区块链与商业模式的共存(创新):系统综述

Ambara Purusottama, T. Simatupang, Y. Sunitiyoso
{"title":"区块链与商业模式的共存(创新):系统综述","authors":"Ambara Purusottama, T. Simatupang, Y. Sunitiyoso","doi":"10.1108/ijis-10-2022-0191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nBlockchain (BC) is a technological innovation that emphasizes the opposite paradigm compared to the available technology. This paradigm enables changing the firm’s business models (BMs) and has been elaborated by many experts. However, the discussion is scattered in various sources, particularly academic journals. This study aims to investigate the literature on the coexistence of BCs and BMs and depict the currently available situation that has not been discussed.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis study investigated articles focusing on the coexistence of BCs and BMs through heterogeneous academic databases, namely, Emerald, ProQuest, Taylor & Francis, ScienceDirect and Scopus. The systematic approach and development of inclusion criteria used in this study resulted in 52 key articles for further review. This systematic review followed the PRISMA framework and a timeframe between 2012 and 2022.\n\n\nFindings\nThis study classifies literature based on specific themes, the integration of BC (interaction and evolution) and BM innovation (innovativeness, new value system and system logic), including the research design. As expected, the literature on BCs and BMs appears to be focused on particular themes since this topic appears to have grown. This study identifies gaps in the literature and describes future research to accommodate the study discrepancy.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThe major limitation of this study is the research bias. Such a bias might occur due to the misinterpretations of researchers in this study. In the process of devising databases and keywords, this study identified the potential for misinterpretation. This study sought to use rigid protocols through a manual approach to mitigate the potential bias. A research bias also has the potential to arise in the literature classification. A literature categorization is performed back and forth, by referring to the theory or concept of a particular topic. The next limitation is limited access to scientific databases. This study drew upon several reputable scientific journal databases. However, the researcher considered the journal selection to be built upon a journal’s accessibility, multi-disciplinary nature and data size compared to other journals. It allows the analysis results to be biased, as they do not represent all available databases. However, the study used the available formal access to maintain the integrity of this research.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis study conducts a systematic review that discusses the coexistence of BCs and BMs. Furthermore, it provides a profound understanding of the discussion carried out through certain themes and the outlook for the future.\n","PeriodicalId":44643,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Innovation Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The coexistence of blockchains and business models (innovation): a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Ambara Purusottama, T. Simatupang, Y. Sunitiyoso\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ijis-10-2022-0191\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nBlockchain (BC) is a technological innovation that emphasizes the opposite paradigm compared to the available technology. This paradigm enables changing the firm’s business models (BMs) and has been elaborated by many experts. However, the discussion is scattered in various sources, particularly academic journals. This study aims to investigate the literature on the coexistence of BCs and BMs and depict the currently available situation that has not been discussed.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThis study investigated articles focusing on the coexistence of BCs and BMs through heterogeneous academic databases, namely, Emerald, ProQuest, Taylor & Francis, ScienceDirect and Scopus. The systematic approach and development of inclusion criteria used in this study resulted in 52 key articles for further review. This systematic review followed the PRISMA framework and a timeframe between 2012 and 2022.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThis study classifies literature based on specific themes, the integration of BC (interaction and evolution) and BM innovation (innovativeness, new value system and system logic), including the research design. As expected, the literature on BCs and BMs appears to be focused on particular themes since this topic appears to have grown. This study identifies gaps in the literature and describes future research to accommodate the study discrepancy.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nThe major limitation of this study is the research bias. Such a bias might occur due to the misinterpretations of researchers in this study. In the process of devising databases and keywords, this study identified the potential for misinterpretation. This study sought to use rigid protocols through a manual approach to mitigate the potential bias. A research bias also has the potential to arise in the literature classification. A literature categorization is performed back and forth, by referring to the theory or concept of a particular topic. The next limitation is limited access to scientific databases. This study drew upon several reputable scientific journal databases. However, the researcher considered the journal selection to be built upon a journal’s accessibility, multi-disciplinary nature and data size compared to other journals. It allows the analysis results to be biased, as they do not represent all available databases. However, the study used the available formal access to maintain the integrity of this research.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThis study conducts a systematic review that discusses the coexistence of BCs and BMs. Furthermore, it provides a profound understanding of the discussion carried out through certain themes and the outlook for the future.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":44643,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Innovation Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Innovation Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijis-10-2022-0191\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Innovation Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijis-10-2022-0191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

区块链(BC)是一种技术创新,与现有技术相比,它强调相反的范式。这种范式能够改变公司的商业模式(BMs),并已被许多专家详细阐述。然而,讨论分散在各种来源,特别是学术期刊上。本研究旨在调查有关bc和bm共存的文献,并描述目前尚未讨论的可用情况。本研究通过异构学术数据库,即Emerald、ProQuest、Taylor & Francis、ScienceDirect和Scopus,调查了关注bc和bm共存的文章。本研究采用的系统方法和纳入标准的发展导致52篇关键文章需要进一步审查。该系统审查遵循PRISMA框架,时间框架为2012年至2022年。本研究根据特定主题对文献进行分类,整合BC(互动与进化)和BM创新(创新性、新价值体系和系统逻辑),包括研究设计。正如预期的那样,关于bc和bm的文献似乎集中在特定的主题上,因为这个主题似乎已经发展起来了。本研究确定了文献中的空白,并描述了未来的研究以适应研究差异。研究局限性/启示本研究的主要局限性是研究偏差。这种偏差可能是由于本研究中研究者的误解造成的。在设计数据库和关键词的过程中,本研究发现了误解的可能性。本研究试图通过手动方法使用严格的方案来减轻潜在的偏倚。在文献分类中也有可能出现研究偏差。文献分类是通过参考特定主题的理论或概念来进行的。下一个限制是对科学数据库的有限访问。这项研究利用了几个著名的科学期刊数据库。然而,研究人员认为期刊的选择是建立在期刊的可访问性、多学科性质和与其他期刊相比的数据大小之上的。它允许分析结果有偏差,因为它们不代表所有可用的数据库。然而,本研究使用了现有的正式访问,以保持本研究的完整性。原创性/价值本研究对bc和bm的共存进行了系统的回顾。此外,它还对通过某些主题进行的讨论和对未来的展望提供了深刻的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The coexistence of blockchains and business models (innovation): a systematic review
Purpose Blockchain (BC) is a technological innovation that emphasizes the opposite paradigm compared to the available technology. This paradigm enables changing the firm’s business models (BMs) and has been elaborated by many experts. However, the discussion is scattered in various sources, particularly academic journals. This study aims to investigate the literature on the coexistence of BCs and BMs and depict the currently available situation that has not been discussed. Design/methodology/approach This study investigated articles focusing on the coexistence of BCs and BMs through heterogeneous academic databases, namely, Emerald, ProQuest, Taylor & Francis, ScienceDirect and Scopus. The systematic approach and development of inclusion criteria used in this study resulted in 52 key articles for further review. This systematic review followed the PRISMA framework and a timeframe between 2012 and 2022. Findings This study classifies literature based on specific themes, the integration of BC (interaction and evolution) and BM innovation (innovativeness, new value system and system logic), including the research design. As expected, the literature on BCs and BMs appears to be focused on particular themes since this topic appears to have grown. This study identifies gaps in the literature and describes future research to accommodate the study discrepancy. Research limitations/implications The major limitation of this study is the research bias. Such a bias might occur due to the misinterpretations of researchers in this study. In the process of devising databases and keywords, this study identified the potential for misinterpretation. This study sought to use rigid protocols through a manual approach to mitigate the potential bias. A research bias also has the potential to arise in the literature classification. A literature categorization is performed back and forth, by referring to the theory or concept of a particular topic. The next limitation is limited access to scientific databases. This study drew upon several reputable scientific journal databases. However, the researcher considered the journal selection to be built upon a journal’s accessibility, multi-disciplinary nature and data size compared to other journals. It allows the analysis results to be biased, as they do not represent all available databases. However, the study used the available formal access to maintain the integrity of this research. Originality/value This study conducts a systematic review that discusses the coexistence of BCs and BMs. Furthermore, it provides a profound understanding of the discussion carried out through certain themes and the outlook for the future.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
10.30%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Innovation Science publishes fundamental and applied research in innovation practices. As the official journal of the International Association of Innovation Professionals (IAOIP), the journal is a forum for the exchange of advanced knowledge in innovation, including emerging technologies and best practices, tools and techniques, metrics, and organization design and culture; as well as the stakeholder engagement, change management, and leadership skills required to ensure innovation succeeds. Areas of Coverage: -Innovation processes, methods, techniques- Individual''s role in Innovation- Improvements in HR, marketing, finance, or other disciplines that enable innovation- Innovation practices in specific industries or countries- Innovation centers, incubators, labs...- Regional or national economic development/policies related to innovation- Innovation competency, skills- Innovation conventions, competitions, or training- Innovation for entrepreneurs-Regional impacts on innovation- Growing innovationthrough university programs- Attracting innovative companies and entrepreneurs
期刊最新文献
Financial development and green technological innovation: a case of GCC countries Open innovation in hospitality and tourism services: a bibliometric analysis How do CCIs contribute to regional innovation? Situational selections of design methods for digital innovation processes Awakening the giant within: turning SME’s survival strategy into improved performance
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1