Russian internet

Digital sovereignty: can the Russian Internet cut itself off from the rest of the world?

/0 Comments/in , /by

This article was originally published in French in The Conversation, an international collaborative news website of scientific expertise, of which IMT is a partner. 

Article written by Benjamin Loveluck (Télécom ParisTech), Francesca Musiani (Sorbonne Université), Françoise Daucé (EHESS), and Ksenia Ermoshina (CNRS).

[divider style=”normal” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he Internet infrastructure is based on the principle of the internationalization of equipment and data and information flows. Elements of the Internet with a geographic location in national territories need physical and information resources hosted in other territories to be able to function. However, in this globalized context, Russia has been working since 2012 to gradually increase national controls on information flows and infrastructure, in an atmosphere of growing political mistrust towards protest movements within the country and its international partners abroad. Several laws have already been passed in this regard, such as the one in force since 2016 requiring companies processing data from Russian citizens to store them on national territory, or the one regulating the use of virtual private networks (VPNs), proxies and anonymization tools in force since 2017.

In February 2019, a bill titled “On the isolation of the Russian segment of the Internet” was adopted at first reading in the State Duma (334 votes for and 47 against) on the initiative of Senators Klichas and Bokova and Deputy Lugovoi. The accompanying memo of intent states that the text is a response to the “aggressive nature of the United States National Cybersecurity Strategy” adopted in September 2018. The project focuses on two main areas: domain name system control (DNS, the Internet addressing system) and traffic routing, the mechanism that selects paths in the Internet network for data to be sent from a sender to one or more recipients.

Russia wants to free itself from foreign constraints

The recommendations notably include two key measures. The first is the creation by Russia of its own version of the DNS in order to be able to operate if links to servers located abroad are broken, since none of the twelve entities currently responsible for the DNS root servers are located on Russian territory. The second is for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to demonstrate that they are able to direct information flows exclusively to government-controlled routing points, which should filter traffic so that only data exchanged between Russians reaches its destination.

This legislation is the cornerstone of the Russian government’s efforts to promote their “digital sovereignty”. According to Russian legislators, the goal is to develop a way of isolating the Russian Internet on demand, making it possible to respond to the actions of foreign powers with self-sufficiency and to guarantee continued functioning. On the other hand, this type of configuration would also facilitate the possibility of blocking all or part of communications.

The Russian state is obviously not the only one aiming for better control of the network. Iran has been trying to do the same thing for years, as has China with the famous Great Firewall of China. Many states are seeking to reinforce their authority over “their” Internet, to the point of partially or totally cutting off the network (measures known as “shutdowns” or “kill switches”) in some cases. This was the case in Egypt during the 2011 revolution as well as more recently in Congo during the elections. It is also regularly the case in some parts of India.

In connection with these legislative projects, a recent initiative, published on February 12 by the Russian news agency TASS, has attracted particular attention. Under the impetus of the Russian State, a group uniting the main public and private telecommunications operators (led by Natalya Kasperskaya, co-founder of the well-known security company Kaspersky), has decided to conduct a test in order to temporarily cut off the Russian Internet from the rest of the globalized network and in particular the World Wide Web. This will in principle happen before April 1, the deadline for amendments to the draft law, requiring Russian internet providers to be able to guarantee their ability to operate autonomously from the rest of the network.

Technical, economic and political implications

However, beyond the symbolic significance of empowerment through the disconnection of such a major country, there are many technical, economic, social and political reasons why such attempts should not be made, for the sake of the Internet on both an international and national scale.

From a technical point of view, even if Russia tries to prepare as much as possible for this disconnection, there will inevitably be unanticipated effects if it seeks to separate itself from the rest of the global network, due to the degree of interdependence of the latter across national borders and at all protocol levels. It should be noted that, unlike China which has designed its network with a very specific project of centralized internal governance, Russia has more than 3,000 ISPs and a complex branched-out infrastructure with multiple physical and economic connections with foreign countries. In this context, it is very difficult for ISPs and other Internet operators to know exactly how and to what extent they depend on other infrastructure components (traffic exchange points, content distribution networks, data centers etc.) located beyond their borders. This could lead to serious problems, not only for Russia itself but also for the rest of the world.

In particular, the test could pose difficulties for other countries that route traffic through Russia and its infrastructure, something which is difficult to define. The effects of the test will certainly be sufficiently studied and anticipated to prevent the occurrence of a real disaster like a long-term compromise of the functioning of major infrastructures such as transport. More likely consequences are the malfunctioning or slowdown of websites frequently used by the average user. Most of these websites operate from multiple servers located across the globe. Wired magazine gives the example of a news site that depends on “an Amazon Web Services cloud server, Google tracking software and a Facebook plug-in for leaving comments”, all three operating outside Russia.

Economically speaking, due to the complex infrastructure of the Russian Internet and its strong connections with the rest of the Internet, such a test would be difficult and costly to implement. The Accounts Chamber of Russia very recently opposed this legislation on the grounds that it would lead to an increase in public expenditure to help operators implement technology and to hire additional staff at Roskomnadzor, the communications monitoring agency, which will open a center for the supervision and administration of the communication network. The Russian Ministry of Finance is also concerned about the costs associated with this project. Implementing the law could be costly for companies and encourage corruption.

Lastly, from the point of view of political freedoms, the new initiative is provoking the mobilization of citizen movements. “Sovereignty” carries even greater risks of censorship. The system would be supervised and coordinated by the state communications monitoring agency, Roskomnadzor, which already centralizes the blocking of thousands of websites, including major information websites. The implementation of this project would broaden the possibilities for traffic inspection and censorship in Russia, says the Roskomsvoboda association. As mentioned above, it could facilitate the possibility of shutting down the Internet or controlling some of its applications, such as Telegram (which the Russian government tried to block unsuccessfully in spring 2018). A similar attempt at a cut or “Internet blackout” was made in the Republic of Ingushetia as part of a mass mobilization in October 2018, when the government succeeded in cutting off traffic almost completely. A demonstration “against the isolation of the Runet” united 15,000 people in Moscow on March 10, 2019 at the initiative of multiple online freedom movements and parties, reflecting concerns expressed in society.

Is it possible to break away from the global Internet today, and what are the consequences? It is difficult to anticipate all the implications of such major changes on the global architecture of the Internet. During the discussion on the draft law in the State Duma, Deputy Oleg Nilov, from the Fair Russia party, described the initiative as a “digital Brexit” from which ordinary users in Russia will be the first to suffer. As has been seen (and studied) on several occasions in the recent past, information and communication network infrastructures have become decisive levers in the exercise of power, on which governments intend to exert their full weight. But, as elsewhere, the Russian digital space is increasingly complex, and the results of ongoing isolationist experiments are more unpredictable than ever.

