Comments
Description
Transcript
Appendices 1
Appendices 1 Graduation project by G.L.A. van Bohemen (Guus) (BSc) 4115767 Master Integrated Product Design Delft University of Technology May 2016 www.repairability.org Supervisory Team Chair: Dr.ir. S.F.J. Flipsen (Bas) Department of Design Engineering Mentor: Dr.ir. C.A. Bakker (Conny) Department of Design Engineering Associated company iFixit 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix I - Additional stakeholders 4 Appendix II - Interview with Eric Verlooij 5 Appendix III - iFixit’s Device Reparability Scores 6 Appendix IV - Complete list criteria from the literature 7 Appendix V - Criteria clustering session 13 Appendix VI - Crowdsource criteria from the MOOC 14 Appendix VII - Assessment of the current iFixit repairability score 16 Appendix VIII - First concept repairability rubric 26 Appendix IX - Assessment of the new repairability scoring tool 29 Appendix X - Repairability advices 37 3 Appendix I - ADDITIONAL STAKEHOLDERS I.1 SustainablySMART consortium I.3 Other stakeholders SustainablySMART wants to implement “Design for a Circular There are other stakeholders that do not yet have a direct influ- Economy” for smartphones and tablet computers on a product ence on the project, such as: and printed circuit board level. The project is called: “Sustain- Repair companies A the more consumers realize that products able Smart Mobile Devices Lifecycles. This includes enhanced are repairable, the more they will be likely to do that. A part will end-of-life performance, re-use and remanufacturing aspects do this themselves and a a part of the consumers will turn to and by new re-/de-manufacturing processes with improved re- some sort of repair company. This has an additional positive source efficiency through: effect as it will create local jobs (iFixit-c, 2015); enhanced sorting capabilities and speed (optimized sorting ef- Standardization organizations A it is not yet on the agenda for ficiency); this project, but it is thinkable that new product standards will automated disassembly of mobile IT devices for extraction of be developed as a result of the efforts of iFixit (and consorti- reusable components / modules, better material separation um). Companies like the British Standard Institution (BSI) and and depollution of end-of-life devices; the Austrian Standards will be parties that qualify for such a high-quality performance testing (batteries) and rework (sem- job. iconductors and modules) of reusable components/modules. (European Commission-b, 2015) The sustainablySMART consortium exists of the following parties: Fraunhofer IZM (coordinator) Fairphone b.v., Multimedia Computer System Ltd., Pro Automation GmbH, iFixit GmbH, ReUse-Computer e.V., Technische Universität Wien, Semicon Sp. z.o.o., Grant4Com, RFND TECHNOLOGIES AB, AT & S Austria Technologie & Systemtechnik AG, Speech Processing Solutions GmbH, PrimeTel PLC, Österreiche Gesellschaft für System- und Automatisierungstechnik and Blancco Oy Ltd. (PuzzlePhone, 2015) The sustainablySMART consortium is almost as important as iFixit, because in a way it is also a client of the assignment. But repairability (extending product life cycle) is only a part of their goal and there will be little contact with other players from this consortium other than iFixit. I.2 European Commision As part of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Agenda2030 (European Commission-a, 2015) the European Commision funds all sorts projects that can contribute, including the Sustainable Smart Mobile Devices Lifecycles project. The researcher will probably not be in direct contact with the European Commision, but the quality of the work will determine if they are going to adopt the theory or not. 4 Appendix II - INTERVIEW WITH ERIC VERLOOIJ Eric Verlooij is Project Officer Hi-Tech Research Consumers The seven steps on the scale are: at the Consumentenbond. The Consumentenbond is a Dutch organisation that objectively compares all sorts of vendibles 1. Anyone can replace the part without tools; that are available on the (Dutch) market. Eric Verlooij is among 2. With simple tools (cross and flat) is to replace the parts other things responsible for the assessments of laptops. The 3. Special tools are required to replace the part, but still do- interview was conducted on the 23st of November 2015, by the telephone. The goal of the conversation was to share thoughts able; 4. about repairability and found out how the Consumentenbond is using it. This report is a short summary of that conversation. For a technical nephew it is possible, but for ordinary people it is too difficult; 5. Local repair shop can do it, but consumers not really anymore At the Consumentenbond they would like to test products also 6. Specialized repair shop can will be able to do it for sustainability issues, like repairability (and more), but they 7. Must go back to the factory for repair. lack the knowledge on how to do so. With repairability they mean that a consumer should be able to repair their product The vendibles are assessed by a couple of individual assessors. themselve. Normally this means that the consumer should be It seems that the outcomes of the assessors are practically able to repair products on a component level. For laptops they the same, when they are compared with other assessors. One already have established some criteria to be able to say at least could say this rating is not complete, but it gives an indication something about the repairability. A seven-step scale is devel- and at least it’s consistent. oped to determine how to repairable a laptop is. They test on six specific parts of the laptop to test how easily these are parts are replaceable. The parts are: • Keyboard • Wifi adapter • Memory • Hard Disk • Battery • Open Chassis 5 Appendix III - IFIXIT’S DEVICE REPARABILITY SCORES III.1 Phones and Tablets III.2 Computers Add 10 points for each of the following criteria: Add 10 points for each of the following criteria: • • Repair information/diagrams is included with device, or freely available on the internet • No proprietary screws or self-destructing fasteners are freely available on the internet • present • Disassembling the device does not require substantial Battery is easily removable (no strong adhesive, not solDiscretionary feel after having taken apart the device Add 5 points for each of the following criteria: • • ing effort RAM is upgradable • Storage drive is upgradable • Discretionary feel after having taken apart the device Components are not tightly packed together, making disassembly easy Add 5 points for each of the following criteria: LCD panel and display glass are two separate components • Excessive amounts of adhesive are not used to secure in- • Full device disassembly takes less than half an hour • Disassembling the device does not require a heating element • • • Components are not tightly packed together, making disassembly easy • Excessive amounts of adhesive are not used to secure internal components ducing tool cost • Full device disassembly takes less than an hour Use of fragile ribbon cables used (that may easily tear) is • LCD panel and display glass are two separate components minimized Number of screws totals less than 30 • Internal components are modular, and are not grouped together on one cable Critical components (screen and battery) are easily replaceable 6 Use of fragile ribbon cables used (that may easily tear) is minimized Fewer than three different types of screws are used, re- • • Fewer than three different types of screws are used, reducing tool cost ternal components • Opening the outer case does not require substantial pry- • (not fused together) • Battery is easily removable (no strong adhesive, not soldered in place) • dered in place) • No proprietary screws or self-destructing fasteners are present • prying effort • Repair information/diagrams is included with device, or (for all-in-one machines) Appendix IV - COMPLETE LIST CRITERIA FROM THE LITERATURE Criteria cluster ID # Criteria Note Title Source Accessibility 3a Accessibility Difficulty Rating from MOST Design for Disas- Hanft & Kroll (1996) database sembly 4a Fastener accessibility Formula: # seperate Design for Remanu- Fang, Ong, & Nee fasteners, angle of facturability (2015) Device Reparability iFixit (2015) approach 7a Components are tightly Yes or no (5 points) together (tablets, smart- Scores phones) 7b Components are tightly Yes or no (5 points) together (computer) 8a Accessibility Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Scores Physical limitations Maintainability Moss (1985) Serviceable design Keoleian & Mene- of the maintenance worker 12a Accessibility to parts, components, or system to rey, 1993) be maintained Amount of fas- 9a teners Number of types of fas- Internal variable Repro tool teners 9b Total number of fasteners Brissaud (2008) Internal variable Repro tool used 7c Fewer than three sorts Gehin, Zwolinski, & Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) Yes or no (5 points) of screws used (tablets, Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Scores smartphones) 7d Total numbers of screws Yes or no (5 points) below 30 (tablets, smart- Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Scores phones) 7e Fewer than three sorts of Yes or no (5 points) Device Reparability screws used (computer) Scores Amount of tools Number of tools needed ECO3e needed to repair the product 7h No proprietary screws Yes or no (10 points) (tablets, smartphones) 7i No proprietary screws Disassembling without heating element (tablets, iFixit (2015) Scores Yes or no (10 points) (computer) 7j Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Scores Yes or no (5 points) Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Scores smartphones) 7 Criteria cluster ID # Criteria Note Title Source 3b Difficulty special (tools/ Rating from MOST Design for Disas- Hanft & Kroll (1996) parts) database sembly 11a Connections shall be easy Resource efficiency (Dalhammar et al., to find, accessible with and Eco-labelling 2014) commonly available tools, and as standardised as possible. Availability of 1a Availability of spare parts At least for 5 years Blue Angle Blue Angel (2014) 1b Availability of spare parts At least for 3 years TCO Certified Dis- TCO Development plays 7 (2016) Maintainability Moss (1985) Serviceable design Keoleian & Mene- spare parts/components 8b Standardization Compatibility between (alien) parts 12b Use of standard parts 9c Destination market External variable Repro tool 9d Number of direct compet- External variable Repro tool External variable Repro tool rey, 1993) Business roadmap focussed criteria Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) itors 9e Foundation of product Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) marketing Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) 9f Product dimensions Internal variable Repro tool Gehin, Zwolinski, & 9g Reason for redesign External variable Repro tool 8c Modularization Simplify maintenance Maintainability Moss (1985) 8d Functional Packaging Maintainability Moss (1985) Serviceable design Keoleian & Mene- Brissaud (2008) Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) Cognitive (dis)assembly difficulty through modules Simplify maintenance through grouping parts 12c Complexity of required procedures 7k Discretionary feel after rey, 1993) Yes or no (10 points) reassembly (tablets, Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Scores smartphones) 7l Costs of components Discretionary feel after Yes or no (10 points) Device Reparability reassembly (computer) Scores Cost of spares/product ECO3e iFixit (2015) cost 9h Ratio: Cost of recycled External variable Repro tool materials / Cost of virgin Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) materials 12d Costs If they too high, repair Serviceable design does not exist Failure possibility and consequence 8 5a Failure frequency Per year/per part Keoleian & Menerey, 1993) Design for Service Dewhurst & Abbatiello (1996) Criteria cluster ID # Criteria Note Title Source 5b Failure frequency rank From table Design for Service Dewhurst & Abbatiello (1996) 5c Failure consequence rank From table Design for Service Dewhurst & Abbatiello (1996) 6a Physical (dis)as- 3c Failure Mode and Effect Enumeration of the Failure Mode and Analysis failures and the effects Effect Analysis Difficulty positioning Rating from MOST Design for Disas- database sembly Rating from MOST Design for Disas- database sembly Formula: # joining Design for Remanu- Fang, Ong, & Nee, types and fastening facturability 2015 Formula: # connec- Design for Remanu- Fang, Ong, & Nee, tions, unfastening facturability 2015 Device Reparability iFixit (2015) sembly difficulty 3d 4b Difficulty force Disassembly complexity Stamatis (2003) Hanft & Kroll (1996) Hanft & Kroll (1996) types 4c Disassemblability difficulty, directional constraint 7m Disassembly without Yes or no (10 points) substantial prying effort Scores (tablets, smartphones) 7n Opening case does not Yes or no (10 points) require prying effort Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Scores (computer) 9i Materials ease of seper- Internal variable Repro tool ation 8e Interchangeability Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) Replacement parts Maintainability Moss (1985) Resource efficiency (Dalhammar et al., and Eco-labelling 2014) Circuit boards and other Resource efficiency (Dalhammar et al., precious metal-containing and Eco-labelling 2014) Reusability formula Fulvio & Mathieux without rework 11b 11c Single person repair components shall be easily removable using manual separation methods. Recovery possi- 10a Reusability (%) 9j Percentage of products bilities reusable parts weight/ total product weight External variable (2012) Repro tool returned for remanufac- Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) turing Percentage of product that ECO3e can be repaired/replaced 9k Number of “Active Func- Internal variable Repro tool tions” 9l Brissaud (2008) Percentage of components Internal variable Repro tool reused after cleaning 9m Percentage of components reused after repair Gehin, Zwolinski, & Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) Internal variable Repro tool Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) 9 Criteria cluster ID # Criteria Note Title Source 9n Number of components Internal variable Repro tool Gehin, Zwolinski, & remanufactured, repaired Brissaud (2008) or reused 9o Percentage of compo- External variable Repro tool nents to be remanufac- Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) tured 4d Recoverability Formula # contact Design for Remanu- Fang, Ong, & Nee, surfaces and joining facturability 2015 Device Reparability iFixit (2015) types, recovery factor, failure rate Repair information 7o Repair information is easy Yes or no (10 points) available (tablets, smart- Scores phones) 7p Repair information is easy Yes or no (10 points) available (computer) 8f Identification Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Scores Presence of engraving, Maintainability Moss (1985) Maintainability Moss (1985) Serviceable design Keoleian & Mene- marking or labelling 8g Malfunction Annunciation Indication of malfunctioning 12e Firms should offer information about: Trou- rey, 1993) ble-shooting, Procedures for repair, Tools required, The expected useful life of components and parts 11d Manufacturer must pro- Resource efficiency (Dalhammar et al., vide disassembly infor- and Eco-labelling 2014) Based on URI database Design for Service Dewhurst & Ab- Measuring Design for Service mation Repair time 5d Minimal dis/as-assembly time needed 5e Actual dis/as -assembly batiello (1996) time needed Dewhurst & Abbatiello (1996) 5f (Dis)assembly efficiency Actual/Minimal time Design for Service 3e Difficulty base time Rating from MOST Design for Disas- database sembly Dewhurst & Abbatiello (1996) Time to repair/recondi- Hanft & Kroll (1996) ECO3e tioning of the product 7q Full device disassembly Yes or no (5 points) takes less than half an Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Scores hour (tablets, smartphones) 7r Disassembly time under Yes or no (5 points) an hour (computer) Specific compo- 2a nent replacement 2b 10 Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Scores Ease of keyboard replace- On a 7 point scale Consumentenbond ment (laptops) (2015) Ease of wifi-adapter re- On a 7 point scale Consumentenbond placement (laptops) (2015) Criteria cluster ID # Criteria Note 2c Ease of memory replace- On a 7 point scale Consumentenbond ment (laptops) (2015) Ease of hard disk replace- On a 7 point scale Consumentenbond ment (laptops) (2015) Ease of battery replace- On a 7 point scale Consumentenbond ment (laptops) (2015) Ease to open chassis On a 7 point scale Consumentenbond (laptops) (2015) 2d 2e 2f 7s Battery easy removable Yes or no (10 points) (tablets, smartphones) 7t Battery easy removable RAM is upgradeable (com- Yes or no (10 points) Storage is upgradeable LCD and glass are fused Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Scores Yes or no (10 points) (computer) 7w iFixit (2015) Scores Yes or no (10 points) puter) 7v Device Reparability Source Scores (computer) 7u Title Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Scores Yes or no (5 points) together (tablets, smart- Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Scores phones) 7x LCD and glass are fused Yes or no (5 points) together (computer) 9p Number of components Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Scores Internal variable Repro tool Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) 9q Number of modules Internal variable Repro tool Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) 7y Internal components are Yes or no (5 points) modular (tablets, smart- Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Scores phones) 7z Critical components Yes or no (5 points) easily replaceable (tablets, Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Scores smartphones) 7aa Fragile ribbon cables used Yes or no (5 points) (tablets, smartphones) 7ab 11e Sort of fasteners 7f Fragile ribbon cables used Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Scores Yes or no (5 points) Device Reparability iFixit (2015) (computer) Scores Easy disassembly of exter- Resource efficiency (Dalhammar et al., nal enclosure and Eco-labelling 2014) Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Excessive amounts of Yes or no (5 points) adhesive are used (tablets, Scores smartphones) 7g Excessive amounts of adhesive are used (tablets, Yes or no (5 points) Device Reparability iFixit (2015) Scores smartphones) 11f 11g Moulded/glued in metal Resource efficiency (Dalhammar et al., eliminated or removable and Eco-labelling 2014) Screws and snap-fixes are Resource efficiency (Dalhammar et al., encouraged. and Eco-labelling 2014) 11 Criteria cluster ID # Criteria Note Title Source Technologic 9r Useful life between re- External variable Repro tool Gehin, Zwolinski, & roadmap focussed manufacturing cycles Brissaud (2008) criteria 9s First lifetime External variable Repro tool 9t Total secondary lifetime External variable Repro tool 9u Total product lifetime External variable Repro tool 9v Duration of technology External variable Repro tool Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) cycle 9w Brissaud (2008) Interval between rede- External variable Repro tool signs 9x Gehin, Zwolinski, & Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) Level of redesign External variable Repro tool Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) 9y Technology typology External variable Repro tool Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) 9z Product architecture Internal variable Repro tool Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) 9aa Percentage of new compo- Internal variable Repro tool nents required Tests 9ab Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) Number of different types Internal variable Repro tool of test (electrical, mechani- Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) cal, aesthetic) 9ac Total number of tests Internal variable Repro tool 8h Fault Isolation Tracing of faulty com- Maintainability Gehin, Zwolinski, & Brissaud (2008) Moss (1985) ponent Table 1: Complete list of potential criteria from the literature, including referenece number 12 Appendix V - CRITERIA CLUSTERING SESSION Figure 1: Criteria clustering session with Post-its 13 Appendix VI - CROWDSOURCE CRITERIA FROM THE MOOC 14 # Criteria Count 4 Repair manual available 145 2 Special tools needed 128 17 Prying efforts for internal parts 101 7 Spare parts availability 101 8 Standardized spare parts 44 10 Costs of spare parts 39 18 Identification problem 35 16 Risks on injuries 32 21 Excessive amounts of adhesives 26 29 Repeatedly repair without damaging 26 14 Endanger surrounding parts 20 26 Time 21 6 Repair is self explanatory 21 3 Availability of tools 20 5 Special training needed 18 9 Modularity parts/components 17 1 Number of tools 15 12 Hazardous components 15 28 Total loss threshold 14 37 Identification of parts 12 25 Self destructing fasteners 12 13 Ease of disposal worn parts 11 36 Allow upgrading 11 24 Availability of repair experts 10 31 Easy access of critical parts 10 22 No soldered or welded fasteners 10 11 Parts should be reproducible (3D prints) 9 20 Which replacement parts are needed 9 27 Warranty stays after repair 7 15 Tightly packed parts 6 38 Reassembling same steps as disassembling 5 39 Simple structure and form 5 23 Add value by repairing product 5 32 Single material components 4 34 Product should not be too intimidating to repair 4 19 Design for Maintenance 4 41 (Feeling) as new after repair action 3 42 Amount of fasteners 3 # Criteria Count 44 Number of types of fasteners 3 30 Number of actions needed 2 33 One person repair 2 35 Boundaries on what to self repair and what by experts 2 40 Coolness product should evoke repair 2 43 Room needed 1 45 Easy accessible fasteners 1 46 Use materials that last 1 Table 2: Complete list with crowd-sourced criteria 15 Appendix VII - ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT IFIXIT REPAIRABILITY SCORE Date: 22-01-2016 cuss the participants’ composition who have participated in the Author: Guus van Bohemen investigation (section VII.1). Next, the method is presented in Edited by: Bas Flipsen which we tested out the subquestions (section VII.2). Finally an overview is given of the results section VII.3. When designing an improved version of a tool, one has to know the value of the current tool. This report evaluates the current VII.2.1 Participants repairability tool of iFixit. It will start with a short introduction According to iFixit, Repair is for everyone. Everybody should be on the research and the research questions under investiga- able to repair products and everyone should be able to under- tion. Then the used method is presented, followed by the re- stand products to the extent that they can keep their products sults of the research. After that conclusions are drawn from the functional. On the iFixit website people are even even called- results. This report will end with a short discussion. up to write their own scoring sheets (iFixit, 2015). Since age, gender and (professional) background doesn’t matter for iFixit, VII.1 Introduction this research tries to have a diverse composition of the partic- This research is part of the graduation thesis wherein a tool ipants. is developed to assess the repairability of electronic devices. The scope of this assessment is on self-repair, in other words: The participants were gathered from the faculty of IDE (stu- how easy it is for a novice to repair its own products. The main dents and professors), within (design) organisations like Spark research question is: Design & Innovation or iFixit and through social media (family and friends). The research period started in week 51 of 2015 “What is the value of iFixit’s current repairability tool?” and ended at the start of the first week of 2016 and in this period 25 people have filled in the questionnaire. In order to answer the main research question we have defined the following subquestions: VII.2.2 Procedure The most effective way to bring in the most participants is an 1. How consistent are the outcomes of the current tool?1 online questionnaire. The most suitable program was Google 2. What are the hardest criteria to answer in the current tool? Forms, since its broad functionality and the existing experi- 3. Which criteria from the current tool can be validated as ence from the researcher. The latest version of Google Forms repairability criteria? supports video embedding. Unfortunately there is no way of Which repairability criteria are missing from the current checking whether or not the participants actually see the com- tool? plete video, partly or not at all. 4. 5. Does repair skill influences the repairability grade? Participants go through the form from their computer, laptop, VII.2 Method tablet or smartphone. A preview of the questionnaire is given In order to answer the subquestions, an online survey was in Figure 2, which shows a printscreen of the introduction page. held. Participants of the survey have watched a smartphone teardown video, filled in iFixit’s scoring sheet (the tool) and Participants were invited via email and other digital social net- evaluate this tool on basis of some questions. We will first dis- works. The personal network of the researcher was used to 1 The scoring tool will be consistent if every participant find participants. Besides, designers from the design-company give the device the same score that iFixit does, or one grade Spark Design & Innovation were asked to fill in this question- under or above this grade. naire. A link of the survey is send to them by email. When a par- 16 it more clear. The weight iFixit gave to the different criteria are removed, resulting in one consistent list of 15 criteria. Participants did not have to calculate the grade, because it is only inconvenient and it adds nothing for the research. The grade is calculated after the results of this survey were processed. Product breakdown video Figure 2: Printscreen of the introduction page of the questionnaire ticipant clicks on the link in the invite, the survey started. The form can be found via the following link: https://goo.gl/L4nWrK The survey starts with an introduction on page 1, with the following content: • An introduction of the researcher; • What the subject of the research is; • What will be researched in this survey: The value of the existing repairability tool of iFixit; • What the participants will have to do: • Answer general questions; • Watch the video; • Fill in the scoring sheet; • Evaluate the scoring sheet. After the participants read this, they filled in the questionnaire according to the points mentioned above. If desired, participants can leave their email address to be informed later. Figure 3: A still from the video “How to Tear Down/Disassemble Moto X 2014” (Wit Rigs, 2015) Every participant should watch a video where a product is broken down into separate components, as far as the product will allow this. Like iFixit does, the teardown stops when they have to solder parts (for example chips) from the PCB. The video that is used for this research is “How to Tear Down/Disassemble Moto X 2014”, which can be found on Youtube (Wit Rigs, 2015). A video-still can be found in Figure 3. This video shows the process needed to teardown the Motorola Moto X 2014. It is a compilation, with clarifying text, that takes 4:36 minutes. The 2014 Motorola -X is reviewed by iFixit and earned a repairability score of 7 (iFixit, 2013). iFixit’s teardowns video’s are not used because they are too subjective for this research. To introduce the participants to the topic they were confronted with two stimuli, first the the current iFixit repairability scoring sheet, followed by a product teardown video. Current iFixit repairability scoring sheet Participants used this scoring sheet to score the products for themselves. The scoring sheet should be as similar as possible to the current version of iFixit’s scoring sheet. With information from the first test run some small changes are made to make 17 VII.2.3 Questions asked A few remarks are in place: In the table below (Table 3) an overview is presented with the Question 4 is asked to test if skill level has influence on the out- different questions from the questionnaire. comes Participants rate themselves on their own repair-skills. The thought is that someone who has a lot of affinity with repairing will choose a higher rating than someone who does not; A 6-point scale is used for the question 4, because it will force participants to choose above or below ‘average’. # Question Measures How Why Gender Male or Diversity of participants participation composition 1 What is your gender? female 2 What is your age? Age Number Diversity of participants 3 What is your occupation? Occupation Open answer Diversity of participants 4 How well would you rate yourself on Repair skill 6 point scale Difference between repair capable your repair skills? people and not. product scoring 5 6 Rate product with iFixit criteria (using How people rate the current scoring sheet) the product What grade would you give this device Participants own Yes or No To find possible inconsistent criteria 10 point scale Find correlation between own grade and opinion the calculated grade tool evaluation 7 What do you think were the two hard- Hardest criteria to Drop down Find criteria to improve est criteria to answer? answer menu 8 Why? Why this criteria Open answer Reasoning 9 Which criteria do you think is most Most meaningful Drop down Find useful criteria meaningful in order to determine criteria menu repairability? 10 Why? Why this criteria Open answer Reasoning 11 Can you name a criteria that is not Gathering new Open answer Find new criteria mentioned in this list of criteria? criteria Find things/criteria that were missed in finalization 12 Any last thoughts you want to share? Extra information Open answer 13 Leave your email address, if you want Collect contact Open answer this questionnaire information To give people the chance to stay up to date (goodwill) Table 3: Questions of the questionnaire 18 VII.3 Results This chapter is divided in four sections: first the participants composition is discussed in chapter 3.1, and their skills in chapter 3.2. Following the results of the scoring sheet questionnaire is presented in chapter 3.3. Chapter 3.4 deals with the evaluation of the scoring sheet. VII.3.1 Participant composition Question 1 to 3 related to the general composition of the group of participants: A total of 25 participants took part in this study, of which 20 were male and 5 were female. The age ranged between 19 and 63, with an average of 33. As illustrated in Figure 4 there is a positive skewness, meaning that we deal with a mainly young participant group. The majority (12) of the participants practice a profession in a technical field, e.g. engineers, designers or programmers. Some non-technical professions are teachers, managers (in a sort of marketing field) and a journalist (9). The others were unemployed or still students. Figure 5: Repair skill rating VII.3.2 Evaluating skill level In question 4 the participants were asked to fill in their repair-skill level. There is reason to believe that low skill level could have some (negative) effect on how people would rate this product’s repairability. The first step in checking this statement could be true, is by checking the data as a whole. For this reason boxplots are made of the calculated grades versus the skill level of the participants, Figure 6. In this graph is already visible that the higher skilled participants (skill level 4 and up) scored a higher median. An even scale was used (1 till 6) where participants could rate their repair skill on. A division is made in two levels, low level (skill point 1 to 3) and high repair skill (skill-point 4 to 6). The low-skill group is a smaller (7 participants), than the high- Figure 4: Age participants In question 4 all participants had to judge their own skill-level skill participants (18). In the low skill group there were 3 females, in the high skill group 2. The average age is little bit higher in the high-skill group, 27.5 versus 34.5 in the low-skill group. on a range from 1 (“I have no clue about repairing”) to 6 (“I can fix anything”). Figure 5 shows the result of this questions. On All outcomes on the different criteria were equally answered, average the participants rated themselves a 4.24, where most but for two criteria: people gave themselves a 5. 4. With some certainty we can be say that none of the participants were native English speakers. “Battery is easily removable (no strong adhesive, not soldered in place)”: In the low skill group almost 30% of the participants thought the battery was easily removable. In the high skill group this percentage lay exactly fifty-fifty; 5. “Discretionary feel after having taken apart the de- 19 Figure 6: Boxplot grades per skill level vice”: 100% of the participants in the low skill group thought VII.3.3 Scoring sheet there was no discretionary feel after having taken apart the de- In question 5 all participant had to run through the iFixit scor- vice. In the high skill group only ⅔ of the participants felt there ing sheet. Based on the input the researcher calculated the was no discretionary feel. repairability grades according to iFixit’s scoring values (iFixit, 2015), with a weighted average based on: The low-skill group gave the smartphones 4.5, whereas the high-skill group gave a grade of 5.2. The calculated grades turn criteria 1 till 5 were given a weight factor of 10 out to be both higher than the given grades. In the case of the criteria 6 till 15 were given a weight factor of 5. lower-skill group, this equalled to 5.3, where the higher-skill group gave the smartphone a 6. In both cases a lower grade As mentioned before, iFixit rated this smartphone with a 7.0 on than the iFixit grade of a 7. In conclusion can be stated that skill a scale from 1 to 10. Our participants gave an average score of level does not have any influence on the outcome of the test. 5.85 with a standard deviation of 2.05, over a broad range in between 2.5 and 9.5. The grade that was scored the most was a 4 (Figure 7). In this graph the distribution in grades is clearly visible. Figure 7: Calculated repairability grade 20 Figure 8: Expected repairability grade. Besides the calculated grade, all participants were asked to in percentages are given per criteria. The larger the difference, grade the repairability of the smartphone on a scale from 1 to the more straightforward the criteria seems to be. The lower 10. The average grade given was 5, ranging from 1 to 10 (Figure the difference, the more the specific criterion is open for dis- 8). Interestingly enough the grade 7 was mentioned the most cussion. Every criterion with a difference of 20% and lower is (by 8 participants). As can be seen, there was a great division greyed out. They are considered doubtful and will need to be under the participants, it was either good or bad, nothing in modified. between. Two criteria were highly consistent answered: all participants The large diversity in final grading of the participants can be answered Yes to criterion 10 “Disassembling the device does explained when we look at the grading of the individual criteria. not require a heating element”, and 96% of the participants an- The complete overview can be found in Table 4, where answers swered Yes to criterion 13 “Number of screws totals less than # Criterion Yes (%) No (%) 1. Repair information/diagrams is included with device, or freely available on the 68 32 internet 2. No proprietary screws or self-destructing fasteners are present 72 28 3. Disassembling the device does not require substantial prying effort 40 60 4. Battery is easily removable (no strong adhesive, not soldered in place) 44 56 5. Discretionary feel after having taken apart the device 48 52 6. Components are not tightly packed together, making disassembly easy 40 60 7. LCD panel and display glass are two separate components (not fused together) 12 88 8. Excessive amounts of adhesive are not used to secure internal components 52 48 9. Full device disassembly takes less than half an hour 76 24 10. Disassembling the device does not require a heating element 100 0 11. Fewer than three different types of screws are used, reducing tool cost 80 20 12. Use of fragile ribbon cables used (that may easily tear) is minimized 44 56 13. Number of screws totals less than 30 96 4 14. Internal components are modular, and are not grouped together on one cable 88 12 15. Critical components (screen and battery) are easily replaceable 32 68 Table 4: Percentages of choosing Yes or No for each criterion. 21 Figure 9: Hardest criteria to answer 30”. 7. LCD panel and display glass are two separate components (not fused together) (14%) Criterion 5, “Discretionary feel after having taken apart the device”, and criterion 8, “Excessive amounts of adhesive are not 2. No proprietary screws or self-destructing fasteners are present (10%) used to secure internal components”, both were close to a 50%50% distribution, and thus were very unclear to the participant. Although it was not necessary for the participants to choose in order of importance, there was a small connection notable. Other noteworthy criteria that scored an indifferent anwer The discretionary feel criterion (number 5) was mentioned first were criterion 4, “Battery is easily removable (no strong adhe- by most of the participants who mentioned this as a hard crite- sive, not soldered in place)”, criterion 6, “Components are not rion. The LCD criterion (number 7) was often answered second. tightly packed together, making disassembly easy”, and criteri- None of the participants chose criterion 10 “Disassembling the on 12, “Use of fragile ribbon cables used (that may easily tear) device does not require a heating element” as hard to answer. is minimized”. The complete results are illustrated in Figure 9. The criteria numbers in the graph, match with the numbers from Table 4. Unfortunately iFixit’s grading sheet was not available at the time of the research to compare them with the participants’ The reason why participants thought criterion 5 was hard to outcome. answer were mainly about the incomprehensibility of the anwer, “difficult to comprehend”, “I’m not sure what ‘discretionary VII.3.4 Evaluation current scoring card After finishing the scoring sheet the participants were asked 4 questions where the scoring-sheet was evaluated. Question 7 and 8 was “What do you think were the two hardest criteria to answer?” and “Why?”. The top three hardest to apply criteria feel’ means”, or its subjectivity, “Just in between having a lot of discrete parts and manageable”. Criterion 15 was also called subjective: “What is ‘easy replaceable’ “, as was criterion 4: “I think a little bit of adhesive is too are: much to make it easy replaceable”. 5. Discretionary feel after having taken apart the device Additional reasons why participants found certain questions (18%) 22 hard to answer are: Figure 10: Most meaningful for repairability. Participants only had a video at hand, it was difficult to inter- VII.3.5 Finalization pret certain questions. In question 11 participants were asked if they could name oth- Some of the questions were formulated in a negative tense, er additional criteria which might be of importance. A summary like criteria 2, 3, 6, 8, 10 and 14. of some interesting mentions: Besides the most difficult questions, all participants were Availability of (affordable) parts; asked to name the most meaningful criteria when determining Ease or reassembling; the products’ repairability and why (question 9 to 10). The top Fragility of components; five of answers and 72% of the answers: Visibility of components; Doable for (a) mother in law; 1. Repair information/diagrams is included with device, or Indication of skill level. freely available on the internet (26%) 15. Critical components (screen and battery) are easily replaceable (16%) 8. Excessive amounts of adhesive are not used to secure in- In the final question 12 the participants were asked to share their last thoughts. Nothing worth mentioning resulted from this question. ternal components (12%) 2. No proprietary screws or self-destructing fasteners are present (10%) 9. Full device disassembly takes less than half an hour (8%) Figure 10 illustrates the complete results. The criteria outside the top 5 were rarely chosen by participants. Participants found it very important that information was readily available. Interesting other mentions were: “to take away fear” (of breaking the device) and particular critical components, like the battery and the screen. 23 VII.4 Conclusion 9. Full device disassembly takes less than half an hour (8%) To give answer to the main research question, “What is the value of iFixit’s current repairability tool?”, the sub research ques- Which repairability criteria are missing from the cur- tions are covered first. rent tool? Most of the participants mentioned that the “availability of How consistent are the outcomes of the current tool? spare parts” was missing as a criterion in iFixit’s scoring sheet. iFixit graded the Motorola Moto X with a 7. The participants of Other criteria which are added: this research gave grades ranging from 2.5 to 9.5, with an average of 5.85, using the same scoring sheet. The average scoring • Ease of reassembling; is below the accepted deviation of 1 point of the range grade. • Fragility of components; Because of the diversity in the results, it can be concluded that • Visibility of components; the outcomes of the current tool are inconsistent. • Indication of skill level (Doable for a mother in law?). What are the hardest criteria to answer in the current Does repair skill influences the repairability grade? tool? Although high-skilled participants scored the smartphone The top 3 criteria that were hard to answer were the following: slightly higher than low-skilled participants, there was in both cases an equal amount of inconsistency in the answers. We can 5. Discretionary feel after having taken apart the device (18%) 7. LCD panel and display glass are two separate components (not fused together) (14%) 2. No proprietary screws or self-destructing fasteners are present (10%) thus fairly conclude that skill level does not have any influence on the outcome of the test. Also when comparing the questions participants found hard to answer, there was hardly any difference. Again looking at criteria that are meaningful for a product’s repairability, the skill level of the participants hardly made a difference. These criteria were difficult to answer because participants Main question: What is the value of iFixit’s current re- found the used terms “subjective” or “incomprehensive”. pairability tool? Now the main research question can be answered. There is Which criteria from the current tool can be validated certainly a value in iFixit’s current repairability scoring sheet. as repairability criteria? For starters, it is the first scoring sheet that is widely available According to the participants the following criteria were the to grade products, smartphones in particular. It gives a good most valuable: basis to iterate to newer versions. According to the participants there are good criteria, some cri- 1. Repair information/diagrams is included with device, or freely available on the internet (26%) 15. Critical components (screen and battery) are easily replaceable (16%) 8. Excessive amounts of adhesive are not used to secure internal components (12%) 2. No proprietary screws or self-destructing fasteners are present (10%) 24 teria were subjective or incomprehensible, and some used a negative tense which might be confusing in answering. In this research 25 non-iFixit related participants filled in the iFixit scoring sheet, and we can conclude that the outcome is inconsistent. The final iFixit repairability score is therefore difficult to repeat with other groups, and thus not scientifically usable as a consistent tool. Finally, the repair-skill level was included in the equation. For out possible insight advantages. To test participant’s skill both the low-skilled and the high-skilled participants the out- level a 6 point skill was asked to be filled in. How partici- come was not consistent. We can therefore conclude that re- pants filled in this scale versus how their skill actually is, pair-skills has no influence on the consistency of the outcomes might not be corresponding. Therefore the results could of iFixit’s current repair scoring sheet. be different than the current results. A newer version should be comprehensible for both non-native VII.6 References and native English speakers. This version should avoid using • the negative tense in the assessed criterion or use subjective iFixit. (2015). Device Reparability Scores. Retrieved November 18, 2015, from https://www.ifixit.com/Info/Re- terms in sentences. pairability • Wit Rigs. (2015, April 22). How to Tear Down/Disassemble VII.5 Discussion Moto X 2014. Retrieved December 14, 2015, from https:// In this research there is a lot of room for discussion, to name www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1Tgi1Aa9gI a few: • iFixit (2013). Motoral Moto X Teardown, First entry 0823-2013 b Walter Galan. Retrieved January, 2016, from • The number of participants can perceived as relatively https://www.ifixit.com/Device/Motorola_Moto_X low. Unfortunately not more people have joined. Still, it is showed that with 25 participants the outcome of the scoring sheet is inconsistent. • One possible reason of the inconsistency in the results might be the use of English in the scoring sheet, and the use of only non-native English speakers in the participant group. • Most of the participants came from the researcher’s own network. There is reason to believe that especially more unskilled participants (in terms of repairing) gave up making the test, because they did not understand what was adked. The same can be said about the language that was used in the questionnaire, participants gave up because they do not master the English language. • The participants had to judge a product’s repairability by watching a video, instead taking it apart themselves. This could have changed their perspective on criteria like “substantial prying effort”. • iFixit uses a division in their criteria, a differentiation between a ten point and five point criteria. In the questionnaire this was reduced to one list of criteria without any weight. This could result in a different outcome when participants would have known the impact of their decisions. • Repair skill level was included in the questionnaire to filter 25 Appendix VIII - FIRST CONCEPT REPAIRABILITY RUBRIC # Criteria 0 1 2 1. Identification of the Cause of failure can only be Cause of failure can be estab- The design of the product problem established using specialized lished after some searching, makes it easy to identify the measuring equipment. for instance through trou- cause of failure. In some bleshooting guides or online cases, the product may have discussion sites. fault detection software. 2. Availability of a Not available or cannot be Repair guide or trouble-shoot The manufacturer offers a repair guide found online information is available on- repair guide or trouble-shoot line, on third party websites. information in print or online. 3. 4. Availability of (per- There is no form of (personal) (Personal) assistance is avail- A helpdesk or other personal sonal) assistance, assistance available for this able as a paid service, either repair assistance is available like a helpdesk product (service desk,online by the manufacturer or a free of charge support) third party. Warranty issues Self-repair will void the No warranty issues after warranty. This is sometimes opening the product. made explicit through labels inside the product. 5. 6. Total costs of repair Technical knowledge The repair costs are higher The repair costs are less than The repair costs are less than than the costs of replacing half of the replacement costs 20% of the replacement costs the product of the product Specialized training is needed Minor specialized knowledge to fix this product, e.g. you is needed to fix this product. need to know how to solder. This can be easily obtained, Basic repair skills suffice. for instance through online tutorials. 7. Availability of spare There are no spare parts Spare parts can only be or- Compatible spare parts are parts available for this product. dered via the manufacturer. widely available, online or locally. 8. 9. 10. 26 Spare parts costs Spare parts are more ex- Spare parts cost between Spare parts are under 10% of pensive than 25% of a new 10% and 25% of the costs of the costs of a new product product a new product Local manufacturing There are no CAD files CAD files are made available The manufacturer makes of components/parts available for 3D printing of by third-parties, e.g. at Grab- CAD files available for use in components or parts. cad and Thingiverse 3D printing. Number of tools More than 5 tools are needed Two to five tools are needed No more than one tool is needed to repair this product needed to repair this product to repair this product # Criteria 0 1 2 11. Types of tools Advanced specialized tools, Specialized tools, like torx Basic tools, like scissors, flat- needed like soldering iron, heat gun screwdrivers, electric drill head and Phillips screwdriv- and/or proprietary screwdriv- and small magnets, are ers, can be used. ers are needed. needed. Supporting tools Supporting tools are needed Standard objects can be used Supporting tools are not needed for repair, like a multi-use to support repair, like sticky necessary helping hand (third hand), a tape, and books. 12. second repair person, clamps or a scaffold. 13. Critical components None of the critical com- At least one critical compo- All critical components are (that tend to fail) are ponents can be readily ac- nent is readily accessible. readily accessible (none of readily accessible, cessed, for instance because the components is deeply like batteries, etc. the components are deeply ‘embedded’ in the product). ‘embedded’ in the product. 14. Repair actions The number of repair actions The number of repair actions The number of repair actions needed needed is much more than needed is more than expect- is proportional to the nature expected, given the nature ed, given the nature of the of the repair. Replacing a of the repair. For instance: repair. faulty battery, for instance, is to replace a faulty battery, a 2-step process. you need to go through an 11-step repair process. 15. 16. 17. Number of screws On average, each part is On average, each part is On average, each part is fastened with more than four fastened with three or four fastened with no more than screws screws two screws. Removability of Adhesives, glue, single-use Multiple-use snap fits and/or Only screws and/or multi- fasteners snap fits and/or solders stay-sticky glue fasteners are ple-use snap-fits are used to are used to fasten parts used. This is not ideal, but it fasten parts and components and components, making it reduces the likelihood that difficult not to damage parts parts are damaged during during disassembly. disassembly. Reusability of parts, At least three parts, fasteners One or two parts are dam- All disassembled parts can fasteners and con- and/or connectors are dam- aged after disassembly and be reassembled without nectors aged after disassembly, and cannot be reassembled damage. cannot be reassembled 18. 19. Visibility of screws Fasteners are hidden, for Screws and other fasteners Screws and other fasteners and other fasteners instance behind an adhesive. are easily overlooked during are clearly visible and high- disassembly. lighted The product provides no The product provides some The product provides clear cues to guide the reassembly cues to guide the reassembly cues to guide the reassembly process. process, but it still not com- process. Reassembly issues pletely clear 20. Identification of the Main parts and compo- Only critical parts and com- Main parts and components components/parts nents are not identifiable by ponents (like the battery) are are engraved, marked or la- engravings, labels or other identifiable by engravings, belled for quick location and/ marks. labels or other marks. or replacement of malfunctioning items. 27 # Criteria 0 1 2 21. Risk of injury During the repair process The repair process requires There are low-to-no injury you could inhale toxic fumes the use of sharp prying tools, risks involved e.g. while using toxic cleaning knives or scissors, increasing detergents, soldering or toxic the risk of injuring yourself. sprays 22. Environmental is- The product contains compo- The product doesn’t contain The product has a WEEE sues at end of life. nents with a “Toxic” symbol. any indicators or symbols symbol, indicating that it It needs to be discarded that clarify how it should be should be discarded through through a recycling scheme disposed of. a recycling scheme. and treated by specialists. 23. Fragility or robust- The product contains fragile It is clear where force can be Robust parts, components ness of components parts and components that used and where not. and connectors are used. break when touched 24. 25. Internal organisation Chaotic internal organisation, Cables and other parts over- Cables and other parts are of components cables and other parts are lap each other but can easily neatly organised in the for instance interweaved. be taken apart product Interaction with the product Interaction with the product Interaction with the product is frustrating, for instance is not very difficult, but not is pleasurable and gives con- due to its complex or closed very pleasant either. The re- fidence that the product can nature. The product doesn’t pair can be done effectively. be repaired successfully. Clarity of reparability inspire confidence that it can be repaired successfully. 26. State after repair The product does not func- The product functions as The product functions as be- action tion anymore. before, however there is fore, with no or minimal loss some loss of quality and/or of quality and aesthetics. aesthetics. Table 5: Concept repairability rubric 28 Appendix IX - ASSESSMENT OF THE NEW REPAIRABILITY SCORING TOOL This is a follow-up research in a graduation project where a IX.2.1 Participants new repairability assessment tool is developed. In this research The participants will be students of the bachelor elective a concept version of the new tool will be tested on its consisten- course Towards Circular Product Design. Here can be assumed cy and quality. In the introduction the research questions will that some technical knowledge is present with these students, be presented. Then the used method is presented, followed by since these students all study at the faculty of Industrial Design the results of the research. After that conclusions are drawn Engineering. The group consists of 60 students which all have from the results. This report will end with a short discussion. to fill in this survey. In the end, 46 students participated in this research. IX.1 Introduction After assessing the theory, the crowdsourced criteria and iF- IX.2.2 Stimuli ixit’s current repairability tool1, a new tool is developed. This For this research the newly developed repairability tool will be tool must now be assessed on its consistency of its outcomes. used to be filled in. The new repairability tool is a rubric that This research will be similar to the research of iFixit’s current consists of 26 criteria with three descriptors to choose from. tool, and thus shares some research questions. Which are the Participants will have to download this rubric separately and following: use the Google Forms as an answer sheet. 1. How consistent are the outcomes of the new tool?2 Like the previous research, the participants will have to watch 2. What are the hardest criteria to answer in the new tool? the same teardown video: “How to Tear Down/Disassemble 3. Which criteria from the new tool can be considered as Moto X 2014”, which can be found on Youtube (Wit Rigs, 2015). most valuable repairability criteria? The same video is used because it can be considered a good Which repairability criteria are missing from the current video and comparisons can be made with the previous re- tool? search. 4. Because of the details of this research the last research ques- In the new scoring rubric there are some criteria that are tion, “Does repair skill influences the repairability grade?” will known to be extremely hard to be answered from the video. be left out. This will be further elaborated in the Participants When analysing the results, this will be taken into considera- section. tion. The criteria that will be hard to derive from the video are: IX.2 Method 1. Identification of the problem → In the disassembly video, In this first section the method will be elaborated. This will start there is obviously no problem at hand. Although it is more with looking at the participants (2.1). After that, the stimuli that about the general tendency, in what way a device sup- they will be exposed to will be discussed (2.2). Then the ap- ports problem identification, this criterion could be hard paratus they will use (2.3), followed by this research’s planned to answer for the participants to answer. procedure (2.4). Finally an overview of what will be measured will be given (2.5). 4. Warranty issues → The video doesn’t show the packaging or the instruction guide of the Motorola MOTO X. Also the parts will not be visible enough to read the small letters 1 These can be found in the analysis section. 2 The scoring tool will be consistent if every participant gives the device the same grade or one grade under or above this grade. on the parts, that can have anything to do with warranty issues. However with some Google search efforts, it could still be possible to find an answer. 14. Repair actions needed → The amount of repair actions will 29 # Question Measures How Why Control who of the course Participation composition 1 What is your study number? Study number 7 digit number 2 How well would you rate yourself on your Repair skill 6 point scale participated repair skills? Difference between repair capable people and not. Product assessment 3 Fill in the Reparability Scoring Rubric How people rate 0, 1, or 2 points the product 4 What grade would you give this device? Participants own To find possible inconsistent criteria and calculate a grade 10 point scale opinion Find correlation between own grade and the calculated grade Tool evaluation 5 What do you think were the two hardest Hardest criteria Drop down criteria to answer? to answer menu with all Find criteria to improve the criteria 6 Why? Why this criteria Open answer Reasoning 7 Which criteria do you think is most meaning- Most meaningful Drop down Find valuable criteria that ful in order to determine repairability? criteria menu with all might gain importance in the the criteria rubric 8 Why? Why this criteria Open answer Reasoning 9 Can you name a criteria that is not men- Gathering new Open answer Find possible additional tioned in this list of criteria? criteria criteria Finalization 10 Any last thoughts you want to share? Extra informa- Open answer tion Find things/criteria that were missed in this questionnaire Table 6: Questions of the questionnaire be hard to find out, because the video doesn’t show the IX.2.3 Apparatus reassembly steps. However, seeing the disassemble steps, The most suitable survey program option will be Google Forms, an educated guess could be made to state something since its broad functionality and the existing experience from about the amount of repair actions. the researcher. The latest version of Google Forms supports 19. Reassembly issues → Again, reassembly steps are not shown, but an educated guess could be made. video embedding. Unfortunately there is no way of checking whether or not the participants actually see the video or down- 20. Identification of the components/parts → The video doesn’t loaded the rubric. Participants can go through the form from film the individual parts as detailed as one would hope, their computer, laptop, tablet and smartphone, in their home when searching for marks or labels on the parts. environment. 23. Fragility or robustness of components → Participants can’t touch the components to find out how fragile they might IX.2.4 Procedure be. The video only treated this shortly for some parts, Filling in the new scoring tool will be part of the elective To- which could be enough for the participants, but it does wards Circular Product Design. Students will have to make it not give a general overview. in order to pass the course. It will be part of a homework as- 26. State after repair action → The video doesn’t show a reas- signment. A link of the Google Form will be send to the stu- sembled MOTO X and participants can’t feel or use the dents, the form itself contains a link of the new scoring tool. smartphone either. This will ask for some imagination of The students will have to read and grade the rubric separately the participants. and then fill in the answers in Google Forms. There will be a few days time to complete the rubric, until Monday evening. On Tuesday the researcher will have time to process the first results in a quick and dirty manner. Two days later, on Wednes- 30 Figure 12: Expected repairability grade day, the results will be discussed with the group. The outcomes IX.3.2 Scoring rubric of this discussion will be elaborated in the section “Rubric dis- After filling in the scoring rubric, the participants were asked cussion during lecture”. to fill in what they thought the device would get. The results are shown in Figure 12. The grade 6 is by far the most men- IX.2.5 Measures tioned grade. The average was a 5.3, with standard error of In the table below an overview is presented with the different 0.24. This means that the most participants agreed with each questions from the questionnaire. other, with the exception of a view outliers. In comparison with the participants who had used the iFixit sheet: the average was around the grade 5 as well, but the expectancy was much more IX.3 Results In this section the results will be elaborated. First the compo- divided. sition of the participants, then the actual scoring tool, followed The actual grades the participants gave the Motorola MOTO up by the evaluation of the tool. X was calculated afterwards by the researcher. This was done by adding up all the values of the rubric, the 0, the 1 and the 2, IX.3.1 Participants As mentioned earlier, the expectation was that the participants would have considerable repair skills. This was also the case, as can be seen in the graph below. On average, the participants rated themselves with a 4.2. Where most of them gave themselves a 5. Figure 11 clearly shows that the histogram has a negative skewness, which means that the group of participants is leaning to a high repair skill level. and divided by the maximum amount of points (52). To come to a grade between 1 till 10, the outcome was multiplied by 10. Like the iFixit score, the grades were rounded off on whole and half points. This resulted in the calculated repairability grade. In the graph of the calculated repairability grade (Figure 13), can be clearly seen that the results are close to each other, with a few exceptions. The average of the calculated grade was 4.7, which even is close by the expected grade. The standard error of the average is 0.15, which means that the results are indeed close together. In terms of consistency, keeping the one grade above and below the average in mind (3.7 < 4.7 < 5.7), one could say that it almost consistent. Figure 11: Repair skill rating 31 Figure 13: Calculated repairability grade IX.3.3 Scoring of individual criteria are: The reason behind the inconsistency can be found by looking at the criteria individually. Table 7 presents the percentages of 1. Identification of the problem the answers from the participants. Some of the percentages 2. Availability of a repair guide are highlighted green, red, or yellow, because they say some- 4. Warranty issues thing about the score. The higher a percentage the more par- 5. Total costs of repair ticipants chose this answer, the more consistent a criteria is. 6. Technical knowledge When a percentage ended up around 33 or 50, it could indicate 8. Spare parts costs inconsistency of the criteria. 10. Number of tools needed 11. Types of tools needed • When a cell has 55 percent or higher, it is green; • When a cell has a percentage between 40 and 55, it is yel- 13. Critical components (that tend to fail) are readily accessible, like batteries, etc. low; 21. Risk of injury • When a cell has a percentage between 30 and 40, it is red; 23. Fragility or robustness of components • Other cells are left blank. Interesting criterion to mention in this list, is for example “4. In order to find consistent and inconsistent criteria, some rules Warranty issues”. This criterion could only earn 0 or 2 points, are established: but somehow sometimes this criteria got also 1 point. To al- • When a criterion is only marked with a green cell, this is ready run slightly ahead on the facts, these participants also considered to be consistent; chose this criterion as hard to answer. • • • • When a criterion is marked with two yellow cells, it is considered an inconsistent criterion, because is about 50-50 The criteria that can be considered inconsistent, are stated be- that participants chose two of the three answers; low, and should be improved. When a criterion is marked with two or three red cells, it is an inconsistent criterion, because it every answer could 3. Availability of (personal) assistance, like a helpdesk have been chosen; 7. Availability of spare parts When a criterion is marked with a yellow and a red cell, it 9. Local manufacturing of components/parts is an inconsistent criterion, but with a slight preverance 12. Supporting tools needed of one; 14. Repair actions needed When a criterion is marked with a green and a red cell, 15. Number of screws this is considered to be consistent, but an improvement 16. Removability of fasteners is possible. 17. Reusability of parts, fasteners and connectors 18. Visibility of screws and other fasteners In short, the criteria that can be considered consistent enough, 32 19. Reassembly issues Criteria 0 1 2 1. Identification of the problem 29% 67% 4% 2. Availability of a repair guide 22% 65% 13% 3. Availability of (personal) assistance, like a helpdesk 20% 37% 43% 4. Warranty issues 57% 9% 35% 5. Total costs of repair 13% 70% 17% 6. Technical knowledge 22% 74% 4% 7. Availability of spare parts 17% 33% 50% 8. Spare parts costs 15% 61% 24% 9. Local manufacturing of components/parts 54% 39% 7% 10. Number of tools needed 28% 65% 7% 11. Types of tools needed 11% 65% 24% 12. Supporting tools needed 17% 39% 43% 13. Critical components (that tend to fail) are readily 67% 24% 9% 14. Repair actions needed 48% 50% 2% 15. Number of screws 39% 28% 33% 16. Removability of fasteners 35% 50% 15% 17. Reusability of parts, fasteners and connectors 15% 46% 39% 18. Visibility of screws and other fasteners 17% 54% 28% 19. Reassembly issues 50% 46% 4% 20. Identification of the components/parts 30% 59% 11% 21. Risk of injury 9% 30% 61% 22. Environmental issues at end of life. 15% 43% 41% 23. Fragility or robustness of components 57% 39% 4% 24. Internal organisation of components 9% 50% 41% 25. Clarity of reparability 37% 54% 9% 26. State after repair action 11% 35% 54% accessible, like batteries, etc. Table 7: Individual scoring of the criteria 20. Identification of the components/parts On the first place in this top 5, the criterion “26. State after re- 22. Environmental issues at end of life pair action” ended up here. As stated earlier, some of the cri- 24. Internal organisation of components teria were indeed hard to answer from the video, this was one 25. Clarity of reparability of them. The participants confirmed that this was not visible in 26. State after repair action the video. An example of a participant’s reasoning: “because we did not repair anything so we could not test it”. This also IX.3.4 Evaluation proved to be an inconsistent criterion, when looking at the in- Hardest criteria to answer dividual answers. After filling in the rubric, the participants were asked, which The second place was for “5. Total costs of repair”. The partici- two criteria they found the hardest to answer? The order of the pants had to Google the answers, as one also have to do when two criteria was irrelevant. Summing all the criteria up resulted repairing a product. Participants indicated that it was hard to in the following outcome: find this answer because the offer is extensive and divers. And as a participant indicated: “Companies don’t give easily their 26. State after repair action (17,77%) prices away of separate parts or repair costs”, which obviously 5. Total costs of repair (14,64%) makes it even harder. Another participant correctly remarked: 8. Spare parts costs (10,23%) “There is not much known about the problem which has to be 1. Identification of the problem (9,09%) resolved. The video just shows a disassembly, and not why it 22. Environmental issues at end of life (9,09%) is disassembled”. Searching for a particular solutions might help answering this, but the idea behind this criterion was to 33 find the general tendency of the costs. For example, one could 2. Availability of a repair guide (9,09%) argue that Apple reparations might be more expensive than 26. State after repair action (7,95%) Samsung reparation. Interestingly enough the difficulty of this criterion did not show in the score, 70% of the participants The first criterion “1. Identification of the problem” is chosen by chose 1 point. most of the participants with the reasoning that the knowing The reasoning for the third criterion “8. Spare parts costs” over- the problem helps a lot with knowing how to fix it. One partici- lapped somewhat with the previous one. Prices for parts were pant gave a particular interesting remark, by saying that know- also hard to find, especially if you do not know which parts you ing the problem even determines if people will try it or not: are looking for, but at least the prices were mentioned. Prices “People won’t even give it a try when they don’t know what is for total repair costs are more mysterious. Still, this criterion the problem”. Another interesting notion is that this criterion is could be considered a consistent one, 61% of the participants also mentioned as a hard criterion to answer (4th place), and chose 1 point. apparently it is the most important one. The fourth criterion “1. Identification of the problem” is found “This criterion determines whether anyone can repair it or it hard to answer because the participants indicated that there has to be send back to the manufacturer” is one of the com- was no problem at hand. This was one of the criteria that was ments on the second meaningful criterion “6. Technical knowl- indicated as hard to answer on forehand. When having a faulty edge”. Most of the participants agreed that without proper product available would make this an easy criterion, but, ad- knowledge, a product can’t repaired. mittedly, it still highly depends on the specific problem. For ex- The reasoning behind the third and the fourth criteria, “7. Avail- ample a cracked screen is easier to spot than a software prob- ability of spare parts”, “2. Availability of a repair guide” were lem. Again, this criterion could be considered a consistent one, similar from the participants. Spare parts are a requirement 67% of the participants chose 1 point. in other to replace faulty parts and thus a repair action. And a The fifth criterion is “22. Environmental issues at end of life”. repair guide should guide people through a repair action. Participants did not saw this information from the video, and The fifth important repairability criterion “26. State after repair they indicated that it was also hard to find on the internet. One action” is also mentioned as a hard criterion. The participants participant remarked: “most often mobile phones should be agreed that the most important goal of a repair action is that recycled”, which indicates that it is known, but still they couldn’t the product is usable after the action. find it. However, at least the battery clearly had the recycle symbol in the video. The why questions were not mandatory, Possible additional criteria to the new scoring tool and coincidentally this criterion was not reasoned that often. The following question was if the participants had any addition This also proved to be an inconsistent criterion, when looking to this list of criteria. Most of the participants (34) could not at the individual answers. come up with additions to this list. However some interesting mentions were made: Most relevant criteria for repairability The top five of answer that came from the questions “Which • Two participants made the remark that the size of the two criteria do you think are most relevant in determining the parts, the detail of a repair action mattered. They asked reparability of the product?” is: questions like: “Do you need glasses to see what you are doing?” and “And non-shaking hands?”. This remark ac- 1. Identification of the problem (18,18%) tually already has something to do with the criteria “20. 6. Technical knowledge (12,50%) Identification of the components/parts” and “23. Fragility 7. Availability of spare parts (11,36%) or robustness of components”; 34 • Four participants remarked about the time to repair. This IX.4 Conclusion criterion is knowingly left out of this rubric list. The reason- To assess the value of the new repairability assessment tool, ing was that it appeared from previous research, that time the research questions will be answered in this section. wasn’t that much of an issue for consumers. Combine this • • with the fact that it would be a very subjective criterion How consistent are the outcomes of the new tool? (it coincides with skills) and that the rest of the criteria The outcomes of the new repairability rubric, are fairly consist- are time factors (a high number of screws cost time to re- ent. Most of the calculated grades fall within the 1 point below move). It was decided that time could be left out; and above the average limit that has been set upfront. Howev- Some additions were actually quite similar to existing cri- er, still some participants graded the Motorola MOTO X outside teria. For example “force needed” and “risk of damage” of this limit. As presumed at the beginning of this report, this is similar to “23. Fragility or robustness of components”, could have something to do with assessing the device from a and “Does the product contain clear use cues?” is similar teardown video. When looking at the individual criteria, only to “19. Reassembly issues” and “25. Clarity of reparability”; 11 of the 26 criteria can be considered as consistent. Which The last remark that is interesting to share is: “Some means that more than 55% of the participants rated these cri- things are more common to be repaired by yourself. A lot teria the same. of people try to repair their own bicycles because it is normal. If it is normal to start trying to repair everything it will What are the hardest criteria to answer in the new happen more.” This participant got to the essence of the tool? goal of this project, but it will not be an addition to the list The criteria that the participants thought to be the hardest cri- of criteria. teria to answer were: Last thoughts on the survey 26. State after repair action (17,77%) The last question of the survey was to give participants a chance 5. Total costs of repair (14,64%) to share any last thoughts. Only three participants took this 8. Spare parts costs (10,23%) chance. One remark was that a participant thought the list was 1. Identification of the problem (9,09%) too long. Another underlined again the importance of costs of 22. Environmental issues at end of life (9,09%) parts when repairing a product. The last participant indicated the difficulty he had filling this rubric in based on a teardown, Criteria “26. State after repair action” and “22. Environmental and he/she would rather have a specific problem to fill it in. issues at end of life” were known on forehand to be hard to answer because this was hard to see on the video. At least these five, together with the inconsistent criteria, should be improved when creating a next version of the rubric. Which criteria from the new tool can be considered as most valuable repairability criteria? The criteria that the participants thought to be most meaningful in terms of repairability were: 1. Identification of the problem (18,18%) 6. Technical knowledge (12,50%) 35 7. Availability of spare parts (11,36%) IX.5 Discussion 2. Availability of a repair guide (9,09%) The chance of the result being average, so somewhere along 26. State after repair action (7,95%) grade 4, 5 or 6, is present. When looking to the results, hard criteria were often graded with 1 point, which could indicate Interestingly enough, some of the criteria that were hard to that participants went for the middle of road, when they didn’t answer, also seem important. This list can play a role when de- knew the answer. A way to test if this is the case is to perform termine a factor of value that could be added to criteria of the multiple repairability assessments on different devices. Some new rubric. of it even known to be good repairable. If all these devices also score around the average, a solution must be found. One of Which repairability criteria are missing from the cur- the options to come to more difference between the results is rent tool? to give certain criteria a weighting factor. This could be done, No repairability criteria were missing in the new tool. At least, based on the answers on the question “Which two criteria do the suggestions that were put forth were already incorporat- you think are most relevant in determining the reparability of ed in the existing criteria. Only the suggested criterion “Repair the product?” time” was deliberately left out because the answer will be highly depended on skills, and the other criteria that are already incorporated are a direct influence to the factor time. As mentioned before, intermediate results of this survey were discussed with the students during a lecture on repairability. Later on that same day, the same students will use the tool one more time during a ‘Gentle dismantle’ session. The outcomes of this research, will be combined with the outcomes of the discussion during the lecture, and the outcomes of the second product assessment, to come up with points of improvements of the new repairability assessment tool. 36 Appendix X - REPAIRABILITY ADVICES X.1 0-point criteria advices possible, proportional to the nature of the repair. Replac- 1. Make sure the product is designed in a way that it is easy ing a faulty battery of a smartphone for instance, should to identify failures. Especially for failures that are not of an be a 2-step process: removing the backcover, removing obvious nature, like a broken screen. If consumers need the battery. Other examples of repair actions are: chang- 2. specialized equipment, they are less likely to repair the ing tools, prying efforts, unfasten screws, unclip parts, etc. product, because they do not know what is wrong with 11. When using screws in a product design, make sure to it. Supporting the identification of failures can be done by use as little as possible. The more screws used, the more providing troubleshoot information, online or in print. It is time consuming the repair process is. Adviced is to use even better to create fault detection software for example. not more than two screws per part that is fastened with Make sure to provide a repair guide for the product, at screws. least online. Don’t wait for third party websites to create 12. Make sure that the fasteners used are easy to remove. these for you. These repair guides will not be available in Using screws and/or multiple-use snap-fits ensures that time (after product launch) and one cannot assume that no functional or visual damage occurs during disassem- they are written clearly and correctly. This can cause frus- bling. Avoid using solders, adhesives or self-destructing tration among consumers. 3. 4. Warranty may not void because a consumer wants to repair his/her own product. Especially not changing critical the product. When fasteners are unintentionally missed it components, like batteries. could give the impression that the product is not repair- Make sure that repairing the product is doable for people with basic (technical) repair skills. Which means that they 5. 7. 8. 9. able, or it can break the product because it still opened. 14. Make sure that the main parts and components of the have to know how to hold a screwdriver. product are engraved, marked or labelled for quick loca- Make sure to provide spare parts of your products for a tion and/or replacement of malfunctioning items. period of 5 years. 6. fasteners. 13. Make sure screws and other fasteners are clearly visible on 15. There should be low-to-no injury risks involved, when re- The spare parts cannot cost more 10% of the original price pairing the product. Avoid using parts that can excrete of the product, because it reduces the chance for consum- toxic substances by opening or removing them (for ex- ers to buy them. ample through soldering). Also avoid using sharp com- A product should be repairable with as few tools as possi- ponents and the use of sharp tools, like knives and other ble. Preferably with just one tool and/or bare hands. sharp prying tools. A product should be repairable with non-specialized tools. 16. Try to minimize the use of hazardous components. Preferably with basic tools, which the average consumer 17. Make sure to use robust components in the product, has present at home, like flathead and phillips screwdriv- which won’t break easy when repairing. Avoid using com- ers. It will increase the initial repairing costs if consumers ponents that break when touching them, and preferably will need to buy specialized repair tools. also components that break when a screwdrivers fall on it, Make sure that most of the critical components are readily because of clumsy behaviour for example. accessible, preferably all. Critical components are compo- 18. Organise the internal components, fasteners and wiring in nents that tend to fail on the long term, examples are bat- a way that there is a clear distinction between the compo- teries, screens and covers. This can be accomplished by nents, that they do not This can be done by avoiding wires putting these components at the surface of the product, as much as possible, and the wires that are used should under lids. be guided. Another way is to put together components in 10. Make sure to keep the number of repair actions as low as a more module form. 37 19. Give consumers confidence and a pleasurable feeling when repairing the product. This is often done by a com- X.2 1-point criteria advices 1. Make sure the product is designed in a way that it is easy bination of giving adequate repair information, both ex- to identify failures. Especially for failures that are not of an ternal (e.g. repair guides) as internal (e.g. labeling and obvious nature, like a broken screen. This can be done by more subtle use cues), organised internal parts, and easy providing quickly-to-find troubleshoot information, online handling. or in print. It is even better to create fault detection soft- 20. When putting the product back together by a consumer, it should look and feel as if it were a new product. For ex- ware for example. 2. Make sure to provide a repair guide for the product with ample, this can be done by the use of self-locking compo- your product (online or in print). Don’t wait for third par- nents or avoid the need to use of sharp prying tools for ty websites to create these for you. These repair guides disassembly. will not be available in time (after product launch) and one cannot assume that they are written clearly and correctly. This can cause frustration among consumers. 3. Warranty may not void because a consumer wants to repair his/her own product. Especially not changing critical components, like batteries. 4. Make sure that repairing the product is doable for people with basic (technical) repair skills. Which means that they have to know how to hold a screwdriver. 5. Make sure to provide spare parts of your products for a period of 5 years. 6. The spare parts cannot cost more 10% of the original price of the product, because it reduces the chance for consumers to buy them. 7. A product should be repairable with just one tool and bare hands. 8. A product should be repairable with basic tools. Tools that the average consumer has present at home, like flathead and phillips screwdrivers. It will increase the initial repairing costs if consumers will need to buy specialized repair tools. 9. Make sure that critical components are readily accessible. Critical components are components that tend to fail on the long term, examples are batteries, screens and covers. This can be accomplished by putting these components at the surface of the product, under lids. 10. Make sure to keep the number of repair actions as low as possible, proportional to the nature of the repair. Replacing a faulty battery of a smartphone for instance, should be a 2-step process: removing the backcover, removing 38 the battery. Other examples of repair actions are: chang- ternal (e.g. repair guides) as internal (e.g. labeling and ing tools, prying efforts, unfasten screws, unclip parts, etc. more subtle use cues), organised internal parts, and easy 11. When using screws in a product design, make sure to handling. use as little as possible. The more screws used, the more 20. When putting the product back together by a consumer, time consuming the repair process is. Adviced is to use it should look and feel as if it were a new product. For ex- not more than two screws per part that is fastened with ample, this can be done by avoid the need to use of sharp screws. prying tools for disassembly or self-locking components. 12. Make sure that the fasteners used are easy to remove. Using screws and/or multiple-use snap-fits ensures that no functional or visual damage occurs during disassembling. Avoid using solders, adhesives or self-destructing fasteners. 13. Make sure screws and other fasteners are clearly visible on the product. When fasteners are unintentionally missed it could give the impression that the product is not repairable, or it can break the product because it still opened. 14. Make sure that the main parts and components of the product are engraved, marked or labelled for quick location and/or replacement of malfunctioning items. 15. There should be low-to-no injury risks involved, when repairing the product. Avoid using parts that can excrete toxic substances by opening or removing them (for example through soldering). Also avoid using sharp components and the use of sharp tools, like knives and other sharp prying tools. 16. Try to minimize the use of hazardous components. 17. Make sure to use robust components in the product, which won’t break easy when repairing. Avoid using components that break when touching them, and preferably also components that break when a screwdrivers fall on it, because of clumsy behaviour for example. 18. Organise the internal components, fasteners and wiring in a way that there is a clear distinction between the components, that they do not This can be done by avoiding wires as much as possible, and the wires that are used should be guided. Another way is to put together components in a more module form. 19. Give consumers confidence and a pleasurable feeling when repairing the product. This is often done by a combination of giving adequate repair information, both ex- 39