Barriers to blockchain
adoption in the public
This thesis is submitted to the Department of Industrial Economics at Blekinge Institute of
Technology in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Industrial Economics and Management. The thesis is awarded 15 ECTS credits.
The author declares that he has completed the thesis work independently. All external sources are cited and listed under the references section. The thesis work has not been submitted in the same or similar form to any other institution(s) as part of another examination or degree.
Author information:
Erik Westerström erwa17@student.bth.seDepartment of Industrial Economics Blekinge Institute of Technology SE-371 79 Karlskrona, Sweden Website: www.bth.se
Abstract
The adoption of blockchain in the public electrical vehicle charging market has yet to be realized to its full potential, despite existing proof-of-concept. A positive outlook for blockchain is suggested by contemporary research, as well as the need for empirical studies to fully identify blockchain’s barriers to adoption. Through qualitative methods, a focused literature review, and in-depth interviews with subject matter experts, this thesis investigated which barriers to blockchain adoption exist in the public electrical vehicle charging market. The results indicated that the main barrier to blockchain adoption was the structure of the public electrical vehicle charging market itself, since it is an immature market experiencing constant change. This was followed by: coordination, norms and cultures, business process, incumbent technological solutions, regulations and legislations, shared infrastructure, and distributed ledger technology. These barriers were not shown individually, but were affected by each other. It is concluded that blockchain technology is not needed by the market in its current state, as its key defining attributes of privacy, security and decentralization are not deemed worth the cost of its own implementation. This research contributes to, and updates, the knowledge of blockchain utilization for the public electrical vehicle charging market. The results can be used by private and public organizations and scholars as reference material with regards to blockchain adoption for public electrical vehicle charging.
Acknowledgements
This thesis was written during the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, and was probably one of the few endeavors unaffected by the pandemic. The thesis is the examination part of an MBA program conducted by distance learning. Working with such a comprehensive research topic, isolated, with limited possibilities to discuss with peers face-to-face, proved challenging. It also proved a valuable lesson, perhaps necessary to adapt to what future challenges are put on us as humans, in terms of distance work. The research was qualitative; thus, it was the direct opposite of my previous thesis work, which was the definition of quantitative. This fact alone provided its fair share of challenges and I have a newfound respect for qualitative research.
Hence, no one works completely alone in this world, and I am in gratitude to several individuals. I would like to start by thanking my supervisor, Dr. Johanna Börrefors, for her input during this thesis work. I wish to also extend my gratitude to all the interviewees participating in this study. Without their participation, this research would not have been as meaningful. I would also like to mention the feedback from my MBA program peers, for their diligent and valuable input during oppositions of this thesis. And last, but not least, I would especially like to thank my family for their extensive support and valuable input to this thesis, as well as the studies I have undertaken these last few years. Falkenberg, June 7, 2020
List of abbreviations
B2B Business-to-Business
CDR Charge Detail Record
CPO Charging Point Operator
DLT Distributed Ledger Technology
EV Electrical Vehicle
GDPR General Data Protection Regulation
ICE Internal Combustion Engine
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
MSP Mobility Service Provider
OCN Open Charging Network
OCPI Open Charging Point Interface
OCPP Open Charge Point Protocol
Table of contents
1.
Introduction ___________________________________________ 1
1.1. Problem discussion_____________________________________________________ 2 1.2. Problem formulation and purpose __________________________________________ 6 1.3. Delimitations _________________________________________________________ 7 1.4. Thesis structure _______________________________________________________ 8
2.
Literature review________________________________________ 9
2.1. Contemporary research themes ___________________________________________ 9 2.2. Synthesis and analysis of literature _________________________________________ 14
3.
Methodology __________________________________________ 16
3.1. Research approach and research strategy ___________________________________ 16 3.2. Research method _____________________________________________________ 16 3.3. Research design ______________________________________________________ 16 3.4. Data collection ______________________________________________________ 17 3.4.1. Interviews ________________________________________________________ 17 3.4.2. Interviewees ______________________________________________________ 17 3.4.3. Secondary data _____________________________________________________ 19 3.5. Data Analysis ________________________________________________________ 19 3.6. Trustworthiness______________________________________________________ 20 3.7. Ethical considerations __________________________________________________ 20
4.
Empirical findings _______________________________________ 21
4.3.6. Distributed ledger technology (T1) ______________________________________ 33 4.3.7. Shared infrastructure (T2) _____________________________________________ 34 4.3.8. Incumbent technological solutions (T3) ___________________________________ 34
1. Introduction
I first heard of blockchain in 2013, through the bitcoin cryptocurrency. It was then infamously used as a medium for exchange between various types of illicit activities (Bearman, 2015). Unaware that the underlying technology was blockchain, I ignored it until the summer of 2018, when a friend
enlightened me to blockchain. Blockchain and bitcoin had then passed through a massive inflation bubble and subsequent burst of the same bubble (Petersson, 2018). Nevertheless, blockchain had garnered a massive amount of media coverage, promising to disrupt the future of value transfer. Examining the media from 2017, it seems like blockchain was the solution for everything. Supply chain management, energy trading rights, smart cities, and commodities trading, to name a few areas. It was described as a disruptive technology. I was instantly intrigued by the possibilities, but the more I learned about blockchain technologies, the more I realized that they were at best described as nascent. Who really used them? And to what degree will blockchain really influence our future? I quickly realized that it was a perfect research area for a thesis. A sceptic by nature, I dismissed blockchain for many of its proposed usages, though one area intrigued me. The energy markets. Large market sectors such as the energy markets are under rapid transformation and there is both a market demand and a technology push for the benefits of the blockchain technology (Brilliantova & Thurner, 2019). However, the energy sector is comprised by numerous different markets, such as emission rights and energy grid optimization. One market where blockchain could add value is the public electrical vehicle (EV) charging market (Bürer et al., 2019).
Blockchain, however, is yet to be commercialized in this domain, despite the outlook for blockchain to be a component in these charging systems (Brilliantova & Thurner, 2019). The benefit of utilizing blockchain is that it brings a unique way to communicate and verify transactions. The ledger of transactions is distributed and the transactions are validated by a network that blockchain operates on (Appendix A). Blockchain therefore favors optimization of the management and coordination of public EV charging (Andoni et al., 2019). The implications of using this technology for public EV charging have been studied in pilot cases numerous times (Share & Charge, n.d.). In these pilot studies, infrastructure companies and service providers were gathered. Blockchain acted as the foundation for transactions, eliminating traditional transaction mechanisms used in today’s roaming solutions for EV charging. Yet I find no evidence of blockchain adoption in the public EV charging value chain, which makes me wonder why.
This thesis aims to explore the current status of the barriers to adoption of blockchain for public EV charging. I have chosen this research topic due to my professional and personal interest in the
future value-transfer system, but to what extent? Few technologies are subject to so many
misconceptions as blockchain technology and, I will argue, to such a level of hype. Current research points to both numerous benefits and numerous barriers for blockchain adoption. The barriers are well identified, but ill-defined for the public EV charging market. Therefore, I believe that performing research on this topic is the only way to gain competitive knowledge into what blockchain’s added value really is, and what barriers the technology faces.
1.1. Problem discussion
The public EV charging market is rapidly growing, logically following in the wake of the ever increasing EV sales. For example, global EV sales doubled from 2017 to 2018, to 5.1 million registered EVs. EV chargers are estimated to 5.2 million worldwide (International Energy Agency, 2019). However, the nascent EV charging market is occupied by many actors, creating a fragmented market (Krug et al., 2020). Additionally, depending on the geographical region, there is a scarcity of charging points and the charging times of vehicles are unsatisfactory (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2018). This creates problems for the EV drivers, “range anxiety”, as they are subjected to the reality that EVs are still limited in maximum range as opposed to Internal Combustion Engine cars (ICEs).
Furthermore, due to the fragmented public EV charging market, customers may not have the freedom of choice of “fueling points”. The analogy would be if ICE vehicle owners only could fill up gas at a certain chain of fueling stations. A remedy to this problem is the rise of roaming charging solutions. Roaming for EV charging allows EV drivers to use charging points with just one customer account at one specific charging service provider. A customer of one charging network gets access to thousands of charging stations, the Mobility Service Providers (MSPs) cooperate and coordinate their networks to create an enhanced user experience. The analogy is similar to roaming for cellphone networks. By allowing for enhanced user experience between EV drivers, Charging Point Operators (CPOs) and MSPs, the concept of interoperability is established. This is deemed to play a significant role in the adaption of EVs worldwide (IHS Markit, 2019). However, the solution does add to operational complexity for the CPOs and the MSPs, due to a substantial need for database maintenance, which for some smaller operators diminishes business value (IHS Markit, 2019). Roaming services are
continually improving, e.g. improvement of communication protocols between CPOs and MSPs (Open Charging Point Interface, n.d.).
“The conversion of new knowledge into a new product, process or service and the putting of this new product process or service into actual use” (Johnson et al., 2012, p.187).
Certain actors within the EV charging industry have identified that blockchain for public EV charging finds itself in “the chasm” (Sümmermann, 2018). The expression stems from Moore (2014, p.21), who has augmented the “Diffusion of Innovations Model”, first described by Rogers (2003). In Moore (2014), the theory is that a focused effort is needed in a niche market segment to cross the chasm. Another popular reference in contemporary research is the quote that blockchain now finds itself in the “Through of Disillusionment” of the Gartner Hype Cycle. Gartner, an accredited IT research and advisory firm, presented their model “The Gartner Hype Cycle” in 1995, to assess the maturity of a product (Gartner, n.d.). In July 2019, Gartner proclaimed that blockchain as a technology finds itself in the “through of disillusionment”, which indicates that blockchain fails to deliver tangible results and that interest in the technology is fading. Further investment will only continue until the demands of early adopters are met.
With this knowledge, based on research and market input, are these issues not easily remedied? If the problems that keep blockchain in the chasm get resolved, or in the through of disillusionment, will blockchain move forward and be adopted? In theory – yes. But what are the problems and challenges that blockchain face in the public EV charging market?
Apart from Rogers “Diffusion of Innovations Model” (Rogers, 2003), the classical model referred to in management literature is the “Bass Diffusion Model” (Bass, 1969). This model is essentially a mathematical model to determine how a specific market will adopt a new product, innovation or technology (Van den Berg & Pietersma, 2015). However, applying these two classical models to adapt new products is deceptively difficult and an aspiration full of pitfalls. The Bass Diffusion Model is a forecasting tool, and Roger’s concept is best used for psychosocial profiling of the adopters of a product in a market (Van den Berg & Pietersma, 2015). The initial problem might stem from the attribute “disruptive”, which is based on assumptions. The main assumption is that it is known that a product is disruptive before it hits the market, or before it is proven that it is equal to incumbents (Van den Berg & Pietersma, 2015).
The main criticism against the Gartner Hype Cycle is that there is no scientifically validated method to evaluate the maturity of the product (Steinert & Leifer, 2010), rendering the model a representation of the common view rather than a model to build a scientific discussion upon.
alignment to the general strategy of the company. Still, even this model would be hard to apply to the question of why blockchain is not used.
It seems that for blockchain technology to be analyzed, it must be from a pragmatic perspective, disregarding the notion that it is disruptive for public EV charging, and instead look at what barriers it needs to overcome to be adopted. There are numerous barriers to blockchain adoption, with some scientific literature claiming the top three as regulatory constraints, immature technology and the lack of a clear return on investment (Attaran & Gunasekaran, 2019).
1. Regulatory constraints
As current research points to great expectations for blockchain, the real world and its decision makers have been unable to keep up with the adjustment and installment of suitable regulations. Blockchains are by nature public ledgers (Appendix A), i.e. the privacy level of blockchain users is a subject of debate, and according to some a significant obstacle to adoption. The privacy aspect needs to be surpassed for blockchain to be a viable solution in EV charging (Andoni et al., 2019). From a general perspective, one regulation that creates uncertainty of possibly using blockchain is the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In simple terms, GDPR and blockchain are not compatible. GDPR dictates that responsibility must be attributed to someone, whereas blockchain distributes governance and responsibility over a network (Wallace, 2019).
2. Immature technology
At the product performance level, technological immaturity is debated. For blockchain based solutions, there are still significant factors to consider when choosing blockchain solutions. Blockchain pioneer Vitalik Buterin summarizes these in the “Scalability Trilemma” (Viswanathan & Shah, 2018):
x Decentralization - A decentralized network is the foundation of blockchain. However, today, this decentralization creates transaction costs and transaction times that are far too high for consumers to be willing to adopt the technology.
x Security - The validation of transactions must be secure. One warrant for security is the idea of decentralization, which removes any single point of failure. Another warrant for secure transactions is the idea of consensus in the network. If the network cannot reach consensus regarding the absolute truth of any transaction, it will not be filed. This creates a tamper-proof and secure network, but also large demands in terms of time, energy and costs. This in turn affects the scalability, since it restricts the amount of transactions possible within a given time frame.
According to industry experts, no current blockchain solution solves more than two of the three above mentioned prerequisites for a minimum viable product (Viswanathan & Shah, 2018). In simple terms, decentralization allows for secure transactions, though these transactions are too slow to be practical, thus disqualifying blockchain from usage.
3. Lack of a clear Return of Investment
Even though viable roaming solutions for EV charging already exist, why would investors speculate in a technology that is so clouded in controversy and clearly not a turn-key product? This question will not be further investigated in this thesis because the willingness to invest is a concept that is based on far too many variables for it to be realistically possible to investigate within this thesis. Examples of factors not yet mentioned are governance, organizational, and societal (Attaran & Gunasekaran, 2019).
1.2. Problem formulation and purpose
As mentioned in Chapter 1.1, research points to many barriers that contribute to blockchain technology not being adopted. However, as discussed in Chapter 2, much literature outlines these general barriers, with the range of research spanning from detailed cryptographic research to holistic interdisciplinary research. However, with this approach, it becomes either too focused on one specific barrier or too general. The approach of this thesis is to narrow down the scope of the research to a specific sector and try to understand which specific barriers within this sector have an impact on blockchain adoption. Therefore, the research problem is stated as:
What are the barriers to adoption of blockchain in public EV charging?
This research problem is broken down into three research questions, 1. What are the characteristics of the public EV charging market?
The public EV charging market will be examined with respect to what actors it comprises, and what dynamics exist. This will create an understanding of the public EV charging market and what is its value chain.
2. What problems would blockchain solve within the public EV charging market?
What problems have been identified by actors in the public EV charging market that blockchain could solve? What would the proposed technological solution be? What is the value added? 3. Why is blockchain not used to solve these problems?
1.3. Delimitations
Delimitations of this study will be:
● For this research, the public EV charging market will be defined as businesses: CPOs, MSPs and eRoaming platforms that focuses on public charging poles. While there are other actors on a market, e.g. EV drivers, the delimitation is done with the logic that the resources and time to include all market-actors is not feasible. This applies especially to private EV customers, who as previously discussed are now estimated to more than five million users worldwide.
● The geographical delimitation for data collection will be delimited to Europe. Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland are involved in the study. This choice is based on the availability of both actors and public records rather than the specific size of the respective markets.
● Incumbent payment solutions and rival solutions, such as other distributed ledgers for value transfers, will not be investigated. This would be counterproductive towards the exploration of the blockchain based ledgers. Moreover, only open source blockchain solutions will be investigated. Open source blockchains are occasionally denominated as public blockchains, which according to Nakamoto (2008) is the definition of a blockchain. While there are two more classifications of blockchains, private and consortium (Appendix A), the scope will only concern the public blockchain, from here on designated as blockchain. Arguably, blockchain has the most disruptive capacities, but also poses the highest business complexity. Moreover, consortium and private blockchains might not offer the same research possibilities, because information is controlled by consortiums or private entities, as opposed to blockchain, where documentation is open source.
1.4. Thesis structure
The disposition of this thesis is as follows: Chapter 2 examines current relevant literature connected to the research questions, what this literature indicates and how this literature has reached these
2. Literature review
From the problem discussion in Chapter 1, theory that explains barriers to adoption must be obtained from contemporary research rather than classical management models. The research topic of
blockchain is producing literature at a high pace. A Google scholar search for the first quarter of 2020, comprising the search words “blockchain” and “public EV charging”, renders in 181 publications – an average of 13 publications per week for the first quarter of 2020. Utilizing “blockchain”, “adoption” and “EV charging” renders in 43 publications for the first quarter of 2020, with 55% focused on technical improvements to blockchain in EV charging. When examining the abstracts of each publication, the typical topics are autonomous vehicles and vehicle-to-vehicle energy trading
solutions, improvement of various blockchain consensus algorithms, and EVs and the optimization of energy utilization within smart cities. Although the research topics are relevant for our future way of living, it can be argued that they add limited value to the knowledge of how to adopt blockchain within EV charging. Four papers from the first quarter 2020 discuss the process of blockchain
adoption, and only one paper suggests a framework for studying the disruption capacity of blockchain (de Villiers & Cuffe, 2020). However, this paper uses a global denomination of “Electric Industry” and is therefore not specific to public EV charging. An examination of scientific literature from 2019 and earlier indicates the same pattern. Generally, contemporary research is predominantly technology focused or descriptive. To illustrate, “blockchain” renders in 127,000 unique hits on Google Scholar. Adding “IEEE”, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (https://www.ieee.org/), to the search will render in 25,900 unique hits. As crude as the logic is, with 20% of the publications stemming from an institution that arguably favors a technology push approach to research, obvious knowledge gaps in the literature are possibly created. I have yet to find an empirical study that focuses on how to commercialize blockchain in the public EV charging market, though great reference works like that by Andoni et al. (2019) point to existing cases and provide a roadmap for further research. Additionally, few publications propose frameworks for how to analyze the barriers to adoption that blockchain specifically faces in the public EV charging market. This literature review is not intended as a full review of available research, but focuses on examining relevant literature for the research problem stated in Chapter 1. Simply, research that investigates technology adoption rather than technology invention.
2.1. Contemporary research themes
Blockchain technology has experienced a hype not yet warranted as an innovation
The hype surrounding blockchain has superseded the potential benefits, opportunities, costs and risks it poses to organizations and markets. In times of hype and hedonistic technology push patterns, there is a need to tone down the discourse and adopt a more neutral stance towards blockchain technology (Hawlitschek et al., 2020). Bürer et al. (2019) challenge the idea that blockchain technology will radically transform the energy sector as the hype indicated a few years ago. The insight, that the incumbent’s knowledge of blockchain technology is yet to be understood, is a sobering statement that counters the banter and much criticized expectations on blockchain. There are indications that current blockchain value proposals cannot outperform incumbent solutions, and that the cost of implementing blockchain outweighs the benefits of its use. Incumbents and existing business models, e.g. centralized ledgers managed by the separate actors (CPOs, MSPs etc.) in the value chain, thrive without
blockchain technology. It is suggested that short-term implementations would rather burn money than yield dividends (Hawlitschek et al., 2020). This tones down considerably the disruptive capacities of blockchain. The more likely outcome is that blockchain will stimulate the thinking around business models. Conversely, blockchain has yet to produce any major negative user cases, pointing to what early stage blockchain is still experiencing (Bürer et al., 2019).
Blockchain is a nascent technology creating value for user cases that are themselves not mature
As noted by researchers and market actors, blockchain technology is still in its infancy, mentioned as a key factor among Big data, Internet-of-things and Artificial intelligence in what is denominated as technologies that can add value to the energy sector (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2017). From a utilization perspective, however promising the technology might seem, many of its intended user cases have themselves not reached market maturity (Hawlitschek et al., 2020). The obvious example is the EV charging market, which is a viable market to adopt blockchain (Brilliantova & Thurner, 2019). However, market reports indicate that the EV charging market is a young, greatly fragmented market under consolidation (Krug et al., 2020).
The lack of depth and interdisciplinary approaches in existing research regarding blockchain technology, and what further research is needed
supported by Janssen et al. (2020), who synthesize literature from 2015 to 2018, finding that much of the literature is descriptive and secondary in nature. Hawlitschek et al. (2020) argue that there is a need for research that:
“Goes beyond prototypes, demonstrators, isolated artifacts, and minimum viable products, but acknowledges the actual complexity and difficulty of leveraging the technology in the field”.
The recommendations for further research illustrate the need for interdisciplinary approaches.
Socioeconomic research is identified as one approach (Bürer et al., 2019), to understand blockchain’s impact on markets. This includes a customer centric research, since today’s publications tend to focus on organizations. The lack of research regarding customer attitudes towards the technology, and whether technology push maps with market pull is noticeable. User interface and user experience are two keys in platform design, rather than the underlying technology (Hawlitschek et al., 2020). Focused research on institutional changes could possibly address what adjustments are needed at the
institutional level, and how, e.g., regulatory bodies can keep up with the pace of blockchain
technology evolution (Bürer et al., 2019). Overall, researchers acknowledge the need for holistic views to expand the knowledge of blockchain technology, and that literature needs to focus on specific industries to enhance validity (Janssen et al., 2020). Essentially, research needs to test suggested theories in different contexts, while allowing to fill knowledge gaps with empirical data.
The regulatory aspect of implementing decentralized systems in a society that governs systems designed for central authority
Recent years show a growing amount of literature focusing on the regulatory aspects of blockchain. A discussion pertaining to all industries where blockchain could be used is the GDPR vs. blockchain problematic. Blockchain is simply incompatible with the GDPR framework because they build upon opposing ideas regarding responsibility. The GDPR is adapted for utilization where at least one actor holds some sort of power over data subjects and their personal data (Wallace, 2019). Conversely, in a blockchain, theoretically, all participants have the same incentives and means in upholding the
blockchain. Therefore, there are not yet any clear answers on which single actor is responsible for data in a blockchain. For the energy sector, probably one of the largest inhibitors regarding the
seems simple enough to be unaffected by e.g. energy policies, the need for a supportive regulatory environment still exists (Brilliantova & Thurner, 2019). While contemporary research points to regulatory frameworks as a barrier for blockchain in public EV charging, exactly what regulations require amending are never discussed in detail. The one tangible factor is the GDPR regulation, which only affects blockchain solutions within the European Union. As such, the GDPR discussion is not fully generalizable to all research concerning EV charging, even within occidental Europe (Hillemann, 2019).
A growing body of literature proposing frameworks for analyzing blockchain’s adoption possibilities
Indeed, some research teams have identified the points mentioned above and either present
frameworks for analysis of blockchain adoption possibilities, like Janssen et al. (2020), or dismiss the disruptive capacity of blockchain for certain applications. The first perspective, the proposed
framework, is divided into three groups of factors that affect the adoption of blockchain: x Institutional factors
x Market factors x Technical factors
Figure 2:1
Integrated Process, Institutional, Market, Technology (PIMT) Framework for Blockchain Adoption
Note. Framework for analyzing blockchain adoption. Reprinted from “A framework for analysing blockchain
technology adoption: Integrating institutional, market and technical factors” by M. Janssen, V. Weerakkody, E. Ismagilova, U. Sivarajah, and Z. Irani, 2020. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 302-309. Copyright 2020, with permission from Elsevier.
2.2. Synthesis and analysis of literature
Contemporary scientific literature lacks no explanations on the basic functionality of blockchain. Most research articles either describe or propose conceptual solutions to chosen technical problems. The research also comprises a growing body of literature reviews. The inhibitors for adoption of
blockchain technology are well described, though most are generalizations. The research community has acknowledged the lack of empirical research, no matter what the research discipline and focus. It can be argued that it would improve our understanding of blockchain for public EV charging, if empirical research could be produced. When limited to secondary data, there is a risk for confirmation bias in article production, due to the lack of proper referencing. The hypothesis is that more
interdisciplinary empirical research would give conclusions that are not as greatly affected by the evolving domain of blockchain, and therefore would stand the test of time, at least longer than the seemingly maximum two years for some conclusions. The empirical aspect of the research would also open up for more research methods and make the interpretation of inducted results easier. Presently, the methodology presentations on how the research was performed is lacking substance, which creates problems when assessing how the conclusions were reached. The consensus that blockchain has a probable usage case in EV charging is a conclusion that is very hard to examine critically, since no argumentation for how that conclusion was reached exists. A proposition would be for research teams to revise and, if possible, produce follow up reports on the work they conducted at that time, like Hawlitschek et al. (2020), and critically review their own conclusions considering state-of-the-art knowledge, with updated methodology chapters. This would dismiss or strengthen existing
conclusions and hypotheses. Furthermore, the references would be updated, which would eliminate any outdated conclusions.
white-papers or internet magazine articles, with data stemming from 2017. When cross-examining other literature reviews and works focusing on blockchain for public EV charging, the pattern is the same. The user case and its industrial pilot projects are so few that they are the only points of references for the research community. Therefore, several projects launched in 2017 act as the basis for the
3. Methodology
3.1. Research approach and research strategy
Blockchain technology within public EV charging is still a relatively new research topic, that lacks empirically devised theories and reference literature. Therefore, this thesis used an inductive research approach. The nature of the research problem revolved around a technology that is in the early stages of development. There are no specific studies on what exact barriers to adoption blockchain faces in the public EV charging sector (as described in Chapter 2). Hence, the research strategy was
exploratory by nature. This choice of design was also based in recommendations for exploratory research by Ghauri and Gronhaug (2010). The need to steer away from human thoughts and interference was evident, but data needs to be interpreted in a context (Saunders et al., 2019). Therefore, the exploratory research strategy, using an interpretivist view, was chosen.
3.2. Research method
Based on the exploratory research strategy, qualitative methods were emphasized, since the topic of blockchain and the understanding of blockchain must be seen in the context of public EV charging (Bryman & Bell, 2011). This necessitates the interpretation of views and opinions from subject matter experts, coupled with a context rather than just relying on facts and numbers from secondary data.
3.3. Research design
The chosen research design was a combination of primary data gathering consisting of interviews with subject matter experts and secondary data review. The primary data in this combination of methods was purposively sampled with much of the data originating from the few blockchain pilots that have been performed for public EV charging, namely the Share & Charge-pilots. These pilot projects have gained much attention from the research community due to the projects’ involvement in blockchain (Andoni et al., 2019). Two of the pilot cases were named “Peer2Peer Germany” (in Germany) and “Swiss Pilot” (in Switzerland) (Share & Charge, n.d.). Both pilot projects tested a blockchain based payment application that allowed customers to utilize all charging poles and private chargers
3.4. Data collection
3.4.1. Interviews
The interview technique for this thesis was unstructured (Denscombe, 2017), where the focus was to discuss topics based on the research questions. The benefit of this method was the ability to react to the interviewee responses rather than use a fixed set of questions. The unstructured interview was used because the interviewees had such diverse backgrounds and knowledge about blockchain. Therefore, it was deemed futile to try to box all participants into a framework of questions. Moreover, the
interviewees acted in different countries, adding discrepancy to the knowledge base, because certain countries were ahead in the development of the public EV charging domain. An interview template is found in Appendix B. The interviews were performed between March 26 and April 15, 2020, by telephone or skype, in English and Swedish. The interviews were recorded and transcribed, with the Swedish transcriptions uniformly translated to English, and compiled in a database.
3.4.2. Interviewees
Purposive sampling was utilized with the chosen interviewees based on the information needed regarding gaps and uncertainties in secondary data sources. The main data gap identified was the data connecting the two chosen pilot projects, since the commercial websites of the two chosen companies did not offer in-depth explanations of the pilot projects. Therefore, three out of seven chosen
interviewees were connected to the Share & Charge pilot cases and were bearers of critical data for this study. The other interviewees were chosen based on their competences as subject matter experts, i.e. consultants (Law, Energy Management) or based on their position as a public EV charging actor who has not yet implemented blockchain. This sampling was conducted with the purpose of filling specific knowledge gaps, which the interviewees from the Share & Charge pilot cases were not expected to be able to answer. As such, the interviewees knowledge of blockchain technology was defined in three categories:
Limited knowledge
Defined as interviewees who had not worked professionally with blockchain implementations. Alternatively, respondents who had not produced literature on blockchain technology. This definition did not exclude that the interviewee may have had some basic knowledge about blockchain
Basic knowledge
The interviewee had encountered blockchain technologies in their professional capacity, but was not deemed to have actively worked in a professional setting with blockchain. Alternatively, the
interviewee had produced literature on blockchain technology.
Advanced knowledge
The interviewee had worked professionally with projects involving blockchain technology in the public EV charging market. Therefore, the interviewee had gathered first-hand knowledge of the technology, its possibilities and its shortcomings. This did not imply that the interviewee possessed blockchain software development skills. Table 3:1 below outlines an overview of the interviewees, their specific field of expertise and their knowledge of blockchain technology. Interviewees were anonymized and coded, with interviewee one being coded as R1, for “Respondent 1”.
Table 3:1
Overview of interviewees, occupation and expertise
Interviewee Title Company Level of knowledge of blockchain
R1 Attorney at Law Law firm Basic
R2 Product Manager MSP Advanced
R3 Product and Partner Manager
e-Mobility consultancy firm
Advanced
R4 CEO CPO/MSP Limited
R5 Subject Matter Expert e-Mobility Energy sector interest organization Limited R6 Project Manager
and Subject Matter Expert e-Mobility
CPO Advanced
R7 Managing Director e-Mobility interest organization
3.4.3. Secondary data
Secondary data formed the basis for analyzing the context of public EV charging and enabled effective primary data collection plans. The sources for secondary data were:
x Websites of the organizations of the subject matter experts interviewed.
x Textbooks, magazines and journal papers within the area of blockchain for EV charging. x Peer reviewed material regarding blockchain technology for e-Mobility.
x Peer reviewed material regarding blockchain regulations, both for EU and Sweden. x Scientific literature regarding technology adoptions.
x e-Mobility certified bodies.
3.5. Data Analysis
Open coding was used to conceptualize and categorize the primary data gathered from the interviews. As a first step, the findings deemed to answer the research question were coded. The coding process was based in the Janssen et al. (2020) framework for grouping barriers: Institutional, Market and Technological factors. A finding that was deemed to sort under a barrier was given a code corresponding to that barrier. An example is shown in Table 3:2, below:
Table 3:2
Coding groups and example of coding of identified barriers
Group Barrier Code Finding (example)
Institutional factors
Norms and cultures I-1 Resistance to change within EV companies. Institutional factors Regulations and legislations I-2 No support in legislations.
If new barriers were not outlined in the framework by Janssen et al. (2020), they were added to the respective group of barriers. Example:
Complexity of blockchain, a found barrier, is added to Technical factors, with the designation T-4.
was a thematic analysis that critically discussed the findings, with theoretical support from the literature review.
3.6. Trustworthiness
For validity and reliability, this thesis followed Denscombe’s (2017) guidelines for evaluating data quality in qualitative research.
To safeguard internal validity, the credibility of the study was based on the purposive sampling covering seven interviewees, all connected to either public EV charging or blockchain, and/or the combination EV charging/blockchain. This assured several data sources, especially in the Share & Charge pilots, where interviewees represented different actors in the public EV charging ecosystem. Interview questions revolved around the three major groups of barriers identified in Chapter 2 and was mailed to the respondents in advance. Finally, internal validity was assured through respondent-validation to control that the raw data and findings were correct. For increased external validity, the thesis aimed for transferability of the results, i.e. it encompassed data gathered from all groups of actors within the public EV charging market. Both SMEs and larger ventures, as well as external consultants, added to the variety of data.
Reliability was assured by dependability, i.e. by choosing the right research design for the research problem, and the correct choice of interviewees. Furthermore, reliability was based in the
confirmability of the study, i.e. by the outlining of the data collection process and that interviews were transcribed, thus not changing the data.
3.7. Ethical considerations
Four ethical considerations were made when performing this research (Bryman & Bell, 2011): Harm: The names of the participants were anonymized to protect the interviewees from future harm connected to the thesis and the research results.
Consent: For the interviews, consent was assured, and respondent validation of the findings was utilized, further enhancing the consent of each interviewee.
Privacy: No individuals had their privacy invaded, since the aim was to investigate markets and limited corporations.
4. Empirical findings
The public EV charging market is made up of EV drivers, CPOs, MSPs, and mobility networks.
CPOs – Charging Point Operators
A Charging Point Operator (CPO) is a company that is responsible for the installation, service and maintenance of a charging station or a pool of charging stations (Göß, 2018). This does not necessarily mean that the CPO owns the charging station. In some cases, the CPO owns the charging station, while in other cases it simply provides the owners with network connection (Virta, 2018). In a third scenario, CPOs own the infrastructure and provide access to it by some sort of leasing agreement (Saascharge, n.d.). The CPO business venture is predominately populated by utilities, companies that own the infrastructure that brings electricity to the charging station (Constellation, 2017). Examples of utilities are Vattenfall (https://group.vattenfall.com) and E.ON (www.eon.com). In some scenarios, CPOs operate as spin-offs from utilities or are owned by consortiums of utilities. For example, CPO Bee Energy Systems of Sweden (Bee) is owned by three Swedish utilities (Bee, n.d.). Sometimes, a CPO is also a Mobility Service Provider, again exemplified by Bee.
MSPs - Mobility Service Providers
A Mobility Service Provider (MSP) is a company that offers EV charging service contracts to end customers – the EV drivers. The MSP adds value by offering access to charging points within a specific area and providing the end customer with user interfaces for this access (Krug et al., 2020). Practically, this means helping EV drivers to find charging stations and facilitate the payment of the charging session through various methods. MSPs generally only provide their registered customers, though they may also provide services to unregistered users depending on what local regulations apply regarding electric mobility (Virta, 2018). Historically, MSPs were automotive OEMs, like BMW and Volkswagen. Lately, IT-startups have entered this market as viable competitors because the business idea relies on software innovation (Krug et al., 2020).
eRoaming platforms
eRoaming platforms are occasionally called Mobility networks and offer MSPs and CPOs access to each other via their IT-platform, as well as their services. Today, the public EV charging market is divided by just a few of these platforms. In Europe, Hubject (www.hubject.com), Gireve
(www.gireve.com) and e-clearing.net (www.e-clearing.net) are the major players, offering an international solution. There are also smaller platforms within countries (Krug et al., 2020).
4.1. Market structure: How does the business process function?
Here, all three players are involved. As previously mentioned, sometimes the CPO offers the MSP service as well. And in some instances, single entities operate all three classifications. Depending on geographical region, the setup might vary. The transaction flow is described below in Figure 4:1: Figure 4:1
The public EV charging process, describing the transaction flow
Note. The transaction flow explained. EV Driver charges at a public charging station, which can be owned by a
4.2. What problems would blockchain solve in the public EV charging market?
This section provides the findings of the problems in the public EV charging market. The bases for these findings are the interview responses from respondents, connected to either a CPO or an MSP. Table 4:1 below, illustrates the key findings of each problem:Table 4:1
Identified problems within the public EV charging market
Problem Findings
Cost x Transaction costs could be lowered by allowing for invoicing between CPO – MSP directly, cutting out eRoaming third parties or third-party payment solutions.
x Adding blockchain as a payment option would be a tool for CPOs to obtain full use of their infrastructure. Data consistency x By using a distributed ledger, discrepancies in
business-to-business (B2B) invoicing would be avoided.
x By the same logic, B2B accounting would be improved.
System functionality
x By implementing blockchain in their infrastructure, actors will be prepared for future decentralized business models.
x Avoiding single-point of failure via roaming hubs.
4.2.1. Problem 1: Costs
Figure 4:2
The proposed solution for P2P communication between CPO and MSP
The software stack described above is what drives the Open Charging Network (OCN). The OCN is the Share & Charge foundation’s latest contribution to improved interoperability between CPOs and MSPs (Share & Charge, n.d.). The network utilizes a software stack that combines the Open Charge Point Interface (OCPI) and a blockchain network named the Energy Web Chain (Open Charging Network, n.d.). The Energy Web Chain is an open source blockchain platform specifically designed for energy sector applications (Hartnett et al., 2019). The OCPI protocol enables the peer-to-peer communication between administrators of the OCN network, CPOs and MSPs, thus removing the need for third-party eRoaming services (Open Charging Point Interface, n.d.). The Energy Web Chain acts as an address book, identifying the involved parties. Note that communication is done via the OCPI protocol. The added value of the blockchain network is the validation process of CPOs and MSPs. If the purpose was only peer-to-peer communication, the OCPI protocol would suffice. R2 comments this way of solving the transaction process:
“We are highly interested in the technology. We would love to get rid of any roaming platforms and pass every roaming session on to the OCPI protocol and the whole Share & Charge technology with the blockchain layer on top of the OPCI protocol for the whole settlement process”
R4 supports this, stating that the average charging session is short and that they as a CPO (as well as an MSP) would like to improve the settlement process:
“We’d like to solve the transaction streams. We’re talking lowered transaction times as opposed to rival systems, but also a possibility to lower the transaction costs. By not having to use e.g. VISA-card or other types of payment methods”
“It is simple, as a CPO, we want to have a high usage of our infrastructure. The best for our
infrastructures is accessibility via as many mediums as possible. So, roaming, direct payment, credit cards and blockchain. It is a way for us to extend the usability of our infrastructure”
4.2.2. Problem 2: Data consistency
Whenever the charging session is done on a network operated by a CPO that also acts like an MSP, i.e. offers an integrated solution, there are no inconsistencies in data. The end customer has a subscription, controls the charging session via a mobile application, and is subsequently invoiced by the operator. Alternatively, the customers use a prepaid voucher in the form of a physical charging tag (Bee, n.d.). This is no different from e.g. cellphone subscriptions. However, whenever an end
customer opts to charge on another network via roaming services, problems arise. A flaw in the current system, relating to invoicing and accounting between CPOs – eRoaming platforms – MSPs, is that CPOs and MSPs do not have the same transaction data. R2 gives an example of the problems:
“Experience shows that even though we charge through a centralized platform, we [CPOs and MSPs] do not always have the same information. To make an example: You have a customer with an MSP, charging on one of our charging stations. The MSP invoices the customer and we invoice the MSP. But it happens quite often that we invoice based on the information we share over the roaming
platform. And sometimes the MSP then say that they don’t have that charging session in their records, while we have it in our records”
R6 supports the data consistency problem by illuminating the accounting problems that arise from transactions via eRoaming platforms:
4.2.3. Problem 3: System stability and scalability
An issue identified regarding roaming is that it is a centralized system, which by logic is a single point of failure. If a roaming hub experiences problems, no one can roam for the duration of the problem. This is unacceptable, considering that public EV charging will be critical infrastructure in the future, as described by R6:
“This happened last year [2019], twice, on parts of an eRoaming platform. This is not acceptable, as no one can charge, and we are creating critical infrastructure”
Furthermore, CPOs are looking to prepare their services for the forecasted growth of EV drivers. With large volumes of transactions, not only does the system call for stability, but also scalability. Today’s solutions are functioning solutions, albeit somewhat manual. Actors of the public EV charging market have realized that technology that can enhance scalability needs to be investigated, as described by R4:
“The principal reason for utilizing blockchain would be to keep it simple and handle large volumes of transactions. We can always solve the problems as of today, but when the change comes so that everybody drives electric cars, then we are talking large volumes, and then you are forced to have a scalable charging solution as well”
4.3. What are the barriers to blockchain adoption?
The barriers to blockchain adoption in the public EV charging market are summarized in Table 4:2, adapted from the framework proposed by Janssen et al. (2020) for barrier analysis. Barriers are presented in a non-weighted order:
Table 4:2
Overview of identified barriers with key findings
Barrier Findings Insti tut iona l ba rr ie rs
Norms and cultures (I1) x Low organizational acceptance or understanding for the implementation of blockchain in the business process.
x The public EV charging market is a bottom-up driven industry regarding implementation of technologies.
x Businesses are pragmatic and do not care what technical solution is used to solve a problem if it works, therefore blockchain has no priority over other technologies.
