Inducing Creativity in Design Science Research

  • Richard Baskerville
  • Mala Kaul
  • Jan Pries-HejeEmail author
  • Veda Storey
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11491)


The importance of creativity is widely acknowledged in design science research, yet there is a lack of understanding of how this creativity is manifested throughout the design science lifecycle. This research examines the effects of the boundaries that are placed on creativity by the particular design science research method used throughout the design cycles and iterations. The progressive and methodical nature of design science research imposes structure comprising rational and creative, boundaries on the problem-solving process. These boundaries determine when and where to iterate to a specific previous stage. A set of iteration indicators, derived from the literature on creativity and bounded rationality, provide the design researcher with guidance on how to recognize that the time for iteration is nigh. These indicators are evaluated using a case study for the design of creative, pervasive games.


Creativity Design science research Rigor Bounded rationality Bounded creativity Designing Theorizing Site-storming Iteration indicators 


  1. 1.
    Baskerville, R.L., Kaul, M., Storey, V.C.: Genres of inquiry in design-science research: justification and evaluation of knowledge production. MIS Q. 39(3), 541–564 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peffers, K., et al.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brooks, F.P.: The Design of Design: Essays from a Computer Scientist. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Iivari, J.: A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19(2), 5 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gacenga, F., et al.: A proposal and evaluation of a design method in design science research. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 10(2), 89–100 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang, C.-J.: Does leader-member exchange enhance performance in the hospitality industry? the mediating roles of task motivation and creativity. Int. J. Contemp. Hospitality Manage. 28(5), 969–987 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greene, S.L.: Characteristics of applications that support creativity. Commun. ACM 45(10), 100–104 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hamel, G.: Innovation’s New Math in Fortune, Time Inc, pp. 130–132 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldenberg, J., Efroni, S.: Using cellular automata modeling of the emergence of innovations. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 68(3), 293–308 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldenberg, J., Mazursky, D., Solomon, S.: Toward identifying the inventive templates of new products: a channeled ideation approach. J. Market. Res. 36(2), 200–210 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guilford, J.: Transformotion abilities or functions. J. Creative Behav. 17(2), 75–83 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guilford, J.P.: Creativity: yesterday, today and tomorrow. J. Creative Behav. 1(1), 3–14 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoegl, M., Gibbert, M., Mazursky, D.: Financial constraints in innovation projects: when is less more? Res. Policy 37(8), 1382–1391 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ward, T.B.: Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 19(2), 173–188 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Finke, R.A., Ward, T.B., Smith, S.M.: Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Runco, M.A.: Commentary: divergent thinking is not synonymous with creativity. Psychol. Aesthetics, Creativity Arts 2(2), 93–96 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nunamaker, J.F., Chen, M., Purdin, T.D.: Systems development in information systems research. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 7(3), 89–106 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walls, J.G., Widmeyer, G.R., El Sawy, O.A.: Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Inf. Syst. Res. 3(1), 36–59 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vaishnavi, V.K., Kuechler, W.: Design Science Research Methods and Patterns: Innovating Information and Communication Technology. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lipshitz, R., Strauss, O.: Coping with uncertainty: a naturalistic decision-making analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 69(2), 149–163 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clegg, G.L.: The Design of Design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G.: Reflections: our journey in organizational change research and practice. J. Change Manage. 9(2), 127–142 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schön, D.: The Reflective Practitioner: How Practitioners Think in Action. Basic Books, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Secord, P.: Determinism, free will and self-intervention: a psychological perspective. New Ideas Psychol. 2, 25–33 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weick, K.E.: Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Acad. Manage. Rev. 14(4), 516–531 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuechler, W., Vaishnavi, V.: A framework for theory development in design science research: multiple perspectives. J. Assoc. Inf. syst. 13(6), 395 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sein, M.K., et al.: Action design research. MIS Q. 35(2), 37–56 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gregor, S.: Building theory in the sciences of the artificial. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, pp. 1–10. ACM, Philadelphia (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gregor, S., Hevner, A.R.: The front end of innovation: perspectives on creativity, knowledge and design. In: Donnellan, B., Helfert, M., Kenneally, J., VanderMeer, D., Rothenberger, M., Winter, R. (eds.) DESRIST 2015. LNCS, vol. 9073, pp. 249–263. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  30. 30.
    Markus, M.L., Majchrzak, A., Gasser, L.: A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes. MIS Q., 179–212 (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rogers, R.W.: A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J. Psychol. 91(1), 93–114 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    George, J.M., Zhou, J.: Dual tuning in a supportive context: joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Acad. Manage. J. 50(3), 605–622 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Eckert, C.: The communication bottleneck in knitwear design: analysis and computing solutions. Comput. Support. Coop. Work (CSCW) 10(1), 29–74 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.: FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 25(1), 77–89 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.: The design theory nexus. MIS Q., 731–755 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gregor, S., Hevner, A.R.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q. 37(2), 337–355 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    IDEO: IDEO Method Cards: 51 Ways to Inspire Design. William Stout (2003)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Baskerville, R., Pries-Heje, J.: Explanatory design theory. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2(5), 271–282 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Baskerville
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mala Kaul
    • 3
  • Jan Pries-Heje
    • 4
    Email author
  • Veda Storey
    • 1
  1. 1.Georgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Curtin Business SchoolPerthAustralia
  3. 3.University of NevadaRenoUSA
  4. 4.Roskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations