| Title | Design Aspects in Repairability Scoring Systems: Comparing Their Objectivity and Completeness |
|---|---|
| ID_Doc | 22717 |
| Authors | Dangal, S; Faludi, J; Balkenende, R |
| Title | Design Aspects in Repairability Scoring Systems: Comparing Their Objectivity and Completeness |
| Year | 2022 |
| Published | Sustainability, 14.0, 14 |
| 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. |
Similar Articles
| ID | Score | Article |
|---|---|---|
6104
|
Ruiz-Pastor, L; Mesa, JA Proposing an integrated indicator to measure product repairability(2023) | |
| 6985
|
Flipsen, B; Bakker, C; van Bohemen, G Developing a Reparability Indicator for Electronic Products(2016) | |
| 23699
|
Bracquené, E; Peeters, J; Alfieri, F; Sanfélix, J; Duflou, J; Dewulf, W; Cordella, M Analysis of evaluation systems for product repairability: A case study for washing machines(2021) | |
| 20758
|
Sierra-Fontalvo, L; Polo-Cardozo, J; Maury-Ramírez, H; Mesa, JA Diagnosing remanufacture potential at product-component level: A disassemblability and integrity approach(2024) | |
| 26686
|
Barros, M; Dimla, E Smartphone repairability indexes in practice: Linking repair scores to industrial design features(2023)Journal Of Industrial Ecology, 27, 3 | |
| 21641
|
Russell, JD; Svensson-Hoglund, S; Richter, JL; Dalhammar, C; Milios, L A matter of timing: System requirements for repair and their temporal dimensions(2023)Journal Of Industrial Ecology, 27.0, 3 |