See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329590870

Towards a Business Model Taxonomy of Startups in the Finance Sector using

Blockchain

Conference Paper · December 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 63

3 authors:

Jan Heinrich Beinke Frank Teuteberg

Universität Osnabrück Universität Osnabrück
9 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    277 PUBLICATIONS   1,437 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Duc Nguyen Ngoc

Universität Osnabrück
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Maritime Logistics 4.0 View project

eCoInnovate IT View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jan Heinrich Beinke on 12 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Taxonomy of Blockchain Startups Business Models

Towards a Business Model Taxonomy of

Startups in the Finance Sector using
Blockchain
Short Paper
Jan Heinrich Beinke Duc Nguyen Ngoc
Osnabrück University Osnabrück University
Katharinenstr. 1, 49074 Osnabrück, Katharinenstr. 1, 49074 Osnabrück,
Germany Germany
jan.beinke@uni-osnabrueck.de dnguyenngoc@uni-osnabrueck.de

Frank Teuteberg
Osnabrück University
Katharinenstr. 1, 49074 Osnabrück,
Germany
frank.teuteberg@uni-osnabrueck.de
Abstract
In recent years, the blockchain technology has aroused growing interest in science and
practice. Particularly the financial sector has high expectations of this technology, as is
evidenced by numerous established start-ups and large amounts of venture capital.
However, to date, there is only little scientifically founded knowledge on how such
business models function. By addressing this research gap, we contribute to a better
understanding of start-up business models using the blockchain technology. To this end,
we develop a theoretically sound taxonomy of the elements of such business models. On
that basis, we carry out a cluster analysis and identify business model archetypes that
provide a better understanding of the topic. Based on the results achieved, we discuss
implications of our research for both science and practice and point to future research
directions.

Keywords: blockchain, taxonomy, startup, digital transformation, business models

Introduction
For many years the financial sector has been characterized by a constantly increasing degree of
digitization and automation. There is currently a strong growth in the number of new startups using
blockchain as a promising new technology (Avital et al.2016). Blockchain technology offers potentials for
instance in the areas of disintermediation, decentralization, the reduction of necessary trust between
business partners, improved protection against data manipulation and increased automation through
smart contracts (Avital et al. 2016; Rückeshäuser 2017a; Weber et al. 2016). The fact that a blockchain can
do without intermediaries such as banks, central banks, central counterparties (Nakamoto 2008) made
financial institutions listen attentively. The financial industry without intermediaries is currently rather
difficult to imagine - because in addition to the provision and operation of the infrastructure,
intermediaries ensure trust and security (Alt and Puschmann 2016). In a blockchain, however, trust and
security are not (necessarily) provided by the state or the bank's brand, but by the network participants
and the technology itself.
The financial sector is particularly interested in blockchain technology, as the products and services
offered (e.g. bank account, share purchase and lending) (often) differ only minimally between the

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 1

 Taxonomy of Blockchain Startups Business Models

respective providers. Therefore, it is important for companies in this sector to differentiate themselves
from their competitors. Among other things, factors such as lower fees and faster transaction times
associated with the blockchain are of particular interest. For the reasons mentioned above, the financial
sector is generally highly IT-affine and therefore always adapts quickly to new technical developments,
compared to other sectors (Swan 2015). Given the fact that numerous startups currently try to leverage
these potentials and to position themselves on the market, it is problematic that only a few scientific
findings on business models of startups are available to date. Indeed, the scientific literature primarily
contains three papers that partially address this research gap. For instance, Friedlmaier et al. (2018)
investigate various startup databases for blockchain-based startups and highlight, that most of the
venture capital flows into the startups that belong to the financial sector. While this study provides an
interesting overview of the landscape of blockchain-based startups, it lacks an analysis of the respective
business models. Moreover, Rückeshäuser (2017b) presents a typology of distributed ledger based
business models building upon input from eleven companies. She critically reflects in her contribution
that the sample size is relatively small and that more companies should be analyzed. The third paper by
Eickhoff et al. (2017) analyzes business models of FinTechs and presents these in the form of a taxonomy
and relevant archetypes. However, the primary focus is not on startups using blockchain as the dominant
technology. All authors criticize the lack of scientific analyses of the business models of startup companies
using blockchain technology. In view of this research gap in the financial sector, two research questions
(RQs) can be derived:
RQ1: What are the elements of business models of startups using blockchain in the financial sector?
RQ2: What business model archetypes can be identified by empirically examining these elements?
To determine the potentials of blockchain-based products and services, the content and scope of the
companies' business models will be analyzed. The goal is to create a taxonomy of the business models and
to identify different archetypes, which will serve as a conceptual framework and starting point for further
research. A taxonomy constitutes a method or model that allows for the classification of certain objects in
different dimensions according to a predetermined system (Glass and Vessey 1995). Taxonomies thus
structure results, facilitate the handling of individual cases and allow general statements about the
interrelationships or differences between certain objects (Glass and Vessey 1995). Consequently,
taxonomies lead to a better understanding of the study area (Doty and Glick 1994). Given these
circumstances, taxonomies have proven themselves to be useful in the information systems discipline,
e.g., by providing interesting insights in areas such as car sharing business models (Remane et al. 2016),
telemedicine services (Peters et al. 2015) and cloud computing business models (Labes et al. 2015).

In striving to answer the above RQs, we structured our study as follows: First, we present our
methodological approach. Then we develop a taxonomy of business models for startups in the financial
sector using blockchain as the dominant technology and we derive archetypes through cluster analysis.
Finally, we discuss the implications, limitations and future research opportunities. From a scientific point
of view, our results contribute to the existing body of knowledge by systematically analyzing the business
models of blockchain-based startups. First of all, the taxonomy presents an overview of the business
models of blockchain-based startups. The developed taxonomy and archetypes enable other researchers to
analyze certain aspects of blockchain-based startups more precisely; for instance, by comparing
companies with the same business model configuration. Moreover, with our work we shed light on the
effect of the digital transformation on traditional industries. Furthermore, in practice, our results are of
interest in that existing companies can use the developed taxonomy and archetypes to better understand
their competitors, and potential entrepreneurs can find economic niches.

Methodological Approach to Taxonomy Development

We used the iterative method of taxonomy development by Nickerson et al. (2013) as a basis for the
classification of business models, since it can be applied independently of disciplines and objects, allows a
combination of theoretical knowledge and empirical findings and permits a strong formalization of the
process (Dorfer 2016). The high degree of formalization in particular ensures the quality of the
classification by precisely documenting the methodical procedure and systematically guiding the creation
of the classification (Dorfer 2016). According to Nickerson et al. (2013), the objective of taxonomy

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 2

 Taxonomy of Blockchain Startups Business Models

creation is to define dimensions and characteristics in a particular field that are mutually exclusive and
collectively exhaustive.
According to Nickerson et al. (2013), first, a meta-criterion is defined, which should initiate the formation
of the dimension, whereby all dimensions are aligned to the meta-criterion. The termination conditions
are subsequently determined, and in a next step, the iteration approach is defined. The iteration can be
either "conceptual-to-empirical" or "empirical-to-conceptual". In this respect, conceptual-to-empirical
means that a subset of dimensions and characteristics is initially determined on the basis of literature
research and only then evaluated with the help of empirical data, whereas empirical-to-conceptual implies
the opposite. Once the dimensions and their characteristics have been identified, they can be transferred
to the taxonomy. In a next step, it must be checked whether the termination conditions are fulfilled. If this
is not the case, a new classification is initiated in an iterative process that leads to the identification of new
dimensions and characteristics as well as a further examination of the termination conditions. As soon as
the termination conditions are fulfilled, the iterative process ends with the valid classification.
In our article, we focus on startup companies in the financial sector that offer blockchain-based products
or services. For this reason, the "most important business model components of the blockchain startup
companies" were defined as meta-criteria. The same conditions as those presented in Nickerson et al.
(2013) were adopted as termination conditions. According to the objective termination condition, an
iteration process ends as soon as all objects have been assigned and a further iteration step would not
reveal any new dimensions and characteristics. Furthermore, the following subjective termination
conditions were defined (Nickerson et al. 2013): the taxonomy has (1) a sufficient degree of differentiation
with sufficiently many characteristics, (2) a high exploratory value and (3) a connectivity for potential
extensions around objects. After each iteration, the conditions were checked and a decision was made
regarding whether another iteration is necessary.

Taxonomy Development
Our primary data source is the world’s largest startup database (CrunchBase 1), which was used to find
investors for blockchain startups. The startups listed on this platform constitute the initial database of our
study and include all startups registered on the platform up to and including January 2018. We performed
the classification within our database by using CrunchBase’s information on the respective companies
(e.g., sector, category, headquarters and further descriptions) as well as their respective websites. Those
companies whose information were insufficient have been omitted from the database. Further, we
eliminated those companies not belonging to the financial sector. In the course of this selection process, it
was further examined whether and to what extent the companies had received financial means, e. g.
through venture capital companies, cooperation companies or crowdfunding (e.g., initial coin offerings).
The background to this is that companies are more likely to receive financial funds when their business
models are considered to be interesting and sustainable. In this way, 63 relevant companies could be
identified and analyzed in multiple iterations, following the guidelines by Nickerson et al. (2013)2. Figure
1 gives an overview of the added dimensions and characteristics in each iteration.
In the first iteration, a conceptual-to-empirical approach was applied. Various business model approaches
(Osterwalder et al. 2005; Zott et al. 2011) served as a basis for that first iteration to define the dimensions
that should help to point out the structural differences between startup business models. We dropped
some of the proposed dimensions due to the fact that information on certain dimensions of the respective
business models is difficult to obtain. In contrast to Eickhoff et al. (2017), in our article, the observation of
the dominant technology is obsolete, since this article explicitly analyzes companies that use blockchain
technology. We used the meta-study by Zott et al. (2011) as a basis — specifically, the value proposition,
delivery channel and revenue stream dimensions were selected from Osterwalder et al. (2005), while the
market segment dimension was selected from Chesbrough and Rosenbloom (2000). Furthermore, the
product offering dimension was taken from the article by Brousseau and Penard (2006).

1 https://www.crunchbase.com/
2 The list of companies examined and the data collected will be provided to interested readers.

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 3

 Taxonomy of Blockchain Startups Business Models

The second iteration used an empirical-to-conceptual approach. In this step, all startups that were
assigned to the payment section in advance were taken into account. Moreover, the characteristics of the
five dimensions were defined.

Figure 1. Development Process of Dimensions for the Business Model Taxonomy of

Startups in the Finance Sector using Blockchain
In the third iteration step, the companies from the exchange section were added. During this iteration no
further dimensions could be identified; however, C1.4 Customization, C1.5 Convenience, C4.5 Licensing,
C5.5 Investing and C5.6 Trading were added as further characteristics. In view of the similarity as well as
the unclear distinction of the characteristics C5.1 Payment and C5.2 Payment System, we combined these
to C5.7 Payment Service.
The remaining companies were considered and analyzed in the last iteration. As a result, C1.6 Insight,
C5.8 Financing and C5.9 Supply Chain were included as further characteristics. After this iteration, all
companies were classified and all relevant termination conditions according to Nickerson et al. (2013)
were met.

Business Model Taxonomy and Archetypes

The developed taxonomy has five dimensions, each of which has three to seven characteristics. Figure 2
presents these and provides an answer to our first research question (RQ1). Based on this taxonomy, the
63 companies were analyzed in terms of dimensions and their respective characteristics. To ensure the
highest possible data quality, three researchers examined the 63 companies independently from each
other. If the results were not identical, the company in question was analyzed again and then discussed in
the group of three researchers. A codification of collected data ensured the possibility of cluster analysis
afterwards. Krippendorff's alpha was used to determine the convergence between the raters and the
calculated value of .85 is above the "customarily" required value of .8 (Krippendorff 2004).

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 4

 Taxonomy of Blockchain Startups Business Models

Figure 2. Business Model Taxonomy of Startups in the Finance Sector using Blockchain

Cluster Analysis
One of the largest challenges in cluster analysis is the determination of the number of clusters (Anderberg
1973). Therefore, we took a two-step method, which according to (Punj and Stewart 1983) is the best way
to do so. In the first step, they recommend defining the clusters using Ward’s method, which belongs to
the agglomerative cluster methods. Ward’s method helped to define the number of possible clusters. We
carried out our analyses in SPSS (version 24). The similarity between two startup companies was
measured by the number of identical characteristics in the respective dimensions. The two objects that are
most similar were grouped and this was repeated until all objects belong to the same group. As we had 63
companies, a total of 62 iterations of the Ward's method were performed until all companies were in one
group. We selected the "squared Euclidean distance", which can be used for binary variables, as the
distance measure. Furthermore, the dendrogram, the increase in heterogeneity of the coefficients 3 and the
scree plot (using the elbow rule) were used to determine the number of clusters. The statistics indicated
that a three- or seven-cluster solution is the most suitable. In the next step, the possible cluster solutions
were compared using the k-means method. This is an iterative cluster method in which a predetermined
number of k clusters is formed from a number of objects in several passes, so that the sum of the squared
deviations from the cluster focal points is minimal (Wu 2012). Three clusters required four iterations until
no significant improvement could be achieved, whereas seven clusters had only three iterations.
Furthermore, both solutions were evaluated within the research group and with other researchers from
the institute. A three cluster solution was considered too imprecise, as the differences between the
companies were still very pronounced within the clusters. The seven cluster solution, on the contrary,
allowed for a clearer distinction and therefore is better suited to highlight relevant differences between
business models.

Archetypes
As described above, we defined seven clusters in which we assigned 5 to 14 startups each. Thereby, cluster
1 contained the highest, cluster 4 and cluster 7 the lowest number of companies. Figure 3 shows the
different focal points of each cluster. For example, 45,5% of the companies (5 of 11) in cluster 3 have their
value promise in the cooperation, whereas the remaining 54,5% promise opportunities to adapt to
customer requirements. For a better understanding, each cluster is presented and illustrated by means of
a typical cluster company. The developed archetypes provide the answer to our second research question

3The difference in coefficients between a seven cluster solution and a six cluster solution increases from
6.14 to 10.32, which shows a relatively strong increase in heterogeneity in this data set.

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 5

 Taxonomy of Blockchain Startups Business Models

(RQ2), by highlighting the differences and similarities between companies in terms of business models.
Furthermore, this demonstrates that the developed taxonomy can be applied to specific companies.

Figure 3. Result of Crosstab Analysis

Cluster 1: Trading Platforms

This cluster contains companies that offer a platform for trading in cryptocurrencies and is the largest of
the seven clusters. All companies are aimed at private customers and offer both Web-APIs and mobile
apps. As a platform provider, companies in this cluster also provide professional charts and statistics to
inform their users. The use of the apps is free of charge and the companies' source of revenues are fees
levied when trading in cryptocurrencies. For example, Coinbase charges 1.49% of the transaction value
per transaction. For instant buys, where a certain currency is immediately available for further
transactions, Coinbase charges 3.99% of the transaction value.

Cluster 2: Payment Applications

In the second cluster, the companies offer applications in the area of payment transactions, with which
exclusively private individuals are addressed. The apps offered are free, but the companies charge a fee
per payment. Most providers also offer transfer services, where money can be sent via app to other people
for a fee: Circle is one of the highest venture-financed startups in the blockchain scene with a total funding
amount of 136 Mio. US-Dollar (CrunchBase 2018). The company offers money transfers through a
messenger application.

Cluster 3: Software Solution Provider

Companies in the third cluster rely on cooperation with other companies and differ significantly from the
first two clusters in this aspect. Existing products as well as products specified for business customers are
offered, and the costs for cooperation depend on the respective (software) projects and therefore can
hardly be determined in advance. Also, the exact type of proceeds is often not defined. Large investors
usually support companies in this cluster. One of the best-known startup companies in this cluster is
Digital Asset, which is one of the leading startups in this field and develops specialized software
applications for financial institutions.

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 6

 Taxonomy of Blockchain Startups Business Models

Cluster 4: Credit Cards

Companies in this cluster offer solutions for everyday payment transactions. They are especially
characterized by the offer of credit cards with which private customers can handle daily money
transactions in cryptocurrencies. The respective cryptocurrencies are transferred to a special wallet
address, and via an app, customers can choose with which cryptocurrency with which cryptocurrency they
intend to pay. It is striking that only the companies in this cluster use a physical component as the central
delivery channel. The costs for the issuance of a credit card are e.g. with Cryptopay (at least) 15€. In
addition, the customers have to bear a certain fee for each transaction.

Cluster 5: Wallet-Provider
The most significant difference between the companies in this cluster and those in cluster 1 is that no
professional trading options (e. g., margin trading) are available here; only the purchase and sale of
cryptocurrencies is possible. In addition, customers have access to the private key of their wallets, which is
not the case with companies in cluster 1. The focus is on private individuals purchasing cryptocurrencies
in exchange for fiat money. Usually only a wallet function is offered, while the revenue stream is based on
transaction fees. Abra is a well-known provider, who is particularly interesting for people intending to buy
and sell different cryptocurrencies by means of a simply designed app.

Cluster 6: Applications for Business and Private Customers

Although the offered applications differ depending on the customer group, they can be used by both
private and business customers. The main difference between cluster 6 and both clusters 3 and 7 is that
companies in the former cluster do not only focus on business customers. Startup Bitt, for instance, offers
private customers an application for cashless, digital transfer of money and crypto currencies. As a
corresponding counterpart for business customers, there is a product with which companies can accept
crypto currencies as payment. The support takes place along the entire purchase process; therefore, it is
clearly beyond pure payment processing.

Cluster 7: Payment Applications for Businesses

The focus of companies in this cluster is on payment transactions for business customers. They allow
cryptocurrencies to be used as means of payment instead of fiat money, whereby the focus is on cross-
border payment transactions. The sources of income are transaction fees or memberships. For example,
BitPesa enables companies in Africa to accept payments from any location. Payments within Africa
normally take several days; however, with companies such as BitPesa, businesses can obtain their money
on the same day.

Discussion and Implications

The crosstab analysis indicates clear differences between the business models of the respective clusters. It
is striking that only companies in cluster 4 and a single company from cluster 3 also use a physical
component (e.g., a credit card) in their respective delivery channels. It is noticeable that all companies,
except for those in cluster 3, charge fees for main revenue-streams. Regarding cluster 4, it should be noted
that, due to the physical component included, a further payment is also required for this very component
(e. g., credit card). Only in cluster 3 do the revenues come from the granting of licenses; whereas income
from membership could be partially identified in cluster 1,6 and 7. When looking at the value proposition,
the platform (cluster 1, 7 and one company in cluster 6) and convenience/usability (cluster 2, 4 and partly
in cluster 6) characteristics form the majority. Here, it is particularly striking that as yet the areas
customization (cluster 3) and insight (cluster 6) are underrepresented, which might reflect a possible gap
for new startups or a promising business expansion for existing companies. When analyzing the product
offering dimension, it is noticeable that the areas of investing (only one company from cluster 5) and
financing (only one company from cluster 6) have received little attention so far, while particularly the
areas of exchange, trading and payment services in particular are already strongly represented. Within the
offering dimension, the supply chain constitutes a special case. This refers to the integrated planning and
control of the flow of goods, information and cash, which are supported by smart contracts, for example,

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 7

 Taxonomy of Blockchain Startups Business Models

and thus clearly stands out from " mere" payment services. It should also be noted that some companies
only address private customers (clusters 1, 2 and 5) or business customers (clusters 3 and 7) as potential
customers, while few companies address (clusters 4 and 5). With regard to cluster 4, however, it should be
noted that only one company in the cluster is targeting both business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-
consumer (B2C) as a market segment.
With our work, we shed light on the design of business models of startups using blockchain in the
financial sector and provide relevant insights for companies and governments alike (with respect to, e.g.,
taxation, data protection). For new startups that are in the process to develop products and services in
this area, the taxonomy offers an analysis of already existing business models. Beyond that, our taxonomy
may prove useful for identifying "economic niches", not yet offered suitable (product) combinations or
cooperation partners. But also established companies (e. g., investment banks) may benefit from this
overview. For instance, in case of planned acquisitions, companies are in a position to quickly classify
relevant and interesting startups. As this market is still at an early stage, our work can also serve as
starting point for further discussions on business models — both in practice and in science. The identified
archetypes help to abstract the respective companies’ individual business models and to point out striking
differences. The taxonomy as well as the archetypes can be used as a starting point for other researchers
as well (e.g., success factors of different business model configurations). Overall, it is noticeable that the
analyzed startups address similar areas which have previously rather been covered by traditional banks (e.
g., P2P-payment). The variety of possible applications of blockchain technology and the simultaneous
conversion into functioning business models is an indication for the expected impact of this technology.
In principle, one may say that particularly the financial sector is in constant progress and that the digital
transformation is steadily advancing through the blockchain technology. Furthermore, the findings from
the developed taxonomy and archetypes also contribute to an enhanced understanding of the effects of
digital transformation on traditional industries (e. g., finance sector), which according to Yoo et al. (2010)
has only been scientifically examined to a limited extent.

Conclusion, Limitations and Further Research

In this paper we have developed a taxonomy for financial service startups using blockchain that forms the
basis for the identified archetypes. The developed taxonomy and the archetypes offer added value for
actors from practice and science. As with any research project, the results must be viewed critically and
limitations must be taken into account. Companies’ business models are subject to constant change,
especially in markets that are at an early stage of development like the one at hand. Furthermore, as only
63 companies were analyzed in this article, an extension of the analysis could provide further interesting
results. Although subjective perceptions or errors in the analysis of business models are generally
possible, we counteracted these by means of three researchers carrying out the analyses independently
from each other as well as joint discussions in the case of varying or inconclusive results. It should also be
noted that only companies with an English website were analyzed. Further interesting research
perspectives could arise from (a) the extension to other companies, (b) the application to other sectors, (c)
the analysis of further characteristics as well as (d) a later consideration of the same companies, for
example, in order to investigate changes in the business model. Another aspect for research work could
also be the systematic exploration of the characteristics of decentralized, autonomous organizations.

References
Alt, R., & Puschmann, T. (2016). Digitalisierung der Finanzindustrie – Grundlagen der Fintech-
Evolution, Heidelberg, Springer Gabler.
Anderberg, M. R. (1973). Cluster Analysis for Applications. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Avital, M., King, J. L., Beck, R., Rossi, M., and Teigland, R. 2016. "Jumping on the Blockchain
Bandwagon : Lessons of the Past and Outlook to the Future," Panel at: Proceedings of the 37th
International Conference on Information Systems, Dublin, Ireland. pp. 1–6.
Brousseau, E., and Penard, T. 2006. "The economics of digital business models: A framework for
analyzing the economics of platforms," Review of Network Economics (6:2), pp.81-110.
Chesbrough, H. W., and Rosenbloom, R. S. 2002. "The role of the business model in capturing value from
innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spinoff companies," Industrial and
Corporate Change (11), pp. 533-534.

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 8

 Taxonomy of Blockchain Startups Business Models

CrunchBase. 2016. "Circle | CrunchBase.", from https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/circle-2,

Retrieved 10/3/2018.
Doty, D. H., and Glick, W. H. 1994. “Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved
understanding and modeling,” Academy of Management Review (19:2), pp. 230–251.
Dorfer, L. 2016. "Datenzentrische Geschäftsmodelle als neuer Geschäftsmodelltypus in der Electronic-
Business-Forschung: Konzeptionelle Bezugspunkte, Klassifikation und Geschäftsmodellarchitektur,"
Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift Für Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung (68:3), pp. 307–369
Eickhoff, M., Muntermann, J., and Weinrich, T. 2017. "What do FinTechs actually do ? A Taxonomy of
FinTech Business Models," in: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Information
Systems, pp. 1–19.
Friedlmaier, M., Tumasjan, A., and Welpe, I. M. 2018. "Disrupting Industries with Blockchain : The
Industry , Venture Capital Funding , and Regional Distribution of Blockchain Ventures," In
Proceedings of the 51st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 3517–
3526.
Glass, R. L., and Vessey, I. 1995. "Contemporary Application-Domain Taxonomies," IEEE Software
(12:4), pp. 63-78.
Krippendorff, K. 2004. "Reliability in Content Analysis," Human Communication Research, (30:3), pp.
411–433.
Labes, S., Hanner, N., and Zarnekow, R. 2015. "Success Factors of Cloud Business Models," in:
Proceedings of the 23rd European Conference on Information Systems , J. Becker, J. vom Brocke
and M. de Marco (eds), Münster, Germany.
Nickerson, R. C., Varshney, U., and Muntermann, J. 2013. "A method for taxonomy development and its
application in information systems," European Journal of Information Systems (22:3), pp. 336–
359.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., and Tucci, C. L. 2005. "Clarifying Business Models : Origins , Present , and
Future of the Concept," Communications of the Association for Information Systems 15, pp. 1-25.
Peters, C., Blohm, I., & Leimeister, J. M. 2015. "Anatomy of Successful Business Models for Complex
Services: Insights from the Telemedicine Field," Journal of Management Information Systems
(32:3), pp. 75–104.
Punj, G., & Stewart, D. W. (1983). "Cluster Analysis in Marketing Research: Review and Suggestions for
Application," Journal of Marketing Research, 20(2), 134–148.
Remane, G., Nickerson, R. C., Hanelt, A., Tesch, J. F., & Kolbe, L. M. (2016). "A taxonomy of carsharing
business models," in: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Information Systems,
Dublin, Ireland.
Rückeshäuser, N. 2017a. "Do We Really Want Blockchain-Based Accounting? Decentralized Consensus as
Enabler of Management Override of Internal Controls," in: Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, pp. 16–30.
Rückeshäuser, N. 2017b. "Typology of Distributed Ledger Based Business Models," in: Proceedings of the
24th European Conference on Information Systems, pp. 2202–2217.
Swan, M. 2015. Blockchain. Blueprint For a New Economy . Sebastopol, CA. O'Reilly
Weber, I., Xu, X., Riveret, R., Governatori, G., Ponomarev, A., and Mendling, J. 2016. "Untrusted
Business Process Monitoring and Execution," In: Proceedings of International Conference on
Business Process Management, pp. 329–347.
Wu, J. 2012. Advances in K-means Clustering: a data mining thinking. Heidelberg, Springer.
Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., and Lyytinen, K. 2010. “The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An
Agenda for Information Systems Research,” Information Systems Research (21:4), pp. 724–735.
Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. 2011. "The business model: Recent developments and future research,"
Journal of Management (37:4), pp. 1019–1042.

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 9

View publication stats