Zusammenfassung
In letzter Zeit wurde dem Design, der Designforschung und der Design Science vermehrt Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt. Dies führte zu einem stärkeren wissenschaftlichen Fokus auf Design, was wiederum Anlass zum Überdenken der Definitionen des Konzepts der Designtheorie gab. Viele Wissenschaftler aus dem Gebiet Information Systems gehen davon aus, dass eine Designtheorie komplexe und sorgsam ausgearbeitete Strukturen erfordert. Während eine derartige Struktur infolge ihrer Vollständigkeit und Komplexität attraktiv erscheint, hat sie doch zu wissenschaftlicher Kritik an der Einfachheit und Eleganz solcher Design-Science-Theorien geführt, die bestimmte ”notwendige” Elemente nicht enthalten. Solche Kritik führt zu der Frage, ob die Designtheorie überhaupt als Theorie angesehen werden kann.
Auf Basis einer Untersuchung verschiedener bedeutsamer Designergebnisse aus den Bereichen Architektur, Finanzen, Management, kognitive Psychologie, Informatik sowie Information Systems und Wissenschaftsphilosophie zeigen die Autoren, dass eine Designtheorie aus zwei Teilen besteht: einer Theorie der Designpraxis und einer erklärenden Designtheorie. Eine Erklärende Designtheorie umfasst eine funktionale Erklärung, warum eine bestimmte Lösung bestimmte Komponenten im Sinne von Anforderungen enthält, die im Design formuliert werden. Für eine erklärende Designtheorie sind nur zwei Elemente zwingend notwendig: Anforderungs- und Lösungskomponenten. Die These wird logisch und empirisch begründet; die Autoren geben Beispiele für Designtheorie aus dem Bereich Information Systems und anderen designbezogenen Gebieten, um zu zeigen, dass Designtheorie sowohl einfach als auch vollständig sein kann. Der Beitrag schließt mit einem Vorschlag für eine erklärende Designtheorie.
Abstract
Design, design research, and design science have received increasing attention lately. This has led to a more scientific focus on design that then has made it timely to reconsider our definitions of the design theory concept. Many scholars in Information Systems assume a design theory requires a complex and elaborate structure. While this structure has appeal for its completeness and complexity, it has led scholars to criticize simplicity and elegance in design science theories that fail to demonstrate the “required” elements. Such criticisms lead to questions about whether design theory can be considered theory at all.
Based on a study of notable design writing in architecture, finance, management, cognitive psychology, computer science as well as information systems and the philosophy of science, the authors demonstrate that design theory consists of two parts: a design practice theory and an explanatory design theory. An explanatory design theory provides a functional explanation as to why a solution has certain components in terms of the requirements stated in the design. For explanatory design theory, only two elements are essentially necessary for a complete design theory: requirements and solution components. The argument is logical as well as empirical; the authors give examples of design theory drawing from IS as well as other design-related fields show how design theory can be both simple and complete. The paper concludes with a proposal for explanatory design theory.
Literatur
Alexander C (1964) Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Alexander C, Ishikawa S, Silverstein M, Jacobson M, Fiksdahl-King I, Angel S (1977) A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press, New York
Baskerville R, Myers M (2002) Information systems as a reference discipline. MIS Quarterly 26(1):1–14
Brohman M, Piccoli G, Martin P, Zulkernine F, Parasuraman A, Watson R (2009) A design theory approach to building strategic network-based customer service systems. Decision Sciences 40(3):403–430
Cole R, Purao S, Rossi M, Sein MK (2005) Being proactive: where action research meets design research. In: Avison D, Galletta D, DeGross JI (Hrsg) Proc 26th international conference on information systems. Association for Information Systems, Las Vegas, S 325–336
Coplien JO, Harrison NB (2005) Organizational patterns of agile software development. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Dietz JLG (2006) Enterprise ontology: theory and methodology. Springer, Heidelberg
Gamma E, Helm R, Johnson R, Vlissides J (1995) Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley, Reading
Goldkuhl G (2004) Design theories in information systems – a need for multi-grounding. JITTA: Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 6(2):59–72
Goodman N (1955) Fact, fiction, & forecast. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Gregor S, Jones D (2007) The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8(5):312–335
Hall D, Paradice D, Courtney JF (2003) Building a theoretical foundation for a learning-oriented knowledge management system. JITTA: Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 5(2):63–84
Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28(1):75–105
Hooker JN (2004) Is design theory possible? Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 5(2):73–82
Hovorka D (2010) Incommensurability and multi-paradigm grounding in design science research: implications for creating knowledge. In: Pries-Heje J, Venable J, Bunker D, Russo NL, DeGross JI (Hrsg) Human benefit through the diffusion of information systems design science research. IFIP AICT, vol 318. Springer, Berlin, S 13–27
Järvinen P (2007) Action research is similar to design science. Quality and Quantity 41(1):37–54
Kasper GM (1996) A theory of decision support system design for user calibration. Information Systems Research 7(2):215–232
Lidwell W, Holden K, Butler J (2003) Universal principles of design. Rockport Publishers, Gloucester
March ST, Smith GF (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems 15(4):251–266
Markowitz HM (1952) Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance 7(1):77–91
Markus ML, Majchrzak A, Gasser L (2002) A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes. MIS Quarterly 26(3):179–212
Mintzberg H (1980) Structure in 5’s: a synthesis of the research on organization design. Management Science 26(3):322–341
Mintzberg H (1983) Structure in fives: designing effective organizations. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Nagel E (1961) The structure of science: problems in scientific explanation. Routledge & Kegan, London
Ngai E, Poon J, Suk F, Ng C (2009) Design of an RFID-based healthcare management system using an information system design theory. Information Systems Frontiers 11(4):405–417
Norman DA (1988) The design of everyday things, 2002 Aufl. Basic Books, New York
Ockham W (1964) Philosophical writings: a selection. Translated by Boettner P. Bobbs-Merril, Indianapolis
Orlikowski WJ, Iacono CS (2001) Research commentary: desperately seeking “IT” in IT research – a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research 12(2):121–134
Parnas DL, Clements PC (1986) A rational design process: how and why to fake it. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 12(2):251–257
Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial, 3 Aufl. MIT Press, Cambridge
Stein EW Zwass V (1995) Actualizing organizational memory with information systems. Information Systems Research 6(2):85–117
Sutton RI, Staw BM (1995) What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(3):371–384
van Aken JE (2004) Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. The Journal of Management Studies 41(2):219–246
Walls JG, Widmeyer GR, El Sawy OA (1992) Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research 3(1):36–59
Walls JG, Widmeyer GR, El Sawy OA (2004) Assessing information system design theory in perspective: how useful was our 1992 initial rendition? JITTA: Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 6(2):43–58
Walmsley J (2000) The development of Lockean abstraction. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 8(3):395–418
Wehmeier S (Hrsg) (2000) Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary, 6 Aufl. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Weick KE (1995) What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(3):385–390
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Angenommen nach drei Überarbeitungen durch Prof. Dr. Winter.
This article is also available in English via http://www.springerlink.com and http://www.bise-journal.org: Baskerville R, Pries-Heje J (2010) Explanatory Design Theory. Bus Inf Syst Eng. doi: 10.1007/s12599-010-0118-4.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baskerville, R., Pries-Heje, J. Erklärende Designtheorie. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 52, 259–271 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11576-010-0237-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11576-010-0237-z