Source de l’article

Pierre Musso pour LeMonde.fr

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/

Source

Source de l’article

Source

Voici un brillant article de Adrian Slywotzky sur les limites du modèles de la recherche industrielle. Comment innove-t-on ? La vision à court termes est-elle favorable à l’industrie ? Et à la société ?

Le problème de la recherche est aujourd’hui clairement son positionnement dans le travail production de l’entreprise. La crise emmène à la crispation des attitudes et les besoins de rentabilités se font grandissant. Peut-on donc financer à pertes une bande de doux chercheur ?! A défaut de répondre par la négative, le travail de recherche est orienté vers des buts à courts termes aux implications directement commercialisable. Bruno Latour ne nous dit-il pas en effet que la recherche est le moyen le plus sûr – et aussi le plus amusant – pour une entreprise de faire faillite.

Mais sans recherche, déclin et faillite également… La recherche créé des ruptures technologique et économique, produisant de nouveaux modèles. Certes dans cette ouverture d’un nouveau champs des possibles, les concurrents en profiteront également, et c’est là où l’entreprise doit aussi savoir garder ses avantages compétitifs et alors là seul : innover. La recherche produit des ruptures et ouvre de nouveaux marchés. L’innovation joue sur les avantages compétitifs de l’entreprise.

“Science is funny. It’s a crapshoot. It takes hundreds of people with high IQs, PhDs, and an incredible curiosity, work ethic, and persistence. It also takes critical mass, lab support, the right equipment and instrumentation, peer review, etc. It takes open communication among peers, and other subtle but critical cultural factors. It takes a tolerance for risk.”

“The effects of the massive scaling back of American science and engineering research in the 1990s and 2000s may just be beginning. Unless reversed, it is likely to have its greatest impact a decade from now, when the missing discoveries of a generation earlier would have been expected to come to commercial fruition. It’s time to identify—and fix—the root of the problem.”

“Collaboration is necessary, but the real key is achieving critical mass, in essence replacing Bell Labs’ force of 30,000, and then some. Science has lost its allure as the domain for our best and brightest. Much of the best technical talent has been drawn to the promise of riches from Wall Street and financial engineering. We need to reestablish a culture that rewards and celebrates the scientist who is willing to work on tough problems even if the commercial return is less certain. Given that the U.S. economy is so much bigger than it was 40 years ago, and so much less competitive internationally, 10 or more equivalent corporate research labs are needed for critical mass.”

Une des réponses à cette problématique est de travailler au Bell Labs sur l’organisation entre recherche et innovation plus que sur la séparation des deux comme le souligne l’auteur de l’article. Effectivement, cela mène peut être plutôt à une R&D innovante et créative qu’à de véritable rupture.

Go to Source