- i -
Modelling of Success of Rural Electrification
through Solar Home Systems in Developing Countries
Hans-Gerhard Holtorf,
This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,
Murdoch University,
School of Engineering and Information Technology
Western Australia
2016
- ii -
Declaration
I state and declare that this thesis was prepared by me and that no means or sources have been
used, except those, which I have cited and listed in the references section. The thesis is in compliance
with the rules of good practice in scientific research of Murdoch University, Western Australia.
Oldenburg, 30.07.2016,
Hans-Gerhard Holtorf
- iii -
Abstract Approximately 20 % of the world’s population does not have access to electricity, thereby impeding a
rise in their living standard. In the Sunbelt, Solar Home Systems (SHS) can supply the electricity
demand required for some basic electricity services reliably and economically, where other options
of electrification are failing. This research addresses the question how the success of Solar Home
System (SHS) implementation can be measured by proposing a model of success. An interdisciplinary
literature review was used to develop a preliminary model of success. Surveys of stakeholders
involved in the implementation and use of Solar Home Systems were used to provide feedback and
information on the various components of this model. Semi-structured as well as narrative
interviews, participatory observation, and self-observation processes were used in these surveys,
depending on the interviewee. The model developed involves key-stakeholders and their self-set
goals, combined with the importance, and level of achievement, of these self-set goals. These
components are combined to produce an overall measure of the success of a SHS implementation.
Success factors are also used within the model to provide insight into the results obtained. The main
stakeholder groups, and an example of their self-set goals (in parentheses) are the International
Supply Chain (profit), the National Supply Chain (profit), Donors (social benefit) and Users (provision
of energy services). While many aspects of the model can be relatively easily quantified, the
measurement of the level of achievement of self-set goals was found to be a major challenge in the
application of the model of success. One of the advantages of this model is that, as well as
calculating the success of an overall SHS implementation, the success for each individual stakeholder
can also be determined. The research highlights the complexity of measuring success of Solar Home
Systems. However, this model is believed to be a better indicator of the success of a SHS
implementation than the simple metric of the number of installed systems which is often currently
used.
- iv -
Acknowledgements The achievement of such a self-set goal as a PhD research project is impossible without a selected set
of involved stakeholders, success factors and the linkage of all these elements. In this sense, I would
like to thank the key-stakeholders as they have all contributed to this work with various success
factors as listed below; however, in the following, I wish to highlight the major success factor of each
stakeholder:
The members of the board of supervisors at Murdoch University, in alphabetical order, Dr. Martina
Calais, Dr. Trevor Pryor and Dr. Tania Urmee have contributed with their support and their interest in
this topic, which, at the very beginning, was difficult to grasp. In various parts and in different ways
they made this project work.
Prof. Niko Paech at University of Oldenburg has contributed with additional, different view angles to
this topic.
The participants in this research have contributed with their willingness to share their endless
knowledge and experience on Solar Home Systems.
Jacqueline McLeod and Anja Reckard deserve recognition for the accomplishment of background
tasks such as the revision of my English and the transcription of my audio recordings of the
interviews.
The relevant persons at my employer, the University of Oldenburg, have contributed by allowing
time to concentrate on this project during the past six years. Prof. Parisi, my students and the team
members of the Postgraduate Programme Renewable Energy need to be mentioned here.
Financial support is indispensable for such a project. The School of Engineering and Information
Technology at Murdoch University, and the International Relations Office at University of Oldenburg
have contributed with scholarships. The Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg in Delmenhorst, Germany, has
enabled long periods of face to face contact with my supervisors through fellowships for Martina
Calais and Tania Urmee.
The Human Research Ethics Committee at Murdoch University has provided the formal safeguard for
this project.
My dear wife, Aenne, has supported me with endless patience and moral support.
THANK YOU!!!
- v -
Dedication
For Keron (4), Nakalema (13), Thobisile (14) and Yiyabonga (16)1
1 These are four of the children living in the families where I resided during my field studies in
Uganda and South Africa. For me, they represent all the children whose development of their full,
remarkable potential would benefit of just the slightest improvement in the accessibility of energy
services or the electrification in general.
- vi -
Acronyms The following table summarizes the acronyms used in this thesis.
Abbreviation Explanation, Comment, Reference
ADB Asian Development
Bank
http://www.adb.org/
(last visited 01.02.2016)
ADF African Development
Forum
AusAID Australian Agency for
International
Development
http://aid.dfat.gov.au/Pages/home.aspx
(last visited 01.02.2016)
BCC Battery Charge
Controller
BUET Bangladesh University
of Engineering,
Dhaka, Bangladesh
http://www.buet.ac.bd/
(last visited 01.02.2016)
CFF Critical Failure Factor
CFL Compact Fluorescent
Lamp
CSB Critical Success
Barrier
CSF Critical Success Factor (Bullen & Rockart, 1981)
DoE Department of
Energy
ECOWAS Economic Community
of West African
States
http://www.ecowas.int/
(last visited 1.2.2016)
ECREE Centre for Renewable
Energy and Energy
Efficiency
www.ecreee.org/
(last visited 01.02.2016)
Acronyms to be continued
- vii -
Acronyms ctd.
Abbreviation Explanation, Comment, Reference
ERT Energy for Rural
Transformation
ENF ENergy Focus http://de.enfsolar.com/
(last visited 01.02.2016)
ESCO Energy Service
Company
ESKOM Electricity Service
Commission
Utility generating approximately 95 % of the
electricity used in South Africa.
http://www.eskom.co.za/OurCompany
/CompanyInformation/Pages/
Company_Information.aspx
(last visited 01.02.2016)
FFS Fee for Service Dissemination and financing mode for SHSs
(Becker, 2014)
GIZ Gesellschaft für
Internationale
Zusammenarbeit
http://www.giz.de/
(last visited 01.02.2016)
GPOBA Global Partnership on
Output-Based Aid
http://www.gpoba.org/
(last visited 01.02.2016)
HDI Human Development
Index
HREC Human Research
Ethics Committee
IDB Inter-American
Development Bank
http://www.iadb.org/en/inter-american-
development-bank,2837.html
(last visited 01.02.2016)
IDCOL Infrastructure
Development
Company Limited
http://www.idcol.org/
(last visited 01.02.2016)
ISSG Importance of self-set
goal
Acronyms to be continued
- viii -
Acronyms ctd.
Abbreviation Explanation, Comment, Reference
JPOI Johannesburg Plan of
Implementation
World Summit on Sustainable Development
held in 2002
KFW Kreditanstalt für
Wiederaufbau
https://www.kfw.de/kfw.de.html
(last visited 01.02.2016)
LED Light Emitting Diode. Very efficient source of illumination.
LOASSG Level of Achievement
of a self-set goal
NEPAD New Partnership for
Africa’s Development
NGO Nongovernmental
Organization
NI Narrative Interview (Mayring, 2002)
NuRa Energy Nuon Raps Utility www.nura-energy.co.za
(last visited 01.02.2016)
OBA Output Based
Aid/Financing
OPDV Organizational
Performance as a
Dependent Variable
(James G. March & Robert I. Sutton, 1997)
PAYG Pay as You Go Dissemination and financing mode for SHSs
(Becker, 2014)
PLoASSG Potential level of
achievement of a self-
set goal.
PCI Problem Centred
Interview
PIMS Profit Impact of
Market Strategies
Refer to (Buzzell & Gale, 1989)
PO Participant
Observation
Acronyms to be continued
- ix -
Acronyms ctd.
Abbreviation Explanation, Comment, Reference
PO Partner Organisation Within Bangladesh’s SHS dissemination
programme.
Pos. Position Predominantly used in tables to identify lines
and to refer to their contents.
PPRE Postgraduate
Programme
Renewable Energy
www.ppre.de
(last visited 01.02.2016)
REA Rural Electrification
Agency
http://www.rea.or.ug/
(last visited 01.02.2016)
REN21 Renewable Energy
Policy Network for
the 21st Century
http://www.ren21.net/
(last visited 01.02.2016)
RES Renewable Energy
System
RESCO Renewable Energy
Service Company
See Glossary for definitions.
ROI Return on Investment
ROS Return on Sales
RTO Rent to Own Dissemination and financing mode for SHSs
(Becker, 2014)
SEP Sonderenergie
Programm (special
energy programme –
tbtr)
(Wissing & Corvinus, 1989)
SHS Solar Home System SHS in this research are systems based on a
PV generator of 50 Wp to 150 Wp supplying in
the range of 100 Wh/d to 300 Wh/d –
depending on the level of solar radiation.
SPI Strategic Planning
Institute
http://pimsonline.com/index.htm
(last visited 01.02.2016)
Acronyms to be continued
- x -
Acronyms ctd.
Abbreviation Explanation, Comment, Reference
STC Standard Test
Conditions
1000 W/m² solar radiation, 25 °C cell
temperature, spectrum of Air Mass 1.5
SWOT Strengths,
Weaknesses,
Opportunities,
Threads
http://www.businessdictionary.com/
definition/SWOT-analysis.html. (last visited
01.02.2016) An analysis of a situation in
which the strengths, the weaknesses, the
opportunities and the threads of an
enterprise are investigated.
tel. telephone
tbtr translated by the
researcher
Some interviews were held in German
language. The parts of these interviews
needed for reference were translated by the
researcher.
WSSG Weight of Self-Set
Goals
WB World Bank http://www.worldbank.org/
(last visited 01.02.2016)
UNEP United Nations
Development
Program
UPPPRE Uganda Photovoltaic
Pilot Project for Rural
Electrification
USAID United States for
International
Development
http://www.usaid.gov/
(last visited 01.02.2016)
Acronyms End
- xi -
Glossary The table lists and defines the terms used in this thesis.
Term Definition
Author The person who authored this text and researched this topic.
author is used when the person mainly edited text while
researcher is used when the person mainly did research.
Cash Sales
Model
Dissemination model for SHSs. See “dealer model”.
Consultant // A person who gives professional or expert advice \\ Source:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consultant (Retrieved
01.02.2016) Within this thesis consultants are experts on SHSs
consulting stakeholders seeking to implement SHSs in the most
general case. Consultants have a broad range of experience on the
topic of SHSs.
Dissemination // The act of spreading something, especially information, widely;
circulation: \\. Source:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/
dissemination (Retrieved 01.02.2016)
Dealer Model A dissemination method for SHSs. A dealer sells and possibly
installs a SHS. The User pays cash for the entire system. From the
moment of the purchase / installation onwards the User is the
owner of the system. All responsibilities and obligations are Users
borne. In some literature the dealer model is called Cash Sales
model.
Dealers Are (SHS) component dealers with a larger radius of operation.
Dealers may be national or international operating. National
operating dealers are located in major cities and from there they
may supply entrepreneurs. Local dealers operate in their vicinity.
Glossary to be continued
- xii -
Glossary ctd.
Term Definition
Desktop Survey Desktop survey relates to research with participants at a desk, i.e.
interviews with institutional stakeholders.
Donor // A person or group that gives something (such as money, food,
or clothes) in order to help a person or organization \\ Source:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/donor (Retrieved
01.02.2016). In this thesis donors supply information, consultancy,
equipment or money in order to implement SHSs.
Electricity
Service
Services which are supplied by electricity, such as light,
communication, etc. Some services can only be supplied by
electricity (e.g. radio transmission of information) while others can
be supplied by alternatives (e.g. light can be supplied by kerosene
lamps).
Endogenous
success factors /
success barriers
Success factors / success barriers stemming from a stakeholder.
Energy Service Most general services supplied by energy, e.g. the energy service
of a warm room / cool room is supplied by thermal energy.
Entrepreneur Local dealers and installers, sometimes entrepreneurs make a
business with the help of SHSs such as mobile charging,
illumination of shops etc.
Exogenous
success factors /
success barriers
Success factors / success barriers outside the sphere of the
influence of the stakeholder.
Fee for Service
Model
In the Fee for Service model a renewable energy service company
(RESCO) supplies a SHS (or any other renewable energy based
energy supply system). This supply is based on tariffs borne by the
User. These tariffs are fixed in advance and based on the allowed
number of appliances as stated and partially even pre-installed by
the RESCO and which may not be altered.
Glossary to be continued
- xiii -
Glossary ctd.
Term Definition
Field Research Research done with participants in their proximity or close to their
proximity (by telephone calling at their office, face to face in their
office, at their homestead).
Field Study Field studies relate to research with participants in the field, i.e.
Users of SHSs.
Forwarding
Agent
Any type of company dealing with transportation of goods and
persons. This can be international operating companies applying
ships, aircrafts, railway, and trucks as well as individual
entrepreneurs operating a bicycle taxi.
Gatekeeper In the most general sense Gatekeepers are persons who allow
access to a certain setting. Gatekeepers are not necessarily formal
Gatekeepers. They may be respected persons in a certain society.
In this research Gatekeepers were the persons who accompanied
the researcher in order to establish contact to interviewees, to
develop an open minded, trustful atmosphere (access to the
setting). They geographically navigated the researcher, translated
for the researcher and the interviewee and they consulted e.g. in
cultural issues. As far as possible they gave background
information. Two Gatekeepers were involved in the research. One
in Ndejje and one in Ndumo.
Host In participatory observation the head of the family which would
accommodate the researcher. The Host would consult the
researcher on local details, make contact to persons of interest
and supply necessary infrastructure to the researcher.
Glossary to be continued
- xiv -
Glossary ctd.
Term Definition
Implementation // The process of putting a decision or plan into effect;
execution: \\
Source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/
implementation (Retrieved 01.02.2016).
Implementation is the most general term for bringing SHSs to the
ground. In this research the success of parties involved in bringing
SHSs to the ground is investigated. Therefore the term SHS’s
implementation is used.
International
Supply Chain
Actors which assure the supply of SHS components on an
international level. This includes component manufacturers and
system integrators.
Interviewee A person who was interviewed by the researcher.
Interviewer The person who conducts the interview – in this study the
researcher.
Local Dealer A person or an institution dealing with SHSs, their components and
their appliances. Local dealers sell systems to individuals. They
may be shop based or they may deal on local markets. The typical
radius of operation of a local dealer is the outreach of public
transport, motorcycle or bicycle.
Local
Entrepreneurs
Both, local dealers and local installers of SHSs. Their radius of
operation depends on the availability of public transport. Usually
they do not own a car.
Local Installer A person or an institution which installs SHSs. The typical radius of
operation of a local installer is the outreach of public transport,
motorcycle or bicycle.
Manufacturer Manufactures components of Solar Home System as well as
appliances operated by the electricity of SHSs.
Glossary to be continued
- xv -
Glossary ctd.
Term Definition
National Supply
Chain
Actors which assure the supply of SHS components on a national
level. This includes component manufacturers and system
implementers.
Non-Users Non-Users are rural inhabitants who are not grid connected and
who do not have a SHS. Their electricity supply is limited to
batteries which supply marginal amounts of electricity.
Participant Participant is the most general expression for persons who
contribute to the research by giving information or by supporting
the researcher. This may be in terms of giving an interview
(interviewees) or by supplying infrastructure (Umbrella Persons,
Hosts) to the researcher.
Project // An individual or collaborative enterprise that is carefully
planned to achieve a particular aim: \\
Source:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/project
(Retrieved 01.02.2016).
A SHS project is a planned approach to the implementation of
SHSs. Governments or donors execute SHS projects. Therefore,
this term is only used in the context of planned implementation of
SHSs.
Programme // A planned series of future events or performances. \\ Source:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/
programme?q=Programme (Retrieved 01.02.2016).
A SHS programme is a planned approach to the implementation of
SHSs. Governments or donors execute SHS programmes.
Therefore, this term is only used in the context of planned
implementation of SHSs.
Renewable
Energy Service
Company
(RESCO)
A renewable energy service company supplies energy and energy
services to clients (e.g. Users) by renewable energy sources.
Further details are found in “Fee for Service Model”.
Glossary to be continued
- xvi -
Glossary ctd.
Term Definition
Researcher The person who did this research, the author. Researcher is used
when the person mainly did research while author is used when
the person mainly edited text.
Respondent Persons who gave information to the researcher. E.g. interviews or
personal communiqués.
System
Implementers
System implementers are national players implementing systems
in national project regions. They design systems from
manufacturers’ components to supply a certain amount of
electricity or electricity service in a certain region. They assure the
transportation of systems to the project site and the installation
and maintenance at site.
Note: there is a thin line between system integrators and system
implementers. System implementers operate on a national level.
System
Integrator
International operating companies. They design systems from
manufacturers’ components to supply a certain amount of
electricity or electricity service in a certain region – “Plug and Play”
systems. These systems are shipped to the country of
implementation by system integrators.
Note: there is a thin line between system integrators and system
implementers. System integrators operate on an international
level.
System Supplier National operating agent for SHSs
Glossary to be continued
- xvii -
Glossary ctd.
Term Definition
Translator The person who translated between the respondent and the
researcher. The translator would also guide and accompany the
researcher to sites supplied by SHSs.
Umbrella Person A close confidante who can handle all issues in a region, make
contacts, consult on any issues arising during a field study. It is
important that this person is available by modern communication
methods from the home of the researcher. This person’s reliability
was essential to the researcher for emergency cases.
The Umbrella Responsible would be the first contact person in
case of complaints as demanded by HREC of Murdoch University
The figure indicates the terminology used for the different parts of the Model of Success.
Glossary End.
- xviii -
Proper Nouns The table lists the proper nouns used in this thesis.
Proper Noun Comment
Cash Sales (IEA, 2003c)
Credit Sales (IEA, 2003c)
Critical Success Factor (Bullen & Rockart, 1981)
Dealer Credit (IEA, 2003c)
Fee for Service (IEA, 2003c)
Fee for Service Company
Gatekeeper A Gatekeeper is a person who would enable access to
the site under investigation. A Gatekeeper can be a
person with formal status giving access or an informally
accepted authority in the area of the field survey -
(Bailey, 1996). The Gatekeeper would help the
researcher to navigate in all respects of culture,
language and geography. This included the dress code
and the code of behaviour.
Hire Purchase (IEA, 2003c)
Host The person and his family where the researcher resided
and who enabled participatory observation.
Leasing (IEA, 2003c)
Ministry of Energy
Model of Success for SHSs
Pico PV System, Pico SHS PV systems based on a PV generator of less than 20 Wp
nominal power.
Rent to Own (Becker, 2014)
Proper Nouns to be continued
- xix -
Proper Nouns ctd.
Proper Noun Comment
Solar Home System SHS in this research are systems based on a PV
generator of 50 Wp to 150 Wp supplying in the range of
100 Wh/d to 300 Wh/d – depending on the level of solar
radiation.
Umbrella Person A person who was interested in the research, who was
willing to support the research, who had contact to
research regions suiting the research and who was in
the proximity of the research’s subject. It was important
that this person was available by modern
communication methods from the home of the
researcher (and from the field) and the reliability of this
person was essential.
User Any person or family making use of a SHS.
Proper Nouns End.
- xx -
List of Publications Holtorf, H., Pryor, T., Urmee, T., & Calais, M. (2011). Appraisal of Success of Solar Home Systems.
Paper presented at the Small PV-Applications, Rural Electrification and Commercial Use, D-Ulm.
Holtorf, H., Calais, M., Pryor, T., & Urmee, T. (2011). Solar Home System's Success Analysis. Paper
presented at the Solar World Congress 2011, D-Kassel.
Holtorf, H., Calais, M., Pryor, T., & Urmee, T. (2012). An Approach to Solar Home System’s Success
Paper presented at the 2nd International conference on the Developments in Renewable Energy
Technology (ICDRET 2012), BD-Dhaka. IEEE Xplore digital library.
Holtorf, H., Urmee, T., Calais, M., & Pryor, T. (2015). A model to evaluate the success of Solar Home
Systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 50, 245-255.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.015
H. Holtorf, T. Urmee, M. Calais, and T. Pryor, "Incorporating the User Perspective into a Proposed
Model for Assessing Success of SHS Implementations," AIMS's journal, published 27.10.2015.
H. Holtorf, T. Urmee, M. Calais, and T. Pryor, "Incorporating the Institutions’ Perspective into a
Proposed Model for Assessing Success of Solar Home System Implementations," Paper presented at
the 4th International Conference on the Development of Renewable Energy Technology (ICDRET
2016), BD-Dhaka. Published on IEEE Xplore digital library. Awarded third best paper of the
conference.
Holtorf, H., Urmee, T., & Calais, M. (2016). “Modelling and analysing the success of Solar Home
Systems”. Paper accepted and to be presented on 23.09.2016 at the Solar Technologies & Hybrid
Mini Grids to improve energy access, Bad Hersfeld, Germany.
- xxi -
Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. iv
Dedication ................................................................................................................................................ v
Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................. vi
Glossary ................................................................................................................................................... xi
Proper Nouns....................................................................................................................................... xviii
List of Publications .................................................................................................................................. xx
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. xxi
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... xxvi
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ xxix
List of Equations ................................................................................................................................... xxx
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Rationale of the Research ....................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Research Question and Research Objective............................................................................ 6
1.4 Research Boundary .................................................................................................................. 6
1.5 Structure of the Thesis ............................................................................................................ 7
1.6 Conventions ............................................................................................................................. 9
2. Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Electrification and Solar Home System Projects in the World .............................................. 11
2.1.1 Electricity in the World .................................................................................................. 11
2.1.2 Challenges of Electrification in Rural Areas ................................................................... 14
2.2 Solar Home System Technology ............................................................................................ 16
2.2.1 Electricity supplied by a Solar Home System ................................................................ 18
2.2.2 User’s deployment of SHS’s Electricity .......................................................................... 20
2.2.3 Challenges for the User ................................................................................................. 20
- xxii -
2.3 Lessons Learned from Past Solar Electrification Programmes .............................................. 21
2.3.1 Lessons from World Bank Projects ................................................................................ 22
2.3.2 Observations in Asia ...................................................................................................... 23
2.3.3 Observations in South America ..................................................................................... 24
2.3.4 Financing of Solar Home Systems ................................................................................. 24
2.3.5 Researcher’s Initial SHS Experience............................................................................... 26
2.3.6 Encouraging Points of View ........................................................................................... 27
2.3.7 Challenges to Overcome ............................................................................................... 30
2.4 Status of Solar Home Systems on the African Continent ...................................................... 31
2.4.1 The Status of Rural Electrification in Africa ................................................................... 31
2.4.2 Options for Rural Electrification in Africa ...................................................................... 32
2.4.3 SHSs’ Development in Africa ......................................................................................... 32
2.4.4 Dissemination and Financing of Solar Home Systems in Africa .................................... 33
2.4.5 Lessons Learned from Fee for Service Companies ........................................................ 33
2.5 General Success Research ..................................................................................................... 36
2.5.1 Central Questions and Statements on the Success of Enterprises ............................... 37
2.5.2 Lessons learned from the Profit Impact of Market Strategies Project .......................... 37
2.5.3 Critical Success Factors .................................................................................................. 38
2.5.4 Goals and Success .......................................................................................................... 40
2.5.5 Measurement of Success............................................................................................... 40
2.5.6 Critical Views on Success Factor Research .................................................................... 41
2.6 Diffusion of Innovation and of SHS Technology in Particular ................................................ 43
2.6.1 Main Elements of Diffusion of Innovation .................................................................... 44
2.6.2 Innovation...................................................................................................................... 45
2.6.3 Communication ............................................................................................................. 46
2.6.4 Time ............................................................................................................................... 48
2.6.5 Members of the Social System ...................................................................................... 51
2.6.6 Consequences of Diffusion of Innovation ..................................................................... 52
- xxiii -
2.7 Summary................................................................................................................................ 52
3. Methodologies .............................................................................................................................. 58
3.1 Preface ................................................................................................................................... 58
3.2 Research Methodology ......................................................................................................... 60
3.3 Sample Size ............................................................................................................................ 64
3.4 Data Collection Methodology................................................................................................ 64
3.4.1 Face to Face Interviews ................................................................................................. 65
3.4.2 Site Visits (SV) ................................................................................................................ 72
3.4.3 Participatory Observation (PO) ..................................................................................... 73
3.4.4 Self-Observation ............................................................................................................ 79
3.4.5 Summary Data Collection Methodology ....................................................................... 80
3.5 Ethics Approval and Local Permissions ................................................................................. 81
3.5.1 Murdoch University Human Research Ethics Committee ............................................. 82
3.5.2 Ugandan Permissions .................................................................................................... 82
3.5.3 South African Permissions ............................................................................................. 82
3.6 Data Retrieval Process ........................................................................................................... 83
3.6.1 Institutional Interview Partners .................................................................................... 83
3.6.2 Field Study Area and SHS Users ..................................................................................... 86
3.7 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 92
3.7.1 Data Preparation ........................................................................................................... 92
3.7.2 Data Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 94
3.8 Summary of Chapter 3 ........................................................................................................... 96
4. Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems .............................................................. 98
4.1 Overview and Authors’ Contributions ................................................................................... 98
4.2 Paper I - A Model to evaluate the Success of Solar Home Systems ...................................... 99
5. Paper II - The Institutions’ Views ................................................................................................. 132
5.1 Overview and Authors’ Contributions ................................................................................. 132
5.2 Paper II - Incorporating the Institutions’ Perspective into a Proposed Model for Assessing
Success of Solar Home System Implementations ........................................................................... 133
- xxiv -
6. Paper III - The Users’ Views ......................................................................................................... 142
6.1 Overview and Author Contribution ..................................................................................... 142
6.2 Paper III - Incorporating the User Perspective into a Proposed Model for Assessing Success
of SHS Implementations .................................................................................................................. 143
7. Discussion and Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 166
7.1 Answering the Research Question ...................................................................................... 166
7.2 Development of a Model of Success ................................................................................... 167
7.3 The Model of Success .......................................................................................................... 169
7.3.1 The Users in the Model of Success .............................................................................. 172
7.3.2 The National Supply Chain in the Model of Success ................................................... 173
7.3.3 The International Supply Chain in the Model of Success ............................................ 173
7.4 A Selection of Specific Lessons Learned .............................................................................. 174
7.5 Limitations of the Study ...................................................................................................... 178
7.6 Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................. 178
7.7 Concluding Remark .............................................................................................................. 179
8. References ................................................................................................................................... 181
9. Appendix ...................................................................................................................................... 191
9.1 Participants .......................................................................................................................... 191
9.2 Guideline Problem Centred Interview ................................................................................. 192
9.3 Results: Stakeholders in SHS environment.......................................................................... 195
9.4 Results: Institution’s Self-Set Goals ..................................................................................... 196
9.5 Results: Institution’s Success Factors .................................................................................. 197
9.6 Guideline User Interview ..................................................................................................... 203
9.7 Guideline Site Visit (SV) ....................................................................................................... 204
9.8 Guideline Participatory Observation (PO) ........................................................................... 206
9.9 Results: Information retrieved from interaction with Users ............................................... 208
9.10 Guideline Self-Observation (SO) .......................................................................................... 211
9.11 Results Self-Observation ..................................................................................................... 212
9.12 Conference Paper SOLAR HOME SYSTEM’S SUCCESS ANALYSIS ......................................... 216
- xxv -
- xxvi -
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: The earth at night. Source: (Picasa, 2014). ........................................................................... 1
Figure 2-1: Generation of electricity and number of inhabitants normalized to the world's total in
different regions of the world. Derived from data given in (IEA, 2013). .............................................. 12
Figure 2-2: Setup of a SHS. Switch ①: overcharge protection. Switch ②: deep discharge protection.
Source: Author’s diagram. ..................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2-3: Discharge and charge of a battery in a SHS. Source: Author’s diagram. ............................ 21
Figure 2-4: Lessons learned from World Bank SHS projects. Figure extracted by the author from
(Terrado, Cabraal, & Mukherjee, 2008) and (Anil Cabraal, 2012). ........................................................ 22
Figure 2-5: Success barriers for SHS dissemination. Figure developed by the author from (Sovacool et
al., 2011b; T. Urmee et al., 2009c; Wamukonya, 2007). ....................................................................... 30
Figure 2-6: Solar Home System implementation in Africa. Figure developed by the author from
(Gothard, 2002) and (Lemaire, 2011). ................................................................................................... 34
Figure 2-7: Dimensions of the Solar Home System's Critical Success Factors. Developed by the author
based on Bullen and Rockart (Bullen & Rockart, 1981). ....................................................................... 39
Figure 2-8: The linkage between stakeholders, goals and success. Source: Author’s diagram. ........... 40
Figure 2-9: Measurement of success: Quantitative and qualitative indicators exist. Furthermore, the
number of measured variables needs consideration to level between lucidity and loss of informative
content. Source: Author’s diagram. ...................................................................................................... 41
Figure 2-10: The measurement of success may be biased on multiple levels. Source: Author’s
diagram. ................................................................................................................................................. 43
Figure 2-11: Four elements and the consequences of diffusion of innovations (shaded) and their
characterization (unshaded). Derived by the author from Rogers (2003, section “Elements of
Diffusion”). ............................................................................................................................................ 45
Figure 2-12: The process of an innovation's diffusion in time dimensions. Derived from (E. M. Rogers,
2003) by the author. .............................................................................................................................. 48
Figure 2-13: Main Graph: SHS installations in Bangladesh since 1997. Sub graph: Cumulated and
forecasted SHSs in BD assuming the logistic function (S-shape). Data source: (Chowdhury, 2014 b). 50
Figure 2-14: Summary of the sections 2.1 and 2.3. Source: Author’s diagram. .................................... 53
Figure 2-15: Summary of the section 2.4 Status of Solar Home Systems on the African Continent.
Author’s diagram, data from (WEO, 2014). .......................................................................................... 54
Figure 2-16: Summary section 2.2 Solar Home System Technology. Source: Author’s diagram. ......... 55
Figure 2-17: Summary of the section 2.5 General Success Research. Source: Author’s diagram. ........ 56
- xxvii -
Figure 3-1: Framework of the research "Success factors of rural electrification through Solar Home
Systems in developing countries using African case studies". Source: Author’s diagram. ................... 59
Figure 3-2: Research design for "Success of Solar Home Systems" based on (Atteslander, 2008),
modified by the author. The arrows on the right side of the figure indicate the choices taken for this
research. ................................................................................................................................................ 61
Figure 3-3: General navigation across a qualitative research based on Mayring (2002) and Sewell
(2014) (Mayring, 2002; Sewell, 2014). The arrows show specifically the navigation within this
research. Graph developed by the author. ........................................................................................... 62
Figure 3-4: Course of a problem centred interview and Interview Instruction Sheet outlining the
course of a problem centred interview. This sheet was applied in interviews with representatives of
institutions dealing with SHSs. Source: Author’s diagram. ................................................................... 68
Figure 3-5: Flowchart for the research’s narrative interviews based on Mayring (2002, chapter 4) and
Bailey (1996, chapter 3), modified for this study by the author. .......................................................... 69
Figure 3-6: Flowchart for the participatory observation of the study of success of Solar Home Systems.
Source: Author’s diagram. ....................................................................................................................... 75
Figure 3-7: Components of Self-Observation used in this research. Source: Author’s diagram. .......... 80
Figure 3-8: Summary Data Collection Methodology consisting of three data collection guidelines.
Source: Author’s diagram. ..................................................................................................................... 81
Figure 3-9: Flowchart of the data analysis based on Mayring (2002) and modified by the author. In
this modification the data analysis is embedded within the entire research. ...................................... 95
Figure 3-10: Summary of the Chapter 3 Methodologies. Source: Author’s diagram. ........................... 97
Figure 7-1: The resulting Model of Success for SHSs. Source: Author’s diagram. .............................. 169
Figure 9-1: Guideline PCI Sheet 1 – Title Page. Author’s diagram. ..................................................... 192
Figure 9-2: Guideline PCI Sheet 2 – Research Motivation. Author’s diagram. .................................... 192
Figure 9-3: Guideline PCI Sheet 3 – Introduction to the Research Methodology. Author’s diagram. 193
Figure 9-4: Guideline PCI Sheet 4 – Preliminary Model of Success. Author’s diagram. ...................... 193
Figure 9-5: Guideline PCI Sheet 5 – Interview Guiding Questions. Author’s diagram. ....................... 194
Figure 9-6: Guideline PCI Sheet 6 – Interview Tailored Framework. Author’s diagram. .................... 194
Figure 9-7: Key-Stakeholders in SHS environment listed by institutional participants. ...................... 195
Figure 9-8: Guideline User’s NI Sheet 1. Author’s diagram. ................................................................ 203
Figure 9-9: Guideline User’s NI Sheet 2. Author’s diagram. ................................................................ 203
Figure 9-10: Guideline SV Sheet 1. Author’s diagram. ........................................................................ 204
Figure 9-11: Guideline SV Sheet 2. Author’s diagram. ........................................................................ 204
Figure 9-12: Guideline SV Sheet 3. Author’s diagram. ........................................................................ 205
Figure 9-13: Guideline SV Sheet 4. Author’s diagram. ........................................................................ 205
- xxviii -
Figure 9-14: Guideline PO Sheet 1. Author’s diagram. ....................................................................... 206
Figure 9-15: Guideline PO Sheet 2. Author’s diagram. ....................................................................... 206
Figure 9-16: Guideline PO Sheet 3. Author’s diagram. ....................................................................... 207
Figure 9-17: Guideline SO Sheet 1. Author’s diagram. ........................................................................ 211
Figure 9-18: Guideline SO Sheet 2. Author’s diagram. ........................................................................ 211
- xxix -
List of Tables Table 1-1: Characteristics on electricity in low electrification countries. Adapted from (WEO, 2014). . 2
Table 2-1: Electrification rate, telephone subscribers, telephone subscribers per electrified capita,
and HDI rank in the twenty least electrified countries (lowest HDI) of the world (sorted by
electrification rate). Table derived from data given in (UNDP, 2013)................................................... 13
Table 2-2: Levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for different energy supply options. Derived from
(Anderson, 2012c) and (Anderson et al., 2012a). *1: grid extension transmission line $ 22,000/km, *2:
100 connections, each consuming 50 kWh/month, *3: distribution grid of 2 km, $ 18,000/km, *4:
diesel generator set: $ 13,200 (30 kVA) / $ 6,000 (7 kVA), *5: Transportation of diesel to the site:
Additionally 50 % of the diesel price. .................................................................................................... 15
Table 2-3: Characteristics of SHS components. ..................................................................................... 19
Table 2-4: Electrification in Africa. Data source: (WEO, 2014). ............................................................. 31
Table 3-1: Possible outcomes of qualitative research project: concepts, hypotheses, frameworks,
models or theories. A model and a framework are the anticipated outcomes of this research. ......... 61
Table 3-2: Institutions and their interviewed experts. .......................................................................... 86
Table 3-3: Summary of the Users' interviews. ...................................................................................... 92
Table 9-1: Respondents in this research. PCI = Problem Centred Interview, NI = Narrative Interview,
PO = Participatory Observation, SO = Self-Observation ..................................................................... 191
Table 9-2: Summary of institutions' self-set goals .............................................................................. 196
Table 9-3: Success factors listed by the participants of the International Supply Chain. ................... 197
Table 9-4: Success factors listed by the participants of the National Supply Chain. .......................... 199
Table 9-5: Success factors listed by the participants of the interviewed International Donors. ........ 201
Table 9-6: Success factors listed by the participants of the International Consultants group. 1=
Consultant A, 2= Consultant B. ............................................................................................................ 201
Table 9-7: Results from interaction with SHS Users in Uganda and South Africa. .............................. 208
Table 9-8: Energy services used by the researcher. ............................................................................ 212
Table 9-9: Importance of electricity services for the researcher found by self-observation. ............. 212
Table 9-10: Cost of replacement of CFL bulbs. Data source: User of a SHS in Ndumo, ZA. ................ 214
Table 9-11: Miscellaneous self-observations of the researcher. ........................................................ 215
- xxx -
List of Equations Equation 2-1: Overall efficiency of a SHS. ............................................................................................. 19
Equation 2-2: Logistic function (S-shape). ............................................................................................. 50
1 Introduction
- 1 -
1. Introduction Figure 1-1 summarizes and expresses the lessons learned from literature and the experience of the
author: large areas of the world and hence an unneglectable portion of earth’s population lack of
bright illumination which again is an indicator of the lack of electrification. This launched the
motivation to study a topic related to the electrification of these currently un-electrified areas.
Figure 1-1: The earth at night. Source: (Picasa, 2014).
The title of this thesis reveals that this research project deals with Solar Home Systems (SHS) for rural
electrification in developing countries, focusing on their success. This introduction gives some
background information on SHSs, describes the rationale of the research, and poses the research
question. The research boundaries, the structure of the thesis and conventions are introduced to
provide advice on how to read the thesis.
1.1 Background The benefits of access to electricity in general, and specifically in rural and remote areas in
developing countries, in terms of alleviating poverty, improving health and educational standards as
well as the quality of life, are now so undisputed that they no longer need to be listed. Electrification
is seen to constitute a major vehicle for achieving the Millennium Development Goals (United
Nations & ESCAP, 2009b).
The distribution of electricity access is uneven and in some cases not even available. This can be
explained by multiple challenges existing for supplying electricity to dispersed consumers. For
conventional approaches these are mainly the cost of transmission and distribution. Only 68 % of the
rural population in the world has access to electricity (WEO, 2014).
1 Introduction
- 2 -
The per capita consumption of electricity in developing countries varies enormously; within countries
and from country to country (Table 1-1). Over two-thirds of the world’s population that does not
have access to electricity are found in 12 countries, while 50 % of these people are found in South
and Southeast Asia and Africa. India hosts more than 4 % of the world’s population without access to
electricity, followed by Bangladesh with another 1,4 % (GNESD, 2004, 2006; WEO, 2014).
Table 1-1: Characteristics on electricity in low electrification countries. Adapted from (WEO, 2014).
Country
Per capita Electricity
Consumption (kWh/a)
Electrification rate
(%)
Population without access to electricity
% of the world Millions
Bangladesh 259 41.0 1.37 95.7 Cameroon 256 48.7 0.14 10.0 Cambodia 164 24.0 0.16 11.3 India 684 75.0 4.13 288.8 Indonesia 680 64.5 1.17 81.6 Ethiopia 51 17.0 0.98 68.7 Kenya 155 16.1 0.48 33.4 Mozambique 447 11.7 0.29 20.1 Nepal 103 43.6 0.24 16.5 Pakistan 449 62.4 0.91 63.8 Philippines 647 89.7 0.14 9.5 Sri Lanka 490 76.6 0.07 4.8 South Africa 4,606 75.0 0.18 12.3 Tanzania 92 13.9 0.54 37.7 Uganda
09.0 0.40 28.1
Zambia 599 18.8 0.15 10.5
Various options are available for providing these areas with access to electricity. The use of stand-
alone renewable energy systems (RESs) offers several advantages. RESs avoid the need to construct
costly power lines, reduce local air pollution, overcome the need to use diesel or petrol generators
and therefore they provide independence from external fuel supply, and provide resilience against
rising fuel prices. For these, and other common sense reasons the use of RESs and stand-alone Solar
Home Systems (SHSs) in particular, has come to represent a sustainable and economic approach for
the implementation of rural electrification programmes.
Access to electricity is a common national policy objective of the majority of governments in the
developing countries, including the improved access to electricity for rural and remote dwellers.
Many governments have also made a commitment to increase the reliance on renewable energy
1 Introduction
- 3 -
(Martinot, Chaurey, Lew, Moreira, & Wamukonya, 2002). These policies have led to rural
electrification programmes using diverse renewable energy sources. These policies are required to
support the development of a range of renewable energy technologies. Globally, over 310,000 Solar
Home Systems were installed in 2012 (120,000 in China; 90,000 in Thailand, Cambodia & Myanmar;
>20,000 in India & Sri-Lanka; and 60,000 in Bangladesh; further smaller numbers added in other
countries), taking the world’s total number of systems installed at the time to around 3.6 million
(Bank, 2012; Grameen Shakti, 2012; Sovacool & Drupady, 2012; World Bank, 2013c).
The current penetration of grid electricity in Asia and Pacific is about 81 %, where South Asia
accounts for 68.1 % only (WEO, 2014). Of the total population un-electrified, most of the people
reside on islands, in forests, and very remote parts where grid extension is not feasible. In most of
these countries, the electrification rates were calculated based on the number of villages with some
kind of access to the national grid rather than on the number of houses connected in the village. For
example, official figures indicate that in Bangladesh the electrification rate is 41 % but the rural
household connection level is only 28 % (Palit & Chaurey, 2011). South Asia has a lower electrification
rate (68.1 %) than South East Asia (90.8 %).
Africa is the continent which has the least electrification access in the world with a high contrast
between North and Sub-Saharan regions. Overall the electrification rate in Africa is 41.8 %: in North
Africa it is 99% while in Sub-Saharan Africa it is 30.1% (IEA, 2011). This shows that most of the un-
electrified areas are concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa. Nineteen countries have less than 25 %
electrification (OECD & IEA, 2014).
Three examples from Sub-Saharan Africa, representing countries with <25 % (South Africa), 25 % -
49 % (Ghana), and >75 % (Uganda) share of population without access to electricity, are briefly
described in the following paragraphs.
In South Africa the electrification rate is in the range of 75 % and it relies mainly on grid connection.
However, in rural areas where grid extension is not cost effective, the Department of Energy (DoE)
gives concessions for the electrification of certain areas to private companies. These companies are
selected by open bidding, and are subsidised and quality controlled in their SHS electrification
activities. IEA reports that the progress is not satisfactory due to the lack of political will on one
hand, and implementation issues on the other hand, namely the non-payment of fees by users, SHSs
being perceived as a temporary solution or the perception that they supply inadequate electricity
(IEA & Niez, 2010).
Ghana’s national electrification rate was 72 % in 2012. However, only 52 % of the rural population
was grid connected at that time (WEO, 2014). The goal is to achieve universal access to electricity by
1 Introduction
- 4 -
2020. Off-grid solar PV is one of the options chosen for the achievement of this goal. This is
demonstrated by the increase of off-grid solar PV in Ghana from 0.3 MWp in 1987 to 3.8 MWp in 2013
(Adabre, 2014).
In Uganda the access to electrification in rural areas is very low (9 %) (WEO, 2014). The PV market in
Uganda took up its development in the early 1980s and by then it was driven mainly by government
and donor-funded programmes along with NGO projects. The focus was on lighting and on vaccine
refrigeration in health centres (GTZ, 2007). An estimated 3,000 PV systems were installed through
the private market across Uganda in 1999 (Eliah & Louineau, 1999), another 10,000 in 2004 (Mpagi,
2012), 20,000 in 2007 and 30,000 in 2012 (Hansen, Pedersen, & Nygaard, 2014).
The private market for SHS was stimulated by the Ugandan government through indirect measures,
for example, VAT exemption for the imported PV components, and by providing a direct subsidy of
5.5 USD/Wp up to a maximum system size of 50 Wp on solar equipment purchased by households as
well as 4 USD/Wp for systems below 500 Wp for businesses (Kyezira, Hankins, Saini, & Kirai, 2009). The
subsidy is provided by the World Bank’s Energy for Rural Transformation (ERT) programme and
implemented through the Rural Electrification Agency (REA) in Uganda during the period 2002-2013
(World Bank, 2015). Before this programme, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
funded the project called ‘Uganda Photovoltaic Pilot Project for Rural Electrification (UPPPRE)’
(United Nations Development Programme & Global Environment Facility, 1993). This project
established the market demand and, therefore, created the ground for a private solar market.
For over a decade, Solar Home Systems (SHSs) have been promoted by many as the ideal solution for
providing electricity to rural areas of developing countries. In these areas supplying electricity from
the grid is unpractical (Williams, 2005). Numerous rural solar electrification programmes have been
implemented to date. However, a rather low number of rural dwellers have been electrified by these
programmes. In addition, the number of programmes has not kept pace with the population growth
(IEA, 2011). In Asia and Pacific regions, the total number of PV systems installed in 2012 includes over
120,000 installations in China, more than 90,000 in Thailand, Cambodia and Myanmar; more than
20,000 added in India and Sri Lanka, and 60,000 in Bangladesh; also smaller numbers were added in
other countries (Geslain, 2014). Fan Zhang reports on World Bank projects in Africa, where in the
period between 1998 and 2008 approximately 168,000 households received basic electricity supplies
by solar systems including small systems2 (Zhang, 2014).
2 WB electrification by PV in African countries: Benin: 5000 SHSs / Burkina Faso: 2000 solar kits / Ethiopia: 6000 SHS / Ghana: 10000 SHSs for lighting / Guinea: 20000 solar electrified homes / Nigeria: 7000 solar electrified homes / Senegal: 20000 SHSs 20Wp + 50Wp / Tanzania: 15000 solar electrified homes / Togo: 5000 SHSs / Uganda: 25840 SHSs 50Wp / Zambia: 10000 solar electrified homes (Zhang, 2014)
1 Introduction
- 5 -
These rural electrification programmes based on RESs have also differed significantly in their design,
in their implementation characteristics and in their take up rates. Not all of the programmes
implemented in the addressed regions have been successful. It seems that the scarce resources
available for rural electrification are not used as effectively as they could be used.
1.2 Rationale of the Research Most of the published literature on the subject of renewable energy electrification programmes in
developing countries focuses on the identification of the factors influencing the uptake of RESs. This
has had an influence on implementers. Today, project designs often seek to address these identified
barriers.
The high upfront costs of the renewable energy systems and the relatively low income of those living
in these un-electrified areas are the two main barriers listed in the literature (GNESD, 2006;
Haanyika, 2006; Hatano, 2006; Martinot & Reiche, 2000). These two barriers impact on many other
fields in RESs’ implementation (Haanyika, 2006).
The relatively large body of literature existing on rural renewable electrification asks more or less the
same question, ‘why are some programmes more successful than others?’ Numerous issues are
involved and the individual implementation situations are complex and varying. To name just a few:
the cultural, social, economic, geographic and political circumstances all impact on the programmes’
implementations.
Much of the previous research dealing with these questions has not been based on a complete
understanding of these programmes. Furthermore, they have not assessed the benefits and the
problems associated with the programmes from the perspective of all participants and all
stakeholders involved (refer to the literature presented in sections 2.3 Lessons Learned from Past
Solar Electrification Programmes and 2.4 Status of Solar Home Systems on the African Continent). The
majority of programme failures may not be linked to technical or financial barriers, but to issues such
as:
• the programme’s design, development and administration;
• the government’s unfavourable policies related to renewable energy;
• the poor training and experience of the programme’s administrators; and
• the inadequacy of programme funding
(T. P. Urmee & D. Harries, 2011).
Information on the failure of RE programmes is often difficult to obtain. However, existing evidence
suggests that numerous SHS programmes have shown limited success (Martinot, 2003). The
1 Introduction
- 6 -
consequence of these failures is that the available scarce resources for rural electrification have been
spent with inefficient impact on the people in need.
This has a ‘knock-on’ effect. The future expansion of RES programmes is dependent on the
perception of their current effectiveness. Poor results will not catalyse fundraising for future
projects. Seeking pathways to greater programme success requires a better understanding of the
factors that contribute to success (or failure).
This raises the overarching research question, ‘Why some programmes are more successful than
others and how we can measure the successfulness of a programme?’
1.3 Research Question and Research Objective The main research question underpinned in this study is
How can success of SHSs be measured?
To address this question the following sub-questions are posed:
i. What are the components (for example, stakeholders, factors, influences, barriers) that need
to be considered when evaluating the success of SHS implementations?
ii. How are these components linked with each other?
iii. How should these components be quantified and combined to determine the overall success,
or otherwise, of a SHS implementation?
The research objective is to develop a Model of Success. This Model of Success can be applied to
compare the successfulness of different SHS implementations or to analyse a particular SHS
implementation and the successfulness achieved by the individual stakeholders involved.
The research therefore entails the development of a preliminary Model of Success which will then be
refined by feedback from stakeholders involved in SHS implementation.
1.4 Research Boundary A study needs to be manageable. Therefore it is important to determine the research boundary. The
study focus selected was rural renewable electrification implementation by SHSs undertaken in
Africa. The reason for selecting this region was the author’s familiarity with African SHS
implementations through investigating SHSs in different countries. The researcher’s professional
network is well developed in Africa. This simplified the task of making contact with rural areas of the
continent where SHSs are found predominantly. The author’s decades of experience working in this
region were instrumental in facilitating the study, especially the field survey components.
1 Introduction
- 7 -
From a technical point of view, Solar Home Systems with a nominal PV generator capacity of 50 Wp to
100 Wp were investigated. These are stand-alone systems incorporating battery storage to achieve
autonomy for 3 to 4 days. Typically, lead acid batteries are used for these systems. The actual energy
supplied depends on the available solar radiation, the PV generator rating and the battery capacity.
For this study, the focus is on SHSs that supply private Users’ households3.
Other means of rural basic electrification exist such as Pico Solar Home Systems (<10Wp) (Lysen,
2013) or mini grids (ESMAP, 2007; Hansen et al., 2014). SHSs have been selected as a starting point
for the research on holistic approaches to measuring success as those systems have been on the
market since decades and plenty of reports are available for those systems.
1.5 Structure of the Thesis The study is structured in the following way:
The preceding sections of this chapter have outlined the background and the importance of the
research, stated the aims and objectives of the present thesis, and set the research boundaries.
Chapter 2 presents the review of the literature necessary to develop this thesis. First, the status of
the world’s electrification and Solar Home Systems’ implementation in the world is assessed. Next,
the SHS technology and selected challenges for Users are described. Lessons learned from a selection
of past SHS programmes are depicted. The focus of the thesis is then set on the financing of SHSs, on
the current situation of SHSs and on the status of SHSs on the African continent. The processes
leading to success and the processes of the diffusion of innovation are two other fields which need to
be understood for this research project.
Chapter 3 is used to present the methodologies used in the study. At this stage, the research can only
be an explorative research using time intensive face to face interviews, site visits, participatory
observation and self-observation. These methodologies are described. Being an explorative research
project, the focus is set on the challenges of this type of research, namely the sample size, the formal
safeguarding against bias, the data retrieval process and the data analysis.
In total 2 conference papers, 2 peer reviewed conference papers and 2 journal papers have been
submitted throughout the process of this PhD project.
3 These kind of systems may also be used to supply small electricity demands at remote sites, e.g. for industrial or community facilities. Typical examples are the supply of meteorological data acquisition systems, parking ticket machines and many others.
1 Introduction
- 8 -
Chapter 4 deals with the 1st research paper published in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review
Journal titled as ‘A model to evaluate the success of Solar Home Systems’. The paper describes the
preliminary Model of Success (Holtorf, Urmee, Calais, & Pryor, 2015b).
The next chapter represents the 2nd paper submitted to the peer reviewed conference International
Conference on the Development of Renewable Energy Technology (ICDRET) in Dhaka, Bangladesh,
dated 07.01.2016 – 09.01.2016. The title of the paper is ‘Incorporating the Institutions’ Perspective
into a Proposed Model for Assessing Success of Solar Home System Implementations’. The
modifications of the preliminary Model of Success are described in this paper based on interviews
from institutions dealing with SHSs (Holtorf, Urmee, Calais, & Pryor, 2016). This paper has been
accepted on 19.11.2015. It was presented at ICDRET on 09.01.2016 and it was awarded to be the
third best paper of the conference. The publication in IEEE Xplore digital library will occur in the near
future.
Chapter 6 incorporates the last paper which was submitted to the American Institute of
Mathematical Sciences (AIMS) special issue Solar Energy for Remote Area Off-Grid Electrification. This
paper, ‘Incorporating the User Perspective into a Proposed Model for Assessing Success of SHS
Implementations’, presents the Users’ views on the success, based on the research conducted with
this stakeholder. This involved narrative interviews, site visits, participatory observation and self-
observation by being a User of a SHS in Uganda and in South Africa. Again, the results obtained from
this exercise were used to refine the Model of Success (Holtorf, Urmee, Calais, & Pryor, 2015a). The
paper was published on 27.10.2015.
The last chapter, Chapter 7, presents a discussion of the results of the project and the conclusions of
the thesis. The main findings are explained along with the answers to the research questions. The
chapter also highlights the open questions and gives recommendations for further studies.
The Appendix gives additional information to back up and support the reading of the thesis. One of
the first conference papers is given (Holtorf, Calais, Pryor, & Urmee, 2011) to show the development
of the thesis.
A quick overview over the content of this thesis can be found by reading the Abstract of the entire
thesis and the abstracts of paper I, II and III (refer to Chapters 4, 5, and 6) respectively.
1 Introduction
- 9 -
1.6 Conventions Some conventions are necessary to facilitate the reading of this thesis. They are listed here:
The publications ‘A model to evaluate the success of Solar Home Systems’, ‘Incorporating the
Institutions’ Perspective into a Proposed Model for Assessing Success of Solar Home System
Implementations’ and ‘Incorporating the User Perspective into a Proposed Model for Assessing
Success of SHS Implementations’ presented in this thesis will be referred to as paper I, paper II and
paper III respectively. The format of the publications is the format of submission to the journals to
fulfil the formal requirements of the publishers. The papers will stand as sections on their own.
Therefore, the titles within the papers and their numbering will not be reflected in the table of
contents of the thesis.
The following formatting styles have been used systematically throughout the thesis:
• Words in italics refer to components given in figures and tables or to titles of thesis sections.
• The researcher dealt with multiple nationalities in this research. The languages dealt with
were English (international stakeholders), German (German stakeholders), Luanda (Ugandan
Users) and Zulu (South African Users). The English and German interviews were held without
a translator. But the Luanda and Zulu interviews required a translator. Therefore, quotations
from interviews are a challenge in this thesis. English quotations are given by indention and
are marked with ‘//’ at the beginning and ‘\\’ at the end of the quotation. The same is valid
for literal translation, but, additionally, the translation is highlighted by (tbtr)–translated by
the researcher.
Different entities and bodies deal with SHSs. They are grouped into stakeholders. The concept of
stakeholders was determined by Freeman in the 1980s (Freeman & McVea, 1984).
Multiple terms are used when it comes to the dissemination of SHSs: project, programme,
dissemination and implementation. Definitions of these terms are found in the Glossary at the
beginning of this thesis. This thesis deals with generally implementing SHSs and investigates the
success of the involved parties. Therefore, the terms implementation and dissemination of SHSs is
used in the most general case. Exceptions are the dissemination of SHSs in a planned manner which
incorporates a high gradient of hierarchy such as the activities of governments or donors. Here, the
terms project or programme are used.
The author has specified some of the terms as proper nouns to reflect their importance. An example
is the User which the author feels to be a very important stakeholder in the environment of SHSs.
These proper nouns are listed in the section Proper Nouns. However, the journals have not accepted
1 Introduction
- 10 -
all these proper nouns and, therefore, there might be exemptions to this approach within the
presentation of the papers.
The author wishes the reader interesting insights and hopes that the reader is encouraged to apply
the Model of Success and related ideas presented in this thesis to other fields.
The next chapter introduces the literature reviewed in order to enable this research.
2 Literature Review
- 11 -
2. Literature Review This chapter is used to provide background information to the thesis. In the first section of this
chapter the electrification status in the world and the challenges of rural electrification are
presented. An introduction to Solar Home System technology is given, lessons learned from past
solar electrification programmes are summarized. The current situation of SHS with encouraging
points of view and challenges to overcome is discussed before the status of Solar Home Systems in
Africa is described in more detail. The sixth section presents the definition of success, success criteria
from literature and critical views on the success research. The last section in this chapter highlights
the processes of diffusion of innovation and shows that SHSs need to be dealt with under this view
angle. The last section summarises the findings from the literature review on Solar Home Systems
success factors.
2.1 Electrification and Solar Home System Projects in the World This section gives a brief summary of electricity distribution in the world and the very real challenges
of rural electrification.
2.1.1 Electricity in the World
Electric energy can supply manifold energy services. Electricity can alleviate physical burdens
(electricity driven machinery), it allows quick information distribution (TV and radio broadcasting), it
enables long distance communication (telecommunication), it can improve energy services (electric
illumination is brighter than candle or kerosene illumination) or it simply contributes to comfort
(electric fan for cooling). The list of electricity services and its benefits is long and cannot be given in
its full extent.
The availability of electricity generation varies enormously in the different regions in the world (see
Figure 2-1).
2 Literature Review
- 12 -
Figure 2-1: Generation of electricity and number of inhabitants normalized to the world's total in different regions of the world. Derived from data given in (IEA, 2013).
The ratio of electricity generated to population is 2.7 in the OECD countries, 1.1 in China, and 0.21 in
Africa (IEA, 2013). Beyond these displayed averaged figures many inhabitants of certain regions do
not have any access to electricity at all.
2 Literature Review
- 13 -
Table 2-1: Electrification rate, telephone subscribers, telephone subscribers per electrified capita, and HDI rank in the twenty least electrified countries (lowest HDI) of the world (sorted by electrifi-cation rate). Table derived from data given in (UNDP, 2013).
Country Electrification Rate
[%]
Telephone Subscribers
[%]
Tel. subscriber / electrified
capita
2012 HDI
Rank
Haiti 38.5 40.5 1.1 161 Sudan 35.5 41.4 1.2 171 Eritrea 32.0 4.6 0.1 181 Angola 26.2 48.3 1.8 148 Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
26.0 6.6 0.3 Not Given
Benin 24.8 81.5 3.3 166 Togo 20.0 44.2 2.2 159 Madagascar 19.0 37.9 2.0 151 Zambia 18.8 42.8 2.3 163 Ethiopia 17.0 9.4 0.6 173 Kenya 16.1 62.6 3.9 145 Lesotho 16.0 47.3 3.0 158 Afghanistan 15.5 38.2 2.5 175 Burkina Faso 14.6 35.5 2.4 183 United Republic of Tanzania 13.9 47.2 3.4 152 Myanmar 13.0 2.5 0.2 149 Mozambique 11.7 31.3 2.7 185 Democratic Republic of the Congo 11.1 18.0 1.6 186 Uganda 9.0 39.4 4.4 161 Malawi 9.0 21.5 2.4 170
Table 2-1 indicates very low electrification rates for the 20 least electrified countries in the world.
Furthermore, the table shows that the Human Development Index is closely related to the
electrification rate. For comparison, the figures for the Human Development Index and the number
of telephones per capita for the top five HDI ranked countries are: 1. Norway, 0.944; 149.3 % /
2. Australia, 0.933; 139.7 % / 3. Switzerland, 0.917; 177.7 % / 4. The Netherlands, 0.915; 158.9 % /
5. United States, 0.914; 139.0 %. All of these five countries have an electrification rate of 99.7 %
(UNDP, 2013).
Surprisingly, the number of telephone subscriptions per electrified person in the least electrified
countries is often much higher than for those with the highest electrification rates4. The average
ratio of telephone subscriptions to average electrification rate for the five countries with the highest
HDI ranking is 1.5 while this figure is 4.4 for Uganda and 2.0 in average for the countries listed in
Table 2-1. The researcher assumes that the electrified citizens of the least electrified countries do not
possess more telephones per person than the citizens of countries with a high HDI ranking. Under
4 The exceptions are Eritrea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ethiopia and Myanmar.
2 Literature Review
- 14 -
this assumption many non-electrified persons must own a mobile. This indicates that, despite the low
electrification rates, there is a high demand for electricity services such as telecommunication.
2.1.2 Challenges of Electrification in Rural Areas
The cost of grid-based electrification of a group of households in a non-electrified area would
necessitate the medium voltage grid extension to the hamlet (wiring + poles), a transformer close to
the village, a low voltage distribution network (wiring + poles), the connection to the household,
including the metering, and, finally, some installation inside the house, starting at a fuse box and
ending at outlets such as sockets for lamps and plugs for appliances-sources {(Acker & Kammen,
1996), (Tenenbaum, Graecen, Siyambalapitiya, & Knuckles, 2014), personal experience}. Once a
homestead or a village has been connected, the grid connection system requires continuous
maintenance.
Distance is the key cost driving factor for grid electrification. The alternatives to a grid connection for
remote accumulated dwellings or small villages are stand-alone mini grids based on diesel generators
or renewable energy sources. Dispersed individual homesteads may be supplied with electricity by
Solar Home Systems.
Anderson (2012c) and Anderson, Raestad et al. (2012a) summarize all the costs and provide the
levelised cost of electricity for different energy supply options. They distinguish between costs at the
upper margin and costs at the lower margin. The conditions for the two boundaries are given in their
publications. From these data the following table is developed (Anderson, 2012c; Anderson, Raestad,
& Sainju, 2012a):
2 Literature Review
- 15 -
Table 2-2: Levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for different energy supply options. Derived from (Anderson, 2012c) and (Anderson et al., 2012a). *1: grid extension transmission line $ 22,000/km, *2: 100 connections, each consuming 50 kWh/month, *3: distribution grid of 2 km, $ 18,000/km, *4: diesel generator set: $ 13,200 (30 kVA) / $ 6,000 (7 kVA), *5: Transportation of diesel to the site: Additionally 50 % of the diesel price.
Grid Extension PV mini-grid PV-Diesel hybrid mini-
grid
Solar Home System
Diesel mini-grid
Condition high price
Grid extension 30 km, 3connections/km $6960/connection Mind *1, *2, *3.
Irradiation 1700 kWh/m²y
Diesel Cost $1.5/l Mind *2, *3, *4, *5.
SHS cost $330/40 Wp
Diesel Cost $1.5/l Mind *2, *3, *4, *5.
LCOE [$/kWh]
1.579 0.714 0.738 0.695 1.237
Condition low price
Grid extension 1km 100connections/km $580/connection Mind *1, *2, *3.
Irradiation 2600 kWh/m²y
Diesel Cost $0.7/l Mind *2, *3, *4, *5.
SHS cost $260/40 Wp
Diesel Cost $0.7/l Mind *2, *3, *4, *5.
LCOE [$/kWh]
0.132 0.467 0.463 0.585 0.633
Anderson (2012c) shows that Solar Home Systems belong to the lowest cost options for supplying
electricity to remote off-grid rural households (Anderson, 2012c). However, they are not competitive
when the grid is close to a conglomeration of dwellings and the distance between the houses is
short. It should also be noted that SHSs only supply very small amounts of electricity as compared to
the other options displayed in Table 2-2.
In 1986 the German government decided on a programme concept to test renewable energy in
developing countries, the Sonderenergieprogramm (SEP) – Special Energy Programme (tbtr).
Photovoltaic systems were one of the main focuses in the technical cooperation with developing
countries. The areas of application were drinking water supply, cooling, telecommunication and rural
village electricity supply. The latter incorporated PV based mini-grids in villages, electricity supply
systems for hospitals and individual household supply by “Solare Kleinstsysteme” (solar mini systems
(tbtr)) based on a 40 Wp solar module (Pertz, 1988). The term Solar Home System was also used in
this German text.
Wissing and Corvinus (1989) summarize the results of a meeting of responsible managers of the SEP
in 1988. Solar Home Systems had been disseminated from 1982 to 1988 in eight African and in two
Latin American countries within the SEP. The sum of documented systems was 641 in September
2 Literature Review
- 16 -
1989. Furthermore, several undocumented systems had been disseminated by the SEP (Wissing &
Corvinus, 1989).
Martinot, Cabraal et al. (2001) report that in the early 1990s the World Bank discovered Solar Home
Systems to be a maturing technology which can provide electricity in non-electrified areas and that
these systems could compete with conventional grid extension. 12 projects were launched to
evaluate these systems and to collect experience in multiple fields such as technology, market
development and dissemination. Over 500,000 SHSs had been disseminated by World Bank projects
by 2000 (Martinot, Cabraal, & Mathur, 2001).
2.2 Solar Home System Technology In this research a Solar Home System consists of a photovoltaic (PV) generator of 50 Wp to 100 Wp, a
battery charge controller (BCC), a battery and electrical as well as mechanical installation materials
(cabling, plugs, switches, PV-generator stand, nuts, bolts, washers).
The PV-generator transforms sunlight into DC electricity. The power output is dependent on the solar
irradiance, the working point on the I(V) characteristic curve and the solar cell’s temperature.
Standard Test Conditions (STC), the conditions for which the rated output of a PV module relate, are
1000 W/m² solar irradiance, a cell temperature of 25 °C and the solar spectrum according to an air
mass of 1.5 (Archer & Hill, 2001). For a simplified estimation of the energy output of a PV generator a
linear dependence on the solar irradiation can be assumed. The STC efficiency and the Performance
Ratio (PR) need to be considered here.
The charge controller protects the battery against deep discharge and overcharge which would
reduce the lifetime of the battery storage. Actually, the charge controller also protects the load
against low and high voltage. In some cases, the charge controller incorporates a maximum power
point tracker (MPPT) which optimizes the operation of the PV generator. Typically the I(V)
characteristic of the PV generator is well adapted to the I(V) characteristic of the battery and the
operation point of the system is close to the maximum power point of the PV generator.
The battery serves as storage but also as a power converter. At night time the solar module obviously
does not supply power and the loads are operated from the battery (storage operation mode).
Typically, the power demand of the sum of all loads is larger than the rated power of the PV
generator. When peak load occurs at daytime, the battery would operate in power transforming
mode. The battery is sized to supply autonomy of three to five days to the system. Over sizing the
battery leads to too low charging currents. In case of lead acid batteries this would result in sulfation
of the battery (Fischer, 1996). The under sizing of the battery leads to a high loss of load probability
(LOLP) which reduces the level of satisfaction of the User.
2 Literature Review
- 17 -
A SHS typically supplies DC at a nominal voltage of 12 V. This has the advantage of reduced cost (no
inverter costs), the probability of failures is decreased (less components prone to failure), and a
higher system efficiency (less components in the efficiency chain).
Furthermore, the appliances on the market that operate with 12 V DC power are limited. When AC is
available, there is a tendency for Users to purchase any, even high consumption appliances (e.g.
pressing iron or fridges) and trying to operate these from their SHSs. This leads to overloading of the
SHS, frequent load cut-off and, finally, to disappointment of the Users. On the other hand the
limitation to 12 V can be a disadvantage because in some regions DC appliances are not available on
the market.
Typical energy services supplied by SHSs are illumination, radio and TV and, via a voltage adapter,
mobile charging.
The setup of a Solar Home System is depicted in Figure 2-2.
Figure 2-2: Setup of a SHS. Switch ①: overcharge protection. Switch ②: deep discharge protection. Source: Author’s diagram.
The setup of a Solar Home System depicted in Figure 2-2 distinguishes between the electricity supply
system and the electricity services supplied. Here, a system supplying DC (without a DC-AC inverter)
is shown. Some suppliers offer SHS packages including the entire setup and the installation.
2 Literature Review
- 18 -
2.2.1 Electricity supplied by a Solar Home System
From sunlight to electricity at the plug several energy transformations take place. To assess the
output of a SHS system a simplified model using an efficiency chain related to the different
components in the system is developed. This model and the parameters are derived from Häberlin
(2010) and Kininger (2003) (Häberlin, 2010; Kininger, 2003). The individual components, their
nominal efficiencies and further derating factors are described to estimate the amount of electricity
available at the plug. Detailed time step simulation may render a more precise result when
parameters for the components and real life situation (e.g. soiling of PV generators, ageing of
batteries, ...) are available.
The maximum terrestrial module efficiency of transforming sunlight into electricity by multi-
crystalline silicon technology today is in the range of 17 % at Standard Test Conditions (STC) (M. A.
Green, Emery, Hishikawa, & Warta, 2011). Solar modules on the market in rural areas of developing
countries are most probably of lower efficiency. The author estimates efficiencies of 12 % - 14 %.
STC conditions are usually not available. The radiation is less, the cell temperature is higher, the air
mass differs from 1.5, the operational point is not the maximum power point, and soiling reduces the
energy output of a PV-module. Therefore, the performance ratio (PR) is introduced. This is the ratio
of really achievable electric energy from the PV generator to energy expected when the amount of
irradiation supplied would be given under STC. From grid tied PV systems (including an MPPT) the PR
for SHS PV-generators is estimated to be 0.8.
The energetic (Watt-hour) efficiency of lead acid batteries is given by manufacturers and it is in the
range of 70 % (Bowden & Honsberg, 2015). From personal experience SHSs’ batteries are operated
beyond their service life for financial reasons. The service life of a lead acid battery ends when its
nominal capacity is 80 % of the rated capacity (Fischer, 1996). To consider the unfavourable
operation conditions and to not overestimate the energy supplied by a SHS, an ageing factor for SHS
batteries is introduced. This factor is assumed to be 0.8.
The charge controller’s efficiency is complex to describe. It is dependent on the self-consumption of
the controller and the voltage drop within its semiconductor switches. Simplified, an overall
efficiency of 90 % is assumed (Häberlin, 2010).
Last but not least the cabling of the installation itself has an efficiency of again in the range of 90 %.
This can be calculated from the length of the cables, their cross section, the conductor’s material and
the current flow along the cables.
Table 2-3 summarizes the efficiencies and derating factors of the components of a SHS.
2 Literature Review
- 19 -
Table 2-3: Characteristics of SHS components.
Pos Component Efficiency Derating Factor
Typical Rating
Comment
1 PV Generator 13 % PR=0.8 12 V, 50 Wp
crystalline silicon (alternatives available today)
2 Battery Charge Controller BCC
90 % -- 10 A PV 10 A Load
efficiency is impacted by self-consumption and voltage drops in switching devices
3 Battery 70 % AF=0.8 12 V, 50 Ah
lead acid “solar” battery, optimized for cycling and deep discharge
4 Cabling 90 % -- 2.5 mm², 4.0 mm²
UV resistant for outdoor installations
The overall efficiency of a SHS can now be calculated with these figures. Equation 2-1 derives the
overall efficiency of a SHS:
Equation 2-1: Overall efficiency of a SHS.
13% 0.8 90% 70% 0.8 0.94.7%
SHS PV BCC Batt Batt cabling
SHS
SHS
PR AFη η η η η
ηη
= ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
= ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅=
Assuming 5 kWh/m²d solar irradiance and a 50 Wp PV-generator (≈0.4 m²), a SHS can provide in the
range of 100 Wh/d.
By contrast, Jacobson states for Kenya that a 25 Wp system supplies approximately 30 kWh/year (A.
Jacobson, 2007b). Projecting this figure to a 50 Wp system leads to 164 Wh/d. Vervaart and
Nieuwenhout (2000) estimate on pages 12-14 the energy available from a 35 Wp system at
4 kWh/m²d solar irradiation to be 70 Wh/d (Vervaart & Nieuwenhout, 2000). An extrapolation to a
50 Wp system under 5 kWh/m² irradiation renders 125 Wh/d of electricity consumable. The energy
supplied by a SHS seems to be an open issue. Overestimating the energy supplied by a SHS leads to
disappointment of Users (Vervaart & Nieuwenhout, 2000) (on page 13) and influences the success of
SHSs. In this work a detailed analysis of electricity available from SHSs cannot be elaborated. For the
time being, 100 Wh/d as electricity output of a 50 Wp system is assumed. Allowing a loss of load
probability of 10 % renders 32.85 kWh/a. Here, the loss of load probability is defined as the time a
SHS cannot supply the load over the total time period investigated–typically one year
(Vijayamohanan, 2008). The focus of this research will be the energy service supplied by SHSs rather
than the amount of electricity.
2 Literature Review
- 20 -
2.2.2 User’s deployment of SHS’s Electricity
Possible deployment of SHS’s electricity has been described in nature and in volume. Users are free
to make use of SHS’s electricity and by modification of the system’s wiring they may add other types
of loads. Their final utilization of electricity is hard to detect except by intensive data logging
campaigns.
Hansen et. al. summarize for the East African Market six solar market segments out of which the
smallest are pico-systems (1 – 20Wp), followed by SHSs (10 – 100Wp) (Hansen et al., 2014). Generally
those systems are implemented in off-grid private homes in dispersed settlements. Today the
implementation of SHS is market driven and systems are “over the counter consumer products”
A little earlier Jacobson summarizes for Kenya that the PV market is driven by members of the middle
class such as
//... small business owners, rural professionals such as school teachers, civil servants, and
pastors, as well as the better off among the small holder cash cropping farmers.\\ (A.
Jacobson, 2007b)
Electric light contributes to social activities such as evening time studying of children rather than to
income generation. But, as electricity is limited in amounts, prioritization of electricity usage is
necessary. Electricity usages for interconnectedness (TV, radio, mobile communication) have highest
priority in Kenyan rural areas according to Jacobson (A. Jacobson, 2007a). Similar results have been
found by Mondal and Klein for Bangladesh where top ranked statements were quality of life
improved, good environment, more entertainment and creates jobs (A. H. Mondal & Klein, 2011)
2.2.3 Challenges for the User
The technical setup of a SHS has been described. The individual components and their static
operation can be understood by Users of SHSs. For a SHS User the optimized operation of a SHS
raises a set of challenges. PV modules deliver electricity when the sun shines and their power output
is almost linear to the irradiance. Charge controllers cut off the load when the battery is discharged
and switch off the PV generator when the battery is fully charged. Batteries have a nominal capacity.
Under steady state conditions it is easy to predict the operation time of a load.
The first level of complexity arises from human’s difficulty in measuring solar irradiance with the
given optical sense. The eyes are optimized to adapt to a very wide range of light intensity rather
than to provide a linear gauging of light intensity.
The second level of complexity arises when the User is requested to adapt the load to the irradiation.
Assume the simplified situation: under a daily constant irradiance a SHS can supply 100 Wh/d. The
2 Literature Review
- 21 -
battery is designed to allow autonomy of 4.8 days. The User overloads the system by 30 % and
consumes 130 Wh/d. The charge controller will disconnect the battery after 16 days. Hence, the
feedback of overloading the system to the User is given 16 days later. A dead time is assumed to be
very difficult to control.
Assume the User cuts down the consumption to a value of 70 % of the nominal capacity of the
system after the occurrence of the charge controller’s power cut off, and assume the charge
controller reconnects the load once a small amount of charge has been added to the battery. The
situation is simplified but it serves for illustration. It takes another 16 days for the battery to reach
full state of charge. In total, the battery was at a state of charge below 100 % for 32 days. For lead
acid batteries this is an unfavourable condition and results in considerable reduction of service life
due to sulfation (Fischer, 1996).
Figure 2-3: Discharge and charge of a battery in a SHS. Source: Author’s diagram.
The third level of complexity arises when merging the first and second complexities under fluctuating
solar radiation.
2.3 Lessons Learned from Past Solar Electrification Programmes Many small-scale renewable energy projects have been implemented in developing countries having
plenty of positive impacts on the living conditions their rural areas (Terrapon-Pfaff, Dienst, König, &
Ortiz, 2014). Of those projects many dealt with SHSs. They have been executed and numerous
reports on these SHS projects are available. The section leads the reader from general lessons on
successful SHS implementation learned from World Bank projects to specific lessons learned from
2 Literature Review
- 22 -
Bangladesh’s dissemination of SHSs5. Next an overview over the experience gained by the researcher
on success and failure of SHSs in an industrialized country are presented showing similarities of
success and failure in this region. Finally encouraging and discouraging points of view are listed.
2.3.1 Lessons from World Bank Projects
In their paper of the year 2001 Martinot et al. write that projects are still in an experimental stage
and that further experience needs to be accumulated for the best approaches to disseminate SHSs.
But key-elements of successful diffusion of SHSs have been confirmed:
// customer satisfaction, affordability, dealer profitability, and effective supply and service
chains. \\ (Martinot et al., 2001).
12 years later, Cabraal states 7 lessons learned from the World Bank’s Solar Home Systems’ activities.
These became the basis for the guidance on the design of sustainable off-grid projects. Figure 2-4
summarizes the lessons learned and the guidelines for SHS dissemination (Cabraal, 2012; Terrado,
Cabraal, & Mukherjee, 2008).
Figure 2-4: Lessons learned from World Bank SHS projects. Figure extracted by the author from (Terrado, Cabraal, & Mukherjee, 2008) and (Anil Cabraal, 2012).
5 Bangladesh’s SHS implementation strategy is considered as the most successful SHS implementation at present.
2 Literature Review
- 23 -
Seven lessons are learned from the World Bank SHS projects. From these lessons 12 guidelines have
been derived.
2.3.2 Observations in Asia
The situation of SHSs in Asia is presented by focusing on Bangladesh. For the example of Bangladesh
the key success factors are listed by Rahman, Paatero et al.: the prioritizing of system investment,
community involvement, anti-corruption features, standardized practices and performance-based
incentives. In parallel, political parties have been excluded from the SHS dissemination (Rahman,
Paatero, Poudyal, & Lahdelma, 2013a).
IDCOL (Infrastructure Development Company Limited) refers to the collaborative effort of five
partners contributing to the success of SHSs in Bangladesh: a governmental owned financial
institution with expertise in project finance and management, donor agencies with experience in
renewable energy projects and their financial capacity, NGOs and micro-finance institutions
operating at grass root level, manufacturers’ and suppliers’ efforts, and professionals contributing
with their expertise in the technology and in the rural development. Furthermore, project monitoring
and the careful selection of Partner Organisations (PO) leading to high levels of quality are listed
(IDCOL, 2011).
Professor Khan from BUET6 states that the five year warranty period for the weakest component–the
battery–is the main success factor for SHSs in Bangladesh. In other projects Users are still suffering
from their down payments for the system when an expensive component, such as the battery, fails
and needs replacement. This overburdens the households financially. Hence, the battery is not
replaced and the system does not supply the expected energy services and so frustrates the User
(Khan, 2012).
Komatsu, Kaneko et al. elaborate on the SHS Users’ satisfaction. The Users’ satisfaction leads to
success of Solar Home Systems. The main reasons for User satisfaction are the equipment quality,
energy saving and perceived improvements in the lifestyle of SHS Users. On the other hand, the cost
of replacing batteries form major drawbacks for the Users’ satisfaction (Komatsu, Kaneko, Ghosh, &
Morinaga, 2013). The quality aspect is also confirmed from the PIMS7 study (refer to section 2.5.2
Lessons learned from the Profit Impact of Market Strategies Project). Furthermore, their research
points at the negative impact on the investment in a SHS for experimental and curiosity reasons
(referred to as trialability of innovations, see section 2.6.1 Main Elements of Diffusion of Innovation).
6 Bangladesh University of Engineering, Dhaka, Bangladesh 7 Profit Impact of Market Strategies
2 Literature Review
- 24 -
Recurrent expenses on a major and expensive component (the battery) forbid the investment in a
SHS for trialability of SHSs.
2.3.3 Observations in South America
IEA states that the electrification rate in Latin America is 95% while rural electrification lies in the
range of 82%. 31 million inhabitants are not electrified on this continent. Haiti has the lowest
electrification rate (28%) while Brazil, and Venezuela have achieved 100% electrification rates.
It is reported that Chile tested PV systems amongst others for rural electrification starting in the early
1960ies (Lysen, 2013). Panico et al report 1998 on experience with PV systemes in Chihuahua,
Mexico. At this early stage of SHS technology approximately 70% of the inhabitants had already
heard of PV systems and approximately 56% had already seen such a system. PV powering of
illumination was ranked 1st by the participants (90%) while Radio and TV were ranked 2nd (38.5% and
37.5% respectively). It was found that financing programs are a precondition to enable the
dissemination of PV systems (Panico, Foster, Ghosh, Carrillo, & Molina, 1998).
World Bank reports on financing mechanisms for RE projects in order to address high collateral and
project equity requirements for commercial loans (World Bank, 2013a). Public-private business
models are fostered by the Decentralized Energy for Rural Transformation Program (ERTIC/IDTR) in
order to optimize medium term services of Solar Home Systems in Bolivia (World Bank, 2013b). The
efforts made here indicate that SHS services are crucial for successful implementation of the new
technology.
Cadavid et. al. conclude 2015 that PV systems are competitive nowadays in all configurations for the
electricity supply of Colombian households (Cadavid, Jimenez, & Franco, 2015).
2.3.4 Financing of Solar Home Systems
Financing of SHSs is a key issue in rural non electrified areas as shown in (Anil Cabraal, 2012;
Martinot et al., 2001; Terrado et al., 2008). Upfront costs of SHSs are still high despite the reductions
which are reported in (Bundesverband Solarwirtschaft e.V. (BSW-Solar) & Tepper, 2014).
Gabler (2004) proposes that approximately 5 % of rural inhabitants are in the financial position to
purchase a SHS in a Cash Sale. In the range of 45 % would need credit schemes or a Fee for Service
model to get electrified by SHSs. Still, these households would be able to electrify themselves
without external support. The remaining 50 % of households need subsidies for their electrification
(Gabler, 2004).
2 Literature Review
- 25 -
IEA has summarized practical experience with financing procedures of Solar Home Systems (IEA,
2003c). The advantages and disadvantages of five financing options are displayed: Cash Sales, Credit
Sales (from dealers or from banks), Hire Purchase, Leasing, and Fee for Service.
Cash Sales limit the number of potential clients. Relying on Cash Sale clients would not enable a
profitable business with SHSs. PV companies have tried to enlarge the number of clients by giving
Dealer Credits. The IEA warns against this approach as PV companies do not have the experience to
deal with credits (IEA, 2003c) (page 7).
The IEA (2003) proposes banks as intermediates between SHS Users and PV companies. But these
institutions need to be in the position to deal with a large number of small loans and be accustomed
to the culture of rural area inhabitants. For example, banks have not been able to provide PV
companies with customer details after the payment of instalments. Furthermore, a project in
Swaziland has observed that rural area inhabitants are reluctant to deal with banks (pages 17 & 18 of
the reference). Positive experiences are reported from credit stores in Zimbabwe. Clients purchase
SHSs on a credit basis from these stores while PV companies supply systems to said stores. As the
business operation radius of these stores can be up to 100 km, a trustful relationship to clients is
important. Otherwise, the cost for recovering outstanding debts may discourage the business (IEA,
2003c).
The Fee for Service approach is a competitive means to disseminate SHSs. Users have a system
installed at home and pay monthly fees for it. The system is owned by the Fee for Service Company,
which is also responsible for the functioning of the system. The IEA reports that Fee for Service SHSs
made up 50 % of the total disseminated systems in an area where Fee for Service, Cash Sales and
Credit Sales were offered simultaneously (IEA, 2003c).
Challenges of the Fee for Service approach are the maintenance efforts of the service offering
company. As Users will not pay when the system is not in operation, continuous maintenance is
necessary. SHSs may be installed in dispersed, difficult to access areas and the travel overheads can
increase the cost of maintenance and, finally, the fees for the system. The IEA reports a Fee for
Service model in which the battery was owned by the User. This relieved the cost of maintenance
and the spare part supply dramatically for the Fee for Service Company (IEA, 2003c) (page 21).
Becker (2014) presents SWOT analyses for Cash Sales (pay as you go PAYG), Rent to Own (RTO), and
Fee for Service (FFS) concepts to enable the adoption of SHSs (Becker, 2014). The major advantages
in the financial processing since the IEA’s report of 2003 are due to the development in
communication technology. Today it is possible to do payments by mobile phone. Tedious journeys
to the institution collecting money are no longer necessary in many parts of the world.
2 Literature Review
- 26 -
IDCOL (Infrastructure Development Company Limited) describes the financing of Solar Home Systems
in Bangladesh. Users get a SHS installed after a down payment of 15 % of the SHS’s cost. Afterwards,
the Users are obliged to pay monthly instalments for three years before the client becomes the
owner of the SHS. Service and warranty is provided by the Partner Organisation which has installed
the SHS for the duration of the loan period (IDCOL, 2011).
2.3.5 Researcher’s Initial SHS Experience
The researcher’s first contact with Solar Home Systems was in 1987 when he was employed at a PV
sales company in Germany. In German towns certain areas exist in which small plots of garden land
are available to hire (Schrebergarten). The tenants would grow flowers and vegetables on these plots
of land. These allotment gardens generally contain a small shed to store gardening tools. The
statutes of many of these allotment areas do not allow a grid connection of the bowers. Still, the
owners of these gardens desired some electricity for illumination, radios and cassette recorders.
Even small TV sets were in operation. Formerly, electricity was supplied by lead acid batteries for
these purposes. And these batteries were transported back home for recharging at the end of the
weekend. This was a tedious procedure and relief was promised by a PV module and a charge
controller. A market for Solar Home Systems developed in Germany.
The Users’ training and available information was poor. To improve the use of the PV system’s
electricity an inverter was connected to the battery. This was meant to allow the operation of
gardening tools such as electric hedge clippers, but in many cases it led to overloading the SHS’s
capacity, thus resulting in disappointment for the owners.
The similarities to Solar Home Systems in developing countries are striking.
Homes demand electricity for different purposes. Lead acid batteries have been used for the
electricity supply. But these batteries needed recharging which involves transportation and other
efforts. A PV module and a charge controller can provide a solution. The operation of too many
appliances by SHSs results in the risk of overloading these systems and hence frustrating the User. In
the case of allotment gardens these tools serve an effective fostering of the garden. In developing
countries the tools would generate income. The lack of adequate Users’ training is one reason for
disappointment at the system’s performance.
The fundamental difference between an allotment garden owner and an off-grid rural inhabitant is
the general availability of electricity. Further differences are the income situation and the much
lower (transportation) effort for the alternative of using a rechargeable battery.
2 Literature Review
- 27 -
Encouraging and discouraging points of view on SHSs contribute to the success and to the failure of
SHS implementation. These need mentioning in order to understand processes leading to success
and failures of SHSs. The literature on SHSs indicates that Solar Home System dissemination at the
present time is most successful in Bangladesh. Solar Home System dissemination started in 1996. 228
systems were installed in that year (Wimmer, 2012) (page 81). The latest number of installed systems
is 2.727 million systems (Chowdhury, 2014 b). This corresponds to an average annual growth rate of
approximately 8 %.
The literature describes many competitors to SHSs for supplying electricity in rural off-grid areas. In
declining amounts of daily electricity provided, these are: grid extension, mini grids, personal diesel
engines, battery charging stations, and Pico PV systems8 (Anderson, 2012c). From the amount of
electricity supplied and based on their ease of use, Solar Home Systems would be ranked between
personal diesel engines and battery charging stations. They supply less power than diesel engines.
However, diesel engines need to be started before an electricity service can be supplied.
Furthermore, the regular fuel supply may be tedious and costly in remote areas. A transportable
battery requires high efforts for recharging while the maintenance of a SHS is negligible.
2.3.6 Encouraging Points of View
Multiple publications report on the advantages of Solar Home Systems. Users benefit in different
ways: SHSs are competitive when compared to their alternatives; there is non-income factors
incorporated in SHSs; their ecological impacts are less when certain procedures are followed; and
they may contribute to social development.
Benefits for Users
Mondal and Klein (2011) report on their investigation in Gazipur district in Bangladesh. SHS based
electrification had provided direct and indirect benefits to the Users. 56 households and 10 micro-
enterprises operated by SHSs were investigated in a cross sectional survey. The respondents listed
the main advantages of SHSs to be the reduction of kerosene usage with the well-known benefits of
reduction of indoor pollution, quality of light, and—less obvious–less effort for cleaning of kerosene
lamps. The researched participants claimed the main reasons for investing in SHSs were comfort
(74 %), availability of electricity source (59 %), many advantages (55 %), no pollution (53 %), and less
costs (39 %). Only a few percent of respondents listed SHSs to be the one and only alternative for
electrification (29 %), their easiness of operation (26 %) and enjoying TV (23 %)9. The answers to an
open question on the change of the social lives due to the SHS included quality of life has improved
8 Solar Home Systems in this research refer to systems with a PV generator in the range of 50 Wp to 150 Wp while Pico PV Systems are based on PV generators below 20 Wp. 9 Multiple answers were considered in the research related to the reasons to invest in SHSs.
2 Literature Review
- 28 -
(33 %), the environment is good (12 %), more entertainment (11 %), and job creation (10.5 %) (A. H.
Mondal & Klein, 2011).
Economic Viability
Mondal (2010a) has investigated the economic viability of SHSs based on six case studies in Gazipur
district in Bangladesh. He finds that SHSs are economically feasible in the case of a commercial or
income generation investment in a SHS. The Solar Home Systems he investigated for private
illumination (30 Wp for two lamps) are not justifiable when limiting the analysis to economic aspects.
When adding social and environmental impacts, the investment would be justifiable (A. H. M.
Mondal, 2010a). From today’s point of view with the new efficient LED technology, the author
proposes a Pico PV System in the case of supplying two sources of illumination. The economic result
can turn out to be favourable as compared to the oversized SHSs investigated by Mondal.
Komatsu, Kaneko et al. (2011a) confirm the economic advantages of SHSs by demonstrating the
reduction of costs for recharging batteries. These costs are made up of the transportation and the
recharging costs. Furthermore, kerosene consumption for illumination has been dramatically
reduced. This again reduces costs for transportation and for the fuel itself. But the costs saved on
conventional supplies of energy services do not cover the costs for SHS payments (Komatsu, Kaneko,
& Ghosh, 2011a).
Non Income Factors to Invest in SHSs
Many positive features of SHSs are listed in literature beyond economic viability. Komatsu, Kaneko et
al. (2011b) list advantages of SHSs from their survey in Manikganj, Kishoreganj, and Comilla districts
in Bangladesh: the availability and brightness of light allows the reading of books and newspapers
until late at night, an extension of the study time for children, good school records for children,
working until late at night, and feeling secure at night. Electric light improves the learning conditions
of children. The light is brighter and there are no odours from kerosene combustion. Children seem
to learn for a longer period of time and they are less distracted from the kerosene smell. This leads to
better results at school (Komatsu, Kaneko, Shrestha, & Ghosh, 2011b).
Ecological Impacts
Any energy service supply system will have an ecological impact. The impacts are different. In the
case of illumination based on kerosene these impacts may be based on emissions of different gases
(e.g. carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitric oxides, or unburned hydrocarbons). The illumination
based on primary batteries will emit solid matter (e.g. zinc oxides and manganese oxides in case of
discharged alkaline batteries, potassium hydroxide when leaking). Illumination based on
rechargeable lead acid batteries emits liquids (sulphuric acid by spilling) and solids (lead as well as
2 Literature Review
- 29 -
lead sulphate). The comparison of ecological harmfulness of different emissions for the same amount
of energy service is difficult.
In an early investigation Bloos and Haars (1995) have shown that SHSs may be favourable regarding
environmental strain. The service life of a lead acid battery in a SHS is longer than the service life of a
battery recharged on a bi-weekly basis at a charging station. Furthermore, the emissions related to
dry cells for torches and radio/cassette players is reduced. The potential to recycle lead acid batteries
is much larger due to their size and their value compared to the potential of collecting discharged dry
cells and returning these into a recycling management (Bloos & Haars, 1995).
Chakrabarty and Islam (2011) have listed the reduction in carbon dioxide due to Solar Home System
application in Bangladesh. Users of SHSs consume less kerosene for illumination and hence less
carbon dioxide is emitted (Chakrabarty & Islam, 2011).
Frost (2009) shows that PV systems have a considerably lower environmental life-cycle impact than
conventional electricity generation options (Frost, 2009). But the system under investigation was grid
connected and did not contain a lead acid battery.
The Department of Science, Technology and Society at Utrecht University did a life-cycle analysis for
two types of SHSs (49 Wp crystalline silicon module, 100 Ah lead acid battery and 24 Wp amorphous
silicon module, 70 Ah lead acid battery). They were compared to the alternatives a.) diesel gen-set,
b.) grid connected battery charging station and c.) kerosene wick lamps combined with non-
rechargeable batteries (Alsema, 2000). The major findings are that carbon dioxide emissions are
dramatically reduced by SHSs when these replace kerosene lamps. When SHSs replace diesel gen-
sets in battery charging stations the Greenhouse Pay-Back Time is in the range of 10 to 11 years
assuming 90 % of the batteries being recycled. Without battery recycling this figure rises up to
between 15 and 19 years. The recommendation of Alsema is to improve battery quality and hence
battery service life and to incorporate battery collection and recycling in SHS dissemination projects.
Summarizing: Solar Home Systems are ecologically beneficial. The ecological advantages may
substantially be increased by collection and recycling of their main sources of emissions, namely lead
acid batteries. Furthermore, electronic components such as the charge controller and appliances, e.g.
compact fluorescent lamps, need to be collected and recycled.
Social Development
Mondal and Klein show that Solar Home Systems can contribute to social development. In the paper
outlined above, they show that the feedback from their interrogated participants identified improved
2 Literature Review
- 30 -
health conditions; increased indoor cleanliness, home studies, and social interaction; as well as a
slight increase in income generation due to their SHSs (A. H. Mondal & Klein, 2011).
2.3.7 Challenges to Overcome
In contrast to the advantages listed above, critical voices are present.
Barriers to SHS Dissemination
Barriers exist to the successful dissemination of SHSs despite their long history. These barriers are
found on five levels: the implementation, the financial, the technical, the policy, and the social level
(Sovacool, D’Agostino, & Jain Bambawale, 2011b; T. Urmee, Harries, & Schlapfer, 2009c;
Wamukonya, 2007). Figure 2-5 summarizes the up to date barriers to SHS dissemination.
Figure 2-5: Success barriers for SHS dissemination. Figure developed by the author from (Sovacool et al., 2011b; T. Urmee et al., 2009c; Wamukonya, 2007).
Even today the implementation of SHSs is impeded by a lack of institutional capacity, a lack of
technical knowledge, too little private sector involvement, the negligible involvement of local
stakeholders, and limited markets. This indicates that SHSs are still an innovation as proposed in
section 2.6 Diffusion of Innovation and of SHS Technology in Particular.
The named authors include under the term financial barriers the lack of capital. In the case of
available capital, these have too high costs. Generally, financing for programmes is not available;
while lack of credit for Users and a lower income generation by SHSs than expected are further issues
in the field of financial drawbacks.
Technical issues related to SHSs are unavailability of products, logistical problems, poor maintenance
and technical limitations such as the efficiency or capacity of the SHSs.
2 Literature Review
- 31 -
The authors listed in the caption of Figure 2-5 identify the need for appropriate policy and legal
frameworks related to SHS implementations. In addition, they criticise improper use of subsidies and
the donor dependency of many SHS dissemination programmes.
The barriers at the social level were identified as the misperception of the technology and the
absence of links to existing social structures and values.
Exuberant Expectations
Positive answers on the SHSs’ impact have been listed above from Mondal and Klein’s research in
Gazipur region. Still, they conclude:
// the study cautions against unreasonable expectations regarding the potential and
sufficiency of solar energy systems as universal strategies for improving livelihoods by
increasing income generation activities \\ (A. H. Mondal & Klein, 2011)
2.4 Status of Solar Home Systems on the African Continent From the worldwide electricity supply and SHS situation we now focus on Africa.
Table 2-1 shows the electrification rate in the twenty least electrified countries of the world. Sixteen
of these countries are on the African continent. Apart from Haiti, the others of the listed countries
are in Asia. The table shows the average electrification rate of a country. The electrification situation
is even more dramatic in rural areas.
This section aims to introduce readers to the specific situation of rural electrification on the African
continent. Furthermore, SHSs are displayed in the African context.
2.4.1 The Status of Rural Electrification in Africa
The International Energy Agency publishes electrification data regularly. The data for Africa are
displayed in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4: Electrification in Africa. Data source: (WEO, 2014).
Region Population without Electricity
Electrification Rate
Urban Electrification Rate
Rural Electrification Rate
Millions % % %
Africa 622 43 68 26
North Africa 1 99 100 99
Sub-Saharan Africa
621 32 59 16
2 Literature Review
- 32 -
The table shows that North Africa is close to full electrification even in rural areas whereas Sub-
Saharan Africa lacks electrification especially in rural areas. From this source it can be shown that
Africa is the least electrified continent in the world.
But significant efforts are being undertaken to improve this situation. The Renewable Energy Policy
Network for the 21st Century (REN21) summarizes in its latest status report multiple activities in
Africa. The ECOWAS10 member countries are seeking rural energy supply improvements. These
countries rely on their multinational Centre for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (ECREE) for
the development of policy guidelines and on multiple strategic agreements with international
organisations. Ghana seeks to reduce the number of kerosene lanterns by implementing solar
lanterns. The financing of the solar alternative is made possible by the savings of kerosene subsidies.
Mali reports an improvement of rural electricity access from 1 % to 17 % in the past 6 years. Other
optimistic reports come from Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda (REN21, 2013) (pages 85
and 86).
Technologies applied for rural electrification include isolated as well as grid based systems. Isolated
systems are Pico SHSs (solar lantern) and Solar Home Systems. Grid based systems are classified into
independent micro grids and mini grids as well as sub-grids connected to the national grid. The
power supply of African grids can be PV, hydropower, wind, geothermal, biomass and conventional
power plants (REN21, 2013) (page 86).
2.4.2 Options for Rural Electrification in Africa
Szabó, Bódis et al. (2011) analyse the cost per kWh of electricity supply by grid connection, diesel
gen-set and PV systems on the African continent. They show that a 15 kWp off-grid PV system may
supply electricity at rates between 0.2 €/kWh and 0.6 €/kWh, assuming a loss of load probability of
5 %. Diesel based systems are highly dependent on the current diesel price and they may supply
electricity at rates between 0.03 €/kWh and 2.5 €/kWh. Additionally, the transportation cost under
bad road conditions play a role in their estimation (Szabó, Bódis, Huld, & Moner-Girona, 2011).
Furthermore, Szabó, Bódis et al. show a map of Africa with the geographical distribution of different
approaches to the supply of electricity by the before mentioned three options. This map indicates
that at any site a detailed investigation on the most appropriate technology needs to be undertaken.
2.4.3 SHSs’ Development in Africa
Acker and Kammen (1996, page 87) describe that the Kenyan photovoltaic market started in the
early 1980s and that it was driven by donors. In 1984 the first private company was founded which
disseminated small PV systems. The development of the Kenyan market at this early stage can be 10 ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States): Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo.
2 Literature Review
- 33 -
assessed by the fact that the German “Sonderenergieprogramm” (see section 2.1.2) incorporated
Kenya as a partner country. But, Solar Home Systems were not tested in Kenya as they had already
proven to be a viable technology in this place (Wissing & Corvinus, 1989).
In Morocco Afrisol was founded in 1988. The company focused on SHSs for rural electrification. The
company’s success can be gauged by the turnover of PV modules. In the mid-1990s Afrisol was the
largest distributor for Solarex modules. This company again was the second largest PV manufacturer
worldwide in this time period (J. Rogers, Hansen, & Graham, 2006).
2.4.4 Dissemination and Financing of Solar Home Systems in Africa
It has been shown that Solar Home Systems are one of several technologies which can provide access
to electricity in rural areas. Furthermore, it has been proven that a detailed analysis is necessary to
choose the most suitable technology. Once SHSs have been decided on, companies are necessary for
their installation.
ENF (ENergy Focus) lists 146 companies that install photovoltaic systems in Africa. They are
categorized into on-grid and off-grid installers, as well as by their size–small size (<1 MWp), and large
size plants (>1 MWp) (ENF, 2014). Only companies enrolling for this list are displayed. Therefore, the
list cannot be complete. But it gives an idea of the number of installers. For comparison, this web
page lists 726 solar installers in Australia, 286 in China and 248 in India.
Solar Home Systems are disseminated by Cash Sales, modular cash purchase, layaway, Hire Purchase,
commercial consumer loans, loans through savings and credit cooperatives, micro finance, Fee for
Service, informal credit, subsidies to consumers, or even full-value grants (Lemaire, 2011), (Krause &
Nordstrom, 2004). From this source it seems that a large portion of SHS financing is done in an
informal way in Africa which is in contrast to other sources.
2.4.5 Lessons Learned from Fee for Service Companies
Gothard (2002) describes challenges of rural electrification in a Fee for Service approach in South
Africa which was launched at the beginning of 1999. The following section and Figure 2-6 summarize
the lessons learned from Gothard and from Lemaire (2011) on SHS dissemination via Fee for Service
approaches in Africa (Gothard, 2002; Lemaire, 2011). It is well understood that these lessons can be
applied to SHS implementation on other continents. But likewise, they are valid for other approaches
to disseminate SHSs such as Cash Sales.
2 Literature Review
- 34 -
Figure 2-6: Solar Home System implementation in Africa. Figure developed by the author from (Gothard, 2002) and (Lemaire, 2011).
The following subsections refer to the fields presented in Figure 2-6.
Starting Position
Companies implementing Solar Home Systems suffer from the misconceived expectations, limited
financial resources and cultural drawbacks of their clients.
Misconceived expectations may result from politicians’ overoptimistic promises of electrification.
These provoke hopes on grid connection and prevent investments in SHSs. Other misconceived
expectations are related to the technology itself. Users may have wrong assumptions on the energy
services available through SHSs (e.g. the operation of fridges or electric ironing).
Typically clients are limited in their financial resources. Very often Solar Home Systems can only be
financed by savings due to the reduction of the previous energy suppliers. These usually are candles,
rechargeable batteries and primary battery cells. The savings may not always suffice to finance the
SHSs’ technology.
Cultural drawbacks exist such as historically unreliable payment practices.
Market Issues
SHS implementers need to carefully asses the real customer needs and balance these with the
affordability of the offered systems. In this regime the payment practices must be considered.
Seasonal liquidity of clients may occur, long term or short term financing might be desired or even
full cash payments might be requested. The service delivery may be based on various modes. Any
mode of service delivery from Fee for Service to cash and carry should be considered.
2 Literature Review
- 35 -
Technical skills are a challenge for both the installers and the clients. Installers need technical skills
for appropriate installation, repair and maintenance. Users of SHSs need a minimum of basic
technical skills to understand the operation and the limitations of SHSs, to be able to interact with
their systems and to do minor maintenance.
Theft may be a major problem during times when inhabitants of dwellings are at work or at school as
solar modules have a high value. Homesteads are dispersed and possibly not policed by the
neighbourhood during certain times of the day. This may encourage theft in certain areas.
The sustainability of a market can be deteriorated by low quality products or a failure in supplying
important information to clients, leading to frustrated Users. A market may be destroyed by an
achieved grid connection of a region. Finally, the market’s sustainability may suffer from the
dissatisfaction of potential Users.
Social Environment
Solar Home Systems are disseminated in a social environment. The lack of skilled personnel in this
environment can be a drawback. The Users’ perceptions of SHSs, their ability to understand, to
maintain and to operate SHSs, and their financial capability are part of the social environment of
SHSs. The community may influence the diffusion of SHSs. Communities may be in favour of SHSs or
they may reject the idea of them. One reason for rejection may be the desire for “real electricity” in
terms of grid connection.
Technology
Energy services supplied by SHSs are dependent on the Solar Home Systems’ technology on the one
hand and on the appliances turning electricity into energy services on the other hand. The balancing
of efficiency, the level of technology and sophistication, the operability, the availability in the region
and the affordability by the client is necessary in the field of technology.
Frustrations
Frustrations may evolve from the distances and the terrain in which SHSs are implemented. These
factors can result in extreme transportation costs.
Corruption in all levels of society can lead to frustration of SHS investors.
Cash control is a challenge with many SHSs spread over a confusing terrain.
Slow processes occur when the responsibilities of deciding and influential institutions, bodies and
offices are not clearly defined. Lack of commitment and unfavourable policy are further drawbacks
resulting in delayed project implementation and finally leading to frustration.
2 Literature Review
- 36 -
Critical Voices
Wamukonya (2007) is very critical about the application of SHSs in Africa. She states that SHS costs
are very high on one hand and that they deliver very low service levels on the other hand. Therefore,
Wamukonya proposes not to apply this technology in Africa (Wamukonya, 2007). But it seems that
the conclusions of this paper are based on outdated data. Many references are dated from the year
2000 and before. The cost of PV has dramatically decreased in the past decades. This is shown by the
German Association of the Solar Industry (BSW) and by Tepper (Bundesverband Solarwirtschaft e.V.
(BSW-Solar) & Tepper, 2014). Nonetheless, the author proposes to carefully assess any proposal for
rural electrification. Critical voices should not be ignored.
In addition, the quality of components and installations are still an issue in SHS settings in Africa (A. P.
D. Jacobson, 2010).
Critical voices exist concerning the applicability of SHSs for rural electrification and on their technical
realisation. These voices have to be attended to in the approach to describe success of SHSs.
The literature review on SHSs in the world has shown that SHSs have similar advantages throughout
the Sun-belt world. They are the most economic solution beyond a certain distance from the grid and
below a certain daily consumption. They can supply the basic needs of electricity services such as
bright light, mono-directional communication based on radio and TV and bi-directional
communication based on mobiles. They suffer worldwide the high initial costs while the typical User
has low income. Financing schemes may overcome the problem when financing and other
institutions are motivated and are ready to invest in this sector. Best practice of operation (load
management), maintenance (cleaning of PV modules, topping up of battery’s electrolyte, keeping
electric junctions clean) and repair (the battery’s short service life) seem to be a challenge for the
Users of world’s SHSs. SHS implementation may face different core challenges, however those core
challenges may not be attributable to a continent. Africa as the focus of this research was selected
for the reasons presented in section 1.4 Research Boundary.
2.5 General Success Research Obviously, economists have made attempts to research on success factors of economic activities.
They have focused on the disclosure of relationships between the companies’ activities and the
companies’ economic success. In particular, the discipline of strategic management has focused on
success factor research (Fredrickson, 1990). Literature on Success Research was scanned in order to
highlight potential problems of modelling the success of SHSs from a different view point.
2 Literature Review
- 37 -
2.5.1 Central Questions and Statements on the Success of Enterprises
Welge and Al-Laham (2008, part I, section A) list central questions and lessons regarding success of
enterprises involved with a particular technology, derived from the analysis of two software
developing enterprises. These are translated by the author as follows (Welge & Al-Laham, 2008):
i. Which are the long term goals of the enterprise? ii. In which business fields does the enterprise wish to engage?
iii. Which are the long term measures to take to enable competing in the business fields? iv. Which are the company’s core competences to apply in order to survive in the competition? v. Which actions are necessary to implement the long term measures?
vi. The company size and the market share are not a guarantee for long term success; vii. Core competences, which have led to success at a certain point in time, lose their relevance
with time. Young, strongly developing markets underlie constant dynamic changes their rules in dynamic variations.
The key lessons learned for the success of SHSs are:
• Self-set goals play an important role and need investigation (i., ii.); • Success can be manipulated by stakeholders (iii. – v.); • There is no guarantee that certain factors lead to success (vi.); • Success factors change over time, especially in the field of new technologies (vii.).
These points establish a starting point for this research.
2.5.2 Lessons learned from the Profit Impact of Market Strategies Project
In 1960 an extensive research project was started by General Electric to identify the determinants of
profit and cash-flow. Since then, this “Profit Impact of Market Strategies” (PIMS) project has been
extended and is now run by the Strategic Planning Institute (SPI) in multiple subsidiaries, e.g.
Goteborg, Cologne, London, Milano and Vienna (Buzzell & Gale, 1989), (chapter 3).
Buzzell and Gale (1989, chapter 2) postulate the six most important dependencies between strategy
and success as follows (again translated by the author from the German original):
i. In the long run the most important individual success factor for a business unit is the quality of products and services in comparison to the unit’s competitors;
ii. The market share and the profitability are closely linked; iii. High investment intensity is a drag for the profitability; iv. Many of the business divisions referred to as “loss makers” may produce cash while many of
the so-called “cash cows” may not succeed; v. A high depth of added value may be a worthwhile strategy for some business units while it is
not so for others; vi. Most factors increasing the return on investment (ROI) contribute to the long term increase
of the enterprise’s value. (Buzzell & Gale, 1989).
2 Literature Review
- 38 -
These strategies for success may be applied to enterprises dealing with Solar Home Systems:
• Quality is a major success factor (i.); • Contradictory points of view exist in success research (refer to vi. in section 2.5.1 versus ii. in
section 2.5.2); • Success research deals with unpredictability (iv. & v.); • Some general success factors exist (vi.).
However, Welge and Al-Laham (2008, pages 251 & 252) criticise this approach and claim that the ROI
dealt with in the PIMS study is an insufficient success criteria, that the PIMS study is not transparent,
and that conclusions are drawn across different branches instead of individual sectors.
Nevertheless, PIMS is seen as the most comprehensive study on strategic success factor research at
present (Weindlmaier, Schmalen, & Kunert, 2006; Welge & Al-Laham, 2008).
For this research an extension to the strategies is added for the case of SHSs. This is the existence of
multiple success factors for a single stakeholder. The focus on one success criteria alone (e.g. the
ROI) may be misleading. Furthermore, individual sectors within the SHS environment need
assessment when approaching the SHSs’ success.
2.5.3 Critical Success Factors
Bullen and Rockart (1981) propose that success is based only on a few Critical Success Factors (CSF).
A challenge in success research is that these CSFs are dependent on the view of an interrogated
person and this person’s particular situation–hierarchically as well as sector wise, i.e. the type of
industry or the interviewee’s position in the enterprise. Five major fields of CSFs are listed by Bullen
and Rockart as: i.) the sector of the industry, ii.) the competitive strategy and the industry’s position,
iii.) environmental factors (e.g. the current economic situation of the industry’s sector or national
politics), iv.) temporal factors (e.g. an internal disaster which needs short term clarification), v.) the
managerial position (Bullen & Rockart, 1981).
Critical Success Factors may be classified into endogenous versus exogenous (Welge & Al-Laham,
2008); monitoring (at present) versus building-adapting (directed towards the future) (Bullen &
Rockart, 1981) and the fields i.) – v.) as listed in the previous paragraph.
Furthermore, four different hierarchical levels of CSFs exist: an industry’s CSFs, corporate CSFs, a sub-
organisation’s CSFs and individual CSFs. Additionally, Critical Success Factors change with time
(Bullen & Rockart, 1981).
Translating the lessons on CSFs to the SHS environment leads to Figure 2-7:
2 Literature Review
- 39 -
Figure 2-7: Dimensions of the Solar Home System's Critical Success Factors. Developed by the author based on Bullen and Rockart (Bullen & Rockart, 1981).
Referring to Bullen and Rockart it is assumed that only a few Critical Success Factors exist for SHSs.
But three dimensions must be considered: sector, origin of CSF and time frame. The different sectors
in the SHS environment (e.g. Users, Supply Chain, manufacturers or governments) have different
CSFs (Bullen & Rockart, 1981).
The origin of the Critical Success Factors may be endogenous or exogenous. The Users’ maintenance
is listed in literature as a Critical Success Factor for SHSs. From the Users’ point of view it is an
endogenous success factor while it is an exogenous success factor for manufacturers.
CSFs are valid for a certain time frame. Present success factors are different to future success factors.
For example, the paradigm of rural electrification is changing from supplying units of energy (kWh) to
supplying units of energy services (lumen hours or TV hours). Based on this change of paradigm, CSFs
will change also (Adelmann, 2015).
Last but not least, the views on these success factors are dependent on the hierarchical level they
occur. The User Community will consider different success factors than the User family or the
individual member of a User family.
2 Literature Review
- 40 -
2.5.4 Goals and Success
According to different sources, success is the achievement of a set goal (Business Dictionary, 2014c;
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2014; Oxford Dictionaries, 2014).
A goal is:
// an observable and measurable end result having one or more objectives to be achieved
within a more or less fixed timeframe. \\ (Business Dictionary, 2014b)
Following Welge and Al-Laham (2008 part II, section A), the formulation of goals play a major role in
the management of enterprises to achieve success. A goal’s function is to select preferences of action
and to give orientation in the decision on activities. Goals set the framework for monitoring and
controlling an enterprise as well as for the coordination of the different activities of an enterprise’s
members. Goals generate motivation amongst an enterprise’s members and hence improve its
performance.
These lessons learned may also be translated to Solar Home Systems as the involved stakeholders
depend on goals on multiple levels. Research on success of SHSs needs to focus on the interaction of
stakeholders, goals and success.
Figure 2-8: The linkage between stakeholders, goals and success. Source: Author’s diagram.
The monitoring and evaluation function of goals plays a major role. The next section will focus on this
aspect.
2.5.5 Measurement of Success
The challenge in measuring the success of enterprises is discussed by Nettleton (2007): on the one
hand, billings do not seem to be very meaningful. On the other, the productivity of the individual
members of an organisation is not entirely accessible for a researcher. Often the access to a number
2 Literature Review
- 41 -
of figures of merit is refused to researchers. Summarizing these aspects leads to the conclusion that a
set of measures is needed to be able to measure the success of an enterprise (Nettleton, 2007).
Weindlmaier, Schmalen et al. (2006) confirm Nettleton’s remarks on the necessity of a set of
measurable quantities to approach the impact of success factors, and which qualify to make these
impacts comparable. They add that these indicators may be of quantitative or of qualitative nature.
Furthermore, they discuss the number of measured variables. Lower numbers of measurable
variables increase the lucidity. But low numbers of variables lead to loss of information content
(Weindlmaier et al., 2006).
Figure 2-9: Measurement of success: Quantitative and qualitative indicators exist. Furthermore, the number of measured variables needs consideration to level between lucidity and loss of informative content. Source: Author’s diagram.
Research on the SHSs’ success needs to consider multiple indicators in order to measure success.
These may be quantitative or qualitative. The balance between lucidity and informative content
needs to be found by choosing a suitable number of measured variables.
2.5.6 Critical Views on Success Factor Research
March and Sutton (1997) provoke the community of success researchers in their publication by
doubting that success can be researched scientifically. Three major sources of methodological bias
are listed: i.) Information on factors influencing performance is handed across multiple competitors
and is therefore shaped by their influence. ii.) Multiple feedback loops exist leading to success or
failure. Often these are not considered in models of success. iii.) Back data used for evaluating
success histories tend to be adapted in their reporting to fit subsequent performance results (James
G. March & Robert I. Sutton, 1997).
2 Literature Review
- 42 -
Habel (1992, page 280) has investigated a large number of “Organizational Performance as a
Dependent Variable” (OPDV) studies and criticizes that hardly any of the scientific results are
reflected in empiricism (Habel, 1992).
Woywode (2002) has summarized from literature the following methodological problems of OPDV
research, which the author relates to SHSs by explanatory examples (Woywode, 2002):
• Key informant bias: Key informants may fail in giving information on dependencies of the past under their current situation – (James G. March & Robert I. Sutton, 1997). Solar Home System Users may not remember the situation at their homestead before the implementation of the SHSs. This may lead to a bias in the evaluation of the SHSs’ advantages.
• Endogeneity: Independent variables are influenced by variables which have not been accessed – (W. H. Green, 1993). At first sight the price of SHSs seems to be an independent variable. But this price may be influenced by hidden costs of importation.
• Simultaneity: Earlier success or failure has an influence on applied measures. Hence, the influence of a measure is highly dependent on the situation in which it was applied – (Beck, Brüderl, & Woywode, 2002). Advertising road shows may be applied in a region where SHSs are unknown and other sales activities have failed. But the impact of road shows might decrease after awareness of SHSs has been created. At subsequent points in time road shows may not be a success factor anymore. By contrast, advertisement concepts which have failed previously may turn out to be effective now.
• Unobserved heterogeneity: Enterprises may differ in their long term success potential. This again influences success independently of certain measures – (Beck et al., 2002). Projects of NGOs, governments or donors may differ in their implementation success despite the fact that they use an identical upfront strategy in SHS dissemination. The success of SHS dissemination may be based on a different, unobserved quality (e.g. the trust and sympathy) than the introductory dissemination strategy (e.g. the financing model or system quality).
• Regression-to-the-mean-problem: Random failures may occur during several periods of time. Measures taken may randomly lead to success. But the success may not be related to these measures – (Greve, 1999). An increase of sales numbers may be assigned to a governmental awareness campaign. However, the motivation of buyers to purchase SHSs may be an improved income situation, e.g. in the harvesting season.
• Survival bias: Research taken in retrospective mode may only consider enterprises which have survived – (Woywode, 2002). It will be difficult to find a flying trader who has failed in the SHSs’ business. Therefore, some possibly important failure factors will stay undisclosed. Even in the case that former traders can be detected there would still be a high risk of key informant bias in their interrogation.
Last but not least, March and Sutton (1997) need to be referred to in this section: once success
factors have been disclosed they will be disseminated and copied. The distinguishing advantage of
high performers will disappear. Their success will vanish. (James G. March & Robert I. Sutton, 1997)
2 Literature Review
- 43 -
As learned in section 2.5.5 Measurement of Success the measurement of success relies on qualitative
and on quantitative indicators. Section 2.5.6 Critical Views on Success Factor Research shows that
bias can occur in the measurement of success. Figure 2-10 summarizes the results of both sections.
Figure 2-10: The measurement of success may be biased on multiple levels. Source: Author’s diagram.
The critical views on success factor research clearly identify the challenges for this study and the
short term validity of its results.
2.6 Diffusion of Innovation and of SHS Technology in Particular The previous section introduced the area of success research which is very important for this study.
Another important field which can assist in understanding success of SHSs is the diffusion of
innovation.
The author proves in this section that Solar Home Systems are an innovation even until today.
Adapting to innovation may be a challenge for societies; diffusion of innovation may be a challenge
for suppliers of innovative products. The SHSs’ success factors and success barriers may be
understood by approaching the technology from the viewpoint of innovation mechanisms.
Rogers (2003, page xvi) summarizes general principles of the diffusion of a new technology into a
society. His studies on diffusion of innovation have shown:
// ... an S-shaped rate of adoption over time, different sources or channels at different stages
in the innovation-decision process for an individual, and a tendency for innovators (the first
individuals in a system to adopt an innovation) to travel and read widely and to have a
2 Literature Review
- 44 -
cosmopolite orientation. ... diffusion is a general process, not bound by the type of
innovation studied, who the adopters were, or by place or culture. \\ (E. M. Rogers, 2003)
Rogers is convinced: diffusion is a kind of universal process of social change (E. M. Rogers, 2003).
In this section a quick overview of diffusion of innovation processes is given. These processes are
related to personal experience and to literature on SHSs.
2.6.1 Main Elements of Diffusion of Innovation
According to Rogers (2003, page 14) five characteristic processes of the diffusion of an innovation
exist. Below these are paraphrased on the left side. To the right, reflections on SHSs are taken from
the author’s experience:
Potential Users raise the questions:
Getting to know a technological innova-tion creates uncertainty.
“How can sunshine be transformed into elec-tricity?”
Which are the consequences of the inno-vation?
“What will a SHS cost, can I afford it, and is it safe, can it attract evil spirits?”
Can the innovation solve a personal problem?
“Can a SHS supply sufficient electricity to op-erate the desired appliances (illumination, mobile charging, TV, electric iron, fridge)?”
Once primary information is allocated individuals exert efforts to learn more about an innovation.
Information collection may be provoked by a placard, a road show, or a person using a SHS.
A decision on adoption or rejection of a technology is taken once the uncertainty has shrunk below a certain level due to information collection activities.
A decision in favour of or against the invest-ment in a SHS is taken when a certain level of information (e.g. by advertisements, road shows, or personal communication with Us-ers) has been achieved.
Four main elements and the consequences of the diffusion of an innovation are described by Rogers
(2003). They are summarized by the author in the following figure:
2 Literature Review
- 45 -
Figure 2-11: Four elements and the consequences of diffusion of innovations (shaded) and their characterization (unshaded). Derived by the author from Rogers (2003, section “Elements of Diffusion”).
The four elements of diffusion are the innovation itself, the communication on the innovation, the
time needed for diffusion and the members of the social system in which the innovation is
disseminating. Rogers’ four elements of diffusion are described by suitable examples from Solar
Home Systems as follows:
2.6.2 Innovation
Innovations have six attributes:
Relative Advantage Solar light is brighter than light from hitherto sources such as candles and kerosene lamps – a generally accepted statement.
Compatibility Solar lights should be standing on the table instead of hanging at the ceiling. In this case they are compatible with candles or kerosene lamps – an observation of an interviewee in this research.
Furthermore, the financing of the innovation should be compatible with the financing scheme of the former energy service supply system: small portions of money spent over time. This is confirmed by multiple sources demanding financing schemes for SHSs, e.g. (Friebe, Flotow, & Täube, 2013; IEA, 2002; T. Urmee, 2009a).
2 Literature Review
- 46 -
Complexity The operation of SHS driven appliances is not complex. Once installed switch on / switch off determines the illumination of a room. But there are concealed challenges in how to best operate a SHS – refer to section 2.2.3 Challenges for the User.
Trialability Trialability is not given when a solar kit is unaffordable. Manufacturers aim to develop modular concepts. Users may start off with a small start-up kit and further invest when these SHSs show satisfactory results. Such concepts have been awarded prizes. (Phocos, 2008).
A financing system offered to a SHS User may enable the trialability of a new product. This is one of two key success factors according to Friebe, Flotow et al. (Friebe et al., 2013).
Observability Persons are keen on observing innovative systems before they invest in them. Wimmer (2012, page 12) states that a successful concept for the dissemination of SHSs applied by Grameen Shakti in Bangladesh in the early times of SHSs was “buy now–pay later”. Users could observe a SHS for some time before they took their decision on purchasing the system (Wimmer, 2012). IEA (2003c, page 10) confirms the observation that demonstration systems are more effective than simple paper handouts (IEA, 2003c).
Reinvention Innovative technology is modified–hence reinvented within their diffusion. Rogers states that innovations which can be “reinvented” diffuse more rapidly. Examples for reinvention in the field of SHSs are the manifold tinkering on the SHSs’ charge controllers – a general observation.
2.6.3 Communication
Communication on innovation is a specific type of communication: one individual (or a group)
communicates with another individual or a group. Fundamentally necessary for this communication
are: an innovation, a participant in the communication who has experienced the innovation, another
participant who has not yet experienced the innovation, and an available communication channel.
Three channels serve for the communication on innovation:
2 Literature Review
- 47 -
Mass Media They have been incorporated to advertise Solar Home Systems, e.g. in Uganda (Kawagga, 2013).
IEA (2003c) reports that radio and newspaper advertisements backed by consultancy from professional salespersons are the most efficient method to generate turnover of SHSs (IEA, 2003c).
Interpersonal Channels
They seem to be most effective to incite an individual or group on an innovation. Within the context of SHS dissemination in the early times of Grameen Shakti’s activities Wimmer (2012, page 56) says:
// Word of mouth is more powerful than any brochure,
marketing video, or newspaper advertisement. \\ (Wimmer,
2012)
Acker and Kammen (1996, page 16) confirm that face to face communication was the most important practice for dissemination of SHSs in Kenya in the late 1980s (Acker & Kammen, 1996).
Interactive Channels
Interactive communication channels via the internet grow in importance for an innovations’ diffusion. But from the situation in off-grid rural areas it can hardly be imagined that this also applies to the case of SHSs. The lack of electricity denies a usable access to the internet.
Communication on innovation allows individuals to evaluate a new technology, which Rogers (2003)
states is usually not a scientific process. Most people rely on persons close to themselves who have
acted as pre testers. Diffusion of innovation, therefore, is a social process which is highly dependent
on interpersonal communication activities. Wimmer (2012, page 89) describes this in the section
“Planting the Seeds of Success in the Field”. A common approach of Grameen Shakti’s sales and
installation teams was to convince local community heads of the advantages of SHSs. In the follow-
up these would advise their community members to invest in SHSs.
Another challenge of communication on innovation is that communicating participants are
heterophilous (E. M. Rogers, 2003), (page 19).They may suffer communication problems due to
usage of different vocabulary. Wimmer (page 92) states that a success factor for a sample branch in a
rural area is a local technician who is
// well acquainted with the area and connected to its population \\ (Wimmer, 2012).
This requirement with a focus on the customers incorporates speaking the same language in terms of
the language itself and the technical vocabulary applied.
2 Literature Review
- 48 -
The local culture plays an important role when communicating on the innovation SHSs:
// The success of the advertising approach depends on the area; different ethnic groups have
to be approached in different ways \\ (IEA, 2003c), (page 13).
Referring to Figure 2-11 Time is the third element of the Diffusion of Innovation.
2.6.4 Time
Diffusion of innovation needs time. Three dimensions are stated by Rogers: time for the innovation
decision process, time for the different adopter categories and in general the time for the rate of
adoption (see Figure 2-12).
Figure 2-12: The process of an innovation's diffusion in time dimensions. Derived from (E. M. Rogers, 2003) by the author.
2 Literature Review
- 49 -
Rogers’ time dimensions are displayed with the following examples based on SHSs:
Time Dimension 1: Innovation Decision Process
Time is needed: i. for getting to know the innovation SHS;
ii. for the development of an attitude towards SHSs; iii. for a decision in favour of or against the investment in a SHS; iv. for the implementation process; v. for the confirmation of the usefulness or uselessness of the
innovation SHS. Wimmer (2012, page 94) indirectly confirms the time efforts for positions i. through iv. with the recorded time spent by SHS shop employees in Bangladesh on different working areas. During the start-up of a SHS branch in rural Bangladesh most of the personnel’s time (35 %) was consumed with marketing SHSs (spreading of knowledge, persuasion and establishing a decision), 20 % was spent on the implementation of first systems, 30 % on customer service, and 15 % of the personnel’s time was spent on accounting (Wimmer, 2012).
Parker, Oldach et al. (2003, page 25) confirm point v. They propose an impact study, a minimum of one year after project implementation. This study may reveal whether Solar Home Systems are useful in the project area. Furthermore, the proposed time span indicates that the confirmation process for the innovation of SHSs is expected to take more than one year. (Parker, Oldach, & Wilshaw, 2003)
Friebe, Flotow et al. (2013) research the linkages between products and services in low-income markets on behalf of Solar Home Systems. They extract two key-elements for the successful market deployment of SHSs. These are a) the systems’ maintenance for a certain period of time after the installation (> 1 year) and b) customer support in financing the new systems. The first element of success (a) indicates that during the start-up period the complexity of the system is not yet understood. Regular maintenance visits help the User to get acquainted with the innovation. Furthermore, (externally) maintained systems do not frustrate Users. They will communicate positively about their systems within their communities. Interpersonal channels are served which are the best channels for dissemination of SHSs as has been learned from the IEA experiences described above.
2 Literature Review
- 50 -
Time Dimension 2: Adopter Categories
Rogers describes different participants in the diffusion of an innovation: a.) innovators, the very first persons to adopt an innovation, b.) early adopters, persons following the innovators, c.) early majority, a considerable number of innovation procurers making up for an early majority, d.) the late majority, the group following the early majority and e.) the laggards which decide considerably late on the implementation of an innovation. In paper no. III “Success of Solar Home Systems – the Users’ view” an attempt will be made to allocate the interviewed Users to the different types of participants (Holtorf et al., 2015a).
Time Dimension 3: Rate of Adoption
Time dimension 3 describes the number of adoptions from the point of innovation to the point of saturation of the society’s demand for systems. This forms an S-shaped curve.
Figure 2-13 shows the number of installed SHSs and the cumulated installed SHSs in Bangladesh from 1997 to 2013. Furthermore, the expected number of systems, assuming the diffusion follows the logistic function
Equation 2-2: Logistic function (S-shape).
( )0
0
( )1
rt
rt
KP ey tK P e
=+ −
is displayed. Here K is the maximum number of systems expected, being 9.6 Million11, and P0 is the number of systems installed in 2013. According to this graph the diffusion of SHSs in Bangladesh is in the stage of “early majority”–see Figure 2-13. The characteristic S-shape has not yet been achieved. There is still potential for more SHSs to be installed.
11 IEA (2012) states 95.7 Million inhabitants without access to electricity in BD (IEA, 2012). Assuming 5 persons per household and 50 % of households suitable for SHS electrification, this renders a potential of 9.6 Million Solar Home Systems for Bangladesh.
Figure 2-13: Main Graph: SHS installations in Bangladesh since 1997. Sub graph: Cumulated and forecasted SHSs in BD assuming the logistic function (S-shape). Data source: (Chowdhury, 2014 b).
2 Literature Review
- 51 -
This indicates that even in a country which is advertised to be very successful in SHS dissemination, these systems still constitute an innovation.
Furthermore, the time elapsed up to date for SHS implementation in Bangladesh is 16 years. According to the scenario shown in the time to supply 9.6 Million SHSs in Bangladesh is more than 30 years. This confirms the expected long time ranges for the dissemination of Solar Home Systems.
Issues of the time dimension must not be underestimated in the implementation of SHSs.
2.6.5 Members of the Social System
The fourth element of diffusion of innovation (refer to Figure 2-11) relates to the social system into
which the innovation penetrates. This social system contains four elements: the social structure, the
system norms, the opinion leaders and the change agents. These four elements can be observed in
the SHSs’ regime. The description of the four parts is paraphrased from Rogers (2003, pages 27 and
28) while examples related to SHSs are given from literature and from personal experience:
Social Structure Rogers distinguishes between formal and informal social structures. The two structures may be contradictive in the process of diffusion of an innovation. Urmee (2014) relates the success of SHS projects to formal social structures, e.g. the presence of approved policies as well as to the informal social structures on the level of communities (T. Urmee, 2014a).
System Norms Norms are guidelines in a society for the interaction of humans. They can influence the diffusion of innovation in either way: driving and hindering. System norms may tolerate trying the SHSs’ new technology or they can block these trials of new technology. Urmee (2014) writes that “cultural acceptance is a must” for the sustainability of SHS projects. The cultural acceptance relates to congruency with system norms. (T. Urmee, 2014a)
Opinion Leaders Opinion leaders have an influential position within their network. They may serve as a social model which is copied by their environment. In the case that opinion leaders are in favour of an innovation, their followers are more likely to adopt this innovation as they wish to copy their leaders. The opposite is just as possible. Opinion leaders may be formal or informal. Wimmer (2012, page 50ff) describes making use of leaders in the Users’ training of Grameen Shakti’s dissemination of SHSs (Wimmer, 2012).
Change Agents By contrast, change agents are individuals influencing members of a society in favour of an agency. Change agents attempt to cooperate with opinion leaders. Wimmer (page 51) uses the term “change agent” for the team members of Shakti’s branches in rural areas of Bangladesh. They involve opinion leaders in sales shows and the Users’ trainings to raise interest and convince customers of the innovation of SHS (Wimmer, 2012).
The influence of the members of the social system must not be underestimated when it comes to
SHS implementation.
2 Literature Review
- 52 -
2.6.6 Consequences of Diffusion of Innovation
Innovations diffusing into a society have consequences for this society–refer to Figure 2-11. Rogers
(pages 30ff) classifies the effects of innovation into desirable and undesirable, direct or indirect, as
well as anticipated versus unanticipated results (E. M. Rogers, 2003).
Desirable consequences of SHSs have been described in manifold literature: improved indoor air
quality, brighter light, or cost effectiveness. Nieuwenhout, Dijk et al. (2001c, page 468) point at a
possible undesirable consequence of SHSs: the financial burden for low budget families. The cost of a
SHS is in the range of one tenth of annual income. For rural teachers the SHSs’ costs are up to a 4-6
months’ salary. (Nieuwenhout et al., 2001c). This financial load combined with micro credits and
problems in paying instalments may lead to personal disasters (Berger, 2010).
Acker and Kammen (1996, page 100) give examples for direct and indirect consequences of SHS
diffusion: reliable, kerosene price independent illumination in rural dwellings as a direct consequence
of a SHS. Reduced travelling efforts to secure the supply of a dwelling with candles and kerosene
would be indirect consequences (Acker & Kammen, 1996).
Examples for anticipated consequences of SHSs are a gain of status due to the solar panel on the roof
(Acker & Kammen, 1996) (page 97) while unanticipated consequences are cases of module theft. For
Senegal the number of thefts is assumed to be 15 % of installed solar modules (Wegner & Natascha,
2011).
2.7 Summary Solar Home Systems can be an ideal solution to supply electricity to non-electrified areas in the
world.
Figure 2-14 summarizes the section on electrification in the world and Solar Home Systems
contributing to the electrification in the world:
2 Literature Review
- 53 -
Figure 2-14: Summary of the sections 2.1 and 2.3. Source: Author’s diagram.
Plenty of electricity is being generated worldwide. The distribution is uneven and in some cases
electricity is not even available. This can be explained by multiple challenges existent for supplying
electricity to dispersed consumers. For conventional approaches these are mainly the cost of
transmission and distribution of electricity.
SHSs have been in the focus as a solution since the late 1970s. It is worthwhile to mention that these
systems are already applied worldwide. From SHS projects lessons have been learned on a general
level as well as on their financing. Successful dissemination is possible. However, setbacks are also to
be reckoned with.
Therefore, the current situation is characterized by encouraging aspects and by challenges still to
overcome.
Rural electrification by SHSs has proven to be a solution in the Sunbelt countries of the world. Still,
there are necessary improvements to be made. Possibly any approach to energy and electricity
supply is subject to continuous development as can be shown by the Energy Transition in several
countries (Berkhout, Marcotullio, & Hanaoka, 2012; Simelane & Abdel-Rahman, 2012).
Africa, especially rural Africa suffers from low electrification rates. Figure 2-15 summarizes the
lessons learned in this section.
2 Literature Review
- 54 -
Figure 2-15: Summary of the section 2.4 Status of Solar Home Systems on the African Continent. Author’s diagram, data from (WEO, 2014).
When it comes to electrification, Africa is divided into North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. The two
regions differ dramatically in their electrification rates.
Multiple options exist for the electrification of rural Africa, but they are costly. Especially the fuel
supply has a major impact on the costs for diesel systems in remote areas. A detailed site dependent
selection of electricity supply schemes is necessary.
Solar Home Systems have been successful in Africa since the 1980s. On the one hand, the
infrastructure for dissemination of SHSs already exists. But on the other hand, there are multiple
challenges.
In addition, the critical voices on the costs of electrification by PV, the level of services supplied by PV
and the system’s quality require attention.
Solar Home Systems constitute the crystallisation point of an economic and social environment. Their
technology impacts on their surroundings in various ways. Therefore a few sentences need to be
spent on a summarizing description of SHS technology.
In this research “Solar Home System” refers to a standalone photovoltaic system. The Solar Home
Systems are based on a PV generator of 50 Wp to 100 Wp and a lead acid battery to achieve autonomy
for 3 up to 4 days. The SHSs discussed in this context are designed to supply in average 100 Wh/d to
300 Wh/d of electricity. The actual energy supplied depends on the available solar radiation.
2 Literature Review
- 55 -
Today these setups are technically mature when two conditions are fulfilled: i.) quality components
are used for their installation and ii.) they are professionally installed. In this case they are an ideal
solution for rural off-grid areas in Sunbelt countries to supply small amounts of electricity at
unshaded sites.
A comparison of the SHSs’ prices from literature is difficult due to historical changes and regional
differences. In any case, a decrease of cost in the past two decades can be observed. However, a
recent market study for the Ugandan market gives an impression of prices: solar modules cost in
average 2.18 USD/Wp, charge controllers cost 5.08 USD/A, batteries 1.92 USD/Ah, and cables cost
1.22 USD/m for a 2.5 mm² cross section and 2.44 USD/m for 4 mm² cross section (Kakooza, Begumisa,
Dold, Wassler, & Kossakowski, 2014).
Today’s focus lies on the electricity services supplied by SHSs. Due to the development of appliances
(light sources, radios, TV sets, mobiles) the Solar Home System’s electricity can supply increasing
amounts of energy services to off-grid households.
Figure 2-16: Summary section 2.2 Solar Home System Technology. Source: Author’s diagram.
The reduction in the prices of SHSs and the simultaneous improvement of the appliances’ capability
of turning electricity into services result in decreasing costs for electricity services from SHSs.
At first sight, the operation of Solar Home Systems appears simple for Users. But it imposes
concealed challenges: the matching of the load to the solar supply; the gauging of the appliances’
power demands and energy consumption; the monitoring of loads dispersed in a homestead in order
to manage the load. Modern concepts of charge controllers can mitigate these problems.
The section on success factor research proves that a multidimensional approach to success is
necessary:
2 Literature Review
- 56 -
Figure 2-17: Summary of the section 2.5 General Success Research. Source: Author’s diagram.
There are only a few Critical Success Factors. These factors are dependent on the sector and the
hierarchical level in the sector. The success factors may be of endogenous or exogenous origin.
Stakeholders, goals and success are closely linked.
Measurement of success requires multiple indicators. They may be of quantitative or qualitative
nature. The number of measured indicators needs careful determination.
Success research is prone to bias on multiple levels. Interdependencies exist which might not be
visible at first sight. Randomly occurring events and occurrences may be interpreted as success
factors by participants in the retrospective. Success research is a continuous process as a time
dependency of results can be observed on multiple levels.
This section has summarized fundamental aspects of the diffusion of innovation and has applied
these to Solar Home Systems. Although SHSs are a technical mature solution to supply basic
electricity services to rural households, they still constitute an innovation. Four major elements of
diffusion of innovation need to be considered: the innovation itself and its attributes, the
communication on the innovation and the channels of communication, the time needed for the
diffusion process, and the members in the social system penetrated by the innovation. Consequences
of innovation must be dealt with.
The four elements of diffusion of innovation and multiple consequences can be found in the relevant
literature on dissemination of Solar Home Systems. The elements of diffusion and the consequences
of SHSs impact on the success of Solar Home Systems. The time required for the implementation of
SHSs must not be underestimated.
2 Literature Review
- 57 -
Based on the background given in the past sections, the methodologies need to be explored which
are needed to develop a Model of Success for the rural electrification by SHSs.
3 Methodologies
- 58 -
3. Methodologies This chapter explains the methodologies used to undertake the research. To address the complexity
of the research questions overarching this study, an interdisciplinary approach was used which
enables the gathering of data from a variety of angles and then the combining of this data to develop
the Model of Success.
The methodologies are explained before introducing the Model of Success despite the fact that
readers might wish to see the model first. The author is well aware of the arising conflict of order of
sections which at this point cannot be solved.
The chapter elucidates the decision on the research methodology. It discusses the sample size and
then it describes the data collection methodology. It presents the formal safeguarding of the
methodology by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Murdoch University and by other
relevant institutions in the countries of the field research. The chapter then describes in depth the
data retrieval and its challenges, therefore being a section of its own. Finally the chapter discusses
the data analysis procedures.
The goal of this chapter is to ensure the highest possible research credibility and to reveal to the
reader the efforts undertaken to achieve this research credibility.
3.1 Preface Several different instruments (problem centred interviews, narrative interviews, site visits,
participatory observation and self-observation) were used in this research to collect the qualitative
data.
Figure 3-1 summarizes the research framework and depicts the issues described in this chapter:
The starting point of this study was a thorough literature review. In addition, the personal experience
gained in the field of SHSs within the professional life of the researcher up to date was also
incorporated. Subsequently, the preliminary Model of Success was developed which constituted the
first decisive step. Following this initial stage, the second key decision was taken: the determination
of the research methodology. As a survey of stakeholders was to be part of this research, this
resulted in the determination of an appropriate sample size. The design of the data collection from
participants12 in this research followed as a fourth decisive step. For this the data collection process
needed the approval of the Human Ethics Committee at Murdoch University and permissions of the
local authorities in the regions of focus. The data acquired in the desktop survey and in the field
12 The term Participants describes in the most general form the persons and institutions who gave information to the researcher.
3 Methodologies
- 59 -
study served to validate and to modify the preliminary Model of Success. As part of the data analysis,
data was coded, interviews were transcribed and, when necessary, translated, and some data was
transferred to spread sheets for statistical evaluation. Then, the data analysis itself was carried out.
The data analysis was considered the fifth decisive step before the final Model of Success could be
prepared. Advancing from this a conclusion is drawn, recommendations are made and an outlook is
given at the end of this thesis.
Figure 3-1: Framework of the research "Success factors of rural electrification through Solar Home Systems in developing countries using African case studies". Source: Author’s diagram.
In the following the steps encircled in the dash dotted rectangle of Figure 3-1 are described.
3 Methodologies
- 60 -
3.2 Research Methodology The decision on the research methodology is based on the research topic, the area of research, and
the level of knowledge of the researcher on this topic. According to Laatz (1993, pages 10-12) the
type of research can be categorised as:
i. Explanative versus descriptive research;
ii. Quantitative versus qualitative research, and finally
iii. Research on problems where the current state and the target state are clear in contrast
to research on problems where the current state is clear but the target state is unclear
(Laatz, 1993).
With respect to these categories, this research is aimed at the explanation and the description of the
Solar Home Systems’ success13, a contradiction of the claim by Laatz (1993) (point i. above) that
research is either one or the other. The current level of knowledge on the SHSs’ success still needs
exploration. Therefore, qualitative methodologies are suggested (point ii. above). The current state
on successful SHS projects and success barriers is known (refer to sections 2.3 Lessons Learned from
Past Solar Electrification Programmes). However, the target state of how to describe success of Solar
Home Systems in a holistic manner is lacking in the literature (the second option in point iii. above).
As a preparatory step it was necessary to decide on the outcome of the research. Burton (2007)
distinguishes between Concepts, Hypotheses and Theoretical Frameworks. Atteslander (2008) adds
Models and Theories to the list of qualitative research outcome. Furthermore, Chambliss and Schutt
(2013) are referred to in the following Table 3-1.
13 Explanative research contributes to the verification of concerns while descriptive research is limited to the description of certain issues.
3 Methodologies
- 61 -
Table 3-1: Possible outcomes of qualitative research project: concepts, hypotheses, frameworks, models or theories. A model and a framework are the anticipated outcomes of this research.
Possible outcomes of qualitative research
Description Source
Concept Concepts are the building blocks of a theory. They give an idea of the investigated problem
(Burton & The John Hopkins University, 2007)
Hypothesis “a hypothesis is a sentence formulated with terms, which is empirically falsifiable” (tbtr)
(Atteslander, 2008), page 37
Framework A framework indicates the interrelationships among the variables in a model. It influences the final interpretation of results.
(Burton & The John Hopkins University, 2007)
Model “a model is the representation of objects and processes” (tbtr)
(Atteslander, 2008), pages 34 & 35
Theory A social science theory is a set of propositions about reality. The propositions include definitions, functional relationships, and operational definitions
(Chambliss & Schutt, 2013), page 19
The development of a concept, a hypothesis or a theory could be excluded for this research as a
Model of Success for Solar Home Systems is to be developed. Within this model a framework will
label the relationships between the variables in the Model of Success.
Atteslander (2008) describes features of empirical research which are dependent on the study goal,
the research realm, the exploration methods and the time dimension of the investigation
(Atteslander, 2008). This study focuses on gaining strategic insights into the problem of rural
Figure 3-2: Research design for "Success of Solar Home Systems" based on (Atteslander, 2008), modified by the author. The arrows on the right side of the figure indicate the choices taken for this research.
3 Methodologies
- 62 -
electrification. It specifically focuses on the success of Solar Home Systems in Africa. A combination
of methods is applied and the study is limited to a punctual inquiry. Figure 3-2 depicts the research
design of this study.
Mayring (2002) proposes to navigate across a study by determining the research plans, the methods
for survey, the data processing, the data evaluation and the methods to assess research credibility
(Mayring, 2002). The individual steps consist of different choices–refer to Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-3: General navigation across a qualitative research based on Mayring (2002) and Sewell (2014) (Mayring, 2002; Sewell, 2014). The arrows show specifically the navigation within this research. Graph developed by the author.
This research was based on document analysis to establish the foundation and to develop the Model
of Success. Next, field research was performed in order to determine placeholders & parameters, to
modify the model and to verify the applicability of the Model of Success. For this, the field research
was split into the desktop survey and the field study displayed in Figure 3-1. The other research plans
proposed by Mayring (2002) were excluded by the researcher as they did not assist in answering the
research questions.
On the level of the survey methods the research contained problem centred interviews in the desktop
survey, and narrative interviews, site visits, participatory observation as well as informal
conversational interviews methods in the field study. The participatory observation included gaining
personal experience by self-observation. The informal conversational interviews were related to
general conversations which by chance gave valuable insights into the research topic. The survey
methods were selected to best match the participant’s capacity for sharing their insights.
3 Methodologies
- 63 -
Data processing consisted of data representation in tables and flowcharts for all survey methods.
Audio recorded interviews were transcribed. Notes were taken in narrative interviews. Summarizing
minutes were edited from these notes. The researcher resided at homesteads of SHS Users and had
deep insights into their daily life. Selective minutes related to the Host’s handling of the Solar Home
System14 and related issues were taken from this participatory observation.
Data evaluation was performed by qualitative content analysis.
At all times high attention was given to the research quality control to ensure the research credibility.
The procedures were documented. Interviews with institutional representatives were audio recorded
and transcribed. Research with Users and non-Users of SHSs was documented by hand writing on the
spot and transferred to an electronic file following the face-to-face meeting. Refer to the sections
Problem Centred Interview (PCI), Narrative Interview and Participatory Observation (PO) respectively
for more detail.
The research was rule governed. A guiding sheet was developed for all types of inquiries and the
interviews. Additionally, the participatory observation obeyed the standards given in these guiding
sheets–refer to the descriptions in sections Problem Centred Interview (PCI), Narrative Interview and
Participatory Observation (PO) respectively.
The Proximity to the object was ensured by the choice of respondents–refer to the descriptions in
section 3.6 Data .
Triangulation was applied to the investigations on the Users’ and non-Users’ perspective on Success
of Solar Home Systems. The results of the narrative interviews, the site visits and the participatory
observation were cross-checked–refer to paper no. III Incorporating the User Perspective into a
Proposed Model for Assessing Success of SHS Implementations (Holtorf et al., 2015a).
Argumentative validation of presuppositions and communicative validation took place for paper no. II
Incorporating the Institutions’ Perspective into a Proposed Model for Assessing Success of Solar Home
System Implementations (Holtorf et al., 2016) and paper no. III Incorporating the User Perspective
into a Proposed Model for Assessing Success of SHS Implementations (Holtorf et al., 2015a).
Further details are provided in the referenced chapters and sections.
14 E.g. which appliances were operated, the load profile, which household member was allowed to operate appliances.
3 Methodologies
- 64 -
3.3 Sample Size Qualitative research is labour and time intensive. Balancing between sample sizes leading to
sufficient scientific substantiation on one hand, and a manageable amount of interrogation of
participants on the other, is necessary.
Charmaz (2006) advocates that the aims of a study are the drivers for the project design (Charmaz,
2006). Ultimately, the aims of the study determine the sample size. Glaser and Strauss (2006, page
61) refer to saturation regulating the necessary sample size in their chapter III (Glaser & Strauss,
2006). Saturation in the sense of Glaser and Strauss is achieved when data become repetitive or even
superfluous, when new data do not disclose further information on the topic under investigation.
Mason (2010) evaluated multiple types of qualitative research related PhD studies and investigated
the numbers of participants giving input. The median and the mean value were 28 and 31
respectively, but the standard deviation was found to be 18.7 (Mason, 2010).
For this research the targeted number of respondents was determined purposively to be in the range
of 30. From these, 12 participants originated from institutions dealing with SHSs. 15 participants
were Users of SHSs and 3 participants were interviewed on their experience of not being electrified
at all. These participants were chosen randomly.
Saturation of responses was found in many aspects of the Model of Success for SHSs within these
interrogations, which supported the choice of this sample size.
3.4 Data Collection Methodology Different groups with different characteristics, experiences, and cultures are involved in SHSs. The
knowledge and the expertise of these groups were necessary for this research. However, Laatz (1993,
page 57) underlines the importance of the correct choice of the “measurement instrument” to
acquire data (Laatz, 1993). Mayring (2002, page 65) adds that data acquisition methods need to be
adapted to the research question. Furthermore, the data acquisition method needs adaptation to the
source of information–the participant in the research (Mayring, 2002).
The participants in this research can be divided into two main groups: members of institutions
dealing with SHSs on one side and Users as well as non-Users of SHSs on the other.
Representatives of institutions dealing with SHSs are expected to deal with graphs and numbers in
their daily work. These representatives are used to having interviews and discussions on
miscellaneous topics. Here, problem centred interviews, as described by Mayring (2002, chapter 4,
page 67), guided by a graph, were deployed. The graph was based on the Model of Success described
in paper no. I, refer to Chapter 4. The quantification of statements was sought in these interviews
3 Methodologies
- 65 -
when applicable. These interviews were held face to face. If confirmation of particular information
was required, the interviewees were called by telephone at a later point in time.
Users of SHSs can talk about their experience with their systems. Graphs and figures are not
commonly used tools in their communication. Therefore, diagrams were not used in this context. The
quantification of abstract properties cannot be expected in this group. Comparisons were used to
seek quantification instead. Narrative interviews as described by Mayring (2002, chapter 4, page 72)
were chosen for the data acquisition from Users of SHSs (Mayring, 2002). These interviews were held
face to face. This approach was also applied in interviews with non-Users.
A site visit followed the interviews with Users in order to get feedback on the Users’ statements and
to confirm the correct understanding of Users’ statements. During the site visits the characteristics of
the systems was gauged and the narration on the experience with SHSs was continued.
To back up the information retrieved from Users the methodology of participatory observation was
employed (Özerdem & Bowd, 2010) (Mack, Woodsong, MacQueen, Guest, & Namey, 2005).
Furthermore, the researcher wished to personally experience SHS operation, their advantages and
disadvantages.
The local entrepreneurs imposed a challenge to the data acquisition design. On one hand, they could
be allocated to the group of institutional players. On the other hand, problem centred interviews
were unlikely to be the appropriate method to capture their experience. Participatory observation
was selected for retrieving the local entrepreneurs’ views on success of Solar Home Systems.
The design of the applied methods of data acquisition is explained in the following subchapters.
3.4.1 Face to Face Interviews
The “measurement instrument” interview played a major role in this research.
Laatz (1993, pages 155-162) describes the interview as a social situation (Laatz, 1993). The
development, the conducting, and the evaluation of an interview needs to consider influences of the
situation component, the cognitive processes, the reaction on general social processes and the
reaction on the interview situation. Mayring (2002, chapter 2) postulates “human science research
must take place, as far as possible, in their natural, everyday environment” (tbtr) (Mayring, 2002).
Efforts were made to reduce bias by the interview situation and the interview surroundings. All the
interviews were held in the natural environment of the participant.
3 Methodologies
- 66 -
As previously indicated, two types of interviews were applied in this research: the problem centred
interview was used to capture the institutions’ experience on success of Solar Home Systems.
Narrative interviews were used when seeking Users’ and non-Users’ points of views on SHSs.
Problem Centred Interview (PCI)
Knowledge and experience of representatives of SHS related institutions was sought by problem
centred interviews. Witzel (2000) refers to three basic principles of problem centred interviews: the
problem orientation, the object-orientation, and the process orientation. (Witzel, 2000)
Problem Orientation
The personal experience and the literature survey prepared the researcher to meet the problem
orientation “Success of Solar Home Systems” of the interviews. Up to date knowledge on SHS
technology, stakeholders, self-set goals, success factors, and success barriers had been collected.
They were kept in mind while conducting the interviews. This again allowed better understanding of
the interviewees’ explanations. It enabled a focus on certain aspects in the interview. Last but not
least, the background facilitated the differentiation between commonplace and interviewees’
specific points of view.
Object Orientation
The background of interviewees was analysed beforehand: the affiliation of the institution within the
SHS setting (manufacturer, supply chain, donor, or consultant); the position of the institution (global
player or local entrepreneur); the interviewee’s personal position in the institution (general manager,
division manager, non-managerial employee); and the experience of the interviewee in the field of
SHSs (newcomer versus veteran in the business). This analysis and the placement of the interviewee
supported the preparation and the object orientation of the individual interview appointments.
The conversation with the interviewee was flexible. Narration and questioning phases alternated
throughout the interview with regard to the object orientation.
Process Orientation
A process guideline was developed for the participants’ interrogations. This guideline supplied
orientation throughout the research with the participants. The preliminary Model of Success formed
the basis for this process guideline.
The process guideline incorporated the pre-interview telephone appointments of the interviews, the
interviews themselves and the post interview telephone appointments.
3 Methodologies
- 67 -
The Interview Itself
Following Witzel (2000), an interview instructions sheet was developed for the introductory and the
central part of the interview.
In the interview’s introductory part an overview over the research (title page, motivation, and
methodology) was shown. The researcher’s general personal opinions, his weaknesses as well as his
strengths in this research were addressed. This encouraged a trustful interview atmosphere without
influencing the interviewee.
In the interview’s central part a graph describing the preliminary Model of Success, the interview
guiding questions, and the interview tailored framework for success of Solar Home Systems based on
the preliminary Model of Success were shown.
The interviewee was encouraged to provide their perspective on the given sections and the
components contained in the tailored framework–see Figure 3-4 and Appendix 9.2 Guideline Problem
Centred Interview.
The researcher covered internal15 queries before going on to external16 queries. The latter dealt with
the interviewer’s own ideas and perspectives which were developed based on the interviewee’s
statements.
The interview was audio recorded. Nevertheless, throughout the interview handwritten notes were
taken on the framework sheet. This allowed the discussion to return to an item when necessary, or
to specify and to verify statements given. Finally, the audio recordings were transcribed. The
transcription was sent to the interviewees for approval.
This procedure led to an open minded interview situation allowing the interviewee to speak openly
and to show alternative aspects on the success of Solar Home Systems.
The course of the interview and the interview instruction sheets are displayed in Figure 3-4.
15 Internal queries are questions related to the interviewer’s explanations. 16 External queries are questions related to the interviewer’s thoughts.
3 Methodologies
- 68 -
Figure 3-4: Course of a problem centred interview and Interview Instruction Sheet outlining the course of a problem centred interview. This sheet was applied in interviews with representatives of institutions dealing with SHSs. Source: Author’s diagram.
The details are given in the Appendix, section 9.2 Guideline Problem Centred Interview.
3 Methodologies
- 69 -
Narrative Interview (NI)
The knowledge and experience of Users and non-Users of Solar Home Systems was disclosed in
narrative interviews. The advantages and basic principles of narrative interviews are summarized by
Mayring (2002, chapter 4) as “allowing to gain an insight into subjective meaningful structures which
cannot be assessed by systematic questioning” (tbtr) (Mayring, 2002). The prerequisite for narrative
interviews is that the interviewee is expected to be able to narrate on the area of interest. Narrative
interviews are suitable for explorative studies. Furthermore, Mayring proposes using a flowchart for
narrative interviews in his chapter 4 (Mayring, 2002).
Figure 3-5: Flowchart for the research’s narrative interviews based on Mayring (2002, chapter 4) and Bailey (1996, chapter 3), modified for this study by the author.
3 Methodologies
- 70 -
Bailey (1996) underlines the necessity of gaining entrance to the geographic and the social sphere of
the interview (Bailey, 1996).
A flowchart for conducting the narrative interviews was developed following Mayring’s and Bailey’s
explanations. Figure 3-5 depicts the steps of the narrative interview for this study.
In this case, the researcher first of all defined the “Personal Experiences with the Solar Home System”
as the narrative object.
Secondly, within the area of field research the interviewer sought to gain entry to the interviewee’s
compound. This required a high level of empathy. A locally respected person was engaged to
establish contacts, to gain entry to the interviewees’ spheres and to navigate in all respects of
culture, language and geography. In the following, this person will be denoted as the Gatekeeper17.
Thirdly, it was necessary to stimulate the narration. Generally, the stimulation of the narration was
initiated with an introduction of the researcher by the Gatekeeper. The researcher would then pass
on a business card as a gift to the interviewee. After all participants, the Gatekeeper and the
researcher had entered the interviewee’s property and the welcome ceremony was completed, seats
for all involved persons were provided. In high income households even drinks were offered.
Personal information of the interviewer was passed on and pleasantries exchanged. Next, the PhD
project was introduced by the Gatekeeper. A critical moment was the handing out of the consent
form, the discussion of it and the joint signature demanded by Human Research Ethics Committee at
Murdoch University. At this point, the previously built up level of comfort and trust for the interview
situation dropped significantly and on occasion interviewees became even more reserved in their
narration.
The next step then was to conduct and guide the narration on the experience with the Solar Home
System. A list of guiding questions helped to keep track during the interview (See Appendix
9.6 Guideline User Interview)
1. Interviewee’s position: What is the participant’s position in the household?
→ Often this question was answered by the interviewer’s observation or by the
Gatekeeper’s general knowledge on the situation in the area. Answers to this
question were also confirmed during the site visits (refer to section
3.4.2 Site Visits (SV)).
17 The term Gatekeeper was introduced by Bailey (1996)
3 Methodologies
- 71 -
2. SHS’s history: When was the SHS installed, by whom was it installed, have components been
replaced, is the system operational at present, are there components which need
replacement at present, when will they be substituted, why have they not been replaced?
→ The question classed the type of dissemination (Dealer Model versus Fee for Service)
and gave an impression of the experience’s extent which had been collected by the
User.
→ It indicated the system’s reliability.
→ Furthermore, it disclosed the User’s level of maintenance, and the will to keep the
system in operation. On top, it also reflected the priorities of investments and the
capability to exercise these.
Answers to this question were also confirmed during the site visits (refer to section
3.4.2 Site Visits (SV))
3. User’s Satisfaction: Would the interviewee recommend a friend to invest in a SHS?
→ The motivation for this question was to seek the level of satisfaction with the system.
The answer would confirm the interpretations from answers to questions 2 and 3.
4. User’s Priorities: If the interviewee would be offered a sum of money which would allow
upgrading the SHS, which investment would the interviewee make?
→ The last question addressed the general prioritization of SHSs in the family’s budget.
After the interview, the User’s SHS was inspected. Further narration on details took place during
these visits between the interviewee and the researcher. The researcher’s specific questions were
answered by the interviewee or by the researcher’s observation–refer to subsection 3.4.2 Site Visits.
Subsequently the content of the narrative interview was discussed with the Gatekeeper and further
information was sought. Alternatively, Users were revisited after some days. On these occasions
interviewees were thanked for their cooperation and the already provided information confirmed
during an informal conversation. Furthermore, open questions were rediscussed.
These sections, but also the narrative interview itself, allowed the answering of questions related to
subjective meaningful structures.
For several reasons each interview was recorded by hand into a paperback notebook during the
interview. The main advantage was that it reduced further discomfort of the participant by
introducing an unknown electronic device and hence positively influenced the interaction between
the researcher and the interviewee. Refer to Laatz (1993, pages 155 – 162), Mayring (2002, chapter
2), Deppermann (2013, sections 4 and 5), and others (Deppermann, 2013; Laatz, 1993; Mayring,
2002). Lastly, the notes allowed the researcher to cross evaluate and to remember details of what
3 Methodologies
- 72 -
was said during the interview. The disadvantages were that some details might have been missed
when preparing the summarizing minutes of the narration.
3.4.2 Site Visits (SV)
After the main part of the User’s narrative interview their system was inspected. This gave additional
information from the researcher’s experience. It supported the correct understanding of the User’s
statements and it classified the User’s appraisal of the system’s properties. The risk of
misunderstandings and translation errors were minimized. However, the site visit would be limited to
a visual inspection. Electrical measurements or any dismantling of components would not be
undertaken for courtesy reasons. Four quality indicators were considered: i. the existence of a well
installed battery charge controller, ii. cable connections by cable clamps, iii. adequate cable
connections and iv. fixing of cables and other SHS parts to structural components of the building.
The site visits were guided by four sheets presented in the Appendix, section 9.7 Guideline Site Visit
(SV), Figure 9-10 to Figure 9-13.
1. Interviewee’s position: What is the participant’s position in the household?
→ Often this question was answered by the interviewer’s observation or by the
Gatekeeper’s general knowledge on the situation in the area.
2. SHS’s history: When was the SHS installed, by whom was it installed, have components been
replaced, is the system operational at present, are there components which need
replacement at present, when will they be substituted, why have they not been replaced?
→ The question classed the type of dissemination (Dealer Model versus Fee for Service)
and gave an impression of the experience’s extent which had been collected by the
User.
→ It indicated the system’s reliability.
→ Furthermore, it disclosed the User’s level of maintenance, and the will to keep the
system in operation. On top, it also reflected the priorities of investments and the
capability to exercise these.
3 Methodologies
- 73 -
3. Electricity Services: What are the electricity services supplied by the SHS?
→ Questions 2 and 3 were answered or confirmed when viewing the system. Systems in
working order, the electricity services provided, as well as the quantity of electricity
services lead to the success of SHSs as they contribute to the User’s satisfaction.
4. Pre-SHS situation: What was the situation previous to the installation (sources of lighting,
radio, TV, mobile charging)?
→ The question underlined the difference a SHS can make and may indicate the overall
value of the Solar Home System.
5. Future desires: What electricity services are desired beyond the present services?
→ Question 5 gave an impression of the mental model of the User of SHSs; the User’s
perception of SHS capabilities and their limitations.
→ Furthermore, the answers to this question disclosed unfulfilled expectations and
possibly frustration.
6. User’s Satisfaction: Would the interviewee recommend a friend to invest in a SHS?
→ The motivation for this question was to seek the level of satisfaction with the system.
The answer would confirm the interpretations from answers to questions 2 and 3.
7. User’s Priorities: If the interviewee would be offered a sum of money which would allow
upgrading the SHS, which investment would the interviewee make?
The last question addressed the general prioritization of SHSs in the family’s budget.
3.4.3 Participatory Observation (PO)
Participatory observation is another survey method in qualitative social science which was applied
(refer to Figure 3-3).
The reason for considering this methodology was that miscellaneous bias problems exist about
interviewing. Deppermann (2013, chapter 4) summarizes the influence of the interview situation on
the statements made by interviewees, the difference between action and cognition of persons, the
effect of preformed data, and the non-naturalness of the interview situation for the interviewee as
methodological problems of interviews (Deppermann, 2013). Therefore, a second methodology was
sought in order to verify the results of the User’s interviews.
The advantages of participatory observation are summarized by Friedrichs and Lüdtke (1973,
chapter 1): Participatory observation avoids the discrepancy between “real and verbal behaviour”
(tbtr); it allows the observation of facts which might not be describable by the participant;
participatory observation permits the identification of processes which otherwise require a high level
3 Methodologies
- 74 -
of effort in interview and content analysis iteration; finally, with participatory observation the
research is independent of the participant’s capability to verbally describe facts of interest (Friedrichs
& Lüdtke, 1973).
Still, two major disadvantages of participatory observation exist according to Friedrichs and Lüdtke
(1973, chapter 3): the selective perception of the researcher; and the role of the researcher in the
environment he or she wishes to observe. Additionally, Burgess (1983, chapter 6) lists possible
language difficulties of the observer (Burgess, 1983). Mack, Woodsong et al. (2005) mention the high
demand for time for participatory observation and the problems of documenting data. The
researcher needs to observe and at a different point in time take notes on these observations. In the
meantime interesting observations may get lost (Mack et al., 2005).
By carefully considering the advantages and disadvantages the author found participatory
observation to be a suitable method to complement the Users’ interviews for this study.
Furthermore, the author sought to collect personal experience for introspection. A sojourn under the
living conditions of a Solar Home System User promised to achieve this. The author is convinced that
firsthand experience is of greater validity than second hand experience. Feeling hungry gives deeper
insights into the problem than reading and talking about the pains of hunger. The methodology of
participatory observation promotes this personal experiencing. This aspect encouraged the choice of
participatory observation.
Taking the works of Friedrichs and Lüdtke (1973, chapter 4), Bailey (1996, chapter 3), Mayring (2002,
chapter 4), Mack, Woodsong et al. (2005), and Girtler (2009) as general advice, a flowchart was
developed to guide the participatory observation section of this research (Bailey, 1996; Friedrichs &
Lüdtke, 1973; Girtler, 2009; Mack et al., 2005; Mayring, 2002) – see Figure 3-6.
3 Methodologies
- 75 -
Figure 3-6: Flowchart for the participatory observation of the study of success of Solar Home Systems. Source: Author’s diagram.
Details of the various sections of this flowchart are now discussed in more detail.
Preparatory Steps of the Participatory Observation
In the preparation of the participatory observation it was decided to seek information on the Users’
personal experiences with their Solar Home Systems. From this determination of the observation
dimension an observation guideline was developed. The underlying questions to the researcher’s
activities were:
3 Methodologies
- 76 -
• What are the members’ positions in a household supplied by a SHS?
o How do these members relate to the Solar Home System?
o What are the impacts of the SHS on the persons in the household?
o Who decides on the use of the SHS’s electricity services?
• How old is the SHS, who has installed the SHS?
• Is the SHS operational at present?
o Which are the levels of the SHS’s operation in the household: satisfactory /
unsatisfactory – operational / non-operational?
o How can the level of operation be determined by the members of said household?
• Which electricity services are supplied by the SHS?
• What would the situation of the household be without SHS?
• Which electricity services are desired beyond the present services?
• Which components have been replaced, which components need replacement?
• Which is the level of satisfaction of the household with the services of the SHS, would the
household propose the investment in a SHS to other households?
• When the household had money to spare, which would be the priorities for an investment?
The observation space would be a household supplied by a SHS without a backup such as a generator
set. Torches, candles, and kerosene lamps were not considered as backups in this context.
The temporal range of a participatory observation needed balancing between essential and
redundant information collection time, the burden on the participants, and the researcher’s time
budget. One week was decided to be the minimum period of investigation to allow the observation
of each weekday. The burden imposed on the household by the researcher was difficult to assess. A
great emphasis is put on hospitality in the culture of the investigated areas in Africa. Hosts would not
give information on discomfort resulting from guests (Dlamini, 2013; Jagwe, 2013; Wassajja, 2013).
Within three weeks individual weekdays would have occurred three times, which would be more
than sufficient repetition of day to day activities.
Finally, the day of arrival needed determination. The arrival of the researcher would provoke
multiple impacts to the family life. This day would not allow for observation. There are five to six
working days and only one or two weekend days in a week. Therefore, it was decided by the
researcher that a working day would be the day of commencement of the participatory observation.
Gaining Access to the Field
In a first step, it was necessary to make contact to a person who was interested in the research, who
was willing to support the research, who had contact to research regions suiting the research and
3 Methodologies
- 77 -
who was within the proximity of the research’s subject. It was important that this person was
available by modern communication methods from the home of the researcher (and from the field).
Also, the reliability of this person was essential. This person is denoted as the Umbrella Person in the
following.
A Gatekeeper was necessary on site. This person would enable access to the site under investigation.
A Gatekeeper can be a person with formal status giving access, or an informally accepted authority in
the area of the field survey - (Bailey, 1996), (chapter 3, pages 49 – 52 & 54 – 56). The access to the
site incorporates multiple levels: most important was that the Gatekeeper established contact to
interviewees and that the Gatekeeper developed an open minded, trustful atmosphere in the
interviews. But the Gatekeeper also had to geographically navigate the researcher, consult the
researcher on cultural issues and give background information. In one case a Host played the role of
the Gatekeeper, in another case a young man was denoted the Gatekeeper by the chief of a
community. In both cases the Gatekeeper was vested with a high status and completely fulfilled their
tasks.
At the site of investigation other actors and their roles had to be established. This led to determining
the roles of each member of the household selected for participatory observation.
Subsequently, the researcher had to first develop a relationship to the Gatekeeper and in the next
step to all actors.
The researcher’s role apart from being a (paying) guest was disclosed from the very beginning of the
participatory observation.
The assignment of tasks in the process was as follows: initially the researcher needed to identify an
Umbrella Person. The Umbrella Person would support the researcher in finding the appropriate
location for the field study and would arrange a host family. The Host appointed the Gatekeeper. The
researcher had to establish a bond to the Gatekeeper and communicate his role in the given setting.
The Gatekeeper would support the researcher in determining other actors on site. The researcher’s
task then was to find further participants of importance. Partly with the help of the Gatekeeper the
researcher had to develop a relationship to these participants. The researcher’s role was
communicated to all participants. This relied on the Gatekeeper due to differences in language.
Operation of the Participatory Observation
Once the researcher was introduced to the Host and the Gatekeeper the participatory observation
activities began. The researcher needed to balance the engagement in on site activities between
explorative participation, support out of politeness and disturbance of daily work routines.
3 Methodologies
- 78 -
Interaction with people was based on face to face exchange of views (when sharing a cup of tea),
participation in daily routines (watching TV in the evening) and sharing of chores (collecting water at
the well). This integration into the household’s daily routines helped to identify relationships
between the actors in the researched households.
Documentation
An A4 hardcover notebook, a pencil and an eraser were the tools for taking field notes. Some notes
were taken in unobserved moments. Other notes were taken publicly during an exchange of minds.
The latter approach created and intensified the interest and collaboration of actors. Furthermore,
the public noting of observations allowed clarification during writing.
All observations on social activities which might be related to the Solar Home System were
documented. Furthermore, sketches of the surrounding and technical details were noted. In parallel
the researcher attempted to log operational data from the Host’s SHS. Issues of interest were: which
electric service was demanded at which time.
Electrical measurements at the SHSs were not taken. This would have implied a physical intervention
into the system. At one site of the participatory observation the system components were enclosed
in sealed boxes. At the other site the system was in such a poor condition that an intervention would
have risked destroying the Solar Home System to an irreparable extent. Last but not least, any
dismantling of system components would have exceeded the limits of courtesy.
Notes from the notebook were transformed to selective minutes when electricity was available to
operate a laptop.
In parallel a private diary was written to allow introspection. The diary allowed the researcher to
record personal attitudes to SHSs and document experiences with SHSs. The diary was typed directly
to an electronic file.
Timely proximity was important in the documentation. Handwritten notes were taken on the spot or,
in the worst case, within hours of observations. The transformation of notes to electronic files was
dependent on the availability of electricity. Intermittent electricity supply was given at one site by
visiting a grid electrified neighbour during time slots when electricity was supplied by the grid
operator. At another site a personal SHS supplied continuous and sufficient electricity to operate the
researcher’s laptop. Under the circumstances of occasional electricity supply the handwritten notes
had to be more detailed to aid the researcher’s memory.
3 Methodologies
- 79 -
Some aspects were unforeseeable in the preparatory steps of the participatory observation. These
were disclosed during the documentation of observations. With a feedback loop these facets were
enclosed into the observation guideline.
Overriding Rules
The researcher had to obey overriding rules predominantly within the steps ‘gaining access’,
‘operation’ and ‘documentation’ of the participatory observation (refer to Figure 3-6).
Discretion was necessary in order not to influence the activities of the observed household and
hence leading to bias in the researcher’s conclusion.
Obviously, objectivity is a must in research. However, impacts on objectivity may evolve from the
unfamiliar environment.
Politeness is self-evident. Still, impoliteness may result from unknown codes on site. Consultation and
feedback from the Gatekeeper was very important at this point.
The adaptation to the local culture led to discretion.
Participation and toleration are fundamental to allow observation. But participation may conflict
with the researcher’s own practices and habits.
Toleration may be difficult when it comes to a contradiction with ethical principles of the researcher.
During the period of participatory observation the researcher had to continuously remember and act
according to the overriding rules–despite the chronic stresses evolving from the research in the field.
From the feedback of the Gatekeeper and the reactions of the family members on the day of
departure it was concluded that no problems occurred related to discretion, politeness, adaptation
to the culture, participation and toleration.
Evaluation
The researcher chose qualitative content analysis to evaluate the observations in participatory
observation. Details will be described in section 3.7 Data Analysis.
3.4.4 Self-Observation
This methodology is derived from the introspection which is used in psychological studies (Boring,
1953; Frith & Lau, 2006; Overgaard, 2006). The researcher critically assessed the personal position
being a User of a SHS (in total four weeks). From the self-observation and by critically assessing the
difference between SHS Users’ situation and the researcher’s own situation (for example the
economic situation) personal experiences with SHSs were collected. Parameters for the Model of
3 Methodologies
- 80 -
Success were retrieved, for example, self-set goals and their importance, success factors,
measurement of the level of achievement. In this way, the information retrieved from interviews and
from participatory observation was evaluated from another view angle. Figure 3-7 summarizes the
method of the self-observation conducted in this research.
Figure 3-7: Components of Self-Observation used in this research. Source: Author’s diagram.
The self-observation was conducted in parallel to the participatory observation.
3.4.5 Summary Data Collection Methodology
Data were collected from participants originating from institutional stakeholders and from SHS Users
as well as non-Users. For each type of data collection guidelines were established in order to assure
scientific quality of the “measurement instrument” and the outcome of the research.
Institutional participants and Users/non-Users differ considerably in their ways and tools of
communication. This was considered by applying different types of measurement instruments.
A challenge for the researcher was to adapt to the group of Users and non-Users. Therefore, two
approaches were chosen for this group. Figure 3-8 summarizes the section Data Collection
Methodology.
3 Methodologies
- 81 -
Figure 3-8: Summary Data Collection Methodology consisting of three data collection guidelines. Source: Author’s diagram.
The methodologies described needed formal approval before they could be applied.
3.5 Ethics Approval and Local Permissions A significant part of this research dealt with human beings. For the researcher a high level of caution
when dealing with persons is self-evident.
Bailey (1996, pages 32-33) summarizes and describes ethical issues and challenges related to field
research (Bailey, 1996). The National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research
Council et al. (2007) insists on respecting ethical principles in research with human beings (National
3 Methodologies
- 82 -
Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, & Australian Vice-Chancellors’
Committee, 2007).
To ensure the best possible ethical standards, to receive consultation in the process of the research,
and to comply with Murdoch University codes of practice, the Human Research Ethics Committee
(HREC) at Murdoch University was involved and an application seeking approval for conducting this
research was made.
3.5.1 Murdoch University Human Research Ethics Committee
A Murdoch University Human Research Ethics Committee approval was sought for both parts of the
research: the interviews with institutions dealing with Solar Home Systems as well as the field study
consisting of narrative interviews with SHS Users and participatory observation. Outright the HREC’s
approval was given under the project number 2012/076 on 29.06.2012 for the interviews with
institutions and on 25.02.2013 for the field study respectively.
3.5.2 Ugandan Permissions
The Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) requires an approval to carry out
field studies in Uganda. This approval was applied for. A fee of US$ 150 was transferred to the
account indicated in the correspondence. There was no further communication after the bank
transaction had taken place despite several inquiring emails. The permission was assumed to be
given.
The researcher was introduced to the local police station on arrival in Ndejje18 on February 7th 2013
and consent was given to the research. The day before the end of the field survey the researcher
reported his departure to the police station (13.02.2013). This exercise was semi-formal.
3.5.3 South African Permissions
In South Africa the local Traditional Council and the Community Council required a process of
personal introduction of one’s person and the project before permission was given. This process
demanded some preparation. For the decisive meeting the personal attendance of the researcher
was obligatory. Preparatory steps had been taken by the Umbrella Person. The Traditional Council at
Ingwauuma, Manyiseni, gave their permission for the research on February 20th 2013. The Ndumo19
Community Council granted permission on February 21st 2013. According to the local culture, the
permissions were given in oral agreement. Minutes were taken to document the meetings.
18 For further information on the research area Ndejje (UG) please refer to sections 0 ff. 19 For further information on the research area Ndumo (ZA) please refer to sections 0 ff.
3 Methodologies
- 83 -
The permissions were given under the condition of supplying a report on the findings of the research.
This report was sent in two bound copies to the Umbrella Person on December 9th 2013. In addition,
a copy of this thesis will be sent when it has been published by Murdoch University.
3.6 Data Retrieval Process Once the data collection methodology had been designed and formally approved, the work package
of data retrieval needed execution (Figure 3-1). This section provides details on how the data
retrieval was performed in this research. The previous sections discussed the possible methodologies
that could be used, the methodologies that were actually selected, and the general design of the
data collection procedure.
Data was obtained through interviews and participatory observation with institutions dealing with
SHSs, through interviews with Users and non-Users of SHSs, through site visits and through
participatory observation in households supplied with electricity by Solar Home Systems.
3.6.1 Institutional Interview Partners
The challenge at this point was to determine whom to interview, how to settle an interview
appointment and how to actually conduct an interview with a designated interviewee. Kvale (1996)
proposes inviting members of a very specific group to participate in qualitative research (Kvale,
1996). In this case, the specific group is associated with institutions dealing with SHSs:
Determination of Institutional Stakeholders in the SHSs’ Setting
The determination of which institutions were to be interviewed is described in this section.
Manufacturers of SHS components are necessary to supply these systems. Solar modules are the
components with the highest reliability within these systems. From the researcher’s experience and
from Carrasco (2011), batteries seem to be the components with the lowest mean time between
failures (Carrasco, 2011). Charge controllers have a major influence on the batteries’ service lives. It
was therefore decided to interview a representative of a battery manufacturer and a representative
of a charge controller manufacturer.
System integrators operate internationally. They design systems with different manufacturers’
components in order to supply a certain amount of electricity or an electricity service in a certain
region of the world. These systems are shipped to the country of implementation by the system
integrators. They may be assigned by governments or donors. System integrators play an important
role in disseminating SHSs on an international level. The experience of system integrators was
classified to be significant for this research. Two representatives of system integrators were
interviewed.
3 Methodologies
- 84 -
System implementers operate on a national level. They disseminate Solar Home Systems in certain
districts of their country. These SHSs may be purchased from system integrators. Alternatively, the
SHSs may be designed by the system implementer; with the components being purchased on the
international market. System implementers mainly work for their governments in electrification
programmes or they serve local communities. Their business activity is predominantly focused on the
national level. Two representatives of system implementing companies in Africa were interviewed.
Note: there is a thin line between system integrators and system implementers. The differentiating
factor in this research is the geographical range of operation–international (system integrator) and
national (system implementer).
Donors are named in many sources and they generate literature from their experience with Solar
Home System programmes. Examples are ADB, AusAID, GIZ, GPOBA, IDB, KFW, World Bank, USAID to
name a few. Donors play a key role for many SHS dissemination schemes and they have a wide range
of experience. Therefore, it was planned to interview two representatives of donors.
Local entrepreneurs deal with SHS components or they install individual SHSs in rural areas. In many
cases, both tasks are supplied by the same institution. Their radius of action is typically limited by the
local public transportation system. Two representatives of local entrepreneurs were included in this
study.
The representatives of the above listed institutions were sought for their focused views on SHSs.
Additionally, the researcher desired independent views on the SHSs’ success. Therefore, two
representatives of consulting companies were interviewed to contribute with their points of view to
this research.
The local entrepreneurs’ views were sought by participatory observation. All other institutions’ views
were accumulated by problem centred interviews.
Table 3-2 summarizes the interviews held with institutional representatives and the mode of access
to their information.
Experts and their Recruitment
Once the types of institutions of interest had been determined, it was necessary to recruit
representatives of such institutions. Furthermore, the representatives needed to be ‘experts’ within
their institution. This is described in the following:
3 Methodologies
- 85 -
Van Audenhove (2007) summarizes that experts have high and privileged insights into the topic of
research, they are well networked and they are motivated to give information to the research (Van
Audenhove, 2007). Van Audenhove’s explanations guided the selection process for experts.
The researcher sought the Postgraduate Programme Renewable Energy Alumni List with more than
400 renewable energy related members by emailing this list. Furthermore, participants of ISES Solar
World Conference 2011 in Kassel, Germany; OTTI Small PV Applications Conference 2011 in Ulm,
Germany; and UIU International Conference on the Development of Renewable Energy Technology in
Dhaka, Bangladesh were approached. Two means of approach were chosen at the conferences: the
project was either presented in poster form or in an oral presentation. Subsequently, preselected
conference participants were personally approached.
Thereby particular attention was paid to the approached expert’s focus on Africa. However, in the
course of the further development of this research the results will be generalized and made
applicable to projects on other continents.
The two representatives of Local Entrepreneurs were identified during the fieldwork visits. They
operated in the area where the fieldwork was undertaken.
Finally, ten experts were identified for interviewing; two experts identified gave insights by
participatory observation. They are listed in Table 3-2.
Summary Institutional Interview Partners
Deppermann (2013) discusses interviews being caught between the formal text of the transcribed
interview recordings and the interview’s interaction. The researcher’s influence on the outcome of
the interview begins with the selection of the interviewee, continues in the interviewer’s demeanour
during the interview and ends with the interviewer’s analysis of the interview. On the other hand,
interviewees influence the result of interviews by their principle attitude towards the interviews, by
their interest in the topic of the interview and by themselves being different to a machine giving
automatic information (Deppermann, 2013).
Summarised, this section has described the efforts to address a key-element for this research: the
selection of institutional experts who were motivated to contribute to the research.
Table 3-2 lists the specifications of the institutions which were selected for interviews, characterizes
their interviewed representatives as experts and details the method of access to their knowledge.
3 Methodologies
- 86 -
Table 3-2: Institutions and their interviewed experts.
Type of Institution
Specification of Institutions interviewed
Position of Interviewee Type of Access20
Component Manufacturer
Battery manufacturer.
Charge controller manufacturer.
Regional Sales Manager Africa
Head of Sales Africa PCI
System Integrator
(German) International System Integrator operating in Africa
(Latin American) International System Integrator operating in Africa
Managing Director
Managing Director PCI
System Implementer21
North African System Implementer
Sub-Saharan Africa System Implementer
Managing Director
Managing Employee Sales Department
PCI
Donor International Operating Donor
International Operating Donor
Managing Employee Rural Electrification
Managing Employee Rural Energy Supply
PCI
Local Entrepreneur
Local Installer
Local Vendor
Manager and his only assistant
Sales employee in the shop PO
Consultant International Operating Consultancy
International Operating Consultancy
Managing Director
Employee Rural Energy Supply PCI
Most of the experts were accessed by problem centred interviews, while the local installer and the
local vendor were accessed by participatory observation.
3.6.2 Field Study Area and SHS Users
Another task was to allocate two field study areas in which Solar Home System Users were available
for interviewing. Furthermore, participatory observation within selected households was desired.
Burgess (1983, chapter 3) proposes the demarcation of a field study in space and in time. The need
for manageable amounts of data had to be considered. Given facts (e.g. seasonal variation in
sunshine or rainfall) can influence the society investigated but can also influence the researcher, e.g.
20 PCI = problem centred interview, PO = participatory observation. 21 The distinction between system integrators and system implementers is mainly based on their operational range.
3 Methodologies
- 87 -
by the accessibility of a region (Burgess, 1983). Additionally, the researcher’s time constrictions due
to their professional life’s obligations needed consideration.
The time period from beginning of February to end of March suited both aspects. This period is
outside the rainy season. Roads and paths were traversable. Furthermore, the researcher’s
professional workload is low during this time.
Next, the situation found in the field study area should suit the research. Here, the implementation
approaches are addressed. Multiple ways to disseminate SHSs exist (IEA, 2003b), (Becker, 2014),
(Scheutzlich, Klinghammer, Scholand, Wisniwski, & Pertz, 2001). These sources propose different
concepts of electrification by Solar Home Systems. It was decided that two contrasting dissemination
approaches should be surveyed to extract success factors from the differences observed. Dealer
Model and Fee for Service were chosen to be the most contrasting forms of implementation models
proposed in literature.
Based on these premises an Umbrella Person (refer to section 3.4.3 Participatory Observation) was
sought from the PPRE alumni list and from the conferences visited (refer to section 3.6.1 Institutional
Interview Partners).
An Umbrella Person was found for a region with dealer model systems in Ndejje, Uganda. Ndejje is
located approximately 40 km north of Kampala. About 5250 inhabitants live there according to the
national census from 2002. However, the population growth rate in Uganda is in the range of 3.1 %
per year. The population was spread over 713 households of which 50 % are electrified by the
national grid (2002 data). Approximately 35 households are electrified by SHSs (educated guess,
actual data). The local language is Luganda and English. (Jagwe, 2014b).
A second Umbrella Person for a region in which Fee for Service systems are disseminated was located
in South Africa. Ndumo, 250 km north of Richards Bay at the border with Mozambique, was proposed
by this person. Ndumo has 5631 inhabitants. 595 Solar Home Systems have been installed by NuRa-
Energy in the past. The electrification rate by ESKOM is in the range of 30 %. The language spoken in
the region is Zulu (Dlamini, 2014c).
The researcher aimed to stay in a household of these regions for the purpose of participatory
observation and to interview Users of Solar Home Systems in the vicinity of their households.
The respective Umbrella Person chose a suitable household for the participatory observation and
supplied the infrastructure for the researcher to get to the location.
3 Methodologies
- 88 -
Households for Participatory Observation
The researcher aimed at staying in a household for a minimum of one week for the participatory
observation. The requirements for such a household were:
• The household would consent to host the researcher in his nature of researching the
activities of the household and for the desired duration of time;
• At least one member of the household would be able to communicate in English or in French
with the researcher;
• A member of the household would support the researcher as a Gatekeeper or by appointing
a Gatekeeper. The Gatekeeper’s tasks have been described above;
• The household is equipped with a SHS which constitutes the only electricity supply.
Dealer Model SHS Household
The hosting family in Ndejje (UG), where the researcher spent one week from February 7th to
February 14th 2013, was headed by a married couple. Both worked as teachers in different nearby
schools. Both spoke English fluently. One own child (2 years old) and three foster children (5, 11 and
18 years of age) belonged to the household. Communication with the children was possible in the
English language at a level according to their age. The husband had previously unsuccessfully run for
election in the local government. Therefore, he was a well-known and respected person in the region
of Ndejje. Furthermore, the husband had spent one year in Denmark in a funded exchange
programme for professionals.
The husband took over the role of the Gatekeeper described in section 3.4.3 Participatory
Observation, accompanied the researcher to interviews and aided in interviews by translating.
The selection of the Host by the Umbrella Person, the intellectual background of the hosting couple
and the experience of the couple with research culture as teachers may have led to bias in this
participatory observation. On the other hand, the facts described above made the hosting family an
ideal place for the research.
These influencing factors needed consideration in the evaluation of the participatory observation in
Ndejje–refer to Research Credibility in Figure 3-3.
Fee for Service SHS Household
The hosting family in Ndumo (ZA) was headed by the husband who had recently retired. His wife did
subsistence farming. Two 21 year old siblings (male and female), a 14 and a 12 year old boy, and a 9
year old girl (all children of the parents), were further members of the household. All of the five
young people still attended the local schools. Communication was difficult with the head of the
3 Methodologies
- 89 -
family and with the couple’s children due to language restrictions. Communication with the mother
of the family was impossible because of a lack of English proficiency on her side and a lack of Zulu
proficiency on the researcher’s side.
The head of the family was the local chief of the community. Formal issues of the stay in Ndumo
were settled by this person. The 21 year old son was very helpful as Gatekeeper for interviews in his
role as the son of the local chief. A 21 year old neighbour of the local chief was assigned by the local
chief to be my second Gatekeeper.
Three weeks were spent in Ndumo (February 20th 2013 – March 13th 2013).
The selection of the Host by the Umbrella Person and the formal position of the head of the
household in the community may have provoked bias in this participatory observation. But the
advantages of the Host and his position provided a very good starting position for the research. The
evaluation of this stay will need to reflect on possible pitfalls for the research’s results as depicted in
Research Credibility, Figure 3-3.
SHS Users and Non-Users
The selection of SHS Users in the regions of Cash Sales dissemination and Fee for Service
dissemination was based on the following premises:
• Supply of the household by a typical SHS (PV generator in the range of 50 Wp to 150 Wp as
distinct from Pico PV Systems and large scale systems of several hundreds of Watts peak
supplying appliances beyond lighting, radio, TV and mobile charging);
• Type of SHS provision was Cash Sales or Fee for Service model;
• Accessibility of the household–both geographically as well as socially;
• Presence of a knowledgeable household member during the visit;
• Consent of an authorized and knowledgeable household member to give information to the
researcher and his Gatekeeper.
Recruitment of SHS Users was done with the help of Gatekeepers and using a random. The
Gatekeeper led the researcher to an area with SHSs and houses with a visible PV generator on the
roof were chosen at random.
Dealer Model SHS Users
In Ndejje no Fee for Service SHSs existed. The households with SHSs were dispersed. A motorcycle
taxi was hired to travel to individual houses under the navigation of the Gatekeeper. Randomness
was rather based on the presence of a person at the house and the willingness of this person to give
information in an interview. The interviewer would have had no chance of finding SHSs by random
3 Methodologies
- 90 -
search due to the low population density, the even lower penetration by SHSs, and the remoteness
of the households.
In every case, the Gatekeeper was indispensable as the Users at their homes would speak Luanda
and would not have had sufficient English language proficiency for an interview.
Fee for Service SHS Users
In Ndumo the majority of households with a SHS had achieved their system by Fee for Service supply.
Here, regions existed with a higher density of houses within a small area and some of these houses
were fitted with a SHS. Public transport was based on mini buses and possibly private car taxis. No
motorcycle taxis existed and the regions with houses supplied by SHSs were not accessible by car
taxis or public buses because access was by path rather than road. The researcher and the
Gatekeeper commuted on foot to the sites of the SHSs. It was easy to randomly select interview
partners in Ndumo due to the number and visibility of systems in the region.
The prevailing language amongst the rural inhabitants in Ndumo is Zulu. Few people speak English
and therefore translation was required for all interviews without exception.
Non Electrified Households
Further households were approached to get an insight into the situation of people with no electricity
– neither from SHSs nor from grid connection22.
Final User Sample
Most of the experts were accessed by problem centred interviews, while the local installer and the
local vendor were accessed by participatory observation.
Field Study Area and SHS UsersIn total, 26 households were approached for an interview on SHSs.
These were twelve households in Ndejje (UG) and fourteen households in Ndumo (ZA).
Out of the twelve households in Ndejje two households were reluctant to give information on their
SHS. In two households the interview failed due to the absence of the household members. All SHSs
in Ndejje were based on Cash Sales.
In Ndumo five households equipped with a SHS were interviewed. One system was based on the
dealer model and four systems were operated in the Fee for Service model. Interviews in another
three households failed due to the lack of competence of the person available in one case and due to
the absence of household members in the other two.
22 Electricity may be available from primary batteries in very small quantities. However, households solely relying on electricity from primary batteries are not considered to be electrified households.
3 Methodologies
- 91 -
Three households were interviewed which had no access to electricity at all. Three other households
which seemed un-electrified were approached in vain.
Laatz (1993) describes in chapter 4 the challenges of an interview: the interviewer asks a question in
his or her language proficiency, the interviewee interprets the heard question, develops from this
understanding the answer, presents the answer to the interviewer in his or her language and the
interviewer again does an interpretation. In translated interviews additional bias occurs due to the
translator’s interaction (hearing, understanding, translation, formulation of the understood; and
back) (Laatz, 1993).
In Ndejje the language proficiency of the translator and the technical understanding of SHSs were
high. Little bias was expected. Partly the interviewees had sufficient English proficiency to confirm
what was translated by the Gatekeeper. Furthermore, the interviews were discussed with the
translator after returning to the homestead.
In Ndumo the situation was more difficult. The English proficiency of the translator was fair. No
interviewee was able to speak or understand English. In order to eliminate bias due to translation
problems, households were visited twice in a distance of a few days. In some cases, interviewees
were ready to take up the interrogation again, while in others, interviewees were absent at the
second visit.
A second approach to reduce bias in the interviews with Users was to have a look at the SHSs with
their User and the Gatekeeper. This approach was mentioned in 3.4.2 Site Visits (SV).
The infrastructure and support given by the Gatekeeper in Ndejje was very efficient. Therefore, the
ratio of conducted interviews to the length of the sojourn was better in Ndejje than in Ndumo. The
working conditions in Ndumo were better as an own SHS was provided by the Umbrella Person and
handwritten notes could be transformed into electronic form on short notice.
Table 3-3 summarizes the Users’ interviews.
3 Methodologies
- 92 -
Table 3-3: Summary of the Users' interviews.
Place
Hous
ehol
ds
appr
oach
ed
Hous
ehol
ds
inte
rvie
wed
Cash
Sales
Fee for
Service
Additional Information
Ndejje (UG) (SHS)
12 8 8 2 cases: households were reluctant to give an interview. 2 cases: household’s members absent.
Ndumo (ZA) (SHS)
8 5 1 4 1 case: available person unable to give information. 2 cases: household’s members absent.
Ndumo (no SHS)
6 3 2 cases: household’s members reluctant to give information. 1 case: household’s members absent.
In total, 13 households using SHSs were successfully interviewed. Additionally, 3 non-electrified
households were interviewed.
3.7 Data Analysis Subsequent to the interviews the retrieved data needed to be analysed (Figure 3-1). The data
analysis consisted of two steps. The first step required the preparation of the data for analysis, while
in the second step the method of qualitative content analysis was applied.
3.7.1 Data Preparation
The data which had been collected needed to be coded transcribed and filed; sometimes translation
was necessary and some data were listed in spread sheets for statistical evaluation.
Data Filing
The original data and the coded data were filed. The coded data are accessible through the academic
support officer of the School of Engineering and Information Technology at Murdoch University. The
original data are not accessible for the public. Both, original and coded data were filed by
differentiating the desktop survey’s data and the field study’s data. The field study data was arranged
by country. Within this classification of countries, data were filed as participatory observation data
and User interviews data.
Data Coding
The data were coded to ensure the privacy of the participants and to comply with the outlines of the
HREC approval 2012/076 of this research.
3 Methodologies
- 93 -
Interviews with members of institutions were coded by DS_NN_III.EXT where DS stands for Desktop
Survey, NN the number of the interviewee, III gives brief information on the content of the file (e.g.
Interview), and EXT indicated the type of file (PDF, XLSX, etc.). Numerous interviewees had been
contacted. Every interviewee contacted was given a number in the order of the first contact date.
Only a few of these contacts ended up in an interview. NN would refer to the position of the contact
date. Therefore, the DS numbers are not consecutive. As there is no connection between the date
and the NN number and the contacted institutions are not published, interviewees cannot be traced
from the filenames. In interviews interviewees were requested not to name their company or say
their names. When company names occurred by mistake these were made anonymous by using XXX
instead.
Interviews with Users were coded UR_NN_III.EXT. UR stands for User (including non-Users) and the
same procedure as that described for institutional interviewees was followed.
All files concerning participatory observations were named HT_NN_III.EXT. HT was chosen arbitrarily.
The other letters are in accordance with the previously described conventions.
Transcription
The interviews with the participants from SHS related institutions were audio recorded. These
recordings were transferred to a text file by straight transcription. Approximately every three
minutes a time tag was inserted informing on the time that had elapsed since the beginning of the
interview (hh:mm:ss), “//” stands for short interruption of the speech, “nu” stands for not
understandable word or section of the recorded interview.
Translation
Interviews were held in the German and English language. Passages required as references in the
data evaluation were translated when not originally given in English. The author translated these
parts of the interview. The translations were marked with (tbtr) as an abbreviation for translated by
the researcher.
Documentation in Spread Sheets
Data from interviews and site visits were inserted in spread sheets in order to allow statistical
evaluation. Examples for data from institutions’ views are the perception on involved stakeholders,
institution related self-set goals and the importance of these self-set goals. Interviews with Users
rendered statistical relevant data such as system size, system quality, system age, User’s satisfaction,
energy services supplied.
3 Methodologies
- 94 -
3.7.2 Data Evaluation
The goal of this thesis is to establish a Model of Success for Solar Home Systems. Data were collected
through interviews with experts and Users of SHSs and through participatory observation.
In order to create categories inductively, multiple authors, e.g. (Mayring, 2002), (Gläser & Laudel,
2004), propose qualitative content analysis as a means to evaluate the data gained in qualitative
research.
Based on Mayring (2012, Figure 21, page 116) (Mayring, 2002) and the preparatory work described in
3.7.1 Data Preparation, the evaluation of the collected data followed the flowchart depicted in Figure
3-9.
The research title determines the literature review (a) in the upstream process and the subject of the
analysis as well as the central question (1) of the data analysis.
Based on the literature review a preliminary Model of Success was developed (b) which is entered
into the data analysis at the very top in (1). The next step in the data analysis is the determination of
selection criteria and the definition of the criteria in (2). These are based on the model which is under
investigation.
The data collected in interviews and in participatory observation (c), are entered into the data
analysis at (3). The data are analysed line by line. Categories are defined and new categories may be
formulated.
After about 10 % to 50 % of analysed data the categories need revision (4). A first feedback to steps
(1) and (2) at the top of the data analysis is given.
Steps (1), (2), and (3) are then conducted a second time. Afterwards, the results enter directly into
step (5) of the data analysis. The final data analysis takes place in step (5).
In step (6) the interpretation and the evaluation are performed. Under certain circumstances a
second feedback loop may follow. The definite result of the data analysis will be the final Model of
Success as depicted at the bottom of Figure 3-9.
3 Methodologies
- 95 -
Figure 3-9: Flowchart of the data analysis based on Mayring (2002) and modified by the author. In this modification the data analysis is embedded within the entire research.
The flowchart gives the impression of a step by step completion of the units in the study. But in
contrast Burgess (1983) describes in chapter 31 that working steps in social science rather occur
simultaneously (Burgess, 1983). This is partly indicated by the feedback loop(s). Nevertheless, the
process of parallel execution of multiple steps and continuous interaction of all steps cannot entirely
be expressed in a flowchart without loss of lucidity.
The software package NVIVO version 10 was applied for the data analysis (QSR, 2012). It provided
helpful support in defining categories and extracting new categories by applying a coding system.
3 Methodologies
- 96 -
Text elements from transcription and from field notes was classified, organized and linked with one
another.
Finally, a modified Model of Success emerged from this data analysis.
3.8 Summary of Chapter 3 The chapter has led through the methodologies applied in this research. The research title, the
research question and the preliminary Model of Success have determined the research methodology.
The sample size was discussed in its conflict between scientific substantiation and manageable
amount of work. Next, the data collection required the determination of its guidelines. For the data
collection process interview partners needed to be selected, contacted and interviewed. Finally, the
data analysis was described in a flowchart.
The interaction with human beings was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at
Murdoch University (Project Nr. 2012/076). Necessary local permissions were obtained.
The section has described the challenges of this research such as the interviews in different cultures
(at office desks and in remote rural areas); in different languages (English, Luanda, Zulu and German);
and the participatory observation in a foreign environment (generating physical and mental stresses).
The numerous pitfalls of measurement bias in the interaction of the researched humans with the
human researcher were mentioned. The elaboration of this chapter taught the researcher that a
substantial source of error in this study was the measurement device itself–the researcher. This
hypothesis constitutes an analogy to engineering and natural science–with the researcher’s
background as a mechanical engineer.
Figure 3-10 summarizes this third chapter Methodologies.
3 Methodologies
- 97 -
Figure 3-10: Summary of the Chapter 3 Methodologies. Source: Author’s diagram.
The basis for the research has been set by the chapters Literature Review and Methodologies. Research results are now presented in the form of publications.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 98 -
4. Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems The following three sections present the publications paper I, paper II and paper III, submitted as part
of this thesis.
4.1 Overview and Authors’ Contributions This chapter presents paper I, “A model to evaluate the success of Solar Home Systems”.
The publication was prepared based on the preliminary considerations described in Chapter 2
Literature Review. It was presented to the journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews and it
was accepted on May 6th 2015.
The publication addresses the research question on how to measure the success of SHS
implementation. It describes the development of the preliminary Model of Success, the model itself
and its application based on an example using data found in literature and data from personal
experience.
Hans Holtorf has developed the Model of Success and its variation described in the paper by himself.
He wrote the paper and he performed all the calculations given in the paper.
Contributions to the paper were made by the board of supervisors consisting of Dr. Tania Urmee,
Dr. Martina Calais and Dr. Trevor Pryor (all School of Engineering and Information Technology at
Murdoch University) with Dr. Pryor being the principal supervisor.
The board of supervisors critically reviewed the paper and provided feedback on the structure of the
paper and on improving the clarity of the paper’s presentation. The board of supervisors supported
Hans Holtorf in the submission process to the journal and in the discussion with the reviewers and in
addressing their feedback comments.
The paper is displayed in the journal’s new submissions format. However, in order to simplify the
reading of the paper within this thesis, the figures and tables were inserted at the corresponding
locations in the paper. Nevertheless, the numbering of the figures and the tables is according to the
publication’s numbering instead of the thesis’ numbering.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 99 -
4.2 Paper I - A Model to evaluate the Success of Solar Home Systems
A model to evaluate the success of Solar Home Systems
Hans Holtorf*, Tania Urmee, Martina Calais, Trevor Pryor,
School of Engineering and Information Technology, Murdoch University,
WA 6150, Australia
* Corresponding author. Murdoch University, School of Engineering and Information
Technology, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia, Ph: +61 8 9360 1316, Fax: +618 9360 6332,
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Around twenty per cent of the world’s population currently do not have access to electricity
while the importance of electricity services for society continues to increase. Solar Home
Systems (SHS) are a competitive option for supplying basic electrification under
meteorological conditions in Sunbelt countries. However, many of the SHS electrification
programmes have failed in the past. Furthermore, their evaluation is often still based on one
individual indicator such as the number of disseminated systems. This research explores how
to measure success of SHSs in a comprehensive manner. Success can be defined as the
achievement of self-set goals. From this statement a model of success was developed which
incorporates all key-stakeholders and their multiple self-set goals. The model of success
combines the individual level of success with the SHS implementation’s overall success. A
hypothetical example is used to demonstrate the application of the model. The challenges
relating to the measurement of success are also illustrated. The resulting methodology
combines general success factor research, diffusion of innovation research, and lessons
learned from SHS projects. The drawbacks of the current approaches to SHS implementation,
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 100 -
and their characteristic of still being an innovation, were also determined. The proposed
model of success can be applied to pre-evaluate SHS programmes, to evaluate existing SHS
projects, and to observe and evaluate the development of SHS implementation over time.
Keywords: Success, Solar Home System, Diffusion of Innovation
Nomenclature:
CSF Critical Success Factor
ISSG Importance of Self-Set Goal
kWp Nominal power of PV generators at STC in kilowatt
LoA Level of Achievement
LoASSG Level of Achievement of Self-Set Goal
MDG Millennium Development Goals
NA Not Applicable
PIMS Profit Impact of Market Strategies
PV Photovoltaic
qual. qualitative
quant. quantitative
ROI Return on Investment
SHS Solar Home System
SPI Strategic Planning Institute
SSG Self-Set Goal
STC Standard Test Conditions for PV generators (1000W/m², 25°C cell temp., AM 1.5)
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 101 -
1. Introduction
Electricity is a driving force in the development of societies and in the achievement of the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (Cook, 2013; ESMAP, 2002). Currently,
approximately one fifth of the world’s population lack access to electricity. The electrification
rates for the twenty least- developed countries range between 9 % and 47.3 % (UNDP, 2013).
Interestingly, a much higher percentage of inhabitants of these countries are telephone (cell
phone) subscribers. With the exception of Eritrea (4.6 %) and Ethiopia (9.4 %) the figures lie
between 14.1 % and 77.6 % (UNDP, 2013). This shows that there is a need for meeting the
very basic electricity needs for appliances such as cell phones, which can be met with a
minimum basic electricity supply.
Electrification by grid extension is a very expensive option for dispersed rural households
(Acker & Kammen, 1996; Tenenbaum et al., 2014). The ratio of the costs of grid extension to
the income that would be earned from the amount of electricity consumed, means that this is
not an economically feasible option for utilities. Solar Home Systems have been promoted as
a viable solution and, indeed, the best option for off-grid electricity supply (Acker &
Kammen, 1996; A. H. Mondal & Klein, 2011; J. Rogers et al., 2006; WorldBank, 2007). So
far, many SHS programmes have been implemented in developing countries, but only a few
appear to be successful (Asif, 2012; A. Cabraal & Martinot., 2000; GNESD, 2004; Hankin,
2003; Martinot, 2003).
The reason for the lack of success is still a vital research question. Not many researchers have
addressed the question, ‘Why are some programmes more successful than others?’ Most of
the previous studies attempting to answer this question were not based on a comprehensive
understanding of these programmes, for example how the programmes are planned, designed,
and implemented. There was no exact definition or set of criteria for successful programmes.
Some studies define the SHSs’ success and related indicators based on successful and failed
programmes (T. P. Urmee & Harries, 2009). But no model was yet proposed to define the
success of SHSs incorporating all key players and their requirements. Therefore, a model to
determine the success of Solar Home Systems is required which incorporates further
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 102 -
indicators of success along with the indicators developed by Urmee and Harries (2009) (T.
Urmee, 2009a).
This research aims to develop a model to evaluate the success of SHS implementation. The
guiding questions of this research are:
i. What are the elements that need to be incorporated in measuring the success of SHSs?
ii. How are these elements linked with each other?
iii. How should these elements be assessed to determine the success of a SHS
implementation?
This paper addresses the first two questions by proposing a model of success incorporating
the viewpoints of all players. The concept of Freeman (1984) on stakeholders is applied for
grouping the respective players in the environment of SHSs (Freeman & McVea, 1984).
The paper defines Solar Home Systems as small systems, based on a PV generator, with a
nominal power between 50 Wp and 150 Wp.
The term “successful” is used to describe a situation where all of the goals of involved
stakeholders are achieved.
The considerations of success are applicable for any approach to the dissemination of SHSs,
be it a donor, governmental, or any other institutional driven programme, as well as the
dissemination of SHSs by the private sector. Therefore, the term “implementation of SHSs” is
used in this paper. The terms “project” and “programme” are exclusively used when the
implementation is conducted within a planned course of action.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 103 -
2. Approaches to Determining Success of Solar Home Systems
The success factors of SHSs reported by many researchers are based on specific projects. Asif
(2012) and others report that Bangladesh’s SHS regime is the most successful at present (Asif
& Barua, 2011). Grameen Shakti (2009) summarizes the success factors for the Bangladesh
SHSs as (Grameen Shakti, 2009):
• no provision of direct subsidies in the programme;
• innovative financing is available for the consumers;
• a supply of locally developed and manufactured SHS components;
• a good supply chain network;
• training of local technicians and Users is built in within the implementation
programme;
• highly motivated staff; and
• the coupling of income to the SHS.
According to other researchers, successful SHS projects are those which address certain
factors such as the affordability, cultural views, income generation by the systems, the Users’
familiarity with the technology, and which have a clear view on specific engagement of
stakeholders beyond the donor/government funding (Mulugetta Y, Nhete T, & T., 2000;
P.Rizer & Garry, 2002; T. P. Urmee & D. Harries, 2011; T. P. Urmee & Harries, 2012).
2.1. Success Factor Research
Many research projects have been conducted to answer the question, ‘What are the criteria for
measuring the success of a business?’ Early research in this field included the PIMS study
(Profit Impact of Market Strategies) by General Electric which started in the 1960s. This
study was further developed by the SPI (Strategic Planning Institute) (Buzzell & Gale, 1989).
A major finding of the PIMS study was the high importance of the quality of products and
services. This lesson can be transferred to the SHS business.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 104 -
Welge and Al-Laham (2008) point out that the Return on Investment (ROI) dealt with in the
PIMS study is an insufficient indicator for success of a business when contemplated in
isolation (Welge & Al-Laham, 2008). This implies that the research on the success of SHSs
needs to consider benchmarks beyond the ROI and should incorporate multiple indicators to
measure that success.
Bullen and Rockart (1981) propose that success is based solely on a few Critical Success
Factors (CSFs) (Bullen & Rockart, 1981). But, in referring to this source, these CSFs depend
on multiple influences: industry type and position, environmental factors such as the current
economic situation of the industry’s sector, national policies, temporal factors (an internal or
external short term impact), and, last but not the least, the contemplator’s point of view. These
views can be applied to SHS implementation as they also feature Critical Success Factors. But
these also differ for the different stakeholders involved in the SHS environment. For example,
international manufacturers of SHS components will deal with other CSFs than those of local
entrepreneurs selling and installing SHSs in the implementation area. Also, the employees’
views on the success of the SHSs of specific stakeholders will depend on their position in the
hierarchy and their division in the company. A sales manager of a component manufacturer
has a different view on success than a member of the production division in the same
association.
Welge and Al-Laham (2008) suggest that the Critical Success Factors can be classified into
endogenous and exogenous success factors. Endogenous success factors are related to an
actor. These success factors can be influenced by the corresponding actors. Exogenous
success factors cannot be influenced by the actor (Welge & Al-Laham, 2008). A local
entrepreneur’s endogenous success factor is the quality of the SHS installation. The impact on
the prices of components by taxes is an example of the entrepreneur’s exogenous success
factor.
The investigation of the success of SHSs needs to consider the endogenous and exogenous
nature of different success factors in the SHS setting when seeking to improve the
implementation success.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 105 -
Some success factors are shared by multiple players, but again the distinction between the
exogenous and endogenous nature of these factors is necessary. For example, the quality of
products is a success factor shared by international component manufacturers and rural
installers. But in this case it is an endogenous success factor for the manufacturers while it is
an exogenous success factor for the installer.
There are challenges for the research on success. Weindlmaier, Schmalen et al. (2006)
underline the necessity of a set of measurable quantities with which to consider the impact of
success factors (Weindlmaier et al., 2006). They add that the indicators for success may be of
quantitative or qualitative nature. Furthermore, they discuss the number of measured
variables. Lower numbers of measurable variables increase the lucidity. But a low number of
variables also leads to loss of informative content.
This lesson can be transferred to the gauging scale applied later on. A wide scale allows a
high resolution but may not be workable. Therefore, it will be important to carefully
determine the measurement scale for this investigation.
Woywode (2002) summarizes the difficulties of obtaining the qualitative information from
key informants which may bias the evaluation of the SHS success in the following ways: key
informant bias, endogeneity, simultaneity, unobserved heterogeneity, regression-to-the-mean-
problem, and survival bias (Woywode, 2002).
Below are some SHS related examples of these difficulties, taken from the literature:
Key informant bias: Key informants may fail to provide information on past dependencies
compared to their situation today (James G. March & Robert I. Sutton, 1997). SHS Users may
fail to remember living conditions before the implementation of their SHS. Therefore, the
evaluation of the SHS services may be biased.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 106 -
Endogeneity: Independent variables are influenced by variables which have not readily been
accessible (W. H. Green, 1993). At first sight, the price of SHS components seems to be an
independent variable. But the price may be influenced by difficulties and hidden costs of
importation. Information on these influences is often difficult to access.
Simultaneity: Previous success or failure has an influence on applied measures. Hence, the
influence of a measure is highly dependent on the situation in which it was applied (Beck et
al., 2002). Advertising road-shows may be applied in a region where SHSs are unknown and
other sales activities have failed. But the impact of road-shows decreases when awareness of
SHSs has been created. Subsequently, road-shows may not be a success factor. By contrast,
advertisement concepts which previously have failed may turn out to be more effective now.
Unobserved heterogeneity: Enterprises may differ in their long term success potential. This
again influences success independently of certain measures (Beck et al., 2002). Projects of
NGOs, governments, or donors may differ in their project success, despite the fact that they
use identical implementation strategies. The individual implementer’s difference in success
may be based on other factors than the implementation strategy–e.g. the User’s trust in the
implementing agency.
Regression-to-the-mean problem: Failures may occur randomly during several periods and
measures taken may randomly lead to success. But it is not clearly distinguishable that the
success is connected to these measures (Greve, 1999). An increase in sales numbers may be
assigned to a governmental awareness campaign. However, the motivation of buyers to
purchase SHSs actually may be an improved income situation, e.g. in the harvesting season.
Survival bias: Research taken in retrospective mode may only consider enterprises which
have survived (Woywode, 2002). For example it will be difficult to find a trader who has
failed in the SHS business, and consequently some possibly important failure factors will stay
undisclosed. Even in the case where former traders are detected, there would be a high risk of
key informant bias in their interrogation.
In order to learn about SHS success, a list of these pitfalls needs to be considered when
approaching research participants.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 107 -
2.2. Diffusion of Innovation Research
Rogers (2003) postulates that the typical rate of adoption of an innovation displays an ‘S-
shape’ curve in terms of the % of adoption versus time (E. M. Rogers, 2003). According to
Rogers, the diffusion of an innovation starts off at a low rate with innovators and early
adopters, followed by the early majority and an accompanying increasing in slope of the
uptake curve. Next, the late majority engages in the innovation and the slope of the uptake
curve starts to flatten out. When the laggards who decide to adopt an innovation at a
considerably later point in time get active, the slope of the uptake curve flattens out and
asymptotically approaches a horizontal saturation line.
Figure 1 depicts the development of SHSs installed in Bangladesh up to now and the
predicted number according to the logistic function (S-shape). The total number of SHSs was
2.7 M in 2013. Assuming that there are 96 M non-electrified inhabitants in Bangladesh (IEA,
2011), that 50 % of these could be electrified by SHSs with other options of electrification
being applicable for the rest, and that an average of 5 persons share one SHS, the potential
number of SHSs in Bangladesh is 9.6 M:
The plotted number of SHSs in Bangladesh over time indicates that in one of the most
successful countries for SHS dissemination the stage of early adoption is close to
achievement. From this graph the authors conclude that SHSs still constitute an innovation in
this market. Furthermore, the diffusion of this innovation requires a large amount of time.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 108 -
Figure 1a: Up to date SHS installations in Bangladesh.
Figure 1b: Cumulated installed and forecasted systems.
Data Source: (Chowdhury, 2014 b).
Therefore, fundamentals on the diffusion of innovation are necessary to help with
understanding the success or failure of SHSs in a region. Rogers describes four main elements
involved in the diffusion of innovation (E. M. Rogers, 2003). Given below are examples of
these elements which are specifically related to the SHS context:
i. The innovation itself and its six attributes:
• The relative advantage: Electric light supplied by a SHS has a higher quality. This
is a generally accepted statement.
• The compatibility: Financing of SHSs should be compatible with the financing
schemes of previous energy services–small amounts of money to be paid on a
regular basis rather than remitting a large sum of cash up front. Therefore, over a
long period of time, multiple authors have recommended financing schemes for
SHSs (Friebe et al., 2013; IEA, 2002; T. Urmee, 2009a).
• The complexity: For Users matching the load to the energy which the solar system
may supply under fluctuating solar radiation is a challenge on multiple levels. A
long learning period should be allowed in order to optimize the operation of their
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 109 -
systems. Users’ training is called for in literature on SHSs, e.g. Urmee (2009) (T.
Urmee, 2009a).
• The trialability: Wimmer (2012) reports on the SHS implementation in the early
times in Bangladesh. Systems were supplied to Users just for testing, which was a
very successful approach (Wimmer, 2012).
• The observability: Wimmer describes the importance of demonstration systems
which can be observed by the public (Wimmer, 2012). Users need to see what a
SHS looks like and how it works in practice to understand the technology.
• The re-inventability: According to Rogers (2003), new technology is successful
when it can be modified (E. M. Rogers, 2003). The desire to re-invent the
innovation SHS is reflected in the numerous reports of Users bypassing the charge
controllers in these systems.
ii. The communication of the innovation by mass media, interpersonal and interactive
channels:
The IEA (2003) reports on case studies of SHS deployment where mass media have
played a major role in advertising for SHSs. Additionally, the professional
salesperson’s face-to-face interaction has led to SHS dissemination success in these
case studies (IEA, 2003a). This is supported by Acker and Kammen (1996) (Acker
& Kammen, 1996). Interactive channels, mainly internet-based information,
education, and sizing sites are not considered important for SHS implementation at
present. Potential Users of SHSs have restricted access to the internet due to the
predominant lack of electricity and the cost of internet access in internet cafés.
iii. The amount of time required for the innovation diffusion process to be established
demands consideration:
Time is needed for the decision in favour of SHSs: for getting to know this
innovation, to develop an attitude towards SHSs, for a decision in favour or against
the investment in a SHS, for the implementation process, and for the final
confirmation of the usefulness or uselessness of the innovation (E. M. Rogers,
2003). In the implementation process the authors include the time to get acquainted
with the SHS and to learn how to best operate the SHS. A challenge for SHS Users
is to not make the final decision on the usefulness/uselessness of the SHS before the
operation has been understood and optimized. The challenge for the SHS
implementer may be to train the User quickly and to demonstrate maintenance
before a precipitous decision on the usefulness of SHSs is taken. Friebe, Flotow et
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 110 -
al. (2013) confirm the latter by one of their two key elements for the successful
implementation of SHSs: Professional system maintenance is obligatory for more
than one year after the installation (Friebe et al., 2013). User training and system
maintenance could go hand-in-hand on the one occasion.
iv. The elements of the social system and the associated impact factors:
These are the social structure, the system norms, the opinion leaders, and the
change agents (E. M. Rogers, 2003). Urmee (2014) relates the success of SHS
projects to formal structures such as the existing policy framework, and informal
structures, those which can be found on the local level. Furthermore, Urmee
postulates that social acceptance is indispensable for the success of SHSs (T.
Urmee, 2014a).
Innovation has both desirable and undesirable consequences, direct and indirect
consequences, and anticipated as well as unanticipated consequences. These types of
consequences and their specific forms will impact on the success of SHSs. They may be
measurable and they can be expressed in numbers, but they may be qualitative and their
grading can be subjective. In the measurement of success, the qualitative indicators need to be
assessed very carefully.
Rogers’ general conclusions on the diffusion of innovation and the SHS examples stated
above indicate that SHSs still constitute an innovation. Research on the success of SHSs
needs to consider this background. Success factors are closely linked to the characteristic
features of diffusing innovation. Furthermore the assessment of success is likely to be time
dependent. This depends in part, on which stage of the diffusion of innovation cycle is
occurring: the innovators’, early adopters’, early majorities’, late majorities’, or laggards’
level. This again refers to some of the challenges listed in the previous subsection.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 111 -
2.3. Solar Home Systems Successes and Failures
Despite their long history, barriers exist to the implementation of SHSs. These barriers can be
categorised into five areas (Sovacool et al., 2011b; T. Urmee et al., 2009c; Wamukonya,
2007):
• implementation,
• financial,
• technical,
• policy, and
• social.
Figure 2 summarizes the barriers and provides further details on the five categories of barriers
to success.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 112 -
Figure 2: Reported barriers for Solar Home Systems.
Adopted from Sources: Wamukonya (2007), Urmee, Harries et al. (2009), and Sovacool, D’Agostino
et al. (2011) (Sovacool et al., 2011b; T. Urmee et al., 2009c; Wamukonya, 2007).
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 113 -
The 21 subordinates of the five areas of success barriers from “Lack of Technical
Knowledge” through to “No Link to Existing Social Structures & Values” lead to the Critical
Success Factors (CSFs) applied in this research. The statements presented in Figure 2 are
another indicator that SHSs are still an innovation. Furthermore, the listed success-barriers are
a starting point for the evaluation of success of SHS implementation.
2.4. Further Issues
It has been indicated above that views on success depend on the stakeholder. Therefore, it is
obligatory to determine the most important stakeholders in order to assess the success, or
otherwise, of a SHS implementation. Brugha (2000) proposes how to extract key-stakeholders
(Brugha & Varvasovszky, 2000), whereas Friebe, Flotow et al. (2013), and Hellpap (2011)
propose the key-stakeholders within the SHS environment (Friebe et al., 2013; Hellpap, 2011)
to be:
• Users: those who electrify their homestead with a SHS;
• Representatives of the supply chain: all business-related institutions involved in
distributing the SHS components from the manufacturer down to the Users; and
• Manufacturers: companies that manufacture the components of SHSs such as solar
modules, charge controllers, batteries or balance of system components.
This choice of key-stakeholders is applied in the coming sections.
3. A Model of Success
From the above discussion a model of success for Solar Home Systems is proposed in this
paper. The model is based on the following assumptions:
i. The driving force for a stakeholder’s engagement in the field of SHSs are self-set
goals and their attainment.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 114 -
ii. Success is the achievement of self-set goals. Thereby the level of success is the level
of achievement of self-set goals.
iii. The level of achievement of self-set goals is influenced by endogenous and exogenous
success factors.
iv. All stakeholders are treated equally in this model when gauging success.
v. Success of a SHS implementation is gauged by considering the level of self-set goal
achievement of all key-stakeholders involved in the implementation process.
The model of success was developed in two steps: First, the success of an individual
stakeholder is described (refer to Figure 3), then, the model of success for the overall SHS
implementation is established by combining the sub-models for the different stakeholders
involved (refer to Figure 4).
3.1. Individual Stakeholder’s Level of Success
A stakeholder has 1–j self-set goals (SSGs) when engaging in SHSs. Self-set goals have
different importance and they are weighted accordingly by the stakeholder (ISSG).
The level of achievement for the stakeholder’s self-set goals (LoASSG) needs to be determined
by the affected stakeholder. Endogenous and exogenous success factors and their impact need
to be analysed carefully in order to identify factors that could improve the level of success
over time.
The weighted arithmetic mean of the importance of an individual stakeholder’s self-set goals
and the levels of achievement determine the stakeholder’s overall success, as summarised in
Figure 3.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 115 -
Figure 3: Sub-model of success for an individual stakeholder.
3.2. SHS Implementation’s Success
The overall model of success for a SHS implementation is developed by combining sub-
models for all of the key-stakeholders involved. The final model of success is described in
Figure 4.
The model considers all the key-stakeholders (1 to m) that exist in the environment of SHS
implementation. All stakeholders have self-set goals motivating their engagement. In total,
there will be 1 to n self-set goals. Some of the self-set goals are shared by multiple
stakeholders; some are individual self-set goals. However, all stakeholders assign individual
importance ISSG to the self-set goals. Therefore, the number of importance of SSG values ISSG
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 116 -
(1 to o) is larger than the number of SSGs. Critical Success Factors impact on the
achievement of these self-set goals. The CSFs may be either endogenous or exogenous in
nature. Distinct success factors impact on multiple self-set goals. At a given time, the
importance of the self-set goals and the level of achievement of the self-set goals may be
ascertained. Based on the result of this analysis the overall success of a particular SHS
implementation can be determined.
Figure 4: The model of success for Solar Home Systems’ implementation.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 117 -
The concept shown in Figure 4 allows gauging the success of individual stakeholders in SHSs
in a certain region and the overall success of SHSs in that region. The precondition for
measuring the success is the determination of implementation stakeholder’s self-set goals,
including their importance as well as the levels of achievement. The first measurement (as
described in Figure 3) serves to compare the level of success of different stakeholders at a
site. The second result (as described in Figure 4) allows the comparison of different SHS
implementations.
4. Application of the Model of Success
In this section, the model of success is applied to a hypothetical case to demonstrate the
applicability of the model. The overall success of SHSs for this case will be derived.
Furthermore, the respective success of the involved stakeholders will be compared. To
complete the picture, the methodology will be applied as a pre-evaluation procedure for
coming projects.
Before applying the model, the key-stakeholders are selected as the Users, representatives of
the supply chain, and the manufacturers of SHSs.
4.1. Application of the Model of Success to a Hypothetical SHS Implementation
First, a consistent scale is required for grading some of the elements in the model of success.
The width of the scale’s range determines the resolution of the result. However, in the
application of the model of success the grading can only be given in rough estimations
(Werner, 2013). Therefore, a scale of zero to five, from failure to excellent, is proposed. For
the elements importance of self-set goal as well as impact of Critical Success Factor “zero” is
not applied (not appl.): Self-set goals and CSF are not listed by stakeholders when they have
zero importance. The level of achievement as well as the overall success of SHSs can be zero
in the case of a complete failure of a self-set goal or an implementation. Table 1 translates the
scaling for different elements.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 118 -
Table 1: Grading of components in the model of success for SHSs.
Grading 0 1 2 3 4 5
Component
Importance of
Self-Set Goal
not
applicable
very low low considerable high maximum
Level of
Achievement
not achieved very low sufficient satisfactory good fully
achieved
Successfulness of
SHSs’ Project
failure very low sufficient satisfactory good excellent
Table 2 gives an example of determining the success of a SHS implementation. A set of
common self-set goals found in literature (onsite energy service, local ecological
improvement, profit and regional market share) is assigned to the key-stakeholders: Users,
supply chain representatives, and manufacturers. The self-set goals’ importance and levels of
achievement are assigned by the authors to the self-set goals in this hypothetical example as
shown in Table 2. These figures are based on the authors’ personal experience and on
published literature. Some of the self-set goals may not be applicable to certain stakeholders.
This is indicated by ‘NA’ in lines A, B, and C. For example, Users are motivated to invest in
SHSs to have energy services supplied while members of the supply chain and manufacturers
deal with SHSs to make profit or to increase their market share. Distinct self-set goals are
shared by all stakeholders such as the wish to contribute to the onsite ecological improvement.
However, the importance of shared self-set goals may differ from stakeholder to stakeholder.
The importance of self-set goals is given in lines A1, B1, and C1. They vary from 1 to 5–refer
to Table 1 for the translation of this grading.
The level of achievement for self-set goals is indicated in lines A2, B2, and C2 of Table 2.
Here, the range may vary from 0 to 5.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 119 -
In the right column of Table 2 the overall success is supplied for the individual stakeholders.
I.e. 1 1
/j j
SSGi SSGi SSGii i
I LoA I= =
⋅∑ ∑ where j stands for the number of self-set goals of one individual
stakeholder (refer to Figure 3).
Lines A3, B3, and C3 indicate the contribution of the self-set goals to the stakeholders’
overall success by dividing the multiplication of the importance of the self-set goals, and their
level of achievement by the sum of the stakeholders’ complete SSGs’ importance
1/
j
SSG SSG SSGii
I LoA I=
⋅ ∑ .
There are qualitative and quantitative indicators for the measurement of the level of
achievement of self-set goals. The particular characteristic is displayed in lines A4, B4, and
C4.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 120 -
Table 2: A hypothetical example to determine the success of SHSs.
SSG = Self-Set Goal, LoA = Level of Achievement.
Pos
Key-Stakeholder /
indicators / classification
of indicator
Self-Set Goals
succ
ess o
f sta
keho
lder
onsi
te e
nerg
y
serv
ice
loca
l eco
logi
cal
impr
ovem
ent
prof
it
regi
onal
mar
ket
shar
e
A User not
applicable
=
0
not
applicable
=
0
3.25
A1 Importance of SSG 5 3
A2 LoA of SSG 4 2
A3 Contribution to success 2.50 0.75
A4 Characteristic of LoA quant./qual. qual.
B Supply Chain not
applicable
=
0
3.00
B1 Importance of SSG 2 5 4
B2 LoA of SSG 1 3 4
B3 Contribution to success 0.18 1.36 1.45
B4 Characteristic of LoA qual. quant. quant.
C Manufacturer not
applicable
=
0
2.00
C1 Importance of SSG 1 5 1
C2 LoA of SSG 3 2 1
C3 Contribution to success 0.43 1.43 0.14
C4 Characteristic of LoA qual. quant. quant.
D Overall success of the implementation 2.81
In this example, the Users are the most successful stakeholder. Their score of success is 3.25
out of 5. It can be seen that the onsite energy services self-set goal contributes the largest
contribution to the success of the User (2.50) due to its high importance (5) and its high level
of achievement (4) while the local ecological improvement plays a minor role (0.75). The
supply chain scores 3.0 and the manufacturer’s success renders 2.0. The overall level of
success of SHSs in this hypothetical example is 2.81 out of 5. This translates to between
sufficient and satisfactory according to Table 1. The individual stakeholder’s success does not
differ fundamentally from the average score of success.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 121 -
It is important to emphasize the time dependency of this evaluation. All the parameters and
their values in Table 2 may alter with time. Therefore, this model can be applied to observe
the development of an implementation’s success by carrying out the investigation at different
times.
An overall success score of 0 reflects full failure of SHSs. In that case, none of the self-set
goals is achieved. A score of five reflects maximum possible success–self-set goals of all
stakeholders are fully achieved.
4.2. Stakeholders’ and Overall Implementation’s Success Potential
As explained in section 2.1, only a few Critical Success Factors exist (Bullen & Rockart,
1981). In order to evaluate the potential of success of stakeholders or implementations these
factors need to be determined. Furthermore, the CSFs’ impact on a self-set goal as well as the
stakeholders’ capability to address these success factors needs careful assessment. In the
following discussion the process is shown by an example.
Table 3 merges information from Figure 2 and Table 2. It adds the impact of success factors
and the stakeholders’ capacity to influence these success factors. Additional information is
given on the origin (exogenous or endogenous) of the success from the individual
stakeholder’s perspective. Based on this collection of data the evaluation of the stakeholder’s
success potential is proposed.
The self-set goals (onsite energy service, local ecological improvement, profit, regional
market share) and the key-stakeholders (Users, supply chain representatives, manufacturers)
are selected from Table 2. Some success barriers are selected from Figure 2. However, here
they are applied as success factors: technical knowledge, availability of capital, maintenance,
policy, perception on technology. The success factors’ significance (S) on the achievement of
self-set goals and the stakeholders’ power (P) to manage these success factors are hypothetical
values in this example. They are set by the authors.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 122 -
Referring to Table 3 the significance of the success factor technical knowledge on the Users’
self-set goal onsite energy service is assumed to have a maximum value of five, while the
Users’ power in this field is assumed to be high (four out of five). Technical knowledge is an
endogenous success factor from the point of view of the User as well as maintenance and
perception on the technology. The User can address these factors. By contrast, the availability
of capital and policy are exogenous success factors. The User has little power to influence
these success factors which is reflected by a 2 (low) and a 1 (very low) in Table 3. The
stakeholders’ power to cope with success factors is the same for all self-set goals. In other
words, the Users’ capability for the success factor maintenance is the same independently of
whether it is applied to the self-set goal onsite energy services or local ecological
improvement in the homestead. The Users’ success potential is given by 1 1
/j j
i i ii i
S P I= =
⋅∑ ∑ and is
calculated as 3.03 in this example. The same procedure is applied to the supply chain and
manufacturer stakeholders, producing a success potential of 2.72 and 2.10 respectively.
The potential of success of stakeholders (3.03, 2.72, & 2.10) and the potential of success of
the entire implementation (2.60) given in Table 3, differ from the success of the stakeholders
(3.25, 3.00, & 2.00) and the success of the implementation (2.81) given in Table 2. The
discrepancy in figures highlights that the described process can give only an indication of the
potential success of stakeholders in the regime of SHSs. It is highly dependent on the
assessment of success factors, their impact on the achievement of self-set goals, and the
stakeholders’ power to contribute to success. However, this evaluation can also enable the
improvement in the potential for success of the SHS implementation at a certain site by
analysing strengths of success factors and weaknesses of stakeholders.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 123 -
Table 3: Implementation’s success potential.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 124 -
5. Implementation, Operationalization and Application of the Model of Success
This model of success can be applied to different approaches for implementing SHSs in order
to compare the levels of success achieved. Likewise, it can be used to observe the change in
level of success of a SHS implementation by applying it at different times. The potential
success of a SHS implementation can also be gauged by the considerations given in section
4.2.
An independent board needs to be engaged to evaluate the success of SHS implementation
with this methodology.
Figure 5 depicts two stages for the implementation and the application of this model. In the
current stage 1 of this research the model should be tested for modification and adaptation.
Common elements of the model need to be determined as a starting point for future
application. This should be done by qualitative methods such as semi-structured interviews,
group discussions, or participatory observation. In a subsequent stage 2 the model of success
can be applied to pre-evaluate the potential of a SHS implementation to be successful, to
compare the success of different implementations, or to evaluate the change in level of
success of a particular implementation over time. Quantitative methodologies can be applied
here which would involve processes such as questionnaire surveys.
In both stages, the methodologies of data collection applied need careful consideration.
According to Laatz (1993, page 57) it is necessary to adapt these methodologies to the
participants within the evaluation (Laatz, 1993). Institutional participants can deal with graphs
and they are familiar with quantifying statements. Users may not be in the position to deal
with such concepts.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 125 -
Figure 5: Stages of the model of success.
6. Challenges for Success Measurement
As for most of the renewable energy programmes, there are many factors where the level of
achievement can only be benchmarked by qualitative indicators. This is the difficult part of
the success-measuring process. For example, the User’s goal is to achieve onsite energy
services. In this example, the importance of the goal may be five out of five. But the level of
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 126 -
achievement could be graded four out of five. This value may be related to the ratio of energy
services achieved over energy services the system should be able to supply. The ranking can
be determined based on the components’ rated capacities and the solar radiation. In this case,
the grading is based on a quantitative approach. However, four out of five may reflect the
User’s expectations towards his system. This is a qualitative approach. The mark can be
influenced by multiple factors, e.g. the User’s technical understanding or the supplier’s level
of consultancy. Therefore, both classifications (qualitative and quantitative) are given in
Table 2.
Another challenge may result from stakeholders influencing the overall success by
exaggerating the importance of self-set goals which have been well achieved and by low
grading self-set goals which have been poorly achieved and vice versa. The outcome of an
evaluation of success for a project needs validation. One approach is to set the stated
parameters against generally reported values. Another possibility is to compare the individual
success of stakeholders with the implementation’s overall success. Extreme deviations should
be carefully reviewed.
7. Conclusion and Outlook
Measuring the success of SHSs by incorporating all key players and their requirements has
not been done before. The paper proposes a preliminary model of success of SHS
programmes. The paper discusses the complexity of appraising the success of a SHS
implementation while seeking indicators beyond the simple number of installed systems.
The proposed model of success for SHSs incorporates multiple stakeholders engaged in SHSs
and has developed various indicators of success. The linkages between the elements in the
model of success have also been shown. This model of success may help to pre-evaluate the
potential for success of a SHS implementation. It allows the measurement and comparison of
the success of different SHS implementations on a level beyond the number of disseminated
systems. Furthermore, the model can be applied to compare the success of SHSs for
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 127 -
individual stakeholders within a project. The model of success is likewise applicable for PV
systems from pico to kWp range.
The proposed model of success is currently based on information from literature and the
personal experiences of the authors. To successfully apply the model, the key-stakeholders,
the importance of self-set goals and their level of achievement, as well as the Critical Success
Factors, need to be determined and quantified.
The next stage of this research is to survey participants (both institutional stakeholders and
Users) operating in the area of SHS implementation to get feedback on the proposed model
and, in particular:
1. to determine a set of standard key-stakeholders involved in SHSs;
2. to determine the main self-set goals and the importance of these self-set goals for the
key-stakeholders; and
3. to determine how easy it is to measure the level of achievement of self-set goals.
The results of this survey will be used to further refine the model and identify any issues in
using the model.
Several issues are likely to arise in this phase of the investigation such as how to measure the
level of achievement of self-set goals. A second issue is the time-dependence of any
assessment of success of a particular SHS implementation. The self-set goals and their level
of achievement, their importance, the success factors as well as the measurement of the level
of achievement may well change during the course of a project. Additionally, Solar Home
Systems and the appliances driven by these are also subject to a dynamic technological
development. Such developments will impact on the model’s parameters and their
significance. Therefore, any evaluation of the success of SHS implementation using this
model will only relate to that point in time. A third issue is that the results of the model could
be affected by bias on the part of those providing values for the model, and so these values
reported for the parameters in the model will need to be carefully reviewed in order to
minimize such bias in the measurement of success.
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 128 -
Once the revised model of success has been developed, the final step will be to apply the
model of success to an actual situation in the field and to evaluate its effectiveness.
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by scholarships for the corresponding author from the School of
Engineering and Information Technology at Murdoch University, Western Australia, and the
International Relations Office at University of Oldenburg, Germany. It has also been
supported by a Fellowship for Martina Calais at the Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg in
Delmenhorst, Germany.
Literature
Acker, R., & Kammen, D. (1996). The quiet (energy) revolution. Analyzing the dissemination of
photovoltaic power systems in Kenya. Energy Policy, 24(1), 31.
Asif, M. (2012). Grameen Shakti: An Exemplary Micro-Renewable Energy Program. New Horizons,
6(1), 75-80. Retrieved from http://0-
search.proquest.com.prospero.murdoch.edu.au/docview/1022705292?accountid=12629
http://SR4LP2WR3C.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-
2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-
8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apqrl&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article
&rft.jtitle=New+Horizons&rft.atitle=Grameen+Shakti%3A+An+Exemplary+Micro-
Renewable+Energy+Program&rft.au=Asif%2C+Muhammad&rft.aulast=Asif&rft.aufirst=Mu
hammad&rft.date=2012-01-
01&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=75&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=New+Horizons&r
ft.issn=19924399
Asif, M., & Barua, D. (2011). Salient features of the Grameen Shakti renewable energy program.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(9), 5063-5067.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.050
Beck, N., Brüderl, J., & Woywode, M. (2002). The causes and consequences of organizational change:
How to deal with unobserved heterogeneity. Paper presented at the 20th EGOS annual
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 129 -
conference, Barcelona, Spain. ftp://zinc.zew.de/pub/zew-
docs/entrepreneurship/BeckBruederlWoywode.pdf
Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health policy and planning,
15(3)(15(3)), 7.
Bullen, C. V., & Rockart, J. F. (1981). A primer on critical success factors. (Sloan WP No. 1220-81).
Buzzell, R. D., & Gale, B. T. (1989). Das PIMS-Program - Strategien und Unternehmenserfolg (D.
Meyer, Trans.). Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
Cabraal, A., & Martinot., E. (2000). World Bank SolarHomeSystemProjects:Experiences and Lessons
Learned 1993-2000. Paper presented at the World Renewable Energy Congress VI, Brighton,
UK.
Chowdhuri, S. (2014b). [Solar Home System installations in Bangladesh - 1995 - 2013].
Cook, P. (2013) Rural Electrification and Rural Development. Vol. 116 (pp. 13-38).
ESMAP. (2002). Rural Electrification and Development in the Philippines. Retrieved from
Washington DC:
Freeman, R. E., & McVea, J. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston:
Pitman.
Friebe, C. A., Flotow, P. v., & Täube, F. A. (2013). Exploring the link between products and services
in low-income markets—Evidence from solar home systems. Energy Policy, 52(0), 760-769.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.038
GNESD. (2004). Energy Access theme results: Synthesis/Compilation Report. . Retrieved from
http://www.centroclima.coppe.ufrj.br/new2/ccpdf/GNESD_Synthesis_Report.pdf
Grameen Shakti. (2009). Keys to Success. Retrieved from
http://www.gshakti.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62:grameen-shakti-
has-successfully-blended-technology-with-social-market-forces-to-develop-a-market-based-
approach-to-reach-the-rural-people&catid=34:about-us&Itemid=79
Green, W. H. (1993). Econometric Analysis. New York, USA.
Greve, H. R. (1999). The effect of core change on performance: Inertia and regression toward the
mean. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3), 590-614. Retrieved from http://0-
search.proquest.com.prospero.murdoch.edu.au/docview/203946553?accountid=12629
http://SR4LP2WR3C.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-
2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-
8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabiglobal&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=a
rticle&rft.jtitle=Administrative+Science+Quarterly&rft.atitle=The+effect+of+core+change+o
n+performance%3A+Inertia+and+regression+toward+the+mean&rft.au=Greve%2C+Henrich
+R&rft.aulast=Greve&rft.aufirst=Henrich&rft.date=1999-09-
01&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=590&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Administrative
+Science+Quarterly&rft.issn=00018392
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 130 -
Hankin, M. (2003). Solar rural electrification in developing country. Retrieved from
Hellpap, C. (2011). Kernherausforderungen beim Aufbau ländlicher Verbreitungssysteme für Pico PV
Systeme. Paper presented at the Im Abseits der Netze, Bonn.
IEA. (2002). Financing Mechanisms for Solar Home Systems in Developing Countries The Role of
Financing in the Dissemination Process (IEA PVPS T9-01:2002). Retrieved from
IEA. (2003a). 16 Case Studies on the Deployment of Photovoltaic Technologies in Developing
Countries. Retrieved from
IEA. (2011b). World Energy Outlook - Access to electricity. Retrieved from
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energydevelopment/accesstoelectricity/
Laatz, W. (1993). Empirische Methoden, ein Lehrbuch für Sozialwissenschaftler. Frankfurt am Main:
Harri Deutsch.
March, J. G., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Organizational Performance as a Dependent Variable.
Organization Science, 8(6), 698-706. doi:10.2307/2635165
Martinot, E. (2003). Renewable energy markets in developing countries,’. Renewable Energy World,,
6(4).
Mondal, A. H., & Klein, D. (2011). Impacts of solar home systems on social development in rural
Bangladesh. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15(1), 17-20.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2010.11.004
Mulugetta Y, Nhete T, & T., J. (2000). Photovoltaics in Zimbabwe: lessons from the GEF solar
project. Energy Policy, 28(14), 1069-1080.
P.Rizer, J., & Garry, V. (2002). Contributions to Mongolian's Sustainable Energy Stretegy. Retrieved
from
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rogers, J., Hansen, R., & Graham, S. (2006). Accelerating Energy Access through SMEs. Retrieved
from http://www.soluzusa.com/documents/NCI-
Soluz_Innovation_in_Rural_Energy_Delivery.pdf
Sovacool, B. K., D’Agostino, A. L., & Jain Bambawale, M. (2011b). The socio-technical barriers to
Solar Home Systems (SHS) in Papua New Guinea: “Choosing pigs, prostitutes, and poker
chips over panels”. Energy Policy, 39(3), 1532-1542.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.027
Tenenbaum, B., Graecen, C., Siyambalapitiya, T., & Knuckles, J. (2014). From the Bottom Up: How
Small Power Producers and Mini-Grids Can Deliver Electrification and Renewable Energy in
Africa. Retrieved from Washington DC, USA:
UNDP. (2013). Table 12: Innovation and technology. Human Development Reports. Retrieved from
https://data.undp.org/dataset/Table-12-Innovation-and-technology/jixu-gnyy
4 Paper I – Modelling the Success of Solar Home Systems
- 131 -
Urmee, T. (2009a). Solar PV electrification programs in developing countries : towards an holistic
approach. (PhD), Murdoch University, Perth. Retrieved from
http://wwwlib.murdoch.edu.au/adt/browse/view/adt-MU20100311.121220
Urmee, T. (2014a). Social, cultural and policy issues of the application of remote area off-grid
photovoltaic. Paper presented at the 52nd annual Conference Australian Solar Energy Society
(Australian Solar Council)n, Melbourne Australia. http://solarexhibition.com.au/conference/
http://solarexhibition.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Solar_2014_Scientific-Research-
Session_FINAL.pdf http://solar.org.au/solar-2014-conference/portal/
Urmee, T., Harries, D., & Schlapfer, A. (2009c). Issues related to rural electrification using renewable
energy in developing countries of Asia and Pacific. Renewable Energy, 34(2), 354-357.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2008.05.004
Urmee, T. P., & Harries, D. (2009). A survey of solar PV program implementers in Asia and the
Pacific regions. Energy for Sustainable Development, 13(1), 24-32. doi:(2009),
doi:10.1016/j.esd.2009.01.002
Urmee, T. P., & Harries, D. (2011). Determinants of the success and sustainability of Bangladesh’s
SHS program. Renewbale Energy, 36(11), 2822-2830.
Urmee, T. P., & Harries, D. (2012). The solar home PV program in Fiji e A successful RESCO
approach? Renewable Energy, 48, 499-506.
Wamukonya, N. (2007). Solar home system electrification as a viable technology option for Africa's
development. Energy Policy, 35(1), 6-14. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.08.019
Weindlmaier, H., Schmalen, C., & Kunert, M. (2006). Erfolgsfaktorenforschung: Theoretische
Grundlagen, methodische Vorgehensweise und Anwendungserfahrungen in Projekten für die
Ernährungsindustrie. Paper presented at the Tagung der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und
Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V. 2006, Gießen.
Welge, M. K., & Al-Laham, A. (2008). Strategisches Management, Grundlagen - Prozess -
Implementierung. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler Verlag.
Werner, O. (2013, 04.07.2013). [Grading of SHSs' Success].
Wimmer, N. (2012). Green Energy for a Billion Poor. Vaterstetten, Germany: MCRE Verlag UG.
WorldBank. (2007). Pacific Islanders Awarded Renewable Energy Funding. Renewable Energy
Access.
Woywode, M. (2002). Wege aus der Erfolglosigkeit der Erfolgsfaktorenforschung. Working Paper.
Aachen, Germany.
5 Paper II - The Institutions’ Views
- 132 -
5. Paper II - The Institutions’ Views The elements of the model of success as presented in paper I, “A model to evaluate the success of
Solar Home Systems”, were identified for the key-stakeholders. These elements are the self-set goals,
the importance of self-set goals, and the measurement of the level of achievement.
The key-stakeholders in this research are institutions dealing with SHSs and Users of SHSs. First, the
views of the institutions dealing with SHSs were sought and the results of this research are presented
in this chapter.
5.1 Overview and Authors’ Contributions This chapter presents paper no. II, “Incorporating the Institutions’ Perspective into a Proposed Model
for Assessing Success of Solar Home System Implementations”.
The research question of this paper is: “which are the views of institutional stakeholders on success
of SHS implementation and how can these views be implemented into the preliminary Model of
Success?” The results of this paper refine the preliminary Model of Success.
Hans Holtorf developed the interviews and carefully selected interviewees and made the necessary
contacts by himself. He conducted and evaluated the interviews on his own. The results are reported
in this paper which was written by Hans Holtorf.
The board of supervisors23 reviewed the paper and provided feedback and improvement suggestions
prior to submission. Dr. Trevor Pryor also provided detailed feedback in the final submission stage of
the paper.
The paper was submitted to the peer reviewed conference International Conference on the
Development of Renewable Energy Technology on September 29th 2015. The paper was accepted on
19.11.2015 without further comments. The paper was presented at the conference on 09.01.2016
and it was awarded third best paper of the conference. The paper will be published on IEEE Xplore
digital library within 3 months after the conference.
The paper is displayed in the conference’s submissions format. However, for clarity, the figures and
tables were adjusted in size in the manuscript. The references were kept in the thesis’ format.
Nevertheless, the numbering of the figures and the tables is according to the publication’s
numbering instead of the thesis’ numbering.
23 Dr. Tania Urmee, Dr. Martina Calais and Dr. Trevor Pryor, all School of Engineering and Information Technology at Murdoch University. Dr. Trevor Pryor is the principal supervisor.
5 Paper II - The Institutions’ Views
- 133 -
5.2 Paper II - Incorporating the Institutions’ Perspective into a Proposed
Model for Assessing Success of Solar Home System Implementations
Incorporating the Institutions’ Perspective into a Proposed Model for Assessing Success of
Solar Home System Implementations Hans Holtorf, Tania Urmee, Martina Calais, Trevor Pryor
School of Engineering and Information Technology Murdoch University
Murdoch, WA, 6150 Australia [email protected] (corresponding author)
Abstract—Solar Home Systems can supply
basic electricity services in Sunbelt countries. About 20 % of the world’s population lack of access to these services. A preliminary model to evaluate the success of a SHS implementation has been proposed previously. The views of a range of institutional stakeholders related to SHS were explored by problem centered interviews and by participatory observation. An improved model of success is developed which is capable of providing a quantitative measure of success for SHS implementations. Five groups of key stakeholders have been determined. The most important self-set goals for the institutional stakeholders are profit, quality and social benefit. The most important success factors that encourage the achievement of self-set goals were retrieved and are discussed. Measuring the level of achievement of the defined self-set goals is the largest challenge in this process. The refined model of success demonstrates the complexity of measuring the success of Solar Home System implementations. The next phase of the research is to survey the Users’ views on the SHS’s success.
Keywords—Success; Solar Home System (SHS); SHS key-stakeholder.
I. INTRODUCTION Electricity services contribute to the reduction of
poverty and to human development. Of the approximately 7 billion inhabitants of the world, 20 % do not have access to electricity (IEA, 2012) and for many of these, electrification by grid extension is very costly. Wiedemann gives figures in the range of USD 1,200 for an urban grid connection and USD 2,000 for a rural grid connection in developing countries (Wiedemann, 2012). In terms of required rural electricity services Adkins et. al. list illumination, telecommunication (mobile phone
operation) and information (radio & TV) as the key demands, none of which require large amounts of electricity (Adkins, Oppelstrup, & Modi, 2012). The costs of grid connection for many of these potential electricity Users, combined with their low electricity consumption, make this approach a cost-ineffective option (Fulkerson, Levine, Sinton, & Gadgil, 2005).
To meet the low electricity demand of remote households in developing countries, the Solar Home System (SHS) has been proven to be a cost effective solution for such dispersed potential Users and is being widely used for off grid electrification (Bhattacharyya, 2013). Solar Home Systems (SHSs) have been implemented since the 1980s (Acker & Kammen, 1996; Pertz, 1988) and have also proven themselves to be a reliable solution (Nieuwenhout et al., 2001c). Additionally, the success and failure of SHS projects has been investigated, e.g. by Urmee (T. Urmee, 2009a). Asif and others report that Bangladesh’s SHS regime is the most successful at present (Asif & Barua, 2011). It seems that there is a lack of tools available to measure the overall success of a SHS implementation. The measurement of implementation success would provide a feedback loop to improve future activities in this area. The importance of such a tool is justified by the desire of project implementers and donors to improve their performance. For example, the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness includes a desire to see improvement in the delivery of such aid projects (OECD, 2009).
This research addresses the question of how to measure the success of a SHS implementation. To date, isolated indicators such as the number of SHSs installed, the SHSs in operation as compared to the total number of SHSs installed, or the Users’ satisfaction have been applied to measure the success of SHS implementations (Komatsu et al., 2013). In an earlier phase of this research, a model of success was developed based on literature review and personal experience (Holtorf et al., 2015b).
5 Paper II - The Institutions’ Views
- 134 -
This model of success addresses the success of key-players involved in the implementation of SHSs. Thereby success is defined as the achievement of self-set goals. It is assumed that players engaging in SHS have different self-set goals (SSG). These SSG have different importance and they have different levels of achievement (LoA). To grade the success of a SHS implementation the weighed arithmetic mean of the importance of SSGs (ISSG) and the LoAs determine the overall success (Successimpl.):
(1)
Various players are involved in the SHS environment. They can be grouped into institutional players and into Users of SHSs. Institutional players deal with SHSs on different levels and for multiple reasons, e.g. technology optimization or economic feasibility. By contrast Users of SHSs invest in these systems for private purposes.
This paper explores the institutions involved in SHSs and presents their views relating to the success of SHS implementations. In this research the concept of Freeman on stakeholders is applied for the classification of the respective players (Freeman & McVea, 1984). The results of this exploration of institutional stakeholders are then incorporated into the existing model of success to generate an improved model.
After setting the scene for this work in this section, the paper proceeds to discuss the methodology (Section II). The Results and Discussion section discusses the responses of the questioned participants on each section of the model of success (SSG, ISSG, success factors and LoA), with conclusions being drawn that can be taken forward to the development of an improved model (Section III). Thereafter an improved model of success is presented and discussed (Section IV), and finally conclusions are drawn and the necessary next steps for this research are outlined (Section V).
II. METHODOLOGY After the development of the abstract model of
success it was necessary to determine the real world elements within the sections of the model of success. The research being in the stage of development of a model (a model is the representation of objects and processes (Atteslander, 2008)) therefore applies qualitative methods (Lamnek, 2006). The paper’s focus is on institutions dealing with SHSs. Problem centered interviews (PCI) (Mieg & Brunner, 2001; Van Audenhove, 2007) and participatory observation (PO) (Mack et al., 2005) were applied to best adapt to the participant’s capability of communicating
meaningful content (Mayring, 2002; Sewell, 2014). The research directs the attention towards a broad exploration on elements necessary for the modelling of success rather than on the statistical coverage of known elements. Therefore 12 respondents were selected covering a wide range of institutional experience on SHSs. TABLE I gives an overview of the target respondents. They were grouped into three categories based on the nature of their involvement in the implementation of SHSs.
PCIs were conducted with most of the participants. A guiding diagram based on the model of success was presented to the interviewees with the following guiding questions:
• Who are the key-stakeholders in the SHS environment?
• What are SHS related self-set goals of the interviewee’s institution?
• How important are these goals (please rank from 1 to 5)?
• What are the success factors (SF) to achieve the self-set goals and what are their weights?
• How do you measure the level of achievement of the self-set goals?
• What are further challenges related to success of SHSs?
The interviewees were requested to narrate on the items shown on the model diagram (the key-stakeholders, self-set goals of their institutions, their importance and so on). Key-words and key-sentences were noted on this diagram by the interviewer while he confined himself to focus on the key questions of the interview and to clarify uncertainties within the narration. In parallel the interview was audio recorded.
TABLE I. RESEARCHED RESPONDENTS
Group Notes Range of Operation
International Supply Chain
2 manufacturers (PCI)c 2 system integratorsa (PCI)c International
National Supply Chain
2 system implementersb (PCI)c 2 local entrepreneurs (PO)c National
Donors and Consultants
2 donors (PCI)c 2 consultants (PCI)c International
a. System integrators design systems from components on the intl. market and disseminate them on the intl. market.
b. System implementers design systems from components on the natl. and intl. market and implement those systems on the national market.
c. PCI = Problem Centered Interview, PO = Participatory Observation
The PO approach was applied to the local entrepreneurs since they had difficulties in reading, writing, and dealing with modern technology and abstract graphs. The researcher accompanied an installation team during the realization of an entire SHS installation project. A local dealer, who supplied automotive spare parts, electrical appliances for households, and components for SHSs as well as complete Solar Home Systems, was observed for an entire day in his shop while he was dealing with his customers. The observations from
5 Paper II - The Institutions’ Views
- 135 -
the PO activities were documented in a notebook in order to reduce the biasness due to behavior modification triggered by modern observation technologies.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The following sections present the results from
the first five key questions outlined above in section METHODOLOGY. Each sub-section focusses on a key question and provides the results of the research with the respondents (PCI and PO), a discussion of these results, and some summarizing conclusions derived from this discussion.
A. Key-Stakeholders
The first information sought from the respondents was on the key-stakeholders in the SHS environment. Fig. 1 shows the result. The
respondents identified 16 different stakeholders in the SHS environment. The most important stakeholder is the local entrepreneur followed by the national system implementers, the users, the intl. donors and so on.
Fig. 1 also shows stakeholders which were mentioned by multiple respondents and stakeholders which were mentioned only by a minority of respondents. It was decided that stakeholders mentioned by at least 25% of the participants to be key-stakeholders. However, due to the discussion below some single nominations were included to the final list of key-stakeholders in TABLE II.
Fig. 1. Key-stakeholders in SHS environment listed by institutions.
At least one member in each of the 3 responding groups listed in TABLE I agreed that positions 1-5, 7 & 9 in Fig. 1 are stakeholders related to SHSs. It was noticed that international system integrators (pos. 6), national and international nongovernmental organizations (pos. 8), and national component manufacturers (pos. 10) were not recognized by all groups as stakeholders. This indicates that these potential stakeholders are of minor importance to those particular interviewed groups. Only 75 % of the respondents mentioned users as a stakeholder. However, in most of the literature users are referred to as an important, if not the major stakeholder (Hellpap, 2011; Komatsu et al., 2013). All respondents from the national supply chain mentioned the international manufacturers as key-stakeholders indicating that SHSs often cannot be implemented without international products. Training/research institutions and national financing institutions were listed by a minority of respondents. However, literature mentions lack of these items as barriers to successful SHS implementation (Friebe et
al., 2013). The recycling chain for lead acid batteries was a major issue in the past (Bloos & Haars, 1995) but it was mentioned by only 1 respondent.
TABLE II. FIVE GROUPS OF KEY-STAKEHOLDERS
Group Stakeholders International Supply Chain
Intl. component manufacturesa Intl. system integratorsa
National Supply Chain
Local entreprepreneursa Natl. system implementersa Natl. component manufacturersa
Donors Intl. donor institutionsa
Other Institutions
Natl. governmental organizationsa; c Natl. & intl. nongovernmental institutionsa Local governmental organisationsa Training/research institutionsb Recycling chainb Natl. financing institutionsb
Users Users and householdsa a. Included as no. of nominations > 25%
b. Included because of the importance highlighted in the discussion c. Natl. governmental organizations refer to organizations in receiving
countries.
5 Paper II - The Institutions’ Views
- 136 -
B. Self-Set Goals and Importance of Self-Set Goals
Next the respondents were queried about the SSG and the ISSG of their particular institution.
Twenty different SSGs were identified and their importance was attributed by the respondents on a scale of 1 to 5. The totals for all the groups were also summed and the results of this section are depicted in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Group’s self-set goals ranked by the sum of the self-set goal importance values.
As shown in Fig. 2 profit and quality were ranked as the most important SSG and product’s functionality was ranked as the least important SSG. Quality was explained as the capability to serve for a long period without fault, while functionality was understood as a SHS having many features. Social benefit (less indoor pollution, brighter light, improved communication and leisure by cell phone, radio and TV) was ranked as the most important SSG by the international donors and consultants. Social benefit was also given high priority by the international supply chain.
Some SSGs are quantifiable and their LoA is measurable in numbers whereas others are qualitative (not distinguished in Fig. 2). An example are profit and customer satisfaction respectively. According to Schmalen et. al. both types of self-set goals and their measurement are important for success analysis (Weindlmaier et al., 2006).
SSGs exist which are listed exclusively by a single group of respondents. Survival in the business
was exclusively listed by the members of the national supply chain; while the international supply chain group members exclusively listed the development of distribution networks (both rank 4 in Fig. 2). This behavior correlates to the explanations on success stating that views on success are specific to the position of the enterprise in the market (Bullen & Rockart, 1981).
The distinction between a self-set goal and a success factor (SF) is difficult and under specific circumstances impossible. In the discussion of the model of success some respondents would categorize certain items as self-set goals while the same items were rated as SFs by other respondents. Quality is an example of an item that was considered both as SSG and SF. The top ranking of quality as a SSG reflects the respondents’ awareness of this issue. Quality was listed as a very important SF for enterprises (Buzzell & Gale, 1989). Literature on SHSs confirms the correlation of quality and success (Bazilian et al., 2010;
5 Paper II - The Institutions’ Views
- 137 -
Nieuwenhout et al., 2001c; T. Urmee & D. Harries, 2011).
The international donor institutions and consultants are in a different position than the natl. and intl. supply chain. Donor institutions pointed out that they play the role of executing implementers on behalf of commissioning organizations, e.g. a donating government. The goals of international donor organizations would therefore be highly influenced by the commissioning organizations. In the interviews, no SSGs were listed by the international consultants; they mainly focused on SFs of SHSs.
It was concluded that the most important SSGs in the SHS environment are those within the top 75 % of the overall cumulative importance values (see Fig. 2). This limit excludes individual nominations or multiple nominations given, but with low values for the importance of the nominations. Next, the summed importance of SSGs for each group of key-stakeholders (TABLE I) is used for the selection of the most important SSGs for that group. The groups’ goals are ranked by the total of the group’s importance values and the ranks 1 and 2 are then selected as the most important SSGs. The procedure recognizes the absolute importance of SSGs given by multiple stakeholders or a very high importance given by individual stakeholders and it considers the views of the stakeholder groups on their SSGs with highest importance.
TABLE III. MOST IMPORTANT SELF-SET GOALS FOR THE INSTITUTIONAL KEY-STAKEHOLDER GROUPS
Group Ranked Self-Set Goals International Supply Chain
1. Profit; social benefit and its facets 2. Development of distribution network
National Supply Chain
1. Profit 2. Quality
Intl. Donors 1. Social benefit and its facts 2. Quality
C. Success Factors
In the next step of the query, the participants were requested to list the SFs related to their SSGs and to weigh these according to their importance. In the model of success, SFs have a significant impact on the LoA of SSGs. Many articles have discussed the idea of SFs on general success, e.g. (Bullen & Rockart, 1981; Hoffmann & Schlosser, 2001; Weindlmaier et al., 2006) and on SHS success (Asif & Barua, 2011; Barua, 2001). A number of conclusions can be drawn from the interaction with the respondents on success factors.
Success factors can be categorized in a number of ways, for example by:
• their sphere of impact (which stakeholders are affected?),
• their controllability (are SFs endogenous or exogenous),
• their impact nature (do the SFs impact on one or on several goals, are they general SFs?)
• their interconnectedness (does a variation of one SF impact on another SF?)
• their compensability (how far can an unmet SF be compensated for by other factors?) and
• their dependency on specific situations (are the SFs generally valid or do they only hold in a specific situation?).
According to the results of the survey and the literature review, some key general SFs for Solar Home Systems were determined:
• quality of systems and services;
• balancing of the costs and the quality of systems and services in order to ensure affordability and long term operation;
• communication across all stakeholder groups and on all levels;
• education and training on all levels;
• solving the existent causality dilemmas in the SHS environment;
• the uniqueness of stakeholders;
• contextualization on multiple levels.
In summary, numerous SFs are critical to the process of assessing the success of SHS implementations. The above mentioned SFs will be added in the final model of success.
D. Measurement of the Level of Achievement
The last part of the survey focused on the measurement of the LoA of SSGs. For the respondents this proved to be the most difficult element of the presented model.
The determination of the LoA often depends on a quantitative measurement (e.g. 1000 SHSs installed in one month). The measurement scale for such a LoA can be time and situation dependent. SSGs are prone to change for multiple reasons which impacts on the measurement of the LoA. For example, one interviewee reported on the development of a new market (storage equipment for grid connected PV systems) which had reduced the importance of the initial SHS market for his company. As a consequence of such influences, the focus of a company may change. The initial SSG is modified, the measurement scale for excellent is revised, and, in the instance mentioned above, reduced. An opposite effect can also be observed.
SSGs may have quantitative or qualitative properties. Quantitative SSGs may be evaluated linearly, exponentially/logarithmically or by threshold. A quantitative, SSG linked to a threshold of a local installer was to finalize an installation, including travelling efforts, within one day. If achieved, this would render the grading excellent.
5 Paper II - The Institutions’ Views
- 138 -
Not finalizing the task within one day would be graded failure.
The achievement of a certain turnover of systems or components is another version of a quantitative SSG. However, the manner in which this is measured in terms of LoA can vary. Consider a situation where the SSG is to install 1000 SHSs in a month, and assume that, in practice, 900 systems were installed in a particular month. One respondent used a simple linear approach in assessing this and gave a LoA of 90 %. In an exponential approach the LoA would render 63 %, in a logarithmic approach the LoA would be 98 %. The calculation process for assessing the LoA of such quantitative goals needs to allow for such different approaches.
Qualitative SSGs are either measured indirectly by a derived variable or merely by subjective judgement. Two interviewees listed the qualitative SSG satisfaction in the company which can be measured indirectly by the time employees stay in a company before they seek to apply for other employment. The problem in the case of gauging the LoA of a purely qualitative SSG is the reduced comparability to other stakeholders or projects, because of the subjective nature of the assessment.
A respondent pointed out that the LoA can only be given with very coarse resolution. The use of such a coarse scale may assist in ensuring some uniformity in comparing different projects or implementations, because results could be more amenable to being judged in a similar manner. It may provide a useful way to quantify the LoA of quantitative and qualitative SSGs. The approach provided by this respondent was incorporated into the model. In order to be consistent with the maximum grading of “five”, which is used for the weight of the success factors and the importance of SSGs, and in order to reflect failure by a “zero”, we propose: 5 = excellent / fully achieved, 4 = good, 3 = satisfactory, 2 = poor, 1 = very poor and 0 = failure. Thereby we accept the inconsistency of having a six tier system as compared to the five tier system for the grading of the success factors and SSGs, in order to allow the value of 0 for failure.
This section has indicated the different approaches that participants can take in assessing the achievement of goals. Irrespective of different
individual metrics used, stakeholders need to apply the six tier scale as above for their levels of achievement in order to apply a common scale across all LoA values and to make the model of success work.
The conclusions from this part of the participant’s interrogation are:
• the measurement scale for the LoA is time and situation dependent;
• quantitative and qualitative measurement indicators exist;
• stakeholders can apply different measurement scales for both quantitative and qualitative indicators;
• the measurement resolution, in terms of LoA, needs to be rather coarse because of the difficulty in providing “exact” measurements of many of these levels of achievement;
• the evaluation of the achievement of SSGs depends on the type of SSG (quantitative versus qualitative) and on the specific stakeholder;
• in order to apply the model of success, stakeholders need to provide a numerical grading of the LoA;
• we propose a six tier numbering system with 5 = excellent and 0 = failure.
However, some flexibility in gauging the SSGs and/or the LoA of these goals throughout the course of a project must be built into the model due to the volatility of SSGs over time.
IV. THE IMPROVED MODEL OF SUCCESS Based on the results of the research described in
this paper, the original model of success described in (Holtorf et al., 2015b) has been improved. Key-stakeholders have been determined, specific SFs have been detected, and general key features of SFs have been explained. In addition, the challenges of measuring the LoA have been highlighted. Fig. 3 depicts the improved model of success. The modifications compared to the initial model of success are highlighted and described below.
5 Paper II - The Institutions’ Views
- 139 -
Fig. 3. Improved model of success.
Five stakeholder groups and their members, as stated in TABLE II, are incorporated in the improved model of success.
Manifold self-set goals were listed by respondents. From this the most important SSGs were derived (TABLE III).
Success factors have been sorted into general, indirectly impacting, and independent, directly impacting SFs. They may be of endogenous (highly or marginally able to be influenced by stakeholders) or of exogenous nature (not influenceable). Some SFs impact on the achievement of distinct, others on multiple SSGs. In addition, the SFs may be
5 Paper II - The Institutions’ Views
- 140 -
interconnected. To a certain extent the stakeholder may be able to compensate for an interconnected SF by focusing on the other SFs that are linked to it.
Some SSGs can be SFs – for example quality.
The measurement of the level of achievement remains a major challenge: for one, stakeholders’ SSGs may change over time. Then, self-set goals need to be sorted into quantitative and qualitative SSGs. Next, stakeholders internally decide on the evaluation scale (linear, exponential/logarithmic, and threshold) for the quantitative SSGs, and on indirect quantitative indicators for the qualitative SSGs. Finally, stakeholders are required to transform their grading into the six tier system of the model of success with an excellent LoA equaling a grading of 5, a failure equaling a grading of 0 and the four levels in between respectively.
A formula is used in Fig. 3 to calculate a final quantitative value for the success of a SHS implementation which represents the weighted arithmetic mean of the importance of the self-set goal’s ISSG values, with the weighting provided by the level of achievement of these goals LoASSG.
A superordinate level is the contextualization. The note on contextualization in Fig. 2 reminds the model’s user that all of the elements within the model’s components are situation, location and time dependent. Therefore, the components need to be carefully defined for each SHS implementation considered, although it would be expected that some of the components would be common to many SHS implementations.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK Measuring the success of Solar Home System
implementation is very complex. A multidimensional construct is necessary for the appraisal of success. This study has resulted in a methodology to evaluate the success of Solar Home System implementation by proposing a model of success. The research addresses the components of this model and their linkages. The considerations necessary when examining the model’s components have been described.
This explorative research gives a starting point for the application of the model of success when investigating the success of institutions involved in the dissemination of SHSs. For the application of the model quantitative methods will be applied to determine success of SHS implementation.
This model of success can be applied to different SHS dissemination approaches to allow comparison of the successfulness of these different implementations. Likewise it can be used to observe the development of success in a particular SHS implementation by applying it at different points in time in the project cycle. Last but not least, the model includes the individual stakeholders’ level of success, and so can be applied to each stakeholder individually.
This model of success will need continuous adaptation as SHSs and their appliances undergo further development. Some elements of the model of success may vanish while new elements may appear.
HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS This research was approved by the Human
Research Ethics Committee of Murdoch University. The approval was granted under the Project Number 2012/076, Project Title: “Success factors of rural electrification through Solar Home Systems in developing countries using African case studies”.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT This research is financially supported by the
School of Engineering and Information Technology at Murdoch University, Western Australia, and the International Relations Office at University of Oldenburg, Germany, through scholarships. It has also been supported by a Fellowship for Tania Urmee at the Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg in Delmenhorst, Germany.
REFERENCES Acker, R., & Kammen, D. (1996). The quiet (energy)
revolution. Analyzing the dissemination of photovoltaic power systems in Kenya. Energy Policy, 24(1), 31.
Adkins, E., Oppelstrup, K., & Modi, V. (2012). Rural household energy consumption in the millennium villages in Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy for Sustainable Development, 16(3), 249-259. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2012.04.003
Asif, M., & Barua, D. (2011). Salient features of the Grameen Shakti renewable energy program. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(9), 5063-5067. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.050
Atteslander, P. (2008). Operationalisierungsvorgang Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (pp. 33-36). Berlin, Germany: Schmidt Verlag.
Barua, D. C. (2001). Strategy for promotions and development of renewable technologies in Bangladesh: experience from Grameen Shakti. Renewable Energy, 22(1–3), 205-210. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(00)00012-4
Bazilian, M., Nussbaumer, P., Cabraal, A., Centurelli, R., Detchon, R., Gielen, D., . . . Ziegler, F. (2010). Measuring energy access: Supporting a global target. Retrieved from
Bhattacharyya, S. (2013). Rural Electrification Through Decentralised Off-grid Systems in Developing Countries: Springer.
Bloos, H.-G., & Haars, K. (1995). Umweltbilanz von Photovoltaischen Familiensystemen. Paper presented at the 10. Symposium Photovoltaische Solarenergie, Bad Staffelstein, Germany.
Bullen, C. V., & Rockart, J. F. (1981). A primer on critical success factors. (Sloan WP No. 1220-81).
5 Paper II - The Institutions’ Views
- 141 -
Buzzell, R. D., & Gale, B. T. (1989). Das PIMS-Program - Strategien und Unternehmenserfolg (D. Meyer, Trans.). Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
Freeman, R. E., & McVea, J. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
Friebe, C. A., Flotow, P. v., & Täube, F. A. (2013). Exploring the link between products and services in low-income markets—Evidence from solar home systems. Energy Policy, 52(0), 760-769. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.038
Fulkerson, W., Levine, M. D., Sinton, J. E., & Gadgil, A. (2005). Sustainable, efficient electricity service for one billion people[1]. Energy for Sustainable Development, 9(2), 26-34. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0973-0826(08)60490-1
Hellpap, C. (2011). Kernherausforderungen beim Aufbau ländlicher Verbreitungssysteme für Pico PV Systeme. Paper presented at the Im Abseits der Netze, Bonn.
Hoffmann, W. H., & Schlosser, R. (2001). Success Factors of Strategic Alliances in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises—An Empirical Survey. Long Range Planning, 34(3), 357-381. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00041-3
Holtorf, H., Urmee, T., Calais, M., & Pryor, T. (2015). A model to evaluate the success of Solar Home Systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 50, 245-255. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.015
IEA. (2012). The electricity access database. Retrieved from http://www.iea.org/weo/electricity.asp
Komatsu, S., Kaneko, S., Ghosh, P. P., & Morinaga, A. (2013). Determinants of user satisfaction with solar home systems in rural Bangladesh. Energy, 61(0), 52-58. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.04.022
Lamnek, S. (2006). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Weinheim.
Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Module 2 Participant Observation. Retrieved from http://www.popline.org/node/263032#sthash.tjdyMjHh.dpuf
Mayring, P. (2002). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken Beltz Studium, (pp. 170).
Mieg, H. A., & Brunner, B. (2001). Experteninterviews (pp. 33). Zuerich, Switzerland: ETH Zuerich,.
Nieuwenhout, F. D. J. c. a., Dijk, v. A., Lasschuit, P. E., Roekel, v., G, Dijk, v. V. A. P., Hirsch, D., . . . Wade, H. (2001c). Experience with Solar Home Systems in Developing Countries: A Review. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 9, 2001, 20.
OECD. (2009). The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf
Pertz, K. (1988). Nutzung erneuerbarer Energiequellen in Entwicklungsländern (Vol. 89). Bonn: Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit.
Sewell, M. (2014). The Use of Qualitative Interviews in Evaluation. Retrieved from http://ag.arizona.edu/sfcs/cyfernet/cyfar/Intervu5.htm
Urmee, T. (2009a). Solar PV electrification programs in developing countries : towards an holistic approach. (PhD), Murdoch University, Perth. Retrieved from http://wwwlib.murdoch.edu.au/adt/browse/view/adt-MU20100311.121220
Urmee, T., & Harries, D. (2011). Determinants of the success and sustainability of Bangladesh’s SHS program. Renewable Energy, 9.
Van Audenhove, L. (2007). Expert interviews and interview techniques for policy analysis. In I. a. T. SMIT Studies on Media & I. I. I. o. B. Technology (Eds.). Brussel: Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
Weindlmaier, H., Schmalen, C., & Kunert, M. (2006). Erfolgsfaktorenforschung: Theoretische Grundlagen, methodische Vorgehensweise und Anwendungserfahrungen in Projekten für die Ernährungsindustrie. Paper presented at the Tagung der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V. 2006, Gießen.
Wiedemann, K. (2012). Electrification Challenges in Rural Areas. Retrieved from https://energypedia.info/wiki/Electrification_Challenge_in_Rural_Areas
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 142 -
6. Paper III - The Users’ Views After the publications “A model to evaluate the success of Solar Home Systems” and “Incorporating
the Institutions’ Perspective into a Proposed Model for Assessing Success of Solar Home System
Implementations”, the final publication within this thesis dealt with the SHS Users’ views relevant to
the Model of Success. The manuscript was submitted upon invitation to the AIMS Energy Journal,
special issue “Solar Energy for Remote Area Off-grid Electrification” on May 30th 2015. The paper was
published on October 10th 2015. The modified manuscript addressing the reviewers’ comments is
given in section 6.2 Paper III - Incorporating the User Perspective into a Proposed Model for Assessing
Success of SHS Implementations.
6.1 Overview and Author Contribution This chapter presents the paper III, “Incorporating the User Perspective into a Proposed Model for
Assessing Success of SHS Implementations”.
In this paper the research question is: “which are the views of Users on success of SHSs and how can
these views be incorporated into the existing Model of Success in order to further refine the model?”
Hans Holtorf has developed the field study for this paper by himself. In this respect it was crucial to
find two contrastiing case study areas–one with Fee for Service and one with Dealer Model
dissemination of SHSs. The case studies consisted of interviews with Users, site visits, participatory
observation at Users’ homes, and the researcher’s self-observation as a User of a SHS. Based on the
methodology fully defined by Hans Holtorf, the necessary contacts and infrastructure were
established by Hans Holtorf. The field study was organized and carried out by Hans Holtorf and the
results were evaluated by him. The paper was structured and written by the corresponding author
with the help of the board of supervisors.
Dr. Tania Urmee gave input to the structuring of the paper. Dr. Martina Calais consulted Hans Holtorf
by thoroughly proof reading the paper. The final proof reading and discussion with Hans Holtorf was
performed by Dr. Trevor Pryor.
The paper is displayed in the journal’s format. However, for clarity minor reformatting was applied
and page breaks were inserted. Nevertheless, the numbering of the figures and the tables is
according to the publication’s numbering instead of the thesis’ numbering.
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 143 -
6.2 Paper III - Incorporating the User Perspective into a Proposed Model
for Assessing Success of SHS Implementations
http://www.aimspress.com/
AIMS Energy, 3(4): 679–698. DOI: 10.3934/energy.2015.4.679 Received date 30 May 2015, Accepted date 15 October 2015, Published date 27 October 2015
Research Article
Incorporating the User Perspective into a Proposed Model for
Assessing Success of SHS Implementations
Hans Holtorf*, Tania Urmee, Martina Calais, and Trevor Pryor
School of Engineering and Information Technology, Murdoch University, South Street, Murdoch WA
6150, Australia
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel: +61 8 9360 1316;
Fax: +618 9360 6332.
Abstract: Modern energy can contribute to development in multiple ways while approximately 20% of world’s population do not yet have access to electricity. Solar Home Systems (SHSs) consisting of a PV module, a charge controller and a battery supply in the range of 100Wh/d in Sunbelt countries. The question addressed in this paper is how SHS Users approach success of their systems and how these User’s views can be integrated in to an existing model of success. Information was obtained on the User’s approach to their SHSs by participatory observation, interviews with Users and by self-observation undertaken by the lead author while residing under SHS electricity supply conditions. It was found that success of SHSs from the Users’ point of view is related to the ability of these systems to reduce the burdens of supplying energy services to homesteads. SHSs can alleviate some energy supply burdens, and they can improve living conditions by enabling communication on multiple levels and by addressing convenience and safety concerns. However, SHSs do not contribute to the energy services which are indispensable for survival, nor to the thermal energy services required and desired in dwellings of Sunbelt countries. The elements of three of the four components of our previously proposed model of success have been verified and found to be appropriate, namely the User’s self-set goals, their importance and SHSs’ success factors. The locally appropriate, and scientifically satisfactory, measurement of the level of achievement of self-set goals, the fourth component of our model of success, remains an interesting area for future research.
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 144 -
Keywords: Solar Home System, SHS User, Energy Service, Success, Success Factor, Measurement of Success, Contextualization
Abbreviation: BCC: Battery Charge Controller; BMZ: Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development); CFL: Compact Fluorescent Lamp; ES: energy service; ESKOM: Electricity Supply Commission; ISSG: Importance of Self-Set Goal; LoA: Level of Achievement; NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; PO: Participatory Observation; PV: Photovoltaic; RESCO: Renewable Energy Service Company; SF: success factor, SHS: Solar Home System; SSG: Self-Set Goal; UMEME: energy distribution network company in Uganda; UNCST: Uganda National Council for Science and Technology; USD: United States Dollar; Wp: Watt Peak (PV power at standard test conditions); ZAR: South African Rand
1. Introduction
The availability of modern energy24 has multiple impacts on society (Kanagawa & Nakata, 2008). A BMZ (Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung; German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development) report lists these as effects on employment, education, health, environment, preservation of resources, security of energy supply, peacekeeping, world market dependency, financial resources, and economic stability (Marré, Krämer, Meller, & Hollederer, 2008). However, 1.3 billion of the world’s population still do not have any access to electricity (IEA, 2011).
Bright illumination, telecommunication and information by radio and TV are some of the basic needs of rural dwellers (Adkins et al., 2012), which require small amounts of electricity. To meet this demand of electricity, Solar Home Systems (SHSs) have been increasingly used in many countries over the last few decades. Van der Vleuten, Stam et al (2007) list Kenya, Morocco, Sri Lanka, the Tibetian Plateau in Western China and Zimbabwe as areas of successful SHS implementation (Fulkerson et al., 2005). Bangladesh is listed by many authors as the model example for successful SHS dissemination (A. H. Mondal & Klein, 2011; A. H. M. Mondal, 2010a; van der Vleuten, Stam, & van der Plas, 2007). However, it seems that all these publications agree that the number of installations is the key-indicator for the success of SHSs. Based on this assessment, other indicators such as the ratio between operational SHSs and installed SHSs are derived from this key-indicator.
There is a need to broaden the above definition of success for SHS implementations and to find out what factors influence this success. The objective of the research is to determine the stakeholders’ understanding on success of SHSs, success factors impacting on the success, the indicators of success, and how we can quantify the success. The approach is to base the success on the achievement of self-set goals25, which were stated by the key-stakeholders
24 We use modern energy in the sense of energy emitting less hazardous substances per unit than the up to date energy; modern energy impacts on the advancement of the socio-economic conditions. 25 Self-set goals in this paper are goals which a stakeholder actively sets by him or herself. The goals are related to the achievement of an energy service. The energy service can be supplied by a SHS. Example: The
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 145 -
involved in the SHSs’ environment (Holtorf et al., 2015b). A model of success was developed incorporating the considerations above. All stakeholders involved in the dissemination of SHSs at a certain site are considered: their self-set goals, the importance of these self-set goals, and the levels of achievement of the self-set goals. The weighted arithmetic mean of the importance of the individual stakeholder’s self-set goals and the levels of achievement determine the stakeholder’s overall success, as shown in the formula at the top of Figure 1 (Holtorf et al., 2015b). The approach can be used to determine the successfulness of individual stakeholders or the success of an entire implementation process. Additionally the model incorporates success factors for future consideration. Figure 1 presents the model of success with a focus on the Users. This principle is applied to all involved stakeholders of a SHS implementation.
Users are one of the main key stakeholders of SHS environment (Holtorf et al., 2015b) and therefore, their views on success of SHSs are important to refine the model of success. This paper aims to understand how rural dwellers view success in relation to SHS implementation and to incorporate this information into the model of success. To incorporate the views of the Users, the following questions will be answered in this paper:
• What are the self-set goals of SHS Users?
• What importance do the self-set goals have?
• How can Users measure the level of achievement?
• Which success factors impact on the Users’ self-set goals?
User says “I want bright illumination”. The self-set goal is the achievement of bright illumination a SHS can supply this energy service.
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 146 -
Figure 1. The model of success. Source: Modified from (Holtorf, Urmee, Calais,
& Pryor, 2015c).
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the methodologies used for this research and the data collection. Section 3 describes the results. Section 4 discusses the results followed by the description of the improved model of success in Section 5. The conclusions are given in the final section.
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 147 -
2. Method
Figure 2 shows the methodology used in this research paper. The research uses qualitative data collection methods as the research is explorative in nature.
Three tools were used in this field study, namely:
1. Narrative Interviews with SHS Users: This type of interview is unstructured in its nature. It is unorganized to facilitate the development of a text that can be interpreted through qualitative content analysis. Additionally, a site visit was incorporated in every interview to verify the information collected.
2. Participatory observation26: This is a method of qualitative research in which the researcher understands the contextual meanings of an event or several events through participating and observing as a subject within the research.
3. Self-observation: The methodology is derived from the introspection used in psychological studies, where researchers carefully observe themselves and draw conclusions from them which are related to the research topic.
Triangulation of these methods helps strengthen the information collected from the field.
Figure 2. The research methodology.
26 Participatory observation is observing the researched society while taking part in their activities [(Nind, 2011)]
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 148 -
This field research was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at Murdoch University under the Project Number 2012/076, and by the relevant local authorities in Uganda and in South Africa.
2.1. Selection of the target area and the respondents
In Africa field study regions were selected with the help of the researcher’s professional network. Two rural districts were chosen purposively to represent contrastive types of installation models: Fee-for-Service (South Africa) and Cash Sales (Uganda).
The interviewees were selected randomly with the help of a local teacher (in Uganda) and a local leader (in South Africa). The preconditions were that the interviewees would reside in households fitted with a SHS that the households were accessible within 5 km radius from the researcher’s local host.
In the Ugandan field study region 15 households had a SHS out of which 9 households were investigated. Although, this is a qualitative research and the sampling strategies was used as a typical case sampling (Raosoft, 2004), the number is also verified using Raosoft Calculator, with a margin of error 10%, confidence level of 85% and a response distribution 90%27 (Raosoft, 2004).
In the South African case the houses were accessible by walking only. In total 8 households had a SHS which was in working condition. All households were approached but only 6 of them were available for an interview. None of the inhabitants of the other 2 households were available during the stay of the researcher. The same approach was used to see the validity of the respondent number using Raosoft (Raosoft, 2004).
In order to perform the self-observation, the researcher resided with a family in a SHS powered dwelling for one week in Ndejje, Uganda, and for three weeks in Ndumo, South Africa, to collect data related to his research. In selection of the host, importance was given to the following conditions:
• High social status in the community
• Long term experience on using a SHS in the house
2.2. Data processing and analysis
The information collected was documented, sorted and imported into a spread sheet with the categories necessary to answer the research questions. With the help of the spread sheet statistical evaluations were carried out. Qualitative content analysis28 was performed on the documentation to process the collected information.
The main challenges of this research were language and cultural barriers. The host translated from the local language to English during the researcher’s appointments. The misunderstandings and translation errors were minimized by conducting site visit after every interview.
27 There is no specific answer for the questions and so all answer were taken into consideration. It is assumed that 10% of the interviewee may not answer at all. 28 Qualitative content analysis is an approach to the step by step analysis of observations within their context without being aimed at rash quantification [(Kohlbacher, 2006)]
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 149 -
3. Results
This section describes the results retrieved from the field studies. Consistent with the research questions this section consists of subsections which deal with results related to self-set goals and their importance, approaches to the measurement of the level of achievement, and the success factors for Solar Home Systems. The results from 15 interviews, 2 participatory discussions and 2 self-observations, are sorted into these categories.
The respondents were asked about the year of installation of their system. Most of the systems were installed between 2005 and 2012. The average age of the systems was five years. Analyzing the Cash Sales model systems alone, they were comparably old, with an average age of 6.5 years. In contrast to this the SHSs installed under the Fee for Service model were, on average, 1.25 years old.
It was observed that the batteries of systems implemented by the Cash Sales model were recharged at a charging station every now and then. This was confirmed by the respondents during the interviews. This option was not given for the Fee-for-Service systems as the Users did not have access to the batteries.
3.1. Self-set goals of SHS Users
From the interaction with respondents it was found that energy services are the self-set goals related to Solar Home Systems. The energy services and their importance were further explored in this research. This section shows the results retrieved from the respondents themselves and from the self-observation of the lead author during the fieldwork.
To understand the self-set goals of the respondents, they were asked about their motivation to install a SHS. It was found that different Users had different drivers to invest in SHSs. About 66% of the respondents (10 households), mentioned that SHS was the best option due to the distance to the grid and the cost of grid connection. 3 out of 15 (20%) mentioned that they installed the SHS as an intermediate solution while they were waiting for grid connection. 2 respondents (13%), whose houses were within the proximity of the electricity grid, mentioned that they installed the system for protest reasons against the high cost and the unreliability of the grid power supply.
The respondents were asked about the priority of the electricity services to understand the importance of self-set goals of those services. Through discussions with interviewees, observation of hosts and researcher’s self-observation, the energy services supplied by SHSs and their importance were collected and presented in Figure 3.
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 150 -
Figure 3. Self-set goal energy service and their importance identified during interviews, by participatory observation and self-observation. Importance: 5: very high, 4: high, 3: medium, 2: low, 1: very low.
Figure 3 indicates the self-set goals of energy services from SHSs of the investigated Users (found by interviews and participatory observation) and of the researcher (found by self-observation). The bars indicate the averaged, normalized importance of the energy services to the participants of the research. The most important energy service from the Users’ point of view is refrigeration while the researcher gives highest importance to bidirectional communication (mobile / email communication). This shows that the importance of electricity service is contextualized. The results show that the Users were not aware of the capacity of SHSs and they did not have a clear perception on how SHSs work.
It was also observed during the field studies, that apart from the desired electricity services, optimization of income and expenditure, minimizing the physical effort and minimizing economic efforts to achieve the desired energy services are also important.
3.2. Measurement of the level of achievement
To measure the success of SHS from Users point of view, it is important to measure the level of achievement of their self-set goals. From a research point of view and experienced from self-observation the level of achievement of self –set goals can be measured as shown in Table 1.
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 151 -
Table 1. Measurement of the level of achievement.
Self-Set Goal Indicators of Measurement of Level of Achievement
Bidirectional Communication quantity of information supplied per day
Illumination no. of lumen hours supplied per day
Income Generation hours of income generation activities per day or economic balance of income generated vs. SHS cost
Radio radio hours per day at desired volume
TV TV hours per day at desired brightness, contrast & volume
It was difficult to get answers to the question on how the respondents measure the level of achievement (LoA) of their self-set goals. Therefore, the level of achievement was measured by the level of satisfaction of the Users. For example, if the Users are fully satisfied with their lighting needs that they had mentioned in their self-set goals, the LoA was 100%, if they are dissatisfied then the LoA was 0% and so on. In this research a scale of 0 to 5 (excellent = 5, good = 4, satisfactory = 3, poor = 2, very poor = 1, and failed = 0) is used to measure the LoA.
Three households had excellent satisfaction (5), four households had good satisfaction (4), five of them had medium satisfaction (3), one household had poor satisfaction (2) and two respondents were dissatisfied (0). The average User satisfaction lies between medium and high with the User satisfaction of the Cash Sales model systems being classified close to high, and the User satisfaction of the Fee for Service model systems mostly being classified as medium.
3.3. Results related to success factors for Solar Home Systems
Miscellaneous observations which are related to success of Solar Home Systems were recorded. From the interviews, the participatory observation, and the self-observation, the success factors were derived as shown in Table 2.
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 152 -
Table 2. Participants’ views on success factors.
Success Factor/Barrier Examples
Costs battery is too expensive installation is too expensive
Quality CFL lamps do not last long battery quality is low
low quality of installation
User’s Awareness Creation & User’s Awareness
too little information on solar is available in the society
incomplete or incorrect information of Users
importance of sensitizing on economizing of electricity
usage
solar seems expensive
lack of economical awareness (SHS economic option)
SHS User awareness of system’s operation financial capacity interest in system
Unsupplied Energy Services no ironing no fridge
limited color TV
Theft panels are stolen
Characteristics of the Solar Home System
reliability of the system (quality) fail safe system
indication of system parameters by charge controller low maintenance & operation requirements
neat installation
SHS Market availability of key spare parts quick repair and maintenance available
availability of SHSs
Major Advantages of SHSs leading to Success
light switch installed at a fixed location safety against fire hazard
reliability of electricity supply lies in User’s responsibility
The incorporated costs are still a success a barrier. Most of the Users complained about the cost of the system and the follow up cost of the batteries.
The quality of the system and its components also plays a major role in the success of SHSs. Most Users complained about the quality of CFL lamps and batteries. This was also confirmed by the self-observation. Furthermore it was observed that the installation of the systems was poor in case of the Cash Sales model. The appliances themselves constitute a success factors by their reliability, quality and price.
From the interviews it was found that the awareness on the SHS is very low. One respondent mentioned that not much information is available on SHS in the village and also the information provided is not explained to the households. This was confirmed by other interview as the interviewees wished to run a fridge or an iron by SHS electricity.
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 153 -
From the self-observation it was found that Users constitute a success factor of their own when the preconditions awareness, financial capacity and interest in SHS are given.
SHS failed to supply certain services which are a success barrier. For example, people in the investigated villages requested fridges as the ambient temperature is very high and cooled drinks are only available from kiosks (nearest one was 2.5 km).
Theft is another barrier for SHSs. Some respondents (3) mentioned theft of solar modules. In the Cash Sales model, the households needed to buy a new module. In the Fee-for-Service model, the RESCO will not replace the module before the households had paid 50% of the total price of the solar module.
Reliability of SHS was mentioned as a success factors by the respondents. This was also confirmed by self-observation. System reliability is dependent on the quality of the system components and neat installation. It is enhanced by system parameter indication by the charge controller which allows the User to optimize load management.
Low maintenance and operation requirements are a success factor. This was highlighted by self-observation. The researcher tried to maximize the system’s output by manually tracking the solar module. The goal was to adjust the azimuth of the PV module three times a day. Due to work commitment, the researcher failed to do so. Cleaning of the solar module was only carried out because the researcher’s module was installed at the entrance of the researcher’s living space and he was reminded whenever he entered or exited his rotunda.
In the observed Fee-for-Service systems the RESCO required Users to call for maintenance which was then done by a technician. In the Cash Sales model systems, no indication of maintenance and monitoring was found. For example the solar modules were found soiled.
Availability of spare parts plays a role for SHS success. When the local SHS market can supply major spare parts it contributes to the success of SHSs. Quick repair and maintenance given by the SHS local market can improve the reliability of the system. Delay on these services is a success barrier. From self-observation, the researcher experienced that replacing a CFL bulb take one working day hence causing loss of income and incurring travel expenses. It was found that the overall expenses for the bus tickets and the CFL bulb were in the range of one month’s fees for the local RESCO.
Last but not the least, the simplicity and the safety of the operation of appliances driven by SHSs is a success factor of its own. For example switching on light, the safety of light and the reliability of light is highly advantageous when compared to conventional light sources (kerosene lamps or candles).
4. Discussion
The results shown in the previous section require thorough discussion in order to refine the model of success proposed in (Holtorf et al., 2015b). This section discusses the results to finalize the model of success for the Users. The discussion follows the order of the presentation of the results.
4.1. Discussion of self-set goals and their importance
Goals are specific targets of stakeholders. Therefore, they contribute to the success of activities (Bullen & Rockart, 1981). They are implemented in the model of success (see
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 154 -
Figure 1). They need to be researched when the Users’ approach to success of SHSs is implemented into the model of success. As mentioned in the results in section 3.1., respondents were not familiar with the abstract term self-set goal and therefore they were approached with the general question: “Why did you install a SHS?”
From the list of energy services, other important information regarding the SHS program can be found. An example is the desire to operate a fridge and an iron by a SHS. This gives evidence that the Users are not aware of SHSs’ capacity. A chain of awareness creation steps was found by interviewing and by participatory observation:
• PV system suppliers give information to Users on the SHS. • Heterophilous communication is involved in this process • Users understand the information given. • Users accept the information given and create knowledge. • Users apply the knowledge gained.
When one step in this chain fails awareness creation fail. This may lead to exaggerated expectations towards the system, inefficient use of the system and in consequence to disappointment of the system.
Respondents exclusively listed energy services as reasons for installing SHSs and they were then asked “What is the importance of the energy services you mentioned?” The results are found in Figure 3. In this research it was also found that the accomplishing of energy services (being self-set goals) by Solar Home Systems is linked to two sets of factors. First, the supply of the energy service involves a series of optimization processes. Second, there are additional driving forces influencing the decision on a SHS installation. Figure 4 summarizes these influences. The details are explained below:
Figure 4. Self-set goals and the factors influencing the choice of SHSs.
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 155 -
Self-set goal
The overriding goal is to make specific energy services available–for example bright illumination.
Optimization process
Under the optimization heading there are multiple considerations that involve an optimization process. First the general income and the expenses for the energy service need to be balanced. Therefore, unaffordable energy services are excluded from the households.
The second optimization process involves the minimization of the performed physical and economic efforts. Utilizing a TV can be possible solely based on rechargeable batteries, but the recharging process is physically tedious and uneconomical. A grid connection may be unaffordable due to the high initial costs. In this case a Solar Home Systems may provide a solution when the TV set is devised as a low consumption appliance–either black-and-white or small size TV, or both characteristics combined. The final optimization process involves an attempt to maximize the reliability of the supply of energy services. In the researcher’s observation which was supported by respondents, rural grid connection electricity supply has proven to be less reliable than well managed SHS electricity supply.
Drivers
As mentioned above, the accomplishment of an energy service by SHSs is driven by a series of other factors. Some respondents had implemented their SHS as the best possible solution, some respondents had implemented the SHS as an intermediate solution while they were waiting for the grid connection and some respondents had installed the SHS as a protest against the utility.
Differences and similarities were found between the researcher’s and the respondents’ self-set goals. In the researcher’s self-observation the bidirectional communication–in this case by simple text emails–was of highest importance. By contrast, recharging of mobiles was found important for the respondents but only four out of five had mentioned this service supplied by SHSs. This difference can be explained with the existing infrastructure for recharging mobiles in the researched region. Many respondents had access to free mobile charging at a neighbor’s house or their workplace. As a foreigner the researcher did not have the necessary network. The situation changes when no grid electrification is available in the Users’ vicinity. Teshome (2015) describes the situation in South-West Ethiopia where 100 % of Users illuminate their dwellings with SHS electricity and 88 % charge mobiles with their SHS. But as the SHSs in that region are rather small in capacity only 18 % operate a radio and 1.8 % run a TV with the SHS (Negash, 2015).
The differences in self-set goals and their importance found between the respondents and the researcher as well as the information given in the literature indicates that SSGs need to be seen in the context of the Users in their region of SHS implementation. Zahnd (2013) underlines the importance of contextualization in his research related to energy service supply in mountainous villages in Nepal (Zahnd, 2013).
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 156 -
4.2. Discussion on the measurement of the level of achievement
For the proposed model of success, it is important to have stakeholders indicate the level of achievement of their self-set goals. In consequence, the Users of SHSs must be able to measure the level of achievement of their SHS related self-set goals. As mentioned in section 3.2. it was found that abstract gauging of levels of achievements is not a common approach for SHS Users. Furthermore, as a starting point, it was assumed that the User satisfaction could be a measure for the level of achievement. Therefore, in this research the measurement of the level of achievement was indirectly approached by querying and discussing the User’s satisfaction with the system. The rationale for their gauging was difficult to assess except for Users of non-operable systems.
From the User’s quotes and from the previous discussion it is proposed that the important factors influencing User satisfaction are: the User’s awareness of the system technology on one hand; and the User’s awareness of the system’s capacity for energy service delivery on the other; and last but not least, the User’s expectations towards the system (example: importance of fridge operation, see Figure 3).
Three other approaches to measure the level of achievement are given in the following:
From the authors’ point of view the level of achievement could be expressed with the ratio between the energy services supplied and the theoretical services which could be supplied considering the system’s rated capacity and the meteorological conditions. However, this approach would require intensive data collection and would entail expensive measurement equipment. Systems do exist where time series of data are collected in order to inform the RESCO of system problems. However, in these systems the data collection is limited to the PV power, the battery power, the load power, and the PV temperature (Braden, 2014). This approach for measuring level of achievement is excluded for economic reasons.
With reference to using User satisfaction as a measure of the level of achievement Komatsu (2013) proposes to assess the User satisfaction by a list of independent variables related to the categories Solar Home System, energy saving, and benefits from electric lighting (Komatsu et al., 2013).
In order to reduce emotional and awareness / unawareness impacts, it is proposed that SHS Users should measure the level of achievement by comparing the operational hours of their appliances to the operational hours rated by the system’s supplier. However, this still needs a recording of the operational hours. This is a challenge without costly operation hour meters (they are less costly than the measurement setup proposed earlier). It will be a difficult task for the person responsible for the operation of the SHS especially in larger families, when different persons are at home operating different appliances at different times. This is supported by the researcher’s experience of self-observation that despite the high level of his own interest in the operational hours of the hosts’ appliances he did not manage to fully record the hours of operation.
From the results, discussion and from the feasibility point of view it would appear that the User’s level of satisfaction with the system may well be the best indicator of the level of achievement of their self-set goals (i.e. the energy services), and this indicator could relatively easily be expressed in terms of this numerical scale as used in this research. However, the uncertainty caused by Users’ misconceptions needs to be accepted.
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 157 -
4.3. Discussion on success factors for Solar Home Systems
Many interesting results were found relating to the success factors for Solar Home Systems. In the model of success the success factors are shown as impacting on the level of achievement. A selection of some of the success factors are listed in the results section (Table 2).
Awareness development on new technology is very important for the success of SHS implementation (Mainali & Silveira, 2011; Rebane & Barham, 2011; Terrado et al., 2008; T. Urmee & Harries, 2009b; Velayudhan, 2003). The results obtained from this research also support this view. It shows that User awareness impacts on the success of SHS in multiple ways – refer to the example of operating a fridge. One respondent was disappointed that the SHS did not operate the fridge and this respondent had to go for bottled gas to meet this energy service. The respondent said that
“in any case grid connection is much better than (name of the RESCO) electricity”.
This disappointment was shared without any prompting. It can be assumed that this disappointment on SHSs would be shared in other communication by this User, which would impact on the success of SHSs in this area. A similar situation exists where a User did not charge his mobile using the SHS. Obviously, this User was unaware of the possibility of mobile charging by SHSs.
Despite the numerous channels available for creation of User awareness, misconceptions can still arise, as shown in the examples above. This is explained by Rogers (2003). Heterophilous communication is a precondition for awareness creation (E. M. Rogers, 2003).
A side effect of the lack of the User’s awareness is the inappropriate use of SHSs which results in a reduced energy supply as described by Azimoh (2014), (Azimoh, Wallin, Klintenberg, & Karlsson, 2014). Therefore, User training before implementation of SHSs is called for as a success factor, e.g. by Mufiaty (2014) (Mufiaty, 2014).
4.3.1. The success factors “quality” and “SHS market”
In Table 2, Quality and the SHS Market are listed as success factors. These have significant impacts on the success of SHSs as shown in multiple examples in Table 2. The results also confirm that high quality is a success factor and low quality is a success barrier. It also shows that spare parts availability in the local areas is an important success factor.
4.3.2. The success factor “operation and maintenance”
Maintenance is called for in the literature as a must for the success of SHSs (T. Urmee, 2009a). As explained in section 3.3., it was not granted for the researcher to perform the self-imposed maintenance. The researcher managed to clean his module as it was not installed on the roof of his building and it was easily accessible. This experience shows that the maintenance and operation of a SHS should incorporate as little User attention as possible as even highly interested, well aware and excellent qualified persons would fail in doing the necessary tasks. Therefore, a success factor is a low requirement of maintenance and high understanding on system operation.
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 158 -
But even when a system does not require a high level of attention for its maintenance, Users are not released from carefully managing the operation of their energy appliances. The need for sensitizing on economization of electricity is inevitable (refer to Table 2).
4.3.3. Exogenous and endogenous success factors
When investigating institutional stakeholders within this research (Holtorf et al., 2016), success factors can be divided into exogenous and endogenous. From the lists of success factors depicted in Table 2 it is clear that most of the success factors are not within the Users’ influence. From the Users’ point of view these success factors are exogenous.
An allocation of the relative weight of the success factors listed above was not possible within this research. The respondents could not relate to the concept of weighting success factors and the researcher’s sojourn in the target area was too short to give weights to the observed success factors. However, this weighting could show whether SHS Users can compensate for the lack of success factors within the list of exogenous success factors in order to make SHSs successful in their region.
4.4. Strengths, weaknesses and significance of this research
The strengths of this research were the participatory observation and the self-observation. Much information found in literature could be confirmed by first-hand experience. Of higher importance were the additional insights, for example, the challenge of operation and maintenance. This is mentioned in the literature (T. Urmee, 2009a), but the real-life experience of the lead author showed the difficulties associated with operation and maintenance efforts.
A major weakness of the research was the need of a translator in the rural areas. Bias is incorporated in the process of the translator understanding the researcher’s question, translating it, understanding the answer of the interviewee, and translating this answer back to English. Furthermore, issues of politeness, understatement and overstatement of respondents may have led to wrong information. Uncertainties are expected due to the researches limited time period. No extreme weather situations, such as very low solar radiation periods were observed in this research.
Only two field studies were carried out. The area of the research was limited to the radius of a motorcycle taxi in Uganda and the walking distance in South Africa – both approximately 5 km. Therefore, the results, although very useful in this research, are far from being universal in coverage.
Four results of significance from this research are:
i. The confirmation of many results found in literature through applying this research’s different approach (PO and self-observation),
ii. The understanding of the significance of the optimization processes and the drivers related to the self-set goals of achieving energy services demanded by rural dwellers,
iii. The similarities between the importance of SHS related energy services for hands
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 159 -
on experts and for an academic expert in the field of SHSs. Despite the different nature of SHS experience the evaluation of energy service’s importance bear a striking resemblance, however,
iv. Despite the similarities found between respondents and researcher, differences were disclosed in their approach on the success of the SHS. These indicate that the success of SHSs needs to be seen in the context of Users and their environment.
An open question is how the investigated rural dwellers manage low irradiation periods. However, the seasonal variation in the two locations is rather low as compared to northern or southern hemisphere locations (Stackhouse, 2015)29.
5. The model of success for Users
From the above discussion a refined model of success for Users is developed. The model is an advancement of the model presented in Figure 1. Figure 5 presents this improved model.
Users’ self-set goals as they were found from the research are inserted into Figure 5. Users need certain energy services, some of these energy services can be supplied by SHSs, for example, illumination and communication (radio, TV, telecommunication). The decision on supplying these self-set goals by SHSs is influenced by optimization processes and by drivers (refer to Figure 4). The self-set goals have different importance. Figure 3 indicates that SHS Users of this study give the highest importance to fridges and color TV and the lowest importance to electric fans. The importance of energy services may differ in different contexts. This is shown by listing the researcher’s choice of energy services in Figure 3. In any case, the importance of these self-set goals, energy services respectively, needs to be graded from 5 (very high) to 1 (very low).
29 The difference between the annual average radiation and the maximum radiation is 13 % in Ndejje and 26 % in Ndumo. The difference between the annual average and the annual minimum is 8 % and 24 % respectively.
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 160 -
Figure 5. The improved model of success for Users. * The LoA approach would be the desirable quantitative approach for Users but its feasibility is questionable.
In the sections on success factors, factors were found which relate to a. SHS itself, b. SHS Market, c. Appliances, d. Quality, e. Energy Services supplied and f. SHS Users (refer to Table 2). Referring to earlier findings these success factors can be either endogenous or exogenous in nature (Holtorf et al., 2016). The success factors related to a. – e. are exogenous success factors while the success factors related to the SHS User are endogenous success
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 161 -
factors. A weighting of the individual success factors subsumed under a. – f. cannot be given at this stage of the research. The knowledge on success factors is important as they impact on the achievement of self-set goals.
The measurement of the level of achievement is a precondition to apply this model of success. As a quantitative measure it was proposed to determine the level of achievement through the ratio of the actual operation hours over the rated operation hours. However, the qualitative measure of the User satisfaction seems to be much closer to the reality of the model’s application. To make the model work, this level of achievement needs to be transformed into a standardized grading system. A six tier system was proposed for the level of achievement of the institutional stakeholders involved in SHSs (Holtorf et al., 2016) and for consistency this system is applied to Users as well.
The resulting numbers of the LoA (between 5 and 0) and the importance of the energy services (5 to 1) are used to determine the User’s success of SHS implementation. This is calculated using the formula below
where ISSGi is the importance of the self-set goal i and LoASSGi is the level of
achievement of the self-set goal i.
Using the above formula, the User´s level of success calculated for Uganda is 1.9 and for South Africa it is 1.7 (5 = excellent success, … 2 = sufficient success, 1 = very low success, 0 = failure). This result is based on the current samples in Uganda and South Africa and the result shows the applicability of the model for measuring the SHS success from the User´s point of view.
The contextualization of the model’s components (Stakeholders, Self-Set Goals, Importance of SSG, Success Factors and the Measurement of the Level of Achievement) and the component’s elements is shown at the top of the model. It advises institutions investigating success of SHSs with this model, that all components of the model of success are impacted by the local context of the SHSs’ implementation.
6. Conclusion
The conclusions drawn here are limited to the findings in a rural area in Uganda and a rural area in South Africa. They do not represent the population in the surveyed regions and cannot be generalized. However, the findings contribute to the refinement of the model of success and they give insights of what needs to be considered when applying the model of success:
• Knowledge on SHSs found in literature was confirmed by these research methods which represent a relatively uncommon approach. However, additional findings were also made.
• In the overall picture it was found that SHSs cover only a small part of rural households’ energy demands. However, as SHSs supply electricity, self-set goals (energy services) of high personal importance for the User, but not indispensable for survival, are enabled by these systems. Yet, SHSs do not have the monopoly
1
1
i i
i
j
SSG SSGi
j
SSGi
I LoA
I
=
=
⋅∑
∑
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 162 -
to supply these services. Even when a SHS is installed energy services such as illumination and communication (mono- and bi-directional) are partly supplied by other sources. Still, a SHS reduces the efforts required to obtain the desired services.
• The Users’ self-set goals related to SHSs are impacted by a variety of underlying motivations. There is a need of optimization on different levels. There are drivers for the selection of SHSs in case of multiple choices.
• The User’s awareness is important for the success of Solar Home Systems. It keeps the User’s expectations on a realistic level and prevents disappointment resulting from unmet expectations. In addition it allows an optimal operation of the system. Nevertheless, even at high levels of awareness drawbacks in the operation of SHSs cannot be excluded.
• The operation of a refrigerator by a SHS at appropriate cost seems to be impossible at present. The solution for this energy service could constitute a breakthrough for SHSs.
• The charge controller’s importance must not be underestimated. By giving information on the system’s condition to the User and with the User’s careful application of this feedback the charge controller enables a higher reliability of the SHS's electricity supply than the grid connection can provide in the observed rural areas.
• Systems should not require intensive efforts for operation and maintenance. Even very motivated Users fail in giving enough attention to the operation and the maintenance.
• A dense network for repair, maintenance, and spare part supply is a success factor.
• Productive use is a success factor for SHSs as found in the literature. However, only niches of productive use can be served by the small amounts of electricity supplied by a SHS.
The model of success now incorporates insights from the perspective of the User and is now available for application to evaluate the success of SHS implementations and programs. The measurement of the level of achievement of self-set goals remains the largest challenge in applying this model. Here the research was not able to present a fully satisfactory approach that meets quantitative scientific standards on one hand, and is appropriate for rural dwellers and their Solar Home Systems on the other hand.
The linkage between success factors and the achievement of self-set goals / energy services and the weights of success factors related to Users remains an interesting area of future research.
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 163 -
Acknowledgement
This research is financially supported by the School of Engineering and Information Technology at Murdoch University, Western Australia, and the International Relations Office at University of Oldenburg, Germany, through scholarships. It has also been supported by a Fellowship for Tania Urmee at the Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg in Delmenhorst, Germany. We would like to thank the involved participants for sharing their views and experience on Solar Home Systems.
Conflict of Interest
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
References
Adkins, E., Oppelstrup, K., & Modi, V. (2012). Rural household energy consumption in the millennium villages in Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy for Sustainable Development, 16(3), 249-259. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2012.04.003
Azimoh, C. L., Wallin, F., Klintenberg, P., & Karlsson, B. (2014). An assessment of unforeseen losses resulting from inappropriate use of solar home systems in South Africa. Applied Energy, 136(0), 336-346. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.09.044
Braden, C. (2014). An example for an installment purchase company. Delmenhorst, Germany: Mobisol.
Bullen, C. V., & Rockart, J. F. (1981). A primer on critical success factors. (Sloan WP No. 1220-81).
Fulkerson, W., Levine, M. D., Sinton, J. E., & Gadgil, A. (2005). Sustainable, efficient electricity service for one billion people[1]. Energy for Sustainable Development, 9(2), 26-34. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0973-0826(08)60490-1
Holtorf, H., Urmee, T., Calais, M., & Pryor, T. (2015). A model to evaluate the success of Solar Home Systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 50, 245-255. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.015
Holtorf, H., Urmee, T., Calais, M., & Pryor, T. (2016). Incorporating the Institutions’ Perspective into a Proposed Model for Assessing Success of Solar Home System Implementations. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on the Development of Renewable Energy Technology (ICDRET 2016) - submitted 09/2015, BD-Dhaka.
IEA. (2011b). World Energy Outlook - Access to electricity. Retrieved from http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energydevelopment/accesstoelectricity/
Kanagawa, M., & Nakata, T. (2008). Assessment of access to electricity and the socio-economic impacts in rural areas of developing countries. Energy Policy, 36(6), 2016-2029. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.041
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 164 -
Kohlbacher, F. (2006). The Use of Qualitative Content Analysis in Case Study Research. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 7(1), 30. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/75/154
Komatsu, S., Kaneko, S., Ghosh, P. P., & Morinaga, A. (2013). Determinants of user satisfaction with solar home systems in rural Bangladesh. Energy, 61(0), 52-58. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.04.022
Mainali, B., & Silveira, S. (2011). Financing off-grid rural electrification: Country case Nepal. Energy, 36(4), 2194-2201. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.07.004
Marré, F., Krämer, K., Meller, H., & Hollederer, G. (2008). Entwicklung braucht nachhaltige Energie. Retrieved from Berlin:
Mondal, A. H., & Klein, D. (2011). Impacts of solar home systems on social development in rural Bangladesh. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15(1), 17-20. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2010.11.004
Mondal, A. H. M. (2010a). Economic viability of solar home systems: Case study of Bangladesh. Renewable Energy, 35(6), 1125-1129. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.10.038
Mufiaty, H. (2014). Solar Home Systems Performance in Rural Area in Aceh Case Study: Deah Mamplam Village, Aceh Besar. Energy Procedia, 47(0), 133-142. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.01.206
Negash, B. T. (2015). Market Study for Pico PV and SHS in Southern Ethiopia. (Master of Sciennces), University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Nind, M. (2011a). What is participatory research? Retrieved from http://0-dx.doi.org.prospero.murdoch.edu.au/10.4135/9781412995528
Raosoft. (2004). Sample size calculator. Retrieved from http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html
Rebane, K. L., & Barham, B. L. (2011). Knowledge and adoption of solar home systems in rural Nicaragua. Energy Policy, 39(6), 3064-3075. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.005
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Stackhouse, P. W. (2015). NASA surface meteorology
Terrado, E., Cabraal, A., & Mukherjee, I. (2008). Operational guidance for World Bank Group staff: Designing sustainable off-grid rural electrification projects - principles and practices. Retrieved from http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2009/01/05/000333037_20090105232755/Rendered/PDF/470220WP0Box331C10OffgridGuidelines.pdf
Urmee, T. (2009a). Solar PV electrification programs in developing countries : towards an holistic approach. (PhD), Murdoch University, Perth. Retrieved from http://wwwlib.murdoch.edu.au/adt/browse/view/adt-MU20100311.121220
Urmee, T., & Harries, D. (2009b). A survey of solar PV program implementers in Asia and the Pacific regions. Energy for Sustainable Development, 13(1), 24-32. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2009.01.002
6 Paper III - The Users’ Views
- 165 -
van der Vleuten, F., Stam, N., & van der Plas, R. (2007). Putting solar home system programmes into perspective: What lessons are relevant? Energy Policy, 35(3), 1439-1451. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.04.001
http://0-ac.els-cdn.com.prospero.murdoch.edu.au/S0301421506001686/1-s2.0-S0301421506001686-main.pdf?_tid=85764af0-e4ef-11e3-9be6-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1401120493_ce132868e7aad9925fd0873413022fe7
Velayudhan, S. K. (2003). Dissemination of solar photovoltaics: a study on the government programme to promote solar lantern in India. Energy Policy, 31(14), 1509-1518. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00207-0
Zahnd, A. (2013). The role of renewable energy technology in holistic community development. (PhD Dissertation), Murdoch University, Perth, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.springer.com/de/book/9783319039886
© 2015, Holtorf, Hans-Gerhard; Urmee, Tania; Calais, Martina; Pryor, Trevor; licensee AIMS
Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
7 Discussion and Conclusion
- 166 -
7. Discussion and Conclusion The purpose of this final chapter is to return to the original research questions, to summarise the
extent to which this study has been able to provide answers to those questions, to discuss the results
found, to extract from this the recommendations that can be made regarding the evaluation of the
success of Solar Home Systems’ implementation in Sunbelt countries and to make suggestions as to
what extent further research in this field is required or would be useful. The main body of this thesis
is finalized by a concluding remark at the end of this chapter.
7.1 Answering the Research Question The overriding research question that led to this research was
How can success of Solar Home Systems be measured?
While similar questions have been behind much of the research involving the evaluation of
renewable energy projects in developing countries undertaken to date, the argument put forward at
the start of this thesis was that attempting to answer these kinds of questions is difficult. The issues
associated with renewable energy projects or programmes tend to be large in number and complex
in their nature. As a consequence of this argument, it was necessary to review the large amount of
literature available in this area.
This study has focused on various types of SHS implementation. This includes project based
implementation on one hand (with a high level of hierarchy and organisation, for example, based on
bilateral treaties, involvement of International Donors, national and local governments and their
institutions, and the International and the National Supply Chain), and private initiative
implementation on the other (a lower level of hierarchy, solely including the members of the supply
chain). Furthermore, for the reason of the low electrification rate on this continent, the focus was set
on Africa. Two regions, one in Uganda and the other in South Africa, were chosen as representative
examples for this continent. The work also attempted to address the important issue that has not
been addressed in previous studies, namely how to measure the success of a SHS implementation
from the perspectives of all stakeholders.
The resulting research question that has underpinned this study was ”What are the key issues that
need to be considered and addressed in order to evaluate the success of SHS implementation?”. In
order to answer this question, a second argument was developed and structured into a set of guiding
sub-questions:
7 Discussion and Conclusion
- 167 -
i. Which are the components (for example, individual stakeholders and their self-set goals, success factors, measurement of the achievement of self-set goals) that need to be considered when evaluating the success of SHS implementation?
ii. How are these components linked with each other? iii. How should these components be quantified and combined to determine the overall success
respectively of a SHS implementation?
In order to test the above arguments and to address the research questions, this study has used a
range of strategies and approaches. These have included a comprehensive literature review, semi-
structured interviews, narrative interviews, participatory observation and self-observation with
members of different stakeholders. The aim was to obtain a more complete understanding of SHS
implementation, together with the impacts and benefits of, and the issues associated with, these
implementations.
7.2 Development of a Model of Success One of the main reasons for the limited success of many of the SHS projects undertaken in the
remote areas of developing countries was found to be a lack of understanding of the stakeholders
within any SHS implementation, their self-set goals and the success factors (or barriers) leading to (or
hindering) the achievement of the self-set goals. This finding confirmed what has been a commonly
reported conclusion in the literature.
In order to acknowledge all the items involved in the SHSs’ success, it was necessary to sort the items
found in literature related to the success of SHSs. A backbone structure was defined consisting of five
different sections. These sections were: the stakeholders involved in the SHS environment, the self-
set goals of these stakeholders, the success factors influencing the achievement of the self-set goals,
the measurement of the level of achievement of these self-set goals by the different stakeholders,
and the determination of the overall success of the Solar Home System implementation. These
sections consist of multiple components. For example, the section of stakeholders consists of the
components International Supply Chain, National Supply Chain, Donors and Users. Within some of
the components smaller elements were found. Literature was consulted on these elements within
the model’s components. For example, the International Supply Chain consists of the elements
international manufacturers and the internationally operating system integrators.
Based on this research, a preliminary Model of Success was developed. In this model, the sections
and a preliminary set of components and their elements were proposed. In a first approach, linkages
between the elements were assumed. It was then necessary to determine the elements within the
Model of Success and to identify the linkages. Therefore, relevant and experienced participants were
selected and their views were sought. The selection of the research’s participants aimed to confirm
7 Discussion and Conclusion
- 168 -
the general idea of the Model of Success and to determine a list of generally applicable elements in
order to make the model of success applicable to the implementation of SHSs.
The preliminary Model of Success is presented in Chapter 4, publication no. I, “A model to evaluate
the success of Solar Home Systems” (Holtorf et al., 2015b). In the next step of the research project,
feedback was sought on the elements of the sections in this Model of Success and, based on this
information, the model was further developed. The focus was on institutional stakeholders dealing
with SHSs and on Users implementing SHSs for their own use. The information sought from the
institutional stakeholders was summarized in “Incorporating the Institutions’ Perspective into a
Proposed Model for Assessing Success of Solar Home System Implementations” (Holtorf et al., 2016),
presented in Chapter 5 in this thesis. The lessons learned from the Users are provided in Chapter 6
within the publication “Incorporating the User Perspective into a Proposed Model for Assessing
Success of SHS Implementations” (Holtorf et al., 2015a). This information obtained from the field
surveys was used to further develop the initial proposed Model of Success.
7 Discussion and Conclusion
- 169 -
7.3 The Model of Success The final Model of Success resulting from the above process is depicted in Figure 7-1.
Figure 7-1: The resulting Model of Success for SHSs. Source: Author’s diagram.
The Model of Success is divided into five sections; from the Stakeholders section at the bottom of
Figure 7-1 to the final section Success of SHSs in which the overall success of the SHS implementation
7 Discussion and Conclusion
- 170 -
is calculated. Elements of these sections and their interconnections were determined and the key
findings are summarised below.
Key-Stakeholders and their self-set goals
The key-stakeholders Users, National Supply Chain, and International Supply Chain, their main self-
set goals and the importance of these goals have been identified and described.
Donors and consultants were also identified as stakeholders. They differ slightly from the other three
stakeholders with respect to their self-set goals. Donors have goals specified by superior institutions
which commission the donors to carry out a development project. Such a project might incorporate
the implementation of SHSs in order to achieve certain goals. Consultants are commissioned to
consult independently without being driven by self-set goals.
A fifth stakeholder group comprises of stakeholders which need consideration in a SHS
implementation on a case by case basis. These stakeholders could include national governmental
organisations, national and international nongovernmental organisations, local governmental
organisations, training and research institutions, the recycling chain and national financing
institutions (Holtorf et al., 2016).
Importance of Self-Set Goals
The determination of the importance of stakeholders’ self-set goals ISSG was found to be a central
information for the measurement of the overall success. ISSG is a major parameter in the model of
success – refer to the formula at the top of Figure 7-1. While the measurement of the level of
achievement constituted a major problem for stakeholders they easily and clearly indicated the
importance of their self-set goals. However, it seemed that the interview situation impacted on the
rating of the importance of self-set goals. It was surprizing that social benefit was rated the same
importance as profit for the International Supply Chain (refer to paper no. II described in section
5 Paper II - The Institutions’ Views).
Success Factors
It was found that success factors with different characteristics impact on the self-set goals of
stakeholders. General, indirectly impacting, interconnected and compensable success factors, as well
as independent and directly impacting success factors were identified. Success factors were
categorized into controllable (endogenous) or non-controllable (exogenous) success factors.
Exogenous success factors constitute a major challenge. They impact on the successfulness of
stakeholders, but they cannot be influenced by the respective stakeholders. The stakeholders are
7 Discussion and Conclusion
- 171 -
limited to compensating exogenous success factors with endogenous success factors in order to
ameliorate their success. It was found that the International Supply Chain, the National Supply Chain
and the International Donors predominantly deal with endogenous success factors (Table 4 in
(Holtorf et al., 2016)), while the Users predominantly deal with exogenous success factors (Table 6 in
(Holtorf et al., 2015a)). Users cannot influence the costs and the quality of SHSs, and they have very
little influence on theft protection and on the energy services SHSs supply. Their only endogenous
success factor is their ability to create awareness of, and understand the operation of, their SHSs.
Some distinct success factors impact on multiple self-set goals. They can be endogenous or
exogenous in nature, depending on which stakeholder’s self-set goal they impact. For all success
factors the situation, time, and location dependency needs consideration.
Stakeholders have determined important success factors (such as quality). In order to achieve
success, those success factors are also established as self-set goals. Therefore, some elements of the
Model of Success are found in the section self-set goal as well as in the section success factor.
Success factors do not impact on the grading of the success of Solar Home Systems. However,
examining the presence or the absence of success factors within the implementation of SHSs and
knowledge on the importance of success factors serve for explanatory purposes of the stakeholder’s
or overall success of SHS implementation. Therefore the research has dealt with success factors.
Measurement of the Level of Achievement
When it comes to the measurement of the level of achievement of self-set goals, the nature of the
self-set goal plays a major role. Self-set goals can be quantitative or qualitative
Both types, the quantitative and the qualitative self-set goals, are important in assessing success of
Solar Home Systems.
However, it was found that for all stakeholders the measurement of the level of achievement is the
most difficult part in the application of the Model of Success. This research proposes a six tier scale
for the measurement of the level of achievement as a higher resolution is not feasible when
considering the overall difficulty in assessing the level of achievement. These difficulties include,
among other things, dealing with the stakeholders’ subjective perceptions of their qualitative and
quantitative self-set goals and their achievement. The measurement of the level of achievement of
quantitative self-set goals was found to be based on a linear, an exponential or logarithmic scale or
simply determined by the achievement or non-achievement of a threshold. On the other hand, it was
found that the level of achievement of qualitative self-set goals could be gauged by either applying
7 Discussion and Conclusion
- 172 -
indirect quantitative measures or by directly giving a qualitative valuation. For both cases, strict
specifications must be documented by the gauging stakeholder.
Independent of the internal approaches stakeholders take to measure the level of achievement, the
stakeholders need to rate the level of achievement on this six tier scale to make the Model of
Success work. On this six tier scale, 0 would relate to no achievement and 5 would relate to a perfect
level of achievement.
Overall Success of SHSs
The overall success of Solar Home Systems is derived from the weighted arithmetic mean of the
importance of self-set goals and the level of achievement of the self-set goals.
Some distinct features were found for the stakeholders Users, National Supply Chain and
International Supply Chain. They are described in the sections 7.3.1 to 7.3.3.
Linkages within the Model of Success
The components and their elements were found to be linked with one another in both vertical and
horizontal directions. An example of a vertical linkage is the linkage between a stakeholder, the
stakeholder’s self-set goal and the importance of this self-set goal. An example of a horizontal linkage
is a success factor which impacts on multiple self-set goals of multiple stakeholders.
Stakeholders’ Importance
A significant feature of this Model of Success is that the determination of elements relevant for the
stakeholders within the sections self-set goals, success factors and measurement of the level of
achievement is left to the stakeholders’ decision and judgement. The developer of this Model of
Success assumes that the stakeholders are best qualified to determine these components and their
related elements. However, an independent institution should apply the Model of Success and carry
out the necessary queries, thereby cross checking the stakeholders’ inputs to the parameters of the
Model of Success to prevent bias in the overall result of an implementation’s success.
7.3.1 The Users in the Model of Success
It was found that Users have overriding goals which are related to the achievement of certain energy
services (for example, fridge, colour TV, illumination). Attached to these goals are subordinated
goals: optimization goals such as the balance of income and expenses; minimizing physical &
economic efforts; reliability of energy service; and background goals which are related to having no
alternative (no electric grid in the near vicinity), SHSs as an intermediate solution (waiting for grid
connection), or using SHSs as a protest solution (grid available but denied).
7 Discussion and Conclusion
- 173 -
Success factors for the Users are the availability of products, the quality of technology (both
exogenous success factors), the User’s awareness which needs to be developed via multiple
channels, and the User’s economic situation.
The measurement of the level of achievement of the self-set goal to achieve certain amounts of
energy services (e.g. lumen hours per day) is particularly difficult for Users. At present, this process
can only rely on qualitative scales as quantitative measurements of the level of achievement would
be very costly.
7.3.2 The National Supply Chain in the Model of Success
The National Supply Chain seeks for i. profit, ii. survival in the business, and iii. satisfaction in the
company as the main self-set goals. Critical respective success factors are:
i. Training of employees, contact with all partners, company’s equipment, and company’s reputation (all endogenous)
ii. Quality (endogenous), User awareness (partly endogenous, partly exogenous), and the income of Users (exogenous)
iii. Binding internal arrangements, company management (both endogenous)
The National Supply Chain has the potential to measure the level of achievement with direct and
indirect scales. Profit can be expressed in absolute numbers, the survival in the business is a matter
of fact, and the satisfaction in the company can be gauged indirectly by the average length of
affiliation of employees with the company.
7.3.3 The International Supply Chain in the Model of Success
The International Supply Chain seeks similar self-set goals as the National Supply Chain. However,
social benefit is an important motivation for their activities. Their list of self-set goals ordered in
descending priority is i. profit, ii. social benefit, iii. satisfaction in the company.
Due to their distance to the User and the indicated success factors the International Supply Chain
suffers a larger number of exogenous factors than the National Supply Chain30:
i. SHS onsite maintenance (exogenous), quality components (endogenous), availability and enforcement of standards (exogenous and endogenous), community involvement (exogenous), component prices (endogenous)
ii. Presence in the market (endogenous), User training, education in the community, User’s savings by SHSs (all exogenous)
iii. Employee training, assigning responsibility to employees (all endogenous).
30 However, the Users suffer the highest number of exogenous success factors.
7 Discussion and Conclusion
- 174 -
The measurement of the level of achievement is very difficult for the self-set goal social benefit. An
answer on the best way to measure this could not be retrieved from this current research with
members of the International Supply Chain.
Within the scope of this PhD project it was not possible to test and generally confirm the applicability
of the proposed Model of Success. However, based on the wide range of experienced participants
selected for the research (Users, members of the international and the national supply chain) and the
additional independent views of international donors, international consultants and the self-
observation of the researcher as a confirming backup it can be assumed that the findings of the
research are applicable to a wide range of SHS implementations. At this stage the outcome of the
research is tentative theory-building. The application of the model to several SHS implementations
will prove the general applicability or it will show necessary modifications. In the worst case trials to
apply the Model of Success may even show the inapplicability of the proposed model. The testing of
the Model of Success is future research.
7.4 A Selection of Specific Lessons Learned In the course of developing the Model of Success, some additional lessons were learned and applied
to SHSs. These need to be summarized at this point.
The Number of CSFs
While literature on the research of success unanimously states that only a few Critical Success
Factors exist, the research on SHSs produced a different view. As multiple stakeholders are involved
in SHSs, each with multiple distinct self-set goals, the number of success factors ends up being a large
number. Table 4 and Table 5 in paper no. II (Holtorf et al., 2016) and Table 6 in paper no. III (Holtorf
et al., 2015a) identify in total 65 success factors when applying the Model of Success for the few
most important self-set goals of the key-stakeholders listed in the respective papers (Intl. Supply
Chain, Natl. Supply Chain, Intl. Donors and Users).
A few central success factors need to be listed here which have not been explicitly acknowledged in
the existing literature:
Exogenous and Endogenous Success Factors
Exogenous and endogenous success factors have been introduced into the assessment of success of
SHSs. The problem of exogenous success factors impacting negatively on the success of SHSs, with
the stakeholder possibly having no mitigating factors to reduce the magnitude of these negative
effects, has been highlighted.
7 Discussion and Conclusion
- 175 -
The Transportation Infrastructure
SHSs need a transportation infrastructure to find their way from the manufacturer located at an
economic district to remote rural areas. The “last mile” constitutes a major challenge as local
entrepreneurs do not have their own means of transportation and SHS components are bulky (the
solar module) and heavy (the battery).
Communication
Solar Home System implementation is strongly dependent on communication, in particular the
communication between the institutional stakeholders such as the National and the International
Supply Chain; the communication between the institutional stakeholders and the Users; and the
communication amongst the Users themselves. It is additionally influenced by the selection of the
appropriate terminology in the communication as heterophilous communication leads to
misconceptions. A consultant used the terminology “myths and legends” for this, see paper no. II.
SHSs are an Innovation
By applying lessons from the research on the diffusion of innovation, it was found that SHSs, at this
moment in time, are still an innovation. Also, the diffusion of innovation takes time which should be
considered by project implementers. Furthermore, the SHSs’ setup needs to be adapted to the
different clients in the different stages of the diffusion of innovation. Innovators call for systems
which can be manipulated, while early adopters desire plug and play systems with little to no effort
required for operation and maintenance.
Operation and Maintenance
The need to keep operational and maintenance efforts low was a general lesson learned related to
the operation of SHSs stems, and it was reinforced from personal experience. Despite the high
interest and motivation to best operate the SHS supplying his energy services, and despite the
awareness of the impact of best practices, the researcher failed to optimize the operation of a SHS
on site.
SHSs call for Backup
All stakeholders approached in this research have, in a certain sense, installed their backup system in
close proximity to their SHSs.
SHS Users still had kerosene lamps and candles in use. They recharged the SHSs’ batteries where
such facilities were accessible. However, this option was not available in Fee for Service systems. Fee
7 Discussion and Conclusion
- 176 -
for Service system batteries were installed in a sealed cabinet. In one case, even a gen-set was found
which operated the TV set when the SHS was not capable of doing so.
The members of the National Supply Chain group did not solely focus on their SHS business, but also
on other, often related, business areas. These consisted of general energy consultancy services, grid
connected PV systems, PV water pumping systems, other renewable energy technology, general
electricity installation, and business based on the supply of non SHS goods for rural needs.
The interviewed companies from the group of the International Supply Chain did not fully rely on the
SHS business. The main business was often storage for miscellaneous applications such as
uninterruptible power supply, electronics for grid connected systems, energy consultancy services, or
PV pumping–to name a few.
SHSs’ Energy Services
SHSs do not supply energy services essential for survival. Those would typically be cooking, water
supply or agricultural activities, to name a few. However, their contribution to rural dwellers’ living
conditions should not be underestimated. Electricity contributes to certain key energy services such
as (bright and safe) illumination, information and bidirectional communication which justify the
importance of SHSs in these locations.
The Charge Controller
The importance of the charge controller must not be underestimated. Literature explicitly refers to
the importance of charge controllers for the protection of the battery. In some cases, they are also
stated as important for the protection of the appliances through their overvoltage and deep
discharge cut off feature. However, the charge controller’s indication of the battery’s state of charge
can help the User to make SHS electricity more reliable than the available grid connected electricity.
Whereas grid connected dwellers are completely dependent on the supply of electricity by the grid,
the SHS User can have electricity at any time when operating the system properly. For this, the User
needs to carefully operate the SHS and manage the load. This task is supported by the feedback from
the charge controller’s indication of state of charge of the battery.
The Income Generation
Income generation is a success factor for SHSs as found in the literature. However, only niches of
income generation can be served by the small amounts of electricity supplied by a SHS. In future
developments the appliances providing income generation need to improve their efficiency, while on
the other hand the SHSs’ cost of electricity needs to decrease in order to feasibly operate appliances
7 Discussion and Conclusion
- 177 -
for income generation. These two lines of development must combine their future efforts to further
improve the success of SHSs.
The Importance of Self-Set Goals
The impact of the importance of self-set goals on the overall success of a SHS implementation was
identified and assessed. Success is the weighted average of the importance of self-set goals and the
level of achievement of these self-set goals as shown in the section on the determination of the
overall success of a SHS implementation–refer to the top of Figure 7-1: The resulting Model of
Success for SHSs.
Time and Situation Dependency
The challenges of implementing SHSs are different when SHSs are implemented in an area where no
SHS existed before, or where grid connection is available (but too expensive), or where plenty of
SHSs have been in operation for a long time and the implementers seek to address the needs of the
final few Users. Hence, SHS implementation faces different challenges at different points in time. This
is closely linked to the extent of diffusion of this innovation, but it is also affected by the technical
development of SHSs. The importance of contextualization of SHSs at different points in time and on
different levels was highlighted in this research. As an example: the challenges also vary with the
extent of diffusion of this innovation and technical developments of SHS.
Causality Dilemmas
Causality dilemmas play a major role for the dissemination of SHSs. An important example given was
the awareness of SHSs as a success factor. However, when no SHSs exist in an area, awareness
cannot be created. Methods for solving causality dilemmas are important success factors for SHSs.
The Journey continues
SHS technology is not a perfected technology–it is still being modified and improved. PV technology
has seen a dramatic decrease in prices together with a continuous increase in efficiency as well as an
increase in the variety of available PV materials. Appliances have been developed with higher
efficiencies; the LED lamp can be stated as an outstanding example of this process.
The rural environment is also prone to changes. On the electricity supply side alternative approaches
to electrification have diffused into rural areas. On the User side the awareness and energy service
demands of rural dwellers are rising. For communication technologies the mobile phone availability
and the wireless services are dramatically increasing. Even on the finance side, credits are available;
7 Discussion and Conclusion
- 178 -
and money transfer via mobile phones is becoming usual business, as was observed during the field
studies in Africa.
The market situation is changing. New options and challenges for the National and International
Supply Chain are developing, new competitors are born, and new regulations are being brought into
practice.
The listed areas of change are a selection of fields which will demand an adaptation of the Model of
Success. Some sections of this model will gain and lose components and the interactions between
components will change.
In summary, the state of the art of the Model of Success is only valid for a short period of time as it
calls for continuous adaptation. The instantaneous application of the Model of Success can only
render a snapshot of a situation valid for the time interval over which it was developed.
7.5 Limitations of the Study At present, the research reflects findings from qualitative and explorative research. The findings need
underpinning by quantitative research methodologies. Furthermore, the findings are valid for the
current situation with respect to:
• SHSs themselves (their technology and their economical parameters), • conditions of non-electrification (nos. of un-electrified capita, cost of alternatives), • rural area conditions (societal and economical) and last, but not least, • the characteristics of appliances turning SHS electricity into energy services.
As discussed previously, these factors are prone to continuous change and they may, therefore,
impact on the model’s components and elements.
The procedures required by the HREC in order to protect the subjects in the interviews often inhibits
the development of an atmosphere of comfort and trust which is required to get good responses.
Other limitations of the study are reflected upon in the section Recommendations for Future
Research where key open questions are listed.
7.6 Recommendations for Future Research This research answers a few questions and brings up even more. The first three coming immediately
to the researcher’s mind are:
i. The measurement of the level of achievement of self-set goals in the SHS environment is the greatest challenge in determining the success of SHSs. The research was not able to present a satisfactory approach that meets quantitative scientific standards on the one hand, and is appropriate for rural dwellers and their Solar Home Systems on the other.
7 Discussion and Conclusion
- 179 -
ii. While the importance of self-set goals on success found entrance into the formula of the successfulness of SHS implementation, it was not disclosed how the importance of self-set goals impact on the level of achievement. It can be assumed that an important self-set goal positively impacts on the efforts of a stakeholder related to this self-set goal and, therefore, impacting on the level of achievement.
iii. How can the impact of success factors on the level of achievement be described and how can the interdependency of the linkage between success factors and level of achievement be quantified in this current model for success?
This research has produced a model for evaluating success based on an initial proposed model that
was validated and improved through surveys and field observations. An important next step would
be to apply this method to evaluate the success of a SHS implementation, separate from the areas
that were used in this research. This would undoubtedly raise further questions in this quest for a
quantitative measure of success for SHS implementations.
7.7 Concluding Remark This work is based on qualitative, explorative research. It features the application of new
methodologies in the field of investigating SHSs: the participatory observation and the self-
observation. The applied methodologies were able to confirm existing knowledge on SHSs, but also
allowed for new views which might only be disclosed through first-hand experience.
Additionally, views from the diffusion of innovation research were incorporated in this research and
applied to Solar Home Systems. Methods of the general success research and of strategic
management were applied.
This approach assigned an important role to the stakeholders’ views. It allows the overall success of a
SHS implementation to be determined, but additionally it allows the assessment of success for the
individual stakeholders. Thereby cases of overall success at the expense of the success of individual
stakeholders can be disclosed.
This research has highlighted how difficult it is to assess the success of SHSs when considering
indicators beyond the number of installed systems. To name a few: addressing all involved key-
stakeholders is an almost unsurmountable amount of effort, the measurement of the level of
achievement is a challenge when it gets to qualitative indicators or when self-set goals change during
the course of the project.
The current method for measuring the success of SHSs based on the number of installed systems is a
good starting point due to its economic feasibility, practicability and simple application. However,
having gone deeper into the measurement of SHS success, key dependencies and limitations were
identified, the knowledge of which may act as an eye-opener to the interested SHS researcher and
7 Discussion and Conclusion
- 180 -
SHS analyst—and may even be crucial for future purposeful SHS implementation projects. The model
developed in this research is believed to provide a better indicator of success of a SHS
implementation than the simple metric of the number of installed systems, and it would also open
the way to many further insights into this valuable method of rural electrification in developing
countries.
The research question “How can the success of SHS be measured?” has been answered by proposing
a Model of Success. Its usefulness, its constraints, its challenges and the efforts involved in applying
the Model of Success have been discussed. The model’s suitability needs to be proven in the field by
applying the Model of Success to some of the numerous SHS implementations in the world. Now, in
August 2016 this research is in the stage of tentative theory-building. Additionally the research has
highlighted the success factors related to the self-set goals. These success factors do not impact on
the model’s result on how successful a SHS implementation has been but the knowledge on success
factors help to understand “where things have gone right or wrong”. The researcher hopes to have
contributed to an applicable, holistic approach to measuring the success of Solar Home Systems.
8 References
- 181 -
8. References Acker, R., & Kammen, D. (1996). The quiet (energy) revolution. Analyzing the dissemination of
photovoltaic power systems in Kenya. Energy Policy, 24(1), 31. Adabre, F. (2014). Off-grid opportunities in Ghana's rural north (pp. 18). Adelmann, P. (2015). Decentralized energy supply with PV systems (pp. 33). Delmenhorst, Germany:
ID-EEE. Adkins, E., Oppelstrup, K., & Modi, V. (2012). Rural household energy consumption in the millennium
villages in Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy for Sustainable Development, 16(3), 249-259. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2012.04.003
Alsema, E. (2000). Environmental life cycle assessment of solar home systems. Retrieved from Utrecht, Netherlands:
Anderson, R. (2012c). NORPLAN Study: Cost Competitiveness of Rual Electrification Solutions. Retrieved from http://www.multiconsult.no/Documents/NORPLAN%20Study%20full%20article%203%20.pdf
Anderson, R., Raestad, M. J., & Sainju, P. (2012a). Policy Brief: Cost-benefit analysis of rural electrification. Retrieved from http://www.multiconsult.no/Documents/NORPLAN%20study%20Policy%20Brief%201%20-%20Cost-benefit%20analysis%20-%20NORPLAN%20-%20FINAL%20Dec%202012.pdf
Archer, M. D., & Hill, R. (2001). Clean electricity from Photovoltaics (Vol. 1). London: Imperial College Press.
Asif, M. (2012). Grameen Shakti: An Exemplary Micro-Renewable Energy Program. New Horizons, 6(1), 75-80.
Asif, M., & Barua, D. (2011). Salient features of the Grameen Shakti renewable energy program. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(9), 5063-5067. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.050
Atteslander, P. (2008). Operationalisierungsvorgang Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (pp. 33-36). Berlin, Germany: Schmidt Verlag.
Azimoh, C. L., Wallin, F., Klintenberg, P., & Karlsson, B. (2014). An assessment of unforeseen losses resulting from inappropriate use of solar home systems in South Africa. Applied Energy, 136(0), 336-346. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.09.044
Bailey, C. A. (1996). A guide to Field Research. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Pine Forge Press. Bank, W. (2012). Electricity from solar panels transforms lives in rural Bangladesh. Energy. Retrieved
from http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTENERGY2/0,,contentMDK:23214147~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:4114200,00.html
Barua, D. C. (2001). Strategy for promotions and development of renewable technologies in Bangladesh: experience from Grameen Shakti. Renewable Energy, 22(1–3), 205-210. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(00)00012-4
Bazilian, M., Nussbaumer, P., Cabraal, A., Centurelli, R., Detchon, R., Gielen, D., . . . Ziegler, F. (2010). Measuring energy access: Supporting a global target. Retrieved from
Beck, N., Brüderl, J., & Woywode, M. (2002). The causes and consequences of organizational change: How to deal with unobserved heterogeneity. Paper presented at the 20th EGOS annual conference, Barcelona, Spain. ftp://zinc.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/entrepreneurship/BeckBruederlWoywode.pdf
Becker, L. (2014). Fee-For-Service or Pay-As-You-Go Concepts for Photovoltaic Systems. Retrieved from https://energypedia.info/wiki/Fee-For-Service_or_Pay-As-You-Go_Concepts_for_Photovoltaic_Systems
Berger, T. (2010, 12. November 2010). Image Angekratzt, Mikrokredite: Selbstmorde von Darlehensnehmern in Indien bringen Erfolgsmodell in Verruf, das bislang als Alternative zu dubiosen Geldverleihern galt. junge Welt. Retrieved from http://www.ag-friedensforschung.de/regionen/Indien/kredite.html
8 References
- 182 -
Berkhout, F., Marcotullio, P., & Hanaoka, T. (2012). Understanding energy transitions. Sustainability Science, 7(2), 109-111. doi:10.1007/s11625-012-0173-5
Bhattacharyya, S. (2013). Rural Electrification Through Decentralised Off-grid Systems in Developing Countries: Springer.
Bloos, H.-G., & Haars, K. (1995). Umweltbilanz von Photovoltaischen Familiensystemen. Paper presented at the 10. Symposium Photovoltaische Solarenergie, Bad Staffelstein, Germany.
Boring, E. (1953). A history of introspection. Psychological Bulletin, 50(3), 21. Bowden, S., & Honsberg, C. (2015). Photovoltaic education network. Retrieved from
http://pvcdrom.pveducation.org/BATTERY/charlead.htm BP. (2011). Statistical review of world energy 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929&contentId=7044622 Braden, C. (2014). An example for an installment purchase company. Delmenhorst, Germany:
Mobisol. Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health policy and planning,
15(3)(15(3)), 7. Bullen, C. V., & Rockart, J. F. (1981). A primer on critical success factors. (Sloan WP No. 1220-81). Bundesverband Solarwirtschaft e.V. (BSW-Solar), & Tepper, M. (2014). BSW Preisindex 1304. BSW
Preisindex. Retrieved from http://www.solarwirtschaft.de/preisindex Burgess, R. G. (1983). Field Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual. London, Great Britain: Geroge
Allen & Unwin Ltd. Burton, L., & The John Hopkins University. (2007). How to Approach a Study: Concepts, Hypotheses,
and Theoretical Frameworks. Retrieved from http://ocw.jhsph.edu/courses/hsre/PDFs/HSRE_lect3_burton.pdf
Business Dictionary. (2014b). Goal. Definition. Retrieved from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/goal.html
Business Dictionary. (2014c). Success. Retrieved from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/success.html
Buzzell, R. D., & Gale, B. T. (1989). Das PIMS-Program - Strategien und Unternehmenserfolg (D. Meyer, Trans.). Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
Cabraal, A. (2012). Experiences and lessons from 15 years of World Bank support for photovoltaics for off-grid electrification. Paper presented at the 2nd. International Conference on the Developments in Renewable Energy Technology, BD Dhaka.
Cabraal, A., & Martinot., E. (2000). World Bank SolarHomeSystemProjects:Experiences and Lessons Learned 1993-2000. Paper presented at the World Renewable Energy Congress VI, Brighton, UK.
Cadavid, L., Jimenez, M., & Franco, C. J. (2015). Financial analysis of photovoltaic configurations for Colombian households. IEEE Latin America Transactions, 13(12), 3832-3837. doi:10.1109/TLA.2015.7404916
Carrasco, L. M. (2011). Maintenance Characterisation of a 130000 SHS PV Program in Morocco Paper presented at the 2nd Symposium Small PV-Applications, Ulm, Germany.
Chakrabarty, S., & Islam, T. (2011). Financial viability and eco-efficiency of the solar home systems (SHS) in Bangladesh. Energy, 36(8), 4821-4827. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.05.016
Chambliss, D. F., & Schutt, R. K. (2013). Making sense of the social world: SAGE Publications. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. .
Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage. Chowdhury, S. (2014 b). [Solar Home System installations in Bangladesh - 1995 - 2013]. Cook, P. (2013) Rural Electrification and Rural Development. Vol. 116 (pp. 13-38). Deppermann, A. (2013). Interviews as Text vs. Interviews as Social Interaction (Vol. 14). Dlamini, S. (2013). [Organizational on the Sojourn in Ndumo March 2013]. Dlamini, S. (2014c). [Ndumo, Capita, Electrification, misc. Data].
8 References
- 183 -
Eliah, E., & Louineau, J.-P. (1999). Here comes the sun - the hope of rural electrification in Uganda relies on solar energy. Retrieved from http://collections.infocollections.org/ukedu/en/d/Jh1408e/3.3.html
ENF. (2014). Solar System Installers in Africa. Retrieved from http://www.enfsolar.com/directory/installer/Africa
ESMAP. (2002). Rural Electrification and Development in the Philippines. Retrieved from Washington DC:
ESMAP. (2007). Technical and Economic Assessment of Off-grid, Mini-grid and Grid Electrification Technologies. Retrieved from http://www.esmap.org/sites/esmap.org/files/Technical%20and%20Economic%20Assessment%20of%20Off-grid,%20Minigrid%20and%20Grid%20Electrification%20Technologies_Report%2012107.pdf
Fischer, W. (1996). Stationary lead-acid batteries - an introductory handbook. Brilon, Germany: Hoppeckke.
Fredrickson, J. W. (1990). Perspectives on strategic management. New York: Harper Business. Freeman, R. E., & McVea, J. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman. Friebe, C. A., Flotow, P. v., & Täube, F. A. (2013). Exploring the link between products and services in
low-income markets—Evidence from solar home systems. Energy Policy, 52(0), 760-769. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.038
Friedrichs, J., & Lüdtke, H. (1973). Teilnehmende Beobachtung. Einführung in die sozialwissenschaftliche Feldforschung. Weinheim, Germany, Basel, Switzerland: Beltz Verlag.
Frith, C. D., & Lau, H. C. (2006). The problem of introspection. Consciousness and Cognition, 15(4), 761-764. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2006.09.011
Frost, S. (2009). Applying an environmental life-cycle approach to a silicon photovoltaic system. (Master of Science), Murdoch University, Pert, Western Australia.
Fulkerson, W., Levine, M. D., Sinton, J. E., & Gadgil, A. (2005). Sustainable, efficient electricity service for one billion people[1]. Energy for Sustainable Development, 9(2), 26-34. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0973-0826(08)60490-1
Gabler, H. (2004). Off-Grid Electricity Supply with Photovoltaic Solar Energy. Current Trends in Household Electrification. Paper presented at the Renewables 2004, Bonn, Germany. http://www.zef.de/fileadmin/webfiles/renewables/praesentations/Gabler_offgrid%20electricity.pdf
Gabler, H. (2009a). Photovoltaics for Rural Electrification. Paper presented at the Small PV applications, Ulm. Conference Presentation retrieved from
Geslain, P. (2014). Reinforcing provision of sustainable ENergy services in Bangladesh and Indonesia for Poverty alleviation and sustainable DEVelopment (RENDEV). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/rendev
Girtler, R. (2009). 10 Gebote der Feldforschung Vol. 2. Retrieved from http://books.google.de/books?hl=de&lr=&id=mZcSW32wkngC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=roland+girtler&ots=AxR0TpfZWU&sig=qScWNJCO0QSLLczHSXrSfewi6_w#v=onepage&q=roland%20girtler&f=false
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2006). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research: New Brunswick [u.a.] : Aldine
Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2004). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
GNESD. (2004). Energy access theme results, synthesis/compilation report. Retrieved from http://www.centroclima.coppe.ufrj.br/new2/ccpdf/GNESD_Synthesis_Report.pdf
GNESD. (2006). Poverty Reduction: Can Renewable Energy make a real contribution? Retrieved from http://www.gnesd.org/Downloadables/PovertyReductionSPM.pdf
Gothard, E. (2002). Rural Electrification: The Real World. Retrieved from http://www.ises.org/ProjectDocs/Gothard.pdf
Grameen Shakti. (2009). Keys to Success. Retrieved from http://www.gshakti.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62:grameen-
8 References
- 184 -
shakti-has-successfully-blended-technology-with-social-market-forces-to-develop-a-market-based-approach-to-reach-the-rural-people&catid=34:about-us&Itemid=79
Grameen Shakti. (2012). Grameen Shakti Status Report 2012. Retrieved from Dhaka, Bangladesh: Green, M. A., Emery, K., Hishikawa, Y., & Warta, W. (2011). Solar cell efficiency tables (version 37).
Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 19(19), 8. doi:10.1002/pip. 1088 Green, W. H. (1993). Econometric Analysis. New York, USA. Greve, H. R. (1999). The effect of core change on performance: Inertia and regression toward the
mean. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3), 590-614. GTZ. (2007). Regional and Country Specific Energy Resource Database: . Retrieved from Haanyika, C. M. (2006). Rural electrification policy and institutional linkages. Energy Policy, 34, 2977-
2993. Habel, S. (1992). Strategische Unternehmensführung im Lichte der empirischen Forschung:
Bestandsaufnahme und kritische Würdigung eines komplexen Forschungsfeldes: Kirsch. Häberlin, H. (2010). Photovoltaik: Strom aus Sonnenlicht für Verbundnetz und Inselanlagen:
Electrosuisse Verlag. Hankin, M. (2003). Solar rural electrification in developing country. Retrieved from Hansen, U. E., Pedersen, M. B., & Nygaard, I. (2014). Review of Solar PV market development in East
Africa. Retrieved from http://www.unepdtu.org Hatano, Y. (2006). Renewable energy (solar, wind and biomass): will it become competitive?"
Retrieved from http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/default/speeches/spc060331yh.asp
Hellpap, C. (2011). Kernherausforderungen beim Aufbau ländlicher Verbreitungssysteme für Pico PV Systeme. Paper presented at the Im Abseits der Netze, Bonn.
Hoffmann, W. H., & Schlosser, R. (2001). Success Factors of Strategic Alliances in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises—An Empirical Survey. Long Range Planning, 34(3), 357-381. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00041-3
Holtorf, H., Calais, M., Pryor, T., & Urmee, T. (2011). Solar Home System's Success Analysis. Paper presented at the Solar World Congress 2011, D-Kassel.
Holtorf, H., Urmee, T., Calais, M., & Pryor, T. (2015a). Incorporating the User Perspective into a Proposed Model for Assessing Success of SHS Implementations. AIMS energy journal, 3(4), 679-698. doi:10.3439/energy.2015.4.679
Holtorf, H., Urmee, T., Calais, M., & Pryor, T. (2015b). A model to evaluate the success of Solar Home Systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 50, 245-255. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.015
Holtorf, H., Urmee, T., Calais, M., & Pryor, T. (2015c). A model to evaluate the success of Solar Home Systems. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, in press.
Holtorf, H., Urmee, T., Calais, M., & Pryor, T. (2016). Incorporating the Institutions’ Perspective into a Proposed Model for Assessing Success of Solar Home System Implementations. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on the Development of Renewable Energy Technology (ICDRET 2016) - submitted 09/2015, BD-Dhaka.
IDCOL. (2011). IDCOL Solar Home Systems Model, an off-grid solution in Bangladesh. Retrieved from http://www.idcol.org/Download/IDCOL%20SHS%20Model_30%20Nov%27111.pdf
IEA. (2002). Financing Mechanisms for Solar Home Systems in Developing Countries The Role of Financing in the Dissemination Process (IEA PVPS T9-01:2002). Retrieved from
IEA. (2003a). 16 Case Studies on the Deployment of Photovoltaic Technologies in Developing Countries. Retrieved from
IEA. (2003b). Summary of models for the implementation of Solar Home Systems in developing Countries - Part 1: Summary (Report IEA PVPS T9-02:2003). Retrieved from http://iea-pvps.org/index.php?id=155
IEA. (2003c). Summary of Models for the Implementation of Photovoltaic Solar Home Systems in Developing Countries Part 2: Practical Experience (Report IEA-PVPS T9-02:2003). Retrieved from http://iea-pvps.org/index.php?id=155
IEA. (2004). Energy and Development (pp. 31).
8 References
- 185 -
IEA. (2011). World Energy Outlook - Access to electricity. Retrieved from http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energydevelopment/accesstoelectricity/
IEA. (2012). The electricity access database. Retrieved from http://www.iea.org/weo/electricity.asp IEA. (2013). Key World Energy Statistics. Retrieved from Paris, France:
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2013.pdf IEA, & Niez, A. (2010). Comparative study on rural electrification policies in emerging countries.
Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/rural_elect.pdf
Jacobson, A. (2007a). Connective Power: Solar Electrification and Social Change in Kenya. World Development, 35(1), 19. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.10.001
Jacobson, A. (2007b). Connective Power: Solar Electrification and Social Change in Kenya. World Development, 35(1), 144-162. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.10.001
Jacobson, A. P. D. (2010). Off-Grid Lighting and Product Quality in Kenya. Retrieved from Jagwe, W. (2013). [Preparation Field Study in Ndejje]. Jagwe, W. (2014b, 21.03.2014). [Ndejje - Capita and Electrification]. Kakooza, M., Begumisa, E., Dold, F., Wassler, S., & Kossakowski, P. (2014). Solar market development
study in Uganda. Retrieved from Kanagawa, M., & Nakata, T. (2008). Assessment of access to electricity and the socio-economic
impacts in rural areas of developing countries. Energy Policy, 36(6), 2016-2029. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.041
Kawagga, P. (2013, 05.02.2013). [Meeting Patricia Kawagga, Rural Energy Agency (REA), Uganda 5.2.2013].
Khan, S. I. (2012). [Key Success Factor Solar Home Systems Bangladesh]. Kininger, F. (2003). Photovoltaic Systems Technology (pp. 155): Universität Kassel. Kohlbacher, F. (2006). The Use of Qualitative Content Analysis in Case Study Research. Forum
Qualitative Social Research, 7(1), 30. Komatsu, S., Kaneko, S., & Ghosh, P. P. (2011a). Are micro-benefits negligible? The implications of the
rapid expansion of Solar Home Systems (SHS) in rural Bangladesh for sustainable development. Energy Policy, 39(7), 4022-4031. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.022
Komatsu, S., Kaneko, S., Ghosh, P. P., & Morinaga, A. (2013). Determinants of user satisfaction with solar home systems in rural Bangladesh. Energy, 61(0), 52-58. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.04.022
Komatsu, S., Kaneko, S., Shrestha, R. M., & Ghosh, P. P. (2011b). Nonincome factors behind the purchase decisions of solar home systems in rural Bangladesh. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15(3), 284-292. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2011.03.003
Koppers, S., Marré, F., & Wagner, J. (2007). Sektorkonzept Nachhaltige Energie für Entwicklung. Retrieved from Bonn:
Krause, M., & Nordstrom, S. (2004). Solar photovoltaics in Africa — experiences with financing and delivery models. Retrieved from http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/environment-energy/www-ee-library/sustainable-energy/solar-photovoltaics-in-africa-experiences-with-financing-and-delivery-models/solarphotovoltaics_africa_2004.pdf
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage.
Kyezira, A., Hankins, M., Saini, A., & Kirai, P. (2009). Target market analysis. Uganda's solar energy market. Retrieved from Berlin, Germany:
Laatz, W. (1993). Empirische Methoden, ein Lehrbuch für Sozialwissenschaftler. Frankfurt am Main: Harri Deutsch.
Lamnek, S. (2006). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Weinheim. Lemaire, X. (2011). Off-grid electrification with solar home systems: The experience of a fee-for-
service concession in South Africa. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15(3), 277-283. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2011.07.005
8 References
- 186 -
Lysen, E. H. (2013). Pico Solar PV Systems for Remote Homes (IEA-PVPS T9-12: 2012). Retrieved from Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Module 2 Participant
Observation. Retrieved from http://www.popline.org/node/263032#sthash.tjdyMjHh.dpuf Mainali, B., & Silveira, S. (2011). Financing off-grid rural electrification: Country case Nepal. Energy,
36(4), 2194-2201. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.07.004 March, J. G., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Organizational performance as a dependent variable.
