The Process Facilitator
The role of the Process Facilitator (PF) is crucial in ascertaining the specific needs of people with disabilities and impairments. This paper considers the role of the PF in relation to one of the case studies from the CUSTODIAN project. The case study is a female, in her sixties, who has suffered a lengthy undiscovered viral infection which affected the brain leaving her wheelchair bound, unable to communicate effectively, ataxic and physically contracted. Through previous meetings it had been determined that her mental faculties where not hindered by the lengthy illness, and in many ways this had added to the distress that she experiences arising from her present condition.

The case study was released after the New Year (2000) and now lives with her husband in a bungalow near the centre of Dundee. Her husband moved in to the new accommodation due to the condition of his wife and has not had a chance to redecorate the premises. The case study is aware that she is a ‘case study’ for the project and is happy that she is able to obtain the technology, which could make her life happier and more independent. As a consequence of the predicament of the case study, the role of the PF is central in determining the appropriate technology to meet her needs as well as translating the technology into user friendly language. Moreover, the PF in cases such as this must act as an advocate for the case study and mediate with the stakeholders of her behalf. The Engineer utilised an ‘evolutionary’, ‘hit or miss’ approach to matching devices with need, wherein through interaction with the client and supporting staff, a determination of the minimum devices was developed. From this the Client (the case study and her husband) could determine for themselves what they considered was appropriate. Having decided for themselves on the devices, depending on finances, and whether the product was manufacturer specific, the engineer would, in the future, return to the house to install the devices .Accordingly, an unspoken open-ended offer existed where the engineer would keep returning to the house (possibly forever) until the client was satisfied that they had all the required devices or the financial ceiling had been attained. Through discussions with the client, the engineer constantly pointed to the endless things that Smart Home technology could do for the clients, whilst avoiding specific such as what should be done. At no point did he question the client concerning their condition or make any attempt to gather data regarding what difficulties the client might be experiencing.

Consequently the client were left initially in a state of shock, being completely flummoxed as to defining their technological requirements. The engineer left a videocassette with them, which was a PR video, outlining how to build Smart homes for rich people.He did explain that a lot of what was on the video was inappropriate to the clients’ needs, possibly, but at no point tried to suggest appropriate configurations of devices that might have been relevant. Two observations and considerations are important to state: Firstly, the engineer never asked the case study herself what she wanted, or for that matter even engaged in eye contact with her. Almost all interactions where between him and the husband. Consequently, it is likely that the husband will appropriate the decisions of the appropriate devices to be installed to the house .Secondly, the husband was determined by care professionals to be an individual who was over-anxious and over attentive.

There is a clear logistical problem with this type of ‘evolutionary’ design, in that the engineer is required to return on a regular basis adding one or two devices at a time, could mean that the process is never ending or that when the client finally hits on an important device it is too late. ·There appears to be little clear evaluation of the value of the devices, within the remit of the engineer.His task just appears to be to install them when required. There is little doubt it might not be as simple as this in reality and should devices be used that are later determined to be inappropriate there is a strong possibility he might return and remove them. ·Although the client is two people (the case study and her husband), it is important that the view of the person with disabilities is considered equally to the person without. Effectively, if her wishes are not sought and her needs not catered for the under half the solution has been achieved. ·One of the reasons why this case study was chosen initially was due to the life circumstances that presented themselves. The over-attentive husband needs not to be tied up from the burden of responsibility, of caring for his wife, for short periods of time, respite is essential.For this reason the system is required to be installed to allow him to feel confident to allow her to do her ‘own thing’. Moreover, the case study needs to become more independent of her husband. Her empowerment was central to the decision to use her in the study. Through the ‘hit or miss’ approach of the engineer, it is unclear how she is to be empowered by the system. It appears that the engineer is considering more the containment aspects that can be perceived as being related to her disability. ·The role of the PF is central in mediating between the care sector and the engineering sector to eliminate many of the above deficiencies. The PF is able to design a system of appropriate devices that meet the needs of the client and resource constraints .Through the use of a PF there are a number of serious advantages which should be highlighted:

ØThe PF can mediate in cases such as the case study above, to determine the real needs of the user

ØThe necessity of repeat visits by the engineer is minimised two visits (prior to installation and installation itself).

ØThrough the use of CUSTODIAN, the PF should be able to match the technological solution to the user needs, in an appropriate, resource-driven approach.

ØThrough the use of CUSTODIAN, devices, which are essential and relevant to the client, are unlikely to be overlooked, and devices can be prioritised to reflect economic circumstances.

ØThe PF can undertake checks and evaluations of the expediency of the devices both pre and post installation, and mediate with the care sector and engineer to obtain the optimum design configuration for the client.

ØThe PF save money all-round. Saving the purchaser of the equipment money and time by defining the best solution and costing it appropriately; and saving the installation company money by relieving them of the necessity for repeated home visits to the client and the time taken to design an appropriate system.

ØThe PF is also the insurance policy, not totally infallible agreed, but through utilising the PF to undertake the design specifications, all parties are likely to be consulted on a number of occasions and any difficulties can be resolved prior to installation of the equipment.

ØThe PF releases valuable time from the purchasers and installers, whilst allowing the views of all stakeholders to be reflected.

ØFinally, the PF acts as a mediator between the opposing factions/stakeholders.

It is apparent that any authority deciding to implement a number of Smart Home schemes for adults with disabilities, that there will be a number of differing factions/stakeholders involved in the decision making process.As a non-partisan individual the PF has the ability to liaise with anyone to sort potential problems and to enable the development to continue: i.e. become a non-specific product champion.