3. Source: Christensen and Sundahl (2001)
Paradigm
Theory
Classification
Observe, describe & measure phenomena
Confirm
Theory is a statement of what
causes why, what, and under what
circumstances
Anomaly
4. Source: Venable (2006)
Technology
Invention/Design
Enhancement creation of a
method, product, system,
practice or techniques
Theory Building
Solution space and
Problem theories
Utility theories or
hypotheses
Technology
Evaluation
Field studies
Experiments
Action research
Simulation
Problem
Diagnosis
Problem space
understanding
Problem causes
and consequences
Information Systems Design
theory (ISDT) (Walls et al. (1992)
1. Design theories must deal
with goals as contingencies
2. A design theory can never
involve pure explanation or
prediction
3. Desing theories are
prescriptive
4. Design theories are
composite theories with
encompass kernel theories
from natural, social science
and mathematics.
5. Components Software development Managing risks
Tarkoitus ja ala
Purpose and scope
Tavoitteena on kehittää vaiheittain
rakentuvan tietosysteemin kehittämis- ja
testauspolitiikka.
Sovellusten kehitystyöhön sisältyvien riskien
hallinnan lähestymistavan kehittäminen.
Käytetyt ilmaisut
Constructs
Vaiheittaisen kehittämisprosessin
virheiden tunnistaminen ja testattavuus
Riskitekijöiden tunnistaminen, riskin
aiheuttajien tunnistaminen ja riskin
eliminoiminen
Muodon ja toiminnan
periaatteet
Prinsciples of form and
function
Dynaamisten ohjeiden kehittäminen ja
järjestelmäintegraation tunnistaminen
Riskien tunnistamisprosessin ja sen
aktiviteettien kehittäminen
Artefaktin kehitysluonne
Artefact mutability
Tiimioppisiseen liittyvien vaikutusten
tunnistaminen kehitystyön erivaihessa.
Sovellusten ja tietosysteemien käytettävyys ja
itse-ohjautuvuuden huomioon ottaminen
Testattavat väittämät
Testable propositions
Sovelluksen tai tietosysteemien tuotosten
(tulosten) arviointi ja simulointi
perustuen suunnitteluteorian
tosilauseisiin.
Suunniteltu riskien lähestymistapa on
sovellettavissa yleisesti sovellusten
kehittämistyöhön
Todistava tietämys
Justifactory knowledge
Luonnon- ja sosiaalitieteiden antama
tietämys, johon suunnittelutyö perustuu
Yleisestä riskienhallinnan johtamismalleista
johdetut periaatteet.
Toteutusperiaatteet
Principles of
implementation
Sovelluksen tai tietosysteemin
käyttöönottamisen periaatteet
Käyttöönottoon liittyvien riskien hallinta ja
osaaminen
Konkreettinen toteutus
Expository instantiation
Varsinaisen käyttöönottoprosessin
vaiheistus ja ohjeistus
Riskitekijöiden tunnistaminen ja arviointi
käyttöönottovaiheessa.
7. Rigor Cycle
Grounding
Additions to
KB
Relevance
Cycle
Requirements
Field testing
Application Domain
People
Orgnizational
Systems
Technical Systems
Problems and
Opportunities
Environment Design Science Research Knowledge Base
Build Design
Artifacts
Processes
Evaluate
Foundations
Scientific Theories
and Methods
Experience
Expertise
Meta-Artifacts
Design Products and
Design Processes
Design
Cycle
Source: Hevner (2007)
Hevner: ” Design science research is essentially pragmatic in nature.”
It emphasizes relevance.
It makes clear contribution into the application environment.
8. Theory and models
of IS
It-artefact
Outcomes
(Reflection)
Hypotheses
(Technological
rules)
Observations
(Testing)
why,
what,
how,
who,
when
What might work
for whom and why
Context-mechanism-outcomes (CMO)
Source: Pawson and Tilley(1997) and Kazi (2003), Carlsson (2006)
Outputs Description
Constructs The conceptual
vocabulary of a
domain
Models A set of propositions
or statement
expressing
relationships between
constructs
Methods A set of steps to
perform a task – how-
to knowledge
Instantiation The operational of
constructs, models
and methods.
Better
theories
Artifact construction
as analogous to
experimental natural
science, coupled with
reflection and
abstraction
11. Guideline Descriptions
Design as an artifact Tutkimuksen tavoitteena on sovelluksen, menetelmän tai
tietosysteemin suunnittelu. Tarkoituksena ratkaista jokin
tietosysteemiin tai sen käyttöön liittyvä ongelma.
Problem relevance Suunnittelu perustuu organisaation saamaan hyötyyn
(taloudellinen ja toiminnallinen)
Desing evaluation Suunnittele, miten artifaktin hyöty ja tarkoitus voidaan arvioida
suunnitteluprosessin aikana ja sen jälkeen.
Research
contribution
Tutkimuksen tavoitteena on tuottaa suunittelutieteen käyttöön
uutta tietoa: 1) uusi artifakti, 2) suunnittelutieteen perusteita, 3)
arviointiin ja arviointimetodeihin liittyvää tietoa.
Research rigor Tutkimusote perustuu täsämälliseen metodiin, jota käytetään
suunnittelussa ja /tai arvioinnissa. (Tutkimuksen toistettavuus).
Design as a search
process
Suunnitteluprosessi on etsintää, missä pyritään löytämään
parempia tapoja tuottaa artifakteja. (iteratiivinen prosessi)
Communication of
research
Tutkimuksen tulokset julkaistaan ja välitetään sekä tutkijoille että
käytännön toimijoille (johto, suunnittelijat, käyttäjät).
Source: Hevner et al. (2004)
12. Research Process Focus Contribution
Problem
identification
Relevant research problems Formulation of research
problem and questions
Research Proposal
development
Context and scope
Research stragegy
Answer the questions:
why, what, how, who and
when
Literature Review Current state of theory and
application
Analysis of focal theory,
application and supporting
technology
Conceptualization Concept discovery and
potential empirical
generalization
Conceptual model,
variables and relationships
and constraints
Experimentation Design the approach and
selecting methods and how
to demonstrate
Confirmation of theoretical
conjecture, propositions
and hypotheses
Source: Steenkamp and McCord (2007)
13. Needs for
new artifact
Assump-
tions
Initiative
(First hunch)
Requirements
and assumptions
Structural
specifications
Protype
Implementation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Verschuren and
Hartog (2005, p.739
Plan of evaluation
1. Evaluation of
goals
2. Evaluation of
means
3. Evaluation of
relationship
between goals
and means.
Types of evaluation
1. summative
2. formative
14. Possible Research Entry Points
Source: Peffers et al. (2008), Design Science Methodology Process Model (DSRM)
Identify
problem and
motivate
Show
importance
Define
objectives of
a solution
What would
be a better
artifact to
accomplish?
Design and
development
Artifact
Demonstration
Find suitable
context
Use artefact to
solve problem
Evaluation
Obserce how
effective,
efficient
Iterate back
to desing
Communication
Scholarly
publications
Professional
publications
Problem-
centered
initiation
Objective-
centered
solution
Design &
developm
ent-
centered
initiation
Client/
context
initiated
Process iteeration
Nominal process sequence
Inference Theory How to Knowledge Metrics, Analysis
Knowledge
Disiplinary knowledge
17. The searech process
The design process
Ex-ante
evaluation
The construction
process
The artefact
Ex-post
evaluation
Design science
Desing research
Source: Pries-Heje and Baskerville, (2008)
18. Identify evaluation
problem and select
evaluation method
Defining evaluation
criteria
Develop and
specify an
evaluation method
Data gathering and
demonstrating
evaluation
Results
New method
Improvement
Failure
Time
Knowledge flows
Feedback and knowldge flows
19. 1. Plan the
human centred
process
2. Specify the
context of use
3. Specify user
and
organizational
requirements
4. Produce
design solutions
5. Evaluate
design against
user
requirements
Feedback
20. Stages Questions of the research and -paper
1. Title of research proposal What is the main results?
2. Problem area How precise are the claims?
3. Research question How could the outcomes be used?
4. Answer of the research
question
What is evidence?
5. Reason for this answer How was the evidence gathered?
6. Research situation How were measurements taken?
7. Key concepts that are
investigated
How carefylly are the algoritms and
experiments described?
8. The research design Why is the paper (research) trustworthy?
9. The research results will
address the research problem
Has the background literature been
discussed?
What would reproduction of the results
involve?Source: Van de Ven (2006)
21. Design product Definition Description
Meta-requirement Goals and main aims of the
designed product
Describe the class of
problems.
Meta-design A plan for system to meet
meta-requirements
Describe the class of artefacts
that will meet the meta-
requirements.
Kernel theories Theories from natural or
social sciences that
provides a conceptual
bridge between meta-
requirements and meta-
design
Are applied to describe
conceptual connections
between meta-requirements
and meta-design.
IT-artefacts are used IT-
related work systems (Alter).
Testable design
product
hypotheses
Propositions to be
examined regarding
satisfaction of meta-
requirements and meta-
design
How developed or planned
artefact can be tested to see if
hypotheses can be verified.
How meta-design satisfies
the meta-requirements.
22. Design process Definition Description
Design method Procedures to be used for
construction of system
Design method defines
the procedures, how
artefact is constructed.
Kernel theories Theries that support the design
method
Applied theories from
natural or social sciences
that used to develop the
design process.
Testable design
process
hypotheses
Propositions to be examined
regarding whether the design
method produces an acceptable
system
Defined hypotheses,
which are used to verify,
if the designed process is
consistent with meta-
desing.
23. Variance Method (Poole et al.(2000) The Process Approach
1. The world is made up of fixed entities
with varying attributes
1. The world is made up of entities that
participate in events
2. Necessary and sufficient causality is
requisite for explanation
2. Necessary causality is requisite for
explanation
3. Efficient causalisity is the basis of
explanation
3. Final and formal causality,
supplemented by efficient causality is the
basis for explanation
4. The generality of explanation depends
on their ability to apply uniformly
4. The generality of explanation depends
on their versality
5. The temporal sequince in which
independent variables influence the
dependent variables is immaterial to the
outcome
5. The temporal sequince of event is critical
6. Explanations should emphasize
immediate causation.
6. Explanation should incorporate layers of
explantion ranging from immediate to
distal
7. Attributes have one and only one causal
meaning over the course of time.
7. An entity, attribute, or event may change
in meaning over time.
24. Stages Decision Description
1. The research
question and
perspective
What is the causal conditional
proposal or question?
Try to take potential users, your own interest and
organization’s goal into account. Reflective viewpoint
may help to define research questions.
2. Unit of analysis What individual or collective
properties are being studied ?
Individual, group, organization, technology, it-artefact,
process, data. Global, relational or analytical properties.
3. Causal model What is the variance research model?
(see e.g. Whetten (2002, Modeling-as-theoryzing:
A systematic methodology for theory
development, Thousand Oaks, Sage)
List variables, draw arrows, list assumptions and
boundary conditions. List alternative factors that may be
rival explanations.
4. Experimental
design
Is this a randomized, quasi or non-
experimental design?
Randomized, quasi-experiment (survey), or non-
experiment study (no control-group).
5. Sampe selection
and size
What criteria are used to select units,
constructs, observations & settings?
construct validity, external validity. Sample size must
meet statistical significance.
6. Measurement How to measure variables? systematic and unsystematic measurement biases
7. Data analysis What data gathering technique will
be used?
Select technique that fit the research guestions and
model.
8. Validity What are the threats to validity of
study findings?
Statistical conclusion, internal, construct and external
validity.
Van de Ven: ”A variance research model represents the theory as a causal relationship among variables of units are
sampled, measured and analyzed in accordance with expremimental design procedures.”
25. Phases Decision Research ideas and proposals
1. Meaning of
process
A category of concepts or
developmental sequence?
Are researchers interested in concepts or how a process itself
can be described and analyzed (narrative, longitudinal).
2.Theories of
process
Examine one or more
models?
Select a process model or two models that can be compared.
3.Reflexity Whose viewpoint is
featured?
Researchers, practitioner’s or user’s viewpoint to consider
research outcomes.
4.Mode of
inquiry
Deductive, inductive or
retrodeductive?
Is the research based on the model of reality?
Is the research based on how it-artefact process is going on at
the real time?
5.Observation
al method
Real-time or historical
observations?
Is a research process exploring active it-artefact development
process?
Is a research process observing how it-artefact process was
carried out?
6.Source of
change
Age, cohort or transient
sources?
Try to develop parallel, synchronic research design.
7.Sample
diversity
Homogenous or
hetereogenous?
Try to gather different types of events.
8.Sample size Number of events and
cases?
Try to find out more than one case or more events
inside the one case.
9.Process
research
designs
What data analysis
methods to use?
Match data analysis methods to number of cases and
events.
26. Task Description
Objective
setting
Traditionally, system objectives have been set by top management and computer
technologists. But increasingly other groups are asking or demanding to be involved
in this process, in particular, line management, white and blue collar workers and the
trade unions.
Adaptation The process of adaptation is concerned with moving from one kind of organizational
structure and state to another and the means by which this change is assisted to take
place smoothly and successfully. It is what normally happens during the
implementation phase of a new system. Rapid adaptation does not easily come about
of its own accord and there is a need for philosophies, facilities and strategies to
assist the process.
Integration
Technology
People
Tasks
Integration is the action taken, once the system has been designed and is
being implemented, to ensure a new situation reaches a state of
equilibrium.
Stabilization Once integration has been achieved it has to be maintained. To avoid "one man's job
enrichment becoming another man's job impoverishment" imaginative solutions or
even compromises may be required. The maintenance of a state of equilibrium into
the future requires processes for socializing and educating new group members.
Source: Mumford (1983)
27. Category Structure Behaviour Motivation Instantiation
Analytical Salient
properties and
features
Process
supported
Major generic
business/
organizational
motivations
Mock-up prototypes
Synthetic Overall logical
organization
The dynamic
behaviour of IS;
its working
principles
Motivations for the
type of IS solution as
related to
requirements
Working prototypes
that illustrated the
concept
Technological Refined
structural
design for the
type of IS
Refined methods,
algoritms,
interactions
employed by IS
Objectives for the
design
Generig packages,
frameworks, shells.
Implementation Architecture
design of
implemented
systems
Dynamic aspects
of implemented
systems
Specific business
motivation
Implemented
functionin systems
Source: Vahidov (2006)
28. Phases the researcher the practitioner
Agreement develop an agreement agree agreement
Start of research
process
create a research plan agree research plan
During the real
process
Develop a new artifact based on
requirements and needed features
of the artifact.
Participate in development
process and agree the
requirements and features.
Demonstration Carry out laboratory test for artifact
simulating a reality.
Carry out simulation and lab-
test for new artifact at the real
environment.
Evaluation Develop evaluation plan and define
needed criteria and combine results
to the practitioner’s evaluation
results.
Carry out evaluation process
and give feedback to the
researcher.
Conclusion Publish what is learned during the
research process.
Discuss with the researcher
concerning the research
process.
Source: Hevner et al. (2004), March and Smith (1995), Järvinen,(2012)
29. Research
item
Questions Design science approach
The artefact What is the role of the artefact?
Is design of the artefact or improving
organizational practice the primary goal of
the intervetion?
The artefact is central of the research.
Collaborators will focus on the artefacts,
but success may need some changes to
process and organizational practice
The process
and research
cycles
How the research process problem going
to determined and agreed?
Is a predetermined cycle of activity to be
followed?
Is softwarte development method a
necessary part of the activities?
Problem must be identified and design
criteria may be used to establish
potential solutions.
The focus of
evaluation
Can evaluation be a by-product of the
research cycle, or must explicit evaluation
activites be used?
Does user acceptance testing and similar
activities have a role to play?
Does the artefact require the generation of
use cases and some level of validation?
(verification?)
Evaluation of the designed artefacts is
crucial.
Evaluation steps are included to the
approach. Software testing is vital andis
part of the research process.
Design as a serch process suggest that
use cases and testing are included to the
research process.
30. Research
item
Questions Design science approach
The role of
knowledge
Is actionable knowledge a
realistic goal of the research?
To what extent is informing
theory and objective?
To some extent knowledge
emerges from the design.
Explicit theory is less
prevalent in DS.
Design theory is employed as
a framework and a reference
point for outcomes.
The role of
learning
What expectations are there
with regards to learning?
Will learning emerge from the
design of the artefact or the
actions undertaken by the
researcher and collaborators?
Expectations for learning will
exist.
Expectations of learning from
the artefact will perdominate.
Researchers might be
surprised by what they learn.
Source: Papas et al. (2012)
31. Semiotic
level
Evaluation criteria
Helfert and Donnellan
Pragmatic Relevance, usability,
completeness, timeliness,
actuality, efficiency.
Semantic Precise definitions and
terminology, easy to
understand, interpreditability,
accuracy (free-of error),
consistent content.
Syntax Consistent and adequate
syntax, syntactical correctness,
consistent representation,
accessability.
Source: Helfert M. and Donnellan B. (2012)
Ex-ante Ex-post
Naturalistic Design
process/
product
Design
process /
product
Artificial Design
process /
product
Design
process /
product
Source: Pries-Heje and Baskerville (2008)
Method Evaluation process
Observantional Case or field study
Analytical Static analysis, Architecture
analysis,
Optimization, Dynamic
Experimental Controlled experiment
Testing Functional (black box)
Structural (white box)
Descriptive Informed argument
Scenarious
Souce: Hevner et al. (2004)
32. Evaluation type Information system in use Invormation system as such
Goal-based
Data source
Evaluator’s role
Participators
Has the IT-system fulfilled the
desired goals?
IT-system, goal definitions,
requirements, , interaction between
users and the it-system.
Deductive
Evaluator and users, managers
Has the IT-system fulfilled the desired
goals? What is the contribution?
IT-system, goal definitions,
requirements.
Deductive
Evaluator expert
Goal-free
Data source
Evaluator’s role
Participators
Try to gain a deeper and broader
understanding of the IT-systems.
IT-system, description of IT-system.
Inductive
Evaluator expert
Try to gain a broader understanding of
the IT-systems.
IT-system, description of IT-system.
Inductive
Evaluator expert
Criteria-based
Data source
Evaluator’s role
Participators
Try to gain a deeper and broader
understanding of the IT-system.
IT-system, observation, users’
perceptions.
Inductive
Evaluator expert and user, manager
Try to evaluate quality of the IT-
system.
IT-system, description of IT-system,
defined evaluation criteria.
Deductive
Evaluator expert
Source: modified from Cronholm and Goldkuhl (2003)
33. Evaluation object Relevant evalution questions
1. Design of an
artefact
Produce the research an it-artefact, that includes a construct, a model or an
instantiation.
2. Problem
relevance
Is the research problem and objective of the it-artefact important? Is the it-
artefact or solution relevant business problem?
3. Design
evaluation
Could the results be verified?
Are the evaluation method rigorous and well-defined?
Is the utility, quality and efficacy rigorously demonstrated?
4. Research
contribution
Is there a contribution?Is it significant?
Is the contribution timely interest?
5. Research rigor Are the results correct?
Are the all technical detail correct? Are they sensible?
6. Design as a
search process
Are the researchers utilized available means?
Do the results satisfy laws on the problem environment?
7. Communication
of research
Are the appropriate conclusions drawn from the results?
Can the paper be understand?
Is it clearly written?
Is the results presented effectively both to the technology-oriented and
management oriented audiences?
34. Carlsson S.A. (2006), Towards and Information Systems Design Research Framework: A Critical Realist Perspective,
Destrist 2006, February 24-25 2006, Claremont CA.
Crossan M.M. and M. Apaydin (2010), A Multi-Dimensional Framework of Organizational Innovation: A Systematic
Review of the Literature, Journal of Management Studies 47, No 6, 1154-1191.
Hevner A.R. (2007), Three Cycle View of Design Science Research, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 19,
No.2, pp. 87-92.
Hevner A.R., March S.T., Park J, and Ram S. (2004) Design science in information systems research, MIS Quarterly, Vol.
28, Issue 1, March 2004.
Järvinen A & P. (2011) Tutkimustyön metodeista, Opinpajan kirja, Tampere.
Järvinen P. (2012), On boundaries between field experiment, action research and design research, University of Tampere,
Shcool of Infomation Sciences, Reports in Information Sciences 14, Tampere.
Iivari J. (2005), Information Systems as a design science, Information Systems Development: Adnvances in Theory,
Practice and Education, Edited bgy O. Vasilegas et atl. Springer.
Papas N., O´Keefe R.M. and Seltsikas P. (2012), The action research vs design research science depate: reflections from an
intervention in eGovernment, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 21, pp- 147-159.
Peffers K., Tuunanen T., Gengler C.E., Rossi M., Hui W., Virtanen V. and Bragge J.(2006), The Design Science Research
Process: A model for producing and presenting information systems research, Destrist 2006, February 24-25 2006,
Claremont, CA.
Vahidov R. (2006), Design Researcher’s IS Artifact: a Representational Framework, Destrit 2006, February 24-25 2006
Clamenont CA (CGU2006).
Vaishnavi V. and Kuechler W. (2004), Design Science Research in Information Systems, http://desrist.org/design-
research-in-information-systems/, last updated September 2011
van Aken Joan E. (2001), Management Research based on the paradigm of the Design Sciences; The Quest for tested and
grounded technological rules.
Van de Ven (2007), Engaged Scolarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research, Oxword University Press Inc.,
New York
Venable J.R. (2006), The Role of Theory and Theorising in Design Science Research, Destrist 2006, Proceeding/2A_1pdf.
Verschuren P. and Hartog R. (2005), Evaluation in Design-Oriented Research, Quality & Quantitity, Vol. 39, pp. 733-762.
Zobel J. (2004), Writing for computer science second edition, Springer,-Verlag, London Limited.
