href="#fb3_img_img_a545ad77-02aa-5f15-acbd-c54119b1856a.jpg" alt="Image described by caption and surrounding text."/>
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 also raises the question of the society we help to make: is not the very name “medicine baby” symptomatic of a change in value? In addition, does not the birth of the first two GMO babies36 in November 2018 in China force us to question ourselves collectively lest we run the risk that what is possible exceeds the desirable and we fall victim to the warnings of the physicist Dennis Gabor37? What could be the meaning of “off-the-shelf conception” of an unborn child? Is it to be seen as the symbol of an entire society oriented towards perfection, without error? To what extent does this growing artificialization of mankind guarantee us the possibility for all human beings – the “augmented” and the “others” – of always forming the same humanity, in solidarity and equal in dignity and rights? Finally, what about a society in which it seems easier to give up one’s genetic heritage than one’s material heritage38?
Figure 1.7. Line of innovations
Clearly, the P.S.I. approach urges us to reintegrate the question of the meaning of innovation.
