以產品服務化的觀點探討自行車租賃系統 ----以高雄市C-bike 為例

全文

(1)國立高雄大學亞太工商管理學系碩士班碩士論文. 以產品服務化的觀點探討自行車租賃系統 ----以高雄市 C-bike 為例 Using Product Service System in the Study of Bike Sharing System ---- A Case of Kaohsiung City Public Bike (C-bike). 研究生:周宜欣撰指導教授:李亭林博士葉惠娟博士. 中華民國九十九年六月.

(2) 以產品服務化的觀點探討自行車租賃系統 ----以高雄市 C-bike 為例指導教授:李亭林博士、葉惠娟博士高雄大學亞太工商管理所. 學生:周宜欣國立高雄大學亞太工商管理所. 摘要在全球暖化與油價高漲的議題下，世界各大城市逐步發展環保、節能減碳的綠色交通，以達到永續發展與降低汙染。高雄市為了順應快速的城市化，完成了一個完整的高雄市自行車共享系統的交通網絡。因此，本文的目的旨在探討高雄市公共自行車(C-bike) 如何提供了一個高品質且便利的服務給消費者。本研究的個案為高雄市公共自行車 (C-bike)。研究方法為調查法，本研究將首先進行建構公共自行車(C-bike)的服務品質量表，以產品服務化的三個服務構面:產品導向、使用導向和結果導向來衡量。研究對象為 297 位有使用高雄市公共自行車(C-bike)經驗的消費者。問卷的量性分析方法包括重要績效矩陣分析和品質屋，以指出顧客認知重要性和實質滿意度的落差。研究結果顯示，在認知重要度與實質滿意度中，仍有很大的差距。前三項顧客最關心也最重視的項目為 (1) 公共自行車操作系統的故障率 (2) 公共自行車的收費標準 (3)自行車騎乘的舒適度。總結而言，此研究希望能了解顧客真正的需求與心聲，並找出前 10 個消費者最關心於問題中心，其相關的服務解決方法包括客服人員教育訓練（SOP）、行銷與推廣和投訴管道多元化，同時也可藉此進一步了解消費者對公共自行車的服務品質看法，並可以幫助高雄市公共自行車(C-bike)做出有用的策略定位。. 關鍵字:產品服務化、公共自行車租賃系統、服務品質、品質機能展開、品質屋、重要度-績效矩陣分析 I.

(3) Using Product Service System in the Study of Bike Sharing System ---- A Case of Kaohsiung City Public Bike (C-bike) Advisor(s): Dr. Ting-Lin Lee Dr. Huey-Jiuan Yeh Institute of Asia Pacific Industrial and Business Management National University of Kaohsiung Student: Yi-Hsin Chou Institute of Asia Pacific Industrial and Business Management National University of Kaohsiung. ABSTRACT On the subject of global warming, each city of the world develops environmental protection which is the energy conservation to reduce the carbon to march towards the long-term objective of sustainable development. Complying with the fast urbanization of Kaohsiung City, the whole network of the Kaohsiung Bike Sharing System is about to be finished. Therefore, the aim of this article attempts to explore how and what extent the Kaohsiung Public Bike provides a quality and effective service to the passengers. Kaohsiung public Bike was chosen as the case study. This research involved a survey, firstly this study will be conducted to measure the public bike service quality from product orientated, use orientate and result orientated by using product service system. 297 users who has experienced in C-bike participated in the study. They quantitative analysis of the questionnaires was conducted through IPA and QFD in order to indicate the difference between importance and satisfaction of customers. Result of this study showed there are still has a big gap between the cognitive importance and real satisfaction of customers. The top three real voices/needs of customers are more centered on the issues is (1) the public bike operating system failure rate (2) The rental price of public bikes. (3) People feel uncomfortable when riding the bikes. To conclude, this study may be of importance in explaining top ten real voices/needs of customers are more centered on the issues of services which include Service Staff Education and Training (SOP), Marketing and Promotion, and A Diverse Pipeline for of Complaints, as well as in providing C-bike with a better understanding of how public bike's service quality about C-bike relate to their strategy use. Keywords: Product Service System, Public Bike Sharing System, Service Quality, Quality Function Deployment (QFD), House of quality (HOQ), Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) II.

(4) 致謝痛苦會過去，美會留下，兩年的研究所生涯即將畫下完美句點！研究論文得以付梓，首先感謝指導教授李亭林、葉惠娟博士的細心指導，並且給予我極大的思考空間與彈性，不斷的腦力激盪和答辯，使我獲益良多。口試期間，承吳建興院長與孫雅彥教授，提供許多精闢的建議與意見，非常寶貴，不僅增添本論文的內涵，且使本研究更臻務實與完善。感謝盧昆宏、莊寶鵰教授總在我為研究方法迷航時，幫我點燃一盞明燈。除此之外，論文寫作過程中，承高雄市政府環境保護局技士周日新先生與統立開發專案管理王鈺婷小姐不吝指導，和統立開發、水靈科技、樂謙科技的同仁們大力協助，提供寶貴的資訊與幫助，使得本研究更為順利。兩年的碩士生活，秉持著要當個快樂讀書人的我，也許途中有那麼丁點不近人意，幸好我有一群姐妹淘，感謝詩蓉、小新、小逸、惠鳳、小趴、晨誼、小拼的照顧與貼心傾聽，以及小Q、沅彬、聖新、光明、梓詠、振育、剛誌這兩年屬於我們15個人的故事，不論喜怒哀樂，都將是我最彌足珍貴的回憶。嶄新的未來，祝福各位都有美好的發展！感謝學弟妹聖權、淑涓、郁倫、阿源、莉媖姐、捷允、建台、勇恩、維尼的幫忙和問卷發放，祝福可愛又貼心的你們，未來都能順心又如意。感謝頻頻詢問我論文進度的好姐妹阿娥、娣鈴、小蔡、mini的大家、遠在台北的福爸比和歐熊先生，陪伴我走過忙碌又焦慮的研究生涯，人生的旅途一直有你們的陪伴，是老天爺給我最大的恩賜。最後，感謝始終給我最大支持和陪伴的家人，要不是欣媽的犧牲與奉獻，我沒有辦法這麼安逸地當個學生，今天這份小小的榮耀都將歸屬於你們。面對未來全新的生活與挑戰，我會更用心的經營，一定不讓你們失望。我相信苦日子會過去，而光明燦爛的未來正等著我們這充滿歡笑的一家子。. 周宜欣謹誌於國立高雄大學民國九十九年六月 III.

(5) Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ I. 摘要. ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................II ............................................................................................................................. III. 致謝. Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... IV List of Tables .........................................................................................................................VII List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ IX Chapter. 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................1. 1.1. Research Background .............................................................................................1. 1.2. Research Motivation...............................................................................................2. 1.3. Research Objectives and Research Questions ........................................................4. 1.4. Research Procedures...............................................................................................5. Chapter 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2. Literature Review ...........................................................................................7. Product Service System..........................................................................................7 2.1.1. The Definition of PSS ................................................................................9. 2.1.2. Characteristics of PSS ..............................................................................10. 2.1.3. Types of PSS............................................................................................. 11. 2.1.4. Environmental Benefits of PSS ................................................................16. Bicycle Sharing System........................................................................................19 2.2.1. The Concept of Bicycle Sharing System..................................................19. 2.2.2. The History of Bike Sharing System........................................................20. 2.2.3. The Development of Bike Sharing System ..............................................25. 2.2.4. Bike Sharing System in Taiwan ...............................................................30. Service Quality .....................................................................................................36 2.3.1. The Definition of Service Quality ............................................................36 IV.

(6) 2.4. Chapter. 2.3.2. The Measure of Service Quality Model ...................................................38. 2.3.3. Customer Satisfaction...............................................................................42. Quality Function Deployment ..............................................................................42 2.4.1. The Introduction of Quality Function Deployment (QFD) ......................42. 2.4.2. The Process of QFD .................................................................................43. 2.4.3. The QFD Method .....................................................................................45. 3. Research Methodology .................................................................................50. 3.1. Research Structure................................................................................................50. 3.2. Operational Definition of Variables and Measurement ........................................51. 3.3. Sampling and Data Collection..............................................................................52. 3.4. Questionnaire Design ...........................................................................................53. 3.5. QFD ......................................................................................................................54. Chapter. 3.5.1. Customer Requirements (Voice of the Customer) ...................................55. 3.5.2. Technical Descriptors (Voice of the Engineer) ........................................55. 3.5.3. Relation matrix (RM) ...............................................................................56. 3.5.4. Factor Weights..........................................................................................56. 3.5.5. Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) .................................................59. 4. Findings and Results ....................................................................................61. 4.1. Description of Demography .................................................................................61. 4.2. Results of Reliability and Validity .......................................................................62. 4.3. Importance Performance Analysis .......................................................................63. 4.4. House of Quality...................................................................................................72 4.4.1. Customer Attributes (Voice to Customer) ................................................72. 4.4.2. Technical Requirement (Voice to Engineer).............................................79. 4.4.3. Quality Attribute Ranking ........................................................................81. 4.4.4. Relationship Matrix ..................................................................................88 V.

(7) 4.4.5 4.5 Chapter. Technical Assessment ...............................................................................91. Findings ................................................................................................................93 5. Conclusion and Recommendation...............................................................95. 5.1. Conclusion ............................................................................................................95. 5.2. Recommendation..................................................................................................96. 5.3. 5.2.1. Recommendation for practices .................................................................96. 5.2.2. Recommendation for theories...................................................................99. Limitations and Future Research........................................................................100. Reference ............................................................................................................................102 Appendix ............................................................................................................................ 112. VI.

(8) List of Tables Table 2-1: Popular Definitions of a Product Service System .....................................................9 Table 2-2: Possible Reductions in Environmental Impacts Derived From Servicizing ...........16 Table 2-3: Three Generations of Bike Sharing System............................................................22 Table 2-4: The Main Bicycle Sharing System..........................................................................24 Table 2-5: Leasing Process .......................................................................................................32 Table 2-6: Usage Rates (C-bike) ..............................................................................................33 Table 2-7: Usage Rates (YouBike) ...........................................................................................36 Table 2-8: The Definitions of Service Quality .........................................................................37 Table 2-9: Dimensions of SERVQUAL...................................................................................40 Table 2-10: The Revised SERVQUAL Scale...........................................................................40 Table 2-11: The Definitions of Customer Satisfaction.............................................................42 Table 3-1: Sampling .................................................................................................................52 Table 3-2: Survey Attributes ....................................................................................................53 Table 3-3: The List of In depth Interview ................................................................................56 Table 4-1: Descriptive Statistics of Respondents (N=297) ......................................................61 Table 4-2: Reliability Statistics – Variance Analysis................................................................63 Table 4-3: Paired Samples T Test .............................................................................................63 Table 4-4: C-Bike Services of the 1st Quadrant Area ...............................................................69 Table 4-5: C-Bike Services of the 2nd Quadrant Area ..............................................................69 Table 4-6: C-Bike Services of the 3rd Quadrant Area...............................................................70 Table 4-7: C-Bike Services of the 4th Quadrant Area...............................................................71 Table 4-8: KMO and Bartlett’s Test..........................................................................................73 Table 4-9: The Factor Analysis of C-Bike................................................................................73 Table 4-10: Importance Scores of C-Bike ................................................................................76 VII.

(9) Table 4-11: Satisfaction with C-Bike .......................................................................................78 Table 4-12: The List of Experts................................................................................................80 Table 4-13: Data Conversion of Importance and Satisfaction..................................................81 Table 4-14: Attraction Attitude and Difference Index of C-bike..............................................84 Table 4-15: Normalised Weight of Customer Demand of C-bike ............................................86 Table 4-16: Overlap of IPA and QFD ......................................................................................93. VIII.

(10) List of Figures Figure 1-1: Number of Global Bike-sharing Services................................................................2 Figure 1-2: Taiwan's bicycle export volume and unit price (2000~2008)..................................3 Figure 1-3: The Flow Chart of this Research .............................................................................6 Figure 2-1: The Combination of Products And Services............................................................8 Figure 2-2: A Taxonomy of Services ........................................................................................12 Figure 2-3: Main and Subcategories of PSS.............................................................................15 Figure 2-4: Family Tree of Bicycle Program ...........................................................................29 Figure 2-5: Hiring Station Map ................................................................................................31 Figure 2-6: YouBike Google Map ............................................................................................35 Figure 2-7: Service Quality Model...........................................................................................39 Figure 2-8: The Four Phases of QFD .......................................................................................44 Figure 2-9: House of Quality....................................................................................................46 Figure 3-1: Conceptual Research Structure..............................................................................51 Figure 3-2: Importance-Performance Grid ...............................................................................60 Figure 4-1: Importance-Performance Grid (C-bike) ................................................................68 Figure 4-2: The QFD Model.....................................................................................................72 Figure 4-3: Technical Descriptors of C-bike............................................................................80 Figure 4-4: House of Quality (C-bike) .....................................................................................90. IX.

(11) Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Research Background On the subject of global warming, cities around the world are developing environmental protection policies which include energy conservation, to reduce carbon emissions in order to achieve the long-term objective of sustainable development. Over the past few years, a considerable number of studies have been made on environmental protection. Much ink has been spent on city public bikes; the Netherlands and Britain, for example, started metropolis bicycle system plans. Moreover, Germany and France proposed the concept of “Bicycle-Friendly Towns”. On September 22, 1998 France initiated an “In town, without my car” activity, forbidding automobiles in urban centers. Only pedestrians, bicycles, mass transportation and non-polluting transportation vehicles are permitted in this region. This activity has reverberated globally, facilitating non-vehicle days internationally; that’s the reason why the bicycle has becomes the symbol of green transport. Take the “Velib” (short for free bike) for example, program launched in Paris in July 2007 allowing thousands of Parisians and visitors to leave their cars at home and to pedal to work or to shops instead of driving. Some 616,000 users have signed up to be able to pick up bikes at more than 750 points in Paris for daily subscriptions of one euro. The ‘sturdy grey-green bikes’ 1 have become a common sight, with riders ranging from students to business executives weaving through traffic. Number of global bike sharing system is given in Figure 1-1.. 1. Specifically for the Paris bike rental system 1.

