...
Skip to content
< Back

Analysis of Autonomous Vehicle Innovation Network (AVIN) in Ontario, Canada

Author: Danish Karmally

Acknowledgement:

I would like to thank all the participants for providing me with the benefit of their experience and perspective during our interview. Their comments and insights have been very helpful.

I am also grateful to Dr. Greig Mordue, for his valuable guidance, encouragement and assistance during the course of this dissertation.

Abstract:

The November 2017 announcement of the five-year Autonomous Vehicle Innovation Network (AVIN) inthe province of Ontario received significant attention and was well-received by the technology & automotive sectors. This study assesses progress during the first eight months of the initiative against objectives articulated at the program’s outset. It is based on analysis of available results as well as interviews with key stakeholders. It shows that so far, limited progress has been achieved, particularly in two important parts of the program: the establishment of the regional technology development sites (RTDS) and the demonstration zone in Stratford, Ontario. Two quarterly reports released by the project’s coordinator, Ontario Centres of Excellence (OCE) do not indicate the presence of progress, technological or otherwise, emanating from the AVIN project. Although the AVIN project was to grant $80 million over its five-year life on behalf of the Government of Ontario, as of writing, no funds had been accessed by the demonstration zone or the RTDSs’ partners. The information contained here presents insight into the workings of OCE and operation of the program.

 Introduction:

The implementation of connected/autonomous vehicles (C/AV) and smart roadside infrastructure will have significant societal, environmental and economic benefits. For example, C/AVs can significantly reduce vehicle accidents by eliminating human error, and through software and communication with roadside infrastructure to determine the position of the other vehicle and predict the safest route possible. AVs require five vital components to operate: computer vision, information from sensors, high-definition maps, path planning and vehicle control. Companies from different parts of the world have developed C/AVs and are offering short commercial rides within their respective demonstration zones. In an attempt to ensure Ontario is at the forefront of the technological race, the Ontario government through the Ontario Centres of Excellence announced an Autonomous Vehicle Innovation Network (AVIN) in Spring 2017 with proposed funding of $80 million over five years. The program consists of a central hub and four funding streams listed below:

  • Regional Technology Development Sites (RTDS)

  • Demonstration zone in Stratford, ON

  • Research & Development partnership fund

  • Talent development

 The aforementioned funding streams were designed to ensure AVIN achieves the following objectives:

  1. Commercialize C/AV and transportation infrastructure technologies

  2. Build awareness, educate and promote Ontario

  3. Encourage innovation and collaboration

  4. Leverage Ontario talent

  5. Support regional auto-brain belt clusters

AVIN was introduced in the provincial budget in April 20176 and was officially launched by the premier of Ontario in Stratford, Ontario, the designated demonstration zone of AVIN, in November 20175. At the time of the writing AVIN has completed eight months. Therefore, the report seeks to analyze the progress of the funding streams and the central hub and compare the two key objectives with the progress. The information in this report was acquired through interviews of key stakeholders involved in the different funding streams. Those interviewed will remain anonymous. The table below illustrates the types of stakeholders interviewed for the report:

The information acquired through the interviews provide a unique point-of-view unavailable to the general public. Using the acquired information and through public sources, the progress was analyzed against AVIN’s objectives. Due to the lack of available information, the report limits its analysis to two objectives for which public information is available and for which comments are available from those interviewed: commercialize C/AV and transportation infrastructure technologies, and encourage innovation and collaboration.

 Objective 1: Commercialize C/AV and transportation infrastructure technologies

The commercialization of any technology requires the technology to be developed, tested and demonstrated to potential customers who can manufacture or implement the technology on a much largerscale. Based on this, AVIN was developed though the introduction of regional technology development sites (RTDS) and a demonstration zone in Stratford, ON. Six regions within Ontario were announced by OCE for the RTDSs with different / unique areas of focus associated with each region. The sites are also responsible for providing business and technical advice, and providing access to specialized equipment unique to the region. The six regions and their areas of focus are:

  • Durham – Human machine interface & user experience

  • Hamilton – Multimodal and integrated mobility

  • Ottawa – Vehicular networks and communication

  • Southwestern Ontario (London & Windsor) – Vehicle cybersecurity & cross-border technologies

  • Toronto – Artificial intelligence for C/AV

  • Waterloo – High-definition mapping and localization

Each region agreed to contribute $5 million to the project and receive an equal amount over five years in funding. Prior to the announcement, OCE selected the six regions and urged each region to propose an area of focus that would advance the C/AV technology and demonstrates their region’s strengths. However, according to several regional officials, OCE requested that each region propose an area of topic in a very short period of time. A consequence of the truncated time was that regions were unable to comprehensively research capabilities within their regions and were therefore not able to propose new, alternative or more relevant areas of focus to AVIN. For example, certain regions proposed ongoing research topics by the region’s academic institutions and/or industry partners as an area of focus for AVIN. Other regions, with no prior involvement in the C/AV space, proposed new areas of focus without effectively understanding the capabilities that existed within their regions; an outcome of them not being able to fully consult with industry stakeholders (e.g. automotive manufacturers or suppliers). Some regional officials expressed concern regarding demands from industry for certain areas of focus and its relevance towards AVIN.
 

The accelerated nature of the undertaking is given further evidence through information provided by numerous stakeholders on other aspects of the program. According to one regional official, meetings between OCE and the regions were scheduled with minimal notice from OCE. The regional official disclosed that OCE compelled each region to attend the scheduled meeting, often without considering regional officials’ prior commitments. According to another regional official, limited progress is evident from meeting to meeting. The regional official declined the recent meeting following the release of the meeting agenda by OCE. The repetitive nature of the meetings leads to significant expenditure or time and travel expenses.

The analysis of the program’s timeline might provide useful insight into OCE’s rushed approach to AVIN. AVIN was initially announced in the provincial budget 2017, explicitly stating the City of Stratford as the demonstration zone. In November 2017, AVIN and the website were officially launched. Six months later, the first contract was signed between the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association (APMA) and OCE. A few weeks later, the remaining contracts were signed between OCE and the regions. However, only the demonstration zone and the R&D partnership fund have received the proposed funding from OCE. The regions expect to receive the funding in late 2018. Due to the delay in receiving funds, regions are unable to achieve sufficient progress towards their objectives, effectively shortening the program duration from five years to three and a half. During an interview, a regional official expressed concerns about the region’s ability to execute the task in the shortened time period and will likely request an extension from OCE. However, that person is unsure if the request will be accepted. According to the regional official, the delay in the RTDS program will negatively impact the demonstration zone as fewer technologies from the regions will be tested and demonstrated to customers.
 

Although the APMA has received the funds from OCE, the organization were unable to hire an individual responsible for the demonstration zone until late-May 2018. The Chief Technical Officer (CTO) appointed by APMA is exclusively responsible for the demonstration zone in AVIN, whereas the officials involved with the regions have other responsibilities outside of AVIN. Some regions have indicated that they intend to hire appropriate staff following receipt of funding. According to several regional officials, the lack of dedicated individuals within the regions is contributing to slower-than-expected progress by AVIN. OCE representatives within each region have started promoting the initiative, but it is acknowledged that their effect has been limited, a function of the fact that they those representatives are responsible for other OCE funding programs as well. Since there was no promotion regarding the demonstration zone prior to the arrival of the CTO, officials in the RTDSs are ambiguous about the demonstration zone’s value proposition. The lack of intra-project communications is provided by one interviewee.

During the interview conducted for this project a regional official acknowledged being unaware about APMA and Invest Stratford offering OEM and commercial vehicles for demonstration of the technology to potential customers. Regional officials consistently expressed minimal knowledge of other AVIN funding streams. Because the regions will collaboratively work with SMEs and start-up on the area of focus, OCE should ensure the officials involved are well-informed and understand each region’s and each zone’s value proposition. During an interview, a regional official mentioned OCE’s earlier decision to pre-determine the area of focus for each region through ‘extensive stakeholder consultations’. The regions refused to accept the predetermined areas of focus and informed OCE of their intent to withdraw the region from AVIN. According to the regional officials, an outcome of the negotiations between OCE and the regions over the area of focus was a delay to the RTDS program. Later, OCE permitted regions to propose an area of focus that would advance C/AV technology and reflects the regions’ technological strengths. However, as explained earlier, certain regions were unable to propose a ‘market-pull’ area of focus for the RTDS due to time constraints and lack of guidance from OCE. During the process, OCE decided to host meetings between OCE and independent regions to determine the most desirable area of focus for each region and for AVIN. However, regional officials claim meetings between OCE and all the involved regions would ensure each region understands other region’s area of focus and would significantly save time and expense. Since AVIN seeks to encourage collaboration within Ontario, it is vital for each region to understand other regions’ area of focus, according to regional officials. The ambiguity behind other regions’ area of focus was evident during the interviews, when numerous regional officials were unable to provide a rationale behind the various area of focus. Additionally, OCE was unable to highlight each region’s value proposition and any specialized equipment the region holds to other regions. Consequently, regions are more isolated.
 

Ambiguity has existed within the Southwestern region from the outset. Unlike other regions, the Southwestern Ontario region consists of the city of Windsor and the city of London. The decision to incorporate Windsor and London in one RTDS has prompted several financial and time implications. Understanding the implications, the cities, according to numerous regional officials, requested OCE to act as an independent region but the request was denied, the basis of which is unknown.

Through AVIN, Windsor and London will both receive $2.5 million over the five-year period of the porject. Currently, a contract between OCE and Windsor is signed, while a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is under negotiations between Windsor and London. According to regional officials, the MOU implies Windsor are liable for any risks associated with London. Consequently, negotiations are sluggish and unfinished. Inquiry into the motivation by the regional officials behind Windsor and London acting as a single RTDS has proven unsuccessful; regional officials. According to the respective officials, the decision has caused significant inconvenience to both regions. As well, London has been unable to fully promote AVIN within their region prior to the agreement of MOU. Moreover, according to the regional officials the announced funding of $2.5 million has placed each region under more stringent financial constraints. According to officials from other regions, the initial $5 million fund will not suffice to achieve the objectives, therefore, London and Windsor are said to be under further pressure to ensure the funding is effectively used. Numerous officials indicated the initial levels of funding will only suffice as seed funding, implying additional rounds of funding will be required to ensure the objectives are attained. According to a regional official, the current funding levels might prohibit startups and SMEs from accessing to state-of-the-art equipment and talent. Although regions are not responsible for promotion of AVIN, certain regions have planned independent marketing strategies to build awareness about AVIN due to no prior involvement of the region in the C/AV space. The additional marketing strategies, according to regional officials, will further increase costs and allocate less funds towards equipment and resources. Consequently, regions have expressed concerns regarding funding levels to create an ecosystem around the proposed area of focus, which will lead to a more natural growth of the region after the completion of AVIN.
 

According to numerous regional officials, an improved ecosystem approach would incorporate all AVIN funding streams into the RTDS, allowing regions to operate as a hub i.e. as an intermediary between SMEs and start-ups and OCE. Currently, companies within AVIN are involved with the RTDS to achieve regions’ objectives, simultaneously, applying for other funding streams with OCE to achieve individual company objectives. According to officials, a regional hub would ensure companies applying for alternative funding streams would be approved after considering alignment with regional and AVIN objectives. A regional hub would also reduce the number of applications received by OCE, thus, allocating more time towards other responsibilities. During interviews, regional officials indicated that their lack of understanding of alternative funding streams, along with minimal comprehension of AVIN demonstration zone rendered them incapable of providing effective support to regional organizations and companies, the very outfits they were designed to support. According to the regional official, the presence of a regional hub with improved levels of support would make AVIN more convenient for companies by establishing a single point-of-contact within AVIN, thus eliminating the need for a central hub.

The central hub, according to AVIN website, ‘supports delivery and administration of AVIN programming’ through the following functions:

  • Connecting & coordinating amongst interested stakeholders

  • Identifying opportunities and acting as a bridge between policy and technology

  • Awareness & education of AVIN programs and Ontario’s growing C/AV community

Despite the above, regions expressed uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the centralized hub. Some officials viewed the hub as a data-collection agency, responsible for the collection of generic data generated by all streams. However, according to regional and industry officials, the collected data lacks genuine value. The officials have also criticized the lack of promotion from the central hub, which is evident through the region’s inability to recognize Stratford’s value proposition as a demonstration zone. Further, the lack of marketing and promotional direction from the central hub has interrupted promotion of the program within their region. The hub also omits each region’s private partners on the website and/or the official press release. Current private partners of RTDSs include General Motors, IBM, Nokia, AWS etc. but according to an industry official, the companies are not leveraged to a great extent. The benefits of partnering with automotive manufacturers and technology company are two-fold: 1) input from partners is crucial for product development, and 2) partners can influence clients to pivot towards the AV space. Therefore, partnering with automotive manufacturers and technology companies is vitally important towards AVIN’s success. According to an industry official, current private partners are treated as vendors, limiting their influence towards AVIN. By contrast, the American Centre for Mobility explicitly announced partnering with AT&T, Toyota, Ford, Hyundai America Technical Centre, Subaru and Microsoft. Only the APMA was announced as partner of AVIN through the demonstration zone. APMA will introduce AVIN to their OEM producers, accounting for 90% of independent parts produced in Canada. Companies partnering with APMA and technology companies, according to an industry official, are pivoting towards the AV space due to the business and technological opportunities created through AVIN. The official states that AVIN’s influence on start-ups and SMEs is a positive indication regardless of lack of progress by the RTDS’. Although regional and industry officials acknowledge the potential of AVIN on the province, the regions are frustrated by the unnecessary bureaucratic nature of most funding streams. Regions inquiring about AVIN with Ministry of Economic Development and Growth (MEDG) or Ministry of Transportation (MTO) are referred to OCE, subsequently, OCE recommends that regions consult with MEDG/MTO since the ministries/OCE. According to several officials, regions are expected to comply with any decisions by OCE.
 

Contrary to the RTDS, the AV R&D partnership fund is currently in 2nd round of the funding cycle with increasing support towards the funding stream. OCE, however, have not informed the public of the funded projects through the R&D partnership fund. The lack of transparency was not acknowledged in the progress reports released by OCE in March 2018 and July 2018 respectively. The initial report ‘presented some of the C/AV technologies that Ontario companies and researchers are working on [prior to AVIN], whereas, the latest report ‘present(s) the main C/AV technology development areas that RTDSs support. Neither report identifies notable progress made by the R&D partnership funding stream. The inadequate marketing surrounding the demonstration zone is evident through the interview of regional officials. Through the demonstration zone, companies have an opportunity to demonstrate their technology on OEM or commercial vehicles in real-life environment, under different weather and traffic conditions. According to a regional official, the process of commercialization involves a technology being developed, tested, demonstrated on a generic vehicle and later, tested on the OEM’s vehicle. APMA and Invest Stratford’s decision to offer OEM and commercial vehicles for demonstration effectively shortens the commercialization process by allowing companies access to different vehicles. Companies within the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) space can also test their technology using DSRC and 5G for vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications8. The implementation of the respective city-wide roadside units occurs through OCE funding and the decision to host DSRC and 5G communications, according to a regional official, was through extensive consultation sessions with automotive manufacturers, technology companies and suppliers. Through the city’s ubiquitous Wi-Fi, the switch to 5G communication will be relatively uncomplicated. The features and vehicles offered are unique to the demonstration zone in Stratford.

The ministry decision to delegate all responsibilities to OCE has resulted in lack of awareness of the progress made by AVIN and its partners. According to one offical, the region was startled to discover MTO was unaware of the region’s value proposition, active partners or proposed area of focus. According to a regional official, the concept of RTDS was indefinite in November 2017 while other funding streams were officially announced by the government of Ontario. This is also evident in the press release. According to the regional official, the delay to introduce the RTDS funding stream may be the dominant reason behind OCE’s rushed approach towards regions, which could lead to poor results. Through the aforementioned reasons, AVIN’s objective to ‘commercialize C/AV and transportation infrastructure technologies’ is still very uncertain.
 

Objective 2: Encourage innovation and collaboration

Since C/AVs rely on technologies from various sectors2, collaboration amongst regions and partners is a key objective for AVIN. Currently, according to numerous regional officials, collaboration among regions is minimal. Although subsequent meetings involve all regions, during the initial phase of RTDS, separate meeting were held between OCE and each region. According to numerous officials, the opportunity loss through independent meetings is high. Collaboration between regions in the early stage could have allowed more effective communication to ensue and more relevant areas of focus to arise, thus increasing the likelihood of AVIN’s objectives being met. Further, each region would have had improved understanding of all other other regions’ value propositions. Meeting each region independently requires more resources i.e. time and money. The effect is that regional officials claim that RTDSs view the process as being competitive, not collaborative.

Officials also feel OCE ignores the competitive nature that has arisen and assumes each region is focused solely on the province’s benefit and not towards the region’s own interests. Investments from private companies are crucial for success of RTDSs. Since the investments are limited in funds, competition naturally manifests between regions. Unfortunately, officials state the competitive nature is a natural consequence of the RTDS approach in AVIN and is unavoidable. Furthermore, officials claim collaboration between the demonstration zone and the RTDSs is also minimal. Increased collaboration would ensure companies within a region utilize the demonstration zone. Currently, the demonstration zone and RTDS are independent. Regardless of region’s lack of progress, according to one industry official, certain companies outside of AVIN are eagerly anticipating the use of the demonstration zone since prior to the launch of AVIN, a facility like Stratford did not exist in Ontario.
 

Sharing of experimental/simulation data can further encourage collaboration between regions. According to an industry official, the current data-sharing guidelines restrict regions’ ability to leverage data generated by other regions. Although data generated through specialized equipment is proprietary, the sharing of anonymized data can significantly advance AVIN towards the objectives. The sharing of anonymized data eliminates the need to re-experiment a certain parameter for similar results. If doing so was permissible, companies within AVIN could share data between regions working on complimentary technologies. The industry official states the sharing of data is a significant missed opportunity for regions to achieve the RTDS objectives. The central hub is responsible for collection of data; however, regional officials suggest the data collected by the central hub is generic i.e. focused towards overall outcome of AVIN, serving as an internal government promotional document. OCE released a ‘Data and Information Sharing Protocol’ in December 2017 stating ‘the analysis and reporting of non-proprietary information collected by OCE is essential to advance the development and adoption of C/AV technologies across Ontario’s transportation system. The interpretation of the protocol, according to an industry official, is varied across regions and to date, OCE has done little to eliminate the ambiguity.

Encouraging the shared use of specialized equipment and other resources in different regions is limited in AVIN. According to an official, most regions’ value propositions are not explicitly defined within AVIN; Durham region’s wind tunnel has been exclusively mentioned during the interviews. Other regions may also possess vital resources for AVIN partners, however, such attributes have not been promoted or explained to other regions, companies or partners. The promotion of each region’s value proposition to AVIN stakeholders would reduce ambiguity between regions. Furthermore, officials claim the unique talent and equipment owned by academic institutions is seldom identified or promoted to relevant partners/regions. AVIN’s future success will require collaboration between regions through shared use of resources including specialized equipment, sharing of experimental/simulation data, and awareness of each region’s value proposition.
 

Conclusion:

Although AVIN encourages companies to pivot towards AV, the lack of progress by the RTDSs and demonstration zone since AVIN’s initiation is concerning to all partners, especially regional officials. The delay has placed all regions under significant pressure to achieve their objectives in a shortened period, causing inconvenience and frustration to officials involved in the regions. They claim OCE’s lack of guidance towards regions has aggravated the issue. Therefore, regions have been reluctant to promote AVIN to new partners. Some are considering the removal of the region from RTDS funding stream if amendments are not made in time. OCE’s constant engagement with ministries rather than the regions and partners has reduced the effectiveness of the program. Their lack of guidance has caused ambiguity within each region’s value proposition, key protocol documents and the demonstration zone. OCE’s failure to partner with and leverage automotive manufacturers, suppliers and technology companies is, according to officials, a significant threat to the success of the program. An extensive revamp of the program is required to ensure AVIN’s objectives are achieved in the allocated time. Central hub’s role within AVIN must improve through the execution of a comprehensive marketing campaign and the encouragement of shared use of resources and data between regions. Failure to take such measures will widen Ontario’s shortcomings in C/AV space.

 

Seraphinite AcceleratorOptimized by Seraphinite Accelerator
Turns on site high speed to be attractive for people and search engines.