Pre-Print Version – a Final Version of This Draft Was Published As
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Pre-print version – A final version of this draft was published as Hielscher, Sabine; Jaeger-Erben, Melanie; Poppe, Erik (2020): Modular smartphones and circular design strategies: The shape of things to come? In: Tudor, T., & Dutra, C. J. (Hg.): The Routledge Handbook of Waste, Resources and the Circular Economy.: Routledge, S. 337–349. Modular smartphones and circular design strategies: The shape of things to come? Sabine Hielscher, Melanie Jaeger-Erben, Erik Poppe Technische Universität Berlin Modular smartphones and circular design strategies It is widely acknowledged that transitions towards a circular economy (CE) are based on the complementary development of circular business models and design strategies (Stahel 2016, Agrawal/ Bellos 2016, Bocken et al. 2017, Ellen McArthur Foundation 2018). Among the most prominent design strategies are modular product architectures that break products down into components that can be independently and easily replaced or reused (Agrawal/ Ülkü 2013, Proske et al. 2016). Modular product designs have been around for over 50 years (Starr 1965). In the beginning, it was mainly seen as an opportunity to decrease lead times in the production process and later, it became a means to offer customized products to the masses. It was only with the upcoming of the CE debate in the last decade that modular product designs are linked to more sustainable consumption patterns. From the perspective of producers and manufacturers, modularity allows an extension and simplification of services, since modules can be replaced easier in case of malfunctions and/ or upgraded in case of changing customer needs or technological advancements. In addition, the product’s storage and redistribution can become more straightforward. Some authors also see modularity as an enabler of innovations (Ulrich 1995, Baldwin/ Clark 1997). Much research on modular product designs focuses on smartphones. Smartphones are considered a suitable product to make use of the advantages derived from modular designs. They offer a wide functionality spectrum that can be translated into independent modules or components. Moreover, due to relatively short replacement cycles, the lifetimes of smartphones could potentially be lengthened if only modules a replaced. Surveys have shown that smartphones are used on average no longer than two to two and a half years (Jaeger- Erben/ Hipp 2018, Wieser/ Tröger 2018). The majority of smartphones still work when being replaced (ibid.). The reasons for their replacement often relate to functional aspects of the phone (e.g. too small storage space) or personal aspects (e.g. a general appreciation of ‘newness’ by the owner. Modular concept ideas for smartphones became popular with the Phonebloks around 2013. The design was based on a fully modular and upgradeable smartphone. Although the design idea received much attention and inspired other attempts to develop modular smartphone 1 concepts, it was never commercially implemented. Other attempts have focused on upgradeability and personalization, such as project ARA, a prototype of a modular phone by Motorola and later Google. It was developed to a high degree but never entered the market. The first devices with a modular design that have entered the market are the Fairphone 2 and SHIFT6m. These designs mainly focus on easy reparability and thereby the restoration of the device’s functions and possible upgrades for the phone. In contrast, a more dynamic modularity design strategy would allow for a flexible use of a diverse set of parts and modules (as intended by the Phonebloks concept). Within these technological developments, questions about whether smartphone users would make use of easy to repair and upgrade smartphones are never really reflected upon. It seems reasonable to assume that the appropriate type of modular design differs depending on people’s use patterns. So far, much of the literature concentrates on the producers and retailers of modular products. Although a variety of forms of modularity have been investigated, there are only a few empirical examinations of how people domesticate (i.e. take up and use) modular smartphones in their daily life. From our point of view, understanding the historical developments of smartphone designs and existing user practices with smartphones is key to developing notions of modularity as a sustainable design strategy and business model options for a CE. What actually is a ‘modular’ user? This question goes beyond a mere examination of the public acceptance of modular devices. Sustainable consumption potentials only come into play if the devices widely diffuse and are used in accordance with the design strategies in mind (e.g. repairing the phone). Modular devices do not only require users to accept the phone but also specific competences and skills (e.g. knowledge of repair and upgrade options), values (e.g. desire to keep phone for long periods), and willingness for more frequent interactions with product service providers (e.g. upgrade services). Proske and Jaeger-Erben (2019) have discussed the relations between different types of modularity and people’s use patterns and their potentials for prolonging the use time of products. They have described four different types of modularity focused on functionality aspects: 1) maintenance that allows easy repair; 2) adaptation, which allows for customization and a better fit to people’s needs; 3) upgradability that enables a replacement of components; 4) expandability that makes it possible to add new components. All four forms of modularity have the potential to increase the longevity of a device, since components can be replaced or added instead of buying a completely new product. Repair services could work more efficiently if components can be replaced more easily. People might feel more attached to their products if the functions fit better to the needs. The possibility to ‘downsize’ a product could enable a sufficient use of smartphones. Proske and Jaeger-Erben (2019) have also discussed possible risks and rebound effects ranging from decreased technological reliabilities of the modular device to overburdening the user because of the need to spend more time ‘to get to know’ the phone. While their considerations are conceptual and focus on the ecological efficiency of modular smartphones, in this chapter, we investigate the role of modularity in existing smartphone use patterns and delve into some 2 empirical examples of how people live with their phones in everyday life. We will investigate modularity as a socio-technical arrangement embedded into people’s everyday life. Section 2 considers the historical socio-technical evolution of mobile phones to show how the co-shaping of technological and consumer trends and patterns of product (service) designs do not provide an easy starting point for the modularity of smartphones in a CE. Section 3 delves more deeply into the media studies literature and into three empirical cases to be able to better understand potentials for the different types of modularity. Section 4 discusses how the three contrasting empirical cases of smartphone use reveal that different forms of modular designs and accompanying services would need to be implemented to move towards a more sustainable consumption of smartphones. The final section offers preliminary conclusions, reflecting on how an efficient and sufficient use of modularity as a part of transitions towards a CE cannot be enabled by modular product designs and services alone. A brief history of the socio-technical developments of mobile phones In this section, we present the results derived from an analysis of the socio-technical evolution of mobile phones. Not surprisingly, there is much to be said about the historical developments of mobile communication technologies (Huurdeman 2003, Agar 2013, Martin/ Garcia-Swartz 2015). In order to limit the scope of this history, this section gives only a brief outline of these developments, particularly concentrating on the design developments and imagined use patterns of mobile phones. We aim to show that the developments of mobile phone designs do not provide an easy starting point for the modularity of smartphones in a CE. History shows that the convergence of different mobile communication technologies has always been accompanied by a stronger integration of the devices and not by modularization. The evolution of a new technology (1861 - 1990) The first telephone invented by Graham Bell and much later its mobile phone version were not an instant success. Innovators often did not know what type of innovation they had developed. „Alexander Graham Bell was so convinced his pioneering telephone would be such an unwanted intrusion that he initially promoted his invention in the 1880s at expositions and fairs as an entertainment system that conveyed music and theatrical performances over headphones to those who couldn’t afford to buy tickets to the real thing” (McNish/ Silcoff 2015:516). The example shows an inherent characteristic observable in all emerging technological fields that products do not appear out of the blue and always evolve in the interplay between innovators (producer) and lead users. While the ‘knowing-how’ creates the basis for certain technologies, the ‘knowing-what’ or ‘what for’ is about the successful identification of its use and function. Technological innovations are best to be understood as an evolutionary process (Eger/ Ehlhardt 2018), where user expectations, use patterns and acceptance are crucial and