A Conceptual Systemic Framework Proposal for Sustainable Technology Development

1. A Conceptual Systemic Framework Proposal forSustainable Technology Development:Incorporating Future Studies within a Co-Evolutionary Approach by A. İdil Gaziulusoy, Ph.D. Candidate Co-author Dr. Carol Boyle The University of Auckland International Centre for Sustainability Engineering and Research FEBRUARY 2007

2. Introduction SUSTAINABILITY Global Meta-System ENVIRONMENT WHAT? conceptual priority: society operational priority: environment WHEN? long-term planning as operational context widensthe length of time increases SOCIETY ECONOMY Sustainability is a “moving target” (Hjorth & Bagheri, 2006). GAZIULUSOY February 2007

3. global Size of the Operational Context Influence path X Operational Context N X X X X X X Operational Context 3 X Operational Context 2 X Operational Context 1 Feed-back path present future local Time Introduction TEMPORAL-SPATIAL FRAME GAZIULUSOY February 2007

4. Introduction COMPLEXITY Frog Science versus Bicycle Science “A crucial assumption of reductionism” is that we can break complex systems into parts and study these in isolation (Linstone, 1999). GAZIULUSOY February 2007

5. Environment Environment Society Society Economy Economy CO-EVOLUTION Introduction ecosystems COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS technology market operations animals companies industry humans GAZIULUSOY February 2007

6. Sustainable Technology Development EXTENT:RADICAL “Solutions are needed that break existing trends in current development processes.” (Weaver, Jansen, van Grootveld, van Spiegel, & Vergragt, 2000) Present technological paradigm New technological paradigm GAZIULUSOY February 2007

7. Sustainable Technology Development CONTEXT:CO-EVOLVING society economy Technological Paradigm technology GAZIULUSOY February 2007

8. Innovations Technology push Market pull Sustainable Technology Development CONTEXT:CO-EVOLVING Regulatory push/pull Environmental Cleff & Rennings (1999); Rennings (2000) GAZIULUSOY February 2007

9. Environment Society Technology Economy GOVERNANCE Sustainable Technology Development CONTEXT:CO-EVOLVING “Successful action depends on a combination of advances in scientific understanding, appropriate political programmes, social reforms and other institutional changes, as well as on the scale and direction of new investment. Organisational and social innovations would always have to accompany any technical innovations and some would have to come first” (Freeman, 1992) GAZIULUSOY February 2007

10. Incorporating Future Studies RELEVANCE • Planning for sustainable technology development should: • Have a long-termcoverage; • Be able to address complexity; • Be able to deal with co-evolutionary change both as a result and as a cause; • Should allow continuous feedback, reassessment and adjustment to cope with dynamic characteristics and changing requirements of sustainability concept; and • Provide creative vision to guide the innovation path towards radical change. GAZIULUSOY February 2007

11. Incorporating Future Studies RELEVANCE Technology Development Engineering Future Studies STD Sustainable Development Sustainability Science Sustainability Engineering GAZIULUSOY February 2007

12. Present Present Incrementalimprovement # 1 Milestone # 1 Planning STEP # 1 Incremental Change Backcasting STEP # 2 Radical Change Incremental improvement # 2 Milestone # 2 Incremental improvement # 3 Milestone # 3 Incremental improvement # ? Milestone # N Foresighting STEP # 1 Future ? Future SUSTAINABILITY FORECASTING BACKCASTING Incorporating Future Studies BACKCASTING AS A META-TOOL GAZIULUSOY February 2007

13. Incorporating Future Studies BACKCASTING AS A META-TOOL • Backcasting is useful: • when the problem to be studied is complex; • many sectors and levels of society are involved; • when there is a need for major change since dominant trends are part of the problem; and • when the time horizon is long enough to allow considerable scope for deliberate choice (Dreborg, 1996) GAZIULUSOY February 2007

14. global Size of the Operational Context Size of the Operational Context Influence path Influence path country X Operational Context N X X X Policy development X X X X X Institutional innovations Operational Context 3 X X Social/cultural innovations Operational Context 2 X X Organisational innovations Operational Context 1 X Feed-back path Feed-back path Technological innovations local present present future future sector/ company Time Time Incorporating Future Studies CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK GAZIULUSOY February 2007

15. Environment Society Technology Economy Socio-Economic Domain Socio-Technical Domain GOVERNANCE (Socio-)Techno-Economic Domain “INDUSTRY” Incorporating Future Studies CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK GAZIULUSOY February 2007

16. Institutional and Social Innovations Policy/Legislation Public Awareness Stakeholder Demand New Values New Capabilities New Competencies Technological Innovations Organisational Innovations Company Vision Competitiveness Shareholder Values INDUSTRY Incorporating Future Studies CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK GAZIULUSOY February 2007

17. CONCLUSION • Shift in the technological paradigm is needed; • Incorporating future studies into technology planning can facilitate this shift; • When planning for technologies co-evolutionary aspects of innovation should be considered; • Backcasting is promising as a normative and analytical meta-tool for planning within a co-evolutionary approach; • In a backcastıng exercise policy development should cover the longest time span to overlook and link institutional, social/cultural, organisational and technological innovations. GAZIULUSOY February 2007