(12) Number of Global Bike-sharing Services 180. 160. 160 140 120 92. 100 80. 60. 60 27. 40 20. Public Bike. 43 11. 0 2004. 2005. 2006. 2007. 2008. 2009. Year. Figure 1-1: Number of Global Bike-sharing Services Source: DeMaio, 2009. 1.2 Research Motivation During the past 20 years, Taiwan has become globally renowned for its bicycle industry. In the last 30 years, with the flourishing development of Taiwan’s bicycle industry, the volume of exports has surpassed that of Japan since 1980 and has maintained its status as the biggest bicycle export state around the world. The simple Table 1-2 seeks to highlight the fact that Taiwan has become the world’s leader in bicycle exports.. 2.

(13) Figure 1-2: Taiwan's Bicycle Export Volume and Unit Price (2000~2008) Source: BOFT International Trade Information System Taiwan Bicycle Exports However, in proposing the ‘cycling island’ in 2005, Taiwan has all that one can imagine for enjoyable cycling: mountains, landscapes, rivers, beaches, etc.. Visitors to Taiwan should. have a high level of patience and an open-minded attitude for cycling. Surprisingly, Taiwan has become a place where people can ride bikes to work and have fun in the process. Decades ago, a dedicated cyclist on the island had to battle with taxis, motorcycles, jaywalkers and errant car drivers for a space on congested, smog-choked roads. In the last few years, bike paths have been built along green river banks, and these may soon be linked in a nationwide network. Engagement in the bicycle leisure movement has become the healthiest and most popular outdoor activity at present. In recent years there has been renewed interest in product service systems. A product-service system (PSS), also known as a function-oriented business model, is a business 3.

(14) model developed in academia, which aims to provide sustainability in regard to both consumption and production (Cook et al., 2006). The researches of modern scientists have thrown new light on the subject. According to the research background and motives, this research takes Kaohsiung city’s public bicycle sharing system as the observation object of study, discussing its construction according to the product service system; attention is focused on how the operation of the Taiwan public bike sharing system was realized, in order to offer means of improvement. Many big cities provide bicycle rental and related services in urban districts, to encourage people to ride bicycles instead of taking other transportation. For this reason the bicycle sharing system has already become the trend. This article concludes with implications for theory, research and practice. It is hoped that this brief and necessarily oversimplified survey will encourage people to better understand the development of the bike sharing system as well as its many advantages. In so doing it seeks to contribute to our growing understanding of the interaction between product service system and bike sharing system.. 1.3 Research Objectives and Research Questions The purpose of the research presented in this article is to examine the effect of the public bike in Taiwan. In light of these concerns, this article has three purposes: (a) to provide a definition of product service system; (b) to report on trends in the global bike sharing system services; and (c) to recommend the strategies of C-bike. For one thing, as a beginning, we will examine successful overseas bicycle sharing systems. Taiwan may take one of these as its model. Three points seem to be helpful in attempting to explicate the purpose. The research areas include the following aspects/questions: ¾. To view the similarities and differences between Taiwan and Overseas, for example: Berlin (Germany) as well as Lyon and Paris (France), in order to improve Taiwan’s 4.

(15) public bicycle sharing system ¾. How to plan Taiwan’s public bicycle sharing system and discover which problems need to be resolved and what service operation model to follow. ¾. To explore the reasons for providing the service, the service process and potential benefits. ¾. To determine the stakeholders and define the roles of the service (for example: service providers and customers). ¾. To determine which service which brings the best value for the people. ¾. In promoting Taiwan’s public bicycle sharing system, does the rental method facilitate consumer (resident and tourist) use?. ¾. Do customers accept the new service?. ¾. Do the current facilities match consumers' demands?. 1.4 Research Procedures For these objectives to be achieved, the article is structured as follows. The first section deals with the theoretical foundations for the development of the research. After which research methodology is presented, which full detail of the participants in the research, and of the instrument and procedures used. Results are then presented, with a thorough description of the Taiwan public bike. Finally results are discussed and conclusions are drawn.. 5.

(16) Research Question. Literature Review. Product service system. Taiwan Public Bike. Service Quality. Questionnaire Design and Survey. In-depth Interview. Data Collection and Analysis. Conclusions and Suggestions Figure 1-3: The Flow Chart of this Research Source: This Study. 6. Quality Function Deployment.

(17) Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1 Product Service System A recent surge of research on product service system (PSS) had given us new opportunities and challenges. Product is no longer just products, but more to provide services products. This change in production and consumption practices has been conceptualized by the ‘shift from products to services’ (Cooper and Evans, 2000). Whilst there are some issues concerning nomenclature 2 , research has shown that these new services can be more accurately described as Product Service Systems (PSS) (Cook et al., 2006). The paper in Mont (2002) provides extensive discussions about the applications of the concept of the product-service system. A new trend of product-service systems that minimize environmental impacts of both production and consumption are emerging. The notion of the PSS has its own history that reflects the development about our understanding of the production systems in our society; the society went from focusing on production systems to products. The latest finding was that customers actually buy services instead of products and that the service plays a very important role in customer satisfaction and again in product performance (Mont, 2000). A Product Service system (PSS or product service combination) is a marketable set of products and services, jointly capable of fulfilling a client’s need (Goedkoop et al., 1999). Faced with saturation of their core product markets, companies in search of growth are increasingly turning to provide instead of product services. The initial move to PSS was largely motivated by the need on the part of traditionally oriented manufacturing firms to cope with changing market forces and the recognition that services in combination with products 2 Service is embodied in the utility of material artifacts and services often need material artifacts to enable service delivery. 7.

(18) could provide higher profits than products alone (Sawhney et al., 2004). This view of PSS is similar to other concepts commonly seen in the environmental management literature, such as “servicizing 3 (White et al., 1999; Rothenberg, 2007).” The term for the emergence of this growing class of product-based services, which blurs the distinction between manufacturing and traditional service sector activities, is “servicizing (White et al., 1999).”By “servicizing,” suppliers may change the focus of their business models from selling products to providing services, thereby turning demand for reduced material use into a strategic opportunity (Rothenberg, 2007).. Material Components: Tangible Service Components: Intangible Pure Product. Pure Service. Figure 2-1: The Combination of Products And Services Source: Behrendt et.al, 2003. 3. Servicizing is also called Product Service System. 8.

(19) 2.1.1. The Definition of PSS. Clear definitions are an essential starting point for all research and this has been the case with this literature review. Goedkoop et al. (1999) add further clarity by also defining the key elements of a PSS; namely the following. 1.. Product: A tangible commodity manufactured to be sold. It is capable of ‘falling on your toes’ and. of fulfilling a user’s needs. 2.. Service: An activity (work) done for others with an economic value and often done on a. commercial basis. 3.. System: A collection of elements is including their relations. Several studies (Goedkoop et al., 1999; Cook et al., 2006) have noted that PSS means. that a firm offers a mix of both products and services, in comparison to the traditional focus on products. PSS is a marketable set of products and services, jointly capable of fulfilling a client’s need. By Table 2-1 the meaning of PSS will be clearly shown. Table 2-1: Popular Definitions of a Product Service System Scholar. Goedkoop et al. (1999). Centre for Sustainable Design (2001). Definition of Product Service-System ‘A product service-system is a system of products, services, networks of “players” and supporting infrastructure that continuously strives to be competitive, satisfy customer needs and have a lower environmental impact than traditional business models’. ‘A pre-designed system of products, supporting infrastructure and necessary networks that fulfill a user’s 9.

(20) needs on the market, have a smaller environmental impact than separate product and services with the same function fulfillment and are self learning’. ‘A system of products, services, supporting networks and Mont. infrastructure that is designed to be: Competitive, satisfy. (2001). customer needs and have a lower environmental impact than traditional business models’. ‘An innovation strategy, shifting the business focus from. Manzini and Vezzoli (2003). designing (and selling) physical products only, to designing (and selling) a system of products and services which are jointly capable of fulfilling specific client demands’. ‘A product-service system (PSS) can be defined as. Tukker. consisting of “tangible products and intangible services. (2004). designed and combined so that they jointly are capable of fulfilling specific customer needs”.’ Source: This Study. 2.1.2. Characteristics of PSS. Four main characteristics of PSS can be identified – electronic rather than physical delivery of products; optimizing the use of products; sharing of products; and taking responsibility for product performance (James and Hopkinson, 2002). 1.. Electronic delivery of products For example e-learning, can substitute for transport. One study of the relative impacts of delivering university courses by electronic distance learning as opposed to students and staff travelling to campuses showed a potential reduction of 70-90 per cent in carbon dioxide emissions (Roy et al., 2001). Electronic services can also provide access to digital information which might otherwise have been encoded within a physical container such as a CD-ROM or video (with accompanying package, instructions etc).. 2.. Optimization of product use and longevity 10.

(21) PSS of this kind does not involve radical changes in contractual relationships between producers and customers. Instead it focuses on reducing the environmental impacts of customers by helping their equipment to run more efficiently and effectively. Examples include maintenance and refurbishment services which allow products to be used for longer or to perform better (Heiskanen et al., 2001). 3.. Sharing of products PSS of this kind focuses on increasing the utilization of products through shared use. In some cases this involves mechanisms to encourage product owners to make them available to others – for example, ridesharing schemes such as Lift share match drivers with space to passengers. In others, it involves providing alternatives to private ownership through rental and other mechanisms. Car clubs, for example, own a fleet of vehicles which they make available to members. Perhaps the best known example of this kind of PSS is Paris’s Velib Lease scheme to lease rather than sell bike.. 4.. Taking responsibility for the performance of a product In this type of PSS a provider supplies an on-going solution for a customer. PSS of this kind – sometimes called product results services - typically involves: long-term contracts, based on performance of a specified need; legal responsibility for achieving the specified performance; a detailed understanding of the customer’s business and its needs (often achieved through stationing of the service provider’s staff on the customer’s premises); and involvement in the customer’s internal management processes.. 2.1.3. Types of PSS. White et al., (1999) proposed a framework for Service Classification that has withstood the test of time. At the most elementary level, it is useful to divide services into two major categories. —. material. (i.e.,. product-based) 11. and. non-material.. In. addition,.

(22) material/product-based services can be divided into two parts product extension services and product function services. This paper will focus on material (product-based) services.. Figure 2-2: A Taxonomy of Services Source: White et al., 1999 1.. Non-material services Non-material services are delivered via a supporting infrastructure and goods that remain. in the hands of the service provider. Their value to the customer is totally — or near totally — tied to the information or technology embodied in the transaction. Non-material services 12.

(23) include health care, hair salons, insurance and banking – essentially, the whole range of activities normally associated with the tertiary sector of the economy. Many, such health, lifestyle, and financial services, rely on relatively little material input. Others, such as transport and recreation, may be more material-dependent, but still well short of the material inputs associated with product extension and product utility services described earlier. 2.. Material/product-based services Material/product-based services by contrast, use an established, physical product as the. vehicle, or platform, for delivering services related to the product for customers. (1) Product Extension Services. Product extension services are characterized by customer ownership of the physical good, and thus represent only a minimal departure from a traditional, pure sell-buy arrangement which places full responsibility for the product in the hands of the buyer. Product extension services enhance the utility that ownership of the product delivers to the customer. The most familiar versions of these services include warranties and maintenance agreements. z. Characteristics likely to make products particularly suited for this type of servicizing include: Material difficult to handle and/or requiring regular maintenance and Products requiring extensive networking and/or technological expertise.. (2) Product Function Services. In this category of services, ownership of goods resides as the service provider. Customers have the right to use of the product, but maintenance as well as end-of-life disposition are the responsibility of the service provider. Thus, the customer gains the 13.

(24) function of the product is provided without ownership. Thus, traditional rental or leasing arrangements fall into this category. The case of this study bike sharing system is also one of product function services. z. From the customer’s perspective, the characteristics particularly suited to this kind of servicizing include the following: Product with lifetime greater than average customer use period, Products with low utilization rate and/or heavy infrastructure requirements and Products characterized by rapid obsolescence.. Case study research (Mont, 2002;Tukker, 2004 ;Cook et al., 2006;Williams, 2007) has revealed a spectrum of PSS types which in theory at least may provide opportunities to satisfy demand using significantly fewer resources and reduce the impacts associated with production, use and disposal. Similar examples abound in the literature. As frequently pointed out by Mont (2002), different concepts of product use into the use oriented and results oriented which may provide a common term of reference for studying and designing PSS. In subsequent years numerous studies were carried out on the systematization of PSS. The causes of PSS have been widely investigated (Tukker, 2004). These types of PSS suggest that, in theory at least, PSS provides opportunities to significantly improve resource productivity (Cook et al., 2006). In order to deepen our understanding of PSS type, Baines (2007) has called for further research in PSS. Several scholars from the classification can be clearly found, PSS classification gradually trend line. Three general levels of PSS have been described in the literature to capture its multidimensionality. Tukker (2004) showed that PSS will be divided into three classification, including product orientated, use orientated and result orientated. This study also used the structure of the PSS concept, as the research and design dimensions. A more detailed understanding of this relationship can be gained from Figure 2-3. 14.

(25) Product-service system. Value. Value. mainly. mainly Service content (intangible). in. in. product. service Product content (tangible). content. content. Pure. A: Product. B: Use. C: Result. Pure. Product. oriented. oriented. oriented. service. 1.. Product. 3.. Advice and. 6.. 4.. Product. 7.. sharing 5.. Product. Pay per service unit. renting/. consultancy. Activity management. lease. related 2.. Product. 8.. Function-al result. Pooling. Figure 2-3: Main and Subcategories of PSS Source: Tukker, 2004 This research has identified three classes of PSS (Tukker, 2004): 1.. Product orientated PSS Within this type of PSS, the ownership rights of the material artifact are transferred to. the customer and a service arrangement is provided to ‘ensure the utility’ of the artifact over a given period of time (Cook et al., 2006). 2.. Use orientated PSS: The ownership rights of the material artifact are retained by the service provider in this 15.

(26) configuration and the customer purchases use of the product over a given period of time or units of service, e.g. mobility schemes require fewer cars per kilometer travelled per person (Cook et al., 2006). 3.. Result orientated PSS: While ownership rights of material artifacts are retained by the service provider, similar. to use orientated PSS, the customer purchases utility as an outcome and not the use of a ‘product’ over a given period of time(Cook et al., 2006). However, it is worth noting that the above-mentioned the type of PSS which the classification are fairly consistent across a wide variety of different scholars.. 2.1.4. Environmental Benefits of PSS. Several studies (White et al., 1999; Goedkoop et al., 1999; Meijkamp, 2000; Mont, 2002) have suggested the benefits of design and implementation in PSS. The benefits of servicizing extend beyond customer attraction and retention, which strategy moved the company from focusing on products that were becoming commoditized to a mix of products and services that increased revenue (Rothenberg, 2007). White et al. (1999) provide an excellent review of the methods, factors and findings issues related to reduce the environmental impact. This Table2-2 tells us that the distinction between use and non-use impacts is essential to assessing the lifecycle environmental issues associated with servicizing. Table 2-2: Possible Reductions in Environmental Impacts Derived From Servicizing. Use Impacts. Source of impact reductions. Conditions to achieve reductions. Via product design. Use related environmental costs are internalized, and these costs may be reduced by better design of product. 16.

(27) Via increased turnover. Servicizing drives more rapid turnover of product stock in use combined with progressive efficiency improvements in consecutive model years. z. Via more optimal operation of existing product z (maintenance, training, process efficiency). NonUse Impacts. Via reductions in number or volume of product manufactured (increased durability, larger service capacity, more efficient utilization) Via reductions in the volume of materials mobilized per unit (reclamation activities) Via improved environmental performance of non-use processes. (esp. disposal impacts; reclamation activities). Use-related environmental costs are internalized, and these costs may be reduced by more optimal operation. Where the product is a cost rather than a profit center, and more optimal operation extends product life/reduces product consumed.. The product is a cost rather than a profit center, providing incentives for any of the following: z more durable products z products of a larger service capacity, via the realization of economies of scale z more efficient utilization of products in use. The product has economic value at end-of-life, or where end-of-life costs are internalized — in either case stimulating reclamation activities.. Source: White et al., 1999 James and Hopkinson (2002) also believe that it can radically improve resource productivity by enabling better utilization of products and increasing energy and materials efficiency. The following is PSS can bring positive benefits for the environment. 1.. better utilization of products: Establishing mechanisms for sharing under-utilized products such as cars can reduce the. need for new manufacturing, and its associated environmental impacts. Careful maintenance 17.

(28) or refurbishment can extend the life of products. 2.. increasing energy efficiency: PSS can also reduce day-to-day energy usage through better information and control.. Road congestion, for example, results in stop-start traffic which is energy inefficient. Smart services which provide telematics information to users can avoid or reduce congestion and thereby improve fuel efficiency. 3.. increasing materials efficiency: Substitution of electronic for physical delivery systems – for example, downloading. films rather than storing them on video tape or DVD – can greatly reduce materials requirements.. 18.

(29) 2.2 Bicycle Sharing System 2.2.1. The Concept of Bicycle Sharing System. Bicycle sharing systems (also known as: Community Bicycle program, Yellow Bicycle programs, White Bicycle programs, public bike, City Bike or free bike. There also was 'Green Bike' scheme in Cambridge in 1993) are increasingly popular and diverse systems whereby a number of bicycles are made available for shared use amongst individuals who do not own any of the bicycles. Bicycle sharing system is a new member in the public transportation system. It aims at establishing the rental system in major cities through widely setting the rental spots and payment sensing devices (that take membership card or credit card) by developing the electronic technique, and encouraging citizens to choose using bicycles for transportation with decent pricing. The reasons for implementing bicycle sharing systems are as numerous as the forms they take. Recently and most notably, municipal governments have promoted systems as part of intermodal transportation, allowing people to shift easily from transit to bicycle and back again. As oil pricing increases, it also encourages people to use bicycles for short-distance trip, and furthermore, the public biking system also helps to reduce air pollution. The transportation scheme covers the city centre, major scenic spots, metro transit routes, as well as the main streets. It functions to combine both the leisure and city views in order to create a roadway system that is beneficial to the health of each citizen and global energy saving. The central concept of many of the systems is free or affordable access to bicycles for city transport in order to reduce the use of automobiles for short trips inside the city thereby diminishing traffic congestion, noise and air-pollution (Kaohsiung city public bike). Bicycle sharing systems is a fleet of bicycles available at a network of unattended 19.

(30) stations for short-term use. The concept has been gaining popularity in recent years with successful programs throughout Europe and which is now expanding rapidly to other parts of the world. Successful bike-sharing programs increase bike mode share and personal mobility, decrease pollution, complement existing transit by better reaching underserved locations in a low-cost manner, and provide customers the added benefit of exercise (DeMaio, 2003).. 2.2.2. The History of Bike Sharing System. Public Bicycles are not a new idea. There have been three generations of bikesharing. systems over the past 45 years (DeMaio 2004). The 1st generation of bikesharing programs began on July 28, 1965 in Amsterdam with the Witte Fietsen or White Bikes. Ordinary bikes, painted white, were provided for public use. Anyone could find a bike, ride it to his or her destination, and leave it for the next user. Things didn’t go as planned as bikes were thrown into the canals or appropriated for private use. The program collapsed within days. The exposure likely was responsible for sparking the interest of others who attempted to implement similar community bike programs around the world (DeMaio 2009). Problems with the ‘first generation’ on-street versions of these initiatives were largely linked to theft or abandonment (in rivers, trees, to other cities etc.) of the standard-spec bicycles, which were made freely available, or with minimal security built into the service. A ‘free bike’ scheme trialed in Cambridge in 2003 is reported to have lost all its 300 bikes on the first day (bikeoff). The concept of bike share evolved from there to what can be considered second generation, e.g. Bike Share “Yellow Bike” program (Toronto), e.g. University of Toronto bike share program, which is more structure in terms of the tracking of bike and memberships. Then in 1991, the second generation of bikesharing program was born in Denmark. But the programs were small, with having 26 bikes at four stations. It wasn’t until 1995, nearly thirty 20.

(31) years after bikesharing was invented that the first largescale, the second generation bike sharing program was launched in Copenhagen as Bycyklen, or City Bikes, with many improvements over the previous generation. The Copenhagen bikes were specially designed for intense utilitarian use with solid rubber tires, wheels with advertising plates, and could be picked up and returned at specific locations throughout the central city with a coin deposit (DeMaio 2009). A full two decades later, Copenhagen’s free bycyklen bike-loan program, begun in 1995, served as the true European catalyst, inspiring several imitators, including Helsinki (2000) and the Danish town Arhus (2005). While more formalized than the previous generation with stations and a nonprofit organization to operate the program, the bikes still experienced theft due to the anonymity of the customer. This gave rise to 3rd generation bikesharing with improved customer tracking (Reid, 2008). The very first of this new breed of bikesharing programs was Bike about in 1996 at Portsmouth University in England. Students could use a magnetic stripe card to rent a bike. This and the following 3rd generation systems were smartened with a variety of technological improvements, including electronically locking racks or bike locks, telecommunication systems, smartcards and fobs, mobile phone access, and onboard computers. Bikesharing grew slowly in the following years with one or two new programs launching annually, such as Rennes, France’s, Vélo à la Carte in 1998, but it wasn’t until 2005 when 3rd generation bikesharing took hold with the launch of Velo’v with 1,500 bikes in Lyon, France by JCDecaux. Amidst this rapid profusion, Lyon’s 2005 contract with JCDecaux for its Vélo’v program was a watershed. Its fleet of 2,000 bikes made it at that time the largest in the world, and attracted unprecedented numbers of users (10 % of the city’s inhabitants are subscribed today). Lyon’s success caught city planners’ attention across Europe. This was the largest 3rd generation bikesharing program to date and its impact was 21.

(32) noticeable. With 15,000 members and bikes being used an average of 6.5 times each day by late 2005, Lyon’s big sister, Paris noticed (Henley 2005). Paris launched its own bikesharing program in 2007, Vélib', with about 7,000 bikes and has expanded to 20,600 bikes since. This massive undertaking and its betterthanexpected success changed the course of bikesharing history and generated enormous interest in this transit mode from around the world. By the end of 2007, the year Vélib’ launched, there were about 60 2nd and 3rd generation programs globally. By the end of 2008, there were about 90 programs (DeMaio 2009). Table 2-3: Three Generations of Bike Sharing System Generation. characteristic. Ⅰ. First generation bike sharing system, like this Dutch program, usually use donated mass-market bicycles, which are then all painted one color in order to stand out from other bikes. There are no specific locations where the bike sharing system must be returned, so one could find one or leave one propped up anywhere on the street. This type of bike sharing program would usually be free to the user. A community group, sometimes with the financial help of the local government, will administer the bike sharing program.. Ⅱ. These bikes were specially designed and could be picked up and returned at specific locations (racks) with a coin deposit (like super market trolleys). This 2nd generation bikes still experience theft due to the anonymity of the user. The second generation of bike sharing system was more reliable than the previous generation. However, even with these improvements, tracking stolen bike sharing system was nearly impossible, as theft is still a big issue for Copenhagen and similar bike sharing programs. The advantage is it simplicity and low cost.. Ⅲ Smart Bikes. The third generation uses high tech solutions including electronically locking racks, or bike locks, chip cards, mobile phones and internet. Al third generation systems 'know' who uses the bikes. This relation with the customer creates options for more advanced pricing schemes and increases the 22.

(33) responsibility of the user. The third generation bike sharing systems, or Smart Bikes, are very similar to the second generation bike sharing system. The main difference between the second and third generation is the tracking of the bike sharing system to prevent theft. Source: DeMaio, 2003 Public bike was originally proposed by two firms’ battle each other for the spoils of this European market: Clear Channel, the largest outdoor advertising corporation in the world, and its leading competitor, the French company JCDecaux 4 . Locked in a perennial contest for municipal advertising contracts, these companies sought to sweeten their respective offers in recent years by bundling them with bike-sharing systems. Their aggressive commercial strategies thus bring about expansion across the systems with cutesy names and brightly painted bicycles. Rennes launched a free bike-share system under contract with Clear Channel in 1998; and when Vienna abandoned its Copenhagen-inspired initiative after it suffered widespread vandalism in only a few weeks of operation in 2000, the city awarded JCDecaux a concession for its Citybike bike-rental program. In Norway, Clear Channel concluded contracts for rental systems with four cities in 2001 and 2002 (Trondheim, Drammen, Bergen and Oslo), JCDecaux signed with Porsgrunn in 2003, and Sandnes has run its own since 2001. Amidst this rapid profusion, Lyon’s 2005 contract with JCDecaux for its Vélo’v program was a watershed. Its fleet of 2,000 bikes made it at that time the largest in the world, and attracted unprecedented numbers of users (10 % of the city’s inhabitants are subscribed today). Lyon’s success caught city planners’ attention across Europe: the following year, JCDecaux installed the Cyclocity system in Brussels and Vél’Hello in Aix-en-Provence, Clear Channel set up Stockholm’s Citybike system, the Spanish city of Burgos put in place its own free BiciBur program.. JCDecaux which prefers to call itself a provider of “urban furniture,” and is best known for the sleek, stylish, coin-operated, self-cleaning public toilet units it maintains on Paris’s streets. 23. 4.

(34) Table 2-4: The Main Bicycle Sharing System Stared Year. City(Country). Name of Program. Operator. 1960. Amsterdam (The Netherlands). White Bike. Promoter:Luud Schimmelpennink. 1974. La Rochelle(France). Yellow Bike. Information not available. late 1995. Copenhagen (Denmark). Bycyklen. Fonden Bycyklen. March 2000. Munich (Germany). Call a Bike. Deutsche Bahn (DB)AG,. June 2000. Helsinki (Finland). Cityräder. Information not available. March 2003. Berlin (Germany). Call a Bike. Deutsche Bahn (DB)AG. June 2003. Vienna (Austria). Citybike. JCDecaux. 2004. London (UK). OYBike. OYBike Systems Ltd.. May 2005. Lyon (France). Vélo'v. Grand Lyon; JCDecaux. April 2006. Stockholm (Sweden). Stockholm City Bikes. Clear Channel Communications. March 2007. Barcelona (Spain). Bicing. Clear Channel Communications. April 2007. Sevilla (Spain). Sevici. JCDecaux; Ayuntamiento de Sevilla (Municipal Government). July 2007. Paris (France). Vélib'. JCDecaux. May 2008. Hangzhou (China). Public Bicycle. Hangzhou Public Transport Corporation. August 2008. Washington, D.C. (United States). SmartBike DC. Clear Channel Communications; District Department of Transportation. October. Changwon. 2008. (South Korea). NUBIJA. Information not available. December 2008. Milan (Italy). BikeMi. Clear Channel Communications. 24.

(35) March 2009. Kaohsiung (Taiwan). C-bike. Environmental Protection Bureau, Kaohsiung City Government; Tung Li Development Ltd; MERIDA. March 2009. Taipei (Taiwan). YouBike. GIANT. May 2009. Montreal (Canada). Bixi. Stationnement de Montréal. Source: This study. 2.2.3. The Development of Bike Sharing System. A review of the literature indicates that bike sharing system studies have been conducted with program from a variety provider. DeMaio (2009) observed that the relationship models of provision. Bike sharing providers have included governments, quasi governmental transport agencies, universities, nonprofits, advertising companies, and forprofits. In his recent survey on bike sharing, DeMaio has taken some important steps in this direction. 1.. Governments In the government model, the locality operates the bikesharing service as it would be. any other transit service. In some cases, the government gives new life to abandoned bikes which it has collected on the streets, by refurbishing them and replacing them on the streets with a public purpose, as was done with Cambridge, England’s 1st generation Green Bike program (Jonas et al. 2003). Additionally, the government can operate an offtheshelf bike sharing system as was done in Burgos, Spain with Bicibur. With this model, the government has greater control over the program as the operator. On the other hand, it may not have the experience that existing bikesharing operators have in managing a program. Also, the government maintains the liability for the program. 2.. Quasigovernmental transport agencies 25.

(36) The transport agency model has a quasigovernmental organization providing the service. The transport agency’s customer is a jurisdiction, region, or nation. Transport agencies, such as Deutsche Bahn of Germany and Stationnement de Montréal are prime examples. Deutsche Bahn is the national railway provider of Germany and has a carsharing and its Call a Bike bikesharing service, to name a few of its offerings. Stationnement de Montréal, the parking authority of Montréal, provides “management of municipal paid onstreet and offstreet parking” and, its Bixi bikesharing service. Both organizations have gotten into bikesharing as an extension of their other transport offerings to be a wellrounded mobility provider. 3.. Universities The university model has the educational institution providing the service, most likely in. a campus setting. Examples are the former program at the University of Portsmouth, England and newer incarnations such as that of St. Xavier University in Chicago, U.S.A. (DeMaio, 2008). The benefit of this model is the university can expand its intracampus transit service without relying on the jurisdiction to offer sufficient bikesharing service on campus. A detriment is the surrounding jurisdiction potentially would not benefit from the service, unless it was opened to the adjacent neighborhoods. Also, if the locality were to use another system, there could be compatibility issues with the university’s system. 4.. Nonprofit organization The nonprofit model has an organization which was either expressly created for the. operation of the service or one that folds the bikesharing service into its existing mandate. Examples of nonprofit programs include the City Bike Foundation of Copenhagen in Denmark which operates Bycyklen and the City of Lakes Nordic Ski Foundation which will operate the future Nice Ride program in Minneapolis, U.S.A. While the nonprofit operates the program, they usually receive funding from the jurisdiction for the service they provide to 26.

(37) the public in addition to collecting the revenues generated by membership and usage fees, and sponsorships (Dossett et al., 2008). The nonprofit model benefits the locality as it removes liability from them and places it on the nonprofit which has limited funding and is less likely to have a lawsuit filed against it. A detriment of this model is the nonprofit can be reliant on the public sector for a majority of its funding. 5.. Advertising companies With the advertising company model, companies such as JCDecaux, Clear Channel. Outdoor, and Cemusa offer a bikesharing program to a jurisdiction, usually in exchange for the right to use public space to display revenuegenerating advertisements on billboards, bus shelters, and kiosks. The benefit of this model is it can be a convenient and costeffective way for local governments, who couldn’t afford to provide the bikesharing service otherwise, to be able to do so. To date, this model has been the most prolific. A detriment with the advertising company model is the problem with moral hazard. The advertising company usually does not benefit from revenues generated by the system as the jurisdiction does, so the advertising company does not have the same incentive to keep the bikes maintained as the jurisdiction would if it were operating the system. In fact, the better the advertising company has the bikes maintained, the more it would cost them, and the less profit they would keep from the advertising contract. This model is more similar to the transport provider model as the contractor happens to be an advertising company but its advertising services are not used. 6.. Profit program The forprofit model has a private sector company providing the service with limited or. no government involvement. Nextbike is a prime example of this model with a local business running the service in a locality with the offtheshelf flexible station bikesharing system 27.

(38) offered by nextbike. While similar to the advertising company model, this model differs as there is no onstreet advertising contract with the locality and the forprofit keeps revenues generated. A benefit of this model is that the private sector can start a service as an entrepreneurial activity rather than wait for the public sector to do so. A detriment is that the forprofit may not receive funding assistance for the service as programs offered under other models do. Additionally, if the forprofit uses a fixed, versus flexible, system, they would need to have the locality’s support to use public space, unless all stations are on private property. There is no ideal model at the present. Each has its specific niche which works in the various local environments where bikesharing systems are active. The remaining bike rental and private bike programs classified in Figure 2-5 are for clarification purposes as the concept of bikesharing is defined by the industry.. 28.

(39) Type & Characteristic. Provider. Example & Generation. Figure 2-4: Family Tree of Bicycle Program Source: DeMaio, 2009 29.

(40) 2.2.4. Bike Sharing System in Taiwan. Cycling is now very popular around the world and has become the symbol of an advanced, civilized and environmentally friendly city. Thanks to the strong support of local bicycle makers and the movie “Island Etude”, the cycling population in Taiwan has grown significantly among all age groups. It has seen the launch of two bike-sharing programs in Taiwan - the first in the southern port town of Kaohsiung City, called C-bike, and the second in Taipei, called YouBike. 1.. C-bike(Kaohsiung) (1) Origin In Kaohsiung, the system has been constructed on a build- operate-transfer (BOT) basis at a cost of NT$90 million ($2.58 million). Some NT$15 million ($444,000) was put up by both the EPA's air pollution control fund and the city government, and another NT$60 million ($1.77 million) came from the central government's economic stimulus package. Tung Li Development Co. has been commissioned by the government to operate the system over the next five years. The main management teams are as follows: There are Tung Li Development Co, MERIDA, VSprite Technology Corporation and Other Manufacturers. (2) Hiring Information A.. Hiring Station Locator There are 50 auto-rental stations now. The hiring locator is the following Figure2-5.. 30.

(41) Figure 2-5: Hiring Station Map. 31.

(42) Public bike rental station for equipment and personnel management style can be classified as automatic rental station, staff-assisted station, authorized stores and the temporary stations. The bikes of the bike sharing system are provided by the Merida. The main scope of services currently has 20 sites for the MRT station: Red and Orange Line of station which are north from the Ecological District station, South to Kaisyuan station, west from the National Sun Yat-sen University station, and east to the Martial Arts Stadium station. Others such as Love River along the route, seaports and other public places such as along a total of 50 sites, a phased establishment of living area and the road network to cover the scope of services up to plans to more than 90% of the area. B.. Leasing Process Table 2-5: Leasing Process Hire a bike. Return a bike. 1. Please place the bicycle back in any 1. Select the bike you wish to hire and C-bike stations. Please the bicycle onto its remember number on bike rack. stand. 2. The stand will beep and flash green 2. Insert membership card or credit card light to indicate that the bicycle has been into kiosk. locked. 3.. Follow the instruction on the monitor.. 3. Insert member card or credit card into kiosk.. 4. Remove your card and press the red button. 5. When removing the bike, please push 4. the bike forward and then pull back to get the bike.. 32. Check on transaction fees..

(43) C.. Membership Rates Table 2-6: Usage Rates (C-bike). Rates. Payment. Lease Rates. Annual NT＄1200. 6 Months NT＄750. Month NT＄200. 1.Cash 2.Credit card 3.Transfer from the post office 4.ATM transfer 5.Authorized stores Free for the first half hour and NT$ 10 every half hour. Lease Maximum. Non-Member N/A. Credit card or cash. NT$ 30 for the first half hour and then NT$15 per half hour. 12 hours per day and the hour calculation resumed the next day. 2 YouBike (Taipei) (1) Origin To create a better and greener life in Taipei City, the Taipei City Government partnered with GIANT to set up the "YouBike" public commuter bicycle rental system. YouBike uses a completely automated electronic management system to allow bicycles to be rented and returned at any location. It is intended to span the "last mile" in public transportation systems. This will hopefully encourage more people to use public transport and forge a new Taipei commuter culture that is also environmentally friendly and energy saving. (2) Station Information YouBike is the Taipei City Public Commuter Bicycle Rental System. It uses an automated management system to provide a 24-hour multi-site bicycle rental service to encourage the general public to use bicycles for public transport. For the initial trial, 718 33.

