"Directorate General "Information Society & Media""
Nederlandse Organisatie voor toegepast-natuurwetenschappelijk onderzoek / Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research Mobility and Logistics Van Mourik Broekmanweg 6 P.O. Box 49 2600 AA Delft TNO report The Netherlands www.tno.nl 2007-D-R0674/B T +31 15 276 30 00 Benchmarking study on activities in promoting F +31 15 276 30 10 info-BenO@tno.nl and deploying Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems in the EU Date June 2007 Author(s) Han Zwijnenberg, et al. Assignor European Commission Project number 034.65190 Classification report Confidential Number of pages 75 Number of appendices 5 All rights reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced and/or published in any form by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without the previous written permission from TNO. All information which is classified according to Dutch regulations shall be treated by the recipient in the same way as classified information of corresponding value in his own country. No part of this information will be disclosed to any third party. In case this report was drafted on instructions, the rights and obligations of contracting parties are subject to either the Standard Conditions for Research Instructions given to TNO, or the relevant agreement concluded between the contracting parties. Submitting the report for inspection to parties who have a direct interest is permitted. © 2007 TNO TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Benchmarking study on activities in promoting and deploying Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems in the EU - Final Report - Commissioned by the EC Directorate General "Information Society & Media" Unit ICT for Transport Main contractor TNO - Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research Contract nr: 30-CE-0087615-00-08 List of Authors TNO - Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research Han Zwijnenberg, Project Manager Dr Kerry Malone, Senior Consultant Drs Martijn de Kievit, Consultant Prof Dr Ir Bart van Arem, Chief Scientist IFV - Institute for Transport Economics, University of Cologne Prof Dr Herbert Baum, head of office Dipl.-Volksw. Jan-André Bühne Dr Torsten Geissler Dipl.-Kff. Jutta Schneider VTT - Technical Research Centre of Finland Prof Dr Risto Kulmula, Research Professor Mikko Lehtonen, Research Scientist CRF - Centro Ricerche Fiat Massimo Pretesi, Senor Advisor IVS Delft, June 2007 3/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 4/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Contents Summary 11 1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 15 1.1 Intelligent Car Initiative launched by the EC................................................................. 15 1.1.1 Arguments for public involvement of IVS systems implementation............................. 15 1.2 Project approach ............................................................................................................ 17 1.2.1 Project organisation ....................................................................................................... 17 1.2.2 Benchmarking proces .................................................................................................... 17 1.3 Structure of the report .................................................................................................... 19 2 Methodology and data collection process .................................................................. 21 2.1 Conceptual map ............................................................................................................. 21 2.1.1 The AIDA approach of consumer buying behaviour..................................................... 21 2.1.2 The AUWE concept: an application of AIDA ............................................................... 22 2.1.3 Linking AUWE concept to the life cycle perspective.................................................... 24 2.2 The Benchmarking Methodology: Learning from Best Practices.................................. 25 2.3 Benchmarking of awareness and deployment of IVS systems in Europe...................... 26 2.3.1 Subsumption of the analysis within the theoretical framework ..................................... 26 2.3.2 Stakeholders for promotion and deployment activities of IVS systems ........................ 27 2.3.3 Promotion and deployment activities as indicators for Best Practice ............................ 31 2.4 Data collection ............................................................................................................... 35 2.4.1 Empirical data collection ............................................................................................... 35 2.4.2 Quality control and results of the data collection process.............................................. 37 3 Awareness of IVS systems in European Countries ................................................... 41 3.1 Awareness on a country level ........................................................................................ 41 3.1.1 Awareness analysis ........................................................................................................ 41 3.1.2 Systems per country....................................................................................................... 42 3.1.3 Relevance of IVS Systems............................................................................................. 43 3.2 Awareness of stakeholders............................................................................................. 43 3.2.1 Awareness per system.................................................................................................... 43 3.2.2 Other issues on awareness ............................................................................................. 46 3.3 Research Programs ........................................................................................................ 47 3.3.1 Focus and funding of research programs ....................................................................... 47 3.3.2 The planning of research activities ................................................................................ 48 3.4 IVS systems deployment in Japan and the USA............................................................ 49 3.4.1 Japan .............................................................................................................................. 49 3.4.2 United States of America............................................................................................... 49 3.4.3 A comparison of the EU with Japan and the USA......................................................... 50 4 Promotion and Deployment ........................................................................................ 51 4.1 Promotion and Deployment in European Countries ...................................................... 51 4.1.1 Activities within countries ............................................................................................. 51 4.1.2 The effectiveness of different measures......................................................................... 52 4.1.3 Identified activities ........................................................................................................ 53 4.2 Stakeholders................................................................................................................... 53 4.2.1 Stakeholder activities..................................................................................................... 53 4.2.2 Responsibility for promotion and deployment............................................................... 55 5/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 5 Analysis......................................................................................................................... 57 5.1 Understanding barriers for market up-take of IVS systems........................................... 57 5.1.1 Promotion and deployment activities do not address the consumers reasons for not purchasing IVS systems................................................................................................. 57 5.1.2 promotion and deployment activities do not match end-user needs .............................. 61 5.1.3 Integral policy and strategic approach needed............................................................... 63 5.2 Differences within the EU ............................................................................................. 64 5.2.1 Research programs......................................................................................................... 64 5.2.2 Coordination of activities on the country level.............................................................. 64 5.3 Best Practices................................................................................................................. 65 6 Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................... 69 6.1.1 Benchmarking activities ................................................................................................ 69 6.1.2 Willingness-to-buy......................................................................................................... 69 6.1.3 Differences among European countries ......................................................................... 69 6.2 Recommendations for the EC ........................................................................................ 70 6.2.1 Strategic, coordinated vision and policy needed............................................................ 70 6.2.2 Streamline research activities ........................................................................................ 71 6.2.3 Benchmarking activities ................................................................................................ 71 6.3 Reflections on the project and research method ............................................................ 71 7 References and Bibliography ...................................................................................... 73 Annex (see separate report) A. Data sheets of the countries and stakeholder groups subject to the study B. Letter of motivation by the European Commission C. Functional descriptions of systems included in the survey D. Participants to the survey E. Overview of questionnaire 6/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 List of Figures Figure 1.1 Installation rate of ABS and airbags in new cars (USA) ............................16 Figure 1.2 Project approach of the Benchmarking study.............................................18 Figure 2.1 The classical AIDA approach to consumer behaviour ...............................22 Figure 2.2 Transition from AIDA to AUWE concept in the field of Intelligent Vehicle Systems .........................................................................................23 Figure 2.3 Conceptual Map of the benchmarking .......................................................24 Figure 2.4 Deployment activities.................................................................................24 Figure 2.5 Phases of IVS systems deployment............................................................25 Figure 2.6 Conceptual map of the influence of promotion and deployment activities 27 Figure 2.7 Responses distributed per country..............................................................38 Figure 2.8 Responses distributed per stakeholder group .............................................39 Figure 3.1 The awareness per system of six stakeholder groups ...............................45 Figure 3.2 Familiarity of car manufacturers and suppliers with the 20 IVS systems ..46 Figure 3.3 The focus of the research program .............................................................47 Figure 3.4 The Funding and the duration of the research program..............................48 Figure 4.1 Analysis promotion and deployment for the countries...............................51 Figure 4.2 Promotion actions at company level from the car makers and suppliers....54 Figure 4.3 Responsibility from two perspectives: Government and Industry .............55 Figure 5.1 Influence of Promotion and Deployment Activities on the AUWE concept.. ........................................................................................58 Figure 5.2 Link between AUWE concept and factors that put consumers off ...........60 Figure 5.3 Link between surveyed promotion and deployment activities to end-user behaviour within the AUWE concept..........................................62 Figure 5.4 EU countries classified by IVS systems deployment phase .......................65 Figure 5.5 General goals in Swedish FOT. Source: presentation of J. Engstrom at eSafety RTD WG, Brussels, 01/06/2007................................................67 7/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 List of Tables Table 2.1 Benchmarking partners in the participating countries according to the stakeholder categories for IVS systems................................................30 Table 2.2 Indicators for awareness, promotion and deployment of IVS systems in stakeholder categories ............................................................................33 Table 3.1 Scoring of awareness per country...............................................................42 Table 3.2 Rated relevance of IVS systems compared to policy objectives ................43 Table 3.3 Questions from members for stakeholder group IV ...................................47 Table 3.4 Planning of research activities by the governmental institutions ...............48 Table 3.5 Planning of research activities by Infrastructure Operators and Road Safety organisations ..........................................................................48 Table 4.1 The effectiveness of measures per country.................................................52 Table 5.1 Systems researched in Benchmarking study and Eurobarometer...............58 Table 5.2 Which reason would puts you off having these safety systems in your car59 Table 5.3 Percentage of countries reporting Promotion and Deployment activities, by stakeholder group ..................................................................................62 8/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Abbreviations AIDA Attention, Interest, Desire, Action AUWE Awareness, Understanding, Willingness to buy, Equipment of vehicle EC European Commission ESP Electronic Stability Program, an IVS system EU European Union ICI Intelligent Car Initiative, policy program on intelligent vehicles ICT Information and Communication Technology ITS Intelligent Transport Systems IVS Intelligent Vehicle Safety IVSS Intelligent Vehicle Safety systems NMS New Member States of the European Union SPSS Software tool for statistical analysis 9/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 10/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Summary The Intelligent Car Initiative (ICI) is one of the i2010 flagship initiatives aimed at having an impact on the quality of life. The ICI addresses the European road transport problems of avoiding accidents, improving energy efficiency of vehicles, and reducing congestion, thereby increasing the overall competitiveness of the European market. One pillar of ICI focuses on using ICT-based solutions in order to realize the potential offered by these new technologies. To create a baseline in the field of Intelligent Vehicle Safety systems (IVS systems) the unit DG Information Society & Media, Unit G4 “ICT for Transport”, commissioned a benchmarking study of the activities in raising awareness, promotion and deployment of intelligent vehicle systems in the 25 EU member states (2006) plus Norway and Switzerland. With the results of this benchmarking study in hand the European Commission will be able to target policy measures in this field more effectively, and stimulate the exchange of ‘best practices’ between the EU member states. Between November 2006 and June 2007 a consortium led by the Netherlands Organisation of Applied Scientific Research (TNO, the Netherlands) collected the information by means of a web survey and performed the analysis. The other 5 consortium partners are Institute for Transport Economics at the University of Cologne (Germany), VTT (Finland), CRF (Italy), CDV (Czech Republic) and ERTICO (Belgium). The benchmarking study identifies activities of all stakeholders relevant to raising awareness and to the promotion and deployment of intelligent vehicle systems. The stakeholders groups covered by this study include governmental institutions, infrastructure operators, road safety organisations, driver organisations, ITS organisations and industry including the European automobile industry. The findings of the study are mapped to the AUWE concept (Awareness, Understanding, Willingness- to-buy, Equipment) and put all together in to perspective of a life-cycle. More than 440 stakeholders were identified and the relevant persons contacted between January and May of this year; 188 of them have responded to the web survey. The analysis of the responses provides insight into the level of awareness, promotion and deployment of Intelligent Vehicle Safety systems on a country level (the EU member states, Norway and Switzerland) and on the level of stakeholder groups. Conclusions The analysis of the responses led to the conclusions for the level of awareness, promotion and deployment in countries of Europe: - willingness-to-pay Only a few countries have stakeholders that perform activities addressing willingness to buy, and there is little coordination across stakeholders to address this. This contrasts with 58% of the consumers that cite reasons related to willingness-to-buy for not purchasing IVS systems. This is a gap in campaigns or strategies to accelerate deployment of IVS systems. - coordination of activities on national level Coordination of activities on the country level is low or non-existent in the new member states, Ireland, Denmark and Luxembourg. On the other hand, 11/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Sweden, Germany, Finland, Spain, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France and Austria show cooperation among stakeholders and coordination of activities at the national level. This second group of countries coincides with the countries having large, multi-year research programmes, with one exception. - differences among European countries: o The countries can be classified into phases of IVS systems deployment. The state-of-the-art information on promotion and deployment activities showed that no EU country has fully achieved getting the systems on the road. Seven EU countries have entered the deployment phase: Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Finland, Spain and France. Eight countries currently find themselves in the promotion phase: Denmark, Greece, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Norway, the Czech Republic and Poland. Finally, ten countries find themselves in the start-up phase: Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary, Portugal, Switzerland, Ireland and Luxembourg. This situation is mapped in the figure below. d e roa ms o n th Coordination across stakeholders Syste Se, De, i, UK e , F r, L F as N s, t ph E en ym lo ep o, Cz Be, N , D At, Gr, It e as l , ,P ph Dk n tio Si, mo Lv, , , Lt, Pt, Ch Pro Ee Hu, Sk , u Ie, L pha se t up Star Awareness / promotion / deployment o In general, the new member states score below average in terms of recognition of the systems over all the stakeholder groups, with the exception of the Czech Republic and Poland. Slovakia, Hungary and Cyprus scored average to above average for recognition of at least one stakeholder group. Recommendations Recommendations to the commissioner of this study, the Unit ICT for Transport of the Directorate General “Information Society & Media”, are: - Provide for a strategic, coordinated vision and policy measures The EC should provide through the Intelligent Car Initiative a strategic, coordinated policy or a set of guidelines addressing these three phases of AUWE. These phases need to be developed and implemented in order get 12/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 consumers to equip their vehicles. In implementation, these need to be tailored to target the phase the country is in. Countries in the Start-up phase need to activate the stakeholders to develop objectives and a common vision and to coordinate their actions. Countries in the promotion phase should focus on filling in the gaps: identify missing stakeholders, refine or develop a common vision, and coordinate activities. In all phases of deployment, the set of activities to properly address all the phases of the AUWE concept need to be identified, coordinated and implemented. The EC should provide a set of guidelines in the form of a framework that stakeholders and member states can use. As mentioned above, the stakeholders can apply the guidelines selectively, depending on the phase the entity is in. The comparison of Japan and the USA shows that in the EU there exists a large difference between member states in language and culture. First, to support awareness, a strong role is needed for coordination and organisation at member state level. Second, to improve the level of promotion and deployment of IVS systems the EC and the national governments in the EU should have a much stronger role, including the development of standardised and open roadside sensors and communication systems. - Streamline research Research on IVS systems needs to be coordinated to allow transfer of knowledge from one study to the next, as well as the results to be comparable. This issue was encountered during the course of this study. The tender documents for the Benchmarking of promotion and deployment activities in the EU suggested a set of systems. This set differed substantially from the set of systems investigated in the Eurobarometer study (2006). The two studies had 8 systems in common, limiting the comparability of the results. Furthermore, the questions and the wording of the questions should be coordinated to a sufficient extent. - Benchmarking activities This study identified conditions for successful deployment of systems. General conclusions on “benchmarking” are more difficult to draw. What is needed is the answer to the question: What are effective activities for deploying IVS systems? This study provides the state-of-the-art on promotion and deployment activities in the EU. However, it is not known which activities are effective for guiding consumers through the AUWE phases. To answer this question, a coordinated effort of tracking activities and measuring results over time should be undertaken. Furthermore, continuous benchmarking should be a goal for the EC. This approach will provide measurable results in a temporal perspective. The success of awareness and deployment campaigns can be tracked. This approach leads towards a time series for deployment measures. Reflections on the project and research method - It is still too early to provide an integral conclusion regarding the level of awareness, promotion and deployment of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems in 13/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 the EU. This study identified conditions for successful deployment of systems. General conclusions on “benchmarking” are more difficult to draw. What is needed is the answer to the question: What are effective activities for deploying IVS systems? - The partners in the project approached all stakeholders in all countries with the same level of effort. It is assumed, through the network covered by the partners, that the right persons were identified and that the correct and complete information was obtained. However, it should be noted that during the course of the study other sources came forward with relevant information that should have been provided by the targeted sources but was not. - The comparison of the different countries in this study is based on a qualitative approach. Statistical tests on the quantitative data led to no clear conclusions. In order to identify Best Practices, objective, quantitative measures of what is best are necessary. This study provides information on the state of the art in terms of activities, but the information to identify what is “best” does not exist. This results form the lack of measures of effectiveness (see above in “Benchmarking Activities”). Therefore, this study provides examples of activities, e.g., high levels of cooperation among stakeholders on the national level, which are by definition “best practice.” Finally, the reflections above require that care should be taken with conclusions presented by this report. This report lays the foundation for the inventory for the state- of-the-art activities in the EU in awareness, promotion and deployment of IVS systems. A follow-up study, involving either interviews at the country-level or organised feedback on the results on the report, can confirm or supplement the results in this report. 14/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 1 Introduction The mobility of people and goods represents a fundamental principle for the success of the European Single Market. Modern society benefits much from being mobile. In the coming years, road transport – as well as other modes – is expected to grow further. However, road transport is also associated with considerable societal impacts due to accidents, congestion and environmental pollution. About 40,000 people lose their lives on European roads each year, and more than 1.5 million become injured. The costs of those damages amount to 200 billion EUR. This represents around 2% of the Communities’ GDP. Congestion also leads to considerable damages for the European economy. Conservative estimations specify the delay costs up to 50 bill. EUR per year (EC 2006a). Other sources calculate them to be about 2% of the EU GDP, [Infras IWW 2004]. Broadly, the challenge is to decouple the mobility growth from its negative side effects. Intelligent Vehicle Safety systems (IVS systems) promise a large potential to reduce the societal impacts by informing drivers about traffic conditions and assisting them in hazardous situations. This can make road transport safer, more efficient in terms of time and energy use, and environmental friendly. In contrast to the potential, IVS systems are not yet widely deployed. The reasons for the lack of deployment are manifold. 1.1 Intelligent Car Initiative launched by the EC In 2006, the European Commission launched the Intelligent Car Initiative (EC 2006a). It represents one important element (flagship initiative) within the i2010 initiative which aims at encouraging the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) as a means to cope with major societal problems. The Intelligent Car Initiative (ICI) serves the following objectives: • Create awareness of ICT based solutions to stimulate user’s demand for these systems and create socio-economic acceptance. • Support research and development in the area of smarter, cleaner and safer vehicles and facilitate the take-up and use of research results. • Coordinate and support the work of relevant stakeholders, citizens, Member States and the Industry, in the ICI activities. As a basis for defining a set of actions for these objectives, an overview is needed describing the present state of promotion, deployment and support of IVS in the EU. In order to obtain this overview, the EC has issued an invitation to tender for a ‘Benchmarking study on activities in promoting and deploying Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems in the EU’. The result of the Benchmarking study will also provide guidance for further action within the Intelligent Car Initiative and beyond. 1.1.1 Arguments for public involvement of IVS systems implementation Most Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems are – despite their potential – currently not widely deployed in the European market. Even for pioneering systems such as the Antilock Braking System (ABS), the large scale deployment took a very long period of time. About 30 years after the market introduction of ABS it is still not integrated in every new car although the penetration in the entire EU car fleet now amounts to more 15/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 than two thirds. This long deployment process is also illustrated by Figure 1.1 with evidence from the US. Another example is the Electronic Stability Control (ESC). After a decade, 40% of all new cars in the EU are now equipped with ESC. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 ABS Frontairbag (Driver) Figure 1.1 Installation rate of ABS and airbags in new cars (USA) Source: Veloso Fixson 2001, 249. Hence, the potential of IVS systems to make road traffic safer, cleaner and more efficient is only realised in a very limited range. There are many arguments for taking actions in order to facilitate the market introduction; the most important are: • Consumers are not well aware of IVS systems. The choice situation of buying a new car is quite complex. The car should fulfil the driver’s needs; it should be attractive but on the other hand not too expensive. In economic terms, consumers try to maximise their utility with respect to budget restrictions. A recent study shows that safety is only little-mentioned spontaneously; other elements such as aesthetic attractiveness, price and brand seem to be more decisive (Eurobarometer 2006a). On the other hand, when confronting citizens with choice factors, safety and fuel consumption are mentioned as the most important factors by far (Eurobarometer 2006b). • Consumers hesitate to buy IVS systems since these systems are high technology products which must be experienced by the consumer. Up to now, a large section of potential buyers are still not aware of the available systems. There is also a lack of understanding of the functionalities of the systems. • The willingness to buy is influenced to some extent by insufficient user benefits. From the economic theory point of view, the deployment of IVS systems could be seen as a case of market failure. More precisely, it stands for a failure of the market mechanism. The reason is given by the presence of external effects (my cost – your benefit). Users have to pay for improved safety. On the other hand, they can not enjoy the full benefits of their investment because third parties also profit from the IVS equipment. This is for instance the case when systems impact on the traffic flow and the society profits from lower pollution and CO2 emissions. • When external effects occur, the good – here road safety – is underprovided by the market. Road safety can therefore be classified as a merit good. This means that the market provision is lower than the socially optimal level. Hence, there is merit in 16/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 providing more of this good. A typical public sector remedy is to grant subsidies to level out the external effect. • An additional point (network externalities) is relevant when co-operative vehicle systems are addressed. They need a critical mass for generating benefits of their operation (e.g. a minimum equipment rate which is needed for car-to-car communication). • The market introduction of IVS systems has considerable risks for the automotive industry. Some of them are due to legal barriers (e.g. product liability). Others are more related to financial risks. The research and development costs for the systems are substantial. The return on investment is uncertain and in many cases low. Early movers also bear the risk of call-back campaigns. In addition, the automotive industry can be characterised as extremely competitive with narrow margins. In such an environment, “wait and see” can represent an appropriate OEM strategy for risk minimisation. The consequence is that the technological potential is not fully realised by some OEM’s. These reasons, combined with the large number of “decision makers” or actors involved in deployment, argue for measures to accelerate the deployment of IVS systems. 1.2 Project approach 1.2.1 Project organisation The benchmarking study is commissioned by the Unit ‘ICT for transport’ of the Directorate General Information Society and Media. A consortium of parties, led by the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific research (TNO) have conducted the study. The other members of the consortium are: - Institute for Transport Economics of the University of Cologne, Germany - VTT - Technical Research Centre of Finland - CRF - Centro Ricerche Fiat - ERTICO, and - CDV Transport Research Centre 1.2.2 Benchmarking proces The Benchmarking study comprises, in an eight-month time frame, the concept and planning of the benchmarking, the collection of required information, the analysis of the results and the formulation of recommendations. The full project approach is illustrated in Figure 1.2. The core activities of the project are described in more detail in chapter 2. 17/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Study Object Assessment of level of information IVS Promotion Inception and Deployment Stakeholders: Report Government (Metho- EU citizens dology) Benchmarking Assessment of level Empirical Analysis Methodology of promotion activities and Stakeholders: Recommendations AUWE Concept Member states (Awareness, Civil society Qualitative analysis Understanding, Industry Interim Willingness Quantitative Report to buy, analysis Assessment of sustaina- (Interim Equipment) bility of the actions to Results) Ranking and enhance deployment Key Indicators Best Practice Stakeholders: Member states Assessment Industry International comparison Final Report situation in EU Concept and Information Analysis and Documen- Planning Collection Recommendations tation Figure 1.2 Project approach of the Benchmarking study Results of the study The analysis provides a scientific and empirical basis for the EC, Member States, Industry and other stakeholders to start a process of sustainable improvement of the level of awareness of IVS systems. The main results are: - an overview of the level of awareness of IVS systems in the EU Member States, - an overview of best practices on improving IVS awareness and use in EU Member States, - an analysis of commonalities, differences between the situation in different Member States and sectors, - recommendations to the EC, Member States, Industries and other stakeholders to improve the level of awareness of IVS systems in a sustainable way. The report will further provide a summary sheet per Member State on the current situation of information, promotion and support for IVS deployment and an overview of relevant stakeholders in the field of IVS systems. 18/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 1.3 Structure of the report The report is structured as follows. Chapter 2 lays out the theoretical framework on which the data collection and analysis in the EC Benchmarking study was based. It derives the conceptual map of the study (the AUWE concept). The benchmarking methodology is applied to the research needs of the study. Stakeholders for IVS systems, indicators in terms of activities for promotion and deployment, useful assessment criteria and data requirements are identified. Chapters 3 and 4 provide the results of the benchmarking study on the level of awareness and promotion & deployment, respectively. Chapter 5 carries out a further analysis of the results, using the AUWE conceptual framework to draw conclusions on the “match” between stakeholders’ promotion and deployment activities and external literature sources such as the Eurobarometer (2006b). Chapter 5 also identifies differences between EU countries, and classifies EU countries into the phase in which they are in (start-up, promotion, deployment, systems on the road), based on multiple pieces of information from the Benchmarking survey. The report closes with conclusions on the study and recommendations for next steps. 19/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 20/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 2 Methodology and data collection process The following sections describe the methodological approach to the study. In section 2.1 the classical concept of AIDA is applied to create a conceptual map. This application provides insight in the consumer buying behaviour related to IVS systems. The conceptual map is completed by linking the AUWE concept to the stakeholder activities in the field of IVS systems. The methodology of Benchmarking is presented in section 2.2. section 2.3 applies the benchmarking techniques to the objective of the IVS systems survey. Finally, in section 2.4 is explained how the data collection process is prepared and which checks and tests are carried out in order to create a sound set of data for the analysis. 2.1 Conceptual map 2.1.1 The AIDA approach of consumer buying behaviour In order to develop an adequate methodological approach which is then reflected in a conceptual map for the benchmarking, the human mental processes are first considered. Cognitive psychology and evidence from advertising can provide some orientation here. Cognitive psychology studies the mental processes which underlie thinking, reasoning and decision making. To name only a few aspects, cognitive psychology covers memory, attention, perception and knowledge representation. The mental stages form the basis for phase approaches which are broadly used in advertising and marketing. Concerning the consumer awareness of products, the AIDA approach is a well established concept. It was initially formulated by Strong in the early 20th century (Strong 1925). AIDA stands for the different phases a customer goes through before she or he buys a good: • Attention: attract the attention of a customer, • Interest: raise customer interest by demonstrating features and benefits, • Desire: convince customers that the good will satisfy their needs, • Action: stimulate customers to buy a good. All phases are equally important and need to be fulfilled. Promotion campaigns are often tailored to one specific phase and followed by another campaign which is directed to the next phase. In the course of time, the AIDA approach has also undergone several modifications: • AIDA was embedded in comprehensive models of buyer behaviour (Howard Sheth-Model, 1969) but remained untouched within these models. • The number of steps was modified in both directions enlargement and reduction (e.g. AIDAS: in order to strengthen product or brand loyalty, satisfaction was added as a fifth step; CAP: the concept was reduced to three steps representing cognition, affect and behaviour). Although several modifications have been made to the approach, the classical AIDA four step process remains a fundamental concept for marketing and sales people. 21/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Figure 2.1 The classical AIDA approach to consumer behaviour 2.1.2 The AUWE concept: an application of AIDA The underlying mechanisms of IVS systems deployment are quite comparable to the AIDA steps. The demand for IVS systems has to be stimulated so that mature systems can be launched and the market takes them up in a sustainable way. In this context, the AIDA phases will provide helpful orientation for the execution of the benchmarking exercise in general and particularly for potential benchmarking indicators. With respect to the users, the AIDA phases may then turn into the AUWE concept. AUWE stands for the phases Awareness – Understanding – Willingness to buy – Equipment (see also Figure 2.2): • The first phase is represented by the consumer’s awareness of an Intelligent Vehicle Safety System. Awareness (“Do you know the system XY?”) is an indicator which is often covered by a public opinion poll. The recent Eurobarometer surveys (Eurobarometer 2006a, 2006b) cover these issues for the European Union member states both qualitatively and quantitatively. • Next to awareness a potential user should know exactly what a specific system does in his or her vehicle. Otherwise, he or she will not able to estimate the utility of the system. Such a question on technical understanding has been recently asked by Eurotest (2005). • The correct understanding of the operation should enable the customer to articulate his or her willingness-to-buy on a rational basis (either yes/no or specified in monetary terms). An example for such a stated preference analysis can be found in J.D. Power (2003). • The last phase which corresponds to the action phase within AIDA is equipment. It means that a consumer has equipped his or her car with a particular system. Information on equipment rates can be obtained on expert level from the eSafety priority system deployment survey. In the coming years – as more and more 22/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 electronic systems will be included in periodical vehicle inspections – such information will become available from institutions which are involved in the deployment and maintenance of vehicles in Europe. Figure 2.2 Transition from AIDA to AUWE concept in the field of Intelligent Vehicle Systems The AUWE concept provides an adequate framework for the modelling of consumer behaviour related to IVS systems. However, for completing the conceptual map it is necessary to link the AUWE concept to the stakeholder activities in the field of IVS systems. The stakeholder activities can be subdivided into promotion activities and deployment initiatives. The link to the AUWE concept can be drawn as follows: • Promotion activities aim at raising awareness of the IVS systems via information campaigns, live demonstrations, field operational tests etc. Such activities are also an appropriate instrument to improve the consumers’ understanding of the systems. • Deployment initiatives aim at the third element of AUWE. They are targeted to enhance the willingness-to-buy of the users. Alternatively, measures such as tax reductions or lower insurance premiums can improve the business case of the individual user. • The fourth step of AUWE, the equipment itself, is not directly targeted by promotion and deployment initiatives. Provided that the initiatives will be successful, all promotion and deployment measures will finally increase the equipment of vehicles with IVS systems. Bringing together the AUWE concept and the stakeholder activities, a conceptual map of the benchmarking study can be developed. It is represented in Figure 2.3. 23/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Consumer Relation Stakeholder to IVSS Action Points Awareness Promotion Activities Understanding Deployment Willingness-to-buy Initiatives Vehicle Equipment Figure 2.3 Conceptual Map of the benchmarking 2.1.3 Linking AUWE concept to the life cycle perspective Another common analytical tool for mapping the position of new products in a time based perspective is the product life cycle. Basically, it distinguishes between the four phases; start-up or market introduction, growth, maturity and saturation or decline. These phases can be displayed graphically as shown in Figure 2.4. It is also obvious that promotion and deployment activities play a major role in the early phase of the product life cycle. Market I II III IV Equipment Volume t Market Start up Growth Maturity Saturation/Decline Phase Type of Promotion activities (Awareness, Understanding) actions Deployment initiatives (Willingness-to-buy) Figure 2.4 Deployment activities 24/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Obviously, consumers must go through all of the AUWE phases for a successful market take-up of IVS systems. Create awareness, form understanding and stimulate the willingness-to-buy is a logical sequence which can bring the market forward. If IVS system deployment is seen from a life cycle perspective, awareness and understanding are necessary to push the market beyond the start-up phase. In the same way it is necessary to provide incentives for equipment in order to penetrate the market and to realise the full impact potential. If the deployment phases themselves are matched to the life cycle concept, the following map can be produced. In order to penetrate the market a more comprehensive activity coordination across stakeholders is needed. The analysis of the empirical results will later allow the clustering of European countries to deployment phases and their coordination level. Coordinated I II III IV activities across stakeholders t Start up Promotion Deployment Systems on the Road Figure 2.5 Phases of IVS systems deployment 2.2 The Benchmarking Methodology: Learning from Best Practices Benchmarking has been variously defined by dictionaries, companies and people involved in strategic management processes. Common definitions identify benchmarking as the search for industry best practices which lead to superior performance. Traditional competitive analyses focus on products, strategies and performance parameters to compare a certain business with its peers and how much it deviates from the customary standards within a particular industry (Codling 1995: 7). Usually, these key business figures are evaluated in relation to a benchmark company which shows superior results and therefore serves as a point of reference. But this view of benchmarking which has been used earlier is far too limited. Instead of comparing key (financial) figures for the purpose of ranking a company or stakeholder against competitors or best practices, benchmarking can be defined as follows (Andersen/Pettersen 1996: 4; Camp 1989: 13 ff.): “Benchmarking is the process of continuously measuring and comparing one’s business products, services and business processes against comparable products, services and processes in leading organisations worldwide to obtain information that will help the organisation identify and implement improvements.” This operational definition addresses several key issues and enables the use of benchmarking in the promotion and deployment process of IVS systems in the EU: 25/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 • The purpose of a benchmarking study is not only to compare different (implementation) measures for the sake of evaluation, but learning of achievement or improvements and development of new strategies. • Although performance measures (e.g. realised market penetration rate of IVS systems) are an important element in the comparison, processes, i.e., how certain tasks are performed, are the pivotal element. • By looking at the leading organisations which perform their processes better, the best available performance level can be imitated or converted to particular conditions. • The external focus is not limited. Comparison with the best companies or stakeholders on a European (international) level, regardless of sector, expands the variety of possible innovative solutions. • Benchmarking should not be a one-off event. Rather, it should be treated as a continuous process in which organizations continually try to evaluate and challenge their practices. 2.3 Benchmarking of awareness and deployment of IVS systems in Europe 2.3.1 Subsumption of the analysis within the theoretical framework Most IVS systems contribute to a high extent to the increase of road safety. Nevertheless significant market penetration of the entirety of IVS systems has not yet been achieved. Just single systems, like the Electronic Stability Program (ESP), are well established on the market and raise a high level of customer demand. Other alternative systems are not well-known in the end-user-segment, at least in terms of product specifications. To enhance the awareness level of the systems and to improve their market position, specific measures and instruments for support and deployment of IVS systems need to be identified and applied or developed. Already within the description of the AUWE concept it was demonstrated that promotion and deployment activities of several stakeholders can have a great impact on the willingness-to-buy decision of end users. They can prove decisive for increasing the number of vehicles in the EU with IVS systems. 26/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Figure 2.6 Conceptual map of the influence of promotion and deployment activities The purchase decision of the end user will not be influenced solely by the existence of appropriate promotion and deployment activities for IVS systems: the nature, quality and efficiency of supporting measures will also play a part. Differences among the various European countries do not only appear in the number of promotion and deployment activities for IVS systems or the financial volume of this support. The character of the supporting measure (type of activity, addressees, involved stakeholders) and the quality (or efficiency) especially differ a lot in European countries. Indicators have been identified that capture the measures and activities for promotion and deployment of IVS systems that are carried out by stakeholders (public and private institutions, companies, etc) in different European countries. These indicators link these promotion and deployment activities to the AUWE concept. Figure 2.6 shows how the indicators form the link between the activities of the stakeholders on the right to the AUWE concept on the left. Section 2.3.3 elaborates on the choice of indicators used in this study. 2.3.2 Stakeholders for promotion and deployment activities of IVS systems In this benchmarking study the following categories served as the basis for identification of stakeholders. • First of all the task of creating awareness for IVS systems and of supporting their deployment will arise for those parties that are developing such systems (suppliers) and installing them into their products (car manufacturers). Industrial partners therefore were regarded as a main stakeholder for enhancing promotion and deployment of IVS systems within the Benchmarking study. They do not only possess the necessary knowledge about the functionality and the effectiveness of such systems, but they also have adequate marketing and distribution channels available that might be used for the deployment of IVS systems. 27/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 • Also of great importance for promotion and deployment of IVS systems are governmental institutions (Ministries, Federal offices, road administrations, other Public Authorities). They have several possibilities to support the promotion and deployment activities, e.g. financially and by setting up and bringing forward research networks on IVS systems. The main reason for including them within the Benchmarking study arises from the fact that these institutions can issue legal regulations on the utilisation of IVS systems and that they can grant tax reductions for cars equipped with such systems. These measures can be considered important influencing factors for the further deployment of IVS systems. • Because of their role in co-operative IVS systems or infrastructure-based systems, infrastructure operators shall be included within the analysis. In the Benchmarking study they will be asked not only for the application of IVS systems in the transport infrastructure, but for suggestions on improving the promotion and deployment of such systems. In some countries (i.e. the Netherlands, United Kingdom) infrastructure operators can not be clearly separated from road administration authorities (governmental authorities). This has to be taken into account not only for the process of data collection, but also for the evaluation of the benchmarking results. • Road safety organisations and road worthiness testing institutions will be included in the Benchmarking case study. They should be highly interested in supporting measures and products that contribute to the increase of road safety. Indeed, most IVS systems can be considered to have a high impact on road safety. • Driver associations, insurance companies and road freight associations have direct contact with vehicle drivers and, therefore to the users of IVS systems. Feedback and comments to IVS systems from the user’s side will not only inform these partners about the actual state of awareness and information but can also be useful to implement user-orientated measures for promotion and deployment of IVS systems (i.e. adjusted participation fees, graded insurance premiums). • Launching customers such as car rental operators, driving schools and lease companies are characterized as well by a direct contact to end-users. Additionally, and more important within the Benchmarking case study in this research project, they can be considered to be or become the key accounts (in terms of customer categories for vehicles). As the users will not be interviewed about their purchasing decisions and criteria that will be important for buying a car, their opinion has to be communicated via these launching customers (in their function as some major clients). In this context they give evidence of the importance of IVS systems for the end-user-segment, the purchasing decisions and the knowledge about the function modes of different systems. • Additionally ITS organisations will be included as an important partner for promotion and deployment of IVS systems in the Benchmarking case study. Above identified stakeholder groups are used in order to compare and benchmark the situation in the countries considered in this study. Of course there are additional stakeholders in single countries that also support the deployment of IVS systems with their activities, but these are not explicitly mentioned within this context. Their 28/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 importance for the market penetration process of IVS systems should not be diminished but included on an as-needed basis. The following table provides an overview of the different categories of stakeholders that are considered within the Benchmarking study and corresponding partners in the single European countries that were contacted for the analysis. 29/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Table 2.1 Benchmarking partners in the participating countries according to the stakeholder categories for IVS systems Stakeholder At Be Cy Cz Dk Ee Fi Fr De Gr Hu Ie It Lv Lt Lu Nl Pl Pt Mt Sk Si Es Se UK No Ch category Governmen- √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ tal institu- tions (Minis- tries, road administra- tion etc.) Infrastructu- √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ral operators Road safety √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ organisa- tions, road worthiness testing institutions Driver √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ associations, insurance companies, road freight associations Launching √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ customers ITS Organi- √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ sations Industry √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ (OEM’s, suppliers) Others √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 30/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 2.3.3 Promotion and deployment activities as indicators for Best Practice Another task within the methodological approach of this study was the identification of possible indicators for Best Practice for promotion and deployment of IVS systems. The indicators are not only the subject of the Benchmarking study, but also construct the action frame that can be drawn up by the different stakeholders when looking for possible activities to support the promotion and deployment of IVS systems. These activities are conducted by the stakeholders to support the deployment of IVS systems. The nature, mode of action and effectiveness of single measures shall be evaluated within the Benchmarking process. The indicators for the possible supporting measures are presented below: − research projects and activities An opportunity to check for the state-of-the-art level of information and awareness of IVS systems or to promote such systems can be research projects and activities. This indicator can be used by several stakeholders involved in the analysis. Manifold forms of research activities can be imagined: on one hand initiatives of single stakeholders to promote own products or to gain useful information are probable, on the other hand consortiums of stakeholders and researchers can be built that are looking for common interests and possibilities to support IVS systems. In this case research does not only serve as information or a knowledge tool, but also as a platform to exchange experiences and to gain network effects. − Memorandums of Understanding, voluntary agreements An activity to promote IVS systems and to support their deployment can also be bilateral agreements between different parties or stakeholders (companies, governmental institutions, etc.). An example of this might be an agreement of industrial partners for the area-wide equipment of cars in lower market segments with IVS systems. Such agreements (i.e. Memorandums of Understanding, voluntary agreements) express a convergence of will between the co-operating partners. They can be used on company-level, but also national, European and international agreements are imaginable. But the effectiveness of such instruments is strongly related to the commitment of the partners. Voluntary agreements generally lack the binding power of a contract. They indicate a common line of action between the partners rather than a legal commitment. − marketing instruments Marketing instruments can be used as well by several stakeholders to promote and support the deployment of IVS systems. They offer manifold opportunities: on one hand different promotion activities and public awareness campaigns can be used to enhance the awareness and the attractiveness of IVS systems for end users, on the other hand stakeholders (i.e. OEMs, suppliers) do have the possibility to use instruments of their product and distribution policy (i.e. product packages or bundling of systems with other features, test vehicles etc.) to increase the sales volume of such systems. − monetary instruments Another important indicator, especially among the activities for deployment of IVS systems, is monetary instruments, i.e. tax reductions for consumers and companies, subsidies, reductions of participation or member fees and insurance premiums. As these examples show, this instrument is not at all limited to one special stakeholder (i.e. government or governmental institutions). Other 31/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 stakeholders can also make use of such measures to ensure a high attractiveness of IVS systems (or cars equipped with such systems) for car drivers and owners. − legal obligations Alternatively the government or related institutions can set legal obligations to enhance the deployment of IVS systems. This instrument is of great importance for the support of such systems: legal obligations can force car drivers and owners more than other instruments to make use of the advantages that will be offered by IVS systems in terms of road safety and environmental aid. Legal obligations can be set not only in terms of mandatory car equipment or performance criteria, but also for IVS systems being part of periodical car inspections etc. This list of indicators is neither complete nor exclusionary; it is a selection of potential fields of indicators that are tested within the Benchmarking process. Nevertheless it should be mentioned that not only well-known or obvious activities for promotion and deployment of IVS systems will be part of the analysis. The benchmarking will help to detect new, (internationally) not widespread activities to support deployment of IVS systems. In fact, these activities are of special interest as they can serve as inspiration tools for stakeholders and countries to think about their own strategy of support for IVS systems and to implement new measures. The following section explains how the presented indicators match with stakeholders involved in the analysis. In the following table possible combinations of stakeholders and activities for promotion and deployment of IVS systems are shown. The indicators are not only sub-divided to the categories of stakeholders. The different activities are also arranged by level of action (analyzing the state-of-awareness for IVS systems, promotion of IVS systems, support to the deployment of IVS systems). 32/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Table 2.2 Indicators for awareness, promotion and deployment of IVS systems in stakeholder categories Type of Stakeholder Indicators according to the type of action State-of-the-art level of information and Promotion activities Deployment activities awareness of IVS Government - Overall knowledge of systems included in the - Memorandum of understanding - Fiscal incentives survey - Public awareness campaigns on IVS - Subsidies for research and development - Organisational structure for ITS - Research and exposure campaigns (Field - Mandatory equipment - IVS as an issue in national traffic safety plan Operational Tests) - Performance criterion - Participation in EU-projects and research on IVS - Funding of required information infrastructure Infrastructure operators - Participation in projects and research on IVS - Public awareness campaigns on IVS - provision of real time information to service - Research and exposure campaigns (Field providers Operational Tests) - provision of digital map information - Memorandum of understanding - deployment of required roadside infrastructure - deployment of required information infrastructure Industry - Development phase of systems - Voluntary agreements to promote a system - IVS as market packages - Year of market introduction (i.e. on market introduction) - Test vehicles - Lowest market segment available - Memorandum of understanding - Cooperation with key accounts (i.e. company - IVS datasheets for personnel and customers - Specific promotion activities cars equipped with systems) - Training courses covering IVS for salespeople - Research and exposure campaigns (Field Operational Tests) Driver Associations - Participation in projects and research on IVS - Public awareness campaigns - Reduction of participation fees - IVS as object for driver education and driving safety trainings - Initiatives in consumer information - Joint initiatives 33/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Table 2.2 (continued) Indicators for awareness, promotion and deployment of IVS systems in stakeholder categories Type of Stakeholder Indicators according to the type of action State-of-the-art level of information and Promotion activities Deployment activities awareness of IVS Insurance companies - Participation in projects and research on IVS - Memorandum of understanding - Reduction of insurance premiums Road safety organizations - Participation in projects and research on IVS - Public awareness campaigns Road worthiness testing - IVS as part of periodical car inspections and/ or - Participation in projects and research - IVS as part of periodical car inspections and/ or institutions tests tests - Type approval - Type approval Launching customers - Overall knowledge of systems included in the - Promotion campaigns - Voluntary agreements on deployment activities (role models), i.e. rental survey - Joint initiatives (with OEMs) - Test vehicles fleet operators, taxi - IVS datasheets for personnel and customers - Driver education drivers, driving schools Lease companies - IVS datasheets for personnel and customers - Promotion campaigns - Preferring cars equipped with system ITS Organisations - Participation in projects and research - Participation in projects and research - Awareness congress and information days/ events - Memorandum of understanding 34/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Possible combinations of stakeholders and activities for promotion and deployment of IVS systems are presented in the table. Several indicators are used by more than one stakeholder (research activities, public awareness campaigns). Often there are structures in which stakeholders cooperate. Other activities are limited to be used by single stakeholders only (tax reductions, infrastructure investments). 2.4 Data collection 2.4.1 Empirical data collection An empirical data collection for the Benchmarking of activities of different stakeholders for promotion and deployment of IVS systems is necessary. Existing data from secondary sources is not sufficient to perform a benchmark. Hence, within this analysis a survey among different stakeholders in European countries is executed to collect data on activities for promotion and support of IVS systems. The Benchmarking concept that is developed for this analysis evaluates: - for different IVS systems, - possible activities for promotion and deployment, - that are carried out by stakeholders, - in several European countries, - on different levels of action (awareness, promotion, deployment of systems). These factors considered in the benchmarking (systems, activities, countries, stakeholders, level of action) have to be taken up as well in the representation of the survey. The following activities are conducted for the preparation of the survey − Addressees of the survey will be stakeholders in different European countries. Specific contact persons have to be identified within the companies and institutions that represent the stakeholder categories in the single countries. − Because of the extent of the survey only a selection of IVS systems can be included in the analysis. A short description of the single systems itself and what they do exactly, will be presented to the contact persons within the survey. The description of IVS systems selected is presented in appendix C of the report. − Within the survey a predetermined set of possible activities for promotion and support of IVS systems on different levels of action by different stakeholders will be presented (see section 2.3.3). The questions in the survey are directed to determine the actual level of awareness of the systems and activities to promote and deploy such systems. The survey is composed of a twofold approach: using both a website and telephone interviews to collect the data. The questionnaire is presented via an Internet user interface that can be completed online by the addressees. Controlling mechanisms (password locks etc.) are installed to ensure that only the intended addressees can answer to the questionnaire. The content of this questionnaire and the modes of filling in were explained within comprehensive 35/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 guidelines that accompanied the questionnaire. Short system descriptions of the IVS systems included in the survey was also presented via the internet platform. To ensure sufficient coverage of stakeholders, assistance to the questionnaire was provided using a structured telephone interview. In a number of cases the contacts were talked through the survey. Earlier experience has proven that respondents sometimes interpret questions differently and overlook some aspects of issues in questions. Seeing the other responses, they usually realise these mis-interpretations and points they overlooked. This was meant to be taken into account by giving the respondents the opportunity to review their answers in comparison to other answers. Due to the difficulty of persuading the contacts to respond to the survey in the first place, this attempt had to be abandoned. The questionnaire provided to the stakeholders is subdivided into different categories: 1. First the awareness of the IVS systems included in the survey is ascertained. The general awareness of a particular system and also knowledge about its mode of operation (what does it do?) are of interest. 2. Questions about the contact person’s opinion of the relevance of IVS systems as means to enhance road safety, to reach environmental targets and to enhance the efficiency of transport were asked. From the answers conclusions can be drawn about the importance of IVS systems within the organisation of the polled institutions and companies. 3. Next followed an extensive section of questions on the promotion and deployment activities of the different stakeholders. The addressees were asked to report about their activities and to give project details (object, duration, financial basis, objectives etc.) The actual situation will be used to estimate possible future changes. 4. The addressees were requested to give a personal opinion onto the effectiveness of different activities for the promotion and deployment of IVS systems. In the ideal case the answers can be used to assimilate a rough ranking of the potential activities according to their effectiveness (by stakeholders and countries). 5. Every stakeholder could also report about regional initiatives, that he/she considered to be best practices for the promotion and deployment of IVS systems in his/her country. These additional activities were not strictly linked to the stakeholder and indicator categories used within the Benchmarking. This approach aimed to also collect those activities that could otherwise fall through the cracks between mentioned categories. 6. The Benchmarking process regarded institutions and companies (stakeholders) with different fields of action and responsibilities. This implies that, to a certain extent, the questionnaire contained stakeholder specific questions. These questions mainly provide a basis from which to ask for special, stakeholder specific possibilities to promote and support IVS systems (i.e. research activities of the governmental institutions, financial incentives for car insurance owners), but in this way also other interesting items could be included in the analysis (i.e. awareness of the systems or willingness-to-buy in the end user segment). 36/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 To limit the total amount of questions and to guarantee that the addressees are not overextended specific sets of questionnaires for each category of stakeholders were provided. For example Road Operators have only been asked for their opinion on the IVS systems that are close to their operation. An overview of the full questions for each group of stakeholders is presented in appendix E of this report. 2.4.2 Quality control and results of the data collection process The data collection proved to be a crucial element in the success of the benchmarking process. A number of actions were executed to guarantee the collection of the data necessary to perform the analysis. A great deal of effort was put into the identification of the relevant persons in the identified stakeholder groups and in total more than 440 experts were identified and contacted. These people were invited to participate in the survey via a letter of motivation, written by the European Commission (see appendix B). The extensive network and knowledge of the local situation of all consortium partners was used to ensure a targeted approach of the crucial contacts to cover as much as possible all stakeholder categories in all countries. The contribution of the EC Project Officer should also be mentioned in this respect. Appendix D contains an overview of the organisations that responded to the survey. A number of attempts were made to persuade contacts to respond to the survey. A telephone/e-mail script was used while contacting the identified persons. On a number of occasions special arrangements were made in order to approach the contacts in an appropriate way: motivational emails in the native language of the addressees and even using embassy personnel to contact relevant persons. The survey took place between the 12th of January and the 7th of May 2007. The incoming responses collected via the web survey were closely monitored. In case of missing values or missing stakeholder contributions phone or email contact was made to remind the addressees of the survey or to ask for an explanation of unclear answers. Additionally the phone interviews, and in some cases personal interviews, were used to obtain useful (further) information on promotion or deployment activities from the stakeholders. This formed an internal result in the project and could be used to make analyses of the results and extract best practice of activities for the promotion and deployment of IVS systems. The responses collected were stored in a database and evaluated in order to create a sound set of data for the analysis. The following checks have been made: • Are the respondents in the correct categories? Some respondents were shifted to another category, after checking that the appropriate answers could be transferred and answers would be comparable. • Some suspicious results due to the “default” answer for questions 2 and 7 in the section “governmental institutions” required contacting the respondents again to reconfirm their answers. • Some categories have more than one respondent from the same organisation or stakeholder group per country. These responses are regarded as one answer. The “maximum” or “best” answers are taken into account. • The influence of large number of OEM’s Italy was studied as well. 37/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Evaluation of all responses and data of other sources have demonstrated that: • Regarding research programs, public authorities sometimes have “general” research programs on IVS systems which do not exclude specific systems. • For infrastructure operators it may be possible that the administration and operation of roads are combined in one organisation or department. • Some categories only have a limited number of stakeholders such as the car industry. • In contacting the stakeholders from the car makers category the researchers encountered different company policies for providing information to the benchmarking study. Despite measures to ensure anonymity or generalisation some car makers regarded the required information as strategic or classified and did not participate. After the evaluation of the collected data, 188 responses were retrieved and judged to be used for the analysis. This total number of 188 responses out of more than 440 contacts is considered to be a very good response. Except for one country, all targeted groups are reached although in some specific areas, such as the group of launching customers and countries such as Cyprus and Portugal the coverage is too weak for strong opinions. In general the data collected is considered to be more than sufficient for a first attempt to draw a baseline in the field of IVS systems. The distribution of the data collected over the targeted countries and stakeholder groups is shown in figure 2.7 and 2.8. 30 25 Car Associations 20 Car makers Launching Customers ITS Organisations 15 Driver Associations Road Safety Organisations 10 Infrastructure Operators Governmental institutions 5 0 at be ch cy cz de dk ee es fi fr gr hu ie it lt lu lv mt nl no pl pt se si sk uk Figure 2.7 Responses distributed per country 38/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Number of respondents per category 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 ns ns rs s ns ns ns s er er io to tio io tio io m ut ak ra at isa at to isa tit pe m ci ci us ns an so an so O ar C li rg As As rg C e ta g O ur O in en er ar ct ty ch S riv nm ru C fe IT un st Sa D er La fra Number of respondents ov d In oa G R Figure 2.8 Responses distributed per stakeholder group Support in the evaluation of the results is given by the statistical tool (SPSS). Data from completed questionnaires will be automatically transferred to a SPSS databases. This software tool offers multiple possibilities for evaluating the survey-data. The results of this evaluation are provided as country sheets and sheets for stakeholder groups in Appendix A. 39/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 40/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 3 Awareness of IVS systems in European Countries This chapter shows the level of awareness of IVS systems in European countries as demonstrated by the study. To understand the level of awareness the following questions need to be answered: • What is the level of awareness for the EU countries and the different stakeholders? • Are there significant differences between stakeholder groups? • Are there groups that are more aware than others? • Can groups of countries be identified that have a common level of interest? The chapter is split up in four sections; the first section deals with awareness within the countries and the second with the awareness of the different stakeholder groups. A general overview is given and noteworthy situations are highlighted. In the third section the research programs of the governmental institutions are discussed and in the fourth section a comparison of awareness is made between the EU, Japan and the USA. Appendix A contains data sheets for each country (27) and for each of the stakeholder groups (6) describing the specific awareness and promotion and deployment activities. 3.1 Awareness on a country level In this section the awareness in the EU is discussed. An attempt is made to identify different groups of countries which are more aware than others. Interesting issues regarding awareness about specific systems in certain countries are highlighted and the expected contribution of IVS systems to three different policy objectives is mentioned. The first part discusses the awareness in the different countries. 3.1.1 Awareness analysis The awareness of a country is based on “familiarity” with the twenty different systems. This was the first question in the questionnaire, which could be answered by “yes” or “no”. Firstly a statistical analysis was performed to see if groups of countries could be identified that were more aware than others. This test delivered no significant result. Secondly a correlation was sought between the population size of the country and the duration of the membership (Old versus New Member States). These tests also delivered no statistically significant result. Therefore a qualitative analysis was performed. Table 3.1 shows the awareness per country. This analysis is based on the responses of five stakeholder groups: Governmental Institutions, Infrastructure Operators, Road Safety Organizations, Driving Associations and ITS organizations. First the average for each stakeholder group of all countries (n=188) is calculated. Also within each country the average for each of these 5 groups is calculated. The analysis (benchmark) consists of a comparison of these two figures. The classification of the scores, ranging from 5-out-of- 5 to 1-out-of-5, is based on the number of stakeholder groups (out the five mentioned groups) present in a specific country. For example, in Spain only 2 of the 5 stakeholder groups had respondents. Ranking of a 41/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 country is based on the number of groups that score above the overall average. For example, in Spain these 2 groups score above the average of all countries. The results of this analysis (Table 3.1) reveal that Sweden and the United Kingdom score overall very well. These countries have a very good overall awareness within all stakeholder groups. The next group of countries, the so-called “follower” countries, are Belgium, Czech Republic, Poland, Greece, Spain, Austria, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway and France, which are well on track in their awareness. These countries either have fewer than 5 responses scoring all (or all but one) above average, or at least 4 responses of which all are above average. Italy (5 out of 5 stakeholders), Slovakia, Hungary and Denmark are in the middle, behind the follower group. This can be seen as the “in between” awareness phase. The other countries that are not directly in the followers or the following group are: Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Cyprus, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovenia and Portugal. Most of these countries are relatively small countries. A lot of these countries can be identified as New Member States (5 out of 9). Table 3.1 Scoring of awareness per country Score\ Number of stakeholder categories present 5 of 5 4 of 5 3 of 5 2 of 5 ++All groups score above the average Se, UK Be, Cz Pl, Gr Es + All but one group score above the average At, Fi, De, Nl, Fr Hu No ± The groups score around the average It Sk Dk Lu, Ch - More groups score below average than above Ee Lv Cy, Ie, Lt, Pt, Si (No data for Malta) 3.1.2 Systems per country This section focuses on the systems that are part of the awareness question. Three significant issues are identified. First of all in three of the countries there is a mismatch between the Governmental stakeholders and Infrastructure operators in awareness of infrastructure related systems. These countries are Italy, Lithuania and Luxembourg. An explanation for this mismatch could be the differentiation in functions between these stakeholders, for example in Italy the responsibility for the infrastructure is transferred to a private company. The second group of countries seems to be particularly focused on the infrastructure-related systems; these are France, Austria and Cyprus. In France the highways are privately owned, for example by Cofiroute, and they are very active in road safety (e.g. the SAFESPOT- project). In Austria there is a large research program (COOPERS) concentrating on safety of the highways. Thirdly, the awareness of ITS organizations in different countries including Germany, Slovakia, Italy, France and Finland was surprising. In these countries the ITS organizations score below the average. This may be related to the goal of these organizations, but it would be expected they would at least be aware of the systems they were questioned on. 42/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 3.1.3 Relevance of IVS Systems The second question in the questionnaire also related to awareness. Respondents were asked to rate the relevance of IVS systems in contributing to three policy objectives. The objectives are Road Safety, Environment and Transport Efficiency. This question was posed to the Governmental institutions, Driving associations and ITS organizations. A qualitative analysis was performed to identify the rated relevance per country. The score of a stakeholder group per country was rated in comparison to the average of the stakeholder group. If there was no response for a stakeholder group, the answer of that group was not taken into account in the analysis. The results are represented in Table 3.2. Overall it can be seen that Road Safety is interpreted as the most relevant benefit of IVS systems. Environment and Transport Efficiency score equally well, but IVS systems are not seen by everyone as a main contributor to these policy objectives. Table 3.2 Rated relevance of IVS systems compared to policy objectives ++ + ± - Road Safety 10 8 6 0 Environment 7 9 7 1 Transport Efficiency 4 10 9 1 ++ means all stakeholders rated effectiveness for this objective above the average. + means all but one stakeholder rated effectiveness for this objective above the average ± means the stakeholders score around the average for this objective - means the stakeholders score below the average for this objective Looking on a country level, a number of countries see the relevant use of IVS systems in a broader perspective; they also rate the relevance for Environment and Transport Efficiency very highly. Sweden rates the effectiveness of IVS-system as “very good” on all objectives, closely followed by Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany and the Netherlands. In these countries it can be assumed that the overall relevance of IVS systems is understood and the potential is recognized. The focus in Slovakia and the United Kingdom is purely on Road Safety, whereas Poland also focuses on the Transport Efficiency aspect. In Norway and Hungary the main focus seems to be on the Environmental perspective. The other countries are more or less indecisive about the prospects of IVS systems 3.2 Awareness of stakeholders In this section the awareness of the stakeholders is discussed. A comparison between systems is made and correlation is sought between car makers and governmental institutions. 3.2.1 Awareness per system The awareness of six stakeholders of the different systems is identified in Figure 3.1. This figure portrays the awareness of the stakeholders per system. The vertical axis shows the percentage of that stakeholder group that is familiar with that specific system. The systems are placed on the spokes of the radar graph. The graph is sorted from the top clockwise by the 43/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 overall average of the percentages of the different stakeholder groups. The groups that are represented in the graph are the following: Nr Stakeholder group I Governmental Institutions II Road Operators III Road Safety Organizations IV Driving Associations, Insurers, Driving Schools V ITS Organizations VII Car Makers and Suppliers It can be seen that overall stakeholder awareness of the systems is high. Only the last three systems are known by less than 50% of the stakeholders. These systems: Extended Environmental Information, Active Body Control and Active Front Steering may be difficult to understand due to the technical nature or their incorporation into other system aspects. It can also be seen that the infrastructure related systems (with the exception of RTTI) are on the left half of the radar graph. These systems apparently also lack overall awareness in Europe. The top right-hand side of the figure indicates the systems well known by all stakeholder groups, these systems are either already on the market (ACC, ESP) or systems receiving attention within the EU (eCall, SpeedAlert). 44/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Adaptive Cruise Control Active Front Steering 100% Electronic Stability Program (ESP) 90% Active Body Control (ABC) Speed Alert 80% 70% Extended Environmental Information 60% eCall 50% 40% Local Danger Warning 30% Intelligent Speed Adaptation 20% 10% Brake Assistant System (BDC) 0% Obstacle, Collision Warning Pedestrian Detection RTTI Dynamic Traffic Management Blind spot monitoring Governmental Institutions Road Operators Driver monitoring Alcohol (inter)lock Road Safety Organizations Driving Associations Vision enhancement Lane Departure Warning ITS Organizations Car Makers and Suppliers Lane Keeping Assistant Figure 3.1 The awareness per system of six stakeholder groups 45/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 The familiarity of IVS systems by OEMs and suppliers is illustrated by Figure 3.2. following the questionnaire from the manufacturers. Figure 3.2 shows the familiarity of the OEMs-only (blue) and the OEMs and suppliers together (purple). The OEMs are familiar with all the 20 systems. All the OEMs are familiar with ACC, Obstacle & Collision Warning, ESC, Blind Spot Monitoring and Lane Departure Warning. The suppliers are less familiar with the systems. Familarity car makers Familiarity Vehicle Safety Systems Familarity OEMs and suppliers 100% 90% 80% 70% Frequency 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Extended Environmental Information Intelligent Speed Adaptation gazev Electronic Stability Program (ESP Obstacle& Collis ion Warning Blind spot monitoring Dynamic Traffic Management ation (R Lane Departure Warning Pedestrian Detection Adaptive Cruise Contr ol Vision enhancement Local Danger Warning Brake Assistant System (BDC) eCall Lane Keeping Assistant Active Front Steering Active Body Control (ABC) Alcoh ol (inter)lock Speed Alert Driver monito ring eye blinking and Real time travel and traffic inform System Figure 3.2 Familiarity of car manufacturers and suppliers with the 20 IVS systems 3.2.2 Other issues on awareness Two other issues regarding awareness were identified for two stakeholder groups following the answers given to specific questions for these groups (also see the data sheet in Appendix A for the Governmental Institutions). The first issue relates to the relevant parties in the deployment of Vehicle-based and Infrastructure-based systems, identified by the governmental stakeholders. For Vehicle-to-Vehicle-based systems, the Ministry of Transport was indicated as most important governmental entity. For Vehicle-to-Infrastructure-based systems, a combination of the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Internal Affairs was identified. This indicates the need for cooperation internally for infrastructure-based systems and external cooperation, probably with industry for vehicle based systems. The main tasks that were identified in both scenarios were law-making, regulation and standardization. The second issue identified relates to the category of the driving associations. They were asked about experiences with “questions from members”. To identify the questions from members, the group was first broken down into four sub-groups, specifically driving schools, insurance companies, motorist organizations and transport associations. There it appeared that questions from members are mainly directed to the motorist organization, they appear to be “the best” in handling questions on IVS systems. This is illustrated by Table 3.3. 46/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Table 3.3 Questions from members for stakeholder group IV Questions from members Frequent Sometimes No Driving Schools Lithuania Czech Republic None Insurance companies None Switzerland, Norway, United Kingdom, Cyprus, the Germany, Estonia Netherlands, Hungary, Portugal Motorist Organizations France, Germany, Luxembourg Belgium (2x), Poland, the Switzerland, Ireland Netherlands, Italy Transport Associations Norway, Czech Republic The Netherlands, Italy Latvia 3.3 Research Programs Research programs can address awareness, promotion and deployment. For convenience, it appears under “awareness”. Governmental stakeholders were asked about the focus, duration and funding of research programs. Secondly the Infrastructure operators and Road Safety Organisations were questioned on their participation in research programs. 3.3.1 Focus and funding of research programs The following figures indicate the focus, the duration and the funding of the research programs as indicated by the governmental stakeholders. Figure 3.3 indicates the focus of the research programs. Almost 80% of the research programmes focus on Environmental or Road Safety issues. Although Public Awareness campaigns are an important means of raising awareness from drivers no specific research is currently conducted (or seen as main focus) of the research programs. What does the research focus on? 12 10 Number of Countrie 8 6 4 2 0 Environmental Road safety Severity of Technological Enhancement of Co-operation of Informing the issues issues accidents/ innovations efficiency in different transport public about Medical issues transport modes system advantages Figure 3.3 The focus of the research program Sixteen of the responding countries have funding of less than 500KEUR as is shown in Figure 3.4. This seems quite small. However, respondents may have had difficulty answering the question. For example, it was mentioned that the budget commitment to multi-year research programs was not for multiple years. In other words, the intention is a multi-year program, whereas the budget commitment is done on a yearly basis. This also explains the high number programmes of less than 1 year. 47/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Secondly, it was also mentioned that funding is a difficult term, because not all funding is coming from one specific budget (known to the respondent) and not all research is directly funded by the government. That is, research organisations may receive funding from both the national and EU governments, but the research may not be perceived by the national government as part of the national government’s research programme. What is the total amount of funding What is the duration of the research program 14 14 12 12 10 10 Number of Countries Number of Countries 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 <100.000 € 100.000- 500.000- 1.000.000- 5.000.000- >10.000.000 € 0 500.000 € 1.000.000 € 5.000.000 € 10.000.000 € less than 1 year 1-3 years 3-5 years >5 years Funding Duration Figure 3.4 The Funding and the duration of the research program 3.3.2 The planning of research activities Three groups of stakeholders were questioned about current research activities and future research activities. In Table 3.4 the answers of the governmental institutions can be found, in Table 3.5 the infrastructure operators’ and the road safety organizations’ answers are presented. Table 3.4 Planning of research activities by the governmental institutions Do you have research programs Do you plan further activities Yes, one 21% Yes, already started 33% Yes, more than one 38% Yes, planning 54% No 42% No 13% It can be seen that a lot of countries are planning or already setting up new research activities with regards to IVS systems. The following countries already started to enhance current activities: Switzerland, Slovakia, Estonia, Hungary, United Kingdom, Belgium and Ireland. The following countries are already making plans for further activities: Germany, Denmark, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden and France. Luxembourg, Latvia and Italy are not planning any further activities at the moment. Table 3.5 Planning of research activities by Infrastructure Operators and Road Safety organisations Do you participate in research programs Infrastructure operators Road Safety Actual Planning Actual Planning Yes, national 13% 8% 0% 14% Yes, international 53% 83% 43% 48% No 33% 8% 57% 38% The infrastructure operators and road safety organizations are all planning more new activities on both the national and international level. The changes by the Infrastructure operator are 2 countries from no current activities to international activities (the Netherlands and Portugal) and 1 country from national to international activities 48/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 (Slovakia). The changes by the Road Safety Organizations are 3 countries from no current activities to national level activities (Slovenia, Italy, Estonia) and 1 country from no current activities to international activities (Belgium) 3.4 IVS systems deployment in Japan and the USA Japan and the USA are nations in which extensive research has taken place for the development of IVS systems. In this section we briefly review the level of awareness, promotion and deployment of IVS systems in Japan and the USA. In contrast to rigorous approach based on a questionnaire in the EU, the results for Japan and the USA are based on e-mail exchanges with the Netherlands Office of Science and Technology in Japan and the USA. 3.4.1 Japan Regarding the level of awareness of IVS systems in Japan, it must be considered that people in Japan are considered to be much more of aware of new technologies than people in the EU. ITS technologies are widely known and have been actively promoted by both the public and private sector, because of the expected benefits on traffic efficiency, safety and the environment. In particular vehicle industries, automotive/electronics suppliers, road operators are well-aware of IVS systems. The Vehicle Infrastructure Communication System (VICS) was introduced in 1995 and is now available in 18 million vehicles. The introduction was reinforced by the introduction of Electronic Toll Collection. Japanese car-manufacturers apply IVS technologies in their home market before introducing them in rest of the world. Although systems such as Adaptive Cruise Control and Lane Departure Warning or Lane Keeping are available on a variety of models, the market take up is considered very slow, similar to the situation in the EU. The promotion of IVS systems was strongly supported by the organization of the ITS World Conferences in Japan and the Aichi World Exposition. The deployment of IVS systems was strongly supported by the large investments by the government and road operators in sensors, cameras and communication systems, both on motorways, rural and urban roads. These investments enabled the commercial viability of in-car systems and services such as the VICS. The deployment of IVS systems is strongly facilitated by cooperation between public and private organizations, coordinated by ITS Japan. The network of experts is strongly developed, experts know how to find each other and change job positions between private and public organizations. Increasingly, private organizations are taking the initiative in the deployment of IVS systems. 3.4.2 United States of America The level of awareness in the USA of IVS systems appears to vary in time and across the USA. In the late 90-ies the National Automated Highway Systems Consortium raised strong publicity, but the awareness about its successors the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative and Vehicle Infrastructure Integration is unclear. In general the general public does not seem to be opposed to new technologies, but concerns about liability can strongly hinder the introduction of such technologies. The organization of the ITS World Congress in San Francisco lead to a strong interest in IVS systems of state organizations. Between experts, the well-known Transportation Research Board meeting has shown an increasing amount of IVS related research. 49/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 The promotion of ITS technologies is coordinated by the federal government. In the Vehicle Infrastructure Integration program, standards and pilots are developed both at a federal level and at a state level (California, Michigan). These projects are conducted by consortia with both public and private organizations. A particular effort related to IVS is the challenges organized by DARPA in which teams compete in an autonomous vehicles race. The aim of these challenges is to enable the unmanned operation of military vehicles. These challenges have raised awareness amongst the public, research organizations and industry. The information about the actual levels of deployment of IVS technologies is limited. Although some success has been reported in the commercial introduction of forward collision warning systems on trucks, it seems that the use of IVS systems is low. 3.4.3 A comparison of the EU with Japan and the USA Based on the quick scan using limited sources of information, the following conclusions can be drawn. Japan appears to provide a good example for the introduction of IVS systems. It has a favorable environment for the introduction of IVS systems because of the general public awareness of new technologies, the strong leading role and investments by the public authorities and the cooperation between public and private stakeholders. The USA shows some good examples of IVS systems programs initiated by the federal and state governments (VII, Grand Challenges). There is an active coordination by the federal and state governments to coordinate the efforts by public and private parties, but the amount of activities seem to vary over time and between states. Nevertheless, the level of deployment seems to be low. What can the EU learn from this? A first observation is that Japan and the USA seem to differ fundamentally from the EU with respect to cultural heterogeneity. In the EU there exist much larger differences between member states in language and culture, which poses specific challenges to create awareness of IVS systems. It also implies that a strong role is needed for coordination and organization at a member state level. A second observation is that in order to improve the level of promotion and deployment of IVS systems, the EU and state governments should have a much stronger role, including the development of standardized and open road side sensor and communication systems. 50/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 4 Promotion and Deployment This chapter addresses the different promotion and deployment activities that are identified by the respondents. Firstly the promotion and deployment within the countries will be discussed, and then the stakeholders will be analyzed. The questions that will be answered in this chapter are: • Are there differences in level of promotion and deployment between different countries? • Which activities are judged as effective? • What promotion and deployment activities do stakeholders engage in? • Who do you consider to be responsible for promotion and / or deployment of IVS systems? 4.1 Promotion and Deployment in European Countries In this section the promotion and deployment activities will be discussed from a country perspective. Firstly four different groups are established based on the type of activities they perform. Secondly the effectiveness of different measures is assessed and two different approaches identified. The last section gives an overview of the different activities that were mentioned in the questionnaire responses. 4.1.1 Activities within countries The respondents were asked to identify current and future activities regarding the promotion and deployment of IVS systems. They were also asked to qualitatively identify the type of activities. Secondly the respondents were given a list of activities specific to their stakeholder group, in which they could also indicate other activities. For this analysis only the similar activities from different stakeholder groups were taken into account. The analysis was performed using the answers from the three questions above. The result of the combination of these answers is displayed in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1 Analysis promotion and deployment for the countries 51/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Figure 4.1 shows that four different groups can be distinguished, by the activity types and the level of cooperation between stakeholders. The first group consists of countries that are currently starting their first promotional activities, where little cooperation is taking place. The countries in this group are Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Lithuania and Slovenia. The second group contains countries that have already progressed from promotional to the first deployment activities, for example demonstrations and tests. However there is not a great deal of cooperation between the stakeholders of these countries. The countries in this group are Poland, Portugal, Ireland, Estonia, Switzerland, Greece, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia. The third group has activities combined between different stakeholder groups. The cooperation activities include Memoranda of Understanding, FOT’s and Public Awareness Campaigns. The countries in this group are Spain, France, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Belgium, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. The fourth and last group is made up of countries that have already progressed beyond the test deployment phase and are currently working on significant promotion to allow for large scale deployment within their countries. There are three countries in this category, namely Sweden, the United Kingdom and Austria. 4.1.2 The effectiveness of different measures This section is concerned with the rating of effectiveness of different measures in the countries. The overall rating of the different measures averages at around 4. This indicates that all measures are generally seen as effective. There is no strong preference for specific measures, which is also illustrated by Table 4.1. To identify differences between countries and preferences for certain measures, a qualitative analysis was performed. For every country the effectiveness rating was identified per measure and per stakeholder. The stakeholders were compared to the average of their own group. The analysis delivered the results presented in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 The effectiveness of measures per country ++ + ± - 1 Public awareness campaigns 4 14 4 4 2 Financial support to stakeholders 5 13 5 3 3 Co-operation between stakeholders 4 15 2 5 4 Tax reductions or other financial incentives 1 16 6 4 5 Customer incentives by the industry 4 15 3 4 6 Co-operation between the industry 3 15 5 3 ++ all stakeholders in a country rate the measure above the average + all but one stakeholder in a country rate the measure above the average ± the stakeholders in a country rate the measure around the average rating - the stakeholders in a country rate the measure below the rating In the United Kingdom and Sweden it is noteworthy that not all stakeholders rate all measures above the average. This indicates that they make a distinction in effectiveness of the different measures, probably related to the kind of activities they are currently performing. In the UK the industry is seen as effective partner, whereas in Sweden the government is seen as important leader. These two viewpoints can be found in other countries as well, where Germany, Austria and Switzerland all appear to be in favour of stakeholder cooperation, while Finland, Denmark, France and Spain are more positive about public awareness and incentives. Apparently there are two possible approaches to effective measures. 52/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 On the one hand a strong government takes the lead in activities, while on the other hand the industry takes care of activities by itself. Currently there are no clear reasons for preferences between the two options. 4.1.3 Identified activities In this last section qualitative input on promotion and deployment activities were mentioned, and this input is displayed below. These entries can be seen as examples of good practice for others. The activities mentioned by the countries are as follows: − The “zero road fatalities” vision in the future of the Swedish Road Administration. − The FOT for eCall with 100 voluntary participants in Austria. − Research into fiscal and insurance incentives in Belgium and Denmark. − In the Czech Republic, local cooperation between car makers and local authorities as a starting point for further deployment. − In Germany, the introduction of ESP in driver learning education. This is also true for Finland (in cooperation with the ITS organization) and Poland. Numerous others indicated willingness to incorporate the systems into their education if possible. − In Denmark two regional initiatives on ISA are deployed and young drivers receive an insurance premium reduction if they install a black box in their car. − An Alcohol Interlock demonstration was given in Estonia. − The government in Hungary has started by setting up an ITS Framework in which the other activities can be placed. − Dissemination of the results of different research projects in almost all countries, such as the exhibition of “smart cars, smart roads” in Norway. − Developing standards for IVS systems in the UK. These initiatives indicate that there are already a wide range of activities in the countries questioned. However cooperation is not mentioned at all as an important activity by the different stakeholders. This can indicate two things; either the cooperation is already taking place; or cooperation is not yet seen as an important issue in promotion and deployment activities. The next section attempts to reveal more on cooperation at the stakeholder level. 4.2 Stakeholders In this section the promotion and deployment activities of the different stakeholder groups are discussed. Firstly the activities of the different stakeholder groups are identified and compared. Then the responsibility for promotion and deployment is discussed from two perspectives: the government and car manufacturers & suppliers. 4.2.1 Stakeholder activities In this section a comparison is made between the different activities the stakeholders are performing. For every group, the three most frequent practicing activities are established. Every stakeholder group received their own list of activities, for certain activities there was an overlap with other groups. 1. The top three activities of the Governmental institutions are: - Harmonization and standardization - Support public awareness campaigns - Regulation 53/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 2. The top three for infrastructure operators are: - Deployment of roadside equipment - Deployment of information infrastructure - Provision of data 3. The top two for Road Safety institutions are: - Setting up public awareness campaigns - Conducting exposure campaigns and FOT’s 4. The top three for Driving associations is: - Research participation - Public awareness campaigns - Customer initiatives 5. The top two for ITS organizations are: - Participation in IVS research projects - Setting up public awareness campaigns The question was not posed to the car industry and suppliers, but Figure 4.2 shows that they are also very interested in promotion activities. Promotion actions at comany level 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 System 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 Action 3 4 Media campain Advertisement sign Motor/auto show Field operational test Figure 4.2 Promotion actions at company level from the car makers and suppliers Looking at all activities it can be seen that public awareness is one of the common activities, performed by all but one stakeholder group. This shows that there is a general flow towards raising public awareness. However our research results could not establish whether there was coordination between stakeholders and/or the different activities. Moreover, the qualitative answers from the different respondents revealed that these activities mostly concerned dissemination of research results rather than broadly- published public awareness campaigns. The exception to this is the UK, in which a 54/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 general public awareness campaign is raised with the cooperation of all stakeholder groups, including car makers. The only stakeholder group that did not identify public awareness as a main activity is the Infrastructure operator group. They indicate to be busy with the deployment of equipment and the collection of data. 4.2.2 Responsibility for promotion and deployment In this section the responsibility for promotion and deployment activities is discussed from two different perspectives. Both the governmental institutions and the car manufacturers and suppliers were asked to identify “who is responsible for promotion and deployment of IVS systems?” The responses to this question are presented below. From the Government point of view From the industry point of view Who do public authorities consider responsible for promotion and/ Who should be responsible for promotion and or deployment of IVS (over all respondents) deployment of IVS? 25 25 20 20 15 15 10 10 5 5 0 0 Governmental Industry EU institutions Road safety Drivers, Car Others Government Industry Road safety Drivers Others institutions (Suppliers, Car institutions owners manufacturers) institutions Figure 4.3 Responsibility from two perspectives: Government and Industry It can be seen that government institutions identify itself as the main actor, closely followed by the industry, EU institutions and Road Safety Organizations. From the industry perspective the government, the industry and the Road Safety Organizations are also identified as responsible actors. There appears to be a strong correlation in the choice of actors who are responsible. Furthermore both government institutions and industry identify the need to cooperate to ensure proper promotion and deployment of IVS systems. Lastly, both parties identify Road Safety Organizations as an important third party; judging by their main activities (public awareness campaigns and conducting exposure campaigns) they appear to have a great responsibility in raising public awareness. In the “others” category, industry mentions: Media, Insurers and EU institutions (2 times) and the government mentions: Media, Universities and ERTICO (ITS-Europe). One respondent comments that “it is not one stakeholder alone who is responsible, but it is the responsibility of more than one stakeholder”. It can be concluded that the need for cooperation is identified by the different stakeholders and they also understand that it is not one sole party being responsible for proper promotion and deployment. The survey revealed no indications on how cooperation is actively sought or promoted. 55/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 56/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 5 Analysis This chapter focuses on analyses that go beyond the material contained in chapters 3 and 4. It covers awareness, promotion and deployment activities. In the chapter the AUWE concept is used as a framework to do the following: − Determine if the current (state-of-the-art) promotion and deployment activities match the Eurobarometer results on factors discouraging consumers from purchasing IVS systems − Build argument for need for integral strategic approach to awareness, understanding and deployment in order to address all consumers − Identify differences between EU countries, classify EU countries into the phase in which they are in (start-up, promotion, deployment, systems on the road), based on the benchmarking survey responses. − Link benchmarking results to other studies, such as Eurobarometer and Conti. 5.1 Understanding barriers for market up-take of IVS systems This study collected data from 27 countries in order to benchmark activities in promoting and deploying IVS systems in the EU. In order to begin to grasp how the activities can affect the deployment of IVS systems, the AUWE concept was developed. AUWE stands for the phrases Awareness – Understanding – Willingness to buy – Equipment. Chapter 2 provided an introduction to this concept. Briefly, AUWE functions as the translation of the classical AIDA approach to understanding consumer behaviour in the field of IVS systems. Consumers need to go through the phases of Awareness, Understanding and Willingness-to-buy in order for a vehicle to be equipped with IVS systems, assuming that the IVS systems is not mandatory equipment. 5.1.1 Promotion and deployment activities do not address the consumers reasons for not purchasing IVS systems. This section begins by bringing into perspective end-user motivations for not purchasing IVS systems. The State-of-the Art activities that stakeholders carry out to motivate purchase of the systems is then contrasted with these reasons. The AUWE concept provides a framework for this analysis. First, we link the results of the Eurobarometer study to the AUWE concept. This provides insight into which reasons consumers have for NOT purchasing IVS systems, and which phase of the AUWE process forms the biggest hurdle for consumers. The next section links the information collected about promotion and deployment activities by stakeholders in 27 European countries to the AUWE concept. This step sheds light on the (mis)match of demand and supply in promoting and deploying IVS systems. It can help to address the end-users’ slow uptake of IVS systems in Europe. For the conceptual map it is necessary to link the AUWE concept to the stakeholder activities in the field of IVS systems. The stakeholder activities can be subdivided into promotion activities and deployment initiatives. The link to the AUWE concept can be drawn as follows: • Promotion activities aim at raising awareness of the IVS systems via information campaigns, live demonstrations, field operational tests etc. Such activities are also an appropriate instrument to improve the consumers’ understanding of the systems. 57/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 • Deployment initiatives aim at the third element of AUWE. They are targeted to enhance the willingness-to-buy of the users. Alternatively, measures such as tax reductions or lower insurance premiums can improve the business case of the individual user. • The fourth step of AUWE, the equipment itself, is not targeted directly by promotion and deployment initiatives. Provided that the initiatives will be successful, all promotion and deployment measures will finally increase the number of vehicles equipped with IVS systems. Bringing together the AUWE concept and the stakeholder activities, a conceptual map of the benchmarking study can be developed. Figure 5.1 presents the links between Stakeholder action points and the AUWE concept. Figure 5.1 Influence of Promotion and Deployment Activities on the AUWE concept.. Source: Baum et. al, 2006, page 22 The Eurobarometer study (Eurobarometer, 2006b) provides insight into EU citizen perception of IVS systems. DG Information Society and Media launched this study that covered all 25 Member States. A 24,815 citizens were interviewed face to face between 7 June and 12 July 2006 about their perception of intelligent vehicle systems and their usefulness. The IVS systems investigated in the Eurobarometer study differ from those investigated in the web survey. The studies have eight systems in common. In Table 5.1 the common systems are in Italic. Table 5.1 Systems researched in Benchmarking study and Eurobarometer Benchmarking Eurobarometer Blind spot monitoring Blind Spot Monitoring systems Obstacle& Collision Warning Obstacle & collision Warning Vision enhancement Pedestrian Detection Adaptive Cruise Control Intelligent Speed Adaptation Speed Alert Speed Alert Active Front Steering 58/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Electronic Stability Program (ESP) ESP Active Body Control (ABC) Brake Assistant System (BDC) Lane Departure Warning Lane Departure Warning Lane Keeping Assistant Alcohol (inter)lock Driver monitoring eye blinking and gaze Monitoring the state of vigilance of the driver Real time travel & traffic information (RTTI) Real time travel & traffic information (RTTI) Extended Environmental Information Dynamic Traffic Management eCALL eCALL Local Danger Warning ABS Adaptive Head Lights The respondents were asked about factors discouraging them from having intelligent systems in their cars. Specifically, respondents were asked, “Which reason would put you off having these safety systems in your car?” The reported reasons discouraging EU citizens from purchasing intelligent vehicle systems are, in order decreasing of first choice: Table 5.2 Which reason would puts you off having these safety systems in your car Reason for putting off IVS systems in your car Percentage citing this reason as first choice It’s too expensive to buy 34% Reduced driver’s responsiveness alertness by creating an artificially 13% feeling of being protected DK (don’t know) 13% Fear of unreliable electronic systems 11% Fear of excessive visual and sound warnings 9% Undermines driver’s freedom 7% It’s difficult to understand how these safety systems work 5% It’s too expensive to service 4% Cars are already safe enough 2% Other 1% Source: Eurobarometer 2006b, page 47. The Conti Safety Study (2004) found results that support the Eurobarometer study. 1000 randomly-selected motorists having access to a car were interviewed. The results were summarized in the following four issues: 1. There is a lack of awareness and understanding of the available safety systems, even of systems in their own car. Furthermore, the names and abbreviations for systems are confusing. 2. Safety is very important, controlling systems would be acceptable if this prevents an accident, and introduction of safety systems need to be legally mandated. 3. Higher prices for safety systems are acceptable, acceptance increases with understanding of the system. Self explanatory names up the value of the system. 59/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 4. Information must be tailored to the driver segment (new drivers, older drivers, women) Discouraging factors were also researched. The discouraging factors identified in the Eurobarometer study are linked to the AUWE phases as follows: • Awareness: The reasons “Cars are already safe enough”, “Other” and “Don’t know” are related to the consumer’s (lack of) awareness of an IVS systems. • Understanding: Understanding of an IVS system relates to what a specific system does in her or his vehicle. The reasons, “Fear of unreliable electronic systems”, “It’s difficult to understand how these safety systems work” and “Fear of excessive visual and sound warnings” concern both lack of understanding and experience with IVS systems. For example, IVS systems offer options for driver settings, so that frequency, volume, eg time headways can be chosen by the driver to suit both the driver’s taste and driving style. • Willingness-to-buy: This relates to the rational decision of whether to purchase the IVS systems, expressed in monetary terms. Thus, willingness-to-buy assumes that the consumer has a good understanding of the system. The reasons, “Reduces driver’s responsiveness alertness by creating an artificial feeling of being protected,” “Undermines drivers freedom”, “It’s too expensive to buy” and “It’s too expensive to service” all relate to Willingess-to-buy. Figure 5.2 shows the link between factors that put consumers off of buying IVS systems to the AUWE concept. • C a r s a r e a lre a d y s a fe e n o u g h • O th e r (S P O N T A N E O U S ) • D o n ‘t K n o w A w a re n e s s • F e a r o f u n r e lia b le e le c tr o n ic s y s te m s • It’s d iffic u lt to u n d e r s ta n d h o w th e s e s a fe ty s y s te m s w o r k •F e a r o f e x c e s s iv e v is u a l U n d e r s ta n d in g a n d s o u n d w a r n in g s • R e d u c e s d r iv e r’s r e s p o n s iv e n e s s T r a f fic a le r tn e s s b y c r e a tin g a n a r tific ia l fe e lin g o f b e in g p r o te c te d s W illinegen em s - to -B u y ( d v lo p e n t, • U n d e r m in e s d riv e r ’s fr e e d o m v a r ia b le s ) • It's to o e x p e n s iv e to b u y • It's to o e x p e n s iv e to s e r v ic e E q u ip m e n t o f V e h . Figure 5.2 Link between AUWE concept and factors that put consumers off 60/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Combining the Eurobarometer information and AUWE concept, we conclude the following regarding reasons putting consumers off having IVS systems in their cars: • 16% of the reasons relate to Awareness • 25% of the reasons relate to Understanding • 58% of the reasons relate to Willingess-to-buy. 41% of all respondents would put off buying an IVS systems, due to lack of awareness and lack of understanding. Before a rational decision can be made about purchase of an IVS systems, the needs of this population need to be addressed. Willingness-to-buy plays a role in over half of the reasons for not buying IVS systems. Here, rational arguments can be used to convince a consumer to purchase a system. 38% of the respondents fear that the systems will cost too much. 5.1.2 promotion and deployment activities do not match end-user needs The results of the Benchmarking study provide a State-of-the-Art overview of the promotion and deployment activities carried out by stakeholders in the EU. Examining the activities that have a direct impact on end-users / consumers, the activities linked to the AUWE concept are as follows: • Awareness: Training courses covering IVS systems for salespersons (by car makers), Public awareness campaigns, Treating IVS systems as subjects for driver education and driving safety training, Memorandum of Understanding, and Exposure campaigns / Field Operational Tests all address raising the awareness of the consumer for IVS systems. • Understanding: Many of the awareness-raising activities address improving understanding of IVS systems. Activities increasing understanding are: Public awareness campaigns, Treating IVS systems as subjects for driver education and driving safety training, Memorandum of Understanding, and Exposure campaigns / Field Operational Tests all address raising the awareness of the consumer • Deployment: Deployment activities address the rational decision to purchase an IVS systems. This is often specified in monetary terms, so such activities include financial components. Deployment activities include: Fiscal incentives for car owners or buyers, reduction of participation fees / insurance premiums, IVS systems as part of market packages (car makers), offering of vehicles equipped with IVS systems (lease companies), legal obligations and including IVS as part of periodical car inspection s/ tests. In Figure 5.3 these State-of-the-Art promotion and deployment activities are mapped to the AUWE concept. 61/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 •Training courses covering IVS for salespeople (car makers) Awareness •Public Awareness Campaigns •Treating IVS as objects for driver education and driving safety trainings •MOU •Exposure campaigns / Field Operational Understanding tests •Fiscal Incentives (e.g., car owners) •Legal obligations Traffic •IVS as part of periodical car inspections / tests Willingness- to-Buy (developm •Reduction of participation fees/ insurance premiums •IVS as market packages (car makers) ent, •Offering cars equipped with IVSS (lease companies) variables) Equipment of Veh. Figure 5.3 Link between surveyed promotion and deployment activities to end-user behaviour within the AUWE concept The results of the Benchmarking study indicate that most activities aimed at end-users focus on raising awareness and understanding. All the major stakeholder groups analysed carry out promotion and deployment activities; four of the six stakeholder groups carry out exposure campaigns / FOTs. That same number has signed a Memorandum of Understanding. Table 5.3 presents promotion and deployment activities carried out by all stakeholders, the link to A/U/W, and the percentage of countries in which the representative stakeholder reported carrying out the indicated the promotion / deployment activity. For example, 30% of the countries responding to the survey have a governmental institution that carries out public awareness campaigns. “N/A” indicates that the activity was not one of the possible answers for that stakeholder group. This table shows that only a few activities addressing consumers’ willingness-to-buy are carried out by stakeholders: small percentages of countries have stakeholders that have activities addressing willingness to buy, and there is little coordination across stakeholders to address this. This contrasts with the 58% of the consumers that cite reasons related to willingness-to-buy for not purchasing IVS systems. This is a gap in campaigns or strategies to accelerate deployment of IVS systems. Table 5.3 Percentage of countries reporting Promotion and Deployment activities, by stakeholder group Awareness/ Promotion / Gov. Infra Road Driver ITS Car Understanding/ Deployment Inst. . Ops Safety Assoc Org** makers Willing-to-buy Activity Org (intentions) (A/U/W) A Training Courses N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 22%* A/U MOU 23% 28% N/A 14% 19% N/A A/U Public Awareness 30% 38% 43% 31% 38% 80% campaigns A/U Exposure 23% 31% 17% N/A N/A 60% campaigns / FOTs A/U IVS as subject for N/A N/A N/A 19% N/A N/A 62/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 driver ed. and driver safety training W Fiscal Incentives 9% N/A N/A N/A N/A 20% (discount) W Legal Obligations 30% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A W IVS part of vehicle N/A N/A 14% N/A N/A N/A inspections/ tests W Reduction fees / N/A N/A N/A 12% N/A N/A insurance premiums W IVS systems in N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 60% market packages N/A No Answer *Training course or Training course plus education on system benefits **ITS Organisations cited cooperation with other stakeholders on many of these activities 5.1.3 Integral policy and strategic approach needed Individual activities at the country-level to promote and deploy IVS systems take place. However, the activities are not coordinated, they address predominantly the first two phases in the AUWE concept, and the activities fail to address the major area where most consumers give reasons for NOT purchasing IVS systems: willingness-to-buy. Even if the activities are successful in addressing the first two phases, awareness and understanding, the campaigns may not succeed without activities addressing willingness-to-buy. A consistent and integral approach is necessary to encourage consumers to buy IVS systems. A good example is the Danish case for ESC, where active promotion campaigns and activities were accompanied with tax incentives. The imposed tax on ABS and ESC was lowered for a limited number of years. This resulted in the sudden rise of Denmark to the top European country with regard to the ESC market penetration for new vehicles (Bansgaard, 2007). The integral policy implies a strategic approach to address and offer activities to address all the AUWE phases. Inversely, the activities require coordination over all stakeholders; some activities form part of the domain of governmental institutions, some of driver associations, and others of car makers. Joint political activities addressing all of the AUWE phases subsequently at the European and national levels need to be implemented. The large differences between member states in language and culture calls for a strong role on coordination and organization at a member state level. To ensure a single European market also the EC should coordinate harmonisation and standardisation of communications and roadside equipment. The Intelligent Car Initiative "Raising Awareness of ICT for Smarter, Safer and Cleaner Vehicles" aims to create awareness of ICT-based solutions, support research and technology development and to coordinate and support the work of relevant stakeholders. If this initiative is to be successful, a strategic, coordinated policy or set of guidelines addressing all the three phases of AUWE need to be developed and implemented in order get consumers to equip their vehicles. The integral approach requires sufficient focus to be successful. This calls for a stepwise approach promoting the deployment of one systems or only very few systems at a time, starting with the ones where the existing safety impact evidence is sufficient to convince the relevant stakeholders for e.g. incentives required for the willingness-to- pay dimension. The systems could be chosen on the basis of the priority systems as identified by the eSafety Forum. 63/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 5.2 Differences within the EU The benchmarking study reveals differences among member states. In general, the new member States score below average in terms of recognition of the systems over all the stakeholder groups, with the exception of the Czech Republic and Poland. Slovakia, Hungary and Cyprus scored average to above average for at least one stakeholder group. 5.2.1 Research programs Research programs address awareness, promotion and deployment activities. Several countries have established large, multi-year research programmes: Sweden, Germany, Finland, and Spain indicated that they have Research programmes longer than 5 years with funding of more than €10M. A second tier of countries, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France, Austria and Greece, have multi-year programmes (1-3 years or 3-5 years) with funding of €1-10 M. The results show that the NMS (except the Czech Republic and Slovenia) are shorter than one year and funded at less than €100,000. The older – and smaller – member states of Ireland, Denmark and Luxembourg, as well as Switzerland, have research programs of short duration and low funding. A research program of less than one year is better labelled a “project” than a “programme”. These projects do not guarantee continuity or commitment to IVS systems without a multi-year vision. 5.2.2 Coordination of activities on the country level Coordination of activities on the country level is low or non-existent in the new member states, Ireland, Denmark and Luxembourg. On the other hand, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Spain, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France and Austria show cooperation among stakeholders and coordination of activities at the national level. This second group of countries coincides with the countries having large, multi-year research programmes, with one exception. Phases of IVS systems deployment The countries can be classified into phase of IVS systems deployment (see chapter 2.1.3). The phases take into account the following aspects, derived from the response of the benchmarking survey: • Level of cooperation among the stakeholders at the national level • Level of investment in research programs • Duration of research programs • View on effectiveness of measures to promote cooperation among stakeholders • View on effectiveness of measures to provide financial support or incentives The initial phase, start up, concerns countries that are carrying out no or relatively small activities in the area of awareness raising, research programs and cooperation among stakeholders. The second phase, promotion, encompasses countries that have made modest steps in improving coordinated activities in awareness raising, promotion and sometimes deployment, have a moderate size, multi-year research programme, and consider measures aimed to promote coordination among stakeholders and to provide financial support or incentives to be effective on average. The third phase implies significant steps forward on those measures. 64/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Finally, countries in the last phase have significant number of systems on the road. Figure 5.4 shows the classification of countries by these phases. The axes show the major drivers of IVS systems deployment: coordination across stakeholders on the x- axis, and level of awareness / awareness / deployment on the y-axis. The state-of-the-art information on promotion and deployment activities showed that no EU country has fully achieved getting the systems on the road. Seven EU countries have entered the deployment phase: Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Finland, Spain and France. Eight countries currently find themselves in the promotion phase: Denmark, Greece, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Norway, the Czech Republic and Poland. Finally, ten countries find themselves in the start-up phase: Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary, Portugal, Switzerland, Ireland and Luxembourg. Figure 5.4 EU countries classified by IVS systems deployment phase Several countries scored highly on several benchmarks investigated in this study, one of them begin Sweden. Below we provide a Best Practice case on Sweden. This case is seen as the result of strong coordinated action and integral policy of all stakeholders involved. Other (foreign) stakeholders are actively approached or welcomed extending the knowledge and strengthening the position. 5.3 Best Practices Below two best practices are given, the first example relates to Sweden and their activities, the second one relates to Germany and their program regarding IVS systems as the best co-driver you can have. Sweden Sweden forms a case for Best Practice in terms of stakeholder cooperation. Partners from local government, industry and research organisations participated in the ISA-K FOT in Active. During the period 1999-2002 the Swedish National Road Administration conducted a comprehensive road information project which included a 65/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 large-scale trial involving Intelligent Speed Adaptation in urban areas. Several thousand vehicles have been equipped with voluntary, supportive and informative systems to help keep drivers from exceeding the speed limit. The systems were tested in Borlänge, Lidköping, Lund and Umeå, where the local authorities were responsible for running the trials in their respective municipalities. Over the three years of the project, the Swedish National Road Administration provided €8,5 million in funding, and was also responsible for the overall co-ordination of the technology involved, as well as for evaluating the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. With regard to ESC, the Swedish Road Administration (SRA) initiated two comprehensive scientific studies on the impacts of ESC on road fatalities. After receiving the concrete scientific evidence of the substantial safety benefits, the SRA organised in both cases well-advertised press conferences and also personally contacted key journalists and key launching customers. In addition, the SRA sent letters to OEMs and car importing companies in Sweden a letter urging for having ESC as standard equipment in their vehicles to be sold in Sweden. After the second study, the letter was even more strict than after the first one. These attempts resulted in considerable increases of the market penetration of ESC making Sweden with Denmark the top countries in Europe with regard to ESC penetration in new vehicles. Looking to the future, the Swedish SAFER consortium is planning a large scale Swedish FOT, similar in scale to the Swedish ISA trails. The SAFER consortium is based at Chalmers University. The road administration, industry and research organisations are members. Naturalistic Field Operational Tests will be carried out. These may be integrated in EU-funded FOT activities. The SAFER FOT goals align with EU FOT goals. The first small-scale phase has started, with the large scale FOT scheduled for 2008 and beyond. 66/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 The Lindholmen Science Park is both a physical location as well as a form of cooperation (following the triple Helix model) among industry, government and researchers. It focuses on developing a demonstration and testing environment for ITS, covering the virtual to the real traffic environment. At this moment, it is a Swedish knowledge development activity. In the future, it is expected to provide services for the ITS industry (Wahlberg, 2007). Public Scientific Customer OEMs Suppliers Authorities Community General FOT Goals Awareness and Acceptance by all Stakeholders (EU & SAFER) Socio-economic impact of ICT systems (Cost-benefit analysis) Transport Usage & Safety Environment Efficiency Acceptance Safety Environment Efficiency U &A Indicators Indicators Indicators Indicators Figure 5.5 General goals in Swedish FOT. Source: presentation of J. Engstrom at eSafety RTD WG, Brussels, 01/06/2007 Germany - Awareness campaigns - Best co-Driver Bester Beifahrer (Best co-driver) is an awareness campaign on driver assistance systems launched by the German Road Safety Council (DVR, founded 1969, 240 member organisations). The campaign is supported by important industrial members of the German Road Safety Council, namely Delphi, Siemens VDO, Hella, Valeo, Continental Teves and Bosch. The campaign started early in 2007 and it is planned for three years. A second goal was to draw more attention to the eSafety conference which was hosted by the German EU Council Presidency in June 2007. Hence, the campaign is also a good example of cooperation between different stakeholders. The campaign aims at improving awareness of mature systems which are already available in several vehicles. The systems in focus are adaptive cruise control, lane change and lane keeping assistant, parking assistant, systems for foresight driving, night vision systems and vehicle dynamics systems (e.g. Electronic Stability Control). Besides awareness, the campaign points also towards a better understanding of the systems’ functionalities and the systems’ benefits. 67/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 At the eSafety conference (5 June 2007) the German Federal Minister of Transport, Wolfgang Tiefensee, welcomed the initiative and stressed that driver assistance systems should be deployed in a comprehensive way. On the same occasion the German Road Safety Council claimed that driver assistance systems should not only be available in comfort packages. They should be stated separately (i.e. unbundled) in the price list to enable a rational choice of the customers. More information is available: www.bester-beifahrer.de 68/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 6 Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions The analysis of the responses led to the conclusions for the level of awareness, promotion and deployment in countries of Europe: 6.1.1 Benchmarking activities To exploit the full potential of such a study, the main results from the analysis phase have to be communicated and the acceptance of the involved stakeholders should be actively sought. A benchmarking study will be only completed if the findings are adapted to the organisations’ own conditions and implemented within them. An implementation plan for the improvements with specified targets and monitoring of the progress should guarantee a sufficient use of new and innovative ideas. Beyond this benchmarking process it should be noted, that benchmarking is not a one- time event and therefore, it should be performed regularly to guarantee a long-lasting success. Ultimately, the compared goals or benchmarks change over the course of the years and have to be evaluated and analysed again. Also, if necessary, the benchmarking concept has to be modified on experiences and lessons learned. Benchmarking can also help to detect new, (internationally) not widespread activities and concepts to support IVS systems. In fact, these activities are of special interest as they can serve as inspiration tools for stakeholders and countries to rethink their own strategy of support for IVS systems and to imply new measures. 6.1.2 Willingness-to-buy The analysis linked the current activities undertaken by European stakeholders to the AUWE concept. This revealed gaps in addressing consumers’ needs, specifically in affecting the willingness to buy IVS systems. An integral approach is needed to address the spectrum of consumers, to move them through the phases of Awareness, Understanding and Willingness-to-buy, concluding in buying a vehicle equipped with IVS systems. In order to succeed, the integral approach should most probably be applied in a very focussed way, concentrating on one or only very few systems at any one time. These systems should be selected primarily based on their availability for full- scale deployment as well as the availability of objectively and scientifically proven efficiency for reducing road fatalities and solving other transport related problems 6.1.3 Differences among European countries The analysis of responses revealed differences between EU countries. Differences in level of awareness, research programme budgets and duration and level of cooperation among stakeholders on a national level were found. Combining these measures, we classified EU countries into one of four phases: start-up, promotion, deployment, systems on the road. This classification can be used to tailor programmes to increase awareness among all stakeholders, as well as promotion and deployment activities. A high level of cooperation at the national level appears to be correlated with a more advanced phase of promotion and deployment of IVS systems. This is an unseen 69/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 dimension that strengthens the AUWE concept. It takes place behind the scenes, ultimately influencing Awareness, Promotion and Deployment activities focussed on the end-user. The cause and effect is not proven, but cooperation requires a common vision or wavelength among stakeholders in the field. The Swedish SAFER project, Test-Site Sweden and Lindholm Science Park provide good examples and possibly templates for how stakeholders from government, industry and research cooperate to achieve a long-term goal. The German SIMTD project provides a similar example of cooperation. The chapter concluded with a Best Practices case study on cooperation among stakeholders in Sweden to carry out R&D, promote the deployment of safety systems, and to initiate field operational tests. Sweden, along with several other EU countries, scored highly on several benchmarks. 6.2 Recommendations for the EC Recommendations to the commissioner of this study, the Unit ICT for Transport of the Directorate General “Information Society & Media”, are: 6.2.1 Strategic, coordinated vision and policy needed The EC should provide through the Intelligent Car Initiative a strategic, coordinated policy or set of guidelines addressing the three phases of AUWE need to be developed and implemented in order get consumers to equip their vehicles. In implementation, these need to be tailored to target the phase the country is in. Countries in the Start-up phase need to activate the stakeholders to develop objectives and a common vision and to coordinate their actions. Countries in the promotion phase should focus on filling in the gaps: identify missing stakeholders, refine or develop a common vision, and coordinate activities. In all phases, the set of activities to properly address all the phases of the AUWE concept need to be identified, coordinated and implemented. The EC should provide a set of guidelines in the form of a framework that stakeholders and member states can use. As mentioned above, the stakeholders can apply the guidelines selectively, depending on the phase the entity is in. Good examples of current initiatives targeting the needs of New Member States include the CONNECT and COST actions. The CONNECT project encourages New Member States to raise their awareness of and to use ITS. The COST Action 352 supports the exchange of knowledge in the area of Human Factors and Driving Behavior between Old and New Member States, and Switzerland. The EC guidelines should incorporate the recommendations of the Conti Safety Study (2004). This study focussed on Awareness and Understanding , specifically providing practical suggestions to address the needs of consumers to take up IVS systems. These can and should be used by all stakeholders. o Recommendation 1: Create clear, simple, practical messages to inform drivers (non-experts) about safety features. This pertains to the Awareness and Understanding phases of the AUWE concept. 70/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 o Recommendation 2: To improve awareness and recognition of IVS systems, use unambiguous names and clear up the abbreviation jungle. o Recommendation 3: To improve understanding of how IVS systems work and why they are useful, offer more training to motorists to create correct use and most benefit. Address target groups individually. Line up the actuation of the new safety features with tried and tested operational rules with which drivers are already familiar. Furthermore, continuous benchmarking should be a goal for the EC. This approach will provide measurable results in a temporal perspective. The success of awareness and deployment campaigns can be tracked. This approach leads torward a time series for deployment measures. 6.2.2 Streamline research activities Research on IVS systems needs to be coordinated to allow transfer of knowledge from one study to the next, as well as the results to be comparable. This issue was encountered during the course of this study. The tender documents for the Benchmarking of promotion and deployment activities in the EU suggested a set of systems. This set differed substantially from the set of systems investigated the Eurobarometer study, carried out in 2006. The two studies had 8 systems in common, limiting the comparability of the results. Furthermore, the questions and the wording of the questions should be coordinated to a sufficient extent. 6.2.3 Benchmarking activities This study identified conditions for successful deployment of systems. General conclusions on “benchmarking” are more difficult to draw. What is needed is the answer to the question: What are effective activities for deploying IVS systems? This study provides the state-of the art on promotion and deployment activities in the EU. These activities have been benchmarked. However, it is not known which the effective activities are for guiding consumers through the AUWE phases. To answer this question, a coordinated effort of tracking activities and measuring results over time should be undertaken. 6.3 Reflections on the project and research method Overlooking the whole project from process to results, some remarks should be made. The partners in the project approached all stakeholders in all countries with the same level of effort. We assumed, through the network covered by the partners, that we had identified the right persons and obtained the correct and complete information. However, during the process, we have come across pieces of information that should have been provided by our sources but was not. For example, the efforts in Denmark to raise awareness for ESC and to provide financial incentives for purchase of this system, which has resulted in one of the highest equipment rates of ESC in Europe, was not reported by our respondents in Denmark. 71/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 In order to identify Best Practices, objective, quantitative measures of what is best are necessary. This study provides information on the state of the art in terms of activities, but the information to identify what is “best” does not exist. This results form the lack of measures of effectiveness (see above in “Benchmarking Activities”). Therefore, this study provides examples of activities, e.g., high levels of cooperation among stakeholders on the national level, which are by definition “best practice.” Finally, differences in response rate presented methodological hurdles in terms of classifying countries. For example, how should a country for which 5 stakeholders responded at an “average” level be compared to a country for which 3 of the 5 stakeholders responded at a “high” level? Does the lack of response by two of the respondents in the latter country weigh negatively so that the two countries are in some sense equivalent? The parties carrying out this study stated the assumptions made for these type of questions. The reflections above require that care should be taken with conclusions presented by this report. This report lays the foundation for the inventory for the state-of-the-art activities in the EU in awareness, promotion and deployment of IVS systems. A follow- up study, involving either interviews at the country-level or organised feedback on the results on the report, can confirm or supplement the results in this report. 72/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 7 References and Bibliography All references are from public sources. Andersen/Pettersen (1996) The Benchmarking Handbook, Step-by-step instructions, London et al. 1996. Anderson (2006) Metro Benchmarking yield tangible benefits, European Rail Outlook, London March 2006. Bansgaard, J. (2007) Next steps in the Intelligent Car Initiative and eSafety, presentation at 6th European Congress and Exhibition on Intelligent Transport Systems and Services, Aalborg, Denmark. (www.esafety.org) Baum, Prof. Dr. H. (2006) et al. Benchmarking study on activities in promoting and deploying Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems in the EU – WP2 Definition of methodology Inception report, Cologne 2006 Bolon/Weber (1995) Benchmarking: A Manager’s Guide, Arlington 1995. Camp (1989) Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to Superior Performance, Milwaukee 1989. Carotta (2006) Incentive Schemes applied by the Member States in the Transportation Sector: towards the design of a strategy to support the adoption of eSafety, www.esafetysupport.org, consulted 24 Apr 2006. Codling (1992) Best practice benchmarking – A management guide, Aldershot, Brookfield 1992. EC (2006) i2010 Information Space, Innovation & Investment in R&D, Inclusion – i2010 High Level Group, Benchmarking Framework, 20. April 2006. EC (2006a) On the Intelligent Car Initiative "Raising Awareness of ICT for Smarter, Safer and Cleaner Vehicles", Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions, COM (2006) 59 final, Brussels 15.02.2006. Engstrom J. (2007) Presentation at the eSafety RTD Working Group, Brussels, 01/06/2007 (www.esafetysupport.org) 73/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 eSafety Forum (2005) Final Report and Recommendations of the Implementation Road Map Working Group (18/10/2005) Eurobarometer (2006a) Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles, May 2006. Eurobarometer (2006b) Use of Intelligent Systems in Vehicles, Special Eurobarometer 267, December 2006. Eurotest (2005) Drivers’ knowledge survey, www.eurotestmobility.net, consulted 26 May 2006. Fearnly (Ed.) (2003) BEST, Benchmarking European Sustainable Transport, Newsletter No. 6 April 2003. Howard Sheth (1969) The Theory of Buyer Behaviour, New York et al. 1969. Infras / IWW (2004) External Costs of Transport, Update Study, Zurich/Karlsruhe 2004. J.D. Power (2003) European Automotive Emerging Technologies Study, J.D. Power and Associates Sept. 2003, www.jdpa.com. Mertins/Kohl (2004) Benchmarking-Techniken in: Mertins (Ed.): Benchmarking – Leitfaden für den Vergleich mit den Besten, Düsseldorf 2004, p. 73-96. RESPONSE 2 (2004) ADAS: Market Introduction Scenarios and Proper Realisation, Deliverable D1, 2004. SEiSS (2005), Exploratory Study on the potential socio-economic impact of the introduction of Intelligent Safety Systems in Road Vehicles, Final report. Strong (1925) Theories of Selling, in: Journal of applied psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 75-86. Taylor (2006) The Urban Transport Benchmarking Initiative, Year three final report, Prepared for European Commission Directorate General for Energy and Transport, Nottingham 2006. Veloso Fixson (2001) Make-Buy Decisions in the Auto Industry: New Perspectives on the Role of the Supplier as an Innovator, in: Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 67 (2001), p. 241-262. 74/75 TTNO report | 2007-D-R0674/B | June 2007 Wahlberg, N. (2007) From the results of FP6 to field operational tests in FP7, presentation at 6th European Congress and Exhibition on Intelligent Transport Systems and Services, Aalborg, Denmark. 75/75