Advertisement

Lean Development in Design Science Research: Deliberating Principles, Prospects and Pitfalls

  • Umar Ruhi
  • Okhaide AkhigbeEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9619)

Abstract

[Context and motivation:] As a relevant and viable research methodology that addresses the development and empirical investigation of new artifacts, design science research (DSR) has gained traction in the requirements and software engineering research community over the past decade. [Question/Problem:] In this paper, we deliberate the synergies between the lean mindset and DSR, and explore the application of lean development approaches in the planning and execution of software and requirements engineering research projects. [Principal idea:] The widespread adoption of lean approaches in many business and technology practices today provides the impetus to explore their application in the context of software and requirements engineering empirical research. Toward this, we offer a review of key principles underlying the lean mindset and provide an overview of the typical processes followed in DSR research projects. Subsequently, we reflect the potential for lean development approaches to facilitate DSR projects. [Contribution:] We propose a conceptual framework that integrates lean principles with DSR phases and outputs, and we aim to inspire future discussion on the application of the lean mindset in the planning and execution of empirical research projects.

Keywords

Design Science Research Lean development Lean mindset Requirements engineering Research methodology Research strategy Software engineering 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by NSERC (Discovery program) and by the University of Ottawa.

References

  1. 1.
    Abran, A., Moore, J.W., Bourque, P., Dupuis, R. (eds.): Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (2004 version). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA (2004). http://www.swebok.org
  2. 2.
    Baskerville, R.L.: Investigating information systems with action research. Commun. AIS 2(3es), 4 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barboza, S.L., Filho, G.A.C., de Souza, R.A.C.: Towards a legal compliance verification approach on the procurement process of it solutions for the Brazilian federal public administration. In: 7th IEEE Requirements Engineering and Law Workshop (RELAW), pp. 39–40 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braun, R., Benedict, M., Wendler, H., Esswein, W.: Proposal for requirements driven design science research. In: Donnellan, B., Helfert, M., Kenneally, J., VanderMeer, D., Rothenberger, M., Winter, R. (eds.) DESRIST 2015. LNCS, vol. 9073, pp. 135–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cawley, O., Wang, X., Richardson, I.: Lean software development – what exactly are we talking about? In: Fitzgerald, B., Conboy, K., Power, K., Valerdi, R., Morgan, L., Stol, K.-J. (eds.) LESS 2013. LNBIP, vol. 167, pp. 16–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Croll, A., Yoskovitz, B.: Lean Analytics. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dombrowski, U., Zahn T.: Design of a lean development framework. In: IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering Management (IEEM), pp. 1917–1921 (2011). doi: 10.1109/IEEM.2011.6118249
  8. 8.
    Dombrowski, U., Zahn, T., Schulze, S.: State of the Art-Lean Development (2011). http://koasas.kaist.ac.kr/handle/10203/23703
  9. 9.
    Ebert, C., Abrahamsson, P., Oza, N.: Lean software development. IEEE Softw. 29(5), 22–25 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gregor, S., Hevner, A.R.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q. 37(2), 337–356 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gorschek, T., Wohlin, C., Carre, P., Larsson, S.: A model for technology transfer in practice. IEEE Softw. 23(6), 88–95 (2006). doi: 10.1109/MS.2006.147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gothelf, J., Seiden, J.: Lean UX: Applying Lean Principles to Improve User Experience. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hevner, A.R.: A three cycle view of design science research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19(2), 4 (2007). http://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol19/iss2/4 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iivari, J.: A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19(2), 5 (2007). http://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol19/iss2/5 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO: Systems and software engineering – life cycle processes – requirements engineering. In: ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148, pp. 1–94 (2011). doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2011.6146379
  17. 17.
    Jarke, M., Loucopoulos, P., Lyytinen, K., Mylopoulos, J., Robinson, W.: The brave new world of design requirements. Inf. Syst. 6(7), 992–1008 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khurum, M., Gorschek, T., Wilson, M.: The software value map – an exhaustive collection of value aspects for the development of software intensive products. J. Softw. Evol. Proc. 25, 711–741 (2013). doi: 10.1002/smr.1560 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khurum, M., Petersen, K., Gorschek, T.: Extending value stream mapping through waste definition beyond customer perspective. J. Softw. Evol. Proc. 26, 1074–1105 (2014). doi: 10.1002/smr.1647 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klein, L.: UX for Lean Startups. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maurya, A.: Lean Running, Iterate from Plan A to a Plan That Works, 2nd edn. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maurya, A.: Why lean canvas vs business model canvas? (2012). http://leanstack.com/why-lean-canvas. Accessed 27 July 2015
  23. 23.
    Normann, R.: Reframing Business: When the Map Changes the Landscape. Wiley, Chichester (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Owen, C.L.: Understanding design research toward an achievement of balance. J. Jpn. Soc. Sci. Des. 5(2), 36–45 (1997)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Owen, C.L.: Design research: building the knowledge base. Des. Stud. 19(1), 9–20 (1998). doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(97)00030-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Poppendieck, M., Cusumano, M.A.: Lean software development: a tutorial. IEEE Softw. 29(5), 26–32 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Simon, H.A.: The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vaishnavi, V., Kuechler, W.: Design Science Research in Information Systems (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wieringa, R.: Design science as nested problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, pp. 81–92 (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wieringa, R., Heerkens, H.: Design science, engineering science and requirements engineering. In: 16th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 310–313 (2008). doi: 10.1109/RE.2008.63

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Telfer School of ManagementUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.School of Computer Science and Electrical EngineeringUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations