4.5 Article

Blockchain Technology for Governmental Supervision of Construction Work: Learning from Digital Currency Electronic Payment Systems

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002148

关键词

Construction supervision; Blockchain; Central governance; Digital currency electronic payment; Dual-layer blockchain network

资金

  1. Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Fund (ITF) [ITP/029/20LP]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research aims to develop a blockchain-based model for governmental supervision of construction work (GSCW). Through literature review, cross-sectoral learning, and design science research method, a dual-layer blockchain-based GSCW model was developed, ensuring information-sharing, tamper-proof, and privacy-preserving mechanism.
Blockchain technology has been explored for governmental supervision of construction work (GSCW) due to its merits of traceability, immutability, and transparency. However, its decentralized nature is seemingly incompatible with GSCW, which is a type of centralized governance per se. This research aims to find a network topology with a proper level of (de)centralization and, based on this topology, to develop a blockchain-based model for GSCW. First, a literature review is conducted to identify problems in GSCW. Then, a cross-sectoral learning is performed between GSCW and digital currency electronic payment systems. Next, a design science research method is adopted to develop a dual-layer blockchain-based GSCW model integrated with an incentive mechanism. Finally, the model is illustrated in Hyperledger Fabric and its strengths and weaknesses evaluated. It was found that the model can enable an information-sharing, tamper-proof, and privacy-preserving mechanism without affecting the current status and routines of GSCW units and project teams. The model developed in our study can serve as a valuable reference for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers to develop governance policies or blockchain applications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据