Design Science in the Management Disciplines

Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 22)


Design science and natural science are complementary research paradigms in the management disciplines. Fundamentally the task of management is to develop, articulate, and achieve organizational goals and purposes. Design science research addresses that task by creating novel and effective artifacts that are demonstrated to improve managers’ capability to change “existing situations into preferred ones” (Simon (1996), p. 130). Natural science research addresses it by developing theories that provide deep, principled explanations of phenomena, justified by rigorous empirical evidence that managers can use to guide their actions. Designed artifacts have no special dispensation from the laws of nature; however, business organizations and the environments in which they operate are social constructions (Searle, J. R. (2006) Social ontology: some basic principles, Anthropological Theory 6 (1), pp. 12–29). They are themselves artifacts designed to achieve human goals, purposes, and intentions, influenced by and operating within the context of emergent and intentional human behavior. Furthermore, natural science explanations of how or why an artifact works or does not work may lag years behind the application of the artifact. If academic research is to make significant contributions to management practice it must utilize the results from each paradigm to guide the other. There is evidence that this integration is beginning to take place in several management disciplines including information systems and organizational science. This paper summarizes and assesses this emerging work.


Organization Design Design Science Wicked Problem Natural Science Research Design Science Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aboulafia, M. (1991) Philosophy, Social Theory, and the Thought of George Herbert Mead (SUNY Series in Philosophy of the Social Sciences), State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alter, S. (October 2003)“18 Reasons Why IT-Reliant Work Systems Should Replace ‘The IT Artifact’ as the Core Subject Matter of the IS Field,” Communications of the AIS (12), October 2003, pp. 365-394.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris, C., R. Putnam, and S. Diana McLain (1985) Action Science, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Argyris, C. and D. Schön (1974) Theory in Practice, San Francisco, Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Barry, D. and C. Rerup (2006) Going mobile: aesthetic design considerations from calder and the constructivists. Organization Science 17 (2), 262–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bechtel, W. (1988) Philosophy of Science: An Overview for Cognitive Science, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  7. Benbasat, I. and R.W. Zmud (March 1999) Empirical research in information systems: the practice of relevance, MIS Quarterly 23 (1), pp. 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boland, R. J. and F. Collopy (2004) Managing as Designing, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Boland, R. J., F. Collopy, K. Lyytinen, and Y. Yoo (Winter 2008) “Managing as designing: lessons for organization leaders from the design practice of Frank O. Gehry”, Design Issues 24 (1), pp. 10–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bunge, M. (1979) Causality and Modern Science, 3rd rev. ed, Dover Publications, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Burns, T. and G. M. Stalker (1960) The Management of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Carroll, T. N., Gormley, T. J., Bilardo, V. J., Burton, R. M., and K. L. Woodman (2006) Designing a new organization at NASA: an organization design process using simulation. Organization Science 17 (2), 202–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daft, R. L. and A. Y. Lewin. (1990) Can organization studies begin to break out of the normal science strait jacket? An editorial essay. Organization Science, 1 (1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Denning, P. J. (February 1997) A New Social Contract for Research, Communications of the ACM 40 (2), pp. 132–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., and J. E. van Aken (2008) Developing design propositions through research synthesis, Organization Studies 29 (3), 393–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dougherty, D. (2008) Bridging social constraint and social action to design organizations for innovation, Organization Studies 29 (3), 415–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunbar R. L. M. and W. H. Starbuck (March-April 2006) Learning to design organizations and learning from designing them, Organization Science 17 (2), pp. 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eisenhardt, K. M. and D. N. Sull (2001) Strategy as simple rules, Harvard Business Review 79 (1), 106–116.Google Scholar
  19. Feldman, M. S. and B. T. Pentland (2003) Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change, Administrative Science Quarterly 48 (1), 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fuller, R. B. (1992) Cosmography: A Posthumous Scenario for the Future of Humanity, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  21. Galbraith, J. R. (1977) Organization Design, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  22. Garud, R., Jain, S., and P. Tuertscher, (2008) Incomplete by design and designing for incompleteness, Organization Studies 29 (3), 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., and Sambamurthy, V. (March-April 2006) Emergent by design: performance and transformation at infosys technologies, Organization Science 17 (2), pp. 277–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grandori, A. and Furnari, S. 2008. A chemistry of organization: combinatory analysis and design, Organization Studies 29 (3), 459–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hedberg, B. L. T., Nystrom, P. C., and W. H. Starbuck (1976) Camping on seesaws: prescriptions for a self-designing organization, Administrative Science Quarterly 21 (1), 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hevner, A. (2007) A three cycle view of design science research, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19 (2), pp. 87–92.Google Scholar
  27. Hevner, A., March, S. T., Park, J., and S. Ram (March 2004) Design science research in information systems, MIS Quarterly 28(1), pp. 75–105.Google Scholar
  28. Iivari (2007) A paradigmatic analysis of Information Systems as a design science, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 9 (2), pp. 39–64.Google Scholar
  29. Jacobides, M. G. and S. Billinger (2006) Designing the boundaries of the firm: from “Make, Buy, or Ally” to the dynamic benefits of vertical architecture. Organization Science 17 (2), 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Järvinen, P. (February 2007) Action research is similar to design science, Quality and Quantity 41 (1), pp. 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jelinek, M. A., Romme, G. L., and R. J. Boland (2008) Introduction to the special issue: organization studies as a science for design: creating collaborative artifacts and research, Organization Studies 29 (3), 317–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jenkins, M. A. (1985) Research methodologies and MIS research, in E. Mumford, et al. (eds.) Research Methodologies in Information Systems, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., North Holland, pp. 103–117.Google Scholar
  33. Kaplan, A. (1964) The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science, Crowell, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  34. Kuhn, T. S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  35. Lawrence, P. R. and J. W. Lorsch (1967) Organizations and Environment, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  36. Madsen, P. M., Desai, V. M., Roberts, K. H., and D. Wong (2006) Mitigating hazards through continuing design: the birth and evolution of a pediatric intensive care unit, Organization Science 17 (2), 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. March, J. G. and H. A. Simon (1958) Organizations, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  38. March, S. T. and G. F. Smith (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology, Decision Support Systems, 15 (4), pp. 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. March, S. T. and V. Storey (Forthcoming 2008) Design science in the information systems discipline: an introduction to the special issue on design science research, MIS Quarterly. (32:4), pp. 725–730.Google Scholar
  40. Markus, M. L., Majchrzak, A., and L. Gasser (September 2002) A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes, MIS Quarterly 26 (3), pp. 179–212.Google Scholar
  41. Michlewski, K. (2008) Uncovering design attitude: inside the culture of designers. Organization Studies 29 (3), 373–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nelson, R. R. and S. G. Winter (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  43. Perrow, C. (1967) A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations, American Sociological Review 32 (2), 194–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Quinn, R. W. (2005) Flow in knowledge work: high performance experience in the design of national security technology, Administrative Science Quarterly 50, 610–641.Google Scholar
  45. Rittel, H. and W. Melvin (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning, pp. 155–169, Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Inc., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  46. Romme, A. G. L. (September-October 2003) Making a difference: organization as design, Organization Science 14 (5), pp. 558–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Romme, A. G. L. and G. Endenburg (2006) Construction principles and design rules in the case of circular design, Organization Science 17 (2), 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Searle, J. R. (2006) Social ontology: some basic principles, Anthropological Theory 6 (1), pp. 12–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Searle, J. R. (1995) The Construction of Social Reality, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  50. Simon, H. A. (1977) New Science of Management Decision, Prentice Hall, Reading, PA.Google Scholar
  51. Simon, H. A. (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  52. Sinha, K. K., and A. H. Van de Ven (2005) Designing work within and between organizations, Organization Science 16 (4), 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vaast, E. and N. Levina (2006) Multiple faces of codification: organizational redesign in an IT organization, Organization Science 17 (2), 190–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vaishnavi, V. and W. Kuechler (2007) Design Science Research Methods and Patterns: Innovating Information and Communication Technology, Auerbach Publications, Taylor & Francis Group, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., and O. A. El Sawy (March, 1992) Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS, Information Systems Research 3 (1), pp. 36–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Walsh, J. P., and G. R. Ungson (1991) Organizational memory, Academy of Management Review 16 (1), 57–91.Google Scholar
  57. Westerman, G., McFarlan, F. W., and M. Iansiti (2006) Organization design and effectiveness over the innovation life cycle, Organization Science 17 (2), 230–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., and K. Lyytinen (2006) From organization design to organization designing, Organization Science 17 (2), 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ziman, J. (2000) Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Owen Graduate School of ManagementVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Vanderbilt Owen Graduate School of ManagementNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations