In order to clarify the possible role of KEMs in the missions, it is important to understand the nature and process of the development of new and further development of existing KEMs.

KEMs are often developed, tested and trialled in research at knowledge institutions. KEM development is - especially in the first step - the result of fundamental, methodological research, based on theoretical models and considerations. However, the practice in which KEMs are applied is unruly. This often creates variations on existing methods; the methods are further developed by using them in specific contexts. KEMs are therefore never ‘finished’ and must be continuously tested for (context-dependent) usability, effectiveness, validity, etc.

In contrast to technology, research into and further development of methods therefore preferably takes place in their application in concrete innovation processes. By studying the effect of the interventions that are realised with a specific KEM, insights are gained that help to validate the method, to better contextualise it and to combine methods.

KEMs build bridges between domains in order to arrive at integrated solutions. This cross-over nature of KEMs requires a multidisciplinary joining of forces in the field of KEM research and development. The complex and multidisciplinary issues posed by the missions therefore offer excellent opportunities to work on KEM development. This KEM research agenda is therefore intended as a basis for programming methodological issues within the KIAs of the mission themes. In research and innovation programmes, transition challenges will be central, in which existing methods are applied and thus further developed, or new strategies and methods are developed. The programmes can draw on this agenda and the research questions identified in it as the most urgent questions to address in the short term.

Working on this agenda has made it clear that in the Netherlands we have a number of strong research communities in the KEM categories covered in this agenda. These communities have organised themselves to a greater or lesser extent and also enjoy international prestige in their specific domain. Connecting these strong research groups to private parties offers interesting opportunities for tackling the missions and forming consortia for PPP projects.

In all missions and in each of the four mission KIAs and the KIA Social Earning Capacity, many links and questions about methods can be discovered. In principle, methods from all eight KEM categories can be relevant for each mission and each mission theme. This has to do with the nature of the missions: they concern transitions of systems (system change) in which, for example, the bringing together and alignment of many stakeholders (participation and co-creation) and getting a grip on the effects of interventions to bring about the transitions (monitoring and effect measurement) will always play a role.

Yet we also see that a number of categories receive a lot of attention per theme. In order to provide tools for prioritising methodological challenges in the programming within the mission themes, the table below indicates per mission theme which KEM categories seem most relevant to achieving the mission objectives. It concerns a generic initial inventory; a proposal at theme level that can be further elaborated on the level of MJPs / MMIPs and research questions in consultation with the parties involved and in the forums surrounding the KIAs.

Transition challenges are complex and comprehensive, and require thoughtful use of KEMs in tackling them and in the development of interventions and / or innovations. Several KEM categories will often be relevant to a challenge and methods from several categories will be required to achieve a successful process and result.

There are a number of KEMs that already house these combinations in themselves due to their generic character; they therefore belong in several categories. Examples are reflexive monitoring (see categories System change and Monitoring and effect measurement) and transition arenas (see categories System change and Participation and co-creation). Both (groups of) methods were discussed in two categories in this agenda. Each category does have its own view of the method and that perspective presents different challenges / research questions.

Vision formation, participation and value creation Framing a joint innovation task (shared vision development) can only lead to successful interventions if it finds support among stakeholders. By devoting attention in a co-creation process with the stakeholders to creating a basis for shared values ​​(shared meaning), a perspective of a future desirable for each party can be developed to help create this support.

Participation and experimental environments In the process of co-creation in multi-stakeholder settings, experimental environments offer a relatively ‘safe’ environment, because the feasibility and scalability of initiatives can be tested in a flexible way so that learnings can be immediately fed back into the development process. It is also possible to explore in experimental environments how participation and co-creation can work for settings in which these methods are new, as is now seen in the Policy Labs (exploration of citizen participation in government).

Institutional change and behavioural change The context in which behaviour is established is colored by institutions, among other things. In addition, the rhetoric of institutional change is often that it provides incentives to individuals in the hope of behavioural change. Institutions and behaviour are therefore almost inseparable. Current behaviour is related to current institutions and the effectiveness of institutional change always depends on behavioural change. For example, the effectiveness of imposing additional taxes on meat, with the aim of reducing meat consumption, ultimately depends on whether people actually change their behaviour.

System change and monitoring KEMs aimed at learning about the system and system change are inextricably linked with KEMs to monitor the same system and the effects of interventions. Through reflexive monitoring, insight into the progress of system change can be used to adjust the goal and strategy of the change. In addition, the use of the right monitoring methods can help to map and understand the long-term effects of interventions on system changes.