Design Science Research as Movement Between Individual and Generic Situation-Problem–Solution Spaces

Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 1)

Abstract

Design science is an emerging research paradigm in the Information Systems area. A design science project typically includes the activities of problem analysis, requirements definition, artifact development, and evaluation. These activities are not to be seen as sequential but can be carried out in any order. The purpose of this paper is to propose a conceptualization and formalization of design science research that show the possible ways in which a design science project can be carried out. The proposal is based on the state oriented view on business processes and suggests that design science research can be viewed as movements in a space of situations, problems and solutions.

Keywords

Design science Information systems Business process 

References

  1. 1.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–78.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., & Park, J. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baskerville, R.L., Pries-Heje, J., & Venable, J. (2009). Soft design science methodology. DESRIST 2009, New York, NY: ACM, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson, J., Donnellan, B., & Hevner, A. (2011). Exploring the relationship between design science research and innovation: a case study of innovation at Chevron. Communications in Computer and Information Science. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods. Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Andersson, B., Bider, I., & Perjons, E. (2004). Integration of business process support with knowledge management—a practical perspective. Practical aspects of knowledge management (PAKM, 2004), LNCS 3336, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 227–238.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Andersson, T., Bider, I., & Svensson, R. (2005) Aligning people to business processes. Experience report. Software Process Improvement and Practice (SPIP), Vol. 10, No 4, pp. 403–413.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bider, I., & Perjons, E. (2006). Accessing an ongoing introduction of an IT system in operational practice (In Swedish), Inka project report, available at (2012-07-01): http://www.ibissoft.se/projects/inka/INKA_rapport_II.pdf.
  9. 9.
    Bider, I. (2011). In search for a good theory: commuting between research and practice in business process domain. LNBIP, Vol. 81, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 16–30.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bider, I., Khomyakov, M., & Pushchinsky, E. (2000). Logic of change: semantics of object systems with active relations. Automated Software Engineering (ASE), 7(1), 9–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bider, I., & Khomyakov, M. (2003). New technology—great opportunities. How to exploit them. In: Filipe, J. (ed.), Enterprise information systems IV, Kluver, pp. 11–20.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, J. S., Pries-Heje, J.,& Baserville, R. (2011). Theorizing in Design Science Research. DESRIST 2011, LNCS 6629, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 37–56.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fischer, C., & Gregor, S. (2011). Forms of reasoning in the design science process. DESRIST 2011, LNCS 6629, pp. 17–31.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khomyakov, M., & Bider, I. (2000). Achieving workflow flexibility through taming the chaos. OOIS 2000—6th international conference on object oriented information systems, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 85–92.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wieringa, R. J. (2009). Design science as nested problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on design science research in information systems and technology, Philadelphia: ACM, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bider, I., & Perjons, E. (2007). Effects from introduction of business process support systems and how they can be measured. In B. Pernici & J. A. Gulla (Eds.), CAiSE’07 workshop proceedings (pp. 369–377). Trondheim, Norway: Tapir Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Systems Sciences (DSV)Stockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations