Criteria of progress for information systems design theories

Original Article

Abstract

According to Kuhn, science and progress are strongly interrelated. In this paper, we define criteria of progress for design theories. A broad analysis of the literature on information systems design science reveals that there is no consensus on the criteria of progress for design theories. We therefore analyze different concepts of progress for natural science theories. Based on well-founded criteria stemming from the philosophy of science and referring to natural science theories, we develop a set of criteria of progress for design theories. In summary, our analysis results in six criteria of progress for design theories: A design theory is partially progressive compared to another if it is ceteris paribus (1) more useful, (2) internally more consistent, (3) externally more consistent, (4) more general, (5) simpler, or (6) more fruitful of further research. Although the measurement of these criteria is not the focus of this paper, the problem of measurement cannot be totally neglected. We therefore discuss different methods for measuring the criteria based on different concepts of truth: the correspondence theory of truth, the coherence theory of truth, and the consensus theory of truth. We finally show the applicability of the criteria with an example.

Keywords

IS design science research IS design theory Scientific progress Evaluation criteria Quality criteria 

References

  1. Albrecht A (1979) Measuring application development productivity. In: Proceedings of IBM application development symposium, IBM Press, pp 83–92Google Scholar
  2. Alter S (2006) The work system method. Work System Press, LarkspurGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker J, Niehaves B (2007) Epistemological perspectives on IS research: a framework for analysing and systematizing epistemological assumptions. Inf Syst J 17:197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berry DM, Tichy WF (2003) Comments on “Formal methods application: an empirical tale of software development”. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 29(6):567–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bird A (2008) Thomas Kuhn. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophyGoogle Scholar
  6. Bodart F, Patel A, Sim M et al (2001) Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? A theory and three empirical tests. Inf Syst Res 12(4):384–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bucher T, Klesse M, Kurpjuweit S (2007) Situational method engineering—on the differentiation of “Context” and “Project Type”. In: Ralyté J, Brinkkemper S, Henderson-Sellers B et al (eds) Situational method engineering—fundamentals and experiences. Springer, Boston, pp 33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charlesworth MJ (1956) Aristotle’s razor. Philos Stud (Ireland) 6:105–112Google Scholar
  9. Chen PP-S (1976) The entity-relationship model—toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans Database Syst 1(1):9–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Codd EF (1970) Relational model of data for large shared data banks. Commun ACM 13(6):377–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Codd EF (1982) Relational database: a practical foundation for productivity. Commun ACM 25(2):109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. David M (2009) The correspondence theory of truth. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophyGoogle Scholar
  13. Devlin BA (1997) Data warehouse: from architecture to implementation. Addison Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  14. Dilworth C (2007) Scientifiic progress. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dubin R (1978) Theory building. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Feyerabend P (1962) Explanation, reduction, and empiricism. In: Feigl H, Maxwell G (eds) Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 28–79Google Scholar
  17. Feyerabend P (1989) Irrwege der Vernunft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  18. Fitzgerald B, Howcroft D (1998) Competing dichotomies in IS research and possible strategies for resolution. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information systems, pp 155–164Google Scholar
  19. Frank U (2006) Towards a pluralistic conception of research methods in information systems research. ICB-Research Report No. 7, Dec 2006, University of Duisburg-EssenGoogle Scholar
  20. Gelernter DH (1998) Machine beauty: elegance and the heart of technology. Perseus Books, LLC, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibson M, Arnott D (2007) The use of focus groups in design science research. In: Toleman M, Cater-Steel A, Roberts D (eds) ACIS2007 Proceedings of the 18th Australasian conference on information systems, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldkuhl G (2004) Design theories in information systems—a need for multi-grounding. J Inf Technol Theory Appl 6(2):59–72Google Scholar
  23. Gregor S (2006) The nature of theory in information systems research. MIS Q 30(3):611–642Google Scholar
  24. Gregor S (2009) building theory in the sciences of the artificial. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on design science research in information systems and technology, ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Gregor S, Jones D (2007) The anatomy of a design theory. J Assoc Inf Syst 8(5):312–335Google Scholar
  26. Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action: reason and the rationalization of society. Beacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  27. Hempel CG (1962) Deductive-nomological vs. statistical explanation. In: Feigl H, Maxwell G (eds) Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science III. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 98–169Google Scholar
  28. Hempel CG, Oppenheim P (1948) Studies in the logic of explanation. Philos Sci 15(2):135–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J et al (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105Google Scholar
  30. Inmon WH, Strauss D, Neushloss G (2008) DW 2.0: the architecture for the next generation of data warehousing. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  31. Kitchenham B, Kansala K (1993) Inter-item correlations among function points. In: Proceedings of the first international software metrics symposium 1993, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, pp 477–480Google Scholar
  32. Kuechler W, Vaishnavi VK (2008) Theory development in design science research: anatomy of a research project. In: Vaishnavi VK, Baskerville R (eds) Proceedings of the third international conference on design science research in information systems and technology, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  33. Kuechler W, Vaishnavi VK, Kuechler Sr WL (2007) Design [science] research in IS—a work in progress. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on design science research in information systems and technology (DESRIST 2007), pp 1–17Google Scholar
  34. Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuhn TS (1977) The essential tension. Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee AS (1991) Architecture as a reference discipline for MIS. In: Nissen HE, Klein HK, Hirschheim R (eds) Information systems research: contemporary approaches and emergent traditions. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 573–592Google Scholar
  37. Lee AS (1999) Inaugural editor’s comments. MIS Q 23(1):v–xiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Losee J (2004) Theories of scientific progress. An introduction. Routledge, New York, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. March ST, Smith GF (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis Support Syst 15(4):251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Markus ML, Majchrzak A, Gasser L (2002) A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes. MIS Q 26(3):179–212Google Scholar
  41. Michaels AS, Mittman B, Carlson CR (1976) A comparison of the relational and codasyl approaches to data-base management. Comput Surv 8(1):125–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nagel E (1961) The structure of science. Harcourt, Brace & World, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Niehaves B (2007a) On epistemological diversity in design science: new vistas for a design-oriented is research? In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on information systems (ICIS2007), December 9–12, 2007, Montréal, Québec, Canada, Association for Information Systems (AIS), pp 1–13 (electronic version)Google Scholar
  44. Niehaves B (2007b) On epistemological pluralism in design science. Scand J Inf Syst 19(2):93–104Google Scholar
  45. Niiniluoto I (2007) Scientific progress. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophyGoogle Scholar
  46. Norman D (1988) The design of everyday things. Currency Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Gengler CE et al. (2006) The design science research process: a model for producing and presenting information systems research. In: Chatterjee S, Hevner A (eds) Proceedings of the first international conference on design science research in information systems and technology (DESRIST 2006), pp 83–106Google Scholar
  48. Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger MA et al (2007) A design science research methodology for information systems research. J Manag Inf Syst 24(3):45–77Google Scholar
  49. Popper KR (1963) Conjecture and refutations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  50. Popper KR (1973) The aim of science. In: Popper KR (ed) Objective knowledge (with corrections). Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  51. Purao S (2002) Design research in the technology of information systems: truth or dare, The Pennsylvania State University, Atlanta. http://purao.ist.psu.edu/working-papers/dare-purao.pdf
  52. Rossi M, Sein MK (2003) Design research workshop: a proactive research approach. http://tiesrv.hkkk.fi/iris26/presentation/workshop_designRes.pdf. Accessed 19 Sep 2008
  53. Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. Sobel KAE, Clarkson MR (2002) Formal methods application: an empirical tale of software development. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 28(3):308–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sobel KAE, Clarkson MR (2003) Response to “Comments on ‘formal methods application: an empirical tale of software development’”. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 29(6):572–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Venable J (2006a) A framework for design science research activities. In: emerging trends and challenges in information technology management. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, pp 184–187Google Scholar
  57. Venable J (2006b) the role of theory and theorising in design science research. In: Chatterjee S, Hevner A (eds) Proceedings of the 1st international conference on design science in information systems and technology (DESRIST 2006), Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  58. w/o author (1989) Simple. In: Simpson J, Weiner E (eds) Oxford English Dictionary, 2, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  59. Walls JG, Widmeyer GR, El Sawy OA (1992) Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Inf Syst Res 3(1):36–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Walls JG, Widmeyer GR, El Sawy OA (2004) Assessing information systems design theory in perspective: how useful was our 1992 initial rendition? J Inf Technol Theory Appl 6(2):43–58Google Scholar
  61. Young JO (2008) The correspondence theory of truth. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Information ManagementUniversity of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations