Over the past decade, French public services have introduced innovative approaches of a new kind, formally breaking with the bureaucratic engineering of the administration. These initiatives seem to be heterogeneous and diverse, but they adopt approaches sharing a similar family resemblance, inspired in a large extent by the principles of design -or "user-oriented design" -in the making of public policy. In schools, hospitals, social services or public authorities, local experimentations and research-action programs have been developed: residencies with multidisciplinary teams of professionals and stakeholders in total immersion with a public facility, prototyping tests for new innovation methods on a specific topic, ground-level actions, do-it-yourself projects, etc.

As part of a research project entirely focused to these new Forms of Public Innovation by design (FPI), the authors of this paper suggest to outline the main features of this unprecedented landscape in the French public sector. From a 200 cases database designed as a part of this research, the challenge is to provide a description of the phenomenon of emergence of these innovations carried out over the last ten years through two kinds of questions.

The first one is about temporal dynamics of such a movement and their potential meanings. Is it a sectorial trend, based on a few areas of government, particularly receptive to design methods? Or is it a global and wide wave, impacting public policies in general? The concepts of design applied to public services seem to meet an undeniable success in France. But is this rise of design approaches a fundamental tendency, revealing lasting changes in the forms of innovation in administrations, or is it just a cyclical manifestation of what evil spirits would call a "fashion effect", as plenty of management tools and managerial approaches through their life cycles, their onset, development, and inresistable decline (Abrahamson and Fairchild, 1999)? The data from the survey show, in this respect, a crucial paradox : an already possible decrease of local experiments, but in the same time an increasingly strong attractiveness of the theme.

. Actually, the FPI population from the database describe four ways of building innovation: citizen participation, data visualization, improving accessibility for public services users and reengineering decision-making process. However, these different issues seem to change over time. While the first two themes dominated the early stages, the two last ones seem to prevail today. Is this a displacement of the objects of intervention of designers, moving from a service design to that of a process design? How to interprete such an evolution?

Introduction

Over the past decade, public services have been introducing hitherto unseen innovative approaches, formally breaking with the managerial reforms that had been previously deployed: multi-week "immersion" within a territory; collective projects bringing together public servants, users, creative professions, and social science researchers; the "rapid prototyping" of new services; exhibitions mobilizing artistic processes; and the mass use of atypical media formats (blog, video, slideshow, etc.).

While the actual forms that these initiatives take on appear varied, they nonetheless pertain to techniques appearing to belong to the same family and which voluntarily place themselves under the banner of "service design". But As a part of a research project1 entirely dedicated to new Forms of Public Innovation (FPI) "by design"2 , this article presents an overview of this unprecedented landscape.

By surveying more than 200 cases in France over the past ten years (2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015), within widely diverse public institutions, our intent is to provide a description of the phenomenon of emergence of these innovations "by design". To do so, and in reference to the actor-network theory, whose concepts can be used here as a guideline : i.

we first outline the general features of the changes involved, in relation to the following questions: What is the temporal dynamic of this trend? What actors mobilize these approaches? Are there sectors of administration that are more particularly receptive to them? On what fields of knowledge, apart from design science, are they based ?

ii.

we then discuss the formulation of issues and the problem framing that, from the point of view of their designers, these innovations follow. Four main types are thus identified.

General characteristics and inventory

The approaches on which this article focuses concern diverse subjects and issues, all of which present the particularity of aligning themselves with "design". As social science researchers, this intrigued us. It forced us to take a new look at each of our representations of designers' projects, thus raising the question of how the reference to design, which is widely acknowledged in the context of telephones, chairs, or tables, can play a role in public action? It is therefore this enigmatic set of interventions and actions that we thought important to explore, for the purpose of proposing a map of them. Without considering their effects, we have called these approaches "forms of public innovation" (FPI). By "forms", we intend to encompass undertakings that are necessarily heterogeneous in form, but whose creation is based on a repertoire of practical knowledge and know-how that is explicitly formulated in reference to design, albeit independently of what they are seen to mean and, therefore, without making any assumptions regarding the properties or content that supposedly characterize them. By "innovation", we mean that we are interested in projects that intend to transform a state of matters, in particular around situations that are reputed to be tricky ("wicked problems"), in such a way that they shift the focus, and in so doing highlight unnoticed aspects that are nonetheless considered to be essential a posteriori. By "public", we are referring to the fact that these experiments directly involve public institutions (territorial entities, schools, decentralized government services, the central government, hospitals, etc.).

We therefore endeavoured to assemble a sufficiently large population of FPI (n=204).

Some were intended to bring about concrete transformations, while others were for exploratory purposes, without necessarily being subject to practical implementation.

We found all of these initiatives interesting to include, due to the nature of the approaches that they proposed. To successfully complete this census, which was necessarily partial, we diversified our sources (text box below). The resulting database was organized into series of variables regarding, respectively, the identity of each FPI, its nature, its actors, and the knowledge concerned3 . It is therefore on the basis of these elements that we will describe the evolution of the phenomenon examined here (1.1.), the actors involved (1.2.), the governmental sectors concerned

(1.3.), and the practical knowledge mobilized as it appears via the classification of the professionals involved in the implementation of the project (1.4.).

Sources of the database

The results presented in this article are based on the querying of 114 Frenchlanguage websites potentially involved in the introduction of design approaches into public services. These include: the websites belonging to private agencies, which are often very small, and which are mainly or exclusively oriented towards design approaches, although based on spheres of intervention that are potentially varied (n=58); the websites of consulting firms, which generally employ a large number of staff, that use or develop innovative approaches "by design" among their methods without, however, being recognized as doing so (n=8); the websites of public services making use of the services of designers, and which establish the state of their undertakings on various levels (n=12); the websites of schools or universities offering design training (n=8); blogs by designers giving an account of their own undertakings (n=18); platforms dedicated to the online distribution of news and work carried out, in particular by designers or intermediary structures (n=5); and specialized online magazines likely to also survey these initiatives (n=5).

We identified these websites by means of two processes. The first was the result of the inventorying of design structures, carried out by multiple actors in the sector and which served as the basis for the initial identification of FPI 4 . The second was based on the surveying of websites potentially involved in the field of the study, carried out systematically with the help of the search engine google.fr. Combined, these two approaches allowed us to inventory a significant number of relevant sites, and even to cover a broad range of projects and issues. We were able to verify the data resulting from these projects, via cross-referencing to identify redundant information on the same undertakings reported by multiple websites.

Yet, given the difficulty of establishing an inventory of a fledgling field, this study can but be limited. In reality, the Internet offers only a limited and often biased view of the variety and content of design experiments in the public sphere: projects blown out of proportion for commercial and visibility purposes; websites that are not necessarily exhaustive; blogs that are rarely or poorly updated; and so on. As for other subjects of study, the challenge is nonetheless to limit arbitrariness and the necessarily partial nature of analyses by collecting a sufficiently large number of cases.

1.1. Following a marked expansion, an uncertain evolution Our examination of FPI over time revealed three main periods: that of the pioneers, which can be considered to correspond to the years up until 2008; that of expansion, which would follow it up until 2013; and that of a slowdown or even decline, which would encompass the following two years. Clearly, this chronological evolution (Figure 1) must be considered with caution, taking into account the methodological limitations mentioned above. It does nonetheless appear plausible, and is confirmed by a certain number of complementary elements. For example, the first period covers projects (n=7) which, regarding artistic approaches associated with the development 4 This survey was made possible through the exchange of information and discussions that we had under the FIP-EXPLO research programme, in particular with Stéphane Vincent (27 e Région), Olivier Hirt (ENSCI), and Jacques-François Marchandise (FING), taking into account their first-hand knowledge of this sector. Moreover, we were able to benefit from the production of publications and public reports, and specifically Manzini and Staszowski (2013), [START_REF] Cadix | Pour une politique nationale du design, Mission design, Rapport au ministre du Redressement productif et à la ministre de la Culture et de la Communication[END_REF][START_REF] Scherer | Chantiers ouverts au public, Paris, La documentation française Tonurist[END_REF]. Last of all, the inventory of FPI was completed through the consultation of a library of cases established at the 27 e Région, but which remains confidential. [START_REF] Boeuf | Design et innovation sociale[END_REF]. As for the third period, it reveals a slowdown in the phenomenon, taking into account the number of FPI surveyed (n=58). This decrease that we observed, but that still needs to be confirmed, especially because it covers only two years, also seems to be contemplated on a more general level by the actors in the sector themselves. They mention a possible "risk of running out of steam", and intend to renew their deployment strategies 5 . The subject is nevertheless of growing interest among academic communities. 5 See, for example, the case of the "extended school" animated by the NESTA, and bringing together a panel of public innovation practitioners and experts from across the world: http://www.la27eregion.fr/ischool-une-ecole-pour-remettre-de-la-reflexivite-dans-linnovationpublique/ Of particular interest in this evolution, in addition to the rise of public innovative approaches by design, is this division into three distinct phases. It specifically raises questions regarding the reconfiguration of the sector, involving public actors and designers through mechanisms that are potentially different for each of the periods mentioned. It also highlights the still fragile dimension of the phenomenon that we are seeking to describe.

FPI and their Actors

Like any innovation, each FPI is impossible to dissociate from the network of actors that it was necessary to mobilize and to involve step-by-step. Among these actors, we can highlight in particular the public institutions concerned and the professionals directly involved in the implementation of the project. Regarding the former, our first finding concerns the dominant place of territorial entities (and similar) in the management of these projects. In fact, they are involved in almost two-thirds of the projects inventoried (Table 1). Multiple explanations can be advanced. An initial explanation relates to the position of territorial entities within the landscape of public institutions in France. Their rise to power has to be linked to successive waves of decentralization, with the transfers of competence that have accompanied them and have given them a central place in the management of public facilities and services affecting the daily life of citizens -as is the case of social and health actions for departmental councils, or high schools for regional councils. To this can be added, over the past 20 years, the multiplication of inter-commune structures granting new capabilities for action at an infradepartmental level. Lastly, more general trends at play in the context of globalization are causing the recomposition of territories. Here, regions and cities are asserting themselves as key political and economic actors capable of driving or sustaining the most innovative initiatives, and are fit to play a leading role in planning, development, and regulation, to the detriment of sovereign states.

The second explanation is related to the stance of designers, who defend a contingent and contextualized vision of their action based on a specific "fieldwork"

with users that has to be directly accessed and mobilized.

Due to the combination of these preoccupations -greater capabilities for action of local governments, desire of some of them to position themselves as actors in change and design approaches based on "situated" interventions -, it is not surprising to note a large portion of territorial institutions and inter-municipal entities among the FPI identified in our corpus. We also note that with its 22 identified FPI, a large city such as Greater Lyon occupies a remarkable place in the rise of innovations making use of service design.

Furthermore, it is worth noting the very unequal distribution of FPI across the administrative territories of the country. This is true not only of regions, but also and more generally of local governments (Figure 2). Among the many hypotheses that we can put forward to explain this disparity, but which this paper is not focused on systematically testing 6 , two seem to be plausible according to qualitative inquiries carried out elsewhere. First, "prescriptive" actors, which in a recent publication [START_REF] Coblence | Acteurs intermédiaires de la mobilisation territoriale : les enseignements des démarches de prospective-action[END_REF] we called "intermediary agencies" because they are not always the direct operators of FPI, play a significant role in the promotion of these new approaches. They orchestrate relationships by animating a community composed of public actors and numerous small design firms. The map that emerges partially reflects the territorial distribution 6 We could, for example, imagine that the local governments involved share a similar sociological profile over a certain number of variables, or that the instances display identical political affiliation.

of their network. In particular, these consist of La 27 e Région, the Fondation Internet Nouvelle Génération (FING) or, more locally, the Cité du Design in Saint-Etienne.

A second hypothesis, which is not mutually exclusive with the first, relates to the progressive establishment of regional ecologies around one or more actors involved in these approaches. These "network heads" may be research and foresight teams, as in Greater Lyon, or "laboratories" integrated into public establishments or local governments which, like the Fabrique de l'Hospitalité at the Strasbourg Hospital, or the Mission Innovation at the Departmental Council of Val d'Oise, act as intermediaries in the application of design methods. Other more recent in-house public laboratories in certain local government administrations such as the regional council of the Pays de Loire or Provence Alpes Côte d'Azur, could eventually play the same role. We can also mention here the role of schools dedicated to the training of designers, albeit according to somewhat different mechanisms, in Nantes, Strasbourg, and Paris, and universities oriented towards design, such as in Nîmes, which locally build projects with public institutions and contribute to the development of these regional ecologies.

More of less receptive administrative sectors ?

The projects supported by the different FPI listed in the database apply to different sectors of activity of the public services that we have attempted to classify into broad categories. The question that led to this categorization into sectors was the following: do FPI approaches apply to all types of public services indifferently or do they have preferential sectors? In other words, can everything be "designed"? In fact, we can posit that FPI approaches, through their claim of tropism towards "users", have to be particularly adapted to public services in which the users are numerous, clearly identified, present within a restricted scope, and well-defined. From this point of view, certain sectors (health care, education) appear to correspond to these features. But what is the reality of the matter? The classification of FPI by main sector of application yields the following results (Table 2). Having taken these precautions, we can make some observations. The first is that the different sectors of activity of public services are quite unevenly represented. The FPI surveyed mainly concern urban planning, health care, territorial (regional/local) development, social affairs, the environment, culture, and education, but rarely involve sovereign public services such as justice, the police, and defence. Must this be seen as evidence of an attitude of distrust among those in positions of authority and the professionals concerned, or of their yet limited knowledge of these approaches? Reciprocally, do designers, through their personal political positions, have a more marked interest in certain sectors that are more directly related to the issue of living together and the consideration of fragile publics? Can we also consider, in accordance with the hypothesis expressed above, that there is a greater degree of compatibility between FPI approaches and the types of public services that are initially oriented towards relations with users? Lastly, can we relate these observations to the fact that urban planning, education, and health care in particular are public sectors which make use of a set of research actions, interventions, or projects based on new methodologies, and have at times done so for many years?7

At this stage in our reflection, it is clear that these elements only allow us to make assumptions and to point to issues that should be empirically explored. It is nevertheless currently likely that all of these explanations are at least partially true.

More intriguing is the importance of the FPI at work in the "administration" sector, which is the second most represented category. Note that this term encompasses all FPI focused on the transformation of workpaces, tools, specific administrative processes (as purchasing procedures, for example), or administrative "culture" in its entirety (the development of innovation "labs", for example). These "administrative" FPI have in common the fact that they are largely polarized around the internal operation or rules of a public organization, rather than around the relation of publics.

How can we explain this finding, which appears counterintuitive when compared to the discourse of many of the advocates of these FPI or the people involved in them, who emphasize a "user" approach? Faced with this, we realize that, in the discourses of these actors, the concept of "users" does not exclusively designate the "publics" which are the recipients of public services, but also often includes the agents directly involved in delivering them (what we generally call the "front-office"), or even some of their supervisors. But, more generally, it appears that an idea is developing among some designers, according to which the quality of the relationship to the public requires a sustainable change of the administration responsible for it. For example,

this is what we read in a description of the evolution of the MindLab strategy:

"…sustainable innovation will not happen via isolated projects…The next step is to help ensure that the civil servants are practising the new ways of innovating as an integrated, natural thing…" [START_REF] Carstensen | Powering Collaborative Policy Innovation : Can Innovation Labs Help[END_REF]. Will service innovation necessarily go through a process innovation?

Knowledge applied in FPI

As noted above, we are interested in innovative approaches that make use of design.

However, many of the approaches studied also draw on other disciplines. The idea expressed by many of the promoters of these approaches is in fact that a multidisciplinary perspective must replace the excessively uniform point of view generally shared about the way to conceive or transform public services. Another more methodological argument advanced by some is that design approaches are effectively completed by social science, which can contribute its ethnographic inquiry techniques in particular.

We therefore wanted to investigate the question of the disciplines working alongside designers on the FPI identified in the database. Clearly, a great deal of caution is necessary, as indications of discipline are used as they appear in the information sources consulted, without reprocessing on our part.

One initial finding, as Table 3 below First of all, we note the large degree of representation of sociology in association with design. If we add anthropology and ethnology to it, we see that these types of association are found in almost half of all cases (46 out of 96). This seems consistent with the methodological argument mentioned at the beginning of this section, namely that the association between these three disciplines and design may relate to the need for general competencies regarding "human societies" which are indispensable to the designer working in organizations and various local authorities.

On one hand, the frequency (44 occurrences) of the association between design and the science and techniques of architecture, town planning, and engineering may be more related to the nature of the issues covered by FPI, in which spatial, building, and computing issues have been clearly identified from the beginning. It is hardly surprising, for example, that FPI employed for train station projects (FPI041) or high schools (FPI031) employ architects, that a project for the data visualization of medical information (FPI136) includes computer specialist, and that the design of new uses for an urban park (FPI204) requires the presence of a town planner. One hypothesis is therefore that, to be legitimate, the teams working with the designer must demonstrate technical abilities adapted to the nature of the problem addressed.

On the other hand, the non-negligible occurrence (20 cases) of specialties with less clear boundaries, such as management, political science, marketing, and foresight studies may lead to multiple interpretations. These rather general designations probably mask, among the individuals in question, competencies regarding the administrative procedures and organizations concerned by the FPI. Most likely, in these partners, designers are looking for "administrative technical expertise" analogous with the technical expertise previously mentioned. We furthermore have evidence of FPI in which business consultants collaborate with designers to combine complementary approaches and to ensure, as a "vehicle of change", the organizational transformation processes for which designers are often loath to take responsibility.

We also wish to point out the significant presence of disciplines skilled in visual representation techniques (18 cases out of 96). This is consistent with discourses on the importance of the material or visual presentation displayed by the promoters of FPI. There might however possibly be redundancy between their competencies and those of designers.

Problem framing, publics and territories: four types of FPI

If, as STS have shown for a long time, the success of an innovation is related less to its intrinsic properties than to the robustness of its networks, and if the soundness of the ties that characterize it involves problem framing to convince certain actors that they are affected by the "problem" to resolve and that they can find a solution to it by contributing to the implementation of the innovation in question [START_REF] Cadix | Pour une politique nationale du design, Mission design, Rapport au ministre du Redressement productif et à la ministre de la Culture et de la Communication[END_REF][START_REF] Akrich | A quoi tient le succès des innovations ?[END_REF], then FPI can be appropriately described from the point of view of the way in which their promoters "interest" the multiple actors that they wish to mobilize.

Apart from their specific methodologies -that would need to be described in situ, based on concrete cases, which is not the purpose of this article 8 -, two elements deserve to be highlighted within the database that we have compiled: the importance of the territory in the way in which the innovations in question are generally 8 For a specific example, see Abrassart, Gauthier, Proulx and Martel (2015).

understood (2.1.), and the diversity of problem framing that is tied to them, in particular from the point of view of the general aims of the approach and the way of defining its publics (2.2.).

FPI and their territories

One of the characteristics of the FPI identified is that they often turn the territory into an essential element. Whether this consists in redeveloping a subsidized housing neighbourhood to foster relations between generations and between communities (FPI160), giving an account of local uses of digital tools (FPI179), designing welcoming waiting rooms for families at a hospital (FPI085), or reflecting on the redefinition of an administrative procedure internal to a public service (FPI127), the question of places often constitutes an obligatory point of passage (Table 5). In reality, the scope contemplated by the different FPI can prove to vary greatly in terms of size: a whole valley for the FPI that consisted of coming up with an unprecedented instrument allowing for better coordination of health care professionals attending to elderly people at their homes in Haute Provence (FPI109); an entire river basin for the FPI that contributed to rethinking the interfaces responsible for preventing flood risks in the large urban centres crossed by the Loire River (FPI110); a département for the FPI that consisted of a foresight trip to the heart of the Gironde in a speciallyoutfitted bus to investigate the inhabitants from place to place (FPI050); and a hospital ward for the one that led to a new lighting device in the rooms of a specialized retirement home (FPI072).

Number of FPI FPI that make the territory an essential element of the problem framing 170

FPI with a general or national scope, without making the territory an essential element 34

Total 204

Table 5: FPI and the status of the territory This attention to the territorial aspect constitutes a key element in the problem framing carried out by the promoters of FPI. It contributes to providing their approach with a character that is most often anchored, embodied, and always situated.

Although it is philosophically readily aligned with pragmatism [START_REF] Findeli | La recherche-projet en design et la question de la question de recherche : essai de clarification conceptuelle[END_REF], this orientation still raises questions when it contradicts the local nature within which it may be tempting to enclose it. Note that, even though they are locally situated, many FPI actually claim to address issues with a general scope. For example, this is the case of the experiments carried out for possible replication purposes, such as the "residency" which took place in Cluny intended to identify concrete improvements relevant to all the Relais de Services Publics [Public Service Relays] in rural areas (FPI039) (Coblence and Pallez, 2015). It is furthermore also the case of approaches -and these are frequent -that combine the practical and situated tests and prototyping with a foresight perspective aiming to build potential scenarios involving the institution in its entirety. For example, this is the case of the initiative exploring the forms of valorizing an ancient abbey with a high heritage value via its possible uses (FPI105). Moreover, FPI that initially display a foresight orientation are not rare (18%), whether they consist in designing tomorrow's rural train station (FPI035), imagining the future of an entire département by 2033 (FPI050), or even rethinking the impact of digital technologies on the workplace on the scale of society as a whole (FPI194). Therefore, one of the characteristics of FPI lies in this tension between a constantly territorialized problem framing on the one hand and a possible ambition to take things beyond this -a tension that finds its expression in the considerations of designers themselves regarding "upscaling".

Four problem framings of innovation and the publics concerned

Beyond these general remarks, four types of problem framing appear to be able to be distinguished among the FPI collected in our corpus, each of which describes a certain territory of innovation, a definition of the publics concerned, and a precise construction of issues.

The first understands public innovation from the position of a neighbourhood, town, commune, or group of communes. It is therefore the space that is simultaneously physical, social, economic, and cultural that constitutes the subject of this problem framing, whether this consists in contemplating the planning of a housing area (FPI159), rethinking the revival of a run-down city centre (FPI187), or promoting the identity of area recently brought into the spotlight (FPI046). The scope contemplated by the different projects can prove to vary greatly: the bank of a waterway for the project that consisted in consulting with inhabitants to contemplate modifications to the Saône (FPI010); a tramway for the project that attempted to understand the mobility of the inhabitants of Stains (FPI010); a neighbourhood for collecting the testimonials of the inhabitants of an outlying area undergoing renovation (FPI089);

and an entire département for the project based on a foresight mission to the heart of the Gironde to question residents place by place, using a specially-outfitted bus (FPI050). If we take into consideration that the general issue relating to design techniques pertains to the formatting of reality via artefacts destined to make action possible [START_REF] Norman | Les artefacts cognitifs[END_REF], these FPI express a key focus: shaping the expression of publics from the position of a given territory so that their experiences can take on a comprehensible form. Innovations, which at times integrate a social science inquiry approach or proceed more intuitively by producing information artistically, specifically concern the formats devised to communicate these experiences: maps, travelling exhibitions, video clips, etc. They describe a participationist ideal that is potentially associated with political issues pertaining to democratic life [START_REF] Walker | Rising Participation and Declining Democracy[END_REF][START_REF] Politix | Dispositifs participatifs[END_REF][START_REF] Espace Et Territoires | Le nouvel esprit de la démocratie. Actualité de la démocratie participative[END_REF], and that shares a "family likeness" with similar initiatives that are already found in urban matters [START_REF] Arab | Expérimenter l'intervention artistique en urbanisme[END_REF]Deviste and Ouvrard, 2015). There is nevertheless is a nuance: what appears to be important is not only allowing the residents of a city or neighbourhood to participate, but also making this participation known in such a way that it is able to capture publics whose concern is deemed to be strategic (passersby, administrative authorities, etc.). This problem framing of the territory, through the question of space and participation, is behind more than 40% of the FPI collected in our corpus and is therefore of prime importance.

A second way of conceiving of innovation encourages the examination of public action from the point of view of its facilities. Whether this consists in reflecting on the uses of a future travelling multimedia library intended for rural communes in Auvergne faced with significant changes (FPI037), rethinking the reception area of a geriatric hospital in Strasbourg for patients suffering from cognitive disorders (FPI001), proposing original sign posting at the high school in Givors in collaboration with stakeholders (FPI145), or designing a new space for handicapped people in Val d'Oise destined to facilitate their lives (FPI102), it is through the way in which the public is received and the relationship with users that the territory is problematized.

Knowledge of administrative trajectories, the experiences of users and, more broadly, the use of places often take place through phases of immersion, in which designers are in contact with the public and professionals. This results in the production of unusual artefacts, given that the purpose is to equip the new users with new information or action devices (sign posts, digital interfaces, documentary media, etc.)

intended to increase their ability to appropriate spaces. These spaces may moreover be targeted for redevelopment. Therefore, in this case, the territory is mainly understood through spaces of reception, and public action is problematized through the issue of accessibility. This conception is by no means negligible: it comes in second place among the innovations collected in our study, and involves almost 30% of FPI.

A third way of deploying design approaches within administration consists in focusing on its organization. At times these approaches involve the work spaces or the equipment of agents, such as: the "offices of the future" that the Regional Council of the Pays de Loire is making an effort to think up as a part of a foresight exercise (FPI124); the "mobile offices" provided to the professionals at the Parc régional de Millevaches in Limousin to allow them to hold their meetings while travelling (FPI174); or the work tools of the agents at departmental entities of the Protection Judiciaire de la Jeunesse in Seine-Saint Denis (child protection services) (FPI177).

These may also concern the regulatory procedures whose reconfiguration they encourage, such as the regulations regarding public procurement and the tendering process that delimit the activity of territorial entities (FPI127) or the management of European funds (FPI125). Lastly, they encourage the rethinking of decision-making processes in the strict sense, by providing actors with new tools to manage a high school (FPI112) or to offer ground-breaking digital interfaces to help in strategic decision-making for the army (FPI137). This is thus often a matter of solving the problem of coordination between actors, whether for a school, a local government, a sector of economic activity declared to be strategic, or a battlefield. The territory put to the test by FPI appears to be that of organization, considered from the position of the diversity of professionals, as well as regulations, procedures, or hierarchies. Even though we did not initially expect to encounter this way of conceiving of design approaches, it occupies third place in our corpus and accounts for almost 20% of all the projects inventoried.

Finally, a fourth way of problematizing public action is through approaches conceiving of the public as a general entity, without specifically designating or problematizing any particular territory. In collaboration with government ministers or the Etalab, which is responsible for the open public data portal, this is the case of a number of digital innovations proposing: tools for visualizing data on prostate cancer (FPI36); a digital dictionary of Egyptology (FPI138); or cultural production offering an unprecedented compilation of elements (FPI054). It is furthermore also the case of:

training and meeting projects, such as the invitation sent by La 27 e Région to a small group of public officials from different fields to reflect on the work of the elected official (FPI199); the production of use scenarios regarding the reduction in the energy divide as part of research overseen by la Cité du Design (FPI099); the stage design of a temporary exhibition on food (FPI152); or the production of reports intended to clarify public decisions regarding sustainable development (FPI011). This understanding of the territory and of the public nevertheless seems to correspond to a minority, and involves less than 15% of all FPI examined.

We have just described four ways of conceiving of public innovation by design. It is worthwhile to consider these orientation trends, without the problem framings that they describe necessarily being mutually exclusive of one another. Furthermore, certain FPI appear to combine the features of many of them: creating a waste sorting and recovery centre for a community of rural communes in Limousin pertains both to the issue of the use and management of waste infringing on a specific territory, and to the creation of public facilities for local governments (FPI166); the rearrangement of the workspaces of a maternity ward at the Strasbourg CHU simultaneously addresses the issues of public facilities for women giving birth that the innovation intends to set up at the centre, and challenges regarding the organization of professionals' work (FPI002) (Table 6, Figure 3). would call "just a fad"? How can we not think of the multitude of management tools and managerial approaches -quality circles, total quality control, the "six sigma" method, etc. -whose life cycles have been described by research, including their beginning, their peak, and then their decline (Abrahamson and Fairchild, 1999)? Is it not possible that the inventory of FPI in our database itself follows such a trajectory, by revealing, following a growth phase, a certain decline in the number of experiments currently underway? While the answer remains open, we note that, contrary to the management tools just mentioned, service design approaches do not align themselves solely with one hitherto unseen methodology. They originate from a professional environment capable of giving original substance to the phenomenon that we are examining here, and for some their promoters advocate a veritable political vision of the transformation of public action.

The second element with which we wish to conclude concerns the quality of the phenomenon observed. While it cannot be denied that there exist design approaches within public services, the issues that are inspired by them nonetheless take on evolving forms. Among the four ways of conceiving of innovation that we have identified, the FPI that are created based on the issues of space and participation are in clear decline after having experienced the most growth. On the other hand, FPI mobilizing design from the point of view of organizational issues internal to the government appear to be experiencing constant growth (Figure 4). Is this a case of the shift of the objects of designers' interventions, transitioning from service design to process design? However, while it is possible to put the services provided by a government or its organization to the test of design methods, are there limits that make it more difficult to deploy the approaches proposed at other levels, such as public policies? Can everything be "designed"?

Bibliographic references

Abrahamson , E. and Fairchild, G., (1999)

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1 : Chronological evolution of FPI (2006-2015). Data source : FIP-Explo database

  Figure 2: Distribution of FPI within local governments, source: FIP-Explo Database

  indicates, is that only around half of the approaches inventoried (96 out of 194 approaches surveyed) actually call upon other disciplines as a complement to design. This challenges the claim of multidisciplinarity mentioned above. That being said, by looking at the nature of the FPI pertaining to the work of the designer alone, we can posit that these are often onetime interventions (most likely with limited financing), such as the facilitation of meetings or seminars, at which the designer essentially has the function of facilitating and producing media intended for collective creativity.

(

  *) The data exceeds the 204 FPI in the corpus because a minority of them simultaneously correspond to multiple problem framings.

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 3: FPI and their problem framing

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 4: Chronological evolution of the problem framing of FPI (2006-2015), source: FIP-Explo Database

  of public spaces or participatory approaches inviting the inhabitants of a neighbourhood to rethink certain facilities, brought together designers to work with town planners, plastic artists, architects, or social sciences researchers for the first time. The major feat lies not only in these unprecedented combinations; it is also

	contained in the novel production of a discourse of legitimization by design, the
	methodologies of which appeared inspiring. The second period corresponded to
	strong growth of the phenomenon, when the number of FPI observed constantly
	increased over five years (n=139). This expansion, based on the entry in force of
	designers into projects, very generally corresponds to the structuring of a
	professional milieu that is clearly visible elsewhere as well: the entry onto the scene
	of a number of actors playing a strategic role in the steering of projects, such as La
	27 e Région in 2008 or La Cité du Design in 2010; the establishment of international
	networks of similar experiences such as the DESIS (Design for Social Innovation and
	Sustainability) network created 2009; and the more active role played by design
	schools and universities (Le

-Social, cultural and security public services 18

		Number	Total	%
	A.-Central government and similar		25
	Ministries	21
	National authorities and agencies	04		10 %
	B.-Territorial entities and similar		149
	Regional councils	56
	Departmental councils	38		59 %
	Communes, cities, inter-municipal associations	53
	Public development establishments	02
	C.-Public hospital services		20
	Hospitals	13		8%
	Retirement homes	07
	D.-Public research and training services		31
	Schools	21
	Universities	08		12 %
	CEA [atomic and alternative energy commission]	02
	E.Social Security funds	02
	Pôle Emploi [French employment agency]	01
	DRAC [Regional cultural affairs department]	04
	Emergency housing centres	02		7 %
	Social centres	01
	Museums	04
	OPAC [Public development and construction bureaus]	01
	Regional nature parks	02
	Paris fire brigade	01
	F.-Public companies		09
	SNCF [French national railway company]	02
	EDF [French national electricity company]	03		4 %
	La Poste [French national postal service]	04
	Total	252 (*)	252 (*)	100 %
	Table 1: FPI and their public actors
	(*) The total exceeds the 204 FPI because each one may apply to multiple public actors.

Table 2 :

 2

Public sectors of activity involved in FPI, source: FIP-Explo Database Clearly, we must not grant too much importance to the details of the numbers indicated, which are largely dependent on the chosen nomenclature and the definition of the categories. For example, "urban planning" FPI appear to be the large majority, but this category encompasses all FPI involving the transformation and development of the public space, which can explain such a result. In reality, this intentionally very broad definition encompasses relatively varied actions: the development of train stations, green spaces, urban spaces in relation to disabilities, and so on.

Table 3 :

 3 Frequency of multidisciplinary in FPI, source: FIP-Explo Database

	Disciplines associated with design	Number Total
	Social sciences and humanities	75
	Sociology	35
	Ethnology-anthropology	11
	Management, economics, political science and similar	20
	Other social sciences and humanities (psychology, philosophy, etc.)	09
	Science and techniques of architecture, urban planning, and	44
	engineering
	Architecture and similar	17
	Urban planning and territorial development	04
	Engineering sciences	23
	Arts and artistic techniques	26
	Visual, plastic, photo, and video arts	21
	Dramatic arts: dance, theatre, stage design	05
	Sciences and techniques of education, mediation, and	07
	communication
	TOTAL	152

Out of the 96 observed cases of multi-disciplinarity, we have attempted to provide an initial view of the types of association between the discipline and design, by grouping into disciplines (which are necessarily debatable) (Table

4)

Table 4 :

 4 Association of other disciplines with design, source: FIP-Explo Database

Table 6 :

 6 FPI and their problem framing

This Research Project FIP-EXPLO (ANR-13-SOIN-0003) was funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR).

We simply refer to this as FPI in the remainder of the text, to remain consistent with the acronym chosen at the beginning of the research.

More specifically, to investigate these four main categories of variables, we attempted to identify different items: regarding the identity of the FPI, we were able to provide the title, the scope of action, the place, and the date of the project. Regarding its nature, we included the public sector concerned, the type of action carried out, and the intended goal of the approach. Regarding the public actors involved, we included the institutions or actors concerned, and noted the possible presence of an intermediary structure, as well as the people involved among external stakeholders. Regarding knowledge, we established the list of disciplines displayed for each project when we were able to do so, based on the information available to us.

For example, artistic approaches at schools, hospitals, or local development, are part of a long history


Fanny Pascual
email: fanny.pascual@lip6.fr.

Speaker) † Krzysztof Rzadca

Optimizing egalitarian performance in the side-effects model of colocation for data center resource management

Introduction

The modern data center, the back-bone of cloud computing, redefines how industry and academia use computers. In data centers, up to dozens of tasks are colocated on a single physical machine [START_REF] Reiss | Heterogeneity and dynamicity of clouds at scale: Google trace analysis[END_REF]. Machines are used more efficiently, but, despite significant advances in both OS-level fairness and VM hypervisors, tasks' performance deteriorates [START_REF] Podzimek | Analyzing the impact of cpu pinning and partial cpu loads on performance and energy efficiency[END_REF], as colocated tasks compete for shared resources. Suspects include difficulties in sharing CPU cache or the memory bandwidth. As tasks are heterogeneous (CPU-, memory-, network-or disk-intensive), the resulting performance dependencies are complex. The data center resource manager should thus try to colocate tasks that are compatible, i.e., that use different kinds of resources -it should thus optimize tasks' performance. This, however, requires a performance model.

Our side-effects model [START_REF] Pascual | Partition with side effects[END_REF] bridges the gap between colocation in datacenters and classic scheduling, bulk of which has been developed for non-shared machines. Rather than trying to predict tasks' performance from OS-level metrics, we abstract by characterizing a task by two characteristics: its type (e.g.: a database, or a computationally-intensive job) and its load relative to other tasks of the same type (e.g.: number of requests per second). For each type we then use a performance function mapping a vector of loads (an element being the total load of tasks of a certain type) to a type-relevant performance metric. As datacenters execute multiple instances of tasks we believe that such function can be inferred by a monitoring module matching task's reported performance (such as the 95th percentile response time) with observed or reported loads.

Our Results

In this work, we consider optimization of the worst-off performance (analogous to makespan in classic multiprocessor scheduling problem, P ||C max ). We use a linear performance function: on each machine, the influence a type t has on t's performance is a product of the load of type t and a coefficient α t ,t . The coefficient α t ,t describes how compatible t load is with t performance (the coefficient is similar to interference/affinity metrics proposed in [START_REF] Podzimek | Analyzing the impact of cpu pinning and partial cpu loads on performance and energy efficiency[END_REF]). Low values (0 ≤ α t ,t < 1) describe small impact, thus compatible types (e.g.: colocating a memory-intensive and a CPU-intensive task): it is preferable to colocate a task t with tasks of the other type t , rather than with other tasks of its own type t. High values (α t ,t > 1) denote incompatible types competing for resources, i.e., less incentive to colocate (at least from the tasks' owner's point of view).

Our main results are the following (see [START_REF] Pascual | Optimizing egalitarian performance in the side-effects model of colocation for data center resource management[END_REF] for proofs). We prove that the notion of type adds complexity, as makespan minimization with unit tasks P |p i = 1|C max (a polynomially solvable variant of P ||C max ) becomes NP-hard and hard to approximate when the number of types T is not constant.

We then show how to cope with that added complexity. First, we propose a PTAS for a constant T . Our PTAS has a similar structure to the PTAS for P ||C max [START_REF] Hochbaum | Using dual approximation algorithms for scheduling problems theoretical and practical results[END_REF]. The two main differences are the treatment of short tasks (which we pack into containers, and not simply greedy schedule); and sizing of long tasks.

We also propose a fast greedy approximation algorithm. The algorithm groups tasks by clusters. All the tasks of the same type are in the same cluster. Two tasks of type i and j are in the same cluster iff their types are compatible (α i,j ≤ 1 and α j,i ≤ 1). Clusters are processed one by one. Each cluster is dedicated at least one machine. The algorithm puts tasks from a cluster on a machine until machine load reaches max{2L, L + p max }, then opens the next machine (L = W/(m -T )).

To characterize in detail the optimal schedules in function of the coefficient α, we study a series of special cases with two types. We identify two tipping points, i.e., values of α for which the shape of the optimal schedule changes. For 0 ≤ α ≤ 1, all machines should be shared between types (if possible). For 1 < α < 2, there are some instances that share all machines, but for divisible load (i.e., many small tasks), there is at most one shared machine. Finally, for α ≥ 2 at most one machine is shared. For each case, we show fast approximation algorithms.

In addition to worst-case performance proofs, we test our algorithm by simulation on a trace derived from one of Google clusters. We show that our algorithms lead to more efficient allocations compared with P ||C max baseline.