ABSTRACT
Blockchain's potential to revolutionize supply chain and logistics with transparency and equitable stakeholder engagement is significant. However, challenges like scalability, privacy, and interoperability persist. This study explores the scarcity of real-world blockchain implementations in supply chain and logistics since we have not witnessed many real-world deployments of blockchain-based solutions in the field. Puzzled by this, we integrate technology, user experience, and operational efficiency to illuminate the complex landscape of blockchain integration. We present blockchain-based solutions in three use cases, comparing them with alternative designs and analyzing them in terms of technical, economic, and operational aspects. Insights from a tailored questionnaire of 50 questions addressed to practitioners and experts offer crucial perspectives on blockchain adoption. One of the key findings from our work shows that half of the companies interviewed agree that they will miss the potential for competitive advantage if they do not invest in blockchain technology, and 61% of the companies surveyed claimed that their customers ask for more transparency in supply chain-related transactions. However, only one-third of the companies were aware of the main features of blockchain technology, which shows a lack of knowledge among the companies that may lead to a weaker blockchain adaption in supply chain use cases. Our readers should note that our study is specifically contextualized in a Netherlands-funded national project. We hope that researchers as well as stakeholders in supply chain and logistics can benefit from the insights of our work.
Subject(s)
Blockchain , Fear , Awareness , Knowledge , NetherlandsABSTRACT
The European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) imposes legal responsibilities concerning the collection and processing of personal information from individuals who live in the EU. It has particular implications for the remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). This report from a joint Task Force of the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Regulatory Affairs Committee of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommends a common legal interpretation of the GDPR. Manufacturers and hospitals should be designated as joint controllers of the data collected by remote monitoring (depending upon the system architecture) and they should have a mutual contract in place that defines their respective roles; a generic template is proposed. Alternatively, they may be two independent controllers. Self-employed cardiologists also are data controllers. Third-party providers of monitoring platforms may act as data processors. Manufacturers should always collect and process the minimum amount of identifiable data necessary, and wherever feasible have access only to pseudonymized data. Cybersecurity vulnerabilities have been reported concerning the security of transmission of data between a patient's device and the transceiver, so manufacturers should use secure communication protocols. Patients need to be informed how their remotely monitored data will be handled and used, and their informed consent should be sought before their device is implanted. Review of consent forms in current use revealed great variability in length and content, and sometimes very technical language; therefore, a standard information sheet and generic consent form are proposed. Cardiologists who care for patients with CIEDs that are remotely monitored should be aware of these issues.
