Solution Prototype: A Composed Artifact as Innovation Carrier

This paper outlines an artifact building and evaluation proposal. Design Science Research (DSR) studies usually consider encapsulated artifact that have relationships with other artifacts. The solution prototype as a composed artifact demands for a more comprehensive consideration in its systematic environment. The solution prototype that is composed from blending product and service prototype has particular impacts on the dualism of DSR’s “Build” and “Evaluate”. Since the mix between product and service prototyping can be varied, there is a demand for a more agile and iterative framework. Van de Ven’s research framework seems to fit this purpose. Van de Ven allows for an iterative research approach to problem solving with flexible starting point. The research activity is the result between the iteration of two dimensions. This framework focuses on the natural evaluation, particularly on ex-ante validation. A correlation between Hevner’s and Van de Vens framework is analyzed, and finally the proposal is presented.

[1]  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..

[2]  Paul Israel,et al.  The Sources of Innovation , 1990 .

[3]  Jan Holmström,et al.  Business process innovation in the supply chain – a case study of implementing vendor managed inventory , 1998 .

[4]  Thomas H. Davenport,et al.  Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology , 1992 .

[5]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  Collaborative Practice Research , 2000, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[6]  Donna B. Stoddard,et al.  Reengineering: Business Change of Mythic Proportions? , 1994, MIS Q..

[7]  Maryanne M. Gobble,et al.  Design Thinking , 2010, The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible.

[8]  JINWEI CAO,et al.  Interactions Between System Evaluation And Theory Testing: A Demonstration of the Power of a Mulitfaceted Approach to Systems Research , 2006 .

[9]  John R. Venable,et al.  A framework for Design Science research activities , 2006 .

[10]  J. Fagerberg,et al.  The Oxford handbook of innovation , 2006 .

[11]  Paul B. Kantor,et al.  Cross-Evaluation: A new model for information system evaluation , 2006 .

[12]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research , 2007 .

[13]  Michael Schrage,et al.  Serious Play: How the World's Best Companies Simulate to Innovate , 1999 .

[14]  P. Ahmed,et al.  From product innovation to solutions innovation: a new paradigm for competitive advantage , 2000 .

[15]  Tony Cornford,et al.  A critical approach to evaluation , 2005, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[16]  Mary Jo Bitner,et al.  Service Blueprinting: A Practical Technique for Service Innovation , 2008 .

[17]  Thomas H. Davenport,et al.  Rigor vs. relevance revisited: response to Benbasat and Zmud , 1999 .

[18]  Nitin Nohria,et al.  Motivación de los empleados: un poderoso modelo nuevo , 2008 .

[19]  Markus Helfert,et al.  Practical Aspects of Design Science , 2011, Communications in Computer and Information Science.

[20]  Peter J. Coughlan,et al.  Prototypes as (Design) Tools for Behavioral and Organizational Change , 2007 .

[21]  H. Chesbrough.  Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers , 2010 .

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

[23]  Pervaiz K. Ahmed,et al.  The ASP phenomenon: an example of solution innovation that liberates organization from technology or captures it? , 2004 .

[24]  Göran Goldkuhl,et al.  DESIGN THEORIES IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS - A NEED FOR MULTI-GROUNDING , 2004 .

[25]  Trevor Wood-Harper,et al.  A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research , 1996, J. Inf. Technol..

[26]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance , 1999, MIS Q..

[27]  Jan Pries-Heje,et al.  Strategies for Design Science Research Evaluation , 2008, ECIS.

[28]  Łukasz Ostrowski,et al.  Detailed Design Science Research and Its Impact on the Quality of Design Artefacts , 2011 .

[29]  Stephen L. Vargo,et al.  Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing , 2004 .

[30]  Jane Fulton Suri,et al.  Experience prototyping , 2000, DIS '00.

[31]  Yves Pigneur,et al.  Business Model Generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers and challengers , 2010 .

[32]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  Reinventing Your Business Model , 2008 .

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

[34]  Göran Goldkuhl,et al.  A Multi-Grounded Design Research Process , 2010, DESRIST.

[35]  R. Volkema.  Problem Formulation in Planning and Design , 1983 .

[36]  Fabrice Kordon,et al.  An Introduction to Rapid System Prototyping , 2002, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

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

[38]  John D. Aram,et al.  Bridging Scholarship in Management: Epistemological Reflections , 2003 .

[39]  Alexander Osterwalder,et al.  The business model ontology a proposition in a design science approach , 2004 .

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

[41]  James M. Bieman,et al.  Rapid Prototyping: Lessons Learned , 1995, IEEE Softw..