4.2.1. Main characteristics of social innovation

Social innovation is not a new concept. It is in agreement with the broader concept of sustainable development. It differs from technological, economic, commercial or moral approaches in two ways:

1. 1) In its purpose or intentionality: it seeks to address priority issues or social needs that are poorly satisfied in our society. It is best to consider aspects related to human frailty; the social frustration of a rejected population and the development of knowledge, skills and know-how and then to increase consideration and mutual benefit of each one. In terms of ethics, it is an advisable solution, because it will bring support and inclusivity to people.

   Indeed, during the 2002 International Conference held in Johannesburg, governments committed themselves to move from a relationship of “assistance” toward a “partnership” between countries to better meet the challenges of a dynamic and evolving world: the objective is to develop a more inclusive society, while growth and environment have to be preserved. In fact, it is a reminder that “it is far better to teach a man to fish than to simply give him a fish”. The solution is defined by the problem: it fills holes left by gaps in market and public institutions when it comes to meeting social needs and imperatives.

2. 2) Emergence is a concept of key importance. Here, the initiatives and actions primarily result from new balances and equilibria concerning relationships, modes of participation, lifestyles and so on. However, there are also new organizations, collaborations and cooperation between actors in society (so-called collective intelligence!). These groups of actors share some common values, but they may have very different interests, sensitivities, needs and approaches, as part of an innovation process, they soon come to talk, express themselves and give advice together, with the intention of developing a common positive momentum. We call this self-ethics intended to raise common problems, needs and solutions.

Its modalities align according to a logic that promotes global cooperation and participation. Constituents enter into a dialog, where open interaction is encouraged. At its heart, the model relies on the enlightened self-interest of its primary stakeholders for whom, in an ideal world, shared values guide the way. In practice, widely divergent interests, needs and sensibilities hold sway as becomes evident when strong wills come together to create a framework to govern the process of innovation.

In both cases, the collective approach is required as there are strong interactions, either inhibiting or amplifying actions coming from the entourage. These actions can be, sometimes, ambiguous or inconsistent when considering factors such as social progress, economic growth, the preservation of our ecosystem, the dissemination of technological advances and so on. These relationships are expressed according to the following model (Figure 4.1).

In the figure, each arrow indicates an effect generated by one factor over another. Also, in this nonlinear dynamic system, each factor will itself be the result of equilibria achieved between different ambivalences, at its level. In contrast to the general assumption, we are faced with dynamic systems where the concept of association and combinations between competing and antagonistic values is always necessary, but temporary, and subject to oscillations, according to the circumstances [MAS 04].

In contrast, what lies behind the “modes of emergence” principle is fundamental: it implies a change in culture, an adaptation of processing approaches and a large number of enhancements in Business Intelligence and Business Analytics based on the concepts of emergence and evolution.

The dynamics of the system is first linked to spontaneous and simultaneous interactions existing in a network of relationships: in the node of the triangle (“social innovation triangle”), three actors interact in a nonlinear way. Each factor influences the expression of the two others: because of the interactions, we would lose control of the whole, which will then converge in an unpredictable state (by bifurcation phenomenon). In an innovation process, we cannot say if we are trying to fulfill a social objective, a humanitarian goal, a task related to environmental protection or a source of new economic growth.

4.2.2. Consequences

• – Because of the NLDS property of the system, the emergence of an order is unpredictable.
• – In terms of ethics, everyone is participating in a collective process which is a good approach. Now, the question is: How can we control the deviances that could emerge from this social innovation system?
• – Finally, the main social relationships and behaviors that may be encountered in these interconnected social networks are those studied and observed in groups of living organisms. They are of many different types, as they occur in nature: phoresy, parasitism, commensalism, amensalism, symbiosis mutualism and so on.

In fact, mainly in symbiosis, simple interactions between species can be modeled through Lotka–Volterra-type equations [SUW 13]. In this model, the change in population density or the benefit/harm of the two species can be quantified as:

where

• – N and M = population densities;
• – r = intrinsic growth rate of the population;
• – K = carrying capacity (a constant) of its local environmental setting;
• – β = coefficient converting encounters with one species to new units of the other.

Results and behaviors depend on the coefficient values and “mathematical signs” figuring in the above set of equations. Practically, we can elaborate the following table, where a species “A” acting in a specific way will cause a positive (benefit) or negative (harm) impact on a species “B”, according to the type of interaction.

This is of key importance because, in terms of ethics, whatever we do, some non-ethical BDI can emerge from this collective process, which we cannot properly control.

• – The most ethical strategies are those in the green cells (positive cases for the others).
• – The non-ethical approaches are those included in the left side cells (fuchsia).
• – The worst non-profitable case for both species is the black one. However, it would be possible, in a specific situation to choose this solution to save the species and then go further with a different strategy.

In case of drift or deviation, what can we do? This has to be pre-studied! The social network can, as requested by an overall consensus, preserve the maximization of a given proposal or decision. It is a major change of civilization, based on demand policies, whereas, in hierarchical and conventional management systems, the policies are driven by the supply. To avoid any major deviance, the different actors must have a minimum level of knowledge about the possible trends and impact of a BDI. However, this needs minimum training at least because the main factors of failure are ignorance, a lack skill, and greed.

4.3.1. Inclusion: the main principle of social networks

In enterprise, social innovation has been made relevant through a desire to cater to a broader cross-section of the public. It specifically targets areas frozen out of strategic direction to include underdeveloped services, marginal populations, unusual needs and so on.

If nothing else, social innovation can be understood as fulfilling a need that has yet to be clearly formulated, or leading from the front. Through cooperation and exchange it becomes possible to stay a step ahead.

This proactive approach must be conducted in the spirit of shared responsibility, ability to empathize, responsiveness and collaboration, if it is to be effective.

The process is supported by discoveries in neuroscience, which inform many of its guiding notions, particularly when making use of a cluster of cells known as “mirror neurons”. The implication is a total immersion inside the head of a target in order to assimilate current preoccupations, and eventually move beyond them to anticipate any future ones, while keeping an eye on any potential bumps in the road ahead.

The appearance of “social trade” and the way it has evolved among large retailers provides a compelling recent illustration. In order to facilitate communication and better understand customers, connected technologies such as smartphones and other mobile devices are being harnessed to reveal consumption patterns, habits and behavior. The result is personalized services to simplify daily life.

The guiding principles of social innovation ensure that while initiatives may respond to the pressure exerted by social and political interests, they remain driven by more conventional motives such as the bottom line.

4.3.2. Inclusiveness and virtues

Inclusiveness becomes a virtue and serves as much to reinforce tenuous links with a heterogeneous public so as to elevate ordinary consumers to a more central role in commercial decision-making. Broadening inclusivity increases dynamism and is perfectly adapted to the growth of a knowledge-based society. It makes the communication and diffusion of innovation possible to a wider public, by reaching out to those members of society with less of an inclination, or the cognitive capacities, to absorb the latest technological advances.

The shift is underpinned by the more user-friendly interfaces that have emerged as a reflection of new ways of thinking. The acceleration of technological change has altered human aspirations and behavior, making the introduction of a range of new products and services possible. A shift in some guiding paradigms is impossible to ignore and is easily identified in firms that have succeeded in adapting to demands in a novel way. Additionally, the social and political conversation has changed substantially.

Voice technology associated with mobile handsets has allowed IBM to offer illiterate villagers of low-income or developing countries the power to exchange information through the medium of recorded messages on their phones. Users are able to educate themselves through easily accessible data such as weather reports (essential for planting and harvesting), doctor locations, trader information and the best prices for crops. Along similar lines is the rising popularity of self-organizing Barcamps or Webinars, particularly in Africa, which seek to expand the knowledge base of participants. Temporary networks create a de-centralized and efficient platform for exchange on a range of well-defined topics.

4.3.3. Principles of emergence

New ways of thinking follow new ways of doing, so the process of social innovation demands a global approach to solution building marked by nonlinear feedback loops where both are intertwined. The fact that one cannot be considered without the other requires a mental leap in which theory, methodology and modes of reflection are turned on their heads.

At the heart of this evolution lies the concept of emergence as defined in a wide range of disciplines from neuroscience to management theory. On the basis of the simple assumption that individual agents acting autonomously can create intelligent solutions, it explains how complex systems can arise from the ambivalence that free thought and localized decisions create. Where needs are diverse, no one entity can control outcomes. A process of innovation relies on the interaction between neighbors and a spirit of reciprocity to create solutions.

Therefore, global needs are defined and spontaneously constructed through an interactive process that relies on individual needs. The profound implications of this idea have the power to shake up the idea of organizations and how they define themselves. Preconceived notions about hierarchy, management, resources and production capacities must be re-centered on collectivity and the range of individuals that make up a society. “Think globally, act locally” is transformed to “think locally, act globally” based on common values or interests.

Ideas are bounced back and forth in an interactive process that encourages the emergence of innovative solutions. To facilitate this spirit of exchange, barriers between stakeholders must be reduced, which implies a shift to a more passive role for management. Intervention should be used sparingly and oriented toward a desire to maintain a semblance of order among immediate neighbors and their surrounding environment. Managers occupy a less rarified position, in which leadership becomes more about animating a process to which they are intimately connected and even swept up in. Such is the redefined role of a leader.

The appearance of a new culture of management, under which the self-organization of ideas is permanent, represents a sharp departure from the hypothetic–deductive model that preceded it and held sway since the dawn of the industrial age.

Models are increasingly drawn from the natural world with reference to phenomena such as epigenesis, morphogenesis and symbiosis. This new approach to organization relies less on what is actually observed and more on what can be intuited. Grasping for solutions amid a constantly shifting landscape favors the disruptive power of innovation more than reliance on centralized bureaucracies. An interactive process punctuated by the appearance of feedback loops creates a state of permanent instability and reconsolidation that defies a compartmentalized breakdown of elements and tasks. Within this context, the argument for sustainable practices is made more attractive to people. Personal autonomy is highlighted and each member of a constituency acts according to individual needs. A strong ethical compass orients decisions based on social and lifestyle beliefs. Businesses are stripped of the power to impose their will from above, because any disruption of the delicate dynamic would reduce the process of emergence.

4.4.1. The paradigm change: principle of circularity

There is never absolute truth. In fact, both the above-described approaches have their own advantages and disadvantages; the paradigm shift is that they are both diverse and complementary. The difficulty is to combine and exploit the “good” feedbacks existing in and between the two antagonistic approaches. Indeed, in the ever more complex and diverse world surrounding us, being reductionist and simplistic is just a dead-end approach. In parallel, we have taken a careful look at the mode of evolution in nature: it is ambivalent and best exploits all the alternatives and antagonisms observed in a system and finds equilibria; thus, it exploits the symbiosis and synergy of all its interacting resources.

As done in nature, it is an ethical and sustainable approach: the resulting emergence is always the effect of several convergence and adaptation steps.

As both approaches are complementary, it is usual to talk about the principle of “circularity”, between rationality and emergence. For instance, during the definition of user intentions, the modeling of needs and selection of some solutions, we are in an “emergence” phase. Thus, for the realization and implementation of innovations, or BDI, we are living in an interactive and iterative project management mode, while the project development is done through a rational-type methodology. This is a very fast innovation process.

How do we approach the new reality? What tools and processes lie at our disposal?

4.5.1. Changing our ways of thinking

Large organizations are already well equipped to handle social innovation and its mobilization of a collaborative economy that facilitates improved interpersonal relations.

They already possess the technological tools required to manage the explosion of data.

Crowdsourcing is one example, whereas social networking and its reliance on open approaches to technology in order to facilitate the diffusion, advocacy and discussion of sources of information is another. Outsourcing has expanded to include processes and services.

Finally, virtual solutions are being supplied to facilitate professional conferencing on small and large scales through interactive technologies such as Webinars and Barcamps.

4.5.2. Changing the operational context

The search for solutions is no longer a matter of reinventing the wheel, and 95% of necessary information already exists in some form or another. The art is in knowing where to look for it and finding value that can be adapted to the ethos that governs the creation of business and economic intelligence. At the expense of a certain degree of reflection and deeper thought, the Internet is acting as an engine to accelerate progress.

The solutions being created through the Internet rely on agility, reactivity, transparency and a multi-disciplinary approach.

Theories on complexity are another more recent response to the problem of attempting to channel large amounts of data through the network to areas where it can be processed effectively [MAS 15a].

The solution is a galaxy of technologies and tools that are trans-disciplinary, connected and can be deployed to introduce coherence.

If we look at the previous figure, it is possible to make a classification, in complexity, beyond the sciences shown in the figure. [GOM 08]. This complexity depends on the solving techniques we will implement.

For instance, the first level of information related to CSP and optimization is very conventional.

Under “Large-scale Data and Uncertainty”, we will find techniques like machine learning and statistical modeling (business analytics).

Dynamics refers to deterministic chaos in NLDS, Dynamic decision-making based on game theory and so on.

In the upper half of the figure, we will find cognitive approaches implying reasoning techniques and most impressive new tools in cognitive robotics such as IBM Watson, with interaction analysis.

Figure 4.6 on the complexity of techniques is very important from the viewpoint of ethics. Indeed, the one who does not have the technical skill to handle these approaches will be excluded from the social network information processing. Thus, there is a problem of adaptation to new technologies.

In a complex world, there is no such thing as absolute truth and ambivalence becomes the rule. Approaches are simultaneously antagonistic and complementary. Conflict avoidance becomes a virtue because to behave otherwise would create more inconveniences than advantages. An insistence on the acceptance of diversity and a celebration of collective truth change the previous paradigm. At any instance, one opposing force might be in ascendance over another. Ensuring equilibrium creates positive externalities for the wider group. The art is to successfully integrate these dueling voices and assure its resilience and sustainability. In a complex world, the mirage that results from an over-reliance on a single approach can be eliminated by exploiting the network to harness the synergies that are created when an array of forces are brought to bear on a problem. As with evolution, emergent solutions are created through a process of continual adaptation within an ever-changing environment.

This open process can be explained by borrowing from language used to describe the principle of circularity and its contrast to more linear models. In the strategic planning phase of a project, for example (needs analysis and solutions), emergent properties take center-stage. As innovations are made concrete and operational, a rational (project management) approach imposes itself. In dynamic systems, progression occurs by way of cyclical events toward an attractor or what can be understood as an acceptable solution.

To create an environment that favors a combination of social and technological innovation, many organizations have adapted their management structures to insist on personal development and a capacity for cooperation. This is a promising first step. To the extent that organizations are able to integrate the necessity for open communication and mutual respect, they are developing their own conception of responsiveness, an inclusive society, empathy and immersion.

Because of the sheer volume of information being processed under the new reality, a very real bottleneck has appeared. Unless best practices are observed, the ability to manage and synthesize knowledge could be crippled and vital information overlooked. The unfortunate result could translate into a serious loss of productivity!

Considering the context, the strategic orientation of enterprises is increasingly driven by the imperatives of an evolutionary process. If customer service is found wanting in its ability to address problems and complaints then discussion might merely transfer itself to Web-based discussion forums, with unpredictable consequences to say the least.

4.5.3. Toward a new toolkit

Looking at the current picture, we cannot help but be struck by the glaring lack of a comprehensive methodological approach to the business of uncovering, interpreting and exploiting examples of emergence. The economic intelligence pushed by the vast majority of professional service firms is colored by an over-reliance on statistical models that require huge amounts of quantitative and qualitative data. Falling back on the reassurances of business analytics can result in a limited picture, and clearly a new set of brushes and tools may be required.

The instruments of the future have yet to be developed and will require a healthy dose of courage and imagination. While the outlines of a range of emergent phenomena have come into sharper focus over several decades, they have eluded any powers of prediction. Emergent properties burst forth unexpectedly at each major leap forward in the innovation cycle. As a new layer of complexity is added, the vantage point shifts. The view expands as the paradigm is altered revealing previously undiscovered perspectives.

The principle of emergence suggests an unpredictable, constantly changing landscape where new patterns arise and expand into new equilibriums and orders. Forecasting and imagining these possible futures favor inferences based on abductive or inductive reasoning to reach conclusions (using a form of intuitive reasoning or “guessing” that consists of eliminating improbable solutions it stands in direct opposition to the system-based approach). Our present technological landscape is nevertheless largely populated by structures based on far more traditional concepts of deduction.

When surveying the programming techniques deployed in the creation of IT-based solutions, we are immediately struck by the prevalence of client–server or even peer-to-peer architecture with a sprinkling of multi-agent systems. These techniques are distinguished by the intellectual framework in which they were designed: one is marked a hierarchical approach while the other, with its nod to asymmetrical flows of information, is egalitarian.

The arrival of mobile Internet devices has placed the idea of mobile agent technology (autonomous agents that allow processes to migrate from computer to computer) at the center of discussions. The conversation has been extended beyond systems architecture to find application in approaches to management. A line running from hierarchical structures through decentralization and eventual re-location must now be extended to include complexity in any discussion of enterprise culture. As approaches such as matrix management are generalized, it now falls on social innovation to carry the torch of progress. To fulfill its potential, it will be necessary to introduce the dynamic at the heart of the action, diffuse it across a broad constituency and introduce “couriers” to carry the message to localized hubs of decision-making. The result would be models centered on the individual, well-placed to harness the potential for cross-pollination that exists when network dynamics and interactions between an enterprise and its environment overlap. In organizations based on such principles, mechanisms to direct resources and competences become vital to overall health. In contrast to prevailing norms at the level of processes, the most critical operations would take place at the edges, either upstream or downstream, where they can best interact with key stakeholders.

At the upper levels of the chain, the primary task is discerning emergent properties in a dynamic that has been borrowed from the world of theoretical physics. Rather than succumb to the temptation to fall back on equations to model a given situation, they are held in reserve until exploratory work has been completed, priority is placed on cataloguing and assimilating all aspects of any emergent property. By placing more emphasis on the identification of these properties, planning and preparation can proceed more intelligently. Aside from minor adjustments for more adaptive performance, processes are left constant through the production phase of development. When they eventually go offline, it becomes ever more imperative that organizations remain vigilant and attentive to the targeted environment.

4.5.4. Consequences

The process of emergence is by its very definition spontaneous; a product of self-organizing phenomena that are the result of already present agents in a state of constant interaction. Thus, the impact of social innovation can already be understood as a paradigm shift. And yet, our world is a wired ecosystem in which more than 2 billion Internet users spend one-third of their time in communication with correspondents around the globe. Does not the shear breadth of the discussion imply a shift from social innovation to what could better be described as collective innovation?

The sheer volume of data being produced by advances in information technology (every few minutes millions of pieces of data are generated) is growing and pushing cognitive capacities to their limits. Change arrives at breakneck speed, and the powers of intelligent decision-making are struggling to stay afloat in a sea of constant interaction, where unpredictable events have become commonplace. For both biological and physical reasons, the human brain is drowning in the new reality. When expressed in isolation, the power of rational thought is inevitably reduced as it attempts to define the outlines of a complex world. Reliance on emotions leads to irrational choices. A more holistic approach to intelligence, in which the human brain, the Internet and society act together, could mean the death of the power of the individual but the birth of the power of the collective. Consequently, we are forced to accept this new reality, to better prepare and adapt to it.

4.6.1. Introduction

In most companies, there is in fact a strong correlation between innovative companies and ethical companies: innovation is always considered as a competitive factor to foster economic development and the business itself [GEB].

For this reason, independently of the amount of funding dedicated by a company to R&D, innovation must be considered as a culture: focus is sometimes brought to the number of patents (e.g. about 6,000 every year in IBM); innovation is often governed by clear ethical rules in medical care; the ethics paradigm will be integrated in the software developments of games and so on.

To avoid deviances and deviations from standard usages, prototyping, experiments and after-sales, procedures and protocols will be implemented to assure the protection of the rights and welfare of research subjects. In so doing, this creates a presumption that advanced technologies and innovations that are not rigorously designed, developed and validated are ethically dubious.

Moreover, there is a pull effect in such a strategy: Companies that foster ethics will likely foster their sub-contractors, partners and competition as well, because critical ethics values of respect and trust are protected, encouraged and rewarded.

4.6.2. Some practices in innovation

It is the responsibility of top management and technical leaders to be able to have ethical values such as consciousness, respect and trust flourishing toward the best interests of others; they are accountable, to themselves and others.

For example, considering the system complexity subject matter, we cannot predict which stable state will emerge for research, which result will be fostered or gained (NLDS) and which will have the expected impact on society: we cannot have all the answers themselves available, and all the proposals coming from employees are welcomed. In the field of advanced technologies, we are moving toward a participative and P2P organization.

Also: a manager who can admit a mistake creates a powerful example to others (‘errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum est’!). This means that it is possible to make mistakes, as long as one speaks up and takes corrective action, whether that action is to report misconduct, or is essential to the company’s creative process.

When designing and implementing innovative technologies or programs in a company, it is important to ascribe some “best practices” in order for products to be successful and ethical.

First, we will always talk in terms of technology because an advanced technology is a set of several elements:

• – a technique, which is the key concept to be implemented for solving a problem;
• – a method, which enables us to define how to correct, improve and solve a problem;
• – a tool, which is the result of the development program that many involved people will use to enhance the situation.

These three elements always work together: ignoring one of them leads to a failure in the future. We have to keep in mind that evolution, in nature, is always performed thanks to a succession of disruptive events: if we do not implement disruptions in our minds and/or in our thoughts, ways of thinking and ways of doing things, we will miss the in-depth objective of a new technology. For instance, the “message” behind complexity is “reactivity”, the message behind the Web is “work organization” and so on.

Hereafter are some important ethical factors [DAA 02] to consider in analyzing an R&D development program:

• – Impact: How much difference will the innovation make to improve the present situation? How much will the ROI (return on investment) be?
• – Appropriateness: Will the intervention be affordable, robust and adjustable to morale settings in developing collective welfare, wellness and economics in countries, and will it be socially, culturally and politically acceptable?
• – Burden: Will the innovation address the most pressing, sustainable or high-priority needs?
• – Feasibility: Can it realistically be developed and deployed in an acceptable time frame? Will it be useful, usable and used, in order to assess the future costs of infrastructure and to monitor its sustainability overtime.
• – Knowledge gap: Does the innovation advance health by creating new knowledge, intellectual goods?
• – Indirect benefits: Does it address issues such as environmental improvement, income generation or additional impact (opportunities for the creation of activities, wealth and employment) that have indirect, positive effects?

As with all EU or industrial programs, global innovations must be based on best-practice principles. In fact, decision makers have to act as if their own property, health and living were committed. The worst practices that are sometimes employed by some organizations (administration, associations, etc.) can do significant harm and create more substantial barriers, soon the decision maker is playing with the money of the remaining part of the population.

Below are some questions that should be asked of any innovative technology or program:

1. 1) Does the innovation involve local community members? Who is funding the innovation? For which purpose?

   Deploying an innovation requires an understanding of the local and global environments. Social, economic and cultural environments vary greatly across and even within countries. Innovation implementation is a transdisciplinary activity requiring many different skills in sociology, anthropology, public policy, technology and economics.

2. 2) Does the innovation foresee unintended impacts and consequences?

   A global health intervention may lead to unintended and undesired consequences due to predictability concerns (complexity issues), possible errors, ignorance (all is not known about everything) and we are not able to know anything on the part of the developer or implementer. Because most of the systems are NLDS, we cannot anticipate the impact of an innovation: proper research and implementation procedures have to be conducted.

3. 3) Is there a way to evaluate the success of the innovation?

   Usually, evaluation needs to focus on measuring outcomes: financial, healthcare, economic technical, sustainability and so on. It is a global evaluation and validation, which involves many participants and society as well. Impact factors are always expressed in terms of metrics based on the amount of changes in behavior, attitude, skills, knowledge or condition of a target population.

4.7.1. Utilitarianism: the greatest good for the greatest number

Strengths are defined as: Encouraging efficiency and competitiveness, profit maximization, looking beyond the individual to assess effect of decisions on all constituencies. As a reminder, competitiveness is defined as a set of four properties: quality, price, flexibility in volumes (productivity, modularity) and flexibility in product (diversity, scalability, personalization, personification, etc.)

Weakness is defined as the complexity (intrinsic and computational) which leads to the global impossibility of quantifying all important variables; the unjust, inequitable or unfair allocation of resources because of an asymmetric distribution of information, or “voice” representation and so on.

4.7.2. Rights: an individual’s rights should not be violated

Strengths: to protect global health, security and any individual from injury, and to establish spheres of freedom and standards of social and cultural behavior, independent of outcomes.

Weaknesses: encouraging individualism and selfish behaviors that interfere with social order, discipline, moral and cooperation. Non-preservation of competitiveness concepts and sustainability BDI.

As soon as the room for leadership starts to become room for championship, the concept of ethics is subject to interpretation and leads to business goals: ethics should not remain on the margins in business decision-making.

4.7.3. Enterprise: personal involvements

Specific behaviors that connect ethics and compliance with innovation and productivity must be encouraged to simultaneously achieve moral, cultural, social and business objectives. This requires improvement of the relationships and respect between the participants and stakeholders, in order to develop confidence and trust within the working organization.

For this purpose, leaders must seek a workforce where everyone demonstrates high levels of personal involvement. Above all, employees at any technical or hierarchical level have to demonstrate an interest and sense of commitment to the organization, because they have to fight to safeguard the organization and the sustainability of their surrounding world.

Similarly, the working principles in use in the camps or quality circles (the “nine rules” of a cooperative team) have to be implemented to achieve a creative and efficient innovation process. It is based on respect and trust in others, and any stakeholder, or idea, has to be listened to and respected: any information, improvement data and recommendation can be of utmost importance in any stage of the PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) of a new product or service.

4.7.4. Conclusions

Organizations are required to be flexible and able to take risks, when faced with uncertainties or unpredictable events. This requires an ethical attitude to making choices that are respectful of everybody, for cohesiveness and social harmony in the organization.

Ethics and Innovation in our global world go hand-in-hand with social entrepreneurship. Today, it is regrettable that many people confuse morale, ethics and (CSR) Corporate Social Responsibility. We cannot substitute a given concept for another: all of them are complementary, and the goal is to combine, for instance, the passion of a social mission with business ideas of discipline, ethics with innovation, morale and determination.

As previously mentioned, not all innovations can be successful: the failure, in an R&D program is also fruitful and has to be handled as a success story. The same types of uncertainties, harms and doubts will emerge: they are also subject to ethics, to evaluate their impact and define the future actions to be undertaken within the development teams and populations.

Again, tighter interconnections and a sense of ethics between all the stakeholders are necessary: it starts with more and more global accountability, respect, open communications and so on, in order to continue developing common trust, improving the overall performance of the PLM and implementing new innovation capabilities in the R&D process.

Up to now, efforts have still to be assigned to the definition and specification of a consistent set of ethical factors in a given innovation process. Therefore, we will not detail any work within this framework.

4.8.1. Evolution: the development of cooperation and collaboration

Organization of the relationships between people, society, products, goods and services in a company evolved several decades ago. In the 1980s, the telecommunication networks allowed the development of the “extended enterprise” (connections between an enterprise, their subsidiaries and subcontractors). At that time, we were talking about DDE (digital data exchanges).

The next step, in France, was the digitization of public institutions, government services, health services and so on because information systems were considered as a productivity challenge. At that time, the notion of “collaborative systems” became a pillar of their momentum, associated with the DDE.

After the so-called extended enterprise, the concept of distributed enterprise developed, thanks to the growing pressure of the Internet.

The keyword of these changes is “integration”. Integration of production systems is primarily geographical, technical, cultural and operational. The notion of compatibility then becomes essential, for both integration needs and competitiveness and mobility. It requires re-engineering of processes, digitization of production entities and re-organization of work, working modes, attitudes and structures that promote de-compartmentalization.

In this context, we have often spoken of two concepts: within the company (inter-company level), the concept of cooperation is often used, while at the intra-firm level, it is that of collaboration which dominates. These two concepts are not synonymous and do not respond to the same characteristics, the same management and organizational constraints and the same ethical implications and behaviors at the level of the individual.

4.8.2. Definitions of collaboration and cooperation

1. 1) Cooperation: Action to share information and activities, participate in a common endeavor and contribute to a common goal. This implies that all partners are associated through their work and attitude with the work of others, with their efforts and share tasks and results according to their activities and their own capacities. This concept is first of all linked to the behavior of an individual, because it calls on the notion of solidarity, giving help (time, skills) and support to others. These are joint actions whose objectives are the same. Outside this framework, it is customary to associate cooperation with international cooperation (economic development of less developed countries, NGO-type services, etc.) or the cooperative movement (contribution to the cultural and social development of certain populations, youth, civic service, etc.).
2. 2) Collaboration: Collaboration consists of acting in a coordinated and synchronized way, as a collaborator in a team, a company, or as a worker or employee integrated into a project. In this case, work is carried out in common, in agreement with others, by sharing the resources related to the project according to criteria defined by and for the group. Collaboration lies in the fact that the individual tries to integrate, assimilate to the company and carry out his/her work (even if it means negotiating the conditions for its realization) so as to favor a general interest (superior). The collective contribution is based on the notion of sharing, a positive attitude, equality, synergy, sustainability and so on. This is independent of the fact that in the collaboration where the work is coordinated, the local objectives of each may be different.

4.8.3. Main characteristics of collaboration and cooperation

Both concepts operate in an interacted world. When we compare the definitions of cooperation and collaboration, cooperation is based on the notion of giving. It is based on a consensus, excluding competition and conflict. In terms of collaboration, it focuses more on the importance of working together in a coordinated way to achieve a common goal, with a concept of results and co-responsibility.

