Blockchain technology for projects: a multi-criteria decision matrix
Weisheng Lu, Liupengfei Wu, and Fan Xue
This is the peer-reviewed, post-print version of the paper:
Lu, W., Wu, L., & Xue, F., (2022). Blockchain technology for projects: a multicriteria decision matrix. Project Management Journal, 53(1), 84-99. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177/87569728211061780
This material is shared under the permission of PMJ and may be downloaded for personal
use only. Any other use requires prior permission of PMJ.
Abstract

5

This research aims to develop a multi-criteria decision matrix (MCDM) for project management
(PM) professionals, which will support blockchain type selection, evaluate blockchain platforms,
and plan blockchain systems. The MCDM is substantiated through a case study that includes a
questionnaire and an illustrative example pertinent to the construction industry. It is discovered
that in this study, consortium blockchain is superior in dealing with the characteristics of
projects, and Hyperledger Fabric is chosen as the best applicable platform. In planning a
blockchain-based PM system, PM professionals should consider user requirements such as
network participants, principal transactions, communication channels, and smart contracts.

10

Keywords: Blockchain; Project; Multi-criteria decision-making; Decision matrix; Construction
Introduction

15

20

25

Blockchain first emerged as a cryptocurrency transaction ledger and has now found applications
in other spheres, including intellectual property and digital identity management (Perera et al.,
2020), philanthropy (Lamba et al., 2019), democracy and governance (Diallo et al ., 2018),
agriculture (Yang et al., 2020), health (Griggs et al., 2018), logistics and supply chain
management (Kaijun et al., 2018), built environment provision (Mukne et al., 2019), education
and human rights (Turkanović et al., 2018), energy and environment (Pop et al., 2018), and
finance (Chen et al., 2017). A blockchain is a list of blocks, and each block contains a block
header and a set of transactions (Hyperledger, 2020). Xue and Lu (2020) identify three essential
components of blockchain technology, sometimes also simply called blockchain: cryptographic
algorithms, distributed databases, and consensus mechanisms. Together, these components allow
important transaction data to be collected, agreed upon, and distributed with minimal risk of
alteration or tampering. Its widely propagated benefits, therefore, include enhanced security,
improved traceability, increased efficiency, and reduced costs (Penzes et al., 2018).

1

30

35

40

45

50

Researchers and practitioners in the project world are also exploring this disruptive technology.
They are encountering its different types, often inconsistently named but distinguished by
privileges such as access rights, querying transactions, and submitting transactions to the ledger.
Perera et al. (2020), for instance, propose three types of blockchain: (1) public, (2) private, and
(3) consortium, and note different blockchain platforms, both commercial and open source.
Projects may also be perceived in differing ways in the literature. A project may be viewed as a
temporary organization (Turner & Müller, 2003), a unique setting beyond the dichotomous view
of markets and hierarchies (Powell, 1990), an intrafirm endeavor or an interfirm coalition
(Winch, 1989), or a network of stakeholders and their interactions (Lu et al., 2020). Projects
emerged because people noticed that work related to film making, media production,
construction, information and technology, and research and development (R&D), for example,
can be better delivered if organized in such a way. In the case of blockchain selection, however,
the uniqueness, temporariness, uncertainty, discontinuity, and one-off nature of projects present
challenges. Unlike banking transactions, project transactions happen infrequently amongst
limited parties. In addition, some transaction information is urged to be shared among project
team members, while other information is strictly treated as a commercial secret.
Recent studies have compared blockchains but few, if any, have provided a holistic method for
their selection in a project setting. This research aims to develop a decision-support tool for
project management (PM) professionals, helping them to select proper blockchain to enhance
project value delivery. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Next section is a literature
review introducing blockchain. The following section reviews projects and their salient features
in the context of blockchain. The subsequent section introduces our research methods. After that,
the decision matrix is presented and substantiated using a case study. Finally, the discussion and
conclusions are presented.
Blockchain

55

60

65

Blockchain basics
As introduced briefly above, blockchain combines cryptography, distributed databases, and
consensus mechanisms (Xue and Lu, 2020). Cryptography has one main sub-component: hash
algorithm, which ensures the immutability of the recorded transaction information (e.g.,
transaction personnel, time, location). Due to its emphasis on the security, blockchain is an
excellent fit in institutional economics as economic infrastructure (Allen et al., 2018).
Transaction records are connected as blocks in sequence, starting with the genesis block (Figure
1). Hashing sequentially interconnected blocks means that transaction data (e.g., Tx0 to Txn) is
used as input to a hash function that converts the data into a fixed length string (Xue & Lu,
2020). The resulting hash value is unique for each input, so if someone changes transaction data,
the corresponding hash value will also change immediately. Each block also contains the
2

previous block hash, ensuring that it cannot be changed without also changing the previous block
(Li et al., 2021).

70

75

Figure 1. A blockchain (Adapted from Li et al., 2021)

The distributed database of the blockchain, mainly composed of ledgers, is achieved through a
decentralized network. A ledger is an accounting technique used to record when anything of
value is transacted (Taghizadeh-Hesary & Yoshino, 2019). Peer nodes are network entities that
maintain a copy of the ledger and/or run smart contracts to perform query/write operations on the
ledger (Hyperledger, 2020). A smart contract is a program stored in a blockchain system wherein
the outcome of any self-execution of the program is recorded on the distributed ledger (ISO,
2020). All nodes are related to each other in a planar rather than hierarchical, centralized
topology, and this protects the network from a single point of failure.

80

85

90

Consensus is a protocol for verifying the facts on the fundamental datum of an economy: of
identity, property, contract, and value, and regularly recording time (Davidson et al., 2018).
There are many consensus algorithms. The most common one is proof of work (PoW), which is
used to confirm transactions then initiate new blocks to the chain. A relatively energy-saving
mechanism to save computing/mining power, proof of stake (PoS) assumes that participants with
a greater stake (e.g., coins) display less opportunistic behavior, so have more opportunities to
verify blocks. Stakeholders may also elect delegates to validate blocks, a method called
delegated proof of stake (DPoS). Hyperledger Fabric 2.0 uses practical Byzantine fault tolerance
(PBFT), a low-energy mechanism that requires three rounds of voting (Hyperledger, 2020).
Other consensus algorithms are proof of authority (PoA) (Kaur & Oza, 2020), proof of
authentication (PoAh) (Puthal et al., 2020), proof of conformance (PoC) (Zhang & Lin, 2018),
3

Kafka consensus (Mukne et al., 2019), and AlgoRand consensus (Zhang & Wang, 2019), while
customized consensuses have also been observed (e.g., Kim & Yu, 2018).

95

Blockchain has a set of unique terminologies. In the case of PM professionals, these are
unnecessarily accessible. Therefore, Xue and Lu (2020) have proposed a two-sided strategy,
leaving the system R&D in the lower layers to blockchain professionals such as computer
scientists, and the applications in the upper layers to users to solve their domain problems. PMs
should nonetheless be involved in defining their requirements and in blockchain selection.

100

Available blockchain options

105

110

115

Various blockchain taxonomies can be found in the literature. Perera et al. (2020) summarizes
popular platforms into public, private, and consortium categories (see Table 1). Public
blockchain is accessible to the public for use. It is a system wherein control is distributed among
the persons or organizations participating in the operation of the system. Therefore, it provides
transparency and auditability, and it is difficult for hackers to manipulate data across the
decentralized network (ISO, 2020). The consensus mechanism is driven by financial incentives,
motivating all to improve the network. It is much work for block validators to verify transactions
every day. As compensation for their efforts, after validators approve and add a new block of
transactions to the blockchain, they will receive coins (e.g., Bitcoins). However, the securityoriented method may compromise privacy, scalability, and transaction efficiency (She et al.,
2019).
Private blockchain has just one owner organization, and only pre-authorized participants can
perform particular activities (ISO, 2020). Due to its restrictive nature, it tends to have better
privacy, scalability, and efficiency than the public blockchain (Lee et al., 2019). In addition,
because the consensus is based on permissions, operating costs can be lower (Halloush et al.,
2019). However, the controlled environment may reduce transparency, auditability, and
resistance to hackers (Penzes et al., 2018).

120

125

Consortium blockchain operates under a selected set of nodes (She et al., 2019). It shares many
advantages with private blockchain including access control, privacy, efficiency, and scalability.
A subset of organizations can have dedicated communication channels and private data, or in
some cases, all participants can have transparent information (Hyperledger, 2020). Consortium
blockchain reduces the counterparty risk of private blockchain because it has more than one
organization to manage the network but provides no incentive for parties to participate in the
network. It provides customizability through governance structures. However, establishing welldefined regulatory rules and censorship systems may be difficult.
4

130

Some studies categorize blockchain as permissioned or permissionless, based on whether the
blockchain has access control to ledgers. Users are pre-authorized to participate in a
permissioned blockchain. Private and consortium blockchains are permissioned (Perera et al.,
2020), while public blockchain is permissionless.

5

Table 1. Snapshot of popular blockchain platforms

134

135

Blockchain platforms

Type

Permission type

Governance

Focus domain

Permissionless
Permissionless
Permissionless

Year
of
implementation
2009
2015
2018

Bitcoin
Ethereum
EOS.IO

Public
Public
Public

NEO

Source model

Cryptocurrency
Cross-industry
Cross-industry

Smart
contract
No
Yes
Yes

Bitcoin developers
Ethereum developers
EOS.IO
core
arbitration forum

Private

Permissioned

2016

NEO holders & NEO
foundation

Smart Economy

Yes

Open source

Hyperledger Sawtooth
R3 Corda

Private
Consortium

Permissioned
Permissioned

2018
2016

Linux foundation
Hedera
hashgraph
council
Ark developers
Linux foundation

Cross-industry
Cross-industry

Yes
Yes

Cross-industry
Cross-industry

Yes
Yes

Open source
Commercial
Open source
Open source
Open source

Ark
Hyperledger Fabric

Consortium
Private/
Consortium

Permissioned
Permissioned

2017
2016

Note: Compiled from Turkanović et al. (2018), LeewayHertz (2019), Ark (2019), Hyperledger (2020), Perera et al. (2020)

6

Open source
Open source
Open source

&

Projects

140

145

Perceptions of projects vary. The Project Management Institute (2000) considers a project to
have a production function and sees it as a temporary endeavor. Turner and Müller (2003) add
that it is an agency that manages uncertainty and assigns resources. Winch (1989)
differentiates projects as an intrafirm endeavor or interfirm coalition. Following the central
tenet of Allen (1984) that production organizations, projects are not only technical systems
but also social systems of personal and group interactions. Wang et al. (2018b) and Lu et al.
(2020) view the project as a social network, using Engwall’s (2003) proposition that “no
project is an island” to emphasize projects’ social embeddedness. DeFillippi and Sydow
(2016) and Sydow et al. (2016) perceive projects as networks at two different levels. From a
PM perspective, the network is a single interorganizational project consisting of temporal and
internal relationships facilitating its coordination and ensuring its foreseeable delivery. From
a business perspective, the network is a series of projects that are interrelated through
interorganizational relationships. In this study, we focus on the former.

150

155

160

165

170

A project has several key characteristics differentiating it from “business as usual” or
production. Firstly, it has a unique purpose to do things that have not been done previously
(Smyth, 2018). Secondly, a project is temporary, involving a project team and broader
coalition temporarily coming together (Turner & Müller, 2003). Thirdly, it involves
uncertainties since it creates change in a changing environment (Lu et al., 2020). In the early
stages of project in particular, it is difficult to define the objectives, determine the required
funds, and evaluate the completion time. Fourthly, a project is one-off, with a definite start
and end (Wright & Kersner, 2004). Finally, a project suffers discontinuity (Smyth, 2018).
Project members are often established and dispersed, and human resources allocated to them
change constantly.
These characteristics pose considerable challenges for blockchain selection. Project
uniqueness requires customization of each blockchain solution according to scope of use and
degree of network centralization. The temporariness and one-off nature of projects imply that
the cost of blockchain should not be high and appropriately distributed to the project
members. Uncertainties subject a project to opportunistic behavior, so project-oriented
blockchain solutions must enhance auditability, build trust and improve transparency and
traceability. Discontinuity may lead to file tampering and loss and resource changes, so
blockchain solutions must protect privacy and security of documents. Finally, blockchain
should remain scalable so that it can continue to be used as the project progresses. These
challenges imply that the project, as a special organizational form, should have a preference
for a specific type of blockchain. To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has

7

consciously considered which blockchain is preferential in a project setting with its various
characteristics.
175

Research methods

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

To develop a blockchain decision-support tool for PM professionals, this research adopts a
methodology comprising literature review, decision matrix method (DMM), and case study.
The critical literature review was to collect criteria for selecting type of blockchain,
blockchain platform, and planning a blockchain system in various industries or settings. We
searched Google Scholar using the keywords “public blockchain”, “private blockchain”,
“consortium blockchain”, and “block chain”. The search initially produced 1570 hits
including journal and conference papers, books, dissertations, and reports. The titles and
abstracts were screened for suitability. The hits that do not have a specific application but a
general review was excluded. The full texts of 214 papers passing the primary screening were
then downloaded and furthered refined by the authors based on criterion: providing the
necessary descriptive information including year of publication, type of blockchain and
platform used, and whether a smart contract was used. A total of 41 publications were finally
collected for analysis. The number of hits seems somewhat small in light of broad promotion
of blockchain in various industries. However, the selected papers, together with the 214
papers searched, forms an instrumental information foundation from which useful findings
can be derived.
Based on the literature review, a multi-criteria decision matrix (MCDM) was developed
through DMM: a method enabling decision makers to identify various factors and analyze the
relationships between them (Salmeron & Smarandache, 2008). Firstly, the collected criteria
were divided into three categories: type of blockchain-related (Organization criteria);
platform-related (Performance criteria); and system-related (Application criteria). Then,
categorized criteria further refined through consensus in focus group meetings. The
refinement process was repeated to fine-tune the MCDM because some criteria were feasible
but not the most advantageous. Besides, Organization criteria were linked to project
characteristics to ensure blockchain suitability from the beginning. The resulting MCDM was
proposed and graphed.
The resulting MCDM is based on the literature and examples in non-project settings. Ideally it
should be substantiated by real-life PM practices, but these proved difficult to find as
blockchain is quite new in projects. Therefore, we designed a semi-hypothetical study
contextualized in the construction industry where projects have been adopted as the norm
across a wide range of activities. By “semi-hypothetical”, we mean that our cases are
generalized from recurring construction industry phenomena. The scenario is to use
8

blockchain to improve the document endorsement process, one of the most onerous processes
in contemporary construction PM, and to use smart contracts to streamline the process
automatically and logically.

215

220

225

The case study is divided into three stages. Table 2 lists these stages and the aim,
substantiation method and expected outcome of each. Through a 3-part questionnaire and an
illustrative example, three criteria dimensions of the MCDM, namely Organization,
Performance, and Application were substantiated. Part 0 of the questionnaire gathered the
demographic characteristics of the respondents and their firms. In Stage I/Part I of the
questionnaire, assuming a construction project client planned to build a blockchain
infrastructure. The overarching aim is to use blockchain to enhance the security and
traceability of the document endorsement process. The blockchain solution should maintain
scalability for different applications (client may use it for multiple projects) and protect user
privacy. Thus, respondents were asked questions pertinent to MCDM Organization criteria. It
was assumed that respondents familiar with document endorsement in a project setting would
have sufficient knowledge to help prospective users select Organization criteria to determine
choice of blockchain type. In Stage II/Part II of the questionnaire, questions related to the
Performance criteria of the MCDM were asked to substantiate that these criteria could help
clients understand which blockchain platform is preferred by project teams.

230

235

We coded the questions in an online survey platform called “Questionnaire Star”
(https://www.wjx.cn). A pilot questionnaire was conducted before the full-scale
questionnaire. In this study, the target population was clients, contractors, designers,
consultants, and researchers serving China’s construction industry. Drawing on the authors’
contacts, the questionnaires were distributed in early August 2020 and recipients invited to
respond by mid-August.

Stage
Start

I

Aim
To gather
demographic
characteristics of
the respondents
and their firms
To substantiate
the Organization
criteria of the
MCDM

Table 2. Semi-hypothetical case study stages
Substantiation method
Questionnaire (Part 0): 8 multiple-choice questions

Expected outcome
The information is
collected

Questionnaire (Part I): each Organization criterion in
the MCDM constitutes a multiple-choice question (8 in
total). The public, private and consortium blockchain
information in Figure 3 corresponding to each
Organization criterion constitutes the three options for
each question. Respondents were asked to select the
most suitable option for each question. The type of
blockchain that “wins” is determined by summing the
selected options. In this study, it is assumed that the
weighting of each Organization criterion is equal.

The type of blockchain
with the most selected
options is adopted

9

240

245

250

II

To substantiate
the Performance
criteria of the
MCDM

Questionnaire (Part II): each type of blockchain has
three alternative platforms in Figure 4 (Hyperledger
Fabric is used as both a private and a consortium
blockchain platform). Each Performance criterion in
MCDM constitutes a multiple-choice question (6 in
total), and platform information under each
Performance criterion in Figure 4 constitutes options.
Respondents evaluated the platforms under the selected
type of blockchain by choosing the most suitable
option for each question. The final platform is chosen
by adding preferences. In this study, it is considered
that the weighting of each Performance criterion is
equal.

The blockchain platform
with the most selected
options is adopted

III

To substantiate
the Application
criteria of the
MCDM

Completing the tasks corresponding to each
Application criteria with information collected from
commercial publications

A blockchain prototype
system is produced

Of the questionnaires distributed, we received 110 responses, but some were abandoned due
to incompleteness. Finally, 85 were output, edited, and analyzed in Excel spreadsheets.
Regarding demographic characteristics, 85% of respondents held a bachelor’s degree or
above. About 54% had 1–5 years’ experience in the construction industry, 29% had 6-10
years’ experience, and 17% had more than 10 years’ experience. Companies were a mix of
clients, designers, consultants, and main contractors. For Stage III, data collected from
commercial publications was used to answer the task questions corresponding to each
application criterion, the purpose being to substantiate that the user requirements of a
blockchain system can be specified using the Application criteria.
Review, proposition, and substantiation
Blockchain applications in non-project settings

255

Based on our literature review, Table 3 shows the results of blockchain selection in 41 cases
in 10 industrial settings. Among them, 10, 6, and 19 cases adopted public, private, and
consortium blockchains, respectively, and 6 adopted a combination. Ethereum was the most
popular public blockchain platform. Hyperledger Fabric was the favored consortium
blockchain platform and was implemented as a private blockchain in 3 cases. Some scholars
built their own new platforms instead of using existing ones. Smart contracts and different
consensus mechanisms were widely used.

260

10

ID

Reference

Table 3. Blockchain choices in the included studies
Type of blockchain

Platform/
Framework

Smart
contract

Consensus

New
New

Yes
N/A

Customized
PoA

Ethereum
New
Hyperledger Fabric
Ethereum

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

PoW
BFT
BFT
PoW

Hyperledger Fabric
Hyperledger Fabric
New

Yes
Yes
Yes

N/A
PBFT
PoW

Hyperledger Fabric
Ethereum
New
Hyperledger Fabric

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

PBFT
N/A
Customized
PBFT

JUICE
New
New
New

N/A
Yes
Yes
N/A

PoC
PBFT
DPoS
PoW/PBFT

New
Hyperledger Fabric
New
New
New

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

PoS
Customized
PBFT
PBFT
MCPBFT

Quorum

Yes

v
v
v

Hyperledger Fabric
Hyperledger Fabric
New

Yes
Yes
Yes

v

New
New
New

N/A
Yes
Yes

Quorum
Consensus
Kafka Consensus
BFT
AlgoRand
consensus
PoAh
PoA
Customized

Ark
Hyperledger Fabric
Hyperledger Fabric
Hyperledger Fabric;
Ethereum

N/A
Yes
N/A
Yes

DPOS
N/A
N/A
PoW/PBFT/
BFT

Ethereum
New
Ethereum
New
Ethereum

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

N/A
PoI
PoS
ADMM
N/A

Bitcoin
Hyperledger Fabric
New

N/A
N/A
Yes

PoW
OMMS
PBFT

Public PrivateConsortium
Intellectual property and digital identity
1
Kim and Yu (2018)
v
2
Halloush and Yaseen
v
v
(2019)
Philanthropy, aid, and donors
3
Nor et al. (2017)
v
4
Sirisha et al. (2019)
v
5
Lamba et al. (2019)
v
6
Saleh et al. (2019a)
v
Democracy and governance
7
Zhang et al. (2018)
v
8
Yu et al. (2018)
v
9
Diallo et al. (2018)
v
Agriculture
10 Ge et al. (2017)
v
11 Shih et al. (2019)
v
12 Yang et al. (2020)
v
13 Hang et al. (2020)
v
Health
14 Zhang and Lin (2018)
v
v
15 Griggs et al. (2018)
v
16 Liu et al. (2018)
v
17 Xu et al. (2019)
v
v
Logistics and supply chain management
18 Kaijun et al. (2018)
v
19 Ding et al. (2019)
v
v
20 Mao et al. (2019)
v
21 Chen et al. (2020)
v
22 Li et al. (2020)
v
Built environment
23 Brousmiche et al. (2018)
v
24
25
26

Mukne et al. (2019)
She et al. (2019)
Zhang and Wang (2019)

27 Puthal et al. (2020)
28 Kaur and Oza (2020)
29 Luo et al. (2019)
Education and human rights
30 Turkanović et al. (2018)
31 Choudhury et al. (2018)
32 Saleh et al. (2019b)
33 Wang et al. (2019)
Environment and energy
34 Niya et al. (2018)
35 Mengelkamp et al. (2018)
36 Pop et al. (2018)
37 Van Leeuwen et al. (2020)
38 França et al. (2020)
Finance and economy
39 Chen et al. (2017)
40 Wang et al. (2018a)
41 Xu and Viriyasitavat
(2019)

v
v

v
v
v
v
v

v

v
v
v

v
v

v
v

v
v

11

Note: New=building a custom blockchain or forking an established blockchain; BFT= Byzantine fault tolerant;
MCPBFT=Multi-center practical byzantine fault tolerance; ADMM=Alternating direction method of multipliers;
OMMS=Orchestration of multiple modules and steps; PoI= Proof of identity; N/A= Not available
265

270

A proposed multi-criteria decision matrix
Figure 2 shows our MCDM. Organization criteria help interested users choose a blockchain
type based on project characteristics; Performance criteria help evaluate existing blockchain
platforms; and Application criteria assist in planning blockchain systems. Users should follow
the order from Organization, Performance to Application criteria to use MCDM.

Figure 2. The MCDM for choosing blockchain for projects

275

280

Figure 3 shows public, private, and consortium blockchain information corresponding to
Organization criteria. The first step is to define the range of blockchain use, project
transparency, and centralization levels. The next is to determine whether a project should be
highly auditable or reserve some space to retain sensitive business information. After that, we
estimate the cost of a blockchain solution. For example, according to Ernst & Young (2019),
private blockchains are usually adopted in projects with high transaction volumes because
high costs are averaged over a large number of transactions. Finally, we determine the
privacy, security and scalability requirements in projects. The notes in Figure 3 elaborate
upon the Organization criteria.

12

285

Figure 3. Organization criteria for choosing blockchain types

290

295

Figure 4 elaborates on the MCDM Performance criteria applied to 8 popular blockchain
platforms. The first criterion, transaction throughput, refers to the number of transactions the
blockchain can commit per second. Block time is the time required to generate the next block
in a chain. Regarding consensus network, depending on the use case, a platform must support
single or multiple consensuses, or a pluggable consensus. The number of languages
supporting smart contract writing and the need for cryptocurrency should then be evaluated.
Lastly, the cost per transaction should be considered.

13

Figure 4. Performance criteria for choosing blockchain platforms

300

305

Figure 5 elaborates on the Application criteria used to specify user requirements based on use
cases so that developers can better plan blockchain systems. Blockchain system architecture
normally consists of six layers: application, blockchain as a service (BaaS), execution,
consensus, data, and network. The consensus layer managing the agreement between
stakeholders through various consensus algorithms and the data layer, which handles the
blockchain content organization using components such as hash functions, chain structure,
and timestamps, are hosted by existing or newly built platforms. So for successful system
development, one should perform tasks corresponding to the Application criteria to specify
user requirements for the other four layers.

14

310

Figure 5. Application criteria for planning blockchain systems

315

320

Using the Project structure, we can first specify what applications in the application layer will
be implemented with blockchain and determine the number of nodes and organizations that
will participate in the network layer. The Transaction definition aims to determine specific
transactions so that applications can interact with the blockchain network by submitting
transactions to the ledger or querying the ledger’s contents. Based on the defined transaction
and the mutual trust relationship of nodes, the Communication channel criterion helps plan
the number of communication channels (if dedicated channels are available). In this way, the
BaaS layer, especially its various software development kits (SDKs), can realize the
management, access control, and communication between the network and application layers.
Finally, the Smart contract function helps specify its scope and the functions it needs to
perform at the execution layer.

15

325

Substantiation via a semi-hypothetical case study
Stage I—Organization criteria

330

335

Figure 6 shows the results of evaluating blockchain types according to the Organization
criteria. Of the questionnaire respondents, 55% chose a consortium blockchain between
multiple authorized organizations in a construction project; 65% preferred information to be
transparent among all involved organization members or certain sub-members; and 61%
believed that partial centralization in the consortium blockchain could meet their
requirements. For auditability, 60% chose the auditability of the public blockchain, and 40%
accepted that its “cost and transaction volume are positively correlated”. Regarding project
privacy, 50% chose the private blockchain’s privacy. For security, 60% chose the security of
the public blockchain. Regarding scalability, 41% believe that the scalability of private
blockchains can meet the needs of construction projects, while 43% believe that moderate
scalability of consortium blockchains is appropriate. Only 16% preferred the scalability of
public blockchains.

340

Figure 6. Evaluation results of blockchain type against the Organization criteria

345

Answering the 8 questions on Organization criteria, 55%, 25%, and 18% respondents chose
more options corresponding to the consortium, public and private blockchain, respectively
(1% had no preference; 1% chose both public and consortium blockchains). Based on this
result, consortium blockchain is most feasible for this study.

16

Stage II—Performance criteria

350

355

360

In Stage II, according to Stage I results, 56%, 26%, and 18% evaluations based on
Performance criteria were received for consortium, public and private blockchain platforms,
respectively (1 evaluated all platforms; 1 assessed both public and consortium blockchain
platforms).
Evaluation results of consortium blockchain platforms R3 Corda, Hyperledger Fabric, and
Ark are shown in Figure 7a. For transaction throughput, 45% chose Hyperledger Fabric. The
block time preference was R3 Corda (57%). More than 67% selected the pluggable consensus
of Hyperledger Fabric, 88% because it supports multiple languages for writing smart
contracts Regarding cryptocurrency, 37% did not need the platform to provide it (R3 Corda
do not have a native cryptocurrency), 49% thought it might be needed (Hyperledger Fabric
can provide development opportunities), and only 14% specified that a platform should have
a native cryptocurrency (i.e., Ark). For transaction fee, 43% preferred R3 Corda, 51% chose
Hyperledger Fabric, and 6% Ark. Overall, more respondents chose options corresponding to
Hyperledger Fabric.

17

365

Figure 7. Evaluation results of blockchain platforms against the Performance criteria

370

375

Evaluation results of public and private blockchain platforms are shown in Figures 7b and 7c,
respectively. For public blockchain platforms, more respondents chose Bitcoin’s transaction
throughput and block time (48% and 39%, respectively), EOS’s consensus network (40%)
and transaction fees (48%), and Ethereum’s smart contract language (48%). For native
cryptocurrency, respondents specified that the platform should have it (65% designated
Bitcoin, 26% Ether, and 9% EOS). Overall, more respondents chose options corresponding to
18

380

Bitcoin. Those choosing private blockchain leant towards Hyperledger Sawtooth’s transaction
throughput (56%) and consensus network (56%), Fabric’s block time (44%), and NEO’s
smart contract language (63%). For native cryptocurrency, 31% respondents specified that a
platform should have it (e.g., NEO), 69% thought it might not be needed (e.g., Hyperledger
Sawtooth), and none answered “it might be needed” (e.g., Hyperledger Fabric). Since none of
these three private platforms charge transaction fees, the “transaction fee” criterion was not
used. Overall, Hyperledger Sawtooth was more selected.

Stage III—Application criteria
385

Based on Stages I and II, Stage III collects user requirements of the Hyperledger Fabric
system by deploying Application criteria. By referring to commercial publications and
scenario building in the construction industry, an example of how to perform tasks related to
each application criterion is given (Table 4). In this way, developers can plan a user-centered
system.

390

Table 4. User requirements in a typical construction project

395

Application criteria

Tasks

Project structure

Applications: Document endorsement, Smart contracting

Blockchain
architecture
Application

Four organizations: Client, designer, consultant, and contractor
Four peer nodes: Project leader, Architect, inspector, project
manager
Two ordering nodes: Administration points (assigned by both
client and contractor)

Network

Transaction definition

Preliminary design plan, Final design submission, Design and
construction changes, modifications, worked hours, additional
work claims, Quality assurance approvals, Key performance
indicator (KPI) inquiring

Application

Communication channel

Two channels: Channel C1 for preliminary design plan related
documents, and Channel C2 for other transactions

BaaS

Smart contract function

Scope: Smart contract S1 executes business logic in C1 and
smart contract S2 defines executable logic in C2

Execution

Functions: Collect approvals, Check, Report and update KPI,
Notify results

Execution

Figure 8 shows the planned blockchain system. In this study, Client, Designer, Consultant,
and Contractor agree that they will use and build the consortium blockchain in Hyperledger
Fabric for document endorsement and smart contracting. The Client is the network initiator.
Organizations can have applications that can perform transactions in two channels. The Client
19

400

405

and Designer need to communicate about the design plan privately via an isolated channel.
Peer nodes Project leader and Architect maintain a copy of the Ledger L1 associated with
Channel C1 for the preliminary design plan and maintain a copy of the Ledger L2 associated
with Channel C2 for other transactions indicated in Table 4. The peer nodes Project manager
and Inspector maintain a copy of the Ledger L2 associated with Channel C2. There are two
Ordering services O1 and O2 that service as network administration points for network and
support application Channels C1 and C2. Smart contract S1 is installed on Project leader and
Architect to execute the logic of business in C1. Smart contract S2 is installed on all peer
nodes to define the executable logic for C2.

Figure 8. Final system configuration against the Application criteria

410

415

The network is managed according to rules specified in Network Configuration NC4 (e.g.,
both Client and Contractor need to agree if new organizations want to join the network).
When it comes to consensus, transactions in Channel C1 are managed according to rules
specified in channel configuration CC1 (only the Project leader and Architect need to endorse
the preliminary design plan-related documents); the Client and Designer manage C1. All
organizations manage Channel C2 according to Rules CC2 (all peer nodes need to endorse
transactions). Organizations have certificate authorities defined in the data layer. This
successful planning of a blockchain system substantiates our Application criteria feasibility.
Discussion

420

The MCDM developed in this study provides a structured methodology to help prospective
PM professionals choose suitable blockchain and plan implementable blockchain-based PM
systems. Organization, Performance, and Application pertinent criteria have been investigated
20