Organization Sciences, 8(6 , (Nov. - Dec., 1997), ), 8. March, J. G., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Organizational Performance as a Dependent Variable.
Organization Science, 8(6), 698-706. doi:10.2307/2635165 Marré, F., Krämer, K., Meller, H., & Hollederer, G. (2008). Entwicklung braucht nachhaltige Energie.
Retrieved from Berlin: Martinot, E. (2003). Renewable energy markets in developing countries,’. Renewable Energy World,,
6(4). Martinot, E., Cabraal, A., & Mathur, S. (2001). World Bank/GEF solar home system projects:
experiences and lessons learned 1993–2001. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 5(1), 39-57. doi:10.1016/S1364-0321(00)00007-1
Martinot, E., Chaurey, A., Lew, D., Moreira, J. R., & Wamukonya, N. (2002). Renewable energy markets in developing countries. Annual Reviews Environment Resources, 27, 40. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.27.122001.083444
Martinot, E., & Reiche, K. (2000). Regulatory Approach to Rural Electrifictaion and Renewable Energy: Case Studies from Six Developing Countries. Retrieved from Washington DC:
Mason, M. (2010). Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative Interviews. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 11(3), 19.
Mayring, P. (2002). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken Beltz Studium, (pp. 170).
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2014). Success. Oxford Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/success?q=success
Mieg, H. A., & Brunner, B. (2001). Experteninterviews (pp. 33). Zuerich, Switzerland: ETH Zuerich,. Mondal, A. H., & Klein, D. (2011). Impacts of solar home systems on social development in rural
Bangladesh. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15(1), 17-20. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2010.11.004
Mondal, A. H. M. (2010a). Economic viability of solar home systems: Case study of Bangladesh. Renewable Energy, 35(6), 1125-1129. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.10.038
Mpagi, E. M. (2012). Assessing the Use of power generation technologies in Uganda: A case study of Jinja Municipality. (Master of Science), KTH School of Industrial Engineering and Management, Stockholm. Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:604725/ATTACHMENT01.pdf
Mufiaty, H. (2014). Solar Home Systems Performance in Rural Area in Aceh Case Study: Deah Mamplam Village, Aceh Besar. Energy Procedia, 47(0), 133-142. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.01.206
Mulugetta Y, Nhete T, & T., J. (2000). Photovoltaics in Zimbabwe: lessons from the GEF solar project. Energy Policy, 28(14), 1069-1080.
National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, & Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. (2007). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. (ISBN Print: 1864962690). Canberra: Australian Government.
Negash, B. T. (2015). Market Study for Pico PV and SHS in Southern Ethiopia. (Master of Sciennces), University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Nettleton, K. (2007). What is the best indicator of success? Campaign, 19. Nicolai, A., & Kieser, A. (2002). Trotz eklatanter Erfolglosigkeit: Die Erfolgsfaktorenforschung weiter
auf Erfolgskurs. DBW, 62 (2002) 6, 18. Nieuwenhout, F. D. J. c. a., Dijk, v. A., Lasschuit, P. E., Roekel, v., G, Dijk, v. V. A. P., Hirsch, D., . . .
Wade, H. (2001c). Experience with Solar Home Systems in Developing Countries: A Review. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 9, 2001, 20.
8 References
- 187 -
Nind, M. (2011). What is participatory research? Retrieved from http://0-dx.doi.org.prospero.murdoch.edu.au/10.4135/9781412995528
OECD. (2009). The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf
OECD, & IEA. (2014). Africa Energy Outlook. Retrieved from http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO2014_AfricaEnergyOutlook.pdf
Overgaard, M. (2006). Introspection in Science. Consciousness and Cognition, 15(4), 629-633. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2006.10.004
Oxford Dictionaries. (Ed.) (2014) Oxford Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Özerdem, A., & Bowd, R. (2010). Participatory Research Methodologies: Development and post-
disaster/conflict reconstruction. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited. P.Rizer, J., & Garry, V. (2002). Contributions to Mongolian's Sustainable Energy Stretegy. Retrieved
from Palit, D., & Chaurey, A. (2011). Off-grid rural electrification experiences from South Asia: Status and
best practices. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15(3), 266-276. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2011.07.004
Panico, D., Foster, R., Ghosh, S., Carrillo, O., & Molina, D. (1998). Willingness to pay (wtp) for solar photovoltaic (PV) energy lighting systems: the case of rural Chihuahua. Paper presented at the American Solar Energy Society, 1998 Annual Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Parker, W., Oldach, R., & Wilshaw, A. (2003). PV for Rural Electrification in Developing Countries - Programme Design, Planning and Implementation. Retrieved from http://iea-pvps.org/index.php?id=155
Pertz, K. (1988). Nutzung erneuerbarer Energiequellen in Entwicklungsländern (Vol. 89). Bonn: Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit.
Phocos. (2008). Phocos Newsletter 15/2008 - 11. Inside Phocos. Retrieved from http://www.phocos.com/de-DE/newsletter/InsidePhocos_15d.pdf
Picasa. (2014). The earth at night. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_earth_at_night_%282%29.jpg
QSR. (2012). NVIVO 10 for windows - getting started (pp. 40): QSR. Rahman, M. M., Paatero, J. V., Poudyal, A., & Lahdelma, R. (2013a). Driving and hindering factors for
rural electrification in developing countries: Lessons from Bangladesh. Energy Policy, 61(0), 840-851. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.100
Raosoft. (2004). Sample size calculator. Retrieved from http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html Rebane, K. L., & Barham, B. L. (2011). Knowledge and adoption of solar home systems in rural
Nicaragua. Energy Policy, 39(6), 3064-3075. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.005
REN21. (2013). Renewables 2013 Global Status Report (ISBN 978-3-9815934-0-2). Retrieved from Paris, France: http://www.ren21.net/Portals/0/documents/Resources/GSR/2013/GSR2013_lowres.pdf
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Rogers, J., Hansen, R., & Graham, S. (2006). Accelerating Energy Access through SMEs. Retrieved from
http://www.soluzusa.com/documents/NCI-Soluz_Innovation_in_Rural_Energy_Delivery.pdf Scheutzlich, T., Klinghammer, W., Scholand, M., Wisniwski, S., & Pertz, K. (2001). Financing of solar
home systems in developing countries. Retrieved from D-Eschborn: https://energypedia.info/images/8/82/Gtz_financing_of_shs_in_dc_1.pdf
Sewell, M. (2014). The Use of Qualitative Interviews in Evaluation. Retrieved from http://ag.arizona.edu/sfcs/cyfernet/cyfar/Intervu5.htm
Simelane, T., & Abdel-Rahman, M. (2012). Energy Transition in Africa Sovacool, B. K., D’Agostino, A. L., & Jain Bambawale, M. (2011b). The socio-technical barriers to Solar
Home Systems (SHS) in Papua New Guinea: “Choosing pigs, prostitutes, and poker chips over panels”. Energy Policy, 39(3), 1532-1542. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.027
Sovacool, B. K., & Drupady, I. M. (2012). Energy access, poverty, and development Ashgate.
8 References
- 188 -
Stackhouse, P. W. (2015). NASA surface meteorology Szabó, S., Bódis, K., Huld, T., & Moner-Girona, M. (2011). Energy solutions in rural Africa: mapping
electrification costs of distributed solar and diesel generation versus grid extension. Environmental Research Letters, 6, 9. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034002
Tenenbaum, B., Graecen, C., Siyambalapitiya, T., & Knuckles, J. (2014). From the Bottom Up: How Small Power Producers and Mini-Grids Can Deliver Electrification and Renewable Energy in Africa. Retrieved from Washington DC, USA:
Terrado, E., Cabraal, A., & Mukherjee, I. (2008). Operational guidance for World Bank Group staff: Designing sustainable off-grid rural electrification projects - principles and practices. Retrieved from http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2009/01/05/000333037_20090105232755/Rendered/PDF/470220WP0Box331C10OffgridGuidelines.pdf
Terrapon-Pfaff, J., Dienst, C., König, J., & Ortiz, W. (2014). A cross-sectional review: Impacts and sustainability of small-scale renewable energy projects in developing countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 40, 1-10. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.161
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). International data base IDB. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/region.php
UNDP. (2013). Table 12: Innovation and technology. Human Development Reports. Retrieved from https://data.undp.org/dataset/Table-12-Innovation-and-technology/jixu-gnyy
United Nations, & ESCAP. (2009b). The Millennium Development Goals Report. Retrieved from New York:
United Nations Development Programme, & Global Environment Facility. (1993). Uganda photovoltaic pilot project for rural electrification (pp. 75).
Urmee, T. (2009a). Solar PV electrification programs in developing countries : towards an holistic approach. (PhD), Murdoch University, Perth. Retrieved from http://wwwlib.murdoch.edu.au/adt/browse/view/adt-MU20100311.121220
Urmee, T. (2014a). Social, cultural and policy issues of the application of remote area off-grid photovoltaic. Paper presented at the 52nd annual Conference Australian Solar Energy Society (Australian Solar Council)n, Melbourne Australia. http://solarexhibition.com.au/conference/, http://solarexhibition.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Solar_2014_Scientific-Research-Session_FINAL.pdf, http://solar.org.au/solar-2014-conference/portal/
Urmee, T., & Harries, D. (2009b). A survey of solar PV program implementers in Asia and the Pacific regions. Energy for Sustainable Development, 13(1), 24-32. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2009.01.002
Urmee, T., & Harries, D. (2011). Determinants of the success and sustainability of Bangladesh’s SHS program. Renewable Energy, 9.
Urmee, T., Harries, D., & Schlapfer, A. (2009c). Issues related to rural electrification using renewable energy in developing countries of Asia and Pacific. Renewable Energy, 34(2), 354-357. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2008.05.004
Urmee, T. P., & Harries, D. (2009). A survey of solar PV program implementers in Asia and the Pacific regions. Energy for Sustainable Development, 13(1), 24-32. doi:(2009), doi:10.1016/j.esd.2009.01.002
Urmee, T. P., & Harries, D. (2011). Determinants of the success and sustainability of Bangladesh’s SHS program. Renewbale Energy, 36(11), 2822-2830.
Urmee, T. P., & Harries, D. (2012). The solar home PV program in Fiji e A successful RESCO approach? Renewable Energy, 48, 499-506.
Van Audenhove, L. (2007). Expert interviews and interview techniques for policy analysis. In I. a. T. SMIT Studies on Media & I. I. I. o. B. Technology (Eds.). Brussel: Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
van der Vleuten, F., Stam, N., & van der Plas, R. (2007). Putting solar home system programmes into perspective: What lessons are relevant? Energy Policy, 35(3), 1439-1451. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.04.001, http://0-ac.els-cdn.com.prospero.murdoch.edu.au/S0301421506001686/1-s2.0-S0301421506001686-main.pdf?_tid=85764af0-e4ef-11e3-9be6-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1401120493_ce132868e7aad9925fd0873413022fe7
8 References
- 189 -
Velayudhan, S. K. (2003). Dissemination of solar photovoltaics: a study on the government programme to promote solar lantern in India. Energy Policy, 31(14), 1509-1518. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00207-0
Vervaart, M. R., & Nieuwenhout, F. D. J. (2000). Solar home systems, manual for the design and modification of solar home system components. Retrieved from
Vijayamohanan, P. N. (2008). Loss of load probability of a power system. In M. P. R. A. MPRA (Ed.). D-Munich: Munich Personal RePEc Archive MPRA.
Wamukonya, N. (2007). Solar home system electrification as a viable technology option for Africa's development. Energy Policy, 35(1), 6-14. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.08.019
Wassajja, H. (2013). [Personal Communication with Henry Wassaja]. Wegner, G., & Natascha, A. (2011, 09.02.2012). Tools to prevent theft of panels. Retrieved from
https://energypedia.info/index.php/Tools_to_prevent_theft_of_panels Weindlmaier, H., Schmalen, C., & Kunert, M. (2006). Erfolgsfaktorenforschung: Theoretische
Grundlagen, methodische Vorgehensweise und Anwendungserfahrungen in Projekten für die Ernährungsindustrie. Paper presented at the Tagung der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V. 2006, Gießen.
Welge, M. K., & Al-Laham, A. (2008). Strategisches Management, Grundlagen - Prozess - Implementierung. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler Verlag.
WEO, W. E. O. (2011). Access to electricity. Retrieved from http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/electricity.asp
WEO, W. E. O. (2014). World Energy Outlook Electricity Database. Retrieved from http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energydevelopment/energyaccessdatabase/
Werner, O. (2013, 04.07.2013). [Grading of SHSs' Success]. Wiedemann, K. (2012). Electrification Challenges in Rural Areas. Retrieved from
https://energypedia.info/wiki/Electrification_Challenge_in_Rural_Areas Williams, N. (2005). Chasing the Sun, Solar Adventures Around the World. Gabriola Island, Canady:
New Society Publishers. Wimmer, N. (2012). Green Energy for a Billion Poor. Vaterstetten, Germany: MCRE Verlag UG. Wissing, S., & Corvinus, F. (1989). Sonderenergieprogramm 1982 bis 1988: Zwischenbilanz und
Perspektiven; Vorträge, Berichte und Protokolle der Ansprechpartnertagung SEP 1988 in Poppenhausen / Rhön vom 5.9. bis 7.91988. Eschborn, Germany: Bundesminister für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit, Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit.
Witzel, A. (2000). The Problem-centered Interview. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 1(1), 9. World Bank. (2013a). Case Study 3: Central America - E+Co CAREC MEZZANINE FINANCE FUND.
Retrieved from http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/03/19/000442464_20130319161652/Rendered/PDF/761010BRI0REFI00Box374367B00PUBLIC0.pdf
World Bank. (2013b). Case Study 32: Bolivia - SHS Medium-Term Service Contracts. Retrieved from http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/03/21/000356161_20130321170447/Rendered/PDF/761620BRI0P07300Box374367B00PUBLIC0.pdf
World Bank. (2013c). Sri Lanka Lights Up. Projects and Operations. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2013/04/11/sri-lanka-lights-up-renewable-technology-light-up-rural-communities
World Bank. (2015). Project appraisal document on a proposed credit - energy for rural transformation project in support of the third phase of the energy for rural transformation program. Retrieved from http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2015/05/20/090224b082ea649e/1_0/Rendered/PDF/Uganda000Third0tion0Program0Project.pdf
WorldBank. (2007). Pacific Islanders Awarded Renewable Energy Funding. Renewable Energy Access. Woywode, M. (2002). Wege aus der Erfolglosigkeit der Erfolgsfaktorenforschung. Working Paper.
Aachen, Germany.
8 References
- 190 -
Zahnd, A. (2013). The role of renewable energy technology in holistic community development. (PhD Dissertation), Murdoch University, Perth, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.springer.com/de/book/9783319039886
Zhang, F. (2014). Can solar panels leapfrog power grids? the World Bank experience 1992-2009. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38(38), 811-820. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.047
9 Appendix
- 191 -
9. Appendix
9.1 Participants The table shows the participants of this research:
Table 9-1: Respondents in this research. PCI = Problem Centred Interview, NI = Narrative Interview, PO = Participatory Observation,
SO = Self-Observation
Pos. Respondent Range of
Operation
Data
Collection
Qty. Group
1 Component Manufacturer intl. PCI 2 Intl. Supply Chain
2 System Integrator intl. PCI 2
3 System Implementer intl. PCI 2 Natl. Supply Chain
4 Local Entrepreneur local PO 2
5 Donor intl. PCI 2 Intl. Donors &
Consultants 6 Consultant intl. PCI 2
7 SHS User – Fee for Service Model local PO 4
User
8 SHS User – Dealer Model local NI 9
9 SHS User – Fee for Service Model local PO 1
10 SHS User – Dealer Model local PO 1
11 SHS User (researcher) intl. SO 1
Overall Sum 28 Participants
9 Appendix
- 192 -
9.2 Guideline Problem Centred Interview The figures show the guideline for the problem centred interviews (PCI) with institutional
stakeholders.
Figure 9-1: Guideline PCI Sheet 1 – Title Page. Author’s diagram.
Figure 9-2: Guideline PCI Sheet 2 – Research Motivation. Author’s diagram.
9 Appendix
- 193 -
Figure 9-3: Guideline PCI Sheet 3 – Introduction to the Research Methodology. Author’s diagram.
Figure 9-4: Guideline PCI Sheet 4 – Preliminary Model of Success. Author’s diagram.
9 Appendix
- 194 -
Figure 9-5: Guideline PCI Sheet 5 – Interview Guiding Questions. Author’s diagram.
Figure 9-6: Guideline PCI Sheet 6 – Interview Tailored Framework. Author’s diagram.
9 Appendix
- 195 -
9.3 Results: Stakeholders in SHS environment
Figure 9-7: Key-Stakeholders in SHS environment listed by institutional participants.
9 Appendix
- 196 -
9.4 Results: Institution’s Self-Set Goals
Table 9-2: Summary of institutions' self-set goals
Pos Self-Set Goal
Intl.
Don
ors &
Co
nsul
tant
s
Nat
iona
l Sup
ply
Chai
n
Inte
rnat
iona
l Su
pply
Cha
in
Rank
Ove
rall
Impo
rtan
ce
Ove
rall
Wei
ghed
Im
port
ance
No.
Of
Resp
onde
nts
Perc
enta
ge o
f Re
spon
dent
s
1 Social Benefit 9 0 10 2 19 6 50,0% 2 Profit 0 13 10 1 23 5 41,7% 3 Quality 8 10 5 1 23 5 41,7% 4 Cost-Performance Ratio /
Affordability 4 5 3 3 12 3 25,0% 5 Ecological Improvement 6 0 2 5 8 3 25,0% 6 Trade & Market
Development 4 0 3 6 7 3 25,0% 7 Customer Satisfaction 0 4 5 4 9 2 16,7% 8 Development of
Distribution Network 0 0 9 4 9 2 16,7% 9 Satisfaction within the
Company 0 4 2 7 6 2 16,7% 10 Survival in the Business 0 9 0 4 9 2 16,7% 11 Defined Turnover 0 4 0 9 4 1 8,3% 12 Development & Support
of Partners 0 0 5 8 5 1 8,3% 13 Efficient & Quick
Completion of Task 0 3 0 10 3 1 8,3% 14 Energy Efficiency 0 0 4 9 4 1 8,3% 15 Innovation 0 0 3 10 3 1 8,3% 16 Know How Transfer 0 0 5 8 5 1 8,3% 17 Monitoring and
Evaluation 5 0 0 8 5 1 8,3% 18 Product's Functionality 0 0 2 11 2 1 8,3% 19 SHS Availability &
Accessibility for Users 4 0 0 9 4 1 8,3% 20 User Awareness 4 0 0 9 4 1 8,3%
9 Appendix
- 197 -
9.5 Results: Institution’s Success Factors The appendix shows four tables which were generated from the interviews with the institutional
participants:
• Table 9-3: Success factors listed by the participants of the International Supply Chain.
• Table 9-4: Success factors listed by the participants of the National Supply Chain.
• Table 9-5: Success factors listed by the participants of the interviewed International Donors.
• Table 9-6: Success factors listed by the participants of the International Consultants group.
1= Consultant A, 2= Consultant B.
Table 9-3: Success factors listed by the participants of the International Supply Chain.
SSG Profit
No. of respondents
Success Factors: Sum of SF's Weight
2 Onsite Maintenance 10 2 Quality Components 10 1 Availability of Standards 5 1 Community Involvement 5 1 Component Price 5 1 Contact to NGO and Financiers 5 1 Income of the User 5 1 Training of Partners 5 1 Company Experience 4 1 Company Reputation 4 1 Culture (long term thinking of Users, Payment Practice) 4 1 Having Right Employee 4 1 Immediate Availability of Components 3 1 Neat Installations 3 1 Taxes and Levies 3 1 Contact to Clearing Agents 2
SSG Social Benefit
No. of respondents
Success Factors: Sum of SF's Weight
1 Presence in the Market 5 1 User Training (technical & commercial) 5 1 Education in the community 4 1 Money Saving 4 1 Community Organisation 3 1 Health improvement 3 1 Poverty Alleviation 3 1 Reduction of Diesel Consumption 3 1 Social Level in the community 3
9 Appendix
- 198 -
SSG Development of Distribution Network
No. of respondents
Success Factors: Sum of SF's Weight
1 Mutual Trust of Partners 5 1 Partners 5 1 Patience 5 1 Communication 4 1 Entrepreneur Training (Partner Training) 3 1 Know-How Transfer (=Partner Training) 3
SSG Customer Satisfaction (in the sense of supply chain satisfaction)
No. of respondents
Success Factors: Sum of SF's Weight
1 Distribution Channels 5 1 Trust 4 1 Good Service 3 1 Obliging Customer Treatment 3 1 Open Communication 3
SSG Development & Support of Partners
No. of respondents
Success Factors: Sum of SF's Weight
See general success factors!
SSG Quality No. of
respondents Success Factors: Sum of
SF's Weight
1 Technical Know-How 4 1 Production Platform 5
SSG Energy Efficiency
No. of respondents
Success Factors: Sum of SF's Weight
1 Technical Know-How 4 1 Production Platform 5
SSG Satisfaction within the Company
No. of respondents
Success Factors: Sum of SF's Weight
1 Employee Training 5 1 Give Responsibility to Employees 4
9 Appendix
- 199 -
Table 9-4: Success factors listed by the participants of the National Supply Chain.
SSG Profit
No. of respondents
Success Factors: Sum of SF's Weight
3 Training of Employees on the job 14 2 Contact with all Partners 9 2 Equipment 9 2 Reputation 9 2 Training of Employees before employment 8 1 Service / Friendliness towards Customers 5 1 Care for Employees 4 1 Clear Policy 4 1 Company Management 4 1 Local economical situation 4 1 Multidisciplinary of Employees 4 1 Nr. of Competitors 4
SSG Quality
No. of respondents
Success Factors: Sum of SF's Weight
1 Company Management 5 1 Contact with all Partners 5 1 Training of Employees on the job 4 1 Care for Employees 4 1 Clear Policy 4 1 Equipment 4 1 Multidisciplinary of Employees 4 1 Training of Employees before employment 4
SSG Survival in the Business
No. of respondents
Success Factors: Sum of SF's Weight
2 Quality 9 2 Local People's economic situation 8 2 Society's awareness of Solar Solution 8 2 Low number of competitors in the region 6 1 Complete Systems offered 5 1 Advertisement 4 1 Awareness and Consciousness 4 1 Employées Training & Motivation 4 1 Reputation 4 1 Broad Product Range 3 1 Tools and Equipment 3
9 Appendix
- 200 -
SSG Cost-Performance Ratio / Affordability
No. of respondents
Success Factors: Sum of SF's Weight
1 Contact to End-User 5 1 Dense service centre network 5 1 Internal Quality Control 5 1 VAT free products 5 1 Monitoring 4
SSG Customer (Users!) Satisfaction
No. of respondents
Success Factors: Sum of SF's Weight
1 Communication with Users (was listed but not graded)
SSG Defined Turnover
No. of respondents
Success Factors: Sum of SF's Weight
1 Good economic situation in the country 5 1 Quality of Products 5 1 Subsidies 5 1 VAT free products 5 1 Virgin market (product is welcome) 5 1 Warranty 5 1 Little Competition 4 1 Sensitizing of End Users 4
SSG Satisfaction within the Company No. of respondents
Success Factors: Sum of SF's Weight
1 Clear Policy (Binding Company Internal Arrangements) 4 1 Company Management 4
9 Appendix
- 201 -
Table 9-5: Success factors listed by the participants of the interviewed International Donors.
SSG Social Benefit
No. of respondents
Success Factors: Sum of SF's Weight
1 Quality of Products 4 1 Availability & Accessibility of products in target audience 4 1 Affordability of products 4
Table 9-6: Success factors listed by the participants of the International Consultants group. 1= Consultant A, 2= Consultant B.
International Supply Chain’s Success Factors
International Supply Chain's focus on efficient energy service supply Adaptation of appliances to user's circumstances National Supply Chain’s Success Factors
National Supply Chain related success factors (all listed by 1):
• Entrepreneur's creativity • Technical & business know-how • Players' sense & instinct for most economical solution
efficiency versus cost versus energy supplied versus energy service supplied
• Proactiveness • Readiness for continuous learning • Low nr. of dropouts: Quality of components from superior
partners / Quality of own installations Local Circumstances related success factors (all listed by 1):
• User's need for SHS • Clients' density in the project region • Sufficient systems in the region to set up maintenance
business • Short distances between supplier & customer
Capital related success factors (all listed by 1):
• Availability of capital • Threshold for minimum importation volume (>1 container
per batch) International Donor Institutions’ Success Factors
Donor related success factors (all listed by 1):
• Donors adapt to market rules • Small companies are not excluded by subsidies • Donor budget matches local enterprises' budget • Enterprises supported by donors match the local market
Partner Country related success factors: (all listed by 1)
• Partner country's support of projects
9 Appendix
- 202 -
General Success Factors:
On the level of SHS: • lowest cost as compared to competitive options (1) • visibility of objective reasons in favour of SHS (1) • Well-functioning / technical sound SHSs (1 / 2) • SHSs’ availability at site (1)
On the User level: • Users are in favour of SHS (1) • Involvement of users decision process, responsibility (1
/ 2) • Training & education for maintenance of users (1)
On the level of Research Centres:
• Research centres are available in the country (1) • They contribute to awareness creation (1) • They do training & education (technicians, installers) (1) • They eradicate of sagas and legends on SHS technology (1)
On the level of Economy: • Financial sustainability of SHS projects (2) • Creation of jobs by SHS (2)
9 Appendix
- 203 -
9.6 Guideline User Interview The figures show the guideline for the narrative interviews (NI) with the Users of SHSs. The sheets
were kept in the background and were not applied in the User’s interview itself.
Figure 9-8: Guideline User’s NI Sheet 1. Author’s diagram.
Figure 9-9: Guideline User’s NI Sheet 2. Author’s diagram.
9 Appendix
- 204 -
9.7 Guideline Site Visit (SV) The figures show the guideline for the site visits (SV) at the User’s SHS. The sheets were kept in the
background and were not applied in the site visit itself.
Figure 9-10: Guideline SV Sheet 1. Author’s diagram.
Figure 9-11: Guideline SV Sheet 2. Author’s diagram.
9 Appendix
- 205 -
Figure 9-12: Guideline SV Sheet 3. Author’s diagram.
Figure 9-13: Guideline SV Sheet 4. Author’s diagram.
9 Appendix
- 206 -
9.8 Guideline Participatory Observation (PO) The figures show the guideline sheets for the participatory observation. The sheets were kept in the
background and were not applied in the PO itself.
Figure 9-14: Guideline PO Sheet 1. Author’s diagram.
Figure 9-15: Guideline PO Sheet 2. Author’s diagram.
9 Appendix
- 207 -
Figure 9-16: Guideline PO Sheet 3. Author’s diagram.
9 Appendix
- 208 -
9.9 Results: Information retrieved from interaction with Users The following table summarizes the information sought from SHS users.
Table 9-7: Results from interaction with SHS Users in Uganda and South Africa.
Data Acquisition
Interview No. of Interviews 13
Participatory Observation (PO) No. of PO 2
Implementation and System Age
Dealer Model Nr. of SHS Dealer Model: 10
Fee for Service Model (F4S) Nr. of SHS F4S Model: 5
Average age of systems (in March 2013): 5.2 years
User Classification
Nr. of Innovators 6
Nr. of Early Adopters 6
No. of Not Specified Users 3
System Quality
High = 4
Medium = 3
Low = 2
Poor = 1
Not Operable = 0
Average System Quality: 2,1 = medium - low
System Quality Dealer Model: 1,5 = low
System Quality F4S Model: 3,2 = medium
User's Income
Very Good = 4
Favourable = 3
Medium = 2
Low = 1
Unfavourable = 0
Average Income: 2,3 = medium - favourable
Average Income Dealer Model: 2,3 = medium - favourable
Average Income F4S Model: 2,2 = medium - favourable
User Motivation
Intermediate Solution: Users implement the SHS
while waiting for grid connection.
Protester: Users implement a SHS despite the fact
that grid connection is available and economical.
No Alternative: Users do not have an economical,
feasible alternative to SHS electricity.
Nr. of Intermediate Solutions 3
Nr. of Protesters 2
No. of No Alternative 10
9 Appendix
- 209 -
Importance of SHS
High = 3
Medium = 2
Low = 1
Average Importance of SHSs 2,3 = medium - high
Average Importance of SHSs Dealer
Model
2,3 = medium – high
Average Importance of SHS F4S
Model
2,2 = medium - high
User's Satisfaction
Very High = 4
High = 3
Medium = 2
Low = 1
Disappointed = 0
Average User Satisfaction: 2,3 = medium - high
Average User Satisfaction Dealer
Model
2,6 = medium - high
Average User Satisfaction F4S
Model
1,8 = low - medium
Upgrade
Nr. of Not Planned Upgrade 12
Nr. of Planned Upgrades 3
No. of Income too Low 5
Nr. of Different Priority 5
Nr. of System Size Satisfactory 2
No. Of upgrades under negotiation 2
no. Of non specified reasons 1
Nominal Power of SHS in Wp
Average Power 60
Minimum Power 40
Maximum Power 100
Desired Energy Services Importance nominations
5 = very high imp.
4 = high imp.
3 = medium imp.
2 = low imp.
1 = very low imp.
0 = not important
Fridge 4,5 14
Illumination 4,4 14
Colour TV 4,5 12
Radio 3,7 11
Electric ironing 3,3 7
Electric cooking 4,0 5
Cell phone 4,0 4
9 Appendix
- 210 -
CD player 2,5 4
Woofer (power amplifier for audio recordings) 4,3 3
Fan 1,5 2
Computer 4,0 1
Air condition 3,0 1
Electric grass cutter 1,0 1
9 Appendix
- 211 -
9.10 Guideline Self-Observation (SO) The figures show the guideline sheets for the self-observation. The sheets were kept with the
researcher for continuous application.
Figure 9-17: Guideline SO Sheet 1. Author’s diagram.
Figure 9-18: Guideline SO Sheet 2. Author’s diagram.
9 Appendix
- 212 -
9.11 Results Self-Observation The following tables summarize the observations made by the researcher while living under SHS
electricity supply conditions.
Table 9-8: Energy services used by the researcher.
Pos Item Power
[W]
Operation
[hours/day]
Comment
1 1 Laptop 16 4 The “income generation” equipment. Typing of
interview summaries and of reports for the PhD
project.
2 1 CFL Lamp 11 2 Illumination in the very early morning (½ hour)
and in the evening (1½ hour).
3 1 Mobile 4 1 Very scarce usage of mobile as the mobile was
limited to national networks where I had no
very few contacts.
4 1 Camera 4 1 Camera use for private purposes.
5 Total energy consumption per day: 94Wh/d
Table 9-9: Importance of electricity services for the researcher found by self-observation.
Pos Item Importance Comment
1 CFL Lamp 5 The situation without electric light was hardly bearable. It was
experienced while the CFL bulb was not in operation. Despite
the discipline of the researcher (which cannot be taken for
granted in a family with children) the researcher needed to
search for the torch when arriving home after a long day of
income generation (interviewing of users). The situation would
be even worse when candle or kerosene light would be the
source of illumination.
2 Laptop 5 The laptop was the precondition for “income generation”. It
was important that the laptop consumed little power as it was
on for long periods of time.
3 Camera 4 Camera was more important than mobile in the specific
situation of the researcher
9 Appendix
- 213 -
4 Mobile 2 The specific situation of the researcher made the mobile
unimportant. Communication was done by emails based on the
laptop and a USB internet port.
5 Electric
Cooking
1 Electric cooking as of low importance as an alternative
(firewood cooking) was available.
6 Electric Ironing 1 Electric ironing of low importance as an alternative (charcoal
ironing) was available.
7 Electric
Washing
Machine
1 This energy service would have been desirable. Considering the
energy demand for a washing machine and the lack of water
for such an appliance the importance was graded 1.
8 Fridge 1 The fridge was of low importance as an alternative was given
by the nearby shop serving cold drinks.
9 Radio 1 Radio was of low importance as most of the broadcasted
programmes were not in the researcher’s language.
10 TV 1 TV was of low importance as most of the broadcasted
programmes were not in the researcher’s language.
Furthermore an alternative existed in terms of the laptop.
9 Appendix
- 214 -
Table 9-10: Cost of replacement of CFL bulbs. Data source: User of a SHS in Ndumo, ZA.
Pos Item No. of
Items
Cost
1 item
Total Cost Comment
1 CFL bulb 4 5.27AUD 21.06AUD Costs in March 2013.
2 Travelling time to
the next shop
2 1.25hrs 2.5hrs Walking distance to the next
bus stop (1h)
+ bus journey (1/4 hour)
3 Bus fare 2 2.11AUD 4.22AUD Costs in March 2013.
4 Time at shop 1 0.5hrs 0.5hrs Includes queuing, consultation,
negotiation and payment.
5 Time before return
bus departs
1 6hrs 6hrs Time could be used for other
activities.
6 Sum of costs: 25.28AUD
7 Sum of time demand: 9hrs
8 Application fee for SHS (fee4service): 12.74AUD For comparison
9 Monthly fee of SHS in fee4service mode: 9.48AUD
9 Appendix
- 215 -
Table 9-11: Miscellaneous self-observations of the researcher.
Pos Item Comment
1 Operation It was observed that the researcher failed to optimize the operation
of the SHS.
The researcher’s PV module was on a stand which could be tracked
towards the azimuth of the direction of the sun. In order to optimize
the solar irradiation on the module level it was decided to track the
module in the morning towards the East, at noon towards the South
and in the afternoon towards the West. However the researcher
failed in doing so because he was distracted by the income
generation activities throughout the day.
2 Maintenance The researcher wiped the solar module once a week. However, the
researcher’s solar module was on a stand in front of the researcher’s
entrance and it was easily accessible by the researcher. Therefore the
researcher was reminded frequently to wipe the module and it was
no extra effort for the researcher. Many SHSs’ PV modules are
installed on high poles or on rooftops which are not accessible or
where the access to the module bears a risk (e.g. a fall from the
ladder or rooftop).
3 Energy Demand
Management
The most important appliance in order to manage the energy demand
was the indication of the battery’s state of charge. Despite the high
level of education related to SHSs the researcher would have failed to
manage the load appropriately.
4 Level of Satisfaction The researcher was most satisfied with the SHS. However, the
researcher’s battery was new and the researcher never experienced a
blackout.
5 Advertisement of SHSs The researcher would advertise to invest in a SHS when it seems that
other basic services (food and water supply, housing, education of
children) are satisfied.
6 Priority of Investment In the specific situation of the researcher (income generation by
laptop usage) and the low electricity demand of the researcher a SHS
would have very high priority.
7 Spare Part Supply The spare part supply for the SHS was not given at the sites the
researcher visited.
9 Appendix
- 216 -
9.12 Conference Paper SOLAR HOME SYSTEM’S SUCCESS ANALYSIS Paper presented on the ISES Solar World Congress, 2011 (Holtorf et al., 2011). Paper presentation in
original submission format:
9 Appendix
- 217 -
Solar Home System’s Success Analysis Hans Holtorf1, Martina Calais, Trevor Pryor, Tania Urmee 1 corresponding author: [email protected]
Murdoch University, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Murdoch, Western Australia, 6150
1. Abstract
Solar Home Systems (SHSs) are considered an option to supply the basic electricity dependent energy services to dispersed rural households in unelectrified regions of world’s Sun Belt. Recent experiences in China, India and Bangladesh have consolidated the view that for many applications solar PV is the least cost and the most environmentally preferred option for increasing access to electricity for rural households and small enterprises in these rural and remote areas. In some countries (e.g. Bangladesh) SHSs are considered to be successful but that is not the case in other places.
There is a need to determine the success of SHSs and to find out what factors influence this success. The objective of this research is to determine the stakeholders understanding on success of SHSs, success factors and the barriers impacting on the success, the indicators of success and how we can quantify the success.
To address the research objectives a desktop study is carried out to identify successful and failure programs. Based on this desktop research SHS’s stakeholders will be interviewed on their views on success of the pro-grams.
This paper proposes a framework for assessing the degree of success of SHSs including a consideration of the key factors that contribute to success. In future work feedback from relevant institutions will be incorporated in the process of developing the success framework and the relative importance of the various factors and barriers influencing the SHS’s success. It is proposed to develop a weighting system for these factors that can influence the success of SHS’s installations.
2. Introduction
Availability of modern energy impacts on development. The BMZ report (Marré et al., 2008) proposes positive effects on employment, education, health, environment, preservation of resources, security of supply, peacekeeping, world market dependency, financial resources, and economical stability. (Koppers et al., 2007) (BMZ) structure the impacts of energy supply as depicted in Fig. 1.
U.S. census data estimates the world’s population to be 6,78E9 inhabitants (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011) while the world’s electricity generation is in the range of 20,1E12kWh/a (BP, 2011) (both data for 2009). This leads to an average daily electricity generation of 8,12kWh/d per capita.
At the same time, around 1,44E9 Fig. 1: Impacts of Energy (Koppers, Marré, & Wagner, 2007)
9 Appendix
- 218 -
persons do not have access to any electricity (WEO, 2011) meaning that one quarter of world’s population misses out on the above mentioned impact of modern energy supply.
The benefits of electricity use in households are manifold, and include, when simply comparing kerosene or paraffin illumination to electric light:
• Reduction of local ecological impact, (e.g. indoor air quality) • Safety of energy service supply (e.g. fire hazard) • Efficiency of energy service supplied by electric applications (e.g. lumen/W) • Economic advantages of energy service supplied by electricity ($/lumen hr) • Operational reliability of electric energy service appliances (e.g. candle light extinction by a breeze)
Some energy services can only be provided by electricity, e.g.:
• Infotainment (radio, TV) • Bidirectional (tele)communication
Even small amounts of electricity can make a considerable impact on the quality of life in the areas where conventional grid electricity is not available (IEA, 2004).
Aid Effectiveness comes into focus of international development assistance. This debate primarily finds expression in two key international documents, the Paris Declaration of 2005 and the Accra Action Plan from 2008. Donors and partner countries are looking for ways to strengthen cooperation, efficiently design projects to achieve maximum impact - even in times of crisis. This development demands tools to gauge the quality and potential success of projects.
SHSs technically can fill the gap by supplying basic electricity related energy services in Sunbelt countries. Electricity supplied by SHSs can be an economically competitive option as compared to grid extension (Gabler, 2009a). A 50Wp SHS can provide in the range of 100Wh/d of electricity to a rural household in a Sunbelt country.
This paper will address the success of SHSs.
A conceptualized model will be developed for measuring the success of SHSs. The model will introduce sub-dimensions of success, identify a set of factors leading to success, and then propose a series of indicators and measurable quantities of success. Measurability of SHS’s success may contribute to the improvement of the effectiveness of investments in rural electrification.
3. The Proposed Methodology for Measuring SHS’s Success
This research has four main objectives: First, we want to learn what success in terms of SHSs is. Certainly success has different meanings for different stakeholders involved in SHS. We need to extract the key stake-holders and then determine their understanding of success. The different stakeholder’s appraisals of success will be defined as sub-dimensions of success later in this paper.
Secondly, we want to elaborate on the factors leading to success of SHSs. Stakeholder’s perspectives on success will differ but certainly intersectional success factors exist which contribute to multiple stakeholder’s success. To define the success factors, indicators and measurable quantities for success need to be developed.
Thirdly, success factors need to be weighted to determine their influence on the sub-dimensions and the overall success of SHS.
Finally we want to supply a methodology to provide an indication of the degree of success of a SHS project.
Research on success of SHSs is not a one-time undertaking but a continuous process of further investigation. A major success factor is uniqueness (Nicolai & Kieser, 2002). Once a specific uniqueness of a stakeholder is known it will be copied by others, thereby losing its uniqueness and hence losing its role as a success factor.
9 Appendix
- 219 -
We hope to develop a starting point for a hypothesis on success of SHSs. It can only be a qualitative explorative research at this point.
The starting point for this study is the statement of (Weindlmaier et al., 2006): “...dass trotz der Multidimensionalität und Multikausalität der Erfolg bzw. Misserfolg eines Untersuchungsobjektes auf einige wenige zentrale Faktoren zurückgeführt werden kann.“ (translated by the lead author as ... that despite multidi-mensionality and multicausality success or failure is based on few central factors.) Applying “Abbildung 3: Methoden der Erfolgsfaktorenforschung” (translated as Figure 3: Methods of success factor research) of (Weindlmaier et al., 2006) leads to a qualitative explorative methodology of this SHS’s success factor research. The research will help to discover structures and relationships by filtering the potentially relevant success variables. An explicit model for causal relationship does not exist at the start of the study and so the research can only be explorative at this stage of the investigation. The data acquisition will be qualitative. Some factors need to be considered which cannot be quantified. The identification of success factors will be direct by contrast to indirect identification. The success factors will be extracted from literature, by expert interviews and by user’s interviews in field studies. In the field studies an analysis of contrasting groups (successful implementation of SHSs vs. failure of SHSs implementation) will be carried out in the future.
On one hand, homogeneity of research objects is a condition for success research. On the other hand the research should have a minimum coverage of relevant aspects. It is necessary to balance the homogeneity of research objects and the scope of research (Weindlmaier et al., 2006). In this project the research will focus on SHSs of a generator power smaller than 150Wp in un-electrified areas of rural sub-Saharan Africa.
The scope of the research will be broad in terms of the types of stakeholders investigated.
Multidimensional indicators and operationalisation of success limited to considering quantitative success factors such as financial quantities is a methodological deficiency. Weindlmaier and Schmalen (2006) state that qualitative entities need to be included. All factors of success found in the literature will be considered. Stake-holders interviewed will be requested to add factors and indicators of success to the initially identified list provided in the surveys.
The latter appears to contradict the opening statement “... that despite multidimensionality and multicausality success or failure is based on few central factors.” A reduction of potential success factors can take place after having considered all possible factors and their indicators.
A precise definition of success indicators will be given so that all the respondents will add their statements based on a common understanding.
Key informant bias needs to be addressed in the survey. “Given that many informants in studies of effectiveness and performance are themselves members or leaders of the groups about which they are making attributions, their reports are particularly prone to bias” (James.G. March & Robert.I. Sutton, 1997). Cross-validation needs to be inserted in the interviews and it is necessary to assign answers to the interviewee and analyze the answers to try and identify key informant bias.
Survival bias arises when analysis covers surviving enterprises exclusively (Nicolai & Kieser, 2002). In the planned field study it will be necessary to survey a region with successful SHS dissemination and a region with failed SHS implementation. Here the challenge is to find a region of SHS failure as reports usually describe success stories.
The overall research methodology is presented in Fig. 2.
Sub-Saharan Africa is chosen due to the homogeneity and high level of solar radiation. This fact is in favor of the economic operation of SHS. It seems that less research has been carried on the African continent as compared to Asia (e.g. Bangladesh, India, and China). The predominant link languages English and French simplify the project for the researchers.
Two field studies will be carried out. The regions of the case studies will be determined based on the results of the stakeholder’s interviews.
9 Appendix
- 220 -
4. Conceptualized Model of Success of Solar Home Systems (SHS)
The conceptualized model for success of SHSs developed by the authors is depicted in Fig. 3. Stakeholders 1 to m exist in the SHS’s environment. The stakeholders have (several) self-set goals for their engagement in SHSs. Success factors 1 to n lead to the achievement of self-set goals. The success factors may interfere in different stakeholder’s efforts to achieve success. Distinct success factors may have an impact on multiple self-set goals. The indicator of each success factor and the measurable quantity of each success factor need to be determined.
The achievement of self-set goals of stakeholders 1 to m need to be gauged. Therefore the indicators for achieve-ment are determined and measurable quantities for the achievement of self-set goals are defined. Self-set goals themselves are sub-dimensions of success of SHSs. The sum of achievement of self-set goals (sub-dimensions of success) will lead us to the overall grading of the success of SHSs in a distinct project.
Our current state of research on SHS’s stakeholders and their self-set goals are as displayed in Tab. 1 for some stakeholders.
Fig. 2 Methodology of the research on success of SHSs
9 Appendix
- 221 -
Fig. 3: Conceptualized model of success of SHSs
5. Stakeholders and Self-Set Goals
Stakeholders detected in the literature are: Project implementers, national governmental agencies, international governmental agencies, nongovernmental agencies (national and international), banks, utilities, donor agencies (Hellpap, 2011), (T. Urmee & D. Harries, 2011). Local society in the sense of a group of people related to each other through persistent relations may be considered a stakeholder. The persistent relationship could be the collective goal to enhance easy and affordable access to electricity for the members of the society.
As described in section 4 of this paper, stakeholders have self-set goals when investing in SHS technology. For all stakeholders detected self-set goals are determined by the surveys of this research starting from literature and personal experience.
9 Appendix
- 222 -
Tab. 1: A sample selection of stakeholders and their possible self-set goals
Stakeholder Possible self-set goals
User of SHS
• Access to a certain energy service • Light • Infotainment (radio/TV) • Bidirectional (tele)communication (mobiles) • Improvement of energy services • Quality • Reliability • Access to a minimum amount of electricity • Reduction of energy related expenses • Access to society (e.g. by communication) • Income generation • Increase of wealth • Increase of study hours • Decrease of health related cost • Reduction of workload for household members supplying energy
Manufacturer of SHS’s components
• Development of a market for manufactured components • Growth in sales • Growth in profit • Publicity
Members of supply chain of SHSs
• Generation of income • Growth in sales • Growth in profit • Publicity
6. Success Factors and their Measurement
From literature and from personal experience we develop success factors and measurable quantities related to SHSs. These will be confirmed, modified and upgraded by stakeholder’s interviews and field studies. As an example of the first step in this procedure we list some user related success factors and measurable quantities in Tab. 2.
A similar list has been developed for all SHS’s stakeholders listed above.
Some success factors may share the same measurable quantity; for example the success factors user’s appre-ciation of SHS’s electricity and user’s wish to change energy supply technology. Both are measured by the amount of money user is willing to pay for SHS.
9 Appendix
- 223 -
Further on the distinction between a success factor and a measurable quantity may be challenging. For example, Willingness to pay may either be a success factor or a measurable quantity.
Tab. 2: Initial list of SHS`s users related success factors and measurable quantities (from literature and from personal experience)
Success Factor Measurable quantity
User’s satisfaction User’s estimate of grade of satisfaction (a qualitative indicator)
User’s economic situation User’s monthly / seasonal / annual income and savings
User’s willingness to pay for electricity
Amount of money user is willing to pay for energy and especially for elec-tricity
User’s income generation based on SHS
Income before and after installation of SHS
User’s need of electric energy service
User’s prioritisation of competitive choices Amount of money user is willing to pay for electricity
SHS’s maintenance Amount of payments / time invested in maintenance
User’s mental model of SHSs
User’s perception on:
- Amount of service deliverable - No. of advantages of SHS and their weight - No. of disadvantages of SHS and their weight
User’s awareness of tech-nology
User’s estimate of grade of awareness (qualitative indicator)
User’s knowledge on the operation of SHSs
No. of users with a correct understanding of e.g. charge controller’s indica-tions
User’s neighbourhood experience
User’s estimate of experience in the neighbourhood (qualitative indicator)
User’s appreciation of SHS’s electricity
Amount of money user is willing to pay for SHS
User’s wish to change en-ergy supply technology
Amount of money user is willing to pay for SHS
User’s trust in SHS tech-nology
User’s estimate of trust in SHSs as compared to other technologies (qualita-tive indicator)
User’s trust in members of supply chain
User’s estimate of trust in SHS supplier (qualitative indicator). User’s prioritisation of competitive suppliers.
User density Mean distance between users in km / travelling time / travelling cost
The multidimensionality of SHS’s success can be captured from the great number of stakeholders, their related sub-dimensions of success and the variety of success factors.
7. Conclusion
Until now there has been little research on success factors of SHSs. In reports on successful SHS projects one finds mere figures of SHSs installed or project cost per SHS installed as an indication of success. We want to deepen the understanding of success of SHSs. To date, the wide field of SHS’s success has been reviewed and analysed: A methodology for this research has been developed, the conceptualised model for success of SHSs is established and an initial list of stakeholders, as well as their self-set goals, has been determined. Indicators and parameters that can be quantified to measure success have been described. In the next step of this research, the input of stakeholders will be sought by interviews and field studies. The final goal is a comprehensive hypothesis on success of Solar Home Systems in the rural sub-Saharan African context that can be expanded into wider contexts.
9 Appendix
- 224 -
8. Acknowledgement
This project is financially supported by the School of Engineering and Energy at Murdoch University and the International Relations Office at University of Oldenburg.
9. References
BP (2011). "Statistical review of world energy 2010." Retrieved 28.3.2011, 2011, from
http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929&contentId=7044622.
Gabler, H. (2009). Photovoltaics for Rural Electrification. Small PV applications. Ulm, ZSW.
Hellpap, C. (2011). Kernherausforderungen beim Aufbau ländlicher Verbreitungssysteme für Pico PV
Systeme. Im Abseits der Netze. Bonn, GIZ.
IEA (2004). Energy and Development: 31.
Koppers, S., F. Marré, et al. (2007). Sektorkonzept Nachhaltige Energie für Entwicklung. Bonn,
Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung, BMZ, Referat
„Entwicklungspolitische Informations- und Bildungsarbeit“: 27.
March, J. G. and R. I. Sutton (1997). "Organizational performance as a dependent variable."
Organization Sciences 8(6 , (Nov. - Dec., 1997), ): 8.
Marré, F., K. Krämer, et al. (2008). Entwicklung braucht nachhaltige Energie. Berlin,
Bundesministerium für wirtschaftlicheZusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ): 43.
Nicolai, A. and A. Kieser (2002). "Trotz eklatanter Erfolglosigkeit: Die Erfolgsfaktorenforschung
weiter auf Erfolgskurs." DBW 62 (2002) 6: 18.
U.S. Census Bureau (2011). "International data base IDB." Retrieved 28.03.2011, 2011, from
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/region.php.
Urmee, T. and D. Harries (2011). "Determinants of the success and sustainability of Bangladesh’s
SHS program." Renewable Energy: 9.
Weindlmaier, H., C. Schmalen, et al. (2006). Erfolgsfaktorenforschung: Theoretische Grundlagen,
methodische Vorgehensweise und Anwendungserfahrungen in Projekten für die
Ernährungsindustrie. Tagung der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des
Landbaues e.V. 2006. Gießen: 14.
WEO, W. E. O. (2011). "Access to electricity." Retrieved 25.3.2011, 2011, from
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/electricity.asp.
![Impact Evaluation of Rural Electrification in Bhutan · Rural Electrification Project (Loan 1375-BHU[SF]) in 1995. Three subsequent loans have been approved—Sustainable Rural Electrification](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5f8533816c5e7a009f1ea6ab/impact-evaluation-of-rural-electrification-in-bhutan-rural-electrification-project.jpg)
