Advertisement

Towards a Framework for Evidence-Based and Inductive Design in Information Systems Research

  • Robert Winter
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 447)

Abstract

Discussions about design science research as an alternative or at least complementary approach to the dominant descriptive research paradigm have not only taken place in information systems research, but also in organizational sciences, accounting, operations, and other business research disciplines. In contrast to the descriptive research paradigm that can be taken over from sociology and psychology in a very mature state, the problem-solving paradigm is comparably new to business research. Not only have different variants of this approach (e.g. design as search, evidence-based design, emergent design) been proposed and applied that appear to be incompatible at first sight. Descriptive research and design science research also appear to have no common ground and no synergy potentials. As a consequence, not only seem improvement and change (‘design and engineering’) often detached from phenomenon analysis and theory building. The role of ‘un-grounded’, innovative practices is also not clear. In order to provide a common ground and support a better integration of descriptive and design-oriented research in information systems, we propose a framework that is not only organized along the well-known ‘descriptive vs. prescriptive’ dimension, but also introduces a generality dimension. The four resulting quadrants ‘operations’, ‘explanations’, ‘technologies’ and ‘solutions’ allow not only to position all central objects of research, but also to position and better integrate research activities and iterations. This extends not only to ‘deductive’ design (solution search based as well as evidence-based), but also to ‘inductive’ design.

Keywords

Information System Design Theory Technology Acceptance Model Abstraction Level Business Process Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Winter, R.: A Framework for Evidence-based and Inductive Design. In: Magalhaes, R. (ed.) Organization Design and Engineering: Co-Existence, Cooperation or Integration? (to appear 2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gregor, S.: The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly 30(3), 611–642 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhattacherjee, A.: Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model. MIS Quarterly 25(3), 351–370 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baskerville, R.L., Pries-Heje, J.: Explanatory Design Theory. Business & Information Systems Engineering 2(5), 271–282 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Walls, J.G., Widmeyer, G.R., El Sawy, O.A.: Building an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research 3(1), 36–59 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Winter, R.: Design Science Research in Europe. European Journal of Information Systems 17(5), 470–475 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Österle, H., Becker, J., Frank, U., Hess, T., Karagiannis, D., Krcmar, H., Loos, P., Mertens, P., Oberweis, A., Sinz, E.: Memorandum on design-oriented information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems 20(1), 7–10 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Junglas, I., Niehaves, B., Spiekermann, S., Stahl, B.C., Weitzel, T., Winter, R., Baskerville, R.L.: The inflation of academic intellectual capital: the case for design science research in Europe. European Journal of Information Systems 20(1), 1–6 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gregor, S., Jones, D.: The Anatomy of a Design Theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8(5), 312–335 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., Angel, S.: A Pattern Language. Oxford University Press (1977)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mintzberg, H.: Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science 24(9), 934–948 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mettler, T., Eurich, M.: What is the business model behind e-health? A pattern-based approach to sustainable profit. In: Proceedings of 20th European Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona, Spain (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology. Decision Support Systems 15(4), 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vahidov, R.: Design Researcher’s IS Artifact - A Representational Framework. In: Proc. DESRIST 2006, Claremont, pp. 19–33 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chmielewicz, K.: Forschungskonzeptionen der Wirtschaftswissenschaften, 3 ed, 3rd edn. Poeschel, Stuttgart (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gericke, A.: Konstruktionsforschung und Artefaktkonstruktion in der gestaltungsorientierten Wirtschaftsinformatik: Ein Literaturüberblick, Research Report, Institute of Information Management, University of St. Gallen (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldkuhl, G.: Design Theories in Information Systems - A Need for Multi-Grounding. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 6(2), 59–72 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Venable, J.R.: The Role of Theory and Theorising in Design Science Research. In: Proceedings DESRIST 2006, Claremont, pp. 1–18 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Winter, R., Gericke, A., Bucher, T.: Method Versus Model – Two Sides of the Same Coin? In: Albani, A., Barjis, J., Dietz, J.L.G. (eds.) CIAO! 2009. LNBIP, vol. 34, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van de Weerd, I., de Weerd, S., Brinkkemper, S.: Developing a Reference Method for Game Production by Method Comparison. In: Ralyté, J., Brinkkemper, S., Henderson-Sellers, B. (eds.) Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences. IFIP, vol. 244, pp. 313–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kerlinger, F.N.: Foundations of Behavioral Research; Educational and Psychological Inquiry. Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York (1964)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Iivari, J.: A Paradigmatic Analysis of Information Systems As a Design Science. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19(2) (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gehlert, A., Schermann, M., Pohl, K., Krcmar, H.: Towards a research method for theory driven design research. In: Proceedings of Wirtschaftsinformatik, pp. 441–450 (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smith, J.M., Smith, D.C.P.: Database abstractions: aggregation and generalization. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS) 2(2), 105–133 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Malone, T.W., Crowston, K., Lee, J., Pentland, B.T., Dellarocas, C., Wyner, G.M., Quimby, J., Osborn, C.S., Bernstein, A., Herman, G.A., et al.: Tools for Inventing Organizations: Toward a Handbook of Organizational Processes. Management Science 45(3), 425–443 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bucher, T., Winter, R.: Project Types of Business Process Management – Towards a Scenario Structure to Enable Situational Method Engineering for Business Process Management. Business Process Management Journal 15(4), 548–568 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bucher, T., Winter, R.: Taxonomy of Business Process Management Approaches: An Empirical Foundation for the Engineering of Situational Methods to Support BPM. In: vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management, vol. 2, pp. 93–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Winter, R.: Construction of Situational Information Systems Management Methods. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design 3(4), 67–85 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Winter, R.: Problem Analysis for Situational Artefact Construction in Information Systems in Andrea Carugati and Cecilia Rossignoli, ed. In: Emerging Themes in Information Systems and Organization Studies, pp. 97–113. Physica, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sein, M., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action Design Research. MIS Quarterly 35(1), 37–56 (2011)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rousseau, D.M.: The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-based Management. Oxford University Press, New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Simon, H.A.: The Sciences of the Artificial, vol. 3. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M., Chatterjee, S.: A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24(3), 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    van Aken, J.E., Nagel, A.P.: Organising and managing the fuzzy front end of new product development, Research Report, Technical University Eindhoven (2004)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Davies, H.: Improving the Relevance of Management Research: Evidence-Based Management: Design Science or Both? Business Leadership Review (July 2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mintzberg, H., Waters, J.A.: Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal 6(3), 257–272 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Van Burg, E., Romme, A.G.L., Reymen, I.M.M.J., Gilsing, V.A.: Creating University Spinoffs: A Science-Based Design Perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management 25(2), 114–128 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hevner, A.R.: A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19(2), 87–92 (2007)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mayer, J.H., Bischoff, S., Winter, R., Weitzel, T.: Extending Traditional EIS Use to Support Mobile Executives Online and Offline. MIS Quarterly Executive 22(2), 87–96 (2012)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ragin, C.C.: Set Relations in Social Research: Evaluating Their Consistency and Coverage. Political Analysis, 291–310 (2006)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rossi, M., Sein, M.K.: Design Research Workshop: A Proactive Research Approach. In: Proc. IRIS 2003. IRIS Association (2003)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Romme, A.G.L.: Making a Differnce: Organization as Design. Organization Science 14(5), 558–573 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Magalhaes, R., Silva, A.R.: Organizational Design and Engineering (ODE), Research Report, Technical University of Lisbon (2009)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    van Aken, J.E., Romme, A.G.L.: A Design Science Approach to Evidence-based Management in Denise. In: Rousseau, M. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-based Management, Oxford University Press, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Winter, R., Albani, A.: Restructuring the Design Science Research Knowledge Base - A One-Cycle View of Design Science Research and its Consequences for Understanding Organizational Design Problems in Richard Baskerville. In: Baskerville, R., de Marco, M., Spagnoletti, P. (eds.) Designing Organizational Systems: An Interdisciplinary Discourse, pp. 63–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., van Aken, J.E.: Developing Design Propositions through Research Synthesis. Organization Studies 29, 393–413 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Winter
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information ManagementUniversity of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations