Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Design Science Research in Information System and Technology

DESRIST 2017: Designing the Digital Transformation pp 218–230Cite as

A Framework for Identifying Design Science Research Objectives for Building and Evaluating IT Artifacts

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 10243))

Abstract

Even though many types of Design Science Research (DSR) frameworks and methods exist, little effort has been made to examine and little attention has been paid to investigate objectives identification in DSR. We believe that it is worthwhile to draw attention to the role that DSR objectives play in building and evaluating designed artifacts. Thus, this study developed a framework to answer two research questions: (1) What kinds of objective dimensions can be identified and used for different information technology (IT) artifacts? (2) How can these objectives be linked to the process of building and evaluating IT artifacts? The framework was demonstrated and evaluated by a case study and expert interviews. Our aim was to assist current and future Design Science researchers in the information systems (IS) discipline in identifying research/project objectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hevner, A., Chatterjee, S.: Design Research in Information Systems: Theory and Practice, vol. 22. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Vaishnavi, V., Kuechler, W.: Design Science Research Methods and Patterns: Innovating Information and Communication Technology. Auerbach, New York (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–77 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Walls, J., Widmeyer, G., El Sawy, O.: Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Inf. Syst. Res. 3(1), 36–59 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Eekels, J., Roozenburg, N.F.M.: A methodological comparison of the structures of scientific research and engineering design: their similarities and differences. Des. Stud. 12(4), 197–203 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gill, T.G., Hevner, A.R.: A fitness-utility model for design science research. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. 4(2), 1–24 (2013). doi:10.1145/2499962.2499963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baccarini, D.: The logical framework method for defining project success. Proj. Manag. J. 30(4), 25–32 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rouillard, L.: Goals and Goal Setting: Achieving Measured Objectives. Cengage Learning, Boston (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Simon, H.A.: The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gregor, S., Hevner, A.R.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q. 37(2), 337–355 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Johannesson, P., Perjons, E.: An Introduction to Design Science. Springer, Berlin (2014)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Huppatz, D.J.: Revisiting Herbert Simon’s “science of design”. Des. Issues 31(2), 29–40 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gacenga, F., Cater-Steel, A., Toleman, M., Tan, W.G.: A proposal and evaluation of a design method in design science research. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 10(2), 89–100 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  15. March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis. Support Syst. 15(4), 251–266 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gregor, S.: The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Q. 30(3), 611–642 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Österle, H., Winter, R.: Business Engineering. In: Österle, H., Winter, R. (eds.) Business Engineering - Auf dem Weg zum Unternehmen des Informationszeitalters, pp. 4–20. Springer, Berlin (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Habermas, J.: Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Prat, N., Comyn-Wattiau, I., Akoka, J.: Artifact evaluation in information systems design-science research-a holistic view. In: PACIS, p. 23, June 2014

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fischer, C., Gregor, S.: Forms of reasoning in the design science research process. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 17–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20633-7_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Iivari, J.: Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 24(1), 107–115 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dresch, A., Lacerda, D.P., Antunes Jr., J.A.V.: Proposal for the conduct of design science research. In: Dresch, A., Lacerda, D.P., Antunes Jr., J.A.V. (eds.) Design Science Research, pp. 117–127. Springer, Cham (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Vaishnavi, V., Kuechler, W.: Design Science Research in Information Systems, 20 January 2004. http://www.desrist.org/design-research-in-information-systems/. Accessed 15 Nov 2015

  24. Gill, T.G., Hevner, A.R.: A fitness-utility model for design science research. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 237–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20633-7_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Gill, T.G., Murphy, W.: Task complexity and design science. In: 9th International Conference on Education and Information Systems, Technologies and Applications (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hevner, A.: Personal Interview, 18 November 2016

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gregor, S.: Personal Interview, 30 November 2016

    Google Scholar 

  28. Vaishnavi, V.: Personal Interview, 8 December 2016

    Google Scholar 

  29. de Vries, M., van der Merwe, A., Gerber, A.: Extending the enterprise evolution contextualisation model. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 1–41 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank all the experts who participated in the evaluation process. We would like to express our gratitude to Alan Hevner, Shirley Gregor, Vijay K. Vaishnavi, and Mia Plachkinova for the time and effort they spent on evaluating the proposed framework.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA, 91711, USA

    Sarah Alismail, Hengwei Zhang & Samir Chatterjee

Authors
  1. Sarah Alismail
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hengwei Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samir Chatterjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Alismail .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Karlsruhe Institute of Technologie (KIT) , Karlsruhe, Germany

    Alexander Maedche

  2. University of Liechtenstein , Vaduz, Liechtenstein

    Jan vom Brocke

  3. University of South Florida , Tampa, Florida, USA

    Alan Hevner

Appendix A: Semi-structured Interview Questions

Appendix A: Semi-structured Interview Questions

  • Is the proposed framework clear and easy to understand?

  • Is the proposed framework unnecessarily complex?

  • What changes to the proposed artifact would you recommend?

    • How can we improve the proposed framework?

  • Did we miss any dimensions or are there some dimensions that we did not take into consideration?

  • Based on your experience and knowledge, what fallacies, consistencies, and inconsistencies appear?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Alismail, S., Zhang, H., Chatterjee, S. (2017). A Framework for Identifying Design Science Research Objectives for Building and Evaluating IT Artifacts. In: Maedche, A., vom Brocke, J., Hevner, A. (eds) Designing the Digital Transformation. DESRIST 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10243. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59144-5_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59144-5_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-59143-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-59144-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation