Abstract

The transition to a carbon-neutral economy, which is now taking place in many countries, requires the use of profound transformations in energy, including the use of innovative technologies. Smart grids are the embodiment of innovative energy development. They involve the widespread use of modern advanced technologies in many areas, from energy production to designing a secure information system. Successful local projects need help to spread them globally. However, such assistance should not be limited to government intervention and administrative methods. A self-regulatory market mechanism is required to scale such projects. Some countries have a well-trodden path for innovation. However, the speed of innovation differs in each country. It depends on many unique conditions that exist in a country. There is hardly a one-size-fits-all way to spread innovation quickly that will be good for every country. However, there must be a mechanism where all stakeholders work organized to spread innovation, which accelerates this process. This article proposes an approach to developing a stakeholder interaction scheme to implement innovative projects in the energy sector based on the smart grid maturity model. To achieve this goal, the results of a comparative analysis of smart grids’ comprehensive assessment systems were used, which allowed algorithmizing the processes of their creation, development, and maintenance as a basis for further scaling successful projects. The defined algorithm is a modification of the smart grid maturity model developed by IBM. In addition, a thorough analysis of scientific publications in the field of innovative projects in the energy sector is dedicated to introducing smart grids. The visualization of the proposed approach to streamlining the activities of stakeholders is based on the results of a study aimed at finding ways to overcome organizational and communication barriers between stakeholders, where the coding of the processes of smart grid projects.The scientific results presented in this article are an intermediate stage in the study of mechanisms to improve the efficiency of implementation and scaling of innovative energy-efficient projects, particularly the development of smart grids, based on the activation of latent drivers. Such drivers are organizational and communication tools

Keywords: organizational scheme, energy, smart grids, stakeholders, maturity model

JEL Classification: D23, Q40, Q48, Q43, L94.

Cite as: Vakulenko, I., Fritsak, M., Fisunenko, P. (2021). An Organizational Scheme for Scaling Innovative Energy Projects. Smart Grids Case. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 3, 149-164. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2021.3-13

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Adinyira, E., Kwofie, T. E., & Quarcoo, F. (2018). Stakeholder requirements for building energy efficiency in mass housing delivery: The house of quality approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20(3), 1115-1131. [CrossRef]
2. Afshari, H., Farel, R., & Peng, Q. (2018). Challenges of value creation in eco-industrial parks (EIPs): A stakeholder perspective for optimizing energy exchanges. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 139, 315-325. [CrossRef]
3. Alvial-Palavicino, C., Garrido-Echeverría, N., Jiménez-Estévez, G., Reyes, L., & Palma-Behnke, R. (2011). A methodology for community engagement in the introduction of renewable based smart microgrid. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15(3), 314-323. [CrossRef]
4. Baldwin, E. (2019). Exploring how institutional arrangements shape stakeholder influence on policy decisions: A comparative analysis in the energy sector. Public Administration Review, 79(2), 246-255. [CrossRef]
5. Bourdin S., Nadou F., Raulin F. (2019). Les collectivités locales comme acteurs intermédiaires de la territorialisation de la transition énergétique : l’exemple de la méthanisation. Géographie, économie, société, 21, 273-293. [CrossRef]
6. Chygryn, O., Pimonenko, T., Luylyov, O., & Goncharova, A. (2018). Green bonds like the incentive instrument for cleaner production at the government and corporate levels: Experience from EU to Ukraine. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, 9(7), 1443-1456. [CrossRef]
7. Curtis, P. G., Hanias, M., Kourtis, E., & Kourtis, M. (2020). Data envelopment analysis (DEA) and financial ratios: A pro-stakeholders’ view of performance measurement for sustainable value creation of the wind energy. International Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 8(2), 326-350. [CrossRef]
8. Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L., & Komendantova, N. (2018). A multi-stakeholder approach to energy transition policy formation in Jordan. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. [CrossRef]
9. Dias, L. C., Antunes, C. H., Dantas, G., de Castro, N., & Zamboni, L. (2018). A multi-criteria approach to sort and rank policies based on delphi qualitative assessments and ELECTRE TRI: The case of smart grids in brazil. Omega (United Kingdom), 76, 100-111. [CrossRef]
10. Ehsan, S., Nazir, M. S., Nurunnabi, M., Khan, Q. R., Tahir, S., & Ahmed, I. (2018). A multimethod approach to assess and measure corporate social responsibility disclosure and practices in a developing economy. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(8). [CrossRef]
11. Elmustapha, H., Hoppe, T., & Bressers, H. (2018). Understanding stakeholders’ views and the influence of the socio-cultural dimension on the adoption of solar energy technology in lebanon. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(2). [CrossRef]
12. European Technology Platform Smart Grids: Vision and Strategy for Europe’s Electricity Networks of the Future (2006). Directorate-General for Research Sustainable Energy Systems, 2006. Retrieved from https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/vision-and-strategy-for-europes-electricity-networks-of-the-futur.
13. Fotis, P., & Polemis, M. (2018). Sustainable development, environmental policy and renewable energy use: A dynamic panel data approach. Sustainable Development, 26(6), 726-740. [CrossRef]
14. Gao, L., & Zhao, Z. -. (2020). The evolutionary game of stakeholders’ coordination mechanism of new energy power construction PPP project: A china case. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(3). [CrossRef]
15. Gölz, S., & Wedderhoff, O. (2018). Explaining regional acceptance of the german energy transition by including trust in stakeholders and perception of fairness as socio-institutional factors. Energy Research and Social Science, 43, 96-108. [CrossRef]
16. Graff, M., Carley, S., & Konisky, D. M. (2018). Stakeholder perceptions of the united states energy transition: Local-level dynamics and community responses to national politics and policy. Energy Research and Social Science, 43, 144-157. [CrossRef]
17. Guðlaugsson, B., Fazeli, R., Gunnarsdóttir, I., Davidsdottir, B., & Stefansson, G. (2020). Classification of stakeholders of sustainable energy development in iceland: Utilizing a power-interest matrix and fuzzy logic theory. Energy for Sustainable Development, 57, 168-188. [CrossRef]
18. Gunnarsdóttir, I., Davíðsdóttir, B., Worrell, E., & Sigurgeirsdottir, S. (2021). It is best to ask: Designing a stakeholder-centric approach to selecting sustainable energy development indicators. Energy Research and Social Science, 74 [CrossRef]
19. Hilorme, T., Nazarenko, I., Okulicz-Kozaryn, W., Getman, O., Drobyazko, S. (2018). Innovative model of economic behavior of agents in the sphere of energy conservation. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 9 (1), 1–7. [Google Scholar]
20. Hilorme, T., Sokolova, L., Portna, O., Lysiak, L., & Boretskaya, N. (2019). Smart grid concept as a perspective for the development of Ukrainian energy platform. IBIMA Business Review, 2019 [CrossRef]
21. Hilorme, T., Tkach, K., Dorenskyi, O., Katerna, O., & Durmanov, A. (2019). Decision making model of introducing energy-saving technologies based on the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Management Information and Decision Sciences, (4), 489-494. [Google Scholar]
22. Hoolohan, C., Larkin, A., McLachlan, C., Falconer, R., Soutar, I., Suckling, J., . . . Yu, D. (2018). Engaging stakeholders in research to address water–energy–food (WEF) nexus challenges. Sustainability Science, 13(5), 1415-1426. [CrossRef]
23. Jia, L., Qian, Q. K., Meijer, F., & Visscher, H. (2020). Stakeholders’ risk perception: A perspective for proactive risk management in residential building energy retrofits in china. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(7) [CrossRef]
24. Joensuu, T., Norvasuo, M., & Edelman, H. (2020). Stakeholders’ interests in developing an energy ecosystem for the superblock-case hiedanranta. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(1) [CrossRef]
25. Kester J. (2016). Conducting a smarter grid: Reflecting on the power and security behind smart grids with foucault. Smart Grids from a Global Perspective, 197–213. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314931978_Conducting_a_ Smarter_Grid_Reflecting_on_the_Power_and_Security_Behind_Smart_Grids_with_Foucault. [Google Scholar]
26. Li, H. X., Patel, D., Al-Hussein, M., Yu, H., & Gül, M. (2018). Stakeholder studies and the social networks of NetZero energy homes (NZEHs). Sustainable Cities and Society, 38, 9-17. [CrossRef]
27. Lieonov S., Pavlyk A. (2019). Collaboration drivers on renewable energy. European energy collaboration: modern smart specialization strategies : monograph / edited by Vasilyeva T. A., Kolosok S. I. Szczecin: Centre of Sociological Research. 179 p. [Google Scholar]
28. Liu, H. -., You, X. -., Xue, Y. -., & Luan, X. (2017). Exploring critical factors influencing the diffusion of electric vehicles in China: A multi-stakeholder perspective. Research in Transportation Economics, 66, 46-58. [CrossRef]
29. Lyulyov, O., Vakulenko, I., Pimonenko, T., Kwilinski, A., Dzwigol, H., & Dzwigol-Barosz, M. (2021). Comprehensive assessment of smart grids: Is there a universal approach? Energies, 14(12) [CrossRef]
30. Maqbool, R., Deng, X., & Rashid, Y. (2020). Stakeholders’ satisfaction as a key determinant of critical success factors in renewable energy projects. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 10(1). [CrossRef]
31. Mentel, G., Vasilyeva, T., Samusevych, Y., Vysochyna, A., Karbach, R., & Streimikis, J. (2020). The evaluation of economic, environmental and energy security: Composite approach. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 19(1-3), 177-195. [Google Scholar]
32. Nasr, A. K., Kashan, M. K., Maleki, A., Jafari, N., & Hashemi, H. (2020). Assessment of barriers to renewable energy development using stakeholders approach. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 7(3), 2526-2541. [CrossRef]
33. Neves, D., Baptista, P., Simões, M., Silva, C. A., & Figueira, J. R. (2018). Designing a municipal sustainable energy strategy using multi-criteria decision analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 251-260. [CrossRef]
34. Nikas, A., Stavrakas, V., Arsenopoulos, A., Doukas, H., Antosiewicz, M., Witajewski-Baltvilks, J., & Flamos, A. (2020). Barriers to and consequences of a solar-based energy transition in greece. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 35, 383-399. [CrossRef]
35. Olkkonen, L., Korjonen-Kuusipuro, K., & Grönberg, I. (2017). Redefining a stakeholder relation: Finnish energy “prosumers” as co-producers. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 24, 57-66. [CrossRef]
36. Ouhajjou, N., Loibl, W., Fenz, S., & Tjoa, A. M. (2017). Stakeholder-oriented energy planning support in cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 28, 482-492. [CrossRef]
37. Pimonenko, T., Prokopenko, O., & Dado, J. (2017). Net zero house: EU experience in Ukrainian conditions. International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics, 38(4), 46-57. [Google Scholar]
38. Solman, H., Smits, M., van Vliet, B., & Bush, S. (2021). Co-production in the wind energy sector: A systematic literature review of public engagement beyond invited stakeholder participation. Energy Research and Social Science, 72 [CrossRef]
39. Späth, L., & Scolobig, A. (2017). Stakeholder empowerment through participatory planning practices: The case of electricity transmission lines in France and Norway. Energy Research and Social Science, 23, 189-198. [CrossRef]
40. Sun, Y., Li, Y., Cai, B. -., & Li, Q. (2020). Comparing the explicit and implicit attitudes of energy stakeholders and the public towards carbon capture and storage. Journal of Cleaner Production, 254 [CrossRef]
41. Sušnik, J., Chew, C., Domingo, X., Mereu, S., Trabucco, A., Evans, B., . . . Brouwer, F. (2018). Multi-stakeholder development of a serious game to explore the water-energy-food-land-climate nexus: The SIM4NEXUS approach. Water (Switzerland), 10(2). [CrossRef]
42. Tang, S., & Demeritt, D. (2018). Climate change and mandatory carbon reporting: Impacts on business process and performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(4), 437-455. [CrossRef]
43. Tetiana, H., Chernysh, O., Levchenko, A., Semenenko, O., & Mykhailichenko, H. (2019). Strategic solutions for the implementation of innovation projects. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 18(Special Issue 1), 1-6. [Google Scholar]
44. Vakulenko, I., Saher, L., Syhyda, L., Kolosok, S., & Yevdokymova, A. (2021). The first step in removing communication and organizational barriers to stakeholders’ interaction in smart grids: A theoretical approach. Paper presented at the E3S Web of Conferences, , 234 [CrossRef]
45. Vasylieva, T., Lyulyov, O., Bilan, Y., & Streimikiene, D. (2019). Sustainable economic development and greenhouse gas emissions: The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption, GDP, and corruption. Energies, 12(17) [CrossRef]
46. Vysochyna, A., Stoyanets, N., Mentel, G., & Olejarz, T. (2020). Environmental determinants of a country’s food security in short-term and long-term perspectives. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(10) [CrossRef]
47. White, D. D., Jones, J. L., Maciejewski, R., Aggarwal, R., & Mascaro, G. (2017). Stakeholder analysis for the food-energy-water nexus in Phoenix, Arizona: Implications for nexus governance. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(12) [CrossRef]
48. Zedan, S., & Miller, W. (2018). Quantifying stakeholders’ influence on energy efficiency of housing: Development and application of a four-step methodology. Construction Management and Economics, 36(7), 375-393. [CrossRef]