DRIVERACCEPTANCEOFNEWTECHNOLOGY

HumanFactorsinRoadandRailTransport

SeriesEditors

DrLisaDornDirectoroftheDrivingResearchGroup,DepartmentofHumanFactors,

CranfieldUniversity

DrGeraldMatthewsProfessorofPsychologyattheUniversityofCincinnati

DrIanGlendonAssociateProfessorofPsychologyatGriffithUniversity,Queensland,andPresidentoftheDivisionofTrafficandTransportationPsychologyofthe

InternationalAssociationofAppliedPsychology

Today’ssocietyconfrontsmajorlandtransportproblems.Humanandfinancialcostsofroadvehiclecrashesandrailincidentsareincreasing,withroadvehiclecrashespredictedtobecomethethirdlargestcauseofdeathandinjurygloballyby2020.Severalsocialtrendsposethreatstosafety,includingincreasingvehicleownershipandtrafficcongestion,advancingtechnologicalcomplexityatthehuman-vehicleinterface,populationageinginthedevelopedworld,andevergreaternumbersofyoungervehicledriversinthedevelopingworld.

Ashgate’sHumanFactorsinRoadandRailTransportseriesmakesatimelycontributiontotheseissuesbyfocusingonhumanandorganisationalaspectsofroadandrailsafety.Theseriesrespondstoincreasingdemandsforsafe,efficient,economicalandenvironmentally-friendlyland-basedtransport.Itdoesthisbyreportingonstate-of-the-artsciencethatmaybeappliedtoreducevehiclecollisionsandimprovevehicleusabilityaswellasenhancingdriverwellbeingandsatisfaction.Itachievesthisbydisseminatingnewtheoreticalandempiricalresearchgeneratedbyspecialistsinthebehaviouralandallieddisciplines,includingtrafficandtransportationpsychology,humanfactorsandergonomics.

Theseriesaddressessuchtopicsasdriverbehaviourandtraining,in-vehicletechnology,driverhealthanddriverassessment.Speciallycommissionedworksfrominternationallyrecognisedexpertsprovideauthoritativeaccountsofleadingapproachestoreal-worldproblemsinthisimportantfield.

approachestoreal-worldproblemsinthisimportantfield.

DriverAcceptanceofNewTechnology

Theory,MeasurementandOptimisation

Editedby

MICHAELA.REGANUniversityofNewSouthWales,Australia

TIMHORBERRYUniversityofQueensland,Australia,andUniversityofCambridge,UK

ALANSTEVENSTransportResearchLaboratory(TRL),UK

ASHGATE

©MichaelA.Regan,TimHorberryandAlanStevensandthecontributors2014

Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystemortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recordingorotherwisewithoutthepriorpermissionofthepublisher.

MichaelA.Regan,TimHorberryandAlanStevenshaveassertedtheirrightundertheCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct,1988,tobeidentifiedastheeditorsofthiswork.

PublishedbyAshgatePublishingLimitedWeyCourtEastUnionRoadFarnhamSurrey,GU97PTEnglandAshgatePublishingCompany110CherryStreetSuite3–1Burlington,VT05401–3818USAwww.ashgate.com

BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationDataAcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibraryTheLibraryofCongresshascatalogedtheprintededitionasfollows:Regan,MichaelA.,author.Driveracceptanceofnewtechnology:theory,measurementandoptimisation/byMichaelA.Regan,TimHorberryandAlanStevens.pagescm—(Humanfactorsinroadandrailtransport)

Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.ISBN978-1-40943984-4(hardback:alk.paper)—ISBN978-1-40943985-1(ebook)—ISBN978-1-47240585-2(epub)1.Motorvehicledrivers—Psychology.2.Motorvehicledrivers—Attitudes.3.Automobiles—Technologicalinnovations.4.Highwayengineering—Technologicalinnovations.5.Motorvehicledriving—Technologicalinnovations—Psychologicalaspects.6.Highwaycommunications—Technologicalinnovations.7.Trafficsafety—Technologicalinnovations.I.Horberry,Tim,author.II.Stevens,A.(Researcherintransportation),author.III.Title.IV.Series:Humanfactorsinroadandrailtransport.

Series:Humanfactorsinroadandrailtransport.

TL152.3.R382014629.28’304—dc23

2013025915

ISBN9781409439844(hbk)ISBN9781409439851(ebk-PDF)ISBN9781472405852(ebk-ePUB)

Contents

ListofFiguresListofTablesAbouttheEditorsListofContributorsAcknowledgements

PARTI:INTRODUCTION

1DriverAcceptanceofNewTechnology:OverviewMichaelA.Regan,AlanStevensandTimHorberry

PARTII:THEORIESANDMODELSOFDRIVERACCEPTANCE

2TheDefinitionofAcceptanceandAcceptabilityEmeliAdell,AndrásVárhelyiandLenaNilsson

3ModellingAcceptanceofDriverAssistanceSystems:ApplicationoftheUnifiedTheoryofAcceptanceandUseofTechnologyEmeliAdell,AndrásVárhelyiandLenaNilsson

4Socio-PsychologicalFactorsThatInfluenceAcceptabilityofIntelligentTransportSystems:AModelSvenVlassenrootandKarelBrookhuis

5ModellingDriverAcceptance:FromFeedbacktoMonitoringandMentoringSystemsMahtabGhazizadehandJohnD.Lee

PARTIII:MEASUREMENTOFDRIVERACCEPTANCE

6HowIsAcceptanceMeasured?OverviewofMeasurementIssues,MethodsandToolsEmeliAdell,LenaNilssonandAndrásVárhelyi

7MeasuringAcceptabilitythroughQuestionnairesandFocusGroupsEveMitsopoulos-RubensandMichaelA.Regan

8TheProfileofEmotionalDesigns:AToolfortheMeasurementofAffectiveandCognitiveResponsestoIn-VehicleInnovationsRobertEdmunds,LisaDornandLeeSkrypchuk

9AnEmpiricalMethodforQuantifyingDrivers’LevelofAcceptanceofAlertsIssuedbyAutomotiveActiveSafetySystemsJan-ErikKällhammer,KipSmithandErikHollnagel

PARTIV:DATAONDRIVERACCEPTANCE:CASESTUDIES

10DriverAcceptanceofIn-VehicleInformation,AssistanceandAutomatedSystems:AnOverviewGaryBurnettandCyrielDiels

11DriverAcceptanceofElectricVehicles:FindingsfromtheFrenchMINIEStudyElodieLabeye,CorinneBrusqueandMichaelA.Regan

12User-CentredDesignandEvaluationasaPrerequisitefortheSuccessofDisruptiveInnovations:AnElectricVehicleCaseStudyRomanVilimekandAndreasKeinath

13MotorcycleRiders’AcceptanceofAdvancedRiderAssistanceSystemsVéroniqueHuth

14DriverAcceptanceofTechnologiesDeployedWithintheRoadInfrastructureAlanStevensandNickReed

15OperatorAcceptanceofNewTechnologyforIndustrialMobileEquipmentTimHorberryandTristanCooke

16Carrots,SticksandSermons:StatePolicyToolsforInfluencingAdoptionandAcceptanceofNewVehicleSafetySystemsMatts-ÅkeBelin,EvertVedung,KhayesiMeleckidzedeckandClaesTingvall

PARTV:OPTIMISINGDRIVERACCEPTANCE

17DesigningIn-VehicleTechnologyforUsabilityAlanStevensandGaryBurnett

18TheEmotionalandAestheticDimensionsofDesign:AnExplorationofUserAcceptanceofConsumerProductsandNewVehicleTechnologiesWilliamS.GreenandPatrickW.Jordan

19OptimisingtheOrganisationalAspectsofDeployment:LearningfromtheIntroductionofNewTechnologyinDomainsOtherthanRoadTransportMartinC.Maguire

20AdaptivePolicymakingforIntelligentTransportSystemAcceptanceJan-WillemvanderPas,WarrenE.Walker,VincentMarchauandSvenVlassenroot

21DesigningAutomotiveTechnologyforCross-CulturalAcceptanceKristieL.YoungandChristinaM.Rudin-Brown

PARTVI:CONCLUSIONS

22DriverAcceptanceofNewTechnology:SynthesisandPerspectivesAlanStevens,TimHorberryandMichaelA.Regan

Index

ListofFigures

2.1Thethreeelementsoftheacceptanceconcept2.2Thefivecategoriesofacceptance,basedondefinitionsfoundinaliterature

reviewbyAdell(2009)3.1RegressioncoefficientsandexplanatorypowerfortheUTAUTmodelwhen

appliedtoacceptanceofthedriverassistancesystemSASPENCE4.1Theoreticalmodel4.2HypotheticalmodeloftheindicatorsthatdefineacceptabilityofISA5.1Factorssuggestingamentoringversusamonitoringrole5.2TechnologyAcceptanceModel.AdaptedwithpermissionfromDavisetal.

(1989).©1989,theInstituteforOperationsResearchandtheManagementSciences,7240ParkwayDrive,Suite300,Hanover,Maryland21076

5.3Aschematicrepresentationofthedrivingsystemwithdashedarrowsrepresentingfeedbackfromthedriversupportsystem

5.4Driversupportsystemacceptancemodel6.1Thethreepillarsoftheacceptanceconcept8.1KanoModelDimensions8.2InteriorandiDriveintargetvehicle9.1AtypicalalertissuedbyaNightVisionsystemwithpedestrianalert9.2Continuousscaletoratethelevelofacceptanceofanassumedalert12.1Thetransitionfromearlyadopterstolateadoptersinrelationtotechnology

development(reproducedfromDonaldA.Norman,TheInvisibleComputer:WhyGoodProductsCanFail,thePersonalComputerIsSoComplex,andInformationAppliancesAretheSolution,figure2.4,©1998MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,bypermissionofMITPress)

12.2Thecustomer-centreddevelopmentprocessasimplementedbytheBMWGroup’sconceptqualitydepartment

12.3AccumulatedMINIEandcombustionenginevehicledailydrivingdistances

12.4Chargingfrequencyperweekinmarketswith32ampswallbox12.5UsageofECOPROmodeaspercentageofdailydriving14.1DynamicroadmarkingsintheNetherlands(USDepartmentof

Transportation2004)14.2Anexampleofadynamictidalflowschemethathasbeenproposedinthe

Netherlands(reproducedfromFafieanieandSambell2008,withpermission)

14.3TRLCarSimulatorduring‘RedX’trial14.4Activeroadstuds14.5Anexampleofaconetaperusedfortemporarytrafficmanagementinthe

UK(closingtherightlaneofthecarriagewayintheleftofthepicture)14.6Examplesofaspeedindicatingdevice15.1Driveracceptanceratingsoftheinitialandrevisedproximitywarning

systems(adaptedfromCookeandHorberry2011c)16.1Theprocessofinfluencingthemarketforsafevehicles16.2Threebasictoolsofgovernanceforpromotingvehiclesafetytechnology16.3AprocessofinfluencingcarimportersandproducerstoinstallESCas

standardequipment17.1UsabilityComponents(conceptfromISO92411998)17.2OverviewoftheRESPONSEcodeofpracticefordesignofin-vehicle

informationandassistancesystems18.1Maslow’shierarchyofneeds(Maslow1954)18.2Hierarchyofuserneeds(Jordan1999)19.1FactorsmakinguptheorganisationalcontextforanITsystem19.2TechnologyacceptancemodeldescribedbyDavis(1989)20.1TheAPMprocessandtheelementsofanadaptivepolicy(adaptedfrom

Kwakkel2010)

ListofTables

3.1TheoriginalUTAUTitemsandthemodifieditemsusedinthepilottesttoassessacceptanceofadriverassistancesystem(Adelletal.2009)

6.1Measuresusedtoassessacceptance,basedontheliteraturereview;maincategorieswithsubcategories(adaptedfromAdell2009).Forsourcereferences,seeAdell(2009).Includessimulateddrivingaswellasactualonroaddriving

7.1Focusgroupcompositionandtechnologiesfordiscussion7.2ExtractoffocusgroupdiscussionguidefromReganetal.(2002)also

showinglinkbetweenquestionandacceptabilitydimension7.3QuestionnairesadministeredintheTACSafeCaron-roadstudytoassess

acceptability7.4ExtractofquestionnairesforISAfromReganetal.(2006)alsoshowing

linkbetweenquestionandacceptabilitydimension8.1Meanscoretechnologycollapsedacrossscales8.2Regressionresults‘intentiontopurchase’8.3Regressionresultspreandpost11.1PerformanceexpectancyitemsmeansandstandarddeviationsatT0month11.2EaseofuseexpectancyitemsmeansandstandarddeviationsatT0month11.3SubjectivenormsitemsmeansandstandarddeviationsatT0month11.4UseandpurchaseintentionitemsmeansandstandarddeviationsatT0

month13.1AcceptanceofthreetypesofARAS:comparisonofparticipants’interestto

haveadvisoryandinterveningsystemversions14.1Percentageofrespondentswhofindcertaintypesofspeedenforcement

(very)acceptable19.1Summaryoforganisationalcontextfactorsandhowtheymayrelatetoin-

cartechnology20.1DealingwithvulnerabilitiesofthebasicPITApolicy20.2BasicpolicyfortheISAcase20.3Increasingtherobustnessofthebasicpolicy20.4Contingencyplanning,monitoringsystemandtriggerresponses

21.1Keyculturaldimensionandtheirdefinitions

AbouttheEditors

MichaelA.ReganiscurrentlyaProfessorintheTransportandRoadSafetyResearchgroupintheSchoolofAviationattheUniversityofNewSouthWales,inSydney,Australia.BeforethatheheldresearchappointmentswiththeFrenchInstituteofScienceandTechnologyforTransport,DevelopmentandNetworks(IFFSTAR)inLyon,France,andtheMonashUniversityAccidentResearchCentreinMelbourne,Australia.Mike’scurrentresearchinterestsfocusonhumaninteractionwith,andacceptanceof,intelligenttransportsystems,driverdistractionandinattention,useofinstrumentedvehiclesfornaturalisticobservationofdriverandpilotbehaviour,andaviationsafety.HesitsontheEditorialBoardsoffivepeer-reviewedjournals,includingHumanFactors,istheauthorofmorethan200publications,includingtwobooks,andsitsonnumerousexpertcommitteesontrafficsafety.Heisthe25thPresidentoftheHumanFactorsandErgonomicsSocietyofAustralia.

TimHorberryisAssociateProfessorofHumanFactorsattheUniversityofQueensland,Australia.HeisalsoaSeniorResearchAssociateattheUniversityofCambridge,UK,andbeforethathewasattheUK’sTransportResearchLaboratory.Timhaspublishedhisworkwidely,includingfourbookspublishedeitherbyAshgateorCRCpress:‘TheHumanFactorsofTransportSigns’(2004)and‘HumanFactorsintheMaritimeDomain’(2008),‘UnderstandingHumanErrorInMineSafety’(2009)and‘HumanFactorsfortheDesign,OperationandMaintenanceofMiningEquipment’(2010).TimhasundertakenmanyappliedHumanFactorsresearchprojectsinAustralia,theUKandEuropefororganisationssuchastheEuropeanUnion,AustralianResearchCouncilandtheUKDepartmentforTransport.CurrentlyTimisleadingseveralprojectsinthemineralsindustrythatareexaminingacceptanceofnewtechnologyforminingvehicles–includingcollisiondetectionsystemsandshovelautomation.

AlanStevensisChiefResearchScientistandResearchDirector,Transportation,attheTransportResearchLaboratoryTRL,intheUK,wherehehasbeenworkingontheapplicationofnewtechnologytotransportfor25years.Heisaninternationallyrecognisedexpertin‘Human–MachineInteraction’(HMI)inthe

drivingenvironmentandwasco-authorofthe‘EuropeanStatementofPrinciplesonHMI’throughhisworkwithintheiMobilityinitiative,whereheco-chairstheHMIWorkingGroup.Hewasalsoanactivememberoftheresponsibleinternationalstandardscommittee,regularlyparticipatinginmeetingswithEuropean,US,CanadianandJapanesecolleagues.HewasrecentlyappointedtotheEU–USWorkingGrouponDriverDistractionfollowingtheEU–USHighLevelCooperationagreementandcontinuestobeinvolvedintheinternationalIHRA(InternationalHarmonizedResearchAgenda)groupandontheManagementCommitteeofIBEC(InternationalBenefitEvaluationandCosts)group.Alan’sconsultancyactivitiesfocusonprovidingadviceonpolicyandinteroperabilityissuestoGovernment,developingresearchprogramsandcarryingoutspecifictechnicalandHumanFactorsstudiesinIntelligentTransportationSystems.HeparticipatesinuniversityteachingatMSclevel,supervisesPhDstudentsandisEditorinChiefofaninternationalpeer-reviewjournalofIntelligentTransportSystems.

ListofContributors

Adell,Emeli,TrivectorTraffic,Sweden

Belin,Matts-Åke,SwedishTransportAdministration,VisionZeroAcademy,Borlänge,Sweden,andSchoolofHealth,CareandSocialWelfare,MälardalenUniversity,Västerås,SwedenBrookhuis,Karel,DelftUniversityofTechnology,theNetherlandsandUniversityofGroningen,theNetherlandsBrusque,Corinne,InstitutFrançaisdesSciencesetTechnologiesdesTransport,del’aménagementetdesRéseaux(IFSTTAR),Bron,FranceBurnett,Gary,HumanFactorsResearchGroup,FacultyofEngineering,UniversityofNottingham,Nottingham,UK

Cooke,Tristan,MineralsIndustrySafetyandHealthCentre,UniversityofQueensland,AustraliaDiels,Cyriel,CoventrySchoolofArtandDesign,DepartmentofIndustrialDesign,CoventryUniversity,Coventry,UK

Dorn,Lisa,CranfieldUniversity,UK

Edmunds,Robert,CranfieldUniversity,UK

Ghazizadeh,Mahtab,DepartmentofIndustrialandSystemsEngineering,UniversityofWisconsin-Madison,USAGreen,WilliamS.,UniversityofCanberra,Australia

Hollnagel,Erik,UniversityofSouthernDenmark,Denmark

Horberry,Tim,MineralsIndustrySafetyandHealthCentre,UniversityofQueensland,Australia,andEngineeringDesignCentre,UniversityofCambridge,UK

Huth,Véronique,InstitutFrançaisdesSciencesetTechnologiesdesTransport,del’aménagementetdesRéseaux(IFSTTAR),Bron,FranceJordan,PatrickW.,UniversityofSurrey,UK

Källhammer,Jan-Erik,AutolivDevelopmentAB,Sweden

Keinath,Andreas,BMWGroup,Germany

Labeye,Elodie,InstitutFrançaisdesSciencesetTechnologiesdesTransport,del’aménagementetdesRéseaux(IFSTTAR),Bron,FranceLee,JohnD.,DepartmentofIndustrialandSystemsEngineering,UniversityofWisconsin-Madison,USAMaguire,MartinC.,LoughboroughDesignSchool,LoughboroughUniversity,UK

Marchau,Vincent,RadboudUniversity,NijmegenSchoolofManagement,theNetherlandsMeleckidzedeck,Khayesi,WorldHealthOrganization(WHO),DepartmentofViolenceandInjuryPreventionandDisability,Geneva,SwitzerlandMitsopoulos-Rubens,Eve,MonashUniversityAccidentResearchCentre,MonashUniversity,AustraliaNilsson,Lena,SwedishNationalRoadandTransportResearchInstitute(VTI),SwedenReed,Nick,TransportResearchLaboratory,UK

Regan,MichaelA.,TransportandRoadSafetyResearch,UniversityofNewSouthWales,AustraliaRudin-Brown,ChristinaM.,MonashUniversityAccidentResearchCentre,AustraliaSkrypchuk,Lee,JaguarLandRover,UK

Smith,Kip,NavalPostgraduateSchool,USA

Stevens,Alan,TransportResearchLaboratory,UK

Tingvall,Claes,SwedishTransportAdministration,Borlänge,Sweden,andDepartmentofAppliedMechanics,ChalmersUniversity,Gothenburg,SwedenVanderPas,Jan-Willem,DelftUniversityofTechnology,FacultyofTechnology,PolicyandManagement,theNetherlandsVárhelyi,András,LundUniversity,Sweden

Vedung,Evert,InstituteforHousingandUrbanResearch,UppsalaUniversity,Uppsala,SwedenVilimek,Roman,BMWGroup,Germany

Vlassenroot,Sven,GhentUniversity,Belgium,andFlandersInstituteforMobility,BelgiumWalker,WarrenE.,DelftUniversityofTechnology,FacultyofTechnology,PolicyandManagement,andFacultyofAerospace,the

NetherlandsYoung,KristieL.,MonashUniversityAccidentResearchCentre,Australia

Acknowledgements

Theeditorswishtothankthefollowingorganisationsandindividualsfortheimportantrolestheyplayedinenablingthisbooktobecompleted:•Theanonymousreviewers,recruitedbyAshgate,forrecommendingthatdevelopmentofthebookproceed;•GuyLoftandtheeditorialteamatAshgatefortheirprofessionalguidance,trustandpatience;•TheinvaluablehelpprovidedbyMeiRegan–forthemanyhoursshespentsub-editingthewholemanuscript,chasingcopyrightagreementsandpermissions,andgenerallysupportingusinkeepingtheentireprocessrunningsmoothly;•ThesupportoftheInstitutFrançaisdesSciencesetTechnologiesdesTransport,del’aménagementetdesRéseaux(IFSTTAR),theUniversityofNewSouthWales,theUniversityofQueensland,theUniversityofCambridgeandtheTransportResearchLaboratory.DrHorberryalsoacknowledgesthesupportofanECMarieCurieFellowship‘SafetyinDesignErgonomics’(projectnumber268162);and•Alltheauthors,fortheirinsightfulcontributions,patienceandgoodwillinadheringtotherequirementsoftheeditorialprocess.

MichaelA.ReganTimHorberryAlanStevens

PARTIIntroduction

Chapter1DriverAcceptanceofNewTechnology:Overview

MichaelA.ReganUniversityofNewSouthWales,Australia

AlanStevensTransportResearchLaboratory,UK1

TimHorberryUniversityofQueensland,Australia,andUniversityofCambridge,UK

Introduction

Anyonewhohasworkedintheareaofdriveracceptanceofnewvehicletechnologieswillknowthefrustrationsofdoingso:therearemanydefinitionsofdriveracceptance;themethodsandmetricsformeasuringacceptancevaryenormouslyacrossstudies;termslike‘driveracceptability’and‘driveracceptance’,althoughseeminglydifferent,areoftenusedinterchangeably;andevenifacceptanceismeasuredandquantified,thedatayieldedbythemethodsusedmaynotbeinaformthatispracticallyusefulforinformingsystemdesign.Theseissues,andtheneedforasinglevolumethatpullsthefieldtogether,weretheprimaryfactorsmotivatingdevelopmentofthisbook.Inthis,theintroductorychapter,wesetthesceneforwhatistocome.

TheChangingMotorVehicle

Sinceitsadvent,themotorvehiclehasundergonesomesignificanttransformations:engineshavebecomemoreefficientandreliable;vehiclebodiesandinteriorcockpitstructureshavebecomemorecrashworthy;andmechanicallinkageshavebeenreplacedincreasinglybyelectronicconnections.Untilquiterecentlythevehiclecockpitremainedlargelyunchanged;drivingwasthecentralfocusofactivity,andthedriverremainedcompletelyincontrolofthevehicle.However,allofthatischanging,rapidly.

Thelastdecadehaswitnessedanexplosionintheavailabilityofnewvehicle

technology;ageneraltermreferringtotheapplicationofmechanical,electronic,informationandcommunicationsystemsandnewmaterialsinthedrivingenvironment.Sometechnologyhasbeenbuiltintothevehiclebymanufacturers,somehasbeenaddedwithinaftermarketproductsandothertechnologieshavebeenbroughtintothevehiclebydrivers(e.g.,mobilephones).‘Infotainment’systemshaveemergedtokeepdriversinformedandentertained;communicationsystems,suchasphone,faxandemail,allowthedrivertostayconnectedwiththeoutsideworld;anddriverassistancesystems,suchascollisionwarningandadaptivecruisecontrol,supportthedrivertodrivesafely,efficientlyandcomfortably.Indoingso,technologiesautomate–partially,highlyorfully–aspectsofvehiclecontrol,orevenallaspectsofcontrol.Driverlessvehiclesarestartingtobedriveninsomepartsoftheworldasthisbookgoestopress.Theadventofnewpropulsionsystems(electricandhydrogenvehicles)havecontributedfurthertothisrevolutioninvehicletechnology,changingthefaceofdriving,andthehumanmachineinterfacesandinteractionsthroughwhichdrivingisaccomplished(e.g.,Labeyeetal.2013).

Parallelingthesedevelopmentshasbeenanexplosionintheapplicationoftechnologytomodernroadways:technologiesthatinformdrivers(e.g.,variablemessagesigns)andtechnologiesthatsupportthemtodrivesafelyandefficiently(e.g.,rampmeters,speedcameras,redlightcameras,etc.).Theadventofcooperativeintelligenttransportsystems(C-ITS),whichenablewirelessvehicle-to-vehicle(V2V),vehicle-to-infrastructure(V2I)andvehicle-to-nomadicdevice(V2N)communication(NTC2012),openupanalmostunlimitednewworldoftechnologyapplicationstoimprovethecomfort,efficiencyandsafetyofdrivers.

TheImportanceofDriver-CentredDesignandDeployment

Therapiddevelopmentofnewtechnologyhasresultedinmanynewsystemsfordriversbeingdeployedwithoutthemhavingbeendesignedsystematically,integratedintoworkenvironmentsandevaluatedfromadriver-centredperspective.Typicalissuesthatarisewithoutadriver-centricapproachtotechnologydesignincludeinformationoverloadfrommultipleinformationandwarningsystems,inadequatedrivertrainingandsupport,driversbeingoutsidethesystemcontrolloop,over-relianceontechnologybydrivers,de-skillingofdrivers,negativebehaviouraladaptationtothetechnologyand,ultimately,lowacceptanceorevenmisuseofthenewtechnologyafterintroduction(LeeandSeppelt2009).Humanfactorsare,thus,ofgreatimportanceduringthedesignandintroductionofnewtechnologies,butoftenarenotconsideredinsufficientdetail.

detail.

ASpotlightonDriverAcceptance

Thetechnologiesthatdriversusetoinform,entertain,communicate,comfortandprotectthemselvesarenodifferentfromothertechnologies:unlesstheyareacceptedbydrivers,theywillnotdeliverthebenefitsintendedbythosewhodesignedthem.Iftheyarenotaccepted,driverswillnotbuythem;andeveniftheydo,theymaydisablethemoutoffrustrationorusetheminamannerunintendedbydesigners.Thisisespeciallysalientforvehiclesafetytechnologies.ThereismuchevidencethatAdvancedDriverAssistanceSystems(ADAS)havehugepotentialtosavelivesandreduceseriousinjury(USDOT2008).Yetiftheyarenotacceptedbydrivers,theirpotentialtosavelivesanddelivereconomicbenefitstosocietywillneverberealised.

HumanFactorsandergonomicsprofessionalshavebeeninterestedforalongtimeinidentifyingandunderstandingthedeterminantsofuseracceptanceoftechnology,inordertosupportengineersinensuringnewsystemsandproductsaredesignedanddeployedtominimiseresistanceandmaximiseuptake(Dillon2001).ThisinterestwasspawnedinpartbyarealisationwithintheITindustrythatsomeinvestmentsininformationtechnologywerenotproducingtheintendedbenefitsbecausethetechnologiesthemselveswerenotacceptedbyusers.TherehasbeenalongandlearnedpreoccupationbythoseintheITindustrywithuseracceptance;whatitmeans,howitismeasuredandhowitcanbeoptimised.Similarly,defenceandothercomplexoccupationaldomainssuchashealthcareandnuclearpowerhavelonghadaninterestinintegratingnewtechnologiesintoexistingworksystems.Morerecently,thisinteresthasspilledoverintotransportationHumanFactors(e.g.,Young,ReganandMitsopoulos2004).Arangeofmeasures,frominitialdesigntouser-centreddeployment,canbeimplementedtoimprovedriveracceptanceofnewtechnologies.

Atitsmostbasiclevel,acceptanceofnewtechnologycansimplybealignedwithuseofthattechnology:ifitisacceptabletopeople,theywilluseit.Sotheremightbeinterest,forexample,inhowmanydriversusetheircruisecontrol,underwhatcircumstances,andhowoften.However‘acceptanceequalsuse’issimplisticatbest,anddoesnothelpsystemdesignerstodevelopanddeploysuccessfulproducts.Amorefundamentaldecompositionofacceptanceisnecessarytosetthesceneforthisbookandtoillustratewhydifferentauthors(implicitlyorexplicitly)thinkaboutacceptanceindifferentways.

Defining‘Acceptability’and‘Acceptance’

Asascientificconstruct,acceptancehasbeenvariouslydefined.Intheinformationtechnologydomain,ithasbeendefinedas‘thedemonstrablewillingnesswithinausergrouptoemployinformationtechnologyforthetasksitisdesignedtosupport’(DillonandMorris1996:4).Thedeterminantsofuseracceptance,however,arecomplexandderivefromthetechnologyitself,fromthosewhouseitandfromthecontextinwhichitisimplemented.Thecharacteristicsoftechnologythatdetermineitslevelofacceptanceincludesuchcharacteristicsasrelativeadvantageoverotheravailabletools,compatibilitywithsocialpracticesandnorms,complexityineaseofuseandlearning,‘trial-ability’ofthetechnologybeforeuse,and‘observability’–ortheextenttowhichthebenefitsofthetechnologyareobvious(Dillon2001,Rogers1995).

Thereisdebateintheliteratureaboutthepsychologicalvariablesthatdistinguishuserswhoacceptorrejecttechnologies:cognitivestyle,personality,demographicvariables(e.g.,ageandeducation)anduser-situationalvariablesareamongthosethathavebeencitedasvariablesthatinfluenceuseracceptanceoftechnologies(Dillon2001,AlaviandJoachimsthaler1992).Acceptanceoftechnologyisalsoinfluencedbythesocial,legal,cultural,politicalandorganisationalcontextinwhichthetechnologyisimplemented,andbytheamountandtypeofexposuretheuserhashadtothetechnology.Someattemptshavebeenmadetolinkthesekindsofvariablesintoaunified,predictive,theoryofacceptance(e.g.,Davis,BagozziandWarshaw1989,Venkateshetal.2003).

Theterms‘acceptance’and‘acceptability’areused,ofteninterchangeably,intheliterature.Driverreactionstotechnologycanbestudiedatdifferenttimesinthetechnologylifecycle:beforeitexists;whenitexistsinprototypeformandwhenitiscommerciallymature.Inadvanceofactuallyexperiencinganewproduct,individualswillinvariablyhaveaviewaboutit,althoughmostresearcherswouldnotyetascribetheterm‘acceptance’tothisjudgement;atthispointmosttalkabout‘acceptability’asa‘prospectivejudgementofmeasurestobeintroducedinthefuture’(SchadeandSchlag2003:45–61).Productdesignersareveryinterestedincharacterisingacceptability(potentialacceptance)eventhoughitisapersonaljudgementaboutaproductyettobeexperienced.Noobjectivemeasuresareavailablebutopinionscanbesoughtanddesignerswillprobablyalsowanttoknowhowcertainareindividualsabouttheirlikelyfuturereactionsandwhetherthereareimportantvariablesthatareimportanttothem.

Aswellasafocusonindividualdrivers–ontheirbehaviourandtheiracceptanceoftechnology–itispossibletoresearchacceptanceoftechnologyatanorganisational,culturalorsocietallevel.Policymakersareveryinterestednot

anorganisational,culturalorsocietallevel.Policymakersareveryinterestednotonlyintheimpactthatdriveracceptanceofnewtechnologyhasontransportoutcomes(suchassafety),butinhowdesirableoutcomescanbesupportedbypromotingacceptanceofnewtechnologymoregenerally.Here,wecanidentifyconceptssuch‘earlyadopters’(Rogers1962)andlookathowtheuseofnewtechnologyspreadsthroughorganisationsandsociety.Issuesincludehowacceptanceofindividualsshouldbeamalgamatedinordertorepresentacceptanceatagrouporsocietylevelandwhether(assuggestedbyVanderLaan,HeinoandDeWaard1997)socialacceptanceisaconceptdistinctfromuseracceptancerequiringamoreholisticevaluationoftheconsequencesofadoptionofthenewtechnology.

PurposeandStructureofThisBook

Thepurposeofthisbookistobringtogetherintoasinglevolumeabodyofaccumulatedscientificandpracticalknowledgethatcanbeusedtooptimisedriveracceptanceanduptakeofnewtechnologiesincarsandothervehicles.Thebookhasfourmainparts:

•InPartII,thechaptersfocusontheoriesanddefinitionsofacceptanceandrelatedconcepts,andreviewanumberofdifferentmodelsofdriveracceptance.

•ThechaptersinPartIIIlookatthescientificandpracticalissuesaroundmeasurementofdriveracceptancewithadescriptionofsomeofthemaintools,techniquesandmetricsavailableandused.

•PartIVpresentscasestudiesinvolvingthemeasurementofdriveracceptanceofnewtechnology,providingempiricaldataandfindingsonuseracceptabilityandacceptanceofarangeofnewtechnologies,anddrawingalsoonexperiencefromwiderdomainsandperspectives.

•InPartV,thechaptersturntotheissueofhowdriveracceptanceofnewtechnologycanbeoptimised,boththroughdesignandbyconsideringthewidercontextofuse.

Finally,intheconcludingchapter,webringtogetheranddiscussthekeythemesthathaveemergedandidentifyfutureresearch,designanddeploymentneedsinthearea.

Thisbookaimstoprovideabalancedtreatmentofdriveracceptanceofnewtechnology,withcontributionsfromexpertsintheirfieldfromaroundtheworld.Allcontributionshavebeenpeer-reviewed.Contributorsrepresentarangeof

Allcontributionshavebeenpeer-reviewed.Contributorsrepresentarangeofstakeholdersincludingacademics,vehiclemanufacturers,roadandtransportsafetyauthorities,equipmentmanufacturersandinjurypreventionresearchers,providingmultipleperspectivesontheissue.Whilethemainfocusofthebookisondriveracceptance,severalchaptersbroadenthescopetoconsideralsotheoptimisationofuser/operatoracceptanceinotherareas(e.g.,consumerproducts,miningequipmentandmotorcycletechnologies).

Thereismuchthatcanbedonetoimprovedriveracceptanceofnewtechnologies–andinturn,toincreasethesafety,efficiencyandcomfortofdriving.Wehopethattheinformation,insightsandadvicecontainedinthisvolumewillhelptoguideandfacilitatethisprocess.

References

Alavi,M.andJoachimsthaler,E.A.1992.RevisitingDSSImplementationResearch:AMeta-AnalysisoftheLiteratureandSuggestionsforResearchers.MISQuarterly,16(1):95–116.

Davis,F.,Bagozzi,R.andWarshaw,P.1989.UserAcceptanceofComputerTechnology:AComparisonofTwoTheoreticalModels.ManagementScience,35(8):982–1003.

Dillon,A.2001.UserAcceptanceofInformationTechnology.InEncyclopaediaofHumanFactorsandErgonomics.EditedbyW.Karwowski.London:TaylorandFrancis.

Dillon,A.andMorris,M.G.1996.UserAcceptanceofInformationTechnology:TheoriesandModels,AnnualReviewofInformationScienceandTechnology,31:3–32.

Labeye,E.,Adrian,J.,Hugot,M.,Regan,M.A.andBrusque,C.2013.DailyUseofanElectricVehicle:BehaviouralChangesandPotentialforITSSupport.IETIntelligentTransportSystems,17(2):210–14.

Lee,J.D.andSeppelt,B.D.2009.HumanFactorsinAutomationDesign.InSpringerHandbookofAutomation.EditedbyS.Y.Nof.NewYork:SpringerPublishingCompany.

NationalTransportCommission(NTC).2012.CooperativeITSRegulatoryPolicyIssues:DiscussionPaper.Melbourne,Australia:NTC.

Rogers,E.M.1962.DiffusionofInnovations.Glencoe:FreePress.———.1995.DiffusionofInnovations.NewYork:FreePress.Schade,J.andSchlag,B.2003.AcceptabilityofUrbanTransportPricing

Strategies,TransportationResearchPartF:TrafficPsychologyand

Behaviour,6(1):45–61.USDepartmentofTransportation(DOT).2008.IntelligentTransportSystems

Benefits,Costs,Deployment,andLessonsLearned:2008Update.ReportNo.FHWA-JPO-08-032.Washington,DC:USDOT.

VanderLaan,J.D.,Heino,A.andDeWaard,D.1997.ASimpleProcedurefortheAssessmentofAcceptanceofAdvancedTransportTelemetics.TransportationResearchPartC,5(1):1–10.

Venkatesh,V.,Morris,M.G.,Davis,G.B.andDavis,F.D.2003.UserAcceptanceofInformationTechnology:TowardaUnifiedView.MISQuarterly,27(3):425–78.

Young,K.,Regan,M.A.andMitsopoulos,E.2004.AcceptabilitytoYoungDriversofIn-VehicleIntelligentTransportSystems.Road&TransportResearch,13(2):6–16.

1©TransportResearchLaboratory,2013

PARTIITheoriesandModelsofDriverAcceptance

Chapter2TheDefinitionofAcceptanceandAcceptability

EmeliAdellTrivectorTraffic,Sweden

AndrásVárhelyiLundUniversity,Sweden

LenaNilssonSwedishNationalRoadandTransportResearchInstitute(VTI),Sweden

Abstract

Despitetherecognisedimportanceoftheconceptofacceptance,howandwhynewtechnologiesareactuallyacceptedbydriversisnotwellunderstood.Whilemanystudiesclaimtohavemeasuredacceptance,fewhaveexplicitlydefinedwhatitis.Thischapterpointsouttheimportanceofdefiningacceptanceandcategorisesdefinitionsthathavebeenusedaccordingtotheir‘essence’.Distinctionsbetweendifferenttypesofacceptanceaswellasbetweenacceptanceandacceptabilityarealsodescribed.Aproposalforacommondefinitionofacceptanceisthenpresentedanddiscussed.

Introduction

Acceptancehasoftenbeenpointedoutasakeyfactorforsuccessfulintroductionandintendeduseofnewtechnologyinthevehiclecontextandelsewhere.Theliteraturealsocontainssomestatementsonthepurposeofinvestigatingacceptance.Najmetal.(2006:5-1)claimthat‘driveracceptanceisthepreconditionthatwillpermitnewautomotivetechnologiestoachievetheirforecastedbenefitlevels’andthatthereisaneedtodeterminewhetherdriverswillacceptandusethenewtechnologiesasintended.Further,Najmetal.(2006:5-1)statethat‘driveracceptancemeasurementalsoprovidesameanstoestimatedrivers’interestinpurchasingandusingnewtechnologiesasabasisforestimatingthesafetybenefitassociatedwithitsuse’.VanderLaan,Heinoand

DeWaard(1997)seeacceptanceasthelinktousage,therebymaterialisingthepotentialsafetyeffects,whereasVanDriel(2007)seesacceptanceasapredictorofthewillingnesstobuyasystem.Ascanbeseen,therearedifferentwaysofviewingacceptanceandacceptability.Commontoallofthemisthatacceptanceandacceptabilityarerecognisedtobeimportantandarebasedontheindividual’sjudgementof,forexample,thedriverassistancesystem.

Despitetherecognisedimportanceoftheconceptofacceptance,howandwhynewtechnologies,likedriverassistancesystems,areacceptedbydriversisnotwellunderstood.Whilemanystudiesclaimtohavemeasuredacceptanceofthesesystems,fewhaveexplicitlydefinedwhatitis.AsReganetal.(2002:9)putit,‘Whileeveryoneseemstoknowwhatacceptabilityis,andallagreethatacceptabilityisimportant,thereisnoconsistencyacrossstudiesastowhat“acceptability”isandhowtomeasureit’.

Thedefinitionofacceptanceisoneofthethreeelementsoftheacceptanceconcept(Figure2.1).Itisthefundamentalfoundationuponwhichbothassessmentstructureandacceptancemodelsrest.Withoutadefinitionitisnotpossibletoexaminethevalidityandreliabilityofanyassessmentmethodsand/ormodels.Although,thereisnocommonandestablisheddefinitionofacceptance,variousdefinitionscanbefoundintheliteratureaswellasdescriptionsofdifferenttypesofacceptance.

Figure2.1Thethreeelementsoftheacceptanceconcept

FiveDifferentWaysofDefiningAcceptance

Arecentliteraturereview(Adell2009)showsthatacceptancedefinitions

identifiedintheliteraturecanbeclassifiedintofivecategories.Thefirstcategorysimplyusesthewordaccepttodefineacceptance:forexample,‘acceptanceisthedegreetowhichalaw,measureordeviceisaccepted’(Risser,AlmqvistandEricsson1999:36).Thesecondcategoryisconcernedwiththesatisfactionoftheneedsandrequirementsofusers(andotherstakeholders)andmaybeinterpretedastheusefulnessofthesystem.Forexample,Nielsen(1993:24)describesacceptanceas‘basicallythequestionofwhetherthesystemisgoodenoughtosatisfyalltheneedsandrequirementsoftheusersandotherpotentialstakeholders’.Thethirdcategoryseesacceptanceasthesumofallattitudes,implyingthatother,forexamplemoreemotionallyformed,attitudesareaddedtothemore‘rational’evaluationoftheusefulnessofthesystem(asinCategory2).ForexampleRisserandLehner(1998:8)write‘Acceptancereferstowhattheobjectsorcontentsforwhichacceptanceismeasuredareassociatedto;whatdothoseobjectsorcontentsimplyfortheaskedperson’.Thefourthcategoryfocusesonthewilltousethesystem.Forexample,ChismarandWiley-Patton(2003)statethatacceptanceistheintentiontoadoptanapplication.Thiscanbebasedoneithertheoreticalknowledgeoftheapplicationorrealexperience.Thisdefinitionofacceptanceaimsforabehaviouralchangeandmaybeseenasbeingbasedontheearliercategories;inthatthewilltouseasystemisbasedonadriver’sassessmentoftheusefulnessofthesystem(asinCategory2)aswellasonallotherattitudestothesystemanditseffects(asinCategory3).Thisfourthcategorystressesthewilltoactasaconsequenceofapositiveattitudetowardsthesysteminquestion.Thefifthcategoryofacceptanceemphasisestheactualuseofthesystem;forexample,DillonandMorris(1996:5)defineacceptanceas‘thedemonstrablewillingnesswithinausergrouptoemployinformationtechnologyforthetaskitisdesignedtosupport’.Thisispresumablyinfluencedbythewilltouseit(asinCategory4).

Viewingtheacceptancecategoriesinthisway,theymaytosomeextentbeseenasaprogressionfromassessingtheusefulnessofasystemtowardstheactualuseofthatsystem,withthelattercategoriesincludingtheearlierones(seeFigure2.2).Thisprogressionperspective,however,cannotincludeCategory1,whichusesthewordaccepttodefineacceptance,butdoesnotprovideanyinformationaboutwhatisimpliedbyacceptanceoraccept.

Figure2.2Thefivecategoriesofacceptance,basedondefinitionsfoundinaliteraturereviewbyAdell(2009)

DifferentTypesofAcceptance

Therearealsodifferenttypesofacceptancedescribedintheliterature.Authorshavemadedistinctionsbetweenattitudinalandbehaviouralacceptance(Kollmann2000,Franken2007),betweensocialandpracticalacceptance(Nielsen1993)andbetweendifferentlevelsofproblemawarenessoftheindividual(Katteler2005).

Attitudinalacceptanceis,accordingtoFranken(2007),basedonemotionandexperienceandprovidesabasisforacceptingasystem.Behaviouralacceptanceisdisplayedintheformofobservablebehaviour(Franken2007).Relatingtothedefinitioncategoriesdescribedabove,attitudinalacceptanceiscomparabletothe‘sumofattitudes’(Category3)andbehaviouralacceptancetothe‘actualuse’(Category5).Similartothis,Kollmann(2000)describesacceptanceasconsistingofthreelevels:thegeneralconnectionofinnerassessmentandexpectation(theattitudelevel,Category3),theacquisitionorpurchaseoftheproduct(theactionlevel)anditsvoluntaryusewithafrequencygreaterthanthatofothertrafficparticipants(theutilisationlevel,Category5).

Slightlylater,Katteler(2005)defineddifferenttypesofacceptanceofdriverassistancesystemsdependingonthedriver’sawarenessoftheproblemtheassistancesystemisaimedattackling.Thewell-founded,firmacceptanceindicates,apartfromapositiveattitudetowardsthesystemthattheindividualisawareoftheproblemthesystemisdesignedtotackle.Opportunisticacceptanceindicateslowproblemawarenessandis,accordingtoKatteler(2005),likelytobelessstableandmoresensitivetochangesinthesystemdesign,thetermsofusingthesystem,theopinionsofothersaboutthesystemandsoon.

Thereisalsodiscussionabout‘conditional’and‘contextual’acceptanceintheliterature.Conditionalacceptanceindicatesthatacceptanceisdependentoncertainpreconditions(SaadandDionisio2007);forexample,‘IwillusethesystemifIamfreetoturnitoffwhenIwantto’or‘Iwillusethesystemifeverybodyelsedoes’.Similarly,contextualacceptanceindicatesthatacceptancedependsonthesituationalcontext(Saad2004);forexample,‘Iwillusethesystemonroadswithspeedcameras’or‘Iwon’tusethesysteminrushhour’.

Goldenbeld(2003)makesadistinctionbetweenacceptanceandsupport,whereacceptanceisdefinedasthewillingnesstobesubjectedtosomething(e.g.,paytaxes)whilesupportisthelikingfordoingso.Vlassenrootetal.

(2006:1)furtherclaimthat(public)supportisapreconditionforacceptancesinceit‘definesthedegreeofacceptanceorintentionspeoplehavetoadaptornottoadapttothedesiredbehaviour’.AccordingtoVlassenrootandDeMol(2007),thesumoftheindividuals’acceptanceindicateswhetherthereispublicsupport.BythereasoningofVlassenrootetal.(2006),thewillingnesstodosomethinghastobeprecededbylikingtodoit.

Acceptabilityvis-à-visAcceptance

Somescientistsstresstheimportanceofmakingadistinctionbetweenacceptabilityandacceptance.SchadeandSchlag(2003:47)defineacceptabilityasthe‘prospectivejudgementofmeasurestobeintroducedinthefuture’.Acceptabilityismeasuredwhenthesubjecthasnoexperienceofthesystem,andisthereforeanattitudeconstruct.Acceptance,ontheotherhand,consistsofattitudesandbehaviouralreactionsaftertheintroductionofatechnology.AccordingtoJamson(2010)acceptabilityishowmuchasystemisliked,whileacceptanceishowmuchitwouldbeused.Inadditionshedefinesuptakeofasystemashowlikelyitisthatsomeonewouldbuyit.

Pianelli,SaadandAbric(2007)differentiatebetweentwotypesofacceptability:prioriandposterioriacceptability.Prioriacceptabilityisacceptabilitywithoutexperienceofthesystemwhileposterioriacceptabilityistheacceptabilityafterhavingtriedthesystem.Theposterioriacceptabilityincludesexperienceofthesystem,butdoesnotnecessarilyincludebehaviouralreactions,makingitdifferentfromtheacceptancedefinitiondescribedbySchadeandSchlag(2003).

Anotherrelatedconcept,socialacceptability,isdescribedbyanexampleprovidedbyNielsen(1993:24):

Considerasystemtoinvestigatewhetherpeopleapplyingforunemploymentbenefitsarecurrentlygainfullyemployedandthushavesubmittedfraudulentapplications.Thesystemmightdothisbyaskingapplicantsanumberofquestionsandsearchingtheiranswersforinconsistenciesorprofilesthatareoftenindicativeofcheaters.Somepeoplemayconsidersuchafraud-preventingsystemhighlysociallydesirable,butothersmayfinditoffensivetosubjectapplicantstothiskindofquizzingandsociallyundesirabletodelaybenefitsforpeoplefittingcertainprofiles.

Comparably,adrivermightfinditsociallyunacceptableforagovernmenttoimposeadriverassistancesystemonauser,evenifitresultsinareductioninroadtrauma.Practicalacceptabilityincludesdimensionslikecost,

compatibility,reliability,usefulnessandsoon(Nielsen1993).Insummary,thereare,today,manydifferentwaysofviewingacceptance

andacceptability.Commontoallofthemisthatacceptanceandacceptabilityarebasedontheindividual’sjudgementof,forexample,adriverassistancesystem.Thefactonlymatterswhenbelievedbytheindividual.Further,onehastorememberthatanyassistancesystemonlygivestheexpectedeffectsifthesystemisusedbythedriver.Fromatrafficsafetyperspectivethismeansthatitisimportantthatthesystemisused–emphasisingtheacceptancedefinitionsincategories4and5(willingnesstouseandusage),behaviouralacceptanceandutilisationlevel.Inthisperspectiveitislessimportantifthedriverssupporttheuseofthesystem.Forotherperspectives–forexample,estimationsofwillingnesstopay–otheraspectsmightbemorerelevant.Itis,however,accordingtoourview,questionablewhetherwillingnesstopayiscomparabletoacceptance.

DefiningAcceptance

Thesituationwithmanydifferentwaysofviewinganddefiningacceptanceisproblematic.Ifacceptanceisnotdefined,itisnotpossibletovalidatedifferentmeasuringtoolsandbuildmodelstounderstandhowacceptanceisformed.Thedefinitionofacceptanceisthefoundationuponwhichbothassessmentstructureandacceptancemodelsrest.Thereforeitisvitaltocometoanagreementonwhatacceptanceis.

Belowfollowsadiscussionregardingimportantaspectsthatshouldbeincludedinthedefinitionofacceptanceinordertomakeitausableandeffectiveconstructwhendesigningandevaluatingdriverassistancesystems.

TheDriver’sUnderstandingoftheSystem

Workingondriveracceptanceofnewtechnologiesmakesitessentialtounderstandtheimportanceofadriver-centredview,asitisthedriverwhomakesthedecisiontouseornotuseasystem,atleastfornon-mandatorysystems.Sinceacceptanceisindividual,itcanonlybebasedonanindividual’spersonalattitudes,expectations,experiencesandsubjectiveevaluationofthesystem,andtheeffectsofusingit(SchadeandBaum2007).Theeffectsofacertainsystem(e.g.,reductioninaccidentrisk)canonlyinfluenceacceptanceiftheyareknown,understood,believedandvaluedbythedriver.Amisunderstandingofthesystemwillinfluenceacceptanceasmuchasacorrectconception.Thisalsoimpliesthattrustinthesystem,onanindividuallevel,isimportantfor

impliesthattrustinthesystem,onanindividuallevel,isimportantforacceptance.Trustisanimportantdeterminantintheoperator’schoicetouseautomation(seee.g.,Muir1994),and–inthesamewayastheconceptofacceptance–needsmoreresearchforestablishingacoherentframeworkformodellingandmeasuring.Here,weconcludethattrust,likeacceptance,isbasedontheindividual’sperceptionofthesystem.Thisis,ofcourse,amongotherthings,influencedbyhowthedriverexperiencesthesystem.

TheGainfortheDriver

Itisalsoimportanttorememberthattoachieveacceptanceanduseofnewtechnologies/systems,thepersonalimportancetotheusershastobevaluedmorehighlythanthedegreeofinnovation(AussererandRisser2005).However,policiesandpoliticalgoalsareoftenconfusedwiththedriver’spersonalgoals.Societalgoalsandindividualgoalsdonotnecessarilycoincide.Forexample,thepolicygoalbehindISA(IntelligentSpeedAdaptation;asystemwhichwarnsthedriverswhentheyexceedthespeedlimit,andmayevenpreventthemfromdoingso)couldbetoincreasetrafficsafetyortoincreasespeedlimitcompliance.Thesegoalsmightnotberelevanttosomedrivers,forexample,duetotheirfeelingthatsafetymeasuresareredundantbecauseoftheirownpersonaldrivingskills(BrookhuisandBrown1992)orbecausespeedingisnotseenasa‘realcrime’(Corbett2001).Nevertheless,theymightfindthatthesystemhelpsthemtoavoidspeedingticketsortheywanttousethesystemsimplybecausetheyhaveageneralinterestininnovativesystems.

ThemultidimensionaldefinitionofacceptanceproposedbyKatteler(2005)andtheapproachchosenbyVlassenrootetal.(2006)areinterestingbutfocusonthesocietalgainsofdriversusingthesystem.Katteler(2005)studiedISAanddefinesspeedingasthe‘problemawareness’dimension.However,thismightnotbethe‘problem’forwhichdriverswishtousetheISAsystem.Similarsystemsaremarketedasproblem-solversforspeedingtickets.Similarly,intheapproachofVlassenrootetal.(2006),thedrivershavetoagreethathighspeedsareaproblemandthatISAisagoodwayofreducingthem.

ItistheUseoftheSystemthatGivesResults

Theactualuseoftechnologyisvitalinstrivingtoimprovetrafficsafetybydeployingdriverassistancesystems.Itistheuseofthesystemthatwillmaterialiseitspotentialandhopefullyproducebenefitsforthedriverandthesociety.Neitherattitudinalacceptance(Franken2007)norsupport(Goldenbeld2003)requiresanyimpactontheactualuseofasystem.Hence,themainaim

2003)requiresanyimpactontheactualuseofasystem.Hence,themainaimandfocuswhenworkingwithacceptanceshould,inourview,beonbehaviouralacceptance(Franken2007),theutilisationlevelasdescribedbyKollmann(2000)andacceptancedefinitionCategory5–‘actualuse’(describedabove),whichallemphasisetheuseofthesystem.Fromthisperspective,thesecondandthirdcategoriesofacceptancedefinitions(‘usefulness’and‘allattitudes’),attitudinalacceptance(Franken2007)andtheattitudeleveldescribedbyKollmann(2000)influencethewilltouseandtheactualusageofthesystem,andshouldnottobeseenasacceptanceperse.

UsableintheWholeDevelopment/ImplementationProcess

Itisdesirabletoaccuratelypredictuseracceptanceasearlyaspossibleinthedesignprocesstobeabletoevaluatedifferentalternativesandidentifyobstaclestoovercome.Furthermore,fortechnologiesthatareavailabletodrivers,theuseofthemhastobeseenaspartofaprocess,includingthewilltouseasasteptowardsusage.

Sometimesthetermacceptabilityisusedwhenadriverhasnopracticalexperienceofthesystem,forexample,inthedevelopmentphase.Differentiatingbetweenacceptanceandacceptabilityishowevernotalwayseasyduetotheproblematicsituationofdefiningexperience.Cantestingthesysteminadrivingsimulatorbeconsideredasexperience?Ormustthesystembeusedinreallife?Andforhowlong?Canweconsiderusingamock-upasexperienceofasystem?Andsoon.Duetothis,itisadvisednottorelyonthetermacceptabilitytodescribetheexperiencethedriverhaswiththesystem;butinstead,toexplicitlydescribethesituation.

Tosummarise,itisimportanttodefineacceptanceassomethingthatisbasedonthedriver’sunderstandingofthesystemandfocushis/hergainofusingthesystemratherthansocietal/politicalgains.Theacceptanceshouldbeconnectedtotheuseofthesystemsinceitistheusethatcreatestheexpectedeffects.Preferablytheacceptancedefinitionshouldalsobeappropriateindifferentstagesoftheidea–development–implementationprocessofadriverassistancesystem.

ProposalforaCommonDefinitionofDriverAcceptance

Buildingontheseaspects,Adell(2009:31)proposesadefinitionofdriveracceptancefocusingonasystem’spotentialtorealiseitsintendedbenefits(e.g.,trafficsafetypotential);thatis,thedrivers’incorporationofthetechnologyinto

trafficsafetypotential);thatis,thedrivers’incorporationofthetechnologyintotheirdriving:

Acceptanceisthedegreetowhichanindividualincorporatesthesysteminhis/herdriving,or,ifthesystemisnotavailable,intendstouseit.

Thisdefinitionhastheadvantagesoffocusingontheindividualperspective,bothregardingthesubjectiveevaluationofthesystemandthegainsofusingthesystem.Thesystemmustbothaddressanaspectthatisimportanttothedriver(e.g.,notbeingfinedforspeedingornotfallingasleepwhiledriving)anditssolutiontotheproblem/waytoattainthegainmustbeknown,understoodandbelievedbythedriver.

Further,thisdefinitionstressestheimportanceofusingthesystem.Inthiswayacceptanceistightlyconnectedtodemonstrationofthejudgementofthesystem.Agenerallikingofasystemistherebynotacceptanceofthesystem;toacceptthesystem,theindividualhastoincorporatethesysteminhis/herdriving.Thisprovidesthepotentialofrealisingtheexpectedeffectsofthesystem.

Thisdefinitionalsoprovidesanopeningforassessingasystemindevelopmentbyaddressingtheintentiontousethesystemifthesystemwasavailable.Thiscanbeseenaspotentialacceptance,butshouldnotbeconfusedwithacceptability.Inthisdefinitionthetermacceptabilityisavoidedduebothtothediversityofmeaningputintotheterm(seethesection‘Acceptabilityvis-à-visAcceptance’inthischapter)andduetotheproblematicsituationofdefiningexperience.

Theproposeddefinitionalsostatesclearlythatacceptanceisofacontinuousnatureandnotlimitedtoacceptance/nonacceptance(nominalscale).Ofcourse,thedegreeofacceptancecouldalsobezerowhenthedriverdoesnotusethesystemand/orhasnointentiontodoso.

Bythisdefinitionitfollowsthatthedriverdoesnotnecessarilyhavetoliketousethesystemtodemonstrateacceptance.Toshowhighacceptance,itisenoughthatthedriverdecidestousethesystem,which,underthegivencircumstances,he/sheseesasthebestoption.Inthisway,toleratingtheuseofthesystemcanbeseenaspartofacceptance:forexample,bythedriverwhowouldnotnormallychoosetouseanISAsystembutdecidestodosoduetoanumberofspeedingfines,orbythedriverwhoagreestousethesystemsinceitisrequiredbylaw.Thedriveracceptsthesystemasthebestoptioninagivensituation.

Conclusion

Inthischapterwehaveillustratedhowacceptanceisdefinedandusedindifferentstudiesandwehaveputforwardanewdefinition.

Ifacceptancehasnotbeendefined,thenwecannotbesurethatthetoolweusetomeasureitwillgivevalidresults.Withoutknowinghowacceptanceisdefined,itisimpossibletounderstandhowdriverexperiencesinfluenceit.Thewidevarietyofacceptancedefinitionsandcorrespondingmeasurementmethods,andtherebythediversityofresults,presentabreedinggroundformisinterpretationsandmisuseoftheresults.Whatismore,thisvarietymakescomparisonsbetweentechnologies,systemsandsettingsalmostimpossibletoachieve.

Acknowledgements

Thischapterdrawsonthedissertation‘Driverexperienceandacceptanceofdriverassistancesystems–acaseofspeedadaptation’(Adell2009).

References

Adell,E.2009.Driverexperienceandacceptanceofdriverassistancesystems–acaseofspeedadaptation.Bulletin251.PhDthesis,LundUniversity,Sweden.

Ausserer,K.andRisser,R.2005.IntelligentTransportsystemsandservices–chancesandrisks.Proceedingsofthe18thICTCTworkshop,Helsinki,Finland.

Brookhuis,K.andBrown,I.D.1992.Ergonomicsandroadsafety.Impactofscienceonsociety,165:35–40.

Chismar,W.G.andWiley-Patton,S.2003.DoestheExtendedTechnologyAcceptanceModelApplytoPhysicians.Proceedingsofthe36thHawaiiInternationalConferenceonSystemSciences(HICSS’03),Hawaii,USA.

Corbett,C.2001.Thesocialconstructionofspeedingasnot‘real’crime.CrimePreventionandCommunitySafety:AnInternationalJournal,2(4):33–46.

Dillon,A.andMorris,M.1996.Useracceptanceofnewinformationtechnology–theoriesandmodels,inAnnualReviewofInformationScienceandTechnology,Vol.31:3–32.EditedbyM.Williams.Medford,NJ:InformationToday.

Franken,V.2007.Useofnavigationsystemsandconsequencesfortravelbehaviour.ECTRI-FEHRL-FERSIYoungResearcherSeminar,Brno,Czech

Republic.Goldenbeld,C.2003.Publiekdraagvlakvoorverkeersveiligheiden

veiligheidsmaatregelen.SWOV,Leidschendam.InDefiningthepublicsupport:whatcandetermineacceptabilityofroadsafetymeasuresbyageneralpublic?EditedbyS.Vlassenroot,J.deMol,T.BrijsandG.Wets.2006.ProceedingsoftheEuropeanTransportConference2006,Strasbourg,France.

Jamson,S.2010.Acceptabilitydata–whatshouldorcoulditpredict?PresentedattheInternationalseminaronAcceptance,Paris,France,November2010.

Katteler,H.2005.Driveracceptanceofmandatoryintelligentspeedadaptation.EJTIR,5(4):317–36.

Kollmann,T.2000.DieMessungderAkzeptanzbeiTelekommunikations-systemen,JBF–JournalfürBetriebswirtschaft,50(2):68–78.InUserrequirementsforamultimodalroutingsystemtosupporttransportbehavior.EditedbyV.FrankenandB.Lenz.2007.ProceedingsoftheSixthEuropeanCongressandExhibitiononIntelligentTransportSystemsandServices,Aalborg,Denmark.

Muir,B.M.1994.Trustinautomation:PartI.Theoreticalissuesinthestudyoftrustandhumaninterventioninautomatedsystems.Ergonomics,37(11):1905–22.

Najm,W.G.,Stearns,M.D.,Howarth,H.,Koopmann,J.andHitz,J.2006.Evaluationofanautomotiverear-endcollisionavoidancesystem(chapter5).USDepartmentofTransportation,NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration.Reportno.DOTHS810569.ResearchandInnovativeTechnologyAdministration,VolpeNationalTransportationSystemsCentre,Cambridge,USA.

Nielsen,J.1993.Usabilityengineering.SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress.Pianelli,C.,Saad,F.andAbric,J-C.2007.Socialrepresentationsand

acceptabilityofLAVIA(FrenchISAsystem).ProceedingsoftheFourteenthWorldCongressandExhibitionofIntelligentTransportSystemsandServices,Beijing,China.

Regan,M.A.,Mitsopoulos,E.,Haworth,N.andYoung,K.2002.Acceptabilityofin-vehicleintelligenttransportsystemstoVictoriancardrivers.Reportno.02/02.MonashUniversityAccidentResearchCentre,Melbourne,Australia.

Risser,R.,Almqvist,S.andEricsson,M.1999.Fördjupadeanalyseravacceptansfrågorkringdynamiskhastighetsanpassning.Bulletin174,LundUniversity,Sweden(InSwedish).

Risser,R.andLehner,U.1998.Acceptabilityofspeedsandspeedlimitsto

driversandpedestrians/cyclists.DeliverableD6,MASTER-project.Saad,F.2004.Behaviouraladaptationstonewassistancesystems–some

criticalissues.ProceedingsoftheIEEEInternationalConferenceonSystems,Man,andCybernetics,288–93.

Saad,F.andDionisio,C.2007.Pre-evaluationofthe“mandatoryactive”LAVIA:Assessmentofusability,utilityandacceptance.Proceedingsofthe14thWorldCongressandExhibitionofIntelligentTransportSystemsandServices,Beijing,China.

Schade,J.andBaum,M.2007.Reactanceoracceptance?Reactionstowardstheintroductionofroadpricing.TransportationResearchPartA,41(1):41–8.

Schade,J.andSchlag,B.2003.Acceptabilityofurbantransportpricingstrategies.TransportationResearchPartF,6(1):45–61.

VanderLaan,J.D.,Heino,A.andDeWaard,D.1997.Asimpleprocedurefortheassessmentofacceptanceofadvancedtransporttelemetics.TransportationresearchPartC,5(1):1–10.

VanDriel,C.2007.Driversupportincongestion–anassessmentofuserneedsandimpactsondriverandtrafficflow.PhDthesis,ThesisSeries,T2007/10,TRAILResearchSchool,theNetherlands.

Vlassenroot,S.andDeMol,J.2007.MeasuringpublicsupportforISA:developmentofaunifiedtheory.Proceedingsofthe14thWorldCongressandExhibitionofIntelligentTransportSystemsandServices,Beijing,China.

Vlassenroot,S.,deMol,J.,Brijs,T.andWets,G.2006.Definingthepublicsupport:whatcandetermineacceptabilityofroadsafetymeasuresbyageneralpublic?Proceedingsofthe6thEuropeanCongressandExhibitionofIntelligentTransportSystemsandServices,Strasbourg,France.

Chapter3ModellingAcceptanceofDriverAssistanceSystems:ApplicationoftheUnifiedTheoryofAcceptanceand

UseofTechnologyEmeliAdell

TrivectorTraffic,Sweden

AndrásVárhelyiLundUniversity,Sweden

LenaNilssonSwedishNationalRoadandTransportResearchInstitute(VTI),Sweden

Abstract

Thischapterprovidesabriefoverviewofacceptancemodelsusedwithintheareaofinformationtechnology.Oneparticularmodel,theUnifiedTheoryofAcceptanceandUseofTechnology(UTAUT),isthendiscussed,andastudyisreportedinwhichthemodelwasusedtoassessdriveracceptanceofaparticulardriverassistancesystem.Thekeyfindingsofthatstudyarereported,andsuggestionsaremadeforrefiningUTAUTtomakeitmoresuitableforassessingacceptanceofdriverassistancesystems.

Introduction

Tounderstandhowacceptanceofdriverassistancesystemsisformed,whatfactorsinfluenceitandwhatstimulatesacceptance,thereisaneedforanacceptancemodel.Driverassistancesystemsaretechnology-basedsystemstohelpthedriverinthedrivingprocess.Theyintegratesensors,informationprocessing,communicationandcontroltechnologiestoconstantlymonitorthevehiclesurroundingsaswellasdrivingbehaviourtodetectcriticalsituations.Thesesystemscontinuouslysupportthedriverbyinforming,warningand/orinterveningtoavoidanydangeroussituations.Inthischapter,acceptancemodels

derivedinotherdomainswithininformationtechnologyarereviewed,andtheUnifiedTheoryofAcceptanceandUseofTechnology(UTAUT)(Venkateshetal.2003)isusedtoassessdriveracceptanceofadriverassistancesystem.Basedonthisassessment,suggestionsaremadeforrefiningUTAUTtomakeitmoresuitableforassessingacceptanceofdriverassistancesystems.

FrameworksforAssessingAcceptanceofDriverAssistanceSystems

Thereareonlyafewframeworksforunderstandingacceptancediscussedintheliteratureondriverassistancesystems.TheNationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration’s(NHTSA)strategicplan,1997–2002,statesthatdriveracceptanceshouldbeunderstoodintermsofeaseofuse,easeoflearning,adaptationandperceptionofthesysteminquestion(Najmetal.2006).Measurementoftheseaspectsofdriverassistancesystemsshouldshowwhetherthesystemsatisfiestheneedsandrequirementsofdrivers(correspondingtothesecondacceptancedefinitioncategorydiscussedinthepreviouschapter).TheNHTSAframeworkwasrevisedin2001,toincludeeaseofuse,easeoflearning,perceivedvalue,drivingperformanceandadvocacyofthesystemorwillingnesstoendorseit(Stearns,NajmandBoyle2002,Najmetal.2006).Reganetal.(2002)statethatacceptability,asitrelatestodriverassistancesystems,isafunctionofusefulness,easeofuse,effectiveness,affordabilityandsocialacceptability.ForReganetal.(2002),theseconstructsdefineacceptance.

WhenstudyingIntelligentSpeedAdaptation(ISA),MolinandBrookhuis(2007)showed,bymeansofaStructuralEquationModel(SEM),thatacceptabilityofthesystemwasrelatedtothe‘beliefthatspeedcausesaccidents’,whetherthesystemcan‘contributetopersonalorsocietalgoals’and‘ifoneprefersaneverlimitingmandatoryISA’.MolinandBrookhuis(2007)didnotdefineacceptance;nevertheless,inaquestionnaire,usingclosedquestions,theymeasureditbyquestionswiththefollowingcontent:‘intentiontobuyISAifitisforfree’,‘wantstopossessISA’and‘supportforpolicytoimposeISAonallcars’.Theseindicatorsdonotclearlyfitintoanyofthefiveacceptancedefinitioncategoriesdescribedinthepreviouschapter.However,thefirsttwoindicatorsseemtobeconsistentwiththeacceptancedefinitionsinCategory4(willingnesstouse)andthethirdindicatormightbeconnectedtocategories2or3(satisfyingneedsandrequirementsorsumofattitudes)(seethediscussionregardingtheconnectionbetweenmeasurementsanddefinitionsinlaterchaptersofthisbook).

NeitherNajmetal.(2006)norReganetal.(2002)haveshownifandhowtheattributesofacceptancetheyputforwardinfluencetheactualacceptanceofasystembydrivers,whichlimitstheuseoftheseframeworksforunderstandinghowacceptanceisformedandhowtoinfluenceit.TheSEMmodelregardingacceptanceofISAdescribedbyMolinandBrookhuis(2007)pointstotheimportanceoftheperceivedusefulnessofthesystem,butthemodelistoospecialisedtodescribewhatstimulatesacceptanceinawiderperspective.Inconclusion,thereisaneedforamodeltosatisfactorilydescribewhatinfluencesacceptancevis-à-visdriverassistancesystems.

AcceptanceModelsWithintheAreaofInformationTechnology

Followingtherapiddevelopmentofnewtechnologiesandsoftwareincomputerscience,interestintheacceptanceanduseofthesetechnologieshasincreasedsignificantly.Anumberofdifferentmodelsareusedintheinformationtechnologyareatounderstand,forexample,thereasonsfor(not)usingdifferentcomputerprograms,howtoimprovecomputerprogramstoincreaseusageofthemandreasonsfor(not)Internetshopping.Theinformationtechnologyareaincludestodayoneofthemostcomprehensiveresearchbodiesonacceptanceanduseofnewtechnologyandthemodelsusedhaveprovidedassistanceinunderstandingwhatfactorseitherenableorhindertechnologyacceptanceanduse.Thesemodelsarediscussedlaterinthechapter.

DifferencesBetweenInformationTechnologyandDriverAssistanceSystems

Applicationsofinformationtechnologyanddriverassistancesystemssharemanyimportantfeatures:theuserinteractswithatechnologythatisoftentoocomplextofullyunderstand;newapplicationsareincorporatedintoanexistinginteractionbetweentheuserandthetechnology;andbothinformationtechnologyanddriverassistancesystemsseektofacilitateanongoingtask.

Despitethesimilarities,thereareimportantdifferencesbetweenthesettingsinwhichinformationtechnologyapplicationsanddriverassistancesystemsareused,particularlyattheoperationallevel.Oneimportantdifferencebetweencomputeruseandcardrivingisthetimeaspect.Whenusingacomputer,theusernormallyhasthepossibilityofpausingandpondering,andevenaskingforhelpwithaprocessordecision.Continuousdecision-makingorexecutionisusuallynotrequired.Itisdifferentwhendrivingacar.Thecardrivernormallyhasashorttimespaninwhichadecision(andaction)hastobemadeandnormally

doesnothavethepossibilityofacquiringassistancewithalongprocessordecision.Cardrivingalsodemandscontinuousdecision-makingandexecutionoftasks.Whenusingacomputertheusernormallydoesnothavetointeractwithotherhumans,whileacardrivermustinteractwithotherroadusers,makingthesocialdimensionofthetwosettingsverydifferent.Whenacomputerusermakesamistakeitisoftenrepairable;theconsequenceisusuallyirritatingandsometimestime-consuming,butseldomdangerous.Whenacardrivermakesamistakeitcouldendinseverephysicaldamageorfatalitybothforthedriverhim/herself(user)andothers.Theworkingenvironmentwhenusingadesktopcomputerisimaginary,whiletheuseofacartakesplaceintherealworld.

Thesedifferencesareimportanttorecogniseandaddress.Nevertheless,theworkonacceptanceofdriverassistancesystemsshouldbeabletomakeuseoftheknowledgefromtheareaofinformationtechnology,albeitwithsomemodificationsandcaveats.

FrequentlyUsedAcceptanceModelswithintheAreaofInformationTechnology

Intheareaofinformationtechnologyanumberofdifferentmodelshavebeenused.Someofthemodelsweredevelopedintheareaofinformationtechnologywhileothermodelsincorporatewell-knowntheoriesdevelopedinabroadercontext.Themodelshavebeendevelopedoverquitealongtimespan.Oneofthemorerecentlydevelopedmodels,theUTAUT(Venkateshetal.2003),integrateseightofthemostusedmodelsofindividualacceptanceintheareaofinformationtechnology(inboldinthelistbelow):

•ThePleasure,ArousalandDominanceparadigm(MehrabianandRussell1974)

•TheoryofReasonedAction(AjzenandFishbein1980)•ExpectationDisconfirmationTheory(Oliver1980)•SocialExchangeTheory(Kelley1979,Emersson1987)•TechnologyAcceptanceModel(TAM)(Davis1989)•TheoryofPlannedBehaviour(TPB)(Ajzen1991)•TheModelofPCUtilisation(Thompson,HigginsandHowell1991)•SocialInfluenceModel(Fulk,SchmitzandSteinfield1990,Fulk1993)•MotivationalModel(Davis,BagozziandWarshaw1992)•AcombinedmodelofTAMandTPB(TaylorandTodd1995)•SocialCognitiveTheory(CompeauandHiggins1995)

•InnovationDiffusionTheory(Rogers1995)•TaskTechnologyFit(GoodhueandThompson1995)•SystemImplementation(Clegg2000)•TechnologyReadiness(Parasuraman2000)•ISContinuance(Bhattacherjee2001)•Three-TierUseModel(Liawetal.2006)•MotivationvariableofLGO(Saadé2007)•SocialIdentityTheory(e.g.,Yang,ParkandPark2007)

TheUnifiedTheoryofAcceptanceandUseofTechnology–UTAUT

TheUTAUTisbasedonanextensiveliteraturereviewandempiricalcomparisonofthemodelsincluded(forreferences,seeVenkateshetal.2003).Thekeyelementinallthesemodelsisthebehaviour;thatis,theuseofanewtechnology.

TheUTAUTmodelwasvalidatedforuseinunderstandingacceptanceanduseofcomputersoftwarebycomputerusersintheUSA.Itoutperformedtheeightindividualmodels,accountingfor70percentofthevariance(adjustedR2)inuse.ItwasconcludedthattheUTAUTisausefultoolforassessingthelikelihoodofsuccessfornewtechnologyintroductionandprovidesknowledgeofwhatstimulatesacceptance,whichcanbeusedtoproactivelydesigninterventions(includingtraining,marketing,etc.)targetedatpopulationsofusersthatmaybelessinclinedtoadoptandusenewsystems(Venkateshetal.2003).

InUTAUT,Venkateshetal.(2003)postulatetwodirectdeterminantsofuse:‘behaviouralintention’and‘facilitatingconditions’.‘Behaviouralintention’isinturninfluencedby‘performanceexpectancy’,‘effortexpectancy’and‘socialinfluence’.Gender,age,experienceandvoluntarinessofuseactasmoderators.

Theitemsusedinassessingtheconstructswereselectedfromtheeightinvestigatedmodels.Throughempiricalevaluation,usingaseven-pointscalefrom‘stronglydisagree’(1)to‘stronglyagree’(7),thefourmostsignificantitemsforeachconstructwerechosenasindicatorsforthespecificconstructsintheUTAUTmodel(seeTable3.1).Behaviouralintentionwasassessedthroughthreeitemsandusewasmeasuredasthedurationofuseviasystemlogs(Venkateshetal.2003).

Itwasfoundthat‘performanceexpectancy’isadeterminantof‘behaviouralintention’inmostsituations.Thestrengthoftherelationshipis,however,

moderatedbyageandgender,beingmoresignificantformenandyoungerworkers.Theeffectof‘effortexpectancy’onbehaviouralintentionisalsomoderatedbygenderandage,butcontraryto‘performanceexpectancy’,ismoresignificantforwomenandolderworkers.Theeffectof‘effortexpectancy’decreaseswithexperience.Theeffectof‘socialinfluence’onbehaviouralintentionisconditionedbyage,gender,experienceandvoluntarinesssuchthattheauthorsfoundittobenon-significantwhenthedatawereanalysedwithouttheinclusionofmoderators.Theeffectof‘facilitatingconditions’isonlysignificantwhenexaminedincombinationwiththemoderatingeffectsofageandexperience;thatis,theyonlymatterforolderworkerswithmoreexperience(Venkateshetal.2003).

TheUseoftheUTAUTModelinOtherAreas

TheUTAUTmodelhasalsobeenutilisedinareasotherthaninformationtechnology,suchasforadoptionofmobileservicesamongconsumers(Carlssonetal.2006)andinthehealthsector.Applicationexamplesfromthehealthsectorincludeexaminationoftheviabilityofmotes(tiny,wirelesssensordevices)ashealthmonitoringtools,healthprofessionals’reluctancetoacceptandutiliseinformationandcommunicationtechnologies,physicians’acceptanceofapharmacokinetics-basedclinicaldecisionsupportsystemandphysicianadoptionofelectronicmedicalrecordstechnology(e.g.,Lubrinetal.2006,Changetal.2007,HenningtonandJanz2007,SchaperandPervan2007).

ThestudieslargelysupporttheappropriatenessoftheUTAUTmodelintheseareas.However,socialinfluencewasnotfoundtobeasstrongapredictorassuggestedbythemodelwheninvestigatinginformation/communicationtechnologiesanddecisionsupportinthehealthsector(Changetal.2007,SchaperandPervan2007).Extensions/modificationsofthemodelwererecommendedbothintheadoptionofmobileservicesandwithinthehealthsector(Carlssonetal.2006,Lubrinetal.2006).

UsingtheUTAUTModelintheContextofDriverAssistanceSystems

AfirstproposaltousetheUTAUTmodelforunderstandingacceptanceofdriverassistancesystemswasmadebyAdell(2007),andapilottestofthemodelintheareaofdriverassistancesystemswasundertakenin2008(Adell2009).

Datawerecollectedduringafieldtrialevaluatingaprototypedriverassistancesystem.Thepurposeofthepilotwastoexplorethepotentialofusing

assistancesystem.ThepurposeofthepilotwastoexplorethepotentialofusingUTAUTinthecontextofdriverassistancesystems.Thus,theoriginalmodelwasappliedasfarastheexperimentaldesignallowedit.Additionalquestionstothealreadydesignedfieldtrialquestionnairesalloweddatacollectionforexaminationoftheinterrelationshipsof‘performanceexpectancy’,‘effortexpectancy’and‘socialinfluence’,with‘behaviouralintention’,includinggenderandage,asmoderators.AsummaryofthefieldtrialisgivenbelowandreportedinfullbyAdell,VárhelyiandDallaFontana(2009).

TheSASPENCEsystemisadriverassistancesystemthatassiststhedrivertokeepasafespeed(accordingtoroadandtrafficconditions)andasafedistancetothevehicleahead.The‘SafeSpeedandSafeDistance’functioninforms/warnsthedriverwhen(a)thecaristooclosetothevehicleinfront,(b)acollisionislikelyduetoapositiverelativespeed,(c)thespeedistoohighconsideringtheroadlayoutand(d)thecarisexceedingthespeedlimit.Thedriverreceivesinformationandfeedbackfromthesystembymeansofanexternalspeedometerdisplaylocatedontheinstrumentpanel,hapticfeedbackintheacceleratorpedal,orintheseatbelt,andanauditorymessage.ForfurtherinformationaboutthesystemseeAdelletal.(2009).

Twotestrouteswereused:oneinItaly,andoneinSpain.Bothrouteswereapproximately50kmlongandcontainedurban,ruralandmotorwaydriving.Thetestdriversdrovethetestroutetwice,oncewiththesystemonandoncewiththesystemoff,thusservingastheirowncontrols.Theorderofdrivingwasalteredtominimisebiasduetolearningeffects.Ateachsite,20randomlyselectedinhabitants,balancedaccordingtoageandgender,participatedinthetrial.PriortousingtheSASPENCEsystem,theparticipantsweregivenabriefexplanationofthesystem.ThequestionsregardingtheUTAUTassessmentweregiventothedriversaspartofthequestionnaireaftertheseconddrive.

Theitemsforassessing‘behaviouralintention’,‘performanceexpectancy’,‘effortexpectancy’and‘socialinfluence’wereadoptedfromVenkateshetal.(2003).Someoftheitemshadtobeadaptedtofitthecontextofdriverassistancesystems(seeTable3.1).Eachitemwasratedusingaseven-pointscale,rangingfrom‘stronglydisagree’(1)to‘stronglyagree’(7)(identicaltoVenkateshetal.2003).

Table3.1TheoriginalUTAUTitemsandthemodifieditemsusedinthepilottesttoassessacceptanceofadriverassistancesystem(Adelletal.2009)

Factoranalysisconfirmed,onthewhole,thesimilarityoftheitemswithinthefourconstructs(‘behaviouralintentiontousethesystem’[BI],‘performanceexpectancy’[PE],‘effortexpectancy’[EE]and‘socialinfluence’[SI]).However,itemsPE3andPE4didnotshowhighloadingsonperformanceexpectancy.PE3showedmoreresemblancetosocialinfluencewhileitemPE4didnotshowanyclearresemblancetoanyofthefourconstructs.Thesetwoitemswereexcludedandtheremainingitemswererepresentedbyfoursummatedscalevariables(averagesofitemscores).

Therelationshipsbetweentheindependentconstructs(PE,EE,SI)andbehaviouralintentiontousetheSASPENCEsystem(BI)wereexaminedbyapplyinglinearregressionanalysis.First,theunadjustedeffects–thatis,thecrudeeffects(meaningthattherewasonlyoneindependentvariableinthe

crudeeffects(meaningthattherewasonlyoneindependentvariableinthemodel)–andthentheadjustedeffectsofvariables(bysimultaneouslyenteringotherindependentvariablesintothemodel)wereanalysed.

Theresultshighlightedtheimportanceof‘performanceexpectancy’and‘socialinfluence’for‘behaviouralintention’butdidnotverifythesignificanceof‘effortexpectancy’.Thismaybeaconsequenceoflimitationsinthepilottest.However,thecontextofcomputeruse,forwhichtheUTAUTmodelwasdeveloped,differsfromthecontextofusingdriverassistancesystems(driving).Cardrivingdemandsinteractionswithotherroadusersandisthereforebyitsnatureataskwithastrongsocialdimension.Theimportanceof‘socialinfluence’asapredictorof‘behaviouralintention’inthecontextofadriverassistancesystemcouldbeaconsequenceofthis.Further,theeffortassociatedwiththeuseof,forexample,acomputerprogram,andtheuseofadriverassistancesystemmaybedifferent.Employingacomputerprogramnormallydemandsactionsbytheuser,whileadriverassistancesystemnormallyrunswithoutrequiringinputfromthedriver,informing/warningthedriveronlywhenthereisaneedtodoso.TheresultsoftestingtheUTAUTmodelonadriverassistancesystemaresummarisedinFigure3.1.

Theinclusionofthemoderators‘gender’and‘age’didnotaffecttheresults,regardlessofwhether‘effortexpectancy’wasincludedintheanalysis.

TherelativelylowexplanatorypoweroftheUTAUTmodelinthepilottest(20percent)ledtofurtherinvestigationofthesignificanceoftheindividualitemscomprisingtheconstructsusedinthemodel.Thissuggestedthatsomeindividualitemsusedinassessingtheconstructswerebetterpredictorsof‘behaviouralintention’thantheconstructsthemselves.Theitems‘usefulness’(PE1),‘drivingperformance’(PE3),‘accidentrisk’(PE4)and‘importantpeople’(SI2)hadsignificantcrudeeffectson‘behaviouralintention’.Thesignificantcrudeeffectsoftheitems‘drivingperformance’and‘accidentrisk’indicatedthatthey,althoughnotclearlybelongingtotheconstruct‘performanceexpectancy’,touchedonimportantaspectsforexplainingthe‘behaviouralintention’ofusingthesystem.Still,thereseemedtobeaconsiderableoverlapbetweentheseitemsandtheitems‘usefulness’and‘importantpeople’.Whenincluding‘drivingperformance’and‘accidentrisk’inthemodelandusingbackwardselimination,onlytheitems‘usefulness’and‘importantpeople’wereleftinthemodel.Themodelusingonly‘usefulness’and‘importantpeople’explained33percentofthebehaviouralintention,whichismorethantheoriginallytestedmodel.

Figure3.1RegressioncoefficientsandexplanatorypowerfortheUTAUTmodelwhenappliedtoacceptanceofthedriverassistancesystemSASPENCE

ProposedModificationstotheModelThreemodificationstotheUTAUTmodelaresuggestedtoimproveitsuseinthecontextofassessingacceptanceofdriverassistancesystems:(1)addinganewconstructtoincludetheemotionalreactionsofthedriver,suchasdrivingenjoyment,irritation,stress,feelingofbeingcontrolledandimageofthesystem,(2)weightingtheconstructsbytheirperceivedimportanceand(3)includingreliabilityissuesinthemodel(Adell2009).Further,theneedtoidentifyitemsthatcanassessthe‘essence’oftheconstructsinadriverassistancesystemperspectiveishighlighted.

Conclusion

Followingthedefinitionofacceptanceproposedinthepreviouschapter,theintentiontouseandtheactualusageofadriverassistancesystemiscentral.Itistheuseofasystemthatenablesthepotentialbenefitsofthesystemtomaterialise.Therefore,increasedknowledgeoffactorsthatinfluencetheacceptance(andhence,use)ofdriverassistancesystemsandtheirinterrelationshipiscrucialifdriverassistancesystemsaretoplayamajorroleinachievingabettertrafficsystem.Betterunderstandingofwhatinfluencesacceptancewouldgiveusvaluableinsightsintothecausesfor(not)usingthedriverassistancesystemandhowtoimprovethesystemtoincreaseuseofit.

Themostextensiveresearchbodiesdealingwiththeacceptanceanduseofnewtechnologytodayarefoundintheinformationtechnologyarea,whereanumberofdifferentacceptancemodelsareusedanddeveloped.TheUTAUTmodelwasdeemedinterestingtoapplytothecontextofdriverassistance

systemssinceitsummariseseightofthemostsignificantmodelsappliedintheinformationtechnologyarea,andhasalreadybeenusedinothercontextsoutsideinformationtechnology.

TheUTAUTmodel,usingageandgenderasmoderators,wasexaminedinapilottestwithin-vehicletechnologies.TheresultssupporttosomeextenttheuseofUTAUTasaframeworktoassessacceptanceofadriverassistancesystem,buttheexplanatorypoweroftheoriginalmodel(fromtheITdomain)wasonly20percent.Both‘performanceexpectancy’and‘socialinfluence’indicatedarelationshipwiththedrivers’intentiontousethesystem.‘Performanceexpectancy’wasfoundtobethestrongestpredictorofthebehaviouralintentiontousethesystem.Adell(2009)suggestssomemodificationstotheUTAUTmodeltomakeitmoresuitablefordriverassistancesystems.However,thesamemodelofacceptancecanhavedifferentexplanatorypowerinassessingtheacceptanceofspecifictechnologies.

Thesemodificationsarepromisingand,iffurthervalidated,couldhelptobetterunderstanddriveracceptanceofnewtechnologies.

Acknowledgements

Thischapterdrawsoncontentfromthedissertation‘Driverexperienceandacceptanceofdriverassistancesystems–acaseofspeedadaptation’(Adell2009).

References

Adell,E.2007.Theconceptofacceptance.Proceedingsofthe20thICTCTworkshop,Valencia,Spain.

Adell,E.2009.Driverexperienceandacceptanceofdriverassistancesystems–acaseofspeedsupport.Bulletin251.PhDthesis,LundUniversity,Lund,Sweden.

Adell,E.,Várhelyi,A.andDallaFontana,M.2009.Theeffectsofadriverassistancesystemforsafespeedandsafedistance–areal-lifefieldstudy.TransportationResearchPartC,19:145–55.

Ajzen,I.1991.Thetheoryofplannedbehavior.OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,50:179–211.

Ajzen,I.andFishbein,M.1980.UnderstandingAttitudesandPredictingSocialBehavior.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Bhattacherjee,A.2001.Understandinginformationsystemscontinuance:anexpectation-confirmationmodel.MISQuarterly25(3):351–70.

Carlsson,C.,Carlsson,J.,Hyvönen,K.,Puhakainen,J.andWalden,P.2006.AdoptionofMobileDevices/Services–SearchingforAnswerswiththeUTAUT.Proceedingsofthe39thHawaiiInternationalConferenceonSystemSciences,Hawaii,USA.

Chang,I-C.,Hwang,H-G.,Hung,W-F.andLi,Y-C.2007.Physicians’acceptanceofpharmacokinetics-basedclinicaldecisionassistancesystems.ExpertSystemswithApplications,33:296–303.

Clegg,C.W.2000.Sociotechnicalprinciplesforsystemdesign.Appl.Ergon.31:463–77.

Compeau,D.R.andHiggins,C.A.1995.Computerself-efficacy:developmentofameasureandinitialtest.MISQuarterly,19(2):189–211.

Davis,F.D.1989.Perceivedusefulness,perceivedeaseofuse,anduseracceptanceofinformationtechnology.MISQuarterly,13:319–40.

Davis,F.D.,Bagozzi,R.P.andWarshaw,P.R.1992.Extrinsicandintrinsicmotivationtousecomputersintheworkplace.JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology,22(14):1111–32.

Emersson,R.M.1987.Towardatheoryofvalueinsocialexchange,InSocialexchangetheory.EditedbyK.S.Cook.NewburyPark:Sage:11–46.

Fulk,J.1993.Socialconstructionofcommunicationtechnology.AcademyofManagementJournal,36(5):921–50.

Fulk,J.,Schmitz,J.A.andSteinfield,C.W.1990.Asocialinfluencemodeloftechnologyuse.InOrganizationsandcommunicationtechnology.EditedbyJ.FulkandC.Steinfield.NewburyPark,CA:Sage:117–40.

Goodhue,D.L.andThompson,R.L.1995.Task-technologyfitandindividualperformance,MISQuarterly19(2):213–36.

Hennington,A.H.andJanz,B.D.2007.InformationsystemsandhealthcareXVI:Physicianadoptionofelectronicmedicalrecords:applyingtheUTAUTmodelinahealthcarecontext.CommunicationsoftheAssociationforInformationSystems,19:60–80.

Kelley,H.H.1979.Personalrelationships:theirstructuresandprocesses.Hillsdale,NJ:LawenceErlbaum.

Liaw,S.S.,Chang,W.C.,Hung,W.H.andHuang,H.M.2006.Attitudestowardsearchenginesasalearningassistedtool:approachofLiawandHuang’sresearchmodel.ComputersinHumanBehavior,22(2):177–90.

Lubrin,E.,Lawrence,E.,Zmijewska,A.,Navarro,K.F.andCuljak,G.2006.

Exploringthebenefitsofusingmotestomonitorhealth:anacceptancesurvey.ProceedingsoftheInternationalConferenceonNetworking,InternationalConferenceonSystemsandInternationalConferenceonMobileCommunicationsandLearningTechnologies,WashingtonDC,USA.

Mehrabian,A.andRussell,J.A.1974.Anapproachtoenvironmentalpsychology.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Molin,E.andBrookhuis,K.2007.Modellingacceptabilityoftheintelligentspeedadapter.TransportationResearchPartF,10(2):99–108.

Najm,W.G.,Stearns,M.D.,Howarth,H.,Koopmann,J.andHitz,J.2006.Evaluationofanautomotiverear-endcollisionavoidancesystem(chapter5).USDepartmentofTransportation,NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration,DOTHS810569;ResearchandInnovativeTechnologyAdministration,VolpeNationalTransportationSystemsCentre,Cambridge,MA,USA.

OliverR.L.1980.Acognitivemodelfortheantecedentsandconsequencesofsatisfaction.JournalofMarketingResearch,17:460–69.

Parasuraman,A.2000.Technologyreadinessindex(TRI):amultiple-itemscaletomeasurereadinesstoembracenewtechnologies.JournalofServiceResearch,2:307–20.

Regan,M.A.,Mitsopoulos,E.,Haworth,N.andYoung,K.2002.Acceptabilityofin-vehicleintelligenttransportsystemstoVictoriancardrivers.Reportno.02/02MonashUniversityAccidentResearchCentre,Australia.

Rogers,E.1995.Diffusionofinnovations.NewYork:FreePress.Saadé,G.R.2007.Dimensionsofperceivedusefulness:towardenhanced

assessment.DecisionSciencesJournalofInnovativeEducation,5(2):289–310.

Schaper,L.K.andPervan,G.P.2007.ICTandOTs:amodelofinformationandcommunicationtechnologyacceptanceandutilisationbyoccupationaltherapists.InternationalJournalofMedicalInformatics,76:212–21.

Stearns,M.,Najm,W.andBoyle,L.2002.Amethodologytoevaluatedriveracceptance.PresentationattheTransportationResearchBoardAnnualMeeting,WashingtonDC.

Taylor,S.andTodd,P.1995.AssessingITusage:theroleofpriorexperience.MISQuarterly,19(4):561–70.

Thompson,R.L.,Higgins,C.A.andHowell,J.M.1991.Personalcomputing:towardsaconceptualmodelofutilization.MISQuarterly,15(1):124–43.

Venkatesh,V.,Morris,M.G.,Davis,G.B.andDavis,F.D.2003.Useracceptanceofinformationtechnology:towardaunifiedview.MISQuarterly,

27(3):425–78.Yang,S.,Park,J.andPark,J.2007.Consumers’channelchoiceforuniversity-

licensedproducts:exploringfactorsofconsumeracceptancewithsocialidentification.JournalofRetailingandConsumerServices,14(3):165–74.

Chapter4Socio-PsychologicalFactorsThatInfluence

AcceptabilityofIntelligentTransportSystems:AModel

SvenVlassenrootGhentUniversity,Belgium

FlandersInstituteforMobility,Belgium

KarelBrookhuisDelftUniversityofTechnology,theNetherlandsUniversityofGroningen,the

Netherlands

Abstract

Asuccessfactorinthefutureimplementationofnewin-vehicletechnologiesisinunderstandinghowuserswillexperienceandrespondtothesedevices.Althoughitisrecognisedthatacceptanceandacceptabilityareimportant,consistencyinthedefinitionofacceptability,andhowitcanbemeasured,isabsent.Inthischapterwefocusonthesocio-psychologicalfactorsthatwillinfluenceacceptabilityofintelligenttransportsystems(ITS)bydriverswhohavenotexperienceduseofthesystem.First,differenttheoriesandmethodsaredescribedtodefineourconceptofacceptability.ThisconceptualframeworkisdescribedandtestedinthecaseofIntelligentSpeedAssistance(ISA)bytheuseofalarge-scalesurvey.ThisresultsinamodelthatmaybeusedforpolicymakingactionsregardingtheimplementationofISA.

Introduction

Toincreasethechancesoftheirpoliciesbeingsuccessful,policymakerswilltrytoobtainwidespreadpublicsupport.‘Acceptance’,‘acceptability’,‘socialacceptance’,‘publicsupport’andsoonarealltermsfrequentlyusedtodescribeasimilarphenomenon:howwill(potential)usersactandreactifacertainmeasureordeviceisimplemented?Theinterestindefiningsupportcanbeseeninthelightofagrowingawarenessthatpolicymakinghastobeconsideredasa

inthelightofagrowingawarenessthatpolicymakinghastobeconsideredasatwo-wayphenomenonbetweentheauthoritiesandthepublic,inwhichinteraction,transactionandcommunicationarethekeyelements(NelissenandBartels1998).

Thereisnogooddefinitionofwhattheterm‘publicsupport’means;inmostcasesithasbeenrelatedtoacceptability,commitment,legitimacyandparticipation(Goldenbeld2002).Animportantdistinctionthathasbeenmadeisbetweenpolitical,publicandsocial‘support’.Toacertainextent,theterms‘acceptance’and‘support’arestronglyrelated.Goldenbeld(2002),however,describesanuancebetweensupportandacceptance.Acceptancemaybeavailable,butwouldnotnecessarilyleadtothesupportofameasure.Generally,acceptanceshouldbeseenasapreconditionforsupport.

Todeterminethesupportforaparticularpolicy,orhowthesupportisdeveloping,measuringinstrumentsarenecessary.Viasupportmeasurementtheexpectedeffectivenessofthemeasuresandopinionsaboutthemeasureandpossiblealternativescanbemadevisible.Inmostresearch,theterm‘support’isnotusedbecauseofitsvagueness.Theterms‘acceptance’and‘acceptability’aremostlyusedinthecontextofdefining,gettingorcreatingsupportforapolicymeasure(HedgeandTeachout2000,MolinandBrookhuis2007).

Someauthors(e.g.,MolinandBrookhuis2007)statethatthereseemtobeasmanyquestionnairesasmethodstomeasureacceptanceandacceptability.Inadditiontotheproblemsinfindingtherightapproachformeasuringacceptanceoracceptability,theterms‘acceptance’and‘acceptability’aredefinedindifferentwaysbydifferentresearches.InthefieldofITS,AussererandRisser(2005)defineacceptanceasaphenomenonthatreflectstheextenttowhichpotentialusersarewillingtouseacertainsystem.Hence,acceptanceiscloselylinkedtousage,andtheacceptancewillthendependonhowuserneedsareintegratedintothedevelopmentofthesystem.Nielsen(citedinYoungetal.2003)describedacceptabilityasthequestionofwhetherthesystemisgoodenoughtosatisfyalltheneedsandrequirementsoftheusersandotherpotentialstakeholders.Moregenerally,inRogers’sdiffusionofinnovations(2003),acceptabilityresearchisdefinedastheinvestigationoftheperceivedattributesofanidealinnovationinordertoguidetheresearchanddevelopment(R&D),tocreatesuchaninnovation.SchadeandSchlag(2003)makeacleardistinctionbetweenacceptanceandacceptability.Theydescribeacceptanceastherespondents’attitudes,includingtheirbehaviouralresponsesaftertheintroductionofameasure,andacceptabilityastheprospectivejudgementofsomethingthatshouldbeintroducedinthefuture.Inthelastcase,therespondentswillnothaveexperiencedanyofthemeasuresordevicesin

practice,whichmakesacceptabilityanattitudeconstruct.Acceptanceisthenmorerelatedtouseracceptanceofadevice.VanderLaan,HeinoandDeWaard(1997)distinguisheduseracceptanceandsocialacceptance.Useracceptanceisdirectedmoretowardsevaluationoftheergonomicsofthesystem,whilesocialacceptanceisamoreindirectevaluationoftheconsequencesofthesystem.

InthischapterwewillfocusonhowtheacceptabilityofITScanbemeasured.Differenttheories,methodsandstudiesareanalysedtodefineacceptability(Vlassenrootetal.2010)andtoidentifythefactorsthatcouldinfluencethedegreeofacceptability.Aconceptualframeworkisdescribedandtestedbytheuseofalarge-scalesurvey.Thisleadstoamodelthatcanbeusedforpolicymakingactions.

TheConceptualModel

ModelsandTheories

ThelackofatheoryanddefinitionregardingacceptancehasresultedinalargenumberofdifferentattemptstomeasureITSacceptance,oftenwithquitedifferentresults(Adell2008).

Asnotedelsewhereinthisbook,oneofthemostfrequentlyusedframeworkstodefineacceptanceistheTheoryofPlannedBehaviour(TPB).BasedontheTheoryofReasonedAction(FischbeinandAjzen1975),theTPBassumesthatbehaviouralintentions,andthereforebehaviour,maybepredictedbythreecomponents:attitudestowardsthebehaviour,whichareindividuals’evaluationofperformingaparticularbehaviour;subjectivenorms,whichdescribetheperceptionofotherpeoples’beliefs;andperceivedbehaviouralcontrol,whichreferstopeoples’perceptionoftheirowncapability.

AnothersuccessfulmodelistheTechnologyAcceptanceModel(TAM)(Davis,BagozziandWarshaw1989).TAMwasdesignedtopredictinformationtechnologyacceptanceandusageonthejob.TAMassumesthatperceivedusefulnessandperceivedeaseofusedetermineanindividual’sintentiontouseasystemwiththeintentiontouseservingasamediatorofactualsystemuse.TAMhasbeenused–inthefieldofITS–inthepredictionofelectronictollcollection(Chen,FanandFarn2007).

VanderLaanetal.(1996)publishedasimplemethodtodefineacceptance.Acceptanceismeasuredbydirectattitudestowardsasystemandprovidesasystemevaluationintwodimensions.Thetechniqueconsistsofninerating-scaleitems.Theseitemsaremappedontwoscales,onedenotingtheusefulnessofthe

system,andtheothersatisfaction.Venkateshetal.(2003)notedthatthereareseveraltheoriesandmodelsof

useracceptanceofinformationtechnology,whichpresentsresearcherswithdifficultiesinchoosingthepropermodel.Venkateshetal.(2003)founddifferentunderlyingbasicconceptsinacceptancemodelsbymeansofadetaileddescriptionandanalysisofdifferentmodelssuchasTPB,themotivationalmodel,TAM,innovationdiffusiontheoryandcombinedmodels.Basedonthesetheories,theyconstructedaunifiedmodelthattheynamedtheUnifiedTheoryofAcceptanceandUseofTechnology(UTAUT).IntheUTAUT,fourconstructsplayasignificantroleasdirectdeterminantsofuseracceptance:(1)performanceexpectancy–thedegreetowhichanindividualbelievesthatusingthesystemwouldhelphimorhertoattaingainsinjobperformance;(2)effortexpectancy–thedegreeofconveniencewiththeuseofthesystem;(3)socialinfluence–theimportanceofotherpeople’sbeliefswhenanindividualusesthesystem;and(4)facilitatingconditions–howanindividualbelievesthatanorganisationalandtechnicalinfrastructureexiststosupportuseofthesystem.Thesupposedkeymoderatorswithinthisframeworkaregender,age,voluntarinessofuseandexperience.Althoughinseveralmodels,‘attitudetowardsuse’,‘intrinsicmotivations’,or‘attitudetowardsbehaviour’arethemostsignificantdeterminantsofintention,thesearenotmentionedintheUTAUT.Venkateshetal.(2003)presumedthatattitudestowardsusingthetechnologywouldnothaveasignificantinfluence.

Stern(2000)developedtheValue-Belief-Norm(VBN)theorytoexaminewhichfactorsarerelatedtoacceptabilityofenergypolicies.SternandcolleaguesproposedtheVBNtheoryofenvironmentalismtoexplainenvironmentalbehaviour,includingtheacceptabilityofpublicpolicies.Theyproposedthatenvironmentalbehaviourresultsfrompersonalnorms;thatis,afeelingofmoralobligationtoactpro-environmentally.Thesepersonalnormsareactivatedbybeliefsthatenvironmentalconditionsthreatentheindividualvalues(awarenessofconsequences)andbeliefsthattheindividualcanadopttoreducethisthreat(ascriptionofresponsibility).VBNtheoryproposesthatthesebeliefsaredependentongeneralbeliefsabouthuman-environmentrelationsandonrelativelystablevalueorientations(seealsoSteg,DreijerinkandAbrahamse2005).VBNtheorywassuccessfulinexplainingvariousenvironmentalbehaviours,amongwhichwereconsumerbehaviour,environmentalcitizenship,willingnesstosacrificeandwillingnesstoreducecaruse.

SchlagandTeubel(1997)definedthefollowingessentialissuesdeterminingacceptabilityoftrafficmeasures:problemperception,importantaims,mobility-relatedsocialnorms,knowledgeaboutoptions,perceivedeffectivenessand

relatedsocialnorms,knowledgeaboutoptions,perceivedeffectivenessandefficiencyoftheproposedmeasures,equity(personaloutcomeexpectation),attributionofresponsibilityandsocio-economicfactors.

Wewanttodescribethemostcommonandrelevantsocio-psychologicalfactorsthatinfluenceacceptanceandacceptabilityofITS.Thetheoriesandmethodsdescribedabovehavesomelimitations,especiallywhentheresearchisfocusedonpeoplewhohavenotexperiencedthedevice.Anin-depthanalysiswasconductedondifferentuseracceptancemodels,acceptabilitytheoriesandstudiesthatwereusedintheITSfield.Thisanalysisresultedin14factorsorindicatorsthatcouldpossiblyinfluenceacceptabilitythemost.These14factorscouldbecategorisedintothreemaingroups:

•Indicatorsrelatedtothecharacteristicsofthedevice(e.g.,usefulness,effectiveness);

•Indicatorsrelatedtothecontextwhereinthedeviceisused(e.g.,socialnorms,problemperception).Theseindicatorscaninfluencethespecificfactorsandacceptability;and

•Thethirdgrouparemoregeneralissueslikepersonalinformation(age,gender,education)anddrivinginformation(mileage,experience,accidentinvolvement).Thesebackgroundfactorswillinfluencethecontextualanddevice-specificindicators.

ANewTheoreticalModel

Adistinctionismadeabovebetweengeneralindicators(relatedtothecontextawarenessofthesystem)andsystem-specificindicators(directlyrelatedtothecharacteristicsofthedevice).Thedefinitionofeveryindicatorisdescribedbelow.

Figure4.1Theoreticalmodel

GeneralIndicatorsGender,age,levelofeducationand(income)employmentaretheindividualindicatorsandareconsideredtohaveanimportantinfluenceonhowpeoplethinkaboutadevice(ParkerandStradling2001).Ontheindicatorattitudestodrivingbehaviour,travelbehaviouranddrivingstylearebroughtintorelationwiththefunctionalityofthedevice(Stradlingetal.2003).SchadeandSchlag(2003)describepersonalandsocialaimsastheconflictbetweensocialorpersonalaims.Theyassumethatahighervaluationofcommonsocialaimswillbepositivelyrelatedtoacceptability.Perceivedsocialnormsandperceivedsocialpressurecanbemeasuredbyquantifyingthe(assumed)opinionsofothers(peers)multipliedbytheimportanceofothers’opinionsfortheindividual(Azjen2002).Problemperceptionhasbeendefinedastheextenttowhichacertainsocialproblem(e.g.,speeding,drinkinganddriving,tailgating,etc.)isperceivedasaproblem.Thereiscommonagreementthathighproblemawarenesswillleadtoincreasedwillingnesstoacceptsolutionsfortheperceivedproblems(Goldenbeld2002,Steg,VlekandRooijers1995).Responsibilityawarenessexplainshowmuchanindividualrecognisesresponsibilityfortheperceivedproblem:isitthegovernment(others/extrinsic)orisittheindividualitself(own/intrinsic)(SchadeandBaum2007)?Thelevelofacceptabilityforthedevicecandependonhowwellinformed(informationandknowledgeabouttheproblem)therespondentsareabouttheproblemandaboutthe(new)devicethat

isintroducedtosolvetheproblem(SchadeandBaum2007,Stegetal.1995).

DeviceSpecificIndicatorsTheperceivedefficiencyindicatesthepossiblebenefitsusersexpectofaconcretemeasure(ordevice)ascomparedtoothermeasures.Effectivenessreferstothesystem’sfunctioningaccordingtoitsdesignspecifications,orinthemanneritwasintendedtofunction(Youngetal.2003).Perceivedusabilitycanbedefinedastheabilitytousethesystemsuccessfullyandwithminimaleffort(SpeedAlert2005).Perceivedusefulnessandsatisfactionareindicatorsfromtheabove-mentionedacceptancescaleofVanderLaanetal.(1997).Equityreferstothedistributionofcostsandbenefitsamongaffectedparties.However,fromapsychologicalpointofview,perceivedjustice,integrity,privacyandsoonareconsideredbasicrequirementsforacceptability(SchadeandBaum2007).InmanyITStrials,acceptancewasalsodefinedbywillingnesstopayandaffordabilityofthesystem(BidingandLind2002,Broeckxetal.2006,HjalmdahlandVárhelyi2004).Givingincentives,likelowerroadtaxesandlowerinsurancefees,canstimulateacceptability(Lahrmannetal.2007,SchuitemaandSteg2008).

Inourconceptualstudyonacceptability,basedonaliteraturereviewandfactoranalysesofasmallamountoftestdata(Vlassenrootetal.2008),itwasnotedthattheseindicatorshadthehighestpotentialtopredictacceptability.However,notmanyacceptabilitystudieswereconducted,andthusnoteveryindicatorhasbeenadequatelystudiedinpreviousacceptabilityresearch(DeMoletal.2001,Garvill,MarellandWestin2003).Inthenextsection,wedescribehowthetheoreticalacceptabilityconcepthasbeentestedforthecaseofIntelligentSpeedAssistance(ISA).

TheConceptualModel

ISAisanintelligentin-vehicletransportsystem,whichwarnsthedriveraboutspeeding,discouragesthedriverfromspeedingorpreventsthedriverfromexceedingthespeedlimit(Reganetal.2002).MostISA-devicesarecategorisedintothreetypesdependingonhowintervening(orpermissive)theyare.Aninformativeoradvisorysystemwillonlygivethedriverfeedbackwithavisualoraudiosignal.AsupportiveorwarningISAsystemwillintervenewhenthespeedlimitisoverruled;forexample,thepressureontheacceleratorpedalwillincreasewhenthedriverattemptstodrivefasterthanthespeedlimit.Amandatoryorinterveningsystemwilltotallypreventthedriverfromexceedingthespeedlimit:thedrivercannotoverrulethesesystems.

Basedontheoryandonanin-depthstudyofthefactorsthatinfluencetheacceptabilityofISA(Vlassenrootetal.2010),thefollowingconceptualmodelwasconstructed(seeFigure4.2).

Figure4.2HypotheticalmodeloftheindicatorsthatdefineacceptabilityofISA

InFigure4.2,threemainblocksaredescribedthatwouldinfluenceacceptability.Thebackgroundfactorsandthegeneralcontextualindicatorswoulddeterminethespecificdevicefactorswhilethegeneralindicatorsareonlyinfluencedbythebackgroundfactors.Itcanbestatedthatthese14factorsmayeitherdirectlyorindirectlyaffecttheacceptabilityofISAandsotheywouldinfluenceeachotheraswell.Intheparagraphsthatfollow,thecausalorderbetweenthefactorsisdescribed.Acausalorderisassumed,goingfromthehighestrankeditem(1)tothelowest(15).AllselectedvariablesareassumedtodirectlyorindirectlyinfluenceISAacceptability.

Thepersonalinformationfactors(age,gender,familysituationandeducation)areconsideredtobeexogenousvariablesinthemodel;and,hence,notinfluencedbyanyothervariables.Thedrivinginformationfactors(typeofcar,i.e.,companycar,privatevehicle,etc.,accidentinvolvement,mileageanddrivingexperience)arethenextvariablesincausalrankorder,onlyinfluencedbythesocio-demographicvariables.Bothofthesefactors(personalanddrivinginformation)mayaffectanyotherremainingvariableinthemodel:forexample,genderandagearenotedasrelevantdeterminantsintheperformanceofspeedingbehaviour;thatis,speedisassociatedwithyoungmaledrivers(Shinaretal.2001).

Thethirdfactor,socialnorms,relatedtospeedandspeedingbehaviour,mayinfluenceeverycontextualanddevice-specificfactorinthemodel.Thechoicetospeedornotcandependonthepersonalandsocialaimsofpeoplewhendriving.Thisfourthvariablereferstothedilemmabetweensocialorpersonalaimsandbenefitsofspeeding:thehypothesisisthatpeoplewhowanttodriveasfastaspossibleaccordingtotheirownpreferencescouldbelessawareofthespeedingproblemandotherissuesthatcauseaccidents.Attitudesonsafetywillbemeasuredbydefiningwhichissuescouldcauseaccidents:mostofthetime,peoplewillalsocomparethespeedingprobleminrelationtootherroadsafetyissues(Corbett2001),likeintoxication,experienceorinfrastructure.Thereforetheattitudesconcerningroadsafetycouldinfluencethelevelofproblemawarenessbutalsotheinformationandknowledgeabouttheconsequencesofexcessivespeed.Thefactorinformationandknowledgereferstotheassumptionthatpeoplewhoarebetterinformedarepossiblymoreawareoftheproblemandthealternativestotackleit.Oneofthemaincontextvariablesisproblemperception:inmanytrials(Vlassenrootetal.2010)itwasnotedthattheacceptabilityofISAwoulddependonawarenessthatspeedingisaproblem.Thelastcontextindicatorisresponsibilityawareness.

Allthecontextfactorscouldpossiblyinfluencethedevice-specificindicators.Thedeterminationoftheorderofthedevice-specificindicatorswasratherdifficult,becausemostofthesevariableswerenotinvestigatedinoneandthesamemodel.SometheoriesandapproachesusedinISAtrialsformedthebasetodeterminethecausalorder(Adell2007,Agerholmetal.2008,BidingandLind2002,Driscolletal.2007,Harmsetal.2007,Reganetal.2006,Varhelyietal.2004,Vlassenrootetal.2007).

EfficiencyofISArelatedtootherspeedmanagementsystems(e.g.,speedcameras,policeenforcement)canbeconsideredasa‘gate’betweenthecontextfactorsandthedevicespecificfactors:itisassumedthatpeoplewouldcomparethesuggestednewsolutiontocountertheproblem(speeding)withotherexistingmeasures.Efficiency,definedinthisway,impliesthatrespondentsrecognisethatspeedingisaproblem,andalsothattheyunderstandwhoisresponsibleforsolvingtheproblem;howtherespondentsgetinformationaboutthesolutions;andhowtheycomparetheseinstrumentsrelatedtotheirownorsocialaims,andwouldpossiblybeinfluencedbytheirpeers.IfISAisratedasefficientcomparedwiththeothermeasures,anextstepcanbetodefinehoweffectiveISAisratedbythepotentialdrivers.EffectivenessisfirstrelatedtootherITSdevicesthatsupportthedriver:itisassumedthattheeffectivenessandacceptabilityofISAwilldependonhowtheeffectivenessofotherITSisrated(Reganetal.2006).

Secondly,theeffectivenessofISAisdefinedbyratingtheeffectivenessofISAtomaintainspeedindifferentspeedzones(Agerholmetal.2008,BidingandLind2002).Thirdly,somesecondaryeffectsareidentified,suchasISAcanreducespeedingtickets,ISAisbetterfortheenvironmentandsoon.AcausalorderisassumedbetweentheeffectivenessfactorsgoingfromITSeffectivenesstoISAeffectivenesstosecondaryeffectsofISA.ThesethreeitemscouldpossiblyinfluencetheotherdevicespecificfactorsandtheacceptabilityofISA.

Thethirddevice-specificfactorisequity.Therespondentswereaskedtoindicatewhentheywould(penetrationlevel)useacertaintypeofISAandforwhomacertaintypeofISAwouldbethemostbeneficial.Theassumptionismadethatthelevelofpenetrationwouldalsoinfluenceforwhomthesystemshouldbebeneficial.Bothofthesefactorsareassumedtobeinfluencedbytheefficiencyandtheeffectivenessparameters.Thefourthandfifthdevice-specificfactorsaresatisfaction–thatis,whenacertainISAwouldbeused–andusefulnessofISAtosupportthedriver’sbehaviour.UsefulnessandsatisfactionaretwoparametersfromthemethodofVanderLaanetal.(1997).Satisfactionwillbeinfluencedmainlybyeffectivenessand,combinedwitheffectiveness,definesthelevelofusefulness.Thefinalparameterinourmodelisthewillingnesstopayforacertainsystemthatisinfluencedbyalltheparameters.WillingnesstopayisafrequentlyusedpredictortodefinetheacceptabilityofISAintrials(BidingandLind2002).

TodeterminetheacceptabilityofISAbydrivers,therespondentshadtoindicatewhichsystemtheypreferredonafive-pointscalegoingfromnoISA,informative,warning,supportivetorestrictive.

MeasuringAcceptability

TheSurvey

AWebsurveywasconstructed,testedandputonlineattheendofSeptember2009.TheWebaddressofthesurveywaspublishedbytheFlemishandDutchcar-usersorganisations.

Intotal,6,370individualsrespondedtotheWebsurveyinBelgiumand1,158personsintheNetherlands.Ofthese7,528respondents,5,599responsesofcardriverswereconsideredusefulforfurtheranalysis.Comparedwiththepopulationofdrivers’licenseownersinBelgiumandtheNetherlands,driversyoungerthantheageof34areunder-representedandtheagegroup45–64wasover-represented.Moremaleandolderdriversparticipated.Althoughoursamplewasnotrepresentativeofthewholepopulationofdrivers’licenseowners

samplewasnotrepresentativeofthewholepopulationofdrivers’licenseownersintheNetherlandsandBelgium,bothmotoristorganisationsindicatedthatourresultswererelevantcomparedtotheirmemberdatabases,althoughexactdataforeveryparameter(e.g.,educationlevel)wasnotavailable.Ourresearchgoalismainlytodefinehowdifferentacceptabilitypredictorsarerelatedtoeachother,ratherthandeterminingtheacceptabilityofacertainpopulation.

DataAnalyses

Itwasassumedthateveryindicatorisdefinedbythesetofsub-questions.Factoranalysiswasappliedtoexaminethestructureandthedimensionalityoftheresponses.AlsoCronbach’salphawascalculatedtodeterminethereliabilityofasummedscale.Notalltheitemsofthedifferentindicatorsloadedonasinglefactorlikeproblemperception,ISAeffectivenessandequity.Regardingtheproblemawareness,amaindistinctioncouldbemadebetweenlowspeedzoneslikehomezones,30kphareasandurbanareas,andhigherspeedzones,likeoutsideurbanareasandhighways.Inourmodelweallowedtheseitemstocorrelate.Thescaletodefineacceptabilityconsistsoffiveitemsbetweennointerveningsystemstohighinterveningsystems(closedISA).Therefore,itcanbeassumedthattheacceptabilityofhighinterveningtypesofISAhasbeenmeasuredinthismodel.

Cronbach’salphasoftheintendedscaleswereabove0.70,exceptforresponsibilityawarenessandefficiency.Itwasconcludedthatthereliabilityofthesescaleswasreasonable(e.g.,MolinandBrookhuis2007).Thescalescoreswereconstructedbysummingthescoresontheconstitutingindicatorvariables,equallyweightingeachvariable.

Structuralequationmodelling(SEM)wasusedforthedataanalyses.SEMisamodellingapproachenablingsimultaneousestimationofaseriesoflinkedregressionequations.SEMcanhandlealargenumberofendogenousandexogenousvariables,aswellaslatent(unobserved)variablesspecifiedaslinearcombinations(weightedaverages)oftheobservedvariables(Golob2003).SEMcontainsafamilyofadvancedmodellingapproaches,amongwhichispathmodelling(e.g.,MolinandBrookhuis2007,Ullman2007).

TheEstimatedModel

AninitialmodelwasestimatedbasedonthecausalorderpresentedinFigure4.2.Initially,allpossiblepathsweredrawnfromfactorsearlierinthecausal

ordertowardsallfactorslaterinthecausalorder.Theexogenousvariableswerecorrelatedwiththetwovariablesrelatedtospeeding.ThemodelwasestimatedwiththeprogramAMOS7.

Onlythevariableswithsignificanteffects(p<0.05)werefurtherusedinthemodel.Pathsthatwerenotsignificantwereleftoutofthemodel,whichledtoatotalnumberof139distinctparametersinourfinalmodeltobeestimated(df=186).Theprobabilitylevelis0.091andChi-squareis212.27.Thegoodnessoffit(GFT)is0.99.TheprobabilitylevelandtheGFTindicateagoodoverallfitofthemodel.Anotherindication,especiallywhenalargeamountofdataorcasesareusedtodefinethemodelfit,istheratiobetweentheChi-squareandthedegreesoffreedom:ifthefigureislowerthan2.0agoodfitofthemodelisindicated(Wijnenetal.2002).Inourestimatedmodeltheratiois1.141,whichalsoindicatesanacceptablefit.

MoredetailedinformationaboutthemodelandresultsaredescribedinVlassenrootetal.(2011).

DirectEffectsTheeffectsarebrieflydiscussedwithrespecttotheplausibilityofthesignificantrelationships.Thestrengthoftherelationshipsbetweenthevariablesisgivenbetweenbrackets.Onlythemostremarkableeffectsaredescribed.Noteveryclassrelatedtoage,havingchildren,caruseandmileagewerekeptinthemodelbecausetheyhadnosignificantinfluenceontheothervariables.Thedifferentlevelsofeducationseemedtohavenosignificantinfluence.

Thismodelexplains56percentofthetotalvarianceinacceptability.AcceptabilityofISAisdirectlyinfluencedbyeffectivenessofISAonspeed(0.37),equityonISAequipmentfordifferentgroups(0.31).Usefulness(0.13)andequityofISAdependingonlevelofpenetration(0.11):driverswhofindISAeffectiveandusefulwillacceptISAmore.AlsothelowerthepenetrationlevelisbeforeinstallingISA,andifmoreinterveningtypesofISAarechosenforthedifferentgroups,thehigheristheacceptability.Remarkableisthefindingthatthewillingnesstopayhasaverysmalldirecteffect(0.02)ontheacceptability.DriverswholikehigherspeedlimitsandspeedingwillacceptISAless(-0.09inhighspeedzones;-0.08inlowspeedzones).Respondentswhowouldratherchoosesocialaims(0.04)indrivinganddriverswhousethecarasmaintransportmodetowork(0.07)aremorewillingtoacceptISA.Driversbetween25and45yearsold(-0.04)preferISAless.

TotalEffects

FindingISAeffectiveinreducingspeeding(0.62)willhaveaveryhighinfluenceontheacceptabilityofISA.Thiswasalsoexpected.AlsobeingconvincedthatotherITSsystemsareeffective(0.21)willhighlyinfluenceacceptability.InthiswaywecanassumethatdriverswhoareconvincedthattechnologycanhelptosupporttheirdrivingbehaviourwillacceptISAbetter.AlsobeingconvincedthatISAisbeneficialformostofthegroupsofcertaintypeofdrivers(equity)(0.32)willincreasetheacceptability.ThelowertheISApenetrationlevelhastobe,thehigher(0.12)theacceptabilitycanbecome.BelievingthatISAcanbeusefulandsatisfyingwillincreasethelevelofacceptability.ThesetwoitemswerealreadyprovenasrelativelygoodpredictorsofITSandISAacceptance(Varhelyietal.2004,Vlassenrootetal.2007).Satisfaction(0.68)willhighlyinfluenceusefulness.Driverswholiketospeedinhigh-speedzones(-0.14)(aspartofthefactorproblemawareness)willacceptISAless.RatingISAasefficient(0.12)relatedtootherspeedreducingmeasureswillalsoincreasetheacceptability.Driversbetweentheageof25and45years(-0.14)willacceptISAless.Ahighervalueforsocialaims(0.23)willincreasetheacceptability.Whileinmanytrialswillingnesstopayhasbeenstatedtobeagoodpredictorforacceptance,thiswasnotfoundinourmodel.AlsothesecondaryeffectsofISAwillnothaveahighinfluenceonthelevelofacceptability.

DriverswhoarenotinfluencedbytheequitylevelofpenetrationofISAaremoresatisfied(0.19)andwillrateISAmoreasuseful(0.19).AlsothesedriversarehighlywillingtopayforISA(0.51).EffectivenessofISA(between0.22and0.59)onspeedandspeedingseemstobeagoodpredictorforallofthesystem-relatedindicatorsexceptforusefulnessandsatisfaction.Efficiency(between0.07and0.17)willalsoinfluencealltheothersystem-relatedindicators,exceptusefulnessandsatisfaction.ThesamecanbefoundforthetotaleffectsoneffectivenessofITS.

AhighvaluationoftheresponsibilityofthedifferentactorstocounterspeedwillinfluencetheefficiencyofISA(0.17)relatedtoothermeasures.BeingawareofresponsibilitycanalsoleadtofindingITSandISAmoreeffective(0.11and0.13)andahigherwillingnesstopay(0.13).PeoplewholiketospeedwillacceptISAless(-0.14inhighspeedzonesand-0.08inlowspeedzones)andwillfinditlesseffective(-0.06and-0.13).Beingconvincedthatcertaindrivingbehaviourandcontextualissues(itemsfromtheattitudesonsafety)cancauseaccidentscouldleadtoahigherresponsibilityawareness(0.22),highervaluationontheeffectivenessofITS(0.18)andfindingISAbeneficialfordifferentgroupsofdrivers(0.12)(aspartofthefactorequity).Personalandsocialaimswillhaveahighinfluence(higherthan0.10)onmanyofthevariables(excepton

usefulnessandknowledgeaboutISA).Socialnormswillmostlyinfluencepersonalandsocialaims(0.19).

GoingbycartoworkcanalsoincreasetheacceptabilityofISA(0.11).Mileagewilldecreasetheuseofacarastransporttowork(-0.11and-0.19):peoplewhodrivelessthan25,000kmonayearlybasiswillusethecarlessasatransportmodetowork.HavingchildrenwouldmainlyinfluencetheefficiencyofISA(0.09)butwouldslightlyleadtospeedinginlowspeedzones(-0.05).

Twoagegroupswerekeptinthemodelastheonlygroupsthathavesignificantinfluenceontheothervariables.Driversbetween25and45yearswillbelesslikelytoacceptISA(-0.14).Thisisalsothegroupwiththemostchildrenyoungerthan12yearsold(0.47).Socialnorms(0.13)andpersonalandsocialaims(0.17)willbehighlyaffectedbythisagegroupofdrivers.Driversagedbetween25and45willhavemainlyanegativeeffectonmostofthe‘device-specificindicators’(between-0.08and-0.15).Youngerdrivers(<25years)arelessconvincedthatcertainbehaviouroraccidentscouldcauseaccidents(attitudesonsafety:-0.12);thesedriverswillalsoevaluateresponsibilityawareness(-0.13)andefficiency(-0.13)lower.Femaledriverswillspeedlessinhigh-speedzones(-0.15)andarelessinformedaboutISA(-0.15).

Conclusion

ThelackofatheoryanddefinitionsofacceptabilityhasresultedinalargenumberofdifferentattemptstocaptureormeasureITSacceptability,oftenwithquitedifferentresults.Inourresearchwehavetriedtomakeacleardistinctionbetweenacceptanceandacceptability.Someexistingtheories,likeTPBandTAM,weredevelopedinacertaintimeframeandplaceandforspecificaudiences.Althoughthesemodelsarefrequentlyused,rarelyhasanyonequestionedwhethertheyaregoodenoughtobeusedtostudytheproblemofspeeding.

OneofourmainambitionswastoderiveamodeltodefineacceptabilitywithrespecttoITS.However,takingintoaccountsuchalargevarietyofindicatorsresultedinamodelthatisstillrathercomplex.Thissuggeststhatdefiningacceptabilityisrathercomplex.Wearealsoawarethatsomeoftheselectedtopicstodefinetheindicatorscouldbeimproved.However,thisresearchhasresultedinimprovedinsightintotheopinionsandattitudesthatcaninfluenceacceptabilityofISA.

Manydifferentitemsinfluenceacceptability,directlyorindirectly.Itis

importanttounderstandtheseinordertodevelopimplementationstrategies.IncreasingthesupportofISAhastobeestablishedatdifferentlevels.

OurmodelshowsthatthewillingnessofdriverstoadoptISAincreasesiftheyareconvincedthatISAdoeswhatitisdesignedtodo.Theissueof‘equity’hasrarelybeeninvestigatedinotherITSorISAstudies.However,inothertypesoftrafficandtransportstudies(e.g.,tolling),equityhasbeeninvestigated.Oftenwhenanewdriversupporttechnologyisintroduced–especiallywhenitcouldrestrictcertainfreedomindriving–amajorityofthepopulationisreluctantto‘buyoruse’thesystem.IntheGhentISAtrial,itwasnotedthatmostofthedriverswereconvincedoftheeffectivenessandwerehighlyinfavourofthesupportivesystembuttheystatedthattheywouldonlyuseISAfurtherwhenmoreorcertaingroupsofdriverswould(also/beforcedto)usethesystem(equityonlevelofpenetration).Inthedevelopmentofimplementationstrategiesthisisaveryimportantissue.Therefore,policymakersshouldbeawarethat,iftheywanttointroducecertaintypesofITS,thepenetrationlevelshouldbesufficientfromthestarttoconvinceotherstoadoptthesedevices(BrookhuisandDeWaard2007).PromotingITSbyimplementingitincertaingroupsofvehicles,forinstance,thosedrivenbyprofessionals(bus-,taxi-,van-,truck-drivers)oryoungerdrivers,maybehelpfultointroducecertainsystems(equityrelatedtotheequipmentofcertaingroups).ItisassumedthatimplementingITSinthefleetofprofessionalvehicleswouldbeveryeffectiveinincreasingacceptabilityrates.OurmodelshowedthatwillingnesstopaywasnotamajorindicatorinfluencingacceptabilityofISA.However,othershavereportedthatprice-policy,subsidiesandsooncouldbegoodinstrumentstoincreasethelevelofacceptabilityforapolicymeasure.

Ourstudyaimedatanunderstandingoftheindicatorsassociatedwithacceptabilitythatmaysupportdecision-makersindevelopinganappropriateimplementationstrategy.Throughtheconstructionofafeasibilityframework,weareablenowtoprovidedecision-makerswithmethodsandproceduresthatareeasytouseandunderstand,basedonwell-acceptedsocio-psychologicalmodels.

References

Adell,E.2008.Theconceptofacceptance.ICTCT-workshop,Riga,Latvia.Agerholm,N.,Waagepetersen,R.,Tradisauskas,N.,Harms,L.andLahrmann,

H.2008.PreliminaryresultsfromtheDanishintelligentspeedadaptationprojectpayasyouspeed.IETIntelligentTransportSystems,2(2):143–53.

Ajzen,I.2002.Attitudes,personalityandbehaviour.Buckingham,UK:OpenUniversityPress.

Ausserer,K.andRisser,R.2005.Intelligenttransportsystemsandservices–chancesandrisks.ICTCT-workshop,Helsinki,Finland.

Biding,T.andLind,G.2002.IntelligentSpeedAdaptation(ISA),ResultsofLarge-scaleTrialsinBorlange,Lidkoping,LundandUmeaduringtheperiode1999–2002.Vägverket,Borlange,Sweden.

Broeckx,S.,Vlassenroot,S.,DeMol,J.andIntPanis,L.2006.TheEuropeanPROSPER-project:FinalresultsofthetrialonIntelligentSpeedAdaptation(ISA)inBelgium.ITSWorldConference,London.

Brookhuis,K.A.andDeWaard,D.2007.IntelligentTransportSystemsforVehicleDrivers.InThreatsfromcartraffic.EditedbyT.GärlingandE.M.Steg.Amsterdam:Elsevier.

Chen,C.,Fan,Y.andFarn,C.2007.Predictionelectronictollcollectionserviceadoption:anintegrationofthetechnologyacceptancemodelandthetheoryofplannedbehaviour.TransportationResearchPartC,15(5):300–311.

Corbett,C.2001.Explanationsfor“understating’inself-reportedspeedingbehaviour.TransportationResearchPartF:TrafficPsychologyandBehaviour,4(2):133–50.

Davis,F.,Bagozzi,R.andWarshaw,P.1989.Useracceptanceofcomputertechnology:acomparisonoftwotheoreticalmodels.ManagementScience,35:982–1003.

DeMol,J.,Broeckaert,M.,VanHoorebeeck,B.,Toebat,W.andPelckmans,J.2001.Naareendraagvlakvooreenvoertuigtechnischesnelheidsbeheersingbinneneenintrinsiekveiligeverkeersomgeving.CentreforSustainableDevelopment/GhentUniversity—BIVV,Ghent,Belgium(inDutch).

Driscoll,R.,Page,Y.,Lassarre,S.andEhrlich,J.2007.LAVIA–AnevaluationofthepotentialsafetybenefitsoftheFrenchIntelligentSpeedAdaptationproject.AnnualProceedings—AssociationfortheAdvancementofAutomotiveMedicine,51:485–505.

Fischbein,M.andAjzen,I.1975.Belief,attitude,intention,andbehavior:anintroductiontotheoryandresearch.Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley.

Garvill,J.,Marell,A.andWestin,K.2003.Factorsinfluencingdrivers’decisiontoinstallanelectronicspeedcheckerinthecar.TransportationResearchPartF:TrafficPsychologyandBehaviour,6(1):37–43.

Goldenbeld,C.2002.Publiekdraagvlakvoorverkeersveiligheidenveiligheidsmaatregelen.Overzichtvanbevindingenenmogelijkhedenvooronderzoek.SWOV,Leidschendam,theNetherlands(inDutch).

Golob,T.2003.Structuralequationmodelingfortravelbehaviorresearch.TransportationResearchPartB:Methodological,37(1):1–25.

Harms,L.,Klarborg,B.,Lahrmann,H.,Agerholm,N.,Jensen,E.andTradisauskas,N.2007.EffectsofISAonthedrivingspeedofyoungvolunteers:acontrolledstudyoftheimpactinformationandincentivesonspeed.SixthEuropeanCongressonIntelligentTransportSystemsandServices,Aalborg,Denmark.

Hedge,J.W.andTeachout,M.S.2000.Exploringtheconceptofacceptabilityasacriterionforevaluatingperformancemeasures.GroupandOrganisationManagement,25(1):22–44.

Hjalmdahl,M.andVárhelyi.A.2004.Speedregulationbyin-caractiveacceleratorpedal:effectsondriverbehaviour.TransportationResearchPartF:TrafficPsychologyandBehaviour,7(2):77–94.

Lahrmann,H.,Agerholm,N.,Tradisauskas,N.,Juhl,J.andHarms,L.2007.Sparpaafarten:anintelligentspeedadaptationprojectinDenmarkbasedonpayasyoudriveprinciples.ITSEuropeConference,Aalborg,Denmark.

Molin,E.J.E.andBrookhuis,K.A.2007.Modellingacceptabilityoftheintelligentspeedadapter.TransportationResearchPartF:TrafficPsychologyandBehaviour,10(2):99–108.

Nelissen,W.andBartels,G.1998.Detransactioneleoverheid.InDetransactioneleoverheid.Communicatiealsinstrument:zesthema’sindeoverheidsvoorlichting.EditedbyG.Bartels,W.NelissenandH.Ruelle.Utrecht:KluwerBedrijfsInformatie(inDutch).

Parker,D.andStradling,S.2001.Influencingdriverattitudesandbehaviour.DETR,London.

Regan,M.A.,Young,K.L.,Healy,D.,Tierney,P.andConnelly,K.2002.Evaluatingin-vehicleIntelligentTransportSystems:acasestudy.RoadSafetyResearch,PolicingandEducationConference,Adelaide,Australia.

Regan,M.A.,Young,K.L.,Triggs,T.J.,Tomasevic,N.,Mitsopoulos,E.,Tierney,P.,Healey,D.,Tingvall,C.andStephan,K.2006.Impactondrivingperformanceofintelligentspeedadaptation,followingdistancewarningandseatbeltremindersystems:keyfindingsfromtheTACSafeCarproject.IEEProceedings:IntelligentTransportSystems,153(1):51–62.

Rogers,E.M.2003.Diffusionofinnovations.NewYork:FreePress.Schade,J.andBaum,M.2007.Reactanceoracceptance?Reactionstowardsthe

introductionofroadpricing.TransportationResearchPartA:PolicyandPractice,41(1):41–8.

Schade,J.andSchlag,B.2003.Acceptabilityofurbantransportpricing

strategies.TransportationResearchPartF:TrafficPsychologyandBehaviour,6(1):45–61.

Schlag,B.andTeubel,U.1997.Publicacceptabilityoftransportpricing.IATSSResearch,21:134–42.

Schuitema,G.andSteg,L.2008.Theroleofrevenueuseintheacceptabilityoftransportpricingpolicies.TransportationResearchPartF:TrafficPsychologyandBehaviour,11(3):221–31.

Shinar,D.,Schechtman,E.andCompton,R.2001.Self-reportsofsafedrivingbehavioursinrelationshiptosex,age,educationandincomeintheUSdrivingpopulation.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,33(1):111–16.

SpeedAlert.2005.EvolutionofSpeedAlertconcepts,deploymentrecommendationsandrequiremenutsforstandardisation,version2.0.ERTICO,Brussels,Belgium.

Steg,L.,Dreijerink,L.andAbrahamse,W.2005.Factorsinfluencingtheacceptabilityofenergypolicies:atestofVBNtheory.JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology,25(4):415–25.

Steg,L.,Vlek,C.andRooijers,T.1995.Privatecarmobility:problemawareness,willingnesstochange,andpolicyevaluation,anationalinterviewstudyamongDutchcarusers.StudiesinEnvironmentalScience,65:1173–6.

Stern,P.2000.Towardacoherenttheoryofenvironmentallysignificantbehaviour.JournalofSocialIssues,56:407–24.

Stradling,S.,Campbell,M.,Allan,I.,Gorell,R.,Hill,J.andWinter,M.2003.Thespeedingdriver:who,howandwhy?ScottishExecutiveSocialResearch,Edinburgh.

Ullman,J.B.2007.StructuralEquationsModelling.InUsingMultiuvariateStatistics.EditedbyB.G.TabachnickandL.S.Fidell.Boston:Pearson.

VanderLaan,J.D.,Heino,A.andDeWaard,D.1997.Asimpleprocedurefortheassessmentofacceptanceofadvancedtransporttelematics.TransportationResearchPartC:EmergingTechnologies,5(1):1–10.

Várhelyi,A.,Hjalmdahl,M.,Hyden,C.andDraskoczy,M.2004.Effectsofanactiveacceleratorpedalondriverbehaviourandtrafficsafetyafterlong-termuseinurbanareas.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,36:729–37.

Venkatesh,V.,Morris,M.,Davis,G.B.andDavis,F.D.2003.Useracceptanceofinformationtechnology:Towardaunifiedview.MISQuarterly,27(3):425–78.

Vlassenroot,S.,Broeckx,S.,Mol,J.D.,Panis,L.I.,Brijs,T.andWets,G.2007.Drivingwithintelligentspeedadaptation:finalresultsoftheBelgianISA-trial.TransportationResearchPartA:PolicyandPractice,41(3):267–79.

Vlassenroot,S.,Brookhuis,K.,Marchau,V.andWitlox,F.2010.TowardsdefiningaunifiedconceptfortheacceptabilityofIntelligentTransportSystems(ITS):aconceptualanalysisbasedonthecaseofIntelligentSpeedAdaptation(ISA).TransportationResearchPartF:TrafficPsychologyandBehaviour,13(3):164–78.

Vlassenroot,S.,DeMol,J.,Dedene,N.,Witlox,F.andMarchau,V.2008.DevelopmentsonspeedlimitdatabasesinFlanders:afirstprospective.ITSWorldConference,NewYork.

Vlassenroot,S.,Molin,E.,Kavadias,D.,Marchau,V.,Brookhuis,K.andWitlox,F.2011.Whatdrivestheacceptabilityofintelligentspeedassistance(ISA)?EuropeanJournalonTransportandInfrastructure,11(2):256–73.

Wijnen,K.,Janssens,W.,DePelsmacker,P.andVanKenhove,P.2002.MartonderzoekmetSPSS:statistischeverwerkingeninterpretatie.Antwerp:Garant.

Young,K.L.,Regan,M.A.,Mitsopoulos,E.andHaworth,N.2003.Acceptabilityofin-vehicleintelligenttransportsystemstoyoungnovicedriversinNewSouthWales.MonashUniversityAccidentResearchCentre,Reportno.199.MonashUniversity,Victoria,Australia.

Chapter5ModellingDriverAcceptance:FromFeedbackto

MonitoringandMentoringSystemsMahtabGhazizadehandJohnD.Lee

DepartmentofIndustrialandSystemsEngineeringUniversityofWisconsin-Madison,USA

Abstract

Thischapterdiscussesdimensionsofdriversupportsystems,rangingfromfeedbackfromtechnologytomonitoringandmentoringbycoaches(e.g.,parentsorsafetysupervisors),anddrawsonpreviousworkininformationtechnology,organisationalbehaviouranddrivingsafetydomainstoproposeaframeworkforevaluatingdrivers’acceptanceofsuchdriversupportsystems.Theproposedmodel,comprisedofatrust-augmentedversionoftheTechnologyAcceptanceModel(TAM)byDavis,BagozziandWarshaw(1989)andthemodeloforganisationaltrustbyMayer,DavisandSchoorman(1995),viewsacceptanceofthetechnologicalandcoachingcomponentsofthesystemasdeterminantsofacceptanceofthesupportsystemasawhole.Devicecharacteristics,drivercharacteristics,drivingbehaviour,contextandcultureandcoachingcharacteristicsareintroducedanddiscussedinthecontextofdriversupportsystemacceptance.Thesefactorscapturethemultidimensionalnatureofacceptanceandcanguidethedevelopmentofeffectivesupportsystems.Systemeffectivenessoftendependsonthedegreetowhichthesefactorscombinetocreateamentoring,ratherthanamonitoring,system.

DriverFeedback,MonitoringandMentoringSystems

AccordingtoDonmez,BoyleandLee(2009:519),feedbackinthedrivingcontextisdefinedas‘theinformationprovidedtothedriverregardingthestateofthedriver-vehiclesystem’.Drivingperformanceinitselfprovidesfeedback(e.g.,laneposition);however,thisfeedbackcanbeaugmentedwithadditionalfeedbackbyin-vehicledevices,intheformofwarningsoralertsand/ordriving

performancereports.Althoughbothtypesoffeedbackcanenhancedrivingsafety,theiraimsaredifferent:warningshelpdriversavoidloomingimminenthazards,whereascumulativefeedback(e.g.,weeklyreports)goesbeyondguidingaparticularsingleactionandaimstoshapelonger-termattitudes,habitsandbehaviours(Donmezetal.2009).Assuch,thecombinationofthetwocanbemostpromising(Donmez,BoyleandLee2008,Lee2009),especiallybecausetheeffectofpoordrivingperformanceonsafetymaynotalwaysbeobvious,asadangerousdrivercanavoidcrashingformanyyears.Inthischapter,bothwarningsandcumulativefeedback,providedbytechnologyandpeople,areconsideredanddiscussedinthecontextofdriveracceptance.

Thebenefitsofdrivingfeedbackhavebeenestablished(Donmezetal.2008,McGeheeetal.2007b);however,forthesebenefitstoberealised,thefeedbacksystemneedstobeacceptedbydrivers.Assuch,anunderstandingofthefactorsthatdetermineacceptanceandwaystoincorporatetheminthedesignareimperativetosuccess.Animportantconsiderationpertainstoencouragingamentoring(asopposedtoamonitoring)relationshipbetweenthedriverandthecoach.Datacollectedbyaparticularin-vehicledevicecanbeusedtoformameaningfulmentor-protégérelationshipwiththedriveroritcansolelyfacilitateamonitoringprotocolthatrecordsviolations.Likewise,differentdeviceimplementationsmightenforceoneroleortheother.Thischapterprovidesbackgroundonfeedback,monitoringandmentoringsystemsandproposesamodeltoassesstheacceptanceofadriversupportsystem.

FeedbackfromTechnology

Feedbackviain-vehicledevicescanbepresentedusingdifferentmodalities,ondifferenttimescalesandwithdifferentlevelsofinformation.Auditory,visualandtactilealertsareexamplesoffeedbackmodalities.Majorclassesoffeedbackintermsoftimingareconcurrent(milliseconds),delayed(seconds),retrospective(minutes,hours)andcumulative(days,weeks,months)(Donmezetal.2009).Furthermore,feedbackcanbeassimpleasablinkingLED(HickmanandHanowski2011,McGeheeetal.2007b),oritcanprovidedetailslikealertsorwarningsthatspecifythenatureandtypeoftheriskybehaviour,forexample,alanedeviation.Feedbackdevicesandprotocolscanbedesignedforthegeneraldriverpopulationortargetspecificpopulationsliketeenagers(Farmer,KirleyandMcCartt2010,McGeheeetal.2007a,McGeheeetal.2007b,Carneyetal.2010),olderdrivers(Lavallièreetal.2012,Marottolietal.2007)orcommercialvehicledrivers(HickmanandHanowski2011,Lehmeretal.2007,Orbanetal.

2006).Donmez,BoyleandLee(2003)developedataxonomyofdistraction

mitigationstrategiescomposedof12categories,alongtwodimensions:levelofautomationandwhetherthestrategyisdriving-relatedornot.Eachofthedriving-relatedandnon-driving-relatedstrategieswasfurtherdividedintosystem-initiatedanddriver-initiated.Althoughthistaxonomywasintendedtoclassifydistractionmitigationssystems,thefeedbackstrategiesinthedriver-related,system-initiatedgroup(i.e.,intervening,warningandinforming)canbeusedtodescribedifferenttypesoffeedbacksystemsingeneral.Atthelowestlevelofautomation,informinginvolvesprovidingdriverswithnecessaryinformationthattheywouldmissthemselves.Atthemiddlelevel,warningsystemsalertthedrivertotakeaction,butdonotintervene.Finally,atthehighestlevel,thereisinterveningthatreferstotakingcontrolofthevehicleinhazardoussituations,whenthedriverseemsunabletomanagethesituationsafely.Analternativeperspectivetakesthewayinwhichfeedbackiscommunicatedtothedriverintoaccount,distinguishingbetweenmonitoringandmentoringroles.Thementor-monitordimensionaddsadimensiontoDonmezetal.’s(2003)taxonomythatmaybeparticularlyimportantforunderstandingdriveracceptance.

Monitoring

Monitoringoperatorperformanceviavideoandotherelectronicrecordingsisnotanewapproach,butonethathasfoundapplicationrecentlyindrivingsafetyresearch,aswellastheinsuranceindustryforbothdrivertrainingandforpremiumadjustment.Electronicperformancemonitoring(EPM)isdefinedasasysteminwhichelectronictechnologyisusedtocollect,store,analyseandreporttheactionsorperformanceofpeoplewhileworkingonthejob(NebekerandTatum1993).IntheUnitedStates,66percentofemployersmonitoremployeeInternetconnections,43percentmonitoremail,45percenttracktimespentonthetelephoneandnumberscalled,48percentusevideomonitoringtocountertheft,violenceandsabotageand7percentusevideosurveillancetotrackemployee’son-the-jobperformance(AmericanManagementAssociation[AMA]andtheePolicyInstitute2007).Thistypeofmonitoringmainlyaimsatenhancingproductivitybyevaluatingperformanceandcontrollingoperatorbehaviour.

Althoughknowntobenefitperformance(atleastforsimpleandfamiliartasks)(StantonandBarnes-Farrell1996,AielloandKolb1995),EPMsystems

haveshowntoincreaseworkerstress,bothdirectlyandthroughtheireffectonjobdesign(Carayon1993,1994,Smithetal.1992).Workers’perceptionsoffairnessofworkstandards,fairnessofthemeasurementprocessesandfairnessinapplyingmeasurementstoworkerevaluationareamongthemaindeterminantsofworkerstress,andconsequentlyworkers’satisfactionwithandacceptanceoftheEPMsystem(Westin1992).Managementstyle,organisationalstructureandworkenvironmentdeterminethephysicalandmentalworkload,whichinturninfluencethelevelofworkerstress(Carayon1993,1994).Additionally,atechnologythatrespectsworkers’privacyisbettertrusted(Muir1987,JonesandMitchell1995)and,therefore,acceptedbytheworkers(Stanton2000,TabakandSmith2005,Alder,NoelandAmbrose2006).

Thegoalofin-vehicleEPMsystemsisoftenrelatedtoimprovingsafetyandmitigatingriskybehaviours.Awidevarietyofparameterscanbemonitoredandperformancedatacanbecollectedonvehiclespeed,location,acceleration,brakingpatterns,fuelconsumptionandsoon.Somemonitoringsystemscollectvideodatafrominsideandoutsideofthedriver’scab,providingdataonbehaviourssuchasfailuretouseseatbelts,inattentionanddistractionandfatigue(Horreyetal.2011).In-vehiclemonitoringsystemsalsodifferinthatsomelogdatacontinuously,whileothersonlyrecorddatasurroundingsafety-criticalevents.Animportantfactorthatdifferentiatesin-vehiclemonitoringsystemsfromeachotheristhechannelforcommunicatingfeedbacktothedriver;thefeedbackcanflowdirectlytothedriveroritcanbedeliveredthroughathirdparty.Thisfactorandothers,suchasthequalityofthefeedback,caninfluencetheeffectivenessandacceptanceofthesystem.Eventhemerepresenceofthedeviceinthevehiclemayhavepositiveornegativeeffectsondrivers’behaviour(HickmanandHanowski2011,Horreyetal.2011).

Recently,theinsuranceindustryintheUnitedStateshasstartedvoluntaryinstallationofmonitoringdevicesincustomers’vehiclesinordertotieinsurancepremiumstoeachdriver’slevelofsafedrivingandalsotoenhancedriversafety.TheProgressiveCorporation,forexample,offersasystemcalledSnapshot®thattracksparametersoftravel,forexample,speed,time,mileageanddistance,aswellasthefrequencyofabruptbrakingevents,andtransmitsthesedatabacktothecompanywirelessly(ProgressiveCorp.2012).Theincentiveforsafedrivingcanbeuptoa30percentreductioninpremiumswhilethereisnopenaltyforunsafedriving.AsimilarprogramistheTeenSafeDriverProgrambyAmericanFamilyInsurance,whichprovidesfreeDriveCamvideofeedbacktofamilieswithinsuredteenagedrivers,withthegoalofhelpingteenagersreducetheirriskydrivinghabits(AmericanFamilyInsurance2007).Itshouldbenotedthat

differentmonitoringsystemsmaypursuevaryinggoals;whileSnapshot®ismoregearedtowardsidentifyingsafeandunsafedrivers,thegoalofusingDriveCambytheTeenSafeDriverProgramismainlytoenhanceteendriversafetyandfacilitatementorshipbyparents.TheDriveCamsystemisusedbyseveralcommercialandgovernmentfleets,inareassuchasconstruction,distributionandenergy(DriveCam).Althoughthetechnologicalcomponentofthesesystemsmightbesimilar,therelationshipthatisestablishedbetweenthedriverandthesystemgovernsitsacceptanceandeffectiveness.Systemsthatareviewedasmonitoringarelikelytobemuchlesseffectiveandacceptedthanthosethatareviewedassupportingmentoring.

Mentoring

Whilethecentralfocusofmonitoringisonevaluatingperformance,theemphasisofmentoringisonenhancingperformancebyestablishinganurturing,insightful,supportiveandprotectiverelationshipwiththeprotégé(Buchanan,GordonandSchuck2008,AndersonandShannon1988).Inthecontextofdriving,thesamevideorecordingmethodsthatcanbeusedtomonitorperformancecanalsomentordriverstoachievehigherdegreesofknowledgeandproficiencyindriving.Theideaofusingvideotoprovidefeedbackhasbeenpursuedineducation.Forexample,inperformancecoursesofthecommunicationdiscipline,reviewingone’srecordedperformanceisfoundbeneficialwhenaccompaniedbyinstructors’orpeers’constructivefeedback(QuigleyandNyquist1992).Averysimilarapproachcanbeundertakenindriving:recordingsofsafety-relevanteventscanbereviewedbythedriverandasafetysupervisororparentwiththegoalofhelpingthedriveridentifyhis/herareasofvulnerabilityandworkonthemtoachieveahigherlevelofsafedriving.

Asystemthatcollectsdatafromanoperator’sperformanceandsharesitwithathirdpartycanbeperceivedasplayingamonitoringrole,amentoringroleorarolebetweenthesetwopoles.Themonitoringroleisgenerallycharacterisedbycontrolandreactiveadvice,whereasmentoringischaracterisedbycareandproactiveadvice(Barry2000).ThegoalsofimplementinganEPMsystemguidedecisionsaboutthetechnicalfeaturesofthesystem(e.g.,typeofdatacollected)andthesupervisoryapproachesundertakentoincorporateEPMintotheworksystem.Inthedrivingdomain,anEPMsystemcanbeusedasatoolforcollectingquantitativeperformancedatatofacilitatetheenforcementofsafetystandardsor,alternatively,asameansofprovidingfeedbackthataimstoenhancedrivers’safetyandwell-being.Quantitativemeasuresofperformancethatarecomparedagainststrictworkstandardsareoftensuggestiveofa

thatarecomparedagainststrictworkstandardsareoftensuggestiveofamonitoringrole.However,thetypeoffeedbackprovidedisalsoimportant:doesthefeedbackmerelyincludenumericalcomparisonsagainststandards(e.g.,maximumnumberofabruptbrakingeventsperweek),requiringthosewhoperformedpoorlytoexercisemoreeffort(negativefeedback;‘monitoring’),ordoesitadditionallyprovidesupportbyfacilitatingsaferpractices(constructivefeedback;‘mentoring’)?Moreover,feedbackthatistiedtoeachdriver’suniquecharacteristicscanmotivateamentoringrelationship,justlikefeedbackthatcomparesthedriver’sperformancetootherscanstrengthentheperceptionofbeingmonitored.

ItisalsoimportanttoconsidertheinterfacebetweentheEPMdeviceandthedriver:Doesthedriverknowwhenthesystemisrecording?Isthedriverabletocontrolwhenandwhatisrecorded?Theserelatetotheconceptofprivacythatrequiresthatemployeesbenotifiedwhentheyaremonitored(StantonandBarnes-Farrell1996).Suchtransparencycanbeachievedbyeffortsonseverallevels:fromtrainingthattakesplacebefore/duringthedriver-systeminteraction,toreal-timeindicatorsthatsignalmonitoring(e.g.,asignallight).Atransparentsystemisbetterperceivedandtrustedasaco-operator(Muir1987,JonesandMitchell1995)andcansupportamentoringrelationship,whereasasystemthatispoorlyunderstoodwillenforcetheperceptionofmonitoring.

Incommercialdrivingapplications,thewaytheEPMsystemisincorporatedintojobdesigniscruciallyimportantintheperceptionsofitsmentoringormonitoringrole.Theelementsofjobdesigncanbegroupedintothreecategories:jobdemands,jobcontrolandsocialsupport(Carayon1993).Somefactorsrelevanttothesecategorieshavebeendiscussedearlierinthischapter;forexample,performancestandards(jobdemands)andtypeoffeedbackandsupervision(socialsupport).Job-demandfactorsinfluencetheperceptionsoffairness–whetherthestandardsandmeasurementprocessesarereasonable–andtheclimateofemployeetrustinmanagement(Westin1992).Ifthemanagementisperceivedasenforcingunfairandunrealisticstandardsbyobservingdrivers’performanceinunexpectedways,thenamonitoringroleismorelikelytoberealised.Conversely,iftheEPMdatacollectioniswellunderstoodandthemeasurementsareusedinawayperceivedasfairbythedrivers,theyaremorelikelytoseethemselvesinaprotégé-mentorrelationshipwiththesafetysupervisors.ThejobcontrolelementcanalsoshapetheperceptionsoftheEPMrole:degreeofautonomyisafunctionofthetypeofinputreceived–whethercertainpracticesaremandatedorworkersaregivenlatitudeinhowtousethefeedback.

TheinfluenceoftheEPMsystem’stechnicalcharacteristicsondrivers’attitudescangobeyondperceptionsoftransparency,privacyandfairnessto

attitudescangobeyondperceptionsoftransparency,privacyandfairnesstodeterminethedegreeoftrustinthesystem.Incaseswherethesystemisdesignedtoprovideperformancefeedback(e.g.,performance-relatedwarningsandperformancesynopses),falseinformationdeliveredbythesystemcanleadtosystem’scredibilitylossandworkers’mistrust(Breznitz1984),degradingtheEPMsystemtothelevelofanobtrusiveandincompetentmonitoringdevice.

CultureandcontextinfluencetheEPMsystemimplementationinseveralways:theydeterminemanagement’sattitudetowardssystemspecificationsandimplementationprocedures,aswellasdrivers’reactiontothesystem.Inasupportiveatmosphere,trustbetweenworkersandsupervisorsleadstopositiveperceptionsoftheEPM(Alder2001)andthebeliefthatthesystemisdesignedtoenhancetheirwell-being(mentoringrole).Thesepositiveperceptionsarefurtherreinforcedbyasystem’sfairness,respectforprivacyandinformationaccuracy.

Figure5.1summarisesthementoringroleversusmonitoringrolediscussionaboveandintegratesthefactorsthatencourageoneroleortheotherforanEPMsystem.Thesefactorsrangefromtheaimofthesystem(controlofthedriverversuscareforthedriver)torespectforprivacyandsystemtransparency.Perceptionsofmentoringormonitoringcanmovealongaspectrum,withperceptionsanywherebetweenthetwoextremespossible.

Figure5.1Factorssuggestingamentoringversusamonitoringrole

AssessingtheAcceptanceofFeedback,MonitoringandMentoringSystems

Inthissection,atheoreticalmodelforassessingdrivers’acceptanceofadriversupportsystemisproposedthatbringstogetherdrivers’acceptanceofin-vehiclefeedbackandmonitoringdevicesandtheiracceptanceofmonitoringor

feedbackandmonitoringdevicesandtheiracceptanceofmonitoringormentoringexercisedbyacoach(e.g.,parent,transportationcompanymanager).TheTechnologyAcceptanceModel(TAM)framework(describedbelow)willbeusedforassessingattitudestowardsthefeedbacktechnology.TheTAMisaugmentedbytrusttobetteraccountfordrivers’perceptionsofthein-vehiclesystem(LeeandSee2004)andisfurtherextendedbyconstructsfromMayeretal.’s(1995)modeloforganisationaltrusttocaptureperceptionsofthecoachingprotocols.Variablesthatcaninfluenceacceptanceareaddedtothemodelasexternalvariables.Themodellingframeworkisdevelopedbasedonthedifferentapproachestoprovidingfeedbackasdescribedearlierinthischapter.ThissectiondescribestheTAMframeworkandsomeofitsrelatedapplications,liststhecategoriesofexternalvariablesrelevanttodriversupportsystemacceptanceandproposesamodelforassessingdriversupportsystemacceptance.

TheTechnologyAcceptanceModel

Severalframeworksandmethodologiesexistthatdescribepeople’sacceptanceoftechnology(seealsoearlierchaptersinthisvolume).Withinthedrivingdomain,asimplemethodthatassessessystemusefulnessandsatisfactionhasbeenparticularlydominant(VanderLaan,HeinoandDeWaard1997).Inotherdomains,theTechnologyAcceptanceModel(TAM)hassuccessfullypredictedtechnologyuse,andassuchhasbeenbroadlyusedsinceitsintroductionmorethantwodecadesago.TheTAM(Davisetal.1989),builtupontheTheoryofReasonedAction(TRA)ofFishbeinandAjzen(1975),positsthatperceivedusefulnessandperceivedeaseofusearethemaindeterminantsofattitudetowardsatechnology,whichinturnpredictsbehaviouralintentiontouseandultimately,actualsystemuse.Sinceattitudeisfoundtoonlypartiallymediatetheeffectofperceivedusefulnessonintentiontouse,aparsimoniousTAMissuggestedthatexcludesattitude,asshowninFigure5.2(DavisandVenkatesh1996,VenkateshandDavis2000).TheTAMconstructshavebeenfoundtobehighlyreliable,validandrobusttomeasurementinstrumentdesign(DavisandVenkatesh1996).

TheTAMhasrecentlybeenappliedinstudiesassessingtheacceptanceofdrivingassistancesystems.Xuetal.(2010)usedtheTAMtoassessacceptanceofadvancedtravellerinformationsystems,incorporatingfourdomain-specificconstructs(i.e.,informationattributes,trustintravelinformation,socio-demographicsandcognitionofalternateroutes).ChenandChen(2011)usedtheTAMforevaluatingacceptanceofGPSdevices,addingperceivedenjoymentandpersonalinnovativenessconstructstothemodel.Afewotherstudieshave

alsousedtheTAMconstructsintheiranalysisofdrivingassistancesystems(Adell2010,Meschtscherjakovetal.2009),findingthatperceivedsystemdisturbanceandperceivedrisk,aswellassocialfactors,stronglyinfluencethebehaviouralintentiontouseasystem.ThesestudiesdemonstratetheaptnessoftheTAMfordrivingassistancesystemsassessmentandprovidebackgroundandstructureforfuturedrivingtechnologyevaluations.Longitudinalstudiesthattraceperceptionsovertimeandasafunctionofsystemusewouldbemosthelpfulinidentifyingelementsofthetechnologyandthehuman-technologyinteractionthatshapedynamicsofacceptanceandeventually,long-termadoptiondecisions(Ghazizadeh,LeeandBoyle2012a,KimandMalhotra2005,BajajandNidumolu1998).

Figure5.2TechnologyAcceptanceModel.AdaptedwithpermissionfromDavisetal.©1989,theInstituteforOperationsResearchandtheManagementSciences,7240ParkwayDrive,Suite300,Hanover,Maryland21076

FactorsInfluencingDriverSupportSystemAcceptance

Severalfactorscaninfluenceadriver’sperceptionofafeedback,monitoringandmentoringsystem.Inthissubsection,thesefactorswillbegroupedintofivemajorcategoriesthatdefineimportantconstructsinfluencingacceptance.Thislistofconstructsspansfromthedeviceandthedriver(drivercharacteristicsanddrivingbehaviour),tothecontextandcultureinwhichthedrivingtasktakesplaceandfinally,tothecharacteristicsofthecoachingsystem,describingadriver’sworksystem.Figure5.3providesaschematicrepresentationoffactorssurroundingadriver,withfeedbackfromthedriversupportsystemshownasdashedarrows.Thevariableswithineachcategorywillenterthedriversupportsystemacceptancemodelasexternalvariables,influencingacceptanceindirectlythroughtheirimpactonperceptionsofthesystem(Davisetal.1989).

DeviceCharacteristics

Thepropertiesofthefeedbackdevicecanlargelyinfluenceperceptionsofthesystemandeventually,decisionstoacceptorrejectfeedback.Drivers’perceptionsofthesystemcanbeformedalongseveraldimensions,rangingfromevaluationsofsystemeffectivenesstothedegreeofannoyanceinducedbythesystem.Variousfactorsinfluencetheseperceptions:feedbackcontent,style,timing,frequency,precision,style(positiveornegative)andmethodofdelivery(Arroyo,SullivanandSelker2006,McLaughlin,RogersandFisk2006aand2006b,Huangetal.2005,Huangetal.2008).Purelyinformativesystemsarelikelytobemoreacceptedthansystemsthatforcechanges(VanderLaanetal.1997).Adriversupportsystemmayinvolveadevicethatmerelyprovidesfeedback(e.g.,real-timeordelayed)ormayalsocollectdatathatissharedwithasafetycoach(e.g.,parents,safetysupervisorsatatruckingcompany)forfollowupwiththedriver.Basedonthespecificgoalofasystem,otherfactorscanbeaddedtothelist.Forexample,inthecaseofauditoryalerts,parameterslikeformat,soundtype,pulsedurationandinter-pulseintervalcanaffectannoyance(Marshall,LeeandAustria2007).

Figure5.3Aschematicrepresentationofthedrivingsystemwithdashedarrowsrepresentingfeedbackfromthedriversupportsystem

Whensystemshaveamonitoringcomponent,invasionofprivacycanbecomeanissue,tothepointthathindersthewillingnesstoinstallthedevice.Forexample,parentshaveshownconcernaboutinstallingmonitoringsystemsintheirteens’vehiclesbecausetheyperceivedmonitoringtobeaninvasionofprivacy(McCartt,HellingaandHaire2007).InvasionofprivacyhaslongbeenaconcernwithEPMsystemsandmeritscarefulattention(ZweigandWebster2002,Alder2001).Thetypeofdatacollected(privatebehavioursanddriving

2002,Alder2001).Thetypeofdatacollected(privatebehavioursanddrivingoutcomes)andwhetheranotherpersonviewsthedata(asopposedtodatabeingsharedonlywiththedriver)caninfluenceperceptionsofprivacyinvasion.Whileimportantformostpeople,privacycanbecomeamajorconcernforspecificgroupsofdrivers:olderdriversmaynotwanttosharetheirdrivingdataoutoffearoflosingtheirrighttodrive.Commercialdriversmayalsofinditdisturbingtobemonitoredandwithnowaytoavoidit,mightevenresorttosabotagingthesystem(HickmanandHanowski2011).

DriverCharacteristicsThecharacteristicsofdrivers,suchasage,genderanddrivingpurpose,caninfluencehis/heradoptiondecisions.Ageandgenderareimportantfactorsinthattheycaninfluencetherelativeimportanceofdeterminantsofacceptance.Venkateshandcolleagues(MorrisandVenkatesh2000,Venkatesh,MorrisandAckerman2000)conductedaseriesofstudiestoevaluatetheroleofageandgenderintherelativeimportanceofattitude,subjectivenorm(i.e.,perceivedsocialpressuretoperformabehaviour)andperceivedbehaviouralcontrol(predictorsofsystemusebasedontheTheoryofPlannedBehavior,Ajzen1991).Theirfindingsshowedthatyoungerworkers’technology-usedecisionsaremorestronglyinfluencedbytheirattitudestowardstechnology,whereasinolderworkers,subjectivenormandbehaviouralcontrolarethemaindeterminantsoftechnologyadoption(MorrisandVenkatesh2000).Asimilarpatternwasobservedinthecomparisonbetweenmenandwomen:men’sdecisionsaremorestronglyinfluencedbytheirattitude,whereaswomen’sdecisionsareprimarilydrivenbysubjectivenormandperceivedbehaviouralcontrol(Venkateshetal.2000).Inthecaseofdriversupportsystems,thesefindingssuggestthat,whenencounteredwiththesamesystem,differentdrivergroupsbasedtheirassessmentsonvariouscriteriaandthatthosecriteriamightbeweigheddifferentlyfromdrivertodriver.Furthermore,assessmentsofthesystemalongeachcriterioncanbedifferentbasedonadriver’scharacteristics.Intheassessmentofdistractionmitigationsystems,olderdriversacceptedthesystemmorethanmiddle-ageddrivers–apatternthatwasattributedtoolderdrivers’diminisheddrivingperformanceandtheirlowself-confidence,whichinturnledtohighertrustinsupportsystems(Donmez,BoyleandLee2006).Anotherstudyshowedthat,whileyoungerdriversweresomewhatdissatisfiedwithadrivingtutoringsystem,olderdriversheldapositiveattitudetowardsit(DeWaard,VanderHulstandBrookhuis1999).

Thepurposeofdriving–thatis,drivingforpersonalreasonsoraspartofone’sjob–isanotherfactortoconsider.Thosewhoonlydriveforpersonal

purposesandthosewhoareemployedtodrive(e.g.,commercialtruckdrivers)mayhavedifferentperceptionsofaparticulartechnology.Incommercialdrivingsituations,thedecisionastowhetherornottouseadriversupportsystemistypicallymadebymanagement.Thisisdifferentfromwhendriversvoluntarilydecidetouseadriversupportsystemtolowertheirinsurancepremiumorincreasetheirsafety–adistinctionbetweenmandatoryandvoluntaryuse.Withvoluntaryadoption,thedriverhasfreedomtodecidetousethesystem,whereaswithmandatoryadoptiontheuserisforcedtousethesystem(Rawstorne,JayasuriyaandCaputi1998).Whenevaluatingacceptanceofamandatorysystem,theeffectofperceivedeaseofuseonintentiontousewasfoundtobelargerthantheeffectofperceivedusefulnessonintentiontouse(Brownetal.2002),contrarytothefindinginmanyvoluntaryusecasesthatperceivedusefulnessistheprimarydeterminantofintentiontouse(e.g.,VenkateshandDavis2000,Gefen,KarahannaandStraub2003,Karahanna,AgarwalandAngst2006).Oneexplanationforthispatternisthat,becausepeopleknowthattheyhavetousethesystem,theirfocusshiftsfromusefulnesstohoweasyordifficultthesystemistoworkwith(Rawstorne2005).Theseobservations,bothfromwithinandoutsidethedrivingsafetycommunity,underscoretheimportanceofconsideringdrivercharacteristicsinpredictingacceptanceofdriversupportsystems.

DrivingBehaviourDriversdifferintheirdrivingskills,theirdegreeofcommitmenttosafetyandtheircompliancewithtrafficlaws.Thesedifferencescantranslatetotheiracceptanceofsupportsystemsandtheeffectivenessofthesesystemsinencouragingbehaviouralchanges.Novice(usuallyyounger)driversarestillintheprocessofdevelopingdrivingskills,whereasexperienceddrivershavealreadydevelopedsuchskills.Foryoungerdrivers,feedbackandtrainingaimsatshapingsafedrivingbehavioursandhabits;however,forexperienceddrivers,thegoalofsupportsystemsistomodifytheirriskyhabits.Whilebotheffortscanleadtopromisingresults,helpingyoungerdriverscanbemorereadilyacceptedandeffective.ThisasymmetrywasnotedbyHickmanandHanowski(2011)inexplainingthedifferencesbetweentheirstudyoncommercialvehicledriversandtheMcGeheeetal.’s(2007b)study:thedriversintheMcGeheeetal.studywerenovices,whereasthedriversintheHickmanandHanowskistudywereexperiencedprofessionaldrivers.

Thedegreetowhichadriversupportsystemiscompatiblewithdrivers’perceptionsofappropriatedrivingbehaviourcanbeadeterminingfactorinthedriver’sacceptanceofthesystem.AccordingtotheTheoryofDiffusionof

Innovations,oneofthemajorfactorsthatdetermineadoptionofaninnovationiscompatibility;thatis,thedegreeofconsistencybetweenatechnologyandusers’values,pastexperienceandneeds(Rogers1995).Assuch,anytargetpopulationofdriversmightevaluateaparticularsystemdifferentlythantheothers.Furthermore,differenttypesofdriverswithinthesamepopulation(e.g.,safeandriskydrivers)mighthavevaryingperceptionsofthesamesystem.Anexampleofsuchadifferencewasobservedinarecentpreliminaryanalysisofcommercialtruckdrivers’perceptionsofanon-boardmonitoringsystem:themajorityofdriverswithmovingviolationsintheirhistoryhadmoderatelypositiveperceptionstowardsthefeedbacksystem,whilemanywithcleanrecordshadnegativeperceptions(Pengetal.2012).Thisassociationmightbeduetotheidentificationoftheneedforbehaviouralimprovementbythosewithahistoryofviolations.

ContextandCultureDriversarenotisolatedoperators:drivinghappensinasocialcontextandisinfluencedbyculture.Driversexperiencethedrivingenvironmentthroughsomecontext:theircaristheirimmediateenvironment,whichisinturn(especiallywiththerecentproliferationofinfotainmentdevices)connectedtootherpeopleandplaces.Driversupportsystems,especiallythosewithamonitoringormentoringcomponent,canchangetheroleofcontextinone’sdrivingbymakingtheinfluenceofothers,suchasparentsorsafetysupervisors,moretangible.Dependingonthecharacteristicsofthecontext,aswellassocialandorganisationalcultureandmanagementstyle,thereactionofthedrivertosuchchangecanbedifferent.

OneexampleoftheroleofcontextandcultureontheattitudesofdriverstowardssupportsystemswasdemonstratedbystudiesoftruckdriversintheUnitedStatesandChina.ThecomparisonbetweenresultsdemonstratedthatChinesetruckdrivershadamorepositiveattitudetowardsfeedbackreceivedfromtechnologycomparedtoUStruckdriverswhostronglypreferredfeedbackfromahumantofeedbackfromtechnology(Huangetal.2008,Huangetal.2005).Thisexample,whilelimitedinscope,clearlydemonstratestheinadequacyofassessmentsmadewithoutconsideringcontextandculture.

CoachingCharacteristicsSystemcharacteristics,boththoserelatedtothedeviceandthoserelatedtothehumancoach,caninfluenceperceptionsofmentoringandmonitoring.Forexample,adevicethatistransparentandindicateswhenvideorecordingsarebeingmadeorwhenareportisbeingtransmittedtoasupervisor/parentislikelytobeperceivedmorepositivelyandbettertrusted(Muir1987,LeeandSee

tobeperceivedmorepositivelyandbettertrusted(Muir1987,LeeandSee2004,JonesandMitchell1995).Acoach’sapproachtoprovidingfeedbackandthestyleinwhichfeedbackisdelivered(negativeorpositive)isalsocriticallyimportantindefiningamonitoringormentoringroleforthecoachandtheacceptanceofthesupportsystem.

AModelforAssessingAcceptanceofDriverSupportSystems

Figure5.4integratesthebroadrangeoffactorsaffectingacceptanceofdriversupportsystemsusingtheTAMframework.Thismodelcanguidemeasurementofthevariousfactorsthatinfluencedrivers’acceptanceofanexistingsystemorcanbeusedasapredictivemodelthatcanguidedesignanewdriversupportsystem.Variablesalongthefivecategoriesdescribedabove(i.e.,devicecharacteristics,drivercharacteristics,drivingbehaviour,contextandculture,andcoachingcharacteristics)areconsideredasexternalvariables.AstheTAMismainlyconcernedwiththetechnologicalcomponentofthesystem,themodelisaugmentedbyconstructsfromthemodeloforganisationaltrustbyMayeretal.(1995).BothTAMandthemodeloforganisationaltrusthavebeenextensivelycitedandvalidatedintheliterature(e.g.,seePavlou2003,MayerandDavis1999,Szajna1996,Huetal.1999).

Themodelconsistsoftwoparts:TechnologyAcceptanceandCoachingAcceptance.TheTechnologyAcceptancepartisbasedontheTAM,withthetrustindeviceconstructaddedasapredictoroftechnologyacceptance.Trustisamajordeterminantofrelianceonandacceptanceofautomation,standingbetweenpeople’sbeliefstowardsautomationandacceptanceofit(LeeandSee2004,LeeandMoray1992LeeandMoray1994,Parasuraman,SheridanandWickens2008,Gefenetal.2003,Pavlou2003,CarterandBélanger2005).Becausepreviousstudiessuggestthattrustdoesnotfullymediatetheeffectofbeliefsonbehaviouralintentions(LeeandSee2004),thedirecteffectsofperceivedusefulnessandperceivedeaseofuseonacceptanceareretained(Ghazizadehetal.2012b).Externalvariablesrelatedtodevicecharacteristics,drivercharacteristics,drivingbehaviour,contextandcultureandcoachingcharacteristicscaninfluenceacceptancethroughtheireffectonperceivedusefulness,perceivedeaseofuseandtrustindevice,asindicatedinFigure5.4.Feedbackmechanisms(dashedarrows)emphasisethedynamicnatureofacceptancedecisions–justlikeperceivedusefulness,perceivedeaseofuse,andtrustindeviceinfluenceTechnologyAcceptance,acceptanceanduseinfluenceperceptions(KimandMalhotra2005,Ghazizadehetal.2012a).

Figure5.4DriversupportsystemacceptancemodelIthasnotbeenpossibletoamendthisfigureforsuitableviewingonthisdevice.PleaseseethefollowingURLforalargerversionhttp://www.ashgate.com/pdf/ebooks/9781472405852Fig5_4.pdf

TheCoachingAcceptancepartofthemodelcapturestheeffectofdevicecharacteristics,drivercharacteristics,drivingbehaviour,contextandcultureandcoachingcharacteristicsonacceptanceofcoaching.Itisproposedthatthesevariablesinfluencedrivers’trustinacoach,which,togetherwiththeperceivedriskofthesituation(itselfinfluencedbyexternalvariables),determineswillingnesstotakerisksofbeingcoachedandacceptanceofcoaching(Mayeretal.1995).CoachingAcceptancecaninturninfluencethetrustdriversplaceintheircoachandtheperceivedriskofbeingcoached.Thedashedarrowsshowfeedbackmechanisms.

Ifthesupportsystemincludesbothtechnologyandcoachingcomponents,thenthesecomponentsareofteninterwovenintoasingleentity.Theacceptanceofthesupportsystemasawholewillthenbedeterminedbydrivers’perceptionsofthetechnology-coachinghybrid,shownastheSupportSystemAcceptanceconstructinFigure5.4.Theacceptanceofthesupportsystemwouldinturn

influencedrivers’behaviour,thecontexttheyfindthemselvesinandalsotherelationshipformedbetweenthedriverandthecoach.DashedarrowsfromSupportSystemAcceptancetothesecategoriesofvariableshighlightthedynamicnatureofthesystemadoption.Thereisnoonedirectionfortheinfluences–externalvariablesinfluenceperceptions,trustandfinallyuse,whileusingthesystemalsoinfluencesthesefactors.

Conclusion

Theattributesofadriversupportsystemdesignarenotthesoledeterminantsofacceptance–decisionspertainingtoacceptanceandusearemadeinacontextthatencompassesthedriver,thefeedbackand/ormonitoringdeviceandthecoachingtechniquesemployed.Acceptanceandeffectivenessofthesesystemsoftendependsonthedegreetowhichthesefactorscombinetocreateamentoring,ratherthanamonitoringsystem.Thischapterproposedamodelthatviewsacceptanceasafunctionofperceptionsofboththetechnologicalcomponentandthecoachingcomponentofadriversupportsystem.Noteverydriversupportsystemiscomprisedofbothcomponents:somearemerelyafeedbackdeviceandsomefollowonlyamonitoringormentoringprotocol,oftenbasedonvideorecordings.Nonetheless,theacceptanceassessmentmodelproposedherecanbeusedtoprovideaframeworktoconceptualiseacceptance,andthuseffectiveness,ofabroadrangeofdriversupportinterventions.Interestingly,amappingisevidentbetweenthecategoriesofvariablesintheproposedacceptancemodelandthefivecomponentsoftheworksystemmodelbySmithandCarayon-Sainfort(1989);thatis,person,tasks,technologyandtools,environmentandorganisation.Justastheworksystemmodelemphasisestheinterplaybetweenthesefactorsinaffectingworkersandoutcomes,webelievethatallthesefactorcategoriesplayaroleinshapingadriver’sperceptionofthesupportsystem,whilealsoinfluencingtheotherfactors.Amoreelaborateaccountoftheseinteractionscanshedlightonthedependenciesoftheelements–animportantconsiderationwhendesigningasupportsystem.

References

Adell,E.2010.Acceptanceofdriversupportsystems.EuropeanConferenceonHumanCentredDesignforIntelligentTransportSystems,Berlin,Germany,2010.

Aiello,J.R.andKolb,K.J.1995.Electronicperformancemonitoringandsocialcontext:Impactonproductivityandstress.JournalofAppliedPsychology80(3):339.

Ajzen,I.1991.Thetheoryofplannedbehavior.OrganisationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses50(2):179–211.

Alder,G.S.2001.Employeereactionstoelectronicperformancemonitoring:Aconsequenceoforganisationalculture.JournalofHighTechnologyManagementResearch12(2):323–42.

Alder,G.S.,Noel,T.W.andAmbrose,M.L.2006.ClarifyingtheeffectsofInternetmonitoringonjobattitudes:Themediatingroleofemployeetrust.InformationandManagement43(7):894–903.

AmericanFamilyInsurance.2007.Teensafedriverprogram:Guidanceforteensaftertheybecomedrivers.Availableat:http://www.teensafedriver.com/[accessed11June2012].

AmericanManagementAssociation(AMA)andtheePolicyInstitute.2007.Electronicmonitoringandsurveillancesurvey.Availableat:http://www.epolicyinstitute.com/survey2007Summary.pdf.[accessed11June2012].

Anderson,E.M.andShannon,A.L.1988.Towardaconceptualisationofmentoring.JournalofTeacherEducation39(1):38–42.

Arroyo,E.,Sullivan,S.andSelker,T.2006.CarCoach:Apoliteandeffectivedrivingcoach.InProceedingsoftheCHI’06ExtendedAbstractsonHumanFactorsinComputingSystems,357–62.

Bajaj,A.andNidumolu,S.R.1998.Afeedbackmodeltounderstandinformationsystemusage.InformationandManagement33(4):213–24.

Barry,M.2000.Thementor/monitordebateincriminaljustice:‘Whatworks’foroffenders.BritishJournalofSocialWork30(5):575.

Breznitz,S.1984.CryWolf:ThePsychologyofFalseAlarms,9–16.Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Brown,S.,Massey,A.,Montoya-Weiss,M.andBurkman,J.2002.DoIreallyhaveto?Useracceptanceofmandatedtechnology.EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems11(4):283–95.

Buchanan,J.,Gordon,S.andSchuck,S.2008.Frommentoringtomonitoring:TheimpactofchangingworkenvironmentsonacademicsinAustralianuniversities.JournalofFurtherandHigherEducation32(3):241–50.

Carayon,P.1993.Effectofelectronicperformancemonitoringonjobdesignandworkerstress:Reviewoftheliteratureandconceptualmodel.HumanFactors:TheJournaloftheHumanFactorsandErgonomicsSociety35(3):

385–95.Carayon,P.1994.Effectsofelectronicperformancemonitoringonjobdesign

andworkerstress:Resultsoftwostudies.InternationalJournalofHuman-ComputerInteraction6(2):177–90.

Carney,C.,McGehee,D.V.,Lee,J.D.,Reyes,M.L.andRaby,M.2010.Usinganevent-triggeredvideointerventionsystemtoexpandthesupervisedlearningofnewlylicensedadolescentdrivers.AmericanJournalofPublicHealth100(6):1101.

Carter,L.andBélanger,F.2005.Theutilisationofegovernmentservices:Citizentrust,innovationandacceptancefactors.InformationSystemsJournal15(1):5–25.

Chen,C.F.andChen,P.C.2011.ApplyingtheTAMtotravelers’usageintentionsofGPSdevices.ExpertSystemswithApplications38:6217–21.

Davis,F.D.,Bagozzi,R.P.andWarshaw,P.R.1989.Useracceptanceofcomputertechnology:Acomparisonoftwotheoreticalmodels.ManagementScience35(8):982–1003.

Davis,F.D.andVenkatesh,V.1996.Acriticalassessmentofpotentialmeasurementbiasesinthetechnologyacceptancemodel:Threeexperiments.InternationalJournalofHuman-ComputerStudies45(1):19–45.

DeWaard,D.,VanderHulst,M.andBrookhuis,K.A.1999.Elderlyandyoungdrivers’reactiontoanin-carenforcementandtutoringsystem.AppliedErgonomics30(2):147–57.

Donmez,B.,Boyle,L.N.andLee,J.D.2003.Taxonomyofmitigationstrategiesfordriverdistraction.InProceedingsoftheHumanFactorsandErgonomicsSociety47thAnnualMeeting,1865–9.

———.2006.Theimpactofdistractionmitigationstrategiesondrivingperformance.HumanFactors:TheJournaloftheHumanFactorsandErgonomicsSociety48(4):785–804.

———.2008.Mitigatingdriverdistractionwithretrospectiveandconcurrentfeedback.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention40(2):776–86.

———.2009.Designingfeedbacktomitigatedistraction.InDriverDistraction:Theory,Effects,andMitigation,519–31.EditedbyRegan,M.,Lee,J.andYoung,K.BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress.

DriveCam.Availableat:http://www.drivecam.com.[accessed19December2012].

Farmer,C.M.,Kirley,B.B.andMcCartt,A.T.2010.Effectsofin-vehiclemonitoringonthedrivingbehaviorofteenagers.JournalofSafetyResearch41(1):39–45.

Fishbein,M.andAjzen,I.1975.Belief,Attitude,Intention,andBehavior:AnIntroductiontoTheoryandResearch.Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley.

Gefen,D.,Karahanna,E.andStraub,D.W.2003.TrustandTAMinonlineshopping:Anintegratedmodel.MISQuarterly27(1):51–90.

Ghazizadeh,M.,Lee,J.D.andBoyle,L.N.2012a.ExtendingtheTechnologyAcceptanceModeltoassessautomation.Cognition,TechnologyandWork14(1):39–49.

Ghazizadeh,M.,Peng,Y.,Lee,J.D.,Boyle,L.N.2012b.Augmentingthetechnologyacceptancemodelwithtrust:Commercialdrivers’attitudestowardsmonitoringandfeedbackInProceedingsoftheHumanFactorsandErgonomicsSociety56thAnnualMeeting,2286–90.

Hickman,J.S.andHanowski,R.J.2011Useofavideomonitoringapproachtoreduceat-riskdrivingbehaviorsincommercialvehicleoperations.TransportationResearchPartF:TrafficPsychologyandBehaviour14(3):189–98.

Horrey,W.J.,Lesch,M.F.,Dainoff,M.J.,Robertson,M.M.andNoy,Y.I.2011.On-boardsafetymonitoringsystemsfordriving:Review,knowledgegaps,andframework.JournalofSafetyResearch43:49–58.

Hu,P.J.,Chau,P.Y.K.,Sheng,O.R.L.andTam,K.Y.1999.Examiningthetechnologyacceptancemodelusingphysicianacceptanceoftelemedicinetechnology.JournalofManagementInformationSystems:91–112.

Huang,Y.H.,Rau,P.L.P.,Zhang,B.andRoetting,M.2008.Chinesetruckdrivers’attitudestowardfeedbackbytechnology:Aquantitativeapproach.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention40(4):1553–62.

Huang,Y.H.,Roetting,M.,McDevitt,J.R.,Melton,D.andSmith,G.S.2005.Feedbackbytechnology:Attitudesandopinionsoftruckdrivers.TransportationResearchPartF:TrafficPsychologyandBehaviour8(4–5):277–97.

Jones,P.M.andMitchell,C.M.1995.Human-computercooperativeproblemsolving:Theory,design,andevaluationofanintelligentassociatesystem.Systems,ManandCybernetics,IEEETransactions25(7):1039–53.

Karahanna,E.,Agarwal,R.andAngst,C.M.2006.Reconceptualisingcompatibilitybeliefsintechnologyacceptanceresearch.MISQuarterly30(4):781–804.

Kim,S.S.andMalhotra,N.K.2005.AlongitudinalmodelofcontinuedISuse:Anintegrativeviewoffourmechanismsunderlyingpostadoptionphenomena.ManagementScience51(5):741–55.

Lavallière,M.,Simoneau,M.,Tremblay,M.,Laurendeau,D.andTeasdale,N.

2012.Activetraininganddriving-specificfeedbackimproveolderdrivers’visualsearchpriortolanechanges.BMCGeriatrics12(5).

Lee,J.D.2009.Cantechnologygetyoureyesbackontheroad?Science324(5925):344–6.

Lee,J.D.andMoray,N.1992.Trust,controlstrategiesandallocationoffunctioninhuman-machinesystems.Ergonomics35(10):1243–70.

———.1994.Trust,self-confidence,andoperators’adaptationtoautomation.InternationalJournalofHumanComputerStudies40(1):153.

Lee,J.D.andSee,K.A.2004.Trustinautomation:Designingforappropriatereliance.HumanFactors:TheJournaloftheHumanFactorsandErgonomicsSociety46(1):50.

Lehmer,M.,Miller,R.,Rini,N.,Orban,J.,McMillan,N.,Stark,G.,Brown,V.,Carnell,R.andChristiaen,A.2007.Volvotrucksfieldoperationaltest:Evaluationofadvancedsafetysystemsforheavytrucks.USDepartmentofTransportation,NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration.

Marottoli,R.A.,VanNess,P.H.,Araujo,K.L.B.,Iannone,L.P.,Acampora,D.,Charpentier,P.andPeduzzi,P.2007.Arandomisedtrialofaneducationprogramtoenhanceolderdriverperformance.JournalsofGerontologySeriesA:BiologicalSciencesandMedicalSciences62(10):1113–19.

Marshall,D.C.,Lee,J.D.andAustria,P.A.2007.Alertsforin-vehicleinformationsystems:Annoyance,urgency,andappropriateness.HumanFactors:TheJournaloftheHumanFactorsandErgonomicsSociety49(1):145–57.

Mayer,R.C.andDavis,J.H.1999.Theeffectoftheperformanceappraisalsystemontrustformanagement:Afieldquasi-experiment.JournalofAppliedPsychology84(1):123.

Mayer,R.C.,Davis,J.H.andSchoorman,F.D.1995.Anintegrativemodeloforganisationaltrust.AcademyofManagementReview:709–34.

McCartt,A.T.,Hellinga,L.A.andHaire,E.R.2007.Ageoflicensureandmonitoringteenagers’driving:Surveyofparentsofnoviceteenagedrivers.JournalofSafetyResearch38(6):697–706.

McGehee,D.V.,Carney,C.,Raby,M.,Lee,J.D.andReyes,M.L.2007a.Theimpactofanevent-triggeredvideointerventiononruralteenagedriving.InProceedingsoftheFourthInternationalDrivingSymposiumonHumanFactorsinDriverAssessment,TrainingandVehicleDesign,565–71.

———.2007b.Extendingparentalmentoringusinganevent-triggeredvideointerventioninruralteendrivers.JournalofSafetyResearch38(2):215–27.

McLaughlin,A.C.,Rogers,W.A.andFisk,A.D.2006a.Howeffectivefeedbackfortrainingdependsonlearnerresourcesandtaskdemands.InProceedings

fortrainingdependsonlearnerresourcesandtaskdemands.InProceedingsoftheHumanFactorsandErgonomicsSociety50thAnnualMeeting,2624–8.

———.2006b.ImportanceandInteractionofFeedbackVariables:AModelforEffective,DynamicFeedback.Atlanta:GeorgiaInstituteofTechnology.

Meschtscherjakov,A.,Wilfinger,D.,Scherndl,T.andTscheligi,M.2009.Acceptanceoffuturepersuasivein-carinterfacestowardsamoreeconomicdrivingbehaviour.InFirstInternationalConferenceonAutomotiveUserInterfacesandInteractiveVehicularApplications(AutomotiveUI2009),Essen,Germany,81–8.

Morris,M.G.andVenkatesh,V.2000.Agedifferencesintechnologyadoptiondecisions:Implicationsforachangingworkforce.PersonnelPsychology53(2):375–403.

Muir,B.M.1987.Trustbetweenhumansandmachines,andthedesignofdecisionaids.InternationalJournalofMan-MachineStudies27(5–6):527–39.

Nebeker,D.M.andTatum,B.C.1993.Theeffectsofcomputermonitoring,standards,andrewardsonworkperformance,jobsatisfaction,andstress.JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology23(7):508–36.

Orban,J.,Hadden,J.,Stark,G.andBrown,V.2006.EvaluationoftheMackIntelligentVehicleInitiativeFieldOperationalTest:Finalreport.Washington,DC:DepartmentofTransportation,FederalMotorCarrierSafetyAdministration.

Parasuraman,R.,Sheridan,T.B.andWickens,C.D.2008.Situationawareness,mentalworkload,andtrustinautomation:Viable,empiricallysupportedcognitiveengineeringconstructs.JournalofCognitiveEngineeringandDecisionMaking2(2):140–60.

Pavlou,P.A.2003.Consumeracceptanceofelectroniccommerce:Integratingtrustandriskwiththetechnologyacceptancemodel.InternationalJournalofElectronicCommerce7(3):101–34.

Peng,Y.,Ghazizadeh,M.,Boyle,L.N.andLee,J.D.2012.Commercialdrivers’initialattitudestowardanon-boardmonitoringsystem.InProceedingsoftheHumanFactorsandErgonomicsSociety56thAnnualMeeting,2281–5.

ProgressiveCorp.2012.HowSnapshot®works.Availableat:http://www.progressive.com/auto/snapshot-how-it-works.aspx[accessed11June2012].

Quigley,B.L.andNyquist,J.D.1992.Usingvideotechnologytoprovidefeedbacktostudentsinperformancecourses.CommunicationEducation41

(3):324–34.Rawstorne,P.2005.Asystematicanalysisofthetheoryofreasonedaction,the

theoryofplannedbehaviourandthetechnologyacceptancemodelwhenappliedtothepredictionandexplanationofinformationsystemsuseinmandatoryusagecontexts.UniversityofWollongong,Australia.

Rawstorne,P.,Jayasuriya,R.andCaputi,P.1998.Anintegrativemodelofinformationsystemsuseinmandatoryenvironments.InProceedingsoftheNineteenthInternationalConferenceonInformationSystems,325–30.

Rogers,E.M.1995.DiffusionofInnovations(4thEdition).NewYork:FreePress.

Smith,M.J.andCarayon-Sainfort,P.1989.Abalancetheoryofjobdesignforstressreduction.InternationalJournalofIndustrialErgonomics4(1):67–79.

Smith,M.J.,Carayon,P.,Sanders,K.J.,Lim,S.Y.andLeGrande,D.1992.Employeestressandhealthcomplaintsinjobswithandwithoutelectronicperformancemonitoring.AppliedErgonomics23(1):17–27.

Stanton,J.M.2000.Reactionstoemployeeperformancemonitoring:Framework,review,andresearchdirections.HumanPerformance13(1):85–113.

Stanton,J.M.andBarnes-Farrell,J.L.1996.Effectsofelectronicperformancemonitoringonpersonalcontrol,tasksatisfaction,andtaskperformance.JournalofAppliedPsychology81(6):738.

Szajna,B1996.Empiricalevaluationoftherevisedtechnologyacceptancemodel.ManagementScience42(1):85–92.

Tabak,F.andSmith,W.P.2005.Privacyandelectronicmonitoringintheworkplace:Amodelofmanagerialcognitionandrelationaltrustdevelopment.EmployeeResponsibilitiesandRightsJournal17(3):173–89.

VanderLaan,J.D.,Heino,A.andDeWaard,D.1997.Asimpleprocedurefortheassessmentofacceptanceofadvancedtransporttelematics.TransportationResearchPartC:EmergingTechnologies5(1):1–10.

Venkatesh,V.andDavis,F.D.2000.Atheoreticalextensionofthetechnologyacceptancemodel:Fourlongitudinalfieldstudies.ManagementScience46(2):186–204.

Venkatesh,V.,Morris,M.G.andAckerman,P.L.2000.Alongitudinalfieldinvestigationofgenderdifferencesinindividualtechnologyadoptiondecision-makingprocesses.OrganisationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses83(1):33–60.

Westin,A.F.1992.Twokeyfactorsthatbelonginamacroergonomicanalysisof

electronicmonitoring:Employeeperceptionsoffairnessandtheclimateoforganisationaltrustordistrust.AppliedErgonomics23(1):35–42.

Xu,C.,Wang,W.,Chen,J.,Wang,W.,Yang,C.andLi,Z.2010.Analysingtravelers’intentiontoaccepttravelinformation:Structuralequationmodeling.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard2156:93–110.

Zweig,D.andWebster,J.2002.Whereisthelinebetweenbenignandinvasive?Anexaminationofpsychologicalbarrierstotheacceptanceofawarenessmonitoringsystems.JournalofOrganizationalBehavior23(5):605–33.

PARTIIIMeasurementofDriverAcceptance

Chapter6HowIsAcceptanceMeasured?OverviewofMeasurementIssues,MethodsandTools

EmeliAdellTrivectorTraffic,Sweden

LenaNilssonSwedishNationalRoadandTransportResearchInstitute(VTI),Sweden

AndrásVárhelyiLundUniversity,Sweden

Abstract

Thischapterdescribeshowacceptancehasbeenmeasuredandidentifiesvariousmeasurementcategories.Therelationshipbetweenthesemeasurementmethodsandthedifferentdefinitionsofacceptanceappearingintheliteratureisdescribedandthelackofcorrespondencebetweendefinitionandmeasurementishighlighted.Thechapterillustratesthedifferentoutcomesofacceptancemeasurementsdependingonchoiceofassessmentmethodandgivessomeguidancethatcouldbeused,dependingonthepurposeoftheassessment.

Introduction

Asseenthroughoutthisbook,substantialeffortshavebeenputintotheresearchanddevelopmentofvariousdriverassistancesystems,andsuchsystemsarenowbeingintroducedinvehiclesatafasterandfasterrate.Inthisconnection,itisimportanttorememberthattheexpectedimpactofadriverassistancesystemwillberealisedonlyifthesystemisused.AsVanderLaan,HeinoandDeWaard(1997:1)putit,‘Itisunproductivetoinvesteffortindesigningandbuildinganintelligentco-driverifthesystemisneverswitchedon,orevendisabled’.

Theeffectofasystemintendedtoassistdriverswillbeinfluencedbydrivers’experiencesandacceptanceofit.Therefore,itisimportanttoinclude

assessmentofacceptanceintheprocessofsystemdevelopmentanddeployment,preferablyintheearlyconceptanddesignphasesandagaininiterativeassessmentsalongthedevelopmentchain.Knowledgeaboutuseracceptanceisvaluableforunderstandinghumansincomplexenvironments(likethetransportsystem)andforestablishingcontextualpossibilitiesandlimitations.Inrelationtodriverassistancesystems,understandingthehumanincludesunderstandinghis/herviewsandvalues,actionsandbehaviour,andhuman-systemperformance,aswellastheoutcomesandconsequencesofthese.Theestablishmentofcontextualpossibilitiesandlimitationsisanimportantprerequisiteforenablingpredictionsandestimations(e.g.,toforecastpossiblesystembenefits,userintentionsandinterests)andforadoptionofmeasures.Possibilitiesandlimitationsarealsovitalingredientsinimpactanalyses(usingdataonsystemuseandtakeup)andingeneratingtestablerecommendationsforimprovedsystemdesign.Thus,measuresofacceptancerepresentpiecesofinformationofgreatvalueforguidingsystemdevelopmenttowardssuccessfulandusedsolutions.

Inthefieldofdevelopingnewin-vehiclesystems,majorresearchprojectsundertakenpreviouslyhaverecognisedtheneedforacceptancemeasurementaswellasaccesstorelevantacceptancemeasurementmethodsandtools.InEurope,suchprojectsincludeADVISORS,FESTAandeuroFOT.

TheADVISORSprojectaimedtodevelopanintegratedmethodologyandrelevantcriteriafortheassessmentofroadnetworkefficiency,trafficsafetyandenvironmentalimpact,aswellasusabilityanduseracceptanceofADAS(AdvancedDriverAssistanceSystems)(Brook-Carteretal.2001).Inthatproject,theliteraturewasreviewedforinstrumentstoassessacceptanceofADAS.However,theresultwasdisappointingandledtotheprojectteampointingoutwhatwasanobviouslackofstandardisedandreliableproceduresandtoolsforassessingacceptance.AlthoughADVISORSdidnotdevelopareliableandvalidinstrumentfortheassessmentofacceptance,itwasrecommendedthatacceptancebemeasuredbyquestionnaire,basedonacomponentmodelintegratingthreedimensionsconsideredtoconstituteacceptance:usability,drivercomfortandsafetybenefits.Forthemeasurementofacceptance-relatedfeatures,thefollowingmeasuresweresuggestedandappliedbyADVISORS(SWOV2003):theusefulness/satisfactionscale(VanderLaanetal.1997),theusabilityquestionnaire(Brooke1996),thedrivingqualityscale(Brookhuis1993)andawillingnesstopayquestionnaire(Brookhuis,UnekenandNilsson2001).

IntheFESTAproject,ahandbookofgoodpracticefortheevaluationof

ADASusingfieldoperationaltests(FOTs)wasdeveloped(FESTAconsortium2008,FOT-NETconsortium2011).Theneedtomeasuredriveracceptanceofinvestigatedsystem(s),includingwillingnesstopurchase,wasputforwardasgeneraladviceinthepartofthehandbookdealingwithaims,researchquestionsandhypothesesdefinitions(seeAnnexBoftheHandbook).Intheworkundertaken,however,FESTAreferstoacceptabilityratherthanacceptance;whatacceptabilityis,aswellastoolsformeasuringacceptabilityoftechnologyhavebeenconsidered(Kircheretal.2008).Kircheretal.(2008:36)statethat‘regardingthefieldof“technologyacceptance”,thetermacceptabilityindicatesthedegreeofapprovalofatechnologybytheusers,whichcanbemeasuredbythefrequencyofuse’.

Also,thecontextwhereaspecifictechnologyis(orissupposedtobe)usedispointedoutasafactorofgreatimportancewhenevaluatingacceptability.Asthedrivingcontextisconstantlychanging,understandingifdriversarewillingandcapableofacceptingassistancesystemshastobeexaminedinavarietyofcontexts.FESTAconcludesthatacceptabilityoftechnologyiscomprisedofdifferent(described)dimensionsandthatnouniquemodelortheoryofitexists.Tomeasurethesedimensions,toolslikestandardisedquestionnaires,focusgroups,individualinterviewsandself-reportingmethodsaresuggested.Nospecificinstrumentforacceptance(oracceptability)measurementwas,however,proposedaspartoftheevaluationmethodologydescribedintheFESTAhandbook.

TheeuroFOTproject(euroFOT2012)wasaimedatevaluatingtheimpactofactivesafetysystemsbyapplyingthecommonEuropeanapproachdescribedintheFESTAhandbook.Systemsalreadyonthemarketorsufficientlymaturetorepresentcommercialapplicationswereexamined–forexample,adaptivecruisecontrol(ACC),lanedeparturewarning(LDW)andforwardcollisionwarning(FCW).Impactsatthetrafficsystemlevelintermsofsafety,efficiencyandenvironmentalfriendlinesswereinvestigatedaswellaseffectsattheindividuallevelintermsofdriverbehaviour,systeminteractionanduseracceptance.Driverbehaviourandacceptancewereanalysedtoassesstheimpactoftheinvolveddriverassistancesystemsbasedonrealdataandtoimproveawarenessaboutthepotentialofthesystems.Acommoncoreacceptancemeasurementquestionnairewasdevelopedenablingaddition,butnotdeletion,ofitemsbyeachresearchteam.Thequestionnairewassequentiallydistributedduringtheconsecutivephasesoftheone-year-longtestsofsystemexposure:priortothetest,afterbaseline/beforesystemexposure,atseveraloccasionsduringsystemexposureandattheendofthesystemexposure(testperiod).

TherehavealsobeenotherjointEuropeaninitiativestodevelopmethodologiesandguidelinesfortheassessmentofdriverassistancesystemswhere,surprisingly,workonacceptancemeasurementwasnotincludedatall.OneexampleistheHASTEproject,whichaimedtodevelopmethodologiesandguidelinesfortheassessmentofIVIS(In-VehicleInformationSystems).InHASTE,behavioural,psycho-physiologicalandself-reportmeasureswerestudiedwithafocusondrivingperformance,whileworkonacceptancemeasureswasomitted(Carstenetal.2005).

Despitetherecognisedimportanceofacceptance,thereisnoestablisheddefinitionofacceptance,andtherearealmostasmanywaystomeasureacceptanceasthereareresearcherstryingtodoso.Consideringthemanydifferentwaysofdefiningacceptance(seeChapter2andotherrelevantchaptersinthisbook)itishardlysurprisingthatnoconsistentwayofmeasuringitexists.Besides,thedefinition,andinturntheunderstandingandmeaningof‘acceptance’,areusuallytakenforgrantedinresearchdealingwithdriverassistancesystems,andresearchersmostlymeasureacceptancewithoutdefiningit.Thelargedifferencesindefiningandmeasuringacceptancepointtoalargediscrepancyinunderstandingtheacceptanceconceptandmakecomparisonsbetweensystems,designs,settingsandstudiesalmostimpossible.

MeasuringAcceptance

AthoroughreviewofstudiesassessingacceptancewasreportedbyAdell(2009).Thereviewshowsthatanumberofdifferentwaystomeasureacceptancehavebeenemployedpreviously.However,evenwhenresultsconcerningacceptancearepresented,howithasbeenmeasuredandhowtheresultshavebeenobtainedarenotalwaysdescribed,andthereliabilityandvalidityofthemeasuresareseldomexplored.

ThenumerouswaysofassessingacceptancefoundintheliteraturewerecategorisedbyAdell(2009)intoeightdifferentgroups,with25sub-groups(seeTable6.1).Mostresearchersusemorethanonemeasuretoassessacceptance,eitherfromthesamecategoryorfromdifferentcategories.Themeasurementsusedaremostfrequentlyderivedfromquestionnaires(questionsand/orratingscales),buttherearemeasurementsderivedfrominterviews,focusgroups,systemuseanddrivingperformance.

Table6.1Measuresusedtoassessacceptance,basedontheliteraturereview;maincategorieswithsubcategories(adaptedfromAdell2009).ForsourcereferencesseeAdell(2009).Includessimulateddrivingaswellasactualonroaddriving

AcceptanceMeasuresandTheirRelationtoAcceptanceDefinitions

ThedifferentcategoriesofacceptancemeasurementspresentedinTable6.1arediscussedbelow.FirstthecategoriesthatmatchanyofthedefinitioncategoriespresentedinChapter2arepresented.Thereafter,thosecategoriesthatdonotrelatetoanydefinitionofacceptancearepresented.

UsingtheWord‘Accept/Acceptable’Someresearchersdefineacceptancebyusingtheterm‘accept’.Consequently,theterm‘accept’or‘acceptable’isusedwhenmeasuringacceptance.Thisisrelativelycommonandusuallymeasurementsinthiscategoryusequestionsand

ratingscaleswithphraseslike‘wouldyouaccept…?’or‘howacceptableis…?’(e.g.,Menzel2004,Parkeretal.2003,Stradling,MeadowsandBeatty2004).Anotherwayofmeasuringacceptanceassignedtothisgroupistheusageofquestionsorratingsofthe‘willingnesstoaccept’something(e.g.,adriverassistancesystem).Usingtheword‘accept’clearlyrelatestotheacceptancedefinitionusingtheword‘accept’,butdoesnotprovideanyfurtherinformationorexplanationabouttheconceptand/ormeaningofacceptance.

SatisfyingNeedsandRequirementsand/orSumofAttitudesThedefinitionofacceptanceas‘satisfyingneedsandrequirements’impliesthattheassessmentofacceptanceshouldfocusonwhetherthesystemsatisfiestheneedsandrequirementsoftheuser,whereasdefiningacceptanceasthe‘sumofattitudes’demandsanaggregationofattitudesinsomeway.

Themostusedinstrumentformeasuringacceptance,theusefulness/satisfactionscaledevelopedandproposedbyVanderLaanetal.(1997),isoneexampleofthisaggregation.Thetoolisastandardisedinstrumentusedtoestimatethe‘usefulnessof’andthe‘satisfactionwith’adriverassistancesystem.The‘acceptance’ofthesysteminquestionisestimatedbyratingninebipolaritems(useful–useless,pleasant–unpleasant,bad–good,nice–annoying,effective–superfluous,irritating–likeable,assisting–worthless,undesirable–desirableandraisingalertness–sleep-inducing)onfive-pointratingscales.Theratingsonthebipolarscalesarethencombinedintooneusefulnessscoreandonesatisfactionscoreforthesystem.Whenlaunchingtheusefulness/satisfactionscale,thedeveloperspresentedinformationaboutthereliabilityoftheinstrumentaswellasinformationonhowtoinstructtheparticipantsdoingtheestimations.

Törnrosetal.(2002)usedtheVanderLaanscale(VanderLaanetal.1997)tomeasuredrivers’acceptanceofanACCsystem(AdaptedCruiseControl)inmotorwayandruralroaddrivinginamovingbasesimulator.TheVanderLaanscale(VanderLaanetal.1997)wasmandatorilyappliedalsointhepilotstudiescarriedoutintheADVISORSproject.ItwasconcludedthatacceptancewashighandconsistentoverconditionsforACC,lowforurbanACCwithS&G(AdaptedCruiseControlwithStop&Go),especiallyforyoungdrivers,andthatgettingadrowsinesswarningwhendrivingwithaDMS(Driver/DrowsinessMonitoringSystem)increasedacceptance(Nilssonetal.2003).OtherexampleswheretheVanderLaanscalehasbeenusedarestudiesreportedbyAdell,VárhelyiandHjälmdahl(2008),Duivenvoorden(2008),VanDriel(2007),Broekxetal.(2006),VanWinsum,MartensandHerland(1999)andVárhelyi,ComteandMäkinen(1998).

Thereexistalsoavarietyofmeasurementsdesignedtoassesswhethersystems‘satisfytheneedsandrequirements’ofusers.Insomestudies,‘satisfaction’ismeasuredinanotherway(thantheVanderLaanetal.1997scale)toassessacceptance.Examplesarequestionsaboutgeneralassessmentofsatisfactionwiththesystem,opinionsonwhetherhavingthesystemisanadvantageordisadvantage,theattractiveness/unattractivenessofthesystem,whetherthesystemisdisturbingorannoying,andwhetheritissupportiveorconstructive;see,forexample,Ervinetal.(2005),Menzel(2004),Nilsson,AlmandJanssen(1992)andTurrentine,SperlingandHungerford(1991).

Manystudiesalsoassess‘usefulness’toobtaindataonacceptance(withmethodsotherthantheVanderLaanetal.1997scale).Examplesarequestionsaboutwhetherandhowmuchthesystemfacilitatesthedrivingtask,andaffectsone’sowndrivingperformanceand/orthedrivingperformanceofothers;see,forexample,Najmetal.(2006),Stanley(2006),Collinsetal.(1999),KuikenandGroeger(1993)andTurrentineetal.(1991).Askingforusers’opinionsabouttheeffectivenessofthesystemaswellaswhatkindsofinstructions/correctionstheywantfromthesystembelongtothismeasurementcategory;see,forexample,Youngetal.(2007)andGMandDelphi-DelcoElectronicSystems(2002).

Concerningtherelationshipwithacceptancedefinitions,theVanderLaanusefulness/satisfactionscale(VanderLaanetal.1997)reflectsthedefinitioncategorydealingwith‘thesumofattitudes’(thethirddefinitioncategoryinChapter2ofthisbook).Usefulnessandsatisfactionmeasurementsmaybeassociatedalsowiththeacceptancedefinitiondealingwith‘needsandrequirements’(theseconddefinitioncategoryinChapter2ofthisbook).

WillingnesstoUse–ortoSubmittoSomethingThedefinitionofacceptanceasthe‘willingnesstouse’asystemimpliesthestraightforwardassessmentofwillingnesstouseandsomestudiesapplythiswayofmeasuringacceptance;see,forexample,Cherri,NodariandToffetti(2004)andChalmers(2001).However,quiteafewstudiesmeasurewillingnesstopay,eitherbyposinganopen-endedquestionoraclosedonewithdifferentpriceintervals;forexample,AdellandVárhelyi(2008),Najmetal.(2006),Piaoetal.(2005),Comte,WardmanandWhelan(2000)andCarstenandFowkes(1998).Further,willingnesstobuy,accept,have,keepandinstallasystem,aswellasthewishtoshutdownasystem,havebeenproposedasindicatorstoassessacceptance;see,forexample,AdellandVárhelyi(2008),VanDriel(2007),Broekxetal.(2006),Marchauetal.(2005)andNilssonandNåbo

(1996).Thewillingnesstopayfordifferentdriverassistancesystems,bothfor

installingandforinitialpurchasewhenbuyinganewcar,wasinvestigatedintheADVISORSprojectbylettingthetestparticipantschoosebetweengivenpriceintervals.TheresultsshowedthatthetestdriverswerewillingtopayamoderatepricefortheACCandtheLSS(LateralSupportSystem),alowpricefortheDMS(Driver/DrowsinessMonitoringSystem)andthataboutone-thirdofthedriversdidnotwanttopayanythingatallfortheurbanACCwithS&G(AdaptedCruiseControlwithStop&Go)(Nilssonetal.2003).

ActualUseThelastapproachtodefiningacceptance(mentionedinChapters1and2ofthisbook)isbyreferencetoactualuseofthesystem.Measurementsofvoluntaryuseofthesystem,frequencyofsystemuseandactsofshuttingdownthesystemareexamplesofthis.Thesemeasuresaremostfrequentlyderivedfromquestionsandratingscalesbutaresometimesderivedalsobyobservingorrecordingdrivers’drivingbehaviour.Drivers’statementson,forexample,howoftentheyoverridethesystemmaybeseenasanindirectmeasureofsystemuse;itdependsonwhetheroneseesoverridingthesystemasnotusingthesystemorasutilisingacertainfeatureofthesystem.ExamplesofstudiesthathaveusedthiswayofmeasuringacceptanceareVlassenrootetal.(2007),Broekxetal.(2006),Ervinetal.(2005),PhilippsandSchmitz(2001),NilssonandNåbo(1996)andKuikenandGroeger(1993).

Apartfromthemethodsofmeasurementsthatbuildonadefinitionorjusthappentobeinlinewithsomeoneelse’sdefinition,therearealsoanumberofacceptancemeasurementmethodsthatdonothavesupportinanydefinition.

GeneralSystemAssessmentSomeresearchersuseageneralapproachtomeasureacceptance.Examplesofthiswayofmeasuringarejudgementsoftheconcept/ideaofasystemgenerally,oftheperceivedpopularityofthesystem,whetherthedriverisinfavourofthesystemandwhethertheuserwouldrecommendtolovedonesthattheyusethesystemorappreciateitiftheydid;see,forexample,AdellandVárhelyi(2008),Najmetal.(2006),Piaoetal.(2005),Chalmers(2001),MarellandWestin(1998),Várhelyietal.(1998).Suchgeneralstatementsdonotrelateclearlytoanyacceptancedefinitionfoundintheliterature(seeChapter2inthisbook).However,themeasurementsindicate,tosomedegree,theattitudetowardsthesystem(‘sumofattitudes’)andtheusefulnessofthesystem(‘satisfyingneeds

andrequirements’).

ImportanceoftheSystemTheimportanceofasystemisseenbysomeresearchersasreflectingacceptance.Theimportanceofthesystemismeasured,forexample,byrankingitcomparedtoothersystems(ormeasurements)orbyjudgingitsnecessity.Measuresofwhetheranimplementationofthesysteminquestionissupportedarealsoincludedinthismeasurementcategory;see,forexample,MolinandBrookhuis(2007),Cherrietal.(2004),Matsuzawa,KanekoandKajiya(2001).Theimportanceofasystemdoesnotclearlyrelatetoanyoftheacceptancedefinitions.However,alsoforthismeasurementcategory,themeasuresmay,tosomedegree,mirrortheattitudetowardsthesystem(‘sumofattitude’)andtheusefulnessofthesystem(‘satisfyingneedsandrequirements’).

ReliabilityoftheSystemSystemreliabilityintermsofdrivers’leveloftrustinthesystemorthecredibilityofthesystemhasbeenusedtomeasureacceptanceinafewstudies;see,forexample,Stanley(2006)andPhilippsandSchmitz(2001).Again,thereliabilityofasystemdoesnotclearlyrelatetoanyacceptancedefinitionbutmaybeassociatedwiththe‘sumofattitudes’and‘satisfyingneedsandrequirements’.

HMIAssessmentsTheHMI(Human–MachineInteraction)ofanewdriverassistancesystemisthesystem’s‘face’towardthedriver;hence,itisimportantfortheintendeduseofit.Thus,insomestudies,acceptanceismeasuredbyassessingtheHMIofthesystem.ThemeasuresusedcovermainlydriverexperiencesofvariousHMIdesignissueslikethetimingofpresentedinformationandinterventions,theintensityoffeedbackgivenbythesystem,ifthereasonsforpresentedalertsareunderstood,ifinformationandinterventionsarestartlingandsoon;see,forexample,Najmetal.(2006),Stanley(2006)andCollinsetal.(1999),NilssonandNåbo(1996)andNilsson,AlmandJanssen(1992).

SummaryThemanydifferentwaysofmeasuringacceptancemaycauseconfusionandthereforeleadtoincorrectconclusionsandinterpretations.OneillustrationofthisproblemwasfoundintheEuropeanPROSPERprojectwheretwoIntelligentSpeedAdaptation(ISA)systems–BEEP(auditorywarningwhenexceedingthespeedlimit)andAAP(‘activeacceleratorpedal,’withupwardpressurewhen

exceedingthespeedlimit)–wereevaluatedinfieldtrialsinHungaryandSpain(Adelletal.2008).MostofthedrivershadapositiveattitudetotheconceptofthetestedISAsystems(generalsystemassessment).Bothsystemswereconsidered‘good’,‘effective’,‘useful’,‘assisting’and‘raisingalertness’,allofwhichareitemsrelatingto‘usefulness’intheVanderLaanscale(VanderLaanetal.1997).TheBEEPsystemwasconsidered‘annoying’and‘irritating’(both‘satisfaction’itemsintheVanderLaanscale),butalso‘raisingalertness’morethantheAAP(sumofattitudes).Inspiteofthis,thedriversweremorepositiveabouthavingtheBEEPsystemintheirowncarsascomparedtotheAAP.Whenchoosingbetweenthesystems,moredriversselectedtheBEEPovertheAAPandmoredriverswantedtokeeptheBEEPsystemthantheAAP(willingnesstohave).However,driverswillingtopaytokeepthesystemweregenerallywillingtopay40percent(Hungary)and75percent(Spain)morefortheAAPthanfortheBEEP(willingnesstopay).Thisclearlyillustratesthegreatinfluencethechoiceofmeasurementmighthave.TwoofthesatisfactionitemsintheVanderLaanscale(VanderLaanetal.1997)wereratednegativelyfortheBEEP,whichwouldimplyahigheracceptanceoftheAAP.Nonetheless,thedrivers’willingnesstohavethesystemintheircarsandthechoicebetweenthesystemsshowahigheracceptanceoftheBEEPsystem.

Oneinterpretationofthedifferentresultsisthatthemeasurementsuseddonotmeasurethesamekindofacceptance.Theconceptofthesystemandtheusefulness/satisfactionscalerelatetothe‘sumofallattitudes’,whilethewillingnesstokeeprelatestothe‘willingnesstouse’.However,evenifmoremeasurementsassessingthesamekindofacceptancewereused,therewouldbenoguaranteethattheresultswouldconcur,sincevalidationsofthemeasurementsusedarevirtuallynon-existent.Mostresearchersdefineacceptanceimplicitlybythemeasurementtoolstheyusetoassessit,makingvalidationimpossible.

Thepresentsituationistroublesome.Ifacceptancehasnotbeendefined,thenwecannotbesurethatthetoolweusetomeasureitwillgivevalidresults.Theinconsistencyofacceptancedefinitions(implicitlydefinedornot)andofmeasurements,andtherebythediversityofresultseventhoughcollectedinthesameexperiment,presentsabreedinggroundformisinterpretationsandmisuseoftheresults.Whatismore,itmakescomparisonsbetweensystems,studiesandsettingsalmostimpossible.

Figure6.1Thethreepillarsoftheacceptanceconcept

FrameworkforMeasuringAcceptance

Itisarguedhere(andalsoinChapters2and3ofthisbook)thatacceptancemeasurementisoneofthethreecloselyrelatedpillarsoftheacceptanceconcept(Figure6.1).Itrestsonadefinitionofacceptanceandhasitstheoreticalfoundationinanacceptancemodelwithitsconstitutingitemsandconstructsaswellasrelationshipsbetweentheseconstructs.Measuringacceptancerequireswell-definedmeasurementmethodsandtoolsbasedonknowledgeofwhatacceptanceis(definition)aswellasitsdelimitationintermsofthecontextorfieldofapplicationoftheacceptancemeasurement(e.g.,transportsystem,driverassistancesystem).Boththeacceptancedefinitionandtheacceptancemodelarenecessaryforenablingestablishmentofavalidandreliablemethodforacceptancemeasurement.

Onestarting-pointformeasuringacceptancehasbeenusabilityengineering,whichisthefoundationforNielsen’s(1993)frameworkofacceptability,wherethefocusis‘Cananindividualusethesystem?’AccordingtoNielsen(1993),thegeneralacceptabilityofaninteractivesystemdependsonwhetherthesystemcansatisfytheneedsandexpectationsofitsusers.TherelationshipsbetweentheconceptsincludedinNielsen’sframework(1993)aredescribedas‘Systemacceptability’branchedoutto‘Practicalacceptability’(intermsofcost,compatibility,reliabilityetc.)andthento‘Usefulness’and‘Usability’(intermsofeasetolearn,efficiencytouse,easetoremember,fewerrors,subjectively

pleasing).Thus,severalofthefeaturesbeingcomponentsinthisframeworkappearasacceptancemeasuresinvariousstudiesevaluatingdriverassistancesystems.

Anotherpointofdepartureformeasuringacceptanceissystemadoptionpatterns,modelled,forexample,byRogers(1995).Thefocushereis‘Whowillusethesystem?’Theprocessofdifferentusergroupssuccessivelyadoptinganewtechnology/driverassistancesystemisdescribedfromthefirstusers(innovators),overearlyadopters,earlymajority,latemajorityandfinallyincorporatingthelaggards,untila‘saturated’levelofusageisreached.Fromthisframework,acceptancemeasuresreflectingactualuseandwillingnesstousecanbeidentified.

Attemptshavealsobeenmadetomorestrictlyseparateacceptancefromacceptabilityandsystemuptake(euroFOT2012)forenablingbetterguidanceonhowtomeasureacceptance.Ithasbeensuggestedthatacceptanceshouldmean‘howmuchasystemis/wouldbeused’,inlinewiththedefinitionproposedbyAdell(2009),whileacceptabilityshouldmean‘howmuchasystemisliked’anduptakeshouldmean‘howlikelyitisthatsomeonewouldbuyasystem’(Jamson2010).

Conclusions

Inthischapterwehavedescribedvariouswaysofmeasuringacceptance.Howtomeasureacceptanceinavalidwaydependsonhowacceptanceisdefined.Itisnotsurprising,therefore,thattheweakcommongroundregardinganacceptancedefinitionhasresultedinalargenumberofdifferentattemptstomeasureacceptance.Thelargedifferencesinthemeasuresusedindicatequitealargediscrepancyintheunderstandingofacceptance,aswellasinwhatarebelievedtobeimportantandvalidindicatorsofacceptance.

Themanydifferentwaysofmeasuringacceptancemaycauseconfusionandleadtoincorrectconclusionsorinterpretations.ThisisclearlyillustratedinthePROSPERproject(Adelletal.2008),whereseveralmeasurementsofacceptanceofadriverassistancesystemwereused,inparallel,withdifferentresults.

Todaythefieldofacceptancemeasurementissurprisinglyimmature.Nomethodsandtoolsthatarewidelyagreedandacceptedbythescientificcommunityexist.TheVanderLaanscale(VanderLaanetal.1997)istheonlyinstrumentforobtainingknowledgeanddataondrivers’acceptanceofassistancesystemsthatwasdevelopedfromscientificworkandalsovalidatedto

acertainextent.Theavailabilityofthisscaleandthescientificpresentation/publicationofithasmadeitfrequentlyused,butitcouldstillbediscussedwhetherthefinalusefulnessandsatisfactionscorestrulyreflectacceptance.TheacceptancequestionnaireusedforacceptancemeasurementintheeuroFOTprojectwasdevelopedandusedbyseveralEuropeanresearchteamstogetherandhasthereforebeenrelativelywidespread.Themeasurementapproachdistinguishesbetweenliking,usingandadoptingasystem.Otherinstrumentsappliedaremoreadhocanddesignedmorepersonallyandforaspecificstudy.Morejointscientificactivitiesareneededtodevelopreliableandvalidatedmethodsandtoolsforthemeasurementofacceptance.Tobemoresuccessfulinthiswork,acoupleofissues,inparticular,havetobesolved.Oneistocometoanagreementaboutwhethermanifestationinuseofasystem(willingnessand/oractual)shouldberequiredforacceptancetooccurandthusbethefocusformeasurement.Anotherissueistomoreconcretelydefinethedifferencebetweenacceptabilityandacceptance,andalsoseparateacceptanceclearlyfromusability.Manyofthetoolsappliedtomeasureacceptanceintermsofvariousvariables/dimensionsprobablyworkwell.Theproblemiswhetherthesevariablesreflectacceptance.

Withourcurrentstateofknowledge,itisnotpresentlypossibletogiveanyconcreteadviceonhowtomeasureacceptance,sincethereisnouniversallyaccepteddefinitionoftheterm.However,thereissomeguidancethatcouldbeuseddependingonthepurposeoftheassessment:

1.Ifthemaingoalistoinvestigatetheacceptanceofadriverassistancesystem,makesurethatyoudefinewhatyoumeanbyacceptanceandsticktothatdefinitionwhenchoosing/constructingthemeasurementtool;

2.Ifthemaingoalistocompareyoursystemtoanother,alreadyinvestigatedsystem,usethesamemethodtoassessacceptance;

3.Insteadofdevelopingnewtools,useandadapttoolsthatarealreadyfrequentlyused(e.g.theVanderLaanetal.1997scale);and

4.Ifpossible,usemorethanonewayofmeasuringacceptance.

Itisdesirabletoinvestinfundamentalresearchintheareaofacceptancetohelpbuildacommondefinition,modelandmeasurementtool.Thiswouldfacilitateandimprovethequalityofappliedresearchanddevelopmentofnewtechnologies–andthisisoffundamentalimportance.

Meanwhilehowever,allstudiesofacceptancecancontributetothefurtheringofknowledgeintheareabyclearlydefiningwhattheymeanby‘acceptance’andbyconsequentlyusingthatdefinitionwhenmeasuringthe

‘acceptance’andbyconsequentlyusingthatdefinitionwhenmeasuringtheconcept.Inthiswaywewillstartshapingmoredetailedknowledgeofwhatacceptanceisandhowtomeasureit.

Acknowledgements

Thischapterdrawsonthedissertation‘Driverexperienceandacceptanceofdriverassistancesystems–Acaseofspeedadaptation’(Adell2009)aswellasanumberofmethodologicaleffortswithintheEuropeanresearchframeworkprograms.

References

Adell,E.2009.Driverexperienceandacceptanceofdriversupportsystems–Acaseofspeedsupport.Bulletin251.PhDthesis,LundUniversity,Sweden.

Adell,E.andVárhelyi,A.2008.Drivercomprehensionandacceptanceoftheactiveacceleratorpedalafterlong-termuse.TransportationResearchPartF,11(1):37–51.

Adell,E.,Várhelyi,A.andHjälmdahl,M.2008.Auditoryandhapticsystemsforin-carspeedmanagement–Acomparativereallifestudy.TransportationResearchPartF,11(6):445–58.

Broekx,S.,Vlassenroot,S.,deMol,J.,andIntPanis,L.2006.TheEuropeanPROSPER-project:FinalresultsofthetrialonIntelligentSpeedAdaptation(ISA)inBelgium.Proceedingsofthe13thWorldCongressandExhibitiononIntelligentTransportSystems,London.

Brook-Carter,N.,Parkes,A.,Ernst,A.C.,Jaspers,I.,Nilsson,L.,Brookhuis,K.,deWaard,D.,Damiani,S.,Tango,F.,Boverie,S.,Danglemaier,M.,Knoche,A.,Yannis,G.andGolias,J.2001.Developmentofmultiparametercriteriaandacommonimpactassessmentmethodology.DeliverableD4.1,EUprojectADVISORS(AdvancedDriverAssistanceSystems),EuropeanCommission.TRL,TransportResearchLaboratory,Crowthorne,England.

Brooke,J.1996.SUS–Aquickanddirtyusabilityscale.InUsabilityEvaluationinIndustry,189–94.EditedbyJordan,P.W.etal.London:TaylorandFrancis.

Brookhuis,K.A.1993.Geïntegreerdeinformatiesystemenentaakbelasting(Integratedinformationsystemsandworkload).TrafficResearchCentre,UniversityofGroningen:Haren.VK-93–10.

Brookhuis,K.A.,Uneken,E.andNilsson,L.2001.ADVISORSCommon

Measures.InternalDeliverableRUGID5_1_1,ADVISORSproject,ECProgrammeCompetitiveandSustainableGrowth.

Carsten,O.M.J.andFowkes,M.1998.Externalvehiclespeedcontrol,PhaseIresults,Executivesummary.InstituteforTransportationStudies,UniversityofLeeds,UK.

Carsten,O.M.J.,Merat,N.,Janssen,W.H.,Johansson,E.,Fowkes,M.andBrookhuis,K.A.2005.HASTEfinalreport.EUprojectHASTE(HumanmachineinteractionAndtheSafetyofTrafficinEurope),EuropeanCommission.

Chalmers,I.J.2001.Userattitudestoautomatedhighwaysystems.AdvancedDriverAssistanceSystemsInternationalConference(IEEConf.Publ.No.483),6–10.

Cherri,C.,Nodari,E.andToffetti,A.2004.ReviewofexistingToolsandMethods.D2.1.1AIDE,InformationSocietyTechnologies(IST)Programme.

Collins,D.J.,Biever,W.J.,Dingus,T.A.andNeale,V.L.1999.DevelopmentofhumanfactorsguidelinesforAdvancedTravelerInformationSystems(STIS)andCommercialVehicleOperations(CVO):AnexaminationofdriverperformanceunderreducedvisibilityconditionswhenusinganIn-VehicleSigningandInformationSystem(ISIS).VirginiaPolytechnicInstituteandStateUniversity,CentreforTransportationResearch,Blacksburg,USA;FederalHighwayAdministration,ReportNumber:FHWA-RD-99–130.

Comte,S.,Wardman,M.andWhelan,G.2000.Drivers’acceptanceofautomaticspeedlimiters:Implicationsforpolicyandimplementation.TransportPolicy,7:259–67.

Duivenvoorden,K.2008.Roadsideversusin-carspeedsupportforagreenwave:Adrivingsimulatorstudy.Master’sthesis,TNODefence,SecurityandSafety,Soesterberg,theNetherlands.

Ervin,R.,Sayer,J.,LeBlanc,D.,Bogard,S.,Mefford,M.,Hagan,M.,Bareket,Z.andWinkler,C.2005.Automotivecollisionavoidancesystemfieldoperationaltestreport:Methodologyandresults.UniversityofMichiganTransportationResearchInstitute,GeneralMotorsCorporation,ResearchandDevelopmentCentre,USDepartmentofTransportation,NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration,DOTHS809900.

euroFOT.2012.Finalresults:Useracceptanceanduser-relatedaspectsDeliverable6.3.

FESTAConsortium.2008.FESTAHandbook,version2.Deliverable6.4,EUprojectFESTA(FieldopErationalteStsupportAction),EuropeanCommission.

FOT-NETconsortium.2011.FESTAHandbook,version4.EUprojectFOT-

FOT-NETconsortium.2011.FESTAHandbook,version4.EUprojectFOT-NET(FieldOperationalTestsNetworkingandMethodologyPromotion),EuropeanCommission,DGInformationSocietyandMedia,SeventhFrameworkProgramme.

GMandDelphi-DelcoElectronicSystems.2002.Automotivecollisionavoidancesystemfieldoperationaltest:Warningcueimplementation,summaryreport.USDepartmentofTransportation,NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration,DOTHS809462.

Jamson,S.2010.Acceptabilitydata–Whatshouldorcoulditpredict?Internationalseminaronacceptance,Paris,25November.

Kircher,K.,Gelau,C.,Vierkötter,M.,Rakic,M.,Bärgman,J.,Kotiranta,R.,Victor,T.,Regan,M.,Saad,F.,Engel,R.,Page,Y.,Rognin,L.,Brouwer,R.,Feenstra,P.,Hogema,J.,Malone,K.,Minett,C.,Schrijver,J.,Barnard,Y.,Jamson,H.,Jamson,S.,Hammarström,U.,Hjälmdahl,M.,Kircher,A.,Tapani,A.,Luoma,J.,Peltola,H.andRämä,P.2008.Comprehensiveframeworkofperformanceindicatorsandtheirinteraction.Deliverable2.1,EUprojectFESTA(FieldopErationalteStsupporTAction),EuropeanCommission.

Kuiken,M.andGroeger,J.1993.Effectsoffeedbackondrivingperformanceatcrossroadsandoncurves.TrafficResearchCentre,UniversityofGroningen,theNetherlands.

Marchau,V.,vanderHeijden,R.andMolin,E.2005.Desirabilityofadvanceddriverassistancefromroadsafetyperspective:ThecaseofISA.SafetyScience,43(1):11–27.

Marell,A.andWestin.K.1998.Bilistersinställningtilldynamiskhastighetsanpassning–ettförsökmedhastighesvarnareiUmeå.TRUM-report1998:01,UmeåUniversity,Sweden(inSwedish).

Matsuzawa,M.,Kaneko,M.andKajiya,Y.2001.Useracceptabilityofthesafe-drivingsupportsystemforwinterroads.Proceedingsofthe8thWorldCongressonIntelligentTransportSystems,Sydney,Australia.

Menzel,C.2004.BasicconditionsfortheimplementationofspeedadaptationtechnologiesinGermany.PhDthesis,TechnischeUniversitätKaiserslautern,Germany.

Molin,E.andBrookhuis,K.2007.Modellingacceptabilityoftheintelligentspeedadapter.TransportationResearchPartF,10(2):99–108.

Najm,W.G.,Stearns,M.D.,Howarth,H.,Koopmann,J.andHitz,J.2006.Evaluationofanautomotiverear-endcollisionavoidancesystem(Chapter5).USDepartmentofTransportation,NationalHighwayTrafficSafety

Administration,DOTHS810569,ResearchandInnovativeTechnologyAdministration,VolpeNationalTransportationSystemsCentre,Cambridge,MA,USA.

Nielsen,J.1993.UsabilityEngineering.SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress.Nilsson,L.,Alm,H.andJanssen,W.1992.CollisionAvoidanceSystems–

Effectsofdifferentlevelsoftaskallocationondriverbehaviour.ReprintfromDRIVEProjectV1041(GIDS),September1991,VTIReprintNo.182,VTI(TheSwedishNationalRoadandTransportResearchInstitute),Sweden.

Nilsson,L.andNåbo,A.1996.Evaluationofapplication3:Intelligentcruisecontrolsimulatorexperiment,effectsondifferentlevelsofautomationondriverbehaviour,workloadandattitudes.ReprintofChapter5inEvaluationofResults,DeliverableNo.10,DRIVEIIProjectV2006(EMMIS).

Nilsson,L.,Törnros,J.,Parkes,A.,Brook-Carter,N.,Dangelmaier,M.,Brookhuis,K.,Roskam,A-J.,DeWaard,D.,Bauer,A.,Gelau,C.,Tango,F.,Damiani,S.,Jaspers,I.,Ernst,A.andWiethoff,M.2003.Anintegratedmethodologyandpilotevaluationresults.DeliverableD4/5.2partIII,EUprojectADVISORS(AdvancedDriverAssistanceSystems),EuropeanCommission.VTI,SwedishNationalRoadandTransportResearchInstitute,Linköping,Sweden.

Parker,D.,McDonald,L.,Rabbitt,P.andSutcliffe,P.2003.Olderdriversandroadsafety:Theacceptabilityofarangeofinterventionmeasures.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,35(5):805–10.

Philipps,P.andSchmitz,P.2001.Frominformation/serviceplatformstoservicesinthetransportandtourismsector–TheEuropeancapitalsapproach.Proceedingsofthe8thWorldCongressonIntelligentTransportSystems,Sydney,Australia.

Piao,J.,McDonald,M.,Henry,A.,Vaa,T.andTveit,O.2005.Anassessmentofuseracceptanceofintelligentspeedadaptationsystems.ProceedingoftheIEEEconferenceonIntelligentTransportationSystems,Vienna,Austria:1045–9.

Rogers,E.1995.DiffusionofInnovations.NewYork:FreePress.Stanley,L.M.2006.Hapticandauditoryinterfacesasacollisionavoidance

techniqueduringroadwaydeparturesanddriverperceptionofthesemodalities.PhDthesis,publicationnumber3207055,MontanaStateUniversity,US.

Stradling,S.,Meadows,M.andBeatty,S.2004.Attitudestotelemetricdrivingconstraints.InTrafficandTransportPsychology,TheoryandApplication,ProceedingsoftheICTTP,333–8.EditedbyRothengatter,T.andHuguenin,

R.D.London:Elsevier.SWOV.2003.Actionforadvanceddriverassistanceandvehiclecontrolsystems

implementation,standardization,optimumuseoftheroadnetworkandsafety.EUprojectADVISORS(EuropeanCommunity,GRD1200010047).Finalpublishablereport.SWOVInstituteforRoadSafetyResearch,Leidschendam,theNetherlands.

Törnros,T.,Nilsson,L.,Östlund,J.andKircher,A.2002.EffectsofACCondriverbehaviour,workloadandacceptanceinrelationtominimumtimeheadway.NinthWorldCongressonIntelligentTransportSystems,Chicago,14–17October.

Turrentine,T.,Sperling,D.andHungerford,D.1991.Consumeracceptanceofadaptivecruisecontrolandcollisionavoidancesystems.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,1318:118–21.

VanderLaan,J.D.,Heino,A.andDeWaard,D.1997.Asimpleprocedurefortheassessmentofacceptanceofadvancedtransporttelemetics.TransportationResearchPartC,5(1):1–10.

VanDriel,C.2007.Driversupportincongestion–Anassessmentofuserneedsandimpactsondriverandtrafficflow.PhDthesis,TRAILThesisSeries,T2007/10.Netherlands:TRAILResearchSchool.

VanWinsum,W.,Martens,M.andHerland,L.1999.Theeffectsofspeechversustactiledriversupportmessagesonworkload,driverbehaviouranduseracceptance.TM-99-C043,TNOHumanFactors,theNetherlands.

Várhelyi,A.,Comte,S.andMäkinen,T.1998.Evaluationofin-carspeedlimiters:Finalreport.DeliverableD11,MASTER-project.

Vlassenroot,S.,Broekx,S.,deMol,J.,IntPanis,L.,Brijs,T.andWets,G.2007.Drivingwithintelligentspeedadaptation:FinalresultsoftheBelgianISA-trial.TransportationResearchPartA,41(3):267–79.

Young,K.L.,Regan,M.A.,Triggs,T.J.,Tomasevic,N.,Stephan,K.andMitsopoulos,E.2007.Impactoncardrivingperformanceofafollowingdistancewarningsystem:FindingsfromtheAustralianTransportAccidentCommissionSafeCarProject.JournalofIntelligentTransportationSystems,Technology,PlanningandOperations,11(3):121–31.

Chapter7MeasuringAcceptabilitythroughQuestionnairesand

FocusGroupsEveMitsopoulos-Rubens

MonashUniversityAccidentResearchCentre,MonashUniversity,Australia

MichaelA.ReganTransportandRoadSafetyResearch,UniversityofNewSouthWales,Australia

Abstract

Thischapterexploreshowfocusgroupsandquestionnairescanbeusedtomeasureacceptabilityofnewvehicletechnologies.Itisintendedtoserveasapracticalguidetoassistresearchersandsystemdevelopersinchoosingthemostappropriatemethodforassessingacceptabilitygiventheirneedsandexpertise.Wearguethattheevaluationaims,theprecisestageofsystemdevelopmentanddefinitionofacceptabilitybeingadoptedareatthecoreofthischoice.Guidanceineachofthesethreeareasisoffered,asismorespecificguidanceonfocusgroupdesignandconduct,andquestionnairedesignandadministration.Casestudiesarealsopresentedtoexemplifytheimplementationofeachapproachinthemeasurementofacceptability.

Introduction

Asseeninotherchaptersofthisbook,theextenttowhichusersfindasystem‘acceptable’playsanimportantroleintheultimateeffectivenessofthatsystem.Thus,theabilitytomeasuretheacceptabilityofasystematcriticalpointsduringthesystem’sdevelopmentisparamount.

Thischapterexploreshowfocusgroupsandquestionnairescanbeusedtomeasuredriveracceptabilityofnewvehicletechnologies.Guidanceisofferedonwhichmethodmightbethemoreappropriatetousegiventhecircumstances.Whilethetendencyinthischapteristofocusonacceptabilitypriortoasystem’simplementation,wecontendthattheissuesraisedandguidanceofferedhereare

alsoapplicabletotheevaluationofasystem’sacceptancepostitsimplementation.Further,whileweconcentrateonfocusgroupsandquestionnaires,itisimportanttonotethatthereareothermethodsavailableformeasuringacceptability.Theseincludeone-on-oneinterviewsanddirectobservationsofsystemuse.Thecurrentemphasisismotivated,atleastpartly,bythepopularityoffocusgroupsandquestionnairesinacceptabilityevaluations.

DefiningAcceptabilityinanOperationalSense

Havinganoperationaldefinitionofacceptabilitytoguidetheevaluationisparamount.Asseenelsewhereinthisbook,theterm‘acceptability’isgenerallyusedtorefertowhatisquiteanabstractconstructandwhosemeaningislikelytodifferfromonepersontothenext,andfromonepointintimetoanotherasone’sexperiencewithanewtechnologyincreases.Forexample,issuesrelatingtointerfacelookandfeelmayfigureprominentlyinone’sassessmentofacceptabilitywhenauserfirststartstointeractwithagiventechnologybutlesssolaterononcetheuserhashadthechancetoadaptorcompensateforanydeficienciesinthesystem’slookandfeel.Atthispoint,‘deeper’issuessuchaswhetherornotthesystemisactuallymeetinganeedand/orworkingreliably,willbeassignedahigherweightinginauser’soverallassessmentofanewsystem’sacceptability(Chau1996,Neilsen1993).

Whileanumberofformaldefinitionsofacceptabilityexist,commontomostisthatacceptabilityconstitutesamultidimensionalconstruct.Examplesofcommondimensionsincludeusefulness,satisfactionandeaseofuse(e.g.,Davis1989,Reganetal.2006,VanderLaan,HeinoandDeWaard1997,Vlassenrootetal.2010).Thesedimensionstoo,shouldbeoperationallydefined.Havingattheoutsetclear,unambiguous,operationaldefinitionsofexactlywhatitisthatoneistryingtoassesswillensurethatthedesignofthedatacollectiontoolanditscompositionremainfocusedandthatthetoolincludesonlythosequestionsthatareconsideredcentraltotheassessmentoftheacceptabilityoftheparticularsystemunderstudy.Itwillalsohelptoensurethatquestionsareunambiguousanddonotrequireanyguessworktoanswer;andthatresponses,oncecollated,canbeanalysedandinterpreteddirectly.

WhatAreQuestionnaires?Inbroadterms,aquestionnaireisadatacollectionmethodthatcomprisesaseriesofquestionspresentedinawrittenformat,whichcouldbeonpaperorcomputer-based,includingonline.Questionnairesprovideasystematicmeansthroughwhichtocollectinformationaboutindividuals’knowledge,beliefs,attitudesandbehaviour(BoyntonandGreenhalgh2004).

attitudesandbehaviour(BoyntonandGreenhalgh2004).Questionnairesareconducivetothecollectionofbothquantitativeand

qualitativeinformation;althoughadistinctadvantageofquestionnairesoverothersubjectiveassessmentmethodsisintheprovisionofnumericaldatawhichcanbeanalysedusingquantitativetechniqueswhereappropriate.Questionnairesareintendedforcompletionbyindividualrespondents,althoughadministrationofaquestionnairetoindividualrespondentssimultaneously(i.e.,inagroupsetting)maysometimesbeappropriateandmorecost-efficient.

WhatAreFocusGroups?

AssuccinctlydefinedbyStewartandShamdasani(1998:505),‘afocusgroupinvolvesagroupdiscussionofatopicthatisthe“focus”oftheconversation’.Inessence,focusgroupsinvolveseveralindividualsbroughttogethertodiscussaparticulartopicundertheguidanceofaskilledmoderator.

Focusgroupsarebestsuitedtothecollectionofqualitativedata.Thatis,thedatacollectedaregenerallynotsuitedtofurtherscrutinyusingquantitativetechniquesforcollationandanalysis.Inpart,thisisbecausefocusgroupsamplesarenotarepresentativesampleofthepopulationandtendtobequitesmall(MorganandKrueger1993).Therealvalueoffocusgroupsisintheirabilitytogenerateindepthinformationonthetopicofinterest–informationwhichmaybeenrichedthroughthegroupdynamic.Focusgroupsshouldnotbeusedifthegoaloftheinvestigationistoresolveconflicts,buildconsensusortochangeattitudesbutareappropriateifthegoal,ingeneral,istobringoutthevariouspoints-of-viewoftheindividualstakingpart.

ShouldQuestionnairesorFocusGroupsBeUsed?

Basedonourexperience,webelievethattherearethreeoverarching,non-independentissuesthatonemustconsiderwhendecidingwhethertousequestionnairesorfocusgroupstoexploretheacceptabilityofanewtechnology:(1)whataretheevaluationquestions,(2)whatisthestageofsystemdevelopment,and(3)whichaspectsofacceptabilityaretobeexplored?

WhatAretheEvaluationQuestions?

Theprimaryissuetoconsiderwhencontemplatingtheuseofquestionnairesor

focusgroupsistoask,whataretheevaluationquestions?Thatis,whataretheaimsofthedatacollectionexercise?Inthecaseoftechnologyacceptability,theoverarchingaimwillbeinvariablytogaugetheacceptabilityofasystem.However,morespecificaimsmustalsobedefined.

Specificaimscouldincludetheidentificationofparticularbarrierstoacceptability,asopposed,orinaddition,totheprovisionofamoreglobalestimateofacceptability,whichmaybeusedforcomparisonand/orbenchmarkingpurposes.Forexample,questionnaireswouldbemoreappropriatewhenagoaloftheevaluationistoobtainaglobalmeasureornumericalestimateofacceptabilityforcomparisonovertime.Acceptabilityisgenerallyconsideredtobeadynamicconstruct(e.g.,Várhelyi2002).Assuch,theabilitytocapturechangesinusers’acceptabilityofanewtechnologyasafunctionoftheirincreasingexposureto,experiencewith,andproficiencyinusing,thenewtechnology,maybeaworthwhilegoaloftheresearch.

Whilebothfocusgroupsandquestionnaireslendthemselvestothecollectionofinformationonbarrierstoacceptability,focusgroups,beingqualitativeinnature,maybemoreappropriatewhentheidentificationofbarriersand,inparticular,brainstorminganddiscussingpotentialwaystoovercomeoraddressthesebarriers,isthemaingoal.

WhatistheStageofSystemDevelopment?

Indecidingwhetherquestionnairesorfocusgroupsaremoreappropriate,theevaluationaimsmustbeconsideredinthecontextofthestageofsystemdevelopment.Theuseofquestionnairesforgaugingacceptabilitymaybemoreappropriatewhenthereisapartialorfullyfunctionalprototypeofthenewtechnologywithwhichuserscaninteractdirectly.Incontrast,focusgroupsmaybebettersuitedtogaugingtheacceptabilityofsystemsthatareearlierinthedesignprocess–forexample,attheconceptstage,wherethesystemmayexistsimplyasanideaorasanearly,two-dimensionalorlowfidelity,prototype.

WhichAspectsofAcceptabilityAreYouInterestedinMeasuring?

Someaspectsofacceptabilitymaybebettersuitedtoexaminationthrougheitherquestionnairesorfocusgroups.Forexample,moreconcrete,specificissuesregardinginterfaceusabilitymaybeadequatelyaddressedthroughaquestionnaire,whichisadministeredoncetheparticipanthashadtheopportunitytoexperiencethesystem.Ontheotherhand,moreconceptuallyabstractareassuchasperceivedeffectivenessandusefulnessmaybebetterservedthrough

suchasperceivedeffectivenessandusefulnessmaybebetterservedthroughfocusgroups,asthecontextprovidesparticipantswithgreateropportunitytojustifyandexpandupontheirviews.

TheApproachHasBeenDecided.WhatNext?

Onceithasbeendecidedwhichapproachwouldbemostappropriateformeasuringacceptability,attentioncanturntomakingdecisionsregardingthecompositionoftheparticipantsampleandthedesignofthedatacollectioninstrumentitself.Specificguidanceineachoftheseareasisgivenbelowforfocusgroupsandquestionnaires.Acasestudyispresentedtoexemplifytheuseofeachapproach.Itisbeyondthescopeofthischaptertoprovidespecificguidanceontheanalysis,interpretationandreportingofquestionnairesandfocusgroups.Forguidanceintheseareas,refertoBoynton(2004)forquestionnairesandMorgan(1997)forfocusgroups.

FocusGroupDesignandConduct

ParticipantsandGroupComposition

Akeytothesuccessoffocusgroupsisthecompositionofthegroups,thenumberofparticipantsineachgroupandthenumberofgroups.Itisgenerallyrecommendedthateachfocusgroupinvolve6to10participants.Iftherearetoofewparticipants,thereistheriskthatthediscussionwillstagnateandthattoofewperspectiveswillbecanvassed.Iftherearetoomanyparticipants,thereisthepotentialforparticipantstobreakoffintosmallergroupsthatcandisrupttheflowofthecoregroup,andmakeitdifficulttogetbackoncourse.

Atthecentreoftheissueofgroupcompositionisanacknowledgementbytheinvestigatorsthatthequalityofthediscussionisdependentonboththeindividualswhomakeupthegroupandthedynamicsofthegroupasawhole(Morgan1997).Individualswhoareunwillingtoexpresstheirviewsinagroupsettingareperhapsnotappropriateasfocusgroupparticipants.Inasimilarvein,conductinggroupscomposedofindividualswho,giventheresearchtopic,arenothomogenousmaymakesomeindividualslesslikelytovoicetheirviews.Attemptingtorunagroupcomposedofyoungnovicedriversandolder/middle-agedexperienceddriversmayprovecounterproductiveastheimmediateneedsfromthetechnologyandexperiencesofthetwogroupswouldbeexpectedtodifferquitemarkedly.

Themoreheterogeneousthedesiredparticipantsamplewithrespecttothe

Themoreheterogeneousthedesiredparticipantsamplewithrespecttotheresearcharea,thegreaterthenumberofgroupsthatmayneedtobeconductedinordertoensurethat,withineachgroup,participantsareashomogenousonthecriticalvariablesasispracticable.Beyondthisconsiderationthedecisionofthenumberoffocusgroupstoconductwilltypicallyhaveapragmaticbasisrelatingtotheavailabilityofresources–namely,money,time,staffingand,critically,thesizeoftheparticipantpool(overallandwithineachsub-group)fromwhichindividualscanberecruitedtotakepartinthefocusgroups.Whilewillingnesstoparticipatewillinfluencethesizeoftheparticipantpool,participantavailabilitywillalsobeafactor.Schedulingfocusgroupsforadayofweekandtimeofday(e.g.,weekends,evenings)whenparticipantsaremostlikelytobeavailablewillhelpmaximiselikelihoodofattendance.Givingparticipantsmorefocusgrouptimingoptionswillalsohelpinthisregard.

DiscussionGuideandtheRoleoftheModerator

Theidealfocusgroupdiscussionshouldbefree-flowingandshouldnevertaketheformofasimplequestion-and-answersession.Achievingthesegoalsrequiresawell-constructeddiscussionguideandaskilledmoderator.

Informulatingthediscussionguide,itisimportanttobemindfuloftheoveralltimeallottedtothefocusgroup–thatis,usuallyoneandahalftotwohours.Thisisnotalotoftimeinpracticeandsoitisimportantthatanattemptismadenottocovermoretopicsthanisneededtoaddresstheevaluationquestionsadequately.Agooddiscussionguidecomprisesalistofgeneralopen-endedquestions,orlooselyphrasedquestions,aboutthetopicsofinterest.Examplesofprobesforfurtherinformationmayalsobeincludedforuseifneeded.Questionsthataretoospecificarenotidealasthesemaygiverisetoonewordorsentenceanswers,whicharedifficult,andperhapsevenpointless,toexploreingreaterdepth.Moreover,questionsthataretoospecifichavethepotentialtostagnatethediscussionanddisengagetheparticipants.Thediscussionshouldflowandprogressnaturallyandlogicallyand,assuch,theorderingofquestionsisimportant.

Aneffectivewaytostartafocusgroupdiscussioniswithaverygeneralquestionabouttheareaofinterest.Inthecaseoftechnologyacceptabilityresearch,thefocusgroupsessionwouldusuallybeginwithademonstrationofthesystem.Nielsen(1997)recommendsthatparticipantsbepresentedwiththemostconcreteexamplesofthetechnologybeingdiscussedasispossible.Thegroupcanbeaskedabouttheirfirstimpressionsofthetechnology.Thiscanleadtomoretargetedquestionsframedaroundtheconstructsofacceptabilityofinterest,forexample.Ausefulwaytoendafocusgroupistoaskparticipantsto

interest,forexample.Ausefulwaytoendafocusgroupistoaskparticipantstoprovidea‘take-homemessage’–thatis,theirviewsontheoneortwomostimportantissuesraisedduringthediscussion.Intheacceptabilitycontext,thiscouldinvolveaskingparticipantstocommentontheaspectsofthetechnologythattheylikedmost,theaspectsthattheylikedleast,andwhatfeatureorfeaturesofthetechnologytheywouldmostliketoseechangedandinwhatways.

Theroleofthemoderator,ineffect,istogetusefulinformationfromtheparticipants.Themoderatorneedstobewell-prepared,withsufficientdomainexpertise,and,duringthediscussion,beattentive(MorganandKrueger1993).Themoderatormustkeepthediscussiononpathwithoutinhibitingtheflowofideasandcomments(Nielsen1997).Themoderatormustknowwhentoprobefurtherandwhennottodoso.Thus,themoderatordoesmuchmorethansimplykeeptimeanddeliverthequestions–themoderatorisintegraltodataquality.

Itisoftenimpracticalforthemoderatortotakedetailednoteswhilealsofacilitatingthediscussion.Toaidaccuratedatacollection,itisgenerallyrecommendedthatanote-takerbeenlistedand/oranaudiorecordingofeachfocusgroupbetakenforlaterreviewandtofacilitateextractionofkeythemes.Whenreportingtheresults,preferably,thesekeythemesshouldbeorganisedaccordingtotheevaluationaims,andconsideredinthecontextofthegroupcomposition,thedefinitionofacceptabilitywhichwasadoptedandthestageofsystemdevelopment.

CaseStudy1

Toexemplifytheuseoffocusgroups,wepresentasacasestudyaprojectwhichwecompletedfortheRoyalAutomobileClubofVictoriainAustralia(Reganetal.2002).ThepurposeoftheprojectwastoassesstheacceptabilitytoVictoriancardriversofcertainin-vehicleintelligenttransportsystemswhichwerejudgedatthetimetohavehighsafetypotential.

Thereweretwokeyresearchphases.Phase1involveddeterminingonwhichtechnologiestheresearchshouldfocusandtodeterminethecompositionofthegroups.Phase2involvedgaugingtheacceptabilityoftheselectedtechnologiesthroughfocusgroupsinvolvingmembersofthedriversub-groupsidentifiedinPhase1.Ofspecificinterestwastheidentificationofanybarrierstotheuseofthetechnologiesinthemannerintendedbysystemdevelopers.

Acceptabilitywasdefinedascomprisingfiveconstructs:usefulness,effectiveness,usability,affordabilityandsocialacceptability.Tobeuseful,theusermustperceivethesystemtoserveapurpose.Tobeeffective,theusermustbelievethatthesystemdoeswhatitisdesignedtodo.Tobeusable,theuser

believethatthesystemdoeswhatitisdesignedtodo.Tobeusable,theusermustperceivethesystemtobeeasytouse.Affordabilityconcernswhetheruserscanaffordtopurchaseandmaintainthesystem,whilesocialacceptabilityisconcernedwiththebroadersocialissues(e.g.,privacy)thatmaybetakenintoaccountbyusers.

Seventechnologieswereselectedforstudy:ForwardCollisionWarning,IntelligentSpeedAdaptation(ISA),EmergencyNotification,ElectronicLicence,AlcoholInterlock,FatigueMonitoringandLaneDepartureWarning.AnalysesofthemostrecentlyavailableVictorianroad-crashdatawereconductedtoidentifythedriversub-groupsthatareover-representedandthosethatareinvolvedmostinthecrashtypesforeachofthesevenselectedtechnologies.Theoutcomesoftheseanalysesservedastheprimarybasisforselectingthedriversub-groupcompositionoftheeightfocusgroups.Otherconsiderationswerethattherebenomorethantwotechnologiesfordiscussioninanyonefocusgrouptoensurethattherewassufficientopportunitytodiscusseachtechnology,andthattheagerangebehomogenouswithineachfocusgroup(e.g.,18to24years)toensurethatparticipantsdidnotfeelinhibitedfromfreelyexpressingtheiropinions.Wherethiswasnotfeasible,therangeofagesspannednomorethantwoconsecutiveagegroups(e.g.,18to24and25to39years).Further,itwasfeltthat,providedtheagerangewashomogenous,agroupcomprisedofmalesandfemaleswasnotinappropriate.ThecompositionofeachoftheeightfocusgroupsisshowninTable7.1,alongwiththetechnologiesdiscussedineachgroup.

Atotalof52driverstookpart,withmostfocusgroupseachinvolvingsixorsevenparticipants.Allparticipantswerenaiveusersofthetechnologiesunderstudy.Alistofopen-endedquestionswasdevelopedtoguidethefocusgroupdiscussions.AnextractofthediscussionguideisgiveninTable7.2,alongwithexamplesofprobingquestions.Thesequestionscoveredthefiveconstructsofacceptabilityasdefinedinthecurrentresearch(seeTable7.2).Briefvideoclipsdemonstratingeachofthetechnologieswerealsodevelopedtoprovideparticipantswithinformationpriortothediscussionregardingthelookandfunctionalityofthetechnologiesandofthetypeofwarningsthatthetechnologiesissue.Allsystemsshowninthevideoswereprototypeversions,althoughsomesystemswerealittlemoredevelopedthanothers.Asparticipantswerenotbeinggiventheopportunitytointeractdirectlywiththetechnologies,issuesrelatingtousabilityweregenerallygivenlessemphasisandallottedlesstimeinthediscussionthanissuesrelatingtoperceivedusefulness,effectiveness,affordabilityandsocialacceptability.

Table7.1Focusgroupcompositionandtechnologiesfordiscussion

Table7.2ExtractoffocusgroupdiscussionguidefromReganetal.(2002)alsoshowinglinkbetweenquestionandacceptabilitydimension

Itisbeyondthescopeofthecurrentchaptertopresentthefindingsoftheresearch.ThereaderisdirectedtoReganetal.(2002)orMitsopoulosetal.(2002).

QuestionnaireDesignandAdministration

ExistingQuestionnaires

Havingmadethedecisionthataquestionnaireisanappropriatemethodtopursue,aconsiderationiswhethertherealreadyexistsaquestionnairewhichwilladequatelymeettheneedsoftheevaluationwerethisquestionnairetobeused.Ifsuitable,thereareseveraladvantagesintakingsuchanapproach.Theseincludesavingsincostandtime,whichmightotherwisehavebeenspentondesignanddevelopmentactivities,andtheabilitytomakeinter-studycomparisons(BoyntonandGreenhalgh2004).

Inthevehicletechnologydomain,asseenelsewhereinthisbook,anexampleofanexistingquestionnaireforassessingacceptabilityisthatdevelopedbyVanderLaanetal.(1997).Thisquestionnairegivesascoreforusefulnessandalsoascoreforsatisfaction,facilitatingcomparisonsacrossstudies,systemsandtime(withincreasingsystemexperience;e.g.,beforeandafteruseofthe

technology).Despiteitsadvantages,thisparticularquestionnairewouldnotbeappropriatewereabroaderdefinitionofacceptabilitybeingadoptedand/oriftheelicitationofinformationonspecificbarrierstoacceptabilitywereagoaloftheevaluation.Inthiscase,theuseofadditional,oralternative,methodswouldberequired.

ParticipantSample

Individualsfromtheintendedusergroup(s)shouldformtheparticipantsampleintechnologyacceptabilityresearch.Thisisastrueforquestionnairesasitisforfocusgroups.Havingaclearunderstandingoftheusergroup(s)isanessentialearlystepinthequestionnairedesignprocess.Notonlywillithelptargetparticipantrecruitmentefforts,butsuchknowledgewillhelpguidethelookandfeelofthequestionnaireitself.

Thetargetnumberofparticipantswilldependlargelyonthestudydesign,which,naturally,willhavebeendeterminedbytheevaluationobjectives.Timeandmoneyavailablewillalsoplayarole.Forexample,thepurposeofthestudymaybesolelytogaugetheacceptabilityofarangeofin-vehicletechnologies,whicharestillintheconceptorideastageofdevelopment.Afurtherpurposemaybetoexploretheextenttowhichcertaindemographic,behaviouraland/orattitudinalfactorsmight,inprinciple,influencetheacceptabilityofeachofthosetechnologies.Inthisexample,inordertoachievethegoalsoftheinvestigation,arelativelylargenumberofparticipantsoverallmightneedtobeaskedtocompletethequestionnaire.

Asafurtherexample,aquestionnaireorseriesofquestionnairesforgaugingacceptabilitymightbeadministeredtoparticipantswhoaretakingpartinastudy,theprimaryaimofwhichistoexploreobjectivelytheeffectofagivennewtechnologyortechnologiesoncertainmeasuresofdrivingperformance.Inthiscontext,andrelativetothepreviousexample,asmallernumberofparticipantsoverallmaybeaskedtocompletethequestionnaires.Herethegoalmaybetoexplorechangesinacceptabilityasafunctionofincreasingexperiencewithusingthetechnologyinasingle,relativelyhomogenousgroupofindividuals.Theimplicationisthatthehomogeneityoftheparticipantsampleisanimportantdeterminantofthedesiredsamplesize:themoreheterogeneousthesample,thelargertherecommendedsamplesize.Further,asitisoftendesirabletosubjectthenumericaldataderivingfromquestionnairestostatisticalanalysis,itisworthwhilenotingheretherelationshipwhichexistsbetweensamplesizeandeffectsize.Thatis,thesmallertheeffectthatoneisinterestedindetecting,thelargerthesampleneededinordertodetectthateffectifitindeedexists.

thelargerthesampleneededinordertodetectthateffectifitindeedexists.

QuestionTypes

Broadly,questionscanbecategorisedaseither‘closed’or‘open-ended’.Bothcategorieshaveaplaceintechnologyacceptabilitystudies.Thereareseveraltypesofclosedquestion,butcommontoallisthatthemethodinwhichparticipantsshouldarticulatetheirresponseisprovided.Moreover,thedataprovidedaretypicallynumerical,orcanbecodednumerically.Thesefactorstogetherfacilitatelaterdatacollationandanalysis.Riffenburgh(2012)distinguishesbetweenthefollowingtypesofclosedquestion:dichotomous(e.g.,‘yes’or‘no’),multiple-choice(i.e.,participantsarerequiredtoselectoneorseveraloptionsfromasetofoptionswhicharenotnecessarilyorderable),ranked(i.e.,participantsarerequiredtoplaceasetofpossiblefactorsinrankorder),continuous(i.e.,participantsarerequestedtoprovideanumberorplaceamarkonavisualanaloguescale)andrated(i.e.,participantsselectacategoryfromamonganorderedsetofcategories;forexample,numberedonetofive,whereonemeans‘never’andfivemeans‘always’).Open-endedquestionsallowforafree-text,narrativeresponse.Atypicaltreatmentofsuchresponsesistoscrutinisethemforkeythemes.

Withoneofthemainadvantagesofquestionnairesbeingthattheyprovideamechanismthroughwhichnumericaldatacanbecollected,itisrecommendedthatopen-endedquestionsbeusedonlyifnecessaryandsparingly.Ifthequestionnaireendsupconsistingmainlyofopen-endedquestions,thismayraisetheissueofwhetheranalternativedatacollectionapproach,suchasthefocusgroup,maybemoreappropriate.

QuestionWordingandPresentation

Criticaltoquestionnairereliabilityisthateachofthequestionsisunderstoodbythosecompletingthequestionnaireasisintendedbytheinvestigators.Questionsneedtobesimplyworded,withtheuseoftechnicaljargonbestavoided.Questionsshouldnotbedifficultorimpossibletoanswer.Also,itisbesttoavoidquestionswithambiguouswording,double-barreledquestionsandleadingorloadedquestions(Marshall2005,Riffenburgh2012).Wheretheresponsetoaquestionisdependentonquestionnairetiming,settingthetimeframeforthequestioniscrucial(Riffenburgh2012).Thatis,indeterminingtheirresponsetoagivenquestion,shouldparticipantsbethinkingaboutthepresent,thelastweekorthelastmonth,forexample?Marshall(2005)alsocautionsagainstasking

individualstorecounttheirexperiencesfrommorethansixmonthsago–asresponsestosuchquestionstendtobelessaccuratethanthosewhichaskparticipantstorecalltheirmorerecentexperiences.

Clarityofexpressionisalsoimportantforanyaccompanyinginstructionstoparticipants.Further,thesequencingofthequestionsshouldbelogical,andfilteringquestionsshouldbeusedwhenappropriatetoensurethat,foragivenrespondent,thequestionnairedoesnottakemoretimethanisnecessarytocomplete.Questionnaireswhichtakeinexcessof20minutestocompletearebestavoided.Suchmeasureshelptoensurethatparticipantsremainengagedandcooperativeandincreasethelikelihoodthatparticipantswillcompletethequestionnaire–inotherwords,theyhelptoincreasetheresponserate.Aprofessionallayout,withsufficientspacingforresponses,andtheuseofanappropriatelysizedandstyledtypeface,willalsocontributeinthisregard(BoyntonandGreenhalgh2004,Marshall2005,Riffenburgh2012).

AdministrationMode

Commonmodesofquestionnaireadministrationare‘paper-and-pencil’and‘Web-based’.WithmorepeoplehavingaccesstotheInternetandwiththeavailabilityof‘easy-to-use’softwaretoolsforquestionnaireimplementation,Web-basedadministrationhasincreasedinpopularity.Amongotherconsiderations,Web-basedadministrationallowsformoreefficientdatacollectionandcodingofthedatainpreparationforanalysis.Nonetheless,paper-and-pencilmaystillbethepreferredmodeforsomepotentialusergroups–forexample,theelderly.Thus,selectingthemostappropriatemodeofadministrationgiventheparticularneedsandpreferencesoftheintendedparticipantsisanimportantdeterminantofresponserates,andassuchoughttobefactoredintoadministrationplanningdiscussions.

PilotingandPreparingforDataCollection

Asometimesunderratedyetcrucialstepinquestionnairedevelopmentistheprocessofpiloting.Pilotingthequestionnairepriortoitsadministrationproperwillprovideanindicationofthereliabilityandvalidityofthequestionnaire.Inthisregard,amainpurposeofthepilotingexercisewouldbetoidentifyanyquestionsorinstructionsinneedofrewordingandrefinement,andanyredundant,superfluousorinappropriatequestionsand/orresponsecategoriesforpotentialexclusion.Afurtherpurposeofpilotingwouldbetoensurethatthedataarebeingrecordedaccuratelyandasintended,particularlyinthecaseofa

dataarebeingrecordedaccuratelyandasintended,particularlyinthecaseofaWeb-basedadministrationmode,andthatthedataareinaformsuitableforanalysisandsubsequentinterpretationinthecontextoftheevaluationaimsanddefinitionofacceptabilitythatisbeingadopted.

CaseStudy2

Asacasestudyintheuseofquestionnairestomeasuretheacceptabilityofnewin-vehicletechnologies,wepresentthe‘TransportAccidentCommission(TAC)SafeCarProject’(Reganetal.2006).Theprimaryaimoftheprojectwastoevaluatethepotentialsafetybenefitsofasuiteofin-vehicleintelligenttransportsystems.Afurtheraimwastoexplorethedegreetowhichdriversfoundthetechnologiesacceptable,andwhetherthislevelofacceptabilityvariedasafunctionofexperiencewithagiventechnology.Barrierstosystemacceptabilitywerealsoofinterest.Inpresentingthiscasestudy,thefocusisonthetimingofquestionnaireadministrationgiventhestudyaims,studydesignandtheadopteddefinitionofacceptability.Forfurtherdetailonthequestionsthemselvesandontheresultsobtained,refertoReganetal.(2006).

Eachof15testvehicleswasequippedwithfourtechnologies:IntelligentSpeedAdaptation(ISA),FollowingDistanceWarning(FDW),Seat-BeltReminder(SBR)andReverseCollisionWarning(RCW).Eachof23driversdroveoneofthevehiclesforapproximately16,500kilometres.Driverswerevolunteersfromparticipatingorganisations,whichhadagreedtoleaseatleastoneofthetestvehiclesfordedicatedusebytheiremployees.Participantsbelongedtoeitherthetreatmentorcontrolgroup.

Thestudycomprised‘Before’(2),‘During’(3)and‘After’(3)periods.NotechnologieswereactiveduringBefore1.InBefore2,SBRandRCWwereenabledandremainedenabledfortherestofthestudy.InagivenAfterperiod,thesystems(i.e.,ISAbyitself,FDWbyitselfandISAplusFDW)thatwereenabledintheprecedingDuringperiodwerenolongeractive.

ThedefinitionofacceptabilitywasthesameasthatinCaseStudy1:usefulness,effectiveness,usability,affordabilityandsocialacceptability.AnoverviewofthequestionnairesadministeredisgiveninTable7.3.AnexamplequestionforISAandforeachacceptabilitydimensionisprovidedinTable7.4.

Thefirstquestionnairewasadministeredtoallparticipantsatthebeginningofthestudyandbeforeactualuseofthesystems.Thisquestionnaireprovidedabaselinemeasureofacceptabilityandcomprisedquestionsforassessingtheacceptabilityofallfourtechnologiesunderstudy.Withtheexceptionofusability,allacceptabilitydimensionswereassessedaspartofthebaseline

questionnaire.Usabilityassessmentsofthetechnologiesoccurredonceonlyforeachsystemandearlyinparticipants’firstperiodofexposuretoagivensystem.Questionnairestoassessusefulness,effectiveness,affordabilityandsocialacceptability(subsequenttothebaseline)wereadministeredduringeachofthethreeAfterperiods.Thesamequestionswereusedinallthreequestionnairesandthebaselinetoenableexaminationoftheeffectsofsystemexposureonusefulness,effectiveness,affordabilityandsocialacceptability.

Table7.3QuestionnairesadministeredintheTACSafeCaron-roadstudytoassessacceptability

Table7.4ExtractofquestionnairesforISAfromReganetal.(2006)alsoshowinglinkbetweenquestionandacceptabilitydimension

Ithasnotbeenpossibletoamendthistableforsuitableviewingonthisdevice.PleaseseethefollowingURLforalargerversionhttp://www.ashgate.com/pdf/ebooks/9781472405852Tab7_4.pdf

ConcludingRemarks

Questionnairesandfocusgroupscanbepowerfultoolsforgaugingtheacceptabilityofnewvehicletechnologies.However,theyarenotwithouttheirdrawbacks.Thebestdefencehereisknowledgeofwhatthemethodscanandcannotdoandthenselectingthemethodthatbestmeetstheneedsoftheevaluationintermsoftheaims,thestageofsystemdevelopmentandtheaspectsofacceptabilityofinterest.

Inthischapter,beyondtheprovisionofgeneralguidance,wealsoprovidespecificguidanceonwhatconstitutesgoodpracticeinthedesignandconduct/administrationoffocusgroupsandquestionnaires.Inthecaseoffocusgroups,elementsofgoodpracticeincludeawell-constructeddiscussionguideandtheuseofaskilledmoderator.Inthecaseofquestionnaires,questionwordingandtheprocessofpilotingareparamount.Finally,weexemplifytheapplicationofeachmethodthroughcasestudies.

References

Boynton,P.M.2004.Administering,analysing,andreportingyourquestionnaire.BritishMedicalJournal,328:1372–5.

Boynton,P.M.andGreenhalgh,T.2004.Selecting,designing,anddevelopingyourquestionnaire.BritishMedicalJournal,328:1312–15.

Chau,P.Y.K.1996.Anempiricalassessmentofamodifiedtechnologyacceptancemodel.JournalofManagementInformationSystems,13:185–204.

Davis,F.D.1989.Perceivedusefulness,perceivedeaseofuse,anduseracceptanceofinformationtechnology.MISQuarterly,13:185–204.

Marshall,G.2005.Thepurpose,designandadministrationofaquestionnairefordatacollection.Radiography,11:131–6.

Mitsopoulos,E.,Regan,M.A.andHaworth,N.2002.Acceptabilityofin-vehicleintelligenttransportsystemstoVictoriancardrivers.Proceedingsofthe2002RoadSafetyResearch,PolicingandEducationConference.Adelaide,Australia.

Mitsopoulos,E.,Regan,M.A.,Triggs,T.andTierney,P.2003.Evaluating

multiplein-vehicleintelligenttransportsystems:Themeasurementofdriveracceptability,workload,andattitudesintheTACSafeCaron-roadstudy.Proceedingsofthe2003RoadSafetyResearch,PolicingandEducationConference.Sydney,Australia.

Morgan,D.L.1997.Focusgroupsasqualitativeresearch.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Morgan,D.L.andKrueger,R.A.1993.Whentousefocusgroupsandwhy.InSuccessfulFocusGroups:AdvancingtheStateoftheArt,3–19.EditedbyD.L.Morgan.NewburyPark,CA:Sage.

Neilsen,J.1993.UsabilityEngineering.SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress.———.1997.Theuseandmisuseoffocusgroups.Availableat

http://www.useit.com/papers/focusgroups.html[accessed:17September2012].

Regan,M.A.,Mitsopoulos,E.,Haworth,N.andYoung,K.2002.Acceptabilityofin-vehicleintelligenttransportsystemstoVictoriancardrivers(ReportNo.02/02).Melbourne,Australia:RoyalAutomobileClubofVictoriaLtd.

Regan,M.A.,Triggs,T.J.,Young,K.L.,Tomasevic,N.,Mitsopoulos,E.,Stephan,K.andTingvall,C.2006.On-roadevaluationofIntelligentSpeedAdaptation,FollowingDistanceWarningandSeatbeltReminderSystems:FinalresultsoftheAustralianTACSafeCarproject(ReportNo.253).Clayton,Australia:MonashUniversityAccidentResearchCentre.

Riffenburgh,R.H.2012.StatisticsinMedicine(3rdedition).Amsterdam:Elsevier.

Stewart,D.W.andShamdasani,P.N.1998.Focusgroupresearch:Explorationanddiscovery.InHandbookofAppliedSocialResearchMethods,505–26.EditedbyL.BickmanandD.J.Rog.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

VanderLaan,J.D.,Heino,A.andDeWaard,D.1997.Asimpleprocedurefortheassessmentofacceptanceofadvancedtransporttelematics.TransportationResearchPartC,5:1–10.

Várhelyi,A.2002.Speedmanagementviain-cardevices:Effects,implications,perspectives.Transportation,29:237–52.

Vlassenroot,S.,Brookhuis,K.,Marchau,V.andWitlox,F.2010.TowardsdefiningaunifiedconceptfortheacceptabilityofIntelligentTransportSystems(ITS):AconceptualanalysisbasedonthecaseofIntelligentSpeedAdaptation(ISA).TransportationResearchPartF,13:164–78.

Chapter8TheProfileofEmotionalDesigns:AToolforthe

MeasurementofAffectiveandCognitiveResponsestoIn-VehicleInnovationsRobertEdmundsandLisaDornCranfieldUniversity,UK

LeeSkrypchukJaguarLandRover,UK

Abstract

Driveracceptanceofin-vehicletechnologydesignisseenbyOriginalEquipmentManufacturersasdependentuponitsemotional,cognitiveandexperientialeffectontheconsumer.Thischapterdescribesthedevelopmentandvalidationofaninstrumentaimedatmeasuringconsumer’saffectiveresponsestoinnovativein-vehicletechnologiesandreferredtoasthe‘ProfileofEmotiveDesigns’(PED).AliteraturereviewgeneratedtheitemsandexistingscalesfortheconstructionofthePED,andPrincipalComponentsAnalysisofresponsesfrom674participantsforthreedifferentin-vehicletechnologies,revealedfourscales(TechnologyAcceptance,ModeratingFactors,AffectiveAppraisalandEmotionalValence).TheresultsfromStudy1showedthatthesescalesdiscriminatedbetweenthreein-vehicledesignsandwerepredictiveofintentionstopurchasethevehicle.Study2foundthattherewasnodifferenceinthePEDscalesforlevelofinformationprovidedaboutthein-vehicletechnologydesignandscoreswerealsoverysimilarforpreandpostin-vehicleexperience.Thedifferencesthatdidemergewereconcernedwitheaseofuseandtheanticipatedhelprequiredusingthetechnology.Thisisintuitive,asonlyin-vehicleexperiencewillgiverichinformationofadesign’susability.Thefindingsarediscussedwithreferencetodriveracceptance.

Introduction

Theautomotiveindustryhasanumberofchallengeswithrespecttogainingdriveracceptanceoftheuseoftechnologywithinavehicleanddifferentiatingtheirproductsinthemarketplace.Whendevelopingtechnologyforthemodern-dayvehicle,notonlydoestheinterfaceneedtobeeasilyusableandnotdistracting,butithastoengagetheuserandgivethemasenseofenjoymentandsatisfaction.Thismeansthatin-vehicleinterfaceshavedevelopedasenseof‘formaswellasfunction’whichcomplementsthepreviousmantraofpurposetoachieveafunction.Thereforethequickerandmoreeffectiveadesignisatcapturingtheimaginationoftheuser,themorelikelytheinnovationwillgaindriveracceptance.Achievingcustomersatisfactioncanbedoneinmanyways.Someindividualswillgetexcitedbythelookofacar,somebythetechnologyandsomebythebrandnameorthewaythevehiclesounds.However,thecommonmeasurablecomponentacrossallthesefeaturesisthedriver’semotionalresponsesandtheirattachmenttotheoverallproduct.

Whendevelopingtechnology,theOriginalEquipmentManufacturer(OEM)mustunderstandtheimpactoftheseinnovationsandensurein-vehicledesignsolutionsinvokeapositiveresponsefromthecustomer.Thisisespeciallytrueforpremiumcarsinwhichconsumerexpectationformarketdifferentiationishigh.Therefore,thedevelopmentofanunderstandingofthefundamentalrelationshipbetweendrivers’affectiveandcognitiveresponsetotechnologyandhowthisaffectstheirperceptionofaproductorserviceiscriticalandonewhichcanhelpmakedecisionsonhowandwhatisdeliveredinthenextgenerationofin-vehicletechnologies.Driveracceptanceofin-vehicletechnologydesignisseenbyOEMsasdependentuponitsemotional,cognitiveandexperientialeffect.

Inrecenttimes,theproliferationoftechnologyintovehicleshascreatedanexplosionofnewfeaturesthattheusercaninteractwith.Thisisadouble-edgedswordintermsofcustomersatisfactionasthereisabalancebetweentheamountandcomplexityofthefeaturesavailableandtheeffectofthetechnologyintermsofdriverdistraction.Therearemanychallengesassociatedwiththisanditisbecomingincreasinglymoredifficultasdriversappeartowantandexpecttoexecutesecondarytaskswhilstdriving.Theautomotiveindustryfrequentlyintroducesinnovativedesignsandcarmodelstoproduceabetterproductandalsocreateconsumerdemand.Insuchacompetitivesectoritisoftheutmostimportancetoproduceadesignthatmeetsconsumerneeds;otherwise,thecompetitiveedgewillbelost.ItisthereforevitalthatOEMsunderstandwhichtechnologieswillofferbothsignificantcustomersatisfactionandhelpprioritisewhichfeatureswillattractthenextgenerationofcustomersthatachievesthe‘wow’factorwhilstbeingfunandsafetouse.

‘wow’factorwhilstbeingfunandsafetouse.Whileagreatdealofmarketresearchisconductedtopositionabrandand

alsotogaugeconsumerreactiontothefinishedproduct,thereseemstobelittlesystematicresearchtounderstandcustomerresponsestonewtechnologiesintheearlydesignstages.Rather,thisisguidedbytheintuitionofthedesignerusingpastexperienceandproducthistory(Jordan2000).Therefore,theefficacyofmeasuringtheaffectiveimpactofaproductduringearlydesignstageswasalsoinvestigated.

DevelopmentoftheProfileofEmotiveDesigns(PED)

ThischapterdescribesthedevelopmentofthePEDinstrumentdesignedtomeasureconsumer’saffectiveresponses(definedasanypositiveornegativefeelingsandemotions)tonewin-vehicletechnologies.Athree-yearresearchprogramundertakenbyCranfieldUniversitywascommissionedbyJaguarLandRover(JLR)todevelopthePEDasameasurefortheassessmentofin-vehicleinnovationsforallstagesofproductdevelopmentandforuseacrossalltypesofin-vehicletechnologies,suchasanewsatellitenavigationsystem,anovelinteriorcarcontrolortheautomationofsomefunction.JLRrequiredaninstrumentthatwouldmeasurein-vehicleinnovationsreliablyacrossdifferentmodesofpresentation;forexample,astoryboard,avideo,aprototypeorthein-vehiclerealisationofthedesign.

Consumeraffectoninteractingwithaproductislikelytoengagecomplexaspectsofcognitionandemotion,soamultidimensionalscalewasrequiredtocapturetheimportantfacetsofhumanresponsesgenerated.Theinstrumentshouldbecapableofdiscriminatingbetweenagenerallylikedanddislikedinnovationandalsobesensitiveenoughtodifferentiatebetweenquitesimilartechnologies.Theinstrumentshouldbeshorttocompleteandcapableofidentifyingindividualdifferences.WhiletobedevelopedinitiallyfortheJaguarXFmodel,itshouldalsoworkacrosscontexts;thatis,forothermodelsofcar.Finally,thescoresobtainedbytheinstrumentshouldcorrelatewithsomeothermeaningfulvariableforvalidationpurposes,especiallyintentiontopurchasethecar.

Theresearchundertakenaddressedthreemainquestions.Firstly,couldaninstrumentbedesignedthatmeasuresaffectiveresponsestoin-vehicleinnovationsthathasanelementofuserinteraction?Secondly,couldthisinstrumentprovidecomparableanddiscriminatingscoresacrossdifferenttypesofinnovation?Thirdly,couldtheinstrumentmeasureresponsesatdifferentstagesofthedesignprocessinameaningfulwaythatwouldgiveanindicationofhowfavourablythedesignwouldbeevaluatedwheninproductionand

ofhowfavourablythedesignwouldbeevaluatedwheninproductionandinstalledinthetargetvehicle?Toaddressthesequestions,awide-rangingliteraturereviewwasconductedcoveringareasofpsychology,marketingandergonomics,inordertodesignaframeworktotheoreticallyunderpinthedevelopmentofthePEDandinformitsconstruction.

SummaryFindingsoftheLiteratureReview

Givenspaceconstraints,onlyasummaryofthekeyfindingsoftheliteraturereviewispresentedhere.In-vehicletechnologiesusuallyrequiresomelevelofuserinteraction;thus,understandingtheimpactofrelevantproductfunctionontheindividualisimportant.Withinthecognitivedomain,thereisextensiveliteraturecoveringtechnologyacceptanceandusability.Asseeninotherchaptersofthisbook,perhapsthemostwidelycitedistheTechnologyAcceptanceModel(TAM;Davis1989).Thatmodelisparticularlyappropriatehereasitconcernsindividuals’perceptionoftechnology,ratherthanjustananalysisofproductfunctionality,measuringtwofactors:‘perceivedeaseofuse’and‘perceivedusefulness’.However,theTAMdoesnotencompassmanypossibledriversoftechnologyacceptance.VenkateshandDavis(2000)attemptedacomprehensiverevisiontotheTAMtoincludefourmaindeterminantsofanintentiontousetechnology;thesewereperformanceexpectancy,effortexpectancy,socialinfluenceandfacilitatingconditions(Venkateshetal.2003),indicatingthatindividuals’perceptionofproducttechnologycouldbemultidimensional.Inparticular,thehedonicaspectsofconsumerinteractionorperceivedinteractionwithaproductcanhaveasignificanteffectonthesatisfactionwiththeproductatalevelbeyondthatcapturedbyjustitsutilitarianaspects.Yietal.(2006)provideafurtherexampleofanintegrativeapproachoutliningapredisposedtendencytowardsadoptinganinnovation,andBrunerandKumar(2005)alsoextendedtheTAMbyincorporatinghedonicaspectsoftechnologyuse.SimilarlyLuetal.(2009)foundthatperceived‘enjoyment’significantlyinfluencedattitudetowardsusingatechnology.

Jordan(2000;seealsoChapter18inthisvolume)proposedthat,onceaproducthasbecomefunctionalandeasytouse,theconsumersearchesforaproductthatispleasurabletouse.However,theexperientialoutcomeofinteractionwithaproductislikelytobecontextdependent.Howtheformalandexperientialpropertiesofaproductlinktoeachotherisavitalstepinunderstandingaffectiveproductdesign.Kanseiengineeringdevelopedby

MisutoNagamatchiconsidersconsumers’feelingsandimageusingstatisticaltechniquesandsocapturestheideaofaffectivedesign(Nagamatchi1995,Schutteetal.2004).Whilethistechniquehasprovedsuccessful,thereareanumberofproblemsinitsuse.FirstlytheKanseiwordsforanalysescomefromdivergentsourcesandthechoiceofwordsissubjective.Secondly,aclusteranalysisrequiresalargenumberofexamplesoftheproductpropertiesandthismaynotbefeasible.Finally,andmostimportantlyforthepresentresearch,Kanseiknowledgewillbespecifictotheproductandmaynotgeneralisetootheraspectsoftheoveralldesignorevensimilarproducts.

Forthepresentresearchaimsitwasalsoimportanttoconsiderwhattypesofproductattributesarelikelytogeneratepositiveemotions.Kano(1984)proposesthreedistincttypesofneedsplottedontwoaxes,oneforsubjectivesatisfactionlevel(satisfiedtodissatisfied)andthesecondanobjectivemeasureonhowwelleachneedhasbeenexecuted(‘verywell’to‘notatall’)(seeFigure8.1).ThethreetypesofneedsplottedontheseaxesareBasicneeds,PerformanceneedsandExcitementneeds(FullerandMatzler2007).

Themodelsuggeststworoutestoincreasecustomersatisfaction:eitherbyincreasingsomescalarqualitysuchasperformance/economy,oralternatively,surprisethecustomerwithsomeinnovationthatmeetsalatentdemand.Basicproductqualitiesarenotaroutetoincreasesatisfaction,butmayleadtodissatisfactionifnotexecutedproperly.Whilethismodelprovidesaninterestingframeworktounderstandthedifferentdimensionsofproductquality,itdoesnotprovideanydetailedpredictionofwhatattributesmayleadtopositiveaffect.

Figure8.1KanoModelDimensions

EvansandBurns(2007)termedextremecustomersatisfactionas‘delight’definedasapositiveemotionalstateresultingfromhavingone’sexpectationsexceededtoasurprisingdegree(Burns2003,RustandOliver2000).Intheirstudy,34attribute-baseddelightreactionsthatcouldnotbeascribedtoeitherofKano’stworoutestosatisfactioncouldbefound.FortheEvansandBurns(2007)study,noneoftheattributescouldbeascribedaseitherunexpectedorhighperformance;yetthey‘delighted’thecustomers.Someoftheproducts’attributeswerecommonplaceincars,butdelightedcustomersbecauseofthenovelwaytheyweredelivered.Othersdelightednotbecausetheyhadveryhighperformance,butbecausethelevelofperformancewas‘justright’.Athirdcategoryfordelightwasalsorevealed;itseemsthatsomeattributesweresatisfyingastheywerepartoftheholisticappealofthecar.Thisenhancesourunderstandingofthepossibleroutestopositivecustomeraffectordelight,but‘distinctivedelivery’,‘justtherightperformance’and‘holisticappeal’stillneedtobefurtherunpacked.

Indesigninganinstrumenttomeasurecustomeraffectordelightwheninteractingwithaproduct,itisclearthatmoodandemotionmustbeconsidered.Thereisextensivepsychologicalliteraturefocusingonmoodandemotion,inparticular,theideathatemotionsareobjectdrivenandevaluative(Scherer2005)isparticularlyrelevantforthepresentresearch;indeterminingtheaffectiveimpactofanovelin-vehicledesignthechangeinaffectshouldbeaboutthe

designaftersomeevaluationhastakenplace.InScherer’sterms,individualswillberequiredtoundertakeacognitiveappraisalofhowtheyarefeelingatthatparticularmomentwhenevaluatingthedesignwhichmaydifferfromthefastandmostlikelyautomaticappraisalthattakesplaceduringtheonsetofanemotionalevent,butonewillinfluencetheotherandleadto‘responsesynchronisation’.Cognitiveandphysiologicalcomponentsaremobilisedtogethersothatanemotionaleventwillelicitanumberofchangesintheindividual,eachofwhichcanpotentiallybemeasuredfollowinganinteractionwithin-vehicleinnovationsandleadtoa‘behaviouralimpact’(Scherer2005).Thissuggeststhatabothpersistentandmeasurablechangemayoccuronpresentationofthetargetinnovation.

MehrabianandRussell’s(1974)theory,thePleasure,ArousalandDominanceparadigmofaffect(PAD),isparticularlyusefulhereandassertsthatthreedimensionsareneededtoassesstheindividual’sfeelings,andthesefactorsinturnalsoinfluencebehaviour(Kulviwatetal.2007).Thefirstdimensionispleasureandreferstoanenjoyablereactiontotheobject;theseconddimensionrelatestoarousalandexcitement.Dominancereferstothelevelwithwhichanindividualfeelstheyareincontrolorcontrolledbyastimulus.Dominanceisrelevantwhenconsideringconsumerreactiontonewinteractiveinnovationssuchasacomplexdesignwhichisnotintuitivetouse.Thismaybeimportantfornoveldesignsolutionssincenewtechnologymayhaveanaversiveeffectifthecustomerfeelssubmissiveandunabletomasteranewinnovation,andthismayimpactontheaffectivestateofself-efficacy.

BasedontheliteraturereviewedtoinformthedesignanddevelopmentofthePED,therearefourcoreareasofrelevanceforitstheoreticalunderpinning:

•Incorporatingameasureoftechnologyacceptance;•Moderatingeffectsofsocialandattitudinalfactors;•Affectiveappraisaldimensions,suchasdelightandsurprise;•Valence(mood/emotion).

TheexactcompositionofthePEDscaleswillnotbedescribedhereasitwasdevelopedforJLRandtheiruse;howeveranextensivesetofitemswasrequiredtocoverthesecoreareasandexistingscaleswereincludedinthepilotversionofthePEDwhererelevant;forexample,thePleasure,ArousalandDominancescalestakenfromthePAD.

Study1:AComparisonofThreeDesignInnovations

Aim

TheaimforStudy1wastoexaminethefactorstructureofthePEDusingalargesampleandtodeterminewhethertheinstrumentwassensitivetodifferenttypesofin-vehicletechnologies.Thatis,doesitmeetthemaingoalofproducinglowerscoresforlesswell-likeddesignscomparedtodesignsthatareknowntobewellreceivedbyconsumers?

Stimuli

Threetechnologieswerechosenforthisstudy.ThefirstwastheJaguargearselectioncontrol(JaguarDrive™),whichutilisesarotarycontrolthatrisesfromthecentreconsoleonstart-upandallowsselectionoftheautomaticdrive.Second,theJaguarcabinlight(SenseLights™),whichturnsonwhenitistouched,eliminatingtheneedtofindaswitch.Boththesetechnologiesareinproductionandknowntobedeliveringcustomersatisfaction.Thethirdtechnologychosenisnotinproductionandhashadalessfavourable,moremixed,reaction:theso-calledSenseWindows™,whichopensthewindowdependingonwhatpositionistouchedonthewindowpillar.Itwashypothesisedthatthetwoproductiontechnologieswouldberatedasmorefavourablethanthewindow-openingdesign.

ParticipantsandMethod

Sixhundredandseventy-fourJLRemployeesbasedatCoventry,UK,completedthePED:258fortheJaguarDrivesurvey,206fortheSenseLightsand210fortheSenseWindows.Asurveywasconductedforeachtechnology.Participantscouldviewapictureandadescriptionofoneofthedesignsovertheintranetincludingashortvideoofthedesignbeingused.FollowingthistheywereaskedtocompleteanonlinepilotversionofthePED.

PrincipalComponentsAnalysis

Theresponsesacrossthethreeinnovationsweresubjectedtoprincipalcomponentsanalysistoidentifytheconstructsunderlyingeachofthefourscales(TechnologyAcceptance,ModeratingFactors,AffectiveAppraisalandEmotionalValence).Thenumberoffactorstoextractwasdeterminedbyconsideringtheparallelanalysisof1,000randomcorrelationmatricesusingtheprogramwrittenbyO’Connor(2000),screeplotandEigenonerule(Factors

programwrittenbyO’Connor(2000),screeplotandEigenonerule(FactorswithanEigenvalue≥1areacceptedassalient).Principalaxisanalysiswasusedtoextracttherelevantnumberoffactors,andtheseweresubmittedtoobliquerotationusingaquartiminprocedure(DirectOblmin)toachievesimplestructure.Itemloadingsgreaterthan0.30wereregardedasimportantforinterpretingthefactorssoastoretainasmanyitemsaspossibleattheearlystageofthePEDdevelopment.Thefinalinstrumentwillaccepthigherloadingsof0.40or0.50,soastoreducethenumberofitemsforeachofthefactors.

Theitemsyieldingsalientloadingsofthemagnitudeofatleast0.30oneachfactorweretakentodefineasub-scale,andeachparticipantwasassignedscoresoneachsub-scalebycalculatingthemeanoftheirresponsestoitsconstituentitems.Thereliabilityofeachsub-scalewasestimatedusingCronbach’scoefficientalpha.

ForTechnologyAcceptance,twofactorsemerged:UsefulnessandEaseofUse.Eachsub-scalewasfoundtoyieldvaluesofcoefficientalphaof0.918and0.917,respectively,regardedassatisfactoryaccordingtoconventionalcriteria.ModeratingFactorsloadontothreefactorsthatcapturedideasabout‘AttitudetotheTechnology’,theamountof‘AvailableHelp’requiredtousetheinnovationandissuesover‘Anxiety’abouttheinnovation.AfterreversingthescalescoreforthetwonegativelycorrelateditemsontheAnxietyscale,eachsub-scalewasfoundtoyieldvaluesofcoefficientalphaof0.894,0.869and0.762,respectively.FollowingparallelanalysisitwasdeterminedthattwofactorsshouldbeextractedfortheAffectiveAppraisalsub-scale;thesetwofactorswereconcernedwiththeconceptsofdelightandnovelty,yieldingvaluesofcoefficientalphaof0.956forDelightand0.825forNovelty.ThefinalscalemeasuredvalenceusingthePADmodel(thePleasure,ArousalandDominanceparadigmofaffectdescribedearlier).Analysisfoundthatthethreesub-scaleswerereplicatedinthecurrentcontextofcardesign,withfactorsofPleasure,ArousalandDominance,eachyieldingrespectivevaluesofcoefficientalphaof0.929forPleasure,0.842forArousaland0.807forDominance.Overall,theanalysesindicatetheinternalreliabilityofthePEDisadequate.

Results

Calculatingmeanresponsescoresforeachsub-scalerevealedanencouragingpatternofresultsaccordingtothethreedifferenttechnologies.SenseWindows™wasscoredleastpositivelycomparedwiththeJaguarDrive™andSenseLights™.SenseWindows™wasseenaslesseasytouseanduseful,producedalesspositiveattitudeandlowerlevelsofdelightandpleasure.Respondentsreported

thatSenseWindows™waslesseasytocontrol,butcreatedhigheranxietyandwasthoughttorequiremorehelptouse.IncontrasttheSenseLights™scoredhighestformostsub-scales,requiringlittlehelptouse,butwasmoreusefulandeasytousethantheothertwotechnologies.Somewhatsurprisinglythough,theSenseLights™scoredlowestinnovelty.

Whenthescoresweresummedacrossallthescalesusingasimplealgorithmthatreversedsomescoresfornegativescales,theresultsshowninTable8.1werefound.

Table8.1Meanscore*technologycollapsedacrossscales

ANOVArevealedthattherewasasignificantdifferencebetweenthethreetechnologies;F(2,636)=29.54,p<0.001Partialetasquared0.085.Cronbach’salpha=0.835.PosthocTukeytestsfoundasignificantdifferenceinscoringonlybetweentheSenseWindows™technologyandJaguarDrive™andSenseLights™t(p<0.05),suggestingthattheSenseWindows™ratedasleastappealingacrossallthescalescomparedwiththeJaguarDrive™andSenseLights™;theselattertwodesignswerefoundtohavenosignificantdifferenceinresponsesbetweenthem.

Participantswerealsoaskediftheinclusionofthetechnologywouldencouragethemtopurchasethecar;respondingviaafive-pointscalefrom‘notatall’to‘verymuchso’.ThisitemwasusedasameasureofintentiontopurchasetoprovidesomesupportforthevalidityoftheinstrumentandtheresultsarepresentedinTable8.2.

Table8.2Regressionresults‘intentiontopurchase‘

Table8.2showstheresultsfromalinearregression,withthealgorithmscoreasthepredictorandtheintentiontopurchasescoreasthedependentvariable.TheanalysisrevealsthestandardisedcoefficientofBeta=0.585,t=17.999,p<0.001.Thet-testonBsuggeststhatthefindingsarenotclosetozeroandtissignificantsuggestingthatthemodelismeaningful.Thisindicatesthatscalescorespredictparticipants’responsesaboutintentiontobuytheproductbasedontheinnovation.

Insummary,thefindingssuggestthatthePEDsuccessfullydiscriminatesbetweenthetechnologiesand,aspredicted,theSenseWindows™designwasleastliked.Whenthescoresweresummedacrossthescales,theynotonlysignificantlydiscriminatebetweenthethreetechnologies,JaguarDrive™,SenseLights™andSenseWindows™,butthealgorithmscoreisalsoasignificantpredictorofintentiontopurchase.

ItwouldseemfromthisstudythatthePEDmeetstheobjectivesassetoutandhighlightsimportantindicatorsofconsumeraffectandcognitionaboutin-vehicleinnovations,discriminatingbetweenfavourableandlessfavourabledesigns.ItshouldbenotedatthispointthatthePEDscoresonlymakesensewhentheyareusedtocomparedifferentdesigns;itisnotpossibletospecifyanabsolutecriterionvaluethatindicateswhetheritisagoodorbaddesignatthisstage.WhilsttechnologieswithdifferentfunctionsweretestedinStudy1,theinstrumentisrequiredtomeasuretheemotionalimpactofthedesignwithfunctionalcomponentsbeingpartofthisevaluation.Theimportanceofthe

functionalcomponentofinnovativedesignsisexploredfurtherinStudy2.However,weassessedsystemmock-upsinStudy1ratherthanactualsystems.Study2usesanactualsystemandcomparesPEDresponsesacrossdifferentmodesofpresentation.

Study2:ModesofDesignPresentation

Aims

TheprimaryaimofthesecondinvestigationwastodeterminehowdifferentmodesofdesignpresentationwouldaffectPEDscores.Thatis,iftheinnovationispresentedinadegradedformsuchasapictureorvideo,willtheresultsbeindicativeofthescoresobtainedwhenseatedintheproductioncarandinteractingwiththedesigninnovation?Thisisanimportantaspectasitishopedthattheinstrumentwillbeusefulatearlystagesofthedesignprocessaswellasatthephysicalprototypeorproductionstage.AsecondaryaimofStudy2wastoinvestigateanotherdesigninnovationthatisbothfunctional,in-vehicleandmayhaveemotiveappeal,whileextendingtheresearchbeyondJaguarcars.AdesignthatmeetsthesecriteriawastheBMWiDrive.

Stimuli

Whileaestheticsmaybepossibletojudgefromagraphicrepresentation,whatthedesignfunctionisliketouseismoredifficulttodetermineusingthismodeofpresentation.Forthisreasonadescriptionofhowthedesignfunctionswaspresentedalongsideanypictureorvideooftheproduct.Similarly,thecontextinwhichthedesignissetmayhaveaneffect,andsopicturesofthetargetcarandcabinwerenecessarytoincludeforratingtheinnovation.Generally,itisknownthatthemoreinformationthatisprovidedaboutadesign,thegreatertheindividual’sengagementwiththeproductandthemorepositivetheirimpressionofthatproductbecomes(Meyers-Levy1989,Nagaraj2007,CastleandChattopadhyay2010).ToaddressthesecondaimofStudy2,theBMWiDrivewaschosenas,likeJaguarDrive™,itismultifunctional,controllingmanyaspectsofthetechnologyinsidethecarandintendedtoneatentheinteriorofthecar,reducingthenumberofswitchesnecessary,whilelookinggoodandimpressingtheconsumer.Finally,ithassomesimilaritiesinappearancetotheJaguarDrive™,buthasacompletelydifferentfunction.

ParticipantsandProcedure

Twenty-fiveparticipantstookpartinStudy2drawnfromemployeesandstudentsbasedatWarwickUniversity.JLRprovidedatopoftherange6seriesBMWwithsecondgenerationiDrive(Figure8.2).ParticipantswereinvitedtotakepartbyemailandrespondentswererandomlyassignedtooneoftwoconditionsandsenteithertheText/PictureinformationabouttheiDriveorsentthisinformationinconjunctionwithashortvideoclipoftheiDrivebeingused.TheywereinstructedtoviewtheinformationandthencompletethePEDonline,savetheirresponsesandsenditbacktotheresearcherasanemailattachment.

Figure8.2InteriorandiDriveintargetvehicle

AftercompletingthePED,participantswereaskedtoattendadesignatedlocationafewdayslatertositinthecarandexperiencetheiDrivefirsthand.Eachparticipantwasaskedtositinthedrivers’seatwhiletheresearchersatinthefrontpassengerseat.Abriefdescriptionofthepurposeofthestudywasgiven,indicatingthattheirevaluationoftheiDrivewasimportantandthattheywouldbeaskedtocompleteapaperversionofthePEDoncemoreattheendofthestudy.Usabilityofthedesignsolutionwhilstdrivingwasnotassessedduringthisstudy;however,futureresearchwillemploydrivingsimulator-basedmethodologytoinvestigatehowdifferentdrivingexperiencesmightimpactonthecognitiveandaffectiveaspectsofdifferentdesignsolutions.

TheresearchertheninstructedparticipantstousetheiDriveanditsvariousfunctions,suchasradio,satellitenavigation,heatingandvehicleinformation.Someofthesefunctionsrequiredtheparticipanttonavigatethroughanumberofsub-menusandscrollthroughanumberofoptionsdisplayedonthecentrescreen.Whenallthetaskshadbeenattempted,participantswereaskedtocompletethePEDforafinaltime,whichtookanaverageofthreeminutes.

Results

Thestudyemployeda2x2factorialdesignwithonewithin-subjects’factorofExperiencewithtwolevels(InformationandIn-vehicle)andonebetween-subjects’factorofInformationTypewithtwolevels(Text/PictureandText/Picture+Video).TheeffectofsittinginthecarandusingtheiDriveonPEDratingswasalsoinvestigatedacrossgroups.

NostatisticallysignificantdifferenceswerefoundforthePEDscalesbetweenthetwodifferentlevelsoninformation(InformationandIn-vehicle)orpreandpostexperienceoftheactualdesignin-vehicle.Multivariateanalysisfoundtheonlystatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenconditionswasforthe‘Anxiety’and‘AvailableHelp’scales.Beforesittinginthecar,respondentsweremoreanxiousaboutthedesignafteronlyviewingthepictureanddescriptioninformationcomparedtothosethatalsoviewedthevideoinadditiontothisinformation.Thisdifferencedisappearedaftersittinginthecar.However,whenscoringthedesignatthispoint,respondentsfeltthatmorehelpwasneededtousethedevicecomparedtowhentheyhadjustviewedtheinformationsupplied.

Anotherwaytoanalysetheeffectofinformationtypeswastodeterminewhetherthescoresfromthevideoandtextmaterialpredictthescoresthatwerelaterobtainedinthecar.Inotherwords,dotheratingsindividualsgivefrom

impoverishedinformationstillproduceresultscomparabletothatfoundwhenthefinishedproductispresentedinthevehicle.Resultsofaregressionanalysisindicatedthatindividuals’scoresbeforesittinginthecarwerepredictiveofthepatternofscoringfoundaftersittinginthevehicle,exceptforEaseofUsewheretheregressionwasnotsignificant(seeTable8.3).

Table8.3Regressionresultspreandpost

Insummary,therewasnosignificantdifferencebetweenthetwoconditionsforlevelofinformation;Text/PictureorText/Picture+Video.Scoreswerealsoverysimilarforpreandpostin-vehicleexperience.Also,Prein-vehiclescoresseemedpredictiveofscoresafterparticipantssatinthecarandusedtheiDrive.

Thedifferencesthatdidemergeseemedcentredaroundeaseofuseandtheanticipatedhelprequiredusingthesystem.Thisisintuitive,asonlyin-vehicleexperiencewillgiverichinformationofitsusability.

ThissuggeststhatthePEDmayprovideanindicationofemotivereactionstoinnovationsatvariousstagesofthedesignprocess.Printeddescriptionsandphotographicinformationaloneseemtoprovidesomecuesforindividualstogaugetheirfeelingaboutthedesign,exceptthoseusabilitydimensionsthatmayvaryacrosspresentationtypes.Itwouldstillbesensibletosuggestthough,thatwhendirectlycomparingdesigninnovations,theyshouldbepresentedinthesamemodalitiesforavalidcomparisonofthescores,sincetheregressionmodels,whilestatisticallysignificant,explainonlyaportionofthevariance.Thisstudyprovidessomeearlyevidencethatindividualscanmeaningfullyscoredifferentinnovationsfromdifferenttypesofpresentationmaterialandthesescoresaretosomeextentpredictiveofthescorestheywouldgivewhensittinginthevehicleinteractingwiththedesigninnovationitself.

Conclusion

Thefindingsindicatethatdriveracceptanceofin-vehicletechnologydesignmaybeamultidimensionalconceptdependentupontheemotional,cognitiveandexperientialeffectontheconsumer.Thecomplexityrequiredtomeasuretheindividual’sresponsetoanautomotiveinnovationisanimportantmessageforthischapter.Otherattemptshavebeenmadetomeasurethedriver’sacceptanceofvehicletechnologies,suchasthescalesuggestedbyVanderLaan,HeinoandDeWaard(1997),whichhasausefulness(similartotheTAM)andsatisfactioncomponent.Whilescalesliketheseareshortandsimpletouse,theydonotconsiderthepotentialmoderatingemotionalandcognitivefactorsinsuchdepthasthePED.ThePEDwasconstructedtocapturethemaindriversofaffectfornovelin-cardesignsasfullyaspossibleanditsadvantageliesinthisanditsdemonstratedusefulnessatvariousstagesofthedesignprocess.

ThePEDscaleandsub-scalesdoseemtomeasureimportantaspectsofconsumeraffectandcognitionstodowithdesigninnovations.FocusinghereontheJaguardriveselector,cabinlightsandwindowopening,thescalesdiscriminatedbetweenthesethreein-vehicledesigntechnologiesintheexpecteddirection.ConsideringthedifferentmodesofpresentationfortheBMWiDrive,sinceresponsestographicalrepresentationsofadesigncorrelatedwithresponsestothein-vehicleexperience,thissuggeststhattheinstrumentmaygiveareasonableindicationofreactionstothefinalproductfromearlyrenderingsofthatdesign.

thatdesign.WhilethePEDcapturedresponsesthatdifferentiatedthetechnologiestested,

measurementingeneralmaybemorecomplexandsuggestsfurtherareasofdevelopmentfortheinstrument.Forinstance,thefactorswhichareimportanttomeasureacceptanceinprestigemodels,oftenpurchasedforaestheticsandperformancereasons,maydifferwhensimilartechnologiesareinmoremundanevehicles.Alsothechangeinappraisaloftheinnovationovertimeneedstobeconsidered;certaindesignsmaybefrustratingtobeginwith,butbecomemoresatisfactoryasitsfunctionsarelearned.However,itisalsopossiblethatadesignthatisacceptabletobeginwith,maybecomejustanoveltyovertimeandretainlessaffectiveappeal.

AfinalthreadoffutureinvestigationforinstrumentssuchasthePED,couldbetoinvestigatewhethersuchscalesaresensitiveenoughtodiscriminateacrossdifferentlevelsofacceptancebetweenquitesimilartechnologies,suchassubtlydifferenttypesofdriveselector.Itisreasonabletoconcludethatdriveracceptanceasaconceptneedstoincorporateabroadrangeoffactorsinordertounderstanditsimpactonbehaviour.Asin-carinnovationsareincreasinglyincorporatedintovehicledesignthisisanimportantareatopursue.

References

BrunerII,G.C.andKumar,A.2005.ApplyingTAMtoconsumerusageofhandheldInternetdevices.JournalofBusinessResearch,58:553–8.

Burns,A.D.2003.Phenomenologyofcustomerdelight:Acaseofproductevaluation.PhDthesis,CranfieldUniversity(Thesis-C).

Castle,C.andChattopadhyay,S.P.2010.Textmessagesasadvertisements:Anempiricalinvestigationofmobilephonesasmedia.InternationalConferenceonBusinessandEconomicResearch,KuchingSarawak,Malaysia.

Davis,F.D.1989.‘Perceivedusefulness,perceivedeaseofuse,anduseracceptanceofinformationtechnology’.MISQuarterly,13(3):319–39.

Evans,S.andBurns,A.D.2007.Aninvestigationofcustomerdelightduringproductevaluation:Implicationsforthedevelopmentofdesirableproducts.JournalofEngineeringManufacture,221(B):1625–40.

Fuller,J.andMatzler,K.2007.Customerdelightandmarketsegmentation:Anapplicationofthethree-factortheoryofcustomersatisfactiononlifestylegroups.TourismManagement,29:116–216.

Jordan,P.W.2000.Designingpleasurableproducts:Anintroductiontothenewhumanfactors.LondonandNewYork:TaylorandFrancis.

Kano,N.1984.Attractivequalityandmust-bequality.JournaloftheJapaneseSocietyforQualityControl:39–48.

Kulviwat,S.,BrunerII,G.C.,Kumar,A.,Nasco,S.A.andClark,T.2007.Towardaunifiedtheoryofconsumeracceptancetechnology.PsychologyandMarketing,24(12):1059–84.

Lu,Y.,Zhou,T.andWang,B.2009.ExploringChineseusers’acceptanceofinstantmessagingusingthetheoryofplannedbehavior,thetechnologyacceptancemodel,andtheflowtheory.ComputersinHumanBehavior,25:29–39.

Mehrabian,A.andRussell,J.A.1974.Anapproachtoenvironmentalpsychology.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Meyers-Levy,J.1989.Primingeffectsonproductjudgments:Ahemisphericinterpretation.JournalofConsumerResearch,16:76–86.

Nagamatchi,M.1995.Kanseiengineering:Anewergonomicconsumer-orientedtechnologyforproductdevelopment.InternationalJournalofIndustrialErgonomics,15:3–11.

Nagaraj,S.2007.Theimpactofconsumerknowledge,informationmodeandpresentationformonadvertisingeffects.PhDthesis,KTHRoyalInstituteofTechnology,Stockholm,Sweden.

O’Connor,B.P.2000.SPSSandSASprogramsfordeterminingthenumberofcomponentsusingparallelanalysisandVelicer’sMAPtest.BehaviorResearchMethods,Instrumentation,andComputers,32:396–402.

Rust,R.T.andOliver,R.L.2000.Shouldwedelightthecustomer?JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience,28(1):86–94.

Scherer,K.R.2005.Whatareemotions?Andhowcantheybemeasured?SocialScienceInformation,44:695–729.

Schutte,S.T.W.,Eklund,J.,Axelsson,J.R.C.andNagamatchi,M.2004.Concepts,methodsandtoolsinKanseiengineering.TheoreticalIssuesinErgonomicsScience.5(3):214–31.

VanderLaan,J.D.,Heino,A.andDeWaard,D.1997.Asimpleprocedurefortheassessmentofacceptanceofadvancedtransporttelematics.TransportationResearch,5(1):1–10.

Venkatesh,V.andDavis,F.D.2000.AtheoreticalextensionoftheTechnologyAcceptanceModel:Fourlongitudinalfieldstudies.ManagementScience,46(2):186–204.

Venkatesh,V.,Morris,M.G.,Davis,G.B.andDavis,F.B.2003.Useracceptanceofinformationtechnology:Towardaunifiedview.MISQuarterly,27(3):425–78.

Yi,M.Y.,Jackson,J.D.,Park,J.S.andProbst,J.C.2006.Understandinginformationtechnologyacceptancebyindividualprofessionals:Towardanintegrativeview.InformationandManagement,43:350–63.

Chapter9AnEmpiricalMethodforQuantifyingDrivers’LevelofAcceptanceofAlertsIssuedbyAutomotiveActive

SafetySystemsJan-ErikKällhammer

AutolivDevelopment,AB,Sweden

KipSmithNavalPostgraduateSchool,USA

ErikHollnagelUniversityofSouthernDenmark,Denmark

Abstract

Thischapteraddressesthreeissuesrelatedtofalsealarmsandthedevelopmentofautomotiveactivesafetysystems.First,itisprudentforsystemdeveloperstoacknowledgethatfalsealarmsareinevitableconsideringtherarityofaccidentsandtofocusonachievingdriveracceptanceforalertsthatarefalsealarms.Second,systemdeveloperswhoconsiderfalsealarmstobeanintegralpartofthedesignofactivesafetysystemsthataddresspotentialaccidentsituationscantakeadvantageofthedrivers’subjectiveperceptionofthosesituationstoguidethespecificationofthesystem’salertingcriteria.Third,thisapproachtothedevelopmentofactivesafetysystemsislikelytoproducesystemsthatachieverelativelyhigherlevelsofdriveracceptance.

Introduction

Thispaperpresentsareviewofissuesraisedbytheprevalenceoffalsealarmsbyautomotiveactivesafetysystems.Ithasthreesections.Thefirstdefinestheterms‘driveracceptance’and‘falsealarms’,discussesdriveracceptanceoffalsealarmsandreviewsfalsealarmswithinthecontextofthedevelopmentofautomotiveactivesafetysystems.Thesecondsectionurgesthatsystem

developersacknowledgethatfalsealarmsarenotonlypragmaticallyunavoidable,buthavegenuineutilitywhendevelopingactivesafetysystems.Thethirdsectionarguesthathighlevelsofdriveracceptanceofissuedalertsshouldbecomeoneofthemaintargetsofsystemdevelopment.Itpresentsanempiricalmethodologyforsystemdevelopmentbasedondrivers’acceptanceofalertsinsituationswherefalsealarmsareunavoidable.

Thediscussioninthisreviewisrestrictedtodriverassistancesystemsthatissuealertsbutthatdonotintervenetoinitiateavehicleresponse.Muchofthediscussioncanbeextendedtoincludesystemsthatdotakecontrolinsomeform.Issuesrelatedtoalarmreliability(BlissandGilson1998),theabilityofahumanobserver(driver)todetectandactonanissuedalert,andtheinfluenceofalertmodalityandintensityondriveracceptancearebeyondthescopeofthisreview.

ActiveSafetySystems

Anactivesafetysystemmaybedefinedasanyautomotivesafetysystemwithfunctionalitythatisactivatedbeforethecollision.Theyaredesignedtoassistdriversinthedetectionofpotentialaccidentsituations.Suchsystemsarealsoreferredtoasprimarysafetysystems.Incontrast,passivesafetysystems–orsecondarysafetysystems–aredesignedtomitigatetheconsequencesafteracollisionhasoccurred.

Therearetwobroadclassesofactivesafetysystems,thosethatissuealertsandthosethatautonomouslyintervenetoinitiateavehicleresponse.Theeffectivenessofsystemsthatissuealertswilldependontimelyandappropriateactionbythedriver.Systemsthatautonomouslytakestepstoavoidanaccidentwillnotdependoneitherthedriver’sreactionorlevelofacceptanceofthesystemorofitsresponse.However,anysystemactivation–eitheralert,interventionorboth–willlikelymodifythedriver’sattitudetowardsthesystem.Accordingly,thebenefitsofanyactivesafetysystemthatissuesalertswilldepend,inpart,ondriveracceptanceandtheadequacyofthetechnology.

DriverAcceptanceandFalseAlarms

InlinewithAbeandRichardson(2005),Breznitz(1983)andVlassenrootetal.(2010),wedefine‘driveracceptance’asthedriver’sattitudetowardsaninstalledsystemwherethedegreeofacceptanceisinfluencedbytherateandnatureofitsmissesandfalsealarms.Thisdefinitiontiesdriveracceptancetowell-known

constructsofSignalDetectionTheory(GreenandSwets1966),afamiliarandpowerfultoolforquantifyingtheaccuracyandbiasofdecisionoutcomes.SignalDetectionTheorystandsasthebasisofourdiscussionoffalsealarms,althoughweacknowledgethatotherdefinitionshavebeenproposed,forexample,XiaoandSeagull(1999).

Weusetheword‘alert’asageneraldescriptionofanyresponseissuedbyanactivesafetysystem,independentofitsmodalityorobjectiveorsubjectivevalidity.Weusetheterm‘falsealarm’exclusivelyforalertsthatarefalseaccordingtoastrictdefinition:alertstopredictedeventsthatdonotoccur.Weusetheterm‘miss’foreventsthatdooccurbutarenotpredictedbythesystem.

Astheconsequencesofamisseddetectioncanbecatastrophic,itoftenismoreimportanttoreducemissesthantoeliminatefalsealarmswhendesigningsystemsthatcanreducetheriskoffatalities(RiceandTrafimow2010,ZabyshnyandRagland2003).Reducingtherateofalertsthatarefalsealarmsbysettingthedecisioncriteriamoreconservativelyoftenleadstoadelayedactivationofthealert.Alertsthatcometoolateareoftenmistrusted(AbeandRichardson2005).However,conventionalwisdomstatesthatfalsealarmswillreducethetrustinsystemreliabilityand,asaconsequence,compliancewithissuedalerts.Thisdistrustisoftenreferredtoasthe‘crywolf’syndrome(Breznitz1983).Itcanleadthedrivertoneglectthesystemortofindcreativewaysofbypassingit.Theerosionofconfidenceinthesystemmayleadtounderuseandeventodisuseofthesystem(FarberandPaley1993,Lerneretal.1996,ParasuramanandRiley1997).

Afalsealarmisalwaysaposthoccategorisation.Todeterminewhetherthealertwascorrectorafalsealarm,itmustbeknownwhethertheeventoccurredornot.Inthecontextofvehiclecollisions,analertthatisafalsealarmisanalerttoanysetofconditionsthatcouldbeassociatedwithacollisionbutwhichdonotleadtoone(non-collisionevent).Strictlyspeaking,thisdefinitionimpliesthatevenanalerttoasituationwherethedriveravoidedthecollisionisafalsealarm–astheevent(collision)didnottakeplace.Thealternative,classifyingtheeventasatruealarmwithasuccessfuloutcome,islikelytobedifficulttojustify,astheinfluenceofanyalertorresponsebythesystemmaybehardtodemonstrate.

Ouruseoftheterm‘alert’doesnotimplyanylevelofcorrectnessorimmediacy.ItadherestotheconditioninSignalDetectionTheorywherethenullhypothesishasbeenrejectedandtheissuedalertmaybeeitherahitorafalsealarm.WedonotfollowBlissandGilson(1998)todifferentiatea‘warning’froman‘alarm’.Webelieveourterminologyismoreinlinewiththosemoretraditionallyusedindiscussionsofautomotivesafety.

traditionallyusedindiscussionsofautomotivesafety.Acomplicationinherenttoanydiscussionoffalsealarmsinthecontextof

automotivesafetyisconfusionaboutwhatactuallyconstitutesafalsealarm.Onelineofthinkingholdsthatfalsealarmsaresystemfailuresofsomekindandshouldbeavoided.Forexample,Lerneretal.(1996)statedthatfalsealarmsimplysometypeofhardwarefailureorasituationwhereanalgorithmhasincorrectlyidentifiedanon-threateningsituationasahazard.Wesuggestthatthislineofthinkingisnotveryuseful.Itisoftendifficulttoestablishwhetherornotasystemhasfailedorevasiveactionswereinitiatedbyeitherparty.

FalseAlarmsandNuisanceAlerts

ResearchersinEurope,JapanandtheUnitedStateshaveconductedmanystudiesontheimpactsofalertsthatarefalsealarmsondriveracceptanceofactivesafetysystems.Manyofthesestudiesdistinguishbetweenusefulalertsthatarefalsealarmsandthosethatareanuisance.ThisdistinctionmayoriginallyhavebeendrawninstudiesofForwardCollisionWarning(FCW)systemssponsoredbytheUSNationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration(NHTSA2005).FCWsystemsaredesignedtoadvisedriverstoimpendingrear-endcollisions.Kieferetal.(1999)usedthetwoterms‘nuisancealarms’and‘nuisancealerts’interchangeablyanddefinedthemasalertsissuedbytheFCWsystemthatthedriverbelievesarenotjustifiedbythesituation.Theydescribedtheidealsystemasonethatactslikeanalwaysattentivepassenger,providingacrashalertonlywhenheorshebecomesalarmed.Kieferetal.acknowledgedthattheidentificationofanalertaseitheranuisanceoraswelcomeisnecessarilysubjective.Harringtonetal.(2008)discussthesubjectivenatureofnuisancealertsandsuggestthatthecriteriathatmakeanalertanuisancearedriver-andcontext-dependent.

Kieferetal.(1999)distinguishedthreecasesofnuisancealerts:thosecausedbynoiseorinterferencewhenthereisnoobjectpresent,out-of-pathnuisancealertsandin-pathnuisancealerts.Out-of-pathnuisancealertsarecausedbyobjectsthatarenotinthepathofthesubjectvehicle.Somein-pathnuisancealertsarecausedbyvehiclesthatareinthepathofthesubjectvehiclebutareatadistanceormovingataspeedthatdriversdonotperceiveasalarming.Otherin-pathnuisancealertsareissuedinsituationswherethedrivercanavoidacollisionbyhisorhernormalbrakingbehaviourandintensity.

AsKieferetal.(1999)pointout,alertsthatshouldtriggeradriverresponsehavetobeissuedearlyenoughtoallowaninattentivedrivertotakeappropriateaction.Asaresult,analertthatsomedriversconsideranuisancemaybe

acceptedbyothersasbothvalidandhelpful.Thishasaclearimplicationforsystemdesign:therateofacceptanceislikelytobeincreasedifdriverscanadjustthelevelofthreshold.However,suchadjustmentsshouldneverfrustratesystemfunctionality.

Najmetal.(2006)definedfalsealarmsinthecontextofrear-endcollisionavoidancesystemsasalertsissuedinsituationswherethehostvehicleisnotonarear-endcrashcoursewithanin-pathobstacle.Theyalsodefinedtheterms‘conflicts’and‘near-crashes’alongacontinuumofsituationsthatrequiredriver(re)actionatthelastsecond.Asituationthatisaconflictrequiresdriverbrakingorsteeringatnormalresponselevels,whereasanear-crashrequiresharddecelerationorsteeringmanoeuvresatthelastsecond.Implicitinthesedefinitionsisthecontentionthatonlyalertstoeventsthatwouldleadtoacollisionwouldbeconsideredatruealert.However,Najmetal.pragmaticallyacknowledgedthefuzzinessoffalsealarmsanddriveracceptance.Ontheonehand,theypointedoutthatalertsmaybeconsiderednuisancesbysomedriversiftheyaredeemedtobeunnecessaryorcometooearly.Ontheotherhand,theysuggestedthatout-of-pathalerts(whichtheydefinedasfalsealarms)maybehelpfulingettingadistracteddrivertorefocusattentionbacktotheroad.Thus,Najmetal.consideredalertsthatarefalsealarmstobehelpfuliftheygetapositiveresult.

LeesandLee(2007)distinguishedbetweenfalsealarmsandunnecessaryalarms.Theydefinedfalsealarmsasnon-useful,unintendedalertsthatareeitherinconsistentwiththedesignofthesystemorcharacterisedbyunpredictableactivation.Thislineofthinkingimpliesthatalertsarefalsealarmsiftheydonotmatchathreatorarenotunderstoodbythedriver.Incontrast,theydefined‘unnecessaryalarms’asalertsthatarepredictableandunderstoodbythedriver,butthatarenotconsidereduseful.Thus,anunnecessaryalarmisanuisancethatisfullyconsistentwiththedesignofthesystem.

OurreadingofKieferetal.(1999),Najmetal.(2006),LeesandLee(2007)andothersunderstandsthemtoarguethatthedistinctionofwhetherornotalertsarefalseshouldbelessrelevantthanwhetherornottheyareuseful.Acorrectalerttoconditionsthatoftenprecedeacollisionwherethecollisionisavoided(duetodriveraction)isafalsealarm,accordingtoourstrictdefinition,andmaybeconsideredanuisancebymanydriversbutnotbyall(SmithandZhang2004).Indeed,manydriversarelikelytofindafalsealarmcausedbyanobjectoreventinasituationnormallyassociatedwiththeriskofanaccidenttobeunderstandable,acceptableanduseful.

Insummary,many(butnotall)automotiveresearchershaveconcludedthatthedistinctionsbetweenafalsealarmthatisanuisanceandafalsealarmthatis

thedistinctionsbetweenafalsealarmthatisanuisanceandafalsealarmthatishelpfulandacceptabledependsonbothcontextanddriverjudgment.Manyalertsthatarefalsealarmsareinfactuseful.

FalseAlarmsAreUnavoidableandHaveUtility

Thebaserateforcrashesislow.ActuarialstatisticsbasedonUSdataindicatethatfatalmotorvehiclecrashescanbeexpectedapproximatelyonceevery5,000driveryears,acrashresultinginaninjurycanbeexpectedapproximatelyonceevery100driveryearsandpropertydamagecrashesapproximatelyonceevery50driveryears(NHTSA2005).DatafromSweden,theUKandtheNetherlands–thecountriesoftheEuropeanUnionwiththebesttrafficsafetyrecords–showthatfatalcrashescanbeexpectedapproximatelyonceevery8,000driveryears,severeinjuriesapproximatelyevery900yearsandslightinjuriesapproximatelyevery200years(Koornstraetal.2002).Theimplicationoftheseactuarialdataisthattheactivationofaspecificactivesafetysysteminresponsetoasituationthatactuallywouldleadtobodilyinjury(iftheactivesafetysystemwerenotpresent)willoccur,onaverage,lessthanonceinthelifetimeofeverydriver.

Becauseaccidentsarerare,thebaserateoftruealerts–alertsthatarenotfalsealarms–isnecessarilylow.Thisfacthastwoundesirableconsequencesifdesignersstrivetoeliminateallfalsealarms.First,thefewtruealertswouldbesorareastobeutterlyunfamiliarandthedriver’sreactionunpredictable,evenifthealerthadsucceededindirectingthedriver’sattentionappropriately.Second,thefrequencyofalertswouldbeinsufficienttoenabledriverstocalibratetrustinthesystem.

Driverawarenessofsystemfunctionalityisinfluencedbythefrequencyofalerts.Itisanironyofautomationthatefficientrecallofhowtoreactdependsonthefrequencyofuse(Bainbridge1983).Accordingly,therarityofalertsthatarenotfalsealarmsreducesthelikelihoodthatdriverswouldbeabletorespondappropriatelyandinatimelyfashion(Leeetal.2002,Parasuraman,HancockandOlofinboba1997).Analertonlyinsituationsleadingtoacrashwouldbesorarethatitmightaggravateanalreadycriticalsituation.

Anysystemdesignedtoprovokethedrivertotakeactionrequiresdriverawarenessofthemeaningandutilityofitsalerts.Thisawarenessenablesthedrivertodeveloptrustinthesystem(Riley1996).Thedevelopmentoftrustmayrelyonhearsayorreputationbutismoregenerallybasedonexperiencingmanyalertsandforminganopinionaboutthesystem’sreliabilityandpredictability(LeeandSee2004).

Duetothelowbaseratesoftrafficcollisions,webelievethattheonlytype

Duetothelowbaseratesoftrafficcollisions,webelievethattheonlytypeofsystemactivationfrequentenoughtoprovidethisexperienceisthefalsealarm.Accordingly,weencouragedesignersofactivesafetysystemstoacceptthatthesystemwillissuealertsthatarefalsealarmsandtoworktoensurethatthosealertsaresufficientlycommonandpredictablethatdriversacceptthemandcancalibratetheirtrustinthesystem.

Insummary,alertsthatarefalsealarmswilllikelybeacceptediftheyprovideuseful,trustworthyinformationtothedriver.Italsoimpliesthatfalsealarmsaretheonlysourceofalertsfrequentenoughtoallowthedrivertodeveloptrustinthesystem.Theseconsiderationssupportourproposalthatsystemdesignersneedtorecognisethatfalsealarmsarenotnecessarilyundesirableand,infact,cansupportdrivers’developmentoftrustinthesystemandtheiracceptanceofthesystem.

FalseAlarmsAreNotNecessarilyBad

Thenegativeconsequencesofalertsthatarefalsealarmscanbelargelymitigatediftheyarepredictable(LeeandSee2004).Large,butpredictable,errorsmayaffectdrivertrustinthesystemlessthanminorunpredictablefaults(MuirandMoray1996).Theeffectivenessofthesystemdependsonwhetherthedriverwillbecomeawareoftheriskysituationearlierwiththesystemthanwithoutit(McLaughlin,HankeyandDingus2008).Tobeeffective,alertsneedtoberare,predictableandinformative.Driverscanbenefitfromalertsthatarefalsealarmsiftheycanadoptastrategythatcanbenefitfromtheimperfectinformationtheyprovide.

Evensomewhatunreliablesystemscanaiddistractedusers(DixonandWickens2006,MaltzandShinar2007).Thereisabodyofresearchthatindicatesthatdriversmayacceptalertingsystemsthatproducenuisancealertssystematicallyandrelativelyfrequently.Forexample,vehiclesinthefieldexperimentsreportedbyLerneretal.(1996)issuednuisancealertsroutinelyonceortwiceaweek.Driversreportedminimalannoyancelevels.Learneretal.concludedthatintrusivealarmsareacceptableatmodestrates.LeBlancetal.(2008)suggestthat15alertsper100miles(160km)drivenmaybeanacceptablelevelofnuisancealerts.Preciselyhowtheyreachedthatnumberis,however,unclear.

Thegoalofminimisingmissesandfalsealarmsisimportant,buttheoverridinggoalshouldbetopromptappropriatedriverbehaviourinresponsetoallalerts,especiallythosethatare‘truealarms’.Wearguethatthiscanbeachievedifandonlyifthedriverregularlyacceptsmostofthealertsissuedby

thesystem.Ourviewoffalsealarmstakesintoaccounttheutilityoftheinformationand

thedriver’sperceptionofthesituation.Forexample,analertbyapedestriandetectionsystemtoachildinthestreetwilllikelybeconsideredusefulinformationeventhoughthereisnoimmediateriskofacollision.Manydriverswilllikelyacceptanalertforthistypeofsituation.Falsealarmsareusefulwhentheymatchthedriver’sexpectationforanalertgiventhesituations.

RethinkingFalseAlarms

Ourdiscussionoftheseissuessupportstheclaimthatdrivers’perceptionsofissuedalertscanprovideusefulinformationinthedevelopmentofalertingstrategiesthatbettermatchthedrivers’expectations.

Sullivan,TsimhoniandBogard(2008)notedthatthesubjectiveassessmentofthereliabilityofasystemmaybethemostimportantinfluenceonthedriver’sresponsetoitsalerts.Asthisreliabilityneedstobemeasured,theysuggestedanapproachthatasksthedrivertodirectlyassessthesystem.Themethodwepropose–driveracceptanceratingstocalibratesystemdesign–followstheirsuggestion.

Weproposethatdrivers’acceptanceshouldshapethesystem’sactivationrequirements(alertingcriteria).Toachievethisgoal,designersneedtofocusonthedriver’sexpectationsandtosetthetargetofmakingdriveracceptanceashighaspossible,ratherthanfocusingonreducingthefalsealarmrate.Wemustthereforerethinktheconceptoffalsealarms.Falsealarms–alertstosituationsthatmaydevelopintoacrashbutdonot–provideusefulinformationtothedriverand,whenissuedinsituationswheretheriskofanaccidentisself-evident,arelikelytobereceivedwithrelativelyhighlevelsofdriveracceptance.JustasAven(2009:929)definedsafety‘byreferencetoacceptablerisk’,theperformanceofanactivesafetysystemmaybedefinedbyreferencetoacceptablefalsealarmrates.

Amajorimplicationofourargumenttoreconsidertheutilityoffalsealarmsisthatresearchersanddesignersshouldseektounderstandthefactorsthatinfluencedriveracceptanceofalertsthatarefalsealarms.Understandingthesefactorsmakesitpossibletodefineobjectivecriteriathataresuitableforimplementationinthedecisionalgorithmsusedbyactivesafetysystems.

DesigningforAcceptanceofFalseAlarms

Thisre-evaluationoftheutilityoffalsealarmsleadsustoproposeanempiricalmethodologyforthedesignofactivesafetysystems.Ifwecandefinethefactorsthatpredictwhenmostdriverswillacceptalertsthatarefalsealarms,itbecomesreasonabletofocusthedesignofanactivesafetysystemondriverexpectationsforwhenthesystemshouldissueanalert.Byconformingtodriverexpectations,thesystemshouldbeabletoachievearelativelyhighlevelofuseracceptanceandbecomeaneffectivepartnerinthedriver-vehiclesystem.

Ourmethodusesvideorecordingsofalargenumberofactualtrafficsituationsrecordedfromthedriver’spointofview.Therecordingsarecapturedbyanactivesafetysystemthathasareasonable(e.g.,prototype)levelofperformanceinthefield,ontheroad.AsingleframefromaneventrecordedusingaNightVisionsystemisshowninFigure9.1.

Figure9.1AtypicalalertissuedbyaNightVisionsystemwithpedestrianalert

Thesystemcouplesafarinfrared(FIR)sensor,pedestrianrecognitionalgorithms,alertinglogicandaconsoledisplay.Priortopresentationinthelaboratory,thevideoclipsarereviewedtoeliminatebothincorrectlydetectedcars,pedestriansorotherobjectsandtrafficsituationswherethereasonforanalertmightbeambiguousorunrelatedtothepurposeofthestudy.Presentingtheserecordingsinalabenvironmentprovidesexperimentalcontrolofstimuliwhileretainingmuchofthehighecologicalvalidityofactualtrafficevents.

Participantsinthelabareexperienceddrivers.Inaself-pacedtask,theyviewarecordingandratetheacceptabilityofanalerttoitstrafficsituation.TheratingscanbeelicitedusingeitherasliderbarlikethatshowninFigure9.2orasetofradiobuttonsthatcreateaLikert-typescale.Thescalebarisanchoredat

oneendby‘Reject’andattheotherby‘Accept’.Whenasked,participantshaveindicatedthattheyunderstoodthescaletorepresentacontinuumfrom‘completelyacceptable’to‘completelyunacceptable’.Thetaskiscompletewhentheparticipanthasviewedandratedthealertstothefullsetofvideorecordings.

Figure9.2Continuousscaletoratethelevelofacceptanceofanassumedalert

Ourmethodbuildsupontwoestablishedprocedures.Thefirstistheself-reportratingtooldiscussedbyVanderLaan,HeinoandDeWaard(1997)thatmaybethemostwidelyusedtechniqueforassessingdriveracceptanceofnewautomotivetechnology.Thistoolmeasuresdriveracceptancebyaskingparticipantstorateninedifferentattributesoftheevaluatedsystemusingananchoredfive-pointscale.Ithasbeenusedtocomparedriverresponsestoavarietyofsystems.

ThesecondfoundationforourmethodisthehazardperceptiontestthatispartofUKdrivingtests(Jackson,ChapmanandCrundall2009).Inthistest,participantsarerequiredtowatchaseriesofvideoclipsrecordedfromthedriver’spointofviewandtopushabuttonwhenheorshedetectsahazard.Theresponsetimefromtheappearanceofthehazardisthedependentmeasure.Examplehazardsarepedestrians,parkedcars,cyclistsandothervehicles,regardlessoftrafficlaneordirection.

Likethehazardperceptiontest,ourapproachquantifiestherelativelevelwithwhichdriversarelikelytoacceptanalertfromanactivesafetysystemandhowthatlevelvariesacrosssituations.ItfollowsVanderLaanetal.(1997)tocollectsubjectiveratingsratherthantheresponsetimes.InsteadoftheninescalesadvocatedbyVanderLaanetal.,ourapproachusesasinglemeasureofalertacceptabilitytosimplifyandclarifytheparticipants’task.Theratingsarerankedtocontrolforindividualdifferencesinscaleuseandtheranksthereafterusedinwithin-subjectsstatisticalanalyses.

Application

Ameasureofagreementbetweenthefieldandlaboratorycanbegainedbycomparingtheposthoc,laboratoryratingbythedriverswhoexperiencedtherecordedeventstotheresponsesoftheparticipantswhodidnot.Thecorrelationsbetweenthedrivers’ratingsandthemeansoftheothers’ratingshasalwaysexceeded80percent.Theseresultssuggeststhattheratingsarerobustandgeneralisabletothepopulationsampled.

Inonestudy,drivershadatwo-buttonresponseunit(Accept/Reject)thattheyusedtoindicateatthetimeofpedestrianencountersinthefieldwhetherornottheyfoundthealertsissuedbythesystemtobeacceptable.Ourreviewofthein-fieldbuttonpushesandtheratingsprovidedinthelaboratorysuggeststhatthelaboratoryresultsarehighlyconsistentwithresponseselicitedinthefield.

ThismethodforextractingusefulinformationfromalertsthatarefalsealarmscanbeusedtoassessdriveracceptanceatthevariousstagesofsystemdevelopmentorduringFOT.Forexample,Källhammeretal.(2007)appliedthemethodtoelicitdrivers’assessmentsofavarietyofnaturalistictrafficsituations.IthasalsobeenusedbySmithandKällhammer(2010)toassesstheriskposedbyintersectionencroachments.

KällhammerandSmith(2012)usedthemethodtoassesstheacceptabilityof57pedestrianalertsthatwereallfalsealarmsandtoidentifyfactorsthatinfluencedrivers’ratings.Aregressionanalysisidentifiedtwofactors,pedestrianlocationandvelocity.Afollow-upstudygeneratedabest-fitregressionmodelusingpedestrianlocationandvelocityaspredictorvariablesandmeanratingsastheresponsevariable(SmithandKällhammer2012).Themodelexplainedmorethan60percentofthevariabilityindriverratings.

Discussion

Themethodcanbeusedtoobtainimmediatefeedbackfollowingreplaysofactualfalsealarmeventsortoobtainretrospectivelaboratoryanalysisbythedriversthemselvesorbyothers.Themethodisprovingtobeacost-effectivetoolforbridgingthegapbetweenfieldexperimentswiththeirhighlevelofecologicalvalidityandlab-basedexperimentswiththeirhighlevelofexperimentalcontrol.

Elicitingdriverratingsoftheacceptanceofalertsthatarefalsealarmscanbeusedtotestalternatecriteriaforissuinganalert.Byvaryingthecriteriathatgeneratethealertsforthecollectedincidents,itispossibletotesthypotheses

generatethealertsforthecollectedincidents,itispossibletotesthypothesesabouttheirimpactondriveracceptanceofthesystem.Themethodcanalsobeappliedtovideodatacreatedinasimulatedoranimatedenvironment,benefitingfromtheadditionalexperimentalpossibilitiessimulatorsprovide.Driveracceptanceratingsofanimationsbasedonreconstructedaccidentscouldprovidevaluableadditionaldatawhenactualcrashesarenotavailableforthedrivertoassess.

Disclaimers

Wedonotclaimthattheproposedmethodwillworkforallautomotiveactivesafetyapplications.Thedriver’sabilitytojudgesystemperformancewilldependonhisorherabilitytojudgetheconditiondetermininganalert(Sullivanetal.2008).Aforwardcollisionwarningisoneexamplewherethemethodmayhavelimitedutilityifthealertingsystemactsoninformationthatthedriverhasdifficultyperceivingorunderstandingorboth.Aswehaveyettoextendthemethodtoinvestigatebehaviouralresponsestoalertsthatarefalsealarms,wecannotcommentonthelinkagebetweenfalsealarmsanddriverbehaviour.

ChenandTerrence(2009)showedthattheresponsetosystemsthatarepronetoissuingfalsealarmsand/ormissesvariesacrossindividualsandtheirscoresonatestofattentionalcontrol.Participantswithrelativelyhighscoresfoundfalsealarmstobemoredisadvantageousthandidparticipantswithrelativelylowscores.Conversely,miss-pronesystemsweredeemedmoredisadvantageousbyparticipantswithlowscoresonthetest.

Conclusion

Theinvolvementofdriversinthefunctionofactivesafetysystemsimpliesthatthesystemscannotbeseenastechnicalsystemsalone.Knowledgeofhowthedriverandthevehiclefunctiontogetherasajointcognitivesystem(HollnagelandWoods2005)iscriticaltoachievingasuccessfuldesign.Driveracceptancehastobeanimportantdesigngoalforanyactivesafetysystem.Toachievethisgoal,designersneedtofocusonthedriver’sexpectationsandtosetthetargetofmakingdriveracceptanceashighaspossible.Findingtheproperbalancebetweenfalsealarmsthatareperceivedasusefulandasnuisanceswillrequireextensiveempiricalworkbothinthelaboratoryandthefield.Wehavedevelopedandareusingamethodthatelicitsfromdriversassessmentsoftheutilityofalertsthatarefalsealarms.Theseassessmentshelptotunethedesignofactivesafetysystemsandpromotetheiracceptance.

ofactivesafetysystemsandpromotetheiracceptance.

References

Abe,G.andRichardson,J.2005.Theinfluenceofalarmtimingonbrakinginlow-speeddriving.SafetyScience43:639–54.

Aven,T.2009.Safetyistheantonymofriskforsomeperspectivesofrisk.SafetyScience47:925–30.

Bainbridge,L.1983.Ironiesofautomation.Automatica19:775–9.Bliss,J.P.andGilson,R.D.1998.Emergencysignalfailure:Implicationsand

recommendations.Ergonomics41:57–72.Breznitz,S.1983.Cry-wolf:Thepsychologyoffalsealarms.Hillsdale,NJ:

Erlbaum.Chen,J.Y.C.andTerrence,P.I.2009.Effectsofimperfectautomationand

individualdifferencesonconcurrentperformanceofmilitaryandroboticstasksinasimulatedmultitaskingenvironment.Ergonomics52:907–20.

Dixon,S.R.andWickens,C.D.2006.Automationreliabilityinunmannedaerialvehiclecontrol:Areliance-compliancemodelofautomationdependenceinhighworkload.HumanFactors48:474–86.

Farber,E.andPaley,M.1993.Usingfreewaytrafficdatatoestimatetheeffectivenessofrear-endcollisioncountermeasures.ProceedingsoftheThirdAnnualMeetingofIntelligentVehicleHighwaySystem(IVHS)America,Washington,DC.

Green,D.M.andSwets,J.A.1966.Signaldetectiontheoryandpsychophysics.NewYork:Wiley.

Harrington,R.,Lam,R.,Nodine,E.,Ference,J.J.andNajm,W.G.2008.Integratedvehicle-basedsafetysystemslight-vehicleon-roadtestreport.Online:NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministrationReportDOTHS811020,Washington,DC.Availableat:http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58195/1/100880.pdf.

Hollnagel,E.andWoods,D.D.2005.Jointcognitivesystems:Foundationsofcognitivesystemsengineering.BocaRaton,FL:TaylorandFrancis.

Jackson,L.,Chapman,P.andCrundall,D.2009.Whathappensnext?Predictingotherroadusers’behaviourasafunctionofdrivingexperienceandprocessingtime.Ergonomics52:154–64.

Källhammer,J.-E.andSmith,K.2012.Assessingcontextualfactorsthatinfluenceacceptanceofpedestrianalertsbyanightvisionsystem.HumanFactors54:654–62.

Källhammer,J.-E.,Smith,K.,Karlsson,J.andHollnagel,E.2007.Shouldn’tthecarreactasthedriverexpects?Proceedingsofthe4thInternationalDrivingSymposiumonHumanFactorsinDriverAssessment,Training,andVehicleDesign(Stevenson,WA,US).

Kiefer,R.,LeBlanc,D.,Palmer,M.,Salinger,J.,Deering,R.andShulman,M.1999.Developmentandvalidationoffunctionaldefinitionsandevaluationprocedures.Online:NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministrationReportDOTHS808964,Washington,DC.]Availableat:http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/jpodocs/repts_te/87L01!.pdf.

Koornstra,M.,Lynam,D.,Nilsson,G.,Noordzij,P.,Pettersson,H.E.,Wegman,F.andWouters,P.2002.Sunflower:AcomparativestudyofthedevelopmentofroadsafetyinSweden,theUnitedKingdomandtheNetherlands.Online:Leidschendam:SWOVInstituteforRoadSafetyResearch.Availableat:http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Sunflower/Sunflower.pdf.

LeBlanc,D.,Bezzina,D.,Tiernan,T.,Freeman,K.,Gabel,M.andPomerleau,D.2008.Systemperformanceguidelinesforaprototypeintegratedvehicle-basedsafetysystem(IVBSS)–Lightvehicleplatform.Online:UniversityofMichiganTransportationResearchInstituteReportUMTRI-2008-20,AnnArbor,MI,USA.]Availableat:http://www.umtri.umich.edu/content/DOT_HS_811_020.pdf.

Lee,J.D.,McGehee,D.V.,Brown,T.L.andReyes,M.L.2002.Collisionwarningtiming,driverdistraction,anddriverresponsetoimminentrear-endcollisionsinahigh-fidelitydrivingsimulator.HumanFactors44:314–34.

Lee,J.D.andSee,K.A.2004.Trustinautomation:Designingforappropriatereliance.HumanFactors46:50–80.

Lees,M.N.andLee,J.D.2007.Theinfluenceofdistractionanddrivingcontextondriverresponsetoimperfectcollisionwarningsystems.Ergonomics50:1264–86.

Lerner,N.D.,Dekker,D.K.,Steinberg,G.V.andHuey,R.W.1996.Inappropriatealarmratesanddriverannoyance.Online:NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministrationReportDOTHS808533,Washington,DC.Availableat:http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/3757.pdf.

Maltz,M.andShinar,D.2007.Imperfectin-vehiclecollisionavoidancewarningsystemscanaiddistracteddrivers.TransportationResearchPartF10:345–57.

McLaughlin,S.B.,Hankey,J.M.andDingus,T.A.2008.Amethodforevaluatingcollisionavoidancesystemsusingnaturalisticdrivingdata.

AccidentAnalysisandPrevention40:8–16.Muir,B.M.andMoray,N.1996.Trustinautomation:2.Experimentalstudiesof

trustandhumaninterventioninaprocesscontrolsimulation.Ergonomics39:429–60.

Najm,W.G.,Stearns,M.D.,Howarth,H.,Koopmann,J.andHitz,J.2006.Evaluationofanautomotiverear-endcollisionavoidancesystem.Online:NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministrationReportDOTHS810569,Washington,DC.Availableat:http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/CrashAvoidance/2006/HS910569.pdf.

NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration(NHTSA).2005.Trafficsafetyfacts2004.Online:NHTSAReportDOTHS809919,Washington,DC.Availableat:http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/TSF2004.PDF.

Parasuraman,R.andRiley,V.1997.Humansandautomation:Use,misuse,disuse,abuse.HumanFactors39:230–53.

Parasuraman,R.,Hancock,P.A.andOlofinboba,O.1997.Alarmeffectivenessindrivercenteredcollision-warningsystems.Ergonomics40:390–99.

Rice,S.andTrafimow,D.2010.HowmanypeoplehavetodieoveratypeIIerror?TheoreticalIssuesinErgonomicsScience11:387–401.

Riley,V.1996.Operatorrelianceonautomation:Theoryanddata.InAutomationandHumanPerformance:TheoryandApplications,19–35.EditedbyR.ParasuramanandM.Mouloua.Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.

Smith,K.andKällhammer,J.-E.2010.Driveracceptanceoffalsealarmstosimulatedencroachment.HumanFactors52:446–76.

Smith,K.andKällhammer,J.-E.2012.Experimentalevidenceforthefieldofsafetravel.Proceedingsofthe56thAnnualMeetingoftheHumanFactorsandErgonomicSociety,2246–50.Boston.

Smith,M.andZhang,H.2004.SAfetyVEhiclesusingadaptiveinterfacetechnology(task8):Aliteraturereviewofintentinference.Washington,DC:ResearchandInnovativeTechnologyAdministration.Availableat:http://www.volpe.dot.gov/coi/hfrsa/work/roadway/saveit/docs/dec04/litrev_8a.pdf.

Sullivan,J.,Tsimhoni,O.andBogard,S.2008.Warningreliabilityanddriverperformanceinnaturalisticdriving.HumanFactors50:845–52.

VanderLaan,J.D.,Heino,A.andDeWaard,D.1997.Asimpleprocedurefortheassessmentofacceptanceofadvancedtransporttelematics.TransportationResearchPartC5:1–10.

Vlassenroot,S.,Brookhuis,K.,Marchau,V.andWitlox,F.2010.TransportSystems(ITS):AconceptualanalysisbasedonthecaseofIntelligentSpeedAdaptation(ISA).TransportationResearchPartF13:164–78.

Xiao,Y.andSeagull,F.J.1999.Ananalysisofproblemswithauditoryalarms:Definingtherolesofalarmsinprocessmonitoringtasks.ProceedingsoftheHumanFactorsandErgonomicsSociety43rdAnnualMeeting.SantaMonica,CA:HFES.

Zabyshny,A.A.andRagland,D.R.2003.Falsealarmsandhuman-machinewarningsystems.Online:UCBerkeleyTrafficSafetyCenterUCB-TSC-RR-2003-07,Berkeley,CA.Availableat:http://repositories.cdlib.org/its/tsc/UCB-TSC-RR-2003-07.

PARTIVDataonDriverAcceptance:CaseStudies

Chapter10DriverAcceptanceofIn-VehicleInformation,

AssistanceandAutomatedSystems:AnOverviewGaryBurnett

HumanFactorsResearchGroup,FacultyofEngineering,UniversityofNottingham,Nottingham,UK

CyrielDielsCoventrySchoolofArtandDesign,DepartmentofIndustrialDesign,Coventry

University,Coventry,UK

Abstract

ThischapterprovidesanoverviewofHumanFactorsissuesrelevanttotheacceptancebydriversoftechnology-basedsystemswithinvehicles.Adistinctionismadebetweenissuesrelevanttosystemsprovidinginformationtosupportdriving-relatedtasks(e.g.,navigation),systemsthatprovidesomedegreeofcontrol-basedassistance(e.g.,AdaptiveCruiseControl)andthosesystemswhichautomatethedrivingtask(e.g.,platooning).ItisrecognisedthatarangeofHumanFactorsissueswillhaveadirectinfluenceontheacceptanceofthesesystems,includingthoserelatedtodistraction,trustandreliability.Moreover,itisapparentthatacceptanceitselfwillimpactonsystemusage,primarilyraisingissuesofreliance.Thechapterconcludesbyhighlightingsometopicswhichhavereceivedrelativelylittleconsideration,butwillbecriticalfortheultimateacceptanceofin-vehiclesystems.

Introduction

Itiswidelyacknowledgedthatvehiclesareexperiencingarevolutionindesignasincreasingamountsofcomputingandcommunicationstechnologiesarebeingintroducedwithineverydaydrivingsituations.Manytechnologiesareutilised,butfromthedriver’sperspective,systemscanbeclassifiedintothreebroadcategories:

1.Systemsthatprovideinformationorwarningsofrelevancetothedrivingtask(e.g.,navigation,trafficandtravel,driverstatusmonitoring,lanedeparturewarnings);

2.Systemsthataimtoassistthedriverinfundamentalandspecificvehiclecontroltasks(e.g.,adaptivecruisecontrol,collisionavoidance,intelligentspeedadaptation);and

3.Systemsthatreplacethedriverinarangeofvehiclecontroltasks,ultimatelyautomatingdriving(e.g.,platooning,driverlesscars).

Inaddition,itisimportanttonotethatarangeofsystemsprovideinformationandservicesrelatedtoothersalientgoals:forinstance,forcomfort/entertainmentpurposesortoenhanceworkingproductivity(e.g.,email/Internetaccess).Thesesystemsareimportantintermsoftheimpacttheycanhaveonprimarydrivingtasks(distraction,behaviouraladaptationetc.).

Theacceptanceofsuchtechnologybyendusers(predominantlydriversandtheirpassengers)isimportantforseveralreasons.Firstly,andperhapsmostimportantly,systemsmustbeacceptediftheyarethentobeused(autilityargument),suchthatthefundamentaldesigngoalsforasystem(safety,drivingefficiencyandsoon)havethepotentialtobemet.Secondly,anunderstandingofacceptanceisrequiredwhenconsideringthecloselyrelatedissuesofusabilityandsatisfaction(seealsothechaptersinthisbookbyGreenandJordan,Chapter18;andStevensandBurnett,Chapter17).AsnotedbyFaulkner(2000),thereisnouniversalviewonhowthesevarious‘soft’termsshouldbedefined,butitisclearthattheyimpingeoneachother.Finally,acceptanceishighlyrelevanttokeyissuesoftrustandrelianceforin-vehicletechnology(seealsothechapterinthisbookbyGhazizadehandLee,Chapter5).Whennewsystemsarewhollyaccepted,trustlevelsmaybeoverlyhighandtheremaybeamismatchbetweenobjectiveandsubjectivelevelsofreliabilityforasystem.Consequently,complacencyeffectsmayarise(e.g.,followinginstructionsfromanavigationsystemwhenitisinappropriatetodoso).Conversely,asystemconsideredunacceptabletousersmaybedeemeduntrustworthyandmaybeusedinaninappropriatefashion(misuseeffects).Suchbehaviouraladaptationisacommonresultofnewtechnologicalinterventionswithinanoverallsystemperspective(Wickensetal.2004).

Considerabledatahavebeencollectedbytheresearchcommunityrelatingtotheacceptanceofin-vehicleinformation,assistanceandautomatingsystems.Thischaptersetsthesceneforsubsequentchaptersinthissectionbyhighlightingthebreadthofstudiesthathavebeenconducted.Inparticular,we

willdiscussacceptanceissuesforthreedistinctexamplesystems:vehiclenavigation(information),adaptivecruisecontrol(assistance)andplatoondriving(automating).Inthesethreetypesofsystems,thereareconsiderabledifferencesinthematurityandadoptionofthetechnology.Moreover,thelevelofautomationassociatedwiththetechnologyriseswitheachsubsequentexample,leadingtodifferencesinthefundamentalHumanFactorsissuesofinterest.Asaconsequenceofsuchvariation,thenatureofresearchandconclusionsthatcanbedrawncanbeexpectedtobesignificantlydifferent.

AcceptanceIssuesforSpecificSystems

VehicleNavigationSystems

VehiclenavigationsystemsareanexampleofaubiquitousinformationtechnologywheretherehasbeenconsiderableHumanFactorsresearchbothbeforeandafterwidespreadimplementation(e.g.,Rossetal.1995,ForbesandBurnett2007).Thesesystemsaimtosupportdriversinthestrategicandtacticalcomponents(planningandfollowingroutes,respectively)ofthedrivingandnavigatingtask.Theyhavebecomeincreasinglypopularinrecentyears,acrossmanycountries,ascostshavereducedandthetechnologyhasmatured.Threebroadtypesofsystemnowexist,eachwiththeirowndistinctadvantagesanddisadvantages:

1.Originalequipmentmanufacturer(OEM)systems(integratedwithinavehicle);

2.Personalnavigationdevices(PNDs–nomadicdevices,designedspecificallytosupportnavigation);and

3.Smartphones(multifunctional,smallscreendeviceswhichpossessnavigationfunctionality).

Therehasbeenanevolutionindesignofthesesystemssincethe1990s,reflectingtechnologicaladvancesaswellasacceptanceissuesforusers.Originally,navigationsystemsusedbydriverswerewhollyOEMsolutions.Morerecently,PNDshavebeendominant,reflectingconsumers’desiresforaffordable,dedicatedandportabledevices.Nevertheless,thissituationischangingasincreasinglypeopleexploittheconvenienceofnavigationfunctionalitywithinasmartphonedevice.Indeed,thereisnowsomelinkingbetweensystemtypesasvehiclemanufacturershavedeveloped‘human–

machineinterfaces’(HMIs)whichcanadaptanin-vehiclesystemtoaccountforthepresenceofasmartphone(e.g.,byutilisingthepreferencesstoredonasmartphonebutpresentinginformationwithinthevehicleaccordingtoanOEMsolution–largerdisplay,in-vehiclespeakers,steeringwheelcontrols,etc.).Forcurrenttrendsinnavigationsystemdesign,seehttp://www.autoevolution.com/newstag/satnav/.

Considerableliteraturehasfocusedonthehuman-centreddesignissuesforvehiclenavigationsystems(seereviewsbySrinivisan1999andBurnett2009).Itisevidentthatthemajorityofresearchinthisareaassumesthatissuesofdistractionandexcessiveworkloadarethemostlikelyconcernsthatnavigationsystemdesignersmustbeawareof.Thefundamentalsuppositionisthatacceptancewillnotariseunlessbasicsafetyconcernsareaccountedfor.Previousauthorshavenotedthatdrivingisalreadyacomplex,largelyvisualtaskandnavigationsystemHMIdesignswillbeassociatedwithdividedattentionandadditionalinformationprocessing(Srinivisan1999,MoriartyandHonnery2003).Consequently,thereispotentialfordriverstomakefundamentalerrorswhilstengagingwithanavigationsystem,suchasfailingtoobserveintimealeadvehicleslowingdownorwaveringoutoflane(Green2007).

Thereisconsiderableliterature(especiallyfromthe1980sand1990s)focusingonthedistractioneffectsofnavigationsystems(visual,auditory,cognitiveandbiomechanical)andseveralinfluentialdesignguidelineshandbookshavebeenproduced,informedbyresearchstudieswiththisfocus(e.g.,Rossetal.1995,Greenetal.1997;Campbell,CarneyandKantowitz1998).Thesehandbooksprovideawiderangeofguidancefordesignersconcerningissuesasdiverseasthechoiceofmodalityforinterfaces,thecontentandtimingofvoicemessages,displayposition,colourcombinations,fonttypes/sizes,orientationofmapdisplaysandsoon.Clearly,suchhandbookscanbeimportantsourcedocumentsforHumanFactorsprofessionalsinanindustrywishingtoargueacaseforaspecificHMI.

Basedontheauthors’understandingofthecontentofthesehandbooks,itistemptingtospeculatethatmanyofthecurrentvehiclenavigationHMIshavebeeninfluencedbytheavailableguidance.Inparticular,manyvehiclenavigationsystemsareclearlydesignedtomaketheworkloadassociatedwiththenavigationtasklow.Thisisoftenachievedusingsimpleturn-by-turninstructionsgivenintheauditorymodality,combinedwithpredominantlyarrow-basedgraphicsanddistance-to-turninformation.Insomerespects,thiscouldbearguedasasuccessforHumanFactorsresearch.Studieswereconducted(oftenonpublicroads,butoccasionallywithinsimulators)toprovidethe‘believable’

empiricaldataforguidelines;whichaccordinglyhaveinformedbestpractice(e.g.,BurnettandJoyner1996,Dingusetal.1989).Unfortunately,however,asaresultoftherecentmassuptake,additionalissueshavecometolightthatimpingeonsafety/comfort,routingefficiencyandultimatelyacceptance,butmaybeoflargerconcerntodriversthandistraction.Inparticular,twokeyissuesrelatingtotheautomationeffectsofnavigationsystemshavebeenfoundtobesignificant,whichcanbeconsideredbroadlyundertheheadingsofreliabilityandreliance.

Reliability

Surveys,inconjunctionwithconsiderableanecdotalevidence,havedemonstratedtheproblemsassociatedwithunreliableguidanceinformationfromvehiclenavigationsystems.Theresultingproblemshaveobvioussafetyimplications(e.g.,whenadriverturnsthewrongwaydownaone-waystreet)andcanhaveaconsiderableimpactontheefficiencyoftheoveralltransportsystem(e.g.,whenalorrygetsstuckunderabridge).

Forbes(2009)(alsoreportedinForbesandBurnett2007)conductedasurveyof872navigationsystemowners,whichestablishedthat85percenthadreceivedinaccurateguidance.Whenaskedaboutguidancethatwasconsidereddangerous/illegal,23percentofrespondentsadmittedtoobeyingtheinstructionsonatleastoneoccasion.Importantly,therewasaclearrelationshipwithage,suchthatolderdriversweremorelikelytofollowtheunreliableguidancethantheiryoungercounterparts.

Fromanacceptanceperspective,itismostinterestingtoconsiderhere(a)whycertainindividualsarepronetofollowingsuchinstructionsand(b)whichcharacteristicsoftheHMIcancontributetotheproblem.Thisisanareaaroundwhichtherehasbeenverylittleresearchtodate.Withrespecttotheformerquestion,Forbes(2009)employeddetailedfollow-updiarystudieswith30navigationsystemusersandusedthedatatohypothesisethat,forcertaindriversinspecificsituations,atrustexplanationcouldbegiven.Specifically,therewasevidenceforover-trust(orcomplacency);thatis,driverssawtherelevantroadsign/cue,butchosetoignoreitandfavourthenavigationinstruction.Inothercontexts,therewasevidenceforanattention-basedexplanation,sincedriversdidnotbelievetheysaworprocessedtherelevantroadsign/cue.Inthesecases,itispossiblethatcharacteristicsofthesystemuser-interfacedisrupteddrivers’normalallocationofattention.MorerecentworkconductedbyLargeandBurnett(2013,inpress)consideredtheseissuesinadrivingsimulatorcontext

usingeyetrackingandconfirmedobjectivelythattwodistinctivemechanismsareinvolvedinthisproblem.Forsystemacceptance,eachofthemechanismsislikelytoaffectwheredriversplacetheblamefortheirroutingerrors(agency)–eitherwiththemselves,thesystemorthesurroundingroadinfrastructure.

Reliance

Afurtherissueconcernsdrivers’long-termdependencyonnavigationsystems,anoutcomeexplicitlylinkedtooverlyhighlevelsofsystemacceptance(Burnett2009).Specifically,ithasbeennotedthatcurrenttechnologyautomatescoreaspectsofthenavigationtask,includingtripplanning(wheretheuser’sroleisessentiallytoconfirmcomputer-generatedroutes)androutefollowing(whereusersrespondtocomputer-generatedfilteredinstructions)(Adler2001,BurnettandLee2005,ReaganandBaldwin2006).Asaresult,driversarelargelypassiveinthenavigationtaskandconsequently,failtodevelopastrongmentalrepresentationofthespaceinwhichtheyaretravelling,commonlyreferredtoasacognitivemap.Severalempiricalstudieshavedemonstratedthiseffectfordrivers(Jackson1998,BurnettandLee2005).

Severalauthorshaveprovidedconvincingargumentsastowhythisissueisofconcern(BurnettandLee2005,Jackson1998).Specifically,itisnotedthatthefollowingadvantagesexistforindividualswhopossessawell-formedcognitivemapofanenvironment:

•Enhancednavigationalability–suchpeopleareabletoaccomplishnavigationtaskswithfewcognitivedemandsbasedontheirowninternalknowledge.Indeed,itshouldbepossibleincertainenvironments(e.g.,one’shometown)tonavigateusingautomaticprocessing,thatis,withnoconsciousattention.

•Increasedflexibilityinnavigationbehaviour–informedindividualshavethecapacitytochooseandthennavigatenumerousalternativeroutestosuitparticularpreferences(e.g.,forascenicversusefficientroute)orinresponsetounanticipatedsituations(e.g.,heavytraffic,poorweather,systemfailureorabsence).

•Socialresponsibility–awell-formedcognitivemapprovidesawidertransportefficiencyandsocialfunction,sinceitempowersapersontonavigateforothers,forexample,byprovidingverbaldirectionsasapassenger,pedestrianoroverthephone,sketchingmapstosendinthepostandsoon(Hill1987).

Thisisessentiallyacomplextrade-offproblem.Notably,thereisaconflictbetweentheneedtodesignnavigationHMIswhichenableanindividualtoacquirespatialknowledge(activenavigation)andthosewhichminimisethedemands(orworkload)ofnavigating(passivenavigation).Inthisrespect,authorshavenotedthepotentialforactive,learning-oriented,HMIsforvehiclenavigationsystems,asanalternativetothecurrentpassivestyles(BurnettandLee2005).Suchinterfaceswouldaimtoprovidenavigationinformationinaformthatensuresthatthedemandsofthenavigationtaskinwhollyunfamiliarareasareatanacceptable,lowlevel,whilstaimingtosupportdriversinthecognitivemappingprocess.Inessence,theseinterfaceswouldaspiretomovepeopleonwardsthroughthevariousstagesofcognitivemapdevelopment,ultimatelytoalevelinwhichtheyareabletonavigateeffectivelyforthemselvesandothers,independentofanyexternalinformation.SomeinitialprogresswasmadeonthistopicinasimulatorstudyconductedbyOliverandBurnett(2008).

AdaptiveCruiseControl(ACC)

AdaptiveCruiseControl(ACC)isanexampleofadriversupport(assistance)systemwhichhasbeeninproductionforseveralyears.Todatehowever,ACCisonlyofferedasanoptionalfeatureintheluxuryvehiclesegmentandthepenetrationrateislowasaconsequence.Functionally,ACCwillmaintainasetspeedasperconventionalCruiseControlsystems,whenthereisnotrafficimmediatelyaheadofthedriver.Insituationswheretrafficisaheadinthedriver’slane,ACCusesradartomaintainaconstanttimeheadwaytothevehicleahead.Thisheadwayiskeptconstantbythesystemadjustingthespeedofthevehicletopreventexceedingapre-definedtimegap.First-generationACCsrequireaminimumdrivingspeedoftypically30kph,belowwhichthesystemisdeactivated,requiringthedrivertotakeovercontrolbelowthisspeed.Similarly,manualcontrolisregainedwhenthedriverdeactivatesthesystembypressingthebrakepedal.Second-generationACCshavebeendevelopedthatextendtheutilityofACCs–bynotonlyexpandingthespeedrangetovelocitiesbelow30kphbutalsobringingthevehicletoacompletestopandacceleratingagainiftheprecedingvehicledoesso;aso-calledStopandGofunction.Notwithstandingthesesignificantsystemenhancements,ACCshavealimiteddecelerationlevel.Hence,undercriticaldrivingconditions,suchasemergencybrakingsituations,thedriverisstillrequiredtoregaincontrolofthevehicle.ItisforthisprimaryreasonthatACCsaremarketedascomfortsystemsratherthansafetysystems.

ACCispredictedtohaveanumberofpositiveeffects.Fromthedriver’s

perspective,ithasalreadybeenshownthatACCcanreduceworkloadandincreaseperceptionsofcomfort(e.g.,Stanton,YoungandMcCaulder1997).Furthermore,deploymentofACCisexpectedtoleadtoimprovedtrafficsafety,roadwaycapacityandenvironmentaltrafficimpact(VahidiandEskandarian2003).Thatis,shortertimeheadwaysaswellassmootheraccelerationanddecelerationprofileshelptoincreaseroadcapacityandtrafficflowwhereastheminimumtimeheadwayadoptedbyACCsystemseradicateshort,unsafefollowingdistances.However,theextenttowhichthesepotentialadvantagesmaterialisewillbelargelydependentonpenetrationrateswhich,atleastforEurope,arepredictedtobelowintheforeseeablefuture–around10percentin2020(Wilminketal.2008).Amajorfactorinfuturedeploymentwillbedrivers’acceptanceandwillingnesstoengagewithACCsystems.

UseracceptanceofACChasbeenstudiedusingawiderangeofmethodsincludinginterviews,questionnairesurveys,simulatorexperimentsandfieldoperationaltests(FOTs).AspartofthePROMETHEUSproject,oneoftheearliestACCacceptancestudieswasconductedbyBeckeretal.(1994)inwhichparticipantsdrovearoundinrealtrafficwithprototypeequippedvehicles.ResultsshowedthatACCwasperceivedasacomfort-orientedandsafety-enhancingdriverassistancesystem.Overall,ACCwaswellreceivedbyparticipantsandconsideredacceptable,comfortable,safeandrelaxing.SimilarresultswereobtainedinadrivingsimulatorstudybyNilsson(1995)inwhichACCwasfelttoaddcomfortandconveniencetothedrivingexperience.Fancheretal.(1995)conductedafieldtrialwhichshowedthatincomparisontoconventionalcruisecontrol,ACCwasperceivedasmorecomfortableasitrequiredfewerinterventions.Indensetrafficconditions,however,userstendedtoturnofftheACCasthesystem-definedheadwayswereperceivedtobetoolargeresultinginothertrafficcuttingin.

Althoughtheseearlystudiessuggestahighlevelofsystemacceptance,itisworthnotingthatacceptancemaynotbeuniformacrossallusersandmayalsodependonusers’needsandmotivations.Forexample,HoedemakerandBrookhuis(1998)investigatedACCuseracceptanceasafunctionofusers’drivingstyleandfoundthat,whereasACCwasperceivedpositivelyintermsofworkload,comfortandusefulness,participantswholikedtodrivefast,asassessedusingadrivingstylequestionnaire,werelesspositiveaboutit.

In2005,theNationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration(NHTSA)intheUnitedStatesreportedtheresultsoftheAutomotiveCollisionAvoidanceSystemfieldoperationaltest(ACASFOT)program(NHTSA2005).TheFOTinvolveda12-monthperiodinwhich11carsequippedwithACCandForward

CollisionWarning(FCW)weredrivenundernaturalconditionsbyatotalof96participants.Eachparticipantdroveanequippedcarforseveralweeksafterwhichsystemacceptancewasassessedusingacombinationofquestionnaires,interviewsandfocusgroups.Again,systemacceptancewashighwith75percentofparticipantsintendingtopurchaseanACCsystemiftheywerebuyinganewcar.Whenconsideringindividualdrivercharacteristicsincludingage,gender,educationandincome,itwasfoundthatagewasthebestpredictivefactor,witholderdriversreportinghighestsystemacceptance.Notwithstandingthehighacceptancelevels,anumberofACCdesigncharacteristicswerethoughttobenefitfromfutureimprovements.Inparticular,themaximumACCspeedandshortestavailablegapsettingwereconsideredtoolow.Someparticipantsalsomentionedtheneedtomanuallyinterfereduetotheslownessforthesystemtodecelerateandconversely,pickupspeedinovertakingmanoeuvres.

SimilartotheACASFOT,Alkim,BootsmaandLooman(2007)reportedtheresultsofaDutchfieldstudywhichinvestigateddrivers’useandacceptanceofACC,LaneDepartureWarning(LDW),HeadwayMonitoringandWarning(HMW)andLaneKeepingAssistance(LKA)systems.Again,ACCenjoyedahighacceptancelevel.Itfurthershowedthattheactiveassistanceorinterventionsystems(i.e.,ACCandLKA)enjoyedahigherlevelofacceptancethanthewarningsystems(i.e.,LDWandHMW).Aspointedoutbytheauthors,thiswasanunexpectedfindinggiventhatdriversusuallyindicateapreferenceforaninformativesystemratherthanasystemthattakesoverpartsofthedrivingtask.Thisdifferenceinacceptancemaybeascribedtothefactthatthebenefitsofwarningsystemswerenotonlyperceivedtobelessapparent,buttherewasalsoalackofsystemtrustduetothehighnumberoffalsealertsthesystemsproduced.Furthermore,Alkimetal.’s(2007)findingsthatusersaremorepositiveafteractualexperiencewithsuchsystemscomparedtoaprioriexpectationsclearlyillustratesthepointthatthemannerinwhichacceptanceisevaluated(i.e.,interview,on-roadstudies)affectusers’perceptionsandattitudes.

Mostrecently,Larsson(2012)conductedaquestionnairesurveyamongst130ACCownersregardingtheirdailyuseandexperience.ThestudywaslimitedinthatitincludedonlyaspecificACCsystem.Theresultsareneverthelessofinterestandpointtowardssomeacceptanceissuesthathavebeenconsistentlyreportedwithintheliterature.Thesecanbecategorisedasbeingeithersystemlimitationsorcommunicationerrors.Regardingthelatter,nearlyaquarterofrespondentsindicatedthattheyhadforgottenatsomepointwhetherACCwasengagedandweresubsequentlysurprisedtofindthevehiclebrakingoraccelerating.This‘modeerror’,wherebythedriverbelievesthesystemtobe

inonemodewhenitisactuallyinanother,maynotonlynegativelyaffectsystemacceptancebutmayalsocompromiseroadsafety,astheunexpectedvehiclebehaviourmayresultininappropriateorill-timeddriverresponses.AspointedoutbyLarsson(2012),theoccurrenceofmodeerrorssuggeststhatfuturesystemswouldbenefitfromimprovedinterfacedesigns.ThemainfactorsaffectingACCacceptance,however,appearedtoberelatedtosystemlimitations.Inparticular,conditionsinwhichradarcontactwaseitherlost(e.g.,steephills,sharpcurves,roundabouts,exitingamotorway)orinwhichlatchesontotrafficinadjacentlanesledthevehicletochangeitsspeedinappropriatelywerefoundtofrustrateusers.Inaddition,arecurrentcomplaintwastheslowsystemresponseinpickingupspeedwhenchanginglanestoovertakeavehicle.

Whereastheabove-mentionedsystemlimitationsareclearlydetrimentalwithregardtouseracceptance,itcanbeconcludedthatoverall,ACCenjoysahighlevelofuseracceptanceandisconsideredtosignificantlyenhancedrivers’comfort.FuturesystemenhancementssuchastheincorporationofGPS,vehicle-to-vehicle,andvehicle-to-infrastructuredata,aswellasinformationonthedriver’sintentions(e.g.,useofindicator)canbeexpectedtoeliminateorminimisecurrentsystems’limitations(e.g.,Sol,vanAremandHagemeier2008),improvinguseracceptanceevenfurther.

PlatoonDriving

PlatoondrivingisanexampleofafuturetechnologywheretheHumanFactorsacceptanceworkismorespeculativeandusuallysimulator-based.Platoondriving,alsoreferredtoasplatooningorroad-training,canbeviewedasalogicalnextstepinroadtransportautomation.Itreferstothegroupingofvehiclesmaintainingashorttimeheadwayachievedbyusingacombinationofwirelesscommunications,lateralandlongitudinalcontrolunits,andsensortechnology.Althoughdifferentfutureplatoonimplementationscanbeenvisaged(e.g.,Martensetal.2007),currentconceptsassumeasystemwherebytheplatoonisledbyatrained,professionaldriverwhilstthefollowingvehiclesaredrivenfullyautomaticallybythesystem(Robinson,ChanandCoelingh2010,Lank,HaberstrohandWille2011).ComparedwithACC,platoondrivingisextendingtheautomationofthedrivingtaskconsiderablybyaddinglateralvehiclecontrolwhich,inessence,leavesthedriverfreetorelaxorengageinnon-drivingtasks.

Platoondrivingispredictedtoprovidearangeofadvantages(seeRobinsonetal.2010Lanketal.2011).First,thesmallheadwaysmaintainedinplatoons

resultnotonlyinareductionindragandassociatedenergyefficiency,butalsoanincreaseinroadnetworkcapacityduetothemerefactthatlessroadspaceisrequired.Aknock-oneffectisthatovertakingmanoeuvresbyotherroaduserscanbeperformedmorequicklyresultinginamorehomogeneoustrafficflow.Safetybenefitsarealsoexpected:unlikedrivers,theautomatedsystemdoesnotsufferfromdistraction;and,secondly,theautomatedreactiontimesofthesystemareonlyafractionofhumanresponsestimes.Finally,thefactthatthedrivingtaskisentirelytakenoverbythesystemisexpectedtoresultinenhanceddrivercomfort.

Regardlessofthealreadyproventechnicalfeasibilityaswellasanticipatedbenefits(Lanketal.2011),thesuccessofplatooningwilldependultimatelyonroadusers’aswellassocietalacceptanceofthesystem.ComparedtoACC,platooningcreatesaconsiderablymorecomplexsituationwherewenotonlyhavetotakeintoconsiderationthedriverwithintheplatoonbutalsoroadusers’drivingintheirvicinity(Gouyetal.2012).Withregardstotheformer,therearesomesignificantHumanFactorschallenges(seeLarburu,SanchezandRodriguez2010;Robinsonetal.2010,Martensetal.2007).Takingthedriveroutoftheloopraisesquestionsabouttheeffectsondrivers’situationalawareness,ortheirknowledgeofthesurroundingtrafficandprevailingconditions.Inparticular,thismaybecomeasafetyissuewhenthedriverisrequiredtoswitchfromautonomousdrivingtonormaldrivingorwhenrespondingtounexpectedeventsduetosystembreakdowns.Withthedrivereffectivelybecomingapassivemonitor,thedesignofthehuman–machineinterfacewillbecomeacriticalaspectforthesuccessofsuchsystems.Inadditiontothesesafetyissues,useracceptanceofplatooningwilldependontheextenttowhichthesystemisperceivedtobeaccurateandreliableanditsusetobeconsideredbothsaferandmorecomfortablecomparedtonormaldriving.

Asmentioned,thepresenceofplatoonsonnormalmotorwaysalsocreatesanentirelynewsetofdrivingconditionsfornon-platoonroadusers.Althoughtheexactconsequenceswillbedependentonthespecificdesignofplatoons(e.g.,whatisthemaximumnumberofvehicles;arevehiclesallowedtoleaveorjoinaplatoonfromtheside;seeRobinsonetal.2010),forplatooningtobeacceptableitisimportantthatthepresenceofplatoonsonnormalmotorwaysdoesnotleadtoactualorperceivednegativeconsequences.Platoonsmayinterferewithotherroadusersinanumberofways.Forexample,enteringandexitingamotorwayandovertakingmaybeperceivedtobelesssafeandmoredemanding.Also,whataretheeffectsoftheshortertimeheadwaysadoptedinplatoons?Couldthisresultinbehaviouraladaptationwherebynon-platoondriversconsciouslyor

unconsciouslyalsoadoptshortertimeheadwayspossiblycompromisingroadsafety?Initialsimulatorstudiesonthistopichaveshownevidenceforsucheffects(Gouyetal.2012).Theseareonlysomeofthetypeofquestionsthatneedtobeansweredtobetterunderstandtheeffectsofplatooninginthecontextofacceptability.

Thefirstfewstudieshavenowbeenundertakentostarttobetterunderstandsomeoftheaboveissues.TheGermannationalprojectKONVOIsetouttoconductsimulatorandon-roadtestingofplatoonsconsistingofcoupledtrucks(Lanketal.2011).Theplatooningconceptrequiredthefirstdriverofaplatoontomanuallycontrolthetruckwiththeothertrucksfollowingtheleadtruckfullyautomatically.Tojoinaplatoon,thedriverwasrequiredtosendarequestviaatouchscreenwhenwithin50metresoftheplatoon.Followingacceptancebytheplatoonleadvehicle,automationwouldsetinandgraduallyclosethegaptoadistanceof10metresfromthetruckattheendoftheplatoon.Similarly,tode-coupleandleavetheplatoon,thedriverwouldbesentarequestand,followingacknowledgementbytheleadvehicle,thetimeheadwaywouldincreaseagainto50metresfollowedbyavisual-auditorycountdownsignaltoindicatetheendoftheautomateddrive.

WithintheKONVOIproject,useracceptancewasevaluatedinthreephases,startingoutwithfocusgroups,followedbysimulatorstudiesandon-roadstudies(Lanketal.2011).Thisallowedforacleardemonstrationoftheeffectthatexperiencewithanewtechnologymighthaveonuseracceptance.Beforeanyactualexperiencewithplatoondriving,theinitialfocusgroupsrevealed80percentofthetruckdriverstohaveanegativeattitudetowardstheconceptofplatooning.However,followingactualexperienceofplatooning,aconsiderableshiftwasobservedwithanultimateapprovalrateof54percent.

Systemacceptanceofnon-platoondriverswasevaluatedinasubsequentdrivingsimulatorstudy.Althoughsomeconcernswereraisedthatplatoondrivingmightleadtoadditionaldrivingdemandsforsome,thevastmajorityofdrivers(80percent)showedapositiveattitudetowardsplatooningandthoughtofitasasensibledevelopment.Platoonswereregardedasreducingdriverworkload,inpartduetothereductioninthenumberofovertakingmanoeuvresrequired,anddriversexpressedapreferenceforovertakingaplatoonasopposedtoindividualtrucks.Ontheotherhand,concernswereraisedregardingtheadditionaldemandandresponsibilityputonthedriveroftheleadvehicle.Systemover-relianceandsubsequentinattentionwasfearedtoresultin‘illusionarysafety’andpossiblyincreasedaccidentrisk.Althoughdriversreportedlittledifficultiesenteringandexitingthemotorwayinthepresenceofplatoons,theadditionalcomplexityofthetrafficconditionswasmentionedasa

platoons,theadditionalcomplexityofthetrafficconditionswasmentionedasapossiblereasonforloweracceptancelevelsbyotherroadusers.Respondentsalsomentionedtheneedforinternationalstandardisationregardingthelegallengthofplatoonsandtheneedforfulldevelopmentandtestingbeforemarketdeployment.

Mostrecently,useracceptanceofplatoondrivinghasbeenevaluatedaspartoftheEuropeanproject,SafeRoadTrainsfortheEnvironment(SARTRE).Larburuetal.(2010)conductedasimulatorstudytoassessdrivers’responsestoplatoondriving.Again,acceptancewasnotonlyassessedfromtheperspectiveoftheplatoondriverbutalsofromdriversencounteringaplatoon.Thestudyevaluatedvariousplatoonconfigurationsthatvariedinlengthandheadways,andalsoincludedaprototypeHMIwhichwasincorporatedtoinformthedriverduringtransitionstagesfrommanualtoautomaticdriving,andviceversa.Fromauseracceptanceperspective,thestudyshowedsomeconsistentgendereffectswithfemaledriversreportingtobelesstolerantofshortertimeheadwayswhendrivingwithintheplatoonsthanmen.Itwasalsofoundthattheinter-vehicledistanceatwhichparticipantsreportedtofeeluncomfortable(16metres)waswellabovethedistanceatwhichplatoonsareconsideredtobecomeenergyefficientandsafe(Larburuetal.2010).Acknowledgingtheinherentlimitationsofthiskindofstudy(i.e.,thelackofparticipants’experienceandfamiliaritywithplatoons),theseresultsillustratetheneedforfuturestudiestobetterunderstandtheacceptabilityofshorttimeheadways.RegardingtheHMIdesign,theprovisionofinformationduringtransitionchangeswasconsideredimperativewithavastmajorityofparticipantsreferringtotheneedtoincludeadriveracknowledgementstepbeforestartingacouplingorde-couplingmanoeuvre.

Whenaskedabouttheirexperiencedrivinginproximitytoaplatoon,platoonlengthwasoneofthekeyparametersthataffectedusers’acceptance.Whereasdrivingnexttoafive-vehicle-longplatoonwasperceivedtobesimilartonormaldriving–safeandnottocauseanydifficultiesperformingmanoeuvres(e.g.,exitingmotorways).Thiswasnolongerthecasewithaplatoonlengthof15vehicles.Platoonsofvehicleslongerthan25weredeemedunacceptableby90percentofparticipants,suggestingthistobeamaximumacceptableplatoonlength.

Insummary,theresultsofthestudiesconductedsofarindicatethatplatoondrivingmaybecomeanearfuturereality.Fromatechnicalperspective,therearenobarriersthatwouldpreventsuchsystemsbeingimplemented.However,thesesamestudiesalsohighlightseveralHumanFactorsandacceptanceissuesthatrequireabetterunderstandingbeforewidespreadintroductionisfeasible.Beyondobviousliabilityissues,systemacceptancewillbedependentonplatoon

Beyondobviousliabilityissues,systemacceptancewillbedependentonplatoonconfigurations,protocolsfortransferringcontrolbetweendriverandvehicle,HMIdesign,systemfailuremanagementprocedures,aswellasnon-platoondrivers’interactionwithandresponsetoplatoons.Thesefundamentalquestionsrequiresignificantresearcheffortstoprovidethenecessaryempiricalsupportbeforeroadauthoritieswillbesufficientlyconfidenttoallowforplatoondriving.

OverallDiscussionandConclusions

Thischapterhasraisedawiderangeofacceptanceissuesforin-vehicletechnologybyconsideringexamplesystemsaccordingtotheirimpactonthedrivingtask,aswellastheircurrentlevelofmaturity.Itisclearthatabroadrangeofautomation-relatedeffectsarecloselyalignedwithacceptanceissues,whetherdealingwithinformationorassistancesystems.Forinstance,issuesconcerningreliability,relianceandtrustwillberichareasforfutureresearch.Whilstitislikelythatthecapabilitiesofthesesystemswillincreasewithcustomerdemand,itisunlikelythattheywilleverbe100percentreliable.Importantly,researchfromotherapplicationdomains(e.g.,processcontrol)indicatesthatpeoplefinditparticularlydifficulttocalibrateobjectivewithsubjectivereliabilitywhensystemsareclosetoperfect(Wickensetal.2004).So,forexample,ifasystemisobjectively99percentreliable,usersarepronetotreatitas100percentreliableandmaywelladoptcomplacency-relatedbehavioursaccordingly.

Moreover,itisworthemphasisingthatdifferentin-vehicletechnologieswillnotbeusedindependently,butincombinationwitheachother.Researchstudiesgenerallyneglectthisfactandconsidertheimpactofdriversinteractingwithsinglesystems.Inreality,formanyreal-worlddrivingsituationstherewillbeconsiderableinteractioneffects.Forinstance,avehicleequippedwithasystemthatautomateslongitudinalandlateralcontrolofthevehicle(suchasplatooning)islikelytohaveasignificanteffectonthetasksthatdriversarewillingtoundertakewithothersystems,forexample,thoseprovidingentertainmentorproductivityservices.Howdriverswilltrade-offthevarioustasksthatoccurinfuturecarswillbecriticalquestionsforresearch.Inparticular,theacceptanceorotherwiseofthedifferentsystemswillhaveaprofoundeffectonhowtheymightbeusedasanintegratedwhole.

Asafinalpoint,itshouldbenotedthatthevehicleoftenincorporatesasocialenvironmentwhenpassengersarepresent,orevenwhencommunicationsareconductedwithpeopleremote/externaltothevehicle(e.g.,viaaphonelink).Previousresearchconcerningacceptanceissueshasfocusedlargelyonthedriversolelyasanoperatorofthevehicle.Inreality,thesocialcontextwillalsohavea

solelyasanoperatorofthevehicle.Inreality,thesocialcontextwillalsohaveaconsiderableimpactonusers’attitudes,behaviourandperformancewithnewtechnologyinmanyhighlydynamicandcomplexdrivingsituations.Asanexample,arecentstudybyLargeandBurnett(2013)notedhowthepresenceofpassengersaffectedadriver’sinteractionswithanavigationsystem,particularlyrelatedtotheacceptanceofvoiceinstructions.

References

Adler,J.L.2001.Investigatingthelearningeffectsofrouteguidanceandtrafficadvisoriesonroutechoicebehaviour.TransportationResearchPartC,9:1–14.

Alkim,T.,Bootsma,G.andLooman,P.2007.Theassisteddriver,ReportbytheDutchMinistry,“Rijkswaterstaat”,RoadstotheFuture,Delft,April2007.

Becker,S.,Bork,M.,Dorisen,H.T.,Geduld,G.,Hofmann,O.,Naab,K.andNoÈcker,G.1994.SummaryofexperienceswithautonomousIntelligentCruiseControl(AICC).Part2:ResultsandConclusions.ProceedingsFirstWorldCongressonIntelligentVehicleSystems,1836–143.Brussels:Ertico.

Burnett,G.E.2009.On-the-moveandinyourcar:AnoverviewofHCIissuesforin-carcomputing.InternationalJournalofMobileHuman-ComputerInteraction,1(1):60–78.

Burnett,G.E.andJoyner,S.M.1996.Routeguidancesystems–Gettingitrightfromthedriver’sperspective.JournalofNavigation,49(2):169–77.

Burnett,G.E.andLee,K.2005.Theeffectofvehiclenavigationsystemsontheformationofcognitivemaps.InTrafficandTransportPsychology:TheoryandApplication,407–18EditedbyG.Underwood.Amsterdam;London:Elsevier.

Campbell,J.L.,Carney,C.andKantowitz,B.H.1998.HumanFactorsdesignguidelinesforadvancedtravellerinformationsystems(ATIS)andcommercialvehicleoperations(CVO).Reportno.FHWA-RD-98-057,BattelleHumanFactorsTransportationCenter,Seattle.

Dingus,T.,Hulse,M.C.,Antin,J.F.andWierwille,W.1989.Attentionaldemandrequirementsofanautomobilemoving-mapnavigationsystem.TransportationResearchPartA:General,23(4):301–15.

FancherP.S.,BaraketZ.,JohnsonG.andSayerJ.1995.Evaluationofhumanfactorsandsafetyperformance,inthelongitudinalcontrolofheadway.ProceedingsoftheSecondWorldCongressofIntelligentTransportSystems,

Tokyo,1732–8.Faulkner,X.2000.UsabilityEngineering.NewYork:Palgrave.Forbes,N.2009.Behaviouraladaptationtoin-vehiclenavigationsystems.

UnpublishedPhDthesis,SchoolofComputerScience,UniversityofNottingham,June.

Forbes,N.L.andBurnett,G.E.2007.Investigatingthecontextsinwhichin-vehiclenavigationsystemusershavereceivedandfollowedinaccuraterouteguidanceinstructions,ThirdInternationalConferenceinDriverBehaviourandTraining,Dublin,November.

Gouy,M.,Diels,C.,Reed,N.,Stevens,A.andBurnett,G.2012.Theeffectsofshorttimeheadwayswithinautomatedvehicleplatoonsonotherdrivers.InAdvancesinHumanAspectsofRoadandRailTransportation.EditedbyN.Stanton.BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress.

Green,P.2008.Motorvehicledriverinterfaces.InTheHumanComputerInteractionHandbook.EditedbyJ.A.JackoandA.Sears.Lawrence-ErlbaumAssociates;Mahwah,NJ,701–19.

Green,P,Levison,W,Paelke,G.andSerafin,C.1997.Preliminaryhumanfactorsdesignguidelinesfordriverinformationsystems.Reportno.FHWA-RD-94-087;UMTRI,US.

Hill,M.R.1987.‘Askingdirections’andpedestrianwayfinding.Man-EnvironmentSystems,17(4):113–20.

Hoedemaker,M.andBrookhuis,K.A.1998.Behavioraladaptationtodrivingwithanadaptivecruisecontrol(ACC).TransportationResearchPartF,1:95–106.

Jackson,P.1998.Insearchofbetterrouteguidanceinstructions.Ergonomics,41(7):1000–1013.

KONVOI.Developmentandexaminationoftheapplicationofelectronicallycoupledtruckconvoysonhighways.Availableat:http://www.ika.rwth-aachen.de/pdf_eb/gb6-24e_konvoi.pdf[accessed5October2012].

Lank,C.,Haberstroh,M.andWille,M.2011.Interactionofhuman,machine,andenvironmentinautomateddrivingsystems.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,2243:138–45.

Larburu,M.,Sanchez,J.andRodriguez,D.G.2010.Saferoadtrainsforenvironment:Humanfactors’aspectsindualmodetransportsystems.PaperpresentedattheITSWorldCongress,Busan.

Large,D.andBurnett,G.E.2013.Drivers’preferencesandemotionalresponsestosatellitenavigationvoices.InternationalJournalofVehicleNoiseandVibration,9(1):28–46.

Larsson,A.F.2012.Driverusageandunderstandingofadaptivecruisecontrol.AppliedErgonomics,43(3):501–6.

Martens,M.,Pauwelussen,J.,Schieben,A.,Flemish,F.,Merat,N.,Jamson,S.andCaci,P.2007.Humanfactors’aspectsinautomatedandsemi-automatedtransportsystems:Stateoftheart.CityMobilDeliverable3.2.1,EUDGResearch.

Moriarty,P.andHonnery,D.2003.Safetyimpactsofvehicularinformationtechnology.InternationalJournalofVehicleDesign,31(2):176–86.

NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration(NHTSA).2005.Automotivecollisionavoidancesystemfieldoperationaltest.Reportno.DOTHS809886.Washington,DC:NHTSA.

Nilsson,L.1995.Safetyeffectsofadaptivecruisecontrolincriticaltrafficsituations.ProceedingsoftheSecondWorldCongressonIntelligentTransportSystems:StepsForward,Vol.III,1254–9.Yokohama:VERTIS.

Oliver,K.J.andBurnett,G.E.2008.Learning-orientedvehiclenavigationsystems:Apreliminaryinvestigationinadrivingsimulator.ProceedingsoftheTenthInternationalConferenceonHuman-ComputerInteractionwithMobileDevicesandServices,119–26.NewYork:ACM.

Reagan,I.andBaldwin,C.L.2006.Facilitatingroutememorywithauditoryrouteguidancesystems.JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology,26:146–55.

Robinson,T.,Chan,E.andCoelingh,E.2010.Operatingplatoonsonpublicmotorways:AnintroductiontotheSARTREplatooningprogramme.SeventeenthWorldCongressonIntelligentTransportSystems,25–29October,Busan,Korea.

Ross,T.,Vaughan,G.,Engert,A.,Peters,H.,Burnett,G.E.andMay,A.J.1995.Humanfactorsguidelinesforinformationpresentationbyrouteguidanceandnavigationsystems.DRIVEIIV2008HARDIE,Deliverable19.Loughborough,UK:HUSATResearchInstitute.

Sol,E.-J.,vanArem,B.andHagemeier,F.2008.A5generationreferencemodelforintelligentcarsinthetwenty-firstcentury.ProceedingsoftheFifteenthWorldCongressonIntelligentTransportSystems,16–20November,NewYork.

Srinivisan,R.1999.Overviewofsomehumanfactorsdesignissuesforin-vehiclenavigationandrouteguidancesystems.TransportationResearchRecord1694,paperno.99-0884.Washington,DC:NationalAcademyPress.

Stanton,N.A.,Young,M.S.andMcCaulder,B.1997.Drive-by-wire:Thecaseofdriverworkloadandreclaimingcontrolwithadaptivecruisecontrol.SafetyScience,27(2/3):149–59.

Vahidi,A.andEskandarian,A.2003.Researchadvancesinintelligentcollisionavoidanceandadaptivecruisecontrol.IEEETransactionsonIntelligentTransportationSystems.,4:143–52.

Wickens,C.D.,Lee,J.D.,Liu,Y.andBecker,S.E.G.2004.AnIntroductiontoHumanFactorsEngineering.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Pearson.

Wilmink,I.,Janssen,W.,Jonkers,E.,Malone,K.,vanNoort,M.,Klunder,G.,Rämä,P.,Sihvola,N.,Kulmala,R.,Schirokoff,A.,Lind,G.,Benz,T.,Peters,H.andSchönebeck,S.2008.Impactassessmentofintelligentvehiclesafetysystems.eImpactDeliverableD4,Version1.0,Contract027421,April.

Chapter11DriverAcceptanceofElectricVehicles:Findingsfrom

theFrenchMINIEStudyElodieLabeyeandCorinneBrusque

InstitutFrançaisdesSciencesetTechnologiesdesTransport,del’aménagementetdesRéseaux(IFSTTAR),Bron,France

MichaelA.ReganTransportandRoadSafetyResearch,

UniversityofNewSouthWales,Australia

Abstract

Theelectricvehicle(EV)hasgreatpotentialtoreducetheimpactoftransportontheenvironmentandisbeingrolledoutinincreasingnumbersbytheautomotiveindustry.Driveracceptanceofthisnewtypeofvehicleisuncertain,however,duetotherelativelylimitedrangeandhigherpriceoftheEVcomparedtoconventionalvehicles.

ToassessdriveracceptabilityofEVs,theMINIEFranceprojectwasundertakenbyIFSTTAR,inFrance,incooperationwiththevehiclemanufacturerBMWGermany.FiftyprivateusersfromParisrespondedtoasetofquestionnaires,focusgroupquestionsandtraveldiaryitemsbeforeandaftersixmonthsofdailyuseofanelectricMINIE.TheresultsshowedthattheperformanceandtheeaseofusewithrespecttotheEVaregenerallywelljudgedbytheparticipants.However,theanalysesofpurchaseintentiondemonstratethatthebarrierstoEVacceptancearestillpresent,evenafteralongperiodofuseofthevehicle.

Introduction

Thestruggleagainstglobalwarmingisoneofthemajorpoliticalissuesofthetwenty-firstcentury.Afront-lineactivityinthisstruggleisthereductionofgreenhousegasemissions.GiventhatthetransportsectorisamajorCO2emitter

(OECD/ITF2010),variousconstraintsarebeingimposedbygovernmentsonmanufacturerssothattheyinvestinresearchanddevelopmentofnewtechnologies,thusallowingfortheconstructionoflesspollutingvehicles.

Amongtherangeofvehiclesproposedbymanufacturers,theelectricvehicle(EV)hasreappeared,moreefficientthanever,positioningitselfasanewandpotentiallyviableeco-friendlymodeoftransport,whentheelectricitythatfuelsitisgeneratedinaneco-friendlymanner.Thisvehicle,whichdoesnotemitCO2

locally,seemstobeabletomeetthemobilityneedsofindividualswithgreaterefficiencythanthoseproposedinthe1990s,whilereducingtheharmfulenvironmentalimpactoftransportation.

ManygovernmentsstimulatedeploymentofthistechnologybyencouragingthecommercialisationofEVs;inFrance,forexample,governmentaidforthepurchaseofanEVisintheorderof€5,000andabulkorderof50,000vehicleswasmadebytheFrenchauthoritiesin2010(Negre2009).Themediacoveragewhichhasaccompaniedthesepolicydirectives,runninginparallelwiththeriseinoilprices,hasgraduallytransformedpublicopinionvis-à-vismobility:theecologicalnecessityofaprofoundchangeinourpatternsofmobilityandinourenergysourceshasbecomearealityforcitizens.

ThereintroductionoftheEVinthemarkethastakenplaceinanunprecedentedtechnologicalcontext,inwhichelectromobilityismadepossiblebysuperiorperformanceofthelithiumbattery,regenerativebrakingandthedeploymentofpublicchargingstations(andinparallel,theintroductionofmobileapplicationswhichcansupportthelocationandreservationofchargingstations).Nevertheless,evenifthetechnologicalandecologicalcircumstancesappearmorefavourablethan20yearsago,anddespitetheobviousinvestmentsofgovernmentandindustry,thepossibilityofwidespreadintroductionofEVsremainsuncertain.

Recentstudiesofdiscretechoiceanalysis,statedpreferencesurveysoftheintentionofpurchasinghybridvehiclesandforecastingmodelsofEVtake-up,showthatfeatureslimitingtheadoptionofthesevehiclesaremainlythepriceandperformanceofvehiclesintermsofrange,chargingtimeandacceleration(EggersandEggers2011,Lievenetal.2011,PotoglouandKanaroglou2007),andthattheselimitingfeatureshavepersistedthroughtimeastheywerealreadyidentifiedinthe1990s(CheronandZins1997,GolobandGould1998,KuraniandTurrentine1996).ForKuraniandTurrentine(1996),thesedifferentlimitationssuggestthattheEVwouldbeparticularlyattractiveasasecondcarinthemulticarhousehold;however,forotherauthors,‘unlessthelimiteddrivingrangeforelectricvehiclesisincreasedsubstantiallythistechnologywillnotbe

fullycompetitiveintheautomobile’(Dagsviketal.2002:383).Finally,itisinterestingtonotethattheimportanceoftheselimitingfeatures

may,however,bemodifiedwithactualuseoftheEV:someresearchshowsthatwhenindividualshavetheopportunitytoexperiencethetechnologydirectly,andtoseeitsimpactontheirmobility,theiropinionsoncertainfeaturesseemtobepositivelyinfluenced(Buehleretal.2011,GouldandGolob1998,Woodjacketal.2012).Otherstudies,however,showthatuseoftheEVdoesnotalterinitialimpressionsofsomefeatures.Regardinglimitedrange,forexample,individualscontinuetoperceivethisasinsufficientdespitetheobservationafterusethattheEVmeetsoveralltheirdailyneedsformobility(GolobandGould1998).

Thereiscurrentlyconsiderableinterestinwhetherlong-termexposuretoEVscanchangetherepresentationthatindividualshaveoftheselimitingfactorsandthusinfluencebehaviouralintentvis-à-visuseoftheconcernedtechnology.

Objectives

Theaimoftheresearchreportedinthischapterwastoevaluate,foraFrenchsampleofpotentialbuyersofEVs,theirbehaviouralintentiontouseelectricvehiclesand,moregenerally,toexaminedriveracceptanceofEVtechnologies.Forthis,werelyontheacceptancetheory,presentedinthenextsection,whichsuggeststhatwhenusersarepresentedwithanewtechnology,anumberofdifferentcognitiveandsocialfactorsinfluencetheirdecisionabouthowandwhentheywilluseit.

Inaddition,thestudyreportedhereexplorestheimpactofrealanddailyuseoftheEVonthemainacceptancefactors.Weareinterestedintheevolutionofparticipants’opinionsconcerningperformanceexpectancy,easeofuseexpectancyandpurchaseintentionswhenusinganelectricvehicleduringasix-monthperiod.Here,theobjectiveistocomparethemainfactorsofacceptanceatT0monthandT6months,andtheirpotentialevolution,andtohighlightfeatureswhichcanhaveasignificantimpactontheadoptionoftheEVinourmobilitychoices.

Finally,weconcludewithadiscussionofthemainbarriersrelatedtoEVuptakeidentifiedbyindividualsofthesampleattheendofthestudy,whichexposestheprincipalissuestoaddressinstimulatingfutureuptakeofEVs.

Acceptance

Modelsofacceptancehaveidentifiedseveralfactorscloselylinkedtowhetherornotanindividualadoptsnewtechnologies.Ingeneral,twomainfactorsare

notanindividualadoptsnewtechnologies.Ingeneral,twomainfactorsarehighlighted.

Asnotedelsewhereinthisbook,thefirstonecorrespondstoperformanceexpectancyproposedbytheUnifiedTheoryofAcceptanceandUseofTechnology–UTAUT–whichrefersto‘thedegreetowhichapersonbelievesthatusingaparticularsystemwouldenhancehisorherjobperformance’(Vankateshetal.2003:447;seealsoDavis1989).

PerformanceexpectancyoftheEV,therefore,relatestothemobilityneedsofdrivers,theabilityofEVtosuittheroadtransportenvironmentandalsotoitsabilitytobringnewopportunitiesintermsofmobility:ecologicaladvantages(absenceofCO2locally,possibilityoftravellinginamoreeco-friendlyway)orperceptualadvantages(lackofvehiclenoiseatlowspeed).

Thesecondmainfactoridentifiediseffortexpectancy,definedas‘thedegreeofeaseassociatedwiththeuseofthesystem’(Venkateshetal.2003:450).InthecaseoftheEV,theissueishowpeoplefindtheusabilityofthisnewtypeofvehicle:isiteasytolearntouse,totakeintoaccountthedistanceandthechargingtimeandsoon.

Someotherfactorsarealsohighlightedbyextantmodelsofacceptancetoaccountfortheadoptionofnewtechnologies.Amongtheseisthesocialinfluencefactorthatrepresents‘thedegreetowhichanindividualperceivesthatimportantothersevaluateandusethesystem,andbelieveheorsheshouldusethisnewsystem’(FishbeinandAjzen1975:216;seealsoAjzen1991,VenkateshandDavis2000).

Finally,somemodelsaddafacilitatingconditionsfactorunderlyingacceptance(Thompson,HigginsandHowell1991,Venkateshetal.2003),whichmakesreferencetotheorganisationalandtechnicalinfrastructurethatsupportsuseofthenewsystem.FortheEV,forexample,thisistheinfrastructureforchargingtheEV,orsubsidies,whichmaydrivesocietalacceptanceofelectricvehicles.

TheUnifiedTheoryofAcceptanceandUseofTechnologystatesthateachofthefactorsmentionedabovealsoappeartobemoderatedbyfactorsincludingthegender,ageandexperienceofindividualswithrespecttothenewtechnology,andthattogetherthesethingsinfluenceoverallacceptanceoftechnology(MooreandBenbasat1991,Venkateshetal.2003).

TestingthesedifferentfactorsofacceptancewillthereforehelptoidentifythebehaviouralintentionofindividualsrelatedtouseoftheEV.However,itisinterestingtonotethatactualuseofEVmayhaveanimpactonsomeofthesefactorsandchangethewaytheyareperceivedandevaluated.Likemanynewproducts,theiradvantagesanddefectscanbeovervaluedorundervaluedbylack

products,theiradvantagesanddefectscanbeovervaluedorundervaluedbylackofrealuserfeedback.Ourstudyaimed,therefore,toidentifypossiblechangesincertainfactorsofacceptancefollowinguseofEV.

StudyContext

ToexaminedriveracceptanceofEVsinFrance,andthechangesinbehaviourandattitudesthatoccurovertimewiththeuseofthistypeofvehicle,anexperiment,alreadyconductedinGermany(Cocronetal.2011a,Cocronetal.2011b),theUnitedStates(Woodjacketal.2012)andEngland(Everettetal.2010)–forthemanufacturerBMW–wasreplicatedinParis,France.

TheoriginalityoftheFrenchstudyrestedonthefactthatdriversrespondedtoasetofquestionnaires(andalsofocusgroups,travelandchargediaries)atthebeginningofthestudy,inthemiddleandaftersixmonthsofEVuse.EachdriverutilisedaMINIEelectriccarfortheirdailytripsduringasix-monthperiod.Twowavesof25driversweretested–fromDecember2010toJune2011forthefirstwave,andfromJulytoDecember2011forthesecondwave.InthischapterwewillfocusonthedatathatspecificallyconcernsacceptanceoftheEVanditsevolutionafterdailyuseoveraperiodofseveralmonths,andonthenegativefeaturesidentifiedbyindividualsofthesampleattheendofthestudywhichservetoexplaintheacceptancehighlighted.

Methodology

ElectricVehicles

Twenty-fiveMINIEprototypesweredeployed.TheMINIEissimilarinexternalappearancetotheMINICooper,butwithonlytwoseatsandequippedwithalithium-ionbattery.TheaveragerangeoftheMINIEis160kmandthecarhasregenerativebrakingthatslowsthevehicle(whileatthesametimeregeneratingenergy)fromthemomentthedriverreleasestheacceleratorpedal.

Tochargethevehicle,eachparticipanthadawallboxof12ampsinstalledinhisorherhomebytheFrenchelectricityproviderÉlectricitédeFrance(EDF).DriverscouldalsochargetheirvehiclesfromParisianpublicchargingstations.Afullchargetookaboutninehourstocomplete.

DataCollection

Datawerecollectedfromasetofquestionnaires,focusgroupsandtravelandchargediaries.TheseresearchtoolsweredesignedoriginallybytheGermanresearchteamwhichworkedonthefirstMINIEstudy(Neumannetal.2010).Datawerecomparedacrossthreetimeintervals:T0,T3monthsandfinallyatT6monthsafterthestartofthestudy.

Theprocedurewasasfollows.AtT0,twoquestionnaireswerecompleted–oneface-to-faceandtheotheronline–measuredonaLikertscaleofsixpoints,rangingfromone‘stronglydisagree’tosix‘stronglyagree’oraone‘veryunimportant’tosix‘veryimportant’.Someofthequestionswereopenquestions.Severalissueswereaddressed:theprospectiveviewsandexpectationsoffutureusersabouttheelectricvehicle,theirconsiderationsoftheecologicalaspectsandtechniquesofEVs,andtheirdrivinghabitsintraditionalcars.

Inparallel,thetraveldiarywasadministered.Itrelatedtodrivers’useoftheirown(private)carduringatypicalweek.Forsevendays,participantsusedittoregisteralltheirtrips,detailingthetripdistance,meansoftransporttaken,purposeofthetripandsoon.

AfterthreemonthsofusingtheEVparticipantswereaskedtocompletetwofurtherquestionnaires–oneface-to-faceandanotheronline–containingitemsthatwereeitheralreadypresentedatT0orwerenew.TheseitemsconcernedtheexperienceandappreciationofparticipantsoftheuseoftheMINIEonadailybasis.Participantswerealsorequiredtocompleteagainatraveldiary,relatingthistimetouseoftheMINIE.Userswerealsorequiredtocompleteachargediarydetailingallchargesmadeduringaweek.Usersreportedplaceofcharge,chargestatusatthebeginningandtheendofthechargingprocess,andthereasonsforthecharge.

Finally,atsixmonths,participantscompletedaquestionnairewhichwasadministeredface-to-face.Themajorityofitemswereidenticaltoitemsfrompreviousquestionnaires.Finally,participantswereaskedtocompleteatraveldiaryandachargediarysimilartothepreviousones.

Inthischapter,wefocusonlyondataforT0andT6months;giventhattheobjectiveistoseeifdailyuseofanEVinfluencesandmodifiespurchaseintent,itisinterestingtoconsiderthemaximumdurationofuse,namelythosedriversevaluatedaftersixmonths(formoredetails,seeLabeyeetal.inpress,andLabeyeetal.2012).

Participants

Morethan900peopleappliedonline(viatheMINI.frsite)toparticipateinthestudy.Afirstselectionwasmadebasedonthefollowingcriteria:beinga

study.Afirstselectionwasmadebasedonthefollowingcriteria:beingaresidentoftheParisarea,havingagarageoradedicatedplacetoparktheMINIE,beingabletoprovidepaymentforleasingthevehicle(€475permonth;insuranceincluded)andhavingaccesstoasuitableelectricalpowersupply.

Fiftysubjectswerechosenbasedonthenumberofkilometrestheyweredrivingeachday,andtheselectionwasaimedatmaximisingthenumberofwomeninthesampleandtohaveamajorityofdriverswhohadnoexperiencewithelectricorhybridvehicles.

Dataforonly40subjectswereanalysedbecauseofthedifficultycausedbythesix-monthdurationoftheexperiment:twosubjectsdroppedoutandeightsubjectsdidnotrespondtothefinalquestionnaire.

Theprofileofthefinalsamplewasasfollows:7womenand33men,withanaverageageof43.9years(SD=8.029).Thenumberofpeopleperhouseholdwasonaverage3.53;78percentofselectedparticipantshadauniversitylevelqualification;25percentweredrivingmorethan70kmperday;30percenthadalreadyhadaMINI;23percenthadexperiencedanelectricvehicle,and20percentahybridvehicle;and,finally,25percentofparticipantsdidnothavemorethanonevehicleathome.

ItshouldbenotedthatthosewhoparticipatedintheMINIEstudypresentedaparticularprofilethatwasnottypicaloftheFrenchpopulation.TheylivedinParisanditssuburbs,theyhadahighlevelofincome,andtheydroveonaveragefor60kmperday(SD=30.108).Moreover,thesamplewasespeciallyrepresentativeofthosethatmighteventuallybuyelectricvehicles.Indeed,individualsselectedwerepotentialearlyadoptersofEV(selectedontheMINIEwebsite),whichexplainstheirhighexperienceofelectricvehicles(nearlyaquarter),andtheirgreatinterestininnovativetechnologyandtheenvironmentalbenefitofEVs.Indeed,participants’motivationtotakepartinthisstudywasmainlyduetotwofactors:theattractivenessoftheEVbeinginnovativeandtheattractivenessoftheenvironmentalbenefitsthattheEVwasconsideredtoinduce(andtoalesserextent,attachmenttothebrandandreducedenergycosts).

Results

AcceptanceatToMonth

ThequestionnairesoftheMINIEstudyaddressedseveraldifferentresearchissues.Onlyitemsrelateddirectlyto,andexemplaryof,theacceptancefactors(definedintheintroduction)arediscussedhere:itemswhichreferto

performanceexpectancyandeaseofuseexpectancyinconnectionwiththeelectricvehicle,itemsrelatedtothesubjectivenormswhichcaninfluenceexpectationsofindividuals,andfinally,participants’overallpurchaseintentionswithrespecttothisnewtypeofvehicle.

Itshouldbenotedthat,becauseofconditionsrelatedtotheconstitutionofthesample(which,asnoted,wasnotbalancedintermsofgenderandage),wedonotinthischapterstudythemoderatingeffectsofgender,ageandexperienceoftheindividuals.

PerformanceExpectancy

Concerningthisacceptancefactor,12itemsarestudiedregardinghowtheMINIEwouldmeetthemobilityneedsofresponders,regardingtheirglobalsatisfactionandthegeneraladdedvaluetheyexpectfromtheMINIE;andspecificallyontheecologically-relatedaddedvaluerelatedtoitsuse.

Table11.1belowpresentsthemeanforeachitemandthestandarddeviation.Foritemspresentedinthequestionnaireinanegativeturn(forexample,‘ThelimitedrangeoftheMINIEwillnotpermitmetodoallofmynormaldriving’),bothpositiveandnegativemeansareindicatedinTable11.1.Thecalculationoftheglobalperformanceexpectancyfactormeanaverageisformedfromthesetofpositivevalues.

Theperformanceexpectancyfactorforacceptanceisgenerallyhigh(M=4.3,SD=0.4).ThissuggeststhatparticipantsconsiderhighlythattheMINIEisexpectedtosatisfytheirdailymobilityneeds(M=5.03,SD=1.00)andissuitableforeverydayuse(M=5.10,SD=0.74),eveniftheyareawareofsomedifficultiescausedbythelimitedrange(M=3.33,SD=1.42).ThisindicatesthatparticipantsexpectthattheEVwouldmeetalargeparttheirmobilityneeds.

Furthermore,itseemsthatparticipantsconsidertheMINIEtobeasafevehicle(M=4.80,SD=0.82)andmoresatisfyingtodrivethanaconventionalcar(M=4.05,SD=1.11).Finally,concerningtheecologicaladdedvalues,themeansshowhowtheparticipantsassociatetheseissueswiththeelectricvehicle.TheyagreehighlythattheEVisagoodsolutiontoreducenoiseandCO2

pollution(M=5.28,SD=0.82;M=5.02,SD=0.73).

Table11.1PerformanceexpectancyitemsmeansandstandarddeviationsatT0month

EaseofUseExpectancy

TheeaseofuseexpectancyfactorofEVacceptancewasassessedwithasix-itemscalecorrespondingtothefacilitytolearnexpectedbythesubjectsandthefacilitytousetheEV.

Table11.2belowpresentstheaveragemeanforeachitemandthestandarddeviation.Foritemspresentedinanegativeturninthequestionnaire,bothpositiveandnegativemeansareindicatedinTable11.2.Thecalculationoftheglobaleaseofusefactormeanaverageisformedfromthesetofpositivevalues.

Table11.2EaseofuseexpectancyitemsmeansandstandarddeviationsatT0month

Thegeneralmeaneaseofuseexpectancyfactorisalsohigh(M=4.18,SD=0.46).Globally,theresultsshowthatparticipantsconsiderthelearningtodriveanduseoftheEVaseasy(M=4.93,SD=0.94;M=4.53,SD=0.60),eventhoughtheythinktheyshouldalsotakeintoaccounttheirroutelengthandthechargingtimeswhentheyusetheMINIE(M=3.95,SD=1.28).

SubjectiveNorms

TostudytheplaceofthesubjectivenormsintheacceptanceoftheEV,fiveitemswereanalysed.Table11.3belowpresentsthemeansforeachitemandthestandarddeviation.

Table11.3SubjectivenormsitemsmeansandstandarddeviationsatT0month

Theanalysisofthesubjectivenormsshowsthisfactorislessimportantthantheprevious(M=3.66,SD=0.63);andmoreover,itemshavevaryingimportanceforparticipants–theythinkpeoplelikethemwouldliketodriveanEV(M=4.45,SD=0.60),buttheyarelesslikelytothinkpeoplewhoareimportanttothemwouldliketobuyanEV(M=3.60,SD=0.98),andnotmanypeopleexpectthemtobuyanEV(M=2.72,SD=1.01).

Table11.4UseandpurchaseintentionitemsmeansandstandarddeviationsatT0month

UseandPurchaseIntentions

Finally,fouritemsrelatedtotheuseandpurchaseintentionsoftheEVwerestudied.Table11.4presentsthemeanforeachitemandthestandarddeviation.Foritemspresentedinanegativeturninthequestionnaire,bothpositiveandnegativemeansareindicatedinTable11.3.Moreover,thecalculationoftheglobaluseandpurchaseintentionfactormeanaverageisformedfromthesetofpositivevalues.

ThemeanoftheuseandpurchaseintentionitemisM=3.79,SD=0.63.Indetail,theresultsshowthattheEVisnotenvisagedintheimmediatetermasamaincar;theMINIEcanonlybeasecondcar(M=4.53,SD=1.36),evenifparticipantsexpecttouseitveryfrequently(M=4.70,SD=0.52).

TheseconsiderationswithrespecttotheEVdemonstratethatsomeparametersofacceptancearesupportedbutthat,overall,theymaynotbesufficienttogivetheEVthefirstplaceinthehousehold’svehiclefleet.

Finally,itcanbearguedthatthesizeofthevehicleorthetwoseatswouldplayaroleinviewingtheEVasasecondratherthanprimaryvehicle.Indeed,itispossiblethatthelackofaseatingplacecouldhavemodifiedmobilitypatternsoftheparticipantsbylimitingthepossibletripsandaddingtotheconstraintsofrange.

AcceptanceafterSixMonthsofUse

ToanalysetheimpactoftheuseoftheEVontheacceptanceofthisnewmodeoftransport,wecomparedusingat-testthemeansobtainedatT0andT6monthsontheprincipalfactorsoftheacceptance.Thefactors’subjectivenormsandecologicalfactorswerenotanalysed,astheyarerelativelyindependentoftherealuseofthecarineverydaylife.

NodifferencewasfoundbetweentheglobalmeansfortheperformanceexpectancyfactoratT0andT6months,andneitherwasonefoundfortheeaseofuseexpectancyfactor.However,resultsshowsomesignificantdifferencesforspecificitems.

PerformanceExpectancy

Concerningtheperformanceexpectancyfactor,meansfortheitem‘ThelimitedrangeoftheMINIEwillnotpermitmetodoallofmynormaldriving’aresignificantlydifferentbetweenthebeginningandtheendoftheexperiment,t(39)=2.06;p<0.05.ThemeansincreasefromM=3.33(SD=0.88)atT0month,toM=3.83(SD=1.15)atT6months,meaningtheimpactofthelimitedrangeoftheEVwasinitiallyunderestimatedbytheparticipants.

TheanalysisofopenquestionsandtraveldairiesatT6monthsshowsthatparticipantsmentionhavingtogetusedtothehandlingofrangebyplanningtheirtripsaccordingtodistance,andtheyusedtheirownprivatecarforlongtrips(M=4.29,SD=1.1).However,wehavetokeepinmindthattheyhighlyestimatedtheMINIEasbeingsatisfying(meanperformedonthesixmonthsbecausethevaluesdonotdiffersignificantly:M=4.90,SD=0.81)andsuitable(meancalculatedonthesixmonths:M=5.20,SD=0.55)fortheirdailymobilityneeds,throughouttheexperiment.Moreover,attheendoftheexperiment,participantsfeltthattheEVhadsatisfiedtheirneedsfordailymobility,M=4.8(SD=1.19).Globally,theseresultsarenotnecessarilycontradictory.Evenifthereremainlongtripsforwhichparticipantsneedtouseanothermodeoftransport,theEVisgenerallymeetingtheirneedsformobility.

Anotheritem,‘TheMINIEwillbemoresatisfyingtodrivethanaconventionalcar’,alsoshowsasignificantdifferencebetweenT0andT6monthsmeans,t(39)=3.90;p<0.05.ThemeansincreasefromM=4.05(SD=1.11)atT0month,toM=4.58(SD=1.11)atT6months.Theresultsindicatetheimportanceofrealuseoftheelectriccarinordertoappreciateitsfeaturesandthusshowthatsomeaspectsofacceptancecanbepositivelymodified.

Finally,thelastitemoftheperformanceexpectancyfactorpresentssignificantlydifferentmeans:t(39)=-2.52;p<0.05.For‘TheMINIEwillbeanaffordabletransportoptionforme’,meansdecreasedfromM=3.88(SD=0.88)atT0month,toM=3.05(SD=1.06)atT6months.Itseemsthat,overtime,thefinancialassetisnotasimportantasexpected.Nevertheless,wemustqualifythisanalysissincetheparticipantsrentedthecarforeachmonthoftheexperiment,andhencethepaymentsovertimecanreducethefinancialbenefitsatthebeginning.

EaseofUseExpectancy

Concerningtheeaseofuseexpectancyfactor,severalitemswereassesseddifferentlyatthebeginningandtheendoftheexperiment.Globally,allofthemshowthatuseoftheEVissimplerthanwasexpectedinitiallybyparticipants,evenifatthebeginningoftheexperimentusers’expecteddifficultieswerealreadyratedaslow.

Fortheitem‘IneededtolearnalotofthingsbeforeIcouldgetgoingwiththeMINIE’,themeansdecreasefromM=2.17(SD=1.04)atT0month,toM=1.48(SD=0.82)atT6months:t(39)=-3.62;p<0.05.Significantdecreaseswerealsoobservedfortheitem‘ThementalworkloadrequiredtodrivetheMINIEwillbegreaterthanthatforaconventionalcar’(M=2.93,SD=0.89atT0month;M=2.42,SD=1.45atT6months:t(39)=-2.11;p<0.05),andfortheitem‘HavingtotakeintoaccountmyroutelengthandchargingtimeswillmakeusingtheMINIEabigchallenge’,(M=3.95,SD=1.28atT0month;M=3.35,SD=1.25atT6months:t(39)=-2.66;p<0.05).Overall,theresultsdemonstratethattheeaseofuseexpectancyfactorismodulatedbyuseoftheEV,inrelationtolearninghowtousethevehicleandindealingwiththerangeissuesofthevehicle.

Finally,theitem‘Iamworriedthatthechargingtimeswillnotsuitmydailyroutine’isalsorateddifferentlyatT0month(M=2.85,SD=1.12)andatT6months(M=3.43,SD=1.45):t(39)=2.23;p<0.05.Thus,theitemconcernstheparticularissueofthechargingtimeandtheFrenchinfrastructureutilisedduringtheexperiment.Indeed,42percentofusersfoundthatthechargeprocesstime–ninehoursonaverage–didn’tfitwiththeirdailyroutine(participantsreportedthatsixhourswouldbemoreacceptableandthreehourswouldbeagoodtime).Thiswasduetothe12ampssocketsthatalluserschargedfrom.Theuseof32ampssocketscoulddividebytwothetimenecessarytochargeandthusmaketheprocessmoresuitableforeverydayuse.

UseandPurchaseIntention

TheanalysisoftheresultscorrespondingtotheuseandpurchaseintentionitemswasnotsignificantbetweenthemeansobtainedatT0andT6months.LikewiseatT0month,theEVisnotenvisaged,evenaftersixmonthsofuse,asamaincar;theMINIEisstillconsideredsuitableasasecondcaronly(meanscalculatedonthesixmonths:M=4.66,SD=1.04).However,itisinterestingtonotethattheparticipantsdeclaredthattheywouldusetheEVveryfrequently(M=4.47,SD=1.04)andconsideredseriouslybuyinganelectricvehicleafterthestudy(meanscalculatedonthesixmonths:M=4.21,SD=0.91).

TheseconsiderationswithrespecttotheEVdemonstratethatsomefactorsofacceptancearevalidatedbut,overall,theymaynotbesufficienttogivetheEVfirst-carstatusinthehousehold.

MainBarrierstoAcceptanceoftheMINIE

Weturnnowtoafinalanalysisofthenegativefeaturesidentifiedbyparticipantsatthebeginningandendofthestudy,whichcanexplainthemitigatedacceptanceoftheEV.ParticipantswereaskedwhatimportantchangesindifferentareaswouldbenecessaryforthemtoconsiderbuyinganEVinthefuture.Theresultswerenotsignificantlydifferentbeforeandafterthesix-monthstudyperiod.Participantswereconcernedmainlyaboutthepotentialrangeoftravel,thedurabilityofthebatteries,thepurchaseprice,thechargingtimeandtheconstructionofpubliccharginginfrastructure.

At-testdidshow,however,asignificantdifferencebetweenthemeansrelatedtothepurchasepriceitematT0monthandatT6months:t(39)=-3.64;p<0.05–themeansincreasefromM=4.95,SD=0.88toM=5.4,SD=0.71.Thislastresultsuggeststhatusingthevehicleforsixmonthsmakesthevehiclemoreconcreteinthelifeofparticipantssuchthattheycanactuallyprojectthemselvesintotheprocessofbuyingthecar.Theyseemtohave,henceforth,amoreaccurateideaofhowmuchtheyarewillingtopaytopurchaseanelectricvehicle.

Finally,wecannotethat,amongthemainbarrierstoEVuse,thechargeinfrastructureissueisofgreatimportancebecausetheactualchargingpointsarenotsufficient,andthechargingtimeseemstoolongtoparticipants.Thus,chargingandpriceissuesstronglyinfluenceEVacceptanceandtheyrepresentthefacilitatingconditionsfactorproposedbyThompsonetal.(1991).Thus,thetechnicalinfrastructurethatsupportsuseoftheEVandthesubsidiesprovided

mustincreaseinordertoenhanceacceptanceanduptakeoftheelectricvehicle.

Discussion

ThestudyanalysedhowthedifferentfactorsofacceptancerelatedtotheelectricvehicleareappreciatedbyapotentialearlyadopterpopulationinParis,France.

Itappearsthatexpectancyconcerningperformanceandeaseofuseoftheelectricvehiclearegenerallywelljudgedbytheparticipantsofthestudy.Indeed,theyexpectthatthelearninganduseoftheEVwillbesimpleandthattheEVwillrespondwelltotheirdailymobilityneeds,whileprovidingmoreecologicalvalue.Thisnewtypeofvehicleseemstoyieldmanypositiveaspectsandthuscouldpassforaveryacceptabletechnology.

However,theanalysesofintentiontouseandpurchaseintentiondemonstratethatthebarrierstoEVacceptancearestillpresent.Evenafteralongperiodofuseofthevehicle,thebarriersarestillthesameandconcernthepurchaseprice,thechargingandbatteriesissuesandfinallythelimitedrangeofthevehicle.

Onthislastfactor,theinabilityofthecartosupportlongtripspreventstheEVfrombeingperceivedasapotentialmainusecarinthehousehold,despitethesuitabilityoftheEVtosatisfytherestofthemobilityneedsofparticipants.Concerningthechargingtime,theresultsshowedthattherewasnochangeinparticipants’apprehensionofthisconstraint.ItistruethatthechargingtimeinFranceisverylong(ninehoursonaverage)comparedwithothercountries(e.g.,Germany,wherethechargingtimeisaroundfourhours)andthisdoesnotfacilitateuseofthevehicle(Labeyeetal.2012).

TheideathateverydayuseoftheEVmodifiestheperceptionofrangeandchargeissuesisnotshown;however,wemustkeepinmindthatthetestedsampleisnotrepresentativeoftheFrenchpopulation.Theywerepeoplewhoalreadyhaveafavourableopinionvis-à-viselectrictechnologyandwhowerecuriousabouttheproduct(23percenthadexperiencedanEVbeforethestudy).UseofamoreheterogeneouspopulationwouldprobablyhaveshownaneffectofEVuseontheacceptanceofEVs.Inthiscase,thedailyuseoftheEVcouldbemoreinfluentialandmodifytherepresentationtheywouldhave.

Intheend,toseetheEVfeaturemoreprominentlyinourmobilitychoices,EVtechnologyandcharginginfrastructurehavetoberefinedandacceptedbypotentialowners.ItisreasonabletoassumethatEVtechnologywillcontinuetobecomeincreasinglyinnovativeinordertoovercometheproblemofrange;andfinally,thegeneralisationoftheinfrastructurewouldpotentiallyreducepurchasecost,whichremainsundeniablyamajorproblem.

Acknowledgements

WearegratefultoBMWGermanyandBMWFranceforprovidinguswiththeopportunitytoconductthisstudy.Inparticular,wethankMichaelaLuehr,RomanVilimek,MichaelHajesch,MaximillianSchwalmandJean-MichelCavretandhiscolleaguesfortheirsupport,andfortheirinputtotheproject.WethankalsocolleaguesfromCEESAR,fortheirimportantroleinrecruitingparticipantsandcollectingthedataforthisstudy;inparticular,JulienAdrian,AnnieLangloisandReakkaKrishnakumar.Finally,wethankJulienDelaitre,MagaliePierre(EDF)andJulienAugerat(Veolia)fortheirsupport.

References

Ajzen,I.1991.Thetheoryofplannedbehavior.OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,50(2):179–211.

Buehler,F.,Neumann,I.,Cocron,P.,Franke,T.andKrems,J.F.2011.Usagepatternsofelectricvehicles:Areliableindicatorofacceptance?FindingsfromaGermanfieldstudy.ProceedingsoftheNinetiethTRBAnnualMeeting,Washington,DC,January.

CheronE.andZins,M.1997.Electricvehiclepurchasingintentions:Theconcernoverbatterychargeduration.TransportationResearchPartA:PolicyandPractice,31(3):235–43.

Cocron,P.,Bühler,F.,Franke,T.,Neumann,I.andKrems,J.2011a.Thesilenceofvehicles–Blessingorcurse?Proceedingsof90thTRBAnnualMeeting,Washington,DC,January.

Cocron,P.,Bühler,F.,Neumann,I.,Franke,T.,Krems,J.F.,Schwalm,M.andKeinathA.2011b.Methodsofevaluatingelectricvehiclesfromauser’sperspective–TheMINIEfieldtrialinBerlin.IETIntelligentTransportSystems,5(2):127–33.

Dagsvik,J.K.,Wennemo,T.,Wetterwald,D.G.andAaberge,R.2002.Potentialdemandforalternativefuelvehicles.TransportationResearchB,36:361–84.

Davis,F.D.1989.Perceivedusefulness,perceivedeaseofuse,anduseracceptanceofinformationtechnology.MISQuarterly,13(3):319–39.

Eggers,F.andEggers,F.2011.Wherehavealltheflowersgone?Forecastinggreentrendsintheautomobileindustrywithachoice-basedconjointadoptionmodel.TechnologicalForecasting&SocialChange,78:51–62.

Everett,A.,Walsh,C.,Smith,K.,Burgess,M.andHarris,M.2010.Ultralow

carbonvehicle:Demonstratorprogramme.ProceedingsoftheTwenty-fifthWorldBattery,HybridandFuelCellElectricVehicleSymposiumandExhibition,EVS25,Shenzhen,China.

Fishbein,M.andAjzen,I.1975.Belief,attitude,intention,andbehavior:Anintroductiontotheoryandresearch.Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley.

Golob,T.F.andGould,J.1998.Projectinguseofelectricvehiclesfromhouseholdvehicletrials.TransportationResearchA,32:441–54.

Gould,J.andGolob,T.F.1998.Cleanairforever?Alongitudinalanalysisofopinionsaboutairpollutionandelectricvehicles.TransportationResearchD:TransportandtheEnvironment,3:157–69.

Kurani,K.S.andTurrentine,D.S.1996.Testingelectricvehicledemandinhybridhouseholds’usingareflexivesurvey.TransportationResearchD,1(2):131–50.

Labeye,E.,Adrian,J.,Hugot,M.,Regan,M.andBrusque,C.Inpress).Dailyuseofanelectricvehicle:BehaviouralchangesandpotentialsupportofITS.IETIntelligentTransportSystems.

Labeye,E.,Hugot,M.,Regan,M.andBrusque,C.2012.Electricvehicles:Aneco-friendlymodeoftransportwhichinducechangesindrivingbehaviour.InHumanFactorsofSystemsandTechnology.EditedbyD.deWaard,N.Merat,H.Jamson,Y.BarnardandO.Carsten.Maastricht,theNetherlands:ShakerPublishing.

Lieven,T.,Muhlmeier,S.,Henkel,S.andWaller,J.F.2011.Whowillbuyelectriccars?AnempiricalstudyinGermany.TransportationResearchD,16:236–43.

Moore,G.C.andBenbasat,I.1991.Developmentofaninstrumenttomeasuretheperceptionsofadoptinganinformationtechnologyinnovation.InformationSystemsResearch,2(3):192–222.

Negre,L.2009.RapportduSenat.Structurationdelafilièredesvéhiculesdécarbonés.Availableat:http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-publics/114000055/0000.pdf[accessed1February2013].

Neumann,I.,Cocron,P.,Franke,T.andKrems,J.F.2010.Electricvehiclesasasolutionforgreendrivinginthefuture?Afieldstudyexaminingtheuseracceptanceofelectricvehicles.ProceedingsoftheEuropeanConferenceonHumanInterfaceDesignforIntelligentTransportSystems,29–30.EditedbyJ.F.Krems,T.PetzoldtandM.Henning(Hrsg).Berlin,Germany,April2012(445–53).Lyon:HumanistPublications.

OECD/ITF.2010.ReducingTransportGreenhouseGasEmissionsTrendsand

Data2010.Potoglou,D.andKanaroglou,P.S.2007.Householddemandandwillingnessto

payforcleanvehicles.TransportationResearchPartD,12(4):264–74.Thompson,R.L.,Higgins,C.A.andHowell,J.M.1991.Personalcomputing:

Towardaconceptualmodelofutilization.MISQuarterly,15(1):124–43.Venkatesh,V.andDavis,F.D.2000.Atheoreticalextensionofthetechnology

acceptancemodel:Fourlongitudinalfieldstudies.ManagementScience,45(2):186–204.

Venkatesh,V.,Morris,M.G.,DavisG.B.andDavis,F.D.2003.Useracceptanceofinformationtechnology:Towardaunifiedview.MISQuarterly,27(3):425–78.

Woodjack,J.,Garas,D.,Lentz,A.,Turrentine,T.,Tal,G.andNicholas,M.2012.Consumers’perceptionsanduseofelectricvehiclerangechangesovertimethroughalifestylelearningprocess.ProceedingsofNinetiethTRBAnnualMeeting,Washington,DC,January.

Chapter12User-CentredDesignandEvaluationasaPrerequisitefortheSuccessofDisruptiveInnovations:AnElectric

VehicleCaseStudyRomanVilimekandAndreasKeinath

BMWGroup,Germany

Abstract

Introducingelectromobilityandtransportationtocustomerscanbeapotentiallydisruptiveinnovation.TomakethisinnovationsuccessfulandtodesigntheBMWi3,theBMWGroup’sfirstpurpose-builtelectricvehicle,weappliedacustomer-centreddevelopmentandevaluationcycletobridgethegapbetweenearlyadoptersandlateadopters.Inthispaper,theresultsoffundamentalfieldtrialstodefineandverifybasiccustomerrequirementsarereportedwheretheBMWGroupgatheredalotofinformationaboutusageofelectricvehiclesinareal-worldsetting.Theseresultshavebeenincorporatedindevelopmentandhavebeencontinuouslytestedandevaluatedbycustomers.Webelievethattheresultsofthiscustomer-orienteddevelopmentprocesswillcontributesignificantlytomakethepotentiallydisruptiveinnovationofelectromobilityasuccessintermsofdriveracceptance.

Customer-CentredDevelopmentasaMeanstoEnsureDriverAcceptance

In1908whenthefirstFordModelTvehicleswereproduced,theinternalcombustionenginevehiclecouldnotgenerallybedescribedasadisruptiveinnovationasithadbeenaroundwellbeforethisdate.Bydefinition,disruptiveinnovationsdefineanewmarket,arerevolutionary,butnotevolutionary,andtypicallycomeupwithnewcustomersegments(Christensen2012).However,whatisdescribedasadisruptiveinnovationwasthattheFordModelTmadetheinternalcombustionenginevehicleaffordable,andthereforecompletelychanged

individualtransportation(ChristensenandRaynor2003).EvenbeforetheFordModelT,therewereelectricvehicles;evenelectriccabshadbeenseenonthestreetsofNewYorkandBostonandothercitiesaround1896(Kirsch1997).However,theprinciplebehindthecompletelynewapproachofBMWi,thenewsub-brandoftheBMWGroup,isadisruptiveinnovationwithpotentialtochangethewholemarket.BMWiwillnotonlyintroducenewvehicleconceptsliketheall-electricpurpose-designedBMWi3.Itwillalsoputamajorfocusonsustainablemobilitybyfocussingnotonlyonthevehicleitselfbutalsobyredesigningtheentirevaluechain.AdditionallyBMWiwillintroduceinnovativemobilityservicesanddeveloptechnologicalinnovationslikefastchargingtoensurethesuitabilityofelectricvehiclesforthecustomer’severydayneeds.

Whilethereexistsawholebodyofliteratureonhowtoinnovateandhowtogenerateideasforproductinnovations,thereismuchlessinformationonhowtoaccompanythedevelopmentofadisruptiveinnovationtoachievemaximumuseracceptanceandcustomersatisfaction.Inotherwords,wewillfocusinthispaperonhowtocarryoutuser-centredproductevaluationevenifitisaboutaradicaltechnologicalinnovationthatwillchangeagooddealofacustomer’severydaybehaviour.Standardtheoriesandmodelsoftechnologyacceptanceareonlyoflimitedusehere,astheydonotgiveadescriptiveapproachastohowtodouser-centreddevelopment.Hence,oneofthebest-knownmodelsfortechnologyacceptancebyDavis(1993)onlystatesthatperceivedusefulnessandperceivedeaseofusearecrucialfortechnologyacceptanceintermsofactualuseoftheproduct.However,themodeldoesnotdescribehowtoachieveusefulnessandeaseofusefromadeveloper’spointofview,especiallywhenitcomestosuchacomplexsystemastransportationanduseofelectricvehicles(EVs).Inhisbook,TheInvisibleComputer,DonaldNorman(1998)combinesinsightsfromhowdisruptiveinnovationschangewholemarketswiththetheoryabouthowearlyadoptersleadmarketacceptancebeforelateadoptersjoinin.Itiscrucialforinnovationstobridgethegapbetweenearlyadoptersandlateadopterstobecomeasuccess(Moore1991).Normanstatesthatthisgapcanonlybebridgedbyproductsthatarecustomer-drivenorhuman-centredandprovidegoodvaluewithagooduserexperience.Figure12.1,takenfromNorman(1998),showsthechangefromtechnology-drivenhightechnologythatattractsearlyadopterstocustomer-drivenusercentredtechnologythatattractslateadopterswhoareresponsibleforthesuccessofaproductinnovation.Inemphasisingtheimportanceofuserexperienceandusabilityofaproducttobecomeasuccess,NormancomesclosetothebasicnotionsofDavis’s(1993)acceptancemodelthatstatesthesesamefactorsasbeingcrucialfortechnology

acceptance.However,thecombinationofbothmodelsgivesclearadviceforanybody

workingonhowtomakeadisruptiveinnovationsuccessfulbysuggestingtheapplicationofauser-centreddesignandevaluationapproach,eveniftheinnovationathandissomethingasbigaselectricvehiclesinamaturetransportationsystem.Thespecialchallengewithdisruptivetechnologiesiscreatingsolutionsthatareactuallyoptimisedforeverydayusage:becausethereisno‘everyday’contextyetestablishedduringsystemsdesign,aprocessisneededthatallowsintegrationofuserfeedbackinearlyphasesofthedesignbydeployingpilotusecaseswithtargetusers.Theuser-centreddesignprocessproposesexactlythisapproach.Inthefollowingwewilldescribehowweappliedthebasicuser-centreddesignprocesstoaccompanythedevelopmentofsomeaspectsoftheBMWGroup’sfirstseries-builtelectricvehicle.

Figure12.1Thetransitionfromearlyadopterstolateadoptersinrelationtotechnologydevelopment(reproducedfromDonaldA.Norman,TheInvisibleComputer:WhyGoodProductsCanFail,thePersonalComputerIsSoComplex,andInformationAppliancesAretheSolution,figure2.4,©1998MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,bypermissionofMITPress)

ApplicationoftheUser-CentredDesignFrameworkwithinthe

BMWGroupDevelopmentofElectricVehicles

User-centreddesignrequiresaboveallaverygoodunderstandingofuserrequirements.Inanearlypublicationonthissubject,Norman(1986)statesthat‘theneedsoftheusershoulddominatethedesignoftheinterface,andtheneedoftheinterfaceshoulddominatethedesignoftherestofthesystem’.Theaspect‘restofthesystem’cannotbeoveremphasisedasinmanycasesuserresearchfocusestoomuchontheproductitselfandnotenoughontheecosystemtheproductwillexistin.

InternationalOrganizationforStandardization(ISO)standard9241-210(2010),human-centreddesignforinteractivesystems,specifiesgeneralrequirementsforanyuser-centreddesignprocess.Theprocessframeworkoftheinternationalstandardcanberegardedasthecommonfoundationofmostusabilityengineeringanduserexperienceprocessmodels.Accordingtothisstandard,fourmainactivitiesmusttakeplaceduringsystemdevelopment:(1)understandandspecifythecontextofuse,(2)specifytheuserandorganisationalrequirements,(3)producedesignsolutionsthatfulfiltheserequirements,and(4)evaluatedesignsagainstrequirementsfromauser’sperspective.Iterationloopsmayapplyinanystageoftheprocess.

Onthisbasis,weappliedthewholecycleofiterativedesignandevaluationseveraltimeswithdifferentlevelsofgranularity:usercontextwasanalysedbyliteratureresearchaswellasdoinginterviewswithexpertsfromtransportation.Thehuman–machineinterface(HMI)wasevaluatedwithprototypesindrivingsimulatorsaswellasusingroadtrials.However,themostfundamentalstepwasconductinginternationalfieldtrialswithelectricvehicleswithcustomerstoanalysewhatdesigndecisionsarenecessarytomeettherequirementsofearlyadoptersaswellaslateadoptersandtomakethisinnovationsuccessful.WewillfocusinthischapteronthegroundbreakinginternationalfieldtrialsonelectricvehicleusagethatwereundertakentodefineuserrequirementsfortheBMWGroup’snewelectricvehicleBMWi3.

TheBMWGrouplaunchedtwokeylearningprojectsinpreparationfortheBMWi3.ThefirststepinthisprojectwastheMINIEwhichwasspecificallydevelopedforfieldtrialswithcustomersanddeployedinseveraltestsitesworldwide.ThesecondstepwastheintroductionoftheBMWActiveEthatservesprimarilytodoresearchonEV-relatedtechnology,infrastructure,chargingsolutionsandserviceprocesses.ItalsoplayedasignificantrolebyprovidingthebasisforevaluationiterationsinuserresearchonEVspecificfunctions.

Figure12.2Thecustomer-centreddevelopmentprocessasimplementedbytheBMWGroup’sconceptqualitydepartment

AnalysingUserRequirements:TheMINIEFieldTrials

TheMINIEisaconversionoftheMINIcooperandfocusesongainingcustomerexperienceandcustomers’requirements.Thevehiclefeaturesa204hpelectricmotor,atorqueof220Nmanda35kWhlithium-ionbattery(28kWhavailable).Inrealterms,anddependingonthedrivingstyle,theMINIE’srangeisroughly160km(100miles).Chargingwitha32Amperewallboxtakesabout3.8hours.Withaconventionalplug,using12Ampereand240volts,about10.1hoursareneededforafullcharge(from0to100percent).

UnderstandinghowEVsareusedinreal-worldscenarioshassubstantiallyadvancedduringthesefieldtrials.Thestudywasplannedtoprovideanswerstokeytopics,liketheprofileofcustomerscurrentlyinterestedindrivingEVsaswellastheirexpectationsandmotives.Objectivelong-termEVusagepatternsonaday-to-daybasiswereanalysedincombinationwiththeusers’subjectivejudgementsonlikesanddislikesaboute-mobility1ingeneral,andonspecificvehiclecharacteristicoftheMINIEindetail.

TheMINIEtrials,involvingmorethan600vehiclessince2009,havebeencarefullyplannedandexecutedbytheBMWGroupincooperationwithpublic,

privateanduniversityaffiliates.ThestudywasconductedintheUnitedStates,Germany,theUnitedKingdom,France(seealsoChapter11inthisvolume),JapanandChina.Atthebeginningof2012,morethan15,000peoplehaveappliedworldwidetobetestcustomerssincethebeginningofthetrials.Morethan16millionkilometres(10millionmiles)drivenbyrealcustomershavebeenlogged.AsubsetoftheMINIEcustomers,430privateusers,tookpartinin-depthinterviewsandresearchactivities.Togetherwithnumeroususersof14fleetcompanies,theseprivatehouseholdcustomersweresurveyedbyatotalof15researchinstitutionsintheparticipatingsixcountries.TheinternationalMINIEfieldtrialsendedinearly2012.UntilOctober2013,theMINIEisstillontheroadinseverallocalprojectsinGermanytoaddressspecialresearchtopicsidentifiedduringthefieldtrialsandishelpingtoshedlightone-mobilityinruralregions,togainafirst-handinsightintocustomergroupsbeyondearlyadopters,andtoanalyseindetailcustomers’drivingandenergyefficiencypatternswhenusingEVsandcombustionenginevehiclesindirectcomparison.

ThecompilationofdatafromtheMINIEfieldtrialshasyieldedarguablythemostextensiveresultsregardingeverydayusageofelectricvehiclesworldwide.Theseresultsformthebasisofearly-phaseuserinputonthecontextofuse.Inthefollowingparagraphs,ashortdescriptionofthemethodsusedinthestudywillbegiven,aswellasselectedresults.Theexampleswilldepicthowearlycustomerfeedbackfounditswayintothedevelopmentcycle.

Methods

ThefirststepsinthefieldtrialoccurredinJune2009intheUnitedStatesandinGermany.CustomersinNewYorkandtheNewJerseyregionaswellascustomersinLosAngelesrentedtheMINIEforatleastoneyear.With240vehiclesinfleetusageand246privatecustomers,theUSstudyformedthelargestsample.TheUniversityofCaliforniaatDaviscarriedoutthescientificresearchwiththehouseholdcustomersandindetailwith54ofthose.Oftheremainingprivatehouseholds,72customerstookpartinasurveythatallowedforinternationalcomparisonswiththeothermarketsinvolved.CustomersintheEuropeanandAsianfieldtrialsheldtheirEVtypicallyforsixmonths.InBerlin,Germany,atotalof110privatecustomerstookpartintwoseparatetestphasesthatwerescientificallymonitoredbytheChemnitzUniversityofTechnology.AnadditionalfieldtrialinMunichinvolved26privatecustomers.Moreover,52vehiclesweredeployedinfleetsduringtheGermantrials.France(Paris)andtheUK(Oxford,London)werefurthertestsitesinEuropewith50privateusers/25fleetvehiclesand40privateusers/20fleetvehicles,respectively.Research

fleetvehiclesand40privateusers/20fleetvehicles,respectively.ResearchpartnersweretheFrenchInstituteofScienceandTechnologyforTransport,DevelopmentandNetworks(IFSTTAR)andtheOxfordBrookesUniversity.TheAsiantrialsstartedlastinearly2011inChina(Beijing,Shenzhen)with50privateusers/25fleetvehiclesand28privatecustomers/sixfleetvehiclesinJapan(Tokyo,Osaka).ResearchcooperationpartnersincludedtheChineseAutomotiveTechnologyandResearchCenter(CATARC),themarketresearchcompanyINSinBeijing,theWasedaUniversityinTokyo,Japan,andtheJapanesemarketresearchcompanyIIDInc.Followingtheexplicitwishofcustomers,thestudywascontinuedafterashortinterruptionfollowingtheGreatEastJapanEarthquakeinMarch2011.

TheBerlinprojectscanberegardedastheblueprintfortheMINIEtrialsintermsofmethodology.TheInstituteofCognitiveandEngineeringPsychologyattheChemnitzUniversityofTechnologyhascontributedtheirexpertiseinhuman-machineinteractionanduserresearchforin-vehiclesystems.TheInstituteofTransportationStudiesattheUniversityofCaliforniaatDavishasalongtraditioninexploringalternativefuelvehiclesandplug-inhybridelectricvehicles.TogetherwiththesepartnersamethodstoolsetwasestablishedthatwasusedinsimilarforminallfollowingMINIEprojects.ThisbasicsetofmethodsisdescribedindetailinKremsetal.(2010),Bühleretal.(2011)andCocronetal.(2011).

Potentialcustomersinterestedinparticipatinginthetrialappliedviaanonlineapplicationformandhadtosupplyinformationaboutrelevantaspectsofsocio-demographicandpsychographicbackground.Certaincriteriawereaprerequisitetobeincluded(e.g.,tobewillingtoactuallyusethecaronaregularbasisandtobewillingtopayamonthlyleasingfee).Afterbeingselectedforthestudy,participantstookpartintelephoneinterviewsaskingabouttheirmotivationandattitudes.Interviewswerehelddirectlybeforethecustomersreceivedthevehicle,afterthreemonthsofusageandattheendoftheleasingperiod.Theinterviewswereface-to-facewheneverpossible;orifnotpossible,bytelephoneandsupplementedwithonlinequestionnaires.Travelandchargingdiarieshelpedustogainadeeperunderstandingaboutmobilityneedsandcharginghabits.Objectiveusagedatawasgatheredwithonboarddata-loggersthatrecordedvariablesliketriplength,speed,acceleration,frequencyanddurationofchargingandbatterystatus.Dataonthevehicle’sGPSpositionwerenotcollected.InGermany,France,theUnitedKingdomandChinaalargeproportionoftheMINIEswereequippedwiththesedataloggers.IntheUnitedStatesdataondrivingdistanceswerereadfromACPropulsionchips,whichatleastallowderivationofbasicaveragevalues.Thedrivingdatawerecompared

withacontrolgroupofprivatelyowned,conventionallypowered,vehicleswhichparticipatedinaBMWGroupresearchprogram.

Inafieldstudyofthismagnitudeandtimeframeitisnotpossibletokeepallconditionsconstant,likeinacontrolledexperiment.Thefieldofe-mobilityhasundergonemajorchangesduringthelastthreeyearsthatmadeitnecessarytoaddperpetuallynewquestionstotheinterviews.Itprovedtobeextremelydifficulttotranslateallquestionsinaninterculturallyprecisewayintothedifferentcontexts.Therefore,itwasnotrealistictoapproachallcountrieswithexactlythesamesetofinterviewitems.Additionally,importanteventsandmajorincidentsduringthefieldtrialscanbepresumedtodirectlyinfluencelivesofthefieldtrialparticipantsliketheearthquakeandnucleardisasterinJapan,thepublicdebatesonfuelshortage,sustainablemobility,CO2andrenewableenergyaswellasongoingchangesintransportandenvironmentalpolicy.Althoughallcarewasexercisedtotaketheseeffectsintoaccountinthedesignandinterpretationofthestudy,acertainimprecisionisinherentinthefieldtrialmethod.Thus,numericalvalues(percentageagreement)shouldbeinterpretedastendenciesand,hence,onlydescriptivestatisticsarepresented.PercentagevaluesrefertoanswersonaLikertscalefromone(donotagreeatall)tosix(fullyagree).Thetopthreevaluesaregroupedas‘agreement’,thebottomthreevaluesas‘disagreement’.

UserMotivationsandExpectations

Thehighnumberofapplicants(500–3,500percountryperphase)providinginformationabouttheirbackground,allowsavalidrepresentationoftheEVearlyadopterprofile:typicalapplicantsweremale(approximately80percent),around40yearsold(exceptforChina:meanage33),andwelleducatedwithabove-averageincomeandhighself-reportedaffinityfornewtechnology.

Themostimportantmotivationforparticipationwastoexperienceanewcleanandsustainabletechnology.Bothfactorswereequallyimportant.Thistightcombinationofmotivationalinfluencesisbestreflectedintheterm‘sustainabilitymeetstechnology’.EspeciallyintheUnitedStatesitwasalsoimportanttogainindependencefrompetroleumandtofocusonthereductionoflocalemissions.DetailsontheUScustomers’motivationsaredescribedinTurrentineetal.(2011).

BeforeactuallydrivingtheMINIE,themajorityofusersexpectedtobeconstrainedbytherangeandthemissingcargoandback-seatpassengerspace.Between19–60percentofusersassumedthattheywouldhavetoadapttheirmobilitybehaviour.However,theywerelargelyconvincedthattheywereableto

mobilitybehaviour.However,theywerelargelyconvincedthattheywereabletosatisfytheirdailymobilityneeds(between88–100percentagreementrates).

DrivingExperiences

UsagepatternsineverydaymobilitybehaviourdonotdifferconsiderablybetweentheMINIEandcombustionenginevehiclesinthesamevehiclesegment.ComparingtheMINIEdrivingdatatoBMW116iandMINICooperdailydrivingdistances,thedifferencesfoundarerathersmallwithMINIEdriversinmostlocationsusingtheircarforevenlargerdistances.Thedailydrivingdistanceinthecontrolgroupaddsupto43.4km/27.0miles(MINICooper)and42.0km/26.1miles(BMW116i).TheMINIEdriversinFranceusedtheirEVonaverage44.2km(27.5miles)perday,intheUK47.8km(29.7miles),inGermany38.6km(24.0miles)andinChina49.0km(30.4miles).Forthesemarkets,detailsonthedailydrivingdistancewereavailablefromthedatalogger.IntheUnitedStatessimilarpatternsarosewith50.9km(31.6miles)onWestCoasttestsitesand46.7km(29.0miles)ontheEastCoast.ItisworthwhilecomparingthesedatatomobilitystudiesliketheMiDstudythatanalysedthemobilityneedsincludingallmeansoftransportationinGermany.Accordingtotheseresults,theoverallmobilityneedforanaveragecitizensumsupto39km(24.2miles)perday(Follmeretal.2010).TheUSNationalHouseholdTravelSurveyreportsthatanaveragepersontravels58.1km(36.1miles)perday(Santosetal.2009).BothstatisticsareremarkablyclosetotheusagepatternoftheMINIE.

DetailedinformationaboutdailydrivingdistancefromdataloggersaredepictedinFigure12.3.Clearly,thedifferencesbetweentheMINIEsandtheconventionallypoweredvehiclesfromthesamesegmentareverysmall.Moreimportantly,thedrivingpatternsofthe1SeriesBMWandtheMINICooperliewellwithintherangetypicalEVscanprovide.Ofcourse,therearealsousecasesthatcannotbefulfilledusingapurebatteryelectricvehicle.Forinstance,thedrivingdistancesofa5SeriesDiesel,whichwasalsopartofthestudyofBMWGroup’sdataloggerteam,clearlycannotbecoveredwitharangelikethatoftheMINIE.Therefore,itcanbeexpectedthatusagepatternsforcustomersbuyingfullEVswillresembletheusescenariosofthe(quitevoluminous)ownergroupofcompactcars.

BasedontheMINIEdrivers’subjectiveestimations,andvalidatedwithtraveldiarydata,thecustomerswereabletoundertakeabout80percentofintendedtripswiththeMINIE.Thesatisfactionofmobilityneedsrangesbetweena77percentminimum(China)andan84percentmaximum(France),

withanaveragevalueoverallcountriesof82percent.Thiscanbeincreasedonaveragetoupto91percentoverallcountriesiftheMINIEdidnothavetheconversionvehicledrawbacksofbeingonlyatwo-seaterwithoutanadequatecargoorluggagecompartmentintheboot.Ontheonehand,theseresultsimplythatOriginalEquipmentManufacturers(OEMs)willneedtooffertheircustomersaccesstoinnovativemobilitysolutionsiftheywanttousetheirEVastheonlymeansofindividualtransportintheirhouseholds.Ontheotherhand,itclearlydemonstratesthatapurpose-builtEVwiththerangeoftheMINIEwillbesufficientfornolessthan90percentofmobilityneeds,whichisanextraordinaryresultconsideringthearticulatedscepticismabouttherangeofEVsforeverydayusage.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatespeciallyinwintertheMINIE’srangewasnotalwaysavailable.Ifthebatteriesgottoocold,rangewassignificantlyreducedorthevehiclewasnotabletooperateasdemandedinfreezingtemperaturesduringwinter.Thereasonforthisdrawback,whichthecustomersalsocriticised,wasthethermalmanagementoftheMINIE’sconversionvehiclebatterysystemrelyingonaircoolingonly.

Figure12.3AccumulatedMINIEandcombustionenginevehicledailydrivingdistances

WhenaskedfordesiredrangeoptionsforfutureEVs,customerstypicallydemandrangeslike200–250km(125–155miles).Itisinterestingtoseethatthisis,ofcourse,muchlessthantherangeofacombustionenginevehicle.ExperiencedEVcustomerstakeintoaccountthathigherrangescomewithhigherprices.Thismayhavemoderatedtheirdemand.Evenmoreinterestingisthat,evenwiththisadditionalrange,theywouldnotbeabletocoverthe

remaining10percentofmobilityneeds.Sothedemandformorerangeseemstoreflectinsomewaysthewishforakindofsafetybufferinrange,asmostcustomersrechargetheirbatteryevidentlybeforethestateofchargeapproachesverylowvalues.Frankeetal.(2011)addaveryinterestingperspectivetothis.TheyanalysedhowcustomersexperiencethelimitedrangeinanEVandhowthisisrelatedtoothervariables,notablystress.Theywereabletoshowthatuserscanindeedadapttolimitedrange,butthattheyutilisetheavailablerangesub-optimally.Certainpersonalitytraitsandcopingskillsmoderatedtheexperienceofcomfortablerange.Frankeetal.(2011)concludethatitmaybepossibletochangethepersonalfeelingstowardsrangebyprovidingknowledgebackground,trainingandsuitabledriverinformationsystems.Inconsequence,thismayallowallEVdriverstousetheavailablerangetoitsfullextent.

OnelessonlearntintheMINIEfieldtrialswasalsothatcustomersneedasimpleandverydirectwayofextendingtheavailablerangeinunforeseensituations.Manydriversreportedthattheyoftentriedtoreduceenergyconsumptionwhenbatterystategotlowbydrivingmorecarefullyandbyswitchingoffenergy-consumingcomfortfunctionslikeheating,ventilationortheradio.However,theydidnotknowforsurewhichactionintermsofswitchingoffdeviceshadwhicheffectandhowoptimallytheyperformedindrivingefficientlyoriftheystilldrovetoofastormaybeevenunnecessarilyslowly.ThissituationisalreadyaddressedintheBMWActiveE.TheECOPROmodeassistsdriversinreducingenergyconsumption.Theaccelerationbehaviourischanged,energysupplyforauxiliarysystemsisflattenedandthedriverisprovidedwithhintsifaccelerationorvelocityistoohigh.ResultingusagepatternsandcustomerfeedbackwillbesubjecttoanalysisintheBMWActiveEuserstudies.

TheavailablerangeofanEV,inrealterms,incomparisonwithacombustionenginevehicle,ismuchmoredependentondrivingstyleandontheabilityofthedrivertouseadvancedefficiencyfeatureslikeregenerativebraking.Regenerativebrakingreferstousingtheelectricmotorasagenerator,thusrecapturingenergyotherwiselostduringbraking,coastingordownhilldriving.ThefunctionisintegratedintheacceleratorpedalintheMINIE.Liftingthefootquicklyfromthepedalleadstoquitestrongdecelerationof-2.25m/s2,whichalsotriggersthebrakinglightstowarnfollowingtraffic.Thisdiffersfrommostelectricorhybridvehiclesandallowsthecartobedriven,basically,withonlyonepedal,activatingthebrakesonlyincasesofverystrongoremergencybrakingevents.FordetailsonlongitudinaldynamicsrefertoEberletal.(2012).Regenerativebrakingcanbeapowerfultoolextendingtheavailablerange,butit

waslargelyunclearwhethercustomerswouldaccepttheimplementationintheacceleratorpedalandiftheywouldbewillingtouseitortrytoavoidit.Therefore,thelong-termevaluationofregenerativebrakingwasoneofthemostimportantfieldstudygoals.Thecustomerfeedbackwasastonishing.Between92percent(China,Japan)andnearly100percent(Germany,UnitedStates,UnitedKingdom,France)ofcustomersstatedthattheylikedtobeabletocontrolthevehiclewithjustonepedal.Theyestimatedusingregenerativebrakingin78percentto92percentofallbrakingevents,whichmirrorsalmostexactlytheobjectivedataderivedfromdataloggers.Indetail,thecustomerfeedbackpointedoutthattheMINIE’shighdrivingperformancecombinedwithregenerativebrakingprovidedanewformofsportydrivingandallowed,atthesametime,theabilitytoexperienceefficientdrivingandenergysavinginaveryimmediateway.‘Single-pedaldriving’became,formostcustomers,almostgame-like.Tryingtostopateveryredtrafficlightwithouttouchingthebrakeswasaverycommonpattern.Usingregenerativebrakingthiswaymayevenincreasetrafficsafetyasitisnecessarytoexerciseanticipatorydrivingtobeabletomastersingle-pedaldriving.Turrentineetal.(2011)discussthesebehaviouralpatternsandpotentialfactorstobeadjustedinregenerativebrakingtoenhancetheexperience.

Fromtheusers’pointofview,thelackofenginenoiseis–besidesregenerativebraking–oneofthemoststrikingfeaturesindrivingEVs.DriversstateunanimouslythattheylikedthequietoperationoftheMINIE(agreementinquestionnaireitemswasbetween95percentand100percent).EspeciallycustomersinFrance(57percent)andChina(65percent)ratedthequietinteriortobeahighlyrelevantcomfortfactorthatwouldevenjustifyasomewhathighervehiclepriceifpushedtothemaximum,whileintheothercountriesthelevelofquietnessalreadyachievedseemstobesatisficing(loweragreementratesforthedemandofanevenquieterinteriorrangefrom19percentto32percent).However,whenitcomestothelowoutsidenoiselevelsduetomissingenginesounds,concernsaboutthepotentialdangerofsilentdrivingareoftenexpressedinpublicdiscussion.Askedfortheiropinion,MINIEdriversindifferentcountriesreportdifferentexperiences.Generally,lowerconcernsareexpressedinEurope.WhilehalfoftheGermandrivers(50percent)atthebeginningofthefieldtrialsseeapotentialdangerinnotbeingheardatlowspeeds,thereisasubstantialreductionwithgrowingexperience,to16percentattheendofthetrial.InFrance,thefiguresaresomewhathigherbutthereisstillareductionfrom62percentto50percent.ThesituationisdifferentinAsia.Chinesecustomersstartwithaverylowestimationofpotentialdifficultiesassociatedwithsilentdriving(27percent)thatincreasesoverthetrialto69percent.InJapan,theestimationisalreadyveryhighatthebeginning,with74percent,and

Japan,theestimationisalreadyveryhighatthebeginning,with74percent,anddecreasesonlymarginallytothesamelevelasinChina,69percent.ItisquitelikelythatthetrafficsituationsintheAsianmega-citiesaccountfortheseriskestimations.AlsoinEurope,thetrafficdensityinParisismuchhigherthaninMunichorBerlin.

ChargingExperiences

Generally,thereisasteeplearningcurveduringthefirstonetotwoweeksofEVusage.WhilethereisnoproblematallwithusingthevehicletogetfromAtoB,usersdevelopexpertiseinsomeareasofEVdriving,likeusingregenerativebraking.Thisexpertiseismoststronglyreflectedinchargingbehaviour.MostinexperiencedEVdriverstendtochargetheirvehicleeverytimetheygetthechancetowithoutreflectingtheirrealrangeandchargingneeds.Atthesametime,mostdriversofconventionalvehiclesdonotthinkmuchabouttheirdailymobilityneeds.WhenusinganEVanddealingwiththelimitedrange,theMINIEdriverstypicallyrealisedthattheydonotneedthefullrangeofthebatteryeveryday.Ofcoursetherearealotofcustomerswhomakechargingeverynightwhentheyreturnhometotheirgarageahabit.Butonaverage,thedataloggersintheMINIEshowthatmostusersswitchfromdailychargingtoonlychargingonceeverytwoorthreedaysascanbeseeninFigure12.4(meanchargingeventsperweek:Germany:1.9,UK:2.9,China:2.5).ThisphenomenonisalsofoundinotherEVstudiesliketheUltraLowCarbonVehicleDemonstratorProgrammeintheUKthatalsoreportedachargingfrequencyoflessthanonceineverytwodays(Everett,Walsh,Smith,BurgessandHarris2010).Fortechnicalreasons,thedataloggerresultsfromFrancecannotbecompareddirectlytotheothermarketsreportedbelow.AstheMINIEcustomersinFrancedidnotchargeat32ampsliketheothermarkets,theirchargingdurationsweremuchlongerandtheyneededtorelyonchargingeverynight.Astheythusdidnothavethechancetoestablishadifferentchargingpattern,itisnotsurprisingtofindthatLabeyeetal.(2011)reportanaveragechargingfrequencyof5.2perweekforFrenchEVusers(seealsoChapter11inthisvolume).

ImprovingUsability:TheBMWActiveEFieldTrials

AlthoughtheBMWActiveEisalsoaconversionvehicle,basedona1SeriesCoupéandliketheMINIEproducedinsmallnumberforfieldtrials,itsarchitecturebringsimprovementsforeverydayusagewithanunaltered

passenger-compartmentspacegivingaccesstofourfullyfledgedseatsandwitha200-litreluggagecompartment.Thecarisabletoacceleratefrom0to100km/hinninesecondswithapoweroutputof170hpandatorqueof250Nm.RangeandchargingdurationarecomparabletotheMINIE.However,asthenewlyconceivedlithium-ionenergystorageunits,likethedrivetrainapre-productionversionoftheBMWi3,haveacooling/heatingsystemthattemperstheliquidinthestoragehousingunit,thebatterycanbeheldingoodoperatingtemperaturesincoldaswellasinhotenvironments.ThisenablestheBMWActiveEbatterysystemtocompensateforloworhighoutsidetemperaturesmuchbetterthantheMINIEdid.

Figure12.4Chargingfrequencyperweekinmarketswith32ampswallbox

Atestfleetofmorethan1,000BMWActiveEvehiclesservestodeepentheknowledgegainedintheMINIEstudy.Researchfocusinthesefieldtrialsisshiftedtowardstechnologicalinnovationsandtechnicalcomponents.Ofcourse,allstandarddevelopmenttestprocedureswereperformedbeforehandingoverthevehicletocustomers,butvaliddataonlong-termperformanceofEVcomponentscanonlybegatheredwhenanalysingallpossibleeverydaysituations.TheinvolvementofpilotcustomersensuresthatusagescenariosarealsocoveredthatarecurrentlyunknowntoengineersbecauseofthestilltoosmallknowledgeonEVcustomerbehaviour.Furthermore,theBMWActiveEcanbeseenasaniterationstepincustomercentreddesignofelectricvehicles.

canbeseenasaniterationstepincustomercentreddesignofelectricvehicles.InnovativefunctionsspecificallydesignedforEVsareimplementedforthefirsttimeinaBMW.WhereastheMINIEstudiesaimedatlearningaboutfundamentalaspectsofeverydaylifewithEVs,userstudiesconductedwiththeBMWActiveEwillbeorientedtowardsausabilitytestingapproachofthesenewfeatures.Forinstance,preconditioningallowscustomerstocoolorheatthebatteriesandthevehicleinteriorbeforestartingatrip,reducingenergyconsumptionsignificantlywhiledriving.SpecialmenusintheCentralInformationDisplayallowcontrolofadvancedEVfunctionslikeprogrammingachargetimer.Newlydesignedinformationdisplaysareavailablethatschematicallyrepresentvehicleenergyflowsinordertomaketheelectricdrivingexperiencebetterperceptibleandcomprehensible.ThealreadymentionedECOPROmodecanbeactivatedbyasimplebuttonpressinthecentreconsoleandisintendedtomakeenergysavingeasierifnecessary:theacceleratorpedalcharacteristicischanged,deliveringlesspower,andsystemslikeairconditioningareturneddown.SeveralEV-relatedfunctionsarealsoavailableremotelyviasmartphoneappslikemonitoringthechargingprogressoractivatingpreconditioning.BMWConnectedDrivefunctionsdonotonlyallowintegrationofsmartphoneappsandInternet-basedfunctionslikeachargingstationlocatorinthevehicle,italsoservesasafeedbackchannelfordatarecordedduringthefieldtrials.Ofcourse,onlydevelopment-relateddatalikethedistancetravelledormaximumvehiclerangeafterchargingarecollectedandanonymityofrecordeddataisguaranteedatalltimes.

FieldtrialswiththeBMWActiveEstartedattheendof2011inGermanywith15privateand15corporatecustomers.Additionalvehiclesarepartofgovernmentallyfundedresearchprojectsfrom2013onwards.Attheendofthetrials,about190vehicleswillhavecontributedtoprojectsinGermany.Withthebeginningof2012,about700BMWActiveEvehiclesformthelargesttestfleetintheUnitedStateswheretheywillnotonlyprovideinsightsinuserexperiencebutalsoinsalesandhandlingprocessesandserviceinfrastructuredemandsforhighernumbersofelectricvehicles.About100BMWActiveEcarswillbegintheirdutyin2013inChina.AdditionalvehiclesareontheroadinFrance,theUnitedKingdom,theNetherlands,Italy,Switzerland,SouthKoreaandJapan.

ResearchprojectswithdirectcustomerfeedbackaremainlycarriedoutintheUS,GermanyandChina.TheearlystudyinBerlinusedamorequalitativeapproachtopreparesurveyswithastrongerquantitativecomponentintheUnitedStatesandinChina.WithdatafromGermanyandthefirstpreliminarydatafromtheUS,wewillshowthroughtheexemplaroftheECOPROmodehowtheresultsofthesestudiesaretransferredtoseriesdevelopment.

BMWActiveEQualitativePilotStudy

ThefirstBMWActiveEuserstudywith15privatecustomers(14male,1female,averageage46)wasundertakenbetweenDecember2011andMarch2012.TenofthesecustomerswereformerMINIEdrivers.ScientificcooperationpartnersweretheChemnitzUniversityofTechnologyandthepsychologicallyorientedmarketresearchagencySpiegelInstitutMannheim.DuetothenoveltyofseveralfeaturesoftheBMWActiveE,itwasimportanttogetverydirect,unbiasedfeedbackoftheassociateduserexperience.Therefore,thestudydesignprovidedthecustomerswithseveralopportunitiestosharetheiropinions.Athree-phaseresearchprocedurebeganwithopentelephoneinterviewsfourweeksafterhavingthevehicleshandedovertotheusers.Inthisearlystageofvehicleexperience,customersfreelystatedtheirimpressions,whatexcitedthem,whatbotheredthem.Topicsforfocusgroupdiscussionsasasecondresearchstepweredefinedpartiallyfollowingthecustomerfeedbackfromthetelephoneinterviews.Thefocusgroupstookplaceapproximatelyaftereightweeksofvehicleusage.ThemaintopicswereEVwinterusageandpreconditioninginonegroupandgeneralsystemusabilityandefficientEVdrivingintheothergroup.Attheendofthetrial,usersfinallyparticipatedinanonlinesurveywhichtooktheresultsfromboththetelephoneinterviewsandthefocusgroupdiscussionsintoaccount.

ConcerningthecaseexampleECOPROmode,itwasveryinterestingtoseethatitwasnotusedinauniformwayatall.CustomersalreadystatedinthefocusgroupsthattheirmotivesforusingECOPROweredifferent.Someofthecustomersuseditalmostalwayseitherbecausetheyneededtoastheyweredrivinglongerdistancesregularlyorsimplybecausetheywereintrinsicallymotivatedtosaveenergy.Othercustomersstatedthattheyonlyneededakindofemergencyoptioniftheyseemtoberunningoutofchargewhiledriving.Consideringtheseresults,itisnotsurprisingtofindthattheECOPROusagevariedfrom5percentto95percentshareoftotaldistancedriven.Bothextremepositionssawoptimisationpotentialforthefunctions.Onepositionwasthatthelossofcomfort(e.g.,thedeactivationofseatheating)wasratedtobetoostrong.Theotherpositionexpectedastrongereffectondrivingdynamicsandcomfortfunctionswhentheusageintentionwastomaximallyexploitaverylowbatteryrange.ThelayoutoftheECOPROmodeintheBMWActiveEwasmorestronglyorientedtowardsthelattersituation.IfusersprefertodrivewithapermanentlyactivatedECOPROmodewhileatthesametimetheoptionforan‘emergency’rangesituationmustbeavailable,twodifferentlevelsofthismodemaybettersuittherangeofusecases.Duetothesmallnumberofcasesinthe

BerlinBMWActiveEstudy,furtherevidencewasgatheredintheUSfieldtrial.

BMWActiveEQuantitativeValidationStudy

BasedonthefinalsurveythatwasshapedduringtheBMWActiveEfieldtrialinBerlinandextendedwithinsightsfromsocialmediaanalysisconductedsincethebeginningofthefieldtrials,anonlinesurveywasimplementedatthebeginningof2013addressingcustomersintheUnitedStates.

FocussingagainontheexampleofECOPROmode,firstdatabasedonN=79participantsreplicatedtheresultsfromtheBerlinfieldtrial.Figure12.5demonstratesagaintheexistenceoftwoextremeusergroupsprovidingfurthersupportfortheideatooffertwodifferentECOPROmodes:enhancedenergyefficiencyversusmaximumenergysaving.ThedistinctionbetweenthesetwomodetypesintoanECOPROandanECOPRO+modeispartoftheBMWi3developmentplan,whichwasconfirmedonthebasisofthesefieldtrialresults.

Figure12.5UsageofECOPROmodeaspercentageofdailydriving

Conclusions

Disruptiveinnovationswillonlybeasuccessiftheyareconvenientandeasytouseandmeetthecustomerrequirementsofearlyadoptersaswellasthoseoflateadopters.Researchonhowinnovationsgainmarketacceptancesuggeststhatespeciallydisruptiveinnovationsshouldbedesignedaccordingtoauser-centreddesignandevaluationapproach(Norman1998).InthispaperwedescribedhowthisapproachwasappliedtothedevelopmentoftheBMWi3electricvehicle.Theresultsfromfundamentalfieldtrialsofelectricvehicleusagehelpedindefiningcustomerrequirementsaswellasinsettingthebenchmarksforlaterandmorespecificusertesting(e.g.,testingofHMIfunctionalities).Inaddition,specificEVrelatedfunctionsliketheECOPROmode,preconditioning,remotechargingcontrolandsoonwerepioneeredintheBMWActiveEfieldtrialsinanapproachsimilartolong-termusabilitytesting,deliveringadditionalinsightsintocustomerdemandsforfutureEVs.TheserequirementswerenotonlyfedintothedevelopmentcycleasdepictedinFigure12.2,theanalysisresultswerealsotranslatedintorecommendationsforfurtheractionsanddistributedtorelevantdepartmentsinmarketingandsales,strategyandcommunication.

Severalkeydeductionscanbemadefromtheresultsreportedhere.ItbecameclearthattheavailablerangeoftheMINIEisanexcellentbasisforfutureEVsregardingthenecessarytrade-offsbetweenrequiredrangeforeverydaymobilityandcosts.However,inordertobeabletouseanEVastheonlyvehicleinthehousehold,theremaining10percentgapneedstobeclosed.Thiswillbedone,forinstance,byofferingmobilityservicesaswellasenablingtheBMWi3forfastcharging(DCcharging)toincreaseflexibility.Detailsonmobilityservices,parkingandchargingsolutionsorassistanceservicesaredescribedonhttp://www.bmw-i.com.

Thecompletelynewfeature‘single-pedaldriving’aspartoftheregenerativebrakingconceptwasidentifiedasbeingveryimportantforEVcustomers.Althoughmainlyratedasveryunusual,customersquicklydevelopednotonlyanacceptanceintermsofdrivingefficiency,theystronglylikedtheassociatedefficiencyexperienceandtheexclusivenessoftheemergingnewdrivingstyleopportunities.Therefore,ithasbeendecidedtomaintainsingle-pedaldrivingfortheseriesvehicle.

Similarlysurprising,especiallyforlong-termcombustionenginevehicleengineers,weretheresultsonEVacoustics.Thepilotcustomersdidnotmissthesoundofaconventionalengineatall.ThenewsilenceinsidetheMINIEwasoneofthemostprominentpositiveexperiences–althoughtheMINIEasaconversionvehiclewasnotyetabletoplayoutalladvantagesofasilentEVinterior.Whereasmostcustomersalsolikedthatthevehicledidnotemitanynoiseatall,somecustomersdemandedthatthereshouldbeawayofmakingan

noiseatall,somecustomersdemandedthatthereshouldbeawayofmakinganEVacousticallyperceivabletootherroadusers.Inordertokeeptheadvantagesofsilentdrivingandtofollowtherequestsofthemajorityofusers,customerswillbeabletocontroltheactiveacousticexteriorvehiclesoundifallowedbylegislationofthecountryinwhichtheEVisregistered.

AdditionalresearchwillbecarriedouttocomplementthefindingsofthesefieldtrialsalongthecustomerdevelopmentcycleasdepictedinFigure12.2.Webelievethatwiththeinformationandknowledgegatheredinthisdevelopmentcycle,wewillbeabletobridgethegapbetweenearlyadoptersandlateadoptersandmakethedisruptiveinnovationofelectromobilityasuccess.

Acknowledgements

TheauthorswouldliketoacknowledgetheprojectiteamattheBMWGroup(especiallyJulianWeber,MichaelHajesch,SørenMohrandJensRamsbrock)formakingthesestudiespossible,thedata-loggerteamaroundTobiasKarspeckandKatjaGabler,theMINIEuserresearchteamaswellasAndreasKleinfromSpiegelInstitutMannheimandPeterDempsteroftheBMWGroupTechnologyOfficeUSAespeciallyfortheirvaluablecontributionstotheBMWActiveEprojects.Wewouldliketothankourinternationalresearchpartnersforbringingintheirexpertiseandforconductingtheresearchwithextraordinarycommitmentandoutstandingefforts.PartsoftheresearchreportedherewerefundedinGermanybytheFederalMinistryfortheEnvironment,NatureConservationandNuclearSafetyandbytheFederalMinistryofTransport,BuildingandUrbanDevelopment.TheMINIEUKtrialwasfundedbytheTechnologyStrategyBoard.Mostofall,onbehalfofeverybodyinvolvedintheBMWGroup’se-mobilityprojects,wewouldliketothankourpilotcustomersintheMINIEandBMWActiveEfieldtrialsfortheiroutstandingsupportofourresearchandtheirinspiringfeedback.

References

Bühler,F.,Neumann,I.,Cocron,P.,Franke,T.andKrems,J.F.2011.UsagePatternsofElectricVehicles:AReliableIndicatorofAcceptance?FindingsfromaGermanFieldStudy.Proceedingsofthe90thAnnualMeetingoftheTransportationResearchBoard,TRB90thAnnualMeeting,Washington,DC,23–27January.Availableat:http://amonline.trb.org/12jj41/1[accessed:10January2013].

Christensen,C.M.2012.DisruptiveInnovation.InTheEncyclopediaofHumanComputerInteraction.EditedbyM.SoegaardandR.F.Dam.2ndEdition.Aarhus,Denmark:InteractionDesignFoundation.[Online].Availableat:http://www.interactiondesign.org/encyclopedia/disruptive_innovation.html[accessed:9January2013].

Christensen,C.M.andRaynor,M.E.2003.TheInnovator’sSolution:CreatingandSustainingSuccessfulGrowth.Boston:HarvardBusinessSchoolPublishing.

Cocron,P.,Bühler,F.,Neumann,I.,Franke,T.,Krems,J.F.,Schwalm,M.andKeinath,A.2011.MethodsofEvaluatingElectricVehiclesfromaUser’sPerspective:TheMINIEFieldTrialinBerlin.IETIntelligentTransportSystems,5(2):127–33.

Davis,F.D.1993.UserAcceptanceofInformationTechnology:SystemCharacteristics,UserPerceptionsandBehaviouralImpacts.InternationalJournalofMan-MachineStudies,38:475–87.

Eberl,T.,Sharma,R.,Stroph,R.,Schumann,J.andPruckner,A.2012.EvaluationofInteractionConceptsfortheLongitudinalDynamicsofElectricVehicles.InAdvancesinHumanAspectsofRoadTransportation.EditedbyN.A.Stanton.BocaRaton,FL:TaylorandFrancis,263–72.

Everett,A.,Walsh,C.,Smith,K.,Burgess,M.andHarris,M.2010.UltraLowCarbonVehicleDemonstratorProgramme.Proceedingsofthe25thWorldBattery,HybridandFuelCellElectricVehicleSymposiumandExhibition(EVS25).Shenzhen,China.

InternationalOrganizationforStandardization(ISO).2010.ErgonomicsofHuman-SystemInteraction–Part210:Human-CentredDesignforInteractiveSystems.ISO9241-210.Geneva:Beuth.

Follmer,R.,Gruschwitz,D.,Jesske,B.,Quanst,S.,Lenz,B.,Nobis,C.,Köhler,K.andMehlin,M.2010.MobilitätinDeutschland2008.BonnandBerlin:InstitutfürangewandteSozialwissenschaftandDeutschesZentrumfürLuft-undRaumfahrt.

Franke,T.,Neumann,I.,Bühler,F.,Cocron,P.andKrems,J.F.2011.ExperiencingRangeinanElectricVehicle:UnderstandingPsychologicalBarriers.AppliedPsychology,61(3):368–91.

Kirsch,D.A.1997.TheElectricCarandtheBurdenofHistory:StudiesinAutomotiveSystemRivalryinAmerica,1890–1996.BusinessandEconomicHistory,26(2):304–10.

Krems,J.F.,Franke,T.,Neumann,I.andCocron,P.2010.ResearchMethodstoAssesstheAcceptanceofEVs:ExperiencesfromanEVUserStudy,inSmart

SystemsIntegration.EditedbyT.Gessner.ProceedingsoftheFourthEuropeanConferenceandExhibitiononIntegrationIssuesofMiniaturizedSystems.Como,Italy:VDE.

Labeye,E.,Hugot,M.,Regan,M.andBrusque,C.2012.ElectricVehicles:AnEco-FriendlyModeofTransportWhichInducesChangesinDrivingBehaviour.InHumanFactorsofSystemsandTechnology.EditedbyD.deWaardetal.2012.Maastricht,theNetherlands:ShakerPublishing.

Moore,G.A.1991.CrossingtheChasm:MarketingandSellingHigh-TechProductstoMainstreamCustomers.NewYork:HarperBusiness.

Norman,D.A.1986.CognitiveEngineering.InUserCenteredSystemDesign:NewPerspectivesonHuman-ComputerInteraction,31–61.EditedbyD.A.NormanandS.W.Draper.Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

———.1998.TheInvisibleComputer.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Santos,A.,McGuckin,N.,Nakamoto,H.Y.,Gray,D.andLiss,S.2009.

SummaryofTravelTrends:2009NationalHouseholdTravelSurvey.Reportno.FHWA-PL-ll-022.Washington,DC:NHTSA.

Turrentine,T.,Garas,D.,Lentz,A.andWoodjack,J.2011.TheUCDavisMINIEConsumerStudy.Davis:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

1Electromobility,orshorte-mobility,referstodrivingvehicleswithelectricpowertraintechnologiesandonboardenergystorage.Whilethegeneraldefinitionalsoincludeshybridvehicles,wewillfocusonfullelectricvehiclesinthispaper.

Chapter13MotorcycleRiders’AcceptanceofAdvancedRider

AssistanceSystemsVéroniqueHuth

InstitutFrançaisdesSciencesetTechnologiesdesTransport,del’aménagementetdesRéseaux(IFSTTAR),Bron,France

Abstract

Motorcycleridershaveapronouncedvulnerabilityandcrashriskwithahighprevalenceofhumanerrorasacontributoryfactorincrashes.SothereappearstobesubstantialpotentialforAdvancedRiderAssistancesystemstoimprovetheirsafety.However,thebenefitofthesesystemsforridingsafetydependsonriders’responsestothem.ThischapterpresentsresearchontheacceptabilityandacceptanceofAdvancedRiderAssistanceSystems.Factorsthatinfluenceriders’acceptanceareidentifiedanddiscussed.Indicatorsoftheneedforassistancetechnologiestoenhancesafetyarecontrastedwithriders’viewsofdifferenttypesofsystems.

Introduction

Ridingamotorcycleischallenginganditcarriesparticularrisk.Ridersareclearlyover-representedamongcrashvictimsallovertheworld(Pedenetal.2004).InEurope,thedecreaseof30percentinthetotalnumberoftrafficfatalitiesfrom1999–2008contrastswithariseinmotorcyclefatalitiesby7percent(EuropeanCommission2010).Ontheotherhand,thepopularityofmotorcycleridinghasincreasedinrecentyears,mirroredbyanincreasingnumberofregisteredmotorcycles(Haworth2012).Giventheelevatedcrashriskandvulnerabilityofriders,ridingsafetyisarelevantmatterofconcern.Theprevalenceofhumanerrorasaprimarycrash-contributingfactorinmotorcyclecrashesofalmost90percent(MotorcycleAccidentsIn-DepthStudy[MAIDS]2004)suggestsfocusingmeasuresespeciallyontheridersandtheirinteractionwithotherroadusers.Accordingly,ithasbeenadvisedtoinvestigatewaysof

effectivelytargetingthehumanfactorinordertosuccessfullyimproveridingsafety(Elliott,BaughanandSexton2007).Inadditiontoadequateriderlicensing,educationandtraining,AdvancedRiderAssistanceSystems(ARAS)couldhelppreventcrashesthatinvolveorarecausedbyhumanerror.Althoughadvancedassistancesystemshavebeendevelopedmainlytoenhancecarsafety,theyhaveconsiderablepotentialformotorcyclistsaswell(Ambak,AtiqandIsmail2009),withcrashreductionestimatesreaching40percentbasedonwidespreaduseofARAS(RakotonirainyandHaworth2006).

Thefollowingsectionsprovidemoredetailedinsightsintothecrashriskandvulnerabilityofmotorcycleriders,theroleofthehumanfactorinmotorcyclecrashesandthewaysinwhichadvancedriderassistancesystemscouldcontributetotheenhancementofridingsafety.

CrashRiskandVulnerabilityofRiders

Ridersaredramaticallyover-representedinroadcrashes(e.g.,Pedenetal.2004,Haworth2012)andtherisingnumberofmotorcyclefatalitiesinmanyEuropeancountries,andworldwide,contrastswiththeoverallreductionoftrafficfatalitiesoverthelastdecade(InternationalRoadTrafficandAccidentDatabase[IRTAD]2010).Thetypicalcrashscenariosthatinvolvemotorcyclesresultfromthecharacteristicsofthevehicleandthewaytheridersuseit(e.g.,Clarkeetal.2004).Themostcommononeisthesingle-vehiclecrash,wheretheriderslosecontroloftheirvehicleinacurve(Hurt,OuelletandThom1981,MAIDS2004,TrafficAccidentCausationinEurope[TRACE]2008).Therelevanceofthiscrashscenarioissubstantiatedbyitsfrequencyandbytheparticularinjuryriskitcarries.Itholdsadoubledfatalityriskandasimilarlyincreasedprobabilityofseriousinjuriescomparedwithothermotorcyclecrashes(Clarkeetal.2004).Front-sidecrashesatintersectionsrepresentthesecondmostprominentcrashtypeformotorcyclists(Hurtetal.1981,MAIDS2004,TRACE2008).Furthertypicalaccidenttypesarerear-endcrashesandside-sidecrashes,althoughthesearenotwellrepresentedinmotorcyclecrashdatabases(TRACE2008).

Comparedwithcars,motorcyclesarefarlessstableandridersarefarlessprotectedbytheirvehiclethancardrivers.Inacrash,theriderscaneasilybethrownofftheirmotorcycleandtheirinjuryriskfarexceedstheriskcardriversfaceinacollision(Elliotetal.2007,MayouandBryant2003,Pai2011).Hence,theavoidanceofanycrashisbothvitalandchallengingformotorcyclists.Giventhatridingishighlysensitivetounfavourableconditions,thenecessarycrashpreventionmeasuresshouldnotinterferenegativelywiththecontrolofthe

motorcycle.

HumanErrorinMotorcycleAccidents

Ridingamotorcyclerequiresnotonlyahighlevelofmotor-skills,physicalcoordinationandbalance(ManneringandGrodsky1995)butalsoinvolvesaconstanthazard-monitoringtask(Haworthetal.2005).Ridersneedtobeabletoanticipateandrecogniserisk-encumberedsituationsandtochooseadequatecrashavoidancebehaviour(DEKRA2010,DiStasietal.2009).Suchhighdemandsmaketheridingtaskparticularlysusceptibletohumanerror,whichhasbeenidentifiedastheprimarycrash-contributingfactorin87.5percentofallcrashesinvolvingamotorcycle(MAIDS2004).In37.1percentofthosecrashestheriderscommittederrors,includinginappropriatespeedchoice,shortsafetyheadwaysandfailureswhenovertaking(DEKRA2010).Theremaining50.4percentconsistedofotherroad-users’errors,causedoramplifiedbythelowsensoryorcognitiveconspicuityofthemotorcycle(Brenacetal.2006,Crundalletal.2012).Althoughnotcausingthecrash,ridersmightbecontributingtotheseaccidentswiththeirridingstyleortheymightnotbeabletocarryoutsuccessfulcrashavoidancemanoeuvres(Phanetal.2010).Thisshortcominghasbeendetectedinalmost30percentofallmulti-vehiclecrashes(MAIDS2004)andmaybeinfluencedbyoverconfidenceintheriders’ownanticipatorycapacities,andbyspeed(Phanetal.2010).

ThehighprevalenceofhumanfailureinaccidentsinvolvingamotorcyclecreatesagreatpotentialforARASthatmaybedevelopedtoassistridersinmonitoringtheroadsituationforcertainhazardsandinpreventinghumanerror–relatedmotorcyclecrashes.

ThePurposeofAdvancedRiderAssistanceSystems

Assistancesystemscanbeclassifiedintoactiveandpassivesystems.Thefirstcategoryappliestotechnologiesthatinfluencecrashriskbyaimingtoavoidcrashes;thesecondcategoryreferstosystemsthatmitigatetheconsequencesofacrash(i.e.,primaryandsecondarysafetysystems,respectively).Thischapteraddressesonlyactiveassistancesystemsforriders,suchasaCurveWarningsystemorIntelligentSpeedAssistance.

Afurtherdistinctioncanbemaderegardingthewaythesesystemsinteractwiththerider.Theycaninformtherideraboutarisk-encumberedsituationbytransmittingawarningortheycanintervenedirectlyintheridingactivityinsuchsituations.

suchsituations.ARASassisttheridersinspecificsituationsthatmayrepresentathreatand

leadtoacrashintheabsenceofanappropriateadjustmentofridingbehaviour.ARAScanreduceerrorscommittedbytheridersorincreasetheriders’alertnesstopossibleerrorsofotherroadusersaswellastheirpreparednesstocompensateforthoseerrors.ThepurposeofARASistoincreasetheriders’safetymarginbyprovokingcautiousbehaviourandbyreducingreactiontimesinresponsetoapotentiallycriticalsituation.Thesesystemscaneitherbefactory-fittedbythemanufactureroravailableasafter-marketdevices.Beyondthetechnicalchallengeoffittingsuchsystemsontothemotorcycle,theuseoftheARASbytheridersisacrucialissue.Riders’acceptanceofanARASwillcontributetothesafetypotentialofthesystem,sinceitwillonlytakeeffectifridersacquirethesystem,installitontheirvehicleandactivateitduringtheirrides.Furthermore,theridersmustbewillingtouseitinthemannerintendedbythedesignersandfollowtheARASsuggestions.Asaconsequence,successfulimplementationofARAS,wheretechnicalbenefitsareeffectivelytranslatedintosafetybenefits,requiresinvestigationoftheacceptabilityandacceptancebytheridersandtheintegrationofauser-centredevaluationofthesupportsystemintothesystemdevelopmentprocessatanearlystage(cf.Bayly,HoskingandRegan2007).Furthermore,theidentificationofinfluencingfactorsonacceptanceshouldhelptoimproveARASandtocreateconditionsthatarefavourabletowidespreadsystemuse.

RiderNeeds

Theimportanceofknowledgeabouttheacceptabilityandacceptanceofassistancesystemshasbeenwidelyrecognisedandexploredintheautomotivecontext(e.g.,Vlassenrootetal.2010andelsewhereinthisbook).However,theparticularcharacteristicsofmotorcycleridingpreventitfrombeingdirectlycomparabletoothermodesoftransport;roadsafetymeasuresthatmightworkforcardriversarenotnecessarilyequallyapplicabletomotorcycleriders.Thismayalsoholdtruefortheacceptanceoftechnologiesthatrelatetotheridingactivity.ItthereforemakessensetoconsiderthenatureofridinganditspossibleimplicationsfortheacceptanceofARAS.Correspondingly,theFederationofEuropeanMotorcyclists’Associations(FEMA)adoptedapositiveattitudetowardsassistancesystemsforridersupontheconditionthatthedevelopmentofsuchasystemisdrivenbyriders’needsandconsiderstheparticularitiesoftheirvehicle(FEMA2011).

TheNatureofRiding

Themainpsychologicaldifferencesbetweenridinganddrivingconsistoftheunderlyingmotivations,theexperienceoftheactivity,theroleofriskandsocialaspects.Ridingamotorcyclehasbeendescribedasaleisureactivitythatisdrivenbyintrinsicmotivationssuchasridingsensationsratherthanextrinsicmotivationsrelatedtomobilityneeds(Broughton2008).Emotionslikethrillandfeelingsoffreedompromotetheenjoymentoftheride(BroughtonandStradling2005,Broughton2007,Haworth2012)andintensesensationsofdynamicsandcontrolcanbeachievedbytheexpressiveridingstylethatthehighmanoeuvrabilityofthevehicleallows(e.g.,Broughton2005,ManneringandGrodsky1995).Notsurprisingly,passionformotorcyclesandperformancearecommonridingmotivations(Christmasetal.2009).

Ontheotherhand,ridinginanexpressivemannerandathighspeedtoincreaseridingsensationimpliesanoteworthyriskoflosingcontrolofthebike(Broughtonetal.2009,MollerandGregerson2008).Usingtheframeworkoftheconceptsofoptimaltaskdifficulty(Fuller2005,Wilde1982)orflow(Csikszentmihalyi1997),riskcanbeunderstoodaspartoftheridingperformanceandtheridersmaytrytoadapttheriskleveloftheridingactivitytotheirownskilllevel.Fewridershavebeenidentifiedasactiverisk-seekersbutalmost50percenthavebeenidentifiedasrisk-acceptorswhoenjoyriskuptoacertainthreshold;thatis,asfarasithelpsthemtomatchtheirskillstothechallengeofriding(BroughtonandStradling2005).

Finally,ridingamotorcycleservesasamodeofself-presentationandexpression(Broughton2007).Ridingingroupsispopularandmayleadtothecreationofstrongrelationshipsamongtheriders(Tunnicliffetal.2011).Asaconsequence,specificgroupidentitiesareoftenbuiltandtheirnormsofbelief,expectationandbehaviourmayhaveaconsiderableinfluenceonthemembersofthegroup(Tunnicliffetal.2012).Thisinfluencecanbereinforcedinthosecontextswhererelevantpeoplearepresent(Parkeretal.1992).

ThesepsychologicalcharacteristicsofridingshouldbetakenintoaccountwhendevelopingARAS.Theirprobableimplicationsarepresentedinthefollowingsection.

ImplicationsforAdvancedRiderAssistanceSystems

Inviewofthemostcommonmotivationsforriding,andespeciallythesignificanceoftheridingexperience,itseemsessentialthatanassistancesystemdoesnotalterthesatisfactionofridingmotives.Theridersshouldnotbe

doesnotalterthesatisfactionofridingmotives.TheridersshouldnotbeannoyedbyunnecessaryorredundantwarningsoftheARAS,butratherbealertedinspecificsituationsthatarerelevanttoindividualridingsafety.Regardinginterferencewithridingsensations,thewarningdesignmustplayadecisiverole;theridersshouldfeelassistedratherthandisturbed.Besides,thestrongemotionalcomponentofridingmayinfluencetheridersreasoninganddecision-making.Thishasbeenshownfortheriders’intentiontospeed(Elliott2010)andmayapplytotheriders’intentiontouseanARAS.Thatiswhyparticularvalueshouldbeattachedtotheassessmentofriders’opinionsinadditiontoobjectiveindicatorsofsystemeffectiveness.

Underestimationsofthecrashriskincreasethechancesofgettingintoacriticalsituation(BellabyandLawrenson2001,ManneringandGrodsky1995),especiallyifcombinedwithanexpressiveuseofthemotorcycle.Byadjustingabiasedriskperceptioninspecificsituations,ARAScanavoidorrectifyriskyridingbehavioursthatwouldbecarriedoutwhenridingwithoutsupport.Yet,ifthethresholdsemployedbythesystemdifferexcessivelyfromtheriders’acceptedlevelsofrisk,theymayfeelannoyedanddisapproveoftheARAS.Hence,theacceptanceofanARASmightdependontheriders’awarenessofthecrashriskrelatedtothesituationthesupportfunctionhasbeendesignedfor.Nevertheless,ridersmightrejectanyARASiftheyfeelthesystemisinterveningtoomuchintheridingactivity,beitrelatedtothesensationofcedingcontroltothesystemortothepossibleriskoflosingstabilityduetosystemintervention.

Theidentitiesofridergroupsmaygiverisetoaconsiderablesocialinfluenceontheriders’choicesandopinions.Suchaneffectofthereferencegroup,‘fellowriders’,hasalreadybeenfoundinriders’intentiontospeed(Elliott2010)andcouldbefoundinothertypesofsafety-relatedbehaviour,includingtheusageofnovelARAS.

Theseimplicationsneedtobetakenintoaccountwhenanalysingriders’acceptanceofARAS,soastodeterminehowtodesignandimplementsystemsthatarecompatiblewithriderneeds.ThefollowingresultsontheacceptabilityandacceptanceofARASrepresentfirststepstowardsacquiringknowledgethatwillhelptooptimisethepotentialofARASandguideitssuccessfulimplementationasaroadsafetymeasure.

AcceptabilityofAssistiveTechnologies

BeforeintroducingordevelopingARAS,riders’attitudestowardsthepotentialassistancefunctioncanbegauged.Asseenelsewhereinthisbook,thisprocedurecanpermitconsiderationofuserneedsatanearlystage.

procedurecanpermitconsiderationofuserneedsatanearlystage.SchadeandSchlag(2003)distinguish‘acceptability’from‘acceptance’by

relatingbothconceptstotheexperienceofthesystemormeasure.Whileacceptancereferstotheusers’reactionaftertheintroductionofthemeasure,acceptabilitydenotesaprospectivejudgementofameasurethathasnotyetbeenexperienced(Vlassenrootetal.2010;seealsoChapter7inthisvolume).Thus,acceptabilityisanattitudinalconceptthatexcludesanybehaviouralorreactiveaspect.

Sincesuchmeasuresofacceptabilityrefertoaphasewheretheridershavenotyethadthechancetointeractwiththesystem,opinionsgivenbytheridersaremorehypotheticalincharacter.Giventheimportanceofacceptabilityandacceptanceofatechnologyforitsfutureimplementation(Vlassenrootetal.2010),itisneverthelessinterestingtoexploreriders’acceptabilityofARAS,andtocompareitlaterwiththeiracceptancemeasures.

AvailableResultsontheAcceptabilityofARAS

Inthissection,theresultsofthefollowingfourstudiesontheacceptabilityofARASarepresented:

1.Simpkinetal.(2007)includedriderratingsbeforesystemuseintheirtesttrialsonIntelligentSpeedAdaptation.

2.CairneyandRitzinger(2008)analysedriderviewsonIntelligentSpeedAdaptationthroughfocusgroupinterviews.

3.Afocusgroupinterviewcollectedexpertriders’opinionsonseveralARASproposedbytheEuropeanCommission’sSAFERIDERproject(Baldanzini2008).

4.WithintheEuropeanCommission’s2BESAFEproject,focusgroupinterviewsandaquestionnairesurveyonavarietyofassistanceandinformationfunctions,includingARAS,wereconductedwithriders(Lennéetal.2011,Oberladeretal.2012).

Thelasttwocoverarangeofsystems,whereasthefirsttwodealwithaspecificARAS,thatis,IntelligentSpeedAdaptation(ISA).Thissystemassiststheridersinkeepingtheprevailinglegalspeedlimitbyindicatingitonadisplayandemittinganalert(advisory)orapplyingacounterforceonthethrottle(intervening)whenthespeedlimitisexceeded.

ThestudyonISA(Simpkinetal.2007)revealedthatriderswerehesitantinjudgingthepotentialusefulnessofsuchsystemsbeforehavingtestedthem.

Furthermore,theyweremorereluctantindoingsoforaninterveningversionofISAthanforanadvisoryone.CairneyandRitzinger(2008)alsofoundthatriderswereratherscepticalregardingtheeffectivenessofISAinimprovingridingsafety.TheywereconcernedwiththereliabilityofthesystemandwereinthisrespectfarmorereluctanttoembraceactivespeedcontrolbytheISAthananadvisoryversionofthesystem.TheridersshowedapotentiallyhigherinterestforasystemthatwouldcombineISAwithothersupportfunctions,suchasnavigation.

ConcernsaboutthetechnicalfeasibilityofreliableARASwerealsoexpressedintheSAFERIDERfocusgroup(Baldanzini2008).AlthoughconsiderablebenefitswereexpectedespeciallyfromFrontalCollisionWarningandIntersectionSupport,theexpertswantedtotestthedevicebeforepassingtheirjudgement.Ingeneral,theyrequiredadaptivesystems,whichcanbepersonalisedaccordingtoindividualpreferencesandridingstyles,andtheyaskedfordeactivationoptionsandsimpleinterfacesinordertoavoidoverloadingtherider.

The2BESAFEstudies(Lennéetal.2011,Oberladeretal.2012)revealedthatacceptabilitymaybehigherforthosesystemsthatareperceivedasbeingmoreobviouslyuseful,especiallythosethatassisttheridersinemergencysituations.Acceptabilitywaslowerforsystemsthatinterferewithridingactivity.Specifically,AdaptiveCruiseControl,IntelligentSpeedAdaptationandLaneKeepingAssistancereceivedthelowestacceptabilityratings.Theridersexpressedconcernsaboutcedingtheresponsibilityforapartofthevehiclecontroltoasystem.Inaddition,theriderswerenotconvincedaboutthefeasibilityoffittingreliableARASonamotorcycleandtheyexpectedthecostoftechnicallyadvancedsystemswouldbetoohigh.Bycomparison,acceptabilitywashigherforsystemsthatarealreadyestablishedandtrustedastechnologicallymaturebytheriderpopulation;forexample,theAnti-lockBrakingSystem(ABS).Moreover,theriderspointedouttheirdoubtsaboutthegenuineinterestoftheindustryinenhancingridersafety;rather,theyfeltthatprovisionofsuchsystemswouldbedrivenpurelybycommercialmotivations.

Oberladeretal.(2012)concludedfromtheirstudiesthattheacceptabilityofriderassistancesystemswasratherlowcomparedwithsystemsthatareavailableforpassengercars.RiderswerescepticalaboutthesafetypotentialofARAS,sinceridersafetyoftendependsonotherroadusers’behaviourandtheirinteractionwiththeriders.Itseemedtobefar-fetchedfortheriderstoacceptthatARAScouldbebeneficialinthatcontext,andeveninscenarioswhereridersneedtoavoidorresolvecriticalinteractionsituations,theytendedtoprefernot

torelyonasystemandexpressedmoreinterestinalternativemeasures,suchasridertraining.Beyondtheconcernsaboutreliabilityofthesystem,theyfeltthesystemcouldinduceover-relianceanditsusagecouldresultinadeteriorationoftheirowncompetencestosafelymanageasituation.

Insummary,thesestudiesofacceptabilitysuggestthatridersaregenerallyreluctanttoacceptARAS,anattitudethatmaybeincontrastwithexpertopinion.Theyhesitatetoputtrustintheireffectivenessandaremorelikelytorejectsystemsthattakeoverpartoftheridingtask.TheopinionsexpressedbytheridersfavouredridertrainingratherthanassistancebyARAS.

FactorsThatInfluencetheAcceptabilityofARAS

The2BESAFEsurveyidentifiedsomefactorsthathelpedtodistinguishbetweenriderswhoexpressedlowerandhigheracceptabilityofassistancesystems.AswastobeexpectedaccordingtoSchlag’s(1997)assumptionofproblemawarenessasanecessaryconditionfortheacceptanceofcorrespondingsafetymeasures,riderswhoperceivedriskasadownsideofridingweremorelikelytobelongtothehigheracceptabilitygroup.Likewise,riderswhoseprincipalridingmotivewasfunshowedlessacceptabilityofassistancesystems.Interestingly,ahigheracceptabilityofassistancesystemswasfoundforriderswhoreportedmorerisk-takingbehaviourandattitudes.Itseemsthattheseridersrecognisetheirhigherneedforassistance.However,self-reporteddatacaneasilybebiasedandriderswhorejectassistancecouldunderstatetheirriskbehaviourinordertoavoidcognitivedissonancethatwouldresultfromadmittingriskybehaviourwhilerejectingsafety-enhancingmeasures.

Thesurveyrevealedthatdirectexperiencewithassistancesystemswasveryrareamongtheriders.Exposuretothesystemsmaywellleadtochangesintheirattitudeanditisnecessarytoassessacceptanceoncetheridershavetestedthem.

AcceptanceofAdvancedRiderAssistanceSystems

Theapproachtoresearchontheacceptanceofnewtechnologiesisunderpinnedbyarangeoftheoriesandconcepts,resultinginavarietyofmeasurementprocedures(Schade2005,Adell2009,andelsewhereinthisbook).

SchadeandSchlag(2003)defineacceptanceasusers’attitudesandbehaviouralreactionsaftertheintroductionofameasure.However,acceptanceneedstobemeasuredduringthedevelopmentprocessofasystem,soastobenefitfromtheusers’feedbackforsystemimprovement.Althoughusage

behaviouristhennotyetmeasurable,theriderscantestthesystemandexpresstheirusageintention.ThedirectrelationshipbetweenbehaviouralintentionandactualbehaviourhasbeenpostulatedintheTheoryofPlannedBehaviour(Ajzen1991)andconfirmedbyanumberofstudieswithdiversebackgrounds(e.g.,MontadaandKals2000).FornovelARAS,acceptancehasthusbeendefinedastherider’sintentiontousethesystemifitwasinstalledonthemotorcycle(HuthandGelau2013)andismeasuredoncetheriderhasexperiencedtheARAS.ThisisinlinewiththeviewsofAussererandRisser(2005),whoconsideredacceptanceastheextentoftheusers’preparednesstouseasysteminthefieldofITS,andwithAdell(2009),whoregardedacceptanceasthedriver’sintentiontouseasystemwhendrivingacar.FurtherrelevantconceptsthatallowfororhindertheactualusageoftheARASbytheriderarethewillingnesstoacquirethesystemandtospendmoneyonit.Thesetwoconditionsforsystemusageareconsideredintheautomotivedomain(e.g.,ArndtandEngeln2008)andtheirmeasurementshouldalsobeincludedintheassessmentoftheacceptanceofARAS.Finally,acceptancecanalsoberegardedasapositivebehaviouralresponsetothesystem.Forinstance,severalstudiesonISAmeasuredacceptanceintermsofbehaviouralchangeswhenusingthesystemascomparedtodrivingwithoutthesystem(cf.Vlassenrootetal.2010).ThisalsomakessenseinthecontextofARAS,giventhatthesystemsprovidesupporttotheridersinadaptingtheirbehaviourtotheridingsituationsoastostaywithinsafetymargins.Thisaspectoftheriders’acceptanceiscrucialforthesafetybenefitthatcanbeachievedbyusingtheARASandcanbeseenasanindicatorofacceptance,althoughitmaynotnecessarilyengendertheusageintentionthatwillleadtoactualusagebehaviour.

AvailableResultsontheAcceptanceofARAS

ThissectionreviewstheresultsontheacceptanceofthreeARASthathavebeentestedwithusers:

1.Simpkinetal.(2007)ratedriders’acceptanceofanadvisoryandanassistingISAandanalysedthechangesintheridingbehaviourwhenusingthesystemversionsonatesttrack.

2.WithintheSAFERIDERproject,aCurveWarningsystemwastestedinasimulator,comparingtworiderinterfaces–aforcefeedbackthrottleandahapticglove(Huthetal.2012a).

3.AnIntersectionSupportsystemwasevaluatedinafurthersimulatorstudy

withinSAFERIDER,againwiththetworiderinterfaces(Huthetal.2012b).

Thesystemversionsarereferredtohenceforthas‘advisory’and‘intervening’.Herein,thehapticgloveisadvisory,whereastheforcefeedbackthrottleandtheassistingISAareintervening.Inallofthethreestudies,theoutputoftheinterveningsystemversionwaseasilyoverruledbytheriders,leavingthemobjectivelyincontrolofthevehicle.

RegardingacceptanceaspositivebehaviouraladaptationinresponsetotheARAS,theclearestresultswereachievedbytheCurveWarning(CW)system.Ridersrespondedtothewarningsbyadaptingtheirbehaviourearlierandbettertothecurveandincreasingtheirsafetymargins.WiththeadvisoryCW,theridersevenrodemorecautiouslythroughcurves,provokinglesswarningsituations.ThisfindinggiveshintstothepossibilitythatsomeARAScanhaveaneducationaleffect.Theridersmightrespondpositivelytothesystembyusingitasaguidancetoresettheirpersonalthresholdforsaferidinginthetargetsituation.Thiseffectcouldnotbefound,however,fortheIntersectionSupport(IS).Rather,theridersreliedonthesystemtodetectahazardoussituationandthenrespondedtothewarningbyreducingtheirapproachspeedtotheintersection;andeventhen,theconductedsimulatortestscouldonlyconfirmsuchabehaviouralresponseinright-of-waysituationsinhigherspeedenvironments,notinatypicalurbansetting.TheridingbehaviourwithISAdidnotchangeforcautiousriders,sincetheyalreadykepttothespeedlimitswhenridingwithoutthesystem.Ridersclassifiedasaggressivebasedontheirtendencytoexceedthespeedlimit,however,adaptedtheirbehaviourtotheassistingISAbyreducingspeedviolationsandspeedvariations–aneffectthatwasalsodetectabletoaslighterextentfortheadvisoryISA.

Riders’subjectiveratingsrevealeddistinctpreferencesthatarerelatedtothesystemversions.WhiletheinterveningCWwasratednegativelyregardingitshelpfulnesstomanagecriticalcurveevents,theadvisoryversionreceivedapositiveevaluationinthisrespect.TheappreciationoftheCWasawholeandtheridewiththesystemwasalsofoundtobeverysensitivetotheinterfaceused.ThisfindingwasconfirmedbythetestsontheIS.SeveralsubjectivemeasuresrevealedthatthepositiveratingsoftheARASturnintoneutralornegativeratingsfortheinterveningversioncomparedtotheadvisoryversion.Riders’commentsindicatedthatthisrejectionwasmainlyattributabletotheinvasivenessofthewarningstrategyoftheforcefeedbackthrottle.Thisresultisinlinewiththeoutcomeoftheriders’evaluationoftheISA:Theadvisoryversionwasassessedasmoreusefulthantheinterveningone,whichalso

versionwasassessedasmoreusefulthantheinterveningone,whichalsoreceivednegativesatisfactionratings.Evenso,itisnoteworthythat,contrastingwiththepooracceptabilityratingsofISA,improvedusefulnessratingswerefoundafterpracticalexperiencefortheinterveningISAandfortheadvisoryversionasatendency.Althoughtheridersnowacknowledgedthatthesystemscouldenhanceridingsafety,theywereconcernedwithapossibleincreaseinriderirritations,feelingsofbeingcontrolledandnegativeeffectsonridingpleasure–especiallywhenusingtheinterveningISA.

Riders’interestinhavingARASinstalledontheirmotorcycleequallydependedontheinterfaceused.WhilehighratesofwillingnesstohaveanARAShavebeenfoundfortheadvisoryversions,thesamesystemsweremostlyrejectedifimplementedwithaninterveninginterface.PercentagesofrejectionandacceptancearecomparedinTable13.1.

Regardlessofthesystemversion,ridersshowedalimitedwillingnesstopayforasysteminanyofthethreestudies.Abouthalfoftheparticipantswerenotwillingtopaymorethan€100fortheCWorIS.ForISA,thegreatmajorityoftheriderswouldnotspendmorethan£100(i.e.,approximately€120).ThetoprangeanyriderwaswillingtospendfortheCWortheISwaslimitedto€500,andfortheISAto£200(i.e.,approximately€240).

Table13.1AcceptanceofthreetypesofARAS:comparisonofparticipants’interesttohaveadvisoryandinterveningsystemversions

Finally,theusageintentionfoundfortheCWandISwassatisfactory.NoneoftheparticipantsexpressedtheintentionnottoactivatetheadvisoryCWatallifitwasinstalledonthemotorcycle,while15percentoftheridersstatedthisfortheadvisoryIS.Therateofcompleterejectionregardingtheusageintentionwas30percentforboththeinterveningCWandtheinterveningIS.ThemajorityoftheparticipantschosetheoptiontoactivatetheadvisoryorinterveningCWonlyincertainsituations(characterisedbyconstraintsregardingtheenvironmentalconditionsortheriderstate),andalmost50percentoftheridersintendedtoactivatetheadvisoryCWallthetime(only25percentfortheinterveningCW).ApermanentactivationoftheadvisoryorinterveningIS,inturn,wasonlyintendedbyafewriders,witharound50percentoftheriderspreferringaselectiveactivationdependingontheirfamiliaritywiththeenvironmentandthevisibilityconditions.ThetestsontheISArevealedareluctanceoftheriderstousethesysteminmostofthetrafficsituations.Overall,theusageintentionwasmorepositivefortheadvisorythanfortheinterveningISA.

interveningISA.

InfluencingFactors

Onewayofobtaininginsightintopossiblereasonsforlimitedacceptanceandtodeterminerelevantstartingpointsforitsimprovementistoincludethefactorsthatmightinfluenceriders’acceptanceofanARASintoitsevaluation.PredictorsoftheacceptanceofARAShavebeenidentifiedandbroughttogetherinamodel,whichhasbeenvalidatedwithdatafromusertestsonfourARAS,includingadvisoryandinterveningsystemversions(HuthandGelau2013).Hereafter,theinsightsobtainedinthisstudyarecombinedwiththeresultsfromtheevaluationofthethreeARASpresentedabove.

Asafirstpredictor,themodelforacceptanceofARASincludesthesafetyfeelingwhenridingwithoutassistance,whichcorrespondstothepotentialforexperiencingbenefitsbyusingthesystem.Inaccordancewiththerelevanceofproblemawareness(Schlag1997,StegandVleg1997)andtheperceivedusefulnessoftechnologies(e.g.,VanderLaan,HeinoandDeWaard1997,VenkateshandDavis2000)foracceptance,thispredictorwasexpectedtobeespeciallyimportantinviewofpossibleself-efficacyconflictsbetweentheconceptionofridingasaperformanceandbeingassistedbyasystem(cf.Bandura1982).ThepredictorcouldnotbeconfirmedbytheempiricaldatafromtheSAFERIDERproject,butsincethisresultislikelytobebecauseofthelimitationsofthestudy(duetoaceilingeffectinthedata;thisfactormightneedtobemeasuredmoreprecisely)itisworthbeingfurtherinvestigated.

Warningsystemsthatrequireonlyverylimitedinteractionwiththeridermaynotbeappraisableintermsofpleasantnessasenvisagedbysometheoriesonacceptanceoftechnologies(e.g.,VanderLaanetal.1997).Still,thepossibleinterferenceofthesystemoutputwithpositiveridingsensationsortherider’sfeelingofautonomyandcontrollendsparticularimportancetointerfacedesignintheevaluationofARASfunctions.InlinewiththedifferencesintheacceptancefoundbetweenadvisoryandinterveningversionsofthethreeARASreportedinthischapter,validationoftheacceptancemodelconfirmedthejudgementthattheinterfaceisapowerfulpredictorofriders’acceptanceoftheARAS(HuthandGelau2013).Inparticular,resultsonacceptanceofthethreeARASreportedhererevealthedisadvantagesofARASthatarecombinedwithanintrusiveinterface.Ontheonehand,ridersdeemitpotentiallydangeroussinceitcouldincreasetheinstabilityofthemotorcycleandleadtoaconflictwhenriderintentiondiffersfromtheinterveningsystembehaviour(Huthetal.2012b).Bythesametoken,ridersfeelthattheirresponsibilityandcontrolis

takenawaybytheARAS.Inaddition,theinterferenceoftheinterfacewithridingoperationsmayberelatedtoahigherprobabilityofdistractionandincreasedirritationoftherider(e.g.,Huthetal.2012a).AlthoughinterveningversionsofARAShaveshowntobeatleastaseffectiveinimprovingtheridingbehaviourastheadvisoryversions,theytendtoberejectedbyridersduetotheannoyancetheyprovoke(Huth2012,Simpkinetal.2007).Regardingthemodalityofthewarningtransmission,vibrationsignalshaveproventobeeffectiveandwellaccepted(Huth2012),buttheystillneedtobeadjustedforrealtrafficenvironments.Incontrast,visualmessagesarelessrecommendableowingtopotentialvisualdistractionandirritationoftherider(Simpkinetal.2007).

Sincemotorcycleridinghasapronouncedsocialaspect,thesocialnormshouldbeconsideredasapredictorofbehaviouralintentions(Ajzen1991).Thesocialnormcouldbeconfirmedasarelevantpredictorofroaduserbehaviourmoregenerally(Tunnicliffetal.2011)andofriders’intentiontospeedinparticular(Elliott2010).InthevalidationoftheacceptancemodelforARAS(HuthandGelau2013),theexpectedopinionoffellowridersabouttheARASwasastrongpredictoroftheriders’ownacceptanceofthesystem.ThisfindingalsocorrespondswiththeinfluenceofsocialnormsonacceptanceofADASintheautomotivecontext(e.g.,Adell2010,andelsewhereinthisbook).

Acomparisonofriders’responsestotheCWandISallowsinitialconclusionstobedrawnabouttherelevanceofthetypeofsupportfunction.Curvesarerelatedtoperformanceandpositiveridingsensations,whereasintersectionsarelessrelatedtoridingpleasureandtheriderislikelytobeputatriskbyothers.However,theavailabletestresultsaremorepositivefortheCWthanfortheIS.Thisfindingsuggeststhat,ratherthanthetargetscenario,anappropriatechoiceofwarningthresholdsaswellascompatibilityofsystemoutputwithridingintentionsmaybedecisivefactorsfortheacceptanceofARAS(Huth2012).

Inviewoftheexistingdiversityofriders(Haworth2012),itisworthanalysingthepossibleinfluenceofridercharacteristicsontheacceptanceofARAS.ThethreestudiesonspecificARASreportedinthischapterdidnotallowforsuchananalysisduetotheirlimitedsamplesize,butthestudyontheARASacceptancemodel(HuthandGelauinpress)usedtheavailabledatasettodetecttheeffectsofage,annualmileage,ridingfrequencyandridingmotivation.However,noneofthesefactorsprovedtohaveanyinfluenceontheintentiontouseanARAS.Furtherstudiesarethusneededtocapturepossibleimpactsofdifferentridercharacteristicsonacceptance.Apromisingstartingpointwouldbethecomparisonbetweennoviceandexperiencedriders.Thesegroupsmaydiffer

thecomparisonbetweennoviceandexperiencedriders.Thesegroupsmaydifferintheirabilitiestodealwithhazardsandtheirself-assessmentoftheirownridingabilities(Liu,HoskingandLenné2009),whichinturnmayaffecttheiracceptanceofassistance.

Conclusions

AsaresultofconcernsthataremainlyrelatedtotheeffectivenessofARASandsurrenderofcontroltothesystem,acceptabilitystudieswithARASshowconsiderablesignsofreluctancebytheriders.Bycontrast,acceptancestudiespointtowardsgoodpotentialofARAS.Theridershadsomereservationsagainstthesystemsbutithastobeconsideredthatthestudieswereconductedwithfirstprototypesthatstillneedtobefurtherimproved.Adaptiveassistancefunctionsthatwarnriderswhenevertheirbehaviourdeviatesfromasafereferencemanoeuvrebasicallyseemtobecompatiblewithriding.Giventhatthesystemsaimatassistingtheridersinsituationswherethetheyunderestimatetheirrisk,permanentactivationshouldbetargeted.Thecurrentresultssuggestthatusageintentionstillliesbelowthistarget.Possibly,theusageintentionwouldincreaseoncetheridersgotmoreusedtothesystem(Huth2012)–anevolutionfoundwithcardrivers’acceptanceofISA(Lai,ChorltonandCarsten2007).ThelowwillingnesstopayforARASfunctionscallsforthedevelopmentofaffordabletechnicalsolutions,especiallythosefittedbymanufacturers.

Consistentwiththerelevanceofcurvecrashes,theCurveWarningsystemhasproventobewellacceptedbyriders.Riders’awarenessoftheriskinmisjudgingtheapproachspeedincurves(Clarkeetal.2004)maycontributetothisacceptance.Ontheotherhand,thethresholdssetbytheARASmayhavebeencongruentwiththeriders’personalthresholdsforenjoymentofrisk.Accordingtocrashstatistics,assistanceatintersectionshasasimilarrelevanceforriders.However,resultsofacceptanceoftheIntersectionSupportarelessconclusive.ThismaybeattributabletothefactthatridersarenotresponsibleforcrashesinmostofthecasesorthattheconfigurationoftheARAShastobebetteradaptedtotheneedsofridersinthissetting.IntelligentSpeedAdaptationobtainedthemostnegativeevaluationofthethreeARAStestedforrideracceptance.Thisisinlinewiththeobjectiveneedderivedfromcrashstatistics,sinceitisnotspeedingpersebutridingtoofastfortheprevailingconditionsthatmainlycontributestomotorcyclecrashes(e.g.,Clarkeetal.2004).Thus,ARASshouldnottakeoverthecontrolfromtheriders,butassistthemincorrectlyadaptingtheirbehaviourtoridingsituationswheretheydeviatefromsafereferencemanoeuvres.

Giventhatthebehaviouralresponsetoasystemcandivergefromtheattitude

GiventhatthebehaviouralresponsetoasystemcandivergefromtheattitudetowardstheARASortheintentiontouseit,itisimportanttoconductbothobjectiveandsubjectiveevaluationsofARAS.Inthepresentedstudies,systemversionsthatwereobjectivelyeffectivereceivedconsiderablydifferentsubjectiveratingsdependingontheinterfaceused.

Interveningdevicesshouldbeavoided,eventhoughtheirlowsignalpowermaynotdestabilisethevehicle.Ridersdislikeanyinterferencewithvehiclecontrol,consideringitadisturbancetotheirfeelingsofautonomy,comfortandridingpleasure,andasasourceofconflictwiththeirridingintention.

Customisablesystemshavebeenpromotedintheautomotivecontext(e.g.,Jiménez,LiangandAparicio2012)andhavebeenrequestedforridersbyFEMA(2011).TheadaptabilityofwarningthresholdsandsignalstoindividualneedscouldenhancetheacceptanceofARASandimprovetheireffectonridingsafetybyhigherratesofsystemactivation(Huthetal.2012b).

ApartfromdevelopingimprovedARASinordertoenhanceriders’acceptance,theissueofacceptabilityshouldnotbeneglected.DuringthefirstyearsoftheintroductionofanARAS,manyridersmightnothavethechancetotestit.Takingintoaccounttherelevanceofthesocialnorm,itisimportanttocreateafavourableattitudetowardsARASamongridercircles,aswellastoavoidprejudicesandmisunderstandingsofthesystemfunction.Finally,itcouldbebeneficialtocreateawarenessofridingrisksandthecorrespondingsafetybenefitsprovidedbyARAS,aspromptedbytheresultsoftheacceptanceofCurveWarning(Huthetal.2012a)andontheacceptabilityofARASmoreingeneral(Oberladeretal.2012).

References

Adell,E.2009.Driverexperienceandacceptanceofdriversupportsystems–Acaseofspeedadaptation.PhDthesis,LundUniversity.

———.2010.Acceptanceofdriversupportsystems.ProceedingsoftheEuropeanConferenceonHumanCentredDesignforIntelligentTransportSystems,475–86.Berlin.

Ajzen,I.1991.Thetheoryofplannedbehaviour.OrganizationalBehaviourandHumanDecisionProcesses,50:179–211.

Ambak,K.,Atiq,R.andIsmail,R.2009.Intelligenttransportsystemformotorcyclesafetyandissues.EuropeanJournalofScientificResearch,28(4):600–611.

Arndt,S.andEngeln,A.2008.PrädiktorenderAkzeptanzvon

Fahrerassistenzsystemen.InFortschrittederVerkehrspsychologie.45.DGP-KongressfürVerkehrspsychologie,313–37.EditedbyJ.SchadeandA.Engeln.Bonn:DeutscherPsychologenVerlag.

Ausserer,K.andRisser,R.2005.Intelligenttransportsystemsandservices–Chancesandrisks.PaperpresentedattheEighteenthICTCTworkshop.Helsinki,Finland,October.

Baldanzini,N.2008.Initialprojectfindings:Focusgroup.[Online].SAFERIDER,FirstUserForumMeeting,Brussels,Belgium.Availableat:http://www.saferider-eu.org/assets/docs/1st-user-forum/Annex_5_Saferider_User_Forum_Baldanzini.pdf.

Bandura,A.1982.Self-efficacymechanismsinhumanagency.AmericanPsychologist,37:122–47.

Bayly,M.,Hosking,S.andRegan,M.2007.Intelligenttransportsystemsandmotorcyclesafety.PaperNo.07-0301,20thInternationalTechnicalConferenceontheEnhancedSafetyofVehicles(ESV),Lyon,France.

Bellaby,P.andLawrenson,D.2001.Approachestotheriskofridingmotorcycles:Reflectionsontheproblemofreconcilingstatisticalriskassessmentandmotorcyclists’ownreasonsforriding.SociologicalReview,49(3):368–89.

Brenac,T.,Clabaux,N.,Perrin,C.andVanElslande,P.2006.Motorcyclistconspicuity-relatedaccidentsinurbanareas:Aspeedproblem?AdvancesinTransportationStudies,8:23–9.

Broughton,P.S.2005.DesigningPTWtrainingtomatchridergoals.InDriverBehaviourandTraining,Vol.2,233–42.EditedbyL.Dorn.Aldershot:AshgatePublishing.

———.2007.Riskandenjoymentinpoweredtwowheeleruse.PhDthesis,TransportResearchInstitute,NapierUniversity,Edinburgh.

———.2008.Flow,taskcapabilityandpowered-two-wheeler(PTW)ridertraining.InDriverBehaviourandTraining,Vol.3,415–24.EditedbyL.Dorn.Aldershot:Ashgate.

Broughton,P.S.andStradling,S.2005.Whyridepoweredtwowheelers?InBehaviouralResearchinRoadSafety,68–78.London:DepartmentforTransport.

Broughton,P.S.,Fuller,R.,Stradling,S.,Gormley,M.,Kinnear,N.,O’Dolan,C.andHannigan,B.2009.Conditionsforspeedingbehaviour:Acomparisonofcardriversandpoweredtwowheeledriders.TransportationResearchPartF:TrafficPsychology,12:417–27.

Cairney,P.andRitzinger,A.2008.IndustryandriderviewsofITSforsafemotorcycling.Paperpresentedatthe23rdARRBConference–Research

motorcycling.Paperpresentedatthe23rdARRBConference–ResearchPartneringwithPractitioners.Adelaide,Australia.

Christmas,S.,Young,D.,Cookson,R.andCuerden,R.2009.Passion,performance,practicality:Motorcyclists’motivationsandattitudestosafety–motorcyclesafetyresearchproject.PublishedProjectReportPPR442.Crowthorne,UK:TransportResearchLaboratory.

Clarke,D.D.,Ward,P.,Truman,W.andBartle,C.2004.Anin-depthcasestudyofmotorcyclecrashesusingpoliceroadaccidentfiles.InBehaviouralResearchinRoadSafety,5–20.London:DepartmentforTransport.

Crundall,D.,Crundall,E.,Clarke,D.andShahar,A.2012.Whydocardriversfailtogivewaytomotorcyclesatt-junctions?AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,44(1):88–96.

Csikszentmihalyi,M.1997.FindingFlow:ThePsychologyofEngagementwithEverydayLife.NewYork:BasicBooks.

DEKRAAutomotiveGmbH.2010.Motorcycleroadsafetyreport2010–StrategiesforpreventingaccidentsontheroadsofEurope.DEKRA:Stuttgart,Germany.

DiStasi,L.L.,Álvarez-Valbuena,V.,Cañas,J.J.,Maldonado,A.,Catena,A.,Antolí,A.andCandido,A.2009.Riskbehaviourandmentalworkload:Multimodalassessmenttechniquesappliedtomotorbikeridingsimulation.TransportationResearchPartF:TrafficPsychology,12:361–70.

Elliott,M.A.2010.Predictingmotorcyclists’intentionstospeed:Effectsofselectedcognitionsfromthetheoryofplannedbehaviour,self-identityandsocialidentity.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,42(5):718–25.

Elliott,M.A.,Baughan,C.J.andSexton,B.F.2007.Errorsandviolationsinrelationtomotorcyclists’crashrisk.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,39:491–9.

EuropeanCommission.2010.EUenergyandtransportinfigures:Statisticalpocketbook2010.Brussels:EuropeanCommission.Availableat:http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/statistics/doc/2010energytransportfigures.pdf.

FederationofEuropeanMotorcyclists’Associations(FEMA).2011.FEMApositionpaperonintelligenttransportsystems.Brussels:FEMA.

Fuller,R.2005.Towardsageneraltheoryofdriverbehaviour.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,37(3):461–72.

Haworth,N.2012.Poweredtwowheelersinachangingworld–Challengesandopportunities.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,44(1):12–18.

Haworth,N.,Mulvihill,C.,Wallace,P.,Symmons,M.andRegan,M.2005.Hazardperceptionandrespondingbymotorcyclists:Summaryof

Hazardperceptionandrespondingbymotorcyclists:Summaryofbackground,literaturereviewandtrainingmethods.Reportno.234MonashUniversityAccidentResearchCentre(MUARC),Melbourne.

Hurt,H.H.,Ouellet,J.V.andThom,D.R.1981.Motorcycleaccidentcausefactorsandidentificationofcountermeasures.Reportno.DOTHS-5-01160.TrafficSafetyCenter,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia,LosAngeles.

Huth,V.2012.Riders’responsetoassistancefunctions–Acomparisonofcurveandintersectionwarnings.ProceedingsoftheEuropeanConferenceonHumanCentredDesignforIntelligentTransportSystems,177–84.June,Valencia,Spain.

Huth,V.andGelau,C.2013.Predictingtheacceptanceofadvancedriderassistancesystems.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,50:51–8.

Huth,V.,Biral,F.,Martín,Ó.andLot,R.2012a.ComparisonoftwowarningconceptsofanintelligentCurveWarningsystemformotorcyclistsinasimulatorstudy.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,44(1):118–25.

Huth,V.,Lot,R.,Biral,F.andRota,S.2012b.IntelligentIntersectionSupportforpoweredtwo-wheeledriders:Ahumanfactorsperspective.IETIntelligentTransportSystems,6(2):107–14.

InternationalRoadTrafficandAccidentDatabase(IRTAD).2010.Arecorddecadeforroadsafety.Online:Pressrelease,9September.Availableat:http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/Press/PDFs/2010-09-15IRTAD.pdf.

Jiménez,F.,Liang,Y.andAparicio,F.2012.AdaptingISAsystemwarningstoenhanceuseracceptance.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,48:37–48.

Lai,F.,Chorlton,K.andCarsten,O.2007.Overallfieldtrialresults:TheISA-UKproject.Leeds:UniversityofLeeds.

Lenné,M.,Beanland,V.,Fuessl,E.,Oberlader,M.,Joshi,S.,Rössger,L.,Bellet,T.,Banet,A.,Leden,L.,Spyropulou,I.,Roebroeck,H.,Cavalhais,J.andUnderwood,G.2011.RelationshipsbetweenriderprofilesandacceptanceofAdvancedRiderAssistanceSystems.D9ofWorkPackage3.3,2BeSafe.

Liu,C.C.,Hosking,S.G.andLenné,M.G.2009.Hazardperceptionabilitiesofexperiencedandnovicemotorcyclists:Aninteractivesimulatorexperiment.TransportationResearchPartF:TrafficPsychology,12:325–34.

Mannering,F.L.andGrodsky,L.L.1995.Statisticalanalysisofmotorcyclists’perceivedaccidentrisk.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,27(1):21–31.

Mayou,R.andBryant,B.2003.Consequencesofroadtrafficaccidentsfordifferenttypesofroaduser.Injury,34:197–202.

Moller,M.andGregersen,N.P.2008.Psychosocialfunctionofdrivingaspredictorofrisk-takingbehaviour.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,40(1):209–15.

Montada,L.andKals,E.2000.Politicalimplicationsofpsychologicalresearchonecologicaljusticeandpro-environmentalbehaviour.InternationalJournalofPsychology,35:168–76.

MotorcycleAccidentsIn-DepthStudy(MAIDS).2004.Finalreport1.2:In-depthinvestigationsofaccidentsinvolvingpoweredtwo-wheelers.September2004.Brussels:ACEM.

Oberlader,M.,Füssl,E.,Lenné,M.,Beanland,V.,Pereira,M.,Simões,A.,Turetschek,C.,Kaufmann,C.,Joshi,S.,Röβger,L.,Leden,L.,Spyropoulou,I.,Roebroeck,H.,Carvalhais,J.andUnderwood,J.2012.Agroupapproachtowardsanunderstandingofriders’interactionwithon-biketechnologies:Riders’acceptanceofadvancedriderassistancesystems.Proceedingsofthe3rdEuropeanConferenceonHumanCentredDesignforIntelligentTransportSystems,303–12.Valencia,Spain,June.

Pai,C.W.2011.Motorcycleright-of-wayaccidents–Aliteraturereview.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,43(3):971–82.

Parker,D.,Manstead,A.,Stradling,S.G.,Reason,J.T.andBaxter,J.1992.Intentiontocommitdrivingviolations:Anapplicationofthetheoryofplannedbehaviour.JournalofAppliedPsychology,77:94–101.

Peden,M.,Scurfield,R.,Sleet,D.,Mohan,D.,Hyder,A.A.,Jarawan,E.andMathers,C.2004.WorldReportonRoadTrafficInjuryPrevention.Geneva:WorldHealthOrganization.

Phan,V.,Regan,M.,Leden,L.,Mattson,M.,Minton,M.,Chattington,M.,Basacik,D.,Pittman,M.,Baldanzini,N.,Vlahogianni,E.,Yannis,G.andGolias,J.2010.Rider/driverbehavioursandroadsafetyforPTW.Online:DeliverableD1,2BeSafeProject.Availableat:http://www.2besafe.eu/deliverables.

Rakotonirainy,A.andHaworth,N.2006.InstitutionalchallengestoITSdeploymentandadoption.PaperpresentedattheTwenty-ninthAustralasianTransportResearchForum.GoldCoast,Australia.

Schade,J.2005.AkzeptanzvonStrassennutzungsgebühren:EntwicklungundÜberprüfungeinesModells.Lengerich,Germany:PabstSciencePublishers.

Schade,J.andSchlag,B.2003.Acceptabilityofurbantransportpricingstrategies.TransportationResearchPartF:TrafficPsychology,6(1):45–61.

Schlag,B.1997.Roadpricing-MassnahmenundihrAkzeptanz.InFortschrittederVerkehrspsychologie,36.BDP-KongressfürVerkehrspsychologie,217–

24.EditedbyB.Schlag.Bonn:DeutscherPsychologenVerlag.Simpkin,F.,Lai,B.,Chorlton,K.andFowkes,M.2007.IntelligentSpeed

Adaptation(ISA)–UK:Resultsofmotorcycletrial.Leeds:UniversityofLeeds.

Steg,I.andVleg,C.1997.Theroleofproblemawarenessinwillingness-to-changecar-useandinevaluatingrelevantpolicymeasures.InTrafficandTransportPsychology,465–75.EditedbyT.RothengatterandE.C.Vaya.Amsterdam:Pergamon.

TrafficAccidentCausationinEurope(TRACE).2008.Deliverable1.3:Roadusersandaccidentcausation.Part3:Summaryreport’.Projectno.FP6-2004-IST-4027763,June.

Tunnicliff,D.J.,Watson,B.C.,White,K.M.,Hyde,M.K.,Schonfeld,C.C.andWishart,D.E.2012.Understandingthefactorsinfluencingsafeandunsafemotorcycleriderintentions.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,49:133–41.

Tunnicliff,D.J.,Watson,B.C.,White,K.M.,Lewis,I.M.andWishart,D.E.2011.Thesocialcontextofmotorcycleridingandthekeydeterminantsinfluencingriderbehaviour:Aqualitativeinvestigation.TrafficInjuryPrevention,12(4):363–76.

VanderLaan,J.D.,Heino,A.andDeWaard,D.1997.Asimpleprocedurefortheassessmentofacceptanceofadvancedtransporttelematics.TransportationResearchPartC:EmergingTechnologies,5:1–10.

Venkatesh,V.andDavis,F.D.2000.Atheoreticalextensionofthetechnologyacceptancemodel:Fourlongitudinalfieldstudies.ManagementScience,46(2):186–204.

Vlassenroot,S.,Brookhuis,K.,Marchau,V.andWitlox,F.2010.TowardsdefiningaunifiedconceptfortheacceptabilityofIntelligentTransportSystems(ITS):AconceptualanalysisbasedonthecaseofIntelligentSpeedAdaptation(ISA).TransportationResearchPartF,13(3):164–78.

Wilde,G.J.S.1982.Thetheoryofriskhomeostasis:Implicationsforsafetyandhealth.RiskAnalysis,2:209–25.

Chapter14DriverAcceptanceofTechnologiesDeployedWithin

theRoadInfrastructureAlanStevensandNickReed

TransportResearchLaboratory,UK1

Abstract

Inthischapter,wereviewstudiesthathaveinvestigatedaspectsofdrivers’acceptanceofarangeofroadinfrastructure-basedtechnologiesthathavebeenproposedorintroducedtosupportsafeandefficientdrivingbehaviour.Welookatdrivingsimulatorstudiesof‘ActiveTrafficManagement’and‘activelyilluminatedroadstuds’thathavetriedtogaugelikelyacceptanceofthetechnologyontheroadbyobservingbehaviourinthesimulatorandassessingdrivers’confidenceinthetechnologyandunderstandingofhowtheyareexpectedtorespondtoit.Wealsoreviewrealroadexperienceofdrivers’responsestoroadworksdelineatedusingflashingcones,andofspeedmonitoringandenforcementtechnology.Inbothcasesweinferacceptanceofthetechnologyfromdrivers’behaviour.

Introduction

Roadinfrastructureisdesignedtoprovideanenvironmentthatsupportsefficientroutingandengenderssaferoaduserbehaviour.Itincludesthefollowing:

•Roadsurfaces,furnitureandroadmarkingssuchasbarriers,speedbumps,lanedelineationsandroadstuds;

•Lightingandfixedsignagesuchasspeedlimits,informationandprohibitionsigns,high-visibilitywarningsandparkingrestrictions;

•Systemsprovidingdynamicinformationorinstructionsuchastrafficlights,andvariablemessagesigns;and

•Systemsthatmonitordrivingbehavioursuchasspeedcamerasand/orprovidereal-timeandspecificfeedback.

Ashasbeenshowninmanyotherchapters,therearechallengesfacedbydesignersofin-vehicletechnologiesingainingdrivers’acceptanceofsystems.Inachievingtheobjectivesofsupportingefficientroutingandencouragingsafebehaviour,theroadinfrastructuredesignerisfacedwithasimilarsetofchallenges.Aswithin-vehiclesystems,basicergonomicprinciplesmustbeadheredtobutunlikein-vehiclesystems,theinformationprovidedcannotbespecificallydirectedtowardsanindividualdriver.Thedesignofroadinfrastructureshouldprovideinformationtoroadusersthatis

•conspicuous–itiseasyforroaduserstodetecttheinformationpresentedtotheminallenvironmentalconditions;

•clear–thereisnoambiguityorconflictintheinformationpresented;•intuitive–itiseasyforroaduserstounderstandhowtorespondtothepresentedinformation;

•compatiblewiththedrivingtask–attendingtothepresentedinformationdoesnotcauseunduedistractiontoroadusers;and

•non-specific–whichcomprisesfeaturesthatarerelevantforthebroadestspectrumofroadusers,regardlessofage,gender,experienceorvehicletype.

Roadinfrastructuredesignisalsolikelytobeconstrainedbyregulatoryandaestheticconsiderations.Theacceptanceofroadinfrastructureisdependentuponhowwellthesechallengeshavebeenaddressed.

Theuseoflinesandsignstoprovideinformationandguidancewillbefamiliartomostroadusers.Anexampleoftheuseoftechnologytoenhancethisguidanceisdynamicroadmarkings(DRM)formanagingroadlayoutsthathavebeentestedintheNetherlandsandGermany.Suchschemeshavethepotentialtoincreaseroadcapacitybyenablingdynamicchangesinlanedirectionoravailabilitytomeetdemandcharacteristics;oftenreferredtoas‘tidal’flowschemes.Figure14.1showsdynamicroadmarkingswhilstFigure14.2givesanoutlineofhowtheroadmarkingschangeinaproposedtidalflowschemebasedonDRM.

Whilstdesignoftheroadinfrastructurecaninfluenceindividualdriverbehaviour(positivelyornegativelywithrespecttosafety),itcannot,ultimately,control;drivingisacomplexformofsocialinteractionandindividualbehaviourdependsonawiderangeoffactorsthatvarywithtimeandcircumstance.Compliancereliesondriversnotonlyunderstandingbutacceptingthe‘normsofbehaviour’impliedorrequiredbytheinfrastructuresuchassignage(e.g.,‘LaneClosed’or‘50mph’)andondriversacceptingthattheymaybemonitored,

Closed’or‘50mph’)andondriversacceptingthattheymaybemonitored,recordedand,wherebehaviourisdeemedunacceptable,penalised.

Inthischapter,wereviewstudiesthathaveinvestigateddriveracceptancetowardsarangeofroadinfrastructuretechnologicalinterventionsthathavebeenproposedorintroducedtosupportsafeandefficientdriving.Weexclude,however,acceptanceofreal-timesourcesofinformationsuchasrouteguidance,congestionandlocation-specifictrafficnewsthataretransmittedfromtheinfrastructuretobepresentedwithinthevehicle(issuesarounddriveracceptanceofsuchsourceshavebeenconsideredinpreviouschapters).Nevertheless,theavailabilityofsuchadditionalsourcesisincreasinglylikelytoaffectdrivers’acceptanceofexternallypresentedinformationorinstructions.Wealsoexcludeaconsiderationofroadpricingtechnology,chieflybecausedriveracceptanceofsuchschemesisacomplexsubjectandheavilydeterminedbytheacceptabilityofroadpricingbysocietymoregenerally.Weexaminedrivers’acceptanceoftechnologydeployedwithinroadinfrastructureintwoareas.Firstly,theuseofadrivingsimulatortocreateanevidencebaseuponwhichtomakedecisionsaboutinfrastructureand,secondly,drivers’acceptanceofmonitoringfromtheroadside,particularlyofspeed(vehicle-activatedsigns,fixedcamerasandaveragespeedcameras).

Figure14.1DynamicroadmarkingsintheNetherlands(USDepartmentofTransportation2004)

Figure14.2AnexampleofadynamictidalflowschemethathasbeenproposedintheNetherlands(reproducedfromFafieanieandSambell2008,withpermission)

UsingaDrivingSimulatortoAssessBehaviourinResponsetoHighwayTechnology

Drivingisacomplex,multifaceted,informationprocessingtaskthathumansundertakeinroutinesituationswithrelativeease.However,mistakes,violationsormisjudgementsatinappropriatetimescanresultintragicconsequencesforthedriver,passengers,otherroadusersand/orbystanders.

driver,passengers,otherroadusersand/orbystanders.Theintroductionofnewtechnologiesintothehighwayenvironmentpresents

anopportunitytoimprovethequalityofserviceexperiencedbyroadusers.Testingsuchtechnologiestoinvestigateexpectedandunexpectedeffectsondriverbehaviourpriortoimplementationisdesirable,giventhesafetyriskandpotentialcostsshouldanewsystembefoundtobeineffective,detrimentaltodrivingpracticesorfailtoreachstandardsofacceptabilitytotheuser.

Althoughanalysisofdriverbehaviourthroughobservationofperformanceintherealworldproducesdatawiththegreatestvalidity,itisdifficulttoexertcontrolovereitherthenumberorthetypesofvehiclesorthedemographicsofthedrivingpopulationinvolvedinsuchatrial.Whenthecontextofabusytrafficenvironmentisnotrequired,testscanbeconductedusingadedicatedtesttrack.Thissignificantlyincreasesexperimentalcontrolandallowsdetailedbehaviouralassessmentwithoutplacingdriversatriskofconflictwithothervehicles.AnexampleofsuchastudyisdescribedinCaseStudy1.

Whenoneisinterestedindrivers’responsestonewroadinfrastructurefeaturesinthecontextofabusytrafficenvironment,testtrackstudiesbecomeunfeasibleaschoreographinglargenumbersofothervehiclesbecomesunworkableandthesafetyofparticipantsmustbeconsidered.Interactivedrivingsimulationaddressestheselimitations.Asimulatorcanprovidedetailedinformationaboutthebehaviourofthedrivenvehicle,inrelationtothetestenvironmentandtoothervehicleswhilstresultscanbesupplementedbyphysiological(e.g.,heartrate)andsubjective(e.g.,NASA-TLXworkloadquestionnaire)measures.Scenariosarerepeatableandcanbetightlychoreographed,bothofwhichfacilitatestatisticalanalysisandefficiency,andparticipantsinvolvedareatnoriskofrealharm.

Asasimulatorpresentsasimulationoftherealworld,acceptanceofon-roadorvehicletechnologyinasimulatordoesnotnecessarilymeanacceptanceofthattechnologyintherealworld.Theconvergenceofsimulatoracceptanceandreal-worldacceptanceobviouslydependsonthefidelitywithwhichasimulatorreproducestherealworldbut,formally,simulatorstudiesthatshowacceptanceoftechnologiescanreallyonlyclaim‘potential’foracceptanceintherealworld.Therefore,itisperhapsmorecorrecttoclaimthatpositivedrivingsimulatorstudiesillustratetheacceptabilityoftechnologies(inprinciple)ratherthan(actual)acceptanceasdemonstratedbyreal-worldusage.Thus,simulatorstudiesclaimingtomeasureacceptanceoftechnologiesdependonaparticipantsufficientlyperceivingtherelevantfeaturesofthetestenvironmentsothattheyproducebehaviourthatisrepresentativeofthatwhichwouldbeobservedduringrealdrivingintheequivalentenvironment.Drivingsimulatorvalidationstudies

(e.g.,Törnros1998,Diels,RobbinsandReed2011)suggestthatthisisindeedthecase.

Figure14.3TRLCarSimulatorduring‘RedX’trial

TransportResearchLaboratory(TRL)hassuccessfullyoperatedadrivingsimulatorformorethan20years.Thelatest(validatedinDielsetal.2011)usesastandardfamilyhatchback,alimitedmotionplatformandrealisticgraphicsandsound(Figure14.3).Thissystemwasusedinthethreecasestudiesdescribedbelow.

CaseStudy1:ActiveTrafficManagement

Congestionbringsmanyvehiclesintocloseproximity,raisingtheprobabilityofcollisionssuchasrear-endshuntsorsideswipes(Webb1995).Aswellasreducingcongestion,thereiscontinuingpressuretomakebetteruseofinfrastructureandreducevehicleemissions(Stern2006).Onesuchscheme,aspartof‘ActiveTrafficManagement’(ATM),wasrequiredtoimplementVariableSpeedLimits(VSLs)underconditionsofcongestionanddirectingtraffictousethehardshoulderasanactivetrafficlaneunderconditionsofheavycongestion(4-laneVSL).Theacceptabilityofsuchadditionalcontrolwashithertountested,soitwasimportanttoassesspotentialdriveracceptability(as

demonstratedbybehaviourincludingacceptanceinadrivingsimulator)beforeimplementation.

ATMinvolvesgantriesat500mintervalswithAdvancedMotorwayIndicator(AMI)signsaboveeachlane(includingthehardshoulder),toprovidelane-specificinformationandaVariableMessageSign(VMS)fortheprovisionofgeneralsafetyguidanceaswellasinformationaboutaccidents,delaysandweatherconditions.OneoptionwastouseablankAMIabovethehardshoulder(whilstallotherAMIsdisplaytheVSL),indicatingtotrafficthatnormalmotorwayrulesapplytothehardshoulder;thatis,itshouldbeusedforemergenciesonly.Alternatively,ithadbeenproposedthataredXsymbolshouldbeusedtogiveadefinitesignaltomotoriststhatthehardshoulderisunavailabletotraffic.

Priortotheimplementationofhardshoulderrunningontherealmotorway,itwaspossibletoinvestigatethebehaviourofdriversinresponsetothesedifferentsignsusingTRL’sdrivingsimulator(Thornton,ReedandGordon2005).Seventy-twoparticipantswererecruitedandwereassessedacrossexperimentalfactorsofSign(BlankAMIvs.RedXAMI–tosignalhardshoulderclosure),Information(informedvs.uninformedaboutATM)andAge(youngervs.olderdrivers).

Duringtheirdrive,participantswereinstructedtohurrybutthenencounteredclustersofsimulatedcongestion.Thiswastoencourageparticipantstomakebestprogressalongtheroute,usingwhateverroadcapacitytheyfeltwasopentothemalongtheroute.Analysiswouldthenfocusonthelevelofcontraventionandinappropriateuseofthemotorway.Inonesectionoftheroute,therewasnomeansbywhichaparticipantcouldovertakethecongestionclusterunlesstheyusedthehardshoulderwhilstitwasclosedtonormaltraffic.Inanothersection,thehardshoulderwasopenedtotrafficandtheparticipantwasthusabletoovertakethesimulatedcongestiontrafficbytravellinginthehardshoulder.

Aftercompletionofthetrial,aquestionnaireallowedassessmentofthefactorsthatweredeterminantsinthedecisionbyparticipantstousethehardshoulder,bothattimeswhenitwasopenandtimeswhenitwasclosed.

TomaximisethebenefitsofATM,driversmustaccepttheadoptionofanunfamiliardrivingpractice(usingthehardshoulderasanormalrunninglane).ParticipantswhowereawareoftheoperationoftheATMbeforetakingpartinthetrialusedtheschememoreeffectivelythanthosewhowereuninformed.ResultsshowedthatinformedparticipantshadgreateracceptanceoftheATMmeasuresasshownbythem

•usingthehardshouldermoreoftenwhenitwasappropriatetodoso;

•usingthehardshouldermoreoftenwhenitwasappropriatetodoso;•usingthehardshouldersoonerandforlonger;•beingsignificantlymoreconfidentaboutusingATMingeneral;and•beingsignificantlymorepositiveabouttheeffectitwillhaveonmotorwaytravelandsafety.

Oncetheyhadreadtheinformationleafletpost-trial,uninformedparticipantsrecognisedhowusefulitwouldhavebeeninraisingtheirawarenessoftheoperationalregimesofATMbeforeenteringthescheme.TheseresultswereusedtohighlightthattheinformationstrategytopubliciseATMmustbecomprehensivetoraisedriveracceptanceofthescheme,therebymaximisingcorrectuseandensuringthatthepotentialbenefitsforATMarefullyachieved.

Sincecompletionofthesimulatorstudy,theM42ATMschemehasbeensuccessfullyrolledoutandhasenjoyedremarkablesuccess,deliveringimprovedtrafficflowandtraveltimes,whilehavingnodetrimentaleffectonsafety(DepartmentforTransport2008).WiderimplementationoftheATMmeasuresisnowbeingplannedanditssuccessisowed,inpart,tothesimulatortestingpriortocommencementofthescheme.

CaseStudy2:ActivelyIlluminatedRoadStuds

Thisstudyexaminedthepotentialimprovementtoroadsafetyatnightthatmaybeachievedbyilluminatedroadstuds(‘Active’studs,Figure14.4)inplaceofstandard(‘Passive’)retroreflectivestudsandtogaininsightintodrivers’acceptanceofthistechnology(Reed2006).

Figure14.4Activeroadstuds

TRL’sdrivingsimulatorwasusedtocreatea37.1kmruralroadwithinwhichabasictestsectionwasrepeatedsixtimes.Thissectionwasusedtocomparebehaviouracrossthestudconditions,containingsixcriticalcornersinthebasicsectionwherethecurveradiusfellbelow150mandthesewereusedformoredetailedanalyses.

Thirty-sixparticipantswererecruitedfromthreeagegroups:Younger(17–25years),Middle(26–54years)andOlder(55+years),andeachparticipantdrovethetrialroutetwice.Ineachdrive,theparticipantexperiencedasimulatednight-timeenvironmentandtheroadhadsectionswithnostudsandsectionswithstuds.Inoneoftheirdrives,thestuddedsectionhadactivestuds;intheotherdriveithadpassivestuds.Thestudswereplacedatvaryingintervals(basedontheroadcharacteristics)alongthecentrelineoftheroad.Additionalredstuds(inboththeactivestudandpassivestudversions)wereplacedonthenearsideofthefoursharpestbendsintherepeatsectionusedtocreatethetrialroute.Thedrivenvehicleuseddippedheadlightsthroughoutandnoothertrafficwaspresentinthesimulation.

Participantscompletedapost-drivequestionnairethataskedthemtoindicatetheirfeelingsofsafetyandconfidenceineachdrivingcondition.Picturecue

theirfeelingsofsafetyandconfidenceineachdrivingcondition.Picturecuecardswereusedtoremindparticipantsoftheenvironmentsthattheyhadseen.Positiveresponsesintermsofsafetyandconfidencewereinterpretedasrepresentingacceptanceinthesimulatorstudyandthusdemonstrated(potential)acceptabilityinrealroadconditions.

Resultsfromthesimulatordemonstratedthat,ineachagegroup,participants’averagespeedwhendrivingwassignificantlyhigher(byaround5kph)inbothstuddedconditions,relativetothenostudcondition(Reed2006).However,therewerenosignificantdifferencesbetweentheactiveandpassivestudconditionsacrosstheagegroupsintermsofoverallspeed.Assessmentofhowparticipantscontrolledtheirlateralpositionrevealedthatolderparticipantsspentsignificantlylesstimewiththerightedgeacrossthecentrelineoftheroadwithactivestudsthantheydidwithpassivestuds.

Moredetailedanalysisofbrakingresultsinthecriticalcornerssuggeststhatparticipantswerebetterinformedabouthowtheyneededtocontrolthevehicleinordertonegotiatethebendswhentheactivestudswerepresent.Similarly,analysisofdrivers’lateralpositioninthecornersrevealedamarkeddifferencebetweenthepassiveandactivestudconditionsinrightturnsandsuggeststhatenhanceddelineationoftheoffsideroadedgemaypromoteimprovementsindrivers’lateralcontroloftheirvehicle.

BroughtonandBuckle(2006)reportedthatlossofcontrolwastheonlyprecipitatingfactorinthecausationofaccidents(ofallseverities)thathadshownasignificantincreasesince1999.Theresultsfromthistrialsuggestthattheactivestudinstallationimproveddrivers’control,particularlyinrightturnsandforolderdrivers.Itis,therefore,possiblethattheintroductionofactiveroadstudsmayhelptoreversethistrend.

Participantsreportedthatactivestudsencouragedthemtodrivefasterthantheywouldnormally.However,thisiscontradictedbythesimulatordata,whichshowedthattherewereonlyveryslightincreasesinspeedwithactivestuds.Thisdiscrepancybetweendrivers’opinionandobservedbehaviourhighlightsthebenefitthatsimulationcanbringinallowingschemestobetestedbyrealdriversinanaturalisticenvironment.Participantsalsoreportedthattheybelievedactivestudswouldbehighlybeneficialtoroadtransportandroadsafety.

Weinterpretedthislevelofunderstandingandconfidenceasindicativeofhighacceptabilityofthetechnologyand,overall,itwasconcludedthatactivestudsarelikelytobehighlyacceptabletodriversandofferasignificantsafetyadvantageoverstandardpassiveretro-reflectivestudssincetheyappeartoimprovelaneguidanceinrightturnswithoutcausingdriverstoproceedathigherspeeds.

LessonsLearnedConcerningtheRoleofSimulatorsinAssessingAcceptability

Basedonthesimulatorwork(andsubsequentvalidation),anumberoflessonscanbedrawnconcerningaspectsofroaddesignforefficiency,safetyandacceptability.

Thestudyof‘ActiveTrafficManagement’showsthatsystemsdesignedtoeasecongestioncanalsohaveimplicationsforsafety.However,anypotentialsafetyproblemscanbemitigatedbyinformingdriversandhelpingthemtounderstandthenewdesigns;forexample,throughappropriatesignage.Theinformationstrategyneedstobecomprehensive,toensurethatdriversbothapproachtheschemeinthemostpositiveframeofmindand,whenusingschemes,dosoassafelyandascomfortablyaspossible.Equally,thestudyofnon-physicalmotorwaysegregationdemonstratedthattheanticipatedbenefitsofaschememaynotberealisedifdriversdonotbehaveintheexpectedmanner.

Studiesofinterventionsdesignedforruralroadsspecificallytoimprovesafetyshowthattheymayalsohaveunanticipatedconsequences.Forexample,comparedwithstandardpassiveretro-reflectivestuds,delineationofaroadatnightby‘activelyilluminatedroadstuds’offersasignificantoverallsafetyadvantagethatappearstooutweightheslightincreaseindrivers’speedchoice.

Thesestudiesdemonstratethatsimulationcanplayausefulroleinunderstandingchangesindriverbehaviour,anticipatedsafetyoutcomesanduseracceptanceinresponsetoroadinfrastructuremodifications.Theyallowtestingunderawiderangeofconditionswhilstensuringparticipantsafetyandenableevidence-baseddecisionstobemadebeforeinfrastructureisinplace.

AssessingBehaviouralResponsestoHighwayTechnologiesintheRealWorld

Oncethedesignofanewtechnologyschemehasbeendecidedupon,itcanbeimplementedintherealworld.However,itisimportanttoevaluatethesysteminsitutoconfirmthattheexpectedbenefitsareachieved.Real-worldevaluationscanbedifficulttoconductasitmaybedifficulttoidentifysuitablecontrolsitesforcomparisonorhaveconfidencethatanychangesobservedinabefore-afterevaluationareaconsequenceoftheinstalledinterventionorsomeotherfactor.Furthermore,acceptancecanonlybeinferredfrombehavioursinceitisdifficultandimpracticaltointerrogatedriverswhohaverecentlyexperiencedanintervention.Inthissection,weconsiderdriveracceptanceintwocasestudiesof

real-worldevaluationsofhighwaytechnology.

CaseStudy1:RoadworkDelineation(FlashingCones)

Whenmotorwayroadworksareinforce,trafficisusuallyrequiredtodeviatefromnormaltrafficlanestoaccommodatetheworkssite.Thischangefromtheusualsituationcancreaterisk,especiallywhentrafficlanesarerequiredtomerge.Lanemergingistypicallyachievedbyapplyingstandardconfigurationsoftrafficconesthat(inconjunctionwithtemporarysigns)indicatetodriversthenewgeometryoftheroadahead.Alongrowofconesguidingtrafficoutofanexistinglaneandintoanewtemporarylaneormergingwithanadjacentlaneistermeda‘conetaper’(Figure14.5).Thisrepresentsasiteofrisksinceitiswhereadrivermustdeviatefromtheirroutinebehaviourinresponsetothepresenceoftheconetaper.In2001and2002,theUKHighwaysAgencyfoundthataround50percentofnearmissincidentsinArea4oftheUK’strunkroadnetwork(comprisingatotalroutelengthof451kmacrossthesouthandsouth-eastofEngland)wereconetaperstrikes(HighwayAgencyTrialsTeam2005)creatingriskforthedriver,otherroadusersandroadworkerswithintheworksregion.

In2002,theHighwaysAgencyTrialsTeambeganevaluatingsequentialflashingconelamps(SFCLs)asanimprovedmeansbywhichtocommunicateupcomingroadlayouttodrivers.In2005,followingoff-roadevaluationandconfirmationthatSFCLsweresuitableforuseonUKroads(forevaluationpurposes),anon-roadtrialwasconductedtoassessdrivers’useandacceptanceofSFCLs.

Atestsite(withpre-existingtemporarytrafficmanagementmeasures)waschosenontheM42ActiveTrafficManagement(ATM)section(priortoactivationofanyATMfeaturessuchasgantrysigning)sincethiswasequippedwithinductiveloopsevery100m,enablingdetailedinterrogationoflaneoccupancythroughtheworksregion.Theconetaperwasdemarcatedduringclosureperiods(22:00–03:00)bystaticconelampsforthreedaysandwithSFCLsforthreedays,alternatingdailybetweenthetwoconfigurationsoveraperiodofsixdays.

Resultsindicatedthat,from600mupstreamoftheconetaper,significantlyfewervehicleswerepresentintheclosing/merginglanewhendemarcatedbySFCLsthanbystaticconelamps.ThisindicatesthatdriversunderstoodandrespondedtothemessagecommunicatedtothembythepresenceoftheSFCLsbychoosingtoleavetheclosinglaneearlierthanwiththestaticconelamps.

Therefore,inferredfrombehaviour,theconetaperwasjudgedasacceptedbydriversinthesimulatorand,hence,likelytobeacceptabletodriversinrealroadconditions.Inaddition,itwasconcludedthattheuseofSFCLswould,intheshorttermatleast,increasethesafetymarginbetweentrafficandthetemporarytrafficmanagementsite,therebydecreasingriskattemporarytrafficmanagementsites.

Figure14.5AnexampleofaconetaperusedfortemporarytrafficmanagementintheUK(closingtherightlaneofthecarriagewayintheleftofthepicture)

CaseStudy2:DriverAcceptanceofSpeedMonitoring

Speedisakeydeterminantofboththenumberofroadcrashesandcrashseverity,soitisunsurprisingthatroadauthoritiesseektoinfluencedrivers’

severity,soitisunsurprisingthatroadauthoritiesseektoinfluencedrivers’speed.Traditionallythisinvolvesfixedsignsshowingthemaximumpermittedspeedonasectionorroadbutitiswellknownthatlimitsarewidelyexceeded.IntheNetherlands,forexample,20–40percentofvehiclesexceedthepostedlimitonmostroadtypes(SWOV2010a).Speedmanagementhas,morerecently,employedarangeoftechnologytomeasurespeedofspecificvehiclesandthisinformationcanbeusedinanumberofwaystoinfluencedrivers’speedchoice.

Hereweexamineusingimmediatefeedbacktodrivers,withoutenforcementorsurveillance,usingspeedcamerasthatrecordvehicleidentity.

SpeedIndicatingDevices

Speedindicatingdevices(SIDs)aretemporaryvehicle-activatedsignsthatdetectanddisplayvehiclespeedsprovidingdirectreal-timefeedbacktodrivers(Figure14.6).Theyarearelativelycheapmethodofspeedmanagementthataimtochangedrivers’speedbehaviourandareincreasinglybeinginstalled.

SIDshavebeenfoundtobeeffectiveatreducingvehiclespeedsinurbanareaswhendeployedforperiodsofafewweeksbutthattheireffectivenessdecreasesovertime(WalterandKnowles2008).Also,theireffectivenesshasbeenreportedtolastonlyashortdistancebeyondthesignalthoughthisvariesdependingonsitecharacteristics.

WhilsttheeffectivenessofSIDsintermsofspeedmanagementislimited,theytendtoberegardedasacceptable(orharmless)becausetheyarenotcovertanddonotpermanentlyrecordvehicleidentity.Issuesofacceptanceandacceptabilitybecomemuchmoreacutefortypesofsurveillancethatrecordvehicleidentityandlocation,asexploredbelow.

SurveillanceandSpeedEnforcement

Itisoftenclaimedthatweliveinasurveillancesociety(Wood2006).CCTVsurveillance,however,isrelativelyacceptableinmanycountriesasitiswidelyseenasprotectingthepublicfromtheminorityofcriminalsactinginavisiblydeviantmanner(WellsandWills2009).

SpeedcamerasareaspecificformofsurveillanceandhavebeenusedextensivelyinEurope,particularlyGreatBritain,GermanyandtheNetherlands–andnowincreasinglyinFrance;andinjurisdictionssuchasVictoria,Australia,andmuchlessoftenintheUnitedStatesandCanada.Whereverused,therehasbeencontroversy–butresistancetospeedcamerasseemstobe

characterisednotbycomplaintsaboutcivillibertiesbutintermsofunfairnessorinjustice.

Figure14.6Examplesofaspeedindicatingdevice

Ithasbeenargued(Wells2007)thatwhilstspeedcameraswereintroducedasamethodofriskreduction,thecontroversyaroundthemcanusefullybeunderstoodinrisktermswheredriversviewthemselvesasvictimsexposedtoriskratherthanprotectedfromriskbythespeedenforcementtechnology.Withthisview,theriskofpunishmentismoreprominentthantheriskofdeathorinjury(WellsandWills2009).Partoftheunacceptabilityseemstoarisefromthelegalprinciplethatthespeedingoffencedoesnotdistinguishbetweenintentionalandunintentionalbehaviour.

Driverswilloftenportraythemselvesasmakingintelligentjudgementsabouttheappropriatespeedforaparticularsetofcircumstancesandcontrastthiswiththefixedlegalspeedlimitsenforcedbyan‘oppressivestate’throughtechnology.Tocounteractthisview,effortsarebeingmade,intheNetherlandsforexample,tobettermatchlegalspeedlimitstoroadcharacteristicsandperceptionsinanattempttomakethespeedlimitsmorecredible(SWOV2010b).

AtypologyofdrivershasbeendevelopedbasedontheirresponsetospeedcamerasbyCorbett(1995)andCorbettandSimon(1999):

•Conformers(thosewhoreporttheyneverexceedlimits);•Deterreddrivers(thoseputoffspeedingbythepresenceofcameras);•Manipulators(thosewhoslowonlyatcameralocations);and•Defiers(thosewhoexceedlimitsregardlessofcameras).

ItcouldbeinferredfromtheirbehaviourthatConformersandDeterreddriversacceptspeedcamerasbutManipulatorsandDefiersdonot.

Blincoeetal.(2006)interviewedasampleofroaduserswhohadbeenprosecutedforexceedingthespeedlimitintheruralcountyofNorfolkEnglandandcategorisedthemusingthesamegroupingsasCorbettandSimon.Inasampleof433,shefound31percentConformers,27percentDeterreddrivers,33percentManipulatorsand9percentDefiers.Inhersample,speedingwasperceivedaswidespreadandnormal,withmanyofthedriversresentingcameraenforcement.Formany,theprosecutionexperienceresultedindistress,angerandanti-camerasentiments,predominantlybecausetheyexpressedthebeliefthattheyweremoreskilledthanotherdrivers.TheDeterreddriversweremostlikelytoexpressintentionstoavoidfurtherspeedingandtheirspeedingincidentwasfoundtobemostlikelytobeaccidental.ManipulatorsandDefierstendedtoreportthattheyhaddeliberatelychosentoinfringethespeedlimits.

Astrongbodyofresearchshowsthatspeedcamerasimprovethebehaviourofroadusersandreducesspeedingandroadcrashes.Forexample,afour-yearevaluationreport(Gaines2005)lookedat2,000urbanandruralsitesintheUKwherespeedmeasurementsweretakenbothbeforeandaftercameradeployment.Analysisshowedthatoncethecameraswereoperationaltherewas

•asubstantialimprovementincompliancewithspeedlimits;•aparticularreductioninextremespeeding;and•amarkedreductioninaveragespeedatfixedsites.

Inacomprehensivereview(Allsop2010),itwasconcludedthatdeploymentofspeedcamerasleadstoappreciablereductionsinspeedinthevicinityofthecamerasandsubstantialreductionsincollisionsandcasualties.

Nevertheless,oppositiontospeedcamerasremains,asdoessomescepticismtowardsthescientificexpertisedrawnonbygovernmentsinsettingtheirpolicy.

SpeedcameraswerefirstusedforenforcementinGreatBritainin1992andtheirrolloutwasacceleratedbetween2001and2005inanationalsafetycameraprogram.TheAutomobileAssociation(AA)hasbeenmonitoringthepublicacceptanceofcamerasintheUKfor10yearsandthelevelofacceptancehasbeenaround70percent.Thislatestpoll(AA2010)showsthehighestlevelsof

beenaround70percent.Thislatestpoll(AA2010)showsthehighestlevelsofsupportever.

IntheNetherlandstheannualperceptionstudyshowswhichtypesofspeedenforcementDutchdriversfindmoreandlessacceptable.Theyclearlyfindspeedcamerasatfixedpositionsmoreacceptablethanmethodsthatarenotclearlyvisible(Table14.1).

Table14.1Percentageofrespondentswhofindcertaintypesofspeedenforcement(very)acceptable

InVictoria,Australia,thespeedcameraprogramhasbeensubjecttopersistentnegativepublicperceptionsand,ina2010survey,69percentofrespondentsagreedthatspeedcamerasaremoreaboutraisingrevenuethanroadsafety(Pearson2011).Publicconfidenceinthereliabilityandaccuracyofthetechnologyhasalsobeenunderminedbymediareporting.Pearsonlists(andrefutes)anumberofcommonmisperceptionsbasedonexaminationofmediaarticles,publicsurveysandindividualsubmissions:

•Thepurposeoftheroadsafetycameraprogramistoraiserevenue;•Lowlevelspeedingissafe;•Roadsafetycamerasdon’treduceroadtrauma;•Speedcamerasshouldnotbeplacedonfreewaysbecausefreewaysare

•Speedcamerasshouldnotbeplacedonfreewaysbecausefreewaysaresafe;and

•Thecamerasarefaulty.

Point-BasedandAverageSpeedEnforcementCameras

Drivers’understandingofthetechnologycanhaveaneffectonbehaviourandthiscanbetakenasonedeterminantofacceptance.Fixedsingle-pointcamerashaveazoneofinfluenceintheimmediatevicinitybutthereisnothingtostopdriversslowingdownandthenspeedingupafterpassingacamera.Inonesurveyof2,400drivers(Swiftcover2007),53percentbelievedthatfixedpointcamerasencouragepeopletodrivemoreerraticallyandafurther56percentadmittedto‘yo-yodriving’(speedingupbetweencameras)themselves.

Averagespeedcamerasdetectvehiclesalongaroadandcalculateaveragespeed.Initially,acceleration/decelerationbehaviourwasalsoobservedataveragespeedcamerainstallations(Charlesworth2008)butbettersignageandgeneralawarenessofhowthesystemworkshasincreasedrecognitionandimproveddriverbehaviourandcompliance.Inthesurveycitedabove,74percentofdriverssaidthattheyusuallydrivethroughentire‘averagespeedcamera’areas,atthecorrectspeedlimit.

InAustria,positiveeffectsofaveragespeedenforcementwerefoundintermsofspeedreductionandinthenumberofcrashesintunnels(Stefan2006).

AccordingtoThornton(2010)whilstsomedriversclaimthatdrivingthroughanaveragespeedenforcementschemeisstressful,andthattheycannotmaintainasteadyspeedwithoutconstantlylookingattheirspeedometer,themajorityofdriversfeelthatthesystemmakestheroadlessstressful,asotherdriversarelesspronetotailgatingand‘bullying’andthatthereislessbrakingandlane-changing.

SummaryConcerningAcceptabilityofSpeedCameras

Thereisastrongbodyofresearchshowingthatspeedcamerasimprovethebehaviourofroadusersandreducespeedingandroadcrashes.Nevertheless,asubstantialminorityofdriversstillfindsuchcamerasunacceptable.Thisseemstobeasaresultofsomemisperceptionsconcerningthetechnologyanditspurpose,andalsotoaperceivedunfairnessaroundwho‘getscaught’.Interestingly,thereappeartobedifferencesinacceptanceratesbetweencountries,suggestingthatpolicyandpublicawarenesscanpotentiallybedevelopedinawaytoimproveacceptance.

Intermsofspecificroadsidetechnologies,vehicle-activatedSpeed

Intermsofspecificroadsidetechnologies,vehicle-activatedSpeedIndicatingDevicesarerelativelyinexpensivebuthavelimitedeffectivenessandareprobablyregardedasharmlessandacceptablebyamajorityofdrivers.Hiddenspeedcamerasappeartobetheleastacceptedformofspeedenforcement.Camerasoperatingatfixedpointsaremoreacceptablebutthemostacceptableareaveragespeedcameras.Theirrelativepopularityseemstoresultfromtherobustandvisibletechnologycausingspeedlimitstobewidelyobserved.

Conclusions

Interactionbetweendriversontheroaddependsonawiderangeoffactorsthatvarywithtimeandcircumstance,withsafeinteractionrelyingondriversnotonlyunderstandingbutacceptingthe‘normsofbehaviour’impliedorrequiredbytheroadlayoutandtheinformationandothertechnologydeployedwithintheinfrastructure.

Inthischapterwehaveillustratedhowdriverbehaviourandacceptancecandependontheinformationprovided,andthattherecanbeunintendedconsequencesfromnewsystemdeployment.Adrivingsimulatortoinvestigatedriverresponsestonewtechnologywithintheinfrastructurecanbeveryuseful.Wehaveshownthatdriverbehaviourisaffectedbymonitoringandfeedback,althoughboththeimplementationapproachandwidersocialfactorsinfluencetheacceptabilityofthatmonitoringandtheuseoftechnologytoimplementit.

Acknowledgements

Thecontentofthispaperistheresponsibilityoftheauthorsandshouldnotbeconstruedtoreflecttheopinionsorpoliciesofanyorganisation.

References

AutomobileAssociation(AA).2010.Speedcameras.[Online].Availableat:http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/aa-populus-panel/aa-populus-increased-support-for-speed-cameras.html[accessed:15February2012].

Allsop,R.2010.Theeffectivenessofspeedcameras–Areviewofevidence.[Online].Availableat:http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/

downloadables/speed%20camera%20effectiveness%20-%20allsop%20-%20report.pdf[accessed:30December2011].

Blincoe,K.M.,Jones,A.P.,Sauerzapf,V.andHaynes,R.2006.Speedingdrivers’attitudesandperceptionsofspeedcamerasinruralEngland.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention38:371–8.

Broughton,J.andBuckle,G.2006.Monitoringprogresstowardsthe2010casualtyreductiontarget–2004data.Reportno.653.Crowthorne:TransportResearchLaboratory.

Charlesworth,K.2008.Theeffectofaveragespeedenforcementondriverbehavior.RoadTransportInformationandControl.IETPublication.

Corbett,C.1995.RoadtrafficoffendingandtheintroductionofspeedcamerasinEngland:Thefirstself-reportstudy.AccidentAnaysis&Prevention.27(3):345–54.

Corbett,C.andSimon,F.1999.Theeffectsofspeedcameras:Howdriversrespond.DepartmentforTransportLocalGovernmentandtheRegions(DTLR)Reportno.11.London:DTLR.

DepartmentforTransport(DfT).2008.Advancedmotorwaysignallingandtrafficmanagementfeasibilitystudy–AreporttotheSecretaryofStateforTransport.London:DepartmentforTransport(DfT).

Diels,C.,Robbins,R.andReed,N.2011.BehaviouralvalidationoftheTRLdrivingsimulatorDigiCar:Phase1–Speedchoice.PresentedattheInternationalConferenceofDriverBehaviourandTraining,Paris,France,November.

Fafieanie,M.andSambell,E.2008.DynamictidalflowlaneonprovincialroadsintheNetherlands.TheNetherlands:UniversityofTwente.[Online].Availableat:http://www.utwente.nl/ctw/aida/education/Final%20report%20ITS2%20Fafieanie%20and%20Sambell.pdf[accessed:20December2011].

Gaines,A.2005.Thenationalsafetycameraprogramme:Fouryearevaluationreport.London:PAConsultingGroupandUniversityCollegeLondon(UCL).[Online].Availableat:http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/1338/1/2004_31.pdf[accessed:30December2011].

HighwaysAgencyTrialsTeam.2005.Safetemporarytrafficmanagementoperationsinitiative–RoWSaFTrialreport:Sequentialflashingconelamps.[Online].Availableat:http://www.dormanvaritext.com/pdf/sequentialflashingconestrialreport.pdf[accessed:30December2011].

Intomart,GfK.2010.EffectmetingRegioplannen2010:Landelijkerapportage;Eeninternet-onderzoekinopdrachtvanhetLandelijkParketTeamVerkeer

Eeninternet-onderzoekinopdrachtvanhetLandelijkParketTeamVerkeervanhetOpenbaarMinisterie.IntomartGfK,Hilversum.

Pearson,D.D.R.2011.Roadsafetycameraprogramme.AuditReportPPno.3,Session2011–12.AustralianVictorianGovernmentPrinter,August.[Online].Availableat:http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20110831-Road-Safety-Cameras/20110831-Road-Safety-Cameras.pdf[accessed:30December2011].

Poppeliers,R.,Scheltes,W.andVeld,N.2009.Effectmetingregioplannen(perceptieonderzoek).Landelijkerapportage2008.OnderzoekinopdrachtvanhetBVOM.NEATransportonderzoeken-opleiding,Rijswijk.

Reed,N.2006.Driverbehaviourinresponsetoactivelyilluminatedroadstuds:Asimulatorstudy.PublishedProjectReportPPR143.Crowthorne:TransportResearchLaboratory.

Stefan,C.2006.Sectioncontrol–AutomaticspeedenforcementintheKaisermühlentunnel(Vienna,A22Motorway).Vienna:AustrianRoadSafetyBoardKvF.

Stern,N.2006.Reviewontheeconomicsofclimatechange.H.M.Treasury,UK,October.[Online].Availableat:http://www.sternreview.org.uk[accessed:30December2011].

Swiftcover.2007.CarInsurance:Acceleratedrolloutofspeedcamerascostsmotorists£144.6millioneachyear.Availableat:http://www.swiftcover.com/about/press/speed_cameras_costs/.

StichtingWetenschappelijkOnderzoekVerkeersveiligheid(SWOV).2010a.Policeenforcementanddrivingspeed.SWOVfactsheet,June.[Online].Availableat:http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Surveillance.pdf[accessed:30December2011].

SWOV.2010b.Towardscrediblespeedlimits.SWOVfactsheet,September.[Online].Availableat:http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Credible_limits.pdf[accessed:30December2011].

SWOV.2011.Speedcameras:Howtheyworkandwhateffecttheyhave.SWOVfactsheet,October.2011.[Online].Availableat:http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Speed_cameras.pdf[accessed:30December2011].

Thornton,T.2010.ReductionsinfuelconsumptionandCO2emissionswithspecsaveragespeedenforcement.RoadTransportInformationandControlConferenceCD.Stevenage:InstitutionofEngineeringandTechnology.

Thornton,T.,Reed,N.andGordon,N.2005.ATM–Driverbehaviourduring

Thornton,T.,Reed,N.andGordon,N.2005.ATM–Driverbehaviourduringoperationalregimes.PresentedatSmartMoving2005,Birmingham,England.

Törnros,J.1998.Drivingbehaviourinarealandasimulatedroadtunnel–Avalidationstudy.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,1998,30(4):497–503.

USDepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration.2004.SuperiorMaterials,AdvancedTestMethods,andSpecificationsinEurope,April2004.Reportno.FHWA-PL-04-007[Online].Availableat:http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/superiormaterials/chap3.cfm[accessed:January2012].

Walter,L.K.andKnowles,J.2008.EffectivenessofspeedindicatordevicesonreducingvehiclespeedsinLondon.Reportno.PPR314.Crowthorne:TransportResearchLaboratory.

Webb,W.B.1995.Thecostofsleep-relatedaccidents:Areanalysis(technicalcomments).Sleep,18(4):276–80.

Wells,H.2007.Risk,respectabilityandresponsibilisation:Unintendeddriverresponsestospeedlimitenforcement.InternetJournalofCriminology.[Online].Availableat:http://www.internetjournalofcriminoogy.com[accessed:30December2011].

Wells,H.andWills,D.2009.Individualismandidentity:ResistancetospeedcamerasintheUK.SurveillanceandSociety6(3):259–74.[Online].Availableat:http://www.surveillance-and--society.org[accessed:30December2011].

Wood,D.2006.AreportontheSurveillanceSocietyfortheInformationCommissionerbytheSurveillanceStudiesNetwork.[Online].Availableat:http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/surveillance_society_full_report_2006.pdf[accessed:30December2011].

1©TransportResearchLaboratory,2013

Chapter15OperatorAcceptanceofNewTechnologyfor

IndustrialMobileEquipmentTimHorberry

MineralsIndustrySafetyandHealthCentre,UniversityofQueensland,Australia

EngineeringDesignCentre,UniversityofCambridge,UK

TristanCookeMineralsIndustrySafetyandHealthCentre,UniversityofQueensland,

Australia

Abstract

Usingexamplesfromminingandthewidermineralsindustry,thischapterfocusesonoperatoracceptanceofnewtechnologyforindustrialmobileequipment.Itinitiallytakesabroadapproachbyintroducingthemining/mineralsindustryandbrieflydescribingthekeyelementsintheminingsystem.Thereafter,itexaminesthedevelopmentanddeploymentofnewminingtechnologies,includingtheneedforthemandthetypestypicallybeingintroducedatminesites.Operatoracceptanceofminingtechnologies,especiallyforminingvehicles,isthenintroduced:particularlyconsideringhowbothdesignanddeploymentcanassistinimprovingacceptanceofsuchtechnology.Acasestudyofrecentlyundertakenresearchthatconsidersoperatoracceptanceofproximitywarningsystemsforminingvehiclesisthenpresented.Finally,thechapterconcludesbystressingtheimportanceofauser-centreddesignanddeploymentprocessfortechnologyusedinminingandelsewhere.

IntroductiontoMiningandtheMineralsIndustry

Giventhatthemainfocusofthischapterisnotroadtransport,ashortintroductiontothedomainbeingdiscussedhere–miningandthemineralsindustry–isfirstgiven.The‘mineralsindustry’isanoveralltermforagroupofactivitiesrelatedtomining(theextractionofminerals),ore/mineralsprocessing

activitiesrelatedtomining(theextractionofminerals),ore/mineralsprocessingandthetransportationofminerals.Ofcourse,suchmineralsincludethemore‘traditional’ones,suchascoal,iron,goldandcopper,plusthosethathavenotbeensystematicallyexploitedonawidescaleuntilquiterecently(suchascoalseamgasoroilsands).

Theindustryisbothasignificantworldwideemployerandmajorrevenuegenerator;forexample,inrecentyearsinAustraliaitwasresponsibleforapproximatelyhalfofthetotalexportsofthecountry(AustralianBureauofStatistics2010).Itispresentacrossvirtuallythewholeglobe,withsomeofthemajorminingareasbeinginAfrica,Australia,NorthandSouthAmerica,theformerSovietStates,IndiaandChina.Theworldwideinjuryandfatalityratesfortheindustryvarygreatly,rangingfromusuallysingle-figuredeathsperannuminAustraliaandCanada,throughtomanyhundredsbeingkilledindevelopingcountries(Simpson,HorberryandJoy2009).Similarly,ill-healthlinkedtohighnoiselevels,hazardousmanualtasksandrespirabledustarestillprevalentinsomecountries.

ElementsintheMiningSystem

Aswithothercomplexsocio-technicalsystems,suchasroadtransportoraviation,thereneedstobesafeinteractionsbetweenpeople,procedures,environmentsandequipmentinthemineralsindustry.Focusingpurelyonmining,asnotedbyHorberry,Burgess-LimerickandFuller(2013),themainelementsinclude

•avariedgroupofpeopleemployedorcontracted;•awiderangeofdifferentminingjobs,tasksandroles;•aspecialisedarrayofdiverseminingequipment;•manydifferentminingequipmentmanufacturers,dealersandsuppliers;•asteadyincreaseinthenumberofnewtechnologiesbeingdesignedanddeployed;

•differentworldwideminingcompanies;•varyingprocedures,rules,practicesandculturesatindividualminesites;•adiverserangeofnationallaws,regulationsandguidelines;•differencesinthebuiltenvironmentandpreciseminingmethodused;and•uncertaintiesinthenaturalenvironmentbeingmined.

Thefocusinthischapterisuponseveralelementsintheabovelist:namely,theinteractionofthehumanelementwiththenewtechnologiesbeingdeployed.

interactionofthehumanelementwiththenewtechnologiesbeingdeployed.Beforespecificoperatoracceptanceissuesareexamined,someofthenewtechnologiesinthemineralsindustryarediscussed.

DevelopmentandDeploymentofNewMiningTechnologiesandAutomation

TheNeedforNewTechnologiesinMining

Theongoingimperativebyminingcompaniesandregulatorsforsafeandhealthyworkplaceshasbeenoneofthemajordriversfortheintroductionofnewtechnologiesintomining(Burgess-Limerick2011).Theoretically,suchnewtechnologiescanoffergreatpotentialtoimproveoperatorsafetyandhealth;forexample,theycouldformanotherlayerofprotectiontoaddtoanyphysicalandorganisationalmeasuresalreadyemployed.Inadditiontopotentiallyremovingoperatorsfromhazardousminingsituations(especiallyunderground),theycouldalsopresentnewwaysofaddressinglong-standingsafetyissues,suchaslesseningtheseveritypost-injurybymeansofbetterincidentdetectionandresponsesystems(Horberry,Burgess-LimerickandSteiner2010).

Safetyandhealthconcernsare,ofcourse,nottheonlyreasontointroducenewtechnologies.AspreviouslynotedbyHorberryetal.(2010),otherfactorsincludethefollowing:

•Lowercostofmineralproduction.Examplesincludemoreoretransported,ormoreefficientprocesscontroloperations.

•Enhancedprecision.Asimpleexampleisautomatedblast-holedrillinginhard-rockmining–wherenotonlyisthereapotentialsafetybenefitbyremovingtheoperator,butthecorrectlocationoftheblastholescantheoreticallybemoreaccuratelyachievedthroughautomatedsystems.

•Lessenvironmentalimpact.Intheory,newtechnologiescanminimisetheneedforlandreclamation(e.g.,byusingkeyholeminingmethods,ratherthanmoredisruptiveapproaches)andrequirelessenergytoextractandprocessthecommodity.

•Beingabletomineareaspreviouslyinaccessible.Thismightincludebeingabletomineinhard-to-reachlocationsthatpreviouslycouldnotbeminedeconomically.

•Reducedmanning.Althoughitisamyththatautomationfullyremovestheneedforallhumaninvolvementinmining(SandersandPeay1998),insomecasesitmayreducetheneedforhumans,atleastthoseonthefront

somecasesitmayreducetheneedforhumans,atleastthoseonthefrontline(e.g.,remotelycontrolledtrucksnotrequiringanoperatortodrivethemfromwithinthevehicle’scabin).

•Moredata/information.Thecapacitytocollectmoredata,ofteninrealtime,ontheperformanceandstateofminingequipmentcanbeofconsiderableadvantageforissuessuchasmaintenanceschedulingorappropriateresponsesinemergencysituations.

TheScopeofNewMiningTechnologies

Intensiveresearchanddevelopmentworkinautomationandnewminingtechnologiesiscurrentlybeingundertakenbymanymajorminingcompanies,equipmentmanufacturersanduniversities(Burgess-Limerick2011).Someofthemainminingequipmenttypesbeingparticularlyinvestigatedincludehaultrucks,blast-holedrills,rockcrushersandoretrains.Infuture,itseemslikelythatautomationornewtechnologiesinsomeformwillbefurtherappliedacrossvirtuallyallminingequipment(e.g.,shovelsandexcavators)andminingmethods(LynasandHorberry2011).

Similartomanyotherindustrialandtransportdomainsthathavenotyetfullyembracedtheneedtosystematicallyintegratethehumanelement,therapiddevelopmentandgrowthinnewsystemshasoftenseenthembeingdeployedastheprototypetechnologybecomesavailable,withoutthembeingsystematicallydesigned,integratedintoworkenvironmentsandevaluatedfromauser-centredperspective.Forexample,newsystemsmustmeettherequirementsofthejob/task,workinemergency/abnormaloperationalstates,supportoperatorsandbeacceptabletotheeventualend-users.Assuch,devicesinmininghavegenerallybeendesignedfromatechnology-centredperspective,ratherthanfirstseeingwhataretheneedsandwhatsafetyorperformancebenefitstheymightbring(Li,PowellandMcKeague2012).Sadly,withtheexceptionofthestudyreportedlaterinthischapter,littleresearchhasbeenundertakenintooperatoracceptanceofnewtechnologiesintheminingdomain.Ifoperatorrequirementsandpreferencesarenotwellunderstoodbeforenewsystemsareintroduced,thesystemsmaybeunacceptablewhendeployed.Inmining,orindeedinotherindustrialdomainswheretheuseofthedeployedtechnologyisoftenmandatory,thosetechnologiesthatarenotacceptedbyoperatorsarelesslikelytobeusedproperlyandaremorelikelytobesabotagedormisused;thus,anyinherentpotentialforincreasingsafetyorefficiencymaynotbefullyachieved(HorberryandLynas2012).

OverviewofTypesofNewTechnologiesUsedatMineSites

Adatabaseofcurrentandemergingtechnologiesinmining,andthelikelyhumanelementimplicationsofsuchtechnologies,wasrecentlyproduced(HorberryandLynas2012).Miningisalreadyhighlymechanised,butnewtechnologiesidentifiedinthedatabaserangedfromfullautomationofcompleteminingprocesses(e.g.,blastinginhard-rockminingbeforetheoreisremoved)tomorepiecemealtechnologiessuchasproximitywarningsystemsformobileminingequipment.Inthedatabase,thespecifictechnologiesweregroupedby‘degreesofautomation’,suchasfullyautomatedandpartiallyautomatedsystems;assistancedevicessuchasproximitydetection/warningsystems;andotherrelevanttechnologies.Thelowerlevelautomationentrieswheretheoperatorisstilldirectlyinthesystemcontrolloop(i.e.,thosetechnologiesthataremorewithinthefocusofthisbook)includewarningsystemssuchascollisiondetectionsystems,andtechnologiesthatsignalwhenmaintenanceofequipmentisdue.Inthiscategory,theoperatorremainsinfullcontrolofthesystem,withthetechnologyprovidingwarnings,informationorassistance.Roughlyhalfofalltheentriesinthedatabasewerefromthiscategory:thishighproportionmightbeexplainedpartiallybythesesystemsbeingsimplertodevelopcomparedwithlarge-scalefullyautomatedsystems(HorberryandLynas2012).

Intermsoftrendstobedistilledfromthedatabase,inadditiontothegeneralgrowthofnewtechnologiesbeingintroducedintothisfield,theauthorsnotedthattherewasalackofuser-centreddesign,withapproximatelyonlyone-thirdofthedatabaseentriesmentioningexplicitlyhowthetechnologiesmightimpactupontheoperator(HorberryandLynas2012).Theimplicationhereisthateitherhumanoperatorsandmaintainersarenolongerimportantforsafeandefficientmining,ortheyhavesimplybeenlargelyoverlookedbytheengineering-focuseddevelopersofthesetechnologies.

AcceptanceofMiningVehicleTechnologies

Giventhegenerallackofanoperator-centredfocusinthedevelopmentanddeploymentofnewminingtechnologies,itisperhapsnosurprisetonotethattherearefewsystematicandwidelyusedmeasurestooptimiseoperatoracceptanceofnewtechnologiesfromminesites.Despitethis,twogeneralapproachesaresometimesundertaken(Horberryetal.2010).

1.SafeDesign

‘Safedesign’isslowlybecomingmorewidespreadinthemineralsindustry(Horberryetal.2013).Alsoknownas‘safetyindesign’,‘safetybydesign’or‘preventionthroughdesign’,thebroadprocessaimstoeliminatehealthandsafetyhazards,orminimisepotentialrisks,bysystematicallyinvolvingend-usersanddecisionmakersinthefulllifecycleofthedesignedproductorsystem.Inthetraditionallyconservativeminingandextractiveindustries,examplesofitsapplicationincludeCookeandHorberry(2011a)forminingequipment,Bersanoetal.(2010)forextractiveactivitystartupandmanagementandKovalchiketal.(2008)forpreventingminingoperatorhearingloss.

Atask-orientedsafedesignandriskassessmentprocessthatfocusesonHumanFactorsrisksrelatedtomobileminingequipmentdesignwasrecentlycreated,validatedandthenappliedtothedesignofseveraltypesofmobileminingequipment(Horberryetal.2013).Itisoutsidethescopeofthischaptertopresentdetailedsafedesignresults,butrecenttrialsbyCookeandHorberry(2011a)coveredminingequipmentissuessuchasequipmentaccessandegressandsafedesignformaintenancetasks.Attheheartofthissafedesignmethodisa‘participatoryergonomics’processwherebyequipmentoperatorsandmaintainerswereactivelyengagedinbothcritiquingdesignproblemswiththeirexistingequipmentandhelpingtodevelopsafergenerationsofnewequipment.Todate,thesafedesignmethodhaslargelybeenappliedto‘traditional’miningequipment,butarecenttrialwithanewin-vehicleminingtechnologyproducedpositiveresults(CookeandHorberry2011b).Aswillbenotedinthecasestudylaterinthischapter,theassumptionisthatactivelyinvolvingend-users(equipmentoperatorsandmaintainers)inthetechnologydesignprocesswouldleadtothembetteracceptingthetechnologywhenitisdeployed.

2.DeploymentStrategiesandOperatorSkillsRequirements

Asnotedearlierinthischapter,theuseofnewtechnologiesinminingisusuallymandatoryoncetheyareintroduced.So,whilsttheiruseisgenerallyofficiallycompulsory,non-acceptanceisoftenrevealedbyequipmentbeingbroken,sabotagedorotherwiseneglected(Horberryetal.2004).Similarly,pooroperatoracceptanceofnewtechnologies/automationaftertheyareintroducedmightbeevidencedbynegativeopinionsofthenewdevices(e.g.,nottrustingtheoutputsofthenewtechnology).

Althoughuser-centredsaferinitialdesignisnecessaryforoperator

acceptance,itisnotusuallysufficientunlessconsiderationisalsogivenastohowthenewtechnologieswillactuallybedeployedataminesite.User-centreddeploymentofthetechnologybymeansofoperatorconsultation,understandingtheexactrequirementsofthetasksandanongoingfeedbackprocessto/frommanagementcanhelpreduceproblemswithnewminingtechnologyacceptance(Horberryetal.2010).

Anotherkeydeploymentaspectforoperatoracceptanceisensuringthatoperatorshavesufficientskillsandtrainingtoeffectivelyusethetechnology.Duetotheever-evolvingnatureofminingtechnologybeingdeveloped,theexactskillsandcapabilityrequirementscannotalwaysbespecifiedapriori;however,itisstillofcriticalimportancetohaveanongoingprocesstoidentifyandaddressskillsgapsandtrainingneeds(Horberryetal.2011).Togiveanexample,ananalysisbyDudley,McAreeandLever(2010)suggestedthemineralsindustrywouldrequirealargenumberofnewautomationsupportstaffifwidespreadautomationwasintroduced.Theexactskillsandcognitivecapabilitiesrequiredbytheseautomationtechnicianswoulddependonthetasksperformedandthetechnologiesworkedwith,butfourgeneralskillsgapsidentifiedbyDudleyetal.(2010)werecommunication,problemsolving,planningandorganization,andtechnology.Aninterestingfeaturehereisthatofthesefourgeneralskillsgaps,thefirstthreearelargely‘non-technical’skills.Theimplicationisthatmanyoftheskillsandcapabilitiesrequiredtosuccessfullyusethenewautomatedtechnology(andhence,indirectly,optimiseacceptanceofthattechnology)arenottechnicalskills:instead,problemsolving,planningandcommunicationabilitiesneedtobesufficientifthetechnologyistobesuccessfullyintroducedandaccepted.

CaseStudy:AcceptanceofCollisionDetectionSystemsinMiningVehicles

Background

Asnotedabove,agreatdealofresearchanddevelopmenteffortiscurrentlytakingplacewithnewminingtechnologies:thisisparticularlytrueforcollisiondetectionandproximitywarningsystemsformobileminingvehicles(CookeandHorberry2011b).Inpartthisisbecauseofthehighpercentageofminesiteincidentsthatsomehowinvolvecollisions–especiallybetweenmobileminingequipment(suchaslargehaultrucksandbulldozers,andlightvehiclesusedformaintenance),orbetweenminingvehiclesandpedestrianworkers(Horberryet

al.2010).This,inturn,ispartlybecauseinrecentyearstherearemoremobileminingvehicles,especiallybiggerequipmentwithmoreblindspots(Bell2009).

Collisiondetectionandproximitywarningsystemsarealsobecomingincreasinglyimportanttoregulators(particularlyinNorthAmericaandAustralia);insomelocationstheiruseisbeingstronglyencouraged(evencompelled)bytheappropriatesafetyauthorities.Theyarguethatcollision/proximitydetectiontechnologiesarenowamatureenoughtechnologytobecomeavaluablecontrol,especiallywhenusedinconjunctionwithothermeasuressuchastrafficmanagement,barriersandvehicleseparation(Bell2009).

TypesofCollisionDetectionandProximityWarningSystemsinMining

Liketheterm‘automation’moregenerally,collisiondetectionandproximitywarningsystemscoverawidevarietyoftechnologies;theydifferinwhere,whenandhowtheycanbeused.Inmining,nosingletypefitsallareas(Horberryetal.2010).Oftentheyarelow-levelwarningsofanothervehicle(orpedestrianworker)nearbyandonlyafewsystemsarespecificallydesignedtotakecontrol(e.g.,tointervenebyapplyingthevehicle’sbrakesinresponsetoalikelycollisionbeingdetected).

Awiderangeofsensortechnologiesandassociatedtoolsarebeingused:radar,Wi-Fi,cameras,radiofrequencyidentification(RFID),databasesofstaticobstacles,globalpositioningsystems(GPS),3Dmappingandultrasonics.Someoftheseworkbetterinspecificenvironments(CookeandHorberry2011b).Forexample,manysensortypeswillnotworkunderground,andtheintrinsicsafetyandresultingcertificationrequirementsassociatedwithundergroundcoalminesinparticularcreateadditionalchallengestotheintroductionoftechnologyingeneral,andproximitydetectioninparticular.Surfacemininghasanadvantageoverundergroundmininginthatitcanmoreeasilybuildonpreviousworkinotherdomains–mostnotably,collisiondetectiontechnologiesdevelopedbythelandtransport/automotivedomains(Horberryetal.2010).

ThemineusedfortheresearchdescribedherewasanundergroundgoldmineincentralQueensland,Australia.Ithadpreviouslyinstalledaradiofrequencyidentificationsystemtotrackvehiclemovement.Thesystemwasprimarilyinstalledattheminetoimprovethemonitoringofgoldproduction.However,subsequentlythemine’smanagementrecognisedthattherewasanopportunitytoaddaproximitywarningsystemto,hopefully,reducetheriskofcollisionsbetweenvehiclesatthesite.‘Tags’weremountedonallvehiclesthatwouldenterthemine.‘Readers’weremountedonheavyvehiclesinthemine

wouldenterthemine.‘Readers’weremountedonheavyvehiclesintheminethathadlargeblindspots,suchashaultrucksandoreloaders(CookeandHorberry2011b).

Intheseheavyvehicles,avisualdisplaywasprovidedtothedriversviaatouchscreentabletcomputer.Thiswasmountedontherightsideofthedriverforbothhaultrucksandloaders.Thesystemdetectedthepresenceofanyvehiclesinrange,notjustthosethatweredeterminedtobedangerousorrequireaction:assuch,thedriverneededtointerpretandtakeanecessarycourseofaction.Anauditorywarning(ofalterablevolume)occurredondetection,andavisualwarning(alineonthevehicle’stouchscreen)flashed.Bothwarningscontinueduntilthescreenwasphysicallytouchedasacknowledgement(CookeandHorberry2011b).Therefore,onsomeoccasionswhenanothervehiclewasdetectednearby,thedesignofthesystemwassuchthattheoperatorwastheoreticallyrequiredtoundertaketwosimultaneoustasks:takeevasiveactiontopreventacollision,andphysicallytouchthescreentocancelthewarning.Inpractice,thesecondofthesetaskswasrarelyundertakenduetoitbeingoffarlessimportancethanpreventingacollision.

ResearchUndertaken

PreviousworkbyCookeandHorberry(2011b)hasusedavarietyofHumanFactorsmethodstoinvestigatetheseprototypeproximitydetectionsystemsattheminesite.Thispastworkincludedmeasuringdetectiondistancesatdifferentpointsaroundtheminesiteandundertakingausabilityauditoftheprototypeinterface.

Buildingonthisearlierwork,researchwasconductedtounderstandtheproximitydetectiondevicewithintheoverallgoldminingsystem,includingothercollisionpreventioncontrolspresent.Theimpetusforthissubsequentresearchwasthatanaccidentinvolvingacollisionbetweenalightandheavyvehiclehadrecentlyoccurredatthemine.Followingtheaccident,anumberofchangesweremadetotheproximitydetectionsysteminterface,andtestingdriver/operatoracceptanceofthesechangeswasthereforeakeycomponentofthework.

Followinginvestigationoftheabove-mentionedaccident,changesmadetotheproximitydetectionsystemincludedalteringtheauditorywarning(tomakeitmoresalient)andmodifyingthevisualinformation(e.g.,addingnewlydetectedvehiclestothetopofthelistonthecomputerscreen,ratherthantothebottomofthescreen,wheretheywereaddedpreviously).FulldetailsofthechangesmadearegiveninCookeandHorberry(2011c).

Method

Togaugetheeffectsoftheinterfacechangesthatweremade,operatorsoftheheavyvehiclesemployedatthemineweresurveyed.Theminewasafairlysmallsitewithatotalpopulationofonly20driversoperatingheavymobileequipment.Eighteenofthesedriverscompletedthesurvey.Itwasconductedprimarilytodeterminehowacceptingthedriverswereoftheinitialsystemincomparisonwiththealteredsystem.Driverswerealsoaskedabouttheimportanceofothercontrolsrelativetotheproximitydetectionsystems.

Giventhelackoftechnologyacceptanceworkpreviouslyundertakeninmining,theresearchbuiltonthelong-establishedmethodformeasuringdriveracceptancedevelopedbyVanderLaan,HeinoandDeWaard(1997).Thismethodwasselectedbecauseithadbeenappliedinseveraldifferentstudiesofmeasuringacceptanceofin-vehiclesystems,asseeninotherchaptersinthisbook.Usingthetechnique,afive-pointratingscalewasusedforninequestionsratingacceptanceoftheinitialandalteredinterfacesoftheproximitydetectionsystem.Theheavy-vehicledriverswererequiredtoselectbetweenfiveboxesplacedbetweentwoopposingqualitativewords(thepositionofthepositiveandnegativewordswassometimesreversed).Thepositivewordsareshowninitalicsbelow(adaptedfromCookeandHorberry2011c):

1.Useful Useless2.Pleasant Unpleasant3.Bad Good4.Nice Annoying5.Effective Superfluous6.Irritating Likeable7.Assisting Worthless8.Undesirable Desirable9.RaisingAlertness SleepInducing

InthescoringsystemforthescalespreviouslyusedbyVanderLaanetal.(1997),themiddleboxrepresentedascoreof0,theboxeseithersiderepresented-1to+1andtheouterboxes+2or-2.However,inourcase,thescoringsystemwasadaptedtobepositivenumbersonly(1–5)toallowshapeplottingonaradargraph.Byjoiningupeachoftheratings,anirregularpolygonwasformedtovisuallycommunicatetheoverallchange.Thesumofallresponsesmadeupascoreforacceptance.ForVanderLaanetal.(1997),theninequestionsassess

systemacceptanceontwodimensions,aUsefulnessscale(questions1,3,5,7and9)andaSatisfyingscale(questions2,4,6and8).

Results

Usingthemeanratingsfromtheparticipants,agraphicalrepresentationwasplottedtorevealdriveracceptancewiththeinitialandrevisedproximitydetectionsystems.ThisisshowninFigure15.1:theacceptanceoftheinitialsystemisshowninthelightergreyandtheacceptanceoftherevisedinterfaceisshownindarkergrey.AtheoreticalmaximumacceptancescoreoffiveisshownbyasolidouterlinethatjoinsQ1–Q9inFigure15.1:thishasbeenincludedtoshowhowfartheratingsarefromthisceiling.AlsoshowninFigure15.1withadottedlineisa‘positive-negativeline’,representingthemidpointscoreofthree.Scoresthatareinsidethe‘positive-negativeline’thereforerepresentanegativeviewoftheinterfaceoneachoftheninequestions.FullresultscanbefoundinCookeandHorberry(2011c).

Discussion

Theresultsshowthat,beforethesystemchanges,drivers,onaverage,werenotacceptingofthedevice:findingitneitherparticularlyusefulnorsatisfying.Afterthesystemchanges,allmeasuressawamorepositiverating.Onsevenoftheninemeasureswiththerevisedinterface,driversgaveoverallpositiveratingsforthesystem.Boththetwonegativemeasures(Q4andmarginallyQ6)areinthe‘satisfying’componentoftheVanderLaanetal.(1997)acceptanceconstruct.Thepositiveratingsonsevenoutoftheninequestionsthereforeindicatesthatdrivershavemildlypositiveoverall‘acceptance’oftherevisedsystem,aremildlypositiveaboutits‘usefulness’(positiveratingsforQuestions1,3,5,7and9)andareneitherpositivenornegativeaboutits‘satisfaction’(duetopositiveratingsforQuestions2and8,butnegativeratingsforQuestions4and6).

Figure15.1Driveracceptanceratingsoftheinitialandrevisedproximitywarningsystems(adaptedfromCookeandHorberry2011c)

Duetothenatureofthistrial,itwasnotpossibletocounterbalancethebeforeandafterconditions.Assuch,itisacknowledgedthattheproceduremighthavebeenasourceofbias–forexample,duetothedrivers‘expecting’improvements.

Asinotheroccupationaldomains,acceptanceofnewtechnologyinminingisextremelyimportantinsubsequenttechnologyutilisation.Inisolatedminesiteenvironments,operatorssometimeshavetheopportunitytochoosetoavoidusingnewtechnologiesevenwhentheyaremandated.Therefore,ifdriversdonotacceptproximitydetectiontechnologythenitspotentialtopreventaccidentsmayneverberealised(CookeandHorberry2011c).Infieldusageconditions,theoriginalinterfaceshowedseveralnegativebehaviouralresponses,withsomedriversadmittingtoturningdownthesoundandbrightnessofthecomputerscreen,inordertoavoidthesystemasmuchaspossible(CookeandHorberry2011b).Thenewinterfacemadeimprovementstotheseobserveddeficiencies,forexample,bymakingtheauditorywarningtonemoresalient.Withimprovedacceptanceofthenewinterface,itisanticipatedthatthedriverswillbemuchlesslikelytotryandavoidusingthesystem.Theunderlyingassumptionbehindthisisthat,becausetheoperatorsaretheexperts,theiracceptanceisgenerallyrelatedtowhetherthetechnologyaidsthemindrivingtheheavyminingvehicles(CookeandHorberry2011c).Asminesiteaccidentsareextremelyrare,testingtheeffectivenessofaproximitydetectionsystemintermsofincidentratesisbothdifficultand,potentially,unethical.Also,eachminesiteisverydifferent,soundertakingthetypesoffieldoperationalteststhatarebeingincreasinglyusedinroadtransportwouldoftenbeimpracticalinthisdomain.

Conclusions

Newin-vehicletechnologies,includingproximitywarningandcollisiondetectionsystems,canhelpproducesignificantsafetyimprovementsinminingsituations,especiallywhereoff-roadhaulageisresponsibleforalargenumberoffatalities(Horberryetal.2010,Groves,KecojevicandKomljenovic2007).Mininghastheopportunitytolearnfromotherdomains,suchasroadtransportandaviation,todevelopandimplementtechnologyfrombothahuman-centredandanoperationalneedsperspective.Therefore,ratherthanbeingintroducedpurelybecauseprototypetechnologyisavailable,carefulconsiderationmustbegiventohowitwillsupportusers’tasks,beacceptabletooperatorsandintegratewithexistingworksystems.ItisrecommendedthatthegeneralHumanFactorsapproachofsystematicallyanalysingthetasksneedingtobeperformed,involvingoperatorsindevicedesigns,evaluationsandmodifications,andusingHumanFactorsinformationtodevelopappropriateinterfaces,areofkeyimportancetothedevelopmentanddeploymentofsuccessfultechnologiesinthisdomain.Inthisregard,miningisperhapsnodifferentfromroadtransport;operatoracceptanceoftechnologyisintricatelylinkedtoeffective,user-centreddesignanddeploymentprocesses.

Acknowledgements

TheauthorswouldliketoacknowledgethesupportofcolleaguesattheMineralsIndustrySafetyandHealthCentre,UniversityofQueensland,Australia.ThispaperwaspartlywrittenwiththesupportofanECMarieCurieFellowship‘SafetyinDesignErgonomics’(projectnumber268162)heldbythefirstauthorattheEngineeringDesignCentre,UniversityofCambridge,UK.

References

AustralianBureauofStatistics.2010.Australia’sProductionandTradeofMinerals.Availableat:http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/8418.0Main%20Features62009%20to%202010?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=8418.0&issue=2009%20to%202010&num=&view[accessed3April2012].

Bell,S.CollisionDetectionTechnologyOverview.2009.Availableat:http://www.dme.qld.gov.au/zone_files/mines_safety-

health/deedi_2009_proximity_workshop_ppt_p1-18.pdf[accessed17December2009].

Bersano,D.,Cigna,C.,Patrucco,M.,Pession,J.M.,Ariano,F.P.,Prato,S.,Romano,R.andScioldo,G.2010.Extractiveactivitiesstartupandmanagement:Acomputerassistedspeciallydeveloped‘Preventionthroughdesign’approach.InternationalJournalofMining,ReclamationandEnvironment,24(2):124–37.

Burgess-Limerick,R.2011.Avoidingcollisionsinundergroundmines.ErgonomicsAustralia–HFESA2011ConferenceEdition,11:7.

Cooke,T.andHorberry,T.2011a.Theoperabilityandmaintainabilityanalysistechnique:Integratingtaskandriskanalysisinthesafedesignofindustrialequipment.InContemporaryErgonomicsandHumanFactors2011.EditedbyM.Anderson.BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress.

———.2011b.Humanfactorsinthedesignanddeploymentofproximitydetectionsystemsformobileminingequipment.InContemporaryErgonomicsandHumanFactors2011.EditedbyM.Anderson.BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress:UK.

———.2011c.Driversatisfactionwithamodifiedproximitydetectionsysteminminehaultrucksfollowinganaccidentinvestigation.ErgonomicsAustralia–HFESA2011ConferenceEdition,11:30.

Dudley,J.,McAree,R.andLever,P.2010.Bridgingtheautomationgap.InAutomationforSuccess.MiningIndustrySkillsCentreReport.Downloaded30September2011fromhttp://www.miskillscentre.com.au/publications/automation-for-success.aspx.

Groves,W.A.,Kecojevic,V.J.andKomljenovic,D.2007.Analysisoffatalitiesandinjuriesinvolvingminingequipment.JournalofSafetyResearch,38(4):461–70.

Horberry,T.,Larsson,T.,Johnston,I.andLambert,J.2004.Forkliftsafety,trafficengineeringandintelligenttransportsystems:Acasestudy,AppliedErgonomics,35(6):575–81.

Horberry,T.,Burgess-Limerick,R.andSteiner,L.2010.HumanFactorsfortheDesign,OperationandMaintenanceofMiningEquipment.BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress.

Horberry,T.,Lynas,D.,Franks,D.M.,Barnes,R.andBrereton,D.2011.BraveNewMine:ExaminingtheHumanFactorsImplicationsofAutomationandRemoteOperationinMining.SecondInternationalFutureMiningConference.Sydney,Australia,22–23November.

Horberry,T.,Burgess-Limerick,R.andFuller,R.2013.Thecontributionsof

humanfactorsandergonomicstoasustainablemineralsindustry.Ergonomics,56(3):556–64.

Horberry,T.andLynas,D.2012.Humaninteractionwithautomatedminingequipment:Thedevelopmentofanemergingtechnologiesdatabase.ErgonomicsAustralia,8:1.

KovalchikP.G.,Matetic,R.J.,Smith,A.K.andBealko,S.B.2008.Applicationofpreventionthroughdesignforhearinglossintheminingindustry.JournalofSafetyResearch,39(2):251–4.

Li,X.,Powell,M.S.andMcKeague,W.2012.Unlockingprocessingpotentialbyempoweringouroperators.InProceedingsofthe11thAusIMMMillOperatorsConference,333–40.Hobart,Tasmania,29–31October.

Lynas,D.andHorberry,T.2011.Humanfactorsissueswithautomatedminingequipment.ErgonomicsOpenJournal,4(Suppl2-M3):74–80.

Sanders,M.S.andPeay,J.M.1998.HumanFactorsinMining.InformationcircularIC9182.Washington,DC:USBureauofMines,DepartmentoftheInterior.

Simpson,G.,Horberry,T.andJoy,J.2009.UnderstandingHumanErrorinMineSafety.Farnham:Ashgate.

VanderLaan,J.D.,Heino,A.andDeWaard,D.1997.Asimpleprocedurefortheassessmentofacceptanceofadvancedtransporttelematics.TransportationResearchPartC:EmergingTechnologies,5(1):1–10.

Chapter16Carrots,SticksandSermons:StatePolicyToolsforInfluencingAdoptionandAcceptanceofNewVehicle

SafetySystemsMatts-ÅkeBelin

SwedishTransportAdministration,VisionZeroAcademy,Borlänge,Sweden,andSchoolofHealth,CareandSocialWelfare,MälardalenUniversity,

Västerås,Sweden

EvertVedungInstituteforHousingandUrbanResearch,UppsalaUniversity,

Uppsala,Sweden

KhayesiMeleckidzedeckWorldHealthOrganization(WHO),DepartmentofViolenceandInjury

PreventionandDisability,Geneva,Switzerland

ClaesTingvallSwedishTransportAdministration,Borlänge,Sweden

DepartmentofAppliedMechanics,ChalmersUniversity,Gothenburg,Sweden

Introduction

Roadtrafficfatalitiesandinjuriesarearapidlyincreasinghealthproblemintheworld.TheWorldHealthOrganization(WHO)hasestimatedthatthenumberoftrafficfatalitieseachyearisapproximately1.2million,whileasmanyas50millionpeopleareinjured.Withoutconcertedaction,thenumberoffatalitiesandinjuriesisestimatedtoincreaseby65percentbetween2000and2020;andinlow-andmiddle-incomecountriesthenumberofpersonskilledintrafficcrashesisestimatedtoincreasebyasmuchas80percent(Pedenetal.2004).AccordingtotheWHO,roadtrafficcrashesweretheninthmostcommoncauseofdeathin2004.Ifthetrendcontinues,theywillbethefifthmostcommoncauseofdeathby2030(WHO2009).Despitethisgrimprojectionforroadtrafficcrashesatthegloballevel,therearemajorregionaldifferences.Forexample,inhigh-income

countriesinEurope,thetotalnumberoffatalitiescausedbytrafficcrashesisthelowestintheworld.

Intheroadtransportsystem,consistingofusers,vehiclesandenvironment(Haddon1980),thedesignof,andinteractionbetween,thesethreefactorsdeterminethesafetylevel.Vehiclesafetyisanareathatisgarneringmoreattentionincountrieswithalowshareoftrafficfatalitiesandtherearehighambitionsforitinthefieldofroadtrafficsafety.AgoodexampleisSwedenwithits‘VisionZero’policy(Belin,TillgrenandVedung2011).AccordingtotheEuropeanCommission,safevehiclesareakeycomponentincreatingasaferoadtransportnetwork.Vehicledesignisimportantforallroadusersandencompassesbothcrash-preventingpropertiesandpassive-damage-reducingpropertiesincaseofacrash(EuropeanCommission2009).ElectronicStabilityControl,WarningandEmergencyBrakingSystems,LaneSupportSystems,SpeedAlertsystemareall,amongothers,examplesofpromisingnewvehiclesafetytechnology(iCarSupportdatabase2012).

Safedesignsoffuturevehiclesareultimatelydeterminedbythecompaniesthatproducethem.Forcompaniestobeabletoselltheirproductsthereneedstobeademandamongconsumers.Therefore,consumerdemandandcompanies’estimationofthisdemandgreatlyinfluencethevehiclesthatareavailableforpurchase.

Anotherimportantstakeholderisthestate.Theroleofthestate,particularlywhether,whenandhowtointerveneinthemarketandaffairsofsociety,isalong-standingissueinpolicyresearchandpolitics(Parsons1995).Withrespecttoroadsafety,thestatehasvarioustoolsthatithasusedinothersectorsthatitcanemploytoinfluencethemarketforsafevehicles.TheaboverelationshipcanbedescribedaccordingtoFigure16.1.InthischapterthefocuswillbeonthefirstboxinFigure16.1.Thepurposeofthischapteristoexaminethetypesofgovernmentactionsthatarebeingtakentoinfluencethemarketforsafevehiclesandhowthepublicstrategieshavechangedovertime.Thischapterismainlydescriptiveandthereforewillnotdeeplydiscusswhichkindofpolicyinstrumentsandstrategiesaremosteffectiveininfluencingsocialacceptanceofsafevehicletechnology.

ToolsofGovernance:Carrots,SticksandSermons

Roadsafetyresearchtendstofocusontheeffectivenessofspecificmeasuressuchashelmets,seatbeltsandspeedcameras(see,e.g.,ElvikandVaa2004forasummaryofstudies).However,behindthesemeasuresisthestate,whose

contributionrangesfromformulatingpolicythroughtoenforcingtrafficlawstoprovidingresourcesneededforroadsafetymeasures.Thestatecarriesoutitsroleinroadsafetythroughanumberofpolicyinstruments.Literatureonstateinstrumentsshowsthatthestatehasanumberofpolicyinstrumentsatitsdisposal,whichcanbeusedtoensuresupportandeffectorpreventsocialchange(Vedung1998).Theseinstrumentscanbeclassifiedinanumberofdifferentwaysbut,accordingtoVedung(1997and1998),theycanbeputintothreemaincategories:

Figure16.1Theprocessofinfluencingthemarketforsafevehicles

•Sticks(regulations);•Carrots(economicmeans);and•Sermons(information).

Thestatecaneitherforceustodowhatitwants,rewardusorchargeusmateriallyfordoingit,orpreachtouswhatweshoulddo.Simplyput,governmentsmayvariouslyusesinglyorincombination,thestick,thecarrotorthesermon.Thebasisofthistrifolddivisionisthelevelofauthorityinrelationtothetargetgroup.Regulations(sticks)arecoerciveforthetargetgroupsubjectedtothem.Economicinstruments(carrots)involveeitherdistributingortakingawaymaterialresources.Whileeconomicinstrumentsmaybeextremelycontrollingforthetargetgroup,thereisstill,intheory,apossibilityforthetargetgroupnottofollowthestate’sintentions,attheriskofbeingmateriallyaffected.Inthecaseofinformation(sermon),thestatedisseminatesknowledge,arguments,advice,encouragingtalkandotherimmaterial(symbolic)assetstothetargetgroup.Thetargetgroupisneitherforcednorwillitsufferanyfinanciallossorenjoyanyrewardsifitpaysheedtoandfollowsthethrustofstateinformation(Vedung1997and1998).

Inthischapter,thefocuswillbeprimarilyontherolethestatecanplayinpromotingadoptionofroadvehiclesafetytechnology.Thebasicscenarioisthattechnologywhichmightenhanceroadusers’safetyexists,butisnotavailableon

technologywhichmightenhanceroadusers’safetyexists,butisnotavailableonthemarket,willnotreachthemarketquicklyenoughorwillonlybeavailabletoasmallnumberofroaduserswhocanaffordtopayforit.Weshallregardthisas‘failedmarketintroduction’.Dependingontheanalysisofthefailedmarketintroduction,thestatecanchoosebetweenthreestrategies:

1.Thefirststrategyisbasedontheassumptionthatthefailedmarketintroductionisduetothefactthattheautomotiveindustry,strivingtomaximisefinancialgain,estimatedthattherewouldbenodemandforcarswiththissafetytechnologyinstalledeventhoughitwouldbenefitthegreatercommunityofroadusers.Thestatecanthenforcetheautomotiveindustrytoequipthevehicleswiththedesiredtechnologybyintroducingaregulation.

2.Thesecondstrategyisbasedontheautomotiveindustryestimationthatthereisacertaindemandbutthatthenewsafetytechnologywillbetooexpensivetointroduce,orthatthetechnologywillresultintoosmallaprofit.Thestatecantheninvariouswaysmanipulatethemarkettoreducethecostsorincreasetheprofitfortheautomotiveindustrybyintroducingeconomicmeans.

3.Inthethirdscenario,thereisastrongpotentialdemandandfinanciallyviabletechnology,butknowledgeamongconsumersistoolow.Thestatecanthen,invariousways,informandconvinceboththeautomotiveindustryandconsumersaboutpositiveaspectsofthetechnology.InFigure16.2thesethreemainstrategiesareillustrated.

Figure16.2ThreebasictoolsofgovernanceforpromotingvehiclesafetytechnologyIthasnotbeenpossibletoamendthisfigureforsuitableviewingonthisdevice.PleaseseethefollowingURLforalargerversionhttp://www.ashgate.com/pdf/ebooks/9781472405852Fig16_2.pdf

Thefollowingsectionswillprovideexamplesofhowstatesutilisethethree

Thefollowingsectionswillprovideexamplesofhowstatesutilisethethreegovernancetoolstostimulatethesupplyofcertainsafetytechnologies.

TheFirstStrategy:RegulationsandVehicleSafety

On9September1966,then-presidentoftheUnitedStatesLyndonB.JohnsonsignedboththeNationalTrafficandMotorVehicleSafetyActandtheHighwaySafetyAct.Afederalroadtrafficsafetyinstitutionwasalsoestablished.Thisuniqueeventmeantthatthenewfederalauthoritywasgiven,fromacontemporaryperspective,averyprogressivemandatetogoverntheautomotiveindustry(Graham1989).Itwasnothinglessthanacomprehensiveshiftinpublicpolicy,whichmeantthattheAmericanstateabandonedanon-interventioniststrategywithregardstotheautomotiveindustryinfavourofaninterventioniststrategy(Vedung1998:2f).Apolicychangeofthismagnitudeismostlytheresultofaverycomplexprocessinvolvingmanystakeholders.AccordingtoGraham(1989),thepolicychangecanbeexplainedinpartbytheautomotiveindustry’sinabilitytoplaythepoliticalgametocombatfederallegislation,andinpartbyaverystrongconsumerrightsmovementledbyRalphNader.ThispolicychangeprovedofgreatsignificancenotonlytoroadtrafficsafetyworkintheUnitedStates;itaffectedotherhighlymotorisedcountriessuchasSweden,whichalsopassednationalvehiclelegislationand,in1968,establishedanationalroadtrafficsafetyagency,StatensTrafiksäkerhetsverk.AccordingtoStone(1982),thiswasalsothestartofaneraofgeneralconsumerprotectionwheretheAmericanCongresspassedanumberoflawsandmanyfederalauthoritieswereestablished,suchastheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA),OccupationalSafetyandHealthAdministration(OSHA)andsoon.Publicandgovernmenttrustintheabilityofcompaniesandthemarkettosatisfypeople’ssafetydemandswasextremelylow.AccordingtoStone(1982),thefederalregulationoftheautomotiveindustrywasjustifiedprimarilyongroundsofequity.Consumershadinformationdeficitinrelationtotheautomotiveindustryandtheregulationwasintendedtoforcetheautomotiveindustrytodevelopanddelivervehiclesthatmetatleastonesetofminimumsafetyrequirements.

Bytheendofthe1970s,therewerestrongviewsagainsttoomuchstateintervention.ThedownsideofanoverlyinterventioniststrategyintheformofincreasedbureaucracyandhighercostswereemphasisedandderegulationbecameanimportantwatchwordforRonaldReaganwhenhetookoveraspresidentin1981(Stone1982).Itwasn’tjustincreasingcostsorbureaucracythatmotivatedanincreasinganti-regulationview.Thestate’sambitionsto

thatmotivatedanincreasinganti-regulationview.Thestate’sambitionstoregulatetheautomotiveindustryseemedtoalsobringunwantedandperversesideeffects(Vedung1997),whichmeantthatregulationessentiallyreducedconsumers’accesstosafetytechnologyratherthanincreasingit.AccordingtoGraham(1989),thecoercivestrategythatwasemployedwhenitcametopassivesafetysystemswasmostlikelycounterproductiveanddelayedtheintroductionofairbags.Regulationinitselfcreatedstrongresistancefromtheautomotiveindustry,whichinturnmadedevelopmentandtheintroductionofnewsafetytechnologyharder.

TheSecondStrategy:EconomicInstrumentsandVehicleSafety

Economicpolicyinstrumentsexistinmanydifferentforms.Thereisanimportantdifferencebetweenmonetaryandnon-monetaryeconomicgovernancetools.Justlikeregulations,economictoolscanbeframedpositivelyasincentivesornegativelyasdisincentives(Vedung1997and1998).

Thestatecanuseanumberofdifferenteconomicinstrumentstoaffecttheintroductionofsafetytechnologyinthemarket.Inthissectionwewilllookattwoexamples,appliedindifferentareas:namely,publicallyfundedlarge-scaledemonstrationprojectsandpublicprocurement.

PublicallyFundedLarge-ScaleDemonstrationProjects

Large-scaledemonstrationprojectsarecommonlyusedbythestatetoreducecostsandincreasetheutilityforcompaniesthatwishtointroducenewtechnologytothemarket.Forexample,duringtheperiod1999–2002,theSwedishgovernmentconductedalarge-scaleattempttointroduceIntelligentSpeedAdaptationsystems(ISA)infourSwedishmunicipalities,atacostofapproximatelyUS$8.4million.Atotalof10,000driverstestedvariouspiecesofequipmentanddespiteitbeingprimarilyaresearchprojectitwasalsoastepinthebroaderimplementationofISAsystemsinSweden(Svedlund,BelinandLie2009).Thisdemonstrationprojectisanexampleofwherethegovernmentcreatesthefinancialandotherconditionsforcompaniestoshowcasetheirnewtechnologies.Anotherexampleofalarge-scaledemonstrationprojectaimedatamongotherthings,easingtheintroductionofnewsafetytechnologytothemarket,istheEuropeanCommission’sfinancingofandparticipationinFOT-NET(FOT-NET2012).FOT-NETarelarge-scaletestingprogramsaimingatacomprehensiveassessmentoftheefficiency,quality,robustnessandacceptance

ofICTsolutionsusedforsmarter,safer,cleanerandmorecomfortabletransportsolutions.

PublicProcurement

Publicstakeholdersinmanydirectandindirectways,affectthesafetyleveloftheroadtransportsystem.Publicprocurementhasformanyyearsbeenusedbygovernmentsasawayofreducingenvironmentalimpactsonsociety.Ithasbeenusedtoreachenvironmentalgoalsandisalsousedtoresearchvehiclesafetyandmeetroadtrafficsafetygoals.TheMonashUniversityAccidentResearchCentreinMelbourne,Australia,hassystematicallyidentifiedanumberofactivitiesthatpublicactorsperformtoimproveavehicle’ssafety(Haworth,TingvallandKowadlo2000).Forexample,whatwasthentheSwedishRoadAdministration,introducedatravelpolicythatmeantthatinternalsafetyrequirements,inadditiontocontemporarylegislation,wereplacedonvehiclesthatwerepurchasedandusedforwork-relatedtravel.Suchademandcouldbethatallvehicles–companycars,privatevehiclesandhiredvehicles–shouldbeequippedwithaspecificpieceofsafetyequipment.TheSwedishRoadAdministration’stravelpolicyspreadtootherpublic,nonprofitandprivateorganisationsandso,hadanindirecteffectontheoverallmarket.Thus,publicprocurementaimstocreateademandforsafetytechnologybycreatingeconomicincentivesforcompaniestoprovidevehicleswithahighsafetystandard.

TheThirdStrategy:InformationandVehicleSafety

Thethirdpolicyinstrumentstrategyaimstoexertinfluencethroughpersuasionandinformation.Economicandinformativemeansofcontrolaresimilarinthat,unlikeregulation,theylacktheelementofcoercion.Therecipientsarethereforefreetofolloworignoretherecommendationsastheyseefit.Thetargetgroupneitherbenefitsmateriallynorriskssufferinganymateriallossesduetotheiractions.Allthatisofferedisarguments.

VehicleRatingProgram

Asanalternativetogovernmentregulation,andasaresponsetothecriticismlevelledagainsttheregulationstrategy,theNationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration(NHTSA)launchedtheir1979crashtestassessmentprogramfor

newvehicles.TheNewCarAssessmentProgram(NCAP)aimedtoimprovepassengersafetythroughvehicletestingandevaluationinaccordancewithpredeterminedsafetycriteria.Theresultsofthesetestsaredisseminatedtoconsumerswhocanthencomparethesafetylevelsofdifferentvehicles.Theaimforthissortofratinginformationistoencouragetheautomotiveindustrytovoluntarilyimprovethesafetyoftheircars(USDepartmentofTransportation2007).Today,therearesimilarprogramsinEurope,JapanandAustraliaamongotherplaces(McIntosh2008).Althoughvehicleratingprogramsmainlycanbeseenasconsumerinformationaimedatpotentialbuyersandasawayofmakingtheirchoiceofsafecarseasier,theprogramsalso,toalargedegree,aimtodirectlyinfluencetheautomotiveindustryandincreasetheirincentivestocontinuouslyimprovethesafetystandardsoftheirvehicles.Thehopeisthatvehiclesthatdowellinthetestsandscorethehighestmarkswillalsosellbetterinthemarket.

DisseminationofScientificResults

Electronicstabilitycontrolsystems(ESC)haveproventobeveryefficientpiecesofroadtrafficsafetytechnologywithgreatpotentialtoreduceroadtrauma.TheESCmarketpenetrationinSwedenincreasedfrom15percentto90percentin48months(Krafftetal.2009).Averyquickdiffusionprocessofaninnovation(Rogers1983)canbedescribedinthestepsshowninFigure16.3:theECSseffectsarestudiedusingscientificmethodsandtheresultsareactivelydisseminatedbygovernmentalofficialsthroughthemedia;importantpurchaserspartakeoftheinformationandsomekeystakeholdersexpresstheirintentionsofonlypurchasingvehiclesthatareequippedwithESC;andimportersandproducersthenofferESCasstandardequipment.Thisisagoodexampleofhowfactualinformationaffectsconsumerdemandinthemarket,whichinturnaffectsthesupplyofsafetytechnology.

Figure16.3AprocessofinfluencingcarimportersandproducerstoinstallESCasstandardequipment

Vertical,HorizontalandChronologicalPackagingPolicyInstruments

Differentmeansofcontrol,strategiesandtheirdeploymentarerarelyimplementedinapureform.Mostofthetime,thedifferentmeansofcontrolandstrategiesarecombinedintovertical,horizontalorchronologicalpackages.Verticalpackagingiswhenameansofcontrolisaimedatonesetofactorsinordertoaffectthemtoperform,intheirturn,anactionthataffectsthefinaltargetgroup.Horizontalpackagingoccurswhentwoormoremeansofcontrolareaimedsimultaneouslyatthesametargetgrouptoreachthesameendtarget.Chronologicalpackagingoccurswhenvariouspolicyinstrumentsareappliedincertaintimesequences(Bemelmans-VidecandVedung1998).

Packagingofregulatory,economicandinformationalpolicyinstrumentstoaffectsupplyanddemandofroadvehiclesafetytechnologyisveryrelevant.AnexampleofverticalpackagingcouldbetheSwedishgovernment’sregulationthatplacesrequirementsongovernmentagenciesintheirprocurementofvehiclesandroadtransportationservices.From1February2009,governmentagencieswererequired(regulation)topurchaseonlyvehiclesandroadtransportationservicesthatmeethighenvironmentalandroadtrafficsafetyrequirements.Amongotherthings,carsthatareprocuredorhiredbyagovernmentagencyshouldbeequippedwithelectronicstabilitycontrolsystems.Thischainofinfluencethusleadsfromregulationtoaneconomicpolicyinstrument–namelyprocurement–whichinturnaffectstheautomotiveindustryintoproducingvehicleswithelectronicstabilitycontrolsystems.

Examplesofhorizontalpackagingcouldbewhenthegovernmentsimultaneouslyprocuresandprovidesinformationaboutthepositiveeffectsofelectronicstabilitycontrolsystems.Finally,anexampleofchronologicalpackagingcouldbewhenthegovernmentincreasesthemarketshareofvehiclesequippedwithelectronicstabilitycontrolsystemsbyprovidinginformationabouttheirperformanceand,thenatalaterpointintime,afterthemarketsharehasincreasedvoluntarily,regulatethetechnology.(TheEUhasproposedtomakeESCcompulsoryfornewcarsfrom2014onward.)

Conclusion

Inthischapter,differentpolicyinstrumentsandstrategiestoinfluencethemarketwithsafetytechnologyinroadvehicleshavebeenanalysed.Inmanyhigh-incomecountriesthenumberoffatalitieshasreachedarelativelylowlevel.

DuetoverydemandingroadsafetypoliciessuchasVisionZero,greatemphasisisoftenplacedontheuseofnewsafetytechnology.Althoughtheuseofregulationsarestillavailableasapolicyoptionforgovernmentstopromotetheimplementationofnewvehiclesafetysystems,thismechanismhas,inaglobalmarket,becomeincreasinglydifficulttoapply.Therefore,themodernstateneedstodevelopinnovativestrategiesandmechanismstoamplifyaswellaspromotesocietalacceptanceofnewtrafficsafetytechnology.

When,whereandwithinwhatculturalcontextisaspecificpolicyinstrumentorapackageofseveralpolicyinstrumentsmosteffectiveandappropriate?Toanswerthatquestion,furtherresearchisneeded.Forexample,asBelinetal.(2010)haveshowninacomparativestudyoftwodifferentspeedcamerasystems,evenifbothsystemstechnicallyhavethesameaim–toreducespeeding–theideasonhowthatshouldbeachieveddiffersubstantially.Interventionsarebasedeitherimplicitlyorexplicitlyontheoriesaboutthewayinwhichtheinterventionsaresupposedtowork(Hoogerwerf1990,SchneiderandIngram1990,Vedung1997,Rossi,LipseyandFreeman2004).Designandchoiceofpolicyinstrumentscanbeexpectedtovarywiththebackground,rolesandcognitiveorientationsofpolicymakers,aswellaswithcontextualfactorsthathavehistoricallyinfluencedtheirviewsoftheinstruments(LinderandPeters1989).Therefore,thechoiceofdifferentpolicyinstrumentsandpackagestrategiestoinfluenceroadvehiclesafetyiscomplexandnotsimplyamatterofchoosingthemosteffectiveinstrument.

References

Belin,M-Å.,TillgrenP.,Vedung,E.,Cameron,M.andTingvall,C.2010.SpeedcamerasinSwedenandVictoria,Australia:Acasestudy.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,42(6):2165–70.

Belin,M.-Å.,Tillgren,P.andVedung,E.2011.VisionZero:Aroadsafetypolicyinnovation.InternationalJournalofInjuryControlandSafetyPromotion,1–9.

Bemelmans-Videc,M-L.andVedung,E.1998.Conclusions:Policyinstrumentstypes,packages,choices,andevaluation’.InCarrots,SticksandSermons:PolicyInstrumentsandTheirEvaluation,249–73.EditedbyM-L.Bemelmans-Videc,R.C.Rist,andE.Vedung.NewBrunswick,NJ:TransactionPublishers:

Elvik,R.andVaa,T.2004.TheHandbookofRoadSafetyMeasures.AmsterdamandNewYork:Elsevier.

EuropeanCommission,Directorate-GeneralTransportandEnergy.2009.eSafety.Availableat:http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/pdf/esafety.pdf.

FOT-NET.2012.NetworkingforFieldOperationalTestsProject.Availableat:http://www.fot-net.eu/en/welcome_to_fot-net.htm[accessed6December2012].Brussels:EuropeanCommission.Graham,J.D.1989.Autosafety:AssessingAmerica’sPerformance.Boston,AuburnHousePublishingCompany.

Haddon,W.1980.Advanceintheepidemiologyofinjuriesasabasisforpublic-policy.PublicHealthReports,95(5):411–21.

Haworth,N.,Tingvall,C.andKowadlo,N.2000.ReviewofBestPracticeRoadSafetyInitiativesintheCorporateand/orBusinessEnvironment.Melbourne:MonashUniversityAccidentResearchCentre.

Hoogerwerf,A.1990.Reconstructingpolicytheory.EvaluationandProgramPlanning,13:285–91.

iCarSupportDatabase.2012.Availableat:http://www.esafety-effects-database.org/index.html[accessed6December2012].

Krafft,M.,Kullgren,A.,Lie,A.andTingvall,C.2009.From15%to90%ESCPenetrationinNewCarsin48Months:Theswedishexperience.Twenty-firstInternationalTechnicalConferenceontheEnhancedSafetyofVehicles.Stuttgart,Germany:USNationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration.

Linder,S.H.andPeters,B.G.1989.Instrumentsofgovernment:Perceptionsandcontexts.JournalofPublicPolicy,9(1):35–58.

McIntosh,L.2008.Wheredocarsafetyassessmentprogramsfitinwitha‘VisionZero’roadsafetysystem?27August.Availableat:http://www.ors.wa.gov.au/Documents/Conferences/conference-mcintosh-2008.aspx.

Parsons,D.W.1995.PublicPolicy:AnIntroductiontotheTheoryandPracticeofPolicyAnalysis.Brookfield,VT:EdwardElgar.

Peden,M.,Scurfield,R.,Sleet,D.,Mohan,D.,Hyder,A.andJarawan,E.2004.WorldReportonRoadTrafficInjuryPrevention.Geneva:WorldHealthOrganization.

Rogers,E.M.1983.DiffusionofInnovations.NewYork:FreePress.Rossi,P.H.,Lipsey,M.W.andFreeman,H.E.2004.Evaluation:ASystematic

Approach.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.Schneider,A.andIngram,H.1990.Behavioralassumptionsofpolicytools.

JournalofPolitics52(2):510–29.

Stone,A.1982.RegulationandItsAlternatives.Washington,DC:CongressionalQuarterlyPress.

Svedlund,J.,Belin,M-Å.andLie,A.2009.ISAImplementationinSweden:FromResearchtoReality.IntelligentSpeedAdaptationConference2009.Sydney:NewSouthWalesCentreforRoadSafety.

USDepartmentofTransportation.2007.TheNewCarAssessmentProgramSuggestedApproachesforFutureProgramEnhancements.Washington,DC:USNationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration.

Vedung,E.1997.PublicPolicyandProgramEvaluation.NewBrunswick,NJ:TransactionPublishers.

———.1998.Policyinstruments:Typologiesandtheories.InCarrots,SticksandSermons:PolicyInstrumentsandTheirEvaluation,2158.EditedbyM-L.Bemelmans-Videc,R.C.RistandE.Vedung.NewBrunswick,NJ:TransactionPublishers.

WorldHealthOrganization(WHO).2009.GlobalStatusReportonRoadSafety:TimeforAction.Geneva:WHO.

PARTVOptimisingDriverAcceptance

Chapter17DesigningIn-VehicleTechnologyforUsability

AlanStevensTransportResearchLaboratory,UK1

GaryBurnettHumanFactorsResearchGroup,FacultyofEngineering,

UniversityofNottingham,Nottingham,UK

Abstract

Usabilityofin-vehicletechnologyisakeycontributortodrivers’acceptanceofit.Thischapterfocusesonusability,includinghowusabilityisdefined,howitcanbemeasuredandhowitcanbeenhancedthroughdesign.Thechapterdescribesarangeofinternationalregulationsanddesignguidelinesforinformationsystems,warningsystemsandassistancesystemsthatattempttopromoteusabilitybyincorporatingbestpractice,bothindesignandinthedesignprocess.Althoughthetechniquechosen,theequipmentusedandthetestingenvironmentneedtobecarefullychosendependingonthein-vehiclesystemandtheevaluationquestionbeingaddressed,itisconcludedthatusabilityisakeycontributortodrivers’acceptanceofin-vehicletechnologyandthatitcanbemeasured.

IntroductionandScope

TheTechnologyAcceptanceModel(Davis,BagozziandWarshaw1989),describeshowperceivedusefulnessandeaseofusearethemaindeterminantsofattitudetowardsatechnology,whichinturnpredictsbehaviouralintentiontouseand,ultimately,actualsystemuse.InthischapterweshalldefineusabilityandrelateittotheconceptsofacceptancewithintheTechnologyAcceptanceModelbeforedescribinghowusabilitycanbemeasuredandenhancedthroughdesign.

Withtheprofusionofinformationandentertainmentoptionsavailabletodrivers,themoderncarhasbeendescribedas‘aSmartPhoneonwheels’(e.g.,Toyota2011).Informationmaybepresentedbothin-vehicleandexternallyand

needstoberelevant,timely,consistentanduseful.Thechallengeistoprovidetheinformationandservicesdemandedbydriversthatareusablewithoutcausingunsafedistractionandoverload.

Aswellasinformationandentertainment,in-vehiclesensor,communicationsandprocessingtechnologycanassistthedriverbyprovidingadviceandwarningsconcerningthevehicle’simmediateenvironment.Suchwarningshavetobeperceived,understoodasrelevantandacteduponappropriately,iftheyaretobeeffective(Wogalter2006).Issuessuchasperceivedfalsealarmratealsohavetobecarefullyconsideredthroughuser-centreddesigntoensureusabilityandpromotedriveracceptance(seeChapter9byJan-ErikKällhammerandcolleaguesearlierinthisbookforfurtherdiscussionaboutwarningsandfalsealarms).

Withdrivererrorconsistentlyidentifiedasacontributoryfactorinmorethan90percentofvehiclecrashes(Treatetal.1977),vehicledesignersarenowofferingsystemsthatprovideautomationofspecificelementsofthedrivingtask.Systemscanevenbedesignedtointerveneinvehiclecontroltoavoidormitigateanimpendingcollision.Nevertheless,usabilityissuesaroundhowthevehicle‘feels’andrespondsandhowcontrolispartitionedbetweenthevehicleandthedriverarecrucialtoachievingdrivertrustandacceptance.

Usability

Usabilityasaconceptaroseinthelate1970sandearly1980sasdesktopcomputersemergedwithgraphicaluser-interfacesdesignedforthemassmarket.Arangeofdefinitionshasbeenproposedinsubsequentyears,whichdependspredominantlyonwhetherusabilityisviewedasapropertyofaproduct/systemoranoutcomeofuse(Bevan2001).ThispointisspecificallymadeintheInternationalOrganizationforStandardization(ISO)/InternationalElectrotechnicalCommission(IEC)25010(2011:12),whichconsiderssoftwarequality:

Usabilitycaneitherbespecifiedormeasuredasaproductqualitycharacteristicintermsofitssubcharacteristics,orspecifiedormeasureddirectlybymeasuresthatareasubsetofqualityinuse.

Arguably,therehasbeengreaterimpactfromdefinitionsofusabilitythatconsidertheoutcomesthatemergefromuser-systeminteraction.Inthisrespect,themostwell-knownandutiliseddefinitionisgiveninISO9241(1998:2),whereusabilityisdefinedas

whereusabilityisdefinedas

Theextenttowhichaproductcanbeusedbyspecifieduserstoachievespecifiedgoalswitheffectiveness,efficiencyandsatisfactioninaspecifiedcontextofuse

Effectivenessisessentiallyaboutwhethertasksareachievedornotwithaproductandthis,inturn,largelydependsontheextenttowhichaproductdoeswhatitwasdesignedtodo.Forsimplesystems/functionsthiscanbeablack/white(yes/no)issue.Forexample,ifagoalistoturnonanin-carentertainmentsystem,thenwemayconsiderwhetherthisgoalwasachievedornot.Formorecomplextasks,itmaybebettertothinkofthedegreeofsuccess,astheremaybepartialsuccesses.Forexample,withthetask‘planaroute’withanavigationsystem,ausermaybeabletofindandopenthenavigationfunction,enteradestination,selectarouteandsoon,butnotbeabletoviewthecompleterouteonamappriortostartingajourney.Althoughthismaynotbecriticaltoachievingaplannedroute,theinabilitytopreviewitmayimpactacceptanceofthenavigationsystemforsomeusers.

Figure17.1UsabilityComponents(conceptfromISO92411998)

Itisimportanttonotethattwosystemscouldhavethesameeffectiveness(i.e.,canachievegoalsinboth),butthe‘cost’totheusermaybeverydifferentbetweenthesystems.Forexample,itcouldtakemuchlongerwithonethantheotherorbemoredemandingphysicallyandmentally.Theusabilityfactor,efficiency,considerstheseresourcesrequiredtoachieveatask.Reducedefficiencycanbebroughtaboutby‘deviationsfromcriticalpath’,reflectingthe

factthatmosttaskshaveacriticalpathforperformance–thatis,amethodthatrequirestheleaststeps/effort.Anydeviationsfromthispathwillmaketheuser’sperformancewithasystemlessefficient.Errorsareclearlyofsignificancetoefficiency,particularlywhenconsideringthesafety-criticaldrivingsituationwheretheconsequencesoferrormaybesignificant.

Whereastheconceptsofeffectivenessandefficiencyareessentiallyobjectivecriteria,satisfaction,thethirdfactorintheISO9241definition,islargelyasubjectiveviewpointonusability,andiswherequestionnairesandinterview-basedtechniquescanbeparticularlyuseful.Forinstance,anevaluationteammayaskquestionssuchas‘howeasy/difficultwasittouse?’,‘Wasitenjoyabletouse?’,‘Wereanyaspectsannoying?’,‘Whatfeatureswereliked/disliked?’andsoon.

Severalauthorshavenotedthatsatisfactionistoorestrictiveasacriterionforsuccessinmoderncomputingproductdesign(e.g.,Rogers,SharpandPreece2011,Jordan2000).Onemaythinkofproducts,suchascomputergames,appsonsmartphones,aswellasin-vehicleentertainmentsystemswhichcouldbedescribedas‘engaging’,‘entertaining’,‘fun’,‘sociable’,‘exciting’andsoon.Satisfactionwasconceivedasacriterionforusabilitywhensoftwareandhardwarewasgenerallyconsideredinawork(office)context.Incontrast,moderncomputingproductsarepervasivewithineverydaylifesituations,includingthesituationofdrivingavehicleequippedwithconsiderablecomputingandcommunicationspower.Consequently,abroaderrangeofconceptsbecomeimportantrelatingtotheaffectiveneedsofusers,whichwecanthinkofasanextensionofthesatisfactionfactor.Twokeylabelsarecommonlyusedtodescribethiswiderviewofusability:emotionaldesign(Norman2004)andpleasure-baseddesign(Jordan2000).

NoneofthethreeelementsofusabilitywithintheISO9241definitionhaveadimensionoftimeorexposuretothesystem;however,thisshortcomingisaddressedintheworkofJordan(1998)whichintroducedfivehigherordercomponentsforusability:

•Guessability(theabilitytopredictwithoutfullinformation)isparticularlyimportantforproductswhichhaveahighproportionofone-offusers,forexample,ahiredcar,orproductswithanumberofrarelyusedfunctions.Poorguessabilitycanputpeopleoff,andmayhavesafetyimplicationsevenifthey’reactuallyeasytousewithpractice.

•Learnabilityconcernsthecosts(time,effort,etc.)toauserinreachingacompetentlevelofperformance.Thiswillbeimportantiftrainingtimeisshort,orifauseristobeself-taught,asisoftenthecasewithvehicle

short,orifauseristobeself-taught,asisoftenthecasewithvehiclesystems.

•ExperiencedUserPotential(EUP)istheperformanceofsomeonewhohasconsiderableexperiencewithaproduct–theexpertuser.Inotherwords,thelikelyefficiencyoftheinterfaceforaproficientuser(withefficiencyoneelementofusability).Thisisimportantifahighlevelofknowledge(breadthanddepth)and/orskillsisneeded,andtraining/timetoreachitisnotasignificantissue,forexample,basicdrivingskills.

•Systempotentialisthemaximumperformancetheoreticallypossiblewiththesystem–andisessentiallyanupperlimitonEUP;forexample,theminimumnumberofkeypressesrequiredtoachieveatask.ItisimportantifitislimitingEUP(andEUPisimportant).Forexample,itmaybethatauserhastogothroughsetkey-presses.Shortcutoptions(e.g.,throughacommand-basedspeechsystem)canraisethesystempotentialandhenceEUPifusersaremadeawareofthemandcaneasilyaccess/rememberthem.

•Re-usability(ormemorability)isthedecrementinperformancefollowingaperiodoftimeawayfromaproduct–ausermayforgetwhatafunctiondoesorhowtoaccessitandsoon.Itisanimportantaspectofusabilitywhenaproductorproductfunctionsarelikelytobeusedinintermittentbursts;forexample,anavigationsystembeingusedonholiday.

Althoughdesktopcomputerswerethesubjectofinitialusabilitystudies,thischapterconcernsusabilityinthecontextofthedrivingenvironmentwherethesystembeingexaminedmaynotbetheprimaryfocusofattention.ThisspecificcontextofapplicationwasthesubjectoftheISOstandard(ISO17287:2003:5)whichdefinedanewconcept‘suitability’as‘thedegreetowhicha[system]isappropriateinthecontextofthedrivingenvironmentbasedoncompatibilitywiththeprimarydrivingtask’.Suitabilityfocusesontwoelementsofproductusealreadydiscussedaboveasimportantinusability:efficiency,andeaseofusewhilelearningaboutanewsystem.Moreover,theconceptofsuitabilityintroducestwonewelementsspecificallyrelatedtothedrivingcontext:

•Controllability(essentially,theeffectivenessinthedrivingcontext);and•Interference(withthedrivingtask).

TheinternationalstandardonSuitability(ISO172872003)alsodescribesaprocessforassessingwhetheraspecificin-vehicletechnologysystemoracombinationofsystemswithotherin-vehiclesystemsissuitableforusebydriverswhiledriving.

driverswhiledriving.

UsabilityandAcceptability

AfurtherperspectiveonusabilityisgivenbyNielsen(1993)inwhichitisdefinedintermsoffivekeyattributesforproducts:learnability,efficiency,memorability,errorsandsatisfaction.Thisbreakdowntakesquiteanarrowstanceonusability,butisofparticularinteresthereasusabilityisexplicatedintermsofbroadercriteria,includingacceptability.Specifically,Nielsenbelievestheoverallconsiderationissystemacceptability(theextenttowhichrequirementsaremet,bothsocialandpractical).Forpracticalacceptability,severalcriteriaareofrelevance,includingcost,reliability,compatibilityandusefulness.ThislatterfactorofusefulnessisanalogoustoeffectivenessintheISO9241definitionandcomprisestheutilityoftheproduct/systemandtheusability.Thedistinctionbetweentheseconstructsisimportanttoanyviewonusability.Asanexample,acarwithoutlightswouldbeconsideredtobeunusableaccordingtotheISOdefinitions,butlackinginutilityaccordingtoNielsen.

Somekeyimplicationsemergefromthesealternativedefinitionsforvehicle-basedtechnologiesandissuesofacceptance.Tounderstandusabilitywemustspecifyourusersandconsequentlyunderstandtherelevantcharacteristics(drivingexperience,technologyexperience,expectationsandsoon).Wemustalsounderstandwhatuserswishtoachievewithanin-vehicleproductandconsiderindetailthephysical,socialandpotentialorganisationalenvironmentinwhichtasksarecarriedout.Withoutthisknowledge,wecannotmakeanystatementsaboutwhetheraproductisusableormoreorlessusablethananotherproduct.

Toexplorefurthertherelationshipbetweenusabilityandacceptability,itisusefultoconsidertheTechnologyAcceptanceModel(TAM–Davisetal.1989).Thisdescribeshowperceivedusefulnessandeaseofusearethemaindeterminantsofattitudetowardsatechnology,whichinturnpredictsintentiontouseandultimately,actualsystemuse.Now,fromtheISO9241definitionofusability,therearethreeelements:effectiveness,efficiencyandsatisfaction.ItisimmediatelyclearthatTAM’sUsefulnessalignswiththeEffectivenesselementofusabilityandTAM’sEaseofUsealignswiththeEfficiencyelementofusability.Satisfaction,thethirdelementintheISO9241definition,islikelytocontributetotheperceptionaspectsofbothUsefulnessandEaseofUseor(alternatively)couldberegardedasasupplementaryfactorinanenhancedmodeldirectlyinfluencingIntentiontouseandActualSystemUse.Sofromthis,

itisclearthatthethreeusabilityfactorsintheISO9241definitionwilleachhaveadirectimpactontheoverallacceptanceofanin-vehiclesystem.

DesignGuidelines

Introduction

Theprevioussectionhasdemonstratedhowusability(andrelatedconcepts)directlyinfluenceacceptanceofnewtechnologyanddiscussedtheimportantroleofthedriverinterfaceofthosesystemsindeterminingusability.

Thissectionreviewsarangeofstandardsandguidelinesthatareavailabletoproductdesignersthataimtopromotesafetyandusabilityinthedrivingcontext.Althoughgooddesignadvicecannotguaranteeusabilityoracceptance,itsuseislikelytoleadtomoreusableinterfacesandhencehelpproducetechnologiesthataremoreacceptable.

InternationalRegulationsandStandards

Aconsiderablevolumeofinternationalregulationexistsinrelationtodesignrequirementsformotorvehiclesthataimstoensurethattechnologywithinvehiclescanbeusedsafely.TheViennaConventiononRoadTraffic(ViennaConvention1968),forexample,isaninternationaltreatydesignedtofacilitateinternationalroadtrafficandtoincreaseroadsafetybystandardisinguniformtrafficrules.Oneofthemostquotedextractsistherequirementthat‘Everydrivershallatalltimesbeabletocontrolhisvehicle’.TheUnitedNationsEconomicCommissionforEurope(UNECE)TransportDivisionprovidessecretariatservicestotheWorldForumforHarmonizationofVehicleRegulations.TheWorldForum,throughitspermanentWorkingParty29(WP29)providestheregulatoryframeworkfortechnologicalinnovationsinvehiclestomakethemsaferandtoimprovetheirenvironmentalperformance(UNECE2012).

Althoughnotlegallybinding,internationalstandardsprovideprocess,designandperformanceadviceandthefollowingISOgroupsareworkinginareasrelevanttovehicledesignandusability:

•ISOTC22SC13WG8coveringbasicstandardsforHumanFactorsdesignofin-vehiclesystems;

•ISOTC204WG14concerningvehicleandcooperativeservices(andsomeinterfaceissues)including,forexample,LaneDepartureWarningand

interfaceissues)including,forexample,LaneDepartureWarningandautomaticEmergencyBrakingSystems;and

•ISOTC204WG17concerningnomadicandportabledevicesforITSservices.

EuropeanRegulations

During2010theEuropeanCommission(EC)publishedastudyontheregulatorysituationintheMemberStatesregardingbrought-in(i.e.,nomadic)devicesandtheiruseinvehicles,whichhighlightedthediversityofapproachesacrossmemberstates(EuropeanCommission2010).

Attheendof2008,theEuropeanCommissionpublishedanactionplanfollowedbyadirectivein2010(EuropeanCommission2010),whichhasprovisionsforthedevelopmentofspecificationsandstandardsforITSroadsafetyincludingHMIandtheuseofnomadicdevices.

USRegulations

IntheUS,lawsaboutin-vehicledistractiongenerallyfallunderthejurisdictionofindividualstatesbutwithsomeatthenational(federal)level.Asanexampleofstateprovision,theStateofNevadapassedalawinJune2011concerningtheoperationofdriverless(fullyautomated)carswherebytheNevadaDepartmentofMotorVehiclesisresponsibleforsettingsafetyandperformancestandardsandfordesignatingareaswheredriverlesscarsmaybetested.

Asanexampleofnationalprovision,inOctober2009PresidentObamaissuedanexecutiveorderprohibitingfederalemployeesfromtextingwhiledriving.Thisorderisspecifictoemployees’useofgovernment-ownedvehiclesorprivatelyownedvehicleswhileonofficialgovernmentbusinessandincludestexting-while-drivingusingwirelesselectronicdevicessuppliedbythegovernment.

DesignGuidelinesforInformationandCommunicationSystems

Europe:EuropeanStatementofPrinciples

TheEuropeanCommission(EC)hassupportedthedevelopmentofadocumentcalledthe‘EuropeanStatementofPrinciplesonHMI’(referredtoasESoP)whichprovideshigh-levelHMIdesignadvice(EC2008).AsanEC

recommendation,ithasthestatusofarecommendedpracticeorcodeofpractice(CoP)foruseinEurope.TheECrecommendationalsocontains16recommendationsforsafeuse(RSU),whichbuildonhealthandsafetylegislationbyemphasisingtheresponsibilityoforganisationsthatemploydriverstoattendtoHMIaspectsoftheirworkplace.AdherencetotheRSUislikelytopromotegreateracceptanceoftechnologybydrivers.

Thedesignguidelines-partoftheESoPcomprises34principlestoensuresafeoperationwhiledriving.Thesearegroupedintothefollowingareas:OverallDesignPrinciples,InstallationPrinciples,InformationPrinciples,InteractionswithControlsandDisplaysPrinciples,SystemBehaviourPrinciplesandInformationabouttheSystemPrinciples.

UnitedStates:AllianceandNHTSAUSmotorvehiclemanufacturershavedeveloped‘AllianceGuidelines’thatcoversimilar,high-level,designprinciplestotheESoP.Theguidelines(AutoAlliance2006)consistof24principlesorganisedintofivegroups:InstallationPrinciples,InformationPresentationPrinciples,PrinciplesonInteractionswithDisplays/Controls,SystemBehaviourPrinciplesandPrinciplesonInformationabouttheSystem.

TheUSNationalHighwayTransportationSafetyAdministration(NHTSA)hasworkedwiththeautoindustryandthecellphoneindustrytodevelopasetofguidelinesforvisual-manualinterfacesforin-vehicletechnologies.ThesearebasedontheESoP/Allianceguidelinesandintroducesomespecificassessmentprocedures(NHTSA2013).

TheNHTSAplanstopublishguidelinesforportabledevicesin2013andguidelinesforvoiceinterfacesby2014.Anothersuggestionhasbeenimplementationofa‘carmode’onportabledevices,similarto‘airplanemode’.Theideawouldbetodisablecertainfunctionswhenthevehicleismoving.

Japan:JAMATheJapaneseAutoManufacturersAssociation(JAMA)Guidelinesconsistoffourbasicprinciplesand25specificrequirementsthatapplytothedriverinterfaceofeachdevicetoensuresafeoperationwhiledriving.Specificrequirementsaregroupedintothefollowingareas:InstallationofDisplaySystems,FunctionsofDisplaySystems,DisplaySystemOperationWhileVehicleinMotionandPresentationofInformationtoUsers.Additionally,therearethreeannexes:DisplayMonitorLocation,ContentandDisplayofVisualInformationWhileVehicleinMotionandOperationofDisplayMonitorsWhileVehicleinMotion.Thereis,aswell,oneappendix:OperationofDisplay

VehicleinMotion.Thereis,aswell,oneappendix:OperationofDisplayMonitorsWhileVehicleinMotion.

WarningGuidelines

Guidelinesonestablishingrequirementsforhigh-prioritywarningsignalshavebeenunderdevelopmentformorethanfiveyearsbytheUNECE-WP29’sITSInformalGroup(Warningguidelines2011).

Therehasalsobeenworkinstandardisationgroupstoidentifyhowtoprioritisewarningswhenmultiplemessagesneedtobepresentedandone‘Technicalspecification’(TS)hasbeenproduced:

•ISO/TS16951:RoadVehicles–Ergonomicaspectsoftransportinformationandcontrolsystems–Proceduresfordeterminingpriorityofon-boardmessagespresentedtodrivers.

Inaddition,twoTechnicalReportsarerelevantthatcontainamixtureofgeneralguidanceinformation,wheresupportedbytechnicalconsensus,anddiscussionofareasforfurtherresearch:

•ISO/PDTR16352:RoadVehicles–Ergonomicaspectsoftransportinformationandcontrolsystems–MMIofwarningsystemsinvehicles;and

•ISO/PDTR12204:RoadVehicles–Ergonomicaspectsoftransportinformationandcontrolsystems–Introductiontointegratingsafetycriticalandtimecriticalwarningsignals.

DriverAssistanceSystemGuidelines

TohelppromotedriveracceptanceofAdvancedDriverAssistanceSystems(ADAS),akeyissueisensuringcontrollability.Controllabilityisdeterminedbythepossibilityanddriver’scapabilitytoperceivethecriticalityofasituation;thedriver’scapabilitytodecideonappropriatecountermeasures(e.g.,overridingorswitchingoffthesystem)andthedriver’sabilitytoperformanychosencountermeasures(takingaccountofthedriver’sreactiontime,sensory-motorspeedandaccuracy).Driverswillexpectcontrollabilitytoexistinalltheirinteractionswithassistancesystems

•duringnormalusewithinsystemlimits;•atandbeyondsystemlimits;and

•atandbeyondsystemlimits;and•duringandaftersystemfailures.

TheEuropeanprojectRESPONSEhasdevelopedacodeofpracticefordefining,designingandvalidatingADAS(Cotter,HopkinsandWood2007,ACEA2009).ThecodedescribescurrentproceduresusedbythevehicleindustrytodevelopsafeADASwithparticularemphasisontheHumanFactorsrequirementsfor‘controllability’.

AnotherEuropeanproject,ADVISORS(Cotteretal.2008),hasattemptedtointegratetheRESPONSEcodewithinawiderframeworkofuser-centreddesigntakingaccountoftheusabilityofinformation,warningandassistancesystems.ThereisalsoactivitybytheInternationalHarmonizedResearchActivities–IntelligentTransportSystems(IHRA-ITS)WorkingGrouptodevelopasetofhigh-levelprinciplesforthedesignofdriverassistancesystems(IHRA-ITS2012).

Figure17.2OverviewoftheRESPONSEcodeofpracticefordesignofin-vehicleinformationandassistancesystems

MethodsRelatedtoUsabilityMeasurementandIn-VehicleSystems

Amethodfortestingtheusabilityofin-carsystemscanbeseentobeacombinationofthreefactors(Burnett2009):

1.Whichenvironmentisthemethodusedin(road,testtrack,simulator,laboratory,etc.)?Choosinganenvironmentwillbelargelyinfluencedbypracticalconsiderations,theknowledge/skillsofthedesign/evaluationteamandresourcelimitations.Fundamentally,thereisoftenatradeoffinchoosingamethodenvironmentbetweentheneedforinternalvalidity(control)andtheecologicalvalidityofresults(Parkes1991).Forinstance,roadtrialsmayhavehighecologicalvalidity(weareconfidentthatthephenomenonbeingobserveddoesariseintherealworld),butmayhavepoorinternalvalidity(wemaynotbeabletounderstandclearlywhysuchbehaviourarises).

2.Whichtaskmanipulationsoccur(multipletask,singletaskloading,notasksgiven,etc.)?Incertainmethods,thereisanattempttoreplicateorsimulatethemultipletasknatureofdriving.Forothermethods,performanceand/orbehaviouronasingletaskmaybeassessedandthepotentialimpactonothertasksisinferredfromthis.Othermethodsconsiderunderlyingopinionsandattitudes(e.g.,questionnairesurveys,interviews)ormaynotinvolveusers,aiminginsteadtopredictimpactsorissues;forinstance,throughtheuseofexpertratingsormodellingtechniques.

3.Whichdependentvariables(operationalisedasmetrics)areofinterest?Somewillrelatetodrivers’performancewithprimarydrivingtasks(e.g.,laneposition,hazarddetection)ortheiruseofprimaryvehiclecontrols(e.g.,useofbrake,steeringwheel).Othermetricsfocusondriverperformance,thedemandofsecondarytasks(e.g.,tasktimes,errors,displayglances)orvariousphysiologicalparameters(ECG,EEG,EMG,etc.).

AsnotedbyRogersetal.(2011),indecidingonanymethod,thedesignteammustconsidertheoverallgoalsofthework,specificquestionstobeaddressed,thepracticalandethicalissuesandhowdatawillneedtobeanalysedandreported.Bynecessity,manybespokemethods(oratleastspecificversionsofgenericmethods)arerequiredthataccountfortheparticularlycomplex

characteristicsofthedrivingcontext.ArecentUSstudy(Ranneyetal.2011)assesseddifferentmethods(tests)ofdistractionpotentialinpreparationfortheNHTSAguidelines.Somewell-knownandcommonlyusedmethodswhichshedlightonusabilityandhencedriveracceptance,canbesummarised:

Roadtrials–Driverstakepartinashort-term(normallylessthanoneday)focusedstudyoranaturalisticlong-termstudy(acrossmanydays/months).Participantsmayuseasysteminaninstrumentedcarortheirownvehicleonpublicroads(occasionallyontesttracks).Forsuchtrials,awiderangeofvariablesmaybemeasuredandanalysed(e.g.,visualbehaviour,workload,vehiclecontrol,subjectivepreference)dependingontheaimsofthestudy.

Simulatortrials–Driverstakepartinashort-term(normallylessthanoneday)focusedstudyusingasystemfittedormockedupwithinadrivingsimulator.Thefaithfulnesswithwhichasimulatorrepresentsthedrivingtask(knownasitsfidelity)canvaryconsiderably.

Occlusion–Thisisastandardisedlaboratory-basedmethod(ISO2007)whichfocusesonthevisualdemandofin-vehiclesystems.Participantscarryouttaskswithanin-vehiclesystemwhilstwearingcomputer-controlledgogglesthatcanopenandshutinaprecisemanner.Consequently,bystipulatingacycleofvisionforashortperiodoftime(e.g.,1.5seconds),followedbyanocclusioninterval(e.g.,1.5seconds),glancingbehaviourismimickedinacontrolledfashion(Stevens,BurnettandHorberry2010).

Peripheraldetection–Thismethodrequiresdriverstocarryouttaskswithanin-carsystem(eitheronroadorinasimulator)andtorespondtochangeswithintheirperiphery(e.g.,thepresenceoflightsorthemodificationofashapeforanobject).Thespeedandaccuracyofresponsesareconsideredtorelatetothementalworkloadanddistractionassociatedwithsecondarytasks.Inadevelopmentofthemethod,someresearchhasconsideredthepotentialfortheuseofatactiledetectiontask,wheredriversrespondtovibro-tactilestimulation(e.g.,throughthewristorontheneck)whilstinteractingwithanin-vehiclesystem(Engström,AbergandJohansson2005,Diels2011).

Lanechangetask–Thisstandardisedmethod(ISO2010)occursinabasicPCsimulatedenvironmentinwhichdriversarerequestedtomakevariouslanechangemanoeuvreswhilstengagingwithanin-vehiclesystem.Theextenttowhichtheprofileofmanoeuvremadebyadrivervariesfromtheoptimummanoeuvre(thenormativemodel)isconsideredtobeameasureofthequalityoftheirdriving.

KeystrokeLevelModel(KLM)–TheKLMmethodisaformoftaskanalysisinwhichsystemtaskswithagivenuser-interfacearebrokendownintotheir

underlyingphysicalandmentaloperations;forexample,pressingbuttons,movinghandbetweencontrolsandscanningforinformation.Timevaluesareassociatedwitheachoperatorandsummedtogiveapredictionoftasktimes.InanextensionoftheKLMmethod,Pettitt,BurnettandStevens(2007)havedevelopednewrulesthatenabledesignerstodeveloppredictionsforarangeofvisualdemandmeasures.

Conclusions

Thischapterhasdiscussedhowusabilitycanusefullybeconsideredintermsofeffectiveness,efficiencyandsatisfaction,allthreeofwhichcontributetoadrivers’judgementoftheacceptabilityofin-vehicletechnology.

Thechapterhasreviewedarangeofregulations,standardsanddesignguidelinesthataimtoencouragebetter-designedin-vehicletechnologythatshouldalsohelptopromotedriveracceptance.AlthoughbasicHumanFactorsprinciplesareestablished,therapiddevelopmentofin-vehicletechnologypresentsachallengeforupdatingregulationsanddetaileddesignguidance.

Finally,thechapterhasexploredarangeofmethodsthroughwhichusabilitycanbeevaluated.Thetechniquechosen,theequipmentusedandthetestingenvironmentneedtobecarefullychosendependingonthein-vehiclesystemandtheevaluationquestionbeingaddressed.Nevertheless,itcanbeconcludedthatusabilitycanbemeasuredandthatusabilityisakeycontributortodrivers’acceptanceofin-vehicletechnology.

Acknowledgements

ThischapterdrawsonpreviouslypublishedworkfortheEuropeanCommission.However,thecontentofthischapteristheresponsibilityoftheauthorsandshouldnotbeconstruedtoreflecttheopinionsorpoliciesofanyorganisation.

References

ACEA(TheEuropeanAutomobileManufacturers’Association).2009.Availableat:http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/20090831_Code_of_Practice_ADAS.pdf

AutoAlliance.2006.Availableat:http://www.autoalliance.org/files/DriverFocus.pdf.

Bevan,N.2001.InternationalstandardsforHCIandusability.InternationalJournalofHuman-ComputerSystems,55(4):533–52.

Burnett,G.E.2009.On-the-moveandinyourcar:AnoverviewofHCIissuesforin-carcomputing.InternationalJournalofMobileHuman-ComputerInteraction,1(1):60–78.

Cotter,S.,Hopkin,J.andWood,K.2007.ACodeofPracticeforDevelopingAdvanceDriverAssistanceSystems:FinalReportonWorkintheRESPONSE3Project.Wokingham,Berkshire:TransportResearchLaboratoryLtd.

Cotter,S.,Stevens,A.,Mogilka,A.andGelau,C.2008.DevelopmentofInnovativeMethodologiestoEvaluateITSSafetyandUsability:HUMANISTTFE.ProceedingsofEuropeanConferenceonHumanCentredDesignforIntelligentTransportSystems,55–65.Lyon,France,3–4April.Availableat:http://www.conference.noehumanist.org/proceedings.html[accessed13April2012].

Davis,F.D.,Bagozzi,R.P.andWarshaw,P.R.1989.Useracceptanceofcomputertechnology:Acomparisonoftwotheoreticalmodels.ManagementScience,982–1003.

Diels,C.2011.TactileDetectionasaReal-TimeCognitiveWorkloadMeasure.ProceedingsofInstituteofErgonomicsandHumanFactorsAnnualMeeting.

Engström,J.,Aberg,N.andJohansson,E.2005.ComparisonbetweenVisualandTactileSignalDetectionTasksAppliedtotheSafetyAssessmentofIn-VehicleInformationSystems.ProceedingsoftheThirdInternationalDrivingSymposiumonHumanFactorsinDriverAssessment,TrainingandVehicleDesign.IowaCity:UniversityofIowaPublicPolicyCenter.

EuropeanCommission.2008.CommissionRecommendationof26May2008onSafeandEfficientIn-VehicleInformationandCommunicationSystems:UpdateoftheEuropeanStatementofPrinciplesonHuman–MachineInterface.Availableat:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:216:0001:0042:EN:PDF.[accessed30April2013].

EuropeanCommission.2010.Studyontheregulatorysituationinthememberstatesregardingbrought-in(i.e.,nomadic)devicesandtheiruseinvehicles.Availableat:http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/esafety/doc/studies/nomadic/final_report.pdf[accessed30April2013].

EuropeanCommissionDirective.2010.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32010L0040:EN:NOT[accessed22May2013].

InternationalHarmonizedResearchActivities–IntelligentTransportSystems(IHRA-ITS).2012.Availableat:http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2012/wp29/ITS-20-05e.pdf[accessed27April2013].

ISO.2003.Roadvehicles–Ergonomicaspectsoftransportinformationandcontrolsystems–Procedureforassessingsuitabilityforusewhiledriving.

ISO.2007.Roadvehicles–Ergonomicaspectsoftransportinformationandcontrolsystems–Occlusionmethodtoassessvisualdistractionduetotheuseofin-vehicleinformationandcommunicationsystems.InternationalStandard17287.

ISOInternationalStandard16673.ISO.2010.Roadvehicles–Ergonomicaspectsoftransportinformationandcontrolsystems–Simulatedlanechangetesttoassessin-vehiclesecondarytaskdemand.InternationalStandard26022.

InternationalStandardizationOrganizationInternationalElectrotechnicalCommission(ISOIEC).

IEC.1998.Ergonomicrequirementsforofficeworkwithvisualdisplayterminals(VDT)s–Part11Guidanceonusability,9241–11.

ISO/IEC.2011.Systemsandsoftwareengineering–SystemsandsoftwareQualityRequirementsandEvaluation(SQuaRE)–Systemandsoftwarequalitymodels.ISO/IEC25010:2011(E),2011.

Jordan,P.W.1998.IntroductiontoUsability.TaylorandFrancis:London.———.2000.DesigningPleasurableProducts:TheNewHumanFactors.

London:TaylorandFrancis.NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration(NHTSA).2013Visual-manual

NHTSAdriverdistractionguidelinesforin-vehicleelectronicdevices.Availableat:http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/U.S.+DOT+Releases+Guidelines+to+Minimize+In-Vehicle+Distractions[accessed30April2013].

Nielsen,J.1993.UsabilityEngineering.SanDiego,CA:MorganKaufmann.Norman,D.A.2004.EmotionalDesign:WhyWeLove(orHate)Everyday

Things.NewYork:BasicBooks.Parkes,A.M.1991.DatacapturetechniquesforRTIusabilityevaluation.In

AdvancedTelematicsinRoadTransport:TheDRIVEConference,Vol.2,1440–56.Amsterdam:ElsevierSciencePublishers.

Pettitt,M.A.,Burnett,G.E.andStevens,A.2007.AnExtendedKeystrokeLevelModel(KLM)forPredictingtheVisualDemandofIn-VehicleInformationSystems.ProceedingsoftheACMComputer-HumanInteraction(CHI)

Conference.SanJose,May.Ranney,T.A.,ScottBaldwin,G.H.,Parmer,E.,Domeyer,J.,Martin,J.and

Mazzae,E.N.2011.Developingatesttomeasuredistractionpotentialofin-vehicleinformationsystemtasksinproductionvehicles.ReportNo.DOTHS811463November.

Rogers,Y.,Sharp,H.andPreece,J.2011.InteractionDesign:BeyondHuman-ComputerInteraction.Chichester,Sussex,UK:WileyandSons.

Stevens,A.,Burnett,B.andHorberry,T.J.2010.Areferencelevelforassessingtheacceptablevisualdemandofin-vehicleinformationsystems.BehaviourandInformationTechnology,29(5):527–40.

Treat,J.R.,Tumbas,N.S.,McDonald,S.T.,Shinar,D.,Hume,R.D.,Mayer,R.E.,Stanisfer,R.L.andCastellan,N.J.1977.Tri-levelStudyoftheCausesofTrafficAccidents.ReportNo.DOT-HS-034-3-535-77(TAC).

Toyota.2011.Smartphoneonwheels.Availableat:http://media.toyota.co.uk/2011/11/toyota-fun-vii-a-smartphone-on-wheels/.

UnitedNationsEconomicCommissionforEurope(UNECE).2012.Availableat:http://www.unece.org/trans/main/welcwp29.html.

ViennaConvention.1968.Availableat:http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/crt1968e.pdf.

WarningguidelinesfromUNECEITSinformalGroup.2011.Availableat:http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2011/wp29/ITS-19-05e.pdf.

Wogalter,M.S.2006.HandbookofWarnings.Routledge.

1©TransportResearchLaboratory,2013

Chapter18TheEmotionalandAestheticDimensionsofDesign:AnExplorationofUserAcceptanceofConsumer

ProductsandNewVehicleTechnologiesWilliamS.Green

UniversityofCanberra,Australia

PatrickW.JordanUniversityofSurrey,UK

Introduction

Thetechnological‘levelplayingfield’hasbeenevidentinconsumerproductdesignformorethantwodecades(Jordan1997a),andeventhecontinuousroundoffaceliftsandupgradestotheelectronicsandmechatronicsofourlatesttoysdolittletodifferentiatetheoperabilityofoneproductfromanother.Thereare,arguably,no‘bad’cars.Thereareindeedsomethatwillperformbetterthanothers,willlastlonger,willbesmootherorquieterandsoon,butthediscriminationisoftenattheouteredgesofthefunctionalityenvelopeandthesameistrueofmostofourconsumerproducts.Whatthen,arethedesignfactorsthatdeterminethepurchaseimpulseinthefirstplaceandthecontinuedsatisfactionwiththeproduct?

Thefirst-centuryRomanarchitect,engineerandwriterVitruvius,inhismagnumopus,DeArchitectura,identifiedthreequalitiesforthecriticalappraisalofdesign.Thesewere‘Firmitas’,‘Utilitas’and‘Venustas’.WemaytranslatetheseasStructuralIntegrity,UsabilityandBeauty.

Thefirsttwoarenotveryproblematic.Doesitwork?Canweuseit?Therearereasonablyobjectivemetricsavailableforustoapplythesecriteriatoalmostanyproduct.Thethird,however,hasalwaysbeenaslipperyconcept,withthecommonappraisalbeingcapturedintheoldsayingthat‘beautyisintheeyeofthebeholder’.Unfortunately,thisisnotveryusefulforthedesignerorengineerchargedwiththetaskofspecifyingthenextgenerationproduct,andindeeditisnotcompletelyaccurate.

Theproblemsfacingaresearcherordesignerwhoreliesonrationalityare

Theproblemsfacingaresearcherordesignerwhoreliesonrationalityareexemplifiedbythefollowingexcerptfromaconversationbetweenoneoftheauthorsandafriendknownforhisextensivecarownership:

WhenIbuyacarIamabsolutelymeticulous.Ireadthetestreports,thespecifications,lookatthesafetyrecord,thecost,thepower,fuelconsumption,reliability,sizeoftheboot,evenconsultTheBoss(referringtohispartner);thenIthrowitawayandgobuysomethingthatIlike.(Anonymous2012,inconversationwithoneoftheauthors)

Whatthis‘like’meansshouldbeoffundamentalconcerntomanufacturers,engineers,designers,marketersandindeedanyoneinvolvedintheproductionandsalesofanyproduct,becauseitencapsulatestheentireaesthetic/emotionalresponsetotheproduct.TheaestheticdimensionhasbeenthesubjectofmuchdiscussionanddebatefromtheearlyGreekphilosophers(e.g.,Plato,Aristotle)onwards,withouteverreachingdefinitiveconclusions,butnonethelesswiththetacitunderstandingthattherearegeneralisablequalitiesthataresufficientlyrobusttobeuseful.Asanexample,termssuchassymmetry,balanceandtensionhaveaphysicalanaloguethatallowstheirapplicationtothevisualwithanadequategeneralacceptance.

Inrecentyearsthescrutinyoftheaestheticqualitiesofproductshasbeenextendedbeyondthecerebralappreciationofform,colour,textureandsoon.Currentresearchisconcernedwiththeemotionalproductexperience,andthisimmediatelyamalgamatestraditionalaestheticjudgementswithusability,reliability,longevity,valueandcost.Thebasisofthetechniquesthatareemergingfortheassessmentandformalisationofthisscientificallydifficultstudy,andsomeofthetechniquesthemselves,arethesubjectofthefollowingsections.

TheBasics

ThepsychologistAbrahamMaslowdescribedwhathecalleda‘hierarchyofhumanneeds’(Maslow1954).Thismodelviewsthehumanasa‘wantinganimal’thatrarelyreachesastateofcompletesatisfaction.

Indeed,ifNirvanaisreacheditwillusuallybetemporarybecauseonceonedesirehasbeenfulfilledanotherwillsurfacetotakeitsplace.Maslow’shierarchyisillustratedinFigure18.1.Theideaisthatassoonaspeoplehavefulfilledneedslowerdownthehierarchy,theywillturntheirattentiontothingsatthenextlevelandlooktomeetthose.Forsomeonetoreachastablestateofsatisfaction,theywouldhavetobeabletofulfilltheneedsatthetopofthehierarchyandalltheneedsunderneaththemonanongoingbasis.

Asimilar,albeitsimpler,hierarchyhasbeenproposedinthecontextofuserneedsasshowninFigure18.2,andthisrelatesdirectlytothefundamentalsarticulatedbyVitruvius.Atthebottomofthehierarchywehavethefunctionsthattheproductofferstheuser.Theseneedtoworkwellandbesufficienttoenabletheusertoachievewhattheywantwithaproductinorderforittohaveanyvaluetothem.

Figure18.1Maslow’shierarchyofneeds(Maslow1954)

Figure18.2Hierarchyofuserneeds(Jordan1999)

Thenextlevelisusability.Onceusersknowthattheproductoffersthemthefunctionstheyneed,thenextissueishoweasyitistouse.Theyarelikelytobediscontentediffunctionstakealotoftimeandefforttouseoriftheystruggleandmakeerrorsalongtheway.

Oncethisissortedout,thenextlevelispleasure.Thisisabroadconceptthatwewilldiscussinmoredetailbelow,butessentiallyitincludesthingslikepositiveemotions,goodexperiencesandapositiveself-image.

Iftheproductalsoprovidesthese,thenwecanexpecttheusertoexperiencelong-termsatisfactionwithit.

Asanexample,consideranentertainmentproductsuchasatelevision.In

Asanexample,consideranentertainmentproductsuchasatelevision.Inthiscasefunctionalitywouldincludethingssuchasthesizeofthescreen,thequalityofthepicture,thethingsthatcanbeadjusted(e.g.,volume,contrast,brightness),thefacilitiesthatareprovided(HDMI,USBetc.)andthemanufacturedqualityofthetelevision.

Usabilitywouldincludethingssuchashoweasyitistoadjustthefunctions,howeasyitistosettheTVupandinstallthechannels,howeasyitistonavigatebetweenfunctionsandhoweasyitistobacktrackerrors(the‘Oops’factor).

Whilepleasureinowningandusingthetelevisionislikelytobeheavilyaffectedbythefunctionalityandusability,therearealsolikelytobeotherfactorsthataffectpleasurabilityandthesevarywithcircumstance.

Theperceivedaestheticqualitiesofthetelevisionareaffectedbyitsshape,colour,materialsanddesigndetails:isitflat-screenornot,doesithaveabrushedmetalfinishorisitblackplastic,arethespeakergrillsnicelydetailed,doestheremotecontrolsatisfytheuser’svisualandtactileexpectationsandsoon?

Thelookandfeeloftheinterfacemayalsoplayarole–whatarethegraphicslikeonthemenus,dothebuttonsontheremotecontrolgiveapleasingclickwhenpressed,whatdothebuttonsfeelliketothetouch?Hapticresponsesinparticularbecomeimportantinacontrolenvironmentwherevisualreferencingmaybelimited;forexample,inavehiclewheredirectingattentiontoaconsolelocationmayevenbedangerous.Insuchacasetheresponseimpactsonsafetyandfunctionalityaswellaspleasureandsatisfaction.Anobviousreferenceisthemoveawayfromsmallandpoorlydifferentiatedbuttonsoncarstereostothecurrentsteeringwheelmountedandlineofsightcontrols.

Brandimageandperceptionsofstatuscanbeimportant.Marketingresearchhashighlyrefinedcategorisationsontheresponseofpurchasersanduserstotheperceivedprestigeorotherwise,conferredbycertainbrandsandtheimportancethatvaryingdemographicsassigntothem.

Itmustbeacknowledgedthatthearcaneworldoffashionalsoexertsaconsiderableinfluence,butishighlycomplexandworthyofmoreconsiderationthanispossiblehere.ThosewishingtopursuethisinthecontextofproductscouldstartwithanessaybyJeanBeaudrillard(Beaudrillard1988)onthesystemofobjects.Questionsofstatusandfashionableacceptancearepresentatmanylevelsofhumanexperiencebutitisattheupper(pleasure)levelsthattheybecomesignificant.Concernwith,forexample,acolourbeingfashionableimpliesalevelofsecuritywellbeyondtheneedforfoodorshelter!

ModelsofthePleasureExperience

Thereareanumberofpleasureexperiencemodels.AgoodexampleisNorman(2004),whoidentifiesthreelevelsofcognitiveprocessingatwhichwecanexperiencepleasure.

Norman(2004)

VisceralThisisthemostimmediatelevelofprocessing.Therearecertainsensoryaspectsofaproductthatweperceiveevenbeforeanysignificantlevelofinteractionhasoccurred.Itgivesusourinstinctivefirstimpressionsofaproduct.Itispredominantlyvisualbutmayalsobeolfactoryandtactile.

Asanexample,considertheJuicySalifcitruspressdesignedbyfamousproductdesignerPhillipeStarkfortheAlessicompany.Theangularlegsandbulbousbodyarevisualcharacteristicsreminiscentofagiantspider.Becausespidersarefrequentlyperceivedasdangerousanimalstheproductwillimmediatelygrabourattention,eveninaclutteredkitchen.

Inourpreviousexampleofthetelevision,thesize,screentype,colour,materialtextureanddesigndetailsarethefirsttoimpact.

BehaviouralThislevelofprocessingoccurswhenusingtheproduct.Itreferstotheimpressionofaproductthatwehavewhileweareinteractingwithit.

Forexample,whenweareusingproductssuchastheAppleiPhone(andothercurrentsmartphones)wemayenjoytheintuitivewaytheyworkandthebrightandcheerful-lookingiconsontheinterface.

ReflectiveThislevelofprocessingisaboutconsciousconsiderationandreflectionsonpastexperiences.Itincludeshowwethinkaboutaproducthavinghadsomeexperienceofit,butwhennotactuallyusingit.

Forexample,theCanonIxuscamera(knownastheCanonElphinsomemarkets)hadadesignthatwas,atthetime,radicallydifferentandarguablymoreaestheticallypleasingandinterestingthanothercamerasonthemarket.Thismadeitsomethingofatalkingpointforusersandalsoattractedattentionfromothers.Whenpeoplereflectedonowningitandbeingseenwithit,itgeneratedasenseofpride.

Normanmakesthepointthatpleasuresateachofthesethreelevelsof

Normanmakesthepointthatpleasuresateachofthesethreelevelsofprocessingcaninfluencepleasureatotherlevels.Forexample,ifsomethinggivesusagoodimpressionrightfromthestart(visceral),wemaythenbemoreinclinedtofeelpositivelyaboutitwheninteractingwithit(behavioural)andconsequentlywhenwethinkaboutitafterwards(reflective).

Thisissometimesreferredtoasthe‘halo’effect.Itcanworkfromanystartingpoint;forexample,ifwehaveagreatexperienceinteractingwithaproduct(behavioural)thenthismaymakeusthinkaboutitmorepositivelyafterwards(reflective)andhaveamoreinstinctivelypositivereactionthenexttimeweseeit(visceral).

Thehaloeffectcanalsoworkinreverse;ifwehaveanegativeviewoftheproductatanyoneofthesestages,thenwemayalsobeinclinedtotakeamorenegativeviewattheotherstages.Norman’smodelgivesusanoverviewofthedifferentlevelsatwhichaproductcanbepleasurabletoownoruse,butwhataboutthedifferenttypesofpleasurethataproductcangive?

Jordan(1999)

BasedontheworkofanthropologistLionelTigerin1992,PatrickJordan(1999)hasidentifiedfourdifferenttypesofpositiveexperiencesthatwecangetfromproducts.

Physio-pleasuresThesearetodowiththebodyandthesenses.Theycomefrom,forexample,thevisual,tactile,auditoryandolfactorypropertiesofaproduct.Forexample,thefeelinginthehandofamobilephonewouldcomeintothiscategoryorthesmelloffreshcoffeethatcomesfromacoffeegrinder.

Psycho-pleasuresThesearetodowiththemind,bothcognitionsandemotions.Theyinclude,forexample,thepleasureofknowinghowsomethingworksorthepleasurewetakeinfindingsomethinginteresting.Theyincludethefeelingofpositiveemotions.Forexample,usingasoftwarepackagetoproducecreativeimagerywouldcomeintothiscategoryaswouldthefeelingofreassurancewegetwhenweturnonanApplecomputerandheartheresonant‘bong’whenitbootsup.

Socio-pleasureThisistodowithrelationships.Itincludesboth‘concrete’and‘abstract’relationships.Concreterelationshipsarethoseassociatedwithspecificallyidentifiablepeople,suchasafriend,lovedoneorco-worker.Forexample,

identifiablepeople,suchasafriend,lovedoneorco-worker.Forexample,Skypebringssocialpleasurebyallowingustohavevideoconversationswithourfriendsandfamilyatnocost.

Abstractrelationshipsarethosewithsocietyingeneral;theyincludethingslikestatusandhowweareperceivedbyothers.Forexample,ifwewearanArmanisuititenhancesoursocialstatusandmayhelpustobeperceivedasstylish.AcrypticremarkbyRobertSchullersumsupourconcerns:‘IamnotwhatIthinkIam.IamnotwhatyouthinkIam.IamwhatIthinkyouthinkIam!’(Schuller1982).

Ideo-pleasureThisistodowithourtastesandvalues.Tastesaregenerallyjustamatterofpreference.So,forexample,ifwepreferbluetoyellow,wemayfindablueT-shirtmorepleasurabletowearthanayellowone.

Valuesrepresentourmoralsandaspirations.Ifweareconcernedabouttheenvironment,wemay,forexample,findlocallysourcedfoodsmorepleasurablethanfoodsthathavebeenimported,thusincurringgreaterairmiles.Meanwhile,ifweaspiretobesomeonewhoissuccessfulintheircareer,wemaygetpleasurefromproductsassociatedwithbeingahigh-flyerinthebusinessworld.

ApplyingtheModelstoVehiclesandDriverAcceptance

Inthissection,wewillcombinetheFourPleasuresandThreeLevelsmodelsandlookathowvehiclescanprovidepleasureinthesevariousways.

Physio-pleasure

Physio-visceralThesearetheimmediatefirstimpressionphysicalpleasuresthatwegetfromavehicle.Forexample,thesmellinsideanewcarwouldbeanexampleofphysio-visceralpleasure.Thisissomethingthatweareawareofevenbeforewehavehadanysignificantinteractionwiththecaranditgivesusapositivesenseofthecar’squality.

Anotherexampleisthesoundthatacardoormakeswhenclosing.BMW,forexample,hasputalotofresearchintoensuringthattheirdoorsclosewithadeepbassthud–asoundthatisassociatedwithsolidityandgoodbuildquality.

SomeyearsagoHarleyDavidsoneventried(unsuccessfully)toregisterthesoundtheirmotorbikesmake,becauseofthevisceralassociationwiththeiconicproduct.

product.

Physio-behaviouralThesearethephysicalpleasuresthatwegetfromavehiclewhenusingit.Itcouldincludethebenefitsofcomfortableseatingorthepleasantfeelingofthesteeringwheelorgearshift.Forexample,thefeelingoftheluxurioushand-stitchedleatheronthesteeringwheelandgearshiftofaBentleywouldbesourcesofphysio-behaviouralpleasure.

Physio-reflectiveThisreferstothephysiological‘legacy’ofmakingatripinavehicle.Forexample,dowehaveanyachesandpainsafterthetrip,dowefeeltiredordowefeelcomfortableandfresh?Theinclusionofmassageseatsinsomehigh-endcars–forexample,Bentley–areanexampleofsomethingthathelpsinachievingthis.

Psycho-pleasure

Psycho-visceralTheserefertoourimmediatepsychologicalreactionswhenseeingavehicle.Designersoftenuseanthropomorphism–parallelswithpeopleoranimals–toelicitcertainreactionsinusinthisrespect.Headlightsareoftenusedtorepresenteyes,grillstorepresentmouths.Inthiswaycarscanbemadetolookcute,aggressive,tough,orwhatevereffectthedesignerisgoingfor.ThereincarnationoftheVWBeetleisanexampleofacardesignedtolookcute.

Psycho-behaviouralThesearethepsychologicalpleasureswegetwhendrivingthevehicle.Theyincludethesenseofcontrolthatwehaveoverthevehicle,thefeedbackwearegettingfromtheinstrumentsandtheeaseofusingthecontrols.Feelingpositiveemotionssuchasconfidenceorexcitementwhendrivingwouldalsocomeintothiscategory.Forexample,theimmediateresponsivenessandrapidaccelerationofaPorsche911givesbothafeelingofexcitementandcontrolandisthusasourceofpsycho-behaviouralpleasure.

Psycho-reflectiveThisreferstoourthoughtsandemotionswhenreflectingonusingavehicle.Forexample,wemaythinkbacktowhatanexcitingdrivewehavejusthadorreflectwithquietsatisfactiononourvehiclesreliability.Theseven-yearwarrantythatKiaoffersontheircarsisanexampleofthis.Becausethemanufacturerhassuchahighlevelofconfidenceintheirvehicles,wearelikelytobeconfidentinthem

ahighlevelofconfidenceintheirvehicles,wearelikelytobeconfidentinthemtoo.Confidenceinthevehicleisaformofpsycho-reflectivepleasure.

Socio-pleasure

Socio-visceralThistypeofpleasureincludestheimmediatereactionthatourcargeneratesinothers.Thismayhavepositiveornegativeconsequencesforthewaythatotherstreatuswhenwearedriving.Forexample,surveysintheUKhaveshownconsistentlynegativeattitudestodriversofBMWcarswhoareconsideredaggressiveandinconsiderate.WhensomedriversseeaBMW,theymayreactnegativelyandBMWdriversreportbeingshownfarlessconsiderationbyothersmotoriststhandriversofothervehicles.

Socio-behaviouralThisreferstothesocialreactionsthatpeoplehavetousandourvehicleswhentheyseeusdrivingandalsotothesocialrolethatthecarplaysinourlives.

Formanyofusourcarplaysanimportantroleinourfamilylives.Thisincludestransportingourchildrentoandfromschool,variousotheractivities,andgoingouttogetherforfamilyoutings.

FeaturessuchasDVDplayersinthebacktokeepthechildrenentertainedandwipe-cleanseatstocopewillspillagescanbeasourceofsocio-behaviouralpleasure,asareoptionsin,forexample,theChryslerVoyagermulti-personvehicle.

Socio-reflectiveThisincludeshowothersthinkaboutourvehicleandhowwetalkaboutourvehicleinthecompanyofothers.Forexample,ifwetalkaboutourvehiclepositivelytoothersthenthiswouldbeasocio-reflectivepleasure.

Havingavehiclethatisdifferentfromeveryoneelse’scanalsobeasocio-reflectivepleasure.Forexample,thehugenumberofoptionsthatMinioffersforthecoloursofthevariouspartsofthebodyandthelightingandcolours,givesuchahugevarietyofpotentialcombinationsthatitispossibletospecifyacaruniquetoyou.

Ideo-pleasure

Ideo-visceralThisisourowninstinctiveresponseastowhetherornotavehicleappealstoourtastesandmoralsensibilities.Forexample,somepeoplewhoareconcerned

tastesandmoralsensibilities.Forexample,somepeoplewhoareconcernedabouttheenvironmentimmediatelyhaveanegativereactionwhenseeingahuge4x4vehiclesuchasaRangeRoverbeingdrivenonurbanroads,buthaveaninstinctivelypositivereactiontoahybridvehiclesuchasaToyotaPriusoranelectricvehiclesuchasG-Wiz.

Ideo-behaviouralThisconcernsthedegreetowhichweperceivethevehicleasbeingconsistentwithourtastesandvalueswhenwearedrivingit.Manycarsnowgivereadingsonhowmanymilesorkilometreswearetravellingpergallonorlitreoffuel.Forthoseconcernedwithenvironmentalissues,thiscanbeasourceofideo-behaviouralpleasure.In2012,Kawasakiintroducedan‘eco’symbolonthedashboardoftheirmotorcycleswhichflashesto‘congratulate’theriderwhentheyareridinginanenvironmentallyfriendlymanner.

Ideo-reflectiveThisreferstothedegreetowhichwefeelthatavehiclefitswithourtastesandvalueswhenwereflectonit.Forexample,whenwelookatapictureofitorreadaboutitinamagazine,dowefeelproud?Wemaylikeacarbecausewefeelthatitsdesignreflectsqualitiesthatwewouldliketothinkofourselvesashaving.Forexample,owningatough,rugged,vehiclelikeaHummermaymaketheownerfeeltough.‘IlovemyJeepbecauseit’stoughlikeme’(GoversandMugge2004).

TheQualityoftheDriverExperience

Whendesigningacarorothervehicle,itisimportanttoconsideralloftheaboveaspectsinordertomaximisethequalityofthedriverexperience.Itisclearthatthereismuchoverlapbetweenthecategories,andthatasinglephenomenonmayelicitmorethanonecategoryofpleasure.TorehearsethesoundoftheAppleboot-up,thereassuranceitpromotesisclearlya‘psycho-pleasure’buttheactualnoisemaybepsycho-visceral.

Decidingonthenatureofthedriverexperienceisnotastraightforwardtask.Atanobviouslevel,theremaybeaconsiderabledivergencebetweentheperceivedpositiveexperiencesofatestosterone-rich18yearoldandanelderlyretiree.Thereareindeedsomegeneralisable‘pleasures’buttheidentificationofthemtendstobeafunctionofresolution.Atlevelsoflow(population)resolution,thepredictabilityofanexperiencebeingjudgedpleasurableisrelativelyhigh.Astheresolutionincreasesthepredictabilitydecreases,sothat

foranygivenindividualitislikelytobeafarfromrobustjudgement(GreenandKanis1998).Itis,forexample,relativelysafetopredictthataphysio-visceralimpressionofgoodbuildqualityasexemplifiedbypanelfit,paintfinishordetailresolutionwillresultinpositiveresponsesfromthebulkofapopulation.However,theremaywellbeseveralindividualswhoignoresuchmarkersinfavouroflessmainstreamassociations.Thinkofthenichefashionfor‘feral’transportationgeneratedbytheMadMaxmovies,ortheappliquémudforurbanSUVs.Customisationmayaccountforsomeoftheinter-individualvariation,butjudgementsstillneedtobemade,andsupportedinsuchawaythatthenatureofthedesignedexperienceisascontrolledaspossibleandnotlefttochance.

Oncewehavedecidedwhatpleasureswewantthedrivertoexperience,howdowegoaboutdeliveringthesethroughthedesign?

Ononelevelmuchofthiscomesdowntothejudgementofthedesignerandtheirknowledgeofthepeopletheyaredesigningfor.However,therearealsoanumberofapproachesandtechniquesthatcanhelpwiththis,selectedexamplesofwhicharegivenintherestofthechapter.Thereisnobasisforselectionofthetechniquesotherthantodemonstratearangeofpossibilities.

Itisimportanttonotethatthevarioustechniquesaresometimescomplexandrequireeffortandknowledgetoapply.Mostarebasedonsomeelicitationofhumanresponsestostimuliandarethusakintotechniquesofusertriallingand/ormarketresearch.Itisnotourpurposetopresentimmediatelyapplicablemethods,butrathertoillustratesomeoftheworkthathasbeendoneintheareaandtoindicatefurtherreading.Referencesareprovidedforthosewishingtopursuethetechniquesmentioned.

Kansei(Emotional)Engineering

ThisisastatisticalapproachdevelopedbyMitsuoNagamichiatHiroshimaUniversity(Nagamichi1995,1997)wherebythedesignofaproductisbrokendownintoitsconstituentpartsandastatisticalanalysisisusedtolinkpeople’semotionalresponsestoparticulardesignaspects.

Eachconstituentpartisdesignedtoelicitthedesiredemotionalresponsesothattheproductasawholegeneratestheoverallemotionaleffectrequired.Forexample,ifwewereaimingtodesignacarthatwaspowerfulandelegant,wecouldlookatvariousaspectsofthedesign–suchascolour,formandsound–andcombinethemindifferentwaysandmeasureuserresponsestoseewhichonecreatedtheoveralldesiredaffect.

Imaginethatwehad,forexample,fivecolouroptions,fiveformoptionsandfivedifferentexhaustnotestochoosefrom.Thiswouldgiveusapossible125

fivedifferentexhaustnotestochoosefrom.Thiswouldgiveusapossible125combinations(5×5×5)andwecouldputalloftheseinfrontofuserstoseewhichscoredbestoverallonthedesiredcharacteristicsofpowerandelegance.

Thistechniquehasbeenusedextensivelywithinthecarindustry–perhapsmostnotablyinthedesignoftheMazdaMX5orMiata.KanseiEngineeringwasusedtogivethecarspropertiesreminiscentofa1970sBritishsportscar.TheMX5wentontobeamassivesuccessandisnowthebest-sellingtwo-seatconvertibleinhistory.AnaccessiblereferenceisLee,HaradaandStappers(2002).

SEQUAM

SEQUAM(SEnsorialQUalityAssessmentMethod)hassomesimilaritiestoKanseiEngineeringinthesensethatitusesstatisticalanalysestounderstandhowtolinkproductpropertiestoemotionalresponses.

WhereitdiffersfromKanseiisthat,ratherthanlookingattheemotionalresponsestocombinationsofdesignelements,SEQUAMlooksatresponsestodesignelementsindividually.Itinvolvesplottingthepropertiesofeachelementonacontinuumandseeingwhattheresponsetoeachis.

So,forexample,iftryingtocreateasteeringwheelwithahigh-qualityfeel,propertiessuchastheroughnessandhardnessofthematerialcanbeplottedagainstperceivedquality.Oncetheoptimumlevelofroughnessandhardnesshasbeenidentified,amaterialusingboththislevelofroughnessandhardnesscanbeusedforthesteeringwheel.

Fiathasusedthistechniquetooptimisethetactilepropertiesoftheirsteeringwheels,gearshiftknobandinsidedoorhandles.Becausetheseareusuallyamongthefirstthingsthatpeopletouchwhentryingoutanewcar,theyareimportanttothevisceralimpressionthatthecarmakes.Forfurtherdetail,seeBonapace(2002).

Desmet’s‘PrEmo’

PieterDesmet(Desmet2003,Desmet,HekkertandJacobs2000)isoneofarecentgenerationofresearcherswhohavemadesignificantstepsforwardintheformalisationofemotionalresponsestoproducts,particularlyvehicles.Hisdoctoralresearchusedanimatedmanikinstohelpviewersarticulateemotionalresponsestoproducts.WorkingintheIDStudioLabinTUDelft,DesmetandHekkerthavebeenseminalinthestudyofaffectivedesign,andtogetherwithJanJacobsandKeesOverbeekewereprimemoversintheestablishmentoftheDesignandEmotionSociety,whichaimstocreatemethodsandtechniquesfor

DesignandEmotionSociety,whichaimstocreatemethodsandtechniquesforthestudyofemotionalresponsestodesign.

PrEmouses14differentanimationsofgender-neutral‘puppets’todepictsevenpositiveandsevennegativeresponsestovisualstimuli.Thesepuppetsweredrawnbyanartistusingprofessionalmodelstoregistertherequiredemotions.Theanimationbeginsataneutralexpressionandmovestothedepictedemotioninonesecond.Thepositiveemotionsareinspiration,desire,satisfaction,pleasantsurprise,fascination,amusementandadmiration.Thesevennegativeemotionsaredisgust,indignency,contempt,disappointment,dissatisfaction,boredomandunpleasantsurprise.Forfurtherdetailoftheapplicationtoautomobiles,consultDesmet,HekkertandJacobs(2000)andDesmet(2003).

ProductsasPersonalities

Therehasbeenconsiderableinterestinthelastdecadeintheconceptofproductsaspersonalities.Jordan(1997b)usedtheMyers-Briggspersonalitytypeindicatorandlater,in2002,translatedthisintomoreaccessibleterms.Sincethen,therehavebeennumerouspapersillustratingthepossibilitiesandthedifficultiesofassigninganthropomorphicqualitiestoproductsandtoassesstheeffectsofdoingso.

GoversandMugge:ProductAttachment

PascalleGoversandRuthMuggehavebeenactiveintheexplorationofproductattachmentandtheconceptofproductpersonality.Govers,aconsultantwithMetrixLabinRotterdam,publishedherbookProductPersonalityin2004(Govers2004).

Forherdoctoralresearchcompletedin2007atTUDelft,Muggeconsideredtheideaofproductsaspersonalitiesandthephenomenonof‘bonding’withproductsandhassincepublishedseveralrelatedpapers.Herworkconcentratedontheproductfacilitationof‘self-expression’,thisbeingoneofthefourfactorsthatweredrawnfromtheliteratureasbeingabletoinfluenceproductattachment:self-expression(canIdistinguishmyselffromotherswiththeproduct?),groupaffiliation(doesownershipoftheproductconnectmetoagroup?),memories(relatedtotheproduct)andpleasure(providedbytheproduct)(Mugge,SchiffersteinandSchoormans2006).FurtherReferencesareGovers,Hekkert,andSchoormans(2002),Govers(2004),GoversandMugge(2004),Mugge,SchiffersteinandSchoormans(2004),Mugge,Schoormans,and

Schifferstein(2005)andMugge,etal.(2006).

CulturalProbes:The‘Presenceproject’GaveretAl.

Toillustratethediversityoftechniquesassociatedwithemotionaldatagathering,weincludetheCulturalProbestechnique,initiatedbyGaver(Gaver,DunneandPacenti1999)attheRoyalCollegeofArtandused,forexample,byWensveen(Wensveen2005)inhisdoctoralthesis:

Theprobesconstituteacollectionofevocativetasksforexploringattitudesandaspirationsanddevelopinganempatheticandengagingunderstandingofaparticularaudience.(Gaveretal.1999)

Theprobesintheformofexperimentaldesignsof,primarily,communicationavenues(graphicandhapticuserinterfaces)wereeventuallytestedwiththeelderly,childrenandethnicgroups.StephanWensveenusedthetechniqueinthedesignofproductsandthusprovidesabridgebetweenthetheoryandproductdesign.

Conclusion

In-vehicletechnologicaladvanceshavethepotentialtobeseenasassistive/positiveorrestrictive/negativebydifferingdemographics.Think,forexample,oflaneguidance,distanceorspeedcontroldevices.In-cabincontrolsmaybegenerallylesscontroversialbutrecentexamplesofstronglycriticisedmenusystemsdemonstratethattheuserexperiencemustbeconsideredadominantfactor.Amajorcomponentoftheuserexperienceisaestheticandemotionalsatisfaction.

Thischapterhasattemptedtopresentsomeoftheissuesconfrontingdesignerswhowanttomovetheexperienceoftheirvehiclebeyondthegenerallyacceptedstandards.Theresearchandtheknowledgementionediswellknownandaccreditedintheacademicdomainthatgeneratedit,andthereisawealthofpublishedexemplarsavailablebyfollowingthereferencetrailprovidedhere.Thereisalsonodoubtthatindividualmanufacturersanddesignstudioshaveinvestedmuchtimeandmoneyindeterminingtheirbrandidentityandhavedetailedinformationonthevaryingdemographicsthatconstitutetheirmarket.However,elevationoftheemotionalproductexperiencetoahighprofileinthedesignprocessisstillawork-in-progress,andtranslationoftheacademicadvancesintosoliddesignparametershasmuchinherentuncertainty.Thereisat

advancesintosoliddesignparametershasmuchinherentuncertainty.Thereisatpresentnogeneraltheoryofdesignforproductemotionandindeedtheremayneverbesuch,butsomeoftheresearchersandthetechniquespresentedinthischapterhavethepotentialtomovethespecificationofapositiveemotionalexperiencetobealittlemoredeliberateandalittlelessgiventochance.

References

Beaudrillard,J.1988.Thesystemofobjects.InDesignafterModernism.EditedbyJ.Thackera.NewYork:ThamesandHudson.

Bonapace,L.2002.Linkingproductpropertiestopleasure:Thesensorialqualityassessmentmethod.InPleasurewithProducts;BeyondUsability,180–218.EditedbyW.S.GreenandP.W.Jordan.LondonandNewYork:TaylorandFrancis.

Desmet,P.M.A.2003.Measuringemotion:Developmentandapplicationofaninstrumenttomeasureemotionalresponsestoproducts.InFunology:fromUsabilitytoEnjoyment,111–23.EditedbyM.A.Blythe,A.F.Monk,K.OverbeekeandP.C.Wright.Dordrecht:KluwerAcademic.

Desmet,P.M.A.,Hekkert,P.andJacobs,J.J.2000.Whenacarmakesyousmile:Developmentandapplicationofaninstrumenttomeasureproductemotions.AdvancesinConsumerResearch,27:111–17.

Gaver,B.,Dunne,T.andPacenti,E.1999.Design:Culturalprobes.Interactions,6(1).

Govers,P.C.M.2004.ProductPersonality.Delft:DelftUniversityofTechnology.

Govers,P.C.M.,Hekkert,P.andSchoormans,J.P.L.2002.Happy,cuteandtough:Candesignerscreateaproductpersonalitythatconsumersunderstand?InDesignandEmotion:TheExperienceofEverydayThings,345–9.EditedbyD.McDonagh,P.Hekkert,J.VanErpandD.Gyi.London:TaylorandFrancis:

Govers,P.C.M.andMugge,R.2004.ILoveMyJeep,BecauseItsToughLikeMe:TheEffectofProduct-PersonalityCongruenceonProductAttachment.ProceedingsoftheFourthInternationalConferenceonDesignandEmotion.EditedbyArenKurtgözü.Ankara,Turkey.

Green,W.S.andKanis,H.1998.Productinteractiontheory:Adesigner’sprimer.InGlobalErgonomics,801–6.EditedbyP.A.Scott,R.S.BridgerandJ.Charteris.Amsterdam:Elsevier.

Jordan,P.W.1997a.UsabilityEvaluationinIndustry:GainingtheCompetitive

Advantage.Proceedingsofthe13thTriennialCongressoftheInternationalErgonomicsAssociation,150–52.Tampere:FinnishInstituteofOccupationalHealth.

———.1997b.Productsaspersonalities.InContemporaryErgonomics1997.EditedbyS.Robertson.London:TaylorandFrancis.

———.1999.Pleasurewithproducts:Humanfactorsforbody,mindandsoul.InHumanFactorsinProductDesign:CurrentPracticeandFutureTrends.EditedbyW.S.GreenandP.W.Jordan.London:TaylorandFrancis.

———.2002.Thepersonalityofproducts.InPleasurewithProducts:BeyondUsability.EditedbyW.S.GreenandP.W.Jordan.LondonandNewYork:TaylorandFrancis.

Lee,S.,Harada,A.andStappers,P.J.2002.DesignbasedonKansei.InPleasurewithProducts;BeyondUsability,219–30.EditedbyW.S.GreenandP.W.Jordan.LondonandNewYork:TaylorandFrancis.

Maslow,A.1954.MotivationandPersonality.NewYork:Harper.Mugge,R.,Schifferstein,H.N.J.andSchoormans,J.P.L.2004.Personalizing

ProductAppearance:TheEffectonProductAttachment.ProceedingsoftheFourthInternationalConferenceonDesignandEmotion.EditedbyArenKurtgözü.Ankara,Turkey.

Mugge,R.,Schifferstein,H.N.J.andSchoormans,J.P.L.2006.Alongitudinalstudyonproductattachmentanditsdeterminants.InEuropeanAdvancesinConsumerResearch,Vol.7,641–7.EditedbyK.M.EkströmandH.Brembeck.Duluth,MN:AssociationforConsumerResearch.

Mugge,R.,Schoormans,J.P.L.andSchifferstein,H.N.J.2005.Designstrategiestopostponeconsumers’productreplacement:Thevalueofastrongperson-productrelationship.DesignJournal,8(2):38–48.

Nagamichi,M.1995TheStoryofKanseiEngineering.Tokyo:KalibundoPublishing.

———.1997.RequirementIdentificationofConsumers’NeedsinProductDesign.ProceedingsofIEA1997FinnishInstituteofOccupationalHealth,Helsinki.

Norman,D.2004.EmotionalDesign:WhyWeLove(orHate)EverydayThings.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Schuller,R.H.1982.Self-Esteem:TheNewReformation.Waco:WorldBooks.Tiger,L.1992.ThePursuitofPleasure.Boston:Little,Brown.Wensveen,S.2005.ATangibilityApproachtoAffectiveInteraction.Delft,the

Netherlands:DelftUniversityPress.

Chapter19OptimisingtheOrganisationalAspectsof

Deployment:LearningfromtheIntroductionofNewTechnologyinDomainsOtherthanRoadTransport

MartinC.MaguireLoughboroughDesignSchool,LoughboroughUniversity,UK

Abstract

Theuseoftechnologyinanydomain,suchasmanufacturing,financeorhealthcare,takesplacewithinawiderorganisationalenvironment.Theroadtransportenvironmentisnodifferentinthisregardfromotherdomains.Thischapteroutlineshoworganisationalaspectsinteractwithtechnologydeployment,providingexamplesfromvarioussectorsordomains.Lessonsfromthesedomainscanbeappliedtohelpimprovedriveracceptanceofnewtechnologyintheroadtransportdomain.Thesearediscussedandsummarised.Theconclusionsdescribegeneralorganisationalstrategiesthatcanbeadoptedwhendeployingin-cartechnologytopromoteuseracceptanceofit.

Introduction:People’sAttitudestoNewTechnology

Whennewtechnologyisintroducedintoanorganisation,reactionstoitmayvary.Theremaybeanaturalresistancetochangeandlimitedacceptanceofasystemthatwillrequirelearningandadaptationtonewprocedures.Theremaybeafeelingthatthenewsystemwillincreaseworkload,makeworkinglifemorecomplicatedortakeoverfunctionsthatpeopleenjoyeddoingandwereskilledat(Kirk1983,Eason1988).

Incontrasttothis,peoplemaylookforwardtothenewsystem,thinkingitwillhelpthemdotheirworkmoreeasily.Theymayhavebeenpartoftheprocessthathelpedspecifytheuserrequirementsforthesystemandsoknowwhatiscoming.Theymayfeelthatusingitwillhelpthemgrowanddevelopnewcareerskillsandopportunities.

Thischapterreviewsorganisationalfactorsthatarerelevanttotheintroductionandacceptanceofinformationtechnology(IT)systems.Eachfactoristhenrelatedtoin-cartechnologyandthedrivingdomain.Conclusionsaredrawnwhichdescribestrategiesfordeployingin-cartechnologysothatorganisationalfactorshelptopromoteratherthanconstrainuseracceptance.

OrganisationalFactorsandNewTechnology

Whennewtechnologyisintroducedintoaworkoractivitysetting,itsitswithinphysicalsurroundings,people,proceduresandothertechnologiesthattogethermakeupatotalsystem.Thisiscalledthe‘organisationalcontext’.Theorganisationalcontextwillaffecthowthesystemisthenusedandcanhaveimplicationsforthedesignoftheuserinterfacetoit(Maguire2013).Ifitisdevelopedfromauserperspectiveandwithaconsiderationofhowitwillmatchtheorganisationalcontext,itismorelikelytobeacceptedandusedasintended.Ifnot,thenthesystemmayendupbeingonlypartiallyused,misusedornotusedatall.

TheimportanceofhavingknowledgeoforganisationalcontextisrecognisedintheISOstandard9241-210(2010)concernedwithhuman-centreddesign.Itstates:

Thecharacteristicsoftheusers,tasksandtheorganisationalandphysicalenvironmentdefinethecontextinwhichthesystemisused.Itisimportanttounderstandandidentifythedetailsofthiscontextinordertoguideearlydesigndecisions,andtoprovideabasisforevaluation.

Figure19.1showssomeofthekeyelementsoftheorganisationalenvironmentthatmayinteractwithanewITsystemwhenitisintroduced.

Thereareanumberofsociotechnicalprinciplesthatguidesystemdesign(Clegg2000).Oneoftheseisthattheorganisationalcontextisnotstaticandwillevolveovertime.WhentheITsystemitselfisintroduceditmaychangetherolesthatworkersoccupy,theirwaysofworkingandtheirattitudestotechnology.Thereareanumberofwell-developedandvalidatedmodelsforhowwellusersreceivetechnology.OneoftheseisthetechnologyacceptancemodelorTAM(Davis1989,Davis,BagozziandWarshaw1989),whichhasbeensuccessfullyappliedinexaminingadoptionbehaviourofvariousinformationsystems(Figure19.2).

ThecoreideaoftheTAMisthattechnologyacceptanceisbaseduponaperson’soverallattitudetowardsasystem.Thisisdeterminedbyhowusefuloreasytousetheyfeelthattechnologytobe(i.e.,itsperceivedusefulness–PU,anditsperceivedeaseofuse–PEU).Thismayinturnbeinfluencedbywider

anditsperceivedeaseofuse–PEU).Thismayinturnbeinfluencedbywideraspectsintheorganisationalcontext.SometimesotherfeaturesareassociatedwiththeTAMsuchastrustinthesystemandthesocialinfluenceofothers;forexampleinrecommendingthesystemorcertainfunctionsofit.Thesereflectthewiderorganisationalcontextthatinfluencesindividualuserviews.

Figure19.1FactorsmakinguptheorganisationalcontextforanITsystem

Figure19.2TechnologyacceptancemodeldescribedbyDavis(1989)Ithasnotbeenpossibletoamendthisfigureforsuitableviewingonthisdevice.PleaseseethefollowingURLforalargerversionhttp://www.ashgate.com/pdf/ebooks/9781472405852Fig19_2.pdf

TheTAMreflectsoureverydayexperiencesofacquiringorusingtechnologyandourperceivedneeds.Forexample,keepingadigitalcamerainthecartorecordthesceneorawarningtriangleasaroadsidewarningarebothconsideredusefulifanaccidentoccurs.

OrganisationalDeploymentFactors

Inthissection,arangeoforganisationalfactorsispresentedthatinfluencetheacceptanceofITand,whererelevant,aspectsofPUandPEUoftechnology.Eachfactorisrelatedtotheintroductionofin-vehicletechnology.Inthecontextofdriving,theorganisationaldomainisthedriver,passengersandotherroadusers.Wheretechnologymayhavewiderimplicationsonpeopleortheenvironment,theorganisationmaybeconsideredtobesocietyitself.

Itshouldbesaidthatthedesignandinstallationofsafeandefficientin-vehicleinformationandcommunicationsystemsisalsoanimportantpartoftechnologyacceptance.Theapplicationofprinciplesforachievingthis,asdefinedbytheEuropeanCommission(2008),isstillneededinadditiontoconsideringhowacceptanceisinfluencedbyorganisationalfactors.

OrganisationalGoals

Anorganisation’sgoalsareoftensummarisedintermsofahighlevelvisionstatementofwhatitwishestoachieveandprovidingtheinspirationforstrategicdecisionsanddailyoperation.ThegoalsforanorganisationshouldleadthedesignofanewITsystem.Iftheyarenotexplicitordetailedenough,thiscanmakeithardtospecifytheuserrequirementsfornewITtosupporttheachievementofthosegoals.So,forexample,ifthegoalofanewcallcentresystemistoprovidecustomerswiththebestexperiencewhentheycontacttheorganisation,thesystemneedstoprovidetheinformationinaflexiblewayandwithfunctionsthatareeasilyaccessibletosupportthatgoal.Ifthecallcentresystemsupportsonlyarigidstructureofquestionsinordertoprocesscustomerenquiriesasquicklyaspossible,thiswon’thelpinachievingtheorganisationalgoals.Thesamecanbeappliedtoin-cartechnology.Thehighlevelgoalsheremaybetoassistthemotoringcommunityindrivingmoreeconomically,safelyandcomfortably,andpossiblytohelpthemmaintainthecarmoreeasily.Ifnew

andcomfortably,andpossiblytohelpthemmaintainthecarmoreeasily.Ifnewtechnologyinthecarhelpstoachievethis,itwillfitinwiththeaspirationsofthedriverandpassengerswhowillbemotivatedtouseandacceptit.

Theorganisationalgoalfortheintroductionofnewtechnologymaybetomergetwoormoresystemstogethersothatusersindifferentrolescanusethesamesystem.ThiswastheplanbehindtheproposedmergeroftheNationalProbationandHMPrisonServiceoffendermanagementsystemsinEnglandandWales.Thedetailsofanoffenderwhomovedbackandforthbetweenprisonandprobationcouldbekeptonthesamesystemwhilebeingaccessibletobothservices.Systemconvergencegoalscanleadtolowersystemmaintenance,simplificationoftrainingprogrammes,removaloftheneedtotransferdatabetweensystemsandeasiercommunicationbetweenthetwoservices.Therehasbeenatrendtomergedifferentsystemsinthecar(communication,navigation,entertainment,ventilationandclimatecontrol,etc.)sothattheconfusingarrayofcontrolsisaccessedfromasinglecontrolunitgivingthedriverasimpleruserinterface.Inprinciplethisisagoodideabutiftheintegratedsystemcontainstoomanyfunctionsandthecontrolsanddisplaysareoversimplified,thiscanmaketheuserinterfacedifficultforthedrivertonavigate.TheBMWiDriveisoneexampleofthis(Cobb2002,Gilbert2004).However,theconceptofacomputer-oriented,integratedinterfacehasbecomepopularintheluxurysegmentofthecarindustry(Niedermaieretal.2009).

Roles,ResponsibilitiesandSkills

Peoplewithinanorganisationoftenfulfiloneormoreroleswithaccompanyingresponsibilities.Whenanewsystemisintroducedtheremaybeamismatchbetweenthisandaperson’scurrentroleandresponsibilities.Forexample,apersonwhoisonlyexperiencedinperformingITmaintenancemayfinditdifficultiftheyarealsorequired,withoutsuitabletraining,toprovideusersupport.Workersusuallyvaluetheskillstheyhavebuiltupovertimeandapplyintheirjob,sayinanalysis,decision-makingorliaisonwithothers.However,newtechnologymayreplacethesetasks,leavingtheoperatorswithmoreroutineandlesschallengingroles.Theymayforinstancebeinchargeoftravelarrangementsforstaffandcompilingrequirementsforofficesupplies.Thisrolemaybetakenawayandbecomelessefficientiftheprocessisdevolvedandtravelrequestsandordersforofficematerialsaresentdirectlybyindividualemployeestotheexternalsupplier.

Moderncarsorlorriesoftenbringalevelofautomationtodrivingsuchasadaptivecruisecontrol,vehicleplatooning,driverassistlanekeepingormerging

intotraffic,speedlimitersforteenagedrivers,alertsfordrowsydrivers,automatedparkingandpossiblyinthefuture,automateddriving.Itcanbearguedthatwhilesuchdevelopmentstendtodeskilldrivers,theymayalsorequirethedrivertoacquirenewskillsofmonitoringandintervention.Methodsforoptimalallocationoftasksbetweenhumanbeingsandmachineshavebeendeveloped,forexamplebyWaterson(2005).Theseincludedecisioncriteriasuchasthefeasibilityofallocatingatasktothemachineandthelegalrequirementforahumantoperformatask.Inrelationtocontrolsystemsandautomation,Sheridandevelopeda10-pointscaleshowingpossiblelevelsofcomputerautomation,forexample,thecomputersuggestingapathoractionallowingtheusertoapproveit,orthecomputerdecidingonapathofactionandinformingtheuserafterithasbeencarriedout(Parasuraman,SheridanandWickens2000).Decidingonwhatisanappropriatelevelofautomationforparticulartechnologiesororganisationalcontextsdependsonfactorssuchascomplexityandpredictabilityofthecontrolprocess,workloadontheuser,fatigue,criticalityoferrorsandtheconsequencesofactionsanderrorsincludingethicalconcerns.Thepotentialuseofautomateddronesinwarfarehasbroughtthistopicintosharpfocus(Finn2011).Similarly,thenewGoogledriverlesscarwillrequirearethinkofwhatskillsarerequiredinsuchanenvironment(Nasaw2012).

Aninterestingquestionintermsofdriversusingin-cartechnologyishowmuchtheymaytrytodelegateresponsibilitytothetechnology.Adrivermaydriveclosetothesafetylimitsandtrustthecartomitigatetheeffectofanylossofcontrol;forexample,throughActiveSafetysystems,suchasbrakeassist,tractioncontrolandelectronicstabilitycontrol.Awarenessandtrainingwouldbevaluabletohelpthedrivertakeappropriateresponsibilitywhentheycometousesuchsystems.Thiswouldalsogivethemconfidenceinengagingwithsuchsystemsandbeingmorewillingtoacceptthem.

Discretionintheuseofin-cartechnologyislikelytobepreferredoverasystemthatdoesnotallowit.Anexamplemightbeasatellitenavigationsystemthatallowstheusertospecifyanintermediatedestinationpartwaythroughajourneyratherthansplittingitupintotwoseparatejourneys.Afacilityallowingadriverofahirecartodisableanyspecialdrivingmodesthathavebeensetpreviouslyislikelytobehelpful.

Generalcharacteristicsofgoodjobdesign–variety,autonomy,taskidentityandfeedback(HackmanandLawler1971)–canberelatedtothedrivingenvironment.Thiscouldbedesignedtosupportdrivingasacompletetask,thusmatchingtheideaofacoherentjob.Insomecarsfeedbackisofferedondrivingperformanceintermsofefficiency,fuelsavingandsoon.Thiscouldbetranslatedintermsofcontributiontotheenvironment,reducinggeneralstresson

translatedintermsofcontributiontotheenvironment,reducinggeneralstressontheroadandsavingwearandtearcosts.AcarpromotedinthesetermsmightbeattractivetopotentialbuyerswhoseedrivingasmorethansimplygoingfromAtoB.

WorkflowsandProcedures

Workflowsandproceduresdescribethewaythingsaredoneoroughttobedonewithinanorganisationtoachieveitsgoalsandobjectives.Inpractice,workersmayhavetoworkaroundtherulestogetthingsdone.Whileproceduresareprimecandidatestobeencodedinsoftwaredesign,thereisadangerthatintryingtoimplementthemwithoutanunderstandingofhowtheyworkinpractice,theymayproduceaninefficientornon-viablesystem.

Inthemedicalfield,acomputerised‘physicianorderentrysystem’wasintroducedwhichreducednurse-physicianinteractionaboutcriticallyillinfants(Harrison,KoppeiandBar-Lev2007).Inthenewsystem,physiciansinitiatedordersformedicationandpharmacistscheckedthemwhileclerksdeliveredthemtonursesforadministration.Thislinearworkflowledtodelaysindeliveryoforders,uncertaintyoverwhethertheyhadbeeninitiated,andsometimes,divergentorderswereproduced.Thusnursescontinuedtoinitiateorders,tointerruptphysicianstoensurethatordershadbeenenteredontothesystem,andtomakedecisionswhendivergentmedicationorderswerepresented.Abetterunderstandingofthecurrentproceduresandmoreflexibilityinthenewsystemprocesswouldhavehelpedtopreventsomeoftheproblemsoccurringandwouldhaveimprovedsystemacceptance.

Intermsofproceduresforsettingupnewtechnologyinthecar,presentingaseriesofpromptsforeachstepintheprocesscouldbehelpful.Thecarmightalsomonitoradriver’stypicalbehaviourinusingcontrolsandgiveadviceonhowtointegratethenewtechnologywithintheirdriving.Ifcarefullythoughtout,thiswouldmakethetakeupofthetechnologyamoreuser-friendlyexperience.

LawsandRegulations

Inworkinglife,thereareoftenlawsorregulationsthathavetobefollowed;forexample,abouttheprotectionofpersonalinformation,thetestingofcircuitboardsformilitaryuseandsafepracticebymedicalstaff.Thesesocietalrequirementsmightbeinconflictwithinternalproceduresandrules.Inahospitalenvironment,medicalstaffmightbeissuedwithIDcardstoaccessthepatientrecordssystemwitharegulationthattheymustnotallowothersto

patientrecordssystemwitharegulationthattheymustnotallowotherstoborrowthem.However,forpracticalreasons,nursesmayhavetolendtheircardssothatnewstaffmemberscanaccessthesystemandstartworkbeforebeingissuedtheirowncard.Enforcingtheregulationbyincorporatingbiometricsecuritycouldpreventthispracticebutwouldthencauseinconvenienceforstaff.Currentworkpracticesandthereasonsforthemneedtobeconsideredbeforeanewsystemisintroduced.

Intermsofin-cartechnology,thesystemmightdisablethecarphonewhendriving.However,thismightbecounterproductiveifthephoneisrequiredinanemergencysituation.Similarly,apoliceroadcameramightunfairlycatchdriverswhorunthroughan‘alwaysred’trafficlightthathasfailed,orwhouseausuallyprohibitedpartoftheroadspaceorpedestrianareatogetaroundafallentree.Thussystemdesignneedstotakeaccountoflawsandregulationsbutbeawareofsituationswhereitmaynotbeappropriatebysystembehaviourorrestrictiontoenforcethemstrictly.

WhiletheuseofhandheldphonesinacarisillegalintheUK,theuseofhands-freephonesisallowedprovidedthedriverisseentobeincontrolofthevehicle.Ifthisisnotthecase,theyortheiremployercanbeprosecuted.Thereisevidencethathands-freephonesarenotnecessarilysaferthanhandhelddevicessincetalkingandlisteningcantakeupalotofmentalcapacity(NunesandRecarte2002).Nevertheless,communicationfromacentralofficetodriversontheroadremainsasignificantneed,sothereisanopportunityforcreativethinkingabouthowtofacilitateitinasafemanner.Forexample,alightonthedashboardcouldwarnthedriverthattheyhaveacallwaitingandtoslowdowninordertotakeithands-free.

CommunicationandDistraction

Communicationbetweenpeopleisarequirementforeffectiveworkinginmostorganisationsandhelpstorelieveboredomandworkstress.IThasfacilitatedmanynewformsofcommunication(email,texting,instantmessaging,video-telephonyandconferencing),butthiscancreatebarrierstoface-to-facecommunicationorcommunicationoverload.

Someformsoftechnologysuchasmachinery,manufacturingprocessesorevenITequipmentcancreatenoisethathamperscommunicationbetweenpeople.Partitionedworkspacescanalsohavetheeffectofcreatingisolationwhichworkersoftenviewnegatively(Vickers2007).Establishedworkproceduresmayinvolvecertainkindsofcommunicationbetweendifferentgroupsofpeople;forexample,nursesanddoctors,managersandstaff.Ifanewsystemcutsacrosstheseestablishedchannelsofcommunication,itcancreate

systemcutsacrosstheseestablishedchannelsofcommunication,itcancreatefrustrationandpossiblyresultinalessefficientsystem(BoonstraandBroekhuis2010).

Whenconsideringthesocialcontextofthecarasincludingbothdriverandpassengers,otherquestionsarise.Peoplewithinacarwillnormallybeincommunicationwitheachotherwhichmayaffecthowthedriverinteractswithin-cartechnologyorreducetheattentiontheypaytoit.Passengersmayalsoaccessfunctionalityonthedriver’sbehalfsuchassettingthesatnavoroperatingtheentertainmentsystem.Withincars,soundproofinghasenabledthedriverandpassengerstocommunicatefreelyalthoughin-cartechnologycanhindersuchcommunicationiftheyhaveaudiooutput(forexample,spokendirectionsfromasatnav).Havingasilentoravisualdisplay-onlymodemaybehelpfulinmakingsuchsystemsmoreacceptable.Technologythatpreventsuseofacellphonewhileavehicleisinmotion,thuspreventingusebyapassenger,isanotherpotentialproblem.Newsensingtechnologywhichcandeterminewhetheraphoneisbeingusedbythedriverorbyapassengermayovercomethisproblem(Talbot2012).Fordrivers,filteringoutallbutkeycallersforhands-freecommunicationmaybehelpful.

WorkCulture

Workcultureismadeupofthesharedvalues,beliefs,underlyingassumptions,language,attitudesandbehaviourssharedbyagroupofpeople(Donais2006).Cultureisthebehaviourthatresultswhenagrouparrivesatasetofgenerallyunspokenandunwrittenrulesforworkingtogether.Anorganisation’scultureismadeupofallofthelifeexperienceseachemployeebringstotheorganisation.Cultureisespeciallyinfluencedbytheorganisation’sfounder,theexecutivesandothermanagerialstaffbecauseoftheirroleindecision-makingandstrategicdirection.

IfanITsystemprovidesawayofworkingthatdoesnotmatchwiththetypicalworkculture,thiscancauseproblemsintheorganisation.Soifasystemrequires,forinstance,frequentcheckingofemails,loggingofpeople’smovementsandrecordingofhowworkhourshavebeenspent,thismightfailifitisnotpartofthegeneralworkcultureofthegroup.

Forin-carsystems,astudyofdriverattitudestowardsnewcardevelopmentsandthewaytheythinkandtalkabouttheirvehiclescanbeausefulinputtothedesignprocess.Forexample,itmaybefoundthatownersofcertainvehiclesgenerallyhaveahighleveloftechnicalknowledgeandaremorelikelytomaintainorcarryoutrepairsforthemselves.Thiscouldencouragethedesignofvehiclesthatprovidediagnosticinformationtotheownersasguidancewhen

vehiclesthatprovidediagnosticinformationtotheownersasguidancewhenworkingontheircars.

TechnicalandFunctionalKnowledge

Technicalknowledgeamongemployeesinaworksituationcanbeanimportantfactorindeterminingauser’ssuccessintheuseandacceptanceofnewtechnology.If,forexample,auserhassomeknowledgeabouttelecommunications,theyaremorelikelytobeabletosortouttheproblemifanInternetconnectionfails.Iftheyhaveknowledgeaboutsoftwareapplications,thiswillhelpthemworkmoreefficiently.Examplesaretheuseofkeyboardshortcutcommands,thedisplayofcontrolcharacterswheneditingawordprocessingdocumentandthesplittingofrowsandcolumnsinaspreadsheetsothatheadingsstayvisiblewhenscrollingthroughthedata.

AlhussainandDrew(2009)studiedemployees’perceptionsofusingbiometricequipmentforidentityrecognitionintwogovernmentdepartmentsintheKingdomofSaudiArabia.Fingerprintscannerswereusedtorecordandproveemployees’attendancethuspreventingthemfromsigning-inforothers.Thesurveyidentifiedalackoftrustinandacceptanceofthetechnologybysomeworkers,whichtheauthorsfeltwasduetoalackoftechnicalknowledgeandexperiencewithtechnology.Employeeswerealsounsureabouttheiremployer’smotivesforusingthetechnologyandmanyfeltthatthisindicatedalackoftrustinthem.TheauthorsadvocatedthatmanagersshouldacquireabetterunderstandingofbiometrictechnologyandITsotheyshouldimplementitinamoresensitiveway,whileemployeesshouldbemademoreawareofthepurposeandbenefitsoftheinnovation.

Intheauthor’sownexperience,alackofknowledgebymembersofthepublicabouttheuseofbiometrictechnologytoaccessATMcashmachineswasareasonforreduceduseracceptanceofthem.InafocusgroupstudyconductedforanATMmanufacturer(Maguire2003),someparticipantsthoughtthatirisscanningwasunsafeasitusedalaserbeam,andunhygienicastheyhadtoplacetheireyeoveratubesharedwithothercustomers.Infact,thetechnologyisbasedoncameratechnologysotheuserhasnophysicalcontactwithit.Otherparticipantsdoubtedwhetherfaceorvoicerecognitiontechnologywouldworkifsomeone’sappearanceorvoicechanged.However,suchtechnologiesarebasedondimensionsofthefaceandfundamentalcharacteristicsofthevoicesoaremorereliablethatpeopleappreciated.

Thesameideascanbeappliedtoin-cartechnology.Knowledgeofhowdifferentfeaturesofadrivingsystemoperate,couldpromoteitsuseinamore

appropriatewaybybuildingtrustinitsoperation,enablingthedrivertouseitmoreefficientlyandovercominganyproblemswhenusingit.AnexampleisAdaptiveCruiseControl(ACC),whichusesheadwaysensorstocontinuouslymeasurethedistancetoothervehicles,automaticallyadjustingthevehicle’sspeedtoensurethatitdoesnotgettooclosetotheoneinfront.Therearedifficultieswiththistechnologyasittendstolockontolargetrucksinpreferencetomotorcyclesand‘unexpectedly’acceleratesintoanoff-roadlanewhenexitingintoamoreslowlymovingtrafficstream.Bybeingawareofthis,driverscandecidewhenitisappropriatetoemployACCandwhennot,andhowtointeractwithitappropriately.

SafetyThinking

Correctoperationofsystemsisimportanttoensurethesafetyoftheworkers,thepublicandtheenvironment.Duringthedevelopmentofasafetycriticalsystem,theimplicationsofitsuseareassessedand,wherenecessary,measuresaredeterminedtomeetsafetyneeds.Carefulattentiontosafetyissuesthenbuildsuptrustinthesystemwhichissharedbythosewhoworkinitandthosewhouseit.Reason(2004)arguesthatinthemedicaldomain,someorganisationalaccidentsequencescouldbethwartedatthelastminuteifthoseonthefrontlinehadacquiredsomedegreeoferrorwisdomandappropriatementalskills.Inasimilarway,knowledgeofdangeroussituationsandsafedrivingbehaviourcandoalottoreducethenumberofvehicleandpedestrianaccidents.Variousdocumentsareproducedbyorganisations,forexampleBVRLA(2012)andROSPA(2012),whichgiveguidelinesonsafedrivingandimploringemployerstodisseminatethemtotheiremployeesontheroad.

SecurityandUsability

Tokeepasystemsecure,authoriseduserswilloftenberequiredtoenteroneormoreusercodesandpasswords:forexample,toaccessthenetwork,theoperatingsystem,andtheapplication.Levelsofuseraccessandfunctionsavailablemayalsobeconstraineddependingoneachperson’sgradeorjobrole,soadditionalcodesmaybeneededtoaccesssensitiveorconfidentialdata.

Unfortunately,multiplepasswordsarehardtorememberespeciallyiftheychange,sotensionexistsbetweenmaintainingsecurityandeaseofuse.System-generatedpasswordstendtobehardtorememberwhileuser-generatedonesareopentohackersguessingthem(e.g.,‘secret’,‘qwerty’and‘1234’).Somepeople

maywritetheirpasswordsdown,whichcompoundstheproblemofsecurity.Ifauserforgetstheirpasswordorislockedoutfromthesystembecauseoffailedaccessattempts,theythenhavetosortouthowtoregainaccess.

Infuture,securityaccessforcarsmayevolveandbecomemorelikeITsystemaccess,withtheuseofpasswordsorbiometrics.Fingerprintcarlocksalreadyexistandtheuseofotherbiometrictechniquesmayfollow.Onceinthecar,personalidentificationmaybeusedtosetthecorrectseatingposition,steering-wheelangleortostartthecar.Whilesuchsystemsforvehicleaccessareattractivefromasecuritypointofview,therearedangersinlockingoutthedriverwhoforgetstheirpasswordorifthebiometricsystemfailslateatnightinanunfamiliarlocation.Havingabackupmechanismforsuchsituationsislikelytogivefuturedriversandcustomersmoreconfidenceincar-accessinnovations.

TrainingandSupport

Asystemdevelopedtosupportacompanyorpublicorganisation’sworkprocesseswillnormallyrequireatrainingprogrammeandusersupport.Carefulorganisationofuserawarenessandtrainingsessionsandmatchingthemtoindividuallearningstyles,playsakeyroleinstaffattitudestowardsasystemandenthusiasmforusingit(Bostram,OlfmanandSein1990).

Drivinglessonsandadvanceddrivertrainingarethemeansbywhichpeoplelearnthebasiccontrolsofacarandgaindrivingexperience.Asin-cartechnologybecomesmoreadvancedandanincreasinglysignificantpartofdriving,itmaybenecessaryforlearnerorexistingdriverstobetrainedinthesafeandeffectiveuseofit.Thismightbecomepartofdrivertrainingandthedrivingtest,orbeofferedbythevehiclemanufacturer,althoughsimilarprovisionmaynotbeavailablewithinthesecond-handmarket.Trainingtousevehicletechnologiessuchasanti-collisionwarning,self-parkingoradaptivecruisecontrolmightbeconductedpartlywithinadrivingsimulatorsothatadriverlearningtousethetechnologycanmakeerrorsand‘crash’safely.However,thisshouldnotbeasubstituteforthedesignofanintuitiveuserinterface.

SummaryofOrganisationalFactorsThatHaveImplicationsforVehicleTechnology

ThefollowingtablesummarisestheorganisationalaspectsofITimplementationandthecorrespondingimplicationsforthedesignofin-cartechnology.

Table19.1Summaryoforganisationalcontextfactorsandhowtheymayrelatetoin-cartechnology

Conclusions:OrganisationalStrategiesfortheAcceptanceofIn-CarTechnologies

KnowledgeoftheorganisationalenvironmentisimportantifanITsystemistointegratewellwiththesocialsystemandbeacceptedbytheusercommunity.Theintroductionofcomputertechnologyintovehiclescanbeseeninthesameway.Itwillonlybesuccessfulandacceptedifmatchedwiththesocialororganisationaldomain;thatis,thedrivingcommunityandbroadersociety.

Generalstrategiesthatcanbeemployedareasfollows:

1.Userawarenessandreadinessforthenewtechnologyisparamount.Ifadriverisawareofwhatthenewtechnologycando,theyaremorelikelyto

driverisawareofwhatthenewtechnologycando,theyaremorelikelytoperceivethebenefitsofusingit.Similarly,themoretheyunderstandabouthowthetechnologyoperates,theeasiertheywillfindittouse.Givingdriverspriorexperienceofin-cartechnologythroughshowroomdemonstrationscanhelptopromotebothoftheseaspects.Drivinginstructorscouldalsoprovidetrainingintheuseofthesetechnologies,ifnothingelse,togivenewdriversexposuretothem.

2.Driversvaluetheskillsandexperiencetheybuildupindriving.Technologywithincarsthatmakestheseskillsredundantisunlikelytobeacceptedeasily.Userrequirementsanalysiscanhelptoexplorewhatskillsdriversvalue,whattheywouldbepreparedtogiveupandwhatnewskillstheymightdevelopwhennewtechnologyisintroduced.

3.Aswithanyformofautomation,problemscanoccuriftheuserofthesystemisnotinformedaboutautomatedactionsthattakeplaceorgiventheflexibilitytoturnthemonandoff.Suchsystemsalsoneedtofitwiththenaturalbehaviourofthedriver,whichmightbethoughtofinorganisationaltermsasthe‘culturalcontext’.Knowledgeofthiscontextforparticulargroupsofdriverswillhelppredicthowwellcertainin-cartechnologieswillbeacceptedandused.

4.Peopleinanorganisationarenormallymoremotivatediftheycanseehowtheirparticularjoborrolecontributestothebroadersuccessofthecompanyororganisation.Iftheuseofnewtechnologyisseenbythedriverascontributingtodesirablehigh-levelgoals,suchasenhancingtheirdrivingskills,improvingtheexperienceofthepassengers,andreducingcostsoremissions,thenitwillbemoreattractiveandacceptable.

Ingeneralterms,drivingcanbeequatedtoanyjobortaskthatapersonperforms.Technologyinthecarthatpromotesthelearningofnewskills,supportsthedrivingtask,contributestodriver’saspirationsandfitsinwiththeircultureandvalues,willgreatlyenhancethechancesofitstake-up.

References

Alhussain,T.andDrewS.2009.TowardsuseracceptanceofbiometrictechnologyinE-Government:AsurveystudyintheKingdomofSaudiArabia.InIFIPInternationalFederationforInformationProcessing,26–38.Boston:Springer.

Boonstra,A.andBroekhuis,M.2010.Barrierstotheacceptanceofelectronic

medicalrecordsbyphysiciansfromsystematicreviewtotaxonomyandinterventions.BMCHealthServicesResearch,10:1–17.

Bostrom,R.P.,Olfman,L.andSein,M.K.1990.Theimportanceoflearningstyleinend-usertraining.ManagementInformationSystemsQuarterly,14(1):101–19.

BritishVehicleRentalandLeasingAssociation.2012.Drivingatworkguide.Availableat:http://www.bvrla.co.uk/Advice_and_Guidance/Driving_at_work.aspx[accessed:26November2013].

Clegg,C.W.2000.Sociotechnicalprinciplesforsystemdesign.AppliedErgonomics,31(5):463–77.

Cobb,J.G.2002.Menusbehavingbadly.NewYorkTimes,12May.[Online:12May].Availableat:http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/12/automobiles/menus-behaving-badly.html[accessed:26November2013].

Davis,F.D.1989.Perceivedusefulness,perceivedeaseofuse,anduseracceptanceofinformationtechnology.ManagementInformationSystemsQuarterly,13(3):319–40.

Davis,F.D.,Bagozzi,R.P.andWarshaw,P.R.1989.Useracceptanceofcomputertechnology:Acomparisonoftwotheoreticalmodels.ManagementScience,35(8):982–1003.

Donais,B.2006.WorkplacesThatWork:AGuidetoConflictManagementinUnionandNon-UnionWorkEnvironments.Aurora,Ontario:CanadaLawBook.Availableat:http://www.mediate.com/articles/donaisB3.cfm[accessed:10September2013].

Eason,K.D.1988.InformationTechnologyandOrganisationalChange.London:TaylorandFrancis.

EuropeanCommission.2008.Recommendationonsafeandefficientin-vehicleinformationandcommunicationsystems:UpdateoftheEuropeanStatementofPrinciplesonhuman–machineinterface,26May.Availableat:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008H0653:EN:NOT[accessed:26November2013].

Finn,P.2011.Afuturefordrones:Automatedkilling.WashingtonPost,20September.Availableat:http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/a-future-for-drones-automated-killing/2011/09/15/gIQAVy9mgK_story.html[accessed:10September2013].

Gilbert,R.K.2004.BMWiDRIVE.PreparedforDrM.Lewis,Professorof

InformationScience,UniversityofPittsburgh.[Online:4March].Availableat:http://www2.sis.pitt.edu/~rgilbert/is2350/documents/iDrive.pdf[accessed:26November2013].

Hackman,J.R.andLawler,E.E.1971.Employeereactionstojobcharacteristics.JournalofAppliedPsychology,55(3):259–86.

Harrison,M.I.,Koppei,R.andBar-Lev,S.2007.Unintendedconsequencesofinformationtechnologiesinhealthcare:Aninteractivesociotechnicalanalysis.JournaloftheAmericanMedicalInformaticsAssociation,14:542–9.

InternationalOrganizationforStandardization(ISO).2010.Ergonomicsofhuman-systeminteraction–Part210:Human-centreddesignforinteractivesystems.Geneva:ISO.

Kirk,M.S.1983.Organisationalaspects.InErgonomicprinciplesinofficeautomation:Stateoftheartreportsandguidelinesonhumanfactorsintheofficeenvironment,115–33.Bromma,Sweden:EricssonInformationSystemsAB.

Maguire,M.C.2003.Theuseoffocusgroupsforuserrequirementsanalysis.In:Focusgroups:Supportingeffectiveproductdevelopment.EditedbyJ.D.LangfordandD.McDonagh.Chapter5,73–96.London:TaylorandFrancis.

———.2013.Sociotechnicalsystemsanduserinterfacedesign:21stcenturyrelevance.In‘AdvancesinSociotechnicalSystemsUnderstandingandDesign:AFestschriftinHonourofK.D.Eason,AppliedErgonomics’.Inpress.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.05.011.

Nasaw,D.2012.Driverlesscarsandhowtheywouldchangemotoring.BBCNewsMagazine,Washington,10May.Availableat:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18012812[accessed:26November2013].

Niedermaier,B.,Durach,S.,Eckstein,L.andKeinath,A.2009.ThenewBMWiDrive:Appliedprocessesandmethodstoassurehighusability.InDigitalHumanModeling,LectureNotesinComputerScience,no.5620:443–52.

Nunes,L.andRecarte,M.A.2002.Cognitivedemandsofhands-free-phoneconversationwhiledriving.TransportationResearch,F5:133–44.

Parasuraman,R.,Sheridan,T.B.andWickens,C.D.2000.Amodelfortypesandlevelsofhumaninteractionwithautomation.IEEETransactionsonSystems,ManandCybernetics30(3):286–97.

Reason,J.2004.Beyondtheorganisationalaccident:Theneedfor‘errorwisdom’onthefrontline.QualityandSafetyinHealthCare(now:BMJQualityandSafety),13(ii):28–33.

RoyalSocietyforthePreventionofAccidents(ROSPA).2012.Drivingforwork:Vehicletechnology.[Online:TheRoyalSocietyforthePreventionofAccidents].Availableat:http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/vehicletech.pdf[accessed:26November2013].

Talbot,D.2012.Appbattlesdriverdistractionbutsparespassengers:Anewapproachinhibitsdangerousphoneusebydetectingwhenadriverisonthephone.MITTechnologyReview.Availableat:http://www.technologyreview.com/news/426889/app-battles-driver-distraction-but-spares-passengers/[accessed:26November2013].

Vickers,E.2007.Copingwithspeechnoiseinthemodernworkplace.Online:TheSoundGuy,Inc.Availableat:http://chatterblocker.com/whitepapers/conversational_distraction.html[accessed:26November2013].

Waterson,P.E.2005.Sociotechnicaldesignofworksystems.InEvaluationofHumanWork(3rdEdition),769–92.EditedbyJ.R.WilsonandE.N.Corlett.London:TaylorandFrancis.

Chapter20AdaptivePolicymakingforIntelligentTransport

SystemAcceptanceJan-WillemvanderPas

DelftUniversityofTechnology,FacultyofTechnology,PolicyandManagement,theNetherlands

WarrenE.WalkerDelftUniversityofTechnology,FacultyofTechnology,

PolicyandManagement,andFacultyofAerospace,theNetherlands

VincentMarchauRadboudUniversity,NijmegenSchoolofManagement,theNetherlands

SvenVlassenrootGhentUniversity,Belgium,andFlandersInstituteforMobility,Belgium

Introduction

IntelligentTransportSystem(ITS)implementationisoftenhinderedbytheuncertaintiesthatsurroundimplementation(see,e.g.,Marchauetal.2002,vanGeenhuizenandThissen2002,Walta2011,vanderPasetal.2012).OftenthisuncertaintyrelatestogeneralpublicacceptanceoftheITStechnology,thefutureacceptanceofthetechnologyorthedynamicsinacceptanceofthetechnology.(HerewerefertotheuncertaintyregardingfutureITSacceptanceamongstakeholdersdueto,forinstance,changesinthetrade-offsstakeholdersmakeamongITSoutcomesandchangesinthestakeholderconfiguration.)Transportpolicymakersseemparalysedinthefaceofthisuncertainty.Often,thisresultsintheabandonmentofimplementationofITS(e.g.,theimplementationofroadpricingintheNetherlands)oradelayinimplementationduetotheconclusionthatmoreresearchisneededbeforeadecisioncanbemade(e.g.,thenumeroustrialsofIntelligentSpeedAdaptationthathavebeenheldacrosstheworld–seevanderPas,MarchauandWalker2006).Butwhatshouldtransportpolicymakersdoinsituationsinwhichthefutureissouncertainthatanalystscannotagreeupontherightmodelorhavelittleunderstandingofwhatthefuture

willlooklike?Hereafter,werefertothistypeofuncertaintyas‘deepuncertainty’.

Inthischapterweintroduceapolicymakingapproachthatisespeciallydesignedtodealwithdeepuncertaintyindevelopingpolicies.ThisapproachiscalledAdaptivePolicymaking(APM).APMisapolicymakingapproachthatwasdevelopedattheendofthe1990sattheRANDCorporationinresponsetotheneedtocopewithdeepuncertaintyinlong-termpolicymakingforAmsterdamAirportSchiphol(RANDEurope1997).Theapproachaimsatcreatingpoliciesthatcanchangeovertime,astheworldchanges,anduncertaintiesaboutthefutureareresolved.APMspecifiesaseriesofgenericstepsfordecision-makingunderuncertaintythatcanbeusedtodesignanadaptivepolicy.ThestepsinAPMarebasedonthestepsofSystemsAnalysis(MiserandQuade1985),andkeyconceptsarederivedfromAssumption-BasedPlanning(ABP)(Dewar2002).ThepotentialofAPMhasbeendemonstratedbyvariousresearchersusingtransportationcasesthatreflectreal-worldpolicyproblems(Agusdinata,MarchauandWalker2007,Marchauetal.2008,AgusdinataandDittmar2009,Taneja,LigteringenandSchuylenburg2010a,Tanejaetal.2010b,Kwakkel,WalkerandMarchau2010,Marchau,WalkerandvanWee2010).However,APMhasseenlittlepracticalapplication.Onlyrecently,almost10yearsafterthefirstpublicationonAPM,hasattentionbeengiventothepracticaluseofAPM(Kwakkel2010,Walker,MarchauandSwanson2010,vanderPas2011).

Whyisitimportanttoincludeachapteronhowtransportdecision-makerscandealwithuncertaintyinabookthatdiscussesacceptanceissuesforITStechnologies?ITSarehighlypromisingwhenitcomestoachievingtransportationpolicygoals(e.g.,lessemissions,lesscongestionandagenerallysafertransportsystem).However,publicacceptanceofITSprovescrucialforitsimplementationand,assuch,forcontributingtothesepolicygoals.OftentheacceptanceoftheuseofITS(orpoliciesthatrequiretheuseofITS,suchasroadpricing)isdeeplyuncertain,andinmostcasespolicymakersdonotknowhow,and/ortraditionaltoolsareinsufficient,tocopewiththisuncertainty(see,e.g.,vanderPasetal.2006andvanderPas,KwakkelandvanWee2011).ThischapterdescribesamethodologythatpolicymakerscanusetoovercometheuncertaintiesthathinderITSimplementationandthatcanenablethemtostarttoimplementITSdespitetheseuncertaintiesandtheinherentlyuncertainfuture.

Thischapteranswersthequestion:howcantransportationpolicymakersdealwiththedeepuncertaintyregardingacceptancethatsurroundspoliciesaimedatimplementingITS?Inparticular,inthischapter,we

•explainAPM;•explainhowAPMcanbeusedtodealwithuncertaintyregardingacceptance;and

•illustratehowtouseAPMtodesignadaptivepoliciesusingtworeal-worldITSexamples(onebasedondeskresearch,theotherbasedonparticipativeresearch).

Afterreadingthischapter,areaderwillunderstandwhatAPMisandhowtouseit.Thechapterwillalsosupplythereaderwithsourcestofindmoreinformationonthissubject.InthenextsectionAdaptivePolicymakingisintroducedandthebasicprinciplesareexplained.AdaptivePolicymakingisthenoutlinedusingtwocases–PersonalIntelligentTravelAssistance(PITA)andIntelligentSpeedAdaptation(ISA).Inthefinalsection,themainconclusionsarepresented.

AdaptivePolicymaking

APMisaprocessofpolicydesignthathasfivephases:PhaseIsetsthestage.PhasesII,IIIandIVdesignthepartoftheadaptivepolicythatcanbeimplementedatacertainmomentintime(callthist=0).PhaseVdesignsthepartoftheadaptivepolicythatistobeimplementedatanunspecifiedtimeaftert=0(callthist=0+).Figure20.1presentstheAPMprocess,togetherwiththeelementsthatcompriseanadaptivepolicy.Webrieflyexplaineachphase,defineeachoftheirelements(policyactions),andelaborateontechniquesthatcouldbeusedtofacilitatethephaseinaworkshopsetting.FormoreextensivedescriptionsandexamplesoftheAPMprocess,seeWalker,RahmanandCave(2001),Kwakkeletal.(2010),vanderPas(2011)and/orMarchauetal.(2008).

Figure20.1TheAPMprocessandtheelementsofanadaptivepolicy(adaptedfromKwakkel2010)Ithasnotbeenpossibletoamendthisfigureforsuitableviewingonthisdevice.PleaseseethefollowingURLforalargerversionhttp://www.ashgate.com/pdf/ebooks/9781472405852Fig20_1.pdf

SettingtheStage(PhaseI)andAssemblingtheBasicPolicy(PhaseII)

Inthisphase,thepolicyproblemisanalysedandthegoalsofthepolicyareformulated.SettingthestageisanimportantpartoftheAPMprocess.Therightpolicyproblemhastobeidentifiedandformulated,goalsandadefinitionofsuccesshavetobespecifiedandacomprehensivelistofpolicyoptionshastobegenerated.

AssemblingtheBasicPolicy(PhaseII)

Basedonanex-anteevaluationofthepolicyoptionsidentifiedinPhaseI,apromisingbasicpolicyisassembled;thatis,apromisingstartingpolicy.Inthisphase,theconditionsforachievingsuccessarealsoformulated.Themethodsin

phase,theconditionsforachievingsuccessarealsoformulated.Themethodsinthisphasearepracticallythesameasthemethodsusedintraditionalex-antepolicyanalysistoidentifyapromisingpolicy(MiserandQuade1985).Inpractice,therearemanymethodsthatcanbeusedfortheex-anteevaluationofthepolicyoptions:forexample,cost-benefitanalysis(SassoneandSchaffer1978),multi-criteriaanalysis(French,MauleandPapamichail2009)andbalancedscorecards(KaplanandNorton1993).Theseassessmenttechniquescanbecombinedwiththeresultsfromforecasts,scenarios,modelsandsoon.

IncreasingtheRobustnessoftheBasicPolicy(PhaseIII)

Thisphaseandthefollowingphasesaredesignedtomakethebasicpolicyadaptive.Afterselectingabasicpolicy,thevulnerabilitiesandopportunitiesofthebasicpolicyareidentified.Vulnerabilitiesofthebasicpolicyrelatetowaysinwhichthebasicpolicycouldfail(i.e.,violateconditionsforsuccess).Opportunitiesaredevelopmentsthatcanincreaseoracceleratethesuccessofthebasicpolicy(i.e.,accelerateconditionsforsuccess).Thevulnerabilitiesofthebasicpolicycanbedeterminedbyexaminingtheimplicitandexplicitassumptionsthatunderlieit.Baseduponthevulnerabilitiesandtheopportunities,fivetypesofactionscanbedefinedthatcouldbetakenatthetimethebasicpolicyisimplemented(t=0),inordertoincreasethechancesforitssuccess:

•Mitigatingactions(M)–actionsaimedatreducingtherelativelycertainvulnerabilitiesofapolicy;

•Hedgingactions(H)–actionsaimedatspreadingorreducingtheriskoffailurefromtherelativelyuncertainvulnerabilitiesofapolicy;

•Seizingactions(SZ)–actionsaimedatseizingrelativelycertainavailableopportunities;

•Exploitingactions(EP)–actionsaimedatexploitingrelativelyuncertainopportunities;and

•Shapingactions(SH)–actionsaimedatreducingthechancethatanexternalconditionoreventthatcouldmakethepolicyfailwilloccur,ortoincreasethechancethatanexternalconditionoreventthatcouldmakethepolicysucceedwilloccur.

Setting-UptheMonitoringSystem(PhaseIV)

TheactionsdefinedinPhaseIIIaretakeninadvancetoreducethe

TheactionsdefinedinPhaseIIIaretakeninadvancetoreducethevulnerabilitiesofthebasicpolicyandtoidentifyopportunitiestoimproveitschancesofsuccess.However,uncertaintiesaboutthefuturerequiretheperformanceofthebasicpolicytobemonitoredcarefullyinordertoknowwhen(andif)toimplementactions.ThismonitoringmechanismissetupinPhaseIVbydefiningwhatshouldbemonitored(signposts)andwhenachangeinpolicyisneeded(triggervalues).Signpostsareusedtodeterminewhetheradefensive,correctiveorcapitalisingaction–orevenafullpolicyreassessment–isneeded(seePhaseV).Implementationofadefensive,correctiveorcapitalisingaction,orapolicyreassessment,occurswhenacriticalvalueofasignpostvariable(triggervalue)isreached.

PreparingtheTriggerResponses(PhaseV)

Therearefourdifferenttypesofactionsthatcanbetriggeredbyasignpost:

•Defensiveactions(D)–actionsaimedatclarifyingthebasicpolicy,preservingitsbenefitsormeetingoutsidechallengesinresponsetospecifictriggers.Theseactionsleavethebasicpolicyunchanged;

•Correctiveactions(CR)–actionsaimedatadjustingthebasicpolicy;•Capitalisingactions(CA)–actionstriggeredbyexternaldevelopmentsthatimprovetheperformanceofthebasicpolicy;and

•Reassessment(R)–anactionthatisinitiatedwhentheanalysisandassumptionscriticaltotheplan’ssuccesshaveclearlylostvalidity.

TheseactionsaredesignedinPhaseV.Oncethebasicpolicyandadaptiveelementsareagreedupon,theactionsfromPhasesI–IVareimplemented(att=0);theactionsforPhaseVarepreparedbuttheirimplementationissuspendeduntilatriggereventoccurs.

ApplyingAPMtotheImplementationofaPersonalIntelligentTravelAssistant

ThePersonalIntelligentTravelAssistant(PITA)

Amajorobjectivefortransportpoliciesistheefficientusebytravellersoftheexistingtransportinfrastructurecapacity.Althoughtravelinformationthroughradio,television,theInternetetc.,iswidelyavailable,itseffectivenessislow,

sincethosetravellersthatareofferedalternativeroutes/modesgenerallydonotacceptthem(Muizelaar2011,Dicke2012).

Therefore,amobilephone-basedtravelinformationservicehasbeendevelopedthatprovidestravellerswithafulloverviewoftraveloptionsfortravellinginthemostefficientandeffectivewayfromaspecificorigintoaspecificdestination.Thisso-calledPersonalIntelligentTravelAssistant(PITA)hasrecentlybecomeavailable,butimplementationisproceedingveryslowly.Sofar,policymakingonPITAhasbeenlimitedtosupportingresearchanddevelopmentdesignedtoreducetheuncertaintyintheoutcomesofaPITA.Inparticular,thebehaviouralresponseoftravellerstoadvancedtravelinformationhasbeenresearchedindepth(foranoverview,seeChorus,MolinandvanWee2006).Althoughuseful,assumptionsinmostofthesestudiesincludethecontinuousavailabilityofnecessarytrafficinformation,aperfectlyfunctioningtechnologyandarationaltraveller.TheseassumptionswithrespecttothetravellerresponsetoPITAareunlikelytobevalid.Inanyevent,theyareinsufficientforPITAimplementationtoproceed.Insteadofadditionalresearchanddevelopmentonreducingtheuncertaintyoftheoutcomes,implementationofPITAcouldbespedupbydevelopinganadaptivepolicythattakesintoaccountthefullrangeofuncertaintyandmodifiesthebasicpolicybasedonwhatislearnedovertime.

DesigninganAdaptivePolicyUsingDeskResearch

ThefollowingsubsectionsshowhowanadaptivepolicyforPITAimplementationwasdesignedusingdeskresearchandexistinginformation.MoreinformationonmethodsandtoolsthatcanbeusedtodesignadaptivepoliciescanbefoundinvanderPas(2011).

PhaseI(SettingtheStage)andPhaseII(AssemblingtheBasicPolicy)InPhase1ofdevelopinganadaptivepolicyforPITAimplementation,importantconstraintswouldbefinancialandarequirementthattheachievementofothertransportpolicyobjectives(e.g.,safety,environmentalstress)notbemademoredifficultduetotheimplementationofPITA.Adefinitionofsuccessmightbeapre-specifiedimprovementin(thereliabilityof)traveltimes.Forinstance,nationalpolicyobjectivesintheNetherlandsincludethat,in2020,95percentofallmovementsbyroadshouldbeontimeduringrushhours,and90percentofalltrainsshouldbeontime(MinistryofTransport,PublicWorksandWaterManagement2000).SeveralalternativePITAoptionscanbespecifiedforconsiderationinPhaseII.

InPhaseII,abasicpolicymightbetoimplementPITAfirstforthoseindividualswhohavehighdemandsontheirtime–forexample,forprofessionaldriversandbusinesstravellers(PolydoropoulouandBen-Akiva1998,Bovy2001).ThesetravellersarelikelytobethemostwillingtoadoptPITAsince,bydefinition,theyarethesub-groupthatismostaffectedbytraveltimelossesandunreliability.Basicconditionsforsuccessincludethewillingnessofkeyactors(e.g.,roadtrafficmanagers,publictransportoperators)toprovidereliableandaccuratetravelinformation,theavailabilityofintegratedmodelstocombinemultimodaltraveldatatomeetindividualpreferencesandthewillingnessofprofessionaldriversandbusinesstravellerstobuyandusePITA.

PhaseIII(IncreasingtheRobustnessoftheBasicPolicy)andPhaseIV(SettingUptheMonitoringSystem)InPhaseIII,theseveralvulnerabilitiesofthisbasicpolicyareidentified.Acertainvulnerabilitymightbeatemporarylackoftraveldataavailabilityforcertainmodes.ThiswilllikelyaffecttheuseracceptanceofPITA.Amitigatingactionmightbetoincludeabackuptravelinformationsystemthattravellerscanuseincaseofatemporaryblackout.AnothercertainvulnerabilitywouldbethattravellersresistthewillingnesstobuyPITAbecauseitaffectstheirprivacy;thatis,itseemslike‘BigBrother’watchingtheirtravelbehaviour.Sometravel-dataencodingthatavoidspersonalidentificationinrelationtotravelchoicescanbeusedtomitigatethisvulnerability.AnuncertainvulnerabilityinvolvestheuseracceptanceofPITA–inparticular,whetherthePITAadvicewillbefollowedbytravellers(Bonsall2004).AsignpostcanbeconstructedthatmonitorsthelevelofPITAuse.Assoonasthelevelofusedropsunderapredefinedlevel(trigger),somecorrectiveactionmightbeinitiated,suchasadvertisingoreducatingtravellersontheadvantagesofusingPITAwhentravelling.Thisisrelatedtoanotheruncertainvulnerability–thewillingnessofkeyactorstocooperateonimplementingPITAdueto,forinstance,toolargeinvestmentrisksfor(publicand/orprivate)transportoperators.Ahedgingactionmightbethat,atthebeginning,publicpolicymakersgivesomeinsuranceforcompaniesagainstpotentialinvestmentlosses.

PhaseV(PreparingtheTriggerResponses)Oncetheabovepolicyisagreedupon,thebasicPITApolicyplusthePhaseIIIandPhaseIVactionsareimplemented,andsignpostinformationbeginstobecollected(seeTable20.1).Inthecaseofatriggerevent,therelatedpreparedactionisundertaken.If,forinstance,thenumberoftravellersfollowingthePITAadviceappearstobetoolow,somecorrectiveactioncanbeundertaken–

forexample,givingsomefinancialincentivetothosetravellerswhodocomplywiththePITAadvice.Forsometriggerevents,onlyafullreassessmentofthebasicpolicymightbesufficient.Incasesomeofthekeyactorsarenotwillingtoparticipateanymore(e.g.,ifthereturnsoninvestmentremaintoolow),theentirepolicymightcomeunderseriouspressure.However,theknowledgegatheredintheinitialpolicymakingprocessonoutcomes,objectives,measures,preferencesofstakeholdersandsoonwouldalreadybeavailableandwouldacceleratethenewpolicymakingprocess.

Table20.1DealingwithvulnerabilitiesofthebasicPITApolicy

ApplyingAPMtoISAImplementation

IntelligentSpeedAdaptationintheNetherlands

IntelligentSpeedAdaptation(ISA)systemsarein-vehicledevicesthattakeintoaccountthelocalspeedlimitsandwarnthedriverincaseofspeeding;someevenautomaticallyadjustthemaximumdrivingspeedtothepostedmaximumspeed.Sincespeedingisthemajorcauseoftrafficaccidents–roughlyathirdofallfatalaccidentsareduetoinappropriatespeedchoice(OECD2006)–thepotentialcontributionofISAtotrafficsafetyishigh.Forinstance,fullyautomaticspeedcontroldevicesareestimatedtoproduceuptoa40percentreductionininjuryaccidents(VàrhelyiandMäkinen2001)anduptoa59percentreductioninfatalaccidents(CarstenandTate2000).Recently,thefirstISAapplicationshaveenteredthemarket.Speed-limitinformationisbeingaddedtodigitalmaps,sodriverscanbewarnedaboutspeedingbytheirnavigationdeviceusingaudiovisualsignalling(thisiscalledwarningISA).

SotheISAtechnologyisavailableandthereisexperiencewithusingit.AlthoughexpectationsconcerningthepositiveimpactsofISAarehigh,therestillisaconsiderablegapbetweenwhatistechnologicallypossibleandwhathasbeenimplementedsofar.TheimplementationofISAishinderedbyvariousdeepuncertainties,includinguncertaintyaboutthewayusersmightrespondtoISA.Inthiscase,anadaptivepolicyforISAimplementationwasdevelopedwithISAexperts,policymakersandstakeholdersduringaworkshop.

PhaseI(SettingtheStage)andPhaseII(AssemblingtheBasicPolicy)

ImportantconstraintsfordevelopinganadaptivepolicyforISAimplementationwouldbefinancialandtherequirementthatothertransportpolicyobjectives(e.g.,safety,environmentalstress)arenotmademoredifficulttoachieveduetotheimplementationofISA.Adefinitionofsuccessingeneraltermswouldrelatetotheimprovementoftrafficsafety(e.g.,areductionof10percentinthenumberoffatalities).Basedontheselectedbasicpolicy,thedefinitionofsuccessandtheconstraintshavebeenoperationalisedinTable20.2.FollowinginterviewswithpolicymakersfromtheDutchMinistryofInfrastructureandEnvironmentandexistingpolicyplans,weadoptedabasicpolicyaimedatimplementingthemostappropriateISAforthemostappropriatetypeofdriver.Threetypesofdriversweredistinguished:

•Thewell-meaningdriver:Thistypeofdriverhastheintrinsicmotivationtosticktothespeedlimit;

•Thelesswell-meaningdriver:Thistypeofdriverlackstheintrinsicmotivationtosticktothespeedlimit;and

•Thenotoriousspeedoffender:Underthecurrentregime,thistypeofdriverwouldlosehisorherdriver’slicence(andwouldbeobligedtofollowatrafficbehaviourcourse).

Inadditiontodifferenttypesofdrivers,twodifferentsequentialphasesfortheimplementationofISAwereidentified.PhaseIrunsupto2013.After2013,acurrentlyundefinedPhaseIIwillstart.Table20.2presentsanoverviewofthebasicpolicy.

Table20.2BasicpolicyfortheISAcase

Ithasnotbeenpossibletoamendthistableforsuitableviewingonthisdevice.PleaseseethefollowingURLforalargerversionhttp://www.ashgate.com/pdf/ebooks/9781472405852Tab20_2.pdf

AscanbeseeninTable20.2,makingapracticaldistinctionbetweenwell-meaningandlesswell-meaningisnotneeded,becausebothgroupsaretargetedwiththesamepolicies.However,itisexpectedthatthemeasureswouldhaveadifferenteffectoneachofthetargetgroups.(Notoriousspeederscanbedefinedbasedonpastbehaviour.)

PhaseIII(IncreasingtheRobustnessoftheBasicPolicy)

Thevulnerabilitiesandopportunitiesofthebasicpolicywerespecifiedusinga

Strengths,Opportunities,WeaknessesandThreats(SWOT)analysisstructure(Ansoff1987).Inourcase,weconsideredboththeopportunitiesandstrengthstobeopportunitiesasdefinedinFigure20.1,andconsideredboththeweaknessesandthreatstobevulnerabilitiesasdefinedinFigure20.1.Thisresultedinalistofmorethan100differentopportunitiesandvulnerabilitiesforthebasicpolicy.Accordingtotheparticipants,themostimportantoftheserelatetoacceptance,technicalfunctioningofISAsystems,therelationshipbetweentechnicalfunctioningandacceptanceandtherelationshipbetweentechnicalfunctioninganddriverbehaviour(forafulloverview,seevanderPas2011).

Next,thelevelofuncertaintyandlevelofimpactforeachofthemostimportantopportunitiesandvulnerabilitieswereidentifiedandtheparticipantsweretaskedtodefineactionsforhandlingthese.Theprocessincludedrankingtechniquesandspeciallydesigneddecision-makingflowcharts(seevanderPas2011).Table20.3presentsasubsetofPhaseIIIactionsthatweregeneratedduringtheworkshop.(ThecompletesetcanbefoundinvanderPas2011.)

Table20.3Increasingtherobustnessofthebasicpolicy

PhaseIV(Setting-UptheMonitoringSystem)andPhaseV(PreparingtheTriggerResponses)

Next,actions,signpostsandtriggersweredesigned(alsousingspeciallydesigneddecision-makingflowcharts(seevanderPas2011).Asubsetoftheseactions,signpostsandtriggersisshowninTable20.4.

Table20.4Contingencyplanning,monitoringsystemandtriggerresponses

Ithasnotbeenpossibletoamendthistableforsuitableviewingonthisdevice.PleaseseethefollowingURLforalargerversionhttp://www.ashgate.com/pdf/ebooks/9781472405852Tab20_4.pdf

ThecentrecolumnofTable20.4canbetransformedintoalistofindicatorsthatshouldbemonitored:‘themonitoringsystem’.Thismonitoringsystemconsistsofsignpoststhatmeasuretheprogresstowardsthegoal(i.e.,success),andsignpoststhataredirectlyrelatedtothevulnerabilitiesandopportunities.

PhaseV(PreparingtheTriggerResponses)

Theworkshopresultedinthedevelopmentofanextensiveadaptivepolicy,includingatotalof26mitigatingactions,16defensiveactions,threereassessmentactions,twocapitalisingactionsandtwoseizingactions.Inpractice,oncethebasicpolicyandallitsadaptiveelementshavebeenagreedupon,thebasicISAimplementationpolicy(Table20.2)plusthePhaseIIIandPhaseIVactionswouldbeimplementedandsignpostinformationwouldbegintobecollected(seeTables20.3and20.4).Incaseofatriggerevent,therelated(alreadyprepared)actionwouldbeundertaken.

TheResult

Thedesignedpolicywastestedusingwildcardscenarios,inordertodeterminehowrobustitmightbe.OneexampleofawildcardscenarioisafterISAisimplemented,industrystartstodevelopequipmentthatmisleadstheISAsystems,allowingpeopletospeedwithoutthesystemnoticing.Theparticipantswereaskedtothinkabout‘whatif’suchawildcardscenarioweretooccur.Inparticular,foreachscenario,theywereaskedtoanswerthefollowingquestions:

•Whatwouldhappentothe(road)transportsystem?•Whatwouldhappentoyourpolicy,andhowwouldtheoutcomesofthepolicybeinfluencedifthisscenarioweretooccur?

•Isyouradaptivepolicycapableofdealingwiththisscenario?

Thesewildcardscenariosledtointeresting(andlengthy)discussions,whichallowedtheparticipantstoreflectonthedevelopedadaptivepolicy,assessitsrobustnessandimproveit.

Theparticipants’evaluationoftheworkshopindicatedthattheresultingadaptivepolicywasreadytobeimplementedandcould,ifimplemented,reallycontributetoasuccessfulISApolicy(seevanderPasetal.2011).

Conclusion

Inthischapter,weintroducedarelativelynewapproachthatallowstransportationpolicymakerstodealwiththeuncertaintiesthatsurroundtheimplementationofITStechnologies.Basedontwoexamples,thechaptershowsthatAPMisanapproachthatallowspolicymakerstodealwith(amongstothers)issuesofacceptance,andshouldallowthemtospeed-uptheimplementationofITStechnologies.

Twoadaptivepoliciesweredesigned,oneforPITAbasedondeskresearchandoneforISAbasedonaparticipativeworkshopwithISAstakeholders.ThebasicPITApolicyisdesignedforthosedriversthatcouldbenefitmostfromPITA.ThebasicISApolicyisdesignedtoimplementdifferenttypesofISAfordifferenttypesofdrivers.BothpolicieswouldbeginwiththeuseoftheITSsystemsbysmallsubsetsoftransportusers.Bothwouldofferthepossibilityofmodifyingthepolicygraduallyasmoreinformationregardingacceptancebecomesavailable(basedonmonitoringacceptance).Thisapproachwouldallowforimplementationtobeginrightaway,forpolicymakerstolearnovertimeandforthepolicytobeadjustedinresponsetonewdevelopments.

AlotofresearchhasbeenperformedonISAandPITAacceptance.Thetimehascometobeginimplementation.APMisanapproachthatallowspolicymakerstodealwith(amongstothers)issuesofacceptance,andshouldallowthemtospeed-uptheimplementationofITStechnologies.

References

Agusdinata,D.B.andDittmar,L.2009.Adaptivepolicydesigntoreducecarbonemissions,asystem-of-systemsperspective.IEEESystemsJournal,13(4):509–19.

Agusdinata,D.B.,Marchau,V.A.W.J.andWalker,W.E.2007.Adaptivepolicyapproachtoimplementingintelligentspeedadaptation.IETIntelligentTransportSystems,1(3):186–98.

Ansoff,H.I.1987.CorporateStrategy.Harmondsworth,Middlesex,UK:PenguinBooks.

Bonsal,P.2004.Travellerbehavior:Decision-makinginanunpredictableworld.JournalofIntelligentTransportationSystems:Technology,Planning,andOperations,8(1):45–60.

Bovy,P.2001.Trafficfloodingthelowcountries:HowtheDutchcopewith

motorwaycongestion.TransportReviews,21(1):89–116.Carsten,O.M.J.andTate,F.N.2000.Finalreport:Integration,Deliverable17

ofExternalVehicleSpeedControlProject.Leeds:UniversityofLeeds,InstituteforTransportStudies.

Chorus,C.G.,Molin,E.J.E.andvanWee,G.P.2006.Travelinformationasaninstrumenttochangecar-drivers’travelchoices:Aliteraturereview.EuropeanJournalofTransportandInfrastructureResearch,6(4):335–64.

Dewar,J.A.2002.Assumption-BasedPlanning:AToolforReducingAvoidableSurprises.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Dicke,M.2012.Psychologicalaspectsoftravelinformationpresentation.Delft,theNetherlands:TRAILThesisSeries,T2012/5.

French,S.,Maule,J.andPapamichail,N.2009.DecisionBehaviourAnalysisandSupport.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Kaplan,R.S.andNorton,D.P.1993.Puttingthebalancedscorecardtowork.HarvardBusinessReview,71(5):134–47.

Kwakkel,J.H.2010.Thetreatmentofuncertaintyinairportstrategicplanning.Delft,theNetherlands:TRAILThesisSeries,T2010/13.

Kwakkel,J.H.,Walker,W.E.andMarchau,V.A.W.J.2010.Adaptiveairportstrategicplanning.EuropeanJournalofTransportationandInfrastructureResearch,10(3):227–50.

Marchau,V.A.W.J.,Walker,W.E.andvanDuin,R.2008.Anadaptiveapproachtoimplementinginnovativeurbantransportsolutions.TransportPolicy,15(6):405–12.

Marchau,V.A.W.J.,Walker,W.E.andvanWee,G.P.2010.Dynamicadaptivetransportpoliciesforhandlingdeepuncertainty.TechnologicalForecastingandSocialChange,77(6):940–50.

Marchau,V.A.W.J.,Wiethoff,M.,Hermans,L.,Meulen,R.andBrookhuis,K.A.2002.ActorAnalysisIntelligentSpeedAdaptation.FinalReportNo.AV-5157.Delft/WijkenAalburg.

MinistryofTransport,PublicWorksandWaterManagement.2000.TheNationalTrafficandTransportPlan.TheHague.

Miser,H.J.andQuade,E.S.1985.HandbookofSystemsAnalysis:OverviewofUses,Procedures,Applications,andPractice.NewYork:ElsevierScience.

Muizelaar,T.J.2011.Non-recurrenttrafficsituationsandtrafficinformation.Delft,theNetherlands:TRAILThesisSeries,T2011/16.

OrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD).2006.SpeedManagement.Paris:OECD.

Polydoropoulou,A.andBen-Akiva,M.1998.Theeffectofadvancedtraveler

Polydoropoulou,A.andBen-Akiva,M.1998.Theeffectofadvancedtravelerinformationsystems(ATIS)ontravelers’behavior.In:BehavioralandNetworkImpactsofDriverInformationSystems.Emmerink,R.H.M.andNijkamp(Eds.),317–52,Aldershot,Ashgate.

RANDEurope.1997.ScenariosforExaminingCivilAviationInfrastructureOptionsintheNetherlands.ReportDRU-1512-VW/VROM/EZ.SantaMonica,CA:RAND.

Sassone,P.G.andSchaffer,W.A.1978.Cost-BenefitAnalysis:AHandbook.SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress.

Taneja,P.,Ligteringen,H.andvanSchuylenburg,M.2010a.Dealingwithuncertaintyindesignofportinfrastructuresystems.JournalofDesignResearch,8(2):101–18.

Taneja,P.,Walker,W.E.,Ligteringen,H.,vanSchuylenburg,M.andvanderPlas,R.2010b.Implicationsofanuncertainfutureforportplanning.MaritimePolicyandManagement,37(3):221–45.

vanderPas,J.W.G.M.2011.ClearingtheroadforISAimplementation?Applyingadaptivepolicymakingfortheimplementationofintelligentspeedadaptation.Delft,theNetherlands:TRAILThesisSeries,T2011/13.

vanderPas,J.W.G.M.,Kwakkel,J.H.andvanWee,B.2011.Evaluatingadaptivepolicymakingusingexpertopinions.TechnologicalForecastingandSocialChange,79(2):311–25.

vanderPas,J.W.G.M.,Marchau,V.A.W.J.andWalker,W.E.2006.AnAnalysisofInternationalPublicPoliciesonAdvancedDriverAssistanceSystems.Presentedatthe13thWorldCongressandExhibitiononIntelligentTransportSystemsandServices,London.

vanderPas,J.W.G.M.,Marchau,V.A.W.J.,Walker,W.E.,vanWee,G.P.andVlassenroot,S.H.2012.ISAimplementationanduncertainty:Aliteraturereviewandexpertelicitationstudy.AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,48:83–96.

vanGeenhuizen,M.andThissen,W.2002.Uncertaintyandintelligenttransportsystems:Implicationsforpolicy.InternationalJournalforTechnology,PolicyandManagement2(1):5–19.

Vàrhelyi,A.andMäkinen,T.2001.Theeffectsofin-carspeedlimiters:Fieldstudies.TransportationResearchPartC:EmergingTechnologies,9(3):191–211.

Walker,W.E.,Marchau,V.A.W.J.andSwanson,D.2010.Addressingdeepuncertaintyusingadaptivepolicies:Introductiontosection2.TechnologicalForecastingandSocialChange,77(6):917–23.

Walker,W.E.,Rahman,S.A.andCave,J.2001.Adaptivepolicies,policyanalysis,andpolicymaking.EuropeanJournalofOperationalResearch,128:282–9.

Walta,L.2011.GettingADASontheroad–Actors’interactionsinadvanceddriverassistancesystemsdeployment.Delft,theNetherlands:TRAILThesisSeries,T2011/4.

Chapter21DesigningAutomotiveTechnologyforCross-Cultural

AcceptanceKristieL.YoungandChristinaM.Rudin-Brown

MonashUniversityAccidentResearchCentre,Australia

Abstract

Therisingglobaldistributionofautomobilesnecessitatesthatthevehiclehuman–machineinterface(HMI)isappropriatefortheregionstowhichtheyareexported.DifferencesinculturalvaluesacrossregionshavebeenshowntoberelevanttotheusabilityandacceptanceofHMIinarangeoffields.Thischapterexaminesresearchrelevanttocross-regionalautomotiveHMIdesign.Limitedresearchspecifictocross-regionalautomotiveHMIissuescurrentlyexists.However,alargebodyofcross-culturalHMIworkexistsinotherdomains,suchasthehuman–computerinteraction(HCI)domain.ThroughareviewofworkfromacrosstheHCIandautomotivedomains,thischapteridentifiesanumberofimportantculturalfactorsthatmayimpactuponautomotiveHMIdesign.Itisconcludedthataddressingcultural,aswellaswiderregionalfactors,isavitalstepintheglobalautomotiveHMIdesignprocess.Afailuretoconsiderthesefactorscouldhavesignificantimplicationsfortheacceptabilityandusabilityofin-vehicleinformationsystemsandAdvancedDriverAssistanceSystemsindifferentregions.

Introduction

Likemostproductmarkets,theautomotivemarketisbecomingincreasinglyglobalised.Thistrendinglobalisationleadstoincreasedinteractionbetweendiversegeographicalregionsandcultures.Hence,amajorchallengeforglobalisationishowbesttoincorporateandaccommodateculturaldifferencesinthedesignofproductsthataredestinedtobeusedacrosstheglobe.Differencesinlanguage,socialstructure,education,environmentandculturalvaluesleadtovastdifferencesinhowpeopleperceiveandvalueobjects,howtheyinteract

withthem,howtheywantthemtooperateandeveniftheyfindthemuseful(Marcus2009,Nisbett2003).Theextenttowhichaproductmeetsthepreferencesandexpectationsofpeoplefromaparticularregionorcultureisacriticalcomponenttoitssuccessinthatregion.Inadequateconsiderationandadaptationofaproductorsystemtotheneedsandpreferencesofatargetculturecanresultinissuesrangingfromminorfrustrationonthepartofusersthroughtoatotalfailureoftheproduct(Nielsen1996).Indeed,therearemyriadcasesinthecross-culturalliteraturewhereinadequateconsiderationandunderstandingoftheculturalcharacteristicsofaregionhasledtodevastatingoutcomes.Inoneexample,membersofaparticularculturedidnotunderstandthemeaningoftheskull-and-crossbonespoisonsymbolplacedoncontainersofgrainintendedonlytosowcrops.ThemembersofthevillagemistookthepoisonsymbolsimplyasanAmericanlogoand,ratherthansowthegrain,consumeditwithfatalconsequences(Casey1998).Thisexamplehighlightshowtheuniquelifeexperiencesandviewsofaparticulargrouporculturecaninfluencethemeaningandunderstandingofsymbolsfromthatoriginallyintended.Italsohighlightstheimportanceofconsideringculturaldifferencesinthedesignofanyglobalproduct.

WiththeautomotivemarketexpandingrapidlyintomarketssuchasChinaandIndia,thereisaneedtoensurethedesignofvehicleinterfacesisappropriatefortheintendedexportregion.Thatis,thedesignmustmeettheregions’culturalexpectationsandalsotheneedsdictatedbytheirparticulartrafficenvironment,suchasdrivingregulationsandtrafficdensity.ThisisparticularlytrueofIn-VehicleInformationSystems(IVIS)andAdvancedDriverAssistanceSystems(ADAS),whicharebecomingmoreprevalentandalsomorecomplexintheirdesignandfunctionality.Traditionally,thedesignanddevelopmentofIVISandADAShaslargelyfocusedontheneedsandpreferencesofdriversfromWesternmarkets;however,thesesystemsarenowbeingintroducedintoemergingmarketsunchangedormodifiedonlyslightlytosuitthebasicspecificationsoftheregion.Withcross-culturalautomotiveresearchinitsinfancy,concernremainsastohowdriversfromemergingmarketssuchasChina,whoseculture,languageandtrafficenvironmentdifferssubstantiallyfromWesternsocieties,willreacttoWesternstandardsforIVISandADASdesign.

Asassertedinotherchaptersinthisbook,theacceptanceofin-vehicletechnologybydriversisacriticalfactorinfluencingthesuccessfuluptakeofthetechnologyanditseffectivenessinimprovingroadsafety.Afailurebydriverstoacceptatechnologycanleadtothemnotusingitinthemannerintended,ornotusingitatall.Sprung(1990)notedtheimportanceofaccurateadaptationoftechnologytoacultureonacceptance.Assumingitisusable,asystemthathas

technologytoacultureonacceptance.Assumingitisusable,asystemthathasbeentailoredtomeettheaestheticandlinguisticpreferencesofaculturecanhaveasignificantcompetitiveedge.

Thischapterexaminestheinfluenceofculturalcharacteristicsonin-vehicletechnologydesign,withaparticularemphasisonitsinfluenceonuseracceptanceoftechnology.Variousaspectsofculture(culturaldimensions)areidentifiedandhowtheyimpactupontechnologydesignand,inturn,acceptabilityisdiscussed.BeforereviewingresearchexaminingtheinfluenceofcultureonHMIdesignandacceptability,itisimportanttobrieflydiscussprominentculturaltheoriesandmodelsanddefinewhatismeantbytheterm‘culture’.

CulturalTheoryandModels:HowCulturesDifferfromEachOther

Culturehasarangeofdefinitions,mostofwhicharecomplementaryratherthancontradictory.IntheoriesrelevanttoHMI(Hofstede1980,Hoft1996,TrompenaarsandHampden-Turner1998),cultureisdefinedasasetofsharedbeliefs,feelings,values,customs,actionsandartefactsthatmembersofasocietyorgroupusetomanageandinteractwiththeworldandoneanotherandthataretransmittedacrossgenerationsthroughimplicitlearning.Culturalcharacteristicsmanifestthemselvesvisually,forexampleinartandlanguage,andnon-visually,suchasinpreferencesandinteractionstyles(ChristaansandDiehl2007).

Thereareanumberofculturaltheoriesthatattempttodefinethosecharacteristicsthatdifferentiatemembersofoneregionorculturefromanother.Culturalmodelsarerepresentationsoftheelementsordimensionsthatmakeupaculture.Theydefinetheaspectsofaculturethatareobservableandmeasureableandallowaculturalprofiletobebuiltthatcanthenbeusedtocompareoneculturetoanother.WithrespecttoHMIdesign,culturalmodelscanbeusedtoidentifythecharacteristicsofasystemthatarelikelytobeacceptableandunderstoodbyaparticulargroupandthosefeaturesthatneedtobeadaptedtobettermeettheneedsandpreferencesofthegrouporregion.

PopularculturalmodelsincludethePyramidModel(Hofstede1980),theIcebergModel(Hoft1996)andtheOnionModel(TrompenaarsandHampden-Turner1998).Eachofthesemodelsconsidersculturetobecomprisedofatleastanoutersurfacelayer(directlyobservableaspectsofculture)andadeeper,hiddenlayer(intrinsicaspectsofculturethatarebeyondimmediateawareness).Thesemodelsalsodescribecultureintermsofculturalvariablesordimensions.Dimensionsareconstructsuponwhichculturesmaydifferintermsoftheirvalues,attitudesandbehaviour,andinclude,amongothers,factorssuchasthe

values,attitudesandbehaviour,andinclude,amongothers,factorssuchasthedegreeofconnectivitybetweenmembersofacultureandthedegreetowhichmembersofaculturefeelincontroloftheirlifeandenvironment.

TheOnionModel

TheOnionModeldevelopedbyTrompenaarsandHampden-Turner(1998)proposesthatcultureiscomprisedofthreelayers,eachofwhichcanbe‘peeled’backtorevealthemorecentralinnerlayers.Theoutersurfacelayersrepresentthoseaspectsofaculturethatarevisible,whiletheinnerlayersarelessapparent.

Theoutermost,surfacelayerrepresentstheobservableandimmediatelyrecognisableaspectsofcultureandincludesphysicalcharacteristicsandobjectssuchasclothing,art,architecture,traditionalfoodsandlanguage.Theseculturalfeaturesaresaidtorepresentexpressionsoftheunderlyingprinciplesoftheculturethatexistintheinnermostlayers.Themiddlelayerofthemodelrepresentsthenormsandvaluesoftheculture.Normsarethecollectivesenseofrightandwrongandreflecthowacultureshouldbehave,oftenexpressedintermsoflaws.Valuesontheotherhand,compriseasenseofgoodandbadandrepresenthowacultureaspirestobehave.Theinnermost,corelayerrepresentsthemostinaccessibleaspectsofaculturethatinfluencealloftheotherlayers.Itcomprisestheimplicit,fundamentalprinciplesandassumptionsoftheculture,suchastheprincipleofhumanequality.

ThePyramidModel

ThePyramidModel,developedbyHofstede(1980),isanotherthree-layeredculturalmodel,whichemphasisesthebidirectionalrelationshipbetweenthemodel’selements.Insteadofdepictingcultureasmadeupoflayers,thismodeldescribestheoriginsofculture.ThePyramidModelsummarisesaspectsofhumanbehaviour,or‘mentalprograms’,thatdefinebehaviouratdifferentscales:theindividual,allofhumankind,andcollectivegroupsorcultures.

Hofstedeproposesthatcultureisdevelopedbothfromaspectsoftheindividualandfromaspectsofhumankind.Atthelowerhumannaturelevel,arethosecharacteristicsthatareinheritedby,andcommonto,allhumans.Theupper,personalitylevel,referstocharacteristicsthatarespecifictotheindividualandarebothinheritedandlearned.Themiddlelevelrepresentsthecultureorthe‘collective’,withwhichbothoftheouterlayersinteractinawayspecifictoaparticulargroupofpeople.Akeyfeatureofthismodelisthatcultureisnotinherited,butlearned;and,therefore,isdependentonotherstobe

cultureisnotinherited,butlearned;and,therefore,isdependentonotherstobepassedon.

TheIcebergModel

TheIcebergModel,asdescribedbyHoft(1996),usesanicebergmetaphortodescribeculturewhereonlythetipoftheicebergisvisibleabovethesurface.Thisexposedsectionrepresentsconsciousnessand,asappliedtoculture,containstheobservableaspectsofaculturesuchasclothing,artandlanguage.Thelayerjustbelowthesurfacerepresentsthesubconsciouslayerandcontainstheunspokenrulesofaculture,suchassocialetiquette.Thelargest,deepestandmosthiddenlayerofthemodelrepresentstheunconsciousrulesoftheculture,whicharenotreadilyaccessibleorobservable,butareintrinsicallyimportant.Theseunconsciousrulesincludeaculture’ssenseoftimeandpreferredpersonalspace.

CulturalDimensionsCulturalmodelsdescribecultureintermsofdimensions.Culturaldimensionsareconstructsuponwhichculturesdifferintermsoftheirvalues,attitudesandbehaviour;thatis,theyaccountforthemannerinwhichcultureisexpressed.Dimensionsareusuallydichotomousandculturalgroupsvaryintermsoftheirorientationtowardsonepoleoranother.Forinstance,theperceptionoftimeisonedimensionuponwhichculturescandiffer,withsomeadoptingarigidstanceontimeandfollowingitprecisely,whileotherstakeafarmorerelaxedview.

Alargenumberofculturaldimensionsexist,withmostoriginatingfromculturalmodelsandtheories.Table21.1providesabriefdescriptionofthemostcommonlyusedculturaldimensionsderivedfromkeyculturalmodels(e.g.,Hofstede1980,TrompenaarsandHampden-Turner1998)thathavebeenusedinculturalstudiesoftechnologyuseandpreferences.Therehavebeenanumberoftheoreticaldescriptionsofhoworientationsonvariousculturaldimensionsmaycontributetooraccountfordifferencesinuserneeds,preferencesandexpectationsoftechnologyacrossculturalandregionalgroups.Thisissueisexploredinthefollowingsections.

Table21.1Keyculturaldimensionandtheirdefinitions

TheInfluenceofCultureonSystemDesignandAcceptability

Itisexpectedthatculturehasarangeofinfluencesonthewaypeopleinteractwithtechnologyanddevelopexpectationsandpreferencesforhowasystemshouldlookandoperate.Noproductisculture-free:thedesignofalltechnologyisinfluencedbythecultureitwasdesignedinandfor,andthisisreflectedinallaspectsofthesystem,includingitsappearance,functionalityandpurpose(Honold2000,McLoughlin1999).

Therehavebeennumerousattemptstoexplainhowagroup’sorientationsonvariousculturaldimensionsmayaccountfordifferencesinuserneeds,preferencesandexpectationsoftechnology(Choietal.2005,Lodge2007,

MarcusandGould2000,Rau,GaoandLiang2008).SomeculturaldimensionshavebeenmorecommonlyexaminedinrelationtoHMIdesignthanothers.Forexample,Hofstede’s(1980)powerdistance,uncertaintyavoidanceandindividualism-collectivismdimensionshavebeenmorefrequentlyassessedthananyothers.However,whereexistingliteraturehasusedculturaldimensionstoaccountfordifferencesinuserneedsandpreferencesinHMI,thishasbeendonealmostexclusivelyinatheoreticalmanner,withdimensionsrarelytestedorusedtointerpretfindings.AsSmithandYetim(2004)note,theexistingevidenceoncultureandtechnologyuseisalmostentirelyqualitative.

Thissectiondiscusseskeyculturaldimensionsandhowthesehavebeenappliedintheliteraturetoexplainhowandwhyaperson’scultureinfluencestheiruseandacceptanceoftechnology.Muchoftheexistingliteraturecomesfromthewiderhuman–computerinteraction(HCI)domainandhasfocusedonwebsiteinterfaces,exploringvariousaspectsofusabilityorvisualpreferences.Thus,thefocushereisontheinfluenceofcultureontechnologyuseandacceptabilityingeneral.Automotivetechnology,andhowcultureinfluencesitsdesignandacceptability,isdiscussedinthefollowingsection.

PowerDistance

Thedimensionofpowerdistancehasbeenlinkedtothestructureandcontentofinformationoninterfaces.Culturesthatscorehighonpowerdistancepreferhighlystructuredinformation,arrangedintallhierarchies.Theyalsopreferinformationthatconveysasenseofauthority,expertiseandsecurity,andthatreflectstraditionalsocialroles.Lowpowerdistancecultures,bycontrast,tendtoprefertransparency,flatter,lessstructuredinformationhierarchiesanddislikesymbolsofauthorityandpowerimbalance(Lodge2007,MarcusandGould2000).

Individualism-Collectivism

Individualismisassociatedwithinformation-seekingbehaviourandagreaterbeliefintechnicalcompetence(Smithetal.2004).Highlyindividualisticcultureshavebeenfoundtofavourwebsitedesignsthatconveypersonalsuccess,aremoreyouthandactionoriented,emphasisechangeandcontainmorecontroversialcontentthancollectivistinterfaces(Lodge2007,MarcusandGould2000).Collectivist-orientedculturespreferinterfacesthatdonotdistinguishtheindividualfromthegroup,containmoretraditionalorofficialinformation,and

emphasiseage,wisdomandexperience.Also,individualisticculturesareexpectedtoadopttechnologieswhichallowforpersonalisation,whilecollectivistindividualsshouldfavourthosetechnologieswhichcreateasenseofconnectivitytoothers,suchasthosewithcommunicationfeaturesoraccesstosocialnetworkingsites(Choietal.2005).

Masculinity-Femininity

Interfacesdesignedformasculineculturesshouldemphasisetraditionalage,genderandfamilyroles,cleardefinitionsoftasks,andfacilitateagreatersenseofindividualcontrolandexploration.Theseinterfacesshouldalsofeaturetheuseofgamesandcompetitionsandtheuseofgraphicsandsoundsforpracticalpurposes.Conversely,interfacesdesignedforfeminine-orientedculturesshouldusevisualandauditoryfeaturesasaestheticattractors,andshouldemphasisecooperation,sharedrolesandsupport(Lodge2007,MarcusandGould2000).

UncertaintyAvoidance

Cultureshighinuncertaintyavoidancedesirepredictability,clearandsimpledirections,transparent,rigidnavigationsystemsandredundantlabels.Lowuncertainty-avoidingcultures,incontrast,arecomfortablewithambiguityanddislikeuseofredundantinformation.Lowuncertainty-avoidingculturesalsoenjoycomplexityandopportunitytoexploreandresentnotfeelingincontrolofthesystem(Lodge2007,MarcusandGould2000).Highuncertainty-avoidingculturespreferfrequentanddetailedinstructions,whilelowuncertainty-avoidingculturesviewthisasannoyingandexcessive(Heimgårtner2005).

AttitudeTowardstheEnvironment

Asappliedtotechnology,thisdimensionreferstothetendencyforindividualstofeeltheyareincontrolofthesystem.Cultureswithaninternallocusofcontrolbelievethesystemshouldadapttothem,andanyerrorsarethefaultofthesystemoritsdesigners.Externallyorientedcultures,bycontrast,believesystemsaredesignedintheoptimumwayanderrorsresultfromtheirimproperuseorbytheirmisunderstandingthesystem.Also,membersofcultureswithanexternalsenseofcontrolarelessinclinedtowanttoalterorpersonalisesystems,astheybelievetheyhavebeenconfiguredintheoptimumwayalready(ItoandNakakoji1996).

AttitudesTowardsTime

Timeorientationaffectshowpeopleperformandprioritisetasksand,therefore,shouldbetakenintoaccountwhendesigninginformationstructure.Howtimeisperceivedisalsoexpectedtoimpactonhowpeoplelearntooperateasystem.Monochroniccultures(i.e.,thosethatliketodojustonethingatatime)thatvalueefficiencyandprocedurewilltakegreatertimeandcaretoreadinstructionsandevaluatedecisionsinordertoavoiderrors;whichinitiallytakesmoretime,butinthelongtermachievesgreaterefficiency.Alternatively,culturesthatvaluefreedomandautonomyprefertolearnthroughtrialanderror(ItoandNakakoji1996).Intheirreview,Rauetal.(2008)foundthatusersofahypertextenvironment(electronictextwithhyperlinkstoothertext/information)withapolychronictimeorientationbrowsedinformationfasterandtookfewerstepsthanthoseuserswithmonochronictimeorientation.Polychroniccultures(i.e.,thosewholiketodomultiplethingsatonetime)arealsomorelikelythanmonochroniconestoengagewithmobiledevicesinunexpectedwaysandarelesslikelytobebotheredbysystemdelays,suchaslongdownloadorstart-uptimes(Choietal.2005).

Internationalisation-localisationoftheInterface

CentraltothesubjectofculturaldifferencesinHMIdesignistheconceptofinternationalisation-localisation.Internationalisation-localisationofproductsisacommonpracticeinmanyglobalmarkets,wherebyaproductorinterfaceisadaptedtosuitthespecificneedsandpreferencesofatargetculture.Theinternationalisation-localisationprocessgenerallyencompassesseveralrequirements.First,itrequiresthattheculturallyspecific(local)aspectsoftheinterfaceareidentifiedandremovedtosuitaglobalaudience(internationalisation).Localisationtheninvolvesmodifyingaspectsoftheproductorinterfaceinawaythatspecificallysuitstheneedsandculturalorientationsofthetargetculture(Bourges-WaldeggandScrivener1998,RussoandBoor1993).Internationalisationaidslocalisationbyprovidinganeutralstructuretowhichlocalinterfacefeaturesarethenadded(ChenandTsai2007).

Traditionally,internationalisation-localisationhasfocusedonmodifyingthemostobviousculturalartefactsrelevanttotheinterface,suchaslanguageandtimeanddateformats.However,successfulinternationalisation-localisationshouldalsoadaptasystemtosuitlessapparentaspectsofculture;thatis,theprocessshouldincludethefunctionalityandinteractionaspectsofaninterface,

notjustitssurfacefeatures(Fernandes1995).

Cross-CulturalDesignIssuesintheAutomotiveContext

Todate,onlyahandfulofstudieshaveexaminedtheinfluenceofcross-culturaldifferencesonIVISorADASdesign.Thismaybeproblematicconsideringtheincreasinglyglobalisednatureoftheautomotiveindustryandthefactthatthevehiclecockpitisbecomingmoretechnicallysophisticated.Itisimportanttoconsidertheacceptabilityofin-vehicletechnology,asitinfluencestheuptakeofthetechnologyand,consequently,itseffectivenessinimprovingroadsafety,mobilityandenvironmentaloutcomes.Afailurebydriverstoacceptatechnologycanleadtothemnotusingitinthemannerintended,ornotusingitatall.IVISandADAStechnologyareintroducinganewlevelofinterfacecomplexitytothevehiclecockpitand,likeanysystem,thistechnologyisexpectedtobeassociatedwithusabilityandacceptabilityissues(Rudin-Brown2010,Youngetal.2012).Asmentioned,theinteractionbetweencultureandinterfacedesignhasbeenmostextensivelyexploredintheHCIdomain.However,thisknowledgemightnottransferacrosstotheautomotivedomaingiventhattheadditionofthedrivingtaskmayresultinusershavingadifferentsetofneedsandexpectationsforin-vehicletechnology.Likewise,culturemayimpactupontheseneedsandexpectationsindifferentwaysthantheydofornon-vehiclebasedtechnology.Cross-culturaldesignissuesforautomotivetechnologyarelikelytobeparticularlypertinentindevelopingregions,suchasChinaandIndia,wherethereexistenormousmarketscharacterisedbynotablydifferentuserneedsandpreferencestothemajorvehiclemanufacturingcountriesintheWest(Yangetal.2007).

Cross-CulturalConsiderationsandIVIS

ThepotentialbenefitsandapplicabilityofculturallyadaptiveIVIShavebeenexploredinaseriesofstudiesbyHeimgärtnerandcolleagues(Heimgärtner2007,Heimgärtner2005,HeimgärtnerandHolzinger2005,Heimgärtneretal.2007).TheculturallyadaptiveinterfaceproposedbyHeimgärtnerisdesignedtodetectandadapttotheculturalpreferencesoftheuser,therebyoptimisingsystemusability,reducingcomplexityandmentalworkloadand,ultimately,leadtogreateruseracceptance(Heimgärtner2005).Aspartofthiswork,Heimgärtnerhashighlightedanumberofculturaldifferencesinuserpreferences,systemnavigationstyles,drivingstylesandtaskmanagementstyles

thatarerelevanttocross-culturalIVISsystemdesign,althoughatpresentthereislimitedunderstandingofwhatfactorsaredrivingthesedifferences(e.g.,theircausesandimpactrelativetootherfactors).Heimgärtner’s(2007)resultssuggesttherearesignificantdifferencesinpreferredinteractionstylesamongusersfromdifferentcultures.Inparticular,inhisstudy,ChineseusersshowedapreferenceforgreaterinformationdensityandfasterspeedofinformationonaninterfacethandidGermanorEnglishusers.TheChineseusersalsoenteredfewercharactersintothesystemthantheothertwogroups.ResearchbyKnapp(2007)supportsHeimgärtner’sfindings,havingfoundthatsystemsspecificallydesignedtosuitthementalmodelsofcertaincultureswillsignificantlyimpactontheabilityofusersfromdifferentculturestosuccessfullyperformtasksonthatsystem.

Mostrecently,Youngetal.(2012)examinedwhetherthereareregionaldifferencesintheneedsandpreferencesofAustralianandChinesedriversforIVISandtodeterminetheimpactofanydifferencesforIVISHMIdesign.AnumberofdifferenceswerefoundbetweenthetworegionalgroupsintermsoftheirIVISdesignpreferencesthatcouldhavesignificantimplicationsfortheappeal,acceptabilityandusabilityofIVISinChina.Inparticular,theChinesedrivershadmoredifficultythantheAustraliansincomprehendingabbreviationsusedoninterfacelabellingandshowedagreaterpreferencefortheuseofsymbols,exceptforcomplexIVISfunctions,wheretheypreferredChinesecharacters.Thesedifferentpreferencesforuseoflabellingislikelytoreflectdifferencesinthelanguagesbetweenthetwocultures,wherethewrittenChineselanguageispictorial,hencetheirpreferenceforsymbol-andcharacter-basedlabelling.TheChinesedriversalsotendedtoplacegreatervalueontheaestheticappealofaninterfaceratherthanitsusabilityandsafetyaspects,preferringaninterfacethatlooksmodern,sophisticatedanddenotesasenseofhighstatus.ThesepreferencesmayderivefromtheChineseculture’stypicallyhighscoreonthepowerdistancedimension,whichvaluesstatusinsociety,andtheirlowlevelofuncertaintyavoidance,whichplacesvalueonaestheticappeal.

Cross-CulturalConsiderationsandADAS

Althoughsimilarcross-culturalissueswouldbeexpectedtoinfluencetheuseofbothADASandIVISdevices,theremaybedifferencesintermsofculturalpredictorsofADASversusIVISuse.Therefore,itisimportanttoconductandconsiderresearchthatisdesignedtoinvestigatebothcategoriesofadevice.Lindgrenetal.(2008)examineddrivingcultureandcommontrafficproblems

experiencedinasampleofChineseandSwedishdrivers,andtheconsequencesofanydifferencesacrossthetworegionsforthedesignofADAS.Thestudyfoundthat,whilethetrafficrulesandregulationsareverysimilarinChinaandSweden,majorculturaldifferencesintermsofinfrastructureanddriverbehaviourexistandthesedifferencesarelikelytoinfluencetheacceptanceanduseofADASacrossthetworegions.Inparticular,theyfoundthatthemoreaggressiveandlesslaw-abidingdrivingcultureinChina,whichincludestailgatingandconstantlaneswitching,madesomeADAS,suchasadaptivecruisecontrolandlanedeparturewarningsystems,lessacceptabletodrivers.TheyalsofoundthatChinesedrivers’preferencetofollowsocialnormsratherthantheroadrulesmayalsoreducetheeffectivenessofsomeADASinthisregion(e.g.,theeffectivenessofafollow-distancewarningsystemmaybereducedgiventhattailgatingisfirmlyentrenchedinChinesedrivingculture).Lindgrenetal.concludedthatifthedesignofADASdoesnottakesuchculturaldifferencesintoaccount,thesesystemsmaynotbeacceptabletoChinesedrivers,butratherregardedastoointrusiveand,thus,ignoredormisused.

Inadditiontodifferencesbetweencountries,cross-culturaldifferencesinattitudestowards,andpreferencesregarding,ADAScanexistwithincountries.Forexample,in2008atelephonesurveywasconductedofownersofvehiclesequippedwithelectronicstabilitycontrol(ESC),asystemthatreducesthelikelihoodofcollisionsinvolvinglossofcontrol(Rudin-Brownetal.2009).Over1,000ESCownerswereidentifiedthroughthevehicleregistrationdatabasesoftwoCanadianprovinces:QuébecandBritishColumbia(BC).(Canada’seightotherprovincialtransportagencieschosenottoparticipateintheproject.)ThisallowedforthecomparisonofdriverattitudestowardsESC,andvehiclesafetyfeaturesmoregenerally,betweenthetworegions,whichdiffernotonlyintermsofweatherandprecipitation(QuébechasamuchhigherannualsnowfallandcolderwintertemperaturesthanBC)butalsointermsofculturalbackgroundandlanguage(Québec’spopulationismostlyFrench-speaking,whileBC’sismostlyEnglish).WhileBCownersofESC-equippedvehiclesweremorelikelythanthosefromQuébectoreportthatavehicle’ssafetyfeatures,includingESC,wereanimportantfactortoconsiderwhenbuyingacar,theyweresignificantlylesslikelytoreport:(1)havingexperiencedESCwhiledriving,(2)beingconfidentthatESCwouldworkinanemergency,and(3)believingthatESChadmadeitsafertodrive.ThefactthatBCdriverswerelesslikelytohaveexperiencedESCwasmostprobablyduetodifferencesinweatherpatternsbetweenthetwoprovinces.ThislimitedexperiencemayhaveconsequentlycontributedtotheBCowners’relativelackofconfidencethatESCwouldworkinanemergency.Atthesametime,however,BCownersweremore

likelythanQuébecownerstoreportbelievingthatvehiclesafetyimprovements,includingESC,makeitpossibletodriveatfasterspeeds,whichsuggeststhatthisgroupofdriversmayhavebeendrivingtheirvehiclesinamoreaggressivemannerthanthosefromQuébec.Thesefindingssuggesttheimportanceofconsideringcross-culturaldifferences,eventhosewithinacountry’sborders,whendesigningADASandothercollisionavoidancesystems,suchasESC.

BehaviouralAdaptation,AcceptanceandCross-CulturalIssues

Sometimes,theintroductionofanIVIS,ADASorothercollisioncountermeasurewithinthevehiclecanresultinunintendeddriverbehavioursthatleadtonegativesafetyoutcomes;forexample,adistracteddriverover-relyingonanadaptivecruisecontrolsystemtomaintainasafedistancetoaleadvehicle.Thisphenomenonisknownasbehaviouraladaptation(OECD1990).Thereisarelationshipbetweendrivers’acceptanceofadeviceorin-vehiclesystemandthelikelihoodthatbehaviouraladaptationwilldevelopasaconsequence(Jamson,inpress).Ifadeviceisnotacceptabletoitstargetusergroup,itwillbeusedlessoften(unlessitsuseisrequiredbylaw),whichwouldmakebehaviouraladaptationlesslikely.Ontheotherhand,adevicethatiswidelyacceptedmaybemorepronetobehaviouraladaptation.

Arolefordevicedesignproceduresthatincludecross-culturalconsiderationstolimitthelikelihoodofbehaviouraladaptationhasbeenproposed(Rudin-Brown2010).Individualandcultural,orgroup,characteristicshavebeenshowntocontributetoanindividual’spropensitytobehaviourallyadapttoADAS.Tomakebehaviouraladaptationlesslikely,therefore,whileatthesametimeproducingadevicethatisacceptedamongusers,designersareencouragedtousetheconstructsofinterculturaladaptabilityandadaptivedesigntomakeasystemthatis‘useradaptive’(Jameson2009).Asystemthatisso-designedwoulduseinformationcollectedregardingitsusertoadaptitsownbehaviourinsomecrucialwaytolimitthelikelihoodofbehaviouraladaptation.Theseconceptshavebeensuccessfullyappliedinotherdomainsofcomputer-humaninteractiontocreateinterfacesthataremoreusableandacceptabletoabroaderarrayofusers.TheconsequenceofapplyingtheseconceptsduringIVIS/ADASconceptanddesignphaseswouldbein-vehiclesystemsthatareacceptedacrossabroadvarietyofculturesandamongawiderangeofusergroups,andwhichareassociatedwithfewnegativesafetyoutcomes.

Conclusions

Astheautomotivemarketmovesfurtherintodevelopingregionsaroundtheworld,cultureisclearlybecominganimportantconsiderationforin-vehicletechnologydesign.Currently,limitedinformationisavailabletoinformIVISandADASdesignfordifferentculturestoensurethattheyarenotonlyusablebutalsoacceptable.Indeed,beyondconcludingthatcultureappearstoberelevanttoautomotiveHMIdesign,fewotherreliableconclusionscanbedrawnatthisstage.Withresearchoncross-culturalautomotivedesigninitsinfancy,therearemanyopportunitiestoexploreculturalrequirementsforautomotiveinterfacedesigningreaterdepthacrossabroaderrangeofcultures,in-vehiclesystemsandHMIfeatures,particularlytheinteraction-levelaspectsoftheinterface.

Beyondtheconsiderationofculturalissues,thereisalsoaneedtoconsiderwiderregionalfactorsthatarealsolikelytoimpactthedesignofautomotivesystemsacrosscountries.Theseincludefactorssuchastrafficregulations,trafficflowandcongestionissues,andthedemographiccompositionofthevehicleanddriverfleet,allofwhicharelikelytoimpactondrivers’needfor,andacceptanceof,certainin-vehicletechnology.Indeed,Lindgrenetal.(2008)foundthat,inadditiontodrivingculture,widerregionalfactorssuchastheageofthevehiclefleet,trafficcongestionandinfrastructure,arealllikelytoimpactontheutilityandacceptanceofADASinChina.

ConsideringandaddressingculturalandwiderregionalfactorsmustberecognisedasacriticalpartoftheglobalIVISandADASdesignprocess.Failuretodosocouldhavesignificantimplicationsfortheappeal,acceptability,usabilityand,ultimately,thesafetyofIVISandADASindifferentregions.

Acknowledgements

WethankourcolleaguesfromtheMonashUniversityAccidentResearchCentre(MUARC)whowereinvolvedinourworkoncross-regionalHMIdesign:MeganBayly,AmyWilliamsonandMichaelLenné.

References

Bourges-Waldegg,P.andScrivener,S.A.R.1998.Meaning,thecentralissueincross-culturalHCIdesign.InteractingwithComputers,9:287–309.

Casey,S.1998.SetPhasersonStun:AndOtherTrueTalesofDesign,TechnologyandHumanError.SantaBarbara,CA:Aegean.

Chen,C.-H.andTsai,C.-Y.2007.Designinguserinterfacesformobileentertainingdeviceswithcross-culturalconsiderations.InUsabilityandInternationalization,HCIandCulture,Vol.4559,37–46.EditedbyN.Aykin.BerlinHeidelberg:Springer.

Choi,B.,Lee,I.,Jeon,Y.andKim,J.2005.Aqualitativecross-nationalstudyofculturalinfluencesonmobiledataservicedesign.PaperpresentedatCHI,2–7April,Portland,Oregon.

Christaans,H.H.C.M.andDiehl,J.C.2007.Thenecessityofdesignresearchintoculturalaspects.PaperpresentedattheProceedingsofInternationalAssociationofSocietiesofDesignResearch,HongKong.

Fernandes,T.1995.GlobalInterfaceDesign:AGuidetoDesigningInternationalUserInterfaces.London:AcademicPress.

Heimgärtner,R.2007.Towardsculturaladaptabilityindriverinformationandassistancesystems.InUsabilityandInternationalization,GlobalandLocalUserInterfaces,Vol.4560,372–81.EditedbyN.Aykin.BerlinHeidelberg:Springer.

———.2005.Researchinprogress:Towardscross-culturaladaptivehuman-machine-interactioninautomotivenavigationsystems.PaperpresentedattheInternationalWorkshopfortheInternationalisationofProductsandSystems,Amsterdam.

Heimgärtner,R.andHolzinger,A.2005.Towardscross-culturaladaptivedrivernavigationsystems.PaperpresentedattheEmpoweringSoftwareQuality:HowCanUsabilityEngineeringReachTheseGoals?FirstUsabilitySymposium,Vienna.

Heimgärtner,R.,Tiede,L.-W.,Leimbach,L.,Zehner,S.,Nguyen-Thien,N.andWindl,H.2007.Towardsculturaladaptabilitytobroadenuniversalaccessinfutureinterfacesofdriverinformationsystems.InUniversalaccessinhuman–computerinteraction,PartII,Vol.6,383–92.EditedbyC.Stephanidis.BerlinHeidelberg:Springer-Verlag.

Hofstede,G.1991.CulturesandOrganizations:SoftwareoftheMind.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.

———.1980.Culture’sConsequences:InternationalDifferencesinWork-RelatedValues.London:Sage.

Hoft,N.1996.Developingaculturalmodel.InInternationalUserInterfaces,41–73.EditedbyE.M.delGaldoandJ.Nielsen.Brisbane:JohnWileyandSons.

Honold,P.2000.Cultureandcontext:Anempiricalstudyforthedevelopmentofaframeworkfortheelicitationofculturalinfluenceinproductusage.

InternationalJournalofHuman-ComputerInteraction,12(3and4):327–45.Ito,M.andNakakoji,K.1996.Impactofcultureonuserinterfacedesign.In

InternationalUserInterfaces,105–26.EditedbyE.M.delGaldoandJ.Nielsen.Brisbane:JohnWileyandSons.

Jameson,A.2009.Adaptiveinterfacesandagents.InHuman-ComputerInteraction:DesignIssues,Solutions,andApplications,105–30.EditedbyJ.JackoandA.Sears.BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress.

Jamson,S.L.(inpress).Theroleofacceptabilityinbehaviouraladaptation.InBehaviouralAdaptationandRoadSafety:Theory,Evidence,andAction.EditedbyC.M.Rudin-BrownandS.L.Jamson.BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress.

Knapp,B.2007.MentalmodelsofChineseandGermanusersandtheirimplicationsforMMI:Experiencesfromthecasestudynavigationsystem.InHuman-ComputerInteraction,PartI,Vol.1,882–90.EditedbyJ.Jacko.BerlinHeidelberg:Springer-Verlag.

Lindgren,A.,Chen,F.,Jordan,P.W.andZhang,H.2008.RequirementsforthedesignofAdvancedDriverAssistanceSystems:ThediffrencesbetweenSwedishandChinesedrivers.InternationalJournalofVehicleDesign,2(2):41–54.

Lodge,C.2007.Theimpactofcultureonusability:Designingusableproductsfortheinternationaluser.InUsabilityandInternationalisation,HCIandCulture.,Vol.4559,365–8.EditedbyN.Aykin.BerlinHeidelberg:Springer.

Marcus,A.2009.Global/interculturaluserinterfacedesign.InHuman-ComputerInteraction:DesignIssues,SolutionsandApplications.EditedbyA.SearsandJ.Jacko.BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress.

Marcus,A.andGould,E.W.2000.Crosscurrents:CulturaldimensionsandglobalWebuser-interfacedesign.Interactions,July–August,32–46.

McLoughlin,C.1999.Culturallyresponsivetechnologyuse:Developinganon-linecommunityoflearners.BritishJournalofEducationalTechnology,30(3):231–43.

Nielsen,J.1996.Internationalusabilityengineering.InInternationalUserInterfaces,1–19.EditedbyE.M.delGaldoandJ.Nielsen.Brisbane:JohnWileyandSons.

Nisbett,R.E.2003.TheGeographyofThought:HowAsiansandWesternersThinkDifferently–andWhy.NewYork:FreePress.

OrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD).1990.BehaviouralAdaptationstoChangesintheRoadTransportSystem.Paris,France:OECD,RoadTransportResearch.

Rau,P.L.P.,Gao,Q.andLiang,S.F.M.2008.Goodcomputingsystemsfor

everyone:Howonearth?CulturalAspects,BehaviourandInformationTechnology,27(4):287–92.

Rudin-Brown,C.M.2010.‘Intelligent’in-vehicleITS:Limitingbehaviouraladaptationthroughadaptivedesign.IETIntelligentTransportSystems,4(4):252–61.

Rudin-Brown,C.M.,Jenkins,R.W.,Whitehead,T.andBurns,P.C.2009.CouldESC(ElectronicStabilityControl)changethewaywedrive?TrafficInjuryPrevention,10(4):340–47.

Russo,P.andBoor,S.1993.Howfluentisyourinterface?Designingforinternationalusers.PaperpresentedattheINTERACT’93andCHI’93ConferenceonHumanFactorsinComputingSystems,Amsterdam.

Smith,A.andYetim,F.2004.Globalhuman-computersystems:Culturaldeterminantsofusability.InteractingwithComputers,16(1):1–5.

Smith,A.,Dunckley,L.,French,T.,Minocha,S.andChang,Y.2004.Aprocessmodelfordevelopingusablecross-culturalwebsites.InteractingwithComputers,16(1):63–91.

Sprung,R.C.1990.TwofacesofAmerica:Polyglotandtongue-tied.InDesigningUserInterfacesforInternationalUse,Vol.13,71–102.EditedbyJ.Nielsen.Amsterdam:Elsevier.

Trompenaars,F.andHampden-Turner,C.1998.RidingtheWavesofCulture:UnderstandingCulturalDiversityinGlobalBusiness.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.

Yang,C.,Chen,N.,Zhang,P.-F.andJiao,Z.2007.Flexiblemulti-modalinteractiontechnologiesanduserinterfacespeciallydesignedforChinesecarinfotainmentsystem.InHuman-ComputerInteraction,PartIII,Vol.3,243–52.EditedbyJ.Jacko.BerlinHeidelberg:Springer-Verlag.

Young,K.L.,Rudin-Brown,C.M.,Lenné,M.G.andWilliamson,A.R.2012.Theimplicationsofcross-regionaldifferencesforthedesignofin-vehicleinformationsystems:AcomparisonofAustralianandChinesedrivers.AppliedErgonomics,43:564–73.

PARTVIConclusions

Chapter22DriverAcceptanceofNewTechnology:Synthesisand

PerspectivesAlanStevens

TransportResearchLaboratory,UK1

TimHorberryUniversityofQueensland,Australia,andUniversityofCambridge,UK

MichaelA.ReganUniversityofNewSouthWales,Australia

Abstract

Thischapterpullstogethertheresearchfindings,experiencesanddiscussiontopicsdocumentedbyourbookcontributorstoprovideasynthesisofwhatisknownandareasinwhichthereisconsensusinourunderstandingofdriveracceptanceofin-vehicletechnology.Weidentifytheperspectivesofresearchers,productdesignersandgovernmentpolicymakersanddiscusshowknowledgeofacceptanceoftechnologyfromrelatedfieldscanberelevanttothein-vehicleenvironment.Finally,wetrytoidentifythemainknowledgegapsinthefieldandmakerecommendationsconcerningtopicsandmethodsforfutureresearch.

ThisBook

Thisbookhasbroughttogetherintoasinglevolume,abodyofcontemporary,accumulatedscientificandpracticalknowledgeconcerningdriveracceptanceoftechnology.Inthefourmainparts,wehavecoveredthetheorybehindacceptance,includingdefinitionsandmodels,howacceptancecanbemeasuredandhowitcanbeimproved,andwehaveincludedanumberofcasestudiesillustratingcurrentpractice.Wehavebeenfortunatetosecurecontributionsfromarangeofinternationalexpertsandhavesoughtsomecontributionsbeyondtheautomotivedomaintoslightlywidenthefocus;forexample,onechapterisontheacceptanceofnewtechnologybymotorcycleridersandoneisabout

acceptanceissueswithmobilemachineryoperatorsinthemineralsindustry.Thesecontributions,alongwithaperspectiveprovidedbypolicymakers,gives,webelieve,arichpictureofacceptancewithintheautomotivedomainandprovideslinkstoabroaderlandscapeofresearchandendeavour.

IdentificationofKeyFindingsfromOtherChapters

Inthissectionweidentifysomeofthemainthemesandconclusionsemergingfromthefoursectionsofthebook.Wehavealsotriedtoidentifywherethereisconsensusbetweenviewsandwheredifferentviewsexist.

TheoriesandModelsofAcceptance

Asseveralchapterauthorshavenoted,atitsmostbasiclevel,acceptanceofnewtechnologycanbealignedsimplywithlong-termuseofthattechnology.However,‘acceptanceequalsuse’issimplisticatbest,anddoesnothelpdesignersdevelopandmarketsuccessfulproducts;andnordoesithelpdecision-makersencourageuseoftechnologyfordesirablesocialoutcomessuchasincreasedroadsafety.Furthermore,itisclearthroughoutthebookthatdifferentauthors(implicitlyorexplicitly)thinkaboutacceptanceindifferentways.

Oneofthepointsmadeveryclearly(e.g.,Adell,VárhelyiandNilsson,Chapter2,VlassenrootandBrookhuis,Chapter4)isthatfewstudieshaveexplicitlydefinedacceptanceandthatconsensusonanoveralldefinitionislacking.Thisisproblematic,asthereisobviouslyaclosedependencebetweenthedefinitionofacceptance,acceptancemodelsandmeasurementofacceptance.Toputitsimply:ifwedon’thaveadefinitionofacceptance,howcanweformulatemodelsofitormeasureitinameaningfulway?

Contributionstoamorefundamentaldeconstructionofacceptancehavebeenmadebyanumberofauthorswithinthisbook.Adell,VárhelyiandNilsson(Chapter2),forexample,identifyfivecategoriesofacceptancedefinitionsthatarebasedon

•usingtheword‘accept’;•satisfyinguserneedsandrequirements;•thesummationofattitudes;•willingnesstouse;and•actualuse.

Theselasttwocategoriesraisetheimportantissueoftheevolutionofacceptanceovertime.Inadvanceofactuallyexperiencinganewtechnologyproduct,individualswillprobablyhaveaviewonit,althoughmostauthorsdonotyetascribetheword‘acceptance’tothisinitialjudgement.Atthispointwemighttalkabout‘acceptability’asa‘prospectivejudgementofmeasurestobeintroducedinthefuture’(SchadeandSchlag2003:47).Whenaproductbecomestangible,forexampleaspartofafieldtrialorasabuilt-infeatureofaparticularvehiclemodel,driversthenhaveanopportunitytoexperienceit‘forreal’.Atthispoint,andastheirexperiencewiththetechnologydevelops,driverswill,individually,formjudgementsincludingthoserelatingto‘acceptance’.

Arguably,aconsensusdefinitionofwhatismeantbytheterm‘acceptance’cannotemergeuntilthereisamuchclearerview(supportedbyevidence)oftherelationshipbetweenacceptanceandrelatedconstructssuchasusefulness,usability,trustinthetechnology,pleasureinuse,satisfaction,desirability,impactonothers,socialstatusconferredbyuse,andsoon.Itmightalsobeimportanttobetterrecognisedifferenttypesofacceptance(Adell,VárhelyiandNilsson,Chapter2):forexample,attitudinalacceptance,behaviouralacceptance,conditional/contextualacceptanceandsocialacceptance.

Thelackofasingleunifyingtheoryanddefinitionofacceptancehasbeenmirroredbyalargenumberofdifferentattemptstodevelopmodelsofacceptance,andanumberarereviewedandusedasstartingpointsinseveralchaptersofthisbook(see,e.g.,VlassenrootandBrookhuis,Chapter4),principalamongstthesebeing

•theTheoryofPlannedBehaviour(TPB)basedontheTheoryofReasonedAction;

•theValue–Belief–Norm(VBN)theory;•theTechnologyAcceptanceModel(TAM);•thetwodimensionsdirectattitudesmodelofVanderLaan,HeinoandDeWaard(1997)measuringusefulnessofthesystemandsatisfaction;and

•theUnifiedTheoryofAcceptanceandUseofTechnology(UTAUT).

Ourchaptercontributorshavefoundallthesemodelsofacceptancelackingorinsufficientinsomeregard.Adell,VárhelyiandNilsson(Chapter3)suggestthattheUTAUTisagoodstartingpointbutneedstobedevelopedtoincludeemotionalreactionsofdrivers,weightingoftheconstructsandmodelreliabilityissues.Likewise,VlassenrootandBrookhuis(Chapter4)identified14factorspossiblyinfluencingacceptability(devicespecificfactors,contextfactorsand

generalfactors)andproposedanewtheoreticalmodelofacceptance.Similarly,GhazizadehandLee(Chapter5)modifiedanddevelopedtheTechnologyAcceptanceModelwithanew‘trustindevice’elementandthencombineditwithamodelappropriateforwhenanin-vehicledeviceprovidesfeedbacktothedriver.Theydiscuss,forexample,thatdriversacceptmentoringorcoachingmorereadilythanmonitoringoftheirperformance.

So,althoughwedonothaveasingleagreeddefinition,orasinglemodel,ofacceptance,thereseemstobegeneralconsensusonsomeimportantissues:

•acceptanceisacomplexconstructwhichhasmanyfacetsanddependencies;

•acceptanceisbasedonindividualjudgements,soadriver-centricviewisrequiredtomeasureorpredictacceptanceatanindividuallevel(assessingsocietalacceptancerequiresanadditionalbroaderperspective);

•twokeydeterminantsofacceptanceofnewtechnologyareusefulnessandeaseofuse;

•acceptancedependsontheindividual,soissuessuchasgender,age,cultureandpersonalityarelikelytobeimportant;

•thecontextofuseisalsoimportant,includingthesupporting‘infrastructure’(initswidestsense),whetheruseofthetechnologyisvoluntaryandalsobroadersocial/culturalinfluences;

•driversdonothavetoactuallylikeatechnology/systemtobeacceptingofit(butlikingitmayincreaseuseofthetechnology);

•acceptanceshouldberegardedasacontinuousvariable,notabinaryconcept;and

•acceptanceisnotinvariant;itmaychange(evenforoneindividual)dependingonthespecifictime/contextinwhichthenewtechnologyisusedandasexperiencewiththetechnologydevelops.

Toconcludethissectionontheoriesandmodels,wecansaythatasimpledefinitionofdriveracceptanceiselusiveandthatconsensusforamorecompletedefinitioniscurrentlymissing.Notunconnectedwiththis,thesituationconcerningmodellingofacceptanceissimilar:thereareanumberofproposedmodels,butconsensusislacking.Itisalsoworthnotingthatmanyofthesetheoriesandmodelsweredevelopedoriginallyfornon-drivingcontexts.Nevertheless,seekingabetterunderstandingofthedeterminantsofdriveracceptanceappearsworthwhile,asitislikelytosupportdesignersofproductsincorporatingnewtechnologyaswellasdecisionmakersindevelopingimplementationstrategiestosupportdesirablesocialgoalssuchasincreased

implementationstrategiestosupportdesirablesocialgoalssuchasincreasedsafety.

MeasurementofAcceptance

Onemightask:‘whydowetrytomeasureacceptance?’Oftenitisundertakenatanearlystageofproductconceptordevelopmentwiththeaimofaccuratelypredictingandoptimisinglikelyuseracceptanceasearlyaspossibleinthedesignprocess.Anotherreasonmightbetobetterunderstanddeployment,performanceissuesorsystemfailureswhentechnologyisavailableandinuse.

Asmightbeexpected,giventhediversityofdefinitionsandmodelsofacceptability,arangeoftoolsandtechniquesareusedindifferentenvironmentsyieldingarangeofmetricsthatmeasure(orpurporttomeasure)someaspectsofdriveracceptanceofvariousinformation,warningandassistancesystems.Thechaptersinthisbookillustratethesemetricsanddiscusstheirusesandlimitations.

Adell,NilssonandVárhelyi(Chapter6)notethatthelackofaconsistentwayofmeasuringacceptancecanleadtomisinterpretation,andevenmisuse,ofresults.Theyexplorearangeofself-reportedmeasures(questionnaires,focusgroups,interviews,willingnesstopay),driverperformancemeasuresandphysiologicalmeasures.Clearly,thedifferenttoolsusedtoderivethesemeasureshavestrengthsandweaknesses.Mitsopoulos-RubensandRegan(Chapter7)concentrateonquestionnairesandfocusgroupsandconcludethatthechoiceoftooldependsonthefocusofthe(acceptability)researchissue.Källhammer,SmithandHollnagel(Chapter9)intheirworkwithwarningsystems,derivebenefitbothfromvideosimulations(inadvanceofproductavailability)andvideoanalysis(duringproductuse)toinvestigatetheacceptabilityofmissesandfalsealarms.StevensandBurnett(Chapter17)focusonusabilityaspectsofacceptanceandconcludethatusability,atleast,canbemeasuredandthatsuchmeasurementcanbestandardised.

AsnotedbyEdmunds,DornandSkrypchuk(Chapter8),driveracceptanceofin-vehicletechnologyisamultidimensionalconceptdependentonemotional,cognitiveandexperientialeffects.Itseemslikely,then,thatcomprehensivemeasurementofacceptancemayneedtoinvolvemultipletoolsandtechniquesindifferentenvironmentsandwitharepresentativerangeofusersovertime.Practicalmeasurementtoolswillthereforeneedtoinvolvecompromisesincost,timeandcomprehensivenessbutcanbetailoredtotheresearchissueunderinvestigation.

Onelastpointisveryimportantandisraisedbyanumberofcontributorstothisbook–acceptanceneedstobe‘operationalised’beforemeasurementby

thisbook–acceptanceneedstobe‘operationalised’beforemeasurementbyidentifyingthecomponentsofitthatarethefocusofresearch.Also,sincearangeoftoolsalreadyexist,itwilloftennotbenecessarytofundamentallydevelopnewtools;butequally,itshouldbepossibletobuildonpreviouswork.Thekeypointsaretoidentifyanddefinewhatisbeingmeasuredandtobeasconsistentaspossibleinmeasurementwhenmakingcomparisonsofacceptabilityovertimeorbetweentechnologyproducts.

Earlierinthischapterwerevisitedthedistinctionbetweenacceptabilityandacceptance,andsuggestedthatknowledgeaboutacceptability(potentialacceptanceinadvanceofactualproductuse)maygivedesignersandothersimportantearlyfeedbackthatcanbeusedtooptimiseacceptanceoftechnologywhenitisactuallyused.Indiscussingthemeasurementofacceptance,andincasestudiesreportedinthisbook,manyauthorsmakethepointthatthefactorsdeterminingacceptanceinproductusearecomplex.Therefore,therelationshipbetweenaproductbeingjudgedasbeingpotentiallyacceptableorunacceptablebeforeintroductionanditsacceptanceinactualuseremainsanareaforfurtherresearch.

CasesStudiesandDataonAcceptanceofNewTechnology

Varioustypesofinformationcanbedrawnfromthecasestudiesdescribedinthebook.Weseethekindsoftechnologythathasbeenevaluated;themethodsthathavebeenusedtoevaluateacceptanceofthetechnologyandtheassumptionsassociatedwiththosemethods;andpracticaldataontheabsoluteandrelativeacceptanceofdifferentproducts.Here,weconcentrateonextractingsomeoftheinsightsintoacceptancerevealedthroughthesestudies,bothfromthesectiononcasestudiesandfromelsewhereinthebook.

VlassenrootandBrookhuis(Chapter4),intheirstudyofIntelligentSpeedAdaptation(ISA),concludethatacceptabilitymoststronglydependsonthesystemdoingwhatitisdesignedtodoandthat‘equity’betweenusersisalsoakeyfactor(i.e.,adriverismorelikelytoaccepttheirspeedbeingcontrolledifalldrivershavetheirspeedcontrolled).Källhammer,SmithandHollnagel(Chapter9)studiedwarningsystemswhereacceptancedependsontherateandnatureofmissesandfalsealarms.Theynote,importantly,that‘falsealarm’isapost-hocclassification;manyalertsthatarefalsealarmsareactuallyusefulandtheyarelikelytobeacceptediftheyprovideuseful,trustworthyinformation.

Labeye,BrusqueandRegan(Chapter11)usedquestionnaires,focusgroupsanddriverlogsintheirstudiesofacceptanceofelectricvehicles.Intheirwork,acceptancewasjudgedintermsofperformance,easeofuseandfacilitating

conditions(organisationalandtechnicalinfrastructure).VilimekandKeinath(Chapter12)notethata‘disruptivetechnology’,liketheelectricvehicle,willonlysucceedifitmeetsboththerequirementsofearlyadoptersandlateradopters.Theyalsoadvocatethenecessityofauser-centreddevelopmentandevaluationapproachtosuchinnovation.

StevensandReed(Chapter14)usedadrivingsimulatorasatooltoinvestigatedrivers’reactiontonovelroadinfrastructuretechnologywheretheyinferredacceptancefrombehaviour.Theynotethatsafeinteractionbetweendriversrequiresacceptanceof‘socialnormsofbehaviour’andimplythatthiscanbeaffectedbyacceptanceofnewtechnology.Importantsocialfactorsaffectingbehaviour/acceptancewerefoundtobefairnessandtheimplementationapproachwhentechnologyisdeployed.Othervariableswerethedriver’spsychologicalcharacteristics(especiallyrelevantinthecaseofenforcementtechnology)andthedegreeofmonitoringandfeedbacktothedriverfromroadsidesystems.

Inherworkwithmotorcycleriders,Huth(Chapter13)identifiesthatproblemawarenessandperceivedusefulnessarecriticallyimportantforacceptanceofnewsafetytechnologyandthatinterveningdevicesaregenerallylessacceptablethanthoseprovidingwarnings.Shealsoidentifiesthatthepsychologicalcharacteristicsofridersaffectacceptance:with‘fun’asamotivationforridingbeingassociatedwithloweracceptanceoftechnologythatremovespartofthisfun.Sheconcludesthatbothsubjectiveandobjectiveevaluationofacceptanceisnecessary.

HorberryandCooke(Chapter15)lookedatthemineralsindustrywhereintroductionofnewtechnologyforusebyoperatorsisusuallymandatoryandwherenon-acceptancecanberevealedbyequipmentbeingneglectedorsabotaged.Theyfoundthatimprovedinterfacedesign,basedonbestergonomicspractice,canimproveoperatoracceptance.

Belin,Vedung,MeleckidzedeckandTingvall(Chapter16)examinedpolicyinstrumentswhichaimtomaximiseroadsafetythroughuseofnewtechnologyandwhereacceptanceisobviouslyanimportantdeterminantofoutcomes.Theyconcludethattheissuesarehighlycomplexandthatthechoiceandpackagingofpolicies(and,byimplication,acceptanceofthem)willdependonmanycontextualfactors.

Atfirstglance,thesecasestudiesmayseemratherdisparateastheyaddressdifferentusersofdifferenttechnologywithindifferentcontexts.Whatunitesthemisthatacceptanceisconsideredimportantforongoingdeploymentandthestudyfindingsaddtothemountingbodyofknowledgeinthearea.Together,

thesecasestudiesreinforcetheideasthatacceptanceismultifacetedandthatthetechnology,userandcontextualvariablesareallimportantindevelopingafullerunderstandingofacceptance.

OptimisationofAcceptance

Akeyquestionfordesigners,andthoseresponsibleforintroducingnewtechnology,shouldbehowtooptimiseitsacceptance;theaimusuallybeingtoensurethatthetechnology/productisused‘correctly’andthatitsbenefitsaremaximised.Adviceonhowtodosoisofferedinthisbook.

Arecurringthemeisthevitalimportanceofuser-centreddesignwhentryingtoachievehighacceptance.Althoughseeminglyobvious,atleasttoHumanFactorsprofessionals,thisfundamentalapproachisstilllacking,atleastinsomeindustrialcontexts.ThiswastheexperienceofHorberryandCooke(Chapter15),whofoundthatinvestigationofactualrequirements,consultationwithusersanduser-centreddesignisparticularlyimportantwhentechnologyisnotchosenbythedriverbutintroducedaspartoftheirworkingrequirement.

Ingeneral,technologyisusedwithinawiderorganisationalcontext(includingphysicalsurroundings,people,proceduresandothertechnology)thatalsoevolvesovertime.StevensandBurnett(Chapter17)concludethat,forhighusability,thedesignerneedstounderstandthecharacteristicsofusersandthephysical,socialandpotentialorganisationalenvironmentinwhichtasksarecarriedout.Similarly,fromhisreviewoforganisationalfactorsintheintroductionoftechnologyinotherdomains,Maguire(Chapter19)concludesthatarangeoffactorsmayneedtobeconsidered:organisationalgoals;roles,responsibilitiesandskills;workflows;procedures;communicationanddistraction;workculture;technicalandfunctionalknowledge;safetythinking;securityandusabilitytrade-off;andtrainingandsupport.

HorberryandCooke(Chapter15)identifyalsotheneedtoensurethatdrivers/operatorshavesufficienttechnicalandnon-technicalskillstounderstandthecontextandbenefitsofthetechnology(tobemorelikelytoacceptit).Maguire(Chapter19)notesthatacceptabilityislikelytobehigherwhennewtechnologypromotesthelearningofnewskills,supportsthedrivingtask,contributestoobjectivesthatdriversaspiretoandfitsinwiththeircultureandvalues.YoungandRudin-Brown(Chapter21)remindusthatculturalissuesarelikelytohaveimplicationsforusability(andhenceacceptance)andthatmanyfactorsthatvarybetweencountries/regions(e.g.,regulations,congestion,vehiclefleetage,infrastructure)arealsolikelytoimpactondesignandimplementation

oftechnology.Intermsofactualtechnologyandproductdesign,StevensandBurnett

(Chapter17)reviewsomeofthemanyguidelinesandstandardsavailabletosupportinterfacedesign,whichhavepotentialtomakeinterfacesmoreacceptabletodrivers.However,goodergonomicdesignisonlyoneaspectofanacceptableproduct.GreenandJordan(Chapter18)highlightthat,aswellasfactorssuchasusability,reliability,longevity,valueandsoon,amajorcomponentoftheuserexperienceisaestheticandemotionalsatisfaction.Theypointtotheemotionalproductexperienceasanimportantconsiderationinoptimisingacceptance.Thisextendsbeyondthe‘look-and-feel’ofatechnologyinterfacetoincludesuchthingsasbrandimageandperceptionofstatus.

Finally,intermsofoptimisingacceptance,twochapterslookattheroleofgovernmentpolicyindrivingchangethroughnewtechnologytoachievesocialoutcomessuchasimprovedroadsafety.Belinetal.(Chapter16)identifythreeclassesofpolicyinstrument(information,economicinstrumentsandregulations)anddescribehowinstrumentscanbepackagedvertically(targetedtospecificstakeholders),horizontally(morethanoneinstrumentused)orchronologically(variousinstrumentsinatimesequence)inanattempttoachievespecificoutcomes.vanderPas,Walker,MarchauandVlassenroot(Chapter20)advocateAdaptivePolicymakingtohelpwithimplementationoftechnologyinthefaceofuncertainty.Theapproachesdescribedinthesetwochaptersarelikelytohaveconsiderableimpactonacceptanceofnewtechnology,particularlywherethereisinitialresistanceoruncertaintyaboutadoptionbyeitherdriversorwidersociety.Theexactnatureofpolicyimplementation,however,seemstobehighlydependentonthesituation;sadly,nospecificadvicecanbegivenastowhichinstrumentswillworkbesttopromoteacceptanceinparticularcircumstances.

LimitationsinOurCurrentKnowledgeofAcceptance

Inanidealworld,therewouldbeaconsensusdefinitionofdriveracceptance,aunifyingmodeloftheconstruct,anditsunderlyingdimensions,andarangeofvalidtoolsforreliablymeasuringacceptanceofnewtechnology,andpredictingacceptanceintothefuture.Asacorollarytothis,designersandthoseresponsiblefordeployingnewtechnologywouldknowhowtooptimiseacceptance(orbeinapositiontodevelopalternatestrategies).

Inthissection,weexaminetheextenttowhichthisvisionhasbeenachievedandweidentifygapsanddeficiencies,bothpertainingtothisbookandtothefieldofacceptancemoregenerally.

Asnotedearlier,onefundamentalpointisthatwearelackingabroadscientificconsensusonadefinitionofacceptance.Similarly,despitearangeofmodelsofacceptancebeingavailable,theyareoftenfoundlackinginsomeregard.Thisappearstobenotbecauseofalackofeffortonsynthesisbutstemsfromalackofdetailedknowledgeconcerningthefactorsthatinfluenceacceptanceandtheinteractionbetweenthem.Onecanalwaysmakeapleaformoreresearch,butindoingsothereneedstobearecognitionthattheresearchcommunityhastogetbetteratadoptingbestpracticeandbecomingclearerinreportingitsdefinitions,methodologyanddetailedfindings.Thereviewsinseveralchaptersinthisbooksuggestthatsuchdetailisoftenlackinginpublications.Inmostindustriesandcontexts,thereisstillacontinuingneedforahuman-centreddesign,operationalneedsanalysisandauser-centreddeploymentprocess.

Atthelevelofanindividualuserofnewtechnology,thereappeartobegapsinourknowledgeconcerninghowindividualcharacteristics,suchaspersonalneedsandmotivations,contributetoacceptance.Morebroadly,thesocialcontext,thespecificcontextofuseandtheeffectofsocialinteractionbetweendriversisthoughttobeimportantbutnotwellresearched.Policymakerswouldcertainlyappreciatemoreadvice;addressingsuchknowledgegapswouldhelpidentifywhen,whereandwithinwhichculturalcontextaspecificpolicyinstrumentorpackagewouldbemosteffectiveandappropriate.

Theissueofacceptancehasbeenstudiedinrelationtomanydifferentproductsandservices.Inthisbook,andforoneclassofuser(drivers),wehavereportedexamplesoftechnologyprovidingarangeofservicescoveringinformation,warning,assistanceandautomation.Wealsohaveacceptancestudiesinrelationtootherusersofnewtechnologysuchasmotorcycleridersandoperatorsofmobileminingmachinery.Thisrangeprovidesatapestryoffindingsconcerningacceptanceforspecificusersinspecificcontextsofuse.Nevertheless,neitherthisbook,noreventhewideracademicliterature,providesacompletepicture.Weareleft,therefore,withanumberofquestionsandgaps.Themostimportantonesraisedbycontributorstothisbookinrelationtothetechnologyitselfare

•differencesinhowacceptanceisjudgedinprestigevehiclesandmoremundanevehicles;

•understandingthefactorsthatinfluencedriveracceptanceofalertsthatarefalsealarms;

•changesinacceptancewithtechnology/productexperience;•acceptanceofcombinationsofsystems;

•acceptanceofcombinationsofsystems;•whethermeasurementtoolscandiscriminatethedegreeofacceptancebetweensimilartechnologyexemplars;

•theextenttowhichcustomisablesystemsmightimproveacceptance;and•implicationsforacceptanceofreliance/long-termdependencyontechnologysupport;forexample,doesdependencyremovethechoiceofacceptanceandisunquestioningacceptanceproblematic?

Anoteofcautionshouldbegivenheretotheacademiccommunitythatusesexistingtechnologyforitsresearch:oftentechnologyisafewyearsold,duetothetraditionallysteadypaceofscientificresearch.Giventherapidnatureoftechnologydevelopment,weneedtoappreciatethatreallynewtechnologymayhavesignificantlydifferentcharacteristicsandthatdriveracceptancedevelopsbasedonpreviousexperienceoftechnology.

Theextenttowhichwecanaddressthesegapsbyfurtherharvestingknowledgefromotherdomainsislargelyunknown.Inthisbookwehaveconcentratedonthedriverofroadvehiclesbutwehavecontributionsalsocoveringmobilemachineryoperatorsandmotorcyclists.FromHorberryandCooke(Chapter15),itseemsthattheminingindustrycanlearnfromthedrivingcontext,andperhapsthedrivingcontextcanlearnfromotherdomainsassuggestedthroughthecontributionofMaguire(Chapter19).Onesuchdomaincouldbetheaerospaceindustry(acceptinghowever,thatpilotsaremorehighlyskilled,trainedandregulated).Wehavenotincludedbroaderdomainsinthisbookbutacceptanceissuesinsecurity,medicalandaerospacemaybefruitfulareastoexploreinfuture.

ResearchRecommendations

Inthissectionwehighlightanumberofareasofacceptance-relatedresearchthatappeartobemostvaluableintermsofboththeoreticalandpracticaldevelopment.Wherepossibleweincludeasuggestedresearchapproach.

TheTheoreticalandPracticalLinksBetweenAcceptanceandRelatedConcepts

Exploringthetheoreticalandpracticaldeterminantsofacceptancewillberichareasforfutureresearch,especiallyasnewtechnologyisincreasinglydeployedinroadtransport.Importantresearchquestionsare,forexample,howreliabledoesatechnologyneedtobeforittobewidelyaccepted?AsGhazizadehand

Lee(Chapter5)explore,howdorelianceandtrustfitinhere?Similarly,whatistheeffectofindividualdriver/rider/operatorcharacteristics(e.g.,personalneedsandmotivations,olderandyoungerusers)onacceptance?Howdoesthespecificcontextofuseaffectacceptance?AsdiscussedbyBurnettandDiels(Chapter10),whatistheeffectofsocialinteractionbetweendrivers?Morebroadly,howdosocietalattitudesandprejudicesaffectacceptanceandhowdotheseaffectpolicymakers,commercialorganisationsandindividualsmakingjudgementsandplansconcerningintroductionofnewtechnology?

Thus,thereisaneedtoinvestinfundamentalresearchonthefactorsdeterminingacceptability,ontheirdefinitionandonmodellingtheirinteractions.Aspartofthiseffort,thereisaneedfortheresearchcommunitytoadoptbestpracticeandbemorespecificinreportingoffindingsaboutacceptancesuchthatmaximumusecanbemadeofresultsinsubsequentmodellinganddefinitionalwork.

Asrepeatedlynoted,aconsensusdefinitionofacceptanceismissing.Aconsensusdefinitionneedstoemergebasedonabodyofworkandfromanopendiscussionprocessthatislikelytoholdswayintheresearchcommunity.Webelievethatthisbookprovidesaveryusefulsummaryoftherelevantworkandwehopethatitwillprovidethebasisfromwhichsuchongoingdiscussionscanbeheld.Theforumforthosediscussionsisnotyetdefinedbutcouldpossiblyinvolvenationalandinternationalstandardisationorganisations,anexpertgroup,asuitableprofessionalbody,oranInternetplatform,perhapsassociatedwithaninternationalconference.

FurtherDevelopmentandValidationofInstrumentstoMeasureAcceptance

AsthechaptersbyEdmundsetal.(Chapter8)andGreenandJordan(Chapter18)noted,whendesigningnewtechnology,apositiveresponsefromtheeventualend-userisessential.Sotodevelopanddeploysuccessfulnewtechnology,OriginalEquipmentManufacturersandaftermarkettechnologysuppliersmustunderstandtheimpactoftheirinnovationsonpeoples’affectiveandcognitiveresponsetotechnology.Sadly,toofewvalidatedtools(instruments)existintheopenliteratureforthispurpose.

Asacceptanceisamultifacetedconcept,itislikelythatatoolboxratherthanasingletoolneedstobethegoalofthisresearch.AsnotedbyHuth(Chapter13),bothsubjectiveandobjectivemeasurementsneedtobeavailable.Developmentsinacceptancemeasurementneedtobuildonthedefinitionsandmodelssuchthatthereisclarityaboutexactlywhatatoolismeasuring(the

metric)aswellastheenvironmentinwhichthemeasurementismadeandtheexactmeasurementtechniqueused.AsnotedbyAdelletal.,allstudiesofacceptancecancontributetofurtheringknowledgeofacceptancebyclearlydefiningwhattheymeanbyacceptanceandbyconsequentlyusingthatdefinitionwhenmeasuringtheconcept.Sotoolsneedtobedeveloped,fullydocumented,validatedandmadewidelyavailable.Researchquestionstobeaddressedaretheperformance,reliabilityandsensitivityofdifferenttools(e.g.,cantheydiscriminatebetweensimilarproducts?)andthecostofapplication(time,resourcesetc.).Furtherquestionsconcernthephysicalenvironmentsinwhichdifferenttoolscanoperateandwhenduringtheproductlife-cycletheiruseisappropriateandvalid.Onecriticalissuefordesignersistheextenttowhichanacceptancemeasuringtoolispredictive;thatis,whetheratoolappliedatonepointintimecanassessacceptanceduringalaterphaseofaproductlife-cycle.AspointedoutbyMitsopoulos-RubensandRegan(Chapter7),thereisadegreeofprofessionaljudgementrequiredinknowingwhatcombinationoftoolstouseinmeasuringacceptance.

EnsuringAcceptanceResearchKeepsPacewithNewTechnologyDevelopment

Anexplosioninnewtechnologydesignanddeploymentistakingplacewithinmotorvehicles:bothforfactory-fittedandaftermarketproducts.Similarly,anincreaseintechnologydeploymentcanbeseeninhighwayinfrastructure,industrialmobileequipmentandmotorcycles,asdocumentedinthechaptersbyStevensandReed(Chapter14),HorberryandCooke(Chapter15)andHuth(Chapter13).

Manyresearchersnote,quiterightly,thattheirmethodsandconclusionsapplyonlytothespecifictechnologyfunctionthattheyhaveinvestigated.So,thereisclearlybotharesearchandcommercialneedtoapplyexistinganddevelopingtheoriesandmeasurementsofacceptancetonewsituations.

Astechnologydevelops,thewayinwhichdriversinteractwithitwillalsodevelop.Thismaychangetheirperceptionofacceptanceandtheframesofreferencetheyusetojudgeacceptance.Theadventof‘driverless’carsisacaseinpoint.Here,perceptionsofdriversatisfactionandusefulnessofvehicletechnologymaybebounduplessintheabilityofthecartotransportthemreliably,comfortablyandsafelytoadestination,butinitfreeingupeffortandtimethatcanbeusedtodootherthingsthatmightbemoreusefulandsatisfying:likereading,telephoningorsleeping.

Somespecifictechnology-relatedresearchissuesdeserveattention:

Somespecifictechnology-relatedresearchissuesdeserveattention:

•Somesystemsaremultifunctional,andtheremightalsobemultiplesinglefunctiondevicesinavehicle,especiallywhereaftermarketdevicesarepurchasedbydrivers.Howthesemultiplesystemsimpactonacceptance–bothnowandinthefuture–isanareaforfutureresearch.

•Exploringdifferencesinacceptanceissuesindifferentdrivingcontexts(e.g.,dependingonthesophisticationofthevehicle).

•Understandingthefactorsthatinfluencedriveracceptanceofwarningsystemsandparticularlyofalertsthatarefalsealarms.

•Furtherinvestigationofmotorcycleriderinformationandwarningacceptance,particularlyfromfieldtrialsofnewtechnologyproducts.

•Howacceptancechangeswithtechnology/productexperience.•Theextenttowhichcustomisablesystemsmightimproveacceptance.•Whethertherecanbe‘over-acceptance’ofhighlyreliabilitytechnologyleadingtocomplacencyandwhethertechnologyperformanceandacceptanceneedtobeoptimisedtoavoiddependency.

Cross-CulturalDesignandLearningfromOtherDomains

AsYoungandRudin-Brown(Chapter21)note,researchoncross-culturalautomotivedesignisinitsinfancy.Numerousopportunitiesexisttoexplorerequirementsforautomotiveinterfacedesignandinteractiondesignacrossdifferentcultures.In-vehicletechnologyhasnowdevelopedanditsuptakehasspreadbeyondapointwhereoneinterfacedesignfitswithallpurposes.Giventheglobalmarketfortechnology,especiallywhenfactory-fittedtoacar,truckormotorcycle,betterunderstandingofimportantculturaldifferencesisessentialforeffectivedesign.

Asimilarlybroadissueistheextenttowhichthestudyofacceptanceinthedrivingcontextcanlearnfromotherdomains.TheperspectivesprovidedbyHorberryandCooke(Chapter15)aboutthemineralsindustryandbyHuth(Chapter13)concerningmotorcycleriderssuggestthatatleastsomeoftheissuesaroundacceptanceareuniversalandthattheremaybefurtherinsightsthatcanbeharvestedfrominformationtechnology,aerospace,medicalandsecurityfields.ThechapterbyMaguire(Chapter19)providesastartingpointandsomethoughtfulremarksonthesimilarityofchallengesinthesedifferentdomains.

PracticalImplicationsofThisBodyofKnowledge

Ashasbeenseenthroughoutthisbook,acceptanceofnewtechnologyandsystemsbydrivers,equipmentoperatorsandwidersocietyisbecominganincreasinglyimportanttopicworldwide,especiallyfortechnologywhichhasthepotentialtosignificantlyenhancesafety,efficiencyorcomfort.

ThisbookprovidesaresourceforHumanFactorsresearchers,forindustryandforpolicymakerstobetterappreciatethecomplexitiesandmultifacetednatureofacceptance.Theearlytheoreticalchaptersexplorethefactorslikelytobeofmostimportanceindeterminingacceptanceandprovidesomebasisfordesigningproductsandservicesthataremorelikelytobeacceptedbytheintendedusers.Theyalsoprovideaninsightintothewaycontemporarythinkingaboutacceptanceisdeveloping.Thecasestudies,measurementandoptimisationchaptersprovidebothpracticalexperienceofacceptanceandadviceconcerningdesignanddeployment.Thecasestudiesprovide,inadditiontoinsightsabouttheconceptofacceptance,valuableinformationaboutactualmeasuredlevelsofacceptancefordifferentproductsthatwillbeofbenefittothosewhomaybecontemplatingdeploymentofsuchtechnology.

Perhapswehaveabiasedview,butitseemscertainthatacceptanceoftechnologybydriverswillbecomeincreasinglyimportantasthelevelofautomationincreases.Wealsoseeaneedfortheupdatingofregulationsanddesignguidelinesinthisareaasaresultoftechnologydevelopments.

IsThereAnything‘Beyond’Acceptance?

Theimportanceofdriveracceptanceofnewtechnologyhasbeenemphasisedthroughoutthisbookandwithageneralagreementthatacceptanceisavariableratherthanabinaryconcept.Philosophically,onemightaskwhetheracceptancecanincreaseindefinitelyorwhetherthereisa‘sufficiencyplateau’beyondwhichfurtherimprovementisoflittleornovalueinincreasingacceptance.

TherehasbeenahintfromBurnettandDiels(Chapter10)thatsomescepticismabouttheperformanceoftechnologymightbehealthyattimes,raisingthequestionofwhetheracceptancecouldbetoohighincertaincircumstancesandleadtocomplacency.Implicitly,thissuggeststhatthereisanoptimumlevelofacceptancewhichshouldbesought.

Otherauthorshaveconsideredacceptanceasnecessarybutnotsufficientinproductdevelopment,implicitlysupportingtheideathatthereisaplateauofacceptance.GreenandJordan(Chapter18)state(alsosupportedbyEdmundsetal.,Chapter8)thatemotionalandaestheticdimensionsarekeyelementsinthetechnologypurchasingdecisioninthefirstplaceandinthelong-term

satisfactionofthedriver/operatorexperience.Forthem,issuessuchaspleasureorjoyinproductuse,andfeelingsofpride/status/comfortfromowningandusingthetechnology,areimportantissuesthatarenotadequatelyencompassedintheterm‘acceptance’.

So,aswithmuchoftheterminologyaroundacceptance,thisissuehasnotbeenresolvedbutservestoillustratehowconceptsfromdifferentoriginscancontributetoenrichourunderstandingoftheroleofindividualandgroupperceptionsinthedesign,deploymentanduseoftechnology.Thefieldhasnotyetreachedalevelofmaturitywhereasimpleroadmaportoolkitcaneasilybedevelopedtohelpoptimisedriveracceptanceforalltechnology,inallsituationsandforalldrivers/operators.However,theresearchreportedhere,andtheissuesdiscussedinthisbookconcerningdesigndeploymentanduseoftechnology,are,webelieve,ausefulcontributiontothefield.

References

Schade,J.andSchlag,B.2003.Acceptabilityofurbantransportpricingstrategies.TransportationResearchPartF:TrafficPsychologyandBehaviour,6(1):45–61.

VanderLaan,J.D.,Heino,A.andDeWaard,D.1997.Asimpleprocedurefortheassessmentofacceptanceofadvancedtransporttelematics.TransportationResearchPartC:EmergingTechnologies,5(1):1–10.

1©TransportResearchLaboratory,2013

Index

Allindexentriesshownherecorrespondtothepagenumberswithintheprintededitiononly.Withinthisdigitalformatthesepagenumbersallowforcrossreferencingonly.

Note:Pagenumbersinitalicsrepresentfiguresandtables.

AAP.SeeactiveacceleratorpedalABP.SeeAssumption-BasedPlanningACASFOT.SeeAutomotiveCollisionAvoidanceSystemfieldoperationaltestACC.Seeadaptivecruisecontrolacceptability.Seealsoacceptance;measuringofacceptance/acceptability

vs.acceptance,15,17–18,339defining,5–6,12,35,36,74,90,336factorsinfluencing,38,39hypotheticalmodelofindicators,41theoreticalmodelof,39andusability,257–8

acceptance.Seealsoacceptability;electricvehicleacceptance;measuringofacceptance/acceptabilityvs.acceptability,15,17–18,339

ofAdvancedDriverAssistanceSystems,261,318,325ofadvancedriderassistancesystems,194–6attitudinal,14behavioural,14casestudiesanddataon,339–41ofcoaching,63,63–4componentsof,24conceptof,12conceptualmodelof,40–43conditional,14contextual,14andcross-culturalissues,317–18,327–8

defining,5–6,12–13,16–19,36,75,336–8,342demographicvariablesin,6,27–8,30,32,37–8,39,43–6,60–61,144,156,

158–9,199,208device-specificindicatorsof,40,42ofdriversupportsystems,51,62–4,63drivinginformationfactors,41factorsinfluencing,28–30andfalsealarms,122–3,127–8fivecategoriesof,13generalindicatorsof,39–42HumanFactorsissues,137–8ofIntelligentTransportSystem,35,36,37,299–300ofin-vehicletechnology,148–9limitationsonknowledgeof,342–4linkedtousage,36linkswithrelatedconcepts,344ofnewITtechnology,283–6ofnewminingtechnology,234–7,236ofnewtechnology,5,11–12,62–4,285,335andnewtechnologydevelopment,345–6operationalisationof,339optimisationof,341–2personalinformationfactors,41practicalimplicationsofresearchon,347andproductdevelopment,347–8psychologicalfactorsaffecting,6,108–10researchrecommendationsfor,344–6reviewofliteratureon,107–10ofroadinfrastructure-basedtechnologies,208–10scaleforratinglevelsof,129socialnormsinfluencing,41–2socialvs.user,6ofspeedenforcement,221,222vs.support,14,35–6theoriesandmodelsof,336–8threeelementsof,12

ofthreetypesofARAS,197typesof,14user-situationalvariables,6ofvehiclenavigationsystems,139–40well-founded,firm,14

acceptanceconcept,12activeacceleratorpedal(AAP),81activelyilluminatedroadstuds,213,213–15.SeealsoActiveTraffic

Managementactivesafetysystems,75,121–2,288ActiveTrafficManagement(ATM),211–13,215,216–18.Seealsoactively

illuminatedroadstudsActiveE(BMW),172ECOPROmode,181–4,183pilotstudy,182–3quantitativevalidationstudy,183

adaptation,behavioural,328adaptivecruisecontrol(ACC),75,138,142–5,292AdaptivePolicymaking(APM)/AdaptivePolicy,299–300

applyingtoISA,306–12applyingtoPITA,303–6,312assemblingthebasicpolicy,302designingusingdeskresearch,304–5increasingtherobustnessofthebasicpolicy,302–3,305preparingthetriggerresponses,303,305processandelementsof,301,301settingthestage,302settingupthemonitoringsystem,303,305,306

ADAS.SeeAdvancedDriverAssistanceSystemsAdvancedDriverAssistanceSystems(ADAS)

acceptanceof,5,74,261,318,325cross-culturalconsiderationsand,326–8usabilityof,74

advancedriderassistancesystems(ARAS),187–8acceptabilityof,192–3acceptanceof,194–6conclusionsregarding,199–201factorsinfluencingacceptabilityof,194

factorsinfluencingacceptanceof,198–9implicationsfor,191–2purposeof,189–90

ADVISORS,74,78–9,261aesthetics,indesign,114,271,272affordability,24,39–40,95–6,100–102age

asfactorinacceptance,6,27–8,30,32,37–8,39,41,43–6,60–61,95,144,156,158–9,199,208,214,338

andnavigationsystemuse,141AlcoholInterlock,95–6alerts.Seewarnings/alertsAllianceGuidelines,260AmericanFamilyInsurance,54AmsterdamAirportSchiphol,299APM.SeeAdaptivePolicymakingARAS.SeeadvancedriderassistancesystemsAssumption-BasedPlanning(ABP),300ATM.SeeActiveTrafficManagementATMcashmachines,291attitudinalacceptance,14Australia,economicincentivesforvehiclesafetyin,246AutomotiveCollisionAvoidanceSystemfieldoperationaltest(ACASFOT),

144automotiveindustry,federalregulationsrelatedto,244–5

BEEP,81behaviouralacceptance,14behaviouraladaptation,328behaviouralintention,28,29,30BMWActiveE,172

ECOPROmode,181–4,183pilotstudy,182–3quantitativevalidationstudy,183

BMWi3,169,184brandimage,272

capitalizingactions,303carphones,289CATARC.SeeChineseAutomotiveTechnologyandResearchCenterCCTVsurveillance,218–19chargingfrequency(MINIE),180ChemnitzUniversityofTechnology,174,182China,automotivemarketin,318,325–7ChineseAutomotiveTechnologyandResearchCenter(CATARC),174chronologicalpackaging,248C-ITS.Seecooperativeintelligenttransportsystems;IntelligentTransport

Systemcoaching,57,59,62.Seealsomentoringacceptanceof,63,63–4

componentsofdriversupportsystems,51–2collisiondetectionsystems,xiii,138,230.SeealsoAutomotiveCollision

AvoidanceSystemfieldoperationaltest;ForwardCollisionWarning(FCW)systemsforminingvehicles,232–7

communicationdesignguidelines,259–60,281,286,287,289anddisruptiveinnovation,184anddistraction,290,294,341errorsin,144andpublicsupport,35asrequiredskillforusers,232technology,23,27vehicle-to-infrastructure(V2I),4vehicle-to-nomadicdevice(V2N),4vehicle-to-vehicle(V2V),4wireless,4

conditionalacceptance,14conetaper,216,217contextualacceptance,14controllability,257,261cooperativeintelligenttransportsystems(C-ITS),4.SeealsoIntelligent

TransportSystemcorrectiveactions,303cruisecontrol.Seeadaptivecruisecontrol(ACC)culturaldimensions

attitudetowardstheenvironment,322,324attitudetowardstime,322,324individualism-collectivism,321,323internationalisation-localisationoftheInterface,324–5masculinity-femininity,321,323powerdistance,321,323uncertaintyavoidance,321,323

CulturalProbestechnique,280culturaltheories,319–22,321–2

icebergmodel,320OnionModel,319–20PyramidModel,320

culture,influenceofondesignandacceptability,322–5.Seealsoculturaldimensions;culturaltheoriesCurveWarning(CW)system,189,194,196,197,197,200,201

CW.SeeCurveWarningsystem

datagatheringof,53,280loggingof,54

deepuncertainty,299–300defensiveactions,303‘delight’,109,117design

aestheticsand,114,271,272changesin,3–4,105–6,137–8cross-cultural,318,325,346driver-centred,4emotional,256guidelinesfor,258–61human-centred,139incorporatingsafetyfeatures,242influenceofcultureon,322–5pleasure-based,256relatedtodrivingenvironment,288forusability,253–4

user-centred,169–79,341Desmet,Pieter,279developmentprocess,customer-centred(BMW),172disruptiveinnovations,169–70,184distractionmitigationsystems,52–3,60DriveCamvideofeedback,54driveracceptance.Seeacceptancedriverassistancesystems,73–4driversupportsystems,51,62–4,63drivertraining,4,53driverlessvehicles,4,138,288drivers

behavioursof,61characteristicsofinfluencingacceptance,6,27–8,30,32,37–8,39,43–6,

60–61,144,156,158contextandcultureof,61–2purposeof,60psychologicalcharacteristicsof,340ratingofalertsby,129skillsof,341typesof,307,308understandinganduseofsystemby,16–17

driving.Seealsodrivingsimulatorscontextof,75distances,MINIEandcombustionengine,177performancereports,51–2purpose,asfactorinacceptance,60,199timeanddecision-makingaspectsof,25

drivingsimulatorscasestudiesusing,211–15‘RedX’trial,211,211–13useof,210–11,215,340

dynamicroadmarkings,209dynamictidalflowscheme,209

earlyadopters,6,169–70,171,184

easeofuse,24,37,113,117,284asconditionforacceptance,253,257–8

ECOPROmode(electricvehicles),178,181–4aspercentageofdailydriving,183

economicpolicy,toencouragevehiclesafety,243,245–6education

asfactorinacceptance,6,38,144,158onvehiclesafety,244,246–8

effectiveness,24,102,254–5ofISA,42,45efficiency,ofISA,42,44effortexpectancy,28,29,30,37,155electricvehicle(EV)acceptance,153–5,340.SeealsoMINIE(BMW)data

collection,157–8easeofuseexpectancy,160–61,161,164mainbarriersto,165–6methodologyofstudy,157–8modelsof,155–6participantsinstudy,158performanceexpectancy,159,160,163–4researchobjectives,155–6resultsofstudy,159–65studycontext,156subjectivenormsofstudy,161–2,162useandpurchaseintentions,162,162–3,165anduser-centreddesign,169–79vehicleusedinstudy,156–7

ElectronicLicence,95electronicperformancemonitoring(EPM),53–5,56,59electronicstabilitycontrol(ESC)systems,247,247electronictollcollection,37EmergencyNotification,95emotionaldesign,256emotionalresponses,toproducts,278–9environment,culturalattitudetowards,322,324EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA),245

environmentalism,38EPA.SeeEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyEPM.Seeelectronicperformancemonitoringequity,asfactorinacceptance,42,45,339–40ESC.SeeelectronicstabilitycontrolESoP.SeeEuropeanStatementofPrinciplesEUP.SeeExperiencedUserPotentialeuroFOT,74,75Europe

designguidelinesin,259vehiclesafetyregulationsin,259

EuropeanCommission,259EuropeanStatementofPrinciples(ESoP),259–60EV.Seeelectricvehicleacceptanceexperience

ofdrivers,qualityof,277–8asfactorinacceptance,27,37–8,156

ExperiencedUserPotential(EUP),256exploitingactions,302

facilitatingconditions,37,156falsealarms,340.Seealsowarnings/alertsinactivesafetysystems,121–3

designingforacceptanceof,127feedbackfrom,130notnecessarilybad,126–7andnuisancealerts,123–5rethinking,127asunavoidable,125–6usefulnessof,125–6

farinfrared(FIR)sensors,128FatigueMonitoring,95FCWsystems.SeeForwardCollisionWarningsystemsfeedback.Seealsofeedbackdevices

fromelectronicperformancemonitoringsystems,52–4,56,59,63fromfalsealarmevents,130fromin-vehicledevices,51–2

preferredmethodsof,62typesof,52

feedbackdevices.Seealsofeedbackcharacteristicsof,58–9driverperceptionof,58–62monitoringfunctionof,53–5,56,59

FESTA,74,75fieldoperationaltests(FOTs),74,75,246FIRsensors.Seefarinfraredsensorsfocusgroups,340

casestudies,94–5compositionof,93,96defined,91extractofdiscussionguide,96–7roleofmoderatorin,93–4technologiesfordiscussion,96useoftomeasureacceptability,91–7

FordModelT,169ForwardCollisionWarning(FCW)systems,75,95,124,144FOT-NET,246FourPleasuresmodel(Jordan),274FrenchInstituteofScienceandTechnologyforTransport,Developmentand

Networks(IFSTTAR),174functionality,inhierarchyofneeds,270,271

Gaver,B.,280gender,asfactorinacceptance,27–8,30,32,37,39,60,144,156,158–9,208,

338globalpositioningsystems(GPS),233globalisation,317–18goals,oforganization,286–7government

roleinencouragingsafevehicletechnology,242–6,248–9toolsforpromotingvehiclesafetyby,244

Govers,Pascalle,280GPS.Seeglobalpositioningsystems

guessability,256

haloeffect,273HASTE,75HCI.Seehuman-computerinteractionHeadwayMonitoringandWarning(HMW)systems,144hedgingactions,302helmets,242hierarchiesofneeds,271HighwaySafetyAct,244HMI.Seehuman–machineinterfaceHMW.SeeHeadwayMonitoringandWarningsystemshorizontalpackaging,248human–computerinteraction(HCI),317,322HumanFactorsissues,137–8human–machineinterface(HMI),139–41,147,172,317,322,324,328

i3(BMW),169–70,172,181,184ICTsolutions,246ideo-pleasure,274,277iDrive(BMW),114–16IFSTTAR.SeeFrenchInstituteofScienceandTechnologyforTransport,

DevelopmentandNetworksIIDInc,174India,automotivemarketin,318,325individualism-collectivism,asculturaldimension,321,323InformationTechnology(IT),acceptancemodelswithin,25–6informingsystems,52–3infotainmentsystems,invehicles,4innovations,disruptive,169–70,184InstituteofCognitiveandEngineeringPsychology,174InstituteofTransportationStudies(UniversityofCaliforniaatDavis),174insuranceindustry,53–4

insurancepremiumadjustments,53,54,60IntelligentSpeedAdaptation(ISA)systems,16–17,24,95,138,192–3,197,

197,300.SeealsoIntelligentSpeedApparatus;IntelligentSpeedassistanceacceptabilityof,41–3

applyingAPMto,306assemblingthebasicpolicy,307–8effectivenessof,42efficiencyof,42,44highinterveningtypesof,44measuringacceptance/acceptabilityof,43–6intheNetherlands,306–7settingthestagefor,307–8inSweden,246typesof,40willingnesstoadopt,47

IntelligentSpeedApparatus.SeealsoIntelligentSpeedAdaptation;IntelligentSpeedAssistancecontingencyplanning,310

increasingrobustnessofbasicpolicy,308–10,309preparingthetriggerresponses,310,310–11settingupthemonitoringsystem,310,310–11

IntelligentSpeedAssistance(ISA),35,189.SeealsoIntelligentSpeedAdaptation;IntelligentSpeedApparatusIntelligentTransportSystem(ITS)

acceptanceof,35,36,37,299–30factorsinacceptabilityof,38,39

intention,behavioural,28,29,30interference,withdrivingtask,257InternationalHarmonizedResearchActivities–IntelligentTransportSystems

(IHRA-ITS),261InternationalOrganizationforStandardization(ISO),171,257–8,259,261internationalregulationsandstandards,258–9.SeealsoInternational

OrganizationforStandardizationIntersectionSupport(IS),196,197,197,200

interveningsystems,53In-VehicleInformationSystems(IVIS),75,318,325

cross-culturalconsiderationsand,325–6,327–8IS.SeeIntersectionSupportISA.SeeIntelligentSpeedAdaptation;IntelligentSpeedAssistanceISO.SeeInternationalOrganizationforStandardizationITindustry

newtechnologyin,283–6useracceptancein,5

ITS.SeeIntelligentTransportSystemIVIS.SeeIn-VehicleInformationSystems

JaguarDrive,111–14JAMA.SeeJapaneseAutoManufacturersAssociationJapaneseAutoManufacturersAssociation(JAMA),260Johnson,LyndonB.,244Jordan,Patrick,108,271,274,280,341,345,347Jordan’shierarchyofuserneeds,271Kansei(Emotional)Engineering,108,278–9

KeystrokeLevelModel(KLM),264KONVOI,146–7

lanechangetask,264LaneDepartureWarning(LDW)systems,75,95,138,144LaneKeepingAssistance(LKA)systems,144lateadopters,169–70,171,184LDW.SeeLaneDepartureWarningsystemslearnability,256literaturereview,onuseracceptance,107–10LKA.SeeLaneKeepingAssistancesystemslocusofcontrol,322,324

MAIDS(MotorcycleAccidentsIn-DepthStudy),187market,influencingforsafevehicles,242masculinity-femininity,asculturaldimension,321,323Maslow,Abraham,270Maslow’shierarchyofneeds,270,271measuringofacceptance/acceptability,89–90

dataanalyses,43–4directeffects,44–5estimatedmodel,44methodsof,338–9,345survey,43–4

totaleffects,45–6usingfocusgroups,91–7usingquestionnaires,24,75,90–92,97–103usingstudies,12,36,73–5usingsurveys,43–4

memorability,256,257mentoring.Seealsocoaching

byacoach,57,59,62byelectronicperformancemonitors,54–6,56

Meyer-Briggspersonalitytypeindicator,280mineralsindustry.SeeminingandmineralsindustryMINIEelectriccar(BMW),156–7,172

chargingexperiencesofusers,179–80,180drivingdistancesof,177ECOPROmode,178,183fieldtrials,173–9

miningandmineralsindustry,227–8,340,344.Seealsominingvehicletechnologieselementsin,228

newtechnologyin,228–30miningvehicletechnologies.Seealsominingandmineralsindustry

collisiondetectionsystems,232–7deploymentstrategies,231–2operatorskillrequirements,231–2proximitywarningsystems,232–7,236safedesignof,231

mitigatingactions,302MonashUniversityAccidentResearchCentre,xiii,246,329monitoring,byelectronicperformancemonitors,53–5,56,59MotorcycleAccidentsIn-DepthStudy(MAIDS),187motorcycleriders.Seealsoadvancedriderassistancesystems

acceptanceofadvancedriderassistancesystemsby,187–8,340,346crashrisk/vulnerabilityof,187–8humanerrorinaccidents,188–9natureofriding,190–91needsof,190

Mugge,Ruth,280

Nader,Ralph,244Nagamichi,Mitsuo,278NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration(NHTSA),247NHTSAguidelines,263NationalTrafficandMotorVehicleSafetyAct,244navigationsystems.Seevehiclenavigationsystemsneeds,hierarchiesof,271NHTSA.SeeUSNationalHighwayTransportationSafetyAdministrationNightVisionsystem,128Norman,D.,272nuisancealarms/alerts.Seewarnings/alerts

Obama,Barack,259occlusion,264OccupationalSafetyandHealthAdministration(OSHA),245OEM.SeeOriginalEquipmentManufacturerOnionModel,319–20opportunisticacceptance,14organisationalcontextfactors,294–5organisationaldeploymentfactors

communicationanddistraction,290,294lawsandregulations,288,294organisationalgoals,286,294roles,responsibilities,andskills,287–8,294safetythinking,292,295securityandusability,292–3,295technicalandfunctionalknowledge,291–2,294trainingandsupport,293,295workculture,290–91,294workflowsandprocedures,288–9,294

organisationaltrust51OriginalEquipmentManufacturer(OEM),106,139OSHA.SeeOccupationalSafetyandHealthAdministrationOxfordBrookesUniversity,174

PAD.SeePleasure,ArousalandDominanceparadigmofaffect

passwords,292pathmodelling,44PED.SeeProfileofEmotiveDesignsperceivedeaseofuse(PEU),284perceivedusefulness(PU),284performanceexpectancy,28,29,30,37,155peripheraldetection,264PersonalIntelligentTravelAssistant/Assistance,300

applicationofAPMto,303–6,312vulnerabilitiesof,306

personalnavigationdevices(PNDs),139phones

handsfree,289smartphones,139textingwith,259

physicianorderentrysystem,288physio-pleasures,274,275PITA.SeePersonalIntelligentTravelAssistant/Assistanceplatoondriving,145–8.Seealsodriverlessvehiclespossiblenegative

consequencesof,146practicalconsiderations,146–7

platooning.Seeplatoondrivingpleasure

inhierarchyofneeds,271,271,272modelsof,273pleasure-baseddesign,256typesof,274–7

Pleasure,ArousalandDominance(PAD)paradigmofaffect,110,112PNDs.Seepersonalnavigationdevicespoint-basedcameras,221–2policyinstruments,248powerdistance,asculturaldimension,321,323PrEmo,279privacy,invasionof,59ProductPersonality(Govers),280products.Seealsotechnology,new

emotionalresponseto,278–9aspersonalities,280

ProfileofEmotiveDesigns(PED),105comparisonofthreedesigninnovationsusing,110–14developmentof,107effectivenessof,118modesofdesignpresentation,114–18

ProgressiveCorporation,54PROMETHEUSproject,143propulsionsystems,new,4proximitywarningsystems(miningvehicle),232–7,236psycho-pleasures,274,275–6publicprocurement,246publicallyfundedlarge-scaledemonstrationprojects,245–6PyramidModel,319–20

questionnairesadministrationmode,99casestudies,100–103defined,90–91ondrivingstyle,143existingquestionnaires,97extract/examples,102–3measuringacceptancewith,74,340participantsample,97–8piloting,100preparingfordatacollection,100questiontypes,98questionwordingandpresentation,99TACSafeCarexample,101useoftomeasureacceptability,24,75,90–92,97–103

radiofrequencyidentification(RFID),233RANDCorporation,299Reagan,Ronald,245reassessment,303

recommendationsforsafeuse(RSU),259–60regulations

European,259UnitedStates,259forvehiclesafety,243–5

relationships,abstract,274RESPONSE,261,262responsibilityawareness,44Re-usability,256RFID.Seeradiofrequencyidentificationroadinfrastructure-basedtechnologies

designof,208dynamicroadmarkings,209dynamictidalflowscheme,209purposeof,207–8realworldstudies,215–22simulatorstudies,210–15typesof,207

roadsafetyresearch,focusof,242roadstuds,activelyilluminated,213,213–15roadtrials,263–4road-training.Seeplatoondrivingroadworkdelineation,216,218RoyalAutomobileClubofVictoria,94RSU(recommendationsforsafeuse),259–60

SafeRoadTrainsfortheEnvironment(SARTRE),147‘SafeSpeedandSafeDistance’function,28SAFERIDERproject,192,193,194safetyissues,292,295SARTRE.SeeSafeRoadTrainsfortheEnvironmentSASPENCEsystem,28,30satisfaction,97,118,255–6

as‘delight’,108asfactorinacceptance,43,45

scientificresults,disseminationof,247

seatbelts,242security,292seizingactions,302SEM.SeestructuralequationmodellingSenseLights,111–14SenseWindows,111–14SEQUAM(SensorialQualityAssessmentMethod),279sequentialflashingconelamps(SFCLs),216,218shapingactions,303SIDs.SeespeedindicatingdevicesSignalDetectionTheory,122simulatortrials,264smartphones,usedfornavigation,139SnapShot,54socialacceptance/acceptability,6,15,24,35,102socialinfluence,28,29,30,37socialresponsibility,142socio-pleasure,274,276–7speedenforcement/monitoring,218–22

cameras,221–2,242andsurveillance,218–20

speedindicatingdevices(SIDs),218,219speeding

gender/ageasfactors,41asaproblem,17,42

stateroleinencouragingsafevehicletechnology,242–6,248–9toolsforpromotingvehiclesafetyby,244

StatensTrafiksäkerhetsverk,245status,perceptionsof,272Strengths,Opportunities,WeaknessesandThreats(SWOT)analysis,308StructuralEquationModel/modelling(SEM),24,44suitability,257support.Seealsodriversupportsystems;IntersectionSupport

andacceptance,14–15,17,35–7,58–62,63,64fordrivers,4,23,42,43,45,51–2,57,59,139,142,230,237,287–8

formotorcycleriders,191,193,195,199public,14,35–6social,56forspeedcameras,220trainingand,293,294–5,341

SupportSystemAcceptance,14,35–7,63.Seealsosupport,andacceptancesurveillance,CCTV,218–19

Swedeneconomicincentivesforvehiclesafetyin,246vehiclesafetyregulationin,245VisionZeroprogram,242,248

SwedishRoadAdministration,246Systempotential256SystemsAnalysis,300

TAM.SeeTechnologyAcceptanceModeltechnology,new,105–6.Seealsoroadinfrastructure-basedtechnologies

acceptanceof,5,11–12,62–4,285,335attitudestoward,281,283forindustrialmobileequipment,227inITindustry,283–6in-vehicle,105–6,148–9,288,294–5inminingandmineralsindustry,228–30andmodernroadways,4innewvehicles,4organisationalcontext,285organisationaldeployment,286–95organisationalfactors,284–6,295–6asviewedbydifferentdemographics,281

TechnologyAcceptanceModel(TAM)designanduseof,37,107–8,253,257–8,337incorporatedintoUTAUT,26,337trust-augmentedversionof,51,57–8,58,62–4

TeenSafeDriverProgram,54texting,whiledriving,259TheoryofPlannedBehaviour(TPB),26,37,194,337

3Dmapping,233time,culturalattitudetowards,322,3242BESAFEstudies,192–3TPB.SeeTheoryofPlannedBehaviourtrafficfatalities,241trafficmeasures,acceptabilityof,38TransportResearchLaboratory(TRL),211–12,214TriggerResponses,303,305TRL.SeeTransportResearchLaboratorytrust

organisational,51anduseracceptance,16,57,62,138,141,284

ultrasonics,233uncertaintyavoidance,asculturaldimension,321,323UNECE(UnitedNationsEconomicCommissionforEurope),258,260UnifiedTheoryofAcceptanceandUseofTechnology(UTAUT)

incontextofdriverassistancesystems,28determinantsofacceptancein,37,155–6originalpurposeof,26–7,30originalvs.modified,29refiningof,23–4,31–2,331regressioncoefficientsfor,31useinareasotherthanIT,27

UnitedNationsEconomicCommissionforEurope(UNECE),258UNECE-WP29,260

UnitedStates,vehiclesafetyregulationin,244,259,260USNationalHighwayTransportationSafetyAdministration(NHTSA),260usability,102,254–5

andacceptability,257–8componentsof,255inhierarchyofneeds,271,271,272higherordercomponentsfor,256measurementof,263asorganisationaldeploymentfactor,292–3questionnaireabout,74

usage,linkedtoacceptance,36usefulness,24,97,102,113,117,118

asfactorinacceptance,43,45,253,257–8usefulness/satisfactionscale,74

usersanalyzingrequirementsof,173–9‘delight’of,108educatingaboutvehiclesafety,244perceptionoftechnologyby,108

UTAUT.SeeUnifiedTheoryofAcceptanceandUseofTechnology

V2V.Seevehicle-to-vehiclecommunicationValue-Belief-Norm(VBN)theory,37,337VariableSpeedLimits(VSLs),211–12VBN.SeeValue-Belief-Normtheoryvehicledesign.Seedesignvehicledriving.Seedrivingvehiclenavigationsystems,138,139–40

distractioneffectsof,140reliabilityof,140–41relianceof,141–2

vehicleratingprograms,247vehiclesafety

influencingmarketfor,242roleofstateinencouraging,242–6,248–9statetoolsforpromoting,244

vehicletechnology.Seetechnology,newvehicles,driverless,4,138,288vehicle-to-infrastructure(V2I)communication,4vehicle-to-nomadicdevice(V2N)communication,4vehicle-to-vehicle(V2V)communication,4verticalpackaging,248videodata,53ViennaConventiononRoadTraffic,258VisionZero,242,248Vitruvius,269,270

voluntarinessofuse,27,37VSLs.SeeVariableSpeedLimits

warnings/alerts,51–2,53,128.Seealsofalsealarmsauditory,52,59guidelinesfor,260nuisance,123–5studying,129–30tactile,52visual,52

WasedaUniversity(Tokyo),174well-founded,firmacceptance,14Wensveen,Stephan,280WHO.SeeWorldHealthOrganizationwildcardscenarios,312willingnesstopay

asfactorinacceptance,16,40,43,45,47,81,196,200,338questionnaireabout,74,79

WorkingParty29(WorldForum),258WorldForumforHarmonizationofVehicleRegulations,258WorldHealthOrganization(WHO),241