139,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
In a context marked by unprecedented challenges (the struggle against inequalities, climate change, etc.), innovation appears to be the readymade universal scapegoat. Innovation for Society, however, suggests that we look at innovation differently, by inviting us to innovate with consciousness. To do this, the authors introduce an approach they call Penser le Sens de l'Innovation (P.S.I., or "thinking about the meaning of innovation"), comprising a set of tools largely from the humanities and social sciences (observation, cartography, creativity, storytelling, etc.) to lead us to this "meaning". By considering the question of "meaning" from the point of view of both direction and signification, the authors rehabilitate the eminently political question of knowing which innovations we choose for which societies.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 354
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
Introduction: The P.S.I. Approach to Thinking About the Meaning of Innovation
1 Thinking About the Meaning of Innovation
1.1. Introduction
1.2. Why bring up the question of meaning?
1.3. The P.S.I. approach (Penser le Sens de l’Innovation)
1.4. References
2 Curiosity Killed the Cat
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Origins, functions, definitions
2.3. Observing in order to innovate
2.4. Applications
2.5. Conclusion
2.6. References
3 Identifying and Defining a Meaningful Problem
3.1. Introduction
3.2. The “problem” of the problem
3.3. What are the issues of meaning about the problem?
3.4. What should we do?
3.5. Conclusion
3.6. References
4 Outlining the Meaning of Innovation Using Cartography
4.1. Introduction
4.2. History, definitions and concepts
4.3. Issues linked to cartography in regard to innovation
4.4. Applications
4.5. Conclusion
4.6. References
5 Bringing Meanings to Life
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Creativity representations
5.3. Creativity issues
5.4. Key ingredients for creativity
5.5. Conclusion
5.6. References
6 In Search of Hidden or Lost Meaning
6.1. Introduction
6.2. Collecting data through interviews
6.3. Thoughts on the meaning of an innovation: some examples
6.4. Applications
6.5. Conclusion
6.6. References
7 Intermediary Representations as a Vector for Thinking About the Meaning of Innovation
7.1. Introduction
7.2. From the representation of the product to that of the meaning of innovation
7.3. Issues of intermediary representations in the innovation process
7.4. Implementations
7.5. Conclusion
7.6. References
8 What if Innovation were Recounted to Me?
8.1. Introduction
8.2. Narrative functions
8.3. Issues and examples for thinking about meaning
8.4. Applications
8.5. Conclusion
8.6. References
Conclusion
Index
Other titles from ISTE in Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Management
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 2
Table 2.1. Highlighting the hardware system of an object. Example of a teenager’s...
Table 2.2. Recording field notes (Marianne Chouteau and Céline Nguyen)...
Table 2.3. A “bug-notebook (Designed by Marianne Chouteau and Célin...
Chapter 5
Table 5.1. Classification of ideas according to Guy Aznar [DEB 11, p. 144]...
Chapter 6
Table 6.1. Summary table showing the most important points made in an interview.
Table 6.2. List of socio-technical issues that may be present in the interviews a...
Chapter 7
Table 7.1. Outline of a test plan
Chapter 8
Table 8.1. Drawing inspiration from fictional stories
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1. Poster from the 1933 Chicago World’s Fair whose motto was “Scien...
Figure 1.2. Trends in household appliance possession between 1968 and 2016 [...
Figure 1.3. Moulinex and Hotpoint advertising from the 1950s. For a color ve...
Figure 1.4. Technology adoption [BRI 97]. For a color version of this figure...
Figure 1.5. Innovation meaning tree. For a color version of this figure, see...
Figure 1.6. The innovation meaning tree as a decision tree. For a color vers...
Figure 1.7. Line of innovations
Figure 1.8. Putting the P.S.I. and Jonassian approaches into perspective
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1. Diagram illustrating various times of the use of observation. Fi...
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1. Two opposing logics. Technician design vs. use-assisted design [...
Figure 3.2. French advertisement praising the merits of an automatic washing...
Figure 3.3. A 6-hour VHS videotape. Photograph taken by Evan-Amos.Source: Co...
Figure 3.4. Betamax C7 video recorder. Photograph by Bettenburg. Source: Com...
