In this presentation we start with explaining the necessity of a user centered approach of any e-care solution. In the past users where only consulted when a product was almost finished at the end of a development trajectory when making changes cost a lot of money.  Today another approach is becoming the best practice of R&D: user centered design. In the care domain this brings some extra challenges towards the inclusion of vulnerable people as well as overburdened care professionals. Adapted UCD strategies are thus appropriate. Illustrated with examples from own research experiences in e care R&D projects, we reflect on the essential steps, pitfalls and solutions to integrate a user centered approach in your future eCare project. 

1. Developing
user centered
eCare solutions
eCare Summerschool ‘14
Prof An Jacobs
Digital Society
iMinds

2. 25/08/14 2
2005 2007 20112006 2008 2009 2010
COPLINTHO
ASCIT
E-HIP
ICA4DT
IM3
TRANSECARE
CHF
DMOBISA
MEVIC
SHARE4HEALTH
CIMI
IMIND
SuperCT
ACCIO
AIR
AToM
Telesurgery
2012
Mesrecon
SuperMRI
O’Car
e-
Clouds
2013 2014
3DUS
SIMRET
Data sharing
architectures
Home &
residential care
Medical ICT
technologies
NXT_Sleep
LittleSister
Fallrisk
*
* *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* SMIT
involved
*
Some examples of past projects within iMinds context (Flanders, Belgium)

3. 25/08/14 3
User centred design
User research
Usability,
User interface,
User experience
All the same?
Source: http://www.usabilitycounts.com/2012/03/28/user-
experience-vs-user-interface-infographic-as-cereal/

4. 25/08/14 4
Source: http://www.e-cartouche.ch/content_reg/cartouche/
ui_access/en/html/GUIDesign_UCD.html

5. Why user centred design & user research ?
25/08/14 5
Source : http://www.e-cartouche.ch/content_reg/cartouche/ui_access/en/html/
GUIDesign_UCD.html

6. “Involving the user” pro & cons
Goffin, Keith, Lemke, Fred & Koners, Ursula (2010) Chapter 7 Involving the user, 153-175, in:
Identifying hidden needs: creating breakthrough products. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 261.
advantages
• Cost & time reduction
• Increased creativity
• High consumer acceptance
• Improved internal innovation
processes
limitations
• Time, effort and experience
• Non representative users
• Incremental ideas
• Competitive & IP risks
Kwalitatieve
onderzoeksmet
hoden
04-11-2008 |
pag. 6

7. Market pull
Problem/need driven
No room for determinism in innovation
Technology push
Solution driven
Technical & social/market
challenges meet
each other

8. Finding
common
ground
Supporting “call for care” in institutional care work
For example in ACCIO project
ICT challenge:
reasoning with ontologies
Care challenge:
Giving quality care one to many

9. Involving the “user”, new hype?
Source: http://myautoworld.com/ford/
history/ford-t/ford-t-5/ford-t-6/ford-t-6.html
Source: http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Design/
Gartman/D_Casestudy/Henry_Ford.htm

10. “Role of customer in NPD is changing” Goffin et al 2010
From passive contributor to market research
to an active co-designers and sometimes an independent innovator
Source:
E.Sanders, 2004 http://www.knowledgepresentation.org/BuildingTheFuture/Summaries/Sanders_summary/
SandersSummary.html

11. How to capture user innovativeness?
Add users and stir?

12. How to capture user innovativeness?
How?
Who?
When
?
Where
?
What?
Why?
Kwalitatieve
onderzoeksmet
hoden
04-11-2008 |
pag. 12

13. Who? “users”
25/08/14 13
How?
Who?
When?
Where?What?
Why?

14. Who? “users”
§ Lead users (von Hippel)
§ Typical users
§ Potential and current users
§ Non users
§ …
How do you decide?
Determinate your in/exclusion criteria depending on research question
- Conduct domain analysis:
- literature and document analysis of domain
- Interviews with experts of the domain
- Create profiles, put them into persona’s
25/08/14 14

15. Engage real and multiple type of users
25/08/14 15
Targeted network for home care technology
Care
dependent

16. Common made design mistakes
Thé user doesn’t exist
I methodology
Elastic user

17. Participation of target group in user centred design
Case: Recruiting pilot 1 AAL Care4Balance project

18. When? Timing of user involvement
25/08/14 18
How?
Who?
When?
Where?What?
Why?

19. Innovation is not linear and staged, so ..
Source: The Process of Design Squiggle, Damien Newman
Fuzzy Front End
Ideally, continuous iterative user involvement
When limited resources, involve “users” in the fuzzy front

20. Titel van de
presentatie
26/08/14 |
EXPERIENCE
What and where?
How?
Who?
When?
Where?What?
Why?

21. How?
Why?
Source: Sanders, Liz (2008) 'An evolving map of design practice and design research', in Interactions
(November + December), 13-17.
Participatory
Design
Human Factors
+ Ergonomics
Usability
Testing
Applied
Ethnography
User-Centered
Design
Design + Emotion
Critical Design
Lead-User
Innovation
Contexual
Inquiry
Cultural
Probes
Generative
Design Research
Generative
Tools
“Scandinavian”
Methods
Design-Led
Research-Led
Expert
Mindset
“users” seen
as subjects
(reactive
informers)
Participatory
Mindset
“users” seen
as partners
(active co-creators)
Map of Design Research−Research Types
Design-Led
Dialogic Design Overlayed on Map of Design Research
Figure 1. Map of Design Research — Underlying Dimensions
Figure 2. Map of Design Research — Research Types

22. How, where and why?
Source: Steen, Marc (2008) The fragility of human-centred design. TUDelft, Delft.
Emphasis on
researchers’ and
designers’
knowledge and on
their move towards
end users
Emphasis on
users knowledge
and on their move
towards research
and design
activities

23. Different routes possible,
an example of fruitful grips from the project ACCIO
25/08/14 23

24. From collection of information to knowledge ?
24
Harry Potters””where
about” clock
as project metaphor
Information
Communication
Connection
observation
knowledge
descision
ACCIO ! Innovation vision

25. Proof of Concept
26/08/14 25
Personal Electronic Device (PED)

26. 1. Start before prototype evaluation
with user involvement
§ List of co-creation workshops in ACCIO
§ Mix of stakeholders (engineers, nurses, doctors, other careworkers,
professionals in healthcare industry, social scientists)
25/08/14 26

27. 2) create a mixed team realising
interdisciplinarity in practice
25/08/14 27

28. 25/08/14 28
Equal foot
Celebrate differences

29. care organisations technology providers
social research technology research
Concept development
Proof of concept development
Step 1: Embedding & introducing
Step 2: Making expectations explicit
Step 3: Current practices & technological roadmaps
Step 4 :Co-creation & design and development
Step 5. Refinement & deciding POC
Step 6: Realisation POC and evaluating
Step 7:Dissemination & valorisation
Social stream Technical stream
End project
DIVERGERGECONVERGE
Innovation binder approach

30. Innovation binder approach : spine of scenarios & persona’s
§ Persona: ‘A precise description of our user and what he wishes to
accomplish’ (Cooper 2004, p. 123)
§ It is fictional character is based on user research insights.
§ They are the characters in the scenarios
§ Scenario: is a believable narrative, usually set in the future of a persons
experience as he or she engages with a product or a service (Martin &
Harrington, 2012, p.152)
1. Based on assumptions or on research (hypothetical vs grounded scenarios)
2. Oriented at the current or future practices (current practice and future
practice scenario)
3. Technology works flawless or bumpy but people behave like people in context
(sunny day versus cloudy weather)
4. Utopian or dystopian worldviews (desired versus horror scenario)
.
Jacobs et al. (2014) The Innovation Binder Approach: A Guide Towards a Social-Technical
Balanced Pervasive Health System. In A. Holzinger, M. Ziefle, & C. Röcker (Eds.), Pervasive
Health (pp. 69–99). Springer London.

31. 31
!"#!#$%&'%(()!*)+'
!"#,)(*'-.(-'#/'
0112345021'601789'
):+';$)"'#"<%:.$%=#:$' *)(>:#&#<?'!"#@.+)"$'
):+';$)"'")$)%"(>'
*)(>:#&#<?'")$)%"(>'
A%-.:<')B!)(*%=#:$')B!&.(.*'A%-.:<')B!)(*%=#:$')B!&.(.*'
+#'%:+'+#:C*'
D...EA'
F)?#:+'!"#,)(*'
+#'%:+'+#:C*'
D...EA'
F)?#:+'!"#,)(*'
+#(;A):*'(;""):*'!"%(=()$'
#F$)"@%=#:$'
E#(;$'<"#;!$'
G;)$=#::%.")$'
+)$-*#!'")$)%"(>'
H254'%:+'
F)?#:+'
+#(;A):*'*)(>:#&#<?'"#%+A%!'
H254'
E"))+#A'*#'#!)"%*)'
")E'+#('I' ")E'+#('J'
+)$-*#!'")$)%"(>'
H254'%:+'
F)?#:+'
+)$.<:'%:+'+)@)&#!A):*'
+#(;A):*'D#"-K#D'
"#&)$'%:+'*%$-$'
#:*#&#<?'(")%=#:'
$;::?'+%?''$():%".#@I'
A.B)+'*)%A'
;$)"'(#(")%=#:'
.:*"#+;(.:<'#:*#&#<.)$'
"#&)'!&%?'

32. 3) co-creation: iterative participation in
creation by all stakeholders
25/08/14 32

33. Vision: Iterative process by mixed team
Observations
Scenario’s
Co creation
workshops
Ontology
engineering
33

34. Scenario’s
25/08/14 34

35. 25/08/14 35
Role play workshop

36. Call differ by reason
Water Or fall
Prevention by
sensors Detection of deviant
profile and context

37. 37
F)?#:+'
+)$.<:'%:+'+)@)&#!A):*'
+#(;A):*'D#"-K#D'
"#&)$'%:+'*%$-$'
#:*#&#<?'(")%=#:'
$;::?'+%?''$():%".#@I'
;$)"'(#(")%=#:'
.:*"#+;(.:<'#:*#&#<.)$'
"#&)'!&%?'
+)(.$.#:'A%.-.:<'
>.<>'&)@)&'#:*#&#<?'
&#D''&)@)&'(%")'#:*#&#<?'
%&<#"".*>A$'
!".#".=$%=#:'
%:+'$)&)(=#:'
0112345021'LM118N'
O#P'")%&.$%=#:'O#P';$)"'E))+F%(-'
(#:()!*')@%&;%=#:'
>%"+D%")'(#A!#:):*$'
$#QD%")'(#A!#:):*$'
(#:=:;#;$'.:*)<"%=#:'
O#P'I'*)$=:<'
)AF#+.)+'$?$*)A';$)'
D#"-$>#!'
%+%!*%=#:$'%:+'
.A!"#@)A):*$'
:)D'E)%*;")$'
O#P'J'*)$=:<'
R:%&'")!#"=:<'#:'.::#@%=#:'
")$;&*$'
@%&#".$%=#:'$*"%*)<.)$' @%&#".$%=#:'$*"%*)<.)$'
(#:()!*$'E#"':)D':;"$)'(%&&'$?$*)A$'
(#:()!*$'E#"'O9#L'"##A'
#!=A.$%=#:'$*"%*)<.)$'#:'(;""):*'(%")'!"%(=()$'
$():%".#$'#:'E;*;")'%AF.):*'(%")'(#:()!*$'

38. Discussion towards
decision tree
Decision tree
workshop

39. 39
F)?#:+'
+)$.<:'%:+'+)@)&#!A):*'
+#(;A):*'D#"-K#D'
"#&)$'%:+'*%$-$'
#:*#&#<?'(")%=#:'
$;::?'+%?''$():%".#@I'
;$)"'(#(")%=#:'
.:*"#+;(.:<'#:*#&#<.)$'
"#&)'!&%?'
+)(.$.#:'A%.-.:<'
>.<>'&)@)&'#:*#&#<?'
&#D''&)@)&'(%")'#:*#&#<?'
%&<#"".*>A$'
!".#".=$%=#:'
%:+'$)&)(=#:'
0112345021'LM118N'
O#P'")%&.$%=#:'O#P';$)"'E))+F%(-'
(#:()!*')@%&;%=#:'
>%"+D%")'(#A!#:):*$'
$#QD%")'(#A!#:):*$'
(#:=:;#;$'.:*)<"%=#:'
O#P'I'*)$=:<'
)AF#+.)+'$?$*)A';$)'
D#"-$>#!'
%+%!*%=#:$'%:+'
.A!"#@)A):*$'
:)D'E)%*;")$'
O#P'J'*)$=:<'
R:%&'")!#"=:<'#:'.::#@%=#:'
")$;&*$'
@%&#".$%=#:'$*"%*)<.)$' @%&#".$%=#:'$*"%*)<.)$'
(#:()!*$'E#"':)D':;"$)'(%&&'$?$*)A$'
(#:()!*$'E#"'O9#L'"##A'
#!=A.$%=#:'$*"%*)<.)$'#:'(;""):*'(%")'!"%(=()$'
$():%".#$'#:'E;*;")'%AF.):*'(%")'(#:()!*$'

40. Proof of Concept
25/08/14 40

41. Possible bumps in the road…
§ if care organisation is not a formal partner, continuous
engagement is difficult
§ Balance involvement to avoid overburdening
domain experts in care main job is giving care
§ Active stimulate caregivers to think outside current
practices and beyond the person they care for
§ Don’t forget to iterate: small scale steps and go back if
needed
§ Make things tangible as soon as possible
25/08/14 41

42. 4) proof of concept is only the beginning
§ co-creation needed until after market introduction
§ Long way between POC and service
§ still a lot of choices to make and implement
§ Business models needed:
§ Cocreation to find new solutions within new business ecology?
§ A big gap from adoption towards appropriation
§ How to overcome learning curve?
§ Simplicity is not the answer for complex systems
§ Cocreate workable teaching the teacher systems?
25/08/14 42

43. 25/08/14 43
proof of concept is only the beginning
start way before prototype evaluation with user
involvement
co-creation:
iterative participation in creation by all stakeholders
create a mixed team realising
interdisciplinarity in practice

44. 44
Questions?
An Jacobs
An.Jacobs@vub.ac.be