scholarly journals How Do Energy-Economy Models Compare? A Survey of Model Developers and Users in Canada

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 5789
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Rhodes ◽  
Kira Craig ◽  
Aaron Hoyle ◽  
Madeleine McPherson

Governments at all levels rely on energy-economy models to design climate policy portfolios. Models vary in their purposes and methodologies, yet there is limited research comparing model characteristics and identifying models suitable for specific policy questions. We conduct a web-based survey of energy-economy model users and developers (n = 14) in Canada’s public, private, and non-profit sectors, to systematically compare seventeen models against the following characteristics: Technology representations, microeconomic and macroeconomic details, policy representations, treatment of uncertainty, high-resolution spatial and temporal representations, and data transparency. We find that for the most part, models represent technology, micro-, and macroeconomic characteristics according to the typology of bottom-up, top-down, and hybrid models. However, several modelling evolutions have emerged. To varying extents, top-down models can explicitly represent technologies and some bottom-up models incorporate microeconomic (non-financial) characteristics. We find that models differ in the types of policies they can simulate, sometimes underrepresenting performance regulations, government procurement, and research and development programs. All models use at least one method to explore uncertainty, rarely incorporate spatial and temporal representations, and most models lack publicly available methodological documentation. We discuss the implications of our comparative model analysis for climate policy projections and future research.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bettina Horlach ◽  
Andreas Drechsler

Abstract In this paper, we outline inherent tensions in Agile environments, which lead to paradoxes that Agile teams and organizations have to navigate. By taking a critical perspective on Agile frameworks and Agile organizational settings the authors are familiar with, we contribute an initial problematization of paradoxes for the Agile context. For instance, Agile teams face the continuous paradox of ‘doing Agile’ (= following an established Agile way of working) versus ‘being Agile’ (= changing an established Agile way of working). One of the paradoxes that organizations face is whether to start their Agile journey with a directed top-down (and therefore quite un-Agile) ‘big bang’ or to allow an emergent bottom-up transformation (which may be more in-line with the Agile spirit but perhaps not be able to overcome organizational inertia). Future research can draw on our initial problematization as a foundation for subsequent in-depth investigations of these Agile paradoxes. Agile teams and organizations can draw on our initial problematization of Agile paradoxes to inform their learning and change processes.


2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 1031-1052 ◽  
Author(s):  
TickFei Chay ◽  
YuChun Xu ◽  
Ashutosh Tiwari ◽  
FooSoon Chay

Purpose – Failure in engaging shop floor employees (including supervisory staff) in lean, lacking of supervisory skills in leading workers and lacking of lean technical knowhow among the shop floor employees are some of the major obstacles in lean transformation. One of the reasons of inefficient lean transformation is the shortages in frameworks or plans in implementing lean. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the shortfalls in the current lean implementation frameworks. Design/methodology/approach – The frameworks were analysed according to the following criteria: first, “What” is the approach of lean implementation, i.e. top-down or bottom-up; second, “How” to implement lean (description of steps or sequences of lean implementation along the lean journey); third, “Why” – the reason of adoption of the proposed lean tools, techniques or practices (thereafter TTPs) in each phase of lean implementation; and fourth, “Who” are the targeted internal stakeholders to use or apply the lean TTPs that were proposed in the frameworks. Findings – Most of the current available lean frameworks were prone to top-down approach but not bottom-up. Improvement initiatives from the shop floor employees were often overlooked by researchers. In proposing their frameworks, most of the researchers have neglected the importance of “Why” aspect in the adoption of TTPs or the framework itself without giving the “reason” for each of the elements in lean implementation. Besides the aspects of “What” and “How”, the mentioned “Why” aspect is important in contributing to capability building among the shop floor employees in carrying out improvement, problem-solving or waste elimination activities. The aspect of “Who should carry out which lean TTP” was somewhat not emphasised by most of the lean researchers. In addition, the current frameworks were prone to “one-best-way” approach with lacking of contingency sense, which is one of the common criticisms against Lean Production System. Originality/value – This paper provides a critical view on the shortfalls of current lean implementation frameworks, and proposes an insight of new criteria for future research in analysing and proposing new lean implementation framework towards lean transformation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 547
Author(s):  
Qin Li ◽  
Hongmin Chen

Governments around the world are actively exploring strategies to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change. In addition to technological progress, promoting a transformation of residents’ behaviors to a low carbon mode is also a solution. Many people are concerned about how to reduce carbon emissions while ensuring human well-being. Starting from the comparative analysis of two main theories of human well-being, this paper sorted out existing well-being measurement methods from the perspectives of “top-down” and “bottom-up” and further sorted out research on the relationship between human well-being and energy carbon emissions. While “top-down” research is conducive to the layout of macro policies, “bottom-up” research can better help to promote the transformation of society to a low carbon life by estimating the energy consumption and carbon emissions contained in human needs. Current research discusses human well-being, human needs, energy use and carbon emissions, respectively, but they are not systematically integrated. Furthermore, this paper proposes a framework combining these aspects to analyze the relationship between human well-being and carbon emissions. In addition, this paper suggests future research directions.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bettina Horlach ◽  
Andreas Drechsler

Abstract In this paper, we outline inherent tensions in Agile environments, which lead to paradoxes that Agile teams and organizations have to navigate. By taking a critical perspective on Agile frameworks and Agile organizational settings the authors are familiar with, we contribute an initial problematization of paradoxes for the Agile context. For instance, Agile teams face the continuous paradox of ‘doing Agile’ (= following an established Agile way of working) versus ‘being Agile’ (= changing an established Agile way of working). One of the paradoxes that organizations face is whether to start their Agile journey with a directed top-down (and therefore quite un-Agile) ‘big bang’ or to allow an emergent bottom-up transformation (which may be more in-line with the Agile spirit but perhaps not be able to overcome organizational inertia). Future research can draw on our initial problematization as a foundation for subsequent in-depth investigations of these Agile paradoxes. Agile teams and organizations can draw on our initial problematization of Agile paradoxes to inform their learning and change processes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document