Innovation Economics, Engineering and Management Handbook 2 E-Book
139,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
Innovation, in economic activity, in managerial concepts and in engineering design, results from creative activities, entrepreneurial strategies and the business climate. Innovation leads to technological, organizational and commercial changes, due to the relationships between enterprises, public institutions and civil society organizations. These innovation networks create new knowledge and contribute to the dissemination of new socio-economic and technological models, through new production and marketing methods.
Innovation Economics, Engineering and Management Handbook 2 is the second of the two volumes that comprise this book. The main objectives across both volumes are to study the innovation processes in today�s information and knowledge society; to analyze how links between research and business have intensified; and to discuss the methods by which innovation emerges and is managed by firms, not only from a local perspective but also a global one.
The studies presented in these two volumes contribute toward an understanding of the systemic nature of innovations and enable reflection on their potential applications, in order to think about the meaning of growth and prosperity
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 513
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Introduction: General Presentation
1 Meaning – The Meaning of Innovation: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives
1.1. Introduction
1.2. Conceptions of the meaning of innovation over time
1.3. When innovation, like the phoenix, rises from the ashes
1.4. In search of lost meaning
1.5. The PSI approach: a philosophy of, and for, action
1.6. By way of conclusion
1.7. References
2 Engineering – Innovation Engineering: A Holistic and Operational Approach to the Innovation Process
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Innovation engineering: a field of research that has struggled to structure itself in France
2.3. Practical guide to innovation engineering
2.4. Conclusion
2.5. Acknowledgments
2.6. References
3 Absorption – Technological Absorptive Capacity and Innovation: The Primacy of Knowledge
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Technological absorptive capacity: a cognitive process
3.3. The multidimensional nature of absorption capacity and innovation
3.4. Measuring absorptive capacity
3.5. Conclusion
3.6. References
4 Big Data – Artificial Intelligence and Innovation: The Big Data Issue
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Humans and data: diversity and consensus
4.3. Big Data: an interdisciplinary approach to technology and its uses
4.4. A wide range of applications: promises and fears
4.5. Conclusion
4.6. References
5 Blockchain – Blockchain and Co-creation within Management Methods
5.1. Introduction
5.2. The interest of Blockchain in the field of immaterial exchanges
5.3. The limits of the co-creation process
5.4. Blockchain in mobilizing and organizing co-creation processes
5.5. The promises of Blockchain
5.6. Conclusion
5.7. References
6 Bricolage – From Improvisation to Innovation: The Key Role of “Bricolage”
6.1. Introduction
6.2. Bricolage: new concept, old practice
6.3. Current application of the bricolage concept
6.4. Bricolage and improvisation
6.5. Bricolage and frugal innovation
6.6. Conclusion
6.7. References
7 Circularity – The Circular Economy as an Innovative Process
7.1. Introduction
7.2. The circular economy: a transformative concept
7.3. The circular economy as a source of innovation
7.4. Conclusion
7.5. References
8 Co-creation – Co-creation and Innovation: Strategic Issues for the Company
8.1. Introduction
8.2. Co-creation: a strategic challenge for companies
8.3. Co-creation, DIY and DIWO
8.4. Co-creation, creativity and innovation
8.5. Co-creation and intellectual property rights
8.6. Co-creation and eco-design
8.7. Conclusion
8.8. References
9 Community – Innovative Communities of Practice: What are the Conditions for Implementation and Innovation?
9.1. Introduction: communities of practice and innovation
9.2. Communities of practices, a definition: group cohesion, complicity and dynamism
9.3. Work teams and virtual communities
9.4. Organizational learning
9.5. Animation role
9.6. Conclusion
9.7. References
10 Craftsman – The Innovative Craftsman: A Historically Permanent Socio-economic Function
10.1. Introduction
10.2. The craftsman, an ignored innovator
10.3. The innovative craftsman of the 21st century
10.4. Conclusion
10.5. References
11 Defense – Military Innovation: Networks and Dual-use Technological Development
11.1. Introduction
11.2. Military innovation: main attributes
11.3. Conclusion
11.4. References
12 Design Thinking – Design Thinking and Strategic Management of Innovation
12.1. Introduction
12.2. The origins of design thinking
12.3. Design thinking in innovation management
12.4. Conclusion
12.5. References
13 Digital – Digital Entrepreneurship as Innovative Entrepreneurship
13.1. Introduction
13.2. Definition and characteristics of digital entrepreneurship
13.3. Digital entrepreneurship in the field of innovation studies
13.4. Conclusion
13.5. References
14 Entrepreneurship – Social Innovative Entrepreneurship: An Integrated Multi-level Model
14.1. Introduction
14.2. State-of-the-art: contemporary issues, approaches and levels of analysis
14.3. Integrated multi-level model of innovative social entrepreneurship
14.4. Conclusion
14.5. References
15 Fintech – Technology in Finance: Strategic Risks and Challenges
15.1. Introduction
15.2. Evolution of technology in finance
15.3. Risks of fintech
15.4. Concluding remarks
15.5. References
16 Gerontech – Geront’innovations and the Silver Economy
16.1. Introduction
16.2. The Silver Economy: a new area for innovation
16.3. “Gerontechnologies”: the technological dimension of innovations in the Silver Economy
