Mapping a Design Science Research Cycle to the Postgraduate Research Report

Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 730)


Design science research (DSR) is well-known in different domains, including information systems (IS), for the construction of artefacts. One of the most challenging aspects of IS postgraduate studies (with DSR) is determining the structure of the study and its report, which should reflect all the components necessary to build a convincing argument in support of such a study’s claims or assertions. Analysing several postgraduate IS-DSR reports as examples, this paper presents a mapping between recommendable structures for research reports and the DSR process model of Vaishnavi and Kuechler, which several of our current postgraduate students have found helpful.


Design science research Students’ report writing Design science report Postgraduate education Research reports 



Thanks to Neels van Rooyen for his help with the type-setting of this paper.


  1. 1.
    Baskerville, R., Vaishnavi, V.: Pre-theory design frameworks and design theorizing. In: HICSS Proceedings 49th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 4464–4473 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chimamiwa, G.: Using ontologies to structure information in a web information portal. Dissertation: University of South Africa (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Vries, M.: A process reuse identification framework using an alignment model. Doctoral Dissertation: University of Pretoria (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Evans, D., Gruba, P., Zobel, J.: How to Write a Better Thesis. Springer, Cham (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gerber, T.: The conceptual framework for financial reporting represented in a formal language. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pretoria (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gill, T.G., Hevner, A.R.: A fitness-utility model for design science research. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 237–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gregor, S., Hevner, A.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q. 37, 337–355 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hevner, A.: A three-cycle view of design science research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19(2), 87–92 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hevner, A., Chatterjee, S.: Design science research in information systems. Design 22, 209–233 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hevner, A., March, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28, 75–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hofstee, E.: Constructing a Good Dissertation. EPE (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hovorka, D.S.: Design science research: a call for a pragmatic perspective. In: Proceedings of SIGPrag Workshop, Sprouts Working Papers on Information Systems (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuechler, B., Vaishnavi, V.: Extending prior research with design science research: two patterns for DSRIS project generation. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 166–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuechler, B., Vaishnavi, V.: On theory development in design science research: anatomy of a research project. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 17, 489–504 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuechler, W., Vaishnavi, V.: The emergence of design research in information systems in North America. J. Des. Res. 7(1), 1–16 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    March, S., Storey, V.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis. Support Syst. 15(4), 251–266 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mouton, J.: How to Succeed in Your Masters and Doctoral Studies. Van Schaik (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Naidoo, R., Gerber, A., van der Merwe, A.: An exploratory survey of design science research amongst South African computing scholars. In: Proceedings South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, SAICSIT 2012, pp. 335–335 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Offermann, P., Blom, S., Schönherr, M., Bub, U.: Artifact types in information systems design science – a literature review. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 77–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Olivier, M.: Information Technology Research: A Practical Guide for Computer Science and Informatics. Van Schaik (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vahidov, R.: Design researcher’s IS artifact: a representational framework. In: Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, DERIST 2006, pp. 19–33. Claremont (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vaishnavi, V., Kuechler, B.: Design science research in information systems. Association for Information Systems, Technical Report (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Venable, J.R.: Design science research post hevner et al.: criteria, standards, guidelines, and expectations. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 109–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Winter, R.: Design science research in Europe. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 17(5), 470–475 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zobel, J.: Writing for Computer Science, 3rd edn. Springer, London (2014). CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations