Taking a Project Management Perspective on Design Science Research

  • Jan vom Brocke
  • Sonia Lippe
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6105)


In this paper we develop a project management (PM) perspective on design science research (DSR). We account for the increasing amount of DSR projects that are emerging in public-private research collaborations and that align both business needs and research rigor. In addition to the application of sound research methodologies, the successful management of the work relations constitutes an important success factor for DSR projects. Hence the need emerges for professional project management. However, certain features such as creativity, uncertainty in terms of the research method and outcome, and research rigor complicate the application of standard PM approaches and make certain adaptations necessary. The goal of this paper is to identify a set of characteristics specific to DSR projects and to analyse their implications for selecting and adapting established project management standards. For evaluation purposes, we are using the PMBOK® Guide by the Project Management Institute which is commonly accepted and widely used in practice and academia.


Design Science Research Project Project Management Contingency Frameworks 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    vom Brocke, J., Buddendick, C.: Reusable Conceptual Models. Requirements Based on the Design Science Research Paradigm. In: International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST), Claremont, CA, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in Information Systems research. MIS Quarterly 28, 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    March, S.T., Smith, G.G.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems 15, 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Erno-Kjolhede, E.: Project management theory and the management of research projects. In: MPP Working Paper (ed.), vol. 3. Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dvir, D., Shenhar, A., Alkaher, S.: From a single discipline product to a multidisciplinary system: Adapting the right style to the right project. Systems Engineering 6, 123–134 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D.: How projects differ and what to do about it. In: Morris, P.W.G., Pinto, J.K. (eds.) The Wiley guide to project, program and portfolio management, pp. 1265–1286. Wiley and Sons, Hoboken (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bubshait, K.A., Selen, W.J.: Project characteristics that influence the implementation of project management techniques: a survey. Project Management Journal 23, 43–47 (1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Project Management Institute: A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide). Project Management Institute, Newton Square (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Office of Government Commerce: Managing successful projects with PRINCE2 The Stationery Office, London (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andersen, E.S.: Towards a project management theory for renewal projects. Project Management Journal 37, 15–30 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pinto, J.K., Cleland, D.I., Slevin, D.P.: The frontiers of project management research Project Management Institute (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clarke, T.E.: Unique features of an R&D work environment and research scientists and engineers. Knowledge, Technology & Policy 15, 58–69 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brown, C.J.: Can research be project managed? South African Journal of Business Management 30, 72–77 (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Payne, J.H., Turner, J.R.: Company-wide project management: The planning and control of programmes of projects of different types. International Journal of Project Management 16, 55–59 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shenhar, A.J.: Contingent management in temporary, dynamic organizations: The comparative analysis of projects. Journal of High Technology Management Research 12, 239–271 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Besner, C., Hobbs, B.: Project management practice, generic or contextual: A reality check. Project Management Journal 39, 16–33 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    vom Brocke, J., Lippe, S.: Towards Management Guidelines for Collaborative Research Projects on Information Systems – Learning from Project Management Contingency Theory. In: VI Conference of the Italian Chapter of AIS (itAIS 2009), Costa Smeralda, Italy (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    vom Brocke, J., Lippe, S.: Unfolding the nature of public funded research projects in Information Systems. In: ESWIS 2009, Pre-conference workshop of ECIS 2009, Verona, Italy (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuechler, W.L., Vaishnavi, V.K.: Theory development in design science research: Anatomy of a research project. In: Third International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, Atlanta, pp. 1–15 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Turner, J.R., Cochrane, J.R.: Goals-and-methods matrix: coping with projects with ill defined goals and /or methods of achieving them. International Journal of Project Management 11, 93–102 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Creswell, J.W.: Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wieringa, R.: Design science as nested problem solving. In: International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST) Malvern, PA, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wieringa, R.: Requirements engineering: Frameworks for understanding. Wiley, Chichester (1996)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24, 45–77 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Crawford, L., Hobbs, B., Turner, J.R.: Aligning capability with strategy: Categorizing projects to do the right projects and to do them right. Project Management Journal 27, 38–50 (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sauser, B.J., Reilly, R.R., Shenhar, A.J.: Why projects fail? How contingency theory can provide new insights - A comparative analysis of NASA‘s Mars Climate Orbiter loss. International Journal of Project Management (2009) (accepted January 15, 2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D.: Reinventing project management: the diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Haward Business, Boston (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Crawford, L., Pollak, J.: Hard and soft projects: a framework for analysis. International Journal of Project Management 22, 645–653 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jordan, G.B., Hage, J., Mote, J., Hepler, B.: Investigating differences among research projects and implications for managers. R&D Management 35, 501–511 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Frank, U.: Towards a pluralistic conception of research methods in Information Systems. ICB Research Report, vol. 7. Duisburg-Essen (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vaishnavi, V.K., Kuechler, W.L.: Design research in Information Systems (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan vom Brocke
    • 1
  • Sonia Lippe
    • 2
  1. 1.University of LiechtensteinVaduzPrincipality of Liechtenstein
  2. 2.SAP (Switzerland) Inc.St. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations