Leaning on Freeman and Perez’ technology systems, much of the recent work is done by Frank Geels and his collegues (e.g. Geels 2002; 2004a; 2004b; 2005; 2006; Geels and Schot 2007; Geels and Kemp 2007), broadening the conceptualisation of the technology system to socio-technical systems, where technology is seen as heterogeneous, and the functioning of technologies involves links between heterogeneous elements. (Geels 2006). The transition from one system to another is caused the co-evolutionary dynamics within and between three levels, and this is why Geels calls it “multi-level perspective on transitions.”
The value of this approach is to contribute the seldom addressed field of transitions a shift of some socio-technical system from one regime to a new regime. (see Geels 2006). Long-wave theories like that of Freeman and Perez have focused on studying changes in the techno-economic paradigm, while there are many studies about innovation systems, processes and diffusion. The technological systems approach and Large Technical Systems approach say more about functioning and emergence of these systems than their change (Geels 2006, 1000). The model also helps understand why neither the external pressures nor radical new ideas alone do not generate the system change, and why change requires decisions by many actors and interaction (Kivisaari and Saranummi 2008).
To understand transitions, the insights of change as co-evolutionary dynamic processes between heterogeneous elements, are combined in a multi-level perspective, comprising three levels: macro-level (landscape), meso-level (regime) and micro-level (niches), see Figure 1.
on the level of entire societies, while system innovations occur on the level of societal functions, like health care (Geels 2005, 5).
5.1 Description of the multi-level perspective as a modeller of transition
Leaning on Freeman and Perez’ technology systems, much of the recent work is done by Frank Geels and his collegues (e.g. Geels 2002; 2004a; 2004b; 2005; 2006; Geels and Schot 2007; Geels and Kemp 2007), broadening the conceptualisation of the technology system to socio-technical systems, where technology is seen as heterogeneous, and the functioning of technologies involves links between heterogeneous elements. (Geels 2006). The transition from one system to another is caused the co-evolutionary dynamics within and between three levels, and this is why Geels calls it “multi-level perspective on transitions.”
The value of this approach is to contribute the seldom addressed field of transitions a shift of some socio-technical system from one regime to a new regime. (see Geels 2006). Long-wave theories like that of Freeman and Perez have focused on studying changes in the techno-economic paradigm, while there are many studies about innovation systems, processes and diffusion. The technological systems approach and Large Technical Systems approach say more about functioning and emergence of these systems than their change (Geels 2006, 1000). The model also helps understand why neither the external pressures nor radical new ideas alone do not generate the system change, and why change requires decisions by many actors and interaction (Kivisaari and Saranummi 2008).
To understand transitions, the insights of change as co-evolutionary dynamic processes between heterogeneous elements, are combined in a multi-level perspective, comprising three levels: macro-level (landscape), meso-level (regime) and micro-level (niches), see Figure 1.
Figure 1. Multi-level perspective on transition (Geels and Schot 2007, 401).
As mentioned, the multi-level perspective distinguishes three concept levels; technological niches, socio-technical regime and the socio-technical landscape.The socio-technical regime forms the meso-level of the multi-level perspective, and refers to the rule-systems that guide and orient activities of social groups, including scientists, users, policy makers and societal groups, that interact and form networks with mutual dependencies. (Kemp et al. 1998; Geels
Figure 1. Multi-level perspective on transition (Geels and Schot 2007, 401).
As mentioned, the multi-level perspective distinguishes three concept levels; technological niches, socio-technical regime and the socio-technical landscape.The socio-technical regime forms the meso-level of the multi-level perspective, and refers to the rule-systems that guide and orient activities of social groups, including scientists, users, policy makers and societal groups, that interact and form networks with mutual dependencies. (Kemp et al. 1998; Geels
are ongoing processes within the regime, but these aim at keeping the regime stable. (Geels 2004a.)
Regimes as rule systems are related to the societal perceptions and the way of thinking.
Applied in the context of ageing, the regime of ageing consists of the preferences by older people related to the products and services they use and consume, and the response of the market and the public sector to those wishes and requirements. It also consists of the industry, infrastructures and service structures producing those products and services, as well as the products (of both high and low technology) and services themselves. Scientific understanding and paradigms, for example, the perceptions of innovation, reflect on how those products and services are produced. Likewise, understanding of what ageing is all about, for instance, as a biological and social phenomenon, is also part of the regime as a rule system. Also cultural values and beliefs are part of the regime as a rule system, as well as policy goals, regulations and laws (see Geels 2005, 16). The stability of the regime is maintained by interactions and alignment between these systems.
The stability of existing socio-technical systems occurs through interaction between the material aspects of the system, embedded actors and organisational networks, and the rules and regimes that guide perceptions and actions. The path dependence, which locks in existing socio-technical systems, is described as occurring at the meso-level of analysis. Here there is a patchwork of regimes that make up the ‘deep structure’ of socio-technical systems, only one of which is the technological/product regime. The others are the science regime, policy regime, socio-cultural regime, and the users, markets and distribution networks regime (Genus and Coles 2007.) These regimes represent different social groups that share various rules. Regulative rulesare characteristically found in legislation, regulations and standards.
Examples ofnormative rules are role relationships, values and behavioural norms. Cognitive rules, again, refer to the belief systems, innovation agendas, problem definitions and guiding principles. (Geels and Schot 2007.) Companies (and other organisations) react to problems posed by existing technology based on the engineering insights and managerial lessons.
Products are embedded in consumption patterns, through routines and cultural meanings. The rules may constitute a sense of identity for companies and the persons in it. Consumers have developed certain ways of life, routines and understandings that may be viewed as rules too.
The rules do not exist individually, but are linked together in semi-coherent sets of rules, called regimes. (Geels and Kemp 2007, 442-443.)
The different regimes have internal dynamics, which generate fluctuations and variations (e.g.
political cycles, technological trajectories, cultural movements and hypes), which are usually dampened by the links with other regimes, thus providing coordination. As long as socio-technical regimes are stable and aligned, radical novelties have few chances and remain stuck in particular niches. However, if tensions and mismatches occur in certain rules (for example, if changes in cultural values and user preferences are not noted by markets), this creates interpretative flexibility for actors, and ‘windows of opportunity’ for the breakthrough of radical novelties.
The socio-technical landscape forms an exogenous environment including, for example, macro-economics, deep cultural patterns and macro-political developments. Changes at the landscape level usually take place slowly (Geels and Schot 2007), but changes in the
are ongoing processes within the regime, but these aim at keeping the regime stable. (Geels 2004a.)
Regimes as rule systems are related to the societal perceptions and the way of thinking.
Applied in the context of ageing, the regime of ageing consists of the preferences by older people related to the products and services they use and consume, and the response of the market and the public sector to those wishes and requirements. It also consists of the industry, infrastructures and service structures producing those products and services, as well as the products (of both high and low technology) and services themselves. Scientific understanding and paradigms, for example, the perceptions of innovation, reflect on how those products and services are produced. Likewise, understanding of what ageing is all about, for instance, as a biological and social phenomenon, is also part of the regime as a rule system. Also cultural values and beliefs are part of the regime as a rule system, as well as policy goals, regulations and laws (see Geels 2005, 16). The stability of the regime is maintained by interactions and alignment between these systems.
The stability of existing socio-technical systems occurs through interaction between the material aspects of the system, embedded actors and organisational networks, and the rules and regimes that guide perceptions and actions. The path dependence, which locks in existing socio-technical systems, is described as occurring at the meso-level of analysis. Here there is a patchwork of regimes that make up the ‘deep structure’ of socio-technical systems, only one of which is the technological/product regime. The others are the science regime, policy regime, socio-cultural regime, and the users, markets and distribution networks regime (Genus and Coles 2007.) These regimes represent different social groups that share various rules. Regulative rulesare characteristically found in legislation, regulations and standards.
Examples ofnormative rules are role relationships, values and behavioural norms. Cognitive rules, again, refer to the belief systems, innovation agendas, problem definitions and guiding principles. (Geels and Schot 2007.) Companies (and other organisations) react to problems posed by existing technology based on the engineering insights and managerial lessons.
Products are embedded in consumption patterns, through routines and cultural meanings. The rules may constitute a sense of identity for companies and the persons in it. Consumers have developed certain ways of life, routines and understandings that may be viewed as rules too.
The rules do not exist individually, but are linked together in semi-coherent sets of rules, called regimes. (Geels and Kemp 2007, 442-443.)
The different regimes have internal dynamics, which generate fluctuations and variations (e.g.
political cycles, technological trajectories, cultural movements and hypes), which are usually dampened by the links with other regimes, thus providing coordination. As long as socio-technical regimes are stable and aligned, radical novelties have few chances and remain stuck in particular niches. However, if tensions and mismatches occur in certain rules (for example, if changes in cultural values and user preferences are not noted by markets), this creates interpretative flexibility for actors, and ‘windows of opportunity’ for the breakthrough of radical novelties.
The socio-technical landscape forms an exogenous environment including, for example, macro-economics, deep cultural patterns and macro-political developments. Changes at the landscape level usually take place slowly (Geels and Schot 2007), but changes in the
ongoing processes at the levels of regime and landscape may create a window of opportunity for the niche novelties (Geels 2004a).
The micro-level of Geels’ model is formed by niches where radical novelties emerge.
Experimental niche-innovations are carried and developed by small networks of dedicated actors, and have no connections to stable rules, often outside or on the fringe of the existing regime. (Geels and Schot 2007; Geels and Kemp 2007). These radical innovations are born either in response to landscape changes or in a bottom-up fashion. Niches can act as spaces for experimentation protected from market selection pressures, or to enable social networks supporting radical innovations to be built up. Niches may influence conventional regimes in a number of potential ways: by demonstrating alternative ways of providing goods and services, by creating powerful and resourced new actor networks, by generating shared expectations about the promise of a new technology and by producing competitive models of alternative regimes. (Berkhout et al. 2008.) Kemp et al. (2001) consider that such niches may be strategically managed in the sense that they can be used to nurture fledgling technologies that may offer substantial environmental benefits in future at a time when the future is most uncertain. These niches can then provide opportunities for society to learn about the functionality of alternative designs, user preferences, appropriate public policies and so on.
(see Genus and Coles 2008.)
The new technologies may remain stuck in these niches for a long time, if they face a mismatch between the existing regime and the landscape. Until external circumstances are right, for example, the regime is destabilised creating a window for opportunity for these radical novelties. This is why the niche innovations are called “seeds for change”. (Geels 2005.) A wider breakthrough is followed by a stabilisation and new types of structuring.
These dynamics and interplay at different levels reinforce each other and lead to system changes and transitions. (Geels and Kemp 2007).
Early strategic niche management literature (e.g. Weber et al. 1999; see Schot and Geels 2008) suggests that regime shifts would come about through bottom-up processes of niche expansion. However, Berkhout et al. (2004) pay critical attention to the emphasis on the role of niches as a principal driver for regime change, and argue that there is a range of different
‘transition contexts’ in which regime change can take place. Schot and Geels (2008) argue for the importance of the niche innovations, but alignments of processes at many levels are emphasised: niches can only diffuse more widely if they link up with ongoing processes at regime and landscape levels (Schot and Geels 2008, 547).
Tensions and misalignment may result, for instance, from changes on the landscape level, internal technical problems, negative externalities and effects on other systems and regimes, changing user preferences, strategic games between economic actors. If tensions exist, a radical innovation may take advantage and break through in mass markets. It then enters competitions with the existing system, and may eventually replace it. This will be accompanied by wider changes and restructuring in policies, infrastructures and user practices. Eventually a new system or regime is formed, carried by a network of social groups which create and maintain socio-technological systems. Then the new regime may eventually
ongoing processes at the levels of regime and landscape may create a window of opportunity for the niche novelties (Geels 2004a).
The micro-level of Geels’ model is formed by niches where radical novelties emerge.
Experimental niche-innovations are carried and developed by small networks of dedicated actors, and have no connections to stable rules, often outside or on the fringe of the existing regime. (Geels and Schot 2007; Geels and Kemp 2007). These radical innovations are born either in response to landscape changes or in a bottom-up fashion. Niches can act as spaces for experimentation protected from market selection pressures, or to enable social networks supporting radical innovations to be built up. Niches may influence conventional regimes in a number of potential ways: by demonstrating alternative ways of providing goods and services, by creating powerful and resourced new actor networks, by generating shared expectations about the promise of a new technology and by producing competitive models of alternative regimes. (Berkhout et al. 2008.) Kemp et al. (2001) consider that such niches may be strategically managed in the sense that they can be used to nurture fledgling technologies that may offer substantial environmental benefits in future at a time when the future is most uncertain. These niches can then provide opportunities for society to learn about the functionality of alternative designs, user preferences, appropriate public policies and so on.
(see Genus and Coles 2008.)
The new technologies may remain stuck in these niches for a long time, if they face a mismatch between the existing regime and the landscape. Until external circumstances are right, for example, the regime is destabilised creating a window for opportunity for these radical novelties. This is why the niche innovations are called “seeds for change”. (Geels 2005.) A wider breakthrough is followed by a stabilisation and new types of structuring.
These dynamics and interplay at different levels reinforce each other and lead to system changes and transitions. (Geels and Kemp 2007).
Early strategic niche management literature (e.g. Weber et al. 1999; see Schot and Geels 2008) suggests that regime shifts would come about through bottom-up processes of niche expansion. However, Berkhout et al. (2004) pay critical attention to the emphasis on the role of niches as a principal driver for regime change, and argue that there is a range of different
‘transition contexts’ in which regime change can take place. Schot and Geels (2008) argue for the importance of the niche innovations, but alignments of processes at many levels are emphasised: niches can only diffuse more widely if they link up with ongoing processes at regime and landscape levels (Schot and Geels 2008, 547).
Tensions and misalignment may result, for instance, from changes on the landscape level, internal technical problems, negative externalities and effects on other systems and regimes, changing user preferences, strategic games between economic actors. If tensions exist, a radical innovation may take advantage and break through in mass markets. It then enters competitions with the existing system, and may eventually replace it. This will be accompanied by wider changes and restructuring in policies, infrastructures and user practices. Eventually a new system or regime is formed, carried by a network of social groups which create and maintain socio-technological systems. Then the new regime may eventually
The multi-level perspective argues that transitions come about through interactions between processes at these three levels: niche-innovations build up internal momentum, changes at the landscape level exert pressure on the regime, and destabilisation of the regime creates windows of opportunity for niche-innovations. The alignment of these enables the breakthrough of novelties to mainstream markets where they compete with the existing regime. (Geels and Schot 2007). Besides the niche-level novelties, the ongoing processes in the socio-technical regimes, for example, emergence of new markets, policy dynamics and new technologies can act as stepping-stones (Geels 2005, 86). Regimes should be analysed not only as barriers but also as opportunities.
Geels and Kemp (2007) distinguish three types of change: reproduction, transformation and transition. Reproduction means the dynamics at the regime level, where existing rules are reproduced by the actors and the element of socio-technical system is defined. In transformation, there are instead interacting dynamics at the regime and landscape level. The basic mechanism is that changes at the landscape level exert pressure on the regime, leading to the re-orientation of the direction of innovative activities. This happens through a change in the regime rules that coordinate actions of regime actors, for example, changes in the technical problem agendas, visions, goals and guiding principles, relative costs and incentive structures, regulations and perceptions of opportunity. Transformation means the mechanical adjustment to landscape pressures but it happens through negotiations, power struggles and shifting coalitions of actors. In transition, there are interactions between dynamics at landscape, regime and niche levels. A transition refers to a shift of some socio-technical system from one regime to a new regime. It is not about the re-orientation of an existing trajectory, but about a shift to a new trajectory (for example, a transition from a transport system based on horse-drawn carriages to a transport system based on automobiles).
Transition involves changes in the socio-technical system (technologies, knowledge-base, infrastructure, regulations, user practices, cultural preferences) social groups and regime rules.
(Geels and Kemp 2007, 445-446.)
Transitions can also be called system innovations, because they involve changes on many levels, and they see innovations as intertwined to economy and technology. This is the widest definition of system innovation, while the other definitions are related to relationships to other innovations and to systemic innovation processes (Valovirta and Pelkonen 2010, see also
Transitions can also be called system innovations, because they involve changes on many levels, and they see innovations as intertwined to economy and technology. This is the widest definition of system innovation, while the other definitions are related to relationships to other innovations and to systemic innovation processes (Valovirta and Pelkonen 2010, see also