Decision Problems in Blockchain Governance: Old Wine in New Bottles or Walking in Someone Else’s Shoes?
Open accessAbstract
Blockchain comes with the promise of being a disruptive technology with the potential for novel ways of interaction in a wide range of applications. Following broader application, scholarly interest in the technology is growing, though an extensive analysis of blockchain applications from a governance perspective is lacking to date. This research pays special attention to the governance of blockchain systems and illustrates decision problems in 14 blockchain systems from four application domains. Based on academic literature, semi-structured interviews with representatives from those organizations, and content analysis of grey literature, common problems in blockchain governance have been singled out and contextualized. Studying their enactment revealed their relevance to major organizational theories in what we labelled “Patrolling the borders,” “External Legitimation,” “Reduction of Discretionality,” and “Temporal Management.” The identification of these problems enriches the scarce body of knowledge on the governance of blockchain systems, resulting in a better understanding of how blockchain governance links to existing concepts and how it is enacted in practice.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Governance entails managing competing stakeholder interests and implementing effective decision-making processes, value creation strategies, and dispute resolution mechanisms.
“Governance entails managing competing stakeholder interests and implementing effective decision-making processes, value creation strategies, and dispute resolution mechanisms (Zavolokina et al., 2020; Ziolkowski et al., 2020).”
From Sustaining the Crypto Commons: A Configurational Systems Perspective on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Governance (2024) · cites this paper as Ziolkowski et al., 2020
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 118 · Cited by 151
- Authors
- Ziolkowski, R., Miscione, G., & Schwabe, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Zurich (CH)
- University College Dublin (IE)
- Corresponding author
- Ziolkowski, Rafael
- Venue
- Journal of Management Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-04-02
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 316-348
- ISSN
- 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-928X
- OpenAlex
- W3034219685
- Cited by
- 151
- References
- 118
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 19.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Journal of Management Information Systems (publishedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
- Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften digital collection (Zurich University of Applied Sciences) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Research Repository UCD (University College Dublin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Technology Governance and Strategy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Keywords
- blockchain governance, decision problems, organizational theory, organizational legitimacy, temporal management, organizational boundaries, blockchain applications, organizational change
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