CANVAS BUSINESS MODEL (Micro-mobility industry)

1. CUSTOMER

o 30,270,000 (< 3% pop) registered users (free registration) (15 cities ~ 10% cities?) 
urbanization ratio ~ 65%?
o User type: Commuter + tourist + shopper + student - unwilling to rely on pedal power
 using e-vehicles (e-bycicle, e-scooter, Hoverboard (2-wheel, 1-wheel)
 Sophisticated users  differences in their needs and preferences 
segmenting to do selling and marketing effectively  Big data analytics.
o Peak: 43% occur during the “rush hour” periods of 7 - 9.00am and 4 - 6.00 pm
o Different sizes, depending on - adult or children’s toys  Adult – max 16 km/h
 RA: > 18 y + max 10km/h to reduce accident.
o Sharing business – not own = not care  damage assets  repairmen?

2. VALUE PROPOSITION

o Cheaper (vs. user’s spending + vs. other form of micro-mobility and traditional)
 Evidence: price elasticity
 RA HB charge vs. DB e-bicycle charge  differ in D&A and marketing?
 HB: monopoly market  differentiation strategy?
o Quickly (especially in rush time, and traffic congestion/ jams)
 Ridding on pavement/ pedestrian areas.
o Convenience - sharing (credit card and e-wallet payment + dock prime location +
mobile app to unlock + Network of dock and availability of HB + ride on pavements or
pedestrian area) + no require wearing helmet (apply only bicycle).
o Convenience – HB itself - HB robust design + no required training to operate (need
5 m to operate) + full charged battery = riding 24km ~ 6 – 7 journey (3.5 km/journey ~
22m).
o Environmental awareness – reducing pollution, carbon footprint…
o One-way rental service (re-dock costs + issues with balancing dock capacity and
availability of HB at each dock) + “last mile” of a journey (< 5 miles)

3. CUSTOMER CHANNEL

o Via mobile App (on their smartphone) (locate, run, and make payment)
 Registration and payment
 create an account + download app (free)
 provide credit card (16-digit + 3-digit (CCV))
 payment by credit card (non-cash)
 Unlock/ release
 Log in app (their personal users and PW)
  Locate the nearest dock - sufficient HB available  check on app?
 RB’s central server verifies - OTP code to the user’s phone
 Put it into the dock + releases a HB
 Navigate and direct
 Locate nearby docks (destination) or ride to a known dock
 Hire time/period x charge = 1.4 initial charge + G$ 0.2 per m
 Repeated activities = twice a day?  Automate to increase
convenience, but data and process security issues?
o Via Website (create and verify account)
o Call center (take care and receive feedbacks to improve)  request? Improvement?
o Contact at Head office (physical talking)  claimed…
o Social Network: feedbacks, comments, sharing experience/ knowledges (positive +
negative)  direct contact with user? User insight?

4. CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP

o Lack of MKT Director?  Critical for RA business model + future development?

o Financial
 Per transaction - Discount price  stimulate demand when new laws
require wearing helmet (already happen with bicycle).
 Accumulated volume/transaction – bonus, redeem  exploit same
customer base but different needs and preferences.
o App/website: Loyalty program (apply blockchain technology + membership
programs) – micro marketing, remind, take care…  customized and micromarketing.
o App/website: Inform new dock/ new HB, company new info  update new
product/new market.

5. KEY ACTIVITIES

o Operation and staffing

 Collaborating with city authorities  individual cities/town  Key stakeholder
 Offer license for business/ dock sitting
 Permit to riding over pavement (esp. in rush hours)
 Management of docks and HB fleet
 Increase convenience (Location of dock, dock capacity, availability
of HB at each dock, integrate into app…)
 Legal issues (claimed by user, pedestrian…)
 Fines for illegal (parking HB, riding over pavement, not wearing?)
 Claim against company about accidents on pavement, on road,
relating to HB devices.
 Staff recruitment and training (~ 15,000 staffs)  wholly depend on IT
infrastructure and system (100% sale generation from mobile app)  software
 (update), hardware (tier 1), Expertise for operating (collaborate with
University).
 Health and safety (policy and procedures)  reduce accidents and perceived
risks before authorities taking new laws.
o IT infrastructure
 Maintenance and update of all operating software and apps, website.
 IT security and continuity (back-up system…)  ensure all business operating
as normal = no operate = no revenue = no cash = no business.

6. KEY PARTNER

o Employs 15,000 people (more IT staff)  Employee union? + Qualified staff IT?
 2,000 planning and analysis staff  full understanding local traffic condition
(set up camera to monitoring…) + flows of pedestrians  for itself + provide
consultant service to city/towns  basis of investment and improvement
initiatives.
 Mechanics (capacity of dock + availability of HB in dock + check HB to ensure
using them safely  need for repairing (slight or serious)
o Software provider
 Maximum 10 km/h – faster than walking (Higher speed - more accidents)
 Early warning + stop immediately  hacker? HB errors?
 App, website, server maintenance + cybersecurity  100% depend on IT
o Banker: Credit payment services  increase charges due to increase cyber risks
 Internal: Software, hardware, policy and procedures, training
 External: Black hackers vs. white hackers
o Insurers
o HB provider
 All HB purchased from Minnerring based in Deeland
 Sole provider (no. model + other suppliers) + Oversea supplier
 Large PO, because replacing each 6 month (basing on Minnerring
advices)  in reality = lower than (larger PO)  High value
transaction = higher currency risks.
 Value = 0.74 D&A X 31% of COS x 40% sale x 97.9 b = 9 b (10%
sale)
 RB only customer (low power)
 USP: robust design (suitable with users – nice, easy to use…)  but still
increase ankle injuries  need to improve further.
 Normal condition: 40 hours/w + up to 6 months before replaced, and D&A of
$ 0.74 basing on Manufacturer’s advices – reality check? (Riding faster,
irresponsibly, and exceeding weight)  avoid any underestimated 
Monitoring and managing to ensure as normal.
  Self-diagnosis software – self-identifying issues and report
 Real time or when docked.
o Siting Dock (license )
 Licensed by the appropriate town or city council (Individual city councils)
 Both new and revising existing dock/business?
 Debate Ministry transport vs. City councilor  conflict  difficult to RA.
 Ministry transport (max size of dock + min distance from roads)
 City (needs of local pedestrian + local traffic conditions)
 Potential political risks: Change administration at Ministry or local
authority
 Safety issues? (observing and take actions to prevent – restore public
confidence  their next election) - Effects of HB on the flow of pedestrians
and traffic in city streets.
 Decrease accident when increase bicycles, but increase by HB? 
Negative publicity attention  RA corporate trust and reputational
risks?
 Bicycle: no electric charge ~ 0.68/journey ~ 30% total costs  higher
chargeable costs  mark-up pricing?  impact on demand (elasticity)
 Required wearing helmet while ridding (for bicycle only, yet to apply HB)
 RB: require >18 years + hold valid license (no legal requirements) 
limit demand but reduce risks + reduce assurance costs
 Largest users – Z generation  RA regulation  reduce consumer
base  < 3%
o Assurance provider
 Provided to users (any injury or damage) ~ 0.12/journey ~ 5.5% total costs
 Claim against the company by users or by third parties?

KEY RESOURCES (PPE: 130 billion, +20k – replace and increase HB – for future growth)

o 32 docks across 15 cities ~ 2 dock/city  RA: higher sale per city  more premium?
o No. HB/dock x 32 docks  Benefit of network  Government support:
Road/pavement infrastructure.
o IT infrastructure: App + Website + server
o Software system (~ 1.6 b ~ 1.2% PPE) - data generation (profile and activities) + data
storage + Business analysis and decision making + monitoring  data-driven
 Support strategic choice and implementing + daily operation activities
 Shift from pedaling bicycle to e-bicycle and then HB sharing

REVENUE STREAM (5.8 per journey x No. journey weekly x 52 x No. HB = 97.9 billion, +15%
lower than DB ~ 20%)

o Volume drivers
  No. City /total city (15 city/150 city ~ 10%)
 % City universe users = age, income, or female? (switch from other to RB)
 Journey/user/week ~ 11 journey  more loyalty = good serving existing
consumer bases  high demand but elasticity of price  New entrant =
lowering price and margin.
 50% - 60% of trips < 5 miles  suitable for micro-mobility form?
 Reason to riding? Working commute + connection to transit
o Dynamic pricing
 Rush hours (43% total journeys) vs. normal
 Weekday vs. Weeken  employee or social activities?
 Rainy vs. sunny vs. windy  charge more frequently  increase costs +
reducing useful lifes?
 Long-standing users vs. new users (ID in system)  encourage loyalty?
 Pay as you go: G$ 0.2 per minute for an average of 22 minutes  Distance
pricing?
 Initial hire charge (G$1.4)  higher than DB?
o Maintaining and take care HB policy and penalty  reducing HB damage + riding
safety  reduce D&A cost + maintaining + reputational risks + threat from withdraw
licenses.

COST STRUCTURE (2.19 per journey x No. journey weekly x 52 x No. HB = 40 billion, +16%

o Cost of sale ~ 40% (DB: only 35%)

 Depreciation ~ 0.74 (~ 31% COS – high contribution)  bicycle lower (higher
useful life + lower cost of purchase)
 40 hours/w + up to 6 months before replaced  need reality check to
revise?
 Electricity ~ 0.68 ~ 31%  recharge HB at dock (pedal bicycle – no)
 Relocation costs ~ 0.22 (one-way rental)  looking for two way route to sitting
dock
 Repairs ~ 0.18 (Simple repairs + serious repairs) ~ 8.3% (riding exceeding
weigh, irresponsibly, and faster)
 Insurance ~ 0.12 (Both for users and HB property)
 Duration of any valid hire by a user
 Other insurance for RB
 Credit card fee ~ 0.26 ~ 4.5% sale value  all through mobile app.
o Marketing expenses ~ 5 bil, 5.1% (discounted, loyalty program),
 Increase MKT to support sale increase aggressively? (21% vs. 15% sale
growth)
 Open new cities? New dock? New HB? Or new user type?
 HB: require less marketing than bicycle (5.1% vs. 7.5% sale DB)
 o Administration expenses ~ 21 billion (+0.8 million), 21%
 Staff + IT + dock + van ~ 14% IT expenses  100% sale from App
 Economic of sale ~ centralized system?
o Financial expense ~ 5.6 billion (+2.7 billion) + 48%
 Loan + 12% only (+ 7b to 62.5 b)
 Effective rate increase from 5.2% to 9%/loan (DB ~ 9%, but stable)
 Increase interest rate (floating rate, or violate cove
 +/or depreciate currency (USD-based)?
o Tax ~ 26%
o Net profit ~ 19.4 billion, increase 16.3% (margin 20%)

FINANCIAL STRATEGY

Financial position

- Past change: increase 7b, but PPE +19b (partly funded by retain earning + 12.4b ~ 63.5%
NI)
- Current sources: LT debt/Equity ~ 121% (reducing trend, more financing from equity)
o Debt lender’s perception?  Less risky (Liquidity – growing and profitability +
recovery – collateral assets – 130b  loan ~ 48%)
- Debt: tax deduction, lower cost of funding, easy to raise and time saving, but increase
equity (RE or issue new)  lowering gearing  less risky.
- Equity financing:
o Strong growing and profitable business  maintaining and improvement?
o High dividend payout ~ 36.5% NI  reduce slightly to support growth?
o Strong share price performance (+233% since Aug 2019)  capital gain?
- Possible financing: debt covenant + industry sustainable level + debt or equity

Dividend policy: 2019 ~ 7 b ~ 36.5% Net profit of 2019  cash dividend  lowering share price.

