Читать книгу Innovation Economics, Engineering and Management Handbook 2 - Группа авторов - Страница 14

If we accept the idea that the question of the political meaning of innovation needs to be rehabilitated, the question then arises of how to reconfigure ourselves intellectually to achieve this; during the 20th century, we lost our ability to give meaning to our actions, too busy developing and implementing “efficient” design methods aimed at rapidly producing a continuous flow of effective innovations, such as methods of functional analysis, innovative design, innovative project management or even eco-design. Indeed, while the latter makes it possible to reduce the environmental impact of products, it leaves the question of the meaning of innovation in the shadows, as we will see.

We defend the thesis that innovation in the 21st century implies getting rid of lazy thinking reduced to the application of methods for innovation, which, while they freed the designer from thinking about the political meaning of innovations, prevented them from demanding and creating real innovations. It is in this perspective that we have developed the above-mentioned Penser le Sens de l’Innovation (PSI) approach (Chouteau et al. 2020).

The PSI approach emphasizes that the question of meaning must be considered from the dual point of view of its direction and significance. Direction, which, if one dares to draw an analogy with the development of a tree, corresponds to a branch of the tree. It refers to a principle of a possible solution (concept) and recalls a characteristic of the design process, namely that there is no single solution to an identified problem, but a set of solutions that refers to the idea of fields of possibilities. The deployment of a direction depends on the capacity of the imagined concept to make sense for the user. Does any creation of value for the user automatically make sense for our society? Nothing is less certain! Just take the example of Instagram. It is a tool that allows users to take a photo, edit it and then share it online with their network, and whose social dimension has often been highlighted. But what kind of society are we shaping when we design devices that stimulate the cult of the image and the perfect body and make people feel that they do not live lives as rich and exciting as others do? This is why the PSI approach invites the designer to consider the meaning of each direction at the level of the user, on the one hand, and of society, on the other hand, because, while it is now commonly accepted that an innovation is always the translation of compromises made during the design process (compromises between functions to be in sync with specifications, and compromises between stakeholders), we cannot forget that it is meaningful to the society it helps to design.

Figure 1.1. Innovation meaning tree (according to Forest 2020)

Rehabilitating the question of the political meaning of innovation is therefore what differentiates the PSI approach from that of design thinking. The latter, precisely because it is user-centered, leaves the question of meaning for society in the shadows, whereas the PSI approach forces the designer to think about the meanings for the user AND society, leading the designer to become aware of the solutions they project and to question the meaning of the society they are helping to create. This leads us to Anthony Masure, who asserts that design thinking has removed design from all political thinking (Masure 2015). However, make no mistake about what we are saying: this is not a question of rejecting any interest in design thinking, but more modestly of emphasizing that the PSI approach is more an extension of design thinking than an opposition to it.

Re-emphasizing the question of the political meaning of innovation also allows us to distinguish the PSI approach from the “Design-driven innovation” that Roberto Verganti promotes. According to him, individuals do not only buy products and services but also meanings. He advocates moving from a focus on the “what” to a focus on the “why”. The objective is to design an innovation that proposes a new reason for the question of why people use a device, which requires interpreters to collaborate (Dell’Era et al. 2018, p. 388). While Roberto Verganti’s approach puts the question of meaning at the forefront, the fact remains that we are still dealing with the user and not with the question of whether any innovation that makes sense for the user is necessarily “good” or “desirable” for society.

The controversy over the French StopCovid application, designed by the National Institute for Research in Digital Science and Technology (Inria), and inspired by the TraceTogether system implemented in Singapore, is emblematic of the issue. In an interview given to the newspaper Le Monde on April 8, 2020, Health Minister Olivier Véran revealed that the government considered the development of the application, with a view to limiting the spread of the virus by identifying chains of transmission and people who have been in contact with a patient who has tested positive. This project generated, from the very next day, a significant amount of opposition. If this application can make sense:

 – for the user, promising to increase their safety and security,

 – for many epidemiology and health specialists, who consider the application an indispensable tool to avoid a second health crisis15,

 – it can question the society that we contribute to design using it.

Indeed, beyond the ongoing debate on the effectiveness of this application (according to expert estimates, at least 60% of French people would have to download it for its relevance. Bluetooth technology can produce false positives, and, in an open letter on April 19, 2020, 300 international researchers asked states not to abuse digital tracking technologies, pointing out the security flaws in applications such as StopCovid, etc.), we cannot hide the fact that it raises legitimate questions in terms of respect for individual liberties and privacy protection, and that we must be wary, as indicated by the Secretary of State to the Prime Minister Marlène Schiappa, of letting our anxiety in the face of the crisis lead us to endorse a clear retreat from our rights. These are questions that the PSI approach invites us to ask ourselves, beyond the search for a “why” directed to the user.