4
Innovation and Social Construction of a New Idea in SMEs

4.1. Introduction

Faced with changes in the environment, SMEs must be able to innovate based on ideas that are new enough to differentiate themselves from their competitors (Carrier and Szostak 2014). In Chapter 3, we showed that this objective requires the existence of a creative slack, a pool of ideas (Cohendet and Simon 2015), which must be intentionally nurtured and whose content and ideas are based in particular on existing knowledge (Parmentier et al. 2017b). This slack also has the merit of paying attention to the sources of these ideas, both in terms of the components of the organization and the environment, and therefore of better understanding who is behind them, which individuals are involved in the formulation of these ideas (Ford 1996; Drazin et al. 1999), and how to foster their emergence, collection and selection. However, addressing the issue of these new ideas and the creative slack in SMEs without addressing the more concrete question of their transformation into innovation, would be similar to tasting a famous chef’s dish on the pages of a beautiful cookbook. We would have the colors of the food. However, we would miss its delicate sound under the fork, its scents brushing the ends of our nose and its flavors on the tongue.

It is important to understand how the vague statement becomes an elaborate concept (Parmentier et al. 2017b). This chapter therefore aims to present more concretely how new ideas cannot be eliminated, and, on the contrary, be desired and “cooked” as raw material within the organization (Akrich et al. 1988; Kotter 2016) taking into account the specificities of the SME (St-Pierre and Labelle 2017). We argue that this requires, above all, the ability to convince stakeholders that the idea is worth exploring, testing and implementing (Royer 2002). This is why we propose an approach to the social construction of ideas in SMEs, in order to better understand how these ideas become more widespread and more valuable. Based on our previous work and case studies on SMEs, we argue that the ability to convince is based on the legitimacy of the idea promoter, who is usually the SME manager, but also on messages formulated with the intention of persuading, as well as on managerial tools and practices dedicated to creativity and innovation. By legitimacy, we can define it as “Legitimacy is a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed systems of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (Suchman 1995, p. 574). The SME exploiting a new idea of the creative slack has the responsibility to signal its legitimacy to do so, but also to demonstrate that the idea is in conformity with the norms, values and expectations of groups concerned by the idea.

We consider that the legitimization of the idea follows two consubstantial axes forming the parts of this chapter:

  • – the rhetoric;
  • – the action taken around it.

For the first axis, we look at the texts (dialogs, words, discourses) that are listened to and/or read and recognized by the actors as significant (Phillips et al. 2004). However, they are not disconnected from the action in the sense that they can either come from it, generate it or be performative1. Nonetheless, in the first part, we focus mainly on rhetoric and, more precisely, on two points:

  • – the author (or rhetorician) who is the promoter of the idea in the SME or the champion (Burgelman 1983; Royer 2002);
  • – rhetorical strategies to convince and persuade the audience internally (both employees and the family of the SME manager) and externally (banker, accountant, partners, suppliers, customers) (Scott and Lane 2000; Suddaby and Greenwood 2005).

For the second axis, we show, on the one hand, that the adoption of tools for creativity and innovation, such as design thinking (Verganti 2006; Liedtka 2011; Carlgren et al. 2016), contributes to the social construction of the idea resulting from the creative slack. And, on the other hand, we consider a management practice likely to legitimize this idea, which still needs to be further developed in the case of SMEs: intellectual property (Le Bas and Szostak 2016; Corbel and Reboud 2018). The final objective of this chapter is to show that it is essential to jointly exploit these two axes to engage SME stakeholders around the idea that gives rise to innovation, while accepting that this assembly leads to an evolution of the initial statement. This indicates de facto to the manager the qualities and skills to be developed on a personal level, but also those to be fostered within the organization to promote this trajectory from idea to innovation.

4.2. The social construction of a new idea in SMEs through rhetoric

John P. Kotter, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Business School, explains that the more you explore topics, the more obvious it becomes that convincing others to embrace new ideas is both a human issue and a life skill (Kotter 2016). He added that to achieve this objective, it is important to determine the best way to get people to understand the nature of a subject. These comments are all the more accurate in SMEs because proximity between actors promotes interpersonal relationships (relational proximity, hierarchical proximity), which should therefore facilitate the adoption of ideas internally, due to the proxemic law that characterizes them (Torrès and Gueguen 2008). However, SME professionals point out that this is not so obvious, and that ideas are not always easily retained. It therefore seems important to us to come back to one question: how does the person who brings the idea and defends it succeed in convincing the SME stakeholders? This part will thus address, in section 4.2.1, the legitimacy of the holder (or rhetorician) whom we consider to be essentially the manager of SMEs2 (Torrès 1998), and, in section 4.2.2, the rhetorical strategies adopted by the promoter supporting the social construction of the idea that is to be transformed into innovation.

4.2.1. The legitimacy of the idea promoter as an SME

Whatever the organization, it must be recognized that the creative and innovative individual, wishing to change a situation, disrupts. A paradox then emerges: on the one hand, everyone is convinced of the need for change, especially in the changing world in which we are now living, and on the other hand, change is not welcome, because it requires us to question our practices, even our ways of thinking, without knowing whether, in the end, the change will make it possible to achieve the objectives pursued. The risk in SMEs is that of the status quo. This well-known paradox in innovation (Burgelman 1983; Dean 1987) is heightened when it comes to an idea (Royer 2002) because little information is available and reliable to assess its validity. In addition, decision support tools for selecting an idea are essentially based on subjective assessments. The consequence may be to see a stronger resistance to innovation that will be produced from this idea. It then seems essential that there be a “champion”, who carries the idea, and who is led to speak out to convince all the actors involved.

In SMEs, the manager is generally seen as this champion (Corbett-Etchevers et al. 2013; Adla and Gallego-Roquelaure 2016). Indeed, the manager’s central position in the organization leads them to be a priori legitimate in the implementation of a new idea. However, it seems important to them that their legitimacy is not a “preconception”, but rather a collective and common belief held by the stakeholders. In this sense, Weber (1971) proposes three types of legitimacy:

  • – rational or legal legitimacy: the underlying belief is that there are rules and rights conferred on persons exercising legal domination;
  • – charismatic legitimacy: belief concerning the sanctity, the exemplary value of the person, which is imposed on all;
  • – traditional legitimacy: belief echoes a custom or routine here.

The SME manager with a new idea must be seen as legitimate from these three angles. The first type of legitimacy is acquired by the very fact of being, at the legal level, the leader. Before the law, they are considered as the person in charge of the organization. With regard to the second type, while Chapter 3 has already detailed how much the type of transformational leadership plays a major role in ensuring that ideas emerge, we understand that it is also essential to implement these ideas for innovation. Thus, transformational leaders, such as Steve Jobs, René Angélil or Gérard Mortier3, are emblematic illustrations of this type of legitimacy: the history of their professional careers clearly shows the importance of this form of legitimacy for a manager in a context where creativity counts (Cardinal 2018).

On the other hand, we would like to further develop the third type of legitimacy, which refers to a shared vision between the actors, a tradition accepted by all. And we want to refer here to the vision, or current belief very prevalent in society and the economy, that the leader is an “entrepreneur”. In other words underlining that the social construction of the SME manager’s idea cannot ignore their wider environment, history and customs (see Chapter 2). Moreover, far from seeing the environment in terms of its deterministic nature, SME managers are encouraged to adopt a more proactive strategic behavior and to consider this vision of the entrepreneur as a strategic resource that enables them to defend their creative idea and the innovation that results from it.

And what is the current vision of the entrepreneur? As Boutillier and Tiran (2017, p. 30) indicate, “the theory of the entrepreneur has been built over the centuries according to the structural transformations of capitalism4”. The question then becomes: how is the entrepreneur perceived in society today? And with regard to the subject discussed in this section, how would the status of “the entrepreneur” allow the SME manager to be legitimate to bring about a new idea?

Works on the entrepreneur are numerous (Tiran and Uzunidis 2017). Economic thinkers such as Richard Cantillon, Jean-Baptiste Say, Joseph Schumpeter, Mark Casson and David Audretsch, have helped to better understand the entrepreneur’s place and role in the economy; researchers in management sciences have studied their mode of action (Gartner 1990; Julien and Marchesnay 1996; Marchesnay 1998; Filion 2000), skills (Baum 1995; Lorrain et al. 1998) or entrepreneurial action (Sarasvathy 2001; Bréchet and Prouteau 2010; Marchesnay 2012).

Without entering into historical debates on the entrepreneur, we retain, first, David Audretsch’s analysis as emblematic of the current conception of the entrepreneur (Boutillier 2015). This author shows that, thanks in particular to technological changes, but also to social policies, work organization has become freer and capitalism more creative (Audretsch 2007). Entrepreneurs are therefore encouraged to be creative and innovative. Moreover, following his research with Zoltan Acs on technological innovation in large and small companies (Acs and Audretsch 1987; 1988), this researcher points out that the entrepreneur does indeed propose new forms of production. This work therefore focuses the attention of researchers and society in general more on strategic and business model innovation. The innovative entrepreneur, and therefore here our SME manager, is therefore recognized as daring to change the way we create and capture value.

Secondly, to draw conclusions from our previous understanding of an “entrepreneur”, we retain Marchesnay’s work (2017). This researcher affirms that we are in the third industrial generation5, characterized by an individualistic ideology, going hand in hand with an increase in the legitimacy of entrepreneurship and more precisely, an increase in the declared willingness to create one’s own company6. Being an innovative entrepreneur then becomes a desirable social position in the economy and it is even of good taste to say that you want to start your own business. And we can only confirm these conclusions. We can see in the academic and university community, as well as in that of professionals from support to business creation, the enthusiasm for creativity and innovation, especially those of the business model7. In short, the SME manager claiming to be an entrepreneur therefore refers to this vision and belief shared by all. It is therefore in their interest to present themself as such to their stakeholders to defend a new idea.

However, if the SME manager appears legitimate to bring an idea as an entrepreneur, this need should not have the opposite effect, which would consist of seeking at all costs to meet expectations, standards, beliefs, and, thereby distorting the idea, which could lead them to stop innovating. It is therefore essential to be reasonable in terms of seeking legitimacy for the leader. Germain (2017, p. 53) goes so far as to state: “Legitimacy [in entrepreneurship] must rather be considered as a secondary constraint that must be the subject of permanent negotiation in order not to undermine the integrity of the entrepreneurial project”8. This caveat highlights the challenge of balancing singularity and compliance. Moreover, if this balance remains to be assessed in a specific way for the leader, it must be noted that the exercise of convincing people of the usefulness of the idea also leaves its mark, in particular through texts, words and discourses, which is the subject of section 4.2.2 (Szostak and Dhuyvetter 2010).

4.2.2. Discourses to convince people of the usefulness of the idea

According to J. Kotter (2016), when it comes to innovation, it is important to remember that we expose our ideas to human beings who sometimes have opposing opinions, who can be subject to anxiety and who fear the consequences of any interaction on their position within the group. He added that there is a certain skepticism in principle about new ideas. How then to convince the organization’s stakeholders of the usefulness of a new idea? How can we prevent conflicts from paralyzing organizational renewal? The feedback from the managers and executives with whom we have been working for years indicates that the answers depend on the type of stakeholders involved: internal (SME employees) and external (customers, partners), because the stakes are different.

4.2.2.1. Convincing employees

Concerning the first type, that is SME employees, we can consider them to a certain extent, as the first “customers” of the idea resulting from the creative slack. In regards to this, we are following in the footsteps of Defélix (in Gallouj and Stankiewicz 2014, p. 234), who emphasizes the role of human resources (or HR) and human capital management in innovation: “Innovation of any kind is developed by people, which must be managed as well as possible”9. But when innovation is at the idea stage, this sentence turns out to be even more accurate. Indeed, Royer (2002) recalls, in her research on the development of a new product, that the decision at the idea stage is essentially socio-political, before moving towards a more rational decision to lead to innovation (Figure 4.1). If the two dimensions coexist throughout the process, it is obvious that when the idea, or the intention of action and hypothesis (Parmentier et al. 2017b), becomes knowledge, based on more objective data, rational arguments are easier to put forward to convince employees. The HR challenge for SME managers is therefore primarily at the socio-political level.

Figure 4.1. Evolution of the nature of the decision during the development of a new product.

Source: Adapted from (Royer 2002, p. 23, Figure 5)

The rare studies addressing the issue of innovation and HRM (Human Resources Management), (Defélix et al. 2015) in SMEs (Aït Razouk 2014; Adla and Gallego-Roquelaure 2016) show the importance of involving employees in decision-making. The objective is that they feel integrated into the decision-making process and that they understand the meaning of their commitment to the process of identifying, collecting and evaluating ideas, and then transforming them into innovation (Aït Razouk 2014). According to Adla and Gallego-Roquelaure (2016), other HRM practices contributing to innovation in SMEs include internal communication. This consists of developing active listening to employees, and in particular the anxieties mentioned by Kotter (2016), the constitution of reflection groups and meetings conducive to exchange. On the part of the leader, this implies discourses supporting the idea put forward, in order, first, to convince everyone and, second, to overcome the obstacles encountered and the resistance. To be more specific, here are the rhetorical strategies that Roy Suddaby and Royston Greenwood (2005) suggest may be used to theorize change (Table 4.1), as well as illustrations to these strategies (Table 4.2).

Table 4.1. Rhetorical strategies to convince people of the legitimacy of a new idea.

Source: Adapted from (Suddaby and Greenwood 2005)

Rhetorical strategies

Definition

Ontological

The arguments are based on logical categorizations that highlight what can and cannot coexist a priori. Suddaby and Greenwood (2005) use terms such as “fundamental conflict” and “inconsistent concept” (p. 51) in their study to reflect the antagonism.

Historical

The discourse refers to history and tradition. This rhetorical strategy can be used both to justify and oppose change. Change can be approached in terms of path dependence, in an evolutionary logic, for example.

Teleological

The arguments put forward justify change as a response to an ultimate objective. The disruption is inevitable to ensure future well-being. It is a choice that expresses the willingness of the actors to participate in this grand design.

Cosmological

The argument is similar to that put forward in a strategy of teleological rhetoric, but differs from it in terms of the actors’ roles. These developments are in response to universal laws that are inexorable. The authors cite forces such as “globalization” or “client demand” (p. 55).

Value-based

The line of argument is underpinned by an ethical vision of change. To what extent can change contribute to improving or deteriorating what the organization believes in? This rhetorical strategy refers to normative or moral legitimacy (Suchman 1995).

Table 4.2. Fictional illustrations of rhetorical strategies

Rhetorical strategies

Fictional illustrations

Ontological

“It is impossible to develop this idea, which is fundamentally at odds with what made us successful.”

Historical

“Our trajectory proves that we are successful in carrying out such projects; we will succeed again!”

Teleological

“The current changes leave us no choice. We must change before it is too late.”

Cosmological

“Customers expect us to be able to respond flexibly and quickly. We must reinvent ourselves in this direction!”

Value-based

“We are an organization for which environmental protection is crucial. We cannot develop our idea with this partner who ignores their carbon impact.”

The aim here is to encourage SME managers to pay close attention to internal communication in order to legitimize the idea they want to develop. Their “texts” are very important because they are read, quoted or used by others (Scott and Lane 2000), and first and foremost by employees. It is common in a company to hear the phrase: “The boss told us that...” Or, in the digital age: “The boss tweeted, posted a message on LinkedIn...” This communication must therefore not be the result of chance (Schwebig 1988); it is to be thought of and worked on when it comes to the development of innovation. However, it should not be assumed that once a new idea has been adopted internally, the work of social construction is over. Customers and partners are also concerned by the subject, which is addressed in the section 4.2.2.2.

4.2.2.2. Convincing customers and partners

If convincing internally of the relevance of an idea of creative slack is far from being a sinecure (Kotter 2016), this is no less the case when it comes to customers and other partners of the SME. The sanction of the market remains heavy with consequences for an organization, in particular if these actors do not adhere to the idea. How then to convince them of the usefulness of a new idea? In line with the discussion in section 4.2.2.1, we focus here on the rhetoric of SMEs that is voluntarily communicated to external stakeholders, and in particular through the organizational image. As illustrated in the foreword by Gaëtan de Sainte Marie, the objective of this strategy is to appear desirable, and to be perceived as appropriate and correct in relation to their expectations. This is more precisely what is known as the “institutional image”, that is the voluntary projection of an organizational image that refers to the institutional logics of the organizational field for stakeholders (Szostak 2006a, p. 10).

This image is an interface between the organization and external stakeholders. It reflects not only the perception of the organization’s members (e.g. employees), but also the way others perceive the organization itself (Fombrun and Shanley 1990; Dutton and Dukerich 1991; Gioia et al. 2000). The aim is to increase the attractiveness of the SME engaged in developing a new idea to propose an innovation, to improve its credibility in their eyes, and to avoid blame (Zuckerman 1999). This therefore requires the company to, first, identify the expectations, norms and values that are crucial for stakeholders (Elsbach and Sutton 1992), second, to translate them into a specific vocabulary, and third, to formulate the image, with proper reference to it (Box 4.1). According to this approach, the environment, composed of customers and partners, becomes a real strategic resource to be mastered for SMEs.

In addition, Elsbach (1994) explains that verbal narratives are defined by both content and form. Thus, this image translated into texts should be considered according to these two approaches. How is the text written (font and font size, colors, drawings)? What is the nature of the text (prose, poetry, haiku)? What is its layout? Are there any writing games like an acrostic, the integration of “smileys”, etc.? Given the role of these texts, which are supposed to legitimize creativity and innovation, the SME manager must give real thought to their formulation. In the age of 140-character instant tweets, emails and instant messaging, it may seem surprising to encourage the leader to take the time to think about both the form and content of discourses. However, neglecting these dimensions would mean forgetting the role of writing in the construction of humanity, which, despite everything, is being modified by digital technology (Box 4.2). In short, for SMEs, it is a question of complementing the discursive approach of the institutional image with that of text visualization (Meyer et al. 2013; De Vaujany and Vaast 2016). Visual representations are part of the subjective evaluation of an idea. This is all the more obvious when the social construction of the idea is addressed by design thinking (sketches, visual storytelling, prototyping, etc.), which is discussed in the next section.

To summarize this first part, we show that the legitimacy of the promoter of the idea (or rhetorician), in our view the SME manager, can be combined or not, through the legal status of the manager as the legal manager of the company, through the form of leadership adopted, but also by referring to the figure of the entrepreneur, who is currently on the rise. It will also enable them to formulate rhetorical strategies to convince employees, who are their “first internal clients”, as well as an institutional image for clients and partners. This social construction of the idea through discourse and words is not enough for us, however. Concrete actions must be associated with it; in other words, “making” social construction.

4.3. “Making” the social construction of a new idea in SMEs

With reference to the method inspired by the quotation from Ralph Caplan, designer and author of the book By Design (1984) – “a hand that draws is a hand that thinks”, we consider that action (here, drawing) leads the actor to reflect: “making” this convinces him of the relevance of the idea and, in return, facilitates the assembly of other actors (Akrich et al. 1988). The objective of this second part is thus to understand how concrete actions carried out within the SME can promote the social construction of a new idea. As we are not aiming for exhaustiveness, we have chosen to focus in particular on two actions, which are currently booming in SMEs. First, we discuss the case of design thinking as a management tool dedicated to creativity and innovation (Verganti 2006; Liedtka 2011; Carlgren et al. 2016). Secondly, we discuss the practice of capture of the value of the idea by intellectual property in SMEs (Le Bas and Szostak 2016; Corbel and Reboud 2018).

4.3.1. The exploitation of design thinking in SMEs10

Design thinking (Brown 2010) is a user-centred method (Veryzer and Borja de Mozota 2005; Ward et al. 2009; Johansson-Sköldberg et al. 2013; Carlgren et al. 2016). Many large companies and SMEs apply it (Ward et al. 2009; Liedkta 2011; Johansson-Sköldberg et al. 2013; Gerlitz et al. 2016).

The premise of design thinking is collective intelligence. Several people voluntarily meet in a group to address a specific problem. Among them, a professional designer is automatically included. Various profiles are associated with it: engineers, sociologists, philosophers, architects, technicians, marketing specialists, senior managers, etc. All have different interests in design. However, they work together to create and innovate in line with the company’s developed strategy (section 4.3.1.1.1), using emblematic practices, in this case prototyping and empathy (section 4.3.1.2).

4.3.1.1. Design thinking, a strategic innovation management method

Design thinking echoes design, a discipline in the field of creativity (Verganti 2006 and 2008; Dechamp and Szostak 2016). We see design as a means for individuals working in a complex social system to create, capture and transform ideas of value into innovation (Woodman et al. 1993; Carrier and Gélinas 2011a; Szostak 2016). Design thinking therefore promotes the transition from creativity to innovation. In addition, we consider that design can be a strategic capacity, because of its ability to strengthen, or even create, sustainability and legibility for stakeholders, the competitive advantage of the organization, and thus, be a strategic innovation management method. In this sense, we focus on four main dimensions for which design plays a strategic role in a company, and which the SME must understand (Figure 4.2).

The “physical” dimension refers to the role of design in designing a differentiated offer in line with the company’s vision and customer needs. It can be the shape of the product (colors, material, etc.), but also the organizational design of a service offer. The “emotional” dimension underlines the ability of design to create a unique and strong relationship with stakeholders due to the satisfaction of the experience with the company. For an SME, this reminds it of the importance of taking into account the actors’ emotions, whether internal or external. The “spiritual” dimension emphasizes the brand values to which stakeholders adhere, hence the need to clearly formalize them, particularly in a portfolio of drawings11. And the “intellectual” dimension characterizes the organizational processes that allow the design to transform ideas into a value proposition that the company can capture. This point will be further explored in section 4.3.2 with the theme of intellectual property.

Figure 4.2. The key dimensions of design.

Source: (Szostak and Lenfant 2015, p. 16)

Thus, a new idea resulting from the creative slack which is worked according to the perspective of design, will be transformed according to the four dimensions. It is important, however, to assess whether or not the objectives of each dimension have been achieved. In this sense, Table 4.3 proposes evaluation and control indicators, which are generally used by companies.

Table 4.3. Examples of control and development indicators in terms of dimensions of the design.

Source: Adapted from (Szostak and Lenfant 2015, p. 16)

Physical dimension

Emotional dimension

Spiritual dimension

Intellectual dimension

Evolution of absolute and relative market share.

Shape recognition of the products.

Degree of satisfaction with the product (for the customer).

Level of satisfaction with mode management (for employees).

Level of adherence to the perceived image and values of the brand.

Nature of loyalty to the brand.

Share of the design in the cost of R&D development.

Capacity to capture innovation through intellectual property rights.

On the other hand, if these indicators remain simple in themselves, they may still appear complex for an SME. Indeed, this implies at least three conditions. First, the SME must be technically equipped. Second, it must be organized to create, collect, process and secure the data necessary for the various evaluations suggested by the indicators. Third, they are asking for access to certain data, such as market shares. More broadly, the question then arises of the information system, which often deserves to be developed in an SME (Julien 1997). For example, here is an important question for an SME: has it developed an accounting information system that allows it to isolate design investment when developing a new product? Chapellier et al (2013) show, based on their study on Syrian SMEs in Aleppo, that, while an SME accounting information system does not generally include complex data, it is developed under the condition of simplification and adaptation. It is also necessary to take into account structural and contextual characteristics (size of the company, type of strategy, nature of the environment), as well as the profile of the managers and professionals concerned (internal accountant, external firm). From this work, we understand that, in the case of design exploitation, and in order to assess its accounting performance, the accounting information system will have to be adapted and integrate design as an important position. This should also facilitate access to innovative and complementary financing to bank loans, such as securitization12. On the other hand, all this implies that there is a will and intention to do so, and that the manager focuses on design in their innovation strategy to the point of setting up an information system, for example an accounting system, allowing them to use the indicators mentioned.

In our opinion, the actions induced by the research of evaluation and control contribute to the social construction of the creative idea and innovation. But they impose a real commitment on the part of the SME’s management, which is not always easy, according to the designers13. This condition for success is also present when it comes to the exploitation of typical design thinking practices, such as prototyping and empathy, which is the subject of section 4.3.1.2.

4.3.1.2. Typical design thinking practices to be used in SMEs

Design thinking as a method is based on an organized process of research, improvement and development of new ideas (Ward et al. 2009; Johansson-Sköldberg et al. 2013; Carlgren et al. 2016). Three main steps can be identified (Brown 2010; Chanal and Le Gall 2016):

  • – inspiration is used to collect insights into the thoughts, practices and needs of users. The main questions the company answers are: “Who are our users? What is most important to them? What are their needs?”;
  • – ideation is based on classical creative methods (such as brainstorming) and summary prototyping. The objective is to generate and collect many ideas, even the craziest ones;
  • – implementation involves the selection of the idea, in particular through the implementation on scale 1 of the desired experience to test the desirability, feasibility and viability of the idea. The questions to be addressed are then: “How can we make our idea tangible? What works well or poorly for the user in this prototype?”

During these stages, all the company’s internal actors, that is employees and SME managers, are involved. External actors, such as consumers, suppliers and even society as a whole, are also mobilized at certain stages through philosophers, writers, entrepreneurs, politicians, students, etc. This diversity is characteristic of design thinking (Kelley and Kelley 2013; Carlgren et al. 2016). The interest here is to bring these actors together to gather ideas, but also to develop a privileged relationship with each of them. Two major design thinking practices promote this in particular: empathy and prototyping. They are widely available to SMEs. Indeed, they do not require significant resources or extensive expertise, but above all emotional intelligence, imagination and manual skills.

Concerning the first, empathy, this involves putting yourself in someone else’s shoes, without judgment, by understanding the personal motivations of each person leading to particular actions (Liedtka 2011 and 2015; Carlgren et al. 2016). It is based on the ability to reason with emotions (Goleman 2018). Empathy allows us to imagine the world from the points of view of internal and external actors, to open our eyes to better observe them and understand their behaviors (Brown 2010) (Box 4.3). For example, Yoo and Kim (2015) explain, in the case of Samsung, a company known for its design but also for its commitment to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), how the idea of the first flip-cover cell phone without an external antenna could be developed internally. The creative director adopted the engineers’ mindset to convince them of his idea. “To bring them on board, he [the junior designer] reached well beyond the usual design role and took on an engineer’s mindset” (Yoo and Kim 2015, p. 76). Samsung has worked in this way with its “internal customers”, but it has also worked with suppliers. In the case of the development of the One Design flat panel television, the company was indeed confronted with strong resistance from suppliers. To convince them, it adopted their point of view and understood that the sticking point was essentially logistics. It then invented a new supply chain model, allowing it to save money on this position, which then convinced suppliers to distribute the product. Thus, this practice has fostered the emergence of new ideas that are directly useful to the stakeholders involved, and has fostered the development of the innovation that results from a new idea.

While empathy is a practice that favors the social construction of a new idea, Goleman (2018) points out that it has limits, including compassion fatigue and anxiety, which can lead actors to make poor decisions. The three stages of the design thinking process can then appear as a method to overcome these possible limitations. Another way to reduce these limits is to use a second practice: prototyping. It complements the first because it “brings ideas to life” by facilitating the visual expression of ideas (Ward et al. 2009; Johansson-Sköldberg et al. 2013; Carlgren et al. 2016). To some extent, the practice of prototyping is part of a more global movement involving that of makers (or do-it-yourselfers) (Box 4.4). The aim is to test the concepts as they are formulated, to stage them, and to enable the various actors involved to assess their relevance in the light of their own constraints (Sutton and Hargadon 1996; Ben Mahmoud-Jouini 2016).

To demonstrate the power of prototyping practice, the MIT Media Lab adopts the aphorism “Demo or Die”. Indeed, the prototype, even if quickly tinkered with, facilitates the establishment of bridges between the past and the possible future (Liedtka 2011; Yoo and Kim 2016). It allows progress towards a better definition of the final concept. Here, the actors can engage in a dialog on an intermediate object, objectified through a tangible and visible model in a form common to all (Brown 2010; Liedtka 2011; Carlgren et al. 2016). They can then verbalize their constraints, doubts, questions; and the model serves as proof for their demonstration. Thus, from a socio-political logic (Royer 2002), the creative and innovative process becomes more material and rational, as information begins to stabilize in terms of knowledge. It is therefore in the interest of SMEs to take advantage of this practice, which is easy to develop internally, but also to take advantage of places that make the necessary prototyping equipment accessible, such as FabLabs (Box 4.5). That being said, it is true that there are risks inherent in using this method in SMEs. For example, the verbalization of doubts and questions is not such an easy act for the actors, including the SME manager, for fear of not appearing to be fully engaged in the creative and innovative process. It seems necessary that these actors and the manager in particular have a certain maturity in mastering design thinking (Cucuzzella 2016; Seville and Szostak 2018).

In summary, we mainly consider that design thinking, whether through the methodology developed as a whole or through the practices of empathy and prototyping, allows SMEs to involve all the actors concerned in the transformation of the idea into innovation.

Design thinking promotes a cognitive and emotional understanding of these actors and physically shows the value of the innovation developed. This value can be functional, formal, reputational, societal, environmental, or economic. Whatever it may be, however, there is the question of value capture, which is the subject of intellectual property rights.

4.3.2. The role of intellectual property in SMEs

If intellectual property (IP) is accessible to all organizations, it requires a legal capacity, which is “the ability of the company to integrate data from the legal sphere to develop legal resources” (Roquilly 2009, p. 14615). There are two kinds of these resources in a company: those generating rights that are based on ownership, and those related to the knowledge and skills of legal experts, which are based on knowledge. However, it must be noted that SMEs have to develop such a capacity: they often invest modestly in both kinds of legal resources (Le Bas and Szostak 2016; Szostak 2017; Corbel and Reboud 2018), while the question of valuing new ideas and innovations remains crucial (Pisano and Teece 2007). Thus, this section presents uses of intellectual property rights in SMEs (section 4.3.2.1) and then discusses other ways to capture the value of innovation in SMEs, including through cloud computing and creative commons (section 4.3.2.2).

4.3.2.1. The use of intellectual property rights in SMEs

According to several surveys, SMEs do not make sufficient use of IP rights when they innovate (Crevoisier et al. 2005; Holgersson 2013; Reboud et al. 2014). The first hypothesis consists of the fact that they are not sufficiently familiar with these legal resources (Crevoisier et al. 2005), hence the actions developed for them by competent organizations16. In this sense, Box 4.6 summarizes the main IP rights. The second hypothesis reflects their financial and human resources, which would be insufficient in view of the cost of filing and possible defence proceedings before the competent courts (Ayerbe and Mitkova 2008).

This being said, we note that the strategic uses of IP in innovation to protect the benefits of its innovative potential (Teece 1986; 2007) are varied (Gay 2017). The most traditional remains that consisting of excluding a third party from the exploitation of the proposed solution, because it is made private. It is about enforcing your rights and, in return, respecting the rights of others. While companies have long exploited a single right to protect themselves, many are now adopting multi-protection strategies (Grandstrand 1999; Reitzig 2004; Corbel 2009), including SMEs (Le Bas and Szostak 2016). By multi-protection, we mean a combined legal innovation consisting either of accumulating several IP rights on the same subject matter or in juxtaposing rights. For example, if the Bang & Olufsen Beolab loudspeakers take the 3D shape of the brand, they are also protected in terms of design (Quiquerez and Szostak 2018). The main interest is to benefit from the advantages of each of these rights, in particular as regards the term of protection, and to exclude as much as possible any unauthorized use of the innovation. Multi-protection is also used in SMEs to strengthen each of the rights (Le Bas and Szostak 2016), but in specific strategic situations (Corbel and Reboud 2018) (Box 4.7) and according to the type of innovation undertaken (Box 4.8).

The traditional use of IP is also reflected in the fight against counterfeiting. On this point, SMEs generally consider that they are not in a position to bring long and costly proceedings against counterfeiters, often strangers, who are not subject to the same Intellectual Property Code (provided that there is one). This then encourages SMEs to imagine, first, other uses of IP and, second, other ways to protect themselves (section 4.3.2.2.2).

Concerning these other uses, we will focus on three main ones. The first concerns the company’s strategic positioning in its market. IPRs allow a company to mark its environment by taking an advantage over competitors, who will only have as a solution the obligation to imagine the circumvention of IPRs, in order to enter the market. This upward differentiation strategy allows it to generate additional margin. The second use is linked to organizational image: through IPRs, the company communicates about its status as a pioneer in innovation, it increases its reputation among its stakeholders, but also its financial value, particularly towards shareholders and financiers. A third use is in inter-organizational relations as a mediation tool (Pénin 2005): SMEs can promote innovations that are not exploited internally during these collaborations. IPRs are, in short, negotiation tools. They also make it possible to organize these same relationships by defining the knowledge base of each partner. The latter’s use echoes the emergence of new SME practices to capture the value of their innovation, by addressing technological and societal changes, which is discussed in section 4.3.2.2.

4.3.2.2. Prospects for the capture of innovation in SMEs by Cloud Computing and Creative Commons

While traditional IPRs are used by SMEs and convince stakeholders of the relevance of the innovation developed, they still appear risky (Corbel and Reboud 2018). They also imagine, in addition, other ways of protecting themselves. We choose to present two of them.

The first way is of an organizational nature. For the SME, it is a question of thinking about the organization of its innovation in order to avoid the diffusion of ideas and solutions created. Cloud Computing is proving to be an opportunity for SMEs in this respect. Indeed, this “cloud” can make it difficult to identify where the value created by innovation comes from and how it is generated. To better understand it, Le Bas and Szostak (2016) studied the case of an SME in the mechanical sector. This SME has taken advantage of the research of medical scientists at the St-Étienne University Hospital to propose several new ideas that are useful to the medical community, clients and patients, and the company. It is a technological product that puts to music the results of professors’ scientific research in an apparatus for monitoring the ANS (or autonomic nervous system) of patients potentially subject to, among other things, hypertension or sleep apnea. For SMEs, the definition of the value of the idea is multiple: the reputation of the protagonists (researchers and managers of the SME), the raw data collected from customers, which are then used in scientific work, and the financial margin withdrawn. To avoid copying, value capture takes place in several ways, in response to the manager’s question: “How to ensure the sustainability of the product for the next ten years?” (Le Bas and Szostak 2016, p. 13820). The objective is also for researchers to progress in their work.

To this end, it creates a clearly identifiable legal structure (LMC). It brings together the associated actors to formalize a community of destiny; it allows researchers to continue to publish based on new data21. In addition, a multi-protection system has been set up for the product developed and marketed, which has the advantage of formalizing for everyone how and what they will capture. The SME then combines patents, trademarks, designs and copyrights around its innovation (Granstrand 1999; Reitzig 2004; Corbel 2009). Where the SME is clever is that it completes all of this with a specific organization set up thanks to Cloud Computing. Indeed, the manager decides to separate the analysts from the data collected into two categories. The former proceed to the cleaning of the file associated with each user, and the latter carry out a more thorough processing. Analysts do not know each other; none are supposed to be able to reconstruct the entire production system. In addition, to adapt to the volume of activity, the SME recruits analysts who have the status of self-employed entrepreneurs; they then work from home. This quasi-virtual organization is flexible. In fact, Cloud Computing is becoming an additional organizational asset that is proving to be an opportunity to better appropriate the value of a new idea, subject to caution with regard to risks that have not yet been controlled. This includes in particular acts of malicious data destruction. Such an organization can only support the legitimacy a new idea with stakeholders, as it provides guarantees on the capture of the value created.

The second way of protecting oneself is part of another approach to property, and consists of not owning all the rights induced by ownership, but considering property as a common resource in the sense of Ostrom (2010) and Schlager and Ostrom (1992), that is a shared resource without a rights holder (Coriat 2015). More precisely, it is a question of not considering IPR as a monolithic whole, but as a bundle of rights (use, copying, modification, and distribution of the work), which may be granted by the author to a third party. This third party can be anyone. It can also be identified as a contributor to innovation; and this is what Potts (2012a; 2012b) proposes with Innovation Commons. These commons involve the pooling of resources (technical, material, HR, financial, etc.), in the same way as physical commons, while recognizing that the value of these resources is not so obvious a priori. The knowledge held by each individual is also shared: this knowledge takes on a certain value when it is gathered and in a particular context. These innovation commons are therefore temporary and constantly renewed thanks to the knowledge and the collaboration between stakeholders.

This is made possible by the Creative Commons22 licenses. It should be noted, however, that the originality lies in the fact that these licenses contractually exploit IP; Creative Commons do not oppose IP (Quiquerez and Szostak 2018). According to Professor Nicolas Binctin:

“The free movement proposes licensing models for the circulation and adaptation of intellectual property. The free model does not call into question intellectual property; it uses its foundations to exploit the contractual freedom attached to it. Most of the literature describes the different conventions resulting from the free contract model. In this context, many intellectual assets are offered, including software, databases, music, images, the wiki model and the Creative Commons movement, etc.” (Binctin 2015, p. 10123)

If the objective is thus to encourage the circulation of innovation, exchange and creativity of everyone, respecting the different degrees of openness of the innovation, this can allow the SME to convince stakeholders of the legitimacy of the idea for three reasons. First, they can personally benefit and contribute to innovation, demonstrating their commitment. Second, they may see it as an opportunity for future innovation developments. Third, if stakeholders are sensitive to the values promoted by the Creative Commons (sharing, pooling, collective play), this can be a real socio-political argument to convince them, which is essential to transforming a new idea into an innovation.

To summarize this last part, we have put forward that a new idea resulting from creative slack can become an innovation, if the SME thinks of its social construction in terms of “making”. It does this by using tools and methods of creativity and innovation, such as design thinking. These allow actors to work together to get to know each other better through, for example, empathy, but also to translate their idea into 3D via prototyping. Managerial practices can also be mobilized. We discussed the one related to intellectual property: SMEs can use IPRs to convince, knowing that there are also other practices to capture the value of innovation. In short, “making” SMEs get to know all stakeholders better in order to understand what they expect from them, to use traditional tools and practices to convince them of the usefulness of a new idea, while agreeing to make it evolve according to everyone’s points of view and knowledge.

4.4. Conclusion

Successfully developing a new idea in SME innovation requires the manager to think about engaging internal and external stakeholders. Under the pretext of proximity as discussed by Torrès (2015), it would be easy to believe that this assembly is simplified. And so, hierarchical proximity would encourage employees to embrace a new idea; the proximity information system would make it possible to collect key information to monitor specific design indicators, for example; or spatial proximity would lead to more dialogue and the use of rhetorical strategies to convince all stakeholders. The purpose of this chapter is to show that it is not so easy for SMEs to engage in the social construction of a new idea in order to develop an innovation. Several recommendations emerge from the arguments put forward. First, the SME managers should not underestimate the need to think about their discourse in all its forms (oral, written) and whatever the medium (paper, digital, informal conversations), while taking the time to listen and observe the actors. Secondly, it would be relevant not to neglect the physical and material dimension of transforming the idea into innovation, because the actors also think with their senses. Third, there is no single approach to the social construction of an idea: it must be created for each innovation project. This does not mean that there are no routines in the sense that a clearly established procedure would have to be followed. This means that the routine must be able to create and not to reproduce. If companies in the cultural and creative industries have understood this well (Cohendet and Simon 2015), it would be welcome if all SMEs could also take up this issue.

4.5. Appendices

4.5.1. Securitization for SMEs: an innovative and alternative financing instrument

Alexandre Quiquerez is an associate professor of private law at the université Lumière Lyon 2, France and member of the Rights, Contracts and Territories research team (EA 4573). He teaches business law, intellectual property, banking and financial law. He is the author of several articles and books in these fields, particularly in the field of innovative securitizations.

Strongly criticized since the subprime crisis, securitization remains a financing tool used by banks and a variety of companies, in France and abroad. Originally a technique reserved for large banking institutions, securitization was then deployed in various large commercial and industrial companies. More recently, market participants have been working hard to make this financing technique available to SMEs.

The definition of the complex technique of securitization needs to be clarified. This operation consists of issuing financial securities (most often bonds) backed by assets (Asset-Backed Securities). A more technical definition is: the transfer of assets, such as receivables, to a special vehicle/entity (company, fund, trust), which issues financial securities paid for by these assets. There are also more sophisticated and less frequent transactions, called “synthetic securitizations”, where only risks (and not assets) are transferred to the vehicle.

A practical and financial observation must be made: SMEs traditionally have access to bank loans or the issue of shares to finance themselves over the long term. However, they suffer from a lack of liquidity in their cash flow and do not have easy access to financial markets. Securitization is likely to offer an alternative financing solution in this respect, which is certainly complex and costly, particularly in terms of the number of participants required, but allows them to expand their sources of financing through the involvement of many and varied investors.

To achieve this, SMEs have at their disposal a formula that seemed innovative in the 1980s because of the originality and complexity of the legal structure, but which can already be described today as old. This is the “multi-seller” securitization structure for trade receivables. More recently, operations have emerged where companies have borrowed from securitization vehicles. Even more innovative and promising transactions consist of combining digital technologies and securitization.

4.5.1.1. An old formula: multi-seller transactions of trade receivables

The securitization method traditionally used by commercial companies is a multi-seller program: a securitization vehicle, called a “conduit” in practice, acquires receivables and loans from several companies. The manager of the conduit (referred to as a “sponsor”) is generally an investment bank that manages its day-to-day operations and provides it with a liquidity line or other forms of credit enhancement. The securities issued by the conduit are generally ABCP (or “commercial paper”), short-term debt securities. The use of a conduit has the advantage for selling companies to benefit from cost savings by pooling costs. They do not need to set up or use their own securitization vehicle, but use a common and pre-existing vehicle. As with factoring, the conduit buys the trade receivable for less than its nominal value (e.g. 80 euros a receivable with a nominal value of 100), which allows the company to receive money without waiting for the receivable to mature. In return, the conduit and then the investors are remunerated through the payment of the receivable and receive a profit resulting from the difference between the nominal value and the sale price (20 euros in the example), after the deduction of management fees.

Figure 4.3. Multi-seller securitization arrangement (arrows indicate flows of payment from the payer to the recipient)

This type of arrangement corresponds to the traditional image of securitization: the vehicle acquires receivables. This is the preferred method of securitization for large groups, some of whose subsidiaries (by sector or country) securitize their trade receivables. However, another type of securitization has recently emerged, particularly in France.

4.5.1.2. A recent formula: the commercial enterprise borrowing from the securitization vehicle

In other types of structures, the vehicle does not acquire receivables, but provides financing by subscribing to bonds issued by companies. The securitization vehicle proposes to subscribe to bonds with certain characteristics (over time, in terms of interest rate, etc.) for the benefit of companies that meet eligibility criteria, in order to advance them the funds they need. In practice, this type of structure seems to be used mainly by medium-sized companies.

For example, the NOVO 2 securitization pool focuses on financing French companies with an intermediate commercial, industrial or agricultural activity (excluding financial and real estate activities and LBOs). The entire development project can be financed for loan amounts between 10 million and 50 million euros. The investment philosophy of the NOVO 2 fund is conservative (maximum 10% for the same company and maximum 20% for the same sector) and favors companies with strong growth potential. This fund has the legal status of a securitization fund (FCT), and is eligible for the “label” of an economic loan fund (FPE for fonds de prêts à l’économie), which allows it to target insurers in particular, who are authorized to invest in this type of fund.

4.5.1.3. An innovative and promising formula: the combination of digitization and securitization

Fintech – an alliance of finance and technological innovation – is being introduced into various financial practices; securitization is no exception to this phenomenon. Some securitizations are now based on an electronic platform. This is the case for Finexkap AM, which offers SMEs and VSEs the possibility of transferring their trade receivables to a securitization fund (FCT). Receivables are short-term (average payment term of 60 days after acquisition) and denominated in euros or foreign currency. The use of this financing offer involves three steps:

  • – first, the user (SME representative) logs on to the finexkap.com website and tests its eligibility with its SIREN number. From this simple information, Finexkap AM is able to immediately and automatically verify the company’s first eligibility criteria using its databases and scoring algorithm;
  • – then, if the SME is eligible, the user creates their account and accesses the secure financing request platform. Finexkap AM undertakes the necessary steps in less than 48 hours to formally validate eligibility;
  • – finally, the user sends Finexkap AM the invoices (in digital form) it wishes to finance and the financing request will be analyzed by Finexkap

AM. Invoices must relate to services between professionals. Their existence is verified by Finexkap AM, in particular with the debtor.

The use of this technology aims to accelerate obtaining financing and to secure the correct payment of the various participants. The approach seems to meet its market since, according to Finexkap AM, as of August 31, 2018, more than 1,100 companies had been financed, for a total amount of more than 194 million euros, through its platform since its launch in 2015.

Another securitization technique using electronic platforms is crowdfunding: investors learn about a project presented on a website and subscribe online to securities issued by a securitization vehicle.

In the end, we would like to point out that securitization is not only a technique for transferring risks, in particular the risk of default on securitized receivables, and even less so the simple speculative technique that sometimes still makes it famous since the appearance of subprimes. It is also a financing instrument, in the same way as loans and factoring, for various companies, without excluding the smallest ones. The new terminology used by ordinance no. 2017-1432 of October 4, 2017 is not neutral: securitization undertakings are now attached to a new legal category, called organismes de financement (financing organizations). With this paradigm shift in securitization, the most difficult question is ultimately how to make it a sustainable and beneficial technique for companies, both from a legal and operational point of view. The democratization of securitization necessarily requires market participants and regulators to be particularly vigilant about investor and systematic risk. It seems to us that one of the keys to a successful securitization boom is a high degree of transparency of the legal and financial arrangements for securitization, despite their complexity and the confidentiality that their creators often want to maintain to protect their innovations from competitors. Transferor or borrowing companies, as well as investors, must be fully informed of the different characteristics of the proposed securitization. Financial operators and regulators must remain on the lookout for innovative forms of securitization and consider how this transparency requirement can be met. The European Regulation 2017/2402 “STS” of December 12, 2017 is a step in this direction: the European authorities hope to promote “good securitizations” and encourage the financing of companies, including SMEs, by offering the possibility of benefiting from the “simple, transparent and standardized securitization” label. The legal framework for securitization therefore proves to be an opportunity for SMEs in need of greater financial resources than loans and factoring can provide, in particular to finance the development and implementation of technological innovations. Where the banker may be reluctant to lend money to a start-up given the risks of the project, investors may be willing to finance the project through securitization because of their appetite for risk.

4.5.2. Five components favorable to the integration of design in SMEs

Interview with Jean-Baptiste Sibertin-Blanc, conducted in September 2018.

A singular career path inherited from two backgrounds, a cabinetmaker with a diploma from the École Boulle, and a designer with a diploma from the ENSCI Paris, gives Jean-Baptiste Sibertin-Blanc a multidisciplinary view between design, industry and manufacturing. Creative Director of Cristallerie Daum (1999–2011), a 100% French SME located in Lorraine, he has developed projects with creators, designers and artists from all over the world. Since 2011, he has been working at Studio JBSB and continues his research with, for example, Hermès, Ligne Roset, LVMH Cheval Blanc, Maison Berger, Saint-Gobain Glass, etc. His entire approach was recognized at the “Sommet du luxe et de la creation” in Paris by the Talent de l’élégance in 2002. In 2014, he participated in the “Académie des savoirfaire”, created by the Hermès Foundation. A lecturer at the École nationale supérieure d’art et de design de Nancy since 2012, he has been coordinating the design teaching of the Master of Science, Luxury and Design Management at the ICN Business School in Nancy since 2013.

How can we successfully integrate design in SMEs?

Jean-Baptiste Sibertin-Blanc – The relationships of SMEs in design are complex, like the relationship that each one maintains with a certain idea of beauty as well as good, we might say. Each project is a unique adventure to write, no matter who in the company we will be working with. There are many unknowns. In order to better clarify the basis for this future dialogue, we have developed a structure based on the five main components of any project:

  • – the brand;
  • – the emotion;
  • – the service;
  • – the material;
  • – the process.

Figure 4.4. Compendium of a design project.

Source: Studio JBSB, 2018

The brand – whatever the size of the company, even if it has formulated specifications, does it really know what it wants, what it is looking for? Nothing could be less certain. It is up to us to create a relationship of trust, intimate, I would say, as the great Italian designers have done, made of listening and empathy. At the right time, you have to know how to exceed demand, disobey and subjugate your interlocutor.

The emotion – creation is above all a subjective, sensitive affair, where emotion is in the background. There is nothing scientific in the choice that will be made, but beyond the “I like/don’t like”, there is the right common denominator that must be tested. The proposal must be in tune with the emotion that contributes to the final choice.

The service – is the service to which the function is immediately linked capable of being challenged? This is an essential axis to which the new design is confronted and must respond. What latitude do we have to transgress the brand’s codes, while supporting its story?

The material – material is the tactile shell of objects. Every project is or will be in contact on a physical level. The material carries the drawing as it serves it. It is animated by textures, rhythms, brilliances and “colorful” scales. We must deploy this new language, sometimes unknown to our interlocutors, who question themselves before being able to choose.

The process – whatever the project, dedicated to the industry, to a factory, it requires expertise that underlies investments. It is imperative, at the beginning of the project, to fully understand the characteristics and potential of the tool we have at our disposal. We must integrate it as a determining factor in the project’s possibilities.

These five components have become our tool for dialogue with our customers, including many SMEs, because we must put the right words to the ambitions and expectations of a program. They make it possible to position the priorities and original outlines of a new project from which the picture will find its autonomy and legitimacy.

  1. 1 To be performative means he/she “who performs an action by the very fact of enunciation”.
  2. 2 This is not to say that employees cannot promote a new idea of which they are the authors. But we consider that, because of the particularities of the SME and the level of analysis retained in the book – in this case the corporate or organizational level − the manager cannot avoid being directly concerned by the idea’s implementation, especially when it is a question of convincing a member of the family, a client, the banker, to accept the potential change brought about by the idea. That being said, the arguments put forward in the section can be a source of reflection for an SME employee wishing to bring an idea to the manager.
  3. 3 For precision, Steve Jobs (1955–2011) was the founder of Apple, René Angélil (1942–2016) was Celine Dion’s manager, Gérard Mortier (1943–2014) was the director of the Paris National Opera (Cardinal 2018).
  4. 4 Translation by authors.
  5. 5 The first corresponds to the 1780s (steam engines) and 1830s (rail networks), the second to the 1880s (innovation in the steel industry) and 1879 (light bulbs), and the third to 1975 (electronic chips) and the 1980s (computers and PCs) (Marchesnay 2017, pp. 33–48).
  6. 6 For example, according to the French Entrepreneurial Index 2018, the figure for declarations of intent to create or take over a business is 19% in France.
  7. 7 We are thinking, for example, of Osterwalder and Pigneur’s effective and renowned proposal concerning the business model canvas, the many seminars on business model innovation, in higher education and in incubators, etc.
  8. 8 Translation by authors.
  9. 9 Translation by authors.
  10. 10 Some of the ideas mentioned in this section are the result of the collaboration of Bérangère L. Szostak, since 2010, with François Lenfant, General Manager at Healthcare Experience and manager of the Global Design department for the Europe/EMEA region of GE Healthcare, the medical branch of the General Electric group. They also benefit from regular exchanges with designers in agencies. These ideas were transcribed in 2015 in a book, La boîte à outils du design management (B.L. Szostak and F. Lenfant, Dunod Editions) and defended at academic and professional conferences (Design Days in Paris, Forum de l’innovation du réseau de recherches sur l’innovation in Paris, Biennale du Design de St-Étienne).
  11. 11 On this subject, we can refer to the work of marketing researchers specialized in brand personality (Aaker 1997; Graeff 1997; Wee 2004).
  12. 12 On the particular case of securitization, see the appendix to section 4.5.1, written by Alexandre Quiquerez.
  13. 13 On this subject, read the interview with designer Jean-Baptiste Sibertin-Blanc in the appendix, section 4.5.2.
  14. 14 Translation by authors.
  15. 15 Translation by authors.
  16. 16 In France, several organizations support SMEs in the development of innovation and address the issue of protection through intellectual property rights. There are, for example, the Banque publique d’investissement (or Bpifrance), the Institut national de la propriété intellectuelle (INPI), the Chambres de commerce et d’industrie (CCI), etc.
  17. 17 See Article 2 of Directive 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trademarks.
  18. 18 See Book V of the French Intellectual Property Code.
  19. 19 See Article L. 112-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code.
  20. 20 Translation by authors.
  21. 21 The data collected from patients feed a database allowing them to develop their research.
  22. 22 See the website: https://creativecommons.org/.
  23. 23 Translation by authors.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset