A Criteria-Based Evaluation Framework for Assessing Public Transport Related Concepts Resulted from Collective Intelligence Approaches

  • Evangelos Genitsaris
  • Afroditi Stamelou
  • Dimitrios Nalmpantis
  • Aristotelis Naniopoulos
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 879)


Public Transport (PT) is a key factor towards sustainable urban mobility. The increase of its modal share requires the continuous adoption of new innovative and user-centric solutions covering the existing and emerging needs of citizens. Which concepts and ideas should be promoted and financed by priority? The paper aims to present the quantitative evaluation of the innovative PT-related ideas resulted from the collective intelligence processes (crowdsourcing and co-creation) that were applied in the frame of the CIPTEC project (H2020). An online questionnaire survey was addressed to experts in order to evaluate quantitatively twenty selected concepts by rating them, against three distinct assessment criteria: utility, feasibility and innovativeness. The analysis enabled us to understand how the collected rates are varying, in the case of examining the distribution of either each innovation or each criterion individually. As an overall conclusion, it could be claimed that although the outcome of the collective intelligence process might not be always as innovative as it was initially planned, its advantage of being in line with both the PT demand and supply side needs and priorities, ensures its utility and feasibility and subsequently, the increased possibility for its adoption and market uptake.


Public Transport Evaluation Assessment Questionnaire survey Criteria Collective innovation 


  1. 1.
    CIPTEC: D3.5 Evaluation report for the collective intelligence process’s outputs (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Georgiou, S.N.: Synectics: a problem-solving tool for educational leaders. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 8(2), 5–10 (1994). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Terwilliger, J.: The Innovation blog: the “SNIFF” test – criteria for early innovation decision making. Accessed 11 Jan 2018
  4. 4.
    Balm, S., Browne, M., Leonardi, J., Quak, H.: Developing an evaluation framework for innovative urban and interurban freight transport solutions. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 125, 386–397 (2014). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schöllhammer, S.: Idea generation & evaluation: training to Idea Lab staff, iDEAlab Project Meeting Presentation, Sofia, Bulgaria. Accessed 11 Jan 2018
  6. 6.
    Miller, G.A.: The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 63(2), 81–97 (1956). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Babakus, E., Mangold, W.G.: Adapting the SERVQUAL scale to hospital services: an empirical investigation. Health Serv. Res. 26(6), 767–786 (1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Courser, M., Lavrakas, P.J.: Item-nonresponse and the 10-point response scale in telephone surveys. Surv. Pract. 5(4), 1–7 (2012). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nalmpantis, D., Roukouni, A., Genitsaris, E., Stamelou, A., Naniopoulos, A.: Evaluation of innovative ideas for Public Transport proposed by citizens using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). In: Proceedings of the Transport Research Arena 2018, Vienna (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations