Content uploaded by Aleksandr Kormiltsyn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aleksandr Kormiltsyn on Nov 27, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
The State of the Art for Blockchain-Enabled
Smart-Contract Applications in the Organization
Chibuzor Udokwu∗, Aleksandr Kormiltsyn†, Kondwani Thangalimodzi‡, Alex Norta§
Department of Software Science
Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia
Email: ∗chibuzor.joseph@ttu.ee, †alexandrkormiltsyn@gmail.com, ‡kthang@ttu.ee, §alex.norta.phd@ieee.org
Abstract—The application and use of smart contracts in
organizations require a holistic overview. This overview helps
to understand the current adoption of this technology and also
deduces factors that are inhibiting its use in the modern organiza-
tion. This study provides a systematic review of previous studies
comprising of frameworks, methods, working prototypes and
simulations that demonstrate the application of smart contracts
in organizations. Understanding the current state and usage of
smart-contract technology in an organization is a focal point
of this paper. Much progress occurs in developing technologies
that support smart contracts, while little understanding exists
pertaining to their usage in organizations. In this study, we
identify properties of smart-contract applications in different
domains of modern organizations. We further analyze and
categorize challenges and problems mitigating the adoption of
smart-contract applications.
Index Terms—blockchain; applications; smart contract; limi-
tations; use cases; decentralized autonomous organization
I. INTRODUCTION
Organizations face new challenges such as information
security [1], trust and transparency between different stake-
holders [2], decentralization of working processes [3] and
so on. The development of blockchain technology and smart
contracts provides new opportunities for organizations to ad-
dress these problems. Blockchain-enabled smart contracts are
computer programs that are consistently executed by a network
of mutually distrusting nodes, without the arbitration of a
trusted authority [4]. Smart contracts provide organizations the
possibility to collaborate and execute self-enforcing contract
clauses in a blockchain network without the involvement of
a third-party. While smart contracts provide new options for
organizations and several studies have been carried out on how
smart contracts can be applied to solve several issues affecting
modern organizations, little is known about the adoption of
smart contracts in organizations. This paper fills the gap by
presenting an overview of the business applications supporting
smart contracts. The primary research question of this pa-
per is how to successfully adopt smart contracts in modern
organizations? The answer to this question helps the reader
to understand main domain problems that can be solved by
smart contracts and current limitations of this technology. We
deduce the following sub-questions from the primary research
question. What are the domains of smart-contract applications
in established organizations? The understanding of domains
using smart contracts helps organizations during decision
making processes about smart-contract adoption. What are
the main benefits of smart-contract applications in these or-
ganization domains? Definitions of a domain help to focus
on the main benefits that organizations can gain from smart-
contract technology. What are the issues limiting the gains
of smart contract usage in the organizations? Understanding
the limitations helps to avoid serious problems while adopting
smart contracts in working processes.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section
I-A presents important background information. Section II
provides the description of the literature-review method used
in this study. Section III discusses the analysis of results. Sec-
tion IV presents problem discussions and provides directions
for future research. Section V concludes the results of the
overview and defines limitations of the study.
A. Basic Concepts of Smart Contracts
Smart contracts are supported by blockchain technologies
[5]. In this section, we summarize the concepts of blockchain
technologies as follows - basic blockchain concepts and
Merkle hash tree, time stamping nodes and virtual machines,
consensus and solidity programming language for coding
smart contracts.
Blockchain: The blockchain is a distributed ledger that
allows participants to write and update records on the ledger
and cryptography ensures that records stored remain the same
once added [6]. Records are added to the ledger in form of
transactions, and these transactions are hashed and grouped
in blocks. Each block is cryptographically linked to the
next block. Markel tree or hash tree is a cryptographical
method that ensures transactions stored in blockchain are
linked with mathematical hashes [7], [8]. This guarantees that
no modification can invalidate the entire record. The hashes
provide an efficient method to verify any transaction on the
blockchain. With this method, records can be verified without
going through the entire data stored in the network [8].
Nodes and virtual machines: The blockchain network is
represented by the nodes that are connected in peers and each
participating node has a copy of the ledger [6]. The nodes are
run by virtual machines, e.g., an Ethereum blockchain node is
powered by the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) [7]. Once
a new block is accepted in the network, each node updates its
record by adding the new block. Transactions are timestamped
and sent from the participating nodes. All the nodes in the
network agree on a consensus method for adding new records
to the ledger [5]. Transactions are grouped in blocks and once
a block has been accepted by the network, all the participating
nodes add the new block to their copy of the ledger [7].
