Widipay a cross layer design for mobile payment system over lte direct
goCard_Report_final
1. Can we goCard
further? An analysis of
Translink’s goCard
Oliver Armstrong, Student # n9401512
goCard by Translink
Tutorial: Thursday 3-5pm
Due Date: 17th
of April, 2015
Word Count: 4017 words (approximately 3090 content words)
2. 1Oliver Armstrong – n9401512
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary....................................................................................................................2
2.0 The Product Impact.....................................................................................................................3
2.1 Product Background......................................................................................................................3
2.11 Background Information.........................................................................................................3
2.12 Previous System......................................................................................................................3
2.13 Uses of goCard........................................................................................................................3
2.2 Theories to Support Analysis........................................................................................................4
2.21 Task-Technology Fit...............................................................................................................4
2.22 Technology Acceptance Model ..............................................................................................4
2.23 TAM/TTF Model – The Best Fit ............................................................................................4
2.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................5
2.31 Now versus Then ....................................................................................................................5
2.32 Positive and Negative Impacts................................................................................................5
2.33 Impacted Groups.....................................................................................................................5
2.34 Why the goCard Succeeded....................................................................................................6
3.0 Opportunity to Improve ..............................................................................................................7
3.1 Shortfalls of the goCard................................................................................................................7
3.2 Improvements to the goCard.........................................................................................................7
3.22 Improvement and Integration – Long Range RFID ................................................................7
3.23 Improvement and Integration – Topping Up Online...............................................................7
3.24 Improvement and Integration – Mobile App ..........................................................................7
4.0 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................9
5.0 Appendices................................................................................................................................10
5.1 Technology Acceptance Model ..................................................................................................10
5.2 Task Technology Fit Model........................................................................................................10
5.3 TAM/TTF Model........................................................................................................................11
5.4 Current Fare Prices .....................................................................................................................12
5.5 February 2015 Customer Satisfaction Report.............................................................................13
6.0 References.......................................................................................................................................14
3. 2Oliver Armstrong – n9401512
1.0 Executive Summary
This report provides an analysis, evaluation and suggests recommendations for the go card, compared
to its prior technologies. Methods of analysis include the technology acceptance model, task
technology fit model and their use together as one more dynamic model, the TAM/TTF model.
Results when analysed against the TAM/TTF model showed that the go card when compared to its
prior technology, the paper ticketing system fit the TAM/TTF model appropriately, through its
increased perceived usefulness, ease of use, as well as an exceptional fit to the task characteristics and
requirements. The report found that despite the success the go card and positive analysis, further
improvements could be made due to its shortfalls and appropriate changes should be made.
Recommendations discussed include:
Improving the top up system
Long range RFID
Mobile application platform to be used as the smartcard
4. 3Oliver Armstrong – n9401512
2.0 The Product Impact
2.1 Product Background
2.11 Background Information
Translink’s go card is a smart card system used for public transport throughout Queensland and is
similar to many other smart card systems such as the Melbourne myki smart card and London Oyster
card. The system began development in July of 2003 when the Cubic Corporation won a $225
million, 10 year contract to develop the go card system to begin testing in 2006 and rolling out in
2008 [1]. Cubic Corporation is an American corporation specialising in global defence as well as
transportation systems. The company focuses on developing and designing high level technology
systems in their two areas of specialisation [2]. Cubic Corporation are also responsible for some of the
world’s largest public transport ticketing systems with almost 7 billion rides taken with a Cubic public
transport system across the world [3].
2.12 Previous System
Prior to the go card payment system for public transport in Queensland, a physical ticketing system
was in place. This meant travellers were required to pay with cash upon entering the public transport
and collect a ticket for their specific destination. As the public transport system became more
congested, the paper ticketing system became very inefficient and further slowed down the process.
This was particularly an issue for the bus system due to tickets having to be purchased upon entering
the bus, which would could not leave until all passengers were seated. This was however, not so much
an issue for the train and ferry system as they both could run independent of someone purchasing a
ticket. Due to this inefficiency in the network, and in particular busses, the Queensland government
awarded the contract for the design, build, operation and maintenance of the go card system to Cubic
Corporation [1]. The main objective of the go card being increasing efficiency of the public transport
network by decreasing the number of paper tickets being used and replacing them with the go card as
the primary payment method for public transport in South-East Queensland.
2.13 Uses of goCard
There is no particular restrictions to purchasing and using a go card but would primarily be used by
those who live in South East Queensland where the go card system is implemented. There are
however differing versions of the go card which include the adult, child, senior, concession and more
recently for those who are visiting South East Queensland, the seeQ card. The go card is used when
entering and exiting public transport in South East Queensland. It uses short range RFID [4], more
specifically the MIFARE Classic technology, and when a traveller touches on and touches off, the
system records which “zones” have been passed through and then appropriately deducts the correct
fare from the traveller’s card. More recently the go card system has been implemented with
Brisbane’s CityCycle scheme allowing for people to use their go card to access the CityCycle bicycles
[5]. This is however currently all that the go card can be used for and is restricted to the South East
Queensland area which stretches from Gympie in the north, Coolangatta in the south and Helidon to
the west [6].
5. 4Oliver Armstrong – n9401512
2.2 Theories to Support Analysis
2.21 Task-Technology Fit
The ability of technology (more commonly Information Technology) to support a task is known as the
task-technology fit (TTF) theory. Developed in 1995 by Goodhue and Thompson the theory links that
a technology is more likely to have a positive impact on an individual if the capabilities of the
technology match the tasks which the user must perform [7]. Alongside the TTF model there is
another steam of research linking performance to technology known as the Utilisation Model.
However, as the TTF model has evolved it has been modified to combine both the utilisation model
and TTF, covering the prior shortfalls of the TTF model [8]. The TTF model looks at both the
characteristics of the task at hand and available technologies, using the two in order to find the best fit
for a task [7] (see Appendix 2). A good example of this shift is that sending a letter in the mail used to
be a good task-technology fit, however, as technology has moved forward an email or text message
now fits this task much better. This theory is perfect for suiting a person’s needs with a technology,
pre-existing or in development. This is also especially important for doing impact analyses as it can
further look at how the developed technology has improved a task compared to those prior to it, which
is especially important when analysing the impact of the go card in comparison to the old paper ticket
system.
2.22 Technology Acceptance Model
The Technology Acceptance Model (or TAM) was developed by Fred Davis and Richard Bagozzi in
1989 and was a specific adaption of the Theory of Reasoned Action [9]. TAM measures the perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use as predictors of a user’s intent to use computer technology and
their actual usage [8]. The Technology Acceptance Model is most often illustrated through the
flowchart that can be found in Appendix 1. It looks at how both Perceived Usefulness and Perceived
Ease of Use are linked to a person’s attitude towards Using the specific Technology and the
behavioural intention to use which leads final to the actual use of this technology [9]. These linkages
again can be more clearly illustrated in Appendix 1. What makes this so important is that a technology
may be both easy to use and useful, but if a person does not have the correct attitude towards the
technology, it will not be used. This specific theory doesn’t just look at how it would work in an ideal
situation but rather looks at a person’s perception of the technology. This is especially important with
the go card as it isn’t important if the technology works as expected, if it isn’t used, then it is
essentially useless. This flexibility furthers this model for being optimal for impact analysis.
2.23 TAM/TTF Model – The Best Fit
Whilst the TTF model did adapt by making some modifications to include parts of Utilisation theory a
more common adaption is using both the TAM and TTF theory together which is illustrated in
Appendix 3. The reason why these two combined provide the best support for an impact analysis of
the go card is that the combined two models capture two different aspects of a users’ choice to utilise
a technology [8]. For these reasons, the utilisation of both the TAM and TTF theory being used
together as one model is the optimal theory for an impact analysis of the go card. This is primarily due
to the shortfalls of both of the theories by themselves. One of the primary reasons why the TAM
wasn’t used by itself is due to its lack of task focus [8]. This is as technology is often used as a tool to
accomplish a task more efficiently and the lack of a “task” focused evaluation in the TAM model can
lead to mixed results in the analysis of a technology. Therefore the inclusion of task focused
evaluation is important in the choice of theory. In contrast to TAM, the TTF model is inclusive of
these task focused evaluations of a technology, but does however fall short as it doesn’t explicitly
include attitudes towards a technology in its evaluation [8]. This is especially important in evaluating
a technology as if it isn’t perceived well, it won’t be used, regardless of its ability to complete tasks.
Whilst this is a shortfall in the TTF model, it is one of the major focuses of the TAM model. This
further shows the shortfalls of both of these models when used separately, however, it reinforces why
the TAM/TTF model is the best suited model for an impact analysis of the go card.
6. 5Oliver Armstrong – n9401512
2.3 Impact Analysis
2.31 Now versus Then
Prior to the implementation of the go card, a paper ticketing system was in place in order to use public
transport in the South-East Queensland region. This is quite clearly the major change for those who
use go cards is the lack of use of the paper ticketing system and the change to the “tap on, tap off”
system implemented with the go card. This has had a knock on effect with users of the go card and
some of the subtler changes which were not directly intended include less change in wallets and more
time. Just like the increase in use of bank cards with “paywave” and other such technologies, we as a
result are carrying less change. This is especially important as it is this loose change was previously
used for fares on public transport. Further, more time is given back to the users of the system due to
the increase in efficiency of the public transport system. People can now enter a bus and have it
moving towards their target destination within seconds of entering the bus compared to the minutes it
would take to provide a paper ticket to everyone who entered a bus using the previous technology.
2.32 Positive and Negative Impacts
The two aforementioned key changes when compared to the previous system are also two of the key
positive impacts that the go card system has had on users. Whilst on the surface it may seem
negligible, time is especially important in a world that is moving forward quickly and that strives for
efficiency. The go cards ability to speed up this process and increase efficiency is especially important
for the users, as it makes the system more attractive, and also the public transport network as the
whole system can flow better. Further, the go card has increased the savings that users can expect
when compared to the paper tickets, as well as go card specific incentives. Those who use a go card
can expect almost a 50% decrease in price in comparison to its paper ticket counterparts [10].
Translink also has provided many other incentives such as the 9 and free incentive which gives
someone who has taken 9 trips free fares after that point. The combined ability for this technology to
both increase efficiency for the user and the public transport network as well as pass on savings makes
this a very beneficial technology, both for the government and most importantly its users, as all
positive aspects of it are passed back onto the consumer.
There is only one particular key negative impact of the go card. This issue does however not target
those who use the card, but the people, most commonly tourists, who don’t have a card or it is not
feasible for them to own one. This is because the price of a single ticket is so expensive in comparison
to the go card. Translink has attempted to remedy this issue by introducing the seeQ card, however,
the base $79 cost for an adult can be seen as quite an investment if exclusive use of the Translink
network isn’t planned during the holiday [11]. Whilst this is an overall negative issue, it doesn’t
impact the primary users of the go card, so does not actually have as much of an impact on the
majority of public transport users.
2.33 Impacted Groups
The positive aspects of the go card have been able to effect all those who fall in the area which the go
card system is implemented, there are however some particular groups that have further benefited
from the go card. As expected with a technology that increases efficiency and gives the user more
savings, those who use public transport often are going to benefit most, as they are going to feel the
effects of the technology more due to their already high use prior to its implementation. The other
large two groups effected are students and “fence sitters”. Students are better off as they receive
further savings as a result of being a student (see Appendix 4), another 50% off an adult fare [10].
Further “fence sitters”, those who may have only occasionally used public transport, now have further
incentive to do so as in many cases public transport is more cost effective than parking, but also is
much more efficient and quick public transport network, which is in contrast to before the go card
technology was implemented.
7. 6Oliver Armstrong – n9401512
2.34 Why the goCard Succeeded
The primary reason why the go card has been so successful is due to how well it fits the TAM/TTF
model. First looking at the TTF section of the model we must investigate both the task characteristics
and tool functionality. The task that is required to be achieved is getting from point A to point B. Prior
to the go card this was achieved either by purchasing a paper ticket and using public transport or by
driving to the destination. The go card was able to fit this task characteristic by making public
transport more enticing, by making it a better fitting technology then the paper ticket system by both
increasing efficiency of the public transport network and decreasing costs for its users. The go card
really shows its success when looking at the TAM model through perceived usefulness and especially,
perceived ease of use. Preceding to the go card the system as a whole would have been seen as useful,
however, in many cases not an easy system to use in comparison to the current system (see Appendix
5). This in turn effects people’s attitude towards the use of the paper ticket system which leads to not
as much use. The go card on the other hand is built around being easy to use. This significantly
improving on the previous shortfall of the paper ticketing system. As a result of the increased ease of
use, the usefulness of the technology also increases, which further makes the technology more
popular, leading towards a positive attitude towards using the product which causes the technology to
be used more. When all this is tied together with the positive characteristics and functionality, there is
no doubt as to why the go card has been successful. This is also further supported by data which
shows that by 2010 the go card already was being used 62% of the time, across the whole network
[12]. Using the TAM/TTF model clearly depicts why the go card has, and continues to be a successful
technology, due to its ability to provide an excellent task-technology fit, but also be more useful and
easy than other, and previous technologies.
8. 7Oliver Armstrong – n9401512
3.0 Opportunity to Improve
3.1 Shortfalls of the goCard
Despite the go cards success it still does have a few shortfalls that could make it an even better suited
technology for the public transport system. The two key areas needed for improvement are the short
range of the smart card and the current system in place to “top up” the go card. Currently, the go card
uses short range RFID in the smart card in order to deduct and add a balance to the card. More
specifically the go card uses the MIFARE Classic chip which is just a storage device [4], in terms of
the go card, information such as the current balance on the card as well as a unique identifier is stored.
This does however limit the go cards to extremely short range, approximately 5cm or so, which can
still lead to slight inefficiency if someone doesn’t already have their card present [13]. Alongside the
short range of RFID, the topping up process on the go card is quite tedious and could be streamlined
further. Currently the only options are either to top up at an authorised location such as a Translink
office or linking a credit card to the go card. Considering current and emerging technologies, there are
solutions for the current shortfalls of the go card to improve it further.
3.2 Improvements to the goCard
3.22 Improvement and Integration – Long Range RFID
As mentioned early, the current go card uses short range RFID, however, RFID has seen a lot of
progress more recently making passive RFID cards capable of working at ranges up to 25 meters [13].
This uses a high frequency RFID range as well as more advance readers. This is the similar
technology implemented in the current go card, however, would allow for the cards to be read at a
much longer range. This has the potential of not requiring users to remove the card from their wallet
and just walking onto the public transport and past a scanner as they enter. Further, thanks to the
advances in encryption and readers, they are now capable of reading multiple frequencies by
integrating more receivers working together in order to read multiple signals and ignore false
positives [14]. This would alleviate the issue of a scanner attempting to read multiple RFID signals at
once. This technology also has the ability to be integrated as the current contract for the go card is
reaching its endpoint, but would however require redeployment of all scanners and go cards.
3.23 Improvement and Integration – Topping Up Online
The issue of having to top up at an authorised location is one that definitely can be addressed with
current technologies, and would increase its perceived ease of use, making it to some, a more viable
technology. Whilst currently the ability to link a credit card is available, it would be exceptionally
easy for an online portal to be setup to allow for alternate payment methods to be made online such as
PayPal. This would be an exceptionally simple change to make and would help make the go card an
even more attractive technology. Implementation would also be a quick process as it would only
require the development of a website.
3.24 Improvement and Integration – Mobile App
Another alternative that would not require the need for physical go cards is shifting away from
physical cards and using the technology built into modern day smartphones as the card. Most modern
smartphones are built with a NFC chip which is a low frequency and low range RFID chip [13]. This
is the same technology implemented by banks, most notably in Australia, Commonwealth Bank,
which uses their banking app platform to allow their customers with compatible smartphones, to use it
as if it were a credit/debit card with Mastercard’s PayPass. As this is a currently available technology,
integration would be simple. Translink would have to develop and create an application that made use
of the NFC chips found in smartphones. This would require building a system that assigned particular
digital signatures to the users account. This would be no different to how current go cards work as
they are assigned a similar unique identifier, just no physical card is required. This would also allow
for an online toping up platform to be put in place, integrating the previously mentioned
improvement. Finally, this would be a seamless implementation and would only require users to
9. 8Oliver Armstrong – n9401512
download an app and setup an account, which would cut costs drastically and make distribution much
easier.
10. 9Oliver Armstrong – n9401512
4.0 Conclusion
Translink’s go card was developed by Cubic Corporation in order to replace the previous paper ticket
system. Using both the technology acceptance and task technology fit models to analyse its success as
a technology, it was found that the go card was an overarching success due to its ability to fit the
models appropriately. Despite the go cards success, there are still some issues with the card including
a lack of an online top up system and the short range RFID smart cards. As a result of these
drawbacks, it was recommended that go card makes changes and integrates long range RFID cards, an
online go card top up portal and a mobile app platform to be used as the card. In conclusion, the go
card is as a whole is an effective and successful technology, however further improvements could be
made in order to bring it closer in line with the TAM/TTF models and an overall, better technology.
11. 10Oliver Armstrong – n9401512
5.0 Appendices
5.1 Technology Acceptance Model
Source [8]
5.2 Task Technology Fit Model
Source [8]
15. 14Oliver Armstrong – n9401512
6.0 References
[1] T. Moore, “Your phone may replace your GoCard,” The Sunday Morning Herald, 21 May
2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/your-phone-
may-replace-your-go-card-20140520-zrj78.html. [Accessed 6 April 2015].
[2] Cubic Corporation, “About Us,” Cubic Corporation, 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.cubic.com/About-Us. [Accessed 28 May 2015].
[3] Cubic Corporation, “About Cubic Transporation Systems,” Cubic Corporation, 2015. [Online].
Available: http://cts.cubic.com/About-Us. [Accessed 28 May 2015].
[4] NXP Semiconductors, “MIFARE Classic,” NXP Semiconductors, 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.nxp.com/products/identification_and_security/smart_card_ics/mifare_smart_card_
ics/mifare_classic/. [Accessed 2 April 2015].
[5] Brisbane City Council, “Good news! You can associate your CityCycle subscription to your
TransLink go Card!,” CityCycle, 29 July 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://www.citycycle.com.au/News/CityCycle-Updates/Good-news%21-You-can-associate-
your-CityCycle-subscription-to-your-TransLink-go-Card. [Accessed 6 April 2015].
[6] “go card,” Translink - Queensland Government, 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.translink.com.au/tickets-and-fares/go-card. [Accessed 28 May 2015].
[7] M. Irick, “Task-Technology Fit and Information Systems Effectiveness,” Journal of
Knowledge Management Practice, vol. 9, no. 3, 2008.
[8] M. Dishaw and D. Strong, “Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology
fit constructs,” Information and Management, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 9-21, 1999.
[9] M. McCord, “Technology Acceptance Model,” in Handbook of research on electronic surveys
and measurements, Hershey, Idea Group Reference, 2007, pp. 306-308.
[10] “Current Fares,” Translink, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://translink.com.au/tickets-and-
fares/fares/current-fares. [Accessed 04 April 2015].
[11] “seeQ Card,” Translink, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://translink.com.au/tickets-and-
fares/seeq-card. [Accessed 5 April 2015].
[12] Translink, “Translink's Tracker 2010-2011 Q1,” Queensland Government, Brisbane, 2011.
[13] D. Hunt, A. Puglia and P. Mike, RFID-A Guide to Raido Frequency Identification, Hoboken:
John Wiley & Sons, 2006.
[14] F. Garcia, P. van Rossum, R. Verdult and R. Schreur, “Wirelessly Pickpocketing a Mifare
Classic Card,” IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, vol. 1, no. 30, pp. 3-15, 2009.
[15] Translink, “TransLink Customer Satisfaction Monthly Snapshot - February,” Translink,
Brisbane, 2015.
[16] M. Calligeros, “Commuters can use Go Cards on CityCycle from today,” Brisbane Times, 30
November 2012. [Online]. Available:
