We studied the governance complexity for a variety of smart mobility platforms. Besides only trying to understand this complexity, we also displayed some practical wisdom, how our insights could be made to use. We do not aspire to a Grand Theory on how to deal with governance complexity. Instead, we give advises how to deal with the many fragmented governance issues we encountered.
Two patterns emerge.
One, we time and again advised parties involved in the development of smart mobility platforms to develop a ‘negotiated language’ on governance issues. We experience that our respondents find it hard to be concrete and concise about these issues. Partly this is typical for governance issues. They can be woolly and unbridled. Developing negotiated language may help here. Though respondents generally acknowledge that certain governance questions should be answered, they tend not to answer them, at least not explicitly, perhaps because it is hard to find assumptions and arguments with sufficient authority. An alternative approach is to develop negotiated language on governance issues. The idea is that at least the parties involved agree on how to answer certain governance questions, and if they cannot agree, explicit disagreement can be preferred above implicit (pseudo)agreement. Negotiated language on governance issues is not set in stone like scientific definitions. It may change under the influence of using it. In the empirical columns, we observed and argued that the parties involved could use some more ‘negotiated language’ on the following items:
- The economics of the platform. Is the platform viable? We suggest adding two topics here. First, what is the cost-benefit analysis per actor, not just for the platform owner? Second, what is the cost-benefit analysis along the way, not just in future when the platform might be ready and functioning?
- The game of decision-making. Given the variety of cost-benefit ratios in the course of time one can expect a dynamic development process wherein parties will be confronted with each other. By what rules do the parties want to play? A survival of the fittest? A friendly competition? Full cooperation?
- The history of rules. Some rules are not subject to design, but are given. They origin from culture, path dependencies and higher administrations. These rules are not always rational or stimulating innovations. What rules are relevant here? And who solves the problems caused by these rules?
A second pattern in the advises we gave is that we encourage developers of smart mobility platforms to open up for a multiplicity of actors. A rather closed, mono-actor, technocratic environment is currently the default to develop platforms in the cases we studied. This is apparently convenient, at least on the short term, and not necessarily wrong, but it is risky. Particularly as the platforms develop, it becomes more and more relevant to include the voice of many actors in the development of these platforms. The involvement of multiple actors of course has its costs. And gains and costs can be optimized. But we stress that the involvement of multiple actors should not only be seen as instrumental to the platform. Their involvement is also essential to the public values served by these platforms, not only to scrutinize, criticize and reinterpret them, but also to align them with the individual values of actors. As such, the process of developing a platform will have learning and trust-building as bycatch, which may get as valuable as the platform itself.
Other questions