Relevance through Consortium Research? Findings from an Expert Interview Study

  • Boris Otto
  • Hubert Österle
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6105)


The Information Systems (IS) community is discussing the relevance of its research. Design-oriented IS research is considered a promising approach since it combines practical relevance and scientific rigor. Only limited guidance, however, is available for the researcher to gain access to and exchange knowledge from the practitioners’ domain. This is surprising insofar as the IS “ecosystem” is under change and research and innovation largely takes place in the practitioners’ community. Consortium research addresses the issue of getting access to and exchanging knowledge from the practitioners’ community. It supports the development of artifacts and is characterized by close cooperation between the university and its partners in all stages of the design-oriented research process, practical validation of research results with partner companies, and a focus on the practical benefits of the research, with all research activities being funded by the consortium partners. The research question posed in this paper is what consortium research contributes to design-oriented IS research against the background of the aforementioned phenomena. The paper presents the findings from an expert interview study among professors of the German-speaking IS community in Europe.


Consortium Research Design Science Research in IS Research Relevance Expert Interviews 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design Science in Information System Research. MIS Quarterly 28, 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Winter, R.: Design Science Research in Europe. European Journal of Information Systems 17, 470–475 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24, 45–77 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guide, V.D.R.J., Van Wassenhove, L.N.: Dancing with the Devil: Partnering with Industry but Publishing in Academia. Decision Sciences 38, 531–546 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Starkey, K., Madan, P.: Bridiging the Relevance Gap: Aligning Stakeholders in the Future of Management Research. British Journal of Management 12, S3–S26 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benbasat, I., Zmud, R.: Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance. MIS Quarterly 23, 3–16 (1999)CrossRefGoogle 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.
    Frank, U., Schauer, C., Wigand, R.T.: Different Paths of Development of Two Information Systems Communities: A Comparative Study Based on Peer Interviews. Communications of the AIS 22, 391–412 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems 15, 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rossi, M., Sein, M.K.: Design Research Workshop: A Proactive Research Approach. Design Research Workshop within the IRIS26 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frank, U.: Evaluation von Artefakten in der Wirtschaftsinformatikforschung. In: Häntschel, I., Heinrich, L.J. (eds.) Evaluation und Evaluationsforschung in der Wirtschaftsinformatik, pp. 35–48. Oldenbourg, München (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bucher, T., Riege, C., Saat, J.: Evaluation in der gestaltungsorientierten Wirtschaftsinformatik - Systematisierung nach Erkenntnisziel und Gestaltungsziel. In: Becker, J., Krcmar, H., Niehaves, B. (eds.) Wissenschaftstheorie und gestaltungsorientierte Wirtschaftsinformatik. Arbeitsbericht Nr. 120 des Instituts für Wirtschaftsinformatik, pp. 69–86. Universität Münster, Münster (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gill, G., Bhattacherjee, A.: Whom Are We Informing? Issues and Recommendations for MIS Research From an Informing Sciences Perspective. MIS Quarterly 33, 217–235 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Back, A., von Krogh, G., Enkel, E.: The CC Model as Organizational Design Striving to Combine Relevance and Rigor. Systemic Practice and Action Research 20, 91–103 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Følstad, A.: Living Labs for Innovation and Development of Information and Communication Technology: A Literature Review. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks 10, 99–131 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brockhoff, K.: Forschung und Entwicklung: Planung und Kontrolle. Oldenbourg, München (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pettigrew, A.M.: Management Research After Modernism. British Journal of Management 12, S61–S70 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van de Ven, A.H.: Engaged Scholarship. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    David, P., Foray, D.: Accessing and expanding the science and technology knowledge base. In: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rynes, S.L., Bartunek, J.M., Daft, R.L.: Across the Great Divide: Knowledge Creation and Transfer between Practitioners and Academics. Academy of Mangement Journal 44, 340–355 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H.: The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mathiassen, L., Nielsen, P.A.: Engaged Scholarship in IS Research: The Scandinavian Case. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 20, 3–20 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Österle, H., Otto, B.: A Method For Consortial Research. Institute of Information Management, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Österle, H., Becker, J., Frank, U., Hess, T., Karagiannis, D., Krcmar, H., Loos, P., Mertens, P., Oberweis, A., Sinz, E.J.: Memorandum zur gestaltungsorientierten Wirtschaftsinformatik. In: Österle, H., Winter, R., Brenner, W. (eds.) Gestaltungsorientierte Wirtschaftsinformatik: Ein Plädoyer für Rigor und Relevanz. infowerk ag, pp. 1–6 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nunamaker, J.F., Chen, M., Purdin, T.D.M.: Systems Development in Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems 7, 89–106 (1991)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cavana, R.Y.: Applied business research: qualitative and quantitative methods. John Wiley & Sons, Australia (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ethridge, D.: Research methodology in applied economics: organizing, planning, and conducting economic research. Iowa State University Press, Ames (1995)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wilde, T., Hess, T.: Forschungsmethoden der Wirtschaftsinformatik. Eine empirische Untersuchung. Wirtschaftsinformatik 49, 280–287 (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Otto, B., Österle, H.: Relevance Through Consortium Research? A Case Study. In: 18th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2010), Pretoria (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Knödler, T.: Public Relations und Wirtschaftsjournalismus: Erfolgs- und Risikofaktoren für einen win-win. VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Meuser, M., Nagel, U.: Expertenwissen und Experteninterview. In: Hitzler, R., Honer, A., Maeder, C. (eds.) Expertenwissen. Die institutionelle Kompetenz zur Konstruktion von Wirklichkeit, pp. 180–192. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen (1994)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Meuser, M., Nagel, U.: ExpertInneninterviews - vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. Ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion. In: Bogner, A., Littig, B., Menz, W. (eds.) Das Experteninterview. Theorie, Methode, Anwendung, pp. 71–93. Leske und Budrich, Opladen (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mayring, P.: Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1, Art. 20 (2000)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jarvinen, P.H.: Research Questions Guiding Selection of an Appropriate Research Method. In: Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems, pp. 124–131 (2000)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gregor, S.: The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly 30, 611–642 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boris Otto
    • 1
  • Hubert Österle
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information ManagementUniversity of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations