Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Limitations and Future Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Co-Evolution of Standards in Innovation Systems

Part of the book series: Contributions to Management Science ((MANAGEMENT SC.))

  • 684 Accesses

Abstract

The final chapter of this book addresses key limitations of the work undertaken and also details possible paths for future research. From a substantive perspective, this interdisciplinary work has been limited by the fact that historical data about changes in implicit building codes were only sparsely available. Methodologically, the study represents only a single case, not a comparative one, which does not allow one to draw more general hypotheses or conclusions. For future research, it would be worthwhile to address the challenge of improving policy makers mental models about the feedback dynamics and policy resistance in the residential built environment, as well as possible responses. It became obvious during this research that the respective mental models of policy and decision makers, while they are accurate in specific sections of the system, fail to consider relevant feedback dynamics. Computer-based learning environments could help to experiment and study the effects of policies on the GHG emissions of the residential building sector, thereby enriching the mental models used for policy and decision making. More radically, future research could address business model innovation under the perspective of putting into question the dominant paradigm of exponential growth. This long-term programmatic research about business models also has the potential to connect the two streams of research about enhancing eco-efficiency and limiting economic growth.

When you are surrounded by something so big that requires you to change everything about the way you think and see the world, then denial is the natural response. But the longer we wait, the bigger the response required. Paul Gilding (2011)

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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.

    As has been detailed in Chap. 3, it was necessary to use a single case-study approach to invest heavily in original empirical research and uncover important elements and mechanisms of dynamic complexity. Due to resource constraints, it would not have been feasible to undertake the same approach for two case studies.

References

  • Axelrod, R., & Tesfatsion, L. (2005). A guide for newcomers to agent-based modeling in the social sciences. In L. Tesfatsion & K. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of computational economics (Agent-based computational economics, Vol. 2). Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakken, B., Gould, J., & Kim, D. (1992). Experimentation in learning organizations: A management flight simulator approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 59(1), 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabba, V., Huber, C., Cooke, F., Pudar, N., Smith, J., & Paich, M. (2002). A multimethod approach for creating new business models: The General Motors OnStar Project. Interfaces, 32(1), 20–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. A. (1984). Change mechanisms in the diffusion of residential energy-conservation practices: An empirical-study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 25(2), 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, H. S., & Vergragt, P. J. (2008). Bounded socio-technical experiments as agents of systemic change: The case of a zero-energy residential building. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(1), 107–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucherer, E. (2010). Business model innovation: Guidelines for a structured approach (p. 2010). Aachen, Germany: Shaker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 195–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2011). How to design a winning business model. Harvard Business Review, 89(1–2), 100–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 354–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conant, R. C., & Ashby, W. R. (1970). Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system. International Journal of Systems Sciences, 1(2), 89–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, H. E. (1991). Steady-state economics. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, H. E. (1996). Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. Boston, MA: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsen, P. I. (2000). Issues in the design and use of system dynamics-based interactive learning environments. Simulation & Gaming, 31(2), 170–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deguchi, H. (2004). Mathematical foundation for agent based social systems sciences: Reformulation of norm game by social learning dynamics. Sociological Theory and Methods, 19(1), 67–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business model evolution: In search of dynamic consistency. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 227–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dequech, D. (2006). Institutions and norms in institutional economics and sociology. Journal of Economic Issues, 40(2), 473–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case-study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (2009). The loop you can’t get out of. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(2), 9–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilding, P. (2011). The great disruption: Why the climate crisis will bring on the end of shopping and the birth of a new world. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groesser, S. N. (2012). Model-based learning with system dynamics. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koebel, T., Papadakis, M., Hudson, E., & Cavell, M. (2004). The diffusion of innovation in the residential building environment. Blacksburg, VA: Center for Housing Research, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovins, A. B. (2008). T. Friedman’s new bestseller hot, flat & crowded touts plug-ins. Accessed 12 July, 2011 from http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/996.html

  • Markard, J., & Truffer, B. (2008). Actor-oriented analysis of innovation systems: Exploring micro-meso level linkages in the case of stationary fuel cells. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(4), 443–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, D. H. (1991). The global citizen. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Negro, S. O., & Hekkert, M. P. (2008). Explaining the success of emerging technologies by innovation system functioning: The case of biomass digestion in Germany. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(4), 465–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randers, J., & Göluke, U. (2007). Forecasting turning points in shipping freight rates: Lessons from 30 years of practical effort. System Dynamics Review, 23(2–3), 253–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwaninger, M. (2009). Intelligent organizations: Powerful models for systemic management (2nd ed.). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwaninger, M., & Groesser, S. N. (2010). Crisis prevention – what is necessary to avoid the next crisis? In Trappl R. (Ed.), Cybernetics and systems 2010: Proceedings of the 20th European meeting on cybernetics and systems research (pp 315–320). Vienna, Austria: Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (1994). Learning in and about complex-systems. System Dynamics Review, 10(2–3), 291–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (2008). Risk communication on climate: Mental models and mass balance. Science, 322 (24 Oct), 532–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a “Sustainability Business Model”. Organization & Environment, 21(2), 103–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Victor, P. (2008). Managing without growth: Slower by design, not by disaster. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weil, H. B. (2010). Why markets make mistakes. Kybernetes, 39(9/10), 1429–1451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business model: Implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Management (IfB-HSG) HSG System Dynamic Group, University of St. Gallen, St.Gallen, Switzerland

    Stefan N. Grösser

Authors
  1. Stefan N. Grösser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Grösser, S.N. (2013). Limitations and Future Research. In: Co-Evolution of Standards in Innovation Systems. Contributions to Management Science. Physica, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2858-0_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation