Discuss At Least Two Ways You Foresee Blockchain Transformin ✓ Solved

Discuss at least two ways you foresee blockchain transformin

Discuss at least two ways you foresee blockchain transforming information governance in businesses. Provide at least one detailed example of your findings. Include at least one outside source applicable to the topic, cited properly in APA. At least one scholarly source should be used in your discussion. Use proper citations and references.

Paper For Above Instructions

Blockchain technology, long associated primarily with cryptocurrencies, increasingly appears as a transformative enabler for information governance within organizations. Information governance encompasses data quality, data lineage, access controls, privacy, compliance, and auditable decision-making processes. By combining tamper-evident ledgers with programmable behavior through smart contracts, blockchain can provide immutable records of data creation and transformation, along with automated policy enforcement. This essay discusses two concrete ways blockchain can transform information governance in businesses: (1) providing immutable data provenance and audit trails for governance and compliance, and (2) enabling decentralized, policy-driven access control and data sharing through smart contracts and decentralized identifiers. Throughout, the discussion draws on scholarly analyses and practitioner perspectives to illustrate both the potential and the challenges of adoption. (Crosby et al., 2016; Pilkington, 2016; Iansiti & Lakhani, 2017)

First, blockchain can significantly strengthen data provenance, integrity, and auditability—core components of information governance. Traditional data governance often relies on centralized systems or siloed logs that can be altered, lost, or selectively reported. A tamper-evident blockchain ledger creates an immutable chronicle of data events, including creation, modification, access, and sharing. Each data action can be cryptographically signed and time-stamped, producing an auditable trail that regulators, auditors, and internal governance bodies can verify without relying on a single party. The literature argues that blockchain’s append-only structure and distributed consensus reduce the risk of undetected tampering and enable independent verification of data lineage, which is critical for regulatory reporting and forensic investigations (Crosby et al., 2016; Pilkington, 2016). Moreover, researchers note that blockchain-based provenance can improve data quality by making data lineage more transparent and traceable, facilitating impact analyses, data lineage maps, and trust in data-driven decisions (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016). In regulated industries such as healthcare, finance, and energy, immutable ledgers can support compliance with data retention requirements and enable precise data lineage during audits, significantly reducing time and cost for reporting (Iansiti & Lakhani, 2017). The auditability feature aligns with governance goals of accountability and traceability, which are essential when data flows cross organizational boundaries and jurisdictions (Crosby et al., 2016; Iansiti & Lakhani, 2017).

Second, blockchain can enable decentralized, policy-driven access control and secure data sharing through smart contracts and decentralized identifiers. Rather than rely solely on centralized access control lists, organizations can encode governance policies into smart contracts that automatically enforce rules around who can access data, under what conditions, and for what purposes. For example, a company could implement data-sharing policies that require explicit consent, time-bound access, or dual-approval workflows before sensitive information is released, with each action transparently recorded on the blockchain. Smart contracts provide a programmable layer that can ensure compliance with data governance policies across internal departments and external partners, reducing human error and inconsistencies in policy enforcement (Christidis & Devetsikiotis, 2016). In addition, decentralized identifiers (DIDs) and verifiable credentials can support user-centric control over identities and access rights, aligning with privacy-by-design principles while maintaining auditable governance records (Zyskind, Nathan, & Pentland, 2015). While promising, this approach also raises questions about scalability, interoperability, and the need for standardized governance frameworks to avoid fragmentation and duplicative effort (Iansiti & Lakhani, 2017; ENISA, 2018).

As a concrete example, imagine a multinational pharmaceutical company that must manage highly sensitive clinical trial data, regulatory filings, and supply chain information across dozens of jurisdictions. A blockchain-based information governance layer could: (1) record immutable data provenance for clinical trial results, data cleaning steps, and data-sharing events with regulators, (2) implement smart contracts that automatically enforce data access rules for researchers, auditors, and partners, including consent management and audit logging, and (3) provide a trusted, auditable trail for regulatory inspections and post-market surveillance. In this scenario, data lineage and access decisions would be traceable to specific data items, user identities, and timestamps, supporting rigorous regulatory compliance and faster, more efficient audits. Research suggests that such governance-enhancing capabilities—data provenance, immutable logs, and policy-enforced sharing—are among blockchain’s most compelling use cases for information governance (Crosby et al., 2016; Pilkington, 2016; Iansiti & Lakhani, 2017). Privacy-preserving features, such as selective disclosure and cryptographic techniques, can be layered into the governance model to protect patient data while still enabling legitimate access for oversight (Zyskind, Nathan, & Pentland, 2015).

Nevertheless, realizing these governance benefits requires careful attention to several challenges. First, blockchain is not a silver bullet for privacy. While on-chain immutability enhances traceability, it can complicate compliance with data protection laws that limit data retention and require the ability to modify or delete data in certain circumstances. Techniques such as off-chain storage with on-chain references and privacy-preserving cryptography can mitigate these issues, but they add architectural complexity (Zyskind, Nathan, & Pentland, 2015; Christidis & Devetsikiotis, 2016). Second, governance through blockchain depends on interoperable standards and robust governance models. Without common standards, organizations risk vendor lock-in, fragmented policies, and difficulties coordinating across ecosystems (Iansiti & Lakhani, 2017). Finally, scalability and performance constraints in public ledgers necessitate careful consideration of which data and policies should be on-chain versus off-chain, and how to balance speed with auditability and security (Crosby et al., 2016; Yli-Huumo et al., 2016). Despite these challenges, the converging evidence suggests blockchain can materially reshape information governance by shifting control toward verifiable, automated, and transparent governance processes while preserving privacy through careful design (World Economic Forum, 2018; ENISA, 2018).

In sum, blockchain offers two compelling avenues for transforming information governance in businesses: (1) immutable data provenance and auditability that improve data lineage, accountability, and regulatory reporting, and (2) programmable, policy-driven access control and secure data sharing via smart contracts and decentralized identities. The combination of these capabilities can enhance governance effectiveness, reduce operational risk, and support compliance in dynamic, data-intensive environments. Realizing these benefits will require attention to privacy-preserving designs, interoperability, and scalable architectures, as well as ongoing scholarly and practitioner collaboration to refine governance models and standards (Crosby et al., 2016; Pilkington, 2016; Iansiti & Lakhani, 2017; Zyskind, Nathan, & Pentland, 2015; Christidis & Devetsikiotis, 2016; World Economic Forum, 2018).

References

  • Crosby, M., Pattanayak, P., Verma, S., & Kalyanaraman, V. (2016). Blockchain technology: Beyond bitcoin. Communications of the ACM, 59(9), 41-47.
  • Pilkington, M. (2016). Blockchain technology: Principles and applications. UCL Centre for Blockchain Technology.
  • Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on blockchain technology? An overview of the literature. PLoS ONE, 11(10): e0163477. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163477
  • Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2017). The truth about blockchain. Harvard Business Review, 95(1), 112-119.
  • Zyskind, G., Nathan, O., & Pentland, A. (2015). Decentralizing privacy: On personal data for the data owner. IEEE Security & Privacy, 13(3), 55-59.
  • Christidis, K., & Devetsikiotis, M. (2016). Blockchains and smart contracts for the Internet of Things. IEEE Access, 4, 2292-2303. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2566321
  • Swan, M. (2015). Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy. O'Reilly Media.
  • Mougayar, W. (2016). The Business Blockchain: Promise, Practice, and Application of the Next Internet Technology. Wiley.
  • World Economic Forum. (2018). Blockchain Beyond the Hype: What is the Reality Today? World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/reports/blockchain-beyond-the-hype-what-is-the-reality
  • European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). (2018). Blockchain security: An overview of security risks in blockchain. ENISA.

Related Assignments