Reflection on Transition Design

Transition Design represents, in my view, a crucial but extraordinarily complex approach. As I observed in the Holon studio presentation we attended, this methodology seeks to tackle the wicked problems that characterize our era, such as climate change, forced migration, social polarization, access to housing... These challenges require analysis and intervention that far exceed traditional design frameworks, and this is something that attracts me much more than design as we usually understand it.

One of the major difficulties, as I perceive it, lies in the very scale of these societal issues. Tackling such vast and fundamental subjects demands a systemic understanding that transcends our usual perspectives. And as we can see in the presentation, these changes call for developing "a new vocabulary, a new grammar, new models" to work effectively.

However, when we talk about transitional design, I am particularly concerned about the potential repercussions of our interventions. As indicated in the document through their theories of change, each action in a complex system generates often unpredictable cascade effects. What we conceive as a solution can create new problems elsewhere in the system. This is why the thorough analysis of all stakeholders, as practiced by Holon through their actant mappings and conflict analyses, seems absolutely fundamental to me. Though sometimes I struggle to see the true connection between what is said and what is clearly and practically applied.

I am convinced that the orientation toward long-term solutions rather than short-term interventions constitutes an essential guiding principle of Transition Design. The Holon studio clearly exposes this philosophy by asking "how might we build a rationale for 'intervening' in complex systems and 'solutioning' over long periods of time (dozens of years or even decades) vs. creating short-term, one-off solutions?" This extended temporal perspective allows for truly structural changes rather than superficial fixes.

One aspect I find particularly delicate concerns our posture when we intervene with communities with which we are not familiar. The risk of adopting a paternalistic or colonialist approach, even with the best intentions, always seems present to me. An awareness of historical power dynamics must inform our intervention methodologies.

Moreover, I fully endorse the idea that we must avoid the "savior" posture and favor direct and transparent engagement with the concerned communities. This philosophy is reflected in the approach of the Holon design studio, through their Multi-stakeholder Engagement pillar, which emphasizes that solving complex problems requires the involvement of concerned and affected stakeholders throughout the problem framing, visioning, and solution-seeking process.

An additional challenge I perceive in Transition Design concerns the tension between transformative ambition and practical constraints. How do we maintain a systemic vision while proposing concrete and feasible interventions?

Ultimately, I see Transition Design as an emerging discipline of capital importance for our time, but one that requires constant humility in the face of the complexity of the systems in which we intervene. Our responsibility as transition designers is to consciously contribute to the emergence of more just, sustainable, and desirable stories and worlds for all.