Where Industry and Security Intersect
What's New | Sitemap | Search
The success of U.S. AT companies in the future will depend as much on product design as their ability to employ cost-effective and efficient manufacturing processes. The challenge before many AT companies is to design products, where practical, that are needed by people with disabilities — and to some extent by the larger, general population.
Companies that are able to interest the general public in their products benefit from higher sales volume. Not only do they receive greater revenue, but per-unit profit increases as manufacturing costs drop with enhanced economies of scale. Higher profitability can make it easier for companies to justify producing more specialized, low-profit-margin goods for people with disabilities. And, improved cash flow also enables AT companies, most of which are small firms, to bring new AT products to market faster.
Designing products that can be used both by those with disabilities as well as the general public is known as universal design. It manifests itself in many ways, including: ease of use, tolerance for error, and minimizing the physical effort required to manipulate the product. Universal design is the process of designing products and environments (including assistive technologies) to be usable by people with the widest range of abilities possible, without the need for adaptation.24
Economics and market forces are, in fact, causing many U.S. AT companies to look more closely at the way they design products — and to better understand how they may serve both people with disabilities and the broader markets. Without question there are significant market opportunities for AT manufacturers outside of their traditional markets. Those companies that can make products that serve multiple sets of customers often have greater opportunities to grow and profit than AT companies fielding narrowly focused goods. For this reason, universal design is a key strategy in the development of AT products going forward.
The trend in universal design to some degree is spurred indirectly in the United States by laws and regulations that provide assistance and accommodations to persons with disabilities to enable them to function more effectively in society (See Appendix A). The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and subsequent amendments (1986, 1998), the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, are a few examples of legislation that has mandated that people with disabilities have equal access to key services and technologies. These laws have driven manufacturers and designers of commercial products, housing, and buildings to give much greater consideration to the needs of persons with disabilities as well as to the requirements of the general public.
At the same time, AT manufacturers are challenged continually to field products comparable to, or better than, those offered by competitors. This task is not always easy. Success in AT manufacturing is determined not just by engineering features, but by capturing sufficient volume to enable a company to justify production and turn a profit. By employing universal design features in their goods where practical, manufacturers can position their product to reach a broader customer base.
Just how in tune are U.S. AT manufacturers and service providers with market demographics? Are they considering larger market opportunities, when practical, in designing AT products for their customers with disabilities?
Of 359 firms that responded to this question, 58 percent said they actively took into consideration the needs of people without disabilities when designing products for people with disabilities. But, survey data also show that a large percentage of respondents — 38 percent — does not yet embrace this practice. It remains to be seen whether this behavior will result in significant numbers of U.S. AT manufacturers finding themselves at a competitive disadvantage in the future because they fail to maximize the utility of their products through the use of universal design principles.
The transition to universal design principles for manufacturers appears to be something that most U.S. AT companies readily can achieve. And, there are signs that more U.S. AT manufacturers are aware of the importance of universal design. Sixty-two percent of companies responding to the survey said they wanted to learn more about the universal design process.
According to survey data, a majority of respondent AT companies exhibits a high level of sensitivity to the design requirements of their customers. Almost 78 percent of companies participating in the survey report that they consider the needs of people who are aging with disabilities in designing AT products for people with disabilities. Similarly, nearly 67 percent of respondent companies stated that they consider the needs of individuals with multiple disabilities (to assure that such people can actually use a device) when developing products.
While not yet employing universal design as a general practice, a number of manufacturers said they make products that could be used by the general population, but that they have not attempted to actively market to a broader customer market. In other instances, companies said that their products were too specialized for use by the general population.
It is clear that the sophistication of companies’ design, engineering, and market research practices can vary considerably. This is evident in data on AT companies’ employment of user groups in product development. Often times, useful but overlooked design ideas only can be obtained through feedback from the end user — and it is the information about subtle differences that can distinguish a good product from a great one.
Almost 62 percent of survey participants have focus groups or similar mechanisms to gather user information for product design. Many AT firms work with health care professionals, hospitals, educators, dealers, and endusers to develop and improve products. Large numbers of small companies as well as medium- and large-size manufacturers, survey data show, regularly use customer input mechanisms to gather information to optimize product design. Ten companies, each with 1999 sales of $60 million or more, indicated they used such tools. Another 20 firms with sales ranging from $10 to $60 million also use these methods — as do more than 150 smaller companies with sales under $10 million.
Still, a large portion of the respondent AT companies — 38 percent25 — does not gather user input to support the quality of their design efforts. Foregoing this phase of product development can prove to be detrimental in terms of product exposure, assured product performance in extreme environments, corporate goodwill, and lost opportunities to develop a more useful product.
Small companies were less likely to use focus groups or other customer input mechanisms. Indeed, only one company with annual sales greater than $60 million replied "No" to the question on whether their firm uses customer input mechanisms. Seven companies answering "No" had 1999 sales of $10 to $60 million; and another 112 firms in the "No" category had annual sales below $10 million.
Companies offered few explanations; respondents were not directed to indicate anything other than a "Yes" or "No" response to the survey question. Several firms, however, submitted comments stating they believed there was no need to improve their devices. For smaller companies, carrying out design and market research may be more difficult because of insufficient resources and more pressing internal demands.
24 See the Web site for The Center for Universal Design, North Carolina State University.
25 Percentages
were calculated on a base of 294 respondents. Companies responding “yes”
or “no” to the question were not counted in the percentage calculation
if they did not provide financial data for the survey. A total of 351 companies
responded to the question on the use of focus groups.