# Stakeholders’ Viewpoints toward Blockchain Integration within IoT-Based Smart Cities

Authors: Nada Alasbali; Saaidal Razalli Bin Azzuhri; Rosli Salleh
Journal: Journal of Sensors
 (2021)

---

## Abstract

This study intends to assess the development of IoT-based smart cities industry and the possibilities of blockchain integration from the perspective of industry stakeholders as the vision for a modern, integrated smart city future is predicated upon intelligence and the relationship between data-rich connections and human activities. Although this ideal of an interconnected urban landscape is currently being tested and actively used by consumers spanning a range of connected nodes and service solutions, the scalability, interoperability, and security of this emergent cyber-physical ideal has yet to be adequately resolved. This study used an exploratory study design following a mixed method design approach. A structured questionnaire survey (quantitative) and interviews (qualitative) were conducted for collecting data. IBM SPSS was used for the analysis of the data, which computed descriptive statistics, cross-tabulation, Pearson correlation, and ANOVA for quantitative data and thematic analysis for qualitative data. Through an empirical assessment of the perceptions and expertise of 122 stakeholders from within the worldwide IoT smart city industry, conceptual support for blockchain integration into the IoT solution was acquired, highlighting the solution-oriented, system-centered advantages of a decentralised, autonomous data management backbone that could be applied to future IoT-based smart city solutions. To meet the broad and diversified needs of the smart city and its future evolution, this study has confirmed that a commitment to decentralisation and blockchain intermediary data management is critical to scalable, secure, and autonomous negotiations of the IoT-enabled smart city networks.


---

## Body

## 1. Research Background

The potential advantages of smart, connected systems are manifest as urban density increases and internet connectivity becomes ubiquitous from data mining to service efficiency to network coordination [1]. At the core of this new, interconnected urban infrastructure is the concept of the smart city which is an idealistic, technoutopian environment that is based on digital information exchange [2]. [3] highlighted that majority of these devices are connected with each other, which are then further connected to other devices forming an Internet of Things (IoT). From energy management to water demand monitoring to waste pickups and in-home automation, the Internet of Things (IoT) is translating once-independent digital nodes and sensors into a network-bridged cyberphysical solution that will transform the behaviours and interactions of an internet-supported modern society [4].Given the connectivity between the devices, these are vulnerable to various issues, including interoperability, interconnectivity, security, and privacy threats [5]. These security threats account for an increase in the attacks on the device integrity, data privacy, and security and secrecy [6]. [7] highlights that making the IoT operational model decentralised, self-regulating, and self-managing is critical to improving it. This transformation is likely to provide it with more scalability, minimised infrastructure cost, autonomy, and a secure and user-driven environment. Also, a critical attribute of a functional and efficient smart city solution is the ability to ‘transfer data across the network without the need for human agency or manual intervention.’ By avoiding the proclivity to attain short-term financial benefits in favour of a long-term, system-wide opportunity for interconnectivity, vendors of IoT technologies can unify their communication platforms and data management systems according to a universal, interoperable standard.The smart city development and deployment present the evidence concerning the intermediary work model, which serves as a solution for the decentralisation challenges, security, and scalability of the IoT devices. For undergoing transaction, users are required to employ initiatives which help approve other transactions, all aimed at improving the security of the network, which confirm and approve that no conflict occurs amongst transactions such as the one existing with other incoming transactions (e.g., double-spending) [8]. This approval encompasses the approval of two other transactions, rejection of any conflicting transactions, and solution to a cryptographic puzzle [8]. Given the heterogeneous as well as distributive IoT nature, an asynchronous aspect exists in the IOTA network, where many nodes do not see or attempt to approve same transactional sets. However, understanding the deployment challenges of the smart city continues to serve as a thwarting block concerning its integration.The failure to develop interconnectivity across data communication networks restricts the capacity for efficient and secure information exchange, diluting the broader scale advantages of the smart city standard. To circumvent such pitfalls, modern researchers and experimental theorists such as [9–11] have proposed the integration of blockchain information management standards capable of not only securing the process of cross-network data exchange but also validating and protecting the legitimacy and interoperability of such exchange processes. This proposed investigation will compare and critically evaluate the requirements and potential advantages of this blockchain-supported standard for smart city-oriented IoT connectivity from the IoT-based smart city stakeholders’ viewpoints. The remainder of the article is structured as follows: Section 2 presents research problem and aim. Section 3 addresses the research methodology. Then, the results of the mixed method approach (Section 4) are presented in two subsections (Sections 4.1 and 4.2, respectively). Section 5 presents the discussion. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper.


## 2. Research Problem and Aim

For smart city design to meet the complex requirements of integration, network interoperability, and security, there must be a centralised transaction management technology capable of processing terabytes of data, millions of daily transactions, and a variety of complementary, but inherently proprietary technologies. Prior empirical research reveals a lack of formalisation and continuity in the development of a pragmatic, integrated solution for the network design, system standards, and IoT interoperability within smart cities. Also, the range of security threats posed by a lack of a unified framework governing the installation of APIs and data management systems raises concerns about the vulnerability of user data to malicious attacks and manipulation. Moreover, the overarching problems and challenges such as scalability, interoperability, cost barriers, security threats, and a lack of systemic flexibility will continue to persist in an IoT network that is characterised by siloed information and restrictive proprietary databases [9]. However, several experimental solutions [10–12] have recently emerged as indications of the potential advantages of a unified, multinodal, edge-based blockchain solution to the IoT challenges. These models provide valuable indications of the combinative potential of a unified blockchain solution that is able to exploit the concept of infrastructure as a service (IaaS) to connect the entirety of the IoT industry. Motivated by this knowledge gap, this research paper is aimed at capturing and evaluating empirical evidence from IoT-based smart city stakeholders related to current efforts in the IoT-connected smart city industry and the possible pathways that can be developed to optimise blockchain technology integration for an IoT-connected smart city to shape a sustainable way forward.


## 3. Methodology

### 3.1. Research Method

Throughout the literature reviewed in relation to this topic and the range of associated variables, it is evident that experimentation is the primary modality of empiricism in this field of study. Ragin and Amoroso [13] propose that when confronted with a variety of exemplary studies, researchers often rely upon comparative methods to study the internal commonalities, identify diversity, and assess the relationships between the approaches. However, when considering the breadth of IoT-based solutions being developed, the literature review has demonstrated that approaches such as a case study analysis or systematic literature review would be inherently limiting to the current study.Rather than attempting to mirror or mimic the experimental trials of the prior researchers in this field, which would be both cost prohibitive and time and technology consuming, it is more appropriate for the current study to develop a blueprint of industry solutions from the collection of real-world empirical evidence. By applying what Bryman [14] describes as a ‘nonprobabilistic, purposive sampling’ to the collection of evidences using a mixed method approach to collect both questionnaire survey-based quantitative (QUAN) evidence and interview-based qualitative (QUAL) evidence from a discrete sample population of qualified participants with direct experience and knowledge relative to this industry.


### 3.2. Research Design

The mixed method approach involves what Watkins and Gioia [15] refer to as a ‘convergent parallel design,’ or an administrative process which collects and analyses quantitative and qualitative evidence separately and then combines the findings in order to generate a comprehensive interpretation. The rationales behind the selection of the combination of mixed methods, sampling strategies, and multiple variables are as follows: to minimise errors that may arise from a single technique and to maximise the meaning from results of data interpretation [16].By designing a survey instrument that is based upon core concepts from the literature related to security, interoperability, scalability, network design, and system requirements, supporting this survey, the interview designed to include a series of six open-ended questions that focused on specific challenges and opportunities in applying blockchain technologies to the IoT-connected smart city solution and to illuminate potential concerns and to allow the leadership team members to provide more dynamic insights regarding their experiences in this innovative field of IoT and smart city design.


### 3.3. Research Population and Data Collection

The focus of the empirical data collection process for this study emphasised the perceptions, experiences, and insights of professionals currently working to facilitate the smart city revolution in different cities around the world. Multiple layers of experiential insights related to technologies, feasibility, and interoperability were determined to be only accessible from a primary, first-hand perspective, and therefore, a targeted sampling approach was developed. The population of the research and the primary target for this study are IoT industry professionals, businesses, and software developers who are actively crafting the new standard of blockchain integration in relation to smart city-oriented IoT solutions. [14] suggests that in cases where the research involves individuals with specific qualifications, backgrounds, or responsibilities, then a purposive, nonprobabilistic sampling approach is justified. Therefore, a representative sample of 108 uniquely skilled and experienced professionals was attained for the online questionnaire survey (including software developers, software architects, software engineers, and solution architects to name a few). On the other hand, a 14-person sample population represented a cohort of decision-makers with the unique experience of managing and developing new, innovative IoT-based smart city solutions (Chief Technology Officer/Chief Information Officer/Smart City Expert/Smart City Director and so on) have been targeted for a more detailed data collection via interviews.


### 3.4. Participants Recruitment

For the online questionnaire, a survey link from Google forms has been distributed via e-mail and social and professional network like LinkedIn and Twitter amongst worldwide corporations’ staff members responsible for the network upgrades, IoT, and innovations in the world’s smart city solutions. For the interview, identifying worldwide corporations currently responsible for developing smart city, IoT-based technologies; then, they have been invited and contacted via social and professional network like LinkedIn and Twitter and direct e-mails of the individual human resource departments and leadership inboxes within the corporate e-mail systems. Additionally, various stakeholders have been invited and interviewed from participant companies and corporations at the 2020 Saudi Internet-of-Things Conference conducted on March, 2020 in Riyadh (https://saudiiot.com/).


### 3.5. Research Ethics

Prior to the collection, ethical approval was obtained from the University of Malaya Research Ethical Committee (UMREC). During data collection (Feb–Oct, 2020), participant consent was also sought from the participants on an online questionnaire survey by agreeing to participation before answering the questions and before submitting their answers. In the interview, the research participation invitation was sent before the interview takes place and the consent form was signed off by the participant during the interview. Clearly, all participants were communicated about the data anonymity as well as confidentiality.


### 3.6. Data Analysis

The convergent design proposed by [15] involves analysing the data by applying appropriate techniques in separate stages to the comparison of the findings. Data came from a multitude of sources; quantitative (QUAN), qualitative (QUAL), and the three authors who conducted the study bringing different perspectives and analytical skills in the analysis and interpretation of the data. Hence, the empirical findings were subdivided into two concurrent triangulation strategies (QUAN+QUAL) [17], overlapping segments of evidence in order to facilitate the analytical process [15].The QUAN results presented a range of findings that included both independent and dependent variables that were compared according to their statistical relationships and potentially significant biases. Bryman [14] recommends conducting a statistical comparison of means, which involves calculating the mean responses and standard deviations for each independent group in relation to each of the structured prompts. Whilst such descriptive statistics provide a basis for determining the level of consensus, [18] recognises that to generate meaningful quantitative analysis, a statistical comparison of means must be performed. This one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test involves calculating the statistical significance of the relationship between grouped biases and each of the individual prompts (significant at less than or equal to 5%). The QUAN data analysis employs appropriate quantitative instruments, including Microsoft Excel and IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 20.0.The QUAL findings resulted in multiple layers of individual responses to each of the interview questions that varied in scope, focus, and depth of analysis. Merriam and Tisdell [19] propose that by employing an analytical thematic coding process, researchers are able to distil the participants’ responses into their underlying themes, resulting in a measurable frequency of thematic elements that, when combined across the responses, provides the group consensus. The code then provided the basis for any comparative analyses and allowed insights to be drawn that involved degrees of similarity and variance in relation to this central reference point. To be more confident of the internal validity of the results, most of the data collection could be classified as being “within-methods” [20] triangulation. That is, many different techniques were used to gather qualitative data. Using an open-ended question format, “between-methods” triangulation also occurred whereby data on the same specific questions were gathered from questionnaire and analysed together with the qualitative data generated from interviews on the same topics [21].


## 3.1. Research Method

Throughout the literature reviewed in relation to this topic and the range of associated variables, it is evident that experimentation is the primary modality of empiricism in this field of study. Ragin and Amoroso [13] propose that when confronted with a variety of exemplary studies, researchers often rely upon comparative methods to study the internal commonalities, identify diversity, and assess the relationships between the approaches. However, when considering the breadth of IoT-based solutions being developed, the literature review has demonstrated that approaches such as a case study analysis or systematic literature review would be inherently limiting to the current study.Rather than attempting to mirror or mimic the experimental trials of the prior researchers in this field, which would be both cost prohibitive and time and technology consuming, it is more appropriate for the current study to develop a blueprint of industry solutions from the collection of real-world empirical evidence. By applying what Bryman [14] describes as a ‘nonprobabilistic, purposive sampling’ to the collection of evidences using a mixed method approach to collect both questionnaire survey-based quantitative (QUAN) evidence and interview-based qualitative (QUAL) evidence from a discrete sample population of qualified participants with direct experience and knowledge relative to this industry.


## 3.2. Research Design

The mixed method approach involves what Watkins and Gioia [15] refer to as a ‘convergent parallel design,’ or an administrative process which collects and analyses quantitative and qualitative evidence separately and then combines the findings in order to generate a comprehensive interpretation. The rationales behind the selection of the combination of mixed methods, sampling strategies, and multiple variables are as follows: to minimise errors that may arise from a single technique and to maximise the meaning from results of data interpretation [16].By designing a survey instrument that is based upon core concepts from the literature related to security, interoperability, scalability, network design, and system requirements, supporting this survey, the interview designed to include a series of six open-ended questions that focused on specific challenges and opportunities in applying blockchain technologies to the IoT-connected smart city solution and to illuminate potential concerns and to allow the leadership team members to provide more dynamic insights regarding their experiences in this innovative field of IoT and smart city design.


## 3.3. Research Population and Data Collection

The focus of the empirical data collection process for this study emphasised the perceptions, experiences, and insights of professionals currently working to facilitate the smart city revolution in different cities around the world. Multiple layers of experiential insights related to technologies, feasibility, and interoperability were determined to be only accessible from a primary, first-hand perspective, and therefore, a targeted sampling approach was developed. The population of the research and the primary target for this study are IoT industry professionals, businesses, and software developers who are actively crafting the new standard of blockchain integration in relation to smart city-oriented IoT solutions. [14] suggests that in cases where the research involves individuals with specific qualifications, backgrounds, or responsibilities, then a purposive, nonprobabilistic sampling approach is justified. Therefore, a representative sample of 108 uniquely skilled and experienced professionals was attained for the online questionnaire survey (including software developers, software architects, software engineers, and solution architects to name a few). On the other hand, a 14-person sample population represented a cohort of decision-makers with the unique experience of managing and developing new, innovative IoT-based smart city solutions (Chief Technology Officer/Chief Information Officer/Smart City Expert/Smart City Director and so on) have been targeted for a more detailed data collection via interviews.


## 3.4. Participants Recruitment

For the online questionnaire, a survey link from Google forms has been distributed via e-mail and social and professional network like LinkedIn and Twitter amongst worldwide corporations’ staff members responsible for the network upgrades, IoT, and innovations in the world’s smart city solutions. For the interview, identifying worldwide corporations currently responsible for developing smart city, IoT-based technologies; then, they have been invited and contacted via social and professional network like LinkedIn and Twitter and direct e-mails of the individual human resource departments and leadership inboxes within the corporate e-mail systems. Additionally, various stakeholders have been invited and interviewed from participant companies and corporations at the 2020 Saudi Internet-of-Things Conference conducted on March, 2020 in Riyadh (https://saudiiot.com/).


## 3.5. Research Ethics

Prior to the collection, ethical approval was obtained from the University of Malaya Research Ethical Committee (UMREC). During data collection (Feb–Oct, 2020), participant consent was also sought from the participants on an online questionnaire survey by agreeing to participation before answering the questions and before submitting their answers. In the interview, the research participation invitation was sent before the interview takes place and the consent form was signed off by the participant during the interview. Clearly, all participants were communicated about the data anonymity as well as confidentiality.


## 3.6. Data Analysis

The convergent design proposed by [15] involves analysing the data by applying appropriate techniques in separate stages to the comparison of the findings. Data came from a multitude of sources; quantitative (QUAN), qualitative (QUAL), and the three authors who conducted the study bringing different perspectives and analytical skills in the analysis and interpretation of the data. Hence, the empirical findings were subdivided into two concurrent triangulation strategies (QUAN+QUAL) [17], overlapping segments of evidence in order to facilitate the analytical process [15].The QUAN results presented a range of findings that included both independent and dependent variables that were compared according to their statistical relationships and potentially significant biases. Bryman [14] recommends conducting a statistical comparison of means, which involves calculating the mean responses and standard deviations for each independent group in relation to each of the structured prompts. Whilst such descriptive statistics provide a basis for determining the level of consensus, [18] recognises that to generate meaningful quantitative analysis, a statistical comparison of means must be performed. This one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test involves calculating the statistical significance of the relationship between grouped biases and each of the individual prompts (significant at less than or equal to 5%). The QUAN data analysis employs appropriate quantitative instruments, including Microsoft Excel and IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 20.0.The QUAL findings resulted in multiple layers of individual responses to each of the interview questions that varied in scope, focus, and depth of analysis. Merriam and Tisdell [19] propose that by employing an analytical thematic coding process, researchers are able to distil the participants’ responses into their underlying themes, resulting in a measurable frequency of thematic elements that, when combined across the responses, provides the group consensus. The code then provided the basis for any comparative analyses and allowed insights to be drawn that involved degrees of similarity and variance in relation to this central reference point. To be more confident of the internal validity of the results, most of the data collection could be classified as being “within-methods” [20] triangulation. That is, many different techniques were used to gather qualitative data. Using an open-ended question format, “between-methods” triangulation also occurred whereby data on the same specific questions were gathered from questionnaire and analysed together with the qualitative data generated from interviews on the same topics [21].


## 4. Results

Although the technical and academic antecedents to blockchain adoption have been firmly established over the past decade of exploratory research, the transformative role of private sector engagement in propagation and adoption of blockchain technologies in smart city applications remains underdefined and uncertain. This empirical study was undertaken to assess the perceptions of key stakeholders within the IoT-smart city industry regarding the transitional challenges supporting and restricting the transformative effects of this process. The following sections will introduce a comparative survey of internal stakeholders, focusing on aligning and differentiating perspectives, and will then supplement those findings with an in-depth exploration of insider experiences and perceptions captured via a targeted interview. The full result of the questionnaire survey (prior analysis) is published athttps://docs.google.com/forms/d/1WCFQg-FpabvuKZV3WoqJ9a1OR3zzlCJ5rljFguZShMY/viewanalytics.


### 4.1. Survey (QUAN) Findings

The first dimension of this empirical research involved the administration of a structured survey instrument to (n1=108) representatives from the IoT industry, focusing on the supporting and detracting elements of the blockchain debate, the challenges of technological adoption, and the concerns and expectations held by inside stakeholders in this industry. For participant’s categorisation for comparative purposes, the demographic and experiential prompts were presented at the beginning of the survey. The feedback of these personnel was used for determining the statistical significance as well as quantitatively weight patterns. The following sections present these findings, separating the prompts according to their thematic focal points and their role in the facilitation of this surveying instrument. Before presenting our findings, some notations are defined in Table 1.Table 1
Notations and meanings.
NotationMeaningDfDegrees of freedom from the sourceFDegrees of freedom from the meanMMeanNTotal number of a samplenxA subset of the total number of a samplePSignificance (if less than %5)PCPearson correlationSDStandard deviation


#### 4.1.1. Demographic and Experience Overview

In order to group and categorise the participants for comparative purposes, a series of demographic and experiential prompts were introduced at the beginning of this survey process. The feedback provided to these independent variables was then used to test statistical significance and quantitatively weight patterns within the findings against grouped biases. Figure1 revealed that there were more participants between ages 25 and 34 years (23%) compared to those who were more than 55 years (15%). However, a middle-aged bias, with 61% of the participants indicating that they were between the ages of 35 and 54 years, was found. This bias was not considered to influence the reliability or validity of these findings, as this age distribution is indicative of the grouped median of workers within this field of technological solutions and IoT development. Highlighting the weight placed upon education in this industry, Figure 1 shows the distribution of educational attainment across this sample. About 59% of the respondents having attained at least a Master’s degree, the findings highlight the critical role which education plays in supporting the development of high technology solutions and applications. A Pearson correlation analysis revealed a positive statistical correlation (PC=0.413, P≤0.01) between age and education level. In addition, correlation tests for age and length of experience (smart city, PC=0.312, P=0.001; technology industry (PC=0.276, P=0.004) visualised in Figure 2 confirmed statistically positive correlations between these variables, suggesting that participants are likely progressing through continuing professional development or education.Figure 1
Participants age range, education levels, and gender.Figure 2
Relations between length of experiences and understanding of blockchain technologies.A significant result visualised in Figure1 is indicative of the relatively limited experience of these stakeholders with smart city technologies—a field of research that has emerged into the mainstream within the past five years. At the same time, these participants indicated extensive employment experience in the technology/software industry which suggests that there has been a direct transition from general to smart technologies within the past five-year period. The cross-tabular comparison revealed that the majority of participants with 5-6 years of experience in smart city technologies were over the age of 55, whilst those participants with 7 years’ experience or more were between 35 and 54 years. This distinction was statistically significant when compared with general software experience, as participants with 7 or more years of experience were between 25 and over 55 years, which was consistent with their reported experience in smart city technologies.In spite of a broad distribution in understanding regarding blockchain technologies, the Pearson correlation test was unable to confirm a statistical relationship between age and the degree of understanding of blockchain technologies. The visual distribution in Figure2 confirms a large percentage of the sample population (54%) with direct, professional experience with blockchain technologies. The correlation analysis confirmed a direct, positive relationship between experience with smart technologies and the degree of understanding of blockchain technologies (PC=0.387, P=0.006), suggesting that experience has the potential to positively contribute to understanding.In addition to the relationship between understanding and experience, the expectations visualised in Figure3 were found to be positively correlated with the participants’ length of experience with smart city technologies (PC=0.400, P≤0.01). In spite of such experience levels, however, almost 15% of participants rated blockchain as essential, whilst 34.5% indicated that this technological solution is important which will likely be adopted on a large scale and a general solution that will resolve some security concerns, respectively. Besides, 17.5% opined that blockchain is limited and could benefit some companies and 5% in their opinion feel it is irrelevant to smart city.Figure 3
Expected role of blockchain technologies in system harmonisation.


#### 4.1.2. Structured Prompts

The second series of prompts were based upon an assessment of agreement and subdivided into the central themes identified within the literature review, including system design, network management, competitive pressures, blockchain innovation, and security standards. Figure4 groups the responses related to system design considerations, highlighting a relatively strong group consensus for two of these three prompts. Specifically, 57% of the participants agree that because the IoT is a fragmented and vulnerable network, it cannot be secured in its current state. Also, 65% of the participants agree that an integrated blockchain storage solution would allow the IoT to meet a minimum standard of security; however, 59% agree that API design around a central cloud-based solution would allow for proprietary and innovative solutions. Such a variance may indicate concerns amongst the participants regarding the overall competitive advantages and proprietary solutions associated with a singular, unified blockchain standard. Figure 4 displays system design considerations.Figure 4
System design considerations.The second series of prompts visualised in Figure5 focused on network architecture and management and considered the impacts of scale on IoT integration in smart city design. The result shows that about 82% of these participants agree that the smart city design is being driven by big data resources which are contingent upon capacity-building and multinodal data collection. To support such technologies, 72% of the participants agreed that there is a need for a central network architecture that is capable of integrating such diversified nodes and scaling to meet the needs of the IoT. Such findings confirm the potential advantages of a revised network solution and the support levied by these industry insiders for such a transformative technological intervention.Figure 5
Network architecture and management.The third category of prompts visualised in Figure6 focused on the range of competitive pressures and threats that might impact the overall scalability of the IoT and the realisation of a smart city standard. 83.3% of these participants agree that greater collaboration between IoT design companies would allow the industry to unify its technological backbone. In addition, 61% of the participants agree that proprietary network designs limit the industry’s ability to expand beyond its existing and limiting standards of practice. Given that just 23% of the participants agreed that the blockchain solution is a threat to corporations’ internal strategic goals, these findings further confirm the viability of a more unified, collaborative infrastructure standard.Figure 6
Competitive pressures and threats.Although statistical comparisons using ANOVA were performed to assess the weighted impact of the independent demographic/experience variables on the participant responses to these prompts, this category revealed statistically insignificant relationship with regard to the responses to the proprietary software query and two independent variables: age range (F=1.078, P=0.372) and length of experience in the general tech industry (F=0.165, P=0.956).As a statistical correlation was recorded between these two independent variables, cross-tabular analysis was performed with age range initially to determine a predictive relationship, whereby it was revealed that 35.30% of the participants who disagreed with this statement were between the ages of 35 and 44 years. At the same time, 41% of the participants over the age of 45 years agreed with this statement, creating a perceptual gap which, when compared with experience, revealed an age-experience hurdle associated with the participant’s understanding of proprietary software and network design.The fourth category of prompts visualised in Figure7 was comprised of just two queries and resulted in similar levels of consensus. In particular, 70.37% of the participants agree that for many, the complexity of blockchain creates barriers to adoption. At the same time, 65.74% agrees that the categorical advantages of a distributed ledger could have implications for system responsiveness and interdependencies. By agreeing with each of these prompts, the participants suggest that whilst advantages are being recognised, technological complexity and a lack of understanding could potentially lead to resistance or lagging adoption. Statistically significant relationships between these prompts and age range were observed via ANOVA comparison; the result revealed that age range (F=2.567, P=0.042) has an effect on the technological complexity of blockchain as it creates barriers to adoption and engagement; however, age does not influence greater collaboration between IoT design companies which could allow this industry to develop a more unified central framework. A cross-tabular comparison did reveal that youngest participants were less likely to agree fully with these statements than their older counterparts—a phenomenon that may indicate confidence, experience, or concern-based variations.Figure 7
Blockchain innovation effects and engagement.The final category of prompts consisted of the largest number and focused on security concerns as they relate to the blockchain and the IoT. Figure8 visualises a range of varied responses which create opportunities for exploring these majority and minority opinions in greater detail. It was discovered that 84.25% of the participants agree that current security threats create vulnerabilities for consumers, exposing their data and restricting access to critical systems. In spite of this increasing threat level, it was 66% of the participants who agree that the intrinsic value of the data should determine the level of security required when holding that data. Whilst 55% of the participants do not believe that the current standard of IoT security is adequate to meet the needs of an expanding smart city network, 35% agreed that their company had developed proprietary security solutions to address the varied needs associated with IoT devices.Figure 8
Security, blockchain, and the IoT.These findings suggest that there is a contradiction between the security concerns of those firms involved in developing IoT security solutions and their internal capacity to address those concerns via proprietary means. Confirming an opportunity for integrating blockchain technologies into this complex dynamic, 64% of the participants agree that this solution would create the minimum level of securitisation needed for the IoT. The ANOVA comparison of means test revealed statistically significant relationships between three of these prompts and five different independent variables see Table2. Cross-tabular analysis revealed that the majority of the female participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement regarding the current standard of security, whilst only male participants actually agreed with this statement. An age range assessment was unable to identify any age group biases that might lead to a statistically significant variation, with the exception of the 91.7% of the participants over the age of 55, who disagreed with the statement. This statistical bias was important when further explored in relation to experiential effects, whereby 75% of the participants who agreed with this statement of sufficiency have worked with smart technologies for less than 1 year.Table 2
Statistical results for prompts in Figure8.
PromptGenderAge rangeLength of experience with smart city technologiesLength of experience with general technologyMost consumers are unclear about blockchainFPFPFPFPFPThe current standard of IoT security is sufficient to meet the future needs of expansion.0.3210.5720.7870.5361.2680.2871.2590.2913.1100.03The intrinsic value of publicly shared data should define the level of security (e.g. low, medium, and high) that is adopted to protect it.0.5720.4512.6190.0390.9320.4490.8750.4820.8600.464Current security threats such as hijacking and brute force attacks create extreme vulnerabilities for consumers who could lose access to critical systems:3.2460.0671.1810.3230.1910.9430.1450.9652.5670.05For the prompt regarding the intrinsic value of publicly shared data, the statistical findings were conflicting, with some participants with more than 7 years of experience disagreeing and some agreeing. The highest number of participants who disagreed had 3-4 years of tech experience, but some of those participants also agreed. Therefore, it was determined that this statistically significant relationship was sample related and not a broader experiential predictor of general perceptions regarding data security. The final statistical relationship drew upon one of the last queries in the survey regarding whether the participants felt that consumers were unclear about the blockchain to assess whether security threats create extreme vulnerabilities. The cross-tabular comparison revealed that participants who agree strongly that most consumers are unclear about the blockchain are more likely to strongly agree that security threats could create extreme vulnerabilities for consumers. This finding indicates a strong positive relationship between perceived threat levels and perceived user vulnerability and risks.


#### 4.1.3. Weighted List

To further extend the empirical findings and assess the scope of concerns shared by these participants, they were asked to rank a list of 9 factors related to data security management practices and the influence of blockchain integration on IoT security. The top-ranked factors were those that were most influential in supporting the blockchain adoption process was the transparency of blockchain technology (M=3.97, SD=0.08), the outlying connectivity of API interfaces (M=3.73, SD=0.09), and the potential for insider access (M=3.71, SD=0.102). These considerations are largely practical in nature, and they avoid some of the other prompts related to perceptual, expectation-based, or legal concerns regarding blockchain adoption. Further, the lowest-ranked prompt on this list, a centralised database capable of anonymising user transactions (M=3.24, SD=1.105), was still identified as somewhat influential, but it purposefully focuses on the broader, general definition of blockchain technology. The result is a weighted list of influential forces that prioritise innovation and novelty over generality and sociotechnical concerns. The blockchain influence results are shown in Table 3.Table 3
Influence of blockchain integration factors on IoT security.
RankFactorMeanSD1The transparency of blockchain technology and its applicability in IoT solutions3.970.772The outlying API interfaces and their ability to connect seamlessly to the blockchain3.730.893The potential for insider access and system compromise in the blockchain3.701.064The influence of regulatory oversight and guidelines regarding data security and management3.661.155The capacity for blockchain transactions to efficiently manage the scope of user data generated by IoT nodes3.600.8746The willingness of industry leaders to adopt a unified standard and employ a blockchain-based solution3.461.2107Consumer expectations and understanding regarding data security and resource management3.320.9658The corporate right to proprietary, technically protected data management resources3.310.8829A centralised database capable of anonymising user transactions, whilst ensuring the legitimacy of authenticated behaviour3.241.09


#### 4.1.4. Final Considerations

There were several final prompts introduced at the end of this survey in order to elicit additional insights from the participants regarding their observations regarding organisational intentions and blockchain adoption. Figure9 showed that 80% of the participants would support a unified standard interface for routing and managing IoT traffic, confirming prior findings regarding the anticipated advantages of this technological solution as the IoT continues to evolve towards an integrated smart city standard. Support for a unified blockchain standard is displayed in Figure 9.Figure 9
Support for a unified blockchain standard.The majority of the participants (77%), as shown in Figure10, agree that most consumers are unclear about blockchain and its potential value for nonfinancial transactions. This finding is important because it highlights a potential barrier to adoption that will need to be addressed when IoT services are deployed in order to attain and sustain consumer buy-in and support.Figure 10
Consumers are unclear about blockchain.Resolving a critical point of industry contention in Figure11, the results showed that 69% of the participants agree that the security risks posed by proprietary technologies are too high for independent data management. This finding is important because it confirms that these industry leaders are amenable to supporting a new, centralised standard of secure, authenticated data management such as blockchain.Figure 11
Security risks posed by proprietary technologies are too high for independent data management.Although there was consensus regarding the need for blockchain integration and improved security standards, Figure12 highlights varying modalities for transitioning from the current state of independent competition towards a more proactive state of network integration. The highest represented approach (31%) suggested adopting performance-oriented integration standards, whilst 21% remain unsure about how to proceed in the future and an additional 17% are awaiting some form of innovation to be developed.Figure 12
Company integration level.


### 4.2. Interview (QUAL) Findings

In order to draw more meaningful insights and conclusions regarding the effects of technological innovation and blockchain transitioning on smart city applications, a series of six questions were presented to a small-scale cohort of industry insiders (n2=14 participants (P)). With industry experience ranging from 2 to 15+ years, these business owners, software developers, and technical engineers are experienced in both blockchain and IoT-based applications. Their insights were aggregated by question, distilled by applying a line-by-line thematic coding technique and then analysed critically and comparatively for similarities and variations. The following sections present these findings and discuss the implications of the responses in relation to the central focus of each individual interview question.


#### 4.2.1. Question 1: What Role Do you Foresee the IoT Playing in Smart City Design in the Future? Will Your Company’s Technology Support This?

Major themes are as follows: smart, IoT, city, company, technology, solutions, automation, and environment.This initial interview question was designed to illuminate any potential biases or concerns associated with the participant population, focusing on the relationship between the IoT and smart city design. P3 suggests that a ‘smart city utilising IoT can provide a highly productive living environment for its residents,’ further proposing that control-oriented mechanisms such as safety monitoring, automation, and service response solutions can be used to improve the overall lifestyle benefits of the environment. Extending the impact of the IoT, P4 also suggested that inclusion would ‘contribute to a healthier and sustainable environment’, by targeting development goals and pollution reduction solutions that would ideally benefit all members of the connected community. Both P5 and P6 discussed their personal experiences in home automation and connected services, suggesting that the IoT will support a ‘smarter world’ (P5). P2 recognised that where organisations are working towards IoT integration, ‘training’ and technological enablement through cost reduction, and infrastructure connections will be the central catalysts for wider scale adoption. Participants opined that IoT can be integrated with larger-scale systems which would contribute to a less polluted, well-connected, and secure living. However, works have begun on IoT education as stated by P2 who said “we are already working towards IoT education and working towards some IoT projects with Blockchain. Also, we did some IoT training not only in Malaysia but also in abroad like Middle East and other countries. I think IoT is going to play a huge role in the few coming years when 5G enable cheap data towards IoT to utilise.” Also, it is expected that a smart city utilising IoT would provide a highly productive living environment for its residents thereby creating a very safe crime-free environment, unified healthcare, and good traffic control and safety for the populace. Conclusively, P4 highlighted that “IoT-enabled smart city design would contribute to a healthier and sustainable environment if aligned towards sustainable development goals defined by UNO.”


#### 4.2.2. Question 2: What Are the Primary Security Challenges Facing the IoT as the Urban Landscape Grows More Connected?

Major themes are as follows: challenges, data, IoT, devices, security, personal, and infrastructure automation.The primary security challenges illuminated by these participants are directly linked to the structurally connected advantages of the IoT: scale and scope of data collection and exchange. P1, for example, acknowledged that ‘the question that comes to mind is how safe are your personal data,’ suggesting that consumer data is vulnerable to hacks and unauthorised access, and in extreme cases, ‘misuse by people you don’t want it to.’ P2 suggested that the concerns are more complex than data management and system security—they are linked to the ‘design of the device, battery lives…hardware challenges’ which either enable or inhibit IoT security. In addition, there is the ‘framework challenge’ which considers how the IoT is structured and how data transactions are processed safely and securely within the network (P2). P3 supported this network-based concern, suggesting that the ‘main security challenge would be to keep the IoT infrastructure secure from unauthorised data access and keeping the data encrypted.’ This data-centered focus was also replicated by the initiatives being proposed by P4, P5, and P6, as protection-oriented system design and encryption were highlighted as critical antecedents to a safer, data-secure IoT solution.


#### 4.2.3. Question 3: How Much Time Has your Organisation Spent considering Blockchain Technologies in relation to the IoT?

Major themes are as follows: blockchain, technology, system, data, company, decentralised, database, networks.This fourth question considered the degree to which these firms which are internal stakeholders from worldwide IoT industry have invested in the emergent potential of blockchain technologies. As visualised, the central themes within these responses considered a range of immediate and future technological advantages which were firm-specific and programme-oriented. P2, for example, acknowledged that at first, their company ‘didn’t have a lot of understanding of blockchain and what the technology is meant for’ and recognised that this same burden extended downstream throughout various markets as well. To overcome this hurdle, their organisation assumed an early adopter position, focusing on ‘promoting this technology to facilitate and work closely with all new emerging technologies’ related to blockchain. Other participants such as P5 indicated that their company was ‘still exploring blockchain,’ whilst P4 and P6 both indicated working with blockchain in relation to the IoT for the past two years. P1 suggested that whilst their organisation was focused on blockchain in relation to database management, they were ‘not thinking in IoT, but more in a sense of whether it is necessary and how it does change the way things work.’ Whilst this statement may suggest a form of outside proposition, the anticipated functional advantages of the blockchain were further described by this participant and suggest that in time, the blockchain solution will be optimised for IoT applications as it ‘will replace the traditional database system offering a decentralised governance that is trustless.’


#### 4.2.4. Question 4: How Could the Competitive Objectives of Software and IoT-Oriented Companies Be Preserved but Still Focused on a More Unified Standard of Design?

Major themes are as follows: companies, standards, implementation, infrastructure, design, security, and collaboration.For corporate executives and leaders, this question was designed to trigger consideration for those commercial hurdles and competitive barriers that could potentially restrain growth or limit expansion due to network dependency and proprietary agendas. Whilst the IoT remains a proprietary resource, the underlying infrastructure is likely to evolve, as observed by P3, who predicts that as ‘more and more governments push for smart cities, this will result in the formation of organisational quorum that should standardise the IoT infrastructure for global connectivity.’ This solution would effectively eliminate the competitive advantages of proprietary infrastructure and instead allow companies to focus on what P4 describes as ‘common SDKs, protocol adapters, and security measures’. P2 suggests that ‘there is going to be somebody who does the infrastructure and another implementing the device…everybody will have their own room to play so they see where to position themselves’. Ultimately, this standard will be contingent upon oversight, which will be developed by government consensus, which P1 suggests will result in a ‘set of acceptable standards to ensure that there is a unified or uniformed standard of design that can ‘facilitate collaboration between multiple companies with the same objective: To develop a system design that can fit most, if not all, blueprints of smart cities.’ Conclusively, the use of nationwide framework, formation of organisational quorum, open-source use, protocol adapters, and standardisation of IoT infrastructure for global connectivity were the identified measures to preserve the software and IoT companies. P10 and P12 elucidate that “adherence to international standards (ISO, IEC etc.) in everything that they do” and “Regulations from communication commissions to set a common ground and ecosystem.” This unified standard builds upon the idealisation of standardised authentication and security solutions which allow companies to focus on the commercial aspects of the IoT (e.g., modules, solutions, software), whilst relying upon a central, ledger or database that is most likely going to be based upon blockchain-based solutions.


#### 4.2.5. Question 5: What Role Will Industry Leadership Play in Determining the Adoption of Blockchain Technologies in the Future?

Major themes are as follows: government, vision, technology, industry, companies, startups, build, purpose, and services.By situating the perceptions of these managers in relation to their role and identity within the smart city solution, this question challenged the participants to consider their role in shaping the future of blockchain integration and adoption. The findings revealed emphasis on particular sectors of the smart city solution, including government services and those companies responsible for IoT-based solutions. P1, for example, suggested that industry leaders will provide the ‘bridge that can connect the government directly to users,’ assuming the role of technology innovator to ‘lead their blockchain initiatives’ towards a productive solution that can support smart city needs. Also, they are the promoter, influencer and decision maker as explained by P13 who said “Industry leadership plays an important role as promoter, influencer and decision maker. I believe it will play a major role and influence the adoption of blockchain technologies”. Furthermore, they are expected to enforce law, conduct education awareness, and push forward to bring the technology to the entire populace. P3 supports this proposition, suggesting that ‘industry leadership has to find ways where governments can benefit greatly from the blockchain use,’ essentially mainstreaming adoption by making this technology an essential resource for government institutions. Yet in spite of this potential advantage, P2 suggested that a core advantage of the decentralised and autonomous development process of the blockchain solution was that ‘it actually did not have a leader from the beginning and anonymity meant to allow it to survive.’ In other industries, there is ‘some body that has founded it and tells it what is the vision’; instead, blockchain has ‘passed this long ago and everyone has their own vision and is bringing their own roads’ (P2). The expectation is that in order to mainstream blockchain technologies, there must be some degree of collaboration, whilst still allowing companies to maintain their competitiveness, thereby facilitating disruptive change without limiting the innovativeness of the organisations (P2, P4).


#### 4.2.6. Question 6: What Do you Feel Would Be the Greatest Strengths of Blockchain Integration into the Smart City Fabric? Limitations and Concerns?

Major themes are as follows: security, network, information, technology, management, benefits, identities, and privacy.The final question presented to these stakeholders focused on the end outcome of blockchain integration: an ultimate realisation of a technological standard that could potentially alter the fabric of smart city collaboration. Although P3 is optimistic that ‘blockchain can solve many issues related to the security and standardisation of the IoT,’ they also suggested that there is a need to develop a solution that resolves the efficiency concerns related to the ‘execution speed and mining costs.’ These cost- and speed-related concerns were repeated by P4 and P5, who also view the security advantages and potential reliability of the blockchain as motivating benefits that could drive this process of standardisation forward. P1 indicated the following strengths: “Blockchain has several advantages over traditional database system: decentralisation and transparency. Transactions over a blockchain network have also proven to be fast and efficient in terms of time, money, and energy utilised.” Building upon these potential benefits, P2 highlighted the critical advantages of an automated, smart city solution in terms of ‘liberty, protection, and privacy’ creating a protective infrastructure capable of meeting the expanding digital needs of society whilst also improving the transparency of information systems. To realise such advantages, however, all P1, P2, and P14 indicated that concerns regarding scalability, cost, and government support were likely to restrict the viability of investment and agency commitments, as ‘technologies are merging’ (P2) and forming a more tangible ‘blockchain community’ (P1) of services and technological solutions and its implementation as stated by P11 “… the challenges that will be faced during the implementation and the adoption would be the main limitation.” Acknowledging the potential for standardisation through international organisations such as the ISO, P1 also identified ‘documentation being proposed,’ which is focused on addressing the range of interoperability hurdles that arise from the current state of variable standards, as the ‘active committee looks into blockchain standards’ to create a common basis for all industry participants.


## 4.1. Survey (QUAN) Findings

The first dimension of this empirical research involved the administration of a structured survey instrument to (n1=108) representatives from the IoT industry, focusing on the supporting and detracting elements of the blockchain debate, the challenges of technological adoption, and the concerns and expectations held by inside stakeholders in this industry. For participant’s categorisation for comparative purposes, the demographic and experiential prompts were presented at the beginning of the survey. The feedback of these personnel was used for determining the statistical significance as well as quantitatively weight patterns. The following sections present these findings, separating the prompts according to their thematic focal points and their role in the facilitation of this surveying instrument. Before presenting our findings, some notations are defined in Table 1.Table 1
Notations and meanings.
NotationMeaningDfDegrees of freedom from the sourceFDegrees of freedom from the meanMMeanNTotal number of a samplenxA subset of the total number of a samplePSignificance (if less than %5)PCPearson correlationSDStandard deviation


### 4.1.1. Demographic and Experience Overview

In order to group and categorise the participants for comparative purposes, a series of demographic and experiential prompts were introduced at the beginning of this survey process. The feedback provided to these independent variables was then used to test statistical significance and quantitatively weight patterns within the findings against grouped biases. Figure1 revealed that there were more participants between ages 25 and 34 years (23%) compared to those who were more than 55 years (15%). However, a middle-aged bias, with 61% of the participants indicating that they were between the ages of 35 and 54 years, was found. This bias was not considered to influence the reliability or validity of these findings, as this age distribution is indicative of the grouped median of workers within this field of technological solutions and IoT development. Highlighting the weight placed upon education in this industry, Figure 1 shows the distribution of educational attainment across this sample. About 59% of the respondents having attained at least a Master’s degree, the findings highlight the critical role which education plays in supporting the development of high technology solutions and applications. A Pearson correlation analysis revealed a positive statistical correlation (PC=0.413, P≤0.01) between age and education level. In addition, correlation tests for age and length of experience (smart city, PC=0.312, P=0.001; technology industry (PC=0.276, P=0.004) visualised in Figure 2 confirmed statistically positive correlations between these variables, suggesting that participants are likely progressing through continuing professional development or education.Figure 1
Participants age range, education levels, and gender.Figure 2
Relations between length of experiences and understanding of blockchain technologies.A significant result visualised in Figure1 is indicative of the relatively limited experience of these stakeholders with smart city technologies—a field of research that has emerged into the mainstream within the past five years. At the same time, these participants indicated extensive employment experience in the technology/software industry which suggests that there has been a direct transition from general to smart technologies within the past five-year period. The cross-tabular comparison revealed that the majority of participants with 5-6 years of experience in smart city technologies were over the age of 55, whilst those participants with 7 years’ experience or more were between 35 and 54 years. This distinction was statistically significant when compared with general software experience, as participants with 7 or more years of experience were between 25 and over 55 years, which was consistent with their reported experience in smart city technologies.In spite of a broad distribution in understanding regarding blockchain technologies, the Pearson correlation test was unable to confirm a statistical relationship between age and the degree of understanding of blockchain technologies. The visual distribution in Figure2 confirms a large percentage of the sample population (54%) with direct, professional experience with blockchain technologies. The correlation analysis confirmed a direct, positive relationship between experience with smart technologies and the degree of understanding of blockchain technologies (PC=0.387, P=0.006), suggesting that experience has the potential to positively contribute to understanding.In addition to the relationship between understanding and experience, the expectations visualised in Figure3 were found to be positively correlated with the participants’ length of experience with smart city technologies (PC=0.400, P≤0.01). In spite of such experience levels, however, almost 15% of participants rated blockchain as essential, whilst 34.5% indicated that this technological solution is important which will likely be adopted on a large scale and a general solution that will resolve some security concerns, respectively. Besides, 17.5% opined that blockchain is limited and could benefit some companies and 5% in their opinion feel it is irrelevant to smart city.Figure 3
Expected role of blockchain technologies in system harmonisation.


### 4.1.2. Structured Prompts

The second series of prompts were based upon an assessment of agreement and subdivided into the central themes identified within the literature review, including system design, network management, competitive pressures, blockchain innovation, and security standards. Figure4 groups the responses related to system design considerations, highlighting a relatively strong group consensus for two of these three prompts. Specifically, 57% of the participants agree that because the IoT is a fragmented and vulnerable network, it cannot be secured in its current state. Also, 65% of the participants agree that an integrated blockchain storage solution would allow the IoT to meet a minimum standard of security; however, 59% agree that API design around a central cloud-based solution would allow for proprietary and innovative solutions. Such a variance may indicate concerns amongst the participants regarding the overall competitive advantages and proprietary solutions associated with a singular, unified blockchain standard. Figure 4 displays system design considerations.Figure 4
System design considerations.The second series of prompts visualised in Figure5 focused on network architecture and management and considered the impacts of scale on IoT integration in smart city design. The result shows that about 82% of these participants agree that the smart city design is being driven by big data resources which are contingent upon capacity-building and multinodal data collection. To support such technologies, 72% of the participants agreed that there is a need for a central network architecture that is capable of integrating such diversified nodes and scaling to meet the needs of the IoT. Such findings confirm the potential advantages of a revised network solution and the support levied by these industry insiders for such a transformative technological intervention.Figure 5
Network architecture and management.The third category of prompts visualised in Figure6 focused on the range of competitive pressures and threats that might impact the overall scalability of the IoT and the realisation of a smart city standard. 83.3% of these participants agree that greater collaboration between IoT design companies would allow the industry to unify its technological backbone. In addition, 61% of the participants agree that proprietary network designs limit the industry’s ability to expand beyond its existing and limiting standards of practice. Given that just 23% of the participants agreed that the blockchain solution is a threat to corporations’ internal strategic goals, these findings further confirm the viability of a more unified, collaborative infrastructure standard.Figure 6
Competitive pressures and threats.Although statistical comparisons using ANOVA were performed to assess the weighted impact of the independent demographic/experience variables on the participant responses to these prompts, this category revealed statistically insignificant relationship with regard to the responses to the proprietary software query and two independent variables: age range (F=1.078, P=0.372) and length of experience in the general tech industry (F=0.165, P=0.956).As a statistical correlation was recorded between these two independent variables, cross-tabular analysis was performed with age range initially to determine a predictive relationship, whereby it was revealed that 35.30% of the participants who disagreed with this statement were between the ages of 35 and 44 years. At the same time, 41% of the participants over the age of 45 years agreed with this statement, creating a perceptual gap which, when compared with experience, revealed an age-experience hurdle associated with the participant’s understanding of proprietary software and network design.The fourth category of prompts visualised in Figure7 was comprised of just two queries and resulted in similar levels of consensus. In particular, 70.37% of the participants agree that for many, the complexity of blockchain creates barriers to adoption. At the same time, 65.74% agrees that the categorical advantages of a distributed ledger could have implications for system responsiveness and interdependencies. By agreeing with each of these prompts, the participants suggest that whilst advantages are being recognised, technological complexity and a lack of understanding could potentially lead to resistance or lagging adoption. Statistically significant relationships between these prompts and age range were observed via ANOVA comparison; the result revealed that age range (F=2.567, P=0.042) has an effect on the technological complexity of blockchain as it creates barriers to adoption and engagement; however, age does not influence greater collaboration between IoT design companies which could allow this industry to develop a more unified central framework. A cross-tabular comparison did reveal that youngest participants were less likely to agree fully with these statements than their older counterparts—a phenomenon that may indicate confidence, experience, or concern-based variations.Figure 7
Blockchain innovation effects and engagement.The final category of prompts consisted of the largest number and focused on security concerns as they relate to the blockchain and the IoT. Figure8 visualises a range of varied responses which create opportunities for exploring these majority and minority opinions in greater detail. It was discovered that 84.25% of the participants agree that current security threats create vulnerabilities for consumers, exposing their data and restricting access to critical systems. In spite of this increasing threat level, it was 66% of the participants who agree that the intrinsic value of the data should determine the level of security required when holding that data. Whilst 55% of the participants do not believe that the current standard of IoT security is adequate to meet the needs of an expanding smart city network, 35% agreed that their company had developed proprietary security solutions to address the varied needs associated with IoT devices.Figure 8
Security, blockchain, and the IoT.These findings suggest that there is a contradiction between the security concerns of those firms involved in developing IoT security solutions and their internal capacity to address those concerns via proprietary means. Confirming an opportunity for integrating blockchain technologies into this complex dynamic, 64% of the participants agree that this solution would create the minimum level of securitisation needed for the IoT. The ANOVA comparison of means test revealed statistically significant relationships between three of these prompts and five different independent variables see Table2. Cross-tabular analysis revealed that the majority of the female participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement regarding the current standard of security, whilst only male participants actually agreed with this statement. An age range assessment was unable to identify any age group biases that might lead to a statistically significant variation, with the exception of the 91.7% of the participants over the age of 55, who disagreed with the statement. This statistical bias was important when further explored in relation to experiential effects, whereby 75% of the participants who agreed with this statement of sufficiency have worked with smart technologies for less than 1 year.Table 2
Statistical results for prompts in Figure8.
PromptGenderAge rangeLength of experience with smart city technologiesLength of experience with general technologyMost consumers are unclear about blockchainFPFPFPFPFPThe current standard of IoT security is sufficient to meet the future needs of expansion.0.3210.5720.7870.5361.2680.2871.2590.2913.1100.03The intrinsic value of publicly shared data should define the level of security (e.g. low, medium, and high) that is adopted to protect it.0.5720.4512.6190.0390.9320.4490.8750.4820.8600.464Current security threats such as hijacking and brute force attacks create extreme vulnerabilities for consumers who could lose access to critical systems:3.2460.0671.1810.3230.1910.9430.1450.9652.5670.05For the prompt regarding the intrinsic value of publicly shared data, the statistical findings were conflicting, with some participants with more than 7 years of experience disagreeing and some agreeing. The highest number of participants who disagreed had 3-4 years of tech experience, but some of those participants also agreed. Therefore, it was determined that this statistically significant relationship was sample related and not a broader experiential predictor of general perceptions regarding data security. The final statistical relationship drew upon one of the last queries in the survey regarding whether the participants felt that consumers were unclear about the blockchain to assess whether security threats create extreme vulnerabilities. The cross-tabular comparison revealed that participants who agree strongly that most consumers are unclear about the blockchain are more likely to strongly agree that security threats could create extreme vulnerabilities for consumers. This finding indicates a strong positive relationship between perceived threat levels and perceived user vulnerability and risks.


### 4.1.3. Weighted List

To further extend the empirical findings and assess the scope of concerns shared by these participants, they were asked to rank a list of 9 factors related to data security management practices and the influence of blockchain integration on IoT security. The top-ranked factors were those that were most influential in supporting the blockchain adoption process was the transparency of blockchain technology (M=3.97, SD=0.08), the outlying connectivity of API interfaces (M=3.73, SD=0.09), and the potential for insider access (M=3.71, SD=0.102). These considerations are largely practical in nature, and they avoid some of the other prompts related to perceptual, expectation-based, or legal concerns regarding blockchain adoption. Further, the lowest-ranked prompt on this list, a centralised database capable of anonymising user transactions (M=3.24, SD=1.105), was still identified as somewhat influential, but it purposefully focuses on the broader, general definition of blockchain technology. The result is a weighted list of influential forces that prioritise innovation and novelty over generality and sociotechnical concerns. The blockchain influence results are shown in Table 3.Table 3
Influence of blockchain integration factors on IoT security.
RankFactorMeanSD1The transparency of blockchain technology and its applicability in IoT solutions3.970.772The outlying API interfaces and their ability to connect seamlessly to the blockchain3.730.893The potential for insider access and system compromise in the blockchain3.701.064The influence of regulatory oversight and guidelines regarding data security and management3.661.155The capacity for blockchain transactions to efficiently manage the scope of user data generated by IoT nodes3.600.8746The willingness of industry leaders to adopt a unified standard and employ a blockchain-based solution3.461.2107Consumer expectations and understanding regarding data security and resource management3.320.9658The corporate right to proprietary, technically protected data management resources3.310.8829A centralised database capable of anonymising user transactions, whilst ensuring the legitimacy of authenticated behaviour3.241.09


### 4.1.4. Final Considerations

There were several final prompts introduced at the end of this survey in order to elicit additional insights from the participants regarding their observations regarding organisational intentions and blockchain adoption. Figure9 showed that 80% of the participants would support a unified standard interface for routing and managing IoT traffic, confirming prior findings regarding the anticipated advantages of this technological solution as the IoT continues to evolve towards an integrated smart city standard. Support for a unified blockchain standard is displayed in Figure 9.Figure 9
Support for a unified blockchain standard.The majority of the participants (77%), as shown in Figure10, agree that most consumers are unclear about blockchain and its potential value for nonfinancial transactions. This finding is important because it highlights a potential barrier to adoption that will need to be addressed when IoT services are deployed in order to attain and sustain consumer buy-in and support.Figure 10
Consumers are unclear about blockchain.Resolving a critical point of industry contention in Figure11, the results showed that 69% of the participants agree that the security risks posed by proprietary technologies are too high for independent data management. This finding is important because it confirms that these industry leaders are amenable to supporting a new, centralised standard of secure, authenticated data management such as blockchain.Figure 11
Security risks posed by proprietary technologies are too high for independent data management.Although there was consensus regarding the need for blockchain integration and improved security standards, Figure12 highlights varying modalities for transitioning from the current state of independent competition towards a more proactive state of network integration. The highest represented approach (31%) suggested adopting performance-oriented integration standards, whilst 21% remain unsure about how to proceed in the future and an additional 17% are awaiting some form of innovation to be developed.Figure 12
Company integration level.


## 4.1.1. Demographic and Experience Overview

In order to group and categorise the participants for comparative purposes, a series of demographic and experiential prompts were introduced at the beginning of this survey process. The feedback provided to these independent variables was then used to test statistical significance and quantitatively weight patterns within the findings against grouped biases. Figure1 revealed that there were more participants between ages 25 and 34 years (23%) compared to those who were more than 55 years (15%). However, a middle-aged bias, with 61% of the participants indicating that they were between the ages of 35 and 54 years, was found. This bias was not considered to influence the reliability or validity of these findings, as this age distribution is indicative of the grouped median of workers within this field of technological solutions and IoT development. Highlighting the weight placed upon education in this industry, Figure 1 shows the distribution of educational attainment across this sample. About 59% of the respondents having attained at least a Master’s degree, the findings highlight the critical role which education plays in supporting the development of high technology solutions and applications. A Pearson correlation analysis revealed a positive statistical correlation (PC=0.413, P≤0.01) between age and education level. In addition, correlation tests for age and length of experience (smart city, PC=0.312, P=0.001; technology industry (PC=0.276, P=0.004) visualised in Figure 2 confirmed statistically positive correlations between these variables, suggesting that participants are likely progressing through continuing professional development or education.Figure 1
Participants age range, education levels, and gender.Figure 2
Relations between length of experiences and understanding of blockchain technologies.A significant result visualised in Figure1 is indicative of the relatively limited experience of these stakeholders with smart city technologies—a field of research that has emerged into the mainstream within the past five years. At the same time, these participants indicated extensive employment experience in the technology/software industry which suggests that there has been a direct transition from general to smart technologies within the past five-year period. The cross-tabular comparison revealed that the majority of participants with 5-6 years of experience in smart city technologies were over the age of 55, whilst those participants with 7 years’ experience or more were between 35 and 54 years. This distinction was statistically significant when compared with general software experience, as participants with 7 or more years of experience were between 25 and over 55 years, which was consistent with their reported experience in smart city technologies.In spite of a broad distribution in understanding regarding blockchain technologies, the Pearson correlation test was unable to confirm a statistical relationship between age and the degree of understanding of blockchain technologies. The visual distribution in Figure2 confirms a large percentage of the sample population (54%) with direct, professional experience with blockchain technologies. The correlation analysis confirmed a direct, positive relationship between experience with smart technologies and the degree of understanding of blockchain technologies (PC=0.387, P=0.006), suggesting that experience has the potential to positively contribute to understanding.In addition to the relationship between understanding and experience, the expectations visualised in Figure3 were found to be positively correlated with the participants’ length of experience with smart city technologies (PC=0.400, P≤0.01). In spite of such experience levels, however, almost 15% of participants rated blockchain as essential, whilst 34.5% indicated that this technological solution is important which will likely be adopted on a large scale and a general solution that will resolve some security concerns, respectively. Besides, 17.5% opined that blockchain is limited and could benefit some companies and 5% in their opinion feel it is irrelevant to smart city.Figure 3
Expected role of blockchain technologies in system harmonisation.


## 4.1.2. Structured Prompts

The second series of prompts were based upon an assessment of agreement and subdivided into the central themes identified within the literature review, including system design, network management, competitive pressures, blockchain innovation, and security standards. Figure4 groups the responses related to system design considerations, highlighting a relatively strong group consensus for two of these three prompts. Specifically, 57% of the participants agree that because the IoT is a fragmented and vulnerable network, it cannot be secured in its current state. Also, 65% of the participants agree that an integrated blockchain storage solution would allow the IoT to meet a minimum standard of security; however, 59% agree that API design around a central cloud-based solution would allow for proprietary and innovative solutions. Such a variance may indicate concerns amongst the participants regarding the overall competitive advantages and proprietary solutions associated with a singular, unified blockchain standard. Figure 4 displays system design considerations.Figure 4
System design considerations.The second series of prompts visualised in Figure5 focused on network architecture and management and considered the impacts of scale on IoT integration in smart city design. The result shows that about 82% of these participants agree that the smart city design is being driven by big data resources which are contingent upon capacity-building and multinodal data collection. To support such technologies, 72% of the participants agreed that there is a need for a central network architecture that is capable of integrating such diversified nodes and scaling to meet the needs of the IoT. Such findings confirm the potential advantages of a revised network solution and the support levied by these industry insiders for such a transformative technological intervention.Figure 5
Network architecture and management.The third category of prompts visualised in Figure6 focused on the range of competitive pressures and threats that might impact the overall scalability of the IoT and the realisation of a smart city standard. 83.3% of these participants agree that greater collaboration between IoT design companies would allow the industry to unify its technological backbone. In addition, 61% of the participants agree that proprietary network designs limit the industry’s ability to expand beyond its existing and limiting standards of practice. Given that just 23% of the participants agreed that the blockchain solution is a threat to corporations’ internal strategic goals, these findings further confirm the viability of a more unified, collaborative infrastructure standard.Figure 6
Competitive pressures and threats.Although statistical comparisons using ANOVA were performed to assess the weighted impact of the independent demographic/experience variables on the participant responses to these prompts, this category revealed statistically insignificant relationship with regard to the responses to the proprietary software query and two independent variables: age range (F=1.078, P=0.372) and length of experience in the general tech industry (F=0.165, P=0.956).As a statistical correlation was recorded between these two independent variables, cross-tabular analysis was performed with age range initially to determine a predictive relationship, whereby it was revealed that 35.30% of the participants who disagreed with this statement were between the ages of 35 and 44 years. At the same time, 41% of the participants over the age of 45 years agreed with this statement, creating a perceptual gap which, when compared with experience, revealed an age-experience hurdle associated with the participant’s understanding of proprietary software and network design.The fourth category of prompts visualised in Figure7 was comprised of just two queries and resulted in similar levels of consensus. In particular, 70.37% of the participants agree that for many, the complexity of blockchain creates barriers to adoption. At the same time, 65.74% agrees that the categorical advantages of a distributed ledger could have implications for system responsiveness and interdependencies. By agreeing with each of these prompts, the participants suggest that whilst advantages are being recognised, technological complexity and a lack of understanding could potentially lead to resistance or lagging adoption. Statistically significant relationships between these prompts and age range were observed via ANOVA comparison; the result revealed that age range (F=2.567, P=0.042) has an effect on the technological complexity of blockchain as it creates barriers to adoption and engagement; however, age does not influence greater collaboration between IoT design companies which could allow this industry to develop a more unified central framework. A cross-tabular comparison did reveal that youngest participants were less likely to agree fully with these statements than their older counterparts—a phenomenon that may indicate confidence, experience, or concern-based variations.Figure 7
Blockchain innovation effects and engagement.The final category of prompts consisted of the largest number and focused on security concerns as they relate to the blockchain and the IoT. Figure8 visualises a range of varied responses which create opportunities for exploring these majority and minority opinions in greater detail. It was discovered that 84.25% of the participants agree that current security threats create vulnerabilities for consumers, exposing their data and restricting access to critical systems. In spite of this increasing threat level, it was 66% of the participants who agree that the intrinsic value of the data should determine the level of security required when holding that data. Whilst 55% of the participants do not believe that the current standard of IoT security is adequate to meet the needs of an expanding smart city network, 35% agreed that their company had developed proprietary security solutions to address the varied needs associated with IoT devices.Figure 8
Security, blockchain, and the IoT.These findings suggest that there is a contradiction between the security concerns of those firms involved in developing IoT security solutions and their internal capacity to address those concerns via proprietary means. Confirming an opportunity for integrating blockchain technologies into this complex dynamic, 64% of the participants agree that this solution would create the minimum level of securitisation needed for the IoT. The ANOVA comparison of means test revealed statistically significant relationships between three of these prompts and five different independent variables see Table2. Cross-tabular analysis revealed that the majority of the female participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement regarding the current standard of security, whilst only male participants actually agreed with this statement. An age range assessment was unable to identify any age group biases that might lead to a statistically significant variation, with the exception of the 91.7% of the participants over the age of 55, who disagreed with the statement. This statistical bias was important when further explored in relation to experiential effects, whereby 75% of the participants who agreed with this statement of sufficiency have worked with smart technologies for less than 1 year.Table 2
Statistical results for prompts in Figure8.
PromptGenderAge rangeLength of experience with smart city technologiesLength of experience with general technologyMost consumers are unclear about blockchainFPFPFPFPFPThe current standard of IoT security is sufficient to meet the future needs of expansion.0.3210.5720.7870.5361.2680.2871.2590.2913.1100.03The intrinsic value of publicly shared data should define the level of security (e.g. low, medium, and high) that is adopted to protect it.0.5720.4512.6190.0390.9320.4490.8750.4820.8600.464Current security threats such as hijacking and brute force attacks create extreme vulnerabilities for consumers who could lose access to critical systems:3.2460.0671.1810.3230.1910.9430.1450.9652.5670.05For the prompt regarding the intrinsic value of publicly shared data, the statistical findings were conflicting, with some participants with more than 7 years of experience disagreeing and some agreeing. The highest number of participants who disagreed had 3-4 years of tech experience, but some of those participants also agreed. Therefore, it was determined that this statistically significant relationship was sample related and not a broader experiential predictor of general perceptions regarding data security. The final statistical relationship drew upon one of the last queries in the survey regarding whether the participants felt that consumers were unclear about the blockchain to assess whether security threats create extreme vulnerabilities. The cross-tabular comparison revealed that participants who agree strongly that most consumers are unclear about the blockchain are more likely to strongly agree that security threats could create extreme vulnerabilities for consumers. This finding indicates a strong positive relationship between perceived threat levels and perceived user vulnerability and risks.


## 4.1.3. Weighted List

To further extend the empirical findings and assess the scope of concerns shared by these participants, they were asked to rank a list of 9 factors related to data security management practices and the influence of blockchain integration on IoT security. The top-ranked factors were those that were most influential in supporting the blockchain adoption process was the transparency of blockchain technology (M=3.97, SD=0.08), the outlying connectivity of API interfaces (M=3.73, SD=0.09), and the potential for insider access (M=3.71, SD=0.102). These considerations are largely practical in nature, and they avoid some of the other prompts related to perceptual, expectation-based, or legal concerns regarding blockchain adoption. Further, the lowest-ranked prompt on this list, a centralised database capable of anonymising user transactions (M=3.24, SD=1.105), was still identified as somewhat influential, but it purposefully focuses on the broader, general definition of blockchain technology. The result is a weighted list of influential forces that prioritise innovation and novelty over generality and sociotechnical concerns. The blockchain influence results are shown in Table 3.Table 3
Influence of blockchain integration factors on IoT security.
RankFactorMeanSD1The transparency of blockchain technology and its applicability in IoT solutions3.970.772The outlying API interfaces and their ability to connect seamlessly to the blockchain3.730.893The potential for insider access and system compromise in the blockchain3.701.064The influence of regulatory oversight and guidelines regarding data security and management3.661.155The capacity for blockchain transactions to efficiently manage the scope of user data generated by IoT nodes3.600.8746The willingness of industry leaders to adopt a unified standard and employ a blockchain-based solution3.461.2107Consumer expectations and understanding regarding data security and resource management3.320.9658The corporate right to proprietary, technically protected data management resources3.310.8829A centralised database capable of anonymising user transactions, whilst ensuring the legitimacy of authenticated behaviour3.241.09


## 4.1.4. Final Considerations

There were several final prompts introduced at the end of this survey in order to elicit additional insights from the participants regarding their observations regarding organisational intentions and blockchain adoption. Figure9 showed that 80% of the participants would support a unified standard interface for routing and managing IoT traffic, confirming prior findings regarding the anticipated advantages of this technological solution as the IoT continues to evolve towards an integrated smart city standard. Support for a unified blockchain standard is displayed in Figure 9.Figure 9
Support for a unified blockchain standard.The majority of the participants (77%), as shown in Figure10, agree that most consumers are unclear about blockchain and its potential value for nonfinancial transactions. This finding is important because it highlights a potential barrier to adoption that will need to be addressed when IoT services are deployed in order to attain and sustain consumer buy-in and support.Figure 10
Consumers are unclear about blockchain.Resolving a critical point of industry contention in Figure11, the results showed that 69% of the participants agree that the security risks posed by proprietary technologies are too high for independent data management. This finding is important because it confirms that these industry leaders are amenable to supporting a new, centralised standard of secure, authenticated data management such as blockchain.Figure 11
Security risks posed by proprietary technologies are too high for independent data management.Although there was consensus regarding the need for blockchain integration and improved security standards, Figure12 highlights varying modalities for transitioning from the current state of independent competition towards a more proactive state of network integration. The highest represented approach (31%) suggested adopting performance-oriented integration standards, whilst 21% remain unsure about how to proceed in the future and an additional 17% are awaiting some form of innovation to be developed.Figure 12
Company integration level.


## 4.2. Interview (QUAL) Findings

In order to draw more meaningful insights and conclusions regarding the effects of technological innovation and blockchain transitioning on smart city applications, a series of six questions were presented to a small-scale cohort of industry insiders (n2=14 participants (P)). With industry experience ranging from 2 to 15+ years, these business owners, software developers, and technical engineers are experienced in both blockchain and IoT-based applications. Their insights were aggregated by question, distilled by applying a line-by-line thematic coding technique and then analysed critically and comparatively for similarities and variations. The following sections present these findings and discuss the implications of the responses in relation to the central focus of each individual interview question.


### 4.2.1. Question 1: What Role Do you Foresee the IoT Playing in Smart City Design in the Future? Will Your Company’s Technology Support This?

Major themes are as follows: smart, IoT, city, company, technology, solutions, automation, and environment.This initial interview question was designed to illuminate any potential biases or concerns associated with the participant population, focusing on the relationship between the IoT and smart city design. P3 suggests that a ‘smart city utilising IoT can provide a highly productive living environment for its residents,’ further proposing that control-oriented mechanisms such as safety monitoring, automation, and service response solutions can be used to improve the overall lifestyle benefits of the environment. Extending the impact of the IoT, P4 also suggested that inclusion would ‘contribute to a healthier and sustainable environment’, by targeting development goals and pollution reduction solutions that would ideally benefit all members of the connected community. Both P5 and P6 discussed their personal experiences in home automation and connected services, suggesting that the IoT will support a ‘smarter world’ (P5). P2 recognised that where organisations are working towards IoT integration, ‘training’ and technological enablement through cost reduction, and infrastructure connections will be the central catalysts for wider scale adoption. Participants opined that IoT can be integrated with larger-scale systems which would contribute to a less polluted, well-connected, and secure living. However, works have begun on IoT education as stated by P2 who said “we are already working towards IoT education and working towards some IoT projects with Blockchain. Also, we did some IoT training not only in Malaysia but also in abroad like Middle East and other countries. I think IoT is going to play a huge role in the few coming years when 5G enable cheap data towards IoT to utilise.” Also, it is expected that a smart city utilising IoT would provide a highly productive living environment for its residents thereby creating a very safe crime-free environment, unified healthcare, and good traffic control and safety for the populace. Conclusively, P4 highlighted that “IoT-enabled smart city design would contribute to a healthier and sustainable environment if aligned towards sustainable development goals defined by UNO.”


### 4.2.2. Question 2: What Are the Primary Security Challenges Facing the IoT as the Urban Landscape Grows More Connected?

