User−Producer Interaction in Housing Energy Innovations

Von Hippel and colleagues have highlighted the crucial role of users in innovation in different industries and types of products. They describe the innovation process in terms of the distinct domains of knowledge that producers and users possess. Producers have knowledge about technical solutions and users about their needs, the context of use, and their own capabilities as users. Both sets of knowledge are characterized by “stickiness”: They move relatively freely within their own domain but are difficult to transfer outside of it. In the case of radical innovations for sustainable consumption, the problem of “sticky information” is compounded. Both producers and consumers need to reach out of their conventional competencies and search for new solutions. “Societal actors,” such as government bodies or environmental experts, can show the way to such solutions, but this new knowledge needs to be integrated with the “sticky” knowledge about everyday practices in production and consumption. In the present article we attempt to conceptualize the role and interaction of user and producer knowledge with the knowledge of environmental experts in housing energy innovations. We do so by applying the user−producer interaction framework to a case study on the introduction of low-energy housing concepts in Finland. On the basis of this analysis, we draw conclusions on the potential and limitations of today's practices in the field. For example, we suggest that user involvement can help to enhance the acceptance of low-energy solutions but that the methods for involving users need to be adapted to the particular circumstances in each industry.

[1]  E. Shove,et al.  Debating the future of comfort: environmental sustainability, energy consumption and the indoor environment , 2005 .

[2]  Rodolphe Durand Rethinking Expertise , 2008 .

[3]  I. Røpke,et al.  The Construction of Normal Expectations , 2008 .

[4]  Lars Bo Jeppesen,et al.  Consumers as Co-developers: Learning and Innovation Outside the Firm , 2003, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[5]  Ardi Daniels Life and living in low energy houses - Study of technical solutions in low energy houses, satisfaction, lifestyle and changes for the residents , 2007 .

[6]  R. Parnell,et al.  Informing the Development of Domestic Energy Efficiency Initiatives , 2005 .

[7]  Lawrence M. Wein,et al.  Economics of Product Development by Users: the Impact of Sticky Local Information , 1998 .

[8]  D. Gann,et al.  Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: the construction of complex products and systems , 2000 .

[9]  Robert Kevin Grigsby "Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation" , 1996 .

[10]  A. Jamison The Making of Green Knowledge , 2001 .

[11]  D. Leonard-Barton,et al.  Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation , 1995 .

[12]  A. Jamison The Making of Green Knowledge: Environmental Politics and Cultural Transformation , 2001 .

[13]  Gert Spaargaren,et al.  Sustainable technologies and everyday life , 2006 .

[14]  M. Akrich User Representations: Practices, Methods and Sociology , 1995 .

[15]  Simon Guy,et al.  The Sociology of Energy, Buildings and the Environment: Constructing Knowledge, Designing Practice , 2001 .

[16]  Ralph Katz,et al.  Shifting Innovation to Users via Toolkits , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[17]  Yuko Aoyama,et al.  User-led Innovation and the video game industry , 2008 .

[18]  R. Day,et al.  The business of sustainability , 1997, Nature.

[19]  Heather Lovell,et al.  The governance of innovation in socio-technical systems: The difficulties of strategic niche management in practice , 2007 .

[20]  Janne Lehenkari,et al.  Contextualizing Power in a Collaborative Design , 2002 .

[21]  Michael S. Carolan,et al.  Sustainable agriculture, science and the co-production of ‘expert’ knowledge: The value of interactional expertise , 2006 .

[22]  Eva Heiskanen,et al.  Constructing innovative users and user-inclusive innovation communities , 2010, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[23]  S. Ogawa Does sticky information affect the locus of innovation? Evidence from the Japanese convenience-store industry , 1998 .

[24]  A. Piebalgs Green paper: A European strategy for sustainable, competitive and secure energy , 2006 .

[25]  Harald Rohracher,et al.  From passive consumers to active participants : The diverse roles of users in innovation processes , 2005 .

[26]  B. Wynne,et al.  Misunderstanding science? : the public reconstruction of science and technology , 1996 .

[27]  Chris Ivory,et al.  Client, User and Architect Interactions in Construction: Implications for Analysing Innovative Outcomes from User-Producer Interactions in Projects , 2004, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[28]  H. Rohracher The Role of Users in the Social Shaping of Environmental Technologies , 2003 .

[29]  John Cullen,et al.  Democratizing Innovation , 2020, Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

[30]  Elizabeth Shove,et al.  Gaps, barriers and conceptual chasms : theories of technology transfer and energy in buildings , 1998 .

[31]  Raymond E. Levitt,et al.  Inter-Organizational Knowledge Flow and Innovation Diffusion in Project-Based Industries , 2005, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[32]  E. Hippel Sticky Information and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation , 1994 .

[33]  B. Brohmann,et al.  Factors influencing the societal acceptance of new energy technologies: Meta-analysis of recent european projects , 2007 .