International Workshop on Successful Strategies in Supply Chain Management Sample Template Paper

2. 
Background literature
2.1 Blockchain technology. In technical term, blockchain is a peer-to-peer distributed network 
that is cryptographically secure, append-only, immutable (extremely hard to change), and 
updateable only via the consensus or agreement among peers (Bashir 2017). Blockchain can 
be perceived as another application layer that run on top of the Internet protocols that enables 
economic transactions between relevant parties. It can also be used as a registry and inventory 
system for the recording, tracing, monitoring and transacting of all assets (tangible, intangible 
or digital). From a business perspective, a blockchain can be defined as a platform whereby 
values are exchanged among peers without requiring any trusted third party. 
A blockchain is an encoded digital ledger that is stored on multiple computers in a public or 
private network. It comprises data records, or “blocks.” As each transaction occurs, it is put 
into a block. Each block is connected to the one before and after it. Each block is added to the 
next in an irreversible chain and transactions are blocked together – hence it is called 
‘blockchain’ (Figure 1). Once these blocks are collected in a chain, they cannot be changed or 
deleted by a single actor; instead, they are verified and managed using automation and shared 
governance protocols (Swan 2015). This is the core innovation of blockchain. The verification 
process, along with modern encryption methods, can effectively secure the data on blockchain 
ledgers against unauthorized access or manipulation. Because the existing “blocks” in the 
chain are hardly possible to be overwritten (doing so would require massive amounts of 
computing power to access every instance or at least a 51 percent majority of a certain 
blockchain and alter them all at the same time), users always have access to a comprehensive 
audit trail of activity (Miles, 2017). As a rule of thumb, the bigger the blockchain network is, 
the more tamper-resistant the blockchain will be. The decentralised storage of information 
Figure 1. A standard blockchain string (Yli-Huumo, et al. 2016) 

---

3 
reduces the risk of single point of data access failure that tends to associate with centralised 
database. There are three main types blockchain, based on access control mechanism, i.e. 
regarding who can read a blockchain, submit transactions to it and participate in the consensus 
process.
 Public blockchains: Every transaction is public (hence ‘permissionless’) and users can 
remain anonymous. The network typically has an incentivizing mechanism to 
encourage more participants to join the network. Bitcoin and Ethereum are typical 
examples. 
 Permissioned blockchains: Participants need to obtain an invitation or permission to 
join. Access tend to be controlled by a consortium of members (consortium blockchain) 
or by a single organisation (private blockchains). 
The claimed benefits of blockchain from practice include (Yli-Huumo, et al. 2016; Gupta 
2017); 
- Fewer intermediaries: As it is a peer to peer network, it reduces reliance on third party. 
- Transparency: Information in blockchains is viewable by all participants and cannot be 
altered, hence creating trust and reducing fraud. 
- Security: The distributed and encrypted nature implies that it will be difficult to hack.
- Automation: A blockchain can be programmed to automatically trigger actions (such 
as payment or other events) once conditions are met. 
2.2 Sense making. Much of the literature on technology adoption and innovation diffusion has 
been focused on the implementation phase of the process, emphasising less on the 
exploration/pre-implementation phase (Wisdom et al 2014). Yet pre-adoption/implementation 
is an important process itself where organisations become aware of a technological innovation, 
sense its potential disruptive effect, make an initial exploration and decide whether to 
embrace or ignore it. Technology adoption often implies substantial financial investment, 
change of exiting operation and even the business model. Therefore a robust sense-making 
process during pre-adoption plays a critical role in aiding the right decision making. Sense 
making is particularly important when organisational members face new and unexpected 
situations where the tangible benefits of an emerging technology is unclear, the disruptive 
effect unpredictable and its technical advance path ambiguous (Weick et al 2005).
Theories such as institutional theory explains why organisations adopt a technology but do not 
offer insights about the process of how people diagnose symptoms emitted by the new 
technology and develop assumptions, expectations and knowledge of the technology which 
then shape subsequent actions towards it. In our research, we use the theory of sensemaking to 
understand how supply chain and IT experts from the logistics and supply chain (LSC) sector 
perceive the potential impact of blockchain to their sector. Sensemaking theory has its 
explanatory power “at the organisational/group and individual/socio-cognitive levels, 
focusing on organisational actors’ cognition and situated actions when introduced to a new 
technology (Jensen et al 2009)”. Sensemaking is about the ongoing interplay of action and 
interpretation. It considers technology as equivoque and actors develop particular assumptions, 
expectations, and knowledge of the technology that shapes their actions towards it (Weick 
1990). Sensemaking starts with noticing and bracketing where the technology is noticed, 
contextualised and adapted to the specific context of use (Weick and Sutcliffe 2005). This is 
then followed by the process of enactment, i.e. meaning is created by connecting the cues to 
existing frames. Sensemaking is highly corelated to one’s identity as people tend to relate 
their interpretation of the technology to the expectations they have of their roles and 
responsibilities. Thus, identity forms the sensemaking but sensemaking informs the identity 
(Jensen et al 2009).

---

4