Major themes are as follows: challenges, data, IoT, devices, security, personal, and infrastructure automation.The primary security challenges illuminated by these participants are directly linked to the structurally connected advantages of the IoT: scale and scope of data collection and exchange. P1, for example, acknowledged that ‘the question that comes to mind is how safe are your personal data,’ suggesting that consumer data is vulnerable to hacks and unauthorised access, and in extreme cases, ‘misuse by people you don’t want it to.’ P2 suggested that the concerns are more complex than data management and system security—they are linked to the ‘design of the device, battery lives…hardware challenges’ which either enable or inhibit IoT security. In addition, there is the ‘framework challenge’ which considers how the IoT is structured and how data transactions are processed safely and securely within the network (P2). P3 supported this network-based concern, suggesting that the ‘main security challenge would be to keep the IoT infrastructure secure from unauthorised data access and keeping the data encrypted.’ This data-centered focus was also replicated by the initiatives being proposed by P4, P5, and P6, as protection-oriented system design and encryption were highlighted as critical antecedents to a safer, data-secure IoT solution.


### 4.2.3. Question 3: How Much Time Has your Organisation Spent considering Blockchain Technologies in relation to the IoT?

Major themes are as follows: blockchain, technology, system, data, company, decentralised, database, networks.This fourth question considered the degree to which these firms which are internal stakeholders from worldwide IoT industry have invested in the emergent potential of blockchain technologies. As visualised, the central themes within these responses considered a range of immediate and future technological advantages which were firm-specific and programme-oriented. P2, for example, acknowledged that at first, their company ‘didn’t have a lot of understanding of blockchain and what the technology is meant for’ and recognised that this same burden extended downstream throughout various markets as well. To overcome this hurdle, their organisation assumed an early adopter position, focusing on ‘promoting this technology to facilitate and work closely with all new emerging technologies’ related to blockchain. Other participants such as P5 indicated that their company was ‘still exploring blockchain,’ whilst P4 and P6 both indicated working with blockchain in relation to the IoT for the past two years. P1 suggested that whilst their organisation was focused on blockchain in relation to database management, they were ‘not thinking in IoT, but more in a sense of whether it is necessary and how it does change the way things work.’ Whilst this statement may suggest a form of outside proposition, the anticipated functional advantages of the blockchain were further described by this participant and suggest that in time, the blockchain solution will be optimised for IoT applications as it ‘will replace the traditional database system offering a decentralised governance that is trustless.’


### 4.2.4. Question 4: How Could the Competitive Objectives of Software and IoT-Oriented Companies Be Preserved but Still Focused on a More Unified Standard of Design?

Major themes are as follows: companies, standards, implementation, infrastructure, design, security, and collaboration.For corporate executives and leaders, this question was designed to trigger consideration for those commercial hurdles and competitive barriers that could potentially restrain growth or limit expansion due to network dependency and proprietary agendas. Whilst the IoT remains a proprietary resource, the underlying infrastructure is likely to evolve, as observed by P3, who predicts that as ‘more and more governments push for smart cities, this will result in the formation of organisational quorum that should standardise the IoT infrastructure for global connectivity.’ This solution would effectively eliminate the competitive advantages of proprietary infrastructure and instead allow companies to focus on what P4 describes as ‘common SDKs, protocol adapters, and security measures’. P2 suggests that ‘there is going to be somebody who does the infrastructure and another implementing the device…everybody will have their own room to play so they see where to position themselves’. Ultimately, this standard will be contingent upon oversight, which will be developed by government consensus, which P1 suggests will result in a ‘set of acceptable standards to ensure that there is a unified or uniformed standard of design that can ‘facilitate collaboration between multiple companies with the same objective: To develop a system design that can fit most, if not all, blueprints of smart cities.’ Conclusively, the use of nationwide framework, formation of organisational quorum, open-source use, protocol adapters, and standardisation of IoT infrastructure for global connectivity were the identified measures to preserve the software and IoT companies. P10 and P12 elucidate that “adherence to international standards (ISO, IEC etc.) in everything that they do” and “Regulations from communication commissions to set a common ground and ecosystem.” This unified standard builds upon the idealisation of standardised authentication and security solutions which allow companies to focus on the commercial aspects of the IoT (e.g., modules, solutions, software), whilst relying upon a central, ledger or database that is most likely going to be based upon blockchain-based solutions.


### 4.2.5. Question 5: What Role Will Industry Leadership Play in Determining the Adoption of Blockchain Technologies in the Future?

Major themes are as follows: government, vision, technology, industry, companies, startups, build, purpose, and services.By situating the perceptions of these managers in relation to their role and identity within the smart city solution, this question challenged the participants to consider their role in shaping the future of blockchain integration and adoption. The findings revealed emphasis on particular sectors of the smart city solution, including government services and those companies responsible for IoT-based solutions. P1, for example, suggested that industry leaders will provide the ‘bridge that can connect the government directly to users,’ assuming the role of technology innovator to ‘lead their blockchain initiatives’ towards a productive solution that can support smart city needs. Also, they are the promoter, influencer and decision maker as explained by P13 who said “Industry leadership plays an important role as promoter, influencer and decision maker. I believe it will play a major role and influence the adoption of blockchain technologies”. Furthermore, they are expected to enforce law, conduct education awareness, and push forward to bring the technology to the entire populace. P3 supports this proposition, suggesting that ‘industry leadership has to find ways where governments can benefit greatly from the blockchain use,’ essentially mainstreaming adoption by making this technology an essential resource for government institutions. Yet in spite of this potential advantage, P2 suggested that a core advantage of the decentralised and autonomous development process of the blockchain solution was that ‘it actually did not have a leader from the beginning and anonymity meant to allow it to survive.’ In other industries, there is ‘some body that has founded it and tells it what is the vision’; instead, blockchain has ‘passed this long ago and everyone has their own vision and is bringing their own roads’ (P2). The expectation is that in order to mainstream blockchain technologies, there must be some degree of collaboration, whilst still allowing companies to maintain their competitiveness, thereby facilitating disruptive change without limiting the innovativeness of the organisations (P2, P4).


### 4.2.6. Question 6: What Do you Feel Would Be the Greatest Strengths of Blockchain Integration into the Smart City Fabric? Limitations and Concerns?

Major themes are as follows: security, network, information, technology, management, benefits, identities, and privacy.The final question presented to these stakeholders focused on the end outcome of blockchain integration: an ultimate realisation of a technological standard that could potentially alter the fabric of smart city collaboration. Although P3 is optimistic that ‘blockchain can solve many issues related to the security and standardisation of the IoT,’ they also suggested that there is a need to develop a solution that resolves the efficiency concerns related to the ‘execution speed and mining costs.’ These cost- and speed-related concerns were repeated by P4 and P5, who also view the security advantages and potential reliability of the blockchain as motivating benefits that could drive this process of standardisation forward. P1 indicated the following strengths: “Blockchain has several advantages over traditional database system: decentralisation and transparency. Transactions over a blockchain network have also proven to be fast and efficient in terms of time, money, and energy utilised.” Building upon these potential benefits, P2 highlighted the critical advantages of an automated, smart city solution in terms of ‘liberty, protection, and privacy’ creating a protective infrastructure capable of meeting the expanding digital needs of society whilst also improving the transparency of information systems. To realise such advantages, however, all P1, P2, and P14 indicated that concerns regarding scalability, cost, and government support were likely to restrict the viability of investment and agency commitments, as ‘technologies are merging’ (P2) and forming a more tangible ‘blockchain community’ (P1) of services and technological solutions and its implementation as stated by P11 “… the challenges that will be faced during the implementation and the adoption would be the main limitation.” Acknowledging the potential for standardisation through international organisations such as the ISO, P1 also identified ‘documentation being proposed,’ which is focused on addressing the range of interoperability hurdles that arise from the current state of variable standards, as the ‘active committee looks into blockchain standards’ to create a common basis for all industry participants.


## 4.2.1. Question 1: What Role Do you Foresee the IoT Playing in Smart City Design in the Future? Will Your Company’s Technology Support This?

Major themes are as follows: smart, IoT, city, company, technology, solutions, automation, and environment.This initial interview question was designed to illuminate any potential biases or concerns associated with the participant population, focusing on the relationship between the IoT and smart city design. P3 suggests that a ‘smart city utilising IoT can provide a highly productive living environment for its residents,’ further proposing that control-oriented mechanisms such as safety monitoring, automation, and service response solutions can be used to improve the overall lifestyle benefits of the environment. Extending the impact of the IoT, P4 also suggested that inclusion would ‘contribute to a healthier and sustainable environment’, by targeting development goals and pollution reduction solutions that would ideally benefit all members of the connected community. Both P5 and P6 discussed their personal experiences in home automation and connected services, suggesting that the IoT will support a ‘smarter world’ (P5). P2 recognised that where organisations are working towards IoT integration, ‘training’ and technological enablement through cost reduction, and infrastructure connections will be the central catalysts for wider scale adoption. Participants opined that IoT can be integrated with larger-scale systems which would contribute to a less polluted, well-connected, and secure living. However, works have begun on IoT education as stated by P2 who said “we are already working towards IoT education and working towards some IoT projects with Blockchain. Also, we did some IoT training not only in Malaysia but also in abroad like Middle East and other countries. I think IoT is going to play a huge role in the few coming years when 5G enable cheap data towards IoT to utilise.” Also, it is expected that a smart city utilising IoT would provide a highly productive living environment for its residents thereby creating a very safe crime-free environment, unified healthcare, and good traffic control and safety for the populace. Conclusively, P4 highlighted that “IoT-enabled smart city design would contribute to a healthier and sustainable environment if aligned towards sustainable development goals defined by UNO.”


## 4.2.2. Question 2: What Are the Primary Security Challenges Facing the IoT as the Urban Landscape Grows More Connected?

Major themes are as follows: challenges, data, IoT, devices, security, personal, and infrastructure automation.The primary security challenges illuminated by these participants are directly linked to the structurally connected advantages of the IoT: scale and scope of data collection and exchange. P1, for example, acknowledged that ‘the question that comes to mind is how safe are your personal data,’ suggesting that consumer data is vulnerable to hacks and unauthorised access, and in extreme cases, ‘misuse by people you don’t want it to.’ P2 suggested that the concerns are more complex than data management and system security—they are linked to the ‘design of the device, battery lives…hardware challenges’ which either enable or inhibit IoT security. In addition, there is the ‘framework challenge’ which considers how the IoT is structured and how data transactions are processed safely and securely within the network (P2). P3 supported this network-based concern, suggesting that the ‘main security challenge would be to keep the IoT infrastructure secure from unauthorised data access and keeping the data encrypted.’ This data-centered focus was also replicated by the initiatives being proposed by P4, P5, and P6, as protection-oriented system design and encryption were highlighted as critical antecedents to a safer, data-secure IoT solution.


## 4.2.3. Question 3: How Much Time Has your Organisation Spent considering Blockchain Technologies in relation to the IoT?

Major themes are as follows: blockchain, technology, system, data, company, decentralised, database, networks.This fourth question considered the degree to which these firms which are internal stakeholders from worldwide IoT industry have invested in the emergent potential of blockchain technologies. As visualised, the central themes within these responses considered a range of immediate and future technological advantages which were firm-specific and programme-oriented. P2, for example, acknowledged that at first, their company ‘didn’t have a lot of understanding of blockchain and what the technology is meant for’ and recognised that this same burden extended downstream throughout various markets as well. To overcome this hurdle, their organisation assumed an early adopter position, focusing on ‘promoting this technology to facilitate and work closely with all new emerging technologies’ related to blockchain. Other participants such as P5 indicated that their company was ‘still exploring blockchain,’ whilst P4 and P6 both indicated working with blockchain in relation to the IoT for the past two years. P1 suggested that whilst their organisation was focused on blockchain in relation to database management, they were ‘not thinking in IoT, but more in a sense of whether it is necessary and how it does change the way things work.’ Whilst this statement may suggest a form of outside proposition, the anticipated functional advantages of the blockchain were further described by this participant and suggest that in time, the blockchain solution will be optimised for IoT applications as it ‘will replace the traditional database system offering a decentralised governance that is trustless.’


## 4.2.4. Question 4: How Could the Competitive Objectives of Software and IoT-Oriented Companies Be Preserved but Still Focused on a More Unified Standard of Design?

Major themes are as follows: companies, standards, implementation, infrastructure, design, security, and collaboration.For corporate executives and leaders, this question was designed to trigger consideration for those commercial hurdles and competitive barriers that could potentially restrain growth or limit expansion due to network dependency and proprietary agendas. Whilst the IoT remains a proprietary resource, the underlying infrastructure is likely to evolve, as observed by P3, who predicts that as ‘more and more governments push for smart cities, this will result in the formation of organisational quorum that should standardise the IoT infrastructure for global connectivity.’ This solution would effectively eliminate the competitive advantages of proprietary infrastructure and instead allow companies to focus on what P4 describes as ‘common SDKs, protocol adapters, and security measures’. P2 suggests that ‘there is going to be somebody who does the infrastructure and another implementing the device…everybody will have their own room to play so they see where to position themselves’. Ultimately, this standard will be contingent upon oversight, which will be developed by government consensus, which P1 suggests will result in a ‘set of acceptable standards to ensure that there is a unified or uniformed standard of design that can ‘facilitate collaboration between multiple companies with the same objective: To develop a system design that can fit most, if not all, blueprints of smart cities.’ Conclusively, the use of nationwide framework, formation of organisational quorum, open-source use, protocol adapters, and standardisation of IoT infrastructure for global connectivity were the identified measures to preserve the software and IoT companies. P10 and P12 elucidate that “adherence to international standards (ISO, IEC etc.) in everything that they do” and “Regulations from communication commissions to set a common ground and ecosystem.” This unified standard builds upon the idealisation of standardised authentication and security solutions which allow companies to focus on the commercial aspects of the IoT (e.g., modules, solutions, software), whilst relying upon a central, ledger or database that is most likely going to be based upon blockchain-based solutions.


## 4.2.5. Question 5: What Role Will Industry Leadership Play in Determining the Adoption of Blockchain Technologies in the Future?

Major themes are as follows: government, vision, technology, industry, companies, startups, build, purpose, and services.By situating the perceptions of these managers in relation to their role and identity within the smart city solution, this question challenged the participants to consider their role in shaping the future of blockchain integration and adoption. The findings revealed emphasis on particular sectors of the smart city solution, including government services and those companies responsible for IoT-based solutions. P1, for example, suggested that industry leaders will provide the ‘bridge that can connect the government directly to users,’ assuming the role of technology innovator to ‘lead their blockchain initiatives’ towards a productive solution that can support smart city needs. Also, they are the promoter, influencer and decision maker as explained by P13 who said “Industry leadership plays an important role as promoter, influencer and decision maker. I believe it will play a major role and influence the adoption of blockchain technologies”. Furthermore, they are expected to enforce law, conduct education awareness, and push forward to bring the technology to the entire populace. P3 supports this proposition, suggesting that ‘industry leadership has to find ways where governments can benefit greatly from the blockchain use,’ essentially mainstreaming adoption by making this technology an essential resource for government institutions. Yet in spite of this potential advantage, P2 suggested that a core advantage of the decentralised and autonomous development process of the blockchain solution was that ‘it actually did not have a leader from the beginning and anonymity meant to allow it to survive.’ In other industries, there is ‘some body that has founded it and tells it what is the vision’; instead, blockchain has ‘passed this long ago and everyone has their own vision and is bringing their own roads’ (P2). The expectation is that in order to mainstream blockchain technologies, there must be some degree of collaboration, whilst still allowing companies to maintain their competitiveness, thereby facilitating disruptive change without limiting the innovativeness of the organisations (P2, P4).


## 4.2.6. Question 6: What Do you Feel Would Be the Greatest Strengths of Blockchain Integration into the Smart City Fabric? Limitations and Concerns?

Major themes are as follows: security, network, information, technology, management, benefits, identities, and privacy.The final question presented to these stakeholders focused on the end outcome of blockchain integration: an ultimate realisation of a technological standard that could potentially alter the fabric of smart city collaboration. Although P3 is optimistic that ‘blockchain can solve many issues related to the security and standardisation of the IoT,’ they also suggested that there is a need to develop a solution that resolves the efficiency concerns related to the ‘execution speed and mining costs.’ These cost- and speed-related concerns were repeated by P4 and P5, who also view the security advantages and potential reliability of the blockchain as motivating benefits that could drive this process of standardisation forward. P1 indicated the following strengths: “Blockchain has several advantages over traditional database system: decentralisation and transparency. Transactions over a blockchain network have also proven to be fast and efficient in terms of time, money, and energy utilised.” Building upon these potential benefits, P2 highlighted the critical advantages of an automated, smart city solution in terms of ‘liberty, protection, and privacy’ creating a protective infrastructure capable of meeting the expanding digital needs of society whilst also improving the transparency of information systems. To realise such advantages, however, all P1, P2, and P14 indicated that concerns regarding scalability, cost, and government support were likely to restrict the viability of investment and agency commitments, as ‘technologies are merging’ (P2) and forming a more tangible ‘blockchain community’ (P1) of services and technological solutions and its implementation as stated by P11 “… the challenges that will be faced during the implementation and the adoption would be the main limitation.” Acknowledging the potential for standardisation through international organisations such as the ISO, P1 also identified ‘documentation being proposed,’ which is focused on addressing the range of interoperability hurdles that arise from the current state of variable standards, as the ‘active committee looks into blockchain standards’ to create a common basis for all industry participants.


## 5. Discussion

### 5.1. Smart City Realisation

Central to the objectives of this study was the assessment of the current advantages and potential limitations of the IoT as facilitator of a smart city solution from the viewpoint of various stakeholders. The feedback from the participants in this study has confirmed that the IoT is a fragmented network of devices that lacks interoperability and information exchange capabilities because of the proprietary nature of the individual nodes and their associated data management systems. When interactions between users and the API-supported IoT becomes permissions based, then it is possible to extend the scope of integrated nodes in order to respond on-demand to consumer behaviour (e.g., GPS, proximity, and request, time) [22]. [23] acknowledges that because of the spectrum of sources generating data throughout the smart city such as the diversified network of smart automobiles with real-time sensor data, systems must be able to analyse, interpret, and respond to a variety of triggers in order to make the data management process functional and socially valuable. Whilst machine learning capabilities can provide the smart city with decision-making and solution-finding advantages, the siloed characteristics of the data being collected and the lack of interoperability between networks, devices, and datasets creates limitations that may ultimately restrict cross-platform information exchange [23].Targeting a resolution to the common infrastructure challenge at IoT corporation [24] acknowledge that siloed IoT applications mean that ‘the information technology layer does not interact with operational technology systems used to monitor events, processes, and devices.’ The primary consequence of proprietary siloes is the lack of interoperability across interconnected systems and user devices, a constraint that makes triggering responses or user-optimised events a challenging, multistep process [24]. Interview participants in this study confirmed their concerns regarding organisations applying their ‘own vision…and own roads’ (P2) to the realisation of smart city solutions, indicating a challenging transitional proposition in an innovative field that is supported by trailblazers and thought leaders. [10] has acknowledged the need for decentralisation at the root level, leveraging lightweight multinodal wireless solutions to connect consumers across distributed and interoperable networks. [8] refers to this form of integrated coordination as ‘the tangle,’ envisioning an IoT-supported networking solution that builds upon the proprietary strengths of the individual APIs and connective nodes.Given that the primary strengths of the IoT are associated with its capacity for distributed computing and interoperability (e.g., one event triggers multiple responses) and the fact that innovative companies are continuing to develop their own proprietary services (e.g., connected lighting, security systems), then, it is essential for future smart city technologies to be connected to an intermediary solution that is scalable, decentralised, and adaptive relative to the underlying purposes of the IoT itself. The practical examples of blockchain contributions to smart city optimisation presented by [25, 26] suggest that in order for a smart city to flourish, it is essential for innovative companies to be able to develop technological solutions that meet a diversified range of needs. Therefore, siloed databases and restricted big data resources are inadequate in a complex, multidimensional urban setting. Instead, what is required is a state of maximal decentralisation that allows companies to develop and improve innovative technological solutions over time that are service centered rather than derived from proprietary, restrictive technologies. Based upon the insights from the academic literature review [27] and the empirical findings, this study offers an initial proposition for realising the integrated capabilities of the IoT-derived smart city agenda: establish and maintain a network shaped by maximal decentralisation which reduces network vulnerability, improves interoperability, and facilitates cooperative innovation to improve the scale and functional value of the IoT.The central advantage of the blockchain is that it is not restricted to any single network or database; therefore, as individual users update their chains, they are receiving, confirming, and proving the transactions of other users without requiring additional measures or interventions [28]. This autonomous, decentralised solution is fundamentally distinct from more traditional modes of data management and system hoarding of proprietary data resources. The participants in this study are very concerned about the weight and value of data being held within the big data architecture of the modern information standard, and as a result, are willing to support the implementation of a decentralised, service-optimised solution that is based upon a standard of service sharing and support. Core principles such as anonymity and minimal data hoarding will improve the security of user data, whilst improving the relative trustworthiness of the systems being used to facilitate lifestyle services and systemic responses [25]. Ultimately, it is the decentralisation effect of data management that will transition away from a management-based standard of information silos towards a service-based standard of customer support and responsiveness.


### 5.2. The Practical Opportunity for Standardisation

In addition to the more general considerations of the effects of the IoT in shaping smart city planning and system design, the core objectives of this study have focused on what revisions would need to be made in order to realise the standardisation, optimisation, and network integration of the IoT. Although broadly defined, these expectations were revealed to include a more irrefutable and reliable standard of security and the capacity to scale and expand the reach of the IoT. Systemic reliability has been identified by Sun et al. [25] as a critical antecedent to user trust; and in a user-centered environment of ubiquitous computing, the future of smart city connectivity is wholly based upon the ability to secure its connective nodes. Within the survey evidence captured from worldwide IoT insiders, the current study has revealed that there are significant concerns regarding security threats, a lack of system transparency, and the consequences of insecurity for network trustworthiness and consumer engagement. Such findings confirm prior evidence presented by [29, 30] that suggest that robust and predictable security standards are critical antecedents to consumer confidence and trust.The insider feedback has also revealed that security risks associated with proprietary IoT technologies are too high to allow continued independent data management. This argument is about the vulnerabilities associated with varying security standards, inconsistent or inadequate security protocol, and inconsistent data management practices. Kravitz [29], Hong et al. [30], and Hakak et al. [27] have confirmed that in order for IoT adoption to be mainstream and broadly distributed across consumer populations, there must be a secure standard that not only enhances user confidence, but clearly outlines the fair use policies and practices that govern the data mining behaviours of the associated commercial agents. Whilst Bruneo et al. [31] have suggested that the revised standard of data management should be user-defined, recent evidence regarding user awareness and concerns regarding security threats and vulnerabilities presented by [32, 33] suggest that users are unprepared and uninformed regarding the true vulnerability of their data within the breadth of the IoT.The alternative to a user-defined privacy solution is a service-oriented standard which promotes a system of systems (SoS) approach over the distributed computing infrastructure that has enabled siloed IoT software solutions and proprietary standardisation. [34] acknowledges that data complementarity is a central antecedent to nodal functionality and performance. Therefore, by definition, the data associated with IoT nodes should be restricted to the minimum functional output, or what P2 in the interview process highlighted as a restrictive standard emphasising ‘liberty, protection, and privacy.’ This restraint could be formalised into a central guideline for universal application suggesting that IoT data management should do as follows:Marginal functionality establish and preserve a marginal functionality standard for data collection which restricts data storage to the minimal amount required to achieve desired nodal functionality.This idea of marginal functionality is an important contradiction of more overt data collection and big data practices in the modern ubiquity of social media and always-on computing. Decentralised, big data collection practices in the IoT need to be based upon functional objectives that are node-constrained [35]. There is no need for a smart lighting system to be tracking user social media behaviour, friend activity, or financial information unless it is directly related to the marginal functionality of the IoT device itself. Specificity in relation to data-driven needs fulfilment, therefore, should become a new overarching standard of the IoT management protocol which can be accepted and agreed upon universally in order to eliminate many of the privacy concern related to unchecked data mining and sharing [34, 35]. By incorporating corporations, developers, and consumers into a multistakeholder model of protocol definitions and system design, it is proposed that the unified standard of IoT security and data management will improve the acceptance of these consumers regarding a broader, transitional adoption of new technologies, data collection nodes, and interactive systems.


### 5.3. Smart City Applications and the Blockchain Advantage

The pragmatic focus of the IoT revolves around the functional intersection between technology and physical environments, a proposition which is complicated by the variations in the structural systems currently driving urban activities [36]. Ageing infrastructure and the rapid rate of urban expansion have led to inconsistent and sometimes incompatible systems that can fail to meet increasingly efficient guidelines and standards [36]. For this reason, [37] contests that there must be a transition towards ‘incentivised openness’ amongst technology companies in the IoT industry as technological solutions are developed that can be distributed across the complex, oftentimes overlapping architecture of the smart city. [38] predicts that by eliminating those intermediary services (e.g., software and proprietary databases) that are corruptible and potentially fallible, an autonomous and adaptive smart city ecosystem will flow organically and securely. The central concerns raised by the participants in the current study have revolved around the limiting effects of a competitive and proprietary standard of smart city architecture, suggesting that in order to maximise the integrative advantages of such a system, ownership should be distributed and cooperative.The transformative smart city agenda is predicated upon an ‘integrated system of systems approach’ that exploits multiple streams of information flows in order to coordinate the seamless, efficient, and effective management of appropriate resources and services [36]. These predictions of future technological interactions and user-system-service dynamics are indicative of an integrated system approach that cannot survive the rigidity of proprietary and competitive system architecture. With threats such as security, scalability, and performance all confronting the network of techno-entrepreneurs and innovative corporations designing IoT solutions, it is evident from these findings that a more pragmatic, collaborative, and unified system is needed in the form of blockchain-based IoT.Within the questionnaire responses, concerns were raised about the current diversified network characteristics of the IoT and the structural implications of its fragmented architecture. [24] proposes that a system of systems approach to smart city integration involves four different segments of information management including connect, collect, analyse, and act. The interview responses from a population of highly qualified industry managers revealed that it will take a strong leadership base to transition this industry towards more open and adaptive technological solutions, the basis for which will likely involve some form of blockchain system solution. Researchers such as [39, 40] have proposed a unified and centralised data sharing service that relies upon a blockchain backbone to ensure the security and authentication of data transfers.The range of smart city applications associated with the proposed decentralised blockchain solution is extensive. For example, [41, 42] have proposed smart waste management solutions that can be used as a form of on-demand bin collection standard. The technique would improve the trash routing information used by the waste management companies and would allow for a more dynamic pickup schedule than the current route-based standard [41]. In response to the qualitative prompts during the interview, the participants also identified the emergent opportunity for ‘digital identities’ (P2) a consumer-based empowerment initiative that would allow consumers to customise their interaction with the built environment as they navigate the IoT-integrated urban landscape. From these overlapping propositions, there are commercial and there are personal applications of the IoT to an urban landscape that is increasingly supported in its efficiency, flow, and navigation by ubiquitous computing technologies. The result of this conflict of functional purpose is a need for maximal scalability that emerges beyond the proprietary scope of corporate vision, requiring some form of unified security, contractual, and transmission standard to provide the backbone of the IoT network. Accordingly, this proposition suggests the following:Maximal scalability establish and exploit the maximal scalability of the distributed computing network of the blockchain, its decentralised nodes, and the capacity for linking IoT devices across software services in order to facilitate secure transactional execution.Although the ideal of scalability represents a distributed, autonomous network of IoT nodes connected to a functional and adaptive blockchain backbone, [43, 44] have demonstrated that the commercial viability of this transformative solution is predicated upon a standard of intra-agency trust that largely precludes participation and adoption. The interview participants have suggested that by adopting a blockchain-based cryptosolution such as Ethereum which is lightweight and commercially practical, the industry could accelerate the transition towards a unified standard. Such findings are similar to [27, 45–47] who have all demonstrated the potential advantages of smart industry unity and a mesh-based network of IoT nodes capable of meeting the smart demands of the future. By eliminating the heavyweight requirements of hosting the entire blockchain on each decentralised node, and instead utilising what [31] have proposed as edge-level nodes secured by encrypted keys, the scalability of the IoT data management solution becomes a viable and potentially commercially advantageous proposition. This study has confirmed the ideological and systemic transformation of industry agendas towards a more pragmatic, unified solution. Accordingly, the optimal solution for the IoT-based smart city extrapolated from the academic and empirical findings is a pyramid of three core requirements:
(1)
Scalable: the IoT must be able to grow organically. Therefore, any smart city solution must be scalable, and for this reason, individual, proprietary middleware solutions are inefficient and inadequate(2)
Secure: the IoT must be end-to-end secure, meaning that data transfer will be immutable and provable and that interference by unauthorised users will be mitigated in all cases [40]. Therefore, any smart city solution must be secure, and for this reason, private-sector cloud-based computing solutions that are nonstandardised and proprietary fail to achieve the standard of end-to-end security(3)
Autonomous: the IoT must be able to operate autonomously to realise the full potential of smart city operations, applying prescribed sequencing and APIs to the functionality of distributed network of devices [42]. Therefore, any smart city solutions must be autonomous, and for this reason, proprietary middleware solutions fail to achieve the requirements of an expedient, software-driven end-to-end relationship.


## 5.1. Smart City Realisation

Central to the objectives of this study was the assessment of the current advantages and potential limitations of the IoT as facilitator of a smart city solution from the viewpoint of various stakeholders. The feedback from the participants in this study has confirmed that the IoT is a fragmented network of devices that lacks interoperability and information exchange capabilities because of the proprietary nature of the individual nodes and their associated data management systems. When interactions between users and the API-supported IoT becomes permissions based, then it is possible to extend the scope of integrated nodes in order to respond on-demand to consumer behaviour (e.g., GPS, proximity, and request, time) [22]. [23] acknowledges that because of the spectrum of sources generating data throughout the smart city such as the diversified network of smart automobiles with real-time sensor data, systems must be able to analyse, interpret, and respond to a variety of triggers in order to make the data management process functional and socially valuable. Whilst machine learning capabilities can provide the smart city with decision-making and solution-finding advantages, the siloed characteristics of the data being collected and the lack of interoperability between networks, devices, and datasets creates limitations that may ultimately restrict cross-platform information exchange [23].Targeting a resolution to the common infrastructure challenge at IoT corporation [24] acknowledge that siloed IoT applications mean that ‘the information technology layer does not interact with operational technology systems used to monitor events, processes, and devices.’ The primary consequence of proprietary siloes is the lack of interoperability across interconnected systems and user devices, a constraint that makes triggering responses or user-optimised events a challenging, multistep process [24]. Interview participants in this study confirmed their concerns regarding organisations applying their ‘own vision…and own roads’ (P2) to the realisation of smart city solutions, indicating a challenging transitional proposition in an innovative field that is supported by trailblazers and thought leaders. [10] has acknowledged the need for decentralisation at the root level, leveraging lightweight multinodal wireless solutions to connect consumers across distributed and interoperable networks. [8] refers to this form of integrated coordination as ‘the tangle,’ envisioning an IoT-supported networking solution that builds upon the proprietary strengths of the individual APIs and connective nodes.Given that the primary strengths of the IoT are associated with its capacity for distributed computing and interoperability (e.g., one event triggers multiple responses) and the fact that innovative companies are continuing to develop their own proprietary services (e.g., connected lighting, security systems), then, it is essential for future smart city technologies to be connected to an intermediary solution that is scalable, decentralised, and adaptive relative to the underlying purposes of the IoT itself. The practical examples of blockchain contributions to smart city optimisation presented by [25, 26] suggest that in order for a smart city to flourish, it is essential for innovative companies to be able to develop technological solutions that meet a diversified range of needs. Therefore, siloed databases and restricted big data resources are inadequate in a complex, multidimensional urban setting. Instead, what is required is a state of maximal decentralisation that allows companies to develop and improve innovative technological solutions over time that are service centered rather than derived from proprietary, restrictive technologies. Based upon the insights from the academic literature review [27] and the empirical findings, this study offers an initial proposition for realising the integrated capabilities of the IoT-derived smart city agenda: establish and maintain a network shaped by maximal decentralisation which reduces network vulnerability, improves interoperability, and facilitates cooperative innovation to improve the scale and functional value of the IoT.The central advantage of the blockchain is that it is not restricted to any single network or database; therefore, as individual users update their chains, they are receiving, confirming, and proving the transactions of other users without requiring additional measures or interventions [28]. This autonomous, decentralised solution is fundamentally distinct from more traditional modes of data management and system hoarding of proprietary data resources. The participants in this study are very concerned about the weight and value of data being held within the big data architecture of the modern information standard, and as a result, are willing to support the implementation of a decentralised, service-optimised solution that is based upon a standard of service sharing and support. Core principles such as anonymity and minimal data hoarding will improve the security of user data, whilst improving the relative trustworthiness of the systems being used to facilitate lifestyle services and systemic responses [25]. Ultimately, it is the decentralisation effect of data management that will transition away from a management-based standard of information silos towards a service-based standard of customer support and responsiveness.


## 5.2. The Practical Opportunity for Standardisation

In addition to the more general considerations of the effects of the IoT in shaping smart city planning and system design, the core objectives of this study have focused on what revisions would need to be made in order to realise the standardisation, optimisation, and network integration of the IoT. Although broadly defined, these expectations were revealed to include a more irrefutable and reliable standard of security and the capacity to scale and expand the reach of the IoT. Systemic reliability has been identified by Sun et al. [25] as a critical antecedent to user trust; and in a user-centered environment of ubiquitous computing, the future of smart city connectivity is wholly based upon the ability to secure its connective nodes. Within the survey evidence captured from worldwide IoT insiders, the current study has revealed that there are significant concerns regarding security threats, a lack of system transparency, and the consequences of insecurity for network trustworthiness and consumer engagement. Such findings confirm prior evidence presented by [29, 30] that suggest that robust and predictable security standards are critical antecedents to consumer confidence and trust.The insider feedback has also revealed that security risks associated with proprietary IoT technologies are too high to allow continued independent data management. This argument is about the vulnerabilities associated with varying security standards, inconsistent or inadequate security protocol, and inconsistent data management practices. Kravitz [29], Hong et al. [30], and Hakak et al. [27] have confirmed that in order for IoT adoption to be mainstream and broadly distributed across consumer populations, there must be a secure standard that not only enhances user confidence, but clearly outlines the fair use policies and practices that govern the data mining behaviours of the associated commercial agents. Whilst Bruneo et al. [31] have suggested that the revised standard of data management should be user-defined, recent evidence regarding user awareness and concerns regarding security threats and vulnerabilities presented by [32, 33] suggest that users are unprepared and uninformed regarding the true vulnerability of their data within the breadth of the IoT.The alternative to a user-defined privacy solution is a service-oriented standard which promotes a system of systems (SoS) approach over the distributed computing infrastructure that has enabled siloed IoT software solutions and proprietary standardisation. [34] acknowledges that data complementarity is a central antecedent to nodal functionality and performance. Therefore, by definition, the data associated with IoT nodes should be restricted to the minimum functional output, or what P2 in the interview process highlighted as a restrictive standard emphasising ‘liberty, protection, and privacy.’ This restraint could be formalised into a central guideline for universal application suggesting that IoT data management should do as follows:Marginal functionality establish and preserve a marginal functionality standard for data collection which restricts data storage to the minimal amount required to achieve desired nodal functionality.This idea of marginal functionality is an important contradiction of more overt data collection and big data practices in the modern ubiquity of social media and always-on computing. Decentralised, big data collection practices in the IoT need to be based upon functional objectives that are node-constrained [35]. There is no need for a smart lighting system to be tracking user social media behaviour, friend activity, or financial information unless it is directly related to the marginal functionality of the IoT device itself. Specificity in relation to data-driven needs fulfilment, therefore, should become a new overarching standard of the IoT management protocol which can be accepted and agreed upon universally in order to eliminate many of the privacy concern related to unchecked data mining and sharing [34, 35]. By incorporating corporations, developers, and consumers into a multistakeholder model of protocol definitions and system design, it is proposed that the unified standard of IoT security and data management will improve the acceptance of these consumers regarding a broader, transitional adoption of new technologies, data collection nodes, and interactive systems.


## 5.3. Smart City Applications and the Blockchain Advantage

The pragmatic focus of the IoT revolves around the functional intersection between technology and physical environments, a proposition which is complicated by the variations in the structural systems currently driving urban activities [36]. Ageing infrastructure and the rapid rate of urban expansion have led to inconsistent and sometimes incompatible systems that can fail to meet increasingly efficient guidelines and standards [36]. For this reason, [37] contests that there must be a transition towards ‘incentivised openness’ amongst technology companies in the IoT industry as technological solutions are developed that can be distributed across the complex, oftentimes overlapping architecture of the smart city. [38] predicts that by eliminating those intermediary services (e.g., software and proprietary databases) that are corruptible and potentially fallible, an autonomous and adaptive smart city ecosystem will flow organically and securely. The central concerns raised by the participants in the current study have revolved around the limiting effects of a competitive and proprietary standard of smart city architecture, suggesting that in order to maximise the integrative advantages of such a system, ownership should be distributed and cooperative.The transformative smart city agenda is predicated upon an ‘integrated system of systems approach’ that exploits multiple streams of information flows in order to coordinate the seamless, efficient, and effective management of appropriate resources and services [36]. These predictions of future technological interactions and user-system-service dynamics are indicative of an integrated system approach that cannot survive the rigidity of proprietary and competitive system architecture. With threats such as security, scalability, and performance all confronting the network of techno-entrepreneurs and innovative corporations designing IoT solutions, it is evident from these findings that a more pragmatic, collaborative, and unified system is needed in the form of blockchain-based IoT.Within the questionnaire responses, concerns were raised about the current diversified network characteristics of the IoT and the structural implications of its fragmented architecture. [24] proposes that a system of systems approach to smart city integration involves four different segments of information management including connect, collect, analyse, and act. The interview responses from a population of highly qualified industry managers revealed that it will take a strong leadership base to transition this industry towards more open and adaptive technological solutions, the basis for which will likely involve some form of blockchain system solution. Researchers such as [39, 40] have proposed a unified and centralised data sharing service that relies upon a blockchain backbone to ensure the security and authentication of data transfers.The range of smart city applications associated with the proposed decentralised blockchain solution is extensive. For example, [41, 42] have proposed smart waste management solutions that can be used as a form of on-demand bin collection standard. The technique would improve the trash routing information used by the waste management companies and would allow for a more dynamic pickup schedule than the current route-based standard [41]. In response to the qualitative prompts during the interview, the participants also identified the emergent opportunity for ‘digital identities’ (P2) a consumer-based empowerment initiative that would allow consumers to customise their interaction with the built environment as they navigate the IoT-integrated urban landscape. From these overlapping propositions, there are commercial and there are personal applications of the IoT to an urban landscape that is increasingly supported in its efficiency, flow, and navigation by ubiquitous computing technologies. The result of this conflict of functional purpose is a need for maximal scalability that emerges beyond the proprietary scope of corporate vision, requiring some form of unified security, contractual, and transmission standard to provide the backbone of the IoT network. Accordingly, this proposition suggests the following:Maximal scalability establish and exploit the maximal scalability of the distributed computing network of the blockchain, its decentralised nodes, and the capacity for linking IoT devices across software services in order to facilitate secure transactional execution.Although the ideal of scalability represents a distributed, autonomous network of IoT nodes connected to a functional and adaptive blockchain backbone, [43, 44] have demonstrated that the commercial viability of this transformative solution is predicated upon a standard of intra-agency trust that largely precludes participation and adoption. The interview participants have suggested that by adopting a blockchain-based cryptosolution such as Ethereum which is lightweight and commercially practical, the industry could accelerate the transition towards a unified standard. Such findings are similar to [27, 45–47] who have all demonstrated the potential advantages of smart industry unity and a mesh-based network of IoT nodes capable of meeting the smart demands of the future. By eliminating the heavyweight requirements of hosting the entire blockchain on each decentralised node, and instead utilising what [31] have proposed as edge-level nodes secured by encrypted keys, the scalability of the IoT data management solution becomes a viable and potentially commercially advantageous proposition. This study has confirmed the ideological and systemic transformation of industry agendas towards a more pragmatic, unified solution. Accordingly, the optimal solution for the IoT-based smart city extrapolated from the academic and empirical findings is a pyramid of three core requirements:
(1)
Scalable: the IoT must be able to grow organically. Therefore, any smart city solution must be scalable, and for this reason, individual, proprietary middleware solutions are inefficient and inadequate(2)
Secure: the IoT must be end-to-end secure, meaning that data transfer will be immutable and provable and that interference by unauthorised users will be mitigated in all cases [40]. Therefore, any smart city solution must be secure, and for this reason, private-sector cloud-based computing solutions that are nonstandardised and proprietary fail to achieve the standard of end-to-end security(3)
Autonomous: the IoT must be able to operate autonomously to realise the full potential of smart city operations, applying prescribed sequencing and APIs to the functionality of distributed network of devices [42]. Therefore, any smart city solutions must be autonomous, and for this reason, proprietary middleware solutions fail to achieve the requirements of an expedient, software-driven end-to-end relationship.


## 6. Conclusion and Future Work

This article carried out an explorative study that provided insider evidence related to internal stakeholders for assessing potential value for a blockchain-optimised standardised, integrated system solution for solving the limitations of IoT-based smart city industry. In summary, an in-depth presentation of the empirical results captured from a mixed method an online questionnaire survey (QUAN=108 participants) and interviews (QUAL=14 participants) that was administered to stakeholders and leaders from worldwide IoT and smart cities marketplace. Coincidentally, the research study was conducted as planned from Feb 2020 till Oct 2020 along with the peak of worldwide pandemic Covid-19; however, due to time constraints and limited funds, the research study cannot extend or change the timeframe. Also, every effort has been taken to reach more participants; however, due to Covid-19, the study confronted with challenging communications which is another limitation of this study to be considered. Nonetheless, this study is designed as a purposive, nonprobabilistic sampling approach. Hence, a representative sample of 122 uniquely skilled and experienced stakeholders from worldwide IoT-smart city organisations was attained. The findings confirm that blockchain is a viable and attractive solution for these organisations, but there are hurdles related to regulations, competitive standards, and a lack of industry interoperability and unity. The findings have also confirmed that there is a conflicted knowledge base surrounding blockchain technologies that is likely to prevent the accelerated adoption of a unified standard without international support and operationalisation. Accordingly, to realise the intelligent and smarter ideals of an urban cyberphysical utopia, future research can explore in greater details blockchain technologies to a series of decentralised transactions and smart contracts that will continue to scale and expand in lifestyle importance over the coming decade of deployment.



---

*Source: 4680021-2021-08-27.xml*