Background
Zeabuz is one of the established spin-offs from NTNU’s Digital Transformation. With the help of a leading international firm, they have developed and integrated autonomous systems for the ferries. As of now, they have designed two prototypes, MilliAmpere and MilliAmpere2. MilliAmper2 is a full-scale prototype and will have its trial run during our project face. Zeabuz will design and launch its first ferry system in 2023 and together with Torghatten, the ferries will be operational for passengers during the summer of 2023, in Stockholm.
Our task was to map out the responsibilities that Zeabuz and Torghatten will have, since this is an important aspect of their collaboration. Using Autonomy-as-a-Service (AaaS) is becoming increasingly more popular and is an important part of today’s technological development. It demands a different business model and delivery process. This project resulted in a B2B approach to the issue.
My role
Scope
Business design was new to all team members, so we everyone wanted to take part in every single process. I had a big role in analysing our findings and turn them into tangible information. I was responsible for the BMC and Service Blueprint.
Business Design, Strategic Design, Workshops, B2B, Service Blueprint
Team members
Tools
Birk Paulsen, Mathias Ek, Rebecca Jahns & Vårild Engmark Øyulvstad
Figma, Procreate
A collaborative approach to autonomy-as-a-service
In our project, we have worked with two different companies, and our main priority has been the relation between Zeabuz and Torghatten, not the end users of the autonomy service. Understanding the distinction between B2B and B2C regarding service design has played a major part in this project, and to understand which service design methods that are applicable to our case of study. To do this we had to get a broader understanding of both companies involved. In addition to selecting the correct methods, we have also customised the methods to fit B2B, and the project has been a mix between service design and business design.
We started by understanding our case
In the first phase of the project, we focused on gathering insight through reading articles, and interacting and observing relevant stakeholders in relation to the service. It also consisted of understanding Zeabuz as a company, learning about their technology, gathering insight about Torghatten and their customer base, as well as understanding our own role in this project. During this phase we tried to gather as much insight as possible, trough speaking with passengers during test trial, representatives from both Zeabuz and Torghatten and other relevant stakeholders.
We discovered we needed to consider the different phases of the project
Zeabuz's project is divided into three phases that are defined by how removed the safety operator is from the ferry. The project was in its first phase, where the safety operator is on board the ferry. As the project progresses, the distance between the ferry itself and the operator will increase, and eventually operators will have control over several ferries in remote operator centres.
Based on feedback from Zeabuz and Torghatten, we decided to focus our project and solution around the first two phases. Taking into consideration that it will take many years before the project reaches phase three, and changes might happen to the project, creating a solution for the two upcoming phases made much more sense.
Based on feedback from Zeabuz and Torghatten, we decided to focus our project and solution around the first two phases. Taking into consideration that it will take many years before the project reaches phase three, and changes might happen to the project, creating a solution for the two upcoming phases made much more sense.
...and framed our challenge
During our initial phase, we discovered how Zeabuz works and the different parts of the service that they want to provide to Torghatten. We decided on which parts of the project phases we wanted to focus on together with Zeabuz. The next step was to focus on how they are going to sell Autonomy-as-a-Service to Torghatten with both parties’ wishes and needs in mind.
We began by mapping out responsibilities between the two parties through a workshop
We wrote down different actions and areas of responsibilities based on insight we had gained and then conducted two workshops, one day with Zeabuz and one day with Torghatten. We wanted to separate the two workshops, because we wanted to get each company's opinion on different areas of responsibility, without the possibility of the companies influencing each other's answers.
...and constructed a criteria table and a overview of different scenarios
This list shows areas of responsibilities that we chose to analyze based on insight from the discover phase and the co-creative workshops. We found out that Zeabuz (ZB) and Torghatten (TH) agreed on a handful of aspects, but there were also some areas they haven’t discussed yet, as well as one disagreement. We used this criteria table to define areas of responsibilities later on in the project with both companies present.
We developed three different scenarios. The scenarios are differentiated based on the sales model Zeabuz chooses to use, and the distribution of responsibilities presented in the criteria table will change based on the sales model. The three scenarios we have defined are selling only technology, selling autonomy as a holistic service, or using a subscription model where some services are not included in the price.
Each of the scenarios has advantages and disadvantages for both Zeabuz and Torghatten. Our task was to create a solution, together with both companies, that highlights each company's strengths and weaknesses. The three scenarios showcase this, and it's important to discuss this thoroughly with especially Zeabuz moving forward. The choice will define how Zeabuz are going to operate, not only in relation to Torghatten, but also moving forward in future projects. It’s therefore important to establish what kind of company Zeabuz want to be, and what they want to offer their customers.
Each of the scenarios has advantages and disadvantages for both Zeabuz and Torghatten. Our task was to create a solution, together with both companies, that highlights each company's strengths and weaknesses. The three scenarios showcase this, and it's important to discuss this thoroughly with especially Zeabuz moving forward. The choice will define how Zeabuz are going to operate, not only in relation to Torghatten, but also moving forward in future projects. It’s therefore important to establish what kind of company Zeabuz want to be, and what they want to offer their customers.
Our Business model canvas
We used BMC to sketch out and discuss elements of Zeabuz’s business model. We highlighted areas where further decision making is needed from Zeabuz, along with how the different scenarios we have created will affect revenue streams.
Prototyping and feedback
After conducting two separate workshops with each service provider, we mapped out their opinions regarding the criteria and made the three scenarios. We then conducted a co-creative workshop with both service providers present to go through the results and collect feedback. The representatives who took part in this workshop were one person from the upper management at Zeabuz and one from Torghatten.
Firstly, we initiated a discussion on the criteria that were undefined or disagreed upon from the previous workshops. We then went through all the criteria that they initially agreed on to ensure no misunderstandings had occurred. Through discussion, we got more details about each answer and gained a deeper understanding of the issue.
Firstly, we initiated a discussion on the criteria that were undefined or disagreed upon from the previous workshops. We then went through all the criteria that they initially agreed on to ensure no misunderstandings had occurred. Through discussion, we got more details about each answer and gained a deeper understanding of the issue.
Our solution to the challenge - Service Blueprint
We created a service blueprint that showcases the relation and responsibilities between Zeabuz and Torghatten both - not only during operation, but preoperative and under edge case scenarios. The blueprint explains what happens during the different phases, and what each company must do in conjunction with each action.
Based on the co-creative workshop with Zeabuz and Torghatten, we created a solution which encapsulated their preferences. The solution modified version of scenario 3, based on feedback from Zeabuz and Torghatten. Zeabuz wants to deliver a holistic service with the addition of providing extra services, and this fits Torghatten’s needs. This makes Zeabuz a more desirable company for future investors as they deliver more than just technology. From Torghatten’s perspective, this business model keeps them relevant in the autonomous market with contemporary technology that is updated along with software evolution.
Retrospective
The project has been very educational and has given me the opportunity to work as service designers in a relevant real-world case where we could influence how Autonomy-as-a-Service might look like in the future. We started the project with little understanding of what Zeabuz wanted to offer to its future customers, and why the collaboration with Torghatten was so important. There was a lot of information from many different stakeholders, and the process of separating what was important for our project was time-consuming but crucial to get a good understanding of what we as service designers could add to the project.
The project offered a unique challenge, as it gave me the opportunity to focus on both service design and business design. It was challenging to balance the two different design disciplines at times, especially because we had to adapt different service design methods to our project in order to tailor B2C methods to a B2B project.
