1. The question you asked after the presentation and how did you feel it was answered (3%).
Quality of the question (provoke critical thinking and generate productive discussion): 10 marks
QUESTION
How exactly does AIDAN detect an emergency for instance if someone is unconscious or in cases like a stroke or sudden fall? Wat does it do or is it able to alert the system or say call 911.
I believe the question I asked was strong because it addressed both the technical capability and the real-life practicality of the innovation. By focusing on what happens if a user becomes unconscious or is in a different room, I invited the presenter to consider how the robot functions in situations that are unpredictable and high-stakes. It pushed the conversation beyond the ideal scenario and into realistic, complex use cases, something essential when discussing healthcare technology.
The question also helped shift the discussion into preventive vs. reactive care, which sparked a valuable reflection from the presenter and expanded the audience’s understanding of AIDAN’s role.
How did you feel it was answered: 10 marks
I really appreciated how the presenter answered this question. She pointed out that AIDAN is designed with a strong preventive focus, using continuous monitoring to pick up on early warning signs and intervene before things escalate into emergencies. This was a thoughtful perspective that I hadn’t considered before. It helped me understand that AIDAN isn’t just about reacting to crises, but about actively preventing them.
She also explained that AIDAN conducts initial assessments to identify risks such as the potential for falls early on. This allows the system to plan for how best to manage these situations even before the client is in danger, which I found both practical and reassuring. Additionally, I liked that she touched on how AIDAN can be adapted to different home layouts, making it feel more realistic and usable in a variety of living situations.
2. Feedback (7%)
Successes: What went well? 10 marks
One of the biggest strengths of the presentation for me was how well it balanced technical innovation with human storytelling, with a strong narrative thread running through both Margaret’s and David’s stories. These personal examples made the technology feel relatable and grounded in real-life needs, which helped me connect emotionally with the concept. The presenter also showed a clear understanding of the healthcare gaps in British Columbia and explained how AIDAN could realistically fill those gaps in both senior and working-age populations.
Another highlight was the focus on cultural safety and accessibility. Mentioning AIDAN’s ability to communicate in multiple languages and adjust to a user’s personal routine showed that the presenter considered diversity and inclusivity, which are often overlooked in tech design. The visuals were clear, appropriate, and well integrated into the presentation, enhancing understanding without being overwhelming. Overall, the presentation was engaging, well-paced, and demonstrated strong research and creativity.
Challenges: What didn’t go so well? 10 marks
After going through the presentation again, there honestly wasn’t much that went “wrong,” but one small thing that could have made the presentation even stronger was adding a little more detail about how AIDAN would work long-term in someone’s home. For example, I was curious about how users would get started with it, like, would someone come to help set it up, or would families need to figure it out on their own?
Also, while the focus on prevention was clear and well explained, it might have helped to mention a few more practical things, like whether the robot needs internet 24/7, or how it gets updated over time or battery life. These aren’t major issues, but just small things that could make the idea feel even more complete.
Opportunities for Growth: What can be done to improve? (provide clear and feasible suggestions for improvement) 30 marks
Given the time limitations of a presentation, it’s understandable that not every detail could be fully explained. Overall, the presentation was strong and well thought out, but there are a few areas that could be expanded to make it even more complete and practical for real-world use.
1. Add a Simple Setup or Onboarding Process
A quick explanation of how users or families get started with AIDAN would be useful. For example, is there professional setup support? Does the robot need time to learn a user’s routine? Who helps program it for personalized care? Even a short visual or step-by-step slide could make this feel more approachable for people who aren’t tech-savvy.
2. Include Details on Charging, Power Source, and Connectivity
One thing that stood out after going through the presentation again was the lack of information about how AIDAN is powered or charged. Since the robot plays a critical role in monitoring users 24/7, it would be helpful to mention whether it uses a rechargeable battery, stays plugged in, or has a docking system like other smart devices. In addition, it would be useful to know whether AIDAN requires constant internet access to function properly, and how it receives updates, whether that’s automatic, remote, or manual. These details would help better understand how easy or difficult it might be for users, especially seniors or people with disabilities, to manage and maintain the device.
3. Highlight Long-Term Usability and Adaptability
It would also be helpful to mention what happens as a user’s needs change over time. Can AIDAN be updated or adjusted easily? Whether through remote software updates, new features, or customizable settings, this would show that the robot can grow with the user, rather than staying static after setup.