Votre recherche

À seulement dix ans de l’échéance fixée pour atteindre les Objectifs de développement durable (ODD), les agences et organisations de développement ont besoin d’innover rapidement dans leurs approches en matière de processus décisionnels et de résolution des problèmes. De nouveaux enseignements et de nouvelles conceptions, nés des usages émergents des technologies, peuvent servir de vecteurs à certaines innovations. Ce document d’orientation applique le nouveau paradigme des intelligences – qui comprend l’intelligence des données, l’intelligence artificielle, l’intelligence collective et l’intelligence incorporée – pour présenter une vue d’ensemble des risques et bénéfices associés à différents usages émergents des technologies aux praticiens du développement ainsi qu’aux responsables et décideurs politiques. Ces analyses sont, dans la mesure du possible, illustrées d’exemples issus du terrain. Nous recommandons dans ce Policy Paper de créer un cadre décisionnel pour aider les praticiens à déterminer s’ils doivent investir dans des technologies émergentes et comment ces dernières peuvent être efficacement mises au service des objectifs de développement. Cette première itération du cadre décisionnel cherche à définir précisément les objectifs de développement pertinents tout en prenant en compte le contexte existant avant d’aborder la question des solutions en évaluant la maturité, les défis, les implications financières et les risques posés par l’usage des technologies, ainsi que la présence de facteurs limitants et de catalyseurs qui pourraient en moduler l’impact et l’adéquation.

À seulement dix ans de l’échéance fixée pour atteindre les Objectifs de développement durable (ODD), les agences et organisations de développement ont besoin d’innover rapidement dans leurs approches en matière de processus décisionnels et de résolution des problèmes. De nouveaux enseignements et de nouvelles conceptions, nés des usages émergents des technologies, peuvent servir de vecteurs à certaines innovations. Ce document d’orientation applique le nouveau paradigme des intelligences – qui comprend l’intelligence des données, l’intelligence artificielle, l’intelligence collective et l’intelligence incorporée – pour présenter une vue d’ensemble des risques et bénéfices associés à différents usages émergents des technologies aux praticiens du développement ainsi qu’aux responsables et décideurs politiques. Ces analyses sont, dans la mesure du possible, illustrées d’exemples issus du terrain. Nous recommandons dans ce Policy Paper de créer un cadre décisionnel pour aider les praticiens à déterminer s’ils doivent investir dans des technologies émergentes et comment ces dernières peuvent être efficacement mises au service des objectifs de développement. Cette première itération du cadre décisionnel cherche à définir précisément les objectifs de développement pertinents tout en prenant en compte le contexte existant avant d’aborder la question des solutions en évaluant la maturité, les défis, les implications financières et les risques posés par l’usage des technologies, ainsi que la présence de facteurs limitants et de catalyseurs qui pourraient en moduler l’impact et l’adéquation.

L’objectif de ce rapport (rédigé notamment par Fabiano Armellini et Sophie Veilleux) est de présenter les meilleures pratiques, les indicateurs de succès ainsi que les mesures d’impact des événements d’innovation ouverte sur leurs écosystèmes respectifs. Ainsi, chaque acteur est en mesure d’optimiser sa participation afin d’en retirer un maximum de bénéfices et d’en faire profiter son écosystème. Ce rapport offre aussi plusieurs recommandations.

The failure of the deterritorialised innovation policy addressing the regions based on the “one-size-fits-all” policymaking made the Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3) become the Holy Grail of the European cohesion. This policy strategy is part of a multilevel framework, which encompasses national and regional vectors harmonising transversal strategies and combining different aspects to generate a consistent policy mix. This growth strategy will reinforce the existence of an innovative and knowledge-based society, which aims to raise welfare, promote responsible practices, modernise economic activity and spread prosperity.Sustainable growth will optimise the use of resources, boost the efficiency levels, generate competitiveness and respect the environment. Inclusive growth will promote social and territorial cohesion which is sought after in the convergence policy, which has slowed down the pace after the financial crisis.The development of regional competitive advantages will rely on the establishment of relevant linkages between the Academia and the private institutions in knowledge creation and transfer. In this vein, the University is expected to play a central role, facing important challenges and requiring transformations, mostly in the case of less favoured regions.Productivity raise, construction of comparative advantages, market consolidation and profit maximisation, required to avoid the obsolescence of firms, will rely in the prosecution of innovative activities. Despite being risky, these activities are sought by firms as a source of economic performance increase, being the building blocks of a profit maximisation strategy. The velocity at which innovation occurs will differ among industrial sectors due to their singularities along with other firm structural characteristics, still, those who perform innovative activities are more prone to achieve higher standards of turnover growth and profits. The organisational competences concerning human capital, knowledge absorption, accumulation and diffusion will enhance the innovation capabilities, thus generating advantages. In this path, Universities will be determinant as they may leverage the success of the entrepreneurial innovativeness throughout the provision of relevant knowledge, productive techniques and methods. Absorbing, transforming and exploiting the general knowledge provided by the University will be the firms’ incumbency which will reflect the speed and the success of the individual’s innovative performance. Considering the reinforced role of the Academia as a knowledge producer and therefore inside the innovation process, the existence of incipient connections with firms will be unbearable.What enables and hinders University-firm linkages is, so far, overlooked in the literature demanding for the comprehensive analysis, in particular the causes of its failure, and the accurate policy mix that overcome the situation is vital for a successful RIS3.The singularities of this policy framework require redirection of the tools and actions to be taken such as incentives, grants, loans and subsidisation strategies. Empirical results shed light to the significant difference observed in the classification of the University as a source of information for innovation between public monies recipients and other firms. Among public funding beneficiaries, the Academia is an important source of knowledge to draw upon; conversely, for the other firms, it seems of poor importance the knowledge conveyed in the contact. In general, firms fail to consider the University as a relevant source of information for innovation, which seems to be incompatible with the establishment of smart specialisation strategies.These unexplored connections, which pledge the success of the present innovation policy, and reinforce the importance of its appraisal to fully understand the determinants of University-firm linkages and its connection to public subsidisation, encompassing the identification of the most effective beneficiaries. The econometric estimations, relying on the CIS, were run considering a panel of firms operating in Portugal, which provides the empirical evidence for a moderate innovation milieu which is poorly done so far as most of the studies focus on innovation leader.The findings reinforce the existence complementarities among policy instruments and highlight that new avenues of research should explore other policy instruments such as open innovation frameworks.

L’objectif de cet article est d’analyser une nouvelle forme organisationnelle, le living lab (LL) et sa capacité à favoriser l’innovation territoriale en milieu rural ou péri-urbain. A travers une revue de littérature et la mobilisation de la sociologie de l’acteur-réseau (Callon, 1986 ; Latour, 1987), nous positionnons les living labs comme intermédiaires d’innovation ouverte dont les caractéristiques permettent d’intégrer de nombreux acteurs hétérogènes, établissements publics, entreprises privées, associations et citoyens, sur des projets d’innovation. L’étude d’un LL rural met en évidence la capacité d’une telle structure à reconfigurer des réseaux d’acteurs pour proposer une série de tiers-lieux adaptés aux spécificités des territoires sur lesquels ils s’implantent. Cette recherche permet d’enrichir la réflexion la pérennisation des tiers-lieux ruraux et leurs spécificités par rapport aux espaces urbains.

L’objectif de cet article est d’analyser une nouvelle forme organisationnelle, le living lab (LL) et sa capacité à favoriser l’innovation territoriale en milieu rural ou péri-urbain. A travers une revue de littérature et la mobilisation de la sociologie de l’acteur-réseau (Callon, 1986 ; Latour, 1987), nous positionnons les living labs comme intermédiaires d’innovation ouverte dont les caractéristiques permettent d’intégrer de nombreux acteurs hétérogènes, établissements publics, entreprises privées, associations et citoyens, sur des projets d’innovation. L’étude d’un LL rural met en évidence la capacité d’une telle structure à reconfigurer des réseaux d’acteurs pour proposer une série de tiers-lieux adaptés aux spécificités des territoires sur lesquels ils s’implantent. Cette recherche permet d’enrichir la réflexion la pérennisation des tiers-lieux ruraux et leurs spécificités par rapport aux espaces urbains.

A living lab is a physical or virtual space in which to solve societal challenges, especially for urban areas, by bringing together various stakeholders for collaboration and collective ideation. Although the notion has received increasing attention from scholars, practitioners and policy makers, its essence remains unclear to many. We therefore performed a systematic literature review of a sample of 114 scholarly articles about living labs to understand the central facets discussed in the nascent literature. In particular, we explored the origin of the living lab concept and its key paradigms and characteristics, including stakeholder roles, contexts, challenges, main outcomes, and sustainability. While doing this, we discovered that the number of publications about living labs has increased significantly since 2015, and several journals are very active in publishing articles on the topic. The living lab is considered a multidisciplinary phenomenon and it encompasses various research domains despite typically being discussed under open and user innovation paradigms. What is more, the existing literature views living labs simultaneously as landscapes, real-life environments, and methodologies, and it suggests that they include heterogeneous stakeholders and apply various business models, methods, tools and approaches. Finally, living labs face some challenges, such as temporality, governance, efficiency, user recruitment, sustainability, scalability and unpredictable outcomes. In contrast, the benefits include tangible and intangible innovation and a broader diversity of innovation. Based on our analysis, we provide some implications and suggestions for future research.

Innovation challenges are increasingly complex, cutting across distributed actors from different disciplines, organizations, and fields. Solving such challenges requires creating the capacities of opening up for innovation to access and develop a greater amount and variety of knowledge and resources. Perspectives on open source, open innovation, and interorganizational collaboration have explored such capacities, but from different origins and scopes of analysis. Our practice-based integrative framework of “opening innovation” helps highlight these differences and connect their relative strengths. Through a critical literature review paired with an analysis of different empirical cases from Hacking Health, a non-profit organization helping drive digital health innovation, the authors reveal the user-centric, firm-centric, and field-centric approaches to opening innovation that progressively connect a greater variety of actors and resources. The authors show how specific new relational practices they produce address the new relational dynamics these connections bring to accumulate more resources for innovation to keep progressing.

The aim of this research is to explore the dynamics and impact of open social innovation, within the context of fab labs and makerspaces. Using an exploratory methodology based on 12 semi-structured interviews of fab lab founders belonging to The Centres for Maker Innovation and Technology (CMIT) programme – a network of 170 fab labs located in Eastern Europe – this research explores the impact of an adopting an open approach in relation to the different stages of social innovation (prompts, proposals, prototypes, sustaining, scaling and diffusion, systemic change) as well as social impact. The main results of this study are that while the CMIT programme provided each fab lab with similar initial conditions (identical funding, objectives and rules), the open social innovation approached adopted enabled to give birth to a wide diversity of fab labs, each being very well adapted to the local environment, social needs and constraints and able to deliver social impact in just a matter of years; a result that would be hard to achieve with a centralised top-down approach. The study identified three types of CMITs – Education, Industry and Residential – which could be similar or different depending on the stage of social open innovation. Furthermore, this paper discusses the main difficulties social entrepreneurs encounter as a part of the open social innovation process, as well as means to overcome them. In this respect, this study adds to the literature on fab labs by providing more comprehensive view of the challenges faced by fab labs (and makerspaces) founders, as well as suggestions of strategies enabling to ensure their long-term sustainability.

The aim of this research is to explore the dynamics and impact of open social innovation, within the context of fab labs and makerspaces. Using an exploratory methodology based on 12 semi-structured interviews of fab lab founders belonging to The Centres for Maker Innovation and Technology (CMIT) programme – a network of 170 fab labs located in Eastern Europe – this research explores the impact of an adopting an open approach in relation to the different stages of social innovation (prompts, proposals, prototypes, sustaining, scaling and diffusion, systemic change) as well as social impact. The main results of this study are that while the CMIT programme provided each fab lab with similar initial conditions (identical funding, objectives and rules), the open social innovation approached adopted enabled to give birth to a wide diversity of fab labs, each being very well adapted to the local environment, social needs and constraints and able to deliver social impact in just a matter of years; a result that would be hard to achieve with a centralised top-down approach. The study identified three types of CMITs – Education, Industry and Residential – which could be similar or different depending on the stage of social open innovation. Furthermore, this paper discusses the main difficulties social entrepreneurs encounter as a part of the open social innovation process, as well as means to overcome them. In this respect, this study adds to the literature on fab labs by providing more comprehensive view of the challenges faced by fab labs (and makerspaces) founders, as well as suggestions of strategies enabling to ensure their long-term sustainability.