Stakeholder perceptions and implications for technology ... - CiteSeerX

Int. J. Technology Marketing, Vol. 4, Nos. 2/3, 2009

Stakeholder perceptions and implications for technology marketing in multi-sector innovations: the case of intelligent transport systems Michele D. Bunn* Michael E. Stephens College of Business University of Montevallo Montevallo, AL 35115, USA E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Faiza Azmi Lexis Nexis 9443 Springboro Pike Dayton, Ohio 45342, USA E-mail: [email protected]

Manuel Puentes Transportation Engineering and Transportation Policy ITS Consensus/Intelligent Transportation Society of America 1100 17th Street NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20036, USA E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: This paper develops a conceptual model of the dynamics of stakeholder relationships in the context of multisector innovation. The qualitative study utilises an inductive, theory-building approach to identify stakeholder perceptions and behaviours and how these influence the successful commercialisation of advanced technologies. The work draws from the theoretical foundations in the innovation literature, stakeholder theory and social network analysis. The case concerns Intelligent Transport Systems (ITSs) for public safety on roadways. The results revealed four categories of stakeholder dynamics: (1) situational antecedents, (2) stakeholder relationship development activities, (3) social partnership enablers and (4) desired outcomes. The paper discusses the most important themes under each category and discusses ways in which enterprises can have some bearing on stakeholder dynamics and the success of their products and services in the context of a complex multisector innovation. Keywords: technology marketing; multi-sector innovations; intelligent transport systems; ITS; stakeholder theory; social network analysis; qualitative methods; public-private partnerships; collaboration; incident management; wireless communications.

Copyright © 2009 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

129

130

M.D. Bunn, F. Azmi and M. Puentes Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Bunn, M.D., Azmi, F. and Puentes, M. (2009) ‘Stakeholder perceptions and implications for technology marketing in multi-sector innovations: the case of intelligent transport systems’, Int. J. Technology Marketing, Vol. 4, Nos. 2/3, pp.129–148. Biographical notes: Michele D. Bunn received her Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and is now an Associate Professor of Business at the University of Montevallo in Alabama, USA. Her research specialties are organisational buying behaviour and business-to-business marketing. She has led research in the intelligent transport industry in her capacity as Chair of the Homeland Security and Public Safety forum for the Intelligent Transportation Society of America and through active participation in the Transportation Safety Advancement Group. Her research appears in a number of journals, including the International Journal of Research in Marketing, the Journal of Business Research, Industrial Marketing Management and Journal of Marketing. Faiza Azmi, at the time of this research, was the Business Programmes Manager at the Intelligent Transportation Society of America. She conducted market research and analyses for domestic business activities and market data development for the US intelligent transport systems market. Her specialities include industry research, industry standards report development and survey design and implementation. She holds a Masters in Business Administration from the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. Manuel Puentes holds a licence as a Professional Engineer (PE). He has over 40 years of transport industry experience, beginning with the Automobile Club of Southern California, where he was a Traffic Engineer, Transportation Engineer, Legislative Advocate and Public Affairs Manager. He was involved in technical and public policy-based issues with local, regional and state and federal governments, as well as with academic and private sector transportation interests. In 2003, he founded ITS Consensus, an intelligent transport systems consulting firm dedicated to bridging the gap between transportation technologies and public policy. He has supported key ITS projects in areas of regional operations centres, 511 traveller information and ITS strategic planning, among others. He is a registered Traffic Engineer (California) with an advanced degree in Business and Public Administration (MBPA) from the University of California, Irvine, USA.

1

Introduction

Business leaders have long agreed that an enterprise’s ability to bring to market significant innovations is a key factor in growth and success. Rapid changes in both market and technological environments, however, have created the need for a broader range of relationships for the development and commercialisation of successful innovations. Thus, networks of organisations, collaboration across industry sectors, and new forms of relationships are growing in importance in the study and practice of innovation. There exists a wide variety of new products that are called by the name ‘innovation’. These range from incremental innovations to radical innovations. Many of the greatest business opportunities in history have been radical innovations. Yet, while radical innovations appear to be grand opportunities for large enterprises, there is much

Stakeholder perceptions and implications for technology marketing

131

complexity and uncertainty surrounding radical innovations – and they are few and far between. Firms must therefore balance the allocation of resources to these potentially ‘big hits’ with efforts to pursue other opportunities. With the penetration of technologies across numerous sectors of the economy, significant opportunities have emerged for firms in situations where large-scale ‘systems’ are being deployed. In these cases, the system itself can be characterised as a radical innovation, however, many elements of the system are actually combinations of radical, really new, and incremental innovations. For example, consider the scope and mix of technologies in the markets emerging around high-definition television, air quality products, biotechnology products, alternative energy sources, and radio-frequency identification. Large-scale systems are the focus of our research. They can be considered a special case of the radical innovation and we refer to them as “multi-sector innovations” (Holloway and Bunn, 2008). They emerge over a long period of time and require the involvement and adaptations of numerous stakeholders from government agencies, nonprofit organisations and commercial enterprises as well as society in general. Despite the implications for the practice of technology marketing, our understanding of stakeholder issues surrounding multi-sector innovations is limited and the theoretical models fail to adequately capture the full range of decision areas and relationships relevant to such opportunities. Many scholars have focused on the identification of the stakeholders or the density and position of the stakeholders in the network. We work towards an understanding of the nature of the stakeholder relationships by focusing on the themes or key issues that are relevant to the interactions that take place as a multi-sector innovation emerges and the various technologies are deployed. This study utilises an inductive, theory-building approach to develop a conceptual model for understanding the perceptions of various stakeholders involved in the planning, funding and deployment of multi-sector innovations. We rely on the extant research on innovation, stakeholder relationships and social network analysis as a backdrop to the study. We interpret the findings in terms of these bodies of research and identify how enterprises can influence the collaboration of public- and private-sector stakeholders towards the deployment of emerging technologies. The Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) system includes a variety of products, services and organisational processes, and each of these system elements range in their level of innovativeness. Taken together, the ITS system can be defined as a radical innovation, however, given the variety of innovativeness involved, we refer to the ITS system as a multi-sector innovation. This context is ideally suited to study the dynamics of stakeholder relationships in innovations because a diverse set of technologies are involved and the creation of a market for those technologies requires extensive collaboration and cooperation among a range of government and private sector stakeholders. In the following section, we provide a brief review of several streams of relevant literature to assess past research and explain how the current research fills a gap. This includes findings from academic research as well as reports published by government agencies and professional trade associations with regard to the case study. We then consider these findings within the streams of research on innovation, stakeholder relationships, and social network analysis. Finally, we discuss the managerial implications and conclusions to be drawn from this study.

132

2

M.D. Bunn, F. Azmi and M. Puentes

Theoretical foundations

2.1 Innovation types There is a large and rich literature on innovation and innovativeness going back to Rogers’ (1962) seminal work. One of the most fruitful areas of research on innovation has been the categorisation of various types of innovations. This research has sought to enrich our understanding of innovation by focusing efforts on the unique aspects of each innovation type. Indeed, the creation of classification schemes is an important building block in all social science disciplines. Garcia and Calatone (2002) reviewed the plethora of definitions for innovation types in an effort to provide a common understanding of how the innovation process may be unique for different categories of innovations. Their classification scheme identifies three categories of innovation types. Legendary examples include the telegraph, electricity, motor cars and the internet (or World Wide Web): 1

Radical innovations embody a new technology that results in a new market infrastructure. These innovations cause both technological and market discontinuities at the macro (world, industry or market level) level and/or at the micro (enterprise) level. Examples include the steam engine, telegraph and World Wide Web.

2

Really new innovations involve a moderate level of innovation resulting in a market discontinuity or a technological discontinuity, but will not involve both. Examples include fax machines, commercial jetliners, and the diesel locomotive.

3

Incremental innovations provide new features, benefits, or improvements to existing technology in the existing market. Examples include digital automotive controls systems and health foods.

This typology of innovations is useful for sorting out various issues and relationships that have been discussed in past research. The typology, however, focuses on the classification of specific products. In recent years, the development of complex systems has involved a mix of products, services and technologies which include a variety of innovation types. We use the term ‘multi-sector innovation’ to characterise these systems. They differ from other innovation types in several important ways. First, they involve a high degree of government influence, offer far-reaching benefits for society, and require an extended period of time from discovery to commercialisation. Second, they are revolutionary in nature, creating new markets while affecting the political, behavioural, economic, social, and technological environments. Third – and most important for distinguishing them from radical innovations – multi-sector innovations typically involve the convergence of old and new technologies as well as changes to organisational processes (Holloway and Bunn, 2008). Gaining a competitive advantage requires knowledge of the interrelationships of a wide range of stakeholders, development of relationships with a diverse mix of players, and indirect influence on many other stakeholders. These issues have implications for the strategic goals of the business, development of a stakeholder management approach, and initiatives to influence the antecedents to successful deployment (and therefore the creation of markets in which to sell the enterprise’s technology). The specific research case involves a set of technologies used in ITS to enhance public safety, mobility and security. ITS are an integral part of transport networks across the globe and are used


133

to manage routine situations (e.g., traffic flow) and to react to emergency situations (e.g., roadway crashes, natural or man-made disasters). We then describe the qualitative field-based methodology used to collect data from a set of stakeholders working on ITS projects for public safety. We report the findings and proposed a conceptual framework to better understand the issues and dynamics surrounding a complex radical innovation of this type. The recognition of multi-sector innovation as a special case of radical innovation leads to many important questions. Who are the stakeholders involved in a multi-sector innovation? What is the nature of the relationships among the stakeholders? And how can an enterprise increase the likelihood that it will succeed in the context of a multi-sector innovation? For further insight into these questions, we turned to the literature on stakeholder relations and the perspective of social network analysis.

2.2 Stakeholder research Although stakeholder concepts can be traced back to the work of Barnard (1938), stakeholder theory per se did not advance to the fore in academia until Freeman (1984) integrated different stakeholder concepts into an overarching construct. A flood of research followed this seminal work; by 1995 there were more than a dozen books and over 100 articles focused upon stakeholder issues (Donaldson and Preston, 1995). Three distinguishing characteristics emerge from this stream of research. First, stakeholder research has adopted the notion that stakeholders place demands on the enterprise, and the success of the enterprise is partly a function of its ability to satisfy these demands. Second, stakeholder research has focused primarily on the dyadic ties that exist between a focal enterprise and its individual stakeholders (Rowley, 1997). Third, stakeholder research has primarily focused on public policy issues such as ethical controversies and social responsibility. In the last decade, however, the marketing literature has increasingly placed an emphasis on stakeholder collaboration beyond the immediacy of market transactions (Payne et al., 2005; Achrol, 1997). A number of scholars have pointed out the shift in stakeholder thinking (Sanders and Bell, 2007), while others (Gummesson, 1994; Miller and Lewis, 1991), suggest the marketing exchange process involves a substantial number of stakeholders, and enterprises need to move away from simply considering how they interact with consumers (Sheth et al., 2000). Unfortunately, stakeholder theory has yet to have much impact in marketing. Most marketing studies using the stakeholder approach address social marketing topics (e.g., Polonsky and Ottman, 1998; Polonsky, 1996; Kennedy et al., 2004; Calfee and Bate, 2004). There is little marketing research on how firms’ stakeholder strategies address stakeholders’ interests (Polonsky, 1996; Polonsky and Scott, 2005). The term ‘stakeholder’ in the context of a multi-sector innovation denotes “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the deployment of the multi-sector innovation” (Bunn et al., 2002). It is therefore useful to consider the social network perspective, which focuses on how stakeholder interactions constitute a network that can be studied and analysed in its own right (Wasserman and Galaskiewicz, 1994; Rowley, 1997). This network is comprised of an interrelated web of stakeholder relationships, the span of which can include not only those organisations operating in the same domain of the focal enterprise, but also organisations from outside this domain (Scott and Meyer, 1991). Within the network, the quality of relationships that exist among stakeholders is influential in determining the success of the focal enterprise (Rowley, 1997).

134


2.3 Social network perspective Social network analysis has its origins in sociology, however, the theories and techniques have been expanded to examine how organisations interact with each other. Rather than focusing on the characteristics of individuals and organisations that interact with one another, social network analysis produces an alternate view, where the attributes of individuals are less important than their relationships and ties with other actors within the network. Thus, it is the network of influences that impact the behaviours in a social network. Important applications of social network analysis are listed in Wasserman and Faust (1994) and include community decision-making, social influence, power, the diffusion of innovation (Burt, 1987), and marketing strategy and organisation (Piercy and Cravens, 1995). Of course, our interest is in these last two areas. In the growing body of research in social network analysis, scholars have focused on a number of key areas. In particular, it is useful to identify the social structure made of nodes (which are generally individuals or organisations) that are tied by one or more specific types of interdependency. This is represented in a social network diagram of all the nodes and the relevant ties that are characterised by their strength. There is no single organisation at the centre of a network. Rather, the position of any one stakeholder is a variable in a complex social system. The organisation’s position in the network, however, is an important determinant of its behaviour. Social network analysis has been instrumental in providing a number of important concepts and theories that focus on economic behaviour and industry structure. Network density (the proportion of possible connections that are present) influences norms and behaviour. Thus, dense and cohesive networks internalise clear norms and emphasise trust. Actors are embedded in a relational system and we need to understand the relational context in order to understand their behaviours (Granovetter, 1985). Social embeddedness is the mixing of economic and non-economic activities to the extent that economic actions are influenced by actions or institutions that are non-economic in content, goals or processes. Another important notion is that numerous weak ties can be important in information sharing and innovation. Established groups are more homogeneous with respect to opinions as well as sharing many common traits. Each member of the group knows more or less what the other members know. To find new information or insights, members of the group must look beyond the group to other actors in other groups. This is what Granovetter (1973) called the “the strength of weak ties”. The network can also be used to determine the social capital of individual actors or organisations. Burt (1997) thus extended Granovetter’s weak ties to consider the advantage people have because of their location in social structures. People generally focus on activities in their own group which creates ‘structural holes’ in the information flow between groups. A person whose networks bridge the structural holes have earlier and broader access to information and posses the social capital of brokerage (Burt, 2004). We believe the integration of these three bodies of research provides a foundation for understanding the nature of stakeholder relationships in multi-sector innovations. First, the stakeholder network in multi-sector innovations encompasses multiple economic sectors, incorporating organisations from the private and public sectors. Second, instead of being reactive to stakeholder demands, enterprises introducing multi-sector innovations seek out opportunities through which they can actively shape stakeholder relationships within the network. Third, although the innovating enterprise is


135

a relevant stakeholder, it is not necessarily at the centre of the stakeholder network. Fourth, accordingly, the innovating enterprise does not have direct relationships with all relevant stakeholders. Fifth, the quality of relationships within the stakeholder network is influential in determining collaboration within the network. These adaptations provide us the necessary theoretical lens through which we can examine the multiple and interdependent interactions that exist among stakeholders in multi-sector innovations. We take a different approach than previous research in the aforementioned areas. Rather than focusing on the nodes and ties in the social network, we instead explored the themes present within one type of multi-sector innovation. The objective is to understand the underlying context of the social network and to examine the extent to which previous theoretical constructs are revealed.

3

The case of intelligent transport systems (ITS) to achieve public safety benefits

We used the case of ITS as the focal innovation for this study. In this section, we first provide background on the relevance, magnitude and importance of this particular innovation for public safety benefits. We describe attributes of the system and explain why we characterise it as a multi-sector innovation and why the case is well suited to our purpose. One of the greatest challenges facing both industrialised and developing nations is dealing with the numerous problems inherent in transport systems. While the specific case that is the focus of this research takes place in the USA, the same problems are evident across the globe. These problems, with specific notes relevant to Europe and the USA include, for example: •

loss of life (40 000 deaths each year on EU roads; 43 000 in the USA)

•

increasing congestion (costing the EU 1% of its GDP – around €100 billion – a year; congestion in the USA expected to rise by 50% in the next ten years)

•

threat from terrorism (transport vehicles and infrastructure seen as both the target and the potential delivery mechanism)

•

energy consumption (about 30% of all EU and US energy is consumed by transport) (Ertico-ITS Europe, 2006; US-DOT, 2007).

One of the most promising improvements to the transport network comes from an emerging multi-sector innovation referred to as ITS which involves the application of information, communications, and control technologies to improve the operation of our transport networks. Ertico-ITS Europe is a multi-sector, public/private partnership pursuing the development and deployment of ITS. Other trade groups exist across the globe. In the USA, the principal trade group is ITS America (based in Washington, DC). These groups, and others in Asia, Africa, South America and Australia, are working to promote the development of ITS applications to solve the growing problems related to transport networks. According to Ertico-ITS Europe (2006): “ITS is the integration of information and communications technology with transport infrastructure, vehicles and users. By sharing vital information, ITS allows people to get more from transport networks, in greater safety

136

M.D. Bunn, F. Azmi and M. Puentes and with less impact on the environment. Only once travellers, vehicles and infrastructure can freely exchange information will the capacity of the transport network be fully utilised.”

In particular, ITS applications offer the potential for the integration of traffic management and emergency response systems. The basic concept involves sharing data and coordinating resources between and among traffic agencies and medical response organisations. This capability rests on the ability to collect, store, process and distribute information for the purposes of saving lives, time, and money. By integrating traffic management and emergency response systems and coordinating roadway and medical resources, such a system would save lives, reduce the impact of serious injuries, conserve public safety resources, and improve transportation efficiency (Biesecker, 2000; Starosielec et al., 2000). An integrated system for emergency response is a radical innovation according to the characteristics spelled out in Garcia and Calatone (2002): •

The system constitutes a new technology. The system is unique in linking together technologies that have heretofore been either non-existent or have been used in isolation.

•

A new market infrastructure much be established to supply elements of the system and to provide support and maintenance. Many are enterprises that have heretofore not engaged in this competitive arena.

•

Both technological and marketing discontinuities need to occur at the macro level. That is, the system is a ‘game changer’ across several industries and markets.

•

Both technological and marketing discontinuities will occur at the micro level. That is, significant improvements will occur in organisation performance (e.g., time to respond) and changes will be made in procurement processes.

The broad mix of relevant technologies involved within such a system has been spelled out in a recent study according to an end-to-end Emergency Medical Services (EMS) process (Schooley et al., 2009). Each phase of the process – from pre-incident preparation to post-incident evaluation – involves various stakeholders and information technologies. The process intervals and example technologies are listed in Table 1. The range of technologies listed in Table 1 illustrates the variety in the types of innovations that constitute the elements of the system. It is clear from Table 1 that the types of innovations vary widely. Some system elements are radical innovations such as crash notification. Wireless geo-location technology provides real-time traffic data on all roadways covered by cellular service (Kelley, 2000) and improves emergency response through Automatic Collision Notification (ACN) devices installed in vehicles (this is broadly referred to as eCall in Europe). The ACN device automatically senses a crash and immediately relays the information on severity and location to emergency personnel. On the other hand, enhancements to Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) can be characterised as an incremental innovation. CAD is a commonly-used technology within the responder community. New features, offered in conjunction with the ITS system, would translate into incremental improvements to organisational processes and would result in cost efficiencies. Other technologies listed in Table 1 could then be categorised on a continuum from radical to incremental.

Stakeholder perceptions and implications for technology marketing Table 1

137

Processes and technologies used in ITS system for public safety

Process intervals

Examples of information technologies used

Pre-Incident Preparation

Electronic Personal Health Record (PHR) for emergencies (the AAA card for personal health emergencies)

From ‘crash’ to ‘notification’

911, E-911, ACN technology and integration (e.g., Mayday system)

From ‘notification’ to ‘dispatch’

CAD, traffic management systems, GPS+GIS, Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs), decision support tools, 2-way radios, pagers, cell phones

From ‘dispatch’ to ‘arrival on scene’ (in-field care)

CAD, Patient Care Record (PCR) systems, traffic management systems, GPS+GIS, MDTs, decision support tools, 2-way radios, pagers, cell phones, navigation systems

From ‘arrival on scene’ to ‘departure to hospital/trauma centre’ (in-field care and transport)

PCR systems, decision support systems, telemedicine applications (remote care), wireless data communications, hospital availability/diversion systems

From ‘departure to hospital/trauma centre’ to ‘arrival to hospital/trauma centre’ (transport and handoff to hospital Emergency Department (ED))

PCR systems, traffic management systems, GPS+GIS, navigation systems, hospital availability/ diversion systems

From hospital ‘admission’ to ‘discharge’

Hospital ED admissions/registry, trauma registry, electronic medical records, clinical information systems, electronic lab/radiology systems, clinical decision support

Post-incident evaluation

CODES, data warehouses, business intelligence, crash analysis reporting systems (e.g., FARS), other reporting and analytics

Source: Schooley et al. (2009)

The view of an integrated traffic management and emergency response system shown in Table 1 indicates clearly how the system has the potential for a profound effect on both public safety and quality of life. Nonetheless, the deployment of the system depends upon the cooperation of multiple stakeholders across public and private sectors (Bunn et al., 2002). Although we have achieved the technological capability to initiate integrated traffic management and emergency response systems, we lack the cross-sector cooperation necessary to make the systems a reality. In particular, the potential stakeholders – or those organisations who would contribute to and benefit from an integrated system – are many, including public service answering points, local police and fire departments, ambulance services, trauma centres and hospitals, wireless carriers and component suppliers, and local, national and regional agencies, among others. The broad diversity of stakeholders relevant to the deployment of the system is evident. A number of unique challenges arise from the complex market conditions surrounding the system and the complex set of relationships among the stakeholders involved. Although each of these stakeholders could benefit from an integrated system, each likewise faces a number of downside risks. These include the multi-jurisdictional nature of the integrated system, concerns about privacy and security, competition with other stakeholders, the cost requirements for upgrading equipment and skills, and

138


general uncertainty about the ability of the integrated system to achieve the lofty goals to which it aspires. In summary, the unique conditions of a multi-sector innovation are clearly illustrated in the case of ITS.

4

Research methodology

To address the challenges of stakeholder relationships in multi-sector innovations, we designed a study focusing on ITS systems for public safety. For the data collection, we conducted a qualitative field-based research study to collect and analyse the stakeholder perspectives with respect to ITS programmes. In June 2007, ITS America’s Homeland Security and Public Safety (HSPS) Forum assembled a group of experts in a roundtable setting to discuss key issues surrounding ITS applications for public safety and security services. Experts included volunteers affiliated with HSPS or with the US Department of Transportation’s (US-DOT) Transportation Safety Advancement Group (TSAG) and other industry professionals with ITS public safety interests. A moderator was assigned to each table and participants were encouraged to join a discussion in which they were interested. A set of initial issues and discussion questions had been pre-identified through advance interviews with these same experts, with the expectation that in a roundtable setting open discussions would engage a mix of multiple public safety disciplines who would disclose personal experiences and perceptions of ITS applications across all areas of transportation. At each of the discussion tables, participants were given cards on which they recorded their various comments. As the discussion progressed, the moderator encouraged the participants to continue writing their thoughts on the cards. The participants also recorded their stakeholder category on each of the cards. We observed the roundtable experts were energetic in their discussion of issues, of observed ITS applications challenges and opportunities, and, of operations gaps associated with each of the assigned topics. There was a total of 32 participants in the roundtable discussions representing the stakeholder groups shown in Table 2. The participants included experts affiliated with seven stakeholder groups: 1

state, regional and local transportation agencies

2

federal government agencies

3

emergency responders

4

technology or service vendors

5

consultants

6

trade associations

7

educators.

The sample seems representative of the broad spectrum of stakeholders who might be involved in the planning of any large-scale ITS public safety project as well as those involved in the deployment and operations. Following the process described above, a total of 108 separate cards were collected. This is an average of 3.4 cards per participant. Many of the cards included several comments and thoughts.

Stakeholder perceptions and implications for technology marketing Table 2

139

Participation by stakeholder group

Stakeholder group

Number of participants

Public sector Government: federal agency

1

Government: state, regional or local transportation

4

Metropolitan planning organisation

4

Emergency communications and response

7

Nonprofit Trade association representative

2

Institute or coalition

3

Private sector Consultant

5

Product or service vendor

6

Total number of participants

32

The data analysis methodology employs a mix of inductive and deductive reasoning and analysis. The content of each card was recorded in a database and analysed using QSR NVivo version 7, a qualitative data analysis program. In terms of deductive reasoning, a priori themes were identified by the authors to begin the data coding process. These were gathered from extant theory and the preliminary interviews with the roundtable experts. As the coding progressed we identified emergent themes based on mentions within the data. This resulted in 205 separate comments or phases describing the stakeholders’ opinions and perceptions. This means each of the 32 participants provided an average of 6.4 comments each.

5

Conceptual framework of stakeholder issues

To gain insight and descriptive information about the issues, it is helpful to look across the data from our ‘key informant respondents’ acting in their stakeholder roles. This allows a conceptual framework to emerge that describes influencing factors in terms of relative importance and some of the relationships among the factors. By doing so, we gain an understanding about factors affecting the issues and insights about the key concerns of stakeholder groups. Based on the coding and data analysis process described above, we identified a set of categories and then the themes under each category. The counts of the number of comments dealing with each theme are shown in Table 3. Figure 1 offers a conceptual framework of the stakeholder relationships for ITS applications in public safety and security. We recognise a set of situational antecedents affecting stakeholder relationship development which in turn influence certain stakeholder relationship development activities. These activities lead to the social partnership enablers that are crucial to the success of the project. The outcomes desired are the ways in which this group of stakeholders defined success.

140 Table 3

M.D. Bunn, F. Azmi and M. Puentes Number of comments by themes Number of comments

Percentage of total (%)

Funding sources and procedures

21

10.2

Stakeholder differences and territorialness

18

8.8

Uncertainty and types of events

15

7.3

Existing technology and infrastructure

12

5.9

Government regulations and mandates

4

2.0

24

11.7

Cost and benefit analysis

22

10.7

Unified goals, plans and procedures

18

8.8

5

2.4

Development of collaborative relationships

14

6.8

Coordination of operational efforts

11

5.4

Information sharing

11

5.4

7

3.4

12

5.9

Major categories and themes Situational antecedents

Stakeholder relationship development activities Education and information

Internal organisational motivation and involvement Social partnership enablers

Leadership or champion Outcomes desired Fast and effective emergency response Mobility and driver safety

7

3.4

Reduced injuries and fatalities

4

2.0

205

100.0

Total number of phrases coded Figure 1

Conceptual framework of stakeholder perceptions (see online version for colours)


141

In each of the following sections, we discuss the findings and relate them to previous research when relevant. We start with a discussion of the desired outcomes of the system to understand better the nature of the ITS public safety system and as a backdrop to the other themes. We then discuss the rest of the themes starting with the situational antecedents on the left of the framework and ending with what we call social partnership enablers. When useful, we provide representative quotes from study participants.

5.1 Outcomes desired There is a wide range of benefits sought from ITS public safety programmes. Not surprisingly, given the focus on public safety among our participants, ‘fast and effective emergency response’ was the most commonly listed factor, with 12 mentions. This outcome was followed by ‘mobility and driver safety’ with seven mentions, and lastly the desired outcome of ‘reduced injuries and fatalities’ was cited four times. The three outcome themes evident in the data are analogous to the economic outcomes in the sense of a traditional marketplace. While the system can accommodate a wide range of benefits to each of the stakeholder organisations in carrying out their individual missions, they would all share the vision of these three outcomes: 1

Fast and effective emergency response The dynamic information sharing that would be possible with the ITS public safety system would clearly result in faster response and more appropriate response. The performance measures of various stakeholders can be translated into this outcome. As noted by one participant, “ITS can be used to drive down response time.”

2

Mobility and driver safety Within the context of the ITS system, a corollary outcome is the speed at which the roadway can be restored to its steady state. This means the public will experience greater mobility because of less delays dues to roadway incidents. One participant stated, “All want to achieve the goal of moving masses of people with minimum delay.” In addition, quick clearance means a lowered risk of secondary accidents and therefore greater driver safety.

3

Reduced injuries and fatalities The reduction of injuries and fatalities is a direct benefit to the overall fast and effective emergency response, although the study participants seem to call this out as distinct. In particular, this outcome is related to the ‘golden hour’ – that is, the time after injury occurs during which quick treatment can prevent death. In the case of internal injuries, this time might be from a few minutes to several hours. Thus, the ‘golden hour’ is more of a core principle of rapid intervention in trauma cases rather than a specified time period. There is much evidence that quick response reduces fatalities. Some of the stakeholders will focus exclusively on this goal.

The results related to desired outcomes emphasise the ‘real’ or ‘final’ benefits of all the resources and efforts involved in ITS public safety projects. Within the mix of stakeholder issues, these outcomes are the backdrop against which the stakeholders deal with the various challenges apparent in the situation, the activities needed to move the project forward, and the complexities of the social partnerships enablers that are critical antecedents of successful deployment.

142


5.2 Situational antecedents The situational antecedents define a set of pre-existing conditions that surround ITS public safety deployment. In general these include a combination of organisational-level attributes, circumstances involving funding and government rules, and the unique characteristics of the projects. The results show the most common themes mentioned revolve around ‘funding sources and procedures’, and ‘stakeholder differences and territorialness’ with 21 and 18 references in the results to these themes. ‘Uncertainty and types of events’ and ‘existing technology and infrastructure’ were mentioned in 15 and 12 references, respectively. ‘Government regulations and mandates’ were least mentioned by the participants in the research (only four mentions). •

Funding sources and procedures The results show that funding issues are at the forefront of all projects and on the minds of all stakeholders. This finding is consistent with Resource Dependency Theory (RDT) which holds that organisations seek external resources to decrease the organisation’s dependence on others and/or to increase other’s dependency on it, that is, modifying an organisation’s power with other organisations (Pfeffer, 1981). One study participant noted this is a “cart and horse; you can’t get funding to buy without a product; but vendors won’t develop the product without funding”. Within the context of the case study of ITS systems, it was clear that this was an important theme and it likely influences the other themes identified in the resulting framework.

•

Stakeholder differences and territorialness The frequency of comments related to stakeholder differences points to one of the greatest situational barriers to the creation of an integrated ITS system for emergency response. Because of the large number and diversity of the stakeholder groups, there is a rather low level of density in the social network. Many of these stakeholder groups have little in common with respect to their funding sources, operations and goals. This creates numerous “structural holes” (Burt, 2004) which must be bridged in order to create the system. One participant commented, “a major problem is everyone thinking they are in charge at the same time”, while another noted “physical jurisdictions present a mental boundary in organizations that inhibit them from working together”.

•

Uncertainty and types of events With concerns about funding and stakeholder differences in the background, stakeholders appear to next consider the type of event that is the focus of the project. As a situational factor, this theme has a great influence on the purpose for which the system is used and therefore the importance of various other themes we might observe. For example, the ITS system for emergency response might be used for day-to-day operations (e.g., roadway crashes), special events (e.g., sporting events), disasters (e.g., hurricanes) or terrorist attacks (e.g., a bombing). As noted by one participant, “some events are scheduled, i.e., ‘time-certain’ and some are come-and-go. The difference is in the suddenness of the start time of the event.”

Stakeholder perceptions and implications for technology marketing •

143

Existing technology and infrastructure The existing infrastructure will vary across stakeholder groups. Some will have previously received funding and enjoy the latest technologies. Other stakeholders may be resource-poor and unable to participate in the system without significant funding and upgrades to technology.

•

Government regulations and mandates While this theme was mentioned only a few times, it is critical to the success of the system. It concerns the requirements for governance and contracts that would be needed to enforce service performance levels. While there is much non-contract information sharing in these systems, there is still the risk of opportunism (see Williamson, 1975) and hence some concerns about regulations and mandates.

5.3 Stakeholder relationship development activities Stakeholder relationship development activities involve the actions and interactions that take place within the context of the situational factors. The most important of these was ‘education and information’ with 24 mentions, followed closely by ‘cost and benefit analysis’ (22 mentions) and ‘unified goals, plans and procedures’ with 18 mentions in the data. There were also five mentions of ‘internal organisational motivation and involvement’. •

Education and information Of all the themes across the entire set of comments, this was the most prevalent. While the ‘strength of weak ties’ will be important to transmit unique and non-redundant information across the diverse stakeholder groups (Granovetter, 2005), it will not be sufficient to result in an operational system. This means education, cross-training exercises, and other means of carrying information from one group to another will need to be put in place in order to deploy the system. Typical comments included the need for ‘increased education on benefits’ and to ‘create a national clearinghouse for related information’.

•

Cost and benefit analysis The theme of cost and benefit analysis concerns the need for each stakeholder group to identify a strong business model to justify participation in the system. For the transportation stakeholders, there is a clear set of tools that have been created for this purpose (Maccubbin et al., 2008). For other stakeholders, especially those unfamiliar with the nature of the proposed system, the development of cost/benefit analysis procedures will be more difficult. At the heart of the problem is the mixing of economic and non-economic activities or “social embeddedness” (Granovetter, 1985). Thus, stakeholders who are able to rely on resources outside of their own social network to assist in the cost/benefit analysis will be at an advantage to receive benefits from the system implementation.

144 •

M.D. Bunn, F. Azmi and M. Puentes Unified goals, plans and procedures The use of unified goals, plans and procedures is a critical activity that may serve as the framework in which the cost/benefit analysis and information sharing takes place. In particular, this theme points to the need for the formalisation of norms. Because the network is characterised by a low level of cohesion due to the diversity of stakeholder interests, formal plans need to be jointly created.

•

Internal organisational motivation and involvement At the same time, some stakeholders will be dealing with their own organisational (internal) issues to gain support for the programme and the resources needed for the deployment. While this theme was only mentioned five times in the data, it raises the issue of where in the stakeholder organisations will the motivation for the integrated system arise. It has been observed a number of times in the context of ITS integrated systems, that the members at the top of the stakeholder organisation are not the prime motivators of the system. This is consistent with studies that have shown that the lower an innovation’s champion in the corporate hierarchy, the more radical the innovation (Day, 1994) and is evidenced by this comment from one participant in the study, “There should be sufficient support (don’t let superiors move this off the front burner) for sustaining regularly scheduled planning and debriefing meetings among the operating staff.”

5.4 Social partnership enablers We refer to the next set of factors as ‘Social Partnership Enablers’ because they seem to be the intermediate results which facilitate the ability to achieve the desired outcomes. The research participants identified ‘development of collaborative relationships’ most often through the research (14 mentions). ‘Coordination of operational efforts’ and ‘information sharing’ were identified with equal frequency (11 mentions each) and ‘leadership or championship’ was mentioned seven times.1 •

Development of collaborative relationships These results underscore the importance of the development of collaborative relationships among the stakeholders in order to achieve the desired outcomes. These relationships involve trust and mutual benefit that may have been challenging over time based on the situational antecedents (especially, but not exclusively, the stakeholder differences and territorialness). The structural holes created by the stakeholder differences and territorialness imply that the way the network is bridged is important (Burt, 1997). Comments by participants include the need to ‘build coalition and partnerships’ and the ‘full engagement of all stakeholder groups committed to optimise ITS and first responder programmes’.

•

Coordination of operational efforts In addition, the coordination of operational efforts is a theme concerning the operational linkages that must be put into place for data integration and information sharing across the organisations. To some extent, this involves the cohesion of the network and its ability to create the needed infrastructure for the system. One participant noted “increased co-location of services where possible” and another asked “how does integration impact workflow in dispatch centres?”

Stakeholder perceptions and implications for technology marketing •

145

Information sharing The ability and the organisational acceptance of seamlessly sharing information related to public safety events are critical. The creation of the information sharing capability means the network of stakeholders has become more dense and the various structural holes have been eliminated – at least with respect to operational functions. As noted by one participant, we need to “support the integration of non traditional interoperable communication applications”. Another stated the need to “find ways for security folks to exchange information and best practices without sharing that information with those who may use it against the infrastructure/agencies.”

•

Leadership or champion The emergence of a clear leader or champion is often required for the successful deployment of an integrated ITS and emergency response system. This means that one stakeholder organisation greatly increases its centrality in the social network and is able to influence other stakeholders to embrace the new technologies. This finding is consistent with previous reports on ITS and transportation safety. For example, the Mayo Clinic in the USA (Rochester, Minnesota) took a leadership role and acted as the facilitator to put in place a system of inter-organisational information sharing (Schooley et al., 2009). In this way, the leader serves as the broker in a network of collaborating organisations (Burt, 1997). One participant noted the need for “recruitment of public safety thought leaders and/or technology champions”.

6

Implications for technology marketing in the case of intelligent transport systems

The research reported here describes the stakeholder perceptions surrounding one case study. The questions for practitioners involve the following: How can technology enterprises in similar situations overcome the various obstacles? How can they shape relationships between public organisations in order to better ensure successful commercialisation? We address these types of questions in the following discussion. The results provide insights about relationships within stakeholder networks. Vendors pursuing business from a multi-sector innovation must first recognise – and prepare for – the different challenges emerging from the stakeholder relationships surrounding the business opportunity. By their very nature, multi-sector innovations occur over a long period of time. Most business development activities of enterprises, however, tend to be short-term focused. So, first and foremost, vendors need to decide the strategic direction of their business and whether a long-term opportunity fits with their business models. While this may seem logical and consistent with tenets of good management, the complexity related to multi-sector innovations is underestimated by most vendor firms. Using the conceptual model in the paper will assist technology enterprises by pointing to the relevant issues surrounding multi-sector innovations that otherwise are not evident. Next, business development managers must develop an explicit stakeholder management strategy. This involves first the identification of the multiple stakeholders who are either directly involved or may indirectly influence the progress toward deployment. The list of stakeholders relevant to the vendors’ technologies may be much

146


broader than originally perceived. In addition, it is important to recognise that although some stakeholder organisations are government agencies, they are supported in various efforts by their own vendors (who may actually be direct, indirect, or partial competitors). The enterprise would do well to understand the interaction of these stakeholders from the stance of a social network. One strategy is to identify ways to create more ties between the different stakeholders – playing upon the ‘strength of weak ties’. It is clear from our research that the structural holes in these networks must be bridged in order for the system to be created and deployed. It may furthermore be possible for the enterprise to serve as a broker, although it is unlikely a vendor would serve as the leader of such efforts.

7

Conclusions, limitations and suggestions for future research

The goal of this research study was to enhance our understanding of a phenomenon about which little is known. As is often the case in studies of this type, our findings are limited to the context from which they were drawn. It is possible that similar studies conducted in different contexts could reveal other relevant concepts. Additionally, the sample size was relatively small. Furthermore, the qualitative nature of the research precludes the creation of rigorous metrics for testing the causal relationships which are evident. These limitations notwithstanding, this research represents an attempt to enhance our understanding of the complex stakeholder relationship issues surrounding multi-sector innovations. We feel the research important given the profound societal and enterprise benefits these innovations can potentially provide, and envision several viable avenues for future research. First, as this study was limited in terms of scope, future research should be dedicated to examining the robustness of our findings across other contexts. Secondly, quantitative methods are warranted to develop more specific relationships among the themes identified in this study. In particular, a more traditional social network analysis, identifying the nodes and ties relevant to one specific project could be conducted. Such a study can build on this research by using the themes discovered here as the focal points for examining the relationships across the social network. Taken together, the research findings and reflections about the implications provide a number of insightful considerations for technology vendors seeking to benefit from the deployment of multi-sector innovations.

References Achrol, R.S. (1997) ‘Changes in the theory of interorganizational relations in marketing: toward a network paradigm’, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.56–71. Barnard, C.I. (1938) The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Biesecker, K. (2000) Broadband Wireless, Integrated Services, and Their Application to Intelligent Transportation Systems, Center for Telecommunications and Advanced Technology. Bunn, M.D., Savage, G.T. and Holloway, B.B. (2002) ‘Stakeholder analysis for multi-sector innovations’, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.181–203. Burt, R. (1987) ‘Social contagion and innovation, cohesion versus structural equivalence’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 92, May, pp.1287–1335. Burt, R. (1997) ‘The contingent value of social capital’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, pp.339–365.


147

Burt, R. (2004) ‘Structural holes and good ideas’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 110, pp.349–399. Calfee, J.E. and Bate, R. (2004) ‘Pharmaceuticals and the worldwide HIV epidemic: can a stakeholder model work?’, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.140–152. Day, D. (1994) ‘Raising radicals: different processes for championing innovative corporate ventures’, Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.148–172. Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. (1995) ‘The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence and implications’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.65–91. Ertico-ITS Europe (2006) ‘ITS for Europe: keeping people and goods moving’, Ertico corporate brochure, Brussels, Belgium. Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Boston: Pitman Publishing. Garcia, R. and Calatone, R. (2002) ‘A critical look at technological innovation and innovativeness teminology: a literature review’, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 19, pp.110–132. Granovetter, M. (1973) ‘The strength of weak ties’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, May, pp.1360–1380. Granovetter, M. (1985) ‘Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91, November, pp.481–510. Granovetter, M. (2005) ‘The impact of social structure on economic outcomes’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.33–50. Gummesson, E. (1994) ‘Making relationship marketing operational’, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp.5–20. Holloway, B.B. and Bunn, M.D. (2008) ‘Multi-sector innovations: a framework for comparative analysis’, Business Journal for Entrepreneurs, Vol. 2008, No. 3, pp.38–56. Kelley, J. (2000) ‘Business continuity battling high-tech’, Risk Management, Vol. 47, pp.31–33. Kennedy, C.R., Harris, F.H. and Lord, M. (2004) ‘Integrating public policy and public affairs in a pharmaceutical marketing program: the AIDS pandemic’, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.128–139. Maccubbin, R.P., Staples, B.L., Kabir, F., Lowrance, C.F., Mercer, M.R., Philips, B.H. and Gordon, S.R. (2008) ‘Intelligent transportation systems benefits, costs, deployment, and lessons learned: 2008 update’, FHWA-JPO-08-032, United States Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office. Miller, R.L. and Lewis, W.F. (1991) ‘A stakeholder approach to marketing management using the value exchange models’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25, No. 8, pp.55–68. Payne, A., Ballantyne, D. and Christopher, M. (2005) ‘A stakeholder approach to relationship marketing strategy’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, Nos. 7–8, pp.855–884. Pfeffer, J. (1981) Power in Organizations, Marshfield, MA: Pitman. Piercy, N. and Cravens, D. (1995) ‘The network paradigm and the marketing organization: developing a new management agenda’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.7–34. Polonsky, M. and Ottman, J. (1998) ‘Stakeholders contribution to the green new product development process’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.533–557. Polonsky, M.J. (1996) ‘Stakeholder management and the stakeholder matrix: potential strategic marketing tools’, Journal of Market – Focused Management, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.209–229. Polonsky, M.J. and Scott, D. (2005) ‘An empirical examination of the stakeholder strategy matrix’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, Nos. 9–10, pp.1199–1215. Rogers, E.M. (1962) Diffusion of Innovations, Glencoe: Free Press.

148


Rowley, T.J. (1997) ‘Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences’, Academy of Management Review, pp.887–910. Sanders, T.J. and Bell, N.S. (2007) ‘The paradigm shift from stockholder theory to stakeholder theory: a shift supporting more ethical business’, Ethics & Critical Thinking Quarterly, Vol. 3, September. Schooley, B., Thomas, H., Botts, N. and Noamani, A. (2009) ‘ITS and transportation safety: EMS system data integration to improve traffic crash emergency response and treatment’, Report No. CTS 09-02, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota. Scott, R.W. and Meyer, J.W. (1991) ‘The organization of societal sectors: propositions and early evidence’, in W.W. Powell and P.J. DiMaggio (Eds.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Sheth, J.N., Sisodia, R.S. and Sharma, A. (2000) ‘The antecedents and consequences of customer-centric marketing’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.45–54. Starosielec, E., Funke, D.j. and Blatt, A.J. (2000) ‘Automated crash notification: preliminary findings and future trends’, TR News, pp.23–26. US Department of Transportation (US-DOT) (2007) Five-Year ITS Program Plan, Washington, DC: ITS Joint Program Office. Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wasserman, S. and Galaskiewicz, G. (1994) Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Thousand Oaks: Sage. Williamson, O.E. (1975) Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, New York: The Free Press.

Note 1

Some might say that ‘information sharing’ is an outcome, however, we view information sharing as an intermediate result (enabler) that leads to the final outcomes desired.