The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Making sense of blockchain technology: How will it transform supply chains?
Abstract
Abstract This research uses sensemaking theory to explore how emerging blockchain technology may transform supply chains. We investigate three research questions (RQs): What are blockchain technology's perceived benefits to supply chains, where are disruptions mostly likely to occur and what are the potential challenges to further blockchain diffusion? We conducted in-depth interviews with 14 supply chain experts. Cognitive mapping and narrative analysis were deployed as the two main data analysis techniques to aid our understanding and evaluation of people's cognitive complexity in making sense of blockchain technology. We found that individual experts developed different cognitive structures within their own sensemaking processes. After merging individual cognitive maps into a strategic map, we identified several themes and central concepts that then allowed us to explore potential answers to the three RQs. Our study is among the very few to date to explicitly explore how blockchains may transform supply chain practices. Using the sensemaking approach afforded a deeper understanding of how senior executives diagnose the symptoms evident from blockchains and develop assumptions, expectations and knowledge of the technology, which will then shape their future actions regarding its utilisation. We demonstrate the usefulness of sensemaking theory as an alternative lens in investigating contemporary supply chain phenomena such as blockchains. Bringing sensemaking theory to this discipline in particular enriches emerging behavioural operations research. Our contributions also lie in extending the theories of prospective sensemaking and adding further insights to the stream of technology adoption studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006) · Field Methods · doi:10.1177/1525822x05279903 · Cited by 20,808
Organizing and the process of sensemaking
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133 · Cited by 6,943
What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies
Francis, J. J., Johnston, M., Robertson, C., Glidewell, L., Entwistle, V., Eccles, M. P., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2010) · Psychology & Health · doi:10.1080/08870440903194015 · Cited by 3,429
Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology?—A Systematic Review
Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163477 · Cited by 2,317
Hawk: The Blockchain Model of Cryptography and Privacy-Preserving Smart Contracts
Kosba, A., Miller, A., Shi, E., Wen, Z., & Papamanthou, C. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) · doi:10.1109/sp.2016.55 · Cited by 2,227
Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2014.873177 · Cited by 1,764
Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/196734.196745 · Cited by 1,736
Cited by
Dutta, P., Choi, T.-M., Somani, S., & Butala, R. (2020) · Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review · doi:10.1016/j.tre.2020.102067 · Cited by 1,545
Investigating the link between transaction and computational costs in a blockchain environment
Jabbar, A., & Dani, S. (2020) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2020.1754487 · Cited by 104
A cognitive mapping approach to analyse stakeholders’ perspectives on sustainable aviation fuels
Ahmad, S., & Xu, B. (2021) · Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.trd.2021.103076 · Cited by 58
Hosseini Dehshiri, S. J., Amiri, M., Mostafaeipour, A., & Le, T. (2024) · Energy · doi:10.1016/j.energy.2024.132136 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, Y., Singgih, M., Wang, J., & Rit, M.
- Venue
- International Journal of Production Economics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-05
- Volume
- 211
- Pages
- 221-236
- ISSN
- 0925-5273 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2789901505
- Cited by
- 811
- References
- 15
- FWCI
- 116.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Making sense of blockchain technology: How will it transform supply chains? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.02.002
- The paper
- Wang, Y., Singgih, M., Wang, J., & Rit, M. (2019). Making sense of blockchain technology: How will it transform supply chains? International Journal of Production Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.02.002
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
