Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Analysing The Interaction of An Innovation Field and Its Context For Exploring Different Innovation Pathways
Analysing The Interaction of An Innovation Field and Its Context For Exploring Different Innovation Pathways
1 Introduction
Innovations tend to develop in a non-linear way as they are subject to a complex interplay of
structures and processes within a specific innovation field as well as within its socio-technical
context. These are, for instance, specific actor constellations and institutional settings at the
producer and consumer side, developments in complementary innovation fields or developments at a societal level. Innovation processes are also characterized by cumulative or learning effects, which may lead to path-dependencies and lock-in effects. As a result of this
complex interplay, it is often uncertain, which pathway an innovation will take in the future.
This holds particularly for innovations at an early development stage and which at the same
time present a potentially radical innovation with respect to existing socio-technical structures. This is all the more true, if long-term developments are considered. Uncertainty may
refer to the technical characteristics of an innovation, to the future application fields and the
user segments and to the interpretation a society or different actor groups may attribute to a
technology or service (Pinch & Bijker 1987), that is, to the future shape, function and meaning of an innovation. As a result, it is often uncertain, if an innovation will turn out as a sustainable innovation. This is to say, an innovation may not be considered as sustainable as
such, but rather it depends on the specific variation of an innovation as well as its embedding
in a specific context, if it will turn out as more or less sustainable.
In this paper we present a future-oriented approach for exploring a range of alternative innovation pathways an innovation may take. These pathways are characterised by different variations of the shape, function and meaning of an innovation and by specific developments
within as well as in the context of the innovation field at hand, which may contribute to the
prevalence of one variation rather than another. The approach draws on the multi-level concept (Rip & Kemp 1998; Geels 2005). This multi-level concept is particularly well suited for
the analysis of long-term developments. It has so far largely been applied for the analysis of
transition processes in which a dominant socio-technical system - or regime - is gradually
1 Corresponding Address: berlandstr. 133, P.O. Box 611, CH-8600 Dbendorf, Phone: ++41 44 823 56 72;
kornelia.konrad@eawag.ch
displaced by a different regime, either in a historical perspective or, in a future-oriented perspective, searching for possibilities to bring about a desired regime change. In this paper we
propose to apply the multi-level framework with an analytical perspective that puts an innovation field centre stage and explores, what are relevant regimes, complementary and competing
innovations and developments at the macro level that may influence, which pathway an innovation field will take.
The approach has been developed as a step within the broader methodology Sustainability
Foresight (Vo et al. 2006b). Sustainability foresight consists of three major steps. It starts
with the participative development of explorative scenarios at the level of sectors, followed by
a discursive sustainability assessment and the development of shaping strategies for a number
of innovation fields. These innovation fields have been identified as particularly important for
the future development of the sector at hand in the course of the preceding steps. The third
step consists of the analysis of innovation pathways, following the approach presented in this
paper, and, based on this, the development of strategies by a group of stakeholders (Vo et al.
2006a).
The approach is exemplified for the innovation field of Smart Buildings. Under the heading of
Smart Building we subsume an innovation field consisting of a group of technologies and
applications, which has the potential to become a sustainable innovation, e.g. by contributing
to the efficient energy use in buildings. However, it may just as well take a different pathway
with only a marginal effect or even the opposite effect resulting in an increase in the energy
consumption of buildings. Smart Building allows for the regulation of and communication
between building services and appliances within buildings from within the building and
outside. As an implication, Smart Building is located at the intersection of different regimes.
Accordingly, there is a large variety of heterogeneous actors involved in the innovation field
and developments in various adjacent innovation fields and regimes may have an effect for
the pathway Smart Building may take in the future.
We will first explore different socio-technical variations considering the shape of the innovation as well as different role models on how Smart Building may be provided. Furthermore,
different constellations of innovation actors are presented that may become dominant in the
field. Then, we will consider, in how far developments in a number of complementary innovations, in the housing and building as well as in the electricity regime and developments at the
societal macro level may influence the future pathway of Smart Building. Building on this, we
will develop four alternative pathways on how Smart Building may develop until 2025. We
will conclude by summarising central findings and by giving an outlook on how the pathways
have been used for developing a set of measures within the Sustainability Foresight methodology.
Rather inflexible or slowly changing structures external to a socio-technical regime are defined as part of the socio-technical landscape at the macro level (see figure 1). External structures are for example macro economic developments, demographic trends, cultural changes,
broad political changes or environmental problems (Geels, 2002b: 109). They may have a
considerable impact on the transformation dynamics of a regime, yet they cannot easily be
influenced by the regime actors.
In contrast to incremental innovations, which may emerge within established regimes, radical
innovations are typically generated in niches at the micro level. Niches are defined as sociotechnical environments, for instance application domains, which are characterized by specific
selection conditions diverging from the dominant regime (Hoogma, 2000: 80ff.). Niches are
important for socio-technical change, because they provide a space for learning about design
specifications, possible ways of using and user requirements, new meanings, societal and environmental impacts, production and maintenance and the adequate regulatory framework
(Hoogma et al., 2002: 28). Furthermore, niches allow for the build-up of supporting actornetworks. Major socio-technical changes as regime shifts typically start from niches and rely
on a dynamic of niches: an expansion of niches, which eventually leads to the replacement of
the old regime; a technology may also be implemented in a succession of different niches or
the emergence of a new regime relies on the interaction of multiple niches (Schot, 1998;
Geels, 2002a; 2002b: 121ff., 326f.).
In addition to transformation dynamics rising up from the bottom of niches, transformation
pressures may also result from dynamics at the level of regimes or dynamics at the landscape
level. The interplay of these internal dynamics, e.g. concerning user practices, technology,
policy or industry structure, may lead to tensions in the regime, which will open up windows
of opportunities for novelties and thereby may also lead to broader changes (Geels, 2002b:
104).
The multi-level concept has been the basis of a number of approaches that analyse innovation
and transformation processes. Firstly, it has been applied for the historical analysis of transition processes by which a dominant socio-technical regime is gradually replaced by another
regime (Schot 1998; Geels 2002). Secondly, in a policy-oriented perspective, transition management aims at bringing about regime changes which are supposed to lead to radically more
3
sustainable ways of fulfilling a societal function (Kemp & Loorbach 2006). Thirdly, the
method of socio-technical scenarios aims at exploring potential future transitions of a specific
socio-technical regime, e.g. the electricity or transport regime. Drawing on various mechanisms and patterns that have been identified in historical studies of transition processes, diverging paths are developed, which may lead from todays regime structures to radically different structures (Elzen et al. 2002).
With respect to specific innovation fields, as opposed to a focus on a specific regime, two
approaches have been developed. Strategic Niche Management deliberately creates or supports protected spaces to foster niches for sustainable innovations. To that end it has developed a concept of how to set up innovation experiments, in order to exploit the learning potential necessary for the further development of an innovation (Hoogma 2000; Hoogma et al.
2002). Finally, drawing on an actor-network-theory-based approach of Jolivet et al. (2002),
Hofman (2003: 53) has proposed an analytical procedure, which aims at supporting the societal embedding of sustainable radical innovations. An analysis of the evolution of an innovation or a specific innovation project in terms of actors, networks, technologies and expected
functions is followed by an analysis of the existing regime the innovation is related to. Then, a
future regime is sketched, in which the innovation may function, and the necessary changes
this implies for the existing regime. Ultimately, current factors and actors are identified,
which may contribute to the realization of these changes, and supporting strategies are developed.
The approach we want to present shows a number of similarities to the last approach and to
the socio-technical scenarios approach. It shares the interest in exploring future longer-term
developments and, as the latter approach, it puts an innovation respectively innovation field
centre stage. In addition, it focuses on innovations, which - at least in certain variations are
radical innovations that may contribute to regime changes. However, unlike the approaches
above, a regime change or the wider diffusion of the innovation is not set as a normative starting point for the analysis. Rather we are interested in exploring a range of possible futures,
which may turn out more or less favourable for the innovation, allowing for developing strategic options which are prepared also for these less favourable developments. Moreover, the
former approaches presume that an innovation is desirable from a societal point of view respectively that it is sustainable. In contrast to this, we assume that an innovation may turn out
more or less sustainable depending on the concrete variation and depending on the context it
is embedded.
For developing different innovation pathways, we have developed a methodology, innovation
system analysis, which consists in the following steps:
1. Basic analysis of the innovation field
As a very first step the innovation field has to be identified. This may not be a straightforward
task for an emerging innovation field, where technologies, applications and innovation actors
are still very much in flux. Even more so, if we are considering long-term developments,
which may result in significant changes. Thus, the delineation may have to be adjusted in the
course of the analysis. Then, the current status of the innovation field is characterised. This
includes the description of current technologies, functions, applications, application contexts
and users of the innovation. Furthermore, the actor groups which participate in the innovation
process and their respective roles are analysed. A fully fledged analysis should also be complemented by an overview of supportive institutions like specific R&D programs, intermediaries or legal frame-conditions. Finally, innovation networks including the relationships
among actors and between actors and institutions can be identified as well as concrete innovation projects.
In the case of Smart Building we differentiated between office buildings, factories, hotels, upper-class houses
and apartments, prefabricated houses, building societies and homes of the elderly (Konrad 2006). However, this
analysis is not part of this paper.
3 Variation analysis
3.1 Variation of socio-technical design
Smart Building comprises a group of applications based on a wired or wireless network,
which connects various appliances within a building. In addition, appliances may also be connected externally. Networks, communication standards as well as applications may look quite
different. Physical networks may be twisted pair (phone), coaxial cable (TV), fibre-optic,
powerline or wireless, and various proprietary and non-proprietary communication protocols,
e.g. EIB, LON, TCP/IP (internet), are used. The spectrum of established and potential applications is very broad. These applications may be grouped according to the more general purposes they are serving. A first group of applications is linked to energy management. These
are efficiency-oriented control of heating, ventilation and lighting, the control of appliances
taking into account changing tariffs, remote metering or the analysis of energy consumption. A
second group is linked to security and access to buildings. These are door access systems,
3
Smart Building was one of a group of innovation fields, which had been identified as decisive for the future
provision and consumption of utility services and the sustainability of both.
alarm systems, simulation of presence by lighting, blinds etc. when inhabitants are not at
home or the signalling to security or maintenance services in case of irregularities. Among
convenience-oriented applications we find the control of blinds, windows and lighting, partly
grouped to complex scenarios. Also household appliances may be integrated into the systems
and remotely accessed, either by the inhabitants or by external actors like utilities, with a focus on convenience or energy efficient use. Furthermore, services may be offered and provided, e.g. health care or specific support services for the elderly. Finally, entertainment and
communication devices may be integrated, which allows to use audio, TV or other media
throughout the house and to access external content.
These applications influence directly or indirectly the energy consumption within a building.
This is most obvious for the regulation of heating, ventilation and lighting. The potential increase or decrease cannot be exactly quantified, because it varies strongly according to the
specific technologies, applications and its use. However, a number of studies suggest that effects can be substantial. A large-scale experiment in rented flats led to an 18% reduction of
heating energy by room-specific heating control (Balzer & Happ 1999). Feedback experiments showed a reduction of about 20% (Chappells et al. 2000: 169). A particularly high reduction potential can be found in some office buildings and factories. For office buildings
these can typically be about 20-30%, for the latter in some cases even a reduction up to 8090% has been reported.4 Furthermore, applications in other application domains, e.g. communication and entertainment, structure to some extent the energy consumption of the appliances
involved. This may just as well result in an increase of energy consumption. Finally, the smart
building equipment itself consumes energy, which, according to some projections, may be
quite important (Aebischer & Huser 2000). In sum, Smart Building may contribute to an
overall decrease as well as increase of energy consumption within buildings.
In addition, Smart Building may also play a role in restructuring energy supply. A combination of internal and external networks allows for a coupling between the provision and consumption of energy. On this basis different forms of demand side management in the form of
load management, consumption analysis or differentiated tariffs are possible. Furthermore,
decentral generation plants as solar panels or micro combined heat and power plants (micro CHP) may be integrated into the system and the operation of these plants may be regulated, in order to optimise it, on a local level as well as on a grid level.
The high variability in the socio-technical design of Smart Building is accompanied by a
strong interpretative flexibility as to what are central functions of Smart Building and who are
the most promising future user groups and customer segments. Is Smart Building a sophisticated form of electrical installations of buildings, is it an essential part of the infrastructure of
and amongst buildings more generally, or is it rather a continuation of todays multimedia
equipment in offices and homes? These diverging interpretations of Smart Building imply
also different assumptions as to which actors are supposed to participate in the innovation
process and what are appropriate models of provision.
Expert interviews.
Today, the models of how building services and appliances in homes and offices are provided
differ according to the type of appliance. Fixed appliances as heating, ventilation, electrical
installations and sanitary equipment are mostly owned by the owners of a building or flat and
installed by the builders; for organising maintenance and operation both owner and user of the
building may be responsible, or some mixed model may be applied. More or less mobile
appliances as household appliances are often owned and maintained by the users and they are
installed after the building phase.5 This holds most usually also for entertainment and communication devices. Finally, though so far only of minor importance, installations and appliances may be provided, maintained and sometimes also operated by service providers.
Smart Building systems and smart appliances cannot clearly be categorized as fixed or mobile
installations. Networks are partly fixed (wired systems) and partly mobile (wireless systems);
more or less the same holds for components of the systems. Hence, elements of the building
infrastructure that so far have been considered part of the fixed installations may be considered part of the mobile equipment and, accordingly, the responsibility of tenants in the future.
Moreover, Smart Building systems are more flexible and, thus, adaptable to different users or
changing user preferences. Also, with the introduction of information and communication
technologies innovation cycles of the systems and appliances tend to become much shorter
and thereby increasingly detached from the lifecycle of buildings. New buildings may therefore be equipped with empty pipes, in order to allow for future additional networking. All this
adds to the ambiguity. On the other hand, smart household appliances which would be integrated into decentralised supply systems and in load management might be perceived as part
of a buildings infrastructure.
We expect that future models of provision will not only be a function of how fixed or mobile
systems will be in the end, but also via which paths Smart Building would move into the
buildings. If Smart Building systems would be installed primarily to connect entertainment
media, that is, appliances are owned and maintained by the users of the building, the development would rather be driven by the users. This may result in path dependencies, even if the
systems may later on be used for a much wider set of applications. On the other hand, if they
would be installed with the primary aim to connect building technologies as heating or blinds,
we would rather expect owners or builders to adopt this role.
Landlord model, Smart Building is part of a buildings infrastructure: The owner (landlord)
of a house, flat, office etc. provides Smart buildings systems. In addition, the owner provides
appliances, components, sometimes also local generation plants, and organises maintenance.
In some cases, e.g. certain office buildings, also the operation of part of the appliances is
taken over. In the case of homesteads or condominiums, the systems, (household) appliances
and generation plants are provided by the builders, particularly in the case of highly standardised buildings like prefabricated houses. Smart Building is considered as part of a buildings
infrastructure, more or less as electrical installations and sanitary equipment today.
Tenant model, Smart Building is part of the interior equipment: In this model the users of the
buildings are responsible for equipping the houses, flats, offices etc. with Smart Building systems as well as the majority of the appliances, and they are responsible for organising operation and maintenance. Smart Building is considered as part of the interior equipment of a
house or office just as wireless networks for data transmission, entertainment media or, in
some countries6, household appliances are today.
It should be noted though, that there are substantial national differences for these models.
In Germany washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators, stoves etc. are usually provided for by the tenant,
whereas in Switzerland these appliances are typically provided by the landlord.
Split model: This is an intermediary model. The owner respectively builder of a house provides a basic installation, e.g. a Smart Building system, maybe also empty pipes for future
extensions of the system and some appliances. The users of the buildings acquire further appliances, they may extend the system and they are responsible for operation and maintenance.
Contracting: Appliances and partly also Smart Building systems are installed by a third party:
the contractor. Appliances and the operation and maintenance are then provided by the contractor, typically at a fixed rate. Installation costs amortise by efficiency gains over a certain
period of time. Also in this case Smart building is considered as part of a buildings infrastructure.
Mixed service model: Smart Building systems are provided by either owners or users of buildings. This will largely depend on the interpretation of Smart Building as infrastructure or interior equipment. Smart appliances and decentral generation plants as micro CHP are then provided, maintained and, if necessary, upgraded by service providers. Customers will be either
owners or users of the buildings.
The following table provides an overview as to which models of provision are more or less
appropriate for different variations in socio-technical design. To reduce complexity, the table
refers only to application bundles.
Table 2: Variations of socio-technical design and models of provision
models of provision
application bundles
energy
security
convenience
organisation
entertainment,
comm.
landlord model
tenant model
split model
contracting
and technologies and different models of provision will get major support. We identified four
potential actor constellations. Within each constellation actors are characterised by a similar
conception of Smart Building and similar innovation patterns, e.g. innovation cycles.
Installation cluster (specialised installation firms, manufacturers of installation components):
These actors offer (wired) Smart Building systems for functional as well as residential buildings already today, based on proprietary standards. Customers are typically the owners of the
buildings. Application bundles are diverse; however, these actors will rather not be able to
push services.
Residential buildings cluster (building societies, manufacturers of prefabricated houses, actors
from HVAC, sanitary equipment, household appliances): Common to this group of actors is
the focus on residential buildings, rather long innovation cycles and, with the exception of
manufacturers of household appliances, on building services. These actors are likely to advocate the landlord or the split model. Some building societies are experimenting with the provision of services within Smart Building projects.
Multimedia cluster (manufacturers of consumer electronics, software companies, telecommunication companies, media companies): These actors put an emphasis on entertainment and
communication applications as a potential driver for Smart Building, the internet is a central
technological reference point and they have so far largely focused on the (end) users within
residential buildings. We expect them to rather support the tenant model, because of the
dominant customer segments and favoured network technologies.
Service cluster (providers of energy services, facility management, e.g. utilities): they have
focused on functional buildings and energy management. Customer segments for these specific services have mainly been owners and managers / administrators of buildings. However,
considering products more generally, particularly utilities, serve a much broader group of customers.
Table 3: Variation of socio-technical design and actor constellations
Application bundles
housing,
building, HVAC
security
convenience
services
Actor constallations
installers
entertainment
energy
10
, comm.
4 Context analysis
In this section we give a short overview of socio-technical regimes, landscape developments
and adjacent innovation fields, which may take an influence on the future development of
Smart Building.
This may not hold, if we think of a variation of Smart Building, which would be based on wireless networks
and restricted to entertainment, multimedia and communications applications.
8
This is beyond the scope of this paper. In a more elaborated analysis, we tackled this variety by considering
specific dynamics in different niches as office buildings, prefabricated houses etc. (Konrad et al. 2006).
11
We refer to innovations in the broad sense encompassing technical, organizational or institutional innovations
or some hybrid of these.
12
11
6% of all households providing 2,5% of electricity production; 22,5% of electricity production is produced by
decentralised generation technologies (including also generation plants at the district level).
12
13
some extent a result of the specific interpretation of Smart Building as part of a buildings infrastructure and a model of provision, according to which Smart Building is wholly or partly
provided by the owners of buildings. Until 2025 40% of the building stock is refurbished.
This is a result of the age structure of the building stock13, increased efficiency requirements14
and the positive economic development.
Integrated planning, though slowly, has become a normal practice, at least in parts of the
building sector. This development has been facilitated by the increasing importance of large
building companies functioning as general contractors and manufacturers of prefabricated
houses. Furthermore, institutional frameworks have changed, e.g. associations and standardising committees have been restructured and new tendering tools introduced.
Starting from the controlling of their own networks and facilities that required large investments, a number of utility companies are later on offering remote maintenance services also to
various types of customers and for various types of facilities. The primary motivation for introducing remote maintenance has mostly been the reduction of personnel costs. However,
remote maintenance also allows for detecting optimisation potentials in energy consumption,
which, against the background of rising energy prices, are more and more exploited. In addition, the maintenance of a large number of facilities facilitates the development of standards
of comparison and the professionalisation of facilities operation. Hence, providers of remote
maintenance are offering energy consulting and contracting services as well. On the other
hand, contracting measures are furthering remote maintenance, since contracting measures
largely entail remote maintenance.
Transformation of the electricity regime as a result of internal tensions creates window of
opportunity for micro CHP and Demand Side Management: The electricity regime is increasingly pressurised, because a large number of generation plants has reached the end of their
operation time and because of the political decision to phase out of nuclear energy and to
massively reduce coal-fired plants. This contributes to an increase in energy prices. As part of
the strategies to cope with this situation, utility companies support efficiency-enhancing
measures, Demand Side Management and decentralised energy production.
Complementary innovations: Demand Side Management, remote maintenance, micro CHP
and Smart Building are mutually supportive: Monitoring and controlling of local generation
plants as well as a number of efficiency measures require a network-based integration. Installing these networks in the course of larger efficiency and renovation measures in factories,
office buildings or other buildings of a certain size creates only limited additional costs. These
networks may then be used also for a larger set of applications.
13
In Germany, buildings from the 1950s to 1970s will go through a first renovation cycle, pre WWII buildings a
second renovation cycle. This results in a renovation potential up to 50% (DENA 2005).
14
The above mentioned EU Directive requires a revision of requirements after max. 5 years.
14
for energy management, since, in contrast to the former group, they are the owners of both
Smart building systems and most other appliances and systems.
This outcome is a result of, on the one hand, the specific context developments in the scenario
(see below) and, on the other hand, the specific actor constellations that have been formed in
the innovation field. In the residential building sector, actors from the entertainment, telecommunication, software and media sectors took a lead in implementing Smart Building in
various projects and, later on, the provision and marketing of Smart building. They started
with a focus on communication and entertainment applications, which shaped the societal
perception of Smart Building quite strongly. Moreover, learning effects of both providers and
users were mainly gained here and specific models of provisions became established, which
rather discriminated other applications (e.g. smart building services in tenant houses).
In the functional building sector a similar path is taken as in the preceding scenario. However,
largely due to moderate energy prices, facility managers are often more interested in the flexibility of smart installations than the energy saving potential. Remote maintenance is more
often used for maintenance only and not for analysing and optimising energy consumption.
The introduction of the energy performance certificate does not have a strong effect on Smart
Building. Recommendations are less frequently turned into action, because of moderate energy prices and less competition at the housing market (no migration into rural areas).
Old generation plants are largely replaced by new central generation plants and the fuel mix
remains by and large as before. There is no strong interaction with the development of Smart
Building.
15
15
6 Conclusion
The paper presented an attempt to exploit the multi-level concept and further insights from
technology studies for a future-oriented innovation analysis. This may be one way to make
use of analytical insights, largely gained in retrospective studies, in a more strategic and, ultimately, policy-oriented way. The different scenarios and paths showed that Smart Building
may take a very different shape, function and meaning in the future. It also showed that different variations of Smart Building may be equally successful in terms of diffusion, while
entailing quite diverging conceptions of the innovation and the models of provision. Which
one is more likely to be realised depends on processes within as well as in the context of the
innovation field. By considering both the socio-technical design as well as models of provision, we were able to identify potential weak path dependencies. While, from a perspective
focusing on functional aspects, different variations of Smart Building may rather mutually
support each other; each variation may entail specific models of provision more likely than
others, which may pose a barrier for other applications.
The different variations and scenarios may not only imply diverse forms of provision and use,
providers and users, but they may also have different effects for energy consumption. Thus,
from a sustainability-oriented perspective, Smart Building is not an innovation to be supported per se. Rather, one may aim to support certain variations and paths. In this case, the
analysis helps to identify starting points for different types of measures within as well as in
the context of the innovation field. What may be more important though, since we assume that
16
5% of all buildings.
16
the emergence of a specific path can only to a limited extent be willingly influenced, is to
develop measures that are either robust in the sense that they may be useful for different scenarios or that reflect the specific conditions in the scenarios. For instance, if a path should be
taken, which is rather efficiency driven with professional services like contracting as an important model of provision, it may be highly important to make sure that users interests are
taken into account. That is, certain social aspects of sustainability may need specific attention.
On the other hand, if an entertainment driven path is taken and the tenant model of provision
should prevail, this should be less of a problem, but rather the exploitation of the efficiency
potential has to be supported.
As part of the Sustainability Foresight methodology (see section 1), the scenarios and paths
served as a basis for the development of a set of measures by a group of stakeholders and experts (Vo et al. 2006a). The innovation paths were given as an input and partly modified by
the stakeholders. Each measure was assessed according to its robustness with respect to the
scenarios and the set of measures was integrated into an agenda for the sustainable shaping of
the innovation process. The agenda described how measures might be co-ordinated in terms
of appropriate time periods to be implemented and in terms of interactions between measures
to be taken into account. By this, a first step for creating a comprehensive innovation strategy
has been taken. In addition, mutual interactions with the sets of measures developed for two
other innovation fields (micro CHP and network regulation) have been identified.
The scenarios and paths presented here are surely not an exhaustive exploration of the range
of possibilities to be expected. More scenarios and paths may be created, e.g. by applying a
comprehensive bottom-up analysis by systematically varying elements of the variation and
context analysis. Moreover, one should always be aware that all variations, which are conceived today, are rooted in todays conceptions of contemporary technologies, models of provision etc. and, therefore, likely to have a conservative bias. However, a systematic variation,
if possible as part of an iterative procedure, seems to be a way to explore at least the range
knowable today.
7 References
Aebischer, Bernard & Alois Huser (2000). Vernetzung im Haushalt - Auswirkungen auf den
Stromverbrauch. Bern, Bundesamt fr Energie.
Akrich, Madeleine (1992). The De-Scription of Technical Objects. Shaping Technology/
Building Society. Bijker, Wiebe & John Law. Cambridge/MA, MIT Press.
Balzer, J. & V. Happ (1999). "Intelligente Einzelraum-Regelung spart Heizenergiekosten."
HLH - Heizung, Lftung, Klima, Haustechnik 50(6): 65-67.
Callon, Michel (1993). Variety and irreversibility in networks of technique concep-tion and
adoption. Technology and the Wealth of Nations - The Dynamics of Constructed Advantage. Foray, Dominique & Cristopher Freeman. London.
Chappells, Heather, Mikael Klintman, Anna-Lisa Lindn, Elizabeth Shove, Gert Spaargaren
& Bas Van Vliet (2000). Domestic Consumption, Utility Services and the Environment. Final Domus Report. Wageningen, Wageningen University.
DENA (2005). Energiepass fr Gebude - Projektinfo. Berlin, Deutsche Energie-Agentur.
Elzen, Boelie, F. W. Geels, P. Hofmann & Ken Green (2002). Socio-Technical Scenarios as a
tool for Transition Policy. Enschede, Transition to Sustainability through System Innovations.
Geels, F. W. (2002a). "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a
multi-level perspective and a case-study." Research Policy 31: 1257-1274.
Geels, Frank (2002b). Understanding the Dynamics of Technological Transitions. Enschede,
Twente University Press.
17