Design Science Research Framework

posted on Sat, May 17th, 2008

Research is commonly understood as a systematic investigation with possibly problem solving and reproducible results. Therefore suitable research methods are needed to guide the investigation. The design science approach provides a suitable and comprehensive framework for the design and the analysis of artificial phenomena such as organizations or information systems. It defines the research subjects and the methods applied to the study subject in order to systematically enhance the body of knowledge.

Therefore an introduction to the design science framework is given here to provide the necessary background for research activities in the field of information systems (IS). At first a perspective on the subject respectively the desired research output of design science research is given, which includes a detailed discussion of the concept of the artifact as it is central to the design science research framework. Next the design science research process is described followed by an overview of some basic design science principles. And the end a critical discussion about the theoretical foundations and the legitimation of the design science approach is discussed.

Objectives

Although it seems obvious that IS research and designs science are about the creation and analysis of technology artifacts to develop a comprehensive understanding of the technology impact on individuals, organization and society in general, there is still an ongoing discussion within the IS research community what exactly is recognized as research output respectively what is considered as an technology artifact.

March & Smith (1995) identified four essential types of artifacts that are important for the design science research framework and which are recognized as valid research outputs of the design science research process. These four types are constructs, models, methods, and instantiations. In the following a detailed overview of these types are given as the work of March & Smith is widely recognized and built upon.

  • Constructs (Vocabulary)
    Constructs are the vocabulary respectively a conceptualization of a domain, which is used to describe the problems and specify their solutions within the domain. Constructs can be highly formalized (entities, relationships, identifiers, constrains) or informal (consensus, participation, satisfaction).
  • Models
    The model, in the sense of design science research, is a set of statements to express the relationships among the constructs. It is used to represent the problem and solution situations. In the notion of design science the model’s function is utility not truth. This is in contrast to model definitions in natural science, in which the model’s function is to describe.
  • Methods
    Methods defines processes how to search the solution space to solve the problem. These can be a formal, mathematical algorithms or informal descriptions that act as a guideline.
  • Instantiations
    An instantiation is the realization of the artifact in its environment. It shows that the constructs, models and methods can be implemented in the real world as a working system. Instantiations in IS research the can be specific information systems or tools that address various aspect of designing information systems.

In Figure 1 the relation between these different artifacts in the design science research framework are shown to illustrate the dependencies between them.

Figure 1: Relation between design science research framework artifacts

Purao (2002) and Rossi & Sein (2003) suggest an additional fifth research output, better theories. Better theories can be achieved in at least two distinct ways according to Purao. At first, the methodological construction of an artifact can be seen as an object of theorizing with the proof in the actual construction. Secondly, the artifact exposes new relationships between elements, which can increase the understanding of the artifact itself and relationship between elements during construction and evaluation. Therefore artifact construction is essentially for some types of research to refine and develop theories. For instance in Human-Computer-Interface (HCI) research the

“HCI artifacts themselves are perhaps the most effective medium for theory development in HCI.” (Carroll & Kellogg, 1989)

Walls, Widmeyer & El Sawy (1992) and Gregor (2007) use the term design theory instead and argue that design theories are needed to support the cumulative building of knowledge. Gregor describes design theory as theory that

“shows the principles inherent in the design of an IS artifact that accomplishes some end, based on knowledge of both IT and human behaviour. The ISDT allows the prescription of guidelines for further artifacts of the same type.” (Gregor, 2007)

Design theories are still heavily discussed within the IS research community and no consensus respectively wide acceptance is found yet.

Artifact

As argued above the understanding of an artifact is essential within the design science approach. As design science is positioned within IS research the artifact is of technological nature and therefore called IT artifact in the following. It is the IT artifact that used to achieve a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of technology and which allows researchers to investigate (1) how IT artifacts are conceived, constructed and implemented, (2) how IT artifacts are used and (3) how IT artifacts impact their context (Benbasat & Zmud, 2003). Furthermore it is emphasized by Massey et al. (2000) that research and rigorous understanding of technology is vital for IS research. Therefore a conceptualization of the IT artifact and its constraints is necessary in order to allow a common understanding of the object to study.

A very general conceptualization can be found in Simon´s (1996) widely cited work about “The Science of the artificial”. He considers the artifact as an interface between an “inner” environment (the substance of the artifact itself) and the “outer” environment (the context in which it is used). For Simon´s an artifact is characterized by (1) the goals and the function, (2) the environment and the context of human action, and (3) the character and the physical structure (Simon, 1996).

„Given an airplane, or given a bird, we can analyze them by the methods of natural science without any particular attention to purpose or adaptation, without reference to the interface between what I have called the inner and outer environments.“(Simon, 1996)

In figure 2 these two different environments and their implications for the artifact are illustrated. From this conceptualization the dual nature of IT artifacts can be derived. An IT artifact can be seen as physical object1 (constructed by humans), which has certain functions, but it can also be seen as intentional object, which distinguish itself from physical respectively natural objects since its function has meaning only in context of human action.

Therefore we can define that

“technical artefacts are objects with a technical function and with a physical structure consciously designed, produced and used by humans to realise its function.” (Kroes, 2002)

This definition characterises the artifact as a hybrid kind of object, which needs to be conceptualized as both physical and intentional object. Neither can an artifact comprehensively described by its physical structure only nor is it possible to describe it by its intentional conception without the description of its physical structure.