Figure 3.5. The AT…T picturephone (1972–1973). Photograph taken by R. Diehl....
Figure 3.6. Pathway to the 5-whys method [BEN 11]
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1. Cosmography of Ptolemy. Source: Commons.wikimedia.org. For a col...
Figure 4.2. Example of a mind map. Source: wikimedia.org. For a color versio...
Figure 4.3. Example of an empathy map, based on models developed by Benoït D...
Figure 4.4. Example of a canvas for designing a map of the imaginary, using ...
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1. Graph representing the frequency of the word creativity in Frenc...
Figure 5.2. Russian doll processes.
Figure 5.3. Gutenberg press exhibited at the Musée de l’imprimerie, Lyon © J...
Figure 5.4. Winemaker’s press, Arnas © J. Forest. For a color ...
Figure 5.5. Impact of creativity on turnover [FOR 14, p. 3]. https://landing...
Figure 5.6. Return to shareholders of creative firms [BRO 17]. For a color v...
Figure 5.7. Examples of creatures from the experiment conducted by Thomas Wa...
Figure 5.8. Value creation considered from different points of view. Source:...
Figure 5.9. Potential concept analysis sheet
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1. Example of an initial interview guide and prompt keywords
Figure 6.2. Summary table to compare the projected meanings of innovation. T...
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1. Leonardo da Vinci’s Ornithoptera (source: http://cornillon-loren...
Figure 7.2. Prescriptive design model according to Gerhard Pahl and Wolfgang...
Figure 7.3. Scenario for the use of the O’Boil strainer which received the J...
Figure 7.4. From the sketch of Starck’s Juicy Saltwater… to its final form. ...
Figure 7.5. Typology of scenarios revealed by intermediary representations
Figure 7.6. User scenario resulting from a new mobility solution to facilita...
Figure 7.7. Criticality of the steering of innovative projects [BOL 16]...
Figure 7.8. Evolution of project cost and product cost adapted from [AND 04]...
Figure 7.9. Prototype Dyson vacuum cleaner made from cardboard Source: https...
Figure 7.10. 3D modeling and printing of the O’Boil strainer Source: http://...
Figure 7.11. Example of the use of the signification test graph for the conc...
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1. Poster from the Borie company, manufacturer of hollow bricks (18...
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
iii
iv
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
Smart Innovation Set
coordinated by
Dimitri Uzunidis
Volume 28
Innovation for Society
The P.S.I. Approach
Marianne ChouteauJoëlle ForestCéline Nguyen
First published 2020 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 Ltd27-37 St George’s RoadLondon SW19 4EUUK
www.iste.co.uk
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.111 River StreetHoboken, NJ 07030USA
www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2020
The rights of Marianne Chouteau, Joëlle Forest and Céline Nguyen 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: 2020934812
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-477-3
Introduction: The P.S.I. Approach to Thinking About the Meaning of Innovation1
In 2017, according to the OECD, one adult in five was obese in the European Union and almost 4 out of 10 in the United States (OECD, 2017). The World Health Organization (WHO) now describes obesity as the first non-infectious epidemic in history, and projections for 2030 are pessimistic. Obesity is predicted to rise even as it increases the risk of chronic disease and death, making it a health disaster as well as an unprecedented financial catastrophe:
In 2001, in the United States (according to the Atlanta Center for Disease Control and Prevention – CDC), costs were estimated at $117 billion (about 10% of health care spending). […] In France, the last cost study, dated 1992, put the cost at 2% of health expenditure – at a time when obesity was still underdeveloped there. It can probably be estimated, taking into account its evolution (it has doubled since 1990) to more than 4% of health expenditure – which, based on the last known figure for health insurance expenditure, would lead to a cost of 5.6 billion euros.2
At the same time, 52 million children under the age of 5 years are extremely underweight worldwide, according to UN (United Nations) data. These figures are chilling, and they call for an urgent worldwide response because malnutrition is no longer sparing any country in the world.
