Criteria to evaluate IoT “SmartAging” devices

Posted on 25th July 2015 in aging, design, health, home automation, m-health

I haven’t been able to put a lot of time into fleshing out my “SmartAging” paradigm, which combines Quantified Self devices to change seniors’ relationship to their doctors into a partnership and give them incentives to improve their fitness, with smart home devices that make it easier to manage their homes through automation.

So here’s an attempt to move that along, a draft of (hopefully) objective criteria.  I’d love to hear your comments on additional criteria or changes to these, and hope to soon set up a formal system where seniors will evaluate devices in their homes using these criteria.

Smart Aging device evaluation criteria:

Ease of Use

  1. Does it give you a choice of ways to interact, such as voice, text or email?
  2. Is it easy for you to program, or allow someone else to do it remotely?
  3. Does it have a large display and controls?
  4. Is it intuitive?
  5. Does it require professional installation?
  6. Is it flexible: can it be adjusted? Is it single purpose, or does it allow other devices to plug in and create synergies?
  7. Does it complicate your life, or simplify it?
  8. Do any components require regular charging, or battery replacement.

Privacy, Security, and Control

  1. Is storage local vs. cloud or company’s servers? Is data encrypted? Anomized?
  2. Do you feel creepy using it?
  3. Is it password-protected?
  4. Is security “baked in” or an afterthought?
  5. Can you control how, when, and where information is shared?
  6. Will it work when the power goes out?

Affordability

  1. Are there monthly fees? If so, low or high? Long term contract required?
  2. Is there major upfront cost?
  3. Does full functioning require accessories?
  4. Minimum cost/maximum cost

Design/UX

  1. Is it stylish, or does the design” shout” that it’s for seniors? “Medical” looking?
  2. Is the operation or design babyish?
  3. Would younger people use it?
  4. Is it sturdy?
  5. Does it have “loveability” (i.e., connect with the user emotionally)? (This term was coined by David Rose in Enchanted Objects, and refers to products that are adorable or otherwise bond with the user.)

Architecture

  1. Inbound
    1. Protocols supported (eg. Bluetooth, BluetoothLE, WiFi, etc)
    2. Open or closed architecture
  2. Outbound
    1. Protocols supported (eg. WiFi, Ethernet, CDMA, GSM, etc)
    2. Data path (cloud, direct, etc)
  3. Remote configuration capability (i.e., by adult child)

Features and Functions

  1. Reminders
    1. Passive, acknowledge only
    2. Active dispensing (of meds)
  2. Home Monitoring
    1. Motion/Passive Activity Monitoring
    2. Environmental Alarms (Smoke, CO, Water, Temp)
    3. Intrusion Alarms (Window etc)
    4. Facilities/Infrastructure (Thermostat)
  3. Health Monitoring
    1. Vitals Collection
    2. Wearables Activity Monitoring
    3. Behavioral/Status Polling (How are you feeling today?)
    4. Behavioral Self-improvement
  4. Communications Monitoring
    1. Landline/Caller ID
      1. Identify scammers
    2. eMail and computer use
      1. Identify scammers
    3. Mobile phone use
  5. Fixed Personal Emergency Response System (PERS)
  6. Mobile Personal Emergency Response System (PERS)
  7. Fixed Fall Detection/Prediction
  8. Mobile Fall Detection/Prediction
  9. Telehealth (Video)
  10. New and Innovative Features

3 Responses to “Criteria to evaluate IoT “SmartAging” devices”

  1. Great list of considerations. Of course, this list is only as helpful as our understanding for the the senior’s needs, abilities and environment. Case in point, Live!y (http://www.mylively.com) would have been able to give you a good answer to all of the criteria on this list but failed because their flagship product didn’t work through walls. I love your thinking and really look forward to following this blog!

    • admin says:

      Thanks, David! That’s certainly true about usability. One issue I’ve run into myself is that all my devices are fighting for wi-fi, so I’m going to have to buy a more powerful router. No simple solutions, it appears!



Pings responses to this post

Leave a Reply to David Weigelt Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

AlphaOmega Captcha Classica  –  Enter Security Code
     
 

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>