Towards a persuasive system to improve the driving
behavior of truck drivers
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER
OF SCIENCE
Tom Arnoldussen
11198079
M
ASTER
I
NFORMATION
S
TUDIES
H
UMAN-
C
ENTERED
M
ULTIMEDIA
F
ACULTY OF
S
CIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM
July 11, 2017
1st Supervisor 2nd Supervisor
MSc. Daniel Buzzo Prof. Dr. Marcel Worring Faculty of Science IVI, UvA Faculty of Science IVI, UvA
Towards a persuasive system to improve the driving behavior of truck
drivers
Tom Arnoldussen
University of Amsterdam
Science Park 904
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
tom.arnoldussen@student.uva.nl
Abstract
This research tries to establish a new usable persuasive system to improve the driving behavior of truck drivers (in the Nether-lands), with the intention of decreasing accidents involving trucks. Participant observations with truck drivers have been conducted to see their working context. Semi-structured interviews have been administered to get to know the attitudes and needs of truck drivers regarding the current telematics system of Route42, technology (that supports their driving) and their driving behavior. The PSD process model ofOinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa(2009) has been used together with results of the semi-structured interviews to design and build a persuasive prototype that can be used on mobile phones. This prototype has been tested on usability and appears to be usable. The improvement of driving behavior caused by this prototype wasn’t measured. Although the improvement wasn’t measured, it is still a good start towards a new persuasive system.
Keywords: Driving behavior, persuasive systems, behavioral outcomes, persuasive technology, telematics, the Netherlands, truck drivers
1
Introduction
In 2015, there were 5115 Dutch road incidents reported by the police (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu | Rijk-swaterstaat, 2015). Out of those incidents 505 were fatal. Trucks were involved in 70 of those fatal cases. The in-volvement of trucks also caused 393 persons to be hospital-ized and 141 to be lightly wounded. Not only deaths and in-juries are a problem; there is also an economic impact. The costs (e.g. traffic jams) of all incidents in 2009 were esti-mated at C12.5 billion (2.2% of the gross domestic product) (SWOV,2014). As there are no numbers available of the costs for 2015. Based on the costs and incidents of 2009, compared to those of 2015, a calculated estimation for 2015 would have been C13.94 billion in costs (if the costs and in-cidents would grow proportionally). From this estimation, C905 million would have been caused by incidents involv-ing trucks (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu | Rijk-swaterstaat,2015).
At present there are plenty of telematics systems avail-able that focus on improving driving behavior of truck drivers. Research suggests that these systems are essen-tial for sustainable development and road safety improve-ment (Perzy´nski, Lewi´nski, & Łukasik, 2015; Kapusta & Kalašová,2015;Leverson & Chiang,2014;European Com-mission,2010). The sensor systems that are found in
vehi-cles can now record extensive amounts of data. Route421 is one of many companies that harvest and process these data and currently provides a telematics system that can save fuel, time and money.
Route42 developed a hardware device (N-able) that needs to be installed in the truck to access its network. It is capa-ble of intercepting all CAN (controller area network) com-munication. CAN is suited as a high-level industrial proto-col and works as a multi-master2, message broadcast sys-tem (Corrigan,2008). The N-able sends the data via a mo-bile GSM connection to a remote server by communicating through an API3(application programming interface). The API stores and handles the information received from the N-able. The system is capable of providing information such as fuel usage, driving behavior, accidents, concentration and remote diagnostics of the vehicle. This information is acces-sible in an online web application (drivers are only able to gain insights for their driving behavior) and various tools that use the API as a data source.
Although one can see a trend in the decline of road acci-dents involving trucks in the Netherlands (Onderzoeksraad,
2012) and in all road accidents in Europe (European Com-mission,2010), there is still an opportunity to further
pre-1http://route42.nl/
2In a multi-master communication system, micro-controllers and
de-vices communicate with each other in applications without a host computer
3An API consists of rules and specifications that software programs can
vent accidents from happening with the help of sensors in modern day trucks. These sensors combined with telemat-ics systems (like the one of Route42) provide new possibil-ities to assist the driver. As safe driving behavior decreases the chance of accidents, improving this behavior is one of the aspects where Route42 focuses on. At present, driving behavior is being displayed by visualization of (potentially) negative and positive events in standard graphs and key per-formance indicators in an online web application. The cur-rent negative events are: accelerating, braking, canting, dis-traction (can only be measured if an eye-tracker has been installed), speeding, tilting and dangerous driving behav-ior. The current positive events are: rolling out and us-ing cruise control. These events are based on certain rules. For example, braking will only be seen as an event when it exceeds the threshold for normal braking and changes in speed. More critical events are called alerts. These alerts are also based on a combination of factors and rules. Negative alerts are: heavy canting and detection of a dangerous situa-tion. These events and alerts could be supported by footage (if a dash cam has been installed) and information about the vehicle (diagnostics, vehicle speed, location data etcetera). It is also possible as a fleet manager/coach to give tips to individuals or all drivers via the online web application.
The insights that could be gained through these data are currently not being fully utilized in an advantageous way by truck drivers. From the registered truck drivers (160), 52.5% ever logged in more than once. And only 13.75% logged in more than 10 times. It could be that the online web application doesn’t suit the needs of the drivers. The captured sensor data might be too complex to infer interest-ing patterns for reflection and their affinity with the system and technology could be low. Thus, truck drivers need to be persuaded into using a usable system that could improve their driving behavior. As Route42 unravels a lot of data, it must be capable of providing an accurate reflection of this driving behavior. This could potentially enable the driver to improve oneself. Subsequently, if the data reflects the driving behavior of the drivers, their coaches will be more adequate in giving well founded advice.
This research tries to establish a new usable persuasive sys-tem that is based on the needs and attitudes of truck drivers from the Netherlands with the goal of improving their driv-ing behavior. Unfortunately measurdriv-ing the improvement of driving behavior that is being caused by a new persuasive system was not accomplished, but will nevertheless be de-scribed in the Future work section. To establish a persuasive system this research tries to answer the following questions: 1. How to design and build a new persuasive system that takes the needs and attitudes of truck drivers into ac-count?
2. What are the needs and attitudes of truck drivers re-garding their driving behavior, technology (supporting
their driving) and the current system of Route42? 3. How to test if this new persuasive system is usable?
2
Related work
2.1
Persuasive technologies
In a lot of areas such as health, education, personal improve-ment and safety, persuasive technologies are used to change behavior and attitudes. One of the key influencers in the field of persuasive technologies (PT) defines persuasion as "an attempt to change attitudes or behaviors or both with-out using coercion or deception"(B. J. Fogg,2002). This definition will be used throughout this research. According to B. J. Fogg et al.(2009), persuasion needs to be non-coercive; the use of force, manipulation or deceit is not per-suasion. Persuasion also requires an attempt to change an-other person.B. J. Fogg et al.(2009) further explain that the word attempt implies intentionality. If one changes some-one else’s attitudes or behaviors without the intent to do this (by accident or as a side effect), this isn’t persuasion. Thus, persuasion needs to be a planned effect of a technology.
2.2
Persuasive technology models
The most popular models and theories about PT are being described in this section.
2.2.1 Fogg’s Eight Step Design Model
B. J. Fogg(2009) describes a design model guideline for the creation of PT and provides a view on how to do this the best way possible. The model consists of eight steps and the purpose of these steps is to provide a path to follow in the design of PT in the hope of increasing the probability of success. B. J. Fogg (2009) explains that you have to start small to be successful and adopt small simple tests. Once a designer achieves success (even small success), only then the designer should attempt a more ambitious goal. In other words; large projects will succeed when built on a founda-tion of many small, measurable successes. The eight steps
B. J. Fogg (2009) describes are: 1) "Choose a simple be-havior to target"2) "Choose a receptive audience" 3) "Find what prevents the target behavior" 4) "Choose a familiar technology channel"5) "Find relevant examples of PT" 6) "Imitate successful examples"7) "Test and iterate quickly" 8) "Expand on success". These steps could be carried out in an iterative way.
2.2.2 Persuasive System Design (PSD) Process Model Based on the work of B. J. Fogg (2002) and other con-ceptual and empirical work, Oinas-Kukkonen and Harju-maa (2009) suggest a framework for Persuasive Systems
Design (PSD). This framework discusses the process of de-signing (and evaluating) persuasive systems and describes what kind of content and software functionality may be found in the final product. The framework consists of three phases: (1) understanding key issues behind persuasive sys-tems, (2) analyzing the persuasion context and (3) design of system qualities. In the first phase (1),Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa(2009) clarify seven postulates in regard to understanding key issues behind persuasive systems. These postulates focus on how we see the user, persuasion strate-gies, and actual system features. In the second phase (2),
Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa(2009) focus on the persua-sion context and requires a thorough understanding of what happens in the information processing event, namely un-derstanding the roles of the persuader, persuadee, message, channel and the larger context. Full persuasion only occurs when attitude change takes place. To recognize inconsisten-cies in a user’s thinking, the persuasion context needs to be carefully analyzed. This context analysis includes recogniz-ing the intent of the persuasion (persuader and change type), understanding the persuasion event (use, user and technol-ogy context) and defining and/or recognizing the strategies (message and route) in use.
With the design of system featuresOinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa(2009) indicate that the design principles in the model from B. J. Fogg(2002) are the most utilized con-ceptualization of PT. The problem with these design prin-ciples is that they don’t explain on how to be transformed into software requirements, which are essential for under-standing both the information content and the software func-tionalities. The steps needed to change behavior and/or atti-tudes are (1) analysis of persuasion context and selection of persuasive design principles, (2) requirement definition for software qualities, (3) software implementation, (4) behav-ior and/or attitude change. The design principles that Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2009) suggest are the following (see AppendixFon page30on page30for examples):
• Primary task support Support in carrying out the user’s primary task.
• Dialogue support System feedback (computer-human dialogue) to help its user keep moving towards their goal or target behavior.
• System credibility support Design principles that de-scribe how to design a system that is more credible and thus more persuasive.
• Social support How to design a system that motivates its users by leveraging social influence.
2.2.3 Similar research in the automotive context
Leverson and Chiang(2014) conducted a field study in the USA where a telematics system successfully demonstrated
to be useful for monitoring and improving safe driving be-havior as well as improving fuel economy in trucks. Mon-itoring of potentially unsafe events and driver intervention (providing of information, feedback, in-cab feedback, train-ing, and/or an incentive to modify driver behavior) resulted in a 55-percent reduction in less severe unsafe events and a 60-percent reduction in more severe unsafe events cal-culated for drivers of sleeper cabs (also called long-haul drivers).
Other work fromBell et al.(2016) investigated roadway incidents that are the leading cause of work-related deaths in the US. The objective of this study was to evaluate if there would be a decline of incidences of risky driving behav-iors by implementing two types of feedback from a com-mercial in-vehicle monitoring system. Risky driving be-haviors declined significantly during the period of coaching plus instant feedback of the in-cab lights in comparison to the period with lights-only feedback. Lights-only feedback was not significantly different from the control group. The largest decline in the rate of risky driving behaviors occurred when feedback (coaching) was given by both the supervisor and the in-cab lights. This suggests that a combination of immediate feedback with lights and coaching, positively in-fluences the driving behavior. Although this research has been conducted in the USA, it is still relevant, as it tries to investigate if different feedback systems have an influence on driving behavior.
3
Methods
3.1
Participant observations
To get a thorough understanding of the general context and attitudes of a truck driver, there were two participant obser-vations carried out. The obserobser-vations were conducted in an overt way and thus the true identity of the researcher and purpose4 of the research were given. The drivers were ad-vised to just act and drive as they would normally do and see the researcher as an intern. Notes (Appendix C.1 on page18) were taken during driving and the delivery of pal-lets. Both of the drivers had the system of Route42 (the N-able) installed in their truck. One driver had additional hard-ware: an eye-tracker and a dashboard camera. By observing and through conversations, certain subjects (attitudes about their working conditions, their company, used technology, actions etcetera) emerged are used in constructing the semi-structured interview. Also the contextual use for a new per-suasive system could be assessed.
4To improve the driving behavior of truck drivers with data from the
3.2
Unstructured informal interview
Although this research is about truck drivers, it is important to know the view of the fleet manager in regard to the driving behavior of their employees (as drivers must be accountable to their managers). By doing an unstructured informal in-terview, the view on certain subjects that emerged from the participant observations were clarified and helped in con-structing the semi-structured interview. Notes were taken after the interview (AppendixC.3on page18).
3.3
Semi-structured interview
To investigate what truck drivers generally think about (safe) driving behavior, technology that supports their driving and the current system of Route42, a semi-structured interview (see AppendixAon page15on page15), was carried out with a convenience sample of eight truck drivers who are colleagues at the same company in the Netherlands. The company offers services in: distribution, transport, courier services and shipment, transfer and storage of goods. The drivers were chosen, based on their current use (how many times they have logged in) of the online web application of Route42. This resulted in a sample that varied as much as possible5. The gender distribution was dominantly repre-sented by males. This was also because the population only consisted of male drivers that had the system of Route42 in-stalled into their trucks. The drivers were primarily active in distribution of goods. These varied in pallet, finely divided, supermarket and construction market distribution. The age of the drivers varied between 32 to 47 years. The years they have worked in the sector varied between 10 to 28 years (see AppendixBon page17for complete demographics).
The semi-structured interview was divided in questions about driving behavior and technology (that supports them in their driving) and a section about the current use of the system of Route426. The first section made it possible to view their attitudes on supporting technology and driving behavior. The second section made it clear what was work-ing well and what wasn’t in the current system of Route42. The semi-structured interview was conducted in the Dutch language, as this is the native language of the drivers. Only the interview questions are translated into English. The complete transcription is written in Dutch.
3.4
Usability testing
To assess if the interface of a new persuasive system (the prototype) is usable, a usability test was conducted with five drivers (respondent 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 in AppendixBon page17) of the same sample as the semi-structured interview. The
5Two drivers that logged in the most, two drivers that sometimes logged
in and four drivers that never logged in before.
6The installed hardware and the online web application
amount of five drivers was chosen based on the results of
Nielsen(2000). These results show that a sample of five people is usually sufficient to make a valid usability test. After describing small scenarios, the drivers had to perform small tasks (21 in total) within the prototype, to see if they could complete these tasks without any problems. The par-ticipants were asked to think aloud when conducting tasks and the location was in a closed (quiet) room. The interac-tion with the prototype was recorded using Lookback7. This tool captures the screen of the phone and records audio and video of the participant. The amount of clicks and time for each task have also been recorded. To evaluate the usability, the drivers had to fill out a System Usability Scale (SUS) (Brooke et al.,1996). SUS is a five-point Likert scale that ranges from strongly disagree to strongly agree and is usu-ally administered after a usability test. SUS consists of ten questions that can be found in Appendix D.2on page24. This method was preferred over others, because it can be used on a small sample size with reliable results and is not as extensive as other methods (Brooke,2013;Sauro,2013).
3.5
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework that has been used to design the new persuasive system (prototype) is the Persuasive System Design (PSD) Process Model (Oinas-Kukkonen & Harju-maa,2009). The three phases of this model are used to (1) understand key issues behind persuasive systems, (2) ana-lyze the persuasion context and (3) the design of system qualities. The design principles in this model are incor-porated in the prototype, based on the results of the semi-structured interview.
4
Results
The results of the semi-structured interviews will be dis-cussed and are linked to the three phases of PSD Process Model for the design of the new persuasive system (proto-type). Also the results of the evaluation (usability test) will be described.
4.1
Understanding key issues of the current
system
Initially, the issues of the current system of Route42 were identified. These issues have been taken into account while designing (and building) the prototype.
4.1.1 Obtrusive technology
The N-able of Route42 is "always on", and is continu-ally influencing the attitudes and behaviors of truck drivers.
This could be seen in the results gathered from the semi-structured interview. The use of an eye-tracker seems to have a negative influence on the respondents (see Appendix
E, figure22on page29). Respondents 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 all have complaints about the use of the eye-tracker with re-gards to their privacy. For example, respondent 3 feels that he is being watched, and this gives him an unpleasant feel-ing. Respondent 8 comments: "Honestly, I do not like the eye-tracker, I have to say. So I turn him the other way.". Re-spondent 4 only has problems with the eye-tracker because it is in his view, has an irritating blinking light and he is constantly reminded of it. Some respondents (7 and 5), in-dicate that there is too much technology in their trucks. It even disturbs them while driving. Respondent 7 talks about all the technology on his windshield: "It’s all in my field of view. But they (management) start to complain once you look at your phone. But they do not care about everything that blocks your sight. It does obstruct my view.". Respon-dent 4 thinks that the eye-tracker is way too big and is block-ing his view.
4.1.2 The stance of technology and fleet managers The system of Route42 which tracks the driving behavior of truck drivers isn’t neutral. The system is aimed at being sold to transport companies (and fleet managers). Managers benefit in tracking the performances of their drivers and can influence the behavior of drivers by using insights of the system. One manager commented that he didn’t have the time to coach all drivers face-to-face (see AppendixC.3on page18). To still provide enough coaching, a complemen-tary aid for managers could be introduced which could save them time.
4.1.3 Inconsistency in attitudes
Some drivers (respondent 4, 3 and 2) already receive coach-ing by sittcoach-ing together behind the online web application with their manager when needed. These drivers indicate that they made big improvements with their driving behav-ior. Initially they thought that there was nothing wrong with their behavior, until they saw their actual driving behavior through the data on the online web application. This mis-conception of their attitudes seems to be enough to correct their own (bad) driving behavior. But not all drivers seem to be susceptible to this inconsistency between attitudes about their own driving behavior and their actual driving behav-ior. Respondent 5 doesn’t believe that the inconsistency is accurate and doubts the data that is being provided by the system of Route42, because the data he once looked at was erroneous and incomplete.
4.2
Persuasion context
Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa(2009) indicate that chang-ing a previous attitude is harder than originatchang-ing or rein-forcing an attitude. If existing attitudes are recently learned from other people, they are easier to change. This difference could be seen between young (inexperienced) drivers and older drivers (experienced). Respondent 5, who worked 20 years in the sector claims: "To unlearn something is difficult. You just have a driving style. As long as you don’t cause any damage or anything, I don’t see any problems. But of course, I’m always open to improve myself.". Respondent 6, who worked 10 years in the sector says the following, af-ter his manager showed his driving behavior: "And then I thought to myself, hey, he is right. It’s just not good. While you actually think you have good driving behavior, it’s not. When I look back on those first weeks that I drove here, I saw that I had a very aggressive driving style. I was shocked to see that. So now I’m really paying attention. Aware and unaware.". Some drivers seem to be easier in changing their attitudes than others.
4.2.1 The intention of the persuader
To know the intent, the persuader needs to be determined.
B. Fogg (1998) recognizes three different intentions: 1) those who produce technology (endogenous), 2) those who distribute technology (exogenous); and 3) the person adopt-ing the technology (autogenous). The persuader in this case could be endogenous, exogenous or autogenous. The per-suader could be endogenous because Route42 wants to sell a product that can help transportation companies in saving money. By improving the driving behavior, the fuel usage will be less in costs, as there appears to be a positive correla-tion between the two (Leverson & Chiang,2014). The per-suader can also be exogenous because fleet managers want drivers to improve their driving behavior, so a manager will promote/distribute this technology. And at last, a persuader can also be autogenous, as there are drivers who want to improve their driving behavior for intrinsic reasons. 4.2.2 The persuasion event
Moments of persuasion During the design of the proto-type, the idea to directly persuade the drivers while they are driving looked good at first. But after observing two drivers, it seemed they already have too many devices at hand (board computer, navigation and phone) which need their attention. Respondents 3, 4 and 7 indicate that they would have bet-ter driving behavior if there was less working pressure, no distractions and less stress. During observations, it became clear that the drivers get stressed by frequent phone calls of their planners. Because of this, it became apparent that they were distracted, hasty and paid less attention to the road. Research of the FNV supports this finding (FNV Transport
& Logistiek, 2016). More recent research indicates that European truck drivers are often distracted (SWOV,2017). Truck drivers are distracted for 20% of their driving time. The most distracting actions are eating food and using the mobile phone. Furthermore, they could also be distracted because of frustrations during driving. Respondent 7 expe-riences frustrations because of other road users. Respondent 8 indicates the same as 7, but adds that time pressure is also a frustration to him. Thus, processing persuasion content would be better after driving to prevent distractions. Most of the respondents themselves also indicate that they would like to be coached after their shift (7x), trip (2x) and dur-ing work time (3x) (see AppendixE, figure9on page28). But respondent 5 also indicates: "After my work, I’m not able to sit behind my computer to review my driving behav-ior again..". This is understandable because they make long working days, and they need their rest.
Technology context Because all the respondents carry a phone while they are working, it became obvious to develop a prototype for their mobile phones. As mentioned earlier, the drivers do not like to open their laptops after work to analyze their driving behavior. The system could also be installed in the truck in a different form (such as audio, hap-tic feedback or other visual instruments) instead of a mobile phone. But the respondents indicated that they don’t want to have extra hardware installed. Respondent 7 responded to the question (see Appendix Aon page15, question 32) whether he would like to receive feedback via audio in the truck with: "No, absolutely not. I will demolish it. Because to me, it works as a distraction and irritation". The other respondents were also negative about having feedback via audio. The same response was given on having the possibil-ity to give voice commands to operate the truck. Also the aforementioned problem of distraction during driving needs to be taken into consideration. Interestingly respondent 7 argues: "If they would make an application for my phone. Then I would check it out once a day. Everybody has a smart phone nowadays and now you have to login to your computer. If they create an application where you have to log in once, where you can look at your data. That would be great. I would look every day as it is in close reach. I would be curious. But now I do not want to use my laptop for that. I just don’t want to.".
4.2.3 The persuasion strategy
A central feature of the strategy is communicating the mes-sage. The message that the prototype needs to send is about all the different characteristics of driving behavior of a fin-ished trip. This message will start with a push notification that contains a small textual message about a finished trip, which indicates how the driver performed. This text will be a trigger to get the driver to see more details of their
driving behavior in the prototype. Notifications will also be sent for achievements (badges), challenges and social ac-tivity. But the persuasion message could also come from colleagues that talk about the prototype and persuade other colleagues to look at it. In addition to the notifications, the prototype itself is packed with persuasive triggers that will be explained in the next section.
4.3
Design of system qualities for the
proto-type
The semi-structured interviews were carried out to under-stand the view of the drivers about technology (supporting their driving), driving behavior and also about the current system of Route42. The results have been linked to the de-sign principles of the PSD model ofOinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa(2009). Some of these principles have been in-corporated in the design of the prototype.
4.3.1 Grading, performance, progress and data To know what the respondents need in terms of grading, per-formance and progress, the following was asked.
Data as a real reflection of driving behavior To see if the driving behavior data that is provided by the current online web application feels personalized and thus as a real reflection of their own driving behavior, the respondents were asked to give their opinion about it (Appendix Aon page 15, question 48). Most of the respondents indicate that they think the data reflects their real driving behavior (see figure 23 on page 29). That the data reflects the real driving behavior is important for the prototype. To continue doing this, the current prototype tries to quickly show finished trips. Inconsistencies in attitudes about their driving behavior and their actual driving behavior of a recent trip could be reduced, as actions are still fresh in memory (see figure2on page7). By showing a map with important locations and events of a trip, helps bringing back the memory of a trip (see figure3 on page 8). What also helps is giving the best possible contextual analysis of an event (see figure4on page8).
Principles mentioned: personalization (Appendix F on page30)
Improving driving behavior on measurable character-istics. To reduce complex driving behavior into simple tasks, the respondents were asked (AppendixAon page15, question 13) if they would like to improve their driving behavior on measurable characteristics or whether they want to make bigger improvements. The response was overall positive for improving on measurable characteristics (see figure 14 on page 28). These characteristics come
back into the prototype via the progress (in Dutch "Ver-betering") charts at the overview (see figure 1on page 7), the performance (see figure5on page8) and the rankings page (see figure8on page9). Just like the progress charts, the challenges (in Dutch "Uitdagingen") are also reduced to small challenges, based on your decline in progress of driving behavior characteristics.
Principles mentioned: reduction (AppendixFon page30)
Expressing safe driving behavior in one grade On the question (Appendix A on page 15, question 31) if the respondents want their safe driving behavior (all characteristics) to be expressed in one grade, half of the respondents reacted positively (see AppendixE, figure 21
on page29). Respondent 7 indicates that the characteristics of safe driving behavior are to be seen as separate things. If you convert this to one grade, you will miss the overview. Although this is a good point and thus doesn’t reduce complex behavior; the prototype still incorporates one grade (see figure1on page7). The grade is based on your own driving behavior (performance) position compared to your colleagues. This way, the drivers can quickly see (monitor & social comparison) how they perform within the company. The characteristics of driving behavior are instead shown in the progress chart (see figure1on page7). Principles mentioned: reduction, self-monitoring, so-cial comparison (AppendixFon page30)
Tracking progress and performances To get an understanding about how the respondents track their performances and progress in the current online web application, the question (AppendixAon page15, question 47) if it is easy to track their progress and performances (self-monitoring) was asked. Respondent 3 indicates that he can track his performances via a so-called events per 100km chart. Respondent 7 checks if he is making progress by the colors orange and green. The more green he sees the better his performance. The aforementioned characteristics are both incorporated in the prototype to keep consistency. The orange and green (reduction) could be seen in the progress chart (see figure1on page7) and the events per 100km in a separate chart (see figure5on page8). Principles mentioned: reduction, self-monitoring (Ap-pendixFon page30)
4.3.2 Coaching
one of the ways to achieve better (e.g. safer) driving behav-ior is through coaching.
Figure 1: Overview page with a grade, challenges, badges and progress (left: design, right: prototype)
Figure 2: Trips page with your own trip feed with statistics, comments and likes (left: design, right: prototype)
Getting coached on driving behavior Whether the respondents like to be coached (cooperate) on their driv-ing behavior seems positive (Appendix A on page 15, question 19). Most respondents indicate that they want to be coached (see Appendix E, figure 15 on page 28). However, respondent 1 only indicates if it is not too often. Respondent 5 indicates that he wants to receive feedback from time to time. Respondent 8 doesn’t need it specially. He would like to coach himself and indicates that he would appreciate a co-driver’s coaching (social learning), rather than a manager who does not have any driving experience with trucks.
Principles mentioned: cooperation, social learning (AppendixFon page30)
Coaching by a human or machine To know in what kind of way the respondents would like to be coached and
Figure 3: Trip detail page with the route and events (left: design, right: prototype)
Figure 4: Event detail page with contextual details (map, video and a chart) that can be played (left: design, right: prototype)
praised, the respondents were asked if it mattered if they are being coached via a machine or a human (AppendixAon page15, question 20). Most of the respondents (5) would like to be coached by real humans. Two respondents would like to be coached by a machine, and two other respondents have no opinion. Respondent 1 indicates that you can only have a face to face dialogue with a real human and not a machine. Respondent 2 finds a person more pleasant than a machine. Respondent 3 always prefers personal contact. Principles mentioned: praise (AppendixFon page30) Receiving tips from managers To get to know if the respondents ever receive any tips from their managers in the current online application (authority), this question was asked (Appendix A on page 15, question 49). The respondents all provide negative responses, and thus don’t receive any tips (see Appendix E, figure 24 on page 29).
Figure 5: Performance improvement page with progress of all of your driving behavior characteristics and a events per 100km chart (left: design, right: prototype)
Figure 6: Performance monthly badges page with earned badges (left: design, right: prototype)
Only respondent 1 indicates that the fleet manager only once suggested that he should use his cruise control more often. Respondent 2 indicates that he must do it himself. As mentioned before, the interviewed manager doesn’t have time to coach all of his drivers (Appendix C.3 on page18). Therefore, the option to give tips as a manager in the prototype has been left out for now.
Principles mentioned: authority (AppendixFon page30)
4.3.3 Colleagues
Working together to achieve safer driving behavior for the company To see if the respondents are open to work together (cooperation) in achieving safer driving behavior for the company as a whole, this question was asked (Appendix A on page 15, question 29). All respondents are open to work together with colleagues (see Appendix
Figure 7: Colleagues trip feed page with trips of your col-leagues that show statistics, comments and likes (left: de-sign, right: prototype)
Figure 8: Colleagues rankings page with progress of col-leagues and company (left: design, right: prototype)
E, figure19on page29). Only respondent 5 indicates that he is always open to make something better, but only if it doesn’t harm his safety. He further states: "I must not be too busy with safety, because we are already busy with this. I just need to do my job, and this job is what I try to do the best I can". The results of this question are incorporated in the design of the prototype on the colleagues rankings page (see figure8on page 9), as the percentage of progress for the whole company. Beneath this percentage is a chart with the progress for all the drivers (social facilitation). There you can see who contributed (normative influence) the most to the progress of the company.
