Beyond Technology Transfer: Quality of Life Impacts from R&D Outcomes

This paper presents methodology and findings from three product efficacy studies that verify the quality of life benefits resulting from prior research, development, and transfer activities. The paper then discusses key lessons learned with implications for product evaluation practice. The studies assessed the quality of three assistive technology (AT) products transferred to market by the University at Buffalo‘s Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Technology Transfer (T 2 RERC) and their value to consumers with disabilities. The purpose was to focus on outcome evaluation and seek evidence of effectiveness for the transfer process. Findings showed differences among the three products regarding their impact on end users in terms of satisfaction with product quality and product acceptance. The product most successful on all quality and value indicators was an automatic jar opener designed for persons with limited hand function. The other two–a computer software product designed to facilitate mouse pointer use by persons with limited hand function or with low vision, and a voice interactive thermostat, designed for persons with total or partial visual impairment–were less successful. They showed mixed results. Not many consumers were satisfied with the technical quality or usability of the latter two products. Of the two, the thermostat was slightly better accepted and valued by users. Differences in impact were found to follow from differences in the way evaluation information was utilized by the three product development processes. A case is made for systematic and timely use of evaluation throughout the development process in shaping a product of quality and value, in the context of the intended end users of AT.

[1]  Chris L. S. Coryn,et al.  Evaluation Theory, Models, and Applications , 2007 .

[2]  A New Technology Transfer Paradigm: How State Universities Can Collaborate with Industry in the USA , 2007 .

[3]  D. Maclean,et al.  Mode 2 Management Research , 2002 .

[4]  Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals ( VDTs ) — Part 11 : Guidance on usability , 1998 .

[5]  Vesna Popovic Product Evaluation Methods and their Importance in Designing Interactive Artifacts , 1999 .

[6]  A. Batavia,et al.  Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. , 1990, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[7]  Patrick W. Jordan,et al.  An Introduction to Usability , 1998 .

[8]  Naresh K. Malhotra,et al.  Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation , 1993 .

[9]  J. P. Lane Understanding Technology Transfer , 1999 .

[10]  Clive Savory,et al.  Translating knowledge to build technological competence , 2006 .

[11]  Myung Hwan Yun,et al.  Usability of consumer electronic products , 2001 .

[12]  Daniel L. Stufflebeam,et al.  Evaluation Models: New Directions for Evaluation , 2001 .

[13]  James A. Leahy Paths to Market for Supply Push Technology Transfer , 2003 .

[14]  M. Scriven Evaluation thesaurus, 4th ed. , 1991 .

[15]  M. Scriven The methodology of evaluation , 1966 .

[16]  A. Elzinga The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1997 .

[17]  James Joseph Pirkl Transgenerational Design: A DESIGN STRATEGY Whose Time Has Arrived , 2010 .

[18]  Frank Marchak,et al.  Universal Design , 2001 .

[19]  James R. Sanders,et al.  تقويم البرنامج : طرق بديلة و إرشادات عملية = Program evaluation Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines , 1987 .

[20]  William B. Rouse,et al.  Design for success , 1991 .

[21]  L. Vaccarezza The new production of knowledge. The dinamics of science and research in contemporary societies, Michael Gibbons, Camille Limoges, Hega Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott y Martin Trow, Londres, SAGE Publications, 1994, 179 páginas. , 1995 .

[22]  Kenneth B. Kahn The PDMA Handbook of New Product Development , 1996 .

[23]  J P Lane,et al.  The voice of the customer: consumers define the ideal battery charger. , 1997, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[24]  D. Stufflebeam Evaluation as Enlightenment for Decision-Making. , 1968 .

[25]  Joseph F. Dumas,et al.  A Practical Guide to Usability Testing , 1993 .

[26]  Stephen M. Bauer Demand Pull Technology Transfer Applied to the Field of Assistive Technology , 2003 .

[27]  Joseph P. Lane,et al.  The State of the Science in Technology Transfer: Implications for the Field of Assistive Technology , 2003 .

[28]  Joseph P. Lane,et al.  Wheelchair tie-downs: ideal features and existing products , 1998 .

[29]  Ravi S. Behara,et al.  Mapping product usability , 2002 .

[30]  W. S. Green Human factors in product design , 1999 .

[31]  Naubahar Sharif,et al.  Mobilizing Technology Transfer from University to Industry: The Experience of Hong Kong Universities , 2007 .

[32]  Wolfgang Dzida,et al.  Standards for user-interfaces , 1995 .

[33]  D. Campbell,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL AND QUASI-EXPERIMENT Al DESIGNS FOR RESEARCH , 2012 .

[34]  P. Sudsawad Knowledge Translation : Introduction to Models , Strategies , and Measures , 2022 .

[35]  M. Woerter,et al.  University-industry knowledge and technology transfer in Switzerland: What university scientists think about co-operation with private enterprises , 2008 .

[36]  Markus Chimani,et al.  DiamondHelp: a new interaction design for networked home appliances , 2006, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[37]  James R. Sanders,et al.  Educational Evaluation Theory and Practice , 1975 .

[38]  M. Gibbons,et al.  Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty , 2003 .