







































 

 

37   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

 

 

 

Overcoming Barriers to Blockchain Technological 

Innovation in Trade Finance Faced by U.S. Banks 

 

Clotilda Mujeyi Chinyanya, DBA, MBA, BBA, PMP, ACP, SSM | Capella University, Minneapolis, 

Minnesota, USA 

Contact: clotildac@gmail.com 

Abstract 

The major U.S. banks have been reluctant to adopt blockchain technology in trade finance because of 

several barriers associated with the technology. The hesitancy in adopting the technology has led to 

higher costs, inconvenience to customers, vulnerability to cyber-attacks and susceptibility to forgery, 

and predicted losses in trade finance revenues of up to 10.5% per year for the next four years. This mod-

ified Delphi project identified 18 feasible and desirable forward-looking approaches to overcoming 

barriers to adopting blockchain technological innovation in trade finance within U.S. banks. A panel 

of 13 blockchain implementation experts in the financial industry was recruited through User Interviews 

and LinkedIn. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected, analyzed, and documented using four 

iterative rounds of electronically administered surveys on the SurveyMonkey platform. The panelists 

selected the top five approaches, and 92.3% of the participants were confident with the results and rated 

the findings as reliable or very reliable. Some of the reasons participants were confident with the results 

included: 69% of the participants mentioned people or talent; 61% mentioned leveraging existing infra-

structure; 30% mentioned the importance of investing in R&D, and 23% mentioned financial resources 

and collaboration as critical to achieving the goal of blockchain technological innovation in trade fi-

nance. 

Keywords: blockchain technology, letter of credit, trade finance, smart contract, innovation, toe 

framework, modified Delphi technique 

  



 

 

38 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Introduction 

Trade finance enables global trade (International Finance Corporation, 2020). As dependable agents, 

banks play a critical role in facilitating that trade by arranging payments, financing, document 

processing, and guaranteeing payments to help reduce the risk of either party not fulfilling their 

obligations (Bank for International Settlements, 2014; Niepmann & Schmidt-Eisenlohr, 2014b). Letters 

of credit and documentary collections are two of the most common trade finance products to help 

mitigate the risk (Niepmann and Schmidt-Eisenlohr, 2014a), and this project focuses on blockchain 

technology as an alternative to letters of credit. A letter of credit guarantees the exporter payment once 

the importer receives proof of shipment, and the banks of both parties act as intermediaries and 

guarantors in the trade process (Niepmann & Schmidt-Eisenlohr, 2014a). Although letters of credit help 

minimize risk, they have several disadvantages, including extensive paperwork that is slow to process, 

expensive, complicated, and susceptible to forgery and cyberattacks (Chang et al., 2020). 

Background 

Financial technology firms (fintechs) are leading banks in innovation and siphoning their potential 

revenue (Bedford & Gilder, 2020; Global Fintech Report, 2019). Fintechs are active in banking, capital 

markets, investment management, insurance, and real estate and leverage innovative technology like 

blockchain (Eckenrode & Friedman, 2017). By contrast, banks’ “innovations” are mainly upgrades of 

existing products—hardly innovations compared to the more profound, revolutionary, and disruptive 

innovations of fintech start-ups (Das et al., 2018; Schindler, 2017). 

Blockchain Technology 

Nakamoto (2008) demonstrated that banks lose their intermediary role with blockchain technology. 

Trading parties can transact directly without involving a third party based on the integrity of 

cryptography (Nakamoto, 2008). Though blockchain technology has been in use for over ten years since 

Nakamoto envisioned Bitcoin in 2008, its use, particularly in the finance industry, has been limited. 

Halaburda and Müeller-Bloch (2019) conducted a case study of Bitcoin to determine whether 

blockchain could deliver on the promise of decentralization and found that the governance of design and 

updates is centralized; however, the governance of transactions and consensus contains elements of 

centralization and decentralization. According to Sherman et al. (2019), 90% of transactions go through 

only 20 mining pools, a typical example of centralization in permissionless blockchains.  

Ethereum, launched in 2015, was the first blockchain platform with smart contract scripting capabilities 

(Herweijer et al., 2018). According to Hileman and Rauchs (2017), Ethereum opened doors for other 

blockchain applications and possibilities. Corda and Hyperledger Fabric are permissioned blockchains 

with smart contract capabilities (Sherman et al., 2019). Popular blockchain technology trade finance 

platforms include Corda, Hyperledger Fabric, Ethereum, and Quorum. Some new platforms reflect 

genuine innovation and address issues raised with existing platforms (Hileman & Rauchs, 2017). 



 

 

39   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

According to Hileman and Rauchs (2017), 19% of cryptocurrency payments supported international 

trade. Practitioners have identified different blockchain technology applications, including trade finance, 

but implementing this technology at the industry level beyond cryptocurrency is limited (Casino et al., 

2019). Some banks like JP Morgan Chase with its JPM Coin (JPMorgan Chase, 2022) and other parties 

like IBM have started some form of blockchain technology in trade finance on a small scale. 

Blockchain is predicted to account for 10% of the global GDP by 2025 (Herweijer et al., 2018). Unless 

practitioners in banks are proactive in launching new products, these cornerstone institutions of the 

modern economy could lose their finance industry position. Indeed, the OECD (2020) predicts a wave of 

disruption in the finance industry. More fintechs are expected to enter the market, with hubs in 

Australia, Switzerland, and China (Shine Group, 2018), and technology-driven models may soon replace 

the finance industry’s current business models (Chen, 2018). 

Business Problem and Gap in Practice 

The financial services market was a US$22 trillion industry in 2020 (The Business Research Company, 

2020), and banks are such “systemically important financial institutions” that their failure threatens 

global economic and financial stability (Rafique et al., 2018, p. 2). Major U.S. banks face possible losses 

in trade finance revenues of up to 10.5% per year for the next five years, starting in 2021 (Browne, 

2020), primarily because of their lack of innovation. Current bank users are looking for alternatives to 

letters of credit that are inexpensive and efficient (Kant, 2017). For example, letters of credit contribute 

to shipment delays by up to 10 days (World Blockchain Summit, 2019). Banks could lose customers to 

other trade finance platforms unless practitioners become more proactive in developing new products 

(PwC, 2017). The innovations must help capture new markets, protect existing ones, and prevent market 

share loss to newcomers. Blockchain technology is one such innovation. 

Brunner et al. (2016) identified fraud, unpredictability, and complexity of transacting as the three main 

reasons the current trade finance model needs disruption. Khoza (2019) revealed how reluctance to share 

knowledge among team members can be a critical factor stifling innovation. Failure to innovate leads to 

loss of first-mover advantage and market share, and even closure of the business (Bloch et al., 2012; 

Crawford, 2015; Guzzini & Iacobucci, 2017). Nevertheless, the major U.S. banks, i.e., JP Morgan 

Chase, Bank of America, Citi, HSBC, and Wells Fargo, continue to use paper-intensive transaction 

methods without developing blockchain technology because of its many associated risks: technology, 

regulatory, privacy, counterparty, security, and transition risks (Janssens et al., 2017; Vysya & Kumar, 2019). 

Although most other business processes have gone digital, letters of credit, which currently account for 

15% of all trade finance (a figure expected to continue to grow until 2027), still rely on paper trails 

rather than digital chains (Allied Market Research, 2020; The Bank for International Settlements, 2014). 

Smart contracts that employ blockchain technology are an alternative to paper-intensive letters-of-credit 

payment systems. In more technical terms, smart contracts are secured digital instructions coded to 

automatically permit contract terms’ performance that eliminate the need for a trusted third party and 

reduce the risk of human error (Herweijer et al., 2018; Youssef, 2020). A smart contract’s advantages 

include cost and speed. Its advocates claim that it enables trustless trading, openness, data integrity, 

tamper-proof transactions, and guaranteed payment (Youssef, 2020). 



 

 

40 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

The possible erosion of the market dominance of traditional banks by fintech is not a new problem. 

Indeed, Das et al. (2018) identified barriers to innovation in banks more than four years ago. However, 

no meaningfully innovated products have been released, or initiatives launched to address these barriers. 

The barriers include reluctance to capitalize on new ideas, unresponsiveness due to systems design, 

opposing internal structures, risk-averse managers, lack of formal R&D, and hesitancy to accept external 

knowledge. These obstacles to innovation are also not unique to the finance industry; they are endemic 

in many industries that must deal with red tape and archaic systems and processes. Several specific 

factors contribute to this innovation gap, including outdated technology, reluctance to accept new 

technology, lack of an innovation culture, and lack of technical knowledge in leadership, all of which 

discourage technologically gifted employees from staying with the organization for long enough periods 

to affect meaningful changes (Ansari, 2020; Das et al., 2018). 

Furthermore, practitioners who would otherwise choose to commit funds to research, develop, or 

purchase new technology are discouraged because there is no guarantee of investment return. The 

situation stagnates without a formal structure to stimulate innovation that is not dependent on an 

immediate cost-benefit analysis (Das et al., 2018). The innovations coming through fintechs are 

numerous and cover all aspects of banking and finance (Schindler, 2017). To avoid banks’ failure, 

practitioners must start innovating and collaborating with fintechs to merge both institutions’ strengths 

(PwC, 2017). 

Project Questions 

This modified Delphi project investigated two research questions: 

PQ1. What are the forward-looking approaches to overcoming barriers to adopting blockchain 

innovation in trade finance within U.S. banks, as identified by a nationwide panel of 

blockchain implementation experts? 

PQ2. Is there consensus among a nationwide panel of blockchain implementation experts 

regarding the desirability and feasibility of specific forward-looking approaches to overcoming 

barriers to adopting blockchain innovation in trade finance? 

Terms and Definitions 

Blockchain is a technology that uses a distributed ledger across a network of computers based on 

mathematics and advanced cryptography that is either permissioned or permissionless (Beck & Müller-

Bloch, 2017). A permissionless blockchain is public, where anyone can join, and all participating nodes 

have full access (Clohessy & Acton, 2019). In contrast, a permissioned blockchain is either private or a 

consortium, and the initiator can admit specific nodes to perform certain functions (Chang et al., 2019). 

Disruptive innovation serves an unserved market or creates a new market (Christensen et al., 2015). 

A distributed ledger is a digital system that logs transactions of assets with details and records them in 

multiple nodes simultaneously (Troy & Pratt, 2017). 



 

 

41   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Fintech is technological innovation in the financial industry that delivers significant changes in services 

or products (Financial Stability Board, 2019). 

A letter of credit is an irrevocable undertaking that an issuing bank will pay the exporter upon delivery 

of the goods or services to the importer (United Nations, 2012). 

Organizational learning is creating and sharing knowledge to integrate new insights into future 

processes (Siddiqui et al., 2019). 

A smart contract is a secured digital instruction coded to automatically permit a contract terms’ 

performance (Youssef, 2020). 

Importance of the Project 

Banks operate in a highly regulated environment. To avoid a repeat of the global financial crisis of 2008, 

practitioners have concentrated on compliance with regulatory reforms at the expense of innovation 

(Bank for International Settlements, 2018; Das et al., 2018; Helleiner, 2011). The COVID-19 pandemic 

presented challenges to bank executives in trade finance as their ongoing use of paper-based processes 

made remote working impossible (Murad & Daly, 2021). Banks have not developed smart solutions to 

navigate the regulatory requirements, managing most regulatory processes manually at the cost of up to 

US$4 billion annually (PwC, 2017). Practitioners can access innovations through licensing, 

collaborations, joint ventures, mergers, and acquisitions (Ahuja & Katila, 2001; Dell’Era & Verganti, 

2010; Haucap et al., 2019; Hensmans, 2017; Katz & Shapiro, 1985). In short, several organizations are 

forming ecosystems to manage trade finance more efficiently using blockchain technology. 

Applied Framework 

The concepts of the technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework (Tornatzky et al., 1990) as 

proposed by Baker (2011) inform the methodology and analysis of this modified Delphi project. The 

TOE framework explains how the technological, organizational, and environmental concepts impact 

technological innovation in the firm by examining these concepts as the result of a “model of innovation 

orientation: drivers, actions, and outcomes” (Siguaw et al., 2006, p. 563). Past applications of this 

framework demonstrate that its models can identify how organizational competencies produce 

innovation outcomes that improve firm performance (Baker, 2011; Clohessy & Acton, 2019; Li, 2020; 

Oliveira & Martins, 2010; Pan & Jang, 2008; Siguaw et al., 2006; Teo et al., 2006; Zhu & Kraemer, 

2005; Zhu et al., 2006). This project uses a hybrid framework (see Figure 1) to examine a specific 

innovation, i.e., blockchain technology, in a specific industry, i.e., trade finance, which includes several 

barriers identified in the extant literature on blockchain technology adoption.  

  



 

 

42 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Figure 1 

Innovation Framework for Adopting Blockchain Technology in Trade Finance 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

Literature Review 

Technology Focus 

The technology concept of the TOE framework helps practitioners identify gaps between the technology 

within the firm and what is available to fill those gaps (Baker, 2011). Key factors that impact the 

adoption of IT innovations include required expertise, perceived comparative benefit, and how they fit 

and integrate with existing technology (Rogers, 1995). Several technology barriers are specific to 

blockchain technology. For example, the computational power required in the mining process to produce 

proof-of-work is excessive, leading to environmental fears (Koteska et al., 2017). Most of the mining is 

done in China, and, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (2022), China is the 

world’s leading producer and user of coal. Bitcoin mining alone could emit enough carbon to increase 

global warming by 2 degrees Celsius by 2048 (Mora et al., 2018). Scalability is also a crucial barrier to 

adopting blockchain technology in trade finance (Koteska et al., 2017). Lack of standardization across 

Technology 
in Trade 
Finance 

 

Business 
Problem Concepts Barriers 

Computational power 
Integration 
Complexity 
Scalability 
Standardization 
Privacy 
support 

Gap in 
Practice 

Blockchain 
Implementation 

Firm 
Performance  

Market 
position  

Operational 
efficiency 

Financial 
results 

 

 

Strategic Direction 

Environmental Turbulence 

Outcome 

 

 

Talent 
Financial resources 
Infrastructure 
Organizational readiness 
Top management support 

Regulations 
Interoperability 
Standardization 

 

Organization 

Technology 

Environment 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

43   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

blockchains prevents adoption (Chen et al., 2020; Vysya & Kumar, 2019). Public blockchains are also 

prone to attack because the setup of a blockchain is such that if 51% of the miners control a node, they 

can manipulate it, erase transaction history, and compromise the integrity of the block (Bakos et al., 

2021; Koteska et al., 2017; Vysya & Kumar, 2019). The privacy issues, especially for public 

blockchains, are a significant deterrent to adopting this innovative technology (Koteska et al., 2017). 

Global technological developments have fostered blockchain, with several companies launching 

platforms in 2018 and over 550 patents under review in 2019 worldwide (Herweijer et al., 2018; 

Sherman et al., 2019). Some banks have formed syndicates to tackle trade finance issues through 

blockchain technology and other technologies; however, none of the consortia identified by Patel and 

Ganne (2019) originated from the United States. Indeed, most banks participating in such syndicates are 

headquartered in China, Europe, Hong Kong, India, and Singapore. Scaling the operations of these 

syndicates remains challenging because of the heterogeneity of global trade regulations (Patel & Ganne, 

2020). 

Corda R3 is the most prominent blockchain consortium and is ideal for financial institutions comprising 

more than 40 global banks, including Bank of America and Morgan Stanley (Guo & Liang, 2016). 

Platforms like Corda and Quorum conducted successful interoperability trials (Accenture, 2019). The 

trials are insufficient to cover all variables in a trade finance transaction, cannot account for all 

variations in platform designs, and do not incorporate legacy systems (World Bank Group, 2021). The 

World Economic Forum (2020) identified gaps, starting from basics like terminology. Applications like 

Vottun, Overledger, and LiquidApps address the interoperability issue with blockchain platforms 

(World Bank Group, 2021). Different platforms, however, have different security protocols, which may 

compromise interoperating platforms and allow malicious interference like the oracle attack against 

Synthetix (Todd, 2019). The World Bank Group (2021) recommends establishing a governance body 

comprised of stakeholders to oversee the interoperability in blockchain, focusing on monitoring 

standards about the technical framework and examining the security and legal framework to supervise 

design and implementation. 

Miners play a critical and pivotal role in providing computational power to validate new blocks, and 

58% of miners operate from China (Hileman & Rauchs, 2017). Mining requires a massive investment in 

equipment. Several platforms, including Bitcoin, use proof-of-work as a consensus mechanism to 

confirm a transaction and create a new block. Executing proof-of-work consumes a considerable 

quantity of power, which raises environmental concerns. Aggarwal and Kumar (2021) suggested other 

consensus mechanisms to consider like proof-of-stake, proof-of-retrievability, proof-of-burn, proof-of-

capacity, proof-of-activity, proof-of-importance, proof-of-elapsed time, and proof-of-ownership. 

Clohessy and Acton (2019) found that all the five large companies in their study that successfully 

launched blockchain did so on private permissioned blockchains. A permissioned consortium blockchain 

is best for trade finance because it addresses privacy, security, transaction speed, and scalability 

concerns associated with permissionless blockchains (Chang et al., 2019). Furthermore, permissioned 

blockchain enables administrators to prevent illegal activities (World Bank Group, 2021). 

Asim and Sorooshian (2019) assessed process, infrastructure, and strategic capabilities related to 

technology management. In reviewing the literature on knowledge, innovation, and technology 

published between 1990 and 2018, the authors found that technological infrastructure is crucial in 



 

 

44 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

creating and sharing knowledge. Catalini and Gans (2019) suggested creating ecosystems and 

collaborative platforms to share, manage, and reduce infrastructure costs. The approach of an ecosystem 

with a shared platform could simultaneously address the integration and cost barriers. 

Organization 

The organization view examines those factors affecting the adoption of innovative technology specific 

to a firm, i.e., the skills of its labor, its leadership, size, knowledge concentration, company 

preparedness, and policies toward resource allocation (Clohessy & Acton, 2019). Resource allocation 

must align with the strategic direction, or practitioners cannot explore all possibilities (Hekkert et al., 

2007). Blockchain technology is new, so its potential has not yet been fully explored (Iansiti & Lakhani, 

2017; Varma, 2019). Also, there is little depth in the technical workforce, with only a few people having 

the necessary skills to design and implement the technology at a large scale without extensive and often 

expensive staff retraining (Beck & Müller-Bloch, 2017; Clohessy & Acton, 2019; Vysya & Kumar, 

2019). The high capital outlay not only to procure specialized equipment but also to hire the personnel to 

design, implement, and manage it is a significant deterrent to blockchain adoption (Zamani & Giaglis, 

2018). Moreover, the lack of robust, time-tested standards makes it difficult for the different banks to 

collaborate on innovative products in trade finance because the different blockchain platforms have no 

uniformity (Vysya & Kumar, 2019). Before practitioners invest in blockchain technology, executives 

must determine whether blockchain is the right solution to their business problems and if the 

organization is ready for the technology (Herweijer et al., 2018).  

Collaboration across functional teams and organizations is critical for blockchain technology innovation 

because skills are scarce (Beck & Müller-Bloch, 2017). Cross-functional collaboration also stimulates 

internal innovation (Malhotra et al., 2017). Demirkan (2018) claimed that collaboration helps pool 

resources to seize opportunities efficiently, but firms need slack in human resources to contribute to 

innovation initiatives within the network. However, Mousa and Chowdhury (2014) studied all US public 

firms between 1993 and 2011 and found that slack in human resources does not impact firm innovation. 

Beck and Müller-Bloch (2017) recommended using innovation labs to test ideas before implementation. 

In their study of companies in the financial, IT, education, and other industries represented by 11 large 

companies and nine SMEs in Ireland, Clohessy and Acton (2019) reported that all participants said it 

was important to conduct experiments before adopting blockchain technology. 

Slack in financial resources within a firm significantly impact innovation if the external environment is 

calm (Demirkan, 2018). Mousa and Chowdhury (2014) found that slack in financial resources positively 

influences innovation because practitioners allocate more funds to R&D. Firms with well-resourced 

R&D were more likely to adopt blockchain technology than those with limited resources (Clohessy & 

Acton, 2019). 

Blockchain technology requires specific skills that are lacking in the current workforce. Decision-

makers, therefore, must introduce formal training in blockchain technology to bridge the skills gap 

(Clohessy & Acton, 2019). Malhotra et al. (2017) emphasized the importance of human resources as a 

source of innovation. According to Veena et al. (2019), employees are an essential knowledge resource. 

In a four-year study across ten companies involved in internal crowdsourcing in different industries, 

Malhotra et al. (2017) found that one way to stimulate innovation within the firm is to give employees 



 

 

45   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

slack time to be creative. However, Demirkan (2018) disproved this assertion saying there is no direct 

relationship between slack time and creativity among employees. According to Malhotra et al. (2017), 

internal innovation works best when employees have a clear concept of the idea selection criteria. 

Clohessy and Acton (2019) analyzed organizational size, readiness, and support from top-level 

management to determine the factors influencing blockchain innovation adoption. Of the companies 

analyzed, 15% demonstrated that organizational readiness must be combined with top management 

support to influence blockchain adoption positively. Also, 25% demonstrated that large organizations 

with organizational readiness and support from top-level management adopted blockchain. Support and 

involvement from top-level management are critical factors in blockchain adoption (Clohessy & Acton, 

2019). The leadership of the CEO has a direct influence on innovation (Zuraik & Kelly, 2019). 

Leadership must inspire enthusiasm and provide platforms that encourage idea sharing among 

employees to help refine the ideas (Beck & Müller-Bloch, 2017; Malhotra et al., 2017). Khoza (2019) 

found that employees withhold knowledge if managers do not reward them for their ability. Malhotra et 

al. (2017) and Khoza (2019) concurred that employees would not share if they did not personally benefit 

from the innovation. However, Beck and Müller-Bloch (2017) found that employees invested their free 

time while expecting only the satisfaction of being part of a significant milestone in the firm, not 

monetary compensation. 

Environment 

The environmental component of the hybrid TOE framework focuses on such external factors deterring 

the adoption of innovative technology as competitors, regulators, government departments, customers, 

and other stakeholders (Clohessy & Acton, 2019). Because banks are cornerstones of modern 

economies, they are more regulated than many other industries. The requirements to follow specific 

standards designed for traditional trade finance makes it difficult for executives to embrace blockchain 

technology (Patel & Ganne, 2020). Compliance with regulations for settling disputes, identification of 

regulators, the legality of smart contracts, record keeping, tax-paying, and reporting is a challenge 

because legislation is constantly changing (Vysya & Kumar, 2019). The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 

2020 expanded its reach to include cryptocurrency (Gibson Dunn, 2020). 

The abundance of ideas and level of risk in developing blockchain technology makes collaboration with 

external parties indispensable, especially for firms with weak R&D or limited resources (Demirkan, 

2018; Hensmans, 2017; Lee et al., 2016; Pisano & Verganti, 2008). However, a lack of interoperability 

between separate blockchain networks makes sharing data necessary for collaboration between different 

stakeholders well-nigh impossible (Lewis et al., 2019; Zamani & Giaglis, 2018). Technological 

innovation works best through collaboration (Demirkan, 2018). However, Na et al. (2016) cautioned 

against collaboration when goals are unclear because it could waste resources. According to Brown et al. 

(2020), banks could partner with fintechs to benefit from technology, products, and talent while offering 

better infrastructure to move banks more efficiently. 

According to Kumar et al. (2011), market orientation is not forward-looking because it focuses on 

current customers; therefore, the organization may lose future opportunities. Market orientation is ideal 

for sustained profitability in the long term because it focuses on customer retention rather than 

acquisition (Kumar et al., 2011). Still, there is no guarantee of customer retention if technology changes. 



 

 

46 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Radical innovations are less likely with customer involvement because customers may make more 

complex suggestions and revisions than the firm can implement, resulting in conflict within 

implementation teams (Storey & Larbig, 2017). On the positive side, products co-created with customers 

are more likely to succeed on the market, have new uses, and be more user-friendly (Storey & Larbig, 

2017). 

Project Design and Participant Recruitment 

The Delphi technique is ideal when investigating something unknown because it supports brainstorming 

and critical thinking in teams and attempts to gather consensus (Linstone & Turoff, 2002; Skulmoski et 

al., 2007). Blockchain technology is still developing, and practitioners do not yet understand all its 

applications, capabilities, and shortfalls (Iansiti & Lakhani, 2017). This study adopted a modified Delphi 

technique proposed by Miller et al. (2020) that uses extant scholarly and grey literature and expert 

opinion gathered utilizing online questionnaires to reach a consensus on the barriers to blockchain 

technology adoption in U.S. trade finance. These questionnaires were distributed via the online service 

SurveyMonkey because it is automated, ensures the anonymity of participants using codes, 

accommodates longer surveys, and has no limit to the instrument’s number of questions or rounds. 

Keeney et al. (2001) discussed some concerns with the experts in a modified Delphi technique, most 

notably that in modified Delphi projects, the expert usually self-identifies. This project, however, 

applied strict inclusion criteria. Each participant must be a(n) “innovation manager,” “project manager,” 

“IT manager,” or “blockchain implementation expert” at a major U.S. bank for at least three years, have 

knowledge and experience in blockchain technology, and have completed one blockchain technology 

project within the banking industry in the past three years. Participants needed to meet two of the three 

criteria to be eligible to participate, and all the participants who completed all four phases of data 

collection did. 

Following established methods (Kelly, 2010; Palinkas et al., 2015), purposive sampling was used to 

identify participants who were blockchain experts who had worked on at least one successful blockchain 

project in the banking industry in the past three years. The panelists were U.S.-based nationwide experts 

recruited using third-party services, namely User Interviews and LinkedIn. Keeney et al. (2001) also 

critique purposive sampling as a methodology because of the strong selection bias associated with 

purposive sampling. Following the recommendations of Skulmoski et al. (2007), a starting sample of 21 

was recruited to ensure an adequate number of participants (i.e., 10 to 15) after attrition. Participant 

recruitment was conducted on the User Interviews platform and began on September 7, 2021. On 

September 14, 2021, a parallel recruitment drive was initiated on LinkedIn that targeted individuals 

whose profile information matched the participant selection criteria. Recruitment ended on October 1, 

2021, after 21 participants had signed up to complete the study. Table 1 provides a demographic 

summary of the participants. Panelists P3 and P5 dropped in Round 2; their profiles appear underlined in 

Table 1. 

  



 

 

47   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Table 1 

Participant Demographic Information 

Panelist Age Geographical 

region 

Job title Industry Years in 

role 

 

# of 

blockchain 

projects 

P1 55+ West Project Manager Finance >3 3 + 

 

P2 25-34 Southeast Project Manager Finance >3 2 

 

P3 45-54 Southwest Directory 

Technology & 

Innovation 

 

Health >3 1 

P4 25-34 Southwest Project Manager 

 

Finance >3 1 

P5 25-34 Southwest Senior Solidity 

Architect & Senior 

Manager 

 

Finance >3 3+ 

P6 45-54 Southwest Technology 

Consultant 

 

Technology >3  1 

P7 25-34 Northeast Crypto Analyst 

 

Government 1 2 

P8 25-34 Northeast IT Manager 

 

Technology >3 1 

P9 35-44 Southwest Project Manager 

 

Finance >3 2 

P10 18-24 Northeast Senior Analyst – 

Strategy 

 

Finance 1 2 



 

 

48 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

P11 45-54 Northeast Project Manager 

 

Finance >3 1 

P12 25-34 Northeast Blockchain 

Implementation 

Manager 

 

Finance >3 2 

P13 45-54 Midwest Project Manager 

 

Finance >3 3+ 

P14 45-54 Southwest Innovation Manager 

 

Finance >3 1 

P15 35-44 Northeast Project Manager Finance >3 2 

 

The job title in the criteria is non-exhaustive, so any job title that matched or matched the role described 

in the criteria was accepted as a good match. Figure 2 analyzes the degree to which participants matched 

the criteria. 

Figure 2 

Participants’ Criteria Match 

 

Data Collection 

This modified Delphi project consisted of four rounds of participant involvement. Participants reviewed 

the approaches from scholarly and practitioner literature sources and then listed, modified, and added 

new approaches in the first round. The categories of the approaches were technology, organization, and 

environment. The second round allowed participants to rate the desirability and feasibility of the 

approaches in the modified list on a five-point Likert-type scale. Those approaches that received a rating 

of 4 or 5 for both desirability and feasibility from at least 70% of the participants proceeded to the third 

round. The participants ranked the desirable and feasible approaches in order of importance in round 

three. Participants ranked all the three categories combined. The weighted average score of the rankings 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Job title Industry Number of years Knowledge &
experience

Number of
blockchain

projects



 

 

49   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

was distributed to participants in the fourth round to record their degree of confidence in the selected 

approaches. In this modified Delphi project, participants did not know each other and never met during 

the project. Anonymity helped participants express themselves more freely without pressure to align 

with their peers and modify opinions they had already determined to be correct. The process occurred in 

rounds because iteration allowed participants to change their opinions based on a narrowing scope of 

options (Eubank et al., 2016). Two Delphi technique experts reviewed the Round 1 instrument before it 

was sent to participants, and it was adjusted to reflect their feedback. 

Trustworthiness 

The qualitative standards for trustworthiness are “credibility, transferability, dependability, and 

conformability” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 314). Credibility is the certainty that the information 

captured reflects the actual lived experiences of participants and is also known as the truth value. In 

modified Delphi, the truth value relies on the fourth round, where participants rate their confidence with 

the study results. Sandelowski (1995) identified two ways of ensuring credibility in a qualitative 

method: purposeful sampling and adequate sample size, especially when there is some homogeneity; 

thus, this study meets Sandelowski’s assessment for credibility. Transferability establishes the relevance 

of the results of a study to other situations. Documenting the data analysis process from the first to the 

fourth round allows anyone to duplicate the study in the same or a different geographical setting. 

Dependability determines the study’s reproducibility. Clear and precise documenting allows another 

researcher to transfer the results to another population. However, Krefting (1991) argued that most 

qualitative studies do not need to make sweeping statements because each study is distinct and usually 

inflexible. Conformability assesses the impartiality of the researcher’s analysis of the data. In this 

modified Delphi project, data analysis and presentation were critical throughout the process so that 

all opinions were recorded with high accuracy. Data were analyzed after each round to ensure tha t 

the information going into the subsequent round reflected the accurate feedback from the preceding 

round. 

Ethical Considerations 

The study did not commence until IRB approval was obtained in compliance with Capella University’s 

policies. This study was not human subject research, so informed consent was not required. Participants 

were given a unique identification code used to protect their anonymity during the data gathering 

process, which used the SurveyMonkey platform. Participation was voluntary and not remunerated in 

any way. 

Data Collection Results 

Round 1: Data Collection and Analysis 

The SurveyMonkey platform sent out the Round 1 questionnaire to 21 participants on October 3, 2021. 

Participants were given a questionnaire with the different approaches organized into three categories: 

technology, organization, and environment (see Table 2, text in black). The questionnaire defined 

the three terms and what they entailed. Participants were then asked to review the approaches 

suggested in each category and add anything they believed was missing from the list.  



 

 

50 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Seven participants had been recruited via User Interviews, and the other 14 through LinkedIn. One 

participant opted out, and the email was not delivered. An email reminder was sent out on October 5, 

2021. By the end of the first phase of data collection and analysis on October 9, 2021, 15 participants 

had responded, three had opened the survey emails but had not completed the survey, and two emails 

remained unopened. Efforts to reach those with unopened emails through User Interviews and LinkedIn 

failed. It took participants an average of 17 minutes to complete the survey. 

The round 1 data collection tool included 29 approaches and six demographic questions. If participants 

agreed with the approach, they did not need to write anything. If they disagreed with or wanted to amend 

an approach, space was provided. Space was also provided at the end of each section for free-form 

responses that the experts wanted to contribute to the study. The panelists generated 15 proposed 

amendments to the approaches included in the SurveyMonkey questionnaire and four new ones. Table 2 

provides a comprehensive list of the approaches with the experts’ amendments highlighted in red for 

comparison against the original text in black. Each of the 33 approaches in Table 2 was converted to a 

five-point Likert-type scale item for distribution to participants in the second round of data collection 

and analysis. 

Table 1 

Revised Approaches after Round 1 Input from Experts  

1. Leverage existing ecosystems to share, manage, and reduce infrastructure costs to overcome inte-

gration, and cost barriers.  

2. Adopt permissioned consortium blockchain for trade finance because all members of the consor-

tium will be using the same platform. Permissioned consortium will also address privacy, security, 

transaction speed, and scalability issues associated with permissionless blockchains. 

3. Use other consensus mechanisms to verify transactions besides proof-of-work like proof-of-stake, 

proof-of-retrievability, proof-of-burn, proof-of-capacity, proof-of-activity, proof-of-importance, 

proof-of-elapsed time, proof-of-ownership, proof-of-state, and proof-of-history. 

4. Invest in infrastructure and people that can support technological advancement through access and 

application of knowledge.  

5. Collaborate across functional teams to utilize the scarce skills in blockchain technology innovation 

by identifying where those skills are concentrated within the firm through HR. 

6. Blockchain is complex and mission critical, therefore, developers must work with minimum dis-

tractions. To improve implementation of blockchain innovations, developers must focus on the 

task at hand without the added pressure of being expected to work with people across multiple 

teams. 

7. Collaborate across organizations to form consortiums and benefit from the resources held at the 

consortium level like skills. 

8. Hold financial resources at the collaboration level because they positively impact innovation com-

pared to a firm’s internal financial resources. 

9. Collaborate with other partners to pool resources together to seize the blockchain technological 

innovation opportunity in time. 

10. Firms must have slack human resources to participate in a collaborative platform that encourages 

sharing of ideas and process improvements which is key to blockchain. 



 

 

51   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

11. Create and invest in innovation labs to test ideas before implementation with the involvement of 

both internal and external partners. 

12. Business should participate more than lab as project moves towards implementation because busi-

ness owns and operationalizes any innovation. 

13. Blockchain is decentralized and distributed, therefore, business rarely takes ownership. Lab should 

always be highly active as this is a technology-based solution and business should assume an ac-

tive role in the project oversight. 

14. Firms must have slack financial resources to innovate. 

15. Provide resources to R&D to go towards blockchain technology initiatives (deleted ‘adequate’ 

from the original).  

16. Leadership support and involvement is a key determining factor in the successful implementation 

of blockchain technological innovation in the firm. 

17. The leadership of the CEO has a direct influence on innovation. 

18. Introduce formal training for blockchain that is customized to close the skills gap within the firm. 

19. Financial resources reflect organizational readiness and are essential components for successful 

implementation of blockchain innovation. 

20. Talented workers reflect organizational readiness and are essential for successful implementation 

of blockchain innovation 

21. Technological infrastructure reflects organizational readiness and is essential for successful imple-

mentation of blockchain innovation. 

22. Inspire enthusiasm in people by promoting a culture of idea sharing. 

23. Reward people for sharing knowledge to encourage them to share more. 

24. Involve all interested employees, keep them engaged, and updated on progress. 

25. Give employees slack time to be creative and find ways to capture the creativity in those employ-

ees to improve the outcomes of blockchain technological innovation in the firm. 

26. Technological innovation requires constant collaboration, communication, commitment, and dedi-

cation of the overall project team to the success of a delivery and continued improvement. 

27. The lack of understanding of how blockchain technology works by top management is what sets 

firms behind. While training employees on blockchain is useful, training the management teams is 

critical. 

28. Establish a governance group comprised of stakeholders to oversee the improvements and integra-

tion in blockchain. 

29. Create user software that can run on different blockchain platforms.  

30. Customize knowledge acquired from collaborating with external partners like research institutions 

and academic institutions to suit local circumstances. 

31. Establish clear collaboration goals so that practitioners can determine the proper deployment of 

resources. 

32. Partner with internal and external parties to build a self-supporting ecosystem where all members 

benefit from technology, products, and talent while offering better infrastructure to move banks to 

innovate more efficiently.  

33. Co-create products with customers to increase innovation 

 

 



 

 

52 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Round 2 – Data Collection and Analysis 

The round 2 survey was emailed to the 15 participants on October 10, 2021. A Likert-type scale was 

employed in rounds 2 through 4 of the data collection phase because this measure helps determine the 

level to which participants concur with or dispute a statement (Sullivan & Artino, 2013). The experts 

rated both their opinions as to the desirability and the feasibility of each approach using an ordinal 

Likert-type scale where 1 signified “very undesirable” or “very unfeasible,” and a 5 signified “very 

desirable” or “very feasible.” Participants rating an approach with a 3 (neutral) or lower were asked to 

justify or explain their ratings. A consensus in Delphi studies is not an exact science. For example, 

scholars have defined consensus as a level of agreement of 51% (Loughlin & Moore, 1979), 70% 

(Sumsion, 1998), and 80% (Green et al., 1999). This modified Delphi project defined consensus as 70% 

according to Sumsion (1998) because it was in the middle range of the scale suggested by other scholars. 

However, there were 13 participants; the next whole number was 10 participants, or 76.9%, so an 

approach with either a 4 or a 5 for both desirability and feasibility was deemed a consensus. The 

approaches that met the consensus criteria were used to generate the data collection tool for Round 3. 

Only 13 participants had completed Round 2 of data collection by October 13 despite an email reminder 

sent on October 12. The survey asked participants to rate 33 approaches for both desirability and 

feasibility and took an average of 17 minutes to complete. Table 3 summarizes the results for 

desirability and feasibility for all 33 approaches in the order they were presented to the participants. 

Table 3 

Round 2 Results 

Approach Participants 

rating 4 or 5 

for 

desirability 

Participants 

rating 4 or 

5 for 

feasibility 

Participants 

rating 4 or 5 

for both  

1. Leverage existing ecosystems to share, man-

age, and reduce infrastructure costs to over-

come integration, and cost barriers.  

100% 84.6% 84.6% 

2. Adopt permissioned consortium blockchain for 

trade finance because all members of the con-

sortium will be using the same platform. Per-

missioned consortium will also address pri-

vacy, security, transaction speed, and scalabil-

ity issues associated with permissionless 

blockchains. 

84.6% 84.6% 84.6% 

3. Use other consensus mechanisms to verify 

transactions besides proof-of-work like proof-

of-stake, proof-of-retrievability, proof-of-burn, 

proof-of-capacity, proof-of-activity, proof-of-

importance, proof-of-elapsed time, proof-of-

92.3% 92.3% 92.3% 



 

 

53   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

ownership, proof-of-state, and proof-of-his-

tory. 

 

4. Invest in infrastructure and people that can 

support technological advancement through 

access and application of knowledge 

 

100% 92.3% 92.3% 

5. Collaborate across functional teams to utilize 

the scarce skills in blockchain technology in-

novation by identifying where those skills are 

concentrated within the firm through HR. 

 

92.3% 76.9% 76.9% 

6. Blockchain is complex and mission critical, 

therefore, developers must work with mini-

mum distractions. To improve implementation 

of blockchain innovations, developers must fo-

cus on the task at hand without the added pres-

sure of being expected to work with people 

across multiple teams. 

53.8% 15.4% 15.4% 

7. Collaborate across organizations to form con-

sortiums and benefit from the resources held at 

the consortium level like skills. 

 

92.3% 53.8% 53.8% 

8. Hold financial resources at the collaboration 

level because they positively impact innova-

tion compared to a firm’s internal financial re-

sources. 

 

61.5% 46.2% 46.2% 

9. Collaborate with other partners to pool re-

sources together to seize the blockchain tech-

nological innovation opportunity in time. 

 

100% 61.5% 61.5% 

10. Firms must have slack human resources to par-

ticipate in a collaborative platform that encour-

ages sharing of ideas and process improve-

ments which is key to blockchain. 

 

53.8% 38.5% 30.8% 

11. Create and invest in innovation labs to test 

ideas before implementation with the involve-

ment of both internal and external partners.  

 

100% 76.9% 76.9% 

12. Business should participate more than lab as 

project moves towards implementation be-

cause business owns and operationalizes any 

innovation. 

76.9% 53.8% 53.8% 



 

 

54 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

 

13. Blockchain is decentralized and distributed, 

therefore, business rarely takes ownership. Lab 

should always be highly active as this is a tech-

nology-based solution and business should as-

sume an active role in the project oversight. 

53.8% 53.8% 53.8% 

14. Firms must have slack financial resources to 

innovate. 

46.2% 23.1% 15.4% 

15. Provide resources to R&D to go towards 

blockchain technology initiatives. 

100% 76.9% 76.9% 

16. Leadership support and involvement is a key 

determining factor in the successful implemen-

tation of blockchain technological innovation 

in the firm. 

100% 69.2% 69.2% 

17. The leadership of the CEO has a direct influ-

ence on innovation. 

76.9% 92.3% 76.9% 

18. Introduce formal training for blockchain that is 

customized to close the skills gap within the 

firm.  

 

100% 84.6% 84.6% 

19. Financial resources reflect organizational read-

iness and are essential components for success-

ful implementation of blockchain innovation. 

 

100% 84.6% 84.6% 

20. Talented workers reflect organizational readi-

ness and are essential for successful implemen-

tation of blockchain innovation 

100% 84.6% 84.6% 

21. Technological infrastructure reflects organiza-

tional readiness and is essential for successful 

implementation of blockchain innovation. 

100% 76.9% 76.9% 

22. Inspire enthusiasm in people by promoting a 

culture of idea sharing. 

 

76.9% 69.2% 69.2% 

23. Reward people for sharing knowledge to en-

courage them to share more. 

 

100% 84.6% 84.6% 



 

 

55   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

24. Involve all interested employees, keep them 

engaged, and updated on progress. 

 

100% 76.9% 76.9% 

25. Give employees slack time to be creative and 

find ways to capture the creativity in those em-

ployees to improve the outcomes of blockchain 

technological innovation in the firm. 

 

92.3% 53.8% 53.8% 

 

26. Technological innovation requires constant 

collaboration, communication, commitment, 

and dedication of the overall project team to 

the success of a delivery and continued im-

provement. 

 

100% 76.9% 76.9% 

27. The lack of understanding of how blockchain 

technology works by top management is what 

sets firms behind. While training employees on 

blockchain is useful, training the management 

teams is critical. 

 

76.9% 61.5% 61.5% 

28. Establish a governance group comprised of 

stakeholders to oversee the improvements and 

integration in blockchain. 

 

84.62% 53.8% 53.8% 

29. Create user software that can run on different 

blockchain platforms.  

92.3% 84.6% 76.9% 

30. Customize knowledge acquired from collabo-

rating with external partners like research insti-

tutions and academic institutions to suit local 

circumstances. 

92.3% 84.6% 84.6% 

31. Establish clear collaboration goals so that prac-

titioners can determine the proper deployment 

of resources. 

92.3% 92.3% 92.3% 

32. Partner with internal and external parties to 

build a self-supporting ecosystem where all 

members benefit from technology, products, 

and talent while offering better infrastructure 

to move banks to innovate more efficiently.  

92.3% 69.2% 69.2% 

33. Co-create products with customers to increase 

innovation. 

84.6% 30.8% 30.8% 

 



 

 

56 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Eighteen of the 33 approaches received a rating of either 4 or 5 for desirability and feasibility from 

76.9% of experts. Five approaches, however, scored above 90% in desirability but received meager 

ratings for feasibility: collaboration across organizations to form consortiums (7); collaboration with 

other partners to pool resources (9); leadership support and involvement (16); giving employees slack 

time (25); and partnering with external and internal parties to build self-supporting ecosystems (32). 

Following Xu & Zammit (2020), thematic analysis was used to interpret the open-ended responses 

from participants, i.e., their explanations for ratings of 1 or 2, because this data collection tool 

sought to access participants’ in-depth narratives of facts or opinions. Data analysis for the open-ended 

responses followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step process as follows: “familiarizing yourself with 

your data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming 

themes, and producing the report” (p. 87). 

The process of becoming familiar with the data involved extracting the raw data into a table to organize 

it in a way that made it easier to analyze. The data gathered from the Round 2 survey was categorized 

into three groups: technology, organization, and environment, which also served as its initial codes. The 

main ideas in all categories were highlighted in yellow to reveal a pattern. Searching for themes 

involved comparing responses to identify a pattern that could give meaning to the data. Seven themes 

emerged from Round 2 of data collection and analysis (see Table 4). These themes were reviewed 

against the original categories. The keywords used by the participants in their responses helped define 

and name the themes. The final step in the coding process involved producing the report to summarize 

the themes captured in Table 4. Most comments explained why an approach was not feasible, often 

specifically in the banking sector. Details will be covered in the results section. 

Table 4 

Major Themes from Round 2 Comments 

Major themes Comments 

Silo organizational structure in banking 

 

3 

Collaboration challenges  

 

10 

Technology team versus business team 

 

8 

Financial resources 

 

4 

Incentives and employee engagement 

 

3 



 

 

57   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Leadership 

 

2 

Innovation labs 5 

 

Round 3 – Data Collection and Analysis 

On October 13, 2021, the Round 3 survey was emailed to participants. The participants ranked the 18 

approaches identified as feasible and desirable in Round 2 in order of importance, with 1 being the most 

important. Each rank was attributed a corresponding score; a ranking of 1 had a score of 5, a ranking of 

2, a score of 4, a ranking of 3, a score of 3, a ranking of 4, a score of 2, and a ranking of 5, a score of 1. 

Items that did not make a participant’s top five scored zero. The 13 approaches that did not meet the 

criteria for consensus in round 2 were excluded from this data collection tool. All participants responded 

within 23 hours, and the survey was closed on October 14, 2021. It took an average of five minutes for 

participants to complete the survey. 

Data were analyzed using Excel. The scores were added and divided by 13, the number of participants in 

the third round, to find the weighted average score. Table 5 summarizes the full results of Round 3, 

sorted by category 

Table 5 

Round Three Results Sorted by Category 

Category Approach Weighted 

average 

Technology 1. Leverage existing ecosystems to share, manage, and reduce 

infrastructure costs to overcome integration, and cost barriers. 

2.92 

3. Use other consensus mechanisms to verify transactions be-

sides proof-of-work like proof-of-stake, proof-of-retrievabil-

ity, proof-of-burn, proof-of-capacity, proof-of-activity, proof-

of-importance, proof-of-elapsed time, proof-of-ownership, 

proof-of-state, and proof-of-history. 

 

1.31 

4. Invest in infrastructure and people that can support techno-

logical advancement through access and application of 

knowledge. 

 

1.00 

2. Adopt permissioned consortium blockchain for trade finance 

because all members of the consortium will be using the same 

platform. Permissioned consortium will also address privacy, 

security, transaction speed, and scalability issues associated 

with permissionless blockchains. 

0.31 



 

 

58 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

 

Organization 11. Talented workers reflect organizational readiness and are es-

sential for successful implementation of blockchain innova-

tion 

1.85 

7. Provide resources to R&D to go towards blockchain technol-

ogy initiatives.  

1.46 

5. Collaborate across functional teams to utilize the scarce skills 

in blockchain technology innovation by identifying where 

those skills are concentrated within the firm through HR. 

1.23 

15. Technological innovation requires constant collaboration, 

communication, commitment, and dedication of the overall 

project team to the success of a delivery and continued im-

provement. 

0.85 

9. Introduce formal training for blockchain that is customized to 

close the skills gap within the firm. 

 

0.77 

13. Reward people for sharing knowledge to encourage them to 

share more. 

 

0.62 

8. The leadership of the CEO has a direct influence on innova-

tion. 

 

0.38 

6. Create and invest in innovation labs to test ideas before im-

plementation with the involvement of both internal and exter-

nal partners. 

 

0.31 

14. Involve all interested employees, keep them engaged, and up-

dated on progress. 

 

0.31 

10. Financial resources reflect organizational readiness and are 

essential components for successful implementation of block-

chain innovation. 

 

0.23 

12. Technological infrastructure reflects organizational readiness 

and is essential for successful implementation of blockchain 

innovation. 

 

0.23 

Environment 16. Create user software that can run on different blockchain plat-

forms. 

 

0.69 



 

 

59   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

18. Establish clear collaboration goals so that practitioners can 

determine the proper deployment of resources. 

0.54 

17. Customize knowledge acquired from collaborating with ex-

ternal partners like research institutions and academic institu-

tions to suit local circumstances. 

0.00 

 

Round 4 – Data Collection and Analysis 

The Round 4 survey was emailed to all 13 participants on October 14, 2021. Participants received the 

list of the top five approaches with weighted scores generated in Round 3 (see Table 6). They were 

asked to review and rate their confidence in the findings on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 being “very 

unreliable” and 5 being “very reliable”) as well as express their general opinions through an open-ended 

question: “In this round, your role is to express your confidence in the results of this project presented 

on a five-point Likert-type scale as follows 1 (very unreliable), 2 (unreliable), 3 (neutral), 4 (reliable), 5 

(very reliable). Please support your confidence rating in the space provided.” All participants had 

responded by October 15, 2021, and it took an average of five minutes for respondents to complete the 

survey. 

Table 6 

Round 3 Top Five Approaches 

Approach Weighted 

average 

1. Leverage existing ecosystems to share, manage and reduce infrastructure 

costs to overcome integration and cost barriers. 

2.92 

2. Talented workers reflect organizational readiness and are essential for the 

successful implementation of blockchain innovation 

1.85 

3. Provide resources to R&D to go towards blockchain technology initiatives.  1.46 

4. Use other consensus mechanisms to verify transactions besides proof-of-

work like proof-of-stake, proof-of-retrievability, proof-of-burn, proof-of-ca-

pacity, proof-of-activity, proof-of-importance, proof-of-elapsed time, proof-

of-ownership, proof-of-state, and proof-of-history. 

 

5. Collaborate across functional teams to utilize the scarce skills in blockchain 

technology innovation by identifying where those skills are concentrated 

within the firm through HR. 

 

1.31 

 

1.23 



 

 

60 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Round 4 Data Analysis 

Following Lemon & Hayes (2020), participants in Round 4 received the list of the five approaches from 

Round 3 and rated their confidence in these approaches on a five-point Likert-type scale to establish the 

study’s credibility. The quantitative data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel, expressed as a 

percentage. A single participant (7.7%) rated the findings as unreliable. The rest of the participants rated 

the finding as reliable 38.5% (n=5) and very reliable 53.8% (n=7). Respondents were also allowed to 

share their opinions on the rating in an open-form question, and their responses will be covered in the 

results section. 

 

Results 

Participants rated 18 of the 33 approaches as desirable and feasible in Round 2. The rest of the 

approaches failed for multiple reasons. The silo organizational structure in the banking industry was 

seen as an impediment to collaborating within functional units. Collaboration, in general, raised several 

issues, including intellectual capital, trade secrets, and difficulty in implementation. Another concern 

was the ownership of innovations, where some thought operationalization should be left to business, and 

others thought it should remain with technology. Practitioners must not wait until they have slack in 

financial resources to innovate. The incentives that employees expect could be financial, which is not 

feasible. Also, giving employees slack time is not feasible because everyone’s schedule is full. 

The participant that rated the findings from Round 3 as “unreliable” commented that they disagreed with 

the weighted importance on the list of shared infrastructure over training employees and allocating 

funding for blockchain projects. Specifically, the participant argued that infrastructure is no longer the 

main priority with recent developments in a cloud-based architecture. 

The dozen other participants were confident in the reliability of the findings to varying degrees and for 

different reasons. In particular, 69% of the participants cited people or talent as the reason for their 

confidence. 61% of the participants mentioned leveraging existing infrastructure as a key factor in their 

confidence. Infrastructure with tried-and-tested processes is already in place; therefore, practitioners 

must determine how their firms could benefit. Identifying the proper infrastructure will require 

expertise, so practitioners must depend on people and talent to acquire the best solution for the firm. 

Existing infrastructure will quicken the process and move firms to the implementation phase. Three of 

the experts used the opportunity of the open-ended question to emphasize the importance of investment 

in R&D for blockchain technology, precisely because it is a relatively new field. Financial resources and 

collaboration were each flagged by 23% of participants as critical for blockchain technological 

innovation in trade finance. One person who rated the overall reliability of Round 3’s findings as 

“reliable” expressed their lack of confidence that collaboration in banking is only feasible on paper. 

Table 7 provides a comprehensive list of participants’ open-ended comments collected in Round 4. 

The following are excerpts from two comments about the importance of blockchain technology: 

This isn’t just a technology upgrade, and it’s not really about finance. Blockchain technology will 

change how everything around us works and how we interact with the world. Just like when the Internet 



 

 

61   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

went commercial, those who moved fast and adopted survived. Those who couldn’t move quickly are no 

longer with us. (Participant A) 

Blockchain is the banking of the future. While early adopters have a chance of leveraging first-mover 

advantages, latecomers will have the advantage of riding on established infrastructure and tried and 

tested processes. (Participant B) 

Despite self-identifying for the study, none of the participants thought blockchain was just a fad. This 

project supports that blockchain is worth pursuing even if these barriers remain. If bank practitioners 

cannot eliminate the barriers, they should find a way to work around them to move forward. All the 

experts thought that executives should do more to ensure their businesses are prepared for the new 

reality that is already here. The full comments and the rest of the submissions are in Table 7 for further 

review. 

Table 7 

Open-Ended Responses to Round Four 

Confidence 

rating 

Support for the confidence rating 

Unreliable • Shared infrastructure is no longer a #1 priority in cloud-based architec-

ture—who in the world ranked this above all others. Focus should be given 

to training employees and obtaining sufficient budget. 

Reliable • It first focuses on the costs and the training of people before anything else. 

• Blockchain is the banking of the future. While early adapters [sic] have a 

chance of leveraging first-mover advantages, late come [sic] will have the 

advantage of riding on established infrastructure and tried-and-tested pro-

cesses. 

• Confident because approaches are not only desirable, but also feasible. The 

approaches also cover systems, people, and processes. 

• If existing systems can be used as a base for development and enough 

money/resources are put into this space, it is likely that any financial firm 

can be successful with blockchain. 

• I support these findings and would rate them as reliable. It takes talent + 

drive + resources to innovate and move the needle forward and implement 

blockchain. Leveraging existing frameworks can lower the number of re-

sources and greenfield development, but it still takes a dedicated line item in 

the budget and knowledgeable people with prior expertise. The only item 

which I find someone [sic] unreliable is the cross-functional teams. I have 

spoken about this in the past, with how difficult this can be in the real world. 

Different groups have different priorities, resources, and reporting hierar-

chy, which adds layers of complexity and bureaucracy, and ultimately slows 

down the process. 



 

 

62 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Very 

reliable 
• The findings are very reliable. I find the ranking of the approaches reasona-

ble and believe that all the approaches listed out are feasible and highly de-

sirable. Additionally, I find these findings reliable because they collectively 

cover the key considerations with regards to innovation—HR/talent, financ-

ing, and operational risk. 

• Very confident with the outcome of this study due to the following reasons: 

a) Practitioners at banks must not waste resources building new ecosystems, 

but find ways to utilize or improve existing ones in ways that benefit the 

banks and other partners of the ecosystem. Doing so will enable banks to 

embrace blockchain quicker than starting from scratch. There is no need to 

reinvent what is already in existence. b) Investing in people is key in any 

strategic initiative. Talented and skilled human resources are a key compo-

nent in the successful launch of blockchain technological innovation in trade 

finance. People may need to be trained or retrained and having people with 

those skills will put the firm at a competitive advantage. c) Investing in R&D 

is crucial for any company that is serious about innovation, let alone block-

chain innovation. Banks should have a budgetary allocation for R&D spe-

cific for blockchain to avoid trailing other industries. d) [Proof-of-work] has 

caused enough environmental issues, and other consensus mechanisms must 

be explored. e) Collaboration of any kind is important and should never be 

trivialized. That is why my confidence level with the results is ‘very reliable.’ 

• I am confident with the process and the results. The approaches can help 

overcome barriers to adopting blockchain innovation. The three categories 

of organization, technology, and environment are all represented, so this is 

balanced. 

• Henry Ford didn’t build both the road and the cars to ride on them. There 

are some fantastic blockchain ecosystems out there to build on. The best 

thing would be to leverage one of them; otherwise, you are just building an-

other road. There are many excellent consensus mechanisms besides proof-

of-work. For example, Cardano and Polkadot are using the same proof-of-

stake algorithm. Ethereum will also be moving to proof-of-stake soon. The 

issue with Ethereum is the gas fees. Polygon and a few other layers two pro-

tocols for the Ethereum blockchain can elevate the gas fee issue, scale, and 

add security, among features. Talented workers, R&D resources, and cross-

functional team collaboration are always a plus. However, none of those 

things will matter without support from senior management and the CEO. 

This isn’t just a technology upgrade, and it’s not really about finance. Block-

chain technology will change how everything around us works and how we 

interact with the world around us. Just like when the Internet went commer-

cial, those who moved fast and adopted survived. Those who couldn’t move 

quickly are no longer with us. 

• The approaches are holistic and not focused on one area. The technological 

barriers will be addressed by leveraging existing ecosystems. The solutions 

also place importance on talent and skill development which is critical for 



 

 

63   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

the success of blockchain implementation. Blockchain is new, so more re-

sources are needed in R&D to ensure we keep exploring new things includ-

ing consensus mechanisms. Collaboration is key to succeeding because the 

person with the right skill may be in the wrong department. 

• The approaches listed above seem feasible and are very desirable to ensure 

the long-term success and growth in blockchain within the banking sector. 

• This [is] very reliable because [these] are things that allow blockchain 

Technology to thrive in our world today. 

 

Findings and Discussion 

The project questions were as follows: 

PQ1: What are the forward-looking approaches to overcoming barriers to adopting blockchain 

innovation in trade finance within U.S. banks, as identified by a nationwide panel of block-

chain implementation experts? 

 

PQ2: Is there consensus among a nationwide panel of blockchain implementation experts re-

garding the desirability and feasibility of specific forward-looking approaches to overcoming 

barriers to adopting blockchain innovation in trade finance? 

All the project questions were addressed. The experts were confident with the findings, with 92.3% 

rating the findings as either reliable or very reliable. Below is an overview of the top 10 approaches and 

a comparison between the findings of this project and existing literature. 

Catalini and Gans (2019) suggested creating ecosystems and shared platforms to share, manage, and 

reduce infrastructure costs. The experts disagreed with creating new ecosystems because several are 

already in place. The experts rephrased the approach: Leverage existing ecosystems to share, manage, 

and reduce infrastructure costs to overcome integration and cost barriers. This adapted approach got the 

highest ranking. Experts’ comments indicate that practitioners must not waste resources trying to create 

new infrastructure but must leverage what is already in place to move quicker (see Table 7). 

“Talented workers reflect organizational readiness and are essential for successful implementation of 

blockchain innovation” was ranked highest by the experts in the organization category and second 

overall. The experts also ranked eighth the approach of introducing formal training for blockchain 

customized to close the skills gap within a firm. Malhotra et al. (2017) emphasized the importance of 

human resources as a source of innovation. The experts also stressed the importance of talent, skills, HR, 

and training to overcome the barriers. 

 Firms with well-resourced R&D were more likely to adopt blockchain technology than those with 

limited R&D resources (Beck and Müller-Bloch, 2017; Clohessy & Acton, 2019). The experts 

highlighted that blockchain technology is still new, so more R&D resources must be allocated 

specifically for blockchain. The experts ranked this approach number three. 



 

 

64 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Several platforms use proof-of-work as a consensus mechanism to confirm a transaction and create a 

new block, but this technological process consumes excessive electricity, which raises environmental 

concerns. Aggarwal and Kumar (2021) listed other consensus mechanisms to consider like proof-of-

stake, proof-of-retrievability, proof-of-burn, proof-of-capacity, proof-of-activity, proof-of-importance, 

proof-of-elapsed time, and proof-of-ownership to deliver the same results. The experts added proof-of-

state and proof-of-history to the list. The approach was ranked fourth. 

Studies identified collaboration across functional teams as critical for blockchain technology because of 

the scarcity of skills (Beck and Müller-Block, 2017; Malholtra et al., 2017). One expert was unsure if 

the cross-functional aspect would work in the banking industry, and some experts raised questions about 

ownership rights over collaboratively developed technology and trade secrets. Nevertheless, all but one 

expert believed that collaboration was feasible, and the approach was ranked fifth overall. 

“Investment in infrastructure and people that can support technological advancement through access and 

application of knowledge” was ranked sixth as an approach. “Technological innovation requires 

constant collaboration, communication, commitment, and dedication to the project team to delivery and 

continuous improvement” ranked seventh. The experts emphasized that robust technology alone 

(without investing in people) will not work and emphasized how the project team environment should 

offer structured opportunities for talented employees to learn through internships to gain skills. 

One surprising find was a lack of prioritization of standardization by the experts. Standardization was 

the only approach to appear in two categories, and its lack has been flagged explicitly by the World 

Bank as a significant barrier. Although the experts did include “create user software that can run on 

different blockchain platforms” on the list, its ninth place was not consistent with the extant literature. 

Rewarding people for sharing knowledge to encourage them to share more ranked tenth; here, the 

experts also placed real caveats on the scholarly recommendations. The main concern was that 

employees usually expect monetary rewards, which may not be ideal in a business environment. 

 

Project Application and Recommendations 
 

This study may benefit banks in trade finance and other related businesses like supply chain 

management and insurance firms. The project findings show how practitioners could start implementing 

blockchain innovation in trade finance at U.S. banks. Though the study was limited to U.S. banks, the 

principles apply to all banks involved in trade finance. 

Practitioners do not have to overcome all barriers to implement blockchain innovation in trade finance 

(Hekkert et al., 2007). Several “quick wins” are low-hanging fruit within a firm’s control. Moreover, 

many of the approaches are related and support each other. For example, five approaches have human 

resources, talent, skill, or training elements, meaning 50% of the top ten desirable and feasible 

approaches can be achieved through HR initiatives. Future research could focus on how practitioners 

can help develop employees’ skills to support blockchain technology development and improve 



 

 

65   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

collaboration in the banking industry. Though some approaches were desirable, they were deemed 

unfeasible due to the nature of the silo organizational structure in the banking industry. 

  



 

 

66 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

References 

Accenture. (2017). Blockchain on banking. https://www.accenture.com/t20170120T074124Z__w__/us-

en/_acnmedia/Accenture/Conversion-Assets/DotCom/Documents/Global/PDF/Consulting/Accenture-

Banking-on-Blockchain.pdf 

Accenture. (2019). Enabling cross-border high value transfer using distributed ledger technologies. 

https://www.mas.gov.sg/-/media/MAS/ProjectUbin/Jasper-Ubin-Design-Paper.pdf 

Aggarwal, S., & Kumar, N. (2021). Cryptographic consensus mechanisms. Advances In Computers, 

121(1), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adcom.2020.08.011  

Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2001). Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring 

firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 197-220. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.157 

Allied Market Research. (2020, September 2). Letter of credit confirmation market size to grow $4.99 

billion by 2027: LCC industry trends and updates. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-

release/2020/09/02/2087800/0/en/Letter-of-credit-confirmation-Market-Size-to-Grow-4-99-Billion-by-

2027-LCC-Industry-Trends-and-Updates.html 

Ansari, K. (2020). Innovation and technology at the top 10 U.S. banks. 

https://linkhumans.com/innovation-technology-10-us-banks/ 

Asim, Z., & Sorooshian, S. (2019). Exploring the role of knowledge, innovation, and technology 

management (KNIT) capabilities that influence research and development. Journal of Open Innovation: 

Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(2), 1-47. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc5020021 

Baker, J. (2011). The technology—organization—environment framework. In Y.K. Dwivedi., M. 

Wade., & S. Schneberger (eds.), Information Systems Theory: Explaining and Predicting Our Digital 

Society, Integrated Series in Information Systems 28, (pp. 231-245). Springer. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6108-2_12  

Bakos, Y., Halaburda, H., & Müeller-Bloch, C. (2021). When permissioned blockchains deliver more 

decentralization than permissionless. Communications of the ACM, 64(2), 20-22. 

https://doi.org/10.1145/3442371 

Bank for International Settlements. (2014). Trade finance: Developments and issues. 

https://www.bis.org/publ/cgfs50.pdf 

Bank for International Settlements. (2018). CGFS Papers No. 60: Structural changes in banking after 

the crisis. https://www.bis.org/publ/cgfs60.pdf 

https://www.accenture.com/t20170120T074124Z__w__/us-en/_acnmedia/Accenture/Conversion-Assets/DotCom/Documents/Global/PDF/Consulting/Accenture-Banking-on-Blockchain.pdf
https://www.accenture.com/t20170120T074124Z__w__/us-en/_acnmedia/Accenture/Conversion-Assets/DotCom/Documents/Global/PDF/Consulting/Accenture-Banking-on-Blockchain.pdf
https://www.accenture.com/t20170120T074124Z__w__/us-en/_acnmedia/Accenture/Conversion-Assets/DotCom/Documents/Global/PDF/Consulting/Accenture-Banking-on-Blockchain.pdf
https://www.mas.gov.sg/-/media/MAS/ProjectUbin/Jasper-Ubin-Design-Paper.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adcom.2020.08.011
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.157
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/09/02/2087800/0/en/Letter-of-credit-confirmation-Market-Size-to-Grow-4-99-Billion-by-2027-LCC-Industry-Trends-and-Updates.html
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/09/02/2087800/0/en/Letter-of-credit-confirmation-Market-Size-to-Grow-4-99-Billion-by-2027-LCC-Industry-Trends-and-Updates.html
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/09/02/2087800/0/en/Letter-of-credit-confirmation-Market-Size-to-Grow-4-99-Billion-by-2027-LCC-Industry-Trends-and-Updates.html
https://linkhumans.com/innovation-technology-10-us-banks/
https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc5020021
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6108-2_12
https://doi.org/10.1145/3442371
https://www.bis.org/publ/cgfs50.pdf
https://www.bis.org/publ/cgfs60.pdf


 

 

67   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Beck, R., & Müller-Bloch, C. (2017). Blockchain as radical innovation: A framework for engaging with 

distributed ledgers as incumbent organization. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference 

on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.653 

Bedford, D., & Gilder, A. (2020, August 31). How corporate banks can ride the disruptive wave of 

global trade. EY. https://www.ey.com/en_us/banking-capital-markets/how-corporate-banks-can-ride-

the-disruptive-wave-of-global-trade 

Bloch, M., Blumberg, S., & Laartz, J. (2012). Delivering large-scale IT projects on time, on budget, and 

on value. McKinsey Digital. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-

insights/delivering-large-scale-it-projects-on-time-on-budget-and-on-value 

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in 

Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 

Brown, S., Henz, T., Sibanda, T., & Wang, M. (2020). Collaborations between corporates and start-

ups. McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-

insights/collaborations-between-corporates-and-start-ups 

Browne, R. (2020, November 20). Big banks take baby steps toward commercializing blockchain. 

CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/20/big-banks-take-baby-steps-toward-commercializing-

blockchain.html 

Brunner, A., Abderrahmane, N., & Muralidharan, A. (2016). Blockchain trade finance. Capco. 

https://www.capco.com/-/media/CapcoMedia/PDFs/blockchain-trade-finance.ashx 

Casino, F., Dasaklis, T. K., & Patsakis, C. (2019). A systematic literature review of blockchain-based 

applications: Current status, classification and open issues. Telematics and Informatics, 36, 55-81. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.11.006 

Catalini, C., & Gans, J. S. (2019). Some simple economics of the blockchain. Rotman School of 

Management Working Paper No. 2874598; MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 5191-16. 

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2874598 

Center for Strategic and International Studies. (2022). How is China’s footprint changing? 

https://chinapower.csis.org/energy-footprint/ 

Chang, S. E., Yi-Chian, C., & Wu, T. (2019). Exploring blockchain technology in international 

trade. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 119(8), 1712-1733. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-12-

2018-0568 

Chang, S. E., Luo, H. L., & Chen, Y. (2020). Blockchain-enabled trade finance innovation: A potential 

paradigm shift on using letter of credit. Sustainability, 12(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010188 

https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.653
https://www.ey.com/en_us/banking-capital-markets/how-corporate-banks-can-ride-the-disruptive-wave-of-global-trade
https://www.ey.com/en_us/banking-capital-markets/how-corporate-banks-can-ride-the-disruptive-wave-of-global-trade
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/delivering-large-scale-it-projects-on-time-on-budget-and-on-value
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/delivering-large-scale-it-projects-on-time-on-budget-and-on-value
https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/collaborations-between-corporates-and-start-ups
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/collaborations-between-corporates-and-start-ups
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/20/big-banks-take-baby-steps-toward-commercializing-blockchain.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/20/big-banks-take-baby-steps-toward-commercializing-blockchain.html
https://www.capco.com/-/media/CapcoMedia/PDFs/blockchain-trade-finance.ashx
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.11.006
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2874598
https://chinapower.csis.org/energy-footprint/
https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-12-2018-0568
https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-12-2018-0568
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010188


 

 

68 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Chen, H., Pendleton, M., Njilla, L., & Xu, S. (2020). A survey on Ethereum systems security: 

Vulnerabilities, attacks, and defenses. ACM Computing Surveys, 53(3), 1-43. 

https://doi.org/10.1145/3391195 

Chen, K. (2018). Financial innovation and technology firms: A smart new world with machines. 

Banking and Finance Issues in Emerging Markets (International Symposia in Economic Theory and 

Econometrics), 25, 279-292 https://doi.org/10.1108/S1571-038620180000025012 

Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation? Harvard 

Business Review, 93(12), 44-53. https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation 

Clohessy, T., & Acton, T. (2019). Investigating the influence of organizational factors on blockchain 

adoption. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 119(7), 1457-1491. http://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-08-

2018-0365 

Crawford, E. (2015). Large firms fight back as small companies steal market share, research shows. 

William Reed https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2015/04/06/Large-firms-fight-back-as-small-

companies-steal-market-share-study 

Das, P., Verburg, R., Verbraeck, A., & Bonebakker, L. (2018). Barriers to innovation within large 

financial services firms. European Journal of Innovation Management, 21(1), 96-112. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-03-2017-0028 

Dell’Era, C., & Verganti, R. (2010). Collaborative strategies in design-intensive industries: Knowledge 

diversity and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(1), 123-141. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.10.006 

Demirkan, I. (2018). The impact of firm resources on innovation. European Journal of Innovation 

Management, 21(4), 672-694. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2017-0196 

Eckenrode, J., & Friedman, S. (2017). Fintech by the numbers: Incumbents, start-ups, investors adapt to 

a maturing ecosystem. Deloitte. https://www2.deloitte.com/az/en/pages/financial-

services/articles/fintech-by-the-numbers.html 

Ernst & Young. (2017, July 17). Unleashing the potential of fintech in banking. Ernst & Young Global 

Limited (EY). https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-unleashing-the-potential-of-fin-tech-in-

banking/$File/ey-unleashing-the-potential-of-fin-tech-in-banking.pdf  

Eubank, B. H., Mohtadi, N. G., Lafave, M. R., Wiley, J. P., Bois, A. J., Boorman, R. S., & Sheps, D. M. 

(2016). Using the modified Delphi method to establish clinical consensus for the diagnosis and 

treatment of patients with rotator cuff pathology. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16(1), 1-16. 

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0165-8 

Financial Stability Board. (2019, February 14). FSB report assesses FinTech developments and potential 

financial stability implications. https://www.fsb.org/2019/02/fsb-report-assesses-fintech-developments-

and-potential-financial-stability-implications/#:~:text=The%20FSB%20defines%20FinTech 

https://doi.org/10.1145/3391195
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1571-038620180000025012
https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation
http://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-08-2018-0365
http://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-08-2018-0365
https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2015/04/06/Large-firms-fight-back-as-small-companies-steal-market-share-study
https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2015/04/06/Large-firms-fight-back-as-small-companies-steal-market-share-study
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-03-2017-0028
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.10.006
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2017-0196
https://www2.deloitte.com/az/en/pages/financial-services/articles/fintech-by-the-numbers.html
https://www2.deloitte.com/az/en/pages/financial-services/articles/fintech-by-the-numbers.html
https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-unleashing-the-potential-of-fin-tech-in-banking/$File/ey-unleashing-the-potential-of-fin-tech-in-banking.pdf
https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-unleashing-the-potential-of-fin-tech-in-banking/$File/ey-unleashing-the-potential-of-fin-tech-in-banking.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0165-8
https://www.fsb.org/2019/02/fsb-report-assesses-fintech-developments-and-potential-financial-stability-implications/#:~:text=The%20FSB%20defines%20FinTech
https://www.fsb.org/2019/02/fsb-report-assesses-fintech-developments-and-potential-financial-stability-implications/#:~:text=The%20FSB%20defines%20FinTech


 

 

69   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Gibson Dunn. (2020). The top ten takeaways for financial institutions from the Anti-Money Laundering 

Act of 2020. https://www.gibsondunn.com/the-top-10-takeaways-for-financial-institutions-from-the-anti-

money-laundering-act-of-2020/ 

Green, B., Jones, M., Hughes, D., & Williams, A. (1999). Applying the Delphi technique in a study of 

GP’s information requirements. Health and Social Care in the Community. 7(3), 198-205. 

https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2524.1999.00176.x 

Guo, Y., & Liang, C. (2016). Blockchain application and outlook in the banking industry. Financial 

Innovation, 2(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-016-0034-9 

Guzzini, E., & Iacobucci, D. (2017). Project failures and innovation performance in university-firm 

collaborations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 865-883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-

9554-8 

Halaburda, H., & Mueller-Bloch, C. (2019). Will we realize blockchain’s promise of decentralization? 

Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/09/will-we-realize-blockchains-promise-of-

decentralization 

Haucap, J., Rasch, A., & Stiebale, J. (2019). How mergers affect innovation: Theory and evidence. 

International Journal of Industrial Organization, 63, 283-325. 

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2018.10.003 

Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. H. M. (2007). Functions of 

innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting & 

Social Change, 74(4), 413-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002 

Helleiner, E. (2011). Understanding the 2007–2008 global financial crisis: Lessons for scholars of 

international political economy. Annual Review of Political Science, 14(1), 67-87. 

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050409-112539 

Hensmans, M. (2017). Competing through joint innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(2), 26-

33. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/competing-through-joint-innovation/ 

Herweijer, C., Waughray, D., & Warren, S. (2018). Building block(chain)s for a better planet. World 

Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Building-Blockchains.pdf 

Hileman, G., & Rauchs, M. (2017). 2017 Global cryptocurrency benchmarking study. Cambridge 

Centre for Alternative Finance. 1-114. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2965436 

Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2017). The truth about blockchain. Harvard Business Review, 95(1), 118-

127. https://hbr.org/2017/01/the-truth-about-blockchain 

International Finance Corporation. (2020). Why trade finance matters—Especially now. International 

Finance Corporation: World Bank Group. https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/be423213-dd33-418f-

b41a-09882f529cff/Trade-Finance-matters-COVID-19.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=nnxGNyA  

https://www.gibsondunn.com/the-top-10-takeaways-for-financial-institutions-from-the-anti-money-laundering-act-of-2020/
https://www.gibsondunn.com/the-top-10-takeaways-for-financial-institutions-from-the-anti-money-laundering-act-of-2020/
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2524.1999.00176.x
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-016-0034-9
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9554-8
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9554-8
https://hbr.org/2019/09/will-we-realize-blockchains-promise-of-decentralization
https://hbr.org/2019/09/will-we-realize-blockchains-promise-of-decentralization
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2018.10.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050409-112539
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/competing-through-joint-innovation/
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Building-Blockchains.pdf
https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2965436
https://hbr.org/2017/01/the-truth-about-blockchain
https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/be423213-dd33-418f-b41a-09882f529cff/Trade-Finance-matters-COVID-19.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=nnxGNyA
https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/be423213-dd33-418f-b41a-09882f529cff/Trade-Finance-matters-COVID-19.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=nnxGNyA


 

 

70 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (2022). Onyx: Transforming the way money, information and assets move 

around the world. https://www.jpmorgan.com/onyx/index 

Kant, R. (2017). Is letter of credit losing ground in international trade? Vinimaya, 37(3), 42-50. 

https://www.proquest.com/docview/1861256937 

Katz, M., & Shapiro, C. (1985). On the licensing of innovations. The RAND Journal of 

Economics, 16(4), 504-520. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2555509 

Keeney, S., Hasson, F., & McKenna, H. P. (2001). A critical review of the Delphi technique as a 

research methodology for nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 38(2), 192-200. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7489(00)00044-4 

Kelly, S. E. (2010). Qualitative interviewing techniques and styles. In I. Bourgeault., R, Dingwall., & R. 

de Vries (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Health Research. (pp. 307-326). Sage 

Publications. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781446268247 

Khoza, L. T. (2019). Measuring knowledge sharing behaviour among software development teams. 

South African Journal of Information Management, 21(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v21i1.1076 

Koteska, B., Karafiloski, E., & Mishev, A. (2017). Blockchain implementation quality challenges: A 

literature review. Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Software Quality Analysis, Monitoring, 

Improvement, and Applications. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1938/paper-

kot.pdf 

KPMG. (2020, July 31). The pulse of fintech H2 2019. 

https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/02/pulse-of-fintech-h2-2019.pdf 

Kumar, V., Jones, E., Venkatesan, R., & Leone, R. P. (2011). Is market orientation a source of 

sustainable competitive advantage or simply the cost of competing? Journal of Marketing. 75(1), 16-30. 

https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.1.16 

Lee, K., Yoo, J., Choi, M., Zo, H., & Ciganek, A. P. (2016). Does external knowledge sourcing enhance 

market performance? Evidence from the Korean manufacturing industry. PLoS One, 11(12), e0168676. 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168676 

Lemon, L. L., & Hayes, J. (2020). Enhancing trustworthiness of qualitative findings: Using Leximancer 

for qualitative data analysis triangulation. The Qualitative Report, 25(3), 604-614. 

https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4222 

Lewis, R., McPartland, J., & Ranjan, R. (2019). Blockchain and financial market innovation. Economic 

Perspectives, 41(7), 1-17. http://www.jpmcc-gcard.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/GCARD-Summer-

2019-Chicago-Fed.pdf 

https://www.jpmorgan.com/onyx/index
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1861256937
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2555509
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7489(00)00044-4
https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781446268247
https://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v21i1.1076
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1938/paper-kot.pdf
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1938/paper-kot.pdf
https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/02/pulse-of-fintech-h2-2019.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.1.16
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168676
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4222
http://www.jpmcc-gcard.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/GCARD-Summer-2019-Chicago-Fed.pdf
http://www.jpmcc-gcard.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/GCARD-Summer-2019-Chicago-Fed.pdf


 

 

71   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Li, J. C. F. (2020). Roles of individual perception in technology adoption at organization level: 

Behavioral model versus TOE framework. Journal of System and Management Sciences, 10(3), 97–

118. https://doi.org/10.33168/JSMS.2020.0308 

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications. 

https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/naturalistic-inquiry/book842  

Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.) (2002). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications [eBook 

edition]. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Advanced Book Program. Retrieved from: 

http://www.foresight.pl/assets/downloads/publications/Turoff_Linstone.pdf  

Loughlin, K., & Moore, L. (1979). Using Delphi to achieve congruent objectives and activities in a 

pediatrics department. Journal of Medical Education. 54, 101-106. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-

197902000-00006 

Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., Kesebi, L., & Looram, S. (2017). Developing innovative solutions through 

internal crowdsourcing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(4), 73-79. 

https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/developing-innovative-solutions-through-internal-crowdsourcing/ 

Miller, K. A., Collada, B., Tolliver, D., Audi, Z., Cohen, A., Michelson, C., & Newman, L. R. (2020). 

Using the modified Delphi method to develop a tool to assess pediatric residents supervising on 

inpatient rounds. Academic Pediatrics, 20(1), 89-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2019.07.012 

Mora, C., Rollins, R. L., Taladay, K., Kantar, M. B., Chock, M. K., Shimada, M., & Franklin, E. C. 

(2018). Bitcoin emissions alone could push global warming above 2°C. Nature Climate Change 8, 931–

933. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0321-8 

Mousa, F.-T., & Chowdhury, J. (2014). Organizational slack effects on innovation: The moderating 

roles of CEO tenure and compensation. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 15(2), 369-

383. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2013.839476 

Murad, A., & Daly, R. (2021, February 3). World’s best trade finance providers 2021: For many trade 

finance banks that still relied on legacy systems and paper-based processes, the Covid crisis put them on 

a forced march into the future. Global Finance Magazine. https://www.gfmag.com/magazine/february-

2021/worlds-best-trade-finance-providers-2021 

Na, J. H., Choi, Y., & Harrison, D. (2016). Beyond design for manufacture: A design innovation 

framework. Design Management Review, 27(3), 34-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/drev.12035 

Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf 

Niepmann, F., & Schmidt-Eisenlohr, T. (2014a). International trade, risk, and the role of banks. Federal 

Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, no. 633. 

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr633.pdf 

https://doi.org/10.33168/JSMS.2020.0308
https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/naturalistic-inquiry/book842
http://www.foresight.pl/assets/downloads/publications/Turoff_Linstone.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-197902000-00006
https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-197902000-00006
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/developing-innovative-solutions-through-internal-crowdsourcing/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2019.07.012
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0321-8
https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2013.839476
https://www.gfmag.com/magazine/february-2021/worlds-best-trade-finance-providers-2021
https://www.gfmag.com/magazine/february-2021/worlds-best-trade-finance-providers-2021
https://doi.org/10.1111/drev.12035
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr633.pdf


 

 

72 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Niepmann, F., & Schmidt-Eisenlohr, T. (2014b, May 21). Why US exporters use letters of credit. 

Federal Reserve Bank of New York: Liberty Street Economics. 

https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/05/why-us-exporters-use-letters-of-credit.html  

OECD. (2020, February 26). Digital disruption in financial 

markets. https://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/digital-disruption-in-financial-markets.htm 

Oliveira, T., & Martins, M.F. (2010). Understanding e-business adoption across industries in European 

countries. Industrial Management & Data System, 110(9), 1337-1354. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571011087428 

Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). 

Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation 

research. Administration Policy in Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y 

Pan, M.J., & Jang, W.Y. (2008). Determinants of the adoption of enterprise resource planning within the 

technology-organization-environment framework: Taiwan’s communications. Journal of Computer 

Information Systems, 48(3), 94-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2008.11646025 

Patel, D., & Ganne, E. (2019). Blockchain & DLT in trade: A reality check. Trade Finance Global. 

https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/blockchainrev19_e.pdf  

Patel, D., & Ganne, E. (2020). Blockchain and DLT in trade: Where do we stand? Trade Finance 

Global. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/blockchainanddlt_e.htm  

Pisano, G. P., & Verganti, R. (2008). Which kind of collaboration is right for you? Harvard Business 

Review. https://hbr.org/2008/12/which-kind-of-collaboration-is-right-for-you  

PwC. (2017). Redrawing the lines: Fintech’s growing influence on financial services. 

https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/financial-services/assets/pwc-global-Fintech-report-2017.pdf 

PwC. (2019). Crossing the lines: How fintech is propelling FS and TMT firms out of their lanes. 

https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/financial-services/assets/pwc-global-Fintech-report-2019.pdf 

Rafique, A., Asim, M. B., & Iqbal, K. (2018). Systemic importance of financial institutions: Evidence 

from Asian countries. Journal of Business & Financial Affairs. 7(3), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-

0234.1000348 

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations Fourth Edition. The Free Press.  

Roland Berger. (2017). Enabling decentralized, digital, and trusted transactions: Why blockchain will 

transform the financial services industry. 

https://www.rolandberger.com/publications/publication_pdf/roland_berger_blockchain_final.pdf 

https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/05/why-us-exporters-use-letters-of-credit.html
https://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/digital-disruption-in-financial-markets.htm
https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571011087428
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2008.11646025
https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/blockchainrev19_e.pdf
https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/blockchainanddlt_e.htm
https://hbr.org/2008/12/which-kind-of-collaboration-is-right-for-you
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/financial-services/assets/pwc-global-fintech-report-2017.pdf
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/financial-services/assets/pwc-global-fintech-report-2019.pdf
https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-0234.1000348
https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-0234.1000348
https://www.rolandberger.com/publications/publication_pdf/roland_berger_blockchain_final.pdf


 

 

73   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 18(2), 179-

183. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770180211 

Schindler, J. (2017). Fintech and financial innovation: Drivers and depth [Working Papers]. U.S. 

Federal Reserve Board’s Finance & Economic Discussion Series, 1-16. 

https://dx.doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2017.081 

Sherman, A. T., Javani, F., Zhang, H., & Golaszewski, E. (2019). On the origins and variations of 

blockchain technologies, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Security & Privacy, 17(1), 72-

77. https://doi:10.1109/MSEC.2019.2893730 

Shine Group. (2018). A look at the global Fintech landscape and how countries are embracing digital 

disruption in financial services. https://www.shinegrp.com/a-look-at-the-global-Fintech-landscape-and-

how-countries-are-embracing-digital-disruption-in-financial-services/ 

Siddiqui, S. H., Rasheed, R., Nawaz, M. S., & Abbas, M. (2019). Knowledge sharing and innovation 

capabilities: The moderating role of organizational learning. Pakistan Journal of Commerce & Social 

Sciences, 13(2), 455-486. http://jespk.net/publications/4346.pdf 

Siguaw, J. A., Simpson, P. M., & Enz, C. A. (2006). Conceptualizing innovation orientation: A 

framework for study and integration of innovation research. The Journal of Product Innovation 

Management 23(6), 556-574. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00224.x 

Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T., & Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate research. Journal 

of Information Technology Education. 6(1), 1-21. http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol6/JITEv6p001-

021Skulmoski212.pdf  

Storey, C., & Larbig, C. (2017). Absorbing customer knowledge: How customer involvement enables 

service design success. Journal of Service Research, 21(1), 101-118. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670517712613 

Sullivan, G. M., & Artino, A. R. (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. 

Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5(4), 541-542. https://doi.org/10.4300%2FJGME-5-4-18 

Sumsion, T. (1998). The Delphi technique: An adaptive research tool. British Journal of Occupational 

Therapy, 61(4), 153-156. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F030802269806100403 

Teo, T.S.H., Ranganathan, C., & Dhaliwal, J. (2006). Key dimensions of inhibitors for the deployment 

of web-based business-to-business electronic commerce. IEEE Transactions on Engineering 

Management, 53(3), 395-411. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2006.878106 

The Business Research Company. (2020). Financial Services Global Market Report. 

https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/financial-services-global-market-report-2020-30-

covid-19-impact-and-recovery 

https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770180211
https://dx.doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2017.081
https://doi:10.1109/MSEC.2019.2893730
https://www.shinegrp.com/a-look-at-the-global-fintech-landscape-and-how-countries-are-embracing-digital-disruption-in-financial-services/
https://www.shinegrp.com/a-look-at-the-global-fintech-landscape-and-how-countries-are-embracing-digital-disruption-in-financial-services/
http://jespk.net/publications/4346.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00224.x
http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol6/JITEv6p001-021Skulmoski212.pdf
http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol6/JITEv6p001-021Skulmoski212.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670517712613
https://doi.org/10.4300%2FJGME-5-4-18
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F030802269806100403
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2006.878106
https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/financial-services-global-market-report-2020-30-covid-19-impact-and-recovery
https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/financial-services-global-market-report-2020-30-covid-19-impact-and-recovery


 

 

74 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Todd, R. (2019, June 25). Synthetix suffers oracle attack, more that 37 million synthetic ether exposed. 

The Block. https://www.theblock.co/linked/28748/synthetix-suffers-oracle-attack-potentially-looting-

37-million-synthetic-ether 

Tornatzky, L. G., Fleischer, M., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (1990). The Processes of technological 

innovation. Lexington Books. 

https://openlibrary.org/books/OL2207473M/The_processes_of_technological_innovation 

Trantopoulos, K., von Krogh, G., Wallin, M. W., & Woerter, M. (2017). External knowledge and 

information technology: Implications for process innovation performance. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 287-

300. https://doi.org/10.25300.MISQ/2017/41.1.15 

Troy, S., & Pratt, M. K. (2017). Distributed ledger technology. TechTarget. 

https://www.techtarget.com/searchcio/definition/distributed-ledger 

Tworek, K., Walecka-Jankowska, K., & Zgrzywa-Ziemak, A. (2019). Information technology reliability 

in shaping organizational innovativeness of SMEs. Organizacija, 52(2), 143-154. 

https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2019-0010 

United Nations. (2012). Letters of credit. United Nations Trade Facilitation Implementation Guide. 

http://tfig.unece.org/contents/letters-of-credit.htm 

Varma, J. R. (2019). Blockchain in finance. Vikalpa, 44(1), 1-11. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090919839897 

Veena, K., Jigeesh, N., & Bhat, M. S. (2019). Knowledge management practices in managing projects 

and project people: A case study of an Indian IT company. IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, 

17(1), 41-52. 

Vysya, V. N., & Kumar, A. (2019). Blockchain adoption in financial services. Infosys. 

https://www.infosys.com/industries/financial-services/white-papers/documents/blockchain-adoption-

financial-services.pdf 

World Bank Group. (2021). Blockchain interoperability. 

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/373781615365676101/pdf/Blockchain-

Interoperability.pdf 

World Blockchain Summit. (2019, September 11). Blockchain and the future of banking [Video]. 

Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLLlTS3RxTo 

World Economic Forum. (2020). Global standards mapping initiative: An overview of blockchain 

technical standards [White Paper]. 

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GSMI_Technical_Standards_2020.pdf 

https://www.theblock.co/linked/28748/synthetix-suffers-oracle-attack-potentially-looting-37-million-synthetic-ether
https://www.theblock.co/linked/28748/synthetix-suffers-oracle-attack-potentially-looting-37-million-synthetic-ether
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL2207473M/The_processes_of_technological_innovation
https://doi.org/10.25300.MISQ/2017/41.1.15
https://www.techtarget.com/searchcio/definition/distributed-ledger
https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2019-0010
http://tfig.unece.org/contents/letters-of-credit.htm
https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090919839897
https://www.infosys.com/industries/financial-services/white-papers/documents/blockchain-adoption-financial-services.pdf
https://www.infosys.com/industries/financial-services/white-papers/documents/blockchain-adoption-financial-services.pdf
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/373781615365676101/pdf/Blockchain-Interoperability.pdf
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/373781615365676101/pdf/Blockchain-Interoperability.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLLlTS3RxTo
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GSMI_Technical_Standards_2020.pdf


 

 

75   Business Management Research & Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

Xu, W., & Zammit, K. (2020). Applying thematic analysis to education: A hybrid approach to 

interpreting data in practitioner research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1-9. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920918810 

Youssef, H. (2020, November 17). The application of blockchain in trade finance: Opportunities and 

challenges. Trade Finance Global. https://www.tradefinanceglobal.com/posts/the-application-of-

blockchain-in-trade-finance-opportunities-and-challenges/ 

Zamani, E. D., & Giaglis, G. M. (2018). With a little help from the miners: Distributed ledger 

technology and market disintermediation. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 118(3), 637-652. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-05-2017-0231 

Zhu, K., & Kraemer, K.L. (2005). Post-adoption variations in usage and value of e-business by 

organizations: Cross-country evidence from the retail industry, Information Systems Research, 16(1), 

61-84. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1050.0045 

Zhu, K., Kraemer, K.L., & Xu, S. (2006). The process of innovation assimilation by firms in different 

countries: A technology diffusion perspective on e-business. Management Science, 52(10), 1557-1576. 

https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0487 

Zuraik, A., & Kelly, L. (2019). The role of CEO transformational leadership and innovation climate in 

exploration and exploitation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(1), 84-104. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-10-2017-0142 

 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920918810
https://www.tradefinanceglobal.com/posts/the-application-of-blockchain-in-trade-finance-opportunities-and-challenges/
https://www.tradefinanceglobal.com/posts/the-application-of-blockchain-in-trade-finance-opportunities-and-challenges/
https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-05-2017-0231
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1050.0045
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0487
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-10-2017-0142


 

 

76 January 2023 | Volume 2, Number 1 

Register and submit your work to  

Business Management Research and Applications: A Cross-Disciplinary Journal 

(columbiasouthern.edu) 

Business Management Research and Applications: A 

Cross-Disciplinary Journal (BMRA) (ISSN 2769-4666) is 

an open-access (CC BY-ND 4.0), peer-reviewed journal 

that publishes original research as well as works that ex-

plore the applied implications of others’ research, concep-

tual papers, and case studies (including teaching notes for 

review) that have a business administration and manage-

ment slant. BMRA welcomes original submissions from 

researchers, practitioners, and Master’s/doctoral students 

from the following disciplines: business management, oc-

cupational safety, cybersecurity, finance, marketing, en-

trepreneurship, public administration, health services, fire 

safety, human resources, project management, healthcare 

management, and information technology. Master’s de-

gree-level student authors must be co-authors with faculty 

or professional researchers in the field. BMRA is a partici-

pant with the LOCKSS archival system,  

Alabama Digital Preservation Network | ADPNet.  

 
This work is licensed under a  

Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0  

International License. 

 

https://bmrajournal.columbiasouthern.edu/index.php/bmra/index
https://bmrajournal.columbiasouthern.edu/index.php/bmra/index
http://www.adpn.org/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/