According to the WHO, the number of people aged over 60 years is expected to double between 2000 and 2050 from 605 million (11%) to 2 billion (22%). Given the overall improvement in the quality of life and health of people in general, the aging of the population is affecting the entire planet, with the number of people aged 60 years and over increasing rapidly in contrast to the number of younger people. The aging of society raises the question of the care of dependent persons, their isolation and their greater vulnerability, which must be answered urgently.
The situation is just as worrying on the climate side. While there has been an increase in drought over the past 50 years in Africa, northern Latin America and southern Eurasia, rainfall and flooding phenomena have intensified. May 2018 was the rainiest month ever recorded in France. Scientists believe that intense rainfall events are very likely to become more frequent in the future and that, at the same time, drought-affected areas are expected to expand. These situations are very costly and traumatic for the population. The floods that occurred in France between May 25 and June 14, 2018, affected more than 200,000 people at an estimated cost of 430 million euros, according to the French Insurance Federation. To these “material” costs are added environmental costs due to the number of products washed into the waterways. The consequences are also dire for wildlife: many river fish are found dead on the roads and trapped when floodwaters recede. The findings of the recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are instructive [IPC 18]. It estimates that, if global warming is limited to 1.5ºC, the global sea level will be 10 cm lower by 2100 than it would be if global warming is limited to 2ºC. The probability of the Arctic Ocean being ice-free in summer will be once per century if warming is limited to 1.5°C, but at least once every 10 years if it is limited to 2°C. With a warming of 1.5°C, 70–90% of coral reefs would disappear, while with a warming of 2°C, almost all (>99%) would be wiped out.
These examples are just a few illustrations of the current major challenges (such as access to water, education and health, reduction of energy consumption, waste and pollution management), in the face of which it seems difficult to remain indifferent or adopt a fatalistic stance. The question then arises: what can be done to address these challenges?
In this book, we argue that innovation is one way to meet these challenges. Does adopting such a view mean that we are prisoners of the injunction to innovate?
Certainly not. We are firmly convinced that a society that does not evolve can no longer meet the challenges it faces. This applies both to a company – which, in the absence of innovation, will see its products overtaken by those of its competitors and will be condemned – and to society at large.
Nevertheless, stating that innovation is a response to current major challenges does not mean that there are no limits to innovation. Indeed, this book invites us to think about a society in which innovation cannot be thought of as producing gadgets, which are essentially useless and linked to an unbridled and unreasonable consumer society. This book proposes to consider the meaning of innovation and thus determine its limits and outlines. It also proposes tools to achieve this.
Adopting such a point of view allows us to emancipate ourselves from the false debates surrounding innovation. Indeed, some people reject innovation on the grounds that it would necessarily be the avatar of capitalism3, which is shameless by nature. For example, it says that
innovation pays off, the word “new” sells, even laundry detergents or new-recipe cookies! Car manufacturers know that a new model has to come out every year. Clothing retailers too; fashion is merely the fruit of this capitalist innovation.4
However, when we follow the history of technology, we quickly realize that innovation did not wait for the advent of capitalism to show up. It even appears to be constitutive of our humanity.
Others indicate that there are alternative pathways such as what is commonly referred to as social innovation5. Indeed, following his participation in an Up Conferences dialogue that was organized for the Grand Final of the Tour of the Mouves Regions, Frédéric Mazzella, who is one of the founders of Blablacar, explained how his innovation belonged to the sphere of social innovation. According to him, Blablacar is an innovation that is centered on friendship and mutual aid. It enables people to save money (and by the same token to democratize the trip) and contributes to the preservation of the environment6. While these arguments seem indisputable, we cannot forget that Blablacar is nevertheless a perfect example of a social innovation that pushes capitalism further by placing it in the private sphere, and in the end, this social innovation does not question the place of the car but optimizes its use.
Similarly, there is also a very strong trend towards responsible innovation, apart from the fact that the concept of responsible innovation tends to create a divide between innovations that would be responsible and others that, by definition, would not be. We agree with Xavier Pavie [PAV 12] who deplored the fact that the question of responsibility is posed as an end in itself. Too often responsibility is seen as a starting point. However, this neglects the fact that innovation deemed responsible in its purpose can either have a catastrophic ecological footprint (a bio-sourced bag is biodegradable but the production is more polluting) or be carried out in deplorable working conditions. The industrialization of organic food is accompanied, for example, by questions about the fair remuneration of employees and the illegal status of some of them7. Finally, he stressed that responsible innovation by its very nature does not exist. Responsible innovations are so because they have become so after a process in which the ability to anticipate all risks has been at the forefront8.
In our opinion, the question is not to develop social, responsible or any other specific type of innovation, as this leads to restricting the spectrum of possible innovations from the outset. Rather, we dare to go a step further by thinking about the meaning of the innovations we are intending, which amounts to restoring the political issue of innovation and innovating with consciousness. In doing so, we must therefore go beyond the question of impacts, which is often asked but is, in our opinion, insufficient or even pointless if we do not invest in the primary question of meaning.
Let us make no mistake about what we are talking about. This book is not a plea against responsible or social innovations in favor of a triumphant system of capitalism but an invitation to question oneself and thus to conceive innovations differently. Thus, this book presents first an approach9 that allows us to innovate with consciousness and then a set of tools and methodologies from the social sciences and humanities that we have redesigned to achieve this objective10.
Specifically, the first chapter aims to introduce the positioning of our approach and its contributions. The following chapters will be dedicated to the presentation of different tools. The chapters are not organized chronologically, so that the reader can draw on them as he or she sees fit. It is therefore not a method to be followed step by step in a fixed order. Each of these chapters will be structured as follows. First, we will position the tool within the disciplines to understand its origins and functions. Then, we will present the challenges of the tool for innovation using examples and cases drawn from the history of innovations and technologies or from situations we have observed. Finally, we will describe the implementation of these tools.
In so doing, we have created a book intended for a varied audience: politicians, business leaders or heads of any other organizations, engineers or designers, consumers or citizens, provided that they are interested in innovation or engaged in an innovation process and want to ask themselves the right questions.
Notes
Introduction written by Marianne CHOUTEAU, Joëlle FOREST and Céline NGUYEN.
1
Penser le Sens de l’Innovation
is a approach created by the authors, which literally means in English “thinking about the meaning of innovation”. The meaning is the direction and the signification of innovation.
2
https://www.senat.fr/rap/r03-267/r03-26717.html.
3
We have already indicated that the history of technology can demonstrate the vacuity of such a point of view [FOR 18].
4
https://blogs.mediapart.fr/dominique-herbert/blog/290116/linnovation-invention-du-capitalisme
. It should be noted that in this forum, the author nevertheless accepts the idea that certain innovations are indisputable.
5
It should also be noted that the very definition of social innovation appears to be a pleonasm because innovation is social by nature: it is embedded in a social environment, that of the designers and that of the users.
6
https://up-conferences.fr/videos/frederic-mazzella-expose-innovations-sociales-portees-par-blablacar
.
7
Read this interview:
https://www.novethic.fr/actualite/social/consommation/isr-rse/bien-etre-animal-conditions-de-travail-produits-importes-les-5-cartons-rouges-adresses-au-bio-146007.html
.
8
We have already pointed out the vacuity of such a point of view, which would be acceptable only if we were endowed with perfect and omniscient rationality [FOR 18].
9
This approach is the result of the SHS research that we have been conducting for years on the genesis of innovations, the stories and representations of technology within INSA Lyon and now the Saint-Gobain INSA Lyon “Ingenious Engineers” chair.
10
It encourages teams engaged in a process of innovation to combine multiple skills and thus to go beyond a disciplinary vision.
1Thinking About the Meaning of Innovation
1.1. Introduction
The history of the concept of innovation is a fascinating one. It reveals that, contrary to popular belief, innovation has not always been viewed positively. Plato did not hesitate, in Book VII of Laws, to plead for tradition. Because innovation leads young people to despise what is old and to value what is new, it is, according to him, the worst of scourges for a polis, because it leads to instability. Ironically, “the same people who have challenged innovation for centuries – governments – are the same people who have de-challenged it, making innovation an instrument of economic policy” [GOD 14].
However, the massification of the production and consumption of innovations is nowadays questionable. What is the function of innovation in modern societies? What kinds of relationships does our modern society have with innovation? And more fundamentally, what innovations do we want for which societies?
In order to provide some answers to the above questions, this chapter invites us to think about the meaning of innovation. We will thus see that while the question of the meaning of innovation is an old question, over time it has been pushed into the background or even overshadowed by the question of the meaning of innovation for society. This observation will lead us to advocate for the reintegration of the meaning of innovation. The question then arises as to how to proceed. We will then present the Penser le Sens de l’Innovation (P.S.I.) approach (thinking about the meaning of innovation), which emphasizes that the question of meaning must be considered from the points of view of both direction and signification.
1.2. Why bring up the question of meaning?
In a society where the injunction to innovate is a permanent one, it is legitimate to ask why it seems necessary to think about the meaning of innovation. To better understand our position, let us go back in time.
1.2.1. The meaning of innovation: an old question
1.2.1.1. A positive view of innovation
The question of meaning is not new. Starting in the late 16th Century, Bacon and Descartes associated the progress of knowledge with that of technology, and the progress of technology with the progressive improvement of the living conditions of people. Indeed, Descartes considers technological progress as the vector of the creation of a new “Garden of Eden” in which poverty, illness and even death can be excluded thanks to human genius:
As soon as I had acquired some general notions of physics, and as soon as I began to experience them in various specific difficult situations, I noticed how far they could lead, and how they differed from the principles hitherto used, I believed that I could not keep them hidden without sinning greatly against the law which obliges us to procure, as far as it is in us, the general good of all men. For they have shown me that it is possible to attain knowledge that is very useful for life… [DES 37, p. 168].
Specifically, Descartes advocates knowledge for action, with innovations being considered from the point of view of their contribution to the improvement of the living conditions of humanity:
This is not only to be desired for the invention of an infinity of artifices, which would make it possible to enjoy, without any difficulty, the fruits of the earth and the conveniences found in it, but mostly for the preservation of health [DES 37, p. 168].
According to Descartes, technological change is thus associated with the idea of progress through and for collective action. This vision of Progress, with a capital “P”, one might say, culminated in the Age of Enlightenment, a century which claimed to be the time when Progress overcame backward-looking obscurantism. It was a century in which humans no longer experienced history passively but became the subject of this history, substituting God’s place in the order of creation and participating in the design of the world in which they lived. It was a century in which faith in the capacity of humans to act, through reason, to make moral and social ideals concrete in the real world. The French Revolution of 1789 seemed to embody the revolution of Progress taking place. This led Claude-Henri de Rouvroy, Count of Saint-Simon, to affirm that the golden age of humanity was before them and not behind them.
History seems to agree with such a point of view, because the Belle Époque, a century later in France, ushered in a period of prosperity supported by the greatest wave of discoveries (vaccination, X-rays) and innovations (the construction of Gustave’s Eiffel Tower, the birth of aviation with Clément Ader and the Orville and Wilbur Wright brothers, the birth of the film industry thanks to the invention of the cinematograph by the brothers Auguste and Louis Lumière, of the automobile industry following the invention and improvement of the combustion engine, the introduction of household electricity, etc.) in history. It was also a period marked by the advent of a new religion that Felix Le Dantec would describe as scientism1 and the advent of the figure of the inventor as a modern-day hero, a figure that would be magnified by popular literature following the example of Jules Verne’s writings in the 19th Century and truly global exhibitions such as the World’s Fair.
Figure 1.1.Poster from the 1933 Chicago World’s Fair whose motto was “Science finds, industry applies, man complies”.
Source: Wikipedia.org. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/chouteau/innovation.zip
1.2.1.2. A contested relationship to progress
However, as early as the 18th Century, the question of limits was raised, of a progress beyond which we had as much to lose as to gain:
Is it necessary to wrest from nature all that can be obtained from it […]? Is not everything else by chance the extravagance of the species […], that is to say, a sure means of living miserably, taking too much care to be happy? […] When nature has been defeated, the rest is just a display of triumph that costs us more than it gives back. [DID 29, p. 313]
In short, Diderot raises the question of the meaning of human action, of reasoned progress in the face of individuals, whether scientists or innovators, who do not necessarily master the powers that their minds give them.
While in the 19th Century there was growing suspicion of the relationship between technological progress, moral progress and the capacity of the latter to contribute to human happiness, World Wars I and II dealt a fatal blow to the very idea of progress when the most developed nations of the world clashed in a conflict in which technology played a key role and became its most deadly in the history of mankind2.
By the middle of the 20th Century, the break with the idea of progress seemed to be complete. Many intellectuals questioned the lack of knowledge of the transformational power offered by innovations [WIE 59] and denounced the autonomous nature of technology which inevitably had unintended consequences [ELL 54].
Let us take a concrete example to illustrate the point of view of the philosopher Jacques Ellul. The first urban drainage systems spread to cities in the Middle Ages. The most widely used technique was that of “everything out in the street”3, leading to ill health, epidemics and pestilences. It was not until 1854 that engineer Eugène Belgrand, under the orders of Baron Haussmann, set up a sewer system to convey effluents to the Seine downstream. A remarkable advance for Paris, this solution actually only displaced pollution in the northwestern part of Paris and paved the way for water treatment techniques before returning it to the natural environment. These stations in turn led to new innovations aimed at reducing water pollution (linked to the presence of drug residues that were responsible for the appearance of sequentially hermaphroditic fish) or reducing electricity consumption.
The history of wastewater treatment thus reveals that technology creates as many problems as it solves and leads to a process of self-generation of technology in which people are now obliged to repair the damage caused by technology by means of new technical innovations which themselves create new problems [JON 90]4. There is in fact an empowerment of the technology creation process. However, this process can obscure the question of initial intentions and, in so doing, confuse the issue of the overall direction of modern society at a time when the long-term effect of technologies is increasingly unpredictable5.
1.2.2. The illusion of meaning
While the first half of the 20th Century sounded the death knell for the relationship established between innovation and progress, the second half of the 20th Century marked the advent of the relationship between innovation and economic progress and, more specifically, growth. However, as we will see, the advent of the era of the consumer society ushered in a period characterized by the illusion of meaning, or even the absence of it.
1.2.2.1. From the meaning of innovation for society to the meaning of innovation for business
During the period of the Trente glorieuses6 [FOU 79], most Western economies experienced exceptional growth. The latter was closely linked to the rise in labor productivity, which led to a fall in the real price of many products. By way of illustration, the price of a bicycle, expressed in terms of the working time of a laborer without professional qualifications, fell from 800 work-hours in 1900 to 110 work-hours in 1955 and 46 work-hours in 1972 [FOU 05, p. 486]. The price of a 2CV car fell from 3,088 work-hours in 1949 to 908 work-hours in 1983 [FOU 05, p. 476]. The fall in real prices was reflected in a significant increase in purchasing power and a clear evolution of the level of household equipment (see Figure 1.2).
Figure 1.2.Trends in household appliance possession between 1968 and 2016 [DUR 18]. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/chouteau/innovation.zip
This was precisely where the problem lay. Indeed, at the end of World War II, households entered into an equipment race with durable goods that improved their comfort and freed up their time, such as small electrical appliances.
Figure 1.3.Moulinex and Hotpoint advertising from the 1950s. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/chouteau/innovation.zip
The corollary of this equipment race was an acceleration in the diffusion of innovations in society. For example, while it took almost a century for the telephone to be adopted by about 95% of the population, it took just 30 years for television to reach 50% of the population (Figure 1.4)7.
Figure 1.4.Technology adoption [BRI 97]. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/chouteau/innovation.zip
The equipment race also led to saturation in certain markets that were becoming renewal markets, such as that for television sets. Indeed, the latter, a victim of its own success, has many times been a saturated market. To boost sales, TV brands have been competing for decades to renew demand and offer increasingly sophisticated devices. This is a far cry from the first black and white TVs, where the picture was not always perfect (sometimes there was snow on the screen) and the user had to get up to change channels. Today, we surf with our remote control on the many channels of digital TV; we have replaced the cathode ray tubes by flatter plasma, LCD and OLED screens; the quality of the image and colors is constantly improving; QLED technology, the latest innovation in this field from Samsung, offers the brightest and sharpest image ever obtained to date, etc.
But one thing is clear: market saturation, coupled with increased competition, is now forcing many companies to simply innovate to maintain their positions. This is an example of the famous paradox of the Red Queen8 by biologist Leigh Van Valen. Transposed to the scale of companies, the Red Queen paradox helps us understand how competition forces companies to innovate constantly in order to stand out and gain a competitive advantage over competitors who, at the same time, adopt the same behavior so as not to see their own market position deteriorate.
The race for innovation that Samsung (Galaxy) and Apple (iPhone) have been engaged in for years is emblematic of this paradox, which is itself largely maintained by hard-hitting advertising campaigns. We remember, for example, the 2013 Samsung ad which “trolled” the size of the 4-inch screen of the iPhone 5 and 5S. This led Apple to respond in 2014 with a 4.7-inch model. In 2016, Apple again had to give in to competitive pressure by making its iPhone 7 waterproof following Samsung’s 2015 advertising campaign featuring an iPhone 6 user plunging his smartphone into a bowl of rice in an attempt to save it because, unlike Samsung’s Galaxy line, it was not waterproof!
The above example is instructive because 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 a goal in itself but a question and a means of survival that leads to a “massification of the production” of incremental innovations9 with a return on investment which is often disappointing:
Red Queen competition describes competitive rivalry in which firms must increase their investment in order to maintain their existing market position while at the same time failing to earn returns that are commensurate with higher investments [LAM 05, p. 4].
To put it another way, innovation, in the majority of cases, is no longer considered a project in the service of the society but as an end in itself intended to anticipate the offers of potential or existing competitors. But this statement does not end with the case of renewal markets. The relationship established between innovation and growth has over time brought to the forefront the strategic meaning of innovation for the company, leaving in the shadows the question of the meaning and that of the relationship we have with these innovations.
We are indeed witnessing a shift from a reflection on the meaning of innovation to a reflection on the meaning of innovation for the company, which is quite different. To put it another way, “innovation does not tie technological inventions and organizational rationalization to a social and moral purpose, as was done in the theme of progress” [MEN 11, p. 17]. It is in the same spirit that the words of the philosopher Eric Sadin should be heard when he accuses the President of the Republic of “bowing and scraping” before the CEO of Withings, a company at the cutting edge of connected objects [KYR 16]. The author criticizes in hollow that the economic imperative takes precedence over the meaning of these connected objects. He believes, for example, that the use of connected wrist devices or scales, as well as Big Data, generates behaviors that deserve to be analyzed for what they say about our relationship to the body (ongoing measurement, etc.) or to our free will. This statement is all the more worrying since the shift from thinking about the meaning of innovation to thinking about the meaning of innovation for the company seems to go hand in hand with the idea that everything that is new would necessarily be profitable for us!
1.2.2.2. The paradox of happiness
The illusion of the meaning of innovation is also noticeable on the consumer side. The consumption of innovation has now become a routine. Indeed, while innovation used to be exceptional, it is now expected and has become a “mass product”. The MediaCom study of September 10, 2015 reveals that 73% of French people make innovation a real purchasing criterion [MED 15]10, and underlines that innovation is desired by more than one target group11. Innovation attracts the vast majority of French people, regardless of their age (16–24 years: 91%, 50–65 years: 76%), sex (men: 82%, women: 81%) or socio-professional (CSP) status (inactive: 78%, CSP+: 85%).
This appetite for innovation is related to the fact that innovation is spontaneously associated with expected benefits, whether these benefits are
– functional: the innovation simplifies daily life, saves time, etc.;
– hedonistic: the innovation contributes to immediate satisfaction; it gives new magic to daily life by giving us new personal experiences;
– symbolic: the innovation contributes to making visible my identity, my belonging to communities, etc.
But more fundamentally, the idea that the increase in the consumption of innovations goes hand in hand with the increase in our well-being12, as if our happiness depends solely on the quantity of objects we possess or experiences we have had, is behind the innovation addiction13.
However, the correlation established between innovation and happiness is an illusion. The richest people, who, technically speaking, are able to consume the most innovations, are not necessarily the happiest. There are several reasons for this:
– the first acknowledges the ephemeral nature of the feeling of happiness associated with possession. Once acquired, the object quickly becomes ordinary and the bubble of happiness bursts;
– the second is our inability to be satisfied with what we have (we often behave like spoiled children and always want more);
– the third is related to the comparison effect. The rapid diffusion of innovations contributes to their democratization and thus reduces the conspicuous character attributed to them by wealthier consumers. Conversely, innovation produces frustration among the most disadvantaged who cannot access this new standard;
– finally, happiness cannot be reduced to the number of assets acquired; “it includes such intangible and subjective elements as feelings of belonging, justice, physical and social security, family development …” [BLO 10, p. 320].
Taking into account the unsustainable nature of the happiness offered by the consumption of innovations, coupled with the fact that a consumer society is now more concerned with stimulating the desire to buy than with providing individuals with “useful” consumption14, in a context increasingly marked by the question of the growing pressure on our environment, updates the question of the meaning of innovation.
1.2.2.3. In search of lost meaning
It will be understood that, with the era of the consumer society, innovation has become dissociated from the idea of Progress, and thus from the reflection on the meaning of society that these innovations help to conceive. This dissociation was made all the easier by the fact that the massification of the production and consumption of innovations seemed to generate meaning, meaning that led to obscuring the eminently political question of which innovations we want for which society15.
Fortunately, since the end of the 20th Century, more and more voices have been raised to denounce this lack of meaning and plead for a new way forward. Indeed, do we need to own one or even two private cars per family when a car is stationary on average 92% of the time? Is it really necessary for American homes to have more televisions than there are people [USA 06]16?
To put it another way, our society does not expect innovation but progress; it does not always demand more innovation but wants well-being17. This idea is clearly perceptible in the study Innology, baromètre de l’innovation carried out by the Iligo Agency and the Reload Consulting and Training Firm in 2017. According to the latter, the ideal function of an innovation is the preservation of natural resources (63%) [ILI 17]18.
However, we must be wary of reducing the question of the meaning of innovation solely to the concerns arising from the advent of ecological awareness. It is a matter of acknowledging that the question of the meaning of innovation is much broader and concerns all innovations designed by humans. Because, as Tristan Harris, Google’s former “product philosopher”, deplores, in referring to the relationship we have with our smartphone, Silicon Valley companies push us to spend as much time as possible on their interfaces (what he calls “captology”), and paradoxically “millions of hours are just stolen from people’s lives and there is not a single public debate about it”19.
It should also be stressed that, while we can only welcome the dissemination of the precepts of sustainable development within our society20, it is nevertheless necessary to think about the meaning of the proposed directions. The production of solar, wind or any “renewable” energy requires the use of rare minerals found in electric car batteries, X-ray machines or smartphone chips, which, in addition to being rare, are non-renewable, so that an innovation deemed responsible in its purpose may have a catastrophic ecological footprint or be carried out under deplorable working conditions [PAV 18, p. 167]. Similarly, it is necessary to question the tendency of our societies to think about the environment through the prism of recycling.
Let there be no misunderstanding about the meaning of what we are saying; it is neither a question of minimizing the ecological emergency situation in which our societies find themselves, nor of denying the benefits of this reflection, as they are palpable as evidenced by the reduction in the use of materials per unit manufactured and in the consumption of energy when using products, the replacement of polluting raw materials, etc. More modestly, it is a question of collectively questioning the meaning of this direction21. Does it not lead to maintaining, if not reinforcing, the process of massification of the production and consumption of innovations mentioned above? As Romain Debref points out, based on the work of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen:
Innovations that are considered environmental may well belong to, and reinforce, the era of Prometheus II rather than providing a transition to another form of development. Some projects based on a circular economic logic reflect this situation [DEB 16].
Similarly, we know that the sustainable urban factory does not benefit everyone equally, as it generally leads to higher land prices, which can contribute to socio-spatial segregation. Therefore, the P.S.I. approach invites us to make the sustainable city a political question: what do we decide to do with eco-neighborhoods or in order to reduce socio-spatial segregation?