Principles mentioned: normative influence, social fa-cilitation, cooperation (AppendixFon page30)
The opinion of colleagues about driving behavior To see if the opinion of a colleague has an influence (normative
influence) on the driving behavior of the respondents, this question was asked (Appendix A on page 15, question 10). Half of the respondents (see AppendixE, figure12on page 28) indicate that a colleague’s opinion may have an influence on their driving behavior. To see if the drivers value the opinion (normative influence) of their colleagues, this question was also asked (Appendix A on page 15, question 11). Almost all respondents attach great value to what colleagues think about their driving behavior (see AppendixE, figure13on page28). Respondent 1 thinks the opinion of his colleagues is important and hopes that he can give his opinion to them as well. Respondent 6 values the views of the managers above, even if it is critical or praise. Although half of them don’t seem to be influenced, all of them seem to value the opinion of their colleagues about their driving behavior. Thus it seems that they are open to receive feedback, which may lead to influencing them positively. To give the drivers a chance to give their opinion about the driving behavior of their colleagues, it is pos-sible to comment, like or view a trip (see figure7on page9). Principles mentioned: normative influence (Appendix
Fon page30)
Safe driving behavior of colleagues To get to know if drivers know anything about the safe driving behavior of their colleagues (social comparison), this question (Ap-pendixAon page15, question 52) was asked. Respondent 1 indicates that some colleagues drive very decent and well, and others wilder. Respondent 2 indicates that drivers are talking about it when they are together. They have no secrets for each other. The results show that some drivers do care about driving behavior, and others don’t. If the drivers use the prototype to give their opinion about the driving behavior of colleagues who don’t care about it, they might be influenced to feel responsible for their (bad) driving behavior (cooperation).
Principles mentioned: social comparison, cooperation (AppendixFon page30)
Learning from colleagues The respondents think that learning from colleagues is a good idea (see Appendix E, figure 18 on page 28) and all are positive about it about it (Appendix A on page 15, question 28). Respondent 2 indicates that "you can always learn more as it doesn’t make you any dumber". Respondent 6 indicates that learning is great and that he discusses this on a regular basis with his colleagues. The more tips he gets, the easier he can do his job. Because the current online web application doesn’t al-low to learn from colleagues, the prototype therefore alal-lows the drivers to view the trips (see figure 7 on page 9) and progress (see figure8 on page9) of colleagues (Appendix
trips and tips. They could see how their more experienced (expertise, social learning, cooperation) colleagues deal with certain events.
Principles mentioned: expertise, social learning, co-operation (AppendixFon page30)
Comparing safe driving performance between col-leagues Overall, the respondents are negative (see AppendixE, figure17on page 28) about comparing their safe driving behavior to colleagues and the influence it could have on them (Appendix A on page 15, question 27). Respondents 1 and 2, however, see that it can work out positively. Respondents 3 and 4 both indicate that they are doing it purely for themselves, and the comparison with others has no influence. Respondent 8 thinks it would not stimulate him at all. Respondent 2 argues that it may be possible to make it anonymous and keep it within the company. Although the results indicate that it doesn’t influence the drivers at all, it is still incorporated into the prototype. There could also be a possibility to make the drivers anonymous if they want to. As the comparison in the prototype is based on progress (see figure8on page9), instead of how many events they have triggered; it is fair and reachable for all the drivers to be the best driver of the month and earn monthly badges (see figure 6 on page8). Respondent 2 answers on the question if a bonus for the best driver would work: "..because often the best drivers will stay on top of the list. This way (referencing to progress) is more honest. One might have more difficulty in getting better driving behavior and could become discouraged. If they don’t have a chance, they eventually will stop trying to receive a bonus.".
Principles mentioned: social comparison, competition (AppendixFon page30)
4.3.4 Competition
Competition between colleagues On the question (Ap-pendix A on page 15, question 30) what the respondents think of competition between colleagues there was a mixed response (see AppendixE, figure20on page29). Half of the respondents were negative, and the other half were positive. Respondent 2 indicates that competition is not good and recommends on working together (social facilitation) to get where they want to be. Respondent 3 thinks that it is always a positive thing and that most of the drivers will try to be the first in the charts. He indicates that healthy competition is always good. Because the answers were divided, and the negative respondents can choose to just not take part in the competition between colleagues, this design principle is still incorporated in the prototype (see figure8on page9).
Principles mentioned: social facilitation, competition (AppendixFon page30)
4.3.5 Praise and appreciation
Appreciation of safe driving behavior To see if the respondents are susceptible to appreciation for their safe driving behavior, the respondents answered this question (AppendixAon page15, question 22) in an overall positive manner (see AppendixE, figure16on page28). Respon-dent 3 does not provide a clear answer and indicates that he motivates himself, and thus doesn’t need appreciation to drive safer. Appreciation is incorporated in the prototype via push notifications that indicate whether they have driven well. This is done via encouraging messages. Also rewards in the form of monthly badges are being provided (see figure6on page8) when you have the most progress of the month for a characteristic of driving behavior, in general or for completing a challenge.
Principles mentioned: praise, rewards (Appendix F on page30)
Receiving praise To get to know what kind of praise the respondents want and from whom they want it, this question was answered (AppendixAon page15, question 24). The drivers would like to receive praise from: someone from management (6x), colleagues and a machine. Respondents 1 and 2 indicate that getting praise from their boss is already enough. Respondent 3 indicates that it is indeed nice to hear praise from his fleet manager, coach or colleague. According to him, more attention need to be paid to this, because every person deserves a compliment. Respondent 5 indicates that contact with the fleet managers is getting rare. He claims that there is a lack of personal attention from management. Most of the respondents would like to receive praise from management, but there seems to be a lack of contact between the two.
Principles mentioned: praise (AppendixFon page30)
Appreciation in physical form The type of appreciation the respondent prefers has been asked in this question (Appendix Aon page 15, question 24). The respondents mentioned a bonus (4), general appraisal (2), going out, better working equipment, compliments and getting (men-tal) attention. These results could be used by managers to rewardgood behavior. But they have to be careful in doing so. It could work negatively when certain employees get always excluded because they could have different working conditions (see AppendixC.3).
4.3.6 Suggestions and reminders
Getting suggestions to improve driving behavior All the respondents are positive (see Appendix E, figure 11
on page 28) about receiving suggestions for improving their safe driving behavior (Appendix A on page 15, question 8). Two respondents (4 & 6) mention that they already have a system in their trucks that gives sugges-tions when they drive well or bad. Because they only want to see positive notifications, they are driving better. Suggestions are included in the prototype as challenges (in Dutch "Uitdagingen") (see figure1 on page 7). These (driving behavior) challenges provide suggestions and how to complete them. At this moment, the suggestions aren’t really specific. In the future, these suggestions could be more specific (and remind them of themselves), based on collected data. Suggestions could also be made by colleagues who comment on trips (see figure7on page9) Principles mentioned: suggestion, similarity (Appendix F
on page30)
Getting reminders Most of the respondents would like to be reminded about their safe driving behavior (see AppendixE, figure10on page28, AppendixAon page15, question 7). Respondent 5 doesn’t like to face the facts. Words and numbers don’t say anything about his safe driving behavior. As already mentioned, the reminder will be in the form of notifications about their finished trips. But the drivers will also get notifications about social activity (getting likes and comments), rewards and challenges. Principles mentioned: self-monitoring (Appendix F on page30)
4.3.7 Goals
Setting goals The respondents that already used the online web application of Route42, answered the question (AppendixA on page15, question 45) whether they have already set goals (reducing to simple tasks). The majority of the respondents indicate that they have never done this. Respondent 2 argues that only the fleet manager had set a general goal. Respondent 5 never used it and doesn’t know how to use it because he wasn’t taught on how to do it. Respondents 2 and 6 have never looked at goals. As
Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa (2009) mention, setting goals is important. Because the drivers don’t use it in the current online web application, this has been disregarded in the prototype for now. Setting goals could be done in the future by committing to a challenge.
Principles mentioned: reduction, self-monitoring (Ap-pendixFon page30)
4.4
Evaluation
The evaluation of the persuasive prototype was executed by a usability test and a question whether the prototype could persuade the participants of the usability test to improve their driving behavior.
4.4.1 Usability test
The results indicate that there are some design errors. The complete usability report with all the scenarios, tasks, statis-tics and SUS scores can be found in Appendix D.1 on page19. The following errors have been found:
Driving behavior grade Most of the respondents (four out of five) couldn’t complete task 1b (see Appendix D.1 on page 19) on the overview page (see figure 1 on page 7). The participants had to find their driving behavior grade (the number 10 at the top). Some couldn’t find their grade even if they were looking at it. Some thought the grade was a date.
Challenges The participants (two out of five) had some trouble with task 3b (see AppendixD.1on page19) on the overview page (see figure1on page7). The participants had to look for their challenges (in Dutch "Uitdagingen"). They simply didn’t understand where to look for the challenges. Maybe it has to be more prominent, or maybe it should have its own challenges page.
Finding the events per 100km chart All the participants completed task 9a (see Appendix D.1on page19) on the performance improvement page (see figure 5 on page 8). The participants had to find their events per 100km chart. Three participants needed more than 40 seconds to find it. They were all looking at the right page, but they just couldn’t find the chart. One participant suggested to make the title of the chart a bit more prominent.
Finding a trip of a colleague Two participants of the five failed in completing task 10a (see Appendix D.1 on page19) on the colleagues trip page (see figure7on page9). The participants had to find a trip of a certain colleague with the name "Anonymous driver". One participant couldn’t find that page. The other participant didn’t understand the question, because he was confused about the name he had to find. The three other participants had no trouble in find-ing the page and filterfind-ing on the name: "Anonymous driver".
4.4.2 System Usability Scale (SUS)
To measure the usability of the prototype, the participants had to fill out the SUS questionnaire (Appendix D.3 on
page 27). See the Appendix D.2 on page24 for individ-ual SUS scores. The average SUS score of all the partic-ipants is 84 (see AppendixD.2 on page 24, table 7). To interpret this score, the results ofBangor et al.(2009) have been used. Bangor et al.(2009) made a scale with different features: acceptability ranges (not acceptable, marginal, ac-ceptable), grade scale (F, D, C, B, A) and adjective ratings (worst imaginable, poor, ok, good, excellent, best imagin-able). The SUS score of 84 is acceptable, and has a grade of B and an adjective rating between good and excellent and is leaning towards excellent. The score corresponds to the results of the usability test. Although there are some errors, around 80% of the tasks were successfully conducted. 4.4.3 Improvement of driving behavior and attitude
change
The participants from the usability test answered whether they thought the prototype could persuade them into im-proving their driving behavior. The overall response was positive (see AppendixD.4on page27). This doesn’t say anything about the persuasiveness of the prototype or even if it changes their behavior and/or attitudes over a period of time. If the incorporated persuasive principles have a posi-tive effect on the driving behavior still needs to be measured. But because of lack of time and privacy considerations, the prototype couldn’t be tested. Oinas-Kukkonen (2013) in-dicates that it is still a challenge on how to measure and demonstrate the behavior change that is being caused by an intervening persuasive system or in best cases by a specific feature. Knowing this is important in determining the suc-cess of such intervention.
5
Conclusion
This research established a new usable persuasive system to improve the driving behavior of truck drivers, with the intention of decreasing accidents involving trucks. Partic-ipant observations with truck drivers have been conducted to see their working context and to discover subjects for the semi-structured interviews. The semi-structured inter-views have been administered to get to know the attitudes and needs of truck drivers regarding the current system of Route42, technology (that supports their driving) and their driving behavior. The PSD process modelOinas-Kukkonen and Harjumaa(2009) has been used together with results of the semi-structured interviews to design and build a persua-sive prototype that can be used on mobile phones. This pro-totype has been tested on usability and appears to be usable. The improvement of driving behavior caused by this proto-type wasn’t measured. Although the improvement wasn’t measured, it is still a good start towards a new persuasive system. It is recommended for the future to measure the influence of this prototype on driving behavior. Hopefully,
this prototype will have a positive influence on the driving behavior and will result in safer roads.
6
Discussion
Methods The participant observations and the unstruc-tured informal interview were helpful in understanding the working context of drivers and to generate subjects for the semi-structured interviews. But the results from these ob-servations and the informal interview can’t be representa-tive because of the small sample sizes. They are also not reliable because they can’t be checked or repeated again. In other words, the (external) validity and reliability of this re-search could not be guaranteed. Although the drivers were instructed during observations to just act as they would nor-mally do, the presence of the researcher could still have an influence on their behavior and answers. The notes that were taken for both the observations and unstructured in-formal interview may be biased, as they are replicated from memory. Thus the internal and external validity and re-liability can’t be assured. The semi-structured interviews generated a good view of the attitudes and needs of the re-spondents. But the results aren’t representative for all the drivers in the Netherlands. Because other companies don’t have the same working conditions (not the same activities and not in the same places), the results are only representa-tive for the company of the respondents (and thus not reli-able) to a certain extend (the gender, age and work activities aren’t varied enough to be representative for all the employ-ees). The results of the usability test are insightful and in-dicate that there are some errors to be fixed. The results aren’t reliable and are not representative for real life scenar-ios outside this setting. The results of the SUS question-naire show that the usability of the prototype is acceptable and thus usable. The validity could be questioned because the questions have been translated from English to Dutch. Because the respondents of the questionnaire are from the same sample as the semi-structured interview, their answers could be biased. The results used from the semi-structured interview are translated from Dutch to English, so interpre-tations could have been lost in translation. The same could be said about the tasks and scenarios of the usability test (as the original questions were in Dutch). But the translations are as accurate as possible.
Semi-structured interviews Complaints about the eye-tracker overshadow the system of Route42 with negativity. Unfortunately the prototype can’t fix this issue, but there is an opportunity to investigate these flaws. There seems to be a lack of contact between the fleet manager and the drivers. Restoring this contact could be done through the prototype by giving the fleet manager a quick way to coach. Although the suggested prototype could be a solution for improving
driving behavior, the drivers still indicate that they prefer face-to-face contact, thus there needs to be a good balance between online feedback on the one hand and face-to-face feedback on the other. Drivers seem to be negative about comparison of progress between colleagues. Comparison could work out negatively if performance is under average. How this works out, solely depends on how the fleet man-ager reacts to this. A solution would be to make the progress anonymous for the fleet manager or for their colleagues (or make it optional). Using progress in the prototype gives ev-eryone a chance to earn badges or rewards. But it could still be unfair, when drivers have different working condi-tions (highway trips trigger less events than trips in the city). Another problem of progress is once you are the best, it is difficult to get more progress. Coaching during driving was rejected for now because of distractions and because drivers already have enough (obtrusive) hardware in their trucks. Merging separate pieces of hardware into one device and place it in the dashboard, could make it less obtrusive.
7
Future work
Measuring behavior change The ultimate goal of this re-search was to eventually measure the behavior change of drivers after the use of the prototype and to see what caused the behavior change. Because of privacy considerations and limited time, measuring behavior change has been post-poned. For the future, this could be done by comparing the change in driving behavior (events) of two groups who both have the N-able installed, and where the intervention group uses the prototype and the control group only tracks data via the N-able. The intervention group could have better driv-ing behavior results than the control group. If this is true, the prototype has persuasive powers. But how do you know what in the prototype contributes the most to the behavior change? This could be analyzed by reviewing usage statis-tics of the prototype and link these to the design principles that are incorporated into the prototype. After this, the at-titude of the drivers could be assessed again, to see if there are changes.
Usability testing What also needs to be done is fixing the errors of the usability test and retest this again until there are no errors to be found.
Functionality For the future, the following functionalities could be added to the prototype: setting goals, generating new badges and making the challenges more specific.
References
Bangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J. (2009). Deter-mining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of usability studies, 4(3), 114–123. Retrieved from http:// 66.39.39.113/upa_publications/jus/
2009may/JUS_Bangor_May2009.pdf doi:
66.39.39.113
Bell, J. L., Taylor, M. A., Chen, G.-X., Kirk, R. D., & Leatherman, E. R. (2016). Evaluation of an in-vehicle monitoring system (IVMS) to reduce risky driving be-haviors in commercial drivers: Comparison of in-cab warning lights and supervisory coaching with videos of driving behavior. Journal of Safety Research, 60, 125–136. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jsr.2016.12.008 doi: 10.1016/
j.jsr.2016.12.008
Brooke, J. (2013). SUS : A Retrospec-tive. Journal of Usability Studies, 8(2), 29–40. Retrieved from http://www .usabilityprofessionals.org/ upa_publications/jus/2013february/ brooke1.html%5Cnhttp://www .usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/ methods/system-usability-scale.html doi: 10.1074/jbc.R115.675280
Brooke, J., et al. (1996). This document : More Project in-formation and further documents : SUS - A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 189(194), 1–8.
Corrigan, S. (2008). Introduction to the controller area net-work (CAN). Texas Instrument, Application Report. European Commission. (2010). Towards a European road
safety area: policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020(Tech. Rep.). Brussels: European Commission. FNV Transport & Logistiek. (2016). Vergroten cameras
in de vrachtwagencabine de verkeersveiligheid(Tech. Rep.). FNV Transport & Logistiek.
Fogg, B. (1998). Persuasive computers: Perspectives and research directions. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys-tems(April), 225–232. Retrieved fromhttp://dl
.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=274677 doi:
10.1145/274644.274677
Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: using com-puters to change what we think and do. Ubiquity, 2002(December), 5.
Fogg, B. J. (2009). Creating persuasive technologies: an eight-step design process. In Persuasive (p. 44). Fogg, B. J., Cuellar, G., & Danielson, D. (2009).
Moti-vating, influencing, and persuading users: An intro-duction to captology. Human Computer Interaction Fundamentals, 109–122.
Kapusta, J., & Kalašová, A. (2015). Motor Vehicle Safety Technologies in Relation to the Accident Rates. In J. Mikulski (Ed.), Tools of transport telematics: 15th international conference on transport systems telem-atics, tst 2015, wroc{ł}aw, poland, april 15-17, 2015. selected papers(pp. 172–179). Cham: Springer Inter-national Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24577 -5{\_}17
Leverson, B., & Chiang, K.-H. (2014). Study of the Im-pact of a Telematics System on Safe and Fuel-efficient Driving in Trucks(Tech. Rep. No. April).
Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu | Ri-jkswaterstaat. (2015). Bestand geReg-istreerde Ongevallen in Nederland, BRON. \url{https://data.overheid.nl/data/dataset/verkeersongevallen-bestand-geregistreerde-ongevallen-nederland}. Min-isterie van Infrastructuur en Milieu | Rijkswaterstaat. Nielsen, J. (2000). Why You Only Need to Test with 5 Users.
Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/ articles/why-you-only-need-to-test -with-5-users/
Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2013). A foundation for the study of behavior change support systems. Personal and ubiquitous computing, 17(6), 1223–1235.
Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Harjumaa, M. (2009). Persuasive systems design: Key issues, process model, and sys-tem features. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 24(1), 28.
Onderzoeksraad. (2012). Vrachtwagen ongevallen op snelwegen Vracht wagen ongevallen op snel wegen (Tech. Rep.). Den Haag: On-derzoeksraad voor veiligheid. Retrieved from
https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/ uploads/investigation-docs/1007/ 599942c28adbvrachtwagenongevallen -nl-web.pdf
Perzy´nski, T., Lewi´nski, A., & Łukasik, Z. (2015). Tools of Transport Telematics. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 531, 90–98. doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-319-24577-5
Sauro, J. (2013). 10 Things to Know About the System Usability Scale (SUS). Retrieved from https:// measuringu.com/10-things-sus/
SWOV. (2014). Kosten van verkeer-songevallen. \url{https://www.swov.nl/feiten-cijfers/factsheet/kosten-van-verkeersongevallen}. SWOV.
SWOV. (2017, 6). Europees onderzoek: automobilist is 10% van de rit afgeleid. Den Haag. Retrieved
from https://www.swov.nl/nieuws/
europees-onderzoek-automobilist-10 -van-de-rit-afgeleid-1
A
Interview questions
Technology and driving behavior]Questions about the driver and his view on technology and driving behavior.
1. What is your opinion about all the technology that is available in your truck in general (not specifically Route42 technology)?
2. What mobile devices do you use at work?
3. What is the operating system on your mobile phone? 4. What is your opinion about (safe) driving behavior? Is
this an important subject to you?
5. Do you think that technology could contribute to (safe) driving behavior?
6. Do you often think about your own (safe) driving be-havior?
7. Would you like to receive reminders about your current (safe) driving behavior?
8. Would you like to receive suggestions on how to im-prove your (safe) driving behavior?
9. How would you describe your own (safe) driving be-havior?
(a) Is this the same as what others think or tell about you?
10. Do you think that the opinion of a colleague could have a great influence on your (safe) driving behavior? 11. Do you value what your colleagues think about your
(safe) driving behavior or does it not concern you at all?
12. What are (in your view) the ideal traits of (safe) driving behavior?
13. Would you like to improve your (safe) driving behav-ior via measurable characteristics, such as: braking, rolling out, shocking and more? Or do you rather want to make big improvements?
14. Would you like to set goals for each characteristic? 15. What is according to you the best way to improve your
(safe) driving behavior?
16. What are your needs in improving your (safe) driving behavior?
17. What are your biggest challenges while improving your (safe) driving behavior?
18. What are your frustrations while improving your (safe) driving behavior?
19. Would you like to get coached in trying to improve your (safe) driving behavior?
20. Does it matter if you are being coached via a machine or a human?
21. At what moment of the day does coaching suit you the best?
22. Do you think appreciation on your (safe) driving be-havior would encourage you to pursue (safe) driving behavior even more?
23. What kind of appreciation would you like to receive in physical form?
24. What kind of appraisal and from whom would you want to receive this appraisal?
25. What do you know about the (safe) driving behavior of your colleagues?
26. Do you think your colleagues see (safe) driving behav-ior as something important?
27. What if you could compare the (safe) driving behav-ior performance to your colleagues. Do you think this would influence your own (safe) driving behavior? 28. Would you like to learn from your colleagues? 29. Would you like to work together with your colleagues
to achieve (safer) driving behavior for the entire com-pany?
30. What do you think about competition between your colleagues?
31. What would you think if your (safe) driving behavior would be expressed in one grade? So a combination of all the characteristics of your (safe) driving behavior. 32. Would you like to receive feedback on your (safe)
driv-ing behavior through audio? For example in the cabin itself?
33. Would you like to use voice commands to utilize cer-tain features of the truck, such as cruise control? 34. Would you like to be able to give an explanation on
your registered driving behavior?
Questions about the current system of Route42
35. How do you generally look at the system of Route42? Think about the installed device and all the other hard-ware installed in your truck’s dashboard?
36. Do you currently make use of the online web applica-tion to look at your own (safe) driving behavior? 37. Do you see the online web application as something
positive?
38. Is the online web application easy to access?
39. Do you see the online web application as something trustworthy?
40. Does the information of the online application meet your requirements and expectations?
41. What would you want to see different in the online web application?
42. Do you use the (safe) driving behavior application, alone or with your fleet manager?
43. Is the online web application easy to use?
44. Is the online web application easy to learn, or did you had to invest a lot of time looking into it?
45. Did you set goals in the application?
46. Do you receive enough help from within the applica-tion to reach your goals?
47. Is it easy to track your progress and performances? 48. Do you think that the provided driving behavior data is
a real reflection of your driving behavior?
49. Do you often receive tips from your fleet manager through the application?
50. Does the application facilitate collaboration between colleagues?
51. Does the application make it possible to compare your-self to your colleagues?
52. Does the application make it possible to learn from col-leagues?
53. Is there anything you would like to see different about the current application?
B
Driver
demographics
of
semi-structured interviews
Table 1: Driver demographics
Id Testing Years working at company
Years working
in sector Age Gender Activities
Login sessions in online web application Route42
OS on phone
1 Yes 11 27 45 M Pallet distribution 61 iOS
2 Yes 6 28 47 M Finely divided
distribution 0 Android
3 Yes 2 25 47 M Pallet distribution 77 iOS
4 No 2 16 44 M
Construction market & Supermarket distribution
1 Android
5 Yes 9 20 42 M Distribution 20 iOS
6 Yes 0.333333 13 35 M Distribution 0 iOS
7 Yes 10 10 32 M Distribution 0 Android
C
Notes
C.1
Observation 1
Driver works 17 years at the company. All of his working life he worked as a truck driver. The driver has no problems with the technology that is installed in his truck. Although he wouldn’t recommend the eye tracker to anyone because he thinks its really invading his privacy. He recommends to show how the eye-tracker works in a way that novices will understand it. Driver works in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. The driver is using the online web applica-tion from Route42 on his iPad. And he comments that he sometimes can’t see where he has driven (no GPS coordi-nates). He is using the application at home to browse his driving events. He doesn’t check it during working hours. The driver doesn’t have a dashcam or eye-tracker in his cab. He doesn’t wear his seatbelt because he has to get out of the truck really often. And because he is quite tall, he has to lean towards the window to look through it. He knows it is wrong and what the consequences could be. Drivers have to pay their own fines. The driver is using two naviga-tional systems to get the most accurate location information. His TomTom gets more updates than the company’s board computer. The driver was sometimes complaining that his brakes were too sensitive. He drives in a Scania P250 (which is not one of the biggest trucks). He mentions that some-times; the drivers discuss their driving behavior while hav-ing a break. The driver has to deliver pallets and is followhav-ing a paper timetable. He only gets three minutes to unload his goods.
C.2
Observation 2
The driver has got an eye-tracker but doesn’t use it. He de-liberately turns the eye-tracker away from his face. The rea-son he gives, is because of privacy concerns. The driver has no problem with the rest of the system of Route42 (the dash-cam and the online web application). The driver uses the online web application to see his driving events. He con-sidered himself to be a good driver, but now he comes to the conclusion that there are points of improvement he didn’t see before. The driver always has his seatbelt on. The driver argues that a high workload has got a big influence on his driving behavior. But also his emotions and mood could have an impact. But because driving better has become an automatism, he states that his mood doesn’t influence his driving behavior anymore. The driving behavior data is giv-ing him a calm feelgiv-ing instead of stress. He further explains that the use of a TomTom as a navigational device works bet-ter than the navigation on the board-compubet-ter. Also because the location on the windshield is better positioned. He fur-ther explains that, due to the driving behavior data, he gets the feeling of competition, although he can’t see the data of
other drivers. He gets in competition with himself and this works as a trigger of driving better and thus more safe. The driver has worked for two years at his current company. Be-cause of the available driving behavior data, he is now better anticipating on situations that may occur while driving.
C.3
Unstructured informal interview
*Competitors name*, seems to be a big competitor of Route42. This concurrent already works together with the big trucking brandnames. They offer tools for hour report-ing, planning and in the future; driver reports. Personally this manager doesn’t like the system of the competitor, but adds that there basically isn’t any other all in one system like that available. It’s basically like Microsoft Office, it works horrendous but there is no alternative which contains all those functions. The fleet manager also argues that the eye-tracker needs to be different. It needs to be smaller, with a tripod or something else. The manager also men-tions that the eye-tracker looks the same as the dashcam, and this brings confusion. The manager thinks the system of Route42 is better than the competitors, because it is pos-sible to aggregate the data on certain levels, which gives unexpected insights. He also mentions that the design of the competitors is not that beautiful. It’s a static PDF sheet with which you can’t compare. He further mentions that it is unique to filter only on certain drivers. Other systems from DAF or Mercedes only look at the data per truck. But there, it becomes difficult to see which driver was driving the truck. Also the dashcam that is connected to the web is something that is unique. The eye-tracker should also be unique but doesn’t work right now. He recommends that us-ing sounds might work. The manager further more likes to see grades for driving behaviour, but he does comment that a grade doesn’t say anything about safe driving behaviour as in his view; you might have a more aggressive driving style but still drive safe (that you still have an overview). Also dif-ferences in long-distance trips and trips in the built-up area could make an impact on a grade. Rewards for good driv-ing behaviour are in his eye tricky. Because not everyone uses the system of Route42. Also magazine workers would be left out. He also made a comment about the system of Route42; it is only passive in collecting data. You can only check your driving behaviour after driving and not during driving. As a fleet manager, he can’t coach all drivers be-cause this costs too much time. The manager further more really believes in Route42 capabilities and thinks their de-signs and interfaces are a lot better than the competition. He recommends to work together with the big brands in the trucking industry to better collect the data and to be more competitive. He suggested to look at the competition too, if Route42 wants to stay in the game.