Figure 2: Schematic representation of an artifact based on Kroes (2002)

The work of Simon´s has been adapted by Benbasat & Zmud (2003) who conceptualize the IT artifact as

“the application of IT to enable or support some task(s) embedded within a structure(s) that itself is embedded within a context(s). Here, the hardware/software design of the IT artifact encapsulates the structures, routines, norms, and values implicit in the rich contexts within which the artifact is embedded.” (Benbasat & Zmud, 2003)

Benbasat & Zmud (2003) extend the conceptualization of the artifact with an additional hierarchy in which the different elements are ordered and they distinguish the environment in context and structure in which the artifact is embedded. The task element can be compared with the goal element from Simon`s. In figure 3 the elements and the hierarchal order of the elements as well as their constraints are illustrated. The characterization of the artifact is missing in the definition. Therefore the artifact itself is only conceptualized as a `black box´, which is characterized by the task it supports and the environment in which it is embedded. As design science is about to built and evaluate an artifact the characterization in terms of the physical structure of an artifact is important for the design science research process. Therefore the definition of Benbasat & Zmud (2003) is not sufficient to comprehensively describe an IT artifact in regards to the design science research approach. But it directs the attention to the differentiation between structure and context in which the artifact is embedded.

Figure 3: The IT-Artifact (source: Benbasat & Zmud, 2003)

An additional notion on IT artifacts is given by Dahlbom (1996), who argues that the artifacts are not only computer and computer systems, but information technology use. He conceives the artifact as a complex and changing combination of people and technology.

Process

Principles

Theoretical Foundations and Legitimations

Notes

1Of course a demarcation problem arises with the term physical object in regard to software, but I will leave that discussion as for practical it seems adequate use to refer to an IT artifact as a technical artifact, which is the result of engineering design and development.


References

  1. Basili, V. R. (1996). The role of experimentation in software engineering: past, current, and future. Paper presented at the Software Engineering, 1996., Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on, Berlin, Germany.
  2. Benbasat, I., & Weber, R. (1996). Rethinking "Diversity" in Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 7(4), 389-399.
  3. Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (2003). The Identity Crisis Within the IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline’s Core Properties. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 183-194.
  4. Carroll, J. M., & Kellogg, W. A. (1989). Artifact as theory-nexus: hermeneutics meets theory-based design. SIGCHI Bulletin, 20(SI), 7-14.
  5. Dahlbom, B. (1996). The new informatics. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 8(2), 29-47.
  6. Gregg, D., G., Kulkarni, U., R., & Vinz, A., S. (2001). Understanding the Philosophical Underpinnings of Software Engineering Research in Information Systems. Information Systems Frontiers, 3(2), 169-183.
  7. Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.
  8. Gregor, S. (2007). The Anatomy of a Design Theory. Journal of Association for Information Systems, 8(5).
  9. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in Information Systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105.
  10. Kroes, P. (2002). Design methodology and the nature of technical artefacts. Design Studies, 23(3), 287-302.
  11. Lee, A. S. (2001). Editor's comments. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), iv-vii.
  12. March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Descision Support System, 15(4), 251-266.
  13. Markus, M. L., Majchrzak, A., & Gasser, L. (2002). A Design Theory for Systems That Support Emergent Knowledge Processes. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 179-212.
  14. Massey, A. P., Wheeler, B. C., & Keen, P. G. W. (2000). Technology Matters. In W. D. Gary & D. Gerardine (Eds.), Information Technology and the Future Enterprise: New Models for Managers (pp. 312). NJ, USA: Prentice Hall PTR.
  15. Nunamaker, J. F. J., Chen, M., & Purdin, T. D. M. (1991). System Development in Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(3), 89-106.
  16. Palvia, P., Mao, E., Salam, A. F., & Soliman, K. S. (2003). Management Information Systems Research: What's there in a Methodology? Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 11(16).
  17. Parameswaran, M., & Whinston, A. B. (2007). Research Issues in Social Computing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(6), 336-350.
  18. Purao, S. (2002). Design Research in the Technology of Information Systems: Truth or Dare, GSU Department of CIS Working Paper. Atlanta.: GSU Department of CIS Working Paper. Atlanta.
  19. Robey, D. (1996). Research Commentary: Diversity in Information Systems Research: Threat, Promise, and Responsibility. Information Systems Research, 7(4), 400-408.
  20. Rossi, M., & Sein, M. (2003). Design Research Workshop: A Proactive Research Approach. Paper presented at the 26th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (IRIS 2003). Retrieved August 9 – 12, 2003 from http://tiesrv.hkkk.fi/iris26/presentation/workshop_designRes.pdf.
  21. Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd edition ed.). Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
  22. Ulrich, H. (1984). Management. Bern: Haupt.
  23. van Aken, J. E. (2004). Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), 219-246.
  24. Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36-59.
  25. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research : design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.


 
 

Comments

 
 

Leave a Comment



Remember personal details

Tell me about follow-up comments?

 


Research

These pages are merely notes for myself to organize some thoughts and ideas, which might be of interest for others. My research publications can be found here or here: http://www.scientificcommons.org/lars_kirchhoff.

I'm currently a research assistant at the Institute for Media and Communication Management at the University St. Gallen. My research is focused on digital communication theories and methods and in particular on knowledge media plattforms, service oriented architecture (SOA), web services and social network analysis in the field of digital media. Current projects include the Alexandria Research Platform, ScientificCommons and a GFF (swiss fundamental research fond) funded project on Corporate Blogging.


 

Aggregation
Underwater Photographers
Interesting Reads
Research
All Photo Galleries
Advanced Search
Referrers

Copyright © 2001 - 2010 Lars Kirchhoff. All Rights Reserved.
Sociomantic