Coevolutionary framework [2] 

Context in source publication

Context 1

... series of case studies of alternative configurations that incorporate service-based practices have been analysed to identify the interactions between governance, business, end users and technologies that led to the success and the barriers to wider roll-out of the case study. These interactions were identified through the application of analytical frameworks from co- evolution and transitions theory. The enablers or barriers were then used to develop recommendations for governance that might support the wider adoption of alternative, resource-efficient service-oriented supply configurations at the urban level, and potentially beyond. This methodology is based on the process of building theory from case study research described by Eisenhardt and used extensively in social science research [11]. The key stages of the methodology applied at this stage of the research are described below. An initial definition of the research question is essential to set the focus for the research and supports identification of both potential case studies and the kind of data to be gathered during case study analysis. The principal research question for this stage of the research project was “How have alternative infrastructure operation configurations arisen, which are: simultaneously?” The aim of the case study analysis was to identify factors that contribute to the success of these alternative configurations to provide insight about the most effective points of influence for policy intervention. A number of constructs were used to “provide strong triangulated measures and a firmer empirical grounding for emergent theory” [11: p536]. These included “ How important was governance intervention at enabling the transition towards a more service-oriented, resource-efficient business model?” and “how A literature review was undertaken to identify examples of MUSCO-like infrastructure operation in the energy sector. Examples were gathered at a lower level of detail to inform selection. Case studies were chosen for theoretical, rather than statistical reasons. Ideally, examples of practice resembling MUSCOs would have been selected for detailed analysis. However, it was not possible to find any examples of full service-oriented business models that enabled integration between infrastructures. Therefore, two case studies were selected that had successfully implemented alternative operations that provided an example of some aspects of MUSCos, such as demand management, or resource efficiency energy generation. Examples were selected that were initiated by different partners to assess the potential to replicate or extend emergent theory. Multiple data collection methods were used to strengthen the grounding of theory development (through triangulation of evidence) and develop a synergistic view of evidence. Relevant literature was examined in more detail and a timeline designed for each case study showing the events that defined the case study. The timeline provided a deeper understanding of the evolution of internal and external factors that led to the success of the alternative mode of operation. The observed structure of the agents and assets involved in the alternative mode of operation was mapped and compared with the structure of a mainstream business. The mapping exercise provided a clearer insight into the relationships and interactions that contribute to the emergence of the case study within the mainstream. This yielded insights into the preconditions for successful evolution of throughput-based business models into service- based models, which provides early indications of potential policy interventions that could bring about more resource efficient, service oriented infrastructure operation. In order to generate and collect additional, primary data, a number of semi-structured interviews were conducted for case studies. Participants included utility managers, project managers and academic experts. Foxon’s co-evolutionary framework was used to structure high-level interview questions to ensure that all relevant interactions were identified which led to the emergence of alternative modes of operation within the mainstream [2]. Foxon’s framework identifies five different systems that co-evolve to instigate transitions; namely ecosystems, institutions, user practices, business strategies and technologies (See figure 1). Each of these five systems is treated “as a system that evolves under its own dynamics, but in which this evolution both influences and is influenced by the dynamics in the other systems through causal interactions.” [2: ...