Is there a market for trusted car data?

Abstract

The used-car trade is characterized by information asymmetries between buyers and sellers leading to uncertainty and distrust, thus causing market inefficiencies. Prior research has shown that blockchain offers a solution: a transparent, trustworthy and verified car history that addresses these issues in the market for ‘lemons’. Yet, whether or not there really is a market for trusted car data remains an open question. In particular, it is unclear if trusted car data increases transparency in the market for lemons and how market participants value increased transparency. Hence, through a market game with 50 participants, we explored the effects of trusted car data on the sales price of the cars, and the relative revenue of buyers and sellers. Additionally, we conducted interviews with the participants to elicit the perceived customer value. The results show that blockchain enables an increase in transparency and creates value for both buyers and sellers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    Within the cardossier architecture (Appendix 1) it is a web-app that we deployed for the experimental game. However, the core corda-platform was simulated using a central database. This is because for our experiment the data gathering and data management were not relevant. Yet, the data we offered through our cardossier App conform to those that will be provided via the real cardossier core.

  2. 2.

    Throughout our study all prices were shown and calculated in CHF to make it more understandable for the Swiss study group, that we used. However, to make it more relatable for a broader public throughout the paper we have converted all prices in USD (Exchange rate as of the 4th of July, 2019).

References

  1. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Akerlof, G. (1976). The economics of caste and of the rat race and other woeful Tales. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90(4), 599. https://doi.org/10.2307/1885324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Avital, M., Beck, R., King, J., Rossi, M., & Teigland, R. (2016). Jumping on the Blockchain bandwagon: Lessons of the past and outlook to the future. 37th ICIS Proceedings.

  4. Bauer, I., Zavolokina, L., Leisibach, F., & Schwabe, G. (2018). Exploring Blockchain value creation: The case of the Car ecosystem. Proceedings of the 52th HICSS, 10.

  5. Beck, R., Weber, S., & Gregory, R. W. (2013). Theory-generating design science research. Information Systems Frontiers, 15(4), 637–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-012-9342-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Beck, R., Czepluch Stemi, J., Lollike, N., & Malone, S. (2016). Blockchain - the gateway to trust-free cryptographic transactions (1–14). Turkey: Istanbul.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bergander. (2017, June 9). Carpass: Autohistorie nach Carfax-Vorbild - Die Gebrauchtwagen Historie geht online. Retrieved November 13, 2018, from https://www.motor-talk.de/news/die-gebrauchtwagen-historie-geht-online-t6135033.html. Accessed 13 Nov 2018.

  8. Böhme, R., Christin, N., Edelman, B., & Moore, T. (2015). Bitcoin: Economics, technology, and governance. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.2.213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bond, E. W. (1982). A direct test of the “lemons” model: The market for used pickup trucks. The American Economic Review, 72(4), 836–840.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Briggs, R. O., & Schwabe, G. (2011). On expanding the scope of design science in IS research. In H. Jain, A. P. Sinha, & P. Vitharana (Eds.), Service-Oriented Perspectives in Design Science Research (Vol. 6629, pp. 92–106). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20633-7_7.

  11. Brousmiche, K. L., Heno, T., Poulain, C., Dalmieres, A., & Ben Hamida, E. (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 (NTMS), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/NTMS.2018.8328733.

  12. Chen, Y., Li, Q., & Wang, H. (2018). Towards trusted social networks with Blockchain. Presented at the Symposium on Foundations and Applications of Blockchain. Retrieved from (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). Accessed 26 March 2019.

  13. Dimoka, A., & Pavlou, P. (2006). Product Quality Uncertainty in Online Auction Marketplaces: Overcoming Adverse Product Selection with Price Premiums. 6.

  14. Dimoka, A., Hong, Y., & Pavlou, P. A. (2012). On Product Uncertainty in Online Markets: Theory and Evidence. 36(2), 395–426.

  15. European Comission - Justice and Consumers. (2014, October 1). Study on the second hand cars market. Retrieved October 20, 2017, from https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/study-second-hand-cars-market_en. Accessed 16 Nov 2018.

  16. European Parliament. (2018, May 29). Fighting mileage fraud on used cars. Retrieved from News European Parliament website: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20180525STO04312/fighting-mileage-fraud-on-used-cars. Accessed 16 Nov 2018.

  17. Genesove, D. (1993). Adverse selection in the wholesale used Car market. Journal of Political Economy, 101(4), 644–665. https://doi.org/10.1086/261891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gipp, B., Meuschke, N., & Gernandt, A. (2015). Decentralized Trusted Timestamping using the Crypto Currency Bitcoin. 6.

  19. Glaser, F. (2017). Pervasive Decentralisation of Digital Infrastructures: A Framework for Blockchain enabled System and Use Case Analysis. Presented at the proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system sciences |. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10125/41339. Accessed 12 Nov 2018.

  20. Granados, N. F., Gupta, A., & Kauffman, R. (2006). The impact of IT on market information and transparency: A unified theoretical framework. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(3), 148–178. Doi: https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00083.

  21. Hawlitschek, F., Notheisen, B., & Teubner, T. (2018). The limits of trust-free systems: A literature review on blockchain technology and trust in the sharing economy. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 29, 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2018.03.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hevner, A. R. (2007). A three cycle view of design science research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 7.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, No., 1(28), 75–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Höst, M., Regnell, B., & Wholin, C. (2000). Using students as subjects - a comparative study of students and professionals in Lead-time impact assessment. Empirical Software Engineering: An International Journal, 5(3), 201–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Huston, J. H., & Spencer, R. W. (2002). Quality, uncertainty and the internet: The market for cyber lemons. The American Economist, 46(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/056943450204600107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lades, S. (2017, March 15). Vertrauen der Deutschen in Sicherheitskräfte wächst weiter - Automobilbranche mit starken Verlusten. Retrieved from GFK Verein website: S. Lades, “Vertrauen der Deutschen in Sicherheitskräfte wächst weiter - Automobilbranche mit starken Verlusten,

  27. Levin, J. (2001). Information and the market for lemons. The Rand Journal of Economics, 32(4), 657. https://doi.org/10.2307/2696386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lewis, G. (2011). Asymmetric information, adverse selection and online disclosure: The case of eBay motors. The American Economic Review, 101(4), 1535–1546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Liang, X., Shetty, S., Tosh, D., Kamhoua, C., Kwiat, K., & Njilla, L. (2017, May). ProvChain: A Blockchain-Based Data Provenance Architecture in Cloud Environment with Enhanced Privacy and Availability. 468–477. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/CCGRID.2017.8.

  30. Malone, T. W., Yates, J., & Benjamin, R. I. (1987). Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies. Communications of the ACM, 30(6), 484–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science reserach on inforamtion technology. Secision Support Systems, 15, 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Myers, M. D., & Newman, M. (2007). The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft. Information and Organization, 17(1), 2–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2006.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Naerland, K., Müller-Bloch, C., Beck, R., & Palmund, S. (2017). Blockchain to Rule the Waves - Nascent Design Principles for Reducing Risk and Uncertainty in Decentralized Environments. 16. South Korea.

  34. Nakamoto, S. (2009). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System., 9.

  35. Notheisen, B., Cholewa, J. B., & Shanmugam, A. P. (2017a). Trading real-world assets on Blockchain: An application of trust-free transaction Systems in the Market for lemons. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 59(6), 425–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0499-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Notheisen, B., Hawlitschek, F., & Weinhardt, C. (2017b). Breaking down the Blockchain hype - Towrads a blockchain market engineering approach. In Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), 20. Guimarães, Portugal.

  37. Pavlou, P., & Dimoka, A. (2008). Understanding and mitigating product uncertainty in online auction marketplaces. Information Systems Research. doi: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1135006.

  38. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. J Manage Inf Syst 24(3), 45–77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302

  39. Peterson, J. R., & Schneider, H. S. (2014). Adverse selection in the used-car market: Evidence from purchase and repair patterns in the consumer expenditure survey. The Rand Journal of Economics, 45(1), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-2171.12045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Risius, M., & Spohrer, K. (2017). A Blockchain research framework: What we (don’t) know, where we go from Here, and how we will get there. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 59(6), 385–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0506-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, Calif: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Seebacher, S., & Schüritz, R. (2017). Blockchain technology as an enabler of service systems: A structured literature review. In S. Za, M. Drăgoicea, & M. Cavallari (Eds.), Exploring Services Science (Vol. 279, pp. 12–23). doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56925-3_2.

  43. Shrier, D., Wu, W., & Pentland, A. (2016). Blockchain & Infrastructure (identity, data security). Computer Science & Engineering, MIT, 3, 18.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Stahl, K., & Strausz, R. (2017). Certification and market transparency. Review of Economic Studies, 84, 1842–1868. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdw064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Stebbins, R. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences. In Thousand oaks, CA; London, UK. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  46. The promise of the blockcahin trust machine. (2015). The Economist. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/leaders/2015/10/31/the-trust-machine

  47. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Sage.

  48. Wilson, C. (1980). The nature of equilibrium in markets with adverse selection. The Bell Journal of Economics, 11(1), 108. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wolinsky, A. (1983). Prices as signals of product quality. The Review of Economic Studies, 50(4), 647. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Zavolokina, L., Miscione, G., & Schwabe, G. (2018a). Buyers of lemons: Addressing buyers’ needs in the market for lemons with Blockchain technology. 52nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 10.

  51. Zavolokina, L., Spychiger, F., Tessone, C., & Schwabe, G. (2018b). Incentivizing Data Quality in Blockchains for Inter-Organizational Networks – Learning from the Digital Car Dossier. Presented at the international conference of information systems (ICIS).

  52. Ziolkowski, R., Miscione, G., & Schwabe, G. (2018). Consensus through Blockchains: Exploring governance across inter- organizational settings. 39th ICIS Proceedings, 17.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ingrid Bauer.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Potential and Limits of Blockchain Technology for Networked Businesses

Responsible Editor: Johan Versendaal

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 25.3 kb)

Appendix

Appendix

The cardossier Architecture

The figure below depicts the cardossier architecture. Cardossier Core is the blockchain-based storage and management of trusted car data. The Cardossier Dapp Store allow to develop decentralized applications which utilize the trusted car data from the core. In turn, these Dapps, are connected to external systems, such as web applications. However, in this study, we only used and focused on the effects of the cardossier as web app to support the buyers and sellers during the 2nd hand car sale.

figurea

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bauer, I., Zavolokina, L. & Schwabe, G. Is there a market for trusted car data?. Electron Markets 30, 211–225 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-019-00368-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Blockchain
  • Market for lemons
  • Value creation
  • Data and information products
  • Data-driven business models

JEL classification

  • O33
  • O39
  • D82