On Reviewing of Results in Design Research

Design research is emerging research approach. Concerning the most important research outcome of design research, an artefact or innovation, the business needs are then emphasized. In their seminal article of design research, March and Smith (1995) stressed on some universal criteria. Later Hevner et al. (2004) presented their 7 guidelines. In this paper their sketched approaches are further elaborated. Two new resource types (human and informational ones) are proposed and the goal function is defined for reviewing goodness of design research. In the same connection scientific research results are classified into three classes in general, and into four classes in design research especially. Both classifications are novel. The extensions and results are then discussed.

[1]  Ian Parberry A guide for new referees in theoretical computer science , 1989, SIGA.

[2]  J. Aken Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules , 2004 .

[3]  John C. Henderson,et al.  Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming Organizations , 1993, IBM Syst. J..

[4]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. , 1997 .

[5]  Caroline Haythornthwaite,et al.  ARTICULATING DIVIDES IN DISTRIBUTED KNOWLEDGE PRACTICE , 2006 .

[6]  Carol Reeves,et al.  DEFINING QUALITY: ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS , 1994 .

[7]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Science in Information Systems Research , 2004, MIS Q..

[8]  Salvatore T. March,et al.  Design and natural science research on information technology , 1995, Decis. Support Syst..

[9]  Neil F. Doherty,et al.  A re-conceptualization of the interpretive flexibility of information technologies: redressing the balance between the social and the technical , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Sundeep Sahay,et al.  Organizational context, social interpretation, and the implementation and consequences of geographic information systems☆ , 1996 .

[11]  Frederick P. Brooks,et al.  No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering , 1987 .

[12]  Alan Jay Smith,et al.  The task of the referee , 1990, Computer.

[13]  Lee Sproull,et al.  What's Mine Is Ours, or Is It? A Study of Attitudes about Information Sharing , 1994, Inf. Syst. Res..

[14]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Identity Crisis Within the IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline's Core Properties , 2003, MIS Q..

[15]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  A Paradigmatic Analysis of Information Systems As a Design Science , 2007, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[16]  Ellen Christiaanse,et al.  Beyond Sabre: An Empirical Test of Expertise Exploitation in Electronic Channels , 2002, MIS Q..

[17]  F. Blackler Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation , 1995 .

[18]  Huoy Min Khoo,et al.  The Evolution of e-Commerce Research: A Stakeholder Perspective , 2005 .

[19]  Hans van der Heijden,et al.  User Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems , 2004, MIS Q..

[20]  Les Gasser,et al.  A Design Theory for Systems That Support Emergent Knowledge Processes , 2002, MIS Q..

[21]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[22]  Anany Levitin,et al.  Data as a Resource: Properties, Implications, and Prescriptions , 1998 .

[23]  Arvid Aulin,et al.  Foundations of Mathematical System Dynamics: The Fundamental Theory of Causal Recursion and Its Application to Social Science and Economics , 1989 .