Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Open innovation. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Open innovation. Afficher tous les articles

samedi 4 mai 2013

AVIS AUX DÉVELOPPEURS, LES DONNÉES VÉLIB’ SONT OUVERTES !


Avis aux développeurs, les données Vélib’ sont ouvertes !
VENDREDI 3 MAI

AVIS AUX DÉVELOPPEURS, LES DONNÉES VÉLIB’ SONT OUVERTES !

Ça y est, le site Internet developer.jcdecaux.com est ouvert aux développeurs souhaitant offrir un service à valeur ajoutée aux usagers de Vélib’. Cette initiative entreprise par JCDecaux  et la Ville de Paris s’inscrit dans une démarche d’innovation, permettant la création de nouvelles applications mobiles et de nouveaux sites web.
Les développeurs peuvent accéder simplement et rapidement aux données de l’ensemble des systèmes de vélos en libre-service JCDecaux dans le monde, disponibles sur le site internet developer.jcdecaux.com via des webservices. Ils ont accès aux données statiques des stations, les noms et adresses, ainsi qu’aux données dynamiques temps réel, le nombre de places et de vélos, ainsi qu’à la disponibilité de chaque station sur le réseau Vélib’.
A l’occasion de l’ouverture des données Vélib’ aux développeurs, JCDecaux a optimisé son architecture informatique afin de fournir des données dont le temps de rafraîchissement a été réduit à une minute.
Ces données sont téléchargeables suivant la licence ouverte ETALAB, que les développeurs peuvent consulter sur le site internet etalab.gouv.fr. Cette licence autorise la reproduction, l’adaptation et l’exploitation des données et permet ainsi une grande liberté d’utilisation des informations, sans restriction de copyright, brevets et autres mécanismes de contrôle.
Des services personnalisés pour les usagers de Vélib’
Les développeurs sont libres d’utiliser ces données pour créer des services à valeur ajoutée. Au-delà de l’accès aux données Vélib’ déjà disponibles sur le site officiel Vélib’ et les applications mobiles développées par  la Ville de Paris et JCDecaux, les développeurs ont la possibilité de proposer des services personnalisés.  Les applications pourraient être enrichies par exemple d’une recherche des stations à proximité des centres d’intérêt des usagers ou encore d’une solution permettant de réaliser des statistiques correspondant à l’usage que font de Vélib’ ses centaines de milliers d’utilisateurs quotidiens.
Un soutien au développement de la mobilité douce
Vélib’ remercie les développeurs ayant participé au programme de Beta test. Réalisé par JCDecaux afin d’évaluer la nouvelle plateforme, ce programme a permis d’apporter les mises au point nécessaires au bon fonctionnement du service. Les utilisateurs auront donc rapidementle choix parmi les applications créés par les développeurs à l’occasion de ces tests.
« La création par des acteurs variés d’un nouveau bouquet de services autour de Vélib’ viendra améliorer l’expérience utilisateurs, et favoriser l’intermodalité » avait déclaré Jean-Louis Missikaadjoint chargé de l’innovation de la recherche et des Universités, à l’annonce du projet de l’ouverture des données Vélib’ en février dernier.
Source : http://blog.velib.paris.fr/blog/2013/05/03

mercredi 12 décembre 2012

Fortune Exclusive: Larry Page on Google

121211083220-larry-page-google-gallery-verticalThe press-shy Google CEO talks about mobile computing, his tussles with Apple -- and the future of search.

FORTUNE -- Last month, Larry Page sat down with Fortune Senior Writer Miguel Helft for a lengthy interview for a forthcoming Fortune magazine article. It was only Page's second wide-ranging conversation with a print publication since becoming CEO of Google in April 2011. The 70-minute discussion covered, among other things, Page's take on the future of search, his plans to integrate Motorola and how his management style has changed since taking the helm of the company. Edited excerpts follow.

Fortune: When you're thinking about the next bet you're going to make, how do you pick?
Larry Page: That's something we've been thinking about a lot. Unfortunately, there's not a perfect science to that. Partly I feel that Google is in uncharted territory in the sense that I don't think there's an example from history I can take and say: "Why don't we just do that?" We're at a pretty big scale. We're doing a lot of different things. We want to be a different kind of company. We'd like to have more of a social component in what we do. We like people to be happy with the products they're using. We like our employees to be happy about working here.
Sorry, back to your main question: Choosing what to do. We want to do things that will motivate the most amazing people in the world to want to work on them. You look at self-driving cars. You know a lot of people die, and there's a lot of wasted labor. The better transportation you have, the more choice in jobs. And that's social good. That's probably an economic good. I like it when we're picking problems like that: big things where technology can have a really big impact. And we're pretty sure we can do it. And whatever the technology investment we need to do that, it's not going to be that huge compared to the payoff.

What else would change [in a world with self-driving cars]? Would we not have streetlights? Would the cities be different? Do you have a vision for what could happen?
It's very hard to predict entirely. I think that, you know, one of the issues we face here is parking. I'm getting quotes [for] the cost for us to build a parking lot structure [of] $40,000 per space. It's all concrete and steel. Do you really want to use all your concrete and steel to build parking lots? It seems pretty stupid. If we have automated cars, or even if we have some fraction of automated cars, we'll save hundreds of millions of dollars on parking, just at Google. When you think about your experience, the car can drop you at the front door to the building you work at and then it goes and parks itself. Whenever you need it, your phone notices that you're walking out of the building, and your car's there immediately by the time you get downstairs.

Let me bring you back to management in the company. One of your big early changes was to organize the company around product groups. Are you satisfied with what it's accomplished. If part of it was about getting faster, have you gotten faster? How do you measure that?
It's my job and my personality never to be satisfied. But in general I've been very happy with the changes that we made. And I think that we have focused the company and that's been very helpful. I've generally been happy with that.

And do you measure the speed at which [you are executing]?
You kind of have a feel for it, but it's hard to measure really accurately. But I think a lot of things have improved. We had a measurement of our rate of how we check in code. We've seen some improvements in that, which I view as a good sign. But I probably put more weight on just an intuitive feel.

Web search is going through a pretty significant transformation with things like the Knowledge Graph, Google Now, mobile. What do you think search should be able to do? Are things that we see today that point us to where it's going to be five, ten years from now?
I've been saying the same thing about search in some sense for ten years or so. The perfect search engine would really understand whatever your need is. It would understand everything in the world deeply, give you back kind of exactly what you need.
I think some of the things we're going to do with shopping are also related to that. In shopping we switched to more of a bid model. Part of that's just to make sure we get the information to better structure it, and we have really accurate information that we could give to you. Because obviously if you're buying something, it is a commercial transaction.

MORE: Top 10 MBA programs in the U.S.

We've had tremendous focus on really making sure we have very accurate, very structured data about everything. We've been working on maps for seven years now or something, and a lot of that is to get exact data on like what is this street, and what is this business, what is the outline of this building. In order to meet our users' needs, the more accurate, the more detailed, the more structured the data we have, the better. That's why we bought ITA--to make sure we had better structured travel information.

A big part of this is happening as we shift from the desktop to mobile. There's a lot of concern about the prospects for advertising in mobile. How much do you think about monetization of new services?
Obviously we have a big company with a lot of revenue and a lot of people, and so we take our core business, search and advertising and all those things very, very seriously. And they do go through some disruption right now. And I think that's great. That's what's good about the technology industry is that we're building new stuff, new software that really meets people's needs better than the old things. And that's opportunity.
We made our bets really early on on Android. We thought that the mobile experiences really needed a rethink, right? That was correct. It's been very successful. And I think because of that experience and the knowledge that we put into developing Android and our understanding that, we understand that space really well. I think we're in the early stages of monetization. The fact that a phone has a location is really helpful for monetization.
I view a whole bunch of things as additive that you can do on mobile that you couldn't do before. And I think with those things, we're going to make more money than we do now.
I think there's no company you would choose that would be better positioned to transition and innovate in mobile advertising and monetization. We've got all the pieces we need to do that going forward.

In the old world of just desktop search, your main competitors at the time were Yahoo (YHOO) and Microsoft (MSFT). Is the competition now something totally different? Is it Siri? Is it Amazon (AMZN) for commercial queries?
I mean, I don't really think about it that way.

Because you don't think about competition?
Obviously we think about competition to some extent. But I feel my job is mostly getting people not to think about our competition. In general I think there's a tendency for people to think about the things that exist. Our job is to think of the thing you haven't thought of yet that you really need. And by definition, if our competitors knew that thing, they wouldn't tell it to us or anybody else. I think just our strengths, our weaknesses, our opportunities are different than any other company.

I don't know if this is unique at this time in this industry, but there are companies that are clearly competing with each other [Google, Apple (AAPL) and Amazon], with completely different business models.
I actually view that as a shame when you think about it that way. All the big technology companies are big because they did something great. I'd like to see more cooperation on the user side. The Internet was made in universities and it was designed to interoperate. And as we've commercialized it, we've added more of an island-like approach to it, which I think is a somewhat a shame for users.

So in light of that, Apple's still a partner. It's a competitor. You and Steve Jobs were friendly.
At times.

At times. You said that whole thing about Android and them being angry about it, that it was for show.
I didn't say that entirely. I said partly.

[Apple did it] partly for show, to get the troops to rally.
By the way, that's something I try not to do. I don't like to rally my company in that way because I think that if you're looking at somebody else, you're looking at what they do now, and that's not how again you stay two or three steps ahead.

So Apple obviously is a huge distribution partner for some of your services. How is the relationship?
What I was trying to say was I think it would be nice if everybody would get along better and the users didn't suffer as a result of other people's activities. I try to model that. We try pretty hard to make our products be available as widely as we can. That's our philosophy. I think sometimes we're allowed to do that. Sometimes we're not.

MORE: Will Adobe's new cloud strategy pay off?

So do you have an ongoing conversation with Apple about these kinds of issues and trying to resolve them?
I mean, obviously we talk to Apple. We have a big search relationship with Apple, and so on, and we talk to them and so on.

For a long time, Google was organized on a 70-20-10 model, with 70 percent of effort going to search and ads, 20 to apps, [and 10 to completely new projects]. Does that still apply?
Yeah. We still think about that. I think we're in a bit of a unique point in the history of Google, where we have a number of things that are kind of in the 20 on the way to the 70. So where would you put Android? It's probably in the 70 in terms of impact -- the monetization is at an early stage.

What [else is] in the 20?
It's question of how you really measure it. I don't think about exactly what we put in the 20, so I can't come up with an example offhand.

Okay. But Google X [which includes self-driving cars and Project Glass, the augmented reality glasses] would definitely be on the 10?
Yeah. My experience is like it sounds kind of funny because I think investors always worry about this. You know, "Oh my God, they're going to spend all their money on self-driving cars." I feel like no matter how hard I try, I can never make the 10 bigger, because it's actually hard to get people to work on stuff that's really ambitious. It's easier to get people working on incremental things.

Because it's their comfort zone?
Yeah.

Google Plus was a big bet.
Is a big bet.

It is a big bet. What's most important to you? Is competitive with Facebook (FB)? Is it about weaving identity across all of Google's products? You've talked about adoption being higher than you expected. What's the measure of success going forward?
I think it's gone pretty well. I'm very happy if users of Plus are happy and the numbers are growing because that means that we're on to something. We've got a huge team actually in this building. If you walk around, you see everyone's excited and running around and working hard on it. I think that they're doing great stuff. They're making it better and better every day. That's how I'm measuring it.
There's [another] part of Google Plus. I think in order to make our products really work well, we need to have a good way of sharing. We had 18 different ways of sharing stuff before we did Plus. Now we have one way that works well, and we're improving.

MORE: The best of everything in tech this year

One of the first instances of Plus being woven into other Google services was in search. There was a fair amount of criticism. In some cases where somebody is not an active user of Google Plus, you put their [Google Plus profile in search results]. That is not necessarily the best use of that real estate. And some people went as far as saying you were betraying the promise of always giving the best, unbiased search results. What's your reaction to that?
What you should want us to do is to really build amazing products and to really do that with a long-term focus. Just like I mentioned we have to understand apps and we have to understand things you could buy, and we have to understand airline tickets. We have to understand anything you might search for. And people are a big thing you might search for.
And so we think about it somewhat differently. We're going to have people as a first class object in search. We need that to work, and we need to get started on it. If you look at a product, and you say the day it launched, "It's not doing what I think it should do." We say, "Well, yeah. It just launched today." Part of this is you have to interact with it and you have to claim your name and make it work for you. And so I think for me I didn't have any issues around that. I think that people weren't focused on the long-term. And I think again it's important if we're going to do a good job meeting your information needs, we actually need to understand things and we need to understand things pretty deeply. People are a component of that.

Many of your competitors have talked about how you showcase your services in search at their expense. Obviously it's gotten regulators' attention. Should Google have done things differently in any of those areas?
The way we think about it is that our customer is our end-user. People are really trying to get some information and get honest, accurate, well-ranked information from us. That's our job one. I think that there are companies that do various kinds of specialized things, that they're doing a part of what we do. We see the opportunity to build amazing products that are more than any of those parts. So one of my favorite examples I like to give is if you're vacation planning. It would be really nice to have a system that could basically vacation plan for you. It would know your preferences, it would know the weather, it would know the prices of airline tickets, the hotel prices, understand logistics, combine all those things into one experience. And that's kind of how we think about search.
You began by saying "your competitors." I don't think the companies that are complaining about various components of what we do are trying to do that. So again, I don't kind of think about it that way.
I think in general we've tried to be very inclusive of people's data. Obviously when you search in Google you get all kinds of different search engines and travel providers and everything else. We're doing our best to make sure those things are represented well. I think for us our strength comes from working with everybody, but we also need to make sure we're serving our end users with a really great experience and that we provide that detailed information to people. Sometimes those things will be complicated.

There's many areas [of Google] that are working very well. Payments seem to be an area where the uptake is a little slower. Are the challenges there technical or are they [the result of] this ecosystem of partners, banks, payment providers, et cetera?
I guess you're talking about Google Wallet?

Yeah, Wallet.
I think that's an area where we've made really rapid progress actually. If you talk to the users, they rave about it. We'd obviously like to get it to more people if we are allowed to. I'd like to see more cooperation in that area and in many parts of the industry.
Besides Wallet, we're very good at accepting worldwide payments. We have very many small advertisers. We're also getting very good with Play on Android at accepting payments from users in many, many different countries, wireless, carrier billing and all sorts of other forms of payment. We have probably a non-understood set of capabilities there.

MORE: 4 obstacles to mobile world domination

There are some great products out of Motorola, but none of them are your signature Nexus line. Will you partner with Motorola for these sort of signature devices? How will you decide when to partner with them? And despite all your assurances to the other [Android] partners that you're going to be neutral, aren't they going to freak out [when you build a Motorola Nexus]?
First of all, I don't think there's any physical way we could have released a Nexus Motorola device in that sense. I mean, we haven't owned the company long enough.

How will you decide when to do a Motorola Nexus device, and what do you tell Samsung and LG?
I think there's a lot of complexity in that question. Maybe I'll talk more generally about that area.
The right way to think about it is how do we get amazing products into users' hands in the most cost-effective, highest quality way possible and to the most people. That's what we do as a business, and that's what we've done with Android.
Part of the reason why we've done Nexus devices in the past is that we want to build an amazing device that kind of showcases what's possible on Android, gives a way for the programmers to get early builds, does a whole bunch of things that are important. Exactly what we do, which devices we do, what the timing is, how we release the software with them, all those things have been changing.
Every day we kind of evaluate how do we help our partners out the right way, how do we produce amazing innovative devices, and how do we get those out, and how do we get that innovation into the ecosystem and into the hands of as many people as possible, and how do we keep our partners happy. I think we've done a pretty good job of that so far.

How much time do you spend thinking about your own role as a manager? You were a founder, obviously you've managed teams before. But how do you develop those skills? How do you -- do you experience your sense of responsibility differently as a CEO than you had as a founder?
It's really a different level of responsibility. I do spend more day-to-day management time than I did previously. I think that's a good thing. I think I have great advisors. There's a lot of people in our ecosystem and board members and so on who I rely on, and Sergey, as well, and Eric. He's very helpful on a lot of different issues. I think that I've been doing a lot of this stuff for a long time, so it's been pretty smooth in that way. But I think again I'm a little bit in uncharted territory because I think what I'm trying to do is not -- I can't point to another company and say, "I want to do what they're doing." So I'm trying to cause something to happen, and it's not obvious how to make it happen.
As we start up new things, as we're working on new areas, as change needs to happen, I tend to get very deep. Then I make sure I have the right team and the right people are in place, and I'm confident they're doing the right thing. And then I'm gone for a long time. I might be gone for a quarter. Those things vary a lot. But that's the trick -- knowing which things are really going to be impactful.

So is there one thing that keeps you more occupied right now than any other thing?
The thing I'm most occupied with now actually is the overall structural questions. We want Google to be wildly successful. What does Google look like five years from now? What are we doing? Who's doing it? How are we organized? What people do we have? And I think we have some answers to those questions. But I think, like I said, what I'm trying to do is to get a technology company that continues to scale its impact and aspirations in its everyday. We're at a certain scale now, but I don't see any particular reason why we shouldn't be much bigger, more impactful than we are now. So that's what I'm trying to figure out. And I think I have a lot of ideas about how to do that, and gradually, every day we increase our scale a little bit. It's probably incremental in that way. And that's my job, right, is to create shareholder value and create value for the end users.

How long do you see yourself being CEO?
I don't know. It seems impossible to predict. But like I said I'm motivated to make Google into something even more amazing and have a really tremendous positive impact on the world ultimately.
We're still 1 percent to where we should be. I feel a deep sense of responsibility to try to move things along. Not enough people are focused on big change. Part of what I'm trying to do is take Google as a case study and really scale our ambition such that we are able to cause more positive change in the world and more technological change. I have a deep feeling that we are not even close to where we should be.

Source: Fortune

mardi 4 décembre 2012

IBM : une enveloppe de 4 milliards de dollars pour les PME

Pour aider les petites entreprises à se doter de technologies – IBM –, la société a garni son programme « Global Financing » de 4 milliards de dollars de prêts à taux zéro. C'est quatre fois plus que l'an dernier.


IBM Global Financing Logo
Le géant de l'informatique américain a renouvelé, la semaine dernière, son programme de financement aux entreprises. Dans cette optique, la société a doté son enveloppe de 4 milliards de dollars de prêts à taux zéro, et sur douze mois. Ces prêts sont accordés, certes, mais à condition de se tourner vers des produits de la marque. « Grâce à cette initiative, ils peuvent désormais bénéficier d'un financement pour l'acquisition de technologies Cloud, analytiques et PureSystems », peut-on lire dans le communiqué de Big Blue.

« Ce soutien d'IBM de 4 milliards de dollars à l'écosystème mondial permet d'éliminer de nombreux obstacles de coûts auxquels sont actuellement confrontées les entreprises et notamment les PME », souligne l'entreprise. Par ailleurs, une nouveauté fait son apparition : une application mobile est lancée dans la foulée « pour accélérer les demandes ». Disponible d'abord aux États-Unis courant novembre, puis dans le monde entier en janvier 2013, l'application sera compatible iOS et Android.

Comparé à 2011, ce programme Global Financing a vu donc sa dotation quadrupler. Il avait alors permis d'aider 6 800 entreprises (PME et PMI) à s'équiper de technologies IBM. L'américain note en outre que les entreprises avaient plus profité qu'attendu de ces prêts et s'étaient avérées demandeuses en solutions cloud.

Nul doute que les petites sociétés technologiques françaises pourront sauter sur l'occasion. Rappelons qu'un rapport pointait du doigt l'Hexagone, mercredi, pour ses problèmes de financement aux start-up. Un chantier sur lequel le commissaire à l'Investissement, Louis Gallois, propose de progresser, dans son rapport sur la compétitivité remis en début de mois.

Source: Clubic.com

vendredi 30 novembre 2012

Obama opposes Silicon Valley firms on immigration reform

White House announcement before congressional vote on STEM Jobs Act puts president in opposition to many of the Silicon Valley firms and executives who bankrolled his re-election campaign.
An immigration reform plan backed by Silicon Valley firms is one bill President Obama doesn't want to sign.
An immigration reform plan backed by Silicon Valley firms is one bill President Obama doesn't want to sign.
(Credit: White House) 
 
President Obama opposes an immigration reform bill backed by companies including Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe that would let U.S.-educated computer programmers and engineers remain in the country, the White House said today.
The surprise announcement comes in advance of a House of Representatives vote scheduled for Friday on the Republican-backed STEM Jobs Act of 2012, which would make up to 55,000 visas available to foreigners who earned a master's or doctoral degree in certain science or technology area from a U.S. university. Those visas would only be available if immigration authorities certify that no American workers are available to fill the post.
The White House's statement this afternoon (PDF) says the "administration opposes House passage of H.R. 6429."
It's a move sure to disappoint the legions of companies and business groups -- the list also includes Cisco, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle, Qualcomm, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, IEEE-USA -- that sent a joint letter to House members in September pleading with them to approve the bill.
While the Obama administration's warning didn't include an explicit veto threat, it also didn't take that possibility off the table, and it means the legislation will likely die in the Democrat-controlled Senate even if it clears the House.
Tech companies had hoped that the STEM Jobs Act could emerge as a rare bipartisan point of accord during an otherwise hotly contested election year. AOL co-founder Steve Case, now a venture capitalist, told CNET this month that:
My view is if there is a way to come together around broader immigration reform quickly, that would be great. But if that doesn't happen, then we shouldn't delay the issue because every year -- and again it will happen in May and June next year -- 40,000 to 50,000 people will be graduating with Ph.D.s and masters' degrees, and half or so will end up having to leave. Some of those people will go back to their countries and start companies that could end up being the next Googles or Facebooks.
The White House's announcement said the administration doesn't necessarily oppose the concepts behind the bill, but the STEM Jobs Act is a "narrowly tailored proposal" that does not "meet the president's long-term objectives with respect to comprehensive immigration reform." One reason it's controversial among Democrats is that the bill would eliminate the 55,000 diversity visas available to citizens of countries with low immigration rates to the United States.
This week's vote is all-but-certain to forward the STEM Act to the Senate. House Democrats defeated a prior vote on the bill in September, but that was under rules requiring a two-thirds supermajority. If the vote counts remain approximately the same, under this Friday's simple majority rule, the measure will clear the House.
Silicon Valley firms haven't had much luck persuading Washington officialdom to budge on immigration reform. As CNET reported this month, a related bill, Startup Act 2.0, that would authorize 75,000 "entrepreneur visas" has languished in House and Senate committees for half a year without a single hearing.
Legal immigrants founded or co-founded innumerable technology companies including Google, Yahoo, Intel, eBay, and Sun. A Kauffman Foundation study by Vivek Wadhwa found that 52 percent of Silicon Valley startups were "immigrant-founded."

Source: CNET; by

vendredi 23 novembre 2012

Big Data chez Nike: une approche « open source » afin d’améliorer les chaînes d’approvisionnement


Une base de données ouverte aux concurrents et à terme au public, en collaboration avec ses rivaux, c’est ce que met en place Nike, qui juge le procédé plus efficace pour tous.
par Charlie Osborne
Londres – « Il y a des domaines dans lesquels il faut rivaliser et d’autres dans lesquels il faut collaborer. »
Ces mots ont été prononcés par Hannah Jones, vice-présidente du département innovation et activité durable de Nike, dans une salle de conférence comble à l’occasion de la conférence Financial Times Innovate 2012 qui s’est tenue à Londres début novembre.
On n’associerait pas forcément l’industrie extrêmement concurrentielle des vêtements de sport aux entreprises collaboratives et à l’informatique décisionnelle collective. Pourtant, d’après la représentante de Nike, c’est précisément ce que son entreprise essaye de réaliser, en appliquant l’approche open source à l’analyse des Big Data, les grands volumes de données.
« Inventer mieux »
L’idée est la suivante: si les entreprises contribuent toutes à un enregistrement collectif de leurs chaînes d’approvisionnement, elles comprendront mieux leurs propres produits et quelles ressources sont sollicitées. En réussissant cela, on pourrait « inventer mieux », pour reprendre les termes de Hannah Jones.
« Inventer mieux » est l’expression dont elle s’est servie pour expliquer comment la durabilité sera nécessaire à la survie des entreprises futures (sans oublier de mettre bien en vue devant la caméra des baskets Nike « durables »). Améliorer l’efficience des processus, transformer des produits de déchets en produits commerciaux… tout ceci joue un rôle important pour comprendre une chaîne d’approvisionnement et déterminer où des améliorations peuvent être apportées.
Nike est depuis longtemps une cible des organisations syndicales, Hannah Jones qualifiant elle-même l’entreprise de bouc émissaire emblématique du mouvement anticapitaliste dans les années 1990. Pour tenter de se défaire d’une réputation entachée d’accusations de main-d’œuvre bon marché et de chaînes d’approvisionnement inéquitables, l’entreprise utilise les Big Data pour essayer d’améliorer non seulement ses propres pratiques commerciales, mais aussi celles d’autres entreprises dans l’industrie.
Détailler chaque maillon de l’approvisionnement
Dans le cadre de ce que Hannah Jones appelle la « pensée open source », Nike a créé une base de données contenant les détails de chaque maillon au sein de sa chaîne d’approvisionnement, depuis la collecte de matériaux jusqu’aux fournisseurs intervenant aussi bien dans la fabrication que dans la vente au détail. Le fabricant espère qu’avec la contribution des entreprises rivales, cette base de données pourrait un jour devenir un « indice des fournisseurs », contenant des détails relatifs à chaque fournisseur, avec des notations basées sur les niveaux de confiance et les performances.
Il est également prévu que ces données soient non seulement mises à la disposition d’autres entreprises, mais aussi qu’elles finissent par devenir publiques de sorte que les utilisateurs en ligne puissent contribuer.
L’idée? La collaboration avec d’autres entreprises qui dépendent également de ressources finies pourrait permettre de gaspiller moins de temps et d’apporter des changements plus rapides, mieux informés et efficients dans les pratiques commerciales et les chaînes d’approvisionnement.
« Si quelqu’un a passé l’année dernière à chercher à rendre une boîte à chaussures plus écologique et si j’avais passé moi aussi l’année écoulée à faire la même chose, je trouverais cela stupide », note Hannah Jones.
Mieux détecter les signaux d’avertissement
En ouvrant l’accès aux données lorsqu’elles peuvent conduire des entreprises vers des objectifs similaires, il peut être plus facile de détecter les maillons faibles et les signaux d’avertissement au sein des chaînes d’approvisionnement qui dépendent de ressources naturelles finies. En outre, les productions faibles, les pratiques de travail déloyales et les mauvaises décisions commerciales pourraient être rapidement détectées et mieux comprises, entraînant des choix plus intelligents et le déploiement de solutions ancrées dans une compréhension plus approfondie des problèmes cruciaux.
Lorsqu’on lui demande de situer sur une échelle la position de Nike dans l’obtention d’un modèle opérationnel durable et bien informé qui dépend moins de ressources finies et qui améliore les chaînes d’approvisionnement, Hannah Jones estime que l’entreprise se place à « environ six sur dix ». Il faudra du temps aux entreprises non seulement pour apprécier la valeur du data mining spécifique de l’offre et de la demande, mais aussi pour réduire les coûts, éradiquer les maillons faibles dans les pratiques commerciales, et trouver comment survivre dans une industrie où les ressources naturelles deviennent plus rares et plus onéreuses.
Source : SmartPlanet.fr

mercredi 21 novembre 2012

Why tiny Stockholm has the most stunning startup ecosystem since Tel Aviv

It’s Friday night in Stockholm, and there’s an elbow-to-elbow crowd at ecommerce startup Tictail’s office. It’s a wood-floored loft space in a quiet southern corner of the city — an embodiment of the minimalist Swedish design that has inspired the company.

There are buckets of Peroni beer on ice, Tictail DJs are on the decks, and in the crowd a few venture-capitalist blazers mingle with the flipped-up caps and high-top sneakers of the startup crew. You have to get pretty cozy to hear one another over the raging electro music. These leaders — and wanna-be leaders — of Stockholm’s startup community are literally breathing down one another’s necks.
This is the inaugural party for Stockholm Startups, a loose confederation of startups — led by Tictail, Wrapp, iZettle, and others — that in a very un-Swedish way have finally decided it’s time for the local ecosystem to start talking itself up. Later, there’ll be smoke machines, lasers, and, at about midnight, a speaker will fall off its stand, bringing the event to a premature halt. It seems awkward party fouls are the international language of startups.

Tonight is just a party, but it’s indicative of an emerging trend towards Stockholm’s previously disparate startup community actually organizing itself. That’s not to say there hasn’t already been a strong entrepreneurial vein in the city, or a substantial tech scene. Far from it. Stockholm has a history of tech innovation and entrepreneurship that reaches back to QlikTech (founded 1993), MySQL (1995, also claimed by Finland), TradeDoubler (1999), and Skype (2003, also claimed by Denmark and Estonia), not to mention one-time mobile giant Ericsson (which started life as a telegraph equipment repair shop in 1876).

But while the Swedes are good at cooperating, they haven’t been so hot at marketing their talents. They’ve been guilty of keeping to themselves, happy to pitch in from time to time or share information, but slow to form associations, alliances, or to aggregate their intellectual resources in order to tell a strong story about their community. “I really think it’s an amazing scene, but we’re very Swedish about it,” says Tictail co-founder and CEO Carl Waldekranz, the host of tonight’s party. “We just don’t talk about it.”

And so they’ve ceded the “LOOK AT ME” mantle to Berlin, a city that has not been shy about holding itself up as a kind of European startup Holy Land. Don’t think that the Stockholmers haven’t noticed. When magazines name the top tech cities in Europe, Berlin often comes out on top, with London and Stockholm close behind. But venture capitalists and entrepreneurs in Stockholm’s startup ecosystem will tell you that the Germans are strong mostly in consumer Web, and that the city doesn’t enjoy the breadth — in enterprise, in finance, in travel, in mobile, in gaming — that Stockholm boasts. In fact, these people will point out, one of Berlin’s hottest startups, SoundCloud, was actually started by Swedes. (For what it’s worth, our own reporting has shown that the people who frequently hold themselves up as the poster child of innovation and startup panache, aren’t usually the big winners.)

Thanks to KlarnaSpotifyRebtel, and King.com, among others, Stockholm has a longer history of tech successes and more big-dollar exits than its German rival. For instance, the Nordic region as a whole — which still represents a much smaller population than Germany — accounted for about 6.5 percent of the world’s billion-dollar exits from 2005 to 2012, according to statistics provided by Stockholm-based venture capital firm Creandum. Europe — excluding the Nordics — represented 12 percent. And of the billion-dollar private companies listed in Business Insider’s Digital 100, 13 percent are from the Nordics, while Europe without the northern region represents only 8 percent.
“The Nordics are definitely delivering a disproportionate amount of large companies, especially considering that much less capital is invested in the region and of course that the region is much smaller,” says Creandum’s Daniel Blomquist.

One might argue the Nordic countries are winning the battle of sexy too. While Germany is mostly known for knock-offs, Finland has Angry Birds, and Sweden has Spotify. Those are two of the hottest companies in any country in recent years. And in terms of impact, the Nordic development of crucial parts of the open source stack enabled this entire generation of Web companies.
Aside from a multitude of exciting startups emerging in Stockholm — some of which I have reported on in the last week, including Magine, Tictail, Virtusize, Wrapp, and iZettle – there are plenty of anecdotal signs that suggest the scene is growing up. Spotify, for instance, has just moved into a new building, large enough to accommodate its ever-growing staff of 350, with a bit of room around the sides. Klarna, the payments company founded in 2005, has recently moved into similarly luxurious quarters, big enough to hold much of its staff of 800 (the rest are spread around Europe), with more to come.

Wrapp, the social gifting startup, recently moved into new digs, too, a converted industrial space that more than adequately accommodates its 50 employees. It is also shipping its sales and marketing teams to San Francisco as it gears up for a big push in the US. Gaming company Mojang, creator of Minecraft, meanwhile, has become so big that it hosts an annual convention for Minecraft alone.
These are the fruits of what is now a relatively thick tech cluster that has been a couple of decades in the making. The cluster spans three generations, starting with QlikTech and Skype, moving through to Spotify and Klarna, and bringing us up to Tictail and Wrapp. It is supported by a wealth of engineering talent, educated for free in Sweden’s quality universities and incubated in the many tech companies, from Ericsson down, that for years have been plying their trade from the country. That talent is pretty affordable to retain, too, especially when compared to SIlicon Valley. While Valley engineers on average are paid in excess of $100,000 a year, in Sweden you can hire people of equivalent skill sets for closer to $60,000, according to the startups I talked to.

That talent advantage is what keeps a lot of startups in Stockholm. Tictail, for instance, was considering a move to Silicon Valley and even flew there for three weeks of intense meetings on a scouting trip. The team ultimately decided against the move, however, because it felt it would be best to compete for top talent in Stockholm rather than just be another startup in California. Other startups in Stockholm espoused similar views.

There is, however, plenty of competition within the city. One 15-person startup complained that Spotify and Klarna suck up all the talent. On stage at the SIME Internet media conference, Klarna co-founder Niklas Adalberth said the big guys frequently slug it out for talent. “We fight with Skype and Spotify on every engineer,” he said.

While Stockholm looks inward for talent, however, it looks outwards for business. It must. Sweden is a small country — population: 9 million — so it has always turned to outsiders for trade, reaching back to the industrial periods of the 1800s, when it exported paper, pulp, iron, ore, and wood. Over time, it has built major international companies that way, including IKEA, Absolut, and Volvo. In the past, though, it would have to open offices in each market. The distribution power of the Internet plays right into Swedish hands, then, by lessening the need to have a physical presence on the ground in each new market.

And yet, because of its size, relative affluence, and technological advancement, Sweden does make for a useful first market for homegrown Internet companies. A common expansion plan starts in Sweden, moves out to the rest of the Nordic countries, zips over to Germany, the UK, and the rest of Europe, and then, all going exceedingly well, winds up in the US.
Stockholm enjoys numerous other advantages, including a widely developed broadband network pushed out by the government in the 1990s, giving most residents the sorts of download speeds that could only encourage rampant piracy, and hence the arrival of enterprises such as Kazaa and the Pirate Bay. It’s not surprising that Spotify started in Sweden, where piracy was so rampant as to be utterly normalized. Spotify founder Daniel Ek has said that he started Spotify in part to offer a legal alternative to peer-to-peer file-sharing.

Those fast Internet connections, however, coupled with a government-instigated PC-lending program that put computers in the hands of even the lower classes from an early stage helped cultivate a high-tech, early-adopter society. Plus, Swedish winters are long, dark, and cold, which encourages people to stay inside and noodle away at creative endeavors, such as programming or gaming.
And don’t forget that those Swedes have enviable design skills, which helps them build some of the prettiest Web services on the planet.

Okay.

So, for those keeping score, Sweden has: A nice complement of successful tech companies across a broad range of verticals; a solid second generation of startups that have grown to respectable sizes; promising new startups that are taking inspiration from international successes such as Skype and MySQL; abundant and affordable engineering talent; an international outlook; a tech-savvy society with good broadband; a government that on balance seems to have helped rather than hindered the startup ecosystem; impeccable aesthetics; and shitty winters that force everyone to stay inside and play on their computers. Ladies and gentlemen, that’s why Stockholm is winning.

But it must suck at some things, right?

Right.

Stockholm’s biggest problem is that it doesn’t have much in the way of early-stage capital. It’s fine from Series A on — the Nordic VC firms Creandum and Northzone take care of that, along with international investors, such as Accel Partners, Index Ventures, London Venture Partners, Balderton, and others. What it lacks is a strong network of angel investors. Sure, there are a few — Skype co-founder Niklas Zennstrom, with his Atomico fund, among them — but there aren’t nearly enough. Just getting off the ground can be a major challenge for many startups, and having limited initial funds shortens companies’ financial runways and potentially negatively impacts their willingness to take risks or build slowly.

“The first million is as hard as finding the next 10 or 15 million, if not harder,” says serial entrepreneur and iZettle co-founder Jacob de Geer.
Taxes can also be a problem. Salary tax is high, but that’s not the biggest issue. It’s difficult for companies to offer employees stock options, because they get taxed at both ends. The employer has to assess how much an option is worth and then factor it into its accounting accordingly. The employee, on the other hand, only gets paid out on the option if the company succeeds, meaning he pays his tax but can’t recover the money if the company fails. When startups have limited funding — and many do, because of that early-stage problem — that restriction on options can be a serious impediment to putting together competitive compensation packages.

Stockholm also faces challenges in attracting talent to the city, competing as it does against Berlin, which has decidedly better weather and a zeitgeist-y reputation, especially right now in its hipster heyday.

The government’s short-sighted attitude to foreign students doesn’t help — they’re kicked out of the country as soon as they complete their degrees, even though the state heavily subsidizes the cost of their study. A lack of downtown housing also makes the city a tough sell for new arrivals, not least because housing is expensive compared to, say, Berlin.

For Swedes, however, the taxes and the high costs are significantly offset by the welfare state, which grants free education and healthcare, and provides for a base standard of living that puts other countries (Oh, hello there, United States of America) to shame.

For some, that might suggest that the country’s entrepreneurs won’t be hungry enough to make it. If they know there’s a safety net to catch them if they fall, this theory goes, then they won’t throw themselves into the task of company-building with the “all or nothing” zealotry that is apparently vital to building a successful business. The entrepreneurs and investors I spoke to, however, said that the safety net means that many people aren’t afraid to take that first step into the unknown, because they know they won’t die on the streets if they fail.

A perhaps negative effect of the social-capitalism, however, is that “entrepreneur” is not all that popular a vocation in Sweden. Entrepreneurs are still considered outliers in society, which prefers to produce professionals such as doctors and lawyers. Some families and friends think it weird that a young scruff should want to start a company. With the success of Skype, Klarna, and Spotify, however, that’s beginning to change. And anyway, some folks told me, that means that the entrepreneurs who are around are very serious about what they’re doing. It’s not typically a decision they’ve made lightly.

And now we must mention a final cultural quirk that throws up sometimes unexpected challenges. In Sweden, as in all Scandinavian countries, there exists an embedded mindset that makes it unseemly for someone to hold himself above others. Swedes, if they’re behaving themselves, should not stand out for any reason. That means no fancy cars, no conspicuous yachts, no bragging about their world-changing companies. This phenomenon has a name: The Law of Jante.

Before you laugh off the Jante Law, however, consider that National Geographic author Dan Buettner has argued in his book “Thrive” that status equality is strongly correlated with happiness. “If you live in a neighbourhood where everybody makes about the same amount of money as you, you’re better off than if you live in a neighbourhood where you have the cheapest house on the block and everybody else makes five times as much as you,” Buettner once told me. That’s one of the reasons that countries such as Sweden and Denmark score so highly on global happiness surveys.
Fine. But isn’t such status equality a death knell for entrepreneurship, which is supposed by many to require ambition far beyond one’s village? Well, maybe. But I couldn’t find anyone in Sweden who agreed with that. In fact, said Northzone’s Pär-Jörgen Pärson in a widely echoed statement, another way to look at it is that if a company succeeds, it sets an example for the others and makes big goals seem achievable. If they can do it, I can do it, goes this line of thinking. (Pärson, by the way, is also the frontman of a heavy metal covers band called Frank Xerox and the Perfect Copies.)

And that idea of social leveling brings us back to Tictail’s party. That, fundamentally, is why it is “un-Swedish” to hype oneself up, and it probably explains why it has taken so long for a group of startups to even think about banding together to tell a good story about their scene to the rest of the world. That’s why the inaugural Stockholm Startups event at Tictail’s office might be more than just a party after all. It also might be the start of a subtle cultural shift that ultimately gives Stockholm the bragging rights over Berlin — and the confidence to actually brag.
[Image courtesy Alexandralee]

Source: Pandodaily

lundi 24 septembre 2012

Companies Are Scared of Open Innovation


Scott Wurtele, the founder of IdeaConnection has been around ever since the open innovation movement started. In this interview, he shares his experiences, insights and foresights. One is that he believes companies are still scared of open innovation and not acting enough to realize the full potential.
He also shares this qoute: “What really has surprised me is that many companies are intellectually sold on open innovation; they know it makes perfect sense and can see how they could benefit. But due to their corporate culture they have great trouble implementing an OI program.”
Keep on reading, you are in for a treat with Scott!
Scott, what is IdeaConnection?
IdeaConnection uses small diverse teams of brilliant people to solve problems and they solve them more effectively than individuals.  We solve simple problems to very complex in depth problems mostly for large organisations, but also for small companies and even sometimes individuals.  It’s all based on pay for success and contingency; clients only pay us if we deliver a solution they want.
When I started the company I knew absolutely nothing about open innovation. I had not read anything about it or even heard about it. I wasn’t even aware of the words ‘open innovation’. The origin of my idea was just to solve problems. I’m fascinated by problem solving and the interaction of people – particularly people from diverse backgrounds – to solve those problems and create something brilliant that didn’t previously exist.
When I started the company I read and studied problem solving for about six months, and then I studied team problem solving and then I looked at books and material about being a facilitator for virtual teams.
You started IdeaConnection in 2007 and today we are four years into a big, financial crisis. How has this impacted open innovation?
I would say the financial crisis has had a negligible effect, and that’s because most companies still do not understand or trust open innovation. It has not really caught on yet. Even companies that are really into it are not spending a large portion of their overall R&D budget on OI. Yes there are Fortune 500 companies that are engaged with open innovation, but they are only dabbling because only a small amount of their budget is devoted to it.
So the financial crisis hasn’t had a great affect because many companies haven’t adapted their innovation processes at all. But some are realising its value and the crisis has perhaps encouraged more of them to look at open innovation. Although, they’re not acting. They are scared, they’re not trusting of it and they don’t understand IP transfer amongst other reasons. They are concerned about confidentiality; it’s just the nature of companies to keep everything secret.
We see a lot of companies are excited about open innovation and want to get involved, but even though the management is engaged the corporate culture is reticent.
In terms of some of the companies that come to IdeaConnection we have seen that the financial crisis has had some effect. They realise that open innovation saves them money and it allows them to expand without making a big investment.
IdeaConnection is one of the few innovation intermediaries with a strong focus on smaller companies. What do you see as the biggest differences between big and small companies when it comes to open innovation? 
Actually, most of our business is from Fortune 500 companies. We do work with some smaller companies that have 100 or 200 employees.
It’s easier for smaller companies to implement open innovation initiatives, whereas bigger companies get push back as it goes through different sections and layers. Smaller companies can often do it easily.
Can you give any general advice to companies when they approach open innovation? 
If companies are serious about learning about open innovation they shouldn’t just toss out one or two of their biggest problems and say, ‘well solve these and I’ll see if open innovation works’. That doesn’t work even though we do ccasionally solve some of the big problems that a company’s scientists have spent 20 years looking.
But what organisations new to open innovation should do is take a portfolio approach and issue several challenges of different degrees of difficulty. For example, they could issue 10 challenges and perhaps they’ll get exciting results from four, and maybe one of them leads to a product that’s on its way to market. In doing it this way a company is able to get a fuller and more accurate picture of how open innovation works and what it can do for them.
But also remember that an incomplete or failed answer can also be very valuable to a company because sometimes it helps their scientists, and turns them on. They may say, ‘we never thought of that, we never explored that path. I see what those problem solvers were attempting.  Why don’t we explore it and see where it leads us?’ So you see, even the bad is good.
I would also say to companies thinking about open innovation that they shouldn’t be afraid. Study how confidentiality is looked after and realise that intellectual property transfer is taken extremely seriously.
There is still lots of talk about the intellectual property issues related to open innovation. What do you see as the biggest challenges on this? What can be done to make this work better?
We haven’t come across any problems. Our clients are extremely happy.  But I do see that fear is making companies less open to open innovation. Instead of spending time worrying companies should go and explore exactly how confidentiality is protected and how the patents are protected and get their lawyers to read up and study about it in much more detail.
The use of social media for open innovation efforts is one of my key focus areas. Given your position in the marketplace, how do you view this intersection? 
It hasn’t quite happened yet or we are just at the beginning of the very early stages of seeing its potential. It’s an exciting time and the marriage of open innovation and social media makes intuitive sense. I do think that companies that use both well will benefit greatly.
Our network of technology scouts uses social medias to ferret out information. But in terms of engagement we will see some of the same problems that we witness with open innovation. It will scare the hell out of some companies.
You got involved with open innovation early. What has surprised you the most?
What really has surprised me is that many companies are intellectually sold on open innovation; they know it makes perfect sense and can see how they could benefit. But due to their corporate culture they have great trouble implementing an OI program. They know they have to innovate and that open innovation is one of the best ways.
Intellectually corporate leaders are becoming more aware of the need for innovation; they can no longer just sit back. Things are happening more rapidly, and there are millions of brilliant minds out there that are available to them.
Source : 15inno

mercredi 12 septembre 2012

Pour innover socialement, Coca-Cola en appelle aux consommateurs


coca cola

Le groupe propose aux internautes de proposer des projets permettant d'améliorer la vie, et de rassembler. Les meilleures propositions seront montées de concert avec l'entreprise.
Pour valoriser sa marque, Coca-Cola souhaite miser sur son slogan, "Ouvre du bonheur", et montrer que celui-ci est en adéquation avec les valeurs de la marque. Et pour y parvenir, c'est sur les consommateurs eux-mêmes que le groupe se repose : plutôt que miser sur par exemple un mécénat d'initiatives sociales existantes, il propose aux internautes de les inventer. "Aujourd'hui, nous avons une communauté engagée mondialement, composée de plus de 50 millions de membres connectés via Facebook. Cela donne l'occasion de faire participer nos fans les plus engagés", déclare ainsi dans un communiqué Joe Tripodi, directeur marketing au sein de la société. Grâce à une récente application sur la page Facebook de Coca-Cola ainsi qu’à un site dédié à l'opération, les fans peuvent proposer des initiatives ayant pour objectif "de propager le bonheur".

Mettre à profit les idées des fans…

Pour cela, il faut s'inscrire, puis soumettre une idée et tenter de rallier la communauté derrière la recherche d’une innovation sociale. C'est-à-dire d'en étudier la faisabilité, de voir l'attrait qu'elle provoque, et de tenter de la développer réellement. Celles-ci pourraient permettre aux gens d'être plus actifs, de donner davantage aux autres, ou encore de s'engager dans des initiatives solidaires. A la fin du concours, Coca-Cola sélectionnera les concepts considérés comme les plus prometteurs, et indique que ses concepteurs pourront travailler avec des collaborateurs du groupe afin de les mettre en œuvre.

Pour réaliser ensemble un projet

Le résultat final, qui sera mis à l'essai en 2013, pourrait être une nouvelle invention, une cause ou même une application sociale. Difficile pour l'heure d'en dire plus. "Coca-Cola a intégré l’importance de communiquer directement avec ses partisans dans le monde réel afin de contribuer à rendre la société plus ouverte et connectée", a déclaré Sheryl Sandberg, chef d'exploitation Facebook. "Ce programme est la prochaine étape dans la culture des fans" poursuit-il. Coca-Cola  partagera plus de détails sur la sélection des participants, le calendrier et les concepts identifiés ainsi que le déroulement du programme dans les prochaines semaines.

Source: L'Atelier

lundi 10 septembre 2012

Le financement participatif peut-il bâtir des villes ?


Le financement participatif (crowfunding ou “financement par la foule”) est un marché en pleine expansion, expliquait le rapport de Crowdsourcing.org. Les 452 plateformes de financement participatif dénombrées dans le monde en avril 2012 ont récolté 1,1 milliard de dollars de fonds en 2011 pour les projets qu’elles accueillaient – dont plus de la moitié pour des projets hébergés par des plateformes européennes. Comme quoi, le modèle du financement participatif n’est pas un phénomène uniquement lié aux modes de financement anglo-saxons, que l’on dit traditionnellement plus sensibles au mécénat et à la prise de risque que l’Europe. Peut-être parce qu’en fait ce financement participatif fonctionne plutôt de plus en plus comme un système de prévente que comme un système de prise de risque ?
crowfundingintheworld
Image : Répartition des 450 plateformes de crowfunding dans le monde selon le rapport de Crowdsourcing.

Kickstarter en ses limites

L’un des emblèmes du financement participatif est bien sûr le phénomène Kickstarter, qui pour sa troisième année d’existence a levé 119 millions de dollars pour les projets qu’il accueille en s’octroyant 6 millions de commissions, rapporte The Next Web dans un très intéressant article qui détaille l’activité de la plate-forme. Les plates-formes de financement participatif profitent du développement de nouvelles possibilités de fabrication, plus agiles, notamment des entreprises chinoises, souligne Gadi Amit dans Wired, surtout parce qu’elles ont montré qu’elles pouvaient par ce biais trouver des financements importants. Elles transforment l’économie même du soutien aux projets innovants, permettant à des start-ups de se passer de capitaux risqueurs parfois trop frileux.
kickstarterhome
Image : page d’accueil du site Kickstarter.
Breakdown-of-Funding-by-Category2
Image : le financement des projets sur Kickstarter par catégories, par Ben Jackson pour the Next Web.
Bien sûr, ces plateformes ne sont pas sans risques pour ceux qui y investissent, comme l’explique Aarti Shahani sur NPR. Que se passe-t-il si un projet financé ne parvient pas à fournir le produit qui a été financé ? Le problème n’est pas encore arrivé, répond l’un des cofondateurs de Kickstarter. Pourtant, les délais annoncés par certains projets n’ont pas toujours été respectés – le professeur de management Ethan R. Mollick de l’école Wharton de l’université de Pennsylvanie, dans l’un des rares articles scientifiques sur le sujet, estime que 75 % des produits sont livrés avec retard – et un porteur de projet a déjà disparu dans la nature en emportant l’argent de ses financeurs. Si le site sait rembourser les financeurs de projets qui n’ont pas atteint la somme désiré, il ne dispose pas de mécanismes d’assurances pour les projets qui n’arrivent pas à terme une fois leur financement rassemblé… La dissolution de l’investissement dans une agrégation de petites sommes dissout non seulement le risque, mais aussi la responsabilité… Qui portera plainte pour la perte d’un investissement non conséquent ?
En attendant, le recours aux plates-formes de financement participatif progresse. Tant et si bien qu’on se demande quels secteurs il ne touchera pas. Si Kickstarter finance principalement des films, de la musique, des projets de design ou des jeux…, on voit de plus en plus apparaître sur ces plates-formes des projets de dispositifs technologiques et d’objets connectés. Mais pas seulement…

Le financement participatif : plateforme de services urbains ?

Pour palier au changement de configuration du système d’exploitation mobile d’Apple, l’organisation associative OpenPlans a lancé une campagne sur Kickstarter afin de récolter des dons et permettre aux gens de continuer à accéder à de l’information de transit pour leurs déplacements en temps réel (que la prochaine version de l’OS devrait rendre indisponible), explique Alex Howard pour O’Reilly Radar. Kevin Webb, responsable d’OpenPlans souligne : “Pour ceux d’entre nous qui travaillent dans la communauté de l’open government, il s’agit de démontrer pourquoi les données publiques ouvertes sont importantes. Il n’y a pas de raison qu’une importante infrastructure civique doive être liée à un combat entre Apple et Google. Et dans les communautés disposant de spécification de flux de transits généraux, il n’y en a aucune.” Pour cela, OpenPlans travaille avec des agences publiques à construire OpenTripPlanner, une application open source qui utilise des informations de transit ouvertes pour aider les utilisateurs à faire de bonnes décisions dans leurs déplacements et qui pourra être disponible sur toutes les plateformes, quel que soit leur système d’exploitation.
Pour Alex Howard, l’utilisation de Kickstarter est une nouvelle façon pour les communautés de financer collectivement la création d’applications ou de services citoyens que les autorités ne savent pas offrir. Mais également un moyen pour contourner les limites des marchés publics traditionnels ou les autorités elles-mêmes.
Webb explique encore que les fondations et les mécènes sont peu intéressées la plupart du temps par le développement d’outils et que les agences n’ont souvent ni le pouvoir ni les budgets pour soutenir des projets de ce type, plus universels que leurs actions localement circonscrites.
Mettre seulement l’accent sur les applications de transports ouvertes, cependant, serait passer à côté de plus grandes opportunités pour construire des améliorations à l’infrastructure de la ville numérique, estime Alex Howard. Le financement participatif pourrait être un recours pour bâtir bien des infrastructures de la ville numérique de demain… que les services publics ne savent pas bâtir. De là à utiliser le crowdfunding pour construire des services publics qui n’ont rien de numérique, il n’y a qu’un pas… qu’il faut peut-être se garder de franchir, prévient avec beaucoup d’intelligence Ethan Zuckerman sur son blog.
La réflexion du chercheur du Centre Berkman pour l’internet et la société a mûri à l’occasion d’une réunion au MediaLab du MIT organisé par la Fondation Awesome, fondée par Tim Hwang et Christia Xu, pour discuter des nouvelles approches de la philanthropie (dont le Centre pour les médias citoyens a rendu compte). Cette fondation philanthropique consiste chaque mois à verser une cagnotte à l’un des projets les plus étonnants que ses membres auront remarqués. La Fondation dispose désormais de 50 chapitres répartis dans 10 pays et a parrainé plus de 250 projets allant de panneaux d’affichage gratuits à des capteurs environnementaux… Lors de cette réunion, l’accent bien sûr a été mis sur le financement participatif qui cherche à démocratiser la philanthropie. Si 80 % des Américains donnent du temps ou de l’argent à des organisations caritatives, très peu sont impliqués dans la manière dont les fonds sont alloués. Des initiatives comme Donors Choose ouGlobal Giving permettent désormais aux donateurs de choisir les projets qu’ils veulent aider.

Comment utiliser intelligemment le crowfunding pour les projets citoyens ?

“Jase Wilson, le gars qui essaye de financer la ligne de tramway de Kansas City est-il un agent de la droite radicale ? Bien sûr que non”, ironise Ethan Zuckerman. “Il est un gars bien intentionné qui se tourne vers un modèle qui a fait ses preuves en ligne pour soutenir un projet dont il se soucie. La nature des conséquences imprévues, c’est la diminution des autres activités utiles. Rassembler son voisinage pour rendre le quartier meilleur est une bonne chose. Comprendre comment le faire en minimisant les impacts politiques indésirables est encore mieux.”
Le financement participatif citoyen est inévitable, notamment parce qu’il est en harmonie avec d’autres formes d’organisation basées sur l’internet, estime Ethan Zuckerman (et également parce qu’il peut être une solution face à la diminution des recettes et des dépenses publiques ajouterais-je). Le crowfunding citoyen s’appuie sur un grand nombre de mécanismes mis en avant par l’écosystème open source de l’internet : la formation de groupes rapides et légers, la coordination des efforts, l’intérêt personnel éclairé… Encore faut-il en éviter les inconvénients.
Et Ethan Zuckerman de préciser quelques règles pour cela :
- Eviter la rhétorique qui postule que le financement participatif est un remède à l’inaction du gouvernement. Il vaut mieux affirmer, comme l’a fait parfois le mouvement Occupy notamment en fournissant de la nourriture aux communautés de sans-abris, que ces services sont un exemple de ce que nous voudrions que les gouvernements fournissent et un moyen de pression sur ce que le gouvernement devrait faire.
- Faire que les projets de financements participatifs tirent parti des dispositifs existants. Ioby est un site de financement participatif citoyen qui cherche à changer l’environnement de voisinage. Un de leurs projets phares est d’aider les communautés Latinos de San Francisco a impliquer leurs édiles à convertir des interstices urbains en parcs publics. Leur projet ne cherche pas à construire un parc, mais à récolter quelques milliers d’euros pour s’assurer que la communauté pourra participer aux audiences et faire pression sur les fonctionnaires municipaux pour défendre leurs droits et leurs réclamations.
- Utilisez le financement participatif pour réfléchir et innover et laissez les autorités mettre en oeuvre. Les gens derrière le projet Low Line ont peut-être une bonne idée : le financement participatif peut aider à attirer l’attention sur un projet citoyen et permettre la conception d’un prototype novateur. Le financement participatif doit permettre de trouver des façons de coopérer avec les autorités pour soutenir de nouveaux espaces publics, des oeuvres d’art, etc. En permettant de créer des liens gouvernementaux appropriés, ils pourraient même être un critère d’évaluation de projets viables.
- Privilégiez des projets qui créent du capital communautaire grâce au bénévolat et qui ne cherchent pas seulement à soutirer de l’argent. L’une des promesses du financement participatif est qu’il renforce les quartiers et communautés. Les projets qui encouragent l’activité volontaire (commeKaboom, pour construire des terrains de jeux) aident à renforcer le capital civique local.
- Ne laissez pas les autorités transformer les projets non financés en projets de financement participatif. Utilisons plutôt le financement participatif pour exercer des pressions, pour montrer que les gens s’investissent et s’assurer que l’argent des villes, des Etats et de l’Etat fédéral pour les transports, les espaces publics ou les arts n’est pas coupé.
“Le financement participatif devrait être l’occasion de fabriquer des biens et des services publics plus impressionnants, pas de transférer la responsabilité publique sur le dos de donateurs connectés à l’internet !”, conclut avec raison le chercheur.
Hubert Guillaud
Source : InternetActu