# Transformational Intent Setting ## Essence > *“The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams” —* **Eleanor Roosevelt** The general purpose of systemic investing is to help bring about a future of greater environmental sustainability and social justice. But what, exactly, does this mean in particular system/challenge constellations? For your systemic investment program to have a goal guiding the work, you will have to define what, exactly, you want to achieve. Impact statements come in different shapes, forms, and names. Sometimes they are called “visions”, “ambitions”, or “north stars”. At the TCI, we work with “transformational intent”, for two reasons. First, the word “transformational” makes it clear that we aspire for a particular quality of change; not incremental change but change that is deep, structural, and irreversible. Second, the word “intent” is related to “purpose” and thus more spacious and flexible than “objective” or “goal”, thereby being a better mental model for framing a change vision when working in complex adaptive systems. Whatever you call your impact vision, defining it is not as straightforward as it may sound. Systems transformation is a more far-reaching kind of change—in terms of the number of lives affected—than incremental improvements over the status quo. It’s one thing to invest in a company marketing a plant protein-based food product as an alternative to meat, a classic impact investment. Consumers are still free to buy the product or not, and—assuming this company behaves environmentally and socially responsibly—the risk of affecting people negatively is relatively small. It’s another thing to try and transition an entire country’s energy system from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Yes, a great many people and animals will benefit from that change, but there will also be social costs afflicted upon those who stand on the wrong side of this transition (e.g., people working in the fossil fuel industry losing their jobs). And because of the far-reaching effects that become possible with systemic investing, there are several aspects you will have to consider when setting transformational intent, as explained hereafter. In the article series “[The Choice of Future Problem](https://medium.com/transformation-capital/the-choice-of-future-problem-in-systemic-investing-part-i-introduction-f4892ac12d44)”, we go into detail about the nature of setting transformational intent and all the trade-offs and considerations that matter in so doing. The most important point for you to understand is that the future of any system is (i) not predetermined and (ii) not predictable but (iii) can be influenced by actions in the present. In other words, there are a myriad of *futures* (plural!) **that lie in store.** {% hint style="info" %} [The Choice-of-Future Problem in Systemic Investing (Part I): Introduction](https://medium.com/transformation-capital/the-choice-of-future-problem-in-systemic-investing-part-i-introduction-f4892ac12d44) {% endhint %} Yet all futures are not equal. Some are more plausible, possible, probable, or preferrable than others. This is the core idea at the center of the [Futures Cone](https://thevoroscope.com/2017/02/24/the-futures-cone-use-and-history/).

The Futures Cone diagram (Voros, 2017)

According to the Futures Cone: * **Possible** futures are all the different futures we can imagine—those that might happen, no matter how far-fetched or unlikely, and even if they require knowledge we currently do not possess. * **Probable** futures are those likely to happen and stem in part from the continuance of current trends. * **Preferable** futures are those that are desirable, the ones we want to happen. Transformational intent setting is fundamentally about defining what’s preferable. So it’s about making a *normative* choice about “what *should* be” (as opposed to descriptively analyzing “what *could* be”). This means that you’ll have to put a stake in the ground with respect to what you want the future to look like, putting forward your own vision—and accepting that others might disagree with you. Good transformational intent statements: * Represent a significant improvement over the status quo (both for, and as defined by, the affected system stakeholders), * Carry a degree of democratic legitimacy, * Are collectively owned by the partners in your change coalition, and * Allow for interventions aiming to minimize harm inflicted upon those who stand to lose from the transformation you seek to bring about. A transformational intent statement should be held lightly. It represents a general direction of travel, not something that is ever set in stone. Working with complex systems means that you’ll need to keep an open mind, watching for shifts in the system itself, as well as changes in your understanding of the system. Either of these might require you to revisit and refine your transformational intent over time, sometimes more than once. ## Example [Builders Vision](https://www.buildersvision.com/) (BV) is an impact platform and family office that aims to “shift markets and minds for good” in pursuit of a “more humane and healthy planet.” The organization deploys multiple forms of capital to bring about change in three systems: energy, food and agriculture, and oceans. For its [work in oceans](https://transformation.capital/assets/uploads/case-studies/241023_TCI-Case-Study_BV_final-issue_250dpi.pdf), Builders Vision has articulated a “North Star” that acts as a transformational intent statement: *“Healthy ocean ecosystems are a pillar of global environmental recovery, climate security, and economic growth.”* Connected to this North Star are four long-term outcome statements, such as “Ocean resources are sustainably utilized in the blue economy to promote healthy oceans and economic prosperity” and “Policies, policy enforcement, and policymaker knowledge support the blue economy and promote ocean health.” The ambition implied in BV’s north star and intermediate goals are of a transformational quality (given the [dismal ecological state](https://oceansconnectes.org/en/un-7eme-rapport-sur-letat-des-oceans/) of the world’s oceans), and they are articulated as spacious intent statements that speak to the health and quality of a system rather than a narrow—and therefore constraining—set of static output objectives. This is in line with how we believe transformational intent is best set to create the enabling conditions for deep, structural, and irreversible change.

BV’s Theory of Change with its North Star and Long-Term Outcome statements at center (from Builders Vision’s Oceans strategy - A case study of systemic investing, 2024)

## Guidance {% stepper %} {% step %} ### Exploring what’s possible and probable The discipline of thinking systematically about the future is called “Futures Studies”, “Futures Thinking”, or simply “Futures”. There are a number of tools and methodologies you can use for obtaining a sense of what might be possible and probable in the future. The most well-known and commonly used is [**scenario development**](https://www.shapingtomorrow.com/methods/Scenarios), a process designed to help you develop different versions of the future that are internally coherent with respect to known facts and the driving forces behind social, technical, economic, environmental, and political trends. Although time and resource intensive, this process is incredibly enriching because—if done in a collaborative way—it ensures that all the stakeholders involved in the process get to a common understanding of what the future could hold, a pre-requisite for later agreeing on a preferred future that everyone is aligned with. There are a number of different methods for developing scenarios, the most common of which is the 2x2 matrix method. For more detail on a workshop-led 2x2 scenario development process, have a look at this [deck](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1EdtYKw9Ej6h7yLl4UUPbvODJAlhiZ1wKgQqBVU5M8UA/edit#slide=id.g209f1dd853a_0_58).

2x2 scenario development tool (UN Global Pulse, undated)

One common shortcut is the use of scenario archetypes and augmenting them through a light-touch research process. The [original scenario archetypes](https://foresightguide.com/dator-four-futures/#:~:text=Dator's%20model%20proposed%20that%20our,Disciplined%20Society%2C%20and%20Societal%20Transformation.) were developed by Jim Dator and are known as “Growth, Collapse, Discipline and Transform”. Scenario archetypes such as these can be used as initial scenario premises which are then augmented and evolved to align with the challenge you’re working to address. Futures and foresight is a discipline that has been practiced long enough now that a number of high-quality scenario sets have been written already about the future of different sectors and systems. So it is well worth doing a bit of research to find a set of publicly available scenarios out there which you can use or adapt. You may choose not to build scenarios at all but to use a framework like [**Three Horizons**](https://www.h3uni.org/tutorial/three-horizons/) (3H) instead. 3H works best in a facilitated process where the stakeholders in the coalition work together to map the status quo of the system today (Horizon 1), a preferred future system (Horizon 3), and to think about the innovations that can help bridge from the present into that future (Horizon 2). [Using the Three Horizons framework](https://www.h3uni.org/facilitation-guide/three-horizon-mapping-guide/) is useful not only because it is highly engaging and effective in a multi-stakeholder process, but also because it covers all the vital aspects of transformative intent-setting: analyzing the present, imagining a better future, and thinking about the steps needed to get there.

Three Horizons framework (from ITC ILO Foresight Toolkit, undated)

Whatever futuring methodology you choose to define your transformational intent, make sure to take some time to mentally travel into the future, imagining the mindsets and narratives of those futures and exploring how they are different compared to today together with key partners. {% hint style="info" %} *NB: It lies within the nature of this guide that we cannot provide a sufficiently high amount of detail about how to work with these tools in practice. But the Internet is a treasure trove of resources, and with a bit of research you’ll likely find a plethora of reports and decks that tell you how to use these tools. If you’re new to futuring, you should also consider hiring a consultant to shepherd you through the process.* {% endhint %} {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Choosing what’s preferable Once you have a sense of *possible* and *probable* futures of your system of interest, you can move on to the next question: What kind of future is preferable? Because of the normative nature of choosing transformational intent, you should do so in dialogue with stakeholders identified in a [stakeholder mapping](broken://pages/a4712844292026185e3766737a66660fbd1c3718) exercise. This can take a number of participatory formats, including: * Interviewing people, and then making sense of the interview insights through a structured analysis; * Facilitating a series of multi-stakeholder workshops; and/or * Running a citizen assembly. For all of these options, what’s key is that you invite a diversity of perspectives into shaping your change vision. But don’t mistake plurality for consensus—it will never be possible to please everyone. In fact, it’s very unlikely that all stakeholders will agree precisely on which future to work toward, let alone how to achieve the transformation. What’s critical is that there is *general* agreement on the *broad* direction of travel implied by your vision.

Future Vision tool (from Systemic Design Toolkit, undated)

But how, exactly, could you go about determining a preferable future? Here are a set of questions you could consider on the outset: * Which elements of the possible future pathways are being focused on? * Which elements are being avoided? What is critical to avoid in the future? * What would the system look like if it was transformed? Describe the desired future system, its conditions, dynamics and underlying norms. * What is the transformation this particular collective of actors can achieve? When going through this process you should: * Avoid tying down the visionary destination too tightly at the outset, because it will necessarily need to be refined later. * Resist the temptation to define a north star in the context of your own organizational strategies and activities. Systemic investing is about creating change in a real-world system, and that means defining the transformational mission of the work in the context of a system’s needs. * Set your time horizon for the vision in a way that fits with the dynamics of change of the system. It should be long enough to release the work from being locked in to the current pattern, but not so long as to become detached from the current reality. For example, in information technology, the timescale during which transformational change can happen might be less than a decade. For energy infrastructure, it might take several decades. And for a change strongly governed by social norms, it might be a * Ensure that you have a diversity of views and voices represented in the process, and not just “average representatives” of particular stakeholder groups but also the minorities within these groups (whose perspectives tend to be most often overlooked). In some instances, you may also be able to rely on transformational intent proposed by others, at least partially. For instance, in our prototyping work around [transforming the Swiss mobility system](https://transformation.capital/places/systemic-investing-in-swiss-mobility), we used the Swiss government’s long-term transportation strategy (which calls for the electrification of personal transport) as a starting point, based on the notion that Switzerland has a relatively well-functioning democracy and that the federal government’s vision therefore carries a sufficient degree of democratic legitimacy. And in our work on [transforming the Swiss food system](https://transformation.capital/places/systemic-investing-in-swiss-food-system), we drew on the outcomes of a citizens’ assembly and a transdisciplinary research project, both of which laid out a vision for a sustainable and just food system in the country.

Vision for a sustainable Swiss food system (from Wege in die Ernährungszukunft der Schweiz, 2023)

Adopting an established change vision can greatly help you in establishing legitimacy for your work. This is important because investors are disproportionately powerful actors in society, and there are both ethical and practical issues that come from unilaterally deciding what the future for other people ought to be. So engaging with a vision that has already been proposed by others through a democratic and participatory process can strengthen the legitimacy of your work, help build trust and engagement with others, and ensure that stakeholders and communities are not over-consulted. Leaning into someone else’s transformational intent will allow you to shortcut the intent setting process. However, you will still need to actively engage with potential partners on your specific change vision in order to build an effective change coalition. The process of alignment and coalition building remains vital to the broader systemic investment endeavor. So, don’t view the adoption of an established vision as a way to circumvent the hard work of participatory processes. {% endstep %} {% endstepper %} ## Tips * Make sure your transformational intent is aspiring and, ideally, resonant with where there’s already energy in the system in the form of existing initiatives and coalitions, investor interest, or political will. * Stay open to revising and rewriting your transformational intent statement as the result of what you learn during your research and coalition-building activities. * Erring on the side of breadth when initially defining your transformational intent will help with coalition building. It’s easier to whittle down a broad group of kindred spirits as you go than bringing stakeholders into the fold who didn’t resonate with your change vision at the outset. * Make sure that the voices of those not historically ‘included at the table’ are informing your transformational intent setting. When we uplift marginalized stakeholder communities in decision-making, we stand a better chance of crafting just, equitable, and innovative solutions. ## Further Reading * **To read more about Builders Vision’s transformation intent for oceans,** have a look at the TCI case study “[Builders Vision’s Ocean Strategy – A case study of systemic investing](https://transformation.capital/assets/uploads/case-studies/241023_TCI-Case-Study_BV_final-issue_250dpi.pdf)” (Oct 2024) * **To dive deeper into the technical aspects of transformational intent setting,** read the three-part article series “[The Choice of Future Problem](https://medium.com/transformation-capital/the-choice-of-future-problem-in-systemic-investing-part-i-introduction-f4892ac12d44)” (Mar 2023) * **To understand the nuances between system optimization, partial system redesign, and systems transformation,** check out the book chapter “[General introduction: system innovation and transitions to sustainability](https://china.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/1843766833.00010.xml)” by Geels, Elzen, and Green (Nov 2024) * **To gain a better understanding of futuring,** check out these organizations and resources: * [School of International Futures](https://soif.org.uk/) * [Institute for the Future](https://www.iftf.org/) * [*How to Future*](https://www.howtofuture.com/), by Scott Smith and Madeleine Ashby * [The Association of Professional Futurists](https://www.apf.org/) * [Infinite Futures](http://www.infinitefutures.com/tools.shtml) --- # Agent Instructions: Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter: ``` GET https://transcap-initiative.gitbook.io/systemic-investing-practice-guide/part-1-program-design-and-development/systems-orientation/transformational-intent-setting.md?ask= ``` The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.