Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-6f6fcd54b-5mslm Total loading time: 0.284 Render date: 2021-05-11T05:16:34.842Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: {}

Evaluating Innovative Projects for and with Elderly People: Insights from Participatory Design Contests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Camille Jean
Affiliation:
Arts et Métiers ParisTech;
François Cluzel
Affiliation:
CentraleSupélec, Université Paris-Saclay;
Flore Vallet
Affiliation:
CentraleSupélec, Université Paris-Saclay; IRT SystemX, Paris-Saclay
Bernard Yannou
Affiliation:
CentraleSupélec, Université Paris-Saclay;
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

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.

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
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. 314321.CrossRefGoogle 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. 255273. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919608001996CrossRefGoogle 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. 646699.CrossRefGoogle 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. 122. 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. 3950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2015.06.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, M. and Garcia, A.C. (2015), “High-speed idea filtering with the bag of lemons”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 78, pp. 3950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IDEO (2015), Field Guide to Human-Centered Design, IDEO.org.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. 624635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanders, E.B.-N. and Stappers, P.J. (2008), “Co-creation and the new landscapes of design”, CoDesign, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, J.J., Smith, S.M. and Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2003), “Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness”, Design Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 111134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silver Valley (2018), Générations Séniors, report, Paris, France.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.CrossRefGoogle 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
World Health Organization (2015), World report on ageing and health.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. 205221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zsarnoczky, M. (2016), “Innovation challenges of the silver economy”, Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 105109.Google Scholar
You have Access
Open access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Evaluating Innovative Projects for and with Elderly People: Insights from Participatory Design Contests
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Evaluating Innovative Projects for and with Elderly People: Insights from Participatory Design Contests
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Evaluating Innovative Projects for and with Elderly People: Insights from Participatory Design Contests
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *