Previous studies have noted that MaaS requires new types of operational functions (e.g. [
21‐
23]). These functions include both ‘MaaS Integrators’ that integrate the transport providers’ offerings technically and/or businesswise; and ‘MaaS Operators’, which bundle MaaS offerings and constitute the interfaces toward end-users of MaaS [
24]. This paper considers both strategic and operative activities of public actors. Accordingly, it takes a broader approach to understanding how the public sector can participate in urban experimentations, such as the development of MaaS.
Besides the conceptualization of roles inherent in neo-institutional theory, the role-concept is currently discussed within sustainability transition studies [
25], including debates on the roles of public actors in sustainability and experimental governance (e.g. [
18,
26,
27], a,b). These roles can be analyzed both on the level of the individual, including emerging new roles for civil servants [
28], acting in the capacity of networkers, facilitators [
29,
30] or ‘green inside activists’ [
31], but the role concept can also pertain to public organizations at large [
26,
32], as done in this paper.
In the analysis of roles, we applied a theoretical framework developed for the analysis of the roles of public actors in local innovation processes [
18]. In particular, this paper focuses on governance activities, i.e. how the public sector can use different policy instruments to facilitate and manage collaborative experimentation. The utilized framework identifies three ideal roles situated in the governance and government-nexus: Promoter, Enabler and Partner [
18]. Public actors act in a Promoter role when they make active efforts to stimulate processes of innovation. This role is often associated with more traditional forms of government, and the policy instruments that these entail, including regulations and legislation. In the context of governance and collaboration, the literature on meta-governance (or the governance of governance) has emphasized how public actors take on an Enabler role rather than acting in the capacity of ‘doers’ (cf. [
33]). This is described both in the more prescriptive governance research, where the advantage of governing through overarching frames rather than details is often emphasized (cf. [
34]), and in empirical research where processes of meta-governance are seen as to include “governing mechanisms [that do] not rest solely on the authority and sanctions of government” ([
35]: 360 cf. [
18]: 992). Public governance can in this regard be described in terms of ‘opening up’ for other actors’ action spaces in terms of e.g. service delivery ([
18]: 993; [
36,
37]). Similar changes have also been recognized in transportation system research. For instance, the role of public authorities has been described to be “gradually shifting from controlling and operating key activities towards becoming an enabler for market-based services” ([
38]: 46). Another important push-factor for utilizing collaboration, from the perspective of the public sector, is the ambition to ‘de-silo’ administrative organizations [
39] in order to achieve a more seamless policy delivery [
40]. This leads us to the third role, where a public actor acts as only one of several actors in network or public-private governance, or in the capacity of a Partner
. Here the emphasis is not on meta-governance as much as network governance, a process which can be described as a bottom-up process of interdependent and self-organizing exchanges of resources, with an autonomy from the state ([
18,
34]: 993). The Partner role thus indicates a position where the public sector participates on more or less equal terms with other actors. In reality, these three ideal types of roles for public actors overlap and can only be separated in a theoretical sense. It is also important to keep in mind that roles can vary not only across public sector actors but also within organizations and over time.