4.5 Article

Economic consequences of consumer repair strategies for electrical household devices

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENTERPRISE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Volume 33, Issue 4, Pages 747-767

Publisher

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/JEIM-12-2018-0283

Keywords

Household appliances; Consumer behaviour; Repair; Circular economy; Life cycle cost

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate to what extent a consumer's repair strategy impacts the annual costs of ownership of a washing machine and two types of vacuum cleaner. Design/methodology/approach - The annual cost of ownership is determined by calculating the annual life cycle cost (LCC) for the respective devices. The annual LCCs of the different scenarios allow a comparison of the different repair strategy options. A Monte Carlo simulation is run to introduce parameter variability. The device's failure rate is estimated by a combination of data sets on the devices' performance. Findings - Results demonstrate that the repair of the devices considered is a more favourable option over replacement. A consumer who aims for the lowest annual LCC should allow for a high number of repairs per device, without putting a maximum on the cost per repair. However, the consumer should become more cautious when a device approaches the end of its expected lifetime. Finally, the purchase of warranty can be interesting when the warranty covers a sufficiently long proportion of the device's (expected) lifetime and when its cost does not exceed a threshold proportion of the initial purchase price. Research limitations/implications - The costs for repair might be overestimated. Future research can focus on the reduction of repair costs following self-repair. Originality/value - This is the first research to quantify the influence of consumer behaviour in the context of repair of devices on the ownership costs of these devices.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available