Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Andy Stirling SPRU – science and technology policy research presentation to workshop on … Management of Variation and Diversity, Forum Chriesbach, Zurich,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Andy Stirling SPRU – science and technology policy research presentation to workshop on … Management of Variation and Diversity, Forum Chriesbach, Zurich,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Andy Stirling SPRU – science and technology policy research presentation to workshop on … Management of Variation and Diversity, Forum Chriesbach, Zurich, 15-8 April : Diversity – much discussed but surprisingly little analysed 2: The nature of diversity and some different approaches Pathways, Politics and Diversity in the Governance of Technological Transitions 3: A new general conceptual framework and heuristic explanatory / normative heuristic – destabilising / keystone concept (epistemic niche not landscape) 4: Some implications: towards Transition Portfolios?

2 Disciplinary Interests in Techno-Institutional Diversity History and philosophy of science (Merton, Kuhn, Nowottny) interactions in diverse scientific disciplines enhance rigour and creativity Research and innovation strategies (Rosenberg, Rothwell, Landau) diverse portfolios offer flexibility and learning across programmes Governance of science and technology (Gibbons, Walker, Jasanoff) diversity of engagement promotes trust, democracy and social robustness Regulation of technological risk and sustainability (Norgaard, NRC, EEA) diverse knowledges / perspectives foster adaptive, precautionary policy Strategic technology policy (eg: energy security) (Brooks, Folke, EC, IEA) diversity of technological options provides resilience to shock and surprise Mainstream market economics (Ricardo, Markowitz, Hayek) diversity of firms resists oligopolistic concentration, enhances competition Evolutionary economics (Grabher, Dosi, Metcalfe, Arthur) diversity of actors, functions and contexts generates fitness in innovation

3 PROVENANCETEMPORALITY transient disruption (transient disruption) enduring pressure (enduring pressure) internal (to system / frames) external (to system / frames) STABILITY DURABILITY RESILIENCE ROBUSTNESS Diversity and Sustainable Technologies Dynamic Properties of Sustainable Infrastructures (Adrian)

4 PROVENANCETEMPORALITY transient disruption enduring pressure internal external STABILITY DURABILITY RESILIENCE ROBUSTNESS Diversity and Sustainable Technologies diversity is ubiquitous in general strategies towards sustainable technological systems Dynamic Properties of Sustainable Infrastructures eg: major element in energy security policy

5 Diversity in Energy Technology Transitions Like all technological systems, diversity is key emergent property of energy systems, even if not deliberately planned reflect contextdiversity allows sensitivity to heterogeneous context Austrian hydro, Norwegian gas, Swedish biomass point arose strongly – especially in Raimunds and Evas presentations

6 Diversity in Energy Technology Transitions Socio-technical diversity also relevant to deliberate transition-building foster innovationdiverse configurations and contexts stimulate creativity interactions between microgeneration technologies Like all technological systems, diversity is key emergent property of energy reflect contextdiversity allows sensitivity to heterogeneous context

7 Diversity in Energy Technology Transitions foster innovationdiverse configurations and contexts stimulate creativity mitigate lock-indiverse portfolios resist pressures to concentrate support for different PV concepts and trajectories Like all technological systems, diversity is key emergent property of energy reflect contextdiversity allows sensitivity to heterogeneous context Socio-technical diversity also relevant to deliberate transition-building

8 Diversity in Energy Technology Transitions foster innovationdiverse configurations and contexts stimulate creativity mitigate lock-indiverse portfolios resist pressures to concentrate hedge ignoranceeggs in different baskets anticipate surprise energy security or unforeseen environment issues Like all technological systems, diversity is key emergent property of energy reflect contextdiversity allows sensitivity to heterogeneous context Socio-technical diversity also relevant to deliberate transition-building

9 Diversity in Energy Technology Transitions foster innovationdiverse configurations and contexts stimulate creativity mitigate lock-indiverse portfolios resist undue pressures to concentrate hedge ignoranceeggs in different baskets anticipate surprise accommodate dissent diversity helps reconcile plural values and interests polarisation behind nuclear, renewable, clean coal… both about orientation and mode of transition path Like all technological systems, diversity is key emergent property of energy reflect contextdiversity allows sensitivity to heterogeneous context Socio-technical diversity also relevant to deliberate transition-building

10 – What is diversity? Variety? Difference? Concentration? – Which things to diversify? Towards a Systematic Approach Staffan: technologies Raimund: communities Fred: actors, attributes Kornelia: 3 types of variety in TIS Eva:expectations, levels, local solutions Daniel:regime plasticity – supporting sustainability Uli: transformative capacity / institutional adaptability – How to make diversity symmetrically operational for all salient aspects? address Jochens point on levels of aggregation and system delineation Some Key Questions

11 – What is diversity? – Which things to diversify? – How should we articulate diversity with other portfolio properties? Towards a Systematic Approach Philip: trade-offs Marko: 7 functions Staffan: 5 (6) functions Kornelia, Frans: portfolio interactions Adrian: normative frameworks and pathway stability Raimund: scale economies, sustainability performance, business criteria Some Key Questions

12 – What is diversity? Ambiguities inhibit practical policy attention – apple pie rhetoric is vulnerable to special pleading – Which things to diversify? – How should we articulate diversity with other portfolio properties? – h igh profile, but circumscribed and surprisingly neglected Towards a Systematic Approach Key point: diversity is not a free lunch – foregone benefits, standardisation, scale, transaction costs, diminished accountability, reduced stability of transition paths Highlights need for systematic framework for analysing diversity … Some Key Questions

13 increasing diversity What is Diversity? capital investments / research programmes / development strategies socio-technical trajectories / strategic niches / transition portfolios comprising mix of elements eg: coal, oil, gas, nuclear, wind

14 increasing diversity balance evenness in contributions eg: nuclear – Japan vs France variety number of options in mix eg: Norway vs USA disparity degree of differences eg: renewables vs fossil What is Diversity?

15 VARIETY = the number of options in a portfolio conventional framing in economics and policy convenient proxy in absence of complex analysis, BUT - partitioning of techno-institutional options? eg: biofuels – or biodiesel, bioethanol, biogas? eg: Saviotti,, Metcalfe, Llerena, Kaufmann – much discussion at this workshop Conventional Approaches to Technological Diversity - when to start counting? eg: one PV array? ten thousand? 0.1% of system? - what about varying degrees of niche representation in transition portfolio? eg: 90% / 5% / 5% or 33% / 33% / 33% - what about the degree to which options are different from each other? eg: biodiesel, bioethanol, biogas, CaTe PV, CIS PV, a-Si PV?

16 BALANCE = evenness of option contributions indices from ecology / information theory readily applicable and comprehensive in scope - does address problem of when to start counting (partitioning) eg: one PV array? ten thousand? 0.1% of system? eg: Stirling, 1994; DTI, 1995; 2006; Grubb, 2004; use Shannon (– i p i.ln p i ) Conventional Approaches to Technological Diversity - does address varying degrees of representation in system eg: 90% / 5% / 5% or 33% / 33% / 33% BUT: - still raise questions over when is it one option and when two? eg: biofuels – or biodiesel, bioethanol, biogas? - treat options as if they are all equally different from each other eg: biodiesel, bioethanol, biogas, CaTe PV, CIS PV, a-Si PV?

17 DISPARITY = degree to which options are different portfolio theory, taxonomy, cladistics Portfolio methods are powerful for financial planning in firms, BUT: - address differences entirely in terms of past experience eg: MVPA (Markowitz, Lucas, Awerbuch); Lancaster, Weitzman Conventional Approaches to Technological Diversity - highly circumscribed in scope (eg: fuel prices) - highly restrrictive assumptions (eg: normal probability distributions) - assumes single objective characterisation of difference - neglects variety - neglects balance

18 need to address and explore variety, balance and disparity ie: - number of options in the portfolio - proportional representation of options in the portfolio - degree to which options are different from each other Towards a Complete, Integrated Diversity Concept need to avoid sensitivities to arbitrary assumptions eg: - when to start counting? when one option and when two? - assumption that difference reduces to single parameter - assumption uncertainty can be treated probabilistically - assumption that past predicts future - assumption that all data is normally distributed need symmetry on divergent contexts, views and dimensions eg: - include wider economic, environmental and social criteria - be flexible towards different values and priorities

19 For any given perspective on the appraisal of a given transition context option differences can be seen as dimensions in disparity space Constructing a General Diversity Heuristic

20 number of dimensions represent different aspects of option disparity Constructing a General Diversity Heuristic For any given perspective on the appraisal of a given transition context option differences can be seen as dimensions in a disparity space

21 number of dimensions represent different aspects of option disparity positions of options in space determined by any salient disparity attributes eg: functions (Staffan / Marko) features (Eva / Daniel) capacities (Uli) attributes (Fred) In principle, this framework can address any perspective on salient features of institutions, technologies, functions, networks or effects Constructing a General Diversity Heuristic For any given perspective on the appraisal of a given transition context option differences can be seen as dimensions in a disparity space

22 Distances between pairs of options represent their mutual disparity (d a,b ) a b c From Disparity to Diversity For any given perspective on the appraisal of a given transition context option differences can be seen as dimensions in a disparity space

23 Distances between pairs of options represent their mutual disparity (d a,b ) Disparity of a portfolio of options is given as a function of these pairwise distances a b c d a,b d b,c and… Variety and balance can be captured by weighting this by the product of the proportional importance in the system of each option in the pair (p i.p j ) =.p i.p j ij (i j) d ij From Disparity to Diversity For any given perspective on the appraisal of a given transition context option differences can be seen as dimensions in disparity space

24 1Scaling of variety: where variety = 1, = 0 Formal Conditions for a General Diversity Heuristic 2Monotonicity of variety: for equal B / D; rises monotonically with V 3Monotonicity of balance: for given V / D; rises monotonically with B 4Monotonicity of disparity: for given V / B; rises monotonically with D 5Scaling of disparity: where aggregate difference = 0; = 0 6Open Accommodation: is symmetric to any perspective on disparity 8Parsimony of Form: has few components and simple structure 9Explicit Aggregation: allows explicit weightings on V, B and D 7Robust to Partitioning: is insensitive to aggregation on taxonomy 10Ready Articulation: can be incorporated in portfolio performance

25 Can be shown robustly to fulfill first eight quality criteria: = ij d ij.p i.p j Some Properties of the New Diversity Heuristic

26 Can be shown robustly to fulfill first eight quality criteria: Some Properties of the New Diversity Heuristic ´ = ij (d ij ).(p i.p j ) 9 Allows explicit aggregations of variety, balance, disparity

27 Can be shown robustly to fulfill first eight quality criteria: Some Properties of the New Diversity Heuristic ´ = ij (d ij ).(p i.p j ) 9Allows explicit aggregations of variety, balance, disparity ´ ij d ij 0 ij p i.p j ij d ij ij d ij.p i.p j diversity property variety balance disparity diversity

28 Can be shown robustly to fulfill first eight quality criteria: Some Properties of the New Diversity Heuristic 10Additional single term allows heuristic attention to interactions (eg: Kornelia, Frans) = ij d ij.i ij.p i.p j 9Allows explicit aggregations of variety, balance, disparity

29 Some Properties of the New Diversity Heuristic 75% CCGT25% wind PORTFOLIO A Can be shown robustly to fulfill first eight quality criteria: 10Additional single term allows heuristic attention to interactions = ij d ij.i ij.p i.p j 9Allows explicit aggregations of variety, balance, disparity

30 Some Properties of the New Diversity Heuristic 75% CCGT25% wind PORTFOLIO A + + Can be shown robustly to fulfill first eight quality criteria: 10Additional single term allows heuristic attention to interactions = ij d ij.i ij.p i.p j 9Allows explicit aggregations of variety, balance, disparity

31 Some Properties of the New Diversity Heuristic 75% CCGT25% wind PORTFOLIO A % nuclear25% wind PORTFOLIO B value [ { A } ] > value [ { B } ] Can be shown robustly to fulfill first eight quality criteria: 10Additional single term allows heuristic attention to interactions = ij d ij.i ij.p i.p j 9Allows explicit aggregations of variety, balance, disparity

32 APPRAISE PERFORMANCE technology options / policy criteria CHARACTERISE DISPARITY institutions / functions / technologies DEFINE INTERACTIONS portfolio relationships, system effects ANALYSE PRIORITIES diversity / performance Mapping Diversity – Performance Relationships –economics functions, capacities sustainability metrics – Freds facilitation of reflexive action –attributes dimensions types functions, capacities – research programmes innovation systems transition paths

33 APPRAISE PERFORMANCE technology options / policy criteria CHARACTERISE DISPARITY institutions / functions / technologies DEFINE INTERACTIONS portfolio relationships, system effects ANALYSE PRIORITIES diversity / performance Mapping Diversity – Performance Relationships Fred: embrace cognitive diversity

34 APPRAISE PERFORMANCE technology options / policy criteria CHARACTERISE DISPARITY institutions / functions / technologies DEFINE INTERACTIONS portfolio relationships, system effects ANALYSE PRIORITIES diversity / performance Mapping Diversity – Performance Relationships DELIBERATE OVER FINDINGS divergent assumptions and perspectives

35 Look for Pareto dominance in all possible portfolios under each particular perspective (eg: for three options) diversity aggregate portfolio performance (economic, functions, sustainability) dominant portfolios lie on this boundary Mapping Links between Diversity and Performance

36 Results of a Schematic Energy Example Identifies efficient frontier for each perspective portfolio contribution not optimisation – each perspective treated separately max performance diversity but a heuristic – allows exploration of divergent perspectives

37 Reflexivity on Diversity in Analysis and Policy Perspective X Perspective Y Perspective Z HEURISTIC FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS / CATALYST FOR REFLEXIVE DELIBERATION

38 Implications: towards Transition Portfolios? diversity is crucial in building & understanding technological transitions - fosters innovation of a kind essential to radical infrastructure change - mitigates autonomy, momentum, lock-in and entrapment - hedges ignorance, so helps promote resilience and precaution - accommodates divergent social interests and values diversity is not a free lunch, but analysis remains strangely neglected therefore vulnerable to incoherent, rhetorical and expedient arguments variety, balance, disparity are necessary properties of diversity crucial issue is how to articulate these properties and strike a balance between diversity and other aspects of science and technology portfolios heuristic framework for explanatory analysis and normative engagement allows open, reflexive deliberation – engaging different perspectives aids move from managerial view: unitary niches, single transition paths towards reflexive, robust, accountable politics of transition portfolios

39

40 ANNEXES

41 functional application Social, cultural, economic, historic and geographic studies converge Diversity and Innovation

42 easily shown to fulfill first eight quality criteria: = ij d ij.p i.p j Some Properties of the New Diversity Heuristic 1:if variety = 1; = 0 2: rises monotonically with variety 3: rises monotonically with balance 4: rises monotonically with disparity 5:if disparity = 0; = 0 6: accommodates any perspective on disparity 8: is simple and parsimonious

43 = ij d ij.p i.p j in particular: takes full account of disparity (criterion 9) Easily shown to fulfill first eight quality criteria Some Properties of the New Diversity Heuristic

44 coalgaswind coalgaswind PORTFOLIO APORTFOLIO B 70%5%25%70%25%5% { A } > { B } in particular: takes full account of disparity (criterion 9) = ij d ij.p i.p j fulfils basic quality criteria outlined earlier Some Properties of the New Diversity Heuristic

45 in particular: takes full account of disparity (criterion 9) = ij d ij.p i.p j fulfils basic quality criteria outlined earlier Some Properties of the New Diversity Heuristic allows exploration of different weights on variety, balance, disparity ´ = ij (d ij ).(p i.p j )

46 APPRAISE PERFORMANCE technology options / policy criteria CHARACTERISE DISPARITY institutions / functions / technologies DEFINE INTERACTIONS portfolio effects ANALYSE TRADE-OFFS diversity / performance Mapping Diversity-Performance Relationships

47 APPRAISE PERFORMANCE technology options / policy criteria CHARACTERISE DISPARITY institutions / functions / technologies DEFINE INTERACTIONS portfolio effects ANALYSE TRADE-OFFS diversity / performance Mapping Diversity-Performance Relationships V aggregate = i r i.p i where: V aggregate =value of aggregate performance of individual options r i = value of performance of i th option p i =proportional representation of i th option

48 APPRAISE PERFORMANCE technology options / policy criteria CHARACTERISE DISPARITY institutions / functions / technologies DEFINE INTERACTIONS portfolio effects ANALYSE TRADE-OFFS diversity / performance Mapping Diversity-Performance Relationships {i x i matrix} yields set of (i - 1) 2 / 2 disparity distances ( d ij ) where: i =number of options in portfolio d ij =disparity distance between options i and j

49 APPRAISE PERFORMANCE technology options / policy criteria CHARACTERISE DISPARITY institutions / functions / technologies DEFINE INTERACTIONS portfolio effects ANALYSE TRADE-OFFS diversity / performance Mapping Diversity-Performance Relationships {i x i matrix} yields set of (i - 1) 2 / 2 Interaction multipliers ( i ij ) where: i =number of options in portfolio i ij =interaction multiplier for options i and j

50 APPRAISE PERFORMANCE technology options / policy criteria CHARACTERISE DISPARITY institutions / functions / technologies DEFINE INTERACTIONS portfolio effects ANALYSE TRADE-OFFS diversity / performance Mapping Diversity-Performance Relationships

51 ANALYSE TRADE-OFFS diversity / performance Mapping Diversity-Performance Relationships total value of value of aggregate value due to system portfolio = performance of + interactions and performanceindividual options portfolio diversity V portfolio = i r i.p i +. ij d ij.i ij.p i.p j where:V portfolio =total value of portfolio performance r i = value of performance of i th option p i =proportional reliance on i th option =marginal value of portfolio diversity d ij =disparity distance between options i and j i ij =interaction multiplier for options i and j

52 APPRAISE PERFORMANCE technology options / policy criteria CHARACTERISE DISPARITY institutions / functions / technologies DEFINE INTERACTIONS portfolio effects ANALYSE TRADE-OFFS diversity / performance Mapping Diversity-Performance Relationships

53 APPRAISE PERFORMANCE technology options / policy criteria CHARACTERISE DISPARITY institutions / functions / technologies DEFINE INTERACTIONS portfolio effects ANALYSE TRADE-OFFS diversity / performance Mapping Diversity-Performance Relationships

54 APPRAISE PERFORMANCE technology options / policy criteria CHARACTERISE DISPARITY institutions / functions / technologies DEFINE INTERACTIONS portfolio effects ANALYSE TRADE-OFFS diversity / performance Mapping Diversity-Performance Relationships DELIBERATE OVER FINDINGS divergent assumptions and perspectives

55 functional applicationtechnological system Social, cultural, economic, historic and geographic studies converge Diversity and Innovation

56 functional applicationtechnological system Social, cultural, economic, historic and geographic studies converge Diversity and Innovation

57 functional applicationtechnological systeminstitutional context Social, cultural, economic, historic and geographic studies converge Diversity and Innovation

58 functional applicationtechnological systeminstitutional context Social, cultural, economic, historic and geographic studies converge Diversity and Innovation

59 functional applicationtechnological systeminstitutional context Social, cultural, economic, historic and geographic studies converge Diversity and Innovation

60 densely connected network homogeneous connectivity impedes innovation functional applicationtechnological systeminstitutional context after Grabher and Stark (1997) Diversity and Innovation

61 densely connected networkcompartmentalised networks homogeneous connectivity impedes innovation unconnected subsystems impedes innovation functional applicationtechnological systeminstitutional context after Grabher and Stark (1997) Diversity and Innovation

62 densely connected networkloosely coupled networks homogeneous connectivity impedes innovation functional applicationtechnological systeminstitutional context heterogeneous connectivity fosters innovation after Grabher and Stark (1997) compartmentalised networks unconnected subsystems impedes innovation Diversity and Innovation

63 loosely coupled networks heterogeneous connectivity fosters innovation technological and institutional diversity helps foster loosely coupled social networks which promote more robust innovation Diversity and Innovation

64 space of technological possibilities time Social studies, philosophy, history and economics paint common picture Diversity and Lock-in

65 space of technological possibilities time Social studies, philosophy, history and economics paint common picture Diversity and Lock-in

66 Technologies can present different equally-viable paths space of technological possibilities time Social studies, philosophy, history and economics paint common picture Diversity and Lock-in

67 space of technological possibilities time Technologies can present different equally-viable paths but, in practice, reduced by momentum, autonomy, entrapment and lock-in Social studies, philosophy, history and economics paint common picture Diversity and Lock-in

68 space of technological possibilities time Technologies can present different equally-viable paths diversity mitigates lock-in and so enhances deliberate reflection and learning Social studies, philosophy, history and economics paint common picture for society: raises key questions over power, agency and choice Diversity and Lock-in

69 knowledge about outcomes knowledge about not problematic outcomes not problematic RISK UNCERTAINTY AMBIGUITY IGNORANCE Diversity, Ambiguity and Ignorance engineering failure known epidemics transport safety human element global climate change unassessed chemicals apples and oranges landscape / emissions / safety definition of GM harm surprises like: BSE, CFCs endocrine disruption probabilities Risk assessment limits are practical, methodological and theoretical Arrows Nobel Prize shows sound scientific policy is an oxymoron !

70 not problematic not problematic RISK UNCERTAINTY AMBIGUITY IGNORANCE INCERTITUDE knowledge about probabilities knowledge about outcomes Diversity, Ambiguity and Ignorance

71 knowledge about probabilities not problematic knowledge about outcomes not problematic RISK UNCERTAINTY IGNORANCE risk assessment decision analysis cost-benefit analysis rules of thumb sensitivity analysis scenario analysis deliberation, negotiation citizen participation mapping approaches plural/conditional outcomes horizon scanning research and monitoring social learning flexibility, resilience, robustness AMBIGUITY Diversity addresses fundamental limits to analysis and deliberation accommodates ambiguities and hedges against ignorance Diversity, Ambiguity and Ignorance

72 SECURITY OF SUPPLY IS MORE THAN DIVERSITY SECURITYDIVERSITY - control - interdependence - self reliance - planning - efficiency - capacity, stocks - resilience, flexibility - fuels - technologies - producer regions - industrial interests - supply and trade - infrastructures - hedge ignorance - foster innovation - promote competition - accommodate values - mitigate lock-in DIVERSITY IS MORE THAN SECURITY OF SUPPLY Diversity in Energy Policy

73 Sustainability maintain system functions over long term society, economy, environment stability against endogenous disruptions resilience against exogenous shocks robustness under external shifts The Properties of Sustainability durability under internal change

74 Diversity in this Workshop Title key theme: managing variation Jochenimportant to maintain and enhance variety Staffanimperative to pursue in parallel varied technology clusters Fredneed to focus on variety creation and selection Kornelianeed to address three types of variety Haralddiversity relates to institutional incoherence and adaptability Raimunddiversity as a means to selection of superior products But many questions over meanings and contexts?

75 DISPARITY = degree to which options are different complex taxonomic indices focus directly on concepts of differenceBUT: - assumes single objective characterisation of difference eg: Weitzmann Function max i S { D W (S \ i) + d W (i, S \ i) } (also Lancaster) Conventional Approaches to Technological Diversity - assumes universally rooted directed tree (utltrametric distances) - neglects variety - neglects balance


Download ppt "Andy Stirling SPRU – science and technology policy research presentation to workshop on … Management of Variation and Diversity, Forum Chriesbach, Zurich,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google