Deliverable No.: D9
Proof of the concept
Validation Results
Sept 2008
Final Draft 1.0
Project funded by the European Community under the Sixth
Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Deliverable D 9
Project ref. no.:
TREN/06/FP6TR/S07.57248/019939 EMOTION
Project title:
eMOTION
–
Europe-wide
multi-Modal
On-trip
Traffic
InformatiON
Deliverable title:
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Deliverable number:
D9
Deliverable status:
Public
Number of pages:
34
Author(s):
Dieter Meinhard (Hitech)
Kashif Din (ATTC/arsenal research)
Marko Jandrisits (ASFINAG)
Norbert Hainitz (ATTC/arsenal research)
Walter Schneider (ATTC/arsenal research)
Wolfang Schildorfer (Hitech)
Status
Version
Date
Change Note ID
Final Draft
1.0
15.10.2008
Version sent for Review
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 2 of 34
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Deliverable D 9
THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED AS
IS AND NO GUARANTEE OR WARRANTY IS GIVEN THAT
THE INFORMATION IS FIT FOR ANY PURPOSE. THE USER
THEREOF USES THE INFORMATION AT ITS SOLE RISK
AND LIABILITY. FURTHERMORE, DATA, CONCLUSIONS OR
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS DOCUMENT ARE PROVIDED
ON THE BASIS THAT SUCH INFORMATION IS
SUBSEQUENTLY, AND PRIOR TO USE, VERIFIED BY THE
PARTY WISHING TO USE THAT INFORMATION.
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 3 of 34
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Deliverable D 9
List of Abbreviations
EC
European Commission
PCC
Project Coordination Committee
PM
Project Manager
PMO
Project Management Office
RTD
Research and Technology Development
TCC
Technical Coordination Committee
WP
Work Package
WPL
Work Package Leader
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 4 of 34
Deliverable D 9
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Table of Content
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 6
2.
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 7
3.
STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THE POC .................................................................. 9
4.
VALIDATION RESULTS ............................................................................................... 11
5.
4.1
PERCEIVED USEFULNESS ......................................................................................... 11
4.2
PERCEIVED EASE OF USE ......................................................................................... 14
4.3
ATTITUDE TOWARD USING/BEHAVIOURAL INTENTION TO USE ..................................... 16
4.4
MAIN STRENGTHS/W EAKNESSES .............................................................................. 19
4.5
DIFFERENTIATORS AND IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................. 21
IMPLEMENTATION EFFORT ....................................................................................... 24
5.1
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFORT ........................................................................................ 24
5.2
TECHNICAL EFFORT.................................................................................................. 25
5.3
ECONOMICAL EFFORT............................................................................................... 26
6.
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 27
7.
LITERATURE................................................................................................................ 28
8.
ANNEX.......................................................................................................................... 29
List of Figures
Figure 1: Extended Technology Acceptance Monitor ............................................................ 7
Figure 2: Participants in the eMOTION PoC validation .........................................................10
Figure 3: eMOTION is most suitable for ...............................................................................14
Figure 4: What might hinder the usage of eMOTION ...........................................................18
Figure 5: Which initiatives would support the usage of eMOTION most? .............................22
List of Tables
Table 1 Economical Impact ..................................................................................................26
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 5 of 34
Deliverable D 9
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Executive Summary
The main goal of the eMOTION framework is the specification of a system architecture that
is able to integrate existing information services in order to develop a European approach for
a multimodal on-trip traffic information service. The Proof of Concept includes two test sites
in Genoa, Italy and in Austria aiming at an exemplary implementation of the eMOTION
concept in order to gain feedback on the applicability from the perspectives of the different
members of the value chain.
This document contains the evaluation results of the feedback gained from the partners of
both pilot sitesimplemented. The performed questionnaire was designed after the concept of
the Technology Acceptance Model ETAM (Extended Technology Acceptance Monitor) and
aimed the aspects of usefulness, ease of use, strengths and weaknesses as well as the view
of implementation effort.
After the description of the evaluation-methodology in section 1 and the involved
stakeholders in section 2, a detailed illustration of the validation results is given in section 3
of this report. The implementation effort is analysed separately in section 4. Finally the
analyses are closed in the chapter conlusions as section 4 at the end of this document.
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 6 of 34
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Deliverable D 9
1. Methodology
A primary question in the course of prototype testing frequently is whether the user accepts
the development or not. Particular such kind of questions are mostly addressed from a
standard technology acceptance perspective conceptually using the Technology Acceptance
Model - ETAM (Davis; extended by Morris), shown in the following graph.
Perceived
Usefulness
Perceived
Usefulness
Attitude
Towards
Using
Behavioural
Intention to
Use
Use
Quality
of
Use
Ease
of
Use
Ease
of
Use
t
t+1
Figure 1: Extended Technology Acceptance Monitor
The ETAM concept is the most widely used approach to assess information system usage.
ETAM's measurement qualities have been validated intercultural as well as in more than 100
studies. It translates the vast concept of prototype evaluation into well-defined research
questions with recognised statistical benchmarks that can be answered in a valid and
reliable way. This focus upon ETAM will assure valid, reliable assessment results that can
easily be compared to standard user acceptance data from other research and development
activities.
In ETAM, technology acceptance is defined as the degree to which individual users will use a
given service (e.g. a traffic information data model) when usage is voluntary or discretionary.
Key element for service acceptance is the amount the service is actually used. ETAM is
based on five indicators of user service acceptance:

Perceived Usefulness

Ease of Use

Attitude towards Using

Behavioural Intention to Use

Use (Quality and Quantity of Use)
Studies on ETAM have shown the importance of perceived usefulness and perceived ease
of use as determinants of attitudes and intentions to use a technology. The quality of service
experience (quality of use) has been found to significantly influence user perceptions of
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 7 of 34
Deliverable D 9
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
usefulness and ease of use, while the mere amount of service experience turned out not to
do. ETAM results help also to develop indicators for sustainable change of behavioural
intention towards the use of services concerned.
In order to gain and provide the eMOTION team with such information, success of the
project as a user driven research activity, will among other technical criteria also be
assessed from the standard technology acceptance perspective described. Given the yet
highly specialised and narrow “user/expert community”, as well as the strong need for valid
and open field trials, investigations will rather draw upon appropriate qualitative approaches
in order to maximise learning.
In the course of such an assessment, conceptual standard acceptance dimensions remained
unchanged (perceived usefulness, ease of use, attitude towards technology, behavioural
intention to use, behavioural intention to reuse) and were used tailor-made based on the
specific situation of the respective context aware traffic information data models in the
framework of eMOTION.
Concluding, the main aim of the above described modules was to derive an indicative and
meaningful picture of the acceptance of the eMOTION traffic information data model,
providing a valid basis for improvements needed to gain significant market success.
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 8 of 34
Deliverable D 9
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
2. Stakeholders involved in the PoC
In the eMOTION PoC the following partners were involved in the two test regions:

PoC Austria: ASFiNAG together with ORF, OSA, ÖAMTC, ÖBB, Plot, Tele Atlas,
Telekom Austria

PoC Italy: AMI, CdG, II, OSA, Softeco, Tele Atlas, Telecom Italia
Out of these 12 partners 10 partners participated in the validation exercise and completed
the survey documented below.
For describing the stakeholders involved in the PoC the eMOTION questionnaire contained
the following questions.
As mentioned above, in total 10 participants answered the questionnaire. The detailed
information concerning the role within the eMOTION service chain, the company name, the
organisational status, the position of the person who answered the questions and the part of
the proof of concept the respective organisation participated in is shown in the following
figure.
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 9 of 34
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Deliverable D 9
Figure 2: Participants in the eMOTION PoC validation
As can be seen in this figure, organisations representing the entire value chain contributed to
the validation survey. The results gathered are described in the following chapter.
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 10 of 34
Deliverable D 9
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
3. Validation results
Based on the Extended Technology Acceptance Model used for the evaluation of user
acceptance related to the eMOTION model, the following indicators and topics are analysed:
Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, Attitude Toward Using/Behavioural Intention
to Use, Main Strengths/Weaknesses and Differentiators and Implementation.
The following subchapters contain the relevant questions and answers for the analysed
indicators. These questions are part of the proof of concept questionnaire which was sent to
the involved proof of the concept eMOTION partners (Annex I).
Most of the questions are based on a nominal scale containing the values “strongly agree”,
“agree”, “disagree” and “strongly disagree”. Additionally there is always the possibility for the
respondent to choose the answer “no opinion”. Moreover, all these questions provide also
the possibility to explain the answer in addition in a qualitative manner. The analysis of
quantitative items is based on average values; The scale for the analysis is the following:
1 means: strongly agree
2 means: agree
3 means: disagree
4 means: strongly disagree
Another type of question is closed ones with the possibility to choose more than one answer.
The results of these questions are based on the sum of the values shown in a diagram.
The third kind of question is open, i.e. a qualitative one which were analysed in building up
blocks of similar answers (clusters).
Finally there are some questions regarding the profile of the respondent.
3.1 Perceived Usefulness
The first indicator of the ETAM that is analysed is the Perceived Usefulness of the eMOTION
model. Therefore the following 8 questions are raised in the eMOTION questionnaire:
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 11 of 34
Deliverable D 9
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
The result of the above mentioned 5 questions in average is 1.92. That means almost all of
the 10 participants agree to the statement that eMOTION is of particular value for technical
reasons, for cost efficiency, for improved access and usage of traffic information data, for
increasing end user service quality considerably and because of the contractual framework
provided. These ratings are an indicator for a high perceived usefulness.
The following question are raised as an open question to give the respondents the possibility
to add other main benefits of the eMOTION model which are not involved in the above
mentioned 5 questions.
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 12 of 34
Deliverable D 9
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
There are two additional answers raised by the survey participants. The first emphasises the
importance of the role of the business enabler concerning the contractual issues such the
rights management. The second statement shows the possible cross- use by other (none
ITS) domains like environment protection, disaster management, tourism etc.
The next question contains the most suitable services for the eMOTION data model which is
also a relevant question for the perceived usefulness of eMOTION. Here it is possible to
select more than one answer.
The following figure shows the results of this question. 80% of the respondents’ point out
that the eMOTION model is most suitable for “Dynamic road traffic information”. 4 persons
answer that eMOTION is most suitable for “Dynamic multimodal journey planning” and 5
people that eMOTION is most suitable for “Dynamic public transport journey planning”. The
lowest score is related to the service “Dynamic freight traffic information” with 2 answers.
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 13 of 34
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Deliverable D 9
eMOTION is most suitable for
8
7
7
7
7
6
7
6
5
4
2
Others
Dynamic freigth traffic
information
Dynamic multimodal
journey planning
Dynamic event traffic
information
Dynamic weather
information
Dynamic parking
information
Dynamic POI information
Dynamic public transport
journey planning
Dynamic public transport
information
Dynamic road traffic
routing information
Dynamic road traffic flow
data
1
Dynamic rad traffic
information
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 3: eMOTION is most suitable for
The last question for the indicator perceived usefulness gives the respondents the possibility
to add further eMOTION services which would be of high value for them.
There was one answer which pointed out the importance of the registry services as they are
the core of the infrastructure and necessary for the publish-find-bind paradigm.
Summing up the results of the above mentioned questions, the indicator Perceived
Usefulness is rated high with respect to the eMOTION model. That base on the average
value of 1.92 of the first five questions and the high number of applications perceived useful.
3.2 Perceived Ease of Use
The second indicator of the ETAM that was analysed is the Perceived Ease of Use of the
eMOTION model. Therefore the following 6 questions were raised in the eMOTION
questionnaire. The result of the first 5 questions is in average 2.48. This means that the
perceived ease of use of the eMOTION model or in other words the answer to the question
“the eMOTION model is easy to use” from the point of view of the respondents of this
questionnaire is more or less in the middle. The value 2.48 means half of the respondents
agree to the question and the other half disagree, thus there is certainly the need to further
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 14 of 34
Deliverable D 9
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
improve the ease of use of the eMOTION model.
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 15 of 34
Deliverable D 9
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
The result of the following open question also influences the indicator perceived ease of use.
It is an open question and therefore the answers of the respondents are analysed in a
different way to the above closed questions. In general the more answers to this question
exist the more negative influence on the ease of use this question has.
There were two respondents answering this question, meaning that 20% of the people who
answered the questionnaire have installation constraints. The one answer contains the
necessary strong political support so spread the use of the eMOTION model and the other
statement points out that the full specifications has not been implemented into the proof of
concept but the most important was covered.
In total the indicator perceived ease of use of the eMOTION model is medium ranged which
bases on the average value of 2.48 of the above mentioned questions and the two additional
installation constraints.
3.3 Attitude Toward Using/Behavioural Intention to Use
The next part of the analysis contains the indicators “Attitude Towards Using” and
“Behavioural Intention to Use”. Due to the questions raised in the questionnaire this two
indicators of the ETAM are analysed together. There are three different types of questions
for these two indicators. The questions 15 and 16 are ordinal scaled and the average value
of these 3 questions is 2.63, which stands for a medium ranking towards the future usage of
the eMOTION model.
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 16 of 34
Deliverable D 9
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
The next question contains the potential reasons for hindering the usage of eMOTION. The
analysis of this question is based on the sum of the marked answers.
Here, the highest value of the above figure is the “Readiness to co-operate along the value
chain”. 7 of 10 people marked this item positive. Half of the people argued that
“Implementation issues”, “Barriers within the organisation” or “Regulatory processes” might
hinder the usage of eMOTION.
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 17 of 34
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Deliverable D 9
What might hinder the usage of eMOTION
8
7
7
6
5
5
5
5
4
3
3
2
1
1
0
Others
Regulatory
processes
Readiness to
co-operate
along value
chain
Different
international
standards
Barriers within
the
organisation
Implementation
issues
Price
0
Figure 4: What might hinder the usage of eMOTION
The following question faces the time frame for implementing the eMOTION model. From
the point of view of the study team the shorter the time foreseen to implement the eMOTION
model the higher the attitude to use or behavioural intention to use. The average value of
this question is 1.63. To interpret this 1.63 you have to consider that the value 1 means
“Now” and the value 6 means “No opinion”. So 1.63 shows a very short time for a possible
implementation of the eMOTION model.
The next two questions deal with the willingness to pay for implementing eMOTION and the
ongoing usage costs.
The investment costs were mentioned by two respondents. The one argued € 75.000 and
the other € 200.000.
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 18 of 34
Deliverable D 9
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
With respect to the monthly costs for the eMOTION service provision the question is
answered only from one respondent: € 500 each month.
Summing up the results of the questions concerning the indicator Attitude Toward
Using/Behavioural Intention to Use the study team results in an indifferent picture. On the
one side the time frame foreseen for implementing the eMOTION model is pretty short and
on the other side only a few people answered questions regarding the willingness to pay and
mentioned a lot of potential reasons for hindering the usage of eMOTION. Here, further
analysis is needed to derive a valid picture on the behavioural intention to use.
3.4 Main Strengths/Weaknesses
The following subchapter deals with the strengths and the weaknesses of the eMOTION
model. The results of these questions do not directly influence the ETAM but are very
important for the further development of the eMOTION model. The questions dealing with
the strengths and the weaknesses are open questions and the analysis is based on
clustering similar answers.
Before answering the questions dealing with the strengths and the weaknesses of the
eMOTION model another question concerning the experience during the implementation of
the eMOTION model is raised. It is also an open question and the results are clustered.
The positive experiences of the involved partners in the PoC are:

The high quality of the data model including the high fit of the used standards, the
complexity of the model and the well defined and extensive UML model that follows
the INSPIRE architecture and therefore can be used as a basis for many different
implementations.

The easy possibility to integrate external data sources or partners (services) due to
the eMOTION model
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 19 of 34
Deliverable D 9

Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Finally the high involvement of the study team which was involved in the PoCs.
After mentioning the positive experiences while implementing the eMOTION model there are
also some negative experiences:

The complex data structure likely to result in a high implementation effort and also
emerging challenges to find the best elements of the data model to be used in the
implementation phase

The complex service landscape makes it difficult to set up an appropriate PoC; Also
partly missing content and service providers or public transport operators are
hindering an even more valid PoC

A too broad PoC approach in the light of given time restrictions.
The clustered results of the strengths of the eMOTION model are:

The complex data model with a state of the art approach covering ITS and LBS,
based on international standards. This means that the model can be used in the
different situations and reflects a part of many standards that already exist. The
eMOTION model is a developed framework standard out of multiple sub-standards.

The open architecture of the eMOTION model and usage of open standards that
allows an easy integration of different data sources (private, public) and stakeholders

The value added services of eMOTION for the stakeholders

The possibility to overcome some technical barriers in setting up of multimodal traffic
information services

The fact that every domain of relevance for real time information is covered
The clustered answers for the weaknesses of the eMOTION model are:

The complex data model

The lack of support for commonly used tools (e.g. Axis)

The little integration of PT information during the implementation phase

The limited chance of bringing together partners in the value chain due to certain
policies and interests of these partners.
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 20 of 34
Deliverable D 9
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
3.5 Differentiators and Implementation
The following subchapter contains some differentiators to other traffic information related
business to business solutions and also implementation topics.
The above mentioned question concerns the differentiators of the eMOTION model with
respect to other traffic information related business to business solutions. The clustered
answers to that open question are:

The integration of all interests (also legal aspects) of the members of the value chain
for the best business solution

The SOA approach and the complete data model

The adoption of an open standard allowing every subject interested in participation to
deliver their content or services

The SDI compliancy and the harmonized cross-domain model

The eMOTION model defines common and uniform interfaces. Most of the current
implementations are proprietary and require a lot of work to create applications (if
multiple sources)

The fact that the responsibilities of the data stay with the content owner while be part
of a market place.
The following points are the result of the question regarding the main requirements to be
considered when implementing the eMOTION model.

Legal and financial aspects

Distributed nodes and strong compliance with the eMOTION data model and services

Concerning the PT, especially for railway undertakings it is important to observe the
needs of the appropriate TSI’s (Technical specifications for interoperability) of the
European Union

The highly skilled architects and developers to cover all aspects of the model

To identify which aspects (parts of the model) will be considered and make a
software/database analysis to ensure that nothing will hamper the implementation.

The quality of the data used.
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 21 of 34
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Deliverable D 9
The following question concerns the initiatives which would support the usage of eMOTION
most. Due to the fact that it was possible to check more than one answer the analysis is
done with summing up the separate values. The results are shown in the diagram below. For
8 of 10 respondents the public interest/funding is the most important initiative to support the
usage of the eMOTION model. The second positive factor for supporting the usage is the
standardisation (6 persons) and the third positive factor is that others should use the solution
first.
Which initiatives would support the usage of eMOTION most?
9
8
8
7
6
6
5
5
4
3
3
2
1
0
0
Regulations
Standardisation Public interest / Others using
Funding
the solution
Others
Figure 5: Which initiatives would support the usage of eMOTION most?
The next question deals with other interesting applications for eMOTION.
The respondents mentioned the following applications:

Possible cross-use by other (none ITS) domains, like environment protection,
disaster management, tourism, etc.

The high scalability of the eMOTION framework and architecture could be adapted
for any need.
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 22 of 34
Deliverable D 9
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
The last question of the questionnaire addresses recommendations with respect to the
further specification of the eMOTION model from the technical, commercial and legal point
of view.
The clustered answers are:

A technical recommendation was that the following eMOTION model should be
strong compliant with the existing eMOTION model.

Another technical recommendation was to reduce complexity and simplify the naming

The production of detailed guidelines and examples for a concrete implementation of
the eMOTION services. (Not exactly technical specifications of the model.) The PoC
experience that will be documented will be a very good starting point in that sense.
References to further experiences and existing practices would be extremely helpful.

A further technical recommendation is that the location reference translation has to
be explored.

A commercial recommendation is that a full business enabler concept has to be tried
out.

Another commercial recommendation is to provide an easy to use framework
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 23 of 34
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Deliverable D 9
4. Implementation effort
In the following three the implementation efforts are identifies in three main contexts:
Organizational, technical and economical. Overall, the activities required the whole PM
necessary for the WP5 activities. The impact of a single aspect in the overall implementation
effort is identified with the following measure:

Low (indicates a low impact, often not involving all the partners)

Medium (indicates a medium impact: either an activity requiring a medium-long time
from one or two partner or a short-medium time activity involving all the partners )

High (indicate a major impact: a complex activity often involving more than one-two
partners or an activity of high economic impact such as the setup of a test
environment for the development)
4.1 Organizational effort
From the point of view of organization the following activities have been scheduled and
executed by the group of partners involved in the Genoa test site:


Overall design of the Proof of the concept: (low)
o
Main purposes of the PoC
o
Type of application
o
Spatial context
o
Target Users
Identification of data and services (medium)
o
Identification and detailed description of available data from previous
collaboration with involved partners.

o
Possible improvements of available data and services
o
Identification of new data
o
Identification of content providers (for new data)
o
Verification of availability of data from the point of view of:

Actual availability and possible complexity for data access

Legal constraints
o
Identification of new services based on new data
o
Estimation of the effort necessary (for new and available data) to implement
eMOTION Data services
Identification of the infrastructure necessary to run the PoC: (low)
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 24 of 34
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Deliverable D 9
o
o

Specification of infrastructure requirements in terms of

Overall infrastructure specifications

Web Application Hosting requirements

Web service hosting requirements

Connectivity
Identification of available infrastructures on the basis of the specifications
Setup of a test environment: (high)
o
For testing external technologies (e.g. WMS/WFS technology)
o
For developing applications and services
4.2 Technical effort
The main technical effort is related to the design and the actual realization of every
application and service necessary for the Proof of the concepts. It is also related to
maintenance activities and technical improvements.
The following activities have been scheduled and executed by the group of partners involved
in the Genoa test site:


Proof of the Concept Architecture (medium)
o
Simple Data service structure
o
Identification of nodes of the SOA (content providers, service providers,
service operators etc.)
o
Complete Architecture layout with specific WMS/WFS interface specifications
for each node.
o
Discussion and approval
End user application design (low-medium)
o
Identification of technology used by the end user application
o
Identification of sections and main navigation principles
o
Design of the Application Template (structure, layout, colours etc.) in terms of
HTML structure and CSS. This has been also made available for the whole
group of applications tied to the Proof of the Concept activities:


PoC applications

Utility applications (such as the custom web tools for making queries
directly to the WMS/WFS)

The eMOTION Portal
Identification of technologies and products for the implementation of WMS/WFS
(medium)
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 25 of 34
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Deliverable D 9

o
Brainstorming and internet search
o
Installation and test in the appropriate test environment
o
Assessment and validation of results
Implementation and test (high)
o
Web application (end user application)
o
Data services
o
Other components/applications used by data services (such the OGCProxy
component described in D8, prototype)
o
Integration of existing WMS/WFS (such as the Tele Atlas web services)
o
Test activities
4.3 Economical effort
The identification of economical efforts should consider the Person-month costs derived
from the previously identified efforts. From the point of view of training, infrastructure
(connectivity and licenses/costs for the use of external data here’s a summary of the efforts
for the Genoa PoC:
Type of cost
Impact for eMOTION PoC
Training of personnel
Low (personnel already familiar with eMOTION
technologies and standard)
Infrastructure (web
Low (used existing infrastructure)
servers, database servers)
Connectivity
Low (used existing infrastructure)
Use of external Data
Very low (data free for use within eMOTION)
Table 1 Economical Impact
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 26 of 34
Deliverable D 9
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
5. Conclusions
The validation of the PoC is done with a questionnaire, which was sent to all participants of
the PoC in Austria and Italy. Out of these 12 partners 10 partners participated in the
validation exercise and completed the survey. A primary question in the course of the
prototype testing frequently is whether the user accepts the development or not. The
theoretical model for measuring the acceptance related to the eMOTION model is the ETAM.
Therefore three indicators are analysed out of the questions of the questionnaire: perceived
usefulness, perceived ease of use, and attitude toward using/behavioural intention to use.
The indicator perceived usefulness is rated high with respect to the eMOTION model. This
result bases on the average value of 1.92 of five questions concerning this indicator and the
high number of applications perceived useful. The second indicator perceived ease of use of
the eMOTION model is medium rated, which bases on the average value of 2.48 of five
mentioned questions and two additional installation constraints. The one answer contains the
necessary strong political support to spread the use of the eMOTION model and the other
statement points out that the full specifications has not been implemented into the proof of
concept but the most important was covered. Summing up the results of the questions
concerning the indicator attitude toward using/behavioural intention to use the study team
results in an indifferent picture. On the one side the time frame foreseen for implementing
the eMOTION model is pretty short and on the other side only a few people answered
questions regarding the willingness to pay and mentioned a lot of potential reasons for
hindering the usage of eMOTION. Here, further analysis is needed to derive a valid picture
on the behavioural intention to use.
Besides the questions concerning the ETAM the study team asks for the strengths and the
weaknesses of the eMOTION model. The main strength of the eMOTION model from the
point of view of the respondents is the complex data model with a state of the art approach
covering ITS and LBS, based on international standards. This means that the model can be
used in the different situations and reflects a part of many standards that already exist. The
eMOTION model is a developed framework standard out of multiple sub-standards.
The question regarding the main requirements to be considered when implementing the
eMOTION model shows three main results: Legal and financial aspects, the necessity of
highly skilled architects and developers to cover all aspects of the model, and the quality of
the data. And the question concerning the initiatives which would support the usage of
eMOTION most points out that for 8 of 10 respondents the public interest/funding is the most
important initiative to support the usage of the eMOTION model. The second positive factor
for supporting the usage is the standardisation (6 persons) and the third positive factor is
that others should use the solution first.
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 27 of 34
Deliverable D 9
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
6. Literature
In order to gain fully understanding of this document, it is highly suggested to be familiar with
previous deliverables.
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 28 of 34
Deliverable D 9
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
7. Annex
Annex 1 - eMOTION Proof of Concept | Feedback Questionnaire
© eMOTION Consortium
Page 29 of 34
Deliverable D 9
© eMOTION Consortium
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Page 30 of 34
Deliverable D 9
© eMOTION Consortium
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Page 31 of 34
Deliverable D 9
© eMOTION Consortium
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Page 32 of 34
Deliverable D 9
© eMOTION Consortium
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Page 33 of 34
Deliverable D 9
© eMOTION Consortium
Proof of the Concept – Validation Results
Page 34 of 34