Search

Les travaux sur les differents determinants du controle managerial de l’innovation se sont multiplies ces dernieres annees. Ces recherches se caracterisent par une grande variete d’innovations etudiees et par la diversite des outils de controle employes par les organisations. Dans cet article, nous categorisons les principaux travaux sur le controle de l’innovation en fonction de trois dimensions : type de management, forme de controle et mesure de performance. Cette analyse nous permet de clarifier certaines tensions, de la dualite controle-creativite, qui decoulent du controle de l’innovation ou qui sont specifiques au champ de la creativite.Classification JEL : M10, M4, O32, O39.

This presentation focuses on a transdisciplinary approach to innovative and collaborative learning practices driven by technology. It highlights two salient elements associated with industry practices and processes in relation to learning and educational contexts: empowerment of individuals and communities of practice through technology, and a broader consideration of industrial approaches to the concept of learning and teaching enhanced within a digital environment. More precisely, this presentation will feature some of the key theoretical frameworks used in three different settings of learning and teaching in France with regards to the life-long learning approach thanks to Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) (WEF, 2016). It will also discuss the positive effect of the Internet and its affordances (Southerton & Taylor, 2020) on reducing the differences between theoretical and applied knowledge via professional-focused communities (Danvers, 2003). Thus, it will briefly explain that spatial and cognitive learning proximities (Lave & Wenger 1991; Fruchter, 2001) can be reduced by virtue of technology (Anders, 2016; Antonczak, 2019; Glazewski & Hmelo-Silver, 2019) and that ‘computer-supported collaborative learning’ methods can facilitate social and shared problem-solving (Sawyer, 2005; Levallet & Chan, 2018; Presicce et al., 2020) without the ‘restriction of time and place’ (Cheng et al., 2019, 489). Additionally, it will point out some aspects of problem-solving through ‘emancipatory learning and social action’ (Merriam, 2001, 9) through the use of ‘actual’ content and ‘actionable feedback’ (Woods & Hennessy, 2019) enhanced by digital tools and tactics. Next, it will focus on three case studies by concisely presenting key specifics for each of the courses, including the various digital tools used and followed by some quick interim reflections. Then it will summarise the challenges and the barriers encountered across the different practices such as virtual delivery, the size of the students' groups and some connectivity considerations. It will be followed by the principal advantages and opportunities, like the professionalisation dimension through interactive and authentic learning enhanced by affordances. And it will conclude with some managerial recommendations as experiential and practical methods (knowledge codification) thanks to industry-based teaching supported by digital technologies. The presentation will close with the overall conclusion in relation to digital technology and some of the key 21st-century career skills. In general, the findings will be of interest to academics, practitioners and policymakers. The added value of this transdisciplinary investigation is that it improves research on collaborative innovation and collective knowledge by creating a bridge between the fields of Education and Business. Bibliography Anders, A. (2016). Team communication platforms and emergent social collaboration practices. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2), pp. 224-261. Ananiadou, K. & M. Claro (2009). 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41, OECD Publishing. Antonczak, L. (2019). Scaling-up collaborative practices through mobile technology. The 25th International Conference on Engineering/International Technology Management Conference (ICE/ITMC), June 17-19, Nice. Askay, D. A. & Spivack, A. J. (2010). The multidimensional role of trust in enabling creativity within virtual communities of practice: A theoretical model integrating swift, knowledge-based, institution-based, and organizational trust. In 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, pp. 1-10. Cairns, L. (2000). The process/outcome approach to becoming a capable organization. In Australian Capability Network Conference, Sydney, 1-14. Cheng, E. W., Chu, S. K., & Ma, C. S. (2019). Students’ intentions to use PBWorks: a factor-based PLS-SEM approach. Information and Learning Sciences, 120(7/8), 489-504. Cochrane, T., Antonczak, L., Guinibert, M., Mulrennan, D., Rive, V., & Withell, A. (2017). A framework for designing transformative mobile learning. In Mobile Learning in Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific Region ( 25-43). Springer, Singapore. Danvers, J. (2003). Towards a radical pedagogy: Provisional notes on learning and teaching in art & design. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 22(1), 47-57. Dewey, J. (1991). Logic: The theory of inquiry. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925–1953, Vol. 12 (1-5). Carbondale, IL: SIU Press. [Originally published in 1938] Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1-16. Fruchter, R. (2001). Dimensions of teamwork education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(4/5), 426-430. Glazewski, K. D., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2019). Scaffolding and supporting the use of information for ambitious learning practices. Information and Learning Sciences, 120(1/2), 39-58. Hase, S. & Kenyon, C. (2007). Heutagogy: A child of complexity theory. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4(1), 111-119. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levallet, N., & Chan, Y. E. (2018). Role of Digital Capabilities in Unleashing the Power of Managerial Improvisation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 17(1), 1-21. Lewin, K. (1947). Group decision and social change. Readings in Social Psychology, 3(1), 197-211. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2013). Systematic review of design-based research progress: Is a little knowledge a dangerous thing?. Educational Researcher, 42(2), 97-100. Makri, S., Ravem, M., & McKay, D. (2017). After serendipity strikes: Creating value from encountered information. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 279-288. Mascheroni, G., & Vincent, J. (2016). Perpetual contact as a communicative affordance: Opportunities, constraints, and emotions. Mobile Media & Communication, 4(3), 310-326. Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3-13. Pont, B. (2013). Learning Standards, Teaching Standards and Standards for School Principals: A Comparative Study. Rapport no. EDU/WKP(2013)14. Centre of Study for Policies and Practices in Education (CEPPE). Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=EDU/WKP(2013)14&docLanguage=En (accessed December 31, 2020). Presicce, C., Jain, R., Rodeghiero, C., Gabaree, L. E., & Rusk, N. (2020). WeScratch: an inclusive, playful and collaborative approach to creative learning online. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(7/8), 695-704. Reeves, T. C. (2005). Design-based research in educational technology: Progress made, challenges remain. Educational Technology, 45(1), 48-52. Southerton, C., & Taylor, E. (2020). Habitual disclosure: Routine, affordance, and the ethics of young peoples social media data surveillance. Social Media+ Society, 6(2), https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120915612

International audience; It can’t be found in the literature general and accepted recommendations on management tools to steer innovation. For some authors, management tools are necessary while for others management tools may kill innovation. In this work, we conduct a study based on the grounded theory methodology. We interviewed 16 people from 11 different organizations to discover the place of management tools in their management of the innovation. We show that managing innovation processes can be like depicted in the form of an iceberg where management control tools are the emerging part.; Dans la littérature, aucune règle claire n’est préconisée quant à l’utilisation d’outils de contrôle de gestion durant le processus d’innovation. Pour certains auteurs, le pilotage de ces processus avec des outils de contrôle de gestion est nécessaire alors que pour d’autres ils risquent d’entraver l’innovation. Dans ce travail, nous menons une étude en coupe en utilisant la grounded theory. Nous avons rencontré 16 personnes issues de 11 organisations différentes, afin de découvrir la place accordée aux outils de contrôle de gestion dans leur pilotage du processus d’innovation. Il en ressort que le pilotage des processus d’innovation peut s’apparenter à un iceberg où les outils de contrôle de gestion en sont la partie émergée.

In 1920, Henry Ford claimed that “the company must make a profit, or it will die. However, if you try to run a business solely on profit, then it will also die because it will no longer have a purpose”. A century later, his statement remains strikingly relevant. In this chapter, we highlight the urgency for firms to rethink their corporate strategy and redefine their position within society in a larger context. We summarize how our understanding of performance has evolved from a purely financial standpoint towards global performance, emphasizing corporate social responsibility. However, current evolutions, intensified by the 2019–2020 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, reveal that this is no longer enough in an increasingly complex and uncertain environment. Firms must innovate, reinvent themselves to survive, and thus need highly motivated, fully committed employees. Thus, we argue that firms should refocus on their fundamental raison d’etre. In a short overview, we refer here to the concept of “purpose”, which has far broader implications than merely relying on a commitment to society or a tangible financial outcome. We ultimately argue that actions count more than words. Only by exhibiting truly altruistic behavior, shaping its organizational purpose, will a firm be able to offer an organizational setting in which employees feel comfortable innovating and thus provide offerings that meet society’s actual needs and interests. In the process, we reflect on what the firm of tomorrow should look like. Open image in new window Green Idea’s Machina by Flora

In considering the changing world, the authors of the Integrated Science: Science without Borders were asked how you would see the future of your field 30 years later. The present chapter publishes authors’ views on this subject in 2050. Authors have integrated science into the person, thinking of complex problems, artificial intelligence, management under changing conditions, and a sustainable future.