This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted

for publication in the following source:

Dias Camacho, Tiago, Foth, Marcus, Rakotonirainy, Andry, Rittenbruch,

Markus, & Bunker, Jonathan
(2016)
The role of passenger-centric innovation in the future of public transport.
Public Transport, 8(3), pp. 453-475.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/101643/

c Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a
Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and
that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-
ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer
to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-
nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that
this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected]

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record
(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-
mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can
be identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-
ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-016-0148-5
 


 
 





 
 

 
  
 


  
 


  


 





 

  

Although hard factors such as availability, efficiency, safety, and comfort make up the core of the
public transport quality of service, they are only a part of the bigger picture. This bigger picture is
modified and shaped daily, where the increasing permeation of technology creates new possibilities for
passengers to experience their journeys.
Despite technology becoming ubiquitous in public transport, it has had only limited impact on how
passengers connect affectively and symbolically with the service. This “affective gap” is at the core of
what differentiates private and public transport. Being able to reduce this gap is therefore valuable to
passengers and public transport service providers alike.
In this paper, we build on existing and ongoing work to discuss the relevance of a passenger-centric
approach to innovation in the field of public transport. This passenger-centric approach puts passengers
at the centre of future solutions, where their evolving needs, desires, and values are used to guide how
to enhance the existing core functionality of the service.
To test our hypothesis that passenger-centric innovation is valuable to passengers and advantageous
to service providers alike, we put forward a review on how innovation is being approached in both the
aviation and car industries. This review is supported by our own insights, which have been based on
data collected from urban rail commuters in Australia. We further support our argument by looking at
particular examples of innovation in the field of public transport, and discussing the existing barriers
and drivers that can, respectively, hinder or propel passenger-centric innovation.


 

The number of private vehicles worldwide has been growing steadily (Hao and Wang 2005). In
Australia alone, there has been a yearly 4% increase of vehicle ownership from 1955 to 2013, resulting
in 568 cars per 1000 inhabitants (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2014). This elucidates the need to
reduce private vehicle usage, while at the same time promoting alternative methods for commuting and
travelling. Public transport is known to alleviate levels of congestion and pollution, and to foster more
liveable, healthier, and inclusive societies (Eboli and Mazzulla 2008; Tang and Lo 2008; Woodcock et
al. 2009). Even so, swaying individuals away from the commodity and convenience of their cars is far
from being a straightforward goal.
 Most efforts for promoting a public transport service throughout the years have focused on
improving factors such as availability, efficiency, safety, and comfort (Transportation Research Board
2013). However, evidence has accrued to support the fact that there is more to public transport than
solely hard or instrumental factors (Anable & Gatersleben 2005). Although the essential quality factors
do need to be ensured and perfected, there is an inherent complexity to public transport that goes
beyond models of utility (Bannon 1991; Ory and Mokhtarian 2005; Cascajo and Monzon 2014).
Focusing on these soft factors can therefore lead to a more attractive transit service in the future
(Cairns et al. 2004).
Thus, it is useful to deepen our understanding on how to shape such factors so as to promote higher
levels of attractiveness for public transport. Factors influencing the perceived quality of a public
transport service are referred to as Quality of Service (QoS) factors. Eboli and Mazzulla (2015) found
that information, cleanliness, and service characteristics like punctuality and frequency of runs, are
QoS factors that have the highest positive effect on service quality. While some argue that public
transport fails to be seen as attractive solely due to QoS factors (Beirao and Cabral 2007), there is merit
in considering other more subjective and experiential factors (Anable and Gatersleben 2005; Olsson et
al. 2012; Carreira et al. 2014; Cascajo and Monzon 2014). The consequences of this realisation are
manifold, but at a practical level they emphasise that the time that passengers spend immersed within
the service is an integral part of their assessment of public transport. Furthermore, a continuous and
unrelenting improvement of QoS and its factors such as efficiency, might not be a viable and
sustainable approach for many service providers (Tang and Lo 2008). Hence, understanding how to
move towards a better exploration and capitalisation of the soft factors becomes a timely and
significant field of study (Meyer and Schwager 2007; Jared 2009). Hence, the following questions
become pertinent:

1.
Is focusing on QoS factors enough to take public transport closer to the level of attractiveness of
private transport?

2.
What direction should innovation in the field take to heighten the service provision while still
addressing passenger and business needs?

Throughout the remainder of this paper we present a series of arguments to support the hypothesis that
innovation and technology in public transport need to move beyond the confines of instrumentality and
the sole maximisation of utility. We start by discussing and challenging the current paradigm that
dominates public transport. Next, we present a set of barriers that we have identified as hurdles to
innovation. We address these barriers, emphasising how the use of a passenger-centric approach to
innovation is useful when addressing them.
Thereafter, we discuss the notion of passenger-centricity in relation to commercial aviation, the car
industry, and the field of public transport. To finalise, we address the measures that should be
considered as drivers for the implementation of a passenger-centric approach to innovation in public
transport.


   


  




We define the current worldview that governs much of the way that public transport is conceived and
managed as the utilitarian paradigm. In tune with what Ory and Mokhtarian (2005) argued, the
established perspective from a planning point of view, is that transport is a “derived demand.” People
travel from one point to another with the sole purpose of engaging in spatially separated activities, and
hence transport is seen as a means to an end. Some concerns have been raised with this argument,
especially if we consider that the notion of value might not be exclusively connected with the time
spent travelling.
As Mokhtarian (2005) and Ory and Mokhtarian (2005) argued, individuals can use a method of
transport with a purpose other than reaching a certain destination. From this perspective, the utilisation
of public transport can hold an intrinsic value to passengers. Individuals can use public transport due to
subjective, underlying, and intrinsic motives, such as sustainability concerns or simply to avoid the
stress induced by driving (Beirao and Cabral 2007).
The utilitarian paradigm has strong ramifications. As Steg (2005) argued, much of the success of
private vehicles over public transport has been traditionally associated with superior levels of
functionality of the former over the latter. Hence, for the transit service providers, improving upon this
level of functionality has been the common approach, where efforts are made to reduce the time spent
interacting with the service. Yet, this approach has two major shortcomings.
The first is that evidence shows the existence of strong affective and symbolic connections between
car owners and their vehicles. While such connections are known to be prominent in private transport,
rarely are they explored or capitalised in the field of public transport (Redman et al. 2013). Hence, we
come to realise that although the instrumental and functional elements of the service are indeed of
paramount relevance, they alone might not be sufficient in creating a more attractive future for public
transport (Carreira et al. 2014; Cascajo and Monzon 2014).
The second shortcoming relates to the limitations of a continuous and unrelenting improvement of
QoS. While the core of the service should be grounded on a strong level of perceived quality, there are
perils in focusing exclusively on QoS. Tang and Lo (2008) noted how exclusive focus on operational
aspects of the service may lead to economic stress and to the neglect of other aspects of the service. Of
note, the most recent edition of the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (Transportation
Research Board 2013) has reconsidered QoS assessment. The letter grade system has been replaced by
a more descriptive system which reflects both the customers’ and service provider’s perspectives,
thereby ensuring a balance between QoS and resource productivity. Thus, there is value in considering
the heightening of the service provision based on complementary factors other than those of the core
functionality of the service (Tang and Lo 2010).
It is then useful to understand on how to make use of those complementary factors so as to offer
added value to passengers. As noted by Camacho et al. (2013), while the use of technology has led to
improvements in QoS (Dziekan and Kottenhoff 2007; Tang and Thakuriah 2012), the societal impact
of technology has had deep implications in the way that individuals spend their time when immersed
within the service. As noted by Lyons and Urry (2005), the use of travel time has been impacted by the
presence of new products and services based on technology. This emphasises the existence of
opportunities to bring innovation to the field (Lyons et al. 2013).
The notion of value and what passengers themselves find valuable, are complex subjects. Indeed,
what passengers experience as they interact with the transit service is defined by multiple dimensions
(Olsson et al. 2012). This service experience is built around an affective dimension, one that is
moulded by the myriad interactions that passengers have with the service provider. Rather than
considering public transport service providers as being part of only the service economy, it is pertinent
to also consider aspects of the service provision that are part of what Pine and Gilmore (1998; 1999)
have coined “The Experience Economy.” Commentators such as Garrison and Levinson (2014) and
Lusch and Vargo (2014) have started to shift their thinking from a utilitarian ‘service’ paradigm
towards one that regards public transport as embedded in the experience economy.
Friman (2004) argued that negative affective responses caused by incidents that happen within the
service have a potential damaging effect on how the service is perceived. The goal then, should be to
nurture and foster connections that translate in passengers associating public transport with positive
affective qualities as this would theoretically lead to a service having better value (Russell 2003).
It is paramount to enumerate QoS factors for practical strategic and tactical decision-making by
public transport providers. However, we must also address the need to keep up to date with the
potential changes in the field. In particular, we have to consider on how are we to address the influence
of external factors that can impact public transport, and the way that passengers experience it. Will
identifying the determinants of QoS through the use of focus groups be sufficient to capture and
identify new and unexpected opportunities that can be used to heighten perceptions of the service? Will
QoS be able to capture those moments that promote affective responses from individuals, as little and
ephemeral as they may be? How are we to tap into those affective and symbolic dimensions, and bring
about innovation that connects with passengers? What role does technology have to play in the
betterment of public transport? Also, are there strategies in place to create interventions that are based
and informed by the evolving needs of passengers, or is innovation mainly driven by technology?
Ensuring QoS is paramount to the success of any public transport service. Innovation in the field
needs to go beyond information dissemination or automated fare mechanisms. Indeed, it does not have
to focus on solving any inefficiencies of the service per se, but instead it can be directed at exploring
the myriad opportunities that exist. Foth et al. (2012) referred to this as the opportunity space within
public transport, a conceptual notion that relates to our ability to heighten the service not by solving
issues that undermine the performance of the service, but instead by suggesting solutions that are
grounded in the strong points of the service. This notion emphasises our ability to reconceptualise what
the different aspects of the service could mean to passengers, and how might service providers achieve
them (Hale and Miller 2013; Horden 2014). Passenger-centric innovation is particularly well suited for
this task. It is grounded on a solid understanding of passengers, what their evolving needs are, and how
to devise solutions that are above all valuable to passengers themselves (Camacho et al. 2013). Yet,
achieving a future in public transport where an integrative and holistic approach to innovation is
widely accepted and implemented will require us to address several barriers. This study addresses and
discusses some of these discrepancies as illustrated in Figure 1. The central aspects of the service that
service providers give particular emphasis are being represented by the smaller circle. The bigger circle
on the other hand, represents aspects that are commonly not given as much attention. These include in-
vehicle activities and the nurturing of relationships with passengers.
 PERHIPHERAL
FACTORS

In-Vehicle
Activities CORE
FACTORS
Infrastructure
Architecture
Efficiency Service
Access

Effectiveness ...

Nurturing
Relationships ...



The emergence of peripheral factors in the experience economy.



 

From our perspective, there are three major barriers that prevent a more integrative and holistic
approach to innovation in public transport: (a) personal, social, and cultural barriers; (b) organisational
barriers; and (c) a lack of empirical evidence to support future interventions.


 
  

 
 

Public transport is unique in that it is used every day by millions of individuals. These individuals
share a common space, but also have different attitudes towards the service, and additionally different
individual needs, wants, and values (Rajé 2007). How are we to create innovation that connects with so
many distinct types of individuals, with different personalities, and with behaviours that can differ
across cultures?

As the concept of civil inattention exemplifies (Goffman 1959), particular behaviours are constrained
within public spaces. Individual behaviour is restrained by social and cultural norms, which in turn
impact how innovation might succeed (Miziko 2004). Furthermore, existing evidence points to issues
relating to perceptions and relationships of individuals within the context of public transport (Jared
2009). In addition, what is culturally acceptable in one place might be unacceptable in another, as the
case of mobile phone calls inside trains in Japan exemplifies (Ohmori and Harata 2008).
To be more precise about the existing difficulties that we face when innovating in public transport,
let us consider the regional rail service provider in South East Queensland, Australia and the use of
“quiet carriages”. The purpose of this kind of intervention is to promote a peaceful and calm social
atmosphere, where noise levels are minimal. Such an effort is commendable and indeed valuable to
certain types of passengers, but it also calls attention to the tensions that exist within vehicles and that
might not be identified when devising such interventions. While some passengers want to relax, others
want to engage in conversations, listen to music, or generally be more engaged in their journeys
(Stradling et al. 2007a). What if a passenger cannot get a seat outside the quiet carriage, but has to
answer a phone call? To help visualise such tensions, let us consider the following quotes that we
gathered as part of a parallel study from focus groups with train passengers (Camacho et al. 2015):
“But does it work? Like, does anyone have that experience with people talking in the quiet
carriage?”
“Like. I don’t think the quiet zone or quiet carriage is anything other than that in peak
time.”
“(…) I was in the quiet carriage once and I didn’t realise it. I used to work with her. She
was in council as well. We’re probably talking like this, this kind of tone (normal tone),
and then we got to a stop and I hear this ‘Shhhh!’ And I couldn’t tell if it was the train or if
somebody did that.”
These quotes exemplify how quiet carriages are appealing to some but can also have some negative
consequences. The social dynamics of the quiet carriage can be impacted by other contextual factors,
such as time of day, or the level of crowdedness on the train. Is a quiet carriage more useful during
rush hour, or does it hold the same value independently of the time of day? Do we have a thorough
understanding on how to more efficiently appropriate quiet carriages, making them more attractive
according to these contextual factors, and hence expand its value to other types of passengers?
Furthermore, this situation also illustrates the imperative of considering the wider sociocultural and
demographic factors in the deployment and assessment of service improvement initiatives.
Successfully living together in a diverse society made up of different age groups and cultural
backgrounds requires service operators to respond to different needs and preferences. As a result,
authors such as Yaya, Fortià, Canals and Marimon (2015) suggest to more accurately assess opinions
of customers’ perception of service quality in public transport services, as well as to provide sufficient
insight on the direct role of demographic characteristics on customers’ perceived service quality.
We argue that there is a traditional approach to innovation that fails to acknowledge and embrace
the necessity of having concrete and in-depth understanding of passengers before measures are put in
place. The work by Binder et al. (2015) demonstrated this tendency by arguing for a distinction
between an “operations-centric” and “passenger-centric” approach on how timetables rescheduling
happens for trains. Innovation in public transport is therefore more “operations-centric”, where the
human elements of the service are seen as secondary. To address this, we view the passenger-centric
approach to innovation as a natural evolution on how new interventions are built in public transport.
Passenger-centricity builds on the notion of QoS and extends it to include secondary factors that add to
the ability of service providers to be able to differentiate. Such an approach leads us closer in moulding
public transport as a service that is able to provide experiences that resonate with passengers,
supporting their subjective needs in conjunction with their travelling needs.


   
 

The second issue to consider is that of organisational barriers. To add to the uniqueness of public
transport, there are still a high number of public transport providers that are government-owned or for
which government is an interested party (Cox and Duthion 2001). What this commonly indicates is the
added presence of a series of issues that undermine how willing providers are to embrace innovation.
Bozeman and Kingsley (1998) on their study with 365 middle-level and top-level managers, noted
that despite risk aversion not being intrinsically connected with either public or private sectors, there is
a series of factors that contributes to the risk aversion attitude seen in several public transport service
providers. Excessive formalism (“red tape”), political underpinnings, and the lack of specific and clear
goals to justify new interventions were identified as barriers for innovation. When we consider these
results in light of public transport, we note that governmental influence and the political aspects that it
carries with it can impact on how public transport is allowed to advance. How then will the concept of
passenger-centric innovation be in any way relevant, when more pressing concerns, such as operating
costs or ensuring that satisfaction levels are maintained often distracts priorities of service providers?
There is evidence to support that innovation in public transport has been related with some form of
deregulation in the sector and a higher risk-taking attitude from private operators (Fiorio et al. 2013).
The study of the Curbside buses in the U.S. emphasises this, where this low-cost bus service provider
promoted differentiation of the service by offering passengers certain commodities inside their buses,
such as power sockets and free Wi-Fi (Schwieterman and Fischer 2011). This emphasis on soft factors
was then used to promote differentiation of the service. This does not indicate that complete
deregulation or lack of policy enforcement will necessarily lead to success (Gwilliam 2001). Instead
what this indicates is that in a similar manner with what Virgin America has done, the Curbside service
provider has focused on providing a service that is recognised by an acceptable level of quality, but
that offers added value to passengers by other means (Schwieterman et al. 2012).
We note that private transit service providers have become more attuned to the need to produce a
service that is able to foster particular experiences to its passengers. In this regard, we see a particular
emphasis on economic gain by means of exploring the experience economy, where value is being
offered through the service and not solely by the service (Pine and Gilmore 1998; 1999). To expand on
this argument, we have the examples of Lyft (2015), Loup (2015), and Leap (2015). These recent start-
ups have built their business models along the lines of Uber (2015), but with a twist towards the
concept of a “privatised” means of mass transit. Leap more closely resembles the public transport
concept, differentiating itself from competitors, including public transport buses (Cascajo and Monzon
2014), by offering added control to passengers on where they board the buses, along with luxurious
and comfortable spaces inside the vehicles that are further enhanced by other in-vehicle commodities.
Contrary to private providers and these emerging start-ups, public transport service providers are
lagging behind when it comes to build an increasingly attractive service to passengers. Innovation is
key, yet, the purpose of building such innovation is of a more central relevance. Innovation is not being
used to elevate the service provision to new heights. Instead, it is an exercise of catching up, where
hypothetical service gaps are being addressed by means of solutions that are still technology-driven.
This is not to argue that such an approach will not produce results that improve the service. What we
argue instead is that such an approach is not characterised by high levels of effectiveness, neither by its
systematic and purpose-oriented process.
To exemplify this point, let us look at the implementation of a passenger rail fleet-wide Wi-Fi
infrastructure. Despite the implementation of the Wi-Fi infrastructure being costly and the goals of the
service provider being laudable, the perceptions of passengers did not align with the provider’s
expectations. A series of restrictions imposed upon the Wi-Fi service translated into passengers feeling
the service did not provide enough data, and that it was too limiting of access to external services, such
as games (Serrels 2012). Hence, a series of negative perceptions towards the Wi-Fi service were
formed, effectively undermining the efforts put in place to improve the in-vehicle journey time.
Additionally, and through our own data gathering during focus groups (Camacho et al. 2015), we noted
that the Wi-Fi investment elicited negative responses by passengers and created negative associations
with the service provider. To quote one of the participants:
“Who’s using their WiFi service? You know, I turned my mobile device off. I’m not using the
WiFi anymore. It’s a bit of a pain when you are waiting there and other trains go pass and you
log on.”
“My WiFi will log on, and they’ll be out of reach.”

This kind of insight aligns well with the distinction put forward by Meyer and Schwager (2007), when
referring that most understanding of customers comes from a customer relationship management
perspective, as opposed to a customer experience management one. The result is innovation that is
based on what the service providers think they know about their customers, as opposed to what
customers think about the organisation and the kind of behaviours that they have during their
interactions with the service. In addition to focussing attention on the innovation itself, it is also key to
consider the way an innovation is set up and the way it is understood, that is, the social shaping of
technology and innovation (Mackenzie and Wajcman 1999).
There is then a gap in understanding of contextual factors that undermines the effectiveness of
innovation in public transport. Hence, we see the passenger-centric innovation as bringing noticeable
advantages as to address organisational concerns. While organisational concerns can indeed be
reasonable and justified, by grounding innovation in a strong and continuous understanding of
passengers, we are in a better position to create solutions that are valuable to them and that can
positively impact perceptions of the service.




  
  

Lack of empirical evidence is another barrier that undermines innovation in public transport. Studies
are lacking to corroborate the positive impact that innovation can have on the service, particularly
when such efforts are aimed at non-functional aspects of the service. From this perspective, difficulties
arise as to gain support and funding for such projects. This is further corroborated by current public
transport research funding schemes dominated by research priorities that focus on the utilitarian service
paradigm. For example, the four main priorities for transport research under the E.U.’s Horizon 2020
program (European Commission 2014) are lacking any mention of requiring research into the role of
passenger-centric innovation in the future of public transport:
●
Making transport more sustainable: Resource-efficient transport that respects the environment.
●
Making transport and transport systems seamless: Better mobility, less congestion, greater
 safety and security.
●
Keeping transport competitive: The European transport industry as a global leader.
●
Making transport research responsive: Socio-economic research and forward-looking activities
for policy-making.

This barrier is further connected with the aforementioned organisational barriers. Several service
providers are cautious when it comes to exploring new avenues. In this regard, we contend that
embracing innovation entitles at least some kind of risk-taking. As noted by Bozeman and Kingsley
(1998), when the organisation becomes entangled into procedural aspects as to minimise risk (i.e.,
process-oriented), innovation suffers. This brings to the forefront the necessity for organisations to
promote and champion a culture of innovation, embracing the notion of risks and unknowns but with
clear focus and goals in mind.
The lack of empirical evidence should not halt new ideas from being put forward and tested. Such
an approach of iteration and continuous evaluation of proposed solutions has long been embraced by
design-related fields, where solutions are constructed in alignment with the identified needs of a target
group and constantly evaluated and validated (Norman 2013). Risks are taken, but there is a clear
strategy in place that tries to minimise and improve upon previous attempts, much in alignment with
the increasingly relevant lean methodology where solutions are de-risked by means of continuous
cycles of build, measure, and learn (Blank 2013).
To exemplify how such efforts could work, let us look at the case of the Love Seats campaign,
launched by a Danish bus service provider (Nordahl 2012). The campaign consisted of having a series
of dedicated seats where those willing to interact with others would sit. Straightforward as that may be,
the campaign aligned well with underlying needs and wants, as indicated by the increase of ridership
during the duration of the campaign. Although a longitudinal study may be advisable to gather more
insights about the usefulness of the intervention in the long term, the example comes to demonstrate
how specific efforts can be valuable to certain segments of passengers. The example further comes to
indicate a contained experimentation, an approach that can serve well to service providers in their
attempt to gauge the perceived value of new ideas and concepts in the eyes of the passengers (Blank
2013).
Nevertheless, the burden for added empirical evidence should not rest with service providers alone.
Instead, it is necessary to encourage academic research efforts in order to bring expected and
unexpected means of innovating forward. At this point, most academic focus is given to QoS and
elements of customer satisfaction, emphasising the operational aspects of public transport (Miller et al.
1999; Transportation Research Board 1999; Tyrinopoulos and Antoniou 2008; Transportation
Research Board 2013). However, there are only a limited number of studies that address the
experiential aspects of public transport and why there is merit in studying the subject (Olsson et al.
2012; Carreira et al. 2014). To an extent, this is due to the existence of strong models, methods, and
methodologies to assess and study service quality and customer satisfaction, and the lack of concrete
approaches to appreciate more fuzzy concepts, such as service or journey experience. Still, this
research gap should serve to motivate new endeavours to be taken in the field (Camacho et al. 2013).
Redman et al. (2013) highlighted the difficulties of devising ways to foster innovation that connects
symbolically and affectively with passengers, but they also recognised the inherent value of such an
approach. Additionally, existing efforts in fields such as commercial aviation, the car industry, and on
public transport itself may contribute in reducing concerns relating to the lack of empirical evidence.





 

In recent years, we have witnessed several attempts in (1) the field of commercial aviation and from (2)
the car industry to enhance how passengers and drivers experience their services and products. It is
useful to review these advances in fields outside but related to public transport in order to discuss
examples that help us to better appreciate the value of passenger-centric innovation. It further helps to
imagine how such advances can be translated to the field of public transport. Additionally, recent
efforts have indeed already been made in (3) the field of public transport, with initial results showing a
promising future for passenger-centric innovation in the field. We will now discuss these three areas in
turn.


  
 

In one study about two major European airline companies, Ryanair and Lufthansa, Mack (2013)
compared two distinct approaches to service provision. While Ryanair is known for its low-cost and
basic quality approach, Lufthansa differentiates itself by providing higher levels of QoS than most of
its European counterparts. Through a survey with customers of both airlines, the authors concluded
that even if passengers are willing to endure the below par quality of service by Ryanair, most have a
better overall perception of the Lufthansa service. Although not particularly striking, there are two
aspects about the study that merit further discussion. The first aspect is the relevance of striving
towards better QoS. Lufthansa promotes differentiation by means of particular measures, such as the
creation of extra exclusive lounges. From this perspective, we note that a commitment to a culture of
improvement is an essential characteristic that should be promoted as a means to create stronger
associations with the passengers (Bozeman and Kingsley 1998). On the other hand, the strategy taken
by Ryanair is that what Porter and Millar (1985) has defined as cost strategy. The use of low fares and
the addition of extras (many times not evident or visible to passengers) can be useful, but the strategy
fails to create a sense of trust and long-standing affective connection with passengers. At an
experiential level, passengers will not give too much value to travelling cheap and in below par
conditions even if they endure it based on cost considerations.
The second aspect to note is the exclusive focus of the aforementioned analysis on service quality
as the only means for differentiation. The analysis focuses on two possible modes of operation, one
that excels in its offering of amenities and exclusivity, and the other focuses on reducing costs. Still,
several examples within the aviation industry show other, less costly but smartly crafted means to
achieve differentiation by focusing on the softer factors.
The use of RFID (Radio-frequency identification) tags to track passenger luggage in commercial
aviation is one example. Not only are RFID tags a solid choice that reduces expenses in the long term
for service providers (Wyld et al. 2005), they can also add value to passengers. They can be used to
reduce levels of uncertainty and stress associated with lost or misplaced luggage. They can further
serve as the basis on which future interventions are built upon. For example, the use of a RFID
infrastructure can be used to convey information to passengers in real-time to where the luggage is.
This is analogous to what Delta Airlines does through the use of barcodes (Stellin 2014).
Hypothetically, this kind of added transparency and level of control could be used to promote higher
levels of trust between service providers and passengers, additionally contributing to the differentiation
of the service.
 Virgin America further exemplifies on how differentiation can be achieved other than focusing on
QoS. Despite being considered a low-cost airline, Virgin America does not compromise on innovating
the service provision. Matthews (2014) argues that flying with Virgin America is a unique experience.
This is not due to QoS, but instead to simple and yet well-crafted and targeted solutions, many of
which are facilitated and enhanced by technology. Aspects such as a unique in-flight ambient light,
free Wi-Fi access, an advanced in-flight entertainment system, and a safety video that is a major social
media success exemplify this. These measures show the level of thought and inventiveness that the
Virgin America has put in their efforts for innovation. This example comes to also challenge existing
assumptions that innovation needs to be dependent on technology (Budd and Vorley 2013). What
evidence shows instead is that technology needs to be seen as a facilitator to innovation and what
should drive innovation are the passengers themselves.
To further expand on this, technology is not determinant in devising a new structure for a boarding
pass, as the efforts of Smart (2014) showed. The own concept of what a boarding is to passengers can
be challenged by putting into practice a set of well-intended ideas. The Pass and Fly program by Air
France exemplifies this, where a digital version of the boarding pass that uses NFC is transmitted to
passengers. Besides transforming the boarding pass from paper to digital, the initiative further allows
to transmit the boarding pass even if there is not battery on the device. The boarding pass is then
reconceptualised from a nuance that has to be carried around the airport, to an easy and paperless
experience that adds to the journey (NFCWorld 2009). Another example comes from Korean Air, with
their Excellent Boarding Pass program. Passengers presenting an international boarding pass with
destination to Korea are offered a series of perks, including discounts on transport and shopping
(Korean Air 2014).
Let us now turn to the recent efforts by some airlines to promote social-oriented activities. Myriad
initiatives were put forward, such as the Meet & Seat program by the Dutch service provider KLM
(KLM 2014), the adoption of the Satisfly platform by airBaltic (Tolpa 2012, p. 37), and the already
discontinued MHBuddy platform by Malaysia Airlines. Such initiatives indicate a concentrated effort
by airlines to foster the potential of social platforms, either to allow planning a trip with social media
such as Facebook, or by promoting social interconnectivity between co-located passengers. There is a
continuous effort to push existing boundaries of the service by exploring new means to capitalise on
existing opportunities and to promote differentiation of the service.
Customer segmentation is another method that airlines have long used to promote differentiation,
e.g., with the use of travelling classes and frequent flyer programs. Service providers recognise the
value of segmentation, as it promotes higher levels of customisation and personalisation of the service,
and further works to reward passengers for their loyalty, creating stronger emotional bonds with
passengers (Tolpa 2012, p. 16). Traditional methods of segmentation are being supplemented by
modern approaches, where the focus is to move away from the simplistic segmentation according to
class. Virgin America again is an example of the probable future of customer segmentation, where
softer factors will play an essential role in attracting certain types of customers (Nawal 2011).
Segmentation methods are a powerful tool, as studying behaviours of passengers allows an almost
infinite number of ways to differentiate the service (e.g., adjust offers based on reason for journey).
While commercial aviation is a field rich with innovation that can be defined as passenger-centric,
it is not the only field where innovation has been pushed to new heights. Over the years the car
industry has come to do the same, enhancing how drivers and passengers alike experience their
journeys.
 

 
 

Discussing the case of the car industry is relevant to the context of public transport from two
perspectives. First, it exemplifies the existing gap on how innovation is perceived in the car industry as
opposed to public transport. Second, despite its differences, private vehicles are still a method of
transport from which lessons can be learnt and appropriated to the context of public transport. One
such lesson is how car manufacturers and researchers are exploring the affective dimension and its
relationship with the in-vehicle journey and corresponding activities (Rakotonirainy et al. 2009).
Several efforts have been made to transform how in-vehicle activities are experienced inside cars.
This is corroborated by the investments made by car manufacturers into infotainment, as well as
several research endeavours exploring concepts, such as the social car (Schroeter et al. 2013). This
trend has caught the attention of major companies, even those unrelated with the car industry. Intel, for
example, has recently increased its focus on creating solutions that augment how drivers and
passengers experience the environment inside a car (Intel 2014). The goal is to move beyond the
offering of isolated features commonly seen in cars (e.g., radio, on-board computer), to fully integrated
systems that leverage the power of the Internet of Things. Intel sees the opportunities that are offered
by the widespread use of technology, and thus is looking for new ways to produce higher levels of
affective and symbolic bounds between individuals and their cars.
Car manufacturers have further been exploring new technologies to enhance driving, such as heads-
up displays that convey information to drivers in a safer way than regular displays (Schroeter and
Rakotonirainy 2012). BMW, for example, introduced heads-up displays that allow drivers to get real-
time navigation information by projecting information in the driver’s line of sight (BMW Australia
2014). Additionally, similar types of mechanisms have already been ported to motorcycles, with the
BikeHUD systems being heralded as the first heads-up display to work on motorcycles
(ElectronicsWeekly 2014).
As we approach the era of autonomous vehicles (e.g., Google self-driving car), this trend to foster
technological innovation to transform the in-vehicle experience will accelerate. After all, as we reduce
the cognitive burden and attention resources that are necessary for driving, we gain additional freedom
to engage in activities that are not currently associated with travelling by car. This is not particular
good news to public transport, as one of the major strengths of public transport is to allow passengers
to engage in in-vehicle activities that would otherwise be difficult to do when driving (Stradling et al.
2007b; Jain and Lyons 2008). While car manufacturers will continue to explore in-vehicle activities in
the coming years, what approach will public transport service providers take in relation to this subject?
Will they see the advantages that focusing on such efforts can bring to the field? This question is
pertinent because car manufacturers certainly do, as recent attempts to socialise the private space inside
cars further emphasise Matsumura and Sumi (2014).


   
 
 

Despite a strong emphasis on improving functionality, there are several fledgling examples of
initiatives that move beyond QoS in public transport. The Peapod virtual grocery system (Van Sack
2012), the introduction of gamification elements inside trains (Toprak et al. 2013), the empowerment
of passengers to report issues to the authorities in real-time (MBTA 2012), and the challenges
promoted by transit service providers to foster the creation of mobile applications (Haselton 2013), are
all examples of innovation that enhance the core functionality of the transit service and not necessarily
its effectiveness or efficiency.
 An interesting example is the Canopy concept (Royal College of Art 2012). It consists of a screen
mounted on top of a subway train, enabling commuters to visualise information related to the locations
above the ground that they travel through. A relevant aspect about the Canopy concept is the approach
that was taken in its conception. Besides exploring the opportunity space, there has been a focus on
identifying the purpose of the concept, and how such a concept would contribute to both reduce
boredom of passengers as well as bringing new revenue potential to the service provider.
Another example of a passenger-centric initiative comes from recent work about the facilitation of
social interaction inside urban commuter trains (Camacho et al. 2015). The study revolved around the
design and evaluation of an intervention that took the shape of a mobile application prototype. The
insights gathered by the study point to the perceived value that particular segments of passengers see in
being able to shape how they experience the social space of their train commuting journeys. Building
on the notion of passenger-centricity, the study focuses on using technology as a means to create a
solution that supports passengers whilst maintaining social and cultural norms that shape the social
dynamics inside public transport vehicles (Jared 2009).
Overall, we see few reasons to neglect passenger-centric innovation to innovation in public
transport. We have shown that constant efforts are being put in place by car manufacturers to foster
those symbolic and affective connections between individuals and their private vehicles. Hence,
despite an appreciation on how to bring about innovation and betterment of the car as a product and
effectively moving towards the concept of a service, we fail to see this trend in public transport.
Several examples demonstrate the advantages of considering further research when it comes to
passenger-centric innovation in public transport, but still several difficulties remain. On top of such a
list stands the question on how to proceed towards the realisation of the passenger-centric approach?


  

   
 

We have discussed some of the major barriers for innovation from a whole-of-system perspective in
the field of public transport. Now we need to take into account what underlies a successful passenger-
centric approach. In other words, what defines the passenger-centric approach at its core, and why is it
relevant to consider such an approach? We argue that besides the existing barriers, there are further
drivers that can positively impact the uptake of the passenger-centric approach to innovation. As
illustrated in Figure 2 below, drivers (on the left) are aspects that should be followed in order to move
towards a successful implementation of the passenger-centric approach to innovation. Barriers (on the
right) undermine the effort, acting as deterrents and in need to be overcome.

 

 

 

   


 
    
 

One of the defining characteristics of the passenger-centric approach relates with its interdisciplinary
mind-set. We move from approaching innovation simply from the perspective of the field of public
transport, and instead borrow inspiration, knowledge, and methodologies from other disciplines
(Wagner et al. 2011). The passenger-centric approach then borrows from other disciplines (e.g.,
computer science, design, sociology), but with the greater goal of producing innovation that would not
be otherwise possible without the concentrated integration of knowledge from such disciplines. At the
basis of an interdisciplinary mind-set are the focus on practicality and the emphasis on “application-
orientation” (Van den Besselaar and Heimeriks 2001).
The interdisciplinary approach is further appropriate if we consider the complexity of public
transport as a field, and the limited insights that we are able to gain when approaching innovation from
a singular perspective. This can be exemplified by the myriad efforts put forward to study passengers
from both a psychological and sociological perspective (Jared 2009), and further by the increasing
added complexity that technology brings to the field of public transport and how passengers behave
(Lyons and Urry 2005; Lyons et al. 2007). There are then several aspects that can work to undermine
the best of the innovation efforts. An approach that acknowledges and incorporates these difficulties is
an approach that holds greater possibilities of producing innovation that is valuable for those using it.
Finally, taking an interdisciplinary perspective brings to the forefront the possibilities of
unexpected innovation. It effectively nurtures associations to be made from different disciplines, and
from individuals that have different worldviews and technical knowledge. We already note such signs
when looking at how innovation is approached in the car industry, where the exploration of the
opportunity space is dependent on the ability of innovators to constantly reconceptualise and transform
the vehicle space as to become more attractive for drivers and passengers alike. However, we also
acknowledge that the context of cars is different in that we observe different car drivers and passengers
who are able to make themselves knowledgeable and comfortable within the car environment, whereas
public transport has many users who fail to do so, such as the elderly, non-frequent passengers, etc.


 

  

An aspect that we have already emphasised is the necessity to focus on what passengers experience as
they make use of the public transport service. We previously noted that while effort is put into
elevating quality of service, there is only limited exploration of the affective side of the service (Ettema
et al. 2012). As noted by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004), what customers perceive as valuable to
them builds increasingly around the notion of experience and of the experiential outcomes enabled by
service providers.
Hence, notions such as service experience (Olsson et al. 2012) or journey experience (Carreira et
al. 2014), become ever more relevant in the field of public transport. This focus on experience is
essential when addressing the holistic nature of how passengers assess the service, particularly from an
emotional perspective (Friman 2004). The focus on experience should further be recognised as
paramount in impacting strategies of the service providers, as increasingly the “experience economy”
expands to impacts all fields within modern day societies (Pine and Gilmore 1998). The focus on
experience is increasingly transformed from something that would be good to have, to a necessity on
how services are constructed and maintained (Berry et al. 2002; Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004;
Zomerdijk and Voss 2010).
Furthermore, the conjunction of both an interdisciplinary perspective and of a focus on experience
has the potential to create innovation that is disruptive, and not exclusively incremental. Such an
integrative approach can be most useful, as we focus not solely on solving difficult issues, such as
crowding and its effect on perceptions (Greenberg and Firestone 1977), but further look into exploring
the opportunity space. As Tompson (2014) noted, the true potential of a service that works to engage
comes about by exploring those hidden, but enormously valuable elements that can redefine
perceptions about the field in its essence.


   
 

Finally, we argue that a major aspect that needs to be considered is that of qualitative research and the
use of qualitative-oriented methodologies, particularly to drive learning about passengers and their
evolving needs. Our ability to borrow and put into practice from these methodologies is a crucial
aspect in order to establish a passenger-centric approach to innovation.
More commonly than not, research in the field is characterised by a quantification of elements that
result in statistical predictive models (Chen 2008; Archer et al. 2013). Albeit useful in their own, when
it comes to innovation these models offer little insight on motivations and needs of passengers. We are
not arguing for abolishment of quantitative methodologies. On the other hand, being able to assess a
series of markers of public transport is central to the service and its functionality. When it comes to
producing deep understanding of passengers, discerning what motivates them, and identifying in which
ways the service can be improved upon as to offer something more than it currently does, then
qualitative methodologies are more appropriate (Maxwell 2004, 2005). As argued by Lucas (2013) in
discussing the usefulness of considering an action research approach to public transport, the purpose is
not to substitute quantitative methodologies. Instead, it is to apply a series of methods and a particular
mind-set that focuses on experiential and social learning as to produce innovation that better resonates
and connects with passengers, and that therefore has higher probability of being successful.
The use of qualitative methodologies can have further implications in the context of public
transport. They evolve embracing a constant need for researchers, innovators, and decision makers
alike to be actively involved in the environment that characterises public transport. They emphasise a
move towards what Ian et al. (2012) referred to as customer-centric. They evolve innovation and
decisions that are based in the emerging of the daily environment of passengers, experiencing what
they experience. Such a shift goes beyond academic or theoretical implications. It reaches deep into
practical considerations of research. It emphasises the practicality of research and the observations of
behaviours, rather than building interventions that are assumed to be in alignment with the underlying
needs of passengers. Hence, the use of qualitative methods in combination with an interdisciplinary
perspective and a focus on experience grounds the passenger-centric approach to innovation. Together,
these three factors work to potentiate the approach, attenuating the damaging effects of barriers, either
they be personal, social, cultural, organisational, or simply due to the lack of empirical evidence.


 

Throughout this work, we argued for the necessity to consider new avenues for innovation in the field
of public transport. We noted that the passenger-centric approach to innovation challenges existing
assumptions in the field, particularly those that are in alignment with the dominant and utilitarian
paradigm (Ory and Mokhtarian 2005). While QoS is an essential aspect of public transport, and hard
factors shape the core of the service, they do not define the service in its entirety. In our view, there are
untapped and unexplored opportunities that can be used to heighten the level of service provision and
enhance how passengers experience their interactions with the service (Foth et al. 2012).
Examples of innovation from the field of commercial aviation demonstrate that differentiation of
the service can be achieved in ways other than focusing exclusively on QoS (Tolpa 2012). The basis
that these interventions stand upon remains essential. In this regard, we argue that there is the necessity
for public transport service providers to have a deeper and more encompassing understanding of who
their customers are, and how public transport can be shaped to accommodate for their customers’
evolving needs beyond travelling or commuting.
Currently, a set of barriers undermines how innovation is allowed to advance in the field of public
transport. Personal, social, and cultural barriers, organisational barriers, and a lack of empirical
evidence all have a negative impact on how innovation is allowed to evolve. Nevertheless, we argued
that the passenger-centric approach takes into account such concerns, emphasising not only a
contextual understanding of where interventions are to be deployed, but further emphasising well-
grounded and empirically corroborated concepts and proposals.
The value of passenger-centric innovation has been understood by the car industry, where
manufacturers increasingly study new ways to produce a more engaging user experience for their cars,
enhancing already strong affective and symbolic connections between private vehicles and owners.
Evidence from cases of early adoptions of innovation (e.g., smart cards, smart phone apps, public
displays) further hints at the potential value for these solutions in public transport. We see passenger-
centricity as a concept that has much to offer. To be able to embrace the concept in its entirety, we
have to overcome the barriers that hinder its adoption. From this perspective, it is essential to embrace
a set of measures that will work to address both passenger and business needs.
One of the drivers in achieving such a goal is that of an interdisciplinary approach to research and
design of future solutions, where such solutions are the result of integrated efforts. There is also the
need to focus on the experiential dimensions of public transport, as symbolic and affective connections
are lacking between passengers and public transport service providers (Steg 2005). Finally, there is the
need to embrace methodologies that are appropriate and effective in fostering innovation, especially
when it comes to understanding individuals, their previous experiences, their motivations, and their
needs. Quantification of service factors should continue to be a paramount measure of how well the
service is performing; qualitative-oriented methodologies can bring several advantages to the field,
particularly to drive the focus on innovation.
While we acknowledge that there is much work to be done to reach a future where passenger-
centric innovation is common and its value is taken for granted, it risks that it in itself may not
necessarily lead to radical innovation. Norman and Verganti (2014) compare the typical incremental
service improvements made possible by a human-centred design approach to “hill climbing.” However,
they also point out that this approach means there is “no way of knowing whether even higher hills
might be scaled in some other part of the design space.” (p. 78). In order to mitigate this risk, we
suggest not to be limited by a demand analysis approach alone without a strong strategy that
implements proactive service innovation, too.
We believe that this paper is a step forward in critically reviewing work published in the field of
public transport and other related fields. The insights we gathered allowed us to argue that there is a
need to elevate how public transport service innovation is currently perceived. We suggest that
increasing the levels of attractiveness of public transport will not be achievable solely by focusing on
improving comfort, convenience, or sheer sense of privacy. Instead, what is required is to explore new
 paths in which innovation – and increasingly technology – can be put to good use in improving how
passengers experience the service as a whole.

    

The authors would like to thank our study participants as well as the CRC for Rail Innovation (established
and supported under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program) for the co-
funding of this study.

 

Anable J, Gatersleben B (2005) All work and no play? The role of instrumental and affective factors in
work and leisure journeys by different travel modes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice 39(2–3):163–181.

Archer M, Paleti R, Konduri KC, Pendyala RM, Bhat CR (2013) Modeling the connection between
activity-travel patterns and subjective well-being. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 2382(1):102–111.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2014) Australian Social Trends, 2013.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/ [email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features40July+2013.
Accessed 21 October 2014.

Bannon L (1991) From human factors to human actors: The role of psychology and human-computer
interaction studies in system design. In: Greenbaum J & Kyng M (eds) Design at work: Cooperative
Design of Computer Systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, USA, pp 25-44.

Beirao G, Cabral JS (2007) Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A
qualitative study. Transport Policy 14(6):478–489.

Berry LL, Carbone PL, Haeckel HS (2002) Managing the total customer experience. MIT Sloan
Management Review 43(3):1–6.

Binder S, Maknoon Y, Bierlaire M (2015, April) Passenger-oriented railway disposition timetables in

case of severe disruptions. In the 15th Swiss Transportation Research Conference, Ascona,
Switzerland.

Blank S (2013) Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Bus Rev 91(5):63–72.

BMW Australia (2014). BMW Heads-Up Display - BMW Australia.

http://www.bmw.com.au/com/en/
newvehicles/x/x5/2013/showroom/driver_assistance/head_up_display.html. Accessed 5 October
2014.

Bozeman B, Kingsley G (1998) Risk culture in public and private organizations. Publ Admin Rev
58(2):109–118.
Budd L, Vorley T (2013) Airlines, apps, and business travel: a critical examination. Research in
Transportation Business & Management 9(0):41–49.

Cairns S, Sloman, L, Newson C, Anable J, Kirkbride A, Goodwin P (2004) Smarter Choices -

Changing the Way We Travel. Sustainable travel report, Department for Transport, London.

Camacho T, Foth M, Rakotonirainy A (2013) Pervasive technology and public transport: Opportunities
beyond telematics. IEEE Pervasive Computing 12(1):18–25.

Camacho, T, Foth, M, Rittenbruch, M, Rakotonirainy, A (2015) TrainYarn: Probing perceptions of

social space in urban commuter trains. In Proceedings of OzCHI – Annual Meeting of the Australian
Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction, Melbourne, Australia. New York, NY:
ACM, pp. 455-464.

Carreira R, Patrício L, Jorge RN, Magee C (2014) Understanding the travel experience and its impact
on attitudes, emotions and loyalty towards the transportation provider–a quantitative study with mid-
distance bus trips. Transport Policy 31(0):35–46.

Cascajo, R, Monzon, A (2014) Assessment of innovative measures implemented in European bus

systems using key performance indicators. Public Transport 6(3): 257–282.

Chen CF (2008) Investigating structural relationships between service quality, perceived value,
satisfaction, and behavioral intentions for air passengers: Evidence from Taiwan. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice 42(4):709–717.

Cox W, Duthion B (2001, June) Competition in urban public transport: a world view. In the 7th
International Conference on Competition and Ownership of Land Passenger Transport, Molde,
Norway.

Dziekan K, Kottenhoff K (2007) Dynamic at-stop real-time information displays for public transport:
effects on customers. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 41(6):489–501.

Eboli L, Mazzulla G (2015) Relationships between rail passengers’ satisfaction and service quality: a
framework for identifying key service factors. Public Transport 7(2):185–201.

Eboli L, Mazzulla G (2008) A stated preference experiment for measuring service quality in public
transport. Transportation Planning and Technology 31(5):509–523.

ElectronicsWeekly (2014) UK-designed and built heads-up display-prototype to production in six

months. http://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/uk-
designed-built-head-display-prototype-production-six-months-2014-10/. Accessed 6 October 2014.

Ettema D, Friman M, Gärling T, Olsson LE, Fujii S (2012) How in-vehicle activities affect work
commuters’ satisfaction with public transport. J Transp Geogr 24:215–222.

European Commission (2014) Transport Research and Innovation in Horizon 2020.

 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/research/horizon2020_en.htm. Accessed 19 July 2016.

Fiorio CV, Florio M, Perucca G (2013) User satisfaction and the organization of local public transport:
Evidence from European cities. Transport Policy 29(0):209–218.

Foth M, Schroeter R, Ti J (2013) Opportunities of public transport experience enhancement with

mobile services and urban screens. International Journal of Ambient Computing and Intelligence
5(1):1-18.

Friman M (2004) The structure of affective reactions to critical incidents. Journal of Economic
Psychology 25(3):331–353.

Garrison WL, Levinson DM (2014) The transportation experience: policy, planning, and deployment.
Oxford University Press.

Goffman E (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor: New York, USA.

Greenberg CI, Firestone IJ (1977) Compensatory responses to crowding: Effects of personal space
intrusion and privacy reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35(9):637.

Gwilliam KM (2001) Competition in urban passenger transport in the developing world. Journal of
Transport Economics and Policy 35(1):99–118.

Hale CA, Miller M (2013) Amenity and opportunity at rail stations. Australian Planner 50(1):44–54.

Hao J, Wang L (2005) Improving urban air quality in China: Beijing case study. J Air Waste Manag
Assoc 55(9):1298–1305.

Haselton T (2013) SubCulture.FM Wins AT&T and MTA App Quest Hackathon. http://www.
technobuffalo.com/2013/05/06/subculture-fm-wins-appquest-hackathon/. Accessed 7 October 2014.

Horden T (2014) Future Transport Services: Challenges and Opportunities. In: Gardner N, Haeusler
MH, Mahar B (eds) INTERchanging: Future Designs for Responsive Transport Environments, Art
Architecture Design Research, Bamberg, Germany, pp 39-46.

Ian M, Macaulay LA, Wilby J, Ten YL, Zhao L, Theodoulidis, B (2012) Case Studies in Service
Innovation. Springer, New York, USA.

Intel (2014). Driving in-vehicle innovation with the internet of things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= UTye-7t7ln4. Accessed 4 October 2014.

Jain J, Lyons G (2008) The gift of travel time. Journal of Transport Geography 16(2):81–89.

Jared T (2009) The Social Environment of Public Transport. Dissertation, University of Wellington.

KLM (2014) Klm meet & seat. http://www.klm.com/travel/nl_en/prepare_for_travel/on_board/Your_

seat_on_board/meet_and_seat.htm#richmedia. Accessed 5 July 2014.
Korean Air (2014) Excellent boarding pass. https://www.koreanair.com/content/koreanair/global/
en/offers-promotion.html#excellent-boarding-pass-program. Accessed 2 October 2014.

Leap (2015) Leap - your commute. redesigned. http://www.rideleap.com/. Accessed 2 August 2015.

Loup (2015) Loup. http://loupapp.com/. Accessed 2 August 2015.

Lucas K (2013) Qualitative methods in transport research: The ‘action research’ approach. In: Zmud J,
Lee-Gosselin M, Carrasco JA (eds) Transport Survey Methods: Best Practices for Decision Making,
1st edn. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, United Kingdom, p 427.

Lusch RF, Vargo SL (2014) Service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives, possibilities. Cambridge
University Press.

Lyft (2015). A ride whenever you need one - lyft. https://www.lyft.com/. Accessed 4 August 2015.

Lyons G, Jain J, Holley D (2007) The use of travel time by rail passengers in Great Britain.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 41(1):107–120.

Lyons G, Jain J, Susilo Y, Atkins S (2013) Comparing rail passengers’ travel time use in Great Britain
between 2004 and 2010. Mobilities 8(4):560–579.

Lyons G, Urry J (2005) Travel time use in the information age. Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice 39(2-3):257–276.

Mack R (2013) A study on airline strategy: Comparing Ryanair and Lufthansa to determine the best
strategy in the industry. Bachelor of Commerce - Best Business Research Papers 7:49-61.

Mackenzie, DA, Wajcman, J, eds. (1999) The social shaping of technology. 2nd ed., Open University
Press, Buckingham, UK. ISBN 9780335199136.

Matsumura K, Sumi Y (2014, March) CarCast: A framework for situated in-car conversation sharing.
In Proceedings of the 5th Augmented Human International Conference, Kobe, Japan, p 17.

Matthews T (2014) The Virgin America brand. http://matthewsonmarketing.com/2014/04/09/ the-

virgin-america-brand/. Accessed 1 October 2014.

Maxwell JA (2004) Using qualitative methods for causal explanation. Field Methods, 16(3):243–264.

Maxwell JA (2005) Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, Volume 41 of Applied

Social Research Methods Series, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications Ltd, California, USA.

MBTA (2012). Mbta.com > transit police. http://www.mbta.com/transitpolice/see_something_say_

something/. Accessed 21 August 2012.

Meyer C, Schwager A (2007) Understanding customer experience. Harvard Bus Rev 85(2):116.

Miller E, Byrd R, Kriger D (1999) Transit Cooperative Research Program: A Handbook for Measuring
 Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality. National Academy Press: Washington D.C., USA.

Miziko I (2004, October) Personal portable pedestrian: Lessons from Japanese mobile phone use. In the
2004 International Conference on Mobile Communication, Seoul, Korea.

Mokhtarian P (2005) Travel as a desired end, not just a means. Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice 39(2–3):93–96.

Nawal TK (2011) The Passenger Has Gone Digital and Mobile: Accessing and Connecting Through
Information and Technology. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Surrey, UK.

NFCWorld (2009) Air France tests NFC Boarding passes at Nice Airport.
http://www.ier.com/~/uk/market/
air-transportation/~/uk/press_release/ pass---fly--a-new-way-to-go-through-boarding/. Accessed 5
October 2014.

Nordahl D (2012) Making Transit Fun! How to Entice Motorists from Their Cars. Island Press,
Washington D.C., USA.

Norman DA, Verganti R (2014) Incremental and Radical Innovation: Design Research vs. Technology
and Meaning Change. Design Issues 30(1):78–96.

Norman DA (2013) The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition. Basic Books,
New York, USA.

Ohmori N, Harata N (2008) How different are activities while commuting by train? A case in Tokyo.
Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 99(5):547–561.

Olsson LE, Friman M, Pareigis J, Edvardsson B (2012) Measuring service experience: Applying the
satisfaction with travel scale in public transport. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
19(4):413–418.

Ory DT, Mokhtarian PL (2005) When is getting there half the fun? Modeling the liking for travel.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 39(2–3):97–123.

Pine BJ, Gilmore JH (1998) Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Bus Rev 76(4):97–105.

Pine BJ, Gilmore, JH (1999) The Experience Economy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Porter ME, Millar VE (1985) How information gives you competitive advantage. Harvard Bus Rev
63(4):149- 160.

Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V (2004) Co-creating unique value with customers. Strategy & Leadership
32(3):4–9.

Rajé F (2007) Using q methodology to develop more perceptive insights on transport and social
inclusion. Transport Policy 14(6):467–477.
Rakotonirainy A, Feller F, Haworth N (2009) In-vehicle avatars to elicit social response and change
driving behaviour. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction 5(4):80–104.

Redman L, Friman M, Gärling T, Hartig T (2013) Quality attributes of public transport that attract car
users: A research review. Transport Policy 25:119–127.

Royal College of Art (2012). Canopy. http://www.amritakulkarni.com/Canopy. Accessed 18 March

2014.

Russell JA (2003) Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychol Rev 110(1):145–
172.

Schroeter R, Rakotonirainy A (2012, November) The future shape of digital cars. In Proceedings of the
2012 Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Wellington, New
Zealand.

Schroeter R, Soro A, Rakotonirainy A (2013) Social cars: sensing, gathering, sharing and conveying
social cues to road users. In: Guo B, Riboni D, Hu P (eds) Creating Personal, Social, and Urban
Awareness through Pervasive Computing. IGI Global, Pennsylvania, USA, pp 176-200.

Schwieterman JP, Fischer LA (2011) Privacy Invades Public Space: The Growing Use of Portable
Electronic Technology on Intercity Buses, Trains & Planes Between 2009 & 2010. Technical report,
Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development, DePaul University, Chicago, USA.

Schwieterman JP, Fischer LA, Schulz M (2012) Staying Connected En Route: The Growing Use of
Tablets and Other Portable Electronic Devices on Intercity Buses, Trains and Planes. Technical
report, Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development, DePaul University, Chicago, USA.

Serrels M (2012) Queensland rail bans games and gaming websites from its wi-fi service.
http://www.kotaku.com.au/
2012/10/queensland-rail-bans-games-and-gaming-website-from-its-wi-fi-service/. Accessed 5
October 2014.

Smart P (2014) Rethink the airline boarding pass. http://petesmart.co.uk/ rethink-the-airline-boarding-

pass/. Accessed 2 October 2014.

Steg L (2005) Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 39(2–3):147–162.

Stellin S (2014) Yes! download that airline app. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/travel/ airline-

apps-that-check-you-in-map-airports-and-follow-luggage.html?_r=0. Accessed 2 October 2014.

Stradling S, Carreno M, Rye T, Noble A (2007a) Passenger perceptions and the ideal urban bus journey
experience. Transport Policy 14(4):283–292.

Stradling SG, Anable J, Carreno M (2007b) Performance, importance and user disgruntlement: A six-
 step method for measuring satisfaction with travel modes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice 41(1):98–106.

Tang L, Thakuriah P (2012) Ridership effects of real-time bus information system: A case study in the
city of Chicago. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 22(0):146–161.

Tang S, Lo H (2010) On the financial viability of mass transit development: the case of Hong Kong.
Transportation 37(2):299–316.

Tang S, Lo HK (2008) The impact of public transport policy on the viability and sustainability of
mass railway transit – the Hong Kong experience. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice 42(4):563–576.

Tolpa E (2012) Measuring customer expectations of service quality: case airline industry. Dissertation,
Aalto University.

Tompson T(2014) Reframing public transport: what is and what ifs. In: Gardner N, Haeusler MH,
Mahar B (eds) INTERchanging: Future Designs for Responsive Transport Environments, Art
Architecture Design Research, Bamberg, Germany, pp 33-38.

Toprak C, Platt J, Ho HY, Mueller F (2013, April) Cart-load-o-fun: designing digital games for
trams. In CHI’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France, pp
2877–2878.

Transportation Research Board (1999) A Handbook for Measuring Customer Satisfaction and
Service Quality. Technical report, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, DC.

Transportation Research Board (2013). Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition.
Technical report, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC.

Tyrinopoulos Y, Antoniou C (2008) Public transit user satisfaction: Variability and policy implications.
Transport Policy 15(4):260–272.

Uber (2015). Uber. http://www.uber.com/. Accessed 2 August 2015.

Van den Besselaar P, Heimeriks G (2001, July) Disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary:

Concepts and indicators. In 8th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Sydney,
Australia, pp 705–716.

Van Sack J (2012) Shop til you board. http://bostonherald.com/business/technology/general/view.

bg?articleid=1061164583&position=0. Accessed 2 October 2012.

Wagner CS, Roessner JD, Bobb K, Klein JT, Boyack KW, Keyton J, Rafols I, Börner K (2011)
Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (idr): A review of
the literature. J Informetr 5(1):14–26.
Woodcock J, Edwards P, Tonne C, Armstrong BG, Ashiru O, Banister D, Beevers S, Chalabi Z,
Chowdhury Z, Cohen A, Franco OH, Haines A, Hickman R, Lindsay G, Mittal I, Mohan D, Tiwari
G, Woodward A, Roberts I (2009) Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas
emissions: urban land transport. The Lancet, 374(9705):1930–1943.

Wyld DC, Jones MA, Totten JW (2005) Where is my suitcase? RFID and airline customer service.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning 23(4):382–394.

Zomerdijk LG & Voss CA (2010) Service design for experience-centric services. J Serv Res
13(1):67–82.