Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uaty20
Assistive Technology
The Official Journal of RESNA
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaty20
20years of the Loughborough User Centred
Assistive Technology design process: has it made a
difference?
George Edward Torrens & Salman Asghar
To cite this article: George Edward Torrens & Salman Asghar (2022): 20years of the
Loughborough User Centred Assistive Technology design process: has it made a difference?,
Assistive Technology, DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2022.2113477
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2022.2113477
© 2022 The Author(s). Published with
license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Accepted author version posted online: 30
Aug 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 186
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Publisher: Taylor & Francis & RESNA
Journal: Assistive Technology
DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2022.2113477
20years of the Loughborough User Centred Assistive Technology
design process: has it made a difference?
George Edward Torrensa*, Salman Asgharb
a Loughborough School of Design and Creative Arts, Loughborough University,
Loughborough, United Kingdom, LE 113TU.
b Department of Product & Industrial Design, University of Engineering & Technology,
Lahore, Pakistan.
*corresponding author
Email:g.e.torrens@lboro.ac.uk
Abstract
An estimated 518 students were taught the Loughborough User Centred Assistive
Technology design process, LUCAT, since 2000. Graduates were contacted via a
professional networking website to take part in a survey with four being
interviewed. The purpose of the survey was to find out if: 1) Did they still use
any parts of the process; and 2) Where they had applied them. The respondents
ranged from returning placement undergraduates to senior managers in research
and development within major companies. From the 105 respondents 23% stated
they used parts of the LUCAT process every working day, a further 25% once a
week and 27% once a month. The elements of the process used were
predominantly semi-structured interviews, concept generation, codesign, design
presentation and feedback. Respondents highlighted the benefits of using this
process including gaining insights from users, being time efficient, saving
money, developing a relationship with end users and making a difference to the
lives of people with disability. It was suggested some industries had still not
incorporated a User Centred Design approach within New Product Development.
The use of the process was shown to be useful beyond AT product design into
most areas of design activity.
Keywords: Design process, Design methods, Industrial Design, Assistive
Technology, New product development, User-centred design, Participatory
design, Codesign.
Introduction
In 2000 a User-Centred Design process was reported that had been used to
demonstrate a cost-effective, bottom-up approach to the research, design development
and validation of Assistive Technology (AT) products, (Torrens 200:15-30). The design
process, later to be named the Loughborough User Centred Assistive Technology
(LUCAT) design process was applied and refined over a twenty-year period and used to
train Industrial Designers and Design Ergonomists, Ergonomists and Design Engineers.
Over 500 UK and International undergraduate and postgraduate students were taught
and applied the process during this period.
Objective
The objective of this communication is to reflect on the impact of the LUCAT
process taught over the last 20 years on professional practice. A number of questions
relating to the application and efficacy of the LUCAT process were defined:
1) Is it still used by graduates in Industry and wider professional practice?
2) What is the frequency of use?
3) Which elements were considered most useful?
4) What benefits have graduates found in applying the LUCAT process?
5) How could the LUCAT process be improved?
The LUCAT process was originally developed by one of the authors in 1998
based on their, at that time, twelve years’ experience of designing Assistive Technology
(AT) products for Charities in the United Kingdom (UK) and knowledge of existing
Ergonomics and Human Factors based User-Centred research and design methods.
Assistive (technology) products and services were and still are a large market.
The World Health Organization state that one billion people need assistive products and
two billion are expected to need at least one assistive product by 2030. They go on to
highlight that availability of assistive products are still an unmet need. (WHO 2016)
The challenge of this market is the level of specialist need and customisation required to
fully address a given product within a sector. Based on the thirty-plus years of
experience of the author as a designer and researcher, this level of fragmentation of
sectors is no different to that found in any other targeted market. This suggests the
LUCAT process, although developed to support new product development (NPD) in a
specific market, would be useful to designers in any market sector.
The market challenges were originally aligned with sections of the LUCAT
process, (See Table 1.)
(Table 1 here. )
One of the authors, in earlier studies, had identified the need to minimise cost
and financial risk to new product developers, Charities, Small to medium Enterprises
(SME’s) and Non-Government Organisations (NGO). (Torrens et al 1996:797-804,
Torrens et al 2000:193-198, Burkitt et al 1995:115-118, Torrens et al 1996:515-518)
The methods and heuristics were derived from resources such as User-fit
(Poulson 1996) and later Wilson and Corlett (2005) Conventional design methods
influenced the development of the LUCAT process as advocated by Archer (1979),
Jones (1992), Cross and Roy (1989) alongside market sector identification and
justification highlighted by Papanek (1972: 159-240) and the revised version
(1985:215-247).
The LUCAT process provided an ethically appropriate time-compressed series
of information gathering and decision-making activities to get from no knowledge about
a target user and market sector to a design solution that may be tested more
comprehensively. This matched the need to minimise investment risk and cost-
effectively accelerate elicitation of requirements, need and aspirations from target
market users.
Recent review articles by one of the authors highlighted that choice of research
and design methods used within AT product development was still limited to a fraction
of the available methods to apply, around ten from the 200 plus available. (Torrens
2018) Similarly, a review of the communication formats used by AT product design
developers showed only a quarter of the 41 available were used. (Torrens 2017: 262-
276) This further supports the suggestion the LUCAT process is still relevant.
An intentional biproduct of the user-centred approach involving participatory
design was to give the end users of these products ‘a voice’ and direct influence over
the specification and design realisation of an assistive product.
In later studies where the LUCAT process was applied, undergraduate students
worked with pupils in special education schools to define need and realise concept
products. Teachers and assistants highlighted the confidence given to the pupils to
openly discuss their needs and aspirations; and, how to best articulate what they needed
and wanted from their assistive products. (Torrens and Newton 2013:58-71, Torrens
2012:182-205, Torrens & Fray 2020:56-63).
A further biproduct of this approach was the ability of young undergraduate
students to gain empathy and affinity with individuals “who were not them”. There has
been criticism of designers designing for specific socio-economic profiles. (Newell et al
2011:235-243) In more recent years the use of empathic modelling has been seen a
negative light by some disability rights campaigners and commentators. (Bennett et al
2019) Used in isolation to predict someone’s ability to do a task or preferences, it is a
poor reflection of reality. This method can be a useful tool when used to dispel
assumptions about the ease with which a person with disability can complete daily
living activities as well as generate debate about the emotions, challenges, and values of
a person with disability before designing a survey, interview, or observation. When used
alongside the involvement of a champion user (a representative of a target market) and
other stakeholders it can accelerate a common understanding between designer/
researcher and user of terminology, key performance indicators, values, and cultural
context.
Methods were added during the 20 year period of the LUCAT development,
including social camouflage (Torrens et al 2018) and cultural blindness, (Asghar et al
2019). All methods have been collated into an open access resource Usability-NET,
(Usability-NET 2022).
At the time of inception of the LUCAT process and training module a
participatory approach to obtaining user requirements and the term codesign
(collaborative design with participants and stakeholders) was a relatively new concept,
for example, the journal Codesign was not published until 2005. HCI/ICT programmes
at the time led the way in the evolution of Assistive Technology training. Whiteney et al
provide a concise overview of the progression of ‘Design for All’. (2011: 163-170)
There are now many high-quality training programmes across the world that offer
similar insights and understanding of the Assistive product innovation eco-system and
associated principles and processes. For example, Inclusive Design, OCAD, Canada,
Disability, Design and Innovation, UCL, UK, and Assistive product related programmes
listed on the RENSA resources website. (RENSA 2022)
It is important to understand the contextual difference between the terms
Assistive Technology and Inclusive or Universal design when considering the LUCAT
process. The principles of Inclusive/Universal design ideals are to deliver a design that
enables the maximum number of people to be able to use it, to which designers and
engineers strive when developing a new product or service. This may be considered a
top-down approach. Assistive Technology being focused on a bottom-up approach to
delivering functional need for an individual to maintain a mainstream level of daily
living activity. The reality is that commercial products and services are targeted to a
section of a population (mainstream or otherwise) and rarely cater for everyone. The
LUCAT process was developed to enable practitioners to work within the two
approaches.
The aim of this study was to find out if any of the LUCAT process elements
were still in use within commercial practice; and gain insights into why those trained in
the process still used them.
Method
The survey and interviews followed generic ethics protocols for this format of inquiry
and guidelines for compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Ethical approval was obtained according to the protocols followed for research by
Loughborough University staff. (Loughborough University 2022).
To answer the five research questions defined earlier in the text, a questionnaire
was used to gain both qualitative and quantitative feedback on the application of the
LUCAT process in Industry. A sample of four respondents also gave a thirty-minute
semi-structured interview. The protocol for the questionnaire and interview were
developed for the earlier surveys of the LUCAT process. (Torrens 2000:15-30, Torrens
and Newton 2013:58-71,) The online survey and subsequent interviews were conducted
over a six-month period.
The sample population was drawn from those students who had been directly
trained in the LUCAT process. Based on academic record archives an estimated 518
students had been trained in the LUCAT process in the UK and through International
summer schools. There was no way to contact summer school students, which reduced
the available sample population to approximately 467 graduates. From this cohort, the
most cost-effective way to contact alumni was considered to be the professional
network LinkedIn (2022). A sample of eight graduates were also asked to take part in a
short interview. A purposive sampling method was used to identify a sample of four
male and four female graduates at different stages of their professional practice: 1) an
undergraduate returning from placement, 2) a recent graduate with less than 2 years’
experience, 3) graduate with over six years’ experience, and 4) graduate with over ten
years’ experience.
Through existing contacts and name search on the LinkedIn website 342
graduates were contacted and asked to complete an online survey hosted by Online
Surveys, (Online surveys 2022). As their former tutor, one of the authors introduced
themselves and the purpose of the contact. A participant information summary was
given in the email, including purpose, anonymity, estimated time to do the survey and
what would be done with the completed information. The survey was kept to nine
questions (five quantitative and four qualitative) to minimise the time required to
complete the survey to around ten minutes. This had been tested as a pilot study with a
small sample of three participants to check timings. The interview timing was piloted
with two participants prior to the interview.
The online survey had a full explanation of the aim and objectives of the study
and associated implications for the participants. The survey did not ask for any
identification or contact details, but did ask for age range, gender, and current work-
related activities. This was to provide context for the answers given, as a recent
graduate may have a different viewpoint to an experienced practicing designer. The
questions asked in the survey were aligned with the research questions already stated.
There were seven questions in total, but question 3 had two subsections to capture more
detail about the respondent’s current role and job title. The question of gender only had
two options as each participant had indicated their gender through their LinkedIn profile
and so ‘other’ was not required. In question 3, a selection of generic socio-economic
titles were chosen, again within the context of some prior knowledge of the possible
answers due to first contact via LinkedIn. If a respondent selected ‘other’ they had an
opportunity to state their current role. To gain further detail, of type of work, Question
3b asked for their job title. This provided a further insight into the areas of work into
which graduates had developed and give further context to later responses about the
LUCAT process. Question 4 was to provide the frequency of application of the LUCAT
design process, with Question 5 providing insights into which elements of the process
were used.
Questions 6 and 7 provided qualitative feedback about the benefits of the LUCAT
process and how it may be improved. Table 2. has a full list of the questions.
(Table 2 here.)
The survey was post-processed through a simple tally of quantitative results (Questions
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) and thematic analysis of Questions 3a, 3b, 6 and 7. Thematic analysis
followed a conventional protocol of initial review to gain themes and grouping of text
within themes, (Braun and Clarke 2006:77, Husiu-Fang and Shannon 2005:1277). To
avoid bias within the qualitative analysis process, a second operator reviewed the
questions independently of the first. The two outcomes were compared and
discrepancies in allocation discussed, and allocation agreed. Data sheets for the survey,
subsequent sample interviews and post-processing were made available via an
institutional repository (Torrens 2022).
To gain further insights into the efficacy, (effectiveness and cost-effectiveness), of
the LUCAT process four interviews were completed with a sample of the respondents.
A semi-structured interview protocol was followed, as defined by Allison et al (2016)
Creswell (2007), Bryman (2016:399-503), and Torrens and Newton (2013:60).
Sentence removed
The interview structure and questions were limited four topics to fit to an
estimated 30 minutes, to avoid participant fatigue when answering questions. Question
sequence was: 1) Participants were asked to review the LUCAT process and how they
used it within their current work. 2) They were then asked about how valuable they
thought the elements were to them and their work. 3) They were also asked if the
application of the LUCAT process had had an impact on their career. 4) They were also
asked about any improvements they could suggest to the process. Additional discussion
and ad hoc questions were asked within each question if the participant wished to
expand on their explanation or an associated topic.
Microsoft Teams was used for two of the interviews, with the transcript
downloaded for post-processing. Two videos were recorded on a Smart phone, with the
videos downloaded and the ‘transcribe’ function within Microsoft Word was used to
generate a transcript. A content and thematic analysis of the four transcripts was
completed to highlight similarities and differences in comments.
Results
From the 342 contacted via LinkedIn, 105 graduates replied. The respondents ranged
from recent graduates to senior managers in research and development within major
companies. Although not directly recorded through the survey, contacting the graduates
via the professional network website LinkedIn highlighted the diversity of work in
different parts of the world that the graduates were now involved. Around 20% of the
respondents were working overseas, for example, the United State of America, Norway,
the Netherlands and Malaysia. The background datasets for this survey are available,
(Torrens 2022).
Removal of Figure 1
(Figure 2, now 1. here)
There was a bias towards male designers in the 25-35 and 36-45 age groups of
respondents. A more equal number of female and male respondents can be seen in the
2-24 year old group.
Not all respondents provided a job title, which is why there are less respondents
shown in Figure 1. The job titles/roles were collated through an iterative cycle of
content then thematic analysis. The themes were focused on professional practice titles,
such as Industrial designer (ID) or Human Factors specialist. ID practitioners included
other specialists, such as inclusive designer or kitchen designer. The majority of the
older two groups, 25-35 and 36-45 year old, had indicated their position as senior
managers, with conventional Industrial design related roles. The 20-24-year-old group
were more evenly distributed across other sectors including service and User
Experience /User Interaction (UX/UI) design.
(Figure 3 now 2 here)
The frequency of use of LUCAT process elements by the respondents, shown in
Figure 2., highlights the frequent use of a user-centred approach. 75 respondents using
the process elements more than once a month and 23 using them daily.
Figure 3. indicates the most popular elements of the process were concept
generation, design presentation and feedback, interview, semi-structured interview, and
codesign.
The thematic analysis of benefits of the LUCAT process were taken through the
same iterative cycle of collation as that for the job titles. Figure 4. shows the two most
prioritised benefits were defining user requirements and effective decision-making.
Raising awareness with other professionals in new product development teams,
including legal requirements, making a difference to people’s lives, being easy to
understand as a process, giving users a voice, end user ownership, as well as helping get
a job were all featured.
(Figure 3 here)
(Figure 4 here)
(Figure 5 here)
(Figure 6 here)
The main improvement suggested was additional techniques to the process, such
as online interview and questionnaire, observational ethnography, more awareness and
discussion of stakeholders, impact of social media on perception of disability and
people with disability, implications for digital design, UX and UI, rapid prototyping.
Four male designers and ergonomists were interviewed. Whilst female graduate
designers and ergonomists were approached, they were not available during the period
available to complete the interviews. Additional female graduates were approached to
take part in the study, but none were available or responded during the six-month period
of data collection.
Participant 1 was the Associate Design Director in a blue-chip electronics
company with thirteen years’ experience of industrial design and human factors with the
same company and associated consultancy. From their interview key comments were:
“A user-centred approach to design is a core aspect of any project I lead.
Elicitation of user requirements and codesign are critical to new product
development. Teams within other parts of the business don’t use this approach
and hardly ever contact users. Much of the LUCAT process as described is used
within our new product development process.”
Participant 2 was a Senior Design Engineer with a major manufacturer and supplier of
assistive technology products. He had eight years’ experience in a range of companies
as an industrial designer and design engineer. Key comments included:
“The training I had enabled me to get my current and previous job (assistive
technology related). I still use the LUCAT process with other healthcare
professionals in the team to deliver commercially viable products.”
Participant 3 was a graduate of just over a year, but who had already won six student
design and young innovator awards. Key comments were:
“The LUCAT process was very influential in a second-year project of my
programme through which I’ve won two awards to-date, which is fantastic. The
project and product (outcome) had the LUCAT process at the core, talking with
the users, arranging to do codesign with the users and actually understanding the
users (needs) throughout the process.”
Participant 4 was (at the time of the interview) returning to their final year of
study following a placement as a human factor’s assistant consultant with a major civil
engineering company. Key comments included:
“I was part of the Company’s consultancy element which dealt with people
management. I had the opportunity to work on five major and eleven projects in
total. They were client focused projects. One of the projects was a building
optimisation for the future. I knew within the first week of the brief that the
elements of the LUCAT process were applicable to the project. Going forward
some of the elements were adapted for use within the project. The research
element (literature review), personas (champion users) and an understanding of
each one of the capabilities associated with those disabilities. Going forward, I
applied that to a large civil engineering transport infrastructure project, the same
principles were applied. For example, the journey of passengers. I pushed for
central organisation funding to apply a research aspect for checking the personas I
had generated from my understanding of people’s disability, which was to talk
with individual stakeholders and representatives of the personas to prove that they
were accurate. I also organised who would attend stakeholder engagement
sessions, where a codesign activity would take place. The range of applications
were drawn from the training provided (LUCAT process). In the training we were
given how we would approach talking with people who had a range of disabilities.
Just prior to the first presentation of the stakeholders for the Company project I
flagged up the range of people and their capability to take in the presentation and
we ended up quickly changing it. People greatly appreciated being involved at
such an early stage of the project. Often in industry the design is agreed, (before
checking with stakeholders), which costs a fortune to redesign. Not having an
early codesign intervention, especially for an infrastructure project, would be
detrimental. Some of the things I stated as important, (stakeholder engagement,
checking personas with champion users), were being considered even though I’d
only been with the company a short time.”
Discussion
The implications for assistive product development are reviewed in more detail in
the following section. This includes: a discussion of the profiles of the sample
population, highlighting how it has changed in terms of equality, diversity, and
inclusion; the frequency of methods used; priority order of methods beneficial to
professional practice; potential improvements to the LUCAT process; and, awareness
within industry of an inclusive approach to new product development.
The range of working locations of the graduates who responded indicated the
International nature of all forms of design. Working within different societies and
cultures require the application of methods to quickly gain an understanding of a market
sector in order to provide and communicate a new product or service.
From a professional progression viewpoint, the descriptive statistics of graduates
and employment show a more equal balance of male and female designers are now
being generated through a university system. The bias in the two older groups reflected
the perception of Industrial design and Engineering design being a ‘male’ profession in
the early part of this Century. The authors were also aware of students who had
registered disabilities on the programmes during this period but did not take the module.
Whilst these students already have had experience of living with disability, they were
unlikely to have access to all the useful knowledge within this field to design for others
living with a different disability. Tacit knowledge from the authors suggests many
graduates who were trained in the LUCAT process did go on into the third sector
(charity) to work, with a number working for manufacturers of assistive products. When
discussing frequency of use and benefits of the LUCAT process later in this section, a
large proportion of the graduates from the sample indicated their general practice was
more inclusive due to the training in the process.
Ethnicity was not highlighted in the results, as it was not considered a useful
metric for the focus of this topic. However, future studies may wish to explore equal
opportunities, equality, diversity, and inclusion shown through a survey of design
student populations. Following graduate pathways into professional practice may also
be informative for educators to better understand future needs for assistive product and
service design in the future. The next section reflects on the frequency and importance
of LUCAT process application.
From the 105 respondents 23% stated they used parts of the AUTHOR process
every working day, a further 25% once a week and 27% once a month. The elements of
the process used were predominantly semi-structured interviews, concept generation,
codesign, design presentation and feedback. These two Figures emphasise the
application of conventional Industrial Design (ID) methods, but with a focus on
obtaining information and validation of design interventions (user requirements and
design concepts). Based on the collective experience of the authors, the quality of
insights gained through these methods is directly related to the quality of design
outcomes produced. Understanding of individual needs, aspirations, the physical and
cultural environment within which assistive products are used are critical to providing
an optimum and novel design solution.
Learning the skill to listen without immediate response is a challenging one for
design practitioners whose training is focused on the generation/ideation of solutions
quickly from limited information. This becomes even more critical when channels of
communication are reduced and dialogue is protracted and difficult to interpret due to
disability, as highlighted in the introduction.
Elements of the LUCAT process provided a vehicle for an evidence-based model
of ID and the methods for eliciting needs (requirements) and aspirations as well as a
method for rapidly checking and modifying options to match those requirements.
Separately, these methods are well-documented in academic references and applied in
practice. However, the benefit of the given time sequence and combination of methods
presented in the LUCAT template, as a way of time-compressing design decision-
making, are not defined elsewhere in the literature reviewed. The frequency of
application leads on to the discussion of benefits of the LUCAT process as highlighted
by respondents.
The respondents highlighted in Figure 3. the benefits of using the process to
effectively gain insights from users, and that it was time efficient, saved money, and
helped in developing relationships with end users and clients as well as making a
difference to the lives of people with disability.
The interviews with a sample of the respondents supported the survey findings.
Participant 3 highlighted that the AUTHOR ‘bottom-up research’ approach was
effective in producing award winning designs for students with little time or funding to
undertake large scale market reviews. This view was also supported by the senior
manager in a large company, Participant 1. The use of a champion user, expanding to a
small group, before investing in a larger survey has been documented as a cost-effective
way to minimise risk within a new product development, through designing out what
people don’t want at an early stage. Individuals are good at expressing opinions about
what they don’t like. A bottom-up approach uses these opinions to quickly focus on the
areas that are important to end users and stakeholders. This leads to the suggested
improvements for the LUCAT process.
The suggested improvements to the AUTHOR process were focused on additional
methods, which were predominantly an expansion of the core methods that
acknowledged the wider implications of stakeholders, and the advent of a digital age of
the internet and internet of things. Additive manufacturing was also highlighted, which
may enhance the flexibility for, and viability of, customised interface design built on to
standardised modular parts. Other suggestions were additional time spent on the core
methods to enable them to be used more effectively. It has been highlighted in the
introduction that using top-down market research evidence from larger surveys
combined with semiotic analysis of the culture and society within which an assistive
product is used can provide a more complete and holistic understanding of user and
stakeholder requirements to avoid product abandonment. The links between methods
and benefits for the assistive product manufacturers and service providers has been
highlighted, but a lack of awareness within industry of the benefits of an inclusive
participatory approach has also been defined.
Participant 4 and Participant 1 highlighted the need to raise awareness in industry
and with other professions of not just the benefit of a user-centred approach, but of
available design methods in general. The lack of awareness of what is design and
associated methods, such as user centred design, within Industry has been highlighted
by Johnson et al (2019). Although a different industry sector, similar issues of lack of
understanding or appreciation of the benefits a user-centred design approach could bring
appear to be highlighted.
The study has highlighted important points to consider as an educator, researcher,
or practitioner in the field of assistive product design. However, there were limitations
to the study. The purposive sampling approach was necessary but did increase the
likelihood of positive bias towards the questions being answered. It is unclear if the lack
of female graduates being interviewed about the application of the LUCAT process
affected the outcomes of the study. Other than timing, there did not appear to be an
issue with female graduates responding. A number of female graduates had agreed to be
interviewed but could not then make the appointments. The constraints of time and
resource on the researchers resulted in a limited number of set days being available to
set up and record the interviews.
Conclusion
The LUCAT process was taught as part of the Universal Design module between
October 1997 and June 2019. In that time design research had progress significantly to
bring theory to underpin practice. The survey and interviews provide evidence of the
usefulness and impact the LUCAT process has had on graduates; their employability,
recognition of the quality of design outcome through winning awards; the cost-
effectiveness of a ‘bottom-up research’ approach and that the sequence of methods in
the template are still effective now in this very different time. Effective ‘time
compression’ for this form of market research and concept development has also been
highlighted. This is supported with previous articles, including the original article in
2000.
The outcomes of the survey suggest the new profession of UX/UI design has
embraced many of the user centred methods of conventional ID and Human Factors and
is now developing new inclusive approaches that are appropriate for a digitally driven
market, not just within Assistive products. This matches with the origins of both
‘Design for All’ and Inclusive/Universal design principles originating from within HCI
and ICT; digital environments.
The LUCAT process has been demonstrated to provide Assistive product business, and
the designers they employ, with a cost-effective least risk investment approach to giving
users, consumers, and stakeholders a chance to say what they want and aspire to have,
whilst ensuring an effective first phase outcome that is commercially viable and
successful. The previous two articles reflecting on the efficacy, (effectiveness and cost-
effectiveness), of the LUCAT process from 2000 and 2013 appear to support the
comments from graduates in this study relating to providing users and stakeholders with
a ’voice’ and a level of empowerment. However, the limitations of this study suggest
the outcomes related to acceptance within industry require additional investigation.
Using this survey format with graduates of other long-running AT programmes would
be a move towards validating some of the inferences from this study.
Further research is required to integrate the available new and emerging UX/UI
methods with business process, and more conventional new product design methods, to
support inclusive sustainable assistive product enterprises. The authors would welcome
collaboration on a cross-institution survey of graduates and debate on how best to
bridge the gap between a good concept and a successful product or service in these
challenging times.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank all the graduates from Loughborough University who
took time to respond to the survey and especially those who gave their time to be
interviewed.
Declaration of interest statement
This study was funded through the Higher Education Funding Council, United
Kingdom.
References
Allison, B., Hilton, A., O'Sullivan, T., Owen, A. and Rothwell, A., (2016). Research
skills for students. Routledge.
Archer, L.B., (1979). Whatever became of design methodology. Des Stud, 1(1), p.17.
Asghar, S., Torrens, G., Iftikhar, H., Harland, R., G., (2019). Cultural blindness: Eye-
tracking trial of visual attention towards assistive technology (AT) product, by students
from the UK and Pakistan. In: IASDR Conference 2019, Design Revolutions.
Bennett, C.L. and Rosner, D.K., (2019). The Promise of Empathy: Design, Disability,
and Knowing the" Other". In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors
in computing systems (pp. 1-13).
Bryman, A., (2016). Social research methods. Oxford university press. pp 399-503
Burkitt, J., Torrens, G.E., Kay, G.H., Sandbach, D. and Sutherland, I.A., (1995). The
development of the Autosip: A hygienic, self-operated, drinking device for people with
minimal sucking ability and/or minimal arm strength. Journal of Rehabilitation
Sciences, 8. pp.115-118.
Creswell, J.W., (2009). Research design: Qualitative and mixed methods approaches.
London and Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Cross, N. and Roy, R., (1989). Engineering design methods (4). Chichester: Wiley.
Hamraie, A., (2016). Universal design and the problem of “post-disability” ideology.
Design and Culture, 8(3). pp.285-309.
Johnson, N.,S.; Torrens, G., E.; Storer, I., (2019). Communicating the value of
design: Design considerations to assist practitioner rationale in FMCG packaging
development. Conference proceedings of the Academy of Design and Innovation
Management 2019: Research Perspectives In the era of Transformations. Pp.453-468.
https://hdl.handle.net/2134/9369560.v1
Jones, J.C., (1992). Design methods. John Wiley & Sons.
Newell, A.F., Gregor, P., Morgan, M., Pullin, G. and Macaulay, C., (2011). User-
sensitive inclusive design. Universal Access in the Information Society, 10(3). pp.235-
243.
LinkedIn, (2022). Online, Retrieved October 2022 from: (https://www.linkedin.com/).
Loughborough University, 2022. Research Ethics, Online. Retrieved June 2022 from:
(https://www.lboro.ac.uk/internal/research-ethics-integrity/research-ethics/).
Mitchell, V., Wilson, G.T., Jewitt, C., Mackley, K.L., Golmohammadi, L., Atkinson, D.
and Price, S., (2020). Digital Touch. Design and Technology Education: an
International Journal, 25(1), pp.59-79.
Papanek, V. and Fuller, R.B., (1972). Design for the real world, London: Thames and
Hudson. pp159-240
Papanek, V.J., (1985). Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change;
Academy Chicago. pp215-247
Online surveys, (2022). Online. Retrieved March 2022 from:
(https://www.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/).
Newell, A.F., Gregor, P., Morgan, M., Pullin, G. and Macaulay, C., (2011). User-
sensitive inclusive design. Universal Access in the Information Society, 10(3), pp.235-
243.
Poulson, D., Ashby, M. and Richardson, S., (1996). User fit: a practical handbook on
user-centred design for assistive technology: European Commission. DG XIII,
Telematics applications for the integration of the disabled and elderly.
RESNA, (2022). University programs. Online. Retrieved October 2020 from:
(https://www.resna.org/Resources/University-Programs)
Torrens, G., Marshall, R., Burkitt, J. and Kay, G., (1996). Using modularity to produce
more competitive assistive technology products. IN: Hillery, MT (ed.). IMC-13: Re-
engineering for World Class Manufacturing. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth
Conference of the Irish Manufacturing Committee, 4th-6th September (pp. 797-804).
Faculty of Engineering, Department of Manufacturing and Operations Engineering,
University of Limerick.
Torrens, G., (2000). Understanding the product user: The implementation of a user-
centred design approach by student industrial designers when designing for elderly and
disabled people. The Design Journal, 3(1). pp.15-30.
Torrens, G., Storer, I., Welsh, R,, Asghar, S., Hurn, K., (2018). Social camouflage: A
survey of 143 students of their preference for assistive technology cutlery and the visual
mechanisms being influenced. Social camouflage: A survey of 143 students of their
preference for assistive technology cutlery and the visual mechanisms being influenced.
In: Charles, R. and Golightly, D. (eds). Contemporary Ergonomics & Human Factors
2019 EHF 2019, Stratford-upon-Avon, 29th April-1st May.
Torrens, G.E., Bruseberg, A. and McDonagh-Philp, D.C., (2000). Reducing the Risk: A
Partnership between Academia and a Small to Medium Enterprise, (In) Integrating
Design Education Beyond 2000, (ed) Childs, P.R.N. and Brodhurst, E.K. Professional
Engineering Publishing Limited, London, Brighton, UK. pp 193-198.
Torrens, G.E., (2011). 16 Universal Design: Empathy and Affinity. Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Consumer Product Design: Methods and Techniques, p.233-248.
Torrens, G.E., (2012). Assistive technology product to universal design: a way forward.
Design For All, 7(7). Design for All Institute, New Delhi. pp.182-205.
Torrens, G.E., (2017). Dialogue appropriate to assistive technology product design: A
taxonomy of communication formats in relation to modes of sensory perception. She Ji:
The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 3(4), pp.262-276.
Torrens, G.E., (2018). The order and priority of research and design method application
within an assistive technology new product development process: a summative content
analysis of 20 case studies. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 13(1),
pp.66-77.
Torrens, G.E., (2022). Online. Dataset. Online, Design process data sets. Dataset.
https://doi.org/10.17028/rd.lboro.13147982.v1
Torrens, G.E., Fray, M., (2020). Making a difference: Using a participatory design
process to give a voice to people with disabilities. Special edition, on ‘sustaining
inclusive design collaboration through co-design platforms’, Design For All, (15)11,
Design for All Institute, New Delhi. pp56-63.
Torrens, G.E. and Newton, H., (2013). Getting the Most from Working with Higher
Education: A review of methods used within a participatory design activity involving
KS3 special school pupils and undergraduate and post-graduate industrial design
students. Design and Technology Education: an international journal, 18(1). pp58-71
UNITAID; (2013). Online. UNITAID and World Health Organization, UNITAID 2013
annual report: transforming markets saving lives. Retrieved October 2020 from:
(http://unitaid.org/assets/UNITAID_Annual_Report_2013.pdf.).
WC3, (2020). Online. Retrieved October 2020 from: (https://www.w3.org/).
Whitney, G., Keith, S., Bühler, C., Hewer, S., Lhotska, L., Miesenberger, K., Sandnes,
F.E., Stephanidis, C. and Velasco, C.A., (2011). Twenty five years of training and
education in ICT Design for All and Assistive Technology. Technology and Disability,
23(3), pp.163-170.
Wilson, J.R. and Corlett N., (2005). Evaluation of human work. CRC press.
World Health Organization, (2016). Online. Improving access to assistive technology:
report by the secretariat. Geneva: WHO. Retrieved October 2020 from:
(https://www.who.int/phi/implementation/assistive_technology/Improving_access_to_a
ssitive_technology.pdf?ua=1).
Table 1. Outline LUCAT process and challenges addressed using this approach.
Process
Challenge
1
Ethics and Participant
recruitment (Literature
review)
Gaining an understanding of the context and
process of AT procurement, medical condition,
designer/self, user and societal perception of
Assistive products. Limitations of funds, multiple
stakeholders influencing purchase decision-
making.
2
Empathic modelling
(simulated disability,
using hockey kit,
blindfold, diffused glasses,
wheelchair)
Understanding the physical and emotional
challenges to mobility, communication,
appearance, and confidence of an AT product
user.
3
Ice-breaker with
participants and
stakeholder (physical and
social context)
Gaining a common language/terminology and
context of environment as well as building trust
between user and designer before participatory
design begins.
4
Semi-structured Interview
design (with prompts)
Practicing the development of research questions
(based on evidence from literature review), based
on Human Factors conventions for elicitation of
user requirements.
5
Interview (participants and
stakeholders)
Practicing conventional Human Factors and
marketing approach, but with additional
understanding of communication format and
language requirements/flexibility in application.
Practicing elicitation of user requirements.
Importantly, inter-personal skills and ‘learning to
listen’.
6
Concept generation
(sketching, modelling)
Practicing the interpretation and expansion of
options from user requirements obtained, with an
emphasis on choice of communication formats
and language.
7
Co-design (sketching, role
play with participants and
stakeholders)
Practicing inter-personal skills and using a range
of communication formats appropriate for
participants to enable them to apply a rapid
iterative cycle of ideation, making choices and
reflecting on why they were made to generate
further refinements to user requirements and
design solutions in a short time duration.
8
Design development AT
one-off and batch
production approach
(REMAP GB)
Practicing the application of value analysis,
standardisation, and modularity as well as use of
original equipment manufactured components/off-
the-shelf-parts to reduce cost and increase choice
for customisation.
9
Design presentation and
feedback (Presentation
techniques, Competition
judging)
Practice interpersonal skills and using a range of
communication formats suitable for the viewing
audience.
Table 2. Survey questions.
Question
1
Are you female or male?
2
How old are you?
3
What is your current role?
3a
If you selected Other, please specify
3b
If in work, what is your job title?
4
How many times do you use the LUCAT design process and or its elements?
5
Which of the LUCAT design process elements do you use?
8
If you have applied the LUCAT design process or its elements, what have been
the benefits of application?
9
Based on your experience, are there any improvements that could be made to the
LUCAT design process or its elements?
Figure 1. Content analysis of job title by age group from responses given by 89
Graduate Designers and Ergonomists.
Figure 2. Frequency of use of LUCAT process by 105 graduates and Ergonomists in
industry.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Everyday Once a week Once a Month More than once a Year Once a Year Never
Frequency of use of LUCAT process by 105 graduates in Industry
Figure 3. LUCAT design process elements used based on multi choice answers from
105 graduates and Ergonomists in industry
Figure 4. Thematic analysis of the benefits of the LUCAT process based on written
responses from 105 Graduate designers and Ergonomists.
Figure 5. Thematic analysis of the benefits of the LUCAT process based on written
responses from 105 Graduate designers and Ergonomists.
Figure 6. Thematic analysis of suggested improvements to the LUCAT process based
on written responses from 105 Graduate designers and Ergonomists.
