It's probably no surprise to many people that NVIDIA is extremely happy with the Nintendo Switch and its sales numbers, but during an investor's meeting during a financial earnings call to be specific, the CEO of NVIDIA specifically wanted to talk about Switch, and he said one major component of it is the Nintendo Switch gaming console, and it's just doing incredibly well, and this came out of NVIDIA's founder and CEO, Jen Sun Hong, and I apologize if I really butchered that, Hong continued by praising Nintendo for its unconventional way of thinking and approach to the gaming market. He goes on to say, I'm so happy for Nintendo because they're risk takers, they're innovators, they're not influenced by what other people do, and they're original thinkers, and I just love the way they invented the Switch, and the way they've taken it to market. I'm so happy for them, and it's doing really well. And it's important to note that the TAGRA division for NVIDIA has basically more than doubled its sales on their bottom line compared to this point last year, which that's almost entirely because of the Nintendo Switch, which uses the TAGRA X1. Now this is really interesting because we talk often about Nintendo and their impact on the gaming industry, and how they affect the future of gaming, and how they kind of do their own thing. Nintendo has kind of always done their own thing, it's not just a recent thing with Nintendo Switch, or with the Wii, or with the Wii U, or the 3DS, or DS, or all that stuff. Really dating back to the days of the NES, Nintendo has kind of always, you know, beat to their own drum, that they march to the beat of their own drum, it's very methodical how Nintendo approaches the video game industry because a lot of companies chase trends. You know, 4K started becoming this thing people care about in the PC market, and now PlayStation 4 and Xbox One are releasing versions, or have released versions of their consoles that try to target 4K gaming. I mean, even Phil Spencer, who I actually really like and think he's done an excellent job with balancing back on the Xbox One's reputation, you know, said the silly remark about uncompromised 4K gaming, and it turns out, yeah, the Xbox One X isn't anywhere close to powerful enough to have uncompromised 4K gaming, but that's just what happens when you're chasing the trends of more power, more resolution. I'd say more frame rates, but that's not really what's happening in the console space. It's still mostly a 30 FPS target with 60 FPS for certain games. Now Nintendo, they have always had this unique approach where they look at the trends happening in the video game industry, and try to recognize holes that are not being filled currently, because Nintendo doesn't care if Sony is successful. They don't care if Microsoft is successful. Yes, back in the day they used to care heavily about trying to beat out Sega, but today, in today's market, Nintendo's always looking for how can they provide something that people don't currently have, and even when they're in competition with other systems and other companies, they still try to find their own little niche in that audience to capitalize on, and it's been a very smart and extremely profitable venture for Nintendo. Think about it with the NES. Back then, the Atari flooded the market, and the home console business had essentially crashed, and the only kind of video games you were really seeing in the mid-80s before the NES came out were at arcades, and even Nintendo themselves had arcade games like Jumpman, which later obviously became Donkey Kong featuring Mario. And they took these concepts and said, look, we can do home console gaming better, and we're going to release our own home console that not only is more restrictive for what games can be on it, which is going to increase the quality of the games on the system, and is going to make it easier for consumers to find games worth playing, and that doesn't mean there's not crap NES games. There are hundreds if not thousands of really crappy NES games, but compare that to how hard it was to find high quality games on the Atari, and you can kind of see a stark contrast with the NES, and that's one way they help provide the industry. The other is by changing the way we play. Joysticks were a really common thing. A massive joystick with a button on top was a really common method of controlling games back in the Atari days, and Nintendo was like, ah, that's a little too complicated and a little too restricting, because you have to use your whole hand and you only have one finger free to hit a button. What if we make the controls a D-pad with two buttons on the right, and they invented that D-pad and brought it to market, and it became a brilliant move, and has survived even to this day in common gaming. Like Xbox and PlayStation have D-pads. The Nintendo Switch, while it doesn't come with a, you know, an original D-pad, you know, a standard D-pad, I should say, their Pro Controller has a D-pad, and it's not going to be surprising in the future with future iterations of Switch or other systems if there's going to be a D-pad returning, because it became a gaming essential because of Nintendo. You look at the SNES, that was more of what you see with today's current systems, where it's a more powerful version of the prior system. Yes, it introduced shoulder buttons, which is revolutionary and all that such, but essentially it was just a souped up NES, and that makes sense. They called it the Super NES, the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, so they weren't even trying to yank your chain. This was just a more powerful type of NES. Now, fast forward into the next generation. Yes, it was 3D gaming, but the Nintendo 64 was experimenting. They were trying to figure out how can we have a controller that fits every type of game out there. So they came up with the three-pronged octopus-style controller that was amazing, but it really emphasized the point that in how amazing that controller is designed. If you want to use that D-pad, it's amazing. If you want to use a control stick, it's amazing. It also highlighted an issue where there might be times you want to use that D-pad and that control stick, and you really couldn't do it comfortably. Plus, the only trigger button was directly underneath the joystick, which that trigger button to this day is amazing. To me, it's still one of the best trigger buttons on gaming controllers nowadays. We have all the trigger buttons up by the shoulders, and that's fine, but it felt more natural underneath the joystick. Like, Goldeneye was so good with that trigger button underneath there, and maybe it's just because it felt like you were holding a gun. I have no idea, but it was just an amazing thing, and it was vastly different from what the competition was doing. The competition was adding joysticks to a more traditional pad and going with CDs. And Nintendo was like, yeah, but we get faster load times with this. Yeah, it's more expensive and we can't store as much in it, but you don't have to sit through zillions of load screens. And we still have save files locally on the cartridges. You don't have to have external memory. If you don't want to, use external memory. And Nintendo, even way back then, way back then with the N64, started the whole expandability thing. There was the expansion slot, which was not used very, you know, there were some games that used the Majora's Mask required it, but it was still one of those things that other systems weren't really doing this.  I think the Dreamcast was actually brilliant. But Nintendo then transformed everything again when they got to the GameCube. They're like, look, we see what everyone else is doing, but we also see that, hey, Sony also has like these little mini disc players that people are using. Maybe that's the way we should go.  And having a more portable home console is key. And you can even see Nintendo emphasizing that home consoles should be portable back then. They put a handle on the GameCube. They wanted it, and I know that they started on the lunch pail things, but they wanted the GameCube to be the system you were not afraid to take over to your friend's house. So they wanted to make it convenient to carry it. And yes, I realized you still had to put all the cords in a backpack or whatever. And I admittedly put the system in the backpack as well, but I understand where Nintendo was looking here. They were trying to think of, how can we make this the most convenient for the most consumers out there? Now ultimately, it was lacking key features that I probably needed at the time. The mini-disc ended up being kind of a bad decision. If they had gone with traditional DVDs or even CDs, they could have allowed music playback or DVD playback, which is really what helped the PlayStation 2 completely blow up the market. And it even helped with the PlayStation 3 as Blu-rays caught on, because Blu-rays for the PlayStation 3, it turned out to be the future of disc-based media. And considering how expensive Blu-ray players were, you might as well have bought a PlayStation 3 at that time. And Nintendo was like, look, we went down this path of more power. We went down this path of trying to innovate on the traditional controller space. And for the most part, it kind of worked sales-wise. They didn't see the greatest of sales. It kept sawing a decline, but they still added innovative things to the spectrum. But Nintendo was like, look, there's other systems now doing what we do and potentially doing it better. By the time GameCube hit, yeah, they were trying to be this do-everything system, but PlayStation 2 really was doing everything better. And then Xbox came along and was doing online and obviously doing that way better than anyone else at that time, besides obviously PC. So fast forward and Nintendo was like, man, we need to innovate again. Well, who is being left behind by all this new stuff happening? Oh, hey, controllers are really, really complicated. There's not a lot of parents playing video games anymore. There's not a lot of grandmas playing video games. Not a lot of little kids playing video games anymore. Like back in the day, back in the NES days, there were kids playing a lot of games and a lot of NES games. And it didn't matter if those games were hard, but the controls were extremely simplistic. A D-pad, two buttons, and then A and B and then start select. Very basic, very easy to figure out. Now you have two twin joysticks and 17 buttons on a controller. I'm just exaggerating. Just a lot of inputs that are really hard to master when you are a child. And I know there's children today that have absolutely mastered it and they're faster than adults because their brains can think faster. And that's great. Like their reaction times are better. That's the reason I'm a 31 year old adult. And I pretty much have no shot in a competitive scene anywhere compared to a teenager because their reaction times are just way better than mine. But when you stop for a moment and you think Nintendo wanted to innovate again, they did. They did it with the Wii. They said, look, we're going to simplify controls again. And go back to basics. Go back to the drawing board. Introduce a control type that makes sense that you don't have to think about. Everyone knows how to throw a baseball. So it shouldn't be that hard to imagine making the throwing motion with a controller to throw a baseball or swing a bat or swing a tennis racket. Wii Sports really helped emphasize this. And Nintendo again innovated. Then you got to the Wii U. And the Wii U, I think, was probably Nintendo's least innovative attempt at a console besides the Super Nintendo. And the thing is, the Super Nintendo is one of, if not my favorite Nintendo console. The Switch needs a bigger library. The Switch, I think, is going to eventually surpass the Super Nintendo for my favorite Nintendo system of all time. But the SNES right now is at the top. But the SNES is at the top because it took everything I loved about the NES and did it better. And the Wii U didn't really do that. It didn't take everything that we did and did it better. It borrowed the Wii name, still allowed the use of Wii Modes, but introduced standard controls again, which is great. I love standard controls, but then threw a pad on and tried this dual screen gaming thing, like they were doing with the DS and TV form. And that just was not a smart idea. Nintendo's own development teams didn't seem too enamored by it, which is why we didn't see a lot of innovations with it. Even the obvious things, like a dungeon master kind of thing, and asynchronous gaming, and all this cool stuff you could have did with the gamepad, never really came to fruition. ZombieU did a fantastic job. A couple other games used the gamepad really well. And I understand it was convenient for inventory management and like the WinRaker HD or Twilight Purchase HD, and other games. You know, I think, I can't think of the game right now, but you know, there was another Zelda inspired game on there, the second game that had its inventory. And that's great. I think Darksiders too. Anyways, so you take a step back and I realized that was their least creative console. Their least, it was a, I'm not gonna say they didn't try to innovate, but it almost, it was the console that felt like chains for the sake of change. They knew that motion gaming had left them behind. So they're like, well, motion gaming left us behind. We can't just release a traditional box. We have to do something different. And that's something different. Ultimately drove people away. They could have kept the console at, you know, $300, $350 at launch, got rid of the gamepad, threw in the pro controller and had beefier hardware. And lo and behold, you're competing directly with the PlayStation 4 and the Xbox One. And you're out before those consoles land, giving you an advantage and a lead and giving third parties no excuse not to release games on your platform. Nintendo didn't do that. But it's really interesting thinking about Nintendo's really first attempt at doing change for the sake of change rather than change to innovate and move gaming forward. Now, some people consider the Wii U a precursor to the Switch and I don't really see that as a precursor to the Switch. Yes, it did allow off TV play, but so did my DS and my 3DS and my Game Boy Advance and my Game Boy. Like, Nintendo has always been in that handheld gaming space where you weren't playing on your TV and it really wasn't that convenient to go off TV, back to TV mode. Yes, it was a little more convenient than you could say hooking up a Super Game Boy or something to your SNES, but it really wasn't something that I feel like was a precursor to the Switch because I think the concept of Switch, the big get with it, yes, it switches between TV mode and handheld mode seamlessly, is the idea of a hybrid system. And the Wii U wasn't that. It wasn't a precursor. Switch feels like the future of Nintendo. The taking the amazing stuff they can do in two completely different spaces, handheld and home console, throwing it together and doing it in a way that's super convenient, super understandable, while somehow, somehow they pulled it off and have almost every control type under the sun that Nintendo has had previously, like motion controls, man.   That's a little let down. But you can now turn the things sideways, have simplified controls with one control stick and four buttons with two shoulder buttons. I know it's not as good as the SNES controller. I'm not even going to get into that debate about it being as good as the SNES controller, even with the straps attached. But Nintendo took a step here with Switch and innovated and did something special. And I think this is what it's so great about Nvidia here, talking about Nintendo as innovators, is that Nintendo has always consistently done this outside of two generations of consoles, one that was literally just a more powerful version with more buttons and stuff of the prior generation, and then another that was almost a change for the sake of change. But I'm just so happy with the Switch right now and with Nintendo getting back to the roots with what they do with gaming, finding that audience that wasn't gaming and bringing them back in the fold is just Nintendo at their absolute best. And now we're getting new IPs. Nintendo is starting to get really strong with their games again. This is, it's amazing time to be a Nintendo fan right now. Anyways, folks, I'm Nathaniel Ruffaljens from Nintendo Prime. If you liked this video, you know what to do. If you disliked this video, hit that dislike button. Subscribe for more. And hey, I'll catch you in the next one.


What's going on guys? It's your boy DPJ here today with another Destiny video and in today's video we have top five Iron Banner clips of the week. Now Iron Banner is almost gone but I've had some amazing submissions. If you guys want to see another top five Iron Banner plays of the week do drop a like on the video. Don't forget to submit anything bad as you've got to the email address linked in the top of the video description. Hope you guys enjoyed the video. Thanks for stopping by as always. Subscribe for daily Destiny and I'll catch you guys on the next one. Zone A. Two for one. Yes. Three down. Look at them fall. I can't believe what I'm seeing. It's yours. You control all zones. Now you'll be captured Zone C. I'm tearing these motherfuckers up. Shit. I got a video clip there. Hold on. Oh yeah. The streak must stay on though. The streak must live on. You control all zones. Change the lead. Don't see lost. We captured Zone C. Zone A. Neutralized. Double kill. Zone A. Secure. Triple down. Enemy captured. Zone A. Opponents down. This is amazing. Zone C. Neutralized. Gains the lead. Zone C. Secure. Upload's gonna have you. I started in the UK now. He's worldwide. DPJ. Go and subscribe.


Irish Smart Cities. We are a European funded Horizon 2020 project on Smart Cities solutions, part of the Smart Cities Lighthouse programme, where almost more than 100 cities are participating in. The Irish Smart Cities project is a collaboration to make the cities of the projects a better urban place to live in. And we work with three Lighthouse cities, Utrecht, Goverberg and Nis, where we do large-scale demonstrations of integrated solutions that make life better in cities. And for fellow cities, Faza, Foksania, Drupalus and Santa Cruz de Tenerife, who follow the project from the start on and are now trying to working on the replication of these Smart Cities solutions demonstrated in the Lighthouse cities. So this is a picture showing that in our project we work both locally. So on the left-hand side, you see a couple of pictures of the demonstration and replication areas in the Lighthouse cities. We work locally with a consortia of knowledge institutes of companies, of energy companies, grid operators, public authorities and citizens to develop Smart Cities solutions and to demonstrate them to create business models and scaling opportunities for them. But don't worry, we are working on the local level. We also collaborate within this project with the fellow cities and the other Lighthouse cities to see how can we learn from each other? Where can we try to get the lessons that you learn when you implement or work across barriers when implementing Smart Cities solutions? How can we benefit from the collaboration between each other? Finally, you also try to replicate and scale up the solutions that we have implemented. Right now we are working on a portfolio of at least 50 different integrated solutions. We have structured the project into five transition tracks. The first and the second transition track deal with the integration of renewable energy at the district and the building level. You try to create flexibility in your energy system so we can take account of these new renewable energy sources. The third track deals with innovative mobility solutions. The fourth track deals with urban data platforms and new information services and the fifth one deals with citizen engagement. So how do we involve our citizens in co-creation of our solutions? Here you see a snapshot of some of the key solutions that we've developed. In Gothenburg, for example, the award-winning sustainable energy building, positive energy building to be a FIFA building. In these we are really the front-runners in integrating battery storage and optimized collective self-consumption at the building and at the cluster of buildings level. We are developing the vehicle-to-grid ecosystem where we store electricity in vehicles to be used at later points during the day. Of course, the portfolio of solutions is also found on our website ironsmartcities.eu. Third of all, we have links to our YouTube channels where we and other social media channels where we always try to develop a knowledge base for our replicable solutions. This knowledge base can be used by our project partners in the federal cities, the lighthouse cities, but also for skating up towards all our other partners. For example, within the smart cities lighthouse program, but specifically also beyond. I invite you to take a look at our website. Maybe quick takeaways from what we learned from the project, but I gather from our city partners on their takeaways. First of all, it gives us the opportunity to reach a higher ambition in terms of energy systems, in terms of mobility systems. We learn quite a lot, not always from the things that go well, but always from the things that go not so well, the things that are challenging, that gives us problems. This is a good project and a good arena to learn from these elements. City replication, I think this is one of the main topics also of today, together with upscaling. By doing this in one isolated demonstration area, it's not the reason why cities participate. We want to use this information to scale it up at all our areas of our cities and through this project we are learning on specific innovations that are demonstrated on how to do that. The topic of today, business modeling, is also one of the main drivers of this area. A good bankable business model upscaling will not take place. That's something we need to take into account from the start. As I said, business models. Of course, the transition. The project helps us to transition our cities by integrating these new and novel technologies by using the force of our citizens to create a transition towards energy neutral and smart cities. Some of the districts, this is a picture of inclusivity. Some of the districts in our project deal with social housing areas, deal with areas that have seen less investments in the past years than the more central districts in cities. By doing this project, we also learn how to be more inclusive in the way we develop our city. Yeah, that's it. Maybe a very short and brief overview. Please look at our website if you want more information. For now, I wish you a very good and productive and inspiring workshop today. I thank you for your attendance. I would gladly to hand over to Pryonos for the moderator of the workshop. Thank you very much, Ro. What a great presentation. I was always impressed on this project myself being a partner. Maybe that's a bit subjective. Thank you very much, Ro. Great to have you aboard. Let's share my screen. See if we can do this. So, here we go. Yes. Thank you for the smooth transition to my presentation. Yes, this workshop is all about replication and upscale, and you neatly presented the two concepts. Replication is between cities and upscales within the cities, most likely between two districts in the city. Most development in cities is conducted district by district, and the usual roadmap for an upgrade of a city or a development of a city is based on a number of districts. And so are we working as well here in the Irish project in the Lighthouse cities. And what we used to say, there is an urgent need to speed up the transition towards the most sustainable societies. And one of the fastest ways, of course, to steal with pride or copy or replicate. So what we will present today is a methodology to find out the recipe for a successful solution in one city using a business model canvas, and then replicate this to your own city. And replicate between cities is one thing, but sometimes it's also important to do the very same thing when upscaling between districts in the same area, because not always that the communication that transparent and forward and it can be a large group of different actors involved who needs to understand the concept. And today, we have had the opportunity to describe with a business model canvas a mobility as a service solution establishing Gothenburg, Sweden by the easy to be company. And the CEO Leonard Pearson is with us here today as well. And even though you presented a good picture of the Irish project rule, we must also mention that we are one out of 11 ongoing projects under the what is previous called the Smart Cities and Communities program now changed to the Smart Cities marketplace. So replication and sharing knowledge is not just between the cities in iris. We also have a collaboration with a large number of representatives from different cities and actors in Europe. And 11 project is ongoing. While there is a on the Smart Cities marketplace website, there's also a large number of presentation from finished projects. When it comes to business modeling and replication, it is important to remember that the situation is of course different even though we are all members in Europe, European Union, there's differences between the different countries and different cities. And we should also remember that this Irish Smart Cities project was actually designed by 43 partners from nine different European countries in 2016. And in some areas, development has been quite fast and it's very good to see that because it's important that it has a good speed. But this also affects how we look at business model, value chains and the different market scenarios. So the presentation today about the easy to be solution is remember to say that even though this was conducted in 2020, I think this will change pretty fast and especially in this area of mobility as a service as that is a very important sector for most of the mobility businesses. So there will be a number of new actors and a number of new solutions. So the business modeling activities need really to be adaptive and agile. And this is the basics for the Irish Smart Project and you presented this very well, so I think I skipped this slide. And you also presented the district perspective in the Lighthouse city knees. We run a demonstration in a business area in the Netherlands in Utrecht. There is a district with residential areas. And in Sweden we combine residential and campus area. And we try to connect the different buildings to build a district where the solutions are fully integrated. Both mobility solutions, energy solutions and also the way the difference they call interact with each other. And as to say we have come quite far with a replication. We have now been engaged in this Irish project for slightly more than three years. And the demonstrations are up and running in the right Lighthouse cities and the demonstration activities have now led to this kind of presentation we see today. Business model cameras and setups and technical descriptions and can be replicated or copied into the one or more of the four different followers cities, Vasa, Fokshane, Alexandra, Polis and Santa Cruz. In work packet three, the overarching objectives for all of the cities is to develop bankable business models. And with bankable we mean solutions that there is a low risk for investing into. And there is a number of joint objectives for the cities here. We are supposed to deliver more than 30 new business model. We will present the number of enhanced business models. And we will also point out how to increase the innovation management performance within each city. We are a team of experts and we have divided a bit. Some of us look out sort of study the smart city market and how to stimulate that with innovation management. We try to define the value chain on the marketplace. The solution providers that actually deliver the mobility as a service to the end users and who are the solution suppliers. In this case, there is the easy to be is a typical solution supplier while the the property owner is the solution provider to the end user. And enhancing existing business model. This is from another example around the property Viva, which we will learn more about today. We're looking to the value chain for a solution. We see that there is usually, in this case, five well established companies involved in delivering a new solution. So enhancing existing business model can be either with a work by existing sort of established businesses, but it can also including new innovative companies like easy to be. And with that, I will like to present the agenda for the workshop today. And the basis or the it's a work conducted by Palace gave it York and Mark Sanders. With interviews of the easy to be solution and the different stakeholders using that solution. And from that set of interviews, they have put together a business model can watch, which will be learned more about today. And as it is a workshop, we have divided it into three sections, where we will discuss how to create value or present how to create value in the business model covers how to deliver value and how to capture value. And there will be a dialogue between us gave a mark and landmark for the three sections. And I would very much like you all to write questions in the chat or raise your hand digitally. And at the end of each session, I will moderate this question with the presentations. Thank you very much. And I think I leave the floor to you then. It's part of the York. Thank you very much, Jonas, for the introduction. And I'm just going to share my screen. I hope this is okay for everybody. So good morning, everybody. This is part of the York and I'm working for the Irish project at the Center for Research and Technology alas. And specifically the chemical process and energy resources institutes. As Jonas said, we have organized this webinar with Mark Sanders, so was to present a tool for designing business models adapted to a smart city context. And also illustrate an example, a real example of a business model that is designed for the EC2B, which is, as Jonas has explained, a platform which basically offers mobility services of third parties, giving property developers an argument to negotiate with the city government a rebate on the parking norm for new developments. So I would like to start with this introductory slide, which is some food for thought while you hear this dialogue, basically, that we have prepared, in which ways the smart city business model canvas can be useful for your case, or how do you intend to use it within the framework of Irish project or outside Irish project for your future business activities? And yeah, and what is the business model? I would like to start with briefly explaining this, because sometimes we kind of have another idea of what a business model actually is. Now, business model actually describes the rationale of how an organization creates delivers and captures value. And if one thinks that the process of designing a business model is part of the business strategy, I would dare to say today that it is not just a part of business strategy, but it is the heart of it. And what does this exactly mean? So here is the example. Regarding EC2B, but every other business that is creating a business model, value creation, value basically can be created in two ways. First, by producing an offering that is worth more to the customers than its cost to produce. And then value must also be created and delivered to customers before any of it becomes available for capture by the company. And then the next step, after we have created value, is the value delivery state. Well, this phrase is a bit of a misnomer, one could say, because it implies that all a company needs to do is to be willing and able to deliver something to be successful. But if we take a more customer-centric view, we will realize that the value is less delivered by the company and more accepted by the customers. So the ultimate decision to do the deal always lies with the customer. And customers are willing to accept and use your value because of their awareness of your company, their belief that your offering will solve a problem that they have and their expectation of improved operations by your solution. Then if we go to the next stage of this cycle, which is the value capture, this is the stage at which an organization gets paid. So now the question is, how much of the total value one should take? Well, some simple math could dictate that you would get whatever amount is left by subtracting your costs of value creation and delivery from the offering sales price. But most of the times it's not so simple because of other considerations, such as your competitors pricing, for example, or your longer term market strategy. So are there any tools that are available to us to help us design these three very important stages, the value creation, value delivery, and value capture? The standard tool that we have is the business model canvas, which was initially proposed in 2005 by Alexander Osterwalder and Dave Spigner. But since then we have seen a lot of adaptations for different issues. And the classical business model canvas is basically composed of nine basic building blocks that includes the customer segments, the value proposition, identifying the channels through which we reach customers, and what relationships do customers expect from us, and helps us identify also who are the key partners and what are the key activities that needs to be performed, and what key resources we need to perform those activities. And then, of course, it helps us to identify the cost structure and the revenue streams. So this is a tool that can capture this chain, the value chain of create, delivering, and capturing value. Now, within the framework of the Iris Smart City project, we have adapted the classical business model canvas to the Smart Cities business model canvas. And this tool has 12 plus two building blocks that we are going to present today and try to link it with the example of the business model from EC2B. Now, this tool helps us also to identify the environmental and the social impact of Smart City solutions that sometimes can be the key to deciding on investing to Smart City projects. So let's start explaining those building blocks and try to link them, as I said, with currently being developed business model by EC2B. And with the help of Mark Sanders, who has done the analysis based on the data collected from EC2B, and of course, Leonard Persson, who is also representing EC2B, who can intervene and discuss any pivots that have occurred since the interviews took place. So I'm going to start with the first building block, which is the network beneficiaries. In this box, we try to map all the target users in the network of the Smart City ecosystem for whom value is created for and whose needs are addressed through a Smart City solution. Now, the purpose in that network is that the network beneficiaries are actually identified early in the process and are engaged in the co-creation of the Smart City solutions. Mark, for the case of the EC2B, can you please tell us which target users is the value created for? Yes. Thank you, Vivi, for that clear introduction of the method that we developed. And I'm very glad that Leonard is here to basically add to what I have to say, because of course, we did this analysis of the EC2B business model back in the summer of 2020. And although that is recent, it also means that things are moving fast in this sector. And I hope that Leonard can give us the latest when I say things that have to be updated. Right. So it's your question about the network beneficiaries, who's in the network. It is rather a complex business model that EC2B is trying to develop, because it has many beneficiaries, many partners, and many different types of value being created. So first of all, there's the city itself. In this case, well, there's now a pilot going on in Gothenburg that we studied in Lund, both in Sweden. And of course, in the end, with the mobility as a service, the value being created in the end for the end user is getting from A to B in a well-fitting way. But the end users using the services are not really the focus of the business model. The network beneficiaries for EC2B primarily is a property developer. The property developer can get this from the city, this rebate on the parking loan. So it's all interacting in very complex ways, also spread out in time. You have to make the offer to the property developers at the stage they're developing, or actually they're planning the development with the city and negotiating the parking loan. So there's many beneficiaries in the network that obtain different benefits. Okay, all right then. So thank you. Thank you, Mark. Leonard, please jump into the discussion and comment if anything you would like to, if there's anything you would like to add at any time. Thank you very much. Very interesting to be here and discuss this. And I think this is a really good development of the Osterwalder's business model that you try to focus on these network beneficiaries. And as Mark said, a year ago, the business model from EC2B had a certain number of actors and since then it hasn't been less complex because we have added more actors into the business model. But we also go to more markets now. But as a business model, I think it's really, really good to have this box with network beneficiaries. Okay. Thank you, Leonard. So let's move on to the next one, which is about value proposition. Then now, value proposition basically refers to the benefits each actor in the network creates for a single or multiple end users in the network, which basically means that the value proposition addresses the specific needs of one or more end users and provides a clear explanation of how these needs will be satisfied. So in our case for the EC2B model, Mark, what value does each actor deliver? Yeah. So in essence, EC2B offers a platform, an online platform in which you can basically reserve a mobility as a service solution as an end user in a building, in a property. So that's what it is. And that delivers value obviously to that end user because you can get from A to B in a convenient way. But it also offers value to the property developer because it is a one-stop solution service. They can offer their tenants and then basically that justifies having lower parking norms for that particular property. That creates value for the property developers because they can save money by having less parking facilities in the development. And then that is important for the city because they have ambitions towards having less congestion, having less pollution and having more sustainable transportation in the city. So there's a chain of very different value propositions, let's say, interacting in this business model. Then there is of course the suppliers of these mobility services. It's important to realize that EC2B is not offering the services themselves. They are offering a platform on which others can offer their mobility services. So that also links these service providers, the electric car provider, the electric bike provider, the public transportation companies, they all resell their services through this platform and thereby also for them there is the value proposition in having access to this additional channel for their services. So very different types of value being created by different actors in this network. But Marc, regarding the end users, which problem is EC2B trying to solve for them? Yes, so that depends a bit on who you define to be your end user. From the interviews, I got the impression that at least last summer for EC2B, the end user was the property developers and they faced a problem or they get the value from being able to convince the city to allow them a significant parking norm rebate. And if that is your end user, then that means you need to satisfy their, let's say, demands. As you explained earlier, for you to be able to capture the value, you have to deliver the value to that customer and then they are supposed to buy into your proposition. And that is still very much under development in this business model. In the two pilots that were discussed with the various, let's say, actors from the network, we got the impression that currently they're not paying for the services of EC2B. It's being subsidized by Iris and these property developers appreciate the service, but they're also very much involved in co-creating and developing it with EC2B to become a viable proposition as a service. I don't know if that has changed, Lannert. I mean, this question we can talk about all day and it gets more and more interesting. More or less, I mean, throughout Europe, we have the same challenges with urbanization, we have more than cities, and this thing with digitalization, which creates possibilities if we then add a business model, then it creates a possibility for this shared mobility to be a part of the solution for sustainable development. And now we're talking about, in BRF Viva, where we're talking about a new property on the ground that wasn't built on before, but what we're discussing now is that when Gothenburg, at least, and we're discussing with a lot of other cities as well, they want to make it more density, and where can we build them? Well, we don't want to build on the green areas because we want to get rid of the privately owned car and get more into shared mobility. Okay, then we should build the new properties on existing parking lots. And this is when it gets really interesting now with the business model and this value proposition, because what happens then? You take away existing parking places, you get less parking places for already existing properties, and you add more property. So there is where our business model is going in one direction. And the other thing that we're working with, if you now refer as end users, we're working with corporate mass that we're working with companies and they want their employees to travel, both with business trips and to go from their work in a more sustainable way. So IRIS has, I'm very glad that we're doing this and that we're part of this project because we have been doing a lot of replicates already. Okay, thank you, Leonard, for indicating how the business model has evolved and is applicable in other cases as well that you are already considering. Okay, let's move on to the next one. The next building block in the Smart City Business Model is about data. And actually we specifically inserted this box because data is nowadays becoming increasingly essential, actually, in how we realize the improvement of Smart Cities. And data can be from various sources. It can be from sensors and connected infrastructures and devices, as well as we can have data on how end users interact with this infrastructure and the connected devices. This alone also creates some business opportunities, some data can be provided to third parties to develop other services in the overall context of improving city living. So, Marc, do you think that there is any data that will be made available from the AC2B services designed either for third parties or for the city itself to become smarter in way regarding managing traffic, for example? Yeah, so the data is of course the new goals and this business model generates data as a kind of side product. If you're operating these platforms, I'm assuming, you can also track the mobility habits of tenants and in that sense that's valuable information. Coming from the Netherlands, I'm not sure how that's different across Europe, but there would immediately be raised some privacy flags and issues. It is, of course, also highly sensitive information, how people move about and what choices they make, but I guess appropriately anonymized this kind of data would be valuable as a resource for others in the city in planning the mobility in the future as well as for AC2B in planning and let's say validating their business and business model. Whether it is actually a possible way of making additional, tapping additional revenue streams, I don't think that is a very big opportunity in this particular business model. Also because you would risk the value that you're creating for the end users by using their data for different purposes. I would be very cautious with that in this particular case, but maybe Leonard can also briefly reflect on that. Yes, Leonard, have you thought about using the data that is generated by the platform and how would you plan to do it? To be extremely clear, as you said, Mark, we have transport service providers, carpooling, bicycles and so forth, and we don't have a GPS connected to the easy-to-be application. We are not following how our users are traveling through the city, so that is really important and we don't talk to the transport service providers to say that you have to hand us this data. But of course we know how much they have rented the bicycle when they are using public transport and so forth. So this kind of data are we using, of course, to make offers and so forth. In the mobility of the service, there are different, if you have seen this scale, at the top level the city maybe could say that today there is an inversion, the air is really bad and we will offer you free public transport today. And if there is a big platform that could go out to the end users. But that's a different story in the future. So there are considerations but concerns the future of how you will be utilizing this type of data, also in compliance with the GDPR, of course. Okay, then let's move on to the deployment channels, which is the next building block. And the deployment channel is basically referred to how a company communicates, distributes and sells its services and products to the customers. So what is really important here to identify is through what channels the beneficiaries, the end users, are most likely to learn about the smart city solution that we offer. So for the case of the easy to be, through which channels is the company trying to reach customers? And how do you plan to do it? Mark, can you please provide the first answer and then Leonard can compliment? Yeah, so from the interviews, it was clear that the end user in the business model and that easy to be is reaching our property developers in cities rather than their tenants and the occupants of the buildings. These people are and this is what one of the property developers also said, there is a scarcity of housing and it's also a very small part of the total housing offer in cities like Gothenburg and Lund. So there is self-selection of these end users. There will be only tenants that want to don't need to own a car and want to use these services will be self-selection. So they're not too worried about reaching the end end users that is the users of the services. But rather, they need to make sure that property developers and cities are aware of this opportunity of this possibility of offering the service instead of creating a parking space. And that then also needs to be allowed by cities. So it's in terms of deployment channels and offering bringing the value to the customer. The big challenge for ECB will be to be let's say top of mind at the stage of development, at the stage of negotiations when these decisions are being made between the property developers and the city officials. And that is a much more difficult way. I mean it's not like you advertise, but rather the channels that were mentioned in the interviews were webinars like this one, innovation seminars, events where you can showcase your solution and then attract the attention of these end users or let's say intermediate end users. And since the time that the interviews were conducted, Leonard, have you thought of any specific channels that are integrated with the customer routines in order to maximize the potential to reach them? One thing that's very important I think for all of life is that you have incentives because if there's the wrong business model from a tenant, then the incentive could be zero because we are not sharing the profits. Then the incentive for us is to have a product that is used as little as possible. So it's very important to discuss that how do we make these incentives so there's a win-win solution even for the end users, for the tenant property owners and for ECB and its partners. And we are also working with incentives with the transport service providers that we get kickbacks from each other. When you discuss this with the city and the property owners, I think that we are also working with the city to discuss with them because it's very important for the city to understand and make a stand in their traffic strategies. Do your city think that shared mobility is a part of the solution in sustainable mobility and the sustainable development of the city? And if it is so, then they also have to work even harder not only to put in to put projects, but they are also a big tendering organization, they can change the parking norms, the mobility norms and so forth to make this shared mobility stick. So yeah, you can answer this in different levels. Okay, thank you. Now it's time for a short break. We have planned this at 10.45, we are a bit a few minutes late, but I guess Jonas, we are back around 11 or 11.05. No, well, not central European time, it's five to 10 here in Sweden. Yes, I'm sorry. So before we take the break, Valiskevi and Marc, if you look into your chat, you see that we have two questions, one from Mika Akasolo. Can you see that? Isn't the end user the person? Yeah, would any of you would like to? Yeah, so in the end that would also be my, let's say, first response, first intuition. Of course, the end user of the mobility as a service is the mobility user, the car owner who needs to switch to shared mobility and other modes of transportation. So I was also maybe a bit surprised, but then quickly reassured that in the business model of ECB, there is these steps in between and these partners in between that end user, where of course in the end, that is the value that is being created, getting from A to B in a convenient and fitting way. And in the end, that need will have to be satisfied for this business model to be sustainable in the long run. But in the short run, it looked like the largest, let's say, willingness to pay for this integrated solution for tenants could be found easiest with the property developers in case they were offered a rebate by the city. So it's a little bit more complex to then position everybody well in the business model canvas. Thank you, Mark. And then you have a second question from Petta Törtianen, who was the model actually created? How was the model actually created? Did you organize workshops with all the different stakeholders? Now it was interviews, wasn't it? Well, if this question is directed to ECB asking them about how they actually created their business model, I could not answer that as well as Leonard could. But in terms of filling in the canvas, what we did indeed was we interviewed not only ECB employees, but also their network partners. So we interviewed property developers, we interviewed service providers, the public transportation company, the city, or actually the, I think, Johanne Berg, city district manager. So all the partners were interviewed. What we did not do for this particular business model canvas is actually interview one of the tenants because at the time I don't think we had access to them. I'm not sure the properties were already rented out at that time, but it was very early on in the process that we did the interview, so we could not reach any of those partners. Would you like to comment briefly? How did you start or how have you developed your business idea into a business model? Have you arranged workshop or is it Leonard? Are you with us? Yeah, sorry. Come again. So we have a question. Yeah. And how was the model actually created? Did you organize the workshops with all the different stakeholders? Many of the stakeholders are at this stage, but when you started out with just a business idea and then you launched it and go with the flow or did you have arranged any workshops or bigger meetings to present your workshops and the basics? Yeah, no. It's like a startup company. I mean, we are fully owned by Travector, which is a consultant firm and we started it because we had made so many surveys and investigations and we didn't see that anyone was doing anything. So we said that let's make a startup company and we made it pretty easy while building this business model because we know that you have to have a viable business model in the beginning and then it evolves and that's what's happening. So it's a great opportunity. We like spin outs working as startups because then you have a good backbone to work from. So thank you very much for the first session, everybody. And as you said, we will have a seven-minute break. So five minutes past your time here in Sweden. It's five minutes past 10 and in Greece it's five minutes past 11. Is that okay? Right, Givi? Yes, that's great. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you very much. Welcome back, Laura, Lennart. The first session was okay. Question to me. The first half of this workshop was okay. It's not supposed to be a hot share for you. It's supposed to be a discussion. So I feel and I will try to make sure that it's not scrutinized your business model. This is an example on how to present a business model, your business model, to be able to replicate it and upscale it. So I think we have a good discussion now. If you keep this in mind, replication upscaling, I think the next session about delivering value and capture value will be very interesting. Yeah, I will try to keep that in mind. Please adjust if I'm talking too much and in the wrong direction because I also would like to have this as good as possible. Yeah, that's right. And do you agree, Mark and Paras Givi? I just came in, but I think I do. We're still on record, huh? Yeah, I think so. I'll say that we are in the first session. We have spoken about create value. We will now in the next session speak about deliver value and capture value. And I think the business model canvas, as you presented, is a very good showcase on how to pinpoint these important aspects for replication and upscaling. Because this is, of course, what we've spoken about, the different stakeholders for creating value. This is the one that you need to be in mind when you replicate, but also when you upscale. Who is sort of, it's not, I mean, in a big city, maybe you need to speak to new city representatives when you enter a new area. That's important to remember. Sometimes the organization is divided into districts and so on. Thank you very much. My colleague Ulrika just said that be aware of that you're on the recording, but I think this is a comment for everybody. Replication and upscale is a core discussion here. And I think you're doing a great job. And feel free to continue, Paraskevi. Okay, everyone, welcome back to this second part of the webinar in which we will be presenting how the business model is delivering and capturing value. And so I would like to comment to what Jonas has just said about the replicability, which we are going to discuss a little bit more in the next few slides. It's quite important that Leonard provides us with the real case example of how a business model continuously updates and adapts to the conditions that are reforming in a city. And this is why perhaps a tool could be useful in order to organize all this kind of information we need to depict in order to create the business case and run the business activities. So, okay, we will talk a little bit more on the replicability issues later on. Let's move on to the next main building block, which is about the key actors. And this block basically refers to the players in the network and the form of cooperation between them. The purpose of this box is basically to identify all the key actors quite early in the process in order to maximize any potential co-creation that can happen between them. So the cooperation can be either formal, of course, or non-formal in a smart city ecosystem. And the key actors can refine in this way the allocation of the resources that each one brings in the project and are available and can refine also the activities. So they can share infrastructure at least between the city and the solution provider. And this results in reducing the risk, especially in cases where large investments in infrastructure is required. And this perhaps becomes an incentive for more actors to participate in the process and be actively engaged. So in our case that we are presenting in the EC2B business case, who are the key actors, Mark? Well, so as I said, the key offering, let's say, is this platform. And then the partners around that all get integrated in the business model. So the key actors, of course, EC2B and its parent-firm trifecta, which is still involved very heavily, I think, in developing the business, that's the center of the network. But there's key roles for as I said, in the cases that we investigated, Lund and Gothenburg, FIVA, the property developers are central actors in this business model. They closely are closely aligned, let's say, and closely in interaction with the city, the cities in these cases that play a key role because if they don't move, the whole business model basically won't fly. And then there is the service providers that work on the platform and deliver their services to the end users in the properties being developed. So in that sense, a rather complex and large group of key actors that need to be brought together and managed. And of course, as you said, that gives a lot of scope for co-creation of different kinds of value in different ways. It also increases complexity and increases very much also the need for, let's say, high trust relationships. And then we will come to speak about that more in this part of the presentation. But that also affects, of course, the scope for replicability and scale-up, maybe more even replicability outside the familiar context than scale-up in adjacent areas. But it affects this potential for the business model. And you have returned before in the key suppliers, but this box is aimed specifically to identify who are the key suppliers for the business. So in this case, Mark, and then I would like to ask also, Leonard, if you have identified other key actors in general or suppliers that came up in the process. Yeah. So I think one that we haven't mentioned before and was also not mentioned a lot in the interview. So I'm curious also to hear Leonard's take on that. In order to develop the business model and in order to deliver the value, you need a very well-integrated and functioning software platform. So I'm guessing, I'm assuming, that there's also suppliers at that end that play a key role or an important role. And there were some remarks in the interviews about that platform not yet being fully integrated. Leonard, you also indicated earlier you're not collecting the data on the transportation itself. So it's a platform in which the end users are referred to, let's say the websites and sales channels of the associated service providers. Could you reflect a little bit on that side of the business model? As you say, it is a complex model. It's several stakeholders in this. And if we start at the transport service providers side on that side, I mean, their business models are often not adjusted to integrate to mobility as a service provider. They don't want to move down. If you say so in the value change, they want to be talked directly to the end user or the property owner. So it is a challenge, as you say. So with some actors, transport service providers, we are fully integrated. And with others, we are not. But we are working there and trying to find incentives. And what we are saying then, as a mobility as a service company, you can make your advertising on our platform. We are not trying to hide you, not showing your brand. We are exposing your brand to a bigger market. That's what we are trying to do then. If we see on the other side, there is also, as you say, a lot of key actors within the city. And as Juna said earlier on, there is a lot of development projects going on in Sweden and city development projects. And there is several actors that are combined and they are working together. And to find out a really good way how they could organize themselves to be some kind of entity that could make a tender for these kind of service, there is also a challenge at the moment. And we are working with several development projects at the moment, but that is not mature at all at the moment. So, and I think if we look down at the capability and upscaling, I think it's the same challenges throughout Europe. And I think that we can learn from each other. And we have learned a lot from PRF Viva and also the other, this mobility service that we have launched at the campus Janne Berik, which is a corporate mouse. But this we can have a different webinar on. Okay. Thank you very much, Leonard and Mark. And you have mentioned actors and the relationships of the actors, which is about the next building block in the business model canvas. And this is quite crucial as well as you also mentioned, Leonard, because there are a lot of different actor relationships that need to be orchestrated together in order to continuously co-creating this value and also engage the end users, the participants, those who are using the service, and the clients, of course, in your case, which are two different things, to participate and evaluate continuously the business that the solution that is offered in order to be improved. So there are a lot of relationships with the different actors and with the city itself. So it is quite a complicated story. And from your experience, Leonard, how do you think that this could be even more facilitated in a smart city context because of the number of the actors that are participating in such projects? And if you want, please comment on what type of relationship its actor is expecting from the solution provider. Yeah, it's very, very big questions. But I mean, if you cut to the chase in some sense that if you and some of your friends are making a tender for something, then you need to have the business model. Okay, how shall this work? Who have the risk if we want to add more mobility into this, if we want to exclude if there are damage done to the vehicles and so forth. There's a lot of challenges within this collaboration. So it's quite easy to make, yeah, to understand it in that sense. And to have some organization modeling how you can do this in two or three ways, not make it too complex. I think that you can make it pretty easy. But a couple of free ways to organize to make this tender and use share mobility. I think it probably needs to be fixed. Yes. Okay. And thank you, Leonard. And Mark, what's your opinion on that? What are the actors' relationships and what type of relationship each actor is expecting in such business cases within a smart city context, do you think? Well, I think specifically for this business model and for these cases that we researched, what clearly came out of the interviews regarding the actor relationships is that all of this is taking place very much in a very high trust environment. And there is a lot of appreciation also for the expertise and the reputation of a trifecta and then by implication also the people working for EC2B. I think that was an important aspect of the relationships involved. Because then you can go ahead, you can move ahead and try things and pilot out things and do things that you haven't completely covered in contracting and in negotiating everything into the little nitty gritty details. And I think that's really important in the success of piloting these type of solutions and developing business models. So there needs to be some room for tinkering, let's say, as you go and develop the relationships in the network. And it's also on the side of the service providers, I think it was already shown that there is quite a bit of flexibility in terms of you can integrate other providers. I think was it in Viva that the car provider, the car sharing provider was switched somewhere mid-stream from one company to another. So having the flexibility to do that as it happens to become urgent is also important. So it's a complex network of relationships that needs to be maintained in developing this particular business model. Okay. Thank you very much, both of you. And let's move to the next one, which is about the key actors offerings. And I know that both of you have already referred to what each actor in the easy to be case is offering. But these books basically serves the purpose of identifying or updating continuously what is the offering of each actor participating in the business case. So would you like to add anything on that? I think you have already mentioned a few things. What about you, Mark? Yes. Well, so with the business model canvas, if you start working with it, this was also the feedback I got from the students that helped me do these interviews and do this analysis. You'll see that there is also quite a bit of overlap between the different boxes and that's fine. So we've already talked about the value proposition coming from the different actors. And of course, this is closely related to what the actors offer in the network. But I think if you split it out again, along the actors that we have identified, it starts really, and this cannot be stressed enough, it starts with the policy innovation in the city. There needs to be, let's say, an urgent policy desire to do something about congestion and parking and pollution and car ownership in the city. So it needs to start from there. And then you can start making the case to the property developers that you have a service that can provide an alternative to relatively expensive parking facilities. And then you can start delivering your service from the, let's say, the core of the business model to the property developers as the recipients of that offering. So it's an interesting and kind of interrupted value chain, let's say. It's not the value from the end users attached to having mobility that goes up the value chain all the way to the initial actor offering the solution to that problem. But it's kind of a cross of offerings in this particular business model. And of course, there's the service providers that are connected through the platform to the end users. That's the line, let's say, where the value is offered. And where the key offering is the mobility service. But it's integrated and it comes together in this hub that is the easy to be integrated solution for this problem. Okay. All right. Thanks, Mark. Let's move on to the next one, the next building block, which is about key resources and infrastructures. And key resources basically refer to what are those most important assets that are necessary for a business model to create and offer the value proposition that it promises. And also how the key resources can help to reach our markets and how they can help us to maintain the relationships with our customers while learning, of course, the expected revenues. Now, in the case of the smart city business model canvas, the key resources sometimes also refer to physical, human, intellectual and financial assets, of course. For example, public buildings can be or the energy grid as well can be some of the physical assets. But also the political will towards the transition to a smart city era includes the necessary human assets and also encompasses the retention that all stakeholders need to have to operate the city at its full potential. So the key resources or the key infrastructure that is required for the easy to be to realize the its value proposition, what is it for this case, Mark? It ties in interestingly with a question that Mika just posted in the chat also. I'm asking about smaller cities. I think almost all the interviewees that we interviewed mentioned that a dense urban area with good public transportation facilities and the option to also use these bikes and even walking infrastructure is essential or at least very important for creating the value with the easy to be solution. If you are in a environment in which having a car is simply the only option, then the easy to be solution is not going to be very valuable and users and thereby by implication it's going to be hard to basically implement that solution. So that was one thing that was mentioned a lot. Having the infrastructure of a dense urban area with good public transportation facilities was one key resource that was mentioned. I think as you mentioned the human side with everybody, many of the people we talked to in the network also mentioned is the expertise and reputation and also connected to that the trust in trifecta and easy to be as being experts on traffic and traffic consultancy and sustainable traffic solutions in general in Sweden. So that let's say that reputation but also that expertise and that human factor is also a key resource that was mentioned. And let me think finally, yeah, I mentioned also the cultural attitudes. We had a discussion with one of the property developers about could this be done elsewhere and so on the conditions. And then it was also discussed that it's important that at least there is no strong cultural let's say resistance against sharing cars. If you have a culture in which there are strong feelings towards owning your own car and having your own mobility. And then it becomes hard to convince people to switch to this new way of thinking about mobility. But if I think about my own father, for example, and how he feels about being independent and having his own car on the driveway, that's not a target group. You want to have very very much represented in the area in which you're trying to make this business model fly. Absolutely. All right, that takes us to the next building block. And the next building block is about the key activities and key activities refer to the management and the delivery of activities by the actors involved in the solution. And this of course includes the capitalization of everybody's offerings in the network and in the value proposition. So can the city provide the platform for discussing and devising ways of collaboration among the actors and the city of itself, of course. Mark, what do you think? Yeah, so as I said, it's a complex network business model that comes out of the interviews. And it means that there could be an important role for the city as offering a platform for basically having the discussions and having the relationships being developed in order to have this business model going on.  It starts with the city's ambition to have more mobility as a service and have sharing as part of the solution. If that's not there, then the city is not developing activities to promote that, then it's going to be really hard sell to develop the solution. And then of course, even more proactively, the city can definitely do a lot to promote a business model like that of ECTB. It's going to be complicated, I guess, for cities to promote specifically the solution of one company and one business model. That is tricky, but they can of course make sure that there is an open podium, let's say, for people, people, businesses, companies offering these kinds of services to property developers in the city and make a top of mind for those property developers to also consider that. So that there's definitely an important role for the city to play and integrating these networks and business models in the city. And of course, in response to that or in addition to that, there is also key activities for ECTB being active in that, being visible in that and trying to build a reputation, I think, in terms of the depends a little bit on who the end users are that you're trying to reach, but especially if you're trying to reach professional end users like property developers or corporates as Leonard was referring to earlier, you need to build or maintain a very strong reputation of being a reliable business partner for these companies, making good on your promises. So that is then I guess a key activity for ECTB. And Leonard, would you like to comment on that? What were your activities that were required by your side in developing the business model and the business case? We are moving in different scales now within business models and business models for the city as a whole. But we can conclude at least that mobility as a service is a complex thing. And the key activity is not only to address the end user or the property owners, you need to work on different levels. But because what it all comes back to is the main belief is shared mobility, a part of the solution for sustainable development. And if you come to that conclusion, then the city where easily can or the society can address in tenders in the parking and mobility norms and so forth, the growth of these kinds of services. So the key activities for us is to work on different levels. We have to find new customers to try to make the company not go bankrupt. And we need to work with the city to make it possible to make a tender book. Okay. And here is the main block which can help you note down quickly and adapt any key activities that you plan for now or in the future. So that leads us to the next building block, which is about the revenue streams and of course yes, Jonas. Are we not ready with the deliver value section? Yes. Yes, we are. And now we come to the capture value. Yeah. So of course, are there any questions? Exactly. Exactly. Thank you very much. Very interesting to listening into this all of you and I must say, Lennart, I think you're a bold entrepreneur. We are now listening to the classic someone should question. And then you took your hat on and became that someone. And it's being a pioneer isn't very sort of glamorous all the time, but you're doing a great job. And I'm happy to be a part of this project to be able to assist you as a partner in the best way. So Mika, I had a question about the smaller city. I think Mark, you answered that one. Yes, to comment on Mika's question regarding if this is transferable or replicable in a smaller city as well. Will you like to comment on that too, Lennart? Yeah, yeah, just briefly because, I mean, the business model for easy to be now it's for dense area, urban area. But I mean, there are projects there that are working on rural mass. It's so mass, mass can be several things. But in rural areas or smaller cities, maybe it's not carpooling. There it is car sharing, that's the main key. And for my mother who works in a rural area, I think that some kind of car sharing when she's not able to drive anymore. I think shared mobility has a strong value even in those areas. But it's not the same thing that we're doing in BF Viva. But would you say Lennart, just to give a, because I didn't really answer that question, I just said it would be very challenging. But would you say that the platform that EC2B has developed could be adapted easily to offering these different kind of mobility services? And so therefore you would be flexible enough to also move into those kind of projects? Yes, I mean, that's in a roadmap to like peer to peer and to share things and so forth. Thank you very much. And then we have a set of questions from Magnus Andersson, but I think we can have them at the very end. It's more of a general questions. But maybe we can just, yeah, it's four questions, but the last of them is, what are the most unexpected highlights from this work that you have conducted? Maybe Lennart, you would like to comment on that or Paraskevi or Mark doing, using the... Yeah, but just to mention one end user, we are talking here about replication and upscaling. And we have made a replica in Västra Frölunda in Gothenburg, where is a little bit less lower income in these areas. And we are working then with the owner and we put in the bicycle sharing and we had it for three months and now we have removed it. And we got such a nice letter now from a woman who said that we really like this service. We can't own a car, but when you put in now the car sharing and the bicycles, we have used it several times. When is it coming back? Okay. I think it's such a beauty and that makes my work worth doing, you know, it's... Yeah, thank you. It's always good to have that feedback from the group of customers. Maybe they're not feedback otherwise when they are having complaints, but it's always the best feedback. It's of course the praise. Thank you very much. Magnus had three more questions, but I keep them to the very end of this next session. And Paraskevi, would you like to continue with the discussion on how to catch your value? Yes, we will, but I have just a general comment on Magnus Anderson's questions, which is also relevant to the last question that he raised. The thing about the Smart City business model canvas is that it is so complex because of the number of actors that are involved in the process, and then the different interests each actor may have in the offering of a Smart City solution that has to be satisfied, taking also into account what Leonard said, the different conditions of the end users at different districts in the city. So this is in itself quite complex, so the whole process, of course, is not simple in that respect. And that might hide some unexpected highlights as Magnus is writing in his question. So let's move on to the third session, which is about capturing value. And the first block, the first building block on this stage is about the revenue streams. And of course revenue streams refers to the value which customers are willing to pay. In the case of the Smart Cities, the public sector actors, of course, may have different budget constraints. And the revenue streams for the city can be broadened to social value creation or to environmental value creation. So we are not talking about monetary benefits alone, but also non-monetary benefits. And if we want to link this with the case that we are dealing with today, I would like to ask Mark, for what value are the network beneficiaries willing to pay in the case of easy to be? And if they are currently paying something relevant? Yeah, that's always the bottom line question, let's say, and very important. Leonard already referred to it, that it's important that you prevent going bankrupt. That means you need to at least have more revenue coming in than costs going out. And at this point, it was interesting that one of the interviewees said that the business model is still on steroids, as he put it, in the sense that a lot of, or a lot of, but at least money is going in, more money is going in than being captured. That doesn't mean that the value being created is not sufficient to carry the costs. But at this point, and this has to do with this, I think this complexity also in time, property developers negotiating parking rebates with the city in exchange for offering mobility services to their tenants. Of course, that is a very long dragged out process in time, where it's not really clear, at least in these particular two cases that we studied, Gothenburg and Lund, it was not very clear what exactly the additional parking rebate was due to having ECTP involved. So there was a negotiation between the property owners, property developers, sorry, and the city about parking rebates. And that generated a cost saving for them, a significant, very big cost saving for them. But to attribute that directly to ECTP is very difficult. In one project, they came in from the beginning at the other, it was later. And even then, it's not always clear how much of the rebate could actually be captured by ECTP as revenue. So there is no payment in the current cases, at least as far as I understood, and it correct me if I'm wrong, from the property developers to ECTP. And TriFactor is still, I guess, sponsoring and supporting it in kind, in cash, I don't know exactly how those flows go. And perhaps that is also not that important, but it's clear that they're still supporting this as an innovation, as a business development. And Iris is putting in some of the costs. So that's the revenue streams currently in play. There's a cost saving for property developers that is not turned into a revenue stream for ECTP. And there is no revenue or cost streams from the end users in addition to, maybe they pay for the mobility service, but they pay the mobility service providers for doing that. And there is no fee paid by the end users or the service providers for the platform services. That is still, I think, let's say subsidized for them. One of the things that's changed, so if Lanot has additional perspective on that. Yes, I was also wondering how you planned this to make it sustainable in the future and after Iris, of course. To say that Spotify is not making any profit after several years. But yeah, sorry. The thing is that it is on steroids yet. But in the new, in our new projects, we are getting money from the transport service providers and we're getting money from the end users that are using the services. So we are working now to make these revenue streams coming from different directions to try to make it a viable business model. But it's still that we need to put in money and in time. So I'm really thankful for Travector that they are doing this. But I mean, 10 seconds, in Sweden at least parking places, parking and cars are subsidized by the property where you pay the rent. But there's a big movement now to exclude that the ones that are living in the apartment should subsidize parking places. And when you do this, when you exclude this from the property and differs it, you can see that the revenue, the cost for the parking place is going to increase a lot if you want to have a car. And when we make a business model, it will become much cheaper for property owner to have shared mobility than have the parking places. So it's a shift. So often we say that shared mobility is expensive, but that depends on how you look at the total. No, what the property developers told us that if you really have to calculate the true price for parking and compare that to the price of mobility as a service, you could provide for 200 residents 10 years of mobility as a service at the cost of only, I think it was five parking spots or something. So that trade-off is really beneficial. So once, I guess, you make explicit to the tenants what they're actually paying for the parking spots of those who own cars, then you would be in much better shape and you can also tap that revenue. And I mean, that is the scale up for the whole Europe, because I guess it's more or less the same in urban areas. Okay, that's very interesting in the prospects that this can evolve. And let's now move on the next one, which is the budget cost, which basically is a box that refers to what is the cost structure, what are the costs that are likely to be incurred by implementing these business model key activities? And what is the cost of the key resources that are required? And is there any difference for the specific case that we are talking about in a smart city context that we have a different cost structure here, Mark? It was not so, but I think the cost structure for ECTB is not too complicated in a sense that it costs a lot. Well, let me rephrase that. A lot of time, energy and effort goes into establishing and maintaining the relationships and building the high trust and talking to all the parties involved. So that is a difficult, I think, cost to quantify. And it's also very difficult to recover on the running, from the running revenues, which are we just discussed relatively very low. But it's very difficult, but it's also something that is likely to drop significantly. And these are, let's say, costs that you can spread over many more projects to come. So in that sense, it's also not fair to allocate those costs that are currently being made in the piloting phase entirely to these two pilot projects. So that's a difficult thing to quantify. The out-of-pocket expenses on these projects and the marginal costs per tenant are almost zero, I would say. You're building up an infrastructure, you're setting up a platform and once that's up and running, you have to maintain it. But let's say the marginal costs are very low and you can use that same solution in different contexts as Leonard already explained. You can also sell it to corporate clients. You can also implement it with different mix of mobility services in other developments, in other areas. So I think a lot of the costs are fixed or semi-fixed. And therefore, yeah, it's difficult to really connect costs to the service being provided per project. But the company, I mean, we have to identify a cost structure in the end and afterwards in the new business models that it's going to create in order to be viable. Let me use this word. Can we say, and the point of it, the point of this building block is that can we say that with the use of this specific tool, because we have identified all the key actors and the role of its key actor in the business model, is it easier than to identify and blend funding, public and private funding, facilitating the collaboration in smart city projects in specific? So can we use this from your experience and from conducting the work on the business model canvas mark? Can we use this, the tool for identifying value sources of finance because of the actors that are involved and can bring some ideas on how to finance? Yeah, yeah. Well, so currently the financing mix and carrying these budget costs is, as we just discussed when we were discussing revenue is a mix of public funding, iris subsidies and private funding or at least support from tri-vector. So it is a mix, but it's also not a mix I would base a long-run sustainable business model on. This funding is, I would say, funding these fixed startup costs, these development costs, these piloting efforts and I guess in the hope of at some point bringing those costs significantly down while relying more on private funding to support the business model in the long run. Yes, it's possible to have a financing mix, but public funding is typically more earmarked for let's say short-term startup subsidies that end at some point and not cover your long-run base load costs. So we could say that it can be used for kick-starting the project and then until it becomes more viable to continue in the future? Yeah, I think that would be at least from the Dutch context, what I know about policymaking, that would be a smart approach. Okay, as we are running out of time, I guess I will move to the next one, which is the environmental impacts and the environmental impacts basically refer to the case where we are trying to reduce any negative environmental impacts from the application, from the demonstration of a smart city solution or ensure that there are environmental benefits that can offset any environmental costs. As for example, the creation of greenhouse gas emissions or the land use and the energy and water used from the installation and the operation sometimes or the disposal of smart city solutions. So there are always some environmental costs, but also some environmental benefits and in this case, in the EC2B case, what is the ecological cost or benefit, Marc? Yeah, so for these two cases that we investigated, they're very small in the sense, well in the grand scheme of things, let's say. So the impact on the global climate is going to be minimal, but it makes a contribution, it reduces the emissions for these people providing their mobility services. Significantly, I would say, at least for these people, but then the impact of the business model will have to come in the scaling. That also holds for the environmental impacts, the negative environmental impacts of this business model are very small at the market. So it's more in the promise of what would happen if this solution would be adopted more widely than in the specific projects that we investigated. Very short, Marc. Yeah, we are very seldom talking about the health, this within active mobility, people, yeah, we made a survey that they weigh five kilos less, if you drive your own car, you weigh five kilos more than if you're using active mobility. So you could put in the health factor in these kinds of services as well. That's important on the European scale, I guess. So somehow you increase the quality of life in the city and at European scale when it will be replicated. So this leads us to the last one, the last box, which refers to the social impacts and I know Jonas has appeared for the time, I think. So the last one refers to the social cost in terms of, for example, the exclusion that may happen due to the inability to participate, the inability of some people to participate in the advanced smart city services, because, for example, of illiteracy, digital illiteracy. And what are the social benefits? This box helps us also to identify the social benefits that can be created by a solution, as you mentioned Leonard, the better air quality, which leads to higher quality of life, improved quality of life. And in this case, in the easy to be case, what is the positive or negative social value generated by the easy to be? Mark? Yeah, so it's notoriously difficult to quantify and also we did not get a lot of, let's say, spontaneous answers to that. So you really have to think about what this would mean and what it means in the exact property developments. I think it is that the idea was that this would also lead to a community of sharing in the buildings that have this service. And that is much less the case to date. I mean, coming from the tenants and from interviews with the tenants, there's also not a lot of negative social impacts. Thinking about it myself, looking over the business model, I do think that this is more difficult to reach, let's say, low income households. Leonard already referred to another project they did, where he got that letter. So maybe I'm mistaking there and I'm underestimating how digitally advanced and willing to engage with these kind of services, such households are. But if that is not the case, and this is really something that will be offered to property developers and property developers only implemented in, let's say, the higher segments of the housing market, then of course, this could create more disruption at the social level. But yeah, this is not very clear from our interviews, I have to say, it's more speculative. So maybe Leonard can make some final remarks on that. Leonard? Yeah, it's 11 o'clock, I guess. So there's a lot of social impacts and we could discuss that a lot more, but yeah, it's okay for now. Okay, all right. So there is a slide here on the replicability, which is a topic that has arised quite a lot during our discussion. And you already mentioned, Leonard, that the initial business model that has been conducted like a few months ago is now being replicated to another case with different end users. And we can say it is a different business model. And I assume you have considered different aspects for their applicability, and it can be either technical, financial, economic, but the most important one, I think, is the the stakeholders' willingness to uptake a solution, especially when we are transferring, we are trying to replicate it in different geographical contexts and in different cultural contexts. So any final comments or concerns when you're trying to upscale the business in different geographical areas, Leonard? I mean, when we talk about it, it seems to be so complex, but as Richard Branson said, it's not hard to make things complex, think of it as easy instead and start doing it. The shared mobility is here, the technical side, it's more or less here, so let's do it. Okay, thank you very much, Leonard. Mark, you can comment also on their applicability side of things. What would you say regarding this? Well, if I have to reflect on that, and I already, so based on what we got from the analysis of the business model canvas, there's many partners involved. There's many key resources that are very specific to these cases. So it's easy for me as an outsider to be, let's say, skeptical. It's also a duty for Leonard to be optimistic and try. I think there are a few things that need to be in place. There needs to be this political willingness at the city level. There needs to be this ambition to see mobility as a service as part of the solution. I think you cannot be in a culture where car ownership is kind of US style wholly. It would make it much more difficult to see progress with this business model. But I think in Europe, Western Europe, maybe in particular, and in cases where there is strict policy rules about parking, then this particular business model can work. So for the Netherlands, I definitely see opportunities. How that looks in the other partner cities in Iris, I do not know. I don't know about the parking norms in Romania or Greece or Veracruz. But then there is pivots to this business model that can be considered so around the basic idea of having this platform service, you can develop different ways of value creation and capture. So in that sense, I agree. Yeah, sorry. No worries. I was just saying thank you very much for the last comment because, and maybe we should just make it quite explicit saying that starting this kind of business in Gothenburg, home of a large car manufacturer is even more challenging and maybe starting in somewhere else in Sweden or Europe. So go for it. And I think Richard Branson will make it easier. I'm not sure. Everybody needs a role model. So that's a good one. We started five minutes late. So we will finish off five minutes late. Like 20 people have dropped off during the conference, but sort of the workshop. But I think it would be very interesting. I think many people will maybe watch the video and also take a deep dive into your slide deck here as well. There is more questions from Mika Hakosalo. But I think maybe Mika, you can be in touch with the presentation directly. And I leave over to Panos to finish off this workshop. Thank you very much, everybody. Hands up for this distant meeting. Panos, are you with us? Yes. Thank you very much. It was very interesting. As I said in the beginning, the video will be available and also I think the slides. So thank you all for participating and sharing your experiences and stay tuned for our next workshop or webinar. Thank you very much. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Take care, everyone. Take care of each other.


I was at City Hall, right? There was going to be 300 people. They're all nurses or practitioners, and they use it for accreditation for their course. My lecture would be one of those courses that they would take to get credit, right? And they would be officially part of the curriculum for these health practitioners. The last minutes, the night before, they had to cancel the entire events. And the reason was because of me, okay? Because my presentation included Rife Machines, right? They canceled the whole thing. So Big Pharma put their hammer down and said, no, we cannot let this guy talk about Rife Machines at this conference, and they canceled the whole event.