16.4. Towards “geront’innovation”
16.5. Conclusion
16.6. References
17 Greentech – Contributions and Limitations to the Environmental Transition
17.1. Introduction
17.2. Green technologies, the first technological response to the environmental crisis
17.3. From green technologies to a sustainable technological and socio-economic system
17.4. References
18 Hacker – Hackerspace as a Space for Creative Exploration
18.1. Introduction
18.2. The rise of hacker culture
18.3. Cybercrime or creative exploration?
18.4. Conclusion
18.5. References
19 Health – Telemedicine: Decentralized Medical Innovation
19.1. Introduction
19.2. Information technology at the service of medical care
19.3. High-performance medical devices
19.4. Conclusion
19.5. References
20 Intellectual Corpus – Inventive Intellectual Corpus: Knowledge-based innovation
20.1. Introduction
20.2. Concept of knowledge-based innovation
20.3. Modeling knowledge creation
20.4. Activation of the chaotic inspiration model of knowledge evolution by emergence using the
ICAROS
®
method
20.5. Conclusion
20.6. References
21 Imagination – Imagination, Science Fiction, Creativity and Innovation: An Integrated Process
21.1. Introduction
21.2. Tame the imagination in order to innovate
21.3. Imagination: from creativity to innovation
21.4. Conclusion
21.5. References
22 Marketing – Marketing of Innovation and University–Industry Collaboration
22.1. Introduction
22.2. Innovation marketing and inter-organizational collaboration
22.3. The cross-functionality of innovation marketing
22.4. Conclusion
22.5. References
23 Milieu – Innovative Milieu: The Strength of Proximity Ties
23.1. Introduction
23.2. Definition and characteristics of an innovative milieu
23.3. Proximity and territorialized innovation networks
23.4. Conclusion
23.5. References
24 Nanotech – Nanotechnologies: The Future of Innovations
24.1. Introduction
24.2. Nanotechnology applications
24.3. RFID chips
24.4. Global potential risks
24.5. Conclusion and outlook
24.6. References
24.7. Webography
25 Novelty – Novelty and Innovation: The Nodal Place of Creativity
25.1. Introduction
25.2. Innovation and novelty
25.3. Creativity as a prerequisite for innovation
25.4. Conclusion
25.5. References
26 Open – Open Source and Open Data: Filiation, Analogies and Common Dynamics
26.1. Introduction
26.2. Open source and open data: guiding concepts
26.3. Open source: process innovation and legal innovation via copyleft
26.4. Open data: dynamics of open innovation 2.0 in line with open source
26.5. Conclusion
26.6. References
27 Personality – The Deviant Personality of the Innovative Actor
27.1. Introduction
27.2. The actor, the system and the question of the complementarity of roles
27.3. The deviant personality of the innovator
27.4. Conclusion
27.5. References
28 Real Estate – Business Real Estate and Innovation: A New Profession for New Spaces
28.1. Introduction
28.2. The prevalence of the financial referent, reasoning and industrialist practices
28.3. Weakness of the human resources paradigm applied to real estate
28.4. Employees empowered by change management
28.5. Powerful, but inconsistent with regard to use, real estate marketing
28.6. The real estate market versus the innovative company
28.7. Conclusion
28.8. References
29 Skills – Innovation and Entrepreneurial Skills
29.1. Introduction
29.2. Innovation skills
29.3. Entrepreneurial competencies
29.4. Ideas and opportunities
29.5. Resources
29.6. Into action
29.7. References
30 Small Business – Small Business and Innovation: Specificities and Institutional Context
30.1. Introduction
30.2. The relation between small business and innovation
30.3. The specificity of small business innovation
30.4. Government support for small business innovation
30.5. Conclusion
30.6. References
31 Spin-off – Research Spin-off: How the University Fosters Innovative Entrepreneurship
31.1. Introduction
31.2. An overview of the development of research spin-offs
31.3. Main perspectives and taxonomies of research spin-offs
31.4. Fragility and future avenues for improvement
31.5. Conclusion
31.6. References
32 Start-up – Start-ups, Venture Capital (SVC) and the Financial Cycle of the SVC System
32.1. Introduction
32.2. Start-ups
32.3. Venture capital
32.4. The SVC system cycle
32.5. Conclusion
32.6. References
33 Territory – Territorial Dynamics and Innovative Services
33.1. Introduction
33.2. Innovation in services: what are we talking about?
33.3. Geography of innovation in knowledge-intensive business services and territorial impact
33.4. Public innovation policy: historical actions and future prospects
33.5. Conclusion
33.6. References
34 Well-being – Subjective Well-being and Innovation
34.1. Introduction
34.2. Creative destruction impacts subjective well-being
34.3. A questionable relationship
34.4. Innovation-care: theoretical approach and applications
34.5. Conclusion
34.6. References
List of Authors
Index
Summary of Volume 1
End User License Agreement
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1.
Innovation meaning tree (according to Forest 2020)
Chapter 16
Figure 16.1. Forms of innovation in the Silver Economy in France (source: RRI 20...
Figure 16.2.
Geront’ innovations
Chapter 20
Figure 20.1.
Dynamics of innovation from problem to solution
Figure 20.2.
Dynamics of innovation from ideation to innovation
Figure 20.3.
The knowledge creation mechanism
Figure 20.4.
Inventive intellectual capital
Figure 20.5.
Chaotic evolutionary process
Figure 20.6.
The chaotic inspiration model of knowledge evolution by emergence
Figure 20.7.
The knowledge-based creativity mechanism
Chapter 25
Figure 25.1. Booz-Allen and Hamilton classification of innovations (source: Coop...
Chapter 32
Figure 32.1.
Schematic view of the start-up – venture capital cycle
List of Tables
Chapter 1
Table 1.1. Putting the PSI and Jonas approaches into perspective (according to F...
Chapter 2
Table 2.1. A non-exhaustive list of inspirational books written by trained engin...
Table 2.2. A non-exhaustive list of significant works in the international commu...
Table 2.3. Emergence of innovation engineering research within the engineering c...
Chapter 7
Table 7.1.
Typology of forms of Innovation related to the circular economy
Chapter 14
Table 14.1.
Overview of contemporary research
Chapter 30
Table 30.1. Differences between the innovation processes of small firms and larg...
Chapter 31
Table 31.1. Summary of the main perspectives and taxonomies of research spin-off...
Chapter 33
Table 33.1.
Source: author’s table based on Cordellier (2011)
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright
Introduction: General Presentation
Begin Reading
List of Authors
Index
Summary of Volume 1
Other titles from iSTE in Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Management
End User License Agreement
Pages
v
iii
iv
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
287
288
289
290
291
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
Innovation Economics, Engineering and Management Handbook 2
Special Themes
Edited by
Dimitri Uzunidis
Fedoua Kasmi
Laurent Adatto
First published 2021 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd
27-37 St George’s Road
London SW19 4EU
UK
www.iste.co.uk
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
111 River Street
Hoboken, NJ 07030
USA
www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2021
The rights of Dimitri Uzunidis, Fedoua Kasmi and Laurent Adatto to be identified as the authors of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021932860
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-701-9
IntroductionGeneral Presentation
“Innovation is everything in the economy that is either not being done, or not being done again.”
- Dimitri UZUNIDIS
Agility, flexibility and rapid adaptation to change are becoming the key words for growth and development in our society. Finding new ways of doing things and creating something new out of what already exists remains essential when facing crises (economic, social and environmental). The ability to innovate is therefore the main condition for maintaining the competitiveness and performance of companies, regions and territories in a changing context. Innovative activity has long been considered a driving force for “progress”, but its impact on the transformation of socio-economic systems is greater when a succession of profound changes are introduced on broader scales (organizational, social, environmental, political, behavioral, etc.). Achieving these transformations requires the mobilization of resources, information, knowledge and networks of specific actors in order to guide innovation efforts to respond to more global challenges such as reducing environmental impacts, building resilience, and improving health, safety and people’s well-being. Through what mechanisms and under what conditions does innovation enable more radical changes that progressively and sustainably reorient our modes of development? This is the overall question that this two-volume encyclopedic book answers, by mobilizing a set of interdisciplinary theories and concepts devoted to the study of innovation.
Innovation, in fact, consists of the design and marketing of new goods and technologies, the application of new working methods or the conquest of new markets. Today’s knowledge-based economy implies that innovation is the result of greater interaction between businesses, universities, public institutions, consumers and citizens. Innovation networks create new knowledge and contribute to the diffusion of new socio-economic and technological models, through new modes of production and distribution. Innovation results from technological, organizational and commercial changes.
How do organizations design and manage innovation processes? What strategies and management tools do they apply for the concrete implementation of innovation processes? What role do innovation policies play in driving these processes? How does innovation impact competitiveness and performance? This involves analyzing companies’ technological opportunities, organizational strategies and the integrated management of research and development, marketing and financial projects, etc.
This book is dedicated to the study of innovation. Theoretical reminders are associated with the discussion of concepts. Written in a didactic way, the reader will easily be able to situate the current debates around the need for technological and social innovation and the imperative of creating a climate conducive to the launch of large-scale innovation processes, because the current socio-economic stakes are as important as they are global. The book consists of two volumes. The first one is devoted to the presentation of the basic concepts. Its aim is to provide a broad and precise overview of the fundamental issues addressed by economists, historians and engineers specializing in innovation. The second volume contains a set of studies of current concepts and opens the debate on the evolution of the concept of innovation in the years to come.
The innovation process has a causal relationship with a problem – technological, economic, social – posed to the market economy and identified consciously or unconsciously by its actors (companies, entrepreneurs, consumers, etc.). Innovation is thus linked to the search for the optimal solution to the problem posed. This presupposes the use of knowledge and information from practice, experience and scientific activity. Innovation is itself a cumulative and historical process defined by six major characteristics highlighted in this book: (a) the impacts of innovation are difficult to predict; (b) the scale of diffusion of innovation is difficult to calculate; (c) innovative activities are asymmetric and staggered in time; (d) the time of learning, execution and diffusion plays a crucial role in the act of innovating; (e) the business environment conditions the time, scale, nature and impacts of innovation; and (f) innovations are interdependent.
In new approaches to innovation, the entrepreneur and the company are studied through their skills and their function of resource creation. Gradual or radical innovation thus becomes endogenous and is integrated into a complex process characterized by a lot of feedback and interactions in production and marketing networks: clusters, sectors and territorial or national innovation systems. The innovative organization is presented as a dynamic system composed of specific and diversified skills. Through the acquisition, combination and mobilization of these competencies, the innovator (entrepreneur or organization) can create technological resources and evolve the relationships it maintains with its environment. This explains the importance of design, application and development management in the implementation of an innovation process. An innovation system (sectoral, territorial or national) mobilizes a set of knowledge and skills resulting from learning processes and integrated into its memory. This knowledge must be enriched in order to be valorized by technological, organizational and commercial innovation. The survival of the system depends on its capacity to innovate, which enables it to face external aggressions, to transform and endure. External stimuli (competition, product substitutability, innovation policies, etc.) are generated by the economic context and affect the means of selection of entrepreneurs, companies and other public or private institutions. Selection procedures are shaped by the business climate: the nature of the product market, the availability of capital and labor, the pace of innovation, the effects of public policies, etc. They can, therefore, create alternatives to the mode of operation, management and production of a given firm (of an organization or, more generally, of a particular innovation system). It is thus clear that the effectiveness of innovation management is highly dependent on the internal capacity to seize external opportunities. The authors of this book repeatedly stress that innovation is part of the dynamic growth model based on uncertainty, risk and profit. The “flaws” that characterize an economic system are, however, important sources of opportunities for investment, production and the diffusion of innovations.
The richness of this book is the result of the reflections developed within the Research Network on Innovation (RNI) and carefully selected to take into account current and historical analyses, the relationship between technological mutations and social change, and the presentation and perspective of management, strategies and innovation policies. The authors are among the most eminent specialists of the Network, whose main objectives are the study of innovation processes in today’s information and knowledge society, the analysis of the intensification of links between the worlds of research and business, and the examination of the modes of appropriation and management of innovation by companies from a global as well as local or sectoral perspective. The Network has more than 1,500 researchers in 36 countries specializing in the multidisciplinary study of innovation: economics, management, engineering, sociology, history, law, epistemology, anthropology and psychology of the innovator.
The guiding principle of the studies presented in the two volumes allows us to understand the systemic nature of innovations and to reflect on their potential for dissemination and application, to study how innovations question our categories of thought and challenge the traditional mapping of knowledge… to think about the meaning of innovation.
This book is the continuation of a set of books dedicated to the study of innovation in the “Innovation in Engineering and Technology” Set published by ISTE and Wiley:
–
Innovation Engines: Entrepreneurs and Enterprises in a Turbulent World
(2017).
–
Science, Technology and Innovation Culture
(2018);
–
Collective Innovation Processes: Principles and Practices
(2018);
Divided across two volumes, it is composed of four long chapters on epistemology, economics, management and engineering that trace the contours of the holistic conception of innovation and continues with 81 shorter chapters that present and discuss, according to the sensitivity of their authors, the key notions associated with the studies of innovation. Note that the last chapter of Volume 1 on “X-Innovation” is devoted to highlighting the complexity of the concept in order to open perspectives for future research on innovation.
We would like to thank our colleagues Sophie Boutillier (University of the Littoral Opal Coast), Thierry Burger-Helmchen (University of Strasbourg), Vanessa Casadella (University of Picardie), Joëlle Forest (National Institution of Applied Sciences, Lyon), Michaël Laviolette (University of Lyon), Laure Morel (University of Lorraine), Francesco Schiavone (Parthenope University of Naples), Bérangère Szostak (University of Lorraine) and Corinne Tanguy (AgroSup-Dijon) for their contribution to the conception of this book.
We express our gratitude to our colleague Laurent Adatto for his contribution to the finalization of this important project.
Finally, it is important to mention the contribution of our colleague Blandine Laperche, President of the Research Network on Innovation, to the realization of this project. We express our gratitude and best wishes to her.
Introduction written by Dimitri UZUNIDIS and Fedoua KASMI.
1Meaning – The Meaning of Innovation: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives
1.1. Introduction
Who can be against innovation nowadays? Regarding the permanent injunction to innovate associated with contemporary societies – in many fields, if not the whole of society – we would be inclined to say no-one. Nevertheless, the answer is not so obvious in spite of appearances.
Indeed, at the same time as it contributed to popularizing the concept of sustainable development (“that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland 1987, p. 14)), the Brundtland Report initiated numerous publications stigmatizing the negative impacts of anthropogenic activities on the environment, which has gradually established “sustainable development” as a major concern for our societies.
The necessarily progressive conception of innovation has tended towards decline. There are several reasons for this. These include the following, without claiming to be exhaustive:
– the observation that we have never has so many technologies available to us while inequalities are growing in the world (the poor are getting poorer), that world hunger affects nearly 2 billion people, that half of the world’s population does not have access to basic healthcare according to the WHO, etc.;
– the realization that the unbridled development of new technologies goes together with an incessant evolution of skills to use them, and leads to an accumulation of continuous learning or risk of being overwhelmed and staying on the side lines;
– the contribution of innovation to growth and productivity gains that is running out of steam.
All these reasons have led to a disenchantment with regard to innovation. In this chapter, however, we will show that such disenchantment is not separate from our way of thinking and of implementing innovation.
The epistemology of innovation is indeed a valuable “tool” for studying and questioning the production of knowledge about innovation and, through this, the relationship of models to action. However, one observation must be made at the outset. While there is an abundance of academic literature dedicated to innovation (mainly apologetic, by the way), only a few focus on the links between innovation and society or, to be more precise, question the meaning of innovation.
Among the latter, there is a lack of consensus on the meaning of innovation. Indeed, there are many different points of view in the literature. For example, for Benoit Godin, innovation is essentially a political concept. Beginning with a history of the concept of innovation, he points out that it should be recalled that the concept was historically constructed and “those who have challenged innovation for centuries – governments – are the same ones who have de-challenged it, making innovation an instrument of economic policy” (Godin 2014).
For the supporters of design thinking, innovation generates meaning for the user. Popularized in the early 2000s under the aegis of Tim Brown, design thinking is presented as a “methodology that imbues the full spectrum of innovation activities with a human-centered design ethos” (Brown 2008, p. 86). The meaning of innovation and its perception by users are then considered as the designer’s main challenges1 in order to avoid a dichotomy in meaning between the designer and the user, and to guarantee the success of the innovation. However, a question remains open, wondering if an innovation that makes sense for the user is necessarily advisable at a societal level?
For the promoters of responsible innovation, responsibility appears to be the aim of innovation. However, and as several authors have emphasized (Gossart 2018; Pavie 2018), this forgets that innovation considered responsible for its aim can have catastrophic ecological footprints or can be produced under deplorable working conditions. It also forgets that the concept of responsible innovation is not separate from the issues of the risk society; this, besdies the fact that it is a revival of the figure of the omniscient actor, leads to a lock-in related to the paradigm of possible control over an uncertain future (Genus and Iskandarova 2017).
Despite generating knowledge, these different points of view underrate the “political meaning of innovation” question, as the link between innovation issues and the city2. However, we will show that the circumspect view about innovation evoked above is intimately linked to the loss of the political meaning of innovation. We shall see that while this loss of meaning has led to a questioning of innovation, it has not only contributed to rehabilitating innovation but it has also opened the way to a renewed conception of innovation that acknowledges the fact that innovation must meet the inseparable objectives of creating value for the user and society. Because it rehabilitates the question of the political meaning of innovation, we will thus present the outlines of the Penser le Sens de l’Innovation (PSI) (Thinking about the Meaning of Innovation) approach (Chouteau et al. 2020). We will see, along the way, how this approach is situated in relation to the different points of view mentioned above and how the epistemology of innovation can highlight updated innovation practices, issues in sync with major contemporary challenges.
1.2. Conceptions of the meaning of innovation over time
The relationship between society and innovation is emblematic of the history of a tumultuous relationship.
Innovation was initially perceived negatively because, as Plato suggests, it calls into question the established order and leads “without anyone noticing, youth (…) to despise what is old and esteem what is new (…) it is the greatest evil that can befall any state” (Plato 2013, pp. 2679–2680)3. As Benoit Godin (2014) points out, this conception of innovation would last for centuries. Can we find a better illustration than the definition given in Diderot and d’Alembert’s Encyclopédie where innovation is defined as a disease “These kinds of innovation are always deformities in the political order” (Joncourt 1751, in Huyghe 2013)?
From the 16th century, however, innovation has been symbolic of a break with tradition, a break even more understandable because innovation is based on the idea of progress. From the end of the 16th century, Francis Bacon and René Descartes, for example, associated the progress of knowledge with that of technology and the progress of technology with the progressive improvement of living conditions for humankind. Indeed, technological progress is considered by René Descartes as the vector for the conception of a new “Garden of Eden” in which misery, illness and even death can be excluded, building on human genius (1966).
This vision of Progress, with a capital letter, we might say, culminated in the Age of Enlightenment, a century that could be considered as the moment of the victory of Progress against retrograde obscurantism. A century in which man would no longer endure the course of history but become the subject of history by taking God’s place in the order of creation and participating in the design of the world in which he lives. A century in which faith in the capacity of humankind to act through reason would prevail, to concretize moral and social ideals in the real world, which would lead to the development of Saint-Simonianism in France. Indeed, this post-revolutionary doctrine initiated by Saint Simon saw in the rise of industry “a true project for society, capable of allowing a policy favorable to the public interest and generating true social peace” (Ménissier 2016), leading him to affirm that the golden age of humanity was before us and not behind us.
History seems to agree with such a vision of things because, in France a century later, the Belle Epoque consecrated the advent of a period of prosperity sustained by the greatest wave of discoveries and innovations in history, a time when the sense of innovation continued to be seen through the prism of progress oriented by a political project: the increase in the happiness of humanity.
However, the 20th century marked a decisive turning point. At the beginning of the century, the belief in Progress collapsed and led, through the advent of the relationship between innovation and economic progress4, to a shift from a concept of innovation for society to that of innovation for business. The entry into the era of the consumer society opened up a process of “massification of the production of innovations” (Forest 2020). This process is not unrelated to market saturation, combined with exacerbated competition, which today condemns many companies to innovating simply to tread water. This observation may seem trivial, but it is not, as it helps us to understand that innovation, whatever its nature, has changed its status over time. In the majority of cases, it is no longer considered as a project at the service of society, but an end in itself, intended to anticipate the offers of potential or existing competitors; i.e. emphasizing the strategic meaning of innovation for the company and underrating the meaning of these innovations and the relationship we have with them. This observation is even more worrying as the shift from the meaning of innovation to that of a meaning of company-oriented innovation was combined, on the consumer side, with the idea that the increase in the consumption of innovations is connected to that of our well-being5, even though the correlation established between innovation and happiness is an illusion.
1.3. When innovation, like the phoenix, rises from the ashes
It is clear that, with the era of the consumer society, innovation has become dissociated from the idea of Progress and thus from a reflection on the meaning of society that these innovations help to create. This dissociation was even easier as the massification of the production and consumption of innovations seemed to make sense and led the designer to abandon their capacity for reflection and political orientation6 in favor of a process of continuous production of innovations.
Taking into account the unsustainable nature of the happiness offered by the consumption of innovations, combined with the fact that a consumer society is now more concerned with stimulating the desire to buy than providing individuals with “useful” consumption, has resulted in a gradual questioning of innovation in a context marked with:
– ecological urgency. The recent IPCC report has clearly sounded the alarm about the emergency we now find ourselves facing (IPCC 2018);
– an abundance of critical writings on the limits of innovations, since the 18th century, new reflections about the limits of progress beyond which we have as much to lose as to gain (Diderot 1829), and critical reflections on the development of technologies that appeared in the second half of the 20th century (Wiener 1959; Ellul 1990).
However, the latter should not be read in a negative way because, in reality, its benefit for innovation itself is substantial.
Indeed, initially, this questioning brings to light a narrow vision of innovation that would be essentially technological7. However, this is indicative of a misconception of innovation because it is not only technological (Forest 2017). Secondly, it highlights the fact that contemporary disenchantment with innovation is closely linked to the fact that “innovation does not, as in the past, tie itself to a moral and social purpose” (Ménissier 2011, p. 17), or, to put it another way, that the question of the relationship between innovation and society is not asked, since the illusion of the meaning of innovation has led to the eminently political question of knowing what innovations we want for what society being underrated. It is precisely this observation that has an “advantageous” effect on innovation.
Advantageous because it allows us to understand that the issues are not related to innovation itself but its lack of meaning. We must therefore be wary of throwing the baby out with the bath water too quickly, especially since, as we are forcefully reminded by the global pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (COVID-19), which first appeared on November 17, 2019 in the city of Wuhan (China) and which we are going through at the time of writing, we will not solve the major contemporary challenges without innovating, whether in the way we produce and consume, in our lifestyles, but also in our ways of thinking, which act as restrictive frameworks for innovation.
Indeed, the time we are living through is strangely reminiscent of the apocalyptic paintings that often inspired painters, from the Middle Ages to the 19th century. However, we should not forget that if the word “apocalypse” is today associated mainly with the idea of chaos, the term borrowed from the Latin apocalypsis8 actually means “revelation”. But what the current situation reveals to us is humankind’s extraordinary capacity for innovation to combat this unprecedented crisis, which has resulted in the emergence of new forms of solidarity9 (while others have had to reinvent themselves), the deployment of new pedagogical modalities to implement the distance learning continuity project requested by the French government, an unprecedented organization of collaboration between medical services in the city, in hospitals and private clinics to deal with the wave of severe cases, or the creation of new technologies for the rapid detection of COVID-19 in people suspected of carrying the virus, to name but a few examples.
Welcomed innovations are not only technological but also social, organizational and process-related. In his speech on March 12, 2020, French President Emmanuel Macron, for example, hailed caregivers as “formidable innovators and mobilizers”, on March 27, 2020, French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe, for his part, praised teachers for their “remarkable work, imagination and inventiveness” in trying to guarantee the pedagogical continuity called for by the Minister of National Education and Youth.
These innovations largely approved because inaction is not an option in the face of the COVID-19 crisis. A dam has to be built, to use the terms of the French government, and this is reflected in the multiplication of calls for innovative projects, such as the €10 million call for projects launched on March 19, 2020 by the French Ministry of the Armed Forces. This call focused on the search for innovative solutions (which could be “directly mobilized” against the virus) related to the automation of tasks for sampling, room and equipment cleaning, mass production capacity for decontamination solutions and detection of the virus in the environment, or following the example of the call for projects from the “Coalition Innovation Santé – Crise Sanitaire” (“Health Innovation Coalition – Health Crisis”)10, aimed at designing innovative solutions (information, home care, patient monitoring, medical care, etc.) to help to relieve congestion in the healthcare system and enable patients with chronic diseases to continue to receive care. This public acclaim for innovation is far from being unique to France. It is global, as evidenced by the 73 calls for projects launched by States and private players from around the world (United States, Great Britain, Germany, Brazil, India, etc.) to find innovative solutions against COVID-19 over the period from March 20 to May 31, 202011.
