Using, Sharing, and Owning Smart Cars

A Future Scenario Analysis Taking General Socio-Technical Trends into Account

Christina Pakusch, Paul Bossauer, Markus Shakoor and Gunnar Stevens

Department of Management Sciences, Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University, Sankt Augustin, Germany

Keywords: Megatrends, Foresight, Scenario, Trend Analysis, Shareconomy, Ownership, Usership, Digitalization, Self-

Driving Cars, Mobility as a Service.

Abstract: The megatrends towards both a digital and a usership economy have changed entire markets in the past and

will continue to do so over the next decades. In this work, we outline what this change means for possible

futures of the mobility sector, taking the combination of trends in both economies into account. Using a sys-

tematic, scenario-based trend analysis, we draft four general future scenarios and adapt the two most rele-

vant scenarios to the automotive sector. Our findings show that combing the trends from both economies

provides new insights that have often been neglected in literature because of an isolated view on digital

technology only. However, service concepts such as self-driving car sharing or self-driving taxis have a

great impact at various levels including microeconomic (e.g., service and product design, business models)

and macroeconomic (e.g., with regard to ecological, economical, and social impacts). We give a brief out-

line of these issues and show which business models could be successful in the most likely future scenarios,

before we frame strategic implications for today’s automobile manufacturers.

1 INTRODUCTION

What are possible futures of car mobility in Europe

2030-50 and what are the implications at the con-

sumer, business, and societal levels?

In various respects, modern Western societies are

mobile societies characterized by highly individual-

ized lifestyles. This mobility is facilitated by

transport systems and mobility, with the car as the

main means of transport. However, the picture is

changing as monomodal, private-car based mobility

neither meets the challenges of today`s mobility

complexity nor satisfies the needs of individualized

lifestyles and the demands of sustainable societies.

In contrast, multi-optional offers where users can

combine appropriate mobility forms that suit their

respective situations seem to be better suited. Com-

puter-based and app-based travel information sys-

tems make it easier to plan and perform these mul-

timodal trips. First signs are already visible; in car-

focused nations such as Germany the importance of

public transport and non-motorized transport slightly

increased in recent years (Lenz et al. 2010).

New mobility concepts such as fully autonomous

driving are appearing on the horizon. Self-driving

cars, in particular, do not present just an incremental

innovation in safety and fuel-efficiency. They pre-

sent a completely new mode of transportation that

has the potential of a disruptive innovation (Milakis

et al. 2015). They enable completely new mobility

services, which affects the choice and use of availa-

ble transportation options.

The research field of self-driving is fairly new.

Most of the work focusses on technological, legal,

political, and ethical issues. Only a few papers in-

vestigate the design of mobility services and us-

ership models and their impact on everyday mobility

(cf. Section 2). This blind spot is partly caused by

the fact that automated driving is currently not yet

reality and its effects are not yet empirically observ-

able. Investigations into a self-driving-based mobili-

ty are therefore, to some extent, uncertain and specu-

lative. However, to actively shape the future, we

have to envision possible effects of this trend. Mo-

bility researchers, traffic planners, and business men

should take the opportunity to re-think mobility from

scratch and develop urban concepts and business

models that go beyond switching from private tradi-

tional cars to private autonomous cars.

We study possible future development paths by

using scenario-based analysis. Supplementing exist-

Pakusch, C., Bossauer, P., Shakoor, M. and Stevens, G.

Using, Sharing, and Owning Smart Cars - A Future Scenario Analysis Taking General Socio-Technical Trends into Account.

DOI: 10.5220/0005960900190030

In Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on e-Business and Telecommunications (ICETE 2016) - Volume 2: ICE-B, pages 19-30

ISBN: 978-989-758-196-0

ing scenario studies (Epprecht et al. 2014; e.g. Lit-

man 2014; Milakis et al. 2015), we take a closer

look at the general social megatrends of digitaliza-

tion and usership rather than ownership. We outline

how these two megatrends affect the future of car

mobility. In particular, we believe that combining

both trends constitutes the disruptive quality that

impacts the consumer, business, and social levels.

Although our analysis shows that it is a megatrend,

usership is unlikely to become the dominant con-

sumption mode. Business models and policy instru-

ments should therefore be designed for the situation

that owning and using smart cars will co-exist for a

long period.

2 RELATED STUDIES

In the last years, the smart car research field has

witnessed a boost in work covering topics such as

driver assistance systems, connected cars or auton-

omous, self-driving, or driverless vehicles. Several

studies have focused on particular technological

issues while others pinpoint to ethical issues and the

user acceptance of self-driving cars. Based on these

insights, some studies looking at the future have

been published recently. They draft scenarios that

show how automated vehicles might change future

mobility; work that we continue here.

One cluster of future studies focusses on policy

instruments and their impact on the penetration rate

and speed of adoption. For instance, Milakis et al.

(2015) discuss different development paths in the

Netherlands with regard to the speed at which auto-

mated vehicles are accepted. They assume that tech-

nological development and policy directions are the

most relevant driving forces. In their scenario, fully

automated cars are most likely to be launched be-

tween 2025 and 2045, penetrating the market rapidly

after their introduction. Litman (2014) also factors

policy instruments into his discussion of various

paths with regard to market penetration and diffu-

sion of other technological innovations. For his most

realistic scenario, he concludes that it will take 10-

30 years from market launch until the automated

vehicle dominates car sales. In a similar vein, Nieu-

wenhuijsen (2015) outlines a simulation model that

also considers policy instruments such as knowledge

sharing, collaborative projects, and public and pri-

vate technology funding. His model shows that these

instruments lead to faster technological progress and

hence to a faster market penetration. Yun et al.

(2014) ascertain that decreasing governmental regu-

lation and an increasing business model level will

facilitate market growth. Their findings are based on

a simulation that shows how different technology

paths and business models impact the market devel-

opment of automated vehicles under varying cir-

cumstances.

A second cluster of studies focusses on human

factors and their impact on business strategies. For

instance, Bartl (2015) shows that strategic planning

should consider vehicle design and ownership as

relevant dimensions that shape car futures. The first

dimension ranges from conventional to reinvented

design, depending on the level of automation. The

second dimension is characterized by two poles:

owning versus sharing. Similarly, Epprecht et al.

(2014) use expert interviews to identify automated

driving and sharing as two visionary forces in the

automotive industry. Conducting a scenario analysis,

they pinpoint that the user acceptance of car-sharing

and usership models will be a key question in the

future. In particular, they see current consumer atti-

tudes as a vital barrier to the success of innovative

technologies.

This barrier has led to a third cluster of user ac-

ceptance studies recently gaining more attention.

With regard to autonomous cars in general, a recent

study by (Payre et al. 2014) reveals that a large ma-

jority of the population have a positive attitude and

can imagine buying and/or using them. The litera-

ture further shows that acceptance depends on sever-

al other parameters. For instance, acceptance in-

creases when users are allowed to take control (EY

2013). Other factors are age and gender, individual

personality, pre-experience with partly autonomous

cars, characteristics of the innovation, the driving

environment, and the manufacturer’s reputation

(Nordhoff 2014; Rödel et al. 2014). At the same

time, other studies report that people are concerned

about self-driving vehicles (Howard and Dai 2014).

These concerns seems to be cultural and country

dependent (Schoettle and Sivak 2014) as well as

gender dependent: females seem to be more con-

cerned than males (Schoettle and Sivak 2014).

However, most studies focus on autonomous cars

in general but neglect ownership as a relevant cate-

gory. In particular, the surveys do not differentiate

between ownership and usership models but focus

on private cars only – whether explicitly or implicit-

ly. Only a few investigations look at self-driving

mobility services, e.g., self-driving taxis, in detail

(e.g.,(Burns et al. 2013; Hars 2015). Furthermore,

empirical studies can only provide a snapshot of the

status quo; they fail to consider the long-term pro-

cess of changing norms and attitudes, changes that

affect user acceptance in the long run.

ICE-B 2016 - International Conference on e-Business

In summary, the literature shows that technologi-

cal development paths cannot be studied in isolation

because they are shaped by various socio-technical

factors. These factors include ethical and legal issues

as well as economic and design issues. All in all, it is

the consumer who will determine what kind of mo-

bility will dominate, and ownership would thus

appear to be a category that future mobility studies

should take into account. User acceptance can be

investigated in empirical studies but only for current

users; researchers are unable to consider temporal

changes in user attitudes. We therefore want to an-

swer two research questions in this work:

(RQ1) What are the pre- and post-conditions of the

broader socio-technical trends of digitalization and

usership?

(RQ2) How do these trends impact future car mobil-

ity models?

3 METHODOLOGY

To answer our research questions we conduct a

scenario analysis. This methodology is an approved

instrument for identifying and structuring changes,

drivers, and consequences within unknown, uncer-

tain, and changing environments (Mahmoud et al.

2009; Ringland and Schwartz 1998). Various scenar-

io analysis techniques exist. In this paper we adapt

the scenario-axes technique (van ’t Klooster and van

Asselt 2006). This variant covers the four activities:

scanning, monitoring, forecasting, and assessing in

order to outline possible futures.

We applied these steps as follows: First, we out-

lined the framing question (at the beginning of this

paper), which was shaped by the current car mobility

discourse in research, politics, and the mass media.

We reviewed general future studies and found that

the two megatrends of digitalization and usership

economies are often mentioned in literature (Berger

2013; Mont et al. 2014). Hence, we analyzed these

megatrends in more detail by placing them into a

broader context of general trends in societies without

applying them to a specific industry at this point of

the analysis. We then identified the pre-conditions

that have driven the two trends so far, taking rele-

vant literature into account. Post-conditions under

which the trends are going to proceed were also

investigated. The assumptions behind these post-

conditions were subsequently evaluated with regard

to their uncertainty and their impact on the trend.

This evaluation process was adapted from the con-

cept of expert assessments. To increase the evalua-

tion’s intersubjectivity, three authors independently

rated the impact of the assumption. In most cases,

the evaluations coincided with little deviation. When

there was a higher deviation, the authors discussed

their opinions and came to a consolidated conclu-

sion. Based on the results of this evaluation, the two

most critical and thus decisive driving forces were

derived by selecting the most uncertain assumptions

with the highest impact to the trend (van ’t Klooster

and van Asselt 2006), also taking into consideration

other important assumptions. These critical uncer-

tainties serve as the axes for the scenario matrix that

classifies the four scenarios. By taking into consid-

eration the assumptions made for the trends and

fitting them into the context of the particular scenar-

io, coherent scenario descriptions were developed.

Finally, we evaluated the scenarios’ probabilities, by

using the method we applied in evaluating the post-

conditions, selected the most likely scenarios, and

interpreted them in terms of car mobility futures.

Based on the scenarios implications for the industry

were derived on a consumer, business, and social

level.

4 TRENDS

4.1 Digitalization

Pre-Conditions

Digitalization describes the socio-technological

trend of the ubiquitous computing of all areas of life

in which people are part of digital ecosystems using

smart objects that are mutually connected without

loss of information or function (Weiser 1991).

The main driver of this trend is the exponential

growth of IT-technology, which can be seen, for

instance, in the doubling of the computing power

every 18 months (Moore’s Law), in the doubling of

data transfer rates every six months (Gilder’s Law)

or in the value of computer networks being propor-

tional to the square of the number of users and ma-

chines (Metcalfe’s Law) (Laudon and Laudon 2012).

This development is supplemented by widespread

utilization, general user acceptance, and everyday

usage of social web and digital services. Today it is

common to have a smart phone and a Facebook

account, to buy goods online, or to use location-

based services such as Yelp or Foursquare. With the

development towards an Internet of Things (Atzori

et al. 2010), various systems are becoming increas-

ingly integrated, with social webs, semantic webs,

and sensor webs constituting dynamic, cyber-

physical systems. Material goods are enriched by

Using, Sharing, and Owning Smart Cars - A Future Scenario Analysis Taking General Socio-Technical Trends into Account

digital solutions and becoming cyber-physical. Em-

bedded systems are an integral part of products and

services, leading to new or expanded feature sets.

These changes are the result of the progress in artifi-

cial intelligence (AI) and semantic technologies,

which have allowed goods to become smarter and

more autonomous.

Digitalization has already changed entire indus-

tries within the consumer market. It has led to a

whole industries being rapidly transformed, with

products and services completely or partly been

substituted by digitized ones (Svahn and Hen-

fridsson 2012). Examples can be found in the music

industry (Huang 2005), the photography industry

(Lucas and Goh 2009), and the newspaper industry

(Karimi and Walter 2015).

Post-Conditions

For this trend to proceed, it is important to assume

continuing technological advancement. Technolog-

ical progress cannot be expected to stagnate. Gov-

ernment investments in and subsidization of Inter-

net and mobile infrastructure build a base for further

networking and for developing the artificial intelli-

gence of things. In all probability, governments are

going to implement regulations to improve Internet

security and personal privacy and thereby reduce

cybercrime and terrorism to a minimum. Further

they will define requirements for secure information

systems and clarify liability questions within auton-

omous systems. They will also continue to outline

competition regulations and improve the funding of

open standards, making connection of devices and

system integration easier.

People’s trust in digitalized environments will

continue to grow, and they are prepared to connect

their goods and use smart functions in many areas of

their everyday life. It can be safely assumed that, as

long as the data is not too sensitive, people will be

ready to supply private data to benefit from the con-

venience these goods provide. The generation con-

nected, or so-called generation c (Friedrich et al.

2011), born after 1990, has grown up or will grow

up in a primarily digital world. Their familiarity with

technology and reliance on mobile communications

and their desire to remain in contact with large net-

works, either private or business ones, will change

how everyone works and how they consume.

4.2 Usership

Pre-Conditions

Usership (Nieuwenhuijsen 2015) describes the so-

cio-cultural trend of sharing or using goods on de-

mand rather owning them (Belk 2007). In the litera-

ture, these two trends of sharing and using on de-

mand are often described independently (Malhotra

and Van Alstyne 2014; Scholl 2006). In this paper,

we consider usership to cover both the using and the

sharing concepts.

There are different drivers for this trend. First, in

the past, ownership had a strong symbolic function,

following the dictum “You are what you own” (Belk

1988). But in times of mass-consumption and rising

urbanization, owing has lost its means of distinction.

As a result, the attitude has shifted in recent years

towards alternative forms of property and consump-

tion (Hamari, Sjöklint, and Ukkonen 2015). Second,

increasing environmental awareness is driving us-

ership. Here, sharing resources is not tainted by an

image of poverty; it now has a positive green image

(Botsman and Rogers 2011; Hamari et al. 2015; Tils

et al. 2015). Moreover, sustainable consumption

serves as a new means of distinction (Soron 2010).

Third, the Internet is often seen as enabler for

collaborative consumption services (Sundararajan

2013) as it reduces tremendously the searching and

transaction cost of sharing goods and helps to reduce

physical interaction. Web 2.0 created yet more forms

of sharing (Belk 2014) since the sharing platforms

allow suppliers to reach a broader audience and

consumers to have access to a broader range of

products and services at minimal costs. The trend

towards usership is most evident in the case of im-

material goods such as music, films, or software,

where owning has increasingly become the excep-

tion rather than the rule (Cusumano 2014).

Post-Conditions

Generally, new sharing and service concepts are

well known, but they currently play a minor role in

people`s everyday life. However, it can be assumed

that they will become a general commodity. In par-

ticular, the young generation (generation c) is chang-

ing its consumer habits (Heinrichs and Grunenberg

2012). The general assumption is that consumer

awareness of sustainability issues will continue to

expand. This assumption is supported by an increas-

ing consumer demand for sustainable goods and

food. Further, international agreements such as the

United Nations Climate Change Conference 2015

agreed to a strict set of goals limiting global warm-

ing. Hence, it is reasonable that sustainable transport

modes will be widely promoted by governments in

the future. A general abundance of goods and gener-

ation c, which embraces the shared economy-

thought, may allow a shift in consumer attitude

from ownership for status reasons to usership to

ICE-B 2016 - International Conference on e-Business

develop. The growing population in conjunction

with limited resources will inevitably result in higher

costs for consumers. Hence there will be a need to

forgo individual ownership. The question is in which

categories of goods the shift will take place next.

It can further be assumed that the transaction

costs of service and sharing economies will decrease

because of an increasing urbanization (Un-habitat

2010). The higher density of people in urban will

make sharing easier to realize because more poten-

tial users will be able to collaborate in sharing. Ad-

ditionally, it will become necessary to share goods in

some sectors with limited (mineral) resources e.g.,

rare earth elements used in the production, but also

with limited physical resources such as housing,

streets, or parking places. Under the assumption that

the governments will set clear regulations concern-

ing privacy issues as well as clear regulations, e.g.,

for liability standards, occupational safety and taxa-

tion, consumers are more likely to be more open to

using and sharing, and will thus strengthen the trend.

Due to their contribution to sustainability, govern-

ments will presumably promote and subsidize col-

laborative consumption.

4.3 Impact Evaluation

The evaluation process has already been discussed in

more detail in Section 3. From the evaluation, we

were able to identify five driving forces (see Table

1). Each is assumed to be critical, with either a direct

or an indirect effect on how the trends continue

and/or intensify.

Table 1: Evaluation of Post-Conditions.

Post-Condition

Potential

Impact

Uncer-

tainty

Total

Digitalization

Technology 7 2 9

Regulations 5 4 9

Investments 8,5 3 11,5

Connection 8,5 6

14,5

Gen-C Attitude 7 2 9

Usership

Sustainability 4,5 4,5 9

Consumer Attitude 9,5 7,5

Costs 7,5 1,5 9

Urbanization 7 3 10

Regulation 6 5 11

To assess the level of impact, we considered the

post-condition of each factor and how it shapes

future developments. To assess the critical uncer-

tainties, we stated how confident we are that each

particular condition will come true. By combining

both indicators, we could define the critical condi-

tions/uncertainties (Total in Table 1). For the digital-

ization trend, we conclude that the actual develop-

ment path of the Internet of Things connecting

cyber-physical systems (Atzori et al. 2010) is crucial

and builds the first critical uncertainty. For the us-

ership trend, we conclude that the acceptance of

usership models is primarily dependent on a change

in consumers’ attitudes. Usership will only become

a dominant economic model in society if ownership

becomes less important for consumers.

5 SCENARIOS

Our scenario development reflects that these two

trends play the most vital role in how the future will

develop; connected smart systems and usership

attitudes therefore build the axes of the scenario

graph. The combination of these two different driv-

ing forces with their reasonable possibilities leads to

the following set of four scenarios (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Scenario Matrix.

5.1 Private Products

In a private products scenario, people prefer owner-

ship over usership for goods that are not highly

digitally connected. Status symbols are still essential

for individuals, even if the goods that provide this

status have changed. The importance of expressing

one`s individuality through those goods results from

increased costs caused by a rising population in

conjunction with limited resources. The growing

urbanization and a slow but steadily growing aware-

ness of sustainability needs also contribute to higher

costs. At the same time, only a few of these goods

are integrated, although technological progress has

made a broader networking of things possible. But

since the high complexity of this market does not

allow the government to provide rigorous openness,

security, and privacy standards and since data abuse

and cybercrime occur, people are not ready to hand

over personal and sensitive data.

Using, Sharing, and Owning Smart Cars - A Future Scenario Analysis Taking General Socio-Technical Trends into Account

5.2 Pay per Use

In this scenario, people have a usership attitude.

They use and share things instead of buying and

owning them. The attitude is supported by people

recognizing and accepting the need to reduce waste

and environmental pollution. This consumer behav-

ior is also encouraged by the government: the gov-

ernment has set strict climate protection goals and

promoted the usership economy by increasing the

price of ownership, formulating minimum require-

ments for shared goods and services, and developing

strict data protection laws. Indeed, a high connection

and integration of the shared goods and services is

possible from a technological point of view, but

techniques reach their limits when it comes to ethi-

cal questions that a machine is not able to answer.

Since people additionally have data protection con-

cerns, society often rejects further connection such

as smart services and smart goods.

5.3 Smart Products

In the smart product scenario, the vision of an Inter-

net of Things (Atzori et al. 2010) where all things

are smart and connected has become real. This sce-

nario promises great technological progress, a plat-

form for digital innovations, and high security and

privacy standards. People set great value on sustain-

able assets. However, as in the private products

scenario, people prefer owning rather than sharing

goods, with a preference for high-tech products as

status symbols. In the private domain, more and

more appliances and devices are communicating and

that is leading to a smart environment. In particular,

smart technologies are used when they make domes-

tic life more convenient. People are ready to trust

technology within their ownership. However, they

are still sceptical towards digital, connected services

where personal data are collected and externally

used by commercial and public service providers.

Smart connections are only tolerated if they increase

comfort and do not affect the power of disposition

and the privacy of personal data.

5.4 Smart Services

As in the previous scenario, the technological vision

of an Internet of Things has become real. But here

the social vision of service and sharing economies

has also become real. Consumer attitude shifts from

an ownership to a usership approach. Status-based

thinking has been replaced by a pragmatic approach

of benefit-based thinking. Reduced power of dispo-

sition and control is tolerated if it increases quality

and stability of the overall service system and is

compensated by other incentives (e.g., service dis-

counts, service upgrading, etc.). Therefore the con-

sumer agrees to disclosing personal data if it does

not just improve the provider’s resource planning

but has a personal benefit, too. Improved efficiency

means that smart services also answer the challenges

of continued resource limits and sustainability de-

mands. Resource efficiency is not simply an option;

it is a necessity for society to prosper and advance.

Development is facilitated by an increased urbaniza-

tion, where more potential sharers are available and

sharing becomes easier and the pressure to share

increases. Sharing is supported by the government

applying share-focused policies e.g., investing in

share-infrastructure in urban areas, taking measures

to increase sharing, and imposing regulations and

standards for privacy and security. These improved

sharing conditions are internalized by consumers,

thus strengthening their usership and sharing atti-

tude. This change in attitude also leads to a greater

desire to stay connected through networks, enabled

by technology breakthroughs and government subsi-

dies in investments in high-speed broadband net-

works. The high privacy standards give society

greater trust in new technologies. Digital interactions

and collaborations replace major parts of society’s

face-to-face interactions.

5.5 Scenario Evaluation

We consider the general scenarios smart products

and smart services to be the most likely scenarios.

Likelihoods of the scenarios were evaluated by as-

sessing them for the two dimensions separately and

multiplying them for the individual cells. This step

reduces the complexity, but neglects possible inter-

actions between both dimensions.

There are good reasons for assuming an increase

in the socio-technological trend, displayed on the

horizontal axis, e.g., by the connection, integration,

and collaboration the value of the Internet of Things

growths squared for all members (Metcalfe’s Law).

However, several counterforces might hinder or

delay this trend. With the further connection of

things, the complexity grows exponentially, too.

Therefore we consider that high connectedness is

more realistic (assessed with 70% probablity) than

digital separateness (assessed with 30% probability).

For the vertical axis (usership attitude) both di-

rections are conceivable. On the one hand, a future is

possible where the material-oriented attitude remains

because of two main reasons: first, usership does not

ICE-B 2016 - International Conference on e-Business

provide the same level of comfort, reliability, or

control as owning goods and second, identification

with goods still matters. On the other hand, usership

economies generally have better resource efficiency.

This improved efficiency especially holds in the case

of smart services. A complete disappearance of

ownership, however, does not seem to be realistic.

We therefore assessed an expansion of the usership

attitude with 40% probability and the ownership

attitude remaining the dominant model as being 60%

probable.

Figure 2: Scenario Matrix.

Based on these assessments, we consider the

scenarios smart products (42%) and smart services

(28%) to be the ones that are most likely to occur in

the future. In contrast, non-digital private products

(12%) and pay-per-use services (18%) will be less

important in the future (see Figure 2).

6 CAR FUTURES

In this section, we apply these general consideration

to the mobility sector, in particular what this means

for possible car futures. We focus on the smart

products and the smart services scenarios as the two

scenarios with the highest probabilities. As both

have similar probabilities, we also believe that the

future of the car is given by a mixture of both sce-

narios. Hence, we also outline what a co-existence

of both could look like in the future.

6.1 Smart Private Cars

In terms of mobility, the smart products scenario

means that in the future private cars still play a ma-

jor role in people`s individual mobility. However,

future private cars are smart equipped with innova-

tive technological features. The cars are able to ma-

neuver automatically within cities and on highways.

They support drivers and provide new driving expe-

riences in various ways. Overall, this scenario de-

scribes an evolutionary development path, where

smart cars are mainly characterized by additional

features. The general concepts do not differ signifi-

cantly from those nowadays. Still, there are subtle

but important differences in detail. For better or

worse, in this scenario, owners decide individually

when to make use of the new smart features and

when not to.

On the consumer level, needs will change and

requirements will be imposed on smart cars (Litman

2014). We can distinguish between the pragmatic

values and the hedonic values a (smart) car has for a

consumer (Hassenzahl 2001). The business models

need to satisfy the following demands of car buyers.

The most important pragmatic value propositions

attributed to car mobility are autonomy, independen-

cy, and flexibility (Meurer et al. 2014), all of which

inherently apply in this ownership-oriented scenario.

A special case is linked to those who cannot drive

because of cognitive or physical constraints, such as

older or disabled people. For this user group, smart

cars are a promise of liberty (Litman 2014; Meurer

et al. 2014). Comfort is an important reason for

choosing cars as a preferred mode of transportation,

too (Shove 2003). In this scenario, smart cars aim to

gain a comparative advantage by increasing the

perceived comfort. Many smart car features fall into

this category: the highway pilot, valet parking, or

traffic jam assistant (Anderson et al. 2014; Litman

2014; Maurer et al. 2015; Milakis et al. 2015).

Reduced crashes and increased safety is another

advantage often mentioned in literature (Litman

2014; Milakis et al. 2015). From a consumer per-

spective, however, safety is less important than the

subjective feeling of safety (Beggiato and Krems

2013). Cooperative concepts that delegate control to

an external authority (such as Cooperative Adaptive

Cruise Control) might be perceived as less secure

and, as a result, be less accepted by smart car owners

(Nieuwenhuijsen 2015). Drivers must be able to

switch to (semi-) autonomous driving. On the one

hand switching it off ensures to meet the drivers’

goals of autonomy, perceived control, and perceived

safety. On the other hand switching to (semi-) au-

tonomous driving relieves of driving activities that

are perceived as annoying and wasteful. In addition

to reduced stress while driving (Litman 2014), the

value of time (Gucwa 2014) increases and smart cars

offer new work opportunities during travel.

Features such as intelligent traffic-aware routing

and adaptive cruise control are a further category

that improve driving efficiency (Baydere et al. 2014;

EC 2011; Litman 2014; Milakis et al. 2015). Here

too, such features are only accepted if they do not

Using, Sharing, and Owning Smart Cars - A Future Scenario Analysis Taking General Socio-Technical Trends into Account

reduce driver autonomy; they must be perceived as a

support not as a burden (Davis 1989). For instance,

cooperative concepts such as routing vehicles into

platoons (Bergenhem et al. 2012) must be optional.

It is questionable whether a driver will use this op-

tion, thus perhaps also saving a small amount of

energy, if the platoon speed is perceived as too low

(or too high in the case of insecure people).

In this scenario, the hedonic value of cars having

a symbolic function for their owners remains. They

are a means of distinction (Bourdieu 1984), express-

ing an innovative attitude, a social status, or mem-

bership of a peer-group or (sub-)culture. Other

common hedonic values attributed to cars and driv-

ing are fun (Rödel et al. 2014) and sensation seeking

(Nordhoff 2014). Here, an incentive for owning cars

is being able to tune them and steer them. Smart cars

do not necessarily preclude these options. At best,

they provide new opportunities for enjoyment and

sensation seeking, e.g., enabling more sports driving,

even for novice drivers, and providing software

updates that improve the car e.g., by making it more

powerful.

On the business level, car manufacturers must

face up to new legal restrictions and questions of

liability. For instance, they need to build up compe-

tencies in cyber-security by attracting talents from

outside the traditional automotive industry (Gao et

al. 2014) and clarify the issue of liability in the case

of an accident (Maurer et al. 2015). In addition to

traditional competitors, car manufactures have to

compete with new market entrants from the IT and

communication industry. In particular, safety and

intelligence features will benefit from digital car-to-

car and car-to-infrastructure communication. IT

companies might therefore have a comparative ad-

vantage, and major shifts in the market share might

occur. However, in this scenario, lock-in and net-

work effects are smaller than those in the IT sector.

In particular, there are too many individual demands

and preferences for them all to be satisfied by just

one brand. This implies that the private smart car

market is not a “winner-takes-all” one (Buxmann

and Hess 2015). New niche markets and market

segments will also emerge. For instance, smart cars

enter the new market segment of providing inde-

pendent mobility for non- or handicapped-drivers.

Cars in this segment reduce the need for motorists to

chauffeur non-driving family members and friends

or, for those being driven to use conventional public

transit or ridesharing services (Litman 2014; Meurer

et al. 2014). Another topic relates to brands and the

satisfaction of the symbolic value of owning a car.

Here, high-tech IT companies as well as premium

car manufacturers could benefit from strategic alli-

ances to create brand’s promises of highly innova-

tive and appealing cars with a high comfort level, a

high fun factor, and/or a high symbolic value

(Maurer et al. 2015).

On the societal level, the main problems pres-

ently caused by private car traffic compound in this

scenario. Since people are in need of a car, the num-

ber of personal cars is going to increase. Especially

in some regional areas, the growing population and

urbanization have lead to congestion, parking chaos,

and increasing air pollution. The current parking

problems remain and reach new dimensions. For the

individual, valet parking features make parking less

stressful. However, as each person wants to have a

parking place nearby, parking spaces must be in-

creasingly provided in the cities. Alternatively, to

improve the availability, smart parking might be

realized by driving around the block autonomously

until the driver is back from a (short) stop. Automo-

bile manufacturers have to face and address these

problems by taking the rising challenges into con-

sideration. Possible solutions can be the develop-

ment of self-parking cars, finding free lots or navi-

gating to centralized parking areas, or space-saving

cars such as foldable cars (Suh et al. 2013). Car

manufacturers also need to launch enhanced eco-

friendly cars, either by improving propulsion tech-

nologies using renewable energy or through ad-

vanced efficiency.

However, autonomous private cars can address

other problems. Driving safety is improved whenev-

er the car takes over control during critical traffic

situations. Governmental legislation might even

require cars to activate driving assistance systems to

ensure safe driving and that the laws are obeyed. At

the same time, automobile manufacturers face new

customer groups such as disabled or older people, or

maybe even children. These people are now able to

use their private autonomous cars independently.

6.2 Smart Car Services

In terms of mobility, the smart services scenario

means that, in future, private cars play no or only a

minor part in the daily routine. It shares with the

previous scenario that cars are smart and able to

maneuver automatically. The aim, however, is not to

support drivers but to support passengers who use

the new smart mobility services. Therefore the busi-

ness models of automobile manufacturer will change

distinctly. Car manufacturers have to go through a

revolutionary process and realign their business

models.

ICE-B 2016 - International Conference on e-Business

On the consumer level, individual pragmatic

needs differ from the previous scenario only in de-

gree. Perceived safety and perceived flexibility are

still important for consumers, in particular having

the freedom to go anywhere at any time. The signifi-

cant difference, however, is the attitude concerning

how the need is satisfied. Instead of owning a car,

consumers chose the mobility service optimal for the

situation (Scholl 2006). As a result, the long-term-

oriented mobility decision of buying a car shifts to a

short-term-oriented mobility decision and choosing

mobility services in line with the situation. There-

fore lock-in effects can be reduced in the use of a car

so that the transport choices are more volatile. In

particular, pragmatic values and hedonic values do

not refer to the smart car itself anymore, referring

instead to a smart service system. From the consum-

er perspective, the most important pragmatic service

qualities are availability and reliability. In addition,

the service must be easy to use without great plan-

ning (Scholl 2006) e.g., easy to book and pay for via

Smartphones. For disabled and older people, the

accessibility of the service system plays a crucial

role, for instance, that smart cars can be used with a

wheel-chair, luggage can be easily stowed, or assis-

tance is offered – either by service staff or service

roboters.

As the hedonic value of driving fun (Rödel et al.

2014) decreases in this scenario, the pragmatic de-

mand for travel time enrichment (Gunn 2001) in-

creases. Hence cars might be equipped as mobile

offices or offer special entertainment features or

opportunities for relaxation.

In this scenario, consumers become more price

conscious when the smart cars rely on a pay-per-use

model. For private cars these costs are much less

transparent as many costs such as acquisition, re-

pairs, and insurance are indirect. Therefore they

weigh up the cost and benefits of service features

with regard to the particular situation. Like today –

where people usually take buses and only take taxis

in exceptional situations – a consumer might accept

ridesharing-like smart car services when they are

significantly cheaper and only use taxi-like services

as an exception. In addition to the practical cost-

benefit analysis, selecting these service systems also

has a symbolic significance. For instance, using

ridesharing-type services expresses a green value

system. However, the use of taxi-like and exclusive

transport services might serve as status symbol

(Scholl 2006).

On the business level, the business models aim

to satisfy the outlined demands of mobility service

users. Producing and selling cars to private custom-

ers will no longer be the prevailing business activity.

Instead one promising business model lies in becom-

ing a mobility supplier, offering mobility as an on-

demand service. Besides the production of the cars,

their prior business activity will shift towards data

management and analysis to provide unconditional

and convenient mobility.

Car manufacturers who act as mobility suppliers

must face new competitors. Since there is no steer-

ing wheel and no driver inside the car, there is no

longer a difference between self-driving taxis and

self-driving car sharing. Companies aim for high

occupancy rides and as few empty trips as possible.

As an add-on to the general self-driving-technology,

the cars are smart in terms of relocating, parking,

and optimizing routes based on a customer-

relationship database. Although the customers do not

own these cars, the cars must satisfy the consistent

user needs of being available whenever a user wants

to take one and having no recognizable difference in

disposability. Using big data from the customer-

relationship database helps the companies to predict

user demands and routes and automatically plan the

operations. The cars must also provide comfort,

privacy, and security. These requirements are rela-

tively easy to cover, under the assumption that full

security is technologically realizable and that the car

is used by one person alone or by a group of people

who know each other. Autonomous ridesharing is, of

course, also possible: customers use a car service

and share their ride with another – probably to them

strange – customer. When the database recognizes

that two customers want to take (nearly) the same

route, the system could suggest sharing the vehicle

and offer a discount. This special offer fulfills the

economic, ecological, and social needs of those

people who think “green” and are convinced sharers.

To meet the situation-dependent user demands,

car manufacturers and the mobility suppliers can

organize their fleets. They can provide vehicles

equipped as offices, vans, convertibles, and small

city cars with a different number of seats. Fleets

must be large enough to guarantee availability and

reliability. Additionally, they can offer different

service models such as pay-per-use prices or flat

rates.

Another important point of the autonomous mo-

bility services scenario is the trend towards inter-

modal services that are almost hidden for the cus-

tomers. Customers chose a route from one destina-

tion to another and pay for one ticket per travel.

With intermodal services, the transition between the

different mobility modes is almost seamless, such as

taking the train for a long distance journey and then

Using, Sharing, and Owning Smart Cars - A Future Scenario Analysis Taking General Socio-Technical Trends into Account

using a car for the last mile, all with the one ticket.

These intermodal mobility services can be offered

by individual companies, by holding organizations,

or through cooperations between different mobility

organizations. The trend towards mobility as a ser-

vice can lead to an expansion of business models

within existing companies. For example, short-range

public transportation companies could widen their

range of mobility services into different mobility

modes and therefore offer intermodal or multimodal

mobility services.

On the societal level, this scenario brings nu-

merous changes – challenges as well as opportuni-

ties. First, traditional car manufacturers are affected

as smart mobility services enable a dramatic reduc-

tion in vehicles (Spieser et al. 2014). Second, exist-

ing mobility providers, including taxis and other

driving services, are threatened by innovative mobil-

ity services as they lead to a reduction in driving

staff. Jobs will be lost since fully automated vehicles

no longer need a driver. These challenges can al-

ready be seen in the discussion about permitting

UBER (Geradin 2015). Even though other forms of

employment will arise through the new business

models, the redundancy of taxi drivers is unavoida-

ble. Furthermore, automated cars on demand will

raise the level of equality in the mobility sector.

Disabled people, older people, and other individuals

who are not able to drive independently will be more

mobile (Payre et al. 2014). Additionally, personal

parking spaces can be saved and open possibilities

for new concepts in using urban areas. In this sce-

nario, platooning is easy to implement since people

do not insist on their own speed. This leads to addi-

tional savings in fuel and infrastructure and overall

to an improved utilization of the car and the roads.

So sustainability is expected to rise in terms of eco-

nomic and ecological sustainability. At the same

time, rebound effects can occur. If using the self-

driving-service is easily affordable, reliable, and

comfortable and people can even do other things

during their ride, the total amount of rides could

increase significantly (Litman 2014). Negative eco-

logical and economic effects could arise when empty

runnings prevail as a result of relocating and opti-

mizing routes and parking. It is also possible that

consumers will mainly use autonomous car services

instead of sustainable mobility modes such as bicy-

cles or public transport.

6.3 Co-existence of Private Cars and

Services

The scenarios surely draft very extreme pictures of

the future following strictly one development path –

either ownership or usership. We are convinced that

there will be a mixture of self-driving private cars

and self-driving services. The likelihoods we defined

for the different scenarios could also be interpreted

as market segments. In the long run, mall different

variants will appear. This mixture will cause even

greater challenges since all variants must be coordi-

nated. Independent of the challenges, we assume that

there are also positive outcomes of the mixture of

autonomous private cars and mobility services. Each

scenario has advantages for specific cases.

The co-existence of private cars and mobility ser-

vices reduces both the number of cars within urban

areas and the traffic density. This improved traffic

situation will lead to private cars still being used for

business. Especially in the beginning of autonomous

mobility services, it is important to offer the custom-

er both scenarios. The incremental integration of

mobility services means that the customers can gath-

er experiences, which, in turn, could raise the ac-

ceptance of the mobility services. But still it is im-

portant that the customers have a choice of mobility

modes. A roll-out concept for autonomous mobility

services could be incrementally integrating these

services within the taxi or short-range transit sector.

7 CONCLUSIONS

Smart and self-driving cars seem to be the next ma-

jor leap the automotive industry is trying to achieve.

Digitalization challenges the automotive industry to

rethink or even change their business models to meet

the customer’s demands. With regard to this, other

studies outline digitalization’s challenges (e.g., tech-

nological, ethical, and legal) and effects (e.g., on

mobility practices, safety, sustainability, and service

markets). Our analysis confirms to a large extent the

findings of earlier scenario analyses concerning

assumed trends, pre-conditions, and possible future

scenarios. In this paper, we have demonstrated that

future car scenarios should not be studied in isola-

tion but should consider general socio-technical

megatrends associated with digital connected sys-

tems and innovative usership models. This general

view then gives an orientation, informs decision

makers, and enables them to re-evaluate the status

quo of the trends by continuously checking the criti-

cal assumptions. For the digitalization trend to pro-

ceed, it is crucial that the digital connection of goods

is ubiquitous, which basically depends on society’s

readiness. For a usership-orientated society to pre-

vail over an ownership-oriented society, consumer

ICE-B 2016 - International Conference on e-Business

attitude must shift. Depending on whether the criti-

cal conditions are realized or not, different scenarios

occur, with two of them being most likely and suited

to meet the needs of individualized lifestyles and the

demands of sustainable societies.

With regard to the business development, we

have outlined that owner- and usership-oriented

smart car scenarios are most likely and can realisti-

cally co-exist in the medium to long term. Both

constitute different markets with specific character-

istics that business models have to consider. For the

private market, our analysis shows that smart cars

should not just satisfy pragmatic mobility needs but

must also address hedonic and symbolic values such

as freedom, driving fun, or providing a status sym-

bol. Here the automotive industry is running along

an evolutionary development path characterized by

mainly technological advancements. For the service

market, our analysis shows that hedonic qualities are

less important. Instead the competitive position is

based on the guarantee of a high service level with

regard to availability, flexibility, comfort, usability,

and attractive pricing. This combination leads to a

revolutionary development with a major impact on

traditional business models. But it is questionable if

car manufacturers acknowledge theses disruptive

changes. Experience shows that traditional technol-

ogy companies tend to stick to their top seller and

react too late (Lucas and Goh 2009).

Concerning scope and limitation, it has to be

mentioned that the future scenario analysis is inher-

ently characterized by uncertainty. Unanticipated

disruptive phenomena cannot be forecasted. A max-

imum objectivity was aimed at, but a bias cannot be

entirely excluded as conditions and probabilities

have been evaluated intersubjectively by the authors.

Also the results of this study are only representative

for Western societies. Future research should vali-

date the findings by using supplementing methods

such as expert interviews, consumer surveys, appro-

priation studies or different experimental design to

identify acceptance and key success factors of inno-

vative business models for the different mobility

scenarios.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J.M., Nidhi, K., Stanley, K.D., Sorensen, P., et

al., 2014. Autonomous vehicle technology: A guide for

policymakers. Rand Corporation.

Atzori, L., Iera, A., Morabito, G., 2010. The internet of

things. Computer networks. 54, 15, 2787–805.

Bartl, M., 2015. The Future of Autonomous Driving, THE

MAKING OF INNOVATION (E Journal). 1–7.

Baydere, B.A., Erondu, K., Espinel, D., Jain, S., et al.,

2014. Car-Sharing Service using Autonomous Auto-

mobiles.

Beggiato, M., Krems, J.F., 2013. The evolution of mental

model, trust and acceptance of adaptive cruise control

in relation to initial information, Transportation re-

search part F. 18,47–57.

Belk, R., 1988. Possessions and self. Wiley Online Li-

brary.

Belk, R., 2007. Why not share rather than own?, The

Annals of the American Academy of Political and So-

cial Science. 611, 1, 126–40.

Belk, R., 2014. You are what you can access. Journal of

Business Research. 67, 8, 1595–600.

Bergenhem, C., Shladover, S., Coelingh, E., Englund, C.,

et al., 2012. Overview of platooning systems. In Proc.

of the 19th ITS World Congress, Oct 22-26, Vienna,

Austria (2012). 2012.

Berger, R., 2013. Trend Compendium 2030.

Botsman, R., Rogers, R., 2011. What’s mine is yours.

Collins London.

Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the

judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.

Burns, L.D., Jordan, W.C., Scarborough, B.A., 2013.

Transforming personal mobility, The Earth Institute.

Buxmann, P., Hess, T., 2015. Die Softwareindustrie:

Ökonomische Prinzipien, Strategien, Perspektiven.

Springer-Verlag.

Cusumano, M.A., 2014. How traditional firms must com-

pete in the sharing economy, Communications of the

ACM. 58, 1, 32–4.

Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of

use, and user acceptance of information technology,

MIS quarterly. 319–40.

EC, (European Commission), 2011. WHITE PAPER

roadmap to a single European transport area towards a

competitive and resource efficient transport system,

COM (2011). 144.

Epprecht, N., von Wirth, T., Stünzi, C. and Blumer, Y.B.,

2014. Anticipating transitions beyond the current mo-

bility regimes. Futures. 60,30–40.

EY, (Ernst & Young), 2013. Autonomes Fahren – die

Zukunft des Pkw-Marktes?

Friedrich, R., Peterson, M., Koster, A., 2011. The rise of

Generation C, strategy+ business. 62,1–3.

Gao, P., Hensley, R., Zielke, A., 2014. A road map to the

future for the auto industry, McKinsey Quarterly, Oct.

Geradin, D., 2015. Should Uber be allowed to compete in

Europe? And if so how?, And If so How.

Gucwa, M., 2014. Mobility and energy impacts of auto-

mated cars. In Proc. of the Automated Vehicles Sym-

posium, San Francisco. 2014.

Gunn, H., 2001. Spatial and temporal transferability of

relationships between travel demand, trip cost and

travel time, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics

and Transportation Review. 37, 2, 163–89.

Using, Sharing, and Owning Smart Cars - A Future Scenario Analysis Taking General Socio-Technical Trends into Account

Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., Ukkonen, A., 2015. The sharing

economy: Why people participate in collaborative

consumption, Available at SSRN 2271971.

Hars, A., 2015. Flotten selbstfahrender Elektrotaxis – Eine

Szenarioanalyse. In Proff, H. (ed.) Entscheidungen

beim Übergang in die Elektromobilität. Wiesbaden:

Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. pp. 615–32.

Hassenzahl, M., 2001. The effect of perceived hedonic

quality on product appealingness, International Jour-

nal of Human-Computer Interaction. 13, 4, 481–99.

Heinrichs, H., Grunenberg, H., 2012. Sharing Economy :

Auf dem Weg in eine neue Konsumkultur?. Lüneburg.

Howard, D., Dai, D., 2014. Public Perceptions of Self-

driving Cars. California 2. In Transportation Research

Board 93rd Annual Meeting. 2014.

Huang, C.-Y., 2005. File sharing as a form of music con-

sumption, International Journal of Electronic Com-

merce. 9, 4, 37–55.

Karimi, J., Walter, Z., 2015. Corporate Entrepreneurship,

Disruptive Business Model Innovation Adoption, and

Its Performance. Long Range Planning.

Laudon, K.C., Laudon, J.P., 2012. Management infor-

mation systems: managing the digital firm.

Lenz, B., Nobis, C., Köhler, K., Mehlin, M., et al., 2010.

Mobilität in Deutschland 2008.

Litman, T., 2014. Autonomous Vehicle Implementation

Predictions.

Lucas, H.C., Goh, J.M., 2009. Disruptive technology:

How Kodak missed the digital photography revolu-

tion, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems. 18,

1, 46–55.

Mahmoud, M., Liu, Y., Hartmann, H., Stewart, S., et al.,

2009. A formal framework for scenario development

in support of environmental decision-making, Envi-

ronmental Modelling & Software. 24, 7, 798–808.

Malhotra, A., Van Alstyne, M., 2014. The dark side of the

sharing economy… and how to lighten it, Communi-

cations of the ACM. 57, 11, 24–7.

Maurer, M., Gerdes, J.C., Lenz, B., Winner, H., 2015.

Autonomes Fahren.. Springer-Verlag.

Meurer, J., Stein, M., Randall, D., Rohde, M., et al., 2014.

Social dependency and mobile autonomy. In Proc. of

the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Compu-

ting Systems. 2014 ACM. pp. 1923–32.

Milakis, D., Snelder, M., Van Arem, B., Van Wee, G.P., et

al., 2015. Development of automated vehicles in the

Netherlands: scenarios for 2030 and 2050.

Mont, O., Neuvonen, A., Lähteenoja, S., 2014. Sustainable

lifestyles 2050. Journal of Cleaner Production. 63,

24–32.

Nieuwenhuijsen, J.A.H., 2015. Diffusion of Automated

Vehicles.TU Delft, Delft University of Technology.

Nordhoff, S., 2014. Mobility 4.0: Are Consumers Ready to

Adopt Google’s Self-driving Car?

Payre, W., Cestac, J., Delhomme, P., 2014. Intention to

use a fully automated car. Transportation research

part F: traffic psychology and behaviour. 27,252–63.

Ringland, G., Schwartz, P.P., 1998. Scenario planning:

Managing for the future. John Wiley & Sons.

Rödel, C., Stadler, S., Meschtscherjakov, A., Tscheligi,

M., 2014. Towards Autonomous Cars. Proc. of the 6th

Int. Conf. on Automotive User Interfaces and Interac-

tive Vehicular Applications. 2014 ACM. pp. 1–8.

Schoettle, B., Sivak, M., 2014. A survey of public opinion

about autonomous and self-driving vehicles in the US,

the UK, and Australia.

Scholl, G., 2006. Exploring the symbolic meaning of

usership, Ökologisches Wirtschaften. 21, 2.

Shove, E., 2003. Comfort, cleanliness and convenience:

The social organization of normality. Berg Oxford.

Soron, D., 2010. Sustainability, selfidentity and the

sociology of consumption, Sustainable Development.

18, 3, 172–81.

Spieser, K., Treleaven, K., Zhang, R., Frazzoli, E., et al.,

2014. Toward a systematic approach to the design and

evaluation of automated mobility-on-demand systems.

In Road Vehicle Automation. Springer. pp. 229–45.

Suh, I.-S., Hwang, K., Lee, M., Kim, J., 2013. In-wheel

motor application in a 4WD electric vehicle with fold-

able body concept. In Electric Machines Drives Con-

ference (IEMDC), 2013 IEEE International. May

2013 pp. 1235–40.

Sundararajan, A., 2013. From Zipcar to the sharing econ-

omy, Harvard Business Review. 1,

Svahn, F., Henfridsson, O., 2012. The dual regimes of

digital innovation management. In System Science

(HICSS), 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference

on. 2012 IEEE. pp. 3347–56.

Tils, G., Rehaag, R., Glatz, A., 2015. Carsharing–ein

Beitrag zu nachhaltiger Mobilität.

van ’t Klooster, S.A., van Asselt, M.B.A., 2006. Practising

the scenario-axes technique, Futures. 38, 1, 15–30.

Un-habitat, 2010. State of the world’s cities 2010/2011:

bridging the urban divide. Earthscan.

Weiser, M., 1991. The Computer for the 21st Century.

Yun, J., Yang, J., Won, D., Jeong, E., et al., 2014. The

Dynamic Relationships between Technology, Business

Model and Market in Autonomous Car and Intelligent

Robot Industries, System Dynamics, Delft, The Nether-

lands.

ICE-B 2016 - International Conference on e-Business