Cited by 38Life Cycle Costing AnalysisSustainable Supply Chain ManagementReliability and Maintenance Optimization

Economic consequences of consumer repair strategies for electrical household devices

Brusselaers, Jan, Bracquene, Ellen, Peeters, Jef, Dams, Yoko·2020·Journal of Enterprise Information Management

Abstract

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. Practical implications The results provide strong arguments in favour of repair instead of replacement of broken devices. Ori…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/jeim-12-2018-0283

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brusselaers, J., Bracquene, E., Peeters, J., & Dams, Y.
Affiliations
  • Flemish Institute for Technological Research (BE)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
Venue
Journal of Enterprise Information Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2019-11-13
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
747-767
ISSN
1741-0398 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2988208766
Cited by
38
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
10.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Enterprise Information Management (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Life Cycle Costing Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Reliability and Maintenance Optimization
Keywords
repair versus replacement, life cycle cost, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, failure rate estimation, repair costs, consumer behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review