Advertisement

Guidelines for Conducting Design Science Research in Information Systems

  • Alta van der MerweEmail author
  • Aurona Gerber
  • Hanlie Smuts
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1136)

Abstract

Information Systems (IS) as a discipline is still young and is continuously involved in building its own research knowledge base. Design Science Research (DSR) in IS is a research strategy for design that has emerged in the last 16 years. Junior IS researchers are often lost when they start with a project in DSR. We identified a need for a set of guidelines with supporting reference literature that can assist such novice adopters of DSR. We identified major themes relevant to DSR and proposed a set of six guidelines for the novice researcher supported with references summaries of seminal works from the IS DSR literature. We believe that someone new to the field can use these guidelines to prepare him/herself to embark on a DSR study.

Keywords

Information Systems Design Science Research Postgraduate students Guidelines 

References

  1. 1.
    AIS: Information Systems Basket of Eight (2019). https://aisnet.org/general/custom.asp?page=SeniorScholarBasket
  2. 2.
    Alturki, A., Gable, G.G., Bandara, W.: A design science research roadmap. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 107–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20633-7_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bader, G.E., Rossi, C.A.: Focus Groups: a Step-by-Step Guide. Bader Gr. (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baskerville, R., Baiyere, A., Gergor, S., Hevner, A., Rossi, M.: Design science research contributions: finding a balance between artifact and theory. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 19(5), 358–376 (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baskerville, R., Pries-Heje, J.: Explanatory design theory. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2(5), 271–282 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baskerville, R., Pries-Heje, J., Venable, J.: Soft design science methodology. In: Proceedings of DESRIST 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bayazit, N.: Investigating design: a review of forty years of design research. Des. Issues 20(1), 16–29 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    vom Brocke, J., Buddndick, C.: Reusable conceptual models – requirements based on the design science research paradigm. In: Proceedings of DESRIST. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carlsson, S.A.: Towards an information systems design research framework: a critical realist perspective. In: Proceedings of DESRIST, p. 21 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cleven, A., Gubler, P., Höner, K.M.: Design alternatives for the evaluation of design science research artifacts. In: Proceedings of DESRIST. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cross, N.: Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Des. Issues 17(3), 49–55 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cross, N.: Science and design methodology: a review. Res. Eng. Des. 5(2), 63–69 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Deng, Q., Ji, S.: A review of design science research in information systems: concept, process, outcome, and evaluation. Pac. Asia J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 10(1), 36 (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goes, P.B.: Design science research in top information systems journals. MIS Q. 38(1), iii–viii (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldkuhl, G.: Design research in search for a paradigm: pragmatism is the answer. In: Helfert, M., Donnellan, B. (eds.) EDSS 2011. CCIS, vol. 286, pp. 84–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33681-2_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gregor, S.: The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Q. 30(3), 611 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gregor, S., Hevner, A.R.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q. 37(2), 337–355 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gregor, S., Jones, D.: The anatomy of a design theory. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8(5), 312–335 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gregory, R.W.: Design science research and the grounded theory method: characteristics, differences, and complementary uses. In: Heinzl, A., Buxmann, P., Wendt, O., Weitzel, T. (eds.) Theory-Guided Modeling and Empiricism in Information Systems Research, pp. 111–127. Physica-Verlag, Heidelber (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hevner, A.R.: A three cycle view of design science research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19(2), 87–92 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hevner, A.R., Chatterjee, S.: Design science research in information systems. In: Hevner, A.R., Chatterjee, S. (eds.) Design Research in Information Systems, pp. 9–22. Springer, Boston (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5653-8_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hevner, A.R., Ram, S.M., Park, J.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iivari, J.: Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 24(1), 107–115 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Iivari, J.: Information systems as a design science. In: Vasilecas, O., Wojtkowski, W., Zupančič, J., Caplinskas, A., Wojtkowski, W.G., Wrycza, S. (eds.) Information Systems Development, pp. 15–27. Springer, Boston (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-28809-0_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kotze, P., van der Merwe, A., Gerber, A.: Design science research as research approach in doctoral studies. In: Proceedings of AMCIS (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuechler, W., Vaishnavi, V.: A framework for theory development in design science research: multiple perspectives. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 13(6), 29 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee, A.S.: Action is an artifact. In: Kock, N. (ed.) Information Systems Action Research, pp. 43–60. Springer, Boston (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-36060-7_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Levy, M., Hirschheim, R.: Removing the positivist straight jacket from information systems design science research. In: Proceedings of ECIS, p. 13 (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology. Decis. Support Syst. 15(4), 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Markus, L., Majchrzak, A., Gasser, L.: A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes. MIS Q. 26(3), 179–212 (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    van der Merwe, A., Gerber, A., Smuts, H.: Mapping a design science research cycle to the postgraduate research report. In: Liebenberg, J., Gruner, S. (eds.) SACLA 2017. CCIS, vol. 730, pp. 293–308. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69670-6_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nunamaker, J.F., Chen, M., Purdin, T.D.M.: Systems development in information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 7, 89–106 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Offermann, P., Blom, S., Schönherr, M., Bub, U.: Artifact types in information systems design science – a literature review. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 77–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13335-0_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Okoli, C.: A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 37, 879–910 (2015)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Tuunanen, T., Vaezi, R.: Design science research evaluation. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds.) DESRIST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7286, pp. 398–410. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29863-9_29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Purao, S.: Design research in the technology of information systems: truth or dare. Techncal report, GSU Department of CIS (2002)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.: The design theory nexus. MIS Q. 32(4), 731 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R., Venable, J.R.: Strategies for design science research evaluation. In: Proceedings of ECIS (2008)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rossi, M., Sein, M.K.: Design research workshop: a proactive research approach. Technical report (2003)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. MIS Q. 35(1), 37 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Simon, H.A.: The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Smith, G.F., Browne, G.J.: Conceptual foundations of design problem solving. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 23(5), 1209–1219 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sonnenberg, C., vom Brocke, J.: Evaluation patterns for design science research artefacts. In: Helfert, M., Donnellan, B. (eds.) EDSS 2011. CCIS, vol. 286, pp. 71–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33681-2_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Takeda, H., Veerkamp, P., Tomiyama, T., Yoshikawa, H.: Modeling design processes. AI Mag. 11(4), 12 (1990)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Vahidov, R.: Design researcher’s is artifact: a representational framework. In: Proceedings of DESRIST. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vaishnavi, V., Kuechler, W.: Design Science Research Methods and Patterns: Innovating Information and Communication Technology. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vaishnavi, V., Kuechler, B., Petter, S.: Design Science Research in Information Systems (2004). http://desrist.org/design-research-in-information-systems/
  49. 49.
    Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.: A comprehensive framework for evaluation in design science research. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds.) DESRIST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7286, pp. 423–438. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29863-9_31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.: FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research. Euro. J. Inf. Syst. 25(1), 77–89 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vincenti, W.: What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1990)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Walls, J.G., Widmeyer, G.R., El Sawy, O.A.: Building an information systems design theory for vigilant EIS. Inf. Syst. Res. 3(1), 36–59 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Winter, R.: Design science research in Europe. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 17(5), 470–475 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zachman, J.: About the Zachman Framework (2008). https://www.zachman.com/about-the-zachman-framework

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Centre for AI Research (CAIR)PretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations