Priority evaluation factors for blockchain application services in public sectors

被引:4
|
作者
Lee, Joongyeup [1 ]
Kim, Beomsoo [2 ]
Lee, Ae Ri [3 ]
机构
[1] Software Policy & Res Inst, Software Policy Res Team, Seongnam, South Korea
[2] Yonsei Univ, Grad Sch Informat, Seoul, South Korea
[3] Sangmyung Univ, Dept Business Adm, Seoul, South Korea
来源
PLOS ONE | 2023年 / 18卷 / 03期
关键词
ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; TECHNOLOGY; CHAIN; FRAMEWORK; DELPHI;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0279445
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Blockchain is rapidly becoming established as the core technology of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. By combining blockchain to improve processes in existing industries, innovative new services will emerge, but services not effectively applied by blockchain will also develop. This study investigated the factors to be considered when applying the characteristics of blockchain technology to business. We developed a framework of blockchain service utility evaluation indexes using the analytic hierarchy process method. The Delphi method is used to identify highly effective blockchain application service cases by applying the evaluation framework to actual use cases in the public sector. By proposing a framework of utility evaluation factors for blockchain application services, this study provides a systematic foundation for blockchain business review. We address the question of "why blockchain should be applied to this service" by providing a more comprehensive approach than existing research, such as a fragmentary decision tree. Blockchains are expected to become more active along with the full-scale digital transformation of industries, and thus, we must examine the ways to broadly use blockchain as a base technology in a form applicable to the diverse industries and societies constituting the digital economy. Accordingly, this study presents an evaluation solution for promoting efficient policies and developing successful blockchain application services.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The Application of Entropy and Unascertained Measure in Level-of-Services of Public Transit Evaluation
    Li, Wanqing
    Wang, Jichao
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MODELLING AND SIMULATION (ICMS2009), VOL 1, 2009, : 440 - 444
  • [42] Project Management in Public Administration: Priority Areas of Application
    Makarenko, Liliia
    Syvak, Tetiana
    Berdanova, Olha
    Iyzefovych, Vladyslava
    Rachynska, Olena
    CUESTIONES POLITICAS, 2022, 40 (75): : 385 - 404
  • [43] APPLICATION OF BLOCKCHAIN IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: PROSPECTS FOR LEGAL REGULATION
    Talapina, Elvira
    VOPROSY GOSUDARSTVENNOGO I MUNITSIPALNOGO UPRAVLENIYA-PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ISSUES, 2020, (03): : 96 - 113
  • [44] Scope for the Application of Blockchain in the Public Healthcare of the Russian Federation
    Koshechkin, K. A.
    Klimenko, G. S.
    Ryabkov, I., V
    Kozhin, P. B.
    KNOWLEDGE-BASED AND INTELLIGENT INFORMATION & ENGINEERING SYSTEMS (KES-2018), 2018, 126 : 1323 - 1328
  • [45] Interorganizational evaluation capacity building in the public, health and community sectors
    Laubek, Charlotte
    Bourgeois, Isabelle
    EVALUATION, 2024, 30 (02) : 190 - 210
  • [46] RELEVANT ECONOMIC FACTORS AFFECTING FRANCHISE OPERATIONS IN THE SERVICES AND TRADE SECTORS
    Anar, Hasanov
    INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2019, (3-4) : 40 - 53
  • [47] Applying Health Services Research to Public Health Practice: An Emerging Priority
    Scutchfield, F. Douglas
    Mays, Glen P.
    Lurie, Nicole
    HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2009, 44 (05) : 1775 - 1787
  • [48] The quality of family planning services and client satisfaction in the public and private sectors in Kenya
    Agha, Sohail
    Do, Mai
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE, 2009, 21 (02) : 87 - 96
  • [49] Performance evaluation: a comparative study between public and private sectors
    Ensslin, Sandra Rolim
    Welter, Larissa Marx
    Pedersini, Daiana Rafaela
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTIVITY AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, 2022, 71 (05) : 1761 - 1785