These were innovations whose mobilizing force12 lies precisely in the fact that they are charged with a political meaning, the term political being understood as we have indicated in its primary meaning of “that which concerns the citizen”. For example, the aim is to ensure the health of all, to take care of the most fragile people, to improve relationships between people or to improve the management of health risks related to the fight against the COVID-19 crisis previously mentioned. This is precisely where the second advantageous effect of questioning innovation lies since it opens up a new conception of innovation that acknowledges that innovation must meet the inseparable objectives of creating value for the user and society13, and advocates that innovation in the 21st century should be a political14 innovation. In this way, this questioning, rather than leading to a fearful retreat that sets up a state of paralysis leading, for example, to inaction among engineering students who are extremely concerned about environmental problems because they fear of contributing further to environmental degradation, gives meaning to action.
1.4. In search of lost meaning
If we accept the idea that the question of the political meaning of innovation needs to be rehabilitated, the question then arises of how to reconfigure ourselves intellectually to achieve this; during the 20th century, we lost our ability to give meaning to our actions, too busy developing and implementing “efficient” design methods aimed at rapidly producing a continuous flow of effective innovations, such as methods of functional analysis, innovative design, innovative project management or even eco-design. Indeed, while the latter makes it possible to reduce the environmental impact of products, it leaves the question of the meaning of innovation in the shadows, as we will see.
We defend the thesis that innovation in the 21st century implies getting rid of lazy thinking reduced to the application of methods for innovation, which, while they freed the designer from thinking about the political meaning of innovations, prevented them from demanding and creating real innovations. It is in this perspective that we have developed the above-mentioned Penser le Sens de l’Innovation (PSI) approach (Chouteau et al. 2020).
The PSI approach emphasizes that the question of meaning must be considered from the dual point of view of its direction and significance. Direction, which, if one dares to draw an analogy with the development of a tree, corresponds to a branch of the tree. It refers to a principle of a possible solution (concept) and recalls a characteristic of the design process, namely that there is no single solution to an identified problem, but a set of solutions that refers to the idea of fields of possibilities. The deployment of a direction depends on the capacity of the imagined concept to make sense for the user. Does any creation of value for the user automatically make sense for our society? Nothing is less certain! Just take the example of Instagram. It is a tool that allows users to take a photo, edit it and then share it online with their network, and whose social dimension has often been highlighted. But what kind of society are we shaping when we design devices that stimulate the cult of the image and the perfect body and make people feel that they do not live lives as rich and exciting as others do? This is why the PSI approach invites the designer to consider the meaning of each direction at the level of the user, on the one hand, and of society, on the other hand, because, while it is now commonly accepted that an innovation is always the translation of compromises made during the design process (compromises between functions to be in sync with specifications, and compromises between stakeholders), we cannot forget that it is meaningful to the society it helps to design.
Figure 1.1.Innovation meaning tree (according to Forest 2020)
Rehabilitating the question of the political meaning of innovation is therefore what differentiates the PSI approach from that of design thinking. The latter, precisely because it is user-centered, leaves the question of meaning for society in the shadows, whereas the PSI approach forces the designer to think about the meanings for the user AND society, leading the designer to become aware of the solutions they project and to question the meaning of the society they are helping to create. This leads us to Anthony Masure, who asserts that design thinking has removed design from all political thinking (Masure 2015). However, make no mistake about what we are saying: this is not a question of rejecting any interest in design thinking, but more modestly of emphasizing that the PSI approach is more an extension of design thinking than an opposition to it.
Re-emphasizing the question of the political meaning of innovation also allows us to distinguish the PSI approach from the “Design-driven innovation” that Roberto Verganti promotes. According to him, individuals do not only buy products and services but also meanings. He advocates moving from a focus on the “what” to a focus on the “why”. The objective is to design an innovation that proposes a new reason for the question of why people use a device, which requires interpreters to collaborate (Dell’Era et al. 2018, p. 388). While Roberto Verganti’s approach puts the question of meaning at the forefront, the fact remains that we are still dealing with the user and not with the question of whether any innovation that makes sense for the user is necessarily “good” or “desirable” for society.
The controversy over the French StopCovid application, designed by the National Institute for Research in Digital Science and Technology (Inria), and inspired by the TraceTogether system implemented in Singapore, is emblematic of the issue. In an interview given to the newspaper Le Monde on April 8, 2020, Health Minister Olivier Véran revealed that the government considered the development of the application, with a view to limiting the spread of the virus by identifying chains of transmission and people who have been in contact with a patient who has tested positive. This project generated, from the very next day, a significant amount of opposition. If this application can make sense:
– for the user, promising to increase their safety and security,
– for many epidemiology and health specialists, who consider the application an indispensable tool to avoid a second health crisis
15
,
– it can question the society that we contribute to design using it.
Indeed, beyond the ongoing debate on the effectiveness of this application (according to expert estimates, at least 60% of French people would have to download it for its relevance. Bluetooth technology can produce false positives, and, in an open letter on April 19, 2020, 300 international researchers asked states not to abuse digital tracking technologies, pointing out the security flaws in applications such as StopCovid, etc.), we cannot hide the fact that it raises legitimate questions in terms of respect for individual liberties and privacy protection, and that we must be wary, as indicated by the Secretary of State to the Prime Minister Marlène Schiappa, of letting our anxiety in the face of the crisis lead us to endorse a clear retreat from our rights. These are questions that the PSI approach invites us to ask ourselves, beyond the search for a “why” directed to the user.
1.5. The PSI approach: a philosophy of, and for, action
The PSI approach is a philosophical approach to action based on “political heuristics”. It is not intended to be an overarching and moralizing discourse that would consist of making an ex post value judgment on this or that innovation. More modestly, it aims to reconnect, through the innovation project, with debates relating to the society we conceive and within which we evolve. In this way, innovation is not, in the words of Benoit Godin, just a political concept, or, to put it another way, the servant of politics, it is also a political project.
Nor does the PSI approach aim to integrate fear as part of the innovation process. Indeed, we live in an era marked by an ambient catastrophism of which collapsology is the archetype. The fatalistic conception of collapsology breaks, however, with the words of Jean-Pierre Dupuy who, in his book Pour un catastrophisme éclairé, proposed that the image of a future sufficiently catastrophic was repulsive and sufficiently credible to trigger the actions that would prevent its realization (Dupuy 2002) because this “heuristic of fear” (Jonas 1990) acts as a revealing indicator, in sync with the photographic sense of the term “developer”, of what has incomparable value for us16 and, contrary to the precautionary principle, avoids sticking to a probabilistic management of risks where it would be necessary to anticipate the catastrophe (Dupuy 2002). Political heuristics aspires, through reflection on action, to bring the designer closer to an action that makes sense for society and questions the values we wish to defend. The political heuristic underlying the PSI approach thus appears to be a positive heuristic because it is not a question, contrary to Hans Jonas’ heuristic of fear, of identifying the undesirable in order to lead to prudence and responsibility17, but of exploring the meanings of the different possible directions, which allows for innovation in consciousness. In doing so, the PSI approach is also a philosophy for action.
Indeed, the PSI approach claims a practical sense that invites us to think about the meaning of what we conceive during the very process of innovation and has an active scope turned towards the future. The horizon targeted is the same as that of Hans Jonas’ heuristic of fear, for which we need to emancipate ourselves from the concept of responsibility conceived ex post with regard to effective action (of what has been done) in favor of a conception of responsibility that proceeds from the future (from the power to do). However, while the scope of the heuristic of fear is turned towards the question of preserving our humanity (“Act in such a way that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of an authentically human life on earth” (Jonas 1990. p. 30), “never must the existence or the essence of man as a whole be put at stake in the gamble of acting” (Jonas 1990, p. 62). The PSI approach invites us to question in each innovation the values we wish to defend, whether they are directly linked to our survival or not18. This means, for example, questioning ourselves on the tension between the right to privacy and the right to security when designing a video surveillance system or questioning ourselves on the contemporary trend of rewards. Some stores, for example, give discount coupons to customers who bring back their plastic bottles. If this seems effective at first in inciting virtuous practices, what kind of society are we building by moving in this direction? Isn’t the implementation of such a system in opposition to altruism, which seems to be a key element of living together?
It is clear that the PSI approach is not an apology for innovation geared towards economic growth19, but an approach that invites us to think of a society in which innovation cannot be seen as a producer of gadget innovations linked to an unbridled and unreasonable consumer society, barely created and already outdated, while basic needs remain poorly met. What about inequalities in access to water – one in three people in the world do not have access to safe water and 40% of the world’s population (i.e. 3 billion people) do not have facilities for washing their hands with soap and water at home – at a time when the WHO is reminding us that handwashing is an essential preventive measure in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic we are experiencing? What about the obligation to stay indoors when some people, including in developed countries such as France, do not have access to housing? Or what about the inequality of access to healthcare, which is reflected in the over-representation of black Americans among COVID patients in the United States?
The PSI approach is also the way to question the priorities we define. Let us take the water crisis as an illustration. A lack of water is no longer the prerogative of poor countries and now affects rich countries. In this context, is it not anecdotal to plan to create a device that allows the first two liters of water that arrive cold in the shower and are, most of the time, wasted to be recouped, when we know that, in London, losses and leaks caused by a dilapidated distribution network are estimated to be the equivalent of 300 Olympic swimming pools per day, or that 20% of water is wasted before it even reaches homes (Carrington 2017)? Let us also take the example of masks. Their use has become widespread as part of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this is not a good thing; because of their single use, they have a negative impact on the environment, whether we consider their footprint from the point of view of the consumption of materials they represent or the pollution they cause, as deplored by activists from the NGO Oceans Asia in Hong Kong. If the disposable mask materializes the choice of a device that prioritizes access to health for all over environmental preservation, other directions are possible, such as Le Mask français (the French Mask), which has a reusable part that reduces waste but which may have a slightly higher cost. We can see through this example how the PSI approach leads to a reflection on the values that we wish to have, a reflection that allows us to innovate consciously. We can finally make the hypothesis that the PSI approach is a vector for asking ourselves about the problems we are dealing with. We join Navi Radjou for whom “brainstorming to solve problems that do not exist is over. We need to go to the field to solve the real problems around energy, health and education” (Radjou 2020). In the same way, the PSI approach seems capable of leading us to question the current trend that tends to establish a hierarchy between social issues, as if the ecological question were more important and deserved priority treatment over the issues of equity, freedom, the aging population or the inclusion of people with disabilities. Finally, the PSI approach is a way to avoid false good ideas, such as the creation of reusable straws. These straws were born of the realization that every day 1 billion non-recyclable straws are thrown away worldwide, including nearly 9 million in France in fast food restaurants alone. But shouldn’t a real sensitivity to environmental issues invite us to stop drinking from straws in order to stop wasting straws rather than creating recyclable straws? Similarly, the management of the plastic waste that invades our soil, our rivers and our oceans is currently viewed through the prism of recycling, presented as the miracle solution. But as Nathalie Gontard points out, “this mirage overshadows the only real solution: reducing plastic production” (2018).
Finally, it should be pointed out that while the PSI approach invites debate on the world we are shaping, this debate is not the prerogative of politicians and scientists, a sort of “republic of experts”, who would be the only ones with the intellectual bases required for debate. Because it takes place during the design process itself, the question of meaning engages the designer and all stakeholders in the design process and cannot be restricted to so-called “responsible” or “social” innovations (Chouteau et al. 2020).
Table 1.1.Putting the PSI and Jonas approaches into perspective (according to Forest 2020)
PSI approach
Criteria
Jonas concept
Innovating with awareness
Basis for action
Principle of responsibility
Political heuristics
Underlying heuristics
Heuristics of fear
Thinking about the meaning of what we create and, through it, our humanity.
Function of heuristics
Ensuring the survival of humanity
During the design process
Questioning time
Ex post
observation: the fact that a technique is potentially dangerous must lead to its suspension because the irreversible nature of the consequences “forbids rolling the dice”.
Strength of proposals
Nature of the prescriptions
Force of restrictions or even prohibitions
Technical democracy (designers, users, institutions, etc.)
Key player
An elitism in favor of committees of wise men (a benevolent dictatorship)
It is clear from the above that the PSI approach implies thinking about innovation beyond the mere question of the potential value for the user by integrating, from the outset, the relationship that the innovation in question has with our society. This approach implies the use of critical thinking, i.e. it invites us to develop a state of mind and practices that allow us to emancipate ourselves from the register of the promises of innovation in the making and to think about the meaning of each projected direction20. It is on this condition that it is possible for us to question ourselves collectively about the choices we make and the directions we favor and thus to innovate consciously. We know, for example, that the construction of a tramway line leads to higher land prices, which can result in socio-spatial segregation. In the Sustainable City Factory project, the PSI approach thus rehabilitates the eminently political question of what we decide to do (building eco-neighborhoods or reducing socio-spatial segregation?) and the place of the human and social sciences in thinking about tomorrow’s innovation.
1.6. By way of conclusion
Today, our society is faced with unprecedented challenges (access to water, education, health, waste and pollution management, etc.) in a context marked by ecological urgency. However, if the situation seems desperate, it is not necessary to despair of everything.
In the above, and after having indicated that the questioning of innovation is in fact not a criticism of innovation but a criticism of its loss of meaning, we have presented the PSI approach, which places the question of the political meaning of innovation in the very process of innovation.
The latter supposes that we extend our thinking beyond the point where it takes us today, i.e. beyond the sense of innovation for the user. To mobilize the PSI approach is indeed:
– to use a reflexive approach that involves our critical faculties and helps the designer to work within common sense, i.e. in a sense that is accepted by and acceptable to all because it meets the values of our society, values that should not be forgotten and are culturally and historically located;
– to work against the dictatorship of “ever more” because our society does not always demand more innovation; it wants the best.
Some will no doubt see in the PSI approach a heroic conception of the designer. This is a conception that we willingly accept on the condition that we appreciate this heroism not in the designer’s capacity to transform the world but in their capacity to become philosophers in action and to reintroduce a certain form of wisdom.
1.7. References
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 84–92.
Brundtland, G.H. (1987). Notre avenir à tous. Rapport de la commission mondiale pour l’environnement et le développement, Fleuve, Montreal.
Carrington, D. (2017). Water companies losing vast amounts through leakage. As drought fears rise. The Guardian, 11 May 2017 [Online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/11/water-companies-losing-vast-amounts-through-leakage-raising-drought-fears.
Chouteau, M., Forest, J., Nguyen, C. (2020). Innovations for Society: The P.S.I. Approach. ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons.
Dell’Era, C., Altuna, N., Verganti, R. (2018). Designing radical innovations of meanings for society: Envisioning new scenarios for smart mobility. Creativity and Innovation Management, 387–100.
Descartes (1966). Discours de la méthode, 6th part. Gallimard.
Diderot, D. (1829). Correspondance inédite de Grimm et de Diderot, et recueil de lettres, poésies, morceaux et fragments retranchés par la censure impériale en 1812 et 1813. Editions Furne.
Dupuy, J.-P. (2002). Pour un catastrophisme éclairé. Quand l’impossible est certain. Editions du Seuil.
Ellul, J. (1990). La technique ou l’enjeu du siècle. Economica.
Forest, J. (2017). Creative Rationality and Innovation. ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons.
Forest, J. (2020). Thinking about the meaning of innovation. In Innovations for Society: The P.S.I. Approach, Chouteau, M., Forest, J., Nguyen, C. (eds). ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons.
Genus, A. and Iskandarova, M. (2018). Responsible innovation: Its institutionalisation and a critique. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 128, 1–9.
Godin, B. (2014). Une histoire intellectuelle de l’innovation. De l’interdit politique à la politique publique. In Principes d’économie de l’innovation, Boutillier, S., Gallaud, D., Forest, J., Laperche, B., Tanguy, C., Temri, L. (eds). Peter Lang.
Gontard, N. (2018). Déchets plastiques : lee recyclage n’est pas la solution. The Conversation [Online]. Available at: https://theconversation.com/dechets-plastiques-la-dangereuse-illusion-du-tout-recyclage-90359.
Gossart, C. (2018). Innovation: To be or not to be responsible? IMT Science and Technology News [Online]. Available at: https://blogrecherche.wp.imt.fr/en/2018/10/19/responsible-innovation/.
Huyghe, P.-D. (2013). Cycle de conférences sur l’Innovation de l’ENSCI, Tuesday 8 October. ENSCI [Online]. Available at: http://www.ensci.com/actualites/une-actualite/news/detail/News/18248/.
IPCC (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C. Rapport du GIEC [Online]. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.
Jonas, H. (1990). Le principe responsabilité. Editions Le Cerf.
Masure, A. (2015). L’injonction à la créativité dans le design. Des logiciels de création innovants aux programmes inventifs. In Proceedings de l’injonction à la créativité à sa mise en œuvre : quel parallèle entre monde de l’art et monde productif, Kogan, A.-F. and Andonova, Y. (eds). MSH Ange-Guépin.
Ménissier, T. (2011). Philosophie et innovation, ou philosophie de l’innovation? Klesis – revue philosophique, 18, Varia.
Ménissier, T. (2016). Innovation et histoire. Une critique philosophique. Quaderni, 91 [Online]. Available at: http://journals.openedition.org/quaderni/1009.
Pavie, X. (2018). L’innovation à l’épreuve de la philosophie. PUF.
Plato (2013). Œuvres complètes. Arvensa Editions, ePub, December.
Wiener, N. (1959). Man and the machine (Interview with Norbert Wiener).
