Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:28:12.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Management Does to Space Projects: The Franco-Soviet Project ARCAD 3 in the Late 1970s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2011

Jérôme Lamy
Jérôme Lamy*
Affiliation:
Université de Toulouse II – Le Mirail
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

Space projects represent, after World War II, the archetype of large-scale organization of scientific practices that are flexible, temporary, and oriented towards specific goals. A new form of activity, the project, emerged through the management of technical means, allocation of skills, and coordination of various players. Project management emerged as the synthesis of a set of social practices designed to subordinate as well as synchronize the initiatives of researchers, engineers, and technicians who had temporarily joined forces. This article presents the genesis and deployment of the Franco-Soviet space program ARCAD 3 whose purpose was to study the magnetosphere with a satellite. This study is situated at the junction of three historiographical dimensions: scientific writings, links between action and graphic forms, and Big Science. The diagrams, organization charts and schedules produced by the French space agency throughout the entire project form the documentary substrata of this analysis. These graphic management tools define the role of each player, designate fields of competence, and specify the temporality of actions. A self-monitoring system as well as surveillance instrument, diagrams, organization charts and schedules are linked to form a certain vision of authority along the lines of the “neoliberal governmentality” defined by Michel Foucault. By defining in advance and in writing all the possible (or impossible) relationships, the chronological order of activities as well as the actions to be performed, graphic project management tools contribute to the transfer of coercive panoptic mechanisms towards a minimal organization of relationships between individuals.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 545 - 586
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agemben, Giorgio. 1997. Homo Sacer I Le pouvoir souverain et la vie nue. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
Akrich, Madeleine. 1993. “Les objets techniques et leurs utilisateurs, de la conception à l'action. Raisons pratiques 93:35–57.Google Scholar
Anthony, Robert N. 1965. Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Boston: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Archibald, Russel D. 1976. Managing High Technology Programs and Projects. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Balebanov, V. M., Galperin, T. I., Lavrussevich, V. V., Minaev, V. P., Skorodumov, V. N., Beljaev, G. G., Goljavin, A. M., Mogilevsky, M. M., Pjankov, V. V., Sobolev, J. P., Dee, V. I., Galakhov, A. A., Jurov, V. E., and Perlikov, A. M.. 1982. “Reception and recording facilities of the French wide-band telemetry from the AUREOL-3 satellite for the Soviet ground stations.” Annales de Géophysique 38 (5):697–705.Google Scholar
Barberousse, Anouk and Pinon, Laurent. 2003. “Activité scientifique et écriture.” Genesis 20:7–18.Google Scholar
Barry, Andrew. 2001. Political Machines. Governing a Technological Society. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of Experimental Article in Science. Madison: University Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Béghin, Christian. 1970. “Excitation et mesure de la résonance hybride basse à 1’aide d'une sonde quadripolaire embarquée sur fusée.” Compte Rendu à l'Académie des Sciences 270:431–434.Google Scholar
Béghin, Christian, Berthelier, Jean-Jacques, and Simon, Pierre. 2008. “Développements instrumentaux.” In Les débuts de la recherche spatiale française. Au temps des fusées sondes, 299–302. Paris: Editions Edite.Google Scholar
Berthelot, Jean-Michel, ed. 2003. Figures du texte scientifique. Paris: PUR.Google Scholar
Bertrams, Kenneth. 2006. Universités et entreprises. Milieux académiques et industriels en Belgique, 1880–1970. Bruxelles: Le Cri édition.Google Scholar
Biagioli, Mario and Galison, Peter, eds. 2003. Scientific Authorship. Credit and Intellectual Property in Science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boltanski, Luc. 1982. Les cadres. La formation d'un groupe social. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Boltanski, Luc and Chiapello, Eve. 1999. Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Julie. 2008. Comment le retard vient aux Français. Analyse d'un discours sur la recherche, l'innovation et la compétitivité 1940–1970. Villeneuve d'Asq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2001. Science de la science et réflexivité. Paris: Raisons d'agir.Google Scholar
Boutinet, Jean-Pierre. 1990. Anthropologie du projet. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Boutinet, Jean-Pierre. 2004. Vers une société des agendas. Une mutation de temporalités. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Bowker, Geoffrey C. and Star, Susan Leigh. 2000. Sorting Things Out. Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck-Morris, Susan. 1995. “Envisioning Capital Political Economy on Display.” Critical Inquiry 21 (2):434–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck-Morris, Susan. 2010. Voir le capital. Théorie critique et culture visuelle. Paris: Les prairies ordinaries.Google Scholar
Callon, Michel. 2006. “Writing and (Re)writing Devices as Tools for Managing Complexity.” In Complexities. Social Studies of Knowledge Practices, edited by Law, John and Mol, Annemarie, 191–217. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Robert W. 1972. “Management Spillovers from Soviet Space and Military Programmes.” Soviet Studies 23 (4):586–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capshew, James. H. and Rader, Karen A.. 1992. “Big Science: Price to the Present.” Osiris 7:2–25.Google Scholar
Charles, G., Dupic, J., Ferreol, M., Fournier, D., Kosik, J. C., Maslov, V. V., Monchy, D., Porkras, V. M., and Viltchinskaia, A. S.. 1982. “French-Soviet data processing system for ARCAD-3 experiments.” Annales de Géophysique 38 (5):713–723.Google Scholar
Charvolin, Florian. 2003. L'invention de l'environnement en France. Chroniques anthropologiques d'une institutionnalisation. Paris: La Découverte.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatriot, Alain and Duclert, Vincent, eds. 2006. Le gouvernement de la recherche. Histoire d'un engagement politique de Pierre Mendès France à Charles de Gaulle (1953–1969). Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Chvidchenko, Ivan. 1971. “Introduction.” In Large space programs management. La gestion des grands programmes spatiaux. Proceedings of the European Colloquium organized by the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales, edited by Chvidchenko, Ivan, xvii–xxi. London: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Chvidchenko, Ivan. 1974. Gestion des grands projets spatiaux. Toulouse: Epadues édition.Google Scholar
Cleland, David I. and King, William R.. 1971. L'analyse de systèmes. Techniques avancée de management. Paris: Entreprise Moderne d'Edition.Google Scholar
Cohen, Yves. 2003. “Scientific Management and the Production Process.” In Companion to Science in the Twentieth Century, edited by Krige, John and Pestre, Dominique, 111–125. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Courpasson, David. 2000. L'action contrainte. Organisations libérales et domination. Paris: PUF.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crozier, Michel and Friedberg, Erhard. 1977. L'acteur et le système. Les contraintes de l'action collective. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
Dardot, Pierre and Laval, Christian. 2009. La nouvelle raison du monde. Essai sur la société néolibérale. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
De Gaulejac, Vincent. 2009. La société malade de la gestion. Idéologie gestionnaire, pouvoir managérial et harcèlement social. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Declerck, Roger P., Eymery, Pierre, and Crener, Maxime A.. 1980. Le management stratégique des projets. Paris: Editions Hommes et Techniques.Google Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles. 1990. Pourparlers 1972–1990. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Denord, François. 2007. Néolibéralisme version française. Histoire d'une idéologie politique. Paris: Demopolis.Google Scholar
Dodier, Nicolas. 1993. “Les appuis conventionnels de l'action. Eléments de pragmatique sociologique.” Réseaux 62:63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downing, John. 1985. “The Intersputnik System and Soviet Television.” Soviet Studies 37 (4):465–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. 1991. La Révolution de l'imprimé dans l'Europe des premiers temps modernes. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Forman, Paul. 2007. “The Primacy of Science in Modernity, of Technology in Postmodernity, and of Ideology in the History of Technology?” History and Technology 23 (1–2):1–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1975. Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1984. “Questions et réponses.” In Michel Foucault. Un parcours philosophique, edited by Dreyfus, Hubert and Rabinow, Paul, 291–321. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2001a. “La gouvernementalité.” In Dits et écrits, vol. 2, 635–657. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2001b. “La technologie politique des individus.” In Dits et écrits vol. 2, 1632–1647. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2004. Naissance de la biopolitique. Paris: Gallimard and Seuil.Google Scholar
Galbraith, Jay R. 1971. “Matrix organization designs. How to combine functional and project forms.” Business Horizons. February: 20–40.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter. 1997. Image and Logic. A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Galperin, Y. I., Reme, H., Béghin, C., Berthelier, J.–J., and Bosquet, J.-M.. 1982. “The ARCAD-3 Projet.” Annales de Géophysique 38 (5):543–546.Google Scholar
Garel, Gilles. 2003. Le management de projet. Paris: La Découverte.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelinier, Octave. 1967. Fonctions et tâches de direction générale. Paris: Editions Hommes et Techniques.Google Scholar
Gerovitch, Slava. 2002. From Newspeak to Cyberspeak. A History of Soviet Cybernetics. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilpin, Robert. 1970. La Science et l'État en France. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Carlo. 1987. “Traces. Racines d'un paradigme indiciaire.” In Mythes, Emblèmes, Traces, 139–179. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1973. La mise en scène de la vie quotidienne. 1. La présentation de soi. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Goodman, Richard Alan. 1967. “Ambiguous Authority Definition in Project Management.” Academy of Management Journal 10 (4):395–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goody, Jack. 1979. La raison graphique. La domestication de la pensée sauvage. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Goody, Jack. 1986. La logique de l'écriture. Aux origines des sociétés humaines. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Graber, Frédéric. 2007. “Obvious Decisions: Decision-Making French Ponts-et-Chaussées Engineers around 1800.” Social Studies of Science 37 (6):935–960.Google Scholar
Graber, Frédéric. 2009. Paris a besoin d'eau. Projet dispute et délibération technique dans la France napoléonienne. Paris: CNRS Editions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hameury, G., Chene, J., Lamboley, M., Lyseenko, I. N., and Massay, J.. 1982. “Scientific French and Franco-Soviet experiment control and data transmission aboard the AUREOL-3 satellite.” Annales de Géophysique 38 (5):557–566.Google Scholar
Hatchuel, Armand. 1996. “Coopération et conception collective. Variétés et crises des rapports de prescription.” In Coopération et conception, edited by Tersac, Gilbert de and Friedberg, Erhard, 101–121. Toulouse: Octares Editions.Google Scholar
Horwitch, Mel. 1979. “Designing and Managing Large-Scale, Public-Private Technological Entreprises: A State of the Art Review.” Technology and Society 1:179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwitch, Mel. 1987. “Grands programmes: l'expérience américaine.” Revue française de gestion 62:54–69.Google Scholar
Hoskin, Keith. 1998. “Examining Accounts for Management: Inverting Understandings of the Economic.” In Foucault, Management and Organization Theory, edited by MacKinlay, Alan and Starkey, Ken, 93–110. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hughes, Jeff. 2002. The Manhattan Project. Big Science and the Atom Bomb. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, Thomas P. 1998. “L'histoire comme système en évolution.” Annales HSS 53 (4–5):839–857.Google Scholar
Johnson, Stephen B. 2006. The Secret of Apollo. Systems Management in American and European Space Programs. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Jordan, Kathleen and Lynch, Michael. 1996. “Rituel et rationalité dans l'exécution de la préparation des plasmides.” In La matérialité des savoirs. Savoir-faire et instruments dans les sciences de la vie, edited by Clarke, Adele and Fujimura, Joan, 107–153. Paris: Synthélabo.Google Scholar
Kerzner, Harold. 1979. Project Management. A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling and Controlling. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.Google Scholar
Khmyrov, B. E., Kavelin, S. S., Popel, A. M., Lyssenko, I. N., Pollusksov, I. M., Varyvdin, V. S., Rodin, K. V., and Ovsyanikov, V. V.. 1982. “The AUREOL-3.” Annales de Géophysique 38 (5):547–556.Google Scholar
Krige, John. 2006. American Hegemony and the Postwar Reconstruction of Science in Europe. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lallement, Michel. 2007. Le travail. Une sociologie contemporaine. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1985. “Les ‘vues’ de l'esprit. Une introduction à l'anthropologie des sciences et des techniques.” Culture Technique 12:5–29.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1995. La science en action. Introduction à la sociologie des sciences. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno and Woolgar, Steve. 1996. La vie de laboratoire. La production des faits scientifiques. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Latterner, C. C., Dresdner, D. M., Spiech, J. A., and Uslan, G. M.. 1964. La méthode PERT. Paris: Entreprise Moderne d'Edition.Google Scholar
Long, Pamela O. 2001. Openness, Secrecy, Authorship: Technical Arts and the Culture of Knowledge from Antiquity to Renaissance. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Lordon, Frédéric. 2010. Capitalisme, désir et servitude. Marx et Spinoza. Paris, La Fabrique éditions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Michael and Woolgar, Steve. 1988. “Introduction: Sociological orientations to representational practice in science.” Human Studies 11:99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, Donald and Wajcman, Judy. 1996. “Other areas of study.” In The Social Shaping of Technology, edited by MacKenzie, Donald and Wajcman, Judy, 295–307. Buckingham UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, Donald. 1998. Inventing Accuracy. A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McKinlay, Ken and Starkey, Alan, eds. 1998. Foucault, Management and Organization Theory. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Mee, John F. 1964. “Ideational items. Matrix organization.” Business Horizons 7 (2):70–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintzberg, Henry. 1982. Structure et dynamique des organisations. Paris: Editions d'Organisation.Google Scholar
Newton, David E. 1988. U.S. and Soviet Space Programs. A Comparison. New York: Franklin Watt.Google Scholar
Packwood, Bob, ed. 1982. Soviet Space Programs: 1976–80. Supporting Vehicle, Political Goals and Purposes, International Cooperation in Space, Administration, Resource Burden, Future Outlook. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Parker, Martin. 2009. “Space Age Management.” Management & Organizational History 4 (3):17–332.Google Scholar
Pestre, Dominique. 1992a. Physique et physiciens en France, 1918–1940. Paris: Éditions des Archives Contemporaines.Google Scholar
Pestre, Dominique. 1992b.“Les physiciens dans les sociétés occidentales de l'après guerre. Une mutation des pratiques techniques et des comportements sociaux et culturels.” Revue d'Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine 39 (1):56–72.Google Scholar
Pestre, Dominique. 2004. “Le nouvel univers des sciences et des techniques: une proposition générale.” In Les sciences pour la guerre 1940–1960, edited by Dahan, Amy and Pestre, Dominique, 11–47. Paris: Editions de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.Google Scholar
Pontille, David. 2004. La signature scientifique. Une sociologie pragmatique de l'atribution. Paris: CNRS éditions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramunni, Girolamo. 1992. “La mise en place d'une politique scientifique.” In De Gaulle en son siècle. Actes des Journées Internationales tenues l'UNESCO, Paris, 19–24 novembre 1990. Vol III: Moderniser la France, 653–713. Paris: La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
Revel, Jacques. 1990. “L'Histoire au ras du sol.” In Le pouvoir au village, edited by Lévi, Giovanni, i–xxxiii. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Rey, Marie-Pierre. 1991. La tentation du rapprochement. France et URSS à l'heure de la détente (1964–1974). Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne.Google Scholar
Roman, Daniel D. 1962. “The PERT System: An Appraisal of Program Evaluation Review Techniques.” Journal of Academy Management 5 (1):57–65.Google Scholar
Rosholt, Robert L. 1966. An Administrative History of NASA, 1958–1963. Washington DC: NASA.Google Scholar
Sayles, Leonard R. and Chandler, Margaret K.. 1971. Managing Large Systems. Organizations for the Future. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Schoderbek, Peter. 1965. “A Study of the Applications of PERT.” Journal of Academy Management 8 (3):199–210.Google Scholar
Sicard, P. 1967. Pratique du PERT. Méthode de contrôle des délais et des coûts. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
Smith, Robert W. and Tatarewicz, Joseph N.. 1994. “Counting on Invention: Devices and Black Boxes in Very Big Science.” Osiris 9:101–123.Google Scholar
Solla Price, Derek de. 1963. Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, Lucy. 1988. “Representing practice in cognitive science.” Human Studies 11:305–325.Google Scholar
Suchman, Lucy. 1995. “Making Work Visible.” Communications of the ACM 38 (9):56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarasenko, Maxim V. 1994. “Transformation of the Soviet Space Program after the Cold War.” Science and Global Security 4:339–361.Google Scholar
Terrel, Jean. 2010. Politiques de Foucault. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Thévenot, Laurent. 1990. “L'action qui convient.” Raisons pratiques 1:39–69.Google Scholar
Vaïsse, Maurice. 1995. Les relations internationales depuis 1945. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Vardaman, George T. and Halterman, Carroll C., eds. 1968. Managerial Control Through Communication. Systems for Organizational Diagnosis and Design. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Vaughan, Diane. 1999. “The Role of the Organization in the Production of Techno-Scientific Knowledge.” Social Studies of Science 29 (6):913–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verger, Fernand, Sourbès-Verger, Isabelle, and Ghirardi, Raymon. 2003. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Space. Missions, Applications and Exploration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Waring, Stephen P. 1991. Taylorism Transformed. Scientific Management Theory since 1945. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Webb, James E. 1970. “NASA as an Adaptive Organization.” In Technological Change and Management. The John, Diebold Lectures 1968–1970, edited by David, E. Ewing, 109–144. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Whitley, Richard D. 1984. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wille, Horst, Gewald, Klaus, and Weber, Hans-Dieter. 1971. L'analyse des projets pour les réseaux. Méthodes PERT, CPM et MPC. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
Yates, JoAnne. 1993. Control Trough Communication. The Rise of System in American Management. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar