IN THE FIELD OF TECHNOLOGY DEGREE PROJECT
INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT AND THE MAIN FIELD OF STUDY
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS
STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2016 ,
Mitigating Barriers of Sharing Economy with HCI Design Strategies
VIGGO STENSETH
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATION
1
2
ABSTRAKT
Det finns en växande ekonomi av tjänster som utnyttjar nätverkslösningar som vill möjliggöra det för användare att hyra, återsälja, låna eller dela tillgångar mellan sig.
Vi kan idag se ett fåtal väldigt framgångsrika exempel på detta, men det finns många fler som inte lyckas etablera sig.
Denna avhandling fokuserar på att identifiera barriärer som hindrar transaktioner att ske inom delande-ekonomin. Den teknologiska kopplingen hos dessa tjänster tillåter MDI-design att vara ett viktigt verktyg för att motverka barriärerna.
Litteraturstudien, ett antal intervjuer och en workshop ligger till grund för data till definierandet och analysen av dessa barriärer.
Genom att kategorisera tjänster som delande-, kollaborativa- eller on-demand- ekonomitjänster kan motivation för användande och dess barriärer utforskas. Värden som kan associeras till motivationen för användandet av de olika tjänsterna används i en ny typ av strategi för att motverka de annars svårtillgängliga barriärerna.
Resultatet från denna avhandling blir underlag för en implementation av en lokal marknadsplats för delande-ekonomitjänster. Denna implementation är en del i ett föreslaget projekt med stöd från VINNOVA i Stockholm, Sverige.
Kunskap om barriärerna och strategier för att övervinna dom kan förhoppningsvis vara till värde för andra utvecklingsområden inom delande-ekonomi. Genom att designa med barriärerna i åtanke kan användarupplevelsen förbättras och leda till att fler transaktioner äger rum.
3
Mitigating Barriers of Sharing Economy with HCI Design Strategies
Viggo Stenseth
Royal Institute of Technology, CSC Stockholm, Sweden
stenseth@kth.se ABSTRACT
There is a growing economy of services that leverage networked solutions to enable peers to rent, re-sell, lend, trade or share assets among each other. We see a few widely successful examples of this, but there are many more that are not taking off.
This thesis aims to identify barriers that hinder transactions from taking place in the sharing economy. The technological nature of these services allows HCI design to be a tool to mitigate these barriers. The literature review, a set of interviews and a workshop form data for the formation and analysis of the barriers.
By categorizing the services as sharing, collaborative or on- demand economy services the barriers and the different motivations for using the services are explored. The associated values with the motivations for using the different service types are considered in a novel strategy to mitigate hard to reach barriers.
The results from this thesis will be material for the proposed implementation of a local marketplace for sharing economy services. This implementation will be done in a proposed VINNOVA supported project in Stockholm, Sweden.
The knowledge about the barriers and the strategies to mitigate them will hopefully be of value to other developments in the sharing economy. By designing with the barriers in mind the user experience will hopefully improve and lead to more transactions taking place.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
J.4 [Social and behavioral sciences]: Economics H.5.2 [HCI]: Theory and methods
H.5.3 [HCI]: Computer-supported cooperative work Classification Scheme: http://www.acm.org/class/1998/
General Terms
Design, Economics, Sustainability, Theory
Keywords
Barriers, Collaborative Economy, Collaborative Consumption, Human Computer Interaction, Motivation, On-Demand Economy, Shared Economy, Sustainability, Transactional Costs, Values
1. INTRODUCTION
What has come to be known as sharing economy and collaborative consumption are concepts that encompasses the use of networked tools to enable a range of sharing, exchanging and co-use practices[18]. Sharing economy can be seen as an economic system where assets or services are shared between peers[32]. Renting, re-selling, lending, trading, sharing and giving are all transaction types that play a part in this economic system (Figure 1). A fully established and working sharing economy under the most favorable conditions have been estimated to result in savings of up to 7% of household budgets and 20% in waste reduction[6].
Rent
Sell
Lend Share
Gift Trade
Transaction in Sharing Economy
Profit – No Profit
Low – User Participation - High
Figure 1. Transaction types in Sharing Economy from a user perspective.
During 2012-2014 a VINNOVA supported project called Smart City Stockholm Royal Seaport (SRS) was performed.
This project highlighted that there exists a sharing economy sector in Sweden that is not working due to too high transactional cost of time, effort and/or money in relation to the size of the transactions. The main transactional costs were attributed to distance, payment and trust.
One of the results from the Smart City SRS project was the project Smart City Marketplace (SCM). The aim of the SCM project was to evaluate potential barriers, requirements, perquisites and business model for marketplaces focused on sharing economy services in local communities. The ultimate goal is to establish a physical and digital marketplace for sharing economy services in a local community.
Consider a situation where you are using a new sharing service that allows you to book and rent something that you need. As you have committed to the transaction you find yourself on the submit order page which displays the cost and summary of your transaction. When you press Submit, you are faced with a conflicting result page that states
“Something went wrong” and on the line beneath it states
“Transaction completed, Thank you”.
This is a failure in HCI design and has implications on the users trust and overall experience with the system. It is perhaps even likely that the user will refrain from trying the service again. This is a simplified example of not handling the payment barrier in a sufficient manner.
In a set of interviews with experts in Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and sharing economy several new barriers are defined and explored. Cross-sections of this material form a foundation for a collaborative workshop that focuses on the barriers of establishing sharing economy services and possible solutions.
By further analyzing a subset of the barriers from a HCI design perspective certain characteristics and factors are highlighted to help with both the design of the SCM project and the establishment of sharing economy services in general.
4 This thesis partially forms its own concept barriers of
sharing economy based on the transactional costs first identified in the Smart City SRS project. It aims to further explore the concept of barriers of sharing economy and map them to current research and theory.
Current articles and studies often refer to technology as a releasing factor for the sharing economy. The increased use of smartphones and a persistent internet connectivity have been highlighted as an important factor[9]. There is however little research available on how technology has enabled this more specifically. We see a few successful ventures such as Uber, CouchSurfing and AirBnB being referenced in the sharing economy context today[1,9,19]. A closer study shows that these services are considered the low-hanging fruits of sharing economy and that they can be defined as being a part of on-demand economy, collaborative economy and sharing economy service segments respectively[2].
There are however far more ventures failing to reach critical mass or fail to endure the test of time. Designing against barriers of shared economy could help more ventures to consider key aspects as they design their services.
The results of the Smart City SRS and SCM project forms the basis set of sharing economy barriers distance, knowledge of opportunities, payment, trust and security. The results from interviews and literature review broadens and defines the list even further. A subset of the barriers undergoes deeper analysis after a triangulation of the results.
The results and discussion show characteristics and possible ways to address the barriers. Designing with the barriers in mind constitutes an overall HCI design strategy to mitigate them. By addressing the barriers in a design scenario the outcome should lead to better convenience and user experience for the end user.
Addressing these barriers is a HCI question as these services operate in and with HCI interfaces. The results of this research will also implicitly be connected to Sustainable HCI as the sharing economy has been highlighted as a way to address overconsumption and promotes better utilization of resources.
The SCM project will be able to consider the results in reference to its proposed implementation strategy. This will hopefully lead to a better implementation of the marketplace for sharing economy services.
1.1 Research question
If barriers of shared economy are identified, it stands to reason that we could increase the odds of a successful undertaking if we design in a defensive manner against these barriers.
1.1.1 Main research question
What barriers of shared economy exist and how can they be mitigated by HCI design strategies?
1.1.2 Secondary research question
What motivates the use of sharing economy services and how can we design with this in mind?
1.2 Purpose and aim
The results of this thesis aims to further the research in the Sharing Economy, HCI and Sustainable HCI. This is done by taking both a theoretical and a pragmatic approach to the barriers of sharing economy.
By discovering and defining a set of barriers that hinder transactions in the sharing economy a solution oriented approach can be taken by anyone who aims to implement a
service in this context. Existing and novel approaches to mitigate the barriers are then identified and discussed. The main focus will however be placed on the identification and analysis of these barriers.
The proposed HCI design strategy is therefore to considering these barriers in the design and development of sharing economy services.
One of the direct goals will be to aid in the SCM projects implementation of a marketplace for sharing economy services. The results will however not be specific only to this project, instead they will be of a general nature for the whole sharing economy context.
1.3 Scope and delimitations
A definition and clarification of sharing economy in the background and theory chapters helps to scope the working context. The effects of implementing sharing economy are not part of the scope.
The scope of this project is set to focus around the concept of barriers of sharing economy and the transaction types that are unique in it. The resulting work suggests HCI design strategies for mitigating a selection of the barriers individually but also as a whole.
Theoretically any of the barriers can be researched in an extensive manner on their own. Time limitation and the scope of this thesis limits the extent that each of these barriers can be researched.
Exemplification of the barriers, using screenshots or illustrations of existing interfaces are not used. This is done to focus more on the theory and the conceptualization of the barriers. Certain aspects such as legal or juridical are not considered mainly due to lack of expertise but also by time limitations.
2. THEORY AND RELATED RESEARCH
The scientific background is used to explain and define sharing economy, its sub-categories and some of its distinctions. Research on trust, motivation and values is defined in connection to barriers of shared economy.
2.1 Definition of Sharing Economy
In this thesis Sharing Economy is used as the overall term to describe the sector as a whole. As a collective term it puts everything under one umbrella. It can be defined as an economic system that utilizes technology to help people share access to assets, resources, time and skills[30]. It also entails services that help to distribute underused assets, knowledge or services[2]. The transaction types in these services are fundamentally different than traditional business to customer (B2C) or business to business (B2B) transactions since they focus on sharing and re-distribution of assets between peers.
The term Sharing Economy has been used interchangeably with Collaborative Economy and On-demand Economy but there is a distinction between the type of services involved in each category[2,9]. There is a distinction between asset types, motivation and principles behind the services in each category.
A differentiation of services can be done into three sub- categories Sharing Economy Services, Collaborative Economy Services and On-Demand Economy Services (Figure 2)[1,9]. The different services can also further be generalized as the three different system types Product
5 Service Systems, Redistribution Markets and Collaborative
Lifestyles[1].
Sharing Economy
Services
Collaborative Economy
Services
Collaborative Consumption
On-Demand Economy
Services
Figure 2. Sharing, Collaborative and On-Demand economy services are part of the sharing economy. The difference between sharing and collaborative economy services are based on how the services adhere to collaborative consumption principles. On-demand economy services are focused on directly matching user needs and is not exclusively part of the sharing economy.
2.1.1 Collaborative Economy Services
Collaborative economy services are a sub-category of services in sharing economy. One of the drivers behind this term is to be able differentiate from sharing economy services. For a service to be categorized as a collaborative economy service it has to share the values and collaborative consumption principles that the social movement who associate itself with collaborative consumption and a collaborative lifestyle do[2,19].
These services utilize technology to establish networks or marketplaces that aims to re-distribute or share assets that are underutilized. This is done in a network where there sometimes is no company or profit-maximizing intermediary. It can be seen as a network that circumvents traditional business structures or middlemen[2]. It can therefore take the form of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) networks. It is more common to find services that share intangible assets in this category[2,9].
There are examples of design dissonances between the expected values by a collaborative economy service and its users. An example of this could be that the service incorporates a reward structure or gamification aspect for a service that attracts users driven by intrinsic motivation (See 2.4.3.2)[12,17].
Examples of services that can be associated with collaborative economy services are Hoffice.nu (A host can share their home as a co-work space), CouchSurfing.com (Hosts in this community share their sofa for free with travelers) and Grannsaker.se (A tool and asset sharing platform for neighbors). Homes and utilities are available as resources between peers in these services.
Hoffice and CouchSurfing.com are community driven by their peers and highly value driven. Grannsaker.se has a company providing the platform but lets the peers themselves decide if the transactions are free or not. The structure and values promoted by these services would define how they position themselves to the right or left on the diagram of sharing economy services (Figure 2).
2.1.2 Sharing Economy Services
Sharing economy services are similar to collaborative economy services, but with the distinction that it allows the business model and economic principles to take a more traditional or capitalistic form. These services are therefore necessarily not as value driven and might come across as more normal by today’s norms.
It can be a network between peers (P2P) but it can also take the form of a Peer to Business to Peer (P2B2P), Peer to Institution to Peer (P2I2P), Business to Customer (B2C), Customer to Business (C2B) or Business to Business (B2B) structure[1,2].
Some research suggests that some of the primary drivers behind the use of a service is convenience in the users daily life[9]. A simple failure in design could be to present to many irrelevant choices, resulting in an increased cognitive load. Imagine a tool sharing platform that presents your search for an electric drill with matches up to 50 kilometers away. If it would require several clicks to filter the results to only relevant results the convenience is reduced significantly. This is an example of not addressing the barrier distance correctly in the design of the service.
Grannsaker.se is an example of a P2B2P platform where the individuals sharing or lending items can choose to collect a fee or not for the lending or renting transactions that take place. Grannsaker.se would then benefit from this transaction fee. Another (P2B2P/B2C) example is AirBnB.com where the company facilitates the networked platform between peers who want to rent out their residences to other people.
2.1.3 On-Demand Economy Services
On-demand Services that exist in the sharing economy are
“platforms that directly match the customer needs with providers to immediately deliver goods and services”[2].
This economic sector contains services that have grown out of the customer need of direct and immediate delivery and satisfaction. These types of services are not limited to the sharing economy context by definition.
The company Uber has been criticized of being a traditional capitalistic business, while others refer to Uber as an example of sharing economy service[19]. It is however a good example of an On-demand service. Users are directly presented with the availability of transportation based on their location directly in their smartphone. The payment process has been abstracted to the point that the process consists of ordering a taxi with a single button press. The receipt and final confirmation after the transportation further draws the attention away from the payment by presenting a rating of the experience rather than focusing on the cost. The service has addressed both the payment and distance barriers in an excellent way.
Uber is a mixed product service system that is both an on- demand and sharing economy service. The technical platforms developed by on-demand economy services are being copied and used in services in the shared economy.
Uber, Car2Go (Ad-hoc car rental service) and Netflix (Subscription based media streaming service) are examples of On-demand economy services that operate under a B2C model.
2.1.4 Collaborative Consumption
Collaborative consumption can be used to describe the social movement or the active participation of sharing economy services[27]. It is the principles and values of this
6 concept that form the criteria that define if a service or
product is part of the sharing economy[1,2]. Depending on the business model and core values of the company it further differentiates the services between collaborative and sharing services. Where collaborative services more adhere to collaborative consumption principles than sharing economy services.
The principles and values of collaborative consumption revolve around more effective utilization of assets, humanism, business ethics, and responsible businesses models[1,2,27]. It questions the validity of common capitalistic business models which are built on a one-way transactional model from producer to consumer.
Collaborative consumption promotes leasing, renting or lending type of transactions instead of buying and owning[1,27].
Rachel Botsman and Roger Roo define four enablers of collaborative consumption: trust between strangers, the power of idling capacity, belief in the commons and critical mass[1]. As enablers of collaborative consumption trust, idling capacity and knowledge of opportunity have been included as barriers of sharing economy.
2.2 Sharing Economy Systems
Three major types of system categories can be used to define the services that belong in sharing economy[1,27]. Botsman and Rogers define these systems as Collaborative Consumption Systems in the book “What’s Mine is Yours”
but Sharing Economy System is used in this thesis to adapt it to the overall definition[1,27].
2.2.1 Product Service Systems
Product Service Systems (PSS) aim to provide a sustainable offering of products and services[1,4]. The system can be run by a P2P community or a company. A PSS does not discriminate on the underlying business model as long as it can be seen to increase the utility of resources and promotes a more sustainable solution. PSS can be found in all sub- categories of sharing economy services.
An example of a PSS is SolarCity that enables residents to produce electricity by installing solar panels. The customer can then sell any surplus of electricity back to the grid. This turns the traditional distribution model around where the consumer becomes the producer. Another example is ReFurn who accepts damaged or unwanted furniture from customers, they then repair and refurbish them for the purpose of re-selling them and prolonging the life of the items.
2.2.2 Redistribution Markets
Redistribution markets enable counterparties to exchange unused or pre-owned goods[1]. Like a PSS, Redistribution Markets do not discriminate on the business model underneath. Markets can use points, monetary or free transactions. Some examples of service in this system are internet classified ads or marketplaces like Blocket.se, Craigslist.com or item swapping groups on Facebook.
2.2.3 Collaborative Lifestyles
The Collaborative Lifestyle system can be seen as a slightly more discriminating category because fewer examples of them involve monetary transactions. There are examples of systems that incorporate a membership fee to gain access to the system, such as Swopshop.se where individuals can pool their clothes in exchange for points that they can then use to swap or lend clothes.
More than items can be shared, swapped or sold. Intangibles such as skills and time can be traded. The transactions of intangibles inevitably rely on a technical platform that facilitates the transaction to some degree. These platforms can include time banks, alternative payment methods or just facilitate the connection. Hoffice is an example where a host share their home or locale as a co-use workspace for other people within in a network. The connections are made through their moderated Facebook groups.
These type of services require a high degree of trust because it often requires more direct interactions between people[1].
It is mostly collaborative economy services that can be considered using a collaborative lifestyle system as its framework.
2.3 Trust
The degree and quality of trust is an essential part of collaborating parties and the possibilities of undertaking and completing work is dependent on it[16].
Trust can be placed upon different participating parties, whether they be human or a technological system. Knowles et al. propose People, Processes, Systems and Data as four separated but interrelated dimensions of trust in their model of trust[16]. A model like this allows us to explore the different dimensions that are interconnected in a sharing economy service.
In the different sharing economy systems, we will see dependencies with all four of the dimensions to a varying degree. The complexity of establishing trust will therefore be affected by how interactions with these dimensions are required. A system that requires interaction between the four major dimensions will also need to apply different concepts and methods of establishing and retaining trust.
There are several models that explore trust forming mechanisms and trust retention. Trust can also be of different quality or robustness[16,26]. It is generally said that it takes longer to build up a trust relationship than it takes to destroy it[16,31].
Key concepts in establishing trust are openness, equitability, competency, reliability, integrity, solidarity and efficiency[16]. Potential benefits that can be delivered through digital systems to help establish these concepts are translucence, visibility, accountability, reward, usability, feedback, socialization, incentivizing and recommendations[16].
2.4 Values and Motivation
How we choose to motivate through design can have an impact on user values both short or long term[12,17]. Some research shows that mixing economic and environmental reasons for change lead to increased short term changes but decreased long-term changes[8,17]. This implies that some responsibility lies with the service owner and designers to design towards the desired goal. There is an implicit correlation between what we value and how it motivates us,
“Values are motivations that influence attitudes and behavior”[17]. Our values are related to our goals and motivation.
The barriers of sharing economy are dependent on what the underlying values for using a service are and how they motivate users. In the Smart City SRS project, it was highlighted that users perceived the relative value gain as too low to overcome the transactional cost in sharing economy services.
7
2.4.1 Values
A number of consistently occurring human values have been identified in hundreds of psychological studies[12,17,24].
Just because we can categorize different values does not mean that we only have access to certain categories of values. On the contrary all of us hold all values to varying degree, “Values are not character types. Each of us is motivated by all of these values, but to differing degrees”[12].
These values can be shown on a circumplex (Figure 3) where compatible values appear closer to one another and conflicting values appear on the opposite side[24].
The values that are sought in collaborative consumption are mostly found under the self-transcendence (ST). Values such as social justice, helpful and protecting the environment[17]. On the opposite side of self-transcendence in the circumplex is self-enhancement (SE) that hold values including successful, intelligent, social recognition, wealth and preserving my public image[12,17]. The full list of values and categories in the value model is found in Appendix a.
Knowles et al. identified a set of common SE-based approaches that were used in persuasive design technologies aiming to encourage pro-environmental behaviors. What she found was that these approaches potentially did the opposite due to the see-saw effect and negative spillover (see 2.4.2)[17]. As a result, a set of design strategies to better align with the sought values were proposed from the value model.
Figure 3. Schwartz's value circumplex that show ten groups of values under four major categories[24].
Self-enhancement (SE)
Values that are based on the pursuit of personal status and success are found in this group[12].
SE-based design approaches[17]:
Earning points for behavioral change
Displaying cost savings for energy reduction
Providing tools to increase efficiency of an activity (e.g. eco-driving)
Use of social networks to share pro-environmental behaviors (i.e. to praise or seek approval from peers)
Use of social networks to share negative behaviors
Self-transcendent (ST)
Values that are related to concern for others are conducive to pro-environmental behavior[17,23]. ST based approaches may contribute to greater conservation behaviors, which ultimately resonates with the collaborative consumption principles and goals.
ST-based design considerations[17]:
Avoid carbon cost calculators
Avoid gaming aspects
Avoid social comparison
Use natural imagery and materials
Enable environmental engagements
Design opportunities for reflection
2.4.2 Value Dynamics
Some documented effects that occur when values are triggered have been observed and can be considered as value dynamics[12,17]. The dynamics are in relation to the Schwartz circumplex in Figure 3, where opposing values would be 180 degrees across.
See-saw effect; activating one value will deactivate opposing, dissimilar values[12].
Bleed over effect; activating one value will activate similar, neighboring values on the circumplex[12].
Positive spillover; adoption of a behavior that increases the likelihood of adoption of similar and/or more significant behaviors in the future[17].
Negative spillover; adoption of a behavior that decreases further such behaviors. Pro-environmental behavior motivated by SE-values leads to few subsequent pro-environmental behaviors[17,28]
2.4.3 Motivation
Values that resonate with the user ultimately leads to motivation. Two major groupings of motivation are found across cultures, these are intrinsic and extrinsic motivation[5,10,12]. Motivation
Extrinsic Motivation
Extrinsic motivation has external goals and rewards. It can be linked to SE values that are centered on external approval or rewards such as wealth, material success, concern about image, social status, prestige, social power and authority[12]. SE values and extrinsic motivation can be linked but that does not mean that they are equal[12].
Intrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic motivation suggests that the task or the activity in itself is a reward. Values that are inherently rewarding to pursue are found in the ST values. Examples are affiliation to friends & family, connection with nature, concern for others, self-acceptance, social justice and creativity[12].
The values here are often related to political engagements, as the goal is for something larger than self-centric goals[25].
3. METHOD
This section provides a description of the methodology used in this thesis. The primary method is a triangulation between the three data collection methods literature review, interviews and a workshop. The preceding work of the SCM pre-study project is a part of the literature review.
3.1 Pre-study & Literature review
The results of the pre-study formed a baseline set of barriers of shared economy that are the subject of this thesis. The transactional barriers Distance, Payment and Trust
8 identified in the Smart City SRS project carried over into the
SCM pre-study project. The initial set of barriers were Distance, Payment, Trust, Security and Norms.
The literature review was also used to define the sharing economy to clarify the space under which the thesis operates. Concepts that could qualify as potential barriers were added to the list.
A review of HCI-aspects of 12 different sharing economy services was conducted. The services consisted of carpooling (4), Peer-to-Peer marketplaces (5) and rental marketplaces (3). This was done to observe existing HCI strategies after the barriers had been defined.
3.2 Interviews
A mix of probing, open, comparing and hypothetical questions were used to encourage the interviewee to elaborate their answers[3]. All interviewees have agreed to be referenced by name in this thesis.
The first two out of the three interviews were unstructured to allow the identification of additional barriers. The third interview followed a semi-structured format discussing the full list of barriers at the time. The interviews all had the topic barriers of sharing economy.
3.2.1 Niclas Bergkvist, entrepreneur and founder of Grannsaker.se
This was the first interview done in this research and the objective was to explore real world barriers gathered from running a sharing economy service.
Grannsaker.se has run its service for more than a year, they are based in Sweden and their service can be classified as sharing economy service operating a product service system.
The interview was done over telephone because Bergkvist was in Helsingborg at the time. The interview lasted a little more than one hour and was documented with notes in Microsoft OneNote.
The interview questions consisted of a mix of open questions followed with probing and hypothetical questions.
Niclas showed a great deal of motivation to participate in the interview since he could see potential benefits for his endeavor with grannsaker.se. Bergkvist was also invited to participate in the later workshop, which he agreed to do.
Niclas Bergkvist will be referenced as NB.
3.2.2 PhD Daniel Pargman, associate professor KTH
The second interview shared the objective of exploring barriers and followed the same structure as the first interview. A difference here was that the interviewee was an academic rather than an entrepreneur.
The interview with Pargman took place in his office at the Computer Science and Communication (CSC) department at KTH and lasted for a little more than an hour.
Pargman works as a teacher and associate professor in the computer science and communication department at KTH.
The interview was documented in Microsoft OneNote.
The interview with Daniel Pargman will be referenced as DP.
3.2.3 PhD Elina Eriksson, researcher KTH
In this interview each of the barriers that was known at the time was discussed. By going through them, one after the other focus was put on observing what interest and weight
was put on each of the barriers. The objective was still to explore the barriers but followed a semi-structured format to further validate the known barriers after the workshop.
The interview took place at Eriksson’s office at the Center for Sustainable Communications (CESC) at KTH and lasted a little more than an hour.
After a short introduction to the topic, Eriksson was handed a set of cards with each barrier. The cards had the barrier printed on them and a short sentence to exemplify the barrier on the back of the card. Each barrier was then discussed and probed wherever Eriksson would elaborate. The interview was documented in Microsoft OneNote.
The interview with Elina Eriksson will be referenced as EE.
3.3 Workshop
The workshop consisted of a mix of residents, academics and entrepreneurs. The location for the workshop was in the Industrial Economics department at KTH. A half circle of tables faced a whiteboard. The group consisted of two international students from the master program Energy for Smart Cities (SMCS) at KTH, two entrepreneurs who work at the company Grannsaker.se (NB and a colleague), one resident from Hammarby Sjöstad and one PhD candidate of Industrial Ecology KTH. Pargman was not available for the workshop and Eriksson was excluded to prevent bias because her interview had not been conducted at this point.
While the participants were served some refreshments, a round of presentations with a short background took place.
The introduction and brief talk lasted for about fifteen minutes. After introductions, a more detailed background on the topic and a definition of sharing economy was presented.
The resident had never heard about sharing economy before.
He was however familiar with some of the companies associated with sharing economy.
After presentations the different barriers of sharing economy were drawn up on the board and discussed. This first part of the workshop was focused on presenting the barriers and open discussions that arose naturally. The first part lasted about one hour. Following the first part, a ten-minute break was taken for reflection. After the break, the group of six was divided into three groups of two, where people who knew each other from before were separated. In this second part of the workshop the focus was reasoning and finding solutions to the barriers. Each group of two could pick two barriers from the wall to discuss and brainstorm solutions around.
A context was given to the participants to where this solution and implementation of a fictitious sharing economy solution would take place. They were constrained to an urban environment, apartment buildings in a western country. No technical or other limitations were stated and they were encouraged to think of solutions without considering any difficulties of implementing them.
Each group got cards with their chosen barriers and post-it notes to put solutions on. Different groups were allowed to pick the same barriers. The groups selected the barriers Social Norms, Trust x 2, Belief in the commons, Knowledge of Opportunity and Security. After about 25 minutes, the groups presented their solutions to the selected barriers for the other groups.
The participants of the workshop will be referenced as WS1/2 (international students 1 & 2), NB & WE (entrepreneurs 1 & 2, NB is also the interviewee), WR (resident) and WP (PhD candidate).
9
3.4 Analysis
3.4.1 Formation of themes into barriers
Barriers of sharing economy comes from the definition of transaction costs which is usually found in marketing or economy literature[22]. The themes of barriers could not be limited to the traditional transaction cost definition since it would have to include other transaction types as well. The formation of general themes into barriers centered around concepts that either encouraged or discouraged the use of sharing economy services. Positive or encouraging concepts that was discovered were inverted to form barriers.
During the thesis a set of three (Social Proof, Marketing and Knowledge of Opportunity) and two (Norm of Ownership, Social Norms) themes were consolidated into the two barriers Knowledge of Opportunity and Norms.
3.4.2 Coding of interviews & workshop
Interviews and the dialogues from the workshop participants are the data sources for the frequency analysis of barriers.
A coding scheme was applied to the transcripts of the interviews and workshop. The coding was done using the a priori coding approach[29]. The categories used to code the transcript consisted of the ten barriers that had emerged during the research. Sampling was not used since the material was deemed to be manageable in its entirety[3]. The coding units of the transcripts were themes[3]. Any self- imposed occurrence was omitted to reduce subjective bias.
3.4.3 Triangulation
Data triangulation of observations from the pre-study material, interviews and workshop constitutes the frequency analysis. The data is of a primary data type, meaning that it has been generated by the data collection methods in this thesis as an original source[3]. All the methods used in this study share a leaning towards the interpretivist paradigm[3].
The frequencies were divided into the three categories Pre- Study & Literature Review (PS), Interviews (INT) and Workshop (WS). The PS category was awarded only a single frequency per barrier since a coding of all the literature was out of scope. The final sorting order was determined by the sum of all the categories.
Triangulation was primarily used to reduce bias and highlight the barriers from different angles[3,13].
3.4.4 Existing HCI strategy observations
Following the frequency analysis, a brief review of existing sharing economy services was done to identify current HCI strategies to address the barriers. Potential HCI strategies was also considered and added to the barriers. This is not part of the primary triangulation method, but it was done to validate the applicability of the results. It is considered as an extension of the literature review. Twelve different sharing economy services were visited and referenced for existing solutions to the identified barriers.
3.4.5 Strategy map
Strategy maps are diagrams used to document different strategic goals by an organization or management teams [14,20]. The strategy map can be described as a way to visualize the relationship between drivers and the desired outcomes[14].
A strategy map was used as a visualization technique to explore how barrier overlap and how they can be linked to each other. The introduction of barriers in the strategy map allows us to analyze how they hinder the drivers to reach the desired outcome in an implementation scenario[7,20].
The strategy map was designed as a hypothetical sharing economy service with the goal of increasing the number of transactions. It offers four different perspectives of a hypothetical sharing economy service. The used perspectives were Development, Internal processes, Users and Value of the service. These are commonly used perspectives in a strategy map.
The barriers were incorporated in the strategy map to visualize at what perspective a barrier could be considered to have influence. The incorporation of the barriers is based upon the theory that a barrier will hinder a driver. This also suggest how and where a HCI design strategy could be implemented. As the last part of the analysis it also serves as a final conceptualization of a HCI design strategy to mitigate barriers of sharing economy.
3.4.6 Validation of results
As an exercise to validate results and methodology, discussions were conducted with the researchers PhD Bran Knowles and PhD Elina Eriksson independently.
Knowles is a researcher who has done her PhD dissertation within sustainable HCI at Lancaster University, UK. Parts of the theory in this thesis builds on previous research done by her. She was contacted and an hour long discussion was held over Skype followed by some brief e-mail correspondence. The topics of discussion were the identified barriers, the trust model and value model from her research[11,15,16,17]. This is not part of the main methodology and is therefore not counted among the interviews done in this thesis. Her work is however referenced in several of the barriers and in the discussion.
In the latter part of the analysis the collaborative consumption principles were mapped to values together with Eriksson. This was done to elaborate on a theory that arouse during the analysis. The theory was that these principles would have a leaning towards a specific grouping of values. Eriksson was contacted and a discussion was held about the value model and the principles. After this an exercise of mapping the values to a definition of collaborative consumption principles was conducted. This was also not part of the main methodology and not counted among the interviews. It did however provide some material to the discussion in this thesis (5.2.1.1).
4. RESULTS
Ten barriers of sharing economy have been identified.
Twelve existing sharing economy services have been analyzed for existing HCI solutions to the barriers. A strategy map has been used to analyze the interplay and dependencies of barriers.
Out of the ten barriers in the frequency table (Table 1) seven barriers have a notably higher frequency in the material. The methods listed in Table 1 refer to the Literature review &
Pre-Study (PS), Interviews (INT) and Workshop (WS).
The PS column does not reflect the frequency of barriers from articles and books in the literature review as this would have been too time consuming for this thesis. Instead it is the individual occurrence of barriers from the projects Smart City SRS and SCM pre-study. The occurrence of a barrier in that material has been given the count of one per barrier and project in the frequency analysis.
10 Table 1. Top barriers. Literature review & Pre-study
(PS), Interviews (INT), Workshop (WS). Sorted by sum of occurrences in the material.
Barrier
Method
Sum
PS INT WS
Norms (NORM) 1 15 25 41
Trust (TRU) 2 6 24 32
Belief in the Commons (BEL)
10 15 25
Security (SEC) 1 10 13 24
Knowledge of Opportunity (KNOW)
2 7 10 19
Distance (DIS) 2 12 4 18
Payment (PAY) 2 6 10 18
Critical Mass (CRI) 4 2 6
Resilience (RES) 3 2 5
Idling Capacity (IDL) 2 2 4
4.1 Barriers of Shared Economy
In this section a more detailed explanation of the seven most frequent barriers is followed by a briefer description of the less frequent ones. Each of the barriers are described and exemplified. After a description of the barriers, observed existing and potential HCI solutions from are listed. Finally, a set of observed factors that can influence the barrier are listed with each barrier.
4.1.1 Norms (NORM)
Norms include values, customs and traditions. As a barrier of sharing economy, it is related to the transactions that take place in the sharing economy. Norms of ownership and stigma related to the transaction types sharing, renting, giving, borrowing or lending is found in the material. A prevailing norm of ownership can be seen as an enhancing factor of the barrier (Table 2).
Norms is the most frequently occurring barrier, but it can also be considered to have the broadest definition. The themes Social norms & Ownership Norms were consolidated into a single barrier Norms (NORM).
In the interview with EE she reflects on the matter of norms.
She explains that her family walks or uses public transportation to a 4-H clubhouse outside of the city. They are subjected to stigma related to ownership norms because of this. Other parents would persistently offer to drive their children to and from the clubhouse and have voiced a sort of confoundment to them not owning a car. When EE reflects on this during the interview she states “There is a stigma in not having and not owning certain things”.
There are also norms related to re-use or owning older items.
In a discussion during the workshop WP states “If you owned and used an old iPhone 3 I would think less of you. I would not tell you but I would think it”. This implies that we as a society are judged not only by what we say or do but what we chose to own and not.
The potential “social cost” related to P2P transactions are problematic. In the workshop, a hypothetical implementation of a product service system where neighbors could borrow and lend tools was discussed. Social issues that could arise when borrowing or lending items arose are described by NB “interaction with new people is scary, people are scared of contact”. WR continues by
voicing his concern “Yeah, then you have to talk to them. If they meet you in the stairwell they will talk to you even if you are in a hurry”. Both NB and WR describes a sort of transactional cost that arises from a social bond that is created with borrowing or lending items. How we perceive these bonds appears to be connected to norms in our society and how open we are to making these “bonds”.
These social inconveniences are perceived as barriers that could be higher than the potential gain of borrowing a tool for free. In contrast, collaborative lifestyle services like CouchSurfing promotes the social interaction as a goal of the transaction. This hints that there are different norms at play in different sharing economy services and their respective communities.
Existing HCI strategies that address the barrier
Norms can be normalized by leveraging or piggybacking on existing forums for sharing economy transactions. The product service system Grannsaker.se uses libraries as a physical medium to partially promote the service but also to leverage an existing framework of lending transactions. NB describes this, “it is a way to help people dare to lend, the barrier is lower in a library environment than in the home”.
The existing norms found in a library seem to have an encouraging bleed over effect on similar transactions in its proximity.
Gamification and rewards are sometimes used to promote the use of a service. These incentives are introduced to motivate and encourage users to use the service. They do this by triggering achievement values as a motivator. The
“neighbor of the month” is an example of this, where a user is awarded a gift for being one of the more active users on Grannsaker.se. A voice for concern when using gamification and rewards as incentives is raised in the discussion.
Potential HCI strategies to address the barrier
Value specific design that aligns with the core values of the service. This potential approach is elaborated on further in the discussion.
Table 2. Observed factors of Norms barrier
Enhancing Decreasing
Ownership Sharing
Consumerism Anti-Consumerism
Novelty Re-use
Individualism Commonality
4.1.2 Trust (TRU)
Any service that operates in the sharing economy will have to establish trust with its peers to some extent. Depending on the configuration of the system, different types of trust relationships need to be established. While this is a very broad and complex subject, certain design principles and methods can be used to better understand the trust relationships of a service.
From a user perspective, depending on the service the user could have one or more of the following dimensions or end- points: People, Processes, Systems and Data. Sharing economy services will have different constellations of these endpoints and can therefore tailor the trust establishing concepts thereafter. There are several factors that enhances trust and therefore decreases the effect of the barrier, some of the observed factors are listed in Table 3.
Two examples of sharing economy systems that have different constellations would be a P2P service and a B2C
11 service. In a P2P collaborative economy service, which is
built on a value driven community, the end-points would primarily be between people. The network or system that enables the transactions to take place must help to establish trust between users. This is on-top of establishing trust to the system and processes. An example of this type of service is CouchSurfing which uses peer recommendations and expressions of solidarity between community members is used to establish trust.
In a product service system, the user might not interact with another peer. In that type of service, the primary trust relationship is between the user, process and system. The system has to establish and convey that the process is fair and correct to the user. This can be fostered by ensuring reliability in the service and that there is an equitable process. In the Uber service platform information regarding the expected cost is displayed before committing to a transaction. If the price differs from the normal rate a special indication is prompted to notify the user before ordering.
This comes across as a transparent and fair process even though it is an unconventional way for the company to charge more from its customer during times of high demand.
Most if not all sharing economy services use networked systems for their services. These systems can then hold data that comprises user profiles and ratings to relay a digital profile between peers. This type of user rating has been in use for some time now, and if handled correctly the users trust the validity and integrity of the system. Users will then infer an implicit trust to profiles in that system with a high rating.
WP describes an interaction where he asks how a friend of his could let unknown travelers stay at his home “Do you know them? No but they have good ratings so I trust them”.
In this instance the user trusts that the data provided to him from the system is reliable and therefore choses to trust the otherwise unknown person. This could be described as a chain of trust over several of the end-points. Where trust is relayed over through the system between peers.
Existing HCI strategies that address the barrier
Mutual friends or a social proximity is provided through social networks. Linking your profile to an existing social network is sometimes promoted to provide credibility of your digital profile.
Ratings or reviews of the end-points in services are used to self-moderate a system. In some services the users rate each other or the system. There are also examples of using 3rd party ratings of the service itself (Trustpilot etc.) to establish credibility and trust to the system and process.
Transparency of cost and highlighting potential anomalies from the expected service.
Potential HCI strategies to address the barrier
Identify and apply patterns of trust in sharing economy services. In the research article Models and patterns of trust done by Knowles et al. they emphasize that many models of trust exist but they have a low applicability[16]. Instead the formation of patterns of trust have been identified in specific contexts. The pattern then describes the process of building and retaining trust. These patterns or the identification of new patterns could be incorporated into sharing economy services.
Table 3. Observed factors of Trust barrier
Enhancing Decreasing
Disconnect people Connected people Low integrity High integrity
Antagonism Solidarity
Un-reliable Reliable
Secrecy Openness
Incompetence Competence
Unfairness Equitability
4.1.3 Belief in the commons (BEL)
The concept behind belief in the commons is that by providing value to the community or a common resource, we enrich our own social value to expand in return. The concept gained attention from the research publication Governing the commons done by the late professor Elinor Ostrom[21]. The research and the term was a result that contrasted the theory Tragedy of the commons. The tragedy of the commons states that individuals acting rationally and independently out of self-interest will not act in a beneficial way to the group, instead they will eventually deplete a common resource. If we acknowledged sharing economy services as shared resources, the willingness to care for this resource is then the belief in the commons.
It has been picked up and is used frequently by the collaborative consumption community. A difference between the former concept is that a resource in sharing economy services are sometimes constituted by the participants themselves and a self-diminishing behavior would be counterintuitive. If users can be considered to be a part of the resource or not is correlated to how much user participation is required. So this barrier will impact the transactions differently depending on the service type.
If a user has a high dependency to the resource provided by the sharing economy service, it is more likely that the user will care for that resource. The dependence of the resource in a service is a factor for the barriers influence (Table 4).
When talking about how the same sharing economy service will be of different importance in different societies DP highlighted that “the need might be different in other societies where economical collaboration is needed” and more specifically for our society where we might not be as dependent on our neighbors, “Prosperity means that we do not need our neighbors”.
A belief in the commons sometimes manifests in an implicit form by sharing and promoting a common universalistic view. The services that can be considered to be in the collaborative economy often promote values from the groups self-transcendence or openness to change. WS1 describes this phenomenon from the CouchSurfing community. WS1 describes how it was important to show that you shared the values of the community to be accepted by a host, “First you have to have a very detailed profile describing yourself and how you enjoy sharing this world with others”. The common values that are shared and promoted within this community resonates with the concept of treating it as a common resource. Many of the hosts that WS1 met had first been guests and then decided to give back and care for the community, “First they got the benefits from the community. They stayed at other people’s homes, and after this when they got home they decided to give back to it”. These experiences fostered a belief in the commons.
12 Existing HCI strategies that address the barrier
The communication of a common goal or vision that promotes the assets of the service as a common resource.
This will in turn promote a belief in the commons. Some services also communicate a message of importance or belonging by using the service. For instance, a car sharing services use the slogan “Nothing can beat humans who work together”.
Levelling or increased responsibilities in a community gives users a sense of increased importance. A platform can give its users increased capabilities to govern the service after becoming a trusted user.
Potential HCI strategies to address the barrier
By applying the design principles used in the work governing the commons services could leverage the proposed framework to counteract the barrier.
Table 4. Observed factors of Belief in the Commons barrier
Enhancing Decreasing
Low need of resource High need of resource
Individualism Communality
Particularism Universalism
4.1.4 Security (SEC)
When engaging in sharing economy services there are transaction types that are inherently different than traditional buy and sell transactions. These other types of transactions can have a longer duration and have shared responsibilities between the counterparties. A traditional purchase interaction begins and ends with the cashier at a supermarket. For a sharing service it would endure for the duration of a lending period or the stay of a visitor. The responsibilities of the transaction at the supermarket would not lie with the cashier but rather the company for the duration of a warranty. In a sharing context the responsibilities might lie directly with the two peers.
Existing consumer rights might not be applicable in a sharing economy context.
Uncertainties of what the rules or support framework are available to these types of sharing transactions raises the need for security. This uncertainty is a observed factor for the barriers influence (Table 5). Increasing security can be achieved by reducing uncertainties regarding the transactions.
A system or community that is value driven might operate without any code of conduct or rules. A community or system can function well until it strained by a critical event.
When talking to DP on the topic of successful and unsuccessful services in the sharing economy he states “The successful services have been able to handle crises.
Wikipedia for example have handled lots of things;
vandalism, articles of low quality etc. There are now rules on how to write articles and arbitration committees exist to solve complex issues”.
Grannsaker.se offers its users the option to insure the transaction with a third party that specializes in resolving potential conflicts. Much like the arbitrary committee in the example of Wikipedia it reduces the barrier by reducing uncertainties of responsibility.
Openness and a transparency of the participating parties have an effect on the willingness to engage in a transaction.
Many services allow its users to connect their profiles to
existing social networks. The use of a social network profile seems to add validity and security to the profiles within the different services.
Observed existing potential HCI solutions
Transaction specific rules and best practices displayed on the platform. Rules and regulations that are applicable and flexible to the transaction types can be made clearer to the peers. Until a best practice or widely accepted format for these transactions are available, rules will have to be communicated beforehand.
3rd party services for conflict resolution that can be connected to specific transactions. This can help in reducing uncertainties of responsibilities.
Easily accessible support services throughout the platform.
Authentication of users via social networks or trusted 3rd party authenticators.
Potential HCI strategies to address the barrier
User authentication framework provided by the government.
This was a recommendation to establishing trust and relaying secure transactions in the report Unlocking the sharing economy[30].
Table 5. Observed factors of Security barrier
Enhancing Decreasing
Uncertainty of rules Well defined rules Lack of support Accessible support
Anonymity Transparency
4.1.5 Knowledge of opportunities (KNOW)
A service can only be an option if it is a known and presented solution to the problem in that specific moment. Many of these services are new and not commonly known. They therefore need to be communicated and marketed. The themes Social Proof, Marketing and Knowledge of Opportunities were consolidated into the single barrier Knowledge of opportunities (KNOW). Over time the knowledge of opportunity barrier might be reduced by the increased use of sharing economy services.
One of the priorities of identified improvements and goals to the product service system Grannsaker.se is to increase the visibility of opportunities. NB relays his vision for his mobile platform that will incorporate geo-positioning
“When you go onto grannsaker.se, you should have all the possibilities presented to you. We think that it is very important to be able to see what is available directly in the vicinity”.
The lack of conventional knowledge of opportunities gives some credence to a marketplace. A marketplace could hold information for several types of sharing economy services.
A stand-alone service would have to provide its own marketing compared to networked services available on combined platforms. The isolation of a service is a factor for the barrier (Table 6).
When discussing the knowledge of opportunity barrier with EE she brings up the concept of a local marketplace as a distribution hub of knowledge, “This is why a marketplace where several different services are available would function well. Make it more visible. Only an interface for drills would be to narrow and would not work”.
Observed existing potential HCI solutions
The branding and marketing of sharing economy services adds to the concept of social proof. For instance, services
