Interdisciplinary is a huge innovation in education. It sets a wide perspective of knowledge boundaries with different background of expertise in order to achieve better outcome and social impact. Innovation in the other way closely related to creative mind as being portray as design thinking. A cross-field research has being conducted between occupational therapist (expert-user) and designer due to innovation activities occurs in the rehabilitation setting. Increasing creation on assistive technology (AT) for patients grows in numbers but unfortunately issues of low rate of usage being highlighted. What went wrong to those creation? The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effective design practice that suits need of interdisciplinary for design intervention in rehabilitation setting. In design education, several approach being applied by the designers to help the non-designer to innovate products in their field such as co-creation. Hence, a total of selected studies from design and innovation journal between year 2010 until 2018 being reviewed using Mendeley to analyse the difference design activities involved. Upon findings, attributes for interdisciplinary for design education for expert-user are including types of user, experience and technology factors. Recommendation for further research in design method for interdisciplinary collaboration for expert-user is perceived to bring better creation by future Design Innovation Catalyst (DIC) where they can adopt design intervention in their field for effective problem solving; either in design or non-design activities. The important of these findings for design interdisciplinary are discussed.
Copley, J., & Ziviani, J. (2004). Barriers to the use of assistive technology for children with multiple disabilities. Occupational Therapy International, 11(4), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.213
Gieben-gamal, E., & Matos, S. (2017). Design and Disability . Developing New Opportunities for the Design Curriculum Design and Disability . Developing New Opportunities for the Design Curriculum. The Design Journal, 6925, S2022–S2032. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352721
Gitlin, L. N., Levine, R., & Geiger, C. (1993). Adaptive device use by older adults with mixed disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74(2), 149–152. https://doi.org/0003-9993(93)90354-D [pii]
Hammel, R., & Mosely, G. (2017). Educating Design Innovation Catalysts Through Design Interventions. Design Management Academy Conference 2017, (June). https://doi.org/10.21606/dma.2017.83
Helvacioglu, E., & Nazende, N. (2012). Awareness of the Concept of Universal Design in Design Education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.125
Milano, P., Pei, X., Zurlo, F., Vignati, A., Fois, L., & Melazzini, M. (2017). Making Visible?: Valuating the Impacts of Design Intervention for Social Cooperative Making Visible?: Valuating the Impacts of Design Intervention for Social Cooperative. The Design Journal, (July), S3326–S3339. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352836
Morrar, R., Arman, H., Mousa, S., Schwab, K., & Arman, H. (2018). The Fourth Industrial Revolution ( Industry 4 . 0 ): A Social Innovation Perspective Author information Rabeh Morrar Saeed Mousa, 1–9.
Morrison, P. D., Roberts, J. H., & Midgley, D. F. (2004). The nature of lead users and measurement of leading edge status. Research Policy, 33(2), 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.09.007
Pirinen, A. (2016). The Barriers and Enablers of Co-design for Services, 10(3), 27–42.
Popovic, V. (2000). Expert and Novice User Differences and Implications for Product Design and Useability. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 44(38), 933–936. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120004403869
Sangelkar, S., Cowen, N., & Mcadams, D. (2012). User activity - product function association based design rules for universal products. Design Studies, 33(1), 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.06.002
Schiuma, G. (2017). Arts catalyst of creative organisations for the fourth industrial revolution, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-017-0072-1
Sun, X., Houssin, R., Renaud, J., & Gardoni, M. (2016). Integrating User Information into Design Process to Solve Contradictions in Product Usage. Procedia CIRP, 39, 166–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.183
Wielandt, T., & Strong, J. (2000). Compliance with prescribed adaptive equipment: A literature review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(2), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802260006300204
In-Text Citation: (Yusof et al., 2019)
To Cite this Article: Yusof, N. B. M., Effendi, Y. R. A. B. Y. R., & Ramli, S. H. Bin. (2019). Expert User Education: Redefining Role of Design and Designers of IR 4.0 in Rehabilitation Setting. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(13), 348–357.
Copyright: © 2019 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
