A prelude to the case descriptions
“One can state, without exaggeration, that the observation of and the search for similarities and differences are the basis of all human knowledge.”
The quote with which we start this section is attributed to Alfred Nobel. The same way as for the Swedish chemist, it was also PETRA’s team conviction that the empirical research of existing cases could provide PETRA’s team with invaluable insights and knowledge for the development of a new platform. In particular in this Handbook, this interest in case studies meant observation of experiences from other platforms when encountering and tackling (or not) governance challenges. Studying other platforms was planned from the outset of the project and constituted a central element for the preparation of this Handbook.
While developing our work plan, a detailed case protocol was elaborated. This protocol established our priorities and set guidelines for the team to execute two tasks: on a first moment, identify potential cases and select those that could be part of our study. On a second moment, the protocol defined the most relevant information to be obtained from stakeholders connected to selected cases, serving, therefore, as an interview route.
The initial plan established the importance of unveiling interactions among stakeholders in those platforms that presented six key key-features. These key-features, summarized below, were in line with the characteristics being developed for PETRA:
- a) Platform: a data repository or pass-through should be in place, providing a single point of access to users to a variety of data from multiple sources. The platform has to concentrate the data, integrate the data for the function of the platform, and interpret the data through modeling to expected outcomes.
- b) Multi-modality: the platform aim is to advice on various services that have mutual dependencies but can be seen as separate, for example by the use of different technologies or markets and are delivered by distinct providers of those services. For example, the platform is aimed at various energy providers (wind, PV, gas, oil, coal).
- c) Situational information: next to data on the services, the platform gathers situational information that influence demand for and performance of the different services. It stores that data and makes them available for future reference and analysis. For example, weather information, driving the provision of alternative energy sources.
- d) Real-time planning: the platform provides planning support to users. That planning is per definition aimed to optimize the future use of the services. The planning is real-time, in that it uses current situational information in its planning algorithms. Users can be the users of the services, but also coordinative actors on the services. For example, the platform helps control rooms of energy networks switch between various energy sources or helps power consumers to actively switch between greener and grayer power sources.
- e) Collective optimization: the planning support is not just aimed at optimizing the goals of the individual user, but, at least partly, has a collective focus. That can be done by official policy goals included in the planning heuristics, or by heuristics that optimize the collective, rather than the individual performance. For example, the heuristics optimize the use of green energy, under the premise of reliable energy delivery, rather than the optimized power output of a single service provider.
- f) Jurisdictions: the sources of data, the governmental goals, the planning demands, all might have various jurisdictions. A multi-level governance element is valuable. For example, the platform might advise the disconnection from the energy grid of a specific region to maintain functionality in the remainder of the grid.
Throughout the research process, it became clear that platforms that show all these features were extremely rare. Because of this, the team also included platforms that did not showcase the entire list of features as they may offer interesting lessons. As a result, a first rough longlist of potential cases including nearly 80 platforms was established. This was eventually narrowed down to the current list of 13 cases presented below and that were interviewed either in loco or by telephone. This process to reduce the scope of analysis from 80 to 13 cases involved the subjective judgement of team members in selecting more interesting examples (based on the mentioned criteria), but also resulted from the actual availability from platform representatives to participate in interviews (the team reached out to several cases that unfortunately did not get back to our contact requests). These interviews were conducted with varied stakeholders fulfilling different roles in these platforms: technology developers, transit authorities, transport operators, travellers etc.
The main lessons and most insightful evidence gathered after researching cases are described in the empirical columns of this Handbook. The case descriptions in this sections come close to our ‘raw data’ and show the most important facts in a nutshell. Apart from the requirements we just discussed they list the type of information that is most relevant for the governance dimension of these platforms e.g. identification of the main stakeholders, their potential tasks and responsibilities; trade-offs involved in the development of the platform (including financial); level of embeddedness of the platform etc. Not all the information was found or disclosed by the platforms’ representatives for all our cases, and this is the reason for some gaps in the list. Ultimately, though, this list serves as a practical reference guide for those interested in finding more about different platforms, helping the identification of those platforms that can be of greater interest according to one needs.
The following cases are discussed: