Background:An eHealth tool that coaches employees through the process of reflection has the potential to support employees with moderate levels of stress to increase their capacity for resilience. Most eHealth tools that include self-tracking summarize the collected data for the users. However, users need to gain a deeper understanding of the data and decide upon the next step to take through self-reflection.Objective:In this study, we aimed to examine the perceived effectiveness of the guidance offered by an automated e-Coach during employees’ self-reflection process in gaining insights into their situation and on their perceived stress and resilience capacities and the usefulness of the design elements of the e-Coach during this process.Methods:Of the 28 participants, 14 (50%) completed the 6-week BringBalance program that allowed participants to perform reflection via four phases: identification, strategy generation, experimentation, and evaluation. Data collection consisted of log data, ecological momentary assessment (EMA) questionnaires for reflection provided by the e-Coach, in-depth interviews, and a pre- and posttest survey (including the Brief Resilience Scale and the Perceived Stress Scale). The posttest survey also asked about the utility of the elements of the e-Coach for reflection. A mixed methods approach was followed.Results:Pre- and posttest scores on perceived stress and resilience were not much different among completers (no statistical test performed). The automated e-Coach did enable users to gain an understanding of factors that influenced their stress levels and capacity for resilience (identification phase) and to learn the principles of useful strategies to improve their capacity for resilience (strategy generation phase). Design elements of the e-Coach reduced the reflection process into smaller steps to re-evaluate situations and helped them to observe a trend (identification phase). However, users experienced difficulties integrating the chosen strategies into their daily life (experimentation phase). Moreover, the identified events related to stress and resilience were too specific through the guidance offered by the e-Coach (identification phase), and the events did not recur, which consequently left users unable to sufficiently practice (strategy generation phase), experiment (experimentation phase), and evaluate (evaluation phase) the techniques during meaningful events.Conclusions:Participants were able to perform self-reflection under the guidance of the automated e-Coach, which often led toward gaining new insights. To improve the reflection process, more guidance should be offered by the e-Coach that would aid employees to identify events that recur in daily life. Future research could study the effects of the suggested improvements on the quality of reflection via an automated e-Coach.
Author supplied from the article: ABSTRACT Increasing global competition in manufacturing technology puts pressure on lead times for product design and production engineering. By the application of effective methods for systems engineering (engineering design), the development risks can be addressed in a structured manner to minimise chances of delay and guarantee timely market introduction. Concurrent design has proven to be effective in markets for high tech systems; the product and its manufacturing means are simultaneously developed starting at the product definition. Unfortunately, not many systems engineering methodologies do support development well in the early stage of the project where proof of concept is still under investigation. The number of practically applicable tools in this stage is even worse. Industry could use a systems engineering method that combines a structured risk approach, concurrent development, and especially enables application in the early stage of product and equipment design. The belief is that Axiomatic Design can provide with a solid foundation for this need. This paper proposes a ‘Constituent Roadmap of Product Design’, based on the axiomatic design methodology. It offers easy access to a broad range of users, experienced and inexperienced. First, it has the ability to evaluate if knowledge application to a design is relevant and complete. Secondly, it offers more detail within the satisfaction interval of the independence axiom. The constituent roadmap is based on recent work that discloses an analysis on information in axiomatic design. The analysis enables better differentiation on project progression in the conceptual stage of design. The constituent roadmap integrates axiomatic design and the methods that harmonise with it. Hence, it does not jeopardise the effectiveness of the methodology. An important feature is the check matrix, a low threshold interface that unlocks the methodology to a larger audience. (Source - PDF presented at ASME IMECE (International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition
