Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research

  • Issues and Opinion
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

This paper distinguishes and contrasts two design science research strategies in information systems. In the first strategy, a researcher constructs or builds an IT meta-artefact as a general solution concept to address a class of problem. In the second strategy, a researcher attempts to solve a client’s specific problem by building a concrete IT artefact in that specific context and distils from that experience prescriptive knowledge to be packaged into a general solution concept to address a class of problem. The two strategies are contrasted along 16 dimensions representing the context, outcomes, process and resource requirements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Baskerville R (2008) What design science is not. European Journal of Information Systems 17 (5), 441–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayazit N (2004) Investigating design: a review of forty years of design research. Design Issues 20 (1), 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boychuk Duchscher JE and Morgan D (2004) Grounded theory: reflections on the emergence vs. forcing debate. Journal of Advanced Nursing 48 (6), 605–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Codd EF (1970) Relational model of data for large shared data banks. Communications of the ACM 13 (6), 377–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross N (1993) Science and design methodology. A review. Research in Engineering Design 5 (2), 63–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross N (2001) Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Design Issues 17 (3), 49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl O-J, Myhrhaug B and Nygaard K (1968) Some features of the Simula 67 language, Proceedings of the Second Conference on Applications of Simulations, pp 29-31.

  • Denison DR, Hart SL and Kahn JL (1996) From chimneys to cross-functional teams: developing and validating a diagnostic model. Academy of Management Journal 39 (4), 1005–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey I (1993) Qualitative Data Analysis: A User-friendly Guide. Routledge, London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz Andrade A (2009) Interpretive research aiming at theory building: adopting and adapting the case study design. The Qualitative Report 14 (1), 42–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueiredo AD and Cunha PR (2007) Action research and design in information systems: two faces of a single coin. In Information Systems Action Research: An Applied View of Emerging Concepts and Methods (Kock N, Ed), pp 61–96, Springer, New York, NY.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer C and Gregor S (2011) Forms of reasoning in the design science research process. In Service-Oriented Perspectives in Design Science Research: 6th international Conference, DESRIST 2011, LNCS 6629 (Jain H, Sinha AP and Vitharana P, Eds), pp 17–31, Springer, Heidelberg.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P and Trow M (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG (1992) Emergence vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor S (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly 30 (3), 611–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hage J (1980) Theories of Organizations: Form, Process, and Transformation. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hevner A and Chartterjee S (2010) Design Research in Information Systems. Springer, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hevner AR, March ST, Park J and Ram S Design science in information systems research (2004) MIS Quarterly 28 (1), 75–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iivari J (2003) The IS core – VII: towards information systems as a science of meta-artifacts. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 12: 568–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iivari J (2007) Paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19 (2), 39–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iivari J (2012) Two strategies for design science research. Working Paper, 2012 (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juhani_Iivari/contributions/?ev=prf_act) (accessed 14 October 2013).

  • Iivari J and Venable J (2009) Action research and design science research – Seemingly similar but decisively dissimilar. In Proceedings of 17th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). Verona, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Järvinen P (2007) Action research is similar to design science. Quality & Quantity 41 (1), 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuechler W and Vaishnavi V (2008) The emergence of design research in information systems in North America. Journal of Design Research 7 (1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren R, Henfridsson O and Schultze U (2004) Design principles for competence management systems: a synthesis of an action research study. MIS Quarterly 28 (3), 435–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majchrzak A and Gasser L (2000) Top modeler: supporting complex strategic and operational decision making, information, knowledge. Systems Management 2 (1), 95–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG and Olsen JP (1976) Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Universitesforlaget, Bergen, Norway.

    Google Scholar 

  • March ST and Smith GF (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems 15 (4), 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus ML, Majchrzak A and Gasser L (2002) A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes. MIS Quarterly 26 (3), 179–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay J, Marshall P and Heath G (2008) An exploration of the concept of design in Information Systems. In Information Systems Foundations: Answering the unanswered questions about design research, The 4th ANU Workshop on Information Systems Foundations, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

  • Nowotny H, Scott P and Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny H, Scott P and Gibbons M (2003) Introduction: mode 2 revisited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva 41 (3), 179–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker JF, Chen M and Purdin TDM (1990-1991) System development in information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems 7 (3), 99–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ and Iacono CS (2001) Research commentary: desperately seeking the IT in IT research – a call theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research 12 (2), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger MA and Chatterjee S (2007-2008) A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24 (3), 45–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petroski H (1982) To Engineer Is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design. Vintage Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sein M, Henfridsson O, Purao S, Rossi M and Lindgren R (2011) Action design research. MIS Quarterly 35 (1), 37–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaishnavi VK and Kuechler Jr. W (2008) Design Science Research Methods and Patterns. Auerbach Publications, Boca Raton, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Aken JE (2004) Management research based on the paradigm of design sciences: the quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies 41 (2), 219–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickers J (2009) The problem of induction, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2009 edn (Zalta N, Ed) (http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/induction-problem/) (accessed 25 October 2012).

  • Walls J, Widmeyer GR and El Sawy OA (1992) Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research 3 (1), 36–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weedman J (1998) The structure of incentive: design and client roles in application-oriented research. Science, Technology, & Human Values 23 (3), 315–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter R (2008) Design science research in Europe. European Journal of Information Systems 17 (5), 470–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu, Oulu Yliopisto, Finland

    Juhani Iivari

Authors
  1. Juhani Iivari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juhani Iivari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Iivari, J. Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research. Eur J Inf Syst 24, 107–115 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.35

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.35

Keywords

Search

Navigation