1972Picture the Technicum at La Chaux-de-Fonds, during the break. A friend whose mother was a nurse in a city-centre hospital told us that an 11-year child, tetraplegic as the result of an accident, could not call a nurse by himself. Pascal’s isolation – he had septicaemia – was a complicating factor. Given the problem, I had the idea of making a device that would sense the movements of the tongue and convert them to electrical controls. On of my lecturers, Francis Schwab, gave me the keys to his lab so that I could make the printed circuit for the future device. I produced the first environmental control called ‘LINGUADUC’ (led by the tongue …) in my cellar. The child was then able to call the nurse, switch a lamp on or off, and operate an electric train or his radio. Dr Rene Gerber, a surgeon in the same institution as the child, then sent me a message (see letter). Dr Alain Rossier, at that time Senior Physician at the Geneva Beau-Séjour hospital (rehabilitation centre), also confirmed his interest in this kind of device. But then I faced a bit of a dilemma! My family had been watchmakers for five generations. My father ran the family business, a factory making watchcases mainly in gold and steel. Should I plan to take over? My father encouraged me to choose my own way by discharging me of responsibility for the family tradition. He offered me his help. On his advice, I began to bring this work to fruition and even presented the device at the International Inventions Exhibition in Brussels. LINGUADUC was awarded first prize with the congratulations of the Jury (however I did not receive the gold medal to go with the certificate: it would have cost a great deal to buy …). The exhibition took place at the same time as the final term of my mechanical engineer design course. Although we had 7 weeks to complete the final project, I handed in my work after three weeks. I scored just enough marks and the expert’s comment was: “…will definitely never build a machine in his life …”. The Director of Technicum, Pierre Steinmann, made no mistake, though: he quickly made up for this pessimistic comment with hearty encouragements to carry on. Then it was a question of finding an engineering and commercial partner so as to be able to launch the product. In the end the project was started in Berne. I began on 15 September 1972: SIGNALE UND AUTOMATIK AG would deal with the engineering side, CARBA, a specialist manufacturer of industrial and medical gases, would be responsible for distribution.
After a few months, a professional version of LINGUADUC was available. Following a press article describing LINGUADUC, I had a telephone call from the mother of a 5-year-old girl with cerebral palsy. From the telephone conversation, we both thought that the device could be used by the child. I went to her house in Geneva and realised straightaway that the lack of coordination in Myriam’s movements made it impossible to use my device. A first and decisively humbling lesson: technology cannot solve everything … Never having had an opportunity to work with the cerebral palsied, I suggested to Myriam’s mother that I take her to spend a few days with me in Berne, which she accepted. I then discovered more about the consequences of this disability. I was fascinated by the lack of oral communication typical of those severely affected by cerebral palsy. Then came another decisive meeting - with Jacqueline Baillod, a specialist teacher of a class of severely disabled children with cerebral palsy at La Chaux-de-Fonds. This was the real start of my specialisation in the improvement of communication for people with no oral language. I began by looking for a modified typewriter and got in touch with the British company POSSUM. Its MD, Reginald Maling, had developed machines, especially typewriters, for thalidomide victims. Reginald did his first work at Stoke Mandeville Hospital. CARBA, which meanwhile had become my employer, imported POSSUM machines. But they did not work well for people with cerebral palsy, although they were remarkably suited to the needs of thalidomide patients (severe congenital deformities as the result of a drug in use at the time). They had little fine motor control but they did have complete motor control. And these patients spoke normally and had no delayed knowledge acquisition. For those with cerebral palsy, the reverse is true. Their movements are uncoordinated and the worst cases are incapables of oral communication. One of the consequences of this disability is that these children also experience delayed learning. The POSSUM machines were not a satisfactory answer under these circumstances: the lack of motor coordination produced too many wrong commands; the machine did not respond to the operator’s will! No doubt all the love and intelligence of people like Jacqueline Baillod is required to understand that the intelligence of these children is imprisoned in their bodies. It also seemed to me that they might be behind in terms of knowledge, but postulating that they could have a sufficient, even intact, development potential was not a utopian dream. 1973CARBA agreed that, as a complement to LINGUADUC, we could begin developing a range of special communication aids. In collaboration with the Centre for the Cerebral Palsied at La Chaux-de-Fonds, Jacqueline Baillod and Eric Mühlemann from the ISMECA company, we produced a first generation of communication devices. It was then that I realised that my strength lay especially in the design of new machines and not in their technical production. I was the sort of ‘architect’ of future projects. I tried to analyse the needs of the disabled and their immediate family, friends and carers so as to deduce if possible a potential technical answer to those needs. I had to cooperate with engineers with the necessary technical expertise, according to the project concerned. The first part of the work concerned the interface between the disabled person and the machine (we called them ‘detectors’). This was the time when special sensors were designed and developed (to detect pressure, position, movement or vocal sounds) and various filters intended to eliminate the errors caused by the spasms that can occur before or after the intentional motor command. The second part of the work concerned ‘effectors’ i.e. the elements that, controlled by the detectors, made sense of the messages in order to communicate in writing, by designating pictograms, by counting, by controlling the environment (like LINGUADUC, but offering greater possibilities and with one detector rather than five…). - (see diagram) 1974The early use of these devices was fascinating. Children deprived of language since birth began to write: they took the initiative to communicate to us what they wanted. I did not really understand that this was revolutionary. When I talked about it in professional circles I heard for example in Berne: “what you’re doing is technically great, but useless in practice, these children don’t talk, so they don’t think …”; or again, at a congress organised in 1974 at the Salpêtriere teaching hospital, a professor specialising in the treatment of cerebral palsy said: “children whose degree of disability justifies this type of machine don’t have the intellectual level to allow them to profit from it “. These statements bored into me on the return journey that same evening: “Why did he say that? Who is right? Should we go on?”… Fortunately at the time, several children, especially in Jacqueline Baillod’s class, were already using these devices in a relevant, and to say the least, convincing way. Sometimes I even think of those pessimistic reactions with gratitude; they taught me from the outset to live with doubt, with the need to question oneself frequently, and not to hesitate to challenge oneself, inasmuch as one can.
It was also at this time that CARBA agreed that we should cooperate with a German rehabilitation hospital team: the Südwestdeutches Rehabilitation Krankenhaus at Langensteinbach, near Karlsruhe. One of their occupational therapists, Bärbel Hauber, agreed to devote a year exclusively to using the machines. Bärbel was paid directly by CARBA. That is how we moved beyond Jaqueline Baillod’s team for the first time. in Germany as well as Switzerland. 1975 We had to admit however that in commercial terms, on the other hand, there was complete and utter stagnation. The products, although meeting a need relatively well recognised by the people who knew our work, were not much in demand. Gérard Grossglauser, Director of the Fondation Suisse pour l’Enfant IMC (Swiss Foundation for Cerebral Palsied Children - CEREBRAL), took an immediate interest in these odd machines. He ordered 25 complete systems from CARBA 25 so as to make them available to 25 specialist schools in Switzerland. That really got the ball rolling. Shortly afterwards, based on the annual results presented by the teams at its yearly conferences, the Assurance Invalidité (Swiss Disability Insurance – AI) gradually agreed to take responsibility for the devices. The systems included the necessary equipment to communicate, count and draw pictures, objects and pictograms. The interface included the pneumatic pressure detector, infrared proximity sensor, the Doppler effect radar detector and a microphone capable of picking up the sound of the voice. A big keyboard, inspired from the work done by Luc Hostyin in Belgium, could be used by pulling or pressing the keys, applying variable pressure and offering the possibility of programming the positioning of the letters on the keyboard in order to adapt the ergonomics as far as possible to the user’s specific disability.  It was also at this time that CARBA began to export the equipment. The first country was Belgium, followed immediately by the United States. In fact when the work was presented in Paris in 1974, an American member of UCP (United Cerebral Palsy) thought that the work should be presented at their annual convention. I had the opportunity to present the full range of equipment during that event in Pittsburg in 1975. Because the system ha no equivalent at the time on the US market, about 20 specialist schools immediately bought it. It was at this time that laboratories such as the Trace Center (Madison, Wisconsin), led by Gregg Vanderheiden, were starting to move in this direction. Between 1975 and 1980, CARBA exported its machines to Europe, the North American continent, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. In 1979, the last congress organised in Berne by CARBA brought together over 300 people from 13 different countries including Americans and one Australian. The participants, some of whom were officially on sick leave – their institutions did not authorise them to attend a conference on such a marginal subject - slept in part in our offices in Berne! These conferences generated a very large number of published articles, and it can definitely be said that they represented an important source of information and were the basis for several pieces of development work still in use today. 1976At great cost, CARBA bought the licence for a device developed in the IT Department of a Swiss University. Capable of converting Morse code into written text, the device was to become, 22 years later, the ‘B.A.Bar’ project! The problems posed by its development and price explain why the project made no progress for years. 1978From 1978, the second generation of CARBA machines used early microprocessors. the machines were capable of some processing of text, drawings and music.
1980CARBA’s management decided to put an end to the CARBA-LINGUADUC work. In fact, in financial terms there was a big hole in the balance sheet of CHF 1,500,000. I was made redundant, along with several of my colleagues, but CARBA decided nonetheless to keep one of us, Georges Venger, working in this area. This was in order not to simply drop the some 1000 users we had at that time. Congratulations and thanks are due to CARBA for all the efforts they made and the way they behaved when the LINGUADUC business was dismantled. I felt however that the end of that activity was a serious failure. It seemed to me that I had betrayed my employer’s trust because I had kept on saying that we would ‘soon’ achieve commercial success. It was largely technological progress that indirectly sounded the death knell for the business. The arrival of personal computers such as APPLE, COMMODORE or SINCLAIR seemed to some of our customers to be capable of doing what our machines could do, but much more and decidedly more cheaply. An article that appeared in a specialist journal signed by a French doctor claimed that it was now possible to write one’s own software to meet needs that the Swiss machines could only partly satisfy, and at great cost. This was followed by several order cancellations … and precipitated the process that culminated in the restructuring of our activities within CARBA. I then decided to take my career in a completely different direction. At the request of the late Jean-Pierre Pellaton, founder and director of ISMECA (still our supplier since 1974) – I did an audit of the company. I'd took courses in business analysis whilst doing the practical work in the field! This task took 18 months. Between 1974 and 1980, ISMECA went from 19 to 85 employees and the then management of the company wanted someone from outside to take a look at its operation (ISMECA employed as many as 800 people on 5 continents). Thanks to a call for tenders, I was also given a contract by the department of the recently created Jura Canton; I had to make a survey to see if local industry could be diversified to make it less dependent on the traditional clock and watch making. What interested the jury judging the tenders was the priority of moving the existing industrial fabric towards other markets, rather than introducing new businesses. 1981IBM organised a conference in Israel during the International Year of Disabled Persons. A colleague working in France, Hok Kwee, suggested to the organising committee that I should speak there, and this was accepted. so I went to Haïfa to present my paper and received a new shock: I liked this; I wanted to go on doing it. 1982The FST was officially established on 16 December 1982. This was made possible by the support of the Federation des Cooperatives MIGROS (major retail chain in Switzerland), the Fondation Suisse en faveur de l’Enfant IMC (CEREBRAL) in Berne and the Swiss Paraplegic Foundation in Basle. From the end of 1981, I had felt it was possible to envisage the continuation of this ‘technical aid’ work, even if it did not prove commercially profitable. I was then working on a project (called ISADT – Institut Suisse pour l’Application et le Développement des Téléthèses – Swiss Institute for the Application and Development of Teletheses ). As I had also kept several contacts in France; the project was run in parallel in both countries. The L’OREAL Group was prepared in principle to support the project at that time. Once the project was ready, I thought it was necessary to check its relevance. So I submitted it to around 20 Swiss organisations and institutions specialising in disability. With one exception, they all supported the idea. Having used my few personal reserves for my home, my father was my first and indispensable ‘backer’ (the banks did not even bother to answer my requests). Although there was strong moral support from the disability circles, it was harder to get financial backing or declarations of support for the project. At the start of 1982, I met Pierre Arnold, then the boss of MIGROS (the company had a turnover at the time of 10 billion Swiss francs). His first reaction was very encouraging. He entrusted the project evaluation and feasibility study to one of his close collaborators, Mrs Elisabeth Steiner, who was responsible for sponsorship requests to MIGROS. The number of contacts grew through 1982. At the start of September, I owed about CHF 40,000 to my father … mid-September, I received a letter from MIGROS confirming their support for the project with an initial CHF 50,000. On 16 December 1982, when the notarial deeds were signed confirming the creation of the Foundation, donations or promised donations represented 1,500,000 for the next 5 years! My thanks again to all those who made it possible, especially: MIGROS, Dr Guido A. Zäch, president of the Swiss Paraplegic Foundation and Mr Gérard Grossglauser, director of the Fondation Suisse en faveur de l’enfant IMC (now CEREBRAL, in Berne). 1983CEREBRAL funded the first four projects proposed by the FST: • a machine enabling the user to make bead necklaces with a single command
• a fully remote-controlled knitting machine
• some toys that could be used by a disabled person
• a system to emulate a personal computer (APPLE or COMMODORE 64) It was particularly the fourth project that awakened the most interest. Initially done in cooperation with one of my friends, Alain Friedrich, then with Jean-Paul Wettstein, the first collaborator of the Foundation, it offered someone whose disability did not allow them to use a computer and standard software packages the possibility nonetheless of accessing that equipment. There were several special keyboards and light scanning access enabling the computer to be used by means of a single contactor (principle of CARBA machines). 20 Swiss schools were then equipped with a microcomputer and its special interfaces; training was given to each team, plus access to a software library containing several hundreds of software programmes written by professionals for the general public. Funding was again provided by CEREBRAL. Very quickly, the results confirmed our hopes: we received proof that the disabled can really benefit from technological progress and that the development of IT is an opportunity that must not be missed. 3 people were then working for the FST and probably about a hundred people benefited from our work every day. [Prize awarded by SNUP, Société neuchâteloise d’utilité publique] 1984The arrival of the synthesised voice allowed us to think of applications for our field: giving speech to those who cannot have it! That was the starting point for the ‘HECTOR’ project. The device could speak 6 languages, its content freely programmable (the small number of other machines then available spoke only English and their content was programmed in the factory …) and the inclusive ergonomic access made it accessible to a range of symptoms. Renewed thanks are due to Jean-Bernard Boissard, a theology student who used his earlier physicist training to help to programme this little machine.  Once again, we faced a great deal of scepticism. For example we heard: “It's not possible for a child deprived of language from birth to be able to use a system like that”; or “the synthesised voice will conflict with the human relationships that the disabled person has with those around him”; or “a device like that will stop any possibility of seeing a disabled person without oral communication eventually develop a natural aptitude for speech …”. The lack of confidence that people sometimes have in other people is a really odd. Experience has shown that all those reservations were unjustified even if, even now, inexperienced professionals continue to think they are. HECTOR made the FST well-known beyond our borders and we were convinced that it was the explanation for the 14,500 contacts we had with over 47 world countries! A second-generation HECTOR appeared in 1986. HECTOR proved to be the tool preferred by users in order to correct their public image. We were delighted by that. In 1984, 4 people were working for the FST. 1986At the time, environmental controls were very expensive. They already enabled a quadriplegic to control, by breathing for example, his bed, the lighting, audiovisual system or the telephone. On average it cost about CHF 15,000 - including the devices - to install in the user's home. Everything was hardwired. the TV and radio had to be modified so as to be accessible via an environmental control system. Moreover, the wires were so many ‘chains’ preventing the user from moving around!  This was where ‘JAMES’ came in, a completely revolutionary concept. It took account of the fact that increasingly electronic devices were using infrared remote controls. If an infrared remote control had the ability to learn and copy the codes of the other remote controls, it was possible to think of replacing the original remote controls by a single box. Engineered by Stefan Zülli, this was a unique product. The know-how was sold to STUDER-REVOX, a company specialising in upmarket leisure electronics. With support from several quarters including, in the immediate, the Swiss Paraplegic Foundation, the device was developed and evaluated in the field. Its (very costly) commercialisation was paid for by the insurer, Union Suisse Assurance of Geneva, on the occasion of its 150th jubilee. Since then, thousands of people have used or are using JAMES, mainly in Germany, France, Sweden and Switzerland. At the end of 1986, 8 people were working for the FST.
1990The IRIS project took its first steps: the idea was to ensure general compatibility between the electronic aids, in particular by creating a standard and a local network for the various traditionally stand-alone pieces of equipment. Funding was initially based on local public support (Commission neuchâteloise de la Loterie Romande – Neuchâtel Lottery Committee), and subsequently from the European Community and the M3S, FOCUS, SPRINT IMMEDIATE and ICAN projects. I was then strongly encouraged by the Office Fédéral de l’Education et la Science (Federal Office for Education and Science) to join the European research programme network. My first contact with this was in 1990 in Brussels. 800 of us had applied for the projects. Without the support mentioned above, I am not sure I would have had the courage to even try!
In the end the project did not turn out as the FST wished. In 1998, we even decided to withdraw from one of the joint projects, considering that the R&D activity was no longer producing real added value given the circumstances at the time (just over a year later, the project was to be stopped by the European Commission). But M3S (the name of the communication protocol developed) and IRIS had imitators. Two world-famous companies applied its principle and used the same basis. They were ‘DX’ by CONTROL DYNAMIC (a US-owned company) and ‘PILOTE +’ by the British company PENNY AND GILES. These two companies were initially connected with the research projects, or active in their ISO standards committees which had been established at the time. The FST also invested substantially in these projects and it must be said that this was not a success. The team of engineers then employed by the FST did not hide their very great disappointment when it was forced to put an end to years of research. That was the year when the FST acquired a real-time integrated IT management system, ‘ANTIOPE’. The programme, designed to meet our needs, contained everything we were doing with our clients and enabled us to monitor production runs and stock levels whilst providing an update of our situation at all times. Doubtless it is thanks to that tool that – with our feet on the ground – we were able to allow ourselves to have our heads in the clouds. At the start of 1991, 11 people were working for the FST. And from then on we had a specially designed IT programme to allow us accurately to monitor what we were doing. Around 460 people were benefiting from our services every year. 1991Having moved to more palatial accommodation, the FST introduced a training programme for professionals. We were seeking to transfer our know-how as far as possible, particularly with a view to reducing the time we were spending in the field. Since then, over 2,200 people have attended these training sessions and … the average time spent in the field has gone down by almost half. With professionals increasingly assuming responsibility for work connected with the application of our ‘teletheses’, we were intervening more and more only in specialised cases. 1992With the backing of the Fonds National Suisse de la Recherche Scientifique (Swiss National Science Foundation - PNR 32, directed by François Hoepflinger and Astrid Stuckelberger), in cooperation with Dr James Renard, Senior Physician at the Neuchâtel Canton Psychogeriatric Hospital, Locle Engineering College (now HES/SO), and the Institute of Sociology at Neuchâtel University, the FST undertook a project aimed at people who wander, especially when they have Alzheimer's disease. The aim was to stop these patients being forced to remain confined in a restricted area, and let them continue to live in an open environment. In 1995, the first presentation of the project at a specialist congress was interrupted by boos. Since then, its most virulent detractors have realised that not offering demented people who are very likely to wander a device like the QUO VADIS is a restriction of freedom that in the end is hard to accept.  With the support of the Banque Cantonale Vaudoise (Vaud Canton Bank - on the occasion of its 150th jubilee), about 20 institutions for the elderly in Vaud Canton were equipped with QUO VADIS. From 1995, we joined efforts with the Danish company JENKA and offered a better adapted product. Since it was designed through to the time of writing, over 120 specialist Swiss establishments have been equipped with it. In 2001, in recognition of the contribution of QUO VADIS, I was appointed honorary member of Neuchâtel Alzheimer’s Association. How far we have come since that first presentation I mentioned earlier ! [L’Express Prize, Neuchâtel] 1993Having the teletheses financed by the Assurance Invalidité (AI – Swiss Disability Insurance) had been possible since 1975. From that time and until 1993, the selling price of the devices included a lump sum covering the cost of services (information, analysis of need, search for a solution, making available the necessary equipment for an assessment, training of the user and his entourage, monitoring of the results). This solution lacked transparency and was incompatible with the mission given to us by AI some years before, i.e. management of the depot through which we were to recycle the teletheses no longer used by the insureds who had received a device. Under the direction of the then head of OFAS (Office Fédéral des Assurances Sociales - Swiss Social Security Department), A. Lüthy, and with his associates P. Aebischer, Heinz Borner and Roger von Lerber, the FST found itself awarded the status of ‘AI executive body’. The price of the equipment thereafter no longer included the provision of services; they were reimbursed directly and separately by the OFAS and we received funding for our services in connection with managing the AI depot. We were 16 colleagues. Well over 650 people benefited from our services throughout the year every year. 1995Several European research projects were undertaken with financial support from the Office Fédéral de l’Education et de la Science. Altogether and so far, around 15 projects have been carried out, including the one that led to the third generation of JAMES. In 1996, in Paris, JAMES was awarded the AUTONOMIC trophy and the Environmental Control prize, thus crowning this little device as ‘Telethesis of the Year 1996’. Other projects were done in partnership with the PHILIPS Group, in Eindhoven. In that case, the know-how of the FST was used to influence the design and manufacture of products for the public at large, to make it easier for the elderly or the disabled to use them (MOVAID and HOMEBRAIN projects). Another project with THOMSON in France sought to develop a laser to detect head movement (LAMP project). Unfortunately this came to nought, being too dangerous for the user (the laser in the end having to be too powerful). We withdrew from a project (PCAD) run by a coordinator who refused to adjust to the changes in communication technology and methods of treating aphasics.  22 people made up our team at that time and 923 people benefited from our services in Switzerland through the year. [Institut Neuchâtelois Prize] 1996The European Commission gave us some first expert contracts. We were among the fifty people or so who, at European level, were given basically two main tasks: selecting projects that would benefit from Commission support, and deciding whether current project should be allowed to continue. Since then, I have personally monitored around 30 projects and have been involved four times in the selection of new proposals. I am also one of the 15 people or so who occasionally take part in the drafting of the strategic guidelines for the new framework programmes of European Community. - (see expert contract) We were 31 colleagues (6 working solely on R&D) – 1100 people in Switzerland benefited from our services. [ASIV Rehabilitation Prize (Association Suisse des Invalides – Swiss Association for the Disabled, Bienne)] [Autonomic Show Prize Trophy, Paris and Best Environmental Control Prize at the Autonomic Show, Paris] 1997The FST experienced a serious growth crisis: too cumbersome an administration, an infrastructure that was relatively speaking too expensive and inadequate management for the size of the business. A vigorous change of direction was taken in extremis. Our thanks to the FST Board and especially its then chairman, Dr Guido A. Zäch, for the trust he showed in the FST management during that difficult time. Start of the European ‘VISIOBOARD’ project, aimed at enabling the operator’s eye movements to control a machine (you only had to look at the keys on the keyboard to write!). Fitted with a camera specifically equipped to automatically recognise a human face, this device, available for use from 2001 and considerably improved in 2002, was sometimes the only way of enabling a very severely disabled person to communicate. From the technical point of view, the FST’s main contribution was to define the specification to allow a technology initially developed for ophthalmology to be transferred to electronic aid applications. The technical development undertaken on the basis of these recommendations was done by METROVISION in Lille, in northern France.  29 colleagues made up the team and about 1200 were benefiting from our services.
[Prize awarded by the Fondation Suisse du Prix Doron]
[Prize awarded by the Fondation Dr J. E. Brandenberger, Zug] 1998Development of a second version of QUO VADIS, based on the experiments done in 1993 at the Psychogeriatric Centre of the Cantonal Psychiatric Hospital in Perreux (Neuchâtel). This project, a collaborative undertaking with Locle Engineering College (HES-SO), was inaugurated in March 2002. The chairman of the Swiss Alzheimer's Association, Dr Jürg Faes, in his speech summarising the events of the Inauguration Day, said that the project was probably one of the major advances of the last 20 years in the field. Our thanks again to Yves Mühlebach, engineer, Dr James Renard, Senior Physician, Gilbert Fallet and his team for their excellent contribution to this project which was funded by public and private donations, including the Fond Junod in Geneva and Neuchâtel Canton. This was also when the B.A.Bar project took its first real steps. The initial prototype was produced as part of a final-year project at the Ecole Technique des Montagnes Neuchâteloises (Montagnes Neuchâteloises Technical College - CIFOM). It was assessed at Yverdon (aphasia), Lausanne (autistic children), Monthey (mental disability) and Berne (aphasia). 25 colleagues enabled 1289 people to benefit from our services. 1999The first results of the B.A.Bar assessment were very encouraging. So it was decided to increase the scale of the project. Still based on an FST specification, the development of B.A.Bar to industrial standards was entrusted to a young team of engineers, EPICAR, at Sion. The design of the equipment was researched by the Haute Ecole d’Arts Appliqués (University College for the Applied Arts) of La Chaux-de-Fonds. The definitive version of the device was available at the end of 1999. The decrease in R&D and administrative personnel was partly offset by an increase in the number of people in the ‘front office’. In terms of R&D, one-off joint ventures with teams of people with the requisite skills for one or other type of project seemed to contribute very positively to our future developments. 23 colleagues were required to be able to satisfy requests from the 1669 people who that year called on the FST.
2000Start of the "large-scale" evaluation of B.A.Bar. For a whole year, 70 professionals from 47 teams monitored 100 disabled people who used B.A.Bar every day. The budget for the project, from the start and including extensions, was close to CHF 850,000, entirely funded by donors who must be congratulated for their generosity and trust! Thank you again. 22 colleagues, 1916 people benefited from our services. [Prize awarded by the Fondation Prix Adele Duttweiler (Migros), Zürich] 2001The results of the evaluation of the B.A.Bar project were presented at a specially organised seminar. All the teams presented their results at the event. Since January 2001, B.A.Bar has been commercially available. In Switzerland, in 12 months, 200 people attended the little B.A.Bar training sessions we organised and 250 new users of B.A.Bar received a device. 22 colleagues, 2281 people benefited from our services.
(See press articles)
The development of the prototype of a telephone specially adapted for use by a severely disabled person in a wheelchair was undertaken with the support of a foundation wishing to remain anonymous. At the time of writing, this is work in progress. 2002Signing of two contracts with the Office Fédéral des Assurances Sociales (OFAS). The two contracts for services concerned firstly the work we do with the insureds as individuals, including managing the Swiss ‘EADL/teletheses’ depot, and confirmed the role of expert we are sometimes asked to play when a request is made to the AI. The second contract described us as an ‘umbrella organisation’ and regulated all of our ‘general interest’ services such as informing and training family or professional target groups. To date, the financial cost of these activities has not yet been fully recovered, since approximately 63 % of the costs are not covered by the contract for services.
In November 2002, we were still 22 colleagues and our activities were continuing to develop. Although the FST can be pleased with the success it has achieved with the support of its donors, it was and still is aware that nothing can be taken for granted and I know we must never stop giving our full attention to what everyone expects of us. Let us hope that we can continue to do that for many years to come, not forgetting that what counts in this job is compliance with three indissociable performance criteria:
Hi-tech, Ethics and Tact… November 2002 The FST at 20 ansMy thanks to all those who during these first 20 years enabled the Fondation Suisse pour les Téléthèses (Swiss Telethesis Foundation) team to carry out its work with the disabled in this country and elsewhere.
In Switzerland and abroad, every day, around 12,000 people (November 2002) use one or other of the electronic aids we have developed or that we import from the five continents of the world. ‘Un peu d’histoire’ (A Small History) tells the story of the 10 years preceding the creation of the Foundation and our first 20 years - 30 years of exciting work during which the dominant factor has not been technology but what you can do with it. Happy reading. May the next 20 years be like the first … YEARS OF TOGETHERNESS, HARD WORK, CREATIVITY… and may we enjoy the support of those we really need to do our work as long as we need it. Jean-Claude Gabus
|
