Developing Flexible Risk Management Systems for Resilience in a Post-pandemic World: Can Lessons from a Makerspace Case Study Support Pacific Island Communities?

The Pacific Island region is characterized by people who have a reverent focus on family (Corbett, 2015; Paterson et al., 2008), a strong desire to overcome the local issues experienced when living in these locations (McNamara et al., 2022) and an emphasis on indigenous knowledge that supports and underpins resilience within local communities (McMillen et al., 2014). Recent challenges experienced by Pacific people include the impacts of climate change (Barnett, 2001) and subsequent threats to food security (McNamara et al., 2022), natural disasters such as tsunami (Lauer et al., 2013), negative economic growth arguably exacerbated by globalization (Gounder & Xayavong, 2002), the management of finite resources (e.g. see Johannes, 2002), and limited access to education, particularly for an increasing young demographic (United Nations, 2020). When challenges like these occur, the Pacific Island people are left to choose how to survive, recover, and put in place strategies to limit or eliminate the impact of future events.

Flexible systems refer to systems that are adaptable to changes, be it environmental or social, and respond effectively to these changes (Shukla et al., 2019). In the Pacific nations, flexible systems are necessary, given the region's vulnerability to environmental hazards such as climate change, natural disasters, and sea-level rise (Pacific Community et al., 2016). These systems are needed to build upon existing knowledge and systems (McMillen et al., 2014) to ensure that the Pacific nations can adapt to these changes and develop resilience to overcome the impact on communities.

Flexible systems are designed to be adaptable to changes in the environment (Shukla & Sushil, 2020; Singh et al., 2021). This adaptability is essential in industries such as manufacturing and agriculture, where there is exposure to constant changes in demand and weather patterns. By creating systems that can change quickly to meet new demands, Pacific nations can avoid downtime and maintain continuity in operational activity. In addition, flexible systems play a role in the development of new products and services (e.g. Haleem et al., 2018). By creating systems that can adapt to changes in design or materials, Pacific nations can experiment with new ideas, limiting the need for the expensive reconfiguration of assets.

The resilience literature is amalgamated around the broad concept and disaggregates into many streams which cover both organizational and personal characteristics (Linnenluecke, 2017). In this study, we focus on the stream of literature that informs us about supply chain systems’ ability to recover quickly from shocks and disruptions (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Craighead et al., 2007; Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009). Risk and knowledge management play a pivotal role for improving supply chain resilience to disruptive events by decreasing vulnerability with enhanced flexibility, visibility, and velocity (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011). It is within this context that we seek to understand factors that may have a positive impact on resilience in Pacific Island communities as they are considered some of the most vulnerable due to their exposure to climate change and natural disasters (Kiddle et al., 2017). An attempt to address the concerns faced by these communities led to the establishment of the framework for resilient development in the Pacific (FRDP) which provides guidance towards beneficial activity (Pacific Community et al., 2016). Following guidance in this framework has led to some progress towards improved resilience for climate action and disaster recovery in countries like Vanuatu (Hallwright & Handmer, 2021). By creating resilient community-based systems, Pacific Island nations can recover faster from disruptions and continue to provide for their citizens.

Flexible systems assist organizations and communities to respond quickly to changing needs (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Shukla & Sushil, 2020) and to build resilience to unexpected challenges and disruptions (Carvalho et al., 2012; Khorasani, 2018). Risk management is an approach that allows for resilience to be built on reducing the impact of future disruptions by ensuring they are appropriately managed (Holbeche, 2019).

Through easy-access computer-aided design coupled with user-friendly manufacturing like 3D printing and laser cutting, almost anybody can be making high-quality and complex products that were once the domain of heavily resourced manufacturing businesses or highly skilled craftspeople (van Holm, 2017). As such, the maker movement represents a kind of democratization of manufacturing (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). By fostering a collaborative environment, Makerspaces also encourage individuals to share ideas and knowledge, leading to the creation of innovative solutions to various problems (Giannakos et al., 2017). By collaborating with others, individuals can gain new perspectives and insights that they may not have considered on their own (Mersand, 2021; Sharma, 2021).

The role of Makerspaces in building flexible systems and resilience in Pacific nations is becoming increasingly important (Australian Government, 2020). Makerspaces provide individuals with access to advanced tools and technologies that allow them to experiment with new ideas without the need for expensive equipment (Friessnig, 2021; Friessnig & Ramsauer, 2021). By providing individuals with access to these tools, Makerspaces promote the development of new products and ideas, which is essential for building flexible systems. Makerspaces often encourage the free sharing of knowledge fostering a collaborative approach to problem solving (van Holm, 2017; Yang et al., 2022). Makerspaces utilized for product design enable marginalized communities to address issues important to their community (Corsini et al., 2022). The role of Makerspaces in economic development is still uncertain, but there is some evidence that they can play a role in creating cultural changes in communities to encourage entrepreneurship (van Holm, 2017). In Pacific nations, this includes contributing to flexible systems to respond to the disruptions caused by natural disasters and climate change (Australian Government, 2020). The introduction of flexible systems, complimenting risk management to build resilience through the deployment of controls that reduce the likelihood and occurrence of realized risks. These risks arising from disruptions to normal activities due to operational issues or from natural disasters (Kleindorfer & Saad, 2005).

Risk identification and risk management is an essential part of product development. The development process involves multiple stages, from ideation to prototyping, to testing, and each stage presents its unique set of risks. Reducing risk during product development is necessary to ensure that the product meets customer requirements, is delivered on time, and is financially viable and safe for people to use. By using risk management processes, product developers can create products that are more likely to meet the needs of the user without expensive and time-consuming redesign processes (Browning et al., 2023).

Risk management processes in product development also help organizations to create products that are better suited to their intended markets. By using prototyping to test and evaluate the product, companies can identify potential issues and make necessary modifications before mass production. By creating products that are better suited to their intended markets, companies can increase their chances of success and improve their ability to adapt to changing market conditions. Some of the best practices for managing risk in product development include the use of failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), design for manufacturing and assembly (DFMA), prototyping, and hazard and operability (HAZOP) studies (Chauhan et al., 2018; Muda et al., 2022).

By identifying and addressing potential risks early in the development process, companies can minimize the impact of those risks on the final product. For example, FMEA is a proactive approach to identifying potential failures and their effects on the product. FMEA involves creating a list of possible failure modes for each component and subsystem of the product (Haimes, 2016). By using FMEA to identify potential failure modes and their effects, companies can prioritize their risk reduction efforts and minimize the chances of those failures occurring. These processes can help companies avoid costly and time-consuming rework and delays, making them more resilient to disruptions and unexpected events.

By using DFMA to simplify the manufacturing and assembly processes, companies can minimize the risk of defects and delays in production (Ashley, 1995). By creating more reliable and consistent products, companies can build a reputation for quality and reliability, which can help them to withstand unexpected disruptions such as supply chain issues or changes in customer demand.

Another method for reducing risk during product development is to use Prototyping. Prototyping is an iterative process that involves creating a physical or digital model of the product. Prototyping can help to identify design flaws, improve functionality, and reduce the risk of failure (Camburn et al., 2017). By creating a prototype, designers can test and evaluate the product, identify potential issues, and make necessary modifications before mass production. These steps reduce the risk of producing a faulty or suboptimal product. The risks associated with each prototype also need to be assessed quickly and flexibly when working in a Makerspace to ensure that the creators and users of these early prototypes are not exposed to undue risks.

The approaches listed above, FMEA, DFMA and Prototyping all have strengths and weaknesses, and their benefits need to be considered when considering their application to use within a Makerspace. Typically, these methodologies are applied by teams of experts and trained facilitators. However, this pool of expertise is unlikely to be available to a Pacific Island nation developing a product in a Makerspace.

The fourth approach considered for application to Makerspaces for identifying potential hazards and operability problems in a process is HAZOP. The technique also involves a team of experts who review the design of a product or process and identify potential deviations from normal operating conditions that could result in hazardous or undesirable consequences. HAZOP is typically used during the design stage of product development, but it can also be applied to existing processes to identify potential improvements (Dunjó et al., 2010).

One of the primary benefits of using HAZOP in product development is the identification of potential hazards and risks early in the development process prior to construction or manufacture. By identifying potential hazards early, designers and engineers can implement design changes or additional safety measures to reduce the likelihood of these hazards occurring. This early identification can save time and money by avoiding costly design changes later in the development process. This can improve the safety and resilience of the product or process for both consumers and workers.

HAZOP can also improve the quality of the product or process. By identifying potential operability issues, engineers and designers can implement design changes that improve the overall quality of the product or process. These changes can also result in cost savings and improved product resilience by reducing the need for rework or additional quality control measures. The improved resilience provides organizations with an increased capacity to respond to local and system-wide disruptions (Browning et al., 2023).

The focus on reducing risk during product development is essential to ensure a successful product launch and is a common process utilized by large corporations. Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), design for manufacturing and assembly (DFMA), prototyping, and hazard operability (HAZOP) all help to minimize the risk of defects and delays in production. By using these methods, designers can identify potential risks, optimize the design for manufacturing and assembly, and test and evaluate the product before mass production (Sun et al., 2022). However, methods that assist the identification and control of risks in smaller organizations have received little attention. There is scant risk management research focussing on controlling the risks associated with the safety of operating in facilities, such as Makerspaces and the risks to end users from the products created within the facilities (Jariwala et al., 2021; Peterson et al., 2022; Wong et al., 2021).

Knowledge about flexible systems that deliver increased resilience is important to Pacific Islands communities. This study provides an overview of using Makerspaces targeting the improvement of system flexibility and resilience where resource scarcity exists by exploring the case study of a risk management process within a Makerspace during new product development.

The next section outlines the research design employed to address the aforementioned research question: How can the risk assessment process be refined to enhance the flexibility of product manufacture in a Makerspace environment with a view to build resilience and meet the needs of the Pacific Islands?

A pragmatic paradigm is employed in this paper; where the purpose of research and inquiry is to benefit human beings dealing with phenomena, they deem important (Coleman, 2015) [see Fig. 1 for an outline of the research design]. Pragmatism rejects the notion of truth and a spectator theory of knowledge (Bernstein, 2010) and instead argue for purposeful knowledge development, and understanding of the consequences of action through practice, discussion, and consensus between individuals to achieve outcomes (Rorty, 1999).

Initially, this research utilized abductive reasoning, derived from pragmatism (Lorino, 2018), to observe and consider the phenomena and explore the literature in order to generate the research question; a form of reasoning extrapolated by Peirce (Peirce et al., 1931) and, more recently, methodologically employed (e.g. Alexander et al., 2014; Eriksson & Engström, 2021; and Settembre-Blundo et al., 2021) and theorized (Sætre and Van De Ven, 2021) by scholars.

Participative action research (PAR) was the selected research design for this study to align with the pragmatic paradigm (Coleman, 2015), focusing on knowledge development through experience, practice, discussion, and consensus. PAR is an approach within the broader methodology of action research (Dickens & Watkins, 1999). Foster (1972) argued that Kurt Lewin’s (1946) seminal work on action research was based on the Gestalt; this is, understanding that the contextual experience is as relevant to the study of the phenomena, as the phenomena itself. Moreover, “knowing is developed in relationship between body and the phenomenal world, through practice” (Coleman, 2015, p.396). A PAR methodology has utility in research that requires iterative practice and learning processes, centred on the active participation of researchers and non-researchers to explore phenomenon, and determine mutually agreed resolutions to problems (Lewin, 1946). PAR was previously and effectively used in the participative design of frameworks by co-researchers (e.g. Riley-Tillman et al., 2005 and Schulz et al., 2021), utilized to understand and refine current organizational practice (e.g. Acharya, 2019 and Bhamra et al., 2022) and investigate supply chain issues (e.g. Dadari et al., 2020).

Makerspaces, as previously stated, are environments for learning and continuous improvement of prototypes and PAR’s foundations in continuous learning make it an appropriate approach to enrich this research involving the staged development of a flexible risk management framework. within the Makerspace. PAR, as distinct from action research, focuses on the simultaneous dual roles of participants as researcher and subject [termed co-researchers, herein] (Argyris & Schön, 1989); allowing opportunity for co-researchers to explore, refine and reflect on the iterative development within a risk management framework. Such participatory practices promote equity and empowers all participants in the Makerspace community, which can be mirrored in marginalized communities (Freire & Ramos, 2017). The conceptualization of the co-researcher has some correlation with Junker (1952) and Gold’s (1958) notion of the observer-as-participant, where the external or outside researcher participates in the field but does not become an “insider”, such as was deployed in the study of Elias et al. (2021). However, the PAR methodology seeks to also empower participants as co-researchers in the study. The conceptualization of the observer-as-participant (for the traditional researcher) and co-researchers (for the participants) has clear utility in contexts such as the Pacific Islands where communities are marginalized and face social and economic inequity (Keen & Connell, 2019), particularly in indigenous communities (Germano, 2022).

The current research project required integrating traditional risk management frameworks, such as HAZOP, into multiple plan-act-observe-reflect cycles, thereby learning from the iterations, and consequently developing new iterations from these learnings while not losing the concept of a structured risk management process. This research approach allowed for the refinement of the design, and testing and validation of a structured simplified risk process (SSRP) to ensure it met the objectives of the project. These objectives, according to the identified needs of the Pacific Island nations, included the need for the SSRP to be resource-light, allowed for flexibility in its practical application, and offered a hazard identification process that remained systematic to avoid failures in the hazard identification process (Baybutt, 2015).

Proponents of action research recognize the necessity for dual and simultaneous delivery of academic theorizing and practical application and argue that action research can act as a “bridge” between theory and practice (Zhang et al., 2015, p.169). PAR enables all research participants to act as co-researchers (Schulz et al., 2021) and mutually reflect on changes made because of interventions during the PAR cycles (Gravesteijn & Wilderom, 2018), enabling refinement of the solution and greater commitment to the final results (Argyris & Schön, 1989). Porschen-Hueck and Neumer’s (2015) characteristics of participatory research were integrated into the PAR approach; expressly the establishment of reciprocity for all research participants in the (1) co-design of the framework, (2) experiential learning of the traditional HAZOP approach and refinement of an SSRP into a flexible risk management framework, and (3) identification of the interconnectivity of theory and practice. PAR, therefore, had merit in this current research, providing a rigorous, relevant, and previously tested methodological approach that enabled connections between the theories and practices for managing risks when developing products in Makerspaces which are extrapolated in this paper.

To avoid researcher bias, this research clearly defined the case, research design (pragmatic paradigm and PAR methodology) and aligned relevant theory to this design (Yin, 2012). The research consisted of a single, embedded case study (Yin, 2018), of the development of an educational toy in a Makerspace located in Wollongong in the state of New South Wales, Australia. The Makerspace is an appropriate context in which to apply the PAR methodology, for they are decentralized spaces, focused on collaboration and community connection (Sheffield et al., 2017). This is also important in the context of the Pacific Island where indigenous communities participate in community-focused entrepreneurial practices (Cahn, 2008) and Makerspaces, arguably support community-focused practices, helping to “identify problems, build models, learn and apply skills, revise ideas, and share new knowledge with others” (Sheridan et al., 2014, p.505), in keeping with the pragmatic paradigm and PAR methodology. Furthermore, Makerspaces are currently in development in the Pacific Islands; e.g. in Fiji where the Makerspace is designed to support humanitarian aid (Magee, 2019); thus, making the case of the Makerspace relevant to the research paradigm, methodology and applicable to the Pacific Island context.

The current case which was to develop a robot arm educational toy commenced in the Makerspace during 2019 and aimed to produce a commercial product which met associated standards including product risk assessment. The risk assessment methodology chosen for this case study was the HAZOP framework. A single, embedded case study is appropriate when researching a new phenomenon (Yin, 2018), namely the development of a refined, simplified and more SSRP framework within a Makerspace context. The following design elements were developed to address perceived weaknesses of the action research/PAR methodology, namely the focus on problem solving over the development of a broader body of knowledge (Dickens & Watkins, 1999).

From the commencement of the project, a team of five co-researchers were engaged to iteratively develop the flexible framework and triangulate the data from a range of theoretical perspectives; this being critical to the rigour of action research as articulated by Bhamra et al. (2022). Additionally, one co-researcher was engaged to action design improvements that resulted from the HAZOP process. The outcomes of these improvements were part of the data collection phase and contributed to critical reflection, and provide further triangulation of, the data set. The co-researchers were experts in a variety of fields including product design, Makerspace operation, and facilitating HAZOP risk assessments. The team comprised six people who were all employed by a university as shown in Table 1. The research was undertaken between 2019 and 2021.

The PAR incorporated three iterative cycles of plan-act-observe-reflect, with each cycle including the collection of annotated HAZOP templates, reflective observational note taking by each co-researcher, and notes from co-researcher meetings. The three cycles are depicted in Fig. 2. The starting point, stage 1, for the research was the traditional HAZOP framework. This framework acted as the initial delimitation for the participative AR cycle. This framework effectively focused co-researchers’ attention on the refinement and evolution of the eventual SSRP. Stage 2 sought to reconceptualize the traditional HAZOP framework within the Makerspace context to improve its agility, while stage 3 applied a risk assessment to the newly developed flexible risk assessment or SSRP to further refine the approach.

The details of each stage of the research are further elucidated in Figs. 3, 4 and 5, demonstrating the cyclical plan, act, observe and reflect process undertaken in each stage.

The first PAR cycle involved following the traditional HAZOP process. The planning and action for the PAR cycle were the same activities used for the HAZOP process and included the identification of risks that could be associated with the robot arm educational toy. The reflection of the HAZOP process resulted in the systematic identification of product risks requiring action and resulted in the subsequent redesign or development of counter measures. These were captured in a HAZOP study report. Once the HAZOP process had concluded, the PAR cycle included another aspect of reflection where the effectiveness of the HAZOP process in the Makerspace environment was considered. The process was thought to have successfully contributed to an improved design and a safe product for consumers, however, three significant issues did emerge. The first issue related to the timing of the HAZOP process. It was considered that if a risk review had occurred earlier then some design issues could have been more effectively resolved during earlier stages of product development. Secondly, the static nature and high level of resources needed to conduct the HAZOP process meant that the risk review would likely be conducted only once. This realization introduced a dilemma as to when was the best time to conduct a HAZOP and whether multiple revisions were necessary if it was conducted too soon. The HAZOP process was originally intended to be used once the design was completed but this meant that design flaws could be overlooked and lead to the development of a multiple step process for HAZOP (Kletz, 1997). This flexible application of the HAZOP concept has been applied in this research. The third issue involved the scarcity of adequately trained facilitators in a Makerspace environment. Risk management facilitators are usually trained and employed by large organizations or consultancies. HAZOP facilitation is typically associated with large scale manufacturing plants with significant process plant operations. The HAZOP facilitators are usually highly trained bachelor’s degree engineers who have completed an additional 5 days of intensive training in HAZOP facilitation. Although the investigation team was fortunate to have two trained HAZOP facilitators on the project, it was unlikely that a Makerspace and its associated maker community would have access to such resources in its normal operation. These limitations to the Makerspace community would also most likely apply to Pacific Island communities where access to resources and education has been identified as ongoing challenges (United Nations, 2020).

The second PAR cycle involved an attempt to reconceptualize the HAZOP process to address the resource scarcity and other issues found in the first PAR cycle. This cycle was undertaken by adapting the traditional HAZOP processes, by adaptation of guidewords and process deviations, to reflect the key value adding steps in the design of a prototype in a Makerspace while retaining the detailed systematic approach of a HAZOP. Consideration was also given to presenting the information so that a typical person in a Maker community would be able to use the process. A risk management framework (Fig. 6) was then constructed from the investigators’ experience of what was believed to be useful in terms of reasoning and actions taken in the HAZOP of the Robot arm. The risk management process was divided into risks that manifested before and after development of a prototype and grouped into design process and testing process risks. This was inspired by the concept of a bowtie diagram which looks at controls that are put in place before and after a central event (de Ruijter & Guldenmund, 2015). In this case the central event is the creation of the prototype.

The HAZOP process guidewords for identifying hazards were modified and simplified for the Makerspace context. This was accomplished by disaggregating the design and testing processes into parts where unmitigated risks may exist. Additional prompts, based on the development of prototypes in a Makerspace, were then added for each guideword to assist a risk management framework user to discover any unidentified risks.

On reflection of progress made towards a risk management framework for use in a Makerspace, it was realized that the static nature of the HAZOP process, even when paired with a bowtie diagram, still did not provide the flexibility around redesign and continuous improvement of prototypes throughout the design process. This inflexibility produces a dilemma around when to conduct the risk assessment to ensure safety and design integrity which still needed to be addressed. Should the tool be applied after the development of the first prototype or after the final design is completed? The investigation team decided that it was important to capture the concern that actions taken to innovate the design could introduce new risks and that a broader risk management process should be undertaken as an iterative rather than static undertaking in the Makerspace environment. The risk management framework was adapted, as shown in Fig. 7, to address this concern. This same concern would be applicable to designing or adapting assets or processes in a low-resource environment. The aim of this tool should be to have a flexible process that can easily be applied to changes and alteration to designs or processes. By identifying problems before design solutions are implemented risks can be reduced. This concept is applicable to situations in Pacific Island communities where changes due to post-pandemic events may need to be assessed quickly and rapidly to ensure that risks have been considered. By considering risks prior to the application of changes, the resilience of the community will be increased through reduced rework and redesign of assets and processes.

Further reflection by the investigation team unearthed a concern that the adapted risk management framework was not flexible enough and did not follow the way in which designers in the Makerspace worked. This process did not clearly include the possibility that the original design intent may need to be changed as more was learnt about the design that was being built. The arrows did not convey the natural flow of reasoning that would occur within a Makerspace environment. For example, the arrows in the design process implied a linear flow from concept to construction that is rarely the case and does not reflect the adaptability and flexibility of the prototyping process. One of the key strengths of a Makerspace is that the utilized technology allows for agility in exploring new creative ideas through rapid prototyping. It became apparent to the team that the adapted risk management framework needed further refinement to be more flexible and align with the iterative nature of the product development prototyping activities in the Makerspace environment.

The third and last PAR cycle aimed to integrate the iterative nature of prototyping into a refined risk management framework. The plan was to disaggregate the experience from the first PAR cycle and then introduce modified HAZOP guidewords differently to the second PAR cycle. The focus of the disaggregation and reconceptualization to align the risk management process with the prototyping activity to incorporate the iterations associated with the product development in the Makerspace environment. The outcome of the reconceptualization is a Makerspace product development risk assessment process or PDRAP as shown in Fig. 8. It comprises three phases which include idea development, prototype development, and product testing.

The idea development phase incorporates risks associated with concept design and proof of concept. If the idea is believed to be feasible, the maker is then able to progress to the next phase which is prototype development. In this phase the iterative nature of product development is encapsulated with risks associated with materials, manufacture, construction, and process identified. With each prototype iteration, an assessment on the functionality of the product under development is appraised. If the product is not functional, then the proof of concept is revisited and if feasible, another iteration of the prototype development occurs. This cycle continues until the product under development is deemed functional. When this occurs, the maker can move to the third phase which is product testing. During product testing, risks associated with crash testing, end user friendliness and safety, instructions, and safety are explored. Changes to the design or risk mitigation actions are undertaken for any risks that are identified that may lead to an unsatisfactory end user experience. Any changes made are then reviewed to ensure the design is adequate. If new problems are introduced into the design, then the maker returns to the prototype phase until the induced problems are overcome. If the review is unable to identify any uncontrolled risks relating to the design, then the risk assessment process is complete. The product is considered ready for market testing or product launch.

Reflecting upon the product development risk assessment process (PDRAP), the investigation team considered that the concerns uncovered in the first and second PAR cycles had been addressed. This reflection and decision were considered collaboratively by the co-researchers and was reached through consensus; a key component of the PAR approach and highly relevant to the Pacific Islands context where community is central to decision-making. The dilemma around the timing of the HAZOP process and if multiple risk assessments were required had been addressed by the proposed three phase risk assessment process. Each phase capturing the important risk assessment considerations that may be present in that phase and eliminating the need for multiple risk assessments. The prototyping phase having risks assessed in an iterative manner as changes are implemented.

It is interesting to note that while the PDRAP is effectively a risk assessment that is based on the premise of a systematic HAZOP approach with guidewords and deviations, the person undertaking this review may not even realize that they are using processes based on advanced risk management techniques. The term risk is only used twice in the PDRAP and refers to construction risks which could be linked to the DFMA considerations.

The resultant PDRAP was considered an SSRP, having met the needs of the Makers in the investigation team and aligning with the rapid prototyping that occurs in Makerspaces. The flexibility of the risk management system allowing for makers who are untrained facilitators to identify and control product risks through development. The management of these risks allowing for a higher level of resilience to be achieved for the product under development, which in this case was the Robot arm educational toy.

What this case study has shown is that the principles in sophisticated risk management tools such as HAZOP and bowtie diagrams can be adapted to be used in simplified yet rigorous ways to support people trying to manage risks without an in-depth knowledge of risk management principles. This has potential benefits in reducing time delays and wastage during small-scale manufacturing, which is particularly important for communities seeking to adapt during natural disasters, because of external challenges. Similarly, wastage reduction has high utility for communities suffering from existing low resources. It also demonstrates that further participative action research cycles may be used to further refine risk management for specific contexts. Further, the utilization of participative action research and the Makerspace has a potential high degree of synergy with regional communities that value connection to community, such as the heterogeneous communities of the Pacific Islands. Therefore, this same process can be applied to people in Pacific Island communities, whom like people in Makerspaces everywhere, are trying to develop new and better ways of doing things. The use of tools that support the efforts of people to reduce the risks by asking simple questions in a rigorous, yet flexible manner, can only support the efforts of people to improve the resilience of their communities.