Situating Case Studies Within the Design Science Research Paradigm: An Instantiation for Collaborative Networks

  • Eric CostaEmail author
  • António Lucas Soares
  • Jorge Pinho de Sousa
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 480)


A rigorous evaluation of an artifact is one of the fundamental aspects to be considered in Design Science Research projects. This evaluation part becomes even more difficult when a large variety of artifacts must be designed for a project. This can be a challenge for the field of Collaborative Networks, which involves knowledge from several scientific disciplines. Case studies are one of the evaluation methods in Design Science Research that are used for an ex-post evaluation of artifacts. However, we argue that this method can also be used for the ex-ante evaluation, mainly when multidisciplinary research is being carried out. Therefore, the main objective of this paper is to present and discuss a multidisciplinary project of Collaborative Networks using case studies before and after the design of the artifacts. On top of the Design Science Research guidelines, this research is supported by knowledge from Business and Management Studies on how to effectively design and perform Case Study Research for artifact evaluation.


Design science research Case study research Collaborative networks Multidisciplinary research 



This research was funded by the Portuguese funding agency, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), through the Ph.D. Studentship SFRH/BD/110131/2015.


  1. 1.
    Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28, 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gregor, S., Hevner, A.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q. 37, 337–355 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Aken, J.E.: Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. J. Manag. Stud. 41, 219–246 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prat, N., Comyn-Wattiau, I., Cnam, C.: Artifact evaluation in information systems: design science research – a holistic view. In: 19th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vahidov, R.: Representing meta-artifacts. In: Design-Type Research in Information Systems: Findings and Practices, pp. 115–134. IGI Global (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spring, M., Santos, J.B.: Case study research in operations management: new contexts, new theories, new approaches. In: 22nd International Annual EurOMA Conference (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Simon, H.A.: The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hevner, A., Chatterjee, S.: Design Research in Information Systems: Theory and Practice. Springer Science and Business Media, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Offermann, P., Blom, S., Schönherr, M., Bub, U.: Artifact types in information systems design science – a literature review. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 77–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Järvinen, P.: Action research is similar to design science. Qual. Quant. 41, 37–54 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vaishnavi, V.K., Kuechler, W.J.: Design Science Research Methods and Patterns. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton (2015) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hevner, A.: A three cycle view of design science research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19, 87–92 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24, 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Aken, J.E.: Developing generic actionable knowledge for the social domain: design science for use in the swamp of practice. Methodol. Rev. Appl. Res. 2, 9–25 (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Plachkinova, M., Peffers, K., Moody, G.: Communication artifacts for requirements engineering. In: 10th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, DESRIST 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ostrowski, L., Helfert, M., Gama, N.: Ontology engineering step in design science research methodology: a technique to gather and reuse knowledge. Behav. Inf. Technol. 33, 443–451 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lacerda, D.P., Dresch, A., Proença, A., Antunes Júnior, J.A.V.: Design science research: A research method to production engineering. Gestão & Produção 20, 741–761 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., van Aken, J.E.: Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organ. Stud. 29, 393–413 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holmstrom, J., Ketokivi, M., Hameri, A.-P.: Bridging practice and theory: a design science approach. Decis. Sci. 40, 65–87 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hodgkinson, G.P., Starkey, K.: Not simply returning to the same answer over and over again: reframing relevance. Br. J. Manag. 22, 355–369 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Venable, J., Pries-heje, J., Baskerville, R.: FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 1–13 (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yin, R.K.: Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eisenhardt, K.M.: Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14, 532–550 (1989)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., Frohlich, M.: Case research in operations management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 22, 195–219 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ketokivi, M., Choi, T.: Renaissance of case research as a scientific method. J. Oper. Manag. 32, 232–240 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barratt, M., Choi, T.Y., Li, M.: Qualitative case studies in operations management: trends, research outcomes, and future research implications. J. Oper. Manag. 29, 329–342 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dubois, A., Gadde, L.E.: Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. J. Bus. Res. 55, 553–560 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Voss, C., Johnson, M., Godsell, J.: Revisiting case research in operations management. In: 22nd International Annual EurOMA Conference (2015)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barratt, M., Barratt, R.: Exploring internal and external supply chain linkages: evidence from the field. J. Oper. Manag. 29, 514–528 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dresch, A., Lacerda, D., Miguel, P.A.: A distinctive analysis of case study, action research and design science research. Rev. Bus. Manag. 17, 1116–1133 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nabukenya, J.: Combining case study, design science and action research methods for effective collaboration engineering research efforts. In: 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2012)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Costa, E., Soares, A.L., Sousa, J.P.: A new insight in the SMEs internationalization process. In: 16th IFIP WG 5.5 Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, PRO-VE 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hsu, W.-T., Chen, H.-L., Cheng, C.-Y.: Internationalization and firm performance of SMEs: the moderating effects of CEO attributes. J. World Bus. 48, 1–12 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rodriguez, V., Barcos, L., Jesús Álvarez, M.: Managing risk and knowledge in the internationalisation process. Intang. Cap. 6, 202–235 (2010)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Camarinha-Matos, L., Afsarmanesh, H.: Collaborative networks: a new scientific discipline. J. Intell. Manuf. 16, 439–452 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Parung, J., Bititci, U.: A metric for collaborative networks. Bus. Process Manag. J. 14, 654–674 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Carneiro, L.M., Soares, A.L., Patrício, R., Azevedo, A.L., Pinho de Sousa, J.: Case studies on collaboration, technology and performance factors in business networks. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 26, 101–116 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Costa, E., Soares, A.L., Sousa, J.P.: Information, knowledge and collaboration management in the internationalisation of SMEs: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 36, 557–569 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Costa
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • António Lucas Soares
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jorge Pinho de Sousa
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.INESC TEC – INESC Technology and SciencePortoPortugal
  2. 2.FEUP – Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations