HS+Conclusions

Back to Final Report Table of Contents

Conclusions
** Regarding the Product  ** The final product “Doc Box” more than satisfactorily met the functional requirements and product characteristics as the group conceived them. The goal was to encourage use by a large number of people who either do not go to physicians or do not have access to regular health monitoring. The “Doc Box” is highly accessible since it has the capability of being a hand-held device, a device installed in kiosks at grocery stores or waiting rooms for example, or even a device coupled to the engine starter of a workplace vehicle or piece of heavy equipment. Multi-use capabilities, such as radio, computer, internet, and GPS make the product more usable and functional than simply as a health monitoring system. Use is reinforced by built in incentives for health monitoring (such as added wireless time) or requirements (such as coupling with equipment start-up motors by employers). This is in contrast to currently available products that are either purchased for a narrow fitness demographic (heart rate monitors), or targeted at those who have diseases that require monitoring (home blood pressure cuffs and glucose meters). It is anticipated, based on available research that the cost savings to the healthcare system, and even to employers paying healthcare premiums for workers, would off-set development and production costs, as well as incentives offered. Based on our research, health monitoring systems are a hot topic right now as evidenced by the huge increase in venture capital, as well as collaborative projects underway with Apple and Microsoft. In 2009, more than 70% of venture capital investments were for health monitoring systems. Regarding the choice of technology, this product is at the forefront with the new microchip recently developed at the University of Calgary. Heart disease was chosen for monitoring since it has the potential to have a large impact on morbidity and also healthcare costs. However, there was a challenge in finding a way to test blood samples without the necessity of large volumes of blood and specialized laboratories (for such indices as cholesterol). The microchip can create many samples from a single drop of blood which is separated into nano or picolitre droplets, placed in micro emulsion (inside layers of another substance) and electronically tested by sensors. Data can then be transferred to a computer or through a wireless technology. This breakthrough allowed us to envision a range of possible applications and portable concepts for our product. Although our group conducted a very successful and creative ideation exercise, emerging with twenty-one concepts at the first stage, the decision matrix did not lead to a clear “winning” design. Instead, the concepts were found to be loosely grouped into low, medium and high scores – with many concepts having similar scores. This could be a reflection of functional requirements and product characteristics that were insufficiently precise or well understood amongst the group. Alternatively, it could be that the rating for the decision matrix led to simplified generalizations on product characteristics and many products with similar scores. The final product therefore was a conglomeration of features among the several concepts that rated highly. Some very creative ideas were explored, such as testing chips embedded under the skin, testing devices in a shower, and hologram interfaces. However, these were not retained in the final design, likely because the group had insufficient information about the ideas. For the “Doc Box” to move to the next stage of product development, a number of gaps and further research steps are required. A prototype design is a first step combined with user testing to determine whether the features, user interface, size, shape and communication features are functional and usable. From a broader systems perspective, the systems transformational diagram clearly indicated that implementation of health monitoring systems would have an impact on information exchange between current laboratories, health care providers and physicians. Research and further development and testing would be required to more fully appreciate who in the system would receive test results from a “Doc Box”, and how that information would be transferred to an appropriate health care provider for follow-up. Security of information was identified as an important product requirement and further work would be required to ensure patient data confidentiality, access to previous health data and to negotiate a wireless system for redirecting this information. It is anticipated that new Bluetooth low energy wireless systems may provide the breakthrough as they are anticipated to provide up to one year of monitoring from a single charge. Collaboration with companies such as Apple or Microsoft may speed up interface, and software development, as well as provide marketing. Finally, the health monitoring system may be subject to standards, such as from International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Canadian Standards Association (CSA) or even the Canadian equivalent of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Approval processes could slow development and should be done concurrently with further product development. ** Regarding the Process  ** The design roadmap and detailed notes and examples on the wiki provided an excellent reference for the group with respect to the design process. We reviewed the material frequently during various stages to ensure we were on the correct path. The process provided exercises and documenting requirements at each stage that we attempted to follow. As a team, we found ourselves spending more time than was likely needed defining the product strategy requirements. This was in part because we did not start with a design brief and a clearly defined problem. Instead, we had to do some research to more clearly understand and define the problem. We then had to agree who the target users would be, the market, and the goals. At times, as a group we became more consumed by ensuring we were following each step and doing it correctly and completely, than following a creative flow. We found there was a balance between trusting the roadmap and ensuring each stage was complete, and spending our energy effectively on the creativity. The stage that worked well for our group was the brainstorming and ideation. The exercise resulted in a long list of ideas for each of the product characteristics. However, what didn’t work as well for the group was the initial concept generation since we elected to individually come up with 4-6 concepts to present to the group. When we discussed the concepts, we realized that the individual process led to people developing pre-conceived ideas, rather than working with the more creative brainstorming ideas. We reconvened and did another round of concept generation using ideas from each of the ideas brainstormed for each product characteristic. The result was twenty-one initial concepts for evaluation with the decision matrix. Although the experience of using the roadmap process was generally very positive, another challenge we found defining product characteristics and functional requirements was the issue of specificity versus vagueness. For example, if we defined our product as being portable, and further constrained the size and weight, this would then limit our creativity to explore a concept such as a kiosk or device built into a recliner. The process reinforced for the group the importance of having good product characteristics and functional requirements. If these are poorly defined, it affects your pairwise comparison, your decision matrix and further your concept development. ** Regarding the Learning and Team Work  ** All team members participated fully and contributed well to the project. Each member had different strengths to bring to the team at different stages of the project. We had frequent and often extensive meetings. In some cases, such as for the brainstorming, these were done with all members present and a white board. Other meetings would have some members in person and others on Skype. We were successfully able to share desktop images and spreadsheets while working on Skype. At times the group divided into small sub-groups to perform specific tasks. We worked through a few misunderstandings and were in each case able to successfully continue forward and reach compromises. We were also able to backtrack and re-do steps when the group didn’t feel like we were on the correct path. The ideas and wiki product that resulted from this project were definitely a result of the successful collaboration and the final idea was more than the sum of the parts. The project was unanimously recognized as a good learning experience.