We dread to have our favorite kettles, toasters, mixers, or irons broke. Not only is it hard to repair them, having to let go of something that we liked and was working perfectly fine is also not an easy thing. What comes on top of that is the extra burden to now search for a replacement, compare, evaluate and make the purchase.

Research suggests that people’s purchasing habits are such that they do not like to keep on buying or upgrading all products the same way (Cox et al., 2013). The perceived lifetimes of various products can be broken down into 3 categories,

• Up–to-date products are replaced before they are broken because the consumer perceived them to be out of date. (Eg: Clothes, mobile phones)
• Workhorse products are more in line with the functional durability of the product. (Eg: small appliances, replicable furniture)
• Investment products are perceived as ‘special’ in some way and therefore worth investing in. These are generally expensive products and/or have an emotional connection and can be unique for each consumer. (Eg: Vehicles, or the favorite cooking appliance)

When we are looking to replace these products, our behavior is influenced by a range of factors that affect each category differently (van den Berge et al., 2021). How we value a product is at the core of whether we keep using, repairing, or replacing it.

Here are some of the things to think about when deciding on the fate of such products.

Is it safe to keep on using it is it one of the key questions to ask? If a product breaks down exposing the users to a potential safety hazard, it is out of the question to keep using it. On the other hand, if it is aesthetics or a minor glitch, it makes sense to try out several other solutions. Our current problem is that the product manufacturers are not geared or equipped yet to provide us more options other than buying another brand new or discarding the product entirely (Even though the right to repair movement is gaining traction in some counties it will take some time before it becomes a mainstream practice. )

Here are some of those services in the middle that we should make ourselves ready to accept and considering that these options had been available, are we ready to settle with a less than perfect product but good enough to function on for its intended purpose.

What we can do as consumers and what should we increasingly demand from producers?

Here are some of the things we can do as consumers 

1. Cleaning

At times products are thrown away due to sheer discoloration from use. Fingerprints created with prolonged use, stains that have persisted which may require some specialized knowledge of chemicals to apply are some examples. If a cleaned product provides a renewed appearance for an otherwise functional product, that is worthy to consider.

2. Servicing

Often mechanical equipment is discarded due to their noise while operating. A bit of lubrication and mechanical parts cleaning may be all it needs.

3. Minor repairs

A kettle handle may break or a toaster would have one of the rubber cushioning pads which provides a perfectly flat landing may go missing. The product remains functional but needs additional consideration from the user.

Discarding an item such as this is only the third option, where the first option is to keep using it with additional consideration in operating the product, and the second is whether there is anything that can be done to fix/reduce the effect and use it. If we do not have the mentality of “perfection” in a product to provide us the “perfect convenience” several safe options may be uncovered.

What can manufacturers do,

1. Encourage product care and maintenance.

People only take care of products that can be maintained easily, have the means to repair, and are motivated to keep using the product without replacement. A few strategies to encourage product repair are making the maintenance process enjoyable, less technical, and providing a trigger such as a notification to remind the consumer.

2. Offer product buyback and subscription models

Manufacturers that offer products that are in the up-to-date product category such as mobile phones can offer buyback services that will provide discounts on future purchases. This creates a win-win situation where the customer is satisfied and the manufacturer retains the loyalty of the customer. Offering a product service system and access to services rather than the ownership of the product is another great way to go so that the product remains in use.

3. Provide services for major repairs

This is where the safe use of the product has been compromised or functionally it is inoperable so having it sent to the manufacturer for proper repairs might be the obvious choice. Therefore providing an easy and hassle-free process for customers to receive this service is important.

4. Provide support for minor repairs

Introducing buying options for spare parts for do-it-yourself (DIY) minor repairs and providing repair guides for such are other options, which would come as a value-added service to the product.

5. Testing and certifications

Manufacturers are still far away from refurbishing and recertifying products for reuse giving pre-loved and used products the credibility it requires to create consumer confidence.

If we shift from the “privileged ” mindset that resources are infinite and the notion of “a new product is always within hands reach as long as there is means to afford it”, a whole new set of middle-level consumption options start to appear.

A product’s operability is not always one or zero, there are many in between if we care to notice.

Follow Anvarta for more of these stories and insights.

The post A Product Can Still Be Functional Even Though It Is Imperfect appeared first on Dr Mayuri Wijayasundara.

Dinner sets, tea sets, cutlery, plates, and dishes – You may have received them as a gift or purchased them at your fancy, yet one common thing is that they needed to match, or in other words, be a complete set.

“Match” is a tricky word we usually tend to associate with similar things when it comes to sets of items available in a pack. There is often the tendency to have them in packs of 4, 6, 8, 12, or 18. The bad part about these things coming in a pack is that when one breaks, it creates a feeling of “incompleteness” with the user. Marketing research suggests that people generally prefer to buy things as a package or pack and that is often a strategy used to promote and sell more items by producers.

In one study when participants were presented with a four-pack container, pre-filled with one, two, or three bottles of beer—they overwhelmingly said that they would purchase only the extras needed to fill all four slots, no more and no less (Barasz et al., 2017). The discomfort created by incompleteness is real!

What is likely to happen when a cup of a 4-piece tea set breaks may be different from what happens when a plate of an 18-piece plate set breaks. With the first one, there is the realization that you may not be able to provide tea for a family of four anymore and that may trigger a new purchase of another complete set sooner.

But does the “matching” need to be accomplished with identical designs? Can producers produce somewhat standardized, yet can be differently matched items? Or more importantly, as consumers can we still feel “complete” if we complete a set with mismatched items?

Here are a few things that you can do as a consumer

1. Associate your preference with the item itself, not the matching set

Pick the ones that you like best, and feel free to love them. If you break one, there is no need to lose the whole set, as you still have the option to use what remains.

2. Make it a lifestyle, do not associate with affordability

You may have money to afford a new set, but the temptation you need to manage is whether you should. The happiness you associate with still having the items you liked best, even though it’s imperfect, and the benefit you do to the environment (and the pocket) by not purchasing another should outweigh the trouble of finding another matching set.

3. Declare your choice upfront to visitors and guests

How we will be perceived when serving guests with unmatching cutlery is a concern we might have? Would it be seen as a lack of preparation or respect? But, tackling it is easy – Be bold enough to tell why you do it when you lay out the table or offer tea. You may end up being an ambassador of a message of regeneration.

4. Favor the brands that provide mismatching options that go together

Brands that offer options for mismatching items to match are something to seek and favor in the long run. Sellers need to develop the capability to offer exit to consumers (such as return an earring of a lost pair and get another set) or options to mismatch. Different patterns in the same color, the option to purchase one or many, custom order a replacement at a reasonable price are a few things producers can do to help improve this trend.

5. Gain awareness of alternative sources and schemes to purchase

It is a great idea to know where the local op-shops (or recycled items stores as we call it technically) are at because they may have several mismatched options that match. Using subscription or renting for occasions is another great alternative, where you may even get the chance to find similar matching items without having to own them at all and get a chance to have mismatched sets at your discretion for day-to-day household consumption. If we think about it deeper, a match is what we define and find appealing- rather than a set of identical items. That definition and appreciation is something we all can do, whether we have similar items or not.

Follow Anvarta for more resources for brands and producers on the “Matching does not need to be identical” theme.

The post Matching Does Not Mean Identical appeared first on Dr Mayuri Wijayasundara.

Pic credit: Startupphotos/pexel

We are often faced with alternatives or choices, prompting us to make decisions.

Making a decision implies that there are choices to be considered, and in such a case we want to not only identify as many of these alternatives as possible but to choose the one that best fits with our goals and objectives (Harris,1980).

Circular economy – Leading to complex policy decisions

In making the transition to a circular economy, we replace our current linear practice with a more regenerative alternative.

When such alternatives affect a country or an economy, their decision-making becomes quite complex. Public policy decisions are typically made not only considering criteria such as “value” typically measured through prices or financial indicators but also wider benefit to society such as “environmental quality” and “community well-being”. While some of these are measurable with money or another commodity (CO2 equivalent for example), some are not.

Let’s take an example

To understand the complexity, let’s look at the case study from Iran where there was a decision to be made by the public sector on the best reuse application for wastewater.

Given the geographical location of the country, water is a precious resource. The alternative reuse applications they had to choose between are as follows:

• Agriculture
• Industry
• Landscape
• Groundwater recharge
• Environment use

Here is how the four main criteria and sub-criteria look like when they are laid out.

In a situation like this, selecting the best alternative that is aligned with the criteria can be tricky and that is when decision-making tools come in aid.

A decision problem can have multiple criteria that affect its outcome and each of them could have different units of measure. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) can address the complexity of the problem in these instances.

Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods – Why are they important?

1.   We make decisions without considering all possible impacts.

Using MCDM in decision-making leads to thinking about and considering the impacts which we could have missed otherwise. When you understand the philosophy behind the tool you are able to engage in that line of thinking and observe all the aspects that affect the final decision.

2.   We make decisions not knowing what can be assessed and what cannot.

There is a preconceived idea that these cannot be assessed, or evaluations cannot be done. They surely can be, and sometimes can be incorporated into simple decision-making tools. This is mostly the case for social and environmental aspects as monetisation is not straightforward as cost, where representative numbers can be readily identified for estimations (prices in the market for example)

3.   We make decisions for the wrong reasons.

This is not something MCDM can solve, but if the reason for not considering the right criterion is due to difficulty in assessing – MCDM can help. Due to the lack of knowledge in MCDM some decisions may seem impossible. In these scenarios, decisions are being made for the wrong reasons.

But, today due to the complex nature of decisions made, many measurement tools are being developed to measure these aspects and they can be simpler than what is commonly believed.

How do you actually compare “apples and oranges”?

To understand how these tools work, here is a broad categorization we can use to simply explain.

Let’s draw our attention to multi-criteria decision-making tools and draw the simple analogy of apples and oranges.

1. A single representative indicator derived out of multiple criteria.

All criteria are converted to provide a single representative answer as an aggregated indicator.

Basically, apples are converted to oranges and added to oranges to provide the total no of oranges. Cost-benefit analysis is such a tool, where all criteria are converted to monetary values to produce net present value (monetary) as the final representative result. 

       2. Multiple indicators providing multiple answers 

You will then need to count apples and oranges distinctively and use a method to determine the decision outcome based on what is more important for you. Your decision will vary, based on what you consider as important in a complex setting. 

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one such method where you make the decision by specifying the relative importance of one criterion over another. This is used when there are a finite number of choices are involved. Based on what you specify to be relatively important, the decision will prompt different choices for you. 

When the complexity of problems increase, there may be an infinite number of choices. Then there is an optimisation problem in front of us, for which we will  then need to employ optimisation techniques to find an answer.  

How easy or difficult is it to use these methods?

According to a survey carried out on IT companies, it was found that 71.9% of these companies knew about the existence of Multi-Criteria Decision Making methods while 33.1% used them. As opposed to MCDM methods, traditional financial methods or methods such as cost-benefit analysis were known by 89.5% and used by 74.6%.

When considering the popularity, simple decision-making tools are quite popular while MCDM methods are mostly limited to be used by experts and the academic community. (Ishizaka and Siraj, 2018).

The need for specialised knowledge to choose and apply the complex methods are attributed as reasons for their limited use.

Not only to make decisions right the first time but also to change the course

What needs to be understood is that the decision-making process matters not only at the point of making the decision but also when decisions need to be re-evaluated with the change of circumstances. Laying out a rational and well-connected systematic process helps understand how the varying factors shift the decision output to a different one.

For strategic, long-term decisions and those that affect a bigger community (such as a nation, an economy) the use of these tools is invaluable as the right or wrong decision will leave a legacy that affects generations.

The post Decisions – Wish they were simpler, but they can be simplified! appeared first on Dr Mayuri Wijayasundara.

Picture credit : Pexels_Pixabay

Among a lot of the alternatives that we need to choose in order to move towards a circular, regenerative economy, the most impactful differences come from the redesign of upstream processes. Many of these involve a product or material redesign or larger industrial transformation.

There are some initiatives, which can create quick and easy wins in moving towards a circular economy. Initiatives such as product-service systems let you go a great length in achieving the fundamentals of a circular economy, just with the business model and process innovations.

Product Service Systems

Product-Service Systems (PSS) are defined as “a marketable set of products and services capable of jointly fulfilling a user’s need” (Goedkoop, 1999). The opportunities of application for these are endless while the service offering can be

1. Result-Oriented – Seller sells access to a result that a product generates.
2. Utility-Oriented – Seller sells access to the product for the extent of use.
3. Use-Oriented – Seller sells access to the product over a period of time (e.g., length of use)
4. Product-Oriented – Seller provides the product to the user and sells services to keep the product in use (e.g., access to repair, faulty product replacement)

With each of these options, the buyer and the vendor exercise various degrees of control and bears different types of risks over the same asset (or product) that provides a service to a consumer.

Chemical leasing

When Product Service Systems are applied to chemicals to focus on the performance aspect of it, rather than the chemical product selling, we call it chemical leasing. Chemical leasing provides the freedom to businesses and consumers to form models and business relationships, that focuses on improving the performance desired with the chemical to the user.

What problems does chemical leasing solve?

When it comes to the business of selling chemicals, the chemical supplier intends to make a profit by increasing their sales volumes. The higher the quantities of chemicals being manufactured, used, and sold; the higher the producer’s profits would be. The incentive they have to innovate to improve the performance of the chemical, reduce wastage, and release of waste chemical to the environment is only at their goodwill and discretion, and unlikely to happen with profit tied to the volumes sold.

On the other hand, the chemical user does not want the chemicals, but rather the service that is provided by the chemical. More likely, the user neither has the expertise to know the constituents nor the knowledge to think how to further innovate to reduce its use.

When the objectives of the producer and the user do not go hand in hand, they are in a “tug of war” working on optimizing their own gains as they define it. This is not an optimal solution neither financially or for the system as a whole, environmentally.

Picture credit: TheoRivierenlaan_Pixabay

What benefits does it bring?

Chemical leasing bridges this gap, by shifting the focus of the relationship from “selling the product” to “perform the use intended with the product” and get both the user and producer on one side, and drive them towards a single, unified objective – “increase the performance of the chemical for what it is used for and reduce the use and wastage”

When users only have to pay for the service, the producer being paid for performance is motivated to innovate to increase performance. The better the chemicals perform per unit quantity, the higher the savings are, therefore there is an incentive to improve the performance of chemicals individually, or collaboratively with partners to the upstream of the value chain. This is a unique way to motivate the producers to produce and sell less as their rewards do not decrease.

The chemical leasing model encourages the users and suppliers to break this barrier to come up with innovative and effective solutions together to achieve a common goal and exchange knowledge openly for mutual benefit. Long-term relationships that promote continuous improvement within the industry, providing better performance outcomes, as well as environmental outcomes, are the big pluses.

Additionally, instead of a one product fits all approach chemical leasing enables bespoke products and solutions.

Let’s look at a simple example of painting a house.

The house owner, who wants to have the house painted could buy paint and get a contractor to do it per hour or per job. The paint seller intends to sell more paint to make a higher profit and the left-over paint goes to waste.

If a performance-based approach is used, a contractor could be hired to pay per area painted. Chemical management is then carried out by the contractor providing the performance of the product. The contractor in this instance would urge the paint manufacturer to innovate further to increase the performance of the product per mass. , there is a strong incentive for innovation for product performance enhancement within.

More importantly, how the service for maintenance happens overtime can be tied up to the model. The supplier could provide maintenance to keep the product performance at a high-level with only the use of necessary chemicals. If there is an opportunity to recycle the chemicals at end of life, the supplier who has information of the product, know-how, and access to a network of specialists would do it than the consumer who makes a one-time purchase.

For a better understanding of the benefits of chemical leasing, let’s look at a real case study.

Evidence on how chemical leasing works

Chemical leasing was applied to washing machine manufacturing painting operations. The company, Delta Electrical Equipment (DEA), had control over the painting process which is important for high quality and durable products.

In order to achieve a high quality and durable washing machine, the painting process includes;

1. Surface treatment
2. Electro-deposition coating
3. Electrostatic powder coating

It is evident significant performance outcomes, financial outcomes, as well as environmental outcomes, can be achieved through this model through reduced and more effective, and efficient chemical use. According to this example, the supplier was motivated to go for standards like REACH, creating ripple effects along the supply chain.

For more, case studies can be found on the UNIDO chemical leasing website for inspiration.

When we look back at some innovations, there are some obvious advantages that outweigh risks or challenges very easily. A look into our future, we could ask ourselves why we did not do these sooner.

The post Chemical leasing – A performance-based business model towards a circular economy appeared first on Dr Mayuri Wijayasundara.