On which base have we to organize our new society model that’s just rising from the digital revolution? More than suffering the consequence of this revolution Les entretiens du nouveau monde industriel aim at sharing some keys of actual practices.

During two days we heard about philosophy and politics with Bernard Stiegler of Bernard Bennamou, we analyze new design practices with Jean-Louis Fréchin, Daniel Kaplan, Julian Bleecker, we was a bit afraid with the deep social effect of new technologies analyzed by Adam Greenfield, and we came back to human behavior with Marie-Anne Dujarier (sociology), Jean-Paul Demoule (archeology) and Alain Abelhauser (psychanalyst).

Mainly, this edition of Les entretiens, made me think about the Lift conference 09 in Marseille last June. One is a designer conference and the other want to be a reflexive space and time (is this a spime, concept by Bruce Sterling?). But as a new tradition each innovation or industrial conference can’t be done without a major presence of designers. As organized jointly by ENSCI School of design, lots of design students were in the attendance. More than a professional reflexive place it seems at some moment to be a deported classroom. Does this means that design students have to be kept outside? Clearly not! But we can wonder why professional of innovation was not so much represented? Obviously there was a session on techniques: cloud computing, open datas, evolution of telecommunications. But, and it is a personal feeling, the design field is about be quite egocentric. It means that from a desire of opening, sharing, breaking boundaries are presented funny objects, usages, and concepts… and that’s all. What’s the finality of a twitting bird? “Don’t kill the idea, other people will find something to do with…” Yeah sure, and is it the kind of objects named “object to be completed”? Because sometimes this would seem as a limit of the creator creativity: creation for creation. From high and philosophical thoughts, projects are sometimes a simply use and valorization of techniques. Designers are they hidden geeks? J

FabLabs for example. They mobilized so much words and discussions on them. However it seems not to be a totally new organization of work. We are keen on taking the twentieth century and the industrial period as the whole that ever existed; but communal organization, companionship, building trade, workshop, etc. existed during a long time before. Historian would make this clearer for us but maybe the FabLab movement is a theorization of a technical ideology. Maybe it is the industrial twentieth century that is an anomaly of the human organization. For me, FabLabs are a great way to use techniques, to adopt and to democratize them, but the human organization in itself is not a revolution: it is a revolution in the techniques evolution that won’t permit this before.

On the other side, the talk of Adam Greenfield questioned the place and the influence of technology. An important sentence took my attention: “Filipinos did a revolution with twitter and SMS. We have the same tools now, but did we a revolution?” Unfortunately, a question of the attendance revealed that the message was not so clear: “we are looking for a participative democracy from a long time, does the Internet of Object will bring it finally?” However, Adam Greenfield message was clear: techniques are just techniques that offer potentialities, that are humans that make something from them. Beyond that, it showed during his talk that technologies are not bringing the Good on earth and that it is time to think about social implications. Near San Francisco for example a service is able to locate old sexual prisoners and show them on a map disponible for everyone. This way feminist could ask for more securities or policemen; and this could even rise a public debate on what is it to be an old prisoner? What is rehabilitation? Etc. Even if at first people just bypass this dangerous streets.

Finally I would like to discuss the design place in innovation nowadays. Is design the only one discipline interested by the problems of innovation and creation? It could seem that all other discipline revealed their limits and have failed to organize the innovation process. The design, with its new mindset – the famous design thinking – and its all range of methodologies – from creativity until analyzes and making – is taking the leadership and try to prove its specificity using the new field of the Internet of Objects.

To see : http://amateur.iri.centrepompidou.fr/nouveaumonde/enmi/conf/

The kind of exercice asked by the workshop requires a high level of knowledge and technics. In fact, the goal is to provide a quasi launchable product within a week !

The topic this year was about object in progress. Series of objects that are not defined by themselves and by creators but which have to be completed by users : adoption, uses, business model, form factors, intention, meanings, etc.
Morevover, during the short presentation on Monday morning, David Bihanic even made a link with the philosophy and phenomenology. Objects of our environement often take their meanings with the intentions we cast on them, they emerge from the relation subjects/objects. However, plenty of other questions rise from the topic of Objects in progress, as the utility vs the ustensility, the question of « open-systems », the relation between objects/systems and environment.

Groups were made combining each speciality : design from ENSCI, philosophy from Univ-Paris 1, and telecoms from Télecom Paristech.  The difference of education was immediatly at the center of the work and even made it more interesting. Each participant focused on the subjects through his speciality and lots of ideas raise from the discusion in each groups, and this let everyone access new topics they would have not even thinking about ! Surprisingly, students from ENSCI were the most focused on methods and rationnality, asking to stop « dreaming ». Engineers were not the more rational and scientific this time. It could be explain by the designers education which gave them to goal to achieve usable products throught a strong methodology.

Our work focused on Parisian covered passage which seems to us quite poetic to try to « do » something. We also debated a lot about the values of our society and the effects of new technologies on human being and everyday life. After visiting a coverd passage we realize that all of them create a sort of network but quite different from classical network : it was disconnected and don’t conduct directly to another node, were a classical network is a continuous flow. From this metaphor it have been decided to create a new ideas of network based on different values than usual.  Moreover, the network is a quite important concept of our today society and it was interesting to play with it.
On Thursday and part of Wednesday we worked on this concept to make it clear for us and to construct exactly what an « alter-network » could be.
After that, on Wednesday and Thursday, it was time to integrate this concept in some products relying on the new values decided. But which type of methodology to adopt ? Clearly we began in a very high level and it was very difficult to go down until basics objects.
Thinking back to the promoted values, we focused on « segmented » and « no directive » models. And the metaphor of foot print raise. Because it could give information and is not directive. Lots of services could emerge from this one, from indicated to someone that a friend is close, or that he was at this place, or that he let this sign to give any information : « I was here », « Look at this » etc. In fact it was clearly an « object » without any meaning which have to be completed. Foot-print is a sign as the language for example.
Then, we adopted another methodology. On object could be « finished » but can be used for other things like a coffecup. Depending on what we need, it could be used for coffe or for cigarette cinder… and much more ! The object is directly connected to the human intentionnality as the theory of affordance discuss it. So, which object could be an « open-object » in covered passage ? The public bench seems to us a good ideas and we worked on it in order to make it corresponding to the value of an « alter-network ».

Difficulties. Each group worked from a products or a use they digitaly improved : a collaborative writing session, a emotional guide of towns, a kinf of hi-fi, interfaces, etc.  Our group choose a methodology based on values and concept and reveal that it was clearly difficult to adapt them to existing product. Indeed, Jean Louis Fréchin made a pertinent comment on our public bench project : we fail as often in some easy cliché we just tried to shun. The production of a concept have no to be integrate in a classical object or usual poetic dream, but have to give some string hypothesis. Which could, maybe, be developpe in new fictions.

Interesting projects were presented on Friday.
As these objects with some awareness of people, detecting the context and adapting themselves : you wake up late, the shower will shut down quickly, your coffe will be automaticly string and the sofa no so much confortable in order no to stay in it… and on the evening it will be the contrary and every object of the house will give you a confortable atmosphere.
Another project let us navigate in the real world through emotion everyone would have lay. This kind of service permit to create travel diary or to follow our friends.

Methodology
-    When beginning a study at a very high level with a concept, it is very difficult to go down until basics objects. And then it is better to create some hypothesis and make some fictions around the concept.
-    The no-object method. Defining and object which is not… and listing everything.
-    Ethnography of a place, in order to adapt these caracteristics to an object of this place