Cooperative work is accomplished by a division of labor in which each person is responsible for solving a part of a problem. Collaboration involves the mutual commitment of the participants in a coordinated effort to solve the problem together. The distinction is made by distinguishing between each individual’s relations with the members of the group (obligation or freedom), responsibility for actions (responsibility delegated to the coordinator or constantly shared) and the ability to influence the definition and “sequence of actions to achieve the objective assigned to the group (status: hierarchy or P2P). We talk about cooperative work when different people work together for the same purpose, each with a well-defined part of the work to be carried out.”

We talk about collaborative work when two or more individuals working in synchronous or asynchronous mode in the same environment or in different places, virtual places, for example, exchange views on existing information, organize their collective work and define objectives in order to build a text together, an encyclopedia, a set of knowledge and so on.

Cooperative work → each part of the whole

Collaborative work → The whole for all.

4.8.4. Differences between cooperation and collaboration approaches

Collaborative or collaborative work is not based on a conventional hierarchical organization as found in centralized systems or client–server mode.

Taking into account the advantages and constraints associated with the two concepts of cooperation and collaboration in terms of involvement at the level of the organization, the mode of work and the conduct of business, we can consider the following table [BRE 09].

4.9.1. Implementation of the different modes of management

Interactive systems implemented several decades ago were mainly based on “Client–Server” technology. Regardless of the applications implying human resource activities or information management systems and backoffice, they now depend on the architecture evolution, which is mainly based on Web technologies.

The operating constraints are quite strong: all the applications available on the Internet use negotiation- and communication-based protocols installed on all working-stations: concepts related to social networks, MID (tablets, smartphones, etc.), are not fully integrated. All these facilities provide new opportunities in terms of pervasive computing associated with intensive computing. In contrast, they are subject to hacking, data security and violations or harassment problems that require the business ethics in this new environment to be reconsidered.

VPNs are an extension of the IS developments carried out and used in enterprises. Today, virtual private network (VPN) enables a private network to be extended across a public network, such as the Internet. It enables users to send and receive data across shared or public networks as if their computing devices were directly connected to the private network. Applications running across the VPN may therefore benefit from the functionality, security and management of a private network. VPN allows employees to securely access a corporate Intranet while located outside the office. Connections are secured via traffic encryption, and communications can be conducted on a virtual point-to-point basis. Everything is done as if we were using a conventional WAN (wide-area network).

Investments and operational costs are much lower with Web technologies and less skills are required. In terms of usages, the Internet is widely used by many people, so it plays an important role in developing either inclusivity in the society (because of the high level of interconnectivity) or exclusivity (because a lot of people are unable to use computers and become functionally isolated).

In terms of ethics, the criteria which are covered by the new means of communication and management are focused on reliability, availability, maintainability, flexibility and security, regardless of the apparent complexity of networking.

We can refer to an example related to the production management in a company based on open-source applications. Here we consider a 100% native Web architecture. It is, without doubt, far superior to the integration of PCs in a client–server organization. Benefits of a 100% native Web, Premise (on-site) or cloud computing system are as follows:

• – simplicity and robustness of the architecture;
• – easy and fast deployment and maintenance;
• – no maintenance of client workstations, as the application is based on a single server;
• – ease of giving secure and personalized access to everyone in the ecosystem (in the local network, on the Internet and on mobile networks);
• – no additional ERP license fees;
• – cost of administration and management of 100% native Web solutions 10 times lower than client–server architecture.

Therefore, we may have an idea, in terms of ethics but what are the main requirements and criteria we must fulfill, in order to ensure the best satisfaction and service that have to be provided to future users.

4.9.2. Required quality properties for an optimal management of “collective systems”

Whether it is a matter of cooperative or collaborative work, a minimum level of constraints, discipline, know-how or manners are essential to optimize the results of these approaches. This is of course independent of organizational practices, or working methods, which often use the computer systems associated with groupware tools, cognitive robots and so on.

Some of the characteristics we will quote here are part of the nine criteria that we apply in the “Quality Circles” and have now been extended to “camp conference” techniques. This list is not exhaustive, but gives an idea of the quality of behavior and relationships that must be kept in mind to strengthen the links between participants, build trust, avoid blocking phenomena and improve cooperative and collaborative practices. Because of publishing constraints, we will not detail or explain them in this book. They include:

• – information: consistency and brainstorming;
• – implication of people;
• – win-win strategies and tactics (based on game theory and thermodynamics);
• – listening and empathy;
• – respect of everything and everyone;
• – ethics.

These come from a list of collaborative practices we used for the training of first-line managers in the IBM-France manufacturing plants. They can be applied regardless of the technical context considered, and they are now available in [IBM 14].

4.9.3. Methodologies and learning in cooperation–collaboration-based systems

In industry, within the artificial intelligence framework, two ways of working have been developed and are part of our environment. With regard to a survey, conducted at the beginning of 2017, and to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is no ethical business approaches defined or developed to improve the management of these two types of processes.

1. 1) The CSCW = computer-supported cooperative work. In this case, cooperative work is used, in the sense that we involve several agents (agents, people, etc.) who use tools and resources, leading to team work (meetings, discussions, exchange of ideas, knowledge, business intelligence), associated with technological means such as information sharing software and groupware tools. We also incorporate technologies aimed at analyzing behaviors and their effects (psychological, social or organizational). Today, there are many virtual platforms available on the Internet to integrate interpersonal interactions and produce a new way of working based on a cooperative or collaborative workplace.
2. 2) The CSCL = computer-supported collaborative learning. Here, the context and final purposes are different. It is common to speak of collective learning or collective intelligence: on this first level of understanding, we see that quite deep notions are involved. Indeed, subject matters such as semantics, deep or expert knowledge and processes rather than products are used. We are learning, of course, through contacts we have with specialists, experts, co-workers, team members or an entire community. This point is based not only on interactions between agents but also technical and social aspects, because it is necessary to produce a work of comparison, interpretation, logical reasoning and important memorization. This approach requires several technologies to be controlled, including natural language and semantics, pattern recognition, logical reasoning and the exploration of large databases.

4.9.4. Some specificities and ethical concerns

• – “Cooperative learning takes place in a team work. The work done by each team contributes to the collective work. The structure of the pedagogical activity is well planned. The data mining and discovery of the in-depth content are guided by the manager according to a given approach. The tasks are divided into independent sub-tasks and coordination is only necessary when the partial results are to be assembled under the responsibility of the project manager. This implies the existence of a hierarchy. In a concrete way, a clearly defined task is assigned to each agent. Subsequently, the individual work of each agent is assembled and the work is done in a cooperative way. In this approach, each individual is responsible for his/her own production, but he/she should also learn to interact with other participants so that the final work is coherent and consistent”¹.
• – Collaborative learning results from individual work supported by group or team activities. An agent of the social network shares some resources with the group and uses the group work to learn and continue to learn through participation in the work being done. The structure of the activity is flexible and open. Means of discovery are diverse and free of access.

When work is carried out in a collaborative way, there is no labor segmentation among the participants: they work together at each stage of the common work; this causes organization and project management problems which can lead to a loss of team cohesion, less effectiveness in exchanges and more difficulties in learning

How can we take advantage of these new advances, resources and opportunities to develop our knowledge? How can we control, use and validate acquired knowledge? What is the important factor to master: knowledge, know-how, experience, competence? What kind of charter in ethics do we have to consider?

In terms of measurement criteria, we will use the following characteristics, relevant to an optimal learning involving functional interdependences (interactions). As we can see, the measurement can be considered as an image, that is, a presentation of facts, but not as a way to evaluate a performance or quality. The following simple criteria are to be considered:

• – heterogeneity of the organization (quantitative and qualitative diversity of skills and profiles);
• – equality in task distribution. Volumes of workloads, quality of the results (between members of a group);
• – autonomy (ability to generate new ideas/products, with and without networked partners).

When an evaluation program is set up to measure the quality and performances of a group of people, it is called coordination measurement. However, coordination is neither participation nor cooperation and collaboration.

4.10.1. Artificial life and collective thinking science

For all aforementioned thoughts, mimicry is a very natural and ethical approach. With regard to Janine Benyus [BEN 97] and Paulo Leitao’s statements, it is time to start developing bio-inspired systems. What are the global interactions and constraints embedded and associated with a pattern? What kind of dynamicity do we intend to cover with this shape? What more can we do with this solution from the living? Does mimicry give better sustainability over time? Why? It is not only the perpetuation of a situation or a system (this is a static and defensive position), but also a plan for switching toward a new paradigm.

4.10.2. Application: role of feedbacks in mimicry and ascendancy over the others

In all complex systems, whether technical, economic, biological or social, we can define another and more general notion of feedback loop. This is the so-called “diffuse feedback”. This concept is much larger than previously defined, because it is involved in the regulation and control of highly interconnected complex systems. It is this type of feedback that is involved in the immune system; for example, it is also the one we have in human population behavior.

We define the “diffuse feedback” as a diffuse information network, where:

• – The term “diffuse” is used in the sense of “dispersion” or “dissemination”. A network element is acting not only on itself but also on a whole neighborhood. Moreover, physical and visible links do not necessarily exist to describe the interconnections and make information broadcasts.
• – A feedback also covers the concept of influence. At first, it is combined with the control of a basic task using a sensor–actuator pair of values. Then, it can be extended to peer-to-peer exchanges or, considering some ascendancy (in terms of influence or asymmetry), to master–slave or client–server communications.
• – An array of cells (operating elements or agents), whose interactions can be strong or weak, may be subject to synchronization phenomena, or ripple effects, as with those observed in the clocks of Huygens experiments. This explains why living beings (electronic circuits or economic systems) associated with some operating cycles – like biological rhythms and sleep, menstrual cycles – have their living conditions converging toward a stable attractor or become aligned with those of their close neighbors or those of their own environment.
• – In the case of a highly interconnected network, each node (that is to say, each network element) acts or interacts with its near neighbors or colleagues, or is able to disseminate its status, in terms of influenced behaviors, mimicry and so on. Having said that, there is a collective emergent behavior-type deterministic chaos. Small disturbances or changes at the local-area level can lead to critical global situations.