Advertisement

Utilizing, Producing, and Contributing Design Knowledge in DSR Projects

  • Andreas Drechsler
  • Alan R. Hevner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10844)

Abstract

We distinguish several design knowledge types in IS research and examine different modes of utilizing and contributing design knowledge that can take place during design science research (DSR) projects. DSR projects produce project design knowledge, which is project-specific, possibly untested, conjectural, and temporary; thus, distinct from the more stable contributions to the propositional and prescriptive human knowledge bases. We also identify solution design knowledge as distinct from solution design entities in the prescriptive knowledge base. Each of the six modes of utilizing or contributing knowledge (i.e. design theorizing modes) we examine draws on different knowledge types in a different way to inform the production of project design knowledge (including artifact design) in a DSR project or to grow the human knowledge bases in return. Design science researchers can draw on our design theorizing modes and design knowledge perspectives to utilize the different extant knowledge types more consciously and explicitly to inform their build and evaluation activities, and to better identify and explicate their research’s contribution potential to the human knowledge bases.

Keywords

Design knowledge Design theorizing Knowledge bases Knowledge contribution Knowledge for action Knowledge for entity realization 

References

  1. 1.
    van Aken, J.E.: Design science and organization development interventions. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 43(1), 67–88 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Aken, J.E.: Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. J. Manag. Stud. 41(2), 219–246 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alter, S.: Nothing is more practical than a good conceptual artifact… which may be a theory, framework, model, metaphor, paradigm or perhaps some other abstraction. Inf. Syst. J. 27(5), 671–693 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alter, S.: The concept of ‘IT artifact’ has outlived its usefulness and should be retired now. Inf. Syst. J. 25(1), 47–60 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Avison, D., Malaurent, J.: Is theory king?: a rejoinder. J. Inf. Technol. 29(4), 358–361 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Avison, D., Malaurent, J.: Is theory king?: questioning the theory fetish in information systems. J. Inf. Technol. 29(4), 327–336 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baskerville, R., Pries-Heje, J.: Design logic and the ambiguity operator. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 180–193. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13335-0_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baskerville, R., Pries-Heje, J.: Design theory projectability. In: Doolin, B., Lamprou, E., Mitev, N., McLeod, L. (eds.) Working Conference on Information Systems and Organizations. Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol. 446, pp. 219–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45708-5_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baskerville, R.L., et al.: Genres of inquiry in design-science research: justification and evaluation of knowledge production. MIS Q. 39(3), 541–564 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benbasat, I., Zmud, R.W.: The identity crisis within the is discipline: defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties. MIS Q. 27(2), 183–194 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Braun, R., Benedict, M., Wendler, H., Esswein, W.: Proposal for requirements driven design science research. In: Donnellan, B., Helfert, M., Kenneally, J., VanderMeer, D., Rothenberger, M., Winter, R. (eds.) DESRIST 2015. LNCS, vol. 9073, pp. 135–151. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18714-3_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Briggs, R.O., Schwabe, G.: On expanding the scope of design science in IS research. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 92–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20633-7_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bunge, M.: Scientific Research II: The Search for Truth. Springer, Berlin (1967).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48138-3CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carlsson, S.A.: Design science research in information systems: a critical realist approach. In: Hevner, A., Chatterjee, S. (eds.) Design Research in Information Systems: Theory and Practice, pp. 209–233. Springer, New York (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5653-8_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chatterjee, S., et al.: The information systems artifact: a conceptualization based on general systems theory. Presented at the HICSS (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Denyer, D., et al.: Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organ. Stud. 29(3), 393–413 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dorst, K.: The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Des. Stud. 32(6), 521–532 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fettke, P., et al.: On the relevance of design knowledge for design-oriented business and information systems engineering - conceptual foundations, application example, and implications. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2(6), 347–358 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gamma, E., et al.: Design Patterns. Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley Longman, Amsterdam (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gill, T.G., Hevner, A.R.: A fitness-utility model for design science research. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. 4(2), 5:1–5:24 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gregor, S.: The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Q. 30(3), 611–642 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gregor, S.: Theory – still king but needing a revolution! J. Inf. Technol. 29(4), 337–340 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gregor, S., Hevner, A.R.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q. 37(2), 337–355 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gregor, S., Jones, D.: The anatomy of a design theory. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8(5), 312–335 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hassan, N.R., Lowry, P.B.: Seeking middle-range theories in information systems research. In: ICIS 2012 Proceedings (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hevner, A.: A three cycle view of design science research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19(2), 87–92 (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hevner, A., et al.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Iivari, J.: Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 24(1), 107–115 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Iivari, J.: Information system artefact or information system application: that is the question. Inf. Syst. J. 27(6), 753–774 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Iivari, J.: The IS core - VII: towards information systems as a science of meta-artifacts. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 12(1), Article 37 (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kuechler, W., Vaishnavi, V.: A framework for theory development in design science research: multiple perspectives. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 13(6), 395–423 (2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee, A.S., et al.: Going back to basics in design science: from the information technology artifact to the information systems artifact. Inf. Syst. J. 25(1), 5–21 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lee, A.S.: Theory is king? But first, what is theory? J. Inf. Technol. 29(4), 350–352 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Majchrzak, A., Markus, M.L.: Methods for Policy Research: Taking Socially Responsible Action. SAGE Publications, Ltd., London (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    March, S., Smith, G.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis. Support Syst. 15(4), 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Markus, M.L.: Maybe not the king, but an invaluable subordinate. J. Inf. Technol. 29(4), 341–345 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Meth, H., et al.: Designing a requirement mining system. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 16, 9 (2015)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Miller, D.: Paradigm prison, or in praise of atheoretic research. Strateg. Organ. 5(2), 177–184 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Niederman, F., March, S.T.: Design science and the accumulation of knowledge in the information systems discipline. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. 3(1), 1:1–1:15 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Niiniluoto, I.: Defending abduction. Philos. Sci. 66, S436–S451 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Niiniluoto, I.: The aim and structure of applied research. Erkenntnis 38(1), 1–21 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nunamaker Jr., J.F., Briggs, R.O.: Toward a broader vision for information systems. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2(4), 20:1–20:12 (2012)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Orlikowski, W.J., Iacono, C.S.: Research commentary: desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Inf. Syst. Res. 12(2), 121–134 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Otto, B., Osterle, H.: Principles for knowledge creation in collaborative design science research. In: ICIS 2012 Proceedings (2012)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pawson, R.: Evidence-Based Policy a Realist Perspective. SAGE, London (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Purao, S.: Design Research in the Technology of Information Systems: Truth or Dare (2002). http://purao.ist.psu.edu/working-papers/dare-purao.pdf
  47. 47.
    Rising, L., Manns, M.L.: Fearless Change: Patterns for Introducing New Ideas: Introducing Patterns into Organizations. Addison-Wesley Longman, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Seddon, P.B., Scheepers, R.: Generalization in IS research: a critique of the conflicting positions of Lee & Baskerville and Tsang & Williams. J. Inf. Technol. 30(1), 30–43 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Seddon, P.B., Scheepers, R.: Towards the improved treatment of generalization of knowledge claims in IS research: drawing general conclusions from samples. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 21(1), 6–21 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Simon, H.A.: The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sutton, R.I., Staw, B.M.: What Theory is Not. Adm. Sci. Q. 40(3), 371–384 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Vaishnavi, V., Kuechler, W.: Design Science Research Methods and Patterns. Auerbach, Boca Raton (2008)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Walls, J.G., et al.: Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Inf. Syst. Res. 3(1), 36–59 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Weber, R.: Evaluating and developing theories in the information systems discipline. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 13(1), 1–30 (2012)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Weick, K.E.: Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14, 516–531 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Weick, K.E.: What theory is not, theorizing is. Adm. Sci. Q. 40(3), 385–390 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Whetten, D.A.: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Acad. Manag. Rev. 14(4), 490–495 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yadav, M.S.: The decline of conceptual articles and implications for knowledge development. J. Mark. 74(1), 1–19 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Victoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand
  2. 2.University of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations