Docstoc

Directorate General "Information Society & Media"

Document Sample
Directorate General "Information Society & Media" Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                                                           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

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Tags:
Stats:
views:45
posted:3/5/2012
language:Dutch
pages:75