The Impact of Blockchain Technology Application on Supply Chain Partnership and Performance
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Research Background
2.1. Blockchain in Operations and Supply Chain Management
- Information distribution and synchronization: Every network system participant has access to the same data and ledger containing the complete history of transactions with maximal transparency.
- P2P networks and consensus: System participants collectively form and run the network without relying on a central authority or centralized infrastructure.
- Smart contract and payment: Legal provisions of contractual agreement are formalized into computer programming codes and verified through system participants. It automatically confirms pre-determined rules and penalties prior to executing the terms of agreements.
- Data immutability: Every transaction creation and/or modification must be verified by the consensus of most of the system participants, ensuring that the history of records is reliable and unaltered without collective verification
2.2. Blockchain Application and Strategic Supply Chain Partnership Management
2.3. Blockchain Application from the Resource-Based and Relational Views
3. Research Model and Hypotheses
3.1. Information Transparency and SC Partnership Efficiency and Growth
3.2. Information Immutability and SC Partnership Efficiency and Growth
3.3. Smart Contracts and SC Partnership Efficiency and Growth
3.4. SC Partnership Efficiency, Growth, and Performance
4. Research Methodology and Results
4.1. Measurement Item Generation
4.2. Data Collection
4.3. Measurement Model Assessment
4.4. Structural Equation Model Result
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Measurement Instrument
TRNS1 | Information transparency has become a critical element to maintain a strong partnership. |
TRNS2 | Our firm would be willing to make further investment in importing information transparency to facilitate communication with the partner firm. |
TRNS3 | “Information transparency” technology is highly applicable to our firm and may be considered to replace the current contractual relationship with a partner. |
IMM1 | Data and information immutability has become a critical element for maintaining a strong partnership. |
IMM2 | Data and information immutability ensures that change and removing information on a private or permissioned blockchain requires notifying the network members and follows certain agreements and approval requirements. |
IMM3 | Our firm can count on the partner to be sincere based on data and information immutability. |
IMM4 | “Data and information immutability” technology is highly applicable to our firm and may be considered to replace the current contractual relationship with a partner. |
SMRT1 | Smart contracts in the form of digital contracts remove human judgment from transactions and rather follow pre-determined conditions including rules and penalties that are agreed upon with a partner. |
SMRT2 | Smart contracts have become a critical element to maintaining a strong partnership. |
SMRT3 | “Smart contract” technology is highly applicable to our firm and may be considered to replace the current contractual relationship with a partner. |
PEFF1 | Our firm anticipates a decrease in significant investments in resources dedicated to the relationship with the partner firm. |
PEFF2 | Our firm anticipates a decrease in financial and non-financial efforts in sharing relevant, timely, accurate, complete, and confidential information to the partner firm. |
PEFF3 | Our firm anticipates a decrease in financial and non-financial efforts in obtaining relevant, timely, accurate, complete, and confidential information from the partner firm. |
PEFF4 | Our firm anticipates a decrease in joint efforts in aligning benefits, risks, and costs with the partner firm. |
PGRW1 | Our firm anticipates an increase in growth of contractual agreement. |
PGRW2 | Our firm anticipates an increase in growth of trust in the inter-organizational relationship. |
PGRW3 | Our firm anticipates an increase in growth of commitment of both partners. |
PGRW4 | Our firm anticipates an increase in growth of operational flexibility. |
FPERF1 | Our firm anticipates an increase in growth in sales. |
FPERF2 | Our firm anticipates an increase in growth of return on investment. |
FPERF3 | Our firm anticipates an increase in growth of profit margin on sales. |
FPERF4 | Our firm anticipates an increase in growth in market share. |
OPERF1 | Our firm anticipates an increase in growth of service and product quality performance. |
OPERF2 | Our firm anticipates an increase in growth of on-time delivery of service and product. |
OPERF3 | Our firm anticipates an increase in growth in degree of service, product, and content variety. |
OPERF4 | Our firm anticipates an increase in growth of overall operations cost improvement. |
References
- Nakamoto, S. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. 2008. Available online: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (accessed on 4 April 2019).
- Underwood, S. Blockchain beyond bitcoin. Commun. ACM 2016, 59, 15–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kouhizadeh, M.; Sarkis, J. Blockchain practices, potentials, and perspectives in greening supply chains. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cole, R.; Stevenson, M.; Aitken, J. Blockchain Technology: Implications for operations and supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tijan, E.; Aksentijević, S.; Ivanić, K.; Jardas, M. Blockchain Technology Implementation in Logistics. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Y.; Liang, C. Blockchain application and outlook in the banking industry. Financ. Innov. 2016, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hackius, N.; Petersen, M. Blockchain in Logistics and Supply Chain: Trick or Treat? In Proceedings of the Hamburg International Conference of Logistics (HICL), Hamburg, Germany, 12–14 October 2017; p. 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tapscott, D.; Tapscott, A. Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World; Penguin: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Reyna, A.; Martín, C.; Chen, J.; Soler, E.; Díaz, M. On blockchain and its integration with IoT. Challenges and opportunities. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018, 88, 173–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kshetri, N. 1 Blockchain’s roles in meeting key supply chain management objectives. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 39, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alam, M. Why the Auto Industry Should Embrace Blockchain. 2016. Available online: https://www.connectedcar-news.com/news/2016/dec/09/why-auto-industry-should-embrace-blockchain (accessed on 1 October 2019).
- Planning Korea. Blockchain City. 2018. Available online: http://planningkorea.com/portfolio/blockchain-city (accessed on 1 October 2019).
- Koetsier, J. Blockchain Beyond Bitcoin How Blockchain Will Transform Business in 3 to 5 Years. 2017. Available online: https://www.inc.com/john-koetsier/how-blockchain-will-transform-business-in-3-to-5-years.html (accessed on 1 October 2019).
- Binance Academy. Blockchain Use Cases: Healthcare. 2019. Available online: https://www.binance.vision/blockchain/blockchain-use-cases-healthcare (accessed on 1 October 2019).
- Groenfeldt, T. IBM and Maersk Apply Blockchain to Container Shipping. 2017. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomgroenfeldt/#dd0cc5150040 (accessed on 1 October 2019).
- Yli-Huumo, J.; Ko, D.; Choi, S.; Park, S.; Smolander, K. Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology?—A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0163477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christidis, K.; Devetsikiotis, M. Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things. IEEE Access 2016, 4, 2292–2303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, M.; Zhang, Q. Supply chain collaborative advantage: A firm’s perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2010, 128, 358–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pomponi, F.; Fratocchi, L.; Tafuri, S.R.; Rossi Tafuri, S. Trust development and horizontal collaboration in logistics: A theory based evolutionary framework. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2015, 20, 83–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, D.J.; Skipper, J.B.; Hazen, B.T.; Hanna, J.B. Inter-organizational IT use, cooperative attitude, and inter-organizational collaboration as antecedents to contingency planning effectiveness. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2012, 23, 50–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, N.; Park, S.H.; Park, S. Partnership-Based Supply Chain Collaboration: Impact on Commitment, Innovation, and Firm Performance. Sustainability 2019, 11, 449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Handley, S.M.; Benton, W.C. Unlocking the business outsourcing process model. J. Oper. Manag. 2009, 27, 344–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pattison, I. 4 Characteristics that Set Blockchain Apart. Available online: https://www.ibm.com/blogs/cloud-computing/2017/04/11/characteristics-blockchain/ (accessed on 13 March 2019).
- Casey, M.J.; Wong, P. Global supply chains are about to get better, thanks to blockchain. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Youn, S.; Yang, M.G.; Hong, P.; Park, K. Strategic supply chain partnership, environmental supply chain management practices, and performance outcomes: An empirical study of Korean firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 56, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwon, I.W.G.; Kim, S.H.; Martin, D.G. Healthcare supply chain management; strategic areas for quality and financial improvement. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2016, 113, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohr, J.; Spekman, R. Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strateg. Manag. J. 1994, 15, 135–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goffin, K.; Lemke, F.; Szwejczewski, M. An exploratory study of ‘close’ supplier–manufacturer relationships. J. Oper. Manag. 2006, 24, 189–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyaga, G.N.; Whipple, J.M.; Lynch, D.F. Examining supply chain relationships: Do buyer and supplier perspectives on collaborative relationships differ? J. Oper. Manag. 2010, 28, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyer, J.H.; Singh, H. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 660–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barney, J.B. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, M.; Zhang, Q. Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. J. Oper. Manag. 2011, 29, 163–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.; Cao, M. Exploring antecedents of supply chain collaboration: Effects of culture and interorganizational system appropriation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 195, 146–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turilli, M.; Floridi, L. The ethics of information transparency. Ethics Inf. Technol. 2009, 11, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, N.; Park, S. Evidence-Based Resilience Management for Supply Chain Sustainability: An Interpretive Structural Modelling Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abeyratne, S.A.; Monfared, R.P. Blockchain Ready Manufacturing Supply Chain Using Distributed Ledger. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 2016, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ølnes, S.; Ubacht, J.; Janssen, M. Blockchain in government: Benefits and implications of distributed ledger technology for information sharing. Gov. Inf. Q. 2017, 34, 355–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gatteschi, V.; Lamberti, F.; Demartini, C.; Pranteda, C.; Santamaría, V. Blockchain and smart contracts for insurance: Is the technology mature enough? Futur. Internet 2018, 10, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Wang, W.M.; Liu, G.; Liu, L.; He, J.; Huang, G.Q. Toward open manufacturing: A cross-enterprises knowledge and services exchange framework based on blockchain and edge computing. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2018, 118, 303–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, C.W.Y.; Lai, K.H.; Cheng, T.C.E.; Lun, Y.H.V. The role of IT-enabled collaborative decision making in inter-organizational information integration to improve customer service performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 159, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Büyüközkan, G.; Göçer, F. Digital Supply Chain: Literature review and a proposed framework for future research. Comput. Ind. 2018, 97, 157–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Garrison, G. Understanding users’ behaviors regarding supply chain technology: Determinants impacting the adoption and implementation of RFID technology in South Korea. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2010, 30, 388–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y. Blockchain tokens and the potential democratization of entrepreneurship and innovation. Bus. Horiz. 2018, 61, 567–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rauniar, R.; Rawski, G.; Morgan, S.; Mishra, S. Knowledge integration in IPPD project: Role of shared project mission, mutual trust, and mutual influence. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 239–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, Z.; Chen, F.Y.; Yan, X.; Yu, Y. Operational implications of yield uncertainty in mergers and acquisitions. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 219, 248–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, G.T.; Kolluru, R.; Smith, M. Leveraging public-private partnerships to improve community resilience in times of disaster. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2009, 39, 343–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soni, U.; Jain, V.; Kumar, S. Measuring supply chain resilience using a deterministic modeling approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2014, 74, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Queiroz, M.M.; Fosso Wamba, S. Blockchain adoption challenges in supply chain: An empirical investigation of the main drivers in India and the USA. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 46, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Francisco, K.; Swanson, D. The Supply Chain Has No Clothes: Technology Adoption of Blockchain for Supply Chain Transparency. Logistics 2018, 2, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubey, V.K.; Chavas, J.P.; Veeramani, D. Analytical framework for sustainable supply-chain contract management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 200, 240–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadlapalli, A.; Rahman, S.; Gunasekaran, A. Socially responsible governance mechanisms for manufacturing firms in apparel supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 196, 135–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwon, I.G.; Suh, T. Trust, commitment and relationships in supply chain management: A path analysis. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2005, 10, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, D.Y. Understanding supplier structural embeddedness: A social network perspective. J. Oper. Manag. 2014, 32, 219–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Um, K.-H.; Kim, S.M. Collaboration and opportunism as mediators of the relationship between NPD project uncertainty and NPD project performance. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 659–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
Context | Information Distribution and Synchronization | P2P Networks and Consensus | Payments and Smart Contracts | Data Immutability | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
General | System participants benefit from real time data maintained and accessed by each participant | No central authority needed to manage the process, reducing governance requirements and reliance on a single participant | Payments are made automatically when data match, reducing manual processes and human errors | Forged paperwork will no longer be a risk and auditability is enhanced | [4] |
Logistics | A digital version of a ledger is available to the decentralized system participants to track and follow data | System participant must share transaction with the blockchain’s P2P network and ensure the copy of the ledger | Legal provisions are formalized into programming code and verified through a network of peers | The moment a transaction is approved through consensus algorithm, it prevails in a block, which is embedded into the blockchain | [5] |
Healthcare | Allows all copies of a patient’s record to be synchronized with system participant as updates are made regardless of their storage location | Each system participant holds a copy of the entire blockchain, and they communicate regularly to ensure data are up to date and authentic | Immutable records stored on blockchains and shared with an insurance provider can prevent common types of fraud | Enables creation of incorruptible databases for medical records and tracking pharmaceuticals through the entire manufacturing and distribution process | [14] |
Green SCM | System participant has the same copy of the ledgers, which are updated with new information or changes in the recorded information in a decentralized manner | System participants can follow and audit the history of records, thereby verifying sustainability performance of transportation | Automatic payment that is performed when a certain regulation is met, or a particular value is added to a product | Enables the tracking of hazardous wastes, distributing responsibility to system participants for cleanup costs | [3] |
Engineering | System participants interact with the blockchain via a pair of private and public keys | Every signed transaction is broadcasted by a user’s node to its one-hop peer | Scripts, stored on the blockchain, can be regarded as roughly analogous to stored procedures in relational database management systems | The nodes verify that the suggested block contains valid transactions, and references via hash the correct previous block on their chain | [17] |
Banking | Distributed clearing mechanism eliminates the intermediary link of third-party financial institutions | Performs data encryption, ultimately helping system participants control big data and establishing ownership | Ensures that payments are made automatically once a predetermined time and result is reached, thereby reducing manual operations risks | Once a piece of information enters the system, it cannot be modified, thereby eliminating the subsequent problems of fraud | [6] |
Characteristics | n | % |
---|---|---|
Number of years working in the organization | ||
Less than 10 years | 94 | 30.72 |
10–15 years | 95 | 31.05 |
15–20 years | 52 | 16.99 |
20–25 years | 31 | 10.13 |
25–30 years | 21 | 6.86 |
Over 30 years | 13 | 4.25 |
Number of years in partnership management | ||
Less than 5 years | 55 | 17.97 |
5–10 years | 118 | 38.56 |
10–20 years | 111 | 36.28 |
20–30 years | 15 | 4.9 |
Over 30 years | 7 | 2.29 |
Job title | ||
Operation manager/Director | 36 | 11.76 |
Manager | 63 | 20.59 |
General Manager | 99 | 32.35 |
Vice President | 45 | 14.71 |
Executive Vice President/President | 63 | 20.59 |
Industry | ||
Manufacturing | 122 | 39.87 |
Information and communication | 30 | 9.8 |
Professional, scientific, and technical activities | 26 | 8.5 |
Construction | 23 | 7.52 |
Human health and social work activities | 17 | 5.55 |
Wholesale and retail trade | 16 | 5.23 |
Education | 11 | 3.59 |
Transportation and warehousing | 9 | 2.94 |
Finance and insurance activities | 7 | 2.29 |
Other service areas | 45 | 14.71 |
Construct(s) | Item(s) | Mean | SD | Loadings |
---|---|---|---|---|
Information Transparency (TRNS) α = 0.922; CR = 0.923; AVE = 0.801 | TRNS1 | 4.967 | 0.926 | 0.847 |
TRNS2 | 4.915 | 0.926 | 0.918 | |
TRNS3 | 4.869 | 0.963 | 0.918 | |
Information Immutability (IMM) α = 0.946; CR = 0.948; AVE = 0.822 | IMM1 | 4.840 | 0.925 | 0.890 |
IMM2 | 4.964 | 0.973 | 0.888 | |
IMM3 | 4.912 | 0.963 | 0.922 | |
IMM4 | 4.794 | 0.934 | 0.925 | |
Smart Contract (SMRT) α = 0.916; CR = 0.940; AVE = 0.839 | SMRT1 | 4.882 | 0.926 | 0.897 |
SMRT2 | 4.775 | 0.950 | 0.913 | |
SMRT3 | 4.784 | 0.965 | 0.937 | |
Partnership Efficiency (PEFF) α = 0.941; CR = 0.942; AVE = 0.802 | PEFF1 | 4.516 | 0.976 | 0.871 |
PEFF2 | 4.549 | 0.998 | 0.936 | |
PEFF3 | 4.585 | 0.965 | 0.916 | |
PEFF4 | 4.569 | 0.997 | 0.857 | |
Partnership Growth (PGRW) α = 0.938; CR = 0.935; AVE = 0.782 | PGRW1 | 4.820 | 0.885 | 0.892 |
PGRW2 | 4.958 | 0.959 | 0.908 | |
PGRW3 | 5.013 | 0.965 | 0.888 | |
PGRW4 | 4.791 | 0.963 | 0.849 | |
Financial Performance (FPERF) α = 0.956; CR = 0.968; AVE = 0.885 | FPERF1 | 4.680 | 0.949 | 0.936 |
FPERF2 | 4.660 | 0.959 | 0.957 | |
FPERF3 | 4.667 | 0.985 | 0.940 | |
FPERF4 | 4.631 | 0.981 | 0.929 | |
Operational Performance (OPERF) α = 0.951; CR = 0.950; AVE = 0.826 | OPERF1 | 4.739 | 0.960 | 0.917 |
OPERF2 | 4.814 | 0.962 | 0.898 | |
OPERF3 | 4.725 | 0.987 | 0.903 | |
OPERF4 | 4.771 | 0.962 | 0.917 |
CR | AVE | TRNS | IMM | SMRT | PEFF | PGRW | FPERF | OPERF | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TRNS | 0.923 | 0.801 | (0.895) | ||||||
IMM | 0.948 | 0.822 | 0.880 | (0.906) | |||||
SMRT | 0.940 | 0.839 | 0.837 | 0.877 | (0.916) | ||||
PEFF | 0.942 | 0.802 | 0.710 | 0.718 | 0.729 | (0.896) | |||
PGRW | 0.935 | 0.782 | 0.848 | 0.900 | 0.852 | 0.787 | (0.885) | ||
FPERF | 0.968 | 0.885 | 0.741 | 0.729 | 0.745 | 0.670 | 0.863 | (0.941) | |
OPERF | 0.950 | 0.826 | 0.815 | 0.811 | 0.825 | 0.687 | 0.921 | 0.928 | (0.909) |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kim, J.-S.; Shin, N. The Impact of Blockchain Technology Application on Supply Chain Partnership and Performance. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6181. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216181
Kim J-S, Shin N. The Impact of Blockchain Technology Application on Supply Chain Partnership and Performance. Sustainability. 2019; 11(21):6181. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216181
Chicago/Turabian StyleKim, Joon-Seok, and Nina Shin. 2019. "The Impact of Blockchain Technology Application on Supply Chain Partnership and Performance" Sustainability 11, no. 21: 6181. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216181
APA StyleKim, J. -S., & Shin, N. (2019). The Impact of Blockchain Technology Application on Supply Chain Partnership and Performance. Sustainability, 11(21), 6181. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216181