1. art and entertainment
2. visual art and design
3. design

159
Technology and Disability 21 (2009) 159–170
DOI 10.3233/TAD-2009-0292
IOS Press
Why did it take four times longer to create the
Universal Design solution?
A comparative study of two product development projects
Evastina Bjo¨ rk
NHV- Nordic School of Public Health, Box 12133, 402 42 G o¨ teborg, Sweden
E-mail: evastina.bjork@nhv.se
Abstract. In this paper, different aspects of the development of universally designed (UD) products have been highlighted, and
two different product development projects have been compared, in order to try to analyse the challenges companies face when
they engage in creating UD solutions compared to the development of assistive technology and modular based solutions.
Some conclusions have been drawn: The time before reaching break-even in the project whose purpose it was to create a universal
design solution, was many times longer, due to the unstable and complex development circumstances.
When time-to-market is longer and project costs are higher for universally designed products compared to modular systems
(often represented by assistive technology) or mainstream technology products, there are limited commercial reasons to invest in
universally designed solutions.
Keywords: Assistive technology, dynamic product development, innovation, project work, universal design
1. Introduction
As we grow older, get pregnant or experience some
accident or illness, our abilities change. Depending
on our present condition, we will need different types
of products to help us maintain independence. Desires
for mainstream products that fulfil the needs of both
able bodied and people with disabilities – universally
designed products – put pressure on companies and
designers. To design universal mainstream products we
have to design highly usable products with desirable
identities and features. The concept of universal design
represents a potential for innovation that can lead to
products that are easier and safer to use for everyone,
regardless of age and ability.
The main goal of Universal Design is to achieve universal performance of designed products, buildings and
environments, especially at an urban level. It promotes
a shift towards user-centred design by following a holistic approach and aiming to accommodate the needs and
wishes of people regardless of any changes they might
experience in the course of their lives. Consequently,
universal design is a concept that extends beyond the
issues of mere accessibility of buildings for people with
disabilities and should become an integrated part of
policies and planning in all aspects of society.
On the 12th December 2007, The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe – see Resolution ResAP (2007)3 – decided to recommend that the Governments of the EU states accept universal design as a
philosophy and strategy supporting implementation of
full citizenship and independent living for all people,
including those with disabilities. According to the resolution, “Universal design is a strategy which aims to
make the design and composition of different environments, products, communication, information technology and services accessible, usable and understandable
to as many as possible in an independent and natural
manner, preferably without the need for adaptation or
specialized solutions.”
To make the Universal Design concept more useful,
the Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State
University developed seven principles [5] that aim to
support the evaluation of existing designs, guide the
design process and to educate both designers and consumers about the characteristics of more usable products and environments.
The seven Universal Design principles are [21]:
ISSN 1055-4181/09/$17.00  2009 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
160
E. Bj¨ork / Why did it take four times longer to create the Universal Design solution?
– PRINCIPLE ONE: Equitable Use
The design is useful and marketable to people with
diverse abilities.
– PRINCIPLE TWO: Flexibility in Use
The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities.
– PRINCIPLE THREE: Simple and Intuitive Use
Use of design is easy to understand, regardless of
the user’s experience, knowledge, language skills,
or current concentration level.
– PRINCIPLE FOUR: Perceptible Information
The design communicates necessary information
effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities.
– PRINCIPLE FIVE: Tolerance for Error
The design minimizes hazards and the adverse
consequences of accidental or unintended actions.
– PRINCIPLE SIX: Low Physical Effort
The design can be used efficiently and comfortably
and with a minimum of fatigue.
– PRINCIPLE SEVEN: Size and Space for Approach and Use
Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of
users’s body size, posture or mobility.
The seven principles define the degree of fit between
individuals or groups and their environments, but they
also refer to the attributes of products and environments
that are perceived to support or impede human activity. They also imply the objective of minimizing the
adverse effects environments may have on their users
such as stress, distraction, inefficiency and sickness.
However, the seven UD principles require perspective
and reflection. Some have criticized their orientation
toward products (e.g. [17]), and others have criticized
them as vague, incomplete, and difficult to understand
(e.g. [20]). Although little re-evaluation, reconsideration, or questioning of the principles has occurred since
their introduction in 1997,Duncan [8] suggested adding
new principles that relate to affordability and sustainability. He also requested guidance in weighting the
principles.
The political ambitions and initiatives such as, for
example, the COE Resolution are important and well
known prerequisites for implementing a UD perspective into the development of a democratic and integrated society. In addition, activities and engagement from
users/user organizations are also necessary to create
a society accessible to, and usable by as many people as possible. However, the third stakeholder is the
business sector which is involved in the technical and
market/sales-oriented development of universal solutions of various kinds. Thus, there are three parties
forming the BUS triangle – Business, User and Society [13], which is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. The BUS triangle illustrates three important stakeholders for
the creation of UD solutions.
However many companies are not adopting Universal Design concept simply as they do not know about
the term or what benefits there is connected to it [10].
In this paper, different aspects of the development of
universally designed products are highlighted and two
different product development projects are compared,
to try to analyse the challenges companies can face
when they engage in creating UD solutions compared
to the development of assistive technology, modular
based solutions.
2. Background
The small sized enterprise Careva Systems AB specializes in positioning equipment for safe and comfortable transportation of disabled children in cars and
vans. In June 2002 the company concluded that its existing main product line – a belt system, the Careva
belt, supporting body posture for people with reduced
body functions – was not saleable in the general public
transport sector e.g. school buses, vans and taxis [2].
Dialogues with drivers from this target group in Great
Britain and Sweden revealed the opinion that the existing Careva belt modular system was too expensive,
consisted of too many parts, in total 20 to be used individually for different disabilities/body shapes, and was
therefore difficult to store in vehicles when not used for
the transport of non-disabled passengers. It was also
argued that it was time consuming to fasten each individual. However, it was found that the interviewed
E. Bjo¨ rk / Why did it take four times longer to create the Universal Design solution?
drivers and managers wanted a cheap, simple and universal solution to ease problems with transporting passengers with disabilities. No other products or solutions were known of, that directly solved or could solve
these expressed desires. This resulted in the start up of
the Crossit project in January 2003 [2].
Six and a half years later (July 2009) the new product
was ready for the market. The time needed to develop
the product was extremely long in fact about four times
longer than the development of the Careva modular belt
system. The two projects had the same project leader,
a team of four professionals, and were developed in
Sweden.
The purpose of this paper is to shed light on why
the universally designed product, the Crossit belt, took
about four times longer to develop than the Careva
modular belt system. If variables can be defined that
explain the time difference between developing the UD
solution compared to modular system solution, companies will be able to make more realistic project plans
for cost, performance and time for universal design
projects. Society can also be more realistic in estimating what resources are required for supporting the implementation of UD solutions to achieve full citizenship and independent living for all people, as stated in
resolutions and documents of human rights.
3. Research method
Insider Action Research (IAR) [3] is the method used
on both the development projects, meaning a qualitative
case study where the researcher spending substantial
time, on site, personally in contact with activities and
operations of the case, reflecting, revising meanings of
what is going on [19]. The project leader/researcher
of the two projects had a professional background as
occupational therapist which provided a personal preknowledge about disability issues, assistive technology and a network of professional colleagues, whose
experiences became a resource in the project.
The two cases will be compared with the aim to
identify variables that could explain the big time difference in completion of a final solutions and their market
introduction.
4. Theory, a frame of reference
4.1. The user – a term with several implications
The number of consumers who neglect products because of insufficient accessibility, bad usability, and/or
161
no satisfaction in the interaction with products is increasing [12] and constitutes a large number of prospective customers. The number of elderly people, especially, is increasing worldwide which indicates an increasing market for products that can fulfill users’ greater
variety of needs, wants and desires, which should be
of interest for companies who wants to increase their
market share.
To be able to create solutions which are inventive and
attractive and which go beyond today’s users’ needs
and functionality, the focus should be on users’ desires.
Edefors [9] highlights the problems with focusing on
the actual local user and argues for a wider perspective. The prospective users are interesting to investigate
as they have the arguments and motives for not using
an actual product or environment today. Their motives
for being non users create demands for new, inventive
solutions.
The number of individuals with some form of disability has, in Europe, been estimated to be between 12 and
15% of the population [18], a figure which is increasing
due to a growing number of elderly worldwide. What
this figure does not take into account, however, is that
disability statistics tend to count those individuals who
are registered as permanently disabled, whereas people
who do not consider themselves as disabled or prefer
not to register as such, are not counted. Studies have
also shown that about two thirds of a country’s population, experience some difficulty in handling technical products [12]. The consequence is that disability
statistics almost certainly underestimate the number of
individuals who experience limitations in activities due
to reduced body function. Based on statistics from the
USA, Fig. 2 has been drawn to illustrate the current
market situation.
Users with severe mobility problems (in black, in
Fig. 2) require a high degree of both technical and practical functionality in environments, products and systems as they cannot compensate for practical disadvantages in the same way as ordinary users or those with
slight impairments. The user groups who experience
they have a disability are heterogeneous and consists
of individuals who have individual demands to a higher degree than ordinary users. Individually developed
solutions – based on assistive technology – often have
to be developed for these users. General standard products and modular based systems can also sometimes be
adjusted to fulfil their requirements.
Users with special needs (in grey, in Fig. 2) represent those who normally require smaller adjustments
of standard products to maintain independence. Often
162
E. Bj¨ork / Why did it take four times longer to create the Universal Design solution?
A
100 %
Disabled users
-Assistive technology
often needed
B
Users with special needs
-Smaller adjustments often
needed
Ordinary users
-Standard solutions
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Age
Fig. 2. An illustration of how different groups of users are represented in relation to age [15].
modular based systems can be used without adjustments.
As Fig. 2 indicates, up to the age of 50, about 80–
85% of all users can use standard solutions based on
mainstream technology. After 50 the number of users
who require assistive devices or adaptations increases.
From the age of 60 this figure increases to about 35%
and at 80 years of age about 50% have the need for assistive technology. The group of users with disabilities
increases nearly linear from the age of 50 up to 80 years
of age, while the group of disabled users is very small
in younger ages.
A, in Fig. 2 illustrates the span in age where UD
solutions can increase companies’ market share and
motivate investments to increase sales.
B, in Fig. 2 illustrates the small group of about 15%
over 50 years of age, who require assistive technology
solutions and most of them are elderly.
Consequently, companies that develop mainstream
products or systems for usage also by the elderly can
benefit from developing UD solutions, while companies that develop mainstream products for younger ages
will have difficulties finding motivation for this from a
business perspective.
4.2. Needs, wants and wishes – what’s the difference?
Most product development (PD) models – Integrated
Product Development (IPD) [1], Simultaneous Engineering (SE), Concurrent Engineering (CE) [22], and
Stage-Gate [6] – are designed for re-engineering and
managing controlled processes where the outcome is
almost always known in advance. They build on the
tradition that, “Without an existing customer or market
need, no PD project will be successful.” The need is
generally seen as an existing need or a problem that can
clearly be stated.
These classical PD models are the same within each
development stage. A common factor within all these
models is that the PD process starts out with first finding a customer need or simply just a need. The next
step is to plan the PD project. Then – or in parallel –
the project team is set up representing different knowledge areas. According to common definitions, projects
should be completed at a predetermined performance
(P) to a specific Cost (C) and at a fixed finish time
(T). These three measures form the PCT (performance
cost and time) which form how most PD projects are
managed [15].
However, for designers who seek to create inventive
solutions; new solutions for the future that correspond
to a want and a more distant wish, a need based platform is not what is required [14]. Incremental innovations are often based on satisfying a want. Radical innovations are more often based on satisfying a wish or a
desire not concrete outspoken. The relevance of using
the three terms – and not only a need for everything – is
that the conditions for want- and wish-based PD differ
much from need-based PD for which the well-known
PD models were initially designed. The main differences between the three PD driving forces mentioned
are shown in Table 1.
E. Bjo¨ rk / Why did it take four times longer to create the Universal Design solution?
163
Table 1
Three types of background for product development causing different circumstances for PD
work (based on Holmdahl [11])
PD based on:
Characteristics
PD target
Planning
Need
Knowledge and solutions exist to re-use or modify
Combination of known and
unknown solutions, creativity needed
No solutions exist, creativity
needed
Fixed
Fulfil plan
Moving
Adapt to
the situation
Partly
Vision
Create,
make and test
No
Want
Wish
– For need-based product development, time-tomarket is an extremely important factor, as a need
is there to be satisfied, and the same need is probably being experienced by many competitors in the
market. The price of the product is also critical
as many similar solutions will be in competition,
meaning that the cost to develop the product is critical for its commercial success. The performance
demands are high but must be balanced against the
total price that will be accepted in the market.
– For want-based product development, time-tomarket is also an important factor, as the want can
soon become a need. The want is probably being
experienced by one or more competitors on the
market. The price for the product is not critical
but has to be set by comparing similar solutions,
meaning that the cost to develop the product is of
importance for its economical success. The performance demands are high but must be balanced
against the market price that is set.
Project planning in a want-based project can only
be done in a short time perspective. The demands
on performance are the same as, or higher than,
for need-based development. Lead users [23] who
are those users who face needs that will be general in a marketplace – but face them months or
years before the bulk of that marketplace encounters them, and Lead users are positioned to benefit significantly by obtaining a solution to those
needs. Lead users can initially make important
contributions and iteration backwards is needed
when problems occur, which means that the PD
models guiding these kinds of projects have to be
flexible and dynamic in their structure.
– For wish-based product development, time-tomarket is often not an important factor, and the
price of the product, generally speaking, cannot be
set by doing market research. Therefore, the cost
of the development is usually based on resources
available and performance demands are very high.
Stable
conditions
Yes
Ottosson [14,15] argues that for products or solutions that are based on a wish, the time and price
factors are less important, as few – if any – solutions exist for use in development and production.
However, for both want- and wish-based PD, often
the team initially has to take decisions based on very
little and/or unreliable data. In turn, that often results
in reaching “dead-ends” and a frustrated team that has
to go back into what can be described as a PD labyrinth
to make a new start.
4.3. The product development concept in the two
studies
Product development (PD) is a learning process
driven by an existing or constructed need, want, or
wish [14]. Generally, need-based PD projects have stable conditions, while want/wish-based PD projects experience unstable conditions. Two philosophically different views exist on how to best perform need-based
PD development, leading to a categorization of PD
methods as either classic or dynamic depending on their
ability to handle stable/unstable conditions.
In both PD projects described in this paper, the Dynamic Product Development (DPD TM ) method [13]
guided the processes, although it was more structured
in the Careva modular belt system project.
DPDTM is based on a usability philosophy; good
usability is based on knowledge about human performance and of the environment where the performance
takes place. To cope with complexity and unstable situations, DPDTM recommends that the project leader
is mentally and physically in the centre of the development in order to gain immediate feedback from the
development activities, and to take counter measures
when necessary, which was the case in both projects
presented here.
The use of Brain Aided Design (BAD) (meaning
to solve a problem or designing a product principally without sketching or materialize it) supported by
164
E. Bj¨ork / Why did it take four times longer to create the Universal Design solution?
DfEn + LCA
Relative time used
DfS
t
100 %
DfAe
DfL
+
+
DfEr
DfP
+
DfSe
DfMA
FTA+ DfQ
Manuals
DfU
Time
Start
Final
Fig. 3. The order in which a new technical product is preferably developed [14].
known creative methods and dialogues are prescribed
and to realise and evaluate the solutions, Pencil Aided
Design (PAD) and Model Aided Design (MAD) are
used. Frequent testing on models is recommended,
which also Schrage [24] describes when he argue that
the more modelling and test sequences carried out per
time unit e.g. per hour, the faster functional solutions
will be found. Computer Aided Design (CAD) becomes a valuable tool after a functional solution has
been found.
The DPDTM concept defines product values [15]
which guided the processes in both projects and which
has been outlined below. Attention also has to be given to promoting sustainability, creating solutions that
support social inclusion when facing a global business
community, as was the goal in the Crossit project.
– Functional product values are dependent on the
technical solutions mostly hidden inside the product.
– Perceptional/sensorial product values are based on
what we experience with our senses (sight/hearing/
taste/touch/smell) from outside and/or in contact
with a product. The product name’s semantics are
an important contributor to these values.
– Image values are based on the “feeling” the user
get of the product and what we think of it, e.g.
when closing our eyes. Brand names, patents, the
image given on web pages, stories and the expressed experiences of the product by other users.
Emotional values are sometimes used to express
the passion/feelings users have for a product.
According to DPD TM working on a large number
of demands simultaneously is not recommended, only
one main, and two to three secondary demands should
be worked on simultaneously. This recommendation
guided both projects.
A principal example of the order in which the different Design for X (DfX) [16] demands are worked on in
a project by the DPD TM methodology is illustrated in
Fig. 3. In the figure there is a dashed line. Above this
line system design takes place while detailed design is
done under it. As seen in the figure, DPD TM focuses
initially on usability in solutions (DfU – Design for
Usability). Optimal solutions require studies of users,
user performance in real situations and environmental
knowledge further, that means reduced risk of imbalances between product demands and the mental and
physical resources of the users. One benefit of this is
that early in the design process, necessary changes can
be made at a low cost.
The following stages in the PD process consists of
DfAe (Design for Aesthetics), DfEr (Design for Ergonomics), DfL (Design for Logistics), DfP (Design
for Production), DfSt (Design for Storage), DfMa (Design for Manufacturing), DfEn (Design for Engineering), DfQ (Design for Quality) followed by manuals.
4.4. Project management
The development of new products and/or systems is
normally performed within development projects. In
modern project theory, a project is defined to be unique,
temporary – has a start and an end date – and is given
a limited cost budget.
An innovation project is also unique and has a start
date, but is gradually transformed into a standard business instead of having an end date. In reality it has no
cost limit and has some income from the initial sales of
the solution. Innovation projects need to be dynamically performed to adjust to changing circumstances while
E. Bjo¨ rk / Why did it take four times longer to create the Universal Design solution?
being developed. Therefore, their start conditions (demands) are often vague. The projects described in this
paper had no definite end date and had just an estimated
budget.
Innovation projects deal with more complex situations and contexts than classical ones, and this comes
mainly from the fact that such projects build on few
known solutions. Therefore the project teams, especially in the beginning of a project, experience chaotic
situations, not knowing what to do, and until a stable
situation has been reached (when a solution has been
shown to meet the requirements) it can feel like walking
in a labyrinth [15]. Thus, as the developers frequently
have to rely on very little and/or unreliable information when deciding on an action or solution, they often
come across dead-ends. In such situations, they will experience the frustrating situation of having to go back
and try again until they have found the successful path.
When dead-end situations are reached, leadership becomes critical for the project, because that will decide
whether or not the project will come back on track.
5. The two empirical cases
5.1. The Careva belt project
The company Careva Systems AB decided in 1996
to develop a modular based system for posture support
for people with reduced body function when travelling
in vehicles. The company had earlier bought a product
from Germany for the Swedish market which did not
provide adequate support.
A group of four product developers, the project leader included, started up the project and much effort
was devoted to identifying the market, i.e. the user
groups. The professional background, experience and
input from former colleagues meant that important user requirements could be identified quite early in the
project.
Interviews and observation studies were carried out
with parents of disabled children, teachers and taxi
drivers with experience of transporting people with disabilities in vehicles. Afterwards, different ideas were
discussed and sketches (PAD), and simple textile models (MAD) were made to find useful solutions. These
activities led to the first classification of children with
disabilities into four groups based on positioning problems experienced from observation studies. The Careva belt was initially aimed at children with disabilities
165
Table 2
The first identified user groups for the Careva
harness development project
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Autistic problems
Low muscle tone/strength problems
Body constitutional problems
Spastic problems
but later expanded to include adults with a requirement
for posture support (see Table 2).
Each group represented specific positioning problems when seated in vehicles:
1. Children with autistic problems exhibit a tendency to unlock all safety devices and move around
in the car, putting not only themselves but also
the driver and other passengers at risk;
2. Children with low muscle tone have little or no
posture stability and are unable to sit upright, thus
they fall to one side or forward if not supported;
3. Children with body shape problems often have
difficulties sitting in ordinary car seats, thus special seats or harnesses are necessary;
4. Spastic children have varying degrees of uncontrolled muscle contractions and need to be restrained in order to prevent injury to themselves
and/or other passengers.
Having performed many BAD, PAD and MAD tests
(according to DPD TM methodology) the team obtained
many useful ideas and input from parents and teachers
in special schools, which led to increased demands on
the product. We noticed that demands made by test persons of new products and their family members were often related to their previous experiences of other products and of other ways in which they coped with existing problems. New thoughts and ideas from projects
team on how to solve a problem were often difficult to
accept quickly by the testers. During the initial concept
development period, benchmarking was performed and
some ideas from product solutions for other assistive
aids, relevant to our purpose, were adopted. At that
time, no other functional solution was found on the
global market, with the sole exception of the German
harness system, which had many shortcomings and was
not an alternative.
The ideas and models were presented to the CEO
of the manufacturing company Samhall Vinga, who
turned out to be a very creative and supportive contact
and a great deal of new product designs were created
and tested with a minimum of delay. Representatives
from Careva were present while the first prototypes
were manufactured to avoid misunderstandings and to
facilitate last minute changes.
166
E. Bj¨ork / Why did it take four times longer to create the Universal Design solution?
Table 3
The planned time table of activities of the Careva belt project
Time
August 1996
Sept-Dec 1996
January 1997
Jan-March 1997
April 1997
May 1997
November 1997
Activity
Project initiation
Data collection for the first phase
Data collection, models, first prototypes
User tests, redesign, new solutions, new tests
VTI tests on final product solutions, CAD drawings
“Leva Fungera” exhibition in Gothenburg
Introduction, Marketing & sales
Fig. 4. An illustration of a Careva belt, the system consist of 20
available parts for optimum flexibility and individual posture support.
The existence of professional prototypes for test purposes meant that the business and product plan were
developed in parallel with the actual work.
The timetable in Table 3 gives an overview of scheduled activities at that time.
It took 15 months from the start of the development
of the Careva System until it was ready for production.
That time included idea generation (BAD), sketches
and models (PAD and MAD), user intervention (both
primary and secondary), user tests, CAD drawing, prototype testing, redesign and production, and final production in readiness for the market. The result was
a modular system of parts which could be assembled
according to the individual needs of the user. The parts
of the system were interchangeable between sizes to
optimize the support for the individual.
tion to develop a universally designed product that fits
most passengers irrespective of age, ability or gender
for the public transport sector (the Crossit belt). The
project group was represented by the author as project
leader, an experienced product developer, a designer
as consultant and a representative from the manufacturing industry. A number of BAD, PAD and MAD
attempts were then made to test the different ideas that
were generated. Figure 5 shows one of the first PAD
sketches which became a mental model image, used in
the development work which ensued.
By the 23rd January 2003 these attempts had led to
the principal solution. After a number of modelling attempts and consecutive tests, a functional solution had
been reached that led to patent investigations and on the
15th October 2003, a Swedish patent application was
filed. However, as the work on the patent application,
together with documentation, was expensive, the PD
work had to be put on hold.
When the work was taken up again, early in 2005,
after some times of testing it was found that the solu-
5.2. The Crossit project
The customer want – expressed as, “We want a more
universal version of your individualized solution,” described in Section 2 – initiated a decision and an ambi-
Fig. 5. The first PAD attempt in the Crossit project.
E. Bjo¨ rk / Why did it take four times longer to create the Universal Design solution?
January 2002
June 2003
September 2003
167
December 2004
Fig. 6. Documentation of the development process.
tions did not provide sufficient functionality when trialled on the test persons, who had different body sizes,
different body shapes, and included both children and
adults. The product was also tested in different vehicles with various seats. The requirements of users with
disabilities were also considered, mainly by the experience of needs and requirements gained in the Careva
project some years earlier.
The problems identified were complex:
– lack of effectiveness in posture support especially
for adult test persons;
– lack of fitness for purpose when assembled in the
vehicle
– lack of efficacy in strap-handling.
The first dead-end in performance, in accordance
with the labyrinth metaphor, was a reality, and further
development funding was difficult to bear for the small
enterprise. In addition, the motivation to continue the
PD went down to nothing.
However, in 2005 the Swedish government announced the year to be an industrial design year and encouraged companies to apply for support for industrial
designers to participate in different PD projects. With
100% support from SVID (The Swedish Association
for Industrial Designers) the first industrial designer
became engaged in the Crossit project. The outcome,
however, was not successful and he left the project; the
ideas coming forth were too similar to the solutions
provided by the Careva system.
To continue the project, a syndicate of five companies in Sweden and Norway was formed under the
leadership of Careva AB. A budget for the years 2006–
2009 was agreed upon by the parties in the syndicate,
after which a supporting contribution was applied for,
from Nutek – the Swedish Agency for Economic and
Regional Growth and the Agency for Norwegian Innovation. On the 6th October 2005, Nutek agreed to
support the four-year project with 44% of the project
costs.
The second industrial designer, also a textiles expert,
was then brought in. The result was more successful
this time and new ideas and solutions were brought into
the project. To speed up the a third industrial designer
was brought in. However, again, the principal solutions (solid works models) proposed by her were not
convincing and the investment in tools that would have
been required, meant that the solutions never materialized (Fig. 6).
By September 2007, despite large costs and time
spent, the project had not reached a solution good
enough to be universal. The team, therefore, decided to
go back to the first basic crossing principle, and in January 2008 the project restarted (for the third time) using
BAD, PAD and MAD to get new models for new testing. Benchmarking was also done at this stage, which
contributed to some new ideas and gradually, in small
steps, new solutions were found which were discovered to be functional when tested. In December 2008
a functional model was ready, but without any other
product values. A simplified performance-time curve
for the New Product Development (NPD) project from
its start to this point is shown in Fig. 7.
In June 2009 a production-ready product was finalized and was ready for the market.
Thus, from the start of the development of the Crossit
belt until it was ready for production it took seven years
(breaks included). As the project goal was to create a
universally designed product, a product release could
not be done until all user requirements had been solved.
168
E. Bj¨ork / Why did it take four times longer to create the Universal Design solution?
Commercial
product
100 %
90 %
80 %
Start
2002
Development
principles:
2003
Dynamic
2004
2005
Rest
2006
Classic
2007
Dynamic
Financing:
Careva
100%
Svid
100%
Careva syndicate 56%:
NUTEK 44%
Fig. 7. The performance-time curve for the want-based NPD project between 2002 and 2007 [4].
6. Some findings
There are several reasons why it took considerably
longer to develop the Crossit System (UD solution)
than the Careva System (Modular solution), and some
conclusions can be drawn from these:
– A universally designed solution must be designed
in a way that it supports the posture of most people without hindering others, which dramatically
increased the conflicting demands put on the product. Security and regulations, which change for
different vehicle types and for products mounted,
were an additional difficulty in the Crossit project.
– The Careva project focused initially on the national Swedish market and later, the Scandinavian
market, while the Crossit project had a vision for
a worldwide market from the start, which presented additional difficulties in considerations due to
country-specific laws and regulations, cultural differences etc.
– Modular thinking could not be used in the Crossit
project, as the solution could not consist of many
different parts. The development of the Crossit
belt was much like walking in a labyrinth, so many
ideas and models were neglected when tested, and
the problems could not be solved by adding a part
or an item, which is a possibility when working
with modular solutions.
– The time and cost allocated to the Crossit project
were constantly exceeded, and the project had to
be stopped several times due to lack of funds and
the fact that team members’ ideas were lacking,
which had an impact on their engagement in the
project.
– In the Crossit project, models and prototypes were
manufactured in a company in Latvia which was
time consuming, and misunderstandings sometimes delayed the progress. In the Careva project,
however, the team was present at the factory in
Sweden. The presence of designers/product developers in the production of models and prototypes
is important in order to avoid misunderstandings
that lead to increased numbers of test items and
lack of time.
– The Crossit project had so many requirements of it,
that even the DPDTM methodology, recommend-
E. Bjo¨ rk / Why did it take four times longer to create the Universal Design solution?
Table 4
Number, age and gender of users who tested
the Crossit product several times, on different
occasions during the development process
Test persons
Men
Women
Children
No.
6
4
7
Age
30–70
30–60
4–15
No. of tests
10
8
14
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
ing that just 2-3 demands should be handled at a
time, was hard to follow.
7. Conclusions
There are many stakeholders arguing for universally
designed products, environments and systems, based
on a democratic and inclusive approach to the development of society. However, what is seldom discussed is
the complexity connected to the development of such
products and systems when modular design is inappropriate due to time consuming application or lack
of space in cars for storage of several options. Small
markets require products characterized by “one size fits
all”.
This investigation showed that as time-to-market is
longer, and project cost are higher for universally designed products compared to modular systems (often represented by assistive technology or mainstream
technology products), there are limited commercial reasons to invest in universally designed solutions in a
short time perspective.
Of the three main parts comprising the BUS triangle, society and the user benefit from UD products,
systems and environments, however, the business sector, consisting of manufacturers and companies asked
to develop the requested UD solutions, must calculate
their costs with higher margins than for modular based
or mainstream technology products. The time to get
to break-even in these projects is many times longer,
due to the unstable and complex development circumstances. Consequently, support from society, both in
financial terms and in improving competence in industry, is essential to ensure that new methods for product development become known and practised for the
creation of UD products, systems and environments.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
Acknowledgements
Without the financial support from SVID (Swedish
Association for Industrial Designers) and from Nutek/
Norsk Innovation the project would not have come to
an end with a product ready for an international market.
169
[20]
[21]
M.M. Andreasen and L. Hein, Integrated Product Development, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1987.
E. Bj¨ork, “Insider Action Research Applied on Development of Assistive Products”, PhD thesis, Otto-von-GuerickeUniversity, Magdeburg, Gerrmany, 2003.
E. Bj¨ork and S. Ottosson, aspects of consideration in product
development research, Journal of Engineering Design 17(4)
(2007).
E. Bj¨ork and S. Ottosson, Lessons learned from a want
based NPD project, International Design Conference Design,
Dubrovnic, Croatia, May 19–22, 2008.
B.R. Connel, M. Jones, J. Mueller, A. Mullick, E. Ostroff, J.
Sanford, E. Steinfeld, M. Story and G. Vanderheiden, Universal Design principles, The Center for Universal Design,
version 2.0, Raleigh, North Carolina: N.C. State University,
1997.
R. Cooper, Winning at New Products, Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch, Third Edition, Perseus Publishing,
Cambridge, 2001.
Council of Europe, Achieving full participation through
universal design, Committee of Ministers Resolution ResAP(2007)3.
R. Duncan, Universal Design – Clarification and Development, Internal report for the Norwegian Ministry of Environment, Government of Norway, 2007.
H. Edefors, Product development and design an other paradoxes, PhD thesis, Lunds University, Dep. of Design and Art,
Sweden, 2004.
J. Goodman, P.M. Langdon and P.J. Clarkson, Equipping Designers for Inclusive Design, Gerontechnology 4(4) (March
2006).
L. Holmdahl, “Complexity Aspects of Product Development”,
PhD thesis, Otto-von-Guericke-University, Magdeburg, Gerrmany, 2007.
H. Nelson and E. Stolterman, The Design Way – Intentional
Change in an Unpredictable World, Educational Technology
Publications, New Jersey, 2003.
S. Ottosson, Dynamic Product Development – DPDTM ”,
Technovation – the International Journal of Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol 24, (2004), 179–186.
S. Ottosson, Handbook in Innovation Management – Dynamic
Business & Product Development, Tervix AB, Sweden, 2006.
S. Ottosson, Frontline Innovation Management – Dynamic
Business & Product Development, Ottosson & Partners AB,
Sweden (ISBN 978-91-977947-7-0), 2009.
G. Pahl and W. Beitz, Engineering Design – A Systematic
Approach, 2nd edition, London, Springer, 1996.
J. Paulsson, Universal Design Education Project – Sweden,
The school of Architecture, Chalmers University of Thechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2005.
I. Placencia Porrero and E. Ballabio, Improving the Quality
of Life for European Citizen, Assistive technology research
Series, Vol 4, IOS Press, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 1998.
R. Stake, Case Studies, in: Handbook of Qualitative Research,
N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, ed., ISBN o-8039-4679-1, Sage
Publications Inc, 1994.
E. Steinfeld, Universal Designing, in: Universal Design, J.
Christoffersen, ed., ISBN 82-90122-05-5, 2002, pp. 165–189.
M.F. Story, J. Mueller and R. Mace, The Universal Design
File, Designing for People of all ages and Abilities. Raleigh,
North Carolina State University, USA, 2001.
170
E. Bj¨ork / Why did it take four times longer to create the Universal Design solution?
[22]
K.T. Ulrich and S.D. Eppingen, Product Design and Development, (4th ed.), McGraw – Hills Companies Inc., USA,
2003.
[23] E. von Hippel, Democratizing Innovation, The MIT Press,
[24]
Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England, 2005.
M. Schrage, Serious Play – How the World’s best Companies
Simulate to lnnovate, Harward Business School press, 2000.
Copyright of Technology & Disability is the property of IOS Press and its content may not be copied or emailed
to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.