Managing Systems Development Term Paper on LEAP Integrated Ticketing System: Course: iBusiness, Innovation Through ICT. Module: Managing Systems Development (MIS 40670) By Darragh Leahy: Student Number: 07313586 David Malone: Student Number: 09188723 Ian Fleming: Student Number: 12250042 Word Count: 5,278 We (Darragh Leahy, David Malone and Ian Fleming) declare that the following document is entirely our own work. 1
42
Embed
Managing Systems Development Term Paper Leap integrated ticketing system
Report examining the development of Dublin's LEAP integrated smart ticketing system.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Managing Systems Development Term Paper on LEAP Integrated
Ticketing System:
Course: iBusiness, Innovation Through ICT.
Module: Managing Systems Development (MIS 40670)
By
Darragh Leahy: Student Number: 07313586
David Malone: Student Number: 09188723
Ian Fleming: Student Number: 12250042
Word Count: 5,278
We (Darragh Leahy, David Malone and Ian Fleming) declare that the following document is
entirely our own work.
1
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Requirements
Initial Problem Statement and Feature List
Desired User Goals
III. Research methods, data, evaluation.
Research Methods
Issues Discovered
IV. Solution: Proposed adapted System
Short-Term (zero-two years)
Medium-Term (two-five years)
Long-Term (five+ years)
Theoretical Future; End Game Goals:
V. Proposal to develop the system:
VI. Summary & Conclusions
VII. References
2
I. Introduction
The high-tech service which we examined was the LEAP Integrated Ticketing system which
public transportation in Dublin relies upon. The system has a complex and intertwined
relationship with its wider environment. LEAP began as a business requirement that came
from a government mandate, as such no general requirements analysis was performed.
There was a political imperative to bring in the system. In 2002, the Minister for Transport,
Mary O’ Rourke, decided she wanted to implement a smart ticketing system.
The Department of Public Enterprise awarded a procurement contract to the Railway
Procurement Agency (RPA) to implement a smart-card transport system in the Greater Dublin
Area. Several technology experts from the Department of Transport were involved in drafting
the mandate for a single smart-card scheme that would work on multiple forms of transport.
All public and transport operators were included in the process. When the requirements
were established the RPA issued contracts to build and operate the system on European
tenders websites. Unfortunately, there were no companies out there that could deliver the
requirements for the tender, so a review report was commissioned and the Government
decided to split the tender into two portions: one tender to build the system and the other
tender to operate the system. IBM won the contract to build the system and Hewlett-Packard
won the contract to operate the system and build the website for the system.
Leap was first launched in 2011 and there have been several versions of LEAP as
management at the NTA have attempted to deliver the majority of original requirements on
a phased basis.
As we couldn’t find figures publicly available, we assume that the original customer size and
market for LEAP was for all public transport users on the Island of Ireland (given the original
requirements for the system were for interoperability with Northern Ireland’s transport
system) however the goal of interoperability was never achieved. This target customer size
decreased over the course of the LEAP project, eventually targeting only users of public
transport in the GDA. The GDA encompasses the Dublin (represented by four local
3
authorities: Dublin city, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, Fingal and South Dublin) and Mid-East
regions (Kildare, Meath and Wicklow).
The most recent figure we could find in a 2011 report on the National Transport Agency’s
website was that 19% of the population of the GDA area used public transport. The
population of the GDA in 2006 was 1.6 million inhabitants, so 19% of this would equate to
304,000 users of public transport. In 2002, the population of the GDA was slightly less at
1.535 million inhabitants, so assuming rates of public transport use in the GDA were slightly
less four years previously (let’s say 18%); we believe the target market size for LEAP
services could be estimated at 276,300 people.
The system is currently used by users of buses in the GDA, including Dublin Bus and Bus
Eireann. LEAP is used by train users, DART and Iarnrod Eireann’s other services. It’s also
used by LUAS users and operates on all Veolia Transdev’s services.
II. Requirements
Initial Problem Statement and Feature List
Following the development of the governmental mandate, several technology experts from
the Department of Transport were involved in drafting the design for a single smart-card
scheme that would work on multiple forms of transport. All public and transport operators
were included in the process.
Pre-LEAP:
Users of public transport in the Republic of Ireland were:
· Unfairly forced to pay double/triple their fare prices for transport if they have to
change transport operators during their journey.
· Unfairly forced to pay for transport with no capping system in place for maximum
4
amounts spent per day.
· Subjected to inefficient waiting periods while scrambling for correct change for fare
payment.
· Delayed due to the time taken for other users to pay bus drivers.
· Unable to pay for transport in Northern Ireland without converting Euro into Pounds
Sterling (and vice versa) which has associated fees.
· Republic of Ireland needed an integrated public and private transport system.
When the procurement contract was given to the RPA instead of Dublin Bus, this created a
certain amount of animosity with Dublin Bus because they had been pushing for a scheme
like this for years and the RPA had no expertise in an area like this. The RPA acknowledged
their lack of experience so they hired an independent consultancy firm called Sequoia Smart
Solutions to come up with the original specifications/ requirements for the system in a
document (Mr. T Gaston 2013, pers.comm., 1 November).
Sequoia won the initial tender and a second tender also.
Original features of the LEAP system included:
● An e-purse with which users could make electronic payments for transport as well as
park-and-ride services.
● Multi-operating capping (e.g. you only spend a certain amount per week or per month
on transport before it’s capped).
● Rebate system if taking multiple journeys with different transport operators.
● Inter-operability with transport services in Northern Ireland.
● Ability to hold a variety of different ticket options for bus, rail and LUAS (e.g. monthly
tickets, rambler tickets etc. all on the one LEAP card).
● Would integrate with the Free Travel Scheme.
5
Current LEAP System:
● Has introduced the e-purse system.
● Still being charged double/triple fares for changing operators (although rebate
system to be introduced in March 2014 will change this).
● Still no capping system for maximum fares per day (will also be rolled-out in February
2014).
● No current system in place to accommodate tourists in the City. The price of buying a
LEAP card for €5 is quite expensive considering the tourist may only use the card for
a short period of time.
● Still no inter-operability with transport systems in Northern Ireland.
● Few private transport operators signed up to LEAP system – should include taxis and
a wide variety of private bus operators.
● Users of public transport outside the GDA have no access to the LEAP system and its
associated benefits.
● Users can’t top-up LEAP cards on buses which have no live system capabilities.
● Users still have to stop and converse with bus drivers regarding fares due to
stage-fare system creating delays and also confusion.
● Significant delays of 48 hours after topping-up online before LEAP card is credited.
● Often unaware that you can top-up online.
● Need to visit a LEAP retailer outlet if choosing to top-up online.
● Completely unable to avail of bus transport if they find themselves with no LEAP
credit and have no cash on them.
Not all of these features have been delivered, but the main reasons (according to our
survey) that the LEAP system is beneficial is for convenience reasons (efficiency – saves
time, ease of use, don’t need to carry change or cash) and cost-saving reasons i.e. the
system saves you money, it also stops overspending on transport across multiple providers.
An ongoing failing of the system is the time taken to deliver some of the promised features
(with inter-operability with Northern Ireland never being delivered). This can be seen as
being ‘the nature of the beast’ considering a phased approach to delivery and
6
implementation of certain features was adopted.
The e-purse feature of the project was first released in 2011, with additional features still
being released. There have been several versions of the project with additional features
being rolled out on a phased basis. After the e-purse they delivered a version that allowed
LEAP users to hold and top-up different flavours of tickets on their LEAP card, allowing for
the Rambler style tickets many users are familiar with. In March 2014, they are projected to
roll-out the rebate feature (allowing hop-on/hop-off cost accounted usage) for LEAP as well
as capping of fares at a maximum limit.
Desired User Goals
The desired user goals are:
1. Transport users can use multiple forms of public transport on a single journey without
having to pay the full fare traditionally associated with changing to a new transport provider
mid-journey.
2. Pay for transport without having to carry cash/exact change.
3. Pay a maximum amount for transport in a single day.
4. Save money and time by using a convenient smart ticketing card.
5. Make the user’s life simpler through having various monthly ticketing offers on one card.
III. Research methods, data, evaluation.
Research Methods
We integrated IDEO methods into all out research, using TRY, LOOK, LISTEN & LEARN IDEO
techniques.
7
Actual research took several forms:
● Field Research: Personal use of LEAP from card acquisition to travel.
● Field Research: Observation of LEAP use with general public.
● Field Research: Interviews with the general public observed using the system.
● Phone Interviews with experts: Tim Gaston (Director of Integrated Ticketing Scheme,
National Transport Agency) and Brendan Flynn (Technology Development Manager,
Dublin Bus).
● Quantitative Online Survey.
Our field research attempted to discern the ease of obtaining both a Leap card and Leap
credit. We wanted to test this multiple times to ensure we had covered a wide enough
survey base so as to provide a definitive answer. After visiting several shops around Dublin,
it quickly became apparent that the Leap distribution network is good and it proved very
easy to obtain both the card and credit.
We tested the actual operation of the system, to verify what ‘mistakes’ it took to force an
error. In general we found that the system worked well, not allowing us to tag-on twice in a
row and cause a duplicate charge. However, we did note that if we waited a few minutes, it
did allow us to tag-off at the same stop and charged us for the trip, even though we had not
changed stop. It should be noted that this was attempted on the Luas systems; when
attempted on the Dart, the Dart recognised the user had not travelled any distance and
refunded the full amount. During this time, we took the opportunity to conduct short
interviews with commuters regarding their use and perceptions of the Leap system as well
as shadowing their use of the Leap card machines. This turned up interesting issues
regarding the scan speed in a busy queue.
We finally investigated the top-up systems available, noting that both the Luas and Dart
provided transport side top-up facilities. Dublin Bus was a notable exception, as none of
their buses run a ‘live’ system. Rather, all transactions are recorded off-line and updated at
the end of the day.
Further, we found the online top-up system was subject to a prolonged delay and required a
visit to a local top-up point anyway to redeem the top-up. This is a redundant process.
8
Issues Discovered
Several issues became apparent when studying the LEAP system. The actual use of LEAP
seems to be relatively poor (not necessarily the number of Leap cards in circulation, but
based on our data and what we observed in use). In relation to costs, the public belief
(whether correctly or incorrectly) is that Leap does not save the customer money as well as
some frustration regarding the functionality of the tag-on/tag-off speed, especially during
busy periods. These problems have negatively affected public opinion of the system.
From this we can draw that marketing and brand image is an unaddressed issue for LEAP.
We believe this failing may be partly due to the government mandate rather than business
case that initiated the project. The problem with marketing is that it is expensive but to
alleviate this expense, social media exposure and usage could be enhanced. Facebook,
Twitter, Pinterest and Google plus are used widely by the public and are a valuable channel
to spread the word about LEAP.
Our quantitative survey produced some interesting results. 97 respondents filled in our
online survey, with 33 of these stating they do not use LEAP. The four main reasons for
non-uptake were, in order of importance: don’t use public transport or sparingly use it, lack
of awareness of the system, cost reasons (no perceived benefit) and setup issues.
Of those that did use LEAP, the main advantages in order of importance were: it’s
convenient, cashless, cheaper and user-friendly. Many disadvantages were noted but the
main ones were, lack of flexibility, tag-on/off issues, lack of top-up options, website issues
and poor balance information on readers. 83% of respondents were under 50 years of age.
55% of respondents were female and 45% male, giving a good base of data. Only 13% of
respondents stated they were happy with LEAP website and that it’s user-friendly. This
feature is something that could be addressed with minimal time and expense. Only 13% of
respondents stated they use the website to buy credit, this should be a focal point of activity
and this is letting the current system down.
One critical question we asked was: did users think LEAP was working? 51% of the 67
respondents stated YES, with NO at nearly 10% with the remainder stating Maybe. This was
a surprising finding given the problems that users mentioned in other questions asked, and
9
posed the question of whether these answers were truthful! We have to take them at face
value, but there’s no doubt the perception of users isn't what it should be, with only a little
over half thinking the system is working at present.
Further, from our discussions with Tim Gaston (Director of Integrated Ticketing, NTA) and
Brendan Flynn (Technology Development Manager, Dublin Bus), it became apparent that
stakeholder support from the various transport agencies was an issue until the NTA was
finally established with the power to regulate the agencies and ensure co-operation.
Based on our findings, even following the implementation of Leap, users of public transport
in the GDA are still affected by:
● No capping system for maximum fares per day.
● Being charged double/triple fares for changing operators.
● Few private transport operators signed up to LEAP system i.e. taxis.
● No nationwide deployment of Leap.
● Users can’t top up their LEAP cards on buses which have no live system capabilities.
● Issues with Dublin bus fare system.
● Delays of 48 hours after topping up online.
● Unable to avail of bus transport if they have no LEAP credit and have no coins on
them.
Furthermore, there are a wide variety of different pricing structures in place with the LEAP
system across bus, rail and LUAS. We found the pricing structure for Dublin Bus, to be
complex and at times confusing for users. There is a summary of the different pricing
structures for the various LEAP transport operators in appendix four.
It’s also worth noting that the initial ballpark budget was €30 million in Capex for the LEAP
project. This figure has since increased to €55 million, of which nearly all is spent. Brendan
Flynn explained to us that a cost-benefit analysis was conducted and the cost of €30 million
appeared to justify the LEAP system. Tim Galston from the National Transport Agency
mentioned getting the IBM part of this project completed on budget was a notable, if one of
the only budgeting successes and that this was almost unique in the public sector. €12-13
10
million was the original estimate for the IBM work, and the final price after about 80
variations of the software amounted to €13.5m. While this does not constitute an issue with
the system operating as such, it certainly indicates the complexity as well as the failings in
management aspects of the project. Complexity is fine, as long as there is a very simple
high-level design, complexity should be a coding problem if a problem at all, not a
management issue. Both this complexity and the financial management of the project
(either in accurate forecasting, or improved delivery costs) will need to be addressed if
future objectives are to be met. This is made all the more pertinent as all costs, and cost
overruns are funded by the tax paying public through the government.
IV. Solution: Proposed adapted System
In developing a solution, we are acutely aware of a few stumbling blocks to any
redevelopment of the system. Primarily, the NTA is effectively broke. They simply cannot
afford the Capex to redesign some of the features and technology in the system.
Furthermore, as previously discussed in the ‘Issues’ section, the technical aspects of the
system and its development can be accurately described as, what Foote and Yoder (2000)
termed, a ‘Big-Ball-of-Mud’. This is most likely due to the compromises made in supporting
legacy hardware and the work required to integrate such different systems. Compromises for
legacy system operation also introduce an additional layer of technical complexity to ensure
backwards compatibility with the existing system. This further adds to a technical
redevelopment cost.
As the project was initiated before the formation of the NTA, there’s something of a
governance, or at least product owner, “mud-ball” in play as well. This can make initiating
any change to the system a significant challenge in itself.
We would recommend a review and centralisation of responsibility and a democratisation of
domain knowledge regarding the operation of the LEAP system at a technical and
management level.
In terms of a technical re-design, although as mentioned we are quite aware that due to
11
budgetary and technological constraints any proposals are unlikely to be considered, we
have devised the following redesign to the LEAP system, broken into short, medium and long
term phases.
Following is the breakdown of each phase and overview diagrams of how these may look:
Short-Term (Zero-Two years).
Initial improvements should take the form of implementing the initial project requirements in
the GDA as dictated by the mandate, particularly the fare-capping requirement. Further
steps should be taken to extend the LEAP system to more forms of public transport such as
the taxi services. This could potentially be done in co-operation with an existing transport
system like Hailo. https://hailocab.com/ireland
Medium-Term (Two-Five years).
In the medium-term only two direct solutions are to be proposed, this is to allow the LEAP
card to be linked to a credit/debit card via the website to allow automation of the top-up and
payment system, opening up LEAP to businesses as well as looking to use forms of public
transport (especially taxis where companies insist on credit lines). This would allow for a
single, universal transport card. Additionally, to allow LEAP terminals to take payment from
NFC, contactless bank cards.
The work involved in these solutions, however, is both significant in terms of scope and
expense and requires full support from the highest levels of management within the NTA to
succeed.
Long-Term (Five+ years).
Two revisions are proposed:
The deployment of the LEAP system nationwide (to include Northern Ireland) and by
extension to England through the Oyster system integration required in Northern Ireland.
The inclusion of mobile NFC payment communication standards (which have yet to be