Through the SMARC project, the CI team developed a number of new ideas in connection with the NBE. Some key ones are recorded below.
- We built a CPS that really demonstrated systems-thinking. We demonstrated how systems can be improved by applying cybernetic thinking.
- We applied a cybernetic lens to the problem and fed that into the solution.
- We recognised that the recycling system was broken. There was no feedback to the recycling system that it was not working.
- Critical systems heuristics – each actor was drawing the boundaries very discreetly and not worrying about what happened next. SMARC sought to bring all these together.
Avoid Techno-solutioning
Firstly, as part of the NBE, a key role of practitioners is to guard against techno-solutionising and only build CPSs in response to an identified need for a technological intervention. This reflection played a central role in the time we spent brainstorming ideas for our project. We conducted extensive research into other areas of CI need, including water resources, water management in the home, and the decommissioning of industrial infrastructure. In each of these cases, we arrived at a realisation that the identified problems in these spaces were best addressed by solutions other than technological ones – such as regulation changes or emission reduction and environmental management strategies.
It was not until we started considering e-waste and actually speaking with stakeholders in the sector that we developed a problem space, into which a technological solution fitted neatly and effectively. Once we had a clear understanding of the e-waste system and particularly the issues at the point of collection and how this impacted downstream processes, the design of SMARC actually flowed quite readily. In itself, this was a lesson that sometimes the best CPS designs will arise naturally once you develop a clear understanding of the problem space. This is a helpful lesson and approach to keep in mind to guard against techno-solutioning.
From the above, we can see that two sub-lessons emerge in relation to our experiences seeking to avoid techno-solutioning, that is that, to do so requires practitioners to: think broadly and consult widely.
Consider the role of CPS that are already in the market
This is somewhat of an extension of point 1. The idea being, you don’t have to build something entirely new. It is possible to achieve the same or similar result by building on what is already there.
With SMARC, there are similar CPS in the market but they do not seem to be effective. This appears to be attributable, at least in part, to the fact the existing solutions have not been scaled to be deliverable and usable at a household level. They are largely designed for big corporations, looking to recycle their e-waste. In addition, they do not grapple with the larger systems issues that are getting in the way of more effective e-waste systems. With SMARC, we wanted to challenge these previous approaches by attempting something on a grander scale, albeit using simpler technology.
Consult widely with stakeholders and experts
Within the confines of the Build assignment, we consulted relatively broadly in arriving at our CPS idea and design. In the ideation phase, we consulted with experts in water (including Katherine and Hannah) and also on e-waste (ANZRP, Clean Earth Technologies, SMART Factories UNSW).
CPS are all about inter-connectivity – so think about the relationship with other CPS and technology (including legacy systems)
This is a key contribution to the NBE arising from the SMARC project and was central to the CPS purpose – namely, how will the CPS interact with other technology? Given that CPS are all about interaction and interoperability with other technology and CPS, we think this is crucial. Our project did this in a number of ways.
SMARC and interoperability/complimentary functions with existing CPSs
Firstly, one of the key objectives of the CPS we designed was to support the development of microfactories to bring them online from their current prototype stage. Microfactories are an amazing technology with the potentially to dramatically reform our approach to recycling. They are capable of taking an e-waste item and processing it to the point that the elements used in its construction can be extracted in their elemental form. For example, a phone can be turned into separate lumps of the metals it contains like aluminium, gold, silver and platinum. And the ceramics used in the screen can also be isolated. By providing a steady and economically viable supply of good quality and sorted e-waste direct to microfactories, SMARC is designed to benefit and bring online this CPS. There is even the potential for the interactions between the SMARC CPS and the Microfactory CPS to be automated.
SMARC and legacy systems – enabling cradle to cradle economies
Another example of how SMARC interacted with existing technologies is more fundamental. SMARC is focussed on ensuring the effective recycling of technology products that were not necessarily designed with a focus on decommissioning. Another way this could be looked at is, how does the prototype CPS being developed engage with legacy technology systems? Namely is it going to create new problems between technological systems or does it interact with them in a considered and effective way. SMARC interacts with existing legacy systems by helping them be broken down and turned into whole new products.
In this way, SMARC (particularly when implemented alongside MicroFactories) enables the goals of a cradle to cradle design economy or a circular economy to be achieved, despite the fact that cradle to cradle design principles were not observed by the designers of technological products.
Understand the CPS environment to identify other levers for change within the system
Given the approach taken from the outset to avoid techno-solutioning, our entire approach was geared around understanding the environment into which SMARC was being designed. There is an important lesson for the NBE here around maintaining awareness of the CPS environment and remaining alert to other levers for change within the system.
In this regard, we were greatly assisted by the Practice assessments which drew our attention to the regulatory environment that would govern SMARC in Australia. This process allowed us to understand some significant limitations in the regulatory model, which would impede the efficacy of SMARC. For example, only manufacturers of televisions, computers and computer peripherals are required to contribute funding to e-waste recycling schemes; it is not mandatory to recycle e-waste and it can be sent to landfill; there are incomplete measures in place to ensure the availability of e-waste recycling to all parties.
Through this process we came to see how, to ensure SMARC achieved its full potential, it needed to be implemented along with other systems interventions that were non-tech based. Accordingly, in the material we have presented, including the video, we have stressed the need for regulatory reform alongside SMARC – particularly to ban e-waste from being sent to landfill and mandate that it be recycled.
Always consider accessibility
One of our guiding principles in this project was to build a CPS that is accessible in terms of cost and usability, while still being effective for the desired task. In our research, we identified a number of tech devices that show incredible promise in tackling e-waste, but involve a significant investment in infrastructure, computing or other supporting materials. Or they were proprietary in nature. In light of the growing threat of e-waste and the issues around rare earth materials, we are seeking to create a solution that is cheap to build and run – so that can be available to all countries and communities. In addition, we are seeking to ensure it is interoperable with the prototype MicroFactories being developed at UNSW, which take a revolutionary approach to recycling.