Stakeholder Involvement Guidelines to Improve the Design Process of Assistive Technology

Author(s):  
Leo Galway ◽  
Sonja O’Neill ◽  
Mark Donnelly ◽  
Chris Nugent ◽  
Sally McClean ◽  
...  
2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Galway ◽  
Sonja O’Neill ◽  
Mark Donnelly ◽  
Chris Nugent ◽  
Sally McClean ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Marierose Van Dooren ◽  
Valentijn Visch ◽  
Renske Spijkerman ◽  
Richard Goossens ◽  
Vincent Hendriks

Personalization, the involvement of stakeholders in the design process, is often applied in serious game design for health. It is expected to enhance the alignment of a game to the preferences and capacities of the end-user, thereby increasing the end-user’s motivation to interact with the game, which finally might enhance the aimed-for health effects of the game. However, the nature and effect of personalization have never been systematically studied, making assumptions regarding personalization ungrounded. In this literature review, we firstly provide a proposal of our Personalized Design Process-model, where personalization is defined as stakeholder involvement in the Problem Definition-, Product Design- and/or Tailoring Phase. Secondly, we conducted a systematic literature review on this model, focusing on health and its effects. In this review, 62 of the 2579 found studies were included. Analysis showed that a minority of the studies were of methodologically higher quality and some of these tested the health effect by contrasting tailored versus non-tailored games. Most studies involved stakeholders in the Tailoring Design Phase. Therefore, we conclude that involving stakeholders in the Tailoring Phase is valuable. However, to know if personalization is effective in the Product Design- and the Problem Definition Phase, more studies are needed.


Author(s):  
Birgitta Cappelen ◽  
Anders-Petter Andersson

Technology has potential for improving the lives of persons with severe disabilities. But it’s a challenge to create technology that improves lives from a person’s own perspective. Co-design methods have therefore been used in the design of Assistive Technology, to include users in the design process. But it’s a challenge to ensure the quality of participation with persons with significantly different prerequisites for communication than ourselves. It’s hard to know if what we design is good for them in the way they themselves define it, in a communication situation, which has to be significantly different than traditional co-design. In this paper, we present a new approach to co-design with persons with severe disabilities. We call this process “trans-create”, based on the creative translation we use when translating between cultures. We found that by using familiar artifacts that could be added and removed in the co-design process, we had a language for communication. By adding a personalisable digital layer to the artifacts, we could adapt, scale and redesign both tangible, visual and sound qualities in the situation dynamically. For example, by making it possible for the user to choose and activate a pink music cover card (RFID) that turns the lighting of the entire room pink and changes the music. This implies changing the distinction between designer and user, between the design process and the use process, and the view of what we create during a co-design process. That is why we have chosen to call this process “trans-create”, instead of co-create, what we create for “living works”, instead of design, a hybridisation between design and use, process and result.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 132
Author(s):  
Belinda R. Musodza ◽  
Elphinah N. Cishe ◽  
Neziwe Mapangwana

The design of a performance evaluation system should ideally be inclusive and participatory to enhance stakeholders’ buy-in, acceptance and ownership of the system, whilst at the same time, ensure relevance and sustainability of the process.  This paper examines the design process of the teacher evaluation system in one education district of Zimbabwe. The study intended to establish the extent of teacher involvement in the design of the evaluation system and to determine the relationship between the design process and effectiveness of the evaluation system. The study used the convergent mixed method design. A quantitative sample of 292 teachers and a qualitative sample of 12 educators, namely teachers, heads of departments and school heads drawn from 10 secondary schools participated in the study. Quantitative data were analysed using SPSS version 26 and descriptive and inferential statistics were conducted. Atlas ti. 8 was used to analyse the qualitative data. The study established that the design process was exclusive and non-participatory, which led to lack of ownership and buy-in by the teachers. Based on these findings, it was concluded that the design process was faulty and negatively impacted the effectiveness of the teacher performance evaluation system. The study recommends that policy formulation should be inclusive and pilot tested to allow input of the users before full scale implementation.   Received: 14 October 2020 / Accepted: 29 March 2021 / Published: 10 May 2021


Author(s):  
Mark Goudswaard ◽  
Hannah Forbes ◽  
Lee Kent ◽  
Chris Snider ◽  
Ben Hicks

AbstractThe democratisation of design permits greater stakeholder involvement in what has traditionally been a domain reserved for experts; the design process itself. This is enabled by technological advances in fields such as 3D printing, virtual reality and high-speed peer to peer communication technologies which have fuelled the development of new and innovative design methods. This paper compares and contrasts different approaches to the democratisation of design, and in particular, those that aim to involve wider stakeholders in the design process itself. Three different approaches(design by play, design by generation and crowdsourcing for design) are defined and contextualised within existing design frameworks and their respective suitabilities to democratise different design phases are considered. An exemplar use case of each approach is presented in order to assess how stakeholder engagement is affected by each democratising strategy. The discussion compares and contrasts the approaches with respect to their applicability and utility for different stages of the design process and how the power dynamics of the design process are altered when the different approaches are employed.


2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 289-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoya Evans Kpamma ◽  
Theophilus Adjei-Kumi ◽  
Joshua Ayarkwa ◽  
Emmanuel Adinyira

Purpose The phenomenon of wicked problems is inextricably associated with a design process, especially participatory design. The management of wicked problems in participatory design, however, remains largely unexplored. The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of the choosing by advantages (CBA) decision system to manage wicked problems in participatory design. Design/methodology/approach Two case studies, involving the application of CBA to make typical participatory design decisions, are evaluated to establish how responsively the CBA decision system operates in the midst of wicked problems in participatory design. Findings Findings point to the exploitability of some elements and attributes of the CBA process to manage wicked problems in participatory design, to some extent. The observed collaborative attributes of CBA is particularly helpful and play a key role in mitigating the adverse effects of wicked problems on collaboration in this regard. Practical implications The recommendation of the paper is the incorporation of CBA in the development of stakeholder involvement frameworks for a design process. Originality/value This paper contributes to knowledge on relying on elements and the attributes of a decision-making system, such as CBA, to manage stakeholder involvement in the design process, particularly focussing on wicked problems. The CBA decision system still remains emergent regarding its application and research in the AEC industry.


2002 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Seale ◽  
Claudine McCreadie ◽  
Alan Turner-Smith ◽  
Anthea Tinker

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document