Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- topics:innovation [2026/03/15 17:36] – admin
+++ topics:innovation [2026/04/24 08:28] (current) – vso_vso
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<WRAP box lightviolet catbadge>Governance, Innovation & Change</WRAP>
+<WRAP catbadge purple>Governance, Innovation & Change
+</WRAP>
 ====== Innovation ======
-version: 1.1
-updated: March 2026
 <WRAP meta>
@@ Line 9: / Line 8: @@
 contributors: [Names]
 reviewers: [Names]
+version: 1.2
+updated: 25 March 2026
 sensitivity: low
+status: draft
+ai-use: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Anthropic) was used for editorial revision, reference verification, and formatting; reviewed by Vitaliy Soloviy, 17.03.2026
 </WRAP>
 <WRAP intro>
-The concept of innovation in energy systems has evolved from a narrow focus on firms and market growth toward a broader view of innovation as a socio-technical process. In the context of smart grid transitions, it involves the intentional creation and institutionalisation of new technological, social, and organisational solutions. This transformation requires navigating established socio-technical regimes where social and institutional changes are as fundamental as the hardware itself.
+The concept of innovation in energy systems has evolved from a narrow focus on firms and market growth toward a broader view of innovation as a socio-technical process. In the context of smart grid transitions, it involves the intentional creation and institutionalisation of new technological, social, and organisational solutions.
 </WRAP>
 ===== Why this matters =====
-The historical view of innovation has shifted from a "vice" (pejorative and political) to a "virtue" used as an instrument for achieving social goals [3]. For smart grids, understanding innovation dynamics is critical because the "categorical imperative" often penalises developments that do not fit established cognitive and regulatory frameworks [2]. Moving beyond pro-innovation bias allows policymakers to address the enabling factors for technological diffusion and the "exnovation" of unsustainable legacy structures that hinder system transformation.
+The historical view of innovation has shifted from a pejorative political label to a virtue used as an instrument for achieving social goals.((Godin, B. (2015). //Innovation Contested: The Idea of Innovation Over the Centuries.// Routledge.)) For smart grids, understanding innovation dynamics is critical because the categorical imperative often penalises developments that do not fit established cognitive and regulatory frameworks.((Frenken, K., & Punt, M. B. (2023). A New View on Radical Innovation. In //14th International Sustainability Transitions Conference (IST 2023).// SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/6cr5t))
-===== ISGAN definition =====
+<WRAP callout>
+Moving beyond pro-innovation bias allows policymakers to address the enabling factors for technological diffusion and the exnovation of unsustainable legacy structures that hinder system transformation.
+</WRAP>
-Innovation is the multi-dimensional process of creating and institutionalising new technological, social, or organisational solutions—including products, processes, and services—that respond to grand societal challenges and create public value. In smart grid transitions, this encompasses "mission-oriented" initiatives that aim to reshape socio-technical regimes through niche development, the alignment of legal and infrastructure frameworks, and the pursuit of directional objectives [1, 7]. Based on category theory, innovations are classified by how they interact with existing social and regulatory categories [2]:
+===== Shared definitions =====
-**Innovation Category Framework (Frenken & Punt, 2023)**
+Innovation is the multi-dimensional process of creating and institutionalising new technological, social, or organisational solutions — including products, processes, and services — that respond to grand societal challenges and create public value. In smart grid transitions, this encompasses mission-oriented initiatives that aim to reshape socio-technical regimes through niche development, the alignment of legal and infrastructure frameworks, and the pursuit of directional objectives.((Aigner, E., et al. (2022). //Kapitel IV: Technical Summary.// In APCC Special Report: Strukturen für ein klimafreundliches Leben. Springer Spektrum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66497-1))((OECD. (n.d.). //What is mission-oriented innovation?// Observatory of Public Sector Innovation. https://oecd-opsi.org/work-areas/mission-oriented-innovation/))
-^ Innovation Type ^ Description ^
-| Incremental | Readily categorised and institutionalised in an existing category; valued for minor improvements. |
+Based on category theory, innovations are classified by how they interact with existing social and regulatory categories:((Frenken, K., & Punt, M. B. (2023). A New View on Radical Innovation. In //14th International Sustainability Transitions Conference (IST 2023).// SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/6cr5t))
-| Breakthrough | Readily categorised in an existing category; valued for major improvements. |
-| Disruptive | Eventually institutionalised in an existing category by stretching its boundaries; makes practice more accessible. |
+<WRAP tablecap>
-| Radical | Institutionalised in a new category rather than an existing one; valued for its novelty. |
+**Table 1.** Innovation types by their relationship to existing social and regulatory categories.\\
+//Source: Frenken & Punt (2023).//
+</WRAP>
+^ Innovation type ^ Description ^
+| **Incremental** | Readily categorised and institutionalised in an existing category; valued for minor improvements. |
+| **Breakthrough** | Readily categorised in an existing category; valued for major improvements. |
+| **Disruptive** | Eventually institutionalised in an existing category by stretching its boundaries; makes practice more accessible. |
+| **Radical** | Institutionalised in a new category rather than an existing one; valued for its novelty. |
 ===== Perspectives =====
@@ Line 36: / Line 50: @@
 <WRAP perspectives>
-==== Actors ====
+==== Actors and stakeholders ====
-Contemporary innovation is driven by a wide array of actors beyond traditional entrepreneurs and corporate R&D. These include "mission-oriented" actors—public and private entities collaborating to achieve societal value (e.g., grid stability, decarbonisation) rather than just market success. These actors must navigate the "categorical imperative," ensuring that new solutions are eventually accepted and valued within social practices and regulatory standards [2].
+Contemporary innovation is driven by a wide array of actors beyond traditional entrepreneurs and corporate R&D. These include mission-oriented actors — public and private entities collaborating to achieve societal value such as grid stability or decarbonisation, rather than just market success. These actors must navigate the categorical imperative, ensuring that new solutions are eventually accepted and valued within social practices and regulatory standards.((Frenken, K., & Punt, M. B. (2023). A New View on Radical Innovation. In //14th International Sustainability Transitions Conference (IST 2023).// SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/6cr5t))
-{{:image_527976.png?600|Multi-level perspective (MLP) levels: Landscape, Regime, and Niche. Source: Novy et al. 2022}}
+@@GAP: case example needed — actors perspective@@
-==== Technology ====
+==== Technologies and infrastructure ====
-Technological innovation in smart grids is increasingly "granular," characterized by the proliferation of small-scale, low-unit-cost technologies like solar PV and lithium batteries. Unlike large-scale infrastructure, granular technologies often exhibit steeper learning curves, faster diffusion, and provide more equitable access [4]. This granularity enables rapid experimentation and performance improvements, though it requires innovation policies aligned with market demand to achieve system-wide transition.
+Technological innovation in smart grids is increasingly granular, characterised by the proliferation of small-scale, low-unit-cost technologies like solar PV and lithium batteries. Unlike large-scale infrastructure, granular technologies often exhibit steeper learning curves, faster diffusion, and provide more equitable access.((Grubler, A., et al. (2018). A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 °C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. //Nature Energy//, 3(6), 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0172-6)) This granularity enables rapid experimentation and performance improvements, though it requires innovation policies aligned with market demand to achieve system-wide transition.
-Case: Granular vs. Large-scale Learning
+<WRAP case>
+**Global -- Low Energy Demand scenario** \\
+The LED scenario demonstrates that rapid innovation in granular end-use technologies can meet climate targets through widespread diffusion and rapid cost reductions, reducing reliance on unproven large-scale supply-side technologies by leveraging the rapid learning rates of mass-produced components.((Grubler, A., et al. (2018). A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 °C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. //Nature Energy//, 3(6), 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0172-6))
+</WRAP>
+==== Institutional structures ====
-The "Low Energy Demand" (LED) scenario demonstrates that rapid innovation in granular end-use technologies can meet climate targets through widespread diffusion and rapid cost reductions. This approach reduces reliance on unproven large-scale supply-side technologies by leveraging the rapid learning rates of mass-produced components [4].
+Institutions shape innovation through laws, standards, and governance. A core challenge is how society categorises and institutionalises novelty. Institutional innovation also includes exnovation: the deliberate, structured ending of unsustainable practices, technologies, or socio-technical regimes to make room for transformative solutions.((Kubeczko, K. (2022). //Transformative readiness: Unpacking the technological and non-technological aspects of sustainability transitions.// Presented at the 13th International Sustainability Transitions Conference (IST 2022).))((Novy, A., et al. (2022). //Kapitel 2: Perspectives for analyzing and shaping structures for a climate-friendly life.// In APCC Special Report: Structures for a Climate-Friendly Life. Springer Spektrum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66497-1))
-==== Institutional ====
+@@GAP: case example needed — institutional perspective@@
-Institutions shape innovation through laws, standards, and governance. A core challenge is how society categorises and institutionalises novelty. Institutional innovation also includes exnovation: the deliberate, structured ending of unsustainable practices, technologies, or socio-technical regimes to make room for transformative solutions [5, 6].
 </WRAP>
-===== References =====
+===== Distinctions and overlaps =====
-Aigner, E., et al. (2022). Kapitel IV: Technical Summary. In APCC Special Report: Strukturen Für Ein Klimafreundliches Leben. Springer Spektrum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66497-1
+<WRAP distinction>
+**Innovation vs. invention** \\
+Invention is the creation of a new idea or technology. Innovation is the process of bringing it into use — which requires institutionalisation, adoption, and the reconfiguration of surrounding practices and rules. In smart grid transitions, many technologies exist as inventions long before they become innovations in this fuller sense.
+</WRAP>
-Frenken, K., & Punt, M. B. (2023). A New View on Radical Innovation. In 14th International Sustainability Transitions Conference (IST 2023). SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/6cr5t
+<WRAP distinction>
+**Innovation vs. exnovation** \\
+Innovation introduces new solutions. Exnovation deliberately phases out existing ones. In energy transitions both are necessary: introducing distributed resources without retiring legacy infrastructure can produce stranded assets and regulatory conflicts rather than system transformation.
+</WRAP>
-Godin, B. (2015). Innovation Contested: The Idea of Innovation Over the Centuries. Routledge.
+===== Related topics =====
-Grubler, A., et al. (2018). A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 °C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nature Energy, 3(6), 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0172-6
+[[topics:digitalisation|Digitalisation]] · [[topics:technology|Technology]] · [[topics:markets|Markets]] · [[topics:social_practice|Social practice]] · [[topics:transitions|Transitions]] · [[topics:innovation_policy|Innovation policy]] · [[topics:regulatory_sandbox|Regulatory sandbox]]
-Kubeczko, K. (2022). Transformative Readiness - Unpacking the technological and non-technological aspects of sustainability transitions. Presented at the 13th International Sustainability Transitions Conference (IST 2022).
+===== Topic notes =====
-Novy, A., et al. (2022). Kapitel 2: Perspectives for analyzing and shaping structures for a climate-friendly life. In APCC Special Report: Structures for a Climate-Friendly Life. Springer Spektrum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66497-1
+**Gaps to address before Gate 1:**
+  * Case examples missing from actors and institutional perspectives
-OECD. (n.d.). What is mission-oriented innovation? Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI). https://oecd-opsi.org/work-areas/mission-oriented-innovation/
+  * The LED scenario case is global/conceptual rather than country-specific — consider replacing or supplementing with a named country programme
-===== Related topics =====
-{{tag>Digitalisation, Exnovation, Mission-oriented Policy, technology, markets, social_practice}}
+~~DISCUSSION~~