Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Actor-Option Framework: A General Framework for Modelling Socio-Technical Systems in Transition

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Infranomics

Part of the book series: Topics in Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality ((TSRQ,volume 24))

  • 1223 Accesses

Abstract

A very fundamental need in transition studies is a general modelling framework that allows representing the state of different systems, as well as the change processes related to reinforcing or counteracting their transitions. Such a framework is needed in order to be able to benchmark different transition cases and to integrate case-specific insights for developing general understanding. This chapter briefly presents a general modelling framework, Actor-Option Framework (AOF), for modelling transitional change processes of socio-technical systems. The framework provides a toolbox with conceptual components and a structure about the way these components can be combined for representing a particular system of concern. AOF is based on an extensive set of empirical cases on technological change and socio-technical transitions. The general applicability and appropriateness for developing quantitative and qualitative models of change is assessed through a set of modelling exercises.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the sense the words perception and learning are used, it is the information that changes via these learning processes, not the values or norms used by the actors to attribute meaning to this information. The latter aspect, which can be considered as subjective evaluation of the gathered information, is closely related to the actor’s behavioural identity, and the mechanisms related to this identity will be discussed later in this chapter.

References

  1. Geels F (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res Policy 31(8–9):1257–1274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. de Haan JH (2010) Towards transition theory. Erasmus University, The Netherland

    Google Scholar 

  3. Yücel G (2010) Analyzing transition dynamics: the actor-option framework for modelling socio-technical systems. Delft Univ Technol

    Google Scholar 

  4. Belz FM (2004) A transition towards sustainability in the Swiss agro-food chain (1970-2000): using and improving the multi-level perspective. In: Elzen B, Geels FW, Green K (eds) System innovation and the transition to sustainability: theory, evidence and policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  5. Whitmarsh L, Nykvist B (2008) Integrated sustainability assessment of mobility transitions: simulating stakeholders’ visions of and pathways to sustainable land-based mobility. Int J Innov Sustain Dev 3(1/2):115–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. David AP (1985) Clio and the economics of QWERTY. Am Econ Rev 75(2):332–337

    Google Scholar 

  7. Geels F (2005) The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: a multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930). Technol Anal Strateg Manage 17(4):445–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mozdzanowska A, Hansman RJ (2008) Dynamics of change in the US air transportation system. MA, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  9. Norberg-Bohm V (2000) Creating incentives for environmentally enahncing technological change: lessons from 30 years of U.S. energy technology policy. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 65:125–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nykvist B, Whitmarsh L (2008) A multi-level analysis of sustainable mobility transitions: niche development in the UK and Sweden. Technol Forecast Soc Change 75(9):1373–1387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Raven R (2007) Co-evolution of waste and electricity regimes: multi-regime dynamics in the Netherlands (1969–2003). Energy Policy 35:2197–2208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Reinstaller A (2008) The technological transition to chlorine free pulp bleaching technologies: lessons for transition policies. J Cleaner Prod 16(1):133–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shackley S, Green K (2007) A conceptual framework for exploring transitions to decarbonised energy systems in the United Kingdom. Energy 32:221–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bijker WE (1995) Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: towards a theory of sociotechnical change. MIT Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cowan R, Gunby P (1996) Sprayed to death: path dependence, lock-in and pest control strategies. J Econ 106(436):521–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Correlje A, Verbong G (2004) The transition from coal to gas: radical change of the Dutch gas system. In: Elzen B, Geels FW, Green K (eds) System innovation and the transition to sustainability: theory, evidence and policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cusumano MA, Mylonadis Y, Al E (1992) Strategic maneuvering and mass-market dynamics: the triumph of VHS over Beta. Bus Hist Rev 66(1):51–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Geels F (2005) Co-evolution of technology and society: the transition in water supply and personal hygiene in the Netherlands (1850–1930)—a case study in multi-level perspective. Technol Soc 27(3):363–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Geels F (2006) Major system change through stepwise reconfiguration: a multi-level analysis of the transformation of American factory production (1850–1930). Technol Soc 28(4):445–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Geels F (2006) The hygienic transition from cesspools to sewer systems (1840–1930): the dynamics of regime transformation. Res Policy 35(7):1069–1082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Geels F, Raven R (2006) Non-linearity and expectations in niche-development trajectories: ups and downs in Dutch biogas development (1973–2003). Technol Anal Strateg Manage 18(3–4):375–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hillman KM, Suurs RAA, Al E (2008) Cumulative causation in biofuels development: a critical comparison of the Netherlands and Sweden. Technol Anal Strateg Manage 20(5):593–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Koch L, Stemerding D (1994) The sociology of entrenchment: a cystic fibrosis test for everyone? Soc Sci Med 39(9):1211–1220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Loorbach D (2007) Transition management: new mode of governance for sustainable development. International Books, Utrecht, p 2007

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tabara JD, Ilhan A (2008) Culture as trigger for sustainability transition in the water domain: the case of the Spanish water policy and the Ebro river basin. Reg Environ Change 8:59–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Taylor MR, Rubin ES, Al E (2005) Control of SO2 emissions from power plants: a case of induced technological innovation in the U.S. Technol Forecast Soc Change 72(6):697–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Einhorn HJ, Hogarth RM (1981) Behavioral decision theory: processes of judgment and choice. J Account Res 19(1):1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. J Q Econ 69(1):99–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Coupey E, Johnson EJ (1992) A constructive process view of decision making: Multiple strategies in judgment and choice. Acta Psychol 80(1–3):107–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Argote L (1999) Organizational learning: creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Kluwer Academic, Norwell

    Google Scholar 

  31. Zangwill WI, Kantor PB (1998) Toward a theory of continuous improvement and the learning curve. Manage Sci 44(7):910–920

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Muth JF (1986) Search theory and the manufacturing progress function. Manag Sci 32(8):948–962

    Google Scholar 

  33. Rosenberg N (1982) Inside the black box: technology and economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  34. Arrow KJ (1962) The economic implications of learning by doing. Rev Econ Studies 29(3):155–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Argote L, Epple D (1990) Learning curves in manufacturing. Science 247:920–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Yücel G, van Daalen CE (2008a) Exploring transition dynamics: a case-based modelling study. In: The fifth conference of the European social simulation association

    Google Scholar 

  37. Yücel G, van Daalen CE (2008b) When does it really make a difference? Experimenting with the actor-heterogeneity in modelling socio-technical transitions. In: The twentysixth international conference of the system dynamics society, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  38. Yücel G, van Daalen CE (2008c) Understanding the dynamics underlying the waste management transition. In: IASTED applied simulation and modelling conference, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  39. Yücel G, Chiong Meza CM (2008) Studying transition dynamics via focusing on underlying feedback interactions. Comput Math Organ Theory 14(4):320–349

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Yücel G, van Daalen CE (2012) A simulation-based analysis of transition pathways for the Dutch electricity system. Energy Policy 42:557–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering, Boğaziçi University, 34342, Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey

    Gönenç Yücel

Authors
  1. Gönenç Yücel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gönenç Yücel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Engineering Mngmt & Systems Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA

    Adrian V. Gheorghe

  2. Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, Joint Research Center, Petten, The Netherlands

    Marcelo Masera

  3. Engineering Management and Systems Eng., Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA

    Polinpapilinho F. Katina

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Yücel, G. (2014). The Actor-Option Framework: A General Framework for Modelling Socio-Technical Systems in Transition. In: Gheorghe, A., Masera, M., Katina, P. (eds) Infranomics. Topics in Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality, vol 24. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02493-6_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02493-6_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02492-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02493-6

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation