IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02570321.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What does the proof-of-concept (POC) really prove? A historical perspective and a cross-domain analytical study
[Qu'est-ce que la preuve de concept (POC) prouve vraiment ? Perspective historique et étude analytique intersectorielle]

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline Jobin

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Sophie Hooge

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Pascal Le Masson

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Even though proof-of-concept (POC) has become a common practice of organizations in decision-making, and internal and external coordination processes, the literature on strategic management has so far little taken on the subject. In this paper, we looked at the following questions: Where does the concept of ‘proof-of-concept' come from and how has it evolved over time? How does ‘proof-of-concept' relate to a peculiar category of proof? To answer these questions, we first conducted a historical perspective of the genesis of the concept, namely in the U.S. aerospace and aeronautical ecosystem. Then, we conducted an analytical study of the transfer of the notion in the ecosystems of biomedical, public research, new product development / innovation / entrepreneurship and finally information technologies. This paper showed that the term, which was born in the 1960s, gradually met with success in contexts where new actors had to be brought into the previously highly integrated design value chain, and this often upstream. In this sense, POC, as proof of validation and exploration, appears to be a particularly useful tool for ‘buyers' and ‘sellers' in processes with an exploratory dimension.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline Jobin & Sophie Hooge & Pascal Le Masson, 2020. "What does the proof-of-concept (POC) really prove? A historical perspective and a cross-domain analytical study [Qu'est-ce que la preuve de concept (POC) prouve vraiment ? Perspective historique et," Post-Print hal-02570321, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02570321
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-02570321v2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-02570321v2/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rohan Bennett & Todd Miller & Mark Pickering & Al-Karim Kara, 2021. "Hybrid Approaches for Smart Contracts in Land Administration: Lessons from Three Blockchain Proofs-of-Concept," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    POC; TRL; Design; Validation; Exploration; Conception;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02570321. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.