Saving time for the future: reflections from the non-panel at PolyFutures

Time is not a neutral backdrop to policymaking – questions of pace, timing and horizons have become central to what we govern. At our PolyFutures’ conversation on the question “Can policy keep up with time?”, panellists and participants explored how, instead of being chased by time, institutions could start to design with it, and perhaps even turn it into an ally.

When every timeline accelerates

The starting point was familiar to anyone working in public administration today: policy timelines have accelerated dramatically. As one example from Germany illustrated, laws that once had around 92 days to be drafted now need to be prepared in roughly 45, with similar patterns visible across many systems. Crises, from the pandemic to energy shocks and geopolitical tensions, have pushed governments into “fast‑forward”, with the time from draft to adoption almost halving compared to previous legislative terms.

This acceleration has consequences. Derogations and exceptional fast‑track procedures, once meant for emergencies, increasingly seep into regular practice, undermining the deliberation, participation and intergenerational thinking that sustainable governance requires. As Thomas Hemmelgarn, the Head of the EU Policy Lab, who was moderating this conversation put it, the real question is not simply “fast versus slow”, but how to be smarter with time at every step of the policy process.

Time scarcity in the attention economy

The Slido word cloud that opened the session, where we asked the audience how TIME feels in their policy work captured the mood: “scarce”, “limited”, “short term”, “rushed”, “pressure”, but also “window of opportunity” and “something to play with”. In an attention economy where crises, notifications and breaking news constantly compete for focus, time scarcity is not just about hours in the day, but about cognitive bandwidth.

Elad Meshulam from the IMF framed this as moving beyond the idea of a single, linear lane of time towards recognising multiple, overlapping timelines – political, organisational, technological, social – each with its own pace and constraints. 

Fabienne Corvers, from the European Commission Secretariat General distinguished between “political time”, driven by mandates, media cycles and expectations of quick wins, and “procedural time”, which is needed to consult, analyse, draft and implement policies that actually work. Robust quality controls, across the whole policy cycle, however, remain essential to protect legitimacy, transparency and review. The challenge is to synchronise these timelines rather than letting the fastest one dictate the rest.

From enemy to ally

One powerful reframing came from Ariane Epstein, of the Direction interministérielle de la transformation publique (DITP): what if time were not the enemy of innovation, but its best ally? In her practice, moments spent on testing, iterating and allowing for the right to error are not delays but essential investments that prevent much larger problems later. Design fiction, living labs and even “dialogues with nature” to include non‑human perspectives were highlighted as tools that help stretch our sense of time beyond the immediate legislative term.

Simone Carrier, from Digital Agentur Brandenburg added a very pragmatic angle: rather than trying to compress every process, smart institutions bring people and disciplines together earlier to save time overall. For example, convening legal, digital and service teams in a design sprint may feel like a big upfront time commitment, but it can avoid months of rework when regulations meet legacy systems and real‑world complexity.

Behaviour under pressure

Behavioural insights surfaced another paradox: when time pressure rises, people tend to fall back on what they know. As Thomas noted, under stress we reach for familiar templates and established routines, even if we suspect they are no longer fit for purpose. The Slido poll (see below) confirmed this dynamic: many in the room recognised that “we spend too much time on the wrong things” or that “time isn’t the issue, it’s how we use it”.

Asked what they sacrifice first under time pressure, almost half of participants chose “long‑term thinking”, followed by “consultation and participation” and “evidence and analysis”. In other words, the very practices that make policy resilient and fair – especially for future generations – are often the first to go. Intergenerational fairness, for instance in climate or digital regulation, requires working against this instinct by explicitly reserving time for long‑range reflection, even when short‑term pressures are intense.

Tools that feel like a burden – until they don’t

Across the panel, there was broad agreement that methods such as human‑centred design, behavioural science, strategic foresight and data‑driven analysis are no longer “nice to have” extras; they are becoming core infrastructure for future‑oriented institutions. Yet, as one of the prepared provocations put it, “to many, our tools feel like a waste of time”.

Here, the conversation turned to evidence and experience. Design sprints, living labs, visualisation and prototyping were frequently cited as favourite tools because they make abstract debates tangible quickly and generate positive evidence that a different way of working can deliver better outcomes. As one panellist warned, “if you rush, you might risk getting bitten”; the power of the process lies in showing that taking a little more time upfront can avoid being bitten by unintended consequences later.

Building capacity for multiple speeds

So can policy keep up with time? For Elad, the answer depends less on individual heroics and more on organisational capacity and structure. Institutions need the ability to speed up when needed, for example in crises, without locking themselves permanently into “emergency mode”. That means investing in skills, processes and governance models that support multiple speeds: some geared to rapid response, others to long‑term transformation.

Fabienne stressed proportionality: not every file needs a six‑month co‑creation process, but not every file should be pushed through in six days either. The art lies in matching the time invested to the level of risk, complexity and long‑term impact, and in protecting the spaces for reflection that are easiest to erode yet hardest to rebuild. Saving time for long‑term reflection is not a luxury, but part of responsible governance.

From polycrisis to PolyFutures – and on to Berlin

Despite the heavy theme, the mood in the room was particularly hopeful. Several speakers highlighted the value of focusing on the wide array of futures ahead, rather than only on “polycrisis”: on the possibilities opened up by new coalitions, new tools and a growing community of practitioners committed to doing policymaking differently. As one participant put it, the community itself is a “hope for humanity”.

This is the energy the EU Policy Lab will bring on 12 June  from 9:00 to 12:00 CET at the Europäisches Haus in Berlin, where we continue the conversation on time and policymaking alongside the Creative Bureaucracy Festival. We will probe how to redesign policy processes so they make better use of time without overloading public servants, how to keep consultation, evidence and long‑term thinking on the table when the “crisis of the week” hits, and how to navigate political and procedural time without losing either.

If time in your work currently feels scarce, misaligned or simply “not considered”, what would it take for you – and your organisation – to start treating time as a design material rather than a constraint?