Governing system innovation: assisted living experiments in the UK and Norway

[EN] Debates on how to address societal challenges have moved to the forefront of academic and policy concerns. Of particular importance is the growing awareness that to deal with issues such as ageing, it will be necessary to implement concerted efforts on technological, social, institutional or political fronts. Drawing on a number of theoretical perspectives ¿ including socio-technical transitions and embedded state theory ¿ the aim of this paper is to identify and understand different approaches to the governance of such system innovations by comparing state responses to assisted living in two contrasting national systems of care, namely that of the UK and Norway. Its findings highlight that state-supported and funded experimentation projects have been instrumental in designing and implementing system innovation: through their emphasis on co-design and co-creation, these projects demonstrated the value of early implementation pilots to explore the `fit¿ between novel technologies and prevailing practices and institutional structures in national systems of care. Still, competition, biases or conflicting interests should not be ignored between well-established agents and institutions and experimental solutions whose efficacy remains relatively untested and which involve a combination of new technical, social, organizational and institutional solutions.This project has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 320131 (SmartSpec).Bugge, M.; Coenen, L.; Marques, P.; Morgan, K. (2017). Governing system innovation: assisted living experiments in the UK and Norway. European Planning Studies. 25(12):2138-2156. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1349078S213821562512Benner, M. (2014). From smart specialisation to smart experimentation. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, 58(1). doi:10.1515/zfw.2014.0003Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.xBulkeley, H., Broto, V. C., & Edwards, G. (2012). Bringing climate change to the city: towards low carbon urbanism? Local Environment, 17(5), 545-551. doi:10.1080/13549839.2012.681464Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., & Truffer, B. (2012). Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 41(6), 968-979. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.014Coenen, L., Raven, R., & Verbong, G. (2010). Local niche experimentation in energy transitions: A theoretical and empirical exploration of proximity advantages and disadvantages. Technology in Society, 32(4), 295-302. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2010.10.006Devlin, A. M., McGee-Lennon, M., O’Donnell, C. A., Bouamrane, M.-M., Agbakoba, R., … O’Connor, S. (2015). Delivering digital health and well-being at scale: lessons learned during the implementation of the dallas program in the United Kingdom. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 23(1), 48-59. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocv097Evans, P. B. (1995). Embedded Autonomy. doi:10.1515/9781400821723Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1257-1274. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00062-8Geels, F. W., Hekkert, M. P., & Jacobsson, S. (2008). The dynamics of sustainable innovation journeys. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 521-536. doi:10.1080/09537320802292982Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as self-discovery. Journal of Development Economics, 72(2), 603-633. doi:10.1016/s0304-3878(03)00124-xJacobsson, B., Pierre, J., & Sundström, G. (2015). Governing the Embedded State. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684168.001.0001Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36(5), 680-693. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2), 175-198. doi:10.1080/09537329808524310Laranja, M., Uyarra, E., & Flanagan, K. (2008). Policies for science, technology and innovation: Translating rationales into regional policies in a multi-level setting. Research Policy, 37(5), 823-835. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.03.006Meadowcroft, J. (2011). Engaging with the politics of sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 70-75. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.003Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2012). Experimentalist Governance. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0012Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 537-554. doi:10.1080/09537320802292651Sengers, F., & Raven, R. (2014). Metering motorbike mobility: informal transport in transition? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(4), 453-468. doi:10.1080/09537325.2013.870991Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics, 16(4), 584-603. doi:10.1080/09644010701419121Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2007). Caution! Transitions Ahead: Politics, Practice, and Sustainable Transition Management. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 39(4), 763-770. doi:10.1068/a39310Smith, A., & Raven, R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy, 41(6), 1025-1036. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012Smith, A., Voß, J.-P., & Grin, J. (2010). Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy, 39(4), 435-448. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023Steward, F. (2012). Transformative innovation policy to meet the challenge of climate change: sociotechnical networks aligned with consumption and end-use as new transition arenas for a low-carbon society or green economy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(4), 331-343. doi:10.1080/09537325.2012.663959Weber, K. M., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change. Research Policy, 41(6), 1037-1047. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015Klein Woolthuis, R., Lankhuizen, M., & Gilsing, V. (2005). A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation, 25(6), 609-619. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2003.11.00

Directionality and subsidiarity: a regional policy for people and planet

In this paper we consider if and how regional policy can be designed to foster sustainability (the wellbeing of people and planet) as well as being a catalyst for innovation and development. Focusing on the entrepreneurial discovery process, the paper explores its role and limitations in balancing directionality and subsidiarity in regional development. In its original conception, it was designed to direct regional development towards promising future opportunities building on existing strengths. We argue that while the rationale of the entrepreneurial discovery process serves innovation-driven competitiveness, it lacks sufficient sensitivity to the social and environmental dimensions of sustainability. Rather than retrofitting the missing dimensions of sustainability, the logic needs to be rethought from the basics, which we do by asking if and under which conditions the entrepreneurial discovery process directs regional development to deliver on human wellbeing and environmental impact. We argue that this depends on the nature of existing opportunities, on how development is framed and on who is engaged in the discovery process. To this end we argue that regional policy needs to i) adopt a more capacious perspective to change processes and policy agency, taking action if needed to reconfigure the opportunity space, and ii) adopt a broader perspective on discovery processes, which goes beyond the realm of entrepreneurs and business alone and integrates the lessons learned from experimentation processes in and across a variety of domains. For this to happen, it is necessary to develop the institutional capacity for a regional development strategy that is sensitive to multiple (and sometimes conflicting) societal goals

Evolving geographies of innovation: existing paradigms, critiques and possible alternatives

Theory development on the geographies of innovation has been very successful in incorporating the changing patterns of knowledge dynamics due to globalization, lifting the gaze beyond processes of localized learning and increasingly acknowledging the multilevel, multiscalar governance of innovation. Arguably less attention has been directed to the changing qualities and impacts of innovation as a result of globalization, notably in view of social polarization and climate change. The aim of the article is to provide suggestions for how research on the geography of innovation can be improved by engaging with a more capacious understanding of innovation and territorial development. The authors explore how socio-ecological innovation can be introduced in contemporary discussions and practices of place-based smart specialization policy. They conclude by suggesting that future research should address and interrogate (1) the rise of the foundational economy as an expression of place-based innovation, which entails new forms of co-governance, and (2) the challenge of experimentalism in the public sector, a sector that looms large in lagging regions and the places that were deemed not to matter until they took their revenge on the mainstream political system

Optimalisatie verluchting area en L-hal

De stage die verbonden is aan deze bachelorproef vond plaats bij Ford Genk. Dit bedrijf is erg bekend aangezien het één van de grootste autoproducenten van de omgeving is. Onze stage heeft echter niets met de productie van auto\u27s te maken, wel met de verluchting in de C-hal en de L-hal. Een eerste taak is het in kaart brengen van alle installaties. Dit wil zeggen alle toevoerinstallaties, alle dakextracties en industriële afzuigingen. Dit omvat ook het zoeken van verschillende gegevens, zoals het debiet, vermogen, type motor e.d. en deze samenbrengen in overzichtstabellen. Als alle gegevens compleet zijn kan de luchtbalans worden opgemaakt om zo te bepalen of de hal in onder- of overdruk staat, dit al naargelang de stand van de binnen- en buitenkleppen. De luchtbalans is een belangrijk punt, want een slechte balans kan leiden tot problemen met tocht, een slechte luchtkwaliteit en energieverspiling. Een laatste punt is het meten van de tocht, luchtvochtigheid en temperatuur op plaatsen waar veel klachten zijn. Dit gebeurt met twee verschillende toestellen waarmee in de hallen wordt gemeten. Deze metingen worden ook weer gedaan bij verschillende kleppenstanden en snelheden. Na het vaststellen van mogelijke problemen is het de bedoeling om met een aantal voorstellen te komen om deze zaken eventueel op te lossen