Copenhagen Traffic Management: Concept test of traffic information system

Report: Conclusions and recommendations 28 March 2014

Background

•  The City of Copenhagen is considering development of an ITS solution for better trafic management.

•  The concept is a real-time multimodal application integrating all transport modes and parking data, using Rejseplanens existing application.

•  The purpose of the solution is to enable the City of Copenhagen to better manage traffic and the pollution level and create a better transport experience for the citizens.

•  Before further development of the concept, it was considered important to do an explorative test to investigate potential users´ openness, motives and barriers for potentially using the solution.

•  Why are we doing it?

Target

•  The purpose of the research study was to provide The City of Copenhagen with input on how to continue development of the solution and obtain the following insights:

–  The potential target groups’ openness towards the solution. –  Motives and barriers towards the solution and its various functionalities. –  Which features and benefits can potentially create the most value. –  Which potentially new features could increase the solution’s value to the

citizens.

•  Why are we doing it?

Method

•  The test was carried out as two in-depth focus groups (9-10 participants) of 2 hours.

–  One group with high frequency car users (drive to work every day). –  One group with flexible car users (also choose other means of transportation).

•  Both groups were recruited after the following supplementing criteria:

–  App. 50% male / 50% female. –  Spread in life cycle. –  Age: 20-60. –  Geography: Greater Copenhagen.

•  How did we do it?

Method

•  This report presents the main conclusions and recommendations for further development of the solution.

•  Where relevant there have been added quotes from the focus groups to support the conclusions with the respondents’ own wordings and reflections.

•  What does this report contain?

The conclusions

1.  There is openness towards the solution that holds the potential of affecting the citizens’ transportation habits – but obviously under certain conditions.

2.  The solution’s uniqueness and strong selling propositions are not necessarily clear.

3.  Mental barriers towards public transportation must be considered. 4.  The solution must be customizable to the user’s individual needs and wants. 5.  The greatest potential benefit – and reason to use - is if the solution is

hyperconvenient. 6.  Key features with potential uniqueness: Time, costs, real-time & parking. 7.  Creating a better transportation experience for the citizen, should be the

solution’s main customer focused purpose.

•  Sweet, short & to the point

Conclusion #1

There is openness towards the solution that holds the potential of affecting the citizens’ transportation habits – but obviously under certain conditions.

Openness towards the solution

•  There is openness towards the solution that holds the potential of affecting the citizens’ transportation habits – but obviously under certain conditions, which we will investigate in detail.

•  This is a qualitative explorative test, and the most important feedback comes from the participants’ individual statements. But, they were also asked to provide a score for their openness towards the solution as indications and for sparking the conversation. The following tables show the respondents’ individual scores and the mean score to the questions on openness towards the solution (1 is ”to a very low degree”, 7 is ”to a very high degree”):

Openness towards the solution

•  To which degree do you think that you would use the solution, if it were available?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean

Heavy car users

2 2 2 2 1 3,8

Flexible users

1 1 2 6 4,7

•  To which degree do you that the solution would make your daily transportation better?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean

Heavy car users

1 2 3 2 1 3,0

Flexible users

1 2 2 4 1 4,4

•  To which degree do you think that the solution would make you choose other means of transportation than the car?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean

Heavy car users

1 4 1 2 1 2,8

Flexible users

3 1 2 3 1 2,8

Openness towards the solution

•  The respondents’ gradings should be interpreted in the following way, which is supported by the qualitative findings:

–  There is openness towards potentially using the solution. 8 out of 10 flexible users and 3 out of 9 heavy car users, could see themselves using the solution.

–  Openness is, not surprisingly, bigger among current flexible users. Heavy car users are more evangelic in their choices.

–  It is harder to evaluate if the solution would make the transportation situation better, because the interpretation of “better” varies from person to person. Particularly among car users, the majority really love to drive – it provides freedom, relaxation, “me-time”. When discussing real-time info that might make car users avoid queues and accidents on the road, the solution rises in perceived relevance.

–  There are low scores in regards to expecting that the solution will make people choose other means of transportation than the car. This is because the respondents perceive to choose their cars based on necessity (time, money, convenience), which it is hard to imagine that an app could change.

Openness and relevance

•  Openness also has to do with perceived relevance of the solution. Relevance correlates with perceived difficulty of getting to work. Thus, those who have a perceived routine commute do not find the solution necessary in this regard.

•  The following user scenarios are considered the most relevant: –  Travelling a new route (not knowing what the best route or means of

transportation is). –  Having many switches of public transportation on the commute (makes timing

and delays important). –  For some car commuters, they see the potential in the real-time data allowing

them to time when to drive from home or maybe even choose an alternative if queues are expected to be severe.

Openness towards the solution

•  Very open attitude: –  ”It combines several types of transportation with parking. I like the

overview over the many alternatives. I could see that I used this every day. My biggest criticism is that there are no prices for me to benchmark.

•  Open attitude: –  ”It wouldn’t make me shift means of transportation. But I could use it

anyway. It would be great if it did have real-time. Then I would use it. It would make planning easier for me. That would be brilliant.”

•  Closed attitude: –  ”There are so many tools and apps today. Where is the need? I use

regular GPS. I would never use this because I already know the city.”

•  Quotes

Conclusion #2

The solution’s uniqueness and strong selling propositions are not necessarily clear.

What is the uniqueness?

•  For some, it is not clear what the solution does that Rejseplanen or particularly Google Maps cannot already do. Thus, the uniqueness and ultimately reason to choose the solution, is not crystal clear to all.

•  The more tech savvy the respondents are, the better they are at perceiving the potential benefits of the solution and why e.g. real-time information can be a benefit.

•  This means that communication of the solution’s uniqueness and most important selling propositions will be extremely important to differentiate it from existing solutions and make it attractive.

What is the uniqueness?

•  ”What use would I have, if it doesn’t ensure a parking space after all. I need security for parking. I already use Google Maps a lot.”

•  ”For me it’s just another Google Maps.”

•  Quotes

Conclusion #3

Mental barriers towards public transportation must be considered.

Mental barriers towards public transportation

•  The two biggest mental barriers for considering public transportation: –  An expectation that public transport is difficult, slow and expensive. This prevents

people from researching the opportunity. –  An expectation that researching the possibilities is difficult. Thus the research process

itself is a barrier.

•  These mental barriers must be considered in the solution, to nudge users to choose public transportation.

•  If the solution can suggest the best customized transportation solution, without the user having to do the research, and trustworthily suggest public transportation as one of the best – if not the best – solutions, then these barriers can be eliminated.

•  Also, as the study shows, people change their transportation habits when they move or change jobs. This means that these are milestones where there are openings towards considering alternative means of transportation, which can be taken into consideration if launching the solution.

Mental barriers towards public transportation

•  “I can’t be bothered to spend time on it.”

•  “You never really know where you end up with public transportation.”

•  “I hate all forms of public transportation. It’s late, it smells, it just plain sucks.”

•  Quotes

Conclusion #4

The solution must be customizable to the user’s individual needs and wants.

Customization is key

•  It is imperative that the solution is customizable to the individual’s unique needs, wants and existing solutions.

•  Thus, it should be possible to create ”my profile” where the user can provide information on e.g.:

–  Favourite routes –  Standard transportation situation that the solution should suggest route/

transportation means for every moring/afternoon. –  Type of car (to be able to evaluate CO2 emission, gas economy correctly) –  Wanted info on e.g. time, costs, weather, CO2 emmission, calories burned,

kilometres driven, etc.

Customization is key

•  ”It would be clever if it accumulated your own data.”

•  ”You have to be able to configure your own app – if I don’t have a car then I don’t want the info.”

•  Quotes

Conclusion #5

The greatest potential benefit – and reason to use - is if the solution is hyperconvenient.

The solution must be hyperconvenient

•  The greatest potential benefit – and reason to use - is if the solution is hyperconvenient. People are lazy, we are genetically coded to seeking the easiest choice. Therefore, the solution must make transportation to and from work extremely easy, if it is to alter existing behaviour.

•  Several respondents talk about including features in the solution that consider all needs during a transportation situation, including e.g.

–  elevator situation at Metro for baby carriers and handicapped people. –  weather condition and expected weather condition (rain, wind) to choose

bicycle. –  parking reservation and payment possibility.

•  This suggests a one-stop-shop solution that takes all means of transportation into consideration.

•  If the solution can decide on the best possible transportation choice based on the user’s customized choices, and thus eliminate the reason to research and make the choice yourself or take a chance, this will be a huge hyperconvenient benefit.

The solution must be hyperconvenient

•  ”You would only do it if you were sure that the new solution is better than the ones we have today.”

•  ”I want the total overview at once and access everything from this app.”

•  Quotes

Conclusion #6

Key features with potential unqieness: Time, costs, real-time & parking

Key features: Time, costs, real-time & parking

1.  The following potential features adhere to the relevance criterium and are ”must have” features if the solution is to be attractive:

1.  Time and costs are most important criteria of choice. Particularly adding price of the chosen transportation suggestion (including parking price) could provide uniqueness.

2.  Real-time info (incl. pop-up notifications) is a potentially huge and unique feature. Providing future scenarios to enable users to plan their transportation ahead.

3.  Parking information, including free parking and various price levels, is a potentially huge benefit, which can also win over car owners. People experience that they spend a lot of time finding parking spaces.

Potential ”nice” features

•  The following features could add value for some users and still meet the relevance criterium, but they are potentially “nice”, not “need”:

–  Information on CO2 emission (the more environmentally conscious) –  Voice over function (for use in car) –  For cycling enthusiasts, which there were some of in the focus groups, kilometres

driven, average speed, calories burned could be a nice feature (think Endomondo features).

–  Some see relevance in being able to post to social media, but it must not be a default solution (think Spotify where you can choose to be visible on facebook or not)

–  Some find relevance in great offers on the route (as an opt in solution), e.g. cheap or free coffee from 7/11 on your route.

–  A loyalty program that e.g. provide cheaper bus fare the more you use the bus is considered a good service, but not enough to create choice.

–  There is openness towards car-pooling among some: Either as a standard for the daily work commute or being able to choose for extraordinary trips.

•  Sweet, short & to the point

This is irrelevant or downright negative

•  The following features are considered irrelevant or downright negative and should be avoided:

–  Pop up advertising: This is the strongest reason to reject the app. If there has to be a business model that includes advertising, it will be imperative that it cannot be comprehended as spam.

–  Being able to gather information about the city or its history is considered irrelevant. If waitning for the bus and wanting to kill time, checking e-mails or facebook is considered more relevant.

–  Gaming elements as such does not create enthusiasm, although tracking cycling efforts e.g. also contains gaming elements (competing against myself).

–  The parking terminal is considered irrelevant, old school and not complimentary to the solution. All services should be available through mobile. Having the potential of using the parking terminal is not considered relevant.

Key benefits

•  ”Time and price are really important. They could move me if it were a little cheaper and the Metro drove all the way to Dragør.”

•  ”Total overview and the real-time part – if it works. If it could tell me if the bus is late or there is a queue and there is a search system for parking spaces.

•  The parking functionality is very clever.”

•  Quotes

Conclusion #7

Creating a better transportation experience for the citizen, should be the solution’s main customer focused purpose.

Creating a better transportation experience

•  As demonstrated, relevance is very important when choosing and designing the features that will be a part of the solution. Every feature should be relevant to the main purpose for the citizen.

•  This study suggests that the main purpose should be, and communicated as, ”creating a better transportation experience for the citizen.”

•  This conclusions is supported by several statements from respondents who consider it a strength of the solution that it does not seem to have a ”transportation means bias”, i.e. that is does try to persuade users to choose one means of transportation over another but objectively suggests the best possible solution based on the individual’s particular needs and wants. This also helps open up the incarnated car users towards the solution.

Creating a better transportation experience

•  ”The strength here is that it doesn’t care what means of transporation you use. It can work for everyone. For me, there is no bias. It’s not DSB or FDM who are behind it.”

•  Quotes

The next steps

The next steps

•  The model on the next slide shows the four fundamental motivations that any provider should honour with its users. As a solution provider, you can create more value and increase the potential of people choosing to use the solution by designing and further developing a solution with this knowledge in mind.

•  We will link the solution and the tested features up against this model to show how the solution can and should honour its user’s fundamental motivations.

•  The four motivations are the following: –  BE BETTER – Honouring your inner values / moral landscape: E,g how does the solution

give me a good conscience by honouring my values of being at work on time, not spending too much money, helping the environment, etc..

–  DO BETTER – Increasing your skills and gain better results: E.g. how does the solution help the user get from A to B faster and more conveniently by e.g. increasing their ability to get to work on time or spend their time more optimally.

–  FEEL BETTER – The sensory and emotional experience: E.g. How does the solution’s design please and support the senses and how does it improve the emotional well-being, e.g. by decreasing stress.

–  LOOK BETTER – Gaining social status. E.g. How can using the solution increase the user’s social status in their network of authority (peers).

The Fundamental Forces - What Drives Us All As Human Beings

Proactive

Reactive

Internal External

Pawlak & Østergaard, 2011

How the solution can and should honour all the user’s motivations

Proactive

Reactive

Internal External

•  How can I honour my inner values through the solution?

–  Give me a good conscience by choosing other transportation than cars

–  Need: be on time, be economically responsible.

–  Nice: Make me a better person by choosing healthier choices (the bicycle).

•  How can I optimize my emotional well-being through the solution?

–  Personalization, e.g. customized design and content, “good morning XXX”

–  Loyalty programme that rewards my behaviour

–  Avoiding inconvenience through the solution will reduce stress

–  Nice: Monitoring my exercise through biking

•  How can I gain social status by using the solution?

–  Need: Through its features it potentially enables the user to arrive on time

–  Nice: Being able to share on social media how much CO2 you have saved

–  Recommending the solution to others and help them DO better

•  How can I optimize my skills, competencies, results through the solution?

–  Hyperconvenient, customized one stop shop for weather, choice of transportation, parking.

–  Need: Make it faster and more accurate (time, prediction, real-time, parking) and cheaper (costs, parking features).

–  Need for some: Choosing bicycle based on weather.

–  Nice: CO2

The next steps

•  The model shows that the tested solution and suggested alterations make it quite good at meeting the various motivations.

–  The solution particularly has the potential to enable the users to DO better (skills, results) and BE better (inner values). As it is primarily a DO better product, like most apps, GPS’es, etc., this makes sense. If the features that are marked with a “need” can be met, then the solution has the potential of providing unique value for the users.

–  The FEEL better motivation through a personalised and user friendly design should also have a strong focus. Also, if the solution can provide the best possible transportation experience based on time, costs, real-time info and parking, it has a strong potential in being a stress reducer, which would be a powerful FEEL better benefit.

–  The LOOK better motivation is indirectly met by making the user better at being on time and thus not come late to a meeting, or arrive unstressed and thus being in a better mood when arriving at the workplace. Directly, if there is a social media link, some will use the solution to communicate about their traffic management skills, use of bicycle to work or e.g. their green footprints.

The next steps

•  In summary, this research study shows openness towards the solution and provides insights into important features and benefits that should be included, many of which the current solution design also suggests as features. The solution can also be designed to meet the important motivations that drive users to choice and satisfaction. This indicates that there is a potential for developing the concept further.

•  Marketing of the solution will be critical to ensure that the solution’s uniqueness is understood as something other than another Google Maps. Uniqueness can primarily be found if the solution can provide customized transportation solutions that factor in time and costs including real-time and parking functionalities.

•  How the solution is marketed will also be critical, since there are strong indications in the study, that a bias-free solution will increase its attractiveness for both heavy car users and flexible car users. Therefore, we recommend that the solutions is designed and marketed to create “a better transportation experience” regardless of choice of transportation vessel.

DARE2contact

Kris Østergaard kris@DARE2.dk +45 4181 8151

Laila Pawlak laila@DARE2.dk +45 2924 5350

DARE2 DARE2mansion Vermundsgade 13-15 2100 København Ø. +45 2924 5350 www.DARE2.dk

BLOG: http://kraes.e-conomic.dk/bloggere/dare2mansion/