Introduction: Sensor-feedback systems can be used to support people after stroke during independent practice of gait. The main aim of the study was to describe the user-centred approach to (re)design the user interface of the sensor feedback system “Stappy” for people after stroke, and share the deliverables and key observations from this process. Methods: The user-centred approach was structured around four phases (the discovery, definition, development and delivery phase) which were fundamental to the design process. Fifteen participants with cognitive and/or physical limitations participated (10 women, 2/3 older than 65). Prototypes were evaluated in multiple test rounds, consisting of 2–7 individual test sessions. Results: Seven deliverables were created: a list of design requirements, a personae, a user flow, a low-, medium- and high-fidelity prototype and the character “Stappy”. The first six deliverables were necessary tools to design the user interface, whereas the character was a solution resulting from this design process. Key observations related to “readability and contrast of visual information”, “understanding and remembering information”, “physical limitations” were confirmed by and “empathy” was additionally derived from the design process. Conclusions: The study offers a structured methodology resulting in deliverables and key observations, which can be used to (re)design meaningful user interfaces for people after stroke. Additionally, the study provides a technique that may promote “empathy” through the creation of the character Stappy. The description may provide guidance for health care professionals, researchers or designers in future user interface design projects in which existing products are redesigned for people after stroke.
BACKGROUND: Non-use of and dissatisfaction with ankle foot orthoses (AFOs) occurs frequently. The objective of this study is to gain insight in the conversation during the intake and examination phase, from the clients’ perspective, at two levels: 1) the attention for the activities and the context in which these activities take place, and 2) the quality of the conversation. METHODOLOGY: Semi-structured interviews were performed with 12 AFO users within a two-week period following intake and examination. In these interviews, and subsequent data analysis, extra attention was paid to the needs and wishes of the user, the desired activities and the environments in which these activities take place. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Activities and environments were seldom inquired about or discussed during the intake and examination phase. Also, activities were not placed in the context of their specific environment. As a result, profundity lacks. Consequently, orthotists based their designs on a ‘reduced reality’ because important and valuable contextual information that might benefit prescription and design of assistive devices was missed. A model is presented for mapping user activities and user environments in a systematic way. The term ‘user practices’ is introduced to emphasise the concept of activities within a specific environment.
LINK
Laurence Alpay, Harmen Bijwaard en Rob Doms hebben bijdrage geleverd aan dit boek. zie hoofdstuk 7. Blz. 159 In dit hoofdstuk bekijken we de betekenis van ‘de mens centraal’ bij de ontwikkeling van technologie voor gezondheidszorg en welzijnsbevordering. In de zorg- en welzijnssector zijn door de vergrijzing straks meer professionals nodig, maar deze zijn waarschijnlijk in onvoldoende mate beschikbaar vanwege budgettaire beperkingen en te weinig menskracht. Technologie kan hier een oplossing bieden door taken over te nemen of te vergemakkelijken.
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
A world where technology is ubiquitous and embedded in our daily lives is becoming increasingly likely. To prepare our students to live and work in such a future, we propose to turn Saxion’s Epy-Drost building into a living lab environment. This will entail setting up and drafting the proper infrastructure and agreements to collect people’s location and building data (e.g. temperature, humidity) in Epy-Drost, and making the data appropriately available to student and research projects within Saxion. With regards to this project’s effect on education, we envision the proposal of several derived student projects which will provide students the opportunity to work with huge amounts of data and state-of-the-art natural interaction interfaces. Through these projects, students will acquire skills and knowledge that are necessary in the current and future labor-market, as well as get experience in working with topics of great importance now and in the near future. This is not only aligned with the Creative Media and Game Technologies (CMGT) study program’s new vision and focus on interactive technology, but also with many other education programs within Saxion. In terms of research, the candidate Postdoc will study if and how the data, together with the building’s infrastructure, can be leveraged to promote healthy behavior through playful strategies. In other words, whether we can persuade people in the building to be more physically active and engage more in social interactions through data-based gamification and building actuation. This fits very well with the Ambient Intelligence (AmI) research group’s agenda in Augmented Interaction, and CMGT’s User Experience line. Overall, this project will help spark and solidify lasting collaboration links between AmI and CMGT, give body to AmI’s new Augmented Interaction line, and increase Saxion’s level of education through the dissemination of knowledge between researchers, teachers and students.
Within the framework of resource efficiency it is important to recycle and reusematerials, replace fossil fuel based products with bio-based alternatives and avoidthe use of toxic substances. New applications are being sought for locally grownbiomass. In the area of Groningen buildings need reinforcement to guarantee safetyfor its users, due to man-induced earthquakes. Plans are to combine the workneeded for reinforcement with the improvement of energy performance of thesebuildings. The idea is to use bio-based building materials, preferably grown andprocessed in the region.In this study it is investigated whether it is feasible to use Typha (a swap plant) as abasis for a bio-based insulation product. In order to start the activities necessary tofurther develop this idea into a commercial product and start a dedicated company,a number of important questions have to be answered in terms of feasibility. Thisstudy therefore aims at mapping economic, organisational and technical issues andassociated risks and possibilities. On the basis of these results a developmenttrajectory can be started to set up a dedicated supply chain with the appropriatepartners, research projects can be designed to develop the missing knowledge andthe required funding can be acquired.
