This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

'Right to repair' gathers force

I'd be interested to canvas other members views on this. My view is "about time" - not for consumers to mend appliances themselves, but for appliances to be designed and manufactured for long service lives. My perspective comes from experience in three different manufacturing industries where longevity was a given, our products were expected to be serviceable for 20 years, and in practice typically lasted considerably more - 30, 40, 50 years. I get very frustrated if a piece of domestic equipment fails in an unserviceable way after, say, 5 years - recently happened with our gas cooker (which was actually pretty naff from day one). Then of course there's the electronic equipment that fails just after the warranty expires - I'd suggest that's completely unacceptable from a resource point of view. We know a huge amount now about design for reliability and design for serviceability, from an ethical point of view shouldn't we be applying this more?


I'm glad to see this article also considers the question of whether we should be encouraged to replace perfectly serviceable equipment in the name of energy efficiency. As it states, this all depends whether the energy expended in producing the equipment and disposing of the old equipment could actually exceeds the potential saving - which I suspect it often does.  


Cheers, Andy
Parents
  • Hi Roger,


    I do totally agree - I've sadly in the past, as Product Owner, had to take the decision to discontinue support for my company's products because the cost of re-engineering spare parts (circuit boards) to use available components was almost equivalent to designing a complete new unit - and the customer simply wasn't happy to pay that price. Although equally there has been at least one memorable occasion when they did.


    It's reaching a sensible compromise between on the one hand making things unnecessarily hard to repair, and having an unnecessarily short service life, and on the other expecting the earth of manufacturers. I always think back to my Mk III Escort which I replaced with a 1988 model Corolla. Cars aimed at an identical market, with a pretty similar selling price, but the former kept breaking down and was a pig to work on, the latter was ridiculously reliable, and when it did need repair was (as much as any car is) mostly a pleasure to work on - certainly routine servicing was much easier. (I did all my own repairs and servicing in those days, including an engine rebuild on that blessed Escort.) The difference was the thought that went into the design of the two cars.


    So it's very difficult to enforce, as it's all about ensuring a certain culture and attitude in the D&D and production engineering teams in any manufacturer, and how do test whether they have truly considered the best options about what will happen to the product outside the warranty period? (Other than disposal which is covered by WEEE.)


    Thanks,


    Andy
Reply
  • Hi Roger,


    I do totally agree - I've sadly in the past, as Product Owner, had to take the decision to discontinue support for my company's products because the cost of re-engineering spare parts (circuit boards) to use available components was almost equivalent to designing a complete new unit - and the customer simply wasn't happy to pay that price. Although equally there has been at least one memorable occasion when they did.


    It's reaching a sensible compromise between on the one hand making things unnecessarily hard to repair, and having an unnecessarily short service life, and on the other expecting the earth of manufacturers. I always think back to my Mk III Escort which I replaced with a 1988 model Corolla. Cars aimed at an identical market, with a pretty similar selling price, but the former kept breaking down and was a pig to work on, the latter was ridiculously reliable, and when it did need repair was (as much as any car is) mostly a pleasure to work on - certainly routine servicing was much easier. (I did all my own repairs and servicing in those days, including an engine rebuild on that blessed Escort.) The difference was the thought that went into the design of the two cars.


    So it's very difficult to enforce, as it's all about ensuring a certain culture and attitude in the D&D and production engineering teams in any manufacturer, and how do test whether they have truly considered the best options about what will happen to the product outside the warranty period? (Other than disposal which is covered by WEEE.)


    Thanks,


    Andy
Children
No Data