Today there is no truly sustainable approach to Mobility, so – it is “too-short-blanket-problem” – solving problems for one type of people, others are created for other types of citizens. A “global”, multi-disciplinary approach to the problem is therefore necessary, which entails a Disruptive innovation implemented, simultaneously, on the various aspects of the Smart City.
Today those involved in improving urban Mobility use a partial approach, which does not solve at all problems of getting around the City.
That is, it solves, in part, some specific problems, but not the problem as a whole. It therefore
does not improve the living conditions of the City,
which should be the goal of the people
who work for greater sustainability of the cities.
Today, a “global” approach, integral to the problem, is missing <see The need to see the whole picture: integration of products into an ecosystem >
Some of the aspects that are addressed in a “specialist” way are: – safety for Pedestrians – sustainability of travel times – pollution.
The fact is that these topics should be addressed as a whole, evaluating the “whole picture”. This is the only way to make cities more livable.
Addressing the problem in a specialized, sectorial way, problems are solved for some Citizens, but things are complicated for others (it is the “too-short-blanket-problem”).
The question is therefore to have an approach that pushes to face the causes “upstream” of the problem. And to intervene in Disruptive innovation mode, that is to innovate Mobility at its foundations. And innovate it in a coordinated (integrated) way with other innovations of the so-called Smart City.
A Disruptive innovation of Mobility, in practice
1) must “revolutionize” the elements of urban traffic:
– the basic element, the Vehicle (and overcome the dichotomy of private transport / public transport)
– traffic infrastructures
– Mobility Plan
2) And it must do so with an intervention that is sustainable in itself (for example, with low investments, and so that it does not force citizens to change – quickly – their Cars).
because it is really a change made “for citizens”,
that these must find real advantages in change.
Here are some examples of wrong direction in Mobility projects (problems towards which the LiteMotive Project intervenes with specific solutions). <see The plus of the project LiteMotive>
● Reducing the speed of vehicles is undoubtedly decisive, but without speeding up traffic with some methods, this is penalizing for private vehicles. A sustainable dimension can be achieved with a Disruptive Innovation that “revolutions”, from the foundations, the Infrastructures of the circulation system (see on LiteMotive “A virtual signage infrastructure”>.
● electrifying cars in their current design does not solve the problems of size, mass (danger), operating costs and tax costs. <see A Fork of the Automotive Market>
● maintaining the current tax classification of vehicles does not stimulate change. With new concept vehicles (for urban traffic) it is possible to relieve the Citizen of many tax costs of the traditional car (which in the new scenario is in fact used only in extra-urban travel, which for most people means a few days a month ). The tax relief can be implemented, for example by giving ordinary vehicle owners the opportunity to share ownership of it, and to pay Taxes and Insurance only when cars are used)
● creating new car parks is unsustainable because it only increases the number of cars circulating in the city (a sustainable solution, as it is for LiteMotive, must allow, for example, new micro-cars to self-park in self-driving mode – in the same way there can be a relocation of the Cars in “autonomous” mode, managed remotely).
● the impasse for the improvement of Mobility derives from the fact that:
– today – due to the economic crisis – there are no more huge funds for mega-projects
– it is impossible to install a system that completely replaces the current Mobility mode. The LiteMotive System provides for a compatibility of existing Systems with the new one, so as to favor a smooth transition
For an effective assessment of the quality of a product's innovation, the "TrendInsights's Guidelines to Disruptive Innovation" was developed, which offers:
1) an essential description of the meaning and methods of Disruptive innovation, and
2) a methodology for those who want to start a Disruptive Innovation business.
3) a Table summarizing the quality of the Disruptive Innovation for an assessment of business innovation capacity (usable both for developing a new Business and for analyzing Business already in progress).
The topics above are developed in the Articles of the TrendInsignts site. And in particular in the Collection of Articles (see index below):
► Guidelines for Disrutpive Innovation; and
► Disruptive innovation in practice.
DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION IN PRACTICE (Collection of Articles)
● The redefinition of the term Disruptive by its "inventor"
The essence of Disruptive Innovation it's not disruption (disorder, destruction); but it is THE "USEFUL VALUE" THAT THE PRODUCT DEVELOPES FOR THE CUSTOMER
● The two opposite meanings of the term Disruptive
Today the term disruptive indicates negative effects of disorder, destruction. But Disruptive Innovation is a great benefit for Business and Customers
● The causes of the current disruption
The paradox of Disruption is that it is the Incumbents who created it, depriving the market of the qualities needed to satisfy the Demand
● The need to develop new Business Rules
In order to develop an innovation capable of satisfying the new Demand it is necessary to understand what the qualities required for this Demand are
● A hint to the qualities of Disruptive Innovation products
The differences between the qualities of the two forms of innovation are radical: traditional product qualities and deeper forms of gratification are recovered.
Today we read (increasingly often) that Disruptive Innovation is not what Business really needs. But the validity of Disruptive Innovation is verifiable (primarily by analyzing the facts). Chapters:
● The verifiability of the disruptive innovation validity
● The two fundamental questions about the validity of Disruptive innovation
● The absence of Startups of breakthrough success of Sustaining innovation
● The media essence of the success of Sustaining innovation
● The "resistance" to innovation
Companies are prisoners of the same narrative with which they deal with customers.
The incumbents have created a cultural dimension of "abstractness" that allows Marketers a "persuasion through fiction" to purchase (which induces the Customer to purchase products that have little or no use for it).
And now the Incumbents themselves live in this "mental bubble" (of abstract ideas), for which they are convinced by the "experts" (Managers, Consultants, Professors, etc.) to follow ways of developing strategies that they are disconnected from actual reality (ie to purchase a "product" lacking in quality for them).
GUIDELINES FOR DISRUTPIVE INNOVATION (Collection of Articles)
A Guideline illustrating which are the Rules followed by the Disrutpive Inovation Business.
It contains a Table that illustrates the Keypoints of Disruptive innovation, so that we can easily evaluate the response of a Business to the Rules of the Disrutpive Innovation.
Aimed at a clarification of the negative and positive keypoints of Disrutpive Innovation: ● what are the causes of the current crisis, and ● what Disruptive innovation actually is in its specific aspects.
► Why we cannot get out of the current market crisis? / Why you cannot work on causes of problems? ► Some causes of the failure to change ► The change: some characteristic / Why the need for a disruptive innovation?
Aimed at a clarification of what are the specific errors committed by the failing strategies. And what are key factors of the winning alternatives
► Considerations on models and roles of the new Business ► Overcoming the concept of Leader and follower ► Considerations on the form of innovation / The difference between the innovation models (sustaining/disruptive) ► The change of the business paradigm and mission / Purpose of business / Comparison between Disruptive and Sustaining Innovation: the case of “electric bikes”
SUMMARY TABLE OF KEYPOINTS OF THE TWO DIFFERENT FORMS OF INNOVATION (Disruptive / Sustaining), with which it is possibile TO ASSESS WHICH FORMS OF INNOVATION ARE PRESENT IN EVERY BUSINESS.