluster in Bologna. Network maps have
three attributes: knowledge proximity (technol-
90 ogy and sectors), geographical proximity (cities
where they are implemented) and governance
configuration (governmental levels). The size of
the action nodes indicates the financial scale.
Some simple interpretations concerning broker-
age relations are presented to provide a concrete
example of the type of analysis that can be made
based on this setup. Map 1. Socio-technical network
of Bologna/Modena transport
cluster by knowledge area
The initial overview of a network map should focus
on the amount and distribution of elements. Map
1 presents several actions categorised into three Brokerage relations can be interpreted by taking • The agency AESS Modena plays the role
knowledge areas (integrated mobility, low carbon one node as the starting point and from there an- of itinerant by facilitating the connection
vehicles, others). It shows a medium level of con- alysing its potential relation with other notes. For between stakeholders from two different
nectivity, with some central nodes having multiple example: knowledge areas (B).
connections. In terms of distribution, most of the • The Municipality of Bologna plays the role
actions are categorised under integrated mobility, of liaison with three projects, connecting
while the stakeholders are mostly categorised as knowledge and relation sources from three
business and government. different areas (A). It thus serves as a hub.

Chapter 5 Challenge-led System Mapping

Map 2 shows the same actions categorised by city of
implementation. Certain roles can be identified:

• The Emilia Romagna Region (regional

government) plays the role of representative
of its projects (C) in relation to projects
implemented in Modena. It connects
projects from different groups. The regional
government can also play the role of
gatekeeper in relation to projects that are
not connected to other stakeholders in
Bologna (D), controlling incoming information
and resources. This can also be seen as a
structural hole, which could decouple the
network into separated areas.
91
• The municipality of Modena can play a
major role in the coordination of actions
implemented in the city (E).

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 5

 Supporting questions Bias and contextual factors

Results and elements from the different Network analysis is a powerful method to
workshops can be used to facilitate a describe and analyse sets of units by focusing on
conversation around the network maps. The their interrelationships.
following questions can serve as triggers for
that conversation: The risk of bias is significant in terms of the scope
• Are there any stakeholders missing? and coverage of the system analysis and it can
not be fully mitigated through feedback loops
• Can we integrate a new actor into an existing
with practitioners and challenge owners.
activity?
• Which actions could be combined to move Some contextual factors may be conditioners
forward with a technology or project? for mapping networks and should therefore be
• Can we use existing actions to design a new considered in order to avoid or mitigate bias.
pilot or experiment? • Language is a common barrier while mapping
92
• Are these actions already connected to actions in terms of perspectives coming
regional priorities or strategic action plans? from a variety of actors, such as business,
• How can a connection be made (e.g. a new academia or government.
project, pilot or experiment)? • Regional loyalties are relevant to the
• Which are the clear areas of specialisation? definition of centrality and brokerage
relationships.
• Are there any missing resources, such as
knowledge and technology, required for a • Shared ideologies and experiences can affect
system perspective (e.g. IT elements for sets of actions or entire sectors such that
Smart cities strategy)? Which ones? the map will be biased.

• Can we bring that knowledge from an • Common or differing interests can serve
existing local stakeholder? to create conflicting views with regard to
innovation actions and the roles of different
• Is there a system integrator that plays a major
actors.
role in the system? If not, do we need one?

Chapter 5 Challenge-led System Mapping

Circular economy - Joint programming
H2020 CICERONE
Berlin, November 2019
93
 In this, the final pages of the handbook, we have reached the final
compilation of lesson learnt on system mapping. You have navigated
the system mapping process from challenge definition to blueprints and
knowledge visualisation techniques. Now, we will bring the last reflection
about the user can take this forward by highlighting some insights from a
service-oriented perspective..

Epilogue

The challenge ahead

 Knowledge as a service experiences on system mapping. The
whole learning process was driven
by the motivation of creating new
Contributing to the understanding of complex
interfaces between applied science,
socio-technical systems has been the main
policy and practice.
motivation throughout the years of work that
has led to the birth of this handbook. The
In doing so, a knowledge service logic
significant amount and variety of current and
has been introduced as a response to the
potential events that challenge the sustainability
challenges of multiple practitioners such as
of our modus vivendi make, now more than ever,
professionals, business managers and civil
collective mapping and analysis a critical step to
servants for combining technical assistance with
explore transformative mechanisms towards
expert advice and horizontal interactions with the
system innovation.
purpose of achieving a collective understanding
of socio-technical systems as part of the co-
There is a risk that cities and regions seeking
design process for a portfolio of transformative
96 to understand, combat and adapt to these
activities.
multiple challenges will not capture the relevant
knowledge. Efforts to understand the complexity
The focus on practitioners’ challenges and
of those systems can be paradoxically superficial
co-design process as guiding principles
in a world where there is a real abundance of
emphasise the importance of reconnecting
databases and peer facilitation assistance.
with practitioners needs, policy context
Meaningful conversations may not be translated
and assets that are already available in the
into knowledge, or that knowledge could be lost
society. Participation as a mechanism helps
or decontextualised.
to get a grip on a common understanding of
the society needs and define actions of change.
Therefore, there is a growing need to capitalize
on lessons learned through easy and ready-
to-use methods that facilitate the exchange,
and adaptation of existing knowledge while
co-creating actionable knowledge with the aim
of being able to apply it in new contexts. This
handbook has been built upon the curation
of lessons learnt extracted through multiple

Chapter 5 Challenge-led System Mapping

 Towards a practitioner centred potential, strengthening the delivery of services
perspective in their environment, while also encouraging the
strengthening of close links between participants
from these communities of practice.
Practitioners needs have been the main input
Moreover, a key part of these services is the
to understand how we can better systematize
implicit set of skills of practitioners who face
and make explicit some essential issues such as
these challenges, which includes the component
interactions with challenge owners by
of “service delivery”, including project and
taking into account the mistakes made,
community management as well as service
the lessons learned, the feedback and
interactions to enable the best customer
advice received as part of tailored-made
experience.
knowledge services.

We hope that the reader will draw out the lessons 97

With all this, we have gained practical
learned and concepts from this new material,
experience on providing effective guidance
continuing this loop of knowledge transfer,
on system mapping that has allowed us
learning that can be applied in their environment,
to move forward co-creating successfully
promoting understanding, adaptation and
actionable knowledge with communities
transformation to address the growing impact
seeking to initiate actions and steer towards
of climate change on their environment.
set targets as part of their own policy plans.

Communities of practice that may show interest

in the experiential content systematized in
this handbook will do so precisely because of
the potential for integration and combination
with their own background in specific areas of
applied knowledge. It is precisely the sum of the
content of this handbook and their expertise
that should increase their own transformative

Challenge-led System Mapping Chapter 5

 References

Berkhout, F. (2002). Technological regimes, path dependency and the environment. Gould, R. V., & Fernandez, R. M. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to
Global Environmental Change, 12(1), 1–4. brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 89–126.
Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Uni-
in social networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432–445. versity of California Riverside.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software Hoornweg, D. (2011). Cities and climate change: responding to an urgent agenda.
for social network analysis. World Bank Publications.
Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the Kemp, R., & Rotmans, J. (2005). The management of the co-evolution of technical, environmen-
social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895. tal and social systems. In Towards environmental innovation systems (pp. 33–55). Springer.
Burns, D. (2007). Systemic Action Research: A strategy for whole system change. Pol- Kindon, S., Pain, R., & Kesby, M. (2008). Participatory action research. Elsevier.
icy Press. Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: a pre-
Burt, R. S. (2003). The social structure of competition. Networks in the Knowledge scriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance, 23(1), 161–183.
Economy, 13–56. Lutters, W. G., Ackerman, M. S., Boster, J., & McDonald, D. W. (2000). Mapping knowl-
Camara, S., & Abdelnour-Nocera, J. (2013). Revealing the socio-technical context of edge networks in organizations: creating a knowledge mapping instrument. AMCIS
design settings: toward participatory IS design. International Journal of Human-Com- 2000 Proceedings, 315.
puter Interaction, 29(4), 289–307. Matti, C. (2009). Diversity, complexity and sustainable transport. What factors and
Conway, S., Jones, O., & Steward, F. (2001). Realising the potential of the network per- interactions determine a resilience system? Presented at the XV Congreso Latino-
98 spective in researching social interaction and innovation. Social Interaction and Or- americano de Transporte Público y Urbano, Buenos Aires.
ganisational Change: Aston Perspectives on Innovation Networks, Imperial College Matti, C. (2015). The Spanish wind energy rise. Pathways of knowledge creation with-
Press, London, 1–40. in a multilevel environmental governance system (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Uni-
Conway, S., & Steward, F. (1998). Mapping innovation networks. International Journal versity of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
of Innovation Management, 2(02), 223–254. Matti, C. (2016). Socio-technical transitions - a system innovation approach for ur-
De Vicente Lopez, J., & Matti, C. (2016). Visual toolbox for system innovation. A re- ban and regional practitioners . Report on RIS-Transitions cities workshop (Internal
source book for practitioner to map, analyze and facilitate sustainability transitions. Climate KIC document).
Brussels: Climate KIC. Matti, C. (2017). Knowledge Intensive Business Services. The Transition Hub model
Emmel, N. (2008). Participatory mapping: an innovative sociological method, Toolkit on knowledge creation and participatory capacity building process (Internal technical
03. Retrieved from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/540 report). Brussels: Climate-KIC Transitions Hub.
Frantzeskaki, N., & De Haan, H. (2009). Transitions: Two steps from theory to policy. Matti, C., Bauer, A., Altena, T., & Tuinenburg, P. (2016). New practices for development
Futures, 41(9), 593–606. of urban Cleantech strategies based in collectively constructed notion of system in-
Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration process- novation. Presented at the 11th Regional Innovation Policies Conference, Cardiff, UK.
es: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8), 1257–1274. Matti, C., Bauer, A., Granell Ruiz, R., & Fernandez, D. (2017). Challenge-led participato-
Geels, F. W. (2011). The role of cities in technological transitions: analytical clarifica- ry approach to foster territorial sustainability strategies. Presented at the Practicing
tions and historical examples. Cities and Low Carbon Transitions, 13–28. the Commons. XVI Biennale IASC-Conference, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T., & Sorrell, S. (2017). Sociotechnical transi- Matti, C., Huck, A., Steward, F., & Weber, M. (2016). Challenge-led and Participatory
tions for deep decarbonization. Science, 357(6357), 1242–1244. Learning Processes to Facilitate Urban Strategies for Innovation on Low Carbon Fu-
tures. Presented at the Changing Patterns of Territorial Policy: Smart Specialisation & Steward, F. (2016). Transition cities - User manual (Climate KIC Internal reports).
Innovation in Europe, Seville. Stirling, A. (1998). On the economics and analysis of diversity. Science Policy Research
Matti, C., & Juan Agulló, B. (2017). Methodological guidelines. Green Innovation@ Unit (SPRU), Electronic Working Papers Series, Paper, 28, 1–156.
Schools. Version v1.0. Transitions Hub, Climate-KIC. Stirling, A. (2007). A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology
Matti, C., & Rietdorf, C. (2017). Smart learning environments responding to Climate and society. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 4(15), 707–719.
Change. Evidence on the development of practice-based knowledge in a European Stirling, A. (2010). Multicriteria diversity analysis: a novel heuristic framework for ap-
professional education initiative. Presented at the Euroepan Conference on Educa- praising energy portfolios. Energy Policy, 38(4), 1622–1634.
tion, Brighton, UK.
Stovel, K., & Shaw, L. (2012). Brokerage. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 139–158.
Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., & Loorbach, D. (2013). Urban Transition Labs:
Stringer, E. T. (2013). Action research. Sage Publications.
co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion, 50, 111–122. Ulli-Beer, S. (2013). Conceptual grounds of socio-technical transitions and gover-
nance. In Dynamic Governance of Energy Technology Change (pp. 19–47). Springer.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing cli-
mate and global change. Water Resources Management, 21(1), 49–62. Van de Kerkhof, M., & Wieczorek, A. (2005). Learning and stakeholder participation in
transition processes towards sustainability: Methodological considerations. Techno-
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and
logical Forecasting and Social Change, 72(6), 733–747.
multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental
Change, 19(3), 354–365. Vielba, C. A. (2001). Cities in Transition: New Challenges, New Responsibilities Edit-
ed by BERNHARD BLANKE and RANDALL SMITH. Local Government Studies, 27(1),
Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of inter- 99
136–137.
disciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82(2), 263–287.
Rambaldi, G., Corbett, J., Olson, R., McCall, M., Muchemi, J., Kyem, P. K., … Chambers, R.
(2006). Mapping for change: practice, technologies and communication. Participatory
Learning and Action, 54, 1–13.
Raven, R., Schot, J., & Berkhout, F. (2012). Space and scale in socio-technical transi-
tions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 4, 63–78.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry
and practice. Sage.
Sartorius, C. (2006). Second-order sustainability—conditions for the development
of sustainable innovations in a dynamic environment. Ecological Economics, 58(2),
268–286.
Schiffer, E., & Hauck, J. (2010). Net-Map: collecting social network data and facilitating
network learning through participatory influence network mapping. Field Methods,
22(3), 231–249.
Steward, F. (2012). Transformative innovation policy to meet the challenge of climate
change: sociotechnical networks aligned with consumption and end-use as new
transition arenas for a low-carbon society or green economy. Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, 24(4), 331–343.
Challenge-led System Mapping. A knowledge management approach
Handbook for the design and implementation of participatory system mapping processes in sustainability transitions

Edited by EIT Climate-KIC Transitions Hub

Coordination and Edition Transitions Hub

Cristian Matti Cristian Matti, Transitions Hub Lead & Research Fellow, Copernicus
Institute for Sustainable Development – Utrecht University
Authors Irene Vivas Lalinde, Project Officer
Cristian Matti José Manuel Martin Corvillo, Participatory Methods Expert
José Manuel Martin Corvillo Blanca Juan Agulló, Researcher Assistant
Irene Vivas Lalinde Eusebiu Stamate, Research Assistant
Blanca Juan Agulló
Eusebiu Stamate
Gianluca Avella, Coach and Project Officer AESS Modena
Alice Bauer, Research Fellow, Kassel University
Graphic Design
Scientific Advisor Trafika Ideas, Graphic Tree & Tipik
Fred Steward, Policy Studies Institute, Westminster University and
Imperial College Copy Editor
Jonathan Beaton
Acknowledgements External experts
This handbook has only been possible with the support, enthusiasm and Gabrierl Rissola, JRC Scientific Officer
bravery for experimentation of partners, external experts, collaborators and Laurent Bontoux, JRC Scientific Officer
colleagues from the RIS Programme, and the Urban Transitions, Sustainable Ricardo Barranco, JRC Scientific Officer
Land Use, Education, Community Activation and Monitoring, Evaluation Damaris Fernandez, Trinity College Dublin & EIT Raw Materials
and Learning teams as well as Transition Cities, Circular Cities and H2020 Georg Hubmann, TU Berlin
CICERONE project. Thus, we would like to say thanks to those who have Mariyana Hamanova, Cleantech Bulgaria
joined us on this learning journey. Rafael Granell Ruiz, University of Valencia
Paul Tuinenburg, iDfuse
Waldo Galle, VITO Transition Platform
Joan Crespo, Utrecht University
EIT Climate KIC Corentin Girard Fundació Observatori del Canvi Climàtic
Tom Mitchell Luise Heidenreich Edgar Belver, University of Valencia
Cliona Howie Kathy Howitt Patricia Glabis Fuentes, University of Valencia
Julia Panny Verena Stecher Andreas Huck, TU Darmstadt University
Jon Bloomfield Rocio Armillas-Tiseyra Sergio Belda, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV)
Solveig Zophoniasdottir Sean Lockie Victoria Pellicer, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV)
Fabrizio Rossi Sandro Benz
Sarah Schepers, SPRU, University of Sussex
Valerio Bruschi Christine Roehrer
Charleyne Terry, 2EI Veolia
Annalisa Spalazzi Eliana Silva
Celsa Monrós Nanja Nagorny-Koring, Provadis
Giulio Quaggiotto
Maria Loloni Laura Nolan Apostolos Michopoulos, University of Cyprus
Aled Thomas Thomas Wagner Carolina Mateo Cecilia, IVE
Daniel Zimmer Valerie Fowles Sara Picone ASTER
Franceca Cappelano ENEA
Mariela Atanassova, technologist and innovator
Joan-Marc Joval, EIT Innoenergy
& others

101
Transition Cities project
This handbook is an updated version of the first guidelines co-produced by the Transitions Hub and the
Transition Cities project (2014-2017):
Matti, C., Stamate, E., Juan Agulló, B., Bauer, A., & Avella, G. (2017). Participatory socio-technical
mapping. Guideline for practitioners to design and implement a community-based process for
system mapping and analysis. Version 1.0. Brussels: EIT Climate-KIC.

That original material was complemented with additional chapters, updated sections, complementary
materials and new peer review processes.

Summary Transition Cities team

Climate KIC’s Transition Cities programme worked with the cities to Claudia Carani, Project coordination, AESS Modena
consider the challenge of climate change through a new challenge- Jon Bloomfield, Policy advisor, Birmingham University
led mode of innovation rather than a technology-driven one. It Fred Steward, Senior Scientific and Methodological Advisor
involved eight cities drawn from across Western, Eastern and Cristian Matti, Scientific and Methodological Advisor
Southern Europe in activities run from 2014 to 2017. Alongside Corentin Girard, Las Naves, Valencia
the development of a mapping approach drawing on insights from Luis Gargori, Castellon City Council
transition management thinking, the program’s stakeholders
Kinga Toth, Budapest Fovaros Onkormanyzata
explored the limitations of existing activities and tried to develop
Bartosz Filo, EIT Climate-KIC Poland.
pilot schemes and experiments that address some key gaps and
holes in their current low-carbon activity. Jackie Holman, Birmingham City Council
Hannes Utikal, Provadis School of International Management and
Technology, Frankfurt
Max Webber, Frankfurt Energy Agency, Frankfurt
Colin Nolden, Provadis, Frankfurt
103
This handbook is an illustrative example of our commitments to better
understand what we do, to harvest what we learn and to find different
ways to share it with the community

Transitions Hub
EIT Climate-KIC