Advertisement

Approach to IS Solution Design and Instantiation for Practice-Oriented Research – A Design Science Research Perspective

  • Matthias WalterEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 346)

Abstract

In the context of our long-term research project following design science research methodology, this paper contributes a methodical approach to design and instantiate an information system for evaluation in practice-oriented research. Based on previous research on improving information system support for early product-cost optimization in the discrete manufacturing industry, we present and discuss our methodical approach to derive prototypes based on an evaluated requirements model, identified implementation challenges, and elaborated solution use cases. The objective of the outlined approach comprising different working steps is to derive an interactive user interface prototype that is feasible for further artifact evaluation within a range of institutional contexts. Together with experts from the practice of software engineering, we iterated through these working steps to determine the approach’s feasibility to instantiate our solution design. The paper at hand provides descriptive as well as visual examples for each of these working steps to improve the approach’s comprehensibility. Beyond providing lessons learned from the application of our approach in the context of our research project for other projects, we also share results from an initial evaluation for a prototype instantiated with the outlined approach to underline and discuss the approach’s applicability.

Keywords

Product-cost optimization Product costing Design science research Enterprise systems Artifact instantiation 

References

  1. 1.
    Walter, M., Leyh, C., Strahringer, S.: Toward early product cost optimization: requirements for an integrated measure management approach. In: Drews, P., Funk, B., Niemeyer, P., Xie, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2018 (MKWI 2018), pp. 2057–2068. Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brinker, B.J.: Guide to Cost Management. Wiley, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Walter, M., Leyh, C.: Knocking on industry’s door: product cost optimization in the early stages requires better software support. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 19th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI 2017), pp. 330–338. IEEE, Thessaloniki (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1109/cbi.2017.33
  4. 4.
    Eigner, M., Stelzer, R.: Product Lifecycle Management: Ein Leitfaden für Product Development und Life Cycle Management, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/b93672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schicker, G., Mader, F., Bodendorf, F.: Product Lifecycle Cost Management (PLCM): Status quo, Trends und Entwicklungsperspektiven im PLCM – eine empirische Studie. In: Arbeitspapier Wirtschaftsinformatik II (2/2008). Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nürnberg (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walter, M., Leyh, C., Strahringer, S.: Knocking on industry’s door: needs in product-cost optimization in the early product life cycle stages. Complex Syst. Inf. Model. Q. (CSIMQ) 13, 43–60 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.7250/csimq.2017-13.03CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–77 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baskerville, R.: What design science is not. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 17(5), 441–443 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Walter, M.: An approach to transforming requirements into evaluable UI design for contextual practice - a design science research perspective. In: Ganzha, M., Maciaszek, L., Paprzycki, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2018 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS 2018). ACSIS, vol. 15, pp. 715–724. IEEE, Poznań (2018).  https://doi.org/10.15439/2018f235
  10. 10.
    Thakurta, R., Müller, B., Ahlemann, F., Hoffmann, D.: The state of design – a comprehensive literature review to chart the design science research discourse. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2017), pp. 4685–4694. AIS, Waikoloa Village (2017).  https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2017.571
  11. 11.
    Offermann, P., Levina, O., Schönherr, M., Bub, U.: Outline of a design science research process. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2009), pp. 1–11. ACM, New York (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1555619.1555629
  12. 12.
    Voelker, S., Walter, M., Munkelt, T.: Improving product life-cycle cost management by the application of recommender systems. In: Drews, P., Funk, B., Niemeyer, P., Xie, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2018 (MKWI 2018), pp. 2019–2030. Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vosough, Z., Kammer, D., Keck, M., Groh, R.: Visualizing uncertainty in flow diagrams: a case study in product posting. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Visual Information Communication and Interaction, Bangkok, pp. 1–8 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3105971.3105972
  14. 14.
    Markus, M.L., Majchrzak, A., Gasser, L.: A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes. MIS Q. 26(3), 179–212 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Böhringer, M.: Emergent case management for ad-hoc processes: a solution based on microblogging and activity streams. In: zur Muehlen, M., Su, J. (eds.) BPM 2010. LNBIP, vol. 66, pp. 384–395. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20511-8_36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 24th International Conference on Information Systems, Las Vegas, pp. 325–336 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vaishnavi, V.K., Kuechler, W.: Design science research methods and patterns: innovating information and communication technology, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1201/b18448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Riemer, K., Seidel, S.: Design and design research as contextual practice. Inf. Syst. E-Bus. Manag. 1(3), 331–334 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-013-0223-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action design research. MIS Q. 35(1), 37–56 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.2307/23043488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Piirainen, K.A., Gonzalez, R.A.: Seeking constructive synergy: design science and the constructive research approach. In: vom Brocke, J., Hekkala, R., Ram, S., Rossi, M. (eds.) DESRIST 2013. LNCS, vol. 7939, pp. 59–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38827-9_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pranam, A.: Product Management Essentials: Tools and Techniques for Becoming an Effective Technical Product Manager. Apress, Berkeley (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-3303-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rivero, J.M., Grigera, J., Rossi, G., Luna, E.R., Montero, F., Gaedke, M.: Mockup-driven development: providing agile support for model-driven web engineering. Inf. Softw. Tech. 56(6), 670–687 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.01.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Niehaves, B.: Design science research genres: introduction to the special issue on exemplars and criteria for applicable design science research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 27(2), 129–139 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085x.2018.1458066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stark, J.: Product Lifecycle Management: Volume 1: 21st Century Paradigm for Product Realisation. DE, 3rd edn. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17440-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lück, D., Leyh C.: Integrated virtual cooperation in product costing in the discrete manufacturing industry: a problem identification. In: Proceedings of the Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2016 (MKWI 2016), pp. 279–290. Technische Universität Ilmenau, Ilmenau (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mörtl, M., Schmied, C.: Design for cost - a review of methods, tools and research directions. J. Indian Inst. Sci. 95(4), 379–404 (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rosemann, M., Vessey, I.: Toward improving the relevance of information systems research to practice: the role of applicability checks. MIS Q. 32(1), 1–22 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.2307/25148826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis. Support Syst. 15(4), 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sonnenberg, C., vom Brocke, J.: Evaluation patterns for design science research artefacts. In: Helfert, M., Donnellan, B. (eds.) EDSS 2011. CCIS, vol. 286, pp. 71–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33681-2_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Balsamiq: Rapid, effective and fun wireframing software. https://balsamiq.com. Accessed 19 Dec 2018
  31. 31.
    Österle, H., Otto, B.: Consortium research. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2, 283–293 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-010-0119-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chinosi, M., Trombetta, A.: BPMN: an introduction to the standard. Comput. Stand. Inter. 34(1), 124–134 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2011.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Korczak, J., Dudycz, H., Nita, B., Oleksyk, P.: Semantic approach to financial knowledge specification - case of emergency policy workflow. In: Ziemba, E. (ed.) AITM/ISM-2017. LNBIP, vol. 311, pp. 24–40. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77721-4_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cohn, M.: User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lombriser, P., Dalpiaz, F., Lucassen, G., Brinkkemper, S.: Gamified requirements engineering: model and experimentation. In: Daneva, M., Pastor, O. (eds.) REFSQ 2016. LNCS, vol. 9619, pp. 171–187. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30282-9_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Reggio, G., Leotta, M., Ricca, F.: A method for requirements capture and specification based on disciplined use cases and screen mockups. In: Abrahamsson, P., Corral, L., Oivo, M., Russo, B. (eds.) PROFES 2015. LNCS, vol. 9459, pp. 105–113. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26844-6_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.: FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 25(1), 77–89 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    SAP Innovation Center Network. https://icn.sap.com/home.html. Accessed 2 Dec 2018
  39. 39.
    Sefelin, R., Tscheligi, M., Giller, V.: Paper prototyping - what is it good for?: a comparison of paper- and computer-based low-fidelity prototyping. In: CHI 2003 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 778–779. ACM, Ft. Lauderdale (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1145/765985.765986
  40. 40.
    SAP Product Lifecycle Costing. https://www.sap.com/products/product-lifecycle-costing.html. Accessed 15 Dec 2018
  41. 41.
    Gallupe, R.B.: The tyranny of methodologies in information systems research. SIGMIS Database 38(3), 20–28 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1278253.1278258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gregor, S., Hevner, A.R.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q. 37(2), 337–355 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2013/37.2.01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jönsson, S., Lukka, K.: There and back again: doing interventionist research in management accounting. In: Chapman, C.S., Hopwood, A.G., Shields, H.G. (eds.) Handbook of Management Accounting Research, vol. 1, pp. 373–397. Elsevier (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1016/s1751-3243(06)01015-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Information Systems, esp. IS in Manufacturing and CommerceTU DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations