Information Systems and e-Business Management

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 335–355 | Cite as

The need for systems development capability in design science research: enabling researcher-systems developer collaboration

  • Stefan CronholmEmail author
  • Hannes Göbel
  • Mikael Lind
  • Daniel Rudmark
Original Article


Information systems as an artefact-oriented discipline require a strong interaction between researchers, developers and users regarding design of, development of, and the study of the use of digital artefacts in social settings. During recent years, performing research in a design science research spirit has gained increasing interest. In larger scale design research endeavours, access to systems development capabilities becomes necessary. Such a unit, InnovationLab, was established in 2006 in a university setting in Sweden. In this paper we are investigating the 5 years’ experience of running this InnovationLab. Our findings point to an innovation lab being valuable for research in general and especially for design science research. However, in order to balance the business of an innovation lab, it will be necessary to provide services for other stakeholders (such as administrative units, teachers, and students) as a means for developing systems development capability aimed at supporting researchers.


Innovation InnovationLab Design science research 


  1. Albinsson L, Lind M, Forsgren O, Ozan H (2006) Turning the internet around—e-me: the student’s ideal e-service. In: Cunningham P, Cunningham M (eds) Exploiting the knowledge economy: issues, applications, case studies. eChallenges, Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  2. Carlsson S (2007) Developing knowledge through is design science research: for whom, what type of knowledge, and how? Scand J Inf Syst 19:2Google Scholar
  3. Chesbrough HW (2003) Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (1994) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Eriksson M, Niitamo V-P, Kulkki S (2005) State-of-the-art in utilising living labs approach to user-centric ICT innovation—a European approach. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on 13 Sept 2012:
  6. Goldkuhl G, Röstlinger A (2005) Change analysis—innovation and evolution. Invited paper to the 14th international conference on information systems development, Karlstad UniversityGoogle Scholar
  7. Greenbaum T (1993) The handbook for focus group research (revised edition). Lexington Books, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  8. Hevner AR (2007) A three cycle view of design science research. Scand J Inf Syst 19(2):87–92Google Scholar
  9. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MISQ 28:75–106Google Scholar
  10. Hjalmarsson A, Rudmark D, Lind M (2010) When designers are not in control–experiences from using action research to improve researcher-developer collaboration in design science research. In: Winter R, Zhao JL, Aier S (eds) Global perspectives on design science research, vol 6105. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  11. Hollingshead AB, McGrath JE, O’Conner KM (1993) Group task performance and communication technology: a longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face work groups. Small Group Res 24:307–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kotler P, Armstrong G (2006) Principles of marketing. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. Kuechler W, Vaishnavi V (2008) The emergence of design science research in information systems in North America. J Design Res 7(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kvale S (1989) Issues of validity in qualitative research. Studentlitteratur, LundGoogle Scholar
  15. Liedtka J (2004) Design thinking: the role of hypotheses generation and testing. In: Boland R, Collopy F (eds) Managing as designing. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 193–197Google Scholar
  16. Lindgren R, Henfridsson O, Schultze U (2004) Design principles for competence management systems: a synthesis of action research study. MIS Q 28(3): 435–472Google Scholar
  17. March ST, Smith G (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis Support Syst 15(4):251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. March S, Storey V (2008) Design science in the information systems discipline: an introduction to the special issue on design science research. MIS Q 32(4):725–730Google Scholar
  19. Markus ML, Majchrzak A, Gasser L (2002) A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes. MIS Q 26(3):179–212Google Scholar
  20. Mathiassen L (2002) Collaborative practice research. Inf Technol People 14(1):321–345Google Scholar
  21. McKenney JL, Copeland DC, Mason RO (1995) Waves of change: business evolution through information technology. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  22. Nunamaker J, Chen M, Purdin TDM (1991) Systems development in information systems research. J Manag Inf Syst 7(3):89–106Google Scholar
  23. OECD (1996) The measurement of scientific and technological activities. Oslo Manual, ParisGoogle Scholar
  24. Paradiso JA (2004) From tangibles to toolkits and chaos to convection–management and innovation at leading design organizations and idea labs. In: Boland R, Collopy F (eds) Managing as designing. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 174–178Google Scholar
  25. Patton M (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage Publications, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  26. Purao S (2002) Design research in the technology of information systems: truth or dare. GSU Department of CIS Working Paper. Georgia State University, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosemann M (2010) Process management as a service. BP Trends Publication. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on 13 Sept 2012:
  28. Scheer A-W (2000) ARIS—business process modelling, 3rd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  29. Schumpeter J (1934) The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  30. Sein MK, Henfridsson O, Purao S, Rossi M, Lindgren R (2011) Action design research. MIS Q 35(1): 37–56Google Scholar
  31. Silverman D (1970) The theory of organizations. Heineman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Svahn F, Henfrisson O, Yoo Y (2009) A threesome dance of agency: mangling the sociomaterality of technological regimes in digital innovation. In: ICIS 2009 Proceedings, paper 5Google Scholar
  33. Vaishnavi VK, Kuechler W (2008) Design science research methods and patterns: innovating information and communication technology. Auerbach Pub, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  34. Yin R (2003) Case study research: design and methods (3rd ed) Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Cronholm
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Hannes Göbel
    • 1
  • Mikael Lind
    • 1
    • 3
  • Daniel Rudmark
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Business and InformaticsUniversity of BoråsBorasSweden
  2. 2.Department of Management and EngineeringLinköping UniversityLinkopingSweden
  3. 3.Viktoria InstituteGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations