PROTEE A Method for Following Innovation

Research in history, management and sociology of technology has shown that innovations fail to explore their environment in a way that ensures a positive learning process for four basic reasons:
• Lack of realism;
• Lack of strategy;
• Lack of falsifiability;
• Lack of innovativeness.
It is around these four pathologies and their associated indicators that a relationship between an “innovator” and an “evaluator” is built. The methodology encourages the two to engage in a learning process to analyse and discuss the project in these “PROTEE" terms. It provides tools to assist this process and analyse the results. To achieve this, PROTEE establishes a paper trail that provides a principled description of the project by documenting the successive meetings between the innovator and the evaluator in terms of PROTEE indicators. This paper trail allows for the progressive build-up of a file allowing the innovators and evaluators to assess the quality of the exploration trajectory of the innovation. The comparison of the indicators over time makes it possible to grade the quality of the learning curve and to decide whether or not to continue the exploration.
Class 1: Realism or "anti-ballistic"
The whole class makes sure that innovators have not started with a project and then looked for a world in which to implement it with as little deformation as possible (the ballistic pathology) but are able to first describe a future world and only then search out elements that render their innovation more realistic.
The evaluator will then grade the description given of the project at hand:
I,a): by its richness;
I,b): its heterogeneity;
I,c): its uncertainty;
I,d): its contingent.
Class 2: Strategy or "anti-paranoia"
This second class makes sure that the project is now thought of in strategic terms, that is, considers every opposing view as an opportunity to modify the project and entering into a negotiation as to its character, goal and functions. The evaluator will grade the description according to the following indicators:
II,a): opposition;
II,b): justification;
II,c): specification;
II,d): negotiability.
Class 3: Falsifiability or "anti-manipulation"
The third class of indicators makes sure that the trials proposed by experts, politicians, technicians, public etc. for assessing various aspects of the future project are themselves relevant, useful and quality controlled. Without this double checking of the relevance of the trial objectives, the trials would be carried out in vain.
The evaluator will grade the research PLAN proposed by the innovators according to the following indicators:
III,a) arbitrariness;
III,b) openness;
III,c) proof of proof;
III,d) criticality.
Class 4: Innovativeness or "anti-monsters"
The fourth class of indicators makes sure that the process of exploration itself should not be continued without good reason, either because the project should be discontinued (it is a "white elephant") or because, on the contrary, it is a very innovative and long-term risky project (a “hopeful monster") or, finally, it has matured so that other project management techniques are applicable.
The evaluator will grade the description given by marking the following indicators:
IV,a) retroactivity;
IV,b) reconciliation;
IV,c) risky diagnosis:
IV,d) limit conditions.