Transport network criticality analysis aims at ranking transport infrastructure elements based on their contribution to the performance of the overall infrastructure network. Despite the wide variety of transport network criticality metrics, little guidance is available on selecting metrics that are fit for the specific purpose of a study. To address this gap, this study reviews, evaluates and compares seventeen criticality metrics. First, we conceptually evaluate these metrics in terms of the functionality of the transport system that the metrics try to represent (either maintaining connectivity, reducing travel cost, or improving accessibility), the underlying ethical principles (either utilitarianism or egalitarianism), and the spatial aggregation considered by the metrics (either network-wide or localised). Next, we empirically compare the metrics by calculating them for eight transport networks. We define the empirical similarity between two metrics as the degree to which they yield similar rankings of infrastructure elements. Pairs of metrics that have high empirical similarity highlight the same set of transport infrastructure elements as critical. We find that empirical similarity is partly dependent on the network’s topology. We also observe that metrics that are conceptually similar do not necessarily have high empirical similarity. Based on the insights from the conceptual and empirical comparison, we propose a five-step guideline for transport authorities and analysts to identify the set of criticality metrics to use which best aligns with the nature of their policy questions.

Purpose: Since the 2008 financial crisis, the financial industry is in need of innovation to increase stability and improve quality of services. The purpose of this paper is to explore internal barriers that influence the effectiveness of projects within large financial services firms focussing on potentially disruptive and radical innovations. While literature has generally focused on barriers within traditional technology and manufacturing firms, few researchers have identified barriers for these type of firms. Design/methodology/approach: A framework of internal barriers was developed and validated by means of an explorative case study. Data were collected at a European bank by exploring how innovation is organized and what barriers influence effectiveness of eight innovation projects. Findings: Six items were identified as key barrier for potentially disruptive and radical innovations (e.g. traditional risk-avoidance focus, and inertia caused by systems architecture). As such, in the sample these were more important than traditionally defined barriers such as sources of finance, and lacking exploration competences. Research limitations/implications: Based on a small number of projects within one firm, the results highlight the need for more in-depth research on the effects of barriers and how barriers can be overcome within this industry. Originality/value: The results show that there is a discrepancy between the societal demand for radical change within the financial industry and the ability of large financial services firms to innovate. The study identifies which unique internal barriers hamper potentially disruptive and radical innovation in large financial services firms.