An advanced method for assessing the significance of change in electric vehicles as a new tool for sustainability and operational reliability
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61089/aot2025.c2kbaa37Keywords:
electromobility, transport, safety, significance of change, sustainabilityAbstract
Safe and reliable implementation of changes in technical, organisational, and operational systems in the transport sector is essential for introducing innovations aligned with sustainable development goals. The method currently used (Chruzik et al., 2021) is based on expert analysis, dependency matrices, and quantitative risk assessment. While it is widely applied, it still leaves room for interpretive subjectivity. The extension proposed in this article builds on this foundation by incorporating updated risk registers and enhanced evaluation criteria, with a particular emphasis on operational reliability and sustainability. This approach improves the objectivity and reproducibility of assessments regarding the significance of implemented changes. The objective of this paper is to develop and demonstrate an advanced method for assessing the significance of changes in transport systems, with a particular focus on operational reliability, safety, and sustainability. A key novelty is the integration of classical FMEA methodology with a system-oriented framework, introducing parameters of uncertainty and consequence. The combination of these two factors forms a basis for a more structured and transparent risk matrix. The proposed method was applied to evaluate the significance of change associated with integrating electric vehicles (EVs) into urban traffic systems. While the analysis identified new risk areas—especially related to secondary battery fires—the overall change was assessed as non-significant. Nonetheless, it was recognised that this transformation requires the implementation of preventive measures and updated operational procedures to manage emerging risks. This enhanced method strengthens decision-making processes by improving the clarity and credibility of change assessments in the transport sector. Its flexibility allows it to be adapted to other technological innovations, enabling a balanced consideration of operational safety, technical feasibility, and long-term sustainability. By incorporating risk-based criteria alongside sustainability indicators, the method supports a more holistic understanding of how change impacts complex systems. As transport systems continue to evolve in response to technological advancements and environmental priorities, this approach offers a practical and robust tool for guiding strategic implementation. It ensures that changes are introduced with a clear understanding of associated risks and opportunities, aligning technological development with broader goals of operational reliability and sustainable mobility.
References
1. Adeyeye, T.C. (2014). The impact of technological innovation on organizational performance. Industrial Engineering Letters, 4(3), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.7176/IEL
2. Beckman, S.L., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking. California Management Review, 50(1), 25–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166415
3. Berggren, E., Asplund, D., & Olsson, N.O.E. (2023). Climate change impacts assessment on railway infrastructure in Sweden: An exploratory study. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 118, 103674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2023.103674
4. Bock, P. (2001). Getting it right: R&D methods for science and engineering. San Diego: Academic Press.
5. Borg, M., Wnuk, K., Regnell, B., & Runeson, P. (2017). Supporting change impact analysis using a recommendation system: An industrial case study in a safety-critical context. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 43(7), 618–636. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2016.2620458
6. Bradford, T. (2018). The energy system: Technology, economics, markets, and policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking creates new alternatives for business and society. New York: HarperCollins.
8. Chen, C.-L., & Hall, P. (2021). Socioeconomic impacts of high-speed rail: A comparative review. Transport Reviews, 41(6), 731–752. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2021.1979689
9. Chruzik, K., & Graboń-Chałupczak, M. (2021). The concept of safety management in the electromobility development strategy. Energies, 14(9), 2482. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14092482
10. Cusick, J.J. (2018). Organizational design and change management for IT transformation: A case study. Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology, 6(1), 10–25. https://doi.org/10.15640/jcsit.v6n1a2
11. Eckert, C., Clarkson, P.J., & Zanker, W. (2004). Change and customisation in complex engineering domains. Research in Engineering Design, 15(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-004-0050-1
12. Esplana, E. (2024). Exploring strategies for knowledge sharing and employee engagement during change implementation: A qualitative explanatory case study [Doctoral dissertation, National University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
13. European Parliament. (2018). Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/762 of 8 March 2018 establishing common safety methods on safety management system requirements. Official Journal of the European Union, L129, 16–41.
14. European Union Agency for Railways. (2024). Report on railway safety and interoperability in the EU. Retrieved from https://www.era.europa.eu
15. European Union. (2013). Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 402/2013 of 30 April 2013 on the common safety method for risk evaluation and assessment. Official Journal of the European Union, L121, 8–36.
16. Fleming, K.M. (2008). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2012: A phenomenological case study of organizational change in the headquarters of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
17. International Energy Agency. (2023). World Energy Outlook 2023 – Analysis. Paris: IEA. https://doi.org/10.1787/c43f0fcd-en
18. International Maritime Organization. (2014). International Safety Management Code (ISM Code) and guidelines on implementation of the ISM Code (2014 ed.). London: IMO.
19. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Chapter 10: Transport). Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3
20. International Civil Aviation Organization. (2009). Safety management manual (SMM) (Doc 9859). Montreal: ICAO.
21. International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 26262 Road vehicles—Functional safety. Geneva: ISO.
22. Janic, M., & Zanin, S. (2025). Replacing short-haul flights with train travel in Europe: Policy impacts and infrastructure requirements. Transport Policy, 135, 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2024.12.003
23. Jeffrey, M.M., & Creasey, T.J. (2012). Change management: The people side of change. Loveland, CO: Prosci.
24. Kossiakoff, A., & Sweet, W.N. (2011). Systems engineering: Principles and practice (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470405482
25. Kowalski, W., & White, E.B. (2000). The handbook on science (3rd ed.). London: Longman. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315837230
26. Leveson, N.G. (2012). Engineering a safer world: Systems thinking applied to safety. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Morse, L.C., & Babcock, D.L. (2019). Managing engineering and technology (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
28. Office of Rail Transport. (2014). Expert judgement on the practical application by railway sector undertakings of the requirements of the common safety method for risk assessment (CSM RA), in the form of a guide. Warsaw: Urząd Transportu Kolejowego.
29. Palmer, B. (2003). Making change work: Practical tools for overcoming human resistance to change. New York: McGraw-Hill.
30. Smith, R., King, D., Sidhu, R., & Skelsey, D. (2014). The effective change manager’s handbook: Essential guidance to the change management body of knowledge. London: Kogan Page. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315753783
31. Stamatis, D.H. (2019). Risk management using failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA). Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.
32. Sun, P., Bisschop, R., Niu, H., & Huang, X. (2020). A review of battery fires in electric vehicles. Fire Technology, 56(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-019-00944-3
33. Sun, X.B., Li, B.X., Tao, C.Q., Wen, W.Z., & Zhang, S. (2010). Change impact analysis based on a taxonomy of change types. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 34th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (373–382). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2010.53
34. The Prime Minister of Poland. (2018). The Act of 20 June 1997, The Law on Road Traffic. Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland.
35. Wisniewski, G.R., & Adams, L.B. (2009). How to prepare your article. In B.S. Jones & R.Z. Smith (Eds.), Introduction to the electronic age (pp. 281–304). E-Publishing Inc. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420051118
Zhang, D., Li, Y., Li, Y., & Shen, Z. (2022). Service failure risk assessment and service improvement of self-service electric vehicle. Sustainability, 14(7), 3723. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073723
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Archives of Transport journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
