SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT IN PRODUCT SERVICE SYSTEMS: A COLLABORATIVE DESIGN PROCESS TO SUPPORT SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION Catharina B. Nawangpalupi A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy FACULTY OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
‘I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or dissertation.'
Signed
Date 2 August 2010
AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT
‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to digital format.’
Signed
Date 2 August 2010
i
ORIGINALITY STATEMENT
‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’
Signed Date: 2 August 2010
ii ABSTRACT
Overconsumption or high levels of consumption have been practised in modern society and has caused many negative impacts including environmental, personal, and economic impacts. Thus, changing consumption to a more sustainable level is an effective way of reducing those effects. Product Service System (PSS) is considered to be one solution for reducing environmental impacts by taking both production and consumption patterns into consideration.
Many businesses and organisations have been implementing PSS strategies, and many researchers have done comprehensive studies to assess the performances of these PSS strategies. Yet, to reach optimal performances, it is suggested that (1) PSS organisations carefully manage the system by analysing it systematically and using a holistic process; and that (2) collaborative efforts between organisations, members, government and researchers are encouraged and maintained (Manzini, 2002; Mont, 2004b; Tukker & Tischner, 2006). This study takes the challenges, by observing current PSS strategy and analysing its performances in a holistic approach, as well as identifying the benefits and drawbacks of PSS strategy for the stakeholders, especially PSS organisations, members and suppliers.
By choosing two PSS case studies in Australia: GoGet car sharing and the Randwick City Council Toy and Game Library, this study explores the performances of those systems, and proposes new PSS scenarios to improve current performances. The analysis of system performances was done using a model based on a system thinking approach and an extensive literature review. Two performance criteria were evaluated: (1) user satisfaction levels and (2) sustainable consumption behaviour together with the intention to change to more sustainable consumption behaviour. Subsequently, collaborative design workshops were conducted and scenarios designed to enhance the quality of selected PSS case studies.
iii The data collection and analysis conducted using a mixed methods research framework showed that both systems had relatively satisfied their members above average levels. For the GoGet car sharing case study, apart from some dissatisfying experiences, most members agreed they have benefited from using the system, ranging from enjoying conveniences in transport, flexibility in the access to a car, through to cost saving. The study then identified different characteristics of members regarding their consumption behaviour in transport. However, interviews with some members with different characteristics revealed that most participants showed the intended changing to more sustainable consumption. Furthermore, a collaborative design workshop for GoGet staff, members and a car cleaner created three unique scenarios (Use Net to Get, Go/Gather Together, and Take a Pet with GoGet) that characterise diverse needs and expectations of various GoGet stakeholders. Although the design process showed arguments among participants because of their conflict of interests, the scenarios ultimately showed a collaborative solution which could enhance user experiences with GoGet services, while also improving GoGet’s overall sustainability performance.
The Randwick City Toy and Game Library case study also indicated that the RCTGL services have provided members with positive experiences, including the ability to access a range of toys and games with very low cost and the possibility to have some social activities. Although there was no identical behaviour related to sustainable consumption practices among participants, it is evident that using the RCTGL services indirectly taught them about sustainable consumption behaviour. Moreover, two scenarios that were designed from a collaborative design workshop (A Sense of Activities and A Sense of Place) evidently improve sustainability performances, mainly in the socio ethical sustainability area, and enhance user experiences by creating more active roles for the RCTGL members.
The study has demonstrated its contribution to the PSS study in theoretical and empirical ways. The proposed model has supported the need to explore the study
iv of PSS in a more holistic way. The designed scenarios also identified the needs and expectations of PSS stakeholders in depth.
However, to assess whether the model is really transferable to other case studies, it is suggested that other PSS applications can be analysed using the same model which would further validate the model. Finally, further study to implement and evaluate the designed scenarios using the proposed model should be carried out to observe their viability in a real system.
v DEDICATION
When I was in High School, I joined a nature society and I was introduced to this famous Cree Indian proverb: “Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten” it always reminds me to save the Earth. Last year, my daughter, who was 6 years old, watched ‘Wall E’ and learned a lesson about the huge effort spent to regenerate a plant and how a plant can enormously motivate anyone to show love and care. This thesis is dedicated to: my beloved parents who have taught me simple living, especially my late father who greatly motivated me to achieve this degree my daughter, Sistha, who always eagerly learns about nature and always shows her love and passion during my PhD journey.
vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It was indeed a rich experience through a long and winding path to complete this thesis. It will not be easier without great assistance, supports and encouragement from many people who have positively contributed to this research process. It is now my opportunity to express my gratitude to all of them who I will never forget.
My sincere gratitude is extended to my main supervisor at the Faculty of the Built Environment UNSW, Assoc. Prof. Oya Demirbilek, who intellectually and mentally support me by showing her understanding and giving her critical reviews and encouragement during this doctoral study. I also thank my co supervisor, Dr. Mariano Ramirez, for his insight, helpful advice and constructive feedback.
This study was primarily funded by the Australian Development Scholarship under the auspices of AusAID. During this period of study, I am indebted to AusAID Liaison Officers from time to time at the UNSW: Jo Ronalds (+Chryss Grindrod), Jude Forder, Tamara Rouse, and Andrie Effendi who helped me with all administrative processes which eased my study. I also would like to thank Assoc. Prof. Patrick Zhou, Director of Research Students, Dr. Catherine de Lorenzo, former Director of Research Students, Jim Plume, Head of School, and all FBE staff for their support of my research. During the study at FBE, I was also greatly assisted by Chrisanthi, Rodina, Eddie Ward, and BECU staff, especially Jen and Rae.
I also would like to thank GoGet founders: Bruce Jeffreys and Nic Lowe, and the RTCGL staff, especially Sharon Stern who make this research possible through the case studies that I conducted. Furthermore, I am truly indebted to the wonderful participation of the interviewees and workshop participants who are GoGet members and the RCTGL members.
vii I also appreciated the assistance from my proofreaders: John Blair and Pete Heininger who have edited my work to a fine piece of writing and also for their enthusiasm and friendliness involvement.
To friends at FBE, especially Hyemi, Jin, Min Chia, Eric, Melissa, Venny, Ayu, Tata, Ali, and Mohammad and to my colleagues at Catholic University of Parahyangan, Bandung Indonesia, I am really grateful for your support and friendship. Also, thanks to the ISS (UNSW) staff, the Learning Centre (UNSW) colleagues, and friends: Mega Christina, Philia Restiani, Yeni Mulyani, Lelly and Pras family, Riantoputra family, Makarti family, and many more who have been there to encourage me and help me on their unique ways to complete this thesis.
I am truly blessed to have an unconditional love and relentless support from my beloved husband, Pasco Yoshua and my wonderful daughter, Sistha Cantyani. For my family who has always supported me from distance: my mother, my in laws, my sisters Ratih and Sinta, my brother Kesit, thank you so much!
Lastly, I am very grateful to encounter many people during my study that had inspired me in many ways. I believe these were not random chances to have support from them but these were consequential events in nature. From this I learnt that my doctoral journey has not only resulted in a piece of thesis but a tremendous learning journey about life.
UNSW, August 2009
Catharina B. Nawangpalupi
viii TABLE OF CONTENT
ORIGINAL STATEMENT ...... i
ABSTRACT ...... ii
DEDICATION ...... v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... vi
TABLE OF CONTENT ...... viii
TABLE OF FIGURES ...... xiv
LIST OF TABLES ...... xvii
LIST OF APPENDICES ...... xix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.2 CONTEXT OF STUDY ...... 5 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION ...... 9 1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ...... 11 1.5 RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 12 1.6 THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS ...... 14 1.7 EMPIRICAL CONTRIBUTIONS ...... 15 1.8 STRUCTURE OF THESIS ...... 16 CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 17
2.1 CONSUMPTION ...... 17 2.1.1 Consumption theories and critiques ...... 17 2.1.2 Consumption behaviour models ...... 21 Needs ...... 23 Opportunities ...... 26 Abilities ...... 27
ix 2.2 SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION ...... 28 2.2.1 Definition ...... 28 2.2.2 Behaviour change towards sustainable consumption patterns ...... 30 2.2.3 Voluntary simplicity movements ...... 33 2.3 PRODUCT SERVICE SYSTEMS: IMPLEMENTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION ..... 36 2.3.1 Functional Economy ...... 36 2.3.2 Product Service System – definition ...... 38 2.3.3 Product Service System – Research trajectories ...... 41 2.3.4 Product Service System – Classifications ...... 45 Activity based classification ...... 45 Region based classification ...... 47 2.3.5 Product Service System – Models and methodologies ...... 49 PSS Models ...... 49 PSS methodologies ...... 51 2.4 COLLABORATIVE DESIGN PROCESS ...... 55 2.4.1 Key characteristics of collaborative design ...... 56 2.4.2 Taxonomy of collaborative design practices ...... 57 2.4.3 Tools and techniques for collaborative design ...... 59 2.4.4 Communication roles in collaborative design ...... 60 2.5 CASE STUDIES ...... 62 2.5.1 Car sharing ...... 62 The concept of car sharing ...... 63 Car sharing benefits ...... 64 Car sharing in Australia ...... 67 2.5.2 Toy Library ...... 68 Toy library concepts ...... 69 Toy library history ...... 70 Toy library in Australia ...... 71 Randwick City Toy and Game Library ...... 72 2.6 PROPOSED MODEL ...... 73 2.6.1 ServQual Method ...... 75 2.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY ...... 77
x CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...... 78
3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 78 3.2 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ...... 82 3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN FRAMEWORKS ...... 84 3.4 RESEARCH METHODS ...... 89 3.4.1 Justification of research method ...... 89 Phase 1: Embedded Design ...... 89 Phase 2: Collaborative Design ...... 93 3.4.2 Car Sharing Case Study ...... 94 Methods ...... 95 Data analysis ...... 97 3.4.3 Toy Library Case Study ...... 98 Methods ...... 99 Data analysis ...... 101 3.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY ...... 102 CHAPTER 4: CAR SHARING ...... 103
4. 1 CAR SHARING MODEL: DESCRIPTION ...... 103 4. 2 CAR SHARING MODEL: SYSTEM ANALYSIS ...... 108 4.2.1 General System ...... 108 4.2.2 Main actors ...... 109 GoGet organization ...... 109 Stakeholders ...... 110 4.2.3 Components of GoGet ...... 114 Products ...... 114 Services ...... 117 Actor networks ...... 117 Infrastructure ...... 119 4. 3 PHASE 1: GOGET PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ...... 119 4.3.1 Procedures ...... 119 4.3.2 Demographic profiles ...... 121 4.3.3 User satisfaction performance ...... 124 Online survey findings ...... 124
xi Interview and journal findings...... 141 Summary ...... 148 4.3.4 Sustainable consumption behaviour performance ...... 149 Quantitative data analysis – online survey ...... 149 Quantitative data – GoGet pre joining survey and databases ...... 154 Qualitative data analysis ...... 156 Summary ...... 169 4. 4 PHASE 2: GOGET COLLABORATIVE DESIGN ...... 170 4.4.1 Scenario Development : Preparation Phase ...... 170 4.4.2 Scenario Development : Collaborative Design Workshop ...... 174 Procedure ...... 174 Collage making ...... 177 Scenario development ...... 182 4.4.3 Final scenario development ...... 190 4. 5 CHAPTER SUMMARY ...... 199
CHAPTER 5: TOY LIBRARY ...... 202
5.1 TOY LIBRARY MODEL: DESCRIPTION ...... 202 5.1.1 Observation ...... 204 5.2 TOY LIBRARY MODEL: SYSTEM ANALYSIS ...... 206 5.2.1 General System ...... 206 5.2.2 Main actors ...... 207 The RCTGL organization ...... 207 Stakeholders ...... 209 5.2.3 Components of the RCTGL ...... 211 Product ...... 211 Services ...... 212 Actor networks ...... 213 Infrastructure ...... 214 5.3 PHASE 1: THE RCTGL PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ...... 215 5.3.1 Procedures ...... 215 5.3.2 Demographic profiles ...... 216 5.3.3 User satisfaction performance ...... 218
xii Mail out survey findings ...... 218 Interviews ...... 230 Summary ...... 245 5.3.4 Sustainable consumption behaviour performance ...... 246 Quantitative data analysis – mail out survey ...... 246 Qualitative data analysis ...... 252 5.4 PHASE 2: THE RCTGL COLLABORATIVE DESIGN ...... 263 5.4.1 Scenario Development: Individual Collage Making ...... 264 Scenario Development : Collaborative Design Workshop ...... 270 Scenario development ...... 273 5.4.3 Final scenario development ...... 279 Discussion with the RCTGL toy librarian ...... 285 5.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY ...... 286 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSIONS ...... 288
6.1 CASE STUDIES ...... 289 6.1.2 PSS Applications ...... 289 6.1.2 Areas of the PSS Case Studies ...... 297 6.2 GOGET CAR SHARING ...... 298 6.2.1 Findings ...... 298 Users’ expectations ...... 299 User satisfaction level ...... 300 Environmental sustainability benefit and Sustainable consumption behaviour changes ...... 302 Scenario development ...... 305 Sustainable performances of the scenarios ...... 307 6.2.2 Methodology ...... 309 Mixed methods research design ...... 309 Validity of the study – legitimation in mixed methods research ...... 313 6.3 THE RANDWICK CITY TOY AND GAME LIBRARY ...... 317 6.3.1 Findings ...... 317 Users’ expectations ...... 317 User satisfaction level ...... 318
xiii Environmental sustainability benefit and Sustainable consumption behaviour changes ...... 321 Scenario development ...... 323 Sustainable performances of the scenarios ...... 324 6.3.2 Methodology ...... 326 Mixed methods research design ...... 326 Validity of the study – legitimation in mixed methods research ...... 330 6.4 EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED MODEL ...... 334 6.4.1 GoGet case study ...... 334 6.4.2 The RCTGL case study ...... 340 6.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY ...... 342 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS ...... 344
7.1 SUMMARY ...... 344 7.2 WHAT DID THE STUDY ADD? ...... 349 7.3 FURTHER RESEARCH AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 350
REFERENCES ...... 352
xiv TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1. 1 : Categorization of product service system ...... 5 Figure 2. 1: The Needs Opportunity Ability model of consumer behaviour ...... 22 Figure 2. 2: The relationship between the indicators of the NOA model and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs ...... 24 Figure 2. 3: Stages of Change model ...... 31 Figure 2. 4: Categorization of Voluntary Simplicity across the literatures ...... 35 Figure 2. 5: Resource Efficiency and Business Strategies in the Functional Economy . 37 Figure 2. 6 : Categorization of product service system ...... 39 Figure 2. 7: Milestones of PSS research from 1998 to present ...... 41 Figure 2. 8 : Positioning of product service systems ...... 45 Figure 2. 9: The classification of PSS strategies based on regions ...... 48 Figure 2. 10: Car sharing model ...... 49 Figure 2. 11: A PSS framework ...... 51 Figure 2. 12: Methodology for Product Service System Innovation (MEPSS) ...... 53 Figure 2. 13: Taxonomy of collaborative design practices ...... 58 Figure 2. 14: Positioning of different modes of transport ...... 64 Figure 2. 15: Multi layered benefits of car sharing ...... 66 Figure 2. 16: Proposed model for the study ...... 74 Figure 2. 17: ServQual model ...... 76 Figure 3. 1: System thinking model ...... 79 Figure 3. 2: The design framework of the study ...... 81 Figure 3. 3: Major and basic types of mixed methods design ...... 86 Figure 3. 4: The research design framework of this study ...... 88 Figure 4. 1: Growth rate of GoGet members from 2003 to 2009 ...... 104 Figure 4. 2: GoGet pods in Sydney area ...... 105 Figure 4. 3: User activities in using GoGet car sharing ...... 106 Figure 4. 4: GoGet as a PSS model...... 109 Figure 4. 5: A designated car pod with a special sign given by a city council
xv in Sydney ...... 113 Figure 4. 6: Different types of car in the GoGet fleet ...... 115 Figure 4. 7: The use of GoGet smart card to access and lock the car ...... 116 Figure 4. 8: Actor networks for the provision of a new car and location ...... 117 Figure 4. 9: Actor networks for the maintenance and repairs of GoGet cars ...... 118 Figure 4. 10: A spider diagram for 22 variables of GoGet service quality ...... 129 Figure 4. 11: The revised gap analysis of GoGet service ...... 133 Figure 4. 12: The modes of transport to pick up a GoGet car ...... 150 Figure 4. 13: The patterns of use of GoGet cars ...... 152 Figure 4. 14: The model for sustainable consumption related to travel behaviour .... 157 Figure 4. 15: Voluntary simplicity position and Holbrook’s typology of GoGet interviewees ...... 164 Figure 4. 16: GoGet workshop activities ...... 176 Figure 4. 17: Individual collages from Group A – Cecile, Dwayne, Ella, and Rod ...... 179 Figure 4. 18: Individual collages from Group B: Adam, Janneke, and Shaun ...... 181 Figure 4. 19: An example of matrix categorisation (polarity diagram) ...... 183 Figure 4. 20: Matrix categorization (polarity diagram) ...... 184 Figure 4. 21: Group A’s scenario ...... 186 Figure 4. 22: Group B’s scenario ...... 187 Figure 4. 23: “Use Net to Get” scenario ...... 193 Figure 4. 24: “Go/Gather Together” scenario ...... 195 Figure 4. 25: “Take a Pet with GoGet” scenario ...... 198 Figure 5. 1: The toy area at the Bowen Library ...... 204 Figure 5. 2: The layout of toy and children area at the Bowen Library ...... 205 Figure 5. 3: The RCTGL as a PSS model ...... 206 Figure 5. 4: Toy bagging ...... 208 Figure 5. 5: A brochure informing the Randwick City Toy and Game Library ...... 212 Figure 5. 6: The relationship between the RCTGL and members in solving missing, incomplete or broken toys ...... 214 Figure 5. 7: The Spider Diagram for the RCTGL Expectation and Perception Levels .... 223 Figure 5. 8: A revised spider diagram for the RCTGL service quality ...... 227 Figure 5. 9: A wheel diagram between the use of a toy library system and the ownership of toys ...... 250
xvi Figure 5. 10: The individual collage making process with provided materials ...... 266 Figure 5. 11: Individual collages from the RCTGL workshop participants ...... 268 Figure 5. 12: The RCTGL collaborative workshop activities ...... 271 Figure 5. 13: An example of matrix categorization (polarity diagram) ...... 274 Figure 5. 14: Matrix categorization (polarity diagram) from Group A and B ...... 275 Figure 5. 15: Group A scenario ...... 277 Figure 5. 16: Group B scenario ...... 278 Figure 5. 17: “A Sense of Activity” scenario ...... 282 Figure 5. 18: “A Sense of Place” scenario ...... 284 Figure 5. 19: Rules at the RCTGL toy area ...... 285 Figure 6. 1: Positioning matrix for GoGet and other modes of transport ...... 291 Figure 6. 2: A typical look of a GoGet Car ...... 293 Figure 6.3: Feeling shown in Group A’s Scenario ...... 306 Figure 6. 4: Model for GoGet case study ...... 335 Figure 6. 5: System Map for Scenario 1 – Use Net to Get ...... 337 Figure 6. 6: System Map for Scenario 2 – Go/Gather Together ...... 338 Figure 6. 7: System Map for Scenario 3 – Take a Pet with GoGet ...... 339 Figure 6. 8: Model for the RCTGL case study ...... 340 Figure 6. 7: System Map for the RCTGL scenarios ...... 342
xvii LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Interdisciplinary research issues in consumer behaviour ...... 18 Table 2.2: The relationship between indicators of the NOA model and the Holbrook’s typology of consumer values ...... 25 Table 2.3: Advantages and disadvantages of different types of PSS ...... 40 Table 2.4 : Different methodologies for PSS ...... 52 Table 2.5: Tools and techniques in collaborative design ...... 59 Table 2.6: The classification of toy libraries in Sydney ...... 72 Table 3.1: Paradigm positions ...... 83 Table 3.2: Research methodology for the car sharing case study ...... 94 Table 3.3: Research methodology for toy library case study ...... 98 Table 4. 1: Gender, household and age characteristics of GoGet members ...... 122 Table 4.2: Income, education level of GoGet members and the overall satisfaction level of GoGet services ...... 123 Table 4.3: List of questions for the user satisfaction analysis ...... 125 Table 4 4: The expectation and perception values of GoGet service quality ...... 128 Table 4.5: Factor analysis result ...... 131 Table 4.6: The expectation and perception values for clustered factors ...... 132 Table 4. 7: Dissatisfying and satisfying experiences with GoGet ...... 137 Table 4.8: The experiences of being inconvenienced by other members ...... 138 Table 4.9: Recommendations for GoGet service ...... 140 Table 4.10: Interviewee profiles ...... 142 Table 4.11: The interviewees’ satisfaction level ...... 143 Table 4.12: Car ownership and preference for owning a car ...... 151 Table 4.13: The patterns of use of GoGet cars ...... 152 Table 4.14: Crosstabulation between the patterns of GoGet car use and car ownership ...... 153 Table 4.15: A summary of GoGet performance in regard to sustainable transport .... 155 Table 4.16: The position of voluntary simplicity and the states of change ...... 160 Table 4.17: Data analysis of the voluntary simplicity preferences and the NOA model ...... 162
xviii Table 4.18: Collaborative design workshop participants’ details ...... 171 Table 4.19: A summary of journal entries ...... 173 Table 4.20: A summary of photo collection and keywords from participants ...... 174 Table 4.21: The sub grouping of GoGet collaborative design workshop ...... 178 Table 5.1: Demographic profiles of the RCTGL members ...... 217 Table 5.2: Factors and variables of the ServQual method for the RCTGL case study .. 219 Table 5.3: The expectation and perception values of the RCTGL service quality ...... 222 Table 5.4: Factor analysis result ...... 225 Table 5.5: The expectation and perception values for clustered factors ...... 226 Table 5.6: Main reasons for joining the RCTGL ...... 229 Table 5.7: Interviewees profiles ...... 231 Table 5.8: A matrix analysis of the reasons for joining the RCTGL ...... 234 Table 5.9: Experiences and recommendations from the RCTGL members ...... 239 Table 5.10: The RCTGL members’ pattern of the use of the toy library ...... 247 Table 5.11: Profile comparison between an RCTGL member and a non RCTGL member ...... 249 Table 5.12: The voluntary simplicity spectrum of the RCTGL interviewees ...... 253 Table 5.13: The need, opportunity and ability of the use of the RCTGL services ...... 257 Table 5.14: The relationship between indicators of needs and the Holbrook’s typology of consumer values ...... 259 Table 5.15: The categorisation of needs based on the Holbrook’s typology and the VS spectrum ...... 260 Table 5.16: The RCTGL collaborative design participants’ profiles ...... 264 Table 5.17: Collages contexts, interpretation, characters and keywords ...... 269 Table 5.18: The sub grouping of the RCTGL collaborative design workshop ...... 272 Table 6.1: ServQual dimensions and new factors from factor analysis of the GoGet survey ...... 301 Table 6.2: Validity techniques in the study ...... 316 Table 6.3: ServQual dimensions and new factors from factor analysis of the RCTGL survey ...... 319 Table 6.4: The expectation and perception values for clustered factors ...... 320 Table 6.5: Validity techniques in the RCTGL case study ...... 333
xix LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Product Service System evaluation ...... App 1 Appendix B: GoGet online survey...... App 3 Appendix C: GoGet interview questions and journal design...... App 15 Appendix D: Mann Whitney test and reliabilty analysis of GoGet survey data ...... App 20 Appendix E: Factor analysis for Goget data Service Quality factors ...... App 27 Appendix F: Preparation phase package for GoGet collaborative design ...... App 42 Appendix G: Photos and expression from GoGet collaborative design workshop participants ...... App 50 Appendix H 1: GoGet collaborative design workshop plan ...... App 55 Appendix H 2: Matrix categorisation from GoGet collaborative design workshop ..... App 64 Appendix I 1: The RCTGL mail out survey before the pilot study ...... App 66 Appendix I 2: The final design of the RCTGL survey ...... App 72 Appendix J: The RCTGL interview questions ...... App 76 Appendix K 1: Reliability analysis for the RCTGL data ...... App 78 Appendix K 2: Factor analysis for the RCTGL data ...... App 83 Appendix L 1: The RCTGL collaborative design workshop plan ...... App 93 Appendix L 2: Individual collages characteristics from the RCTGL participants ...... App 100 Appendix L 3: Matrix categorisation from the RCTGL collaborative design workshop ...... App 104
xx CHAPTER 1 1 INTRODUCTION
I believe that a desirable future depends on our deliberately choosing a life of action over a life of consumption, on our engendering a lifestyle which will enable us to be spontaneous, independent, yet related to each other, rather than maintaining a lifestyle which only allows to make and unmake, produce and consume a style of life which is merely a way station on the road to the depletion and pollution of the environment. The future depends more upon our choice of institutions which support a life of action than on our developing new ideologies and technologies (Illich, I., 1973, p. 57).
This chapter provides background information on the study. It describes the increasing trend towards sustainable consumption and the need to implement new strategies for sustainable consumption which would satisfy society’s needs. It then outlines the aims of the study, the contributions and the structure of the thesis.
1.1 BACKGROUND
This research focuses on implementing product service systems (PSS) as a solution for supporting sustainable consumption and at the same time to satisfy the users’ needs. As the level of consumption has been consistently increasing during the last several decades, it is likely to make society more and more affluent which subsequently raises the risk of irreparable damage on the biosphere. Data shows that current global consumption uses the planet’s resources faster than they can be renewed (World Wildlife Fund, 2006). Set at 1.0 in 1970, The Living Planet Report 2006 confirms that the Living Planet Index has fallen to 0.7 in 2003. The Living Planet Index measures the trend in the Earth’s biodiversity based on the populations of terrestrial, marine, and freshwater species. Similarly, using the
1 Ecological Footprint (EF) measure, the global EF has more than doubled in 2003 (14.1 billion global hectare) compared with 1970 (6.9 billion gha) while global population increased ‘only’ by 70 per cent, from 3.69 billion to 6.3 billion in 2003 (World Wildlife Fund, 2006). This also means that in 2003, the average EF per capita was 2.2 global hectares. However, the total supply of productive area (biocapacity) was only 1.8 gha per person which means we have used the Earth’s resources beyond its capacity. The Ecological Footprint measures the ability of the Earth to provide resources and assimilate waste produced by humans on the area of biologically productive land and water needed to provide ecological resources and services (such as food, fibre, and timber), land to build, and land to absorb carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996). It is suggested that if human consumption remains at its current level, by 2050, human demands on natural resources will be twice Earth’s carrying capacity and at this level, would probably create widespread ecosystem collapse.
It is thus essential to reduce the level of consumption to a moderate or even lower level. Unfortunately, current global trends still show continuous high consumption or even overconsumption. People tend to spend increasing amounts of money buying consumer products. As a result, money acquisition (or capital gain) becomes the focal point of modern, affluent societies. The consumerism trend is not only found in long rich countries such as North America, Western Europe, and Australia, but also in developing and transition countries which are called the new consumers (Myers & Kent, 2004). The increase of car ownership is an example of escalating consumerism. In South Korea, for example, between 1990 and 2000 when economic growth was 75%, the number of cars tripled (Myers & Kent, 2004). The figure in China is even more surprising where the car ownership grew four times during the same decade (Myers & Kent, 2004). Hamilton and Denniss (2005) reported similar trend in Australia where the sales of luxury cars doubled between 1993 and 2004.
Another characteristic of overconsumption is high reliance on debt. Credit card debt, personal loans, car loans, and other credit schemes grew rapidly in many
2 countries. In the early 1990s, people chose to use consumer debt as the last option while nowadays it becomes the first option for the majority (Hamilton & Denniss, 2005). The Australian Consumers’ Association (2002) reported that, in the late 1990s, 75 per cent of Australian credit card holders paid off the balance monthly. In 2002, 75 per cent opted to carry balances. ABS data reveals that the Australian household saving ratio was 14 per cent in 1970s. By 2002 it dropped to 2.5 per cent, although the average income had almost doubled (Hamilton, 2002). The same situation occurred in Britain. Data from the British Statistic Authority shows that household saving ratio has continuously fallen from 10.8 per cent in 1993 to 4.6 in 2003 while new consumer credit debt problems rose by 47 per cent between 1998 and 2003 (Hamilton, 2003).
Overconsumption also creates waste because people tend to spend their money on buying goods they may never or rarely use. A study of 1644 respondents by the Australia Institute suggests that the richer a person becomes, the more money he or she spends on goods and services that are finally thrown away (Hamilton, Denniss, & Baker, 2005). Hamilton et al. (2005) further argue that, on average, each household in Australia was estimated to have spent $A1226 on items they had bought the previous year which they had never had chance to use. This figure equals one month's repayment on an average mortgage. Most of the items they wasted were food and drink, which in total amounted to $A5.3 billion in 2004 more than 13 times what Australian households donated to foreign aid agencies in 2003.
Moreover, it is evident that domestic appliances have been used for shorter periods than their technical lifespan, leading to increasing municipal waste. In Britain, at least 476,000 tonnes of household appliances or more than 23 million units were annually thrown away between 1993 and 1998 (Cooper & Mayers, 2000). Despite the lack of comprehensive study of product life spans, major opinion holds that the lifespan of appliances have fallen due to the perception that new products are
3 made to be disposable (Cooper, 2004, 2005) or will become either technologically or economically obsolete (Cooper, 2004).
Those facets of behaviour exemplify environmental, personal, and economic impacts of overconsumption. Thus, changing consumption to a more sustainable level is an effective solution for reducing those impacts. It has subsequently become an important policy agenda worldwide. Initially at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, developed countries were asked to promote and achieve sustainable consumption (OECD, 1997)1. Moreover, in 2002 in Johannesburg, the World Summit on Sustainable Development Plan seriously organised programs to accelerate sustainable consumption and production. However, the concepts of sustainable consumption is a sensitive issue – for example, what constitutes basic needs, the quality of life obtainable for both developed and developing countries, and the most appropriate strategies for reaching sustainable consumption without compromising economic goals and political interests (The Swedish EPA, 2005).
A desirable level of consumption should be appropriately established. Proposals range from the radical to the conservative. Goedkoop et al. (1999) argued that product service systems (PSS) are progressive solutions that can reduce environmental impacts by considering both production and consumption patterns. A PSS strategy offers users the value of a product or products without having to own it/them. Various examples of PSS are car sharing systems which offer personal mobility value without the costs associated with car ownership, tool sharing or toy library systems which offer the use value of tools or toys without having to own them privately.
1 Sustainable consumption is defined as “the use of goods and services that respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life, while minimising the use of natural resources, toxic materials and emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle, so as not to jeopardise the needs of future generation”. This definition originated in the Norwegian Ministry of Environment in 1994 in parallel with the Brundtland definition for sustainable development.
4 1.2 CONTEXT OF STUDY
A product service system (PSS) is one which “consists of tangible products and intangible services designed and combined so that they jointly are capable of fulfilling specific customer needs” (Tischner, Verkuijl, & Tukker, 2002, p. 33). Thus, a PSS is an approach to creating an integrated product and service system which satisfies users’ needs and maintains minimum environmental impacts. This approach is rarely implemented because of the reluctance of both producers and consumers to change their involvement in relation to a product (Mont, 2002b). However, this system is believed to be a promising way if creating changes in production and consumption patterns which would improve environmental sustainability.
Tukker (2004) categorises PSS into three different types product oriented PSS, use oriented PSS and result oriented PSS (See Figure 1.1). A product oriented PSS does not change the product system but improves its service system to enable a product to be more sustainable. A use oriented PSS changes the system by diminishing the use of resources by encouraging sharing, renting and leasing concepts. A result oriented PSS changes the system radically by allowing users to receive the function only, and external service providers create the functions by sustainable modes of production.
Figure 1. 1 : Categorization of product service system (Source : Adapted from Tukker, 2004)
5 Tukker continues to argue that while product oriented PSS only give incremental environmental benefits (20 per cent more efficient resource use), use oriented PSS gives quite significant benefits (minimum of 50 per cent more efficient resource use) and result oriented PSS gives even higher benefits (75 90 per cent more efficiency).
Extensive research on PSS have been conducted since mid 1990s, and a decade later it is evident that such research is continuously progressing and involves multiple countries, disciplines and even multiple layers of application. Scholars in Europe, North America, Asia and Australia have presented their study of PSS in the SusProNet forum. SusProNet, which is a network that facilitates PSS research, was the first European Network on sustainable products and services, and functioned between 2002 and 2004 (Tischner et al., 2002). The network has published a book, many conference papers and journal articles in developing methodology, tools and potential solutions for PSS (See Mont and Tukker, 2006, Tukker and Tischner, 2006b, Tukker and Tischner, 2006a).
The network was followed by the Sustainable Consumption Research Exchange Network (SCORE) which funded the EU’s 6th Framework Program in support of the UNS’s 10 year Framework Program on Sustainable Consumption and Production. This program was called for by the 2002 WSSD Johannesburg Plan of Action, or what is also known as the Marrakech Process. Furthermore, the SCORE network has successfully drawn various PSS research from many countries from different continents not only European countries.
Similar North American networks, NASCA (the North American Sustainable Consumption Alliance) and SCORAI (Sustainable Consumption Research and Action Initiatives), have initiated a framework for promoting sustainable consumption and production although it does not yet specifically focus on PSS study (Barber, 2007; www.scorai.org, 2009). On the other hand, there is no formal network promoting
6 either sustainable consumption or PSS in Australia. As a result, institutions tend to work independently in promoting PSS or sustainable consumption strategies.
Although PSS potentially offers significantly reduced environmental impacts, the real success of such systems depends on how they are planned and operated. To achieve its environmental sustainability benefits, a PSS should be properly designed and maintained by its stakeholders on the basis of a sustainability framework (Mont, 2004a). Moreover, systems should ensure users are involved and satisfied with the service provided. Otherwise systems will only create other waste in terms of material, energy and time. However, there is not yet any comprehensive or holistic approach for assessing existing PSS organisations.
Ryan (2000) argues that successful PSS organisations should be designed by considering consumer needs including cultural and social meanings while maintaining its functional value that is converted from product to service forms. This argument challenges PSS organisations to compete with mainstream systems of product ownership. This is in line with the reflection of PSS research, where Mont and Tukker (2006) argue that a comprehensive and holistic perspective needs to be taken first to develop an environmentally sound PSS. Moreover, Tukker and Tischner (2006b) maintain that despite being a widely researched topic, such research still needs to involve different stakeholders, address consumer acceptance and business sense in the process, and enhance academic rigour which would yield better strategies to optimise its environmental sustainability benefits. Tukker further (2008) argued that PSS research has challenges in future which are: to focus on changes using a systemic approach and to create collaboration between three main actors: businesses, consumers and policy makers.
In Australia, only a few studies have been done in PSS, in relation to design methodology (Morelli, 2002), case studies (Ramirez, Tonkinwise, & Andrews, 2004) and design challenges (Ryan, 2000). Although numerous examples and practices in implementing PSS have been reported in various media, such as the Tree Hugger web site as well as individual organisational websites that promote PSS, a
7 comprehensive study of the performances of PSS organisations has not yet been explored. In other words, PSS research is still in its infancy in Australia.
This study attempts to address the challenges of PSS in general and the context of the study in Australia. This study attempts to create collaborative action through scenario design workshops supported with systemic model and methodological design framework. Hence, the study observes current PSS strategy in a holistic perspective and identifies the impacts of implementing and using PSS for both organisations and users. It also carefully takes into account the perspective of users and their satisfaction levels to increase the involvement of users in implementing PSS. As this research is considered to be the first comprehensive study of PSS in Australia, it emphasises how PSS users accept the system and consciously (or unconsciously) adopt sustainable consumption into their lifestyles rather than analyse in detail the level of environmental impact a PSS can have.
This study argues that careful research about user perspectives and their acceptance of a system requires the involvement of users. As a result, this study lays an emphasis on scenario development using collaborative design process of PSS with the users as well as an organisation’s staff. The focus of the study is the use oriented PSS because PSS is considered a new strategy in Australia – one which can deliver moderate level of improvement in environmental sustainability.
As the research topic is considerably wide, the emphasis of the study on scenario development of PSS shows its main domains. Scenario development and product service systems are consistently the main focus throughout the study as well as the main context of this thesis. Collaborative design is the methodological approach used to create the scenario or the context how the scenario is designed while sustainable consumption is the direction of the scenario making.
8 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION
There has been little research in the Australian context on PSS strategy and the effectiveness of the strategy in supporting sustainable consumption. Moreover, there is not yet a comprehensive study that investigates if PSS organisations can satisfy their users and maintain business viability at the same time.
This research starts with two following propositions:
Proposition 1:
“The use of PSS supports sustainable consumption which consequently reduces the environmental impacts.”
As it has been earlier discussed, a careful PSS design will subsequently support sustainable consumption. There is no doubt that widespread sustainable consumption practices will reduce environmental impacts as noted by many researchers (Meadows, 1974; Meadows, Meadows, & Randers, 2004; World Wildlife Fund, 2006). Moreover, some studies of current PSS shows the degree of reduction of environmental impacts, for example professional laundry systems use 80 per cent less water, 77 per cent less energy and 66 per cent less detergent per kilo of laundry than private washing machines (Schmidt Bleek & Lehner, 1998). Referring to car sharing, Goedkoop et al. (1999) argue that car sharing schemes reduce environmental impacts by 30 per cent. Furthermore, Meijkamp’s research (2000) shows that shared cars are about 22 per cent lighter and 24 per cent more fuel efficient than average cars. Another study shows that car sharing system users are most likely to drive 40 per cent less than average (Sperling et al., 2000).
Proposition 2:
“The use of PSS limits user satisfaction due to inconvenience, less control, and less privacy.”
9 Previous studies argue that personal material possessions are preferable as they offer privacy, control (James & Hopkinson, 2002) and convenience (Mont, 2002b). PSS strategies offer the use of products but no ownership; control, privacy and convenience become more limited and it may lead to a lower level of user satisfaction.
A preliminary study needs to be undertaken to identify if these two propositions hold true. Supported by Proposition 1, an optimal design of PSS would, if widely implemented, lead to significant environmental impact reduction. Furthermore, a careful design of PSS could diminish the significance of Proposition 2 which would subsequently improve user satisfaction level. As a result, it is important to design PSS accordingly and the study aims to answer this main research question:
How to design PSS scenarios which improve user satisfaction level and encourage sustainable consumption of the users?
It is noteworthy that “scenario” is used here rather than “strategy” in relation to the PSS design. Given that the study focuses on a collaborative work, scenario is believed to be a more appropriate word to use than strategy. Strategy is defined as ‘a plan of action designed to achieve a long term or overall aim or generalship’ ("strategy noun," 2005) which seems to be more relevant to an organisation plan based on business perspective or management decision. Scenario in the design area, on the other hand, is a model of reality or an overall vision of context created by a number of actors through a participatory planning process which allows interaction (Manzini & Jegou, 2003). A scenario contains actors, information about their environment, actors’ goals or objectives and the sequence of actions and/or events (Go & Carroll, 2004).
It is also important to point out that the use of the word “scenario” is meant to underline the position of the study as a starting point for further PSS strategies. A selection of scenarios aims to identify viable alternatives to the current situation
10 which is created in a creative and participatory process involving both organisations and users.
As already mentioned, the study focuses on the use oriented PSS. To answer the main research question above, the research will focus on these five areas which become the subsidiary questions:
1. To what degree do the existing use oriented PSS case studies meet the user satisfaction levels?
2. To what extent do the use oriented PSS scenarios encourage sustainable consumption behaviour and reduce environmental impacts?
3. How should the design process be developed to encourage more sustainable consumption behaviour in the use oriented PSS scenarios and simultaneously improve the user satisfaction level?
4. What scenarios should be collaboratively designed to fulfil the users and the PSS organisation needs and also achieve the above criteria?
To clarify the differences between the existing system and the proposed scenarios, the term of “the existing case studies” is used to refer to the existing systems and “scenarios” is used to identify the proposed system from the collaborative design workshops.
1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this research are as follows:
1. To explore current levels of satisfaction and the sustainable consumption behaviours of the PSS users.
11 2. To propose new scenarios to improve both user satisfaction level and sustainable consumption behaviour by:
identifying features that needs to be improved to achieve more sustainable consumption behaviour and to improve user satisfaction level in the use oriented PSS scenarios
developing a collaborative design process with users and organization staff.
1.5 RESEARCH DESIGN
To achieve the objectives, several existing PSS cases in Australia are selected as alternatives of the study. The cases are selected from existing PSS which meet several criteria adopted from Tischner and Verkuijl (2002) and Cooper and Evans (2000), which are :
A significant reduction in the number of products used/produced.
Currently low utilisation of products which are privately owned.
Technical lifetime is much longer than use lifetime, which means the product still functions very well when the user does not like to have it any longer.
Significant added value obtained by shifting products to services, such as the increase of employment or other benefits.
For the purpose of this study, another criterion is added to the above the focus of the PSS organisation on providing service to individual customers instead of other organisations.
Among the existing PSS cases, two case studies are selected which are car sharing scheme and a toy library. Car sharing is a system in which an organisation allows members to use its fleet of cars for a few hours or a day, without the responsibilities of ownership, such as maintenance, insurance, parking and registration procedures. With the cars parked in neighbourhood locations, car
12 sharing is usually accessible within walking distance. A toy library is a service that provides members with the opportunity for shared play and the loans of toys. It can be operated by individuals, charity organisations, government or businesses (Brodin & Bjorck Akesson, 1992).
Car sharing is selected because it gives significant reduction of products used as one car is usually shared between 10 50 members (Bergmaier, Mason, McKenzie, Campbell, & Hobson, 2004) and one shared car may replace between four and 23 cars (Shaheen & Cohen, 2007). It replaces private cars owned by urban dwellers that are mostly reliant on public transport for their mobility due to parking problems and/or good public transport networks (Bergmaier et al., 2004; Meijkamp, 2000). Although there is no data regarding the useful lifespan of a car, the NSW Ministry of Transport suggests the cost effectiveness of replacing a car is three years or less which is shorter than its technical lifetime (Local & Community Transport). Car sharing gives added values to communities, users, government and businesses as it creates employment and new modes of partnership as well as offering social benefits to users and neighbourhoods (Bergmaier et al., 2004).
Toy libraries, although operating worldwide, are not a well known PSS concept. As a result, there is limited research regarding toy libraries’ performance as a PSS strategy. However, by sharing toys among several households, there is an opportunity to reduce the number of toys produced and owned. The use lifespan of toys is usually shorter as children outgrow their toys considerably faster than the products’ lifetimes. Furthermore, a toy library adds value by giving children more equal access to toys (Jackson, Robey, Watjus, & Chadwick, 1991), social benefit to parents, social development for librarians and volunteers, and cognitive development for children through playing (Brodin & Bjorck Akesson, 1992).
Besides the above PSS characteristics that make these two case studies are selected, both case studies both case studies have products that can be identified as shareable products. Benkler (2004) identifies shareable goods are: (1) technically ‘lumpy’ or functional in discrete quantities; (2) mid grained granularity or relatively
13 widespread private ownership and showing slack capacity relative to the demand of the user. Both case studies (car sharing and toy library) conform to these characteristics: firstly, both cars and toys are functional in indivisible form or are being used as a complete good. Secondly, both cars and toys are very common to be privately owned. They are also available in both first and second market for sale.
The first car sharing organisation in Sydney, GoGet CarShare (GoGet), is chosen as the car sharing case study and the Randwick City Toy and Game Library (RCTGL) is selected for the toy library case study. GoGet is chosen as it was the only car sharing company operating in Sydney when the study started (2006). It has also been growing in terms of member numbers, the numbers of cars and car locations. The RCTGL is chosen as it is the only local government initiative in inner Sydney that requires paid membership. RCTGL has been operating for more than 25 years, and the number of members keeps increasing. The size between these two case studies are similar to one another. The number of members for GoGet car sharing in 2007 when the study is conducted was 791 members while the toy library members were 661 members.
The study began by investigating the current performance of both case studies. The research design was mixed methods research, utilising questionnaires, observation and interviews to investigate current levels of satisfaction and the sustainable consumption behaviours of the PSS users. This was followed by making collages and developing collaborative design workshops for proposing new scenarios to improve user satisfaction level and sustainable consumption behaviour.
1.6 THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
This study addresses a topical area of inquiry. It is, however, an area which needs comprehensive theoretical enrichment. It provides a contribution of new knowledge to design research area and Product Service System research by proposing a new model for PSS and providing a methodological approach of PSS
14 case studies from the analysis of existing condition to the design of new scenarios. These contributions can be found in a number of ways:
1. It complements the current theoretical framework of PSS with the situational case in Australia.
2. It provides a holistic framework and an integrated model to develop scenarios to improve current PSS practices to support sustainable consumption.
3. It identifies the connection between different categorisations of sustainable consumption and consumer behaviour, and relates them to the PSS theories and applications, ultimately validating a model developed during the study.
1.7 EMPIRICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
This study is the first comprehensive study of PSS in Australia in which the central emphasis is on empirical research. Different techniques from both qualitative and quantitative methods were employed and enriched the study in a number of ways. As a result, the study contributes in the following ways:
1. It identifies similarities and differences of PSS applications in Australia, particularly in the case studies used. Moreover, it also classifies the similarity and differences between case studies.
2. It analyses the effectiveness of the methods used in the study and identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the relevant methods.
3. It initiates further research in developing PSS in Australia, especially for the implementation phase.
15 1.8 STRUCTURE OF THESIS
The thesis comprises seven chapters. Chapter 1 (this chapter) provides an overview of the research including background knowledge, the objectives and the contributions of the research. Chapter 2 provides a literature review of sustainable consumption, product service systems (PSS) and the relevance of both topics. It then discusses the need of a collaborative design process for creating better PSS performance and proposes a theoretical model. Chapter 3 discusses the research methodology which explains the theoretical perspective, the strategies of inquiry (design framework) and methods used in the study. Both Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 discuss the findings and data collected for each case study: car sharing and toy library for Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 respectively. Chapter 6 provides detailed discussion of the results. Finally, conclusions and recommendations for future research are presented in Chapter 7.
16 CHAPTER 2 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
… the greatest enjoyment is perhaps not so much in owning material things but in owning living being (Fromm, 1976).
This chapter establishes a theoretical framework for the study as expressed in the research questions in Section 1.3. The first section of this chapter consists of a review of consumption, and consumption behaviour models. It subsequently discusses the need to shift towards sustainable consumption and identifies behaviour changes toward more sustainable lifestyles. The next section discusses the phenomena of shifting private ownership behaviour to sharing behaviours as the basis of functional economy and then discusses product service system (PSS) as one of the strategies addressing this. A review of PSS and the performance measurements are then presented. Different models of PSS are discussed and different methods of improving PSS performances are highlighted. Subsequently, a collaborative design process as a proposed method to accommodate different stakeholders’ perspectives is discussed and evaluated. After a brief discussion of the case study, this chapter finally discuss a proposed model for the study.
2.1 CONSUMPTION
2.1.1 Consumption theories and critiques
Consumption the theory and its phenomena has been widely discussed in a number of different research disciplines, including economics, sociology, psychology, marketing and environmental sciences. Related to consumer behaviour
17 in interdisciplinary research issues, Solomon (2004) describes simple approaches for a number of disciplines. Table 2.1 shows different categorisation of consumer behaviour, for example microeconomic and human ecology studies focus more on resource allocation and utilisation, while psychology tends to focus on individual consumption related to its specialism. For instance, social psychology is concerned with an individual’s behaviour as a member of a society. As this research attempts to look at consumption from different angles of the multidisciplinary areas, this categorisation is used as a basis of understanding which areas of studies will be reviewed.
Table 2.1: Interdisciplinary research issues in consumer behaviour (Source: Solomon, 2004, p. 35)
18 Specific to household consumption, which this research is focused on, the OECD Program on Sustainable Consumption (1998) defines consumption as a sequence of activities that include the selection, purchase, use, maintenance, repair and disposal of a product or service until it is discarded. Related to the wider context of consumption, in a social perspective, French sociologist Mauss maintains that consumption is a means of participating in the life of community, and that exchanging goods and services is a representation of social bonding among individuals, groups, families and communities (Mauss, 2001; UNDP, 2006).
In economic theories, consumption has historically been an important discourse. Traditional microeconomic consumption theory assumes that consumers would rationally consider their spending based on well informed assessment of their own optimum benefit in both current and future economic circumstances (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2008a; UNDP, 2006). It is confirmed by neoclassical economic theory that consumers are rationally aware of supply demand relationship and they have sovereignty over maximising utility or profit. Neoclassical theory holds a number of assumptions, which are (1) consumers have rational preferences among outcomes that can be identified and associated with a value or price; (2) consumers tend to maximise their private utility measured by quantities of product and services; (3) consumers are sovereign and they consume goods and services independently without considering social, environmental, ethical or institutional issues; and (4) consumer preferences and desires are relatively stable while they maximise their private utility (utility maximisation) on the basis of full and relevant information as well as perfect market competition (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2008b; Ferrer i Carbonell, 2003; UNDP, 2006).
These assumptions have been extensively criticised. It is also argued that utility maximisation is an insatiable desire which drives consumers to accumulate their goods among available alternatives on the market. When available goods and services are abundant, the only limiting factors are budget and time (Ferrer i Carbonell, 2003; Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). When budget is
19 no longer a barrier, people then would show conspicuous consumption behaviour. It is Thorstein Veblen who introduced the conspicuous consumption term in the neoclassical economic theory in 1899. Veblen (1979 (Reprint)) argued that conspicuous consumption is an irrational decision. Veblen used the term “emulation” to show the motive of ownership. While goods accumulation is first meant to serve consumer’s physical needs and wants, it then serves the further development of social status. Conspicuous consumption shows the possession of wealth which displays honour and a higher status than others. Veblen further asserts that conspicuous consumption ultimately results in conspicuous waste as consumers accumulate goods without useful purpose or are never concerned about their values.
Further criticism of the neoclassical economic theory is the model that focuses on supply and demand, and the elasticity of income and price is directly linked to increases consumption levels. As consumption depends on budget, consumers tend to increase income to improve their purchasing power, more products are made and consumption increases further (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). In addition, early adoption products are considered luxuries. Related to the motive of “emulation” of wealthy people, only these people buy the products. However, as soon as such products become more available, their prices fall and they become affordable, common goods. Wealthy people subsequently find other luxury goods that will subsequently become other affordable, common goods, and all these cycles lead to an increase in consumption levels.
Although neoclassical theory was developed in the late 19th century, it is evident that modern society still emphasises this economic model, regardless of attempts to lower consumption levels and to opt for more sustainable products. The strong attention to the individual capacity of maximising utility the basic theory of the micro level of neoclassical economy could lead to some drawbacks. Cherrier (2007) asserts it is difficult to warrant that consumers have their own capacity and awareness to make consumption decisions as they are provided with excessive
20 information about ethical issues and practices that could mislead them. Moreover, the freedom and autonomy to promote more conscious consumption through personalised choices in the marketplace could not practically apply individually (Cherrier, 2007). There are many other factors involved in selecting a product, including social and institutional factors, such as available vendors, regulations and supportive society (Cherrier, 2007; Shaw & Newholm, 2002). Cherrier (2007) also argues that emphasising the rationality of consumers is fairly doubtful. Consumers rarely are rational and consider their consumption on the basis of societal, religious or cultural influences. These support the arguments that the key reference points for lowering consumption levels come from not only the inside (self identity) but also the outside (collective identity).
2.1.2 Consumption behaviour models
The need to understand consumption from inside and outside has resulted in different models of consumer behaviour. Still focusing on individuals as the core of consumer behaviour, Solomon (2004) suggests understanding facets of consumer behaviour from the micro level (individuals) to the macro level – subcultures and culture. On the other hand, Gatersleben and Vlek (1997) argue behaviour at the individual level cannot be comprehensively understood without first understanding it at the macro level. Adopting the MOA (Motivation Opportunity – Ability) models from Batra and Ray (1986) and Rothschild (1999), and the model of Motivation, Capacity and Opportunity from Robben and Poiesz (1993), Gatersleben and Vlek (1997, 1998) creates an extended model of the MOA model of consumer behaviour which is called the Needs Opportunity Ability (NOA) model. While the MOA model does not specifically identify macro level factors, the NOA model considers technology, economy, demography, institutions and culture as major factors which affect needs, opportunities and abilities.
The model illustrates that consumption motivations result from needs and opportunities to procure goods and services. Furthermore, being able to consume
21 and control (behaviour control) is influenced by opportunities individuals have as well as abilities bounded by income, space, time, and physical and cognitive considerations. Both motivation and behaviour control subsequently influence the intention to consume that, in turn, creates consumer behaviour. It ultimately creates consequences related to individual well being and environmental impacts. Figure 2.1 describe the NOA model, including the major aspects related to stimulating and limited factors.
Figure 2. 1: The Needs Opportunity Ability model of consumer behaviour (Source: Gatersleben & Vlek, 1998, p. 146)
The NOA model comprehensively shows the relationship between macro and micro level factors of consumption as well as internal (self identity) and external (collective identity) factors. Gatersleben and Vlek (1998) maintain that the development in technology, economy, demography, institution and culture has affected the abilities, opportunities and needs of consumers and subsequently changes consumer behaviour. Developments in technology and the growing economy make more goods and services available and increase consumer
22 purchasing power. Demographic change is considered to be a multiplier effect on both global and household consumption. Regulations and social structures, including market systems, influence the motives of consumers to buy (or not buy) goods and services. Moreover, culture has created cultural norms and values which are still strongly attached to individual needs, opportunities and abilities, especially in terms of material possession and prosperity (Gatersleben & Vlek, 1997).
Needs
Gatersleben and Vlek (1998) list 15 indicators of quality of life that influence human needs as shown in Figure 2.1. These include social relations, education and knowledge development, comfort, pleasure or arousal, beauty, work and job performance, health, privacy, money, status, safety, nature and environment, freedom and self control, leisure time, and social justice. Maslow (1946) develops a positive theory of motivation that suggests that human needs can be divided into five categories: basic or physiological needs, safety needs, love, affection and belongingness needs, esteem and respect needs, and needs of self actualisation. Holbrook (1999), with the Typology of Consumer Value, classifies consumer values into eight categories based on three key dimensions: orientation, active and reactive values, and intrinsic or extrinsic values. The orientation is divided into self oriented (when the value is perceived for one’s own sake) and other oriented (if the value looks beyond the self and considers the sake of others). Extrinsic value is perceived when consumption is a means of achieving particular goals, purposes, or functions/utilities, while intrinsic value occurs when consumption experience is enjoyed in itself. Active value is a value of a product or consumption experience that involves an action by a consumer. And reactive value is a value perceived by a consumer and given by a product of (or with) a consumer. In short, the product plays the active role instead of the consumer. Holbrook’s typology is categorised into efficiency, play, excellence, aesthetics, status, ethics, esteem and spirituality.
23 With respect to the relationship between indicators from the NOA model and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Figure 2.2 illustrates how the indicators of the NOA model relate to needs as classified by Maslow. The quality of life indicators from the NOA model do not cover all aspects of the Maslow model or the Holbrook classification. For example, none of the 15 indicators falls into the basic or physiological needs in Maslow’s hierarchy. This indicates that the quality of life indicators in the NOA model are those values that are achievable beyond basic needs. Furthermore, there are subtle boundaries between the classification of the indicators listed by Gatersleben and Vlek and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Some indicators cannot be plotted exclusively against a single Maslow need. For example, health, privacy and comfort indicators belong to safety needs because of the needs of assurance and security, as well as the needs of love, affection and belongingness because of the need of affectionate relations and the presence of other people to achieve those indicators. This is also consistent with Maslow’s argument that needs have to be understood not exclusively related to or as single determiners of a particular behaviour: motivations are usually driven by several needs (including basic needs) simultaneously (Maslow, 1946).
Figure 2. 2: The relationship between the indicators of the NOA model and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
24 The hierarchy of needs is similar to Max Neef’s ‘axiological’ categories (Max Neef, 1991), that classify needs into subsistence and protection (similar to physiological and safety needs), affection, understanding and participation (corresponding to belongingness needs), and idleness, creation, identity and freedom which are closely related to the actualization needs (Jackson & Marks, 1999).
Table 2.2 illustrates the classification of indicators in the NOA model into the Holbrook’s Typology of Consumer Value. As shown in the table, none of the indicators is classified in the spirituality category. As the NOA model is used for assessing household consumption which tends to be more for active activities, it is likely that passive forms of devotion or worship activities which relates to spirituality are rarely found. Most indicators fall into intrinsic values, especially self oriented focus and active values.
Table 2.2: The relationship between indicators of the NOA model and the Holbrook’s typology of consumer values
25 Opportunities
While needs identify internal values that can be seen in both individual levels or at a societal level, on the other hand, opportunities are seen as external values that assist to create the conditions of consumption for example, the availability of goods and services, outlets and shops, advertising and the media, and prices. The availability of goods and services and retail outlets are the channels consumers have to access and buy goods and services. The current situation where both public and private sector complementarily provides goods and services gives consumers a range of opportunities (UNDP, 2006). However, Galbraith argues that the unequal opportunity of accessing goods and services among different societies during the last 40 years has created gaps and inequity among different societies (Galbraith in UNDP, 2006, pp. 34 35).
Information, including media and advertising is another key point for choosing and procuring goods and services, and allows consumers to choose their best preferences. UNDP argues that commercial advertisements should be balanced with product education so consumers are aware of benefits and drawbacks of available products and services (2006). The economic model of rational decision over consumption assumes that a perfect information condition would lead to an optimal behaviour. However, in real life, consumers could not behave optimally due to the lack of information and imperfect access to information.) As a result, transparency and easy access to clear information should be provided. OECD believes that, in relation to sustainable consumption, information and awareness programs are the most common demand side strategies to encourage a sustainable lifestyle and they are likely to be successful when they are complemented with good governance and law enforcement in sustainability.
Price is an elastic component that influences consumers in deciding whether to purchase a product or not. When many people can afford to buy a product and demand of that product is high but supply is limited, the price rises. However, the price would fall if demand dropped.
26 Abilities
Where needs are internal values that could motivate people to consume products and services, abilities are internal capacities of individuals, households or society to procure products and services. Both needs and abilities complement each other in consumer behaviour. Nevertheless, needs are seen as motivation factors, while abilities are control factors.
As mentioned earlier, abilities are bounded by temporal, spatial, income, cognitive and physical conditions. Available time and the location of consumers would produce different consumption abilities. Lack of time and distance to the resources could hinder the ability to consume. For example, people in rural areas of developing countries need to spend many hours a day collecting water and to meet their energy needs. As a result, they may miss access to adequate education, health service, or even leisure (UNDP, 2006). Income definitely influences a person’s ability to widen or narrow his or her range of consumption (UNDP, 2006). People with higher incomes, for example, have wider transport options such as buying different types of cars compared with lower income earners who may be able to afford a car. While physical capacity refers to health and fitness as well as access to securing permits or licences for owning and using certain products (Gatersleben & Vlek, 1998), cognitive condition usually refers to attention or mental processes that allow people to apply their knowledge in consumption decisions (Jackson, 2005).
Apart from needs, opportunities, and abilities, another key aspect of the NOA model is the “intention” as an outcome of needs, opportunities, and abilities which is the driver of consumer behaviour. The keyword intention indicates that consumption is regarded as an action of an individual to consume. It implies an active process. McKay (1997) asserts that modern consumption should be seen as an active process of individuals and that consumers as individuals are not the passive victims of consumerism. Moreover, Clover (in OECD, 1999) maintains that understanding consumption could encourage individuals to learn how to consume, thus becoming an informal learning process for consumers. The NOA model is a
27 suitable reference model for this study as it focuses on individual and household consumption as well as considers external factors which are seen as the macro level factors. By showing both macro and micro levels of consumption factors, it: explains the relationship between internal (self identity) and external factors; indicates an active process in consumption; considers the changes in consumer behaviours; and highlights consequences of consumption an important feature in sustainable consumption. The NOA model has been used to identify household consumption in OECD countries (OECD, 2002b). However, although the NOA model considers changes in consumer behaviours by analysing consumer motives which would result in the necessity to and possibility of change, Gatersleben and Vlek (1997, 1998) did not discuss the categorisation and characteristics of change in detail. Nor does the model categorise motivation into different levels of sustainable consumption. Nor does it specify sustainable consumption patterns. Although this model identifies the active role of consumers in specifying intention as a key aspect of consumer behaviour, different characteristics of intention as key aspects of behaviour changes are not a particular focus of the model.
The next section discusses sustainable consumption, the driving factors for and barriers to sustainable consumption as well as the characteristics of behaviour changes necessary for sustainable lifestyles to complement the NOA model as well as to provide a comprehensive model of consumer behaviour. In addition, the discussion about changing to more sustainable consumption is also presented.
2.2 SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION
2.2.1 Definition
In parallel with the Brundtland definition of sustainable development, sustainable consumption has been defined at the 1994 Oslo Symposium on Sustainable consumption as:
28 “the use of services and related products which respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life while minimising the use of natural resources and toxic materials as well as emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle of the service or product so as not to jeopardise the needs of future generations”. (OECD, 1999, p. 11)
The above definition identifies five central values: (1) the fulfilment of basic needs instead of wants or excessive needs; (2) the achievement of better quality of life as opposed to material accumulation; (3) the minimisation of resources and toxic material use, waste and pollution; (4) the use of a lifecycle approach; and (5) respect for the needs of future generations. The United Nations Environment Program defines sustainable consumption as an umbrella for consuming differently and efficiently (1999). The UNEP adds a number of key issues, such as considering equity and integrating the above issues as a focal point for providing the same or better services and quality of life for both current and future generations while continually reducing environmental damage and risks to human health (UNEP, 2001).
Since the Oslo Symposium in 1994, sustainable consumption has become increasingly prominent in policies, regulation and lifestyle in modern society. Sustainable consumption is believed to be a responsible action for the environment and future generations by reinforcing more efficient, responsible and/or simply less consumption and by taking into account key issues including needs, quality of life, material efficiency, waste minimisation, lifecycle thinking, health, safety, and equality, for both current and future generations. The consensus tends to accept that sustainable consumption means consuming more efficiently which does not particularly mean consuming less, although, many assert that changing one’s lifestyle by consuming less and opting for a less materialistic lifestyle would be more influential in reducing harm to the environment (Jackson, 2006). Reducing consumption could be encouraged through policy making by supportive institutions (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2005) or simply through individual behaviour changes, such as practising voluntary simplicity (McDonald, Oates, Young, & Hwang, 2006; Robins & Roberts, 2006) or ethical or greener consumption.
29 2.2.2 Behaviour change towards sustainable consumption patterns
Various studies have been conducted to review and encourage sustainable consumption, through regulation and policies, and individual or household behaviour changes. Comprehensive models and best practices in sustainable consumption have been extensively reported. Darnton has reviewed many different behaviour change models (2008) and reported various practices exemplifying sustainable consumption in Britain (2004). Many more sustainable practices are reported by the OECD (OECD, 2002a, 2002b, 2008) and have been presented in a number of sustainable consumption networks (Tischner et al., 2002; Tukker & Tischner, 2006a).
In relation to the NOA model, important components of behaviour control are abilities bounded by time, space, income, cognitive and physical condition. Time becomes an important criterion in behaviour changes. Prochaska and DiClemente (1982, 1983) have created a model which is called the Transtheoretical Model or the Stages of Change model that identify changes over time. They classify behaviour changes into six linearly progressing categories: pre contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance and termination. The pre contemplation stage is one in which people do not intend changing or are not aware of the need for changes, whereas the contemplation stage is one in which people intend to take action but do not readily change. The preparation stage is where people are aware of both benefits and drawbacks of changing behaviour, and have planned initial actions. The action stage is one where people have made specific modifications to their previous behaviour. The maintenance stage is one in which people who are actively working out their behaviour changes are trying to prevent reversion to earlier lifestyles or behaviours. Termination is when people have accepted the changing behaviour as the norm and there is no chance of reversion.
While Prochaska and DiClemente illustrate this model as a series of linear stages, Conner (2007 in Darnton, 2008) shows it in a more cyclical way people may relapse into precontemplation when they are in the maintenance stage, or they may go to
30 the final stage, termination. Relative to the timespan, Darnton (2008) identifies the period of time for behaviour changes. Figure 2.3 illustrates the model based on cyclical stages including the approximate period for each stage.
Figure 2. 3: Stages of Change model (source: Darnton, 2008, p. 42) Similar to the Stages of Change model, the Diffusion of Innovations model provides an illustration of changes in stages over time by considering the intervention of social networks and the public (Rogers, 2003). Rogers maintains that diffusion is a social change process over time by which an innovation is communicated among the members of a social system. Whether a new idea is invented, diffused, and adopted or rejected with any consequences in it, social change will occur. The model categorises members of a society into five segments innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards.
The above models of behaviour change can be used for any area of interests, from public health and social policy, to technology management. Both models are comprehensively reviewed as they focus on individual attitudes toward new ideas as well as changes over periods of time. However, there are some differences in their concepts; while the Stages of Changes model emphasises individual changes regardless of intervention from others (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983), the Diffusion of Innovations model emphasises the social system. The underlying
31 components of the Diffusion of Innovations model are social structure and communication channel between members of a social system (Rogers, 2003).
Both models have also been used for analysing behaviour changes in sustainable consumption, for example the Diffusion of Innovations model is used in organic agriculture (Carletto & de Janvry, 1999; Susanne, 2001) or urban design (Symes & Pauwels, 1999). The Stages of Changes model is used for general sustainable consumption and more general participatory actions in community (Reisch & Bietz, 2007; Reisch, Spash, & Bietz, 2008). Although the models identify changes related to certain objectives or targets previously set, they do not explain changing behaviour characteristics in terms of sustainable consumption. Darnton (2008) argues that the Diffusions of Innovations model could not explain how changing behaviours spread through a society. As the model has been developed to observe the adoption phase of product and technology, it seems to view a social system in a mechanical way. In addition, the model segments members of society into certain categories and tends to leave non adopters out of the system (Darnton, 2008).
The Stages of Changes model also categorises individuals in certain segments based on the stages provided. Although the model has identified 10 processes of change which do not exclusively belong to a particular stage (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983), stage matching process of changing behaviours is arguable. The idea of segmenting human behaviour into stages seems to be artificial for natural occurrences of behaviour changes (Davidson, 1998). Davidson further argues that the emphasis of the model on the discrete and quantitative relationship between the intention of changes and changing behaviour seems to simplify complex human behaviours. Furthermore, as the model focuses on changes over time, it indicates when the behaviours have been changed but not how they have changed. Despite the arguments, the model has proven its effectiveness in observing and tracing the pathway of behaviour changes, including expectations and willingness (Darnton, 2008).
32 The following part reviews specific models with regard to sustainable lifestyles considering the need to identify how changing behaviours occur as well as the model specific to sustainable consumption.
2.2.3 Voluntary simplicity movements
As discussed in Section 1.1, consumerism has resulted in environmental, financial and personal problems. As a result, scholars worldwide have been promoting non materialistic options of the provision of goods and services. Voluntary simplicity (VS) is a well known pro active choice of sustainable lifestyle which is introduced by Elgin (1981) as a more conscious way of living, which opts for a low or modest consumption pattern with integrity, and fits it into the balance of terrestrial daily life (Elgin, 1981). Elgin defines VS as a life sensing, life serving path by refining the social and material aspects of life (fewer material demands, more gentle and responsive social interaction, and less complex daily life) as well as refining spiritual and consciousness aspects of life (more contemplative actions, more peaceful mind and open hearted lives).
Elgin and Mitchell (1977) present five key values for VS practice, which include material simplicity, the aim for human scale structures, the increase of personal control or self determination, the promotion of environmental awareness, and the development of personal growth. Material simplicity is believed to be one of the main values of voluntary simplicity; and the consideration of material simplicity should include the use of materials which promote active involvement and self sufficiency instead of dependence on materials, serve the real needs instead of wants, and reduce the effects on other people and environment. Human scale values simply mean reducing the scale of production to a more human sense of proportion and perspective. Personal control means more self determination and less dependency upon gigantic, complex institutions. It assumes the attempts are more materially self sufficient and exercise self discipline when it comes to consumption. For the individual level, personal control also means taking full charge
33 of one’s own life and managing one’s own affairs without unnecessary interference from bureaucracy. Environmental awareness is the means of acknowledging the interconnectedness and interdependence of people and resources. It also implies the conservation of natural resources, the reduction of environmental pollution, and the preservation of the beauty and integrity of the environment. Personal growth is the inner self growth which would be achieved by considering the other four values. Personal growth is the goal of freeing oneself of the overwhelming external factors, subsequently providing the inner space for psychologically and spiritually growth.
The important features of VS are: free choice (McDonald et al., 2006); the voluntary simplifiers must have access to wealth, and they have education and skills that enable high income levels, and the movement is driven by certain values including humanism, environmentalism, spirituality or self development (Craig Lees & Hill, 2002).
Further studies in VS identify different categorisation of voluntary simplifiers. Etzioni (1998) categorises VS into three different levels from downshifter, strong and holistic simplification. Downshifting is defined by Etzioni as a superficial attempt by individuals to address consumption by voluntarily giving up luxuries they can afford while maintaining their consumption oriented lifestyle. This definition is different from other references that identify downshifting as a voluntary movement by people who give up their high income lifestyle (Hamilton & Mail, 2003; Schor, 1998). Strong simplifiers include highly paid people who change their jobs to significantly less well paid ones, or who choose to retire early to pursue more leisure. Holistic simplifiers are those who adjust their total lives in relation to the values of voluntary simplicity. They could choose to move to the country or to smaller towns and change their lifestyles to the ‘simple living’ movement.
Parallel to this categorisation, McDonald et al. (2006) classify moderate and strong simplifiers as beginner voluntary simplifiers (BVS). The term BVS is used for people practising a moderate level of sustainable consumption as opposed to non VS, who
34 are adopting few or no sustainable consumption practices, and VS for those who strongly reject materialistic norms. BVS is further categorised into three different groups: apprentice simplifiers, partial simplifiers and accidental simplifiers. Apprentice simplifiers are people who are starting to consider VS lifestyles; they will eventually become voluntary simplifiers. These people are considered to be the beginners who try to understand different alternatives of a VS lifestyle. Partial simplifiers are regarded as a group of people who have already been in the VS lifestyle but may relapse to non VS ways. Accidental simplifiers are people who have practiced certain aspects of a VS lifestyle but do not share the same ethical motivations as voluntary simplifiers.
Additionally, Leonard Barton and Rogers (1980) classify three groups of voluntary simplifiers according to their motivations. These are conformists, who response to personal responsibility or peer group pressure; conservers, who act in accordance with their desires to reduce waste; and crusaders, who are motivated by social concerns. Figure 2.4 plots these categorisations in relation to the classification provided by McDonald et al. (2006) corresponding to similarities and differences of voluntary simplicity. The categorisations are drawn based on a progression line from non VS to VS groups.
Figure 2. 4: Categorization of Voluntary Simplicity across the literatures
35 2.3 PRODUCT SERVICE SYSTEMS: IMPLEMENTING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION
The previous sections review sustainable consumption from the point of view of consumer behaviours and changes. While the previous models consider individuals changing their behaviour, this section analyses the institutional perspective of sustainable consumption including regulatory, business and normative institutions. The decision to change behaviour to sustainable consumption is not purely an individual process; it is embedded in a wider social context.
The fact that there is a unique relationship between economic growth dan human welfare makes scholars think further about the economics paradigm. Max Neef (1995) maintains that economic growth positively influences human welfare up to a certain level. However, beyond that level, many factors lead to the the deterioration of quaity of life, such as social factors, income inequalities, and environmental costs (Daly & Cobb, 1990, Jackson & Marks, 1999; Max Neef, 1995).
It is the reason why it is important to shift the economics paradigm to more sustainable consumption (and production) by considering functional economy.
2.3.1 Functional Economy
Compared with traditional economics where the emphasis on the relationship between product supply and demand is the centre of maximising utility or profit – there has been an increasing shift towards functional economy. Functional economy is defined as the optimal use or function of goods and services and, in economics, the objective is to create the maximum use value for the longest possible time by emphasising minimal material resource and energy use (Stahel, 1997). Three important features of functional economy are the optimisation of product system, the utilisation of values not the product sales, and the instrumental role of products as hardware (Meijkamp, 2000). The focus on the optimisation of product systems as opposed to the production of products (which focuses on the
36 lifecycle of the system from the input of resources to the treatment of the used products or materials) is likely to provide an optimal solution to production (or minimise the material and energy use).
The second feature, the utilisation of values, is still based on cashflow and profit. However, it does not emphasise the generation of sales turnover, and consequently, a higher level of efficiency is expected to be achieved by using fewer resources. Finally, the focus on the instrumental role of the product as hardware, and not as an end product, could create more optimal functions of the product. Consequently, this feature requires an adaptation of the product and its production process at the system level.
Figure 2. 5: Resource Efficiency and Business Strategies in the Functional Economy (Source: Stahel, 1997, p. 94) Stahel (1997) identifies different strategies in business and material resources. Figure 2.5 categorises different strategies based on resource efficiency (reducing the volume and the speed of material flow) and closing the loop strategies (closing material loops and closing liability loops). Closing the loop strategies are divided
37 into technical strategies, which focus on material loops, and marketing or commercial strategies that are based on liability loops. Regarding resource efficiency, three attempts are considered: volume reduction, speed reduction, and both volume and speed reduction. Resource efficiency strategies require technical innovation, and innovations that emerge from promoting higher resource efficiency are both new technical and commercial strategies that improve product use and functions. System solutions are needed when the highest level of resource efficiency is required, which is the combination of volume and speed reduction of material flow (Stahel, 1997).
2.3.2 Product Service System – definition
Product service system (PSS) is an alternative strategy that could reduce the volume and the speed of the flow of resources while closing the liability loops in commercial/marketing perspectives. Considered to be a systemic solution, PSS encourages service or result sales instead of product sales. As defined earlier, PSS is a system that designs and combines tangible products and intangible services in an integral way so the system can fulfil specific customer needs (Tischner et al., 2002). Tischner et al. add that PSS would result in the involvement of additional stakeholders and even customers in its development and design process. Mont (2002a) defines PSS as “a system of products, services, supporting networks and infrastructure that is designed to be competitive, satisfy customers needs and have a lower environmental impact than traditional business models”. To this definition, Mont adds competitiveness and environmental impact reduction as important characteristics. Manzini and Vezzoli (2002) add innovation as another important feature in their definition of PSS which is an important feature of functional economy. Likewise, Ashford and Thomas (2004) say a fundamental basis of PSS is the shift from “selling products as a result of industrial production to selling the functionality and satisfaction” (2004, pp. 51 52) which is also the emphasis of functional economy.
38 Thus, PSS shows combined characteristics of the following features:
a combination of tangible product(s) and intangible service(s) the fulfilment of user needs and user satisfaction competitiveness reduced environmental impact an innovation strategy an integrated approach user (or stakeholder) involvement a (radical) shift of behaviour from consumption (selling product) to use (selling function). Mont (2002c) argues that PSS deliver benefits to consumers, producers and service providers. By buying the solution or use values of a product, consumers tend to consume less energy and create less environmental impact. PSS also educates consumers on environmental issues and allows them to increase their involvement in using the product. From the producers’ and service providers’ points of view, PSS gives greater responsibility to them for designing and controlling a closed loop system of product service lifecycles as well as making them more aware of use phases (plus maintenance and repair system) rather than product systems.
Figure 2. 6 : Categorization of product service system (Source : Adapted from Tukker, 2004)
39 There are a number of different characteristics of PSS which have given different results and variable environmental impacts. Tukker (2004) has categorised PSS into three different types which are product oriented PSS, use oriented PSS and result oriented PSS (See Figure 2.6). Product oriented PSS does not change the product system but improves its service system to enable a product to be more sustainable, for example disposal, take back mechanism or extended warranty program. Use oriented PSS changes the system by diminishing the use of resources by encouraging sharing, renting and leasing ideas. Result oriented PSS changes the system radically by allowing users to receive the function only, and external service providers create the functions by sustainable modes of production, for example facility management services.
Moreover, based on various studies, Tukker (2004) maintains that while product oriented PSS only gives incremental environmental benefits (20 per cent reduction in resource efficiency), use oriented PSS gives quite significant benefits (minimum of 50 per cent reduction in resource efficiency) and result oriented PSS gives even higher benefits (75 90 per cent reduction in resource efficiency). Table 2.3 shows the summary of the advantages and disadvantages of PSS based on its categorisation (Tukker & Tischner, 2006a).
Table 2. 3: Advantages and disadvantages of different types of PSS (Source: Tukker & Tischner, 2006a, p. 363) PSS type Advantages Disadvantages Product oriented Easy to implement In general only incremental PSS Close to core business environmental benefits achievable Use oriented Medium environmental Low tangible added value: getting PSS (particularly benefits (Factor 2) access takes time and effort renting, sharing and More conscious use since per Low intangible added value: product pooling) use full costs are charged ownership is often valued higher by consumers (less relevant for B2B) Result oriented Imply often radical new ways of Risks/ liabilities for reaching the result PSS (particularly function fulfilment (Factor X are taken over by the provider functional results) potential) Results cannot always be agreed upon or measured in operational terms Customer loses power over means
40 2.3.3 Product Service System – Research trajectories
Since PSS were first developed in late 1990s, many businesses can now be regarded as PSS. Figure 2.7 below identifies substantial milestones of PSS studies. It also lists several networks that focus on sustainable consumption research, including PSS strategies.
Figure 2. 7: Milestones of PSS research from 1998 to present As an example, SusHouse project was a project involving five European countries (Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, and Britain) funded by the European Union’s Environmental and Climate Research program (Vergragt, 2000; Vergragt & Green, 2002), and was conducted between 1998 and 2000. Its aims were to develop and evaluate sustainable household strategies and focused on three household functions: i)shopping, cooking and eating (Food), ii)heating, cooling and lighting (Shelter), and iii)clothing and clothing care. The evaluation was based on the combination of technology, social and cultural change, with technology as the main agent for sustainable development. The outcomes of this project were case studies and imaginative scenarios, evaluation and assessment of cultural aspects as
41 well as consumer acceptance, and a methodology for creating strategies for more sustainable households. Design Orienting Scenario (DOS) which is concerned with future thinking methodologies (Manzini & Jegou, 2000) was used in this project to create future but viable scenarios demonstrating concrete expression of ideas on a particular strategy in a particular social group (Manzini & Jegou, 2003). Manzini and Jegou further maintain that DOS drives system innovation among a particular group of stakeholders and emphasises the changes in the product system. It is created based on current social context and is developed based on the possibility that any situation can be shifted to be more sustainable.
The SusHouse project has proven the potential of DOS to create more sustainable household consumption. Furthermore while the project initiates collaborative studies regionally and across disciplines, the project also shows the power of scenarios to create ideal solutions based on technological innovation, environmental and cultural awareness as well as economic viability (Vergragt, 2000). However, as the scenarios were developed based on creative workshops rather than in the real world, they still needed to be tested in the real world.
The SusProNet consortium was another collaborative network among European Union countries. It aimed to disseminate best practices on PSS applications, to excel in PSS strategies, and to support sustainable consumption and production policies (Tischner et al., 2002). The consortium covered more than 30 organisations, covering research institutes, universities, businesses and non government organisations (NGOs). The SusProNet consortium worked on five needs areas: materials, information, offices, food, and household activities (Charter, Adams, & Clark, 2004; Frazão & Rocha, 2004; Tempelman, 2004; Vercalsteren & Geerken, 2004; Verkuijl, Tischner, & Nickel, 2004). A number of papers from two conferences mention PSS cases worldwide where the authors evaluated PSS performances and proposed a number of tools and methods for PSS development (SusProNet, 2003, 2004). In addition, together with developing an industry toolkit, called MePSS (Product Service Systems Methodology) (van Halen, Vezzoli, & Wimmer, 2005),
42 SusProNet developed its own methodology, partly to simplify some complicated elements of sustainability but also to be able to generate a general methodology that could cover the entire development process. It was called the PSS sustainability screening tool or a toolbox for product service development (Tukker & Tischner, 2006a; van Halen et al., 2005). This model is further analysed in Section 2.3.5. SusProNet also comprehensively analysed each one of the five need areas covering the review of current PSS, opportunities, idea generation, and potential implementation (Tukker & Tischner, 2006a).
After the SusProNet program was terminated, the PSS network was expanded to be called SCORE! (Sustainable Consumption Research Exchange). This Network was funded by the European Commission under the 6th Framework Program and sets its role as a support network for the UN’s 10 Year Framework of Programs for Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP); particularly in promoting radical strategies for sustainable consumption for mobility, agro food and energy use (SCORE!, 2006). These three areas are claimed to have caused the major environmental impact in EU countries (SCORE!, 2008). Programmed for four years between 2005 and 2008, the network has held two conferences about radical change and frameworks for action as well as several workshops and regional meetings to actively participate in sustainable consumption and production activities. The network has attracted hundreds of papers in sustainable consumption and production research and PSS still offers potential for radical change. The network calls for collaboration in shaping business development, (sustainable) solution design, consumer behaviour and system innovation policy between different actors (researcher, government and business practitioners) in order to create more sustainable consumption and production (SCORE!, 2006).
SCORE! certainly shows the progress of sustainable consumption and production research and actions by moving towards a system approach of the research. The network sets the research area as a system combining production structure, the interaction between demand and supply, and consumption structure. Also,
43 although the network and research outcomes are still dominated by EU scholars, the project shows the increasing amount of research conducted in other parts of the world, such as South and Central America (Cipolla & Bartholo, 2006; José, 2008; Kissinger, 2006; Ono, 2008; Wille, Aerts, & Geier, 2008), Africa (Feckova, Kruppova, Laurinc, & Micech, 2006; Kicherer, Dittrich Kramer, & Wittlinger, 2006; Vezzoli & Ceschin, 2008), Asia (Ozawa & Inaba, 2006; Yan, Barkmann, Zschiegner, & Marggraf, 2006; Yap, Eggenberger, van Duyen, & Glazier, 2006) and Australia (Ramirez & Nawangpalupi, 2006). Those studies are based on independent research programs or multilateral networks between developed and developing countries.
However, future work is not without its challenges. Firstly, as the network gives wide ranging cases, tools and ideas, the objectives of radical changes should always be reviewed retrospectively. SusProNet’s main objectives are to move toward a radical reduction in environmental impacts in critical areas, to focus on changes using a systemic approach and to create collaboration between three main actors: businesses, consumers and policy makers (Tukker, 2008). To achieve these objectives, the SusProNet framework for action has developed the following four pillars:
(1) general programs to support networks, to guide developing countries’ specific action plans, to develop outreach support programs and to develop metrics for best SCP practices and monitoring progress; (2) content oriented programs to support the triangle of change between three main actors; (3) content oriented programs that focus on sectors generating major environmental impacts such as built environments and housing, food, mobility, tourism, and electrical and electronic equipment; and (4) agenda setting activities to support the areas that are too hard to handle and to move forward to more radical changes. (Tukker, 2008).
44 2.3.4 Product Service System – Classifications
Activity based classification
To complement the above mentioned trajectories of PSS research, Figure 2.8 illustrates the mapping of PSS practices based on the types of activities in everyday life and the categorisation of PSS. It is worth noting that not all PSS studies are included as the focus of the present study is PSS organisations that provide service to individual customers instead of other organisations as explained in Section 1.5. The types of activities are determined based on a study on everyday psychology (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997).
Figure 2. 8 : Positioning of product service systems Everyday activities are chosen and categorised to explain the different quality of experiences from different activities (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). This categorisation can also identify the achievement of quality of life based on different mental experiences in certain activities. Csikszentmihalyi (1997) classified different mental
45 experiences into happiness, motivation, concentration and flow. Happiness is a positive and subjective emotion relating to personal characteristics rather than situational characteristics. Motivation refers to the internal states of consciousness; it usually identifies the intensity and the duration of intention to uphold certain goals people have set earlier. Concentration is the consciousness to pursue cognitive mental operations. It needs focus and it is likely that concentration requires more effort when a person performs an activity that goes against instinctive emotions and motivations. Flow is a mental state occurring in exceptional moments when people feel they are in their best state of mind, harmonious with experiences and fully involved. They feel they have been successful in the process of the activity and get immediate feedback out of it.
Csikszentmihalyi (1997) identified three types of activities, firstly, productive activities which require energy to survive and to feel comfortable. They include working or studying, eating, drinking and taking a rest during work or study. Productive activities are considered to give the least happiness and require the most mental effort. These activities also, surprisingly, often generate flow when the challenges and skills required are high and feedbacks are immediately. The second type of activities is maintenance. It creates new energy by performing tasks relating to the body’s maintenance. These activities are cooking, washing, cleaning, eating, grooming, and driving or taking any modes of transport. These activities give different experiential profiles depending on the activities. While eating generates happiness and motivation, driving or using transportation tends to require some mental effort but also produces flow. Finally, leisure activities are those that enable people to enjoy their lives through self development, such as reading, socialising and being involved in hobbies. Leisure activities can be divided into passive leisure and active leisure. Leisure activities tend to include more positive experiences of the day, including happiness, motivation and less mental work.
PSS encourages user involvement, which results in different types of emotional reactions and feelings from the users. As a result, it becomes more important to
46 understand the various qualities of experiences for example, toy libraries that encourage parents to borrow toys from an organisation rather than buying them involve more activities. Buying toys involves travel and purchase activities, while borrowing toys from an organisation would involve travel, play time at the toy library, social activities for parent and child, the use of the toys at home, and toy return. The sequence of activities relating to the toy library may enrich the quality of experiences the user gains.
Another example is car sharing. This would require more activities compared with owning and driving a car. It would involve booking a car online or by telephone, walking through the neighbourhood to pick up the car, using it, and then returning it. It would also force the user to find an alternative activity if someone else was using the car he or she wanted to use. The involvement of more activities could lead to improved experience qualities, either positive or negative.
Region based classification
Following on from the above classification, this section reviews the PSS applications around the globe, based on the region in which they are implemented. Figure 2.9 shows this classification. Although more PSS schemes have been implemented around the world, this classification only shows ones that have been carefully reviewed based on environmental sustainability. Several PSS scenarios although developed based on sustainability criteria such as scenarios from the SusHouse project (Vergragt, 2000) or Sustainable Everyday scenarios (Manzini & Jegou, 2003) are excluded as they have not been yet put into practice.
Figure 2.9 shows that although many PSS strategies have been widely developed in Europe, they are also emerging in other regions. Additionally, most of the PSS strategies are developed under both product oriented and use oriented classifications. Although result oriented PSS applications have more potential for
47 radical improvement, as they are harder to manage and operate, the strategies in this category have not yet been widely evaluated.
Further details about the classifications as well as the evaluation of the strategies can be found in Appendix A, where a summary of the evaluation based on environmental sustainability, customer acceptance, economic impacts, and technical viability is provided. Although not all of those practices show a comprehensive evaluation of those four categories, these PSS practices at least show improvement in some criteria.
Figure 2. 9: The classification of PSS strategies based on regions
48 2.3.5 Product Service System – Models and methodologies
PSS models
A number of models have been developed since the first PSS strategies were initiated. The fist was developed based on a study on car sharing in the Netherlands (Meijkamp, 2000). The model (See Figure 2.10) looks at PSS from the perspective of three different actors: government, users and suppliers (PSS organisations). The relationship between these three actors is important; Meijkamp (2000) identifies the key points of interaction between them, which are communication between users and government, policies made by government that would stimulate suppliers’ actions, and transactions between suppliers and users in the market. Meijkamp also reviews the following key factors for the actors:
costs and benefits (identified as “benefits” in the Figure 2.10) experienced by users which affect the adoption of the PSS concept market developments by suppliers or operational service schemed which are improved based on the growth of the system (identified as “turnover”), and government policies (identified as “contribution to policy aims”) which supports the system’s viability and sustainability.
Figure 2. 10: Car sharing model (Source: Meijkamp, 2000, p. 43)
49 This model recognises the main actors that influence PSS practices and ensures the success of the strategy. Although Meijkamp further focuses on the adoption decision of the users in regard to car sharing and to the environmental impacts from the changing behaviours, the model has been able to portray PSS from different perspectives and allows relationships of between actors to be analysed from marketing perspectives.
Mont (2004b) further develops a PSS framework based on the research development in PSS strategies (See Figure 2.11). Mont identifies four main elements of PSS product, service, actor networks and infrastructure. Moreover, to ensure the ability of PSS to be competitive and sustainable, Mont sets the following criteria: the institutional framework (customer satisfaction from the users’ perspective) environmental soundness from the environmental perspective business viability for the PSS organisation’s perspective), and PSS feasibility (cognitive, normative and regulatory criteria). Those criteria are bound in the cultural context and would subsequently affect internal organisational structures and changes, for example the design or research development (R&D) functions, marketing function, production processes, financial and accounting functions, and the roles of sales personnel.
This framework provides comprehensive criteria for PSS development, covering the PSS elements, the organisational structures, feasibility criteria, institutional framework and cultural context. Mont has evaluated PSS strategies extensively, covering different empirical studies and literature reviews.
50 Figure 2. 11: A PSS framework (Source: Mont, 2004b, p. 71)
Nonetheless, this study did not evaluate organisational changes as it was not meant to be an in depth analysis of PSS organisations. However, by using the framework for PSS evaluation in various B2C PSS areas2, Mont (2004b) suggests that the following factors are important to shaping a PSS strategy:
radical reduction of environmental impacts a systematic process of organising the system, considering institutional and socio cultural factors, and joint efforts of government, businesses, users and researchers.
PSS methodologies
As discussed in Section 2.3.3, the SusProNet project has contributed many more studies related to PSS methods. The project reviewed the following PSS methodologies: (1) Sustainable Homeservices, (2) PSS methodology Aalborg
2 B2C PSS stands for business to customer Product Service System. It is used to refer to the PSS in the consumer market. Another type of PSS is B2B which is business to business applications Tukker, A. and U. Tischner (2006). New Business for Old Europe: Product Service Development, Competitiveness and Sustainability. Sheffiled, UK, Greenleaf Publishing..
51 University, (3) The PSS Innovation Workbook, (4) TNO/PricewaterhouseCooper PSS innovation scan for industry, (5) Kathalys method, (6) MEPSS (Methodology development and Evaluation of PSS), (7) Eco efficient PSS project – Austrian service innovation, and (8) ProSecCo (product service co design), (9) BISS (business models for inherently sustainable systems) methodology, (10) DES (design of eco efficient services), (11) HiCS (highly customerised solutions), (12) INNOPSE innovation studio methodology, and finally (13) SPSD (sustainable product and service development) (Verkuijl, Tischner, & Tukker, 2006).
Table 2.4 illustrates the classification of these 13 methodologies in terms of the system phase: strategy development, analysis, design, detailed design and implementation. It also highlights the focuses of the strategies. Of these 13 methodologies, the first eight are developed specifically for PSS strategies. The remaining five are focused on general innovation development.
Table 2.4 : Different methodologies for PSS (Adapted from: Verkuijl et al., 2006)
52 Verkuijl, Tischner, & Tukker (2006) further maintain that only MEPSS and Eco efficient PSS which discuss a complete and comprehensive PSS development methodology for all phases and focus on all aspects of sustainability (economic, environmental, and social). While MEPSS is developed for all PSS categories, eco efficient PSS methodology seems to be more suitable for product oriented PSS.
Although the Eco efficient PSS emphasises the use phase by arguing that the business should be the owner of the product and maintain its lifespan, efficiency, service and reparability, the strategy focuses on the optimisation of product use and functionality (EcoDesign, http://www.ecodesign.at/forschung/fdz/Leuchttuer me/index.en.html).
Figure 2.12 specifically discusses the MEPSS methodology. Van Halen et al. (2006) maintain that there are five phases in developing a PSS, and that each phase has several steps and processes supported by a number of appropriate tools.
Figure 2. 12: Methodology for Product Service System Innovation (MEPSS) (Source: van Halen et al., 2005, p. 67)
53 MEPSS has provided comprehensive and step by step techniques in designing PSS innovation. It includes the identification of actors or stakeholders as well as enabling us to understand the roles and needs of each actor. However, the model emphasises businesses as the major role. Furthermore, although it gives flexibility in the use of tools, it only gives limited guidelines for creativity and collaborative actions.
A similar methodology called the PSS sustainability screening tool has been developed by Verkuijl, Tischner and Tukker, and was used to create, develop and evaluate several PSS cases in base materials, information and communication technology, office, food and household areas (2006). The aim of the tool was to develop a business plan for PSS organisations from the analysis to the detailed concept. The methodology contains the following development steps:
Step 1: Analysis, containing the analysis of current situation and reference products and services, the identification of user needs and expectations, the analysis of internal situation of companies and the external potential, and the identification of new business opportunities in the PSS area.
Step 2: New idea creation and development, which consists of new idea generation, concept selection, detailed design and concept evaluation.
Step 3: Implementation of detailed design, which includes the following activities: market launch preparation, marketing strategy development, preproduction phase, market testing, market launch, evaluation and the review of PSS development process.
The Methodology for product service system innovation (van Halen et al., 2005) and the PSS sustainability screening tool (Verkuijl et al., 2006), have shown comprehensive PSS development models for all phases. However, they focus on the business perspective. Although users are involved in the analysis phase and probably in the evaluation process, the businesses still play the major roles. As
54 discussed earlier, user involvement in the PSS activities is important. Thus collaborative actions are required.
The next section discusses the collaborative design process and how the process can be incorporated into PSS design.
2.4 COLLABORATIVE DESIGN PROCESS
Collaborative design has been studied by computer scientists operating in the area of computer supported co operative work (CSCW). They investigate the problems of communication or computer systems and try to develop systems that can support design teamwork (Peng, 1994). Collaborative design means a process of “actively communicating and working together in order to jointly establish design goals, search through design problem spaces, determine design constraints, and construct a design solution” (Lahti, Seitamaa Hakkarainen, & Hakkarainen, 2004, p. 351). The key words ‘active’ and ‘joint’ emphasise the equal roles of stakeholders as subjects from the problem identification to the solution development.
Collaborative design and participatory design terms tend to be used interchangeably in various design areas. While both are usually used for designing a system which involves the participation or collaboration of the users, participatory design tends to emphasise the use of information system or software engineering in the design process and put emphasis on work oriented design (Schuler & Namioka, 1993). Although it’s worth noting there is no single view of participatory design, the three underlying principles of such design are focusing on improving the quality of work life, the collaboration between developers (or designers) and users, and the iterative process of idea generation and real world application (Blomberg, Giacomi, Mosher, & Swenton Wall, 1993; Blomberg & Henderson, 1990). In this regard, collaborative design and participatory design seem to have similar goals and principles.
55 This study deliberately chose the use of the term “collaborative design” rather than “participatory design” as the main emphasis, as the study is more on the construction of a design solutions (or scenarios) through collaborative work rather than using information systems or software engineering.
2.4.1 Key characteristics of collaborative design
Collaborative design appears to have an important role in the conceptual design phase through searching for new information to determine constraints and to produce a satisfactory design concept (Seitamaa Hakkarainen, Lahti, Muukkonen, & Hakkarainen, 2000).
A collaborative design process should have the following distinctive characteristics. First, it is important to work with shared design objects, including visual representations, conceptual models, tools and concrete materials (Norman, 1993). The design process which involves design objects enables participants to reflect on and express their experiences as well as communicate ideas among different interest groups (Perry & Sanderson, 1998; Visser, Stappers, Lugt, & Sanders, 2005). It also helps designers to have rich and useful information for further design (Visser et al., 2005).
Another important characteristic is communication. Lahti et al. (2004) emphasise the need for reflective communication where participants not only share design objects but also organise their collaborative efforts by developing “a shared script of joint activities” (p. 353). Kleinsmann and Valkenburg (2005) argue that constructive communication, which is the communication on the design content during the design project, is needed. This relates to the sharing of information among the participants including negotiating because of different understandings and perspectives. Bucciarelli (1988) labels the different perspectives and understandings as “object worlds”. Bucciarelli further argues that during the collaborative design process, participants tend to act as if they live in their own object world, as they have their own beliefs, interests, knowledge and experiences.
56 The key to successful communication is reflective and constructive communication among the participants.
Thus, visual representations and effective communication among participants are key issues for the effective collaborative design process. Moreover, collaborative design needs several levels of task sharing activities. The first one, a single task collaboration, is based on individual participants’ views over a certain design problem. The second one, a multiple task collaboration, is a process where each participant is responsible for a particular task within the collaborative design, and when the group manages and relates all the tasks to be a final collaborative result (Lahti et al., 2004).
2.4.2 Taxonomy of collaborative design practices
Together with participatory design research, collaborative design has been researched for several decades. As a result, there are a number of theoretical developments, practices and practitioners in this area. Muller, Wildman and White (1993) provide a taxonomy of participatory design practices starting from analysing the Scandinavian research studies and around the world. Building upon the original taxonomy (Muller et al., 1993, p. 27), Figure 2.13 illustrates the collaborative design practices by adding several other highlighted practices in collaborative design. USAP design model (Demirbilek, 1999) shows the integration of usability and emotion in collaborative design. Action Research model (Swann, 2002) emphasises the needs of critical and evaluative process of inquiry in iterative way during the design process. Design orienting Scenario (Manzini & Jegou, 2003) is designed for developing PSS scenarios.
The X axis of the figure represents the approximate position of activity in the design cycle and the Y axis denotes the way of organising the approaches whether the designers participate in the users' world or users participate in the design professional’s world. Although some practices can be used for the whole cycles, some appear to be more appropriate at certain points within the development
57 lifecycle or iteration. The blue texts indicate the additional practices that are not listed in the Muller et al. original taxonomy.
The taxonomy identifies the appropriate number of participants for each practice as well as the extent of the application in the real world. The practices written in italics have been used in the commercial world and may be tested in design laboratories prior to the commercial purposes. In term of the number of participants, the practices have been used from small groups to medium size of group members (up to 40 people).
Figure 2. 13: Taxonomy of collaborative design practices (Adapted from Muller et al., 1993, p. 27; Demirbilek, 1999, p. 57)
58 2.4.3 Tools and techniques for collaborative design
Research in collaborative design has been carried out for a few decades. Various studies have been performed to research on collaborative, co operative, concurrent, user centred, participatory, socio technical, and community design. These have resulted in the development of extensive tools and techniques in collaborative design.
Table 2.5 summarises tools and techniques used in collaborative design in product development and design, community planning and design, and product service system methodology which are related to the context of this study.
Table 2. 5: Tools and techniques in collaborative design Tools Purposes Area of References collaboration General Ethnographic study To identify the role of design Team communication (Baird, Moore, & team and to study the changes Jagodzinzki, 2000) Generative search To integrate aspirations of Idea generation, (Dandavante, participants Framework for Steiner, & To draw what people think, feel, scenario development William, 2000; vision, tell and remember Sanders, 2000) Contextual Inquiry To understand user experiences Need identification (Hotlzblatt & when interacting with the Jones, 1993) system Specific tools Sketching To allow tentative progress Idea generation (van der Lugt, from general description to Idea storing & 2005) more specific description communication To allow cyclical interpretation (reinterpretation process) To express the user ideas and to initiate the design process Idea generation in (Demirbilek & To express characters, to universal design Demirkan, 2000) understand how the system works (Manzini & Video sketching Idea generation in Jegou, 2003) product service systems Context mapping To gain empathy with user Design (Visser et al., Including collage To create innovative concepts conseptualisation 2005) and story board
59 Table 2.5: Tools and techniques in collaborative design (continued) Tools Purposes Area of References collaboration Mood board and To provoke moods and Value generation and (McDonagh & Visual theme board ambience during the design expression Denton, 2005) process Lifestyle board To represent user’s personal Value generation and and social values expression Story board Annotated pictures to elicit User need (McQuaid, Goel, empathy for users and positive identification & idea & McManus, and negative user experiences communication 2003) Story board To plan and visualize solutions User experience (Manzini & and to match certain criteria to description Jegou, 2003) narrative aspects Panoramic picture Concentrated story boards, User product interaction (Manzini & to summarize a series of in PSS Jegou, 2003) complex sequences of user activities in a system Targeted annotation To link images to concepts Solution evaluation (Manzini & and to comprehend ideas Jegou, 2003) with further comments Narrative To elicit empathy of for Task exploration (McQuaid et al., users 2003) Some tools and techniques are used in different areas. For example, the story board is commonly used in product design process (McQuaid et al., 2003; Visser et al., 2005), community planning (McQuaid et al., 2003; Visser et al., 2005) and PSS development (Manzini & Jegou, 2003; van Halen et al., 2005). Similarly, sketching is also used for different design areas. Moreover, some techniques are used for different purposes. For example, sketching which can be used to communicate ideas to other participants (van der Lugt, 2005) needs a relatively good quality of details. It can also be used for generating ideas or expressing user ideas or values which do not need quality drawing but genuine ideas (Demirbilek, 1999).
2.4.4 Communication roles in collaborative design
The collaborative design process requires understanding among the actors. Unlike single person work, role division and relationships between actors in the design
60 process are important. Kleinsmann and Valkenburg (2008) argue that the goal of collaborative work is knowledge creation and integration. As a result, shared understanding becomes key characteristics in the process. In collaborative product design, creating shared understanding between actors from different disciplines usually faces several levels of difficulties, which are on the actor level, project level, and organisational level. Kleinsmann and Valkenburg (2008) find that on the actor level, problems usually occur relating to skills and the ability to use and transfer knowledge, the perspective to see and solve problems, and the interest and empathy in/with the problem (tasks) and to others. On the project level, the occurring problems are related to the efficiency of information processing, role division, the controllability of project budget, outcomes and design changes. On the organisational level, the problems usually take place because of the lack of resources and poor resource management.
Cross and Cross (1995) argue that collaborative design should be seen as a social process where roles and relationship among the actors cannot be ignored. Similarly, Perry and Sanderson (1998) emphasise the importance of both social and organisational interaction to have effective and productive collaborative design process. As a result, communication and social skills should be carefully planned. Based on day to day observation of two collaborative works, Perry and Sanderson (1998) argue that a common practice of communication in the collaborative design process is periodic meeting and discussion accompanied by design artefacts, such as drawing, models, or video recording.
The importance of artefacts has been extensively studied in computer supported co operative work (CSCW), engineering and architecture modelling. The focus is to develop communication through computer systems so the systems can support the collaborative design process (Chiu, 2002; Kensing & Blomberg, 1998; Peng, 1994; Sonnenwald, 1996). Some models have been developed to improve the effectiveness of communication in the collaborative design process. Different groupware technologies (Chiu, 2002, p. 208) such as email, fax, telephone,
61 conferencing system, broadcasting and desktop publishing, integrated database and CAD (computer aided design) models should support communication roles.
In less computerised design processes, the emphasis of communication roles is on face to face meetings, by presenting data, drawing or on a model. Visser et al. (Visser et al., 2005) argue the most effective communication in their collaborative works is presenting data and interpretations. Similar to Perry and Sanderson (1998), Wagner (2000) argues that “persuasive artefacts”, such as narrative sketches, conceptual sheets and 3D visualisation support communication and understanding with and by others.
2.5 CASE STUDIES
As defined in Section 1.5, this study has selected two case studies for the careful analysis and design of PSS activities: GoGet Car Share (car sharing) and the Randwick City Toy and Game Library (toy library). Furthermore, as has been argued above, this study focuses on collaborative actions between different stakeholders, mainly the users and PSS organisations, and related suppliers or policy makers depending on the cases.
This section reviews the development of car sharing and toy library as PSS strategies, and ultimately proposes a model for the scenario development to respond to the emergent needs in PSS development.
2.5.1 Car sharing
Car sharing, as defined earlier, is a system in which an organisation allows members to use its fleet of cars for a few hours or a day, without the hassles of ownership such as maintenance, insurance, parking and registration procedures (Bergmaier et al., 2004; Shaheen, Cohen, & Roberts, 2005). With the cars parked in neighbourhood locations, car sharing is usually possible within short walking
62 distances. It was introduced as an option to help urban communities move towards more sustainable transport systems, and as an alternative filling the gap between public transport and private cars, where public transport and/or non motorised modes of transport are not viable. Furthermore, members usually have a choice of car.
Car sharing operates well in urban areas where public transport is well established. In Zurich, Switzerland, Mobility Car Sharing has more than 140 locations with more than 300 cars and more than 10,000 members (Bergmaier et al., 2004). Cambio, in Germany, has successfully offered cross border car sharing between Germany and Belgium, with almost 20,000 members in both Germany and Belgium (http://carsharing.us, December 2007). In the early 1990s, Austria and the Netherlands followed the success of Switzerland and Germany, and since then, car sharing has spread to other European countries, including Italy, Belgium, Britain, Scandinavia and Spain (Bergmaier et al., 2004)
In Canada, Communauto launched in Toronto in 1995, was followed by 20 other car sharing companies now operating in 50 cities (http://www.carsharing.net). Although just recently flourishing, car sharing has also been growing in Asia, especially Singapore and Japan (Shaheen & Cohen, 2007). In Australia, car sharing was first introduced in Sydney in June 2003. Another car sharing company was launched in Melbourne about six month later. In less than five years, there are now six car sharing companies covering four cities: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. Together, they involve more than 5000 members.
The concept of car sharing
There are some differences between car sharing, car rental and car pooling in terms of access and personal values. Car sharing members can use a car for their mobility without the hassles of ownership. On the other hand, members cannot always get access to a particular car. This depends on its availability. Compared with car
63 pooling, car sharing offers a level of personal mobility. In car pooling, one car is used by several users with the same travel destination. Compared with car rental, car sharing vehicles can be used flexibly, by the hour or the day depending on users’ needs. For car sharing, membership is an enforced requirement; each member must be pre approved to be able to use the scheme’s car.
When compared with other motorised transport systems, car sharing offers privacy and convenience with relatively limited access. Figure 2.14 illustrates the positioning of car sharing among the other schemes in terms of access and privacy values based on various literatures (Bergmaier et al., 2004; Shaheen et al., 2005; Shaheen & Cohen, 2007; Transport 2000, 1992; Transport and Population Data Centre, 2006; UITP, 2005; Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2007). A private car is always available almost every time the user needs it, giving its user total privacy. In terms of access, and compared with car rental, car sharing provides more flexibility as the member can use the car as long as he or she needs it. In addition, the car is located in the neighbourhood and is easy to access. Car rentals, on the other hand, are usually located quite far away from residential areas and can only be booked on a daily basis. This limits access to cars to a certain degree. Furthermore, public transport and car pooling offer limited access because of limited operation times, range of access and availability. As the passengers share the space in the vehicle with other people, privacy is limited.
64
Figure 2. 14: Positioning of different modes of transport
Car sharing benefits
Car sharing is believed to deliver benefits to the different layers of the society. Figure 2.15 shows the multi layered benefits for the individual, neighbourhood, urban communities, businesses and government. From the individual’s point of view, car sharing provides convenience, practicality, cost effectiveness and efficiency. For the community, because of its ability to reduce the number of cars on the road, it provides more space, and reduces pollution, noise and congestion. At a macro level, for businesses and the government, car sharing offers better economic and urban planning as less space and infrastructure are required (Bergmaier et al., 2004; UITP, 2005).
65
Figure 2. 15: Multi layered benefits of car sharing (adapted from Bergmaier et al., 2004 and UITP, 2005)
In terms of sustainability, car sharing is considered to reduce environmental impacts and to encourage more sustainable consumption. A study in the Netherlands done by Goedkoop et al. (1999) shows that a car sharing scheme reduces environmental impacts 30 per cent. This argument is supported by the fact that one car is shared among more people, and one shared car has replaced a number of private cars. Bergmaier et al. (2004) report that one shared car is usually used by 10 50 members. An assessment of car sharing cases in the US and Europe also shows that one shared car had replaced 4 23 cars (Shaheen & Cohen, 2007).
Moreover, a study in the Netherlands showed that in 1997, the ratio between cars and population of car sharing members is much lower than “non car sharing” members (there are 367 cars for every 1000 car sharing members and 887 cars for every 1000 “non car sharing“ members) (Meijkamp, 2000). In Bremen, Germany, 90 per cent of car sharing members had no car and 6 per cent used car sharing to address their need for a second car (UITP, 2005). Furthermore, car sharing members typically use public transport, care about the environment and pollution,
66 and also practise sharing in other areas such as laundries, kitchens, and gardens (UITP, 2005).
The driving behaviour of car sharing users also changes. Meijkamp (2000) observes that shared cars are approximately 22 per cent lighter and 24 per cent more fuel efficient than average cars, and another study shows that car sharing users are most likely to drive 40 per cent less than the average motorist (Sperling et al., 2000).
Car sharing in Australia
As a single continent with a relatively small population spread predominantly along coastal areas, Australia relies heavily on transport. Compared with European and North American countries, Australia has the tenth highest rate of car ownership, with an average of 509 cars per 1000 residents (UNECE, 2004). In 2005, the rate of car ownership had increased to 537 per 1000 resident (ABS, 2005, 2007). This figure reinforces Australia as a “car culture” nation similar to the US, Italy, Germany, and other industrialised countries.
Although most European countries, together with Canada and the US, have embraced car sharing schemes since early or mid 90s, the concept has only been going in Australia since 2003. This late adoption occurs in favour of the car owner’s convenience. Overall, Australia has a low level of public transport services. The country has much lower fuel prices, higher rates of vehicle kilometres than European countries and is not fully supported by bicycle paths (Bergmaier et al., 2004).
First established by GoGet Car Share in Sydney in mid 2003, the car sharing concept grew slowly for the first two years and then started growing exponentially. Five other car sharing companies were founded later: FlexiCar in 2005, CharterDrive in 2005, Nexus, SmartDrivers and GWhiz in 2007. In December 2008, there are four car sharing companies in Sydney (GoGet, CharterDrive, SmartDrivers, FlexiCar),
67 three in Melbourne (FlexiCar, GoGet and SmartDrivers), two in Brisbane (GWhiz and SmartDrivers) and one in Perth (Nexus).
Despite similar types of service provided, each car sharing company has a different scheme in terms of pricing, car location and advertising. SmartDrivers, a new car sharing scheme in three big cities, targets those who work in the CBD by offering an attractive after work package. FlexiCar offers flexibility for those who like to travel long distances by charging high hourly rates with low kilometre charges. GoGet and GWhiz are more suitable for those who like travelling for short periods and short distances. Furthermore, the strategy for locating a new car is also different. For example, in Sydney, SmartDrivers chooses the CBD as its priority location, whereas GoGet prefers to allocate new cars to different suburbs (neighbourhood areas). In addition, SmartDrivers can offer low hourly rates as it uses advertising on cars and encourages other companies to place advertising on their cars to subsidise the cost.
2.5.2 Toy Library
According to the British National Toy Library Association, a toy library is a service which fills “gaps in the existing provision for all families with babies and young people and for people with special needs” (Head & Barton, 1987, p. 5). Head and Barton further explain that a toy library usually offers supportive services to parents, and extends the opportunity for shared play into the home by lending appropriate toys. However, some informal ways of passing around toys in neighbourhood area on regular basis can also be identified as a kind of toy library (Moore, 1995). Also, Moore argues that a building which houses a variety of toys and allows parents or carers to borrow them can also be a toy library.
Toy libraries mostly have some of these following objectives (Kapellaka, 1992; Mayfield, 1993; Moore, 1995; Stone, 1983):
68 To enhance children activities by promoting play for their learning and development
To offer information about child development to parents and carers
To provide a variety of toys to borrow
To provide therapeutic materials for children with special needs
To promote ideas of borrowing and recycling of toys
To provide educational resource in the community
To help children develop their social awareness and sharing behaviour.
Toy library concepts
There are different types of toy libraries. Based on the source of funding, toy libraries can be privately funded, fully funded by government (part of a government library system) or partially funded by government (Stone, 1983). Kapellaka (1992) identifies two major models of toy libraries: the Swedish model and the English model.
The Swedish model, which is also called lekotek (Brodin & Bjorck Akesson, 1992) is a toy library which provides services to children with special needs and their family. The main emphasis of this toy library is on the interaction between toy librarian and the child because activities that can stimulate the children are vital. Head (1978 in Kapellaka, 1992) divides this model into two sub categories: the community toy library and the school clinic hospital toy library. Head suggests that the community toy library is usually organised and run by parents of special needs children and provides support and contacts for parents including professional help. The school clinic hospital one is for a restricted group of children and is considered being a means of the extension of ongoing treatment where parents can be actively involved. This sub category is run by early childhood professionals.
69 The English model provides services for the wider community (Kapellaka, 1992) and has a general community focus in providing toys and general supporting services, such as workshops, parent discussion groups, or a play area (Mayfield, 1993; Moore, 1995). This model is also called community toy library, and is run by staff or volunteers. Another toy library model is a mobile toy library which provides door to door services to parents and carers in vans carrying educational toys (Stone, 1983) or regularly travels from one village or town to another to lend toys for children and parents living in remote areas (Kapellaka, 1992).
Toy library history
The first toy library opened in Los Angeles in 1935 with the aim of providing toys and stimulate learning and playing experiences for disadvantaged children during the Great Depression (Stone, 1983). There have since been some local and small initiatives across the United States, but the remarkable programs did not begin until the 1960s and grew progressively in the 1970s (Stone, 1983). The toy libraries that ran until the 1970s were typically community toy libraries, and in 1980, the lekotek model (the Swedish model) was initiated in Evanston, in the US (Stone, 1983).
Stone (1983) discovered the first lekotek in Sweden was initiated in 1963, and in Norway in 1969. This model then spread throughout Scandinavia and later to other regions. The English model was first set up in Britain in 1967. The Toy Libraries Association was founded in 1972, paving the way for more toy libraries throughout the country (Stone, 1983). Stone argues that the mobile toy library concept was launched in Scotland in the 1970s and has remained the largest toy library sector there. Many more toy libraries were founded since 1970s in Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, Switzerland, France, Japan, Russia, Italy, Israel, Nigeria, India, South Africa and South Korea (Atkinson, 2005; Stone, 1983).
The idea of having a worldwide toy library association was initiated in 1987, and in 1990, the International Toy Library Association was founded in Torino during the
70 5th international conference of toy libraries (www.itla toylibraries.org). The objectives of the organisation are as follows (Stone, 1983, p. 33):
1. To spread the concept of toy libraries throughout the world
2. To co operate, participate and work with other related international bodies such as UNESCO, UNICEF, and International Committee on Children’s Play (ICCP)
3. To act as a pressure group, promoting the development of high quality games and toys designed to stimulate the social, intellectual, and/or physical development of children
4. To act as an effective link between national organisations and their toy library networks, giving them opportunities to exchange news, ideas, experiences, materials, and bibliographies.
5. To organise an international conference every three years.
Toy library in Australia
The first toy library in Australia was developed by Annetine Forell in Melbourne in 1971 (Stone, 1983) and was based on the English model. Inspired by the Scandinavian toy library, Forell then redeveloped the toy library into the lekotek model and named it Noah’s Ark Toy Library for Handicapped Children (Forell & Glue, 1979). The Noah’s Ark model then spread throughout the country, and these toy libraries keep the same name to identify the services provision related to special needs children.
The English toy library model has also been well developed. There are many toy libraries for the wider community that are funded by local government, state or private organisations. Based on the categorisation given earlier, Table 2.6 summarises different toy libraries around Sydney. It is limited to the area of Sydney
71 as there are many more toy libraries in NSW region as well as other cities in Australia.
Table 2. 6: The classification of toy libraries in Sydney Sutherland Special Needs Noah’s Ark Toy Lekotek Toy Library Library for Model (www.specialneeds.org.au) Handicapped community Cubby house toy library Children toy library and (www.ourcommunity.com.au/cu (www.toys4special the. bbyhouse) needs.org.au) school clinic hospital toy library Lane Cove Toy Library local government toy Bondi Toy Library (www.lanecovetoylibrary.com) libraries: Brookvale Toy Library North Ryde (www.brookvaletoylibrary. Randwick City Council English model com.au) Penrith City Council Community Blacktown City Council toy library City of Sydney Leichhardt Municipal Council Mobile toy Toy Depot library (www.toydepot.com.au) Private Full government Partially government intiatives funded As the services provided in the school clinic hospital library category are limited to certain groups, it is difficult to find out what services are available. It is likely that the services provided by schools or clinics are not well known, and are only conveyed to related clienteles, such as patients or pupils. The local government toy libraries are by far the most common services in Sydney. Although not all city councils have it, city council toy libraries can be found throughout Sydney.
Randwick City Toy and Game Library
One local government toy library is the Randwick City Toy and Game Library. It is the one selected for this case study. The Randwick City Toy and Game Library had its beginnings as the Randwick Botany Toy Library which opened in the Central Library at Maroubra Junction in January 1983. It started with 381 toys and games which ranged from first toys, to games and puzzles for older children and adults.
72 Within a year of opening, the toy library had built up its collection to 1353 toys and games, had 1388 borrowers and had made 8029 loans.
In 1986, Randwick and Botany Councils established library services independent of each other, with the toy library becoming the Randwick City Toy and Game Library. While previously, membership of the toy library was a part of the general library service, an annual toy library membership fee was introduced in 2000, and the toy library was separated from the regular service. In 2008, the toy library was catering for 800 1000 families. The collection had 1300 toys and the library averaged 20,000 toy loans a year. The toy library can boast a wide range of toys and games catering for babies to children entering school, as well as many popular family games.
The Randwick City Toy and Game Library is the major toy library service in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney, with many families joining also coming from outside the area as members.
2.6 PROPOSED MODEL
Based on the comprehensive literature review and in relation to the aim of the study to implement product service systems (PSS) to support sustainable consumption and enhance user satisfaction a model is proposed for the study. The model explores the characteristics, components and performances of PSS. Figure 2.16 shows the proposed model used for further analysis.
The proposed model identifies three main layers of analysis for PSS in this study. The first layer coloured in yellow is related actors or stakeholders in a PSS. The second layer is the PSS components, and the third layer which is coloured in green is the performance criteria for the study. The researcher believes both related stakeholders and PSS components should be first understood to assess PSS performances. The outer line of a circle in the model above is the system boundary. It means the present study limit its analysis on those particular factors.
73 Figure 2. 16: Proposed model for the study
Related actors or stakeholders in PSS are identified based on Meijkamp model for car sharing (See Figure 2.10, p. 48). Meijkamp (2000, p. 43) has identified three actors related to car sharing organisations: government, consumers (users) and suppliers. While Meijkamp put car sharing organisations (or the PSS organisation) at the centre of his study, the present study classifies the PSS organisation as an equal actor to the other three. The proposed model sees the PSS performance as a core of interaction between different actors (or stakeholders). As a result, the proposed model in Figure 2.16 proposes four actors (including the organization itself) and their relationship with the measured performance criteria in the core (the green circle on Figure 2.16). This proposed model represents the aim of the study which is to evaluate these performances and to improve them using collaborative design workshops with the actors.
PSS components (the white square divided into 4 triangles) are identified based on Mont’s model (2004b, p. 71) shown in Figure 2.11 (p. 49). Mont has already argued that product, service, infrastructure, and actor networks are vital factors for PSS.
The performance criteria analysed in the study include user satisfaction and sustainable consumption. To evaluate user satisfaction in PSS, ServQual method is
74 used (Parasuraman, Berry, & Zeithaml, 1991; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988). Further discussion of the ServQual method is in the next section.
To analyse the sustainable consumption criterion, the present study investigates current sustainable consumption behaviours and analyse the intention of users to change towards those behaviours. The study uses the NOA model developed by Gatersleben and Vlek (1998, p. 146). This model (See Figure 2.1 in p. 21) is developed to identify household consumption behaviour and emphasises the use of quantitative data analysis (Gatersleben & Vlek, 1998). Although this study does not particularly use the same research methods as suggested by Gatersleben and Vlek, the NOA model is used to frame the consumption behaviour by identifying the motivation and behavioural control that shape the intention to change towards sustainable consumption and investigating the consequences of changes.
2.6.1 ServQual Method
The ServQual method studies the expected and perceived values of a service and analyses the gap between them to recognise user satisfaction. Five key factors analysed in the method are tangibles (products and facilities related to the service), reliability, responsiveness, customer assurance and empathy (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1990).
Zeithaml et al. (1990) argue that the ServQual method aims to identify user satisfaction and to improve the service quality that leads to operational efficiencies. In order to achieve these objectives, the method identifies five gaps in service quality (See Figure 2.17). Gap 1 measures different perception of service quality between service provider and customers. Gap 2, 3, and 4 are identified as internal gaps (on the service provider’s side) that happen when the specifications of the service are different from the management perception (Gap 2), the specifications established are different from what’s delivered (Gap 3), and the service delivered is different from what is communicated to the customer (Gap 4). Gap 5 identifies the
75 external gap (on the customer side) between customer expectation and perception of the service.
Figure 2. 17: ServQual model (Source: Zeithaml et al., 1990, p. 46) To analyse whether the quality of service delivered is as expected, Zeithaml et al. suggest that Gap 5 should first investigated. Subsequently, the internal gaps (Gap 1 to 4) in the organisation could be determined. As the ServQual method is mainly used in the present study to identify user satisfaction from the customer perspective – not to examine the operational efficiencies of the service providers – the study only limits the use of the method to identify Gap 5.
76 2.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY
There are many factors influencing consumption behaviour, including user needs, opportunities and abilities to access products and services. Those factors both encourage motivation to consume and control user consumption and subsequently form consumer behaviour. The need to shift toward sustainable consumption because of environmental concerns, social awareness and/or spiritual considerations has changed consumption behaviour. Some alternatives for sustainable lifestyles have been discussed. As a movement, voluntary simplicity is an alternative way of living with a more modest consumption pattern – both for individuals of groups. Another alternative based on an institutional perspective is to implement PSS as a business strategy. PSS is believed to reduce environmental impacts without compromising the fulfilment of user needs.
Although PSS has been relatively well known and accepted in the wider community, the improvement of PSS strategy would lead to higher impacts on material and energy reduction. As a result, a holistic approach in creating and developing PSS is needed. In addition, collaborative work with users is believed to be an effective way of assuring the system would be sustainable, from environmental, economic and social perspectives.
This chapter finally proposes a model to be used in this study one involving the analysis of related actors or stakeholders, PSS components, and performance criteria. The model is used to further develop the research methodology as well as identifying the research direction so the objectives of the study can be achieved.
77 CHAPTER 3 3 METHODOLOGY
“When you travel towards your objective, be sure to pay attention to the path. The path teaches us the best way to arrive and to enrich us while we are travelling along it.” (Coelho, the Pilgrimage)
The first two chapters have provided the context of the study. Chapter 2 has reviewed theories and recent studies related to this research area. This chapter provides a framework for the research design. It provides the background knowledge for systemic thinking and its model; it then clarifies the epistemological stance and theoretical perspective of the study as well as describes the design framework and methods used in the study. The chapter is divided into four sections: the introduction, the theoretical perspectives, the design framework, and research methods.
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The literature review has identified the need to move toward a holistic approach in order to implement an effective model of PSS. The need to analyse PSS in a holistic way requires the adoption of a model of system thinking. Capra (2002) introduces a model of system thinking based on the comprehensive analysis of an organisation or nature and human being which consists of three main perspectives of life, which are: (1) components or matter, (2) pattern or form, and (3) process. Moreover, Capra adds that to understand the relationship between those factors and the changes, the fourth perspective, the meaning, should be given. Figure 3.1 illustrates this model that is used as an underlying model of the case studies.
78
Figure 3. 1: System thinking model (Source: Adapted from Capra, 2002, p. 64)
Capra (2002) argues that any living phenomena should be understood based on these three perspectives, for example to understand cell metabolisms, it is important to observe the network (pattern) of chemical reactions (process) which involve the production of the cell’s components (component) and the way of the cell respond cognitively (process). A social world is usually a complex system consisting of values, rules of behaviours, goals, strategies, and power relations. As a result, Capra (2002) maintains that to understand the link between the three perspectives, to formulate values or goals of the system and to understand human life, a ‘reflective consciousness’ is required.
The reflective consciousness is identified by Capra as the fourth perspective, the meaning, which is important for social phenomena though it does not necessarily play any role for the non human world. For example, to understand culture, we need to understand that culture is created and sustained by a network of people or community (pattern) that involves communication and understanding (process) and where meaning is then created. The culture produces artefacts, written texts and facts which are material embodiments (component) and through these components, the meaning is passed from generation to generation (Capra, 2002).
79 Similarly, in the organisational context, de Geus and Senge (1997) support the above argument and argue that resilient and long lived companies (organisations) usually need two elements. The first element is a strong sense of community (meaning) and a collective identity (pattern) around a set of common values (value setting is a process) or a community (component) that support the organizations to achieve the goals. The second element is the openness to the outside world, tolerance for the entry of new individuals and ideas (component) and consequently a manifest ability to learn and adapt (process) to new circumstances (meaning).
The dynamics of the system and the learning process seen from the four perspectives of a system is used as a basis of designing the research methodology in this study. In Chapter 2, a proposed model for the study has been presented (See Figure 2.17, p. 72). The model has been developed based on the literature reviews. Moreover, as it is developed considering a system approach, it has three perspectives of system as Capra suggested: pattern, component and process. The model is used to identify the relationship between stakeholders (pattern) in the use of PSS and exemplify user experiences (process) related to four components of PSS (component). It is also used to investigate user satisfaction and sustainable consumption behaviour of the users (pattern).
To further understand the relationship between related stakeholders, component of PSS and PSS performances, the fourth perspective – meaning – is added. Moreover, to show the dynamics of both PSS case studies (GoGet car sharing and the Randwick City Toy and Game Library) in improving the level of user satisfaction and sustainable consumption behaviours through scenario development, a complete model is presented in Figure 3.2.
The model, which shows the overall design framework for this study, combines the system thinking model illustrated in Figure 3.1 and the PSS model shown in Figure 2.17. Furthermore, improvements which are projected by some scenarios are then created in a collaborative way between PSS users and organisations. The collaborative work is represented by the arrow of the movement towards
80 sustainable consumption. Four perspectives of PSS system are identified for the existing systems and the expected scenarios created in the collaborative design workshops.
Figure 3. 2: The design framework of the study
Using this framework, both user satisfaction and environmental impacts are analysed and interpreted. Subsequently, an effort is made to create a more sustainable and more satisfying PSS. Ultimately, this framework provides a robust supportive ground to conduct the study and to design the research methodology basis.
81 3.2 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
A theoretical perspective is a philosophical point of view that informs reader about the methodology, thus it provides a context for the research process and puts a position on the research logic and criteria (Crotty, 1998). Theoretical perspectives usually are selected based on an epistemology that is considered to be a pursuit for truth. Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge and justification (Schwandt, 1997) which is embedded in the theoretical perspective and thereby in the methodology (Crotty, 1998).
Although there are other possible epistemological stances, the three main stances are objectivism, constructionism, and subjectivism. Crotty (1998) states that objectivist epistemology holds that meaning and meaningful reality have existed and objectivists believe that we (the subject or the observer) can discover the objective truth. Constructionism argues that there is no objective truth waiting to discover. We (the subject) should construct the meaning by being engaged with the object or reality. In other words, the subject and object appear to be partners in creating the meaning. Crotty further suggests that the third epistemological stance, subjectivism, holds that meaning is created out of nothing and does not come from the interaction between the subject and the object. The meaning is usually imposed on the object based on the subject’s feelings, beliefs, attitudes or values.
Guba and Lincoln (1994) analyse four main theoretical perspectives (or theoretical paradigms – based on their term), which are positivism, post positivism, constructivism and critical theory. Table 3.1 lists some differences between these paradigms, including the ontology (the study of being – or what is), epistemology, typical methodologies, voice of the researchers, values and quality criteria.
Constructivism in this category is sometimes interchangeable with interpretivism (See Crotty (1998) and Gray (2004). Both constructivists and interpretivists believe that to understand the meaning of a real world, the inquirer must interpret it and clarify what and how meanings are incorporated into the language and the actions
82 of the social actors (Schwandt, 1994). Although Schwandt further clarifies the fine distinction between interpretivism and constructivism, this study will not delve into this detailed divergence. It focuses on the classification given by Guba and Lincoln (1994) and acknowledges that the constructivist perspective is also a label for interpretive and naturalistic inquiry (Guba & Lincoln, 1989).
Table 3. 1: Paradigm positions (Source: Guba & Lincoln, 1994, pp. 109, 112)
As has been discussed earlier, the research aims to understand PSS comprehensively using a system thinking framework and to seek the meaning of the PSS (both current system and proposed scenarios). As the researcher/inquirer, I understand that there are truths that can be obtained from other studies and experiences in other PSS studies, nevertheless, they cannot be generalised as a valid ground for this study. Also, there are different types of PSS with different strategies in different locations that would create different meanings. As a result, although some values and findings may be the same with other existing studies, the focus of this study is to understand the phenomena of PSS in the particular context: in Australia and for the specific and contextual case studies.
The research seeks the truth from the user’s perspective and searches for the true meaning of PSS from their standpoint. Emphasising a collaborative study, this study
83 encourages the users to participate in the search of knowledge. As a result, it aims to construct realities in terms of the experiences of using a PSS. By investigating and understanding the current knowledge about PSS application, the study further engages the users and organisations to search for the meaning of realities and therefore generate it through a partnership between the researcher (myself) and the users/organisations.
The research itself, however, distances itself from being a tool of a participatory action which encourages a social or system change. Otherwise, the research uses its process to understand the change if there is any and to interpret it based on the understanding of phenomena in the real world. The scenarios created from the study are used to interpret the needs of the PSS users and organisation to improve the system, not to advocate any obligation to change.
Thus, analysing these arguments and relating them into the paradigm position (see Table 3.1, p. 82), it is clear that this research takes its stance from the constructivism epistemology and constructivist theoretical perspective.
3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN FRAMEWORKS
As explained in Section 1.4, the study has two main objectives, which are (1) to explore current levels of satisfaction and the sustainable consumption behaviours of the PSS users and (2) to propose new scenarios to improve those factors. Using the framework given in Figure 3.2 (p. 80) it is believed that the study will produce the best outcomes if both qualitative and quantitative methods are utilised. To evaluate the level of user satisfaction, quantitative analysis of current members’ rating will give a general picture (form/pattern and component) that can be used to explore a deeper understanding (meaning) about their satisfying or dissatisfying experiences (process) which will then be gained by qualitative methods. Similarly, to understand sustainable consumption behaviours, a quantitative method will capture a general pattern based on certain criteria (components) while the
84 qualitative method will further delve into the deeper meaning of sustainable consumption and any changes towards a more sustainable lifestyle. The second objective heavily relies on the use of qualitative methods. This further confirms that the suitable design framework for this study is mixed methods with the emphasis on qualitative research.
Mixed methods research is defined as:
“a research design with philosophical assumption as well as methods of inquiry. As a methodology, it involves philosophical assumptions that guide the direction of the collection and analysis of data and the mixture of qualitative and quantitative approaches in many phases in the research process. As a method, it focuses on collecting, analysing, and mixing both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or series of studies. Its central premise is that the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of research problems than either approach alone.” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p. 5)
As stated above, mixed methods research tries to optimise the advantages from both qualitative and quantitative approaches, and more importantly, it gives researchers an opportunity to combine methods from both approaches that fit their needs. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) argue that mixed methods research allows researchers to use their creativity and to expand their research ability to select methods and think about and carry out the research.
The present study follows the mixed methods design frameworks given by Cresswell and Plano Clark (2007). According to Creswell and Plano Clark, there are four main types of mixed methods research designs, the Triangulation Design, Embedded Design, Explanatory Design and Exploratory Design. Figure 3.3 illustrates the template of each design. Triangulation Design is the most common and well known approach whose main purpose is to have “different but complementary data on the same topic of research” (Morse, 1991, p. 122). Embedded Design is a mixed methods design in which one data set supports the primary data type (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). The Explanatory Design is a two phase mixed methods design that usually uses qualitative data to help the understanding of the initial
85 quantitative results. The Exploratory Design is an approach that is usually used to explore a phenomenon (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007).
Figure 3. 3: Major and basic types of mixed methods design (Source: Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007)
Based on the two objectives defined, the present study is conducted in two stages:
(1) the exploration of PSS that needed a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, and (2) the design of new scenarios that mainly involved qualitative methods. Thus, the research design framework of the study had to be a two phase mixed methods design with a higher priority placed on qualitative methods.
The study adopts an Exploratory Design which focuses on qualitative methods. The study differs, however, in that it does not opt to use solely the Exploratory Design approach but use a combination of two research designs (with an Embedded Design). The appropriate design framework for this study is a two phase Exploratory
86 Design with the Embedded Design for the first phase (See Figure 3.4). Although the Exploratory Design usually starts with qualitative methods and is followed by quantitative ones, in this research design framework, the major qualitative methods occur at the end of the research process.
The quantitative methods in the first phase are needed to provide data about overall system performance. However, as the data does not allow for the analysis of user experiences at a deeper level, the data cannot be used alone and speak more soundly when a qualitative data analysis is provided. The second phase of study is the continuation of the first phase, and the collaborative design workshop is genuinely a qualitative method that is strongly based on the constructivism paradigm as it allows dialectical processes to create findings. Further details about the framework and the research design for each case study is discussed in the next section.
87
88 3.4 RESEARCH METHODS
This section discusses the research methods in more detail. Figure 3.4 illustrates the research design framework in general while this section presents specific research methods for each case study. This section starts with the overall justification of selected research methods. It subsequently discusses the details of the research method for each of the two case studies: car sharing and toy library.
3.4.1 Justification of research method
Phase 1: Embedded Design
Quantitative method questionnaires
Questionnaires (mail or online questionnaires) are one type of survey method. Survey is a method that uses control variables to predict a certain behaviour or phenomena on the basis of a number of data/experiments (Neuman, 2003). There are three main survey methods: questionnaires, telephone interview or structured face to face interviews. Questionnaires are favourable in terms of cost and anonymity guarantee although their response speed is slow, the response rate is relatively low, and it is impossible to probe respondents (Babbie, 2001; Gray, 2004; Neuman, 2003).
Fortunately, the above disadvantages can be minimised by careful survey design and the use of online questionnaires instead of mail questionnaires. Preparing questionnaires by constructing clear, concise and unambiguous questions and piloting a questionnaire can minimise invalid responses (Gray, 2004). Choosing online questionnaires will minimise slow responses. Considering these options, questionnaires are selected in this study.
89 Qualitative methods
To evaluate the quantitative data and produce a comprehensive analysis of the existing PSS system and understand the users’ experiences and interaction with the system, multiple methods of qualitative research are used. Three methods: interviews, observation and text and document collection are used as a methodological triangulation. The use of multiple methods is important to get the whole picture of the system from both user and organisational perspectives. An observation was first conducted to look at the interaction between users and the system; interviews were then conducted to explore the users’ experience and satisfaction levels. Finally text and document collection was used to elaborate on how PSS organisations deal with certain issues derived from the interviews.
Semi structured interview
An interview, according to Gray (2004) is a conversation between a researcher and informants. Minichiello (1990) categorises interviews into three different models: structured, semi structured, and unstructured interviews. A semi structured interview, which is focused on the issues that are central to the research question, was selected for this study. It is unstructured but an interview guide is developed to keep focused on the central issues. Minichiello (1990) maintains that semi structured interview, together with unstructured interview, are regarded as in depth interviews which try to understand informants’ perspectives of their own experiences, lives or situations.
A semi structured interview was chosen as a qualitatively oriented interview and a semi structure form is used to make sure the interview process will be focused around the research questions. Although the researcher has a list of issues and questions to be covered for anticipation, some questions may not be asked or some additional issues may arise depending on the flow of the interview process. This also occurred in this study. More importantly, the semi structured interview allows the researcher to probe the participants’ views and opinions. This is important for
90 this study as it explores “subjective meanings that respondents ascribe to concepts or events” (Gray, 2004, p. 217) which is a vital feature for constructivism theoretical perspective.
Observations
In this study, observation is used in the toy library case study in order to look at patterns and behaviours of the users when interacting with the system. Observation in qualitative methods occurs in the natural context of an event or a place between actors and/or objects. The observation occurs naturally and the actors participate in the interaction as if it were a natural stream of everyday life (Adler & Adler, 1994). Observational techniques can vary depending on the character of the study and the selection of the location depends on the particular subjects’ behaviours intended to be observed (Adler & Adler, 1994). Gold (1958) classifies naturalistic observation into four different models: a complete observer, an observer as participant, a participant as observer, and a complete participant. The differences between those four categories are the level of involvement or detachment, closeness or distance, and familiarity with strangeness.
An observer as participant is more obvious than the complete observer. The role usually occurs before a single visit interview, which is a relatively more formal observation trying to depict the setting of the data collection process. A participant as observer has peripheral membership roles in the process, so the observer can interact closely without playing a significant participation role. A complete participant has an active role and involves in the core activities and is usually converted to genuine membership in the research process.
The observation in this study is an unobtrusive research method and uses a complete observer method in order to look at member activities with the selected PSS. It occurred from outside and it might not be possible to notice. The observation includes (1) physical location that involves human use of physical settings, (2) their acts in terms of the use of personal space and time that involves different types of
91 interaction and (3) the indication of the depth of interest that is reflected on the time spent (Kellehear, 1993). As the observation is used in the early stage of study when the researcher has not yet closely interacted with the users of the case studies, it gives advantages such as:
i) familiarizing the observed study; ii) allowing unnoticed or ignored aspects; and iii) and allowing systematic observational work from being detached from the subject of the study (Kellehear, 1993). Nevertheless, Kellehear (1993) notes several disadvantages with the method, for example, if the subject of observation shows complex or busy patterns the interpretation can be difficult. The method’s usefulness in large populations and in public places is limited, and observer bias may occur due to selectivity or boredom. However, as the method will be triangulated with other qualitative methods, bias and confusion can be minimized. In addition although the observation will be done in a public place, the location is indoors and small (inside the toy library) so it will be still useful for interpretation.
Journal
A journal for the first phase of this study is used to record the use of a shared car in the car sharing case study. It is intended to support the interview data and to record some details about the users’ experiences while they use the system. The journal used has a very simple format, which consists of the duration of the car use, the purpose of the travel and short comments about the travel. As the journal is quite simple, bias in interpretation is avoided. Although it does not contain large quantities of data, the use of the data as a complementary text based on the user’s natural experience helps to build up some realities (Silverman & Seale, 2005).
92 Phase 2: Collaborative Design
The collaborative design workshops were carefully organized based on design orienting scenario (DOS) (Manzini & Jegou 2000; 2003), collaborative design study (Visser et al., 2005) and Phase 2 of MEPSS methodology (van Halen et al., 2006). These methods have been discussed in sub chapter 2.4. However, the selection of tools and methods was custom based on the nature of the case studies using selective appropriate tools listed on Table 2.5 (in sub chapter 2.4.3, pp.58 59). For each method chosen, a comprehensive discussion why the method is selected is presented below.
Journal and/or photo taken
Unlike the journal from the first phase, in this phase the journal is used as a preparation stage for the collaborative design sessions. The use of photos taken by the users or images selected by them allows the users to relate their use of car sharing with specific meaning of experiences before, during or after car sharing. This method is only used for the car sharing study because the car sharing experiences are more complex than the toy library one. There are various purposes for people using car sharing facilities while the toy library users generally have similar reasons for joining.
Collage making
Collage making is a technique used to prepare collaborative design participants for the group work. It is an early phase of collaborative design which is also called sensitizing phase (Visser et al., 2005). It allows participants to think, reflect and explore some particular aspects of their context when they use a shared car (for car sharing case study) or borrow toys from the library (for toy library case study). Collage making is believed to be an effective technique to elicit emotional responses and is used as a start (Visser et al., 2005). Collages are tools for expressing feeling by using both pictures and words to show user experiences as well as for story telling (Sanders, 2000).
93 Collaborative design
As the objectives of the study is to work together with PSS stakeholders in improving the system by creating scenarios, collaborative design is considered to be the most appropriate methods. Collaborative design in this study is carried out in the conceptual design phase and it aims to search new information to identify barriers and opportunity for improvement and to produce a satisfactory design concept (Seitamaa Hakkarainen et al., 2000). The collaborative design process also allows to reflect on and express user experiences as well as to communicate ideas among different interest groups (Perry & Sanderson, 1998; Visser et al., 2005). The conceptual designs or raw scenarios created by the participants as well as their expressions are subsequently used to create rich and useful scenarios.
3.4.2 Car Sharing Case Study
This section comprehensively discusses the research methods that are specifically used in the car sharing case study. The selected case study is GoGet Car Sharing and the respondents for the study are the users in Sydney and Melbourne. When data collection took place, GoGet had just covered these two cities. The overall data collection process took place in 2007. Table 3.2 summarizes the research methods for this case study.
Table 3.2: Research methodology for the car sharing case study Stages Methods the Exploratory + Embedded Design: (1) QUAN (qual) b (2) QUAL methods Phase 1: Embedded Design (1) the Embedded Design: QUAN (qual) methods Quantitative method: Online questionnaires Administered in March – April 2007. Distributed to 791 members (all active member at the opening of the survey) Responses: 294 (response rate: 37%)
94 Table 3.2: Research methodology for the car sharing case study (continued)
Stages Methods the Exploratory + Embedded Design: (1) QUAN (qual) b (2) QUAL methods Qualitative method: In depth interviews Conducted in May and June 2007. Purposeful random sampling Respondents: 19 members Each interview took about 1 hour Journal 3 written journals from selected respondents of the interviews
Phase 2: Collaborative Design (2) QUAL methods Qualitative method: Journal and/or photo taken Conducted in September 2007 Collage making Collaborative design workshop: 4 hour session Collaborative design methods Criterion sampling Respondents: Journal: 4 respondents Photo taken: 4 respondents Collaborative design workshop: 7 respondents – 4 users, 2 staff members, 1 third party Three additional people were involved in the process: 2 Industrial Design practicum (exchange) students who helped respondents to design scenarios A facilitator who led the workshop, to allow the researcher to observe the design process
Methods
Phase 1: Embedded Design
Online questionnaires were administered to measure the user satisfaction level and to analyse the overall pattern of the use of car sharing. Furthermore, questionnaires are also used to investigate consumption behaviours in relation to the travel pattern. Online questionnaires are used as all GoGet members have provided their email addresses for correspondence with the organizations. As online questionnaires can provide quicker responses and are relatively less expensive than
95 the mail out ones, the online questionnaires outweigh the advantages of mail out means of research.
Firstly, the survey design was conducted. Questions were carefully planned to avoid any bias and a pilot project was conducted by sending the questionnaires to five key respondents as suggested by GoGet. Then, based on the feedbacks from the pilot project, the questionnaires were revised accordingly. The questionnaires were then launched. Not to breach privacy issues, the invitation email was sent via GoGet. The survey was designed to allow anonymity of the respondents. To increase the response rate, two draw prizes (dinner vouchers) were offered for those who completed the survey. Their details were entered separately to the main survey so that nobody could relate their details to the survey responses. By the end of the survey, they were also invited to have an hour interview as the follow up process. Thus, the respondents who were willing to do the interview would enter their details into a form that was separated to the main survey for later correspondence.
The invitation email was sent to all 791 GoGet members on the launching day (23 March 2007). 294 responses were received by the closing date of the online survey. There were 109 respondents who were willing to have an interview. Nineteen persons were purposively selected on the basis of the balanced populations and various characteristics of the members in Melbourne and Sydney. The selection involved GoGet founders to identify if the participants would cover different characteristics of GoGet members. The interviews subsequently took place between May and June 2007 at their convenience in public places or the interviewees’ houses. Afterwards, three of them were asked to write journals regarding their use of transport.
Phase 2: Collaborative Design
After the data analysis had finished, the researcher started preparations for developing new scenarios for car sharing system. Five GoGet members from Sydney were selected using criterion sampling to join a collaborative design workshop.
96 Then three people from the GoGet organisation were also invited one staff member, a volunteer (called “paladin“ in GoGet terms) and a third party person (a car cleaner for GoGet car). Criteria for selecting workshop participants was based on age, type of membership, and different characteristics of the use of GoGet cars for example, frequency of use and the purposes cars were used. Five members were invited and were willing to join the workshop but only four people attended.
The collaborative design workshop was performed with three helpers: two Industrial Design exchange students and a facilitator. The students helped participants to design creative scenarios by suggesting some ideas and assisting the drawing and design process. A facilitator was hired to run the workshop based on the schedule, runtime and tasks that have been previously prepared by the researcher. During the workshop, the researcher observed the whole process and ensured the design workshop run as planned.
Data analysis
Phase 1: Embedded Design
As the questionnaires were designed based on the ServQual method (Parasuraman et al., 1991; Parasuraman et al., 1988) to assess the user satisfaction level (see Figure 2.18 and Section 4.3.3 for further discussion), the analysis for the user satisfaction level was performed as suggested. The multivariate data analysis includes factor analysis. Reliability analysis was performed besides the descriptive statistical analysis and cross tabulations (Coakes, Steed, & Dzidic, 2005). The quantitative analysis provides comprehensive numerical figures of GoGet users’ patterns.
To search for the deeper meaning of the above patterns and to identify sustainable consumption behaviours in relation to the use of modes of transportation and general lifestyle, the interviews were fully transcribed then analysed using qualitative data analysis. Thematic analysis based on the general pattern coding
97 framework (Creswell, 1994; Kvale, 1996; Miles & Huberman, 1984) and matrix display (Miles & Huberman, 1984) were used. Major categories of sustainable consumption and user behaviours were determined from the literature reviews. Quotes and themes relating to those categories were used as the basic unit of analysis.
Phase 2: Collaborative Design
Similar to the qualitative data analysis in Phase 1, the textual analysis in this phase also used thematic analysis and matrix display. However, as the scenarios generated from this phase are rich in images and photos, image analysis was also heavily used in this phase. The analysis was performed by interpreting and analysing the meaning of the images alone and together with participants, and then thematic analysis was used based on both images and interpretation.
3.4.3 Toy Library Case Study
The Randwick City Toy and Game Library (RCTGL) was selected as the case study for the toy library. Although Randwick City Council has three libraries, there is only one toy library located at Bowen Library, Maroubra, New South Wales. The overall study took place in November 2006 for (the preliminary study) and in 2007. Table 3.3 provides a summary of the research methods for this case study.
Table 3. 3: Research methodology for toy library case study Stages Methods the Exploratory + Embedded Design: (1) QUAL (quan) b (2) QUAL methods Phase 1: Embedded Design (1) Embedded Design: QUAL (quan) methods Quantitative method: Mail questionnaires Administered in April May 2007. Distributed to 652 members (sent 661 but 9 were returned) Responses: 161 (response rate: 25%)
98 Qualitative method: Unobtrusive observation Conducted in October – November 2006 (before survey) 5 times of 30 60 minutes, different days and different time (morning, afternoon) In depth interviews Conducted in May and June 2007. Purposeful random sampling Respondents: 21 members Each interview took about 1 hour Phase 2: Collaborative Design (2) QUAL methods Qualitative method: Journal and/or photo taken Conducted in November 2007 Collage making Individual session of collage making: 30 45 minutes Collaborative design methods Collaborative design workshop: 2 ½ hours Criterion sampling Respondents: Collage making: 7 respondents Collaborative design workshop: 9 respondents – 7 users, 2 staff members Three additional people were involved in the process: 2 Industrial Design practicum (exchange) students who helped respondents to design scenarios A facilitator who led the workshop, to allow the researcher to observe the design process Methods
Phase 1: Embedded Design
Unlike the car sharing case study where the members provided their email addresses, for the toy library case study, the members gave their postal addresses to the RCTGL. Thus, despite the limitations of a higher cost and a slower response rate, mail out questionnaires were the only modes for the survey. Similar to car sharing, questionnaires were also used to investigate the user satisfaction of the toy library service and to identify the use of toy library system.
The survey was designed using the ServQual factors method (Parasuraman et al., 1991; Parasuraman et al., 1988). Because of page limitations suggested by the organisation, questions were much briefer. To avoid any bias, a pilot project was conducted by sending the questionnaires to five respondents who were initially approached at the toy library when they borrowed toys. Based on the feedback from this pilot
99 project, the questionnaires were revised accordingly. The questionnaires were then sent via the Randwick City Council (RCC) channel and complemented with a letter of notification from the RCC. The survey was designed to ensure respondents’ anonymity. Similar with car sharing; to increase the response rate, two prize draws (book vouchers) were offered for those who completed the survey. Respondents were also invited to attend a one hour interview. Once the survey was returned, completed questionnaires were immediately separated from their details (for draw prize and interview) so nobody could relate their details to the survey responses.
The questionnaires were sent to 661 members with 9 being returned undeliverable leaving a net 652 sent. The 661 members were those who joined the RCTGL during the last 18 months. A total responses of 165 completed forms were received a week after by the closing date of the survey.
There were 64 respondents who were willing to have an interview, and 21 persons were randomly selected from that group. The interviews subsequently took place between May and June at convenient places, such as a public place or the interviewees’ house.
Phase 1: Collaborative Design
To develop new scenarios for the toy library system, a collaborative design workshop was organised. Conducted in November 2007, the workshop consisted of two sessions:
a session of individual collage making with members. It was run individually for approximately 30 to 45 minutes with 7 members. a group session – a collaborative design workshop with 7 members and 2 toy librarians. The session was held at Bowen Library over a 2 ½ hour period. Similar to the GoGet case study, seven of the 21 interviewees were selected using criterion sampling to join a collaborative design workshop. Criteria for selecting
100 participants for the workshop were based on the age group(s) of their children and on the different ways they used the toy library.
During the workshop, the same as the car sharing case study, three additional people were involved: two industrial design students and a facilitator. They had the same roles as in the car sharing design workshop.
Data analysis
Phase 1: Embedded Design
The data analysis techniques are generally the same as in the car sharing case study. The analysis was performed using multivariate data analysis including factor analysis, reliability analysis, descriptive statistic analysis and cross tabulations (Coakes et al., 2005). Multivariate data analysis was used to measure user satisfaction levels according to the ServQual model (Parasuraman et al., 1991; Parasuraman et al., 1988). Descriptive statistical analysis and cross tabulations were used to identify patterns of toy library use.
In searching for further meaning of user experiences and their sustainable consumption behaviours, the interviews were used and analysed using qualitative data analysis. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed. Similar to the car sharing case study, qualitative data analysis used thematic analysis pattern coding framework (Creswell, 1994; Kvale, 1996; Miles & Huberman, 1984) and matrix display (Miles & Huberman, 1984). Also, major categories of sustainable consumption and user behaviours were determined from the literature review. Quotes and themes relating to those categories were used as the basic unit of analysis.
Phase 2: Collaborative Design
The analysis of the collaborative design sessions for the toy library case study is similar to the car sharing one. Textual analysis was performed using thematic
101 analysis and matrix display. Two scenarios were generated from this phase. Thematic analysis to interpret the meaning of the images was done together with participants during the workshop as well as alone by the researcher after the workshop.
3.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY
It is believed that the use of system thinking is important for the study, as it gives a comprehensive perspective of the observed system. In addition, the system thinking model would allow system dynamics to be identified. As the system thinking model emphasises the importance of the meaning of a particular system, the study takes a stance on the constructivism theoretical perspective. Using a case study approach involving car sharing and toy library case studies, the research used mixed methods research for its design framework.
The exploratory design and embedded design frameworks in mixed methods research were used in the study as there were two main phases of the study, consisting of both qualitative and quantitative research on the first phase and qualitative research on the second phase. After careful planning and justification of methods, both case studies were explored using similar tools and methods.
The mixed method research used in the research design framework of the study is a two phase Exploratory Design with the Embedded Design for the first phase (See Figure 3.4). From this framework, it can be seen that the collaborative design workshops need to have input from the previous phase (Embedded Design) and the workshops were set accordingly based on the analysis and outcomes of Phase 1 which is an empirical study. The outcomes, thus, have emerged from the research itself and would not have emerged from any other studies or any existing form of PSS applications.
102 CHAPTER 4 4 CAR SHARING
“sharing is difficult when cars disappear for whole weekend” (a respondent’s comment on GoGet online survey)
“I was seen to be "monopolising" the cars, though my position was that I was acting only within my understanding of the rules. [Compared to car rental] car share is a lot more regimented. Returning a car dirty or late causes distress for both the next member and the organisation.” (an interview with DM, male 30+)
This chapter presents the research findings of the car sharing case study, from the investigation of the existing system, the evaluation of user satisfaction and user consumption behaviour, to the scenario development for improving user satisfaction and encouraging more sustainable consumption behaviour. The presentation of the findings starts with the system investigation based on the proposed model, followed by the search of meaning based on user experiences. Finally the proposed scenarios based on the collaborative design workshop are presented and analysed.
4. 1 CAR SHARING MODEL: DESCRIPTION
The car sharing model discussed here is a system that offers personal mobility service where the users can book a car, pick it up and return it to the same location they collected it from. Membership is a must, and the fee scheme is based on the use of the car, the hourly rate and kilometres travelled.
GoGet is selected as the case study. It is a car sharing system in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide that offers its services to individuals and organisations. On
103 August 20, 2009, GoGet had 4656 members with an increase of 582 members in the last three months, covering four main cities in Australia Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, and Adelaide3. It has experienced significant growth since its first launch in 2003. Figure 4.1 shows membership growth between 2003 and August 2009.
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
Number of members 500
0 Jun 03 Feb 04 Oct 04 Jun 05 Mar 06 Nov 06 Jul 07 Mar 08 Nov 08 Aug 09 Month
Figure 4. 1: Growth rate of GoGet members from 2003 to 2009
There were 185 cars in 157 locations (pods) in August 2009 – 148 pods in Sydney, seven in Melbourne, and two in Adelaide. There were also 9 pods in Brisbane. However, they were temporarily closed starting from April 2009 due to a new tender system for car sahring organizations from Brisbane City. As a comparison, there were only 73 cars in 66 pods when the survey was conducted in March 2007 58 pods in Sydney, eight in Melbourne and none in Brisbane or Adelaide. Figure 4.2 illustrates the pods around Sydney. The green logos show current pod locations (in August 2009) and the red logo shows the proposed pods that are intended by
3 Data from GoGet database on 20 August 2009 from GoGet admin’s website.
104 GoGet. The image shows that GoGet pods are more concentrated in inner city areas.
Figure 4. 2: GoGet pods in Sydney area (Source: http://www.goget.com.au/bookings/locations/index.php?city=Sydney, accessed 20 August 2009)
The study focuses on the individual use basis. There are two main fee schemes for individual membership GoOccasional and GoFrequent. Both plans charge users based on a monthly fee, an hourly rate and a kilometre rate, but in different schemes. GoFrequent has a higher monthly rate but lower hourly rate, and GoOcassional has a lower monthly rate but higher hourly rate. The kilometre rate is the same for both schemes. Also, every member must pay a fully refundable deposit when they join GoGet.
The rationale behind the fee schemes is as follow:
105 A monthly fee aims to reinforce members’ commitment. It helps GoGet afford its fixed operational and managerial costs.
Both hourly rate and kilometre rate are used for day to day vehicle operational cost (most of the variable costs). A relatively low hourly rate aims to compete with other car sharing companies. A high kilometre rate, on the other hand, is intended to discourage members to drive long distance and unnecessary trips. This is a value adopted by GoGet to support environmental sustainability. The profit margin is usually obtained from the kilometre cost.
A fully refundable deposit is a screening criterion to have serious members and a security bond against non payment activities.
Once people have joined the membership, they will have a welcome pack containing a member’s manual guide, a smart card to access GoGet cars and membership details. A member can immediately use a GoGet car. There are three sequential activities of using GoGet Car Share: booking a car, picking up the car, returning the car. Figure 4.3 illustrates a brief scenario of the use of car sharing.
Figure 4. 3: User activities in using GoGet car sharing
106 1. Booking a car
There are two different means of booking a car: using the Internet (web booking system) and the telephone (Touch Tone Telephone System). Each member has their own unique membership number and they can log in to the GoGet member’s page to book a car. Members usually have a selection of available cars around their neighbourhood when they log in to the GoGet member site. They can choose their preferred car, if available, and make a booking straightaway.
Using the telephone system, members should dial the GoGet phone number (1300 769 389, Australia wide) and they can choose to use an automatic booking system or to speak with a customer service representative (during business hours).
2. Picking up the car
Once the booking has been made, members can have the access to the car – using their smart card – at the time they made the booking. They need to go to the car’s parking spot, called a “pod”, and get the car. Often there are two or more GoGet cars in the same pod. When a member tries to access another car rather than the one that is booked, the car will not open, as the member’s smart card will have been activated for the specific car that was previously booked.
An important activity to do before using the car is a self inspection to see whether there is any damage in the car. If that is the case, the member must report it. After accessing the car with a swipe card, the member will need to get the vehicle key to start and drive the car.
3. Returning the car
When the booking time has expired, the member must return the car to the same pod. Extending the booking during use is possible as long as the car is not booked by another member. The easiest way to extend a booking is to call the GoGet customer service.
107 Although members do not need to wash the car or pay for fuel, they need to make sure that the car is relatively clean and that there is still enough petrol for the next user. To fill up with fuel, members can use a petrol card that is provided in the glove box.
Additional activities
Other services related to post use activities are activity statements and billing, updated membership details, a regular newspaper, involvement in occasional social activities (if members are interested). GoGet regularly sends a monthly electronic newsletter to its members and some members occasionally organises social activities for example, a barbeque in St Kilda, Melbourne or in Manly Beach, Sydney. Members can always access their details via the GoGet member site and can update their details from time to time.
4. 2 CAR SHARING MODEL: SYSTEM ANALYSIS
4.2.1 General System
The previous section has described the GoGet car sharing system in general. This section reviews GoGet based on the proposed model shown in Figure 2.16 (See page 74). Figure 4.4 below demonstrates a specific model for the GoGet system. This review was conducted based on personal communication with GoGet founders, the document and text analysis based on internal data, reports and proposals made by GoGet as well as documents produced by external parties, such as newspaper, magazines or government reports.
108
Figure 4. 4: GoGet as a PSS model 4.2.2 Main actors
GoGet organization
GoGet was co founded by Bruce Jeffrey and Nic Lowe in Newtown and was launched under the name ‘Newtown CarShare’ on June 6, 2003 with three vehicles and 12 founding members. It expanded to Surry Hills, Glebe, and Enmore in Sydney. The service was subsequently extended to Northcote in Melbourne and launched under the new name ‘GoGet’ on November 18, 2004. With the growth of the service to other areas in both Sydney and Melbourne, Newtown CarShare was re launched in May 2005 as GoGet Car Share (www.goget.com.au/our story.html). On August 19, 2008, the first GoGet shared car was launched in Adelaide, while in Brisbane, GoGet has partnered with GWhiz in operating car share systems since July 2007.
GoGet operates on a private basis, with the co founders as equal shareholders. It is a profit oriented company with business goals to expand the business to other cities in Australia, and to expand its fleet and membership. Its customer service goals are to provide high satisfaction rates and to maintain low insurance claim cost as well as
109 well maintained and reliable vehicles, and to retain high membership numbers. In addition, GoGet attempts to support the neighbourhood by reducing road congestion, lowering overall vehicle emissions and improving the parking situation by encouraging fewer vehicles in the neighbourhood.4
The GoGet directors (co founders) command three managers: operations, administration, and sales and marketing. The operations manager deals with after hours calls, fleet management and information technology. The administration manager is in charge of accounting and finance, member services, and the business hours call centre. The sales and marketing manager deals with marketing, sales, and media and communication.
Stakeholders
The main stakeholders of GoGet are GoGet members, GoGet suppliers, and local government authorities or city councils.
GoGet Members
GoGet members are expected to have hassle free experience of services, including5:
The access to clean and well maintained cars
A ready to go car when a member has booked it including at least ¼ of tank of petrol at the start of the trip
A regular improvement of the service regarding the fleet, car choices and pod locations based on member feedbacks
A basic cover of insurance for all cars.
4 This information is summarised from several internal documents: the organization business plan and the proposals for city councils from 2006 to 2007.
110 As well as their rights, members are responsible for:
Returning cars clean and tidy.
Returning cars on time and with at least a ¼ tank of petrol
Driving responsibly at all times and obeying traffic rules and regulations as well as ordinances
Not smoking at any time in any GoGet vehicle
Carrying pet only in a designated vehicle and the common sense rule is that the next user should not be able to detect or see any evidence of pet having been in the designated vehicle
Never allowing any non approved driver to use GoGet vehicles
GoGet’s suppliers
The main suppliers for GoGet are as follows:
Car supplier
Toyota Australia was chosen as the sole car supplier. Vehicles are bought from Toyota Australia using a finance contract for three years. Toyota was selected because of its factory and dealer support, and high resale value. Each vehicle has a keyless entry system, key box and onboard computer installed for vehicle access. Although Toyota is the only car supplier for GoGet, the scheme also uses Mini Coopers as its special car. GoGet bought these Coopers from individuals as second hand cars.
Maintenance and repair
QuietADrive, an internet based fleet maintenance company, is an outsourcing company for GoGet car maintenance. This company books the vehicles for
5 This information is taken from GoGet’s brochure and GoGet Member’s Manual v. 2007
111 scheduled maintenance and returns them to the dedicated pods on completion of maintenance. Vehicle repairs are done internally by GoGet. However, if they cannot be handled internally, the repairs are done by a contract service arranged by the GoGet operation manager.
Car care – vehicle cleaning service
GoGet outsources its car cleaning services to a small mobile car cleaning service named Car Care. Car Care uses special technologies to reuse and recycle water. The cleaning agents used are also environmental friendly. Each car is cleaned every two weeks. The car cleaner comes to the pods and cleans cars on the spot. The cleaner books the vehicle for a scheduled 30 minute cleaning. The car cleaner also regularly checks cars for damage.
Insurance companies
GoGet collaborates with NRMA NSW and Queensland, and RACV Victoria for vehicle insurance. NRMA Insurance offers an innovative car sharing insurance policy which allows GoGet to have a lower excess than traditional car rental organisations. The policy also enables GoGet members to retain their no claim bonus when they are still a GoGet member.
Information system subcontractor
GoGet uses Chameleon Information System to develop and provide hardware and software services, including the member booking system, interactive voice response (IVR) telephone software, member signup, administrative software and customer relationship management (CRM) website. The system also includes the use of keyless car entry and automated trip logging by using a smart card system integrated to the vehicle fleet. The technologies simplify many jobs in car sharing, including eliminating manual travel distance entry and registering the start and end of a member’s trip. The keyless car entry system also increases the safety of the car as the system immobilises the car when it is not booked or in use.
112 Paladin
The name is taken from a medieval character which represents a holy knight. Paladin is defined as ‘a knight renowned for heroism and chivalry’ ("paladin noun," 2005). Paladins in GoGet are key people who are also GoGet members who help start, maintain and promote the car sharing service in the areas that GoGet operates in. Paladins help GoGet solve problems and issues staff members cannot handle due to lack of proximity or time.
Local government
The operations of car sharing need support from local government (or city councils/municipalities). Most of the designated parking spots for the fleet are provided based on agreements with relevant city councils. Some councils have a contract or policy with GoGet in particular or with car share system in general. The contract usually defines the type of vehicles for car sharing and requires updated reporting on use of the car share spaces in terms of membership levels and car usage. The contract also identifies the term of agreement for the city councils to provide the designated parking spaces.
Figure 4. 5: A designated car pod with a special sign given by a city council in Sydney
113 Some city councils designed the dedicated shared car spaces by naming the space (See Figure 4.5). Usually, the dedicated parking spaces provided by city councils have these following characteristics6:
Timed off street parking
Unrestricted off street parking
Kerbside ticket parking with permit exemption which is primarily in main streets
Kerbside timed parking with permit exemption which is primarily in residential areas close to main streets
Unrestricted kerbside parking in residential areas away from main streets.
Parking space in municipalities or local government facilities.
However, GoGet also has some secured car parking spaces and special parking spaces in business districts or commercial spaces. These parking spots are made available under the partnership with local chambers, apartment/strata managements or other organisations7.
4.2.3 Components of GoGet
Products
The main products of GoGet are cars. GoGet chooses cars based on their fun, reliability, simplicity of operation and their environmental standards. GoGet’s fleet features a range of cars including (www.goget.com.au):
City Run abouts – small compact 5 door cars
City Play abouts – fun and small 2 door cars
6 This information is extracted from local government reports, the GoGet website and various organization’s websites supporting GoGet.
114 Weekend Get aways – larger station wagon vehicles with bigger luggage space
Daily Tidy ups – utes with furniture trays for delivering or moving bulky materials
Team Round ups– eight seater vans for group trips.
Figure 4.6 illustrates different types of cars that GoGet has.
Figure 4. 6: Different types of car in the GoGet fleet
All GoGet vehicles are automatics, air conditioned, fully maintained and regularly serviced to manufacturers’ standards, clean, and covered by 24 hour roadside assistance. All cars are equipped with street directories and fuel cards which are accepted at most petrol stations. All cars also have a name. Most are named after valued GoGet members or paladins.
7 This information is taken from the GoGet website and other internal documents. 115 Smart card
As described earlier, all GoGet vehicles are keyless, with access via swiping a smart card. The smart card records the member details and it is a device to mobilise and immobilise the car. Based on the smart card technology, members do not have to record their travel distance and the duration of use. In unusual circumstances, such as accident or crimes, the smart card can also be used to identify the location of the car.
Figure 4.7 illustrates the information distributed to members in terms of the use of the smart card to access the car. The figure shows how a member has to swipe the card in front of the device near the windscreen to access the car. It automatically opens the car for use. It also shows how to lock the car.
Figure 4. 7: The use of GoGet smart card to access and lock the car (Source: www.goget.com.au/bookings/instruction.jpg)
116 Services
GoGet provides the use of the car as its main service. As a result, this creates additional customer service activities such as taking care of customer queries regarding the use of the car, producing billing statements, updating necessary details, following up any complaints or accidents, and maintaining and improving service quality. GoGet also provides additional services, such as distributing newsletters and organising occasional social activities as has been described in Section 4.1.
Actor networks
Actor networks are related to the relationship between GoGet organisations and the stakeholders. Figure 4.8 and 4.9 illustrate the relationship between GoGet, its members, suppliers, and local government. Usually, stakeholders are connected to each other through GoGet. For example, if there are potential members who require cars in a new location, GoGet will record all the interests and deal with for the local government to provide a car space. GoGet may also initiate a partnership with other organisations to find a car space. If GoGet has had a space, GoGet deals with Toyota for a car lease program (See Figure 4.8).
Figure 4. 8: Actor networks for the provision of a new car and location
117 In terms of the maintenance and repair, GoGet has arranged a regular maintenance and cleaning (See Figure 4.9). However, occasionally, members have a problem with the car when they book it. For example the car is dirty, the battery is flat, the car does not want to start, there is not enough fuel, or the car is damaged. A GoGet staff member under the operation manager will fix the problems and the inconvenienced members will get credits from GoGet while GoGet will fine the member who created the inconvenience. For some other cases, GoGet may need to contact a third party, the car cleaner (CarCare), the mechanics (QuiteaDrive) or a repair shop to arrange the maintenance or repairs.
Figure 4. 9: Actor networks for the maintenance and repairs of GoGet cars If a member is involved in an accident, he or she must contact GoGet. The member fills in the accident form (provided in every GoGet car) and takes photos of the accident with the provided camera in the car’s glove box. GoGet will contact the car insurance company to deal with the accident claim. When the member is at fault, GoGet will charge an excess. The amount of the excess depends on the agreement
118 made prior to the booking. Members have the option to reduce their liability by paying extra cost for their hourly rate during the use of the car.
Infrastructure
Car sharing works well in areas where public transport is reliable and well run. Car sharing suits perfectly people who rely on public transport but need an access to a car where public transport is not viable (Bergmaier et al., 2004; Nawangpalupi & Demirbilek, 2008). A study of different scenarios of travel using different modes of transport has shown that the use of public transport is beneficial for the traveller’s budget and the environment (Ramirez & Nawangpalupi, 2006). However, due to the inaccessibility of public transport services as well as travel time, many people in the Sydney greater metropolitan area prefer using private vehicles to get to/from work (TPDC, 2006). When people have their own private vehicles that are available most of the time they need it, car sharing is not their preferred option. Thus, reliable and well maintained public transport is a key infrastructure element for people to shift from private vehicle ownership to car sharing.
4. 3 PHASE 1: GOGET PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
This section discusses the third layer of the model, performance criteria. There are two performance criteria discussed in this study: user satisfaction and sustainable consumption behaviour.
4.3.1 Procedures
As discussed in Chapter 3, the embedded design of mixed methods research was used to analyse these criteria. The quantitative method is the main method for this performance criteria analysis and an online survey was administered. The online survey investigated user satisfaction and user behaviour regarding their use of a
119 GoGet car. In addition to the above criteria, some demographic profiles were inquired.
After designing the survey, a pilot study was performed. The pilot study aimed to do face validity focusing on reducing the avoidable error reduction, such as non response errors and observational errors (Barnett & Barnett, 1991). Barnett and Barnett (1991) define non response errors as errors occurring when samples from the population do not give any value to a variable of interest. It happens because some members of the selected sample do not respond to the survey or the characteristics of the chosen sample do not reflect the population’s characteristics.
As the survey targeted GoGet members and asked questions about GoGet performance, non response errors is negligible in this case. The use of an online survey also enabled non response rates to be minimised as respondents were prompted to answer each question before continuing on to the next one.
Furthermore, Barnett (1991) identifies observational errors as the errors occur when the sample member gives faulty information. It might happen because of misleading or wrongly expressed questions. The pilot study focuses on reducing observational errors. Five key members suggested by GoGet directors were selected. Based on their feedback, the survey was revised. The revision of the questions includes the use of more succinct, plain and no jargon wording and avoiding leading questions. Appendix B shows the final version of the online survey.
The online survey was conducted for three weeks starting from March 14 to April 24, 2007. The invitation emails to participate in the survey were sent to 791 members and 293 members responded to the survey (37 per cent response rate) without any survey reminder.
Survey results were analysed based on simple descriptive analysis, cross tabulations and multivariate analysis. Details of the analysis are presented together with the data in the next section.
120 Further investigation about user satisfaction was conducted using interviews. Although the interviews mainly explore travel behaviour and sustainable consumption, the interviews started with exploring user experiences with GoGet to determine their user satisfaction level. Nineteen GoGet members from Sydney and Melbourne were interviewed in May and June 2007. Three of 19 interviewees were also asked to write a journal regarding their travel behaviour. The question guidelines for the interviews and the journal can be found in Appendix C. Details of the interviewees are given in section 4.3.4.
4.3.2 Demographic profiles
There were 250 member responses from Sydney and 43 responses from Melbourne. Given that in April 2007 more than 600 members are in Sydney and about 125 members are in Melbourne, the response rate is proportional for both cities. However, in terms of gender characteristics, there are more males respondents to the survey in Melbourne (65 per cent), while more females responded to the survey (53 per cent) in Sydney.
Table 4.1 below highlights the overall respondent profiles. Most GoGet members are between 31 and 40 years old (47 per cent + 4.56 per cent) and are couples without children (47 per cent + 4.56 per cent) who are renting as their living arrangement (58.7 per cent + 4.55 per cent).
121 Table 4. 1: Gender, household and age characteristics of GoGet members
No of Gender responses Female 147 Male 146 Total 293 (Based on the confidence level of 95%, CI = 4.55%) Household situation No of (%) responses Couple household with children 53 18.2% Couple household without children 139 47.6% Single parent 5 1.7% Lone household 43 14.7% Group household 43 14.7% Others 9 3.1% Total 292 100% (Based on the confidence level of 95%, CI = 4.56%) Living_arrangement No of (%) responses renting 172 58.7% Owning 115 39.2% other arrangement 6 2% Total 293 100% (Based on the confidence level of 95%, CI = 4.55%) Age category No of (%) responses 21 30 years old 57 19.5% 31 40 years old 139 47.6% 41 50 years old 61 20.9% 51 65 years old 32 11.0% 66 years old and above 3 1.0% Total 292 100% (Based on the confidence level of 95%, CI = 4.56%)
122 Based on education and income levels, GoGet members have more tertiary education than the average Australian as well as much higher income levels (See Table 4.2). More than half of the GoGet members who responded (51.9 per cent+4.56 per cent) have a postgraduate degree and the mean of median household income is twice as much as an average Sydney resident. The mean of the median household income per week for GoGet members is $A2341, while the median for Australia is $A1027. The figures for Sydney and Melbourne are $A1154 and $A1079 respectively (ABS, 2006). Overall, GoGet members are satisfied with GoGet services (See Table 4.2) given that nobody said they were very dissatisfied, and a very low number said they were dissatisfied (5 persons of 290).
Table 4. 2: Income, education level of GoGet members and the overall satisfaction level of GoGet services Income level Australia average in 2006 (ABS, 2006) Mean of median of household $2,341 $1,027 income/wk Education qualification No of (%) responses High School 14 4.8% TAFE/Diploma 22 7.5% Undergraduate 103 35.3% Postgraduate 153 52.4% Total 292 100% (Based on the confidence level of 95%, CI = 4.56%) Satisfaction level Very dissatisfied (score=1) 0 Dissatisfied (score=2) 5 Satisfied (score=3) 104 Very satisfied (score=4) 181 Average 3.60 of 4
To analyse whether GoGet members in Sydney and Melbourne have similar experiences and satisfaction levels, Wilcoxon’s rank sum z test was performed (Argyrous, 2005). This test is a non parametric test for two independent samples
123 (Sydney and Melbourne members) based on some characteristics that are measured using ordinal or interval scales (Argyrous, 2005). Using the Mann Whitney test on SPSS v. 15 that is equivalent to Wilcoxon’s rank sum (Coakes et al., 2005), there were no differences between Sydney and Melbourne members in terms of age group, income level, education level, and overall satisfaction level. The gender and household situation couldn’t be tested as they used nominal scales for the measurements. The details for the SPSS test are presented in Appendix D.
4.3.3 User satisfaction performance
Online survey findings
As discussed in Section 2.6, the main quantitative tool used for measuring user satisfaction was the ServQual method. This analyses service quality based on the gap between user expectation and perception in these following dimensions: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, customer assurance and empathy (Zeithaml et al., 1990). To identify the gap between the expectation and perception of a service, a survey was designed by asking questions about the ideal car sharing characteristics as expected values (“An excellent car sharing service will have... “) and GoGet characteristics as their perceived values (“GoGet has... ”).
Regarding the expectation and perception questions, a four point interval scale was used for every statement given. Respondents were asked to choose a point they felt described their expectation and perception the best. Based on the system description discussed in the previous section (Section 4.2), a list of questions distinctive to GoGet services was designed. Table 4.3 shows the list of questions related to five ServQual dimensions.
These questions were identified as 22 variables for the expectations and perceptions in Box 4.1. The responses for these variables were measured in 4 point Likert scales, based on the following criteria:
124 Table 4. 3: List of questions for the user satisfaction analysis
Questions for GoGet members ServQual dimensions (Zeithaml et For the expectation: The ideal car sharing will have .. al., 1990, p. 26) For the perception: GoGet has .. cars that have clean interiors cars that have clean exteriors cars that are fuel efficient Tangibles cars that are equipped with a navigation system “appearance of physical facilities, cars that have powerful engines equipment, personnel, and cars that have all the necessary information about car communication materials” operation and troubleshooting pods that are easy to find pods that are easy to reach by public transport pods that have adequate space to park bicycles an error free reservation system an easy reservation system on the Internet Reliability a car available when I make a reservation “ability to perform the promised a system that clearly states the cost and fee structure service dependably and a system that clearly states the insurance policy and what accurately” it covers staff that respond to my call with minimum delay Responsiveness an easy system to review and update my membership via “willingness to help customers and the Internet provide prompt service” a convenient phone reservation staff that have the knowledge to answer my questions Customer assurance regarding the service “knowledge and courtesy of staff that show courtesy employees and their ability to a secured financial transaction system convey trust and confidence” a system that clearly keeps my data safe, secured, and confidential Empathy “caring and individualised staff that give me personal attention attention the firm provides its customers”
For the expectations (“An excellent car sharing company will have ...”), the scale was designed based on the importance level, with “very important” = 4, “important” = 3, “unimportant” = 2, and “very unimportant” = 1.
For the perception (“GoGet has ...”), the scale was designed based on the level of agreement, showing respondents’ satisfaction level, with “strongly agree” = 4, “agree” = 3, “disagree” =2, and “strongly disagree” = 1. An
125 additional option of response “not applicable” was given and coded as “9” and identified as “missing value” for the statistical analysis.
Box 4. 1: Service quality variables 1. error free reservation 11. clean exterior of the cars 2. convenient phone reservation 12. fuel efficient cars 3. easy online reservation 13. navigation system 4. car availability 14. powerful engine cars 5. easy process of updating membership 15. clear information available in the cars online 16. easy to find pods (car locations) 6. secured financial transaction 17. easy to reach pods by public transport 7. transparent cost structure 18. bicycle parking space 8. clear insurance policy 19. minimum delay response 9. data confidentiality 20. knowledgeable staff 10. clean interior of the cars 21. courtesy 22. personal attention Reliability Analysis
To examine whether all criteria are reliable, the Cronbach’s alpha test was conducted (Coakes et al., 2005). The Cronbach’s alpha is a commonly used coefficient to identify if the variables are standardised and it is calculated based on the average correlation between variables.
For the GoGet service quality variables, based on the importance level of each factor and from all responses, it suggested that 20 factors were reliable and two others could be omitted. The two factors are the navigation system (no. 13) and the bicycle parking space (no.18). The overall scale is 0.834, and it becomes 0.836 if the navigation system factor is deleted and 0.842 if bicycle parking space question is deleted. The changes of the alpha rate are not significantly different, as a result both factors are still considered in further analyses. The result of the reliability analysis test can be found in Appendix D.
Both navigation system and bicycle parking space are factors which are not yet provided by GoGet. Questions were asked which examined whether members
126 would consider those factors as important features or not. The Cronbach’s reliability analysis, in fact, showed there was a slight ambiguity of responses in terms of measuring the importance level of the navigation system and the bicycle parking space. It means some respondents considered them as important factors and the others did not.
Expectations and perception of GoGet service
Without omitting any factors, Table 4.4 highlights the importance level and the satisfaction level for each factor. The summary shows that most factors are important with the average expectation above scale 3, with the exceptions of powerful engine (1.74), navigation system (1.97), parking bicycle (2.53) and clean exterior (2.76). As has been discussed earlier, there are differences of opinion about the importance level of the navigation system and the bicycle parking space. However, for the navigation system, the overall average is still very low; thus, it is considered as an unimportant factor. For the bicycle parking space, its importance level is between important and not important. As a result, the bicycle space will still be considered for the improvement program.
Having a powerful engine is a factor that is considered as “not important”, and based on the Cronbach’s reliability analysis, it is shown that the measurement of this factor is reliable. It can be concluded that GoGet members solidly agree that a powerful engine (which is likely related to higher fuel consumption) is not an important factor.
The GoGet members’ satisfaction levels (as shown by the perception scores) were as expected. Similar to their expectation levels, both navigation system and powerful engine had low satisfaction levels shown by low perception scores (less than 2). It was not surprising as GoGet does not currently consider those factors in their service. Bicycle parking space is in the same category. The other variables have
127 scores greater than 3, which means they have quite high scores of satisfaction level although some scores are lower for the expectation levels.
Table 4. 4: The expectation and perception values of GoGet service quality Expectation Perception 1 error free reservation 3.85 3.46 2 convenient phone res 3.19 3.15 3 easy online reservation 3.85 3.71 4 car availability 3.65 3.18 5 update membership 3.13 3.22 6 secured financial transaction 3.71 3.34 7 state cost structure 3.66 3.35 8 state insurance policy 3.53 3.23 9 safe data confidential 3.65 3.32 10 clean interior 3.23 3.30 11 clean exterior 2.76 3.19 12 fuel efficient 3.45 3.39 13 navigation system 1.97 1.77 14 powerful engine 1.74 1.95 15 information 3.00 2.97 16 pods easy to find 3.57 3.41 17 easy to reach by PT 3.29 3.28 18 parking bicycle 2.53 2.58 19 respond with min delay 3.44 3.31 20 knowledge 3.52 3.49 21 courtesy 3.39 3.61 22 personal attention 3.07 3.51
Gap analysis
Based on the expectation and perception levels above, a gap analysis is measured by overlaying both factors in a spider diagram. Figure 4.10 demonstrates the gap between each factor. As can be seen on the chart, the blue line with diamond markers represents expectation levels and the red line with square markers denotes perception levels. When the red square markers are higher than the blue diamond markers, it means that GoGet has delivered quality for those particular variables better than expected. Otherwise, an improvement is needed.
128 1 error free reservation 22 personal 2 convenient 4.00 attention phone res 3 easy online 21 courtesy 3.50 reservation 3.00 20 knowledge 4 car availability 2.50
19 respond with 2.00 5 update min delay 1.50 membership 1.00 6 secured 18 parking bicycle 0.50 financial 0.00 17 easy to reach 7 state cost by PT structure
16 pods easy to 8 state insurance find policy
9 safe data 15 information confidential 14 powerful 10 clean interior engine 13 navigation Expectation 11 clean exterior system 12 fuel efficient Perception Figure 4. 10: A spider diagram for 22 variables of GoGet service quality
It is recommended that GoGet improves service quality for the factors for which expectation levels (the blue line with diamond marker) are higher than the perception levels (the red line with square marker), such as error free reservation, car availability, secured financial transaction. On the other hand, for some factors, GoGet has delivered better service quality than expected. As a result, GoGet should maintain the same level of quality. This applies to many factors including minimum delay response, location of pods, courtesy, and personal attention.
Although 22 variables can be still treated individually, to improve GoGet service quality, 22 variables are considered to be a relatively large set of factors. Therefore, there is a need to reduce the variables into a smaller set of variables. Thus, factor analysis was conducted.
129 Factor analysis
Factor analysis is used to cluster a large number of variables into a smaller set of underlying factors that summarise the essential information contained in the variables (Coakes et al., 2005). Using factor analysis, we can see if the factors are related to each other. By grouping some factors, some factors which have similar characteristics will be identified as one new single factor. As a result, the researcher can focus on less number of factors that needs improvements.
The analysis was conducted using a principal axis factoring (PAF) which is the common factor extraction method and a straightforward procedure. Appendix E shows the factor analysis results. There are two factors that have the lowest communalities8 among other factors, which are car availability and bicycle parking space. The factor analysis recommended creating 7 factors and this recommendation was taken into account.
Table 4.5 shows the clustering of all factors into 7 groups (new factors). New names were used as new themes for this clustering. Almost all variables were classified into the factors as suggested except few modifications, which are (1) combining two factors that are not related to any factors (pods easy to find and parking bicycle to accessibility) and (2) separate fuel efficient variable into a new category. This new categorisation shows a similar classification as the service quality dimensions that were used for the design variables. This new categorisation is used for further analysis.
8 Communality is the estimated variance in an item (variable) that is due to common factors that are about to extract (Pett, Lackey, & Sullivan, 2003).
130 Table 4. 5: Factor analysis result
New factors 1 - responsiveness information respond with min delay knowledge courtesy personal attention 2 - assurance convenient phone res update membership secured financial state cost structure state insurance policy safe data confidential 3 - accessibility car availability pods easy to find easy to reach by PT parking bicycle 4 - efficiency fuel efficient 5 - tangible - cleanliness clean interior clean exterior 6 - additional features navigation system powerful engine 7 - reservation reliability error free reservation easy online reservation
New gap analysis based on the factor analysis result
Based on the new factors, a revised gap analysis was measured by overlaying new factors in a new spider diagram. All related variables to each factor were combined and averaged. Subsequently, new values for the expectation and perception levels were calculated. The new values are given in Table 4.6.
131 Table 4. 6: The expectation and perception values for clustered factors
Expectation Perception Category 1 - responsiveness 3.28 3.38 2 2 - assurance 3.48 3.27 1 3 - accessibility 3.26 3.11 1 4 - efficiency 3.45 3.39 1 5 - tangible - cleanliness 3.00 3.24 2 6 - additional features 1.85 1.86 3 7 - reservation reliability 3.85 3.59 1
Based on the revised gap analysis, three categories of action should be considered.
Category one: improvements are required. Factors that need improvements are shaded in orange. It includes assurance (factor 2), accessibility (factor 3), efficiency (factor 4), and reservation reliability (factor 7).
Category two: the service quality should be maintained. GoGet can maintain the same level of service for two factors that are shaded in blue, which are responsiveness (factor 1) and tangible – cleanliness (factor 5).
Category three: no significant action is required. GoGet does not need to take any action for factor 6: additional features (shaded in purple). Those factors are not important for GoGet members.
The revised spider diagram for GoGet service is illustrated in Figure 4.11. Similar to Figure 4.10, the blue line with diamond markers denotes the expectation levels while the red line with square markers symbolises the perception level. It visually represents the three categories specified above.
132 1 responsiveness 4.00 3.50 3.00 7 reservation 2 assurance reliability 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
6 additional 3 accessibility features
5 tangible 4 efficiency cleanliness Expectation Perception
Figure 4. 11: The revised gap analysis of GoGet service
Drivers and barriers for joining GoGet car sharing
As well as the user satisfaction level analysed using the ServQual method, the online survey also asked members some open ended questions to elicit their reasons for joining GoGet as well as their experiences of using GoGet. There were four open ended questions from the online survey which aimed:
1. to identify users’ reasons for joining GoGet car sharing or the drivers of joining GoGet (“What is your reason for joining GoGet ?”)
2. to elicit users’ view of any problem in using GoGet car sharing (“What is your most disappointing experience with GoGet Car Share?”)
3. to elicit users’ satisfaction experiences of using GoGet car sharing (“What is your best experience with GoGet Car Share?”)
133 4. to draw on user expectations and suggestions for better level of user satisfaction (“What is your recommendation to improve the GoGet Service?”).
(1) Reasons for joining
There were six main reasons and three other reasons members gave for using GoGet car sharing. Based on their responses, a context analysis was conducted which resulted in seven main themes for their reasons. Box 4.2 summarises the responses and lists the themes sorted from the most responses to the least. For each theme, some examples of their answers are included. The letter R followed by a number shows the respondent number of the selected responses (for example R32 indicates the answer from respondent no. 32).
Box 4.2: Reasons for joining GoGet car sharing 1. Cost effective (no. of responses: 73) “To gain access to a car without having the cost and responsibility of purchasing one” (R17) “I prefer not to own a car as I live close to the city and in easy walking distance to work and public transport options. GoGet is an affordable way to have the convenience of a car when necessary without the worry” (R250) 2. Environmental issues – general (no. of responses: 56) “Wanted to have less impact on the environment.” (R32) 3. Practicality (no. of responses: 52) Reasons for not opting to own a car but needing an access to a car because of its utility and functionality “I like the idea of there being fewer cars on the road. I prefer to take public transport as often as possible and only drive a car when I need to purchase large items or go to places where public transport isn't available.” (R22) 4. Convenience (no. of responses: 46) Reasons for not owning car because of convenience and avoiding hassles “I don't own a car by choice and GoGet is convenient for those times when you need car.” (R30) 5. Downshifter (no. of responses: 27) To reduce the speed, rate, or intensity of activities. To simplify or reduce one's expectations or commitments, especially in work hours “Didn't want to purchase a car just to go to the shops or weekend travel. Didn't want to put a new car on the road to support this luxury!” (R193)
134 Box 4.2: Reasons for joining GoGet car sharing (continued) 6. Business efficiency (no. of responses: 17) The need for using cars because of work commitment. “We try to be environmentally responsible in general, and like the idea of a share car. We need a car because my partner is a painter and needed to transport paintings to the studio” (R19) 7. Others: Family matters (no. of responses: 6) “As a family we have not owned a car for over twenty years, … In the last few years our needs have changed as we are supporting some older family members and also have a teenager with transport needs. GoGet allows us to meet these needs without having to own a car “ (R96) Community support (no. of responses: 4): “I don't own a car by choice and GoGet is convenient for those times when you need car. It's a community based, environmentally friendly organisation that I like to support, of course it gives me benefits too.” (R30) Public transport reliance (no. of responses: 4) “We have just moved back to Sydney after four years in Paris. In Paris we used the Metro to commute to work, to go around Paris, visit friends, etc and we thought the GoGet system would help bridge the gap in the public transport system in Sydney and enable us not to have to buy a car. Plus I believe in safe, available, affordable public transport GoGet in my mind is an important part of this.” (R130)
Both cost efficiency and environmental issues are the main drivers for opting for car sharing. Many urban residents decide not to have a car due to hassles associated with owning a car, such as parking, registration and insurance costs as well as maintenance costs. They see car sharing as a cost effective option to have an access to a car. Furthermore, members who have decided not to own a car have based their decision on environmental concerns and chosen public transport, bicycle or walking as their modes of transport. Those members expressed their main driver is sustainability issue. For them, the use of a car is occasionally necessary and car sharing is seen as an alternative which gives less environmental impacts.
The other drivers for using car sharing are convenience and practicality. People who think car sharing is a convenient option have opted out of car ownership. As a result, occasional access to a car seems to be a convenience. Other people who do
135 not want to deal with owning a car or driving a car too much still see the need for access to a car from time to time. They sometimes still need mobility and see car sharing as a practical option. Many people also join GoGet for multiple reasons: cost, minimising environmental impacts, practicality and convenience. For example: a blend between convenience and a more sustainable transport alternative (“I want the convenience of having a car on demand without having to invest in a car, much rather use sustainable transport such as cycling or public transport (R261)”), or between cost and convenience as expressed by R250 in Box 4.2.
Another reason such as business efficiency is expressed by member who use car also for their business besides their individual use. Some people use a GoGet car for example to transport the art works as noted above, or to run the photography business (R72).
A few people use a car for family matters. For example, those who choose not to own a car use GoGet to visit their family out of town or to support their elderly parents if they wish to travel. Two other GoGet members used a GoGet car as a second car to take their child to school activities or to replace their second car; they gave their second car to their child.
A sense of community such as supporting a community initiative is another minor reason for joining GoGet. Also, those who have decided not to own a car emphasise their support for public transport system and the unavailability of public transport when they need to travel becomes a reason for joining GoGet car sharing.
(2) Dissatisfying experiences
Generally, GoGet members are satisfied with GoGet services, shown by a high satisfaction level identified in Table 4.2, which scores 3.6 of 4 (See p. 125). Further investigation about particular factors that support their satisfying experiences as well as those which hinder their satisfaction level are shown in Table 4.7.
136 Table 4. 7: Dissatisfying and satisfying experiences with GoGet
What is your most disappointing No. of What is your best experience with No. of experience with GoGet Car Share ? responses GoGet Car Share ? responses Car availability 53 Convenience and easiness to use 58 Car location issues pods related, 47 Car availability 40 parking issues Billing issues, pricing policies 25 Customer service courtesy & 38 friendliness Car maintenance problem 20 Customer service responsiveness 26 Privacy issue being 17 Pricing and car use policy 14 inconvenienced by others Booking system online and phone 17 Sense of community and/or social 14 reservation system values Car cleanliness 11 Location/pod convenience 14 Unresponsiveness customer 6 Variety of vehicle fleet 12 service Insurance matters 5 Car cleanliness 1 Lack of guidance for the first time 4 Reliability and assurance 6 use Others: special membership 9 Others: environmental benefits, 8 consideration, car facilities, inability exciting experiences, flexibility to update data, infratsructure problem, safety issue
In reference to the fact that car sharing is not the same as owning a private car and that it allows other to use the same car, availability of the cars is not always certain. Car availability is the most controversial factor. 53 members said that they could not find an available car when they needed one. Most said it happened mainly during the weekends or when they booked the car close to the time when they need it. Nevertheless, 40 members indicated that they could get a car when they needed even when they needed it immediately.
Likewise, pod location was another controversial factor, and more people were dissatisfied with current pod arrangements. Some people, especially those on Sydney’s North Shore (in Kirribilli) found the dedicated spaces (pods) were often filled by other cars and found it hard to find a parking space when they returned a car. Moreover, some members found it difficult to find a car when the car was not parked in its dedicated space by the preceding user.
137 The billing system, insurance and pricing policies were the next factors GoGet members found dissatisfying. Unclear information about the price such as the total cost per use and additional insurance fee – became a pricing policies issue. Some erroneous data in billing statements were irritating to members although they were finally resolved.
Privacy is another minor issue in terms of dissatisfying experiences. Most members understand that the use of a shared facility means accepting various types of behaviour from other members. Nonetheless, the experiences of being inconvenienced by other members such as late return, unclean car interior, wrong parking location, and almost empty fuel tank have created irritation among members. GoGet has already explicitly stated members’ responsibility including the responsibility to fill the tank and imposed negative credits for those who inconvenience other members. The members who have been inconvenienced would get credits from GoGet as compensation. Still, the dissatisfying experiences did happen and irritated some members.
Table 4. 8: The experiences of being inconvenienced by other members Have you been inconvenienced by No. of another member ? responses Never 190 Once 59 Two three times 40 More than three times 4 Total 293
If you have you been inconvenienced, were you treated fairly by GoGet ? Yes 87 No 3 Neither yes or no 13 Total 103
138 The survey also asked about being inconvenienced by others. Of 293 members, 190 respondents said they have never been inconvenienced by other members. This shows that fewer than half the respondents faced problems with others while using a GoGet car. Among those who had inconveniencing experiences, only three people said they were not treated fairly by GoGet, 13 said that GoGet treated them neither fairly or unfairly, and the balance said that GoGet treated them fairly. Table 4.8 shows the responses from the survey related to this issue.
(3) Satisfying experiences
Customer service quality, staff courtesy and friendliness as well as their responsiveness were the main satisfying experiences apart from convenience. As convenience was one of the main reasons for joining GoGet, it is not surprising that people found it as the best satisfying experiences among others. However, combining all aspects of customer service quality (courtesy, friendliness and responsiveness) makes it the highest ranking of the most satisfying experiences.
The contribution to community and social values was another satisfying experience of using GoGet cars. Both the way GoGet runs the business for community and the way members make friends with others were expressed as a nice feeling to remind them of a sense of community. Some members also said GoGet enabled them to visit family and friends, and even made them visit them more frequently. Also, the experiences of helping friends moving out and taking them to other places using a GoGet car were other social value members appreciated as satisfying moments.
(4) Recommendations for GoGet
Recommendations from GoGet members reflect their wish to have better service as well as the expectation to maintain their membership with GoGet. Problems with the car availability resulted in the suggestion to increase the number of cars including some suggestion to increase the number of cars during the weekends
139 only. A broader variety of cars was also suggested by those who need bigger cars or those who are concerned with the environment by suggesting replacing existing cars with hybrid cars.
Table 4. 9: Recommendations for GoGet service
What is your recommendation to improve the GoGet No. of Service ? responses
More cars or variety of cars 51 including change to hybrid cars, additional cars ONLY during the peak hours (for example weekends) Pricing and booking policies 48 including booking on the half hour, more competitive rate, reduce extra insurance fee More dedicated spaces (pods) 32 Add in features 31 including car navigation, smart cards, car entertainment system, baby car seat, bike racks Booking or billing system improvement 24 including the improvement of phone booking system, easy update of membership details Better pod arrangement 9 including more obvious sign for car share, the ban of illegal car parking on the pods Focus on environmental sustainability 9 Improvement in social values 4 Others 20 including distinctive characteristics of cars, different advertising means, government subsidies
A useful solid suggestion was given related to booking policy. Members expected to have flexibility to book a car on the half hour, not only the hour, for example from 9.30 to 13.00. There were some minor comments about a price reduction to compete with other car sharing and car rental companies and a lower insurance fee to reduce the excess claim. Some suggestions about add in features were given and they have been added to GoGet cars, such as swipe card access and a better entertainment system in the car. Also, obvious street signs for car share and more dedicated car spaces were needed corresponding to the increase of members and cars.
140 Interview and journal findings
Table 4.10 shows the different characteristics of the interviewees that range in age, (from 25 to 60+ years old), in family structure (from single to couple with nine children) and in occupation (from a student to top level managers). Three of the interviewees joined GoGet at the outset (in 2003 in Sydney – Jeff Owen and Louise Pugh – and one (Philip Barnes) in 2005 in Melbourne) and there were some new members when the interviews were conducted. As a follow up, three (Rae, Dylan, and Harry) wrote a travel journal, specifying their comments regarding the use of GoGet and other modes of transport for their mobility.
Of 19 interviewees, two members no longer use GoGet service. One (Dylan Michael) gave up his membership while we had the interview (June 2007) and another one (Hans Muller) bought his own car in December 2007. Others were still using GoGet at least until December 2008. Two of the interviewees (Edna and Michael) were both GoGet members and paladins in Melbourne. Edna is a paladin who helped setting up GoGet in Melbourne in 2005.
141 Table 4. 10: Interviewee profiles
Pseudo Membership Tenancy City of Age Gender Status Occupation name since status residence renting Ainslie Harberfield, 1 28 F 2006 single sharing with union staff Murray Sydney mates couple with owning a Abbotsford, 2 Ben Smith 50+ M 2006 journalist no child house/flat Melbourne 2007 no Dylan living with quality Mentone, 3 30+ M longer a single Michael parents engineer Melbourne member couple with owning a self Northcote, 4 Edna Watts 40+ F 2005 no child house/flat employed Melbourne couple with owning a Surry Hills, 5 Ella Duffy 30 F 2007 student no child house/flat Sydney couple with owning a 6 Jeff Owen 50+ M 2003 IT manager Glebe, Sydney one child house/flat 2006 no Hans couple with Bondi Beach, 7 30+ M longer a renting lawyer Muller no child Sydney member Harry couple with owning a Darlington, 8 30+ M 2007 TAFE staff Brown no child house/flat Sydney Jasmine couple with part time Melbourne 9 35 F 2007 renting Richards 9 children worker City Louise couple with owning a Newtown, 10 40+ F 2003 lecturer Pugh no child house/flat Sydney Michael couple with Northcote, 11 60+ M 2005 renting retiree Rhodes 9 children Melbourne Matthew couple with Waterloo, 12 50+ M 2005 renting TV journalist Bakker no child Sydney manager in couple with owning a Kirribilli, 13 Mary Hunt 50+ F 2005 minerals no child house/flat Sydney company renting Monica DECC NSW Camperdown, 14 28 F 2006 single sharing with Trent staff Sydney mates Perry 15 30+ M 2005 single renting lecturer Glebe, Sydney Fisher Philip owning a Montmorency 16 40+ M 2005 single IT staff Barnes house/flat Melbourne finance Pyrmont, 17 Rae Aaron 25 F 2007 single renting manager Sydney couple with finance Surry Hills, 18 Sophie Kim 30+ F 2007 renting one child manager Sydney renting Shaun marketing 19 25 M 2005 single sharing with Glebe, Sydney Webb manager mates
142 The interview relating to the member satisfaction level resulted in similar responses to the survey. Table 4.11 shows a thematic analysis for the interviewees’ experiences with GoGet. The analysis relating to interviewees’ best experiences show that interviewees were satisfied with these following features: convenience, flexibility, and social values from sharing. However, some new features relating to dissatisfying experiences were revealed, such as in car entertaining problem and membership issues.
Table 4. 11: The interviewees’ satisfaction level Pseudo Car ownership Reason for joining Best experience Disappointing experience name 1 Ainslie has a shared car flexibility – use job efficiency car location the closest pod Murray GoGet car from her in the neighbourhood is too workplace far from the house 2 Ben Smith had a car, gave up very infrequent need customer service occasional errors with a car to the access to a car responsiveness monthly billing 3 Dylan had a car, worked cost effective option, flexibility to solve unclear information on pricing Michael overseas, then as a combination problems was back and with car rental does not have a car 4 Edna had a car, gave up community & arranging social more GoGet cars and Watts a car before environmental values events for GoGet members in Melbourne joining GoGet members 5 Ella Duffy had a car but need access to a car Convenience love the stereo didn't work, no needed to sell it for occasional use, driving, feel more music during the trip to pay credit card especially night trips independent and bills normal 6 Jeff Owen never had a car visiting family in the community feeling, only missing the very personal countryside social relationship relationship he had with GoGet in the early period of GoGet operation 7 Hans never had a car flexibility and comfort, easy to the pod is used by a car other Muller convenience book and close than GoGet's 8 Harry had a car, gave up cost efficiency & convenience of 24 less convenience compared to Brown a car responsible hr car access, car ownership, but lower cost consumption helping friends in need of transport 9 Jasmine had a car, gave up cost and convenience none Richards a car before environmental issue having pod very joining GoGet close to my unit 10 Louise never had a car to do big and bulky social & cannot put off membership Pugh shopping, vet visit, environmental for few months looking after elderly value parents
143 Table 4.11: The interviewees’ satisfaction level (continued)
Pseudo Car ownership Reason for joining Best experience Disappointing experience name 11 Michael has a car, community & working with Rhodes replacing a environmental values GoGet second car gave founders, being it to his daughter helpful to users 12 Matthew never had a car access to a car convenience nothing, having access to a Bakker car when you need it is convenient 13 Mary has a car, second flexibility, second car thoughtful/cons accidentally left shopping Hunt car option option ide rate bags in the car never got members them back 14 Monica never had a car night use big shopping social & minor think car delay or radio Trent as a car pool, community environmental was broken values value 15 Perry has a car work & convenience, no, nothing Fisher alternative/substitute easy to access car, convenience 16 Philip never had a car access to a car with dealing with pod jumpers, other cars park Barnes environmental GoGet staff, no in GoGet dedicated spots consciousness monthly membership fee 17 Rae Aaron never had a car in functionality, need to convenient and car availability Australia access to a car easy, courtesy and helpful customer service 18 Sophie never had a car in convenience and sharing not paying cost late for an appointment Kim Australia ideas of car use because the car wasn't parked between on the dedicated space midnight to 6 am 19 Shaun never had a car in convenience and easy car availability car cleanliness dog hairs in Webb Australia access, cost and easy the car effectiveness booking
(1) Reasons for joining GoGet
Most of the interviewees do not have their own car. Only four out of 19 people have their cars, and use GoGet cars as a second car, a company car, or as an alternative to their own cars. Four of the interviewees have never had a car in Sydney or Australia as they moved to Australia from overseas to work (Rae, Sophie, and Shaun). Dylan gave up his car when he worked overseas and returned to
144 Melbourne with no intention to buy a car. Three of the interviewees (Ben, Ella and Harry) gave up their car when they joined GoGet. The rest have never had a car or have given up their cars long before joining GoGet.
Interviewees who had never had a car or who had given up their cars a long time before joining GoGet had environmental or social/community values as the reasons for joining GoGet. Jasmine, for example, said: “I have a strong environmental focus in my lifestyle and generally ride my bike everywhere. The option of joining GoGet was to have less impact on the environment and still give me access to travelling to places further afield like to visit parents!" Similarly, Philip said using GoGet was “a green option paying directly for usage reflects the real cost of car”. Most members saw convenience and flexibility as the main drivers for joining GoGet. When they needed access to a car, they said GoGet offered easy access without hassle of maintenance and repair. Moreover, it was also a cost effective option as well as time efficient mode of transport.
(2) Convenience and community values as best experiences of using GoGet
Convenience again is expressed as the most satisfying experience of using GoGet. Despite various reasons for joining GoGet, Ella, Hans, Harry, Jasmine, Matthew, Perry, Rae and Shaun said convenience and easy access to a car were their best experiences with GoGet. Car availability, proximity to the pods, and easy to deal with GoGet staff were the key points to their convenience.
Harry, who gave up his car and joined GoGet, considered convenience his best experience given that he had access a car in five minute walk from his house. However, the convenience he had with GoGet was not as great as if he had his own car:
“It’s definitely a change in terms of convenience. It is convenient to have your own vehicle, just walk down and get your car. It’s obviously [an improvement] in very real financial [sense], you’re paying for that convenience.... With GoGet, you had a sense it’s someone else’s problem, such as you pay your membership, you actually leave it, that it’s the
145 responsibility of someone else to fix the car and change it. It’s actually a very meaningful benefit for people who join it.”
Ella who gave up her car as she needed to pay off her credit card said GoGet helped her to have some enjoyment of driving. She said: “I also like the fact that [by using GoGet] I feel more independent and normal... I like driving better when going to my parents than getting in a train. So I just feel more normal and better using GoGet”.
Rae who said GoGet was convenient as the car was just near her front door and easy to book. She also mentioned in her journal that she felt “safer late at night if I’m driving”.
Interviewees expressed some community and social values. Louise expressed her gratitude to GoGet founders’ initiatives for the environmental and social concerns: "So I think the boys [Bruce Jefrreys and Nic Lowe] are doing an extraordinary service for public health and I think they're doing an extraordinary service in changing the attitude of society".
Paladins said their best experiences were helping GoGet members and dealing with other members. Edna said she liked to arrange social events for GoGet members and felt happy to see GoGet membership growing in Melbourne. Similarly, Michael, who chose to be a paladin because he supported the philosophy of sharing, said his best experiences were helping users and being able to have personal contact with them. He also said he enjoyed seeing “people change their travel behaviour... reducing greenhouse gas emissions”.
(3) Barriers and dissatisfying experiences of using GoGet
When interviewees were asked about factors that would discourage them from using GoGet services, car cleanliness, pods location, and late car returns were again outlined during the interviews. Pod location seemed to be a significant barrier to adopting the idea of car sharing. Ainslie, who used GoGet cars from her workplace, was reluctant to use GoGet car from the neighbourhood in which she lived. She
146 argued that although it was convenient to use GoGet from where she worked (Camperdown), she preferred to use her own car (she still had one).
Unclear pricing information was another issue raised by Dylan. He said the GoGet pricing policy was not competitive compared with FlexiCar and rental car companies. This, however, was not clearly explained on GoGet website. When Dylan used GoGet, he realised the cost charged to him was higher than he originally thought. He subsequently relinquished his GoGet membership. In his journal, he calculated the cost of using GoGet and compared it with FlexiCar (another car sharing organisation in Melbourne) and Hertz car rental. He said: “I started using Flexicar yesterday. I was unaware they do not charge any bond which is great. Cancellation policy is only one hour compared to 48 hours for GoGet.” It shows Dylan focused on the cost effectiveness of car sharing above other factors and when it was not as promising as he thought, he simply chose other alternatives of car sharing or rental.
On the other hand, Philip who was also a former member of FlexiCar argued that GoGet was more cost effective and beneficial for him. He joined GoGet in 2005 in Melbourne while GoGet offered free monthly membership (GoCasual) so he only paid the hours and kilometres costs when he used a car. As he sometimes did not use car sharing at all in a month, he said FlexiCar charged a minimum of $10 a month by offering one hour free car use. This encouraged people to use FlexiCar at least one hour a month, he said. “It is bad,” he said. “I have to use [the] car per month so I am not losing the deal, not losing the value. One good thing about car share is [that it] really brings the cost only when owning and driving the car, so you think before you fly out somewhere”.
Barriers and dissatisfying experiences of joining the service may push back intended change processes in adopting car charing concept. Barriers and dissatisfying experiences can also be identified from members who choose not use the service anymore. To identify this situation, a follow up check one year after the interviews (in 2008) with 19 interviewees was conducted to see if they were still GoGet
147 members. Two of them have stopped their membership: Hans Muller bought a car because his wife got pregnant and Dylan Michael chose to use another car sharing membership. This is an indication that changes in family situation and competitiveness between car sharing organizations may influence the intention to change processes. Summary
The online survey has shown unanimous agreement that GoGet has delivered relatively high rate of member satisfaction. Although there were still gaps between user expectation and perception about some service quality factors, the gaps were relatively small. However, many members have faced dissatisfying experiences including limited access to GoGet cars and the experience of being inconvenienced by other members. Moreover, perceptions about customer service quality differed from one member to another.
The interviews indicated different perception among members. Although most of them stated that GoGet was a convenient option for transport, the level of convenience perceived by members differed considerably. Members with cars, who had given them up and joined GoGet, said they sacrificed convenience to a certain degree. Those who did not have access to a car for a relatively long period would regard GoGet as a convenient option related to their need to use a car. Relating the interview findings and the survey about service quality, it can be seen that the convenience level becomes more tolerable for older members. Tolerance to convenience becomes greater relatively to the length of time of not owning a private car.
Travel behaviour, which is analysed based on travel distance and frequency of car use, also produces different perception about car sharing. The next section discusses another performance criterion sustainable consumption behaviour, particularly travel behaviour.
148 4.3.4 Sustainable consumption behaviour performance
The travel behaviour and sustainable consumption practices of GoGet members were analysed using both quantitative and qualitative analysis. Surveys were used as a quantitative method to identify several criteria and patterns of sustainable transport. Furthermore, sustainable consumption practice, particularly in travel behaviour was investigated using interviews and was analysed qualitatively.
Quantitative data analysis – online survey
The online survey consisted of some questions about members’ behaviour related to their use of shared cars. The questions are:
the usual modes of transport to pick up a car (“How do you usually go to and from a GoGet pod?”)
car ownership (“When you joined GoGet, did you give up your only car?”)
the preference for owning a car (“now, after you are joining GoGet, have you ever considered purchasing a car”).
the frequency per month of using a car (“on average how often do you use a GoGet car”)
car occupancy rate (“on average how many passengers do you have in a GoGet car”).
149 by motorcycle
by bicycle
by car
by public transpport
on foot
050 100 150 200 250
by public by on foot by car by bicycle transpport motorcycle Frequency 256 15 1 15 6 Valid percentage 87.4 5.1 0.3 5.1 2.0 (Based on the confidence level of 95%, CI = 4.55%) Figure 4. 12: The modes of transport to pick up a GoGet car
Figure 4.12 illustrates the proportion of preferred modes of transport when they go to the pods. It is revealed that the majority of members walked to the pod to pick up the GoGet car (256 respondents or 87.4 per cent). Ten percent used bicycle (5.1 per cent or 15 respondents) and public transport (5.1 per cent) while the rest (7 respondents) used motorcycle or car to go to the pods.
Table 4.12 (a and b) shows the car ownership and their preference for owning a car. Related to the car ownership, of 290 respondents, forty percent (116 respondents) said that they have never had a car or have given up their cars for many years. 28 per cent stated they cancelled purchasing a car (82 respondents), 17 per cent (50 members) said they gave up their only car when joining GoGet, 4.8 per cent has never had a car in Australia (14 resspondents) and seven percent or 21 respondents still have their own car. From 262 respondents who currently do not have any car,
150 most of them (74 per cent or 192 respondents) do not consider buying a car while 24 per cent considered buying a car but have not yet purchased any. Only two percent bought a car when they were a GoGet member.
Table 4. 12: Car ownership and preference for owning a car
(a) When you joined GoGet did you ...?
Frequency Valid percentage did not have a car/never had a car 116 40.0 gave up the only car 50 17.2 cancelled or delayed buying a car 82 28.3 gave up a second car 9 3.1 never had a car in Australia 14 4.8 still have a car 12 4.1 others 7 2.4 Total 290 100.0 no response 3
(Based on the confidence level of 95%, CI = 4.58%) Table 4. 12: Car ownership and preferences to owning a car (continued)
(b) Crosstabulation
car ownership (see (a)) Now, after you are joining did not gave up cancelled never Total Percentage GoGet, have you ever have a car the only or had a car considered purchasing a car: or never car delayed in had a car buying a Australia car no, not an option for me 91 34 60 7 192 73.6% yes, but not yet bought any car 23 13 20 6 62 23.8% yes, and I have bought a car 2 3 2 0 7 2.7% Total 116 50 82 13 261
Almost 40 per cent of members used a GoGet car once a week or even more often. Another 30 per cent used it every two weeks and 19 per cent used it once a month,
151 while 10 per cent used a GoGet car once every two months or even less frequently. Figure 4.13 and Table 4.13 show the proportion of these frequencies.
less than once every 2 months once every 2 months
once a week of more often once in a month
once every fortnight
Figure 4. 13: The patterns of use of GoGet cars Table 4. 13: The patterns of use of GoGet cars On average how often do you use a GoGet car? Frequency Valid Percentage less than once every 2 months 17 5.8 once every 2 months 16 5.5 once in a month 55 18.8 once every fortnight 90 30.8 once a week of more often 114 39.0 Total 292 100.0 No response 1 293 (Based on the confidence level of 95%, CI = 4.56%) A cross tabulation analysis between the frequency of the use of GoGet cars (the pattern of the use) and the car ownership is given in Table 4.14. A lambda measure is used to show if there is a relationship between the pattern of use and car ownership of GoGet members. Lambda which reflects proportional reduction in error (PRE) predicts the association between two variables. If the lambda value is
152 zero, it means there is no association between the variables and if the value is one, it shows a perfect association between those variables (Argyrous, 2005).
Table 4. 14: Crosstabulation between the patterns of GoGet car use and car ownership
car ownership Pattern of use did not gave cancelled gave did not still others have a up the or up a have a have car or only delayed second car since a car Total never car buying a car moving had a car car in to Australia less than once every 2 months 6 3 4 1 0 3 0 17 once every 2 months 8 2 4 0 1 0 1 16 once in a month 27 7 13 0 5 2 1 55 once every fortnight 47 13 16 2 3 4 2 87 once a week of more often 28 25 45 6 4 3 3 114 Total 116 50 82 9 13 12 7 289 Directional Measures Lambda Value Symmetric 0.109 the pattern of the use Dependent 0.120 car ownership Dependent 0.098 (Calculation is based on SPSS v.15 crosstabulation with lambda) The symmetric lambda value between the pattern of use and car ownership is 0.1099. The value shows a negligible relationship between these variables, which means that the pattern of use of GoGet cars is not significantly related to the car ownership of the members.
From the survey, the vehicle occupancy rate for a GoGet car averaged 1.9 (the average of the number of passengers plus the driver). This was slightly higher than the average number for Sydney residents which is 1.44 and 1.78 for weekday and weekend travel consecutively (TPDC, 2006). However, it is a little lower than StadtAuto, a car sharing company in Germany, which has an occupancy rate of 2 per car (Shaheen et al., 2005).
9 a symmetric value is preferred as it is assumed that both variables are mutually dependent on each other.
153 Quantitative data – GoGet pre joining survey and databases
Besides the online survey, additional data collection was conducted by analysing an internal survey conducted by GoGet when a member was joining GoGet (pre joining survey). Also, GoGet’s internal database was used to compare GoGet members’ travel behaviour with the average population. The data collection shows that GoGet members use fewer resources and have much lower annual mileage than average population.
Based on the GoGet database in December 2007, one GoGet car is shared among 16 members and 12 members in Sydney and Melbourne consecutively. Compared with TPDC data on average Sydney’s residents, there were 2.33 million private cars in Sydney Statistical Division (Sydney SD) in 2006 and there were 2.1 million drivers which resulted in the ratio between a car and a driver of 1.1:1 that is, there were slightly more cars than drivers (TPDC, 2006). The comparison shows that GoGet members aggregately used far fewer cars than the average population.
Furthermore, GoGet members have very low annual mileage rates compared with the average Australian. Internal data from GoGet indicates a significant travel distance reduction (55 per cent reduction) from members who gave up their car prior to joining up car sharing. Moreover, the average annual VKT (vehicle kilometres travelled) of a GoGet car is 16,172 km. A survey conducted by TPDC in 2006 provided some data which shows that every private vehicle in Sydney SD has an average annual VKT of 7612 km (20.85 km x 365 days). However, given that each GoGet car is used by an average of 16 persons, the annual VKT per person is only about 1000 km. For the average Sydney resident, the annual VKT per person is 8374 km (which is 7612 x 1.1 – the ratio between one car and one person as given earlier).
Table 4.15 summarises the travel behaviour of GoGet members. It shows that in general GoGet car sharing members have more responsible travel behaviour which subsequently results in lower environmental impact.
154 Table 4. 15: A summary of GoGet performance in regard to sustainable transport Criteria GoGet Comparison 1 Modes of transport to online survey findings: 92% non motorized N/A pick up a GoGet car options and 5% public transport 2 Car ownership online survey finding: GoGet pre joining survey: 74% 79% do not have a car (either did not have, did not own a car, 15% planned cancelled to buy, or gave up a car) to give up a car, and 4% cancelled buying a car 3 Car preference online survey: N/A 74% do not consider buying a car, 24% considered it but have not yet bought it. 4 Car occupancy rate online survey: 1.9 persons Sydney average: 1.44 persons in weekday, StadtAuto car sharing in Germany: 2 persons 5 Car ratio GoGet database: Sydney average 1: 0.9 Sydney 1:16 Melbourne 1: 12 6 Vehicle kilometre annual VKT: Sydney average: travelled (VKT) 16,172 km per vehicle or 7,612 per vehicle or 1010 km per person 8,374 km per person 7 Number of members 2008: Sydney private drivers Sydney: 2,522 persons (private car owners and actively drive) in 2006: 2.1 million persons However, the number of car sharing adopters or GoGet members has not yet shown a significant figure. The latest data from Roads and Traffic Authority indicates there were 2,632,009 active C class drivers in mid 2007 in Sydney (Roads and Traffic Authority, 2007), but there were only 1200 GoGet members and about another 500 members for other car sharing companies (data based on telephone conversations with FlexiCar, SmartDrivers and CharterDrive in December 2007) in the same year. The figure shows that only 0.06 per cent of active drivers adopted a car sharing scheme in 2007.
Comparing Australian car sharing and other countries’ car sharing cases, the adoption rate of GoGet was relatively low. Assuming there were about the same number of active drivers in Sydney, based on the growth rate of GoGet in one year (100 per cent growth rate) that adds up to 3500 car sharing members, the adoption rate in 2008 rate became 0.13 per cent. These rates are much lower than, say, Switzerland, which was in average 2.3 per cent a year before its maturation rate (Bergmaier et al., 2004). Nevertheless, since the car sharing idea was still very new
155 in Australia (in 2003 while it had been started in early 1990s in Europe), the exponential trend of joining given in Figure 4.1 (p. 106) demonstrates a promising growth for car sharing in Australia. Thus, it is expected that the environmental benefits would be even greater than the current states.
Qualitative data analysis
The next step related to the investigation of sustainable travel behaviour as well as sustainable consumption has involved qualitative research by conducting interviews. This was done to investigate the extent to which the use of GoGet car sharing encourages members’ sustainable consumption behaviour. Sustainable consumption discussed in this study focuses on the intention to change towards more sustainable consumption patterns (as discussed in Section 2.2).
The qualitative data from the interviews were thematically analysed based on the chart given in Figure 4.14. The position regarding consumption behaviour is identified based on the spectrum of voluntary simplicity (Hamilton & Mail, 2003; McDonald et al., 2006) based on their intention to change. The intention of the interviewees to change to more sustainable consumption behaviour was identified using the stages of change model (see Section 2.2.2). The intention to change and the interviewees’ position regarding voluntary simplicity are interpreted based on their expressions and thoughts about their need, opportunity, and ability (based on the NOA model (Gatersleben & Vlek, 1998) to use car sharing as their travel option and other aspects of life if applicable.
156
Figure 4. 14: The model for sustainable consumption related to travel behaviour
Shaw and Newholm (2002) identified three main groups with regard to their travel behaviour. The first group is voluntary simplifiers, who deliberately do not own or use a car. The second is moderate users (beginner voluntary simplifiers) who own a car and use it modestly; and the last group are regular car owners who see no alternative to private cars as their mode of transport (non voluntary simplifiers).
Shaw and Newholm’s categorisation above is based on car ownership. However, most GoGet members do not own a car. As a result, the classification of the voluntary simplicity practice for car sharing members is refined. The categorisation used here is:
Voluntary simplifiers (VS) are the members who have never owned a car or do not own a car for a long time based on their own consciousness or beliefs.
Beginner voluntary simplifiers (BVS) are those who do not own a car and consider being more conscious on their travel behaviour.
157 Non voluntary simplifiers (NVS) are those members who own a car or do not have a car not because of their own consciousness but because of more external forces, such as financial matters.
The practice of voluntary simplicity in this study is combined with the stages of change (Rogers, 2003) to analyse how strongly and persistently the members have been practicing voluntary simplicity. Both the period of car sharing adoption and the perseverance of using car sharing despite its barriers and obstacles are used to consider whether the interviewees are on:
1. the contemplation stage (the trial stage of using car sharing)
2. the preparation stage (the intention to start the change by initialising their car sharing membership)
3. the action stage (the continuous process of the car sharing adoption)
4. the maintenance stage (the stage when they consider to give up car sharing membership) or
5. the termination stage (the stage when they will never stop their car sharing membership.)
It is believed none of the interviewees were in the pre contemplation stage, as they had adopted the car sharing concept in their travel behaviour. The pre contemplation stage is only for those who are not aware about the system. Also, no one was considered to be in the termination stage as all of them could stop their car sharing membership at any stage for various reasons.
Table 4.16 (in pp. 160 161) shows a matrix regarding their practice of voluntary simplicity in travel. Two members were considered as non voluntary simplifiers and were in the contemplation stage as they joined GoGet based on other people’s influence rather than their genuine interest. Ainslie joined GoGet because it was her
158 job car. Although she used GoGet for personal purposes, she had her own car and used both cars interchangeably. Rae joined GoGet after her boyfriend, Shaun, encouraged her to be a member. She preferred not to have a car as she lived very close to her workplace and thought she did not want to spend money for a car that she did not currently need.
Dylan, Mary, Perry, and Shaun are categorised as beginner voluntary simplifiers on the preparation stage. They have adopted the car sharing concept but not fully changed their travel behaviour to less use of a car. Mary, for example, used a GoGet car as if it was her own car. As she said: “It doesn’t have to be a BMW, it can be whatever to get me there”. She still saw a car as the only option for travelling. Perry, on the other hand, had been aware of his unsustainable use of car but still kept his car and used it quite reasonably. He mentioned he was aware of negative impacts on to the environment due to his car use, but he was reluctant to change radically to be a ‘carless’ person.
Ben, Ella, Harry, Sophie, and Michael deliberately chose a change in their modes of transport (beginner voluntary simplifiers) and had started more to change their travel behaviour (the action stage). However, they did not have strong reasons yet for being free from car access. For example, Ella said: "We would buy one when we need one. I like the idea that if we don't need something, then we can do without."
Similarly, Sophie – who did not like driving – did not see car ownership as a priority: “We only use car maybe you know a few times a month for a few hours a month... At the moment it’s not something that we’re considering. We thought about it but we don’t need one at the moment.”
Hans who preferred not to have a car and had never owned one said that he might change his behaviour when his circumstances changed. He said that he would buy a car if he had a baby. It happened about seven months later when he stopped his GoGet membership in December 2007 as he and his wife bought a private car (GoGet database, 2008).
159 Edna, Jasmine, Matthew, Philip, Monica, Jeff, and Louise were considered as voluntary simplifiers as they had never had their own cars. Jeff and Louise were considered as holistic simplifiers as their reasons for not having a car went beyond environmental impacts. They chose not to have a car for more holistic or philosophical reasons, such as public health, environmental, social justice and social relations.
Table 4. 16: The position of voluntary simplicity and the states of change VS stage of who why statement preference change transport Voluntary action Jeff (JO) no car due to "I just never wanted to bother Simplicity Louise (LP) philosophical values and spending that much money on a car (VS) holistic social health in society because I don't see the point...I simplifier didn't want to spend the money on a car. I’d rather spend the money on living somewhere a little bit better. " (LP)
Voluntary action Edna (EW) public transport or bicycle "I am in complete comfort now. It Simplicity Jasmine (JR) users, having not owned a [car] is bad for my mental health. I (VS) Matthew car for a long time due to am isolated inside the car... When I (MB) environmental and public ride my bike I always see people I Philip (PB) health issues know and say hello to people. I have Monica (MT) contact with others" (EW) "it [cycling is) not polluting, better for cities, healthy option and fast enough.. But the most important thing is it makes you fit" (MB)
Beginner action Ben (BS) giving up a car, starting "We would buy one when we need Voluntary Ella (ED) relying on public transport one. I like the idea that if we don't Simplicity Harry (HB) (BS, ED, HB) need something, then we can do (BVS) Sophie (SK) without. " (ED) Michael not owning a car and (MR) changing from car rental "My mentality is I don’t really need a to car sharing (SK) car I don’t consider a car, that is not my first thing." (SK) public transport user but having a car with moderate use of car (MR)
Beginner maintenance Hans (HM) not owning a car for is likely to purchase a private car Voluntary environmental reasons when having a baby Simplicity but need one for (BVS) convenience and is likely to buy one when having a baby
160 Table 4.16: The position of voluntary simplicity and the states of change (continued) VS stage of who why statement preference change transport Beginner preparation Dylan interested in green "I don’t mind [using a small car], I just Voluntary (DM) Mary initiatives and planning to want a car to go from here to there, and Simplicity (MH) implement in business (DM) bring me back again. It doesn’t have to (BVS) Shaun be a BMW, it can be whatever to get me (SW) convincing others and there... " (MH) promoting car sharing but has not yet deliberately "I think I'm a bad person because I own changed her travel a car. I just owned it, it's so convenient behaviour (MH) to own. So lazy and it keeps going and when it breaks down it's so annoying thinking that car sharing is a and cost me $2000 and I said why am I good idea for an alternative still driving this. . I was thinking of using means of transport (SW) scooter and use GoGet if I need to use a car" (PF) Non contempla Ainslie having awareness but not "[Environmental impact] is not Voluntary tion (AM) Rae particularly practicing something that I think about. I used to Simplicity (RA) sustainable consumption have a car, but [now] I don't need to (NVS) Perry (PF) spend money to buy a car for unnecessary journey" (RA) From their position, the interviews further explored the way how their consumption behaviour was built. Using the NOA model, interviewees’ characteristics are summarised in Table 4.17. To further explore user needs in relation to car sharing, Holbrook's typology of consumer values was used (see Table 2.2 as the reference). The initials were used to identify the interviewees’ needs, opportunities and abilities.
(1) Needs
Non voluntary simplifiers (NVS) seem to have self oriented needs for their use of car sharing. Focusing on the extrinsic values that emphasise the achievement of certain goals or utilities, NVS see car sharing as a means of job performance improvement or simply as a comfort. In terms of comfort, Rae stated that it was a very easy process as she joined after her boyfriend had been a member. She became a second driver which meant that she did not have to pay deposit as well as having a shorter process in terms of joining. She found that the use of a GoGet car was also easy and convenient since she almost always got access to a car when she needed it.
161 Table 4. 17: Data analysis of the voluntary simplicity preferences and the NOA model
VS preference stage of need opportunity ability transport change needs related to the use Holbrook's the reasons for factors that of car sharing or other typology of preferring limit or drive aspects of life consumer value GoGet or car the preference of car sharing sharing than to car sharing other modes of transport Voluntary action JO, LP: nature and other oriented availability cognitive, Simplicity (VS) environmental, social active and physical holistic justice intrinsic, self simplifier LP: health oriented active and intrinsic Voluntary action EW, JR, MB, PB, MT: other oriented availability physical, Simplicity (VS) nature and active and cognitive, environmental intrinsic and spatial, financial MB: social justice extrinsic, self EW, MT: social relation oriented active MB: health and intrinsic Beginner mainte HM: nature and other oriented price cost physical (family Voluntary nance environmental active and effectiveness & health Simplicity consideration together intrinsic, self and availability rationale (BVS) with leisure oriented active having a car if and intrinsic having a baby) Beginner action ED, SK: comfort excellence self price and financial, Voluntary ED: freedom and self oriented availability physical Simplicity control reactive and unavailability of (BVS) ED, HB, BS: nature and extrinsic private car environment BS, ED, HB, SK: leisure SK: health ED: privacy MR: social relation Beginner prepara DM and PF: work and job self oriented availability, financial, Voluntary tion performance, comfort, extrinsic and prices spatial, Simplicity cost efficiency intrinsic, other (uncompetitive cognitive (SW: (BVS) MH: freedom, self oriented active price hinder the reasoning for control and privacy and extrinsic membership) supporting SW: social relation and community comfort initiatives) Non contempla AM: work and job self oriented price (cost spatial: pod Voluntary tion performance (active and effectiveness) location Simplicity RA: comfort reactive) and and availability (NVS) extrinsic (for AM: car unavailability hinders the use of car sharing from home)
162 Beginner voluntary simplifiers (BVS) have various needs according to Holbrook’s typology. They maintained that car sharing fulfilled self oriented needs, both extrinsic and intrinsic values. Dylan and Perry said car sharing helped them achieve job performance as the extrinsic values. Most of them thought car sharing fulfilled their needs related to intrinsic values such as freedom and control (Mary, Ella), privacy (Mary, Harry, Ella), and health (Sophie). The need for leisure, such as going to the beach, doing outdoor activities, or going for holidays, was also another self oriented and intrinsic value that most BVS gained from car sharing. Ella, Sophie, Dylan and Perry believed that car sharing also added comfort when they needed it.
Some BVS also saw car sharing as a need for achieving some other oriented objectives and extrinsic values such as social activities or social relation (Hans, Michael, and Shaun). An intrinsic and other oriented value some BVS derived from using car sharing was conserving nature and the environment. Ella, Harry and Ben believed their effort to give up their cars and to use a shared car helped reduce environmental impacts and greenhouse gas emissions.
Voluntary simplifiers (VS) are likely to see car sharing fulfilling other oriented needs. All VS said that using car sharing was a part of their need to reduce environmental impacts in complementing other needs, such as generating social relations, social justice and better health. Although car sharing has adverse environmental impacts compared to non motor vehicles, VS maintained that car sharing is an acceptable alternative when access to a motor vehicle is needed.
Besides nature and environmental conservation, VS’ needs relating to car sharing are finding community and sharing values or social relations (Edna and Monica), social responsibility to society (Matthew, Jeff, and Louise), or health related (Matthew and Louise). Monica said that she really enjoyed the value of sharing and really took care of shared products, such as shared car:
“I take care of it [a GoGet car] in the sense that I make sure that I leave it clean like it's my own car. I take care of it but I don’t feel any sense of ownership over it at all or anything like that... it reminds me that there are a
163 lot of other people using it and I know it's not my car ... I’m happy for it not to be my car”.
Jeff believed car sharing should be seen as a social responsibility. He said car sharing should be chosen as an alternative to fulfilling the need to gain access to a car rather than owning one. He said:
“Having a car and the relationship with a car is becoming a problem for our society at the moment. The issue is a city like Sydney is really designed for motorcar, and to go around suburbs by motorcar. You can’t just change it either, there’s whole heaps of infrastructure like road, motorways, transport, public transport. People just unfortunately think public transport is not for them... There’s whole bunch of social stuff about that I think. The society should grow up a little bit.”
Health was an issue for Matthew and Louise, as they chose bicycles for their main mode of transport. They argued that travelling by bike was better for them as well as for the society.
Figure 4.15 identifies the different voluntary simplicity positions of the interviewees in relation to Holbrook’s typology. It can be seen that interviewees who have stronger voluntary simplicity tend to use car sharing on the basis of other oriented and intrinsic values then those who are NVS or BVS.
Figure 4. 15: Voluntary simplicity position and Holbrook’s typology of GoGet interviewees
164
Regardless of the needs related to car sharing expressed by interviewees, car sharing is seen as a complement to their other modes of transport. Interviewees may see car sharing as a support system for their jobs, or a convenient alternative form of transport, or simply a complement to their main non motor transport.
(2) Opportunities
Opportunities are the external values that assist members to adopt car sharing as an alternative to their modes of transport. The interviewees had quite unanimous opinions in regard to the opportunities to access car sharing. The availability of cars and reasonable price are considered to be opportunities provided by GoGet that make them join and use the shared cars.
However, some interviewees also indicated that the unavailability of a GoGet car in their neighbourhood made them reluctant to use GoGet as a replacement for a private car. Ainslie, for example, was reluctant to use a GoGet car for her individual basis. She used it more often for her work purposes. She said: "If there was a GoGet pod closer to where I lived, I think I would think about giving up the car, especially if it ends up costing about the same or less than I’m currently spending on my car.
Similarly, Perry said he was a bit reluctant to use a GoGet car as it was unavailable for a one way trip. GoGet cars strictly have to be returned at the same location where there were picked up. This made him use his private car more often although it was more costly to do so. He had some hesitation as some of his friends did as he said:
“I often get asked about private things, can you just drive to one direction and I said oh no you have to drive it back and I can hear the resistance. But that's alright. I can see how it would work but it doesn't [work yet] at the moment in my life. But I think it will. I remain a member [as] I suspected my pattern of the use of an individual [basis] will change”
165 The availability of shared cars becomes an important opportunity for members regardless of their voluntary simplicity position or their environmental sustainability perspective. A negative case analysis10 shows that the unavailability of GoGet car makes Andrew Mann (pseudo name of a former GoGet member) give up his membership although he claimed that he is very environmental friendly. Andrew sent a personal email as I supplied my email address for further comment. He said:
“I am a big believer in sustainability, but when your personal sustainability is depleted, it is not very good. I think GoGet works for very specific cases and is not for all people. I have since bought a second hand car, and it costs me far less per month, and I use it far less than the GoGet car. Main reason for this, is that the GoGet cars near me were heavily booked on weekends, so I felt I had to get in quick and book chunks of time so the car was there if I needed it. And, because I had then paid for the time I felt compelled to use it. I now have a car available 24 / 7, and find I use it only when I absolutely have to, and try to walk, cycle, or catch buses/trains when I can. My six year old son is also very grateful I no longer use Goget as he was getting very tired of walking to and from the pods.”
Andrew showed his effort to support sustainability by using public transport or non motor transport for his mobility although he had his own car. However, the unavailability of a GoGet car in his neighbourhood led him to choosing to own a private car.
Price, as indicated before, is another opportunity for members to adopt car sharing. GoGet’s cost scheme was considered reasonably inexpensive for most interviewees. However, Dylan argued that the cost scheme GoGet offered was uncompetitive to FlexiCar or car rental companies. This was a reason for him for leaving GoGet and joining FlexiCar car sharing instead. He believed that FlexiCar offered a lower price compared to GoGet as it did not charge a kilometre rate for the journey.
10 Negative case analysis considers “instances and cases that do not fit the predominant pattern” (Goodrick, 2008, pp. 43 44). In this case, the negative case analysis is used to identify former member opinion related to the voluntary simplicity practice.
166 (3) Abilities
Abilities refer to the individual’s capacities in using car sharing and they are seen as control factors for the use of a GoGet car. There are many factors related to interviewees’ abilities to use GoGet car sharing including spatial (location), financial, physical and cognitive factors.
A spatial factor pod location is seen to be one common factor that controls or encourages members to use a GoGet car. Many interviewees have access to more than one car in their neighbourhood. Harry, for example, had access to a GoGet car which was only five minutes walking distance from his home. However, there were times when the car was not available. He then considered the location of the pods as a measure of whether he’d be better using a GoGet car, a taxi or public transport:
“My partner said to me ‘I really want to go to the market at Rozelle’. I just ring up and arranged a car and just go there. It could be difficult and expensive by public transport. But, by deciding to join GoGet, we know that we might not be able to get a car. There were several times that the car was unavailable and we walked 20 minutes to get [another] car.”
Financial factor is another control factor that limits or encourages them for using GoGet. While price is identified as an opportunity for GoGet car sharing to be chosen by members or a factor that attract more people to accept GoGet car sharing , the financial factor is seen as an internal factor for members to consider whether they choose to use Goget service, to use other alternatives temporarily, or even to quit the service.
Most interviewees calculated the approximate cost when they need to use a GoGet car. Sometimes they preferred using public transport or taxis if they thought it is too costly to use GoGet. Also, as GoGet has a more expensive scheme for daily hires, interviewees tended to use car rental companies for car hire if they needed a car for more than one day. Sophie, for example would use either a GoGet or a rental car for
167 one day use because GoGet was more convenient and closer to her place than a rental car. However, for more than a day’s use, she preferred a rental car:
“I have a good Hertz membership, and my husband is also a Gold member. So, you know, the daily rate for using the GoGet car is like $A68. Usually I can get a car [from Hertz] for maybe $30 40 a day, with unlimited kilometres. And then the petrol is not very much, so if you are going out of the city for long weekend or something, then just take a hired car.”
Interviewees agreed the financial factor prevented them from making unnecessary journeys with a GoGet car. Harry, for example, agreed the cost of using a GoGet car limited him to using GoGet cars for short trips:
“If I have a car which is 24 hours available and I need to go to Newtown that is 10 minutes bicycle riding, I would use a car because the car is available. But now [using a GoGet car that costs me for every trip] it is less likely. Obviously, it is forcing me to be a media of impacts that petrol is not burnt for a short trip.”
Another control factor that limits or encourages the use of GoGet car sharing is the physical factor. Both self physical condition and the physical condition of others needing support become control factors when using a GoGet car. Louise, for example, said she and her husband often used a GoGet car to support their elderly parents. Similarly, Sophie needed a GoGet car for easy mobility during her pregnancy. Nevertheless, Hans sees the physical reason of having a baby as a limiting factor. He said he would buy a private car when having a baby. Thus, it can be said the physical factor either limits or promotes the use of a GoGet car depending on individual circumstances.
Cognitive factor becomes another control factor for GoGet members. The ability to support community initiatives and to encourage sharing ideas becomes factors that drove interviewees to use GoGet cars. Monica, for example, encouraged her house mates to do big shopping together by using a GoGet car as an example to practice sharing ideas. Similarly, Shaun believed his reason for joining GoGet to support community initiatives became a control factor to promote the use of GoGet car sharing.
168 Summary
GoGet car sharing shows a model of collaboration between different actors: organisation staff, users or members, paladins or volunteers, suppliers, and local government. The system analysis discussed in Section 4.2 identifies that the system will not work properly if one or a few actors do not co operate as expected. In other words, the function of sharing needs all actors to collaborate.
This study shows how well GoGet operated and functioned thus far. A performance analysis was based on mixed methods research. It combined both the advantages of quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative methods were used to analyse the characteristics of GoGet members, general patterns of the use of GoGet car sharing, and user satisfaction levels. Quantitative methods were also used to identify characteristics of GoGet car sharing such as the most satisfying and dissatisfying factors, and some recommendations.
The qualitative methods further identified reasons for joining, and explored the dissatisfying and satisfying experiences when using a GoGet car. The qualitative methods were used to seek the motives behind the written expressions as well as members’ hidden needs or expectations.
The online survey has shown a relatively high user satisfaction level. However, members find it difficult to gain access to a car during busy times, such as evenings and weekends. Members also said issues regarding car locations became the second concern, followed by billing issues and pricing policies. It is not surprising if members wished to see improvements to those features.
The interview confirmed needs in those particular areas. Although interviewees did not have many problems or dissatisfying experiences, needs relating to improving car availability and pod arrangement were expressed several times.
In terms of sustainable consumption criterion, the online survey identified that GoGet car sharing has shown an improvement in some environmental sustainability
169 performances. GoGet minimises the resource used, as one car is shared between 12 and 16 members. GoGet members also travel less distance compared with average Sydney residents. However, as the number of GoGet members is significantly low compared with the overall Australian driving population, the significance of total environmental impact reduction is still negligible.
With regard to the sustainable consumption, the interviews showed there was still a wide spectrum among interviewees regarding their sustainable consumption practices. GoGet interviewees ranged from non voluntary simplifiers to holistic simplifiers. This shows that although GoGet’s membership is considerably small, the concept of car sharing is adopted by different types of people based on different needs. The interview findings also showed that car availability became a crucial issue for all members regardless of their voluntary simplicity position.
The next section discusses the improvement of the GoGet car sharing scheme through using collaborative design. This involved different actors: users, GoGet staff members and a GoGet supplier. As the performance criteria analysis has shown that car availability and location is an affirmative factor for improvement, the design process starts from this perspective.
4. 4 PHASE 2: GOGET COLLABORATIVE DESIGN
4.4.1 Scenario Development : Preparation Phase
The workshop was held on Saturday, 23 September 2007 at the Faculty of the Built Environment, UNSW. Table 4.18 summarises the participants’ detail of the collaborative design workshop. Among participants, only two members were interviewed Shaun and Ella. Two other members, Janneke and Cecile were selected purposively as the other interviewees who had similar characteristics to them were unavailable on the day the workshop held. The selection criteria were based on age, type of membership, and the characteristics of the use of a GoGet
170 car. Janneke represented the 50 plus female, and she used a GoGet car as a second car. These characteristics were similar to Mary Hunt (50 plus, female). Cecile, represented a 20 plus member who mostly rode a bicycle and rarely used a car. Cecile’s characteristics were similar to Monica Trent (20 plus, female).
The GoGet staff, paladin and supplier (car cleaner) were selected based on their specialisations. Dwayne was GoGet operation manager, Rod was a paladin for the busy GoGet operations area: Sydney’s inner west. Adam was the only car cleaner supplier for all GoGet cars in Sydney.
The collaborative design workshop for GoGet actors was designed as a half day project, starting with a preparation phase. This preparation phase was designed to allow participants to think and reflect on particular aspects of their context when they used a GoGet car. The preparation phase was conducted by sending six packages to four selected members, one GoGet staff and one paladin who agreed to participate in the collaborative design workshop.
Table 4. 18: Collaborative design workshop participants’ details City of Pseudoname Gender Age Tenancy status Occupation residence 1 Dwayne staff M 30 renting GoGet Camperdown Girard manager 2 Shaun Webb member M 25 renting sharing project Glebe with mates manager 3 Rod May paladin M 55 owning a engineer St Peter house/flat 4 Janneke de member F 64 owning a clinical Coogee Boer house/flat psychologist 5 Cecile member F 24 sharing with sustainability Clovelly Stenmeyer mates officer 6 Ella Duffy member F 30 renting student Surry Hills 7 Adam Wu car cleaner M 35 owning a car cleaner Penshurst house/flat
The package consisted of a journal (or workbook) and a disposable camera for participants to take photos relating to their use of GoGet. A voucher for developing the film was also provided. The package was sent two weeks before the workshop to provide ample time for the activities.
171 As car availability is a common issue for GoGet members, participants were asked to comment in the journals on the result of the survey and to think about their own experiences regarding the use of a GoGet car: picking up the car, using it and returning it. Photos taken during their activities with GoGet were used to identify important objects or feelings they had when using GoGet. Appendix F provides the example of the journal and the invitation letter.
Two days before the workshop, an email was sent to participants to remind them to bring the completed journal and photos. However, only four people (Dwayne, Rod, Janneke, and Ella) brought the completed journals/workbooks and four brought photos (Dwayne, Shaun, Rod, and Ella). Shaun did not receive the package; as a result, he could not complete the journal. However, he took photos with his digital camera of his use of GoGet when he received a reminder email. Janneke did not use a GoGet car during the preparation phase period. Thus, she could not take photos. Cecile did not bring the package as she said that she did not have time to complete the journal or take photos. Adam did not need to complete the journal as he was not a GoGet member.
The completed journal and photos taken by members were collected before the session started. Table 4.19 summarises the comments of the workshop participants regarding the survey results. Regarding car availability or location, Ella and Dwayne said a car was likely to be available when they needed it. However, they further maintained that their case might be different as they had an advantageous condition access to various cars in their neighbourhood (Dwayne) or advance booking (Ella). Non dedicated car space was noted by Rod and Janneke. Both said non dedicated spots were quite annoying.
The next questions – about the best and the worst experiences regarding the booking system, and picking up and returning the car were used as a stimulus for them to think about their use of GoGet car sharing. Some noted their experiences while some others had no problems relating to their use of GoGet cars.
172 Table 4. 19: A summary of journal entries Participants Dwayne Girard Rod May Janneke de Boer Ella Duffy Statement about I agree with the No dedicated pod My expectations There is always a car availability or statement could result in had been that high chance there location having a car excessive walking GoGet would will be a car easily available, back and forth have a Randwick available. This but I live in the from the lock box Council dedicated service, however, network's parking spot requires some periphery foresight. Book in advance as much as possible the calendar view very clear icons the best with geo coded none easy to use for online experience cars booking booking expensive option system full day schedule the worst to lower does not fit the none none experience insurance excess screen amount the best swipe card swipe card none swipe card experience picking weird beeping up the the worst cannot find the dirty car with when taking the car none experience car debris key out of the ignition extending the best All none booking time easy process experience returning easily the car the worst None none none none experience
Another stimulus given to participants was the task of taking photos in relation to their GoGet car activities. Appendix G shows the photos and some expressions given by participants, as well as some notes. Table 4.20 highlights some keywords for photos participants collected. Dwayne, took photos of the GoGet office and a GoGet car in Glebe, representing his usual job environment and responsibilities. Ella provided photos of her scooters at night time and her parents, showing that she usually used a GoGet car at night, when she could not ride her scooter or when she visited her parents. In line with the photos, in her journal, Ella drew the moon as a representation of driving safely at night. She also drew home and two people, representing her parents and their house.
173 Table 4. 20: A summary of photo collection and keywords from participants Participants Dwayne Girard Rod May Shaun Webb Ella Duffy photos GoGet cars in Glebe Coogee, Petrol Outdoor activities, Parents, scooter, GoGet office, his station, GoGet Roadway to at night time desk pod in Coogee Wollongong, beach keywords something special, step up to the something special, driving safely at get down to the grand yet get down to the night, using the beach easily, environmental beach easily, car to go to my without spending 1 services of without spending 1 mum + dads hour on the bus GoGet, reliable hour on the bus booking system with human backup interpretations work related pride being a convenience and safety and family activities paladin, leisure environmental concerns
Rod took photos around Coogee when he looked after a GoGet car in Coogee. He wrote down some keywords, such as “reliable booking system with human backup”, showing his pride being a paladin supporting the GoGet system. He also noted several times “environmental” as a keyword, as well as “not to worry about fuel price”. Shaun took photos of his outdoor activities, special occasions and weekend getaway activities. He noted some keywords, such as “without spending 1 hour on the bus” or “get down to the beach easily” showing the convenience of having an access to a car.
4.4.2 Scenario Development: Collaborative Design Workshop
Procedure
The workshop was arranged for four hours, including breaks for morning tea and lunch. A facilitator (Sue White, a freelance writer and facilitator on sustainable issues) was hired. Two industrial design students, Marlous and Nina were involved helping to facilitate the group to create their scenarios. Box 4.3 shows the schedule of the half day workshop.
174 Box 4.3: Schedule of GoGet collaborative design workshop 10.00 – 10.15 : Introduction, Rules of the day, Ice breaking session 10.15 – 10.55 : Collage making (image collection session) Presentation 10.55 – 11.10 : Morning tea 11.10 – 11.50 : Scenario making session 11.50 – 12.15 : Scenario evaluation (sustainability review) 12.15 – 12.35 : Presentation and discussion 12.35 – 13.15 : Lunch 13.15 – 13.45 : Scenario review & nomination 13.45 – 14.00 : Reflective evaluation
Figure 4.16 shows some photos of the workshop activities. The workshop started by collecting participants’ journals from the preparation phase and ice breaking. Subsequently, the group was divided into two sub groups for the individual collage making and presentation. Each participant was asked to create a collage based on the following task:
create a set of images/icons and texts (words) that you think is the best to present your ideas about:
your ideal situation for the near future process of booking, picking up and returning GoGet car, as well as any process after your use of GoGet (or in other words: post use service).
175 Figure 4. 16: GoGet workshop activities
This task aimed to gain empathy with users and to prepare participants for the next session, which aimed to create innovative concepts.
After the individual session, each participant had time to look at everyone’s collages during the morning tea break and provided written comments if necessary. After the break, the sub groups started talking about their ideal scenario for using GoGet car sharing. There were five tasks in this session:
176 1. Each sub group listed important features from individual collages they interpreted from the individual collages and brainstormed more features that were also important in creating an ideal situation of car sharing services.
2. Subsequently, each sub group categorised the features into a matrix based on user behaviour (social or individual activities) and the technical option of service provision, and whether it enabled users to receive a ready to use service or fulfil the service function themselves (passive versus active involvement).
3. Then, they decided which matrix they wanted to focus on for their scenario.
4. Afterwards, participants created an appropriate scenario on the particular matrix quadrant they had selected.
5. Finally, after they created their scenario, participants were asked to evaluate it based on sustainable criteria. A two page list of sustainability criteria were given for them to review the scenario. Some necessary changes or improvement for more sustainable scenarios were made.
After all those five tasks were accomplished, each sub group presented the scenario. Then, they were asked to give comments on the scenario using post it notes and stick to the related scenario.
All details about the procedure and the outcomes from the collaborative design workshop for GoGet can be found in Appendix H. The following sections discuss the main findings and analysis of the workshop process as well as the outcomes.
Collage making
The collages were made individually, which resulted in as ‘unfinished’ ideal scenarios containing a rich set of images and icons as well as texts for four main activities of:
177 booking a car – an ideal representation of reserving a car, either by phone or online by the Internet. picking up the car – an ideal representation of the way the member goes to the pod and gets the car returning the car – an ideal representation of the way the member returns the car and goes back to home or another place post use service – an ideal representation of activities after the use of the car, including payment, details update, insurance claims. These activities are more suitable for members and the paladin not for GoGet staff or the car cleaner. As a result, Dwayne (the GoGet staff) and Adam (the car cleaner) were asked to create an ideal situation on their perspectives when members do the related activities. For example, Dwayne may identify the need of no late return car for returning the car activity and Adam may think about clean returned car for the same activity.
As explained earlier, participants were divided into two groups. The sub groups had previously been planned to have balanced characteristics. For example, Dwayne and Rod were not supposed to be in a group as both of them in a way represented GoGet perspectives. Adam was not grouped with Dwayne, as Adam closely worked with Dwayne on GoGet daily activities. Members were divided into two sub group based on their characteristics of the use of GoGet service. For example, Cecile and Janneke were not supposed to be in the same group as they used GoGet cars for work and private purposes. Similarly, Shaun and Ella were grouped differently as they used GoGet cars only for private purposes. Table 4.21 lists the group members of the workshop.
Table 4. 21: The sub grouping of GoGet collaborative design workshop Group A Group B Cecile – a GoGet member Adam – GoGet car cleaner Dwayne – GoGet staff Janneke – a GoGet member Ella – a GoGet member Shaun – a GoGet member Rod – a GoGet member and paladin
178 Figures 4.17 and 4.18 (p. 181) demonstrate participants’ collages. The collages created were very rich in images and led to many interpretations from others. Thus, a brief presentation in the subgroup was necessary to clarify their meaning and to communicate the ideas with other. Some keywords were identified based on their presentation in the sub group.
Figure 4. 17: Individual collages from Group A – Cecile, Dwayne, Ella, and Rod Although many distinctive characteristics were presented from each collage, cost effectiveness, and convenience became common expectations of most participants. All participants identified “cheap option” or “cost effectiveness” as one of their ideal solutions in using a car sharing service. Convenience (of booking, the use and the car itself, and so on) was another most expected feature. Other features such as safety, community and environmental values, pleasure, and flexibility were
179 those most discussed among the groups. Staff friendliness and care were the other expected features.
Participants stated that most features had already been found in the GoGet service (such as convenience, flexibility and friendly staff). However, they expected these features to be maintained and improved.
During a short break after collage making and presentation, participants had a chance to carefully look at others’ collages and provide comments. They wrote their comments on yellow post its and stuck them on the particular features on the collage. Some interesting issues arose from these comments. For example, some participants (such as Dwayne and Janneke) expected having more pet friendly cars. This was strongly opposed by Adam who was responsible for car cleaning. Another controversial issue was the car image; the luxurious car depicted by Adam seemed to be appropriate for a special event, but not for a daily basis use.
180
Figure 4. 18: Individual collages from Group B: Adam, Janneke, and Shaun
181 Scenario development
After individual collages were commented on, participants started collaborating on making a group scenario. Still in the same groups, participants were asked to create a scenario based on the same tasks given for the individual collage. Similar to the individual collages, participants were free to use provided images, icons and texts. They could also draw the scenario themselves if they thought there were no suitable images or icons to represent their features. In this scenario making process, the two industrial design students (Marlous for Group A and Nina for Group B) helped them create an illustrative scenario.
As explained in the Procedure section, there were five tasks in the scenario making process. It started with feature listing and brainstorming driven from the individual collages. Every participant wrote one feature on a post it note ,and as a group they wrote other features they thought were important. As a result, each sub group had many post it notes listing features.
After they brainstormed, participants were asked to categorise these features into a matrix called a polarised diagram. This matrix was developed based on the user behaviour and the technical option of service provision based on scenario development techniques suggested by SusHouse project (Vergragt, 2000). Figure 4.19 is an illustrative example shown to the workshop participants. It aimed to help them understand the categorisation.
User behaviour characteristics were divided into social/collective and individual activities. Social activities were defined as recommended solutions that enabled the GoGet service to provide more collective or collaborative activities for members as a community. Individual activities were suggested solutions that would create more customised services and meet more personalised needs of each member.
182
Figure 4. 19: An example of matrix categorisation (polarity diagram) The technical option of service provision was categorised into active and passive involvement. Vergragt (2000) defined it as enabling (for the active involvement) and relieving (for the passive involvement) activities. Active involvement means that suggested solutions enable the members to take action and be proactive. Members need to fulfil the service functions themselves. Passive involvement, on the other hand, is suggested solutions that make members receive a ready to use service.
Each sub group had successfully categorised most of the identified features into the matrix. Figure 4.20 illustrated the matrix created by each sub group (for detailed features generated, see Appendix H). Both groups then quickly selected one quadrant to further develop an ideal scenario. While Group A chose the active collective quadrant to work with, Group B chose the passive individual quadrant. These decisions were surprisingly unique to each other, although there was no intervention from the facilitator or researcher before the decision.
183
Figure 4. 20: Matrix categorization (polarity diagram)
The scenario making process worked well, as it showed dynamics of the group starting from individual participants’ different views of an ideal situation, though to a collaborative work resulting from collective agreement. Group A had started the discussion smoothly by choosing the active collective quadrant to work with. However, some disagreements appeared when they started to create their scenario. For example, Cecile said the use of GoGet was still very individualistic and she strongly recommended the use of a car as a more sharing resource (by creating a car pooling system used by car sharing members). Ella, on the other hand, argued that she did not want to share a car with others. This option was finally
184 compromised on when Rod suggested creating a scenario for car pooling within a car sharing system, but only for big events or special occasions.
After agreement was reached, Group A had decided to use the Internet and online social networks to arrange car pooling among GoGet members. However, they subsequently had other problems in the detailed scenario. While both Cecile and Ella suggested that GoGet should manage this network through GoGet website, Dwayne as a GoGet staffer was reluctant to accept that. He seemed to be reluctant to take on more jobs and responsibility in facilitating this additional service, by saying: “We have many other things to take care of.” Finally, they agreed on the creation of a weblog to facilitate car pooling. A weblog was considered as one way to counter resistance from GoGet staff. They suggested that the weblog be facilitated by members but that GoGet, to a certain degree, should be involved and play an active role when necessary.
Figure 4.21 shows the scenario developed by Group A. Star stickers represent the review and comments from the sustainable review session and and post it notes show comments from others that were given after the scenario development. The review process is discussed later in this section. Group A members deliberately called their scenario the “GoGet love story”, which represented fun activities (stated by Rod) and opened the opportunity for members to get to know each other. The scenario illustrated the need for sharing a shared car with others, and this would be posted on a weblog. The scenario depicted how members who wanted to share a car communicated with each other. Group A also illustrated what activities should be involved in sharing a shared car as well as feelings among members who share the car.
185
Figure 4. 21: Group A’s scenario Including the background (the needs), how members communicate with each other, the activities and feelings
While Group A had a relatively easy start up, Group B had a big argument about pet and no pet cars as a GoGet feature. Janneke, who had kittens, regretted the fact there was no pet friendly car in her neighbourhood. She suggested GoGet to have more pet friendly cars. Adam, a car cleaner and allergic to animal fur, strongly opposed this idea. It was a long discussion until the facilitator suggested them to create a solution. The solution should be the provision of shared cars for pet friendly and no pet users equally.
Group B started to create a condition for the solution, such as a database creation of allergic people to identify who strictly cannot use a pet friendly car, recognisable rules and policies regarding pets in the car, odourless and clean cars after use, reliable communication among users, and between users and GoGet staff.
186 Group B decided to use a smart technology system to allow cars that had carried pets to be clean and odourless. They chose a passive individual quadrant to work with. They started to create a scenario by identifying a persona (profiles) of the subject. The persona includes: a person who is an inner city resident with pet minding attitude, has no car, has an active involvement in a community, and has an awareness of sharing and taking care of shared objects. In this scenario, Group B limited the use of an ordinary GoGet car for carrying a pet in an emergency case. Usually, pets can only be carried in a pet friendly car. As a result, the scenario attempted to add technology features to enable car used carefully and left with no smell.
Figure 4. 22: Group B’s scenario Involving a condition, persona, the sequence of activities, and additional features
Figure 4.22 displays the Group B’s scenario. Similar to Figure 4.21, the notes and star stickers are the comments and review from the latter activities. The scenario shows the condition and persona related to the scenario, and a sequence of activities for the use of a GoGet car for carrying a pet incorporating some kind of smart technology that renders a car odourless.
187 After the scenario development, still in sub groups, participants were given a list of sustainability criteria adopted from the MEPSS methodology (van Halen et al., 2005). This list gives different criteria of environmental, socio ethical, and economic sustainability (see Appendix H). Participants were then asked to review their scenarios, and provide comments or icons on coloured post it notes about the sustainable performance of particular features on their scenario.
The colour of the post it notes represented the sustainable criteria based on the following order:
Light green – for environmental sustainability Orange – for socio ethical sustainability Pink – for economic sustainability. Participants could write particular strengths or weaknesses of their scenario in terms of sustainability or simply draw a happy face if it showed good performance or a sad face if it showed bad performance in terms of sustainability.
After that, participants had time to discuss if they wanted to add or change features to improve sustainability performances. There was no change made in Group A scenario after the review. They argued that sharing a shared car had improved environmental sustainability and it also gave both socio ethical and economic benefits, such as social activities and cheaper cost.
Group B added a feature regarding the longevity of GoGet cars. Group B thought that car sharing did not ultimately improve the longevity of the vehicles, especially if cars were used for an emergency case and the user may not have been able to take care it. Lack of maintenance by members could lead to shorter vehicle lifespans. They subsequently suggested giving rewards for members who looked after GoGet cars.
The final session of the workshop was group presentations and nomination. Each sub group presented their scenario and each participant was asked to nominate features they thought were remarkable. Participants were provided with star sticker
188 to put on the scenario they liked. The colours of the star stickers were consistent with the post it note colours used for the sustainable review. The green star was given for a remarkable environmental sustainable improvement. Orange and red stars were for socio ethical and economic sustainability respectively. Participants could also write comments on yellow post it notes if the particular features were remarkable for future improvement.
From Group A’s scenario, the idea of sharing a shared car received seven green stars (See Figure 4.21). It showed participants agreed that the feature was likely to improve environmental sustainability. Moreover, the idea of several members sharing one car was considered to be improving economic sustainability. It was shown by four red stars given to the idea of “together” and the image of recalculation of the cost (five red starts). Some participants also thought the concept of go together had a socio ethical benefit (one orange star) as well as the idea of making new relation/friendship representing by a marriage symbol (four orange stars).
Group B’s scenario received four green stars for the persona that represented a person who regularly uses public transport and has no car (See Figure 4.22). The activity of returning the car that includes the technology which allows the car to release any smell and the awareness of the user to clean the car from any leftover fur and dirt received 4 orange stars indicating socio ethical benefits.
Some constructive comments were also given to the scenarios. For example, the opportunity for members to communicate with each other (see a comment “love it” in Figure 4.21). Also, the idea of being together was considered a thought provoking idea. A member suggested that the booking system should add the destination of a trip so that other members may be able to join the car if suitable.
The presentation and nomination ended the session. Before participants left the venue, the researcher thanked them for their significant contribution and asked the participants to fill in a reflective evaluation. This evaluation form aims to review the
189 collaborative design process and to investigate what participants felt during the workshop and how they contributed to the designed scenario.
4.4.3 Final scenario development
From the two scenarios developed during the collaborative design workshop, the researcher designed final scenarios by considering the following activities:
Identifying significant aspects of the scenarios representing by images, icons, texts, comments, and reviews Reviewing own journal written during the workshop Discussing the process with two industrial design students and the facilitator post workshop Observing the video recording, taking notes of the process and transcribing the audio recording of the workshop Observing and interpreting photos taken during the workshop Discussing the scenarios with GoGet founders.
Group A’s scenario
Group A’s scenario shows a strong image of a collective action among members which leads to a social cohesion benefit as well as a low level of innovation. Sharing a shared car is believed to allow more social activities among GoGet members. The innovation is not significant as the scenario tries to use ordinary social networking through a weblog or perhaps public social networks, such as MySpace or Facebook.
An evaluation of the scenario resulted in some advantages and disadvantages. The ‘GoGet Love Story’ scenario (the name of the scenario) was considered to have had the following advantages:
Low cost mode of communication;
190 economical use of car sharing service; social activities enhancement among members; a reduction in the use of resources by sharing a car between more people. However, the scenario also has the following disadvantages: unequal access to the Internet restricting an equal opportunity for members to share a shared car; additional costs for GoGet, as GoGet needed to set up an additional cost structure program for the booking. The conventional cost structure of car sharing is calculated on individual basis. If the car sharing is shared among some members, a new system should be added to allow shared cost calculated for each user of the car. Further discussion of the scenario with two industrial design students revealed it did not refer to the matrix they previously made. The focus of sharing a shared car was slightly shifted to the idea of “love story” between two GoGet members instead of focusing on the social cohesion among members.
Reviewing the matrix (polarity diagram) they made, and without intending to change the main ideas of the Group A’s scenario, two final scenarios were developed. The main scenario is the “Use Net to Get” scenario. This scenario maintains the main ideas of members being actively involved in arranging the sharing of a shared car, the use of sharing for special and occasional events, and the use of social networking to communicate with other GoGet members. This scenario would involve minimal participation by GoGet. In terms of cost sharing, the scenario set the members to arrange cost sharing among themselves while GoGet only charged the overall cost to the member who booked the car.
The second scenario was “Go/gather together” which involved more support from GoGet. The scenario was based on the idea of adding a notification about the trip destination, allowing other GoGet members to share the trip. The sharing idea
191 could occur anytime so long as there was a common trip two or more GoGet members could take. The cost would be automatically shared equally among members using the car. This scenario would require information technology support which would update cost structures and the booking systems.
Use Net to Get
The scenario was made by considering four main activities of the use of a GoGet car. It started with car reservation, car pick up, the journey, and car return and activities after the use of the car. Figure 4.23 displays the “Use Net to Get” scenario.
As with other scenarios, this one used Sharon as the main persona. Sharon plans to go to an annual sustainability festival, the Peats Ridge Festival in Glenworth Valley, a two hour trip north of Sydney. Instead of going alone, she tries to find GoGet member companions. She sends a message to the GoGet group on MySpace social network. When she gets responses from other members, she books a station wagon – a vehicle big enough to fit them. They arrange to meet at the station after Sharon picks up the car from Erskineville, Sydney.
As they meet up, they get to know each other. As all passengers are GoGet members, each can drive to and from Glenworth Valley. After they attend the festival, Sharon returns them to their homes. Apart from sharing the cost of the trip, they all stay in touch with each other, sharing photos and stories.
192
Figure 4. 23: “Use Net to Get” scenario
193 This scenario emphasises the following characteristics: sharing a shared car utilising social networks creating social activities choosing different model of cars The first three characteristics are those identified by Group A. The fourth characteristic the ability to choose different model of cars is one feature that GoGet has already had in its service in order to fulfil different needs of members.
Go Gather Together
Similar to the “Use Net to Get” scenario, this scenario emphasises the idea of sharing a shared car. Highlighting the flexibility of booking and invoice systems that GoGet has, this scenario offers the flexibility for members to share a GoGet car with other members.
In this scenario, Sharon books a car for a trip to Manly Beach, Sydney. She thinks other members may also want to go to Manly. As a result, she intentionally chooses an option of sharing the car and fills in the trip destination details. Two other GoGet members (Peter and Lisa) are interested in joining her, and respond to Sharon’s offer. The GoGet booking system automatically adds Peter and Lisa for the trip and sends an email notification to Sharon.
The trip allows them to get know each other. Peter and Lisa do not have to pay the cost to Sharon as GoGet will separate the bill equally to three of them and sends the bill to each of them.
194
Figure 4. 24: “Go/Gather Together” scenario
195 This scenario highlights the following characteristics: sharing a shared car cost saving initiating social activities sharing information via GoGet booking system.
Cost saving is highlighted in this scenario; a member can always offer sharing every time he or she books a GoGet car. Unlike the “Use Net to Get” that initiated the sharing only for special occasions, which may not significantly reduce the cost, this scenario can considerably cut the cost if the car is always shared.
Group B’s scenario
Group B’s scenario focused on the ability to carry pets in every GoGet car. This idea should be supported with a system that guarantees clean and fresah smelling cars. However, some members may not only be fussy about animals but are allergic to them. As a result, a preventive action should be taken to ensure members who are allergic to animals would not have any health issue. Thus, a database should first be developed to identify who would be severely affected if a car was used by members and their pets.
The scenario developed by Group B had both strengths and weaknesses. The strengths of the scenario are: respecting the diversity of members in terms of their attitude to pet/animals flexibility for members in using different models of cars. In the current system, only limited cars and models that are permitted for carrying pets. potential improvement of the system as a basic technological system has been already installed.
196 The weaknesses of this scenario are: potential health issue additional support system in the vehicles, such as a GPS and/or sensor.
Similar to Group A, the Group B’s scenario was not really related to the matrix they previously generated. However, as the group had already had a very specific issue about a booking system and the use of pet friendly car, the scenario became specific and relatively well developed. As a result, the final scenario did not make any significant changes except the refinement of the previous scenario created during the workshop.
The title of the final scenario was the “Take a Pet with GoGet” scenario. This maintained the original characteristics, which were: the use of GPS technology to greet the user, to remind the user about GoGet rules and to remind the user to activate other necessary devices, such as the air conditioning or blower the use of a sensor system to measure the car’s cleanliness the use of personalised greetings to enhance user experience the ability to make an immediate booking online. Figure 4.25 illustrates the scenario. Sharon finds her cat is sick and she calls a vet to make an appointment. However, she also needs to get a car. As a result, she books a GoGet car using an immediate booking. She gets a vehicle which is not particularly pet friendly but she can still carry her cat with some additional rules: the cat should be in a pet carrier all the times; no smell, fur, and dirt can be left or identified by the next user.
197
Figure 4. 25: “Take a Pet with GoGet” scenario
198 Fortunately, GoGet has installed a smart GPS system. This is connected to the smart card device used to access all cars. The system can have personalised greetings to every member, including confirming their destination. The system can also remind Sharon about the rules and give instructions – for example, when Sharon needs to let fresh air in. Additionally, there is also a sensor that can identify if there is smell in the car before Sharon returns the car to the pod.
Discussion with GoGet founders
After the final scenarios were created, they were discussed with Bruce Jeffreys, a GoGet founder. Basically he had no resistance to the scenarios. He was glad if GoGet members could create their own social activities. He said he could improve the booking system with the additional features (as suggested in the “Go/Gather Together” scenario) if necessary.
Related to the “Take a Pet with GoGet” scenario, an emergency or immediate booking has been made possible although it should be done by phone not from the website. Jeffreys also mentioned that all GoGet cars have been equipped with smart card technology. An in car navigation system (GPS system) can be added for an additional cost. The only resisting issue was cost. He said a cost/benefit analysis should be conducted before implementing the system, to determine whether it would suit everyone’s needs – and fit with GoGet’s business plan.
4. 5 CHAPTER SUMMARY
An investigation of GoGet car sharing as a system resulted in interesting facts emerging. To run smoothly, the system needed a network system between GoGet staff, members, government, and suppliers, such as car suppliers, a maintenance and repair company, insurance company, a car cleaner, information support company, and paladins. As a small organisation providing service to many members,
199 GoGet owes its existence to strong support from communities, and the understanding and support of members.
The survey showed the user satisfaction level was relatively high; almost all members were satisfied with the services provided. A ServQual method used to evaluate GoGet service quality performances showed that there was no significantly high gap between user expectation and perception. There were even some quality performances that had higher perception levels than expectation levels, such as GoGet responsiveness and car cleanliness.
The interviews further investigated users’ experiences in using GoGet. Moreover, the interviews reviewed user consumption behaviour. It was revealed that GoGet members had various and diverse behaviours both in terms of using cars and consumption behaviour in terms of travel. Although most members did not have a car in their household, it did not guarantee that members had a strong voluntary simplicity position in terms of travel. The GoGet interviewees ranged from non voluntary simplifiers to holistic simplifiers.
Another interesting point drawn from both surveys and interviews was that although GoGet members had significantly higher incomes than average Australians, cost effectiveness was still an important feature together with convenience, flexibility and environmental sustainability. The interviews also revealed that car availability was a common issue for all members regardless of their voluntary simplicity position.
The collaborative design workshop tried to further explore user needs and collaboratively create solutions that met their needs. The needs were not necessarily common; it may only reveal a facet of user needs. However, the collaborative process between GoGet staff, members, and supplier (the car cleaner in the workshop) was a rich process that resulted in an agreement between different views and interests.
200 The collaborative design workshop again showed diverse needs and behaviours of GoGet stakeholders. Two sub groups created two very different types of scenarios. One scenario focused on sharing a shared car, which tried to improve environmental sustainability while also improving socio ethical and economic sustainability. Another sub group created a scenario that tried to provide more pet friendly cars without compromising the needs of non pet members. The use of technological devices would allow this effort. Finally, three final scenarios Use Net to Get, Go/Gather Together and Take a Pet with GoGet were developed based on two scenarios developed in the collaborative design workshop.
201 CHAPTER 5 5 TOY LIBRARY
“Toy library is such a marvellous idea because kids get sick of toys easily... however I wished there’s a toy library closer to Coogee, especially for those who don’t have a car” (an interviewee response, 32 y.o. mother with 2 children)
“I am sorry to say I have heard such good reports about the library and have only been twice but have not found a toy left for my 8 month old child” (a survey response, a mother with 1 child lived in Randwick)
Similar to Chapter 4, this chapter presents research findings of the toy library case study. It outlines and provides information and findings from the study of the current toy library system, an evaluation of user satisfaction and user consumption behaviour, and scenario development for improving user satisfaction and encouraging more sustainable consumption behaviour. This chapter provides discussion and analysis of the proposed model, presents user experiences related to the use of toys in the library and finally proposes scenarios created from the collaborative design workshop.
5.1 TOY LIBRARY MODEL: DESCRIPTION
The Randwick City Toy and Game Library (RCTGL) is located at Bowen Library, 669 673 Anzac Parade, Maroubra Junction, Sydney. This toy library adopts the English toy library model, providing services for the public with a general community focus of providing toys and supporting services.
The RCTGL began as the Randwick Botany Toy Library, a library jointly funded by Randwick City Council (RCC) and Botany City Council. It was opened in the Central Library at Maroubra Junction in January 1983 with 381 toys and games, ranging
202 from toys for babies and toddlers to games and puzzles for older children and adults. Within a year, the toy library had increased its collection to 1353 toys and games, and had made 8029 loans to 1388 borrowers.
In 1986, Randwick City and Botany City Councils established independent library services. The toy library in this study became the RCTGL. In 1991, the library was rebuilt and relocated opposite the old site because of a major fire in the original Central Library in 1987. The new facility was named the Bowen Library. The toy library has been operating there ever since. In 2000, it merged with the Eastern Suburbs Toy Library a special needs community based library combining the unique qualities of both the libraries, and also managed by Randwick Council.
The RCTGL is the only toy library funded by local government in three neighbouring local government authorities (LGAs): Waverley Council, Botany Bay City Council and Randwick City Council. There are toy libraries in the Woollahra City Council and City of Sydney areas, the other two neighbouring councils. Waverley Council also has a toy library, Bondi Toy Library, but it is only partly local government funded. As there are not many toy libraries in this part of Sydney, it is not surprising the RCTGL provides services to so many families. In 2008, between 800 and 1000 families were members of the RCTGL. By then, the collection had 1300 toys and the library averaged 20,000 toy loans a year.
Unlike most toy libraries that are fully funded by local government libraries (and which give provide free membership), the RCTGL is a fee based service. This service was introduced in 2000. The membership fee is $A35 a year. Membership fees are used to buy new toys, for maintenance and for toy library related activities.
A member can borrow up to 10 toys at a time, and the loan period is 14 days with twice renewal possible. Renewals can be organised by phone, by online catalogue or in person at Bowen Library reception desk.
203 As an integral part of Bowen Library, the RCTGL opens seven days a week, from 10 am to 9 pm on weekdays, 10 am to 4 pm on Saturdays, and 12 pm to 4 pm on Sundays.
5.1.1 Observation
Member activities at the toy library were observed for this study. These observations focused on types of activities members and children engaged in, the amount of time they spent at the toy library, and the facility’s physical location and settings.
Figure 5.1 shows the toy area and Figure 5. 2 shows the RCTGL’s layout at Bowen Library. The library is located on the first floor of a three storey building. The ground floor consists of a cafe, parking spaces, a shop and a community centre. The second floor is used for library administrative offices and a meeting room.
Figure 5. 1: The toy area at the Bowen Library
204 In the library section, the toy area is located to the right of the entrance and reception desk, and is partitioned with glass windows enabling everyone to see the toy area as they enter the library. The toy area contains the toy shelving areas. Members wanting to borrow toys go to this area to select and collect toys they wish to borrow. The toy area is close to the children’s book section and auditorium where the kids’ club is usually run.
Figure 5. 2: The layout of toy and children area at the Bowen Library (not to scale)
205 Based on five observations of between 30 and 60 minutes on different days (weekends or weekdays) and different time (morning, afternoon), the researcher identified that most toy library members came to return toys, then chose new ones to borrow while allowing their children to play with toys in the toys area. Some members also selected children’s books from shelves in front of the toy area while their children played.
It was observed that members usually stayed in the toy area between five and 35 minutes. They were unlikely to talk to other members unless their children played together or fought over the same toys.
5.2 TOY LIBRARY MODEL: SYSTEM ANALYSIS
5.2.1 General System
Figure 5. 3: The RCTGL as a PSS model
The RCTGL system is further analysed based on the model given in Figure 2.17. Figure 5.3 demonstrates a specific model for this system. This review is conducted
206 based on observations, discussions with the toy librarians, document and text analysis based on web information, and brochures provided by the RCTGL.
5.2.2 Main actors
The RCTGL organization
At the time, the RCTGL had two toy librarians (Sharon and Sam). It was managed directly under the Randwick City Library and Information Service, and funded by Randwick City Council. The toy librarians were responsible for procurement, toy bar coding and cataloguing, toy maintenance and repair, and the disposal of old toys. Toys were usually disposed of by selling them through a Monster Sale, conducted twice a year. Although this sale mainly covered books, it also covered toys that needed to be replaced. If these older toys are not sold they were donated to charity or committed to landfill.
The toy librarians needed to select a wide range of toys suiting the needs of children from zero (babies) to 10 years of age. They bought high quality toys from a number of suppliers, selecting ‘green label’ products where possible11. More importantly, the RCTGL’s librarians carefully selected toys that supported children’s physical and mental development.
When new toys arrived, the librarians would catalogue them and label them with identifying barcodes. The toys were then placed in big bags, boxes or net bags if possible (See Figure 5.4). Games were usually stored in their original boxes while bulky toys were normally left bare. The toy librarians also listed the complete contents and provided toy descriptions including the suitable age, purpose of the toy, and game rules (if applicable).
11 Although the RCTGL staff did not prioritise green label toys (eco labelling or product which has an environmental sustainable certification), they considered green label toys as an added value. For example, Voila Toys (www.voila.com) that have ranges of good quality wooden toys with eco labelling.
207
Figure 5. 4: Toy bagging
If parts of toys were found to be missing or toys needed to be repaired, they were usually taken out of circulation temporarily. The toy librarians scheduled necessary repairs. Incomplete toys were also taken out of circulation. The last member to have borrowed the toy was contacted to ask if they still had missing pieces. Some fines were levied against members who lost a toy, or parts of a toy.
Toy librarians were not always available on reception or in the toy area. Besides, they did not work on weekends, and spent most of their time working in an office on another level of the Bowen Library building. However, staff working in reception would answer queries regarding toys and the toy service. A person manning reception was responsible for helping with toy checking and return processes.
208 The RCTGL has also provided activities for the general public. Two main and regular activities were kids’ club, which provided activities for children under five and Play Workshop, a workshop for parents/carers/grandparents and children up to two years of age. These workshops provided information on toys and activities suitable for each stage of child development, and segmented activities for the age groups 6 12 months, 12 18 months, and 18 24 months. While kids’ club was free, the Play Workshop was a paid activity, costing $A12 to the general public – but free to toy library members.
Stakeholders
The main stakeholders of the RCTGL were its members, toy suppliers, and local government authorities or city councils and staff. As toy suppliers’ details cannot be revealed, it is not further discussed in this study.
Toy Library Members
The RCTGL members paid their annual $A35 membership fee, and this covered their borrowings for the year and attendance at the play workshop. It did not include reservation fee and fines for overdue items (25c a day per toy).
Members expected to have access to a wide range of toys and games, including baby toys, ride on toys, such as rocking horses, construction sets, jigsaw puzzles, board games, cars, gardening toys, kitchen sets, and musical instruments. They could also have access to the following features12:
One time renewal that could be arranged over the phone, an online catalogue or in person services at Bowen Library Toy reservation ($A 1.10 per item)
12 The information is taken from the RCTGL website (www.randwick.nsw.gov.au/A_sense_of_ community/Library/Kids_world/Toy_and_game_library/index.aspx).
209 Members also had the following responsibilities13:
They had to check that toys and games were complete and in good condition before borrowing. They could only borrow and return toys during Bowen Library’s open hours. Toys and games could not be returned via the book chute; they had to be brought to the reception desk. Toys had to be cleaned before returning. Members had to check that toys/games were complete and in good condition before returning them. Their children had to be supervised by a responsible adult. When children played using toys or games in the toy area, those toys or games had to be packed up before leaving the area.
Local government
The toy library’s operations needed the support of Randwick City Council (RCC). As an organisation fully funded by RCC, the RCTGL ran under the council’s policies. All decisions taken by the toy library were approved by the council, through its Randwick City Library and Information Service manager.
Local government funding was a critical factor that ensured the toy library’s continued operation. As mentioned, the toy library was previously a joint initiative between the Randwick and Botany Bay City councils. When it was decided to establish independent libraries, RCC committed to continue operating the toy library. This resulted in a constantly operating toy lending service.
Local government support also allowed residents to enjoy low priced services. As a community service, this local government support was regarded as a cost subsidy. Compared with private toy libraries that charged fees per toy borrowed, a one time
13 The information is taken from the RCTGL website.
210 membership fee should be considered as a low cost service14. As an illustration, the $A35 membership fee was the equivalent of one good quality toy – or two or three toy hires from the Lane Cove Toy Library.
Although RCC funded the RCTGL, membership was not limited to Randwick residents. A number of members lived in the Botany Bay City area, as well as other neighbouring councils: Waverley Council and the City of Sydney15. This may have been because there was no toy library in their neighbourhoods or that Bowen Library featured their closest toy library.
5.2.3 Components of the RCTGL
Products
The main products of the toy library were toys and games. The RCTGL chooses toys based on their quality and their ability to entertain, educate and contribute to children’s physical and mental development. The following brochure (See Figure 5.5) shows a public notice about the RCTGL’s products. This brochure was distributed in other RCC libraries (Randwick and Matraville) and at the RCLIS events, including community workshops and exhibitions.
Another product the toy library provided was a toy area which could be used by the public without needing to be toy library members. Library members who came to Bowen Library with children could enjoy the range of toys in the toy area. Unlike other local government toy libraries in Sydney, the RCTGL allows the public to use toys in the toy area as long as they tidy up after use. The use of toys could attract members of the public to become toy library members.
14 This comparison was made based on website information from two private toy libraries: Brookvale Toy Library (www.brookvaletoylibrary.com.au) and Lane Cove Toy Library (www.lanecovetoylibrary.com/hire.php). 15 Although there is no exact figure on the number of members from other city council, based on the provided addresses for sending the questionnaires, at least a third of members were not from the Randwick City Council local government area. As addressees are confidential, no further details can be provided.
211
Figure 5. 5: A brochure informing the Randwick City Toy and Game Library
Services
As a toy lending service, the RCTGL’s main service is to facilitate a toy borrowing process. However, there are other related services, such as taking care of customer queries on toys, maintaining toys and repairing broken ones, following up toy reservations, supervising the use of the toy area, and overseeing fines and any other charges, including incomplete toy charges.
In terms of the borrowing process, some activities relate to the RCTGL services:
212 Providing toys and games and their clear description. As most toys and games are not only one piece products, the RCTGL must list their parts and ensure members check that toys and games are complete. Providing a check out process. As members cannot conduct self check outs of toys, a librarian needs to be ready at reception to ensure members have checked that toys are complete and in good condition. Providing a robust renewal process. The RCTGL allows members to do self renewal using an online catalogue, call the library or to come in in person to renew borrowings. Receiving returned toys and ensuring they are in good/working condition and complete. The RCTGL also runs a play workshop. Collaborating with the Youth Services, it also runs a weekly Kids’ Club.
Actor networks
Actor networks are related to the relationship between the various RCTGL organisations and toy library members. Figure 5.6 illustrates the relationship between the RCTGL and its members when toys are reported missing or broken.
Every member is responsible for checking check that toys are complete and in good condition before borrowing them. When a member discovers a toy he or she wants to borrow is incomplete, he/she reports it to reception. The receptionist files the case and reports it to the toy librarian. The toy librarian then checks to see who previously borrowed it. The toy librarian then contacts this member and confirms whether this member missed a piece of the borrowed toy. The librarian asks the member to find the missing part. If it can’t be found, the toy librarian would charge a fee as compensation. The toy is then replaced with another. If the missing piece does not affect function significantly, the toy is usually not withdrawn from the circulation.
213
Figure 5. 6: The relationship between the RCTGL and members in solving missing, incomplete or broken toys
When a member reports a broken toy, it is usually withdrawn temporarily from circulation. The toy library tries to find out if the toy can be fixed (at the library). If not, the librarian arranges a repair schedule. The toy is returned to the shelving area when fixed.
Infrastructure
The infrastructure needed for the toy library is mainly within the main library building, which is accessible to members via a variety of transport options. Members can use public transport or drive and use library parking spaces. Apart from the building, the toy library needs robust administrative processes and a reliable database system to catalogue all toys and to record all activities related to them – whether they’re on loan, reserved or have been written off.
214 5.3 PHASE 1: THE RCTGL PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
5.3.1 Procedures
As explained in the research methodology (Chapter 3), mixed methods research based on the combination of Embedded Design and Exploratory Design frameworks was used to analyse the RCTGL performance criteria. The quantitative method (a mail out survey) was the main method for this performance criteria analysis. This survey investigated members’ satisfaction levels, their profiles and their behaviour when using the RCTGL service.
Survey questions were designed based on the researcher’s observations and system analysis before the survey was undertaken. The questions were then discussed with RCC’s survey officer and the toy librarians. Once the survey was designed, a pilot study was conducted. It was used to face validate the survey design, focusing on reducing avoidable errors, such as non response errors and observational errors (Barnett & Barnett, 1991). Some non response errors, such as those occurring if selected samples do not assign any value to a variable of interest, do not reflect the required characteristics. However, as it was a targeted survey, the survey was only distributed among the toy library members, and non response errors would have been negligible. As a result, the pilot study focused on observational errors.
Observational errors or faulty information could be minimised by identifying and redesigning any misleading or wrongly expressed questions. Several toy library members were selected to participate in the pilot study. The researcher came to Bowen Library on three occasions and randomly selected two participants to fill in the survey. Subsequently, the researcher asked them what they understood about the questions, what questions they did not understand, and for other comments they had concerning the survey. The pilot study ended after members provided no more new comments. As a result, there were five respondents for the pilot study.
The survey was revised, based on their feedback. The revision included the use of more succinct, plain and no jargon wording and the avoidance of leading questions.
215 The survey was discussed again with the toy librarians and the RCC survey officer. At this stage, they suggested the survey be shortened to fit a single page, double sided A4 format. As a result, the survey was cut significantly, questions were reformatted and some demographic profiling questions were omitted. Appendix I 1 and I 2 show a comparison of the survey before the pilot study and its final design.
The mail out survey was distributed on April 20, 2007 to 661 members. Members selected for the survey were those who joined Randwick City Toy and Game Library between October 2005 and March 2007. However, nine letters were returned, resulting in 652 sent letters. The survey was intended to be returned by May 14, 2007 without any reminder letter. There were 161 respondents to the survey, giving a response rate of 25 per cent.
As with the GoGet case study, the survey results were analysed based on simple descriptive analysis, cross tabulations and multivariate analysis. The survey was then followed by interviews to further investigate members’ satisfaction levels, explore their consumption behaviour and to identify whether they practiced sustainable consumption. Twenty one toy library members were selected to be interviewed in May and June 2007. The question guidelines for these interviews can be found in Appendix J. Detailed profiles of the interviewees are given in section 5.3.4.
5.3.2 Demographic profiles
Based on the number of respondents, with the confidence level of 95 per cent, the confidence interval calculated to be 6.7 per cent. This meant the result was accepted for the entire population, with the accuracy of responses being between plus or minus 6.7 per cent except for the education background result that had the accuracy of 6.8 per cent because of its lower response rate.
Table 5.1 summarises the profiles of respondents. Most RCTGL members were women (92 per cent + 6.7 per cent) and are between 26 and 40 years of age (81 per
216 cent + 6.7 per cent) and the parents of children who used toys from the toy library (91 per cent + 6.7 per cent). Based on the education level, 90 per cent (+ 6.8 per cent) of the RCTGL members were educated to tertiary levels, with 22 per cent having degrees or certificates from college or TAFE, 37 per cent having undergraduate degrees and 31 per cent having postgraduate qualifications.
Table 5.1: Demographic profiles of the RCTGL members Gender No. of responses (%) Female 148 92% Male 13 8% Total 161 100% Which of these age groups do you belong to? No. of responses (%) 18 25 years old 5 3% 26 40 years old 131 81% 41 65 years old 20 12% 66 years old or above 4 2% prefer not to state 1 1% Total 161 100% What is your relationship to the child(ren) who use the No. of responses (%) toys from the toy library ?
parent 146 91% grandparent 9 6% nanny 3 2% other 2 1% Total 160 100% Which of these household's combined annual income No. of responses (%) category do you belong to (gross/before tax)? Up to $ 40,999 12 8% $ 41,000 $ 69,999 30 19% $ 70,000 $ 99,999 37 23% $100,000 or more 47 29% don't know / prefer not to state 34 21% Total 160 100% What is the highest level of education you have No. of responses (%) received? High school 14 9% TAFE/diploma 35 22% Undergraduate degree 58 37% Postgraduate degree 48 31% Other 2 1% Total 157 100%
217 5.3.3 User satisfaction performance
Mail out survey findings
In general, user satisfaction levels were measured on a scale from 1 (not satisfied at all) to 4 (very satisfied). Forty three per cent of the RCTGL members (43) said they were very satisfied with the system, 66 per cent (102 respondents) said they were satisfied and 5 per cent (eight respondents) were not satisfied. Only one respondent was dissatisfied with the service. This resulted in the overall rate of 3.2 of 4.
Further investigation of member satisfaction levels was conducted using the ServQual method (Zeithaml et al., 1990). This measured expectation (how important each factor was) and perception levels (how satisfied members felt about each factor).
Unlike the GoGet case study, where the expectation of an ideal car sharing scheme and the perception of GoGet services were asked about separately, the page size limitation of the RCTGL survey meant expectations and perceptions of the RCTGL service were asked simultaneously. They were asked on one table format (see Appendix I 2). For each factor, a respondent had to select two appropriate rates in based on the following instruction:
“The next questions will ask you what you think are important features for a toy library service (expectation column) and how you feel about the service provided by the Randwick City Toy and Game Library (perception column).
For the expectation, please circle 1 if you feel a feature is not at all essential, 2 if it is not essential, 3 if it is essential and 4 if it is absolutely essential.
For the perception, please circle 1 if you feel not satisfied at all with the related feature delivered by the toy library, 2 if you feel not satisfied, 3 if you feel satisfied and 4 if you feel very satisfied. If you think the feature is not applicable for you, please circle 9.”
After each factor was measured, the gap between each factor could be identified. If the expectation level was higher than the perception level, it meant action was
218 needed to satisfy members. If the perception level was higher than the expectation level, it proved the service was meeting member’s expectations, and indicated what the library need to do to maintain service quality.
The 20 items to be measured were categorised based on the ServQual dimensions. They are listed in Table 5.2.
Table 5. 2: Factors and variables of the ServQual method for the RCTGL case study Questions for the RCTGL members “what you think are important features for a toy library service ServQual dimensions (Zeithaml et al., (expectation column) and how you feel about the service 1990, p. 26) provided by the Randwick City Toy and Game Library (perception column)” has an extensive range of toys for different ages has multiple copies of the same toys Tangibles has an extensive range of educational toys “appearance of physical facilities, has an extensive range of entertaining toys equipment, personnel, and has toys which are complete communication materials” has toys which are in good condition provides toys for children with special needs has adequate space for children to play has a user friendly internet catalogue system has a user friendly online renewal system Reliability has a user friendly phone renewal system “ability to perform the promised provides activities for children service dependably and accurately” provides activities for (grand)parents/carers has staff who are willing to assist with problems has staff who are helpful and courteous Responsiveness has convenient/extensive opening hours “willingness to help customers and is easy to reach by public transport provide prompt service” has sufficient parking facilities Customer assurance “knowledge and courtesy of has staff who have knowledge about toys employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence” Empathy “caring and individualised attention allows members to make purchase suggestions the firm provides its customers”
These questions were identified as 20 variables, and are listed in Box 5.1. The responses for these variables were measured in four point Likert scales, based on the following criteria:
219 For expectations, the scale was designed based on how important respondents thought a particular factor was, with 1 = “not at all essential”, 2 = “not essential”, 3 = “essential” and 4 = “absolutely essential”. For perceptions, the scale was designed based on respondents’ satisfaction levels to related features delivered by the toy library, with 1 = “not satisfied at all”, 2 = “not satisfied”, 3 = “satisfied” and 4 = “very satisfied”. An additional response option of “not applicable” was given and coded as “9” and identified as a “missing value” for the statistical analysis. Box 5. 1: Service quality variables Factors variables 1 has an extensive range of toys for different ages range_age 2 has multiple copies of the same toys multiple_copies 3 has an extensive range of educational toys educational 4 has an extensive range of entertaining toys entertaining 5 has toys which are complete complete_toys 6 has toys which are in good condition good_condition 7 is easy to reach by public transport easy_access_PT 8 has sufficient parking facilities parking 9 has convenient/extensive opening hours opening_hours 10 provides activities for children act_child 11 provides activities for (grand)parents/carers act_parent 12 has adequate space for children to play space 13 has a user friendly internet catalogue system internet_catalogue 14 has a user friendly online renewal system online_renewal 15 has a user friendly phone renewal system phone_renewal 16 provides toys for children with special needs special_needs 17 allows members to make purchase suggestions purchase_sugg 18 has staff who are helpful and courteous helpful 19 has staff who have knowledge about toys knowledge 20 has staff who are willing to assist with problems assistance
220 Reliability Analysis
Cronbach’s alpha test was conducted to determine whether all criteria were reliable (Coakes et al., 2005). Cronbach’s alpha is a commonly used coefficient to identify if variables are standardised and is calculated based on the average correlation between variables. For the RCTGL service quality variables, based on the importance level of each factor and from all responses, the Cronbach’s alpha for the overall scale was 0.849. For each factor analysis, it suggested that one factor may be omitted. This factor was the extensive range of toys for different ages, or ‘range_age’ (no. 1). The Cronbach’s alpha becomes 0.854 if Factor 1 is deleted. The change of the Cronbach’s alpha is not significantly different (0.854 and 0.849); as a result no factor is omitted in this case. Appendix K 1 shows the result of this reliability analysis test.
Expectations and perception of the RCTGL service
Without omitting any factors, Table 5.3 highlights the importance and perception level of each ServQual factor. The importance and perception level per factor was calculated based on the average value from respondents, based on the defined Likert scales above.
From the results of the importance level, it can be seen that respondents valued each factor quite moderately. The values ranged from 2.78 (making purchase suggestions) to 3.32 (ease of reaching the toy library using public transport). There was no extreme rate of importance level, given that there was no value below 2 or above 3.5. The purchase suggestion had not yet been made available through the RCTGL service. Nevertheless, this factor was included as members may have considered participating if it was made available. The low importance level may not necessarily mean this factor was not important, but it may occur because members had not yet thought about it.
221 Table 5. 3: The expectation and perception values of the RCTGL service quality Factors Importance Satisfaction level level 1 has an extensive range of toys for different ages 3.15 3.49 2 has multiple copies of the same toys 3.02 3.46 3 has an extensive range of educational toys 2.99 3.03 4 has an extensive range of entertaining toys 2.97 3.51 5 has toys which are complete 3.13 3.19 6 has toys which are in good condition 3.22 3.55 7 is easy to reach by public transport 3.32 3.38 8 has sufficient parking facilities 3.27 2.99 9 has convenient/extensive opening hours 3.11 3.16 10 provides activities for children 3.30 3.20 11 provides activities for (grand)parents/carers 3.01 2.78 12 has adequate space for children to play 2.98 2.54 13 has a user friendly internet catalogue system 2.99 3.16 14 has a user friendly online renewal system 3.09 2.97 15 has a user friendly phone renewal system 3.28 3.09 16 provides toys for children with special needs 3.23 3.13 17 allows members to make purchase suggestions 2.78 3.15 18 has staff who are helpful and courteous 2.99 2.91 19 has staff who have knowledge about toys 3.26 3.36 20 has staff who are willing to assist with problems 3.07 3.13 The RCTGL members’ satisfaction levels (as shown by the perception scores) revealed interesting facts. The lowest level of the user satisfaction levels was on Factor 12 adequate space for children to play (2.54 of 4), followed by Factor 11 activities for (grand)parents/carers (2.78 of 4). Interestingly, the toy library’s main products, the collection of the toys (Factor 1 6), met members’ satisfaction levels, as satisfaction was higher than the perception levels.
Gap analysis
Similar to the GoGet case study, based on the expectation and perception levels above, a gap analysis was measured by overlaying both factors in a spider diagram. Figure 5.7 shows the gap between each factor. As described on the chart, the dark
222 orange line with diamond markers represents expectation levels and the light orange line with square markers denotes perception levels. When the light orange square markers showed a higher number than the dark orange diamond ones, the RCTGL had delivered better than expected quality for those variables. As a result, the service should be maintained as it is. If this had not been the case, improvements would have been required.
It was recommended that the RCTGL improve service quality for the following factors: the provision of a user friendly phone renewal system, a user friendly online renewal system, activities for children, activities for parents/grandparents/carers, adequate private vehicle parking, and adequate space for children to play. On the other hand, for some factors especially related to the toys and games the RCTGL had delivered better service quality than expected. Based on these results, the RCTGL should maintain at least the same level of quality.
1 range_age 2 20 assistance 4.00 multiple_copies 19 knowledge 3.50 3 educational 3.00 18 helpful 2.50 4 entertaining 2.00 17 1.50 5 purchase_sugg 1.00 complete_toys 0.50 16 6 special_needs 0.00 good_condition
15 7 phone_renewal easy_access_PT
14 8 parking online_renewal
13 9 Importance internet_catal… opening_hours level Satisfaction 12 space 10 act_child level 11 act_parent
Figure 5. 7: The Spider Diagram for the RCTGL Expectation and Perception Levels
223 Although 20 variables could be still treated individually, it was shown that product related factors (Factors 1 – 6) had similar perception and expectation rates. Therefore, those factors could be grouped, as could other factors. Thus, the following section outlines the factor analysis to reduce larger variables into a smaller set of variables.
Factor analysis
Factor analysis was conducted to see if factors were related (Coakes et al., 2005). Therefore, improvements could be considered in smaller groups sharing similarities and improvement would be more focused.
Similar to the GoGet case study, analysis was conducted using principal axis factoring (PAF) which is the common factor extraction method and a straightforward procedure. Appendix K 2 shows the factor analysis results. Unlike the GoGet case study, in which each factor was relatively easy to cluster (See Appendix E), responses of the RCTGL members were relatively harder to cluster. Based on the Scree Plot which suggests the number of factors based on the eigenvalue (See Appendix K 2), six factors are the highest number for the eigenvalue above 1. Then 7 to 9 factors have relatively similar eigenvalues.
The factor analysis recommended creating 6 factors. However, clustering factors into 6 groups in this case did not show the same theme of each group. For example, it was recommended that the ‘adequate space for children to play’ and ‘helpful and courteous staff’ factors be clustered together. However, because of classification of the previously designed ServQual dimensions (see Table 5.2, p. 217), these two factors were categorised into different dimensions (the ‘adequate space for children to play’ factor was a tangible dimension and the ‘helpful and courteous staff’ factor represented a responsiveness dimension). As a result, some grouping recommendations were further refined into more groups which still showed communalities among factors. This resulted in nine group factors.
224 Table 5.4 shows the clustering of all factors into 10 groups. New names were created as fresh themes for this clustering. There are two single factor groups, which are ‘an extensive range of toys for different ages’ (which is also shown as a single factor group recommended by the factor analysis) and ‘a user friendly internet catalogue system’ (internet_catalogue). It was suggested that the internet_catalogue be grouped with ‘the activities for parents/grandparents/carers and activities for children’ factor. However, because of the different ServQual dimensions previously created, the internet_catalogue factor was separated into two factors.
Table 5. 4: Factor analysis result Group New themes Original factors 1 responsiveness helpful assistance 2 product and service values educational space special_needs 3 access easy_access_PT parking opening_hours 4 service assurance purchase_sugg knowledge 5 physical products multiple_copies complete_toys good_condition 6 activities act_child act_parent 7 reliability renewal online_renewal phone_renewal 8 catalogue internet_catalogue 9 product added values entertaining range_age
New gap analysis based on the factor analysis result
Based on the new factors, a revised gap analysis was measured by overlaying new factors in a fresh spider diagram. All related variables for each factor were combined and averaged. Subsequently, new values for expectation and perception
225 levels were calculated. The new values are given in Table 5.5 and a revised spider diagram is illustrated in Figure 5.8.
Table 5. 5: The expectation and perception values for clustered factors Importance Satisfaction Category level level 1 responsiveness 3.03 3.02 1 2 product and service values 3.06 2.90 1 3 access 3.23 3.18 1 4 service assurance 3.02 3.26 2 5 physical products 3.12 3.40 2 6 activities 3.16 2.99 1 7 reliability renewal 3.19 3.03 1 8 catalogue 2.99 3.16 2 9 product added values 3.06 3.50 2 Based on the revised gap analysis, two categories of action could have been considered.
Category one: improvements were needed. Factors that needed improving are shaded in orange. This includes the responsiveness of the RCTGL staff (factor 1), product and service values (factor 2), access (factor 3), activities (factor 6) and renewal reliability (factor 7).
Category two: Service quality should be maintained. The RCTGL could maintain the same level of service for those factors shaded in blue service assurance (factor 4), physical products (factor 5), catalogue (factor 8) and product added values (factor 9).
226 1 responsiveness 4.00 9 product 3.50 2 product and added values 3.00 service values 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 8 catalogue 3 access 0.50 0.00
7 reliability 4 service renewal assurance
Importance level 5 physical 6 activities products Satisfaction level
Figure 5. 8: A revised spider diagram for the RCTGL service quality Drivers of joining the RCTGL
As well as user satisfaction levels analysed using the ServQual method, the survey also briefly asked members – through an open ended question their reasons for joining the Randwick City Toy and Game Library (“What is your reason for joining the toy library ?”). This question was used to investigate drivers of members for joining the toy library service.
Most members gave more than one reason. All answers were then textually analysed using content analysis. These answers were also coded into several themes. One response could be coded several times, depending on its association with the themes. This following list shows five main reasons and subcategories of reasons expressed by members.
227 Access to a range of toys (and other library facilities) variety of toys access to outdoor toys access to large and bulky toys access to high quality toys access to educational toys and for developmental reasons introduction to library Financial consideration money saving trial before deciding to buy cannot afford to buy toys avoid excessive use or purchase Environmental impacts consideration avoid waste less environmental impact sharing ideas Social activities social activities for children social activities for adults outing(s) with child(ren) entertaining child(ren) or playing time Overcoming barriers temporary stay working overseas storage problems recently relocating to Sydney occasional needs to access to toys
228 After all reasons were coded, the researcher tabulated all codes, and seven main reasons are listed in Table 5.6 and some statements given by some members concerning their reasons for joining the RCTGL are highlighted in Box 5.2.
Table 5. 6: Main reasons for joining the RCTGL Reasons No of responses Variety of toys 80 Money saving 32 Storage problems 18 Occasional need to access to toys 12 Access to educational toys and for developmental 7 reasons Access to large and bulky toys 7 Entertaining children or playing time 7 Access to a variety of toys was the main reason for most of members joining the toy library. The needs to access a variety of toys, a range of educational toys, and large and bulky toys that rarely owned by members were some of the main reasons for joining.
Financial consideration, especially money saving for purchasing toys, is another main reason for joining the RCTGL. 32 respondents said saving money was their main reason for being the RCTGL members. Some gave this as another reason for their need to access avariety of toys. For example, one mother said she joined because it gave her “access to a variety of toys for my young son to try. Save on cost of toys” (woman, 26 40 years group, lives in Maroubra).
Box 5. 2: The reasons for joining the RCTGL Variety of toys: “I can change toys quite regularly ‘cos I was aware how easily they get bored with toys” (female, 26 40 years old lives in Maroubra) “to access the large variety of toys and games without having to purchase them myself “ (female, 26 40 years old lives in Randwick)
Money saving: “Had a baby and save money on toys” (female, 26 40 years old lives in Coogee) “Access to variety of toys for my young son to try. Save on cost of toys.” (female, 26 40 years old lives in Maroubra)
229 Box 5.2: The reasons for joining the RCTGL (continued) Storage problems: “small apartment, thus no room to keep lots of toys. Love the ability to get "new" toys each fortnight” (female, 26 40 years old lives in Kingsford)
Occasional need to access to toys: “My 2 children live in the country and as it is not feasible for my daughter to bring toys when they come to visit, to find the toy library is wonderful.” (female, 41 65 years old, lives in Chifley/Malabar/La Perouse)
Access to educational toys and for developmental reasons: “To borrow toys that are educational. I can't afford to buy them and I don't have enough space at home” (female, 26 40 years old lives in Chifley/Malabar/La Perouse)
Access to large and bulky toys: “Had new (first) baby. Gained access to larger items that are expensive to buy” (female, 41 65 years old lives in Randwick)
Entertaining children or playing time: “To provide stimulation and entertainment for my three grandchildren” (female, 41 65 years old lives in Maroubra)
Storage issues were also given as a reason for joining. Most residents living in smaller units said they did not have enough space to keep toys. For example, a woman from Randwick said she joined the toy library to “try out new toys and also to sometimes borrow large items I wouldn’t like to buy as [I have] no storage space”.
An occasional need to access toys was another reason given by grandparents whose grandchildren occasionally visited them. A Coogee grandmother joined to provide toys for her month old grandson. A Maroubra grandfather joined for the following reason: “We babysit our three year old grandson three days a week and use [the] library”.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted to further explore user experiences in using the RCTGL service. The researcher tried to find interviewees who had varying relationships to
230 the children using toys from the RCTGL – including mothers, fathers and grandparents. However, there were no fathers or grandparents available to be interviewed. Two fathers, one grandmother and one grandfather were invited, but were unable to participate in the allotted period. As a result, interviews were conducted with mothers only, their age ranging from 27 to 41 years.
Table 5. 7: Interviewees profiles Pseudo Country of Occupation Age Area of No of The age of Tenure name birth Residence child(ren) the children condition Angela Argentina interior 34 Randwick 2 7 months rent Salvador designer old and 3 part time y.o. Britney UK nurse full 27 Clovelly 1 16 months rent recently Rust time old moving in from Perth Celine South Africa food stylish 36 Maroubra 1 2 y.o. own house in Aurelle part time mortgage Dianne Australia home duties 41 Kingsford 2 2 y.o. and 7 rent recently Parker y.o. moving in from Italy Gaby Yang China accountant 30 Maroubra 1 10 months rent recently full time old migrated from China Heidi UK home duties 32 Chifley 2 2 y.o. and 10 rent Scarlett y.o. Holly UK home duties 30 Bronte 1 10 months rent moving Smith old out to Gosford in 2008 Jacklyn Australia home duties 27 Botany 1 15 months subsidized Hadley old rental (from Navy Dept.) moving out to Perth in 2008 Jessica Australia flight 28 Kingsford 1 + 1 soon 1 y.o. own house in Spencer attendant mortgage full time Jin Thailand self 40 Maroubra 2 2 y.o. and 4 own house in Patsaporn employed y.o. mortgage Jennie Chu Thailand home duties 27 Maroubra 1 1 y.o. in laws own house Kristy Australia home duties 30 Malabar 1 1 y.o. rent Sebastian Kathy Rae Australia teacher 40 La Perouse 3 2 y.o., 10 own house in part time y.o., 13 y.o. mortgage Lucia Switzerland home duties 29 Clovelly 1 + 1 soon 14 months rent moving Maria old out overseas in 2008
231 Table 5.7: Interviewees profiles (continued) Pseudo Country of Occupation Age Area of No of The age of Tenure name birth Residence child(ren) the children condition Lydia Australia social policy 37 Maroubra 1 15 months own house in Wood researcher old mortgage part time Patricia Australia home duties 30 Kingsford 1 2 y.o. own house in Szabina mortgage Gina Paige Australia army officer 35 Maroubra 2 + 1 soon 1 1/2 y.o. own house in full time and 3 1/2 mortgage y.o Toshi Japan home duties 35 Maroubra 1 13 months rent moving Adams old out to North Gosford in 2008 Marisa Indonesia embassy 35 Chifley 2 3 1/2 y.o. own house in Panos officer part and 2 y.o. mortgage time Deborah Australia PhD student 31 Kingsford 2 1 y.o. and 3 own house in Crawford full time 1/2 y.o mortgage Shelly Singapore home duties 32 Coogee 2 3 y.o. and 14 rent student Wang months old visa until 2007
Table 5.7 outlines interviewees’ characteristics. These were interestingly different in terms of cultural backgrounds, occupations and residential tenure status. Fewer than half were born in Australia, and some like Gaby Yang who had migrated from China, Shelly Wang from Singapore, and Britney Rust from Perth, WA had moved to Sydney within the previous 12 months. Also, by 2008, five interviewees had moved from the Randwick City Council area even from Sydney.
In terms of occupations, about half the interviewees (10) resigned from their jobs when they had babies, and were dedicating their time to looking after their families (home duties). Four mothers were working full time, and the balance were working part time.
Similar characteristics included their residence, age of children and their age bracket. Most of lived in the Randwick area when the interviews were conducted. Only one interviewee lived in the Botany Bay City Council area (Jacklyn Hadley, from Botany) and one lived in the Waverley Council area (Holly Smith, from Bronte)16. All
16 Botany is bout 4 km from the Bowen Library and Bronteis about 7 km the Boven Library.
232 interviewees had at least one child, two years old or younger. The interviewees were aged between 27 and 41 years.
Interviews were mostly conducted at interviewee’s homes, although some were conducted at the library and one was at a cafe near the interviewee’s home. Interviewing at home was chosen for its convenience. The children could play by themselves or sleep during the interview. Most interviewees who chose their homes tried to match the interview time with their child’s nap time.
Although the interviews were designed to be semi structured, some questions were listed as guidelines. Appendix J shows the interview questions. Interviews were started with asking general questions, such as when they joined the RCTGL, their reasons for joining and a description of a typical day visiting Bowen Library. Subsequently, the researcher questioned interviewees on their experiences in using the toy library, investigated their satisfying and dissatisfying experiences, as well as their overall opinions of the RCTGL (especially if they had any experience with others). Interviews were followed by asking interviewees their recommendations, and more questions relating to their general consumption behaviour.
The interviews about the user satisfaction levels resulted in interesting opinions. Interviewees unanimously agreed that using the RCTGL service delivered pleasant experiences which supported their quality of life for example, being able to borrow a variety of toys, saving money and overcoming issues such as storage problems. The RCTGL enabled some members to socialise and allowed their children to socialise. The RCTGL service could also improve their knowledge and provide information relating to child development.
(1) Reasons for joining the RCTGL
Table 5.8 provides a summary of the matrix analysis of interview findings regarding members’ reasons for joining the RCTGL, their lengths of membership and their typical use of the RCTGL.
233 Table 5. 8: A matrix analysis of the reasons for joining the RCTGL Pseudo Length of Reasons for joining the RCTGL Frequency to go Typical days going to the name membership to the RCTGL RCTGL in June 2007
Angela 1.5 years stimulating learning process, once every by car with 2 children, Salvador socializing for children, getting new fortnight spent about 30 mins 1 hr toys what children like Britney 6 months variety of toys, cost saving to once every 6 early morning by bus with Rust access toys because the child gets weeks the child, spent 30 45 bored quickly with toys mins Celine 2 years close access, access to toys, trial 2 times a week walking with the child Aurelle process for toys that the child likes after doing shopping
Dianne 6 months access to toys, introducing new once a week on by car, afternoon with 2 Parker toys to children school holidays, children, morning with the once a month the young child other times
Gaby 5 months close access, making friends, once a week walking with the child in Yang socialising activities for parents and the morning children Heidi 1.5 years awaiting for toys shipped from UK, 2 times a week by car in the morning after Scarlett access to big outdoor toys dropping the children to school Holly 3 months cost saving, stimulating the child once every 2 by car, early afternoon Smith development weeks before schools finish Jacklyn 1 year variety of toys to keep up with once every 2 by car, morning or early Hadley children development weeks afternoon before schools finish and do shopping after Jessica 6 months variety of toys, cost saving, needing once a week on by car, afternoon with Spencer toys to stimulate children, keep the Wednesday child house tidy by not storing many toys, outings for the child Jin 2.5 years storage problem, cost saving, 2 times a week by car, in the morning and Patsapor variety of toys, ability to renew the go to the Kids Club n borrowings Jennie 5 months good range of toys, cost saving 2 times a week by car before nap time, go Chu to Kids Club and stay between 1 1.5 hr Kristy 1 year variety of toys, good play area 1 2 times per walking with the child in Sebastia week the morning n Kathy 1 year (and try out at first then always use toys once per week by car in the morning after Rae also 12 years from the toy library, cost saving dropping the children to ago for more school than 2 years) Lucia 7 months joining baby book reading once every two by car in the morning for 1 Maria workshop, free toys and changing weeks hr toys frequently, social activities for children and parents
234 Table 5.8: A matrix analysis of the reasons for joining the RCTGL (continued)
Pseudo Length of Reasons for joining the RCTGL Frequency to go Typical days going to the name membership to the RCTGL RCTGL in June 2007
Lydia 7 months environmental impact reduction, once every two by car and stay for 1 hr Wood cost saving weeks then do shopping Patricia 1 year free service, new place to go, more once every two by car after shopping on Szabina toys, cheap option, no buying big weeks Wednesday do attend the toys due to storage problem Kids Club Gina 1 year a member of a toy library in New once every week walking unless raining and Paige Zealand, when moved to Sydney, do small shopping on try to find one Wednesday also to attend Kids Club Toshi 3 months close access, variety of toys 1 2 times per by car with the child, Adams week walking if do not borrow big toys and also attend Kids Club Marisa 3 months access to toys and books, cost once every two by car between 15 40 Panos saving weeks minutes with children
Deborah 1 year variety of toys once every week on the weekend, by car or Crawford walking with the children Shelly 10 months a marvellous idea to have access to once every two by bus, a half day family Wang a variety of toys, significant cost weeks on day out, do grocery saving, minimizing purchased toys Thursday shopping, lunch and as only stay in Sydney temporarily afternoon coffee
It is shown that all interviewees joined the toy library to have access to variety of toys, given that children can be easily bored in a relatively short period with the same toys. Although some participants found the toys sometimes limited the shelves were relatively empty on rainy days or in winter, or the collection for some age categories was limited they agreed that the toy library, to a certain degree, provided them with low cost access to toys.
Cost saving was a common reason for the interviewees joining the RCTGL. No one was reluctant to pay the membership fee, as they said the membership fee equalled the cost of a single, good quality toy. As they had access to a variety of toys and could borrow different toys for up to six weeks, the membership fee was considered insignificant. Kathy Rae, who joined the RCTGL for her sons when they were small, had experienced a free toy lending service 12 years previously. She
235 said: “I first felt a bit unhappy [to pay the annual fee], but because it’s for the [library’s] running, I am happy to pay.”
For those living within walking distance of Bowen Library, close access to toys was the main reason for joining. Celine Aurelle, for example, had a number of reasons for joining close access, using the library as a trial for toys, having access to a variety of toys she didn’t have. She said: “It’s very close, first of all. It gives access to toys we don’t have and to see if he likes them for a long time and enjoys them, so then I know that I can buy it.” Similarly, Toshi Adams and Gaby Yang found it convenient to have access to a variety of toys close to where they lived.
Britney Rust who moved from Perth and Gina Paige who previously lived in New Zealand had used toy libraries in their previous neighbourhoods. When they moved to Sydney, they tried to find the closest toy library, and joined. They had experienced the benefits of having cost effective access to a variety of toys. Gina Paige said the RCTGL service was better than the one in New Zealand, as it combined toy library functions with a book library. The RCTGL also had a longer loan period and was cheaper.
Lydia Wood, quite differently, said her reasons for joining were mostly environmental – although it also provided a financial benefit. She said she never bought toys for her child, except for a good quality toy on his first birthday. Instead of buying toys, she preferred reborrowing the same toys if her child liked them.
(2) The use of the toy library for playtime and socialization
Most interviewees spent some time allowing their children to play in the toy area. They could spend an hour at the library, including playing in the toy area, and selecting books for themselves and the children. Sometimes, they came only to return toys and borrow others especially if they had to do other things, such as shopping, or if the library was crowded.
236 Shelly Wang, from Coogee, said a weekly visit to Bowen Library was like a day out for her family. As she travelled to the library by bus, and it took a long time, she preferred allowing her children to play in the toy library for a long time. They also spent time doing grocery shopping and having lunch before visiting the library, and had an afternoon coffee before returning home.
Kids’ Club on Wednesday was regarded as a playtime activity for the children. Jin, Jennie, Gina, Toshi and Patricia tried visiting the library on Wednesdays to attend Kids’ Club and to borrow toys. They considered Kids’ Club a good activity for their children; they could listen to stories, do crafting and socialise with other kids. However, some interviewees did not see Kids’ Club as appropriate for their children. Deborah, for example, who went to Kids’ Club only twice, felt her children were not old enough to enjoy the activities.
Some interviewees said they used the toy library for socialising. Gina, for example, regularly came on Wednesday to meet friends and let her children play with her friends’ children. As Wednesday was her day off, she tried to enjoy it with her children. They walked to the library, where they socialised, and later did some shopping if necessary. She allowed her children to play at the library but not borrow toys. She preferred coming back alone in the evening to borrow toys.
As all interviewees agreed the RCTGL provided a service that allowed their children to play and socialise with children the same age, most tried to avoid going to the library when it was crowded, especially after school hours (after 3 pm). As most usually went to the library with their children aged under two years, they felt it wasn’t safe leaving their children playing with bigger and older children at the same area. Lucia, for example, said it was hard for babies to play when big and older kids played in the toy area. She said “some are rough and don’t want to share”.
237 (3) Children’s happiness, social activities and customer service quality the best experiences of using the RCTGL
All interviewees agreed their lives had changed since having children. Their activities were mainly focused on their children’s activities. Kristy, for example, said:
“My time now is circulated around the baby.... My whole life has changed, really. You know, a lot of my energy is now on Olivia’s happiness rather than mine or the couple’s happiness...”
Similarly, Lucia used to work long hours before having a baby, but now considered herself a dedicated mother. She arranged good activities for her child, and said she did not miss anything from the past. She had chosen to look after her daughter herself, and had never left her alone except with her father.
Shelly, originally from Singapore, also said she chose to do everything for her children as she had no family support in Australia. She said: “I have great responsibility to do the best I can ... [and because there is] nobody else to stimulate them, I do everything...”
The fact that interviewees’ main interests were their children’s development and happiness made them regard their best experiences with the RCTGL as those that benefitted their children. For example, Lydia and Kristy remembered their best experiences were when their children were amused with a toy for hours, or when toys could keep them busy.
Similarly, a great variety of toys was the main best experience for many interviewees. The ability to select from a range of toys had provided satisfying experiences for parents as they believed such access would help them with children who easily got bored. Marisa said: “The idea of the toy library alone is brilliant, and the variety of toys is pretty good.” interviewees also appreciated the RCTGL for its efforts in providing new baby toys, and clean, good quality toys for all age groups. Heidi, Celine and Gina confirmed this as their satisfying experience. Gina added she found the baby toys were always reasonably new.
238 The place itself also had a good ambience for parents. Celine found the place was caring and nice. Similarly, Toshi felt the library was a safe place for her and her child. Some interviewees regarded the toy area as a plus that added to their nice experience. Celine said: “I actually think it’s very generous of them to allow people to play. As I said, half the time that’s the reason we go. We just go there to play and then come back down the road.”
Some interviewees saw the opportunity to meet old friends and to make new friends from Kids’ Club or at the toy library as their best experience. Britney, for example, said one of her satisfying experiences was meeting her friends at the toy library accidentally and knowing they use the same service. Jenny said the opportunity to meet new people and make friends with parents with common interests was a pleasant experience.
Friendly, helpful and informative staff was another best experience for interviewees. Jessica, in particular, was very happy with her first experience in joining the RCTGL. When she signed up, a librarian spent 30 minutes explaining what the toy library was, how it worked, and what other services and activities were available for members and the public.
Table 5.9 summarises their best experiences, as well as barriers that are discussed in the next subsection.
Table 5. 9: Experiences and recommendations from the RCTGL members Pseudo Satisfying Dissatisfying experiences Other remarks Recommendations name experiences Angela new toys to play no suitable toys on the chute on the ground Salvador with, good variety shelves, limited baby floor for toys, and quality of toys toys appropriate labels on toys Britney meeting friends hard to get there delivery service with Rust small fee, mobile toy library service Celine nice indoor activities, none the toy library is extended loan period, Aurelle nice & caring space, generous to let children hiding cookies from user friendly and play here children in the cafe as helpful staff, clean they attract children toys
239 Table 5.9: Experiences and recommendations from the RCTGL members (continued) Pseudo Satisfying Dissatisfying experiences Other remarks Recommendations name experiences Dianne great possibility for lack of supervision from tidying up toys if other natural light for the toy Parker children to play parents and carers, not children left the toy area together, friendly informative labels library untidy, occasional and helpful staff talk to other parents, toy library should be for everybody Gaby Yang good staff, making not a lot of activities, lack of language staff workshop for how to friends lack of quantity of toys, don't speak Chinese play with kids, parent dirty toys group activities Heidi variety of toys not a lot of toys for 10 more outdoor toys, Scarlett year old children more puzzles, more toys for 10 year old children Holly old and not enough toys people in Sydney are more toys for younger Smith more family oriented children, labels for toys, than in the UK catalogue with photos Jacklyn opening hours are not borrow 5 toys at once, it more educational toys Hadley early enough is the best idea to have for 1 2 years old children access to lots of toys for children who are easy to get bored Jessica helpful and not great variety of toys more variety of toys Spencer informative staff for 1 year old children and babies Jin big play area, hard to park, missing or toys are for birthday hire out cubby house Patsaporn cheaper compared to incomplete toys party too cheaper compared to Bondi Toy Library, other toy libraries very significant cost saving Jennie Chu when toys are nicely parents do not supervise finding friends through packed and library is their children causing Kids Club not too crowded messy play area and missing parts Kristy having toys that unclear regulation about need clearer judgement more free sharing Sebastian amused the child for missing pieces and when call regarding the fine for facilities hours, socializing, the toy has been missing toys, different meet and make replaced, the old one ways of labelling friends who have the was still kept by the same interests library Kathy Rae helpful staff, great hard to find a parking experienced with a free more parking space or variety of toys for all space toy library service, but better public transport ages, Internet service happy to pay for now Lucia friendly staff crowded, less toys in prefer to have few toys bigger play room, more Maria winter at a time, don't want to toys during the winter build up big storage of toys
240 Table 5.9: Experiences and recommendations from the RCTGL members (continued) Pseudo Satisfying Dissatisfying experiences Other remarks Recommendations name experiences Lydia get toys that he incomplete toys when more social activities good quality of toys Wood really likes and keep did not check in because him busy for a while was in rush Patricia playgroup active more big toys, playgroup Szabina from mother groups Gina Paige great variety of toys, being charged for meeting friends at the new baby toys, get missing piece of a toy toy library phone calls when a reservation arrives Toshi safe space no label about age on Japanese kids club label the toys with age Adams toys suitability Marisa variety of toys, the incomplete toys library is for children, put magazines close to Panos idea of toy library prevented the child to biggest interest about the toy area, more itself is brilliant borrow it and caused library is for the children stringent rule about disappointment not for self missing toys Deborah great space, lots of effort to go by pram open earlier than 10 am, Crawford toys wider space to play, ability to drop toys downstairs Shelly great ideas that do small play room, hard to toy library concept could more educational soft Wang not have to buy toys go there be refused in Singapore toys, minimize as the Singaporean unnecessary adult toys reluctantly use the used things
(4) Barriers and dissatisfying experiences of using the RCTGL
Although most members were generally satisfied with the RCTGL service, they also had some dissatisfying experiences and barriers that prevented them from using the RCTGL service optimally.
Six interviewees indentified a limited range of toys as their dissatisfying experiences. Toys seemed to be limited for certain age groups. Jessica and Angela, for example, said there seemed to be a lack of baby toys and toys for one year olds. Holly and Gaby also said they found toys were limited for their children, who were also younger than 12 months when the interviews were conducted. Heidy, on the other hand, said the toys for children 10 years and older were limited. Lucia also said that during colder winter or rainy days, she had a problem with lack of toys.
241 She suspected more parents and children spent their time indoors, and the toy library became one of their options.
Apart from the quantity of toys, their quality was another dissatisfying experience. Old or dirty and missing or incomplete toys were seen by four interviewees as their dissatisfying experiences. Marisa, Jin and Lydia identified incomplete toys as their dissatisfying experience. Gaby found the toys were once dirty, and Holy said sometimes she could only found old toys left on the shelves.
Incomplete toys, to a certain degree, prevented optimal play and could cause disappointment for children. Lydia said she found the RCTGL service was great; she only had a problem when she borrowed a toy in rush, and didn’t have time to check whether the toy was complete. When she got home, she discovered the toy was incomplete. When she rang Bowen Library, the librarian noted issue and didn’t charge her for a incomplete toy. However, the missing piece stopped child from playing optimally with the toy.
Incomplete toys could also stop members from borrowing toys, which – in turn might cause children to be disappointed. Marisa, for example, found out a toy her son had selected had a piece missing. When she went to the librarian to ask for the missing piece and to borrow the toy, the librarian wouldn’t process the transaction, disappointing her son.
Incomplete toys, when borrowed, could cause other problems. Jin once borrowed a jigsaw puzzle and it was hard to tell whether the puzzle was complete or not. Once her child had almost finished the puzzle, she found some pieces were missing, meaning the task could not be completed.
Access to the library could be another barrier for some members. Kathy and Jin found it difficult to get parking space. Deborah, Britney, and Shelly had problems getting to Bowen Library. While Deborah said that it was hard to walk there with toys and a double pram with two children, Britney and Shelly found it hard to get there by bus. Britney, from Bronte, could only catch a certain bus (Route 400), and
242 it was hard to find an empty bus with wheelchair access (she took her child in a pram). Similarly, Shelly, from Coogee, could only use an infrequent bus service. She said: “It’s a big project for us to go there [the RCTGL], there’s only one bus and it’s infrequent, once every 30 minutes, and we have to bring toys by bus and going back, we again have to struggle with bringing toys home.”
Another irritating experience for interviewees was the lack of supervision by other parents or carers, especially of older children. June and Dianne considered it to be their most dissatisfying experience. June said that if parents did not supervise adequately, children could open toys without tidying up, and this caused parts to go missing and for the play area to be messy. Similarly, Dianne said children with inadequate supervision might become involved in inappropriate behaviour and could create chaos in the toy area. She said: “In wanting to make sure the service is still provided, I end up tidying up lots of toys when I go down there. But you can’t really rely on the library to impose anything ... just the circumstances some parents and carers, and they probably just go there wanting to have break with the children.”
Some other dissatisfying experiences resulted from unclear information about toys or a lack of labelling, unclear regulations regarding fines for missing toys, a lack of activities, late opening hours, and the small toy area that made the area crowded at certain times. Kristy, who was fined for a missing piece of a toy she borrowed, said it was at first unclear whether she had to pay or not. When she finally had to replace the toy, she was fine with the decision, but felt dissatisfied as the library wanted to keep the old toy with the missing piece. Gaby wanted have more activities for children and parents, and Jacklyn said the library didn’t open early enough (it opens at 10 am). Shelly felt the toy area was too small, and Lucia found it crowded.
Barrier and dissatisfying experience can also be indentified by investigating members who chose to quit the membership. However, it is harder to check if the RCTGL members are no longer users of the service as the membership is valid for a
243 year (with a full joining fee paid in advance). There is no necessity for the members to inform the library if they want to quit, they just simply not come back to the library. As a result, there might be members who chose not to use the service anymore but did nothing to stop the membership. Thus, the only way to identify wether the members still use the service or not is only if they moved to other cities or countries. Using a follow up check a year after the interview, from 21 interviewees of the RCTGL members, there were 5 interviewees who moved out from Sydney and consequently did not use the toy library service anymore. However, they wished to use a similar service if available in their neighbourhood. Thus, the only identified factor that pushes back the intended change processes is the unavailability of the toy library service in their area.
(5) Recommendation for the RCTGL
Most interviewees recommended the RCTGL should have more toys. Some recommended soft toys, and others recommended educational toys. They suggested toys should be provided proportionally for all age groups. As all interviewees had children under two, most suggested more toys for this age group. Shelly also suggested minimising unnecessary games for adults, which are also available at Bowen library.
Many interviewees suggested the RCTGL could provide a toy chute. At the time, there was chute at ground level for books only. As most of the interviewees came to the library with children in prams, they found it difficult to go upstairs (to Level 1) with the baby, pram and toys. A dropping area or a chute at ground level would have made life easier.
Proper labelling, including information on age suitability, was another recommendation. Toshi, for example, sometimes was not sure if toys were appropriated for her son. Holly also wanted clear labelling on toys including the number of pieces and brief information on the toys. Holy said she also wanted to catalogue with photos. As she lived further away from Bowen Library (in Bronte, in
244 Waverley Council’s area), she wanted to reserved toys online. As a result, she expected to have a catalogue with photos that could visually explain characteristics of the toys.
Other recommendations included:
facility improvements, such as a bigger play room, magazines closer to the toy area, earlier opening hours (earlier than 10 am) additional facilities such as a small fee based delivery, and cubby house hire and cheaper prices than other toy lending services. additional activities, such as activities or workshops covering how to play with children, and more parent group activities. These recommendations were most likely related to their barriers to using the RCTGL optimally or to their dissatisfying experiences.
Summary
The mail out survey, despite its limitations, confirmed a relatively good quality of service from the RCTGL. The rate of the satisfaction levels for service quality factors ranged from 2.54 (adequate space for children to play) to 3.55 (the toys are in good condition). However, many members rated their satisfaction level lower than their expectation for some factors including product and service values (educational toys, toys for children with special need, space for children to play), and activities for children and parents/carers. The ServQual method satisfactorily identified areas that needed improving based on the gap between members’ perceptions and expectations.
The interviews further explored user satisfaction levels. The interviewees indicated significant issues relating to their experiences, and from there, some satisfying and dissatisfying experiences were revealed. Most members were happy with the toy collections and the variety, although they sometimes found empty shelves, there
245 were no more new toys to borrow, or there were no toys for their children’s age groups. Some problems interviewees faced included incomplete or dirty toys and a lack of adult supervision for other children, especially bigger, older kids.
However, interviewees agreed the service had provided them with a satisfying, pleasant experience especially given the cheap access or almost free access to a variety of toys, in turn, making a significant cost saving compared with buying toys. This access to a variety of toys also helped them cope with the fact that children could easily become bored with toys. It also helped them with storage problems, as they didn’t need to keep the toys at home permanently.
The above contradictory satisfying and dissatisfying experiences show that the RCTGL members consider their satisfaction level becomes a relative condition to the access to a wide range of toys. Although some members said that the toy collections sometimes were limited, they were still happy with the toy library services. The study shows that a great variety of toys becomes the best experience for them while using the toy library service despite its limited collection in certain periods or after frequent visits. This represents their tolerance into service quality is seen as a relative satisfaction level to the access to a wide range of toys. The tolerance to accept a limited collection of toys seems to happen because they have access to a relatively low cost service and a very convenient place for their children to play.
In line with their experiences, interviewees highlighted some features they believed could be improved such as more quantity toys, proper labelling, wider play area, an easy toy return process, and additional facilities and activities.
5.3.4 Sustainable consumption behaviour performance
Although the use of the toy library did not seem to have a direct correlation with environmental sustainable practice, this section attempts to investigate whether
246 the RCTGL members practiced sustainability through their use of the toy library. The mail out survey was used to identify the patterns of the RCTGL members in using the toy library service. Furthermore, interviews were used to explore how far the RCTGL members had practiced sustainability.
Quantitative data analysis – mail out survey
The survey tried to identify the travel behaviour of the RCTGL members when they visited Bowen Library. Questions covered modes of transport used to get to and from the Library, whether the members travelled alone or with others, and their overall destinations – whether they went exclusively to Bowen Library or went on to other places as well. These questions were general. However, in this study, the researcher tried to create a pattern of the average RCTGL member’s use of the toy library and to compare this with a non RCTGL member in terms of accessing toys.
Table 5.10 shows the typical days of the RCTGL members going to and from the toy library. Most members visited the toy library every two weeks (33 per cent) by car (82 per cent). The data also showed it was unlikely members visited Bowen Library alone (5 per cent). They usually visited to borrow toys and books at the same time. More than half of respondents also went to other places before or after visiting the library. Most who went to other places did grocery shopping.
Table 5. 10: The RCTGL members’ pattern of the use of the toy library
No. of Percentage How often do you go to the toy library? responses (%) once a week or more frequently 23 14% once every fortnight 53 33% once a month 39 24% once every 2 months 23 14% less frequently than every 2 months 23 14% Total 161 100% (CI=6.7% with the confidence level = 95%)
247 Table 5.10: The RCTGL members’ pattern of the use of the toy library (continued)
How do you usually go to and from the No. of Percentage toy library? responses (%) by car 131 82% walk 23 14% by public transport 5 3% by bicycle 0 0% other modes of transport 1 1% Total 160 100% (CI=6.7% with the confidence level = 95%)
With whom do you usually go to the No. of Percentage toy library? responses (%) alone 8 5% with child 117 72% with partner 1 1% with child and partner 26 16% with grandchild 7 4% with child that I care for 3 2% Total 162 100% (CI=6.7% with the confidence level = 95%)
Do you usually go somewhere else before or after going to the toy library? yes 86 respondents no 76 respondents
No. of If yes, where else do you go? respondents go shopping 75 go to work - paid/voluntary job 11 go to relative(s)/friend(s) place 2 other 8 Total 96
Although it was not guaranteed that the RCTGL members did not buy toys as they had access to a variety of toys for their children or children they cared for it is
248 more likely they significantly reduced the number of toys they bought because they frequently went to Bowen Library17.
A brief scenario is created to observe the environmental impact of the use of a toy library. The scenario compared a typical toy library member with characteristics that had been identified in the survey and another parent who didn’t use a toy library service. ABS data shows that in 2005, annual spending on toys per child was $A212 (Shepherd, 2006). This spending equated to buying 8 10 toys a year. This data is used for a typical parent who didn’t join a toy library. It gives an average this parent would spend buying toys for a child every six weeks.
Table 5.11 presents the comparison of an RCTGL member and another parent who hasn’t joined a toy library. Based on this scenario, a simple environmental impact analysis was conducted using an adapted wheel diagram (Crul & Diehl, 2007) that only focuses on the use phase of toys. There are only four applicable factors for the analysis: material use (based on the number of toys the child owns), product transport from shop/library to home, product lifespan and economic feasibility.
Table 5.11: Profile comparison between an RCTGL member and a non RCTGL member an RCTGL members a non member borrowing a toy every two weeks purchasing a toy every six weeks going to the RCTGL by car going the a toy shop by car paying an annual membership fee = $A35 annual spending for toys = $A212 buying one toy only every year
Some assumption used for the scenarios are:
the toys bought or borrowed are exactly the same (to avoid any complicated analysis about production and distribution phase of the product)
the analysis only focuses on the use phase, from the time the toys were bought until their disposal
17 The interviews with some RCTGL members revealed that most members only bought toys few times only or even only one time. There were three interviewees who did not purchase any toy after
249 the distance from home to the toy shop, and from home to the toy library (Bowen Library) is considered to be the same.
All factors were rated from 0 to 5, where 5 is the best value and 0 is the worst value. The rates were based on working assumption and limited by available data. As a result, this analysis aims only to provide a brief description instead of an evaluative tool.
Figure 5.9 represents the adapted wheel diagram for sustainability performance factors of the RCTGL compared to the private ownership of toys.
product transport 5 4 3 2 1 number of toys 0 product lifetime per child
an RCTGL member non member economic feasibility
Figure 5. 9: A wheel diagram between the use of a toy library system and the ownership of toys For the number of toys per child, it was assumed an RCTGL member bought only one toy each year while a non member bought eight toys each year. The total number of toys owned by the RCTGL was 1300, used and borrowed by 661 members (see p. 204). This resulted in a ratio of toys to members of 2:1. Therefore, the approximate number of toys “owned” by an RCTGL member was 3 (=2+1 where
joining the RCTGL (Lucia, Britney, and Shelly).
250 2 represents the RCTGL shared toys and 1 represents a bought toy). The number of toys owned by a non member is simply eight. The more the toys owned, the worse the rate is. Thus, for the number of toys per child, the rate was calculated by inversing the number that gives three points for an RCTGL member and one point for a non member.
In terms of energy to and from the library or a toy shop, an RCTGL member would travel more than a non member. As the RCTGL member visited the toy library every two weeks and the non member went to a toy shop every six weeks, the RCTGL member consumed three times more energy than the non member. Similar to the number of toys per child, the more energy consumed in travel, the worse the rate. It thus gives one point for the member and three for the non member (the inversed rate).
In terms of product lifespan, the longer the product’s useful life, the better the rate. An informal discussion with the toy librarian indicated that toys were usually written off from the loan collection after five years even longer, depending on function. The toy lifespan for a non member tended to be shorter; a toy was likely only used for one year as children got bored of it or outgrew the toy.
After this period, the decision taken by the RCTGL and the non member is considered to be the same – donating the toy to a charity organisation or giving it away. As a result, the impact analysed here is only based on the first hand lifetime. Based on this analysis, the rate given to the RCTG member is 5 and the non member is 1.
The economic feasibility was simply calculated based on the annual spending for toys. The more money spent, the worse the rate. The RCTGL member spent $A35 a year (for membership) and about $A25 buying one toy – or a total of $A60. The non member spent $A212 on buying toys. Thus, three points were allocated to the RCTGL member and one point was allocated to the non member.
251 The next section discusses improvements to the RCTGL service based on using collaborative design involving staff and members.
Qualitative data analysis
Besides identifying a deeper meaning of user satisfaction level, the interviews also investigated sustainable behaviour from the RCTGL members as well as the intention to change to a more sustainable lifestyle. Similar to the GoGet case study, sustainable behaviour of participants were characterised by the spectrum of voluntary simplicity (VS) (Hamilton & Mail, 2003; McDonald et al., 2006). However, the use of VS spectrum did not specifically refer to a particular sector like transport for the car sharing case. The VS spectrum was identified based on their general lifestyle that was asked during the interview. Furthermore, the NOA model (Gatersleben & Vlek, 1998) was used to identify their needs, opportunity and ability that could lead to a change to more sustainable behaviour.
Interview data were then thematically analysed and presented in a thematic matrix as illustrated in Table 5.12. The VS practice of in this study was identified based on VS’ categorisation from McDonalds, Oates, Young, and Hwang (2006) which are:
Voluntary simplifiers (VS) are “people who have adopted little or no sustainable consumption practices.” (McDonald et al., 2006, p.524). They do not recycle, do not use organic or fair trade produce, have no attempts to save energy or to use more non motor vehicle or public transport for travelling.
Non voluntary simplifiers (NVS) are people “who lead an anti consumer life underpinned by a philosophical rejection of the social norms of a capitalist society” (McDonald et al., 2006, p.524 525).
Beginner voluntary simplifiers (BVS) are people in between the two categorisations above: those who accept and practice the idea of non
252 consumerism but not consistently along the time or those who have not yet apply the idea in all aspects of life.
The table shows that most interviewees were still categorised into the NVS position, and a third of them were BVS. Only three were considered to be voluntary simplifiers. The categorisation was made based on their preferences to environmental impact reduction activities or the intention to prefer a simpler lifestyle in terms of consumption practices.
Table 5. 12: The voluntary simplicity spectrum of the RCTGL interviewees Pseudoname Voluntary Reason/evidence Characteristics simplicity spectrum
Celine Aurelle NVS Changed priority because of Quitted job and moved after having a child, external force having a baby, no preferred finding activities and facilities for philosophical or environmental kids and lived in the area which was more reasons. kid friendly. Gaby Yang NVS The use of a toy library did not Was willing to join charity or voluntary prevent her buying toys. organization to have new friends Gina Paige NVS Had not had any change of Focused on work and children, education lifestyle to a more sustainable was her main concern. way. Heidi Scarlett NVS Did not show any change Had more relaxed lifestyle after moving to between the UK lifestyle and the Australia, focused on children after Australia's one. marriage Holly Smith NVS Did not have any reason to Had a more family orientated life in change lifestyle to a VS one. Australia compared to in the UK, influenced by Australia lifestyle Jacklyn Hadley NVS Less water consumption was Concerned with water consumption, got practised due to regulation and used to water restriction in Perth where she external condition. spent her childhood time. Jennie Chu NVS Exercised sharing in a very limited The use of toy library as a media to meet area, only among closed friends friends and to create playgroup among them. Created social activities and do more sharing among playgroup members. Jin Patsaporn NVS Simple lifestyle because of Never bought toys due to cost saving, Lived financial reasons. independently due to no relatives in Australia (she and her partner were both born overseas) Marisa Panos NVS Was not aware about Family was the first priority, kept working environmental issue and did not after having children. Had similar lifestyle practise simpler life due to with before having children environmental or philosophical reasons.
253 Table 5.12: The voluntary simplicity spectrum of the RCTGL interviewees (continued)
Pseudoname Voluntary Reason/evidence Characteristics simplicity spectrum
Patricia NVS Did not show any VS practice, the Focused on child and activities around child Szabina use of toy library is merely a cost development active in playgroup saving option. Shelly Wang NVS Chose simple lifestyle due to Focused on children and their activities and financial restriction. decided to be a full housewife and dedicated her life for family. Angela BVS Tended to exercise VS compared Had strong family bond and friendship in Salvador to the lifestyle in Argentina Argentina, relaxed life in Australia. Liked to (simpler life). use bus if possible, because it was more convenient to go to the library by bus.
Britney Rust BVS Had environmental awareness Consciously used electricity and water. and tended to practice VS based Organic food consumption. Recycling and on environmental perspective. less plastic use, no chemical in food and cleaning agents. Deborah BVS Practiced some environmental Focused on intellectual development and Crawford impact reduction activities, believed that she could contribute to consciously chose a lifestyle society through research, believed that based on philosophical reasons. gender equality means females need to have the same level of intelligence. Jessica BVS Preferred simple life but not in Kept life simple after having a child, Spencer every aspect of life. including changing job. Concerned with water consumption, lived in countryside and experienced with drought and other water issues. Kathy Rae BVS Had simple life in most aspect of Focused on work and children, tried to be life but in some areas, it is driven simple and realistic with her life or restricted by financial reasons. Kristy BVS Equality in the society is her main Concerned with a friendlier environment in Sebastian concerns and concerned with the future, Thought about managing more social values in the environmental resources around neighbourhood. neighbourhood and expected more sharing facilities in the neighbourhood. Lucia Maria BVS Preferred using everyday Kept life simple after having a child, materials for child's toys and preferred worked for shorter hours. activities and started practising simpler lifestyle after having a child. Dianne Parker VS Had practised simple life for a Strongly concerns with human rights. few years, reduced energy Advocates equal opportunity for everyone, consumption including the use of equal and high quality of education for a car, and had philosophical every child. Reduces water consumption reasons for her lifestyle option. and consumes mostly organic food.
254 Table 5.12: The voluntary simplicity spectrum of the RCTGL interviewees (continued)
Pseudoname Voluntary Reason/evidence Characteristics simplicity spectrum
Lydia Wood VS Had practised simple life for years An environmentally conscious person, and had environmental reasons practised environmental impact reduction in mind. activities, such as composting, installing rain water tank, consuming organic food and using organic cleaning agents. Toshi Adams VS Practised permaculture18 and Had a strong cultural background, did decided to have a much simpler environmental friendly activities influenced lifestyle by moving to a rural area by husbands and in laws (in 2008).
Most NVS – when were asked implicitly or explicitly about their view about the environmental – did not show their environmental sustainable practices or an intention to change to a more sustainable way of living. For example, Marisa frankly said that she did not think about environmental impact reduction when borrowing toys from the RCTGL or she did not think about environmental impact by choosing to drive for her travelling. Or, if they said they did, it was driven by external factor rather than their consciousness. Jacklyn, for example, tried to use less water. However, it was because she was used to have water restriction regulation in Perth, Western Australia, as Western Australia is an arid area and stringently enforces water restriction to its residents.
Some non voluntary simplifiers were relatively new in Australia. They migrated from other countries, and they still practised the same lifestyle as in their previous country. Some of them seemed to have other priority than preferring voluntary simplicity. For example, Gaby’s current priority was to find a job and to have new friends. Holy and Heidi who moved from the UK to Australia after having baby focused more on raising their children in different situation rather than thinking to change their lifestyles to a more sustainable way.
18 Permaculture (permanent agriculture which then referred to permanent – sustainable – culture) is an ecological design system the use of system thinking and design principles that provide framework for developing a sustainable future (Holmgren, 2002).
255 Dealing with financial problems also made some interviewees focused more on financial strategy rather than choosing a more sustainable lifestyle. When simpler lifestyle gave financial benefits, they would practise a simpler life. Jin and Shelly almost never purchased toys for their children for cost saving. Thus, they chose to join toy library mainly for this reason.
Beginner voluntary simplifiers (BVS) tended to practise simpler life by intentionally reducing the consumption levels. The consumption level reduction was done because of their own consciousness, not because of other external forces. What distinguish BVS and VS are the area of implementation and the period of exercising the voluntary simplicity practices. BVS usually reduce the consumption levels partially in the aspects of the life while VS tend to reduce their consumption level in all or most aspects of their life. Jessica, for example, practised simpler life after having baby and continued to reduce water consumption based on her consciousness formed since she lived in a rural arid area. Kathy tended to have simpler life and practiced sustainable behaviour in travelling, cleaning and purchasing food. However, when it came to financial investment, she preferred not doing that. For example, she hesitated to eco design her house for reducing water and energy by installing rain water tank or solar panel, because it was costly and out of her budget.
Three interviewees were categorised into voluntary simplifiers: Dianne, Lydia and Toshi. Dianne worked for an aid and development organization for a few years and this made her concerned with injustice and sustainability. She then always stood for egalitarian issues and at the same time practised a sustainable lifestyle. Toshi had a strong Japanese cultural background and maintained networks with Japanese friends. At the same time she had a strong influence of environmental sustainability from her partner and in laws. As a result, she concerned about indigenous culture and willingly adopted permaculture in her lifestyle. Lydia was working as a social worker and practised sustainability for a long time. She actively involved in
256 sustainable gardening in Marrickville19 before moving to Randwick. She started to practise her sustainable lifestyle in Randwick community by joining the toy library.
In terms of the intention to change to sustainable consumption, the NOA model was used to identify the related factors for the RCTGL members. This model investigated the needs, opportunity and ability of the RCTGL members that would support sustainable consumption. Table 5.13 summarises the needs, opportunity and ability of the RCTGL members in terms of the use of its services. To further analyse the needs, the Holbrook's typology of consumer values (Holbrook, 1999) was used (see Table 5.14 in p. 257 as reference).
Table 5. 13: The need, opportunity and ability of the use of the RCTGL services Pseudo Voluntary Needs Holbrook's Opportunity Ability name simplicity typology spectrum Angela NVS proximity or performance, development efficiency, availability spatial Salvador (self oriented, active extrinsic), pleasure play and price for kid (self oriented, active intrinsic) Britney NVS social activities (active extrinsic, other status, availability spatial Rust oriented), proximity (self oriented, active efficiency and price extrinsic) Deborah NVS social activities (active extrinsic, other status, availability spatial Crawford oriented), proximity (self oriented, active efficiency and price extrinsic) Jessica NVS temporary toys or leisure time (self play availability spatial Spencer oriented, active intrinsic) and price Kathy Rae NVS money (low cost access to toy) (other esteem, availability spatial and oriented, reactive reactive), development efficiency and price cognitive (self oriented, active extrinsic) Kristy NVS pleasure and leisure time for children play, availability spatial and Sebastian (self oriented, active intrinsic), efficiency and price temporal development (self oriented, active extrinsic) Lucia NVS money (low cost access to toy) (other esteem, availability spatial Maria oriented, reactive extrinsic), social status, and price activities (other oriented, active efficiency extrinsic), development (self oriented, active extrinsic)
19 Marrickville is a suburb in inner city of Sydney that is about 18 km from the Bowen Library.
257 Table 5.13: The need, opportunity and ability of the use of the RCTGL services (continued) Pseudo Voluntary Needs Holbrook's Opportunity Ability name simplicity typology spectrum Celine NVS money (low cost access to toy) (other esteem, play availability spatial Aurelle oriented, reactive extrinsic) storage and price problem (self control) (self oriented, active intrinsic) Gaby Yang NVS money (low cost access to toy) (other esteem, availability spatial oriented, reactive extrinsic), pleasure for play, and price kids (self oriented, active intrinsic), efficiency development (self oriented, active extrinsic) Gina Paige NVS money (low cost access to toy) (other esteem, availability spatial and oriented, reactive extrinsic), development efficiency and price cognitive (self oriented, active extrinsic) Heidi NVS money (low cost access to toy) (other esteem availability spatial and Scarlett oriented, reactive extrinsic), leisure time and price temporal (self oriented, active intrinsic), development (self oriented, active extrinsic) Holly BVS pleasure for kids (self oriented, active play, status, availability spatial and Smith intrinsic), development (self oriented, efficiency and price cognitive active extrinsic), social relations for kids and parent (other oriented, active extrinsic) Jacklyn BVS pleasure for kids (not get bored easily), play, esteem availability spatial Hadley money or cost reduction (other oriented, and price reactive extrinsic) Jennie Chu BVS pleasure for kids (self oriented, active play, availability spatial intrinsic), development (self oriented, efficiency and price active extrinsic) Jin BVS self control (tidy house, stimulating play, availability spatial Patsaporn children based on only a few of toys) (self efficiency and price oriented, active intrinsic) Marisa BVS money (low cost access to toy) (other esteem, availability spatial Panos oriented, reactive extrinsic), development efficiency and price (self oriented, active extrinsic) Patricia BVS money (low cost access to toy) (other esteem, availability spatial Szabina oriented, reactive extrinsic), social status, and price activities (other oriented, active efficiency extrinsic), development (self oriented, active extrinsic)
258 Table 5.13: The need, opportunity and ability of the use of the RCTGL services (continued) Pseudo Voluntary Needs Holbrook's Opportunity Ability name simplicity typology spectrum Shelly BVS money (low cost access to toy) (other esteem, availability Spatial and Wang oriented, reactive extrinsic), social status, and price temporal activities (other oriented, active efficiency extrinsic), development (self oriented, active extrinsic) Dianne VS pleasure and leisure time for children play, availability spatial Parker (self oriented, active intrinsic), efficiency, and price development (self oriented, active status extrinsic), social relations for kids and parent (other oriented, active extrinsic) Lydia VS environmental reason (other oriented, ethics, availability spatial Wood active intrinsic), money or cost saving esteem and price (other oriented, reactive extrinsic) Toshi VS proximity (performance) (self oriented, efficiency availability spatial Adams active extrinsic), development (self and price oriented, active extrinsic)
Table 5. 14: The relationship between indicators of needs and the Holbrook’s typology of consumer values
259 (1) Needs
The needs identification related to the use of the RCTGL services seems to be similar regardless of the VS spectrum. Most interviewees expressed that they used toy library for children development by accessing various toys and games (education and knowledge development that is categorised into efficiency). The second highest expressed need was cost saving as they found the use of toy library was significantly cheaper than purchasing toys. The only expressed need that specific to VS interviewee is the environmental impact which is categorised into ethics in the Holbrook’s typology. Lydia stated that her main reason to use toy library was the environmental impact reduction. No one else said this need of accessing the RCTGL services.
Table 5. 15: The categorisation of needs based on the Holbrook’s typology and the VS spectrum
Table 5.14 shows how the RCTGL interviewees’ needs were categorised based on both the Holbrook’s typology and the VS spectrum. It can be seen that their needs related to the RCTGL services were mainly in 4 areas: efficiency, esteem, play, and status. All three different VS categorisations (NVS, BVS and VS) shared the same needs in these areas (See Table 5.15). However, specific to voluntary simplifiers, ethics became one specific need expressed by Lydia. There were no needs could be categorised into beauty and spirituality. It seems that the RCTGL services have been
260 relatively focused to serve the above needs and the users (the interviewees) joined the service to fulfil these needs.
(2) Opportunities
Opportunities are considered to be external values that encourage people to join the RCTGL service. Among many opportunities defined Gatersleben and Vlek (1998), a combination between availability and price was seen by interviewees as the attractive values that the RCTGL offered. The availability which means provided services that suited consumer values seemed to be a strong point for some interviewees who lived a bit far from the RCTGL or who lived in other city councils which did not offer the same service. Holly, for example, lived in another city council and decided to join the RCTGL although she had to travel a bit far from her house because of the availability of the RCTGL service combined with reasonable annual fee of membership. Also, Shelly who had to travel about 30 45 minutes to Maroubra from Coogee (by public transport) stated that the RCTGL service was an attractive offer for her to have access to various toys and games without paying too much.
(3) Abilities
Abilities are the capacity of members in using toy library services. Although financial is considered to be an ability, it is not applicable for members of the RCTGL services as the toy library service is relatively inexpensive. For low income families, they could get the membership fee waived. Hence, financial becomes irrelevant factors for being the RCTGL member.
Most members had spatial factor as their ability to access the RCTGL. Distance, although for some members was a problem, all interviewees could always manage to go to the library. For two interviewees (Shelly and Heidi), temporal became another ability to use the RCTGL services. Shelly stayed in Australia only for 18 months for accompanying her partner to study. As a result, she tried to find temporary access to toys that was fulfilled by the RCTGL service. Heidi first joined
261 the RCTGL because she waited for her cargo from the UK to Sydney. While waiting, she joined the RCTGL and enjoyed the access to toys.
Gina and Holly had cognitive ability besides the spatial one. Gina moved from New Zealand where she had access to a toy library. When she moved to Sydney, she had planned to join the closest toy library to where she lived. She chose the RCTGL as she lived in the same suburb as the RCTGL (Bowen Library). Quite conversely, Gina found the RCTGL was the first toy library service that she had joined. However, she had to move to Gosford20 and the experience of joining the RCTGL gave her cognitive ability to find a toy library in her new area.
Summary
Similar to the GoGet case study, the RCTGL case study shows a model of collaboration between organisation staff, members, and local government. Although it is not identified, suppliers are also important stakeholders in the system. The actor network in Section 5.2.3 shows that the system consisted of important relationships between actors.
The study has shown the RCTGL performances. The mixed methods research framework used had utilised both quantitative and qualitative methods to show the characteristics of the RCTGL members, the patterns of the use of the RCTGL services, user satisfaction levels and sustainability performances of the system.
The online survey has shown that the RCTGL members were relatively satisfied with services provided. Nevertheless, based on the interviews it was revealed that some members found it sometimes difficult to find toys for a specific age group. Moreover, some parents with young children or babies tried to avoid going to the library when school children were there as school children were sometimes rough and did not have sufficient supervision from their parents or carers.
20 Gosford is a small town in New South Wales, Australia. It is 85 km north of Sydney
262 In terms of sustainable consumption criterion, the survey and further assessment based on short scenario comparing an RCTGL member and a non member showed that the use of toy library support sustainable consumption, particularly in reducing the number of toys per child and prolonging product/toys’ lifetime.
The interviews, however, showed that interviewees were not necessarily practised sustainable behaviour. From 21 interviewees, about a half of them were categorised into non voluntary simplifiers (NVS). However, there were also some interviewees who have practised simpler lifestyle for a while (10 of 21 interviewees). Although the number of members who did not exercise sustainable consumption was high, the analysis using the NOA model showed that the RCTGL members tended to have similar needs, opportunities and abilities regardless of their VS position. As the use of the RCTGL service had shown an improvement in sustainability, in aggregate, the use of the RCTGL services may lead to a change to more sustainable behaviour due to indirect impact of sharing resources activities.
The next section discusses how the RCTGL services could be improved based on user satisfaction level and sustainability performance. The improvement was designed collaboratively by the RCTGL members and toy librarians using a collaborative design workshop.
5.4 PHASE 2: THE RCTGL COLLABORATIVE DESIGN
The RCTGL collaborative design workshop was held on Friday, November 23, 2007 at Bowen Library auditorium between 10 am and 12 pm. Participants were selected from the interviewees, plus the RCTGL’s toy librarians. Table 5.16 summarises participants’ profiles for the collaborative design workshop.
263 Table 5. 16: The RCTGL collaborative design participants’ profiles Pseudoname Country of Gender Age Age of the children (in Nov Occupation birth 2007)
Dianne Parker Australia F 41 2 years and 7 years home duties Gaby Yang China F 30 15 months accountant full time Jacklyn Hadley Australia F 27 20 months home duties Kristy Sebastian Australia F 30 1 year home duties Kathy Rae Australia F 40 2 years, 10 years, 13 years teacher part time Toshi Adams Japan F 35 19 months old home duties Deborah Crawford Australia F 31 1.5 years and 4 years PhD student full time Sharon Smith UK F 50+ N/A The RCTGL toy librarian Sam Tonkin Australia F 20+ N/A The RCTGL toy librarian Participants who were the RCTGL members were selected based on their availability on the day. There should have been eight participating the RCTGL members (plus Angela Salvador). Unfortunately Angela could not attend as she was on holidays, and her flight was postponed for a week. Sharon Smith and Sam Tonkin were the toy librarians. Sharon had been working for the Randwick City Library and Information Services more than 20 years while Sam had just joined the RCLIS.
As with the GoGet workshop, two industrial design students (Marlous and Nina) helped with the workshop, and a facilitator21 was hired to run the workshop. Before the workshop, the researcher, student helpers and the facilitator met to discuss the workshop plan. As the facilitator did not facilitate the GoGet workshop, the researcher gave a briefing about the research, its aim and expectations from the workshop. Appendix L 1 shows the workshop plan for the RCTGL case study.
5.4.1 Scenario Development: Individual Collage Making
Learning from the GoGet collaborative design workshop that not all participants returned their workbooks or took photos during the preparation phase, and understanding the nature of the RCTGL members (mothers with young children,
21 The facilitator was not the same as the GoGet workshop’s facilitator. The facilitator was Danielle Blenkhorn who was a former staff of NSW Dept. of Environment and Climate Change and then worked in Sustainable Living Challenge at FBE, UNSW at the time when the workshop was held.
264 who were almost always occupied by their children) the preparation phase of the RCTGL collaborative design workshop was designed differently. It was made simple and short but personal and focused. The preparation phase was combined with the individual collage making phase, and the focus of this phase was to create a collage of an ideal toy library service.
The preparation phase or what is also referred to as an individual session was conducted one or two days before the workshop at the FBE (Faculty of the Built Environment), UNSW for 30 45 minutes. To create a collage of an ideal toy library service, a collection of images and icons were provided. An A0 size paper, coloured papers, scissors, glue, a set of felt tip pens, and post it notes were also provided. During the individual session, the researcher was accompanied the participants all the times, explained the tasks and observed the participant collage making process.
Figure 5.10 shows the individual session’s collage making process. A selection of images and icons was provided. Participants were free to choose any icons or images they thought suitable to use, or they could draw and write anything they wanted on the provided paper. The image also shows the task instruction and a completed individual collage. The researcher kept the collages and took them to the workshop. They were used as a starting point for the group session.
265 Figure 5. 10: The individual collage making process with provided materials
The individual collage making was called as a story telling session. Participants (with the exception of the toy librarians) were asked to think about an experience of going to Bowen Library to borrow toys. They were then given three tasks:
266 1. Task one: List all activities on that day, starting from leaving home until arriving back home again (e.g. catching bus, selecting toys, renewing toys, meeting friends)
2. Task two: For each activity, suggest the best case scenario.
3. Task three: Write some words/phrases to highlight features they would like to see at their ideal toy library.
The first task was to identify key activities regarding their use of the toy library. The second task was to identify their needs and expectations, and feelings about the RCTGL service and its character. The second task was done by selecting appropriate images, icons and text provided and arranging them in a collage or a story board. Or they could also draw their ideal best case scenario. The third task was to identify key characteristics that were important for them from their perspectives. There were seven individual collages from member participants as shown in Figure 5.11.
Appendix L 2 summarises the activities listed by each participant, together with collage contents and keywords provided. This summary is also accompanied by the collages in a bigger size. Table 5.17 (p. 266) shows the context of the collages interpreted by the researcher and the keywords given by participants.
While Deborah and Kathy emphasised family values for an ideal toy library scenario, Dianne and Kristy suggests more social values. Deborah saw an ideal toy library as a medium for a range of activities, and to create healthy and learning activities, while Kathy suggested the toy library as a place for different people from different places to gather. Dianne and Kristy wanted to see an ideal toy library as a facility where parents and kids could meet and enjoy social activities. Gaby saw an ideal toy library as a second home where people could feel safe and peaceful within the library.
267 Figure 5. 11: Individual collages from the RCTGL workshop participants
268 Table 5. 17: Collages contexts, interpretation, characters and keywords Name Contexts Interpretation Collage characters Keywords
1 Deborah Enjoying activities, Family healthy contrastin outside, music, Crawford playing together, oriented learning g each workstation, games, reading (outdoor other creative, fun, daddy, Creative activities activities (trees and books Family image) house image) 2 Kathy Rae Children activities Family peaceful but safe but no traffic, climbing space, Good mood and activities moving strong musical instruments, comfortable (waterfall (castle blocks, puzzles, water Easy process image) building play, efficient shopping, image) peaceful, parking, smooth public transport, happy children 3 Toshi Happiness, quite and Back to nature relaxing interestin bicycle, nature, books, Adams close to nature emphasis (waterfall g and new toys, recycle toys, garden, activities image) place aboriginal toys, silent Musical and (backgrou language musical educational activities nd image instrument, beach, relax, Workshops with birds) interesting 4 Gabby Safe place Library is the feeling at quiet and bigger, computer, touch Yang Activities second home home (home peaceful screen monitor, save Cost saving image) (trees and money, more toys alternative house image) 5 Dianne Children parents Social values space social soft cushions, padded pit, Parker facilities interaction and (image 1 activity natural light if possible, Stimulating toys & stimulation own (image 2 broader range of games activities drawing) own for 6 9 yo, dress up Interior design drawing) activities, tables for activities/ games, activities to encourage collaborative play, closer to toilet, cafe close by, more seating, modular/ moveable
6 Jacklyn Quiet time if no Peaceful and fun (colour colourful earlier opening, more Hadley disruption from older easy process image) (colourful parking, more toys, children pattern borrow longer, trolleys, Improved facilities image) safer. More colourful, fun Activities for children 7 Kristy Socializing for both Social and safe Nice and Discovery long hours, space, gate, Sebastian parents and children issue comfortable finding supervision, many toys, Safe area and quality feeling something good condition, meet of toys (towel new people, have coffee, play Good facilities image) (earth & together, noisy fun, light catalogue image)
269 Similarly, Jacklyn also expressed an expectation to have a peaceful toy library and an easy way of getting to the library, borrowing and returning toys, and undertaking other activities at the library. Toshi emphasised the functions of an ideal toy library as a being those of a learning facility for a range of activities natural/ecological to musical.
Scenario Development : Collaborative Design Workshop
The workshop was conducted over two hours without a break. During the workshop, child minding was provided for mothers who wished to bring their children. Before the workshop began, morning tea was provided and participants were asked to settle their children with the carers at the toy area. Box 5.3 shows the workshop’s schedule. It started with a very short ice breaking session after participants were introduced to one another.
Box 5.3: The timetable of the RCTGL collaborative design workshop 9.45 – 10.00 : Welcome and drinks 10.00 – 10.15 : Introduction, rules of the day, Ice breaking session 10.15 – 10.35 : Presentation and generating features 10.35 – 10.55 : Mapping features 10.55 – 11.20 : First scenario making 11.25 – 11.45 : Second scenario making evaluation 11.45 – 12.00 : Discussion and reflective evaluation
Figure 5.12 shows some photos of the workshop activities. After the introduction, participants were divided into two subgroups. These were preset based on the balanced character of participants and characters of the individual collages. Each subgroup was designed to have both quiet and talkative members. The toy
270 librarians were group separately. Each group was predetermined based on a balance between more visual collages (using images more than text) and more textual collages (using texts more than images).
Figure 5. 12: The RCTGL collaborative workshop activities
Kathy and Deborah were grouped together as they had similar expectation of an ideal toy library (which emphasised family values). Dianne and Kristy (who focused on social values) were also grouped. Toshi and Gaby who tended to be quieter
271 among other participants were separated. Jacklyn was then grouped with the group with the younger toy librarian (Sam). It was expected than each group would have a relatively balanced discussion, as Sharon would have more ideas and opinions. Based on these arrangements, Group A consisted of four members and Group B had five members. Table 5.18 lists the group members for Group A and B.
Table 5. 18: The sub grouping of the RCTGL collaborative design workshop Group A Group B Deborah – an RCTGL member Dianne – an RCTGL member Kathy – an RCTGL member Gaby – an RCTGL member Toshi – an RCTGL member Jacklyn – an RCTGL member Sharon – a toy librarian Kristy – an RCTGL member Sam – a toy librarian
After the grouping, every participant presented her collage. During the presentation, participants were asked to list keywords or features they thought were important or interesting (generating features). They were asked to write each keyword on a post it note so they would have a number of such notes. After that, they needed to map the features they had listed before starting the group scenario making. There were four tasks conducted after the presentation:
1. Based on the individual list of features, each subgroup categorised its features into a matrix based on user behaviour (social or individual activities) and the technical option of service provision whether it enabled users to receive a ready to use service or to fulfil the service function themselves (passive versus active involvement).
2. Then they decided on a matrix they wanted to focus on for their scenario.
3. Afterwards, participants created an appropriate scenario on the particular matrix quadrant they had selected.
4. After the scenario making, participants were asked to evaluate their scenarios based on sustainable criteria. The sustainability criteria document was made
272 much simpler than the GoGet one; it was an A5 size form and consisted of 19 points for environmental, economic, and socio ethical sustainability. They then needed to review their scenarios. If necessary, changes or improvement for more sustainable scenarios were suggested.
Given the time was limited (only two hours), each subgroup briefly presented the scenario after those tasks were completed. They were then asked to fill in an evaluation form and the session finished. The following sections discuss the scenario making process and the analysis of the workshop process as well as the outcomes.
Scenario development
After participants had prepared a number of post it notes and had finished presenting their individual collages, they brainstormed their ideas. In this brainstorming, participants were asked to add more features if necessary. After that, they categorised these features into a matrix called a polarised diagram. Similar to the GoGet case study, the matrix was developed based on user behaviour, and the technical option of service provision was based on scenario development techniques suggested by SusHouse project (Vergragt, 2000).
Figure 5.13 illustrates this categorisation. User behaviour characteristics were divided into individual and collective activities. Individual activities included features that directed the toy library service towards individualistic behaviour such as providing customised services for different needs of members, more personalised features and more individual approaches. Collective activities suggested any features that would direct the toy library service towards collective solutions such as enabling shared experiences, delivering more social events and delivering features that enable members to get together.
273 The technical option of service provision was categorised into active and passive involvement. An active involvement is an activity that encourages the users to take action or to be proactive (such as involving members in the toy cleaning and inspection, and allowing members to arrange toy pooling among them). A passive involvement, on the contrary, include features that would make ‘life easier for users’ (or what the toy library does to provide more services, such as email reminders to return or renew toys which are almost due, parent child activities at the library, and so on).
Figure 5. 13: An example of matrix categorization (polarity diagram) With considerable effort to combine a large number of post it notes in the group, each subgroup categorised about half the lists of features they had into the matrix. Figure 5.14 illustrated the matrix created by each subgroup (for the detailed features generated, see Appendix L 3). Both groups then selected a quadrant to further work on. Interestingly, both groups chose a collective activity quadrant. While Group A chose the active collective quadrant to work with, Group B chose the passive collective quadrant.
274
Figure 5. 14: Matrix categorization (polarity diagram) from Group A and B
Compared with the matrix categorisation, the scenario making process was faster and smoother. Although some group members talked about and expressed ideas more than others, the scenario making process worked well, as it showed the dynamics of the group. The process seems to be naturally flowing starting from the first initiative to the final touch of the scenario.
Two industrial design students (Marlous and Nina) were actively involved in the scenario making process. Marlous helped Group A while Nina helped Group B.
275 Group A started the discussion smoothly, led by Deborah and followed by Sharon. Kathy started her initiative by writing the discussion while Toshi carefully listened. The discussion progressed well with all members participating on the discussion.
Group A seemed to discuss more than to write down their results. Intervention from the facilitator and a reminder from Marlous to move on made them start drawing and creating their scenario. Marlous started the initiatives to draw, Toshi collected icons and images while Kathy kept writing about features. Then they all finalised their scenarios.
Group A decided to focus on voluntary playgroup activities. To complement with Kids’ Club, the group suggested a range of parent children activities at the toy library, including relevant workshops, art and craft activities, and festival based activities. Related to the festival based activities, the group also suggested having festival based toys for specific cultural festivals. As well as these activities, Group A also suggested improved facilities, such as a visual catalogue and database of activities.
Figure 5.15 shows the scenario developed by Group A. This scenario has more textual explanations than visual ones, supported by arrows that show the scenario’s flow. This goups started its scenario by identifying the needs for activities and listed all the different, suggested activities. A schedule (consisting of days) shows the rostering of volunteers who were parents or carers of the children using the toy library.
While Group A had a relatively slow start, Group scenario making process was faster. Kristy took the initiative of using the paper, followed by Dianne (who had a design background). Dianne started drawing the ideas they had discussed. At first, the session was dominated by Kristy and Dianne, while Gaby observed and remained relatively quiet. Sam tried to follow the discussion by writing some features on his paper. Jacklyn was a bit busy with her son who did not want to be
276 looked after by the carers provided. Although she finally became involved in the process, her participation was relatively short compared with the others.
Figure 5. 15: Group A scenario
Group B already had relatively solid ideas for starting their scenario; its matrix categorisation was clustered in the collective passive quadrant (See Figure 5.14). Participants focused on the facility improvement particularly the toy area and supporting facilities. Group B suggested some space for parents or carers to work in or to relax in close to the toy area so that they could watch children playing. This group also suggested some cluster areas in the toy area based on themes or functions (See Figure 5.16). For example, a dress up activity area, art and craft area, and a cultural toy area. They also suggested facility improvements, including natural light, visual catalogue and a safety gate. They also suggested longer library opening hours (by starting earlier in the morning).
277
Figure 5. 16: Group B scenario
After scenario development, while still in subgroups, participants were given a brief list of sustainability criteria adopted from the MEPSS methodology (van Halen et al., 2005). This list gave different criteria for environmental, socio ethical and economic sustainability issues (See Appendix L 1). Participants were asked to evaluate their scenarios by comparing the current toy library with their scenario, and to rate their scenario to determine whether it showed an improvement in terms of these three sustainable criteria. When they thought their scenario should be improved as it had not yet improved on or met the sustainability criteria participants were required to list improvements.
After the participants did the sustainability evaluation, they had time to discuss whether they wanted to add or change features to improve sustainability performances. Both groups added some lists of improvements. Group A’s suggested improvements were written down and drawn on the scenarios while Group B’s improvements were written on the orange post it notes stuck to the scenario. Group A suggested the use of every day, used and packaging materials for art and craft activities. Group B added more features, such as an environmental awareness
278 workshop covering environmental sustainability and volunteering activities for socio ethical sustainability.
The discussion was evaluated at the end of the session. Before participants left the venue, the researcher thanked them for their contributions and asked them to fill in a reflective evaluation form. This evaluation aimed to review the collaborative design process and to investigate how participants measured their contributed to the scenario.
5.4.3 Final scenario development
Similar to the GoGet scenarios, the researcher designed final scenarios from the two scenarios developed during the collaborative design session. Considerations for the final scenarios included:
The identification of significant aspects of the scenarios representing by images, icons, texts, comments, and reviews The review of their own journal written during the workshop The discussion with two industrial design students and the facilitator post workshop The off field observation ( from the video recording) Further interpretation based on the transcript of the workshop’s audio recording Photos taken during the workshop The discussion with the toy librarian. Group A’s scenario
The scenario from Group A showed a strong relationship with the four members’ ideas. The individual collages from Group A had shown strong ideas concerning arranging activities. The group scenario emphasised parent group activities based
279 on voluntary initiatives. Some additional features were also adopted from individual collages. For example, the idea of the culturally based toys and festivals was adopted from Toshi’s suggestion, as well as the recyclable materials for activities which were developed after the sustainability evaluation.
An evaluation of the scenario resulted in some advantages and disadvantages. The scenario was considered to have had the following disadvantages: It required a high degree of participation by parents and children Common interests needed to be previously identified to maximise participation by children and parents Some efforts were needed to create a database and time schedule (roster) for volunteering parents Some efforts were needed to organise an external person to run relevant workshops (for example, a toy repair workshop). The scenario provided some benefits including: social activities enhancement among members; resource use reduction through recycling, and the use of every day and used materials stimulating children’s behaviour through a range of different activities introducing children to different cultural backgrounds, and enhancing parental/carer awareness of cultural diversity. Considering the scenario benefits outweighed the disadvantages, the final scenario was designed with most of features generated during the collaborative design workshop. The scenario would be viable if parents and carers were willing to become involved in those activities. The scenario was made by considering a routine of a mother and a daughter when they used the toy library. It started with visiting the library, borrowing toys and attending activities, and the next trip to the library when they needed to return toys and when mothers needed to run activities.
280 Figure 5.17 shows the scenario. It called “A Sense of Activity” to emphasise the scenario’s main features. The scenario highlights its strong features: creating social values (making friends and socialising) and stimulating children’s development. These identified features were a toy repair workshop, playgroup activities, traditional toys, cultural and festival based activities, a visual catalogue, volunteering, and the use of everyday and recycled materials.
Group B’s scenario
Different from the scenario from Group A, Group B emphasised use of the space and suggested improvement to the facility. It was not only strongly influenced by Dianne’s individual collage (that focused on interior design of the toy area), but also showed expectations of Gaby, Jacklyn and Kristy who wanted to a peaceful, safe and comfortable library environment.
The focus of the use of the space was then completed with social values which were the key features from Dianne and Kristy’s individual collages. Some features from Jacklyn and Gaby’s collages for example, the use of trolleys (from Jacklyn) and more information about activities (from Gaby) were also taken into account. As a result, the scenarios appeared to have accommodated each group’s expectations.
The scenario developed by Group B had both advantages and disadvantages. The advantages were:
social interaction among parents and children in the toy area activities that stimulated children’s development from different aspects the enhancement of the space’s ambience to create pleasant feelings introducing children to different cultures through allowing them to play with different cultural toys a healthy environment through the use of natural lighting
281
Figure 5. 17: “A Sense of Activity” scenario (some images were purchased from www.istockphotos.com or self designed)
282 Some disadvantages were:
the need of a new and bigger space – that was not currently available at Bowen Library more facilities expected from the RCTGL which would have required more investment more workstations, a new catalogue system, an interactive notice board. Despite the disadvantages, the final scenario was designed without any changes to the group’s suggestions. The title of the final scenario is “A Sense of Place” to emphasise the strong emphasis on creating an inviting, pleasant space for parents, carers and children.
This scenario consists of various features including:
a safety gate different spaces for different ages art and creative activities cultural toys a trolley for toys natural lighting a visual catalogue workstations nearby nature themes Figure 5.18 illustrates this scenario. It shows three children with their parents/grandparents who usually play together at the toy library. They meet at the library and play while the parents, carers or grandparents socialise among themselves. The scenario’s central was the toy area, designed to stimulate children’s learning through play. There were workstations nearby for adults to use while keeping an eye on their children playing.
283
Figure 5. 18: “A Sense of Place” scenario (some images were purchased from www.istockphotos.com or self designed)
284 Discussion with the RCTGL toy librarian
After the final scenarios were created, they were discussed with Sharon Stern, the toy librarian. As she attended the workshop, she understood the process and identified features expected by members. She made sure the important features were maintained in the final scenarios.
She also ensured RCTGL policies were maintained. For example, the RCTGL required adults to supervise children all the times. “A Sense of Place” scenario allowed adults to stay in a workstation near the toy area. To ensure these adults always supervised their children, “A Sense of Place” scenario highlighted the notice displayed at the toy area (See Figure 5.17).
Figure 5. 19: Rules at the RCTGL toy area
The scenario also stated this following statement:
“Although there are workstations nearby, children have to be supervised by a responsible adult.”
285 5.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY
Although toy library activities mostly only showed the interaction between parents, carers, grandparents and children at a public space, to ensure the toy library delivered maximum benefits to members, an investigation of a whole system was required. The study of the RCTGL as a system including the roles of toy librarians and local government as the main supporting organisation resulted in interesting facts.
The survey showed the RCTGL members were generally satisfied with the toy library service. A ServQual method used to evaluate the RCTGL’s service quality performances showed members usually had medium to high expectations and satisfaction levels. There were even some quality performances that had higher perception than expectation levels, such as physical products (the quality and cleanliness of toys), service assurance (knowledgeable staff) and product added values (the variety of entertaining toys and the range of toys for different ages). However, some factors needed improvement such as product and service (such as an adequate space for children to play in), access (such as an adequate car parking), and activities (for adults and children).
The interviews further investigated user experiences in using the RCTGL service. Despite some dissatisfying experiences, most interviewees agreed the RCTGL had enhanced their quality of life; their children enjoyed the toys they borrowed. As most interviewees put their children and families at the centre of their lives, they genuinely valued the quality of playtime and activities their children had with the RCTGL’s toys.
The investigation of environmental impacts showed the use of toys from the RCTGL delivered slightly lower environmental impact. Although it was not fully analysed, the RCTGL’s toys had longer lifespans and were used by more people. Investigating the sustainable consumption behaviour of the RCTGL members showed no evidence they necessarily practiced sustainable consumption behaviour in other areas of
286 their lives although some members were strongly awareness of sustainability issues.
The collaborative design workshop tried to further explore user needs and collaboratively create solution that met their needs. The collaborative design workshop also tried to encourage development of more sustainable solutions. The scenarios created highlighted interesting features that generally became participants’ common interests. Although both scenarios were categorised into different quadrants (collective – active and collective – passive involvements), both showed similar values, combining social and family values that lead to more socio ethical sustainable solutions.
287 CHAPTER 6 6 DISCUSSIONS
“PSS do not necessarily lead to sustainable solutions. They only have the potential to do so. It is only when a PSS actually assists in re orienting current unsustainable trends in production and consumption practices, that it can be referred to as a Sustainable Product Service System” (Manzini & Vezzoli, 2002)
The two case studies presented in Chapters 4 and 5 investigated how PSS had been operating in two different Australian cases by analysing them using the proposed model, by identifying satisfaction levels, the types of consumption behaviour practised by members, and by creating scenarios for improved PSS performance. Scenarios were proposed through collaborative design workshops which involved the PSS organisations, their members and other relevant stakeholders.
Two case studies were conducted with the aim of comparing two different PSS applications, and understanding similarities and differences between them in terms of systems, performances, and the way the collaborative design process performed. This chapter discusses the comparison of both case studies and the investigation of their design processes.
The chapter starts by discussing the selection of case studies, which is followed by a discussion of each case study including the findings and methodology used in each. It then discusses the model used in the study and how the model is transferable to other case studies.
288 6.1 CASE STUDIES
6.1.2 PSS Applications
Car sharing and the toy library can be categorised as PSS applications. However, to identify how well they addressed PSS characteristics, this section discusses how well both case studies performed based on these characteristics. As reviewed in Chapter 2, PSS should have the following characteristics (Ashford & Thomas, 2004; Mont, 2002a; Tischner et al., 2002): 1. A combination of tangible product(s) and intangible service(s) 2. fulfilling user needs and user satisfaction 3. competitiveness 4. environmental impact reduction 5. an innovation strategy 6. an integrated approach 7. user (or stakeholder) involvement 8. a (radical) shift in behaviour from consumption (selling product) to use (selling function). The following subsection discusses the extent to which these case studies met the above characteristics.
PSS Characteristics
Both case studies combined the products and relevant services. GoGet car sharing provides cars as the tangible products, and the use, maintenance and repair of cars as the services. The RCTGL provides toys and games as the tangible products, and the use, maintenance, repair, and workshop sessions on toys and playing as the services.
The analysis of user needs and satisfaction, which have been discussed in Chapter 4 and 5, shows both systems had fulfilled members’ expectations and satisfied them
289 accordingly. Although the environmental impact reduction for each case study seemed to be different, the evaluation of sustainability showed that both systems had helped reduce environmental impacts in their respective areas.
Competitiveness
The competitiveness characteristic applied for GoGet but not for the RCTGL, as the RCTGL was a public service, funded by local government (Randwick City Council).
GoGet targeted its business at car owners or people who wanted to buy cars rather than car free people who do not intend buying vehicles. Its targets as a market segment needed cars for occasional events22. It meant those people needed cars more often for short trips, wanted access to cars when they needed them and wanted to enjoy problem free service – including no registration issues, and no problems relating to maintenance, repair and insurance claims.
By targeting this segment, GoGet expected a long term commitment from members, charged a monthly membership fee, offered a low hourly rate coupled with a high kilometre rate, and provided more car to maintain a low member to car ratio (ratios at the time of the study was 16:1 in Sydney and 12:1 in Melbourne). However, GoGet also offered its service to those who wanted to trial it. This starter plan, called the GoStarter Plan, gave free monthly membership rates but charged a higher hourly rate with the same kilometre rate.
GoGet’s analysis was its business model offered a reasonably competitive service for its target market people who typically undertake relatively short trips (city errands) relatively frequently. Figure 6.1 represents the positioning matrix of different types of transport modes. Other car sharing organisations and car rental were regarded as use oriented PSS while public transport and taxis were result oriented PSS. The matrix shows that GoGet would compete in terms of cost and fewer VKTs compared with other modes of transport, with the exception of public
290 transport. This matrix is adapted from GoGet’s internal research. It was confirmed based on the analysis in Chapter 4 (See Section 4.3.4), where members found GoGet relatively inexpensive. It was also proven that the average GoGet members’ VKTs were much lower than those of private car users.
Figure 6. 1: Positioning matrix for GoGet and other modes of transport (adapted from the GoGet internal analysis for City of Sydney (GoGet, 2007, p. 13))
Innovation strategy
An innovation strategy was more obvious for the GoGet car sharing scheme than for the RCTGL. However, in terms of being fee based schemes, both organisations tried to deliver unique and innovative solutions to their members. GoGet’s scheme and services were appreciated by its members. Its fee based scheme, with its high kilometre rate, is distinctly different from that of other car sharing organisations operating in Australia. By introducing this scheme, GoGet tried to maintain low hourly rates, considered attractive to members23. It also provided low costs rates to members who didn’t use cars during scheduled hours and discouraged members
22 Based on an internal business assessment – details not to reveal. 23 Based on the “Business Plan for CarShare Australia” prepared by GoGet, 15/03/2006.
291 from undertaking long trips leading to a more conscious and sustainable transport behaviour.
The introduction of an annual fee for the RCTGL membership in 2000 demonstrated a unique service feature compared with other public toy library in Sydney. Although it can be questioned that this is an innovative solution, the fact that fees are levied to provide a greater variety of up to date and well maintained toys, and to offer free workshops makes the service more attractive to members24. From interviews with the RCTGL members, it was revealed that nobody was unwilling to pay the annual fee.
The use of Internet technology is a key innovation strategy both GoGet and the RCTGL have applied. GoGet founder Bruce Jeffreys argued that the use of the Internet for booking, updating details and for other services allowed his organisation to deliver a streamlined service to members25. However, there was a complex system behind the online service to ensure it ran reliably. The RCTGL used an online catalogue that enabled members to renew toys and games online. This system operated for both book library and toy lending systems. Combining an online system for two services provided members with a simplified user interface and integrated tasks for the staff although it may have created more complex system design because of the larger database required.
GoGet’s innovation strategy related to products was continuously maintained, for example, by creating distinct images of cars and allowing members to select more innovative vehicles. A unique image of GoGet cars was created by showing the organisation’s distinctive features. The orange colour of driver side front mirrors as an exterior feature distinguishes GoGet cars from others (See Figure 6.1). GoGet also selected vehicles ranging from ‘fun’ cars (like Mini Coopers) to ‘weekender’
24 Based on the personal interview with Sharon Stern, the RCTGL toy librarian. 25 Based on the interview with Our Manly, an online community portal for Sydney Northern Beaches residents. The complete interview can be found at: http://www.ourmanly.com.au/ Business/goget car share.aspx
292 cars (like Toyota Taragos26). More recently (early 2009), GoGet added more innovative vehicles (Toyota Prius Hybrid cars), to its fleet27.
Figure 6. 2: A typical look of a GoGet Car (Source: www.goget.com.au)
Integrated approach
To a certain degree, both case studies also demonstrated these organisations’ integrated approaches – albeit in different areas. The RCTGL integrated its service with a book library and with Youth Service through Kids’ Club activities. Through its baby reading program, the RCTGL tried to engage more parents, encouraging them to join. New parents in the Randwick City Council area that attended the Early Childhood Centre with their babies received information on the toy library and associated activities from material supplied to them. The RCTGL brochure shown in Figure 5.5 (p. 210) was easily distributed to new parents, as the Early Childhood Centre was located at Randwick library, a branch of the Randwick City Council library.
GoGet integrated its car sharing with maintenance, repair and insurance services. GoGet also offered to sell the cars of new members if they wanted to dispose of them28. By networking with other car sharing organisations, GoGet also enabled
26 The creation of the car image is always emphasized by GoGet on its website and it was restated in its Spring Newsletter 07 (a printed newsletter sent half yearly to its members). 27 See http://www.goget.com.au/newsflash/hybrid electric toyota prius.html 28 Information taken from GoGet website in June 2007 and the GoGet proposal for Low Emissions Technology and Abatement – Strategic Abatement (LETA SA) Grants from the Australian Greenhouse Office, Sep 2006 (GoGet, 2006).
293 members to use the services of other car haring organisations when its members visited other cities and countries such as Nexus CarShare (in Perth), City Car Share (San Francisco), Philly Carshare (Philadelphia City, US), and AutoShare (Toronto, Canada)29.
User involvement
User involvement seemed to be a characteristic not yet fully attributed to either the GoGet and RCTGL services. Although some members had actively become involved in GoGet (through becoming a paladin), not every member demonstrated the same level of involvement. Apart from paladins and some members who liked to attend occasional social gatherings such as barbeque, most members’ involvement in GoGet’s activities related only to the cars themselves: booking, and picking up, using and returning cars.
The use of a collaboration design workshop in developing an improved scenario for the car sharing service was a step forward for enhancing user involvement in the system (van Halen et al., 2005). It also successfully engaged members in thinking more about an ideal scenario of the service, in turn resulting in a more user involvement scenario. One of the subgroups (Group A) suggested one way members could become more involved in GoGet activities would be to create a shared car scenario (See “GoGet Love Story” Scenario, p. 183 184). Although it was not intentionally planned to design a more user involvement scenario, the polarity diagram of user behaviour (collective – individual) and the technical option of service provision (active – passive involvement) guided the process to improve user involvement in the designed scenario.
The RCTGL service, similar to the GoGet service, did not provide an opportunity for members to become involved in the system, taking it beyond being a provided service. The RCTGL members usually used the service only for individual needs, or
29 Data from GoGet proposal to City of Sydney (GoGet, 2007)
294 with friends, and focused more on borrowing toys process than other activities. Although some members attended workshops and most members used the toy area for playing and socialising, they did not particularly become involved in designing the RCTGL.
The collaborative design workshop for the RCTGL members resulted in two different scenarios. One of them required an active involvement of the members by creating playgroup activities at the toy library (See Group A’s Scenario, p. 274). This scenario created greater participation by the RCTGL members. The second scenario from Group B (see p. 275) that envisioned more customised activities in the toy area implied more involvement from members to creatively play with children with thematic toys.
The shift of behaviour from consumption to use
There is different performance regarding the shift of behaviour from consumption to use between case studies. The GoGet case study shows stronger behaviour shift from consumption to use than the RCTGL case study. The study showed most GoGet members did not own cars, and used public transport or car sharing as their modes of transport. It showed that members had shifted their travel behaviour from consumption (privately owned car) to use (use of a shared car and public transport).
However, this shift in behaviour generally applied only to travel behaviour not to sharing. A survey to 124 GoGet members showed that although most members were willing to share in other areas, only some had joined other sharing schemes (Ramirez, Tonkinwise, & Nawangpalupi, 2007). The following question related to their participation in other sharing schemes:
“Have you participated in any community based sharing facilities before OR after joining GoGet (for example: toy libraries, tool libraries, tool sharing clubs, book sharing, clothes swapping, bike sharing, backyard sharing, community gardens)?”
295 Only six respondents answered “yes” , although 34 members were willing to join. However, they hadn’t found one yet, hadn’t had the opportunity to join one, knew of no other sharing facilities in their area or were not actively looking for a sharing scheme. Seventy eight members had not joined any other sharing facilities, and six members didn’t answer the question.
The collaborative design workshop again encouraged GoGet members to shift their behaviour to use. The workshop had created a scenario that enabled members to share cars in a smaller “community”. The “GoGet Love Story” scenario would allow members who didn’t know each other to share a single car (a car pooling concept). While car sharing is actually sharing a resource in private use, the designed scenario emphasised sharing an already shared facility (car) with other people.
The RCTGL facilities have encouraged a greater understanding of sharing. The toy area of Bowen Library has enabled children to play together and share toys. However, while sharing was practiced among children, parents and/or carers unfortunately didn’t demonstrate similar practices. The sharing practiced in the library was not exercised in other areas. The interviews with mothers showed that although they used the toy library for their children, they did not necessarily exercise sharing in other areas (See Section 5.3.4). Even though they used the toy library as a sharing resource, they sometimes ended up buying toys when their children liked them. In this sense, the toy library was used for a trial period instead of as a sharing resource.
Similar to the GoGet case study, although it was still in a conceptual phase, the collaborative design workshop had encouraged a behaviour shift from consumption to use. Group A’s scenario tried to create regular activities for parents/carers and children, run by members on a voluntary basis, that would enhance the use of the toy library – ultimately encourage further sharing. This suggested workshops, such as a repair workshop, and the use of everyday materials that would help shift consumption behaviour from throw away to re use.
296 Based on the analysis of both systems (car sharing and the toy library), and their performances and the collaborative design scenario, it was evident both systems fulfilled their PSS characteristics. However, in both current systems, user involvement and the shift of behaviour from consumption to use were not strongly evident. Nevertheless, the collaborative design workshops and scenarios created from the design workshops supported the possibility of improving these characteristics.
6.1.2 Areas of the PSS Case Studies
The case studies selected were two successful Australian PSS stories albeit driven by different interests. GoGet car sharing was driven by concerns over environmental sustainability while the RCTGL was established as a community service initiative. GoGet was founded within a small community in Newtown, where founding members didn’t own cars because of common philosophical beliefs or because of concerns for the environment, but realised they needed occasional access to a car. Before car sharing, they had rented cars or used taxis. They realised a shared car in their neighbourhood would deliver positive benefits30.
The RCTGL was established to enable families to have access to and borrow a wide range of high quality, educational and recreational toys and games for their children. Although the organisation, staffing, membership scheme and toy collection have changed from time to time, the toy library’s central emphasis was always on community service.
The different nature of the case studies created unique values for each service. Although GoGet was founded on environmental concerns, not all members had a strong environmental concern at the time of this research. Five years after its establishment, GoGet had various types of members in terms of where they lived
30 Story adapted from GoGet website – About Us
297 (no longer just in Newtown) and, importantly, in terms of their transport consumption behaviour.
By comparison, the RCTGL service had always had similar characteristics courtesy of its members. Unlike car sharing that can be done by many different types of people the use of toys is already quite segmented, for families with young children. The profiles of the RCTGL members showed they were mostly mothers (between 26 and 40 years of age) with young children (See Table 5.1 p. 215).
These different membership characteristics resulted in no overlapping members between either case study. Although there were few GoGet members who were also members of toy libraries, there were no GoGet members who were also members of the RCTGL. However, the data were based on memberships in 2007, and there were fewer than 10 GoGet members living in the Randwick City Council area when data was collected. As a result, it was unlikely there would be an overlap of members.
No overlapping members resulted in these case studies being mutually exclusive31. If there were similarities in the findings and/or results, they were because of the nature of the case not because of the same sample or respondents.
6.2 GOGET CAR SHARING
6.2.1 Findings
The study revealed that most GoGet members found that using GoGet cars provided convenience and flexibility, allowing them to use a car when they needed one. Some found that using a GoGet car could save them money, especially those who had planned to buy a car but had joined the car sharing scheme instead. For most members, the cost of using GoGet car sharing is relatively inexpensive and
31 Mutually exclusive means a property of a set of categories such that an individual is included in only one category.
298 they considered GoGet to be cost effective provided that they saved time to travel and enjoy its conveniences.
Users’ expectations
The use of two stage study confirmed repeat expectations from members. Consistent expectations from the survey, interviews, and the collaborative design workshop include the need of easy and flawless booking system, the availability of the car when needed, easy to access pods, easy reservation and flexible booking hours. The survey revealed that easy and flawless booking system is the most important feature that GoGet should have. However, the current performance of the booking system had not yet fully satisfied their expectation. Car availability became the next highest expectation and a significant numbers of members found it difficult to book the car during the weekend or when they needed it immediately.
The interviews also found a number of cases where members found it hard to get the car when they needed. However, the interviewees expected easy access to pods, dedicated pods, and punctual car return from the preceding user more than car availability. Non dedicated pods in some areas created difficulties for members when they tried to find the car. It was even worsened by the fact that preceding members occasionally returned the car late which made them waited with uncertainty. Although GoGet contacted them to inform that the car was still used and they would get credit for their inconvenient experience, members would always prefer ready to use car when they needed it.
The pod and car availability became other important factors that were expressed by the collaborative design participants. When the participants were asked about their experiences related to pod issues and car availability, they, to some extent, agreed that car availability could be problematic for members who could only get access to limited pod location. In addition, the need to book in advance would lead to greater chance of having a preferred car.
299 The use of two stages of study also allows the researcher to identify some contrasting expectations from different members. Two most contrasting expectations are in car navigation system and pet friendly cars. The survey found that in car navigation system was not an important factor for most members (the expectation rate= 1.97 of 4). However, the navigation system became one strong component developed in the collaborative design workshop by Group B (See p. 188).
Pet friendly car created a big discussion. The survey revealed that few members were reluctant to have a car that had pet hair and fur. However, some interviewees expected more pet friendly cars and it again expressed by Janneke de Boer during the collaborative design workshop. Janneke in Group B strongly suggested more pet friendly car, which then was strongly opposed by another group member, Adam Wu. Although the group finally created a scenario that compromised the pet friendly members’ expectations and non pet lovers’ rejection, a big discussion about pet friendly car showed different expectations from different types of members.
User satisfaction level
The ServQual method was used to evaluate the user satisfaction levels by identifying the gap between the expectation and the perception (Parasuraman et al., 1988). Factor analysis was used to identify factors which have similar characteristics and to group them (Coakes et al., 2005). In this case, the factor analysis was useful to enable the researcher to focus on smaller sets of factors that needs to be improved. In addition, the factor analysis was used to identify if the suggested clusters were similar to five ServQual dimensions.
The survey based on the ServQual method resulted in relatively high satisfaction level from members. Although some variables have lower satisfaction levels than
300 the expectation levels, the gap between the expectation and satisfaction levels were not high (See Figure 4.10 in p.128).
The factor analysis clustered similar variables and smaller sets of factors were subsequently obtained. From the new grouping factors, it can be seen that most variables can be similarly classified into the ServQual dimensions (See Table 6.1). Only one dimension was missing from the grouping, which is empathy. However, there was only a variable that previously identified as the empathy dimension: “staff that give me personal attention” or personal attention (See Table 4.3, p. 124). Based on the factor analysis, this variable is grouped into Factor 2 which then was named “responsiveness”. Although this variable was grouped in Factor 2 together with other variables from the responsiveness dimension, the personal attention has the lowest rate compared to other variables in that factor (See Appendix E).
Table 6.1: ServQual dimensions and new factors from factor analysis of the GoGet survey ServQual Dimensions ServQual variables New Factors Variables Responsiveness information 1 responsiveness information respond with min delay respond with min delay knowledge knowledge courtesy courtesy personal attention personal attention Assurance convenient phone res 2 assurance convenient phone res update membership update membership secured financial secured financial safe data confidential state cost structure Reliability state cost structure safe data confidential state insurance policy state insurance policy Reliability car availability 3 accessibility car availability Tangibles pods easy to find pods easy to find easy to reach by PT easy to reach by PT parking bicycle parking bicycle Tangibles fuel efficient 4 efficiency fuel efficient Tangibles clean interior 5 tangible cleanliness clean interior clean exterior clean exterior Tangibles navigation system 6 additional features navigation system powerful engine powerful engine Reliability 7 reservation reliability error free reservation easy online reservation
301 The ServQual analysis based on new factors showed that GoGet members have been satisfied with the responsiveness dimension from GoGet service and the cleanliness that is a part of tangibles dimension. The other factors needed to be improved except navigation system and powerful engine that were considered to be unimportant.
The survey result was subsequently explored in the interview process. Most interviewees agreed that they were satisfied with GoGet services. Besides their satisfaction of the conveniences to access a car without having to regularly maintain it, interviewees were satisfied with the GoGet customer service quality that was beyond what they expected. Most of them expressed that they were satisfied with helpful and courteous staff and relatively responsive actions from GoGet when they had problems.
Environmental sustainability benefit and Sustainable consumption behaviour changes
The analysis from the use phase of the car sharing has shown that, in average, GoGet members have significantly lower VKT (vehicle kilometre travelled) than private car owners. Furthermore, the car occupancy rate was slightly higher than private car (1.9 and the private car was 1.44) that showed a car sharing is likely to be used with at least 1 more passenger.
Although not further examined in terms of environmental impact, the cars GoGet selected for its fleet were relatively fuel efficient city models, compared with generally larger, privately owned vehicles (with larger engine capacities). However, to provide members with alternatives, GoGet also provided station wagons, MPVs (multi purpose vehicles) and utes. To keep fuel consumption relatively low, GoGet had currently added hybrid cars (Toyota Prius) to its fleet.
As a result, GoGet car sharing had, to a certain degree, improved transport environmental impacts. Although calculated carefully, the reduction in VKTs since
302 the introduction of GoGet car sharing had contributed to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, the reduced number of cars on Sydney’s streets and subsequent reduced need for parking spaces were likely to lead to better use of public and road spaces.
In terms of members’ consumption behaviour and the changes to more sustainable consumption behaviour, the interview findings uncovered a wide range in members’ consumption behaviour. Members varied from holistic simplifiers (who had minimised consumption in a number of areas of their lives) to non voluntary simplifiers (who did not particularly practice sustainable consumption). However, unless they had their own cars, they would have displayed similar travel behaviour. They all ended up having reasonably low car usage, or chose public transport, non motor vehicles or walked when they took short trips.
Low car usage could be achieved because access to cars was relatively limited. When someone has limited access to a vehicle, he or she thinks twice before taking a trip, or considers other modes of transport. Also, the cost relative to every single use of a car would make members consider ways in which trips could be shortened or not taken at all.
Another important feature supporting sustainable consumption in car sharing was the commitment by GoGet to minimise its environmental impacts through its pricing scheme. A high kilometre rate was introduced to enforce rational travel behaviour.
The analysis of sustainable consumption behaviour using the NOA (need, opportunity and ability) model (Gatersleben & Vlek, 1998) in Section 4.3.4 (See p. 159 167) showed that GoGet members had different positions relating to voluntary simplicity (VS), resulting in different needs relevant to their VS position. However, they shared similar values of opportunity (the reasons for preferring GoGet car sharing to other modes of transport) and abilities or factors that limited or drove the preference for car sharing.
303 The analysis of the NOA model showed the intention to change to a more sustainable consumption pattern was evident among GoGet members. Most members who participated in this study showed their willingness to continue using GoGet car sharing as their means of transport. This intention to use of car sharing was identified by the blend of needs, opportunities, and abilities. The use of this sharing facility, to a certain degree, leads to more sustainable consumption behaviour.
As discussed in Chapter 4, price and car availability became common drivers for using GoGet car sharing. Members were driven to use a car sharing scheme by financial, physical and cognitive factors. While GoGet’s low price was a factor motivating members to use the system, finances were an internal factor that influenced members to consider using a car sharing scheme.
For example, some members used GoGet car sharing because their finances precluded them from buying or keeping private cars. Yet as they needed access to cars from time to time, car sharing was a preferred option (See Ella and Harry Table 4.11, pp. 142 143). Other members, despite their higher incomes and more secure finances, most likely estimated their allowance for using car sharing for their trips. And if they thought it would be too costly, they would choose another option, such as taxis or car rental.
Cognitive factors, particularly social awareness, interestingly led to a common value shared by some members. Members who tended to minimise car usage considered car sharing the best alternative when they needed access to a car. They then tried to justify why they needed the car by sharing it with others (See Monica’s case, p. 167 and Cecile’s preference in the collaborative design workshop, pp. 182 183). Another cognitive factor using a car sharing scheme to support community initiatives was a common statement made during the survey period and during interviews.
304 Analysis of the NOA model showed the intention to change to a more sustainable consumption pattern was evident among GoGet members. Most members who participated in this study showed their willingness to continue using GoGet car sharing as their means of transport. This intention to use of car sharing was identified by the blend of needs, opportunities, and abilities. The use of this sharing facility, to a certain degree, leads to more sustainable consumption behaviour.
Scenario development
The scenario developed showed collaboration that combined various needs and expectations, and compromised different interests among GoGet participants and stakeholders. Both Group A and B in the collaborative design workshops had different needs and expectations. Group A consisted of a GoGet staffer, Dwayne, a GoGet paladin, Rod, and members Ella and Celine – and all had different needs when using a GoGet car. Celine preferred to share a car with others while Ella preferred have privacy and personal freedom. Rod liked to help other members achieve more convenient feelings by trying to address any issues with GoGet cars. For example, he fixed problems with batteries and occasionally moved cars from one location to another if demand in the latter location was higher. Dwayne, who worked for GoGet, not only used a GoGet car for work but when he needed it for his own leisure.
These different needs resulted in difficulty in compromising on a single idea for an ideal solution or scenario for improving GoGet car sharing in future. A long discussion occurred until participants finally agreed to create a scenario of car pooling in a car sharing system (sharing a shared car with other members). This collaborative work emphasised the enhancement of experience and the “fun” feeling they expected if a car was shared among members. The highlighted feeling was explicitly shown in their scenario (See Figure 6.3).
305 However, the process of scenario making itself was not without resistance. Dwayne seemed be reluctant to have a scenario that required a commitment from GoGet to improve the service. As shown in the both video and audio recording, he refused to accept the idea by, for example, saying: “it’s already in discussion...” to emphasise that GoGet had been prepared to do it, or by saying “we had many other things to take care of”. This expression of reluctance made the scenario easily positioned as an active involvement one (See Figure 4.22, p. 185). However, during the scenario refinement phase, two scenarios were developed one focusing on the active involvement of members who self arranged the pooling system (Use Net to Get) and one focusing on the use of the GoGet booking system that improved opportunities to share a booked car (Go/Gather Together).
Figure 6.3: Feeling shown in Group A’s Scenario Friendship, affection, relationship, ecstasy (joyful excitement) that Group A claimed as a social cohesion
306 Group B, which consisted of Janneke and Simon as GoGet members, and Adam as a GoGet car cleaner, also had different needs and expectations. Janneke wanted to have more pet friendly cars in her area, while Adam was strongly against this because of his roles and his allergy to pet hair and fur. Although this group consisted of only three members, strong opinions from Janneke and Adam held the group back from the smooth creation of an ideal scenario. They finally agreed to compromise – agreeing that carrying pets in regular GoGet cars (not designated pet friendly cars) was acceptable in special circumstances. Shaun, who was keen on new, innovative technology, suggested an integrated sensor system to manage pet odour and dirt. This system was meant to ensure the next user would not recognise the car had previously carried a pet.
This extensive discussion also showed group members’ different interests. Adam, being a car cleaner, wanted to ensure his job did not become more difficult if the pet policy changed. However, Janneke (from Coogee) had difficulty accessing pet friendly cars as none in her area were pet friendly. Simon wanted to see an in car navigation system in GoGet cars. As a result, he tried to integrate this feature into the ideal scenario. The range of interests and expectations, however, finally created a good range of quality scenarios as innovative enhancements to current GoGet system.
Sustainable performances of the scenarios
After the scenario development, workshop participants were asked to evaluate their scenarios based on sustainable criteria. A two page list of sustainability criteria was given for them to review the scenarios (See Appendix H 1 pp. 60 63). Some necessary changes or improvements for more sustainable scenarios were made. Participants were then asked to give stars to nominate scenarios that they think achieve improvements in sustainability. Figure 4.21 (p. 185) and Figure 4.22 (p. 186) show the scenarios together with the stars. Scenario from Group A received most stars for the idea of togetherness. The way of utilising car sharing as a car pooling
307 system in the participants’ opinion gives a more sustainable option. Group B scenarios get the most stars for the fact that GoGet members prefer using public transport rather than having a private car.
Based on the participants’ evaluation, there is unanimous agreement that sustainability evaluation is useful to create their scenario to be more sustainable. Cecile Stenmeyer, for example, believes that the evaluation helps to identify the lifestyle. However, from the long list of sustainable criteria, only a few concepts of the scenarios can be evaluated, thus it cannot judge the significant improvement of GoGet service. Similarly, Shaun Webb stated that the evaluation is useful and could be used to develop a successful scenario.
The final part of the evaluation of the scenario is a public view that was held during the Ecoliving Fair in Randwick on 6 April 2008. In the public view, 3 final scenarios (Figure 4.23, 4.24 and 4.25) were displayed and public viewers were asked to fill in a questionnaire. The response rate for this public view was very low, as there were only 3 responses to the questionnaires. From the three responses, only one respondent said that the scenario is attractive because of the environmental benefit. One respondent prefers to use public transport instead and another one prefers to use his own car. Although this cannot be generalised, these responses show that the perception of the car sharing scenarios and the benefits to the environment are quite diverse.
For GoGet final scenarios (Figure 4.23 – 4.25), some feedback was also asked from the workshop participants and from GoGet founders. All workshop participants were sent the scenarios and asked to comment on them. Four out of the seven participants (Cecile, Janneke, Ella and Rod) returned the feedback form. They all believe that Scenario 1 (Use Net to Get – Figure 4.23) and Scenario 2 (Go/Gather Together – Figure 4.24) give the environmental benefits by saving fuel (all), decreasing emissions (Ella and Janneke) and reducing the use of resources (Cecile and Janneke). Scenario 3 (Taking a pet with GoGet) gives socio cultural benefits by creating a good feeling and convenience, as well as reducing stress levels (Rod,
308 Cecile and Janneke). Janneke added that the scenario creates the possibility for pet owners who are not yet a GoGet user to join the service. This has the potential to subsequently reduce the number of cars on the street.
Based on the interview conducted with Bruce Jeffreys (one of the GoGet founder, in May 2008), in general, Jeffreys found that all the scenarios are promising and that they can support their operational strategies. However, Jeffreys was not yet convinced about the sustainable performance of the scenarios before they were finally implemented.
The evaluation above shows that an attempt to create more sustainable scenarios through a collaborative design workshop has been initiated. However, the actual performance cannot be justified until the scenarios are implemented. The implementation of the scenarios could be a further study point.
6.2.2 Methodology
This section discusses whether the methods used performed well as designed, the validation and trustworthiness of methods used, and the gap between the research design and the findings.
Mixed methods research design
Mixed methods research design has shown its effectiveness in the study. A customised framework – a two phase exploratory design framework with an embedded design based on Creswell and Plano Clark’s frameworks (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007) helped the sequential process of the study and enabled a smooth research process that ultimately created three unique scenarios.
The first stage of study that mixed quantitative and qualitative analysis (the embedded design) enabled the researcher to investigate the GoGet system’s performance. The survey identified members’ patterns (from the survey’s
309 demographic profiles) as well as the pattern of use of GoGet cars and members’ preferences for car ownership. Moreover, the survey identified user satisfaction levels that were further explored in interviews. The use of GoGet’s internal database and pre joining survey enriched the identification of GoGet members’ patterns and their trip distances (VKT). Together with the pattern of members’ use of GoGet cars, these data were used to assess the environmental impact minimisation of GoGet car sharing. Qualitative data analysis based on interviews and travel diaries was done to further observe the effects of car sharing on members with regard to their intention to adopt more sustainable overall consumption behaviour.
The research process confirmed that qualitative analysis was needed to further explore system performance and its meaning for members beyond its face values and patterns. For example, when the survey identified a gap between the expectation and perception levels of GoGet scheme’s cost structure (which has the expectation level = 3.66 but the perception level = 3.35), the interview could further understand a former member’s disappointment over costs (See Dylan’s case p. 146). However, the exploration of meaning and more qualitative analysis could not be accomplished without the quantitative data analysis. Thus, the embedded design framework that combined the use of sequential method from quantitative to qualitative methods in unequal way (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) appropriately fit the needs of this study.
The second stage of the study was the scenario design using a collaborative design workshop, which was conducted qualitatively. The nature of this particular study to explore a design process and develop scenarios based on emerging issues found in the previous stage was qualitative in both method and analysis (Manzini & Jegou, 2003; Vergragt, 2000). As an entire research process, this two stage study created the exploratory design framework starting with the embedded design, followed by the qualitative methods. Although it was not as Creswell and Plano Clark suggested (2007, pp. 75 79), that an exploratory design framework typically
310 starts with qualitative methods followed by quantitative ones, the same intention to focus on qualitative methods and the development of instruments (which is a collaborative design workshop to create scenarios) made it is suitable for this framework.
Quantitative data collection
The online survey revealed reliable results despite its limitations. The invitation emails to participate in the survey were distributed to 791 members, and 293 members responded to the survey (37 per cent response rate) without a reminder. There was no reminder, as the invitation email was sent by GoGet to maintain the privacy agreement between itself and its members. As the email was not linked to the online survey, a reminder could not be sent to those who didn’t responded. Also, GoGet preferred not to send reminders to all members again to minimise the amount of correspondence between it and its members – as promised.
As the response rate was relatively high (37 per cent) and the number of respondents was close to 300, the survey resulted in a relatively good accuracy. Neuman (2003) argues that with small population like GoGet case study (a population of less than 1000), a sample size should be around 30 per cent or 300. Because of this, the survey was considered relatively accurate for the time of the study. As there were no previous surveys of GoGet members, an approximate accuracy was then statistically calculated. Assuming the population followed a normal distribution with the proportion of 0.5 and the confidence level = 95 per cent, based on the number of samples and population, the confidence interval of the data was just below 5 per cent (at 4.55 per cent)32. This value was considered to be good for data accuracy.
Furthermore, the reliability test was conducted to determine if the survey was a reliable tool to evaluate user satisfaction levels (using the ServQual method). The
32 Statistical formula was taken from Churchill Jr. (1995) with further explanation from Cochran (1977).
311 reliability analysis using the Cronbach’s alpha was used to identify if the variables were standardised (Coakes et al., 2005). The test showed that 20 of 22 service quality variables were reliable. Two others were not reliable or not related to what GoGet members expected (bicycle parking space and navigation system). Thus, these factors could be removed; however, as the removal of these factors would not give a significantly higher value of reliability, those factors were kept for further analysis (See the explanation in p. 125).
Qualitative data collection
The selection of respondents for interviews was based on purposeful sampling. Based on the demographic profiles of GoGet members, the interviews tried to cover different types of members, showing by different demographic profiles, such as gender, age, place of residence, and occupation (See Table 4.10 p. 141). Interviews also tried to identify GoGet members’ travel behaviour corresponding to their VS position (See Table 4.16 pp. 158 159). The researcher spoke briefly with Bruce Jeffreys, a GoGet founder, to identify members’ characteristics. This was done to make sure interviews covered different perspectives from GoGet members.
As there is no rules applying to sample size in a qualitative inquiry (Patton, 2002), the GoGet sample size was determined based on information the researcher needed and the different characteristics of GoGet members. The above mentioned sampling strategy (covering different profiles) was considered appropriate for this study’s purpose. To balance the depth and the breadth of study – given that GoGet members have different characteristics, resulting in different opinions and perspectives – 19 respondents were selected. After the interviews, from the field notes and the interview transcripts, it was concluded the sample size had been sufficient to support the study’s objectives.
The collaborative design workshop aimed to explore an ideal scenario for GoGet services. As a result, the emphasis of the data collection was on the depth of the
312 study; a smaller number of participants would be sufficient. The researcher tried to cover most members’ characteristics, and to invite other stakeholders to take part. It was planned to have six members (plus a paladin), two GoGet staff and a car cleaner. Unfortunately, on the actual day, one staff member could not come because of family issues and a member withdrew at the last minute. Despite a smaller number of participants, the collaborative design workshop ran smoothly and expected outcomes were achieved.
Validity of the study – legitimation in mixed methods research
Although validity is a legitimate term in quantitative research, it is debatable when used for qualitative inquiry and mixed methods research. This term is used as a heading to give the readers understanding about the discussion of this section. In qualitative inquiry, the word ‘validity’ should refer to the truthfulness of findings (Altheide & Johnson, 1994) and the term is then alternatively changed to, for example, ‘trustworthiness’ (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) or ‘verification’ (Creswell, 1998). Trustworthiness refers to credibility, transferability, dependability and the ability to be confirmed that are equivalent to validity concept in quantitative research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In the mixed methods research design framework, use of the term ‘validity’ could also be counterproductive. As a result, Onwuegbuzie and Johnson argue that ‘legitimation’ is ‘a bilingual nomenclature’ between quantitative and qualitative research (2008, p. 294). Legitimation in mixed research aims to overcome problems of representation and integration of the related study and this should occur in a continuous process during the study itself (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2008).
Among types of legitimation suggested (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2008, p. 288), two types of legitimation were conducted along the research process: weakness minimization, and multiple validities. Weakness minimization legitimation, the legitimation that weakness from one approach is compensated by the strength from the other approach, was conducted during the first stage of study the embedded
313 design framework. As explained earlier in this section (See pp. 304 305), the quantitative research (the online survey) provided findings about members’ pattern. However, in order to create a rich scenario that collaboratively designed by GoGet stakeholder, a more naturalistic approach should be used. Quantitative research alone would not suffice to delve members’ expectations, to reveal agreement and disagreement among stakeholders about both current and ideal car sharing system and to generate a compromised solution among them.
On the other hand, a pure naturalistic qualitative inquiry may not be able to generate typical patterns of members and their major needs and expectations. Findings from quantitative research are important as feeders for the next stage of study, particularly the further exploration of members’ perception and expectations, and to create an ideal scenario based on a collaborative work.
Multiple validities address relevant types of legitimation used by the quantitative and qualitative strategies and the mixed research itself that yield high quality of meta inferences (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2008). This means that relevant validities are used by quantitative research, trustworthiness procedure is used by qualitative inquiry, and relevant types of legitimation are used for creating integration and meta inferences among different stages of the research process. Two types of legitimation have been discussed previously. The following discussion includes relevant strategies to show research credibility.
Validity in the survey
A discussion of the survey design has already demonstrated the researcher’s effort to maintain the face validity (See p. 121). Face validity also known as content validity is an important part of the survey to ensure it’s a good instrument for achieving the study’s objectives. The key to face validity is the procedure used in developing and administering the survey (Churchill Jr., 1995). A careful procedure of
314 study has been extensively discussed in Chapter 3 and data was collected methodically as planned.
Analysis of the ServQual method has demonstrated the study’s construct validity. Construct validity is concerned with the instruments used, and tries to evaluate if the instrument used is really measuring what it needs to measure (Churchill Jr., 1995). As discussed earlier in this chapter, service quality was evaluated based on 22 variables categorised into five ServQual dimensions. However, all those variables were asked randomly without any categorisation of the ServQual dimensions. After obtaining responses, a factor analysis was performed. The factor analysis showed that most variables could be re categorised into the ServQual dimensions. This indicates that the instruments used (the survey and the ServQual method) demonstrated internal consistency, thus proving the study’s construct validity.
Trustworthiness in qualitative inquiry
There are many ways of checking the trustworthiness of qualitative inquiry which verify the study’s rigor and credibility. Creswell (1998) explores verification procedures, and Whittemore, Chase and Mandle (2001) classify different procedures into different phases of study: design consideration, data generating, analytic and presentation.
In the design presentation, triangulation was employed by using multiple and different sources and methods to identify user needs, expectations and behaviour and to create a collaborative, ideal scenario for the GoGet car sharing system. The process of corroborating evidence from different sources (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1984) used in this study was expected to provide themes and perspectives demonstrating the study’s rigour.
In generating data, prolonged engagement and persistent observation were undertaken (Creswell, 1998). Although formal observation was not conducted as part of this research, observation of interviewees was written up in field notes, and
315 the researcher tried to maintain open communications with interviewees via emails and phone. Some follow up emails were designed to confirm information provided during interviews. In the collaborative design workshop, observation was continuously undertaken from the preparation phase to final evaluation. Additionally, persistent observation of the case study (GoGet) and its changes during the study period was undertaken by visiting the GoGet office and pods, and regularly checking GoGet website updates, the internal database and other publishing materials.
Negative case analysis was performed in this data analysis (See p. 164). Furthermore, a reflexive journal was maintained, along with the field notes, to verify the researcher’s interpretation and to list information and data the researcher needed to confirm with participants or other stakeholders.
All interviews and the collaborative design process were fully transcribed. Video recording of the design workshop was watched several times and notes taken during the observation. This created a comprehensive description of the data presentation.
Table 6.2 summarises the study’s validity process. The validity techniques verify that all phases of the study confirmed its legitimacy and represented the true meaning of the case study itself.
Table 6.2: Validity techniques in the study Phase of study Types of technique Description Mixed methods research weakness minimization Identification of weakness and strengths – overall phase of quantitative and qualitative research sequential Showing the importance of the sequence of the study multiple validities The use of quantitative research validities and qualitative research verification Quantitative research – design consideration: face Careful procedure in developing the survey validity survey and administering the survey data collection and analysis: internal consistency in variable items construct validity
316 Table 6.3: Validity techniques in the study (continued) Phase of study Types of technique Description Qualitative research – design consideration: The use of different methods of inquiry interviews, photo taken, employing triangulation travel diaries, Building trust with participants, collaborative design data generating: prolonged continuous observation workshop engagement Refinement of working hypotheses analytic: negative case maintaining own journal and field notes analysis and reflexive journal Full transcription, combining video and audio recording to observe phenomena presentation: thick description
6.3 THE RANDWICK CITY TOY AND GAME LIBRARY
6.3.1 Findings
The study showed that the RCTGL members agreed that using the toy library had provided them with a range of benefits such as cost saving, access to a variety of toys and alternative types of children’s activities. Largely, members were satisfied with the service, although some found the RCTGL did not perform as they expected.
Users’ expectations
From the mail out survey, it was revealed that members expected relatively equal importance for the service quality variables (2.78 to 3.32 on the scale from 1 to 4). However, easy access to the toy library seemed a top priority for them, while easy access via public transport had the highest importance level (3.32) and sufficient parking facilities was quite important (3.27) (See Table 5.3, p.220). By joining the toy library, members also expected activities for their children (3.30).
The expectations of parking facilities and activities for children were voiced again in the interviews and during the collaborative design workshop. The difficulty of getting to Bowen Library (where the RCTGL was located) because of the parking issues as well as difficulties of taking children in prams and returning toys to the
317 library’s first level was considered an extra effort involved in going to the RCTGL. Activities for children especially young children and babies seemed to be important aspects of going to the RCTGL. Unfortunately, younger kids’ play time in the toy area sometimes was threatened by older children who were sometimes rough, dominating the area. The collaborative design workshop resulted in scenarios that mainly focused on children’s activities at the toy library. Both groups designed activities for children, with Group A focusing on activities and Group B focusing on the area, together with facilities for children to access different types of toys and activities.
The fact that the RCTGL members were dominantly mothers of children who used the toys resulted in similar expectations. They expected their children to have access to as many activities and facilities as possible. As a result, the toy library became one of their alternative activities and facilities. Some members tried to seek activities such as Kid’s Club and workshops through library activities before joining the toy library. Most also used the book library. Therefore, they usually borrowed toys and books at the same time.
User satisfaction level
As with the GoGet case study, the ServQual method was used in the RCTGL survey distributed to its members. The ServQual method was used to evaluate user satisfaction levels. By identifying the importance level (expectation) and the satisfaction level (perception) of service quality variables, the researcher could identify improvements required in the RCTGL case study. The survey based on the ServQual method resulted in relatively high member satisfaction level. Although some variables had lower satisfaction levels than the expectation levels, the gap between the expectation and satisfaction levels were not high (See Figure 5.7 in p. 221).
318 Factor analysis used to create smaller sets of factors suggested creating six factors out of 20 service quality variables. However, as discussed in Chapter 5 (See pp. 222 223), nine factors seemed to be appropriate for maintaining the uniqueness of variables relative to five ServQual dimensions. The new factors were similar to classifications of the ServQual dimensions. Surprisingly, similar to the GoGet case study, the empathy dimension (purchase suggestion variable) was also missing in the new factoring and the variable was grouped with the assurance dimension.
Table 6.3 shows the relationship between the ServQual dimensions and their variables as well as new factors based on the factor analysis. It can be seen that some variables that should have been in the same ServQual dimension were split into two or more factors.
Table 6.4: ServQual dimensions and new factors from factor analysis of the RCTGL survey ServQual Dimensions Previous categorization New Factors Variables of variables Responsiveness helpful 1 – responsiveness helpful assistance assistance Responsiveness opening_hours 3 – access opening_hours easy_access_PT easy_access_PT parking parking Assurance knowledge 4 – service assurance knowledge purchase suggestion Empathy purchase suggestion (combined to the above category) Reliability act_child 6 – activities act_child act_parent act_parent Reliability online_renewal 7 – reliability – renewal car availability phone_renewal pods easy to find easy to reach by PT parking bicycle Reliability internet_catalogue 8 – catalogue internet_catalogue Tangibles educational 2 – product and service values educational space space special_needs special_needs Tangibles multiple_copies 5 – physical products multiple_copies complete_toys complete_toys good_condition good_condition Tangibles entertaining 9 – product added values entertaining range_age range_age
319 For example, reliability first contained five variables: online_renewal, phone_renewal, internet_catalogue, activities for children (act_child), and activities for (grand)parents/carers (act_parent). After factor analysis, those factors were separated into three different factors.
It is likely that the clustering variable into different new factors was created based on different expectation and perception levels which subsequently resulted in different types of gap. Table 6.4 shows the expectation and perception levels of new factors. It can be seen that the ServQual’s dimension responsiveness had now divided into two new factors (Factor 1 and 3). Factor 1 had almost the same satisfaction levels (3.02) and expectation (the importance level = 3.03), resulting in an insignificantly different gap. However, Factor 3 (access) was seen to be more important (3.23) than factor 1 but the members’ satisfaction level (perception) was reasonably lower (3.18) than its importance level which resulted in the need of an improvement.
Table 6.5: The expectation and perception values for clustered factors Factors ServQual dimension Importance Satisfaction (expectation) (perception) level level 1 – responsiveness responsiveness 3.03 3.02 2 product and service values tangibles 3.06 2.90 3 – access responsiveness 3.23 3.18 4 service assurance assurance 3.02 3.26 5 physical products tangibles 3.12 3.40 6 – activities reliability 3.16 2.99 7 reliability renewal reliability 3.19 3.03 8 – catalogue reliability 2.99 3.16 9 product added values tangibles 3.06 3.50 Note: Factors that are shaded in orange identify factors that the satisfaction level are lower than the expectation levels and thus need improvements. Factors that are shaded in blue show the areas that have higher satisfaction level than expected.
Likewise, in the ServQual’s dimension reliability, it was divided into three new factors. Members tended not to be happy with the reliability of toy renewals or activities for children and (grand)parents or carer. This was shown by the gap
320 between the importance level and satisfaction level. However, they found that internet_catalogue (another factor of reliability) has achieved a higher satisfaction level than expected (See the details in Table 6.4).
The satisfaction level measured by the ServQual method was subsequently elaborated on with more data from the interviews. Most interviewees unexpectedly complained about the physical product factor (no. 5) that, in the survey, had achieved significantly higher satisfaction levels than the importance level. Most interviewees said there were not enough toys to select from, and they usually found incomplete or poor quality toys. However, most interviewees had children under two years or age, and most were most likely babies. As interviewees suggested, a limited range of toys may only have applied to a specific age group. They said there were many board games and puzzles available for older children.
Environmental sustainability benefit and sustainable consumption behaviour changes
Although it was not comprehensively evaluated because of data limitation, the toy library evidently supported sustainability from environmental, economic and socio ethical perspectives. Analysis using the wheel diagram showed use of the toy library generally improved the use phase of toys. Moreover, because fewer products were used per family (thanks to sharing), fewer material resources were being used among toy library members. However, the energy involved in transport seemed to be higher, thanks to more frequent travel by cars to and from the RCTGL for borrowing and returning toys. Most members who drove to the RCTGL did not only go to the library, but tried to combined their travel with grocery shopping, or taking or picking up children to school or day care.
The economic sustainability of families using the toy library service was also investigated; they tended to save money for the toys they bought. Social ethical sustainability was also evident courtesy of the increased number of activities shared
321 among children and parents in the toy area, or during workshops they attended. As supported by many references, the use of the toy library had, to a certain degree, improved quality of life as well as supported the needs of children with special needs (Forell & Glue, 1979; Head & Barton, 1987; Mayfield, 1993; Moore, 1995; Stone, 1983), resulting in an enhancement of socio ethical sustainability. Improved quality of life was proven by the analysis of the interviews. Most mothers who had changed their life focus from other factors to their children or family found the RCTGL supported their needs of enhancing activities with their children. Although the interviews covered no families with special needs children, the fact that the RCTGL merged with the Eastern Suburbs Toy Library showed the attempt to incorporate the needs of children with special needs into its service.
In terms of members’ consumption behaviour and changes to more sustainable consumption behaviour, the study, unfortunately, did not find strong evidence that members intentionally changed to make their consumption more sustainable. Although some members joined the toy library for environmental sustainable reasons, others joined for other reasons, including cost saving, toy trials, or simply to access a wide variety of toys, and did not necessarily demonstrate conscious sustainable behaviour.
Discussion of any intention to change to sustainable consumption behaviour using the NOA model showed that most RCTGL members interviewed were still unaware of more sustainable resources. While in the GoGet case study, members could be categorised into a specific categorisation of voluntary simplicity (VS) in transport, the analysis of VS spectrum for the RCTGL interviews was more general due to difficulty to classify their behaviour related to a particular sector (See the discussion in Section 5.3.4). The needs, opportunities and abilities of interviewees were relatively similar, and the combination of these factors provided evidence of unintentional sustainable consumption when sharing toy facility. However, there was a tendency that the RCTGL members would share resources more frequently if applicable. Nevertheless, the preference to share resources would not be applicable
322 for all aspects of their lives; it depended on the types of products and services, the location, the time frame and the common interests of the community.
Despite the fact that the RCTGL interviewees did not obviously share sustainable consumption behaviour, the collaborative design workshop brought participants to a higher level of awareness regarding sustainable consumption behaviour. They also shared similar community values that resulted in improved sustainability, particularly from a socio ethical perspective. The collaborative design workshop, that included a sustainability evaluation, caused participants to think further about more sustainable features in ideal scenarios.
Scenario development
As briefly discussed above and comprehensively presented in Section 5.4, scenarios developed by the RCTGL participants showed a collaborative work that combined various needs and expectations, and enhanced members’ experience in the use of the toy library. The collaborative design workshop interestingly resulted in a great range of expectations from participants through their individual collages. Workshop participants then successfully combined distinctive features from individual collages and created scenarios that were rich in values and characteristics.
Both Group A and B focused on the RCTGL’s experience enhancement. Group A focused on the enhancement experience derived from activities, while Group B focused on the improvement of place and facilities. Although the groups took different directions of improvement in their developed scenarios, both emphasised the need of social activities among children and parents/carers. Group A – consisting of Sharon, the toy librarian, and Deborah, Kathy and Toshi as the RCTGL members designed a scenario that enhanced members’ social interaction by creating playgroup activities at the library. These would be organised by members. Group B – consisting of Sam, another toy librarian, and Dianne, Gaby, Jacklyn, and Kristy as RCTGL members emphasised the need to improve the place. This would
323 ultimately create enriched experiences, including social activities for children and parents/carers, as well as feelings of safety and comfort for toy library members.
The process of scenario making for both groups was smooth and almost without any resistance. Conflicts that are likely to arise between members because of different interpretations or understandings of problem (Cross & Cross, 1995) were not evident. That may be because members had similar interests and perceptions; all participating members were mothers of young children. Additionally, an informal workshop setting – for example, the ability for participants to breastfeed their children during the discussion, or the ability to check their children being minded outside the workshop location helped participants feel more comfortable and supported a creative process. Moreover, individual sessions arranged as one to one sessions before the group session had allowed participants to get more engaged to the design process and aware about the design objectives. It subsequently prepared members for the bigger group session task. These individual sessions were considered as a preparation phase and showed the effectiveness of the design workshop as suggested by Visser et al. (2005).
Sustainable performances of the scenarios
After the scenario development, participants were asked to evaluate their scenarios based on sustainable criteria. The sustainability criteria questions consisted of 19 points for environmental, economic, and socio ethical sustainability. They then needed to review their scenarios. If necessary, changes or improvements for more sustainable scenarios were suggested. Appendix L 1 shows the list of questions and after each participant reviewed their scenarios based on those 19 sustainability questions, they revised the scenario to make it more sustainable. Appendix L 3 shows the categorisation from the revised scenarios.
Group A participants who developed the scenario “A Sense of Activity” stated that the sustainability improvement of the scenario is the social interaction and community involvement. They believed that most of the social ethical sustainability
324 criteria are improved in this scenario. Moreover, all of the group members agreed that, in terms of environmental sustainability, the scenario optimises the nine uses of local resources. All except Deborah said that the environmental sustainability is also improved due to the use of online resources.
Group B participants who created the scenario “A Sense of Place” believed that the scenario improved sustainability in most areas, especially in creating community involvement in the library. All group members believed that the socio ethical sustainability was improved because of the social integration (between generations or between cultures). All of them also agreed that environmental sustainability is improved because of the use of online resources and local resources.
Some believed that the recycling process became possible among toy library members; and that toxic and dangerous materials in toys can be minimized when the scenario is implemented. Based on the evaluation form from the workshop participants, only three participants (Toshi, Dianne and Kristy) believe that the sustainability evaluation is useful. This may be because there was a lack of time, as the workshop had to be finished within 2 hours. However, during the workshop itself, most of the group members discussed the sustainable criteria and added some features to make their scenarios more sustainable.
A public view for the RCTGL scenarios was also held at the EcoLiving Fair in Randwick (6 April 2008) Similar to the GoGet scenarios, only very few (four) responses were given to these scenarios. These four respondents liked the ideas of creating activities in the libraries for children. Two respondents liked the social activities that encourage sharing and teamwork. None of the respondents gave comments about environmental sustainability. It seems that the respondents, which may also be similar to the general community opinion, do not yet see the toy library as a sustainable service.
325 6.3.2 Methodology
This section examines whether the methods used had performed well and explains the study’s validity. As the methodology used for this case study was like that of the GoGet case study, some parts are only briefly discussed.
Mixed methods research design
The two phase exploratory design framework – with the embedded design for its first stage and the qualitative inquiry for the second stage – was used in the RCTGL case study. The embedded design aimed to identify the system description, and to assess the RCTGL system performances. Although the embedded design emphasised the quantitative research followed by the qualitative inquiry to further explore the members’ perception in terms of their expectation, the satisfaction level and the consumption behaviour, unobtrusive observations were performed prior to the quantitative research which enabled the researcher to understand how the system worked and what components (stakeholders, products and services) involved in the toy library system.
The quantitative research used the mail out survey which identified profiles the members as well as the pattern of the use of the RCTGL services. As the survey has identified the patterns and the satisfaction level of the RCTGL members, further analysis was done with naturalistic qualitative inquiry. The qualitative inquiry aimed to explore members’ experience and search further meaning of the RCTGL for its members. The interview revealed experiences of members which could not be revealed using the survey. For example, there was dissatisfying experiences regarding the collection of toys for certain age groups and some reluctance from mothers of young children to take them playing in the toy area as older children could be of threat. Additionally, it is revealed that although the RCTGL had a range of toys, after few months of continuously borrowing toys it was unlikely there were no more toys to borrow.
326 The second stage of the study was purely qualitative inquiry. A collaborative design workshop was conducted to design scenarios that were created by members and toy librarians. The continuous observation from the researcher during the collaborative design workshop, from the individual session to the group session, enriched the process that combined participants’ works (both textual and pictorial works) and the researcher interpretations through field notes, reflexive journal, and thick description of transcripts from video and audio recording.
Quantitative data collection
The mail out survey shows reliable results despite its limitations: costly alternative and slower responses. The survey was sent to 661 members who joined the RCTGL between October 2005 and March 2005. The data were taken from the RCTGL database, and as the data are confidential, all the process from printing the label of addresses to mailing he survey was done at the library. Nine letters were returned because of wrong addresses or incorrect recipients, and it resulted in 652 sent letters which latter was considered to be the population. There were 161 members responded to the survey (25 per cent response rate) without any reminder. There was no reminder, considering additional cost and time which may lead to a delay of the study.
Although the response rate of 25 per cent was fairly high, the number of respondents was only 161 because of the small community population. As a result, the survey did not result in a high level of accuracy although it was acceptable. With this result, and assuming the population follow a normal distribution with the proportion of 0.5 and the confidence level = 95 per cent, the confidence interval of the data was 6.7 per cent33.
Although the data accuracy was lower than the GoGet case study, the RCTGL members had similar characteristics. The members profile show that 85 per cent
327 were mothers of children who used the toys (136 of 162 respondents). Other profile data shows that 81 per cent (131 of 162) of respondents were aged 26 to 40 years. Additionally, most of them lived in the Randwick City Council area. Therefore, it was likely they had similar expectation about the services, and subsequently the accuracy of slightly more than 5 per cent could be accepted.
Unlike the online survey for the GoGet case study (which did not have a page limitation), the RCTGL survey was limited by the number of pages due to Randwick City Council’s policy. The council strongly advised the researcher to create a survey that had only one A4 page, although it could be double sided. Because of this page limitation, the setting of the ServQual method needed adaptation. Ideally, questions relating to expectation (the importance level) should be separated from questions relating to perception (the satisfaction level), as they should refer to different systems. The expectation should refer to an ideal system while the perception should refer to the current system (Parasuraman et al., 1991; Parasuraman et al., 1988).
To shorten the questionnaire, both expectation and perception questions were asked in a single table. To explicitly ask respondents to rate differently between their expectations and perceptions, the following instruction was given before the questions:
“The next questions will ask you what you think are important features for a toy library service (expectation column) and how you feel about the service provided by the Randwick City Toy and Game Library (perception column).
For the expectation, please circle 1 if you feel a feature is not at all essential, 2 if it is not essential, 3 if it is essential and 4 if it is absolutely essential.
For the perception, please circle 1 if you feel not satisfied at all with the related feature delivered by the toy library, 2 if you feel not satisfied, 3 if you feel satisfied and 4 if you feel very satisfied. If you think the feature is not applicable for you, please circle 9.”
33 Statistical formula was taken from Churchill Jr. (1995) with further explanation from Cochran (1977).
328
Although there might be some bias in rating each column (the expectation and the perception), statistical analysis of the survey showed that all variables were reliable except the extensive range of toys for different ages (Variable 1). However, if Variable 1 was included in the analysis, the reliability rate was not significantly different (See p. 219). Thus, this factor was still considered to be reliable and, therefore, the survey was a reliable tool for measuring member satisfaction levels.
Qualitative data collection
The respondents for the interviews were selected randomly based on survey respondents who expressed their interests to be interviewed. Although randomly selected, the researcher tried to find grandparents and fathers to interview. Unfortunately, a father and two grandmothers who first said that they were willing to be interviewed ultimately could not make it. This made the interview participants were all mothers.
Twenty one interviewees were selected and based on the analysis and field notes taken during the interview, the number of interviewees having reached saturation rate. There was no more new information gained after the 21st interviews conducted.
The collaborative design workshop aimed to explore ideal scenarios for the RCTGL services. The emphasis of the session is on the depth of the study. Thus, smaller numbers of participants would have been sufficient. Participants in the collaborative design workshop were those who were interviewed. Eight members were invited to attend the workshop. However, only seven came, as one was still overseas. All seven members attended both individual and group sessions. The toy librarians only attended the group session. The collaborative design workshop ran smoothly and the expected outcomes were achieved.
329 Validity of the study – legitimation in mixed methods research
Similar to the analysis for the GoGet case study, the term ‘legitimation’ is used in the mixed methods research design framework, the term ‘validity’ is only used for the quantitative research and the term ‘trustworthiness’ and ‘verification’ were used for the qualitative inquiry.
Three types of legitimation were conducted during the research process: weakness minimisation, inside outside, and multiple validities (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2008, p. 288). Similar to the GoGet case study, weakness minimisation legitimation was used to compensate for any weakness from one approach by using advantages of the other approach. Based on the previous explanation about the embedded design framework, the quantitative research (the survey) showed members’ patterns and identified variables and factors that had satisfied the RCTGL members. However, to gain further meanings of the patterns and variables, the interviews (qualitative inquiry) successfully revealed some hidden needs of the members, such as their expectations about safer play space for younger children and more toys for specific age groups. Furthermore, the collaborative design workshop (qualitative inquiry) vividly showed members needs and expectation in rich scenarios that were collaboratively designed by the RCTGL members and toy librarians.
Thus, the use of quantitative research alone would not suffice. On the other hand, a pure naturalistic qualitative inquiry may not be able to generate patterns of members in general as well as performances which should be numerically analysed.
Inside outside legitimation is the way of the researcher presents the research purposes appropriately using the insider’s view and the observer’s view (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2008). The RCTGL study started with the complete observer observation to describe the system and the insider’s view was taken from the discussion with the toy librarian prior to the survey. Furthermore, inside outside legitimation was used during the collaborative design workshop. Discussion with toy librarians as the insiders and confirmation with participants about their collages and
330 scenarios were used together with the observer’s interpretation to present credible and more meaningful results.
Multiple validities legitimation used to address relevant types of ‘validity’ from the quantitative and qualitative strategies and the mixed methods research itself to yield high quality of meta inferences (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2008). As the legitimation for mixed methods research has been previously discussed, the following discussion presents validity strategies for the quantitative research and trustworthiness in qualitative inquiry.
Validity in the survey
Two validity strategies were conducted in the quantitative research: face validity and construct validity. An explanation about face validity related to the survey design was given in Section 5.3.1 (p. 213). Face validity was performed by conducting a pilot study prior to the survey distribution in order to make sure that the survey is a good instrument to achieve the objectives of the study.
The analysis of the ServQual method and its results has shown the construct validity of the study. As discussed earlier, construct validity measures the instrument used and evaluates if the instrument is really measuring what it needs to measure (Churchill Jr., 1995). In the RCTGL case study, the service quality was evaluated based on 20 variables that were categorised into 5 ServQual dimensions. However, no categorisation of the ServQual dimensions was shown to respondents, as all variables were asked randomly. A factor analysis performed after data was collected showed that most variables could be recategorised into the ServQual dimensions. This shows the instrument used (the survey and the ServQual method) showed internal consistency, thus it proves the construct validity in this study.
Trustworthiness in qualitative inquiry
There are many ways of checking trustworthiness of qualitative inquiry to verify if the study is rigorous and credible. The verification procedures from Creswell (1998)
331 and the classification of the procedures based on the design phase by Whittemore, Chase and Mandle (2001) were used to checked trustworthiness in qualitative inquiry in this study.
In the design presentation, triangulation was employed by using multiple and different sources and methods to identify user needs, expectations, and behaviour, and to create a collaborative and ideal scenario for the RCTGL system. Particularly in the collaborative design workshop, the process of corroborating evidence from different sources (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1984) was used to identify some themes. Overall, the study continuously used evidence secured from interviews, observation, image analysis, and workshop transcripts to provide a comprehensive analysis in order to present the study’s rigour.
Prolonged engagement and persistent observation were used in generating data, (Creswell, 1998). Observation was used as a preliminary way of analysing the system, along with observation of the interview process that was written up in field notes. A strategy for prolonged engagement is the involvement of the same participants for different stages of study. Participants in the collaborative design workshop were the same as the interviewees although a smaller number of participants were invited to the workshop. Furthermore, in the collaborative design workshop, observation was continuously undertaken from preparation to final evaluation. Additionally, ongoing observation of the toy library and the changes that occurred during the study period, along with discussions with the toy librarians was maintained to ensure the study’s credibility.
In terms of analysis, the researcher did not use negative case analysis because of the difficulty in finding cases that did not fit the predominant pattern. While in the GoGet case study, a negative case analysis was identified through a member who had left the system despite his strong sustainable characteristics, in the RCTGL case study, it was hard to identify a member who no longer used the system. It was probably because it is inexpensive to join the RCTGL and the membership was valid for one year. If a member did not like the system, they might simply stop using the
332 system rather than tell the RCTGL they wanted to withdraw their membership. An indication of this came from a survey respondent who said the RCTGL’s service was dissatisfying. She said: “I am sorry to say I have heard such good reports about the library. I have only been twice, but have not found a toy left for my 8 month old child.”
The reflexive journal was used as a verification procedure in the analysis phase. The journal, together with field notes, was used to identify the researcher’s interpretation and to list information and data the researcher needed to confirm with participants or other stakeholders. Furthermore, an interim report was given to the RCLIS (Randwick City Library and Information Services) and design scenarios from the collaborative design workshop were exhibited in the library for 10 days. There was no negative feedback given either to the report or to the scenarios. It indicated that the scenarios relatively acceptable and rigorous for the context of the study.
Finally, for the data presentation, all interviews and the collaborative design process were fully transcribed. Video recordings of design workshop proceedings were watched several times, and notes were made during the observation. This created a comprehensive description of the data.
Table 6.5 highlights the validity process in the study. The validity techniques verify that all phases of study confirm the legitimacy of the study and represent the true meaning of the case study itself.
Table 6.6: Validity techniques in the RCTGL case study Phase of study Types of technique Description Mixed methods research weakness minimization identification of weakness and strengths – overall phase of quantitative and qualitative research showing the importance of the sequence sequential of the study utilizing the insider’s view and the inside outside observer’s views for system description and the survey design the use of quantitative research validities and qualitative research multiple validities verification
333 Table 6.5: Validity techniques in the RCTGL case study (continued)
Phase of study Types of technique Description Quantitative research – design consideration: face validity careful procedure in developing the survey survey and administering the survey data collection and analysis: internal consistency in variable items construct validity Qualitative research – design consideration: the use of different methods of inquiry interviews, photo taken, triangulation building trust with participants, travel diaries, continuous observation collaborative design data generating: prolonged workshop engagement writing a provisional report for the toy librarian and exhibiting the scenarios at analytic: writing an interim report the library for 10 days, maintaining own and reflexive journal journal and field notes full transcription, combining video and audio recording to observe phenomena presentation: thick description
6.4 EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED MODEL
Both the GoGet and the RCTGL case studies were comprehensively analysed using the proposed model in Figure 2.16 (p.72) which was then combined with system thinking. This resulted in a more comprehensive model shown in Figure 3.2 (p. 80). Although these two case studies have many differences in their organisational structures and objectives, characteristics of members and operations, both have similarities in terms of their PSS characteristics. Therefore, the proposed model can be used effectively for both cases. This section discusses about the effectiveness of the proposed model in describing the system and in creating a framework for the study.
6.4.1 GoGet case study
Figure 6.4 illustrates the model for the GoGet case study. The system description has been extensively discussed in Chapter 4. The proposed model has satisfactorily identified important features of the GoGet system, particularly those relating to PSS characteristics, such as products, services, infrastructures and networks. The model has also described different system components.
334
Figure 6. 4: Model for GoGet case study
The proposed model has adequately shown those perspectives related to the system thinking model (Capra, 2002). It identifies four main perspectives: components, process, form/pattern and meaning. The model identified four main GoGet stakeholders and explained the relationship between them (pattern). The patterns were shown in Figure 4.8 (p. 119) and Figure 4.9 (p.120). The profiles of members (pattern) and the member’s patterns in using GoGet were investigated. The components of the GoGet system: products, services, actor networks, and infrastructure were also identified and described. The actor network can also be identified as a relationship (pattern) between GoGet stakeholders. The performance criteria, the satisfaction level and sustainable consumption behaviour were identified as a process of experiencing the system. The search of meaning that resulted from understanding the whole system and the corroboration of different methods of study (survey, interviews, travel diary, photo taken, and collaborative
335 design workshop) is regarded as the fourth perspective of the system. To be able to seek the meaning of the system, identification and understanding of the other three perspectives needed to be done previously.
The collaborative design workshop was used to encourage a shift towards more sustainable consumption behaviour. Three scenarios, designed using the collaborative design workshop, were considered to be a new system that should contain all system perspectives: pattern, components, process, and meaning. Although this study did not particularly discuss the system description of these scenarios, as the current system has been shown as a system as a whole, the scenarios could also be represented as a system.
The evaluation of the scenarios are conducted using system maps. For the GoGet scenarios, three system maps have been created. A system map is an analytical tool for mapping the actor’s roles in a scenario or a system (van Halen Vezzoli & Wimmer, 2005). For GoGet case study, system maps are constructed to see the relationship between GoGet and its stakeholders that has been previously identified in the GoGet PSS model (See Figure 6.4). The first system map is created for Scenario 1 Use Net to Get (See Figure 6.5), the second one is for Scenario 2 Go/Gather Together (See Figure 6.6) and the third one is for Scenario 3 Taking a pet with GoGet (See Figure 6.7).
GoGet model shows the interaction between GoGet and its stakeholders where GoGet provides cars and a smart card for every member for them to access the car. GoGet also creates active relationship with local governments to cooperate with in providing parking space for its cars. GoGet also cooperates actively with other stakeholders (supplier and maintenance), to make sure it gives its best service to its members.
The collaborative design workshop assisted the development of scenarios that emphasise the close relationship between GoGet (as the main actor) and its members. As the scenarios were created between members and GoGet staff, the
336 scenarios show relationship only between GoGet and its members. Figure 4 illustrates a system map for Scenario 1 – Use Net to Get. It shows information, material and financial flows between GoGet and its members. As it can be seen in the figure, the relationship between GoGet and its members only has one information flow because the members who take an active role to communicate with each other in order to plan their activities (for example going to a festival) to go together. One of the members then reserves a car on behalf of the group and he/she is responsible to pay to GoGet and subsequently shares the bill with other group members.
Figure 6.5: System Map for Scenario 1 – Use Net to Get
The system map also represents a strong character of the use of the Internet (to access GoGet member site) as a media for members to communicate with each other and to communicate with GoGet. Although GoGet members mainly enjoy only
337 the use of the car rather than owning the car, a material flow is still needed to show how they have access to a car and use the petrol (fuel) that GoGet has provided.
Another system map for Scenario 2 – Go/Gather Together is illustrated in Figure 5. Similar to the first system map, the relationship shown in this system map only focuses on the relationship between GoGet as the main actor and its members. Unlike the system map for Scenario 1, the system map for Scenario 2 shows different information flows for members. It indicates that GoGet plays an active role in promoting carpooling service for the members to go to the same or similar destination. Subsequently, GoGet sets the bill shared among the members who use the pooling system. Similar to the first scenario, this scenario requires an online information system.
Figure 6.6: System Map for Scenario 2 – Go/Gather Together
338 Figure 6.7: System Map for Scenario 3 – Take a Pet with GoGet
Scenario 3 – Take a Pet with GoGet emphasises a good experience of a single member when using a GoGet car. Thus, the system map only represents a relationship between GoGet and its member (See Figure 6). In this system map, it is shown that a member uses a GoGet car to go to a veterinary, and GoGet enables an excellent service to give its members her or his best experience. The use of the smart card and its technology makes the member feel comfortable when using GoGet service. There is an information flow between GoGet and the veterinary (denoted with cross symbol) as the GPS technology installed in the GoGet car sends the information to the back office (GoGet). The other flows are similar to the previous scenarios: information flow between the member and GoGet and the financial flow from the member to GoGet for the cost of using the car.
339 6.4.2 The RCTGL case study
Figure 6.5 represents the model for the RCTGL case study. Chapter 5 has extensively discussed the system description and the analysis. The proposed model has identified important features of the RCTGL system.
Figure 6.8: Model for the RCTGL case study
Similar to GoGet, the RCTGL also shows a representative of a system as a whole. The components of the system (products, services, infrastructure, and actor network) have been identified as well as the RCTGL stakeholders. Moreover, the relationship between stakeholders (pattern) was identified. Although the actor network that represents the relationship between stakeholders was not as rich as the GoGet system, it still shows how members were connected to each other through the RCTGL staff (See Figure 5.6, p. 216) and services.
340 The study identified members’ profiles (patterns) and the patterns of how members used the RCTGL service. Furthermore, a search for meaning of member experiences with the RCTGL services was performed using triangulation methods of interviews, observation and the collaborative design workshop.
Similar to the GoGet case study, the model show the process of moving towards more sustainable consumption behaviour by creating ideal scenarios. These ideal scenarios should be regarded as a system as a whole, similar to the current system. This study, however, did not discuss the system description for the scenarios in further details.
Based on the identification of the model for both case studies, it was observed that the model was able to comprehensively describe and analyse each case study in a systematic way (with a system thinking model). As the model worked well for both case studies, it is believed that the model can also be used for other PSS applications.
Similar to GoGet case study, a system map is also created for the RCTGL scenarios. As the RCTGL is a part of a local government service, it needs to report its activities to the local government and to get support from the government. Besides its members, the RCTGL also need to have a good relationship with toy suppliers and make sure its toys go the good buyers after their end of life in the service. A system map is created based on scenarios developed from the collaborative design workshop.
Although the scenarios are quite different from one to another, a system map can be created to show both scenarios (A Sense of Activity and A Sense of Place). Figure 6.9 shows this system map. It only shows the relationship between the RCTGL and its members as the scenarios created using the collaborative design workshop only involved members and the RCTGL staff. It can be seen that in both scenarios, the RCTGL provide toys for each member to borrow (represented by several material flows. However, the information given to the member from the RCTGL is usually the
341 same. Thus, there is only one information flow from the RCTGL to the members. Unlike the GoGet scenarios where the activities involve payment (for using the car), the scenarios created for the RCTGL case study do not incur additional cost. Thus, there is no financial flow in this system map.
Figure 6.9: System Map for the RCTGL scenarios The system maps show a systemic and analytical model for the scenarios created during the collaborative design workshop. It shows that, during the collaborative design workshop, scenarios that do not yet involve all the stakeholders are created. Also, the system map can give an indication as to how the organization and its members interact with each other. For instance, what flows occur in the activities done between the organization and its members.
6.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY
Both the GoGet and the RCTGL case studies sufficiently represented PSS models as they fulfilled the PSS characteristics: combining tangible products and intangible service, fulfilling user needs and providing user satisfaction, competitiveness, environmental impact reduction, an innovation strategy, an integrated approach,
342 user (or stakeholder) involvement and a shift of behaviour from consumption to use. These case studies showed different aspects of sharing; they had a different business focus, and they had different types of members. Nevertheless, these different characteristics enriched the exercises, enabling the researcher to observe the similarities and differences of each.
The system description, evaluation of performance criteria and scenarios developed in this PhD study were obtained through reliable research methods, combined with prolonged observation, careful analysis, and continuous discussion with participants and both GoGet and the RCTGL staff. Therefore, the results of both case studies represented the reality in each instance.
The discussion about methodology used in these case studies showed that the research design framework performed effectively. Despite some limitations, especially concerning sample representation and survey design, most methods used worked satisfactorily.
Finally, the proposed model has shown its effectiveness in representing each system. The model can describe both case studies well. Thus, the model is believed to be transferrable, and can be used for other PSS case studies.
343 CHAPTER 7 7 CONCLUSIONS
“What we call the beginning is often the end. And to make an end is to make a beginning. The end is where we start from.” (Eliot, T.S.)
This final chapter provides a summary of the study and concluding remarks. The structure of this chapter is as follows: it summarises the research and answers the research questions given in Chapter 1 after confirming the propositions. It then briefly describes the contribution of the study and finally suggests further research and provides some recommendations.
7.1 SUMMARY
The study started with two propositions:
1. The use of PSS supports sustainable consumption which consequently reduces the environmental impacts. 2. The use of PSS limits user satisfaction due to inconvenience, less control, and less privacy. This study confirmed that these propositions are not necessarily true based on the following arguments. It is evident the use of PSS supports sustainable consumption as the users of PSS application would shift their consumption behaviour from consumption to use. The use of sharing facilities, such as car sharing and a toy
344 library, that minimised use of material resources during the use phase confirmed that Proposition 1 holds true for supporting sustainable consumption. The study proved that GoGet members shared one car among 12 16 members and significantly reduced their car mileage (vehicle kilometre travelled). Similarly, the RCTGL members significantly cut their budget for buying toys, in turn causing fewer toys. The lifespan of toy library toys is also longer because of the optimised use throughout the functional (or technical) lives of such toys.
However, although the use of PSS supports sustainable consumption among members, the fact that members of PSS do not represent the mainstream population results in no major impact so far as sustainable production is concerned. Currently, members of GoGet and other car sharing organisations in Australia represent fewer than 1 per cent of active drivers. Similarly, the RCTGL members only represent fewer than 1 per cent of the number of families in the Randwick City Council local government area. As a result, the sharing behaviour exercised by PSS members has not significantly influenced the production system to be more sustainable. In other words, the environmental impact reduction based on sustainable consumption practiced by PSS members is still insignificant.
The second proposition which states that the use of PSS limits user satisfaction because of inconvenience, less control, and less privacy also does not holds true. The study shows that GoGet members found the use of GoGet cars had given them convenience. Moreover, although most members found some limitation in accessing cars and some experienced being inconvenienced by other members (thus affecting their privacy issues), they understood it was an effect of sharing. Most GoGet interviewees agreed that conveniences relating to the use of car sharing outweighed privacy problems.
Similarly, the RCTGL members expressed the view that using the toy library, to a certain degree, enhanced their quality of life particularly those activities relating to children’s education and development programs. As most RCTGL members were mothers who put their families or children at the centre of their lives, they argued
345 their children’s happiness was one of the most important aspects of their lives. As a result, use of a toy library that enhanced their children’s experiences would likely improve the parent’s comfort and conveniences. Most members had no problems with privacy and control in terms of the use of toys, and they were willing to use the sharing facility as a way of teaching their children to share with others.
The above arguments provide guidance for the study that, firstly, it is important to maintsream PSS strategy to gain more significant reduction in environmental impacts. However, since this issue is out of the research scope, it is essential in this study to improve the environmental impacts of the case studies and to develop strategies or scenarios that lead to more sustainable consumption behaviour. Secondly, any improvements should not undermine members’ convenience and/or privacy issues, as the current systems produced no significant problems. These conditions were taken into account when answering the research question: “How do you design PSS scenarios which improve user satisfaction level and encourage sustainable consumption of the users?”
Both systems were analysed to answer the above research question. After analysing these systems using a proposed model (See Figure 3.2, p. 82), two performance criteria were evaluated: (1) user satisfaction levels and (2) sustainable consumption behaviour and the intention of changing to more sustainable consumption behaviour. Subsequently, to encourage the change to more sustainable consumption, a collaborative design process was conducted, and scenarios were designed corresponding to the above conditions.
These following items summarised what was achieved in the GoGet case study.
1. Based on the survey conducted among GoGet members, the overall user satisfaction level of GoGet services was above average (3.6 of 4). Using the ServQual method, the satisfaction level was subsequently analysed based on the scheme’s tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy dimensions. The study investigated that although gaps between the satisfaction
346 level (perception) and the importance level (expectation) were relatively small, there were some areas that needed improving for instance, assurance, accessibility (that combined reliability and tangibles), efficiency (tangibles) and reservation reliability. Some areas that have already had a higher satisfaction level than the expectation level include responsiveness and tangibles – such as cleanliness.
2. Further exploration of the user satisfaction level was performed using interviews. The interviews revealed that interviewees had a range of perceptions related to the system. Although most of them found GoGet service convenient for their transport requirements. However, those who joined GoGet because of external forces, such as their financial situation, felt they were, to some extent, less convenient within the system.
3. The study also revealed that GoGet members occupied a diverse spectrum regarding their voluntary simplicity position. It influenced their sustainable consumption behaviour, whether they intentionally act sustainably or they were forced to be more sustainable. However, the analysis using the NOA model showed most of study participants intended changing to more sustainable consumption behaviour. This intention was identified from their mix of needs, opportunities and abilities in the use of car sharing as their means of transport.
4. The collaborative design workshop generated two scenarios from two groups, and these were finally refined into to three scenarios: Use Net to Get, Go/Gather Together, and Take a Pet with GoGet. The first two scenarios focused on sharing a GoGet car that incorporated the idea of car sharing with car pooling. These scenarios emphasised the use of social networking or the GoGet website to create social activities among members. The third scenario was designed by focusing on the use of technology to bridge different interests and perceptions among members about pets. It also aimed to enhance user experience and indirectly improve social cohesion among members. While the first and the second scenarios emphasised improvement of environmental
347 sustainability, the third scenario was believed to improve socio ethical sustainability. In different ways, all developed scenarios are expected to enhance users’ experiences with GoGet services and ultimately provide more satisfying experiences.
The following lists review the achievement of the RCTGL case study.
1. The RCTGL survey identified that overall user satisfaction levels for the RCTGL’s services were above the average level (3.2 of 4). Further investigation using the ServQual method revealed that were still gaps between members’ expectations and perceptions that resulted in the need for improvement to satisfy members in the following area: responsiveness and access (responsiveness dimension), product and service values (tangibles), activities and renewal reliability (reliability dimensions). On the other hand, some factors had higher perception levels than expectation levels for instance, service assurance (assurance dimension), physical product and product added values (tangibles dimension) and catalogues (reliability dimension).
2. However, further exploration of the user satisfaction level and user experiences using the interviews found that most interviewees were not very satisfied with the range of toys for a certain age groups. Some problems relating to missing and incomplete toys, as well as poor quality of toys, revealed not all of interviewees expressed or experienced those problems. Furthermore, access to the RCTGL was also a problem for some interviewees. Some found it difficult to find a parking space while others said it required some effort to get to and from the library by public transport. Even moving from the parking spaces to the toy area on Level 1 could be problematic, as they usually came with children, prams and toys.
3. The practice of sustainable consumption behaviour by members was examined in the interviews. Few members were highly aware of sustainability while most
348 did not intentionally practice sustainable consumption (voluntary simplicity). Based on the NOA model used to analyse the intention to change towards more sustainable consumption behaviour, it is not obviously shown that members would intentionally shift their consumption behaviour to such more sustainable behaviour. However, it was evident that by using the sharing facility, they indirectly practised sustainable consumption behaviour.
4. The idea of strengthening the sustainable consumption practice was delivered in the collaborative design workshop. Although it was not intentionally directed, this collaborative design workshop generated scenarios that added more community and sharing values, as well as enhanced user experiences while using the toy library. Two scenarios were designed from the workshop: A Sense of Activities and A Sense of Place. A Sense of Activity emphasised the creation of social interactions among parents/carers and children and the use of activities as media for information dissemination. A Sense of Place focuses on the emotional design of the toy library and improved social activities for parents/carers and children. Although the focus of the scenarios was the improvement of socio ethical sustainability, some features of environmental sustainability were included such as the use of recycling materials for activities and workshops on about sustainability generally.
7.2 WHAT DID THE STUDY ADD?
The study has shown its contribution to the body of knowledge in both theoretical and empirical ways. Firstly, the proposed model that was built based on an extensive literature review added to PSS theories. The model also shows a holistic framework as it adopts a system thinking model based on four perspective of life: component, pattern, process and meaning. Empirically, the model was able to describe and analyse PSS systems, particularly through two conducted case studies:
349 GoGet car sharing and the Randwick City Toy and Game Library. It also provides a situational analysis for PSS application in Australia.
Together with mixed methods research design framework, the proposed model systematically analyses the PSS systems. These two case studies (GoGet and the RCTGL) are different in many ways, such as in areas of operations, member characteristics and business/organisation objectives. However, the model and research design frameworks worked effectively for both. As a result, the model can be proposed for other case studies as long as they fit the PSS characteristics.
A range of methods were used in the study under the mixed methods research design framework. Before commencing the study, the methodology had carefully designed and after the data analysis and presentation, it is evident that the methods used in the study successfully achieved the research objectives. All methods have been sufficiently validated using appropriate strategies, and this has proven their suitability in this study. Finally, this study is regarded as the first research into PSS areas in Australia. As a result, the study provides many opportunities for extension.
7.3 FURTHER RESEARCH AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The study has resulted in various results and analysis. However, there are some potential research and recommendations which could make the study more comprehensive. The following points are some suggestions for future research.
1. As previously discussed in Section 6.4.1 and 6.4.2, the proposed model has not yet been fully utilised, as the designed scenarios were not yet as comprehensive as the current system. Further research about the implementation of the scenarios in the real system may result in richer meanings and further validation of the model.
350 2. Although the researcher has tried to engage as many participants as possible, some problems occurred during the study including the withdrawal of participation, small number of responses or the unavailability to attend particular stage of the study. This may cause some bias or inaccuracy in data collection as well as data analysis and presentation. Ideally, longer period of study and more resources would overcome the problem. However, there is always boundary in the study that limits the resources as well as the duration of study. Therefore, further analysis about the comparison between the system during the period of study and the future situation could contribute to a more rigorous study.
3. In order to validate the proposed model and to assess whether the model is transferable to other case studies, other PSS application should be analysed using the same model. This would ultimately validate the model.
351 REFERENCES
ABS. (2005). Motor vehicle census 2005 (No. 9309.0). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
ABS. (2006). Australian Social Trends 2007 (No. 4102.0). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
ABS. (2007). Regional Population Growth Australia 1996 to 2006 (No. 3218.0). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 377 392). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 485 499). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Argyrous, G. (2005). Statistics for Research. London: Sage Publications.
Ashford, H., & Thomas, K. (2004, 3 4 June). Product Service Systems in 21st Century: Towards a New Industrial Revolution. Paper presented at the 2nd SusProNet Conference "Practical Value", Brussel, Belgium.
Atkinson, P. (2005). Toy Libraries around the world [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 11 November 2008, from http://www.itla toylibraries.org/ 10th%20conference/FullPaper Pat%20Atkinson.doc.
Babbie, E. R. (2001). The practice of social research (9th ed.). Australia ; London: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Baird, F., Moore, C. J., & Jagodzinzki, A. P. (2000). An ethnographic study of engineering design teams at Rolls Royce Aerospace. Design Studies, 21, 333 355.
Barber, J. (2007). Mapping the movement to achieve sustainable production and consumption in North America. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(6), 499 512.
Barnett, V., & Barnett, V. (1991). Sample survey principles and methods (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
352 Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1986). Situational Effects of Advertising Repetition: The Moderating Influence of Motivation, Ability, and Opportunity to Respond. The Journal of Consumer Research, 12(4), 432 445.
Benkler, Y. (2004). Sharing Nicely: On Shareable Goods and the Emergence of Sharing as a Modality of Economic Production. Yale L.J., 273, 273 358.
Bergmaier, R., Mason, C., McKenzie, M., Campbell, S., & Hobson, A. (2004). Car Sharing : an Overview. Canberra: Australian Government.
Blomberg, J., Giacomi, J., Mosher, A., & Swenton Wall, P. (1993). Ethnographic field methods and their relation to design. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory Design: Principles and Practices (pp. 123 156). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers.
Blomberg, J., & Henderson, A. (1990). Reflections on participatory design: lessons from the Trillium experience. Paper presented at the The ACM CHI 90 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference Seattle, Washington.
Brodin, J., & Bjorck Akesson, E. (1992). Toy Libraries/Lekoteks in an International Perspective. EuroRehab, 2, 97 102.
Bucciarelli, L. L. (1988). An ethnographic perspective on engineering design. Design Studies, 9(3), 159 168.
Capra, F. (2002). The Hidden Connections. London: HarperCollins.
Carletto, C., & de Janvry, A. (1999). Sustainability in the diffusion of innovations: Smallholder nontraditional agro exports. Economic Development & Cultural Change, 47(2), 345 369.
Charter, M., Adams, G., & Clark, T. (2004). Product Services in the Need Area ‘Information and Communication’: Centre for Sustainable Design. (SusProNet )
Cherrier, H. (2007). Ethical consumption practices: co production of self expression and social recognition. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(5), 321 335.
Chiu, M. L. (2002). An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration. Design Studies, 23(2), 187 210.
Churchill Jr., G. A. (1995). Marketing Research: Methodological Foundation (6th ed.). Fort Worth: The Dryden Press.
Cipolla, C., & Bartholo, R. (2006). Social Innovations in Brazil: Identifying relational qualities as a strategy to achieve sustainable results. Paper presented at the Sustainable Consumption and Production: Opportunities and Challenges.
353 Coakes, S. J., Steed, L. G., & Dzidic, P. (2005). SPSS version 13.0 for Windows : analysis without anguish (Version 13.0. ed.). Milton, Qld.: John Wiley & Sons Australia.
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling Techniques (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
“consumption”. (2008a). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 10 October 2008, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online http://www.britannica.com/ EBchecked/topic/134578/consumption.
Cooper, T. (2004). Inadequate Life? Evidence of Consumer Attitudes to Product Obsolescence. Journal of Consumer Policy, 27(4), 421.
Cooper, T. (2005). Slower Consumption: Reflections on Product Life Spans and the "Throwaway Society". Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(1/2), 51.
Cooper, T., & Evans, S. (2000). Products to Services. Retrieved 15 June, 2005, from http://www.suspronet.org/fs_resources.htm
Cooper, T., & Mayers, K. (2000). Prospects for Household Appliances. Halifax, Canada: Urban Mines.
Craig Lees, M., & Hill, C. (2002). Understanding voluntary simplifiers. Psychology and Marketing, 19(2), 187 210.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design : qualitative & quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design : choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Cross, N., & Cross, A. C. (1995). Observations of teamwork and social processes in design. Design Studies, 16(2), 143 170.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research : meaning and perspective in the research process. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Crul, M. R. M., & Diehl, J. C. (2007). Design for Sustainability: a practical approach for developing economies. Paris: UNEP.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Living well : the psychology of everyday life. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Daly, H. and Cobb, J. (1990). For the Common Good. Boston: Beacon Press.
354 Dandavante, U., Steiner, D., & William, C. (2000). Working anywhere: Co design through participation. In S. A. R. Scrivener, L. J. Ball & A. Woodcock (Eds.), Collaborative design : proceedings of CoDesigning 2000 (pp. xvii, 546 p.). London: Springer.
Darnton, A. (2008). Reference Report: An overview of behaviour change model and their uses [Electronic Version], from http://www.gsr.gov.uk/downloads/resources/behaviour_change_review/ref erence_report.pdf
Davidson, R. (1998). The Transtheoretical Model: A Critical Overview. In W. R. Miller & N. Heather (Eds.), Treating Addictive Behaviors (2 ed., pp. 25 38). London: Springer. de Geus, A., & Senge, P. M. (1997). The living company. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
Demirbilek, O. (1999). Involving the elderly in the design process: a participatory design model for usability, safety and attractiveness. Ph.D. Dissertation. Bilkent University, Ankara.
Demirbilek, O., & Demirkan, H. (2000). Collaborating with Elderly End users in the Design Process. In S. A. R. Scrivener, L. J. Ball & A. Woordcock (Eds.), Collaborative Design: Proceedings of CoDesigning 2000. London: Springer.
Elgin, D. (1981). Living more simply. In Voluntary Simplicity: Towards a Way of Life that is Outwardly Simple, Inwardly Rich (pp. 143 160). New York: William Morrow.
Elgin, D., & Mitchell, A. (1977). Voluntary Simplicity. The Co Evolution Quarterly, Summer, 4 19.
Etzioni, A. (1998). Voluntary simplicity : characterization, select psychological implications, and societal consequences. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 619 643.
Feckova, V., Kruppova, R., Laurinc, T., & Micech, B. (2006). Sustainable Business in Kenya: Resource Efficiency Assessment in Kenya. Paper presented at the Sustainable Consumption and Production: Opportunities and Challenges.
Ferrer i Carbonell, A. (2003). Consumption, behavior and the environment: Theoretical and empirical dimensions. Unpublished Ph.D., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, United States New York.
Forell, A., & Glue, M. (1979). Noah's Ark Toy Library for Handicapped Children Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 5(8), 325 326
355 Frazão, R., & Rocha, C. (2004). Product Services in the Need Area ‘Base Materials’: INET/CENDES. (SusProNet)
Fromm, E. (1976). To Have or To Be. New York: Harper & Row Publisher.
Gatersleben, B., & Vlek, C. (1997). Understanding Household Metabolism in View of Environmental Quality and Sustainable Development. In G. Antonides, W. F. v. Raaij & S. Maital (Eds.), Advances in Economic Psychology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Gatersleben, B., & Vlek, C. (1998). Household Consumption, Quality of Life, and Environmental Impacts: A Psychological Perspective and Empirical Study. In K. J. Noorman & T. S. Uiterkamp (Eds.), Green Households? Domestic Consumers, Evironment, and Sustainability (pp. 141 183). London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Go, K., & Carroll, J. M. (2004). The blind men and the elephant: views of scenarios based system design. Interactions (November December), 44 53.
Goedkoop, M. J., van Halen, C. J. G., te Riele, H. R. M., & Rommens, P. J. M. (1999). Product Service systems, Ecological and Economic Basics. Netherlands: Pre.
GoGet. (2006). Detailed Proposal Application Form, Low Emissions Technology and Abatement Strategic Abatement (LETA SA) Grants. internal document: not to publish.
GoGet. (2007). Carshare Trial Proposal. internal document: not to publish.
Gold, R. L. (1958). Roles in Sociological Field Observations. Social Forces, 36(3), 217 223.
Goodrick, D. (2008). Qualitative Research: Design, Analysis and Representation. ACSPRI.
Gray, D. E. (2004). Doing Research in the Real World. London: Sage Publications.
Green, K. & Vergragt, P. (2002). Towards Sustainable Households: A methodology for developingsustainable technological and social innovations. Futures, 34, 881 400.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing Paradigm in Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105 117). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
356 Hamilton, C. (2002). Overconsumption in Australia: The rise of the middle class battler [Electronic Version], Discussion Paper no. 49. Retrieved 12 November 2007, from https://www.tai.org.au/file.php?file=DP49.pdf
Hamilton, C. (2003). Overconsumption in Britain: A culture of middle class complaint? [Electronic Version], Discussion Paper no. 57. Retrieved 12 November 2007, from https://www.tai.org.au/file.php?file=DP57.pdf
Hamilton, C., & Denniss, R. (2005). Affluenza When Too Much is Never Enough. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Hamilton, C., Denniss, R., & Baker, D. (2005). Wasteful Consumption in Australia [Electronic Version], Discussion Paper No. 77. Retrieved 12 November 2007, from http://www.tai.org.au/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=36&func =select&id=2
Hamilton, C., & Mail, E. (2003). Downshifting in Australia: A sea change in the pursuit of happiness [Electronic Version], Discussion Paper no. 50. Retrieved 12 November 2007, from http://www.tai.org.au/ index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=36&func=select&id=2
Head, J., & Barton, P. (1987). Toy Libraries in the Community. London: Elton Ltd.
Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Consumer value : a framework for analysis and research. London ; New York: Routledge.
Holmgren, D. (2002). Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability. Hepburn: Holmgren Design Services.
Hotlzblatt, K., & Jones, S. (1993). Contextual Inquiry: A Participatory techniques for system design. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory Design: Principles and Practices (pp. 177 210). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers.
Jackson, S. C., Robey, L., Watjus, M., & Chadwick, E. (1991). Play for ALL Children: The Toy Library Solution. Childhood Education, 68(1), 27 31.
Jackson, T. (2005). Motivating Sustainable Consumption. Surrey: Centre for Environmental Strategy.
Jackson, T. (2006). The Earthscan reader in sustainable consumption. London ; Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
Jackson, T. & Marks, N. (1999). Consumption, sustainable welfare and human needs—with reference to UK expenditure patterns between 1954 and 1994, Ecological Economics, 28, 421–441.
357 James, P., & Hopkinson, P. (2002). Service innovation for sustainability: A new option for UK environmental policy? [Electronic Version], 19. Retrieved 20 November 2005, from https://www.vengroup.com/ve net/Library.nsf/437332417232257d80256b520047b954/B69D21361258F3E 780256F6D00508239/$file/Service%20Innovation%20for%20Sustainability.p df
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14.
José, R. G. (2008). Developing Sustainable Lifestyles in Emerging Countries. Paper presented at the Sustainable Consumption and Production: Framework for Action.
Kapellaka, U. (1992). Toy Libraries: Learning through play with toys. International Journal of Early Childhood, 2(24), 53 56.
Kellehear, A. (1993). The unobtrusive researcher: A guide to methods. St Leonard, NSW: Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd.
Kensing, F., & Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory Design: Issues and Concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 7, 167 185.
Kicherer, A., Dittrich Kramer, B., & Wittlinger, R. (2006). Promoting eco efficiency in smal and medium sized companies in Africa. Paper presented at the Sustainable Consumption and Production: Opportunities and Challenges.
Kissinger, M. (2006). Consumption in a globalizing world Assessing sustainability through the lens of 'interregional ecology'. Paper presented at the Sustainable Consumption and Production: Opportunities and Challenges.
Kleinsmann, M., & Valkenburg, R. (2005). Learning from collaborative new product development projects. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(3), 146 156.
Kleinsmann, M., & Valkenburg, R. (2008). Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co design projects. Design Studies, 29(4), 369 386.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews : an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Lahti, H., Seitamaa Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Collaboration patterns in computer supported collaborative designing. Design Studies, 25(4), 351 371.
Leonard Barton, D., & Rogers, E. M. (1980). Voluntary simplicity. Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 28 34.
358 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Local & Community Transport. Vehicle Replacement and Kilometre Operating Costs Tool. Users Guide [Electronic Version], 9. Retrieved 20 June 2008 from http://www.cto.org.au/images/webpdf/bestpractices/Vehicle%20Replacem ent %20and%20Kilometre%20Operating%20Costs%20Tool%20User.pdf.
MacKay, H. (1997). Consumption and Everyday Life. London: Sage Publications.
Manzini, E., & Jegou, F. (2000). The Construction of Design Orienting Scenario (No. Final Report). Delft: Faculty of Technology Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology)
Manzini, E., & Jegou, F. (2003). Sustainable Everyday : Scenario of Urban Life. Milan: Edizioni Ambiente.
Manzini, E., & Vezzoli, C. (2002). Product Service System and Sustainability : Opportunities for sustainable solutions. Paris: UNEP.
Maslow, A. H. (1946). A Theory of Human Motivation In P. L. Harriman (Ed.), Twentieth Century Psychology: Recent Developments in Psychology (pp. 22 48). New York: The Philosophical Library.
Mauss, M. (2001). The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies (W. D. Halls, Trans.). London: Routledge.
Max Neef, M. (1995). Economic growth and quality of life—a threshold hypothesis. Ecological Economics, 15, 115–118.
Mayfield, M. I. (1993). Toy Libraries: Promoting Play, Toys, and Family Support Internationally. Early Child Development and Care, 87, 1 13.
McDonagh, D., & Denton, H. (2005). Exploring the degree to which individual students share a common perception of specific mood boards: observations relating to teaching, learning and team based design. Design Studies, 26(1), 35 53.
McDonald, S., Oates, C. J., Young, C. W., & Hwang, K. (2006). Toward sustainable consumption: Researching voluntary simplifiers. Psychology and Marketing, 23(6), 515 534.
McQuaid, H. L., Goel, A., & McManus, M. (2003, June 23 26). When you can't talk to customer: Using storyboards and narratives to elicit empathy for users. Paper presented at the 2003 International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
359 Meadows, D. H. (1974). The Limits to growth : a report for the Club of Rome's project on the Predicament of Mankind. London: Pan Books.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., & Randers, J. (2004). The limits to growth : the 30 year update. White River Junction, Vt: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
Meijkamp, R. (2000). Changing consumer behaviour through Eco efficient Services : An empirical study on Car Sharing in the Netherlands. Delft, the Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis : a sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Minichiello, V. (1990). In depth interviewing : researching people. South Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Mont, O. (2002a). Clarifying the concept of product–service system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10, 237 245.
Mont, O. (2002b). Drivers and barriers for shifting towards more service oriented businesses: Analysis of the PSS field and contributions from Sweden. Journal of Sustainable Product Design, 2, 89 103.
Mont, O. (2002c). Functional Thinking the role of functional sales and product service systems for a function based society (No. 5233). Stockholm: Naturvardsverket)
Mont, O. (2004a). Institutionalisation of sustainable consumption patterns based on shared use. Ecological Economics, 50(1 2), 135 153.
Mont, O. (2004b). Product service systems: Panacea or myth?. Ph.D. Dissertation. Lund: Lund University.
Moore, J. E. (1995). A History of Toy Lending Libraries in the United States Since 1935. Unpublished Master's Research Paper, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.
Morelli, N. (2002). Designing product/service systems: a methodological exploration. Design Issues, 18(3), 3 17.
Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to Qualitative Quantitative Methodological Triangulation. Nursing Research, 40(2), 120 123.
Muller, M. J., Wildman, D. M., & White, E. A. (1993). Taxonomy of PD practices: a brief practitioner's guide (Participatory Design). Communications of the ACM, 36.
Myers, N., & Kent, J. (2004). The New Consumers. Washington DC: Island Press.
360 Nawangpalupi, C., & Demirbilek, O. (2008). Investigation on the drivers and the barriers for travel behaviour changes and the analysis of the impact: A case study of Car Sharing in Australia. The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 4(4), 1 9.
Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods : qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). Boston ; London: Allyn and Bacon.
Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that Make Us Smart: Defending Human Attributes in the Age of the Machine. New York: Addison Wesley.
OECD. (1999). Education and learning for sustainable consumption. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co operation and Development, Directorate Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.
OECD. (2002a). Participatory Decision Making for Sustainable Consumption. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co operation and Development)
OECD. (2002b). Towards Sustainable Household Consumption? Trends and Policies in OECD countries. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co operation and Development.
OECD. (2008). Promoting Sustainable Consumption: Good practices in OECD Countries [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 31 October 2008, from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/59/40317373.pdf
OED (2005). The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ono, M. M. (2008). Cultural diversity and sustainable design. Paper presented at the Sustainable Consumption and Production: Framework for Action.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2008). The validity issue in mixed research. In V. L. Plano Clark & J. W. Creswell (Eds.), The mixed methods reader (pp. 273 298). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Organisation for Economic Co operation and Development. (1998). Towards sustainable consumption patterns : a progress report on member country initiatives. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co operation and Development.
Ozawa, T., & Inaba, A. (2006, 23 25 Nov 2006). Development of a Sustainability Indicator for Agro Food Consumption and Production: Effort of The Food Study Group, the Institute of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan. Paper presented at the Sustainable Consumption and Production: Opportunities and Challenges, Wuppertal. paladin noun. (2005). University of New South Wales: Oxford University Press.
361 Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale (multiple item scale for measuring service quality). Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420 431.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 5 6.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Peng, C. (1994). Exploring communication in collaborative design: co operative architectural modelling. Design Studies, 15(1), 19 44.
Perry, M., & Sanderson, D. (1998). Coordinating joint design work: the role of communication and artefacts. Design Studies, 19(3), 273 288.
Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: the use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy: toward a more integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 19(3), 276 288.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390 395.
Ramirez, M., & Nawangpalupi, C. (2006, 23 25 Nov 2006). Assessing Scenarios for Sustainable Transport in Australia. Paper presented at the Sustainable Consumption and Production: Opportunities and Challenges, Wuppertal.
Ramirez, M., Tonkinwise, C. C., & Andrews, T. (2004). Designerly PSS design: orienting designers toward sustainable service system outcomes. Paper presented at the the 2nd International SUSPRONET Conference: Product Service Systems: Practical Value, Brussels, Belgium.
Ramirez, M., Tonkinwise, C. C., & Nawangpalupi, C. (2007, 29 30 November 2007). Multiplier and Transfer Effects of Car Sharing in Australia. Paper presented at the Framework for Action for SCP in the field of Food, Mobility and Energy/Housing Milan.
Reisch, L., & Bietz, S. (2007). How to convince the unconvincibles? A mass mediated approach to communicate sustainable lifestyles to a low interest target group. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 2(2), 192 200.
362 Reisch, L., Spash, C. L., & Bietz, S. (2008). Sustainable consumption and mass communication: A German experiment. SCIRO Working Paper Series.
Roads and Traffic Authority. (2007). New South Wales Driver & Vehicle Statistics 2007 (preliminary). Sydney.
Robben, H. S. J., & Poiesz, T. B. C. (1993). The operationalization of motivation, capacity and opportunity to process an advertising message. European Advances in Consumer Research, 1, 160 167.
Robins, N., & Roberts, S. (2006). Making Sense of Sustainable Consumption. In Jackson (Ed.), The Earthscan reader in sustainable consumption (pp. 39 49). London ; Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rothschild, M. L. (1999). Carrots, Sticks, and Promises: A Conceptual Framework for the Management of Public Health and Social Issue Behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 63(October), 24 37.
Ryan, C. (2000). Dematerializing Consumption through Service Substitution is a Design Challenge. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 4(1), 3 6.
Sanders, E. B. N. (2000). Generative Tools for Co designing. In S. A. R. Scrivener, L. J. Ball & A. Woordcock (Eds.), Collaborative Design: Proceedings of CoDesigning 2000. London: Springer.
Schor, J. (1998). The overspent American: Upscaling, downshifting, and the new consumer. New York: Basic Books.
Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (Eds.). (1993). Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers.
Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118 137). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
SCORE! (2006). Consolidating the SCP Community [Electronic Version], Draft 1.0. Retrieved 18 June 2008, from http://www.score network.org/files//1181_Future_of_the_SCP_community.pdf
SCORE! (2008). Sustainable Consumption and Production: A Framework For Action [Electronic Version], Draft 2.2. Retrieved 18 June 2008, from http://www.score network.org/files//24115_Action_framework_PDF.pdf
363 Seitamaa Hakkarainen, P., Lahti, H., Muukkonen, H., & Hakkarainen, K. (2000). Collaborative designing in a networked learning environment. In S. A. R. Scrivener, L. J. Ball & A. Woordcock (Eds.), Collaborative Design: Proceedings of CoDesigning 2000 (pp. 411–420). London: Springer.
Shaheen, S. A., Cohen, A., & Roberts, J. D. (2005). Carsharing in North America: Market growth, current developments, and future potential. Berkeley CA: Transportation Research Board.
Shaheen, S. A., & Cohen, A. P. (2007). Growth in Worldwide Carsharing: An International Comparison. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1992, 81–89.
Shaw, D., & Newholm, T. (2002). Voluntary Simplicity and the Ethics of Consumption. Psychology & Marketing, 19(2), 167–185.
Shepherd, C. (2006, 1 December 2006). The facts are out: Australians love their pets more than their children. Retrieved 20 June, 2009, from www.mooseworld.com.au/getfile/aspx?id=0df31c6c 1918 4c6e 8d2a 996900c576fi.doc
Silverman, D., & Seale, C. (2005). Doing qualitative research : a practical handbook (2nd ed.). London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Solomon, M. R. (2004). Consumer behavior : buying, having, and being (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Sonnenwald, D. H. (1996). Communication roles that support collaboration during the design process. Design Studies, 17(3), 277 301.
Stahel, W. R. (1997). The Functional Economy: Cultural and Organizational Change. In D. J. Richards (Ed.), The Industrial Green Game: Implications for Environmental Design and Management (pp. 91 100). Washington DC: National Academic Press.
Stone, M. (1983). Toy Libraries. Early Childhood Education Journal, 11(2), 19 21. strategy noun. (2005). University of New South Wales: Oxford University Press.
Susanne, P. (2001). Conversion to Organic Farming: A Typical Example of the Diffusion of an Innovation? Sociologia Ruralis, 41(1), 40 61.
SusProNet. (2003, 5 6 June 2003). Sustainable Product Service Systems. Paper presented at the Sustainable Product Service Systems "State of The Art", Amsterdam.
364 SusProNet. (2004, 3 4 June 2004). Proceedings of the Second International SusProNet Conference. Paper presented at the “Product Service Systems: Practical Value”, Brussels.
Swann, C. (2002). Action research and the practice of design. Design Issues, 18(2), 49 61.
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Sustainable Consumption: Research and Policies.
Symes, M., & Pauwels, S. (1999). The diffusion of innovations in urban design: The case of sustainability in the Hulme development guide. Journal of Urban Design, 4(1), 97 117
Tempelman, E. (2004). Product Services in the Need Area ‘Food’: TNO IND.
Tischner, U., Verkuijl, M., & Tukker, A. (2002). SusProNet Report : First Draft Report of PSS Review (No. Document No. 0001): Sustainable Product Service co design Network)
TPDC. (2006). 2004 household travel survey: summary report (No. 2006/01). Sydney: Transport and Population Data Centre, NSW Department of Planning)
Transport 2000. (1992). Car sharing and car pools. London: Transport 2000.
Transport and Population Data Centre. (2006). 2004 Household Travel Survey : Summary Report (No. Report 2006/01). Redfern: NSW department of Planning)
Tukker, A. (2004, 3 4 June 2004). Myths and realities about Product Service Systems. Paper presented at the 2nd SusProNet Conference "Practical Value", Brussels, Belgium.
Tukker, A. (2008). Sustainable Consumption and Production: A Framework For Action [Electronic Version], Draft 2.2. Retrieved 18 June 2008, from http://www.score network.org/files//24115_Action_framework_PDF.pdf
Tukker, A., & Tischner, U. (2006a). New Business for Old Europe: Product Service Development, Competitiveness and Sustainability. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.
Tukker, A., & Tischner, U. (2006b). Product services as a research field: past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(17), 1552 1556.
365 UITP. (2005). The Moses Guide: Keys to Car sharing [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 20 August 2006, from http://uitp.org/Working Bodies/Car Sharing/pics/moses KeysToCarSharings.pdf
UNDP. (2006). Consumption from a Human Development Perspective. In Jackson, T. (Ed.), The Earthscan reader in sustainable consumption (pp. 27 38). London ; Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
UNECE. (2004). The Statistical Yearbook of the Economic Commission for Europe 2005 [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 1 December 2007, from http://www.unece.org/stats/trends2005/transport.htm
UNEP. (1999). Changing consumption pattern. Industry and Environment, 22(4), special issue.
UNEP. (2001). Consumption Opportunities: Strategy for Change. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme.
“utility and value” (2008b). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 10 October 2008, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online http://www.britannica.com/ EBchecked/topic/620713/utility. van der Lugt, R. (2005). How sketching can affect the idea generation process in design group meetings. Design Studies, 26(2), 101 122. van Halen, C., Vezzoli, C., & Wimmer, R. (2005). Methodology for Product Service System Innovation : How to develop clean, clever and competitive strategies in companies. Assen, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.
Veblen, T. (1979 (Reprint)). The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Penguin.
Vercalsteren, A., & Geerken, T. (2004). Product Services in the Need Area ‘Households’: VITO. (SusProNet )
Vergragt, P. J. (2000). Strategies towards the Sustainable Household : Final Report SusHouse Project. Retrieved 10 June, 2005, from http://www.sushouse.tudelft.nl
Verkuijl, M., Tischner, U., & Nickel, R. (2004). Product Services in the Need Area ‘Offices’: ecoconcept. (SusProNet )
Verkuijl, M., Tischner, U., & Tukker, A. (2006). The Toolbox for Product Service Development. In A. Tukker & U. Tischner (Eds.), New Business for Old Europe: Product Service Development, Competitiveness and Sustainability (pp. 100 157). Sheffiled, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.
366 Vezzoli, C., & Ceschin, F. (2008). Designing sustainable system innovation transition for low industrialised contexts. Paper presented at the Sustainable Consumption and Production: Framework for Action.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute. (2007). Carsharing : Vehicle Rental Services That Substitute for Private Vehicle Ownership [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 20 December 2007, from http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm7.htm
Visser, F. S., Stappers, P. J., Lugt, R. v. d., & Sanders, E. B. N. (2005). Contextmapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign, 1(2), 119 149.
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.
Wagner, I. (2000). Persuasive Artefacts in Architectural Design and Planning. In S. A. R. Scrivener, L. J. Ball & A. Woordcock (Eds.), Collaborative Design: Proceedings of CoDesigning 2000 (pp. 379 389). London: Springer.
Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 522 537.
Wille, C., Aerts, J., & Geier, B. (2008). Verified Sustainable Agriculture. Paper presented at the Sustainable Consumption and Production: Framework for Action.
World Wildlife Fund. (2006). Living Planet Report 2006. from http://www.footprintnetwork.org/download.php?id=303
Yan, J., Barkmann, J., Zschiegner, A. K., & Marggraf, R. (2006). Sustainable consumption and production in the domestic Chinese tourism market. Paper presented at the Sustainable Consumption and Production: Opportunities and Challenges.
Yap, N. T., Eggenberger, M., van Duyen, N., & Glazier, G. (2006). The Challenge of introducing cleaner production in small scale enterprises: the case if Van Chang Craft Village Vietnam. Paper presented at the Sustainable Consumption and Production: Opportunities and Challenges.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1990). Delivering quality service : balancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York: Free Press.
367
APPENDIX A
Product Service System Evaluation
App 1
Table A 1: Evaluation of use oriented product service systems
App 2
APPENDIX B
B 1: User satisfaction of GoGet Car Share
B 2: GoGet Survey Prize& Interview Invitation
App 3 B 1: USER SATISFACTION OF GOGET CAR SHARE
App 4
App 5
App 6
App 7
App 8
App 9
App 10
App 11
App 12 B 2: GOGET SURVEY PRIZE& INTERVIEW INVITATION
App 13
App 14
APPENDIX C
GoGet interview questions and journal design
App 15 Introduction How long have you been joining GoGet ? Could you please tell me your reasons for joining GoGet? What makes you keep using GoGet service? or What do you like the best about GoGet?
In your opinion, is there any thing which could make you discontinuing your membership?
Do you think the use of GoGet improves particular aspects of your life? For example: helps improving the environmental makes you more organized supports your social activities
Environmental issues Could you give me some issues that you think are the most vulnerable condition in Sydney or Australia ? Where do you get the information about that, or how do you know about those issues? How this issues impact your life style/thought?
How this consideration influence your - overall lifestyle - consumption behaviour
Social sustainablity Have you experienced any changes of your social activities? Have you experienced any changes of your social values?
Economic benefit Individual Some people revealed that they use GoGet for cost-saving benefit. Do you agree with that? Is there any other economic benefit you’ve experienced by joining GoGet?
Quality of life Do you think the use of GoGet help you to achieve your quality of life? What specific achievement (of quality of life) have you experienced so far?
App 16 Kensington, 12 June 2007
Firstly, I would thank you for your participation in my research, for both the online survey and the interview. Your feedback is really invaluable. I do appreciate your time, effort, and contribution in my research.
Now, I, once again, thank you for your willingness to fill the travel diary. I attach the travel diary for you to record your 7-day trips. You can start on any day at your convenience, but please make sure that you record your trip behaviour for seven consecutive days so that you have complete data for each single day, both weekdays and weekends. For your convenience and review, I also attach an example of a completed travel diary yet fictitious. Please make sure that you fill all the same coloured pages for each day.
Your travel diary will be used to create a scenario of an individual weekly travel. I will subsequently estimate your ecological footprint (environmental impacts) in terms of mobility as well as to calculate your travel time and expenses. Ultimately, the estimation will be compared to other scenarios and a short analysis of which category of Australian data your travel behaviour correspond to. After I finish the analysis and calculation of your travel behaviour, I will send a copy of the results to you and you are most welcome to give any comment about the result.
Again, participation in this travel diary is voluntary. You receive the package because you have expressed your interest to participate in this part of study. Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential. Your scenario will be kept anonymous and will only be used for research purposes. No report from the study will contain information that could identify any one person.
If you have any questions or concerns about the project, you are welcome to contact me (Catharina B. Nawangpalupi) at the contact details below or Dr. Oya Demirbilek on 9385 4853. After you have finished filling the diary, please mail it back in the reply-paid envelope provided. Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to looking into your reflections.
Yours sincerely,
Catharina B. Nawangpalupi
PhD student Faculty of the Built Environment University of New South Wales (02) 9385 5783 [email protected]
App 17 Day :
My trips Modes of transport The Time I travelled with and the (bus/ train/ bike/ approximate spent for …. purposes scooter/ car/ other) distance of each trip travel (alone/ ….)
Details of my trips
Total estimated cost for today travel:
App 18
The trip Nice Unpleasant things that experiences I experienced during the trip
My reflection for today trips
App 19 APPENDIX D
Mann Whitnet test and Reliability Analysis
of GoGet survey data
App 20 Mann Whitney U Test (Wilcoxon tests)
NPar Tests [DataSet1] C:\Documents and Settings\u2258753\My Documents\Catharina Nawangpalupi\phd stuff\fieldwork\user satisfaction quest stage 2\goget\final result\significance test and cross tabs data revised.sav Mann Whitney Test Wilcoxon tests (or Mann Whitney U test) evaluate if the difference between two independent samples is statistically significant (Argyrous, 2005) or the two samples come from population that has the same distribution (Coakes, et al., 2006). The Ranks table provides the relevant descriptive statistics for the two comparing samples. Ranks Mean Sum of city N Rank Ranks age_group Sydney 249 143.65 35769.00 Melbourne 43 163.00 7009.00 Total 292 income_level Sydney 219 131.57 28814.00 Melbourne 38 114.18 4339.00 Total 257 education_level Sydney 249 143.36 35696.00 Melbourne 43 164.70 7082.00 Total 292 overall_satisfaction Sydney 248 147.82 36659.50 Melbourne 43 135.50 5826.50 Total 291
App 21 Test Statistics(a)
age_group income_level education_level overall_satisfaction Mann Whitney U 4644.000 3598.000 4571.000 4880.500 Wilcoxon W 35769.000 4339.000 35696.000 5826.500 Z 1.484 1.935 1.699 1.049 Asymp. Sig. (2 .138 .053 .089 .294 tailed) a Grouping Variable: city For the age group: z = 1.484 and p (two tailed) = 0.138. p > 0.05 Thus, no significant differences in age group exist between members in Sydney and Melbourne. For the income level: z = 1.935 and p (two tailed) = 0.053. p > 0.05 Thus, no significant differences in income level exist between members in Sydney and Melbourne. For the education level: z = 1.699 and p (two tailed) = 0.089. p > 0.05 Thus, no significant differences in education level exist between members in Sydney and Melbourne. For the age group: z = 1.049 and p (two tailed) = 0.294. p > 0.05 Thus, no significant differences in satisfaction level exist between members in Sydney and Melbourne.
App 22 Reliability analysis
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Case Processing Summary
N % Cases Valid 85 28.9 Excluded(a) 209 71.1 Total 294 100.0 a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Based on Alpha Standardized Items N of Items .888 .891 22
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N error free reservation 3.47 .609 85 convenient phone res 3.25 .688 85 easy online reservation 3.65 .550 85 car availability 3.08 .582 85 update membership 3.26 .620 85 secured financial 3.32 .561 85 state cost structure 3.34 .609 85 state insurance policy 3.25 .653 85 safe data confidential 3.26 .492 85 clean interior 3.33 .543 85 clean exterior 3.15 .567 85 fuel efficient 3.38 .511 85 navigation system 1.85 .681 85 powerful engine 1.99 .607 85 information 2.92 .621 85 pods easy to find 3.38 .577 85 easy to reach by PT 3.28 .629 85 parking bicycle 2.59 .642 85 respond with min delay 3.34 .700 85 knowledge 3.55 .523 85 courtesy 3.66 .477 85 personal attention 3.55 .567 85
App 23 Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
state error free convenient easy online car update secured state cost insurance safe data clean clean reservation phone res reservation availability membership financial structure policy confidential interior exterior error free reservation 1.000 .457 .359 .326 .304 .324 .332 .303 .344 .281 .375 convenient phone res .457 1.000 .233 .186 .434 .318 .450 .419 .372 .194 .207 easy online reservation .359 .233 1.000 .204 .480 .252 .328 .279 .210 .195 .137 car availability .326 .186 .204 1.000 .369 .357 .323 .197 .382 .026 .070 update membership .304 .434 .480 .369 1.000 .582 .552 .546 .480 .203 .191 secured financial .324 .318 .252 .357 .582 1.000 .551 .466 .648 .160 .107 state cost structure .332 .450 .328 .323 .552 .551 1.000 .744 .537 .232 .192 state insurance policy .303 .419 .279 .197 .546 .466 .744 1.000 .503 .137 .057 safe data confidential .344 .372 .210 .382 .480 .648 .537 .503 1.000 .256 .198 clean interior .281 .194 .195 .026 .203 .160 .232 .137 .256 1.000 .608 clean exterior .375 .207 .137 .070 .191 .107 .192 .057 .198 .608 1.000 fuel efficient .189 .308 .182 .055 .252 .076 .194 .110 .223 .448 .538 navigation system .118 .031 -.019 .122 .038 .035 .127 .032 .084 .138 .308 powerful engine .240 .178 .023 .205 .166 .151 .043 -.023 .050 .048 .213 information .072 .104 .193 .250 .180 .281 .170 .227 .265 .117 .171 pods easy to find .438 .422 .424 .226 .423 .435 .579 .445 .366 .397 .149 easy to reach by PT .364 .249 .257 .326 .299 .418 .399 .321 .377 .317 .145 parking bicycle .167 .260 .292 .156 .211 .169 .120 .132 .229 .326 .273 respond with min delay .317 .466 .162 .252 .206 .358 .339 .361 .329 .108 .107 knowledge .481 .409 .231 .161 .287 .327 .447 .432 .409 .273 .353 courtesy .395 .369 .307 .274 .383 .276 .488 .389 .280 .255 .239 personal attention .272 .439 .137 .221 .333 .227 .378 .270 .164 .252 .252
App 24 navigati respond fuel on powerful pods easy easy to reach parking with min personal efficient system engine information to find by PT bicycle delay knowledge courtesy attention error free reservation .189 .118 .240 .072 .438 .364 .167 .317 .481 .395 .272 convenient phone res .308 .031 .178 .104 .422 .249 .260 .466 .409 .369 .439 easy online reservation .182 -.019 .023 .193 .424 .257 .292 .162 .231 .307 .137 car availability .055 .122 .205 .250 .226 .326 .156 .252 .161 .274 .221 update membership .252 .038 .166 .180 .423 .299 .211 .206 .287 .383 .333 secured financial .076 .035 .151 .281 .435 .418 .169 .358 .327 .276 .227 state cost structure .194 .127 .043 .170 .579 .399 .120 .339 .447 .488 .378 state insurance policy .110 .032 -.023 .227 .445 .321 .132 .361 .432 .389 .270 safe data confidential .223 .084 .050 .265 .366 .377 .229 .329 .409 .280 .164 clean interior .448 .138 .048 .117 .397 .317 .326 .108 .273 .255 .252 clean exterior .538 .308 .213 .171 .149 .145 .273 .107 .353 .239 .252 fuel efficient 1.000 .031 -.062 .136 .240 .110 .115 .103 .281 .289 .259 navigation system .031 1.000 .456 .279 .088 .185 .235 .061 .006 -.016 -.056 powerful engine -.062 .456 1.000 .250 .047 .133 .201 .178 .133 .191 .123 information .136 .279 .250 1.000 .187 .091 .213 .230 .178 .145 .097 pods easy to find .240 .088 .047 .187 1.000 .688 .166 .445 .446 .472 .375 easy to reach by PT .110 .185 .133 .091 .688 1.000 .203 .401 .316 .365 .358 parking bicycle .115 .235 .201 .213 .166 .203 1.000 .158 .225 .119 .175 respond with min delay .103 .061 .178 .230 .445 .401 .158 1.000 .649 .531 .569 knowledge .281 .006 .133 .178 .446 .316 .225 .649 1.000 .765 .682 courtesy .289 -.016 .191 .145 .472 .365 .119 .531 .765 1.000 .794 personal attention .259 -.056 .123 .097 .375 .358 .175 .569 .682 .794 1.000
App 25 Item-Total Statistics
Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted error free reservation 66.36 45.949 .558 . .881 convenient phone res 66.59 45.221 .565 . .881 easy online reservation 66.19 47.464 .417 . .885 car availability 66.75 47.355 .404 . .885 update membership 66.58 45.533 .598 . .880 secured financial 66.52 46.276 .568 . .881 state cost structure 66.49 45.182 .657 . .878 state insurance policy 66.59 45.650 .550 . .881 safe data confidential 66.58 46.747 .585 . .881 clean interior 66.51 47.491 .419 . .885 clean exterior 66.68 47.386 .412 . .885 fuel efficient 66.46 48.251 .340 . .887 navigation system 67.99 48.583 .198 . .892 powerful engine 67.85 48.369 .259 . .889 information 66.92 47.719 .328 . .887 pods easy to find 66.46 45.513 .653 . .878 easy to reach by PT 66.55 45.869 .547 . .881 parking bicycle 67.25 47.379 .355 . .887 respond with min delay 66.49 45.301 .545 . .881 knowledge 66.28 46.038 .649 . .879 courtesy 66.18 46.576 .633 . .880 personal attention 66.28 46.419 .541 . .881
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items 69.84 50.925 7.136 22
App 26
APPENDIX E
Factor Analysis for Goget Data
Service Quality Factors
App 27
App 28
App 29
App 30
App 31
App 32
App 33
App 34
App 35
App 36
App 37
App 38
App 39
App 40
App 41
APPENDIX F
Preparation phase package for
GoGet collaborative design
App 42 12 September 2007
Thank you very much for your willingness to participate in my study. I really appreciate your time, effort and help for the workshop.
The workshop will be performed on Saturday, 22 September 2007 at 10.00 – 14.00. The venue is:
Rm 4036 Faculty of the Built Environment Red Centre West Wing, UNSW Kensington Campus. (I attached the map and highlighted the building)
Before coming to the workshop, I’d like you to have some preparation tasks.
In this package, I provide you with a disposable camera. I would like to ask you to take any pictures that you think are related to your use of GoGet. After you have taken the pictures, I would also ask you to develop them and you could use the voucher I sent for the cost incurred.
Another task I would like to ask you is to complete the workbook. There is a brief explanation in the workbook, but basically you can write anything you like related to your use of GoGet.
I really appreciate your time and contribution. The preparation process is a key point to ensure that the workshop would be running well. I would like you to ask to bring both photos and completed workbook with you on next Saturday.
If you have any question or concerns about the project, you are welcome to contact me (at the contact details below). I look to seeing you soon.
Kindest regards,
Catharina B. Nawangpalupi PhD student Faculty of the Built Environment University of New South Wales (02) 9385 5783 0402 994472 [email protected]
App 43 Workbook about GoGet CarShare
Dear Thank you for your willingness to participate in the workshop to generate new ideas for GoGet Car Share. Before the workshop, I’d like you to complete this workbook with your views and opinion.
Please bring the workbook to the Workshop on Saturday, 22 September 2007 at UNSW, Kensington Campus.
Kindest regards,
Catharina
App 44 We would like to get your opinion about current survey that we conducted in April 2007.
The charts below show the responses for each GoGet feature. The expectation bars measure the average importance level of the features for GoGet members (it scales from 1 to 4, where 1 is for ‘not important at all’, 2 is ‘not important’, 3 is ‘important’ and 4 is ‘very important’).
The perception bars measures the average satisfaction level of GoGet members (it also scales from 1 to 4, where 1 is for ‘not satisfied at all’, 2 is ‘not satisfied’, 3 is ‘satisfied’ and 4 is ‘very satisfied’).
The following bars indicate that GoGet has satisfied its users for those particular features. The satisfaction level (shown by perception) has valued over the importance level (shown by expectation).
4.00
3.61 3.51 3.50 3.39 3.22 3.30 3.23 3.19 3.13 3.07 3.00 2.76 2.58 2.53 2.50
1.95 2.00 Expectation Scale 1.74 Perception
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00 5 - easy to 10 - clean car 11 - clean car 14 - powerful 18 - adequate 21 - having 22 - having update interior exterior engine cars space to park staff with staff who give Features membership bike courtesy personal details attention
Do you agree with the result?
Please give your comments which one(s) you agree and why you agree with the result based on your own experiences.
Please give your comments which one(s) you disagree and why based on your experiences.
App 45 The following bars indicate that the user expectations are still not met with the service quality provided by GoGet. The satisfaction level (shown by perception) has lower value than the importance level (shown by expectation). It means that there is still a gap between the user satisfaction and the service quality.
4.50
4.00 3.85 3.85 3.71 3.71 3.65 3.66 3.65 3.53 3.57 3.46 3.45 3.44 3.50 3.41 3.34 3.35 3.32 3.39 3.31 3.19 3.18 3.23 3.15 3.00
2.50 Expectation Perception 1.97 Scale 2.00 1.77
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
n y s nt r ds ion on ble ion e lic tem t ti tio la ca s o va va act em po t p r r vai s t e fidential sy nd se a ien n Features eserva ese ran nc on fic fi r re ar t ra c tio r e c u a to inimum delay ee ne ial ture sta sy m r o lin c ins uel ef vig a ruc r f a or f ph on have an t a fe and n r t y n a 2 - s to cle 1 a ien e st s 16 - e n ea c o - ta s ing 1- er - 8 v ve 3 r c n a g da ha - co h chan 3 - 6 - secured fi 1 2 ig 7 - cle - responding with 9 1 4- h 9 - keepin
Similar like the previous questions, do you agree with the result?
Please give your comments which one(s) you agree and why you agree with the result based on your own experiences.
Please give your comments which one(s) you disagree and why based on your experiences.
App 46 We would like you to review current scenarios of booking, picking up and returning the car. It is taken from the GoGet Member’s Manual.
App 47
From the booking system, which part(s) do you like most? And why?
Which part(s) do you NOT like? And why?
From the picking up the car scenario, which part(s) do you like most? And why?
Which part(s) do you NOT like? And why?
App 48 From the returning the car scenario, which part(s) do you like most? And why?
Which part(s) do you NOT like? And why?
Finally, this is the last part of the workbook.
Please draw, sketch or write any particular experience(s) you like to deal with GoGet. Nothing is wrong, your experience(s) is unique. (You can also use the back page of this workbook to add any comments, suggestions, or anything from your thoughts)
Thank you very much! See you on the workshop session. We are really looking forward to seeing you there!
.:: this workbook is prepared by Catharina – FBE, UNSW ::.
App 49
APPENDIX G
Photos and expression from
GoGet collaborative design workshop participants
App 50 Rod May
Selected photos
Text Left: GoGet members don’t have to worry so much about fuel price fluctuations. Right: Flexibilty and personalisation, the Coogee paladin, Jane, with ‘her’ car, Jane the Yaris (note from the author: GoGet names its cars usually based on members’ name to give a unique character, to acknowledge valuable members, or to identify special characteristics of the car. Jane is a GoGet paladin who has assisted GoGet to find a pod in Coogee (Easter Suburb of Sydney, Australia) and GoGet named one car in Coogee after her).
Left: Bins in front of garage, owner may be “GoGet” member, possibly able to use garage for other purposes. Right: As pieces on chess board. GoGet members enjoy an ordered lifestyle with GoGet reliable booking system with human backup.
App 51 Ella Duffy
Selected photos
Left: using the car to go to my mum + dads. Right: driving safely at night
No text – Ella had a scooter and used it for her daily mobility.
App 52 Dwayne Girard
Selected photos
No text given
App 53 Shaun Webb
Selected photos
App 54
Appendix H 1
GoGet Colaborative Design Workshop Plan
App 55 expected roles
Workshop Saturday, 22 September 2007
FACILITATOR: 1. to make sure the workshop flowing well, smoothly and timely. 2. to make sure all participants contribute equally 3. to help participants to articulate their views clearly enough to the others 4. to encourage participants to generate as many ideas as possible 5. to sensibly rearranging timing if it is necessary 6. to encourage participants to comment on most of pieces of works.
SUB-FACILITATOR/DESIGNER: 1. to help participants to generate creative ideas 2. to encourage participants to use more images/drawing and/or icons instead of words and sentences 3. to create creative environment to work with.
agenda of the day
Saturday, 22 September 2007
9.45 – 10.00 : Welcome and drinks 10.00 – 10.15 : Introduction Rules of the day Ice breaking session 10.15 – 10.55 : Collage making (image collection session) Presentation 10.55 – 11.10 : Morning tea 11.10 – 11.50 : Scenario making session 11.50 – 12.15 : Scenario evaluation (sustainability review) 12.15 – 12.35 : Presentation and discussion 12.35 – 13.15 : Lunch 13.15 – 13.45 : Scenario review & nomination 13.45 – 14.00 : Reflective evaluation 14.00 – Finish, thank you
App 56 introduction
Ice breaking part
Make a name tag with a personal icon Introduce yourself (name, age, the number of children and their age, explain icon on name tag)
Get to know each other and share your thought about your use of the toy library. Using an A0 paper provided: Write your responses to the related questions.
Questions: Important values in my life are… I use the toy library service because… In the future, I want to (do, help, achieve) …. I wish to share my …
collage making
create a set of images/icons and texts (words) that you think is the best to present your ideas about: your ideal situation for the near future process of booking, picking up and returning GoGet car. As well as any process after your use of GoGet (or in other words: post-use service ).
App 57 App 58
scenario making
Example of scenario making Story board
(Source: van Halen, Vezzoli & Wimmer, 2005, Methodology for Product Service System Innovation, Koninklijke van Gorcum, pp. 194-195) System Map
(Source: http://www.mepss.nl/index.php?p=parkersell, accessed 5 Sep 2007)
(Source: http://www.mepss.nl/index.php?p=tool&l4=W21, accessed 5 Sep 2007)
App 59 scenario evaluation sustainability guidelines (adapted from Sustainable Design-Orienting Toolkit (SDO), http://www.mepss-sdo.polimi.it/mepss/website/mepss.html, accessed 15 August 2007)
Environmental sustainability 1. System life optimisation: extending life time and closing the gap Does the scenario offer more shared products/infrastructures? Does the scenario improve services for their maintenance, repairability, substitution? Does the scenario improve services for their technological up-gradeability? Does the scenario improve services for their aesthetic/cultural up-gradeability? Does the scenario increase the user care for long lasting use of products and infrastructures? Does the scenario support product adaptability to context/environment changes? Does the scenario encourage products re-use?
2. Transportation/distribution reduction Does the scenario encourage more use of digital transfer/access of information? Does the scenario encourage partnership which enables long distance activities? Does the scenario encourage the use of local resources? Does the scenario encourage the use of local support products? Does the scenario adopt minimal packing?
3. Resources reduction Does the scenario encourage collective use for support products/infrastructures? Does the scenario introduce services for optimal use of the provided energy/materials? Does the scenario encourage energy optimisation? Does the scenario adopt existing infrastructures (different types) for service functioning? Does the scenario adopt existing support products for service functioning? Does the scenario support the minimum material/energy consumption option? 4. Waste minimisation Does the scenario encourage re-using or re-manufacturing? Does the scenario encourage recycling? Does the scenario introduce take back services aimed at energy recovery from support products and consumption goods?
App 60 5. Conservation – biodiversity management Does the scenario encourage a partnership aiming at decentralised renewable/passive energy resources use? Does the scenario encourage partnership aiming at the use of local non- exhausting/renewable and bio-degradable materials? Does the scenario introduce passive materials/energy based-system for service delivery?
6. Toxicity reduction Does the scenario introduce service for the recovery/treatment of toxic/harmful resources? Does the scenario provide services to avoid/minimise toxicity/dangerousness of materials/energy?
Socio-Ethical sustanability 1. Respect cultural diversity and improve social cohesion Does the scenario promote neighbourhood social integration? Does the scenario promote gender’s integration? Does the scenario promote social integration between generations? Does the scenario promote social integration between different cultures?
2. Enable customer to socially responsible consumption Does the scenario enable the users to a responsible and sustainable participation? Does the scenario educate the users to a sustainable behaviour? Does the scenario involve the users in promoting sustainable behaviour?
3. Health and safety Does the scenario enable the users to stay healthy? Does the scenario enable the users to feel secured and safe? Does the scenario promote activities which make the users physically fit? Does the scenario promote activities which make the users mentally fit?
4. Living condition/quality of life Does the scenario guarantee or enhance the same rights for everybody? Does the scenario improve the condition of marginalised persons? Does the scenario improve the users’ happiness?
App 61 5. Employment/working condition Does the scenario promote and enhance the protection of working conditions? Does the scenario promote and enhance health and safety in working? Does the scenario promote and enhance adequate working hours and fair wages? Does the scenario promote and enhance satisfaction, motivation and participation of the employers?
6. Equity and justice – relation to stakeholders Does the scenario promote and enhance fair and just partnership? Does the scenario promote and enhance equity and justice with suppliers? Does the scenario promote and enhance equity and justice with users? Does the scenario promote and enhance equity and justice effects for community? Does the scenario promote and enhance equity and justice with local government?
Economic sustainability 1. Market position and competitiveness Does the scenario improve GoGet market situation? Does the scenario offer better solution than the offers of your competitors, e.g. lower prices, better quality, meet customers demands better? Does the scenario fulfil demands of the users that have not yet been fulfilled? Does the scenario enable to gain new users? Does the scenario improve GoGet position in the value chain? Does the scenario improve GoGet image by offering innovative solutions?
2. Macro economy effect Can the scenario generate positive economy impact on communities and regions? Does the scenario contribute to diverse market structures and avoid monopolistic systems?
3. Partnership/cooperation Does the scenario encourage partnership with other companies? Does the scenario make GoGet use simple and efficient way to manage partnership and cooperation?
4. Profitability Does the scenario make GoGet more profitable and therefore increase investor satisfaction/ shareholder value etc.?
App 62 Can the scenario be beneficial for all participating actors, not just for manufacturers? Does the scenario optimise the value/production chain by? Does the scenario reduce the material elements in the system and therefore pay less for materials and products with a very efficient organisation? Does the scenario solve some recycling disposal problems and therefore reduce cost?
5. Added value to customers Does the scenario save user's money because the solution is cheaper? Does the scenario offer the users more material benefit (e.g. creating more income, debt/tax reduction, increasing funding opportunities, saving cost)? Does the scenario offer customers more immaterial benefit (e.g. satisfaction, take negative responsibilities out of his/her hands, offer highly customised solutions that are very valuable for the individual customer etc?
6. Long term business development Does the scenario increase GoGet capabilities to be innovative and react more flexibly to changing market trends? Does the scenario consider long term trends? Does the scenario reduce GoGet liability risk? Does the scenario reduce your investment risk? Does the scenario reduce the risk of damage to GoGet image by offering innovative and sustainable solution?
App 63
Appendix H 2
Matrix Categorisation from
GoGet Colaborative Design Workshop
App 64 App 65
Appendix I 1
The RCTGL mail out survey before the pilot study
App 66 User satisfaction of a toy library system
Background This study investigates the expectations and perceptions of Bowen toy library members. It asks service quality and its attributes. It also contains questions about your activities relating to your membership, your needs and wants, and some demographic details to give us an idea of the membership profile. This study consists of 4 parts. All parts are equally important and there are no right or wrong answers. All we are interested in is an answer that truly reflects your situation and opinion regarding the toy library system and any suggestions you have that could improve the quality of service. Please note that this questionnaire is for people who are 18 years and older A – General information This section consists of general questions about Bowen toy library and your activities related to this service. Please reflect on your experience in using Bowen toy library. Please tick () all boxes that apply. 1. On average how often do you go to Bowen toy library ? ! once a week or more often ! once every fortnight ! once a month ! once every 2 months ! less than once every 2 months
2. How do you commonly go to and from Bowen toy library ? ! by car ! on foot ! by bus/taxi/public transport ! by bicycle ! other modes of transport : ………………….
3. With whom do you commonly go to Bowen toy library ? ! alone ! with my child(ren) ! with my partner ! with my partner & child(ren) ! with my grandchild(ren) ! with my friend(s)/colleague(s) ! with other relatives
4. Do you commonly go somewhere else after or before going to Bowen toy library? ! yes ! no
If yes, please select all that apply ! go shopping ! go working – paid/voluntary job ! go to relative(s)/friend(s) place ! other: ………………….
5. For what age child(ren) do you commonly borrow the toys ? Please select all that apply ! baby : 0 – 2 years old ! pre schooler : 2 – 4 years old ! K – 2 : 5-7 years old ! Year 3 & above : 8 years old & above
6. What type of toys that you commonly borrow ? Always/most sometimes Rarely/ of the time never small items : such as board games, puzzles ! ! ! medium size items : such as building blocks, lego ! ! ! big and bulky size items : such as rocking horse, cart ! ! !
7. Do you commonly renew your borrowing toys ? ! yes ! no
App 67 B – Expectations Based on your experiences as a toy library member, please think about the features that an ideal toy library service. Think about what characteristics would make you want to join the service. Please carefully indicate the extent to which you think toy libraries would possess the features described by each statement. If you feel a feature is not at all essential, please tick () the number 1. If you feel a feature is absolutely essential, please tick the number 5. If your feelings are less strong, please tick the appropriate number in the middle. not at all abso-lutely essential essential 1 2 3 4 5 Excellent toy libraries will : have adequate space for children to play ! ! ! !! have visually appealing spaces ! ! ! !! have various types of toys for different ages ! ! ! !! have several of the same toys ! ! ! !! have various educational toys ! ! ! !! have various entertaining toys ! ! ! !! be at convenient locations ! ! ! !! provide activities for children ! ! ! !! provide activities for parents, caregivers or grandparents ! ! ! !! respond to your email within the promised time period ! ! ! !! have an Internet catalogue system ! ! ! !! have an error-free borrowing record system ! ! ! !! have an Internet borrowing record system that enables you to extend your loan ! ! ! !! provide an Internet system which enables you to easily review and ! ! ! !! update your membership answer your call promptly when you extend your loan by phone ! ! ! !! respond to your request quickly ! ! ! !! always be willing to help you if you have problems regarding your ! ! ! !! borrowing toys always have the knowledge to answer your questions on toys and ! ! ! !! borrowing issues have staff members who are consistently courteous with you ! ! ! !! keep your data safe and confidential ! ! ! !! provide toys and facilities for children with special needs ! ! ! !! have staff members who give you personal attention ! ! ! !! have operating hours convenient to all their customers ! ! ! !!
App 68 C – Perceptions The following statements relate to your feelings about Bowen toy library in particular. For each statement, please show the extent to which you believe Bowen toy library has the feature described. If you strongly disagree with the statement, please tick the number 1. If you absolutely agree, please tick the number 5. You may select any of number in the middle that shows the strength of your feelings. There are no right or wrong answers; all we are interested in is a number that best shows your perception about Bowen toy library.
do not strongly totally know/ not disagree agree applicable 1 2 3 4 5 9
Bowen toy library : has adequate space for children to play ! ! !! ! ! has visually appealing spaces ! ! !! ! ! has various types of toys for different ages ! ! !! ! ! has sufficient items of the same toys ! ! !! ! ! has various educational toys ! ! !! ! ! has various entertaining toys ! ! !! ! ! is at convenient location ! ! !! ! ! provides useful activities for children ! ! !! ! ! provides useful activities/workshops for you ! ! !! ! ! responds to your email within the promised time period ! ! !! ! ! has a convenient Internet catalogue system ! ! !! ! ! has an error-free borrowing record system ! ! !! ! ! has a convenient Internet borrowing record system for ! ! !! ! renewing your loan(s) ! provides an easy Internet system to review and update your ! ! !! ! membership ! answers your call promptly when you extend your loan by phone ! ! !! ! ! is never too busy to respond to your request ! ! !! ! ! is always willing to help you if you have problems regarding your ! ! !! ! borrowing toys ! always has the knowledge to answer your questions on toys and ! ! !! ! borrowing issues ! has staff members who are consistently courteous with you ! ! !! ! ! keeps your data safe and confidential ! ! !! ! ! has staff members who give you personal attention ! ! !! ! ! provides toys and facilities which suit your children needs ! ! !! ! ! have operating hours convenient to you ! ! !! ! !
App 69 very not satisfied satisfied at all 12345 Overall how satisfied are you with the ! ! ! ! ! Bowen toy library service ? D – Other information Now finally, we are going to ask some questions about you. The answers will be completely confidential but will help us to develop Bowen toy library to better meet your needs.
You are ! female ! male
What is your age ? In the case that your age is in between the different age groups, please refer to your age on your last birthday. ! 18 – 25 years old ! 26 - 40 years old ! 41 – 65 years old ! 66 years old and above ! prefer not to state
What is your relationship to the child(ren) that use the toys from Bowen toy library ? ! parent ! grandparent ! nanny ! other, please specify______
If you are a parent, how many children do you have ? ! 1 child ! 2 children ! 3 children ! 4 children or more
You live in ! public rental house/unit/apartment ! private rental house/unit/apartment ! my own house/unit/apartment ! other arrangement(s)
Your postcode is ______
What is your current employment status? In the case that more options are applicable (for example employed part-time and student), please select the activity that takes up the most of your time. ! employed fulltime ! student ! employed part-time (less than 32 hr) ! not working/looking for work ! retired/unable to work ! housewife/househusband
What is your household's combined yearly income (gross/before tax income)? ! Up to $ 40,999 ! $ 41,000 - $ 99,999 ! $ 100,000 or more ! don't know / prefer not to state
What is the highest level of education you have received? ! Primary school ! High school ! TAFE/diploma ! Undergraduate degree ! Postgraduate degree
App 70 These three following questions relate to your unique experience with Bowen toy library. Again, there are no right or wrong answers, your unique experiences will be used to strengthen Bowen toy library’s effectiveness and to improve on any limitations. What is your reason for joining Bowen toy library ?
What is your most disappointing experience with Bowen toy library ?
What is your best experience with Bowen toy library ?
Thank you very much for taking time to complete this survey. Your feedback will be an invaluable input for toy library quality improvement. Please turn over the page to fill the invitation for a prize draw. Also, please find a separate page regarding an invitation for an interview as the next stage of this study.
App 71
Appendix I 2
The final design of the RCTGL survey
App 72 App 73 App 74 App 75
Appendix J
The RCTGL interview questions
App 76 Some initiating questions
These questions will be used to initiate conversation type of interview. When the interviewee answers the questions, the interviewer will try to engage further conversation and get deeper understanding from the answers.
Introduction
How long have you been a Randwick City toy library member? Could you please share your thoughts why you joined Randwick City toy library? Considering there are also some other toy libraries, why did you choose this toy library?
Approximately, how often do you borrow toys from this toy library?
Use of Randwick City Toy and Game Library Now, I would like to ask you about your activities on the day when you go to Bowen Library to borrow toys. Could you please tell me your story about “one day going to Bowen Library”? What activities do you do when you come here (to the toy library)? What best experiences have you had related to the toy library?
What makes you keep using this toy library service? In your opinion, is there any thing that could make you discontinuing your membership?
Family background Could you please tell me about your child(ren) (grandchild(ren)/child that you care for) for whom you borrow the toys? How old is (s)he, and what kind of toys that (s)he likes most ? Are both of you satisfied with the service?
Social activities Is there any additional social activities you’ve experienced by joining the toy library? Or, do you think your membership of this toy library supports or improves your social activities ? Do you know any persons who are also the toy library members?
Economic benefits Is there any economic benefits you’ve experienced by joining the toy library? If yes, how significant is it ?
Environmental Sustainability Do you think your membership of this toy library support your environmental concerns?
Quality of life Do you think the use of the toy library help you to achieve your quality of life? What specific achievement (of quality of life) have you experienced so far?
App 77
Appendix K 1
Reliability analysis for the RCTGL data
App 78 Reliability Analysis Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Case Processing Summary
N % Cases Valid 37 22.8 Excluded(a) 125 77.2 Total 162 100.0 a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Based on Cronbach's Standardized Alpha Items N of Items .907 .909 20
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N range_age 3.32 .580 37 multiple_copies 3.05 .621 37 educational 3.03 .600 37 entertaining 2.92 .682 37 complete_toys 3.22 .534 37 good_condition 3.16 .602 37 easy_access_PT 3.32 .530 37 parking 3.38 .545 37 opening_hours 3.11 .737 37 act_child 3.24 .723 37 act_parent 3.11 .614 37 space 3.05 .524 37 internet_catalogue 3.22 .584 37 online_renewal 3.11 .567 37 phone_renewal 3.24 .597 37 special_needs 3.24 .548 37 purchase_sugg 2.84 .602 37 helpful 2.95 .621 37 knowledge 3.24 .548 37 assistance 3.03 .552 37
App 79 Matrix
range_age multiple_copies educational entertaining complete_toys range_age 1.000 .104 .054 .139 -.053 multiple_copies .104 1.000 .517 .601 .466 educational .054 .517 1.000 .412 .328 entertaining .139 .601 .412 1.000 .507 complete_toys -.053 .466 .328 .507 1.000 good_condition .243 .422 .449 .439 .666 easy_access_PT .281 .452 .496 .382 .531 parking -.047 .266 .392 .383 .284 opening_hours -.279 .290 .056 .184 .433 act_child .005 .094 -.016 .210 .220 act_parent -.023 .203 .218 .353 .096 space -.151 .332 .172 .401 .453 internet_catalogue .033 .273 .141 .394 .559 online_renewal .059 .298 .154 .454 .379 phone_renewal .087 .338 .059 .255 .353 special_needs .007 .042 .064 .203 .385 purchase_sugg .075 .619 .474 .509 .372 helpful .127 .512 .376 .579 .455 knowledge .007 .287 .148 .426 .480 assistance .059 .563 .249 .670 .356
good_condition easy_access_PT parking opening_hours act_child range_age .243 .281 -.047 -.279 .005 multiple_copies .422 .452 .266 .290 .094 educational .449 .496 .392 .056 -.016 entertaining .439 .382 .383 .184 .210 complete_toys .666 .531 .284 .433 .220 good_condition 1.000 .702 .316 .085 .098 easy_access_PT .702 1.000 .333 .121 .078 parking .316 .333 1.000 .379 .324 opening_hours .085 .121 .379 1.000 .418 act_child .098 .078 .324 .418 1.000 act_parent .102 .060 .455 .342 .315 space .324 .135 .315 .488 .184 internet_catalogue .372 .306 .521 .525 .333 online_renewal .192 -.120 .134 .304 .476 phone_renewal .351 .183 .136 .254 .568 special_needs .298 .199 .334 .414 .548 purchase_sugg .459 .257 .362 .291 .093 helpful .544 .308 .472 .195 .092 knowledge .383 .103 .334 .346 .197 assistance .321 .159 .426 .266 .261
App 80 act_parent space internet_catalogue online_renewal phone_renewal range_age -.023 -.151 .033 .059 .087 multiple_copies .203 .332 .273 .298 .338 educational .218 .172 .141 .154 .059 entertaining .353 .401 .394 .454 .255 complete_toys .096 .453 .559 .379 .353 good_condition .102 .324 .372 .192 .351 easy_access_PT .060 .135 .306 -.120 .183 parking .455 .315 .521 .134 .136 opening_hours .342 .488 .525 .304 .254 act_child .315 .184 .333 .476 .568 act_parent 1.000 .413 .475 .444 .457 space .413 1.000 .505 .447 .312 internet_catalogue .475 .505 1.000 .347 .403 online_renewal .444 .447 .347 1.000 .659 phone_renewal .457 .312 .403 .659 1.000 special_needs .498 .243 .526 .539 .664 purchase_sugg .575 .645 .261 .460 .423 helpful .234 .606 .416 .411 .261 knowledge .580 .436 .612 .539 .494 assistance .647 .667 .498 .612 .570
purchase_ special_needs sugg helpful knowledge assistance range_age .007 .075 .127 .007 .059 multiple_copies .042 .619 .512 .287 .563 educational .064 .474 .376 .148 .249 entertaining .203 .509 .579 .426 .670 complete_toys .385 .372 .455 .480 .356 good_condition .298 .459 .544 .383 .321 easy_access_PT .199 .257 .308 .103 .159 parking .334 .362 .472 .334 .426 opening_hours .414 .291 .195 .346 .266 act_child .548 .093 .092 .197 .261 act_parent .498 .575 .234 .580 .647 space .243 .645 .606 .436 .667 internet_catalogue .526 .261 .416 .612 .498 online_renewal .539 .460 .411 .539 .612 phone_renewal .664 .423 .261 .494 .570 special_needs 1.000 .207 .203 .445 .345 purchase_sugg .207 1.000 .645 .460 .766 helpful .203 .645 1.000 .448 .652 knowledge .445 .460 .448 1.000 .712 assistance .345 .766 .652 .712 1.000
App 81 Item-Total Statistics
Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted range_age 59.46 50.866 .057 . .914 multiple_copies 59.73 46.369 .581 . .901 educational 59.76 47.967 .403 . .906 entertaining 59.86 45.231 .651 . .899 complete_toys 59.57 46.752 .635 . .900 good_condition 59.62 46.575 .577 . .901 easy_access_PT 59.46 48.255 .426 . .905 parking 59.41 47.359 .535 . .903 opening_hours 59.68 46.725 .437 . .906 act_child 59.54 47.311 .386 . .907 act_parent 59.68 46.614 .559 . .902 space 59.73 47.036 .607 . .901 internet_catalogue 59.57 46.141 .655 . .900 online_renewal 59.68 46.725 .597 . .901 phone_renewal 59.54 46.477 .595 . .901 special_needs 59.54 47.311 .539 . .902 purchase_sugg 59.95 45.664 .695 . .898 helpful 59.84 45.806 .652 . .899 knowledge 59.54 46.533 .647 . .900 assistance 59.76 45.578 .777 . .897
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items 62.78 51.674 7.188 20
App 82
Appendix K 2
Factor analysis for the RCTGL data
App 83 Factor Analysis
[DataSet2] D:\phd stuff\fieldwork\user satisfaction - quest stage 2\bowen\result\factor analysis.sav
Factor analysis result using SPSS v. 15 Analyze - Data Reduction - Factor Analysis Method: Principal axis factoring Analysis: correlation matrix Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaizer Normalization
range_age multiple_copies educational entertaining complete_toys Correlation range_age 1.000 .137 .096 .130 -.004 multiple_copies .137 1.000 .093 .344 .097 educational .096 .093 1.000 .165 .174 entertaining .130 .344 .165 1.000 .247 complete_toys -.004 .097 .174 .247 1.000 good_condition .033 .250 .082 .240 .282 easy_access_PT -.009 .164 .055 .216 .078 parking .043 .060 .244 .274 .280 opening_hours .130 .051 .192 .351 .217 act_child .125 .298 .152 .258 .148 act_parent .002 .358 .013 .212 .185 space -.028 -.130 .297 .067 .213 internet_catalogue -.036 .287 .006 .146 .167 online_renewal .062 .045 .229 .145 .258 phone_renewal -.048 .106 .199 .126 .187 special_needs -.016 .231 .211 .102 .289 purchase_sugg .053 .344 .120 .186 .307 helpful .063 .040 .394 .019 .206 knowledge .091 .441 -.023 .101 .309 assistance .138 .016 .262 .212 .281
App 84 easy_access opening_ good_condition _PT parking hours act_child Correlation range_age .033 -.009 .043 .130 .125 multiple_copies .250 .164 .060 .051 .298 educational .082 .055 .244 .192 .152 entertaining .240 .216 .274 .351 .258 complete_toys .282 .078 .280 .217 .148 good_condition 1.000 .398 .189 .289 .211 easy_access_PT .398 1.000 .164 .151 .337 parking .189 .164 1.000 .332 .208 opening_hours .289 .151 .332 1.000 .306 act_child .211 .337 .208 .306 1.000 act_parent .327 .351 .192 .188 .488 space .031 .027 .313 .136 .133 internet_catalogue .233 .155 .211 .069 .313 online_renewal .185 .149 .377 .134 .294 phone_renewal .163 .236 .401 .297 .227 special_needs .251 .244 .392 .267 .239 purchase_sugg .360 .156 .439 .141 .333 helpful .118 -.005 .364 .298 .080 knowledge .393 .293 .122 -.014 .333 assistance .091 .084 .368 .177 .275
internet_ phone_ act_parent space catalogue online_renewal renewal Correlation range_age .002 -.028 -.036 .062 -.048 multiple_copies .358 -.130 .287 .045 .106 educational .013 .297 .006 .229 .199 entertaining .212 .067 .146 .145 .126 complete_toys .185 .213 .167 .258 .187 good_condition .327 .031 .233 .185 .163 easy_access_PT .351 .027 .155 .149 .236 parking .192 .313 .211 .377 .401 opening_hours .188 .136 .069 .134 .297 act_child .488 .133 .313 .294 .227 act_parent 1.000 .211 .455 .359 .304 space .211 1.000 .186 .371 .190 internet_catalogue .455 .186 1.000 .142 .138 online_renewal .359 .371 .142 1.000 .585 phone_renewal .304 .190 .138 .585 1.000 special_needs .323 .418 .227 .441 .515 purchase_sugg .473 .148 .384 .409 .297 helpful .149 .400 .140 .213 .271 knowledge .367 -.019 .285 .307 .216 assistance .316 .400 .168 .421 .255
App 85 special_needs purchase_sugg helpful knowledge assistance Correlation range_age -.016 .053 .063 .091 .138 multiple_copies .231 .344 .040 .441 .016 educational .211 .120 .394 -.023 .262 entertaining .102 .186 .019 .101 .212 complete_toys .289 .307 .206 .309 .281 good_condition .251 .360 .118 .393 .091 easy_access_PT .244 .156 -.005 .293 .084 parking .392 .439 .364 .122 .368 opening_hours .267 .141 .298 -.014 .177 act_child .239 .333 .080 .333 .275 act_parent .323 .473 .149 .367 .316 space .418 .148 .400 -.019 .400 internet_catalogue .227 .384 .140 .285 .168 online_renewal .441 .409 .213 .307 .421 phone_renewal .515 .297 .271 .216 .255 special_needs 1.000 .547 .461 .302 .315 purchase_sugg .547 1.000 .317 .500 .389 helpful .461 .317 1.000 .096 .429 knowledge .302 .500 .096 1.000 .251 assistance .315 .389 .429 .251 1.000
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .771
Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 867.569 Sphericity df 190 Sig. .000
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy is relatively high (0.771) showing that the sample is adequate. It is greater than the minimum number (0.6) suggested.
The Bartlett's test of sphericity identifies if the test accepts or rejects the null hypothesis: if the matrix is an identity matrix. The Bartlett’s test above shows that the level of significant is 0, which means that the matrix is not diagonal or an identity matrix. This the null hypothesis is rejected.
App 86 good_ easy_ range_ multiple_ educati enter- complete conditi access_ opening_ act_chi age copies onal taining _toys on PT parking hours ld Anti-image range_age .892 -.079 -.029 -.023 .060 .010 .019 -.004 -.091 -.042 Covariance multiple_copies -.079 .534 -.112 -.213 .065 -.005 .083 .018 .075 -.048 educational -.029 -.112 .713 -.026 -.063 -.033 -.047 -.002 .012 -.082 entertaining -.023 -.213 -.026 .637 -.112 -.030 -.091 -.079 -.163 .001 complete_toys .060 .065 -.063 -.112 .737 -.082 .082 -.047 -.054 .032 good_condition .010 -.005 -.033 -.030 -.082 .624 -.189 .017 -.154 .085 easy_access_PT .019 .083 -.047 -.091 .082 -.189 .651 -.072 .059 -.116 parking -.004 .018 -.002 -.079 -.047 .017 -.072 .581 -.078 .007 opening_hours -.091 .075 .012 -.163 -.054 -.154 .059 -.078 .594 -.165 act_child -.042 -.048 -.082 .001 .032 .085 -.116 .007 -.165 .597 act_parent .047 -.116 .109 .024 .000 -.040 -.119 .086 -.036 -.119 space .034 .104 -.093 -.024 -.032 .009 .045 -.069 .042 -.011 internet_catalogue .046 -.057 .050 -.008 -.019 -.038 .027 -.053 .049 -.077 online_renewal -.063 .081 -.059 -.028 -.011 -.029 .062 -.032 .075 -.047 phone_renewal .082 -.004 -.035 .021 .022 .047 -.044 -.098 -.095 .029 special_needs .027 -.096 .047 .061 -.046 .016 -.105 .029 -.056 .015 purchase_sugg .007 -.011 -.004 -.009 -.004 -.075 .103 -.147 .054 -.024 helpful -.021 -.009 -.175 .104 .014 -.010 .059 -.057 -.113 .077 knowledge -.038 -.164 .099 .089 -.142 -.111 -.095 .061 .085 -.071 assistance -.078 .100 -.034 -.103 -.041 .078 .012 -.039 .025 -.046 Anti-image range_age .563(a) -.115 -.036 -.031 .074 .014 .025 -.005 -.125 -.057 Correlation multiple_copies -.115 .637(a) -.181 -.366 .103 -.008 .140 .032 .133 -.085 educational -.036 -.181 .719(a) -.039 -.087 -.050 -.069 -.003 .019 -.125 entertaining -.031 -.366 -.039 .677(a) -.163 -.048 -.142 -.130 -.265 .002 complete_toys .074 .103 -.087 -.163 .850(a) -.120 .118 -.073 -.082 .048 good_condition .014 -.008 -.050 -.048 -.120 .793(a) -.296 .028 -.253 .139 easy_access_PT .025 .140 -.069 -.142 .118 -.296 .671(a) -.118 .095 -.186 parking -.005 .032 -.003 -.130 -.073 .028 -.118 .853(a) -.133 .012 opening_hours -.125 .133 .019 -.265 -.082 -.253 .095 -.133 .676(a) -.278 act_child -.057 -.085 -.125 .002 .048 .139 -.186 .012 -.278 .830(a) act_parent .071 -.228 .186 .044 .000 -.073 -.211 .162 -.067 -.221 space .049 .193 -.150 -.042 -.051 .015 .076 -.123 .073 -.019 internet_catalogue .059 -.093 .072 -.012 -.027 -.057 .040 -.084 .076 -.120 online_renewal -.099 .164 -.103 -.052 -.018 -.055 .114 -.062 .143 -.091 phone_renewal .125 -.008 -.060 .038 .037 .086 -.078 -.184 -.178 .054 special_needs .044 -.206 .088 .120 -.084 .032 -.203 .058 -.114 .031 purchase_sugg .012 -.025 -.008 -.017 -.007 -.150 .202 -.306 .112 -.050 helpful -.030 -.017 -.282 .178 .022 -.016 .099 -.101 -.200 .135 knowledge -.058 -.320 .167 .160 -.236 -.202 -.168 .114 .157 -.131 assistance -.110 .183 -.054 -.172 -.063 .131 .020 -.069 .044 -.080 a Measures of Sampling Adequacy(MSA)
App 87 act_ internet_ online_ phone_ special purchase know- assist- parent space catalogue renewal renewal _need _sugg helpful ledge ance Anti-image range_age .047 .034 .046 -.063 .082 .027 .007 -.021 -.038 -.078 covariance multiple_copies -.116 .104 -.057 .081 -.004 -.096 -.011 -.009 -.164 .100 educational .109 -.093 .050 -.059 -.035 .047 -.004 -.175 .099 -.034 entertaining .024 -.024 -.008 -.028 .021 .061 -.009 .104 .089 -.103 complete_toys .000 -.032 -.019 -.011 .022 -.046 -.004 .014 -.142 -.041 good_condition -.040 .009 -.038 -.029 .047 .016 -.075 -.010 -.111 .078 easy_access_PT -.119 .045 .027 .062 -.044 -.105 .103 .059 -.095 .012 parking .086 -.069 -.053 -.032 -.098 .029 -.147 -.057 .061 -.039 opening_hours -.036 .042 .049 .075 -.095 -.056 .054 -.113 .085 .025 act_child -.119 -.011 -.077 -.047 .029 .015 -.024 .077 -.071 -.046 act_parent .485 -.081 -.135 -.058 -.050 .052 -.096 -.007 .038 -.069 space -.081 .542 -.096 -.107 .112 -.169 .117 -.075 .045 -.088 internet_catalogue -.135 -.096 .695 .065 -.016 .030 -.071 -.022 -.023 .032 online_renewal -.058 -.107 .065 .456 -.218 -.018 -.051 .078 -.065 -.062 phone_renewal -.050 .112 -.016 -.218 .481 -.136 .073 -.022 -.020 .012 special_needs .052 -.169 .030 -.018 -.136 .409 -.156 -.099 .010 .036 purchase_sugg -.096 .117 -.071 -.051 .073 -.156 .397 -.027 -.092 -.061 helpful -.007 -.075 -.022 .078 -.022 -.099 -.027 .540 -.013 -.145 knowledge .038 .045 -.023 -.065 -.020 .010 -.092 -.013 .490 -.081 assistance -.069 -.088 .032 -.062 .012 .036 -.061 -.145 -.081 .561 Anti-image range_age .071 .049 .059 -.099 .125 .044 .012 -.030 -.058 -.110 correlation multiple_copies -.228 .193 -.093 .164 -.008 -.206 -.025 -.017 -.320 .183 educational .186 -.150 .072 -.103 -.060 .088 -.008 -.282 .167 -.054 entertaining .044 -.042 -.012 -.052 .038 .120 -.017 .178 .160 -.172 complete_toys .000 -.051 -.027 -.018 .037 -.084 -.007 .022 -.236 -.063 good_condition -.073 .015 -.057 -.055 .086 .032 -.150 -.016 -.202 .131 easy_access_PT -.211 .076 .040 .114 -.078 -.203 .202 .099 -.168 .020 parking .162 -.123 -.084 -.062 -.184 .058 -.306 -.101 .114 -.069 opening_hours -.067 .073 .076 .143 -.178 -.114 .112 -.200 .157 .044 act_child -.221 -.019 -.120 -.091 .054 .031 -.050 .135 -.131 -.080 act_parent .814(a) -.157 -.232 -.123 -.102 .117 -.220 -.013 .079 -.133 space -.157 .687(a) -.156 -.216 .220 -.359 .253 -.139 .088 -.160 internet_catalogue -.232 -.156 .851(a) .116 -.028 .056 -.135 -.036 -.039 .052 online_renewal -.123 -.216 .116 .791(a) -.465 -.042 -.120 .156 -.137 -.123 phone_renewal -.102 .220 -.028 -.465 .750(a) -.306 .167 -.043 -.041 .022 special_needs .117 -.359 .056 -.042 -.306 .784(a) -.386 -.211 .022 .076 purchase_sugg -.220 .253 -.135 -.120 .167 -.386 .797(a) -.058 -.209 -.129 helpful -.013 -.139 -.036 .156 -.043 -.211 -.058 .781(a) -.025 -.263 knowledge .079 .088 -.039 -.137 -.041 .022 -.209 -.025 .766(a) -.154 assistance -.133 -.160 .052 -.123 .022 .076 -.129 -.263 -.154 .838(a)
App 88 Communalities Initial Extraction range_age .108 .132 multiple_copies .466 .399 educational .287 .255 entertaining .363 .412 complete_toys .263 .218 good_condition .376 .357 easy_access_PT .349 .292 parking .419 .395 opening_hours .406 .508 act_child .403 .428 act_parent .515 .703 space .458 .475 internet_catalogue .305 .354 online_renewal .544 .811 phone_renewal .519 .564 special_needs .591 .631 purchase_sugg .603 .602 helpful .460 .583 knowledge .510 .668 assistance .439 .524 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Total Variance Explained
Extraction Sums of Squared Factor Initial Eigenvalues Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings % of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative Total Variance % Total Variance % Total Variance % 1 5.422 27.109 27.109 4.951 24.757 24.757 2.482 12.412 12.412 2 2.188 10.938 38.047 1.676 8.381 33.138 1.912 9.561 21.972 3 1.441 7.206 45.253 .911 4.555 37.693 1.589 7.944 29.917 4 1.203 6.017 51.270 .685 3.424 41.117 1.445 7.223 37.140 5 1.067 5.333 56.603 .568 2.840 43.957 1.213 6.064 43.203 6 1.037 5.184 61.787 .519 2.594 46.550 .669 3.347 46.550 7 .933 4.666 66.453 8 .883 4.417 70.870 9 .839 4.193 75.063 10 .696 3.482 78.545 11 .651 3.256 81.801 12 .624 3.119 84.921 13 .571 2.857 87.778 14 .522 2.612 90.390 15 .440 2.202 92.592 16 .398 1.991 94.583 17 .322 1.612 96.195 18 .307 1.533 97.729 19 .256 1.280 99.009 20 .198 .991 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
App 89 Scree Plot
6
5
4
3 Eigenvalue 2
1
0
987654321 10 1211 13 1514 16 1 Factor Number
The Scree Plot shows the suggested factor numbers based on the previous table (Total Variance Explained). It can be seen that the total eigenvalue for 6 factors is 1.037 which is the biggest factor numbers for the eigenvalue above 1. However, because 7 to 9 factors have similar eigen values and the cluster of 6 factors does not show the best grouping, the factor analysis is continued based on 9 factors.
App 90 Factor Matrix(a)
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 purchase_sugg .699 special_needs .686 online_renewal .648 -.307 -.390 .300 act_parent .634 .336 .379 phone_renewal .572 -.398 parking .560 assistance .560 -.271 .252 knowledge .529 .463 -.265 act_child .525 .253 helpful .481 -.456 .340 good_condition .454 .290 complete_toys .432 internet_catalogue .430 easy_access_PT .367 .278 multiple_copies .361 .471 space .412 -.467 .252 educational .315 -.316 opening_hours .411 .535 entertaining .372 .465 range_age .281 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. a 6 factors extracted. 27 iterations required.
App 91 Rotated Factor Matrix(a)
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 helpful .750 space .601 assistance .549 .305 special_needs .538 .366 .299 parking .482 .267 educational .431 complete_toys .300 .264 knowledge .747 purchase_sugg .372 .586 .291 multiple_copies .515 .253 good_condition .427 .367 act_parent .268 .752 act_child .499 internet_catalogue .278 .496 online_renewal .307 .810 phone_renewal .277 .584 .303 opening_hours .294 .627 entertaining .433 .413 easy_access_PT .287 .351 range_age .351 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a Rotation converged in 8 iterations.
Factor Transformation Matrix
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 .556 .471 .441 .406 .311 .113 2 -.697 .554 .390 -.204 .089 .084 3 .030 -.235 -.085 -.386 .765 .450 4 .439 .319 .002 -.727 -.385 .170 5 .003 -.555 .769 -.068 -.237 .198 6 -.110 .074 -.234 .335 -.326 .842 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
App 92
Appendix L 1
The RCTGL Collaborative Design Workshop Plan
App 93 individual session – story telling Think about one of your experiences going to Bowen Library to borrow toys.
Task one:
List all the activities you did on that day starting from you left home until you arrived back home again (e.g. catching bus, selecting toys, renewing toys, meeting friends)
Task two:
For each activity, suggest the best case scenario.
Task three: Please look at your story again. Write some words/phrases to highlight the features that you would like to see at your ideal toy library.
App 94 design workshop - group session agenda of the day - Friday, 23 November 2007, the Auditorium - Bowen Library, Maroubra, 10 am - 12 pm.
9.45 – 10.00 : Welcome and drinks 10.00 – 10.15 : Introduction – by Sue White, facilitator
Rules of the day – by Sue White, facilitator (Sue will also mention messages from Sharon Stern, toy librarian).
Ice breaking session – by Nina Horstra & Marlous v.d. Elst 10.15 – 10.35 : Presentation and Generating features – guided by the facilitator.
Presentation of each participant, relating to their “stories” from the individual sessions. 10.35 – 10.55 : Mapping features – group is divided into 2 small groups.
Each subgroup will map the features of the “ideal toy library” into a matrix. The session will be assisted by design students (Nina & Marlous).
10.55 – 11.20 : First scenario making (introduction by the facilitator, the process will be assisted by design students)
To design a complete story of the expected toy library system based on one quadrant of the matrix created.
The participants are asked to create a group story, similar to the one that they make individually, but more extensive and collaborative. 11.25 – 11.45 : Second scenario making - evaluation (introduction by the facilitator, the process will be assisted by design students) To evaluate the scenario based on sustainability guidelines.
The participants are asked to complete a short questionnaire individually, and discuss in the small group if they want to add or revise their scenario.
11.45 – 12.00 : Discussion and evaluation – in a big group, guided by the facilitator.
Presentation of the group work, short discussion and evaluation.
Catharina will wrap up by thanking the participants and promising to send the final scenario to have the participants’ feedback.
Catharina will also give the voucher as the appreciation for the participants’ great support.
App 95 introduction
make a name tag with a personal icon. introduce yourself (name, age, the number of children and their age, explain icon on name tag). ice breaking part
get to know each other and share your thought about your use of the toy library. using an A0 paper provided, write your responses to the following questions: Important values in my life are… I use the toy library service because… In the future, I want to (do, help, achieve) …. I wish to share my … presentation and generating features
each participant presents the story that they made before. the other participant can write down features that they think are important or interesting. mapping features
after generating features from each story, in a small group please discuss to which quadrant (of the matrix below) the feature will fit the best (see figure 1). if you think a particular feature fit into more than one quadrant, write the feature in another paper and stick the feature to each quadrant that it correlates.
App 96 App 97 scenario making – part one
in this session, in a small group, you are asked to create a story board, which is similar to the one that they make individually, but more extensive and collaborative. first, discuss what “theme” or category do you like to choose based on the quadrants in the matrix. then, design a complete story of the expected toy library service based on your preferred quadrant. evaluation - scenario making part 2
individually, please complete the questionnaire based on the story board that you have just completed. in a small group, discuss if you want to add some features to your story board or if you want to revise it.
App 98 evaluation – scenario making
Please compare between the current toy library service and your expected one based on the scenario that you have just created. Please rate the following factors in terms of the improvement of your scenario compared to the current service. environmental sustainability Improved The Not Don’t same improved know the care and maintenance for the long lasting use of toys the use of online/digital access of information (e.g. Internet use) the use of local resources the use of material (less material in toys is better) the energy consumption (less energy is better) the possibility to re-use or re-manufacture toys the recycling process the minimization of toxic and dangerous material in toys socio-ethical sustainability Improved The Not Don’t same improved know social integration between generations social integration between cultures promotion in sustainable behaviour the provision of activities to enhance physical fitness the provision of activities to enhance mental fitness the users’ satisfaction economic sustainability Improved The Not Don’t same improved know the fulfilment of users’ needs the number of new users joining up a low-priced solution other material benefits Non-material benefits
Please list any other factors you think are improved in the scenario that you have created:
App 99
Appendix L 2
Individual Collages Characteristics from
the RCTGL Participants
App 100 Pseudo Key activities Ideal scenarios Keywords name
Deborah Walk Walking to the library – enjoy being Outside Crawford Pressing buttons on lift outside. I encourage my kids to be Music Play games while waiting for outside and to exercise everyday. Workstation library to open We play games and do puzzles. I look Game Toy section – ride on dinosaurs forward to the time I can play Opportunity to be and tractors; press button Monopoly and Scrabble with my kids. creative games; puzzles; musical toys e.g. We play music. I enciurage my kids to Fun xylophone. Maracas love music. Happy boy Books – read 1 or 2 books; select My family is the most important aspect Happy girl 3 4 books to take home of my life. We enjoy the library and feel Daddy Snack it adds to our quality of life. Books Walk home (can be very It would be great if there were a couple stressful) of workstations that parents could sit at close to the toys. I love to read to my kids. I wish Daddy didn’t have to go to work so he could come with us to the library. Some inside some outside, some old, some new, some adults some children, some Australua some world. Healthy learning. Dianne Met friend (with my daughter’s Carers and parents can use computer Closer to toilet Parker friend) and observe children Cafe close by Went by car together to library Finish emailing, fo the grocery shopping More Friends played in library online, older children can watch DVD seating/modular/ Chatted with mum (my friend) while mum with younger children moveable Chatted with other mums/carers Storage for activity toys like rocking Tables for Went to toilet horses elsewhere so that only a few activities/games Played with daughter and her required for play at the centre. Broader range of friend Soft cushions, padded pit/lots of soft games for 6 9 yr old Selected toys surfaces for exploration or settling to Activities to encourage Went to toilet read. collaborative play Had a drink and snack Dress ups activities Went shopping Soft cushions Dropped home by friend. Padded pit Gaby Yang Walk directly to the library. Walk to the library or y bus after work Bigger When go upstairs, look for new for fun. It is safe and healthy. Computer returns at the service desk to If there is a list or category of toys, or I Touch screen monitor see if some good one there. could be advised what kind of toys Save money Then go into toy zone. Look there, it would be much helpful for me. More toys around and select the one I like. Borrowing toys much cheaper than At last, register the loan and left. buying new ones. Walk back home. I could do some fun on the Internet and my son played in the library with other boys. We meet people here.
App 101 Pseudo Key activities Ideal scenarios Keywords name Jacklyn Drive to toy library Drive to toy library when Ben wake up. Earlier opening – Hadley Park downstairs if available or Quick, before school kids get there! before 10 am on street Park downstairs if there are any spot. More parking Select toys/return toys + play Wish there was more parking in Trollies Leave library, drive to shops building or more street parking that is Safer (Pacific Square, Maroubra1) close to library. More colourful Return books and toys. Big toys are Fun heavy and hard to carry when trying to More toys also look after Ben. Trollies would be Borrow longer good. Play time – safety gate, separating play area from library would be good. School age are sometimes disruptive and make it difficult for babies to play. A play area could be set aside for babies. Select toys – more toys to choose would be good. Sometimes there aren’t many. I like to borrow 5 toys every time I go, but sometimes there aren’t 5 suitable toys available. Borrow toys and leave library. Would like larger borrowing period, 4 weeks to match books. Service is good. Shopping, move car to shop at Pacific Square because it is too far to go with toys/shopping to carry. Drive home. Kathy Rae Pick up older children from A smooth trip to my son’s school. No traffic school by car Sophia (aged 2) happy, no traffic, Josh Smooth public Select toys and books (aged 10) ready to go and happy after a transport Meet other older children good day at school. Climbing spaces (at toy Grocery shopping Lots of toys to choose from a good area) Go home by car. range that employs many modes of Blocks play: puzzles, gross motor, noise Musical instruments makers, blocks, somewhere to play. Board games Zac (aged 13) arrives at library on time Puzzles and in a good mood. Everyone finds Water play what they need and we leave happy. Parking Not too crowded at the shops: easy Efficient shopping parking, children helpful, quickly get Happy children what we need. Peaceful Go home: no traffic, easy to unpack of all the toys, books, and food.
1 Pacific Square is the closest shopping centre to the Bowen Library. It is 5 minute slow walking (or about 300 m) from the Bowen Library.
App 102 Pseudo Key activities Ideal scenarios Keywords name Kristy Leave with Oli in stroller Open long hours Long hours Sebastian Walk to Maroubra Junction Big space for exploring toys Space Window shopping a bit Barrier to stop children exiting library Gate Go to toy library Lots of tous – a wide range, multiple Supervision Play for 30 min – 1 hr copies, good condition Play together Take 2 3 toys A place for kids to interact and play Noisy fun Checkout, Oli in stroller together Many toys Back to shops – sit and have Kids supervised by parents Good condition lunch A place to chat with other mums, have Meet people May be general shopping a coffee and meet people Catalog Walk home – Oli fall asleep A catalogueing service Have coffee A place to play with my child A place where kids can be noisy and have fun
Toshi Breakfast and watch TV or DVD We go to the library by bicycle. Go Bicycle Adams at home between 7 10 (ABC through a beautiful field and bush and Books Kids) enjoy nature Toys 9.30 10: get ready to go out We go into the library. All kids are Nature 10 10.30: go to the library by car happy and friendly. Read books, play Silent language 10.30 12.00: play in the toy with toys, sometimes study about the Recycle toys area, go home by car, or go world and natura Garden shopping We also enjoy playing new music Aboriginal toys Lunch and sleep until 2.30 pm intrument and learn how to play. Musical instruments Watch TV or out in the garden. We would love to learn silent language, Relax too!! We would like to learn how to Interesting repair toys. Beach
App 103
Appendix L 3
Matrix Categorisation from
the RCTGL Collaborative Design Workshop
App 104 Matrix categorisation (polarity diagram results)
Group A (Deborah, Kathy, Toshi, Sharon)
Individual passive Individual active PC terminals Supervision of children
Collective passive Collective active Playgroup Traditional toys from all over ther world Role play Catalogue of toys Dress up Volunteer rosters Playground Different festivals Classes (workshops) Playgroup
Group B (Dianne, Gaby, Jacklyn, Kristy, Sam)
Individual passive Individual active X X
Collective passive Collective active Gate safer Supervision Open earlier Soft play area Carnaval toys Community network Easy way to collect large toys Pickup in carpark Catalogue Natural light Activity days (art/creative) Cultural toys Computer workstation adjacent Nature themes
App 105