The design briefing process matters: a case study on telehealthcare device providers in the UK*

Abstract

Purpose: The telehealthcare sector has been expanding steadily in the UK. However, confusing, complex and unwieldy designs of telehealthcare devices are at best, less effective than they could be, at worst, they are potentially dangerous to the users.

Method: This study investigated the factors within the new product development process that hindered satisfactory product design outcomes, through working collaboratively with a leading provider based in the UK.

Results: This study identified that there are too many costly late-stage design changes; a critical and persistent problem area ripe for improvement. The findings from analyzing 30 recent devices, interviewing key stakeholders and observing on-going projects further revealed that one major cause of the issue was poor practice in defining and communicating the product design criteria and requirements.

Conclusions: Addressing the characteristics of the telehealthcare industry, such as multiple design commissioners and frequent deployment of design subcontracts, this paper argues that undertaking a robust process of creating the product design brief is the key to improving the outcomes of telehealthcare device design, particularly for the small and medium-sized enterprises dominating the sector.

Implications for rehabilitation

• Product design criteria and requirements are frequently ill-defined and ineffectively communicated to the designers within the processes of developing new telehealthcare devices.

• The absence of a (robust) process of creating the design brief is the root cause of the identified issues in defining and communicating the design task.

• Deploying a formal process of creating the product design brief is particularly important for the telehealthcare sector.

Keywords:

• Design brief
• healthcare
• telehealthcare
• new product development
• product design
• process architecture

Acknowledgements

The authors also acknowledge Associate Professor Simone Taffe, Ms. Katherine Bissett-Johnson and Dr Charles Ranscombe for their assistance.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the ARC Training Centre in Biodevices at Swinburne University of Technology [grant number IC140100023] and Falmouth University of Technology for project funding, and the company partner who provided broad support during the research.