The order and priority of research and design method application within an assistive technology new product development process: a summative content analysis of 20 case studies

Abstract

Summative content analysis was used to define methods and heuristics from each case study. The review process was in two parts: (1) A literature review to identify conventional research methods and (2) a summative content analysis of published case studies, based on the identified methods and heuristics to suggest an order and priority of where and when were used. Over 200 research and design methods and design heuristics were identified. From the review of the 20 case studies 42 were identified as being applied. The majority of methods and heuristics were applied in phase two, market choice. There appeared a disparity between the limited numbers of methods frequently used, under 10 within the 20 case studies, when hundreds were available.

Implications for Rehabilitation

• The communication highlights a number of issues that have implication for those involved in assistive technology new product development:

• •The study defined over 200 well-established research and design methods and design heuristics that are available for use by those who specify and design assistive technology products, which provide a comprehensive reference list for practitioners in the field;

• •The review within the study suggests only a limited number of research and design methods are regularly used by industrial design focused assistive technology new product developers; and,

• •Debate is required within the practitioners working in this field to reflect on how a wider range of potentially more effective methods and heuristics may be incorporated into daily working practice.

Keywords:

• Industrial design
• research and design methods
• design heuristics
• assistive technology
• product design

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Mrs Julie Torrens for taking part in the study as a volunteer operator.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.