CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 59Blockchain Technology Applications and SecurityBlockchain Technology in Education and LearningInformation Technology Governance and Strategy

Blockchain Technology in Business Organizations: A Scoping Review

Open access
Li, Yang, Marier-Bienvenue, Thierry, Perron-Brault, Alexis, Wang, Xinyi, Paré, Guy·2018·Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
DOI 10.24251/hicss.2018.565
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The scientific literature on blockchain technology is emerging but increasing rapidly. This review paper aims to provide a deeper understanding of the nature and scope of the extant literature on blockchain technology in the particular context of business organizations. To achieve our main objective, we searched five databases and screened 320 papers for inclusion. As a result of the search and screen process, we identified 39 relevant articles. Data coding was first pilot tested and then performed independently by two teams of researchers. All disagreements were reconciled by a third coder. Our findings reveal that most of the extant literature focuses on "how" blockchain technology works and, to a lesser extent, on the "what", i.e. its potential applications and usages in business organizations. For its part, the "why" question, which focuses on the organizational motivations for adopting blockchain technology, was scarcely discussed in prior literature. In short, our findings reveal that many issues and questions remain to be investigated. Based on a gap analysis, we propose a few promising avenues that shall guide future research efforts in this important topic.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This scoping review maps the emerging business literature on blockchain technology, screening 320 papers and analyzing 39 relevant articles. It finds that research concentrates on how blockchain works and what applications are possible, while organizational motivations (“why”) and impacts (“whom”) remain largely unexamined.

Key findings

  • Most included papers focus on the “how” question (61.5%), followed by the “what” question (35.9%); far fewer address “whom” (7.7%) or “why” (5.1%). Percentages exceed 100% because papers could have multiple foci.
  • The firm level dominates: 74.4% of papers focus on firm-level applications, while individual and government levels are much less investigated.
  • The sample is mostly conceptual (79.5%); only 4 papers (10.3%) are qualitative empirical studies, 1 (2.5%) is quantitative, and 3 (7.7%) are opinion papers/editorials. Conference proceedings make up 64% and peer-reviewed journals 36%.
  • Computer science, information systems/IT, and software architecture account for 61.5% (24 papers), finance for 15.4% (6 papers), law for 3 papers, and sociology, pharmaceuticals, and management for 1 paper each. All included papers were published after 2014: 7 (17.9%) in 2015, 29 (74.4%) in 2016, and 3 (7.7%) in early 2017.

Methods

  • Scoping review following Arksey and O’Malley and Levac et al.; five databases were searched on April 2, 2017: ABI/INFORM Collection (ProQuest), Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), Emerald Insight, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science. Keywords were “blockchain,” “distributed ledger technology,” “public ledger,” and “computational trust”; no time restriction was applied, but only English-language papers were included.
  • The search yielded 320 papers; 28 duplicates were found and 254 papers were excluded, with one additional paper found manually, leaving a final sample of 39 papers.
  • Data coding was pilot tested, then performed independently by two teams of two researchers; disagreements were reconciled by a third coder. Papers were classified using an inductively developed 3 × 4 matrix of level of application (individuals, firms, governments) and focus of inquiry (what, why, whom, how), and descriptive statistics were computed.

Limitations

  • The paper states an English-language restriction; two non-English papers were found during the search. It also states a possible selection bias despite using five social science databases, and notes that backward and forward searches had not yet been conducted.
  • The paper states that findings were not validated with a panel of experts, as suggested by Arksey and O’Malley, though the authors intend to do so.
  • Evident from the text: the search was conducted in April 2017, so the review captures literature only up to that date; the classification scheme was developed inductively from a pilot of six papers, and several categories contain very few papers.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.24251/hicss.2018.565

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 3 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    7.7% of the papers focus on the 'whom' question.

    “Interestingly, very few papers focus on the”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Computer science, information systems/IT and software architecture represent 61.5% of the sample (24 papers).

    “Computer science, information systems/IT and software architecture represent 61.5% of the sample (24 papers).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Most of the papers (61.5%) focus on the 'how' question.

    “Our findings reveal that most of the extant literature focuses on”
    • Also stated in: § Table 2. Focus of inquiry and level of application · plain
      “Our results reveal that most of the papers (61.5%) focus on the”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    74.4% of all papers focus on the firm level.

    “Finally, the level of application of the included papers is also unevenly distributed.Indeed, 74.4% of all papers in our sample focus on the firm level, studying possible applications to improve resource management or organizational efficiency.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In the six pilot papers, topics were either very general or very specific.

    “Indeed, the topics discussed in the six papers were either very general (e.g., blockchain technology benefits in the financial sector [9]), or very specific (e.g., design of a blockchain application for managing personal medical data [10]).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 15
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 29
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The vast majority of papers in the sample are conference proceedings (64%), while about one-third are peer-reviewed journal papers (36%).

    “In terms of publication type, Figure 4 shows that the vast majority of papers in our sample are conference proceedings (64%), while about one-third are peer-reviewed journal papers (36%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Different units of analysis were discussed in the pilot papers: some applications targeted individuals, others firms or governmental institutions.

    “We also observed that different units of analysis were discussed.Indeed, some applications targeted specific individuals, such as patients, students or customers who want to have access to a wireless network; others targeted firms, either private or public (e.g., hospitals, universities) as well as governmental institutions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The search of five databases yielded 320 papers.

    “The search was conducted on April 2, 2017.It yielded a total of 320 papers (nABI/INFORM Collection [Proquest] = 12, nAcademic Search Complete [EBSCO] = 30, nEmerald Insight = 12, nScienceDirect = 19, Web of Science = 247).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The first peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to blockchain technology research, Ledger, was announced in September 2015.

    “Interestingly, our search revealed that it is only in September 2015 that the first peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to blockchain technology research, called Ledger, was announced.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    5.1% of the papers focus on the 'why' question.

    “The”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Other areas include law with three papers and sociology, pharmaceuticals and management with one paper each.

    “Other areas include law with three papers and sociology, pharmaceuticals and management with one paper each.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    At least one of the questions (What is blockchain? What potential usages? How? Why?) was addressed in all six pilot papers.

    “Reading through all of the six papers, we found that at least one of the following questions was addressed in all of them: What is blockchain?What potential usages can it have?How could blockchain be applied in certain industries or business contexts?Why should blockchain be applied?”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Out of 39 included papers, four (10.3%) are qualitative empirical studies, one (2.5%) is a quantitative study, and three (7.7%) are opinion papers/editorials.

    “Out of the 39 included papers, four (10.3%) are qualitative empirical studies, one (2.5%) is a quantitative study, while the remaining three (7.7%) are opinion papers/editorials.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The remaining papers concentrate on regulation issues, advantages and disadvantages, user experience, impact, and opportunities, risks and challenges.

    “The others concentrate on regulation issues (e.g., [11,12]), advantages and disadvantages (e.g., [13,15]); user experience (e.g., [16]), impact (e.g., [17,18]); and opportunities, risks and challenges (e.g., [14]).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    No article published in Ledger was included in the present study because its inaugural issue was published in December 2016 and it mainly covers mathematics, computer science and engineering.

    “Because the inaugural issue was published in December 2016 and the journal mainly covers aspects of mathematics, computer science and engineering, no article published in this new outlet was included in the present study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The screening process identified 28 duplicates and excluded 254 papers, leaving a final sample of 39 papers.

    “As shown in Figure 2, a total of 28 duplicates were found and 254 papers were excluded based on the abovementioned criteria.One additional paper was found based on a manual search leaving us with a final sample of 39 papers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Models in these papers are based either on mathematical formulas, flow charts or programming codes.

    “Models are based either on mathematical formulas, flow charts or programming codes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    During the search, two papers written in other languages were found.

    “during the search we actually found two papers written in other languages.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The remaining papers mainly discuss the advantages of blockchain for building e-business models, designing intelligent transportation systems or getting access to Wi-Fi.

    “The remaining papers mainly discuss the advantages of blockchain for building e-business models, designing intelligent transportation systems or getting access to Wi-Fi.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingreasoning

    The actual and anticipated impacts of blockchain on individuals, firms and governments are yet to be documented in the business literature.

    “blockchain's potential for business performance has not been investigated thoroughly.”
    • Also stated in: § 5. Conclusion · plain
      “as well as the actual impacts blockchain provides to firms or organizations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Seven papers (17.9%) were published in 2015, 29 in 2016 (74.4%) and three (7.7%) in early 2017.

    “To be exact, seven papers (17.9%) were published in 2015, 29 in 2016 (74.4%) and three (7.7%) in early 2017.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    All disagreements in data coding were reconciled by a third coder.

    “All disagreements were reconciled by a third coder.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Blockchain is still considered an emerging topic in the business literature.

    “However, blockchain is still considered an emerging topic in the business literature.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Each team member independently carried out a pilot test to determine keywords.

    “To determine our set of keywords, each team member independently carried out a pilot test using the same database.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Disagreements in screening were forwarded to a third researcher who made the final decision.

    “The papers over which they disagreed were forwarded to a third researcher who made the final decision.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data

    The domains attempting to tackle this emerging topic are diverse.

    “This also shows the diversity of the domains attempting to tackle this emerging topic.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Papers were coded independently and all disagreements were reconciled by a third coder.

    “Papers were coded independently and all disagreements were reconciled by a third coder.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Members of each team compared their search results to ensure similar results.

    “Then, members of each team compared their results to make sure that the search returned similar results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Five out of 320 papers were randomly chosen for training to ensure consistent screening.

    “To ensure that we consistently screened and selected the relevant papers for our study, five out of the 320 papers were randomly chosen for training purposes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    All 320 papers were screened by two sub-teams, with independent screening and cross-checking.

    “All 320 papers were screened by two sub-teams.The two members of each team independently screened the papers for which they were responsible.Then they compared and verified their results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Data coding was performed independently by two teams of researchers.

    “Data coding was first pilot tested and then performed independently by two teams of researchers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The crosscheck process maximized the validity of the screening process.

    “The crosscheck process maximized the validity of the screening process.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Coding of papers was divided equally between two teams of two researchers each.

    “Coding of papers was divided equally between two teams of two researchers each.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Following Arksey and O'Malley's and Levac et al.'s guidelines maximizes systematicity, transparency, rigor, reliability, and trustworthiness.

    “The procedures proposed by these methodologists maximize both systematicity and transparency which, in turn, ensure a high level of rigor, reliability, and trustworthiness [6].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [6]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data

    Business research on this topic is still in its infancy.

    “This can be interpreted as another sign that business research on this topic is still in its infancy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data

    Many issues and questions remain to be investigated.

    “In short, our findings reveal that many issues and questions remain to be investigated.”
    • Also stated in: § 4. Discussion · hedged
      “Our findings indicate that many issues and questions remain to be explored.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Data coding was pilot tested before being performed.

    “Data coding was first pilot tested and then performed independently by two teams of researchers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Two team members jointly analyzed all coding sheets.

    “Two team members were responsible for jointly analyzing all the coding sheets.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Searching five databases allowed comprehensive coverage and minimized the risk of selection bias.

    “Because these databases include a rich, yet complementary collection of publishers and journals, searching through them allowed a comprehensive coverage and minimized the risk of selection bias.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The five selected databases include a rich, complementary collection of publishers and journals.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    A formal and detailed review protocol was developed and followed throughout the entire review process.

    “As an initial step, a formal and detailed review protocol was developed and followed throughout the entire review process.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Every database was independently searched using the same keywords and search criteria.

    “Every database was independently searched using the same keywords and search criteria.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The results of the present scoping review must be interpreted with caution due to limitations.

    “Results of the present scoping review must be interpreted with caution due to some limitations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Most of those anticipated usages focus on specific online system designs for data storing, protecting, sharing and transforming; and the areas involved have concentrated on online data recording and finance.

    “Most of those anticipated usages focus on specific online system designs for data storing, protecting, sharing and transforming; and the areas involved have concentrated on online data recording and finance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Backward and forward searches have not yet been conducted.

    “Due to pragmatic reasons, backward and forward searches have not yet been conducted but we anticipate to do so in the coming weeks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
39 of 39

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The non-technical literature on blockchain technology is rapidly expanding.

    “Because the non-technical literature on blockchain technology is rapidly expanding, we believe it is an appropriate time to scope prior knowledge on this topic, identify current gaps and suggest promising avenues for future research.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many nontechnical issues and questions about blockchain in business remain to be addressed.

    “In this regard, we posit that many nontechnical issues and questions must be addressed so that business executives and decision makers understand not only the intricacies of blockchain per se but also the types of business applications that are possible and how they could be used.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The five selected databases include a rich, complementary collection of publishers and journals.

    “Because these databases include a rich, yet complementary collection of publishers and journals, searching through them allowed a comprehensive coverage and minimized the risk of selection bias.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most of the extant literature on blockchain has been published in English.

    “While we believe most of the extent literature on blockchain has been published in English so far, during the search we actually found two papers written in other languages.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Over focusing on a few applications limits the potential of blockchain in businesses.

    “Indeed, over focusing on a few applications limits the potential of blockchain in businesses.”
5 of 5

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?

  • Many methodological papers for scoping reviews are published in healthcare focussed journals and associated disciplines.

    “Currently, many methodological papers for scoping reviews are published in healthcare focussed journals and associated disciplines [6, 39–43].”

    From Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application (2021) · cites this paper as [41]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Collomb, A., & Sok, K. (2016). Blockchain / Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT): What Impact on the Financial Sector? Digiworld Economic Journal, 103(3), 93.
  2. Yasin, A., & Liu, L. (2016). An Online Identity & Smart Contract Management System. In S. Reisman, S. I. Ahamed, L. Liu, D. Milojicic, W. Claycomb, M. Matskin, Z. Zhang (Eds.), IEEE 40th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference Workshops (pp. 192-198). New York: IEEE.
  3. Azaria, A., Ekblaw, A., Vieira, T., & Lippman, A. (2016). MedRec: Using Blockchain for Medical Data Access and Permission Management. Proceedings 2016 2nd International Conference on Open and Big Data -Obd 2016, 25-30.
  4. Collomb, A., & Sok, K. (2016). Blockchain / Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT): What Impact on the Financial Sector? Digiworld Economic Journal, 103(3), 93.
  5. Dennis, R., & Owen, G. (2015). Rep on the block: A next generation reputation system based on the blockchain. 2015 10th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (Icitst), 131-138.
  6. Dennis, R., & Owenson, G. (2016). Rep on the Roll: A Peer to Peer Reputation System Based on a Rolling Blockchain. International Journal for Digital Society, 7(1), 1123-1134.
  7. Fanning, K., & Centers, D. P. (2016). Blockchain and Its Coming Impact on Financial Services. Journal of Corporate Accounting and Finance, 27(5), 53-57.
  8. Folkinshteyn, D., & Lennon, M. (2016). Braving Bitcoin: A technology acceptance model (TAM) analysis. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 18(4), 220-249.
  9. Fujimura, S., Watanabe, H., Nakadaira, A., Yamada, T., Akutsu, A., Kishigami, J., & Ieee. (2015). BRIGHT: A Concept for a Decentralized Rights Management System Based on Blockchain. 2015 Ieee 5th International Conference on Consumer Electronics -Berlin (Icce-Berlin), 345-346.
  10. Garrod, J. Z. (2016). The Real World of the Decentralized Autonomous Society. Triplec- Communication Capitalism & Critique, 14(1), 62-77.
  11. Gerstl, D. S. (2016). Leveraging Bitcoin Blockchain Technology to Modernize Security Perfection under the Uniform Commercial Code. In A. Maglyas & A. L. Lamprecht (Eds.), Software Business (Vol. 240, pp. 109-123). Cham: Springer Int Publishing Ag.
  12. Hull, R., Batra, V. S., Chen, Y. M., Deutsch, A., Heath, F. F. T., & Vianu, V. (2016). Towards a Shared Ledger Business Collaboration Language Based on Data-Aware Processes. In Q. Z. Sheng, E. Stroulia, S. Tata, & S. Bhiri (Eds.), Service-Oriented Computing (Vol. 9936, pp. 18-36). Cham: Springer Int Publishing Ag.
  13. Irwin, A. S. M., & Milad, G. (2016). The use of crypto-currencies in funding violent jihad. Journal of Money Laundering Control, 19(4), 407-425.
  14. Kishigami, J., Fujimura, S., Watanabe, H., Nakadaira, A., & Akutsu, A. (2015). The Blockchain-based Digital Content Distribution System. Proceedings 2015 Ieee Fifth International Conference on Big Data and Cloud Computing Bdcloud 2015, 187-190.
  15. Kiviat, T. I. (2015). Beyond Bitcoin: Issues in Regulating Blockchain Transactions. Duke Law Journal, 65(3), 569-608.
  16. Lemieux, V. L. (2016). Trusting records: is Blockchain technology the answer? Records Management Journal, 26(2)
  17. Liu, P. T. S. (2016). Medical Record System Using Blockchain, Big Data and Tokenization. In K. Y. Lam, C. H. Chi, & S. Qing (Eds.), Information and Communications Security, Icics 2016 (Vol. 9977, pp. 254-261). Cham: Springer Int Publishing Ag.
  18. Mettler, M. (2016). Blockchain Technology in Healthcare The Revolution Starts Here. 2016 Ieee 18th International Conference on E-Health Networking, Applications and Services (Healthcom), 520-522.
  19. Nguyen, Q. K. (2016). Blockchain -A Financial Technology for Future Sustainable Development. 2016 3rd International Conference on Green Technology and Sustainable Development (Gtsd), 51- 54
  20. Roman, D., & Stefano, G. (2016). Towards a Reference Architecture for Trusted Data Marketplaces similar to The Credit Scoring Perspective similar to. Proceedings 2016 2nd International Conference on Open and Big Data -Obd 2016, 95-101.
  21. Sharples, M., & Domingue, J. (2016). The Blockchain and Kudos: A Distributed System for Educational Record, Reputation and Reward. In K. Verbert, M. Sharples, & T. Klobucar (Eds.), Adaptive and Adaptable Learning, Ec-Tel 2016 (Vol. 9891, pp. 490-496). Cham: Springer Int Publishing Ag
  22. Tian, F. (2016). An Agri-food Supply Chain Traceability System for China Based on RFID & Blockchain Technology. In B. J. Yang, J. Chen, X. Q. Cai, K. D. Qin, & C. Zhou (Eds.), 2016 13th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management. New York: Ieee.
  23. Tsai, W. T., Blower, R., Zhu, Y., & Yu, L. (2016). A System View of Financial Blockchains. Proceedings 2016 Ieee Symposium on Service- Oriented System Engineering Sose 2016, 450-457.
  24. Underwood, S. (2016). Blockchain beyond Bitcoin. Communications of the Acm, 59(11), 15-17.
  25. Yasin, A., & Liu, L. (2016). An Online Identity & Smart Contract Management System. In S. Reisman, S. I. Ahamed, L. Liu, D. Milojicic, W. Claycomb, M. Matskin, Z. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings 2016 Ieee 40th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference Workshops (pp. 192-198). New York: Ieee.
  26. Yeoh, P. (2017). Regulatory issues in blockchain technology. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 25(2)
  27. Yue, X., Wang, H. J., Jin, D. W., Li, M. Q., & Jiang, W. (2016). Healthcare Data Gateways: Found Healthcare Intelligence on Blockchain with Novel Privacy Risk Control. Journal of Medical Systems, 40(10), 8

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Li, Y., Marier-Bienvenue, T., Perron-Brault, A., Wang, X., & Paré, G.
Affiliations
HEC Montréal (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
Publisher
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
Published
2018
ISSN
  • 1530-1605 (ISSN-L)
  • 2572-6862
DOI
10.24251/hicss.2018.565
OpenAlex
W2782036776
Semantic Scholar
9233e65c04a50c817b3b42a09496f1cf4b70d12d
Cited by
59
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4
FWCI
5.49
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal) (submittedVersion)
  • ScholarSpace (University of Hawaii at Manoa) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology in Education and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Technology Governance and Strategy
Keywords
blockchain, business organization, organizational adoption, adoption motivations, blockchain applications, research gaps, technology adoption

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

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