89 lines
6.2 KiB
Text
89 lines
6.2 KiB
Text
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW FANNY
|
||
|
||
Date: 1 Sep 2025
|
||
Attendees: Fanny, Pieter, Patrick, Jeroen
|
||
|
||
Agenda (60”):
|
||
Framing & introductions (10” max.)
|
||
Interview
|
||
Next staps & wrap-up (5”)
|
||
|
||
Notes:
|
||
…
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Collaboration with DSH
|
||
How satisfied are you currently with services and products provided by DSH?
|
||
Services: Digital services criticised - low budget for what it needs. (led the digital team before)
|
||
We were front runners 10 y ago, but now not there anymore in these days. A lot of legacy to carry. We became slow and get problems to keep our role in the market
|
||
|
||
|
||
Where and how can the collaboration between your team and DSH be elevated to a next level?
|
||
Collaboration: Ownership & capability - supplier is not just to lay back. Also to take LEADERSHIP, to define a subject - to play an active role. Here is a big opportunity - (in discussion). E.g. late status information about a product not ready
|
||
People are all good, but GLUEING together is the topic
|
||
|
||
|
||
3. Tech vision & framework
|
||
This initiative aims to develop, implement and maintain the tech vision for BU E-mobility. How would you define a tech vision?
|
||
I want to have out of a tech vision:
|
||
A picture of enlarging tech, and how i can contribute
|
||
How to implement tech, and WHAT to do, so how to ACT - -> To break it down, not just high level!
|
||
We use a framework to cover all relevant aspects. What do you feel is missing if anything? SHOW THE STEERING WHEEL – SEE SLIDE 3
|
||
We speak about a tech vision → but also vision how to manage AI. It is so much more than our products. Products only 20% - it touches everything!
|
||
[CHALLENGE ACCEPTED]: Not AI on the bottom of the chart…. It is “everywhere”
|
||
Make it to touch the base
|
||
How can this technology enable us
|
||
What initiatives / trends / things are relevant for us to know from within MCO within this context?
|
||
Ops: Process documentation → TASK: Pieter to share
|
||
AI: To use how to solve problems easier
|
||
We have no usage on our journey, data not structured; to use data and workflows
|
||
Current issue: Less vehicles sold, more stations built… this effect is critical → dumping prices, aggressive campaigns → vicious circle
|
||
|
||
|
||
How strongly is digital transformation anchored in MCO strategy, and what's your vision for MCO’s role in the BU’s digital future?
|
||
Operation lifecycl.
|
||
|
||
|
||
MCO
|
||
Where do you see the current and future challenges for the BU and for MCO (time-to-market; limited financial or human resources; increasing risks; regulatory requirements, etc.)?
|
||
Usage is the main challenge
|
||
EXPAND: First we need to expand value-wise → mainly usage, and later expand value pools
|
||
EXCEL: More to do with internal operations (Pieter has the list). We concluded that we do a lot of manual tasks to day that customers can do themselves, and we need to support customers in that, also more preventative.
|
||
Where do you see the biggest challenges or success factors for successful tech vision implementation?
|
||
Usage is and will continue to be most critical
|
||
We can reduce cost, but if we don’t generate income we don’t have a business
|
||
Regulatory: We depend on subsidies for EV driving. Also, infrastructure costs (hardware, software) seem to be increasing
|
||
In places, we may be running the risk of being too dependent on too few suppliers. EV infrastructure is now a nice-to-have
|
||
How do you use customer data and analytics to improve targeting, personalization, and campaign effectiveness?
|
||
We use both internal research expertise (from Ivo’s team) and consultancy. Next to that we have a large amount of data ourselves
|
||
What's your current degree of process automation, and which MCO processes would create the most value if digitized?
|
||
Compared to Vattenfall and the current state industry / in general: We are “somewhere in between”. Our core process seems to be ok.
|
||
Example: Placing CP’s in the context of concessions, billing is automated (charge sessions rated and invoiced). 2 million sessions/month are all invoiced in a fully automated way
|
||
Where we are not so good: We have many distributed assets. How to manage all these in an efficient centralised way
|
||
Can be improved: Degree of self-service, dunning process, bad data quality leads to not being able to capture the money, contract management for CP’s (savings opportunity of 300K)
|
||
Is it better to have centralized asset management?
|
||
We are operating 70K CP’s in NL, Sweden and Germany. It is an art to be able to manage tech assets in a distributed way. It is not in the DNA of Vattenfall. At the same time margins are thinning
|
||
How do you differentiate our offerings in the market, and what channels do you use to reach and engage customers throughout their journey?
|
||
We mainly use traditional channels: Meta, Google, LinkedIn. Sometimes through our partners (like Max Hamburgers, Netto - with Netto it is not so much a match ito branding), less so
|
||
Differentiation:
|
||
We do the placement in urban concessions better than others, we do what we say and don’t overpromise. We largely deliver on time and within budget
|
||
In other segments, we don’t do so much but leverage our trusted Vattenfall brand
|
||
Quality is not (yet/anymore) a differentiating factor
|
||
How do you collect and act on customer feedback, and would it be possible for you to give us inputs on your strategies for digital channels?
|
||
Until now this is very scattered. We now have 1 person who is collecting who is doing what where
|
||
Digital channels: On LinkedIn we run campaigns. On Google we do Google maps (listing charging stations), including selected paid geo-targeted campaigns. Meta - not sure. Microsoft - nothing currently.
|
||
Not using our InCharge app due to technical reasons
|
||
Direct comms: InCharge newsletters, Vattenfall’s newsletter
|
||
What is good and should not be changed? What should be changed?
|
||
Change:
|
||
Adopt strategies to drive people to use our stations
|
||
Easiness with which we do process improvements. Technical as well
|
||
Aligned energy. Not only “puppy energy”, but balanced with senior grounded energy that allows us to consolidate. We are in a diff market state now, we are not a startup anymore
|
||
Not change:
|
||
International approach - Central setup
|
||
Serving our owner with the quality that they require (sometimes boring, but also very clear)
|
||
|
||
5. Conclusion (5”)
|
||
Do you have anything else to add in this context? Anything we missed?
|
||
I appreciate strategies, visions, roadmaps that are tangible → WHAT WILL WE ACTUALLY DO
|