Developing a framework for considering blockchain pilots in the supply chain - lessons from early industry adopters

Purpose There is a lot of interest in blockchain technology in the supply chain, but to date, there is little empirical research to support managerial decision-making. Verhoeven et al. (2018) suggested five screens for ensuring mindful development of use cases for blockchain in the supply chain. This paper aims to extend the Verhoeven et al.'s (2018) framework and empirical research beyond the use case stage into the pilot stage. Design/methodology/approach Three case studies in different industries (logistics services, consumer products and retail), supply chain positions (manufacturer, carrier, and retailer) and geographies (Europe and USA) are conducted to explore lessons learned by early adopters of blockchain technology in the supply chain. Findings The case studies indicate that the Verhoeven et al.'s (2018) screens, with one added screen, are helpful in considering "what to adopt." Based on the insights from the case studies, it is also possible to develop pilot design considerations that can inform "where to start." Lessons learned include that there is value in scoping pilots in a targeted manner, including the use of existing technology in the pilot (as opposed to replacing existing technology) and that there is the ability to start a pilot fast, provided the existence of executive and stakeholder engagement. Practical implications - In addition to the need to be being mindful in considering what use case for blockchain in the supply chain to potentially adopt, mindful consideration of blockchain technology in the supply chain extends into the design of pilots. Six specific design considerations are offered. Originality/value Based on the insights from early adopters in industry, the author extends guidance for the mindful adoption of blockchain in the supply chain beyond the development of use cases, into the design of actual pilots. These insights directly address calls for research from literature (including from Dobrovnik et al., 2018 and Ferdows, 2018).