425

430

435

440

in various industries or non-project settings, but this study links the criteria with projects and
enriches their meaning in PM discourse. Our case study provides a vivid example of how the
MCDM can be implemented to choose a blockchain and plan a blockchain system for a client
in construction projects. Respondents in this study had different blockchain projects in mind
when they completed the surveys. In real-life practice, project clients may wish to build a
blockchain infrastructure for different applications. Therefore, the proposed MCDM can help
project clients mine the actual requirements of different project teams and then decide on
blockchain options. Overall, this research is a meaningful step towards demystifying
blockchain in the project world.
Blockchain presents enormous prospects and challenges for project management. At a
technical level, the hash algorithms, distributed ledgers, consensus mechanisms, and other
components are still developing rapidly. At the service level, smart contracts are probably the
most promising application for safeguarding information, expediting reporting and
endorsement, and paying on time. The hash algorithm, distributed database, and decentralized
consensus mechanism make it difficult for any party in the blockchain to tamper with the
project’s information. However, one cannot underestimate security vulnerability or make
assumptions about blockchain risks, such as 50% vulnerabilities, code vulnerabilities, private
key security, criminal activity, and identity exposure (Perera et al., 2020). A typical
misunderstanding is that the technology can guarantee the genuineness of information in the
off-chain, project world. Traditional quality assurance and inspection technologies in the
physical project world are still needed to enable blockchain power.

445

450

455

460

This research has some limitations. Firstly, the weighting of each Organization and
Performance criterion were assumed to be equally important. Secondly, in the case study,
criteria (Organization, Performance, and Application) were adopted independently. Thirdly,
in this research, the proposed MCDM was used as a decision-support tool to help users
choose blockchain options, thereby not naturally considering detailed information governance
of projects. Fourthly, PM professionals would ideally evaluate systems based on real-life
construction projects, but such projects using blockchain are few and far between. We
developed a prototype of the system on the Hyperledger Fabric platform. But in the case
study, the blockchain system, like any blockchain system in various industries, mainly works
on the background. Evaluators do not even notice such system being at play. The unique
terminologies further prohibited the users from evaluating the system sensibly.
Amid the global blockchain hype, a word of caution is that prospective users should carefully
choose the parts of their PM tasks to be blockchained, and to ask whether they really need
blockchain at all. The technology introduces redundancy (e.g., by placing the blocks in
21

465

multiple places) and sacrifices efficiency for improved security (Xue & Lu, 2020). It incurs
extra, sometimes excessive, cost. Therefore, a highly selective strategy is desired based on
more thorough cost-benefit analyses when better empirical data is available. Blockchain
implementation is not just about using new software. It is more about implementing novel
business technologies and philosophies (Penzes et al., 2018). It has the potential to support
digitization in projects and provide solutions to many challenges, but before using the
technology, organizations need to dissect their existing business models. Therefore, we need
to understand more about the in-depth relationship between project governance and
blockchain system and their impacts on project performance.

470

Conclusions

475

480

485

490

495

Project management (PM) professionals are exploring the potential of blockchain, a
disruptive technology promising benefits such as greater transparency, enhanced security,
improved tractability, and increased efficiency. However, no previous study examines
blockchain technologies suitable for projects, whose unique characteristics may impose
particular challenges to this emerging technology. This research addresses this knowledge gap
by proposing a multi-criteria decision matrix (MCDM) for PM professionals to choose
blockchain for their projects. The MCDM has three staged components organized
sequentially. Stage I is to choose a generic blockchain type (e.g., public, private, or
consortium) against organization-related criteria range of use, transparency, centralization,
auditability, cost, privacy, security, and scalability. Stage II is to choose a specific blockchain
platform against performance-related criteria transaction throughput, block time, consensus
network, smart contract language, cryptocurrency, and transaction fee. Stage III is to specify
user requirements to plan a blockchain system against the application-related criteria project
structure, transaction definition, communication channel, and smart contract function.
The MCDM was tested and evaluated through a case study that includes a questionnaire and
an illustrative example pertinent to the construction industry. The results show that
consortium blockchain is superior to public or private blockchains in dealing with the unique
characteristics of projects. Hyperledger Fabric, a commercial platform, was chosen as the best
solution. Based on the platform, developers need to consider user requirements such as
network participants, principal transactions, communication channels, and smart contracts to
realize a blockchain-based PM system.
This is one of the first studies to truly “soft land” the technology in projects as a widespread
yet unique organization and governance setting. It makes several original contributions.
Firstly, it examined the challenges arising from project characteristics when choosing a type
of blockchain. Secondly, it isolated blockchain selections in 10 industrial settings and
22

500

505

510

515

520

identified the criteria for selecting blockchain types/platforms. Thirdly, it guides system
developers to consider both the blockchain type/platform and the project
characteristics/processes in developing a blockchain system. Not only useful for
demystification purposes, the MCDM is a readily deployable methodology for developing
blockchain systems for PM.
The limitations of this study provide opportunities for further investigations. Firstly, the
weighting of each Organization and Performance criterion were assumed to be equal. More
research is desired to assess the relative importance of the criteria by considering more reallife projects. Future research can also link criteria and their weightings to business outcomes.
Therefore, users can understand the value that blockchain can instigate before
implementation. Secondly, criteria (Organization, Performance, and Application) were
adopted independently in the case study. With the rapid development of blockchains,
understanding the interdependence of the criteria can make the MCDM more robust in the
face of new capabilities. Thirdly, the proposed MCDM is an infrastructure for selecting
blockchain options, thereby not naturally considering complicated information governance.
Therefore, future investigations are encouraged to form logical information structures so that
project participants can determine how important issues such as data privacy level and
transaction throughput exactly are for their blockchain use cases. Lastly, in-depth
investigations of the relationship between project governance and blockchain system and their
impacts on project performance are much desired when more cases are available. Blockchain
is novel, and there are numerous challenges, but the potential of this technology to reshape the
PM domain is too great to be missed.
Acknowledgements

525

The work presented in this paper was financially supported by the Hong Kong Innovation and
Technology Commission (ITC) with the Innovation and Technology Fund (ITF) (No.
ITP/029/20LP).
Data availability statement

530

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to their containing information
that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

23

535

540

545

550

555

560

565

570

575

580

References
Allen, T. J. (1984). Managing the flow of technology: Technology transfer and the
dissemination of technological information within the R&D organization. Boston: The
MIT Press.
Ark. (2019). ARK Whitepaper. Retrieved April 18, 2020, from ARK: https://ark.io/whitepaper
Allen, D. W., Berg, C., & Novak, M. (2018). Blockchain: an entangled political economy
approach. Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice, 33(2), 105-125.
Brousmiche, K. L., Heno, T., Poulain, C., Dalmieres, A., & Hamida, E. B. (2018). Digitizing,
securing and sharing vehicles life-cycle over a consortium blockchain: Lessons learned.
2018 9th IFIP International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security (pp.
1-5). IEEE.
Chen, J., Cai, T., He, W., Chen, L., Zhao, G., Zou, W., & Guo, L. (2020). A blockchain-driven
supply chain finance application for auto retail industry. Entropy, 22(1), 95.
Choudhury, O., Sarker, H., Rudolph, N., Foreman, M., Fay, N., Dhuliawala, M., ... & Das, A.
K. (2018). Enforcing human subject regulations using blockchain and smart contracts.
Blockchain in Healthcare Today, 1, 1-14.
Chen, P. W., Jiang, B. S., & Wang, C. H. (2017). Blockchain-based payment collection
supervision system using pervasive Bitcoin digital wallet. 2017 IEEE 13th International
Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (pp.
139-146). IEEE.
Diallo, N., Shi, W., Xu, L., Gao, Z., Chen, L., Lu, Y., ... & Turner, G. (2018). eGov-DAO: A
better government using blockchain based decentralized autonomous organization. 2018
International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (pp. 166-171). IEEE.
Ding, Q., Gao, S., Zhu, J., & Yuan, C. (2019). Permissioned blockchain-based double-layer
framework for product traceability system. IEEE Access, 8, 6209-6225.
DeFillippi, R., and Sydow, J. (2016). Project networks: Governance choices and paradoxical
tensions. Project Management Journal, 47(5), 6-17.
Davidson, S., De Filippi, P., & Potts, J. (2018). Blockchains and the economic institutions of
capitalism. Journal of Institutional Economics, 14(4), 639-658.
Ernst & Young. (2019). Total cost of ownership for blockchain solutions. Ernst & Young LLP.
Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context. Research
Policy, 32(5), 789–808.
França, A. S. L., Neto, J. A., Gonçalves, R. F., & Almeida, C. M. V. B. (2020). Proposing the
use of blockchain to improve the solid waste management in small municipalities. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 244, 118529.
Ge, L., Brewster, C., Spek, J., Smeenk, A., Top, J., van Diepen, F., ... & de Wildt, M. D. R.
(2017). Blockchain for agriculture and food: Findings from the pilot study (No. 2017-112).
Wageningen Economic Research.
Griggs, K. N., Ossipova, O., Kohlios, C. P., Baccarini, A. N., Howson, E. A., & Hayajneh, T.
(2018). Healthcare blockchain system using smart contracts for secure automated remote
patient monitoring. Journal of Medical Systems, 42(7), 130.
Hyperledger. (2020). Glossary. Retrieved April 15, 2020, from Hyperledger Fabric:
https://hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.htm.
Halloush, Z. A., & Yaseen, Q. M. (2019). A blockchain model for preserving intellectual
property. Second International Conference on Data Science, E-Learning and Information
Systems (pp. 1-5). Association for Computing Machinery.
Hang, L., Ullah, I., & Kim, D. H. (2020). A secure fish farm platform based on blockchain for
agriculture data integrity. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 170, 105251.

24

585

590

595

600

605

610

615

620

625

ISO. (2020). Blockchain and distributed ledger technologies — Vocabulary. Retrieved May 8,
2021,
from
Technical
Committee
ISO/TC
307:
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:22739:ed-1:v1:en.
Kim, E. J., & Yu, J. (2018). A consortium blockchain system for verifying digital contents on
traditional costumes. Euro-Mediterranean Conference (pp. 437-446). Springer.
Kaijun, L., Ya, B., Linbo, J., Han-Chi, F., & Van Nieuwenhuyse, I. (2018). Research on
agricultural supply chain system with double chain architecture based on blockchain
technology. Future Generation Computer Systems, 86, 641-649.
Kaur, E., & Oza, A. (2020). Blockchain-based multi-organization taxonomy for smart cities.
SN Applied Sciences, 2(3), 1-11.
Lu, W., Xu, J., & Söderlund, J. (2020). Exploring the effects of building information modeling
on projects: Longitudinal social network analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 146(5), 04020037.
LeewayHertz. (2019). Top blockchain platforms to watch out for in 2019. Retrieved April 18,
2020, from Hacker Noon: https://hackernoon.com/top-blockchain-platforms-to-watch-outin-2019-aa80e336a426
Lamba, R., Gupta, Y., Kalra, S., & Sharma, M. (2019). Preventing waiting list manipulation
and black marketing of donated organs through Hyperledger Fabric. 2019 International
Conference on Computing, Communication, and Intelligent Systems (ICCCIS) (pp. 280285). IEEE.
Li, X., Lv, F., Xiang, F., Sun, Z., & Sun, Z. (2020). Research on key technologies of logistics
information traceability model based on consortium chain. IEEE Access, 8, 69754-69762.
Liu, J., Li, X., Ye, L., Zhang, H., Du, X., & Guizani, M. (2018). BPDS: A blockchain based
privacy-preserving data sharing for electronic medical records. 2018 IEEE Global
Communications Conference (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Luo, H., Das, M., Wang, J., & Cheng, J. C. P. (2019). Construction payment automation through
smart contract-based blockchain framework. International Symposium on Automation and
Robotics in Construction (pp. 1254-1260). IAARC Publications.
Lee, J. Y. (2019). A decentralized token economy: How blockchain and cryptocurrency can
revolutionize business. Business Horizons, 62(6), 773-784.
Li, X., Wu, L., Zhao, R., Lu, W., & Xue, F. (2021). Two-layer Adaptive Blockchain-based
Supervision model for off-site modular housing production. Computers in Industry, 128,
103437.
Mao, D., Hao, Z., Wang, F., & Li, H. (2019). Novel automatic food trading system using
consortium blockchain. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 44(4), 3439-3455.
Mukne, H., Pai, P., Raut, S., & Ambawade, D. (2019). Land record management using
Hyperledger Fabric and IPFS. 2019 10th International Conference on Computing,
Communication and Networking Technologies (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
Mengelkamp, E., Notheisen, B., Beer, C., Dauer, D., & Weinhardt, C. (2018). A blockchainbased smart grid: Towards sustainable local energy markets. Computer Science-Research
and Development, 33(1-2), 207-214.
Nor, R. M., Rahman, M. H., Rahman, T., & Abdullah, A. (2017). Blockchain sadaqa
mechanism for disaster aid crowd funding. The 6th International Conference on
Computing and Informatics: Embracing Eco-Friendly Computing (pp. 25-27). Universiti
Utara Malaysia.
Niya, S. R., Jha, S. S., Bocek, T., & Stiller, B. (2018). Design and implementation of an
automated and decentralized pollution monitoring system with blockchains, smart
contracts, and LoRaWAN. NOMS 2018-2018 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and
Management Symposium (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
25

630

635

640

645

650

655

660

665

670

675

Penzes, B., Kirkup, A., Gage, C., Dravai, T., & Colmer, M. (2018). Blockchain technology in
the construction industry: Digital transformation for high productivity. Institution of Civil
Engineers.
Perera, S., Nanayakkara, S., Rodrigo, M. N. N., Senaratne, S., & Weinand, R. (2020).
Blockchain technology: Is it hype or real in the construction industry? Journal of Industrial
Information Integration, 100125.
Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy. In M. Godwyn, & J. H. Gittell, Sociology
of Organizations: Structures and Relationships (pp. 104-117). SAGE Publications.
Project Management Institute. (2000). A guide to the project management body of knowledge.
4th ed. Project Management Institute.
Puthal, D., Mohanty, S. P., Yanambaka, V. P., & Kougianos, E. (2020). PoAh: A novel
consensus algorithm for fast scalable private blockchain for large-scale IoT frameworks.
arXiv:2001.07297.
Pop, C., Cioara, T., Antal, M., Anghel, I., Salomie, I., & Bertoncini, M. (2018). Blockchain
based decentralized management of demand response programs in smart energy grids.
Sensors, 18(1), 162.
Salmeron, J. L., & Smarandache, F. (2008). Redesigning decision matrix method with an
indeterminacy-based inference process. International Journal of Applied Mathematics &
Statistics, 13(8), 4-11.
Sirisha, N. S., Agarwal, T., Monde, R., Yadav, R., & Hande, R. (2019). Proposed solution for
trackable donations using blockchain. 2019 International Conference on Nascent
Technologies in Engineering (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
Saleh, H., Avdoshin, S., & Dzhonov, A. (2019a). Platform for tracking donations of charitable
foundations based on blockchain technology. 2019 Actual Problems of Systems and
Software Engineering (APSSE) (pp. 182-187). IEEE.
Shih, D. H., Lu, K. C., Shih, Y. T., & Shih, P. Y. (2019). A simulated organic vegetable
production and marketing environment by using Ethereum. Electronics, 8(11), 1341.
She, W. E. I., Gu, Z. H., Lyu, X. K., Liu, Q. I., Tian, Z., & Liu, W. (2019). Homomorphic
consortium blockchain for smart home system sensitive data privacy preserving. IEEE
Access, 7, 62058-62070.
Saleh, O. S., Ghazali, O., & RANA, M. E. (2019b). Blockchain based framework for
educational certificates verification. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(3), 2020.
Shilov, K. (2018). When is it time to build your own blockchain? Retrieved May 30, 2020, from
Hacker
Noon:
https://medium.com/hackernoon/when-is-it-time-to-build-your-ownblockchain-f3be0a30b826
Smyth, H. (2018). Projects as creators of the preconditions for standardized and routinized
operations in use. International Journal of Project Management, 36(8), 1082-1095.
Sydow, J., Schüßler, E., and Müller-Seitz, G. (2016). Managing inter-organizational relations:
Debates and cases. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Turkanović, M., Hölbl, M., Košič, K., Heričko, M., & Kamišalić, A. (2018). EduCTX: A
blockchain-based higher education credit platform. IEEE Access, 6, 5112-5127.
Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2003). On the nature of the project as a temporary organization.
International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 1-8.
Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., & Yoshino, N. (2019). The way to induce private participation in green
finance and investment. Finance Research Letters, 31, 98-103.
Van Leeuwen, G., AlSkaif, T., Gibescu, M., & Van Sark, W. (2020). An integrated blockchainbased energy management platform with bilateral trading for microgrid communities.
Applied Energy, 263, 114613.
Winch, G. (1989). The construction firm and the construction project: A transaction cost
approach. Construction Management and Economics, 7(4), 331-345.
26

680

685

690

695

700

705

710

Wright, J. A., & Kersner, M. (2004). Short‐term projects: The standards fund and collaboration
between speech and language therapists and teachers. Support for Learning, 19(1), 19-23.
Wang, G., Zhang, H., Xiao, B., Chung, Y. C., & Cai, W. (2019). EduBloud: A blockchainbased education cloud. 2019 Computing, Communications and IoT Applications (pp. 352357). IEEE.
Wang, X., Xu, X., Feagan, L., Huang, S., Jiao, L., & Zhao, W. (2018a). Inter-bank payment
system on enterprise blockchain platform. 2018 IEEE 11th International Conference on
Cloud Computing (pp. 614-621). IEEE.
Wang, H., Lu, W., Söderlund, J., and Chen, K. (2018b). The interplay between formal and
informal institutions in projects: A social network analysis. Project Management Journal,
49(4), 20-35.
Xu, J., Xue, K., Li, S., Tian, H., Hong, J., Hong, P., & Yu, N. (2019). Healthchain: A
blockchain-based privacy preserving scheme for large-scale health data. IEEE Internet of
Things Journal, 6(5), 8770-8781.
Xu, L., & Viriyasitavat, W. (2019). Application of blockchain in collaborative Internet-ofThings services. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 6(6), 1295-1305.
Xue, F., & Lu, W. (2020). A semantic differential transaction approach to minimizing
information redundancy for BIM and blockchain integration. Automation in Construction,
118, 103270.
Yu, B., Liu, J. K., Sakzad, A., Nepal, S., Steinfeld, R., Rimba, P., & Au, M. H. (2018). Platformindependent secure blockchain-based voting system. International Conference on
Information Security (pp. 369-386). Springer.
Yang, H., Xiong, S., Frimpong, S. A., & Zhang, M. (2020). A consortium blockchain-based
agricultural machinery scheduling system. Sensors, 20(9), 2643.
Zhang, W., Yuan, Y., Hu, Y., Huang, S., Cao, S., Chopra, A., & Huang, S. (2018). A privacypreserving voting protocol on blockchain. 2018 IEEE 11th International Conference on
Cloud Computing (pp. 401-408). IEEE.
Zhang, A., & Lin, X. (2018). Towards secure and privacy-preserving data sharing in e-health
systems via consortium blockchain. Journal of Medical Systems, 42(8), 140.
Zhang, X., & Wang, D. (2019). Adaptive traffic signal control mechanism for intelligent
transportation based on a consortium blockchain. IEEE Access, 7, 97281-97295.

27