Article
citation information:
Nagy, S., Csiszár, C. The quality of smart mobility: a systematic review. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of
Technology. Series Transport. 2020, 109,
117-127. ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2020.109.11.
Simon NAGY[1],
Csaba CSISZÁR[2]
THE
QUALITY OF SMART MOBILITY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Summary. Smart cities and smart
mobility are often analysed by systematic, sustainability-related, informatical, etc., issues. However, the quality elements
of smart mobility services have not yet been reviewed. In this paper, we
reviewed smart cities and smart mobility as well as the quality elements of
smart mobility services. Based on the reviewed literature, we illustrated the
requirements against smart mobility and uncovered the need for optimisation. We
also interpret a monitoring method based on SERVQUAL.
This method can be a base of establishing key performance indicators as well as
benchmarking between cities.
Keywords: smart mobility, quality, optimisation, SERVQUAL
1. INTRODUCTION
Interest towards
service quality has been increased greatly during the 1980s. The growing
markets and escalating race for customers forced organisations
to review their processes. In recent decades, sustainability became
increasingly important [4,11,24]. The concept of smart
cities is related to sustainability, as well as information and communications
technology (ICT), demand-driven services and quality of life. Smart cities are
complex systems. One of its sub-systems is smart mobility, which focuses on
either freight or passenger transportation-related issues. Service planning in smart
mobility has various new challenges related to this new environment.
This research is aimed
at uncovering the service quality elements of smart mobility. Several quality
concepts, theories and service quality tools are present, the adaptation for smart
mobility, however, not yet been done. Interpretation and complex adaptation of
various quality management techniques can greatly increase the efficiency of
service planning and development.
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
We
review the state of the art in two major fields: smart cities and service
quality. Smart city-related literature includes sustainability, ICT
applications, certain social or economic issues.
Service quality has a rich research background. While adapting to certain
models and methods, we focused on three main elements: formalised
quality systems (EN 13816), service quality models
(Gap-model, SERVQUAL) and practical quality theories
(TQM, Lean, Six Sigma).
2.1.
Smart cities and smart mobility
In
the past years, two major tendencies may be observed: (1) the demand for a
sustainable practice and (2) an emerging re-urbanisation
process. In this section, we review sustainability, smart cities and smart
mobility. Sustainability has been researched in many aspects: environmental [13,15,16,21,37], social [1,20,30], economic [7,12], etc.,
issues. The concept of smart cities practically focuses on urban
transformation, based on sustainability. However, as every society can be
described by economic, social, environmental and institutional dimensions,
smart cities and sustainability shall adopt these elements as well. Next to the
given tendencies, ICT applications and information or knowledge-based societies
emerge. Technologies for transport face great challenges by globalisation,
re-urbanisation and the change of social mobility behaviour. Passenger transportation is an indispensable and
elementary service. They require personalised
services and tend to use their own private cars [9]. Next to passenger
transportation, delivery services are also present in urban areas. By the
increasing number of web-based shops, the volume of freight traffic increases
correspondingly. For the current problems serves several answers, one of the
smart cities’ sub-systems, smart mobility [33,36].
Smart mobility consists of several elements and goals, the most common ones can
be observed in Fig. 1.
We
separated smart mobility into two segments: (1) innovative solutions and (2)
development of current services. In the figure, the most relevant issues were
illustrated in both segments, with light-blue oval boxes. White oval boxes
present some examples based on literature.
Innovative
solutions are not present in every urban transportation system, however, it
plays a main role in smart mobility-oriented development.
Autonomous vehicles (AV) and electric vehicles (EV) are tools on the vehicle
side. Mobility as a Service (MaaS) is a new concept
[17], with which demand-driven service planning and personalisation
of services are possible. Shared mobility solutions are effective tools to
increase the efficiency of cars. While developing the current services, the
usage of innovative solutions is recommended. In the field of city logistics
EVs, electric cargo bikes (E-CB), new modelling and traffic control techniques
are available [2,31,32]. ICT applications (hardware
and software) demand-driven solutions are spreading. Parking services are also
moving to automated solutions; P+R parking lots and
connectivity with public transportation network are the most important issues.
One of the latest research directions is urban space-saving by normalising parking issues.
Fig. 1. The main elements of smart mobility
2.2. Service and transportation quality
Quality
has several definitions, which varies between production and service
sectors. The concept of quality has changed over the years. As markets globalised, production organisations
and service providers must face an escalating race for customers. We reviewed
three main areas (Fig. 2): formalised quality systems,
theoretical quality concepts and service quality tools.
Formalised
quality management systems are often considered as instruments of quality and
service process definitions. We reviewed two authoritative systems: EN 13816 and the Transit Capacity and Quality Service
Manual (TCQSM, 3rd edition, 2013). They
classify service characteristics; TCQSM contains five
main aspects: quality of service, capacity, speed and reliability, definitions
and local data [23]. EN 13816, as a European Standard
specifies the requirement to define, target and the measure quality of service
in various areas of transportation (for example, public transportation,
logistics) as well as guidance to implement those specified. Formalised systems are capable of removing functional
barriers as well as increase cross-functional processes in an organisation.
Fig. 2. The reviewed quality management concepts
Three theoretical (or
as often called: philosophical) quality concepts have been reviewed. They are
TQM, Lean and Six Sigma [22]. We summarised the goals
and base methods of each concept, as well as the adaptation for transportation
services and organisations in Tab. 1.
Tab. 1
The reviewed theoretical quality concepts
|
Concept |
Goal (G) and base method (BM) |
Adaptation |
|
Six Sigma |
G: to reduce cost, by reducing variability BM: mathematical-statistical tools |
Standardise organisational processes, decrease the variability of
services (for example, consistent waiting times, |
|
Lean |
G: to make organisations
more competitive; increase efficiency, eliminate non-value adding steps,
reduce cycle times BM: value stream mapping |
Review and increase the efficiency of organisational processes; understand organisational
processes and sub-systems (for example, HR, PR, |
|
TQM |
G: to achieve a continuous
development process BM: soft methods, |
Building a continuous development process in the organisation, ensuring
the monitoring and |
Based on the literature
[8], the best interpretation is “Six Sigma quality, Lean production
and TQM company culture”. Lean and Six Sigma combined has been
applied for many years. Lean-Six Sigma (L6σ) is
considered a highly effective instrument for quality and efficiency maximisation. It combines Six Sigma’s focus on
eliminating variability and Lean’s focus on waste and cycle time
elimination [29]. The interpretation of Lean elements for services is
difficult. Waste and cycle time elimination means increasing efficiency and
competitiveness in organisations as well as in
services.
Service quality is not
easily articulated by customers. It has been defined and measured with several
methods, one of which is Parasuraman et
al. (1985) SERVQUAL model [2]. This model has
been refined several times [25,26] by the authors. Services can be described by
three well-documented characteristics: intangibility, heterogeneity and
inseparability. Services are intangible when compared to the physical goods
in the production sector. Services have a social impact, elements. To
understand service quality, we started from the ‘Gap model’, which
was defined by Parasuraman et al. (1985). In Fig. 3, we
adapted it to mobility.
Fig. 3. The gap-model adapted to mobility services
In Fig. 3, gaps are
illustrated with red lines, while the flow of information with arrows. Two main
ideas are in focus: first, the service provider must translate passenger needs,
understand and implement them in mobility solutions. Second, adapting quality
management systems aims to monitor passenger needs and experiences, while
understanding the weak points of certain services. The development and the
application of quality management systems and methods aimed at demand-driven
service planning and continuous development. Lastly, SERVQUAL
offers organisations, developers and service
planners, a multi-dimensional scale to measure service quality. Consistent
monitoring of passenger needs, expectations and experiences can be applied as a
base of continuous development. Monitoring, in this context, means that the
service provider constantly monitors passenger needs with, for example, phone
application. The data collected is handled and analysed
dynamically. The development of services is based on this.
Using quality
management techniques in smart mobility development has several practical
advantages. In the following section, we introduce the system of requirements
and demands as well as a handling method.
3. PRACTICAL ISSUES OF SERVICE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
In a smart city, the
quality of transportation services can be approached in a complex way. Based on
the concept of smart cities and smart mobility, demand-driven service planning
and personalised services are recommended;
accordingly, it is important to understand and define demands.
3.1.
Requirements against services and optimisation
When planning mobility
services, we try to understand passenger needs. For this, we can use the
various quality instruments as shown in the literature. However, certain
environmental and social requirements are present as well. International organisations (for example, UN, EU), for decades, have
environmental and social declarations, guidelines, standards or regulations.
National governance tends to be more focused on sustainability as well. In
addition, international corporations prepare more sustainability reports and
strategies of corporate social responsibility have spread in recent years as
well [10,28].
While developing and
configuring mobility services, the service planner ought to optimise
between passenger, environmental and social requirements. In Tab. 2, we summarised the most relevant requirements, as well as some
further references.
Tab.
2
The most relevant requirements towards smart mobility
services
|
Group |
Requirements |
Further references |
|
Passenger |
Safety, flexibility, speed, low delay, consistent
schedule, comfortable vehicles and stations, support of smart devices, suitable
application, electronic ticketing system, etc. |
Public transportation [18], ITS application in
integrated ticketing system [5]. |
|
Environmental |
Decreasing emission, noise pollution, energy
consumption, applying new energy resources, new power technologies, optimising land use, etc. |
Environmental impact of biofuels and fuel cells [6],
sustainability indicators of urban transport [14]. |
|
Social |
Accessibility for handicapped passengers,
sustainable and equitable tariff system, |
Social costs of urban
transportation, optimal pricing [3]. |
On the one hand, the
given requirements are, in most contexts, conflicting with each other. For
example, a private car is flexible, comfortable, but in an urban environment,
most externalities come from private car usage. On the other hand, these
requirements are correlating with each other as well. Biofuels and fuel cells, electromobility, as well as autonomous and shared cars are
opening new perspectives in transportation, which require a new quality
management and planning approach.
To reduce environmental
and social externalities, preference of public transportation and track-based
modes (for example, tram, metro trains) are suggested. Social sustainability
may be increased by applying an integrated information technology-based
equitable ticketing system. Such ticketing system should be based on smart
devices and applications. The pricing may vary by peak or off-peak hours, mode,
location, travel distance, etc. This application, next to optimal pricing,
serves a good base for monitoring passenger requirements and experiences.
While developing or
planning services influencing passenger behaviour, a
complex approach is recommended. Including the reviewed requirements, it is
important to achieve a more sustainable practice.
3.2.
Monitoring and benchmarking performance
To implement a smart
development, application of quality and transportation management techniques
are needed. Passenger requirements and expectations may be monitored through an
application. Based on SERVQUAL, the approach of
quality, by passenger expectations may be done, as seen on (1).
|
|
(1) |
where, 
is service quality, 
is passenger experience and 
is demand. Both experience and demand are
measured with a discrete Likert-scale. When analysing urban passenger
transportation systems in a case study of Budapest, we found that it is
practical to separate the whole system to performance objectives (PO). In
Tab. 3, we concluded nine POs with short descriptions.
Tab.
3
Performance objectives of urban
passenger transport systems
|
Performance objective |
Description |
|
Environmental sustainability |
Vehicle parameters (EVs, biofuel, etc.), public
space (parking management), green areas (parks, rest areas), etc. |
|
Safety |
Vehicle and infrastructure, emergency handling,
passenger feelings, etc. |
|
Accessibility (physical and social) |
Vehicles and stations, infrastructure, tariff
system, etc. |
|
Reliability and consistency |
Consistent public transport schedules and delays,
etc. |
|
Integration of micro-mobility |
Bike lanes, bike-sharing services, integration
level, etc. |
|
Integration of information and communications and
technology (ICT) |
ICT hardware and software integration (for
example, devices in stations, route planning application, etc.), Wi-Fi
access, etc. |
For all POs, we
estimated passenger performance, based on the SERVQUAL
model. This performance states the current performance of the service on a
given objective (2).
|
|
(2) |
Equation 2 illustrates
the passenger performance of PO 
(
). We
asked 
passengers, how important a certain issue
is and how well does the current system perform. 
stands for the importance of PO . Inside
one PO, there were multiple questions, these questions are interconnected.
In our previous
research, we ranked POs by importance and developed key performance
indicators (KPI) for Budapest. KPIs are more focused on certain issues, for example, the
accessibility of stations (inside PO accessibility). The KPIs
were driven by passenger demands based on the uncovered importance. To achieve
a smart practice, we may increase the importance of environmental and social
issues. For example, KPIs connected to the objective
of environmental sustainability has the importance level increased. Optimisation can be implemented based on passenger demands.
A simple way is to modify the importance values, given by passengers, as in
(3).
|
|
(3) |
where 
is a modification parameter, its value
should be defined by city development strategies. The main question regarding
value is how much does the service planner want to increase certain POs? The
values of modification parameters may vary according to the fields of
sustainability (environmental, social, economic) as well. For example, if the
strategy prefers social sustainability over environmental, the value of the
parameter should be greater for social issues.
Benchmarking between
cities may ease the process of service development. Smart cities are
interconnected by ICT. To decrease time and effort spent on solving various
problems, we suggest implementing a consistent measurement system and applying
it to all cities on a national basis. Benchmarking makes it easier to build up
a continuous monitoring and development system too. In Fig. 4, we illustrated a
development and planning method for three cities.
Services are planned
and developed on two levels: strategic and operative. First, strategic planning
happens on a high level. Cities should develop their strategies aiming towards
smart city goals. Goals should be well defined and interpreted as missions (based
on TQM). This strategy is based on passenger, environmental and social demands.
Operative development is adjusted to the strategy and focuses on a certain
service (for example, public transportation). Through the whole development
process, passenger demands, and the effect of operative improvements on
services are monitored and handled dynamically.
4.
DISCUSSION
In this research, we
reviewed the state of the art regarding smart cities, service quality and
transportation externalities. Applying various techniques is mandatory;
sustainability as a goal does not always mean the best practice for every
stakeholder group.
We found that
management techniques can mainly be interpreted on two levels: strategic and
operative. Based on the presented planning-development process, a new
management technique can be defined. Strategic planning should be done by
governments while operative planning by the service providers. Through the
planning and development of services, benchmarking is recommended. This way cities
would progressively move towards smarter practices.
Fig. 4. Smart planning-development process and
benchmarking
We discovered that
various demands are present concerning transportation services. The complex
handling of passenger demands, environmental and social variables is
recommended. This handling method may be based on quality management theories
done by quality management instruments. It is recommended to establish a
continuous development process, monitoring system and database inside and
between cities.
The quality of smart
mobility should be interpreted at a strategic level. According to TQM,
strategic goals should be missions, with which all stakeholders (governments,
service providers, and citizens) should identify with.
5.
CONCLUSION
Based on smart city
approaches and service quality concepts, we reviewed the quality of smart
mobility. Based on the reviewed literature, we concluded that service
quality in smart cities are complex and requires a new set of measurement and
planning skills and methods.
Sub-systems (for
example, smart mobility and urban development) and requirements (passenger,
environment, society) are interconnected, requiring complex handling. The optimisation of requirements and demands is difficult and
should be done by governments on a strategic level. Optimisation
requires a clear and well-defined strategy.
Various quality management
techniques are present. To achieve smart practice in urban development,
governments and service providers should apply them. We found that based on SERVQUAL, the creation of a KPI
system can be done. In this KPI system, based on the
strategy, optimisation may happen.
Further directions
based on this research may be the exact developing of the optimisation
technique. Our future work aims at the analysis of service quality issues in
smart mobility with econometric and operation’s research techniques. We
would like to achieve a framework to increase service quality.
References
1.
Aranda Jubril Olakitan. 2019.
“Developing a social sustainability assessment framework”. Sustainable
Cities and Society 44: 237-252.
2.
Balm Susanne, et
al. 2014. “Developing and Evaluation Framework for Innovative Urban and
Interurban Freight Transport Solutions”. Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences 125: 386-397.
3.
Borger Bruno De, Wouters Sandra. 1998. “Transport externalities and optimal
pricing and supply decisions in urban transportation: a simulation analysis for
Belgium”. Regional Science and Urban Economics 28: 163-197.
4.
Buhaug Halvard,
Urdal Henrik. 2003. “An urbanization bomb?
Population growth and social disorder in cities”. Global Environmental
Change 23: 1-10.
5.
Caulfield Brian, Mahony O’Mahony. 2005.
“Passenger requirements of a public transport ticketing system”. Proceedings
of the 8th International IEEE Conference on ITS.
6.
Chang Wei-Ru, et
al. 2017. “Environmental impact and sustainability study on biofuels for
transportation applications”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
67:
277-288.
7.
Dabbous Amal, Tarhini
Abbas. 2019. “Assessing the impact of knowledge and perceived economic
benefits on sustainable consumption through the sharing economy: A sociotechnical
approach”. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 149:
1-14.
8.
Dahlgaards Jens, Dahlgaard-Park Su Mi. 2006. “Lean production, six
sigma quality and TQM company culture”. The TQM Magazine 18(3):
263-281.
9.
Diez Pedro, et al. 2020. Computation
and Big Data for Transport. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland.
ISBN: 978-3-030-37752-6. P. 4-10.
10. Garriga Elisabet, Melé Doménec. 2004. “Corporate Social
Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory”. Journal of Business
Ethics 53: 51-71.
11. Geza Katona, Janos Juhasz. 2020.
“The history of the transport system development and future with sharing
and autonomous systems”. Communications – Scientific Letters of
the University of Zilina (Komunikacie)
22(1): 25-34.
12. Goerner Sally J., et al. 2009. “Quantifying
economic sustainability: Implications for free-enterprise theory, policy and
practice”. Ecological Economics 69: 76-81.
13. Goodland Robert. 1995. “The Concept of
Environmental Sustainability”. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics
26(1): 1-24.
14. Haghshenas Hossein, Vaziri Manouchehr.
2012. “Urban sustainable transportation indicators for global
comparison”. Ecological Indicators 15: 115-121.
15. Jacyna M., J. Merkisz. “Proecological
approach to modelling traffic organization in national transport system”.
Archives of Transport 2(30): 43-56.
16. Jacyna M., M. Wasiak, K. Lewczuk, M. Kłodawski. 2014. “Simulation model of transport
system of Poland as a tool for developing sustainable transport”. Archives
of Transport 31(3): 23-35.
17. Jittrapirom Peraphan, et al. 2017. “Mobility as a
Service: A Critical Review of Definitions, Assessments of Schemes and Key
Challenges”. Urban Planning 2(2): 13-25.
18. Kogi K. 1979.
“Passenger requirements and ergonomics in public transport”. Ergonomics
22(6): 631-639.
19. Kolk Ans. 2004.
“A decade of sustainability reporting: developments and
significance”. Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 3(1):
51-64.
20. McKenzie Stephen. 2004. “Social sustainability:
Towards some definitions”. Hawke Research Institution Working Paper. P.
28.
21. Morelli John. 2011. “Environmental
Sustainability: A Definition for Environmental Professionals”. Journal
of Environmental Sustainability 1(1): 1-9.
22. Näslund Dag. 2008. “Lean, six sigma and lean sigma: fads or real process
improvement methods?”. Business Process Management Journal 14(2):
239-287.
23. Ona Juan de, Ona Rocio de. 2014. “Quality of
Service in Public Transport Based on Customer Satisfaction Surveys: A Review
and Assessment of Methodological Approaches”. Transportation Science
49(3).
24. Paddison Ronan. 2000. Handbook of Urban Studies. London: SAGE Publication.
ISBN: 0 8039 7695 X. P. 143-162.
25. Parasuraman A. Parsu, et al. 1985. “A conceptual model
of service quality and its implication”. Journal of Marketing 49(4):
41-50.
26. Parasuraman A. Parsu, et al. 1988. “SERVQUAL: A Multiple-item Scale for Measuring Consumer
Perceptions of Service Quality”. Journal of Retailing 67(4):
12-40.
27. Parasuraman A. Parsu, et al. 1991. “Refinement and
reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale”. Journal
of Retailing 67(4): 420.
28. Porter Michael Eugene, Kramer Michael Robert. 2006.
“The link between competitive advantage and corporate social
responsibility”. Harvard Business Review 84(12): 18-92.
29. Psychogios Alexandros G., et al. 2012. “Lean Six Sigma in a service
context”. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management 29(1): 122-139.
30. Rafiaani Parisa, et al. 2018. “Social
sustainability assessments in the biobased economy:
Towards a systematic approach”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Research 82(2): 1839-1853.
31. Russo Francesco, Comi
Antonio. 2010. “A classification of city logistics measures and connected
impacts”. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 2: 6355-6365.
32. Schliwa Gabriele, et al. 2015. “Sustainable city logistics – Making
cargo cycles viable for urban freight transport”. Transportation
Business & Management 15: 50-57.
33. Silva José, et al. 2017. “Smart Mobility:
A Survey”. 2017 International Conference on Internet of Things for the
Global Community. P. 1-8.
34. Simnett Roger, et al. 2009. “Assurance on Sustainability Reports: An
International Comparison”. The Accounting Review 84(3): 937-967.
35. Torre Teresia, et al. (eds) 2016. Empowering Organizations: Enabling Platforms
and Artefacts. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland. ISBN:
978-3-319-23784-8. P. 13-26.
36. Vecchio Pasquale Del, et al. 2019. “A system dynamic approach for the smart
mobility of people. Implications in the age of big data”. Technological
Forecasting & Social Change 149.
37. Veleva Vesela, et al. 2003. “Indicators for measuring
environmental sustainability”. Benchmarking: An International Journal 10(2):
107-119.
Received 19.07.2020; accepted in revised form 29.10.2020
Scientific
Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License