Advertisement

Using Empirical Foundations for Designing EIS Solutions

  • Robert Winter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 105)

Abstract

From a design science research perspective, enterprise information systems (EIS) are understood as artifacts intended to support organizations in achieving certain goals. Proper EIS design needs not only to be based on solid general foundations (‘kernel theories’) and valid construction processes, but also should incorporate domain related experience and expertise. One important aspect is to understand which design goals and context factors have lead to which variations in existing solutions in the real world. Another aspect is to understand which design variations can be empirically related to which design goals, and to derive respective design actions. Using examples from enterprise architecture management and process performance management for illustration purposes, we show that existing variations of EIS solutions can be transparently explained and that innovative EIS solutions can be systematically constructed.

Keywords

Design Action Enterprise Architecture Empirical Foundation Project Type 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.

References

  1. 1.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hevner, A.R.: A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19(2), 87–92 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mason, R.O., Mitroff, I.I.: A Program for Research on Management Information Systems. Management Science 19(5), 475–487 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keen, P.G.W.: Information systems and organizational change. Communications of the ACM 24(1), 24–33 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gregor, S.: The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly 30(3), 611–642 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gregor, S., Jones, D.: The Anatomy of a Design Theory. Journal of The Association For Information Systems 8(5), 312–335 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fischer, C., Winter, R., Wortmann, F.: Design Theory. Business and Information Systems Engineering 52(6), 383–386 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Venable, J.: The Role of Theory and Theorising in Design Science Research. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Science in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2006). Claremont Graduate University, Claremont (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology. Decision Support Systems 15(4), 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Winter, R.: Design Science Research in Europe. European Journal of Information Systems 17(5), 470–475 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chmielewicz, K.: Forschungskonzeptionen der Wirtschaftswissenschaften. Poeschel, Stuttgart (1994) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baskerville, R.L., Pries-Heje, J., Venable, J.: Soft design science methodology. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2009), Philadelphia (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kornyshova, E., Deneckère, R., Salinesi, C.: Method Chunks Selection by Multicriteria Techniques: an Extension of the Assembly-based Approach. In: Situatinal Method Engineering Fundamentals and Experiences, pp. 64–78. Springer, Geneva (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Slooten, K., Hodes, B.: Characterizing IS Development Projects. In: Method Engineering - Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support, pp. 29–44. Chapman & Hall, Atlanta (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mirbel, I., Ralyté, J.: Situational method engineering: combining assembly-based and roadmap-driven approaches. Requirements Engineering 11(1), 58–78 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Winter, R.: Problem Analysis for Situational Artefact Construction in Information Systems. In: Carugati, A., Rossignoli, C. (eds.) Emerging Themes in Information Systems and Organization Studies, pp. 97–113. Physica, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bucher, T., Klesse, M.: Contextual Method Engineering. Working Paper, Institute of Information Management, University of St. Gallen (2006) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Winter, R.: Design Solution Analysis for the Construction of Situational Design Methods. In: Ralyté, J., Mirbel, I., Deneckère, R. (eds.) ME 2011. IFIP AICT, vol. 351, pp. 19–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aier, S., Gleichauf, B., Winter, R.: Understanding Enterprise Architecture Management Design – An Empirical Analysis. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik WI 2011, Zurich, pp. 645–654 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aziz, S., Obitz, T., Modi, R., Sarkar, S.: Enterprise Architecture: A Governance Framework - Part I: Embedding Architecture into the Organization (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aziz, S., Obitz, T., Modi, R., Sarkar, S.: Enterprise Architecture: A Governance Framework - Part II: Making Enterprise Architecture Work within the Organization (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baumöl, U.: Strategic Agility through Situational Method Construction. In: Proceedings of the European Academy of Management Annual Conference 2005, München (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bucher, T., Winter, R.: Taxonomy of Business Process Management Approaches: An Empirical Foundation for the Engineering of Situational Methods to Support BPM. In: vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management, vol. 2, pp. 93–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Klesse, M., Winter, R.: Organizational Forms of Data Warehousing: An Explorative Analysis. In: Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-40). IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lahrmann, G., Stroh, F.: Towards a Classification of Information Logistics Scenarios – An Exploratory Analysis. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-42). IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leist, S.: Methoden zur Unternehmensmodellierung - Vergleich, Anwendungen und Diskussionen der Integrationspotenziale. Habilitation, Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Universität St. Gallen (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cleven, A., Winter, R., Wortmann, F.: Process Performance Management – Illuminating Design Issues through a Systematic Problem Analysis. In: The 26th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 280–286. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Taichung (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Winter
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information ManagementUniversity of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations