Making Use of Design Principles

  • Leona Chandra Kruse
  • Stefan Seidel
  • Sandeep Purao
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9661)

Abstract

This paper reports on the results of a study that investigates how design principles are used in design practice. Design principles have become the predominant way to capture abstract knowledge about the design of information systems (IS) artifacts—and as design science researchers, we expect that practitioners will use these outcomes of our work. Our empirical evidence is drawn from the analysis of spoken-out thought processes of designers as they attempted to use a certain set of design principles in a new context. Through our analysis, we identify five key categories conceptualizing the use of design principles: interpreting scope and content, matching with problem space, guesstimating missing information, projecting into solution space, and implanting into design process. We find that design principles do not shut down degrees of freedom, but rather, channel actions from the designer, who acts in a conscious, deliberative manner to creatively apply the design principles. Through our work, we contribute to (a) our understanding of how design principles are incorporated in design processes, and (b) the emergent stream of research about the formulation of design principles.

Keywords

Design principles Prescriptive knowledge reuse DSR and practice Designer knowledge 

References

  1. 1.
    Baskerville, R.P.H.: Explanatory design theory. J. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 5, 271–282 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 35, 37–56 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gregor, S., Jones, D.: The anatomy of a design theory. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8, 313–335 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Katz, R., Allen, T.J.: Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: a look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Manag. 12, 7–20 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carroll, J.M.: Scenario-based Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in System Development. Wiley, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gamma, E.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Pearson Education, India (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pearl, J.: Heuristics: Intelligent Search Strategies for Computer Problem Solving. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1984)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Purao, S., Storey, V.C., Han, T.: Improving analysis pattern reuse in conceptual design: augmenting automated processes with supervised learning. Inf. Syst. Res. 14, 269–290 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guindon, R., Krasner, H., Curtis, B.: Breakdowns and processes during the early activities of software design by professionals. In: Gary, M.O., Sylvia, S., Elliot, S. (eds.) Empirical Studies of Programmers: Second Workshop, pp. 65–82. Ablex Publishing Corp. (1987)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gero, J.S., Kannengiesser, U., Pourmohamadi, M.: Commonalities across designing: Empirical results. In: Design Computing and Cognition 2012, pp. 265–281. Springer, Netherlands (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tang, H., Lee, Y., Gero, J.S.: Comparing collaborative co-located and distributed design processes in digital and traditional sketching environments: a protocol study using the function–behaviour–structure coding scheme. Des. Stud. 32, 1–29 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis. Support Syst. 15, 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Riemer, K., Seidel, S.: Design and design research as contextual practice. Inf. Syst. e-Bus. Manag. 11, 1–4 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sanders, E.B.-N., Stappers, P.J.: Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design 4, 5–18 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cross, N., Christiaans, H., Dorst, K.: Design expertise amongst student designers. J. Art Des. Educ. 13, 39–56 (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gero, J.S., Gero, J.S., Mc Neill, T.: An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Des. Stud. 19, 21–61 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rittel, H., Webber, M.M.: 2.3 planning problems are wicked. Polity 4, 155–169 (1973)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Latour, B.: A cautious prometheus? A few steps toward a philosophy of design (with special attention to Sloterdijk, P.,). In: Proceedings of the 2008 Annual International Conference of the Design History Society, pp. 2–10 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Denning, P., Dargan, P.: Action-centered design. In: Bringing Design to Software, pp. 105–119 (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Borchers, J.O.: A pattern approach to interaction design. AI & Soc. 15, 359–376 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Aken, J.E.: Improving the Relevance of Management Research by Developing Tested and Grounded Technological Rules. Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies, Eindhoven (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fowler, M.: Accounting Patterns. Analysis Patterns: Reusable Object Models. Addison, Boston (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Denning, P.J.: Great principles of computing. Commun. ACM 46, 15–20 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nonaka, I., Konno, N.: The concept of “ba”: building a foundation for knowledge creation. Calif. Manag. Rev. 40, 40–54 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grant, R.M.: Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 17, 109–122 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nonaka, I., Toyama, R.: The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 1, 2–10 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Polanyi, M.: The logic of tacit inference. Philosophy 41, 1–18 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vitalari, N.P., Dickson, G.W.: Problem solving for effective systems analysis: an experimental exploration. Commun. ACM 26, 948–956 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Garud, R.: On the distinction between know-how, know-why, and know-what. Adv. Strateg. Manag. 14, 81–101 (1997)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cross, N.: Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Des. Issues 17, 49–55 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Romme, A.G.L., Endenburg, G.: Construction principles and design rules in the case of circular design. Organ. Sci. 17, 287–297 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Carlile, P.R., Eric, S.R.: Into the black box: the knowledge transformation cycle. Manag. Sci. 49, 1180–1195 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carlile, P.R.: Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ. Sci. 15, 555–568 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A.: How to study thinking in everyday life: contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind Cult. Act. 5, 178–186 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ericsson, K.A., Crutcher, R.J.: Introspection and verbal reports on cognitive processes—two approaches to the study of thinking: a response to Howe. New Ideas in Psychology 9, 57–71 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Suwa, M., Tversky, B.: What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Des. Stud. 18, 385–403 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Suwa, M., Purcell, T., Gero, J.: Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers’ cognitive actions. Des. Stud. 19, 455–483 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Van Someren, M.W., Barnard, Y.F., Sandberg, J.A.: The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes. Academic Press, London (1994)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Carmelo, G.: A practical approach to breast cancer knowledge management: a tumor board perspective (RTM). The University of Wisconsin (2010)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Strauss, A.L., Corbin, J.: Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage, London, UK (1998)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Amabile, T.: Creativity in Context. Westview press, Boulder (1996)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cross, N.: Expertise in design: an overview. Des. Stud. 25, 427–441 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Purao, S., Rossi, M., Bush, A.: Towards an understanding of the use of problem and design spaces during object-oriented system development. Inf. Organ. 12, 249–281 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Walls, J.G., Widmeyer, G.R., El Sawy, O.A.: Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Inf. Syst. Res. 3, 36–59 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gregor, S., Hevner, A.R.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q. 37, 337–355 (2013)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Balaji, S., Murugaiyan, M.S.: Waterfall vs. V-model vs. agile: a comparative study on SDLC. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Bus. Manag. 2, 26–30 (2012)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Purao, S., Baldwin, C.Y., Hevner, A., Storey, V.C., Pries-Heje, J., Smith, B., Zhu, Y.: The sciences of design: observations on an emerging field. In: Harvard Business School Finance Working Paper (2008)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Baskerville, R.L., Myers, M.D.: Design ethnography in information systems. Inf. Syst. J. 25, 23–46 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leona Chandra Kruse
    • 1
  • Stefan Seidel
    • 1
  • Sandeep Purao
    • 2
  1. 1.University of LiechtensteinVaduzLiechtenstein
  2. 2.Bentley UniversityWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations