Content uploaded by Csaba Csiszar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Csaba Csiszar on Mar 12, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Tehnički vjesnik 31, 2(2024), 647-656 647
ISSN 1330-3651 (Print), ISSN 1848-6339 (Online) https://doi.org/10.17559/TV-20230502000597
Preliminary communication
Business Model for Shared Autonomous Vehicles Mobility Services
Dahlen SILVA*, Dávid FÖLDES, Csaba CSISZÁR
Abstract: We propose a business model (BM) for mobility services based on shared autonomous vehicles (SAVs) anticipating the changes and opportunities for the current
shared mobility service companies in updating their BMs to consider the AV technology. We have analysed the service characteristics of the current shared mobility
services-taxi, ride-sourcing, ride-sharing, car rental, peer-to-peer car-sharing, and business-to-consumers car-sharing–and accordingly we determined how they would
change when AVs are implemented into these services. The Lean Canvas is used to prepare the new BM, assuming the convergence of the current shared mobility services'
BMs. We found that a customized travel fee and involvement of private AV owners in the service will alter revenue streams and customer segments, but modifications of key
metrics and channels are not needed. According to the elaborated results, shared mobility companies can determine alterations in their BMs, strategy, and targets.
Keywords: business model; lean canvas; mobility service; shared autonomous vehicles
1 INTRODUCTION
Shared mobility services are potential solutions to
decrease private car ownership, improve air quality, fill
gaps in public transportation, and free up parking spaces
[1] due to higher utilization of vehicles. Besides these
benefits, Shared Autonomous Vehicles (SAVs) will reduce
traffic accidents and road space demand. Also, they will be
accessible to people without driving abilities and reduce
personnel costs for shared mobility service operators [2].
The implementation of autonomous vehicles (AVs) into
shared mobility services will impact service characteristics
and, consequently, the business models. Business model
and service characteristics have a mutual relationship, thus,
changes in one impact another. A business model (BM) is
a framework in which the necessary elements such as value
proposition, customer, and resources for a new product or
service are identified to enter the market successfully,
attract investors, and anticipate expenses. Additionally,
elements that create value for the company itself such as
revenue streams and costs are also included. BM is a
starting point to define the strategy, organizational
structure, and business planning to overcome the
competitors [3]. Curtis (2021) [4] classified the BMs
applied to current shared mobility services into three types,
focusing on the relationship between the business and the
consumer. We considered the Business-to-consumer type
in our SAV mobility service as it will be the most
characteristic.
- Business-to-consumer (B2C) BMs are commercially
oriented and tend to operate internationally. The price is set
by the mobility-sharing platform, usually applying
location-based and access-based prices. The revenue
streams contain transaction fees, subscription fees, usage
fees, and fines; it is applicable for car-sharing, ride-sharing,
taxi, ride-sourcing and car rental.
- Peer-to-peer (P2P) BMs present a review system for
users; resource owners are service providers instead of a
company. The price is determined by the resource owner
and features used, and a subscription fee is not common; it
is usually applied by car-sharing and ride-sharing services.
- Business-to-business (B2B) BMs have the exchange of
goods and services between two or more companies; it can
be used by taxi, car rental, and car-sharing services.
In 2040, about 55% of total passenger kilometres will
be covered by AV-based services [5]; thus, our objective
was to forecast the changes and opportunities for the
current shared mobility service companies in updating their
BMs to consider the AV technology. Although changes in
the BMs of shared mobility services with the
implementation of AVs into the service have been
speculated [1, 2], a BM for SAVs mobility services has not
been proposed yet. Raudaschl (2020) [6] only analysed the
BM of an autonomous Tesla taxi using the Lean Canvas
(LC). Our research aims to fill this gap by proposing a BM
for mobility services based on SAVs using the LC. We
have identified service characteristics and compared the
current shared mobility services; then, based on the
literature and experts' opinions, we have foreseen the new
BM. We used the LC to elaborate our new BM because it
is more efficient for innovative solutions and not yet
well-established businesses [7]. Our research questions
are:
1) How to alter the BM of current shared mobility service
companies to those applying AVs?
2) What are the customer segments and revenue streams
when AVs are implemented into the current shared
mobility services?
We considered the SAV mobility service characterized as
follows:
- vehicle capacity is 4 - 9 persons,
- vehicles are owned by either operators or private
owners,
- vehicles and rides are shared in the urban door-to-door
service,
- B2C service is provided,
- the service provider operates with its own fleet and AV
from private owners,
- the service provider and vehicle operator are
considered as only one company.
The paper is structured as follows. The literature is
reviewed in Section 2. We presented our created
methodology to foresee the new BM in Section 3. Our
proposed BM is presented in Section 4 and discussed in
Section 5 where the implications for travellers, companies,
and the environment are highlighted. Conclusions are
drawn in Section 6.
Dahlen SILVA et al.: Business Model for Shared Autonomous Vehicles Mobility Services
648 Technical Gazette 31, 2(2024), 647-656
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
In our study, we considered the current most typical
shared mobility services:
1) taxi,
2) ride-sourcing,
3) ride-sharing,
4) car rental,
5) P2P car-sharing, and
6) B2C car-sharing.
We performed the following steps:
1) we elaborated a central source of information about the
service characteristics of the current shared mobility
services to fill the gap in the literature;
2) we reviewed the BM trends as changes in the service
characteristics and BMs of the current shared mobility
services after the implementation of AVs into these
services are expected;
3) we explained the templates available to build our
proposed BM and justify the use of LC.
2.1 Service Characteristics of the Current Shared Mobility
Services
We created a central source of information with a
summary of the main service characteristics of the current
shared mobility services; this central source was missing in
the literature. Taxi is provided by self-employees,
cooperative members, or fleet companies. The vehicles are
regulated by license, and a certified taximeter shows the
fee according to traveling time, distance and time of the
day [8]. People take the taxi on the street or at pre-
determined locations; investments in information services
occurred after ride-sourcing services [9]. Car owners
provide ride-sourcing and a company operates the sharing
platform; it is known as a Uber-like service. Riders and
nearby drivers are matched, providing lower waiting times
and fares than taxi rides. Wei et al. (2020) [10] proposed
three types of BMs for ride-sourcing considering vehicle
ownership and occupancy:
1) Premier offers personalized service to a passenger.
Drivers can be hired. Cooperatives or platforms have their
fleets.
2) Pooling allows the sharing of travel expenses among
users. Drivers are car owners who are responsible for
operational costs; the platforms provide mainly insurance
and technology.
3) Hybrid combines premier and pooling.
In ride-sharing, the driver stipulates the schedule,
origin, and destination, allowing the travellers to join the
trip. The BMs of ride-sharing and ride-sourcing are similar
regarding costs and revenue. Travellers want to travel long
distances which are not worth using ride-sourcing or taxi
and drivers want to share trip costs instead of aiming for
profit. Namely, BlaBlaCar operates via a website; it sets a
price limit to ensure drivers do not have any profit [11].
However, profit-oriented drivers are allowed on Oszkár's
platform [12, 13]. Car rental is offered by fleet companies.
The daily price, availability, and pick-up locations are pre-
defined. Round-trip is common but one-way is allowed
paying an additional fee. The BM of Avis Budget presents
special discounts [14]. Car owners provide P2P car-sharing
and a company operates the sharing platform. Different
from car rental services as much as P2P platforms may not
ask for a deposit [15]. A commission is kept by the
platform as revenue and there are insurance costs. For
example, Turo keeps around 25% instead of the 13%
applied by Getaround [16, 17].
The service providers of B2C car-sharing are:
- designated car-sharing companies,
- traditional car renters,
- vehicle manufacturers, and
- public actors, such as public transport operators and
local authorities [1]. Unlike car rental, B2C car-sharing
provides no working hours restriction.
The user must possess a driving license. Drivers are
charged for the vehicle usage time, distance covered, or a
combination while costs related to ownership (e.g.,
purchase) and operation (e.g., maintenance) are not paid
directly [18]. In some cities, users have to pay a deposit
[15]. Free-floating (e.g., MOL Limo, Share Now
companies) or round-trip, and zone-based or station-based
are the most common BMs. They usually offer less spatial
flexibility than car rental and P2P car-sharing.
2.2 BM Trends
We summarized the BM trends from the literature. The
implementation of AV-based services may cause a
convergence of current shared mobility services' BMs; for
example, car-sharing and ride-sourcing will be very similar
services as AVs pick users up [2, 20]. Moreover, it is
foreseen that two BMs types based on vehicle ownership
will be applied in the future of transportation:
- Private ownership model - companies offer on-demand
mobility services [19].
- Sharing model - private AV owners offer the free
capacity of their vehicles to mobility service companies
[6].
Operators can decide to own a fleet or establish
partnerships with vehicle owners; this partnership is
advantageous for both stakeholders regarding reduction of
costs and revenue. To create a mass market of SAV
services and attract investors, there is a need to design a
dominant BM [20] in which novel and altering features are
capitalized [19]. Typical types of BM changes are as
follows [21]:
1) BM aligned with the regime (i.e., a particular way of
operating or organizing a business) and not changing it.
The value proposition is aligned with the existing regime;
for example, changes in the sources of revenue for car-
sharing services do not affect their operation or value
proposition.
2) Adapted BM, the value proposition of the BM is
realigned with the regime, overcoming barriers to the
business. Thus, this change might result in innovation; for
example, when a station-based car-sharing is changed to a
free-floating type, the operation and the value proposition
should be altered.
3) Amplified BM which targets collaboration with key
partners, opening new business opportunities; for example,
partnerships between car-sharing and micro-mobility
companies result in mobility packages.
Hence, adapting affects only the company, while
amplification affects the whole market. Moreover, a
diversified BM enhances competitiveness by increasing
Dahlen SILVA et al.: Business Model for Shared Autonomous Vehicles Mobility Services
Tehnički vjesnik 31, 2(2024), 647-656 649
the diversity and availability of the service [22]. To sum
up, it is necessary to create a dominant BM reflecting the
service characteristics resulting from the convergence of
current shared mobility services' BMs; thus, our proposed
BM serves as a starting point for filling this gap in
literature. Also, our proposed BM is a mix of amplification
and diversification due to the convergence of BMs and the
offer of customized service.
2.3 Types of Canvas
We explained the differences between BM Canvas and
LC, how to use these templates, and justified the use of LC
in our study. The BM Canvas [23] and the LC [24] are
examples of visual templates to support entrepreneurs in
the creation or modification of a BM. Both have nine
blocks. Fig. 1 shows the blocks used in the BM Canvas.
The grey blocks (key partners, key activities, key
resources, and customer relationships) will be replaced in
the LC because the LC is focused on solving a problem and
the new blocks are aligned with this aim. Alternatively,
five blocks are in common with the BM Canvas and the LC
[23] (Fig. 2):
1) unique value proposition - why the product/service is
different and worth paying attention;
2) customer segments - target customers;
3) channels - how to communicate with customers;
4) cost structure - fixed and variable costs;
5) revenue streams - sources of revenue.
Figure 1 Blocks of the business model canvas
Fig. 2 illustrates the extended version of the LC. The
greyblocks in the LC are:
- problem - identified problems to be solved;
- solution - options to solve the problems;
- key metrics - performance indicators;
- unfair advantage - unique strengths difficult to copy by
competitors.
The extended version of the LC has two additional
blocks to include sustainability aspects:
- Sustainability benefits, to capture both the
environmental and the social benefits.
- Beneficiaries, to capture the stakeholders who
benefitted from the service/product.
The extended LC facilitates the long-term prosperity
of the future organization [25] and is easier than a triple-
layered BM canvas created by [26].
Figure 2 Blocks of the extended Lean Canvas
3 METHODOLOGY
We have created a methodology to elaborate our
proposed BM. Previous studies as well as the gaps in the
literature served as a starting point for the elaboration of
our methodology. Tart et al. (2018) [15] characterized and
compared the BMs of fifteen car-sharing service providers
using the BM Canvas. Raudaschl (2020) [6] used the LC to
analyse the service of an autonomous Tesla taxi. To
understand the possible BMs for SAV services, Stocker
and Shaheen (2017) [2] discussed the BMs of current
shared mobility services and explored the potential impacts
of SAVs. Based on the literature review and knowledge of
seven transportation experts from the Transport Systems
and Mobility Services Research Group at the Budapest
University of Technology and Economics, in our
methodology we have:
1) Identified more than 80 service characteristics for the
blocks of the LC.
2) Examined the service characteristics of the current
shared mobility services according to the blocks of the
extended LC and, after that, we have compared the BMs.
3) Determined which service characteristics are to be
incorporated into our proposed BM.
Traffic consisting of just AVs with the highest
automation level (level 5) is considered [27].
3.1 Service Characteristics
We identified the service characteristics for all blocks
of the LC; they are numbered from 1 to 91. In Tab. 1, we
indicated each block of the extended LC by a letter between
parenthesis:
(a) Problem.
Dahlen SILVA et al.: Business Model for Shared Autonomous Vehicles Mobility Services
650 Technical Gazette 31, 2(2024), 647-656
(b) Solution.
(c) Key Metrics.
(d) Unique Value Proposition.
(e) Unfair Advantage.
(f) Channels.
(g) Customer Segments.
(h) Cost Structure.
(i) Revenue Streams.
(j) Sustainability Benefits.
(k) Beneficiaries.
3.2 Current Shared Mobility Services
We examined the service characteristics of the current
shared mobility services according to the blocks of the
extended LC and, after that, we compared the BMs. In Tab.
1, the sign "✓" indicates that a service characteristic is
present in the corresponding mobility service.
Alternatively, the sign "✓*" (with asterisk) indicates the
presence of characteristics with limitation (s). For instance,
all six shared mobility services present "1. Travel
whenever and wherever by accessing an app" with spatial
or temporal limitations (i.e., opening hours, availability of
the driver, one-way or round-trip). We compared the
shared mobility services according to their characteristics.
The relevant results of the comparison for each block of the
LC are described as follows. Drivers' related elements are
not depicted as drivers will be eliminated in the future. Our
results (Tab. 1) are novel as similar analysis and
comparison are not available in the literature. We split Tab.
1 showing its content according to the text.
(a) Problem - Shared mobility services eliminate
problems related to car ownership and operation. For
example, traffic jams, parking problem /a5/, and
environmental pollution /a6/ in cities. Travelers without
the driving ability /a3/can use taxi, ride-sourcing, and ride-
sharing.
Table 1 Comparison of shared mobility services
Lean Canvas
Block N. Service Characteristics
(b) Solution
In the
SAV
BM?
SAV
Business
Model
Item
Current Shared Mobility Services
SAV
Taxi
Ride-sourcing
Ride-sharing
Car rental
P2Pcar-sharing
B2Ccar-sharing
(a) Problem-
Traveller
1 Travel whenever and wherever by accessing an app ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓ *
2 Expensive and unsustainable car ownership/operation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /a1/
3 Limitations of transitional services (spatial/temporal)
✓ 𝛥 /a2/
4 Not everyone can drive ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ 𝛥 /a3/
5 Unreliable/unsafe travels
✓ 𝛥 /a4/
6 Traffic jam, parking problem ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /a5/
7 Environmental pollution ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /a6/
(a) Problem -
Driver/Car
owner
8 Underutilized private car ✓ ✓ ✓ *
9 Willingness to earn money ✓ ✓ ✓ *
10 Underutilized seats ✓ ✓
✓ *
11 Willing to abate trip costs
✓
✓ *
Existing
alternatives
12 Taxi ✓ ✓* ✓ + /a7/
13 Ride-sourcing ✓ ✓* ✓ + /a8/
14 Ride-sharing
✓* ✓* ✓* ✓ + /a9/
15 Car rental
✓* ✓ ✓ + /a10/
16 P2P car-sharing
✓* ✓ ✓* ✓ + /a11/
17 B2C car-sharing ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓ + /a12/
18 Private car ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /a13/
(c)Key Metrics 19 Number of drivers/peers ✓ ✓ ✓ -
20 Number of days for rent
✓ ✓ -
21 Daily trips ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ + /c1/
22 Daily covered distance ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ + /c2/
23 Number of active users ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /c3/
24 Fleet/capita ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /c4/
25 Daily empty-run distance ✓
✓ ✓ + /c5/
26 Service rating by users ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /c6/
(d) Unique
value
proposition -
Traveller
27 Enhanced privacy
✓ ✓ *
28 Easy to book, pay, cancel ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *
29 On-demand service ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ *
30 Access to driver/peer's contact details ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *
31 Trip cost is shared ✓ ✓
✓ *
32 No need of chauffeur
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *
33 Longer trips
✓ ✓ ✓ *
34 No working hours
✓
✓ *
35 One-way trips ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ *
36 Userhip values more than ownership ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /d1/
37 Affordable, sustainable ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /d2/
Dahlen SILVA et al.: Business Model for Shared Autonomous Vehicles Mobility Services
Tehnički vjesnik 31, 2(2024), 647-656 651
Table 1 Comparison of shared mobility services - Continuation
Lean Canvas Block N. Service Characteristics
Solution (b)
In the
SAV
BM?
SAV
Business
Model
Item
Current Shared Mobility Services
SAV
Taxi
Ride-sourcing
Ride-sharing
Car rental
P2P car-sharing
B2Ccar-sharing
(d) Unique value
proposition -
Traveller
38 Variety of the fleet ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓* ✓ *
39 Travel whenever and wherever ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓ 𝛥 /d3/
40 Integrated operational and traffic control ✓ 𝛥 /d4/
41 Sharing cars and seats without owning them ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /d5/
Unique value
proposition (d) -
Driver/Car owner
42 Flexible working hours ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *
43 Extra income ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *
44 Easy payment ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *
45 Reliable users
✓ ✓ ✓ *
46 Efficient usage of resources ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 𝛥 /d6/
47 Merge shared services ✓ 𝛥 /d7/
(e)Unfair advantage 48 High brand awareness ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /e1/
49 Enhance traveller's independence ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /e2/
50 Strong partnerships ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 𝛥 /e3/
51 High capacity utilization of vehicles ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 𝛥 /e4/
(f)Channels 52 Word of mouth, user referrals ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /f1/
53 Social media, website, mobile app ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /f2/
54 Advertisement ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /f3/
(g) Customer
segments -
Traveller
55 Not smartphone user ✓
✓ *
56 Smartphone user ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /g1/
57 Urban traveller ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /g2/
58 Current shared mobility users ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /g3/
59 Travellers with high-value travel time ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓* ✓ + /g5/
Early adopters 60 Young people ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /g6/
61 People with sharing economy, sustainability awareness ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /g7/
62 People with AV technology awareness ✓ + /g8/
63 Tech-savvy people
✓ ✓ ✓ + /g9/
(g) Customer
segments -
Driver/Car owner
64 People who own a car and want an extra income ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 𝛥 /g4/
65
People who love to drive ✓ ✓ ✓ -
(h) Cost structure 66 IT platform development and operation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /h1/
67 Fleet purchase - insurance, taxes ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ + /h2/
68 Fleet operation - Drivers ✓ -
69 Fleet operation - personnel costs reallocation
✓ ✓ -
70 Fleet operation - fuel/charging, maintenance, cleaning ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ + /h3/
71 Infrastructure usage costs - parking, pick-up point, depot ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ + /h4/
72 Personnel costs (customer service) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 𝛥 /h5/
73 Marketing ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /h6/
74 Legal costs ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 𝛥 /h7/
(i) Revenue streams 75 Subscription fee ✓ ✓ + /i1/
76 Service fee/Commission on transactions ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ -
77 Deposit
✓ -
78 Additional service
✓ -
79 Customized fee ✓ 𝛥 /i2/
80 Fine
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /i3/
(j) Sustainability
Benefits
81 Boost sharing economy ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /j1/
82 Enhance energy efficiency ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /j2/
83 Mitigate job losses ✓
✓ ✓ + /j3/
84 Improve service availability and vehicle occupancy
✓ ✓ + /j4/
85 Reduction in parking demand ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 𝛥 /j5/
(k) Beneficiaries 86 Individuals with transport issues ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /k1/
87 Cities promoting better quality of life ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /k2/
88 Cities struggling with parking, traffic management ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /k3/
89 Operators willing to improve sustainability in business
✓ ✓ + /k4/
90 Operators looking for cost reduction ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /k5/
91 Car owners with underutilized vehicles ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ + /k6/
Dahlen SILVA et al.: Business Model for Shared Autonomous Vehicles Mobility Services
652 Technical Gazette 31, 2(2024), 647-656
(c) Key metrics - The number of drivers or peers is a
key metric for all types except car-sharing and car rental.
Daily trips /c1/ and covered distance /c2/ can be useful for
B2C car-sharing, but usage time is also relevant. For P2P
car-sharing and car rental, the number of days for rent is a
more appropriate indicator. Moreover, the number of
active users /c3/, the fleet per capita /c4/, and the service
rating by users /c6/ are useful for all service types.
(d) Unique Value Proposition - Compared to car
ownership, all services are more affordable and sustainable
/d2/, and offer a variety of vehicle types in the fleet.
(e) Unfair Advantage - The high brand awareness /e1/
may increase possible customer groups and chances of
profitability [28]. Additionally, traveller's independence
/e2/, and traveller's privacy are achieved as the service is
available through a platform.
(f) Channels - All mobility services use traditional
(e.g., word of mouth) and internet-based channels (e.g.,
social media) /f1/, /f2/, and /f3/.
(g) Customer segments - Customer groups are
overlapping; travellers and drivers/car owners are
distinguished. Customers of the shared services may be
smartphone users /g1/ and urban travellers /g2/, but
traditional taxi and car rental services are used by travellers
who are not smartphone users as well. For drivers/car
owners, having extra income with flexible working hours
is the main motivation to be part of ride-sharing,
ride-sourcing and P2P car-sharing. Moreover, travellers
with high-value travel time /g5/ are benefitted.
(h) Cost structure - Costs for the development and
operation of the info-communication platform /h1/ must be
considered. In fleet operation /h3/, costs with drivers /h5/
are applicable to taxi (when fleet companies operate the
service) whereas costs with reallocation apply to car rental
and B2C car-sharing in one-way trips. Other fleet
operational costs are delegated to car owners in
ride-sharing, ride-sourcing, and P2P car-sharing. Fleet
purchase /h2/ and infrastructure usage costs /h4/ (e.g.,
parking) affect services with own fleet (e.g., taxi, B2C).
(i) Revenue streams - Revenue is mainly generated by
a service fee. A subscription fee /i1/ in B2C car-sharing and
a fee due to rule-breaking fines /i3/ in car rental, P2P, and
B2C car-sharing are added.
(j) Sustainability Benefits - current shared mobility
services are great examples of the sharing economy /j1/ as
they exploit sharing over owning. Being a driver in
ride-sourcing and offering the private car in a P2P car-
sharing are often temporarily options of income for
unemployed people, mitigating the job losses /j3/. Offering
available seats in ride-sharing improves service availability
of shared services and vehicle occupancy /j4/.
(k) Beneficiaries - in general, shared mobility services
benefit individuals with transport issues /k1/, cities /k2/-
/k3/, operators /k4/-/k5/, and car owners /k6/
3.3 Service Characteristics in the Proposed BM
We have determined which service characteristics are
part of our proposed BM. We have summarized the
transition between the current and the future shared
mobility services (Fig. 3); meanwhile, the SAV service was
also inserted. The main changes in service characteristics
due to the elimination of the driver are the following:
- The shared mobility services become part of
SAV-based service.
- Ride-sharing exists when the ride is shared with the car
owner.
- P2P car-sharing exists when the service negotiation is
done with the peer.
Considering the service changes when AVs are
implemented into the current shared mobility services and
the elaboration of a BM for SAV services, we deliberated
which service characteristics listed in Tab. 1 should be
incorporated into our proposed BM. The results in column
"In the SAV BM?" represent:
- minus sign (-) - If the service characteristic is not
present in the SAV service, we did not incorporate into our
BM either.
- asterisk sign (*) - we concluded that the service
characteristic is present in the SAV service intrinsically,
thus, we did not show it in our proposed BM to avoid
repetition.
Figure 3 Transition of shared mobility services
- plus sign (+) - Otherwise, we incorporated it in our
proposed BM.
- delta sign (𝛥) - we concluded that the service
characteristic changes from the current shared mobility
services to the SAV service, thus, we indicated it in bold in
Tab. 1 and in grey box in our proposed BM.
Hence, only service characteristics that are kept or
changed are presented in our proposed BM. To indicate
them, we created the column SAV Business Model Item.
In SAV BM Item, the service characteristics of SAV
services presented in our proposed BM in Section 4 are
indicated by the letter of the corresponding LC block and
its number, both between slashes. For example, /a1/ refers
to the block (a) Problem and service characteristic
Expensive and unsustainable car ownership/operation
which is the item 1. in this block (Section 4, Fig. 4);
therefore, we use the reference /a1/ throughout the text. We
Dahlen SILVA et al.: Business Model for Shared Autonomous Vehicles Mobility Services
Tehnički vjesnik 31, 2(2024), 647-656 653
proposed our BM according to the general service
characteristics. We built our new BM considering the main
results from our analysis in Tab. 1 and the literature review.
We proposed the novel BM as a convergence of the current
shared mobility services' BMs; we considered companies
offering SAV mobility services and private AV owners
offering the free seats to these companies. The key findings
from Tab. 1 are the following:
- SAV service is a solution for the limitations of
transitional services /a2/, for people without driving ability
/a3/, and for the unreliable and unsafe travels /a4/.
- in the SAV service, 10% of service characteristics
from the current shared mobility services are not
incorporated (9 items) and 21% become intrinsic to the
SAV service (19 items); 69% is incorporated into the SAV
BM (63 items) - 54% of service characteristics from the
current shared mobility services is kept (49 items), and
15% has been changed (14 items).
Figure 4 Proposed BM for SAV services
4 THE PROPOSED BM
The proposed BM using LC is presented in Fig. 4; it
illustrates the 63 items from Tab. 1 that we incorporated
into the SAV BM. The changes in the BM of shared
mobility services are highlighted in grey boxes. To answer
our first research question "How to alter the BM of the
current shared mobility service companies to those
applying AVs?", we propose that current shared mobility
services:
- neglect the service characteristics related to drivers -
they are presented in key metrics, customer segments, cost
and revenue blocks;
- neglect not smartphone users as a customer segment;
- to substitute the key metrics number of peers and
number of days for rent by fleet per capita and number of
daily trips in the SAV service, respectively.
- establish strong partnerships with private AV owners
and high capacity utilization of vehicles, thus,
sustainability benefits are achieved;
- seek knowledge about integrated traffic control and
legal requirements to the service as AV technology is
developing, so companies are prepared in advance for IT
development and additional costs;
- do not implement spatial and temporal limitations as
AV technology brings this value proposition;
- implement a customized travel fee that substitutes the
service fee and additional service fee applied in the current
shared mobility services.
Moreover, we propose that:
Dahlen SILVA et al.: Business Model for Shared Autonomous Vehicles Mobility Services
654 Technical Gazette 31, 2(2024), 647-656
- taxi companies must implement technology to share
trip costs and a customized service as well as examine the
new early adopters and customer segments to increase
market share;
- ride-sourcing, ride-sharing, and P2P car-sharing
companies must investigate the cost-benefit of purchasing
an AV fleet because the number of private AVs may not be
enough to supply the demand and reach a profitable
service;
- car rental and B2C car-sharing companies must be
aware of personnel costs with vehicle reallocation may be
substituted by costs with daily empty-run distance.
The answer to our second research question "What are
the customer segments and revenue streams when AVs are
implemented into the current shared mobility services?" is:
- the customer segments (g) are smartphone users /g1/,
urban travellers /g2/, current shared mobility users /g3/,
private AV owners /g4/, and travellers with high value
travel time /g5/;
- the revenue streams (i) are subscription fee /i1/, a
customized travel fee /i2/ according to selected service
options, spatial and temporal availability, as well as higher
service quality, and fines /i3/.
The results supplement existing literature.
5 DISCUSSION
In this section, the main changes in the BM blocks are
discussed focusing on the traveller, service, and
environment.
(a) Problem - Travellers face some temporal and
spatial limitations of the shared services /a2/. Some
services such as car-sharing and car rental do not fit
customers who cannot drive (e.g.,) /a3/.Travels are unsafe
/a4/ due to many car accidents.
(b) Solution - The service is accessible to everyone
/b4/. The SAV service offers higher spatial and temporal
availability /b3/ than the current shared mobility services:
- availability of a driver limits taxi and ride-sourcing
with pooling option while the availability of the peer limits
P2P service;
- car rental has working hours;
- service area, parking, and round-trip limit B2C service.
The high service availability and accessibility are
beneficial not only for the users but also for the companies.
Diversified services enhance competitiveness too [22].
Also, safety and reliability /b5/ are provided as
technology and connectivity will improve traffic
conditions, make trips predictable, and promote a safe
environment. Safety in AV-based services is the most
important requirement regardless of age [29].
(c) Key Metrics - They are the same used for the
current mobility services from /c1/ to /c6/. The fleet size
and fleet per capita are key indicators since different BMs
can serve cities of different sizes [20]; hence, they will
influence competitiveness. The daily empty-run distance
/c5/ should be monitored regarding impacts on operational
costs and the environment (e.g., energy waste) due to the
high spatial availability. Reduction in environmental
impacts is a strong argument when asking for a reduction
in taxes and free parking spaces from the local government.
The service rating options /c6/ enhance service quality
indirectly. The waiting time may increase due to pooling
[30].
(d) Unique Value Proposition - The same vehicle is
used more; thus, the efficient use of a resource is achieved
/d6/. The shared services are merged /d7/ into the SAV
service. AVs communicate with each other [31, 32] and the
mobility management center /d4/; the service is predictable
and reliable which may enhance the willingness to use the
service and profitability [33].
(e) Unfair advantage - Strong partnerships /e3/ among
stakeholders imply a competitive advantage in the mobility
market as the development of an AV fleet may be
cost-prohibitive [21, 34]; small fleets might rise
profitability by reaching high turnover and cheaper
operational assets [33]. Fewer vehicles are enough to
supply the same demand if barriers to pooling are
overcome [35, 36]. The capacity utilization of vehicles in
space and time /e4/generates fewer empty travelled
kilometres when serving demand with the pooling option
[33].
(f) Channels - The way of communicating with
possible customers is not expected to change significantly
[37] from the current ones /f1/, /f2/, and /f3/. However,
companies may be prepared for higher usage of the
internet- and app-based channels. Therefore, more
attention to the user experience is recommended;
accessibility to all customers will play a key role in the
usability of the service.
(g) Customer Segments - A new customer segment is
the private AV owners /g4/ who want to earn money
making their vehicles available for public use. Customer
segments are broadened, which may increase usability and
market share. On the other hand, the wide range of
customer segments might complicate their management
and customization. Hence, operational changes in some
departments such as marketing, customer experience, and
finance are required.
(h) Cost Structure - Costs with platform development
and operation /h1/ will remain and an increase in costs
generated by the development of an info-communication
system and its operation is foreseen. Intensive cooperation
between operational and traffic control centers is required,
demanding more complex operational functions.
Alternatively, costs with personnel for customer service
/h5/, marketing /h6/, cleaning, and maintenance are to be
reduced with automation [38] and brand awareness. A rise
in legal costs /h7/ is expected to cope with regulations and
establish fruitful partnerships.
(i) Revenue Streams - Current shared mobility service
companies already diversify service fees. More consumers
can be attracted by an innovative pricing strategy bridging
different service types; this can help overcome
competitiveness as the proposed BM will be used by all
shared mobility services resulting in very similar services.
Besides subscription fee /i1/ and fines /i3/, the service fee
is incorporated in the customized travel fee /i2/ which is a
combination of service options:
- Spatial flexibility - total walking distance
(access/egress distances), waiting (dedicated stop point).
- Temporal flexibility - service time, conditions of
pre-ordering, reliability (delays, service disruptions, etc.),
Dahlen SILVA et al.: Business Model for Shared Autonomous Vehicles Mobility Services
Tehnički vjesnik 31, 2(2024), 647-656 655
and waiting option as subsequent travels by the same
vehicle can be a choice.
- Ride-sharing option - sharing the ride with unknown
people, selection of travel.
- Performance-related usage fee - time- and/or distance-
based fee, tolerated detour distance/time.
- Vehicle type.
- Special care - accompanying person, notifications to
responsible people about the status of the journey, child
seat, onboard catering.
- Advertisement and/or onboard infotainment -
providing audio and visual content.
The fee can be optimized by service packages created
according to the frequency of use and trip length [21].
Additionally, expanding the service may increase revenues
(e.g., providing on-demand services via a Maa S. [39]).
(j) Sustainability Benefits - With shorter headways and
smoother acceleration, energy efficiency is enhanced
/j2/[40]. It is predicted that AVs adoption will generate
considerable job losses (e.g., drivers) which produces an
expressive social cost burden [38]. Hence, the offer of an
accompanying person might mitigate this damage /j3/. A
smoother transition to AV use is recommended; the
displaced workers need time to develop new skills and find
new jobs [41]. The partnerships with private AV owners
can boost benefits brought by the use of SAVs such as a
reduction in parking demand /j5/[42]. It is considered that
private AVs park themselves in a private garage. SAV
mobility service companies may use these benefits to
attract new customers or increase the number of loyal
customers through marketing sustainability as one of the
company's pillars.
(k) Beneficiaries - Shared mobility services with
pooling should be incentivized in cities interested in
promoting a better quality of life /k2/, and struggling with
resources for solving parking and traffic management /k3/.
SAV can serve 30 person-trips per day and 13% of vehicle
miles travelled are reduced when the pooling option is used
[43].
6 CONCLUSIONS
The implementation of Autonomous Vehicles (AVs)
into shared mobility services will impact service
characteristics and, consequently, the business models
(BMs) because BM and service characteristics have a
mutual relationship. Therefore, we aimed to support
current shared mobility service companies in updating their
BMs to move towards AV-based services. The main
theoretical contribution is the proposed BM using the
extended Lean Canvas. Our proposed BM is a mix of
amplification and diversification due to the convergence of
BMs and the offer of customized service. The limitation of
the study is that AVs are not a fully developed technology,
hindering conclusions only to a theoretical extent. Our key
findings are:
- 69% of service characteristics is incorporated into the
SAV BM - 54% from the current shared mobility services
is kept and, and 15% has been changed,
- customized travel fee in SAV service substitutes the
service fee and additional service fee applied in the current
shared mobility services,
- accompanying personnel can be offered as an
additional service,
- key metrics and channels are not to be altered,
- customer segments include private AV owners.
In the future, we are going to investigate the following
topics:
- organizational structure improvements necessary for
service providers as changes in the BMs may affect the
functions, information flows and share of responsibilities;
- revenue model and tariff to be adopted due to the
variety of service options in the customized fee;
- cost-benefit analysis of partnerships with AV owners;
- BM alteration in the case of feeder service, mainly
customer segments, cost structure, and revenue streams.
7 REFERENCES
[1] Lagadic, M., Verloes, A., & Louvet, N. (2019). Can
carsharing services be profitable? A critical review of
established and developing business models. Transport
Policy, 77, 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.02.006
[2] Stocker, A. & Shaheen, S. (2017). Shared automated
vehicles: Review of BMs. International Transport Forum.
[3] Peric, M., Durkin, J., & Vitezic, V. (2017). The Constructs
of a Business Model Redefined: A Half-Century Journey.
Sage Open, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017733516
[4] Curtis, S. K. (2021). Business model patterns in the sharing
economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27,
1650-1671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.04.009
[5] Timo, M., Asutosh, P., Dickon, P., & Andreas, T. The future
of mobility is at our doorstep. McKinsey & Company.
[6] Raudaschl, A. H. The Business Model of Autonomous Tesla
Taxis. The Lean Canvas.
[7] Skowron, M. Lean Canvas vs Business Model Canvas:
Which Should You Choose?. UIG Studio.
[8] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine. (2016). Taxis, Regulation, and the Rise of
Transportation Network Companies. Between Public and
Private Mobility: Examining the Rise of Technology-
Enabled Transportation Services. The National Academy
Press, Washington, DC, TRB Special Report 319.
https://doi.org/10.17226/21875
[9] Skok, W. & Baker, S. (2019). Evaluating the impact of Uber
on London's taxi service: A critical review of the literature.
Knowledge and Process Management, 26(1), 3-9.
https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1573
[10] Wei, X., Nan, G., Dou, R., & Li, M. (2020). Optimal
business model for the monopolistic ride-hailing platform:
Pooling, premier, or hybrid?. Knowledge-Based Systems,
204, 106093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2020.106093
[11] Begum, H. Bla Bla Car - Business Model Exemplar.
Business Model Zoo.
[12] Bálint, D. & Trócsányi, A. (2016). New ways of mobility:
the birth of ridesharing. A case study from Hungary.
Hungarian Geographical Bulletin, 65(4).
https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.65.4.7
[13] Soltész, P. & Zilahy, G. (2020). A Network Theory
Approach to the Sharing Economy. Periodica Polytechnica
Social and Management Sciences, 28(1).
https://doi.org/10.3311/PPso.12597
[14] Avis Budget business model canvas. Vizologi | rethinking
business model design.
[15] Tart, S., Wells, P., Beccaria, S., & Sanvicente, E. (2018).
Analysis of business models for car sharing.
[16] Drivy business model canvas. Vizologi rethinking business
model design.
[17] Turo business model canvas. Vizologi rethinking business
model design.
Dahlen SILVA et al.: Business Model for Shared Autonomous Vehicles Mobility Services
656 Technical Gazette 31, 2(2024), 647-656
[18] Cohen, B. & Kietzmann, J. (2014). Ride On! Mobility
Business Models for the Sharing Economy. Organization &
Environment, 27(3), 279-296.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026614546199
[19] Harb, M., Stathopoulos, A., Shiftan, Y., & Walker, J. L.
(2021). What do we (Not) know about our future with
automated vehicles?. Transportation Research Part C:
Emerging Technologies, 123, 102948.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2020.102948
[20] Münzel, K., Boon, W., Frenken, K., & Vaskelainen, T.
(2018). Carsharing business models in Germany:
characteristics, success and future prospects. Inf Syst E-Bus
Manage, 16(2), 271-291.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-017-0355-x
[21] Meijer, L. L. J., Schipper, F., & Huijben, J. C. C. M. (2019).
Align, adapt or amplify: Upscaling strategies for car sharing
business models in Sydney, Australia. Environmental
Innovation and Societal Transitions, 33, 215-230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.06.003
[22] Guyader, H. & Piscicelli, L. (2019). Business model
diversification in the sharing economy: The case of GoMore.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 1059-1069.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.114
[23] Osterwalder, A. & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model
Generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers and
challengers.
[24] Maurya, A. (2012). Chapter 3: Create your Lean Canvas.
Running Lean: Iterate from Plan A to a Plan That Works,
Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media, Inc., 23-48.
[25] Geissdoerfer, M., Vladimirova, D., & Evans, S. (2018).,
Sustainable business model innovation: A review. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 198, 401-416.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.240
[26] Joyce, A. & Paquin, R. L. (2016). The triple layered business
model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business
models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1474-1486.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.067
[27] Wang, J., Huang, H., Li, K., & Li, J. (2021). Towards the
Unified Principles for Level 5 Autonomous Vehicles.
Engineering, 7(9), 1313-1325.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2020.10.018
[28] Hartl, B., Sabitzer, T., Hofmann, E., & Penz, E. (2018).
"Sustainability is a nice bonus" the role of sustainability in
carsharing from a consumer perspective. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 202, 88-100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.138
[29] Krizsik, N. & Sipos, T. (2023). Social Perception of
Autonomous Vehicles. Periodica Polytechnica
Transportation Engineering, 51(2).
https://doi.org/10.3311/PPtr.20228
[30] Farhan, J. & Chen, T. D. (2018). Impact of ridesharing on
operational efficiency of shared autonomous electric vehicle
fleet. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies, 93, 310-321.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.04.022
[31] Harel, K. Self-driving cars must be able to communicate with
each other. AARHUS University, Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering.
[32] Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication | NHTSA.
[33] Richter, M. A., Hess, J., Baur, C., & Stern, R. (2021).
Exploring the Financial Implications of Operating a Shared
Autonomous Electric Vehicle Fleet in Zurich. Journal of
Urban Mobility, 1, 100001.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urbmob.2021.100001
[34] Kecskés, E. & Lukovics, M. (2023). Az önvezetőjármű-
használat techno-ökonómiai megközelítése. Polgári szemle,
19(1-3), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.24307/psz.2023.0912
[35] Lavieri, P. S. & Bhat, C. R. (2019). Modeling individuals'
willingness to share trips with strangers in an autonomous
vehicle future. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 124, 242-261.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.03.009
[36] Stoiber, T., Schubert, I., Hoerler, R., & Burger, P. (2019).
Will consumers prefer shared and pooled-use autonomous
vehicles? A stated choice experiment with Swiss households.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 71, 265-282.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.12.019
[37] Watson, G. F., Worm, S., Palmatier, R. W., & Ganesan, S.
(2015). The Evolution of Marketing Channels: Trends and
Research Directions. Journal of Retailing, 91(4), 546-568.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.04.002
[38] Nikitas, A., Vitel, A. E., & Cotet, C. (2021). Autonomous
vehicles and employment: An urban futures revolution or
catastrophe?. Cities, 114, 103203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103203
[39] Kamargianni, M. & Matyas, M. (2017). The Business
Ecosystem of Mobility-as-a-Service. 96th Transportation
Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting, Washington, DC,
14.
[40] Hoogendoorn, R., van Arerm, B., & Hoogendoom, S. (2014).
Automated Driving, Traffic Flow Efficiency, and Human
Factors: Literature Review. Transportation Research
Record, 2422(1), 113-120. https://doi.org/10.3141/2422-13
[41] Sohrabi, S., Khreis, H., & Lord, D. (2020). Impacts of
Autonomous Vehicles on Public Health: A Conceptual
Model and Policy Recommendations. Sustainable Cities and
Society, 63, 102457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102457
[42] Zhang, W. & Guhathakurta, S. (2017). Parking Spaces in the
Age of Shared Autonomous Vehicles: How Much Parking
Will We Need and Where?. Transportation Research
Record, 2651(1), 80-91. https://doi.org/10.3141/2651-09
[43] Yan, H., Kockelman, K. M., & Gurumurthy, K. M. (2020).
Shared autonomous vehicle fleet performance: Impacts of
trip densities and parking limitations. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 89, 102577.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102577
Contact information:
Dahlen SILVA, PhD Candidate
(Corresponding author)
Budapest University of Technology and Economics,
Faculty of Transportation Engineering and Vehicle Engineering,
Department of Transport Technology and Economics,
H-1111 Budapest, Műegyetem rkp. 3.
E-mail: dahlen.silva@edu.bme.hu
Dávid FÖLDES, PhD
Budap Budapest University of Technology and Economics,
Faculty of Transportation Engineering and Vehicle Engineering,
Department of Transport Technology and Economics,
H-1111 Budapest, Műegyetem rkp. 3.
E-mail: foldes.david@kjk.bme.hu
Csaba CSISZÁR, DSc
Budapest University of Technology and Economics,
Faculty of Transportation Engineering and Vehicle Engineering,
Department of Transport Technology and Economics,
H-1111 Budapest, Műegyetem rkp. 3.
E-mail: csiszar.csaba@kjk.bme.hu