Regulations and legislations (I2)
x Unclear directives regarding privacy
protection of customers as well as taxation of transactions adds resistance to usage of blockchain.
x GDPR and public blockchain not compliant. x No incentives for implementation of
Mark
et
barri
ers
Market structure (M1) x Very young market. New market – new actors. No one has the winning formula yet. x Rapidly evolving market consumes all
internal resources to keep up with evolution and competition.
x High market fragmentation, with regards to actors involved, adds complexity to the market and in some cases adds to competition.
x New entries to the market, mergers and acquisitions make strategical planning difficult. Which to ally with? What technologies to focus on?
Business process (M2) x Blockchain does not improve existing business processes enough for it to be allocated resources.
x The cost of implementation of a blockchain solution outweighs the benefits.
Coordination (M3) x Blockchain implementation needs the
involvement of all multiple actors in the value chain to be successfully implemented.
x There is no formal coordination between actors in the EV charging market, further complicating a large-scale implementation of blockchain.
x What information to include in the transactions is not coordinated.
Tech ni ca l barr ie rs Distributed ledger technology (T1)
x Public blockchain is complex. x Public blockchain is slow.
Shared infrastructure (T2) x No standardization exists regarding what blockchain protocols to use.
Incumbent technological solutions (T3)
x Problems associated with incumbent solutions are not perceived big enough for blockchain to be considered – incumbent technical solutions work good enough.
To understand which respondent has indicated what barrier, Table 4:3 below, outlines the respondents answers as well as the total sum of indications for each barrier:
Table 4:3
Summary of respondent answers
Respondent /Code R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Total I1 1 1 1 1 4 I2 1 1 1 3 M1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 M2 1 1 1 3 M3 1 1 1 1 1 5 T1 1 1 T2 1 1 2 T3 1 1 1 3
Note. The number one in a box indicates that the respondent has identified a specific barrier. The color grey
indicates that the respondent does not mention the barrier. The column total adds total amount of respondent answers towards each identified barrier.
4.3.1. Norms and cultures (I1)
The public EV charging market is as noted a complex market with many actors and different constellations, both inter-organizational and intra-organizational. Furthermore, as R7 states:
“The market is a bottom-up driven industry in terms of decision-making regarding implementation of new technologies”
Presently, barriers imposed towards the implementation of blockchain can be found
“The current solution in place is working too good to really focus on better alternatives. But it is not working perfectly well. It is just working good enough so that nobody’s really too concerned to look for alternatives”
Further, blockchain would be a tool in a system of complex tools. The fact that it is blockchain does not matter if it works. From a business to business perspective the respective parties’ place value in practicality rather than specific solutions. As R3 states:
“I would say that the end users don’t care about if it is blockchain or not, and our users (B2B) don’t either, people just want a functioning solution”
Moreover, larger CPOs are owned by utilities, with an organizational mindset that is slow to accept change. R6 described the scenario of proposing blockchain for instant accounting implying that a disruptive concept like real-time accounting is not a trait that is easily understood by more conservative non-technical departments, e.g. accounting.
4.3.2. Regulations and legislations (I2)
Regulations are often mentioned as barriers to blockchain adoption, such as GDPR which inherently is not compliant with the fundamental values of blockchain (Wallace, 2019). However, this is not deemed a deterrent towards blockchain in current proposed solutions. The end users register with the specific CPO or MSP, which then becomes the responsible for the customers personal data.
Technically, the customer is never part of the blockchain. The blockchain will only act as a facilitator for data consistency as a “hidden” layer. However, it seems the lack of regulations aiming to gain from the specific benefits of blockchain, i.e. data security and privacy, is a factor that slows down the implementation of blockchain. If there are no demands from governing bodies, why use it? This is a general fact in Europe, where GDPR and anti-money laundering are the main topics of policy makers. The idea that regulations themselves act as a barrier is dismissed by R1:
“I see no issues as long as we can create regulations that run hand in hand with the governance of blockchain”
“VAT is still a question for solutions like the Energy Web Chain, and how invoicing is going to function. I think the whole blockchain community does not consider these aspects, since it is so community driven. But [take] us for example, if we pay for an amount of gas within a blockchain, we need a receipt for that to show our accountant”
4.3.3. Market structure (M1)
Market structure is the most identified barrier. Six out of six respondents with in-depth knowledge about the public EV charging market have identified the market structure itself as an obstacle when it comes to implementing blockchain technology. The public EV charging market displays a high degree of fragmentation, and an ever-changing landscape. In some regions, CPOs only work with
infrastructure maintenance, with other principal owners of the charging point. In other regions CPOs are also owners of infrastructure, though in other regions the CPO offers the MSP solution too. The confusion arises when different companies display these combinations, depending on what region they are found in. The same goes for MSPs, where an MSP can offer the software suite focused towards the end-customer in some markets, while acting as their own CPO in other markets. Adding to this
complexity is the influx of new entrants, as outlined by R5:
“Mentioning the classic utilities as companies with CPO ambitions is one thing, but that’s just the utilities. Then you have a lot of other actors with CPO ambitions, ranging from Circle K to McDonalds. There is a lot of things happening in the industry. New entries all the time and new mergers and acquisitions. New entrants claiming their stake in the EV charging industry. You are never allowed to sit still”
This ever-changing nature is supported by R7, who states:
“The market is still very young. People are happy to have a business model at all. They [actors] are really not making a ton of money yet, which makes it hard for them to let go of proprietary business models and move towards blockchain”
R6 adds yet another dimension to the young and experimental phase of the market:
R2 repeats almost the same:
“I think the big issue in our market in general is that it is a fast-growing market where we’re still in a very early market stage. So, things are changing quickly, and we need to adapt to change very fast. And this adaptation to changes takes up a lot of time. I have at least a feeling that for some of our competitors, they are so consumed by adapting to all these changes that they don’t really have the time and capacity to look into where are the real issues and how could we solve them and how would blockchain help me to solve some of these issues”
The CPOs and MSPs in this study are greatly affected by the ever-changing nature of the industry, as illustrated in the above quotes. Venture capitalists and utilities let subdivisions experiment and advance the public EV charging business, at the cost of negative revenue. But this becomes a barrier, as simply stated by R4:
“We notice that we are in a market that is completely immature. Our business offer changes every sixth months”
Market changes can come in the form of competition, mergers and acquisitions, political directives (green laws), new communication protocols between actors, etc. Additionally, many actors are smaller companies, with an exponential growing curve of infrastructure that needs to be handled. Essentially, these changes must be addressed, requiring resources, leaving the matter of blockchain adoption with very little resources from the companies involved in the public EV charging market. The final aspect of this dynamic market is that it makes blockchain strategies hard to focus on. Strategic technological improvements and alliances, to implement blockchain, are not prioritized. R2 and R7 both state that many actors must be involved in the process of implementing a blockchain solution into the public EV-charging market to successfully implement blockchain. But as identified by R5:
“I understand that no one is putting major resources into coordination yet, as you don’t know who to liaise with. To put the attention to the wrong aspects of the market, in this stage, can be strategically wrong”
4.3.4. Business process (M2)
“The benefits of security are good, but they don’t outweigh the shortcomings of blockchain, with its complexity, slow transaction speed and cost of integration”
4.3.5. Coordination (M3)
A by-product of the market structure is the lack of coordination needed to implement blockchain for public EV charging. R2 identifies that:
“You need several players to make the move at the same time. If we moved to blockchain and OCPI by ourselves, there would be no benefit for us, as all the other operators would still be on the roaming platforms and we would not have interactions with anyone. We would need several players to move at the same time to this new technology and that everybody agrees on that: this is the future, and this is how we want to interact, to interface in the future. And that’s a little bit the issue here I think”
This statement is supported by R7:
“As a distributed technology it needs a lot of players to engage. So, it is not an easy fix that you can do in one place in the value chain. It needs more players. So, it is pretty complex to implement”
However, coordination does not exist internationally, and in some markets not even at a roaming level. In particular, this reveals the fierce competition nationally for market position between CPOs, as stated by R4:
“We build charging poles, our competitors build poles, sometimes at the same location. But we’re not coordinating this. We’re competing. Under a market build-up face, everybody fights for every
customer. Roaming is an alternative – but it has to exist a balance between the actors that we’d create a roaming collaboration with. If not, then actors will reason like - why would we add value to a competitor that has built fever charging poles than us”
R7 supports that this pattern is in markets where fewer actors exist. But in other markets the collaboration of actors via eRoaming is more widespread.
4.3.6. Distributed ledger technology (T1)
“Just the fact that a blockchain based application must use cryptocurrency, which must be switched from fiat [money]… it is too much hassle”
4.3.7. Shared infrastructure (T2)
Further, deciding which blockchain protocol to use adds to the complexity of the transaction process. However, today’s public EV charging market has no uniform standards concerning which
communication protocols to use between back ends of actors. Therefore, the mere consideration of how to agree on an even more badly understood technical implementation is non-existent, as explained by R3:
“Standardization of protocols is another thing, the EV charging market is so fragmented and there are numerous actors and several protocols: OCPI, OCPP etc. And the market has not really come to a harmonization of standards. So, adding the question of what blockchain protocol to use, that would add even more complexity”
The OCPI protocol is explained in Chapter 4.2. The Open Charge Point protocol (OCPP) is a neutral communications protocol between a charging point and its control unit
(https://www.openchargealliance.org). The protocol is open, and while adopted by numerous actors internationally, not yet standardized.
4.3.8. Incumbent technological solutions (T3)
5. Analysis
This analysis will thematically discuss and compare the three groups of barriers with existing literature and frameworks for blockchain adoption, beginning with market barriers. These are the prominent groups of barriers to adoption for blockchain in public EV charging, as can be reviewed in Table 4.3, where barriers connected to the market accounted for 50% of total comments by interviewees.
5.1. Market barriers
The market structure and the coordination in the market are identified as the two biggest barriers for blockchain adoption. The market structure and its volatile development are most likely the feeding mechanism that adds to the coordination barrier, as well as an unwillingness to change the current functioning business process too much. The incumbent eRoaming system seems to be a fixed point of security for MSPs and CPOs alike. Even though statements support that a switch to blockchain would solve certain accounting and invoicing issues, the move to blockchain needs to be coordinated by a large part of the actors simultaneously, which is not possible due to the current volatility in the market, as observed by several interviewees in this study. It was also noticed how prominent the market barriers are in the other categories of barriers, e.g.: Institutional factors, like norms and cultures. It is clear from the findings that even though the industry is young and experimenting with technologies, the uncertainty of what the business model will look like in six months hinders the mere idea of spending too much resources on investigating blockchain solutions. Hence, this thesis supports the findings of Janssen et al. (2020), who identify that the cost of implementation of blockchain technology into incumbent IT-systems can be high and too high for actors to opt for blockchain. Of note, the blockchain solution in the public EV charging market is one component, and for the moment not a critical solution. The component that allows for B2B communication, the OCPI protocol, is already operative, albeit not standardized. This finding is not mentioned in contemporary literature.
5.2. Institutional barriers
change are mentioned as possible barriers. Yet, the findings of this thesis show no such indication. The decision makers are early adopters and are open to change, but are simply too occupied mitigating problems in a continuous environment of change. This clearly shows how the interactions between barriers are not isolated from each other.
5.3. Technical barriers
Surprisingly enough, the group of technical barriers most often cited in existing literature as the prominent barriers for blockchain adoption, the pure technical barriers, is not identified as the biggest problem in this study. Technical implementation is not exempt from the influence of market and institutional factors, but issues like transaction speed, block size and scalability are not seen as hindrances. This is partly because only three of the six respondents with public EV charging knowledge have hands-on experience with blockchain. Still, these findings dismiss the notion that a public blockchain is technically not ready to be a part of a settlement system within the public EV charging market. Blockchain is somewhat a part of the public EV charging market, via the Open Charging Network. However, the usage of blockchain in this solution is limited to blockchain acting as an address book, rather than to fully utilize its disruptive features. A blockchain solution that handles settlements on a larger scale would require substantial implementation costs.
Notably, all interviewees display a nuanced attitude towards blockchain, and are very pragmatic in their assessment of the possibilities that blockchain offers. This stands in stark contrast to some contemporary research and the public opinion, where the added value of blockchain is frequently mentioned. Network integrity, distributed power, privacy by design and security are often described valued traits by its potential users. This contradicts the findings of this study, since the above-mentioned traits are not valued at all or high enough to make a difference for the adoption of blockchain. The one defining attribute mentioned is of the distributed ledger, allowing for data consistency. Hawlitschek et al. (2020) offer a plausible explanation to these attitudes in their presentation of three common fallacies regarding the possibilities of blockchain:
x The trust-free fallacy
x The disintermediation fallacy x The consumer will fallacy
