Design Science Research

Design Science In Information Systems Research- Hevner et al. (2004)

2015/08/17

Positioning And Presenting Design Science Research For Maximum Impact- Shirley Gregor & Alan R. Hevner (2013)

Presenter : Maido Professor : Daphne Yuan

2

Outline

1. Introduction2. Positioning Design Science Research3. Guidelines for Design Science Research4. Presenting Design Science Research5. Conclusion

3

Introduction

4

Introduction• Information Systems ▫within an organization for the purpose of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of that organization

• To determine the extent to which that purpose is achieved▫Capabilities of the information system and characteristics of the organization, its work systems, its people, and its development and implementation methodologies

5

Introduction• Behavioral Science Paradigm▫ Roots in nature science▫ Develop and justify theories that explain or predict organizational and human phenomena surrounding the analysis, design, implementation, management, and use of information systems

• Design Science Paradigm▫ Roots in engineering and the sciences of artificial▫ Problem-solving paradigm▫ Create innovations that define the ideas, practices, technical capabilities, and products through which the analysis, design, implementation, management, and use of information systems can be effectively and efficiently accomplished

6

Introduction• Theories seek to predict or explain phenomena that occur with respect to the artifact’s use (intention to use), perceived usefulness, and impact on individuals and organizations (net benefits) depending on system, service, and information quality• Relatively little behavioral research has focused on evaluating models• Design science creates and evaluates IT artifacts intended to solve identified organizational problems

7

Introduction• Justificatory Theory▫Design theory - it says how to do something▫Kernel theory - theories from natural science, social science and mathematics▫ “Contributions to knowledge”

• Research Questions:▫How to conduct, evaluate and present DSR?

Focus primarily on technology-based design▫How to make contributions?

8

Design Activities

9

A Framework for IS Research

10

Positioning Design Science Research

11

Positioning Design Science Research• A potential research contribution:▫ Is it true? Is it new? Is it interesting?

• Key questions that should be addressed1. Are the problems discussed in the paper of substantial interest? Would solutions of these problems materially advance knowledge of theory, methods or applications?2. Does the author either solve these problems or else make contributions toward a solution that improves substantially upon previous work?3. Are the methods of solution new? Can the proposed solution methods be used to solve other problems of interest?4. Does the exposition of the paper help to clarify our understanding of this area of research or application?

12

DSR Contribution Type• from less abstract to more abstract• in terms of the knowledge’s maturity level

13

Knowledge via DSR

14

The Roles of Knowledge

15

The Knowledge Contribution Framework

16

1. Invention• True invention is a radical breakthrough▫ clear departure from the accepted ways of thinking and doing▫ an exploratory search over a complex problem space that requires cognitive skills and multiple knowledge

• the researcher may be guided by nothing more than “interestingness”▫ a recognized problem may not necessarily exist▫ the value of a solution may be unclear▫ a key contribution is the conceptualization of the problem itself

17

1. Invention• e.g. Agrawal et al. (1993) developed what appears to be the first full conceptualization of mining databases for association rules as well as an efficient method for discovering them• Most research papers that fall into the invention category are at the artifact/instantiation level• Knowledge flows in the invention quadrant are typically from prescriptive(Λ) to descriptive(Ω)

18

2. Improvement• To create better solutions in the form of more efficient and effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas▫ draw from a deep understanding of the problem environment▫ clearly demonstrate that the improved solution truly advances on previous knowledge

• Improvement DSR is judged first on its ability to clearly represent and communicate the new artifact design

19

2. Improvement• e.g. Nunamaker et al. (1991a). This paper studies how the design of improved anonymity features impacts the effectiveness of option generation in negotiating groups using GDSS• Contributions to the Λ knowledge base in the form of artifacts at one or more levels▫Might be extended to the Ω knowledge base

20

3. Exaptation• Effective artifacts may exist in related problem areas that may be adapted or, more accurately, exapted to the new problem context▫ new technology advances often require new applications▫must present some particular challenges

21

3. Exaptation• e.g. Chaturvedi et al.’s (2011) design principles for the user experience in virtual worlds where the user experience in this context could be expected to be significantly different from online experiences in general• contributions to the Λ knowledge base in the form of artifacts at all three levels as appropriate to the research project goals▫Ω-knowledge contributions may also be produced via a greater understanding of the new artifacts in use

22

4. Routine Design• Research opportunities are less obvious• In this quadrant is work that would not normally be thought of as contributing to research• However, routine work may in some cases lead to surprises and discoveries ▫ but, in such cases, these discoveries will likely involve moving the research to one of the other quadrants

• The key differentiator between professional design and DSR is the clear identification of contributions to the Ω and Λ knowledge bases

23

Guidelines for Design Science Research

24

Guidelines for Design Science Research• A problem solving process▫Knowledge and understanding of a design problem and its solution are acquired in the building and application of an artifact

• 7 guidelines ▫ for design science in information systems research▫ to assist researchers, reviewers, editors, and readers to understand the requirements for effective design-science research

25

Guideline 1: Design as an Artifact• The result of design-science research in IS is a purposeful IT artifact created to address an important organizational problem▫Must be described effectively, enabling its implementation and application in an appropriate domain▫Many include components of the organization and people involved in the use of a computer-based artifact

• Constructs, Models, Methods and• Instantiations▫Demonstrates feasibility and suitability

26

Guideline 2: Problem Relevance• To acquire knowledge and understanding that enable the development and implementation of technology-based solutions to unsolved and important business problems• Behavioral vs. Design Science▫ e.g. technology acceptance model

• The outcome plays a major role in achieve goals▫ e.g. profit maximization in economic view

27

Guideline 3: Design Evaluation• The business environment establishes the requirements upon which the evaluation of the artifact is based▫Evaluation includes the integration of the artifact within the technical infrastructure of the business environment

• The selection of evaluation methods must be matched appropriately with the designed artifact and the selected evaluation metrics• The measurement of style lies in the realm of human perception and taste: machine beauty

28

Guideline 3: Design Evaluation

29

Guideline 4: Research Contributions• The Design Artifact▫must enable the solution▫may extend the knowledge base or apply existing knowledge in new and innovative ways

• Foundations▫ appropriately evaluated constructs, models, methods, or instantiations that extend and improve the existing foundations in the knowledgebase

• Methodologies▫ the creative development and use of evaluation methods and new evaluation metrics

30

Guideline 5: Research Rigor• Rigor addresses the way in which research is conducted▫Design-science research requires the application of rigorous methods in both the construction and evaluation of the designed artifact

• It is possible and necessary for all IS research to be both rigorous and relevant▫Overemphasis on rigor in behavioral IS research has often resulted in a corresponding lowering of relevance

31

Guideline 6: Design as a Search Process• Design science is inherently iterative▫ The search for the best, or optimal, design is often intractable for realistic information systems problem

• Problem solving can be viewed as utilizing available means to reach desired ends while satisfying laws existing in the environment• Simplifications and Decompositions

32

Guideline 7: Communication of Research• Design-science research must be presented both to technology-oriented as well as management-oriented audiences• Provide sufficient detail to enable the described artifact to be constructed (implemented) and used within an appropriate organizational context• The emphasis must be on the importance of the problem and the novelty and effectiveness of the solution approach realized in the artifact

34

Presenting Design Science Research

35

Publication Schema for DSR• (1) Introduction Section• (2) Literature Review Section• (3) Method Section• (4) Artifact Description Section• (5) Evaluation Section• (6) Discussion Section• (7) Conclusion Section

36

(1) Introduction Section① Specify the purpose and scope of the artifact to be developed② Identify the class of problems③ State the relevance of research problem to real-world practice ④ Claim contributions to practice and knowledge

37

(2) Literature Review Section① Relevant descriptive theory from Ω② Prior prescriptive knowledge or existing artifacts from Λ ③ Any knowledge that is relevant to the problem at hand• If this survey is not done carefully, the developed artifact risks not being really new and with little contributions

38

(3) Method Section① The specific DSR approach adopted should be explained② Clear rationales for the selections of design (build and evaluate) methods ▫ Research rigor

39

(4) Artifact Description Section• This section differs markedly from articles adopting the typical format of a behavioral science empirical article① the description of the design artifact② the design search (development) process that led to the discovery of the artifact design• There is likely to be a variety of ways in which the material in this section is presented and there are likely to be different design practices depending on the type of artifact and the research outlet

40

(5) Evaluation Section• The artifact is evaluated in terms of criteria that can include validity and utility• A rigorous design evaluation may draw from many potential techniques, such as analytics, case studies, experiments, or simulations• Any evidence for the worth of the artifact should be given: for example, final summative tests and evidence of impact in the field

41

(6) Discussion Section• This section should go back to generalities as far as possible• A summary of what has been learned could be provided by expressing the design knowledge gained• A claim must be reiterated ▫ It should be clear to the reader that bridging the “research gap” has been achieved via convincing evidence

42

(7) Conclusion Section① Concluding paragraphs that restate the important findings of the work② The main highlights of the paper

43

Conclusion

44

Conclusion

1. Positioning Design Science Research2. Guidelines for Design Science Research3. Presenting Design Science Research

45