IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i14p8634-d862939.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Design Aspects in Repairability Scoring Systems: Comparing Their Objectivity and Completeness

Author

Listed:
  • Sagar Dangal

    (Industrial Design Engineering, TU Delft, Landbergstraat 15, 2628CE Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Jeremy Faludi

    (Industrial Design Engineering, TU Delft, Landbergstraat 15, 2628CE Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Ruud Balkenende

    (Industrial Design Engineering, TU Delft, Landbergstraat 15, 2628CE Delft, The Netherlands)

Abstract

The Circular Economy Action Plan adopted by the European Commission aims to keep value in products as long as possible through developing product-specific requirements for durability and repairability. In this context, various scoring systems have been developed for scoring product repairability. This study assessed the objectivity and completeness of six major repair scoring systems, to see what further development may be required to make them policy instruments for testing product repairability. Completeness of the scoring systems was assessed by comparing them to the latest literature on what design features and principles drive product repairability. Objectivity was determined by assessing whether the scoring levels in each criterion were clearly defined with a quantifiable and operator-independent testing method. Results showed that most of the criteria in the scoring systems were acceptably objective and complete. However, improvements are recommended: The health and safety criterion lacked objectivity and has not yet been fully addressed. Further research is required to expand the eDiM database, and to identify whether the additional accuracy provided by eDiM compared to disassembly step compensates for the increased difficulty in testing. Finally, assessment of reassembly and diagnosis should be expanded. Addressing these gaps will lead to the development of a scoring system that could be better used in policymaking, and for assessment by consumer organizations, market surveillance authorities, and other interested stakeholders, to promote the repairability of products.

Suggested Citation

  • Sagar Dangal & Jeremy Faludi & Ruud Balkenende, 2022. "Design Aspects in Repairability Scoring Systems: Comparing Their Objectivity and Completeness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:14:p:8634-:d:862939
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/14/8634/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/14/8634/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Perera, H. S. C. & Nagarur, Nagen & Tabucanon, Mario T., 1999. "Component part standardization: A way to reduce the life-cycle costs of products," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 109-116, April.
    2. Sasha Shahbazi & Anna Karin Jönbrink, 2020. "Design Guidelines to Develop Circular Products: Action Research on Nordic Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-14, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hamidreza Habibollahi Najaf Abadi & Jeffrey W. Herrmann & Mohammad Modarres, 2023. "Measuring and Indexing the Durability of Electrical and Electronic Equipment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-23, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sasha Shahbazi & Kerstin Johansen & Erik Sundin, 2021. "Product Design for Automated Remanufacturing—A Case Study of Electric and Electronic Equipment in Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Davide Bruno & Marinella Ferrara & Felice D’Alessandro & Alberto Mandelli, 2022. "The Role of Design in the CE Transition of the Furniture Industry—The Case of the Italian Company Cassina," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Thyssen, Jesper & Israelsen, Poul & Jorgensen, Brian, 2006. "Activity-based costing as a method for assessing the economics of modularization--A case study and beyond," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 252-270, September.
    4. Diana Blagu & Denisa Szabo & Diana Dragomir & Călin Neamțu & Daniela Popescu, 2022. "Offering Carbon Smart Options through Product Development to Meet Customer Expectations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-21, August.
    5. Ming-Liang Li, 2021. "Standardizing Components and Rotating Workers Using GT-Based Algorithm—A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-17, July.
    6. Jeff Mangers & Meysam Minoufekr & Peter Plapper & Sri Kolla, 2021. "An Innovative Strategy Allowing a Holistic System Change towards Circular Economy within Supply-Chains," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.
    7. Qi Wang & Dunbing Tang & Shipei Li & Jun Yang & Miguel A. Salido & Adriana Giret & Haihua Zhu, 2019. "An Optimization Approach for the Coordinated Low-Carbon Design of Product Family and Remanufactured Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-22, January.
    8. Jonas Keller & Carla Scagnetti & Stefan Albrecht, 2022. "The Relevance of Recyclability for the Life Cycle Assessment of Packaging Based on Design for Life Cycle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-13, March.
    9. Thyssen, Jesper & Israelsen, Poul & Jørgensen, Brian, 2005. "Activity Based Costing as a method for assessing the economics of modularization - a case study and beyond," Management Accounting Research Group Working Papers M-2005-04, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Business Studies.
    10. Constantin Torcătoru & Dan Săvescu & Angela Repanovici, 2022. "Literature Review by Scientometric Methods on the Impact of the Circular Economy on Sustainable Industrial Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-16, April.
    11. Ludovic F. Dumée, 2022. "Circular Materials and Circular Design—Review on Challenges Towards Sustainable Manufacturing and Recycling," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 9-23, March.
    12. Marcin Relich & Arkadiusz Gola & Małgorzata Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek, 2022. "Identifying Improvement Opportunities in Product Design for Reducing Energy Consumption," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-19, December.
    13. Eva Labro, 2004. "The Cost Effects of Component Commonality: A Literature Review Through a Management-Accounting Lens," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 6(4), pages 358-367, June.
    14. Peri, Giorgia & Traverso, Marzia & Finkbeiner, Matthias & Rizzo, Gianfranco, 2012. "The cost of green roofs disposal in a life cycle perspective: Covering the gap," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 406-414.
    15. Siri Willskytt, 2021. "Design of Consumables in a Resource-Efficient Economy—A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-26, January.
    16. Muna Adilah & Hsin Rau & Katrina Mae Procopio, 2023. "Using an Axiomatic Design Approach to Develop a Product Innovation Process with Circular and Smart Design Aspects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-24, January.
    17. Julie Kamp Albæk & Sasha Shahbazi & Tim C. McAloone & Daniela C. A. Pigosso, 2020. "Circularity Evaluation of Alternative Concepts During Early Product Design and Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-25, November.
    18. Jans, Raf & Degraeve, Zeger & Schepens, Luc, 2008. "Analysis of an industrial component commonality problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 801-811, April.
    19. Fu Haw Ho & Salwa Hanim Abdul-Rashid & Raja Ariffin Raja Ghazilla & Yoke Ling Woo, 2019. "Resources Sustainability through Material Efficiency Strategies: An Insight Study of Electrical and Electronic Companies," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-16, June.
    20. Hong Xue & Shoujian Zhang & Yikun Su & Zezhou Wu, 2018. "Capital Cost Optimization for Prefabrication: A Factor Analysis Evaluation Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-22, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:14:p:8634-:d:862939. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.