Toolkit 4 – Strategies

The fourth stage is ‘convergent thinking’, where future potentials are linked to present actions.

Step (J): Pathway-mapping

A Synergistic Pathway is a kind of mental journey, which turns the potential synergies, from the previous 3 steps, towards realities. Such pathways often cross an uncertain landscape, with fuzzy destinations, conflict among travellers, and a lack of maps to follow. There are different levels:

• Mode-I pathways are often focused on functional or technical modelling: the Low-Carb City would use energy analysis, extended to economic or policy issues.
• Mode-II ‘smart’ transition pathways are more about evolution, innovation, incentives and competition: the Low-Carb City could use evolutionary economics.
• Mode-III ‘synergistic’ pathways explore the potential for social learning, co-creation, co-production, and the overall collective intelligence: the Low-Carb City would explore the potential for co-learning and co-creation for urban transformation.

Synergistic pathways, can be focused on actors, or factors. They can be focused on combinations of domains: a Low-Carb city driven by social valuation / ecological ethics.   The Deeper-City book shows many different types as examples of what can be useful.   Synergistic pathways adapt to uncertainties or risks across the STEEP range (social, technical, economic, political): they also respond to negative forces, such as corruption, alienation, hierarchy and others. For guidance we look for stepping stones, milestones, or signposts. Overall, a synergistic pathway is about the practicals of transformation, from ‘syndromes’ to ‘synergies’, and so is adaptable, improvised, collaborative, self-organizing and self-questioning.

For Low-Carb city: a social innovation pathway would look for community re-investment in greenspace & neighbourhood facilities. A financial pathway looks for financial innovation, social crowd-funding & inter-generational collateral. And so on.

Step (K): Road-mapping

Road-mapping follows, along with similar forms of strategic planning. A road-map generally works with more clear objectives and targets, more definition of actors and resources, and more specific ways to mobilize them. While ‘pathways’ generally point towards a 3^rd horizon of change, road-maps are more focused on the 1^stand 2^nd horizon. There may be uncertainties and contingencies to be resolved, but at least (in the jargon) these are ‘known unknowns’.

The wider uncertainties don’t come into road-maps too much, neither the darker factors of corruption or alienation. This highlights the contribution of synergistic thinking. The Mode-II and Mode-II forms of road-mapping are about tangible targets and actions, but they could fall down at the first unforeseen human factor or wild card. In contrast, a synergistic Mode-III type road-mapping focuses on these human factors of co-learning, co-creation and collective intelligence. It includes for corruption and alienation and the processes, better suited to bridging the aspiration-reality gap.

For the Low-Carb housing agenda: we need a detailed road-mapping with energy / emissions modelling: demographic or economic projections: and retrofit / construction schedules. A synergistic mode-III roadmap then shifts towards reality checks, e.g. fragmentation of housing stock, alienation of residents, or inertia of construction, and looks for responses.

Step (L): Management & Evaluation

Finally we get to the stage of policies, projects, decision-making and management. These are covered by countless business and management text-books, mainly with a linear mode-I ‘logical framework’ in mind. This generally assumes that we ‘pull a lever’, that objectives are clear, inputs and outputs are known, and outcomes can be measured. Policy and management is then about ‘cybernetic’ monitoring and adjustment: and the assessment and evaluation loops also assume a machine which is well-oiled. The Mode-II evolutionary approach is more focused on competition, innovation, entrepreneurs and incentives: smart psychology or behavioural economics are useful here, e.g. as in ‘nudge theory’.

In contrast a Mode-III co-evolutionary policy and management is more about co-learning and co-production, between policy-makers / managers, workers / suppliers, and stakeholders / users. A Mode-III business model and management style is more about relationships and communities, upstream and downstream. Likewise, Mode-III assessment and evaluation are not just about functional cause-effect – more about synergistic opportunities and transformation effects.

For the Low-Carb housing: to upgrade 1 million dwellings, we need Mode-I type construction schedules and skills profiles. We also need Mode-II type finance packages, procurement platforms and innovation competitions. We also need Mode-III actions, such as community energy companies, neighbourhood mentors, climate learning schemes and social co-production in public health or social enterprise.