Gestaltungsorientierte Forschung in der Betriebswirtschaftslehre – mit spezieller Berücksichtigung der Wirtschaftsinformatik

Chapter
Part of the Business Engineering book series (BE)

Zusammenfassung

Forschung wird häufig mit der Suche nach Wahrheit und Erkenntnis gleich gesetzt. Dies mag daran liegen, dass sowohl die Natur- wie auch die Sozialwissenschaften (z.B. Physik oder Soziologie) Forschung traditionell als erklärende Forschung begreifen. Für viele andere wissenschaftlichen Disziplinen (z.B. Medizin, Ingenieurwesen oder Architektur) besteht das vorrangige Forschungsziel jedoch nicht ausschliesslich in der „Erklärung der Welt“, sondern vielmehr darin, diese zu verändern bzw. zu verbessern. Da die betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung zu den Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften gehört, werden das „Verbesserungs-“ oder „Problemlösungsverständnis“ in der Konsequenz häufig nicht als Forschung angesehen, sondern als komplementäres Organisationsgestaltungskonzept verstanden und z.B. mit dem Namen „Design“ versehen (siehe z.B. Romme, 2003).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Referenzen

  1. 1.
    Alles MG, Kogan A and Vasarhelyi MA (2013) Collaborative design research: Lessons from continuous auditing. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 14, 104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baskerville R, Lyytinen K, Sambamurthy V and Straub D (2011) A response to the design-oriented information systems research memorandum. European Journal Of Information Systems 20(1), 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baskerville RL and Pries-Heje J (2010) Explanatory Design Theory. Business & Information Systems Engineering 2(5), 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baskerville RL and Wood-Harper AT (1998) Diversity in Information Systems Action Re-search Methods. European Journal of Information Systems 7(No. 2, June), 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belz C (2012) Marketing gegen den Strom. Schäffer Poeschel, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boland RJ and Collopy F (2004) Managing as Designing. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bunge MA (1967) Scientific Research II: The Search for Truth. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chmielewicz K (1994) Forschungskonzeptionen der Wirtschaftswissenschaften. Poeschel, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daft RL and Lewin A (1990) Can Organization Studies Begin to Break Out of the Normal Science Straitjacket? An Editorial Essay. Organization Science 1, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davies H (2006) Improving the Relevance of Management Research: Evidence-Based Man-agement: Design Science or Both? Business Leadership Review (July 2006).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davis FD (1989) Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of In-formation Technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3), 318–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Denyer D, Tranfield D and van Aken JE (2008) Developing Design Propositions through Research Synthesis. Organization Studies 29, 393–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Drury C (2007) Management and Cost Accounting. South-Western.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dubin R (1978) Theory Building. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Euler D (2012) Unterschiedliche Forschungszugänge in der Berufsbildung – eine feindliche Koexistenz? In Qualitätsentwicklung in der Berufsbildungsforschung (Severing E and Weiss R, Eds), pp 29-46, W.Bertelsmann, Bielefeld.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischer C, Winter R and Wortmann F (2010) Design Theory. Business and Information Sys-tems Engineering 52(6), 383–386.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Geerts GL (2011) A design science research methodology and its application to accounting information systems research. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 12, 142–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gregor S (2006) The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly 30(3), 611–642.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gregor S (2009) Building Theory in the Sciences of the Artificial. In Proceedings of the Desrist, ACM, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gregor S and Hevner AR (2013) Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact. MIS Quarterly,Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gregor S and Jones D (2007) The Anatomy of a Design Theory. Journal Of The Association For Information Systems 8(5), 312–335.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gutenberg E (1971) Grundlagen der Betriebswirtschaftslehre, erster Band: Die Produktion. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hevner AR (2007) A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19(2), 87–92.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hevner AR, March ST, Park J and Ram S (2004) Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75–105.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Holmström J, Ketokivi M and Hameri A-P (2009) Bridging Practice and Theory: A Design Science Approach. Decision Sciences 40(1), 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Iivari J and Venable JR (2009) Action Research and Design Science Research: Seemingly Similar But Decidedly Dissimilar. In Proceedings of, Verona.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Järvinen P (2007) Action Research is Similar to Design Science. Quality & Quantity 41, 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Johnson HT and Kaplan RS (1987) Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Ac-counting. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Junglas I, Niehaves B, Spiekermann S, Stahl BC, Weitzel T, Winter R and Baskerville RL (2011) The inflation of academic intellectual capital: the case for design science research in Europe. European Journal of Information Systems 20(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kaplan RS (1998) Innovation action research: Creating new management theory and practice. Journal of Management Accounting Research 10, 89–118.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kasanen E, Lukka K and Siitonen A (1993) The Constructive Approach in Management Accounting Research. Journal of Management Accounting Research (5), 242–264.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kelly AE (2003) Research as Design. Educational Researcher 32(1), 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kerlinger FN (1964) Foundations of Behavioral Research; Educational and Psychological Inquiry. Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kieser A and Leiner L (2009) Why the Rigour–Relevance Gap in Management Research Is Unbridgeable. Journal Of Management Studies 46(3), 516–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Labro E and Tuomela T-S (2003) On Bringing More Action into Management Accounting Research: Process Considerations Based on Two Constructive Case Studies. European Ac-counting Review 12(3), 409–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    March A and Kaplan RS (1987) John Deere Component Works. Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    McCarthy WE (2012) Accounting Craftspeople versus Accounting Seers: Exploring the Rele-vance and Innovation Gaps in Academic Accounting Research. Accounting Horizons 26(4), 833–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mirzabeiki V, Holmström J and Sjöholm P (2013) Aligning Organisational Interests in De-signing Rail-wagon Tracking. Operations Management Research,Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nowotny H, Scott P and Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in the Age of Uncertainty. Polity Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nunamaker Jr JF, Chen M and Purdin TDM (1991) Systems Development in Information Systems Research. Journal Of Management Information Systems 7(3), 89–106.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nystrom PC and Starbuck WH (1981) Handbook of organizational design. Lavoisier, Cachan.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Österle H, Becker J, Frank U, Hess T, Karagiannis D, Krcmar H, Loos P, Mertens P, Ober-weis A and Sinz E (2011) Memorandum on design-oriented information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems 20(1), 7–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Osterwalder A and Pigneur Y (2010) Business Model Generation. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Otto B and Österle H (2012) Principles for Knowledge Creation in Collaborative Design Science Research. In Proceedings of the 33. International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Orlando, CA.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger M and Chatterjee S (2007) A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal Of Management Information Sys-tems 24(3), 45–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Plomp T (2007) Educational Design Research: An Introduction. In An Introduction to Educa-tional Design Research (Plomp T and Nieveen N, Eds), pp 9–36, Netherlands institute for cur-riculum development, Enschede.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Romme AGL (2003) Making a Differnce: Organization as Design. Organization Science 14(5), 558–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rousseau DM (2012) The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-based Management. Oxford Uni-versity Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Salton GJ (1996) Organizational Engineering - A New Method of Creating High Performance Human Structures. Professional Communications, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schmalenbach E (1911) Die Privatwirtschaftslehre als Kunstlehre. Zeitschrift für handelswis-senschaftliche Forschung (ZfhF) 6, 304–320.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schmenner RW and Swink ML (1998) On theory in operations management. Journal of Op-erations Management 17(1), 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sein MK, Henfridsson O, Purao S, Rossi M and Lindgren R (2011) Action Design Research. MIS Quarterly 35(1), 37–56.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Simon HA (1969) The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sloane FC and Gorard S (2003) Exploring modelling aspects of design experiments. Educa-tional Researcher 32(1), 29–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Stokes DE (1997) Pasteur’s Quadrant - Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Brook-ings Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    van Aken JE (2004) Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules. Journal Of Management Studies 41(2), 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    van Aken JE (2005) Management Research as a Design Science: Articulating the Research Products of Mode 2 Knowledge Production in Management. British Journal Of Management 16, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    van Aken JE and Romme AGL (2012) A Design Science Approach to Evidence-based Man-agement. In The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-based Management (Rousseau DM, Ed), Ox-ford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Venable JR (2006) The Role of Theory and Theorising in Design Science Research. In Pro-ceedings of the Desrist 2006 (Chatterjee S and Hevner A, Eds), pp 1-18, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Venable JR (2010) Information Systems Design Science Research as a Reference Discipline for Other Business Disciplines. In Proceedings of, pp 1049-1061, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Walls JG, Widmeyer GR and El Sawy OA (1992) Building an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research 3(1), 36–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Winter R (2008) Design Science Research in Europe. European Journal of Information Sys-tems 17(5), 470–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Winter R (2010) Interview with Jay F. Nunamaker, Jr. on „Toward a Broader Vision of IS Research“. Business & Information Systems Engineering 2(5), 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Winter R (2013) Emergent and Deliberate Design.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Winter R and Albani A (2013) Restructuring the Design Science Research Knowledge Base - A One-Cycle View of Design Science Research and its Consequences for Understanding Or-ganizational Design Problems. In Designing Organizational Systems: An Interdisciplinary Discourse (Baskerville R, de Marco M and Spagnoletti P, Eds), pp 63–81, Springer.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    zu Knyphausen-Aufseß D (1997) Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der wissenschaftlichen Un-ternehmensführung - Auf dem Weg zu einer organisationstheoretischen Betrachtung der The-orie-/Praxis-Problematik. In Betriebswirtschaftslehre und Managementlehre (Kahle E, Ed), pp 99–142, Gabler.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für WirtschaftsinformatikUniversität St. GallenSt. Gallenschweiz

Personalised recommendations