Systemic evaluation of actions toward developing practical broadband applications for elderly and people with disabilities

Abstract

The paper reports results of a structured democratic dialogue Co-Laboratory that aimed to explore actions that could alleviate obstacles preventing the development of practical broadband applications for elderly people and people with disabilities. Thirty-three experts representing stakeholders from 20 European countries and one from the USA participated. The same experts had participated in an earlier Co-Laboratory that aimed to identify obstacles, which prevent practical broadband applications from being produced and utilized. Each participant contributed one or more actions. Contributions were subsequently clustered and prioritized using a structured process. Relationships among actions were systematically studied using Interpretative Structured Modeling. The process resulted an influence map from which it is concluded that eight actions have the greatest influence (i.e

Multi‐stakeholder structured dialogues: Five generations of evolution of dialogic design

“…Laouris et al, 2010) or participants submitting their preference votes by email (e.g. Laouris & Michaelides, 2007, p., 283; Laouris et al, 2017, p. 249) between the clustering and the structuring sessions, both conducted physically and face‐to‐face (i.e. Case 5).…”

“…For example, around 2005, practitioners started experimenting with pre‐collecting ideas via email (e.g. Laouris et al, 2017, p. 249) or collecting votes by email (Laouris, 2022a, 2022b, p. 5) in‐between sessions. The corresponding applications were referred to as hybrid .…”

Method to integrate asynchronously produced individual influence maps into an extrapolated population influence map following the face‐to‐face stage of a structured democratic dialogue

“…collecting and clarifying ideas) or in‐between (e.g. submitting votes) asynchronous virtual processes (see examples in Christakis, 2007; Laouris & Christakis, 2007; Laouris & Michaelides, 2007; Laouris, Michaelides, & Sapio, 2008). In these 2nd Generation (G2) models, the participants were required to perform specific tasks individually and asynchronously.…”

“…Bausch & Flanagan, 2013; Christakis, 2004; Christakis & Bausch, 2006; Christakis & Harris, 2004; Christakis et al, 1999; Cisneros & Hisijara, 2013; Flanagan, 2020; Flanagan & Christakis, 2009; Hays & Michaelides, 2004; Laouris, 2012; Schreibman & Christakis, 2007). The authors' group alone has applied the SDD process in more than 100 different contexts, 1 including peace and conflict resolution (Laouris, 2004; Laouris, Michaelides, et al, 2009; Laouris, Erel, et al, 2009; Laouris et al, 2015); discovering and collectively agreeing on research agenda priorities, thus influencing European Commission funding (Laouris & Michaelides, 2007; Laouris et al, 2011, 2017; CARDIAC 2 ); capacity building of youth and civil society 3,4 ; reforming and bridging gaps in education and democracy (Laouris, 2015; Laouris & Laouri, 2008; Laouris & Romm, 2022; Laouris et al, 2010); and response to the COVID‐19 outbreak in Africa (Laouris et al, 2022). More recently, the SDD has been proposed as a problem structuring method (PSM) within the repertoire of operational research (OR) tools (Laouris & Michaelides, 2018; Laouris & Romm, 2022).…”

“…11 11 In a number of cases (e.g. in Laouris, Y., & Michaelides, M. [2007]. Report on Identifying Actions that Push the Development of Practical Applications in the COST219ter Community.…”