BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in empowering older adults to age in place by deploying various types of technology (ie, eHealth, ambient assisted living technology, smart home technology, and gerontechnology). However, initiatives aimed at implementing these technologies are complicated by the fact that multiple stakeholder groups are involved. Goals and motives of stakeholders may not always be transparent or aligned, yet research on convergent and divergent positions of stakeholders is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into the positions of stakeholder groups involved in the implementation of technology for aging in place by answering the following questions: What kind of technology do stakeholders see as relevant? What do stakeholders aim to achieve by implementing technology? What is needed to achieve successful implementations? METHODS: Mono-disciplinary focus groups were conducted with participants (n=29) representing five groups of stakeholders: older adults (6/29, 21%), care professionals (7/29, 24%), managers within home care or social work organizations (5/29, 17%), technology designers and suppliers (6/29, 21%), and policy makers (5/29, 17%). Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Stakeholders considered 26 different types of technologies to be relevant for enabling independent living. Only 6 out of 26 (23%) types of technology were mentioned by all stakeholder groups. Care professionals mentioned fewer different types of technology than other groups. All stakeholder groups felt that the implementation of technology for aging in place can be considered a success when (1) older adults' needs and wishes are prioritized during development and deployment of the technology, (2) the technology is accepted by older adults, (3) the technology provides benefits to older adults, and (4) favorable prerequisites for the use of technology by older adults exist. While stakeholders seemed to have identical aims, several underlying differences emerged, for example, with regard to who should pay for the technology. Additionally, each stakeholder group mentioned specific steps that need to be taken to achieve successful implementation. Collectively, stakeholders felt that they need to take the leap (ie, change attitudes, change policies, and collaborate with other organizations); bridge the gap (ie, match technology with individuals and stimulate interdisciplinary education); facilitate technology for the masses (ie, work on products and research that support large-scale rollouts and train target groups on how to use technology); and take time to reflect (ie, evaluate use and outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders largely agree on the direction in which they should be heading; however, they have different perspectives with regard to the technologies that can be employed and the work that is needed to implement them. Central to these issues seems to be the tailoring of technology or technologies to the specific needs of each community-dwelling older adult and the work that is needed by stakeholders to support this type of service delivery on a large scale. KEYWORDS: aged; eHealth; focus groups; health services for the elderly; implementation management; independent living; project and people management; qualitative research; technology
LINK
Charging infrastructure development is vital for the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). Yet, on the surface, there seems to be significant disagreement about when, how and which kind of charging infrastructure should be developed and most importantly, for what reasons. These reasons are concealed in the stakeholders’ perspective on the future. Differences in stakeholders’ perspectives regarding expectations on the future EV charging infrastructure may be expected, but should they prove irreconcilable they may stall the roll-out. However, to date, it remains unknown what these stakeholders’ perspectives are, how they are aligned across stakeholders, which topics are heavily debated and which are agreed upon. This study uses Q-methodology to identify different perspectives on the future of roll-out of EV charging infrastructure. The analysis shows that stakeholders mainly differ in the extent fast charging should play an important role, the degree smart charging should be the standard in charging and how much government should intervene with infrastructure roll-out. There is a consensus on the importance of interoperability of charging stations. The four different perspectives were supported across different stakeholders, which supports the idea that perspectives are not strongly linked to the stakeholders’ interests.
This paper proposes a new framework for the production and development of immersive and playful technologies in cultural heritage in which different stakeholders such as users and local communities are involved early on in the product development chain. We believe that an early stage of co-creation in the design process produces a clear understanding of what users struggle with, facilitates the creation of community ownership and helps in better defining the design challenge at hand. We show that adopting such a framework has several direct and indirect benefits, including a deeper sense of site and product ownership as direct benefits to the individual, and the creation and growth of tangential economies to the community.
MULTIFILE
MUSE supports the CIVITAS Community to increase its impact on urban mobility policy making and advance it to a higher level of knowledge, exchange, and sustainability.As the current Coordination and Support Action for the CIVITAS Initiative, MUSE primarily engages in support activities to boost the impact of CIVITAS Community activities on sustainable urban mobility policy. Its main objectives are to:- Act as a destination for knowledge developed by the CIVITAS Community over the past twenty years.- Expand and strengthen relationships between cities and stakeholders at all levels.- Support the enrichment of the wider urban mobility community by providing learning opportunities.Through these goals, the CIVITAS Initiative strives to support the mobility and transport goals of the European Commission, and in turn those in the European Green Deal.Breda University of Applied Sciences is the task leader of Task 7.3: Exploitation of the Mobility Educational Network and Task 7.4: Mobility Powered by Youth Facilitation.
In het project wordt een nieuw door de HvA ontwikkelde methodiek (Open Collaborative Business Modelling methodiek, verder: ‘OCBM-methodiek’), toegepast om waardeproposities voor circulaire en biobased verpakkingen te ontwikkelen, samen met partijen uit de waardeketen. De inzet van biobased materialen is essentieel voor het terugdringen van het gebruik van fossiele plastics en – uiteindelijk – voor het bereiken van een volledig circulaire economie. De specifieke waardeketen waar het project zich op richt is die van verpakkingen op basis van Olifantsgras / Miscanthus. Projectpartner Vibers is een bedrijf dat dit gewas als grondstof gebruikt voor het produceren van o.a. verpakkingsmaterialen. Tijdens het project zal een viertal OCBM-sessies worden georganiseerd waarin Vibers in nauwe samenwerking met een wisselende groep ketenpartners en andere stakeholders een nieuwe waardepropositie formuleert. Projectpartner Kennisinstituut Duurzaam Verpakken (verder: KIDV) bewaakt in de OCBM-sessies de duurzaamheid van de ontwikkelde propositie en speelt een rol bij evaluatie van de OCBM-methodiek voor de verpakkingsindustrie. Het project levert daarmee twee belangrijke resultaten op: 1. Een met behulp van de OCBM-methodiek ontwikkelde waardepropositie voor een circulair business model waarin een biobased verpakking centraal staat; 2. Aanbevelingen voor het verfijnen van de OCBM-methodiek: specifieke aandachtspunten voor het ontwikkelen van innovatieve, circulaire business modellen met behulp van deze methodiek.
Vanwege veranderende onderwijskundige inzichten - 21st century learning - worden schoolgebouwen verbouwd of vervangen door nieuwbouw. Deze 21st century leeromgevingen blijken in de praktijk niet te voldoen aan de verwachting van de gebruikers. Het ontwikkelen en gebruiken van een 21st century leeromgeving stelt blijkbaar specifieke eisen aan de 21st century competenties van alle betrokkenen. Dit roept vragen op ten aanzien van product en proces. De beantwoording van deze vragen vereist kennis van wisselwerking tussen psycho-sociale leeromgeving en fysieke leeromgeving. Het betreft onder andere de benodigde “ruimtelijke competenties” van de betrokkenen om de fysieke leeromgevingen te ontwikkelen en te gebruiken en - andersom - hoe de fysieke leeromgeving de ontwikkeling van 21st century competenties beïnvloedt. De kiem voor dit onderzoeksproject is gelegd toen scholen en vormgevers deze vragen voorlegden aan experts van de NHL Hogeschool en TU Eindhoven. Dit KIEM project wil de probleemstelling in één of meerdere praktijkvragen articuleren door het uitvoeren van een reeks workshops met een focusgroep van stakeholders. De uitkomsten hiervan zullen worden vertaald naar een voorstel voor een langduriger onderzoeksproject. In dit beoogde vervolgproject zullen de gearticuleerde vragen worden vertaald naar één of meer praktijkonderzoeken waarin wetenschappelijke kennis en methodes worden doorontwikkeld en beproefd op het effectief stimuleren van 21st century vaardigheden van docenten en vormgevers in praktijksituaties. Dit project maakt deel uit van de opbouw van een regionaal kennisnetwerk Onderwijs & Ruimte, wat op een duurzame wijze wil bijdragen aan de kennisontwikkeling en -deling betreffende de 21st century leeromgeving. De kern van dit netwerk wordt gevormd door de initiatiefnemers van deze aanvraag; Adema Architecten (MKB), lectoraat Open Innovation van de NHL Hogeschool (Onderzoeksinstelling) en Next Level (Onderwijs).