- Increase ~ 233% within 10 months from Aug 2019 to Apr 2020

o Strong business growth (revenue ~ 15% and net profit ~ 16.3%)
o Strong CA and market position
 Sole HB sharing provider (new license from new city?)
 Strong relationship with Transport Ministry and Local authority
 IT leverage
 Largest market share of Micro-mobility
 Large scale and penetration (15 cities)
 High level of consumer loyalty
- Ungeared beta ~ 1.21 – more volatile vs. market on average – increase market risk
 o Growing and strong performance business – majority % value = investor
confidence (strong growing trend) = more volatile
o Future events (positive + negative  from internal + external)
 Claimed by doctor – increase ankle injuries  Publicity criticism
 IT system issues  wholly depend on
 Consumer data leaks  Publicity criticism
 Claimed by pedestrians – increase perceived risks on pavement areas.
 Claimed by users – increase unsafety with using HB.
 Withdraw license/ permission?

PESTEL ANALYSIS

- Political (change in Party) and legal (change in laws and regulations)

o Captured the public’s attention (their next election – need supports from
population/ citizen)  safety implication (observing and take actions).
o Laws - mandatory to wear helmets while cycling  reduced demand (yet to apply
HB  reduce convenience and increase costs, and control)
o Subsidy for pedaling bicycles (carbon footprint, green environment)?
 Dedicated lanes for HB like bicycle?
o Withdraw licenses? Whole business at city cease to operate.
o New regulations on users and/or HB?  not ridding on pavement + must wearing
helmet while ridding?
o Data protection – Banking + their personal info (location of dock and return)
- Economic
o Growing country/major cities – high disposable income (living of standard) –
consumer spending (% their spending for HB/transport).
o Increase employment  increase commuting demand  increase traffic jams
(big issues) need to plan and solving  promote micro-mobility in ST, before
make effective urbanization planning for future).
o Urbanization rate (%), urban and road transport facilities, and IT infrastructure –
4G, 5G  Government spending  new potential sector development
(touristism…)
- Social
o Change habit from walking to ridding  unwilling to riding pedal bicycle even
short distance.
o Large and prosperous country > 1b people (30 m registers ~ < 3%)
 Young (Z, Y)  largest segment  dynamic, explorer, but problem with
policy
o Major cities have grown rapidly and many are struggling with the difficulties
caused by traffic congestion (time wasting + costing) and the resulting pollution
 o Busy life styling + smartphone mobile penetration (90%) + internet connection
(100%)
- Technology
o Fast + Safety + convenience  Mobile app experience + HB experience
o Sharing: App + network + mobile coverage
o HB itself technology  safety and convenience to use (battery overheating +
increase ankle injury)
- Environment
o Relatively flat country (reduce battery charge ~ 31% cost) but windy weather
(cycling tiring) – suitable for e-vehicle development  No pedaling
o Paperless – non-cash transactions (credit card + e-wallet)
o Recycling – used HB and its battery  Minnirring re-collect (costs + pollution
issues?)
o Carbon footprint reducing/ not replace to normal vehicles (supplement –
connection to transit)

RISK MANAGEMENT (identify, evaluate, and mitigate) + recognized on risk register?

SAFETY ISSUES

- Cause injury when ridden irresponsibly  18 years + hold a driver’s licenses  effective
enough to prevent injury/ accidents? Need to focus on nature of behavior + training
instead of limiting age threshold?
- Relatively high speed on pavements areas  injure pedestrian’s  comprehensive
insurance cover for both injury and property damage (corrective control?) + Need a
prevent control (full trained + max speed + automatous warning…) to avoid new
regulations.
- Catching fire or exploding  Dangerous when dismantled or handled roughly  fully
trained in the safe handling + HB - self-diagnostic sensors - warning of problems early.
o Root causes = extended useful life of HB + Reused HB + Work closely with
suppliers to improve? + Looking for new supplier with safety product?

REGULATION AND LICENSING

- Requires the permission/license of city authorities (+Transport Ministry) to locate docks +

ridding over pavement  if withdrawn - operations would have to cease  Maintains
strong communication/ relationship + Board: any concerns raised by the authorities - Top
priority (public perception)  Key stakeholders.
- Political risks – change City authority vs. Transport Ministry - change in laws and
regulation

COMPETITION
 - Competitor: other providers (e-bicycle + e-scooter) + traditional public transport, taxi and
ride-sharing services  Technology advancement + receive subsidies  price war
(reducing margin)  Area of competition: < 5 miles.
- DB ~ 6 cities ~ 30% RA sale, not whole 15 key cities
- HB charge higher than bicycle charge (higher marketing + cost of purchase)  elasticity
of price?  if new entrant or existing follow cost leadership – danger?.
- Only provider of shared HB + ridden on pavements (not risk exposing on roads) +
unaffected by delays caused by heavy traffic  need diversification to reduce overall
business risks
o Product: Scooter sharing + bicycle sharing?
o Market: new city/ new countries/ new demographic users

IT

- Wholly dependent servers + access to mobile phone networks to operate their apps 
Backed up system – Business continuity plan  potential impact of disaster situations,
creates policies to respond to them and helps businesses recover quickly - as usual.
- Mobile phone networks (third parties) rarely go out of service + rarely affect more than
one service provider - unlikely to prevent all users from hiring HB.
- Files contain sensitive data - credit card details and the location of users  Ensure its
servers are secure + Staff – checks (internal control and internal auditing) to ensure that
they are trustworthy before they are granted access to users’ data  sharing to third
parties?

CURRENCY AND SUPPLIER RISKS

- Purchase all HB from Deeland?  Currency risks? Hedging

o Internal: Invoicing, lagging or leading
o External: Option, forward, and swap.
- Rely on sole suppliers (HB – key business element)  new supplier to balance risks?

REPUTATION RISKS

- Claimed by doctor – increase ankle injuries  Publicity criticism

- IT system issues  leak user’s data + wrong process/payment + fraudulent transaction
- Consumer data leaks  Publicity criticism
- Claimed by pedestrians – increase perceived risks on pavement areas  withdraw
license?
- Claimed by users – increase unsafety with using HB  switching to e-bicycle or e-
scooter.

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT (HB SHARING)

  Shareholder
o Power: high power through their voting  depend on their % holding and
influence on other SH’s decision.
o Interest: Their dividend payout and capital gains  future cash flow generation
from business = growing and profitability of business at acceptable level of risk.
o Management: honesty, transparency  clear communication = throughout
 User
o Power: lower  limited alternative + diverse users  increase by create
group/community  using PR/media pressure.
o Interest: High interest  their monthly money  elasticity of price
o Management: Keep informed
 Local authority
o Power
o Interest
o Management
 National transport ministry
o Power
o Interest
o Management
 15,000 staff
o Power
o Interest
o Management
 HB supplier
o Power
o Interest
o Management

SWOT ANALYSIS

 Over rivals (vs. DB in micromobility market  e-bicycle vs. e-HB)

 Internal (Strengths + Weaknesses) + External (Opportunities and Threats)  Quantify?
 Dynamics: Conversion (from Weaknesses to Strengths + from threats to opps) +
Matching (Strengths and Opportunities)  Evaluate strategic options?  Generate CA.
 Strengths
o Only hoverboard comp. in Geeland (15 cities + require licenses and permission)
o Consultant for government/councils  full understand flow of traffic + flow of
pedestrian
 o Only existing mode of micromobility in Geeland requiring no pedaling (HB better
than electric bicycle?)  USP: User becoming lazy?
o Can avoid roads, so no traffic issues  only HB ridding over pavement (likely
scooter)
o No need to wear helmets (required  increase cost + reduce convenience 
demand)
o Cover 15 cities  Market share + brand presence + customer base size.
 Weaknesses
o Batteries prone to overheating  catching fire and exploding  dangerous?
o Relatively slow  Max 16 kmh, but RA limit 10 kmh  switch to ownership
o Convoluted rental process  process in convenience and cost saving?
o Higher cost of sale + useful life < 6 months?  Extend? Or similar e-vehicle.
 Opportunities
o Space for electric scooters (product) + 1-wheel HB
o HB 10%  catching up bicycle size?, traditional bicycle ~ 90% ~ mature?
o Market development (new dock in new cities, new regions?)
o Become a supplier to government agencies
o Take advantage of quasi-monopoly conditions with price hikes (?)
 Threats
o Introduction of mandatory helmets (new regulations – reduce demand)
o Government admits direct competitor  lose unique CA.
o City councils deviate from government, imposing more stringent regulations
o Single supplier: price hikes, collapse etc
o Electric scooters (existing comp. or new)  competing services?
o Customer: elasticity of price

INDUSTRY FEEDBACKS

- NEW PRODUCT
o 2-Wheel – HB
 Easy to learn (approx. 5 minutes)  No training required?
 More stable; can remain static without support
 Can turn on its axis, and take corners more effectively
 Difficult to control in expected event)
o 1-Wheel – HB (more difficult to use)
 Relatively difficult to learn (approx. 1 day)
 Rider must dismount one leg when coming to a stop  accident?
 Takes up less space  lower cost of purchase?
- HB market size ~ 3 b (~10%) vs. bicycle 28 b
 o Drivers: growing enthusiasm about the gadget among younger demographics (Z
– largest consumer?) + develop innovative, eco-friendly transportation modes
- Micro-mobility - short (< 5 miles) + urban landscape  60% of all trips <= 5 miles.
o Riding hailing ~ 5 – 15 miles + Car sharing ~ > 15 miles
o Rapid urbanization?  Demand and infrastructure development?
o China and Taiwan - manufacturing of these vehicles, owing to high production
capabilities and availability of abundant raw materials
- Why People ride?
o Bike sharing
 Top: to/ from work + connection to Transit (from bus, railway station
 Second: Social activities (travel/tourist, commute, go to school..), Excerise
o Ownership: balance between
- Governor of California  goal of reaching 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles by 2025 
Increase e-vehicles  reduce demand for crude oil?

CONTROVERSIES

- Accidents
o Involved in many accidents  users often move seamlessly between road and
pavement (high speed? Irresponsibly… not permit/fines?)  RA: increase IT
system and resource to make safety for pedestrians + users  increase Admin
costs + reduce demand for HB sharing?
o Scooter-related accidents = small number, but increasing trend…
o Vs. car accidents (6 million per year in the US); but new, conspicuous products
are typically subjected to increased safety scrutiny compared to existing product.
- Dumping
o Undocked micro-mobility devices are being “dumped” on city streets and
cluttering up pavements - transport stations and depots + busy commercial
districts and plazas  fine? Or sitting dock? (License to others or public dock
for?).
- Batteries
o HB batteries - overheat and explode, in some cases causing injuries to users
o Airlines - prohibit hoverboards being allowed as on-board luggage
o Amazon - liability case for selling an exploding hoverboard…
- Government Regulations
o Paris introducedfines of €135 for users who endanger pedestrians
o improper parking of the scooters
- Real case - RA
o Change initial hire? $/minute?
o Increase max speed? to 15 mph?
o Impose helmet regulations?  Require balance to gurantee? 10 USD
- Real case - Minnirring
o Patents on designs for? Expired?  IP and legal battles between suppliers>
o New model? For type of user? Innovative product? Solving battery issues?
o Litigation case? Inadequate safety?
o The UK banned the use of Ninebot's e-roller skates in all public places
- DA is better than RA: better growth although lowering scale (6 vs. 15 cities, and only
30% RA sale), better gross margin, electric bikes easy to sell?, better operating profit
margin = better cost control, better operating procedures?, higher ROCE (higher margin
37.2% vs. 32.6% and higher asset turnover? 1.4 vs. 0.9).