design science research: foundations and trends€¦ · seminal work on dsr in the information...

Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of TechnologyCRICOS Provider Code 00301J

John Venable, Curtin University

Design Science Research: Foundations and Trends

DSR Foundations & Trends © Venable 2019 1

John Venable, Curtin University 07/02/2019


DSR Foundations & Trends © Venable 2019

What is Design Science Research? What is Design Theory? What activities are part of DSR? DSR Trends

• Development and evaluation of DSR methodologies • Development and evaluation of methods, techniques,

and tools supporting DSR• Extension of DSR to other (non-IS) domains• Refinement of Design Theory and Design Principles• Development of DSR knowledge bases• DSR Genres

Overview

207/02/2019


What is Design Science Research?


3

07/02/2019



Hevner et al (2004) This paper is the seminal work on DSR in the information systems

field; it is very influential and heavily cited. Largely follows (but extends) the ideas of March and Smith, 1995 (Sal

March is a co-author of both papers). “The design-science paradigm seeks to extend the boundaries of

human and organizational capabilities by creating new and innovative artifacts.” (p. 75)

“In the design-science paradigm, knowledge and understanding of a problem domain and its solution are achieved in the building and application of the designed artifact.” (p. 75)

“The design-science paradigm has its roots in engineering and the sciences of the artificial (Simon 1996). It is fundamentally a problem solving paradigm.” (p. 76)

07/02/2019



“Research that invents a new purposeful artefact to address a generalised type of problem and evaluates its utility for solving problems of that type” (p. 142)

Purposeful Artefact (in IS) includes system, method, methodology, technique, tool, procedure, practice, or any other technology (in the very general sense of Plato’s use of the Greek word ‘techne’).Invention includes derivation, design, development, construction, prototyping, or other way of creating something new.

Venable & Baskerville (2012)

507/02/2019



“A perceived difference between what is and what ought to be” David Kroenke (2006) Problems are subjective and perceived – often differently

by different people.Different (often unstated) understandings of “what is”: undesirable consequences and causes of ‘the’ problem (usually not just one!).Different values give rise to different ideas of “what ought to be” and whether, how, and why “what is” is undesirable.

What “ought to be” concerns a desirable state for the problem perceiver(s), not some “ultimate (moral) good”.

The Concept of a Problem

607/02/2019



Ordinary Problem Solving (practice) is related to a particular, situated problem (or group of related problems)

Particular stakeholders

Design Science Research should be related to a type, kind, or class of problems

Relevant to typical classes of stakeholdersPurposeful artefact can be applied to solve an instance of a class of problemsSignificance comes from how significant the problem is (number of instances of the type of problem x consequences of an instance) and the effectiveness of the solution to solve it value of improvement

Ordinary Problem Solving vs DSR(Design Practice vs Design Research)

07/02/2019


Design Science Research: Design Theory


8

07/02/2019


Type I: Analysis - Says what is. No causal relationships. No predictions are made. Type II: Explanation - Says what is, how, why, when, and

where. Provides explanations but not prediction with any precision. There are no testable propositions. Type III: Prediction - Says what is and what will be.

Provides predictions and has testable propositions but not well-developed justificatory causal explanations. Type IV: Explanation and Prediction – Combines III & IV. Type V: Design and Action - Says how to do something.

Gives explicit prescriptions for constructing an artefact to achieve a goal (e.g. solve a problem).


Types of Theory (Gregor 2006)

907/02/2019


Formalised knowledge of the outcomes of Design Science Research Fits Type V theory by Gregor (2006): Theory for

Design and Action Needs to be clear and precise = actionable Needs to be testable, verifiable and/or refutable Different forms have been proposed in the

literature


Design Theory

1007/02/2019


Walls et al. (1992) Van Aken (2004, 2005) Venable (2006) Gregor and Jones (2007) Baskerville & Pries-Heje (2010) Venable (2013)


Versions of Design Theory

1107/02/2019



Kernel Theory

Meta-Require-ments

Kernel Theory

Meta-Design

Testable (product)

hypotheses

DesignMethod

Testable (process)

hypotheses

IS Design Theory (Walls et al, 1992)

1207/02/2019



Kernel Theory and Design Theory (Goldkuhl 2004)

13

Kernel Theory

Design Theory

07/02/2019



Anatomy of a Design Theory (Gregor and Jones, 2007) (1)

Component Description

Core components

1) Purpose and scope “What the system is for,” the set of meta-requirements or goals that specifies the type of artifact to which the theory applies and in conjunction also defines the scope, or boundaries, of the theory.

2) Constructs Representations of the entities of interest in the theory.

3) Principle of form and function

The abstract “blueprint” or architecture that describes an IS artifact, either product or method/intervention.

4) Artifact mutability The changes in state of the artifact anticipated in the theory, that is, what degree of artifact change is encompassed by the theory.

5) Testable propositions Truth statements about the design theory.

6) Justificatory knowledge

The underlying knowledge or theory from the natural or social or design sciences that gives a basis and explanation for the design (kernel theories). 14

07/02/2019


Component DescriptionAdditional components

7) Principles of implementation

A description of processes for implementing the theory (either product or method) in specific contexts.

8) Expository instantiation

A physical implementation of the artifact that can assist in representing the theory both as an expository device and for purposes of testing.


Anatomy of a Design Theory (Gregor and Jones, 2007) (2)

15

07/02/2019


What activities are part of DSR?


16

07/02/2019


Develop/Build

•Theories•Artifacts

Justify/Evaluate•Analytical

•Case study•Experimental•Field study•Simulations

Environment

PeopleRolesCapabilitiesCharacteristics

OrganisationStrategiesStructure & CultureProcesses

TechnologyInfrastructureApplicationsCommunications ArchitectureDevelopment Capabilities

Knowledge Base

FoundationsTheoriesFrameworksInstrumentsConstructsModelsMethodsInstantiations

MethodologiesData Analysis

TechniquesFormalismsMeasuresValidation

Criteria

Businessneeds

Applicableknowledge

Application Additions

Hevner et al (2004)

DSR Foundations & Trends © Venable 2019 1707/02/2019



Hevner (2007)

Three-Cycle View of DSR

1807/02/2019



Purposeful ArtefactInvention/Design

Enhancement or creation of a method, product, system, practice, or

technique

TheoryBuilding

Solution Space and Problem theories Utility theories or

hypothesesProblem

DiagnosisUnderstand problem space

Problem causes and consequences

Purposeful Artefact Evaluation

Formative EvaluationSummative EvaluationNaturalistic Evaluation

Artificial Evaluation

Multi-Method DSR Context Framework (adapted from Venable 2006)

1907/02/2019


Design Science Research: Current and Ongoing Trends


20

07/02/2019



Development and evaluation of DSR methodologies Development and evaluation of methods,

techniques, and tools supporting DSR Extension of DSR to other (non-IS) domains Refinement of Design Theory and Design

Principles Development of DSR knowledge bases DSR Genres

Some Trends in DSR

2107/02/2019


Design Science Research: Methodologies


22

07/02/2019



DSR Methodologies (in fact all research methodologies) are themselves designed artefacts. Therefore, ideas of DSR apply to their

development and evaluation (Venable and Baskerville, 2012).Methods, Models, Techniques, and Tools for

DSR are also designed artefacts, therefore DSR ideas can (should!) be applied to them.

A Design Science of Methodologies

2307/02/2019



Systems Development Research Process (SDRM, Nunamaker et al. 1990) DSR Process Model (DSRPM, Vaishnavi &

Kuechler, 2004, 2015) DSR Methodology (DSRM, Peffers et al. 2008) Action Design Research (ADR, Sein et al.

2011) Participatory Action Design Research (PADR,

Bilandzic & Venable 2011) Soft Design Science Methodology (SDSM,

Pries-Heje et al. 2014)

Some DSR Methodologies/Processes

2407/02/2019


Construct a Conceptual Framework

Develop a System

Architecture

Analyze & Design the

System

Build the (Prototype)

System

Observe & Evaluate the

System

SDRM Systems Development Research Process

#1 Systems Development Research Methodology (SDRM) Nunamaker et al (1990)




#2 - DSR Process Model (DSRPM)Vaishnavi and Kuechler (2004, 2015)

07/02/2019



#3 - Design Science Research Methodology (DSRM) Peffers et al (2008)

07/02/2019



#4 Action Design Research (ADR)Sein et al (2011)

07/02/2019


3. Intuit and abduce the general

solution2. Inspire and create the general

problem and general

requirements

7. Construct specific solution

1. Learn about specific problem

5. Design specific solution for specific

problem

Real World

Design Thinking

8. Ex Post Evaluation

4. Ex Ante Evaluation (General)

6. Ex Ante Evaluation(Specific)

#5 Soft Design Science Methodology (SDSM) Pries-Heje et al. (2014)



#6 Participatory Action Design Research (PADR) Bilandzic and Venable (2011)



Development of Methods and Techniques Supporing DSR


31

07/02/2019


Problem Diagnosis and Ideation in DSR• CCM4DSR (Venable 2014, ongoing)

Design of DSR Evaluations• FEDS (Venable et al 2016)• MEDS (ongoing)

Managing Risk in DSR• RMF4DSR (Pries-Heje et al. 2014)• TRiDS (Venable, vom Brocke, and Winter 2017)• MeRMaiDS (ongoing)

Choosing a DSR Methodology• Venable, Pries-Heje, and Baskerville (2017)


Some Methods & Techniques for DSR

3207/02/2019


07/02/2019DSR Foundations & Trends © Venable 2019 33

Justificatory Knowledge

Design Knowledge

Problem

Artefact

Design Process Evaluation

Objective Idea Context

Design Canvas (Morana et al. 2017)

MyDesignProcess.com


Extension of DSR from IS/ITto Non-IS Domains


34

07/02/2019


Management Accounting (especially Accounting Information

Systems) Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and User

Experience (UX) Education (especially education technology) Law


Some Areas Adopting DSR Ideas

3507/02/2019


The DSR research paradigm applies in any applied field, which universally develop new technological means to solve problems and make improvements.

(Venable, 2010) Not just Information Systems Not just “IT Artefact”


DSR Applicability

07/02/2019


DSR can be used to develop any kind of artefacts relevant to any applied discipline. All applied disciplines (e.g. engineering,

business, medicine, law) create new ways to solve important problems.


Appropriate Topics for DSR (Venable 2010)


Accounting: Auditing methods and tools Finance: Financial instruments, predictive models Management: Staff selection methods,

organisational culture management methods Marketing: Viral marketing techniques Operations and Production Management:

Optimisation algorithms, manufacturing processes Supply Chain Management: Integrated supply

chain systems, RFID, automation Cross Disciplinary: Knowledge management


Example Purposeful Artefacts in Various Business Disciplines (Venable 2010)


Refinement and Evolution of Design Theory


39

07/02/2019


Theory is the language of academia. Producing Design Theory “legitimises” DSR. Many DSR researchers consider theorising in

DSR to be too difficult and rate provision of design theory low compared to other evaluation criteria (Venable 2009, 2014). Some have argued for simpler forms of design

theory.


Dilemma in Design Theory

4007/02/2019


“If you want to achieve Y in situation Z, then something like action X will help” (2004, p. 227)


Technological Rules (Van Aken 2004, 2005)

4107/02/2019


Kernel theories aren’t required“Why” the solution works isn’t essential (but still very useful!)

Design method isn’t essential (unless it’s the purposeful artefact itself)

Testable hypotheses are restatements of the theory

(but not an essential part of the theory itself) A Utility (or Design) Theory is not “prescriptive”

Prescription depends on the utility of other solution means and the current ‘state of the art’


Theory Discussion (Venable 2006, 2013)

4207/02/2019



The solution space (solution means/approachincluding key components

and relationships)

Utility theories re.effectiveness, efficiency,efficacy in solving problems

The problem space(problem understandings including parts, causes,

and consequences)

Utility Theories in IS DSR (Venable 2006)

4307/02/2019


Purposeful artefact X (when applied properly) will provide utility A to solve problems of type Y Purposeful artefact X (when applied properly)

will provide improvement of type Y Purposeful artefact X (when applied properly to

problems of type Y) is more effective, efficacious, or efficient (Checkland and Scholes, 1999) than purposeful artefact Z


Utility Theory Forms (adapted from Venable 2006)

4407/02/2019


Explanatory Design Theory(Baskerville & Pries-Heje 2010)

General Design General RequirementsExplains



Utility Theory (Venable 2013a)General Design

• Components• Relationships• Principles of form

and function• Artefact

mutability

General Requirements• Desired goals• Functional

requirements (if known)

• Constraints or anti-goals (to avoid)

Has utility for• Efficacy• Effectiveness• Efficiency

Design Theory Should be … Actionable Non-prescriptive (suggestive of possible action) Rigorously evaluated and true (demonstrably has utility) Tolerant of the dynamic nature of reality



Design Principles (Chandra et al. 2015)

Design Principles should contain …1. “Information about the actions made possible through

the use of an artefact” 2. “Information about the material properties making that

action possible”3. “The boundary conditions under which the design will

work”




DSR Contribution Types(Gregor & Hevner 2013)

4807/02/2019

Contribution Types Example ArtefactsMore abstract, complete, and mature knowledge

More specific, limited, and less mature

knowledge

Level 3: Well-developed design theory aboutembedded phenomena

Design theories (mid-range and grandtheories)

Level 2. Nascent design theory — knowledgeas operational principles/architecture

Constructs, methods, models, designprinciples, technological rules.

Level 1. Situated implementation of artifact

Instantiations (software products orimplemented processes)


Development of DSRKnowledge Bases


49

07/02/2019


Builds on ideas of digital libraries and knowledge-based systems. If DSR knowledge outcomes can be formalised

as design theory (or an ontology of design theory), then it can be codified and reasoned with. (Reiterer, 2018)

• Search for relevant artefacts for a particular problem.

• Automatically summarise knowledge codified from extant papers. (Reiterer, 2018)


Toward DSR Knowledge Bases

5007/02/2019


Genres of DSR


51

07/02/2019



Forms of DSR (Gregor & Hevner 2013)

5207/02/2019

Solution Maturity

Low

Improvement:Develop new solutions for

known problemsResearch Opportunity and Knowledge Contribution

Invention:Develop new solutions for new

problems Research Opportunity and Knowledge Contribution

High

Routine Design:Apply known solutions for known problemsNo Major Knowledge

Contribution (therefore not Research!)

Exaptation:Extend known solutions

to new problems (e.g. Adopt solutions from other fields)Research Opportunity and Knowledge Contribution

High Low

Application Domain maturity



Genres of Inquiry (Baskerville et al 2015)

5307/02/2019

Nomothetic

Idiographic

ScienceDesign

NomotheticDesign

NomotheticScience

IdiographicScience

IdiographicDesign



Justificatory Knowledge

Design Knowledge

Problem

Artefact

Design Process Evaluation

Objective Idea Context

Design Canvas (Morana et al. 2018)


Questions?


55



Baskerville, R. L., M. Kaur, and V. C. Storey (2015) “Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research: Justification and Evaluation of Knowledge Production”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 541-564/September 2015.

Baskerville, R. and J. Pries-Heje (2010) “Explanatory Design Theory”, Business Information Systems Engineering. Vol. 2010. No. 5, pp. 271-282.

Bilandzic, M. and J. R. Venable (2011) “Towards Participatory Action Design Research: Adapting Action Research and Design Science Research Methods for Urban Informatics”, Journal of Community Informatics special issue on University-Community Partnerships, Vol. 7 (2011), No. 3, http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/786/804.

Chandra, L., S. Seidel, and S.Gregor (2015) “Prescriptive Knowledge in IS Research: Conceptualizing Design Principles in Terms of Materiality, Action, and Boundary Conditions”, Proceedings of the 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, pp. 4039-4048.

Goldkuhl, G. (2004) "Design Theories in Information Systems – A need for multi-grounding", Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 59-72.

Gregor, S. (2006) “The Nature of Theory in Information Systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 611-642.Gregor, S. and A. Hevner (2013) "Postioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact", MIS Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 2,

pp. 337-355/June 2013.Gregor, S. and D. Jones (2007) “The Anatomy of a Design Theory”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 8, No. 5, Article

19.Hevner, A. (2007). “A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research”, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems. Vol. 19, No. 2, Article

4.Hevner, A., S. March, J. Park, and S. Ram (2004). “Design Science in Information Systems Research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.

75-105.Kroenke, D. (2006). Introduction to MIS: A Modular Approach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.Morana, S., M. Scheid, M. Gau, and I.Benke (2018). “Research Prototype: The Design Canvas in MyDesignProcess”, Proceedings of the

13th International Conference on Design Science (DESRIST 2018), Chennai, India, 3-6 June 2018.Peffers, K., T. Tuunanen, C.E. Gengler, M. Rossi, W. Hui, V. Virtanen, and J. Bragge (2008) “A Design Science Research Methodology for

Information Systems Research”, Journal of Management Information Systems. Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 45–77.Peffers, K., T. Tuunanen, and B. Niehaves (2018) “Design science research genres: introduction to the special issue on exemplars and

criteria for applicable design science research”, Vol 27, No. 2, pp. 129-139.Pries-Heje, J., J. R. Venable, and R. Baskerville (2014) “Soft Design Science Methodology”, in Situated Design Methods, O. E. Hansen, J.

Simonsen, C. Svabo, S. M. Strandvad, K. Samson and M. Hertzum (eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, ISBN: 9780262027632, July 2014.

Reiterer, E. H. R. (2018) Design and Evaluation of DSRCRSA: An Ontology-Based Approach to Design Science Research Content Representation and Summarisation. PhD Thesis, Curtin University, Perth WA Australia, available at http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/59735.

Sein, M. K., O. Henfridsson, S. Purao, M. Rossi, and R. Lindgren (2012) “Action Design Research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 1-20.Sun, Y. and P. B. Kantor (2006). “Cross-Evaluation: A new model for information system evaluation”, Journal of the American Society for

Information Science and Technology. Vol 57, No. 5, pp. 614-628.

References (1)

5607/02/2019

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/59735



Vaishnavi, V. and B. Kuechler (2004/5). “Design Research in Information Systems”, http://desrist.org/design-research-in-information-systems/, accessed 25 June 2015.

Van Aken, J. E. (2004). “Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules”, Journal of Management Studies. Vol. 41, No. 2, March 2004, pp. 219-246.

Van Aken, J. E. (2005). “Management Research as a Design Science: Articulating the Research Products of Mode 2 Knowledge Production in Management”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 16, pp. 19–36.

Venable, J. R. (2006). “The Role of Theory and Theorising in Design Science Research”, in A. Hevner, and S. Chatterjee (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Science (DESRIST 2006), Claremont, California, USA, 24-26 February 2006.

Venable, J. R. (2010). “Information Systems Design Science Research as a Reference Discipline for Other Business Disciplines”, Proceedings of the International Academy of Business and Public Administration Disciplines Conference (IABPAD 2010), New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 21-24 October 2010, pp. 1049-1061.

Venable, J. R. (2013a). “Rethinking Design Theory”, in J. vom Brocke, S. Ram, and M. Rossi (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2013), Helsinki Finland, 14-16 May 2012, Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Venable, J. R. (2013b). “A Framework for Comparing IS Research Paradigms: How Is Design Science Related to Other Research Paradigms?”, in H. Deng and C. Standing (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Australasian Conference in Information Systems (ACIS 2013), Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 4-6 December, 2013, RMIT University.

Venable, J. R. and R. Baskerville (2012) “Eating our own Cooking: Toward a More Rigorous Design Science of Research Methods” Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp 141-153, available online at www.ejbrm.com.

Venable, J. R., J. Pries-Heje, and R. Baskerville (2012). “A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research”, in K. Peffers and M. Rothenberger (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2012), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 14-16 May 2012, Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Venable, J. R., J.Pries-Heje, and R. Baskerville (2016). “FEDS: A Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research”, European Journal of Information Systems, online publication at http://www.palgrave-journals.com/doifinder/10.1057/ejis.2014.36.

Venable, J. R., J. Pries-Heje, and R. Baskerville (2017) “Choosing a Design Science Research Methodology”, Proceedings of the 28th Australasian Conference in Information Systems (ACIS 2017). M. Indulska, K. Riemer, and V. Tuunainen (eds.), University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 4-6 December, 2017.

Venable, J. R., J. vom Brocke, and R. Winter (2017). “TRiDS: Treatments for Risks in Design Science”, Proceedings of the 28th Australasian Conference in Information Systems (ACIS 2017). M. Indulska, K. Riemer, and V. Tuunainen (eds.), University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 4-6 December, 2017.

Walls, J. G., G. R. Widmeyer, & O. A. El Sawy (1992). “Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS”, Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36-59.

References (2)

5707/02/2019

http://desrist.org/design-research-in-information-systems/

design science research: foundations and trends€¦ · seminal work on dsr in the information...

Documents