Make it repairable

2024

For my Master’s thesis, we developed a novel, user-centric framework that bridges the gap between user insights and organizational actions that enable repairability. By mapping user needs and organizational solutions throughout a user journey and integrating technical, service, and managerial solutions, the framework empowers design teams to make strategic, sustainable decisions, ultimately driving green innovation through user-driven repairability.

Product

Framework & physical toolkit

My role

Co-project & design lead

Contributions

Academic research and writing, QUANT/QUAL research methods, stakeholder management, market segmentation and personas, framework design, toolkit design.

Duration

5 months

Contributors

Lovisa Persson, Ella F. Söderlund

Problem and brief

Our research revealed a critical gap: organizations lacked a clear, actionable way to design repairable products effectively. This gap is further emphasized by the increasing regulatory pressure, including upcoming EU legislation on the Right to Repair and the European Green Deal, which mandates greater product circularity. While numerous repair techniques exist, there is no systematic way to connect user needs to specific solutions and prioritize them. This resulted in missed opportunities for user-driven, sustainable product innovation solutions, and the key brief was set: Develop a product design strategy framework for enhanced DIY repairability of consumer products using portfolio categorization and repair principles.

We developed a comprehensive framework that integrates 17 key user factors, categorized into Identity, Gains vs. Sacrifice, Expectation, Non-material, and Material, with corresponding organizational solutions. This framework is anchored in a 13-stage user journey, divided into Predisposition, Event, and Repair phases, to guide design decisions, service solutions, and organizational strategies for enhanced product repairability.

A framework making repairs accessible for teams across industries. All based on one user & product journey.

This framework covers new ground by exploring a combined user and product journey in one – It combines existing methods for product design, service design, and knowledge on user attitudes toward repair, and connects user needs with the appropriate support at each stage of the journey.

What’s included

A new type of user journey with 13 stages and three phases, from Need is realized to a finalized repair cycle.

Persona templates with examples of how to turn an ordinary persona into a repair persona.

User repair factors – influencing the likelihood of a user opting for and finalizing a repair, and Organizational repair factors – ways for the company offering the product to support the user in opting for and finalizing a repair, each connecting to a set of user factors.

A repair matrix highlighting the connection between what the user need and what the organization should provide.

The client Dometic and their user group.

We partnered with Dometic, a leading outdoor product manufacturer, to explore enhancing product repairability and circularity. Our research encompassed three key user groups: Dometic’s diverse B2B and B2C customers across five product categories, internal Dometic teams (Product Design, Operations, Sales), and our consultancy partner, Knightec.

What is so challenging about designing for repair today?

The pre-study and literature study were conducted on 65+ written works touching on the areas relevant for repairability. This includes behaviour psychology, circular design, product architecture, design methodologies and much more.

These are the main challenges

Complexity in Repairability – The field of repairability is highly complex, involving multiple disciplines such as product design methodologies, system and service design, behavioral psychology, and legislation. This complexity makes it challenging to develop clear, actionable strategies.

Bridging the Gap Between Principles –Technical Solutions, and User Behavior – There is a lack of a structured approach to connect repairability principles, technical solutions, and user behavior. Organizations struggle to integrate repairability into their strategies without an effective way to prioritize based on user segments and product types.

Supporting DIY and Partially Supported Repairs – Users who engage in Do-It-Yourself or semi-supported repairs require a high level of organizational support. Understanding what users truly need to successfully complete a repair remains a key challenge.

Meeting the users and understanding how repairs fit into their daily lives.

This is a major user study, guiding us through the framework design and is the foundation for the recognized exceptional findings.

We conducted a multi-method user research study to explore camping behaviors, repairability attitudes, and organizational needs with 90+ induviduals, this included:

- On-site interviews at a major camping exhibition.
- In-depth interviews exploring user behaviors and repair attitudes including the use of trigger material.
- A small-scale online survey to validate key findings.
- Expert interviews with Dometic stakeholders to understand organizational needs and strategic alignment.

To explain a super complex subject in a super concise way, these are the key findings:

Camping style and repair attitudes align and change over time – Life changes impact the camper’s view on what is important, but the main values remain. We decided to create personas based on the life changes to map out how views, age, and experiences impact repair aspects.

Repair behavior is shaped by numerous external and internal factors – Personal values, social networks, and accessibility, with identity, knowledge, and confidence influencing willingness to repair. Barriers include cost, time, technical knowledge, and spare part availability, while emotional and practical drivers, social support, and product reliance affect repair decisions–especially differing between campsite and off-grid campers.

Even when the drive is there, the lack of tools is a blocker – Dometic recognizes the importance of repairability but lacks the tools and frameworks to implement it effectively. They are committed to bringing user-centricity to the forefront of their product development. Empowering individuals within the organization can drive change.

The insights lead to the creation of 9 personas, the first link between identity and repairs. The personas are a major key in developing the framework. Not only are they an excellent way for Dometic to identify with their customers, but also a way for the first time, to link their identities as people and campers to their repair persona. The 9 personas are structured as a matrix based on the camping insights and described as a camping x product x repair matrix.

The process of designing the framework and determining the factors–The Key decisions.

User Journey as the Central Framework – We anchored the framework in a 13-stage user journey to map how user factors evolve and require tailored support across different phases. This allowed us to effectively translate deep user research into actionable design and organizational strategies, and to map out how the different personas would act. This was a critical choice, as we recognized that repair attitudes and needs vary significantly depending on the user’s stage in the repair process.

Holistic Journey Approach – We deliberately broadened the user journey beyond traditional models, emphasizing the ’Predisposition’ phase. This decision stemmed from our research, which highlighted the strong influence of past experiences and expectations on repair decisions. By incorporating this phase, we ensured a comprehensive understanding of the user’s journey and how to influence their repair choices.

Categorizing User Factors for Actionable Insights – We decided to categorize the 17 user factors into five distinct categories–Identity, Gains vs. Sacrifice, Expectation, Non-material, and Material. This categorization was critical because it allowed us to identify patterns and relationships between factors, making them more actionable for design teams. For example, understanding the ’Identity’ category helped us tailor communication and support to align with users’ personal values and repair motivations.

Integrating Organizational Solutions Across the Journey – A crucial design decision was to integrate organizational solutions (design, service, and brand) directly into each stage of the user journey. This ensured that repairability was not just a product feature, but a holistic experience. For instance, in the ’Predisposition’ phase, we focused on organizational solutions that built trust and communicated the value of repair, such as clear repair logistics and accessible information.

The process was highly iterative but can be summarised as a few highlights.

We employed an iterative design process, rigorously testing our framework—including user factors, journey stages, and organizational solutions—against our detailed personas and user groups. Additionally, we conducted a workshop with fellow designers to test and refine the framework, incorporating their feedback into subsequent iterations. This ensured the framework’s practical applicability, user-centricity, and design validity.