Acknowledge that the choices in governance structure are more than facilitative for the development of intelligent mobility. The difficulty lies in the fact that these choices, though quite influential, are often not up to the developers to decide and may even remain variable.
Key words: path dependency, governance structures, vendor lock in, politics, design dilemma
Path dependency is a concept originally developed by economists to describe technological developments. Past choices in technology, let’s say choosing a Windows-application, may prove restrictive in the future. Choices in governance likewise may prove restrictive. For example in Helsinki, we encounter a ‘vendor lock in’. The transport authority HSL first bought technology developed by Reittiopas. Later, to further develop this technology, however, HSL had to invest in the technology that Reittiopas owned. This complicated and delayed the innovation process.
Path dependency basically is a concept to alert developers, as they may fix their own future development by the earlier choices they make in their technology. This also holds for choices in governance, but there are differences, at least two. First, choices in governance tend to be less fixed. Instead, they create temporary freezes. They generally are reversible. That is, in first instance. A simple example is that the involved parties participate and little by little create vested interests. Many transport authorities develop platforms focused on public transport only, such as OV9292. Walking and cycling are sometimes included, but taxis, services like Uber and car-sharing are generally not included. The general governance structure of platforms, with a central role for public transport companies, does not exclude these transport options per se, though it might boil down to the same thing. For similar reasons, platforms, like for example VSS in Stuttgart, tend to develop without much interaction with users of transport or policy-related users of the information platforms offer. This does not restrict the future development, but indirectly influences it possibly just as powerfully.
In Australia, the journey planner of PTV is a simple platform. This reflects the governance arrangement. The State has the political power and the funds, but is distant to the population, whereas the cities are close to the population’s interests but have no significant means to act.
In the EU-funded project Superhub, the platform continuity suffered from a lack of funds, change in political priorities and change of politicians in power. Each of these dynamics didn’t determine the future development by itself, but together they did so gradually and insidiously.
A second peculiarity of the governance type of path dependency is its pluriformity. Choices in governance tend to take place in many arenas, connecting to many other issues. They often are not up to the main developers to decide, but instead require negotiation, lobbying or simply waiting. Think of regulatory specifications, the availability of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). Political readiness to risk privacy breaches is also a typical factor of governance that can emerge as a Deus ex Machina in the technological development. Do politicians in power allow for the use of cameras on the public road? Do politicians in power allow to gather information about people’s travelling behaviour if there is a reasonable risk this information might be used without consent by third parties with commercial interests?
As a conclusion, the concept of ‘path dependency’ is relevant to the choices made for governance, but the metaphor does not seem to hold. The way choices in governance influence the future development seem to be less fixed and more accidental. ‘Governance creep’ is perhaps a better way to describe these dynamics at play. Besides the risk of triggering non-intended restrictions in the future development, similar to path dependency, there is also the opposite risk of non-continuity. Governance may determine a path, but may also later block it again or create a diversion. Choices in governance are double-edged. To anticipate this, developers face a fundamental design dilemma. How to include the choices in governance in the design process of a platform, given that they are less definitive and not up to the developers to decide?
Governance is often regarded as a side issue, and technological development the core of innovation. Though the relevance of governance is hardly debated, it is generally treated as a conditional issue as if it is sufficiently dealt with if it does not interfere or erect barriers. This popular notion of facilitative governance, however, perhaps underestimates the way governance intertwines with the technological development itself. Perhaps governance is less innocent and less instrumental. Choices in governance influence the innovative developments, although more implicit than design choices.