Time to get ready: Conceptualizing the temporal and spatial dynamics of formative phases for energy technologies
Introduction
The historical diffusion of energy technologies shows long periods of emergence within changing energy systems (Fouquet, 2016, Grubler et al., 2016). Energy technologies often take several decades in the early phase of their life-cycle prior to mass commercialization (Fouquet, 2014, Smil, 2010, Smil, 2016). This period is also known as the formative phase which can be defined in the following terms: a period marked by high uncertainties (Van de Ven, 2017), during which the conditions (standardization, performance improvement, etc.) are created for a new technology to emerge and prepare for large-scale commercialization (Jacobsson and Lauber, 2006, Arthur, 2009, Bento and Wilson, 2016). This interactive process of testing and improvement, and aligning market and user needs, tends to occur in a small number of initial markets. At the end of the formative phase the technology becomes ready to leave the initial markets and diffuse out into new markets (Binz and Anadon, 2018; Binz et al., 2017, Grubler, 2012). Understanding both the temporal and spatial dynamics that shape the formative phase is important in the debate on how to accelerate energy innovation for climate change mitigation (Winskel and Radcliffe, 2014).
Different strands of the literature cover the dynamics and determinants of the formative phase. These include the identification of key changes in the type of innovation (e.g., product vs process) (Huenteler et al., 2016, Taylor and Taylor, 2012), the strategic management of new industries around innovations (e.g. changes in companies’ demography) (Peltoniemi, 2011, Gustafsson et al., 2016), and the dynamics of emerging systems in socio-technical transitions (Bergek et al., 2015, Markard et al., 2012, Geels, 2005).
In terms of what determines the duration of formative phase, studies in management science emphasize the role of demand variables, such as heterogeneity in price sensitivity and adopters’ risk avoidance (Golder and Tellis, 1997, Tellis et al., 2003, 2012; Peres et al., 2010). The diffusion of innovations literature shows that diffusion rates depend on the characteristics of both the technology and the adoption environment (Rogers, 2003). These factors include: relative advantage (Mansfield, 1968, Chandrasekaran et al., 2013); compatibility and complexity (Arthur, 2009); disruptiveness, inter-relatedness and infrastructural needs (Grubler et al., 1999); and market size (Wilson, 2012).
Technology growth out of the initial markets is typically investigated with the focus on the constraints to adoption like distance in economic geography (e.g. Comin et al., 2012; Griffith et al., 2013), or interactions with existing contextual structures in system theories (Bergek et al., 2015, Hansen and Coenen, 2015).
In this paper we pose the question: What determines the duration of formative phases for energy innovations in different markets? We are interested both in initial markets (also: core, lead, first mover, early adopter) where formative phases prepare technologies for mass commercialization, and in follower markets (also: periphery, lag, late adopter) where accelerated formative phases may benefit from diffusion and spillovers. To understand the temporal dynamics of energy innovation within initial markets (growth over time), we apply a hazard model to a time series dataset of 15 diverse energy technologies (including both new and old, energy supply and end-use). To understand the spatial dynamics of energy technology diffusion between markets (growth through space), we use Kaplan-Meier curves to compare the dynamics of formation in follower regions.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the relevant literature on formative phases to identify definitions, patterns and determinants. Section 3 explains the methodology including data sources, model and variables. Section 4 applies the concepts and methods presented in the previous sections to measure formative phase durations across regions and to estimate the effect of the determinants in accelerating formative periods. Section 5 concludes and derives policy implications.
Section snippets
Definition
The term formative phase appears in the technological innovation system literature to designate the early period of diffusion during which new technologies are first used, improved and prepared for commercialization: “the value of this very first phase” is “in the opportunities [given] for experimentation, learning and the formation of visions” (Jacobsson and Lauber, 2006: 271). A similar concept is’era of ferment’ which is used in the industry life-cycle literature to designate the period of
Models
We assess the determinants of formative phase duration of technologies in different markets using parametric and non-parametric survival analysis. We use parametric analysis in core markets with lengthy formative phases as data is more available. We then use non-parametric analysis to compare formative phase durations in follower regions.
The (parametric) hazard model explains the event of finishing the formative phase conditional on the change of covariates shown in Fig. 2. We use Cox's (1972)
Formative phase duration in initial markets
Fig. 3 compares key innovation measures across the sample of 15 technologies at end points of their respective formative phases in initial markets only. Cumulative capacity and number of units provide information on experimentation and system size. Average unit scale indicates the complexity of technology production and usage (here shown relatively to the maximum unit scale identified ex post). Price is indexed to the introductory level when technologies were first commercialized and shows the
Discussion and conclusion
Different strands of the innovation literature cover the dynamics and determinants of formation and diffusion. In this paper, we develop a coherent theoretical framework on formative phase duration. We apply this framework to estimate the duration of the formative phase for a diverse sample of energy technologies, and test the determinants of varying durations using a hazard model. Table 6 summarizes the key definitions and findings.
The paper confirms that certain drivers of formative phase
Acknowledgments
The research on which this article is based was supported by a grant from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), and Harvard Kennedy School. Nuno Bento also acknowledges the post-doctoral grant (ref.SFRH/BPD/91183/2012) received from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT). Laura Diaz Anadon would like to acknowledge funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement 730403 – INNOPATHS). In addition, the authors
References (82)
- et al.
Internal or external spillovers—which kind of knowledge is more likely to flow within or across technologies
Res. Policy
(2016) - et al.
The construction of a new technological innovation system in a follower country: wind energy in Portugal
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
(2015) - et al.
Measuring the duration of formative phases for energy technologies
Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.
(2016) - et al.
Technological innovation systems in contexts: conceptualizing contextual structures and interaction dynamics
Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.
(2015) - et al.
Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: a scheme of analysis
Res. Policy
(2008) - et al.
Spatial lifecycles of cleantech industries – the global development history of solar photovoltaics
Energy Policy
(2017) - et al.
Pricing in the international takeoff of new products
Int. J. Res. Mark.
(2013) - et al.
Is wartime mobilisation a suitable policy model for rapid national climate mitigation?
Energy Policy
(2013) Historical energy transitions: speed, prices and system transformation
Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
(2016)- et al.
A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review
J. Product. Innov. Manag.
(2002)
Faster market growth of wind and PV in late adopters due to global experience build-up
Energy
Energy transitions research: insights and cautionary tales
Energy Policy
The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: a case of negative learning by doing
Energy Policy
Dynamics of energy technologies and global change
Energy Policy
Apples, oranges, and consistent comparisons of the temporal dynamics of energy transitions
Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
The geography of sustainability transitions: review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field
Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.
Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
Product complexity, innovation and industrial organisation
Res. Policy
Technology life-cycles in the energy sector — technological characteristics and the role of deployment for innovation
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
The emergence and troubled growth of a ‘biopower’ innovation system in Sweden
Energy Policy
The politics and policy of energy system transformation—explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology
Energy Policy
Extent and impact of incubation time in new product diffusion
J. Product. Innov. Manag.
Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects
Res. Policy
The contribution of economic history to the study of innovation and technical change: 1750–1914
Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change
Res. Policy
Innovation diffusion and new product growth models: a critical review and research directions
Int. J. Res. Mark.
Examining energy transitions: a dozen insights based on performance
Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability
Res. Policy
Public policy and financial resource mobilization for wind energy in developing countries: a comparison of approaches and outcomes in China and India
Glob. Environ. Change
The technology life cycle: conceptualization and managerial implications
Int. J. Prod. Econ.
Up-scaling, formative phases, and learning in the historical diffusion of energy technologies
Energy Policy
Patterns of industrial innovation
Technol. Rev.
Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re-examining technology S-curves
Strateg. Manag. J.
The market evolution and sales takeoff of product innovations
Manag. Sci.
Survival Analysis Using SAS: A Practical Guide
Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change
Adm. Sci. Q.
The economic implications of learning-by-doing
Rev. Econ. Stud.
The Nature of Technology: What it is and How it Evolves
Unrelated diversification in latecomer contexts—the emergence of the Chinese solar photovoltaics industry
Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans.
Cited by (26)
The effect of institutional memory on the diffusion of wind energy
2022, Environmental Innovation and Societal TransitionsMicrogrid communities: disclosing the path to future system-active communities
2022, Sustainable FuturesFailing the formative phase: The global diffusion of nuclear power is limited by national markets
2021, Energy Research and Social ScienceCitation Excerpt :Previous studies have defined different thresholds for formative phases of new technologies. For example, Grubler et al. [8] proposed 5 %, while Bento et al. [59] proposed 2.5% of potential market adopters for a wide range of technologies. In a renewable energy context, Cherp et al. [42] proposed 1% of electricity be generated by wind and solar power, while Gosens et al. [77] proposed 100 MW of installed wind and solar power capacity as thresholds for the end of the formative phase.
Windows of opportunity for catching up in formative clean-tech sectors and the rise of China in concentrated solar power
2021, Environmental Innovation and Societal TransitionsCitation Excerpt :The observed variation in the successfulness of different countries to develop and deploy certain novel technological alternatives, is often explained through different policy strategies and policy instrument selection (Garud and Karnøe, 2003; Hillman et al., 2008; Vasseur et al., 2013). With regards to the relative role of country groups with different economic development status in global sustainability transitions, this literature has most often re-iterated lessons from traditional catching-up literature, that the entry of challengers from latecomer countries is usually preceded by the establishment of a dominant design, when there is a shift from product to process innovation and more commoditized market demand, which are considered to better match with latecomer competencies (Abernathy and Utterback, 1978; Bento et al., 2018; Binz et al., 2017a; Perez and Soete, 1988). This is largely based on the observation that the wind turbine and PV panel industries initially started out as highly localized experiments, supplying niche markets, in advanced economy countries (Dewald and Truffer, 2011; Garud and Karnøe, 2003).