Читать книгу Innovation Economics, Engineering and Management Handbook 2 - Группа авторов - Страница 20

Since when have engineers been interested in innovation as a field of research in its own right? Is it possible to find the historical landmarks that have marked the structuring of this field of research and especially the contributing feeder disciplines?

Many authors agree that the emergence of this field of research has its roots in two streams of research: industrial engineering and industrial systems engineering, disciplines that were born at the beginning of the century in the United States^{1, 2}

The first definition, established in 1955 and revised in 1985 by the Institute of Industrial Engineers, states that “industrial engineering” is concerned with the design, improvement and implementation of integrated systems of human resources, materials, equipment and energy. It uses knowledge and know-how in mathematics, physics and social sciences, as well as the principles and methods of analysis and design relevant to the art of engineering, in order to predict and evaluate the results that can be expected from such systems.

Although the term “design” is used twice in this definition, practice shows that this definition is very production-oriented. As a result, in the United States, we have seen the emergence of “engineering management” from management schools, which focuses more on the technological lifecycle (Cleland et al. 1981).

In France, the concept of industrial engineering (IE) arrived in 1975 to face economic pressures and to solve problems of optimizing the organization of production systems in terms of price, quantity, quality and flexibility. More generally, it deals with the topics of production management, product/process design and project management and thus marks a first step in responding to the problem of optimizing industrial processes (design process, manufacturing, inventory management, quality, planning, marketing, etc.). It is an interdisciplinary application of the models and tools of the feeder disciplines to the problems of industrial organization (e.g. the contributions of statistics to quality control, or those of mathematics to production scheduling).

In the 1980s, increasing globalized competitive pressure led to the search for decisive competitive advantages, in particular by working on the integrated design of products, processes, production tools and marketing strategies to reduce lead times and become increasingly responsive to the environment.

This is how industrial systems engineering (ISE) was born, integrating the dimensions of “production sciences”, “design sciences” and “project management”, thus combining the approaches of industrial engineering and engineering management. More generally, the idea is to consider a more global vision and to work on enlarged study objects (e.g. moving from flow optimization to optimization of the organization of the industrial system or from product design to activity design). This has led to a change in the level of approach to problems both in their spatio-temporal and cultural dimensions. In addition, the obsolescence or decline of entire areas of industrial and service activity (metallurgy, coal mining, traditional trade) associated with the emergence of new technologies, the evolution of consumption and the internationalization of markets has led to the increasingly acute and rapid need for the creation of new activities.

In France, these two schools of thought coexist, and although they originally shared a technological vision of innovation, they separated from it in the mid-1980s, thus marking a differentiating aspect in both disciplines and the first signs of what would later become a common line of research: innovation engineering in an ecosystems perspective. We will come back to this later.

In this chapter, we have attempted the perilous exercise of retracing the evolution, both temporal and conceptual, of the vision of the notion of innovation from the moment that IE and the ISE became interested in it. We have also highlighted the contributions of researchers from engineering schools to the structuring of this field of research. Finally, we have chosen to take into consideration certain works carried out by engineers who have developed a dual competence (economics, management, sociology, etc.) that we consider to be important in creating the foundations of research in innovation because they have inspired the work of previous researchers. Finally, we have tried to retrace some international works and international associations that have had an influence on French research. As this list cannot be exhaustive, we apologize in advance for this incompleteness.

Our research process was structured as follows:

 – identification of personalities from the engineering world who supported the introduction of IE and ISE to France;

 – search in Google Scholar for traces of founding documents linking engineering and innovation for the period 1975–2000;

 – search for inspirational international authors for the same period of time;

 – search for international associations of scientific and practice communities that were created during the period under review;

 – our results are referenced in two tables: the first highlights, in chronological order, the inspirational authors and engineers and the themes of their work (Table 2.1); the second highlights, in chronological order, the authors making progress in the engineering sciences and who are recognized as contributors to the development of research in innovation, whether or not resulting from the development of IE and ISE in France (Table 2.2).

Table 2.1. A non-exhaustive list of inspirational books written by trained engineers

Themes	Year	Inspirational authors’ seminar work
Information systems	1973	Le Moigne, J.-L. (1973). Les systèmes d’information dans les organisations. Presses universitaires de France, Paris.
Decision systems	1974	Le Moigne, J.-L. (1974). Les systèmes de décision dans les organisations. Presses universitaires de France, Paris.
Prospective/systemic-holistic	1975	de Rosnay, J. (1975). Le macroscope : vers une vision globale. Éditions du Seuil, Paris.
Systemic-holistic	1979	Mélèse, J. (1979). Approches systémiques des organisations : vers l’entreprise à complexité humaine. Edition Hommes et Techniques, Paris.
Technological excellence	1985	Morin, J. (1985). L’excellence technologique, 1st edition. Editions Jean Picollec, Paris. Morin, J. (1988). L’excellence technologique, 2nd edition. Editions Jean Picollec, Paris.
Management of technological resources	1988	Morin, J., Seurat, R., Marbach, C. (1989). Le management des ressources technologiques. Editions d’Organisation, Paris.
Systemic-holistic	1990	Le Moigne, J.-L. (1990a). La modélisation des systèmes complexes. Dunod, Paris.
Systemic-holistic	1994	Le Moigne, J.-L. (1990b). La théorie du système général : théorie de la modélisation. Presses universitaires de France.

As we have already pointed out, the 1970s clearly appear to be the beginning of a new way of thinking, designing and acting on technological systems. It was during this period that two key notions appeared, which were prospective and systemic through founding works: the macroscope (de Rosnay 1975), information and decision-making systems (Le Moigne 1973, 1974) and the systemic approach to organizations (Mélèse 1979), which was not widely disseminated at the time. It was not until the mid-1980s that this holistic vision appeared in the understanding of industrial systems and organizations, namely, the management of technological resources (Morin 1985; Morin et al. 1989) and the modeling of complex systems (Le Moigne 1990a, 1990b). These works were a necessary condition for the emergence of innovation engineering because they inspired the academic community, which was already aware of the importance of taking a new look at engineering research, in particular by introducing the notion of innovation (Table 2.2).

Finally, it is interesting to note that the emergence of a field of research on innovation was not an isolated phenomenon in France, since we can see the emergence, this time concomitantly, in the United States, England and Japan, in particular, of a discipline with an “integrated” approach to “value development” under very different qualifiers, as shown in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2. A non-exhaustive list of significant works in the international community

Themes	Year	Inspirational authors
Competitive advantage	1985	Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Competitive Advantage, 167, 167–206.
Innovation and lead users	1988	von Hippel, E. (1988). Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.
Innovation and learning organizations	1990	Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Random House, London.
Technologica l change	1994	Freeman, C. (1994). The economics of technical change. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 18(5), 463–514.
Critical skills	1994	Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1996). Competing for the Future. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA
Critical capabilities and technology strategy	1995	Leonard, D. (1995). Wellsprings of Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Innovation and the learning organization	1995	Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Disruptive innovation	1995	Bower, J.L. and Christensen, C.M. (1995). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, January–February, 43–53.
Innovation audit	1996	Chiesa, V., Coughlan, P., Voss, C.A. (1996). Development of a technical innovation audit. Journal of Product Innovation Management: An International Publication of the Product Development & Management Association, 13(2), 105–136.
Learning organization	1996	Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, Methods and Practice. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
Disruptive innovation	1997	Christensen, C. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, 1st edition. Harvard Business Review Press, Cambridge, MA.
Industrial innovation	1997	Freeman, C. and Soete, L. (1997). The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd edition. Routledge, Abingdon.
Technological innovation and change	1999	Mowery, D.C. and Rosenberg, N. (1999). Paths of Innovation: Technological Change in 20th-Century America. Cambridge University Press, Cambrdige.
Technology management	2000	Khalil, T.M. and Shankar, R. (2000). Management of Technology: The Key to Competitiveness and Wealth Creation, 1st edition. McGraw-Hill Science, Boston, MA.
Open innovation	2003	Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
Innovation	2003	Shavinina, L.V. (ed.) (2003). The International Handbook of Innovation. Elsevier, Oxford.
2020 vision engineer	2004	Clough, G.W. (2004). The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Innovation	2005	Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R. (2005). The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Innovation strategy	2005	Mauborgne, R. and Chan, W.K. (2005). Blue Ocean Strategy. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA.

Table 2.3. Emergence of innovation engineering research within the engineering community in France (source: our research)

Origin (US)	Disciplines (FR)	Mayor	Concepts	Year	Reference
Industrial engineering/engineering management	Mechanical engineering	ISE	Innovative design	1988	Duchamp, R. (1988). La conception de produits nouveaux. Hermes Lavoisier, Hoboken, NJ.
IE	Integrated design	1994	Tichkiewitch, S. (1994). De la CFAO à la conception intégrée. Revue internationale de CFAO et d’infographie, 9(5), 609–621.
IE	Intermediary design objects (IDO)	1995	Mer, S., Jeantet, A., Tichkiewitch, S. (1995). Les objets intermédiaires de la conception : modélisation et communication. Le communicationnel pour concevoir, 21–41.
IE	Technology transfer	1995	Bergeron, J. and Bocquet, J.C. (1995). Introducing new technologies in organisations – Business model perspective. Benchmarking – Theory and Practice. Springer, Boston, MA.
IE	TRIZ – the theory of inventive problem solving (TIPS)	1997	Cavallucci, D. and Lutz, P. (1997). TRIZ : une nouvelle theorie d’aide à l’innovation industrielle. Revue française de gestion industrielle, 15–28.
ISE	Project management of innovation	2001	Longueville, B., Le Cardinal, J., Bocquet, J.C. (2001). La gestion des connaissances pour les projets de conception de produits innovants. Septième colloque sur la conception mécanique intégrée, PRIMECA.
Process engineering	ISE	Systemic vision	1979	Le Goff, P. (1979). La valeur de l’énergie a-t-elle une base économique, écologique ou technique ? Critère d’optimisation en énergétique industrielle. Revue d’économie industrielle, 8(1), 68–98.
ISE	Technological innovation engineering	1983	Castagne, M., Guidat, C., Voinson, P. (1983). Proposition d’une méthodologie de sélection des procédés valorisant la biomasse lignocellulosique. Revue d’ économie industrielle, 26(1), 14–23.
ISE	Technological innovation engineering	1984	Guidat, C. (1984). Contribution méthodologique à la formalisation d’un nouveau métier : l’ingénierie de l’innovation technologique à partir de l’expérience d’une innovation technique dans la filière bois : AGRESTA (Procédé de transformation physico-chimique du bois en isolant pour la construction), HDR, Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, Nancy.
ISE	Innovative organizations	1987	Castagne, M. (1987). Le génie des systèmes industriels : une discipline nouvelle. European Journal of Engineering Education, 12(3), 271–276.
ISE	Foresight	1987	Boly, V. (1987). Elaboration de scénarios à 10 ans par les méthodes micmac et smic, application à une initiative de développement local. PhD thesis, Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, Nancy.
IE	Manufacturing industrial systems	1988	Gousty, Y. and Kieffer, J.P. (1988). Une nouvelle typologie pour les systèmes industriels de production. Revue française de gestion, 104–112.
ISE	Technology watch	1995	Baldit, P., Quoniam, L., Ruiz, J.M., Dou, H. (1995). La gestion de projet et la veille technologique : vers une méthodologie commune. Direction et gestion des entreprises, (155–156), 61–68.
ISE	Risk and project management	1997	Karsenty, P., Zelfani, M., Angot, P., Lacoste, G. (1997). Intégration et évaluation des risques en gestion de projet dans les industries pilotées par la recherche. Congrès international de génie industriel, Albi, France.
ISE	Innovation engineering	1998	Morel, L. (1998). Proposition d’une ingénierie intégrée de l’innovation vue comme un processus permanent de création de valeur. PhD thesis, Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, Nancy.
ISE	Innovation process	2000	Boly, V. (2000). Processus d’innovation : contribution à la modélisation et approches méthodologiques. HDR, Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, Nancy.
ISE	Data exchange for technological innovation	2001	Richir, S., Taravel, B., Samier, H. (2001). Information networks and technological innovation for industrial products. International Journal of Technology Management, 21(3–4), 420–427.
IE	TRIZ – the theory of inventive problem solving (TIPS)	2002	Cordova-Lopez, E., Lacoste G., Le Lann, J.-M. (2002). Use of Altshuller’s matrix for solving slag problems related to steering knuckle (Part I of II) [Online]. Available at: https://triz-journal.com/use-altshullers-matrix-solving-slag-problems-related-steering-knuckle-part-ii/.
Automatics/system engineering	IE	Enterprise modeling	1995	Vernadat, F. (1995). Modélisation systémique en entreprise : métamodélisation. La modélisation systémique en entreprise, Braesch, C., Haurat, A. (eds). Hermes, Stanmore.
IE	Innovation process modeling	2001	Tomala, F., Senechal, O., Tahon, C. (2001). Modèle de processus d’innovation. MOSIM01’ : actes de la troisième conférence francophone de modélisation et simulation : conception, analyse et gestion des systèmes industriels. Ghent.
Management sciences	Innovation and organization	1985	Agrell, P., Hatchuel, A., van Gigch, J.P. (1985). Innovation as Organizational Intervention. California State University Sacramento, School of Business and Public Administration, Sacramento, CA.
Innovation process	1987	Hatchuel, A., Agrell, P., van Gigch, J.P. (1987). Innovation as system intervention. Systems Research, 4(1), 5–11.
Technological system	1989	Aït-El-Hadj, S. (1989). L’entreprise face à la mutation technologique. Les Editions d’Organisation, Paris.
Management of technological resources	1993	Durand, T. (1993). The dynamics of cognitive technological maps. Implementing Strategic Processes, 165–189.
Management of technology	1998	Durand, T. (1988). Management pour la technologie : de la théorie à la pratique. Revue française de gestion, (71), 5–14.
Innovation and management of R&D	2001	Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., Weil, B. (2001). De la R&D à la RID : de nouveaux principes de management du processus d’innovation. Congrès francophone du management de projet, AFITEP : “Innovation, conception… et projets”, Paris.
C-K (concept-knowledge) theory	2001	Hatchuel, A. (2001). Towards design theory and expandable rationality: The unfinished program of Herbert Simon. Journal of Management and Governance, 5(3/4), 260–273.
Sociology	Technological system	2002	Aït-El-Hadj, S. (2002). Systèmes technologiques et innovation : itinéraire théorique. Editions L’Harmattan, Paris.
Innovation and stakeholders	1988	Akrich, M., Callon, M., Latour, B. (1988). A quoi tient le succès des innovations ? 1 : L’art de l’intéressement ; 2 : Le choix des porte-parole. Gérer et comprendre. Annales des Mines, 4–17 and 14–29.
Technological innovation	1987	Akrich, M. (1987). Comment les innovations réussissent ? Recherche et technologie, 26–34.
Technological innovation	1994	Callon, M. (1994). L’innovation technologique et ses mythes. Gérer et comprendre, 34, 5–17.

In France, in particular, Table 2.3 shows that the engineering community interested in innovation has drawn on various disciplines, such as mechanical engineering, production engineering, process engineering, management sciences and sociology.

In any case, the work clearly shows that it was product design that originally concentrated research efforts in the mechanical engineering community under the impetus of Gousty and Kieffer (1988), gradually associating with it the notion of innovation under the “design of new products” (Duchamp 1988).

Conversely, at the same time, the industrial systems engineering community from process engineering advocated a “systems” vision (Castagne 1987). The notion of technological innovation engineering (Castagne et al. 1983; Guidat 1984) and foresight to generate innovation scenarios (Boly 1987) even explicitly appeared (Castagne et al. 1983; Guidat 1984).

This raises the differences in the way of conceiving what prefigures a field of research in innovation: for the former, design is associated with the creation of a product, whereas for the latter, it is a question of designing the processes/processes (the set of unit operations and the process leading to them) to manufacture this product. “It is obvious that it is necessary to abandon, for example, the belief in ‘harvesting’ technological innovation to move on to the concept of ‘cultivated’ innovation” (Castagne 1987). We believe that the precursory genius of Pierre Le Goff, Professor of Process Engineering in Nancy, in the holistic understanding of the world, is not insignificant. Indeed, as early as 1979, he published an article that was a forerunner of what has become a systemic vision of energy recommending the association of ecological, economic and technical points of view (Le Goff 1979).

In any case, research conducted on innovation is eminently confronted with what (Lemoigne 1984) qualifies as “the paradoxes of the engineer”³: the difficulty of conceiving a complexity arising from realities held to be inconceivable by our reason (paradox of conceiving complexity and complexity of design (action of designing and its result)).

It is also important to underline the publishing activity of colleagues, engineers by training, who have acquired a double competence through a doctorate in management sciences and sociology and whose contribution to the development of industrial systems engineering and innovation is undeniable. This is a question of citing the work carried out by A. Hatchuel (Agrell et al. 1985; Hatchuel et al. 1987) which presents innovation as a system of intervention and the work (Aït-El-Hadj 1989) that deals with the notion of innovation and technological systems. Concerning the sociology of innovation, we could not follow the detour in the work carried out by Akrich (1987) and Akrich et al. (1988) in the mid-1980s.

In line with these precursors, bearers of a new vision of design and innovation, a series of works have been produced which show an evolution in the concepts mobilized. This evolution is also the result of the introduction in France of a new research theme, once again coming from the United States: technology management. As we presented at the beginning of this section, the United States very early on developed “industrial engineering” in engineering faculties and “engineering management” in business schools. At the end of the 1980s, the latter developed a research axis entitled “Management of Technology” (MoT) (Khalil and Bayraktar 1988), which corresponds to both innovation engineering and innovation management (French version). MoT covers areas of investigation such as industrial strategy, technology transfer, product and technology lifecycles, management of research and development projects, technological innovation processes, risk analysis, cooperation strategies, quality as a development tool and management of technological resources.

It is important to note that international associations were formed over the same period, carrying this new vision of the innovation process and allowing a wider dissemination of the work through the organization of international conferences. The list includes, in particular:

ISPIM (The International Society for Professional Innovation Management), founded in 1973 by Professor Knut Holt at the University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, Norway, and whose first conference was held in 1983, and subsequently internationally.

IAMOT (The International Association for Management of Technology), founded in 1988 by Professor Tarek Khalil of the University of Miami and whose first conference was held on the same date and subsequently every other year in the United States and around the world.

PICMET (Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology), created in 1989 by Professor Dundar Koaglu in Portland. The first conference was held in 1991 and later chose the same format as IAMOT.

ICE (International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation), which was first held in 1994 in France, and every year since then in a new European country.

CIGI (Congrès international de génie industriel – International Conference on Industrial Engineering), created in 1995, by researchers, professors and industrialists active in the field of industrial engineering. The first conference was held in 1995 in Montreal, and then every other year in Montreal or in France.

As a result, this influence can be found in France in a new generation of researchers. The product vision thus broadens with the notions of integrated design and intermediate design objects, introduced by the teams of S. Tichkiewitch (Tichkiewitch 1994; Mer et al. 1995) and the notions of technology transfer and functional and value analysis by J.C. Bocquet (Yannou 1998; Longueville et al. 2001). The first writings on the concept of inventive design also appeared during this period with the work of Cavallucci and Lutz (1997). Finally, the collective nature of innovation is highlighted by M. Callon as early as 1994 (Callon 1994) and would, in fact, go on to constitute one of the major works on the management of innovative projects and the piloting of innovation.

In the same way, the process/process vision is broadened with the notions of technology watch and project risk assessment through the work carried out by teams around J.M. Ruiz (Baldit et al. 1995) and G. Lacoste (Karsenty et al. 1997). Likewise, work on the systemic modeling of the firm and the innovation process in particular is emerging in the production engineering community, notably in the work of F. Vernadat (1995). The same applies to the notions of MoT and the management of technological resources, which Thomas Durand (1988, 1993) has taken up. Finally, in line with the work of C. Guidat and J.C. Bocquet respectively, innovation engineering becomes a process of value creation (Morel 1998; Yannou 1998).

We find here one of the major advances in structuring innovation engineering as a field of research, the fact of clearly discerning the act of design from the act of innovation. If design is a result-oriented process that consists of a time-limited rational act endowed with specific resources and for which tools, methods and virtual representations of an object are developed (procedural system), then innovation is an essentially irrational act that is built progressively, by breaking the automatisms and routines that an individual or a community has constructed for itself (system of uncertainty). As a result, the process of innovation clearly appears to be a process of broadening and enriching skills in order to build new solutions, as a capacity to find new relationships with an object and to go beyond the boundaries of the system under study. The study of innovation processes is definitively enriched by what will be called “glocal” thinking (or thinking in terms of global/local–local/global circularity).

It is also interesting to highlight an initiative led by engineering schools and their associated research laboratories: the creation in 1993 of the CONFERE (Collège d’études et de recherches en design et conception de produits – Association for Study and Research of Product Design) symposium, specific to this community of researchers in product innovation and design. The objective is to participate in the academic recognition of design, product design and innovation as a priority research subject. CONFERE is thus positioned as a symposium in innovation sciences in which researchers from the previously mentioned teams participate⁴. The community also created its own journal in 1998 in order to disseminate its work on a wider scale: IJODIR, the International Journal of Design and Innovation Research, (formerly Design Recherche, created in 1990). This journal aims to provide a scientific reflection on the act of designing and developing innovative products adapted to the world we live in, assuming a position in the field of engineering design.

In our opinion, the 2000s marked a turning point in innovation research. While the historical disciplines that nurtured innovation continue their work, we are also seeing the emergence of research to develop a new vision of the innovation process (Hatchuel et al. 2001; Tomala et al. 2001), which is becoming collaborative (Boujut 2001; Boujut and Blanco 2003), and to confirm the link between the technological system and innovation (Aït-El-Hadj 2002). It is also a period when the first signs of a blurring of disciplinary boundaries in favor of multidisciplinary work can be detected. For example, we will mention those under the impetus of B. Taravel (Richir et al. 2001), founder in 1999 of Laval Virtual, a show on innovation and new technologies such as virtual reality and augmented reality, which remain a reference to this day. This awareness in engineering sciences, that innovation is a matter of integration and negotiation between different points of view, has raised the importance of creating synergies between social, technological and process to contribute effectively to customer satisfaction.

This is in part why the work carried out by Hatchuel et al. (2001) has had such an impact on the innovation community. The latter suggests that, in order to innovate continuously, the R&D process must have an intermediate phase called the Research–Innovation–Development process, thus allowing innovation to take place in less restricted and less structured situations.

Therefore, since the 2000s, several laboratories based in engineering or science schools for engineers have carried out research to better understand the upstream phases of the innovation process (front end) and in particular the processes of idea generation and selection before moving on to design. As a result, under the heading of inventive design, theories and methods have been investigated on a massive scale, such as C-K (concept-knowledge) (Hatchuel 2001), TRIZ (Cordova-Lopez et al. 2002) and value creation (Yannou et al. 2002). In addition, innovation is becoming collaborative and open, popularizing research around open innovation. In the same way, taking needs and uses into account becomes a key element in improving the ideation phase and the steering of innovation in general (Boly 2004). Finally, these years saw the emergence of a whole stream of research into the metrology of innovation (Morel and Boly 2004).

Although this list is not exhaustive, it does show that a great deal of research has made it possible to consolidate a community around innovation that remains very active in French engineering schools, and contributes to a field of research that can be described as “innovation engineering” and whose key concepts will be presented in the following section.