Abstract
This contribution focuses on the maturity of the engineering of business applications for a trusted collaboration in business networks. Distributed ledgers emerge as technology enabler for establishing trust across business partners while blockchain is often used as a synonym. Hence, mature knowledge for application engineering and quality assured methods for selecting technology platforms for distributed collaboration are essential. When choosing a Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) it is difficult to compare the different technologies in order to identify the one technology best suitable for a specific use case. Platforms’ maturity for distributed ledgers cannot be assessed sufficiently. Detailed knowledge about the technological details of platforms and functional characteristics are sometimes sparse. To start with, we propose a characterization approach for distributed ledgers based on various classification schemas. This characterization is founded in an evaluation of use cases and prototypical implementations as well as a record of projects conducted. The approach allows one to sort out unsuitable technologies at an early stage. Since the automation of business cooperation is one of the core benefits of DLT, Smart Contracts for the automation of business processes and Distributed Autonomous Organizations (DAO) for the specification of collaboration networks furnish a key benefit for business re-engineering with DLT. Levels of maturity for collaboration specification are defined to distinguish different computational and organizational powers in contract enforcements.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
A description of the demonstrator can be found at: https://www.fit.fraunhofer.de/en/fb/cscw/blockchain/smart-contracts.html.
- 2.
A keyword search in the net unveils many proposals for deciding the suitability of DLT for certain use cases. Some of these proposals come from consulting companies such as Deloitte while others come for platform vendors such as Hyperledger Fabric or academia to stress the difference between databases and DLT (Chowdhury et al. 2018). Common to most of these proposals is a structured flowchart to build a decision tree for the suitability.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
References
Tama, B.A., Kweka, B. J., Park, Y., & Rhee, K. H. (2017). A critical review of blockchain and its current applications (pp. 109–113). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECOS.2017.8167115.
Cachin, C., & Vukolic, M. (2017). Blockchain consensus protocols in the wild. CoRR, abs/1707.01873, [1707.01873].
Casino, F., Dasaklis, T., & Patsakis, C. (2018). A systematic literature review of blockchain-based applications: Current status, classification and open issues. Telematics and Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.11.006.
Chowdhury, M. J. M., Coman, A., Kabir, M. A., Han, J., & Sanda, P. (2018). Blockchain versus database: A critical analysis. In 17th Intl. Conf. On Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communication. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8456055.
Crosby, M., Nachiappan, Pattanayak, P., Verma, S., & Kalyanaraman, V. (2016). Blockchain technology: Beyond bitcoin. Applied Innovation Review.
Gräther, W., Kolvenbach, S., Ruland, R., Schütte, J., Torres, C. F., & Wendland, F. (2018). Blockchain for education: Lifelong learning passport.
Humphrey, W. (1989). Managing the software process. SEI Series in Software Engineering.
Jung, H. W., Kim, S. G., & Chung, C. (2004). Measuring software product quality: A survey of ISO/IEC 9126. Software, IEEE, 21, 88–92. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2004.1331309.
Klein, S., Prinz, W., & Gräther, W. (2018). A use case identification framework and use case canvas for identifying and exploring relevant blockchain opportunities. In Proceedings of 1st ERCIM Blockchain Workshop 2018.
Miguel, J.P., Mauricio, D., & Rodriguez, G. (2014). A review of software quality models for the evaluation of software products. CoRR, abs/1412.2977, [1412.2977].
Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf.
Osterland, T., & Rose, T. (2018). Engineering sustainable blockchain applications. In Proceedings of 1st ERCIM Blockchain Workshop 2018.
Osterland, T., & Rose, T. (2020). Model checking contracts for ethereum. Special Issue on Blockchain Technology: Journal on Mobile and Pervasive Computing.
Paulk, M., Curtis, W., Chrissis, M.B., & Weber, C. (1993). Capability maturity model for software (Version 1.1). Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-024, Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
Pilkington, M. (2016). Blockchain technology: Principles and applications.
Pompianu, L., & Bartoletti, M. (2017). An empirical analysis of smart contracts platforms, applications, and design patterns. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28086.09283.
Samarthyam, G., Suryanarayana, G., Sharma, T., & Gupta, S. (2013). MIDAS: A design quality assessment method for industrial software. In 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 911–920. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2013.6606640.
Samoladas, I., Gousios, G., Spinellis, D., & Stamelos, I. (2008). The SQO-OSS quality model: Measurement based open source software evaluation. In B. Russo, E. Damiani, S. Hissam, B. Lundell, & G. Succi (Eds.), Open source development, communities and quality (pp. 237–248). Boston, MA, US: Springer.
Software engineering—Process assessment—Part 5. (2012). An exemplar software life cycle processs assessment model. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH.
Software engineering Product quality—Part 1. (2001). Quality model. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH.
Systems and software engineering (2011)—Systems and software quality requirements and evaluation (SQuaRE)—Systems and software quality models. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH.
Subramanian, H. (2018). Decentralized blockchain-based electronic marketplaces. Comm. of the ACM, 61(1), 78–84.
Taibi, D., Lavazza, L., & Morasca, S. (2007). OpenBQR: A framework for the assessment of OSS. In J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, W. Scacchi, A. Sillitti (Eds.), Open Source Development, Adoption and Innovation (pp. 173–186). Boston, MA: Springer.
Tsilidou, A., & Foroglou, G. (2015). Further applications of the blockchain.
Wang, H., Chen, K., & Xu, D. (2016). A maturity model for blockchain adoption. Financial Innovation, 2, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-016-0031-z.
Weber, B. (2014). Bitcoin and the legitimacy crisis of money. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 40, 17–41. [https://oup.prod.sis.lan/cje/article-pdf/40/1/17/8082287/beu067.pdf]. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beu067.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Osterland, T., Rose, T. (2020). From a Use Case Categorization Scheme Towards a Maturity Model for Engineering Distributed Ledgers. In: Treiblmaier, H., Clohessy, T. (eds) Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technology Use Cases. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44337-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44337-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-44336-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-44337-5
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)