Advertisement

Trustworthy Product Lifecycle Management Using Blockchain Technology—Experience from the Automotive Ecosystem

  • Manuel HollerEmail author
  • Linard Barth
  • Rainer Fuchs
Chapter
Part of the Decision Engineering book series (DECENGIN)

Abstract

Rooted on the principle “from cradle to grave”, the lifecycle-driven approach to managing products like automobiles and related services has been recognised as a pivotal approach in research and practice [5, 15]. Digital technologies have continuously fostered the further development of product lifecycle management (PLM) in recent decades [17]. Nowadays, novel disruptive technologies offer even more important advances for providers and users of such solutions alike [14]. For the case of the automotive industry, intelligent products have created seamless visibility over the vehicle operations [9], big data techniques allow for the creation of sound insights [10], and blockchain technology holds the potential for trustworthy vehicle data management [2, 7]. The economic potential of preventing fraud and providing correct data is vast. Solely for the case of mileage manipulation, financial damage of around 9 billion Euro is estimated for the European Union [3]. Accurate data establishing the basis for digital services potentially delivers a global revenue in the 100 billion Euro range [11]. While these benefits of decentralised and encrypted data management are clear in theory [6, 18], less knowledge is available about the practical implementation of such blockchain-based solutions [2, 7]. The purpose of this case study [19] is to reflect experiences from a project in the setting of a leading automotive player which targets development and roll out of a trustworthy product lifecycle management using blockchain technology. Specifically, the study at hand mirrors insights from the automotive ecosystem focusing on the business-to-business context, involving fleets, OEMs, and repair shops. Such a case study seems valuable as research and practice call for real-world insights on blockchain applications especially outside the financial industry [1]. After this abstract, the second part of the case study provides a sketch of product lifecycle management and blockchain technology itself. In the third part, further details on the case of vehicle operations in the automotive ecosystem are given. The fourth part illustrates findings in terms of experience from the realisation of trustworthy product lifecycle management. In the fifth part, a discussion on the diverse and relevant hurdles to overcome is followed by a description of limitations and a view towards the future.

Keywords

Product lifecycle management (PLM) Blockchain technology Distributed ledger technology Automotive ecosystem Case study 

References

  1. 1.
    Beck R, Avital M, Rossi M, Thatcher JB (2017) Blockchain technology in business and information systems research. Bus Inf Syst Eng 59(6):381–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brousmiche K, Heno T, Poulain C, Dalmieres A, Hamida EB (2018) Digitizing, securing and sharing vehicles life-cycle over a consortium blockchain: lessons learned. In: IFIP NTMS international workshop on blockchains and smart contracts, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Car-Pass (2017) Car-pass annual report 2017. www.car-pass.be/en/news/car-pass-annual-report-2017. Accessed 02/10/2018
  4. 4.
    Coppola R, Morisio M (2016) Connected car: technologies, issues, future trends. ACM Comput Surv 49(3):1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    David M, Rowe F (2015) Le management des systèmes PLM (product lifecycle management): un agenda de recherche. J Decis Syst 24(3):273–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Iansiti M, Lakhani KR (2017) The truth about blockchain. Harv Bus Rev 95(1):118–127Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaiser C, Steger M, Dorri A, Festl A, Stocker A, Fellmann M, Kanhere S (2018) Towards a privacy-preserving way of vehicle data sharing—a case for blockchain technology? In: Dubbert J, Müller B, Meyer G (eds) Advanced microsystems for automotive applications. Springer, Cham, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keller KL, Kotler P (2006) Marketing management. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kiritsis D (2011) Closed-loop PLM for intelligent products in the era of the internet of things. Comput Aided Des 43(5):479–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li JR, Tao F, Cheng Y, Zhao L (2015) Big data in product lifecycle management. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 81(1–4):667–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McKinsey & Company (2016) Automotive revolution—perspective towards 2030. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Myers MD (2013) Qualitative research in business and management. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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. Bus Inf Syst Eng 59(6):385–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Skog DA, Wimelius H, Sandberg J (2018) Digital disruption. Bus Inf Syst Eng 60(5):431–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stark J (2015) Product lifecycle management: 21st century paradigm for product realisation. Springer, London, United Kingdom. ISBN 978-3-319-17439-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stark J (2018) Product lifecycle management: the executive summary. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. ISBN 978-3-319-72235-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Terzi S, Bouras A, Dutta D, Garetti M, Kiritsis D (2010) Product lifecycle management—from its history to its new role. Int J Prod Lifecycle Manag 4(4):360–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Underwood S (2016) Blockchain beyond bitcoin. Commun ACM 59(11):15–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yin RK (2009) Case study research—design and methods. Sage Publications, London, United KingdomGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Marketing Management, Product Management CenterZurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW)ZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations