Search

For Design Science Research (DSR) to gain wide credence as a research paradigm in Information Systems (IS), it must contribute to theory. “Theory cannot be improved until we improve the theorizing process, and we cannot improve the theorizing process until we describe it more explicitly, operate it more self-consciously, and decouple it from validation more deliberately” (Weick 1989, p. 516). With the aim of improved design science theorizing, we propose a DSR abstraction-layers framework that integrates, interlates, and harmonizes key methodological notions, primary of which are: 1) the Design Science (DS), Design Research (DR), and Routine Design (RD) distinction (Winter 2008); 2) Multi Grounding in IS Design Theory (ISDT) (Goldkuhl & Lind 2010); 3) the Idealized Model for Theory Development (IM4TD) (Fischer & Gregor 2011); and 4) the DSR Theorizing Framework (Lee et al. 2011). Though theorizing, or the abstraction process, has been the subject of healthy discussion in DSR, important questions remain. With most attention to date having focused on theorizing for Design Research (DR), a key stimulus of the layered view was the realization that Design Science (DS) produces abstract knowledge at a higher level of generality. The resultant framework includes four abstraction layers: (i) Design Research (DR) 1st Abstract Layer, (ii) Design Science (DS) 2nd Abstract Layer, (iii) DSR Incubation 3rd Layer, and (iv) Routine Design 4th Layer. Differentiating and inter-relating these layers will aid DSR researchers to discover, position, and amplify their DSR contributions. Additionally, consideration of the four layers can trigger creative perspectives that suggest unplanned outputs. The first abstraction layer, including its alternative patterns of activity, is well recognized in the literature. The other layers, however, are less well recognized; and the integrated representation of layers is novel.

Although Design Science Research (DSR) is now an accepted approach to research in the Information Systems (IS) discipline, consensus on the methodology of DSR has yet to be achieved. Lack of a comprehensive and detailed methodology for Design Science Research (DSR) in the Information System (IS) discipline is a main issue. Prior research (the parent-study) aimed to remedy this situation and resulted in the DSR-Roadmap (Alturki et al., 2011a). Continuing empirical validation and revision of the DSR-Roadmap strives towards a methodology with appropriate levels of detail, integration, and completeness for novice researchers to efficiently and effectively conduct and report DSR in IS. The sub-study reported herein contributes to this larger, ongoing effort. This paper reports results from a formative evaluation effort of the DSR-Roadmap conducted using focus group analysis. Generally, participants endorsed the utility and intuitiveness of the DSR-Roadmap, while also suggesting valuable refinements. Both parent-study and sub-study make methodological contributions. The parent-study is the first attempt of utilizing DSR to develop a research methodology showing an example of how to use DSR in research methodology construction. The sub-study demonstrates the value of the focus group method in DSR for formative product evaluation.

The Design Science Research Roadmap (DSR-Roadmap) [1] aims to give detailed methodological guidance to novice researchers in Information Systems (IS) DSR. Focus group evaluation, one phase of the overall study, of the evolving DSR-Roadmap revealed that a key difficulty faced by both novice and expert researchers in DSR, is abstracting design theory from design. This paper explores the extension of the DSR-Roadmap by employing IS deep structure ontology (BWW [2-4]) as a lens on IS design to firstly yield generalisable design theory, specifically 'IS Design Theory' (ISDT) elements [5]. Consideration is next given to the value of BWW in the application of the design theory by practitioners. Results of mapping BWW constructs to ISDT elements suggest that the BWW is promising as a common language between design researchers and practitioners, facilitating both design theory and design implementation

Design Science Research (DSR) has emerged as an important approach in Information Systems (IS) research. However, DSR is still in its genesis and has yet to achieve consensus on even the fundamentals, such as what methodology / approach to use for DSR. While there has been much effort to establish DSR methodologies, a complete, holistic and validated approach for the conduct of DSR to guide IS researcher (especially novice researchers) is yet to be established. Alturki et al. (2011) present a DSR ‘Roadmap’, making the claim that it is a complete and comprehensive guide for conducting DSR. This paper aims to further assess this Roadmap, by positioning it against the ‘Idealized Model for Theory Development’ (IM4TD) (Fischer & Gregor 2011). The IM4TD highlights the role of discovery and justification and forms of reasoning to progress in theory development. Fischer and Gregor (2011) have applied IM4TD’s hypothetico-deductive method to analyze DSR methodologies, which is adopted in this study to deductively validate the Alturki et al. (2011) Roadmap. The results suggest that the Roadmap adheres to the IM4TD, is reasonably complete, overcomes most shortcomings identified in other DSR methodologies and also highlights valuable refinements that should be considered within the IM4TD.

Design Science Research (DSR) has emerged as an important approach in Information Systems (IS) research, evidenced by the plethora of recent related articles in recognized IS outlets. Nonetheless, discussion continues on the value of DSR for IS and how to conduct strong DSR, with further discussion necessary to better position DSR as a mature and stable research paradigm appropriate for IS. This paper contributes to address this need, by providing a comprehensive conceptual and argumentative positioning of DSR relative to the core of IS. This paper seeks to argue the relevance of DSR as a paradigm that addresses the core of IS discipline well. Here we use the framework defined by Wand and Weber, to position what the core of IS is.

This paper proposes and synthesizes from previous design science(DS) methodological literature a structured and detailed DS Roadmap for the conduct of DS research. The Roadmap is a general guide for researchers to carry out DS research by suggesting reasonably detailed activities.Though highly tentative, it is believed the Roadmap usefully inter-relates many otherwise seemingly disparate, overlapping or conflicting concepts. It is hoped the DS Roadmap will aid in the planning, execution and communication of DS research,while also attracting constructive criticism, improvements and extensions. A key distinction of the Roadmap from other DS research methods is its breadth of coverage of DS research aspects and activities; its detail and scope. We demonstrate and evaluate the Roadmap by presenting two case studies in terms of the DS Roadmap.

This paper derives from research-in-progress intending both Design Research (DR) and Design Science (DS) outputs; the former a management decision tool based in IS-Impact (Gable et al. 2008) kernel theory; the latter being methodological learnings deriving from synthesis of the literature and reflection on the DR ‘case study’ experience. The paper introduces a generic, detailed and pragmatic DS ‘Research Roadmap’ or methodology, deriving at this stage primarily from synthesis and harmonization of relevant concepts identified through systematic archival analysis of related literature. The scope of the Roadmap too has been influenced by the parallel study aim to undertake DR applying and further evolving the Roadmap. The Roadmap is presented in attention to the dearth of detailed guidance available to novice Researchers in Design Science Research (DSR), and though preliminary, is expected to evolve and gradually be substantiated through experience of its application. A key distinction of the Roadmap from other DSR methods is its breadth of coverage of published DSR concepts and activities; its detail and scope. It represents a useful synthesis and integration of otherwise highly disparate DSR-related concepts.