Assistive technology supports maintenance or improvement of an individual’s functioning and independence, though for people in need the access to assistive products is not always guaranteed. This paper presents a generic quality framework for assistive technology service delivery that can be used independent of the setting, context, legislative framework, or type of technology. Based on available literature and a series of discussions among the authors, a framework was developed. It consists of 7 general quality criteria and four indicators for each of these criteria. The criteria are: accessibility; competence; coordination; efficiency; flexibility; user centeredness, and infrastructure. This framework can be used at a micro level (processes around individual users), meso level (the service delivery scheme or programme) or at a macro level (the whole country). It aims to help identify in an easy way the main strengths and weaknesses of a system or process, and thus guide possible improvements. As a next step in the development of this quality framework the authors propose to organise a global consultancy process to obtain responses from stakeholders across the world and to plan a number of case studies in which the framework is applied to different service delivery systems and processes in different countries.
Proper decision-making is one of the most important capabilities of an organization. Therefore, it is important to have a clear understanding and overview of the decisions an organization makes. A means to understanding and modeling decisions is the Decision Model and Notation (DMN) standard published by the Object Management Group in 2015. In this standard, it is possible to design and specify how a decision should be taken. However, DMN lacks elements to specify the actors that fulfil different roles in the decision-making process as well as not taking into account the autonomy of machines. In this paper, we re-address and-present our earlier work [1] that focuses on the construction of a framework that takes into account different roles in the decision-making process, and also includes the extent of the autonomy when machines are involved in the decision-making processes. Yet, we extended our previous research with more detailed discussion of the related literature, running cases, and results, which provides a grounded basis from which further research on the governance of (semi) automated decision-making can be conducted. The contributions of this paper are twofold; 1) a framework that combines both autonomy and separation of concerns aspects for decision-making in practice while 2) the proposed theory forms a grounded argument to enrich the current DMN standard.
Motor learning is particularly challenging in neurological rehabilitation: patients who suffer from neurological diseases experience both physical limitations and difficulties of cognition and communication that affect and/or complicate the motor learning process. Therapists (e.g.,, physiotherapists and occupational therapists) who work in neurorehabilitation are therefore continuously searching for the best way to facilitate patients during these intensive learning processes. To support therapists in the application of motor learning, a framework was developed, integrating knowledge from the literature and the opinions and experiences of international experts. This article presents the framework, illustrated by cases from daily practice. The framework may assist therapists working in neurorehabilitation in making choices, implementing motor learning in routine practice, and supporting communication of knowledge and experiences about motor learning with colleagues and students. The article discusses the framework and offers suggestions and conditions given for its use in daily practice.
Developing a framework that integrates Advanced Language Models into the qualitative research process.Qualitative research, vital for understanding complex phenomena, is often limited by labour-intensive data collection, transcription, and analysis processes. This hinders scalability, accessibility, and efficiency in both academic and industry contexts. As a result, insights are often delayed or incomplete, impacting decision-making, policy development, and innovation. The lack of tools to enhance accuracy and reduce human error exacerbates these challenges, particularly for projects requiring large datasets or quick iterations. Addressing these inefficiencies through AI-driven solutions like AIDA can empower researchers, enhance outcomes, and make qualitative research more inclusive, impactful, and efficient.The AIDA project enhances qualitative research by integrating AI technologies to streamline transcription, coding, and analysis processes. This innovation enables researchers to analyse larger datasets with greater efficiency and accuracy, providing faster and more comprehensive insights. By reducing manual effort and human error, AIDA empowers organisations to make informed decisions and implement evidence-based policies more effectively. Its scalability supports diverse societal and industry applications, from healthcare to market research, fostering innovation and addressing complex challenges. Ultimately, AIDA contributes to improving research quality, accessibility, and societal relevance, driving advancements across multiple sectors.
The overall purpose of this consultancy was to support the activities under the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Programme of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) in developing the 7th pan-European environmental assessment, an indicator based and thematic assessment, implemented jointly with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and in support of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The series of environmental assessments of the pan-European region provide up to-date and policy-relevant information on the interactions between the environment and society. This consultancy was to:> Draft the input on drivers and developments to chapter 1.2 of the assessment related to the environmental theme “4.2 Applying principles of circular economy to sustainable tourism”.> Suggest to UNECE and UNEP the most policy relevant indicators from UNECE-environmental, SDG indicators and from other indicator frameworks such as EEA or OECD for the environmental theme for the sub-chapter 4.2.> Assess the current state, trends and recent developments and prepare the substantive part of sub-chapter 4.2 (summary - part I) and an annex (part II) with the detailed analysis and findings.
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
