IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v97y2016icp628-635.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How should grid operators govern smart grid innovation projects? An embedded case study approach

Author

Listed:
  • de Reuver, Mark
  • van der Lei, Telli
  • Lukszo, Zofia

Abstract

Grid operators increasingly have to collaborate with other actors in order to realize smart grid innovations. For routine maintenance, grid operators typically acquire technologies in one-off transactions, but the innovative nature of smart grid projects may require more collaborate relationships. This paper studies how a transactional versus relational approach to governing smart grid innovation projects affects incentives for other actors to collaborate. We analyse 34 cases of smart grid innovation projects based on extensive archival data as well as interviews. We find that projects relying on relational governance are more likely to provide incentives for collaboration. Especially non-financial incentives such as reputational benefits and shared intellectual property rights are more likely to be found in projects relying on relational governance. Policy makers that wish to stimulate smart grid innovation projects should consider stimulating long-term relationships between grid operators and third parties, because such relationships are more likely to produce incentives for collaboration.

Suggested Citation

  • de Reuver, Mark & van der Lei, Telli & Lukszo, Zofia, 2016. "How should grid operators govern smart grid innovation projects? An embedded case study approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 628-635.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:97:y:2016:i:c:p:628-635
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516303639
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward J. Zajac & Cyrus P. Olsen, 1993. "From Transaction Cost To Transactional Value Analysis: Implications For The Study Of Interorganizational Strategies," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 131-145, January.
    2. Ranjay Gulati & Nitin Nohria & Akbar Zaheer, 2000. "Strategic networks," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 203-215, March.
    3. Williamson, Oliver E, 1979. "Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractural Relations," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(2), pages 233-261, October.
    4. Li, Feng & Whalley, Jason, 0. "Deconstruction of the telecommunications industry: from value chains to value networks," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(9-10), pages 451-472, October.
    5. Elinor Ostrom, 2000. "Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 137-158, Summer.
    6. Lopes, Helena & Santos, Ana C. & Teles, Nuno, 2009. "The motives for cooperation in work organizations," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(3), pages 315-338, December.
    7. Agrell, Per J. & Bogetoft, Peter & Mikkers, Misja, 2013. "Smart-grid investments, regulation and organization," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 656-666.
    8. Peter R. Monge & Janet Fulk & Michael E. Kalman & Andrew J. Flanagin & Claire Parnassa & Suzanne Rumsey, 1998. "Production of Collective Action in Alliance-Based Interorganizational Communication and Information Systems," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 411-433, June.
    9. Sagar, Ambuj D. & van der Zwaan, Bob, 2006. "Technological innovation in the energy sector: R&D, deployment, and learning-by-doing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 2601-2608, November.
    10. John Hagedoorn, 1993. "Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 371-385, July.
    11. Giordano, Vincenzo & Fulli, Gianluca, 2012. "A business case for Smart Grid technologies: A systemic perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 252-259.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pereira, Guillermo Ivan & Specht, Jan Martin & Silva, Patrícia Pereira & Madlener, Reinhard, 2018. "Technology, business model, and market design adaptation toward smart electricity distribution: Insights for policy making," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 426-440.
    2. Johansson, Petter & Vendel, Martin & Nuur, Cali, 2020. "Integrating distributed energy resources in electricity distribution systems: An explorative study of challenges facing DSOs in Sweden," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    3. Evers, Gerwin & Chappin, Maryse M.H., 2020. "Knowledge sharing in smart grid pilot projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    4. Liliane Manny & Mert Duygan & Manuel Fischer & Jörg Rieckermann, 2021. "Barriers to the digital transformation of infrastructure sectors," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 943-983, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hall, Stephen & Foxon, Timothy J., 2014. "Values in the Smart Grid: The co-evolving political economy of smart distribution," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 600-609.
    2. Gonzalez-Diaz, Manuel & Arrunada, Benito & Fernandez, Alberto, 2000. "Causes of subcontracting: evidence from panel data on construction firms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 167-187, June.
    3. Gomes-Casseres, Benjamin & Hagedoorn, John & Jaffe, Adam B., 2006. "Do alliances promote knowledge flows?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 5-33, April.
    4. repec:mje:mjejnl:v:12:y:2017:i:1:p:125-140 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Mehmet Ali Köseoglu & John A. Parnell & Melissa Yan Yee Yick, 2021. "Identifying influential studies and maturity level in intellectual structure of fields: evidence from strategic management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1271-1309, February.
    6. Wang, Sen & Bogle, Tim & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2012. "Forestry and the New Institutional Economics," Working Papers 130818, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    7. Erlinghagen, Sabine & Markard, Jochen, 2012. "Smart grids and the transformation of the electricity sector: ICT firms as potential catalysts for sectoral change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 895-906.
    8. Ji, Chen & de Felipe, Isabel & Briz, Julian & Trienekens, Jacques H., 2012. "An Empirical Study on Governance Structure Choices in China´s Pork Supply Chain," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 15(2), pages 1-32, May.
    9. Lo, Fang-Yi, 2015. "Transaction cost determinants and advantage transferability's effect on international ownership strategy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2312-2316.
    10. Manuela N. Hoehn-Weiss & Samina Karim & Chi-Hyon Lee, 2017. "Examining Alliance Portfolios Beyond the Dyads: The Relevance of Redundancy and Nonuniformity Across and Between Partners," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 56-73, February.
    11. Reuer, Jeffrey J. & Ariño, Africa, 2000. "Governance changes in strategic alliances: Antecedents of contractual renegotiations," IESE Research Papers D/415, IESE Business School.
    12. Frank A.G. den Butter, 2010. "Transaction Management: Value Creation by Reducing Transaction Costs," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 10-051/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    13. Lorenzo Zirulia, 2012. "The role of spillovers in R&D network formation," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 83-105, November.
    14. Angeloantonio Russo & Rosamartina Schena, 2021. "Ambidexterity in the context of SME alliances: Does sustainability have a role?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 606-615, March.
    15. Frolov, Daniil, 2019. "The manifesto of post-institutionalism: institutional complexity research agenda," MPRA Paper 97662, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    17. repec:dau:papers:123456789/6963 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Richards, Malika & De Carolis, Donna Marie, 2003. "Joint venture research and development activity: an analysis of the international biotechnology industry," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 33-49.
    19. Kang, Inwon & Han, Shin & Shin, Geon-Cheol, 2014. "A process leading to strategic alliance outcome: The case of IT companies in China, Japan and Korea," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1127-1138.
    20. Veselin Draskovic & Evgeny Popov & Kestutis K. Peleckis, 2017. "Modelling of Institutional Changes in Transition Countries - the Gap Between the Theory and Practice," Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), vol. 13(1), pages 125-140.
    21. Robert-Nicoud, Frédéric & Olarreaga, Marcelo & Carrère, Céline & Fugazza, Marco, 2016. "On the heterogeneous effect of trade on unemployment," CEPR Discussion Papers 11540, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    22. Brendan Markey‐Towler, 2019. "The New Microeconomics: A Psychological, Institutional, and Evolutionary Paradigm with Neoclassical Economics as a Special Case," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 78(1), pages 95-135, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:97:y:2016:i:c:p:628-635. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.