Innovation for Society. Joëlle Forest
Читать онлайн книгу.
If one accepts the idea that the question of the meaning of innovation needs to be re-examined, the next question that arises is how to proceed. It is precisely this question that this section will answer, which will show that the question of meaning must be considered from the points of view of both direction and signification.
1.3.1. The question of meaning considered from the point of view of direction and signification
What do we mean by a dual point of view? To understand these two points of view, let us use an analogy.
When we look at a tree, we see that it is made up of a trunk from which multiple branches grow. Each branch corresponds to a direction of development. It is not alien to the environment in which it develops. Everybody knows that plants grow towards the light, a phenomenon called phototropism. So, if at the edge of a forest or near a building, trees are tilted towards the light, it is not because they are attracted by the light but because the branches on the forest side, having less light, grow slower. However, the direction taken is not neutral. The tree, being heavier on the lighted side, will, for example, bend to this side. Likewise, it will have less fruit on the shadier side.
The genesis of innovations resembles the development of a tree (see Figure 1.5). The trunk represents, starting from a defined problem, the meaning of innovation projected by the designer (safety, autonomy, user-friendliness, durability, etc.). The branches represent alternative solution principles (concepts), with each principle corresponding to a possible direction. The plurality of possible directions is reminiscent of a characteristic of the design process that there is no single solution to a design problem. It should also be pointed out that these are not only technological22 or high-tech23. These directions are not independent of the environment in which they operate, whether we consider the state of scientific and technological knowledge available, the company’s own skills24, or the representations or technological orientations favored in the framework of public policies25. The deployment of a direction depends on the capacity of the concept imagined to generate meaning for the user, the meaning perceived by the user being a function of the value creation, itself a function of the meanings of product in use, that is, the capacity of innovation to be integrated into the practices, representations and values of future users26. Finally, these directions do not all have the same signification for society (relationship to freedom, the principle of universality, etc.) and can open up new directions and new fields of what is possible (the case of direction 1 in Figure 1.5)27. We also perceive that if the direction does not generate meaning (for the user and/or the society), it will not be able to spread (as in the case of direction 3 in Figure 1.5).
Figure 1.5. Innovation meaning tree. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/chouteau/innovation.zip
In order to make our point clearer, here are two concrete examples. The first concerns the aging of the population and more specifically the issue of the loss of autonomy of the elderly in a context where, to take the case of France, 83% of French people wish to age in their own homes [CSA 16]. This is precisely the initial problem to be solved. On the designer side, the projected meaning of home care for the elderly corresponds to the right of the elderly person to remain at home and goes hand in hand with the idea of independence, well-being and security. It is in this context that the idea of the connected home emerged. A number of projects have indeed seen the possibility of proposing a new direction in the development of sensors and their price reduction. The principle is simple: sensors, when placed in different rooms of the house, make it possible to collect the movements of the elderly (how many times the refrigerator has been opened, the television turned on, etc.) and to warn a relative in case of unusual activity. In other words, the sensors become a kind of “prosthesis”, allowing relatives to know whether the elderly person is well and to “monitor” him or her. However, there are two questions that arise from this monitoring. The first issue is respect for the privacy of the elderly person who is potentially spied on in his or her every move in the home on a daily basis. To what extent does such a project harm the freedom of the elderly person? In other words, does a more controlled society not lead to less freedom28? The second issue is related to that of isolation. At a time when there is continual talk about the growing isolation of the elderly, does not this system lead to increasing it? Would such a system not reduce the number of visits to the elderly or the number of phone calls made to relatives to be sure they are well? Is this type of practice consistent with the values of our current and future society? Is our ideal society one in which we relegate to machines the task of asking how our loved ones are doing?29
The direction chosen, beyond the creation of value promised to the user, raises the broader question of the meaning of the society we help to create. While it is nowadays commonly accepted that an innovation is always the result of compromises made during the design process (compromises between functions to meet specifications30 and between stakeholders31), it should not be forgotten that it is also meaningful for the society it helps to design. Thus, while the concept of the connected home goes hand in hand with “sensor-surveillance”, which we have suggested can lead to a loosening of social ties, the Veiller sur mes parents32 project (launched by the French Post Office on May 22, 2017) is intended, according to Philippe Wahl, CEO of the La Poste group, “to relieve carers in their tasks, reassure families, and improve the well-being and safety of senior citizens.” Transformed into a sentinel for the elderly, the postman reinforces the social bond by instituting weekly visits, while some postal workers denounce what we might call the commodification of the social bond.
Figure 1.6. The innovation meaning tree as a decision tree. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/chouteau/innovation.zip
A second example is in vitro fertilization (IVF). The first IVF child, Louise Brown, was born on July 25, 1978, at Oldham Hospital in England. In spite of the many controversies surrounding it (whether we think of the debate on the risk of eugenics or the mass destruction of embryos), this innovation has been widely disseminated (it is estimated that it is responsible for more than 8 million births in 40 years) because it allows infertile couples to become parents. While IVF may be a challenge to the natural order of things, on the user side, it responds to the desire to become a parent. From the point of view of society, it goes in the direction of a society that places equity as a fundamental principle of our life in society, which led to the recognition of medically assisted procreation as a right at the 1994 Cairo conference33.
It is clear that the choice of direction must have meaning both for the user and for the society in which the innovation will be deployed. This meaning is all the more necessary as the direction chosen opens up the field of possibilities for future innovations, thus giving rise to lines of innovation. For example, IVF has paved the way for new directions of innovation.
Thus, on January 26, 2011, Umut was born, the first “medicine baby” in France, designed to treat his sister suffering from severe beta-thalassaemia34. Umut was the result of IVF followed by the selection of healthy embryos that were compatible with his older sister’s immune system. While the value attributed to this innovation by the parents was to enable the survival of their child, the meaning at the level of society is again based on the principle of equity (that of being in good health) and raises the question of its financial support35. It also raises the question of a necessary discussion on the preferred direction because, as Dr. Julie Steffann, a geneticist at the Necker Hospital in Paris, pointed out, this new direction leads to “prioritizing the embryo rather than the sick child”. This innovation