No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Evaluating Innovative Projects for and with Elderly People: Insights from Participatory Design Contests
Part of:
User-Centred Design
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 July 2019
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Societies are challenged worldwide to maintain or improve the life of an ageing population. In the meantime, it is an opportunity for businesses to develop products and services for the elderly. Participatory design - or co-design - promotes not only to design for, but also with and by older adults. Current studies tend to emphasize more field investigations and co-ideation than evaluation of co- designed outcomes with seniors. We are interested in two 24 hours-innovation contests in 2017 and 2018, yearly involving 10 teams of 3 students, elderly persons as potential beneficiaries and innovation experts. The aim of this paper is to analyse the variability of evaluation of generated projects between the elderly people and the innovation experts. The comparative analysis relies on the grades and ranking of projects against five criteria. Results show that elderly people provide consistent evaluations, but with a positioning slightly shifted compared to the experts. We conclude on recommendations for the evaluation process with a jury including seniors.
Keywords
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 3861 - 3870
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- © The Author(s) 2019
References
Astebro, T. (2004), “Key success factors for technological entrepreneur’ R&D Project”, IEEE Transactions on engineering management, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 314–321.Google Scholar
Boatwright, P. and Cagan, J. (2010), Built to Love: Creating Products That Captivate Customers, Berrett-Koehler, (Ed.), ISBN: 978-1605096988.Google Scholar
Brubaker, E., Reynolds, J., Carl, S., Sunday, S., Sheri, D. and Yang, M. (2017), “Co-design in Zambia - an examination of design outcomes”, 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17), Vancouver, Canada, 21-25.08.Google Scholar
Buur, J. and Matthews, B. (2008), “Participatory innovation”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919608001996Google Scholar
Cooper, R.G. (2001), Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch, Basic Books (Ed.), 3rd edition, ISBN: 978-0738204635.Google Scholar
Dean, D. and Santanen, E. (2006), “Identifying Quality, Novel, and Creative Ideas: Constructs and Scales for Idea Evaluation”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 7 No. 10, pp. 646–699.Google Scholar
Euromonitor (2012), Boomers as Consumers. [Online]. Available at https://www.euromonitor.com/boomers-as-consumers/report (accessed 1/10/18).Google Scholar
European Commission (2015), Silver Economy, Active aging, Business Innovation Observatory.Google Scholar
INSEE (2014), Population par groupes d’âges quinquennaux, Available at https://www.insee.fr.Google Scholar
Jagtap, S. (2018), “Design and Poverty: A Review of Contexts, Roles of Poor People, and Methods”, Research in Engineering Design, pp. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-018-0294-7Google Scholar
Klein, M. and Garcia, A.C. (2015), “High-Speed Idea Filtering with the Bag of Lemons”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 78, pp. 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2015.06.005Google Scholar
Klein, M. and Garcia, A.C. (2015), “High-speed idea filtering with the bag of lemons”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 78, pp. 39–50.Google Scholar
Ruland, C.M., Starren, J. and Vatne, T.M. (2008), “Participatory design with children in the development of a support system for patient-centered care in pediatric oncology”, Journal of biomedical informatics, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 624–635.Google Scholar
Sanders, E.B.-N. and Stappers, P.J. (2008), “Co-creation and the new landscapes of design”, CoDesign, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 5–18.Google Scholar
Shah, J.J., Smith, S.M. and Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2003), “Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness”, Design Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 111–134.Google Scholar
Wallisch, A., Maccioni, L., Trautmann, L., Ostermeyer, E., Borgianni, Y. and Borg, J.C. (2018), “Lessons learnt in designing transportation solutions for elderly people following a participatory approach”, 15th International Design Conference DESIGN, Dubrovnik Croatia, May 21-24.Google Scholar
Wikberg-Nilsson, A., Normark, J., Björklund, C. and Wiklund Axelsson, S. (2018), “Healthcloud - Participatory design of user interfaces for senior people's active aging”. NordDesign 2018, Linköping, Sweden, 14th - 17th August.Google Scholar
Yannou, B., Farel, R., Cluzel, F., et al. (2017), “The UNPC innovativeness set of indicators for idea or project selection and maturation in healthcare”, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, Vol. 5 No. 3–4, pp. 205–221.Google Scholar
Zsarnoczky, M. (2016), “Innovation challenges of the silver economy”, Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 105–109.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access