Institute For The Future

Technology and aging

Last year, while doing a project on the future of RFID, I spent some time looking at the future of the smart home. In that work, I came to three conclusions.

First, the technology for putting intelligence in the home-- making appliances reactive, creating sensor networks in rooms, etc.-- are no longer science fiction, but are (or soon will be) here. There are cost issues, as always, but the 1950s dream of the smart home was just that: a dream. Today, we're arguing over a real smart home should be.

Second, the smart "home" isn't likely to be built from the top down, but from the bottom up. For most people, it'll start as a set of discrete spaces-- a smart medicine chest, a smart refrigerator, a smart kitchen-- that might then be linked together. Functional needs within the home vary enough; the pay-as-you-go model will feel cheaper for many homeowners; and it'll take time for the utility of the technology to be proved, making small-scale experimentation feel more sensible.

Finally, the biggest early market for smart home technologies will be the elderly. As a group, they're willing to spend a fair amount of money to spend on home improvements and health. They also have the most to gain from these systems. A system that turns on my music whenever I walk into a room, or reminds me to pick up some gorgonzola and the dry cleaning, will either be neat or creepy. A system that helps me stay in the house I've lived in for decades, that keeps me from being a burden on my children, and helps me stay connected with my friends, is a life-changer.

The most recent issue of The Economist looks at some systems for aging in place (though they don't call it that), and come to same conclusion that I did regarding early adopters:

 

Demand for... technologies intended to make it easier, less stressful and even healthier for older folks to continue living at home.... could be enormous, since baby-boomers are on the cusp of retirement. About 10% of the world's population was 60 or older in 2000—but that figure will more than double to 22% by 2050. Some countries will be especially hard hit: 28% of the population in Italy and Japan will be over 65 by 2030. In the rich world, there will be two old people for every child by 2050.

 

The piece does a good job of outlining where some of the major research is going on, and what kinds of projects are being conducted. However, it misses one important point, and only touches briefly on a second.

First, most promising aging in place technologies aren't about automation and surveillance, but augmentation and connectivity. For the truly infirm, systems that help them get out of bed, or track their movement around a house, or check to see if they've drunk enough water in the past 24 hours, may be necessary; but for most elders, the technology bar starts off lower, and in an entirely different place.

The first quality designers should focus on is augmentation-- that is, creating technologies that help users do things. Medicine bottles that help you keep track of medication schedules are a decent early example of this. At Georgia Tech and MIT, smart house researchers have been working on housekeeping systems that do things like monitor interior temperature and current weather, and suggest what windows to open on a summer day to maximize the cross-breeze in a house. Not only is it technically easier and cheaper to do things like put a flashing LED over a window than design an automated window-opening system; it's healthier. Elders who stay active live better lives than those who don't. (Retirees who throw themselves into volunteer work or travel constantly aren't people who don't know how to stop; at some level they recognize that inactivity is a bigger enemy than age.)

So there's an emerging consensus that you don't want to create systems that encourage passivity. You want systems that encourage activity. So augmentation is better than automation.

Second, designers are waking up to realize that connectivity, not surveillance, is what they should be shooting for. Georgia Tech, for example, has created an ambient device that consists of a picture frame that delivers information about the state of a person: the idea is to have a picture of Grandma, and real-time data about how Grandma is doing. It's an unobtrusive way of seeing how a loved one is doing (much less intrusive than a webcam, say); it prompts children to check in with elderly parents, and see how they're doing. More generally, researchers are trying to work with the fact that staying connected to friends and family is as important to aging well as staying active. The systems need to be bridges to loved ones and caregivers, not substitutes for them.

Systems designed around the principles augmentation and connectivity, rather than automation and surveillance, also will probably have a significant secondary effect. By involving and touching more people, they demonstrate to a wider range of potential buyers just what these systems can do, and what benefits they can bring. A robot that assists an elderly parent won't be as impressive as a system that keeps a parent, children, grandchildren and doctors all linked together. The former system makes the technology look impressive but alien; the latter makes it seem domesticated-- something you'd want in your house, too.

Finally, it should go without saying, but bears repeating, that culture matters a lot in the design of these systems. The Economist provides one nice example:

 

In Japan, over 2,200 people use the i-pot system devised by Zojirushi, Fujitsu and NTT. As its name suggests, the i-pot is an internet-connected kettle. Whenever it is used—which is several times a day in tea-loving Japan—it sends a wireless signal to a central server. Usage records can be checked on a secure website, and the pot also sends a twice-daily summary by e-mail to a family member or other designated recipient.

 

Would such a system be useful in England? Probably. Would it be nearly as useful in Southern California? Almost certainly not.