Advertisement

Abstract

This article analyzes the state-of-the-art regarding the development of generic methods and reference models. The analysis shows that the related research disciplines, method engineering and reference modeling, tend to converge. Furthermore, it shows that the differentiation between generic methods and reference models should not be maintained because both artifact types feature activity-oriented elements as well as result-oriented elements. Depending on the artifact type, however, generic methods and reference models vary regarding the relative importance of the activity view and the result view. A generic problem solution (generic term for methods and reference models) can be interpreted as a sequence of activities which aim at the development of results. The insights into the commonalities among generic problem solutions provide the opportunity to define a unified design process in the field of design science research. Implications and unification challenges that are related to such a unified design process are presented at the end of the paper.

Keywords

Design Process Method Engineering Reference Modeling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arazy, O., Kumar, N., Shapira, B.: Social Recommendations Systems: Leveraging the Power of Social Networks in Generating Recommendations. In: Chatterjee, S., Hevner, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2006), Claremont, pp. 310–328 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bacon, C.J., Fitzgerald, B.: A Systemic Framework for the Field of Information Systems. ACM SIGMIS Database 32, 46–67 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker, J., et al.: Configurable Reference Process Models for Public Administrations. In: Anttiroiko, A.-V., Malkia, M. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Digital Government, pp. 220–223. Idea Group, Hershey (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker, J., Janiesch, C., Pfeiffer, D.: Reuse Mechanisms in Situational Method Engineering. In: Ralyté, J., et al. (eds.) Situational Method Engineering – Fundamentals and Experiences, pp. 79–93. Springer, Boston (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Becker, J., et al.: Configurative Method Engineering – On the Applicability of Reference Modeling Mechanisms in Method Engineering. In: Proceedings of the 13th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2007), Keystone, pp. 1–12 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Braun, C., et al.: Method Construction – A Core Approach to Organizational Engineering. In: Haddad, H., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2005), Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, pp. 1295–1299 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology 38, 275–280 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brookes, C.H.P., et al.: Information Systems Design. Prentice-Hall, Sydney (1982)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bucher, T., et al.: Situational Method Engineering – On the Differentiation of “Context” and “Project Type”. In: Ralyté, J., et al. (eds.) Situational Method Engineering – Fundamentals and Experiences, pp. 33–48. Springer, Boston (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bucher, T., Winter, R.: Dissemination and Importance of the “Method” Artifact in the Context of Design Research for Information Systems. In: Vaishnavi, V., Baskerville, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2008), Atlanta, pp. 39–59 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chmielewicz, K.: Forschungskonzeptionen der Wirtschaftswissenschaft. Schäffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fettke, P., Loos, P.: Classification of reference models: a methodology and its application. Information Systems and e-Business Management 1, 35–53 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fettke, P., Loos, P.: Multiperspective Evaluation of Reference Models – Towards a Framework. In: Jeusfeld, M.A., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) Proceedings of the Conceptual Modeling for Novel Application Domains Workshop (ER2003 Workshops ECOMO, IWCMQ, AOIS, and XSDM), Chicago, pp. 80–91 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fettke, P., Loos, P.: Ontological Evaluation of Reference Models Using the Bunge-Wand-Weber Model. In: DeGross, J.I. (ed.) Proceedings of the Ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Tampa, pp. 2944–2955 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fettke, P., Loos, P.: Der Beitrag der Referenzmodellierung zum Business Engineering. HMD – Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik 42, 18–26 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gorla, N., Umanath, N.S.: On the Design of Optimal Compensation Structures for Outsourcing Software Development and Maintenance: An Agency Theory Perspective. In: Chatterjee, S., Hevner, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2006), Claremont, pp. 646–662 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gottschalk, F., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Jansen-Vullers, M.H.: Configurable Process Models: A Foundational Approach. In: Lehner, F., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2006 (MKWI 2006), Passau (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grabowski, H., Lossack, R.-S., El-Mejbri, E.-F.: Towards a Universal Design Theory. In: Kals, H., van Houten, F. (eds.) Integration of Process Knowledge Into Design Support Systems: Proceedings of the 1999 CIRP International Design Seminar, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, Dordrecht, March 24-26, 1999, pp. 49–56 (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Green, P., Rosemann, M.: Integrated Process Modeling: An Ontological Evaluation. Information Systems 25, 73–87 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hevner, A.R., et al.: Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly 28, 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karlsson, F., Ågerfalk, P.J.: Method configuration: adapting to situational characteristics while creating reusable assets. Information and Software Technology 46, 619–633 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Knackstedt, R.: Fachkonzeptionelle Referenzmodellierung einer Managementunterstützung mit quantitativen und qualitativen Daten – Methodische Konzepte zur Konstruktion und Anwendung, Doctoral Thesis, University of Münster, Münster (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Knackstedt, R., Janiesch, C., Rieke, T.: Configuring Reference Models – An Integrated Approach for Transaction Processing and Decision Support. In: Manolopoulos, Y., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2006), Paphos, pp. 135–143 (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kornyshova, E., Deneckère, R., Salinesi, C.: Method Chunks Selection by Multicriteria Techniques: an Extension of the Assembly-based Approach. In: Ralyté, J., et al. (eds.) Situational Method Engineering – Fundamentals and Experiences, pp. 64–78. Springer, Boston (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kuechler, W.L., Vaishnavi, V.K.: Theory Development in Design Science Research: Anatomy of a Research Project. In: Vaishnavi, V.K., Baskerville, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2008), Atlanta, pp. 1–15 (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kunene, K.N., Weistroffer, H.R.: Design of a Method to Integrate Knowledge Discovery Techniques with Prior Domain Knowledge for Better Decision Support. In: Chatterjee, S., Hevner, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2006), pp. 343–355. Claremont (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lehner, F.: Modelle und Modellierung in angewandter Informatik und Wirtschaftsinformatik oder wie ist die Wirklichkeit wirklich? Research Report No. 10, Chair of Business Information Science and Information Management, WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, Koblenz (1994)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Leppänen, M.: An Ontological Framework and a Methodical Skeleton for Method Engineering. Doctoral Thesis, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lossack, R.-S., Grabowski, H.: The Axiomatic Approach in the Universal Design Theory. In: Tate, D. (ed.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Axiomatic Design (ICAD 2000), Cambridge, MA, pp. 203–210 (2000)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology. Decision Support Systems 15, 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mirbel, I., Ralyté, J.: Situational method engineering: combining assembly-based and roadmap-driven approaches. Requirements Engineering 11, 58–78 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Peffers, K., et al.: The Design Science Research Process: A Model for Producing and Presenting Information Systems Research. In: Chatterjee, S., Hevner, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2006), pp. 83–106. Claremont (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pfeiffer, D., Niehaves, B.: Evaluation of Conceptual Models – A Structuralist Approach. In: Bartmann, D., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2005), Regensburg (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ralyté, J., Rolland, C.: An Approach for Method Reengineering. In: Hideko, S.K., et al. (eds.) ER 2001. LNCS, vol. 2224, pp. 471–484. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rolland, C.: A Primer for Method Engineering. In: Proceedings of the Informatique des Organisations d’Information et de Décision (INFORSID). Toulouse (1997)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schelp, J., Winter, R.: Method Engineering – Lessons Learned from Reference Modeling. In: Chatterjee, S., Hevner, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2006), pp. 555–575. Claremont (2006)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schütte, R., Rotthowe, T.: The Guidelines of Modeling – An Approach to Enhance the Quality in Information Models. In: Ling, T.-W., Ram, S., Li Lee, M. (eds.) ER 1998. LNCS, vol. 1507, pp. 240–254. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tatnall, A., Davey, B., McConville, D.: Information Systems – Design and Implementation. Data Publishing, Melbourne (1996)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tolvanen, J.-P.: Incremental Method Engineering with Modeling Tools: Theoretical Principles and Empirical Evidence. Doctoral Thesis, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä (1998)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S.: Meta-Modeling for Situational Analysis and Design Methods. In: Syed, M.R., Syed, S.N. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Modern Systems Analysis and Design Technologies and Applications, pp. 35–54. Idea Group, Hershey (2008)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    van Slooten, K., Hodes, B.: Characterizing IS development projects. In: Brinkkemper, S., et al. (eds.) IFIP TC8 Working Conference on Method Engineering, pp. 29–44. Chapman & Hall, London (1996)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Venable, J.R.: The Role of Theory and Theorising in Design Science Research. In: Chatterjee, S., Hevner, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Science in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2006), pp. 1–18. Claremont (2006)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vessey, I., Ramesh, V., Glass, R.L.: Research in Information Systems – An Empirical Study of Diversity in the Discipline and Its Journals. Journal of Management Information Systems 19, 129–174 (2002)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    vom Brocke, J.: Referenzmodellierung: Gestaltung und Verteilung von Konstruktionsprozessen. Doctoral Thesis, University of Münster, Münster (2003)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    von Brocke, J.: Design Principles for Reference Modelling. Reusing Information Models by Means of Aggregation, Specialisation, Instantiation, and Analogy. In: Fettke, P., Loos, P. (eds.) Reference Modelling for Business Systems Analysis, pp. 47–75. Idea Group, Hershey (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    von Brocke, J., Buddendick, C.: Reusable Conceptual Models – Requirements Based on the Design Science Research Paradigm. In: Chatterjee, S., Hevner, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2006), pp. 576–604. Claremont (2006)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Winter, R., Schelp, J.: Reference Modeling and Method Construction – A Design Science Perspective. In: Liebrock, L.M. (ed.) Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2006), pp. 1561–1562 (2006)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhao, H.: Selective Encryption for MPEG-4 FGS Videos. In: Chatterjee, S., Hevner, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2006), pp. 605–609. Claremont (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Winter
    • 1
  • Anke Gericke
    • 1
  • Tobias Bucher
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information ManagementUniversity of St. GallenGallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations