The Design Force: How Change, Transition and Transformation Work Together

A Design Force Blog by Rachel A.Wood

I’ve been pondering the relationship between change, transition and transformation, and the role that design can and does play in them, for a few years. As I first worked in a ‘test and learn’ environment in 2014, I also thought it was important to include this too. Here is what I came up with:

Leaders across the public, private and third sectors often use change, transition, transformation, and design interchangeably when tackling complex challenges. But the terms are not the same. Each draws on different traditions, works at different scales, and produces different outcomes. Blurring them can lead to overreach, poor methods, and frustrated stakeholders. This is something we can all recognise.

By ‘Design Force’, I mean the practical energy design brings to reform: the ability to reframe problems, involve people, test ideas, and translate intent into action.

In simple terms, change is about making improvements, whether planned or emergent and often incremental. Transition is the adjustment process as people and systems move from old ways of working to new ones. Transformation is a deeper shift: a reconfiguration of the system itself. And design, as a force, is a user-centred and creative way of understanding problems and shaping interventions. In practice, these modes rarely sit neatly apart. More often, they are combined, sequenced or layered, especially through test-and-learn approaches that connect strategic intent with experimentation.

Figure 1: The latest version of the Design Force Equation that I put together (March 2026)

Here, I unpack each mode within the Design Force equation that I’m putting together, outline their intellectual roots, and show how they play out across strategy, policy and delivery. The aim is not to argue that one mode is better than the others. It is to help me, and anyone involved in change, combine the modes intentionally, building on what already works while strengthening clarity, credibility and impact.

Change: making improvements without rewiring the system

When organisations are under pressure to improve, the most common response is change: a bounded intervention designed to lift performance within the existing system. It is often the first mode we reach for because it promises visible results without asking fundamental questions about purpose, identity or structure.

Change refers to planned or emergent modifications within organisations or services. It is usually limited in scope, such as introducing a new process, policy, or system, and geared towards agreed objectives. In the management literature, change is often described as a structured process for moving from a current state (‘as is’) to a desired future (‘to be’) state (Hayes 2018). Well-known frameworks, including Lewin’s three stages (1951) and Kotter’s eight steps (1996), stress leadership alignment, communication, and stakeholder engagement to support adoption.

Unlike transformation, change does not require an organisation to redefine its identity or mission. It typically runs through existing governance and decision-making structures, which makes it easier to start, and easier to measure.

Change initiatives are often short- to medium-term, incremental, and technocratic in style. They draw on organisational theory, HR, and behavioural science, especially research on motivation and resistance. Typical methods include business-process redesign, continuous improvement, and structured project management. The underlying logic is optimisation rather than reinvention.

At a strategic level, change might mean a restructure, a shift in operating model, or an update to rules and standards. At the policy level, it could involve revising decision criteria, eligibility rules, or product-service scope. In delivery, it often looks like training staff on a new system or rolling out a pilot. For example, many organisations have digitised customer and citizen-facing applications, cutting processing times without changing the underlying purpose of the service.

Outcomes are typically tracked using process measures such as speed, cost, quality, and compliance. Behaviourally informed interventions like changing defaults to increase organ-donation registrations or improve tax compliance show how relatively modest changes can still deliver meaningful results (Behavioural Insights Team, 2025).

Research is consistent on one point: successful change depends as much on people as on the technical solution. Bridges (1991) argues that change efforts fail when leaders overlook the transition people experience. In practice, this means engaging stakeholders early, communicating purpose clearly, building capability in targeted ways, and creating visible ‘quick wins’ to sustain momentum (Hayes 2018; Stummer and Zuchi 2010).

The lesson here might be change can deliver real gains, but only when leaders treat adoption as a human process, not just a technical rollout.

Transition: the journey people and systems have to make

If change is about what we alter, transition is about how people and systems live through that alteration over time. It shifts attention away from one-off interventions and towards the adjustment, sense-making and reorientation that have to happen for new ways of working to stick.

Transition refers to the adjustment processes that accompany change. The literature tends to use the term in two ways. First, in organisational psychology, transition describes the internal process people go through as they come to terms with change: endings, a liminal ‘neutral zone’, and new beginnings (Bridges 1991). Second, in sustainability and policy studies, transitions describe long-term shifts in socio-technical systems such as energy, mobility or healthcare (Kemp and Loorbach 2006).

In this second sense, transitions unfold over years or decades and involve the co‑evolution of technologies, institutions, markets, and cultural norms. Transition management is therefore framed as a forward-looking, adaptive, multi-actor approach to governing and steering long-term transformation processes (Kemp and Loorbach 2006).

Whether psychological or socio-technical, transitions are process-focused and comfortable with uncertainty. They emphasise reflexivity, learning, and stakeholder sense-making. Their roots span psychology and organisational behaviour on the one hand, and innovation studies, complexity science, and public policy on the other. Rather than linear plans, transition approaches focus on pathways, shared visions, and iterative adjustment across multiple levels.

The outcomes of transitions are structural and emergent rather than immediate. Progress tends to show up as new institutional arrangements, durable partnerships, or shifts in norms, more than short-term performance gains.

Transition research also points to a core leadership tension: setting direction while staying flexible. Leaders need to articulate a compelling long-term vision but allow multiple pathways to emerge (Hölscher et al. 2018). Portfolio approaches, running several experiments in parallel, help explore options without locking in too early. Practitioners also need to be clear about what they are trying to do: incremental change and deeper transition require different expectations, timelines and evidence.

Transformation: when incremental change is no longer enough

If transition is about movement and adaptation in evolving conditions, transformation signals a more fundamental break. It is what we reach for when incremental adjustment is no longer enough, when the purpose, structures and ‘rules of the game’ need to change.

Transformation refers to radical, systemic change that reshapes an organisation or system at its core. It goes beyond incremental improvement to alter purpose, capabilities, and governance. In leadership and strategy literature, transformation is often linked to shifts onto materially different performance trajectories, for example, moving from industrial-era operating models to digital-first organisations (McKinsey 2013). In public policy, transformation can also mean deep societal change, for instance, advancing health equity or restructuring welfare systems.

Transformations are wide in scope, deep in impact, and high in risk. They often require new technologies, skills, culture, and institutional arrangements. From a systems perspective, transformation changes the underlying ‘regime’ of rules and norms, not just day-to-day practices. Approaches typically draw on systems thinking, innovation theory, and transformational leadership, often alongside more familiar change-management techniques. Some scholars distinguish between innovations that fit and conform to existing contexts and those that stretch and transform them (Evans et al. 2016).

At a strategic level, transformation can look like an enterprise-wide mission, for example, a digital-first shift that reshapes how value is created and delivered. In government, this may be expressed as a programme such as the Government Digital Service Blueprint (2025). In the private sector, it may be a move to platform-based models or a full supply-chain redesign. At the policy level, major regulatory reforms, such as establishing universal healthcare, can be transformational; so can sector-wide shifts in standards or market design.

In delivery, transformation shows up as large-scale programmes replacing legacy systems, reorganising departments, or redesigning service models end to end. The outcomes are new capabilities, new institutions, and sometimes new citizen–state relationships, usually realised over long timeframes.

Because the stakes are higher, transformational initiatives need approaches beyond routine change. Research highlights sustained leadership commitment, deliberate cultural investment, and serious capacity building (Brinkman et al. 2025). When design capability is embedded, it can act as a catalyst for transformation rather than a set of isolated project tools. This points to emerging hybrid practices such as design-led transformation, where design is treated not simply as a front-end method for improving services, but as a strategic capability for shaping organisational and systems change, an argument that aligns with work on design-enabling transformation in public organisations (Brinkman et al. 2025). But top-down mandates are rarely enough; participatory, co-design and co-creative approaches are often needed to build legitimacy and maintain momentum.

This is where design becomes more than a method. It becomes a force for connecting ambition with lived experience.

The Design Force: a way of working that reframes problems and tests solutions

Figure 2: The first version of the Design Force Equation I put together (February 2026)

Change, transition and transformation are usually defined by scale and intent. Design is different: it is defined by how we understand problems and act. Rather than starting with a solution, design starts with enquiry: engaging users, reframing the challenge, testing ideas in the real world, and learning fast.

Design, particularly design thinking and product and service design, has become a distinctive mode of innovation across sectors. It combines a mindset with practical methods centred on understanding users, prototyping quickly, and learning through iteration. Crucially, design does not just generate solutions; it often changes how the problem is framed in the first place. More recently, this has expanded into hybrid practices such as design-led transformation and systemic transformation design, which combine design and transformation by using design not only to improve services, but also to help reshape institutions, relationships and the conditions producing problems (Brinkman et al. 2025; Italia 2023).

Design has roots in engineering and product innovation, and now also draws on psychology and behavioural science, design studies, and public management. Common practices include deep user research, visualisation, for example, mapping services and systems, and small-scale pilots. Design often blurs the boundary between policy and implementation, especially through labs or studios. Divergent thinking, opening up multiple possibilities before narrowing down, is central.

In delivery, design is widely used in digital services to improve usability and user satisfaction. In policy, initiatives such as New Zealand’s Working with Children Innovation Lab have shown how design can support cross-agency problem framing. City-level experiments, such as citizen-centred digital services in Seoul, also show how design work can shape strategic direction.

Design often produces improved experiences, service prototypes, and at times reframed policy problems. Impacts may start locally but can inform wider reform when insights travel.

Research is clear that design needs to be built into organisational routines to have sustained impact. That means investing in skills, protecting space for experimentation, and aligning design work with legal and procedural constraints (UNDP 2017). Evaluation also matters combining qualitative insight with quantitative testing helps build credibility and supports scaling (Brinkman et al. 2025).

Test-and-learn: the practical glue that links the modes

Figure 3: Test and Learn quote from HM Treasury 2026 Magenta Book, Test and Learn Annex (May 2026)

In practice, these modes rarely run in isolation. Test-and-learn is increasingly the connective tissue, helping teams combine change, transition, transformation and design without flattening the differences between them. With roots in behavioural insights and innovation practice, it involves running small-scale trials, evaluating outcomes, and adapting based on evidence. In effect, it brings a scientific mindset to policy and service development, helping reduce risk when uncertainty is high.

The Behavioural Insights Team describes test-and-learn as a way for governments, and by extension other organisations pursuing mission-driven work, to iterate towards long-term goals while continuously improving delivery (Behavioural Insights Team 2025).

Test-and-learn can operate at multiple levels: comparing policy variants, piloting service models, or validating design prototypes. Portfolio approaches go a step further by mapping multiple experiments to strategic assumptions, extending test-and-learn from single projects to systemic change (Marsden and Vadgama 2025). This aligns with design practices that link strategic ambition to shifts in everyday organisational behaviour (Italia 2023).

To work well, test-and-learn needs an experimental culture, clear measures, and governance that can tolerate uncertainty. Investing in evaluation capability, and keeping a portfolio view, helps ensure learning accumulates rather than staying fragmented or trapped in individual projects.

So what? Some practical lessons

Seeing these modes as distinct but connected changes how we plan and govern reform. Instead of debating whether an initiative is ‘change’, ‘transition’ or ‘transformation’, a better question is: how are we combining the modes over time, and to what end?

Figure 4: The differences in lens / mode

No single mode is enough for today’s complex challenges.

At the strategic level, transformation and transition thinking often combine bold ambitions with staged pathways. At the policy level (including strategy, governance, and rules), design and transition approaches meet through co-creation and long-term stakeholder engagement. In delivery, day-to-day progress is more often driven by change management and test-and-learn. These blends matter because complex reform rarely fits one mode neatly.

Key comparative lessons include:

• Match mode to ambition. Use change for discrete improvements, transition for long journeys, transformation for systemic overhaul, and design for reframing and prototyping.

• Blend approaches. Complex problems often need hybrids, design sprints within transformations, change management within transitions, and test-and-learn throughout.

• Engage people. Participation and communication underpin success across all modes.

• Build adaptive capacity. Skills, culture, and flexible governance matter as much as the strategy.

• Define the right outcomes. Each mode calls for different measures of success.

The practical challenge is not to choose one mode and defend it. It is to know which mode is needed, when to shift mode, and how to combine them deliberately. Leaders who can do this are more likely to create reform that is clear in intent, credible in method, legitimate to those affected, and impactful over time.

References

Behavioural Insights Team (2025) Test and Learn: A Playbook for Mission-driven Government. London: Behavioural Insights Team, 22 April.Bridges, W. (1991) Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo.Brinkman, G., van Buuren, A. and van der Bijl-Brouwer, M. (2025) ‘Destination unknown: Navigating the messy journey of design-enabling transformation in public organizations’, International Journal of Design, 19(3), pp. 101–119.Evans, J., Karvonen, A. and Raven, R. (2016) ‘The experimental city: new modes and prospects of urban transformation’, in Evans, J., Karvonen, A. and Raven, R. (eds.) The Experimental City. London: Routledge, pp. 1–12.

Government Digital Service (2025) A Blueprint for Modern Digital Government. London: Government Digital Service. Available online [Accessed 18 June 2026].Hayes, J. (2018) The Theory and Practice of Change Management. 5th edn. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

HM Treasury and Evaluation Task Force (2026) Test and Learn. In: The Magenta Book: Central Government Guidance on Evaluation. London: HM Treasury. Available online [Accessed 1 June 2026].

Hölscher, K., Wittmayer, J. M. and Loorbach, D. (2018) ‘Transition versus transformation: What’s the difference?’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 27, pp. 1–3.Italia, M. (2023) ‘Design-led sustainable transition in organization: A framework to guide and evaluate employee change’, paper presented at IASDR 2023.

Kemp, R. and Loorbach, D. (2006) ‘Transition management: A reflexive governance approach’, in Voss, J., Bauknecht, D. and Kemp, R. (eds.) Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 103–130.

Kotter, J. P. (1996) Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper & Brothers.Marsden, A. and Vadgama, S. (2025) ‘Test-and-learn portfolios for systemic change’, Nesta, 4 September. Available online [Accessed 18 June 2026].Stummer, M. and Zuchi, D. (2010) ‘Developing roles in change processes – a case study from a public sector organization’, International Journal of Project Management, 28(4), pp. 384–394.UNDP (2017) Design Thinking for Public Service Excellence. Singapore: United Nations Development Programme, Global Centre for Public Service Excellence.