Graciela Nava Guerrero
The present Appendix is part of a report prepared for a Master level course taught at the Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management in Delft University of Technology. The course, Engineering for Sustainable Development, has the objective of improving the students’ capabilities to contribute to sustainability. As students, we learn by conducting research about Texel as a sustainable island and preparing a report for our “clients”, the municipality of Texel and the local entrepreneurs supporting the project.
In addition to the learning process and products, our goal is to design Sustainable Texel as a socio-technical system and to investigate what would be required for the island to transition. From the nine sub-systems in which the challenge was divided, our group deals with Permanently Innovate.
In order to conduct our research about Texel, we started by making sense out of the notion of Permanently Innovate. Although there is research in the field of innovation theory and sustainable innovation is available, we did not find a theoretical definition of what Permanently Innovate would imply for socio-technical systems, which are wholes made by social and technical entities, as well as their interactions (Borræs & Edler, 2014). Therefore, we chose to perform a literature review to learn about what innovation is, what systems of innovation are, how their state can be measured, what their implications on socio-technical systems are and how we can define the notion of Permanently innovate.
We formulated our main research question as follows:
How can Permanently innovate be defined?
Moreover, we defined the following sub questions:
What is innovation? What is a system of innovation? How can the state of a system of innovation be measured? What are the implications of systems of innovation for socio-technical systems?
The following sections of this article walk the reader through the steps we took to answer the research question. Section 2 discusses the methodology that we applied. Section 3 elaborates on the notion of systems of innovation, including its elements, its functions and the ways in which its state can be measured. Section 3 deals with the implications of innovation systems for socio-technical systems. Finally, Section 4 answers the main research question by providing a definition for the concept of Permanently innovate.
2. Methodology
The literature reviewed while was retrieved by means of a systematic literature search conducted in the engine Scopus, via Delft University of Technology’s Library. Due to the large number of available publications in the field of sustainable innovation, we limited our sample to those which title contained the word sustainable innovation and which title, abstract or keywords contained the word socio-technical systems. From the thirteen resulting articles, the work by Langendahl, Cook, and Potter (2014) was unavailable via Scopus, Google Scholar and EBSCO Host; therefore, it was left out of the review. In order to answer the research questions we analyzed the remaining publications, as well as relevant documents from their references lists.
The answers to our research questions served as building blocks along the report; moreover, we began each chapter by adding concepts that increased and improved our understanding of Permanently innovate and Texel’s sustainability transition.
3. Systems of innovation
Over the course of the last decade, the discourse of innovation, competitiveness and sustainability has become increasingly popular (Coenen & López, 2010; Hekkert & Negro, 2009). Its central notion is that the creation of more wealth while only be long lasting and stable if we use less resources and minimize our negative environmental impacts. Nevertheless, there is no unique framework to describe sustainable innovation and innovation systems; on the contrary, many authors have produced their own definitions.
Through a literature review, Coenen and López (2010)defined innovation as technologically novel or improved goods, services or ways of production (Edquist, 2010) that require changes in technology, organizations and institutions (Foxon & Pearson, 2008). In their work, the authors outlined a set of dimensions that can describe systems of innovations. Their dimensions include system boundaries, actors and networks, institutions, knowledge and dynamics.
3.1 Elements of a system of innovation
In systems of innovation, boundaries refer to the limits of the system, which can be delineated in many ways: geographically, technologically, product areas and activities (Edquist, 2010). This delineation is important because it enables to differentiate between internal and external drivers of innovation.
Actors are individuals and sometimes organizations which behavior is embedded in institutions (formal and informal) and who operate in networks and influence the system (primary actors) or influence other actors directly involved in innovation (secondary actors) (Liu & White, 2001; Lundvall, 1992). On one hand, formal institutions are explicit rules and regulations and informal ones tend to be tacit patterns of behavior, social routine, visions and cognitive notions through which individuals and collectivities make meaning or sense out of the world (Johnson & Edquist, 1995; Penrose, 1995). On the other hand, networks of actors are key parts of those systems because individuals alone rarely carry out innovations (Edquist, 2010).
Researchers often considered knowledge, a resource, and learning, a process, to be sine qua non elements for innovation. Knowledge can be defined as the ability to act (Ibert, 2007) and learning as the reproduction or transformation of institutions by either imitation or empirical exchange (Geels, 2004). Evidence of learning includes but is not limited to changes in informal institutions. The dynamics of a system of innovation, in contrast, can be understood as the changes that occur within that system, whether or not they modify institutions. These elements of a system are represented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Elements of a system of innovation
Therefore, systems of innovation can be defined as networks of actors, including organizations and institutions that initiate, develop, import, modify, disseminate and implement innovations (Freeman, 1987; Johnson & Edquist, 1995; Liu & White, 2001; Markard & Truffer, 2008).
3.1 Functions of a system of innovation
Although the concept might seem to be straight forward, systems of innovation perform functions that are not trivial. Hekkert and Negro (2009) built on the work by Hekkert et al. (2007), Negro et al. (2007), Negro et al. (2008), Negro (2007) and Suurs and Hekkert (2009) to analyze and successfully validate the relevance of the following seven functions of systems of innovation:
Table 1. Functions of a system of innovation
|
Function 1: Entrepreneurial activities |
Existence of entrepreneurs who turn knowledge development, networks and markets into concrete action and who seize business opportunities. |
|
Function 2: Knowledge development (learning) |
Practical research and development as a way of social learning. |
|
Function 3: Knowledge diffusion through networks |
Exchange of information through networks, including knowledge developers, government, competitors and markets. This interaction enables Function 2. |
|
Function 4: Guidance of the search |
Activities that make visible and clearer the specific wants of actors in the system, particularly technology users. |
|
Function 5: Market formation |
Creation of spaces where technologies can emerge; it can involve governmental intervention but also actions by other actors. |
|
Function 6: Resource mobilization |
Mobilization of financial and human resources. |
|
Function 7: Creation of legitimacy |
New technologies need to form part of certain regimes, set of social rules that determine how actors manage a technology, how they interact with it and with each other and even how they understand the world (Correljé, Cuppen, Dignum, Pesch, & Taebi, 2015). Sometimes, new technologies even need to change existing ones. This means that changes will most likely face resistance, which will have to be defeated in order to succeed. |
3.1 Measuring systems of innovation
Following Hekkert and Negro (2009)’s analysis of the functions of an innovation system, a proxy for the state of such a system can be the measurement of the state of its functions. The authors also include such an instrument in their article, which we adapted from energy projects to general projects. Below we present our adaptation, including the function, the criteria that measure the specific function, and the score that is assigned to the function if specific criteria is fulfilled. Although the final score could be the addition of all the functions, it might be more insightful to keep the scores disaggregated to be able to asses every function independently.
Table 2. Criteria to measure the state of systems of innovation
|
Function |
Criteria |
Score |
|
Function 1: Entrepreneurial activities |
Project started Innovators deliver finished project
Project stopped Lack of entrepreneurs |
+1
-1 |
|
Function 2: Knowledge development (learning) |
Desktop assessment, feasibility studies, reports, research and development projects, patents |
+1 |
|
Function 3: Knowledge diffusion through networks |
Conferences, workshops, platforms |
+1 |
|
Function 4: Guidance of the search |
Positive expectations of innovative projects Positive regulations by government on innovative projects
Negative expectations of innovative projects Negative regulations by government on innovative projects |
+1
-1 |
|
Function 5: Market formation |
Feed-in rates, environmental standards, green labels
Expressed lack of feed-in rates, lack of environmental standards, lack of green labels |
+1
-1 |
|
Function 6: Resource mobilization |
Subsidies, investments
Expressed lack of subsidies, investments |
+1
-1 |
|
Function 7: Creation of legitimacy |
Lobby by agents to improve technical, institutional and financial conditions for particular technology
Expressed lack of lobby by agents Lobby for technologies that competes with a particular technology Resistance to change by neighbors. |
+1
-1 |
The success of systems of innovation depends in a great extent on public participation. As explained by Hielscher, Seyfang, and Smith (2011), community involvement is crucial as well as good governance structures for technology transitions (Hillman, Nilsson, Rickne, & Magnusson, 2011; Liedtke et al., 2015; Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012). Additionally, decision-making processes must be open to the public, who must have power over transitions (Lowe, Phillipson, & Lee, 2008).
5. Implications for socio-technical systems
Although they are similar concepts, systems of innovation and socio-technical systems are not interchangeable notions. Socio-technical systems are wholes made by social and technical entities, as well as their interactions (Borræs & Edler, 2014); these systems do not necessarily imply transformation or change. However, the purpose of systems of innovation is precisely to achieve change in socio-technical systems. In other words, every new technology has its own socio-technical system with the capacity to develop and disseminate such a technology (Jacobsson & Johnson, 2000).
Therefore, effective systems of innovation have the capacity of either embedding certain technology into a socio-technical system or changing the underlying regime for one that accepts the technology.
6. Permanently innovate: the concept
Based on our literature review, we build a definition of what a Permanently innovate sub-system would be and would imply. First, a Permanently innovate subsystemwould be a networks of actors, including organizations and institutions that initiate, develop, import, modify, disseminate and implement innovations.
Second, a Permanently innovate subsystem would differ from a regular system of innovation because it would not only strive for the transition of one or two technologies only in a particularly moment in time. On the contrary, it would aim for a radical change in the institutions, particularly informal ones, that would modify tacit patterns of behavior, social routine, visions and cognitive notions through which individuals and collectivities make meaning or sense out of the world. The new informal institutions would enable the continuous emergence of successful systems of innovation. This means that the networks of agents would have to be dynamic: new agents and roles would come in and out of those networks and new roles will be created as required.
Third, successful systems of innovations would be defined as those that perform all seven functions by Hekkert et al. (2007), Negro et al. (2007), Negro et al. (2008), Negro (2007) and Suurs and Hekkert (2009). Thus, the sub-system would have entrepreneurial activities, knowledge development, knowledge diffusion through networks, guidance of the search, market formation, resource mobilization and creation of legitimacy.
Finally, a Permanently innovate subsystem would have deep implications for socio-technical systems. It would change the system in such a way that new, relevant and proper technologies would be either accepted or would change the system’s regime. This new attitude towards change would require new rules and regulations to negotiate those changes between the actors. Thus, Permanently innovate would demand deep and structural changes in the entire socio-technical system.
References
Borræs, S., & Edler, J. (2014). The Governance of Socio-Technical Systems: Explaining Change: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Ceschin, F. (2015). The Role of Socio-Technical Experiments in Introducing Sustainable Product-Service System Innovations The Handbook of Service Innovation (pp. 373-401): Springer.
Coenen, L., & López, F. J. D. (2010). Comparing systems approaches to innovation and technological change for sustainable and competitive economies: an explorative study into conceptual commonalities, differences and complementarities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(12), 1149-1160.
Correljé, A., Cuppen, E., Dignum, M., Pesch, U., & Taebi, B. (2015). Responsible innovation in energy projects: Values in the design of technologies, institutions and stakeholder interactions Responsible Innovation 2 (pp. 183-200): Springer.
Edquist, C. (2010). Systems of innovation perspectives and challenges. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 2(3), 14-45.
Foxon, T., & Pearson, P. (2008). Overcoming barriers to innovation and diffusion of cleaner technologies: some features of a sustainable innovation policy regime. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(1), S148-S161.
Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic policy: Lessons from Japan. Frances Pinter, London.
Geels, F. W. (2004). Understanding system innovations: a critical literature review and a conceptual synthesis. System innovation and the transition to sustainability: Theory, evidence and policy, 19-47.
Hekkert, M. P., & Negro, S. O. (2009). Functions of innovation systems as a framework to understand sustainable technological change: Empirical evidence for earlier claims. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(4), 584-594.
Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(4), 413-432.
Hielscher, S., Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2011). Community innovation for sustainable energy: CSERGE working paper EDM.
Hillman, K., Nilsson, M., Rickne, A., & Magnusson, T. (2011). Fostering sustainable technologies: a framework for analysing the governance of innovation systems. Science and Public Policy, 38(5), 403-415.
Ibert, O. (2007). Towards a geography of knowledge creation: the ambivalences between ‘knowledge as an object’and ‘knowing in practice’. Regional Studies, 41(1), 103-114.
Jacobsson, S., & Johnson, A. (2000). The diffusion of renewable energy technology: an analytical framework and key issues for research. Energy policy, 28(9), 625-640.
Johnson, B. H., & Edquist, C. (1995). Institutions and Organisations in Systems of Innovation: Aalborg Universitetsforlag.
Langendahl, P.-A., Cook, M., & Potter, S. (2014). Sustainable innovation journeys: exploring the dynamics of firm practices as part of transitions to more sustainable food and farming. Local Environment(ahead-of-print), 1-19.
Liedtke, C., Baedeker, C., Hasselkuß, M., Rohn, H., & Grinewitschus, V. (2015). User-integrated innovation in Sustainable LivingLabs: an experimental infrastructure for researching and developing sustainable product service systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 106-116.
Liu, X., & White, S. (2001). Comparing innovation systems: a framework and application to China’s transitional context. Research policy, 30(7), 1091-1114.
Lowe, P., Phillipson, J., & Lee, R. P. (2008). Socio-technical innovation for sustainable food chains: roles for social science. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(5), 226-233.
Lundvall, B.-A. (1992). National innovation system: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter, London.
Markard, J., & Truffer, B. (2008). Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework. Research policy, 37(4), 596-615.
Negro, S. O. (2007). Dynamics of technological innovation systems: the case of biomass energy. Netherlands Geographical Studies, 356.
Negro, S. O., Hekkert, M. P., & Smits, R. E. (2007). Explaining the failure of the Dutch innovation system for biomass digestion—a functional analysis. Energy policy, 35(2), 925-938.
Negro, S. O., Suurs, R. A., & Hekkert, M. P. (2008). The bumpy road of biomass gasification in the Netherlands: Explaining the rise and fall of an emerging innovation system. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(1), 57-77.
Penrose, E. T. (1995). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm: Oxford university press.
Seyfang, G., & Haxeltine, A. (2012). Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. Environment and Planning-Part C, 30(3), 381.
Suurs, R. A., & Hekkert, M. P. (2009). Cumulative causation in the formation of a technological innovation system: The case of biofuels in the Netherlands. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(8), 1003-1020.
Vergragt, P. J., & Brown, H. S. (2007). Sustainable mobility: from technological innovation to societal learning. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(11), 1104-1115.
von Malmborg, F. (2007). Stimulating learning and innovation in networks for regional sustainable development: the role of local authorities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(17), 1730-1741.