Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2021 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2) (remove)
Keywords
- evaluation (2) (remove)
Institute
Already successfully used products or designs, past projects or our own experiences can be the basis for the development of new products. As reference products or existing knowledge, it is reused in the development process and across generations of products. Since further, products are developed in cooperation, the development of new product generations is characterized by knowledge-intensive processes in which information and knowledge are exchanged between different kinds of knowledge carriers. The particular knowledge transfer here describes the identification of knowledge, its transmission from the knowledge carrier to the knowledge receiver, and its application by the knowledge receiver, which includes embodied knowledge of physical products. Initial empirical findings of the quantitative effects regarding the speed of knowledge transfers already have been examined. However, the factors influencing the quality of knowledge transfer to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of knowledge transfer in product development have not yet been examined empirically. Therefore, this paper prepares an experimental setting for the empirical investigation of the quality of knowledge transfers.
Process-based integrated assessment models (IAMs) project long-term transformation pathways in energy and land-use systems under what-if assumptions. IAM evaluation is necessary to improve the models’ usefulness as scientific tools applicable in the complex and contested domain of climate change mitigation. We contribute the first comprehensive synthesis of process-based IAM evaluation research, drawing on a wide range of examples across six different evaluation methods including historical simulations, stylised facts, and model diagnostics. For each evaluation method, we identify progress and milestones to date, and draw out lessons learnt as well as challenges remaining. We find that each evaluation method has distinctive strengths, as well as constraints on its application. We use these insights to propose a systematic evaluation framework combining multiple methods to establish the appropriateness, interpretability, credibility, and relevance of process-based IAMs as useful scientific tools for informing climate policy. We also set out a programme of evaluation research to be mainstreamed both within and outside the IAM community.