By Dr Luke Roberts – Fellow at The Centre for Evaluation of Complexity Across the Nexus (CECAN)
The Problem with Linear Evaluation
I see the world as full of complex systems, whereas traditional policy evaluation often operates under a dangerous assumption: that social systems move to the beat of a single, mechanical clock. We design interventions with fixed 12-month timelines and assume simple, linear cause-and-effect relationships. However, systems such as schools, hospitals, and communities are not machines; they are Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS).1 In these contexts, time is not uniform. When we impose rigid, short-term evaluation cycles on long-term social processes, we don’t just miss the mark—we often get a fundamentally misleading assessment of a policy’s effectiveness and sustainability. To fix this, we need to move from “clock time” to a Temporal Eco-System approach.
Chronotypes: Why time is diverse—an illustration
Let’s start somewhere familiar, the school run in the morning. The school is the pacesetter with the expectation that students will arrive by 8:30am (Chronotype 1). At 8:10 am, a primary parent is trying to get their child’s uniform and school shoes on (Chronotype 2). The child is running around having turned the school uniform activity into a battle as they were having fun watching TV (Chronotype 3). The first chronotype is institutional; the second is subjective, in the sense of urgency to meet the first. The third Chronotype sits outside of the other two and is relative to what interests are being experienced at that moment. This illustration highlights that both time and the experience of time are diverse. Yet evaluation often ignores the plurality of chronotypes within an eco-system.
Understanding the Clash: “Chronos Conflicts”
I have been developing a Temporal Framework to explore how different parts of a system experience time. Just as the human body has a diversity of circadian rhythms, I suggest that social ecosystems do as well. Central to this is the Chronotype: the inherent temporal rhythms and paces of communities or institutions and how they collectively experience time.
In any system, power is a capability— in temporal phenomena this can be the ability to impose, defend, or withdraw a specific rhythm. A Chronos Conflict occurs when a dominant Chronotype (usually the “Pacesetter”) defines a pace that other sub-systems cannot sustain. For example, a policy-maker’s fast rhythm may impose a temporal reality that a slower, network-dependent community rhythm cannot meet. This often results in Discrete Decoupling, in which the powerful actor avoids conflict by withdrawing resources before genuine change can emerge.
The Realities of Temporal Misalignment: An Example
The Temporal Framework helps diagnose the misalignment that evaluators face daily. Consider a typical three-year policy cycle (see figure 1):
- Policy-makers’ time: Quantification of goals (e.g., reducing anti-social behaviour). The operational period is often only 18 months, squeezed between a year for setup and a six-month wind-down.
- Evaluator’s time: Procurement, orientation, and reporting—all typically squeezed into the same 12–18 month window.
- Community time: For the community, the project only truly starts in year two when a service becomes tangible. Just as they begin to rely on it, it closes, creating “change fatigue”.
Figure 1. Chronotypes in Conflict.
The measure of change here is not found in seconds or years, but in the weight of interaction between the chronotypes. The Chronos conflict arises because the different chronotypes are not aligned among the Policymaker, the Evaluator, and the Community. The result is that what is often evaluated has hardly begun to align with the Community Chronotype, yet the policymaker’s pace has already required that the evaluator complete a report. That there can be conflict within the intertwining of chronotypes is rarely acknowledged, let alone resolved.
Designing for Temporal Success
If we continue to evaluate policies using only linear timelines, we will continue to “starve” slow-moving but vital cultural shifts. By recognising Chronos Conflicts, we can design evaluations that are “temporally smart,” focusing on the conditions for system activation and the specific duration required for emergence in complex systems.
Evaluating the plurality of time as an ecosystem—rather than just a mechanical system—acknowledges that diversity of pace is a sign of health. Just as a biological ecosystem requires different species to grow at different rates, a healthy social system requires a diversity of Chronotypes. Recognising this plurality allows policymakers to find novel solutions that meet communities where they are. It moves us toward a nuanced understanding of Panarchy, acknowledging that renewal and stability have their own unique rhythms.
Reflection on the Fellowship:
This Fellowship has taught me that evaluation is not just measuring the “before and after”—it is relational and temporal. Working with CECAN has deepened my understanding of how pace and power shape change. I am now exploring how temporal frameworks can be used to simulate these diverse chronotypes and to design interventions and evaluations that succeed within the system’s Chronos. I hope this will benefit communities, evaluators, and policymakers in time.
Find out more:
I will be presenting the full TPEA Framework at upcoming conferences throughout 2026. For more information on the framework or to discuss potential applications, please visit [CECAN website/Luke’s Profile] or follow the progress of this research via [LinkedIn: Dr Luke Roberts -Complexity Thinking / X: @LukeshRoberts ].
By exploring “Time,” we can provide the lens needed to identify Chronos Conflicts and intentionally design for long-term emergence, not just short-term reporting.
Acknowledgements:
I would especially like to thank Professor Nigel Gilbert and Dr Emma Uprichard for stretching my thinking on the methodologies and conceptualisation of time. Their commitment to complexity-informed evaluation provided the theoretical depth to develop these ideas in live environments. I am also grateful to the CECAN Fellows who shared their challenges, allowing me to refine this framework in real-world complex systems.