A Taxonomy for Planning and Designing Smart Mobility Services
This article aims to provide urban transportation policymakers with a common lexicon for planning and measuring public value.
Guillermina Cledou, Elsa Estevez, Luis Soares Barbosa
Government Information Quarterly
Volume 35, Issue 1 (January 2018)
As urban populations continue to grow, the need for better, more effective transportation management is growing in kind. To help policymakers design better initiatives for smart mobility, this paper studied 42 services implemented by nine "smart cities" around the world to identify and propose a taxonomy of smart urban mobility, both to provide a common lexicon to aid discussion and sharing of practices and to assist policymakers in smart mobility planning. The research was structured around three questions: what kind of smart mobility services are delivered, how such services are delivered and what kind of public value is delivered. The scope of the proposed smart mobility taxonomy is mostly limited to "software intensive services," the authors write, "with limited attention given to services depending mainly on non-software technologies, such as electric vehicles."
The authors identified 12 types of existing smart mobility services, classifying them by characteristics ranging from delivery channels to benefits and level of maturity. While smart mobility services and management strategies initiatives in official government websites" related to smart mobility services; it is challenging to find data measuring the level of usage of such services; and cities would be better able to manage and advance their smart mobility services if they crafted a strategy that prioritizes citizen engagement by "conducting communication campaigns for promoting the services, informing citizens about their availability and benefits" and involving public feedback in the development and design of these services.
Why this matters to practitioners:
The authors offer two applications for the taxonomy. First, it can facilitate better strategic planning and policymaking by providing a way to identify and categorize key stakeholders and beneficiaries. Second, the taxonomy offers a methodological framework to help standardize documentation and catalogue lessons learned, allowing practitioners to benefit from the experiences of others. In addition, the authors recommend that "governments revise their roles as regulators and as providers of the needed platforms for promoting the development and delivery of such type of services by entrepreneurs and representatives of the private sector."