To join or not to join?–A framework for the evaluation of enterprise blockchain consortia

Max Schwarzer, Tan Gürpinar, M. Henke
{"title":"To join or not to join?–A framework for the evaluation of enterprise blockchain consortia","authors":"Max Schwarzer, Tan Gürpinar, M. Henke","doi":"10.3389/fbloc.2022.935346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Within the past years, enterprise blockchain solutions were frequently developed within different industry consortia. In most cases, this resulted in isolated solutions competing against each other due to similar approaches and goals. Today, decision makers do not necessarily need to establish entirely new blockchain consortia, as established ones already exist, and participation is a considerable way to avoid unreasonable efforts. In this paper, we apply an iterative literature review to identify different factors relevant for practitioners, who face the challenge of joining an existing enterprise blockchain consortium. In a second step, we discuss these factors utilizing supply chain management as a role model. As a main finding, we propose an evaluation framework for the purpose of enterprise blockchain consortium analysis. Additionally, we provide several questions relevant for practitioners during their evaluation stages. With our evaluation framework we contribute to blockchain research, where - despite its high relevance - the topic of consortium evaluation has so far been neglected. We also contribute to research in the field of technology evaluation by proposing and merging five different evaluation dimensions.","PeriodicalId":426570,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Blockchain","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Blockchain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2022.935346","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Within the past years, enterprise blockchain solutions were frequently developed within different industry consortia. In most cases, this resulted in isolated solutions competing against each other due to similar approaches and goals. Today, decision makers do not necessarily need to establish entirely new blockchain consortia, as established ones already exist, and participation is a considerable way to avoid unreasonable efforts. In this paper, we apply an iterative literature review to identify different factors relevant for practitioners, who face the challenge of joining an existing enterprise blockchain consortium. In a second step, we discuss these factors utilizing supply chain management as a role model. As a main finding, we propose an evaluation framework for the purpose of enterprise blockchain consortium analysis. Additionally, we provide several questions relevant for practitioners during their evaluation stages. With our evaluation framework we contribute to blockchain research, where - despite its high relevance - the topic of consortium evaluation has so far been neglected. We also contribute to research in the field of technology evaluation by proposing and merging five different evaluation dimensions.
加入还是不加入?-企业区块链联盟评估框架
在过去的几年里,企业区块链解决方案经常在不同的行业联盟中开发。在大多数情况下,由于方法和目标相似,这导致孤立的解决方案相互竞争。今天,决策者不一定需要建立全新的区块链联盟,因为已有的联盟已经存在,参与是避免不合理努力的重要方式。在本文中,我们应用迭代文献综述来确定与从业者相关的不同因素,他们面临加入现有企业区块链联盟的挑战。在第二步中,我们将利用供应链管理作为榜样来讨论这些因素。作为主要发现,我们提出了一个用于企业区块链联盟分析的评估框架。此外,我们还为从业人员在评估阶段提供了一些相关问题。通过我们的评估框架,我们为区块链研究做出了贡献,尽管它具有很高的相关性,但迄今为止,联盟评估的主题一直被忽视。我们还通过提出和合并五个不同的评估维度,为技术评估领域的研究做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信