Innovations in water governance: the importance of time

Abstract

Time is often considered to be an inert background against which governance processes evolve. Instead, this article approaches time as a factor that influences the development of innovation processes in water governance. Drawing on two Dutch cases, we analyse perceptions of time and the management of time. Public managers manage time by trying to fix deadlines, by synchronizing different timelines or by imposing their time horizon on the process. Different actors' timeframes may interfere with one another, and this may hinder governance processes. The analysis of time helps to explain the dynamics of governance processes, and this article shows that the alignment of timeframes is a crucial activity in realizing innovations in governance.

Points for practitioners

Time is a crucial factor in innovation processes. Actors often have different perceptions of time, including different time horizons and deadlines. Classic time management mainly aims at budgeting time. This article argues for time sensitive governance. An elementary step is to explicate actors' various time-horizons, time cycles and time-budget. Managers need to align short-term time horizons needed in competitive markets, with medium-term views required to carefully develop innovations and embed them in the policy environment. Adaptivity in dealing with time is important to synchronize the development of innovations with developments in the market and governmental organizations.

Keywords

governance Netherlands time management water management

Introduction

Current thinking about water management is heavily influenced by the idea that water management is not only a technical matter, but also a governance issue (Teisman et al., 2012). Water management often touches upon different interests and values, and therefore it cannot be performed solely through implementing a single best technical solution. Instead, it requires weighing of interests and values, and cooperation between multiple actors. Contemporary water management practices are particularly influenced by ideas about governance and collaborative water management (Huitema and Meijerink, 2009; Van Buuren, 2013).

The perceived need to adapt to climate change is an important stimulus for the trend from ‘water government’ to ‘water governance’. In the flood-prone Netherlands, the debate about climate change has given Dutch water governance a new impetus towards a more risk-accepting and adaptive stance, which is concretized in collaborative networks of public, private and societal actors. Increasing the climate robustness of the water system often demands innovative concepts which are technical, organizational and institutional.

The development and application of innovations in water governance is anything but simple. In this article, we dwell on a specific aspect that plays an important role in governance processes around innovations in which many actors with diverging views and interests interact: the factor of time.

We assume that time is a crucial factor in realizing innovations in water governance, if only because the deadlines that must be met, and the limited amount of time available to all participating parties, have a major influence on the process and outcome of the innovation trajectory. Different perceptions of time also play a role in innovation processes, for example, because actors looking to innovate in a competitive landscape often experience more time pressure than governmental actors who may strive for procedural fairness.

However, the issue of time is often neglected in analyses of (network) governance processes, and neither is it taken into account in more prescriptive accounts of network management or meta governance. Time is often implicitly considered as the background against which the really important things take place. As Pollitt (2008: 7) says, time is then ‘no more than the difference between t1 and t2’. Time is not usually treated as a factor that directly affects the process and outcome, but rather as something that simply expires while issues such as water quality are being managed. Insofar as time management is actively practised, it is often one-sidedly aimed at budgeting time: creating a period during which certain actions must be implemented. Consequently, innovation processes are often squeezed into a limited timeframe, so that they fit into certain procedural timelines for policy implementation.

Usually, little attention is given to different perceptions of time and multiple and unpredictable developments of claims and time periods, and their impact on the dynamics of network governance. It is, however, precisely this multiplicity that influences innovation processes significantly.

In this article, we approach time differently. First, we analyse time as a crucial factor affecting innovation and collaboration in water governance. It is not the background against which other things develop, but rather a meaningful factor strategically used by actors. Second, we recognize the existence of different, often conflicting, perceptions of time. This article side-steps the idea of time as clock time or mechanical time that is equal for everyone (Nowotny, 1992; Pollitt, 2008). As we shall see in one of the cases, parties use different time horizons, and this causes tensions and struggles, but time pressures can also contribute to the capacity to act and the acceptance of compromises. Smart use of time can positively influence the process and is thus an important issue to take into account in relation to meta governance strategies (Jessop, 2003).

Building on the notion of perceived time, we discuss the management of time in processes of innovation in water governance. We combine a theoretical analysis with an empirical analysis of two pilot projects in the Netherlands. These pilot projects can be seen as field laboratories where research is conducted and innovations are developed in the context of on-going area development. This article has two goals: (1) to analyse the effect of time as a factor in realizing innovation in water governance; and (2) to derive insights into what we call time-sensitive water governance relating to the realization of innovations. On the basis of our case studies, we expect to be able to draft some more general insights on the role of time in understanding network governance and the issue of time management as an element of meta governance.

We have translated these goals into the following research questions:

– How do actors perceive time in innovation processes in water governance?

– How does the factor of time influence innovation processes in water governance?

– How is time managed in innovation processes in water governance?

The article is organized as follows. In the second section, we elaborate theoretically on the concept of time. The third section describes the research methodology. The fourth and fifth sections present the empirical analysis of two Dutch pilot projects. The first pilot project revolves around the development of a floating residential area. The second pilot project is a water storage cellar beneath a glasshouse. The cases are analysed and compared in the sixth section. The last section presents the conclusions and discussion.

Time considered theoretically

In Western societies, the idea that time regularly, systematically and inevitably progresses is often taken for granted. The phrase ‘you cannot turn back the clock’ reflects this idea. Time is seen as something limited, scarce and objective (Bleudorn and Denhardt, 1988). This means that time is unambiguous (there is only one way to interpret time), linear (it flows steadily and regularly from past to present and future) and mechanical (consisting of distinct, discrete moments which can be exactly measured) (Bleudorn and Denhardt, 1988). Time is not only linear but also highly structured (Burrell, 1992). In this article, we summarize this approach to time under the heading of clock time (Pollitt, 2008).

Social science literature reveals other ways of conceptualizing the temporal dimension of social processes. Pollitt (2008) has distinguished traditional historical approaches and path dependency frameworks, both of which highlight how the time when a political process takes place influences how it develops. Both traditional historical approaches and path dependency tend to take time as sequential. Another approach comprehends the development of events in time as cycling. Famous examples in public management are electoral cycles.

Common to the above approaches is that they take time as a reality external to individual actors. This study takes a different avenue in the sense that it starts from the various perceptions that actors may have of time. This study can thus be positioned among the social constructivist approaches to time, and it stresses the importance of time as perceived differently by mutually dependent actors.

Time as perceived time

In addition to clock time, there are other notions of time. In particular, in dynamic and erratic governance processes, the notion of linear time can be challenged because of unexpected events and non-linear developments. The notion of time can become more fickle, and time can be experienced in several ways. For example, actors can feel that time is flying or crawling, depending partly on how much urgency they have to complete the process and what deadlines they are using. This perception of time differs significantly from clock time and may be called perceived time or social time (Nowotny, 1992). Consequently, time is an element that contributes to the mutual dependency of actors: actors who are in a hurry are dependent upon the willingness of other actors to speed up.

Perceived time may vary in at least five ways (Bleudorn and Denhardt, 1988; Pollitt, 2008).

– The nature of the evolution of time. This can be sequential, cyclical or capricious. Political bodies and policy organizations often use a cyclical and sequential logic where time activities follow one another and periodically recur (for example, Goetz and Meyer-Sahling, 2009), whereas private parties respond to dynamic developments or one-time only peaks in supply and demand.

– The rhythm. Time can be conducted in short cycles or in long cycles. Political and administrative cycles are sometimes only four years, whereas management cycles of flood defences are normally 50 years or even longer.

– The tempo. Time can pass very quickly or very slowly. The perception of the tempo of time is often related to the speed at which events succeed one another. Tempo is a relational concept: it shows how much time a certain event takes, or how many events are taking place within a certain timeframe. The measurement of tempo is based upon the relationship between time and events (Schedler and Santiso, 1998). Private parties often perceive governmental action as slow paced. Public officials may deem it necessary to take more time because of the required scrutiny.

– The quantity. Time can be scarce or plentiful. A fundamental characteristic of a democracy is that elected officials only have time until the next election. They thus have a limited time budget (Linz, 1998). Depending on the resources available and actors' deadlines, they have a tight or wide time budget and they have more or less urgency.

– The time horizon can vary from long term to short term. The time horizon aspect concerns the future. The time horizon influences how organizations operate and the choices they make. Those with a short-term time horizon do not take into account what will happen in 50 years or more. Their decisions on investments do not depend on, for example, demographics or the availability of resources in the long future, whereas these may be important for parties with a long-term time horizon.

Time and influence

Time is an instrument of power. The person who manages the time in a governance process has power (Pollitt, 2008; Goetz and Meyer-Sahling, 2009). This becomes evident when we consider that an actor acquires power when he can define the time available for other actors, or when he can give himself more time to act in order to make a difference in a governance process. An actor can also exercise power by formulating deadlines or determining the time budget for the various phases of a governance process. Stakeholders with the power to obstruct implementation have the power to make others wait. ‘Differences in the availability or exploitability of time tend to benefit one side over another’ (Schmitter and Santiso, 1998: 73). As Nowotny (1994) says, people can act strategically in time and through time. They can accelerate or slow down processes, let others wait or cleverly choose a timely moment for action. The strategic component is too serious to consider time as a neutral or objective phenomenon in governance analysis. Time is a resource that has to be taken seriously in order to understand how governance processes evolve.

Management of time

Given the different perceptions and interests regarding the factor of time, it is important for collaborative processes – such as the innovation processes in water governance on which we focus in this article – to pay attention to the management of time. If actors manage time, they can change it ‘from an inexorably limited, linear and perishable constraint into something that could be scheduled, anticipated, delayed, accelerated, deadlined, circumvented, prolonged, deferred, compressed, parcelled out, standardized, diversified, staged, staggered, and just wasted – but never ignored’ (Schmitter and Santiso, 1998: 71).

Time management as an element of meta governance can build upon the five previously mentioned aspects of time: the nature of time, rhythm, tempo, quantity and time horizon. The first aspect is the nature of the evolution of time. When time is considered sequential in nature, organizing strategies are aimed at phasing and organizing activities in subsequent periods. Thereby, processes can be organized monochronically or synchronically. Monochronic processes take place sequentially; in synchronic (polychronich) processes, different sub-processes run simultaneously. For example, in policy processes, scientific research is often conducted before a consultation round with stakeholders, but it can also be organized simultaneously. If time is approached as cyclical in nature, it means that activities recur in cycles of policy preparation, execution, evaluation and adjustment, or in cycles of investment, maintenance and replacement. Another option is to leave room for whimsicality, and more deliberately adapt to the tempo and rhythm of the environment. This is a more adaptive form of time management in which flexibility and seizing opportunities are paramount.

When activities have different rhythms, it is important to consider whether it is necessary to equate these rhythms or to organize crucial junctures at which different cycles coincide. For this, it is a first requirement to know the various relevant cycles and to ascertain the relevant junctures which can be used to organize joint decision making.

The management of tempo has everything to do with organizing time for activities or just formulating deadlines. Tempo can be strategically increased (for example to confront opponents with a fait accompli) or delayed (for example to generate more support) (Schedler and Santiso, 1998). By managing the tempo of decision making, actors can have the opportunity to synchronize the (inter-organizational) governance procedure to relevant processes within their own organization (Schedler and Santiso, 1998).

Another aspect of time management has to do with timing and choosing the right moment. In governance processes, it is highly relevant to strike while the iron is hot. Thus, it can be the case that an elected politician wants to register a quick win ahead of the elections or that the political climate is favourable for certain measures, such as drastic measures after a flood. Timing is important because when something happens determines how it happens (Schmitter and Santiso, 1998).

Regarding the management of horizons, process managers can focus on urgent issues in the short term, but they can also set priority on long-term ambitions. Climate adaptation is typically a long-term assignment, whereas private investment tends to be urgent in the short term. Managing interaction processes also implies influencing the time horizons actors hold, and trying to realize a commonly shared time horizon as a basis to come to consensus about joint action.

Further on, we discuss the role of time and time management in the two cases. Before that, we discuss our research methodology.

Methodology

We employed a case study approach because it is suitable for analysing perceptions of actors in detail and taking the complexity of the context into account (Yin, 1984). We applied strategic sampling (Flyvbjerg, 2006) to select our cases: we deliberately chose two cases of innovation in water governance in which time was an important factor. Thus, we could learn much about the working of time in governance processes.

Data collection mainly took place through semi-structured interviews. In both cases, we spoke with the main representatives of all the main parties. In one case, 10 people were interviewed, and in the other, six. The interviews were supplemented by document analysis (secondary materials including websites, policy documents and reports of meetings). To check the validity of our case analysis, we asked a central actor in each case for feedback on our basic case description. In other words, we conducted a member check.

Analytical framework

In the empirical cases, we analyse perceptions of time and time management (see Table 1). We build on the theoretical framework but omit the rhythm aspect because analysing rhythms of (policy) cycles requires longitudinal studies, whereas the governance processes we were studying had only a limited time span.

Table 1.

Analytical framework for studying perceptions of time and management of time

	Categories
Perceptions of time
Character of time	Sequential or cyclical
	Erratic or steady
Tempo	Fast, slow (little or much time between activities)
Time budget	Much, little (actors have much or little time available, they experience much or little time pressure)
Time horizon	Short, medium and long term
Management of time
Character of time	Organizing activities monochronically or synchronically
	Organizing processes in phases or cycles, or leaving room for the erratic and flexible evolution of processes
Tempo	Accelerating, postponing
	Synchronizing tempo with other processes
Time budget	Allocating time (allocating or withdrawing time)
	Formulating deadlines (postponing or bringing forward)
Time horizon	Planning activities in the short, medium or long term
Timing	Adjust action junctures to developments surrounding the project

Time management in the case of New Water

Introduction

New Water, formerly Poelpolder, is in the municipality of Westland. For a long time, the primary function of the area was horticulture, but public and private actors are now transforming the area into a floating houses district. Under the name New Water, a project was started to create an area of 80 hectares where floating homes and water are central (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The New Water project (Source: http://www.hetnieuwewater.com/nl/home)

The housing is to be built in a polder (land reclaimed from the sea), which will be inundated; this will also contribute to the water storage task of the Delfland water board. The project is designed to combine various land claims and contribute to the local economy and a more climate-proof region. The plan includes 1200 dwellings and a minimum of 75,000 m³ water storage. The project is innovative: in the Netherlands, polders have never been ‘given back to the water’ on this scale to build (floating) homes. The plan to boost the area was to be completed in 2018 but, because of the economic crisis and the deteriorating housing market, the construction of houses has been phased and spread over a longer period. The revised schedule aims at 2020 for completion of the project, but it is questionable whether this will become a reality because the area development has proved highly sensitive to macro-economic factors.

New Water was regarded as a pilot project for Water Framework Haaglanden (WFH) in 2005. There was a major innovation challenge, and at the outset the involved actors expected that the pilot project status would be helpful to develop the necessary innovations. An important motive in the private project developer opting for pilot project status had to do with the expectation that this would yield additional support in the form of grants for research. For some time, the parties tried to formulate their research questions, and after quite a long process of consultation a research agenda was drafted. However, the research questions were not addressed. The pilot project was cancelled in 2010 because according to the developing parties it required too much time and the pilot project status did not add value. The Haaglanden programme team was disappointed that the pilot partners did not take up their offer to assist with formulating suitable research questions. They observed a lack of interest in knowledge development and a strong focus on the agenda to develop the project; but the developing party was ultimately disappointed because the pilot did not contribute to the realization of the New Water project. However, even without experimental status the area development continues.

Actors involved and their perceptions of time

Various public and private parties are involved in the project. The central party is the developer The New Westland (TNW). This is a public–private partnership (PPP) in which the public parties (the municipality, water board and province) own 50 percent and the private party (BNG Area Development) owns the other 50 percent.

Between 2005 and 2008, TNW hastened the pace of preparation of the area development plan because it had an interest in quickly realizing the project. TNW had already bought land, and it was paying interest every day on the money borrowed to acquire it. The earlier the profitable parts of the project could be realized, the better it would be financially. However, because the housing market in the Netherlands has deteriorated, TNW now feels less urgency. TNW has phased the developments and is focusing on two sub-projects in order to quickly show that houses have been built, without building so many houses that the supply would exceed the demand and prices would possibly fall.

The municipality is in no hurry to complete the project. It is mainly interested in the integral development of the area in the medium term. At the same time, the municipality does have an interest in speeding up the pace of development. The municipality has undertaken financial risks in the PPP, and therefore its perception of time is partly formed by financial-economic interests. If the project evolves too slowly, it will be a long time before the municipality earns money from its investments in the PPP. If the area is developed too fast, there is a risk of oversupply of residences in the municipality. This is harmful for the project and for the housing market in the municipality as a whole. Because the partnership has been written into formal agreements over the medium term, the project largely escapes the political logic of four-year terms, and aldermen who may want to make their mark within their four-year term.

The Delfland water board has an interest in the project because of water storage. The project contributes to its so-called ABC programme with which it wants to improve water drainage and water storage capacity in the area. Delfland wants to finish its ABC programme in 2015, so its time horizon is medium term. The water board did not set hard deadlines, partly because its priorities for improving water drainage and water storage in the short term were elsewhere in the region.

Delfland has stressed that building floating houses on this large scale demands various adaptations in its policies, rules and regulations. The water board has been emphasizing that TNW has to plan things in cooperation with Delfland, because the adaptation of rules and regulations needs significant time, and for the water board it is very hard to compress or reduce the time needed for these adaptations.

The WFH programme office argued that the pilot project needed to take time to address several more fundamental research questions. They saw New Water as an important innovation and a unique experiment, and the region should be learning from this as much as possible. However, TNW was anxious that conducting research would take too much time and slow down the house building. Also, TNW found the process of applying for research grants cumbersome. In 2010, the pilot project was cancelled because the developing parties found it too time consuming and non-value added.

Management of time

This case shows various elements relating to how actors consciously deal with aspects of time. The tempo of the project was adapted to the economic and financial crisis, especially regarding the market demand for houses. The tempo of the project has thus been adjusted to the economic conjuncture, which is a form of entrainment and synchronization.

The WFH project managers phased the plan in time by making the developments in the sub-areas more sequential and less synchronic. At the same time, they chose to build a limited number of houses as soon as possible. They focused on the short term, and on what needed to be done in the near future to develop those residences. The actors chose to speed up (increase the tempo) in a particular sub-area, instead of integrally developing the area, which could come at the expense of the tempo in the short term.

The accrual of interest (actors had to pay interest on loans to buy land) directly coupled time to money, thus turning time into something not to be wasted and driving actors to speed up the development of residences.

Another thing to be observed was the call, especially from the water board, to take into account the medium and long term. Water board actors argued that this is elementary if one wants to collaborate efficiently and effectively with public parties on such a scale. The innovation of a large-scale depoldering and floating houses implies that the water board has to adjust policies, rules and regulations, and that takes a lot of time. This time cannot easily be compressed. Thus actors tried actively to enlarge the time horizon and adjust it to the tempo of procedures in public organizations. This strategy was not very successful. One innovative element of the project (a project to adopt a new method for closing the water cycle of households) failed because of the time pressure exerted by the project developer.

Finally, there were also target dates following from various policy programmes wherein New Water is embedded. These were the end dates for the planned realization of the ABC programme, but they were not used as very hard deadlines in the process.

With regard to the implementation trajectory, involved actors successfully aligned their different perceptions of time by deferring elements of the plan and accelerating others; but, in relation to the ambition to realize more significant innovative solutions, the developing actors' time pressure took precedence over the preference of at least the water board and the WFH Knowledge Programme to take more time to develop additional knowledge.

Time management in the Waalblok case

Introduction

Waalblok is a polder in the same Dutch municipality, Westland. The area covers 22.26 hectares, consisting mostly of glasshouses (horticulture). A large majority of the horticulturalists want to restructure the glasshouse area. They want large-scale renewal of glasshouses to modernize and remain competitive on the global market. The municipality supports this idea.

The water board has calculated that the area has a water storage capacity shortage of 11,250 m³. A large percentage of the surface area is covered by glass, and this limits the space for water drainage and storage. In recent years, there have been (minor) flooding incidents, which caused nuisance and economic damage. The water board's norm of 325 m³ of water storage per acre implies that most horticulturalists need to create extra water storage capacity. The difficulty for the horticulturalists is that every square metre of surface used for water storage reduces the surface for growing crops. Given the high price of land, this classic form of water retention is costly for them, making multifunctional land use – which combines water storage and horticulture – potentially attractive. In addition, the European Water Framework Directive requires that horticulturalists need a closed water system by 2027. In the short term, they have to comply with stricter Dutch rules restricting the discharge of water.

Thus, various developments come together in the polder. The horticulturalists want to restructure the glasshouses. The water board wants to increase the water storage capacity in the area. The horticulturalists are also seeking solutions for water nuisance in times of heavy rainfall. In addition, the municipality has acquired a large subsidy for an innovative solution to the water problems (especially regarding water for overhead or ground-level irrigation). Since 2006, the horticulturalists, water board and municipality have been jointly trying to combine these developments. They started an area development process to combine three issues: the restructuring of glasshouses; the sustainability of the water system in the area, especially water storage; and developments around water for agricultural use via the innovative 4B concept (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Waalblok glasshouse and water cellar (Source: www.ruimtevoorklimaat.nl)

The 4B concept is a closed water system for horticultural enterprises in which waste water is cleaned so that it can be re-used as irrigation water. The concept includes four main water-related processes in horticulture: buffering, preparing, irrigating and storing. The concept consists of a water basement beneath a glasshouse and a plant for preparing irrigation water. This combination enables horticulturalists to purify and store their own residual water, and temporarily store surplus water. The polder has been designated as a field laboratory within Water Framework Haaglanden. The aim is to search for innovative solutions to the problems that the actors are facing.

In 2007, the actors involved started an extensive exploration of 24 scenarios to deal with the water issues in the polder. This exploration took a lot of time according to the horticulturalists. Also, in 2008, a lot of time was taken to make decisions because the water board wanted further research into the effectiveness of a particular solution (broadening a particular watercourse for outlet water).

During the second half of 2008, the actors engaged in a long process of developing an area agreement. There was extensive discussion about the juridical arrangement in which the water board could cooperate with the horticulturalists and also about the financial rules of the game (Van Buuren et al., 2012).

Because of the complexity of the trajectory, the actors decided to separate the water storage in time from the other parts of the 4B concept (buffering, preparation, irrigation). One of the horticulturalists appeared willing to develop a water basement beneath his glasshouse, if some technical, juridical and financial uncertainties could be clarified. After this process, which took too long according to many actors involved, the construction of the basement started in 2010 and was finished in about three months. The water board would allow horticulturalists who participated in the water basement a few more years to comply with the new rules for cleaning waste water. In this way, the water board facilitated the development of the other parts of the 4B concept.

Actors involved and their perception of time

Perceptions of time varied strongly within this project. The horticulturalists' time perceptions were greatly influenced by the growth cycles of their crops, which were in turn influenced by peaks in the demand for flowers, for example, around Christmas. In order for the flower crop to be ready in time, the horticulturalist who was prepared to build a water basement needed to finish the restructuring of his glasshouses in time. Before he could start restructuring his glasshouses, he needed to finish the water basement. This implied a clear sequence of activities, including deadlines for every activity, which in the end was determined by the peak demand for flowers. Thus, the horticulturalist had a short-term time horizon with clear deadlines for starting and finishing the construction of the water basement. Missing those deadlines would be costly for him, so time for preparing and developing the decisions about solutions in the area was very scarce and costly for this horticulturalist. There was a limited time budget for preparing the water basement. At one point, the horticulturalist set a clear deadline for deciding about the 4B concept, which we describe further in the section about time management.

All together, the horticulturalists were of the opinion that the explorations took too much time and that the process evolved too slowly. They also argued that the discussions and the meetings themselves took too much time. They would rather spend this time working and earning money in their enterprises. The civil servants involved had slightly different perceptions of the time needed for meetings, as they were more used to spending time in meetings and also saw meetings as an elementary part of their work.

The water board's time perception was dominated by its goal to realize water storage in the medium term. This meant that in the short term there was time enough. Several times, the water board emphasized the importance of a careful decision-making process according to a planned time schedule. At the same time, the water board felt the time pressure exerted by the horticulturalists. Therefore, the water board exerted pressure on the knowledge parties (experts) to produce the research results on time (within the mutually agreed timeframe of the research projects).

The municipality's main motivation in implementing the 4B concept was to realize its subsidized project, and therefore it took the deadlines that came with the subsidy very seriously. For the implementation of the 4B project, the municipality depended strongly on the horticulturalists. Therefore, the time perceptions and deadlines of the farmers were also highly relevant to the municipality. The knowledge parties aimed to develop knowledge that would be valuable in the medium and long term. Their time horizon went beyond the term of the pilot project. For them, developing knowledge in the short term was only important in the sense of satisfying their commissioner, the water board, but not in terms of knowledge development.

The varying perceptions of time created several tensions in the relationships between actors. The water board was put under pressure to hurry up, especially by the horticulturalists, and the water board had to dampen the expectations regarding the speed of the process. As we shall see in the section on time management, the horticulturalists at one point even threatened to end the process if the decision about the 4B concept was not taken soon.

Management of time

The most important intervention regarding process management came from the horticulturalist who wanted to build the water cellar. He set a hard deadline: before a specific date he needed to know whether the other parties agreed upon the cellar or not; otherwise, he would start to restructure his glasshouse in a way that would rule out the possibility of the water cellar. In fact, he threatened to terminate his cooperation around the water governance innovation. Crucially, he was able to convince the others that he meant what he said: if the decision about the cellar was not taken before time X, the chance to realize this innovation would be zero, and the water storage would be realized through traditional measures (creating more space for water storage in basins or existing watercourses).

For the water board in particular, this was a stimulus to end the discussions about possible drawbacks of the 4B concept. The political executive of the water board even started to play an important role in increasing the tempo of the process when he told his organization to hurry up with drafting the area agreement. The reason was that he wanted to sign the agreement before his electoral term ended, more specifically, before the new political executive was installed. He succeeded in this.

A second aspect of time management is the specific phasing of the implementation of the 4Bs; this has had an important influence on the process. The first part of the concept, water storage, was separated from the other three parts. The actors chose not to implement the 4Bs at the same time. The consequence was that the basis for the concept, the water cellar, could be realized relatively quickly. At the same time, it implied that the water board realized its own goal – water storage – early in the process and after that was less eager to realize the other parts. This decreased the tempo of the process. Thus, the specific phasing of activities in time had an impact on the process as a whole.

An interrelated form of time management was that the water board allowed horticulturalists who participated in the water cellar and the area agreement a temporary exemption from the obligation about discharging waste water into the sewage system. This increased the time budget for realizing the other three aspects of the 4B concept.

Innovation and the management of time

The two pilot projects show some striking similarities and differences. Table 2 shows the most important findings. Innovation in water governance processes is a matter of dealing with plurality of time perceptions. The cases show that perceptions of time are formed through different rationalities. Private parties' perceptions of time are primarily driven by market logic and considerations of efficiency. This has consequences for how they perceive the nature of time (scarce, sometimes capricious), the tempo (determined by economic conjuncture and market demand) and the time horizon (the market requires competitive action in the short term, thus making the short term dominant). The perceptions of time among public parties are driven by bureaucratic logic and considerations of carefulness, whereby deliberate decision making is often more important than efficiency. This has its effects in ideas about the nature of time (cyclical due to policy cycles and electoral terms), the tempo (determined by procedures and rules) and the time horizon (determined by policy programmes, but sometimes also by the electoral term).

Table 2.

Perceptions of time and time management in the cases

	New Water	Waalblok
Perceptions of time
Nature of time	Socially constructed and plural	Socially constructed and plural
Tempo	Strong variance	Strong variance
Time budget (quantity)	Depends on market demand (for houses); little time available to realize first group of residences, much time to realize the rest	Private parties have little time available, the water board and researchers have more time
Time horizon	Public parties: medium term Private parties: short term	Public parties: medium term Private parties: short term Research organizations: medium and long term
Main determinant of time horizon	Public parties: careful decision making and rules Private parties: the market	Public parties: careful decision making and rules Private parties: the market
Effect on innovation process	Haste among private parties leads to ‘pragmatic innovation’; parties innovate insofar as needed to realize area development	Taking time early in process gives opportunity to study innovative concept thoroughly
		Later on, haste among private parties causes a breakthrough in the innovation process
	No time for development of more fundamental knowledge
Management of time for the purpose of innovation
General	No management of time for the purpose of developing innovations	Different time-management activities among actors: water board tries to slow down process for careful evidence-based innovation process, horticulturalists try to speed up process
	Management of time to synchronize the implementation of innovative concept (floating houses in polder) with market demand
		Management of time to embed the innovative concept (4B) in policies and rules of water board, and synchronize with market demand (for flowers)
Tempo	Tempo regulated through phasing	Tempo regulated through phasing
	Tempo regulated through phasing	Tempo reduced to make innovation possible (water board), then in the end speeded up to sign the agreement within the electoral term (water board)
	Tempo reduced to adjust to market developments Differentiated tempo for different sub-areas
Time budget (quantity)	Actors have limited control on the quantity of time, it depends largely on developments in the housing market	Horticulturalists reduce the time available by setting a deadline to enforce the innovation Upcoming replacement of water board governor limits time budget
	PPP put time pressure on process by aiming for short-term realization of first houses
Time horizon	Water board tries to broaden time horizon, but is not entirely successful in this regard	Creating different time horizons for different parts of the innovation (water storage in short term, other aspects medium term)
Timing	The development of houses is timed in line with developments in housing market	Restructuring timed to combine it with water storage, horticultural irrigation measures and availability of innovation subsidies
		The decision on the water cellar timed such that it fitted with the yearly peak in the flower market

Under market pressure, private parties experienced more strongly than public parties the need to act in the short term. Resolving the water retention challenge was important for the public authorities, but not urgent. Time pressure was therefore perceived differently by the public actors: investing time in the preparation of the innovation contributed to thoroughness and acceptance of decisions, whereas private parties tended to see this as unprofitable time. Public and private actors thus had different perceptions about the transaction costs of taking time for decision making. However, it must be noted that public parties in the innovation process were not immune to time pressure resulting from market mechanisms. Especially in the PPP arrangement in New Water, where public parties had borrowed money with interest to be paid over time, they experienced market-related time pressure too.

Conclusion and discussion

The cases show the relevance of time as a factor in innovation processes in water governance: actors' varying perceptions of time influence the relationships between actors and the outcomes of the interaction process. Conflicting perceptions of time created tensions between parties, and this hampered cooperation in one case (Waalblok), and even terminated the pilot project in New Water. Time is thus one of the elements that deserve the attention of network managers.

From the cases, we derive several conclusions regarding how innovation processes are influenced by differing aspects of perceived time. First, differing time horizons create different priorities among actors when it comes to taking action in the development and implementation of innovations. The medium-term orientation of public actors and the concomitant lack of urgency in the short term facilitate a careful development and embedding of innovations in the policy environment, but they may also hinder the capacity to actually realize the innovation at the pace and time required by private parties operating in a competitive market.

It is important to ‘give time’ to innovation because it takes time to develop innovations and make them policy proof and rule proof. Time is necessary to manage the translation of innovative concepts into existing institutional contexts (Pel, 2012). This is a reason why innovations in a governance context may fail if the time pressure is too high. The application of quick solutions, usually existing techniques, prevails in such situations (Sartorius and Zundel, 2005). However, it is also important to have some time pressure in innovation processes, especially in the phase of implementing innovative concepts. Otherwise, innovations can be thought out, but instead of moving towards implementation they may be discussed endlessly. At the start of innovation processes, time is needed for exploration but, during the process, time pressure is important to arrive at implementation.

This brings us to a second point, namely, that the need for innovation is highly time bound. The momentum is important because there needs to be a sense of urgency to deviate from existing, familiar practices and innovate. The development of innovations will lack support in times when there is no need for innovations. Also, the momentum is important for implementation; the cases show the importance of synchronizing implementation of innovations with policy developments and market cycles and thus connecting different timespans (Van Leeuwen and Van Buuren, 2013).

Third, parties in innovation processes have different perceptions of the amount of time spent in the preparation of innovations, especially in relation to time spent in meetings and discussions. In other words, the transaction costs of innovation in terms of time are perceived differently. In one case, the horticulturalists found that the meetings took so much time that they almost withdrew from the process. In the other case, the developers found the time spent in preparatory research so excessive that they stopped the pilot project. In conclusion, the transaction costs of innovation consist partly of time, and the different perceptions of this aspect of transaction costs can become a problematic factor in innovation processes.

The cases show that flexibility in dealing with time is an important factor in innovation processes. More particularly, phasing the sub-processes and synchronizing them with developments in the environment were important in both cases. In the Waalblok case, implementation was made possible by realizing the water cellar in the short term, while postponing the other parts of the innovative concept. In the New Water case, the area development was phased by sequencing the development of different sub-areas and synchronizing implementation with market demand for houses.

The cases highlight the importance of time-sensitive governance. Time-sensitive governance differs from more classic forms of time management in project and process management, which are mainly aimed at fixing deadlines and making sure that activities take place within a certain time period. Time-sensitive governance aims at the alignment of perceptions of time, and the synchronization of time paths of multiple actors and processes.

However, such synchronization and alignment of time may not always seem possible. From the governance literature, it can be derived that important preconditions for successfully managing time in multi-actor settings are to be found in more general network characteristics, particularly mutual trust, the acknowledgement of mutual dependency and a sense of reciprocity (Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004). Without interdependency, actors will not feel the need for mutual alignment of time; without trust and reciprocity, the process of alignment will be extremely cumbersome. An interesting avenue for further research is to compare how alignment and synchronization of time takes place in different governance cultures where mutual interdependency and reciprocity may be perceived differently: for example the Dutch corporatist and consensus-oriented culture compared with other, more competitive governance cultures.

This article has shown that there are various ways to influence collaboration in innovation processes by using the factor, time. This makes time a resource in governance networks, but it has hardly been recognized as such in the literature on governance networks (compare Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004). The capacity of parties to align their perceptions of time and consciously use time as a means of arriving at agreements is an important issue in network management. We argue that time forms a point of action in project and process management, and it is a factor which needs to be addressed in order to arrive at agreements. The literature on process management deals elaborately with progress in processes (de Bruijn et al., 2002), but it does not explicitly deal with time as a factor or resource that influences the progress and course of governance processes. Our analysis shows that time management is more than just monitoring and allocating time budgets. It is also about reframing time horizons and synchronizing temporal dynamics in multiple parallel trajectories. Further research into the role of time as a (strategic) resource will thus help to progress the theory of decision-making processes and governance networks.

Footnotes

Jasper Eshuis is Assistant Professor at the Department of Public Administration, Erasmus University, Rotterdam. His research focuses on the governance and management of complex systems, with a special interest in public branding. He has published in a variety of journals, such as Public Administration Review, Public Management Review and Urban Studies. Together with Erik-Hans Klijn he wrote Branding in Governance and Public Management (Routledge).

Arwin van Buuren (1980) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Public Administration, Erasmus University, Rotterdam. His research focuses on issues of climate adaptation, water governance and innovation in flood risk management. He has published nearly 40 articles in international refereed journals such as Public Administration, Regional Environmental Change, Environmental Politics and Public Management Review. He also co-edited some books published by Routledge and IWA Press. He is co-editor of the recently launched International Journal of Water Governance.

References

Bleudorn

Denhardt

(1988) Time and organizations. Journal of Management 14(2): 299–320.

Burrell

(1992) Back to the future: Time and organization. In: Reed

Hughes

(eds) Rethinking Organization. New Directions in Organization Theory and Analysis, London: Sage, pp. 165–183.

De Bruijn

ten Heuvelhof

in 't Veld

(2002) Process Management. Why Project Management Fails in Complex Decision-making Processes, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Flyvbjerg

(2006) Five misunderstandings about case studies. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219–245.

Goetz

Meyer-Sahling

J-H

(2009) Political time in the EU: Dimensions, perspectives, theories. Journal of European Public Policy 16(2): 180–201.

Huitema

Meijerink

(2009) Water Policy Entrepreneurs: A Research Companion to Water Transitions Around the Globe, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Jessop B (2003) Governance and metagovernance: On reflexivity, requisite variety, and requisite irony. In: Bang HP (ed.) Governance as Social and Political Communication. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Koppenjan

Klijn

(2004) Managing Uncertainties in Networks, London: Routledge.

Linz

(1998) Democracy's time constraints. International Political Science Review 19(1): 19–37.

10.

Nowotny

(1992) Time and social theory: Towards a social theory of time. Time and Society 1(3): 421–454.

11.

Nowotny

(1994) Time: The Modern and Postmodern Experience, Cambridge: Polity Press.

12.

Pel

(2012) System innovation as synchronization: Innovation attempts in the Dutch traffic management field. PhD thesis , Rotterdam: Erasmus University.

13.

Pollitt

(2008) Time, Policy, Management, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

14.

Sartorius

Zundel

(2005) Time Strategies, Innovation and Environmental Policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

15.

Schedler

Santiso

(1998) Democracy and time. International Political Science Review 19(1): 5–18.

16.

Schmitter

Santiso

(1998) Three temporal dimensions to the consolidation of democracy. International Political Science Review 19(1): 69–92.

17.

Teisman

Van Buuren

Gerrits

(2012) Managing Complex Governance Systems, London: Routledge.

18.

Van Buuren MW (2013) Knowledge for water governance. Trends and challenges. International Journal of Water Governance 1(1–2): 157–175.

19.

Van Buuren MW, Bressers NEW and Eshuis J (2012) Innovatie in regionaal waterbeheer. Lessen uit het kennisprogramma Waterkader Haaglanden [Innovation in regional water governance. Lessons from the knowledge program Waterframework Haaglanden]. Water Governance Tijdschrift 2(1): 27–31.

20.

Van Leeuwen CJWG and van Buuren MW (2013) Connecting time spans in regional water governance. Managing projects as stepping-stones to a climate proof delta region. In: Edelenbos J, Bressers N and Scholten P (eds) Water Governance as Connective Capacity. Surrey UK: Ashgate Publishers.

21.

Yin

(1984) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications.