Learning from a failed innovation process

1
Learning from a failed innovation process

• Personal Rapid Transit for a Dutch City

2
Content

• Back ground
• Personal rapid transit
• The methodology of Sustainable Technological
  Developement
• The Eindhoven case
• Risk analysis
• Conclusions

3
The structure of the innovation process
Technology push
Market pull
Policy push
4
Risks of innovation processes

• Policy driven
• Suboptimal
• Technological unfeasible
• Obsolete technologies
• Inefficient
• Unwanted side effects

• Technology driven
• Lack of support
• User acceptance
• Institutional barriers
• Conflicts with policy goals

5
Types of innovations

• - System Optimisation
• - improved engine efficiency
• - wide-body aeroplanes
• Government may remain reactive
• - System Innovations
• - high speed rail
• - smart card
• (Pro)active government role necessary

6
Content

• Back ground
• Personal rapid transit
• The methodology of Sustainable Technological
  Developement
• The Eindhoven case
• Risk analysis
• Conclusions

7
Research objectives
- Solution for transport problems in the future -
Apply the methodology of DTO - Get experience
with inovation processes
8
The pilot Personal Rapid Transit

• Long term solution urban mobility
• Sustainable
• Diffuse travel patterns
• Satisfying user needs

9
The automated taxi
10
Ultra
11
Off line stations on parallel track
12
Integrated in urban environment
13
Suited for handicapped persons
14
Suited for goods
15
Light construction
16
Content

• Back ground
• Personal rapid transit
• The methodology of Sustainable Technological
  Developement
• The Eindhoven case
• Risk analysis
• Conclusions

17
The innovation process of DTO
2040
2. Backcasting
3. First step
1. Shared vision of the future
18
The process
The Start - Definition phase (Transport Research
Centre, DTO) - Knowledge acquisition -
Backcasting - Definition of a first step
The link to implementation - Location for a pilot
(Province Noord Brabant) - Support from politics
The implementation - Preparation of the pilot
(Eindhoven and University)
19
Province of Noord-Brabant
1999 Renewal programme for passenger
transportation in Noord-Brabant
20
Content

• Back ground
• Personal rapid transit
• The methodology of Sustainable Technological
  Developement
• The Eindhoven case
• Risk analysis
• Conclusions

21
Structure of people

• Province had innovation program public transport,
  chairman was very positive Brabant leading in
  public transport
• Mayor Eindhoven was very positive, Eindhoven
  technology city
• Alderman good friend of the mayor, very positive
• Chairman management board Eindhoven very
  positive PRT on the campus

22
Leadership

• Province wanted involvement of all stakeholders
• University failed after 3 months too many
  participants, budget deficit, uncontrolled
  process
• Municipality didnt want to take over, province
  didnt want leading role
• I had to clean up the finances
• Leadership to the province

23
And.

• 7 million deficit in university budget
• New alderman in Eindhoven after elections
• Eindhoven city with most traffic unsafety
• Chairman province was elected for the parliament

24
Domino
Regional authority
municipality
province
project
university
25
Domino
26
Domino
27
Domino
28
Domino
29
Domino
30
Why are innovation processes slow?

• Interaction with different actors
• Different time horizons
• Different goals
• Diffuse decision making
• Consensus versus creativity
• Competing projects

Changing actors
Different domains
31
Political scrabble
32
Political scrabble
33
Political scrabble
34
Vision transfer
35
Vision transfer Cognitive dissonance
Conflicting aspects
Acceptance 1. Semantics liking the concept 2.
Semiotics accepting the consequences 3. Match
with opinion of relevant others
idea of PRT is ok - competition to future
railway station is not ok present policy
(future railway station) is ok
36
Cognitive dissonance reduction
? changing the concept OR ? changing
the consequences OR ? changing attitude
about policy
37
Vision transfer progress
Distributed and fuzzy discussion making Outcomes
uncertain Opinion of key persons important
38
Spanish procession
39
Vision transfer progress
Fuzzy discussion Outcome uncertain Opinion of
key persons important
40
Ex post risk analysis

• Project size
• Level of innovation in organization
• Technical problems
• Project organization
• Project conditions

41
Project size (50)

-

• Short duration (lt12 months)
• Small staff size (lt10)
• No strict deadline
• Staff changes no concern
• No dependencies on other transport systems
• Small number of full time staff members

• Staff members didnt have sufficient time for
  project
• Too many sub projects
• Too many people active from different
  organizations
• No clear responsibilities
• gt80 part time workers

42
Level of innovation (50)

• There was a working prototype
• Some participants had experience with the pilot
  study
• No influence of end users
• No dependecy on other projects
• Value of the system good be predicted
• Future users were positive

• Completely new system for the Netherlands
• New organizatiosn and operating systems
• New standards
• Stakeholders should be involved
• Subject to complicated regulations
• Little known about future users

43
Technical problems (70)

• Failure of PRT was not serious
• PRT can be built from standard components

• New infrastructure and vehicles
• No relationship with supplier
• Changes needed in rest of transportation system
• No experience with the system

44
Project organization (60)

• Small chance of change in project requirements
• Procedure for change control

• No experienced leader
• Little technical knowledge in project group
• No participation of suppliers and future users

45
Project conditions (70)

• No strict rules
• Project would be reviewed by external experts

• Insufficient commitment
• Changing priorities
• Motivation project members
• Changing key persons

46
Key factors on long term innovation

• Vision of the future is guideline
• Choose short term measures that fit in the long
  term path
• Leadership in every phase

• Steer different interests into direction of the
  project

• Strong idea-owners permanent in the project

• Strong politicians/decision makers
• Adapt the process to existing plans
• Information transfer to new actors
• New actors shouldnt imply new studies

47
Thank you for your attention