• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Open2012 technology-innovations-disabilities-goldberg
 

Open2012 technology-innovations-disabilities-goldberg

on

  • 479 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
479
Views on SlideShare
248
Embed Views
231

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 231

http://nciia.org 231

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • 40k sqft lab space with 15k machining & fabrication facilities VA CoENSF ERCE&O mission resulting in internship programs (but also focus of director for last 15 yrs-had funded internship program for 6 years)
  • Purpose of creating impactful technologies for PWDs & spinning them out to market via SBIR programs and resultant companiesASPIRE & QoLT REU programs support ~25 students/summer
  • PWDs unemployment rate is twice that of able-bodied individualsDisabled veterans from the current conflict higher unemployment rate as wellAT can be the gateway to a person’s involvement in society Tech that does make it to the market is often inappropriate for certain conditoins (scooters)..a need for reimbursable, low-cost but effective technologies
  • Since end users aren’t purchasers, typical drivers to optimize design quality aren’t in place with ATAT market different than some technologies in that the demand comes from 3rd party payers (CMS, medicaid)What they will reimburse is often not the best product to fit PWDs’ needsNeeds are presented in a different way but where needs assessments are conducted & deep wells of creativityOften technology developed within the walls of university don’t make it out, or what’s called the VoD
  • -academic institutions to help bridge valley of death (tech transfer offices, interdisciplinary programs across university)-making connections with greater communities (photos demonstrate how we’ve transferred our tech) -photo 1: example SBIR project out of our lab, photo 2: jobs council based on our role in terms of company development (lobbying/exposure efforts), 3: networking at the Consumer Electronics Show
  • All major (reputable)AT manufacturersHinted at throughout-this idea of multidisciplinary team
  • Capabilities to build a power wheelchair such as the one in the Popular Science centerfold from top to bottomSmart kitchenFunding-NIH, NSF, NIDRR, etc…2 active SBIRs
  • Greater organizational structure for TIPeDTop row-institutionsMiddle-centers a part of those institutionsBottom row-programs a part of those centersCross-polination across functional groups is needed to spark entrepreneurship
  • In addition to informal learning, TIPeD also fits in to formal learning, a design series we’ve started for upper level undergraduates and grad students. Interdisciplinary to introduce them to the full cycle of product development and excite them about AT fields.Proposals in review (internal pittcompetiton & NIH) for undergraduate enhancement across departments, uhc. Design classes feed I to summer program. --increase cultural competency1. Expansion of curriculum, 2.funding to support development of materials, 3. visits to int’l partnrs
  • Workshops: for participants & greater university communitiesLeveraged funding & programs we already had—as I’ve mentioned
  • 2 main theories in terms of exciting students about the topic & their resultant learning: experiential learning & general idea of when solving problems of social relevance, students are more inclined to solve & digest steps along the way.Kolb: concrete experience to reflective observation to abstract conceptualization to active experimentation (observing, reflecting, and acting on new material/methods)
  • Directors-mech engineer & product development person, education (higher ed, making connections across university, develop entrepreneurial curric) Mentors-bioengineer, physical therapist, industrial designerThis coming cohort: also be a robotocistProjects must align with our program mission of promoting independence for PWDs & have commercial potential
  • NCIIA funding won’t support studentsNSF funding must be directly tied to development & research outcomes (& our particular program aims to recruit rehab science & technical students)
  • Based on needs’ assessment from departmental entrepreneurs in this space
  • Not all objectives match each activity…nor would they get full appreciation of each objective from project alone (supplement with workshops & activities)
  • Students are motivated & learn more by working with students who are different from themselves (SWDs, veterans, MS level students)
  • Report followed this template (for those of you who aren’t familiar with SBIR II—further development of a device and business aspects)
  • The program sounds great, but how will we know if it was effective? These are the evaluation and sustainability plans set out in the grant
  • QoLT foundry intern program—students only involved on periphery so some teams had 3 students who attended 3-5 meetings across summerFollowing 6 slides focus example activities from the summer
  • Technical enhancements
  • Business student on this project focused on the production strategy: identifying cost at certaintimepoints & financing needed
  • A little bit of a different focus with an international market in mind, but at some point, consideration for “second shoe” in home for persons with diabetes
  • Technical student (bioengineer from Marquette)worked on evolution of design
  • Materials & overall structure of plan
  • Students also included finance plan, this time including a distribution plan as well
  • Picture demonstrates previous iterations
  • 2 figures demonstrating novel enhancements to controller (all completed in this program by CS student from Pitt)
  • These students, coming in on project that was a little less behind in terms of desired market, did a lot of market research and found its implications for users, manufacturers, clinics, and research entities
  • Also investigated what, if any, would be the barriers
  • However, students that didn’t have an increase in entrepreneurship, did cite that their independent thinking skills increased just that they were sticking with their original career path Some of the students on periphery also completed evals
  • Significance found for 1, 2, and marginal significance for 3
  • Helps complete the picture of how students felt about the program and provide evidence for learning outcomes including knowledge of innovation, how to start a company, working independently, ignite additional interest in field
  • -already cited student funding-faculty & grad student mentors’ time commitment varied, in addition to their amt of preparation (even if they couldn’t be around, some faculty had detailed plans & still skyped with group)-some mentors had been more involved than others in tech transfer process (while they could advise well on tech enhancements needed and some general opinions of market, they may not know how to “spin out”)
  • To address mentors’ preparedness, we will incorporate better templates from the beginning for both mentors (to complete prior to program), and students’ use To address overall project management, we will require teams’ communication to go through basecamp. When we don’t see activity from the mentor or student(s), we will interveneTo adddress some add’l guidance, we will have “consultants” from MS/MBA program provide add’l mentorship to the teams
  • Based on previous slide, the majority of our resources are leveraged across other initiatives. Large center grants can help, courses can help, serving as “project” for independent study or “placement” for another program (e.g. most business students are looking for internship experience)
  • Here are some workshop ideas to include for additional learning opportunities and ways for students to achieve learning objectives

Open2012 technology-innovations-disabilities-goldberg Open2012 technology-innovations-disabilities-goldberg Presentation Transcript

  • Department ofDepartment Veterans Affairs of Veterans AffairsTechnology Innovationsfor Persons withDisabilities (TIPeD)Mary Goldberg, MEdEducation & Outreach CoordinatorJon Pearlman, PhDAssistant Professor, RST, SHRSDepartment of Rehabilitation Science and TechnologySchool of Health and Rehabilitation SciencesHuman Engineering Research Laboratories
  • Department of Veterans AffairsTalk outline• Program overview & plan• 1st cohort results• Program replication• Feedback and questions
  • Department of Veterans AffairsDepartmental structure• Rehabilitation Science & Technology• Human Engineering Research Laboratories• Veterans Affairs• QoLT• Intern programs
  • Department of Veterans AffairsTIPeD Program• Product development program funded by NCIIA• Augment ASPIRE & QoLT REU programs
  • Department of Veterans AffairsBackground• Assistive technology & participation in society• Inappropriate designs• Design shortcomings• Improve independence and safety of users
  • Department of Veterans AffairsBackground• AT market• 3rd party payers• Performance & safety requirements• Academic institutions• Valley of death
  • Department of Veterans AffairsTechnology transfer• SBIR and STTR programs• Technology transfer offices within universities• Interdisciplinary programs
  • Department of Veterans AffairsHERL technology development• Commercialized 5 products• 3 patents awarded; 9 pending• Research & user-driven innovations• Business partners• Multidisciplinary faculty, students, & staff
  • Department of Veterans AffairsHERL technology development• Design & fabrication facilities• Funding streams• SBIR/STTR involvement
  • Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Department of Veterans AffairsDesign Series
  • Department of Veterans AffairsNCIIA funding• Requested support for multidisciplinary teams• Workshops on innovation & entrepreneurship• Tours of local companies• Collaborative program facilitation
  • Department of Veterans AffairsEvidence-based program model• Experiential learning• Solving problems of social relevance
  • Department of Veterans AffairsProgram structure• Interdisciplinary leadership team• Solicited ideas from faculty• Project mission• Commercial potential• Feasible 10-week objectives• Result in SBIR proposal
  • Department of Veterans AffairsParticipants• Funding challenge• 1 engineering & 1 business student• Law student to investigate intellectual property
  • Department of Veterans AffairsStudents’ tasks• Technology design, development, and evaluation• SBIR proposal instead of technical paper
  • Department of Veterans AffairsLearning objectives
  • Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Department of Veterans AffairsActivities• Enhanced cohort – ELeVATE – REU – Bridge• Talks
  • Department of Veterans AffairsWeekly meetings• Elevator pitch• Tasks completed• Next steps• Archives & team websites
  • Department of Veterans AffairsSBIR Proposal• Technology – Research and development efforts – Technical merit – Feasibility• Commercialization – Market description – IP protection – Finance plan – Marketing plan – Revenue stream
  • Department of Veterans AffairsOther deliverables• Poster• Oral presentation• Participation in comprehensive symposium
  • Department of Veterans AffairsEvaluation and sustainabilityplan• 50% success rate on securing seed funding within 12 months of starting summer project• 25% success rate on establishing an operating company, measured by actual sales within two years of starting summer project
  • Department of Veterans AffairsEvaluation and sustainabilityplan• At least one nationally-advertised design award, per year (RESNA, Lemmelson)• Obtain additional funding for TIPeD from federal agency or foundation within the first 12 months of program
  • Department of Veterans Affairs1st cohort-summer 2011• 6 primary students• Bus Buddy• Low-cost footwear• Smart controller
  • Department of Veterans AffairsBus Buddy• Novel self-administered containment system
  • Department of Veterans AffairsBus Buddy• Reduced: – System Weight by ~30% – Upright Weight by ~60% – Upright Width by ~40% – Lateral Arm Weight by ~10% – Cost ~70%• Increased: – Upright Strength – Efficiency of the Lifting Mechanism
  • Department of Veterans Affairs Production Strategy STRATEGY #1• Contract with Forecasted Revenue, Gross Margin, and Operating Income Manufacturers for $3,500,000 Device Components Revenue• In-House Marketing $3,000,000 Gross Margin FINANCES $2,500,000 Operating Income• Price: $1,000/unit $2,000,000 U.S. Dollars• Sales in Units: $1,500,000 Year 1: 30 units Year 2: 150 units $1,000,000 Year 3: 1,000 units Year 4: 2,000 units $500,000 Year 5: 3,000 units $0• Cost: $750 Years ($500,000) 1 2 3 4 5 1 and 2; $650 each Year year after ($1,000,000)• Financing: $500k• Break Even: Year 3
  • Department of Veterans AffairsLow-Cost Basic Custom FitFootwear• Diabetic footwear• Ordering and distribution system• Sandals with assembly instructions• Business plan for establishing footwear microenterprises to sell both custom and regular sandals
  • Department of Veterans AffairsLow-Cost Basic Custom FitFootwear
  • Department of Veterans Affairs Production & Marketing• Final production will be done by entrepreneurs• 90 to 160 entrepreneurs can sell the shoes from 2012 to 2016 Step 2. Draw and Cut Step 3. Packing with Instruction Step 1. Materials Rubber Leather Step 5. Selling Step 4. Entrepreneur
  • Department of Veterans Affairs Finance plan • Initial Investment : $100,000 • Financing : $200,000 at Y1 for operating expense Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Ashanti Ashanti Ghana Ghana Ghana Upper East Upper East Americas(33%) Americas(66%) Americas(100%)Target Market Western Western Cote Divore Cote Divore Togo TogoSales 29,102 53,023 1,479,333 2,851,528 4,168,453Revenue 87,305 169,675 15,832,557 35,580,305 57,797,959 COGS 81,779 153,198 6,352,339 15,553,388 27,361,363Gross Margin 5,526 16,478 9,480,218 20,026,917 30,436,597 Operating Expenses 127,101 208,986 3,809,013 7,926,456 11,642,263Income Before Taxes (121,575) (192,508) 5,671,206 12,100,460 18,794,333Net Income (123,705) (215,471) 3,520,609 7,247,513 11,268,637Sponsor Money 30,000 55,000 370,000 430,000 450,000
  • Department of Veterans AffairsPowered Mobility ControllerPlatform• Smart controller for Personal Mobility and Manipulation Appliance (PerMMA) Gen I as PerMMA I Controller Gen II as PerMMA II Controller
  • Department of Veterans AffairsSmart Controller Design Amplifiers to control driving wheels PC – Single Board Embedded Cobra Kill Switch for Safety Customized PCB board. Interface btw sensors, encoders and PC Top View of Smart Controller 10.5” Two fans to Cool System Down Power Switch Input Command, 5.25” i.e, joystick Ethernet Connection to Display from PC communicate with another computer 10.00”
  • Department of Veterans Affairs Market Research• Potential users and market size – Powered mobility device users • Market size: – 1.4-2.1 million (represents 61-91% of all wc users) – Persons 65+: by 2030, 75% of 69 million people will be 65+ – 40% increased users based on prescriptions – Powered mobility devices suppliers or manufacturers • Invacare, Permobil, Pride Mobility, etc – Powered mobility research • 200+ enttities – Higher education: estimated 5,700 – Wheelchair clinics: estimated 15,000
  • Department of Veterans AffairsCommercialization factors• Promising preliminary data – Safe and reliable – Improving the driving performance – Used for multiple research projects• Platform technology – Used on three EPWs already – Conduct some clinical studies• FDA approval – Will not be a big issue – hardware and software design are according to FDA requirements – Previous experiences on similar products
  • Department of Veterans AffairsEvaluation• 100% recommend program• 78% suggest interest in entrepreneurship increase – Independent thinking skills
  • Department of Veterans AffairsEvaluation
  • Department of Veterans AffairsEvaluation
  • Department of Veterans AffairsChallenges• Student funding• Mentorship commitment variability• Faculty familiarity with technology transfer
  • Department of Veterans AffairsChanges• Templates• Training• Basecamp• MS Engineering/MBA student involvement
  • Department of Veterans AffairsProgram Outcomes• Big Idea Competition• LINC Designs• 1 SBIR submitted• Grants in review
  • Department of Veterans AffairsCreate your own program• $80k/year including admin, student stipends, project supplies, travel expenses• 10% supported by NCIIA – Supplies – Admin support – Travel to design competitions & entrepreneurship conferences
  • Department of Veterans AffairsCreate your own program• Multidisciplinary partnerships across university departments• Project based courses – e.g. RST design series• Independent study courses
  • Department of Veterans AffairsCreate your own program• Workshops – Concept generation – Prototyping – Patents – Intellectual property – Product development economics – Managing projects
  • Department of Veterans Affairs Acknowledgements• Funding: National Collegiate Innovators & Inventors Alliance Grant #7563-10, National Science Foundation Grants EEC0540866 & EEC0849878, Berg Center for Ethics & Leadership• Mentors: Mary Jo Geyer, Dennis Janisse, Linda van Roosmalen, Eric Porach, Honwu Wang, Rory Cooper• Students: Melvin McElrath, Max Gruder, Kira Eckstein, Jonathan Valz, Rob Fillippi, Joe Trebitz, QoLT Foundry Interns
  • Department of Veterans Affairs References*• Ansi/Resna. “American National Standard for Wheechairs-- Volume 1-19 Wheelchairs used as seats in motor vehicles.” Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America: Virginia (2000).• Auerswald, P.E. and L.M. Branscomb. “Valleys of Death and Darwinian Seas: Financing• the Invention to Innovation Transition in the United States.” The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28 (2003): 227-239.• Hawtrey, K. "Using Experiential Learning Techniques." Journal of Economic Education, 38 (2007): 143-152.• Kirby, R.L. and D.A. MacLeod. "Wheelchair-related injuries reported to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System: an update." RESNA 2001 Annual Conference: Reno, NV (2001).• Knotts, T.L. "The SBDC in the Classroom: Providing Experiential Learning Opportunities at Different Entrepreneurial Stages." Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 14 (2011): 25-38.• Kolb, D. “Experiential Learning Theory: Previous Research and New Directions” In R. J. Sternberg and L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive, learning, and thinking styles. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, (2000).• Kolb, D. Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall (1984).• Legs to Stand On. http://www.legstostandon.org (2011)• McCarthy, P.R. & H.M. McCarthy. "Why Case Studies are not Enough: Integrating Experiential Learning into Business Curricula." Journal of Education for Business 81 (2009): 201-204.• Phillips, B. and H. Zhao. "Predictors of Assistive Technology Abandonment." Assistive Technology, 5 (1993): 36-45.*Additional project references (i.e. from Bus Buddy, Low-Cost Footwear, Smart Controller projects) available upon request.
  • Department of Veterans AffairsContact informationMary R. GoldbergUniversity of PittsburghSchool of Health and Rehabilitation SciencesRehabilitation Science and Technology6425 Penn AvePittsburgh, PA 15206mrh35@pitt.eduwww.herl.pitt.eduwww.qolt.pitt.edu412-822-3700