Photo: Moa Karlberg/norden.org

2. How to govern urban transformation processes towards sustainability

2.1. Context governance for collaborative urban transformation and learning

Transformation processes within social systems cannot be effectively initiated through top-down mandates or isolated efforts. Transformative changes in cities as social systems must be organised in the sense of context governance, i.e. communication spaces and communication settings must be made available and allow new actors to couple with novel actions and inventions emerging in the process. Cooperation and decision-making processes take place here at eye level, i.e., that here - entirely in the sense of co-creation - governance develops further into joint co-steering processes. We call this form of steering “context governance”. Which comes from Hemlut Wilkes (1998) approach of "context management". Context management positions itself neutrally with regard to change requirements (change neutrality), decision-makers/target groups (social neutrality) and with regard to content-related explanatory models and solution approaches (construct neutrality). The decision thus always remains with the municipal project manager and the project members of the municipality. Context governance should serve as a framework that enables cities to manage complex, transformative projects and processes in ways that are responsive to local social and institutional conditions. Unlike traditional governance models that often prioritize top-down decision-making and fixed hierarchies, context governance is characterized by its flexibility, inclusivity, and adaptability. It encourages cities to work collaboratively with diverse stakeholders, such as local government officials, researchers, community organizations, and private entities, to co-create solutions that address the unique challenges of their urban environments.

The success of context governance relies on the flexibility and redefinition of roles within urban governance. Traditional roles of public administrators, researchers, and local leaders are expanded to include responsibilities as co-creators, facilitators, and learners. For example, public administration is encouraged to act also as a mediator, bridging different interests ‘with a view to the city's overall system’ and thus supporting cooperative decision-making. Similarly, researchers are expected to go beyond the purely academic role and become engaged systemic advisors who develop and co-steer social and temporal architectures for change with community project members who collaborate with local stakeholders in the design, testing, and implementation of transformative strategies. Role flexibility enables stakeholders to adapt their contributions based on the evolving needs of the project, creating a more resilient and responsive governance structure that is better equipped to address the complexities of urban transformation.

2.1.1. Six principles for context governance

The concept of context governance is rooted in constructivist theory (H.v. Förster, H. Willke, G. Schmidt, F. Simon), to support transformative urban development. By cultivating a systemic worldview, acknowledging the “black box” nature of human processing and reactions, and prioritizing learning and reflection among all, context governance fosters a deeper, shared understanding of transformation goals. It also stresses the importance of continuous dialogue between innovative “niches” and established “regimes” and encourages participants to adopt a certain distance from their everyday roles. Together, these six principles form the foundation for creating supportive contexts where transformation can unfold:

Transformation processes need a systemic world view. Transformation managers and counsellors need to adopt a systemic worldview that focuses on relational thinking and the integration of contradictions, rather than a mechanistic, linear approach. This worldview recognizes that observers are part of the system and that multiple perspectives can coexist, emphasizing contextual thinking over rigid truths.
Processing and reactions originate from a “black box”. Transformation processes involve non-trivial, unpredictable human systems. This principle implies that behaviour is shaped by complex internal dynamics and history, rather than simple cause-and-effect relationships. It is therefore important to design contexts that facilitate change rather than attempting to control outcomes directly.
Transformation processes need the learning of all participants. Successful transformation requires learning by all involved parties, including top management, advisors, and stakeholders. Systemic change can only occur when participants are open to self-reflection and to questioning established communication and relationship patterns within the system.
Transformation processes need context governance by managers and advisors. Managers and advisors play a crucial role in shaping contexts that make learning and adaptation possible. This involves creating “transformation rooms” where stakeholders can engage in mutual learning and innovation. These spaces provide the structure and support needed for transformative leadership to flourish.
Transformation processes need continuous dialogue between niche and regime. Transformation requires an ongoing dialogue between the “niche” (innovative initiatives or practices) and the “regime” (established systems). Transformation rooms foster this dialogue, facilitating an understanding of both the potential and limitations of these worlds to enable sustainable change.
Transformation as a learning process requires role distance of all participants. For systemic change to occur, participants must temporarily step out of their everyday roles, allowing them to experiment with new ways of working and thinking within transformation spaces. This “role distance” enables joint learning processes that challenge ingrained patterns, making context-sensitive transformation possible.

These principles provide an approach for establishing “transformation rooms” that allow stakeholders, such as decision-makers, civil servants, transformation managers, researchers and advisors, to engage in sustained, context-sensitive change efforts.

2.2. The Transformation Room as a framework for transformative projects in cities

The transformation room refers to the governance of the transformation processes in the ULL (or other transformation projects). This framework goes beyond traditional governance structures by creating an adaptive ”counseling system” that links diverse stakeholders—including researchers, municipal authorities, and community members—within a structured, yet flexible, space for co-learning and co-creation. Transformation Rooms are designed to foster ”context governance,” enabling a multidimensional approach where learning, dialogue, and experimentation can occur collaboratively at the intersection of niche (innovative) and regime (established) actors.

Key Functions of the Transformation Room

At its core, the Transformation Room acts as a learning space for projects aimed at tackeling complex challenges such as combating climate change. It serves as a space where the stakeholders can engage in joint, experiential learning processes. This environment should be carefully architected to facilitate transformative learning that goes beyond routine operational activities. By clearly distinguishing the Transformation Room from everyday business routines, it provides a dedicated framework for addressing complex urban issues that require innovative, context-sensitive solutions.

Within the Transformation Room cooperation is promoted through a "co-steering" approach, where governance evolves into a process of co-creation. This allows for decision-making processes that operate on an equal level among participants, thereby breaking down traditional hierarchical barriers. By establishing roles and structures specifically for these collaborative processes, Transformation Rooms provide the organizational backbone necessary for transformative governance.

Figure 1: Transformation Room / Counselling System (Source: Roswitha Königswieser and Axel Exner 1998; Doris Wilhelmer TANGO-W project 2024)

As shown in Figure 1, the Transformation Room operates with the guidance of systemic consultants who support the learning and transformation processes and connects the "client system" (city stakeholders, including municipal officials and local organizations) with the "consultant system" (expert advisors and process facilitators). This setup enables both systems to serve as environments for each other, fostering knowledge exchange and co-creation of solutions. Through this coupling, the Transformation Room becomes a space where mutual learning and innovative processes can thrive. The consultants (= transformative researchers) play a neutral, impartial role, facilitating interactions between niche innovators and established regime actors. Their role is crucial in managing the dynamics within the Transformation Room, enabling stakeholders to explore new ideas while maintaining a structured approach to change.

The Transformation Rooms promote a co-creative governance model where stakeholders engage in decision-making on an equal footing. This "co-steering" process reflects a form of soft governance, where traditional hierarchical structures are replaced with collaborative roles and rules that facilitate joint decision-making. This approach to governance emphasizes equal participation, enabling urban actors to address challenges in a coordinated and inclusive manner. Furthermore, the Transformation Room encourages people to adopt a certain "role distance," temporarily stepping away from their daily roles to engage in reflection and experimentation. This distance allows urban decision-makers, civil servants and researchers to challenge ingrained patterns and explore alternative governance strategies, fostering a space for innovation and systemic change that is sensitive to context. Role distance enables participants to engage in new forms of partnership and collaboration that are critical for successful transformation.

2.2.1. Two instruments for transformative governance within the Transformation Room

The design of a Transformation Room for a complex project or transformation processes includes two architectural elements—social and temporal—that support structured interventions. These elements pre-structure the transformation processes within for example research projects, providing fixed frameworks that foster spaces for learning and innovation. This enables stakeholders to introduce new perspectives, facilitate feedback loops, and experiment with novel governance practices in a controlled yet adaptable setting. These instruments enable the Transformation Room to accommodate the evolving needs of urban transformation processes, making them adaptable to local contexts and challenges.

Social Architecture

The social architecture establishes the roles, responsibilities, and communication pathways among stakeholders. This structure ensures that each person within a transformative project or process —ranging from municipal decision-makers to project managers and external consultants—has a defined function, fostering coordination and shared understanding. For example, typical roles within the social architecture include:

Settings	Function of settings of transformative architectures
Decision-making body	Deciding on interim results and concepts recommended by the project team.
Core Group/Steering Group (Extended project management)	Engine of the change process. Reflective and catalytic role in relation to new ideas and initiatives and stakeholder engagement. Contact point for concerns related to the transformation process. Sounding out and reflecting on culturally relevant discussions, moods, actions, and decisions in the organisation. Management function: Initiate necessary decisions and ensure operational implementation. Controlling function: Incorporating feedback loops into the procedure and evaluating how the change process is progressing, where problems arise and how to readjust. It has a client function for initiating sub-projects, a decision-making function, and an internal marketing function.
Project teams	Develop solutions, map and integrate the interests of the affected subsystems in the solutions. (Project team, sub-project teams, core/extended project team, working groups, etc.).
Sounding Board	Implemented by the steering group: “microcosm” – feedback from relevant stakeholders on half-finished concept fragments; advise project team; communicate project successes to the organisation. Resonance and feedback on the project. Can be a small group or large event.
Group of key decision maker	Feedback and resonance on the project – advising the steering group on the process. Acts as Intervention platform.
Advisory boards/Experts	Expert groups and advisory board. Representatives of relevant environments or subsystems or experts for specific, strategically relevant topics.
Information body	Staff meeting etc. Invited to understand, follow up and contribute to the implementation of the plan and outcomes.
Stakeholder forum	Obtain feedback from relevant environments (customer days, parliaments, key account events, etc.).

A visual representation of a social architecture for a project between cities and research organisations could look like the one shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Example of a Social Architecture D. Wilhelmer 2023

In practice, the social architecture enables these social groups to collaborate through organized meetings, workshops, and other formats. This engagement helps to clarify goals, address challenges, and ensure that all voices are heard in the decision-making process. Which brings us to the temporal architecture.

Temporal Architecture

The temporal architecture aligns the social architecture with a carefully planned timeline, breaking down the city’s goals into distinct phases and milestones. This architecture defines when and how often stakeholders should meet, which activities are prioritized at each stage, and the sequence of tasks. For instance, in a typical Transformation Room setup, the temporal architecutre may include:

Decision-making sessions involving the client and decision boards, scheduled at key points to approve next steps.
Preparatory activities conducted by project managers and expert groups to set up workshops and compile necessary information.
Workshops and meetings that bring together stakeholders to review progress, adapt strategies, and address any emerging issues.

This temporal architecture enables participants to focus on specific tasks without disrupting routine city functions, and it provides flexibility for adjustment as the project progresses.

In practice, the implementation of a temporal architecture initially involves the definition of milestones. These milestones act as central reference points to determine when which stakeholders should be involved and what specific goals their involvement should pursue. In doing so, the temporal sequences are defined to ensure effective coordination and targeted collaboration.

A graphical representation can be used to visualise this process, as shown in Figure 3. The stakeholders from the social architecture are mapped in such a way that their respective contributions and roles can be assigned to the individual milestones. To ensure a clear and concise representation, different symbols or colour coding are used to enable quick assignment and analysis of stakeholder activities.

Figure 3: Temporal Architecture Stockholm TANGO-W project (Source: D.Wilhelmer, 2023 TANGO-W project)

2.3. New role understanding needed to initiate and implement transformation processes in cities

Civil servants are the administrators of the public service, their roles are deeply embedded in the mechanisms of policy implementation and administrative management. Their work is inherently focussed on the operational and administrative. Researchers, on the other hand, are dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, whether through academic or applied research, and focus primarily on innovation, discovery and the expansion of knowledge.

The operational environment of the two functions reflects the contrasting nature of their work. Civil servants work within the structured boundaries of government policy and regulation, a world where procedures and compliance provide the framework for work. Researchers, on the other hand, work in an environment defined by the search for knowledge - in a space characterised by academic freedom, research and the pursuit of funding for scientific investigation. This distinction not only influences their daily activities, but also shapes their professional ethos and the freedoms and constraints within which they work.

Consultant researchers in the sense of context governance are required to understand the meaning and purpose of unfamiliar municipal processes in order to scrutinise their functionality and be able to use and adapt them for content-related and social transformations. Municipal project managers, on the other hand, are challenged to overcome existing prejudices towards internal colleagues and to gain an understanding of cycles of impact.

Cooperation experiences from the past determined mutual expectations in the present: What can I expect from the municipal project manager? What positive added value does the consultant researcher bring and what should I, as the municipal project manager, expect from them in the worst-case scenario during transformative shake-ups? Does the researcher have vested interests that are more important to him than the municipal transformation process? Neutral actions on the one hand can reactivate old experiences and trigger reflexive protective reactions on the other. Since, according to Schopenhauer, misunderstandings are the rule in communication and understanding is the exception, a lack of regular evaluation processes of current co-operation can lead to a build-up of mistrust and communication blockages over time.

Clarifying old role experiences and agreeing on a desirable role design thus becomes a central point of the mutual learning process.

New role requirements for civil servants

Civil servants are expected to move beyond routine administrative functions and assume roles as strategic coordinators. They focus on overseeing city-wide sustainability goals, ensuring that all transformation activities align with the broader vision of the city. This involves keeping an eye on the overall strategy and knowing which actors and resources need to be mobilized for specific transformation initiatives.
Civil servants play a critical role in breaking down silos within the city administration, promoting cross-departmental and cross-sectoral cooperation. They need to cultivate a multi-perspective approach that encourages diverse stakeholders to contribute, moving away from sector-specific solutions toward integrated strategies that address complex urban challenges.
Civil servants are encouraged to adopt a systemic perspective, allowing them to recognize, interrupt, and change entrenched communication patterns within city governance structures. This shift enables them to better understand the broader impact of local policies and adapt strategies based on feedback loops and the changing needs of urban systems.

New role requirements for researchers

Researchers are positioned as active participants in the transformation process, not just observers or analysts. They act as catalysts, bringing together diverse actors and creating “transformation architectures” that support cooperation and iterative feedback. This helps in developing widely accepted and sustainable solutions that can be effectively implemented within the urban system.
Rather than focusing solely on theoretical analysis, researchers engage in solution-oriented research that addresses real-world problems. Transformative researchers work with officials to develop and implement ULL governance structures, and their outsider perspective helps to overcome typical patterns of conflict and barriers in the community system, thus enabling new, substantive solutions.
Researchers also function as facilitators, creating and maintaining networks among diverse urban stakeholders. This role involves coordinating knowledge-sharing forums, workshops, and other activities that promote collaborative learning. Researchers help build and sustain a network of relationships that support the ongoing transformation efforts, fostering a culture of shared responsibility and co-creation.

Collaborative rules and structures

To effectively work together, both civil servants and researchers must operate within a framework of clearly defined rules that govern cooperation and decision-making. This structure helps in establishing mutual expectations, reducing friction, and creating an environment where both parties feel empowered to contribute constructively to transformation projects.

Transformation coalitions rely on regular feedback and reflection sessions where civil servants and researchers can assess the impact of their work. These sessions enable both parties to adjust their roles and approaches as needed, fostering an adaptive and responsive transformation process that can handle the evolving nature of urban challenges.

The collaboration is built on trust, achieved through a shared commitment to the process rather than individual events. Both researchers and civil servants are expected to remain open to new perspectives, engage in continuous learning, and apply process-oriented methods that prioritize sustainable impact over quick fixes.

2.3.1. Transformation needs a change inside out and impulses outside in: two success critical roles required!

Inside-out role – Systemic facilitator

The Inside-Out role focuses on transformation driven by internal actors, primarily civil servants and municipal decision-makers, who work within the city administration. Their task is to enact change by reflecting on and adjusting internal policies, communication patterns, and operational practices to align with long-term sustainability goals. These actors need to develop a deep understanding of the city’s structures, identify bottlenecks, and implement reforms that can be supported by the broader city governance framework. This involves:

fostering a collaborative mindset across various departments, encouraging cross-silo interaction, and enabling integrated planning across different municipal functions.
embedding adaptive management within city governance, where policies and strategies are reviewed and refined based on ongoing feedback from stakeholders and the changing urban landscape.
role focus on internal capacity building, ensuring that teams have the skills and tools needed for sustainable urban governance.

The civil servants can only succeed in doing so with the help of impulses from the external perspective of the consulting researchers.

Outside-in role – External catalyst

The Outside-In role is typically filled by researchers, transformation consultants, and other external stakeholders who bring new perspectives, insights, and methodologies into the urban system. These actors serve as catalysts, providing the external knowledge and innovative solutions that can drive systemic change. Their tasks include:

developing, testing, and refining new approaches alongside local stakeholders, ensuring that transformation is responsive to local needs while benefiting from global knowledge.
helping internal actors recognize areas for improvement and potential blind spots in the current approach.
connecting urban stakeholders with research institutions, policy think tanks, and other cities engaged in similar transformation processes. This role helps to establish networks that enable knowledge exchange, best practices sharing, and collaborative problem-solving across different urban settings.

The researchers can succeed in this by working together with the ULL project managers on an eye-to-eye level in the context of joint, transformative governance.

2.3.2. Great challenges for successfully changing traditional roles

Nonetheless there are also challenges that hinder the effective redefinition of roles for civil servants and researchers in transformative coalitions. These barriers are deeply rooted in organizational structures, cultural attitudes, and established routines, making the shift towards new collaborative, adaptive roles a complex endeavour. That is because traditional governance often prioritizes established procedures and structures, leading to resistance against innovative practices. Civil servants may view new roles as threatening to the existing order, resulting in a reluctance to embrace transformation projects fully. This mentality can slow down the decision-making process and create barriers to interdisciplinary cooperation. Furthermore, many civil servants operate within strict departmental silos, which restrict cross-departmental collaboration and information sharing. These silos reinforce specialized roles that hinder comprehensive approaches to transformation.

The absence of standardized guidelines for managing innovation projects and new roles presents another barrier. Without clear protocols or frameworks, both civil servants and researchers struggle to redefine their functions within transformative coalitions. This lack of clarity affects how responsibilities are distributed, resources are allocated, and progress is measured, making it difficult to achieve cohesive efforts. Moreover, role changes require open communication and trust among all parties involved. However, power dynamics within city administrations often create friction between departments and stakeholders, especially when new collaborative roles challenge traditional hierarchies.

Transformative projects require strong political backing and resource allocation to succeed. Without explicit political will and support from upper management, initiatives may lack the necessary authority and legitimacy, leading to fragmented efforts. It is important for civil servants to secure early political support to overcome institutional inertia, which is often a barrier to the successful adoption of new roles and transformation processes. In many cases, civil servants and researchers face limited resources, which hampers their ability to engage in transformative roles. This shortage of personnel and budgetary constraints makes it challenging to allocate sufficient time for new, collaborative processes that demand extra effort beyond routine responsibilities. This barrier is exacerbated when existing staff are already overloaded with traditional duties, leaving little room for experimentation or adaptive learning.

And finally public administration is typically risk-averse, with an emphasis on stability and predictability. Transformative projects and processes, however, require a certain tolerance for uncertainty and potential failure, which can be unsettling for civil servants accustomed to controlled environments. This reluctance to engage in open-ended, experimental processes often restricts the development of innovative solutions.

2.3.3. Success criteria for establishing transformative partnerships between cities and research organisations

Here we want to highlight several success criteria for establishing effective transformative partnerships between cities and research institutions based on our 3 year experience out of the TANGO-W project working together with 7 cities and 4 research organisations. These criteria emphasize the need for a collaborative, transdisciplinary approach that fosters mutual understanding, respects institutional boundaries, and ensures sustained engagement. The following points outline these key success factors:

Success criteria for establishing transformative partnerships
(a)	Clear and shared visions	Successful partnerships require both cities and research institutions to have a unified vision and agreed-upon goals/outcomes. Defining these goals early on helps align efforts and ensures that all stakeholders understand the purpose and direction of the collaboration. This clarity aids in maintaining focus and commitment over time.
(b)	Political and institutional support	For transformative projects to succeed, there must be strong political will and institutional backing from both city governance and research entities. Political support is particularly vital as it legitimizes the initiatives and helps in securing resources, reducing the risk of project fragmentation and ensuring long-term impact.
(c)	Long-term commitment and continuity	Tansformative change requires a commitment to sustained engagement, with both cities and researchers dedicating time and resources over extended periods. This commitment is essential for navigating complex urban issues, which often require iterative solutions and ongoing adjustments. Consistency in personnel and project goals also builds trust and credibility among stakeholders.
(d)	Integration of diverse stakeholders	Transformative partnerships rely on the inclusion of a broad range of stakeholders, including local communities, businesses, and government agencies. This inclusivity fosters a better understanding of urban and daily life challenges and enhances the relevance of research outcomes. Furthermore, stakeholder involvement increases the chances of implementing sustainable solutions that are well-aligned with local needs.
(e)	Transdisciplinary and solution-orientation	Transformative partnerships benefit from a transdisciplinary perspective, where researchers and city officials work together across fields of expertise to solve complex, real-world problems. This approach shifts the focus from isolated research objectives to a more integrated view that prioritizes practical solutions and adapts to the evolving urban landscape.
(f)	Feedback loops and reflexivity	Successful partnerships implement feedback mechanisms to assess progress and make necessary adjustments. Reflexive processes allow both researchers and city officials to re-evaluate their roles, strategies, and project goals, so that the transformation process remains responsive to changes and challenges. Feedback loops also facilitate mutual learning, enhancing the resilience of the partnership.