The article discusses the concept of transition management in the context of sustainability, highlighting its potential and challenges. It argues that while transition management offers a framework for managing complex socio-technical systems, it is not without political and practical limitations. The authors caution that transition management often assumes a clear vision and consensus, which may not always be the case. They emphasize the need for a more nuanced understanding of the political dynamics involved in shaping and managing transitions. Transition management is based on the idea of co-evolution between social and technical systems, with a focus on managing change through multiple levels of analysis. However, the authors warn that this approach can be overly optimistic and may overlook the complexities and uncertainties inherent in managing such systems. They also highlight the importance of considering the broader social and political contexts in which transitions occur, including the role of different stakeholders and the potential for unintended consequences. The article also addresses the issue of missing transitions, where undesirable changes may occur without being recognized or addressed. It suggests that a more comprehensive approach is needed to understand the full range of transitions, including those that may be harmful or unsustainable. Finally, the authors argue that transition management should not be seen as a simple or straightforward process. Instead, it requires a more reflexive and adaptive approach, one that acknowledges the complexity and uncertainty of the systems involved. They conclude that while transition management has the potential to contribute to sustainable development, it must be approached with caution and a critical awareness of its limitations.The article discusses the concept of transition management in the context of sustainability, highlighting its potential and challenges. It argues that while transition management offers a framework for managing complex socio-technical systems, it is not without political and practical limitations. The authors caution that transition management often assumes a clear vision and consensus, which may not always be the case. They emphasize the need for a more nuanced understanding of the political dynamics involved in shaping and managing transitions. Transition management is based on the idea of co-evolution between social and technical systems, with a focus on managing change through multiple levels of analysis. However, the authors warn that this approach can be overly optimistic and may overlook the complexities and uncertainties inherent in managing such systems. They also highlight the importance of considering the broader social and political contexts in which transitions occur, including the role of different stakeholders and the potential for unintended consequences. The article also addresses the issue of missing transitions, where undesirable changes may occur without being recognized or addressed. It suggests that a more comprehensive approach is needed to understand the full range of transitions, including those that may be harmful or unsustainable. Finally, the authors argue that transition management should not be seen as a simple or straightforward process. Instead, it requires a more reflexive and adaptive approach, one that acknowledges the complexity and uncertainty of the systems involved. They conclude that while transition management has the potential to contribute to sustainable development, it must be approached with caution and a critical awareness of its limitations.