Rechercher

Cet article rend compte de la manière dont les organisations internationales pourraient s’approprier la démarche délibérative à l’occasion de leurs efforts de régulation éthique de l’IA en présentant le projet de la délibération internationale intitulée « Dialogue inclusif sur l’éthique de l’intelligence artificielle (IA) » (ODAI) menée par Algora Lab - Université de Montréal et Mila - Institut québécois d’intelligence artificielle. Ce projet délibératif portait sur le premier instrument normatif mondial en éthique de l’IA rédigé par l’UNESCO. L’ODAI se démarque par sa portée internationale, le nombre de personnes consultées et sa réalisation en ligne. Après une présentation du cadre méthodologique et théorique de la délibération sur l’éthique de l’IA, nous opérons une analyse critique du processus et nous proposerons finalement des recommandations pratiques pour de futures délibérations en éthique de l’IA.

Qu’est ce que l’intelligence collective ? Comment mettre en œuvre l’intelligence collective dans les équipes et les pratiques quotidiennes ? Quelles gouvernances favorisent l\'intelligence collective ? Comment développer des manières de travailler collaboratives ? Vous saurez bientôt répondre à toutes ces questions, en utilisant les 66 outils de ce livre indispensable pour réussir la mise en place de l\'intelligence collective dans votre équipe ou votre entreprise.

À l’ère de la transformation numérique et de l’intelligence artificielle, les données et les enjeux qu’elles soulèvent sont sous les feux de la rampe, qu’il s’agisse de données ouvertes ou de données massives (big data). Motivé par le potentiel de leur mise en commun, un nombre croissant d’acteurs publics, privés et de la société civile s’intéresse au partage de données numériques entre tiers pour atteindre des objectifs d’intérêt public ou résoudre des problèmes sociaux complexes. De nouvelles formes de collaboration interorganisationnelle émergent chaque jour en vue de partager, combiner, croiser et valoriser des jeux de données. Ces partenariats de données numériques demandent toutefois temps, efforts, ressources et une collaboration soutenue. Leur succès exige également la mise en place d’une solide gouvernance des données apte à protéger le public et maintenir sa confiance. Les organisations désireuses de se lancer dans de telles initiatives trouveront dans le présent rapport une discussion des différents facteurs de succès et d’activation des partenariats de données numériques ainsi que des informations pratiques pour les guider dans la construction d’une gouvernance des données partagées qui soit collaborative, responsable, efficace et imputable.

Antecedents of innovation precede their implementation and probably influence which innovations and whether they are approved and implemented. Antecedents have been identified in a considerable number of types of innovation. Are they the same in these types? A systematic literature review (SLR) of antecedents of policy innovation found 594 antecedents, 508 of them unique, in 87 articles on trailblazing and adoption. So many antecedents suggest a lack of clarity about what the antecedents of policy innovation may be. They have been clarified for policy innovation. In this paper the antecedents of policy innovation are compared to antecedents of private, public sector and social innovation identified in literature reviews, SLRs and metaanalyses to see whether common or different antecedents are identified in these literatures. While the literature often implies antecedents of different types of innovation are the same by lumping them together, they were found to vary somewhat by type of innovation, especially trailblazing and higher-level factors and clusters. External antecedents were only found to be important for policy innovation and dissemination; political antecedents were particularly important for trailblazing; internal antecedents were important for all types of innovation. Literature on antecedents of private innovations did not consider external or political antecedents. Four research questions are addressed: Q. 1: At what level should antecedents of innovation be analyzed and compared? Q. 2: How do antecedents identified for different types of innovation compare—private, public and public-social sectors? Q. 3: How do clusters identified for different types of public sector innovation compare— processes; trailblazing and adoption of policy; dissemination; private, public, public-social sectors? Q. 4: Do a common set of unique and grouped antecedents, factors and clusters influence all types of innovation equally or are their antecedents discernably different? Key words: antecedents of innovation, comparison of antecedents, types of innovation, systematic literature review.

The paper organizes and summarizes the conditions (antecedents) researchers and practitioners identified as occurring prior to trailblazing and adoption of public policy (including program) innovation, as identified in a systematic literature review. The review identified 87 relevant documents and 594 antecedents. Trailblazing of innovation is Rogers’ (1995) first two stages of adoption—innovation (invention) and early adoption (identified here as second and third adoptions in a government’s community or population). The antecedents are analyzed into grouped antecedents, factors and clusters. The most-mentioned grouped antecedents were citizen pressure, process, structure and political culture. The most-mentioned factors were innovation drivers, people, policy/process, and context. The factors were organized into clusters—external, political and internal. Based on number of mentions the literature considered the internal cluster the most important. The most-mentioned factors in external cluster were context and people; in political cluster, drivers, political context and political actors; in internal cluster, innovation process, drivers, people and internal environment. Multiples more antecedents were identified for internal cluster than the others. Lack of consistent definitions and the mixing of stages and levels in the literature has hampered understanding of antecedents and placed limitations on this study. The literature sometimes distinguished external and internal cluster; the current analysis also considers a political cluster, which is especially important to trailblazing of public policy innovations.

A systematic literature review (SLR) of antecedents of trailblazing and adoption of public policy innovation was conducted. Many antecedents were found—594. A terminology and classification system for them was therefore developed (unique antecedents-508, grouped antecedents-28, factors-15, clusters-3). Differences among trailblazing/adoption and quantitative/qualitative studies were explored six ways. Eleven grouped antecedents of trailblazing were importantly different from those of adoption, 17 were not. Grouped antecedents of quantitative and qualitative studies were not importantly different and so were used as the standard. Only trailblazing had different antecedents from the other three types of study (adoption, quantitative, qualitative). Eight grouped antecedents were the best indicators of policy innovation. Of the three clusters of antecedents, external and internal cluster grouped antecedents were equally important for all four kinds of study; political cluster antecedents were different for trailblazing. Although there was no one best political indicator (large difference from adoption) for trailblazing, political cluster was more important for trailblazing than adoption. Political cluster was higher (had a higher proportion of mentions) and internal cluster lower for trailblazing; political cluster was lower and internal cluster higher for adoption. The important antecedents for public policy innovation were compared to those for the private/public sector, public process/policy and public/social innovation: Differences were found. The best antecedent indicators of trailblazing of policy innovation identified in the literature were external environment, drivers, obstacles (external) and people (internal).

Despite recommendations for more quantitative analyses of public sector innovation factors (Glor, 2014a; de Vries, Bekker and Tummers, 2016), there has been limited examination of them. This paper identifies and explores six factors (ideology, politics, the economy, external support, resources, effects) that influenced the introduction and survival or termination of the first time these public sector innovations and their five organizations (I&O) were introduced in North America. It assesses their key antecedent factors before creation (Time 1) and the same factors again at the time of their fate 15 to 44 years later (Time 2). They were assessed with a new measurement instrument examining the six factors (Glor, 2017a). The tool has 1267 statements (items) and 555 pairs of data, with scoring distributed on a five-point Likert scale. Three expert raters completed the instrument (Glor, 2017b). Based on mean scores, the most important factors in Time 1 (creation of I&O) were found to be the economy, resources, effects and external support and in Time 2 (survival/termination) ideology and politics. This methodology could potentially be used to study the remaining 154 Government of Saskatchewan (GoS) population’s innovations and that of other populations.

The importance of knowledge co-creation – the joint production of innovation between industry, research and possibly other stakeholders, such as civil society – has been increasingly acknowledged. This paper builds on 13 cross-country case studies and co-creation experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic to characterise the diversity of knowledge co-creation initiatives and identify lessons for policy. The paper identifies a strong rationale for policy to support knowledge co-creation because the benefits of successful co-creation initiatives outweigh the initial co-ordination costs. Moreover, knowledge co-creation initiatives can contribute to democratising innovation. Successful initiatives engage all stakeholders and have effective governance and management structures. They also have clearly defined ownership and use rights of the collaborations’ outcomes and benefit from favourable conditions to operate, including temporary staff mobility and institutional set-ups that facilitate collaboration and effective communication among participants.

Although healthcare managers make increasingly difficult decisions about health innovations, the way they may interact with innovators to foster health system sustainability remains underexplored. Drawing on the Responsible Innovation in Health (RIH) framework, this paper analyses interviews ( n=37) with Canadian and Brazilian innovators to identify: how they operationalize inclusive design processes; what influences the responsiveness of their innovation to system-level challenges; and how they consider the level and intensity of care required by their innovation. Our qualitative findings indicate that innovators seek to: 1) engage stakeholders at an early ideation stage through context-specific methods combining both formal and informal strategies; 2) address specific system-level benefits but often struggle with the positioning of their solution within the health system; and 3) mitigate staff shortages in specialized care, increase general practitioners’ capacity or patients and informal caregivers’ autonomy. These findings provide empirical insights on how healthcare managers can promote and organize collaborative processes that harness innovation towards more sustainable health systems. By adopting a RIH-oriented managerial role, they can set in place more inclusive design processes, articulate key system-level challenges, and help innovators adjust the level and intensity of care required by their innovation.

Dans le document de réflexion et de consultation L’université québécoise du futur, Rémi Quirion, le scientifique en chef du Québec, expose les assises nécessaires à une réflexion de plus grande ampleur sur l’avenir des universités au Québec. Ces assises se déclinent en six points : les tendances susceptibles d’influencer les universités du futur; les éléments importants de l’évolution du système universitaire québécois depuis la fin du XXe siècle; une réflexion concernant plusieurs aspects de la mission universitaire, dont les conditions nécessaires à son accomplissement; les préoccupations fondamentales devant l’inspirer (dont trois nouveaux enjeux pour les universités); une synthèse des différents constats sur lesquels fonder les principales pistes d’action susceptibles de concourir à la pertinence continue de l’institution universitaire. Ces pistes sont celles sur lesquelles le gouvernement propose aux Québécois de se prononcer dans le cadre de consultations en cours et ultérieures. Après avoir présenté le contexte de préparation et le contenu du rapport L’université québécoise du futur, nous exposerons les constats et les recommandations qui en sont issues de la part du scientifique en chef.

Local energy policy agendas require commonly defined desirable future visions and collective agenda-setting to spur collaborative action. However, methods designed for multi-stakeholder engagement often do not sufficiently open up deliberative processes to all voices, and efforts to envision desired futures built from current local energy challenges are usually designed by and oriented towards specialists. With this paper, we aimed to explore how the theoretical strengths of storytelling for supporting local policy processes play out in practice. We contrast what the literature states about the potential of storytelling for solving complex challenges and facilitating collaborative processes to the lessons learnt from actually using storytelling in a set of 17 multi-stakeholder workshops across 17 European countries run as part of the H2020 SHAPE ENERGY project. The workshops were each designed around a tangible local energy policy challenge. We found storytelling has unique strengths in terms of enabling significant (un)learning regarding stakeholder relationships, allowing participants to step into others’ perspectives, keeping hold of diversity, and the use of ‘we’ in stories leading to concrete future initiatives. We also note specific learnings about when these outcomes may not be achieved, for example due to fears, traditions, hierarchical structures, as well as the need for sufficient time for planning, facilitator training and stakeholder invitations. We conclude that as an innovative, playful and flexible methodology, storytelling can undoubtedly be a valuable additional tool for policymakers where there is a desire for deliberative stakeholder involvement, and appetite to tailor approaches to local contexts.

Voici donc, au terme de 10 mois de discussions, un document concis formulant des propositions de recommandations afin d’identifier 1) des voies privilégiées pour assurer que les universités québécoises demeurent à la pointe de l’évolution mondiale des sciences et des pratiques administratives, culturelles et sociales et qu’elles restent pertinentes, créatives et audacieuses, et 2) les réformes souhaitables dans l’organisation et les pratiques des établissements. Ce document est le résultat d’échanges soutenus d’un groupe de travail formé de toutes les composantes de l’université, auxquelles se sont joints des hauts fonctionnaires et un haut dirigeant d’entreprise. Il s’agit en quelque sorte de la première phase de la réflexion sur l’avenir des universités au service d’une société apprenante. La deuxième composante de la réflexion est maintenant prête à être orchestrée, à savoir un travail de délibération collective au sujet des hypothèses et des recommandations du groupe de travail. Plus précisément, le présent document, qui sera diffusé à la mi-septembre 2020, fera l’objet d’un vaste débat lors d’une activité de réflexion à laquelle seront conviés, cet automne, le monde universitaire, les ministères, les organismes publics et les groupes de la société civile intéressés par les questions universitaires. À partir des travaux initiaux de ce groupe de travail, l’objectif de cette délibération collective est de favoriser un large débat sur le rapport et les recommandations du groupe. Au terme de cette délibération, le groupe s’est vu mandater pour définir les lignes de force de la journée et les consensus qui se sont dégagés, et formuler des recommandations avec des propositions de réformes ou pistes d’action auprès du ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur.

In this paper, we discuss how universities can become more essential players in the digital innovation and artificial intelligence (DI&AI) ecosystem and increase their capacity to support the “responsible” development and use of these technologies. The four sections of Part I explore the different ways in which universities can change the future of DI&AI and how DI&AI might transform the world of universities. Concrete examples of innovative and inspiring academic practices related to various challenges and opportunities explored in the paper are highlighted throughout. In section 1, we recognize that academics in the social and human sciences (SHS) have started to develop knowledge, tools and methodologies around the concept of responsible DI&AI. However, these have yet to be integrated in organizations and policy, which struggle to anticipate the societal impact of producing and using cutting-edge DI&AI systems. Collaboration between SHS scientists, their Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) colleagues and non-academic actors in the DI&AI ecosystem is not yet commonplace. We explore some of the impediments to this collaboration, while stressing its increasing importance in the face of growing public mistrust of organizations operating DI&AI and collecting and using personal data. Universities have not yet adopted changes required to capitalize on their status as trust brokers and engage with civil society and other stakeholders on issues of responsible innovation.

Ces écrits d’auteures et auteurs éclairants relatent des récits d’occasions, de réalisations et de défis que le mouvement d’innovation sociale a vécu et continuera de vivre en soutenant le changement social au Canada. Il comprend des réflexions qui s’étendent de 2017 à aujourd’hui, incluant la crise de la COVID-19. Parmi les personnes ayant contribué à cet ouvrage, on retrouve notamment l’Honorable Ahmed Hussen, Nabeel Ahmed, Dan Breznitz, Stephen Couchman, Melanie Goodchild, Nicolas Langelier, John Lorinc, Kristin Pue, Vinod Rajasekeran, Marilyn Struthers et plusieurs membres du personnel de la Fondation.

En effectuant une revue de littérature sur les différents types de conseillers des décideurs politiques (incluant les fonctionnaires), leur rapport aux connaissances scientifiques et leur rôle dans l’élaboration des politiques publiques (Morestin, 2017), nous n’avons trouvé aucune étude portant sur les fonctionnaires municipaux au Canada. Nous avons donc réalisé des entrevues avec des fonctionnaires de quelques municipalités canadiennes. Dans ce document, nous présentons leur point de vue en réponse à des questions que peuvent se poser les acteurs de la santé publique : - Si je souhaite partager des connaissances avec une municipalité, qui approcher? - Que fait déjà la municipalité dans mon domaine de travail? - Comment établir le premier contact? - Quels types de connaissances les fonctionnaires municipaux jugent-ils utiles? - Comment entretenir de bonnes interactions? - Quel échéancier prévoir? - Officialiser une collaboration avec une municipalité : pourquoi, et sous quelle forme?

Interest in social innovation continues to rise, from governments setting up social innovation 'labs' to large corporations developing social innovation strategies. Yet theory lags behind practice, and this hampers our ability to understand social innovation and make the most of its potential. This collection brings together work by leading social innovation researchers globally, exploring the practice and process of researching social innovation, its nature and effects. Combining theoretical chapters and empirical studies, it shows how social innovation is blurring traditional boundaries between the market, the state and civil society, thereby developing new forms of services, relationships and collaborations. It takes a critical perspective, analyzing potential downsides of social innovation that often remain unexplored or are glossed over, yet concludes with a powerful vision of the potential for social innovation to transform society. It aims to be a valuable resource for students and researchers, as well as policymakers and others supporting and leading social innovation.

Over the last ten years or so, “social in novation” has become a catchword in some sociological writings and in studies of innovation. The concept is generally presented as new, at least compared to technological innovation, which dates back to the 1940s. Yet the concept of social innovation is in fact two hundred years old. This paper documents the origins of social innovation as a category and its development over the last two centuries. It suggests that social innovation owes its origin to socialism in the nineteenth century and its resurrection in the twenty-first century to technological innovation. The paper analyzes three key moments, or different meanings of social innovation over time: socialism, then social reform, then alternatives to ‘established’ solutions to social needs. The paper concludes with reflections on the residue of these ideas in current theories of social innovation