Design Science Research: Looking to the Future

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


The previous chapters have taken you through the fundamentals of design science research, the problems, solutions space, design process, frameworks, outputs and artifacts, theories and dissemination of the research results. The design science research paradigm is highly relevant to information systems (IS) research because it directly addresses two of the key issues of the discipline: the central, albeit controversial, role of the IT artifact in IS research (Weber 1987; Orlikowski and Iacono 2001; Benbasat and Zmud 2003) and the lack of professional relevance of IS research (Benbasat and Zmud 1999; Hirschheim and Klein 2003). Design science, as conceptualized by Simon (1996), supports a pragmatic research paradigm that calls for the creation of innovative artifacts to solve real-world problems. Thus, design science research combines a focus on the IT artifact with a high priority on relevance in the application domain.


Information System Social Networking Site Carbon Footprint Clinical Decision Support System Personal Health Record 
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. Bates D. W. et al. (2003) Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support: making the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 10, pp. 523–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benbasat, I. and R. Zmud (2003) The identity crisis within the IS discipline: defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties, MIS Quarterly 27 (2), pp. 183–194.Google Scholar
  3. Benbasat, I. and R. Zmud (1999) Empirical research in information systems: the question of relevance, MIS Quarterly 23 (1), pp. 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carbon Footprint (2009) Home of Carbon Management at (visited June 18, 2009).
  5. Green Computing (2009) At Wikipedia available at (last accessed on June 18, 2009).
  6. Harrison, M. I., R. Koppel, and S. Bar-Lev (2007) Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care – an interactive sociotechnical analysis, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 14 (5), pp. 542–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hirschheim, R. and H. Klein (2003) Crisis in the IS field? A critical reflection on the state of the discipline, Journal of the AIS 4 (5), pp. 237–293.Google Scholar
  8. IOM (2003) Key Capabilities of an Electronic Health Record System, Letter Report, Committee on Data Standards for Patient Safety, Institute of Medicine.Google Scholar
  9. Orlikowski, W. and C. Iacono (2001) Research commentary: desperately seeking the ‘IT’ in IT research: a call for theorizing the IT artifact, Information Systems Research 12, pp. 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Tulu, B., S. Chatterjee, and M. Maheshwari (2007) Telemedicine taxonomy: a classification tool, Telemedicine and e-Health 13 (3), pp. 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Web 2.0 Tutorial (2009) Available at (last accessed on June 19, 2009).
  12. Weber, R. (1987) Towards a theory of artifacts: a paradigmatic base for information systems research, Journal of Information Systems 1 (1), pp. 3–20.Google Scholar
  13. Weingart, S. N. (2005) How many deaths are due to medical errors? Journal of the American Medical Association 284, pp. 2187–2187.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of BusinessUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.School of Information Systems and TechnologyClaremont Graduate UniversityClaremontUSA

Personalised recommendations