Design Science Research for Business Process Design: Organizational Transition at Intersport Sweden

  • Mikael Lind
  • Daniel Rudmark
  • Ulf Seigerroth
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 318)


Business processes need to be aligned with business strategies. This paper elaborates on experiences from a business process design effort in an action research project performed at Intersport Sweden. The purpose with this project was to create a solid base for taking the retail chain Intersport into a new organizational state where the new process design is aligned with strategic goals. Although business process modeling is concerned with creating artifacts, traditionally information systems design science research has had little impact on research on business process models. In this paper, we address the question of how design science research can contribute to business process design. Three heuristic guidelines for creating organizational commitment and strategic alignment in process design are presented. The guidelines are derived from the successful actions taken in the research project. The development of these guidelines is used as a basis to reflect upon the contribution of design science research to business process design.


Design science research business process design action research co-design 


  1. Ahrne, G.: Interaction Inside, Outside and Between Organization. Sage Publications, London (1994)Google Scholar
  2. Albinsson, L., Lind, M., Forsgren, O.: Co-Design: An Approach to Border Crossing, Network Innovation. In: Cunningham, P., Cunningham, M. (eds.) Expanding the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications, Case Studies, vol. 4, Part 2, pp. 977–983. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2007)Google Scholar
  3. Bandara, W., Gable, G., Rosemann, M.: Business Process Modeling Success: An Empirically Tested Measurement Model. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Information Systems, Milwaukee, WI (2006)Google Scholar
  4. Baskerville, R.L., Wood-Harper, A.T.: A Critical Perspective on Action Research as a Method for Information Systems Research. Journal of Information Technology (11), 235–246 (1996)Google Scholar
  5. Benbasat, I., Zmud, R.W.: Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance. MIS Quarterly 23(1), 3–16 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cole, R., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Sein, M.K.: Being Proactive: Where Action Research Meets Design Research. In: Avison, D., Galletta, D., DeGross, J.I. (eds.) Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Information Systems, Las Vegas, pp. 325–336 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. Cross, N.: Understanding Design Cognition. In: Cross, N. (ed.) Designerly Ways of Knowing, pp. 72–95. Birkhäuser, Basel (2007)Google Scholar
  8. Davenport, T.H.: Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1993)Google Scholar
  9. Davis, R.: Business Process Modeling with ARIS: A Practical Guide. Springer, London (2001)Google Scholar
  10. Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Gallo, S.: How Do Practitioners Use Conceptual Modeling in Practice? Data and Knowledge Engineering 58(3), 358–380 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dewey, J.: Human Nature and Conduct. Henry Holt, New York (1922)Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Goldkuhl, G., Cronholm, S.: Multi-Grounded Theory: Adding Theoretical Grounding to Grounded Theory. In: Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Research Methods in Business Reading, UK (2003)Google Scholar
  14. Goldkuhl, G., Lind, M.: Coordination and Transformation in Business Processes: Towards an Integrated View. Business Process Management Journal 14(6), 761–777 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gregor, S.: The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly 30(3), 611–642 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. Gregor, S., Jones, D.: The Anatomy of a Design Theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8(5), 312–335 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. Günther, C., Rinderle-Ma, S., Reichert, M., Van der Aalst, W.M.P., Recker, J.: Using Process Mining to Learn From Process Changes in Evolutionary Systems. International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management 3(1), 61–78 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hammer, M.: Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate. Harvard Business Review 68(4), 104–112 (1990)Google Scholar
  19. Hanseth, O., Lyytinen, K.: Theorizing about the Design of Information Infrastructures: Design Kernel Theories and Principles. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Environments, Systems and Organizations 4(12) (2004)Google Scholar
  20. Harmon, P.: The Scope and Evolution of Business Process Management. In: vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management. Springer, Berlin (forthcoming, 2010)Google Scholar
  21. Harrington, H.J.: Business Process Improvement: The Breakthrough Strategy for Total Quality, Productivity and Competitiveness. McGraw-Hill, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  22. Henderson, J.C., Venkatraman, N.: Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming Organizations. IBM System Journal 38(2-3), 472–485 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Iivari, J., Venable, J.: Action Research and Design Science Research: Seemingly Similar But Decisively Dissimilar. In: Proceedings of the 2009 European Conference on Information Systems, Verona, Italy, June 8-10 (2009)Google Scholar
  25. Keen, P.G.W., Knapp, E.M.: Every Manager’s Guide to Business Processes: A Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts for Today’s Business Leaders. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1996)Google Scholar
  26. Langefors, B.: Theoretical Analysis of Information Systems, 4th edn. Studentlitteratur, Lund (1973)Google Scholar
  27. Lankhorst, M.: Enterprise Architecture at Work: Modeling, Communication, and Analysis. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  28. Lind, M., Albinsson, L., Forsgren, O., Hedman, J.: Integrated Development, Use and Learning in a Co-design Setting: Experiences from the Incremental Deployment of e-Me. In: Cunningham, P., Cunningham, M. (eds.) Expanding the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications, Case Studies, pp. 773–780. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2007)Google Scholar
  29. Lind, M., Forsgren, O.: Co-design and Web 2.0: Theoretical Foundations and Application. In: Cunningham, P., Cunningham, M. (eds.) Collaboration and the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications, Case Studies, pp. 1105–1112. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  30. Lind, M., Goldkuhl, G.: The Constituents of Business Interaction: Generic Layered Patterns. Data and Knowledge Engineering 47(3), 327–348 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lind, M., Seigerroth, U.: Collaborative Process Modeling: The Intersport Case Study. In: vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management. Springer, Berlin (2010a) (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  32. Lind, M., Seigerroth, U.: A Multi-Layered Approach to Business and IT Alignment. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2010b)Google Scholar
  33. Lind, M., Seigerroth, U., Forsgren, O., Hjalmarsson, A.: Co-design as Social Constructive Pragmatism. Paper presented at the inaugural meeting of the AIS Special Interest Group on Pragmatist IS Research (SIGPrag 2008), Paris (2008)Google Scholar
  34. Lindgren, R., Henfridsson, O., Schultze, U.: Design Principles for Competence Management Systems: A Synthesis of Action Research Study. MIS Quarterly 28(3), 435–472 (2004)Google Scholar
  35. Liu, K., Sun, L., Bennett, K.: Co-Design of Business and IT Systems. Information Systems Frontiers 4(3), 251–256 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. March, S.T., Smith, G.: Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology. Decision Support Systems 15(4), 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Markus, M.L., Majchrzak, A., Gasser, L.: A Design Theory for Systems That Support Emergent Knowledge Processes. MIS Quarterly 26(3), 179–212 (2002)Google Scholar
  38. Mathiassen, L.: Collaborative Practice Research. Information Technology and People 14(1), 321–345 (2002)Google Scholar
  39. Matthews, M.R.: Models in Science and in Science Education: An Introduction. Science and Education 16(7-8), 647–652 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nelson, H.G., Stolterman, E.: The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs (2003)Google Scholar
  41. Nunamaker, J., Chen, M., Purdin, T.D.M.: Systems Development in Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems 7(3), 89–106 (1991)Google Scholar
  42. Purao, S.: Design Research in the Technology of Information Systems: Truth or Dare. Unpublished paper, School of Information Sciences and Technology, Pennsylvania State University (2002)Google Scholar
  43. Purao, S., Baldwin, C.Y., Hevner, A., Storey, V.C., Pries-Heje, J., Smith, B.: The Sciences of Design: Observations on an Emerging Field. Working Ppaer No. 09-056. Harvard Business School (2008)Google Scholar
  44. Recker, J.: A Socio-Pragmatic Constructionist Framework for Understanding Quality in Process Modeling. Australiasian Journal of Information Systems 14(2), 43–63 (2007)Google Scholar
  45. Rittgen, P.: Co-designing Models for Enterprises and Information Systems: A Case for Language Integration. In: Magyar, G., Knapp, G., Wojtkowski, W.G., Zupancic, J. (eds.) Advances in Information Systems Development: New Methods and Practice for the Networked Society, vol. 1, pp. 73–83. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  46. Romme, A.G.L.: Making a Difference: Organization as Design. Organization Science 14(5), 558–573 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roseman, M., Vessey, I.: Toward Improving the Relevance of Information Systems Research to Practitioners: The Role of Applicability Checks. MIS Quarterly 32(1), 1–22 (2008)Google Scholar
  48. Rosenblueth, A., Wiener, N.: The Role of Models in Science. Philosophy of Science 12(4), 316–321 (1945)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scheer, A.-W., Nüttgens, M.: ARIS Architecture and Reference Models for Business Process Management. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 376–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schuette, 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)Google Scholar
  51. Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, London (1969)Google Scholar
  52. Simon, H.A.: The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  53. Stirna, J., Kirikova, M.: How to Support Agile Development Projects with Enterprise Modeling. In: Johannesson, P., Söderström, E. (eds.) Information System engineering: From Data Analysis to Process Networks, pp. 159–185. IGI Publishing, London (2008)Google Scholar
  54. Thomas, O.: Understanding the Term Reference Model in Information Systems Research: History, Literature Analysis and Explanation. In: Kindler, E., Nüttgens, M. (eds.) Business Process Reference Models, Proceedings of the Workshop on Business Process Reference Models, Nancy, France (2005)Google Scholar
  55. Tolvanen, J.-P., Lyytinen, K.: Flexible Method Adaptation in CASE Environments: The Metamodeling Approach. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems (5), 51–77 (1992)Google Scholar
  56. Van Aken, J.E.: Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules. Journal of Management Studies 41(2), 219–246 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van der Aalst, W.M.P., Rosemann, M., Dumas, M.: Deadline-Based Escalation in Process-Aware Information Systems. Decision Support Systems 43(2), 492–511 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vernadat, F.B.: Enterprise Modeling and Integration (EMI): Current Status and Research Perspectives. Annual Reviews in Control 26(1), 15–25 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vom Brocke, J., Thomas, O.: Reference Modeling for Organizational Change: Applying Collaborative Techniques for Business Engineering. In: Proceedings of the 12th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Acapulco, Mexico, pp. 680–688 (2006)Google Scholar
  60. von Wright, G.H.: Explanation and Understanding. Rouledge and Kegan Paul, London (1971)Google Scholar
  61. 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

Copyright information

© IFIP 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mikael Lind
    • 1
  • Daniel Rudmark
    • 2
  • Ulf Seigerroth
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Business and InformaticsUniversity of BoråsBoråsSweden
  2. 2.Innovation LabUniversity of BoråsBoråsSweden
  3. 3.School of EngineeringJönköping UniversityJönköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations