Prolégomènes à une analyse des causes possibles et des effets probables de la confusion entre innovation et transformation
Innovation within organized systems should not be confused with their transformation as systems. A distinction is made between type 1 and type 2 changes (Bateson, 2008). In view of the possible confusion between these two types of change, innovation may have the avowed or unavowed aim of preventing...
Wedi'i Gadw mewn:
| Prif Awdur: | |
|---|---|
| Fformat: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Iaith: | Français |
| Cyhoeddwyd: |
2025
|
| Pynciau: | |
| Mynediad Ar-lein: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Crynodeb: | Innovation within organized systems should not be confused with their transformation as systems. A distinction is made between type 1 and type 2 changes (Bateson, 2008). In view of the possible confusion between these two types of change, innovation may have the avowed or unavowed aim of preventing the risk of type 2 change, or more broadly, catastrophic change. It is therefore part of an avoidance approach. Furthermore, changes in world 1 (Popper, 1991) necessarily lead to changes in worlds 2 and 3. In this context, an innovation, insofar as it initially carries meaning for its initiators - without which it would not be an innovation - and therefore has meaning and value before and in view of the transformation, may no longer have any, once the transformation is complete, either because the beliefs of the person who brought it about have changed in parallel with the transformation of the system itself, or because the innovation has become irrelevant, and therefore devoid of value, even in the light of what reality has become, or because the innovation has not produced the effects initially expected. Innovation would thus be a sign of being locked into the perspective of a type 1 change, or an opening onto a type 2 change, without it being possible to define this in advance. JEL Codes: M10, M20, O10, 30 |
|---|