Business modelling and deployment of cooperative safety systems Tom Alkim (Rijkswaterstaat)

1. SAFESPOT Business modelling and deployment of cooperative safety systems Tom Alkim (Rijkswaterstaat) Freek Faber (TNO)

2. Content • SAFESPOT • SAFESPOT business models • Discussion business models • SAFESPOT deployment • Discussion deployment • SAFESPOT decision making process

3. SAFESPOT The SAFESPOT CONCEPT: from the autonomous intelligent vehicle… … to intelligent Cooperative Systems

4. SAFESPOT • Safety applications • Intersection safety application • Local hazard warning • Speed assistance • SP 6: BLADE • Business models, Legal Analysis and DEployment

5. Business models Business modelling tasks in BLADE: 6.6.1. Preliminary definition 6.6.2. Ranking 6.6.3 Selection • 10 business models • Example of a value web • Roles of the road operators

6. Spectrum of the business models single SAFESPOT service private financing Navigation systems V2V V2I public financing several services

7. 10 business models (*) Due the high costs, the “SAFESPOT Plus” configuration with only “Public reliance” has been considered as not ecomical feasible.

8. Business model example S F S F S M AF W F Customer Support E F E AF F M F W E R R SF System M T F F R R R T Flow of Products Flow of Services Financial Flow Flow of Information C2C,ACEA,CLEPA, ASECAP INSTITUTIONS Stakeholders (SF base) Additional Stakeholders (SF plus) Road Operator Safespot After SaleSupport Automotive & Infrustructure Supplier Driver Map Provider AF=SAFESPOT System After Market W = Cost Equipment T=Incentives F=Funding E= SAFESPOT Components S= Specification R=Rules/Legislative Framework M=Financial Contribution OEM (car maker) Insurances Public Authorities Sheet 9

9. Government strategies • Sweet talk • Public money • Legislation • Partner in value chain Mattieu Nuijten 20 september 2014

10. Governance Impact Business models Cost effectiveness of policy Efficiency of process Economy Effectivity Deployment Input Resources, € Throughput Process, Production Output Products Services Outcome Effect, Results Legal Aspects • Standards on: • Human capital • Financial • Resources • Standards on: • Installations • Facilities • Emissions • Process, Production • Standards on: • Welfare • Immission • Hinderance • Safety • Standards on: • Quality • Productspecs • Services Mattieu Nuijten 20 september 2014

11. Business models discussion • The goal of the discussion is to verify our view on the role of the road operator in cooperative safety systems • determine on which of the business models we should focus • determine which roles in the deployment road operators and public authorities could have

12. Business models discussion • Public involvement can accelerate the deployment of cooperative safety systems • E.g. by providing bandwidth, enforcing standard, subsidies, being a launching customer • Without public involvement cooperative safety systems will not take of • Minimum penetration will not be achieved due to market imperfection • Cooperative safety applications are not the responsibility of the road operators

13. Business models discussion • Other investments in road safety are more effective then cooperative safety systems • Safety has no priority for road operator in relation to throughput • Road operators should have a quality standard for road safety

14. Business models discussion Which roles of road operators in our business models are actually considered by road operators? • Participate in R&D (road side equipment) • Subsidize the system in start-up phase • Public service provider (operate road side infrastructure) • Content provider (provide traffic/safety information) • Monitoring (generate traffic information) • Regulate quality standards • Public support (awareness campaigns) • Enforce mandatory equipment

15. Business models discussion Which development is in the best interest of the road operators? • public financing vs. private financing • Standalone safety applications vs. combined with other applications • V2V vs. V2I What other factors are important?

16. Deployment Deployment and business models Different views of the future rather than one! (scenario approach) Penetration Scenarios 2020 Proof of Concept Time 2009 2020 20 september 2014

17. Scenarios in the Deployment Programme Output Input WP 6.3 organisational architecture WP 6.7 Deployment Programme deployment challenges from different perspectives • Scenarios • Driving forces • Uncertainties • Scenario variables • Plot • Textual image of the future • Scenarios • Current situation • Critical uncertainties • Driving forces • Key Dimensions • Plot • Image of the future • Base scenario • Current situation • Critical uncertainties • Driving forces • Key Dimensions • Plot • Image of the future WP 6.4 Risk and legal analysis recommended actions for main stakeholders WP 6.5 Assessment and evaluation WP 6.6 Business modelling

18. STOF model Service Driving forces Organisation Technology Finance

19. + Government involvement Regulation Political importance of road safety + Organisational complexity + -/+ + + -/+ Geographical coverage Compatibility Penetration rates Allocation of liability Quality of service + + + - + -/+ + +/- System costs Safety effects User acceptance End user price Privacy concerns + + - + - - Market demand + + +/- - Financing + Socio-cultural developments + Synergy with other in-car systems +/- - + + + + Functionality + Economic growth Technical feasibility + Technological developments +

20. Critical uncertainties Uncertainty Influence

21. Deployment scenarios public SAFESPOT platform BIG BROTHER IS GUARDING YOU A SAFE START DOES THE JOB safe spots ITS REVOLUTION big bang private in-car platform

22. Deployment programme The result of the scenario approach is a deployment programme which contains: Scenarios • End state in 2020 (short story & picture) • Timeline with milestones • Deployment challenges Interpretation • Recommended actions for main stakeholders • If, possible: reflection on the scenarios by different stakeholders

23. Discussion deployment • Are the scenario dimension indeed the critical uncertainties? • SAFESPOT platform vs. combined platform • Hotspot vs. European coverage • Full functionality vs. increasing functionality • Which other critical uncertainties are relevant/missing?

24. Discussion deployment • Which scenarios are likely to occur? Rank from 1 (most likely) to 8 (less likely)

25. Discussion deployment • Which scenarios are preferred? Rank from 1 (most preferred) to 8 (less preferred)

27. Decision making process • Implementation requires a decision making process • Process management approach • Structure of the arenas • Some examples of roles for road operators ALS HIER TIJD VOOR IS

28. Decision making process

29. Decision making arenas • Technical arena • Legal arena • Deployment arena • Business modelling arena • ..

31. BACKUP SLIDES

32. Business models discussion • Which instruments are road operators able and willing to use?

33. Business models discussion • Which instruments are road operators able and willing to use?

34. Effectiveness of measure according to infra providers Source: Annex to Benchmarking study on activities on promotingand deploying Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems in the EU

35. Effectiveness of measure according to driver associations Source: Annex to Benchmarking study on activities on promotingand deploying Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems in the EU

36. Source: Annex to Benchmarking study on activities on promotingand deploying Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems in the EU

37. Measure by public authorities

38. Business modelling discussion - KLAD • Cost/benefit analysis; “profit” is in improved traffic safety, how to monetarise? • Invest in traditional measures (infra, driver, vehicle, enforcement) to improve traffic safety or willing to invest in additional measures (the SAFESPOT system) • Dilemma: investing in SAFESPOT system is only feasible when traditional measures are sufficiently deployed (quick wins), this means that the additional “profit” is much harder to get