Contents1 Chapter: Introduction....................................................................................................................32 Chapter: Background.....................................................................................................................4

2.1 Background............................................................................................................................42.2 Growing in a Sustainable Way...............................................................................................52.3 Innovation..............................................................................................................................52.4 Capacity Creation...................................................................................................................6

3 Chapter: Innovation Management................................................................................................83.1 Technological Innovation Systems (TIS).................................................................................83.2 Multi-level Perspective........................................................................................................12

3.2.1 Socio-technical Niches.................................................................................................13

3.2.2 Socio-Technical Regimes:.............................................................................................14

3.2.3 Socio-technical landscapes:.........................................................................................14

3.2.4 Nesting.........................................................................................................................14

3.3 Strategic Niche Management..............................................................................................143.3.1 Niche, Regime, Landscape...........................................................................................15

3.3.2 Successful Niches.........................................................................................................17

3.4 Action Research...................................................................................................................173.4.1 Participatory Action Research......................................................................................19

3.4.2 Critical Participatory Action Research..........................................................................20

3.4.3 Participation in Public Spheres.....................................................................................21

3.5 Capacity Building in Communities........................................................................................213.6 Conclusions..........................................................................................................................21

4 Chapter: Renewable Sources.......................................................................................................214.1 Solar PV................................................................................................................................214.2 Wind Energy........................................................................................................................214.3 Diesel Engine........................................................................................................................224.4 Conclusions..........................................................................................................................22

5 Chapter: Milking Process.............................................................................................................225.1 Milking process....................................................................................................................225.2 Bacteriological problems.....................................................................................................225.3 Conclusions..........................................................................................................................22

6 Chapter 6.....................................................................................................................................226.1 Design Methodologies.........................................................................................................226.2 …..........................................................................................................................................226.3 Conclusions..........................................................................................................................22

7 Chapter: Location Specifics..........................................................................................................227.1 Mexican Electric Market Current.........................................................................................227.2 Mexican Electric Market Future...........................................................................................227.3 Socio-Political Situation in the North of Mexico..................................................................227.4 Conclusions..........................................................................................................................23

8 Study Cases..................................................................................................................................238.1....................................................................................................................................................238.2 Conclusions..........................................................................................................................23

9 Works Cited.................................................................................................................................24

1 Chapter: Introduction

2 Chapter: Background2.1 Background

Every day sustainable development is gain strength. The recognition of the global warming problem, the effects of deforestation and the pollutants of the fossil fuel, are awakening up the collective conscience for creating models of sustainable development (NRC, 1999). Energy is a basic and necessary commodity for the development of a country, it provides the energy that the industry needs, the water for irrigation, lightning for schools and hospitals, and many other basic needs. In other words, energy is the driver of the global economy and it is a key factor for improving the living standards in the developing countries (Rehman, 2010).

The use of fossil fuel over the last century has generated a big problem, a human made problem. The atmosphere of the earth depends on the “greenhouse gases” to keep the temperature between living conditions. Human activities such has burning fossil fuel liberates gases that reinforce the natural greenhouse effect increasing the temperature around the globe (Dincer, 2010). This reinforced greenhouse effect, also known with the name of Global Warming, is a serious threat to the world, as we know it.

Developing countries are the ones that are going to be more affected by global warming. The geographical zones of the developing countries and the lack of infrastructure makes them more subjectable to climate change. The climate change will disturb the crops cycles, change the raining pattern and cause droughts. Global warming has potential risk of destroying the gains made by governments and aid workers in reducing the poverty goals. The increasing number of hurricanes in summer and the devastating weather seen in the past years are notably effects of this so-called global warming. (Harvey, 2004)

To take active measures and remedy the effects of global warming, we as humans need to develop a series of changes such as (Dincer, 2010), amount many other needs:

Improving energy efficiency Developing cleaner technologies Using renewable and green energy Conserving energy Diversifying energy options

The path toward a more sustainable future demands to have an environmental friendly approach and at the same time taking in mind the improvement of life quality and poverty reduction. In addition to the depletion of fossil fuels and global warming, increasing demand for energy in the developing countries is constrained by the lack of infrastructure and rising costs of energy (Rehman,2010). The high cost of fossil fuel creates a barrier for development of the poor, making them more dependent on traditional biomass fuels and international help.

In the current economy, it is estimated that 20% of the population is consuming 80 % of the nonrenewable resources (Fulekar, 2010). This percentage will increase when the prices of fuel goes up due to scarcity or a new oil crisis, making it every time harder to developing countries to import foreign fossil energy, and has a side effect the quality of life will be significantly affected.

2.2 Growing in a Sustainable Way

The essence of any sustainable energy strategy is to provide all the citizens with sufficient quantity of energy services (Y., 2007). The idea has two features: The energy services must be more than overall economic growth, it must also provide basic humans needs, improve social welfare and secondary, the production, distribution and use of this energy, must not endanger the life quality of the present or future generation (Y., 2007).

To reverse the trend of unsustainable use of the environment, it is necessary policies and intervention to accelerate the creation and innovation of technologies capable of producing energy without damaging the environment or aggravating the global warming. The need for the creation of technology that exploit local resources and for the creation of programs focused in the human development and capacity creation. (Y., 2007)

In countries such as Ethiopia the population stands at 75 million with an annual rate of growth of 3%, if the current trend continues by 2025 the population will reach 120 million. The pressure in local resources will intensify and this will generate pressure in the natural limits to sustain itself. More and more demand of biomass and fossil fuels will be needed, putting a heavy load in the local environment, (Y., 2007) and opening opportunities for renewable energy sources.

2.3 Innovation

“Technology is a combination of knowledge, techniques and concepts; it is tools and machines, farms and factories: it is organization, processes and people and the cultural and historical context in which these interactions take place. In effect, technology is the science and art of getting things done- through the application of skills and knowledge” - (A Smith, 2010)

The way we think about how innovation happens have change over the time, in a way we can say that innovation have innovated itself. From the medieval times where all the knowledge was built on religion or war fare artefacts, through the renascence where the basic research stared to gain weight. The focus on the way that innovation happens started to gain importance during the 19th century during the US land grant system, in this period innovation was seen as science-led, this means that technology and innovation came through the research and understanding of the basic scientific principal, basic research.

The technological changes during this phase where guided by science, the basic research knowledge or findings were then guide in a “downstream” fashion, investing on application research, searching a way to adapt this new knowledge. After the new knowledge was adapted to new applications, this was transferred to the industries that might find it useful, and just after this institutions/companies found a way of using it, the innovation it was then sold it to the final consumer in a way of a product. This way of knowledge creation, it is call “pipeline model”, because resources and funds enters in one end of the pipeline and knowledge and technology comes from the other.

The pipeline model was used until the mid-20th century for the creation of knowledge and technology, by this period of time, it was evident that the innovation did occurred by a complex process intrinsically systematic and fundamentally “nonlinear”. This way of thinking has gain importance in both developed and in development countries over the last two decades. (Clark, 2003)

Innovations systems help us to understand the principles of how the development of green products, goods or services can be accelerated. How to relay upon and induce broader structural changes for sustainable development are still unclear. (A Smith, 2010)

To address this complex system of innovation several new types of knowledge management resulted from the search for new approaches. To analyze innovation and transitions of the current needs of humanity, a transition to a more sustainable future, four framework of innovation are created: Transition management, Strategic Niche Management, The multilevel perspective on sociotechnical transitions, Technological innovation systems (J. Markard, 2012)

There are other innovation approaches that focus also in sustainability such as evolutionary economy theory, network theory, social construction of technology, constructive technology assessment amount others (J. Markard, 2012). The focus in this review will be in the four frameworks mentioned before, for their systematic views that are far reaching process of socio-technical systems.

Socio-technical transitions differs from technological transition in the way that socio technical also includes changes in the user, practices and institutional structures, not just the technological transition. This is for example having a new ways of travels such has the automobile or the airplane, require of special infrastructure, new companies, laws, regulations, highways or airports to function. Also the way that we humans think of mobility and travel have change over the time with this new technologies, making it a socio technical system.

This changes in the socio-technical system have been compare to the physical phenomenon of momentum, the momentum of socio-technical systems; it includes mass ( such as actors, objects and infrastructure), speed (the velocity at which the changes are been done) and it has a direction (towards sustainability).

Multi-Level Perspective on Socio-Technical Transitions (MLP): The beginnings of MLP can be traced to the search of explanations for the new socio-technical systems such as mobility, sanitation, food, entertainments, electricity, etc. Viewing that successful systems are constituted from network of artefacts, actors, institutions and have stability and dependence with the “socio technical regime”. MLP looks at the micro, macro and meso-level patterns of culture, organization, markets, regulations and infrastructure. (A Smith, 2010)

Innovation system can be conceptualized as a set of organizations and institutions and the relationship between them

2.4 Capacity Creation

In order to create social progress and to institutionalize rural energy development the availability of the energy sources is not the only factor, also the capabilities of the people, institution and organizations to evaluate the different development options and to implement actions is fundamental (Y., 2007).

Many aid interventions in the past have been unsustainable. This means that the structures created did not survive without the donor, resources, expertise, proper maintenance. Literature shows projects with great progress when implemented; only to find that ones the external agencies are removed the situation goes back to the status quo (Clark, 2003).

Capacity building implies creating local and regional technicians with the skills to install, operate and maintenance the equipment (O&M), many of past rural projects have failed simply because the people did not have the knowledge to keep the equipment running.

According Mulugetta Y. (Y., 2007), creating local capacity will also help the community and the project in the following areas:

Create local acceptance of the technology Create a self-sustaining system through local technical self-reliance Create employment opportunities for local entrepreneurs and technicians Allowing a speedy response to technical problems encountered.

Without the proper technicians and involvement in the community the project has high odds of failing. To have a permanent solution it is important to have the proper capacity in the region.

3 Chapter: Innovation Management Innovation Theories

Innovation management is important to create the paths for sustainable products, the high competence from the market, the prevalent technology, the current infrastructure; ways of thinking, consuming and behaving have shape a correct trajectory for the technology. The penetration of the sustainable products is only going to be possible through a management of the planning, research and exposition to the market.

With a need for a management system in mind, in this chapter a quick look is given to the several current technology and innovation management techniques. These systems are chosen because of their focus on radical innovation or sustainable technologies, which applies for the intented project, even if is not creating a completely new technology, it is introducing a new technology and leapfrogging a previuos technology. The introduction of the new equipment will require analysis of the old techniques, empower and protect the new technology and providing the knowledge and capacity to the people to incorporate it to their day by day life.

3.1 Technological Innovation Systems (TIS)

In the innovation studies, the most important insight that has been dominating the field is the fact that technological change it is a collective activity and it takes place in the context of a wide system. This wide system is it called “innovation systems”, and the success or failure of a new technology depends directly on this innovation system, how it is build and how does it performs its functions. (Hekkert, et al., 2011)

Technological Change can be understood as, the development of technology on the same setting on which the technology is embedded. The joined and interactive process of having this technological change is the innovation process itself. To better understand this, an innovation can be defined as a successful combination of hardware, software and organizations around an innovation system.

The concept of “innovation systems” is the empirical name for the analysis of all societal subsystems, actors, and institutions contributing in some way can be directly or indirectly, to the emergence, usage or production of a new technology.

Innovation systems

Innovation Systems (IS) is an approach for innovation and the diffusion of technology which is is both an individual and a collective act. The IS approach have embedded the dynamics for individual, the characteristic of the technology and the mechanism of adoption of the technology.

The IS framework has two shortcomings at the time of analyzing the technological changes. The first is that even if the IS framework is based on theories such as interactive learning and evolutionary economics, but the analysis for the innovation systems are quasi-static. According to (Hekkert, et al.,2006) there is a focus on comparing the social structure of different IS (actors, networks, institutions) and explaining the differences in performance. Although less emphasis is given to the analysis of dynamics of innovation systems. The second one is the explanatory power of the framework sets mostly in the institutions (macro level), and less on the actions of the entrepreneur (micro level).

The analysis of the fundamental process either focus; on the prospects and dynamics of a particular innovation that has a potential to contribute far reaching changes, or focus on the investigation of broader transition processes, involving a variety of innovation, which have the opportunity to make a substitution of the established technologies and a transformation of sectorial structures.

Technological Innovation Systems

The technological innovation systems approach is a concept developed within Innovation Systems focusing on the explanation of the nature and rate of technological change. TIS can be defined as “the set of actors and rules that influence the speed and direction of technological change in a specific technological area” (Hekkert, et al., 2011)

To monitor the development of emerging technologies (Hekkert, et al., 2011) proposes 5 steps:

Figure 1 (Hekkert, et al., 2011)

Step 1; Structural Analysis

To understand innovations it is important to understand the structural analysis of the system where the innovation is involved. This structure is composed by different components; the ones according to Hekkert are the following:

1. Actors: The actors in the Technological Innovation System are the ones that generate, use and diffuse the technology by their choices and actions. The actors can be organizations that have a contribution to the technology as a developer or an adapter. The report by Hekkert distinguishes the following actors

a. Knowledge institutesb. Education organizationsc. Industry d. Market actorse. Government bodies and Supportive organization

2. Institutions: In the TIS institutional structures are at the core of the innovation system. The mapping of the innovation system structures focus on the formal policies that are in place that are likely to affect the development of the focal technology.

3. Networks: The technological innovation systems central idea works around the idea that actors function in networks.

4. Technological Factors: Technological structures consist of artifacts and the technological infrastructures in which they are integrated.

5.Step 2; Determining the phase of development

Technologies are based in structures, and structures involve elements that are relatively stable over time. For the emerging technologies this structures are not fully in place or are just starting. In this step the main idea is to trying to identify in which phase of the development, diffusion and use of the innovation.

Knowing the phase of development of the technology, the next step is to know how the structure and the functioning of the innovation system should be build up. For example if the technology is in an early phase of development, the system will have a different structure and certain functions are more relevant than for those of a more mature technology.

To monitor the innovation system first it is important to know at which phase of development it is at.

Step 3; System Functions

Even though different innovations systems may have similar components, they may function in a completely different way. (Hekkert, et al., 2006)

ELABORAR

Functions of the Innovations Systems”1. Entrepreneurial Activities 2. Knowledge Development3. Knowledge exchange4. Guidance of the search5. Formation of markets6. Mobilization of resources7. Counteracting resistance to change

The seven functions are quite broad in their descriptions and a much more detailed set of indicators is necessary to make sure that the answers by the respondents are comparable. The function knowledge development can for example be measure by asking about the quantity, the quality and the direction research activities.

In following, Table 1, a series of questions for the diagnostic of the function for the Innovation System, these questions are provided by Hekkert.

Table 1 Functions, Indicators And Diagnistic Questions (Hekkert, et al., 2011)Functions and indicators Diagnostic questionsF1 - Entrepreneurial Experimentation andproduction- Actors present in industry (from structural analysis)

- Are these the most relevant actors?- are there sufficient industrial actors in the innovation system?- do the industrial actors innovate sufficiently?- do the industrial actors focus sufficiently on large sale production?

- Does the experimentation and production by entrepreneurs form abarrier for the Innovation System to move to the next phase?

F2 - Knowledge Development- Amount of patents and publications (from structuralanalysis)

- Is the amount of knowledge development sufficient for the development of the innovation system?- Is the quality of knowledge development sufficient for the development of the innovation system?- Does the type of knowledge developed fit with the knowledge needs within the innovation system- Does the quality and/or quantity of knowledge development form a barrier for the TIS to move to the next

F3 - Knowledge exchange- Type and amount of networks

- Is there enough knowledge exchange between science and industry?- Is there enough knowledge exchange between users and industry?- Is there sufficient knowledge exchange across geographical borders?- Are there problematic parts of the innovation system in terms of knowledge exchange?- Is knowledge exchange forming a barrier for the IS to move to the next phase?

F4 - Guidance of the Search- Regulations, Visions, Expectations of Governmentand key actors

- Is there a clear vision on how the industry and market should develop?- In terms of growth- In terms of technological design- What are the expectations regarding the technological field?- Are there clear policy goals regarding this technological field? - Are these goals regarded as reliable?- Are the visions and expectations of actors involved sufficiently aligned toreduce uncertainties?- Does this (lack of) shared vision block the development of the TIS?

F5 - Market Formation- Projects installed (e.g. wind parks planned, siteallocation and constructed)

- Is the current and expected future market size sufficient?- Does market size form a barrier for the development of the innovationsystem?

F6 - Resource Mobilization- Physical resources (infrastructure, material etc)- Human resources (skilled labor)- Financial resources (investments, venture capital,subsidies etc)

- Are there sufficient human resources? If not, does that form a barrier?- Are there sufficient financial resources? If not, does that form a barrier?- Are there expected physical resource constraints that may hamper technology diffusion?- Is the physical infrastructure developed well enough to support the diffusion of technology?

F7 - Counteract resistance to change/legitimacycreation- Length of projects from application to installationto production

- What is the average length of a project?- Is there a lot of resistance towards the new technology, the set up of projects/permit procedure?- If yes, does it form a barrier?

Step 4; Structural cause for functional barriers

The analysis of the system functions from the previous step will help in the identification of the obstacles for the progress of the technological development. The obstacles can block the

development or even the diffusion of the technology. It is crucial to make an appropriated search of the obstacles in order to be able to remove them.

Once the obstacles are identified the barriers, it is easier to remove them. For example if the function of the knowledge development is not working properly, then the cause will be probable because of the lack of correct knowledge institutions or universities that are not generating the right amount of educated people that can work in the technology. With the identification of the knowledge, the problems and obstacles can then be removed or improved.

Hekkert proposes the following steps to find the obstacles;1. Determine which system functions are forming a barrier2. Determine for each system function structural components forms a barrier.3. Describe the relation between cause and barriers.

Step 5. Obstacles for policy goals

Innovation systems have a strong relation with policy, innovation policy have the objective of helping companies to perform in a better way, contributing to a long term and wider objectives, social objectives, such as can be economic growth, jobs creations, and long term sustainability. Policy tools help in establishing supportive framework conditions, such as capacity creating, creating a market, protecting the intellectual property. The framework conditions will facilitate access to finance support, will enable the collaboration between institutions, will stimulate and create demands, and all this by regulations, standards and public procurement.

Policy goals can be determine in two dimensions:1. Environmental and energy goals, normally are in reducing consumption or reducing CO2

emissions 2. Economic goal, value and contribution to the emerging sectors focused in sustainability such

as the renewable energy projects.

3.2 Multi-level Perspective

Radical innovations have a hard time to break though, because not only the technology is not good or not promising, they also face regulation issues, not the adequate infrastructure, user practices and not the proper maintenance networks, all this are in parallel with to the current technology.

The transitions between regimes are at the core strength of the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP), and the relationship between novelty technology with the current predominant technology, called regime by the MLP, and the relation with the physical, political, societal barriers that face the new technology to penetrate the current system.

MLP uses a combination of paradigms from two views, the evolutionary economics and the technological innovation. In the first, evolution is a process of variation, selection and retention, in the second view, evolution is a process of unfolding and creating new combinations, with the result s of new paths and trajectories.

After a novelty breakthrough in a technology, users still have to integrate the new technology into their routines, institutions, organizations and even make rules and regulations of the technology, this process involves learning, adjustments and domestication of the novelty.

To analyze theis process of adaptation and domestication of the technologies, MLP used a three level approach to innovation systems. The first is in the micro-level, the niche, a protective space where technology can grow and develop. The second the meso-level, the regime, is the environment and the current technology that impedes the growth of the new technology. The third is the macro-level, the landscape, which is a set of infrastructure, rules and organization that impose the permanence of the regime in the system.

The stability of the system established over the sociotechnical configurations, are a result from the linkages of the heterogeneous elements that forms the regimes and the landscape , meaning by this that a system is stable by the connection of this system with all the level, such as automobiles are dependent of highways, traffic rules and oil companies. Technological regimes results in technological trajectories, this is due the fact that the community of engineers searches in the same direction. Engineers do not only have an influence in the technical trajectories of the landscape, also the users, policy makers, societal groups, governments, scientists, banks, etc.

3.2.1 Socio-technical Niches Sociotechnical niches are a protective space, incubators where the technology can grow without the pressure exercised of by the current regime over the novelty. A niche is, a space to grow and flourish under constant monitoring of the innovation, with the intention to prepare the novelty for the exterior world and the free market.

According to MLP, the transitions depend on the activities within niches, where the actual regime does not have so muchthe same strength and the pressures are less evident. Niches by their concept provide a protective space for radical innovations to break the establishment by the current regime. These radical innovations may not be competitive against the environment prevailing in the regime, needing internal help to develop and to adapt to real life circumstances.

Two basic types of niches can be distinguished in the literature; market niches, can be regarded as some sort of natural anomalies in the regimes and the technological niches, which are artificiallyhave been created, by the actors and the specific institutions. The actors can be regime members, outsides, policy makers or even entrepreneur. (Geels, 2011)

The protection offrom the niches comes through; lead markets, subsidies, research demonstration and learning, or specific communities willing to generate change. Even with the protective atmosphere of incubation inside the niche, many of the niches are not successful in expanding, or even surviving for a long time. (A Smith, 2010)

The role the niches plays in the development of technology is very important, because they provide locations for all the learning processes; learning by doing, learning by using and learning by interacting. A place where actors and institutions involve in the innovation system can have communication and interaction.

Actors in the niches need to perform considerable cognitive, institutional, economic and political work. Niches successes at the end dependA niches success at the end depends on the ability of these actors of involving more, and more powerful, actors. These new involvements will create a widespread social legitimacy of the innovation. (Geels, 2002) (Geels, 2011)

In technological niches, the potential advantages of the new technology are still uncertain and not yet shared among the niche promoting actors.

3.2.2 Socio-Technical Regimes:

Socio-technical regimes refer to a set of semi-coherent rules that are carried through different groups in the society. The socio-technical regimes generates stability in the socio-technical configurations, this stability is dynamic; innovations still occurs but on an evolutionary or incremental nature.

“A technological regime is the rule set or grammar embedded in a complex of engineering practices, production process technologies, product characteristics, skills and procedures, ways of handling relevant artefacts and persons, ways of defining problems; all of them embedded in institutions and infrastructures”

Inside the regime generate incremental innovations, radical (sustainable technologies) require a niche to been generated

3.2.3 Socio-technical landscapes:

The socio-technical landscapes are the physical, ideological, political, institutional set of structures that forms the current nichesregimes. Such as in, the automobile industry is dependent on the highways, gas stations, traffic rules, insurance companies, oil supply. All this requirements forms the socio-technical landscape, it is embedded in the technical capacities and in the social environment, customs and idiosyncratic of the generation.

The word landscapes comes from a metaphor because of its literal connotation of hardness and the material contesxt of the society, such as the physical material and the arrangement of cities, road, distribution systems, electrical grid or any energy infrastructure. (Geels, 2002) Landscape processes are such that includes environmental and demographic changes, social movements, political ideology, economic structures, etc.

3.2.4 Nesting

The nested characteristic of the levels (micro, meso, and macro), means that the niches are embedded in the regime and at the same time the regime is in a further landscape. Novelties emerge in niches taking the contexts of the existing regimes and landscapes. “It is the alignment of developments (successful processes within the niche reinforced by changes at regimen level and at the level of socio-technical landscapes) which determine if a regime shift will occur” (Geels, 2002)

Having pressure instability at the landscape level, can generate enough pressure in the regime and create opening for new technologies at the niche level to been incorporated into the regime and

Figure 2 Nesting of the three levels (Geels, 2002)

with the time even modify the landscape for example, the transition for propel airplanes to jumbo jets or from sailboats to steam or even nuclear ships.

3.3 Strategic Niche Management

Another of the frameworks to analyze and to promote innovation is the so-called, Strategic Niche Management (SNM). This framework shares several similitudes with the multi-level perspective (MLP), also takes into account the definition of niches, regime and landscape.

Innovation scholar and researches have shown that there are two types of innovation: incremental and radical innovations. Radical innovation does not have bases on previous designs and it incorporate changes in different levels; cognitive framework, infrastructure. In the invention of the light bulb, new infrastructure was required and was a totally new technology, not a modification of the already used oil lamp (Raven, et al., 2011). Incremental innovation are the ones that have smaller steps with the previous ones or the already in used.

The importance of the SNM approach it is that it was developed to understand, influence and promote the adoption of early technology with the potential of contributing to a sustainable development. Originally, the SNM emerge from the observation that, in sectors such like the transportation, many innovations that had the capacity of improving the environmental characteristic of the transportation was not a commercial success. (Raven, 2005)

Strategic Niche Management serves to manage a particularly types of innovation; the ones that have to do with the social desire for innovation with a long-term goals such as sustainability or the radical novelties that have a conflict / mismatch with the actual infrastructure, maintenance networks, political interests, etc. (Schot, et al., 2008) (Raven, et al., 2011) (Raven, 2005)

The core assumption behind the SNM is that innovation in the sustainable area can be facilitated by modulating and empowering technological niches. For example, designing a space for experimentations, protected from the pressure of the landscape where technology can evolve and established user practices and regulatory structures.

New technologies at beginning can be very promising, with maybe high energy saving, more durable, lighter or cheaper. New technologies at the beginning also can be disastrous with high amounts of defects or flaws in the system, which could endanger the equipment or even the safety of the users. For this reason, new technologies have been described such as “hopeful monstrosities”; they are hopeful with all the future promises and monstrous because they can perform poorly, crudely and dangerously. New technology cannot compete with existent technologies since the beginning in the free market until they have been refined. (Schot, et al., 2008)

For the way that SNM it is conceived it is safe to say that it is not a technology push approach, SNM literature shows that sustainable development required interrelated social and technical change.

3.3.1 Niche, Regime, Landscape

The SNM propose that the creation of sustainable innovations can be facilitated through creating a technological niche, this means a protected space that will allow the experimentation, will allow the user to interact with the technology, involve actors, generate a space for co-evolution create user practices and regulatory structures.

Niches must of the time are intentionally created; they do not tend to exists naturally in the markets. For technologies, such has the environmental technologies, existing market niches are most of the time inexistent, and such niches for technology are named; technological niches.

If such technological niche implementation is properly, it will generate a space that could act as glue for the blocks needed to construct the technology with a sustainable propose. By this, the niches serve the function of been bridges between the R&D and the market, creating an innovation with more possibilities of surviving the introduction. (Schot, et al., 2008)

SNM does not suggest the creation of niches in a top-down fashion, but is more about steering from within. The steering can be greater with the involvement of a range of actors. Niches are not inserter, but they are assumed to be emerging through collective enactment.

The importance of the niche resides in the base that innovations tend to hold more promises than what they actually perform. They have no chance of making market penetration; they would not survive the competition with the current technologies. With the time and usage this technology will be correcting defects, be more efficient, better performance, in other words, technology will mature, and the regime will be in a different position. This combination may allow the new mature technology to compete in the market. However, in the short term the new technology does not have a chance. (Raven, 2005) (Raven, et al., 2011)

A socio-technical regime; is a number of different types of regimes interacting between them, in different domains such as the technological, scientific, political, socio-cultural, and user and market domain, centered around a particular technology. In other words, a regime is a combination of shared rules embedded in dominant design and ways of achieving things. (Raven, et al., 2011)

The socio-technical regime should then be understood as a dynamic concept of rules (regulative, normative or cognitive) embedded in human actors, institutes, societal rules, technical systems, that provide an structure and stability to the technological development, but do not determine it. (Raven,2005)

Figure 3 (Raven, 2005)

By internal or external factors, a regime can meet its limits. It is no longer live up to the users preferences or expectations, it has technological constrains or a new technology is performing better. The pressure from the outside can weak a regime and collapse, giving space for a new regime.

Even if internal niches process are important for a niche probability of success, the success also depends on the opportunities that the regime offers, in particular by the stability or lack of stability.

The less stable a regime is, the more opportunities does a niche have for succeed and incorporate the regime.

The macro-level is composed by the socio-technical landscape, a system from the outside environment that does not have a direct influence by the regime or the niche. The changes at the landscape can occur in a slow pace, in order of decades.

Niches could eventually grow and become new regimes than with time could replace the old ones or they could merge with the existing regimes.

3.3.2 Successful Niches

The question that emerges in the core of the SNM is; how, why, or under which circumstances a technological niche will create a successful result?

For successful developments of a technological niche three internal processes have been distinguished (Schot, et al., 2008):

1. The articulation of expectations and visions: expectations can give a guide for the project or innovation, they align the actors in the same direction and provide the direction to learning process attracts attention from the outsides and gives legitimization to the project.

2. The building of social networks: Building a social network it is crucial for the technological niche, it creates communications networks between stakeholders, provide resources and gives popularity to the new technology.

3. Learning processes at multiple dimensions:a. Technical aspects and designs specificationsb. Market and user preferencesc. Cultural and symbolic meaningd. Infrastructure and maintenance networkse. Industry and production networksf. Regulations and government policyg. Societal and environmental effects

The internal process are fundamental for the function of a successful technological niche, it creates the bases for the development and for the future implementation in the real work, where competence and the free market could prevent a new technology to hit the shelves.

To make more successful these three processes the SNM promotes that (Schot, et al., 2008): Expectations contribute more in the success if; they are more robust (shared by more and

important actors), more specific (provide a concrete guide for the technology), have higher quality (expectation with real objectives)

Social networks are recommended to be: broad and deep (multiple kinds of stakeholders and people capable of mobilizing resources and commitment in their communities or companies)

Learning procedures would contribute more to the niche if not only in the order of accumulating facts and data.

Failed niches developments could be blamed to a minimal involvement of the outsiders, lack of second order learning or minimal involvement of the regime actor. All this resulted in a lack of resources or involvement of institutions. (Raven, 2005)

3.4 Action Research

Action research is a type of problem solving leaded by individuals working with each other in communities or teams. In this report more attention is given to participatory action research (PAR) that focus on the interaction with the participants, as a part of the same research, and it is a powerful methodology for advancing scientific knowledge as for achieving more practical objectives. PAR as it roots in the applied social research, even if it is possible applying it on different fields. The PAR methodology is a contrast with the probably is the most common type of social research, which Whyte calls it “the professional expert” model (Whyte, 1986), this name is because in the professional expert model when in an institution or community is in a problem they call the expert to investigate something. Where this expert behaves in a “god like” way, with not much involvement with the practitioners of the activities which are been investigated. Success in organizational change is not only achieving by making the right decision in at a particular time, success is rather made through developing a social process that facilitates organizational learning. In the case of the professional expert when it tries to play a dominant role in the “correction” or shaping the decision-making process, key practitioner (people that practice the activity to correct) will not feel any sense of ownership or involvement in the proposed decisions. Making the findings of the professional expert hard to adapt or implement.

Action research does not follow the traditional steps and view of the conventional scientific research, which appears to start with creating a research question, forming a hypothesis, collecting data, analyzing results and arriving at an results and interpretation that links the new findings into the research literature. Action research used the method of Kurt Lewing, also called the father of action research, which described action research in terms of a cycle of steps of planning a change, putting the plan into action, observing, and re-formulating the plan in the light of what had happened. In to book of Kemmis they found that the action research is only poorly describes in terms of a mechanical sequence of steps, they describe it as a spiral of self-reflection in terms of aa spiral of self-reflective cycles (Kemmis, et al., 2014):

Planning a change Acting and observing the process and consequences of the change Reflecting on these processes and consequences, and then Re-planning Acting and observing Reflecting, and so on

Figure 4 Research Spiral (Kemmis, et al., 2014)

For better results of the spiral of self-reflection is to work better when co-participants undertake each of the step in a collaboratively way.

Action research is not only PAR, anyway many kind share some common key features. Each of these, in the literature rejects the conventional approaches where the expert enter a setting to record and represent what is happening. Two features are apparent in all the action research (Kemmis, et al.,2014):

The recognition of the capacity of people living and working in particular settings to participate actively in all aspects of the research process.

The research conducted by participants is oriented to making improvements in practices and their setting by the participants themselves.

3.4.1 Participatory Action Research

The professional expert way of practicing research works under the believe that being an insider involves a penalty, which is not being able to see the thing in a disinterested or objective way. The action researchers such as Kemmis, believe that insiders have special advantages when it comes to doing research in their on their own places of work or environment, also have advantages on investigating the practices that hold their work and their lives in the site, because the practices are enmeshed with those sites.

According to (Minkler, 2000) participatory action research is:

Participatory Cooperative, engaging community members and researchers in a joint process in which both

contribute equally A co-learning process for researchers and community members A method for systems development and local communities capacity building An empowering process through which participants can increase control over their lives by

nurturing community strengths and problem-solving abilities A way to balance research and action

To make a successful change in the organization, it is more than just making the right decision at a particular time but rather the change is made thought the development of a social process which will facilitate the organizational learning. If the professional expert tries to play a dominant role in shaping the decision-making process, key practitioners are not likely to feel any sense of ownership in the proposed decisions. Their dependent position reduces their possibilities of continuing to learn from the process.

Participatory action research has similar characteristic to other research forms, which are; participant observation and participatory research. The difference is that in PAR the researcher combines the model of participant observation with explicitly recognized action objectives, all that with a commitment to carry out the investigation with the active participation of the practitioners and members of the organization.

The design of the research is a product of the joint discussions between the professional researcher and the involved practitioner. The practitioners carry a major responsibly for gathering and evaluating data, and serve as the professional experts on technological matters. The researchers

have the responsibility of helping the practitioners integrate the socio – with the technology to develop a sociotechnical model of the change process.

The PAR research does not work in the situations where only the professional researchers have a strong interest in the topic to be studied or in a particular research design, for a PAR to work the key practitioners are willing to open the doors to the research and are interested in the results, it requires the desire from the participants.

In the standard model, the subjects of our studies have little or non-opportunity to check facts or to offer alternative explanation. If we feedback our research report reports and publications to members of the organization we studied, they often argue that we have made serious errors in facts and in interpretations. If the standard social researcher hears such criticism, he or she can shrug them of, telling colleagues that the subject are just being defensive- defensiveness apparently being a characteristic of subjects but not of social scientist themselves. (Whyte, 1986)

(Kemmis, et al., 2014) shows four things that only in participatory research such as PAR can do:

It creates the conditions for the practitioners to understand and develop from “with in” the way in which their practices and done and conducted, the practice traditions that informs and orient them.

It creates environment and conditions for practitioners to speak their shared language. In addition, they get involved in discussions, conversation and critical debates of those who the action constitutes the practice that it is being investigated.

In PAR, the practitioner is more involved and it participates in and helps in the development of the form and the actions of the research or the practice is conducted.

The participatory research will create the condition for the individually and collective practitioners, to transform their current conducts and consequences of their practice, in order to meet the needs of the changing times and circumstances. All this by overcoming three kind of untoward consequences of their practices, as long that their practices are:

o Irrational; when participants understand their practices conduct and consequences are unreasonable, incomprehensible, incoherent, or contradictory.

o Unsustainable; when the practice is conducted in an ineffective, unproductive, or non-renewable either immediately or in the long term.

o Unjust; this is when the practice serves the interest of some at the expense of the others, or causes unreasonable conflict or suffering among them.

Last of these characteristics that only participatory research is especially significant in the critical participatory research, it is what it makes it “critical”

3.4.2 Critical Participatory Action Research

In the model critical participatory action research c-PAR, participants are greatly interested in their practices, in whether they understand their practices and consequences, also under conditions under which conditions their practices are appropriated or not.

Critical participatory action research is defined as a social process of collaborative learning for the best of the participant and the collective self-formation; it is realized by groups of people joining in changing the practices in which they interact in a shared social world.

c-Par involves the investigation of actual practices, not practices in the abstract or idea; it is learning about the real, material, concrete, particular practices of particular people in particular places and

circumstances. By this, is meant that critical participatory action research is a learning process whose fruit can be seen in real and material changes in; First, by the way participants think and say, also it changes the cultural and discursive arrangements that shape the ways they see understand and interpret their world, secondly by what participants do; the material and economic arrangements that make it possible for the participants to do the things they do. Finally, by changing how the participants relate to each other’s and with the world.

People can understand though c-PAR how their social and educational practices are produced by particular cultural, economic and socio-political circumstances makes the participant understand their particular place at a particular moment in history. By understanding their practices as the product of their particular circumstances, PAR researchers become alert to clues about how it may be possible to transform the practices. Focusing on practices in a concrete and specific way makes them more accessible and prone to reflection, discussion and reconstruction.

3.4.3 Participation in Public Spheres

Participatory Action Research is much more than just a research methodology for the organization, it brings the people together to reflect and act in disciplined ways. In this methodology, practitioners understand the way they make their practices and the conditions under of how to practice a more rational, more sustainable and more just practices.

Communicative action is what happens when people interrupt what they are doing to ask “what is happening here?” people frequently ask this question when they feel that something is not quite right about what is going on- when they encounter doubts or issues or problems about the validity or legitimacy of their understanding about what is going on.

Communicative action is when we engage one another in a genuine conversation or open dialogue. People engage in this type of communication when they make a conscious and an effort to reach an agreement about the ideas and language they use among participants which serve as the basis for mutual understanding of one another’s’ points of view, with the intention of having a non-forced consensus about the current situation.

For having a communicative action it is necessary the creation of a communicative space. This space is where people will take their ideas and share it with each other. Conducting the conversation about what we are doing and the consequences of it, all the time in a respectful way. It is a space where people can share views, be respected even though they may take different views or have different perspectives on things, and take seriously the commitment to finding lines of consensus about what should be done to address questions of validity and legitimacy that might arise in regard to what they currently do.

It is crucial that participants of the research considered the participatory action research legitimate and valid. This must be by themselves and not by their behalf by their delegates or representatives, or made by the experts, supervisors or managers. Legitimacy and validity can be achieved through communicative action, but it is only guaranteed when people are free to decide individually, for themselves.

Ten key features of public spheres: comments for critical participatory action researchers according to (Kemmis, et al., 2014);

1. Public spheres are constituted as actual networks of communication among actual participants

2. Public spheres are self-constituted, voluntary and autonomous. 3. Public spheres come into existence in response to legitimation deficits.4. Public spheres are constituted for communicative action and for public discourse. 5. Public spheres are inclusive and permeable.6. Public spheres people usually communicate in ordinary language. 7. Public spheres presuppose communicative freedom. 8. Public spheres generate communicative power.9. Public spheres generally have an indirect, not direct, impact on social systems.10. Public spheres are often associated with social movements.

3.5 Capacity Building in Communities

3.6 Conclusions

4 Chapter: Renewable Sources

4.1 Solar PV

4.2 Wind Energy

4.3 Diesel Engine

4.4 Conclusions

5 Chapter: Milking Process

5.1 Milking process

5.2 Bacteriological problems

5.3 Conclusions

6 Chapter 6

6.1 Design Methodologies

6.2 ….

6.3 Conclusions

7 Chapter: Location Specifics

7.1 Mexican Electric Market Current

7.2 Mexican Electric Market Future

7.3 Socio-Political Situation in the North of Mexico

7.4 Conclusions

8 Study Cases8.1

8.2 Conclusions

9 Works CitedA Smith Jan-Peter Voß, John Grin Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. [Journal] // Research Policy. - 2010. - 39 : Vol. 2010. - pp. 435-448.Clark Norman Research as Capacity Building: The Case of an NGO Facilitated Post-Harvest Innovation Systems for the Himalayan Hills [Journal] // World Development. - [s.l.] : Elsevier , 2003. - 11 : Vol. 31. - pp. 1845-1863.Dincer Ibrahim Global Warming:Engineering Solutions [Book] / ed. Hepbasli Arif. - New York : Springer, 2010.Douthwaite B. Enabling Innovation [Book]. - New York : Zed Book, 2002.Fulekar M.H. Environment and Sustainable Development [Book]. - New Delhi : Springer, 2010.Geels F. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration process: a multi-level perspective and a case-study [Journal] // Research Policy. - 2002. - 31 : Vol. 2012. - pp. 1257-1274.Geels Frank Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration process: a multi-level perspective and a case-study [Journal] // Research Policy. - 2002. - 31 : Vol. 2012. - pp. 1257-1274.Geels Frank W. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Response to seven criticism [Journal] // Enviromental Innovations and Societal Transitions. - 2011. - pp. 24-40.Harvey F Global warming 'threatens poverty goal' [Article] // Financial Times. - Octuber 20, 2004.Hekkert M.P. [et al.] Functions of innovations sytems; A new approach for analysing technological change [Journal] // Technological Forecasting and Social Change. - Utrech : Elvelvier, 2006. - 74 : Vol. 2007. - pp. 413-432.Hekkert Marko, Heimeriks Simona Negro : Gaston and Harmsen Robert Technological Innovation System Analysis [Report]. - Utrecht : Utrecht University, 2011.INEGI DATOS DE SONORA [Report]. - Hermosillo : [s.n.], 2011.J Markard Bernhard Truffer Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an inegrated framework [Journal] // Research Polity. - 2008. - pp. 596-615.J. Markard Rob Raven, Bernhard Truffer Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects [Journal] // Research Policy. - 2012. - 41 : Vol. 2012. - pp. 955-967.Kemmis Stephen, McTaggart Robin and Nixon Rhonda The Action Research Planner: Doing Critical Paricipatory Action Research [Book]. - New York : Springer, 2014. - Vol. 1.Markand Jochen and Truffer Nernhard Technological Innovation Systems and the Multi-Level Perspective; Towars an integrated framework [Journal] // Research Policy. - [s.l.] : Elsevier, 2008. - 2008 : Vol. 37. - pp. 596-615.Minkler Meredith Using Participatory Action Research to Build Healthy Communities [Article] // Focus on Healthy Communities. - Berkeley : Public Health Reports, 2000. - Cuartile. - March/April & MAy/June : Vol. 115.NRC. Council National Research Our Common Journey: a transition towards sustanability [Book]. - Washington : NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS, 1999.Raven Rob P. J. M., Royakkers Lambèr M. M. and Witkamp Marten J. Strategic Niche Management of Social Innovation: the case of Social Entrepreneurship in the Netherlands [Journal] // Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. - 2011. - 6 : Vol. 23. - pp. 667-681.Raven Rob Strategic Niche Management for Biomass: A comparative study on the experimental introduction of bioenergy technologies in the Netherlands and Denmark [Book]. - Eindhoven : Eindhoven University Press , 2005.Rehman I. H., Kar Abhishek and Arora Anupama Distribution of improved cook stoves: analysis of field experiments using strategic niche management theory [Journal] // Socio-technological transitions. - [s.l.] : Springer, 2012. - 2012 : Vol. 7. - pp. 227-235.Rehman Ibrahim Hafeezur Rural energy transitions in developing countries: a case of the Uttam URja initiative in India [Journal] // Enviromental Science & Policy. - 2010.

Romijn Henny, Raven Rob and Visser Ina de Biomass energy experiments in rural India: Insights from learning-based development approaches and lessons for Strategic Niche Management [Journal] // Enviromental. - 2010. - p. 13.Schot Johan and Geels Frank W. Strategic niche managmement and sustainable innovation journeys; theory, findings, research agenda, and policy [Journal] // Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. - [s.l.] : Taylor & Francis, September 2008. - 5 : Vol. 20. - pp. 537-554.Whyte William F. Advancing Scientific Knowlede Through Participatory Action Research [Journal]. - New York : Sociological Forum, 1986. - 3 : Vol. 4.Y. Mulugetta Human Capacity and insittutional development towards a sustainable energy future in Ethiopia [Journal] // Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. - 2007. - 2008 : Vol. 15. - pp. 1435-1450.