[divider style=”dotted” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

Francesca Musiani, Head Researcher at the CNRS, Institute for Communication Sciences (ISCC) Sorbonne Université; Benjamin Loveluck, Lecturer, Télécom ParisTech – Institut Mines-Télécom, Université Paris-Saclay; Françoise Daucé, Director of Studies, the School of Advanced Studies in Social Sciences (EHESS) and Ksenia Ermoshina, Doctor in Socio-Economics of Innovation, French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS)

This article was first published in French in The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

platforms

Another type of platform is possible: a cooperative approach

/4 Comments/in , /by

Article written in partnership with The Conversation France. 
By Mélissa Boudes (Institut Mines-Télécom Business School), Guillaume Compain (Université Paris Dauphine – PSL), Müge Ozman (Institut Mines-Télécom Business School)

[divider style=”normal” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

[dropcap]S[/dropcap]o-called collaborative platforms have been very popular since their appearance in the late 2000s. They are now heavily criticized, driving some of their users to take collective action. There is growing concern surrounding the use of personal data, but also the ethics of algorithms. Besides their technological functioning, the broader socio-economic model of these platforms is hotly debated. They are designed to generate value for their users by organizing peer-to-peer transactions. Some of the more dominant platforms charge high fees for their role as an intermediary. The platforms are also accused of dodging labor laws, with their high use of independent workers, practicing tax optimization or contributing to the growing commodification of our everyday lives.

From collaboration to cooperation

Though it is easy to criticize, creating alternatives is far more complicated. However, some initiatives are emerging. The international movement towards more cooperative platforms, launched in 2014 by Trebor Scholz at the New School in New York, promotes the creation of more ethical, fairer platforms. The idea is simple: why would platform users delegate intermediation to third-party companies which gain from the economic value of their exchanges when they could manage the platforms themselves?

The solution would be to adopt a cooperative model. In other words, to create platforms that are owned by their users and apply a democratic operating model, in which each co-owner has a voice, independent of their contribution of capital. In addition, an obligation to reinvest a proportion of the profit into the project, with no way of making a capital gain by selling shares, thus avoiding financial speculation.

Many experiments are underway around the world. For instance, Fairmondo, a German marketplace for fair trade products, allows users a share in the cooperative. Though not exhaustive, the list drawn up by the Platform Cooperativism Consortium gives an overview of the scope of the movement.

Although the creators of cooperative platforms are willing to create alternatives to a concentrated, or even oligopolistic platform economy in some sectors, they come up against many challenges, particularly in terms of governance, economic models and technological infrastructure.

Many challenges

Based on our work on action research in the French network of cooperative platforms, Plateformes en communs, and an analysis of various foreign cases, we have identified a number of characteristics and limitations of alternative platforms.

Fairmondo, a German marketplace for fair trade products. Screenshot.

 

While they share a common opposition to major commercial platforms, there is no typical model for cooperative platforms, rather a multitude of experiments which are still in their early stages, with very different structures and modes of operation. Some were a natural progression from the movement against uberization, like Coopcycle, while others were created by digital entrepreneurs searching for meaning, or by modernized social and solidarity economy organizations (ESS).

There are many challenges for these cooperative platforms, which have high social and economic ambitions and do not have pre-defined futures. Here we will focus on three major challenges: finding long-lasting economic and financial models, uniting communities, mobilizing supporters and partners.

Making economic models durable

In a highly competitive context, there is no margin for error for alternative platforms. To attract users, they have to offer high-quality services, including an exhaustive offering, efficient contact, simple use, and attractive aesthetics. However, it is difficult for cooperative platforms to attract investors, as being cooperatives or associations, they are generally not particularly lucrative. In addition, some opt to open up their assets, allowing open access to their computer code, for instance.

But while the creators of alternative digital platforms are entrepreneurs, their economic models remain more of an iteration than a business plan. Many cooperative platforms, still in the developmental stages, rely primarily on voluntary work (made possible by external income: second jobs, personal savings, unemployment benefits, social welfare payments) which may run out if the platform does not manage to create salaries and/or attract new contributors.

Creating a community

The importance of creating a committed community to support the platform is primordial, both for its daily operations and its development, especially given that the economy of platforms relies on network effects: the more people or organizations a platform brings together, the more new ones it will also attract, as it will offer great opportunities to its users. It is therefore difficult for alternative platforms to penetrate sectors where there are already dominant actors.

Cooperative platforms try to differentiate themselves by creating communities which have input into the way the platform is run. Some, like Open Food France, specializing in local food distribution networks, have gone as far as broadening their community of cooperators to include public and private partners, and end consumers. This gives them a way to express their societal aspirations through their economic choices.

The founders of Oiseaux de passage, a cooperative platform offering local tourism services, also opted for a broader view of membership. They chose the legal status of Société coopérative d’intérêt collectif (a collective-interest cooperative), enabling several categories of stakeholders (tourism professionals, inhabitants, tourists) to hold shares in a collective company.

These cooperative platforms thus adopt an ecosystem-based approach, including all stakeholders that are naturally drawn to them. However, for the moment, user commitment remains low and project leaders are often overworked.

Stopping the movement being hijacked

Cooperative platforms are still in their youth, and struggle to gain the support they so desperately need. Financially speaking, their unstable models are insufficient in attracting public organizations and ESSs, which prefer to work with more stable, profitable commercial platforms. The other obstacle is political in nature. In the fight against uberization, cooperative platforms present themselves as alternatives, whereas for the time being, public authorities seem to favor social dialog with the dominant platforms.

Cooperative platforms are almost left to their own devices, compensating for the lack of support by trying to join forces though a peer network, such as the Platform Cooperativism Consortium on an international scale, or the Plateformes en Communs in France. By uniting together, cooperative platforms have managed to attract media attention, but also attention from one of their most symbolic “enemies”. In May 2018, the Platform Cooperativism Consortium announced that it had received a $1 million dollar grant from… the Google Foundation. A grant aimed essentially at supporting the creation of cooperative platforms in developing countries.

Naturally, the announcement created quite a stir in the movement, some people condemning a symbolically unacceptable contradiction, others expressing concern that the model might be appropriated by Google. In any case, this event highlights the lack of support for the movement, pushed into signing agreements which go against its very nature.

It therefore seems essential to the survival of cooperative platforms, and the general existence of alternatives to the platforms which are currently crushing the market, for public institutions and ESS structures to actively support developing projects. For example, through financing measures (especially venture capital), specialized support structures, commercial partnerships, equity participation, or even joint construction of platforms based on local needs. Without political input and innovation in practices, domination by global platforms without sharing seems inevitable.

[divider style=”normal” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

Mélissa Boudes, Associate Professor of Management, Institut Mines-Télécom Business School, Guillaume Compain, Doctoral student in Sociology, Université Paris Dauphine – PSL and Müge Ozman, Professor of Management, Institut Mines-Télécom Business School ;

This article has been republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article (in French).

serious games

Serious games: when games invade the classroom

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Over the last few years, a new teaching method linked to the invasion of digital technology in our daily lives has begun shaking up traditional learning methods. The primary purpose of these serious games is not entertainment. The developing sector does not seek to substitute, but rather supplement—or at least earn its place—in the arsenal of existing educational tools. Imed Boughzala, a researcher in management at Institut Mines-Télécom Business School offers a closer look at this phenomenon.

 

Video games are all the rage. According to SELL, a French organization promoting the interests of video game developers, in 2018, this market was estimated at nearly €5 billion and is steadily growing, with more and more people playing and consuming video games. In fact, the video game industry is now doing better than the book market. This clearly creates an opportunity for teachers to take advantage of this gaming culture and break away from traditional learning methods.

Discover the history of Ancient Egypt with Assassin’s Creed, use the popularity of a game like Fortnite to raise awareness about climate change or develop strategy skills with Civilization or Warcraft. While some teaching methods in France are beginning to adopt these games, research in this area remains limited. It is therefore difficult to assess the effectiveness of these new spaces for informal learning. Imed Boughzala first embarked on this adventure nearly 10 years ago:

“In 2008, while traveling in the United States as a guest professor with the Management Department at the University of Arkansas, I had the opportunity to create a distance learning course on information systems on a platform called Second Life, a platform that was ahead of its time and still exists. A few months later, the university campus had to close due to an avian flu outbreak. We therefore began to focus on implementing a completely virtualized training program. At the time, I designed a serious game for students stuck at home.”

Back in France after this experience, he continued his research on collaborative games. He led his research team, SMART² (Smart Business Information Systems) on a mission to pursue the digital transformation of organizations. “We began imagining how educational tools could be used to motivate students more and seeking a method for getting their attention. We began with the observation that a wide gap currently exists between the digital culture of young people and the university culture,” Imed Boughzala explains. In addition, when students play a role, there are many motivational factors involved, from moving from one level to the next, to receiving awards, and making a mistake and starting over immediately, testing and learning.

Playing for the sake of learning

But what do we really mean by a serious game? New digital practices that cover several key concepts: A serious game is a video game created for educational or practical purposes. Serious gaming is a broader concept that refers to the way certain games can be used as serious tools. Finally, gamification refers to adding a fun aspect to a serious subject.

For Imed Boughzala, it all started with a very practical situation. “At Institut Mines-Télécom Business School, 200 management students were enrolled in our program. Capturing their attention was very complicated when it came to very technical topics. The atmosphere in class and the exams were not always great. So why not have them play a game? By sheer coincidence, one day we came across a game by IBM. It was INNOV8, which aims to help future entrepreneurs develop certain computer and business skills,” the researcher explains.

Virtual worlds and serious games therefore helped the students tackle decision-making processes that are very real. “It was an immediate success, which led us to create a new, more customized scenario, and teach them how to create data patterns. Instead of doing exercises, this allowed them to play as much as necessary to understand how the tool behind the game is implemented. We therefore tried to take into account the technical aspects: how the game is played, how it is used and the specific context, that of Millennials,” the researcher explains.

Innovating through serious games

Does digital technology truly transform our relationship with knowledge? Is a good serious game worth more than a long speech? For Imed Boughzala, there’s no doubt about it. A fun game can simulate a real professional environment. Students become active participants in their learning as they are confronted with a problem, a dilemma they must resolve. “This is an important thing for a generation that quickly jumps from one thing to the next. We can try to fight against this reality, but it is quite clear: We can no longer teach the same way. We must add variety to our teaching outlines and add games to give everyone a breath of fresh air. That’s the true benefit.”

While it has now become necessary to use entertainment to reach training objectives, Imed Boughzala sought to link the development of these teachings to his research. He did this by focusing on the effectiveness and assessment of serious games in training programs. This is a complex subject because “we must distinguish between the performance perceived due to the format, content and presentation as a fun game, and the measurable assessment, the real performance. In other words, the knowledge related to professional activities that has actually been gained.”

The researcher is already convinced by the results of the gamification of certain educational processes, especially in learning complex procedures and in many different areas of management techniques, finance, city administration, sustainable development and healthcare and medicine. The immersive and interactive serious game also tests the student’s collective intelligence. For example, the Foldit project, an experimental video game created in 2008 on protein folding. Whereas scientists had spent 10 years searching for the three-dimensional structure of a protein of an AIDS virus in monkeys, the “players” were able to find a solution in three weeks, leading to the development of new antiretroviral drugs.

These practical cases can now be added to scientific databases made available to the scientific community. The institutional community is also beginning to recognize these realities, with The French Foundation for Management Education (FNEGE) creating a certification board to assess these new digital tools. This board will assess the educational added value of these tools, in other words, their ability to meet the defined learning goals. Solving puzzles, creating, experiencing, participating—serious games offer new was of learning and highlight the importance of variety.  Since video games can motivate users to become intensely involved for unprecedented period of time, their educational counterparts are completely appropriate for training purposes.

Article written for I’MTech by Anne-Sophie Boutaud

maladie chronique, chronic disease

Chronic disease: what does the Internet really change in patients’ lives?

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

For the first time, a study has assessed the impact of digital technology on the lives of patients with chronic diseases. It was conducted by the ICA patient association collective, in partnership with researchers from the Smart Objects and Social Networks chair at Institut Mines-Télécom Business School. The study provides a portrait of the benefits and limitations perceived by chronically ill people for three technologies: the Internet, mobile applications and smart objects. Multiple factors were evaluated, such as the quality of the relationship with the physician, the degree of expertise, the patient’s level of incapacitation and their quality of life.

 

Internet research has become an automatic reflex to learn about any disease. From the common cold to the rarest diseases, patients find information about their cases through more or less specialized sites. Scientific publications have already shown that social networks and health forums are especially used by patients when they are diagnosed. However, the true usefulness of the Internet, apps or smart objects for patients remains unclear. To gain a better understanding of how new technology helps patients, the Impatients, Chroniques & Associés collective (ICA) contacted the Smart Objects and Social Networks Chair at Institut Mines-Télécom Business School. The study, conducted between February and July 2018, focused on people living with chronic disease and their use of digital technology. The results were presented on February 20, 2019 at the Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie in Paris.

More than 1,013 patients completed the questionnaire designed by the researchers. The data collected on technology usage shows that, overall, patients are not very attracted by smart objects. 71.8% of respondents reported that they used the Internet only, 1 to 3 times a month. 19.3% said they used both the Internet and mobile applications on a weekly basis. Only 8.9% use smart objects in addition to the Internet and apps.

Read on I’MTech Healthcare: what makes some connected objects a success and others a flop?

The study therefore shows that uses are very different and that a certain proportion of patients are characterized by the “multi-technology” category. However, “contrary to what we might think, the third group comprising the most connected respondents is not necessarily made up of the youngest people,” indicates Christine Balagué, holder of the Smart Objects and Social Networks chair. In the 25-34 age group, the study found “almost no difference between the three technology use groups (20% of each use group is in this age group)“. The desire for digital health solutions is therefore not a generational issue.

Digital technology: a relative benefit for patients?

The specificity of the study is that it cross-references the use of digital technology (Internet, mobile applications and smart objects) with standard variables in publications that characterize patients’ behavior towards their health. This comparison revealed a new result: the patients who use technology the most are on average no more knowledgeable about their disease than patients who are not very connected. They are also no more efficient in their ability to adopt preventive behavior related to their disease.

“On the other hand, the more connected patients are, the greater their ability is to take action in the management of their disease,” says Christine Balagué. Patients in the most connected category believe they are better able to make preventive decisions and to reassure themselves about their condition. However, technology has little impact on the patient-doctor relationship. “The benefit is relative: there is a difference between the benefit perceived by the patient and the reality of what digital tools provide,” concludes Christine Balagué.

Some of the criteria measured by the researchers nevertheless show a correlation with the degree of use of technology and the use of several technology devices. This is the case, for example, with patient empowerment. Notably, the most connected patients are also those who most frequently take the initiative to ask their doctor for information or give their opinion about treatment. These patients also report being most involved by the doctor in medical care. On this point, the study concludes that:

“The use of technology[…] does not change the self-perception of chronically ill patients, who all feel equally knowledgeable about their disease regardless of their use of digital technology. On the other hand, access to this information may subtly change their position in their interactions with the medical and nursing teams, leading to a more positive perception of their ability to play a role in decisions concerning their health.”

The flip side of the coin

Although information found on the Internet offers genuine benefits in the relationship with the medical profession, the use of technologies also has some negative effects, according to patient feedback. 45% believe that the use of digital technology has negative emotional consequences. “Patients find that the Internet reminds them of the disease on a daily basis, and that this increases stress and anxiety,” says Christine Balagué. This result may be linked to the type of use among the chronically ill. The vast majority of them generally search for stories from other people with similar pathologies, which frequently exposes them to the experiences of other patients and their relatives.

Personal stories are considered the most reliable source of information by patients, ahead of content provided by health professionals and patient associations, a fact due to the large, and unequal, amount of information available. Three quarters of respondents indicated that it is difficult to identify and choose reliable information. This sense of mistrust is underlined by other data collected by the researchers during the questionnaire: “71% believe that the Internet is likely to induce self-diagnosis errors.” In addition, a certain proportion of patients (48%) also express mistrust of the privacy of certain mobile sites and applications. This point highlights the challenge for applications and websites to improve the transparency of the use of personal data and respect for privacy, in order to gain their trust.

Read on I’MTech Ethical algorithms in health: a technological and societal challenge

The future development of dedicated web services and patient usage is an issue that researchers want to address. “We want to continue this work of collecting experiences to evaluate changes in use over time,” says Christine Balagué. The continuation of this work will also integrate other developing uses, such as telemedicine and its impact on patients’ quality of life. Finally, the researchers are also considering taking an interest in the other side: the doctors’ side. How do practitioners use digital technologies in their practice? What are the benefits in the relationship with the patient? By combining the results from patient and physician studies, the aim will be to obtain the most accurate portrait possible of patient-physician relationships and of treatment processes in the era of hyperconnectivity.

 

 

cyber sovereignty

What is cyber sovereignty?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Sovereignty is a concept that is historically linked to the idea of a physical territory, whereas the digital world is profoundly dematerialized and virtual. So what does the notion of cyber sovereignty mean? It combines the economic strength of online platforms, digital technologies and regulations based on new societal values. Francis Jutand, Deputy CEO of IMT and member of the Scientific Council of the Institut de la Souveraineté Numérique (Institute of Cyber Sovereignty), presents his view on the foundations of this concept.

 

What does it mean to be “sovereign”?

Francis Jutand: The notion of sovereignty can apply to individuals, companies or nations. To be sovereign is to be able to choose. This means being able to both understand and act. Sovereignty is therefore based on a number of components for taking action: technological development, economic and financial autonomy (and therefore power), and the ability to influence regulatory mechanisms. In addition to these three conditions, there is security, in the sense that being sovereign also means being in a space where you can protect yourself from the potential hostility of others. The fifth and final parameter of sovereignty for large geographical areas, such as nations or economic spaces, is the people’s ability to make their voices heard.

How does this notion of sovereignty apply in the case of digital technology?

FJ: The five components of the ability to act transpose naturally into this field. Being sovereign in a digital world means having our own technology and being independent from major economic players in the sector, such as Google, and their huge financial capacity. It also means developing specific regulations on digital technology and being able to protect against cyber-attacks. As far as the general public is concerned, sovereignty consists in training citizens to understand and use digital technology in an informed way. Based on these criteria, three main zones of cyber sovereignty can be defined around three geographical regions: the United States, Europe and China.

What makes these zones of sovereignty so distinct?

FJ: The American zone is based on economic superpowers and powerful national policy on security and technology operated by government agencies. On the other hand, the state of their regulation in the cyber field is relatively weak. China relies on an omnipresent state with strict regulation and major investments. After its scientific and industrial backwardness in this area, China has caught up over the past few years. Lastly, Europe has good technological skills in both industry and academia, but is not in a leading position. In its favor, the region of European sovereignty has strong market power and pioneering regulations based on certain values, such as the protection of personal data. Its biggest weakness is its lack of economic leadership that could lead to the existence of global digital players.

How is the concept of sovereignty embodied in concrete terms in Europe?

FJ: Europe and its member countries are already investing at a high level in the digital field, through the European Framework Programmes, as well as national programs and ongoing academic research. On the other hand, the small number of world-class companies in this field weakens the potential for research and fruitful collaborations between the academic and industrial worlds. The European Data Protection Board, which is composed of the national data protection authorities of the European Union member states, is another illustration of sovereignty work in the European zone. However, from the point of view of regulations concerning competition law and financial regulation, Europe is still lagging behind in the development of laws and is unassertive in their interpretation. This makes it vulnerable to lobbies as shown by the debates on the European directive on copyright.

How does the notion of cyber sovereignty affect citizens?

FJ: Citizens are consumers and users of cyber services. They play a major role in this field, as most of their activities generate personal data. They are a driving force of the digital economy, which, we must remember, is one of the five pillars of sovereignty. This data, which directly concerns users’ identity, is also governed by regulations. Citizens’ expression is therefore very important in the constitution of an area of sovereignty.

Why is the academic world concerned by this issue of cyber sovereignty?

FJ: Researchers, whether from IMT or other institutions, have insights to provide on cyber sovereignty. They are at the forefront of the development and control of new technology, which is also one of the conditions of sovereignty. They train students and work with companies to disseminate this technology. IMT and its schools are active in all these areas. We therefore also have a role to play, notably by using our neutrality to inform our parliamentarians. We have experimented in this sense with an initial event for deputies and senators on the theme of technological and regulatory sovereignty. Our researchers discussed the potential impacts of technology on citizens, businesses and the economy in general.

 

competition

Coopetition between individuals, little-understood interactions

/0 Comments/in , /by

Mehdi Elmoukhliss, Institut Mines-Télécom Business School and Christine Balagué, Institut Mines-Télécom Business School

[divider style=”normal” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

[dropcap]C[/dropcap]oopetition is a concept used in the field of management science (especially in strategy), originally used to describe situations in which organizations (companies, clubs etc.) simultaneously cooperate and compete with one another, as paradoxical as that may seem. A recent article in The Conversation pointed to the potential role of coopetition in evolution, underscoring that it can be found in the animal kingdom (to explain the evolution of species) as much as in companies and organizations.

We would like to provide another perspective here by highlighting the fact that coopetition can be observed in relationships between individuals, which opens up a wide range of potential applications.

A few examples

A variety of situations can be considered as examples of coopetition between individuals. In companies, for example, how many colleagues cooperate, while knowing that only one of them will become the boss in the event of a promotion? When he was serving as Minister of the Economy under François Hollande while secretly preparing to run for president, was Emmanuel Macron not in coopetition with the President of the Republic, since he had to cooperate with his rival?

Relationships between individuals are rarely archetypal (purely cooperative or purely competitive). They are often mixed, hybrid, simultaneously cooperative and competitive. Inter-individual coopetition is even a hiring technique in human resource management: some recruiters interview candidates by asking them to work together on a project only to select certain candidates to continue in the interview process.

Inter-individual coopetition can also be seen in the scientific world, where researchers often cooperate with others to carry out a study, while competing with one another in terms of career or prestige. Online, a number of platforms (for crowdsourcing ideas for example) seek to promote cooperation between users while making them compete with one another to identify “the best contributors,” for example. Coopetition also occurs in the world of sports. In football or cycling, athletes must sometimes cooperate to win, while competing to become the “star” of the game or race. In basketball, the famous Shaquille O’Neal–Kobe Bryant duo helped the Lakers win three consecutive titles between 1999 and 2003, despite the rivalry between the two players.

And the rivalry between these players continues today.

But coopetition is not a sort of interdependence reserved for the “ruthless” worlds of business, politics, research, competition for ideas or competitive sports. Consider the example of mushroom lovers. Many of them communicate on forums or social networks. In these virtual communities, members exchange advice (for example opinions about the toxicity of mushrooms) as well as important information about locations where highly-coveted mushrooms grow. While amateur and experienced mycologists collaborate to identify zones of interest, the information exchanged is intentionally vague. Members indicate their geographic area but rarely specify the slope, altitude and even less so the GPS coordinates! The information they share is enough to help others without “letting the mushrooms” out of the bag.

A forgotten model

Coopetition, like cooperation and competition, appears to be an observable phenomenon in a wide range of social situations. It is not a new ideological ideal but rather a “forgotten” model for collective action. It is not unique to contemporary western societies either. Anthropologist Margaret Mead’s research showed that certain indigenous tribes are based on “varying” degrees of cooperation and competition.

Surprisingly, this possibility has received little research attention. As pointed out by Paul Chiambaretto and Anne-Sophie Fernandez or Julien Granata in The Conversation, this can be explained by a cultural approach, specific to the western world, anchored in philosophical views in which cooperation and competition are seen as opposites.

Further reading: Coopétition, moteur de l’évolution des espèces (Coopetition, a driving force for the evolution of species)

In social psychology – one major area for studies on cooperation and competition between individuals – Morton Deutsch’s research led to developing the theory of social interdependence in 1949, which is now considered to be the theory of reference on cooperation and competition between individuals. One of the assumptions of this structuralist theory is that mixed situations are common but are of little theoretical interest, since they will always be guided by a dominant mechanism (cooperation or competition).

Deutsch adds that these situations are, in any event, sub-optimal. As a result, studies on cooperation and competition in psychology have primarily adopted an either/or approach to cooperation and competition. Yet, the opposition assumed by Morton Deutsch has not been formally proven, and for many psychological researchers, this assumption should be challenged. Although this limitation was originally pointed out in the 1960s, several decades would go by before social sciences researchers started working on this topic, showing how coopetition between individuals differs from the two traditional models.

What we know

Emerging research on inter-individual coopetition focuses primarily on companies and virtual platforms, which have been studied in laboratory experiments. This research shows that coopetition between individuals boosts their creativity in a variety of contexts, whether in face-to-face or online situations. Far from being counterproductive, this duality has certain benefits.

Research carried out in companies shows that inter-individual coopetition does not hinder learning in teams. Although little is known about how this particular organizational method impacts individuals, it has been shown that employees do not all react to coopetition in the same way: some easily accept the situation in which they find themselves and know how to “play the game” with great skill, while others find it more difficult and ultimately “choose a side” – cooperate or compete. Inter-individual coopetition can also create tension and governance issues, which may be resolved in part through a new management style better suited to “coopetitive” teams.

The risks of inter-individual coopetition

Despite the level of enthusiasm for these little-studied situations, the risks of inter-individual coopetition must not be ignored. It raises some important questions:

  • Does it not open the door to widespread suspicion, and to paranoia? Does coopetition between individuals not create an unhealthy atmosphere? How can tension and ambivalence be handled?
  • Is coopetition not conducive to conflicts of interest, which are harmful to team dynamics? Is it not a question of paradoxical demands likely to give rise to anxiety and psychosomatic disorders. And what role does Machiavellianism play in these situations?
  • In what cases are the results of coopetition worse than those which would have been obtained through a purely cooperative and/or purely competitive approach?

In other words, the conditions for genuinely constructive, socially-positive coopetition must still be established, to ensure that it is not detrimental to individuals’ health or to group dynamics.

A radical change of perspective

Still, hybrid situations are common and in some cases they prove to be useful. For the philosopher Pierre Lévy, who evokes “competitive cooperation” and “cooperative competition”, inter-individual coopetition is even “the preferred way of organizing collective intelligence.” This promising new research area requires further studies in order to confirm the usefulness of coopetitive inter-individual systems by studying their benefits and potentially harmful effects in greater detail.

More fundamentally, the idea of coopetition between individuals proposes a radical change of perspective: competition is not the opposite of cooperation and these two types of interdependence can be combined. This sheds new light on how we function as individuals and in groups and suggests a more nuanced understanding of human relationships. It is exciting on an intellectual level and represents a potential source of innovation in fields such as management, education or digital technology.

[divider style=”normal” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

Mehdi Elmoukhliss, PhD student in Management Sciences and expert in collective intelligence systems, Institut Mines-Télécom Business School and Christine Balagué, Professor and Head of the Smart Objects and Social Networks Chair, Institut Mines-Télécom Business School

The original version of this article (in French) was published on The Conversation and republished under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

gilets jaunes, yellow vests

Debate: Purchasing power and carbon tax, the obsolescence of political categories

/0 Comments/in , /by

Fabrice Flipo, Institut Mines-Télécom Business School

[divider style=”dotted” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]hen it comes to social and ecological concerns, many dream of reconciling the two, but few have a solution. The “yellow vests” have just provided a reminder of this fact, as they do not identify with anything offered by organized groups, whether political, union-based or even community-oriented.

So what can be done? Are we destined for failure? The study of major political ideas can help provide a way forward.

With the “yellow vests,” the traditional questions about ways of life can be seen from an unexpected angle. The key demand is for purchasing power, but observations and surveys have also revealed concern about climate issues. What can be done? How can social and ecological issues be brought together?

“Being poor” in France and elsewhere

First let’s take a look at the key factors involved.

To begin with, let us remember that if we disregard redistribution through taxes, purchasing power is determined by two key elements: income and wealth. As for income, the richest 10% of the population in France earns around €300 billion, while the poorest 10% earn 10 times less. But this figure masks the slow salary growth for the majority of the population; those in management positions are the only ones who have seen significant increases in their income over time.

As far as wealth is concerned, there is even greater inequality: the poorest 50% of the population possesses 8% of all wealth while those who make up the richest 1% possess 17% of the wealth (and this figure rises to 50% when considering the wealthiest 10%). That explains the average wealth of €16,000 for unskilled workers. And this is only taking averages into consideration. Individual examples of success are even more striking.

Bernard Arnault earns €3.5 million a month for his work at LVMH; a salary comparable to that of football player Kylian Mbappé with his monthly salary of €2 million. This means Bernard Arnault earns the equivalent of a monthly minimum wage salary every four minutes. He also possesses a fortune of €73 billion which provides him with €300 million in dividends, which is the equivalent of 100 times his salary at LVMH. It could be argued that this is an extreme case, but it is a visible reality in France, where so many people are struggling just to make ends meet.

Furthermore, there is the problem of “necessities,” to use Marx’s expression, meaning items that are considered necessary to live. While inflation may be low, the basket price for items that are deemed essential is on the rise. The cost of digital technology, for example, has been added to this list.

The scale used by the French charity Secours Populaire Français illustrates this point: “being poor” in France corresponds to an ever-higher level of income; it is now defined as earning €1,118 a month, while the minimum net monthly salary is €1,150. Earning minimum wage in France now means earning only €32 more than what is considered the poverty line.

This threshold must be compared with that used to define belonging to the “global middle class” based on the same statistics as those used in France: this level is defined as between €4,000 and €6,000 per year, which works out to between €300 and €500 per month.

As economics Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen has pointed out, poverty is a social construct and when it comes to this issue, the benchmarks are still largely national. Taken together, these two observations clearly conclude that the majority of French people are trapped between two blades of scissors – that which allows them to earn money and that which controls how they spend it.

1,000,000 tons of CO2 for Bernard Arnault

We will now try to express this information in terms of climate and energy.

Based on several studies, economist Jean Gadrey estimates, using “the means available,” that the richest 1% of the French population emit approximately 160 tons of carbon per person per year, compared to 4 tons for the poorest 10%. The poorest 10% of the population therefore emits 28 million tons, compared to 112 million tons for the richest 1% (based on a population of 70 million).

Based on this type of calculation, it can be concluded that Bernard Arnault emits 1,000,000 tons by himself (if one minimum wage salary is worth 4 tons of CO2).

This simple observation illustrates the futility of a carbon tax which would not, at minimum, be based on income. Either it would be a high tax and low-income households, meaning the majority French households, would not be liable for paying it, or it would be kept at a very low level and it would have no impact on the climate. A recent report by ADEME (the French Environment and Energy Management Agency) shows that French people are engaged in climate protection, but to take further action they ask that changes be shared in a fair, democratic way. These opinions have remained stable in the last two surveys.

Surprisingly, the figures presented here and those reported by Jean Gadrey using “the means available” have not been a focus of the debate or have not been presented clearly. The “yellow vests” plainly see that those being asked to make the biggest sacrifices are those who need their small quantity of CO2  the most. Admittedly, it is still too much for the planet …  but then what can be said about the others!

Strategies to be invented

So what can be done?

The current government has embraced a traditionally liberal argument: let the market sort itself out. In other words, the economy should be left alone, in order to “respond to demand” and help France prosper. Historically, this strategy has been partially successful since France possesses huge multinationals and remains one of the top-ranking world economies despite its small size, without being as financialized as London’s City. Yet there is a downside to this strategy: an ever-greater concentration of wealth.

Can people really improve their situation simply by “crossing the street” or by founding start-ups? Economist Thomas Piketty’s work has shown that this is clearly not the case: when there is little growth – meaning few possibilities to create wealth that could result in income – those with the largest fortunes benefit since they run the game.

A number of different solutions may be explored, from all sides of the political spectrum.

Those with the most liberal leanings will encourage the richest part of the population to decarbonize the economy, which is undoubtedly what Emmanuel Macron hoped to do by giving businesses and their owners more room for maneuver. This would require these stakeholders to be ready to take on this role and to a great enough extent. Whatever we may think about the credibility of such a scenario, the fact remains that it has not been supported by any evidence.

Another scenario would be for major players, like Bernard Arnault for one, to stop acting like rentiers, using and abusing their market position to keep new players out of the market. This would mean putting an end to the “laissez-faire” system, but it would not necessarily mean the end of a liberal system in the sense that some liberals – like the classic Natural Capitalism by Paul Hawken, Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins – could also consider that those with giant fortunes pose a threat to freedom. This was one of the reasons behind United States antitrust laws, for example. Those who are more conservative (including the Rassemblement National) will certainly be averse to opposing major interests and will refuse to change the social order as it stands. A more socialist approach would seek to make use of the State, whether directly through public expenditure (Keynesian), by controlling public companies, or by increasing the minimum wage. And we must remember that the current government did not increase the minimum wage because it wants to use taxes, meaning the income of non-minimum wage employees, to increase in-work benefits, and not wages themselves.

Yet the State alone will not be able to change people’s daily lives: reorganizing territories and deploying renewable energy require much greater efforts – setting up networks, training people to work with the equipment, etc.

The traditional political positions appear to be poorly suited to respond to ecological issues. This can be seen by studying the political ideas and events that have occurred over the past decades. The “yellow vests” have successfully demonstrated this through their refusal of the existing divisions. So aren’t they the ones who could help us determine where to go from here? An alliance of progressives, across historic divides, is the most plausible path to take.

[divider style=”dotted” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]

Fabrice Flipo, Professor of social and political philosophy, epistemology and history of science and technology at Institut Mines-Télécom Business School

The original version of this article (in French) was published on the website of The Conversation France.

Also read on I’MTech

[one_half]

The economy of promises, how to fall in love with a growth rate

[/one_half][one_half_last]

Philosophy of science and technology in support of political ecology

[/one_half_last]

Imagination, imaginaire

Imagination: an architect and driving force of transitions

/0 Comments/in , /by

All technology starts with a vision, a tool created to meet one of society’s objectives. Its development path is formed by both human projections and the dynamics of the transformations it generates. It is therefore important to take the time to ask ourselves what we intended to do with digital technology and what we will do with it. We must also analyze the transformations this technology has already initiated in the digital transition and work to build the world of the tomorrow. In the book by Carine Dartiguepeyrou and Gilles Berhault entitled Un autre monde est possible – Lost in transitions?, Francis Jutand—Deputy President of IMT—raised the question of the role imagination plays in the current digital transition. He describes how important it is in defining our future. Upon the release of this book, I’MTech spoke with Francis Jutand to learn more.

 

Francis Jutand

How can we study a transformation as profound as the one generated by digital technology?

Francis Jutand: This is a true metamorphosis, the fourth to occur in the history of humanity. A metamorphosis is characterized by an initial transformation period that is extremely fast and powerful, which can be referred to as the transition period. We do not often have the opportunity to study the conditions of a metamorphosis before the transition occurs, except in the case of artists and creators who sense its approach or foresight experts who suspect its coming. The work of foresight experts takes place during this transition period, or better yet, this “prenatal” period. Their work is aimed at analyzing, understanding and sharing their findings to influence the path of development and, above all, to contribute to designing the world of tomorrow. Every transformation has causes. This means there are also early signs of its development and the implementation of structures that will make it possible. The printing press, encyclopedia and the scientific development the 17th and 18th centuries all paved the way for the industrial transformation. Electronics, telecommunications, computer science, and media paved the way for the digital transformation that took place as they converged in 2000.

Why use imagination to study the digital transition?

FJ: It is impossible to master the dynamics of the transformation that is underway: before we even have time to see what will come of one innovation, others have emerged. This results in a divergence and a tipping point, which is more Lamarckian than Darwinian in nature. We simply know that all activities and individuals will be reached and transformed in the process. We are actors, but at the same time we are also subject to the forces working to operate this change. The question that arises is, how can we anticipate and act now to design and influence the world of tomorrow? This world of tomorrow is shaped by the ideas at the origin of the transformation as well as those that emerge as it progresses. It is in the convergence of these ideas that imagination can act as an architect and builder of this new world. The last transformation was industrial, and researchers like Pierre Musso at Télécom Paris have carefully analyzed that transformation and the role it played in structuring the industrial society and in creating infrastructures of communication networks, services and content on which the metamorphosis was built. When a transformation begins, imagination changes. Digital imagination cannot be regarded as a mere extension of industrial imagination.

Why is the industrial imagination insufficient in explaining the digital metamorphosis underway?

FJ: The industrial imagination is above all based on processes and rational models. This is the mentality that takes a complex problem and cuts it into smaller pieces, clearly defines the steps that must be taken to resolve them and creates an assembly design to make it all work. This relies on methods of design, description, fragmentation, task automation, deployment and monitoring, which are structured around successive phases: analysis, modeling, simulation, decision-making, implementation, feedback and adaptation. It is extremely effective, yet this type of imagination and methods have reached their limits and are now being exhausted due to the new complexities of digital technology. This is primarily because this process is slow: it takes years to carry out a large project, design infrastructures and large-scale information systems. Industrial imagination was successful for large systems: nuclear energy, aeronautics, space, transportation systems and many types of networks… Yet it cannot withstand the complexities and acceleration of the digital world. This form of imagination is based on rationality and efficiency that attempts to cut corners when it comes to involving humans, who are seen as cost factors. It therefore promotes automation to achieve performance, to the detriment of development. This approach has now reached its limit in the current context of new social and environmental issues and the expectations of new generations seeking to develop their individuality, rather than integrate a system. Our society must establish a new projection that will allow us to solve new problems. This is already being done and will continue to develop as we pursue a new form of imagination.

What characterizes this new digital imagination?

FJ: We need to understand that this imagination thrives on the one hand on the development of science and digital technology and, on the other hand, on the development of the consumer society that created this individuation phenomenon by emphasizing the value of personality and desires that must be expressed and satisfied. These changes fueled the phenomenon of individuation, which was accelerated by consumer society and further matured through the development of networks. The individual has therefore taken on an increasingly important role. The individual no longer exists as part of a community or class, but as an autonomous entity capable of becoming personally involved in an activity and defining and adopting his own positions. In this sense it shares a common point with the hippy and hacker movements—in terms of hacker ethics, despite this culture often being mistakenly viewed as mere attackers. At different points in the development of the digital imagination, these two groups took a stand to demand that individuals be taken into consideration, not as belonging to a consumer class, but based on their individualities that can work alone and in cooperation with others. This all led to the creation of an imagination combining sharing, instant and global communication. In short: the creation of cooperative networks of individuals.

Today, the digital imagination offers a vision of the world in which individuals can act, experiment, share, cooperate and, in so doing, explore multiple answers aimed at providing solutions to problems. This is the opensource and start-up spirit, which relies on collective synchronization based on common goals and values. It is a sort of inversion of architectures, organizations and decision-making methods. It also marks a transition from an automation and efficiency economy limiting the human factor, to a culture based on effectiveness and performativity relying on cooperative, associative and parallel exploration. This vision of progress relies on personal and collective experience. Finally, it is the power of a multitude of individuals searching for solutions through discussion and decision-making processes.

Does this form of imagination completely replace the industrial form that preceded it?

FJ: One form of imagination does not replace the previous one, it enriches it and adds new dimensions. Digital imagination governs new spaces and alters the industrial imagination, just like the industrial imagination transformed that of agriculture and traditional trades, which were also altered, but not destroyed. It is clear, however, that we can expect these new areas of human development taking shape through digital imagination to play an increasingly significant role in society. This form of imagination can go a long way, since it affects cognitive functions and permeates collective narratives. Science fiction, as both an artistic and projective activity, contributes to bringing the digital imagination into being and is playing a leading role in exploring the magnitude of the possible utopian and dystopian outcomes of digital technology.

Many works of science fiction are more dystopian. How would you explain this pessimism in the digital imagination?

FJ: The inner workings of society have always been reflected through, on the one hand, problems related to power, domination and money and, on the other hand, a spiritual dimension. The hubris, or excessive nature caused by this first aspect is not specific to the digital transformation. It can, however, lead to forms of pride or even perversity that could influence developments in digital technology. We therefore see positions of domination using digital tools—overthrowing democracy, privacy—and transhumanism advocating messianic hubris such as immortality. There is also a less conspicuous but real phenomenon taking place as new sources progressively deepen existing inequalities, as rural areas are neglected due to a focus on urban issues and even in the threat of deterritorialization. These kinds of developments can cause us to lose perspective and want to bail out, leaving behind the collective interests of the human project. Today, one of the ways we can control this type of hubris is to prioritize ecological and global concerns and focus on social justice.

If digital imagination is not sufficient in finding solutions to the challenges facing society, should we expect a new form of imagination to emerge?

FJ: In my opinion, within the context of digital society, the digital transition will lay the foundations for a new transformation: that of cognition, which will be partially based on powerful artificial intelligence, once it is developed. This is a form of co-development, a symbiotic relationship between humans and machines and the capacity of intermediated collective individuation. And what forms of technology will make all this possible? We do not yet know. What is more, this coming transformation might not even be physical. Transitions also alter beliefs, approaches to spirituality, social structures, the nature of wealth… For now, we can only observe that a new form of imagination linked to cognition is beginning to develop. What remains to be seen is whether this will be a completely new form of imagination, or an extension of the digital imagination we have been building on for a few decades now.

 

production

The future of production systems, between customization and sustainable development

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Editorial

 

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]hat will the production lines of tomorrow look like? Over the past decades, machines have played an increasingly important role in factories. We all have an image in our minds of robotic arms moving at lightning speed and with truly superhuman precision, carrying parts that are undoubtedly too heavy for our arms. Faced with such a demonstration of physical superiority, it is hard to imagine how anything organic can compete. When it comes to production rate one thing is certain: we are beaten by machines. And we’re already imagining humans being excluded from production lines, or at least reassigned to different tasks—complex programming of robots, overseeing machine networks, data analysis etc. All of these “new careers” are exclusively high-skilled positions and require profound changes in training and in companies.

But being so quick to eliminate humans and replace them with robots may be going a step too far. When we talk about production, we’re talking first and foremost about meeting a demand. What is produced is that which is desired, bought and consumed by end users. And what today’s customers want more than anything is a customized product. They want a car that aligns with their own needs, desires and values. They do not want to buy one of the 500,000 diesel cars with options they won’t use. They want the same model, only electric, without air conditioning because it’s bad for the environment, but with a sun roof because they love pulling over in the countryside and looking up at the stars.

But entirely-automated production lines have a hard time adapting to such specific demands. It is amusing to learn that researchers studying the issues involved in this new commercial paradigm are reasserting the importance of humans in production systems. Yes, we are slower, weaker and less precise, but we are also more flexible, versatile and better able to adapt to the typically human demand for diversity. At Mines Saint-Étienne, Xavier Delorme is one such researcher. His work has shown that it is important not to dehumanize production in order to respond to new demands from customers.

Production line flexibility: human operators to the rescue!

This does not mean adopting a primarily anti-technology stance, but rather emphasizing the strength of human-machine cooperation. At IMT Mines Albi, Élise Varielles is working on software tools that do precisely that by helping teams understand customers’ needs. The tools developed by the Albi-based researcher tackle the task of breaking down a demand, understanding it in great detail to determine whether it is feasible, then determining how it can be met as effectively as possible.

Breaking products down for customization

But growing demand for tailor-made products is just one of many new demands. Having a customized product is not enough. Customers also need to have it right away—or at least, as soon as possible. For this reason, new production systems cannot be considered in isolation from the transportation and distribution networks further downstream. The reality is that the entire supply chain is undergoing a transformation. It must transport goods more quickly, but must also meet sustainable development requirements. The environmental footprint is no longer a mere detail. Trucks can no longer travel half-empty and must progressively be replaced by trains. For this to happen, companies will have to learn how to communicate and collaborate with one another. The logistics network is undergoing profound changes.

[one_half]

Synchronizing future transportation: from trucks to drones

[/one_half][one_half_last]

What is the physical internet?

[/one_half_last]

This series takes a look at some of the new issues facing industry, for which researchers are trying to find solutions. It was created following the IMT symposium on production systems of the future. As such, it focuses less on political and social aspects—training for new careers, disappearance of low-skilled jobs—than on technical subjects involving major scientific challenges. Against a backdrop of artificial intelligence, ecological and energy transition and human-machine interaction, it presents some interesting examples of research for the benefit of society and the industry of the future.

physical internet

What is the physical internet?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The physical internet is a strange concept. It borrows its name from the best-known computer network, yet it bears little connection with it, other than being an inspiration for bringing together economic stakeholders and causing them to work together. The physical internet is in fact a new way of organizing the logistics network. In light of the urgent climate challenges facing our planet and the economic challenges of companies, we must rethink logistics from a more sustainable perspective. Shenle Pan, a researcher in management science at Mines ParisTech and specialist in logistics and transport, explains this concept and its benefits.

This article is part of our series on “The future of production systems, between customization and sustainable development.”

 

What does the physical internet refer to?

Shenle Pan: It’s the metaphor of the internet applied to supply chain networks and related services. When we talk about the physical internet, the objective is to interconnect distribution networks, storage centers, suppliers, etc. Today, each contributor to the supply chain system is on their own. Companies are independent and have their own network. The idea of the physical internet is to introduce interoperability between stakeholders. The internet is a good analogy for guiding the ideas and structuring new organizational methods.

What is the benefit of this subject?

SP: Above all, it is a way of making logistics more sustainable. For example, when each stakeholder works on its own, a delivery truck leaves without being full. The delivery must be on time, and the truck leaves even if it is only half full. By connecting stakeholders, a truck can be filled with more goods for another supplier. If enough companies share transport resources, they can even reach a flow of goods significant enough to use rail freight. Since one full truck emits less CO2 than two half-filled trucks, and the train runs on electricity, the environmental impact would be greatly reduced for the same flow of goods. Companies also save due to the scale effect. The benefits are also related to other logistics departments, such as storage, packaging and handling.

How will this impact the logistics markets?

SP: By interconnecting stakeholders, competing companies will be connected. Yet today, these stakeholders do not share their information and logistical means. New rules and protocols must therefore be established to control stakeholders’ access to components in the supply chain, using the networks, transporting goods, etc. This is what protocols do, which in the case of the internet include TCP/IP. New intermediaries must also be introduced on the markets. Some are already beginning to appear. Start-ups offer to mutualize transport to maximize the trucks’ capacity. Others sell storage areas for one pallet for a short period of time to adapt to the demand, whereas stakeholders are generally used to buying entire warehouses they do not always fill. The physical internet therefore leads us toward a new logistics model called Logistics as a Service. This new model is more flexible, efficient, interoperable and sustainable.

What makes the physical internet a field of study?

SP: Real interdisciplinary research is needed to make all these changes. It is not easy, for example, to design standardized means for promoting interoperability. We must determine which mechanisms are the best suited and why. Then, in the area of management science, we must ask which intermediaries should be introduced into the network to manage the openness and the new business models this would involve. From a computer science perspective: how can the services of the various stakeholders be connected? Personally, I am working on the mathematical aspect, modelling new types of organization for the network, for example for assessing gains.

What are the tangible gains of the physical internet in terms of logistics?

SP: We took two major supply chains from mass distribution in France and we integrated the data into our new organizational models to simulate the gains. Depending on the scenarios, we improved the filling of trucks by 65% to 85%. Greenhouse gases decreased 60% for CO2 emissions due to multi-modality. In our simulations, these significant results were directly linked to interoperability and the creation of the network. Our models allow us to determine the strategic locations where shared storage centers should be established for several companies, optimize transport times, reduce supply times and storage volumes… We also had gains of over 20% in stock sizes.

Does the logistics sector already use the principles of the physical internet?

SP: The physical internet is a fairly recent concept. The first scientific publication on the topic dates to 2009, and companies have only been interested in the subject for approximately three years. They are adopting the concept very quickly, but they still need time. This is why we have a research chair on the physical internet at Mines ParisTech, with French and European companies; they submit their questions and use cases to help develop the potential of this concept. They recognize that we need a new form of organization to make logistics more sustainable, but the market has not yet reached a point where the major players are restructuring based on the physical internet model. We are currently seeing start-ups beginning to emerge and offer new intermediary services.

When will we experience the benefits of the physical internet?

SP: In Europe, the physical internet has established a solid roadmap, developed in particular by the ALICE alliance, which connects the most significant logistics platforms on the continent. This alliance regularly issues recommendations that are used by European H2020 research programs. Five focus areas have been proposed for integrating the physical internet principles in European logistics by 2030. This is one of the largest initiatives worldwide. In Europe, we therefore hope to quickly see the physical internet comprehensively redefine logistics and offer its benefits, particularly in terms of environmental impacts.