Consensus mechanism: A consensus method is an agreed
method for adding new records to the blockchain by the
participating nodes. Consensus methods are grouped into two -
voting based consensus and proof-based consensus [5]. Proof-
of-Work (PoW) is an ex-ample of proof-based consensus
method and its currently being used by the Bitcoin and the
Ethereum blockchain at the time of this writing [6], [7]. PoW
is a consensus mechanism that allows all the participating
nodes to solve a difficult mathematical problem and rewards
the first node that solves the problem by selecting the node to
add the next block [5]. The Proof-of-Stake (PoS) is another
example of proof-based consensus method. However, while
PoW motivates a centralization of computing power, PoS
moves the decision basis from computing power to possession
of stake in the system, such as an amount of cryptocurrency
[9].
Programming smart contracts: Solidity is an example of a
programming language that provides a method for running a
computer code on blockchain nodes [10]. Computer programs
that digitally verify, enforce contracts and run on a blockchain
network are referred to as smart contracts. The smart contracts
are stored and executed in blockchain nodes. With the right
access, any user can run and execute smart contract functions
from any participating node in the network [7]. In our study,
we focus on smart contracts written in Solidity as it is the
programming language adopted by the largest blockchain
network that supports smart contracts [7].
II. ME TH OD O F LITERATURE REVIEW
This research uses a systematic literature review method
[11]. Literature review gives a good foundation for research in
information systems and strengthens information system as a
field [12]. A review of literature of smart-contract applications
strengthens the field of blockchain within information systems.
We conduct the review in four phases [11]. Phase 1 is the
review of the purpose and protocol of the study. Phase 2
involves searching the literature and practical screening. In
Phase 3, the quality appraisal and data extraction is presented.
In Phase 4, we analyze the findings. This literature review
method is chosen because it is developed specifically for
information-system research [11].
Planning Phase: In the first phase, we design a review
protocol as this is an essential element in conducting a
systematic literature-review study [13]. Furthermore, a review
protocol minimizes biases in a detailed plan [13]. We discuss
the purpose of the review and design a protocol, a searching
plan, selection criteria, data extraction method, data analyses
and present the review results.
Selection Phase: In the second phase of the review, we
search for academic articles using the Google scholar database.
Since smart contract is a new technology in information
systems, we search for journal papers, conference papers and
select white papers from 2013–2018. This time frame helps
us to find relevant articles from the search engine.
In our search for articles, the keywords and Boolean
operators used are as follows: smart contract + business,
smart contract + organization, smart contract + organization,
blockchain + business, blockchain + organization, blockchain
+ organization, distributed autonomous organization + busi-
ness, decentralized autonomous organization + organization,
to find papers with limitations and problems, the following key
words are used: problem + blockchain, problem + decentral-
ized autonomous organization, and problem + smart contracts.
These pairs we use independently in every search.
From the results of our searches, we conduct an efficient
screening process, discarding articles not relevant to the study,
duplicates, and articles that we do not obtain the full text. After
this initial screening, we got a total of 469 papers. This process
is depicted in Figure 1 in the study [14].
Exclusion and Inclusion criteria: In the first step of
article selection, the exclusion criteria include the following:
Articles that are not relevant to the study, articles for which
a full paper cannot be downloaded or accessed, articles not
published between 2013 and 2018 and articles not related to
blockchain technology, distributed autonomous organization,
or smart contracts. In the second step, the inclusion criteria in-
clude high-quality white papers, journal papers, peer-reviewed
conference papers, articles on smart-contract applications in an
organization.
Execution phase: In the third phase of the review, we extract
data from eligible articles based on the research questions
guiding this research and collect information from articles to
serve as raw material for the analyses [11].
III. ANALYSIS OF RESULT
In this section, we analyze the reviewed literature to un-
derstand how smart contracts are currently applied in the
organizations and current limitations that mitigate the adop-
tion of smart-contract applications in the organization. The
subsections are structured as follows: Section III-A provides
an analysis of smart-contract applications in the organization.
Section III-B defines the blockchain issues mitigating smart-
contract adoption in organizations.
A. Analyses of smart-contract applications in the organization
We base the analyses of smart-contract applications in the
organizations on the following categories: the year of the
publication, type of publication and subcategories to identify
the properties of the smart contract. The year and type of
publication provide information on the quality of the literature
reviewed. We identify when the paper was published and if the
paper is a peer-reviewed publication. Though there has been
too much proliferation of non-peer reviewed papers in the form
of white papers in the blockchain smart-contract community,
we cannot ignore so many contributions by none peer-reviewed
literature in this field.
We further analyze the characteristics of the smart contract
that are listed in properties categories in Table 1 in [14]. We
identify the following properties of the smart contract: orga-
nization, blockchain technology, type of network, application
area, problem intended to be solved and status of contribution.
In the organization properties of the smart contract, we identify
the type of organization that the contribution was developed
for. We further divide the organizations into business and
public. Under technology property, we identify the blockchain
the smart contract was designed to be implemented on. With
this property, we identify current blockchain technologies that
support smart contracts. In the application area, we identify
the type of business process/operation the smart contract is
designed to simulate. In the purpose category, we identify
the primary goal of applying smart contract in a particular
application area, and this can be security reasons, privacy
concerns, to build trust, etc. In the status section, we identify if
the projects analyzed are theoretical descriptions, prototypes,
or working implementations in an organization.
1) Presentation of smart-contract application analyses re-
sults: The overview of analyses of smart-contract applications
in the organization is presented in the Table 1 in [14]. If a
project analyzed does not address the corresponding item or
provide sufficient information on the classification, we leave
it unmarked. The table shows that 81% of the projects/studies
analyzed are published as peer-reviewed publications. 59% of
the projects are published in 2017 and 75% of all implemented
projects are published from 2017 and later.
Business organizations are the top organizations for smart-
contract applications as 87.5% of the projects analyzed are
designed for business organization. For the projects that are
implement, 75% are specifically designed for business organi-
zations.
In all the projects analyzed, 62.5% are either prototyped,
or implemented (working). Only 37.5%, fall into the category
theoretical descriptions and proposed frameworks/methods.
In the application area/domain of smart-contract projects
analyzed, 71.87% have their application areas in supply chain
management (SCM), finance, healthcare, information security,
smart city and IoT solutions. Therefore, we identify those at
the top domains of smart-contract applications in the organi-
zation. Besides, for the projects that are already implemented,
75% are in the domain of healthcare, SCM, and finance.
Furthermore, the table shows that transparency and trust are
main reasons why an organization may use smart-contract
applications, about 44% of the projects mention either trans-
parency, or trust as the primary purpose of the smart-contract
application. Other top reasons include data security/privacy,
resource management, tamper proof, and interoperability.
Ethereum and Hyperledger fabric are the leading technology
for smart-contract applications in organizations, as 50% of the
implemented projects are hosted on these platforms. Ethereum
network is the technology of choice for prototyping smart-
contract projects in the organization as 66.67% of the projects
analyzed are prototyped with the Ethereum network. Also,
50% of the prototypes are carried out in public blockchains.
Still for implemented projects, 75% are carried out as private
networks.
B. Analysis of blockchain issues mitigating smart-contract
adoption
We examine existing issues and technical limitations that
affect blockchain technology. Our analyses are based on
the following factors: the timestamping virtual machine that
runs the blockchain nodes, cryptography behind the digital
signature, consensus mechanism for confirming transactions
and the Solidity programming language for developing smart
contract [7], [15]. We further examine how the issues identified
affect different application areas of smart contracts in the
organization. We only consider top application domains in this
analysis.
1) Presentation of blockchain limitation analyses results:
We identify 18 limitations of blockchain technologies. From
the analyses as shown in Figure 2 in study [14], we found
that technologies affected are a digital signature (55.6%),
consensus (50%), Solidity programming language (38.9%),
consensus mechanism PoW (27.8%) and nodes (27.8%).
We analyze application areas that are affected by presented
limitations. Most of the limitations (61.1%) describe issues
that affect all application areas that we investigate. 72.2%
of the limitations define the issues that affect all applica-
tions that use tokens. Limitations that affect an application
involving PoW are presented in 66.7% and applications in
public blockchains are presented each by 72.2%. Limitations
for applications in finance domain are presented in (72.2%)
and 66.7% describes limitations that affect IoT, Smart City
and SCM domains.
Figure 3 in the study [14], shows how the current limitations
of blockchains affect smart contracts in public networks and
private networks. The figure shows that there are specific
issues in blockchains that affect only the public networks.
However, most limitations affect both private and public
blockchains. No specific issue affects only private blockchains.
The issue of unsustainable consensus method presented in
PoW does not affect private blockchains, because they mostly
use voting-based consensus method for approving transactions
[16]. Due to the control that exists in permissioned blockchains
when approving members, the trusted-party-requirement issue
is eliminated since all participating nodes are known and
trusted.
We further analyze Table 2 in [14] to determine the severi-
ties of the current limitations that affect blockchains. With this,
we identify important issues mitigating smart contracts usage
in the organization. The classification for this analysis is based
on the following severity levels: low important, significant and
critical.
Figure 4 in the study [14] shows the severity levels of the
current issues that affect blockchain technologies. The issues
are ordered in their level of importance. The less important
issues are in at the bottom of the triangle, significant issues
are in the mid-level of the triangle while the critical issues
are located at the top of the triangle. The study [14] identifies
the following main limitations of blockchains technologies:
usability and complexity issues, standardization, lack of test-
ing and practical experience, and design architecture issues.
Other significant issues include storage scalability, regulation,
soundness of smart contracts, security flaws and bugs, privacy
leakage and smart contract lifecycle management and non-
tested consensus methods. The less important issues are as
follows anonymity, scalability-time, transaction cost, cryp-
tocurrency unpredictability, unsustainable consensus method,
trusted third-party involvement and cryptocurrency liquidity
problem.
IV. DISCUSSIONS
In this section, we discuss the results of the analyses we
performed in section III. The results of the analyses are
presented in Table 1 and 2 of the study [14]. In the first
part of this section, we discuss the results of the analyses
showing smart-contract applications in the organization. In the
second part of this section, we discuss the current blockchain
technology issues that affect smart contracts usage in the
organization.
A. Application discussion
The results from the Table 1 in study III show that most
are mostly peer-reviewed academic publications. This is a
necessary step in determining the quality of the projects we
evaluate in our study. Though the idea of smart contracts
begins with the unpublished manuscript by Szabo Nick in
19941and the implementation starts with the development
of the Ethereum virtual machine that provides the possibility
of running Turing complete programs on a blockchain in
2014 [7], our study shows that serious effort to develop
organization-blockchain applications start in 2017. This is
evident as most of the implemented smart-contract projects
are carried out in 2017 and later. Blockchain provides an
opportunity for both public- and private organizations to run
trustless smart-contract applications. The current study shows
that business organizations lead in development, implemen-
tation, and adoption of smart-contract projects. Our study
did not identify any specific smart-contract project designed
for military organizations. A search on Google Scholar for
”military blockchain applications” returns about 1200 results.
However, our study cannot identify an actual prototype, or
working blockchain based military organization application.
This could be linked to the fact that military applications are
usually classified and not available in public domains.
In our study, we identify top application areas, or organiza-
tion domains that comprise a large number of smart-contract
projects. We identify the following organization domains as
the top application areas of smart contracts - SCM, finance,
1Szabo, Nick. ”Smart contracts.” Unpublished manuscript (1994).
healthcare, information security, smart city and IoT solutions.
These organization domains have some similarities because
their processes involve the participation of several collaborat-
ing parties. For instance, SCM involves parties from a supplier,
buyer, transporter, etc., who do not trust each other. Blockchain
enabled smart contracts therefore are very relevant in these
domains as they provide a trustless and transparent system
for storing and executing transactions in an immutable way.
To validate this point, our study also shows that trust and
transparency are the top reasons to adopt blockchains for all
the projects we evaluate.
Though there are many blockchains for executing smart con-
tracts, our study shows that Ethereum blockchain remains the
blockchain of choice for prototyping smart-contract projects.
Still, projects are developed using Ethereum and Hyperledger
fabric blockchains. Hyperledger fabric is part of the blockchain
tools developed in the open source Hyperledger project. The
Hyperledger project seeks to develop compatible and inter-
operable blockchain frameworks across organizations. IBM
is a leading contributor to the Hyperledger fabric project,
and also a leading service provider for organizations adopting
blockchain projects [17]. Finally, our study shows that most
of the working projects are implemented on permissioned
networks. This is because of the privacy leakage blockchain
issue that causes transactions to be viewable to all participants
of the network. Even though the privacy leakage problem
affects both private- and public networks, as shown in our
study, this problem is reduced in private blockchains because
permissioned networks can regulate the membership and par-
ticipation in their network.
B. Discussion of Limitations
In this section, we discuss current limitations affecting
blockchain technologies. In the second part of the section, we
discuss current research addressing important limitations that
mitigate the adoption of smart contracts.
1) Smart contract and blockchain limitations: Both public-
and private blockchain networks face challenges regarding to
who is allowed to take part in the network, who is allowed
to execute the consensus protocol, and who is responsible for
maintenance of the shared ledger [18]. The usage of smart-
contract applications in organizations is complicated because
of the blockchain complexity- and usability issues. Blockchain
networks have complexity and usability challenges, especially
for first-time users [19]. Furthermore, the blockchain technol-
ogy has architecture-design issues that are not acceptable for
organization processes [17]. Smart contracts are supported by
a few number of programming languages such as Solidity,
Cardano, Tezos, Neo etc. The consensus mechanisms are not
flexible and are hardcoded into the blockchain [17].
Several limitations affect blockchain-technology consensus
mechanisms. Cost is attached to performing transactions in
the blockchain to compensate miners, and this may limit the
usage of smart contracts in organization applications. Still,
this does not apply to private blockchain networks as voting-
based consensus methods are usually adopted in permissioned
blockchains [5], [17]. The other limitation of the blockchain
consensus mechanism is volatility of cryptocurrencies and
presents difficulty in making long-term economic decisions
[20].
Some of the newly proposed consensus methods lack testing
and reliability, similar to the well-known PoW and PoS [5].
The mechanism of a digital signature in the blockchain has
several limitations. These include anonymity issues, privacy
leakage in transactions and trusted third-party involvement [6],
[21]. The usage of smart-contract applications that generate a
significant amount of data, is limited by the storage scalability
issue of blockchain nodes [21]. This affects smart-contract
applications that process and store a significant amount of data.
Some of the newly proposed consensus methods lack testing
and reliability, similar to the well-known PoW and PoS [5].
The mechanism of a digital signature in the blockchain has
several limitations. These include anonymity issues, privacy
leakage in transactions and trusted third-party involvement [6],
[21]. The usage of smart-contract applications that generate a
significant amount of data, is limited by the storage scalability
issue of blockchain nodes [21]. This affects smart-contract
applications that process and store a significant amount of data.
The Solidity programming language has several design
issues such as security flaws and bugs, soundness and lifecycle
management. There are many unknown attack vectors in the
ecosystem and there is also the issue of bugs in Solidity
code [22]. Additionally, Solidity lacks a formal foundation
and smart contract cannot be verified with an algorithmic tool
before they are deployed [22]. Another big challenge affecting
both public- and private blockchains is the regulation of the
network. There is no proper legal framework to address legal
issues of tokens, tax and intellectual property in a blockchain
network [23], [24].
2) Current research efforts that address significant and crit-
ical blockchain limitations: Some of the issues limiting smart-
contract adoption have already been addressed. For instance,
the PoS consensus method is designed to address the time
scalability issue and resource wastage issue in PoW. In PoS, a
consensus is achieved by randomly selecting one of the nodes
to create the next block based on their stake in the network.
The chances to be chosen depends on wealth in the system
[25]. As a result, some of the prominent blockchain platforms
such as Ethereum are adopting PoS as a consensus method
for their blockchains [26]. Qtum which is also a popular
blockchain platform, comprises a PoS-consensus method since
inception [27].
3) Scalability, third-party involvement and privacy leakage:
The issue of storage scalability is a significant limitation of
smart-contract applications, as shown in our study. A study
[28] proposes using decentralized database storage systems
that are linked to an existing blockchain network for storing
large sets of data from smart-contract applications. In these
systems, immutability and trust can be achieved by applying
voting mechanisms and shared replications of stored data. The
main drawback of this proposal is that the storage is located
outside a blockchain network and the immutability feature that
blockchain provides cannot be guaranteed in these systems.
In the case of a third-party involvement, some smart-
contract applications require a third party to provide infor-
mation on the status, or value of an asset. IBM develops
microcomputers to address this issue. These computers are so
small that they can be attached directly to an asset and provide
an update on the asset2. This is particularly useful in the SCM
domain. The current setup of smart-contract applications in the
SCM domain requires an RFID chip, or similar tool to provide
information on the status of assets [3], [29]. We consider this a
third-party involvement because the information is not directly
provided by a blockchain node. With the microcomputers
that can be attached to an asset, the asset itself turns into a
blockchain node, providing information on its status without
the involvement of a third party.
Other research addresses the issue of information confi-
dentiality in blockchains. The design of blockchain enables
all participants of a network to view the transactions in the
network. Some studies [30], [31] propose the use of private
blockchain networks to address this issue. Though participa-
tion in private blockchain networks can be regulated, privacy
leakage is still an issue, even in permissioned networks.
Business processes require that only certain members of an
organization have access. Therefore, privacy leakage is still
an issue because there is currently no method to control
access to information on blockchain networks. Still, study
[32] addresses this issue proposing a cryptographical protocol
called HAWK that ensures the privacy of data stored in a
public blockchain. This is achieved by adding an additional
compiler to transform standard smart contracts to a crypto-
graphical protocol among the users of a blockchain. To achieve
confidentiality, the public key of a trusted third-party node is
used to encrypt and decrypt information among the parties
involved in the contract. The use of a trusted third party is
a significant drawback of this protocol as this violates the
decentralization and transparency principles of a blockchain.
There is also an issue of additional cost for verifying the
transactions performed using this protocol [32].
4) Testing, design and usability issues: One of the testing
issues identified in our study is a lack of proper testing frame-
works for blockchain applications. As a recent technology,
blockchain applications have not been properly tested and may
fail at some point. There are currently no fault injection frame-
works available for testing blockchain implementations. Avail-
able techniques do not cover Byzantine failures as represented
in blockchain applications [33]. The study [33] proposes a new
generation of fault injection frameworks for deployment in
production to challenge blockchain-based distributed systems.
The study proposes using the framework to perturb and
verify permissioned blockchain technologies with Byzantine
failures. As there is not much practical experience in usage
of such projects, blockchain implementations cannot be tested
2IBM’s New ’World’s Smallest Computer’ Is Built For Blockchain
http://bitcoinist.com/ibms-new-worlds-smallest-computer-built-blockchain/
(accessed May 2018)
appropriately. As a result, organizations do not quickly move
their business processes to blockchain solutions.
Blockchain technology is new and therefore, there are
unknown attack vectors in the blockchain ecosystems. The
Solidity programming language has known security bugs.
When used as a payout address, a smart contract acquires the
control of a sender’s contract and withdraw funds from it [34].
Non-flexible consensus methods limit the usage of specific
platforms and thus, not all business requirements can be
implemented in such an environment. Organizations should
be able to decide what consensus method is most suitable
for their applications. To solve this problem, the Hyperledger
Fabric platform provides the possibility for smart contract
developers to choose the most suitable consensus method for
their projects before deploying with a blockchain [17]. Still,
the main limitation is that PoS and PoW as the most popular
consensus methods, are not available for the Hyperledger
platform.
5) Regulation, standardization and smart contract lifecycle
management: The development of blockchain standards and
regulations is at an early stage [35]. Blockchain is a new tech-
nology and therefore it is too early to determine the regulations
required [36]. Little research exists about standardization and
regulation. Still, standards development is underway to address
the risks and abuses. On the other hand, it is essential to avoid
overregulation that stifles innovation because establishing laws
will have an impact on blockchain technology development
[35], [37]. Different blockchain platforms currently exist
that are not interoperable, developing blockchain standards
are necessary in ensuring interoperability between multiple
blockchain implementations, stronger consensus, security and
resilience, privacy and trust [38].
Although smart contract lifecycle management is identified
in this study as part of the issues mitigating smart-contract
adoption in the organization, significant research efforts have
been made in addressing this issue. The study [16], proposes
a method for managing web-based electronic contract. Al-
though, the study focuses on electronic contracts that are run
from web systems instead of blockchain systems as used in
smart contracts, we consider the study useful because the
latter is a form of electronic contract deployed in a blockchain
network. Therefore, the same management cycle is applicable
to both smart contracts and other forms of electronic contracts.
The study proposes a six-step approach to manage smart
contracts comprising proposal, configuration, publication, ne-
gotiation, operation, and closure. Thus, the design of a specific
contract/agreement holds for a single business operation and
once the goal of the operation is achieved and all parties
are satisfied, the contract is closed and a new one created.
The major drawbacks are that smart contracts are designed
for business processes with rules that do not change quickly
since modifications, or changes, cannot be performed on smart
contracts once they are deployed on a blockchain [7]. Further
studies must be carried out to provide an appropriate method
for managing the lifecycle of a smart contract.
The study [39] provides a formalized lifecycle management
framework for decentralized applications. The study describes
a four-phase steps in managing smart-contracts and they as
follows – setup phase, description of decentralized governance
infrastructure (DGI), enactment phase and termination phase.
The setup phase describes the contract negotiation stage as
the parties involves describes the services required and agree
on a proposal for the contract. The DGI shows in hierarchical
order the elements required in executing electronic transac-
tion in the contract proposal. Enactment phase shows the
implementation and the behavior monitoring of the contract
on DGI. Finally, termination phase shows steps required in
dissolving the contract. The framework also provides the
possibility for transaction rollback when there is conflict as
well as compensation mechanisms in such cases.
6) Blockchain cloud platforms: Blockchain as a Service
(BaaS) is a new cloud computing service offered to organiza-
tions for processing their business operations via blockchain
networks [40], [41]. IBM3, Microsoft4and SAP5are lead-
ing providers of blockchain-cloud service, while other cloud
providers are also integrating existing blockchain platforms
as part of service offerings6. For instance, Amazon recently
adopted QTUM as part of the blockchain platforms for its
web service offerings . Different methods are proposed for
implementing blockchain cloud service. The study [40] pro-
poses a functional blockchain as a service concept that offers
a lighter implementation of top-level business logic applicable
in BaaS. The main advantage of this approach is reducing the
complexity of developing business logic over blockchain to
improve performance.
Although BaaS reduces the complexities for organizations
wishing to adopt blockchain for their business process, cloud-
blockchain based services still experiences some blockchain
limitations that are outlined in this study. Storage oversize is
the main limitation of blockchain-based cloud platforms [40].
There is also an issue of third-party involvement that negates
the main principles of blockchain.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we analyze 48 peer-reviewed papers relevant
to our research question how to successfully adopt smart
contracts in modern organizations? These papers are filtered
out from the initial search results of 496 papers. Then we
categorize the selected papers by year, type of organization,
blockchain technology, type of network, application area,
problem intended to be solved and status of contribution.
Finally, we examine existing issues and technical limitation
of blockchain technology affected.
Our analysis shows that most of the organizations that adopt
smart-contract application are private (87.5%). 75% of already
implemented projects are designed specifically for private
3IBM Blockchain: https://www.ibm.com/blockchain
4Microsoft Azure platform: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-
us/solutions/blockchain/
5SAP Blockchain service: https://www.sap.com/products/leonardo/blockchain.html
6Amazon blockchain: https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/seller-
profile?id=884fa2fc-5050-4db4-9110-c9a616d10e99
organizations. Most of the analyzed projects (62.5%) are
either prototyped or implemented. Only 37.5% fall under the-
oretical descriptions and proposed frameworks/methods. Top
domains (71.87%) of organizations adopting smart-contract
applications are aupply chain management (SCM), finance,
healthcare, information security, smart city and IoT solutions.
The implemented projects are mostly (75%) presented in
healthcare, SCM and finance domains.
After analyzing the organizations adopting smart contracts
we check the purposes of doing so. According to our research,
the transparency and trust are the main benefits with 44% of
smart contracts used in organizations. Other benefits include
data security and privacy, resource management, tamper-proof,
and interoperability.
We identify 18 limitations of blockchain technologies. The
technologies affected are a digital signature (55.6%), consen-
sus (50%), Solidity programming language (38.9%), consensus
mechanism PoW (27.8%) and nodes (27.8%). Most of the
limitations (61.1%) describe issues that affect all investigated
application areas. 72.2% of the limitations define the issues
that affect all applications that use tokens. 66.7% of the
limitations affect applications involving PoW, applications in
public blockchains are presented each by 72.2%. Limitations
for applications in the finance domain are presented in 72.2%
and 66.7% describe limitations that affect IoT, smart city and
SCM domains.
Our study has some limitations, and these include the scope
of analyzed projects and an inadequate categorization of de-
centralized applications to consider viable projects. Our study
considers only projects that are in academic publications while
there are other smart-contract projects in organizations that are
not presented in any academic publication. As future work,
we propose a study to evaluate the feasibility and usability
of implemented decentralized applications in the blockchain
ecosystem.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Shah, “Use of blockchain as a software component to send messages
anonymously for a data trading platform,” 2017.
[2] C. Stagnaro, “White paper: Innovative blockchain uses in health care,”
Freed Associates, 2017.
[3] S. A. Abeyratne and R. P. Monfared, “Blockchain ready manufacturing
supply chain using distributed ledger,” 2016.
[4] M. Bartoletti and L. Pompianu, “An empirical analysis of smart con-
tracts: platforms, applications, and design patterns,” in International
Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer,
2017, pp. 494–509.
[5] G.-T. Nguyen and K. Kim, “A survey about consensus algorithms used in
blockchain.” Journal of Information Processing Systems, vol. 14, no. 1,
2018.
[6] M. Swan, Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy. ” O’Reilly Media,
Inc.”, 2015.
[7] V. Buterin et al., “A next-generation smart contract and decentralized
application platform,” white paper, 2014.
[8] G. Becker, “Merkle signature schemes, merkle trees and their cryptanal-
ysis,” Ruhr-University Bochum, Tech. Rep, 2008.
[9] Z. Liu, S. Tang, S. S. Chow, Z. Liu, Y. Long, and Z. Sui, “Fork-
free hybrid consensus with flexible proof-of-activity,” Cryptology ePrint
Archive, Report 2017/367, Tech. Rep., 2017.
[10] C. Dannen, Introducing Ethereum and Solidity. Springer, 2017.
[11] C. Okoli and K. Schabram, “A guide to conducting a systematic literature
review of information systems research,” 2010.
[12] J. Webster and R. T. Watson, “Analyzing the past to prepare for the
future: Writing a literature review,” MIS quarterly, pp. xiii–xxiii, 2002.
[13] P. Brereton, B. A. Kitchenham, D. Budgen, M. Turner, and M. Khalil,
“Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within
the software engineering domain,” Journal of systems and software,
vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 571–583, 2007.
[14] C. Udokwu, A. Kormiltsyn, K. Thangalimodzi, and A. Norta, “An
exploration of blockchain enabled smart-contracts application in the en-
terprise,” Technical Report, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36464.97287, Tech.
Rep.
[15] J. Sidhu, “Syscoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system with
blockchain-based services for e-business,” in Computer Communication
and Networks (ICCCN), 2017 26th International Conference on. IEEE,
2017, pp. 1–6.
[16] J. B. Neto and C. M. Hirata, “Lifecycle for management of e-contracts
based on web service,” in Proceedings of the World Congress on
Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 1, 2013.
[17] E. Androulaki, A. Barger, V. Bortnikov, C. Cachin, K. Christidis,
A. De Caro, D. Enyeart, C. Ferris, G. Laventman, Y. Manevich et al.,
“Hyperledger fabric: a distributed operating system for permissioned
blockchains,” in Proceedings of the Thirteenth EuroSys Conference.
ACM, 2018, p. 30.
[18] P. Jayachandran, “The difference between public and private
blockchain,” IBM Blockchain Blog, May, vol. 31, 2017.
[19] J. Yli-Huumo, D. Ko, S. Choi, S. Park, and K. Smolander, “Where is
current research on blockchain technology?—a systematic review,” PloS
one, vol. 11, no. 10, p. e0163477, 2016.
[20] G. C. Dumitrescu, “Bitcoin–a brief analysis of the advantages and
disadvantages,” Global Economic Observer, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 63–71,
2017.
[21] Z. Zheng, S. Xie, H.-N. Dai, and H. Wang, “Blockchain challenges and
opportunities: A survey,” Work Pap.–2016, 2016.
[22] S. Eskandari, J. Clark, V. Sundaresan, and M. Adham, “On the feasibility
of decentralized derivatives markets,” in International Conference on
Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 2017, pp. 553–
567.
[23] M. Fenwick, W. A. Kaal, and E. P. Vermeulen, “Legal education in the
blockchain revolution,” Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L., vol. 20, p. 351, 2017.
[24] B. Notheisen, M. G¨
odde, and C. Weinhardt, “Trading stocks on blocks-
engineering decentralized markets,” in International Conference on
Design Science Research in Information Systems. Springer, 2017, pp.
474–478.
[25] S. King and S. Nadal, “Ppcoin: Peer-to-peer crypto-currency with proof-
of-stake,” self-published paper, August, vol. 19, 2012.
[26] P. Dai, N. Mahi, J. Earls, and A. Norta, “Smart-contract value-
transfer protocols on a distributed mobile application platform,” URL:
https://qtum. org/uploads/files/cf6d69348ca50dd985b60425ccf282f3.
pdf, 2017.
[27] T. Bocek and B. Stiller, “Smart contracts–blockchains in the wings,” in
Digital Marketplaces Unleashed. Springer, 2018, pp. 169–184.
[28] T. McConaghy, R. Marques, A. M¨
uller, D. De Jonghe, T. Mc-
Conaghy, G. McMullen, R. Henderson, S. Bellemare, and A. Granzotto,
“Bigchaindb: a scalable blockchain database,” white paper, BigChainDB,
2016.
[29] E. Hofmann and M. R¨
usch, “Industry 4.0 and the current status as well
as future prospects on logistics,” Computers in Industry, vol. 89, pp.
23–34, 2017.
[30] T. Hardjono and N. Smith, “Cloud-based commissioning of constrained
devices using permissioned blockchains,” in Proceedings of the 2nd
ACM International Workshop on IoT Privacy, Trust, and Security.
ACM, 2016, pp. 29–36.
[31] M. Vukoli´
c, “Rethinking permissioned blockchains,” in Proceedings of
the ACM Workshop on Blockchain, Cryptocurrencies and Contracts.
ACM, 2017, pp. 3–7.
[32] A. Kosba, A. Miller, E. Shi, Z. Wen, and C. Papamanthou, “Hawk:
The blockchain model of cryptography and privacy-preserving smart
contracts,” in 2016 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP).
IEEE, 2016, pp. 839–858.
[33] M. A. Gonz´
alez, W. Rudametkin, M. Monperrus, and R. Rouvoy, “Chal-
lenging anti-fragile blockchain applications,” in 11th EuroSys Doctoral
Workshop EuroDW’17, 2017.
[34] M. Knecht and B. Stiller, “Smartdemap: A smart contract deployment
and management platform,” in IFIP International Conference on Au-
tonomous Infrastructure, Management and Security. Springer, 2017,
pp. 159–164.
[35] D. He, K. F. Habermeier, R. B. Leckow, V. Haksar, Y. Almeida,
M. Kashima, N. Kyriakos-Saad, H. Oura, T. S. Sedik, N. Stetsenko et al.,
“Virtual currencies and beyond: initial considerations,” International
Monetary Fund, Tech. Rep., 2016.
[36] D. Blummont, “Blocking the future? the regulation of distributed
ledgers,” 2017.
[37] P. Yeoh, “Regulatory issues in blockchain technology,” Journal of
Financial Regulation and Compliance, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 196–208, 2017.
[38] A. Deshpande, K. Stewart, L. Lepetit, and S. Gunashekar, “Dis-
tributed ledger technologies/blockchain: Challenges, opportunities and
the prospects for standards,” Overview report The British Standards
Institution (BSI), 2017.
[39] A. Norta, A. B. Othman, and K. Taveter, “Conflict-resolution lifecycles
for governed decentralized autonomous organization collaboration,” in
Proceedings of the 2015 2nd International Conference on Electronic
Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia. ACM, 2015,
pp. 244–257.
[40] H. Chen and L.-J. Zhang, “Fbaas: Functional blockchain as a service,” in
International Conference on Blockchain. Springer, 2018, pp. 243–250.
[41] J. Singh and J. D. Michels, “Blockchain as a service: Providers and
trust,” 2017.
