Utilizing, Producing, and Contributing Design Knowledge in DSR Projects

We distinguish several design knowledge types in IS research and examine different modes of utilizing and contributing design knowledge that can take place during design science research (DSR) projects. DSR projects produce project design knowledge, which is project-specific, possibly untested, conjectural, and temporary; thus, distinct from the more stable contributions to the propositional and prescriptive human knowledge bases. We also identify solution design knowledge as distinct from solution design entities in the prescriptive knowledge base. Each of the six modes of utilizing or contributing knowledge (i.e. design theorizing modes) we examine draws on different knowledge types in a different way to inform the production of project design knowledge (including artifact design) in a DSR project or to grow the human knowledge bases in return. Design science researchers can draw on our design theorizing modes and design knowledge perspectives to utilize the different extant knowledge types more consciously and explicitly to inform their build and evaluation activities, and to better identify and explicate their research’s contribution potential to the human knowledge bases.

[1]  Steven L. Alter.  The concept of ‘IT artifact’ has outlived its usefulness and should be retired now , 2015, Inf. Syst. J..

[2]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  The Anatomy of a Design Theory , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[3]  Peter B. Seddon,et al.  Generalization in IS research: a critique of the conflicting positions of Lee & Baskerville and Tsang & Williams , 2015, J. Inf. Technol..

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

[5]  M. Yadav.  The Decline of Conceptual Articles and Implications for Knowledge Development , 2010 .

[6]  Steven L. Alter.  Nothing is more practical than a good conceptual artifact… which may be a theory, framework, model, metaphor, paradigm or perhaps some other abstraction , 2017, Inf. Syst. J..

[7]  Allen S. Lee.  Theory is king? But first, what is theory? , 2014, J. Inf. Technol..

[8]  Fred Niederman,et al.  Design science and the accumulation of knowledge in the information systems discipline , 2012, TMIS.

[9]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research: Justification and Evaluation of Knowledge Production , 2015, MIS Q..

[10]  Paul Benjamin Lowry,et al.  Seeking Middle-Range Theories in Information Systems Research , 2015, ICIS.

[11]  Werner Esswein,et al.  Proposal for Requirements Driven Design Science Research , 2015, DESRIST.

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

[13]  Jan Pries-Heje,et al.  Design Theory Projectability , 2014, IS&O.

[14]  I. Niiniluoto.  The aim and structure of applied research , 1993 .

[15]  D. Tranfield,et al.  Developing Design Propositions through Research Synthesis , 2008 .

[16]  Robert O. Briggs,et al.  On Expanding the Scope of Design Science in IS Research , 2011, DESRIST.

[17]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Going back to basics in design science: from the information technology artifact to the information systems artifact , 2015, Inf. Syst. J..

[18]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  The IS Core - VII: Towards Information Systems as a Science of Meta-Artifacts , 2003, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[19]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Toward a broader vision for Information Systems , 2011, TMIS.

[20]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the "IT" in IT Research - A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[21]  Omar El Sawy,et al.  Building an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS , 1992, Inf. Syst. Res..

[22]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[23]  Mary Lynn Manns,et al.  Fearless Change: Patterns for Introducing New Ideas , 2004 .

[24]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  Information system artefact or information system application: that is the question , 2017, Inf. Syst. J..

[25]  Alexander Maedche,et al.  Designing a Requirement Mining System , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[26]  Ron Weber,et al.  Evaluating and Developing Theories in the Information Systems Discipline , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[27]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  Theory – still king but needing a revolution! , 2014, J. Inf. Technol..

[28]  David E. Avison,et al.  Is theory king?: a rejoinder , 2014, J. Inf. Technol..

[29]  K. Weick.  Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination , 1989 .

[30]  Sandeep Purao,et al.  Design Research in the Technology of Information Systems: Truth or Dare , 2002 .

[31]  David E. Avison,et al.  Is theory king?: questioning the theory fetish in information systems , 2014, J. Inf. Technol..

[32]  Ray Pawson,et al.  Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. , 2006 .

[33]  Kees Dorst,et al.  The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application , 2011 .

[34]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research , 2015, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[35]  K. Weick.  What Theory Is Not, Theorizing Is , 1995 .

[36]  Ann Majchrzak,et al.  Methods for Policy Research: Taking Socially Responsible Action , 2013 .

[37]  Peter Loos,et al.  On the Relevance of Design Knowledge for Design-Oriented Business and Information Systems Engineering , 2010, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng..

[38]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  A Fitness-Utility Model for Design Science Research , 2011, TMIS.

[39]  S. Carlsson.  Design Science Research in Information Systems: A Critical Realist Approach , 2010 .

[40]  Suprateek Sarker,et al.  The Information Systems Artifact: A Conceptualization Based on General Systems Theory , 2017, HICSS.

[41]  Vijay K. Vaishnavi,et al.  Design Science Research Methods and Patterns: Innovating Information and Communication Technology , 2007 .

[42]  D. Whetten.  What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution , 1989 .

[43]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  The Three Cycle View of Design Science , 2007, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[44]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  What Theory is Not , 1995 .

[45]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  POSITIONING AND PRESENTING DESIGN SCIENCE RESEARCH FOR MAXIMUM IMPACT 1 , 2013 .

[46]  Boris Otto,et al.  Principles for Knowledge Creation in Collaborative Design Science Research , 2012, ICIS.

[47]  Ralph Johnson,et al.  design patterns elements of reusable object oriented software , 2019 .

[48]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  The Nature of Theory in Information Systems , 2006, MIS Q..

[49]  Peter B. Seddon,et al.  Towards the improved treatment of generalization of knowledge claims in IS research: drawing general conclusions from samples , 2012, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

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

[51]  Danny Miller,et al.  Paradigm prison, or in praise of atheoretic research , 2007 .

[52]  Vijay K. Vaishnavi,et al.  A Framework for Theory Development in Design Science Research: Multiple Perspectives , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[53]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Maybe not the king, but an invaluable subordinate: a commentary on Avison and Malaurent’s advocacy of ‘theory light’ IS research , 2014, J. Inf. Technol..

[54]  Jan Pries-Heje,et al.  Design Logic and the Ambiguity Operator , 2010, DESRIST.

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

[56]  Joan Ernst van Aken,et al.  Design Science and Organization Development Interventions Aligning Business and Humanistic Values , 2007 .