In the initiation phase, problem pressure is a first and important common enabling factor across all cases. The
technological concepts proposed have to be highly convincing to generate support. Moreover, the likelihood of generating
political support in the initiation phase is greatly enhanced if the envisaged technology has the potential to be realised by
public agents.
Some early public support in the form of seed funding (e.g. in the form of R&D funding) provides important impulses to
build a network that would not come into being on the basis of market forces alone. It allows establishing a laboratory for
testing not only technological issues, but also for enabling cooperation and developing ‘rules of the game’ for interaction.
Key individuals with a strong and convincing vision of the system to be built are important to pull such a project forward in
the early phase.
There are several key factors at play in the emergence phase. If a top-down approach has been pursued in the initial
phase, there is a major risk of political blockages arising from the context, which may result from competition between
political entities that are to be joined in larger-scale system. What applies to all cases is the importance of opening up some
promising financial perspectives for the technology in question.
At the level of the network, complementary competencies need to be brought together and put constructively to work in
order to solve technical problems and deliver on the initial promises made. This requires a highly professional internal
network management, but also external relationships need to be cautiously managed in order to ensure continuous political
support and positive expectations. A leading figure or team is essential in this phase to drive a ServPPIN forward. The four
cases suggest a model of double entrepreneurship as a promising format. Two key individuals, in charge of internal and
external network management respectively, can make a big difference if they can work together well. Among their most
critical tasks is to ensure that cooperation among partners is effectively balanced with competitive elements. In essence, this
balance between cooperation and competition not only needs to be managed internally to the ServPPIN, but also with
regard to the political environment. Political competition between public authorities may cause damage to a promising
ServPPIN.
With regard to the phase of wider uptake of the four systems under study, the following factors seem to matter most. First
of all, if not solved already in the previous phase(s), ensuring support from the political and institutional context is
absolutely essential, because the large-scale realisation of a system innovation in transport has major repercussions on daily
life and thus a high visibility in public debates.
Secondly, the organisational embedding must change in order to make sure that the system innovation becomes part of
an existing (or possibly novel) professional organisation that is capable of running the new system reliably on a day-to-day
basis. In the previous phase, testing and experimentation stands in the foreground, and this implies that the internal
operational management needs to switch from exploratory and experimental mode to standard business operation.
The membership of the ServPPIN may thus change.
Finally, if the new system has not yet been fully integrated in the wider transport system services, a caretaker continues
to play an important role, in order to ensure that the new system get properly embedded and accepted.