Knowledge Production Modes between Science and Applications 1 E-Book
142,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
Inventing isn't easy! In this book, twelve "valleys of death" are identified which, following a linear approach, correspond to the various obstacles that limit the various passages from an original idea to invention, and then to industrial innovation. These various limiting factors have a variety of origins: disciplined scientific training, weak general and scientific culture, New Public Management, hierarchical support, funding, evaluation, proof of concepts, complexity management, and heuristic and interdisciplinary approaches on the one hand, and attractiveness for the new on the other. After an idea is formulated, these contexts bring small elements of science into play, but above all human aspects ranging from motivation and the quality of exchanges to responsibility. In short, it is a possible dynamic way of living together to promote innovations stemming from science. This is not easy, but if the invention is profitable for society, the downstream sector can greatly facilitate the various stages of commercialization.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 481
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright Page
Foreword: Additive Manufacturing: From 3D Printing to Bio-printing
Preface
P.1. General thoughts on innovation
P.2. The example of 3D, 4D and bio-printing manufacturing
P.3. References
Introduction
I.1. Between invention, innovation and 3D/4D/BP printing?
I.2. References
1 Invention: Creativity to Proof of Concept
1.1. Introduction: concepts and the innovation “valleys of death”
1.2. Proof of concept
1.3. Interdisciplinarity and heuristic approach
1.4. Conclusion
1.5. References
2 From Invention to Innovation
2.1. Preamble
2.2. Introduction
2.3. Methodologies to be put in place
2.4. Innovation policies
2.5. Innovation models
2.6. Inventing/innovating
2.7. Standards, standardization, various filters
2.8. The question of industrial disruption
2.9. References
Conclusion of Volume 1
Index
Other titles from iSTE in Systems and Industrial Engineering – Robotics
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 2
Table 2.1. Distribution by adopter category.
Table 2.2. Critical analysis of KM definitions
Table 2.3. Analysis of KM approach failures and proposed recommendations
Table 2.4. Upstream–downstream relationships in innovation (disruptive)
List of Illustrations
Preface
Figure P.1. Interacting (and interdependent) elements in the transition from r...
Figure P.2. Characteristics of disruptive innovations
Figure P.3. Innovation between user and producer
Introduction
Figure I.1. Construction by voxels (or elementary bricks).
Figure I.2. Historical diagram of the principle object layer by layer
Figure I.3. Process-material coupling, energy stimulation in 4D printing.
Figure I.4. Stages reached (or to be reached) in the valorization process of 4...
Figure I.5. Moving (for example) from 4D to BP from “outside” the need to clos...
Figure I.6. An interactive project for the invention–innovation with feedback....
Figure I.7. For a future use of “smart” materials? (ICT for information and co...
Figure I.8. Keywords involved in the relationship between invention and innova...
Figure I.9. TRL (technological maturity level).
Figure I.10. Competitiveness development as seen by NNMI.
Figure I.11. PIA funding versus number of students and ranking.
Figure I.12. Relative evolution of Université de Lorraine’s ranking by year, a...
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1. Patents as a factor in reputation and performance
Figure 1.2. Convergence and divergence associated with different areas of scie...
Figure 1.3. Obstacles and disincentives to interdisciplinarity and mechanisms ...
Figure 1.4. Positioning the theme in the TRL/dimension
Figure 1.5. Ways of promoting creativity
Figure 1.6. “Strategic” evaluation basis of a project (POC)
Figure 1.7. Example of 3D printing (applicable to 4D printing)
Figure 1.8. Convergence players
Figure 1.9. Positioning the theme in the TRL/dimension
Figure 1.10. Proximal creativity in cooperation (Barrett et al. 2014): (a) aut...
Figure 1.11. From the initial to processing
Figure 1.12. How to create a POC
Figure 1.13. Daisy model
Figure 1.14. Typology of innovation regimes
Figure 1.15. Fields of expertise (the approximate Gaussian lines represent the...
Figure 1.16. Narrowing associated with radical translations
Figure 1.17. From pre-POC (or POC) to maturation
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1. Element of public trust in government
Figure 2.2. High-growth occupations between 2019 and 2030 (right: % change ove...
Figure 2.3. Principle of transfer (linear model)
Figure 2.4. Example of an innovative process from idea to product with two pos...
Figure 2.5. A transition from POC technology to industrial demonstrator (ID)
Figure 2.6. From idea to application
Figure 2.7. The transition from an invention “outside” the need, requiring a c...
Figure 2.8. Maslow’s pyramid
Figure 2.9. (a) Benefits of co-creation; (b) links with science; (c) key theme...
Figure 2.10. Illustration of trail dependency
Figure 2.11. Between vicious and virtuous circles in innovation
Figure 2.12. Support for innovation
Figure 2.13. Relationship between GDP versus industrial production
Figure 2.14. Relationships between economic power and innovation. (a) Relation...
Figure 2.15. Relationship between academic and industrial practices
Figure 2.16. Innovation ecosystem
Figure 2.17. Challenges facing European startups
Figure 2.18. Overview of the innovation system
Figure 2.19. Innovation accelerators
Figure 2.20. Transfer model based on a concept of contingent efficiency (HSTC:...
Figure 2.21. Design-thinking
Figure 2.22. (a) “Problem-solution” relationship in innovation; (b) reminder o...
Figure 2.23. General views on innovation
Figure 2.24. The foundations of successful innovation
Figure 2.25. Schematic representation of the innovation process
Figure 2.26. Critical elements associated with a startup
Figure 2.27. Industrialization
Figure 2.28. Who innovates where?
Figure 2.29. Creativity correlation and latitude
Figure 2.30. Mapping a disruptive innovation (in red, an example)
Figure 2.31. Limiting the allocation of resources to research following the em...
Figure 2.32. Selection (and storage) of disruptive proposals
Figure 2.33. CEOs’ position in relation to investors
Guide
Cover Page
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright Page
Foreword: Additive Manufacturing: From 3D Printing to Bio-printing
Preface
Introduction
Begin Reading
Conclusion of Volume 1
Index
Systems and Industrial Engineering – Robotics
WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
Pages
iii
iv
vii
viii
ix
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
xxi
xxii
xxiii
xxiv
xxv
xxvi
xxvii
xxviii
xxix
xxx
xxxi
xxxii
xxxiii
xxxiv
xxv
xxxvi
xxxvii
xxxviii
xxxix
xl
xli
xlii
xliii
xliv
xlv
xlvi
xlvii
xlviii
xlix
l
li
lii
liii
liv
lv
lvi
lvii
lviii
lix
lx
lxi
lxii
lxiii
lxiv
lxv
lxvi
lxvii
lxviii
lxix
lxx
lxxi
lxxii
lxxiii
lxxiv
lxxv
lxxvi
lxxvii
lxxviii
lxxix
lxxx
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
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
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
Series EditorJean-Charles Pomerol
Knowledge Production Modes between Science and Applications 1
Concepts
Jean-Claude André
First published 2024 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 2024The rights of Jean-Claude André to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s), contributor(s) or editor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ISTE Group.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2023946437
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA CIP record for this book is available from the British LibraryISBN 978-1-78630-807-8
ForewordAdditive Manufacturing: From 3D Printing to Bio-printing
Jean-Claude André’s new book is invaluable because it is written by someone who has a wealth of experience and has studied and followed the path from the researcher’s idea to industrial application.
For over 50 years, Jean-Claude André has successively or simultaneously been a researcher, deputy scientific director of the CNRS engineering sciences department, scientific director of a joint organization devoted to workplace safety and advisor to the Institut national des sciences et de l’ingénierie des systèmes (INSIS-CNRS). It is fortunate that he thought to put his experience in writing because, unfortunately, in France, the invaluable experience of people like Jean-Claude André is often ignored by “managers” with no culture of innovation and often even without the slightest knowledge in science and/or engineering. May they one day open this book, promote innovation and halt the deindustrialization of France.
Jean-Claude André begins by reminding us of the role of manufacturing in a country’s economy, and its dependence on science and innovation. He points out – and no one should ignore this – that a job created in an industrial zone, as a result of political incentives and subsidies, and inaugurated with much fanfare, costs the community at least 10 times more than a job created in an innovative startup.
A large part of the book (in two volumes) is devoted to the transition from invention to innovation to industrial manufacturing. Chapters 1 and 2 of Volume 1 follow the long and winding road from one to the other, from supporting creativity to mobilizing producers, via the indispensable POC (proof of concept). Jean-Claude André describes in detail all of the pitfalls to be avoided in transforming an idea into a product. We must thank him for shedding light on the decision-making process, the immoderate and sometimes ignorant use of TRLs (Technology Readiness Levels) by the research administration in France and Europe. He also devotes several pages to industrial property and patents, indispensable for private research, yet disastrous as performance indicators for researchers since they measure above all an institution’s ability to pay lawyers and annuities. A great deal of space is devoted to the startups that line the road from idea to unicorn, many of whose corpses lie by the side of the road. We look at the various ways in which we can help them avoid going off the rails.
In Volume 2, Chapter 1 focuses on the social responsibility of researchers, inventors and companies. Communication plays a key role as an interface between science and the public. The difficulties and weaknesses highlighted during the Covid-19 crisis are well known. The author does not shy away from the issue, stressing the extent to which communication errors, ill-considered announcements made by ignorant people, the procrastination of expert advice and false hopes fuel the resentment of the crowd, always quick to look for scapegoats.
Beyond individual responsibility, Jean-Claude André advocates socially responsible research (SRR). At the end of the first part of this two-volume work (Chapters 1 and 2 of Volume 1 and Chapter 1 of Volume 2), the author summarizes in a table (section 1.5, Volume 2) that all of those responsible for innovation policy should have in front of them lists of the 12 obstacles to overcome in order to move from the researcher’s idea to innovation and economic success.
Chapter 2 of Volume 2 looks back at Jean-Claude André’s experience as inventor, with Alain Le Méhauté, of 3D printing, now known as “additive manufacturing”. Jean-Claude André describes the genesis and development of his adventure, which led from a laboratory experiment to additive manufacturing and its various technologies. An adventure with sales in the billions of euros per year, which is far from over. It is a fascinating story that sheds light on the blindness of many institutions and officials who prefer to do nothing, rather than take the slightest risk of supporting an innovation that could ultimately fail. It is as if we should only support startups that we are sure will become unicorns!
From 3D printing, Jean-Claude André moves on to 4D, describing the problems and associated technologies. He explains how this type of innovation must initially rely on a niche policy. After 4D printing, we move on to bio-printing and its challenges.
Chapter 3 of Volume 2 provides an overview of all of the processes that lead from creativity to industrialization. Asking the right questions, valuing interaction between researchers, fostering interdisciplinarity and integration are just some of the recommendations that emerge, drawn from the experience of starting up 3D printing, without forgetting the role of chance. The future of 4D and bio-printing is considered in the light of the applications that are already possible and described.
All in all, this book contains the invaluable lessons of real-life experience and encyclopedic knowledge, backed up by a truly impressive bibliography. Nowhere else will you find such an important body of knowledge on the links between research, invention and industrialization. In addition, Jean-Claude André’s erudition is also reflected in an impressive number of quotations, sometimes surprising or amusing, but always highly illuminating, making this book an enthralling read, dense but exceptional in its truth of a lifetime’s experience.
Jean-Charles POMEROL
President of the Agoranov incubator
Preface
There is no doubt, Gentlemen, that the public, as a whole, is entitled to the regular and proven products of literary industry, but the advancement of industry requires many attempts, daring hypotheses, imprudence even; and laboratories alone make it possible to achieve the very high temperatures, the rare reactions, the degrees of enthusiasm without which neither the sciences nor the arts would have anything but an over-anticipated future.
(Valéry 1957)
Science marches on, making unprecedented progress every day. Every day our knowledge expands in depth and surface, and at the same time the moral ideal grows. In vain will we struggle against the evidence; it is science that leads the world. Humanity will know no other guide.
(Richet 1895)
Why is philosophy important to engineering? Ultimately and most deeply it is because engineering is philosophy – and through philosophy engineering will become more itself.
(Mitcham 1998)
Technological progress induces a dynamic of movement, insofar as it possesses a directional quality that makes the state of arrival preferable or desirable in relation to the point of departure. This is the basis for the development of innovations, particularly from science. Alas, Sicard (2021) reminds us of the steady decline of the French industrial sector since the end of the Trente Glorieuses (30 years following the end of World War Two in France). This decline is illustrated in Fourastié (1952) and was followed by many governments because it seemed more profitable to them to move toward a post-industrial society consisting solely of service activities. It is only recently that the state has changed its “doctrine”, leaving a more appropriate place for technological innovation.
In this context, the French see free trade, globalization and technological change as threats to jobs. Thus, according to Blanchard and Tirole (2021), manufacturing accounts for only 10.4% of employment and 13.4% of GDP in France, compared to 19.7% of GDP in Italy. Meanwhile, having lost 41% of manufacturing jobs in 30 years, the United States is one of the most active players in developing a new manufacturing-oriented vision (Japan and Germany have followed the opposite trend, going from 14.3% to 23.5% and 17.6% to 22.6%, respectively, according to Rynn (2010)). Industrial production is a key element of a country’s wealth. According to Sicard (2022), there is a close correlation between a country’s industrial production and the GDP/capita of its inhabitants. “Thus, with an industrial production of $6,432 per capita, France has a GDP/capita of 39,030 dollars; with a ratio of $12,279, Germany has a GDP/capita of $46,208; with a record ratio of $22,209, Switzerland is at a GDP/capita of 87,097 dollars”. This situation, according to Andreoni and Gregory (2013), is based on, or calls for, the following arguments:
The manufacturing industry is a crucial source of high-quality jobs, especially with the deployment of industry 4.0 principles and digital science and technology (André
2019
).
Around two-thirds of world trade is still in manually invoiced products (see balance of payments).
The manufacturing industry is the main driver of economic growth because of its higher productivity and potential for innovation.
“Human beings are far more capable than robots of dealing with unexpected situations” (Elon Musk, quoted by Alvarez (
2018
)).
Technology has complex effects on the structure of production and on the distribution of labor: the replacement of labor by capital, and the elimination of low- and medium-skilled jobs with a high routine component (Blanchard and Tirole
2021
).
For Andreoni and Gregory (2013), services only had a significant positive effect on jobs up until 1990, and with coefficients well below those of manufacturing. In the trends highlighted by the latter, one driver of progress in manufacturing is the production of machines using other machines. This may involve manufacturing our own machines (CECIMO 2011), but it is above all a matter of locally envisaging new processes, applicable in many fields (mechanical engineering, construction, computers, healthcare, automotive, aerospace, energy, space, metal fabrication, etc.), which make it possible to cut costs, improve quality and increase productivity, as well as reduce production set-up times.
Indeed, Bartik (2020) shows that financial incentives promote local job creation, as it takes a lot of money to sway a decision to locate or expand a business. So, even when there is a positive impact on employment, the budgetary costs per job preserved or created can be quite high. It can therefore be advantageous to rely on local creators without needing to attract companies whose ethics are sometimes questionable (major tax breaks granted to companies are not always appropriate).
The health crisis also revealed pre-existing problems: difficulties in terms of production and supply of consumer goods, the complexity (extreme fragmentation) of our production systems. Raffard (2021) wonders about the organization of these systems, with the multiplication of players involved at every stage. The supply, quality and accessibility of goods provide a privileged field of observation to reflect on the future evolution of our societies. This tendency toward prediction is as much “the projection of contemporary concerns, hopes and events onto the future” as it is a desire “to act on the present” (Belasco 2006).
But, according to Blanchard and Tirole (2021), on the one hand, state-financed and directed innovation programs lead to decisions on the type of innovations to be encouraged, and second, venture capital plays a relatively important role in financing short-term innovation (in the United States). It naturally favors fields offering investors the prospect of a rapid return on their investment. Lerner (2020) considers that there is a risk of excluding innovations that are profitable in the longer term or that could benefit society as a whole. For its part, China has an unrivalled ability to provide what experts call “a complete value chain”, to the detriment of non-Chinese companies. Government guidance funds represent this interconnectivity in action, with global financial support of the order of US$700 billion (Blanchette and CSIS 2021; Luong et al. 2021). Meanwhile, in the West, an updated version of Luddism, an aversion to any job-limiting innovation, may counterbalance the new (Acemoglu and Restrepo 2019).
In several works (André 2017; Demoly and André 2022), we have shown that it is possible to continually change and personalize production and propose innovative solutions for production systems; in doing so, the innovations centered on additive manufacturing or 3D printing (or 4D if additive manufacturing is achieved with materials that can be activated by energy stimulation) act as “innovation bridges”. In other words, they transfer their know-how and transform the way goods are produced and services are provided. We have just seen from Blanchard and Tirole (2021) that the direction and pace of technological change depend on many factors, many of which can be influenced by political decisions made by society and public authorities. So, are 4D printing modes, like 3D, among the chosen technologies? Or is it possible to show that, outside of major national or European programs, these emerging fields meet the right criteria for moving from ideas to their application in society?
Everyone knows, at least to a certain extent, that the choice of an already attractive technology depends on a large number of factors, such as production organization, expected gains, return on investment, corporate culture, the ability to hire trained staff and learning conditions for employees. Additive manufacturing – computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) – offers efficiency gains in material consumption and has significantly shortened the period between design and production, while other CAM systems allow increasing control over complex production processes (Mazzoleni 1997; Arnold 2001).
In addition, with the advent of IT, the operation of these productions can be interwoven with service activities and new technologies. The manufacturing industry is based on a “value chain” of activities ranging from basic research to after-sales service (see Figure P.1). This representation of the value chain highlights the potential interdependencies that can have a considerable influence on the possibilities of capitalizing on their innovations, capabilities and market opportunities. In the broadest sense, the aim of this book is to find out where these new manufacturing devices stand in terms of integration and/or strong competitive niches.
Figure P.1.Interacting (and interdependent) elements in the transition from research to applications
P.1. General thoughts on innovation
[N]o latitude of expression would allow us to say […] that the stream of water built the mill, though it were too ancient for us to know who the builder was. What the stream of water does in the affair, is neither more nor less than this; by the application of an unintelligent impulse to a mechanism previously arranged, […] and arranged by intelligence, an effect is produced, viz. the corn is ground. But the effect results from the arrangement. The force of the stream cannot be said to be the cause or author of the effect […]. There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver; order without choice; arrangement, without any thing capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose, without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office, in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it (Paley 2006).
In this context, the term “disruption” delineates a process in which new entrants with generally fewer resources challenge incumbent firms (Hopp et al. 2018, p. 446).
A characteristic of modern societies is that they can only stabilize themselves dynamically, which means they need constant growth, acceleration and condensation of innovation to maintain […] the status quo (Rosa 2021).
Figure P.2.Characteristics of disruptive innovations
When a radical innovation appears on the market, companies generally engage in a “low-attack” because it is promising, but not totally free from minor flaws. By starting out in niche markets, for example, performance can increase and the number of defects can decrease, before competing with incumbent operators or even finding new markets. As its quality improves, innovation begins to satisfy the requirements of traditional customers and replaces the technology. Figure P.2 (from Montgomery et al. (2018)) shows the characteristics of these disruptive innovations.
Do radical or disruptive innovations occur to create a more abundant world? What market conditions motivate innovators? Do they target communities suffering from poverty and resource scarcity? A theoretical model of disruptive innovation in a resource-constrained environment, integrating arguments from social capital theory, radical innovation, entrepreneurial action and social innovation can be built around the desire of citizens to access new and, if possible, low-cost technical products (Diamandis and Kotler 2012). As Mahto et al. (2020, pp. 6–7) argue:
Companies that want to focus on innovation and specifically disruptive innovation should encourage non-conforming behavior in their employees and utilize various means to encourage creativity and individualism. In general, countries and companies should recognize the importance of social capital and devise ways to create conditions where social capital acts as a catalyst for disruptive innovation.
This is an original way of thinking that should be considered alongside other targets, particularly high-tech ones. For Zubizarreta et al. (2021), who take up this discourse towards low-tech, the concept of disruptive innovation has the following characteristics:
characteristics that are undesirable among other user segments;
technologies that are unsuitable for use in everyday applications;
technologies that enable the emergence of new markets;
at first glance, it seems less expensive and simpler than applications;
anticipates future customer needs, giving a group of consumers access to a product or service to which they previously had no access.
Initially, these technologies would focus on simplicity, convenience, customizability and price, rather than results and high performance. But radical innovation is capable of creating entirely new and profitable markets or value propositions (Christensen 2013).
NOTE.– An example of innovation.
To take an example of an “illuminating” disruption, we consider lighting using the combustion of a thermal source (candle, kerosene lamp) and that provided by Edison’s light bulb. The first requires oxygen, the other a vacuum; the first uses a local energy source, the other uses a distributed one (without having to get your hands dirty!); the first uses a combustible material, the other does not. Electric lighting represents a break away from the past.
P.1.1. Toward proof of concept
Energy is a kind of fantastic projection; a projection which feeds all the industrial and technological dreams of modernity, and which also inflects the conception of Man in the direction of a dynamic of the will. However, we know from analyzing the phenomena of turbulence, chaos and catastrophe in the most recent physics that any flow, any linear process, when accelerated, takes on a strange curvature that is that of catastrophe (Baudrillard 1990).
Too often, organizations, faced with potential disruption from competitors, commit resources to generating new ideas for exploration but struggle to convert these ideas into meaningful businesses (O’Reilly and Binns 2019).
With Ricardo and Malthus, the notion of massive privation and great inequality became a basic premise. Smith’s optimism gave way to a profound pessimism, resulting from the idea they had of man’s relationship with nature and with each other (Galbraith 1961)1.
The invention process covers all efforts to create new ideas and make them work. Irrespective of this important aspect of additive manufacturing, which I will come back to, society has the feeling that we are collectively accepting the irreversible, with major trends such as climate change and possible adaptations, no doubt on the margins. “Short-term emergencies are in direct contradiction with long-term constraints; inanity enters the realm of the possible, and this explains the depth of the malaise” (Barré et al. 2015). According to Theys (2003), whom they quote:
In the case of environmental management, and in particular for global risks, the initial situation is one of poorly structured issues, numerous and poorly identified players, highly divergent interests, and unfavorable power relations. The conditions for “good governance” are not met a priori: they must therefore be partly constructed (Barré et al. 2015).
But, for these same authors, this look back to a time when these concerns were not the focus of sustained public attention is accompanied by new expectations. In this context, there is an important place for creativity, no doubt in a very different context than in the past.
Today, the interweaving between science and technology has “become so profound that we can now say that science has become as much a technician as a designer, since design itself very often depends on technical capabilities, and technical innovations are increasingly based on scientific knowledge” (Dubois and Brault 2021). Moreover, according to Collino (2022), “while the hallmark of all metaphysics and religions is to ensnare the individual in a network of beliefs enslaving him to absurd and criminal obligations; while they cloud the critical spirit, crystallize intelligence, foster ignorance, encourage and develop superstition, the materialist concept frees the human personality from these crushing servitudes, liberates it from fears and terrors, and shapes its judgment and reason”. It is not a question of incremental following, but of creativity, questioning, using our critical minds, etc., to come up with something new and useful. This means that the diagram in Figure P.1 is normally under attack, because it assumes that science is the driving force, whereas it can be located in other places, such as in technology or social demand. However, in the action diagram, we need to equip ourselves with “rational means of reliable ontological elaboration” (Bounge 2004), without renouncing objectivity.
To define a science policy, five conditions have been considered: a collective discourse that makes it explicit, political actors who take charge of it, public institutions that embody it and make it possible, achievements and results that represent it and legitimize it, and finally, a reflection on its construction and its stakes (Duclert 2006). But what about innovation? Should we follow Roqueplo (1983) when he writes: “Every technical object is a negotiation […] it is simultaneously the contract that momentarily seals the balance of forces at play, and the weapon brandished for other conflicts and negotiations”? Do these new objects appear in a serene context or, on the contrary, despite the prevailing rhetoric, are they the result of a large body of new ideas that undergo a variety of filters in which the quality of people, financing, society, etc., all come into play in different ways? In this context, which could resemble the thinking expressed by Duclert, can we still confine ourselves to angelic speeches on innovation? Do we need to revisit the practices of research orientation and programming of research and its valorization based on the organization scientific debates and take them into account in public decision-making? The central question is that of the direction and trajectories of the creation of new objects or artifacts, transformed into innovations, which are the result of wills, initiatives and power relations. Before seeking to improve society’s ability to grasp the invention-innovation aspect, it seemed important to examine the chain of interactions that exist between an idea and its transformation into a profitable invention, and thus create new knowledge.
This knowledge base can/should be used to better understand the difficult path that exists between the researcher, the laboratory (between individual initiatives and the organization’s programed research orientations), and then between the many “support” mechanisms “to transform an idea into a technical proof-of-concept, then into a more “presentable” object, acceptable to society, finally proposed as an innovation…”. No doubt reductively, we have introduced the “valley of death” concept “already used in this field”, but in a broader sense. This apparently linear approach does not ignore the knowledge of elements in complex interactions and systems analysis in an interdisciplinary context.
To paraphrase Godard and Hubert (2003), we need to focus as much on the conditions required to ensure the success of research aimed at future, socially useful innovation, as on incremental research framed by French and European government programs “whose conditions and benchmarks are well defined, without being trapped by a discourse on scientific excellence […] which would be at odds with the research needs raised by the issue”. Thus, a partially conceptual and partially heuristic toolkit is revealed in an attempt to apprehend the relationships between these different stages, for which transaction zones exist, an in-between space in which modes of change are negotiated, coordinated and implemented.
However, common “intermediary languages” are needed at every stage, so that groups with different objectives and modes of understanding can exchange/communicate from the initial act of creation through to innovation. Galison (1997) speaks of “pidgins” or creoles when two human groups from different cultures use a simplified, pragmatically oriented third language to carry out an exchange. This situation of decompartimentation is an obligation that goes beyond the usual reductionism of social and technological determinism (Wyatt 2008). Indeed, as will be mentioned later, to translate this intercultural transition, we need to consider the logic of developing interdisciplinarity – that is all the discursive, organizational and architectural strategies put in place by research collectives with the aim of creating and maintaining a type of scientific work known as interdisciplinary (Li Vigni 2020).
This transfer context raises other questions, briefly mentioned below (see Hermesse and Vankeerberghen (2020)); first of all, it involves analyzing this reflection by Dewey (2014) for action:
Theory, when separated from concrete action and doing, is empty and vain […]. The problem of the relationship between theory and practice is not just a theoretical one. It is also the most practical problem we face in life. A problem that raises the question of how intelligence can inform action, and how action can enable a greater understanding of meaning: a clear perception of the values worthy of interest, and the means by which they can be secured through experienced objects. The construction of ideals in general and their sentimental glorification are easy; to leave it at that, however, is to evade our responsibilities for rigorous thought and action.
As a reminder, in line with Gregor and Hevner (2013), four typical configurations are associated with innovation: design, in which known solutions are applied to known problems; adaptation, in which the use of known solutions is extended to a new problem (analogy); and improvement, in which the use of known solutions is extended to a new problem (analogy); improvement linked to new solutions for known problems; and invention which involves creating new solutions to new problems (Pascal and Rouby 2017). In this last activity, which falls within the scope of this book, several elements can be questioned:
Why and how can we be creative in a sometimes unreceptive academic world? Is there a conceptual basis for creativity? What are the specific methodological challenges involved in transforming an idea into a coherent, rational concept? Does the research team authorize the production of a proof of concept? What is the usefulness of this type of production and added value compared with other forms of research?
Creativity, innovation, design-thinking are not the exclusive domain of design professionals. These fields can be explored by novices. These new practices require new interactions between different milieus. How can we encourage them so as not to limit invention to the “professionals” of the idea?
How can we find, select and exploit personalities who are masters of cognitive tasks requiring creativity and intuition to solve problems requiring great leaps of logical imagination?
How can we break down disciplinary silos?
In the final analysis, do the envisaged disruptions reflect what is really happening in society as a whole (Bessen et al.
2020
)?
Can we think and create in an emergency? In particular, is it possible to plan for the immense challenge of our future in a context of extreme uncertainty (health and social crises, international tensions, etc.), or should we be content with the spontaneous emergence of ideas that can be transformed into innovations?
How can the rise of the hustle economy be seen as a triumph of technological innovation and human creativity (Dewey
2020
)? What are the effects on creativity and on the responsibility of research? What kind of ethics are there for the inventor?
Can we maintain the principles of scientific objectivation, which is carried out under the following conditions: independence of approach, validation of results and their interpretation by peers, confirmation of results (Lecointre
2018
)?
Can we accept, on the pretext of invention, an activity carried out to the detriment of the scientific rigor and distancing that should accompany it (Smaldino and McElreath
2016
)?
How do shared inventions and competitive innovations follow trajectories that allow them to overcome their singularities in order to effectively realize this sharing and competition (Vigezzi
2019
)?
Can/should we set up hybrid spaces where researchers from a variety of scientific and non-scientific backgrounds “confront and cooperate in defining problems and lines of research, as well as the resources required for these investigations” (Dalle-Nazébi
2008
)? Should these structures be temporary or permanent?
What links should be forged or maintained between civil society and the researcher, the research team or the organization to which it belongs? How can disruptive research disruption influence the researcher’s posture and trajectory: between enthusiasm and disgust?
How can we take into account the timeframes of each stakeholder in these transfers?
Can we then accept a single “crumpled” time adapted to the transition that raises the question of the radical management of separate timeframes?
What loss (or gain) of autonomy is associated with the creative process?
Research laboratory managers need to create a form of corporate culture. For the latter to be an advantage, is the trust that needs to be established and maintained with researchers, so that their experiences can be shared with the aspirations of the hierarchy possible? And how?
Do we have sufficient capacity in terms of inventors to meet the needs of industry and thus of society? Does the shortage of talent and the severe skills gap, which Gold (
2021
) argues is threatening sustainable growth, have a role to play in the operation of academic research labs? Do we have disruptive incubators to transform university training programs from the inside into a preventive force for the innovations to be enabled and supported?
How can we stop, or even reduce, the pressure exerted on researchers, who are condemned to a certain degree of followership, reflected in the success rates (i.e. the proportion of candidates who obtain funding) in many public funding agencies (Conseil des académies canadiennes
2021
)? Does hyper-competition serve creativity?
To put forward operation management in the form of a project (projected management mode) as a mode of intentional determination of behaviors in relation to the choice and decision is not easy. How does this operative anticipation of a desired future (Boutinet
2012
) come about?
Who is in charge of this operation? “Because of the multiple interactions and feedback within the environment in which it takes place, the action, once triggered, often escapes the actor’s control, provoking effects that are unexpected and sometimes even contrary to those he expected” (Morin
2004
).
What are the reasons for justifying and rationalizing the action to be taken (ungrateful, inconsistent, etc.)?
With a consistent creative process within a research group, is there evolution in the choice of its “horizons”, in the determination of critical thresholds for revisited action, and in the consideration of expected effects in the “right timing” (concepts of adaptation, flexibility, adaptability, etc.)?
Can the action scenarios concerning invention be reduced to the one envisioned by the researcher-designer (Carroll
2016
)? Should they be extended to their organizational component?
Are there any creativity training courses? Between training courses in which concepts are not the subject of questions, but enable rapid and effective learning, and more open paths involving creativity and innovation? What is the right choice? Are we mastering divergence/convergence (NAP
2014
)?
How can we value, evaluate, legitimize and “monetize” an experience where creativity results in a profitable application (including that resulting from the historical analysis of (possible) failures)?
Should we follow the advice of Jollivet (
2008a
,
2008b
): “There is no model; we’re in the DIY business. With all that this word implies in terms of compromise, in relation to the objective pursued, imposed by local constraints of all kinds. But also with the need for creativity that this implies”?
Generally speaking, should (can) we follow the paradigms of linear invention (Robbins
1932
; Solow
1956
), triangular invention (according to the associations between technical change and invention introduced by Freeman in 1984), the more innovation- and information-oriented paradigm proposed by Nelson and Winter (
1982
), the “multiple equilibria” paradigm of von Hippel (
1986
), the approach inspired by Science Studies developed by Picon (
1995
), or other forms (or even a mix of pre-existing and new elements proposed by Amendola and Gaffard (
1988
))? Do we need them?
Finally, why is there no French Elon Musk (Silverzahn 2021)?
In this very broad context, questions concerning the theme of creativity, its translation into the most coherent proposal possible, and the realization of a proof of concept (POC) are posed in human, financial, organizational and other terms. The list of remarks and questions just presented already illustrate the richness of the general theme, which will be the subject of Chapters 1 and 2 of the present volume and of Chapter 1 of Volume 2 of the book, which envisages descriptions and reflections on the global innovation process. It also highlights the “valleys of death”. It is a lengthy sequence, a veritable “chemin de croix” for the creative individual who wants to see their idea or discovery through to the end. This list will be expanded in the next section.
P.1.2. Toward innovation
Social action refers to activities carried out by individuals, groups of individuals or collectives who form projects, i.e. who anticipate, in a more or less rational (i.e. thought-out and adapted) way, ends and the means to achieve them, and who, to carry out these projects, enter into relationships with one another. Social action produces more or less integrated, interlocking or coupled social systems. It brings into play phenomena of power present in all social domains (religious, political, intellectual, etc.) and therefore in the economic sphere, considerations of integrationand interrelations between agents considered as decision-makers and project agents. Decision-makers’ projects are formed in a more or less intuitive or calculated way, taking into account the relationships and power that characterize these relationships (Perroux 1973).
Perfect certainty is what Man wants. But it cannot be found in practical action and production. These occur in the horizon of an uncertain future, and involve perils, the risk of misadventures, frustration and failure (Dewey 2014).
It seems all our current problems were generated by the solutions to problems of an earlier age. These new problems generated by the new invention are the source of the law of unintended consequences (Bonasso 2007).
We are moving into a different space here: inventions are promising ideas for products or processes, while innovations are commercialized products or processes (Chandy et al. 2006). Most of the scientific and technical activities organized in companies go beyond the “simple” generation of ideas (which may be exogenous), which do not systematically produce radical disruptions, but rather a broad base of progressive technological advances, sometimes leading cumulatively to major technical changes. These may be incremental or disruptive innovations.
“An innovation is an event (Mast 2006). It signifies a break in the routine order of things, a disruption that is then reintegrated into a progressively reconfigured understanding of routine. This disruption is semantic, but it is also ‘real’ insofar as the interpretive dimensions of culture draw the contours of the limits of material objects, because materiality is impregnated and constituted by meaning” (Mast et al. 2013). Schön (1967) pointed out that innovation can occur when, like plate tectonics, cultural concepts and systems of understanding of the past collide with those of the present. In such cases, our understandings are simultaneously based on historical concepts and the disruption induced by the new situation. After a translation in the form of an idea to be promoted, the envisaged research leading to invention translates into the creation of POC and written proof in the form of patent applications.
In addition, this operation involves technological work, often carried out in partnership and interdisciplinary work. While, on the one hand, there is the cross-fertilization of knowledge and its pooling, and thus cultural enrichment through exchange, the POC remains an artifact demonstrating technical feasibility based on science. This initial research leads to reflexivity on the part of the institution that hosts the designer, on what could make it evolve to encourage invention and principles of co-creation with a social perspective on POC (interdisciplinarity and social sciences). Design contributes to innovation and business development (Bertola and Teixeira 2003; Battistella et al. 2012) because of its goals at the place of orientations, strategic vision and iterative methodologies, combined with its creative thinking in relation to technology (Nussbaum 2011; Glaubert and Bergeron 2020).
It is obvious that we design for users, but why not work with them to define everyday objects on a technical basis, but adapted to their use (ergonomics, cost, etc.). Co-construction is obviously not a label to be placed on the artifact, just a slogan. In this interactive context, co-construction is attentive to the needs of those for whom it is intended and who will be its users. By adding style to functionality, the designer testifies to their consideration for them. If this direction of action is in continuity with what was stated in section P.1, where the idea sprang from the head of a scientist (no doubt because the author is a member of that tribe!), it can just as easily come from the social body. In this case, we are talking about demand-side management.
Under these conditions, it is a matter of linking demand with those who can satisfy it, that is, in the first instance, technicians and, if necessary, scientists. The problems of filtering (the “valleys of death”) already mentioned are found again:
How can we get an idea off the ground and take it into consideration?
Do we have a receptive industrial base?
Does the co-creation group represent the social component concerned by the artifact? Will we go beyond invention? Or even just the idea or its beginnings?
Is the role of the departments responsible for marketing new products appropriate?
The word “creativity” is often used to regain control over economic performance and emerge from various financial crises. The prevailing discourse advocates this potential with little explanation of how and why an economic approach to creativity is useful and necessary. If it is useful to understand how creative people work and act in an uncertain and changing universe (Burger-Helmchen 2013), do we have any good recipes to encourage their creative productivity? Second, it would be useful to understand how organizations integrate and exploit creative ideas.
To achieve these goals, learning and research processes are essential. But new knowledge and artifacts lead to changes in both the way we do things and the way we are, and as a result, we are faced with change. Yet, “we develop familiar patterns of behavior that define a successful and functional daily life in the world, and we find it difficult to change our habits” (Bonasso 2007). For this author, discovery requires people who are curious about what is new and novel, and dissatisfied with the status quo:
These are people who are curious and who ask old questions in new ways and who ask new questions. Inventions are created by curious people dissatisfied with current methods and means of working. These are people who seek something more than an incremental refinement in the usual way of working. And, innovation is spawned by dissatisfied people looking for new opportunities behind doors believed by most people to be closed (Bonasso 2007).
The possible users of the results of ideas transformed into objects delimit boundaries of interpretation that can dictate by whom, how and for what they can be used. Sometimes, it takes several years before an invention is accepted by the public. This is another “valley of death” to consider (see, for example, Sharkey (2010)).
But, after proposing an idea invention, for many, a lack of understanding of the world of research and engineering is obvious; it can give way to doubts and suspicions of conflicts of interest, media and, above all, economic influences. Invention may be almost free, but well-conducted innovation can result in benefits of a different magnitude. The idea of “piracy” is not far off! In this environment, which can be distrustful and uncertain, guaranteeing trust in the partnership is essential. Now, more than ever, making an object “civilized” with uses adapted by and for society is a necessity in a context where, in a complementary way, we need to design products and services capable of responding to the major present and future societal challenges. So, let us not make too many mistakes! For example, the “valley of death” problem may be more serious for companies in emerging markets than in mature markets, depending on the products or processes involved (Zhou and Wang 2020).
According to Burger-Helmchen (2013), innovation increasingly involves rapid, short-term returns on investment. At the same time, for reasons of economic fragmentation, we are witnessing an erosion of technical capabilities and, in global competition, a possible gradual destruction of the competitiveness of products and processes (Aghion et al. 2020). In an attempt to maintain a robust innovation structure, strong and positive relationships between R&D and marketing organizations could significantly improve the relevance of innovations when new products are introduced (provided that a suitable communication language exists).
As we can see, innovation is an all-purpose word that simply translates the translation of an invention to the market, with many influencing factors that will need to be analyzed in greater depth.
P.1.3. Between idea, invention and innovation
They [the guilds] pass on useful techniques, but block innovations that pose a threat. Guilds largely existed, not because they corrected market failures or served the common good, but because they benefited two powerful groups: guild members and political elites (Ogilvie 2019)2.
Forget short-term symptoms like Donald Trump and Brexit, it’s innovation that will shape the 21st century. Yet innovation remains a mysterious process, poorly understood by policymakers and businesspeople alike (Ridley 2020)3.
Transforming basic research discoveries into marketable products or technologies is a major challenge that requires individuals to have a specific set of skills. Among these skills, the ability to “translate”, particularly between basic and applied research, and to build bridges between these fields, is likely to be decisive (Assmus and Haeussler 2017)4.
“Discontinuous innovation involves establishing a new product and setting up new models of behavior” (Robertson 1967). Roberts and Frohman (1978) and Boly et al. (2016) have shown the existence of an imbrication of numerous elements that can enable the emergence of new processes or artifacts. Until recently, approaches to innovation were able to develop in the logic of supply, with a break between a technical proposal and society. Open innovation, a more recent concept, is the antithesis of the previous model, which is a model of vertical integration in which the activities related to innovation are internal to the design world. This paradigm, introduced by Chesbrough (2003) and Chesbrough et al. (2006), can develop through interactive processes, via a logic of networks, assuming that ideas come from both outside and within culturally separated worlds (Badillo 2013).
Many successful technical innovations seem to have been initiated by activities responding to a “market pull” (see Bianchini et al. (2019)), but, unexpectedly, other innovations result from the recognition of a market need or opportunity. Sometimes, according to Roberts (2007), innovation results from a highly motivated individual disrupting the market’s consciousness until it agrees to launch and support an original technical program (especially when associated with the company’s competence). The growth of research consortiums and strategic alliances between companies and startups in emerging technologies is also an indicator of the search for innovations, disruptive if possible. In this expanding landscape, Fab-Labs also have their place (Damoah and Botchie 2020). Finally, Gambardella et al. (2012) have shown that users create and drive innovations for their own use, followed by the adoption of these innovations by equipment manufacturers, etc. (see Figure P.3).
Figure P.3.Innovation between user and producer
P.2. The example of 3D, 4D and bio-printing manufacturing
Ontologies represent the essential technology that enables and facilitates interoperability at the semantic level, providing a formal conceptualization of the data that can be shared, reused and aligned (D’Aquin and Noy 2012).
Short of a time machine, science is the most powerful tool that humanity has invented to bring the future into the present (Nowotny 2015).
Innovation is also believed to be predictive of successful scientific careers: Innovators are science’s trailblazers and discoverers, so producing innovative science may lead to successful academic careers (Hofstra et al. 2020).
Nowotny (2015) warns us, those who succeed remind us that innovation is a highly uncertain process that is not only the work of intelligent, determined individuals, but also of numerous interdependent processes, integrated into an ecosystem that feeds on contingencies. Faced with such a spectrum, it is impossible to draw credible directions or lines of force without having put a certain number of key criteria to the test, ranging from the idea, imagination, invention, to application. The author has been familiar with 3D printing (referred to as additive manufacturing (André et al. 1984)) since the first patent in 1984. Because of his involvement in research on 4D printing (3D + stimulable adaptive materials) and, to a lesser extent, bio-printing (4D printing of living matter) he has decided to test a certain number of the criteria involved in the general field of the technological enhancement of thought on the theme of digitally driven manufacturing in Chapters 2 and 3 of Volume 2.
Some robust conclusions emerge from this comparison between theoretical reflections and their testing on themes is considered to be disruptive. They will be discussed and presented; in particular, their generality will receive the author’s full attention.
NOTE.– General comments
Much of each chapter can be read independently of the others.
When it comes to men and women, Man is written with a capital M.
November 2023
P.3. References
Acemoglu, D. and Restrepo, P. (2019). The wrong kind of AI? Artificial intelligence and the future of labor demand.
Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society
, 13, 25–35.
Aghion, P., Antonin, C., Bunel, S. (2020).
Le pouvoir de la destruction créatrice
. Odile Jacob, Paris.
Alvarez, S. (2018). Inside Tesla’s “tent”-based model 3 line that set a path to profitability.
Teslarati
, 10 December [Online]. Available at:
https://www.teslarati.com/inside-tesla-tent-based-model-3-production-assembly-line-profitability/
.
Amendola, M. and Gaffard, J.L. (1988).
La dynamique économique de l’innovation
. Economica, Paris.
André, J.C. (2017a).
From Additive Manufacturing to 3D/4D Printing 1: From Concepts to Achievements.
ISTE Ltd, London, and John Wiley & Sons, New York.
André, J.C. (2017b).
From Additive Manufacturing to 3D/4D Printing 2: Current Techniques, Improvements and their Limitations.
ISTE Ltd, London, and John Wiley & Sons, New York.
André, J.C. (2017c).
From Additive Manufacturing to 3D/4D Printing 3: Breakthrough Innovations: Programmable Material, 4D Printing and Bio-printing
. ISTE Ltd, London, and John Wiley & Sons, New York.
André, J.C. (2019).
Industry 4.0: Paradoxes and Conflicts
. ISTE Ltd, London, and John Wiley & Sons, New York.
André, J.C., Le Méhauté, A., De Witte, O. (1984). Dispositif pour réaliser un modèle de pièce industrielle. French patent no. 84 11 241.
Andreoni, A. and Gregory, M. (2013). Why and how does manufacturing still matter: Old rationales, new realities.
Revue d’économie industrielle
, 144, 21–57.
Arnold, H. (2001). The recent history of the machine tool industry and the effects of technological change. LMU Working paper 14 [Online]. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228947863_The_recent_history_of_the_machine_tool_industry_and_the_effects_of_technological_change
.
Assmus, A. and Haeussler, C. (2017). At the interface between invention and innovation: Increasing success rates in clinical trials.
Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings
, Boston.
Badillo, P.Y. (2013). Les théories de l’innovation revisitées : une lecture communicationnelle et interdisciplinaire de l’innovation ? Du modèle “Émetteur” au modèle communicationnel.
Les Enjeux de l’information et de la communication
, 14, 19–34.
Barré, R., Lavoux, T., Piveteau, V. (eds) (2015). Trop tôt, trop tard ? In
Un demi-siècle d’environnement entre science, politique et prospective – En l’honneur de Jacques Theys
. Quæ, Paris.
Bartik, T.J. (2020). Bringing jobs to people: Improving local economic development policies. Policy paper no. 2020-023, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. doi: 10.17848/pol2020-023.
Battistella, C., Gianluca, B., De Toni, A.F. (2012). From design driven innovation to meaning strategy.
Management Decision
, 50, 718–743.
Baudrillard, J. (1990).
La transparence du mal
. Galilée, Paris.
Belasco, W. (2006).
Meals to Come – A History of the Future of Food
. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Bertola, P. and Teixera, J.C. (2003). Design as a knowledge agent.
Design Studies
, 24, 181–194.
Bessen, J.E., Denk, E., Kim, J., Righi, C. (2020). Declining industrial disruption. Research paper 20-28, Boston University [Online]. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3682745
.
Bianchini, S., Llerena, P., Patsali, S. (2019). Demand-pull innovation in science: Empirical evidence from a research university’s suppliers.
Research Policy
, 48, 100005.
Blanchard, O. and Tirole, J. (eds) (2021). Les grands défis économiques [Online]. Available at:
https://www.strategie.gouv.fr/sites/strategie.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/fs-2021-rapport-les_grands_defis_economiques-juin_0.pdf
.
Blanchette, S. and CSIS (2021). Confronting the challenge of Chinese state capitalism [Online]. Available at:
https://www.csis.org/analysis/confronting-challenge-chinese-state-capitalism
.
Boly, V., Camargo, M., Morel, L. (eds) (2016). Définitions de l’innovation technologique. In
Ingénierie de l’innovation
. Lavoisier, Paris.
