Strategy of MaaS Platformer -relation with pricing strategy-

Mots-clés:

Résumé:

The purpose of this research
This paper aims to analyze social implementation of MaaS solutions from the pricing policy and technological aspects. Social implementation of MaaS depends on not only effort of application developing company but also pricing strategy of transportation operators. Authors define three type. The first type is simple Third-party company that does not operate transportation service, such as Whim in Helsinki. The second type is global platformer with operation of some kind transportation service, such as Uber, Grab or Lyft. This type application limits the access by other operators. The third type is expanding house platform by transportation operator. One transport operator creates house traffic information or payment platform for its network and open to use the platform to other operators. The example Japanese Transportation IC Cards, such as SUICA. SUICA is payment system for railway network of JR-East, and other operators can use SUICA. Now one can use SUICA to pay rail and bus fee all over Japan.
Authors try to elucidate the difference and the competence of each types from multiple aspects, such as technology of application and pricing strategy.

Research Methodology
Authors use some case studies to describe the specificities of each type of solutions and apply theories of innovation management, transportation economics, and public finance into the cases to elucidate the characteristics of relation between MaaS developing strategy and transportation pricing strategy. Authors chose the cases from Finland, France, and Japan, such as Whim by MaaS Global and Helsinki transportation authority, Uber in these countries, French urban authority and its MaaS, and Japanese Transportation IC card in Tokyo metropolitan area and province.

Findings and Practical implication
Through this study, authors found that three different political solution into each MaaS solutions.
The one is that Ridesharing global platform has great power to regional transportation not only taxi market but also public transportation use. Because his capacity to price his service is great power. In this case, local transportation policy means the regulation of price by traditional way.
The second simple third-party platformer doesn’t have any power to transportation price. If he plays the role as a local integrator, he needs the support by Local government. Local Government must not approve another platform. The wrongest way for local integrator is to divide integrating applications by groups of traffic service. In this case, local transportation policy means the regulation transport service and application to integrate all elements. The most important policy of local transportation authority is introducing integrated price.
The other is that in expanding house platform dividing platform doesn’t cause problem like to local integrator case. This is because, in the case of Tokyo and the like, a plurality of operators having the power of the price coexist originally, and the coexistence of the small group is improved from the original situation. In this case, there are two different solution. In metropolitan area where some profitable public transportation operators are existing like a Tokyo, it is difficult to integrate the price of traffic service. Local government has no means to MaaS solution. But optimal competition by coexist some MaaS groups benefits consumers. In province area without profitable public transportation operators, expanding house platform model is not optimal solution. As that platform is optimized to suit for metropolitan area like a Tokyo, the system is very expensive and over spec for province area. Local government intervention is essential to the success of MaaS, like a Finnish case.
These findings can especially be applied to public transportation policy of cities. Policy makers need to consider the current situation of public transportation of their city to choose desirable MaaS solutions.