IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v159y2022ics1364032122001009.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the usability of open source frameworks in energy system modelling

Author

Listed:
  • Berendes, S.
  • Hilpert, S.
  • Günther, S.
  • Muschner, C.
  • Candas, S.
  • Hainsch, K.
  • van Ouwerkerk, J.
  • Buchholz, S.
  • Söthe, M.

Abstract

Usability is considered one of the key factors in determining the success of Open Source Software, but is it sufficiently addressed within the development process as of yet? Thus far, there are no studies on record that explicitly examine the usability of Open Source Software in the field of Energy System Modelling. In this paper, we publish a novel method, the Energy System Modelling Usability Testing (ESMUT), including a step-by-step guide on how to apply the method and the corresponding usability questionnaire (ESMUQ). The questionnaire is based on the Post Study System Usability Questionnaire and adopted for quantitative usability testing of Open Source Energy System Modelling frameworks. To illustrate its usage and show its applicability, we apply the method in a case study with five frameworks (Balmorel, GENeSYS-MOD, GENESYS-2, oemof, and urbs) and within a group of eight framework developers. Based on the case study results, we find that the participants were largely satisfied in working with the frameworks analysed, and identify correct handling of input data and error messages as the most frequently mentioned problems when working with the frameworks. Consequently, we find that the usability of the frameworks analysed in the case study requires further improvement. Due to the fact that only the developer perspective was taken into account, and the number of participants involved in the study was limited, further research is required to assess the usability of Open Source Energy System Modelling frameworks.

Suggested Citation

  • Berendes, S. & Hilpert, S. & Günther, S. & Muschner, C. & Candas, S. & Hainsch, K. & van Ouwerkerk, J. & Buchholz, S. & Söthe, M., 2022. "Evaluating the usability of open source frameworks in energy system modelling," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:159:y:2022:i:c:s1364032122001009
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112174
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122001009
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112174?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vicente-Saez, Ruben & Martinez-Fuentes, Clara, 2018. "Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 428-436.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Turcan Nelly & Rusu Andrei & Cujba Rodica, 2019. "Study on the Mapping of Research Data in the Republic of Moldova in the Context of Open Science," International Journal of Advanced Statistics and IT&C for Economics and Life Sciences, Sciendo, vol. 9(1), pages 11-22, June.
    2. Marcel Knöchelmann, 2019. "Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, November.
    3. Margarida Rodrigues & Cidália Oliveira & MárioFranco & Ana Daniel, 2024. "A Bibliometric Study About the Rural Creative Class: Proposal of a Conceptual Framework and Future Agenda," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(3), pages 15278-15303, September.
    4. Arandjelović, Ognjen, 2023. "A Case for `Killer Robots': Why in the Long Run Martial AI May Be Good for Peace," SocArXiv 9kja8, Center for Open Science.
    5. Michael O’Grady & Eleni Mangina, 2024. "Citizen scientists—practices, observations, and experience," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Hou, Li & Wu, Qiang & Xie, Yundong, 2024. "Does open identity of peer reviewers positively relate to citations?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    7. Adelaide Martins & Manuel Castelo Branco & Pedro Novo Melo & Carolina Machado, 2022. "Sustainability in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-26, May.
    8. van Ouwerkerk, Jonas & Hainsch, Karlo & Candas, Soner & Muschner, Christoph & Buchholz, Stefanie & Günther, Stephan & Huyskens, Hendrik & Berendes, Sarah & Löffler, Konstantin & Bußar, Christian & Tar, 2022. "Comparing open source power system models - A case study focusing on fundamental modeling parameters for the German energy transition," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    9. Nathalie Colasanti & Chiara Fantauzzi & Rocco Frondizi, 2021. "Innovating Public Service Delivery Through Crowdsourcing: What Role for The Third Sector and Civil Society?," International Journal of Business Research and Management (IJBRM), Computer Science Journals (CSC Journals), vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, February.
    10. Hosany, A. R. Shaheen & Hosany, Sameer & He, Hongwei, 2022. "Children sustainable behaviour: A review and research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 236-257.
    11. Maria Theresa Norn & Laia Pujol Priego & Irene Ramos-Vielba & Thomas Kjeldager Ryan & Marie Louise Conradsen & Thomas Martin Durcan & David G. Hulcoop & Aled Edwards & Susanne Müller, 2024. "Archetypes of Open Science Partnerships: connecting aims and means in open biomedical research collaborations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    12. Annina Lattu & Yuzhuo Cai, 2023. "Institutional logics in the open science practices of university–industry research collaboration," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(5), pages 905-916.
    13. Antonello Cammarano & Vincenzo Varriale & Francesca Michelino & Mauro Caputo, 2022. "Open and Crowd-Based Platforms: Impact on Organizational and Market Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-26, February.
    14. Justyna Żywiołek & Joanna Rosak-Szyrocka & Maciej Mrowiec, 2021. "Knowledge Management in Households about Energy Saving as Part of the Awareness of Sustainable Development," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-14, December.
    15. Basellini, Ugofilippo, 2023. "Open science practices in demographic research: an appraisal," SocArXiv vrcdh, Center for Open Science.
    16. Christian M. Stracke & Daniel Burgos & Gema Santos-Hermosa & Aras Bozkurt & Ramesh Chander Sharma & Cécile Swiatek Cassafieres & Andreia Inamorato dos Santos & Jon Mason & Ebba Ossiannilsson & Jin Gon, 2022. "Responding to the Initial Challenge of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Analysis of International Responses and Impact in School and Higher Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-23, February.
    17. François-Xavier de Vaujany & Maximilian Heimstädt, 2022. "A Pragmatic Way to Open Management Research and Education: Playfulness, Ambiguity and Deterritorialization," Post-Print hal-03887147, HAL.
    18. Alejandra Manco, 2022. "A Landscape of Open Science Policies Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    19. Ciechanowski, Leon & Jemielniak, Dariusz & Gloor, Peter A., 2020. "TUTORIAL: AI research without coding: The art of fighting without fighting: Data science for qualitative researchers," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 322-330.
    20. Kraft-Todd, Gordon T. & Rand, David G., 2021. "Practice what you preach: Credibility-enhancing displays and the growth of open science," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-10.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:159:y:2022:i:c:s1364032122001009. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.