thesis 11 dec 13 final.compressed

Developing a heuristic approach to Product Repair-ability for Industrial Designers

Daniel Allan Cutting

Bachelor of Industrial Design DBDI

University of South Australia

Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences

School of Art, Architecture and Design

Master of Design (Industrial Design) DMSP

Submission Date:

1

Declaration

I declare that:

This thesis presents work carried out by myself and does not incorporate, without

acknowledgment, any material previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any

university; to the best of my knowledge it does not contain any materials

previously published or written by another person except where due reference is

made in the text; and all substantive contributions by others to the work presented,

including jointly authored publications, is clearly acknowledged.

Daniel Allan Cutting Date

2

Table of Contents

Page (4): Figure List

Page (7): Glossary of Abbreviations and Uncommon Terms

Page (11): Summary

Page (12): Acknowledgements

Page (13): Chapter 1: Innovative Destruction

Setting

The Practice of Obsolescence

The Competitive Drivers of Obsolescence

The Ecology of Obsolescence

Consumer Behaviour

Product Life Spans and Sustainable Consumption

Disclaimer

Page (24): Chapter 2: Gauging Repair-ability

The Operative of Design

Product Architecture

The Practicality of the Modular

Technological Modernity & Practice

Page (36): Chapter 3: Industry Example

Assessment

Page (42): Chapter 4: Reviving Repair

Marketing Practice & Industrial Design

Industry Architecture

3

Closed Circle

Disclaimer

For Contemplation, an Ecology of Repair

Page (57): Chapter 5: Conclusion

Conclusion

Page (60): Bibliography

4

Figure List

Figure 1: iPhone Evolution 2013, viewed 01 November 2013,

<http://www.androidheadlines.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/iphone-

evolution1-e1358797101487.jpg>

Figure 2: General Motors Advertisement 2007, viewed 01 November 2013,

<http://media-cache-

ec0.pinimg.com/236x/51/5e/9f/515e9f31307a3e472d4621488bd1dc1a.jpg>

Figure 3: Used Appliance Market 2011, viewed 01 November 2013,

<http://www.qingdaonese.com/wp-

content/uploads/2011/07/qingdaosecondhandmarket_appliances.jpg>

Figure 4: Pyramids of Waste 2010, viewed 01 November

2013, <http://www.documentarystream.com/images/ewaste-pyramids-of-

waste.jpg>

Figure 5: Self Definition 2012, viewed 01 November 2013, <http://blogs-

images.forbes.com/glennllopis/files/2012/02/Self-Definition.jpg>

Figure 6: Planned Obsolescence 2013, viewed 01 November 2013,

<http://louisdietvorst.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/planned-

obsolescence.jpg?w=540>

Figure 7: Design in Teams 2012, viewed 01 November 2013,

<http://designinteams.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/figure6-3alleenword-

011.jpg?w=660&h=440&crop=1>

Figure 8: My own illustration

Figure 9: Design Material Brain Thinking 2013, viewed 01 November 2013,

<http://vecto2000.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Design-material-brain-

thinking-3-vector-material.jpg>

Figure 10: Core 77 2013, Design For Your Product Lifetime, viewed 01 November

2013, <http://www.core77.com/blog/design_for_your_product_lifetime/>

Figure 11: Ulrich, K., “The role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm”,

Research Policy, 24 (1995), p. 422

5


Figure 13: Apple MacBook Air 6.1 2013, viewed 01 November 2013,

<http://www.macorg.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/apple-macbook-air-design-

patent.jpg>

Figure 14: Ifixit 2013, MacBook Pro Teardown, viewed 01 November 2013,

<http://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/SWUVkQ5ODARErfGp.huge>

Figure 15: Ifixit 2013, MacBook Pro Teardown, viewed 01 November 2013,

<http://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/P1EcYIGkc6XgslKw.huge>

Figure 16: Forever Mac 1999, PowerMac G3, viewed 01 November 2013,

<http://www.forevermac.com/wp-content/uploads/1999/08/g3aperto.jpg>

Figure 17: MacBook Thickness 2012, viewed 01 November 2013,

<http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/IMG_8446.jpg>

Figure 18: Ifixit 2012, MacBook Pro Lithium Ion Batteries, viewed 01 November

2013, <http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/08/macbook-air-

13-inch-2012-battery-ifixit.jpg>

Figure 19: Battery Life Icon 2012, viewed 01 November 2013,

<http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/17/2012/01/xlarge_5d17ef51b4e0

1863b8b98d38cd175456.jpg>

Figure 20: Gizmag 2013, Under the Microscope: Samsung Galaxy S4 vs. iPhone

5, viewed 01 November 2013, <http://www.gizmag.com/iphone-5-vs-galaxy-s4-

comparison/27710/>

Figure 21: Greenbiz 2013, viewed 01 November 2013,

<http://www.greenbiz.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/wide_large/111123-

gunther-w.jpg>

Figure 22: Everblue 2012, Don’t Buy This Jacket, viewed 01 November 2013,

<http://www.everblue.edu/sites/default/files/u50139/Patagaonia%20Ad%20.png>

Figure 23: Rainwillow 2012, Integral versus Modular Architectures, viewed 01

November 2013, <http://rainwillow.com/2012/04/integrated-versus-modular-

architectures/>

6



architectures/>



architectures/>


Figure 27: Collaborative Consumption 2011, Product Service Systems, viewed 01

November 2013, <http://mad4d.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/picture-8.png>

Figure 28: Mont, O., “Clarifying the Concept of Product-Service System”, Journal

of Cleaner Production, 10 (2002), p. 238

Figure 29: Thierry, M., Salomon, M., Van Nunen, J., Van Wassenhove, L.,

“Strategic Issues in Product Recovery Management”, California Management

Review, 37 (1995), p. 120

Figure 30: Fujifilm 2007, Product Recovery Management, viewed 01 November

2013, <http://www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/0080220207003.png>

Figure 31: Blue Planet Green Living 2010, Computer Recycling, viewed 01

November 2013, http://www.blueplanetgreenliving.com/wp-

content/uploads/2010/02/ghana_2009_319imp_art.jpg

Figure 32: Third World Technology 2013, viewed 01 November 2013,

<http://uploads.neatorama.com/images/posts/511/54/54511/1352000071-0.jpg>


8

Glossary of Abbreviations and Uncommon Terms

A list of uncommon terms and general abbreviations used throughout the text:

Closed-Loop Supply Chain

Supply chains that consider the processes required for returns of products,

additional to the traditional forward processes. These processes can be defined

as:

• Product Acquisition

The task of retrieving the used product; this is the key to creating a

profitable closed-loop supply chain.

• Reverse Logistics

The process of planning, implementing and controlling the efficient,

effective inbound flow and storage of secondary goods and related

information. This process is the opposite to the traditional supply chain

direction for the purpose of recovering value or enabling correct disposal.

• Test and sort the returns and disposition

Refers to the process involved in ascertaining how a product will be

disposed of, for example, sold to an outlet, sent to landfill etc.

• Refurbish

Similar to reconditioning but requires more work to repair the product.

• Selling and redistribution

Durable Good

Refers to those goods that do not quickly wear out, or indeed never wear out.

Their intent is to yield utility over time rather than being completely consumed in

one use and, are typically characterised by long periods between successive

purchases.

Extended Producer Responsibility

In the field of waste management, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a

strategy designed to promote the integration of environmental costs associated

with goods throughout their life cycles into the market price of the products

9

Externalities

Environmental impacts that are not normally accounted for in market prices, and

thus a manufacturer will not usually consider them in the decision making process

of the product and system design.

Heuristics

Refer to experience-based techniques for problem solving, learning, and discovery

that give a solution, which is not guaranteed to be optimal. Where the exhaustive

search is impractical, heuristic methods are used to speed up the process of

finding a satisfactory solution via mental shortcuts to ease the cognitive load of

making a decision. Examples of this method include using a rule of thumb, an

educated guess, an intuitive judgment, stereotyping, or common sense.

PSS

Product Service System

Municipal Waste

Refers to a waste type that predominantly includes household waste (domestic

waste) with the occasional addition of commercial wastes collected by a

municipality within a given area.

Nondurable Good

May be defined as goods that are either consumed immediately or that have a

lifespan of less than 3 years.

Product Recovery

The amount of parts and material that could be recovered from returns.

Product Reuse

Using a product again for a purpose similar to that for which it was designed.

Product take-back

The end-of-life collection of a product by Manufacturers to reclaim materials and

dispose of properly.

Remanufacturing

An industrial process in which worn-out products are restored to like-new

10

condition. Through a series of industrial processes, a discarded product is

completely disassembled. Useable parts are cleaned, refurbished and put into

inventory, then the new product is reassembled from the old and where necessary,

new parts to produce a completely equivalent product.

Reverse Distribution

The process of bringing products or packaging from the retail level through the

distributor back to the supplier or manufacturer.

Throughput

The quantity of raw material processed in a given period.

11

Summary

While innovation and technological progress are both good things, in some cases,

the gain we receive from new products may not always be worth the consumer or

societal cost.

The concept of sustainable consumption, in short, implies a reduction in the

throughput of resources and a shift from a linear economy. There is a growing

body of literature concerning sustainable development and the need to reduce

throughput, however it often overlooks the role that longer product life spans can

play.

Two hypothesis exist for extending the life of a product; increase the product’s

intrinsic durability or augmenting its ability to be better maintained and cared for.

The former addresses the socio-cultural and psychological factors that influence

product endurance, while the latter seeks to improve the elements of repair,

maintenance, upgrade and reuse; and it is with reference to this proposal that I

would like to contribute to the discussion.

At a very basic level, it seems appropriate and necessary to facilitate the repair of

a product, to prolong its life span and add to the overall curtailment of

consumption; however it is not that simple. There are many inhibiting factors,

ranging from economics and consumer behaviour through to the delicacy of a

product’s architecture and how it may be constructed to facilitate repair.

However, my aim has been to show that design practices can be developed to

ensure that reactions from consumers will be less destructive to the environment

in the future with reference to product repair; while acknowledging that the cultural

changes required at the product design level are likely to be somewhat

constrained by the realities and perceptions surrounding corporate, consumer and

marketing practices.

12

Acknowledgments

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge those who assisted in the

preparation of this Thesis, as without them, it would not have been possible.

First and foremost thankyou to Dr. Peter Schumacher (who deserves all of the

credit and none of the blame!) for his efforts over the course of the last 12 months;

your feedback, insight and assistance on demand was invaluable and for that I am

eternally grateful.

Also, I would like to extend thanks to Dr. Robert Crocker for your understanding

and flexibility in such a trying time, allowing me to complete the work outside the

parameters of the course timetable.

I must also acknowledge my two very good friends in Brett Sclanders and Max

Bruins for volunteering their time to read this in draft form and offer valuable

suggestions; thanks boys.

Lastly, to the University of South Australia, thankyou for access to your extensive

research resources.

13

Figure 1: The evolution of the iPhone; a product exhibiting traits of deliberate obsolescence

Chapter 1: Innovative Destruction

Setting

There are two aspects of new product development strategy that are driving

environmental problems; firstly, the frequent introduction of replacement products

into the competitive market increases the opportunities and motivation for

consumers to replace functioning durables; and secondly, the durability and

recyclability of new products is influenced by choices of components or materials

made by designers in the design process. Thus, the environmental problems

intensify to the extent that corporate strategies emphasising continuous

improvement and those actually involved in creating and marketing the new

products, are insensitive to the need for sustainable innovation and promote

excessive consumerism1.

However an appreciation must be attained for the

economic setting in which this design practice

currently operates; as it cannot be ignored that

“mainstream economics is deeply embedded in

modernity’s vision of progress and growth”2. This

setting is host to a function that among others

stands in direct opposition to a slower mode of

consumption and abandoning its application

seems doubtful; as to put it quite simply, it works.

This function, known as deliberate obsolescence, has several forms but essentially

refers to the manipulation of a product’s lifespan to encourage consumers into

repetitive buying. An invention born of necessity, it has permeated the realm of

consumer products and design practice for a century and is deeply entrenched in

contemporary consumer culture3. It has been stated that a feature of the

obsolescence model is that there are configurations where a firm cannot survive in

1 J. Guiltinan, “Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental 2 L. Reisch, “Time and wealth: the role of time and temporalities for sustainable patterns of consumption”, Time and Society, 10 (2001), p. 3693 G. Slade, Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America (London, Harvard University Press, 2006) p. 4

14

Figure 2: An advertisement from the 1930s for General Motors

the competitive market unless its product exhibits some form of planned and

known obsolescence4.

The Practice of Obsolescence

The fundamental objective of deliberate obsolescence is to stimulate replacement

buying by consumers5; its driving force is to ensure that the future product is

sufficiently superior to its predecessor to warrant its replacement regardless of the

realised quality6.

Now altering a product, which seems to be perfectly good in its current state is

quite a problem, it is this demand to make it different that has kept designers

occupied since the early 1900s7. Essentially there are two means of shortening the

usable life of a product, either physically or technologically and there are a number

of mechanisms that can be used for both8.

Physical manipulation is the most direct way to speed up replacement; Death

Dating began in response to the Great Depression, producers recognised their

ability to stimulate sales by incorporating inferior

materials into their products that would fail

prematurely and force consumers to purchase

replacements9. Disposable or single use

products, such as disposable cameras are

Designed for Limited Repair so that their

refurbishment isn’t achievable and replacement

must be sought10. It is also possible to Design

4 P. Grout and I. Park, “Competitive Planned Obsolescence”, The RAND Journal of Economics, 36 (2005), p. 5965 Guiltinan, “Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence”, p. 196 Grout and Park, “Competitive Planned Obsolescence”, p. 6057 G. Nelson, “Obsolescence”, Perspecta, 11 (1967), p. 1758 Guiltinan, “Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence”, p. 209 Slade, Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America, p. 510 Guiltinan, “Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence”, p. 20

15

Aesthetic Characteristics that Lead to Reduced Satisfaction by incorporating forms

and surfaces that degrade easily with normal use, such as shiny or polished

surfaces, to appear worn out and engender user discontent11.

The following, although technological, have been referred to by Packard as

voluntary forms of obsolescence as there is no reason that consumers could not

remain content with their existing products, however seek replacement anyway12.

As Nelson points out, fashion is essentially an expression of people’s habit of

getting tired of things, and it constantly obsoletes things long before they are worn

out13. Design for Fashion can be referred to in obsolescence terms as

psychological obsolescence and as Slade highlights, has pervaded manufacturing

practice since General Motors adopted a marketing strategy in 1923 that used

annual styling changes as a means of manipulating consumers into trading in their

old cars either before they wore out, or allowed technology to supersede them14.

Lastly, technological development also allows firms to Design for Functional

Enhancement through adding or upgrading product features and expanding the

number of uses or benefits that their product has15. This was witnessed in the

release of the Apple iPhone 4S, which 11 months after the iPhone 4 had reached

the market, came with no dimensional or form alteration, but featured a rear facing

camera with an increased mega pixel count, a voice recognition feature and a

mildly improved Graphics Processing Unit.

The Competitive Drivers of Obsolescence

11 R. Cooper, “Ethics and Altruism: What Constitutes Socially Responsible Design?”, Design Management Review, 16 (2005), p. 1412 V. Packard, The Waste Makers, (New York, David McKay, 1960) in Guiltinan, “Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence”, p. 2013Nelson, “Obsolescence”, p. 17514 Slade, Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America, p. 515 Guiltinan, “Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence”, p. 21

16

Figure 3: An example of a Used Durable Goods Market, the typical stock at a Goods and Chattels store

Maintaining high rates of sales growth is the

challenge that durable goods producers face,

the more reliable and long-lasting the product,

the longer the repeat purchase cycle and

hence the slower the rate of sales. A firm may

choose to rent the good in this instance,

thereby creating a consistent revenue stream

for years to follow, a notion to be explored

later; however what is generally witnessed in

this economy is the sale of the durable,

eliminating the firm’s vested interest in the value of those goods16.

So through the involvement of ownership transfer and longer lasting products

emerges a market for the used versions of the durable and with this comes an

increased competition between the new and used versions and thus a decreased

sale price for the new replacement products. Therefore, durability becomes a drag

on replacement sales volume and when a used market exists, on the prices of the

substitute. To mitigate this competition, firm’s increase the frequency of the

revision cycle; as increasing the rate of replacement through obsolescence

enables them to stimulate faster revenue, reduce competition from any used good

markets and by virtue of this, increase prices for the replacement product17.

What can be observed is that the existence of a highly competitive environment,

combined with the fundamental economic motives for obsolescence, has created a

sort of path-dependence for product development strategies geared towards faster

replacement of durables18. Essentially for all matters economic, it is necessary.

For a manufacturer, speeding up obsolescence can be simply interpreted as

strengthening their competitive position19 and for consumers ownership is

16 Guiltinan, “Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence”, p. 2117 Guiltinan, “Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence”, p. 2118 Guiltinan, “Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence”, p. 2219 Nelson, “Obsolescence”, p. 173

17

Figure 4: Screen shot from the Documentary, Pyramids of Waste

ultimately a means of conveying power and control, attaining a (admittedly

perceived) sense of well being and social status20.

The Ecology of Obsolescence

Extensive evidence suggests that the modern industrial economy is not

sustainable21. While technology has advanced and skilful Industrial Designers

have enabled firms to develop innovative products in virtually every durable goods

category, the nature of the materials that are often required combined with the

aforementioned rapid rates of product upgrade, have had a tremendously negative

effect on the environment22. The fact remains

that municipal waste in industrialised countries

has been increasing at approximately the same

rate as economic growth23. It has been stated

that in the United States 100 million mobile

phones and 300 million personal computers are

discarded every year and, 20 million Televisions

are sold while only 20,000 are refurbished24. A

study performed in the United Kingdom in the late 1990s concluded that one third

of discarded household appliances were still functional and of those that were

broken, a third were classified as in need of repair as distinct from broken beyond

repair. It would be naive to ignore the influence that an increasing cost of repair

has had on the consumer’s decision to replace over refurbish25, but again this is a

matter of economics; product manufacture is predominantly outsourced to low cost

countries while the repair work must remain localised and absorb a much higher

20 T. Cooper, “Product Development Implications of Sustainable Consumption”, The Design Journal, 3 (2000), p. 5221 O. Mont and T. Lindhqvist, “The Role of Public Policy in Advancement of Product Service Systems”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 11 (2003), p. 90522 Guiltinan, “Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence”, p. 1923 T. Cooper, “Slower Consumption: Reflections on Product Lifespans and the Throwaway Society”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9 (2005), p. 5124 Slade, Made to Break, p. 2 25 Cooper, “Slower Consumption: Reflections on Product Lifespans and the Throwaway Society”, p. 60

18

Figure 5: For contemplation, the question underpinning Consumer behaviour and consumption habits

cost of labour26. Moreover, McCollough suggests that there is a positive

correlation between household income and the propensity to dispose of and

replace appliances, rather than repair them. The rationale for this suggestion is

that higher income households have a higher opportunity cost for time, and as

time is required for repair work, it becomes more cost feasible to discard

appliances27. There is however, recognition amongst scholars that little research

exists as to why individuals really discard products, and in general, a failure to

associate waste with consumer choice28.

Consumer Behaviour

There is also a need to consider the

environmental impact of current consumption

patterns and their interconnectivity with

obsolescence. Conventional thought would

suggest that goods could be nullified by changes

in technology, format or other operational

procedures; however, obsolescence is also a

consumer side issue driven by the failure of

products to quench the human thirst for new,

fresh experiences29.

The matter of consumer behaviour is quite

complex and many of the problems of consumption are deeply embedded in the

social context30. There is ample historic evidence suggesting that very early

versions of our present selves (Homo sapiens) may have fabricated some form of

26 Cooper, “Repair Activity in the UK”, Unpublished Manuscript, (2005) in T. Cooper, “Slower Consumption: Reflections on Product Lifespans and the Throwaway Society”, p. 6027 J. McCollough, “The Effect of Income Growth on the Mix of Purchases Between Disposable Goods and Reusable Goods”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31 (2007), p. 40528 Cooper, “Slower Consumption: Reflections on Product Lifespans and the Throwaway Society”, p. 5329 J. Chapman, Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, Experiences and Empathy (London, Earthscan, 2005), p. 5330 T. Briceno and S. Stagl, “The role of social processes for sustainable consumption”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 14 (2006), p. 1541

19

material culture; a culture displaying traits of symbolism, inter-societal comparison

and strong emotional attachments to material possessions. Yet what is not

present in the research is a conclusion as to when and more importantly why, our

species developed such a materialist orientation31.

We are consumers of meaning, not matter, and products provide the framework

for signification. Arguably this concept was first recognised in the 1970s when a

new set of guiding principles were established in Product Design to overcome the

limitations of Functionalism. Further to their functional requirements, it was

acknowledged that products should engage their user at an emotional level, giving

meaning to the product and enhancing the experience of both ownership and use.

A new language of design was needed to formalise this approach, which became

known as Product Semantics; a term coined by psychologists Butter and

Krippendorf in 1984 and became associated with the slogans form follows

meaning and design is making sense of things. The Post-Functional approach to

Product Design therefore embodies the notion that a product’s form should both

clarify its function, and should communicate abstract ideas and values associated

with the product and its user; to engage with them at a cultural and emotional

level32.

The motivations driving material consumption are intricate; it is about far more

than the acquisition of newer and shinier things; but rather it is an endless

personal journey towards the perceived ideal or desired self. This process is

inherently destructive as by nature, it is evolutionary. As consumer aspirations

evolve and we consume further meaning, our ideals change and shift, as does our

experience base upon which we last found a sense of self. Essentially new needs

emerge the moment that old needs are met, thus supporting the infinite sequence

of desire and destruction as the products are static and are quickly superseded in

the consumer’s continuing quest for meaning.33.

31 Chapman, Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, Experiences and Empathy, p. 5732 A. Taylor, “Human Factors and Aesthetics”, Design Bites: Art& Engineering in Product Design, 1 (2007), p. 28 33 Chapman, Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, Experiences and Empathy, p. 53

20

Figure 6: Satirical depiction of the throw-away society

Product Life Spans and Sustainable Consumption

So with the number of functioning durable goods ending up in landfill every year

increasing, it is clear that the throw away culture we live in is prevailing34.

Therefore the need arises to critique the application of product obsolescence35,

reorient perceptions regarding satisfaction and happiness and rethink how

consumer’s needs are met and products are conceived36.

Considering this, an assertion can be made

that a level of management must be attained

for how a product is handled throughout the

course of and indeed at the end of its lifecycle.

The subsequent chapters will address this

proposal in more detail; however before

progressing I would like to briefly outline how

such a structure can help develop sustainable

consumption and why the consideration of repair-ability for Designer’s is

significant.

Sustainable consumption may be defined as “the consumption of goods and

services that meet basic needs and quality of life without jeopardising the needs of

future generations”37. This definition may be interpreted to imply that for

industrialised countries, there is a need to reduce the throughput of resources and

slow consumption. Not only does this require a departure from a linear economy

to a circular economy, hence attaining the aforementioned control over a product’s

treatment, but also a need to prolong the lifespan of products38. I suggest that

these notions are symbiotic and one cannot, or should not, exist without the other.

To reinforce this statement I would like to highlight Nelson’s concession that as

designers “we are still a long way from being able to contrive a product so

34 Cooper, “Slower Consumption: Reflections on Product Lifespans and the Throwaway Society”, p. 5335 Guiltinan, “Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence”, p. 1936 S. Walker, “The Environment, Product Aesthetics and Surface”, Design Issues, 11 (1995), p. 1537 Cooper, “Slower Consumption: Reflections on Product Lifespans and the Throwaway Society”, p. 5238 Cooper, “Slower Consumption: Reflections on Product Lifespans and the Throwaway Society”, p. 52

21

delicately that the almost infinite number of variables involved in its use can be

balanced out to produce an equal rate of wear on all its parts”39. Therefore in

context to a circular economy, it becomes increasingly important for products to

feature inherent qualities of repair-ability, as some parts simply wear quicker than

others.

I am aware that this tends to simplify what can be considered a very complex

reality, especially given the aforementioned cultural and economic factors, but

longer lasting products are a prerequisite for sustainable consumption40 and there

is no way to simply develop sustainable products41.

This has already been witnessed in the green consumer trend of the late 1980s,

which saw the emergence of a new market segment, comprising of products that

were designed with a reduced environmental impact. Since then, the limitations of

green consumerism have become increasingly evident42. As the focus moved to

eco-efficiency, reducing environmental impacts through increased productivity of

energy and materials, products were able to be produced faster and faster.

However what resulted was a reciprocal increase in consumption, matching the

level of production and negating any positive effect it may have had, an outcome

referred to by Cooper as green growth43. Stimulating green product design is an

important task per se, but it is clearly part of the more is better mindset, which is

insufficient for combating increasing levels of consumption44.

Sustainable consumption is therefore “an issue of consumption patterns as a

totality, not buying green shampoo or recycling soda bottles”; and I intend to

explore this45.

39 Nelson, “Obsolescence”, p. 17240 Cooper, “Slower Consumption: Reflections on Product Lifespans and the Throwaway Society”, p. 5541 L. Ljungberg, “Materials Selection and Design for Development of Sustainable Products”, Materials and Design, 28 (2007), p. 46742 Cooper, “Slower Consumption: Reflections on Product Life Spans and the Throw Away Society”, p. 4643 Cooper, “Slower Consumption: Reflections on Product Life Spans and the Throw Away Society”, pp. 53-5544 O. Mont, “Institutionalisation of Sustainable Consumption Patterns Based on Shared Use”, Ecological Economics, 20 (2004), p. 13945 E. Heiskanen and M. Pantzar, “Toward Sustainable Consumption: Two New Perspectives”, Journal of Consumer Policy, 20 (1997), p. 414

22

Disclaimer

Moving into the following chapters it is important to note that the aim is not to

propose an all-encumbering, grand scale cultural transformation that will achieve

environmental salvation; it is this ideological nature that can be viewed as a flaw of

the current literature. As Sutherland argues, often the most meaningful

transformations occur as a result of the smallest interventions and that behavioural

change is most effectively achieved through persuasion rather than compulsion.

He believes that this is a flaw of business and government’s current capacity for

problem solving; asserting that they are guilty of applying the mindset that big

important problems require big and expensive solutions, and that the level of input

is proportional to the level of change acquired. However what can be witnessed is

quite the opposite and what changes our attitude or behaviour towards things is

not at all proportionate to the degree of expense entailed or force that is applied46.

I believe that rather than proposing the complete annihilation of the present

framework and telling of a utopian vision for consumption that will deliver a

sustainable future, as might be suggested in some current literature, there is merit

in the notion that a successful solution will be reached by creatively adapting the

existing structure.

Furthermore, I acknowledge that in certain contexts the following impressions will

not be applicable, if not for a matter of economics or sustainability, then for the

consumer’s lack of enthusiasm to participate; it does seem wildly optimistic to

expect that consumers will suddenly abandon the status-quo and become pro-

environment in their consumption behaviour47; although it is quite obvious that the

environmental problem we face is not only a technological problem, but a cultural

one as well48. However, to provide any insight some of these factors must be

overlooked and the intent is to engage in the present discussion and provoke

thought, as the responsibility for the negative consequences of planned

obsolescence and consumer culture is a shared one.

46 R. Sutherland, “Sweat the Small Stuff”, TED Salon London (2010) electronic source: http://www.ted.com/talks/rory_sutherland_sweat_the_small_stuff.html (accessed 12/11/12)47 Guiltinan, “Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence”, p. 2148 Verbeek and Kockelkoren, “The Things That Matter”, Design Issues, 14 (1998), p. 28

23

This responsibility ranges from the technical professionals involved in new product

development, who design durables to promote premature obsolescence merely to

create corporate gains at the expense of consumer welfare and the environment;

to the managers responsible for product replacement strategies acting in ethically

questionable ways to psychologically condition consumers to believe that the utility

of a product is diminished simply because a newer version becomes available. In

addition, from the perspective of utilitarian theory, consumers may also be viewed

to act unethically when they add to the public burden with what some might

consider affluent, self serving replacement behaviour to knowingly use or dispose

of products in ways that are environmentally harmful in order to save time or

money49.

49 Guiltinan, “Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence”, p. 23

24

Figure 7: How we may view Wicked Problems

Chapter 2: Gauging Repair-ability

The Operative of Design

Having examined the paradox that exists between the ecology and the economy in

which Product Design operates, we witness the presence of what can be referred

to as a wicked problem.

Wicked problems are those problems that go beyond the capacity of any one

organisation to understand and respond to; and

often there is disagreement about their causes

and an appropriate way to handle them50. The

term wicked is used not in the sense of evil, but

rather its resistance to resolution51. They’re a

class of social system problem that are ill

formulated, contain confusing information,

involve many clients and decision makers (all of whom have conflicting values)

and where the ramifications in the whole system are generally unknown52. One

might argue that most of the problems designers are confronted with are actually

wicked.

The problem for designers is they must conceive and plan what does not yet exist,

a process that occurs well before the final result is known53. Design as a discipline

is remarkably flexible and subject to a variety of interpretations in philosophy as

well as in practice, this flexibility however often leads to popular misunderstanding

and clouds efforts to comprehend its nature. Observing the material history of

design illustrates that it is not merely a history of objects, but rather a history of the

changing views held by designers and the concrete objects they conceived,

planned, and produced as expressions of those views54. As these views change

and evolve, so too do the characteristics of the subject matter they create.

50 Australian Public Service Commission, “Tackling Wicked Problems: A Public Policy Perspective”, p. 351 Australian Public Service Commission, “Tackling Wicked Problems: A Public Policy Perspective”, p. 352 R. Buchanan, “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking”, Design Issues, 8 (1992), p. 1253 R. Buchanan, “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking”, p. 1654 R. Buchanan, “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking”, p. 16

25

Figure 8: The framework of Placements; each element representing a facet in the Design Problem at hand

In general a designer forms their own working hypothesis regarding the nature of

products, or more broadly of the nature of the human made in the world. In this

sense, the designer should hold a broad view of the nature of design and the

appropriate scope of its application. This provides the necessary framework for

each designer to understand and explore the materials, methods, and principles of

design thinking. Out of the specific possibilities of a concrete situation, the

designer must conceive a design and determine the features of a particular

product subject to a variety of concerns 55.

For instance, a manufacturer will obviously want to establish a product so that it

can build and sustain its business. To do this, the role of the product must be

carefully considered across many facets; the company mission, the business plan,

the marketplace, and its anticipated role in people’s lives. The materials,

processing, assembly, and shipping of the product must also be factored in. There

are a myriad of concerns present in conceiving and creating any given product,

and the previously listed are typical of those that meet designers. Yet as the need

to achieve sustainability in our material culture increases, the very existence of a

product, its use, its construction and its disposal also need to be carefully

considered. This ever-expanding list of

considerations is indicative of the complex

nature of the contemporary design problem56.

This is where placements take on particular

significance in context to the discussion. As

tools of design thinking they provide a

framework in which all these considerations

can be addressed.

Conceptually, placements allow the designer

to position and reposition the problems and

issues at hand. They are the tools by which a designer intuitively or deliberately

shapes a design situation; identifying the views of all participants, the issues that

concern them, and the creation that will serve as a working hypothesis for

55 R. Buchanan, “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking”, p. 16-1756 B. Wylant, and C. Badke, “Placements: Contextualising Design Thinking”, p. 3

26

Figure 9: How to view the concept of Placements in Design Thinking

development57. Fundamentally they allow designers to establish temporary

boundaries in which to consider their work.

Working through placements, designers can

establish priorities to effectively play with

design ideas and ideas in context, accepting

that the idea could eventually be abandoned

and exchanged at any time, for a stronger one

that better suits all of the placements at play in

the endeavour58.

As a designer generates sketches and models,

they are representing ideas that are cognitively

placed in the various contexts for evaluation

and consideration. Any new design decision made in response to consideration of

a design idea in a given context will require that this new idea be subsequently

positioned in other contexts for further contemplation. In this way, designers work

and rotate through design ideas in a variety of contexts, including aesthetics,

ergonomics, material and process selection and many other attending concerns of

the project59; I argue that repair-ability should be one of these.

As an example, a study model of a proposed design serves as a hypothesis of

what a particular design could be. It can then be tested through a variety of

placements in which both the design idea under consideration and the placement

itself could eventually be adjusted, revised, modified, or replaced60.

57R. Buchanan, “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking”, p. 14-1558 B. Wylant, and C. Badke, “Placements: Contextualising Design Thinking”, p. 259 B. Wylant, and C. Badke, “Placements: Contextualising Design Thinking”, p. 260 B. Wylant, and C. Badke, “Placements: Contextualising Design Thinking”, p. 2-3

27

Figure 10: How Designer’s may work through the application of Placements

A crucial part of understanding how

placements work and how they can influence

design thinking however, is in the awareness

that any given placement can take precedence

in one’s thinking. Consider that a manufacturer

may wish to undertake a design exercise

addressing the particular shortcoming of an

existing product. With excessive focus on this one shortcoming, other issues may

be left unconsidered. For instance, if the manufacturer is concerned with ease

and efficiency of assembly, this might appear as the dominant design problem.

However the various stakeholders may balk at a potential solution if the capital

costs required for tooling or material use are not well anticipated. In this instance

the placement of assembly time has been dominated by the placement of cost.

Comprehending the true role of a given contextual placement is important in

accepting which problem is to be addressed in any particular design exercise. This

aspect of placement dominance is also part of what makes most design problems

wicked61.

Buchanan posits that the challenge is to gain a deeper understanding of design

thinking, so that more cooperation and mutual benefit is achievable between those

practitioners who apply design thinking to remarkably different problems and

subject matters. This is merely a small contribution to the thinking and aims to

provide insight into the application of inherent repair-ability, to position it as one

placement in a long list of those considered in the designer’s methodology, rather

than be the primary consideration for all involved. At very least, firms and

designers should establish a maintenance philosophy in terms of repair versus

disposal of their product and its components62. Optimistically I hope that this will

help to make the practical exploration of design, particularly in the art of

production, more intelligent and meaningful63.

61 B. Wylant, and C. Badke, “Placements: Contextualising Design Thinking”, p. 2-362A. Taylor, “Design Directions”, Design Bites: Art & Engineering in Product Design, 1 (2007), p. 463R. Buchanan, “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking”, p. 6

28

Figure 11: The polar extremes of the archetypes; and how their components

Product Architecture

The maintainability of a product refers to the degree to which it allows safe, quick

and easy replacement of its component parts; either in the course of preventative

maintenance or remedial maintenance (repair). This quality is inherent in the

design of the product as a result of the Product Architecture64.

Ulrich defines the term Product Architecture as the scheme by which the function

of a product is allocated to physical components. This scheme includes the

arrangement of functional elements; the mapping from functional elements to

physical components; and the specification of the interfaces among interacting

components65. Often otherwise labelled as Product Structures, it can be

categorised into two conceptual archetypes, integral and modular66.

A modular architecture contains a one-to-one mapping from functional elements in

the function structure to the physical components of the product, and details de-

coupled interfaces between components. An integral architecture includes a

complex mapping from functional elements to physical components and/or

coupled interfaces between components67. Visual representation of these

definitions can be witnessed in the trailer example, noting respective differentials

in the mapping of functional elements to function structure and the relationship

between interfaces.

There are dozens of issues associated with the architecture of the product,

effectively creating a complex set of relations among many areas of concern; all of

which relate to the performance of the product and indeed the firm. While there is

currently no deterministic approach for choosing an optimal product architecture, 64 A. Taylor, “Design Directions”, p. 265 K. Ulrich, “The role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm”, Research Policy, 24 (1995), p. 41966 S. Fixson, and J-K. Park, “The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure”, Research Policy, 37 (2008), p. 129667 K. Ulrich, “The role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm”, p. 422

29

Figure 12: The balancing act; including modular elements where appropriate

the process can be somewhat guided. In most cases the choice will not be

between a completely modular or completely integral structure, but rather it will be

focused on which functional elements should be treated in a modular way and

similarly, which should be treated in an integral way68. As Fixon and Park (2008)

highlight, most real products lie somewhere between the two extremes69.

This is an area of particular concern to the Research and Development function of

a company, as these decisions are made during the early phases of the innovation

process where the R&D function plays a lead role. Issues that are linked include

the ease of product change, the division between internal and external

development resources, the ability to achieve certain types of technical product

performance and the way development is managed and organised70.

Firms have substantial latitude in choosing a product architecture71, however we

must recognise that the primary goal of any enterprise is profit and this will

influence many of the decisions made. Profit margin may be improved by

increasing sales revenue (profit in volume), or

by reducing product cost. Reducing product

costs can be achieved by changes to

manufacturing process that leads to reduced

labour costs (component manufacture and

assembly time), reduced material costs, or

reduced capital outlay and depreciation; all of which can ensue from the

architecture.

An increase in revenue may be realised by an increased retail price (without loss

of sales volume) or by increasing the quantity of units sold (profit in volume),

however both approaches imply an improvement in the product’s perceived value,

which is largely related to product quality. This practice of reducing costs whilst

maintaining or indeed improving quality, is central to the practice of design for

68K. Ulrich, “The role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm”, p. 43769 S. Fixson, and J-K. Park, “The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure”, Research Policy, 37 (2008), p. 130070 K. Ulrich, “The role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm”, p. 41971 K. Ulrich, “The role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm”, p. 419

30

manufacture and must be performed at the component level72; again there are

myriad of structural implications that pertain to this.

A modular architecture offers many advantages, on the manufacturer’s side the

firm can capitalise on advancements in technology of any given component by

redesigning and producing only that component rather than the entire product,

thus minimising development and production costs; while consumers get access to

the latest technology and possible savings by not having to replace entire

products. Most importantly and in context to this discussion, from an economic

social welfare perspective it would seem that a modularly upgradeable product

would lead to less landfill waste and consume less energy and natural resources,

by enabling technological upgrade and remedial maintenance73.

Sadly however it is not that simple, designers need to be sensitive to the

understanding that the architecture of any consumer product is responsive to its

context, category and market. The more components in the product, the longer the

assembly time will be, increasing the unit costs and so too the risk of product

failure74. Additionally, many of the high-tech products such as computers,

telecommunications equipment and consumer electronic items evolve so rapidly75

that pro-longing the lifespan through remedial maintenance of the product will

hamper performance in the retention of antiquated technology76.

Ernst concedes that a tendency of the literature advocating the application of

modularity, is to generalise based on empirical observations that are context-

specific and confound them with prescription as well as prediction; rather than

exploring the challenges and difficulties that confront firms when considering

modularity. As often happens, the success of an idea leads to exaggerated claims

that forget that even the best theories have limits. However, there is a small but

72 A. Taylor, “Design Directions”, p. 2173 B. Kamrad, G. Schmidt and S. Ulku, “Analyzing Product Architecture Under Technological Change: Modular Upgradeability Tradeoffs”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1 (2012), p. 174 VDR. Guide, et al., “Building contingency planning for closed-loop supply chains with Product Recovery”, Journal of Operations Management, 21 (2003), p. 2275 A. Dhebar, “Durable-Goods Monopolists, Rational Consumers, and Improving Products”, Marketing Science, 13 (1994), p. 10076 B. Kamrad, G. Schmidt and S. Ulku, “Analyzing Product Architecture Under Technological Change: Modular Upgradeability Tradeoffs”, p. 1

31

mounting body of revisionist literature contending that this enthusiasm has gone

too far77.

The Practicality of the Modular

Seldom do we find consumer products for which the hardware is modular78 as in

general the archetype remains undesirable for both firm and users. Although

modularity improves maintainability, it carries cost penalties. This is one reason

why manufacturers of consumer electronics are departing from separate modules

and moving towards all in one systems. There are also weight penalties to

consider as modularity adds mass79.

Under examination from Kamrad et al, unwillingness from users to invest in such a

platform was identified in the absence of credible commitments to future prices

and architectural compatibility across generations from manufacturers.

Conversely to the widely accepted advantages of modularity, they also revealed a

break in the absorption of innovation from users due to the effort that was required

to upgrade80. Additionally, Kenger and Erixon present the results of a case study

which indicates that a firm who had recently implemented a modular approach to

their product range, witnessed a 21.5% increase in design defect rate (the rate at

which a product does not meet specification for some quality characteristic) from

production81.

It is apparent that the steps required to minimise the environmental damage of a

product in the composition of its physical elements, in general, seem to contradict

best practice in other areas of Industrial Design. However as Taylor highlights,

design is frequently about managing contradictions and arriving at an appropriate

77 D. Ernst, “Limits to Modularity: Reflections on Recent Developments in Chip Design”, Industry and Innovation, 12 (2005), p. 30378 B. Kamrad, G. Schmidt and S. Ulku, “Analyzing Product Architecture Under Technological Change: Modular Upgradeability Tradeoffs”, p. 179 A. Taylor, “Design Directions”, p. 380 B. Kamrad, G. Schmidt and S. Ulku, “Analyzing Product Architecture Under Technological Change: Modular Upgradeability Tradeoffs”, p. 281 P. Kenger and G. Erixon, “Studies of design and assembly defects on integrated and modular architectures (conference paper)”, 15th International Conference on Engineering Design, 35 (2005), p. 1

32

solution; this will inevitably involve balancing the trade-off between conflicting

ideals82.

Kamrad et al outline the conditions that will allow firms to benefit most from a

modularly upgradeable product:

• When the market scale is small

The insight is that for high-volume consumer products it is cheaper for the

firm to incur the cost of integrating components when designing an integral

product; rather than to incur the cost of integration by many customers at

the point of modular upgrade. The firm can amortize integration cost over a

higher number of products and consumers. Conversely, for lower volume

products it may be beneficial to offer a modular product and defer the

upgrading to the end user. Thus, besides the firm’s credibility and user’s

technical sophistication, market size also explains why modular products

appear more common in industrial markets.

• The firm’s cost of redesigning an integral product is high

The cost of an integral redesign obviously makes integral products less

attractive.

• Production costs are high

This reduces the margin that firms can achieve on a product.

• The firm’s pricing power is limited

This too, reduces the margin that firms can achieve on a product. Reduced

margins slow the rate of introduction of upgraded products, which

modularity can offset to some extent (modular replacements are cheaper

and therefore can be more frequent).

• The components evolve at very different rates

The value of modular upgradeability for the firm is the highest when there is

a large discrepancy in the improvement rates of the components.

Conversely, if the components evolve at similar rates, the value of

modularity is minimised.

82 A. Taylor, “Design Directions”, Design Bites: Art & Engineering in Product Design, 1 (2007), p. 61-62

33

• The performance loss due to modularity is low

To some extent a modular product can be compromised with regards to

performance. When this performance loss is accounted for in contrast to an

integral product, a less-frequently replaced integral product may on average

provide a higher level of performance.

• User integration costs are low

In a market with technically unsophisticated users, a modular upgrade

strategy has the potential to slow down the absorption of innovation. Even

if the firm introduces modules more frequently due to lower design and

production costs, due to time and effort requirements consumers still may

not replace modules at that frequency83.

Technological Modernity & Practice

Rapid technological evolution, especially for consumer electronic products (mobile

phones, personal computers and cameras), provides consumers with the

opportunity to benefit from incessantly superior products. At the same time

however, the short product lifecycles that result pose challenges for consumers,

firms and particularly the environment84. Despite Bayus’ concession that empirical

examination of these product lifetimes is difficult, as the detailed data for the

complete product life cycle at the varying product market levels is difficult to

acquire; conventional thought holds that they’re getting progressively shorter 85.

I argue that this is partly attributable to the product’s architecture and the

consequent maintainability.

When a new model of an existing product is introduced to the marketplace, the

product generally embodies some functional change relative to the previous

version and the architecture has profound implications for a firm's ability to realise

this change. As mentioned, products with a modular architecture allow desired

83 B. Kamrad, G. Schmidt and S. Ulku, “Analyzing Product Architecture Under Technological Change: Modular Upgradeability Tradeoffs”, p. 884 B. Kamrad, G. Schmidt and S. Ulku, “Analyzing Product Architecture Under Technological Change: Modular Upgradeability Tradeoffs”, p. 185 B. Bayus, “An Analysis of Product Lifetimes in a Technologically Dynamic Industry”, Management Science, 44 (1998), p. 763-764

34

changes to a functional element to be localized to one component. While

products with integral architectures require changes to several components in

order to implement changes to the product's function86. Additionally, the

consumers ability to absorb the change is heavily impacted by the product’s

architecture and essentially, an integral upgrade strategy ensures that the existing

product will be completely replaced through obsolescence87 (as explored in

Chapter 1); culminating in the consumption of scarce resources and pollution as

old but in many cases, still functioning, products appear in landfills.

There is an obvious conclusion to be drawn here, in that modular upgradeability

can also be used as a remedy for customer regret, which arises when a better

version of a product becomes available88, but equally the aforementioned

shortcomings of the archetype must not be overlooked.

Furthermore the competitive environment in this industry is complex, multiple

generations of technology are available in the market at any one time and firms

are not withdrawing products from the market at the same rate as they are

introducing new ones89. Generally speaking, it is possible to identify a firm's group

of key competitors within a specific product category or product form. However,

diminishing lifetimes at the product technology or product model level imply an

added type of competitive environment that all firms face in the industry; an

environment in which the window of opportunity to obtain a sufficient return on

invested resources (including product development and marketing expenses) is

getting smaller over time90 and reinforces the need for constant product

development activity. As Veryzer observes, radical or discontinuous products

86 K. Ulrich, “The role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm”, p. 42787 B. Kamrad, G. Schmidt and S. Ulku, “Analyzing Product Architecture Under Technological Change: Modular Upgradeability Tradeoffs”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1 (2012), p. 988 B. Kamrad, G. Schmidt and S. Ulku, “Analyzing Product Architecture Under Technological Change: Modular Upgradeability Tradeoffs”, p. 289 B. Bayus, “An Analysis of Product Lifetimes in a Technologically Dynamic Industry”, p. 772-77390 B. Bayus, “An Analysis of Product Lifetimes in a Technologically Dynamic Industry”, p. 764

35

based on new technological breakthroughs are increasingly determining the

success of firms in the industry91.

It is clear though that product upgrade strategy and the respective architecture

have consequences from an environmental viewpoint92. A modular architecture

would appear an obvious solution, however I have examined the restraining

realities regarding the archetype. Nonetheless as the need to prolong product life

spans is becoming increasingly important, steps should be taken to address this

even at a single component level.

A product may be considered as a system of inter-connected components,

although very simple products may only consist of one. In either case, component

failure generally results in failure of the entire product, usually resultant from the

architecture and one’s access or ability to perform the required remedial

maintenance. There are a myriad of reasons why a component in a product might

fail, but these can be considered in three broad groups, premature failure, normal

service phase failures (random) and wear-out failures93. This of course refers to

the technical failure of a product, however literature from the Eternally Yours

network also considers the economical and psychological factors that can

influence the lifespan of a product and argue that the psychological durability of a

product is the most important factor to consider94. Therefore, a lack of

upgradeability can too be viewed as a catalyst of a product failure, as the

technological or user’s needs evolve and the product fails to deliver at the

expected level95.

Whatever the cause, the importance in providing the consumer with a certain level

of inherent repair-ability to remedy component failure cannot be overlooked.

91 R. Veryzer, “The Roles of Marketing and Industrial Design in Discontinuous New Product Development”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22 (2005), p. 2292 B. Kamrad, G. Schmidt and S. Ulku, “Analyzing Product Architecture Under Technological Change: Modular Upgradeability Tradeoffs”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1 (2012), p. 993 A. Taylor, “Design Directions”, p. 12-1394 P. Verbeek and P. Kockelkoren, “The Things That Matter”, p. 28-3095 K. Ulrich, “The role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm”, p. 426

36

Figure 13: The Macbook Air 6.1 15”

Chapter 3: Industry Example

Assessment

To assist with an assessment of this concept, let us consider the Apple MacBook

product range. A consumer report of 2011 which made an appraisal of over 53,000

products, ranked Laptop computers amongst side-by-side refrigerators and zero-

turn-radius riding mowers as the products most prone to failure. It went on to

detail that one in three laptops break down by their 4th year as a result of malicious

software or hard-drive failure and highlighted that most manufacturer warranties

only last 12 months; deducing that some form of external repair support will be

required throughout the lifespan of the product96.

Additionally there is also growing concern regarding the diminishing battery life of

Laptops. Being the product’s only consumable, the battery is arguably the most

important component of the product; as without enduring battery life a Laptop’s

portability is compromised, rendering the product

nothing more than a miniature Desktop97.

The distinction should be made however, that

this assessment is limited to one technologically

dynamic industry and there is also no

consideration for software implications; future

research should be conducted in relation to other

markets and time periods before any of the

discussion points here can be generalised98.

In the last 12 months Apple have released their

96 Consumer Reports, “Consumer Reports finds Side-by-Side Refridgerators, and Lawn Tractors most repair-prone Products”, Consumer Reports, 1 (2011) electronic source http://pressroom.consumerreports.org/pressroom/2011/07/consumer-reports-finds-side-by-side-refrigerators-computers-and-lawn-tractors-most-repair-prone-products.html (accessed 01/05/2013)97 “Laptop Batteries”, (no author given), http://www.batteryreview.org (accessed 01/07/2013)98 B. Bayus, “An Analysis of Product Lifetimes in a Technologically Dynamic Industry”, p. 773

37

Figure 14 & 15: The Battery glued to the case in the new Generation MacBook Pro with Retina Display

brand new MacBook Air line, the Air 6.1 (11”) and the Air 6.2 (13”), along with the

new line of the 3rd Generation MacBook Pro with the Retina display (in both 13”

and 15” versions).

Neither MacBook’s received any form alteration from their predecessors, however

internally both featured upgrades to the hardware; and similarly both have an

alarming lack of intrinsic upgradeability or repair-ability. In fact, the Retina display

has been touted as Apple’s least fixable laptop to date99.

A look inside the unibody of the MacBook Pro

with Retina display reveals that the RAM

modules are soldered to the motherboard, the

Battery is glued down and the LCD display is

fused to the glass. This ensures that future

memory upgrades are impossible and any

component failure, even for something as benign

as the battery, will result in complicated repair

work and considerable expense. This of course

then begs the question in the consumer’s mind

whether to repair or replace100?

The same aforementioned consumer report

made a recommendation to consumer’s that

product replacement should be sought if the

repair work is equal to or above half the price of

a new product. Considering that the constant

technological development and increased competition in this category induces

constantly reducing retail prices, this economic window to encourage repair work

99K. Wiens, “The New MacBook: Unfixable, Unhackable, Untenable”, Wired Gadget Lab (2012) electronic source: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/06/opinion-apple-retina-displa (accessed 03/06/2013)100 D. Murphy, “Apple Bumps Battery Replacement Cost to $199 for Retina MacBooks”, PCMag 1 (2012) electronic source: http://www.pcmag.com/atricle2/0,2817,2405921,00.asp (accessed 01/06/2013)

38

is getting increasingly smaller. The opposite can be said however for major

appliances101.

Now granted, the absence of modularity to enable hardware upgrade or easy

repair is partially driven by performance concerns. As mentioned, with an integral

design, all electronic components can be fine-tuned to fit into the smallest, lightest

possible case. While on the other hand, a modular design would require additional

interfaces to account for multiple generations, and would not perform as well with

regard to weight, size and appearance, which are key features for these

electronics products102.

Minimizing size and mass can also form a strategy for minimizing unit production

costs for high-volume products; as production volumes increase, the material

costs become increasingly significant103. In this case too, the firm amortizes the

costs of developing new generations of the integral over a very large market104,

supporting Kamrad’s observations.

Additionally, the steps required to minimise the potential environmental damage

that arise from this issue may be seen to contradict best practice in other areas of

product design. The return to mechanical fasteners would seem retrograde given

the years of research and development that have been committed to developing

adhesives that give strong, low cost joints105.

Historically Apple hasn’t taken exception to the concept of repair-ability. In fact the

current Mac Mini has been praised for its level of consumer access and ability to

affect maintenance, the Power Mac G3 featured a door that enabled the tower to

be opened from the side and the MacBook Pro was originally publicised as an

101 Consumer Reports, “Consumer Reports finds Side-by-Side Refridgerators, and Lawn Tractors most repair-prone Products”, Consumer Reports, 1 (2011) electronic source http://pressroom.consumerreports.org/pressroom/2011/07/consumer-reports-finds-side-by-side-refrigerators-computers-and-lawn-tractors-most-repair-prone-products.html (accessed 01/05/2013)102 B. Kamrad, G. Schmidt and S. Ulku, “Analyzing Product Architecture Under Technological Change: Modular Upgradeability Tradeoffs”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1 (2012), p. 9103 K. Ulrich, “The role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm”, p. 433104 B. Kamrad, G. Schmidt and S. Ulku, “Analyzing Product Architecture Under Technological Change: Modular Upgradeability Tradeoffs”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1 (2012), p. 9105 A. Taylor, “Design Directions”, p. 61-62

39

Figure 16: Apple’s PowerMac G3 with side door access

accessible, repairable machine. In 2009 at MacWorld Steve Jobs was quoted “our

Pro customer’s want accessibility … to add memory, to add cards, to add drives”;

yet we are witnessing a departure from this ethos as they continue to introduce

thinner, lighter and essentially more integral products106.

It has been argued that this transformation is being driven by consumer behaviour,

in that the MacBook Pro has begun to embody more of the Air traits with each

product launch in a development strategy that has been referred to as real-time

research. Under this strategy a firm introduces a product, gauges the market

response, then develops and continually launches an incrementally improved

product based on experience107.

An experiment of this vein was extant in the

release of the first MacBook Air in 2008. Having

evolved their laptop’s over two decades into

impressively robust, rugged and long lasting

computers, Apple released a super thin, non-

upgradeable product that compromised

performance and features in lieu of a lightweight

construction. In 2010 Apple lowered the cost of

MacBook Air to match the price point of the

MacBook Pro, giving user’s a clear choice; a

thin, light and non-upgradeable product or the heavier, longer lasting, more rugged

and more powerful MacBook Pro. Consumers overwhelmingly opted for the

former, with the Air growing to 40% of Apple’s notebook sales by the end of

2010108, essentially signalling to the developers where our priorities lie and

subsequently they’ve begun to respond.

106K. Wiens, “The New MacBook: Unfixable, Unhackable, Untenable”, Wired Gadget Lab (2012) electronic source107K. Ulrich, “The role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm”, p. 428108 K. Wiens, “The New MacBook: Unfixable, Unhackable, Untenable”, Wired Gadget Lab (2012) electronic source

40

Figure 17: Thinner, lighter, better? A comparison of the device thickness in the MacBook range.

Figure 18 & 19: The MacBook Lithium Ion battery that is glued to the case

It could be argued that Apple is allowing the

future of the MacBook Pro to be determined by

the consumer; the release of the Pro with

Retina Display again presents the market with

another choice between two professional

laptops. One is less expensive and supports

expandable storage, while the other has a

cutting-edge display, fixed storage capacity

and a premium price tag109.

Although we appear to have consistently opted for the thinner over the repairable

or upgradeable, we must eventually make the distinction that buying products with

a programmed and short-lived lifespan to save 10mm in thickness is not

acceptable. Each time we buy a locked down product containing a non-

replaceable battery with a finite cycle count, we’re signalling an opinion on how

long things should last110.

The company estimates that the MacBook battery’s can be charged approximately

1,000 times before its fully charged capacity

falls to 80%; essentially suggesting that after 2

years and 9 months its capability will drop by a

fifth if charged once daily. Apple’s warranty

packages, although they do cover battery

defects, do not cover the inevitable natural loss

in capacity from the charging routine. They do

however offer a battery replacement service,

though it is expensive and requires the

consumer to part with their product for a period

of time while it is repaired; with the opportunity

cost of time for individuals documented in

Chapter 1 it can be stated that this is an

109 K. Wiens, “The New MacBook: Unfixable, Unhackable, Untenable”, Wired Gadget Lab (2012) electronic source110G. Keizer, “Apple Charges 54% more to replace Retina MacBook Pro’s battery”, Computerworld (2012) electronic source: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228158/Apple_charges_54_more_to_replace_Retina_MacBook_Pro_s_battery (accessed 30/06/2013)

41

undesirable option.

While it assumes a consumer’s willingness and know-how to do so, provision

should be made from the manufacturer to enable component replacement at the

1st line of maintenance. The term line of maintenance refers to the geographical

point at which repair work can be affected; this could be at the point of use (1st

line), a repair depot (2nd line) or the point of manufacture (3rd line) 111. This would

imply a departure from the trending design practice, holding repair-ability as a

placement in the mind of the designer and enabling the consumer to conveniently

and cost effectively make minor component changes themselves.

Consumer’s disdain for laptop battery life is well documented and I argue that

while the entire device need not be modular; there should be at very least a

modular approach adopted for the housing and access of the battery with the aim

to extend the product life-span, reducing both the resources used and pollution.

Given the important roles that product architecture and upgrade strategy play in

sustainability, I posit that this issue be given more attention112 and the closed

systems philosophy needs to be broken.

111 A. Taylor, “Design Directions”, p. 3112 B. Kamrad, G. Schmidt and S. Ulku, “Analyzing Product Architecture Under Technological Change: Modular Upgradeability Tradeoffs”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1 (2012), p. 9

42

Figure 20: Sumsung Galazy S4 vs the Apple iPhone 5; easy battery access for the devices one consumable. Just how much of this are we

Figure 21: We may witness a change in orientation towards Marketing practice

Chapter 4: Reviving Repair

Marketing Practice & Industrial Design

Despite once boasting about the high level of

accessibility and maintainability that their laptop

platform exhibited, Apple has allowed

consumer’s purchasing behaviour to redefine

their design pattern. They learn from

experience, react to their customer’s and are

very adept in presenting them with what they

want. Expanding from the concealed battery

approach of the first iPod and iPhone, the

success of the non-upgradeable Air has empowered Apple to not only alter their

approach to the Pro range, but release even-less-serviceable devices such as the

iPad; where the battery is again glued to the case113.

Is it morally objectionable? Arguably, yes.

However we have seen Apple on occasion

present the market with variable options and

then allow the product sales to dictate the

approach for future designs114. So who is really

to blame?

With the success of this practice culminating in

products designed with little concern for future

upgrade or repair, we may infer that the

operative of Marketing is also playing a

significant role in this destructive process.

113 K. Wiens, “The New MacBook: Unfixable, Unhackable, Untenable”, Wired Gadget Lab (2012) electronic source: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/06/opinion-apple-retina-displa (accessed 03/06/2013)114K. Wiens, “The New MacBook: Unfixable, Unhackable, Untenable”, Wired Gadget Lab (2012) electronic source: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/06/opinion-apple-retina-displa (accessed 03/06/2013)

43

To support this notion, Scott, O’Leary and Flores (2007) have observed that the

integration of key decision areas between manufacturing and marketing/sales is

commonly cited as a means for gaining competitive advantage in the

marketplace115.

In general, Marketers are concerned with identifying and understanding

opportunities that exist within a particular market; as well as with gathering

information about or from customers that will help form a product’s design. They

also focus on developing a program or strategy that will ensure the commercial

success of a product and therefore frequently have input that affects the design of

a product in the form of constraints; for example the size, weight, colours, price

points, and positioning of a product116.

Whatever the case may be, knowing what we now know with respect to the

resources of the throw away society117, there comes a need to reposition these

priorities and expectations in relation to product acquisition, longevity, durability,

ease of maintenance, repair-ability, and upgradeability118. As long as

technological modernity is placed as the sole value indicator of products, we

ensure a loss meaning for that product the moment a newer model hits the

shelves119.

This may translate as an advocacy of an unrealistic ideology, but that is not my

intention. Rather we should view a symbiotic relationship between the positioning

of repair-ability as a placement in the mind of the Designer, and an understanding

from Marketing that the way in which they are required to operate is subject to

change. If this concept is understood by both entities, there is a foundation upon

which progress can be made. The outcome of real-time research cannot, or

should not, be the determining factor in the direction for a particular design pattern.

115 W. Scott, K. O’Leary, and B. Flores, “The Integration of Manufacturing and Marketing/Sales decisions: impact on Organisational Performance”, Journal of Operations Management, 20 (2002), p. 221116 R. Veryzer, “The Roles of Marketing and Industrial Design in Discontinuous New Product Development”, p. 24117Cooper, “Slower Consumption: Reflections on Product Life Spans and the Throw Away Society”, p. 52118 S. Walker, “The Environment, Product Aesthetics and Surface”, Design Issues, 11 (1995), p. 17119 Chapman, Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, Experiences and Empathy, p. 57

44

Figure 22: Socially Responsible Marketing may have a role to play in the dematerialisation of the economy

Reassuringly, Kotler and Keller (2012) have outlined the role that Marketing has in

engaging a firm in socially responsible business

practices. In describing the required aptitudes of

any contemporary Marketer, they highlight the

necessary competency to adapt and conduct

business practices in a fashion that will protect the

environment along with human and animal rights.

Socially Responsible Marketing also requires that

Marketers consider the ethical, environmental,

legal and social context of their role and activities.

Organisation’s should determine the needs, wants

and interests of their target markets and satisfy

them more effectively and efficiently than the

competitors, but do so while preserving the long

term well being of the consumer and society at

large120.

Additionally they point out that Socially Responsible Marketing can be used as a

point of differentiation from a firm’s competitors and build consumer preference.

As goods become more commoditised and consumers grow more socially

conscious, the socially responsible element can be exploited to increase sales and

market share121.

Industry Architecture

While assessing the application of a more modular approach in certain aspects of

Product Development, we must consider too, that a producer’s willingness to

cannibalise their own product and business model is unlikely to exist; unless a

competitor forces them to do so122.

120 P. Kotler, and K. Keller, A Framework for Marketing Management, (5th ed, Essex, Pearson Educated Limited, 2012), p. 39121 P. Kotler, and K. Keller, A Framework for Marketing Management, (5th ed, Essex, Pearson Educated Limited, 2012), p. 38122 J. Guiltinan, “Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence”, p. 22

45

Figure 23, 24 & 25: Shimano integrated a number of the components of the drive train and revolutionised the bicycle industry with their Shimano Index System. The competitors in the Industry were forced to move towards integrality

Fixson and Park (2008) highlight that a

growing area of interest with reference to

technology, is the role that product architecture

plays in the competitive positions of firms in an

industry; and hence in the industry

architecture. They assert that an industry

structure is determined early in its life through

the initial design choices made by its

participants and very broadly, that in the

technologically dynamic industry, the products

are evolving to become more modular over

time; a notion associated with the industry’s

move towards a higher degree of

specialisation. Furthermore, that once this

architecture is established, from an industry

perspective it is very hard for firms to break

away from the conventions of the industry123.

123 S. Fixson, and J-K. Park, “The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure”, Research Policy, 37 (2008), p. 1297

46

Figure 26: In both a competitive and monopoly market, incentives to facilitate repair with a modular architecture remain weak. It is simply a matter of economics

However, they provide an example that

contravenes this observation and reinforces

the realities confronting the modular

archetype; particularly as it has been seen

that firms will adopt an integral structure to

maintain a competitive edge in reaction to

external technological shocks. The example

refers to the bicycle drive train component

industry and how through adopting integral

product architecture, a non-dominant

manufacturer was able to put themselves in a near-monopoly position in what was

a mature and previously, a modular industry124. The innovating firm made

changes in two dimensions of their product architecture, which triggered effects in

two different propagation paths, rendered those firms obsolete and forcing the

industry to adapt. Firstly, hitting the small component firms who were supplying to

the industry and secondly, the larger firms delivering the overall systems

consisting of those components; this highlights the clear link between

technological change and industry structure and that there is a causality running

from the former to the latter125.

Assessing repair from an industry perspective, literature with reference to durable

goods monopolies concludes that a monopoly seller will build a less than socially

optimal level of durability into its output; essentially displaying the application of

planned obsolescence. Furthermore, although it is generally assumed that a

product’s durability is exogenous or inalterable and fixed at the date of production;

it is primarily affected by the repair decisions consumer’s make. Kinokuni (1999)

showed that if a durable goods monopolist is able to monopolise the repair market

as well, they will charge a higher price for repairs and inevitably make consumers

choose a level of repair below the socially optimal level126. Keeping in mind the

previous assertion that enabling repair-ability will enhance the expected quality of

124 S. Fixson, and J-K. Park, “The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure”, p. 1312125 S. Fixson, and J-K. Park, “The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure”, p. 1297126 H. Kinokuni, “Repair Market Structure, Product Durability, and Monopoly”, Australian Economic Papers, 38 (1999), p. 343

47

the used good and therefore lower a new unit’s price in period; reinforces the view

that the manufacturer has little incentive to enable the repair of their product.

With this in mind, Kamien and Schwartz (1974) found that even in a competitive

industry environment, there are implications with respect to product durability.

With cost becoming an increasing function of durability, regulating it toward a

competitive benchmark has a predisposition to raise the average price for a unit of

service and reduce the average level of services127.

Therefore we may deduce that even with the appropriate modular architecture and

subsequent industry structure present to facilitate product repair, there are

pressures present, which prevent its successful application at any level of industry

competition. Furthermore, the relationship between technological change and

industry structure highlights how vulnerable an industry is to revolution; and that

integrality can be a powerful tool used to deal with this competition.

Closed Circle

Despite the efforts of contemporary design practices, consumers have maintained

their wasteful ways, but now with recycled materials instead of virgin ones.

Researchers are beginning to suspect that recycling may actually be providing

consumers with an ethical get out of jail free card, liberating their conscience and

generating even more waste128.

It therefore appears clear that there is little point allowing the provision for repair in

consumer goods if the consumer has no desire to keep them129.

At the individual level, in most countries the incentives for people to adopt more

sustainable behaviour are weak130. Cooper (2000) identifies that with the long

standing diffusion of a product-based sense of wellbeing, there is no obvious

127 M. Kamien, and N. Schwartz, “Product Durability under Monopoly and Competition”, Econometrica, 42 (1974) p. 300-301128 Chapman, Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, Experiences and Empathy, p. 25129 Chapman, Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, Experiences and Empathy, p. 53130T. Briceno and S. Stagl, “The role of social processes for sustainable consumption”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 14 (2006), p. 1542

48

enthusiasm for a change of lifestyle towards simplicity; people might accept that

materiality may not equate to happiness, but are generally unconvinced that

consuming less is any more desirable131. An observation supported by Young et

al. (2010) who identify that even amongst environmentally conscious consumers,

large discrepancies exist between their attitudes and their actions132.

However sustainable production and consumption is a matter of international

concern; and recent thinking has concentrated on dematerialising the economy,

reducing the material flows in production and consumption; creating products and

services that provide consumers with the same level of performance, but with an

inherently lower environmental burden. So while exploring the notion that life-

cycle extension can facilitate this dematerialisation, given the above we must also

consider the contemporary consumption paradigm; as the matter at hand requires

much more than just a change in product characteristics133.

Several authors have proposed the concept of Product Service Systems as a

potential strategy for dematerialisation and a possible answer to the sustainability

challenge, providing utility to consumers through the use of services rather than

products134. It suggests that the environmental impact of products and their

associated services should already be addressed at the product and process

design stage; while particular attention is given to the prospect of reducing

environmental impact in the use phase by providing an alternative system based

solution to owning products135. While this statement may appear to be made with

little appreciation for the complexity or magnitude of the proposal, the notion

should be explored.

Essentially there are 8 archetypal models of the Product Service System, which

can be classified within 3 categories; outlined below:

131 T. Cooper, “Product Development Implications of Sustainable Consumption”, The Design Journal, 3 (2000), p. 49132 Young et al., “Sustainable Consumption: Green Consumer Behaviour when Purchasing Products”, Sustainable Development, 18 (2010), p. 20133 T. Cooper, “Product Development Implications of Sustainable Consumption”, p. 49134 O. Mont, “Clarifying the Concept of Product-Service System”, p. 237135 O. Mont and T., Lindhqvist, “The Role of Public Policy in Advancement of Product Service Systems”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 11 (2003), p. 905

49

Figure 27: Product Service Systems exist in many forms, but rely intensively on the re-interpretation of what is a product.

Figure 28: the PSS framework

• Product Oriented (still primarily geared towards the sale of products, but

with extra services added)

1. Product Related

2. Advice and Consultancy

• Use Oriented (here the traditional product still plays a central role, but the

business model is not geared towards selling products. The provider

retains ownership and makes it available in a different form, potentially to

be shared by many users)

3. Product Lease

4. Product Renting/Sharing

5. Product Pooling

• Result Oriented (the client and provider in principle agree on a result, and

there is no pre-determined product

involved)

6. Activity Management

7. Pay per Service Unit

8. Functional Result

To cover each of these in explicit detail is

unnecessary and falls outside the parameters of

the discussion; and the theoretical background

is well established. However with reference to

the case study that I have examined, I would pay

reference to the first respective model of both

the Product and Use Oriented Product Service

Systems.

I am aware that in some product categories, the

PSS concept has been successfully

implemented and for those categories that haven’t, it is largely due to economic

potential and the absence of value adding elements for stakeholders136.

136 A. Tucker, “Eight types of Product Service System: eight ways to Sustainability? Experiences from Suspronet”, Business Strategy and the Environment, 13 (2004) p. 248

50

Figure 29: visual representation of the PRM system

The industrial economy places the central value on the exchange of the products

that we consume. On the contrary, the service economy recognises the value of

utilisation, a performance driven orientation where the consumer essentially pays

for utilisation of the product137. In essence the innovation requires a new

interpretation of the concept of a product. Moving from the conventional idea that

the product is the physical outcome of an industrial process of production, to a

new one in which the firm’s product forms an integrated whole of mutually

dependant products and services that focus on meeting a client demand138.

There are varying approaches and trends towards the development of PSS, being

developed to address one or some of the following:

• The sale of the use of the product instead of the product itself

• The change to a leasing society

• The substitution of goods by means of service machines

• A repair-society instead of a throw-away society

• The change in consumer attitudes from sales to service orientation139

Irrespective of the PSS archetype or indeed the

product category, I would argue that the area of

importance is the inclusion of Product Recovery

Management (PRM) within its framework, to bring

to full effect a Closed-Loop Supply Chain.

Particularly when assessing the subject of the

case study, and the idea that repair-ability should

become an area of heightened consideration for

Designer’s.

PRM includes the management of all used and discarded products, components,

and materials that remain the responsibility of a manufacturing company. Its

137 O. Mont, “Clarifying the Concept of Product-Service System”, p. 238138 E. Manzini and C., Vezzoli, “A Strategic Design Approach to Develop Sustainable Product Service Systems: Examples Taken from the Environmentally Friendly Innovation Italian Prize”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 11 (2003), p. 851139 O. Mont, “Clarifying the Concept of Product-Service System”, p. 239

51

Figure 30: In the days of the disposable camera, Kodak successfully implemented a PRM system to repair and redistribute the various elements of their product

objective is to recover as much of the economic and ecological value as

reasonably possible, thereby reducing the ultimate quantities of waste.

At present the traditional approach for many manufacturers towards used

products, has been to ignore them. Typically they do not feel responsible for what

happens with their products after customer use. Most products are now designed

in such a way that while materials, assembly, and distribution costs are minimised,

the repair, reuse and disposal requirements are not taken into account. Generally

this approach stems from the belief that the costs of incorporating these

requirements outweigh the benefits (as supported in previous sections) and most

customers are not prepared to pay a premium for a green product. Their

purchasing decisions are made primarily with the intention to minimise their

purchasing costs, instead of optimising life-cycle performance, which includes

maintenance, reuse and disposal140.

Considering this, Young et al. (2010) assert that to influence long lasting and large

behavioural changes, environmental values need to be developed through

education before anything else in the model can work. As a result, they suggest

that any government policy relying solely on green

consumers (overlooking even grey consumers) as

agents of change for consumer products is flawed.

Results from their work show that green

consumers can use their buying power to make a

difference, but at a high cost in terms of time and

effort, which is a considerable barrier. Arguably

these consumers need government assistance in

the form of incentives to concentrate their efforts,

but more fundamentally, being green needs more

time and space in people’s lives that is unavailable

with increasingly busy lifestyles141.

140 M. Thierry, M. Salomon, J. Van Nunen, L. Van Wassenhove, “Strategic Issues in Product Recovery Management”, California Management Review, 37 (1995) p. 114141 Young et al., “Sustainable Consumption: Green Consumer Behaviour when Purchasing Products”, Sustainable Development, 18 (2010), pp. 29-30

52

Therefore the need arises to develop logical sustainable production and

consumption policies across government departments to influence change at the

industry level142.

Acknowledging that this generalisation provides little insight; at a more specific

level I posit that these governmental measures include the enforced internalisation

of externalities, taxation, and particularly Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

programmes (with reference to PRM and reverse distribution logistics) to sift out

environmentally inferior solutions and leave only the economically viable and

environmentally sound products and systems left on the market143.

Disclaimer

There is an obvious concession that further research and development is needed

to assess the feasible implementation of the proposed model and how it can apply

to the various product categories. Tukker (2004) found that despite all 8

archetypes exhibiting potential for environmental gain, there are many

contradictions concerning what would be desirable from an environmental

perspective, and what makes good sense for business144.

A number of difficulties exist with a rental policy that in comparison makes the sale

of a durable more profitable and illustrate that the PSS proposal in any of its forms,

is not one free of shortcomings. For example, if the good were of little value, the

extra transactions and record keeping costs of a rental policy would likely outweigh

the increase in revenue; a rental market in toasters for instance, would face this

problem. Furthermore, it is not likely to be as easy for a real-world renter to select

the level of maintenance that a PSS may assume or demand; the good must be

inspected, at some cost, and it may then need to be transported to permit

maintenance145.

142 Young et al., “Sustainable Consumption: Green Consumer Behaviour when Purchasing Products”, pp. 29-30143 O. Mont and T., Lindhqvist, “The Role of Public Policy in Advancement of Product Service Systems”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 11 (2003), p. 912144 A. Tucker, “Eight types of Product Service System: eight ways to Sustainability? Experiences from Suspronet”, p. 258145 R. Schmalensee, “Market Structure, Durability, and Maintenance Effort”, The Review of Economic Studies, 41 (1974), p. 286

53

Additionally there are a number of operational aspects regarding Product Life

Cycle Management that have no predictability, incur a significant amount of

financial risk and presently have no finite resolution. A product’s life cycle is an

uncertain thing, any particular model will be used in various contexts at different

intensities; and will fail randomly146. Therefore, such risks include spare part

inventory supply and demand, product and part reliability, and varying

maintenance costs under product guarantee147; the more complex the product, the

more things that can go wrong and the less predictable the condition of the

product will be when it is returned148. Lastly, the PSS raises the moral hazard

problem, in that if the manufacturer provides maintenance free, the customer has

little or no incentive to care for the good themselves and the rented good is likely

to be abused149. The concept of ownership also raises further issues; modern

consumerism is based on a culture shaped by the private acquisition of products

and this desire to own is deeply rooted. People purchase products in the belief that

increased consumption will enhance their sense of wellbeing; not merely for

functional reasons but because of what ownership symbolises to others150,

unveiling the obvious issues involving the concept of non-ownership for

consumers.

It is evident that the matter is even more complicated than it may seem, however

that is not to say that it is impossibly difficult to cope with, just that it is complex;

too complex to offer any predetermined resolution at this point in the discussion.

What an exploration of this kind has revealed though is an interesting variety of

implications and concepts, all of which have an intimate connection with the

attitudes of manufacturers, administrative intervention and the behaviour of

designers and consumers alike151. It insists upon a consumption system that goes

beyond utility and includes the crucial social and psychological functions of

consumption152.

146 X. Xie and M., Simon, “Simulation for Product Life Cycle Management”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology, 17 (2006), p. 487147 X. Xie and M., Simon, “Simulation for Product Life Cycle Management”, p. 495148 O. Mont, “Clarifying the Concept of Product-Service System”, p. 276149 R. Schmalensee, “Market Structure, Durability, and Maintenance Effort”, p. 286150T. Cooper, “Product Development Implications of Sustainable Consumption”, The Design Journal, 3 (2000), p. 52151 J. Guiltinan, “Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence”, p. 20152T. Briceno and S. Stagl, “The role of social processes for sustainable consumption”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 14 (2006), p. 1550

54

Figure 31: Workers disassembling the hardware of recycled computers

For Contemplation, an Ecology of Repair

Despite the argument that repair-ability should take place in the minds of

Designer’s, even ignoring the limitations of the modular archetype that will facilitate

its application, there is still an implied value that consumer’s care enough to even

participate in the submission; additionally that

they’re even of the same outlook that repair

matters.

On some levels they would be right to suggest

that it doesn’t. Using the case study provided, if

their computer breaks it seems unlikely that

they’ll pick up a screwdriver instead of sending it

to a specialist; or even consider the repair work

at all given the cost and the rate at which technical obsolescence works within the

product category153. As Guiltinan (2008) highlights, the lack of consumer concern

for environmental consequences when upgrading their durable good is impeding

any advances in a more sustainable consumption paradigm154. It has also been

observed that a differential exists between consumer’s attitude and behaviour;

essentially that despite consumer’s concern for the environment, they struggle to

translate this into purchasing behaviour155.

However a less repairable design guarantees expensive and complicated repair

work, rendering the latter almost a foregone conclusion. Therefore we may deduce

that repair-ability is, even at some level, important for consumers. Yet this

statement may overlook a far more significant point, in that to a certain extent, the

future of the environment depends on the quality of our electronic devices and how

long they last156.

153 K. Wiens, “Unfixable Computers are leading Humanity down a Perilous Path”, Wired Gadget Lab (2012) electronic source: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/06/apples-unfixable-devices/ (accessed 03/06/2013)154 J. Guiltinan, “Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence”, p. 26155 Young et al., “Sustainable Consumption: Green Consumer Behaviour when Purchasing Products”, Sustainable Development, 18 (2010), p. 20156K. Wiens, “Unfixable Computers are leading Humanity down a Perilous Path”, Wired Gadget Lab (2012) electronic source:

55

Figure 32: the trade off for a rapidly developing technological industry, making use of repair?

Technology has not only made life more convenient, it has made it better on a

global scale. Modern communications have pioneered advances in biotechnology

and medicine, while empowering consumers and businesses alike with access to

global commodity prices. However the problem lies in that the way these objects

are being produced is hurting people, damaging the environment, and consumers

are particularly inefficient at utilising the devices that they have. Approximately 2

billion cellular telephones were produced last year, with an excess of 2 billion

forecast again this year; technological advance isn’t the catalyst for increased

manufacturing, we’re just inept in attaining sufficiency157.

The nature of the hardware manufacturing processes is particularly malicious,

resulting in everything from toxic dumping to aldehyde

vapour emissions, and only a small percentage of

electronics are being recycled at the end of their use

phase. Alarmingly even when they are, between 50%

and 80% are shipped to third world countries where

workers extract the recyclable materials using

dangerous, primitive processes, which often exposes

them to toxic gases158.

If we’re going to accept the implicit environmental

problems of the technologically dynamic product industry

and our hyper-productive modern lifestyle, as a trade-off,

the very least that we can do is pass on and share the

benefits of the technology that we’re experiencing now.

Rather than sending the product off to be recycled, losing

a vast proportion of the embodied energy, or letting it live out its existence in a

drawer159.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/06/apples-unfixable-devices/ (accessed 03/06/2013)157 K. Wiens, “Unfixable Computers are leading Humanity down a Perilous Path”, Wired Gadget Lab (2012) electronic source: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/06/apples-unfixable-devices/ (accessed 03/06/2013)158 J. Guiltinan, “Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence”, p. 19159 K. Wiens, “Unfixable Computers are leading Humanity down a Perilous Path”, Wired Gadget Lab (2012) electronic source:

56

The dissemination of usable electronics to those less fortunate and those in the

developing world is a natural progression; and while charities and likeminded

organisations are making grounds in facilitating this subordinate eco-system, the

importance of repairable and upgradeable products seems yet to be fully

comprehended. Long lasting, repairable hardware is a prerequisite to making

products such as computers available to people who can not otherwise afford

them; it also facilitates the timely and cost effective upgrade of a product so that

even if the primary owner doesn’t choose to, at some stage in the product life-

cycle, a secondary owner can160.

I acknowledge the utopian nature of the proposal, but to some extent it does offer

insight as to how we can directly and significantly address the issues of

environmental degradation; by reorienting our ideals regarding personal

satisfaction and happiness away from acquisition and towards those with more

permanency, to include the idea of community, social interaction and individual

growth161. The need is apparent to start celebrating those products that embody

the notion of repair-ability and condemn those that don’t. Technology is about far

more than just another new, thinner, lighter gadget.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/06/apples-unfixable-devices/ (accessed 03/06/2013)160 K. Wiens, “Unfixable Computers are leading Humanity down a Perilous Path”, Wired Gadget Lab (2012) electronic source: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/06/apples-unfixable-devices/ (accessed 03/06/2013)161 S. Walker, “The Environment, Product Aesthetics and Surface”, p. 16

57

Chapter 5: Conclusion

Conclusion

The environmental problems existential to new product development strategy are

well documented; and it is evident that those currently involved in the creation and

marketing of new products are inconsiderate to the need for sustainable innovation

and continue to promote excessive consumerism.

Whilst acknowledging that slower consumption is a pre-requisite to achieving a

more sustainable future, the underpinning economic factors of new product

development suggest that any radical advance in this area is largely unachievable.

Deliberate obsolescence is deeply entrenched in contemporary consumer culture,

it is the driving force of the modern industrial economy and to suggest that we can

simply abolish its application in the quest for sustainability would be irrational, as

quite simply, it works.

With that said it cannot be overlooked that the throw away culture in which we live

is prevailing and there comes a need to critique the application of obsolescence

and re-orient ideals regarding new product development.

In acknowledging that the modern industrial economy is not sustainable and that

many of the problems are embedded in a social context, my intention in the

preparation of this thesis was to investigate the quest for these ideals and identify

the parameters that pertain to product repair and the extension of product life

spans.

An obvious assertion would be that life-cycle extension could be achieved through

enabling the maintenance and repair of a product, which then connects product

development to a particular type of product architecture. However it has been

identified that there are a number of issues associated with consumer behaviour,

the architecture of a product and indeed the modular archetype, and these must

be considered before prescribing a solution with conviction.

58

Figure 33: The considerations for repair in reference to the discussion

must remain within the context of a highly

technological, fast rate of replacement industry. For

high investment, slow replacement durable goods, such as Washing Machines,

the situation is vastly different and we must remain

sensitive to these differences.

I do put forward though that whilst there may be

no deterministic approach for arriving at an optimal

product architecture, Designer’s do have a degree

of latitude in which they can make a difference.

Design is frequently about managing

contradictions and I argue that while in many

cases a completely modular approach is

unfeasible, erring on the side of the modular over

the integral at a single component level

(particularly regarding elements that involve

consumables) is not only achievable, but

essential. A key understanding with this idea is

the concept of placements and their role in design

thinking. Placements are the tool that provide the

framework with which we may view the various

facets of every design problem, and allow a

Designer to address these elements in the course of their development. With

product repair presenting as a placement, it is suggested that the degree to which

a product’s architecture will facilitate repair depends upon it’s priority within the

context of the overall design problem; arguably at present the placement or repair

isn’t given any, or at best, enough authority; and this should change.

To support this idea I provided a case study and assessed the elements that could

be treated in this way to remedy component failure and potentially pro-long the

product’s life span; contrasting this against the physical execution. However this

referred to a particular type of product within a certain industry, so the observation

and conclusions drawn should remain confined to the context of the study. The

issues pertaining to Industry Architecture in general were explored, highlighting the

intricate relationship between the participants of an industry and the architecture of

their product’s the result; noting the power of integrality and the lack of incentive

for a repair market at any level of competition.

An additional observation taken from the study was the negative role that

consumer purchasing patterns are playing in the departure from a repair society;

which implicates the practice of Marketing and its integration with the Industrial

Design discipline. So long as manufacturer’s allow real-time research to underpin

59

their design direction and ignore the state of play with respect to the resources of

the throw away society, we will continue to experience a perpetually condensed

life-cycle in our product’s; particularly those in the high technology, high frequency

category.

Given the sinister and symbiotic nature of this process, I would argue that the

responsibility for change is a shared one between consumer’s and producer’s;

however it relies heavily on an adjustment in consumption mode as the problem at

hand is about much more than just a change in product characteristics.

Product Service Systems offer an interesting perspective to the consumption

paradigm problem, particularly with reference to Product Recovery Management

and Extended Producer Responsibility programmes. Accepting that economic

incentive is largely absent for manufacturer’s to adopt positive change at present,

EPR’s direct the onus of product acquisition after the consumer use phase back to

the producer, and develop a truly closed loop supply chain. In doing so, it ensures

that all the externalities of the product are considered at the R&D stage and

ideally, positively influence decisions regarding the product’s architecture and it’s

ability to be maintained.

My hope is that if nothing else, the discussion has provoked thought regarding

product life-cycles and raised questions as to the integrity of our current practices;

as it is time to condemn those product’s that embody these ideals.

60

Bibliography

Australian Public Service Commission, “Tackling Wicked Problems: A Public

Policy Perspective”, Commonwealth of Australia, 1 (2007), pp. i-46

Bayus, B., “An Analysis of Product Lifetimes in a Technologically Dynamic

Industry”, Management Science, 44 (1998), pp. 763-775

Barone, M., Shimp, T., Sprott, D., “Product Ownership as a Moderator of Self-

Congruity Effects”, Marketing Letters, 10 (1999), pp. 75-85

Bhaskaran, S. and Gilbert, S., “Selling & Leasing Strategies for Durable Goods

with Complementary Products”, Management Science, 51 (2005), pp. 1278-1290

Botsman, R. and Rogers, R., What’s Mine Is Yours (New York, HarperCollins,

2010)

Briceno, T. & Stagl, S., “The role of social processes for sustainable consumption”,

Journal of Cleaner Production, 14 (2006), pp. 1541-1551

Buchanan, R., “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking”, Design Issues, 8 (1992),

pp. 5-21

Chapman, J., Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, Experiences and Empathy

(London, Earthscan, 2005)

Consumer Reports, “Consumer Reports finds Side-by-Side Refridgerators, and

Lawn Tractors most repair-prone Products”, Consumer Reports, 1 (2011)

electronic source

http://pressroom.consumerreports.org/pressroom/2011/07/consumer-reports-finds-

side-by-side-refrigerators-computers-and-lawn-tractors-most-repair-prone-

products.html (accessed 01/05/2013)

Cooper, R., “Ethics and Altruism: What Constitutes Socially Responsible Design”,

Design Management Review, 16 (2005), pp. 10-18

Cooper, T., “Product Development Implications of Sustainable Consumption”, The

Design Journal, 3 (2000), pp. 46-57

Cooper, T., “Slower Consumption: Reflections on Product Lifespans and the

Throwaway Society”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9 (2005), pp. 51-67

61

Dhebar, A., “Durable-Goods Monopolists, Rational Consumers, and Improving

Products”, Marketing Science, 13 (1994), pp. 100-120

Ernst, D., “Limits to Modularity: Reflections on Recent Developments in Chip

Design”, Industry and Innovation, 12 (2005), pp. 303-335

Fixson, S. and Park, J-K., “The power of integrality: Linkages between product

architecture, innovation, and industry structure”, Research Policy, 37 (2008), pp.

1296-1316

Fry, T., Design Futuring (Oxford, Berg, 2009)

Gemser, G., and Leenders, M., “How Integrating Industrial Design in the Product

Development Process impacts on company performance”, The Journal of Product

Innovation Management, 18 (2001), pp. 28-38

Giboin, A., “From Individual to Collective Personas: Modelling Realistic Groups

and Communities of Users (and not Only Realistic Individual Users)”, The Fourth

International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, 1 (2011),

pp. 132-135

Grout, P. and Park, I., “Competitive Planned Obsolescence”, The RAND Journal of

Economics, 36 (2005), pp. 596-612

Guide, VDR., et al., “Building contingency planning for closed-loop supply chains

with Product Recovery”, Journal of Operations Manamgent, 21 (2003), pp. 259-

279

Guiltinan, J., “Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental

Ethics and Planned Obsolescence”, Journal of Business Ethics, 89 (2008), pp. 19-

28

Hajji, A., et al., “Integrated product specifications and productivity decision making

in unreliable manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Production

Economics, 129 (2011) p. 33

Heiskanen, E., and Pantzar, M., “Toward Sustainable Consumption: Two New

Perspectives”, Journal of Consumer Policy, 20 (1997), pp. 409-442

Holt, D., “How Consumers Consume: A Typology of Consumption Practices”,

Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (1995), pp. 1-16

62

Huang, G., et al., “RFID-enabled Gateway Product Service System for

Collaborative Manufacturing Alliances, CRIPAnnals – Manufacturing Technology,

60 (2011), pp. 465-468

Kamien, M., and Schwartz, N., “Product Durability under Monopoly and

Competition”, Econometrica, 42 (1974), pp. 289-301

Kamrad, B., Schmidt, G., and Ulku, S., “Analyzing Product Architecture Under

Technological Change: Modular Upgradeability Tradeoffs”, IEEE Transactions on

Engineering Management, 1 (2012), pp. 1-12

Karmarkar, U., and Kubat, P., “Modular Product Design and Product Support”,

European Journal of Operational Research, 29 (1987), pp. 74-82

Keizer, G., “Apple Charges 54% more to replace Retina MacBook Pro’s battery”,

Computerworld (2012) electronic source:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228158/Apple_charges_54_more_to_rep

lace_Retina_MacBook_Pro_s_battery (accessed 30/06/2013)

Kinokuni, H., “Repair Market Structure, Product Durability, and Monopoly”,

Australian Economic Papers, 38 (1999) pp. 343-353

Kotler, P., and Keller, K., A Framework for Marketing Management, (5th ed, Essex,

Pearson Education Limited, 2012)

“Laptop Batteries”, (no author given), http://www.batteryreview.org (accessed

01/07/2013)

Ljungberg, L., “Materials Selection and Design for Development of Sustainable

Products”, Materials and Design, 28 (2007), pp. 466-479

Matthews, T., et al., “Collaboration personas: A framework for understanding and

designing collaborative workplace tools”, Workshop Collective Intelligence in

Organisations: Toward a Research Agenda at Computer Supported Cooperative

Work (CSCW), 1 (2010), pp. 1-8

Manzini, E., “Context based wellbeing and the concept of regenerative solution; a

conceptual framework for scenario building and sustainable solutions

development”, The Journal of Sustainable Product Design, 2 (2002), pp. 141-148

Manzini, E., “Scenarios of sustainable well-being”, Design Philosophy Papers, 1

(2003), pp. 1-13

63

Manzini, E., Vezzoli, C., “A Strategic Design Approach to Develop Sustainable

Product Service Systems: Examples Taken from the Environmentally Friendly

Innovation Italian Prize”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 11 (2003), p. 851-857

McCollough, J., “The Effect of Income Growth on the Mix of Purchases between

Disposable Goods and Reusable Goods”, International Journal of Consumer

Studies, 31 (2007), pp. 405-409

Mittler, D., “Environmental Space and Barriers to Local Sustainability: evidence

from Edinburgh, Scotland”, Local Environment, 4 (1999), pp. 353-365

Mont, O., “Clarifying the Concept of Product-Service System”, Journal of Cleaner

Production, 10 (2002), pp. 237-245

Mont, O., “Institutionalisation of Sustainable Consumption Patterns Based on

Shared Use”, Ecological Economics, 20 (2004), pp. 135-153

Mont, O. and Lindhqvist, T., “The Role of Public Policy in Advancement of Product

Service Systems”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 11 (2003), pp. 905-914

Morelli, E., “Developing new product service systems (PSS): methodologies and

operational tools”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 14 (2006), pp. 1495-1501

Murphy, D., “Apple Bumps Battery Replacement Cost to $199 for Retina

MacBooks”, PCMag 1 (2012) electronic source:

http://www.pcmag.com/atricle2/0,2817,2405921,00.asp (accessed 01/06/2013)

Nelson, G., “Obsolescence”, Perspecta, 11 (1967), pp. 170-176

O’Leary-Kelly, S. and Flores, B., “The integration of manufacturing and

marketing/sales decisions: impact on organizational performance”, Journal of

Operations Management, 20 (2002), pp. 221-240

Parkins, W. and Craig, G., Slow Living (Oxford, Berg Publishers, 2006)

Reisch, L., “Time and wealth: the role of time and temporalities for sustainable

patterns of consumption”, Time and Society, 10 (2001), p. 367-385

Scott, W., O’Leary, K., Flores, B., “The integration of Manufacturing and

Marketing/Sales decisions: impact on Organisational Performance”, Journal of

Operations Management, 20 (2002), pp. 221-240

64

Schmalensee, R., “Market Structure, Durability, and Maintenance Effort”, The

Review of Economic Studies, 41 (1974), pp. 277-287

Slade, G., Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America (London,

Harvard University Press, 2006)

Sullivan, A., and Sheffrin, S., Economics: Principles in Action (New Jersey,

Pearson Prentice Hall, 2003)

Sutherland, R., “Sweat the Small Stuff”, TED Salon London (2010) electronic

source: http://www.ted.com/talks/rory_sutherland_sweat_the_small_stuff.html

(accessed 12/11/12)

Taylor, A., “Design Directions”, Design Bites: Art & Engineering in Product Design,

1 (2007), pp. 1-77

Taylor, A., “Human Factors and Aesthetics”, Design Bites: Art & Engineering in

Product Design, 1 (2007), pp. 1-52

Thierry, M., Salomon, M., Van Nunen, J., Van Wassenhove, L., “Strategic Issues

in Product Recovery Management”, California Management Review, 37 (1995),

pp. 114-134

Tucker, A., “Eight types of product service system: eight ways to sustainability?

Experiences from Suspronet”, Business Strategy and the Environment, 13 (2004),

pp. 246-260

Ulrich, K., “The role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm”, Research

Policy, 24 (1995) p. 419-440

Van Hinte, E., Eternally Yours (Rotterdam, 010 Publishers, 1997)

Verbeek, P. and Kockelkoren, P., “The Things That Matter”, Design Issues, 14

(1998), pp. 28-42

Veryzer, R., “The Roles of Marketing and Industrial Design in Discontinuous New

Product Development”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22 (2005), pp.

22-41

Walker, S., “The Environment, Product Aesthetics and Surface”, Design Issues, 11

(1995), pp. 15-27

65

Walker, S. and Nielsen, R., “Systematic Shift: Sustainable development and

industrial design pedagogy”, Journal of Sustainable Design, 4 (1998), pp. 7-17

Wiens, K., “The New MacBook: Unfixable, Unhackable, Untenable”, Wired Gadget

Lab (2012) electronic source: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/06/opinion-

apple-retina-displa (accessed 03/06/2013)

Wiens, K., “Unfixable Computers are leading Humanity down a Perilous Path”,

Wired Gadget Lab (2012) electronic source:

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/06/apples-unfixable-devices/ (accessed

03/06/2013)

Wylant, B., and Badke, C., “Placements: Contextualising Design Thinking”, IDSA,

1 (2008) pp. 1-8

Xie, X., and Simon, M., “Simulation for Product Life Cycle Management”, Journal

of Manufacturing Technology, 17 (2006), p. 486-495

Yang, X. et al., “A Practical Methodology for Realising Product Service Systems

for Consumer Products”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, 56 (2009), pp.

224-235

Young, W. et al., “Sustainable Consumption: Green Consumer Behaviour When

Purchasing Products”, Sustainable Development, 18 (2010), pp. 20-31

thesis 11 dec 13 final.compressed

Documents