December 2014, “Why Low-tech entrepreneurship matters”, by Sophie Reboud*, Tim Mazzarol**
Both academic and professional literature suggest that significant differences exist between the low-tech firms and their high-tech counterparts in relation to the number and type of innovations generated and how such firms manage the process of commercialisation. On the other hand, limited scale and resources encourages small firms to adopt more informal processes for organising their activities, utilising personal ties and social networks, and taking advice from non-traditional sources such as friends who are also in business. This seems particularly true in low to mid-tech sectors.
Despite the relative importance of low to mid-tech firms, much of the focus of government policy is upon high-tech industries or what has been referred to as ‘the Silicon Valley Business Model’. More and more studies actually show that the traditional high-tech ‘Silicon Valley’ venture capital funded business model is not the only approach adopted by small firms seeking to innovate and many small innovative firms are growing without major external funding. There is thus a strong case for ‘ordinary SMEs’ to innovate with more modest, self-funded innovations and still make a sound contribution to the national economy. But although innovation is supposed to take several forms (including organisation innovation for example), it is almost always measured based on product innovation only, leading to a systematic underestimation of the production of innovations by small and low-tech firms.
The ability of many small firms to successfully engage in innovation and commercialisation is however often restricted by their lack of resources, weak or unsystematic marketing and management competencies, and inadequate use of appropriate third party advisors. Despite several decades of research into the management of innovation it remains however difficult to identify clear or consistent findings, or even a coherent set of advice for managers on this matter. Yet findings demonstrate that small firms can be active innovators in spite of their limited scale and resources.
Funding for innovation for instance is largely derived from retained profits with little interest shown in equity financing in low tech sectors. Low-tech product innovators differ also from their high-tech counterparts in terms of their structure, market orientation and need for external financing. High-tech firms are often more focused on building their market share and have a greater need for external financing. The balance between scientific, technical areas and financial and marketing skills, while clearly valuable in all industries, may be less common in small firms in low-tech sectors. Nonetheless the success of new ventures in low tech sectors can rely heavily on the capacity of adaption and anticipation of their managers. Small low-tech firms are engaged in a view of the future where they were seeking support and pre-commitments from customers. The basis for taking action towards the commercialisation of these innovations is often intuitive.
Due to a number of reasons, from the difficulties of measuring innovation to the lower visibility of more incremental innovation, low-tech entrepreneurship and the innovative activity of low-tech SMEs are often underestimated. Even if a huge part of the economic activity is carried out by small low-tech firms all over the world, high tech ventures are more visible and more supported by governments.
More and more studies suggest that there is a high level of innovation activity taking place among small firms that may not be Gazelles or associated with traditional high-technology sectors. It seems therefore that more work needs to be done to develop a robust and universally applicable taxonomy for small firms engaged in innovation. More work is needed to fully develop this understanding, but it is clear that there must be greater recognition of the SME Ordinaire within academic and policy circles.
*Groupe ESC Dijon Bourgogne, France, Research Network on Innovation, Sophie.Reboud@escdijon.eu
**University of Western Australia, tim.mazzarol@uwa.edu.au
November 2014, “‘Silver economy’: what potential for geront’innovations?” by Blandine Laperche*
Since elderly people constitute a potentially important market (due to their purchasing power and the size of this population), researchers have defined the “silver economy” not as a separate sector, but as a set of productive and commercial activities transversal to existing sectors (health, leisure activities, housing, insurances, caring sector…) and integrating the applications of information technologies (robotics, domotics, e-mobility…), etc. This combination – “silver economy” with gerontechnologies – can be a source of innovations for the elderly: the geront’innovations. Gerontechnologies thus include the set of instruments that are used in caring the elderly including their social and cognitive environment. They are intended to people of more than 60 years, mentally or physically isolated or dependent and are often presented according to the services they deliver in the aim of improving the well-being of elderly: communication and social link (videophone, adapted telephones, internet), security (caring TV, fall detection systems, motion sensor alarms), health (telemedicine, medical devices etc.), mobility and accessibility (smart walkers, bracelets and other device, digital interfaces), etc.
On the one hand, demographic evolutions induce significant risks of increase in diseases, invalidity and dependence situations. Science and technology may however contribute to reduce these risks or facilitate their management. Aging can thus be an opportunity to re-orientate existing technologies and apply them to the specific problems of elderly and hence to renew the supply of enterprises and stimulate the economic growth.
On the other hand, in developed countries, the improvement of the health of elderly and their more active social life are visible. This can also be partly explained by technical progress, and especially by the large diffusion of information technologies (automation, telematics). These technologies give the possibility to increase the share of elderly in the labour market, to increase the labour productivity and to replace workers for arduous, dangerous or geographically remote tasks. It is however clear that that the use of automation to the benefit of elderly will have a productive impact only if the digital divide is reduced.
The development of technologies adapted to the problems of elderly is also considered as a potential source of economies since home care normally less weighs on public budgets compared to the placement in an institution. Finally these new technologies can be a source of productivity gains not only in the user but also in the producer sectors. They may induce creation of new jobs in the service sector but also in engineering and R&D. As such, they can be considered as a potential engine for the economy.
Notwithstanding the fact that geront’innovations catch the attention of researchers from various disciplines, but also of policy makers and entrepreneurs, their diffusion and the emergence of a new innovative trajectory are not so simple. For financial reasons but also due to routines, the large diffusion of gerontechnologies faces locks-in situations. To resolve the economic, technical, but also psychological and ethical blocking situations, technical improvements are needed, associated to the increase of public awareness and the implementation of new business models (collective diffusion, functional economy). At the current time, these specific technologies remain at an experimental stage; their potential only needs to be revealed. So geront’innovations meet hopes they inspired.
NB: this presentation is part of a research program in progress RRI – Chaire Transitions Démograhiques / Transitions Economiques
*Clerse, ULCO, RRI
October 2014, “On the relationship between science and innovation”, by Joelle Forest*
We live in a society in which technical objects are omnipresent; where technology transforms our world and conceives its future shape. However, we are faced with a paradox. We have not learnt to apply Logos, or thought, or, more generally, science with regards to technique. Theoretical reflections on technology, the integration of technology into the boundaries of science, have not occurred as a matter of course (Stiegler, 2004).
Indeed, in Greek thought, of which we are the heirs, the technical arts are not considered an object of knowledge (Lamard, Lequin, 2006). And a science cannot exist if the object of that science is not legitimized by society (Sigaut, 1994). The Diderot and d’Alembert’s project opened the way for descriptive and classificatory technology, but the word technology did not become part of the common lexicon until Bigelow published his Elements of Technology in 1829. In his book, Bigelow championed a vision of a science entirely devoted to technical applications. This conception of technology as an efficient process based on the application of science provided the foundation for the linear and hierarchical model of innovation (Forest, 2014).
Such a model of innovation leads large organizations to organize their development processes using a waterfall logic and stage-gate systems to make new product development more efficient. This model has helped firms to reduce product development time; however researches have shown that such an organization may be disadvantageous to innovation. Furthermore, numerous statistical studies lead to conclude that non-R&D innovation is a common phenomenon. If R&D seems to be an enabler of innovation, it is not sufficient by itself.
The special issue of the Journal of Innovation Economics and Management, N°15, vol.3/2014, on the relationship between science and innovation intends to question the dominant definition of innovation leading to new and more complex views of the innovation process (https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2014-3.htm). By this way, it is possible to go against the established paradigm of the application of sciences and to think technology as a science of creative rationality (Faucheux, Forest, 2012). Reflections on creative rationality are of more than just theoretical interest, as taking into account this type of rationality has repercussions for teaching and training, particularly in engineering schools.
Bigelow J., Elements of Technology. Boston, Hilliard, Gray & Co, 1829.
Faucheux M., Forest J., New Elements of Technology, Belfort, UTBM Editions, 2012.
Forest J., Petite histoire des modèles d’innovation, in Boutillier S., Gallaud D., Forest J., Laperche B., Tanguy C. and Temri L. (coords.), Principes d’économie de l’innovation, Peter Lang, 2014.
Lamard P., Lequin Y.C., La Technologie entre à l’Université : Compiègne, Troyes, Belfort-Montbéliard, Belfort, UTBM Editions, 2006.
Sigaut F., Les points de vue constitutifs d’une science des techniques : essai de tableau comparatif, in J. Perrin, Construire une science des techniques, collection technologie(s), Limonest, L’interdisciplinaire, 1994.
Stiegler B., Philosopher par accident, Paris, Galilée, 2004.
September 2014, “Crisis, innovation and transition”, by Nadine Levratto*
Since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, the crisis faced by OECD economies is presented as the result of a full-blown financial disruption which would have been diffused in the whole of the economy. This priority given to the debt, to the interest rates and to the financial regulation in the crisis generates a salutary reflection on the excesses to which led the almost unbounded financialization of our economies. It however results in undervaluing the productive and organizational causes of this turndown as ifthe real economy was only the reflection of the financial economy, an idea in contradiction with the most (neo-)classical political economy.
However, this exclusive responsibility for finance does not resist to a closer look. Firstly because the performances of the companies began cooling before 2007, secondly because the increase in the number of corporate bankruptcies preceded the boom in bank failures, and, finally, because in many countries, the deterioration of the labor market, the freeze in salaries and the increase in inequalities fed the financial innovations’ movement intended to facilitate the household consumption. The famous subprimes are emblematic of these products.
If the turmoil of the productive sphere preceded the financial storm another reading of the crisis is possible. It rests on the idea that the strategies of cost cutting adopted by a majority of companies did not make it possible to strengthen growth and competitiveness. The social contribution exemptions in favor of low-qualified workers which relayed them did not permit to reduce unemployment rate neither.
Some voices are being raised to stress the importance of non-price competitiveness related to product quality, to innovation, and adaptation to the buyers’ needs, etc. Their current reach remains, however, limited. Indeed, in this field France is still far from the idealized German economic model: in France, R&D expenses reach only 2.1 % of GDP against 2.8 % in Germany. This differential is even clearer when one considers R&D expenditure in the private sector which, in 2008, reached Euros 31 billion in Germany compared with 15 in France. Innovation is however an engine of the companies’ performance as shown by the respective evolution of the total factors productivity which decreased by 2 points between 1999 (base 100) and 2012 whereas, in parallel, it increased by 8 points in Germany.
The specialization of the French industrial model in a medium quality level of goods made the French companies more vulnerable to the changes in price than German ones which are partially freed from the constraints of cost by a positioning on top-of-the-range and innovative market segments. As shown by Salais and Storper in their reference book “Worlds of Production”, coordination between actors taking place on these markets rests upon quality more than on prices.
The fall of the gross margin rate is not enough to justify the degradation of the position of the French companies as regards innovation. On one hand, the rise in the gross margin rate between 1994 and 2002 was not accompanied by an increase in the R&D expenditures and, on the other hand, it did not prevent the growing level of dividends over the last decade. On the whole, the R&D expenditures which accounted for 44% of the dividends in 1992, account only for 25% nowadays.
The transition to which the crisis invites cannot be generated by prolonging or reinforcing the old productive models and public policies instruments. The incentive given to any kind of innovation cannot be limited to the implementation of a research tax credit whose cost is out of control. The energy transition, the advent of a sober economy based on the principles of sustainability and mutual solidarity, the short circuits and the development of localized ecosystems make it possible to limit external pressures while reducing the ecological print. The development of these new areas calls a radical transformation of the companies, of the inter-enterprises relations, of the link between firms and territories as well as of the definition of a favorable legal framework.
Last but not least, the transition requires a strategy of productive and institutional innovation which makes it possible departing from an old economic model and going towards a new economy.
*EconomiX, CNRS-Université de Paris Ouest, Nanterre, La Défense, Centre d’Etudes de l’Emploi
Innovation Forum VI 2014: https://cit2014.sciencesconf.org/
August 2014, “Jean-Baptiste Say or when the entrepreneur meets the intellectual”, Gérard MINART*
From 1803 – the date of the publication of the first edition of his famous Traité – the political economy of Jean-Baptiste Say was already shown as a large theater where played a very new and modern play named the Production, in a setting dominated by the colors called Capital and Industry, with, in the lead role, a central character as Entrepreneur, who was closely tailed by Savant source of Innovation. The new combinations of entrepreneur are resolutely modern: production calls for capital thanks to which innovation develops, thereby valorizing scientific research. The purpose of production is to satisfy the needs that are increasingly stronger, newer, constantly recurring as the society advances. Hence the prominent role of the entrepreneur: he is at the center of the development of production, meeting the needs from which follows the development of social life. Say was therefore especially qualified to handle the enterprise and the role of the entrepreneur in economic life.
Jean-Baptiste Say spent nearly eight years in the Pas-de-Calais, as a business operator of a leading enterprise: a cotton mill. The cotton was for the industry of that time as what the computer for business today: a booming sector driven by a huge technological revolution and dynamic and ingenious entrepreneurs. Indeed, it was during the youth of Say that the innovations dedicated to the processing of cotton born a few years earlier were applied in England which made the cotton industry the trigger for Industrial Revolution in the late XVIIIe century. Therefore, should we be surprised to see Jean-Baptiste Say, a young economist having promoted in his Traité innovation and machinery, involved – and invested – in cotton, this booming advanced sector that carrying all the novelties and promising, no doubt, a quick profit? Irreplaceable experience that will provide ample material to the future professor at the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers. It was with this experience that in many of his classes, he would draw the portrait of the entrepreneur and his many qualities: “…he wants judgment, consistency, knowledge of men and things. It is a question of properly appreciating the importance of a product, the expected needs, the means of production; it is sometimes a matter involving a large number of individuals; (to decide whether) to buy or to be bought the raw materials, to gather the workers, to look for consumers, to have a spirit of order and economy, in one word, the talent to manage. He must be accustomed to calculation, can compare the cost of production with the value of the product when it is sold. In the course of many operations, there are obstacles to overcome, worries to beat, misfortunes to repair, … People whom the necessary qualities are not met, run enterprises with little success…” (1)
Schumpeter wrote about Say: “during a large part of his life, he was a business man, a practical man, and he knew thus the advantage of first-hand knowledge which he wrote. Intellectuals who know the business by newspapers are accustomed to congratulate themselves on their detachment. But, obviously, there is another side to the coin.” (2)
…. A small history lesson
*Economiste, journaliste et biographe
(1)Traité d’économie politique, Paris, Guillaumin, 1841, p.370.
(2)Schumpeter, Histoire de l’analyse économique, Paris, 1983, Gallimard, 3 volumes réédités en 2004 dans la collection Tel, p.160.
1er Congrès international Jean-Baptiste Say: https://says.univ-littoral.fr/?page_id=5
Июль 2014, “Сдерживающие факторы российской инновационной политики”, Гием Ашерманн*
Российская Федерация признает, что в некоторой степени она испытывает зависимость от природных ресурсов и, несомненно, осознает, что такая зависимость может стать причиной возникновения ретроактивных проблем и препятствовать развитию национального производственного комплекса. Выступления политической элиты, как и Концепции и Стратегии Российской Федерации, единодушны: Россия должна использовать доходы от продаж природных ресурсов для уравновешивания, реформирования и реорганизации структуры производственного комплекса страны. Модернизация российских производственных мощностей тесно связана с необходимостью внедрения инновационных решений в стратегические секторы , которые способны повысить конкурентоспособность экономики страны.
Для инициации процесса инноваций, призванного реанимировать национальные стратегические отрасли промышленности, государство приняло ряд мер, таких как предоставление льгот по уплате налогов, сборов, таможенных платежей; предоставление образовательных услуг, предоставление информационной и консультационной поддержки (консалтинг) по вопросам инновационного процесса; целевое финансирование путем предоставления субсидий, грантов, ссуд, государственных гарантий, контрактов, безвозвратных государственных выплат и т.д.; реализация целевых программ и мероприятий в рамках государственных программ инновационной политики Российской Федерации; поддержка организации экспорта; обеспечение инфраструктуры инновационного процесса. Такая инновационная политика сопровождается политикой целевого регионального экономического развития конкретных секторов и районов.
Хотя принятые меры по увеличению эффективности производственного комплекса России основаны на множестве согласованных инициатив, призванных содействовать внедрению инноваций, при всем при этом возникает множество вопросов практического характера. В действительности, структура «новой рыночной экономики» России носит уязвимый характер. Несмотря на то, что доходы от теплоносителей достаточно надежно маскируют эту уязвимость, основным действующим лицам инновационного процесса (предпринимателям, исследователям, инвесторам, частным/общественным организациям) необходимы долгосрочные гарантии возможности введения новых производственных стратегий. С этой точки зрения институционный фактор инновационного процесса приобретает первостепенное значение. На самом деле, космических экстерналий недостаточно для создания новых производственных объединений, в связи с чем, необходимо дополнительно создать новые доступные формы абсорбции новых знаний для усиления динамики обучения и инноваций. Россия, как наследница промышленного потенциала советского периода, стремится возродить некоторые победные формулы той эпохи. Принимая во внимание сосредоточенность ресурсов на одном конкретном секторе и увеличение зоны охвата сети образовательных и исследовательских учреждений по всей территории страны, российское государство не сможет обойтись без инновационных предпринимателей в условиях «новой рыночной экономики». Именно они в состоянии насытить производственный комплекс новыми идеями и концепциями, новыми процессами, продуктами и методами. Тем не менее, независимо от сферы экономической деятельности, предприниматели жалуются на недостаток энтузиазма со стороны государственных чиновников, на юридические нормы, скопированные с советских и соответственно неприспособленные к новым технологиям, на непрозрачную систему распределения государственных ресурсов. В частности, для удержания такого энтропийного состояния производственного комплекса государство определяет конкретные секторы и районы. И следствием объединения советских территориальных производственных мощностей и промышленных кластеров Майкла Портера становятся российские «инновационные территориальные кластеры» , которые претендуют на соответствие реалиям действительности. В то же время, динамический процесс внедрения территориальных инновационных систем остается сложным. Внедрение инноваций, способных стать новыми источниками роста российской экономики и повысить ее конкурентоспособность на международном рынке, тесно связано с экономическим, институционным, социальным, культурным контекстами кластера. Следовательно, решение может быть найдено в мультискалярном взаимодействии между регионами.
Более подробная информация на сайте: https://cluster.hse.ru/clusters/
* RRI (Международная исследовательская сеть по инновации в экономической области)
June 2014, “Innovation and Knowledge Management” by Pierre Barbaroux*, Amel Attour**
In a turbulent economic environment characterized by the geographical extension of markets and the hyper-competitive pressures, firms gradually adapted their innovation models. These adaptations are emblematic but not limited to the so-called high technology sectors. While such companies as Microsoft, Linux, Intel, Google, and Amazon deserved special attention from practitioners and analysts, traditional industries (e.g. aeronautics, agriculture, public transportation and automotive) also adapted their innovation models. New organizational forms thus emerged, in which innovative firms collaborate with a variety of knowledgeable stakeholders (e.g., suppliers, customers, universities, R&D companies, consultants, users’ communities, financial organization, public actors…). In truth, innovation results more and more from the coordinated activity of a variety of competent individuals, communities and organizations through which knowledge and capabilities are likely to foster the invention and commercialization of new ideas. As tangible and intangible resources required for innovation are distributed inside and outside firms’ boundaries, the latter must find ways to absorb external knowledge and, at the same time, find effective means to valorize co-developed products and technologies.
These important changes attracted attention from scholars involved in the study of innovation management models. Several frameworks and concepts have thus been introduced (e.g. business ecosystems, collaborative innovation, open innovation, innovation community, and living labs), each focusing on the multidimensional changes (e.g. organizational, technological, financial…) carried out by firms to manage their innovative activities.
The foregoing renewal does not concern innovation models only. Knowledge management processes deployed by firms to innovate are also affected. Indeed, by adapting their innovation models, firms altered the various cognitive activities supporting the invention and the commercialization of new product, technologies and services. Codification processes, knowledge sharing and transfer, project funding, knowledge protection and risk sharing have all been affected by the trend towards opening up innovation models.
Under this view, the co-evolution of innovation models and knowledge management processes represents a major challenge for firms, in particular for small and medium-sized firms of which resources dedicated to innovation are limited. This joint evolution raises important issues that both economists and organizational theorists are currently seeking to address.
In this context, the Journal of Innovation Economics and Management (JIEM) invites scholars from various disciplines (economics, management, sociology, cognitive sciences…) to submit their original contributions for publication in a special issue untitled “Knowledge management and innovation models: interaction, complexity, openness”. Theoretical, empirical and methodological contributions exploring the relationship between innovation models and knowledge management processes are all welcome.
* Centre Recherche de l’Armée de l’air
** GREDEG- UMR 7321- UNS
May 2014, “Intangible economy and innovation management” by Elisabeth Walliser*, Sophie Mignon**
Today, the value of both products and companies is derived to the extent of 80% from the intelligence injected into them: we have entered the society of knowledge. The invisible has come to take precedence over the visible. We are clearly experiencing a new scientific and technological revolution on a larger scale than its predecessors. In this emerging “new world”, the intangible has become dominant, for example through the role of the information and knowledge circulating in the networks, generating new uses and products on the market, and consequently leading to renewed organisational practices… This new situation is unsettling the production and market systems, and calling into question the behaviours of the actors concerned, particularly in firms and their management methods.
1 – In terms of “products”, although human societies are producing increasing quantities of material goods that consume large amounts of physical input – energy, raw materials, agricultural resources – to the point of endangering the related ecosystems, they are consuming more and more services of all kinds (finance, culture and leisure, security, etc.) that targeting a range of users (services for individuals, businesses and communities).
It can be argued that the more developed an economy is, the greater its intangible component compared to the strictly tangible component, as regards both production and consumption.
2 – This (r)evolution has consequences for the industrial dynamics in the sectors concerned. Those sectors consist not only of industries that are directly representative of the digital economy (equipment, software, social networks, etc.), even if they have a particularly high intangible share and impressive growth rate. The digital revolution, and the intangible revolution more broadly, concerns more or less the entire production system. Corporate competition is increasingly based on development of knowledge, but also the capacity to capture/manage/store/reuse an ever-increasing mass of information (Big data), as well as the rules in use to apply that knowledge, the influence of the firm’s brands, the quality of its social relations, etc.
3 – Management methods thus need to evolve, as evolving production systems call for new organisations and new management methods/systems. Taylorism has been the characteristic of a production model focusing on mass production of tangible goods (cars, textiles, etc.). The intangible economy requires major innovations in organisation methods and human resource management in the related production groups.
4 – Beyond the dynamics of change at work in productive sectors and the actors who both convey and sometimes support them, beyond the occasionally drastic changes in consumption modes (e.g. the role of social networks), the intangible society needs new game rules. The notion of ownership itself is being called into question: the legal rules which are appropriate for tangible goods (moveable and immovable goods) are more difficult to transpose to intangible items whose usage is more important than their actual ownership. The same applies to the financial valuation rules and the way they are expressed in accounting terms.
In short, this predominance of the intangible is leading to both new “economic models” and upheaval in existing business models. Consequently, we also need to review management and governance methods, as well as the systems for “incorporation” and valuation of the associated assets-flows-performances. It can be considered that analysis of this new intangible economy calls for an entirely new paradigm in a break from the economic, legal and management analysis framework used in the traditional market economy.
While innovation is a key factor in organisations’ competitiveness and durability, it is inevitably accompanied by intangible input and output.
In terms of input, innovation is built on knowledge, skills and dynamic capacities but also on the creativity of individuals who make up organisations’ human capital. Innovations are rooted in codified knowledge (warehouses, mapping, procedures…) but also in more tacit knowledge sharing through socialisation mechanisms and more informal meetings. Beyond the simple “information capital” and its maintenance over time, we need to look at the formation of “social capital” between a firm and its suppliers, clients, advisors, experts, etc.
In terms of output, innovation is expressed through brands, reputation, patents, labels, and so on, which enable the organisation to stand out from its competitors. This results in product innovations based on new uses and modes of consumption and managerial innovations related to new ways of organising groups, etc., which require adjustment of the institutional rules (legal, tax, accounting and financial rules).
* Université Montpellier I – MRM, ** Université Montpellier II – MRM
April 2014, “Social innovation and technological innovation: an incompatibility?” by Emmanuelle BESANÇON*
Social innovation can be defined as the implementation of a collective and territorialized process, including participation of the beneficiaries, in order to achieve a social aspiration while responding to a social need. It is holder of changes in individual and collective practices in order to create a society which would be more fair, democratic, and respectful of its environment.
Social innovation is currently attracting a certain enthusiasm. The numerous institutional publications emanating from public actors, such as the European Commission, and private ones, such as the AVISE, show it. Similarly, over the past two years, at least seven calls for projects carrying out social innovation were introduced by so many Regions in France.
However, social innovation is struggling to impose itself on our habits of thought, culturally marked by a technological vision of innovation, inherited from the past two centuries. In this order of ideas, if the works of the OECD have gradually opened during the 2000s to other forms of innovation, these ones are at first qualified as “non-technological innovations” before being thought of what they are: service innovation, organizational innovation, commercial innovation, etc. In the same way, to evoke publicly social innovation is to be directly confronted with a questioning of his links with technological innovation.
Also, the gradual empowerment of social innovation from the 1990s could testify of a certain acculturation. New representations emerge as well, and could lead to new practices, such as opening common law measures to social innovation. Nevertheless, a question remains: does this phenomenon mean that social innovation cannot be associated with technological innovation?
In view of the initiatives which were brought to light in the context of a Call for Expression of Interest on Social Innovation launched by the Regional Council of Picardie in 2013, it appears that social innovation can, in some cases and unsystematically, include a technological dimension or a technological innovation strictly speaking. However, when this one appears as a component of the project, it seems to us that social innovation questions the process of production and the use of technologies. As an example, we shall quote here an initiative in Picardie.
This project aims to develop and adapt digital tools with end users based on the needs they express. In this perspective, technology is thought in regards to the needs to which it allows to respond (in the logic of service) and may not be produced for itself (in the logic of goods). It fits into a democratic and ascending process, favoring the autonomy of vulnerable people in particular who are both targets and actors of the project. It also appears as a medium of social link through a meeting between the inhabitants and the actors of the territory (designers of multimedia tools, local authorities, medical, social and education associations, researchers, etc.) contributing to the co-conception and the co-production of local services. The emergence of economic activities and the production of new technologies respond as well to a collective dynamics which is the holder of social innovation, participating to the construction of a model of territorial and solidarity development.
We will conclude on the necessity of considering social innovation its own right, in order to seize all its richness and potential of social transformation, while accepting that it can, in some initiatives, integrate a technological dimension more or less important. Therefore, innovation will be social if it questions, in a democratic and ascending process, the role and the use of technologies in our society, in order to fully meet the conditions for sustainable development.
* CRIISEA, Institut Jean-Baptiste GODIN
March 2014, “Services and crisis: stop shooting at the ambulance!”, by Faridah Djellal et Faïz Gallouj
In contemporary developed economies, services account for about three-quarters of wealth and jobs. Any work dedicated to these activities consistently starts with this statistical observation. One could add that one of the characteristics of the so-called emergent countries is the acceleration of their tertiarization going hand in hand with their industrial success.
If the concept of service is ancient (it is particularly discussed by Adam Smith in the « Wealth of Nations »), the concept of service sector (Clark, Fisher) was born in the 1930s in relation with national accountancy issues. It was reinforced in the 1950s, in the United States, by the statistical works of Kuznets, and especially Fuchs.
To simplify, one can say that there has been a struggle between two major theses in order to explain the growth of the service sector: the post-industrial thesis, on the one hand, and the neo-industrial thesis, on the other hand. The former one, and especially Daniel Bell, advocates an optimistic and idealized vision of the service society in which the tertiarization is explained by a demand law (Engel’s law) and a productivity law (Fourastié’s law). Post-industrial society allegedly constitutes a new stage in human progress, based on the production and consumption of services and the pre-eminence of a higher, white-collar tertiary sector. The neo-industrial thesis, whose figurehead is Jonathan Gershuny, is more critical regarding services. Thus for Gershuny, technology and social innovation sound the death knell of the “service society” and replace it with a “self-service” society, in which consumers reject market services in favour of domestic production based on a technological system (the DVD rather than the cinema, the microwave and the pizza rather than the restaurant). For other authors belonging to the neo-industrialist perspective, services are subordinated to the manufacturing industry (the only driving force), when they are not just parasitical. These debates, which culminated in the 1970s-1980s, quietened down little by little, as services became established in an irremediable way in the socioeconomic landscape, as illustrated by the macroeconomic indicators.
The fact remains that according to the old logic of the scapegoat, at every downturn in the economy, these polemics are revived. Services are then more or less explicitly designated as responsible for the economic difficulties, and especially the weakening of the industrial basis (deindustrialization). Influential politicians and distinguished economists alike (who are sometimes the same persons) establish in their statements a questionable causal relationship between tertiarization and deindustrialization, as if the opening of a hotel or a restaurant, the creation of a consulting firm, or an association could cause the closing of a plant! Therefore, to limit oneself to these two recent examples, Nicolas Sarkozy, while he was Minister of Economy declared « France cannot be only an economy of banks, insurance and services ». (France Info., April 16th, 2004). Similarly, Arnaud Montebourg, at the head of the Ministry of the “manufacturing recovery” declared in 2012 “Aluminium, textile industry, wood… our project is to recover all the industries which have gone abroad. The idea of France which succeeds without plants, is finished (…). Goodbye the service economy, long life to the recovery by manufacturing, by hard material. Our country should not become a large ski area for rich men, a luxury hotel with spa”. (Le Parisien, 2012). This suspicion regarding services is also regularly reflected in the literature, as illustrated by the following titles: “Too few producers” (Bacon and Eltis, 1978), “Manufacturing matters” (Cohen and Zysman, 1987), “France without its plants” (Artus and Virard, 2011), “Reindustrialisation, I write your name” (Levet and al., 012).
If nobody can deny the economic crisis which characterizes most of the European countries, what is the mechanism which leads to (implicitly or explicitly) attribute this crisis to services and to shout death to these activities? In some way, Adam Smith, whose thought keeps influencing the visions of the contemporary economists (and of politicians alike), bears the responsibility for this stigmatization of services. In an analysis limited, it should be acknowledged, to the work of domestic servants, of artists and of the servants of the State, he defined services as “unproductive of any value » and as activities “perishing at the very instant of their production”. However it must be acknowledged that other well-known myths systematically re-emerge at each crisis pick: the myths of the low capital intensity of services (the absence of plants), of their low productivity, of their disability to innovate, their maladjustment to exchange and international trade, the myth of the “society of services as a society of servants” (according to the expression of the philosopher André Gorz), …
However, today more than in the past, these myths do not hold any more. It is mainly in services that ICTs, the emblematic technologies of our century are invasive. These ICTs facilitate the exchange and the international trade, productivity gains and innovation dynamics. Even if it is dual, the service society, as it is illustrated by statistics, is more an engineers’ society than a society of servants: service organizations are the main employers of executives, engineers and managers. If they also recruit less skilled employees (“bad jobs” or “hamburger jobs”), is it always necessary to complain about it, especially in periods of economic difficulties? Nevertheless the services economy is also the economy of knowledge intensive services (engineering, consultancy), which are not only particularly innovative for themselves, but which constitute essential support for the innovation of other sectors (especially manufacturing sectors). As William Baumol pointed out in a very evocative paper (“Service as leaders and the leader of the services” *), R&D is a service (one can add that this also holds for education). More generally, growing research works emphasise the overpowering rise of the capacity of innovation of services, or the recognition of a dynamics of innovation which was invisible to our analytical tools (characterized by a technologistic and industrialist bias). One could go a step further in the improvement of the image of services, by paradoxically considering that the service economy does not exist any more (or is fast disappearing), that service and goods are consequently inextricably linked, as it is expressed in a certain number of recent theories: economics of functionalities, economics of experience, approaches in terms of characteristics, service-dominant logic …
All in all, in the search for the reasons for economic crisis, we must not choose the wrong target. If it is necessary to seriously tackle the problem of the deindustrialization of our economies, it is not by attacking services. Services are not the problem. They are conversely often a (part of the) solution. A defensive or therapeutic solution, in certain cases, in a general perspective of a social and solidarity-based economy. But also and above all an offensive solution, taking advantage from the capacity of innovation of services in general and from the driving effect of some of them (the knowledge intensive services) over the national innovation dynamics and economic growth. Therefore let’s stop shooting at the ambulance!
*in Gadrey et Gallouj (eds) (2002), Productivity, innovation and knowledge in services, Edward Elgar
February 2014, « The need for industry » by Gabriel Colletis1 and Pierre Grou2
No country can grow or even remain as an advanced country without productive base. It is because they have ignored this fact that some countries are today sinking into chaos and that others may be dragged towards the slope of decline. Job losses and the disappearance of whole sections of industry do not concern only certain sectors or employment areas. They have devastating effects on the economy as a whole, jeopardizing their future and that of future generations. In so doing, they threaten democracy.
Since the 1980s, the promotion of a hegemonic neoliberal that thinking making no distinction between “productive labour” and other socially useful activities, such as, for example, personal services or tourist services has completely ignored the need for a strong and effective industrial base. Trapped in a neoliberal thought that proceeds by confusion, economic thinking is in crisis. The value becomes shareholder value. The economy is equated with only companies. Labour is considered as a cost. Social contributions have become “expenses”. Legitimate industrial expertise only lies in business leaders to whom it would be their “profession”.
At a time when bankruptcies and plant closures reach record levels, a Productive Pact for France appears to be absolutely necessary. The terms of this Productive Pact consist of a deep change of representations and practices.
First, recognition of the competence of those who work must replace the vision that considers labour as a cost that should be reduced at all costs; finance must be put into the service of the development of productive activities and not vice versa; and the factors upon which measures promoting business location have been developed must give way to real strategies of local commitment based on proximity (geographical but also in terms of skills and confidence); respect for nature and the environment should no longer be considered as a constraint and seized as an opportunity to answer a vital issue for the future.
To invent the industry that France needs, it is not enough that companies, strongly supported by the government, are willing to invest in research and development of advanced technologies. It is above all necessary that a massive effort of education and qualification is taken from the school in the company. This effort, which will require significant resources over time, can take its true meaning only if the vision of labour changes dramatically. If companies want to innovate, to stay competitive with the quality of their products, they must recognize that labour is synonymous with competence and source of creativity. Wanting to innovate and continue to regard labour as a cost that should imperatively be reduced and be made more flexible is an impasse which explains the innovation gap of a number of French firms, or the plight of some of them that after pretending to be able to do without factories claim today no longer needing their engineers.
Contrary to what is often argued, costs cutting do not for most the time focus on improving competitiveness but higher profitability and in a short-term satisfaction of shareholder. Never would dividends levied on enterprises have been as high and virtually guaranteed. Want to restore margins is not enough and may even be counterproductive. It is better to de-financialise businesses by introducing long term preference into their management mechanisms. Assign, at general meetings of shareholders, voting rights calculated according to the duration of the equity goes in the right direction and is a means conducive to lasting commitment of capital providers. The same would apply to a differentiated tax system that would favour reinvestment of profits at the expense of excessive dividends. Sustainable development of the industry would also imply a stronger territorial settling that can be stimulated by deepening regional networks and promoting a circular economy that conserving resources.
Such a perspective would trace the outline of a project and would restore hope to a country currently without direction and cannot be guided by objectives such as reducing public deficits and recovery of margins.
1Professor at University of Toulouse 1
2Professor at University of Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
January 2014, “FabLab and Engineering: Opportunities for Innovation and Creativity” by Laure Morel, Vincent Boly et Mauricio Camargo*
The last few years have been filled with upheavals and changes in the ways in which innovation is managed. These changes have been fostered by new trends, such as:
– Systemic innovation: In certain sectors it has become impossible for a company to modify a product on its own. Governments or major industrial groups collaborate to create upstream consortiums in order to be able to innovate.
– Open innovation (shared innovation): Nowadays certain companies mobilise skills in their environment, whether from known partners (another company, technical centres, etc.) or from contributors that are far away and unknown to them.
– Introduction of new technologies in the innovation process: The use of information and communication technologies today has changed the way in which innovation processes are deployed. Web 2.0 is radically changing existing technologies, while 3D simulation and virtual reality are changing the way we evaluate the acceptability of new products. Additive manufacturing is changing technical design processes in some sectors, while collaborative platforms are erasing cultural differences.
– Self-learning: The sources of knowledge and learning are undergoing a total revolution. Incredible developments can be observed in teaching via gaming, serious games and webTV. Universities that are open on the Internet (MOOC = Massive Open Online Courses) are increasing.
In order to respond to the new issues and to contribute to this major trend of changes in the way innovation is perceived and stimulated, many laboratories are opening their “gateway to the Internet”: open labs are established in particular under the generic title of FabLab. The FabLab concept (a contraction of the FABrication LABoratory) was invented by MIT researcher Neil Gershenfeld in the early 2000s. Since then, FabLabs have been developed in the four corners of the world in contexts as diverse as Norway, the Netherlands, France, Afghanistan, India or South Africa.
A FabLab is a workshop devoted to digital manufacturing. The idea is to assemble all the resources needed to realise a project from A to Z, from intention to prototype, in one place. This concept is interesting for engineering research because it enables researchers to work on complementary aspects of design via use, such as co-creation and collaborative learning. The concept of Intermediary Objects of Design (IOD) becomes a central medium in the design because it is available in real time. It provides an object of communication between researchers and a source for integration of technical, economic and ergonomic aspects. Thus, nowadays, beside the fact that digital manufacturing enables the production of complex items (technical items, mechanisms, etc.) without going through the industrial circuit, the research issues are placed in different dimensions. This allows establishing the links between creativity and innovation, collaboration and opening innovation, design and user integration, which can contribute to moving our SMEs upmarket through 3D innovation.
* University of Lorraine, ERPI Labs
RNI Editorials
