Analysing emerging innovation systems: a functions approach to foresight

The success of sustainable innovations depends in a large part on their environment, the Innovation System (IS). Insight into the structure and dynamics of the IS is thus of crucial importance in foresight studies and policy analysis. The analytical framework outlined in this paper allows us to study relations between the components, the structure and the functionality of the IS resulting in increased insight in (future) system behaviour and performance. Furthermore, mapping the (actor-independent) functions of the IS allows us to compare different cases, enabling timely and adequate policy measures through improved foresight. The application of our framework to the California Wind Energy Innovation System (CAWEIS) shows a relation between system structure and performance and gives us insight in system dynamics.

[1]  Marko P. Hekkert,et al.  R&D portfolios in environmentally friendly automotive propulsion: Variety, competition and policy implications , 2004 .

[2]  P. Sabatier.  An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein , 1988 .

[3]  H. Simon,et al.  Models of Man. , 1957 .

[4]  Jane Wei-Skillern,et al.  The Energy Foundation , 2008 .

[5]  N. Rosenberg.  Factors affecting the diffusion of technology , 1972 .

[6]  Ben R. Martin,et al.  Technology foresight for wiring up the national innovation system: experiences in Britain, Australia and New Zealand , 1999 .

[7]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  The emergence of a growth industry: a comparative analysis of the German, Dutch and Swedish wind turbine industries , 2003 .

[8]  Alan L. Porter,et al.  On the Future of Technological Forecasting , 2001 .

[9]  V. Norberg-Bohm.  Creating Incentives for Environmentally Enhancing Technological Change: Lessons From 30 Years of U.S. Energy Technology Policy , 2000 .

[10]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Perspectives on technology , 1977 .

[11]  C. Freeman.  Technology policy and economic performance : lessons from Japan , 1987 .

[12]  R. Nelson,et al.  National Innovation Systems , 1993 .

[13]  K. Arrow.  The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing , 1962 .

[14]  Stefan Kuhlmann,et al.  Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change , 2007 .

[15]  Ryan Wiser,et al.  Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Projects: A Survey of Clean Energy Fund Support , 2002 .

[16]  Bengt-Åke Lundvall,et al.  National Systems of Innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning London: Pint , 1995 .

[17]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  The diffusion of renewable energy technology: an analytical framework and key issues for research , 2000 .

[18]  Leo Jansen,et al.  Sustainable Technology Development , 2000 .

[19]  Ari-Pekka Hameri,et al.  The structure and dynamics of technological systems: a conceptual model , 1995 .

[20]  Annika Rickne,et al.  New Technology-Based Firms and Industrial Dynamics Evidence from the Technological System of Biomaterials in Sweden, Ohio and Massachusetts , 2000 .

[21]  Daniele Archibugi,et al.  The Globalizing Learning Economy , 2002 .

[22]  Thomas Jackson,et al.  Wind energy comes of age: Paul Gipe John Wiley, New York, 1995 , 1996 .

[23]  Fredric C. Menz,et al.  The effectiveness of different policy regimes for promoting wind power: Experiences from the states , 2006 .

[24]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues , 2002 .

[25]  Ian Miles,et al.  UK Foresight: three cycles on a highway , 2005 .

[26]  Björn Andersson,et al.  Monitoring and assessing technology choice: the case of solar cells , 2000 .

[27]  K. Nelson,et al.  Technology, institutions, and innovation systems , 2002 .

[28]  Bengt-Åke Lundvall,et al.  Comparing the Danish and Swedish Systems of Innovation , 1993 .

[29]  D. F. Ancona,et al.  Wind program technological developments in the United States , 1997 .

[30]  Raghu Garud,et al.  The innovation journey , 1999 .

[31]  W. Clark.  The California Challenge: energy and the environmental consequences for public utilities , 2001 .

[32]  Harold A. Linstone,et al.  When is a need a need?: The problem of normative forecasting in a changing environment , 1969 .

[33]  G. Dosi,et al.  Technical Change and Economic Theory , 1989 .

[34]  Daniel M. Kammen,et al.  Renewable Energy: A Viable Choice , 2001 .

[35]  Robert W. Righter,et al.  Pioneering in wind energy: The California experience , 1996 .

[36]  van Qc Rinie Est,et al.  Winds of change: A comparative study of the politics of wind energy innovation in California and Denmark , 1999 .

[37]  B. Carlsson,et al.  On the nature, function and composition of technological systems , 1991 .

[38]  Jeffrey Orozco,et al.  IMPACTS OF INNOVATION ON PERFORMANCE: THE INTRODUCTION OF CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES IN THE COOPERATIVE PALM OIL SECTOR, COSTA RICA , 2004 .

[39]  Ian Wilson.  Technology foresight in an age of uncertainty , 2004 .

[40]  John P. Holdren,et al.  Assessing the global energy innovation system: some key issues , 2002 .

[41]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  Transforming the Energy Sector : The evolution of technological systems in renewable energy technology , 2004 .

[42]  Peter Asmus.  California Crisis: The Best Argument Yet for Wind Power , 2001 .

[43]  Sven-Erik Thor,et al.  Long‐term research and development needs for wind energy for the time frame 2000–2020 , 2002 .

[44]  Xielin Liu,et al.  Comparing innovation systems: a framework and application to China’s transitional context , 2001 .

[45]  P. Gipe.  Wind Energy Comes of Age , 1995 .

[46]  R. Smits,et al.  The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy , 2004 .

[47]  E. Harison,et al.  Druid Summer Conference , 2004 .

[48]  F. Geels.  Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study , 2002 .

[49]  Luke Georghiou,et al.  Evaluation of national foresight activities: Assessing rationale, process and impact , 2006 .

[50]  Kerstin Cuhls,et al.  Current Foresight Activities in , 1999 .