Article by Delphine Manceau, professor at ESCP Europe. Co-authored with Pascal Morand report "Towards a new vision of innovation" awarded to Christine Lagarde in April 2009. In this European Year of creativity and innovation, the ideas circulating on innovation are many in our country. Now they have an impact on our collective capacity for innovation and that of our business, leading implicitly not to exploit all sources of competitiveness of our country. 1) First misconception - Innovation necessarily fall under a new technology. Yet according to the OECD, more than half the innovations n'intègrent no technological dimension and are of use, business models or processes. The low cost has revolutionized air transport, modes of supply accelerated Zara, food vendors like drinking stewed and glass

jars, or wall stickers that change the behaviors of decoration are all examples non-technological innovations have helped change their sector, stimulate demand and change the competitive game. It fails too often in France this kind of innovation, whereas only technological innovations are really promising growth. This probably comes from our tradition of Saint-Simon and positivist who believes that technology is the main source of progress, now outdated view. Consequence: only 23% of French companies are making non-technological innovations, against 47% in Germany and 60% in Japan. These figures reveal the untapped potential for innovation in our country. While France is only 10th place in the European Union in innovation, our innovation capacity could rapidly increase if we expand our vision. 2) The second misconception - The performance of a company's innovation was measured by the number of patents filed. This indicator is relevant insofar as intellectual property is a fundamental pillar of technological innovation: it allows companies to monetize their inventions and, hence, their investment in research and development. However, this measure better reflects the performance of the research activity and innovation. The number of patents reflects the ability of invention, but invention and innovation cover separate realities: an invention can not lead to any innovation and many are unused patents (36% by the European Commission), in contrast, an invention may generate multiple innovations, like nylon or Teflon used in many textiles and materials. However, the road is long and perilous to transform an invention patent and innovation. However, France has traditionally been more interested in the invention to innovation, while other countries develop real skills for the development and marketing. 3) Third wisdom - Following the definition of the Lisbon Strategy, the ratio of R & D / GDP assess country performance in terms of knowledge economy. Indeed, it is, with the number of patents, the indicator most often followed by countries. The purpose most commonly cited is to achieve a ratio of R & D / GDP of 3%, against 2.10% in 2006. In reality, the knowledge economy is not limited solely to the research and becomes a competitive factor if it results in the innovation capacity of enterprises and countries. We can not therefore rely on the competitiveness alone increased research spending, ignoring the process that transforms then the discoveries and innovations into commercial success. However, innovation is the result of a global process that is both technology development, organization, marketing, design, creativity, management and human resources of all components management. In addition, at the hour of open innovation and business networks, innovation can be based on research developed by other actors from other countries and other sectors. Even in areas where research plays a fundamental role, innovative companies are those that build a true interaction between R & D and marketing, and achieve a real work on the practice. If we consider the innovations that marked the sectors with high technological dimension, as the Wii video games, the iPhone in the phone or even Google in the search for information, we realize that these innovations - is also accompanied by real changes on the practices of their users and, often, changes in business models. Conclusion: Advocating a broader view of innovation In this context and given the still inadequate performance of France in innovation, it seems essential that governments expand their vision of innovation to integrate the uses, business models and non-technological innovations. This involves holding a public speech on innovation without limiting it to research or technology, while essential to build the economic performance of our country, but insufficient to ensure its competitiveness. Such an approach could increase the value of innovative success, and this in all sectors and not just in high tech. It should also assess the innovative capacity of our country on a battery of multiple indicators that reflect the diversity of innovation, taking account, for example, from sales made by companies on products recent and very innovative. Finally, it would be desirable to change the overly caricatured affecting our country in both the design (too little used and often an abstract vision is focused on aesthetics or the functionality) and marketing (which allows analyze usage and make innovations appropriated by the market). At a time when innovation can help overcome the crisis, a broader approach to innovation would enhance the economic performance of our country and help out a logical focus on manufacturing costs.