A Critical Review of Blockchain Acceptance Models—Blockchain Technology Adoption Frameworks and Applications
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Acceptance Models
2.1. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)
- ▪
- Attitudes which include favorableness or favorableness of the feelings of individuals for an attitude;
- ▪
- ▪
2.2. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
2.3. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
2.4. Extension of TAM (ETAM)
2.5. Diffusion of Innovation (DOI)
2.6. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)
2.7. Task Technology Fit Model (TTF)
2.8. Technology–Organization–Environment (TOE)
3. Why Is Blockchain Acceptance Analysis Important?
4. Research Methods
- ▪
- What are the adoption models used to assess blockchain acceptance?
- ▪
- What are sectors that have used blockchain adoption for the assessment?
5. Blockchain Adoption in Supply Chain
- ▪
- Technological constructs: perceived financial benefits, technical know-how, complexity, relative advantage, compatibility, and information security.
- ▪
- Organizational constructs: training and education as well as top management support.
- ▪
- Environmental constructs: competitive pressure and partner readiness.
- ▪
- Intra-organizational barriers: identifying the internal activities of the company.
- ▪
- Inter-organizational: stemming from relationships of the organizations and their network partners.
- ▪
- System-related: stemming from the technology (BC) itself.
- ▪
- External barriers: stemming from the outside of the organization by other influenced stakeholders such as legal entities, society, and the environment.
6. Blockchain Adoption in Industries and Firms
Source | Object Studied | Theory | Results | Factors Considered and Descriptions |
---|---|---|---|---|
Li et al. [22] | The aviation industry in Korea | Extended TAM | Significant factors were listed. In addition, they found that enhancing the optimization on efficiency and technological improvements as well as regulatory governance and industry standards can positively affect the perceived usefulness in tracking and tracing, air traffic management, and digitized management. | Six factors were considered as the sub-categories of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Factors are shown in Figure 4. |
Caldarelli et al. [54] | Italian firms | UTAUT | Firstly, social influence and performance expectancy possess the positive impacts on individuals’ intention to apply blockchain. Secondly, the results identified that experience impacts the intention of BC adoption negatively. | Social influence, facilitating conditions, performance expectancy were identified by [35]. Effort expectancy was also listed as the simplicity perception which is expected in the utilizing of the technology. |
Orji et al. [55] | Freight logistics industry | Based on TOE | They introduced the list of the most vital factors affecting the BC acceptance as:
| Organizational. Technological ones were the availability of specific BC tools, complexity, ease of being tried and observed, perceived benefits, infrastructural facility, compatibility, and security and privacy. Environmental variables were government support and policy, competitive pressure, institutional-based trust, market turbulence, and stakeholder’s pressure. |
Wong et al. [56] | SMEs in Malaysia | TOE Framework | They reported: Significant impact of complexity, competitive pressure, relative, and cost. They also identified the market dynamics, regulatory support, and upper management support as the insignificant drivers. | They considered three dimensions:
|
Fernando et al. [71] | Manufacturing firms | TOE | Identifying technical competency and a lack stemming from the competitors’ pressure. | TOE factors were: compatibility, top management support, competitive pressure, the size of the firm, and Technology competence. |
Schmitt et al. [57] | IoT, blockchain and smart contracts in firms | Based on the TOE | Thirteen elements by a focus on the three TOE constructs were identified as the main factors. Six of them were matched with the traditional TOE by Tornatzky and Fleischer [29]. | Technical (internal and external variables) including performance expectancy, technology maturity, perceived compatibility. Organizational including perceived compatibility, firm size, concerns of the security, organizational slack, and perceived technical capability. Environmental including competitive pressure, regulatory policy, Legal uncertainty, consumer perception, and external data. |
Balasubramanian et al. [58] | Healthcare | Readiness assessment framework. | They identified the concerns as the low readiness of businesses (like SMEs) in motivational and engagement factors. | The categories and factors are considered as: Individual, stakeholder readiness such as motivational and engagement readiness, stakeholder collaboration readiness such as government and business, entities facilitating conditions readiness such as privacy and trust. |
Srivastava et al. [59] | Healthcare | A framework based on several factors | Most vital factors:
| The ethical factors were derived from their conducted literature. |
Iftikhar et al. [60] | Higher education in Malaysia | An integrated TAM/TOE model | The significant impact of perceived usefulness, top management support, and competitive pressure and opposite impact of perceived ease of use and relative advantage on BC adoption. | Three different categories (with seven factors) were used in the integrated framework:
|
Ullah et al. [61] | Education (Smart Learning Environments) | Integration of TAM and DOI | The findings identified the compatibility’s significant effect on blockchain use. Blockchain technology also was recognized as a significant factor in BC adoption. | In addition to the factors of TAM:
|
Kumar et al. [62] | Higher Education | Extended TAM | The positive effect of incorporated factors on the adoption intention. The significant impact of the perceived security and privacy factor on trust, ease of use, and perceived usefulness. | Additional variables were added to the TAM framework, including:
|
Gao and Li [63] | Gaming | Extended TAM | The impact of perceived usefulness on users’ behavioral intention to use technology. Insignificant positive impacts of subjective norms on users’ behavioral intention to use this technology. | They considered the following aspects in their framework:
|
Mnif et al. [64] | Social media | Extended TAM | Decentralization characteristics, shareability, as well as security possesses the most impact on the users’ intention. The important awareness of blockchain adopters was also concluded. | The main dimensions were: perceived usefulness, social norms, both negative and positive sentiments, and joyfulness and trust. |
Lian et al. [65] | Smart lockers | TAM and TTF | Identified perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use as the critical factors. Safety and network externality of smart locker were not considered as main concerns and their effects were insignificant according to their findings. | TAM additional factors: attitude (feeling toward BC) and usage intention (willingness of users) in their model. TTF factors: individual technology fit (completing the logistic services using blockchain) and task technology fit (dealing with logistics). Other factors: perceived safety and network externality |
Xu et al. [66] | AEC industry | A new framework including 11 barriers | The following factors were identified:
| For example, collaboration and network establishment together with security and privacy, lack of IT infrastructure and trust amongst stakeholders, Legal and regulatory uncertainty (as many countries do not have the required laws, policies as well as supervisions yet), and the high cost of the initial investment. |
Biswas and Gupta [67] | Industry and services sectors | A new framework with several barriers | The most impactful barriers were market-based risks and challenges in scalability. Also, poor economic behavior and high sustainability costs possess the most impacted barriers during successful BC adoption. | They used the DEMATEL technique to investigate the barriers. Ten main categories were identified for the adoption barriers. |
Zhou et al. [68] | Maritime industry in Singapore | A framework based on five main dimensions | Sufficient capital and implementation cost were ranked the first important critical success factors and implementation challenges, respectively. | Six main challenges and thirteen personal concerns in five main dimensions: Methods, people, technology, external environment, and organization. |
Pu and Lam [1] | Maritime industry | A novel conceptual framework (based on TAM and TOE model and new features) | The significant impact of stakeholder management. Legal, technological, and operational challenges of BC adoption in the maritime industry. The specific contextualized application fields of BC for each type of commercial benefit. | Five dimensions were used in the framework as the following: technical features of blockchain, commercial benefits of BC to the industry, applicable areas in the maritime domain, major maritime stakeholders involved in these applications, and potential adoption challenges in the industry. |
Lu et al. [69] | Elderly care industry. | Integration of the DOI theory and TOE | Positive impacts of top management support, corporate social responsibility, relative advantage, and organizational readiness; and insignificant impact of competitive pressure complexity, and government on blockchain adoption. The indirect impact of government and competitive pressure support factors on promoting blockchain adoption. | The factors considered in this integrated framework were:
|
Lohmer et al. [70] | Operations management and manufacturing in industries | Proposed their model based on [48] | They reported current barriers/challenges as legal uncertainties, lack of clear governance structures, staff difficulties, missing infrastructure, and standardization. | Based on [48], they categorized the barriers into 4 main types: Intra-organizational barriers Inter-organizational Technology (system) External barriers |
7. Blockchain Acceptance in Banking and Financial Institutions
8. Cryptocurrencies Acceptance Models
9. Other Articles
10. Discussion
11. Conclusions and Future Work
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Pu, S.; Lam, J.S.L. Blockchain adoptions in the maritime industry: A conceptual framework. Marit. Policy Manag. 2020, 48, 777–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loukil, F.; Abed, M.; Boukadi, K. Blockchain adoption in education: A systematic literature review. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 5779–5797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, M.A.; Algarni, F.; Quasim, M.T. Decentralised Internet of Things. Descentr. Internet Things 2020, 3–20, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinna, A.; Ibba, S.; Baralla, G.; Tonelli, R.; Marchesi, M. A Massive Analysis of Ethereum Smart Contracts Empirical Study and Code Metrics. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 78194–78213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, R.G. The Corda Platform: An Introduction; Retrieved; 2018; p. 27. Available online: https://www.r3.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/corda-platform-whitepaper.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2022).
- Andriopoulou, F.; Orphanoudakis, T.; Dagiuklas, T. IoTA: IoT automated SIP-based emergency call triggering system for general eHealth purposes. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 13th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob), Rome, Italy, 9–11 October 2017; pp. 362–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Taherdoost, H. Development of an adoption model to assess user acceptance of e-service technology: E-Service Technology Acceptance Model. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2017, 37, 173–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taherdoost, H.; Madanchian, M. Developing and Validating a Theoretical Model to Evaluate Customer Satisfaction of E-Services; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 46–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taherdoost, H.; Madanchian, M. Empirical Modeling of Customer Satisfaction for E-Services in Cross-Border E-Commerce. Electronics 2021, 10, 1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taherdoost, H.; Masrom, M. An examination of smart card technology acceptance using adoption model. In Proceedings of the ITI 2009 31st International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, Cavtat, Croatia, 22–25 June 2009; pp. 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taherdoost, H. A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and theories. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 22, 960–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Philos. Rhetor. 1997, 6, 244–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taherdoost, H.; Zamani, M.; Namayandeh, M. Study of smart card technology and probe user awareness about it: A case study of Middle Eastern students. In Proceedings of the 2009 2nd IEEE International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology, Beijing, China, 8–11 August 2009; pp. 334–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almekhlafi, S.; Al-Shaibany, N. The Literature Review of Blockchain Adoption. As. J. Res. Comput. Sci. 2021, 9, 29–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taherdoost, H.; Sahibuddin, S.; Jalaliyoon, N. Smart Card Security; Technology and Adoption. Int. J. Security 2011, 5, 74–84. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action Control; Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory Results; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Taherdoost, H. Electronic Service Quality Measurement (eSQM); Development of a Survey Instrument to Measure the Quality of E-Service. Int. J. Intell. Eng. Inf. 2020, 7, 491–528. [Google Scholar]
- Taherdoost, H. Evaluation of Customer Satisfaction in Digital Environment; Development of Survey Instrument. In Digital Transformation and Innovative Services for Business and Learning; Sandhu, K., Ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 195–222. [Google Scholar]
- Taherdoost, H. Understanding of e-service security dimensions and its effect on quality and intention to use. Inf. Comput. Secur. 2017, 25, 535–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Lai, P.-L.; Yang, C.-C.; Yuen, K.F. Determinants of blockchain adoption in the aviation industry: Empirical evidence from Korea. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2021, 97, 102139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Taherdoost, H.; Sahibuddin, S.; Namayandeh, M.; Jalaliyoon, N.; Kalantari, A.; Chaeikar, S.S. Smart Card Adoption Model: Social and Ethical Perspectives. Int. J. Res. Rev. Comput. Sci. 2012, 3, 1792–1796. [Google Scholar]
- Taherdoost, H. User Acceptance Assessment of E-Commerce Services; How to Improve the Usage Rate of an E-commerce Application. Int. J. Ad. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. 2020, 9, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, S.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quart. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Strong, D.M.; Dishaw, M.T.; Bandy, D.B. Extending task technology fit with computer self-efficacy. ACM SIGMIS Database DATABASE Adv. Inf. Syst. 2006, 37, 96–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samaradiwakara, G.; Gunawardena, C. Comparison of existing technology acceptance theories and models to suggest a well improved theory/model. Int. Technol. Sci. J. 2014, 1, 21–36. [Google Scholar]
- Tornatzky, L.; Fleischer, M. The Process of Technology Innovation; Lexington Books: Lexington, MA, USA, 1990; p. 165. [Google Scholar]
- Baker, J. The technology–organization–environment framework. Inf. Syst. Theory 2012, 231–245. [Google Scholar]
- Taherdoost, H. Importance of Technology Acceptance Assessment for Successful Implementation and Development of New Technologies. Glob. J. Eng. Sci. 2019, 1, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saadé, R.G.; Abou Jaoude, J.N.; Sharma, M.C. Review of blockchain Literature–Its application and acceptance. In Proceedings of the InSITE 2019: Informing Science+ IT Education Conferences, Jerusalem, Israel, 30 June–4 July 2019. [Google Scholar]
- CAICT. Number of Blockchain Projects in China from 2014 to 2017 Jan 31, 2019. Statista. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041074/china-blockchain-project-number/ (accessed on 17 January 2022).
- Kamble, S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Arha, H. Understanding the Blockchain technology adoption in supply chains-Indian context. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 57, 2009–2033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Queiroz, M.M.; Wamba, S.F. Blockchain adoption challenges in supply chain: An empirical investigation of the main drivers in India and the USA. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 46, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, L.-W.; Tan, G.W.-H.; Lee, V.-H.; Ooi, K.-B.; Sohal, A. Unearthing the determinants of Blockchain adoption in supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 58, 2100–2123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kouhizadeh, M.; Saberi, S.; Sarkis, J. Blockchain technology and the sustainable supply chain: Theoretically exploring adoption barriers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 231, 107831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamble, S.S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Kumar, V.; Belhadi, A.; Foropon, C. A machine learning based approach for predicting blockchain adoption in supply Chain. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 163, 120465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lanzini, F.; Ubacht, J.; De Greeff, J. Blockchain adoptioin factors for SMEs in supply chain management. J. Suppl. Chain Manag. Sci. 2021, 2, 47–68. [Google Scholar]
- Suwanposri, C.; Bhatiasevi, V.; Thanakijsombat, T. Drivers of Blockchain Adoption in Financial and Supply Chain Enterprises. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wamba, S.F.; Queiroz, M.M.; Trinchera, L. Dynamics between blockchain adoption determinants and supply chain performance: An empirical investigation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 229, 107791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aslam, J.; Saleem, A.; Khan, N.T.; Kim, Y.B. Factors influencing blockchain adoption in supply chain management practices: A study based on the oil industry. J. Innov. Knowl. 2021, 6, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karuppiah, K.; Sankaranarayanan, B.; Ali, S.M. A decision-aid model for evaluating challenges to blockchain adoption in supply chains. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2021, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadav, V.S.; Singh, A.; Raut, R.D.; Govindarajan, U.H. Blockchain technology adoption barriers in the Indian agricultural supply chain: An integrated approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 161, 104877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sunmola, F.T.; Burgess, P.; Tan, A. Building Blocks for Blockchain Adoption in Digital Transformation of Sustainable Supply Chains. Procedia Manuf. 2021, 55, 513–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahebi, I.G.; Masoomi, B.; Ghorbani, S. Expert oriented approach for analyzing the blockchain adoption barriers in humanitarian supply chain. Technol. Soc. 2020, 63, 101427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farooque, M.; Jain, V.; Zhang, A.; Li, Z. Fuzzy DEMATEL analysis of barriers to Blockchain-based life cycle assessment in China. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020, 147, 106684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saberi, S.; Kouhizadeh, M.; Sarkis, J.; Shen, L. Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 2117–2135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alazab, M.; Alhyari, S.; Awajan, A.; Abdallah, A.B. Blockchain technology in supply chain management: An empirical study of the factors affecting user adoption/acceptance. Clust. Comput. 2020, 24, 83–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balci, G.; Surucu-Balci, E. Blockchain adoption in the maritime supply chain: Examining barriers and salient stakeholders in containerized international trade. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2021, 156, 102539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jardim, L.; Pranto, S.; Ruivo, P.; Oliveira, T. What are the main drivers of Blockchain Adoption within Supply Chain?—An exploratory research. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2021, 181, 495–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saurabh, S.; Dey, K. Blockchain technology adoption, architecture, and sustainable agri-food supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 284, 124731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, M.H.; Chung, L.; Kumar, A.; Zailani, S.; Tan, K.H. A sustainable Blockchain framework for the halal food supply chain: Lessons from Malaysia. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 170, 120870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caldarelli, A.; Ferri, L.; Ginesti, G.; Spanò, R. Understanding Blockchain Adoption in Italian Firms; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 121–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orji, I.J.; Kusi-Sarpong, S.; Huang, S.; Vazquez-Brust, D. Evaluating the factors that influence blockchain adoption in the freight logistics industry. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2020, 141, 102025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, L.-W.; Leong, L.-Y.; Hew, J.-J.; Tan, G.W.-H.; Ooi, K.-B. Time to seize the digital evolution: Adoption of blockchain in operations and supply chain management among Malaysian SMEs. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 52, 101997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmitt, G.; Mladenow, A.; Strauss, C.; Schaffhauser-Linzatti, M. Smart Contracts and Internet of Things: A Qualitative Content Analysis using the Technology-Organization-Environment Framework to Identify Key-Determinants. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019, 160, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balasubramanian, S.; Shukla, V.; Sethi, J.S.; Islam, N.; Saloum, R. A readiness assessment framework for Blockchain adoption: A healthcare case study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 165, 120536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srivastava, V.; Mahara, T.; Yadav, P. An analysis of the ethical challenges of blockchain-enabled E-healthcare applications in 6G networks. Int. J. Cogn. Comput. Eng. 2021, 2, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iftikhar, W.; Vistro, D.M.; Mahmood, Z. Blockchain Technology Adoption by Malaysian Higher Education Institutes: A Perspective of Intergrated Tam Model and Toe Framework; Asia Pacific University: Makati, Phillippines, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ullah, N.; Al-Rahmi, W.M.; Alzaharni, A.I.; Alfarraj, O.; Alblehami, F.M. Blockchain Technology Adoption in Smart Learning Environments. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, N.; Singh, M.; Uperti, K.; Mohan, D. Blockchain Adoption Intention in Higher Education: Role of Trust, Perceived Security and Privacy in Technology Adoption Model. In International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Intelligent Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, S.; Li, Y. An empirical study on the adoption of blockchain-based games from users’ perspectives. Electron. Libr. 2021, 39, 596–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mnif, E.; Mouakhar, K.; Jarboui, A. Blockchain technology awareness on social media: Insights from twitter analytics. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2021, 32, 100416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lian, J.-W.; Chen, C.-T.; Shen, L.-F.; Chen, H.-M. Understanding user acceptance of blockchain-based smart locker. Electron. Libr. 2020, 38, 353–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.; Chong, H.-Y.; Chi, M. Modelling the blockchain adoption barriers in the AEC industry. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2021. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biswas, B.; Gupta, R. Analysis of barriers to implement blockchain in industry and service sectors. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 136, 225–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Soh, Y.S.; Loh, H.S.; Yuen, K.F. The key challenges and critical success factors of blockchain implementation: Policy implications for Singapore’s maritime industry. Mar. Policy 2020, 122, 104265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lu, L.; Liang, C.; Gu, D.; Ma, Y.; Xie, Y.; Zhao, S. What advantages of blockchain affect its adoption in the elderly care industry? A study based on the technology–organisation–environment framework. Technol. Soc. 2021, 67, 101786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lohmer, J.; Lasch, R. Blockchain in operations management and manufacturing: Potential and barriers. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020, 149, 106789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernando, Y.; Rozuar, N.H.M.; Mergeresa, F. The blockchain-enabled technology and carbon performance: Insights from early adopters. Technol. Soc. 2021, 64, 101507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, V.; Baudier, P.; Zhang, P.; Xu, Q.; Zhang, J.; Arami, M. How Blockchain can impact financial services–The overview, challenges and recommendations from expert interviewees. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 158, 120166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kawasmi, Z.; Gyasi, E.A.; Dadd, D. Blockchain Adoption Model for the Global Banking Industry. J. Int. Technol. Inf. Manag. 2020, 28, 112–154. [Google Scholar]
- Heidari, H.; Alborzi, M.; Radfar, R.; Mousakhami, M.; Divandari, A. Explaining the Blockchain Acceptance Indices in Iran Financial Markets: A Fuzzy Delphi Study. J. Money Econ. 2019, 14, 335–365. [Google Scholar]
- Saheb, T.; Mamaghani, F.H. Exploring the barriers and organizational values of blockchain adoption in the banking industry. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2021, 32, 100417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khalil, M.; Khawaja, K.F.; Sarfraz, M. The adoption of blockchain technology in the financial sector during the era of fourth industrial revolution: A moderated mediated model. Qual. Quant. 2021, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumpajaya, A.; Dhewanto, W. The acceptance of Bitcoin in Indonesia: Extending TAM with IDT. J. Bus. Manag. 2015, 4, 28–38. [Google Scholar]
- Folkinshteyn, D.; Lennon, M. Braving Bitcoin: A technology acceptance model (TAM) analysis. J. Inf. Technol. Case Appl. Res. 2016, 18, 220–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nuryyev, G.; Wang, Y.-P.; Achyldurdyyeva, J.; Jaw, B.-S.; Yeh, Y.-S.; Lin, H.-T.; Wu, L.-F. Blockchain Technology Adoption Behavior and Sustainability of the Business in Tourism and Hospitality SMEs: An Empirical Study. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahzad, F.; Xiu, G.; Wang, J.; Shahbaz, M. An empirical investigation on the adoption of cryptocurrencies among the people of mainland China. Technol. Soc. 2018, 55, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albayatia, H.; Kim, S.K.; Rho, J.J. Accepting financial transactions using blockchain technology and cryptocurrency: A customer perspective approach. Technol. Soc. 2020, 62, 101320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clohessy, T.; Treiblmaier, H.; Acton, T.; Rogers, N. Antecedents of blockchain adoption: An integrative framework. Strat. Chang. 2020, 29, 501–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Chen, K.; Xu, D. A maturity model for blockchain adoption. Financial Innov. 2016, 2, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liang, T.-P.; Kohli, R.; Huang, H.-C.; Li, Z.-L. What Drives the Adoption of the Blockchain Technology? A Fit-Viability Perspective. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2021, 38, 314–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toufaily, E.; Zalan, T.; Ben Dhaou, S. A framework of blockchain technology adoption: An investigation of challenges and expected value. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 103444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flovik, S.; Moudnib, R.A.; Vassilakopoulou, P. Determinants of Blockchain Technology Introduction in Organizations: An Empirical Study among Experienced Practitioners. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2021, 181, 664–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssen, M.; Weerakkody, V.; Ismagilova, E.; Sivarajah, U.; Irani, Z. A framework for analysing blockchain technology adoption: Integrating institutional, market and technical factors. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 50, 302–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koppenjan, J.; Groenewegen, J. Institutional design for complex technological systems. Int. J. Technol. Policy Manag. 2005, 5, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chernov, A.; Chernova, V. Global Blockchain Technology Market Analysis-Current Situations and Forecast. Economic and Social Development. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development—Managerial Issues in Modern Business, Warsaw, Poland, 26–27 September 2018; Varazdin Development and Entrepreneurship Agency: Warsaw, Poland, 2018; pp. 143–152. [Google Scholar]
- Latif, S.; Idrees, Z.; Ahmad, J.; Zheng, L.; Zou, Z. A blockchain-based architecture for secure and trustworthy operations in the industrial Internet of Things. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2020, 21, 100190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latif, S.; Idrees, Z.; e Huma, Z.; Ahmad, J. Blockchain technology for the industrial Internet of Things: A comprehensive survey on security challenges, architectures, applications, and future research directions. Trans. Emerg. Telecommun. Technol. 2021, 32, e4337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suciu, G.; Sachian, M.-A.; Dobrea, M.; Istrate, C.-I.; Petrache, A.L.; Vulpe, A.; Vochin, M. Securing the smart grid: A blockchain-based secure smart energy system. In Proceedings of the 2019 54th International Universities Power Engineering Conference (UPEC), Bucharest, Romania, 3–6 September 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Suciu, G.; Sachian, M.-A.; Vochin, M.C.; Dobrea, M.; Beceanu, C.; Iosu, R.; Petrache, A. Blockchain applicability using Smart Power Management: SealedGrid Architecture. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT-Europe), Bucharest, Romania, 29 September–2 October 2019; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Source | Object Studied | Theory | Results | Factors Considered and Descriptions |
---|---|---|---|---|
Kamble et al. [34] | supply chains in India | Integration of TAM, TRI, and TPB |
| TAM: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use TPB: actual use, intention to use, behavioral attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control TRI: innovativeness, discomfort, insecurity, and optimism |
Queiroz and Wamba [35] | Supply chain and logistics in India and US | Altered UTAUT (using TAM and their literature review) |
| TAM, factors from the provided literature, and an altered model with different factors were used including social influence, performance expectancy, facilitating conditions, the transparency of BC, behavioral intention, and trust among the stakeholders. |
Wong et al. [36] | Supply chain in Malaysia | UTAUT |
| Factors were listed as the following: performance expectancy (PE), trust (T), effort expectancy (EE), facilitating condition (FC), regulatory support (RS), and technology readiness and affinity. |
Kouhizadeh et al. [37] | Barriers in supply chain | TOE framework and force field theories | Identifying the significant barriers according to two groups of under-study people: academics and practitioners | Technological: immaturity of the technology, security, accessibility, and negative perception toward technology. Organizational: management commitment, policies, culture, and financial constraints. Inter-organization groups: information disclosure, awareness lacks, and collaboration problems. Environmental: ethical practices, policies of the government, general normative. |
Kamble et al. [38] | Supply chain | TAM and TOE | The following factors were identified as the significant drivers: partner readiness, perceived ease of use, competitor pressure, and perceived usefulness. | Traditional TAM factors. TOE factors including three main categories. |
Lanzini et al. [39] | Supply chain | A framework based on TOE | Organizational factors are the most significant drivers among three groups of dimensions | Organizational constructs such as people’s readiness. Technological constructs such as cost and governance. Environmental constructs such as customers’ influence. |
Suwanposri et al. [40] | Supply chain in Thailand | A modified TOE | Four new drivers have been identified as the following:
| Technological factors such as data integrity and data security. organizational factors for example organizational readiness and the top management support. Environmental factors such as network effect. |
Wamba et al. [41] | Supply chain in US and India | Developed a new conceptual model | The influence of the trading partner pressure and knowledge sharing were recognized as vital on the BC adoption. The blockchain and supply chain transparencies impact the supply chain performance. | The following factors were investigated: knowledge sharing, trading partner relationship, transparency, supply chain performance. |
Aslam et al. [42] | Supply chain management in the oil industry | A new conceptual framework | The supply chain management and operational performance are positively connected. | The main factors were listed as the following:
|
Karuppiah et al. [43] | Supply chain | Decision-aid Model | Forty prominent under six main challenges to blockchain adoption were identified using a model with three steps: fuzzy Delphi technique, Grey-DEMATEL, and WASPAS (weighted aggregated sum product assessment) method. Challenges were ranked based on their importance as the result. The type of the challenges based on the cause-and-effect factors were also identified. | Organizational such as limited technological support, non-existence of collaboration, training facilities absence, time, and opposition by stakeholders. Facial such as cost of high computational and online platform solutions. Technologies such as limited technology access, technical expertise absence, high computerization grade, and management of storage. Privacy and security such as collusion attacks and reputation-based attacks. Regulatory like compliance risk and non-existence of universal regulatory binding. Societal challenges are only the misconceptions about blockchain technology. |
Yadav et al. [44] | Agricultural supply chain in India | Identifying factors and modeling them using a combination of ISM and DEMATEL methods | Significant barriers of BC adoption are the Lacks stemming from the following:
| Some of the barriers were lack of standardization and interoperability, collaboration for the creation of consortia, suitable government regulation, and regulatory uncertainty, system speed and scalability, trust factor among the stakeholders or the perception of the public, the awareness of the agro-stakeholder and ease of use. |
Sunmola et al. [45] | Supply chain | A new model based on a set of factors | Important factors identified are supply chain network, blockchain costs, firm resources, law and governance, and blockchain compatibility. | Eight factors such as digital technology use, disruptions/environmental variables, structural change, security, policy, and laws as negative factors, positive factors, and organizational variables were used based on the literature study results. |
Sahebi et al. [46] | Supply chain | A model with several barriers (derived from the literature) | Identifying 14 barriers of the BC acceptance using the literature, then accepting 9 barriers based on the results of the BWM/Fuzzy Delphi method, and finally finding the most important ones. | Fourteen factors: scalability issues, integrating problems, high sustainability costs, lack of standardization, the complexity of establishing, regulatory uncertainty, knowledge or employee training lacks, risks stemming from the market, technology risks, low/no transaction fees, risks of privacy, risk due to the cyber-attacks, and contractual risk, and finally usage in the underground economy. |
Farooque et al. [47] | Adoption of blockchain-based LCA | A model based on 13 barriers | Technology immaturity, and technical issues for gathering the supply chain real-time data were recognized as the main cause barriers. Other prominent barriers were listed as the lack of: Government policies and regulation guidance and support as well as new organizational policies. | Thirteen final barriers were divided into four main categories: intra-organizational such as new organizational policies lack, and hesitation to convert to new systems. Inter-organizational such as information disclosure policy challenges in the supply chain and among the partners. System-related such as the immaturity of technology. External barriers, for example, a lack stemming from government policies. |
Saberi et al. [48] | Supply chain | A new framework with four main categories | Designing a new framework based on the four main categories and the subcategories derived from the literature. | Intra-organizational: cultural differences, sustainable integration challenges, collaboration challenges, etc. Inter-organizational: financial constraint, lacks knowledge, management commitment, support, etc. System-related: security, access, hesitation to adopt, immutability, immaturity. External: lack of government policy, involvement of external stakeholders, etc. |
Alazab et al. [49] | Supply chain | Integration of ISS, TTF, and UTAUT | First, it was identified that the influence of the social influence factor of the UTAUT is not important. In addition, inter-organizational trust has a significant effect. | Some of the main variables were listed as social influence, system quality, quality of information, service quality, blockchain efficiency, the TTF of blockchain, effort expectancy. |
Balki and Surucu-Balci [50] | Maritime supply chain | A framework based on 8 barriers and using (ISM) and (MICMAC) | In this study, the lack of influential stakeholders’ support, understanding the BC, and governmental regulations were listed as the most significant factors. | Some of the factors were considered as the lack of: trust, early adopters, government regulations, knowledge/understanding about BC, support from influencing stakeholders. |
Jardim et al. [51] | Supply chain | The Design Science Research (DSR) approach/an exploratory research | Four perspectives were identified as the main dimensions in the BC adoption including technology, trust, trade, and traceability or transparency. | Nine factors were discovered, including: the trends of the acceptance/adoption verified by the market, trust factor based on the level on the technology and the technology provider, perceived benefits, smart contracts, cost-benefits due to the reduction of inefficiencies, overall benefits, automatization processes, and finally being accepted by other players in the supply chain. |
Saurabh and Dey [52] | Agri-food supply chains | Developed a theoretical framework | Important factors were listed as price, dis-intermediation, trust, utilities, compliance, traceability, and coordination and control. | The following factors were analyzed using a conjoint analysis (CA) method:
|
Ali et al. [53] | Food supply chain | A new practical framework | Important challenges were identified as:
| Five main challenges using an exploratory approach were discovered including: regulatory culpability, complexity, and capability, competitive advantages and cost, external pressure and change management, and halal sustainable production |
Article | Object Studied | Theory | Results | Factors Considered and Descriptions |
---|---|---|---|---|
Chang et al. [72] | Financial services | TPB | Recognizing knowledge-hiding, as the most important issue may prevent the success and more development of BC. | Main TPB factors: Perceived behavioral control, attitudes toward the behavior, and subjective norms. |
Kawasmi et al. [73] | Global banking | A new modified TAM | The new model can address TAM limitations which makes it appropriate for examining institutional adoption purposes. Regulation lacks were considered as an important issue that must be not dismissed. | In addition to the TAM factors, in the modified studied model, factors from three categories of adoption factors were considered:
|
Heidari et al. [74] | Financial markets in Iran | Integration of TOE, DOI, and NIP models: | The required factors to accept the BC were listed as Banks’: Enjoyment of required technical needs for utilizing platforms working based on BC. Enjoyment of suitable speed of Internet connection. Maturity in applying the Internet and its related technologies. | Levels were considered as:
|
Saheb and Mamaghani [75] | Banking | Extending TOE factors | The most important business processes factors: traceability, transparency, and trustworthiness. The most critical barriers in the industries: marketing noise, compliance and regulatory requirements, environmental and organizational, and lack of understanding by top managers. | Twenty barriers were found in three categories considered as:
|
Kalil et al. [76] | Financial sector | A moderated mediated model | The positive relationship among digital both firm financial performance and business process innovation and the strategy of digital business. The mediating impact of blockchain adoption and the alignment of information technology were identified. | The key variables including bank’s performance, digital strategy, and blockchain technology were extended to traditional models in the literature. |
Article | Object Studied | Theory | Results | Factors Considered and Descriptions |
---|---|---|---|---|
Kumpajaya and Dhewanto [77] | Bitcoin adoption in Indonesia | Extending TAM with Innovation diffusion theory (IDT) | Perceived compatibility and Bitcoin knowledge were identified as the impacting factors in the technology adoption. | The factors to identify the adoption rate by users were considered as perceived usefulness, perceived compatibility, perceived ease of use from IDT model, as well as perceived risk and Bitcoin knowledge. |
Folkinshteyn and Lennon [78] | Bitcoin | Extended TAM: The perceived risk factor was added to TAM. | Perceived usefulness mainly stems from the characteristics of openness with Bitcoin. This factor also enhances the efficiency of the transaction. But users also can face transaction risks. They recommended the TAM framework as a valuable method for financial sector analysis. | Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived risk. Perceived risk includes:
|
Nuryyev et al. [79] | Cryptocurrency payment | Enhancing the TAM integrating to the additional forces | The impact of social influence owner/managers personal properties and strategic orientation on the BC adoption. |
|
Shahzad et al. [80] | cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin in China | Extended TAM | The impact of awareness and perceived trustworthiness on intention to use. The mediator effect of the perceived usefulness on the relationship between the intention to use and the perceived ease of use. | They considered the following factors in the adoption framework: perceived usefulness, perceived usefulness as a mediator, perceived ease of use, perceived trustworthiness, and awareness. |
Albayati et al. [81] | Cryptocurrency for financial transactions | TAM | The powerful constructs of experience and regulatory support encourage users by overshadowing their trust in the BC. | They added the following external factors to the TAM: trust, experience, regulatory support, design, and social influence. |
Article | Object Studied | Theory | Results | Factors Considered and Descriptions |
---|---|---|---|---|
Clohessy et al. [82] | General industries | Extended TOE | They identified the most significant factors in all five contexts. | They considered two extra dimensions including:
|
Wang et al. [83] | General | Capability Maturity Model (CMM) | Blockchain technology does not gain an optimum maturity level yet. The maturity level in the information systems category was lower. The maturity level was low-level in most features of the BC in the computing methodologies category. In the privacy and security category, the rating of BC technology was recorded well in this study. | This model includes computing methodologies, information systems, networks, and security and privacy. The factors included are:
|
Liang et al. [84] | General | Extended Fit-Viability | Their results were as follows:
| The model was derived from the fit-viability together with task-technology fit models and the UTAUT. |
Toufaily et al. [85] | BC adoption from multi-stakeholders’ perspective | An integrated approach (mainly based on DOI and TOE, and considering specific conditions) | Challenges and barriers in blockchain adoption were investigated. They found the significant factors in blockchain adoption. | Technology characteristics challenge Environmental challenges Organizational challenges They also listed the ecosystem value creation from blockchain adoption factors, and also considered organizations and industries, public sector, start-up, end-users, and society. More information in [85] |
Flovik et al. [86] | General (different organizations) | Identifying factors in the literature. | The more important role of infrastructural qualities than the blockchain’s transformative potential qualities. Most concerns were identified as scalability and maturity. | Motivating: transactions automation, reliability, decentralization, immutability, transparency. Impeding: cost, interoperability, technical maturity, scalability, and knowledge concern. |
Janssen et al. [87] | General | A conceptual framework PIMT | They proposed a framework based on the literature in order to apply it in the BC adoption studies. | Factors are institutional, market, and technical. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the author. 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Taherdoost, H. A Critical Review of Blockchain Acceptance Models—Blockchain Technology Adoption Frameworks and Applications. Computers 2022, 11, 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11020024
Taherdoost H. A Critical Review of Blockchain Acceptance Models—Blockchain Technology Adoption Frameworks and Applications. Computers. 2022; 11(2):24. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11020024
Chicago/Turabian StyleTaherdoost, Hamed. 2022. "A Critical Review of Blockchain Acceptance Models—Blockchain Technology Adoption Frameworks and Applications" Computers 11, no. 2: 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11020024
APA StyleTaherdoost, H. (2022). A Critical Review of Blockchain Acceptance Models—Blockchain Technology Adoption Frameworks and Applications. Computers, 11(2), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11020024