(44) parking spaces (359 Parking Meters) and 500 bicycles are provided for rental in Taipei City's Xinyi District. 11 bicycle rental stations will initially be set up along with a YouBike Center to handle membership applications, repairs and logistics. YouBike is intended to serve as an extension to the MRT and bus services to make them more attractive to the general public. This will help reduce the dependence on cars and motorcycles, resulting in environmental and economic benefits. z. Installation: A.. Automated electronic public bicycle rental station: 11 locations. B.. RFID-enabled YouBike parking: 718 spaces. C.. YouBike bicycles: 500 bicycles. D.. YouBike Service Center: 1 location. 34.

(45) YouBike Rental Station. Dedicated bike paths in the Xinyi District. Figure 2-6: YouBike Google Map (3) Membership Types A.. Short-Term Card: Valid for 1 day or 5 days. The first 30 minutes of each session is free then $10 for each additional 15 minutes. $3000 deposit required (authorization only, not actually charged to the credit card bill). Maximum length of each rental session is 24 hours. 35.

(46) B.. Long-Term Card: Valid for 1 month, 6 months or 1 year. The first 30 minutes of each session is free then $10 charged for each additional 15 minutes. Maximum length of each rental session is 24 hours.. (4) Membership Rates Table 2-7: Usage Rates (YouBike) Short-Term Card Rate. Long-Term Card. The first 30 minutes of each session is free then $10 for each additional 15 minutes.. Basic Rate. 1 Day $40 5 Days $150. 1 Month $500 6 Months $1000 1 Year $1500. Mean of Payment. Credit Card. No deposit needed (provide two forms of ID for photocopying). Deposit. NT$3000 (for authorization only, not charge). NT$0. Where to Apply. Information Service Kiosk. Register in person at Service Center. 2.3 Service Quality Around the world began to realize the importance of green transportation, but also embarked on a public bicycle build. Beside the public bike is a part of public transport, the quality of their service is even more important. This study may lead to a better understanding of Service Quality in bike sharing systems.. 2.3.1. The Definition of Service Quality. Customer’s expectation has to be hit by past experience, people’s recommendation and proper advertisement. The business can provide the best of service quality better than its competitor to get the customer’s recognition. The customer would make a future purchase if 36.

(47) the service is much better than what it is expected. This study summarized the scholars’ definitions about service quality in Table 2-8. Table 2-8: The Definitions of Service Quality Scholar. Sasser, Olsen, and Wyckoff (1978). Definition Service quality with the final results of the assessment, but also includes provision of services and characteristics of services. (1) Security (2) Consistency (3) Attitude (4) Completeness (5) Condition (6) Availability (7) Timing. Lewis, and Booms (1983). Gronross(1984, 1990). Zimmerman (1985). Service quality is a measure of the degree to which the service delivered matches customer expectations. Quality of service relies on 3 factors: (1) Functional Quality (2) Technology Quality (3) Corporate Image Conditions of quality for service industries include: (1) Fitness for use, (2) The ability to replicate (3) Timeliness, (4) End-user satisfaction (5) Adherence to pre-established specifications.. Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Service quality is a function of the differences between Berry ( 1985 ,1988) expectation and performance along the quality dimensions.. Juran ( 1986 ). Service quality can meet the customer request. (1) Hardware Quality (2) Software Quality (3) Time Promptness (4) Internal Quality (5) Psychological Quality. Bitner(1990). Service quality is consumer the overall attitude of willingness to serve after servicing. 37.

(48) Anderson, Fornall, and Lehmann ( 1994 ). Service quality is a global evaluation of a firm’s service delivery system. Source: This Study. 2.3.2. The Measure of Service Quality Model. There are many researchers who have defined service quality in different ways. Parasuraman et al., (1985) defined service quality as ‘a function of the differences between expectation and performance along the quality dimensions’. In order to show the requirements for delivering high quality service, Parasuraman et al., (1985) developed a conceptual model of service quality. The five gaps described below, shown in Fgure2-7 might result in poor quality.. Gap 1: Gap which difference between Customer expectations and management perceptions. Gap 2: Gap which difference between management perceptions of customer expectations and service quality specifications. Gap 3: Difference between service quality specifications and the service actually delivered. Gap 4: Difference between service delivery and what is communicated about the service to consumers. Gap 5: Gap which difference between consumer expectations and perceptions.. 38.

(49) CONSUMER. Word of Mouth. Personal Needs. Past Experience. Expected Service GAP 5 Perceived Service. GAP 4. PROVIDER GAP 1. Service Delivery (Including pre-and Post-contacts). External Communications to Customers. GAP 3 Translation of Perceptions into Service Quality Specifications GAP 2 Management Perceptions of Consumer Expectations. Figure 2-7: Service Quality Model Source: Parasuraman et al., 1985 The SERVQUAL (Service Quality) by Parasuraman et al. (1985), was developed and evolved into a better measurement instrument with the original 22-item and was well represented one of the most widely used operations in the field of service quality. With the 10 originally distinguished dimensions, in 1988, they recast the analysis and 39.

(50) reduced the number of components to five shown as Table 2-9. Table 2-9: Dimensions of SERVQUAL Original Ten Dimensions. Reduced Five dimensions. Reliability. Reliability. Tangibles. Tangibles. Courtesy Competency. Assurance. Credibility security Responsiveness. Responsiveness. Communication Accessibility. Empathy. Understanding/Knowing the customer Source: Parasuraman et al., 1988. Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry have refined five service quality measurement proposed and developed SERVQUAL Scale by large size empiric to revise the original SERVQUAL Scale and had better reliability and validity in 1991. We list the dimensions comparison in Table 2-10. Table 2-10: The Revised SERVQUAL Scale Service quality measurement aspects. 1.. Tangible: Physical facilities, equipment and appearance of personnel.. 2.. Reliability: Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.. Measured items 1. 2. 3. 4.. This store has modernized equipment. The exterior of this store is appealing. The employees of this store dress neatly and clean look. The facilities of this store matches the service provided.. 5. 6.. The store can meet its promises. This store cordially offers to help and solve problems.. 7. 8.. The service of this store is reliable. This store provides appropriate service during the promised time frame.. 40.

(51) 9.. 3.. Responsiveness: Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service.. 4.. 5.. The transaction records of this store are accurate.. 10. This store notifies the customer while providing service. 11. The employees of this store offer customers appropriate service. 12. The employees of this store are always willing to assist customers. 13. The employees would not be able to offer the appropriate service to customers if they are too busy.. 14. Customers can trust the employees of this store. Assurance: 15. Customers feel security while contacting Knowledge and courtesy of employees the employees of this store. and their ability to inspire trust and 16. The employees of this store are polite. confidence. 17. This store provides proper assistance to its employees for better performance.. Empathy: Caring, individualized attention the firm provides its customers.. 18. This store offers personalized service to customers. 19. The employees of this store offer individual care to customers. 20. The employees of this store understand the needs of customers. 21. This store regards the maximum benefit of customers. 22. The operation hours of this store provides convenience to customers.. Source: Parasuraman et al., 1991 Despite criticisms of the general applicability of the perceived service quality model (SERVQUAL instrument) by Cronin and Taylor (1994), this instrument is a concise multiple-item scale with good reliability (Lewis and Mitchell, 1990) and has been widely accepted as a valid instrument (Fisk et al., 1993; Carman, 1990) in the measurement of service quality. At the same time, most literatures of the discussion and appliance of service quality mainly base on SERVQUAL Scale. Thus, we will design the questionnaire base on the 41.