Texel has signed a shared ambition manifesto together with the other Dutch Wadden Islands, which states that they desire to reach full self-succiciency in terms of water and (renewable) energy by 2020. It is safe to assume that neither of these ambitions will be reached in time on Texel. Because technical limitations are not necessarily the reason for this, the question why is studied through theories of governance of change. This thesis has two goals. The first goal is to create an analytical framework to analyze processes of governance of change in socio-technical systems. The second is to apply this framework on the socio-technical energy- and water systems on Texel in order to learn about how the governance of change has contributed to the current state of these systems, compared to Texel's ambitions. What was learned from Texel is that the successfulness of strategies in the governance of change depends on the nature and context of the system. For example: mobilizing people to found energy cooperation TexelEnergie was successful because the energy market in place allowed an opportunity for such an initiative to work. Secondly, the Texel Core Values could be successfully utilized to shift the direction of change from windmills and bio- fermentation to solar energy and energy savings, because the decentralized nature of the system allowed social actors to guide change on their own terms, based on the cultural values of Texel. In contrast, in the water system these strategies would not work because the drinking water market is closed and regulated by governmental actors, meaning that there is no opportunity present for societal actors to mobilize and start producing their own drinking water. In that regard, legitimacy for change is absent since they depend on the support of drinking water company PWN, which is merely concerned with providing a reliable drinking water infrastructure and is legally bound to provide this in the most cost-effective and safe way possible. Hence, they are not interested in changing the existing centralized drinking water system towards a system where drinking water is produced on the island, simply because it is desired by Texel. This thesis covered a dual case study where the governance of change in the socio-technical energy and water systems on Texel was analyzed. Generalization from single case studies is a controversial topic and requires extrapolation that can never be fully justified because findings are always embedded within a context. In this study, the findings from the previous section are embedded in a specific context that is unique to Texel. Because of this it would be premature to express any generalistic and legitimate conclusions about governance of change in socio-technical systems based on the findings of these case studies alone. Such claims warrant similar analysis of other socio-technical systems, preferably also water and energy systems but in different settings (settings here referring to different locations or communities). This is proposed as topics for future research.

Within projects, there are a lot of elements that change. Change leads to uncertainty, and as a result, risks appear. A lot of projects fail due to uncertainty and risks. Especially complex projects are more vulnerable to risks (Hertogh & Westerveld, 2010). Complex projects are seen as large projects with long time schedules, multi-ownership, involving substantial resources, significant political issues and significant novelty (Chapman & Ward, 1997). The root causes of project related risks are mostly part of the organizational dynamics and multidisciplinary nature of the business´ organization (Thamhain, 2013). For this reason, risk management becomes important, which is especially crucial in technology-based projects. Risk management must be seen as an ongoing review process in the whole Project Life Cycle (Thamhain, 2013). Chapman and Ward (1997) stated already in 1997 that risk management must be a core process within the strategic management of any business or organization. No matter the size, the activity, or the sector. Risk management has the aim to reduce risks (Nicholas & Steyn, 2012). Widely, a lot of research is performed to risk management standards. These standards give hands on managing risks and are mostly described in an abstract way as it must be applicable to all projects. The general risk management standards that are defined in literature are implemented in all mature risk management organizations in extreme complex projects to manage risks (Caño & Cruz, 2002). Risk management is a process that should be integrated within project management (Nicholas & Steyn, 2012; Zou, Chen, & Chan, 2010). It is widely recognized by leading project management institutions that risk management should be an integral part of the project management (Caño & Cruz, 2002). While making risk management an integral part of project management, it is necessary that risk management must be adopted by the project management approach. Risk management is not just a management tool that can be added besides the project management but it must be part of the project management (Chapman and Ward, 1997).