The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-0398.htm

Assessing the feasibility of Assessing

blockchain
blockchain technology in technology
feasibility
industries: evidence from Turkey
Ismail Erol, Ilker Murat Ar and Ali Ihsan Ozdemir
Department of Business Administration, Ankara Yildirim Beyazit Universitesi,
Ankara, Turkey Received 25 September 2019
Revised 30 December 2019
Iskender Peker 2 April 2020

€ mu
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Gu € niversitesi,
€şhane U
Accepted 3 April 2020

Gumushane, Turkey
Ali Asgary
Department of Disaster and Emergency Management, York University, York,
UK, and
Ihsan Tolga Medeni and Tunc Medeni
Department of Management Information Systems,
Ankara Yildirim Beyazit Universitesi, Ankara, Turkey

Abstract
Purpose – The objective of this study is to assess quantitatively how feasible blockchain is for various
industries, such as logistics and supply chain, health, energy, finance, automotive, pharmaceutical and
agriculture and food using a comprehensive list of indicators.
Design/methodology/approach – A decision aid was applied to the problem of identifying the
feasibility of blockchain in Turkish industries. To this end, first, a set of indicators was identified. Then,
the fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS were utilized to assess the feasibility comparatively using the data
gathered from a group of experts. Finally, a scenario analysis was conducted to ensure the consistency of
our evaluation.
Findings – The findings of this study suggest that comparatively, logistics and supply chain, finance and health
industries are the most feasible industries for blockchain. This study further suggests that blockchain is the
least feasible for the automotive industry compared to the rest of the identified industries.
Research limitations/implications – It is cumbersome to find out the respondents who have sufficient
knowledge of both blockchain and the identified industries. Even if we took the utmost care in identifying the
right respondents, we limited our search to the biggest industrial hubs of Turkey.
Practical implications – The findings of this research may help various decision-makers employed in
governments, conglomerates, software and consulting firms and national research institutions make more
informed decisions and allocate their resources more effectively.
Originality/value – To this date, the current studies have solely investigated possible research opportunities
in blockchain and demonstrated several blockchain applications in stand-alone cases. To the best of our
knowledge, however, no single study exists that evaluates the feasibility of blockchain comparatively and
holistically among a group of industries using various indicators.
Keywords Blockchain, Industries, Blockchain feasibility assessment, Decision aid
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Blockchain is emerging as a new disruptive and evolving information technology (Sikorski
et al., 2017; Risius and Spohrer, 2017; Barker et al., 2020) with a wide range of potential
applications in industries and supply chains (Beck and M€ uller-Bloch, 2017; Morkunas et al., Journal of Enterprise Information
Management
2019). Using blockchain, stakeholders can reach a consensus on how a transaction can take © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0398
place without entailing any authority (Li et al. 2018). Furthermore, blockchain is able to DOI 10.1108/JEIM-09-2019-0309
JEIM remove or reduce the need for middlemen and allows data to be transferred to users in a more
reliable way (Morabito, 2017; Bogart and Rice, 2015).
Perboli et al. (2018) argue that blockchain is a disruptive innovation because of its
decentralized and distributed infrastructure and removes the disadvantages of centralized
systems. They also argue that centralized systems are open to failure since a single point of
failure can lead to a total collapse of the system. Blockchain is also disruptive as it may be
able to change many existing business models and create new ones with severe impacts on
entire industries (Nofer et al., 2017). In other words, stakeholders like inventors, designers,
entrepreneurs and technology enthusiasts assert blockchain has the potential to
re-engineer the current financial, legislative, governmental and societal landscape
(Barker et al., 2020).
The emerging applications of blockchain technology in logistics and supply chain,
finance, agriculture and food, pharmaceutical, health and energy industries (Wang et al.,
2019b; DHL, 2018; Treiblemaier, 2018; Garcia-Torres et al., 2019; Harris and Wonglimpiyarat,
2019; Brilliantova and Thurner, 2019; B€ urer et al., 2019; Hasselgrena et al., 2020) have been
possible in part because of its intrinsic flexibility that results from the fact that blockchain is a
platform that can be programmed to address a variety of needs.
However, despite being a buzzword of the day, Risius and Spohrer (2017) and Lo et al.
(2017) state that our understanding of where and how blockchain technology can be used
effectively and where it can have significant practical effects is very limited. Industries,
supply chains and businesses are still contemplating the ways in which it can be used and
merged (Crosby et al., 2016; Morkunas et al., 2019; Longo et al., 2019; Casino et al., 2019).
Furthermore, Carson et al. (2018) note that the investigation of blockchain solutions indicates
that some industries have been struggling with putting blockchain to work and thus may not
see a return on their investments in the technology. With these in mind, we suggest that: (1)
despite the fact that many use cases have already been designed to exploit its great potentials,
applying blockchain technology may not necessarily be a feasible solution for certain
industries, and (2) some industries may be more blockchain-friendly than others. To this date,
however, the current state of the art has solely explored possible research opportunities in
blockchain and displayed some blockchain applications in stand-alone cases. To the best of
our knowledge, no single study exists that systematically and holistically evaluates the
feasibility and suitability of blockchain in a comparative sense among a group of industries
using various technical, regulatory, financial and organizational indicators, which is
multicriteria in nature. Such research is needed and can help overcome some of the existing
gaps (Risius and Spohrer, 2017). Therefore, our research challenge is identified as examining
and assessing the feasibility of using blockchain in a number of industries in Turkey
comparatively in terms of both technical and nontechnical dimensions using a multicriteria
decision aid. Moreover, the findings of this study can help various decision-makers to make
more informed decisions when they decide about the use of blockchain technology in their
businesses. We will provide an in-depth discussion in Section 6 about the managerial
implications of this study.
While it is important to note that blockchain feasibility study can be done at different
levels such as industry, supply chain and business, this study solely focuses on the
industry level. The rest of this paper is organized as follows: section two provides a short
overview of blockchain technology. Section three displays some remarks on indicators and
discusses how the proposed indicator set is identified. Section four provides a decision aid,
including the stages, such as indicator and industry selection, data collection and
multicriteria based blockchain feasibility assessment. Then, in section five, an application
and the main findings are discussed. Finally, discussions, implications, concluding
remarks, limitations and some research opportunities are provided in Sections six and
seven, respectively.
2. Blockchain technology: an overview Assessing
Blockchain enables absolute transparent distributed digital events within a diverse network. blockchain
Zamani and Giaglis (2018) state that each digital event in the public ledger must be verified by
the consensus of more than half of those in the network. Thus, no participant can manipulate
technology
any data within a blockchain without the confirmation of others. feasibility
Having recently gained strong attention in several business practices and governmental
operations (Gupta, 2017), blockchain is an encrypted distributed ledger, essentially a
distributed database of records that are shared among participants (Wright and De Filippi,
2015; Faber and Jonker, 2019). Due to this feature, blockchain technology is often referred to
as decentralized. That is to say that it protects the data from interfering not just by users of
the blockchain, but also external interventions (Engelhardt, 2017).
Blockchain technology also yields smart contracts that are defined as computer protocols
that are not dependent on any governmental institution. They are designated as self-
compelling digital contracts. Putting it differently, they do not require any form of regulation
or human involvement. Engelhardt (2017) states that smart contracts are not an essential
characteristic of every blockchain but are used heavily in the complex world of blockchain.
Based on openness and access to data, there are two types of blockchain: public or private.
A public blockchain is usually permissionless in which ledgers are publicly available, and
anyone can record transactions and track transactions on the ledgers. Cryptocurrencies, such
as Bitcoin and Ether, were built on public blockchains. Public blockchains entail a high level
of security and reliability due to the existence of anonymous users and the lack of trust
among them (Zheng et al., 2017, Coinmonks, 2018). In private or permissioned blockchain,
users are known, and ledgers are shared among a private group of participants. The main
feature of private or permissioned blockchain is that a specified group of participants has the
sole access. Joining a private blockchain is possible only by a validator who provides
permission to the ledgers and maintains the privacy needs of the network (Sulkowski, 2018).
Tang et al. (2019) evaluate thirty public blockchains in terms of three first-level indicators as
technology, recognition and activity using entropy and TOPSIS.
In a nutshell, Morabito (2017) concludes that blockchain technology is a data store that is
characterized by the followings: (1) it exists within a decentralized network, (2) particular
users can write it, (3) specified participants can read it, (4) digital signatures and
cryptography are used to verify participants and implement access rights, (5) due to its
features, it is very difficult to alter old transactions, (6) it facilitates users to notice any attempt
to change old records, (7) it involves financial transactions, and (8) it is reproduced in a real-
time manner over various systems on the network.
In recent years, a growing body of literature has investigated and presented the possible
research directions, issues, challenges and applications of blockchain in logistics and supply
chain, finance, agriculture and food, pharmaceutical, health and energy industries
(McKinsey, 2015; Oh and Shong, 2017; Dobrovnik et al., 2018; Morabito, 2017; Wu and
Tran, 2018; White, 2017; Engelhardt, 2017; Radanovic and Likic, 2018; Queiroz et al., 2019;
Wang et al., 2019a; DHL, 2018; Treiblemaier, 2018; Garcia-Torres et al., 2019; Harris and
Wonglimpiyarat, 2019; Brilliantova and Thurner, 2019; B€ urer et al., 2019; Grover et al., 2019;
Yang, 2019; Bhabendu et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019b; Gurtu and Johny, 2019; Helo and Hao,
2019; Janssen et al., 2020; Barker et al., 2020, McGhin et al., 2019).
Furthermore, there are few empirical studies available on the blockchain. For example,
Kamble et al. (2019) examined blockchain adoption in various supply chains. They used a
questionnaire survey completed by 181 supply chain practitioners, aiming to understand
what factors influence the adoption of blockchain technology. Queiroz and Wamba (2019)
also conduct an empirical research to demonstrate the drivers of blockchain adoption in
supply chains. They proposed several research hypotheses and tested them against the data
gathered from the USA and India. In another study, Sheel and Nath (2019) examined how
JEIM blockchain can improve supply chain agility, adaptability and alignment. To do so, they
gathered data from 397 supply chain practitioners in India and found that the blockchain can
improve supply chain performance in terms of agility, adaptability and alignment. Wang
et al. (2019b) also explored how blockchain streamlines supply chains. They performed
interviews with fourteen supply chain experts and concluded that blockchain improves
supply chains by building trust, transparency, authenticity and security. In their multicriteria
based study, Biswas and Gupta (2019) developed a framework for investigating barriers to
the successful adoption and implementation of blockchain across different industries and
services using DEMATEL technique.
As to the in-depth analyses of the case studies, van Hoek (2020) conducted three cases in
companies of logistics services, consumer products and retail located in Europe and the USA
to explore facts experienced by early adopters of blockchain in the supply chain. Given the
insights from early adopters in industry, the author provides insights for the rational
implementations of blockchain in the supply. Zelbst et al. (2020) aim to evaluate the impact of
RFID, IoT and Blockchain technologies on supply chain transparency. Data gathered from
211 US managers in manufacturing industries are used on a covariance-based structural
equation modeling methodology. The authors developed several hypotheses and tested them
using the statistical model. Based on their results, RFID directly and positively impacts both
IoT and Blockchain technologies, which, in turn, directly and positively impact supply chain
transparency. RFID technology indirectly affects SCT through both IoT and blockchain.
Finally, Pan et al. (2020) aimed at evaluating the impact of blockchain on the operational
capabilities of the companies. To achieve that, the authors gathered data from 50 enterprises
in China and quantitatively analyzed the impact of blockchain on company operational
capabilities. Their findings concluded that the asset scale is an important, compelling aspect
for implementing blockchain technology.
Given the findings of the current state of the art, it is argued that, despite the intense
publicity, blockchain is in the early phases, and there is no exact formula for positive results
yet (Carson, et al., 2018; Longo et al., 2019). Put it differently, incorporating blockchain into the
varied industries is a difficult task because industries that seek to use blockchain face various
problems. Further, many industries will not see a return on their investments unless the
feasibility of blockchain implementations are assessed systematically (Carson, et al., 2018).
With these points in mind, the main research question of this study is whether (or not)
blockchain is comparatively more feasible for certain industries, which, in turn, justifies
major investments.
In the next section, indicators are discussed to evaluate the feasibility of blockchain in
industries.

3. Identifying indicators to assess blockchain feasibility

For conducting a feasibility assessment for blockchain applications in different industries, a
list of useful feasibility indicators must be developed. High-quality feasibility indicators
should enable decision-makers to make informed decisions when developing business
information technology strategies (McGlade, 2007). Moldan and Dahl (2007) suggest that the
quality of an indicator can be assessed through six aspects: underlying data, suitability,
measurability, representation of the case in hand, accuracy and communicability to
stakeholders. However, developing a full list of indicators that can cover all of these
attributes may not always be possible, and therefore, a more practical list is often created. In
developing such a list for blockchain feasibility assessment, the key task is to determine
whether or not this technology is technically, strategically and financially viable and if it
yields some qualitative and quantitative value-added for a particular industry. By using these
basic principles and existing literature, a comprehensive list of indicators was developed, as
shown in Table 1.
Indicator Title Description References
Assessing
blockchain
Existence of regulations Do the required regulations exist so as to Bogart and Rice (2015), Swan technology
pave the way for blockchain? (2015), Prasad et al. (2018)
Level of technologic Does a particular industry have a mature Carson et al. (2018), Bogart and Rice feasibility
maturity technology in general to implement (2015), Prasad et al. (2018)
blockchain?
Proportion of digitized What is the digitization potential of the Carson et al. (2018)
assets asset?
Richness of ecosystem What is the potential of building a rich Ruutu et al. (2017), Carson et al.
blockchain ecosystem in a particular (2018)
industry?
Blockhain’s potential to Is it possible to get a significant growth rate Carson et al. (2018), Sharda et al.
increase revenue increase in revenue by using blockchain? (2014), Ucakturk and Villard (2013)
Blockhain’s potential to Is it possible to get a significant decrease in Prasad et al. (2018), Carson et al.
reduce cost operational and administrative costs by (2018), Sharda et al. (2014),
using blockchain? Ucakturk and Villard (2013)
The need for Enhanced Is there a need for enhanced security and Marutitech Labs (2018), Ucakturk
security and data data integrity in a particular industry? and Villard (2013)
integrity
The need for building Does a particular industry need to build Marutitech Labs (2018), Ucakturk
trust trust? and Villard (2013), Carson et al.
(2018), Longo et al. (2019)
Blockhain’s potential to Is it possible for blockchain to increase the Morabito (2017)
increased transaction speed of transactions in a particular
speed industry?
The need for Improved Is there a need for improved visibility in the Ucakturk and Villard (2013),
visibility industry? (If there is a change in a Sharda et al. (2014), Marutitech
transaction, everyone in the network should Labs (2018)
be able to see the change and the updated
record)
The need for Enhanced Is there a need for improved audibility in the Morabito (2017), Marutitech Labs
audibility industry? (As each transaction is recorded (2018), Ucakturk and Villard (2013)
for its complete lifetime in blockchain, there
is an audit trail that already exists for you to
see and check the authenticity of your asset)
Blockhain’s potential to Is it possible to get a significant increase in Morabito (2017), Marutitech Labs
improve efficiency efficiency of the industry by using (2018) Ucakturk and Villard (2013)
blockchain? (Blockchain may build a
system that reduces the number of
mistakes. Thus, it may make a system more
efficient and faster)
The need for reduced Is fraud a big problem for a certain Holotiuk et al. (2019), Tasca (2019)
fraud industry?
Blockhain’s potential to Is it possible for blockchain implementation Pinto (2018), Dunn (2019)
yield high ROI to yield high ROI in a certain industry? Table 1.
The need for improved Does a particular industry need improved Marutitech Labs (2018), Ucakturk Indicator framework
traceability traceability? and Villard (2013), Carson et al. for blockchain
(2018) feasibility

These indicators can be divided into two groups. One group of indicators assesses the
potential of blockchain applications in enhancing business and financial performances.
For instance, it is crucial to “specifically” evaluate the blockhain’s potential to provide
high return on investment (ROI) and improve efficiency in an industry. The second
group, however, explores whether blockchain technology can be used to address specific
issues such as trust, fraud, visibility, traceability and so on. For example, it may be vital
JEIM for some industries to have a technology that can assist them in preventing fraud in their
businesses. In another example, it may be more significant for some industries to have
improved visibility and traceability in their supply chain operations compared to those of
other industries. The main focus of these types of indicators is, therefore, to address such
needs. In these cases, blockchain may be said to be just an alternative among many
others.

4. A decision model for blockchain feasibility

The decision model to assess the feasibility of blockchain in various industries is displayed in
Figure 1.
In this study, an MCDM method combining AHP and TOPSIS has been used. MCDM
methods are mostly used when vagueness exists in assessing the relative importance of
criteria and the performance ratings of alternatives. Vagueness may arise from a variety of
information properties such as unquantifiability, unobtainability and incompleteness
(Gumus, 2009). However, because conventional MCDM methods cannot effectively handle
these issues, fuzzy methods have been introduced. They basically attempt to select, prioritize
or rank a finite number of courses of action by evaluating a group of predetermined criteria
(Kahraman et al., 2007; Gumus, 2009; Mızrak et al., 2014). In other words, the relative weights
and alternative values are characterized by fuzzy values (Torfi et al., 2010). Therefore, given
the vagueness of the data used in this study, we employ fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS.
The following sections discuss the stages of the decision model.

4.1 Constructing the blockchain feasibility indicators

In this study, an indicator set identified in Section 3 was employed. This set is displayed in
Table 2 with their denotations.

4.2 Determining the industries to evaluate

The proposed feasibility assessment was carried out on a selected list of industries (Table 3).
This list includes both manufacturing and service sectors, each of which has high growth
potential in Turkey. We, however, did not include the public sector in this assessment, mainly
because of its intrinsic complexities. Furthermore, due to privacy issues, the state-owned
defense industry was not investigated in this study either.

Constructing the Blockchain Feasibility Indicators

(Literature Review)

Determining the Industries to Evaluate

(Literature Review)

Data Collection
Ex ert Grou )

Calculating the Weights of the Feasibility Indicators

(Fuzzy AHP)

Figure 1.
Blockchain Feasibility Ranking of the Industries
The decision model
(Fuzzy TOPSIS)
Feasibility indicators (FIn) Denotation
Assessing
blockchain
Level of technologic maturity FI1 technology
Proportion of the digitized assets FI2
Richness of ecosystem FI3 feasibility
Existence of regulations FI4
The need for building trust FI5
Blockhain’s potential to yield high ROI FI6
Blockhain’s potential to increase revenue FI7
Blockhain’s potential to reduce cost FI8
The need for enhanced security and data integrity FI9
The need for improved traceability FI10
Blockhain’s potential to improve transaction speed FI11
The need for enhanced audibility FI12
Blockhain’s potential to improve efficiency FI13 Table 2.
The need for improved visibility FI14 Blockchain feasibility
The need for reduced fraud FI15 indicators

Industries (INn) Denotation

Logistics and supply chain IN1

Food and agriculture IN2
Energy IN3
Finance IN4
Healthcare IN5 Table 3.
Automotive IN6 List of industries to
Pharmaceutical IN7 evaluate

4.3 Data collection

Data was collected using a questionnaire distributed to a group of scholars and experts. The
survey questions were developed based on the feasibility indicators proposed in Table 2 and
consisted of three parts. In parts one and two, the respondents were asked to evaluate the
feasibility and the possible future impacts of blockchain applications in each of the listed
industries based on the proposed feasibility indicators, respectively. In part three, a set of
questions about the importance of each indicator to calculate their weights was also asked.
Questions in part one and two consisted of seven-point Likert scale questions with scales
ranging from 1 to 7, where 1 indicated “least feasible” or “least impact” and 7 indicated “most
feasible” or “greatest impact.”
Since blockchain is a new technology, it is important to select respondents who have
sufficient knowledge and experience with the technology to answer the questionnaire.
Moreover, respondents should have theoretical and practical knowledge of selected
industries. By considering these two aspects, in this study, experts are defined as a group
of respondents, including researchers, decision-makers and (or) practitioners who have
sufficient knowledge, research and hands-on experience with respect to both blockchain and
selected industries.
To find respondents who met the above criteria, we used a purposive sampling
improved by snowball recruitment. We started with an Internet search for experts who
have the knowledge and experience with both blockchain and the identified industries in
_
the most industrialized cities of Turkey, including Istanbul, _
Izmir and Ankara. During this
search process, we realized that although there are many researchers who have been doing
JEIM research on the blockchain, many of them are not familiar enough with the selected
industries. After two months of Internet search, telephone calls and face-to-face meetings
with potential respondents, 25 people were found to establish a heterogeneous composition
and meet our criteria. Our respondents pool for the survey included the governmental
decision-makers (nine), academicians (six) and software companies’ managers (ten) who
published scientific papers on the blockchain, did research on the industries, had hands-on
experience in blockchain and the industries, or previously led a blockchain project about
the industries. Finally, we were able to conduct the survey with 15 participants: five senior
managers out of ten software companies with the experience in the blockchain projects in
the identified industries, five government officers out of nine employed in the Ministries of
Commerce and Industry and Technology in the Turkish government and responsible for
industrial projects with respect to information technologies in the industries, and all of five
faculty members at various departments who have done studies on both blockchain and the
industries.
4.4 Level by level approach to MCDM process
The decision model displayed in Figure 1 depicts our MCDM process overall. To develop the
proposed MCDM, we implemented a level-by-level approach by integrating Fuzzy AHP and
Fuzzy Topsis procedures, which includes two main steps. In Step I, Fuzzy AHP is used, which
is aimed at calculating the importance weights of the feasibility indicators. Note that the
calculations of this step are based on experts’ judgments. As for Step II, Fuzzy TOPSIS is
employed to evaluate the selected industries’ feasibility levels for blockchain. In other words,
the results of this step indicate the preference orders of the industries. Ten levels of this
methodology are presented in Figure 2.
4.4.1 Calculating the weights of the feasibility indicators using fuzzy AHP. The AHP is a
methodology that makes assessments of both tangible and intangible criteria based on the
intuition of authorities and on existing measurements. It has been frequently used to solve
multiobjective and multicriteria problems because there are various decisions that entail
considering multiple objectives and criteria (Saaty, 2005).
For coping with the vagueness in human judgments, in this study, the Fuzzy AHP
method was used to determine the weights of criteria (Percin, 2008; Mızrak et al., 2014;
Srisawat and Kiatcharoenpol, 2018). Since the fuzzy AHP approach adequately handles the
uncertainty of the human preferences, it is more desirable and helpful for evaluation
(Buyukozkan et al., 2011). The advantages of using Fuzzy AHP are its: (1) ability to
mathematically formulate and represent uncertainty and vagueness, (2) ability to utilize
formalized tools for dealing with the imprecision intrinsic in many decision problems, (3)
flexibility and robustness needed for the decision maker to understand the decision
problem, (4) ability to be used in real-life situations for making effective decisions (Chan and
Kumar, 2007).
The Fuzzy AHP was first developed by Buckley (1985) and makes the pairwise
comparison by geometric mean as follows (Tzeng et al., 2001; Lien and Chan, 2007):
Creating fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix: This matrix uses Saaty’s 1–9 scale,
which is described by Triangular Fuzzy numbers (On€ € ut et al., 2010). The matrix is shown
in Table 4.
(1) Determining the weights: The aggregation of all experts’ judgments is calculated by
using Eq. (1).
Xn
1X n
1X n
~¼1
A ail ; aim ; ai Þ (1)
n i¼1 n i¼1 n i¼1 u
 Level 1: Creating the fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix Assessing
blockchain
technology
Level 2: Aggregating all experts’ judgments
feasibility

Level 3: Computing the eigenvalue and eigenvector Step I: Fuzzy AHP

Level 4: Performing the consistency test

Level 5: Calculating the weights of the feasibility indicators

Level 6: Constructing the fuzzy decision matrix using the

weights calculated by Fuzzy AHP

Level 7: Determining the positive and negative ideal

solution
Step II: Fuzzy TOPSIS

Level 8: Computing the distances of each alternative

Level 9: Ranking the preference order of the industries Figure 2.

Step by step approach
to handling fuzzy AHP
and fuzzy TOPSIS
Level 10: Checking the robustness of the model processes

Linguistic scale for Fuzzy numbers for Triangular fuzzy scale Triangular fuzzy reciprocal
importance FAHP (l, m, u) scale (l, m, u)

Equal importance 1 (1, 1, 1) (1/1, 1/1, 1/1)

Weak importance 3 (1, 3, 5) (1/5, 1/3, 1/1)
Strong importance 5 (3, 5, 7) (1/7, 1/5, 1/3) Table 4.
Very strong importance 7 (5, 7, 9) (1/9, 1/7, 1/5) Triangular fuzzy
Extremely preferred 9 (7, 9, 9) (1/9, 1/9, 1/7) conversion scale

Then, the geometric mean value is defined by Eq. (2)

!m1
Ym
ri ¼ e
Ai (2)
j¼1

and the fuzzy weight of Ith criterion is determined by Eq. (3)

 −1
wei ¼ rei x re1 þ re2 þ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . þ ren (3)
JEIM (1) Defuzzification Process: In this section, it is necessary to determine the nonfuzzy
values of criteria by defuzzification. In this study, the Center of Area (COA) method is
used to calculate the exact values by Eq. (4).
 i   
au  ail þ aim  ail
W ¼ þ ail (4)
3
In the following step, the Consistency Ratio (CR) is calculated in order to validate the results of
the method by Eq. (5). CR should be less than 0.10. Otherwise, all comparisons should be
revised.
CI ðƛmax  nÞ
CR ¼ where CI ¼ (5)
RI ðn  1Þ

4.4.2 Blockchain feasibility ranking of the industries using fuzzy TOPSIS. The TOPSIS method
was first developed by Hwang and Yoon (1981). Its basic concept is that the chosen
alternative should have the shortest distance from the ideal solution and the farthest from the
negative ideal solution. In short, the ideal solution is composed of all the best criteria, whereas
the negative ideal solution involves all the worst attainable criteria.
In this research, due to the vagueness in human judgments, fuzzy TOPSIS is employed to
rank the alternatives using fuzzy numbers (Sanchez-Lozano et al., 2015). This method is
suitable for solving group decision-making problems under fuzzy environments and
overcomes the gaps in the alternatives between real performance values and aspired levels of
each criterion to identify the best alternative (Chou et al., 2019).
The steps of the algorithm are demonstrated as follows (Shahanaghi and Yazdian, 2009;
Torfi et al., 2010):
~j
(1) Construct the fuzzy decision matrix: ~zij (i 5 1, 2, . . .. . .. . .., m; j 5 1, 2, . . .. . .. . ., n) w
(j 5 1, 2, . . .. . .., n) are linguistic fuzzy triangular numbers. ~zij ¼ ðaij ; bij ; cij Þ and
~ j ¼ ðaj1 ; bj2 ; cj3 Þ is the performance rating of alternative Ai. with respect to criterion
w
~ j represents the weight of criterion Cj. Thus, the fuzzy decision matrix D
Cj. w ~ is
determined as Eq. (6).
2 3
zf f
11 z 12    zf
1n
~ ¼6 4 ..
. .. 7w
D 1 . 5 e ¼ ½~ ~ 2; . . . . . . . . . ; w
w1 ; w ~n (6)
zf
m1 zf
m2    zf
mn

(2) Construct the weighted fuzzy decision matrix: D ~ and we values are used to obtain this
matrix as Eq. (7).
2 3
e 1 zf
w 11 w e 1 zf
12  w ~ 1 zf
1n
~v ¼ 6
4
....
.. 1
.. 7
. 5
~ n zf
w ~ n zf
m1 w m2  ~ n zf
w mn

(3) Determine the Fuzzy Positive Ideal Solution (FPIS) and Fuzzy Negative Ideal Solution
(FNIS): The following Eq. (7) and Eq. (8) are used to determine FPIS (Aþ) and FNIS
(A).
 nn  o
A ¼ vg
þ þ e þ eþ ¼
1 ; v2 ; . . . . . . ::; vn maxi veij ji ¼ 1; 2; . . . . . . :; m ; j

¼ 1; 2; . . . ::; nÞg (7)

 n o nn  o
A− ¼ vg
− e−
1 ; v2 ; . . . . . . ::; ven
− ¼ mini veij ji ¼ 1; 2; . . . . . . :; m ; j Assessing
blockchain
¼ 1; 2; . . . ::; nÞg (8) technology
feasibility
Where veþ e−
j ¼ ð1; 1; 1Þ and vj ¼ ð0; 0; 0Þ; ð j ¼ 1; 2; . . . . . . . . . ; nÞ

(4) Calculate the distance of each alternative from Aþ and A-: diþ (distance from Aþ) and
di− (distance from A) are calculated by Eq. (9) and Eq. (10) respectively.
X n
diþ ¼ vij; veþ
d f j ; ði ¼ 1; 2; . . . . . . ::; mÞ and ð j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ::; nÞ (9)
j¼1

X
n  
di− ¼ vij; ve−j ; ði ¼ 1; 2; . . . . . . ::; mÞ and ð j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ::; nÞ
d f (10)
j¼1

(5) Calculate the relative closeness to the ideal solution: Closeness Coefficient (CCi* Þ of
alternative Ai to the ideal solution is obtained by Eq. (11).
d−
CCi* ¼  − i þ  where ði ¼ 1; 2; . . . . . . :; mÞ (11)
di þ di

Given Eq. (11) the alternative with the highest CCi* value turns out to be the most preferred.

5. Application and results

In this section, the decision aid and level-by-level approach displayed in Figures 1 and 2,
respectively, were applied. To this end, first, the fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix for the
indicators was formed by linguistic terms, as shown in Table 4. Then, the fuzzy weights of
criteria were computed by using Eqs. (1)–(5) as displayed in Table 5 and Table 6, respectively.
Based on Table 6, “The need for improved traceability,” “The need for reduced fraud” and
“The need for improved visibility” are the most important indicators with the weights of 0.122,
0.119 and 0.110, respectively as “Existence of Regulations” turns out to be the least important
indicator with the weight of 0.022.
Once the weights of the indicators have been calculated using Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy TOPSIS
was applied to evaluate the feasibility of industries for blockchain projects by using fuzzy
numbers. Based on Eqs. (6)–(11), the Fuzzy TOPSIS decision matrix and Closeness
Coefficients (CC*) of criteria were calculated in Table 7 and Table 8, respectively.
Based on Table 8, in terms of the proposed indicators, the most feasible industry is
Logistics and Supply Cain, with the CC value 0.70. Finance is ranked second with the CC value
of 0.68. Then, the third is Healthcare, with the CC value of 0.67. Food and Agriculture followed
them with a CC value of 0.56. Finally, Pharmaceutical, Energy and Automotive industries are
ranked fifth, sixth and seventh with the CC values of 0.55, 0.41 and 0.18, respectively.

5.1 Scenario analysis

In this study, the scenario analysis was also used to evaluate the stability of the results and
reflect the robustness of the model. Scenario analysis reveals the impact of changing the
importance weights of the feasibility indicators on the evaluation process and ranking of
industries. The results of the analysis are given in both Table 9 and Figure 3. The scenario
analysis was carried out by replacing the importance weights of the first feasibility indicator
(FI1) with the other feasibility indicators, respectively. For example, instead of using the
 JEIM

Table 5.
Fuzzy pairwise
comparison matrix
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
l m u l m u l m u l m u l m u

C1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.20 1.55 1.02 1.40 1.95 1.00 1.29 1.64 0.49 0.58 0.72
C2 0.64 1.32 2.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.98 1.32 0.97 1.14 1.37 0.31 0.40 0.53
C3 0.51 0.71 0.98 0.76 1.02 1.35 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.15 1.55 0.68 1.22 1.75
C4 0.61 0.78 1.00 0.76 0.90 1.06 0.64 0.87 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 0.66 0.84
C5 1.61 2.06 2.70 1.89 2.51 3.25 2.54 3.27 4.32 2.99 3.59 4.17 1.00 1.00 1.00
C6 2.35 3.09 3.73 2.05 2.40 2.72 1.74 2.19 2.83 3.10 4.13 5.14 0.38 0.44 0.53
C7 2.49 3.23 3.87 2.35 2.69 2.99 1.89 2.34 2.99 2.93 4.07 5.14 0.40 0.46 0.56
C8 2.30 3.02 3.65 2.17 2.51 2.83 2.17 2.51 2.83 2.70 3.81 4.86 0.40 0.46 0.56
C9 2.17 2.51 2.83 1.91 2.48 3.10 1.84 2.37 2.93 2.25 2.81 3.44 0.94 1.22 1.50
C10 2.76 3.39 3.99 1.84 2.37 2.93 1.91 2.48 3.10 4.22 5.25 6.27 1.00 1.15 1.25
C11 0.76 0.89 1.08 0.82 0.99 1.20 1.43 1.70 1.97 1.74 2.27 2.83 0.32 0.40 0.51
C12 1.89 2.26 2.70 2.17 2.78 3.52 3.57 4.62 5.65 3.20 3.81 4.38 1.00 1.15 1.25
C13 1.74 2.19 2.55 1.64 2.02 2.46 1.57 1.90 2.27 1.96 2.51 3.13 0.42 0.49 0.61
C14 2.70 3.33 4.10 2.40 3.16 4.22 1.64 2.14 2.64 2.86 3.50 4.10 1.15 1.25 1.32
C15 2.70 3.33 4.10 1.89 2.54 3.20 3.37 4.55 5.65 3.47 4.07 4.64 1.32 1.38 1.43

C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
l m u l m u l m u l m u l m u

C1 0.27 0.32 0.43 0.26 0.31 0.40 0.27 0.33 0.44 0.35 0.40 0.46 0.25 0.29 0.36
C2 0.37 0.42 0.49 0.33 0.37 0.43 0.35 0.40 0.46 0.35 0.45 0.60 0.34 0.42 0.54
C3 0.35 0.46 0.57 0.43 0.56 0.71 0.35 0.40 0.46 0.34 0.42 0.54 0.32 0.40 0.52
C4 0.19 0.24 0.32 0.19 0.25 0.34 0.21 0.26 0.37 0.29 0.36 0.44 0.16 0.19 0.24
C5 1.89 2.27 2.61 1.78 2.17 2.51 1.78 2.17 2.51 0.67 0.82 1.06 0.80 0.87 1.00
C6 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.87 1.00 0.76 0.92 1.08 0.46 0.56 0.70 0.38 0.44 0.53
C7 1.00 1.15 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.15 0.32 0.39 0.53 0.28 0.34 0.44
C8 0.92 1.08 1.32 0.87 1.00 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 0.53 0.70 0.29 0.35 0.53
C9 1.43 1.78 2.16 1.89 2.55 3.17 1.43 1.89 2.27 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.15 1.58
C10 1.89 2.29 2.64 1.82 2.22 2.57 1.74 2.14 2.49 0.63 0.87 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00
C11 0.76 0.96 1.20 0.66 0.88 1.13 0.66 0.88 1.13 0.40 0.54 0.72 0.17 0.21 0.27
C12 1.27 1.55 1.95 1.78 2.17 2.51 1.52 1.93 2.30 0.76 0.89 1.08 1.06 0.51 0.66
C13 0.70 0.87 1.15 0.76 0.80 0.87 0.76 0.80 0.87 0.44 0.55 0.70 0.17 0.20 0.26
C14 2.09 2.46 2.79 2.17 2.54 2.86 1.97 2.35 2.69 1.15 1.58 2.05 0.76 0.80 0.87
C15 1.74 2.12 2.57 1.72 2.09 2.54 1.64 2.02 2.46 1.22 1.55 1.89 0.70 0.83 0.94

(continued )
 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15
l m u l m u l m u l m u l m u

C1 0.92 1.12 1.32 0.30 0.39 0.53 0.39 0.46 0.57 0.24 0.30 0.37 0.24 0.30 0.37
C2 0.83 1.01 1.22 0.33 0.43 0.61 0.41 0.50 0.61 0.23 0.30 0.38 0.31 0.39 0.53
C3 0.51 0.59 0.70 0.18 0.22 0.28 0.44 0.53 0.64 0.17 0.20 0.26 0.29 0.35 0.43
C4 0.34 0.42 0.53 0.23 0.26 0.31 0.32 0.40 0.51 0.22 0.25 0.30 0.22 0.25 0.29
C5 1.96 2.51 3.13 0.80 0.87 1.00 1.64 2.05 2.40 0.76 0.80 0.87 0.70 0.72 0.76
C6 0.83 1.05 1.32 0.51 0.64 0.79 0.87 1.15 1.43 0.36 0.41 0.48 0.39 0.47 0.58
C7 0.88 1.13 1.52 0.40 0.46 0.56 1.15 1.25 1.32 0.35 0.39 0.46 0.39 0.48 0.58
C8 0.88 1.13 1.52 0.44 0.52 0.66 1.15 1.25 1.32 0.37 0.43 0.51 0.41 0.50 0.61
C9 2.30 2.95 3.57 0.92 1.12 1.32 1.43 1.82 2.27 0.49 0.63 0.87 0.53 0.64 0.82
C10 3.73 4.74 5.75 1.52 1.97 2.35 3.87 4.89 5.91 1.15 1.25 1.32 1.06 1.20 1.43
C11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 0.22 0.28 0.51 0.55 0.61 0.21 0.26 0.37 0.17 0.20 0.25
C12 3.57 4.62 5.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.12 2.69 3.31 0.76 0.80 0.87 1.00 1.11 1.25
C13 1.64 1.82 1.97 0.30 0.37 0.47 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.35 0.45 0.64 0.17 0.20 0.26
C14 2.49 3.59 4.64 1.15 1.25 1.32 1.57 2.21 2.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.89 1.08
C15 3.95 4.96 5.97 0.80 0.90 1.00 3.87 4.89 5.91 0.92 1.12 1.32 1.00 1.00 1.00
technology
Assessing

feasibility
blockchain

Table 5.
JEIM Feasibility indicators Weights (buckley defuzzification)

FI1 Level of technologic maturity 0.032

FI2 Proportion of digitized assets 0.031
FI3 Richness of ecosystem 0.027
FI4 Existence of regulations 0.022
FI5 The need for building trust 0.090
FI6 Blockhain’s potential to yield high ROI 0.057
FI7 Blockhain’s potential to increase revenue 0.058
FI8 Blockhain’s potential to reduce cost 0.059
FI9 The need for Enhanced security and data integrity 0.091
FI10 The need for improved traceability 0.122
FI11 Blockhain’s potential to improve transaction speeds 0.035
FI12 The need for enhanced audibility 0.099
Table 6. FI13 Blockhain’s potential to improve efficiency 0.047
Weights of the FI14 The need for improved visibility 0.110
feasibility indicators FI15 The need for reduced fraud 0.119

FI1 FI2 FI3 FI4 FI5

l m u l m u l m u l m U l m u

IN1 3 4 6 3 4 6 6 8 9 4 4 6 6 8 9
IN2 2 3 6 2 5 7 3 6 8 3 4 7 6 8 9
IN3 4 6 8 5 7 9 6 8 9 3 4 6 5 7 9
IN4 7 9 10 8 9 10 7 9 10 3 4 6 6 8 10
IN5 6 8 9 5 7 9 5 7 8 2 3 5 6 8 9
IN6 4 6 8 5 7 9 5 7 9 4 4 6 4 6 8
IN7 4 7 9 5 5 8 5 7 9 2 3 5 5 7 9

FI6 FI7 FI8 FI9 FI10

l m u l m u l m u l m U l m u

IN1 5 7 9 4 7 8 7 6 8 6 8 9 8 10 10
IN2 4 6 8 3 5 7 7 6 8 6 8 9 8 9 10
IN3 6 8 9 5 7 9 4 5 7 5 7 8 5 7 9
IN4 5 7 9 4 6 8 5 5 8 7 9 10 6 8 9
IN5 4 6 8 3 5 7 5 6 8 7 8 10 8 9 10
IN6 4 6 8 3 5 7 4 5 7 5 7 9 5 7 9
IN7 4 6 8 3 5 7 5 6 8 6 8 9 7 9 10

FI11 FI12 FI13 FI14 FI15

l m u l m u l m u l m u l m u

IN1 6 8 9 7 8 10 6 8 9 7 9 10 7 9 10
IN2 5 7 9 7 9 10 6 8 9 7 9 10 7 9 10
IN3 4 6 8 7 8 10 6 8 10 5 7 9 5 7 9
IN4 6 6 8 8 9 10 5 8 9 7 9 10 5 8 9
Table 7. IN5 4 6 8 8 9 10 6 8 10 7 9 10 7 9 10
The fuzzy TOPSIS IN6 5 7 9 6 8 9 5 7 9 4 7 8 5 7 9
decision matrix IN7 5 7 9 8 9 10 6 8 10 7 9 10 6 8 10

original importance weights displayed in Table 6, in the scenario analysis, FI1 was presumed
to take 0.031 as FI2 was assumed to be equal to 0.032. In another example, FI1 was assumed to
take 0.027, while FI3 was made equal to 0.032. This process was repeated for all remaining
indicators. Given in Table 9 and Figure 3, it can be concluded that the ranking of the Assessing
alternatives remains the same and stable for all scenarios, which implies that our decision blockchain
model is robust. In other words, even if CC* values of Fuzzy TOPSIS indicates certain changes
in values, logistics and supply chain, finance and health industries remain to be the most
technology
feasible industries for blockchain. feasibility

6. Discussion and implications

6.1 Discussion
The findings of this study suggest that logistics and supply chain, finance and healthcare
industries in Turkey turned out to be the most feasible alternatives compared to the rest of the
selected industries for blockchain projects in terms of the proposed financial, managerial and
technical indicators. However, we argue that no matter what our results indicate, it is
imperative that decision-makers should investigate the specific supply chain functions and
operations of these industries to which the blockchain can be applied.
This study further suggests that blockchain technology is the least favorable for the
automotive industry compared to the rest. However, this may not mean decision-makers
should not employ blockchain technologies in the automotive industry whatsoever. Rather,
given the data input gathered from the experts, one may conclude that automotive industry
may not have an urgent need for blockchain technology compared to other industries due to
some possible reasons as follows: (1) the industry may not have such urgent problems as
fraud, lack of visibility, auditability and traceability, implying its lesser need for blockchain
compared to the other industries, and (or) (2) the potential for blockchain to yield high ROI and
revenue in the industry’s supply chains may not be sufficient compared to the rest.
The findings of this study solely reveal the level of potential for blockchain applicability in
the selected industries comparatively in terms of the proposed indicators list. However, we
suggest that ranking number one in this study does not necessarily imply that blockchain
technologies must and can be applied to each supply chain operation or procedure in that
industry. Accordingly, ranking last in the list displayed in Table 8 does not necessarily
indicate that you cannot employ blockchain at all in any supply chain operation of that
industry. Rather, we argue that those industries and their operations, no matter what the
ranking indicates, must be comprehensively evaluated to find out if they are feasible for
blockchain applications.
The research to date has just tended to focus on demonstrating various applications,
empirical results, reviews and research opportunities on the blockchain. However, as pointed
out in the introduction section of this study, no research was found to systematically explore
the feasibility of blockchain applications in different industries. Nevertheless, we note that
the results of this study substantiate the legitimacy of certain applications and suggestions of
McKinsey (2015), Dobrovnik et al. (2018), DHL (2018), Morabito (2017), Wu and Tran (2018),
White (2017), Engelhardt (2017), Radanovic and Likic (2018), Sheel and Nath (2019), Azzi et al.

Industries CC* Ranking

IN1 (Logistics and supply chain) 0.70 1

IN2 (Food and agriculture) 0.56 4
IN3 (Energy) 0.41 6
IN4 (Finance) 0.68 2
IN5 (Healthcare) 0.67 3 Table 8.
IN6 (Automotive) 0.18 7 Blockchain feasibility
IN7 (Pharmaceutical) 0.55 5 ranking of the
Note(s): *denotes Closeness Coefficients industries
 JEIM

analysis
Table 9.
Results of the scenario
Alternatives FTOPSIS S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S 10 S 11 S 12 S 13 S 14

IN1 (Logistics and supply chain) 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.68 0.65 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.65 0.63 0.70 0.64 0.71 0.62 0.60
IN2 (Food and agriculture) 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.56 0.60 0.60 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.53 0.53
IN3 (Energy) 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.39 0.44 0.42 0.41 0.46 0.47 0.54 0.42 0.46 0.44 0.46 0.48
IN4 (Finance) 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.63 0.56 0.61 0.60 0.61 0.57 0.61 0.66 0.56 0.63 0.55 0.57
IN5 (Healthcare) 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.65 0.58 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.57 0.59 0.67 0.57 0.63 0.56 0.55
IN6 (Automotive) 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.34 0.29 0.30 0.29 0.33 0.45 0.20 0.36 0.27 0.36 0.37
IN7 (Pharmaceutical) 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.52 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.57 0.56 0.51 0.55 0.50 0.51
 0.80
0.70
Assessing
0.60 blockchain
0.50
0.40 technology
0.30
0.20
feasibility
0.10
0.00

IN1 (Logistics and Supply Chain) IN2 (Food and Agriculture)

IN3 (Energy) IN4 (Finance)

IN5 (Healthcare) IN6 (Automotive) Figure 3.

Scenario analysis

(2019), Longo et al. (2019), Grover et al. (2019) and Zelbst et al. (2020) to some extent, who
suggested that blockchain projects in logistics and supply chain, finance, pharmaceutical,
health care and energy may be more feasible in those industries’ selected operations and
functions in comparison to, for example, automotive industry. Second, in their study, Casino
et al. (2019) revealed that based on the need for visibility, audit and latency, finance seems to
the most suitable industry for blockchain implementations, which also corroborates the
findings of our study.
The findings of the current study are also consistent with the empirical and case studies of
Sheel and Nath (2019), van Hoek (2020) and Pan et al. (2020), who suggested in general that
supply chain and logistics functions of the companies should encourage their employees to
learn more about how blockchain can build trust and improve business processes. They also
concluded that the blockchain could be used in logistics as it can improve tracking and brings
transparency, which leads to an improved delivery cycle. Furthermore, Hasselgren et al.
(2020) and McGhin et al. (2019) argued that blockchain offers various opportunities for the
healthcare industry, and there is a selection of current tests and literature that underline
blockchain-enabled healthcare applications and a few specific software solutions. The fact
that blockchain offers various opportunities for healthcare again agrees with our findings
that conclude healthcare turns out to be one of the most suitable industries for blockchain.
Moreover, our findings conclude that the need for improved traceability is the most
important indicator based on the expert data, which implies that a decision for implementing
blockchain or similar technology is very much influenced by the need for traceability. This
finding corroborates the ideas of Garcia-Torres et al. (2019), who propose that traceability for
sustainability can provoke positive triple bottom line performance across the supply chain
level. The authors argue that traceability of sustainability integrates sophisticated processes
to achieve perpetual learning throughout the supply chain and contributes to sustainability
as it maintains economic, social and environmental value creation and risk management.
Zelbst et al. (2020) also argue that there are reasons to suppose RFID, IoT and Blockchain
affect supply chain transparency. However, this effect has not been comprehensively and
empirically examined. Based on their study, they revealed that RFID directly and positively
impacts both IoT and Blockchain technologies, which, in turn, directly and positively impact
supply chain transparency. RFID technology implicitly affects SCT through both IoT and
blockchain. Zelbst et al. (2020)’ s findings are also consistent with the fact that a possible
decision for an industry to implement blockchain is determined by whether it needs
traceability or not.
JEIM 6.2 Theoretical implications
We argue that the final rankings of the industries are more like creation than a discovery. As
noted by Roy (1996), the objective is not to reach a final optimum solution, but to build
something, which is suited to support a decision-maker to make a decision in line with his or
her goals. Roy (1996) has also indicated that in multicriteria frameworks, what is really crucial
is the decision processes itself and not the final result. Thus, we argue that each phase of the
decision process is of great value, and utmost care should be taken.
In this study, the following were considered in line with Roy (1996): (1) an indicator list was
developed, (2) how to measure the indicators were determined, and (3) fuzzy logic was utilized
to cope with the vagueness of human judgments. We argue that the decision aid may help
stakeholders with the followings: (1) it contrasts and ranks industries with respect to the
feasibility of blockchain projects, (2) it considers multiple indicators in displaying the
findings, (3) it takes into account the ambiguity in human perception by using the fuzzy AHP
and fuzzy TOPSIS, (4) it serves to supplement instinct (Belton and Stewart, 2002), and (5) the
findings of this research may be used to better allocate resources to more feasible industries
as indicated in the Introduction.
We conclude that the all-inclusive nature of this framework and the data needs with the
computations and scrutiny make the implementation of the approach tiresome. With the use
of software, we can speed up the implementation of this model. On the other hand, the fuzzy
arithmetic frameworks has its own shortcomings as coming up with fuzzy rules calls for
experienced people and sophisticated algorithms (Erol et al., 2014). Moreover, since legislative
issues may impact a blockchain feasibility problem, this may also affect a final decision for
the selection process. Therefore, utmost care should be taken when these issues are
considered. Nevertheless, we argue that the proposed framework can help to improve the
efficiency of the decision process.
Finally, we note that subjectivity is always a part of any decision-making process. We also
note that multicriteria decision-making does not completely remove it even when we employ
fuzzy logic. Therefore, using multicriteria frameworks does not guarantee to reach an
optimum. Rather, they should be utilized as a decision support tool that eases the decision-
makers’ understanding about the goals, case in hand and primary issues to help them in
coming up with an action plan as indicated in Erol et al. (2014).

6.3 Managerial implications

The findings of this study can help various decision-makers to make more informed
assessments when they decide about the use of blockchain technology in their businesses,
which clarifies the managerial implications of this research. More specifically, through
demonstrating the feasibility of blockchain applications in different industries in a
comparative manner: (1) government agencies can better determine the amount of
subsidies that they can provide to particular industries aiming to promote blockchain
investments, (2) conglomerates can more effectively allocate their budgets to the more
feasible industries to support future blockchain projects, (3) software companies can focus on
industries with the highest blockchain application feasibility when developing their
products, (4) consulting firms can make more effective decisions on how to plan and direct
their services, (5) researchers can make their study plans more effectively and focus their
attention on industries that have a higher potential in blockchain applications, (6) national
and international research institutions can allocate their budgets to blockchain research
projects that focus on the industries that have higher feasibility rates, and (7) Investors, who
plan to buy ICO/IPO from different blockchain start-up projects, may focus their attention on
industries that have higher feasibility scores.
7. Conclusions, limitations and research directions Assessing
In this study, a fuzzy multicriteria decision aid was applied to the problem of identifying the blockchain
feasibility of blockchain projects in Turkish industries. The findings of this study are
somewhat consistent with those of other studies and suggest that logistics and supply chain,
technology
finance and health industries are the most feasible industries for blockchain projects. This feasibility
study further suggests that blockchain technology is the least feasible for the automotive
industry. Note that the feasibility of blockchain technology in this research is evaluated in
terms of various technical, managerial, organizational, cultural and financial indicators using
the subjective opinion of several experts. However, we suggest that regardless of revealing
how feasible a certain industry is for possible blockchain applications, it is essential that
decision-makers should examine supply chain tasks and processes of these industries to
which the blockchain may be implemented.
There are several limitations to this study. First, it is cumbersome to find out the
respondents who have sufficient knowledge of both blockchain and the identified industries.
Even if we took the utmost care in identifying the right respondents, we limited our search to
the biggest three cities of Turkey with the hope that we have a better chance to reach them in
those industrial hubs. Second, it is beyond the scope of this study to propose a model that
demonstrates how to implement blockchain technology in various industries. Third, the
readers should interpret the findings of this study with caution since it was conducted using
the data gathered from the experts and practitioners of a developing country, Turkey.
Finally, we wish to point out several research opportunities. First, research is required
with respect to the implementation of blockchain technologies in various industries. We
suggest that it is of paramount importance that researchers identify what specific business
activities and procedures should be transformed into blockchain-based equivalents in the
industries. To this end, first, activities and procedures of a selected industry should be
identified. Then, they should be evaluated against various criteria using a multicriteria
method with the help of experts. Similar blockchain feasibility studies are also needed to find
out the more blockchain-friendly industries in other developing and developed countries so
that the findings of similar researches can be compared and discussed.

References
Azzi, R., Chamoun, R.K. and Sokhn, M. (2019), “The power of a blockchain-based supply chain”,
Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 135, pp. 582-592.
Barker, J., Chow-White, P.A., Adams, P.R., Mentanko, J., Hab, D. and Green, S. (2020), “Blockchain as a
disruptive technology for business: a systematic review”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 51, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.10.014.
Beck, R. and M€ uller-Bloch, C. (2017), “Blockchain as radical innovation: a framework for engaging
with distributed ledgers”, Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, pp. 5390-5399.
Belton, V. and Stewart, T.J. (2002), Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, London.
Bhabendu, K.M., Jena, D., Panda, S.S. and Sobhanayak, S. (2019), “Blockchain Technology: a survey on
applications and security privacy challenges”, Internet of Things, Vol. 8, p. 100107.
Biswas, B. and Gupta, R. (2019), “Analysis of barriers to implement blockchain in industry and service
sectors”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 136, pp. 225-241.
Bogart, S. and Rice, K. (2015), “The blockchain report: welcome to the internet of value”, available at:
www.the-blockchain.com/docs/The%20Blockchain%20Report %20-%20Needham%20(Huge%
20report).pdf (accessed 7 January 2019).
Brilliantova, V. and Thurner, T.W. (2019), “Blockchain and the future of energy”, Technology in
Society, Vol. 57, pp. 38-45.
JEIM Buckley, J.J. (1985), “Fuzzy hierarchical analysis”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 233-247.
urer, M.J., de Lapparent, M., Pallotta, V., Capezzali, M. and Carpita, M. (2019), “Use cases for
B€
blockchain in the energy industry opportunities of emerging business models and related
risks”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 137, 10.1016/j.cie.2019.106002.
Buyukozkan, G., Ciftci, G. and Guleryuz, S. (2011), “Strategic analysis of healthcare service quality
using fuzzy AHP methodology”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 9407-6424.
Carson, B., Romanelli, B., Walsh, P. and Zhumaev, A. (2018), “Blockchain beyond the hype: what is the
strategic business value?”, available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-
mckinsey/our-insights/blockchain-beyond-the-hype-what-is-the-strategic-business-value
(accessed 7 January 2019).
Casino, F., Dasaklis, T.K. and Patsakisa, C. (2019), “A systematic literature review of blockchain-based
applications: current status, classification and open issues”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 36,
pp. 55-81.
Chan, F.T.S. and Kumar, N. (2007), “Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy
extended AHP-based approach”, Omega, Vol. 35, pp. 417-431.
Chou, Y.C., Yen, H.Y., Dang, V.T. and Sun, C.C. (2019), “Assessing the human resource in science and
technology for Asian countries: application of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS”, Symmetry,
Vol. 11, p. 251, doi: 10.3390/sym11020251.
Coinmonks (2018), “Blockchain scaling”, available at: https://medium.com/coinmonks/blockchain-
scaling- 30c9e1b7db1b (accessed 10 December 2018).
Crosby, M., Pattanayak, P., Verma, S. and Kalyanaraman, V. (2016), “Blockchain technology: beyond
bitcoin”, Applied Innovation Review, Vol. 2, pp. 6-10.
DHL (2018), “Blockchain in Logistics”, available at: https://www.logistics.dhl/content/dam/dhl/global/
core/documents/pdf/glo-core-blockchain-trend-report.pdf (accessed 30 March 2019).
urst, E. and Kummer, S. (2018), “Blockchain for and in logistics: what to
Dobrovnik, M., Herold, D.M., F€
adopt and where to start”, Logistics, Vol. 2, p. 18.
Dunn, J. (2019), “Tips on calculating blockchain development ROI”, available at: https://
espeoblockchain.com/blog/blockchain-software-development-roi/ (accessed 16 February 2019).
Engelhardt, M.A. (2017), “Hitching healthcare to the chain: an introduction to blockchain technology
in the healthcare sector”, Technology Innovation Management Review, Vol. 7, p. 10.
_ Sencer, S. and Searcy, C. (2014). “Fuzzy MCDM Framework for locating a nuclear power plant
Erol, I.,
in Turkey”, Energy Policy, Vol. 67, pp. 186-197.
Faber, N. and Jonker, J. (2019), “At your service: how can blockchain be used to address societal
challenges”, in Treiblmaier, H. and Beck, R. (Eds), Business Transformation through Blockchain,
Vol. 2, Palgrave Macmillan, Stockholm.
Garcia-Torres, S., Albareda, L., Rey-Garcia, M. and Seuring, S. (2019), “Traceability for sustainability -
literature review and conceptual framework”, Supply Chain Management: International Journal,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 85-106.
Grover, P., Kar, A.K. and Janssen, M. (2019), “Diffusion of blockchain technology Insights from
academic literature and social media analytics”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 735-757.
Gumus, A.T. (2009), “Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two step fuzzy-
AHP and TOPSIS methodology”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, pp. 4067-4074.
Gupta, V. (2017), “A brief history of blockchain”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 2-4.
Gurtu, A. and Johny, J. (2019), “Potential of blockchain technology in supply chain Management: a
literature review”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 49 No. 9, pp. 881-900.
Harris, W. and Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2019), “Blockchain platform and future bank competition”, Assessing
Foresight, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 625-639, doi: 10.1108/FS-12-2018-0113.
blockchain
Hasselgrena, A., Kralevskab, K., Gligoroskib, S., Pedersenc, S.A. and Faxvaaga, A. (2020), “Blockchain
in healthcare and health sciences - a scoping review”, International Journal of Medical
technology
Informatics, Vol. 134, p. 104040. feasibility
Helo, P. and Hao, Y. (2019), “Blockchains in operations and supply chains: a model and reference
implementation”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 136, pp. 242-251.
Holotiuk, F., Moormann, J. and Pisani, F. (2019), “Blockchain in the payments industry: developing a
discussion agenda based on pain points and opportunities”, in Treiblmaier, H. and Beck, R.
(Eds), Business Transformation through Blockchain, Vol. 2, Palgrave Macmillan.
Hwang, C.L. and Yoon, K. (1981), Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications,
Springer, New York, NY.
Janssen, M., Weerakkody, V., Ismagilov, E., Sivarajah, U. and Irani, Z. (2020), “A framework for
analyzing blockchain technology adoption: integrating institutional, market and technical
factors”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 50, pp. 302-309.
ulbay, M. and Ayça, E.S. (2007), “Hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS
Kahraman, C., Yasin, A.N., Çevik, S., G€
model for selection among logistics information technologies”, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 143-168.
Kamble, S., Gunasekaran, A. and Arha, H. (2019), “Understanding the Blockchain technology adoption
in supply chains-Indian context”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 57 No. 7,
pp. 2009-2033.
Li, Z., Wang, W.M., Liu, G., Liu, L. and He, J. (2018), “Toward open manufacturing: a cross-enterprises
knowledge and services exchange framework based on blockchain and edge computing”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 118 No. 1, pp. 303-320.
Lien, C.T. and Chan, H.L. (2007), “A selection model for ERP System by applying fuzzy AHP
approach”, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 58-72.
Lo, S.K., Xu, X., Chiam, Y.K. and Lu, Q. (2017), “Evaluating suitability of applying blockchain”,
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer
Systems, ICECCS, pp. 158-161.
Longo, F., Nicoletti, L., Padovano, A., d’Atri, G. and Forte, M. (2019), “Blockchain-enabled supply
chain: an experimental study”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 136, pp. 57-69.
Marutitech Labs (2018), “Blockchain benefits, drawbacks and everything you need to know”, available
at: https://www.marutitech.com/blockchain-benefits/ (accessed 15 December 2018).
McGhin, T., Choo, K.R., Liu, C.Z. and He, D. (2019), “Blockchain in healthcare applications: research
challenges and opportunities”, Journal of Network and Computer Applications, Vol. 135,
pp. 62-75.
McGlade, J. (2007), “Foreword: finding the right indicators for policymaking”, in Hak, T., Moldan, B.
and Dahl, A.L. (Eds), Sustainability Indicators: A Scientific Assessment, Scope, Wiley, London.
McKinsey (2015), “Beyond the hype: blockchains in capital markets”, available at: www.mckinsey.
com/ industries/financial-services/our-insights/beyond-the-hype-blockchains-in-capital-markets
(accessed 3 January 2019).
€
Mızrak, O.P., Tuna, T.G. and Tunçel, M.G. (2014), “A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process methodology
for the supplier selection problem”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 292-301.
Moldan, B. and Dahl, A.L. (2007), “Challenges to sustainability indicators”, in Hak, T., Moldan, B. and
Dahl, A.L. (Eds), Sustainability Indicators: A Scientific Assessment, Scope, Wiley, London.
Morabito, V. (2017), Business Innovation through Blockchain, Springer, Berlin.
JEIM Morkunas, V.J., Paschen, J. and Boon, E. (2019), “How blockchain technologies impact your business
model”, Business Horizons, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 295-306.
Nofer, M., Gomber, P., Hinz, O. and Schiereck, D. (2017), “Blockchain”, Business and Information
Systems Engineering, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 183-187.
Oh, J. and Shong, I. (2017), “A case study on business model innovations using Blockchain: focusing
on financial institutions”, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11, p. 3.
€ ut, S., Efendigil, T. and Kara, S.S. (2010), “A combined fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting
On€
shopping center site: an example from Istanbul, Turkey”, Expert Systems with Applications,
Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 1973-1980.
Pan, X., Pan, X., Song, M., Ai, B. and Ming, Y. (2020), “Blockchain technology and enterprise
operational capabilities: an empirical test”, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 52, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.002.
Perboli, G., Musso, S. and Rosano, M. (2018), “Blockchain in logistics and supply chain: a lean
approach for designing real-world use cases”, IEEE Access, Vol. 6, pp. 62.018-62.028.
Percin, S. (2008), “Use of fuzzy AHP for evaluating the benefits of information-sharing decisions in a
supply chain”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 263-284.
Pinto, A. (2018), “Your unanswered questions on the roi of blockchain”, available at: https://www.ibm.
com/blogs/blockchain/2018/11/your-unanswered-questions-on-the-roi-of-blockchain/ (accessed
16 February 2019).
Prasad, S., Shankar, R., Gupta, R. and Roy, S. (2018), “A TISM modeling of critical success factors of
Blockchain based cloud services”, Journal of Advances in Management Research, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 434-456.
Queiroz, M.M. and Wamba, S.F. (2019), “Blockchain adoption challenges in supply chain: an empirical
investigation of the main drivers in India and the USA”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 46, pp. 70-82.
Queiroz, M.M., Telles, R. and Bonilla, S.H. (2019), “Blockchain and supply chain management
integration: a systematic review of the literature”, Supply Chain Management: International
Journal, doi: 10.1108/SCM-03-2018-0143.
Radanovic, I. and Likic, R. (2018), “Opportunities for use of blockchain technology in medicine”,
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Vol. 16, pp. 583-590.
Risius, M. and Spohrer, K. (2017), “A blockchain research framework”, Business & Information
Systems Engineering, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 385-409.
Roy, B. (1996), Multi-criteria Methodology for Decision Analysis, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht.
Ruutu, S., Casey, T. and Kotivirta, V. (2017), “Development and competition of digital service
platforms: a system dynamics approach”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 117, pp. 119-130.
Saaty, T.L. (2005), “The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network processes for the
measurement of intangible criteria and for decision making”, in Figueira, J., Greco, S. and
Ehrgott, M. (Eds), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, Springer, Berlin.
Sanchez-Lozano, J.M., Garcıa-Cascales, M.S. and Lamata, M.T. (2015), “Evaluation of suitable locations
for the installation of solar thermoelectric power plants”, Computers and Industrial Engineering,
Vol. 87, pp. 343-355.
Shahanaghi, K. and Yazdian, S.A. (2009), “Vendor selection using a new fuzzy group TOPSIS
Approach”, Journal of Uncertain Systems, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 221-231.
Sharda, R., Delen, D. and Turban, E. (2014), Business Intelligence and Analytics, 10th ed., Pearson, London.
Sheel, A. and Nath, V. (2019), “Effect of blockchain technology adoption on supply chain adaptability,
agility, alignment and performance”, Management Research Review, Vol. 42 No. 12,
pp. 1353-1374, doi: 10.1108/MRR-12-2018-0490.
Sikorski, J.J., Haughton, J. and Kraft, M. (2017), “Blockchain technology in the chemical industry: Assessing
machine-to-machine electricity market”, Applied Energy, Vol. 195, pp. 234-246.
blockchain
Srisawat, P. and Kiatcharoenpol, T. (2018), “Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approaches to prioritizing solutions
for reverse logistics”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 117, pp. 303-318.
technology
Sulkowski, A.J. (2018), “Blockchain, law, and business supply chains: the need for governance and
feasibility
legal frameworks to achieve sustainability”, SSRN Electric Journal, January, pp. 303-345.
Swan, M. (2015), Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy, O’Reilly, Sebastopol, CA.
Tang, H., Shi, Y. and Dong, P. (2019), “Public blockchain evaluation using Entropy and TOPSIS”,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 117, pp. 204-210.
Tasca, P. (2019), “Insurance under the blockchain Paradigm”, in Treiblmaier, H. and Beck, R. (Eds),
Business Transformation through Blockchain, Vol. 1, Palgrave Macmillan, Stockholm.
Torfi, F., Farahani, R.Z. and Rezapour, S. (2010), “Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of
evaluation criteria and fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the alternatives”, Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 10,
pp. 520-528.
Treiblemaier, H. (2018), “The impact of the blockchain on the supply chain: a theory-based research
framework and a call for action”, Supply Chain Management: International Journal, Vol. 23
No. 6, pp. 545-559.
Tzeng, G., Hwang, M.J., Shieh, J.H. and Wu, H.C. (2001), “Applying Fuzzy AHP and non- additive fuzzy
integral methods for evaluation and selection of construction project contractor”, Proceeding-
6th ISAHP, Berne.
Ucakturk, A. and Villard, M. (2013), “The effects of management information and ERP systems on
strategic knowledge management and decision-making”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 99, pp. 1035-1043.
van Hoek, R. (2020), “Developing a framework for considering blockchain pilots in the supply chain –
lessons from early industry adopters”, Supply Chain Management: International Journal, Vol. 25
No. 1, doi: 10.1108/SCM-05-2019-0206.
Wang, Y., Han, J.H. and Beynon-Davies, P. (2019a), “Understanding blockchain technology for future
supply chains: a systematic literature review and research agenda”, Supply Chain Management:
International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 62-84.
Wang, Y., Singgih, M., Wang, J. and Rit, M. (2019b), “Making sense of blockchain technology: how will it
transform supply chains?”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 211, pp. 221-236.
White, G.R.T. (2017), “Future applications of blockchain in business and management: a Delphi
study”, Strategic Change, Vol. 26, p. 5.
Wright, A. and De Filippi, P. (2015), “Decentralized blockchain technology and the rise of lex
cryptographia”, SSRN, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract52580664 (accessed 16
February 2019).
Wu, J. and Tran, N.K. (2018), “Application of blockchain technology in sustainable energy systems: an
overview”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 9, p. 3067.
Yang, L. (2019), “The blockchain: state-of-the-art and research challenges”, Journal of Industrial
Information Integration, Vol. 15, pp. 80-90.
Zamani, D.E. and Giaglis, G.M. (2018), “With a little help from the miners: distributed ledger
technology and market disintermediation”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 118
No. 3, pp. 637-652.
Zelbst, P.J., Green, K.W., Sower, V.E. and Bond, P.L. (2020), “The impact of RFID, IIoT, and Blockchain
technologies on supply chain transparency”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-03-2019-0118.
Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H., Chen, X. and Wang, H. (2017), “An overview of blockchain technology:
architecture, consensus, and future trends”, Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International
Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress), Honolulu, HI, USA, 25–30 June 2017.
JEIM Further reading
Hyv€arinen, H., Risius, M. and Friis, G. (2017), “A blockchain-based approach towards overcoming
financial fraud in public sector services”, Business and Information Systems Engineering,
Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 441-456.

Corresponding author
Ismail Erol can be contacted at: ierol@ybu.edu.tr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com