Advertisement

Restructuring the Design Science Research Knowledge Base

A One-Cycle View of Design Science Research and its Consequences for Understanding Organizational Design Problems
  • Robert Winter
  • Antonia Albani
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 1)

Abstract

The contribution of this paper is twofold. We revisit the three-cycle procedural view of Design Science Research (DSR) as introduced by Hevner, and we propose a structuring mechanism for the DSR Knowledge Base (KB) and the problem/context specification that supports our revisited DSR procedure. Regarding the first contribution, we argue that each design cycle has rigor related as well as relevance related aspects. We therefore introduce a one-cycle view of DSR, comprised of alternating core activities design and evaluation. With every iteration, the understanding of the environment and the problem to be solved are enhanced. Additionally, every design iteration allows for revisiting the Knowledge Base in order to improve the problem solution. Concerning the second contribution, we propose to structure the DSR KB by means of two two-dimensional maps to support an efficient search for existing, reusable solution artifacts. One map concerns the application scope; the other one concerns the artifact character. Solution artifacts are then organized with regard to their type, generality, application domain and coverage. We demonstrate the applicability of the proposed DSR KB structure using the domain of change projects in organizations as an exemplar.

Keywords

Procedural Views of Design Science Research Design Science Research Knowledge Base Artifact Reuse Design Problem Specification 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).

References

  1. 1.
    Albani, A., Jan L.G. Dietz, & Verelst, J. (2011) Preface. In A. Albani, J. L. G. Dietz, & J. Verelst (Eds.), Advances in Enterprise Engineering V. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Österle, H. & Winter, R. (2003) Business engineering. In H. Österle & R. Winter, (Eds.)Business engineering - Auf dem Weg zum Unternehmen des Informationszeitalters. (pp. 3–19). Springer: Berlin etc.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dietz, J.L.G. (2006) Enterprise ontology: Theory and methodology. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zachman, J. A. (1987). A Framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26(3), 276–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Group, T.O. (2012) ArchiMate 2.0 specification. The open group series: Van Haren Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hammer, M.& Champy, J. (1993) Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davenport, T. H., & Short, J. E. (1990). The new industrial engineering: Information technology and business process redesign. Sloan Management Review, 31(4), 11–27.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scheer, A.W., & Schneider, K, (2005) ARIS: Architecture of Integrated Information Systems. In P. Bernus, K. Mertins, & G. Schmidt (Eds.) Handbook on architectures of information systems (pp. 605–623). Berlin:Springer.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hevner, A. R. (2007). A three cycle view of design science research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 87–92.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sein, M., et al. (2011). Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 37–56.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baskerville, R.L. (1998) Diversity in information systems action research methods. European Journal of Information Systems, 7(No. 2, June), 90–107.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boehm, B. (1986). A spiral model of software development and enhancement. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 11(4), 14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Efeoglu, A., et al. (2012) Design science research in enterprise information systems. In Proceedings of the CONFENIS 2011 workshop, forthcoming Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bucher, T., et al. (2007) Situational method engineering: on the differentiation of “Context” and “Project Type”. In Situational method engineering: fundamentals and experiences. Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Winter, R. (2011) Problem analysis for situational artefact construction in information systems. In A. Carugati & C. Rossignoli, (Eds.), Emerging themes in information systems and organization studies, Physica: Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Winter, R. (2012) Construction of situational information systems management methods. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Albani, A., & Winter, R. (2012) A conceptual framework for Design and engineering in information systems. St. Gallen: University of St. Gallen.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baumöl, U. (2005) Situative methodenkonstruktion für die organisationale Veränderung. St. Gallen: Universität St. Gallen.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baumöl, U. (2005) Strategic agility through situational method construction. In Proceedings of the European academy of management annual conference 2005.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bucher, T. (2009) Ausrichtung der informationslogistik auf operative Prozesse: Entwicklung und evaluation einer situativen methode. Verlag: Hamburg.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bucher, T., & Dinter, B. (2012). Situational method engineering to support process-oriented information logistics: identification of development situations. Journal of Database Management, 23(1), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fowler, M., & Kendall, S. (2000) UML Distilled: a brief guide to the standard object modeling language (2nd ed.) Object technology series. Wesley: Longman Inc.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    OMG (2006) Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) Specification. OMG.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fettke, P., & Loos, P. (2003). Classification of reference models - a methodology and its applications. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 1(1), 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Information ManagementUniversity of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations