Explanatory Design Theory

Design, design research, and design science have received increasing attention lately. This has led to a more scientific focus on design that then has made it timely to reconsider our definitions of the design theory concept. Many scholars in Information Systems assume a design theory requires a complex and elaborate structure. While this structure has appeal for its completeness and complexity, it has led scholars to criticize simplicity and elegance in design science theories that fail to demonstrate the “required” elements. Such criticisms lead to questions about whether design theory can be considered theory at all.Based on a study of notable design writing in architecture, finance, management, cognitive psychology, computer science as well as information systems and the philosophy of science, the authors demonstrate that design theory consists of two parts: a design practice theory and an explanatory design theory. An explanatory design theory provides a functional explanation as to why a solution has certain components in terms of the requirements stated in the design. For explanatory design theory, only two elements are essentially necessary for a complete design theory: requirements and solution components. The argument is logical as well as empirical; the authors give examples of design theory drawing from IS as well as other design-related fields show how design theory can be both simple and complete. The paper concludes with a proposal for explanatory design theory.

[1]  Jonathan Walmsley,et al.  THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOCKEAN ABSTRACTION , 2000 .

[2]  Richard T. Watson,et al.  A Design Theory Approach to Building Strategic Network-Based Customer Service Systems , 2009, Decis. Sci..

[3]  Eric W. T. Ngai,et al.  Design of an RFID-based Healthcare Management System using an Information System Design Theory , 2009, Inf. Syst. Frontiers.

[4]  Vladimir Zwass,et al.  Actualizing Organizational Memory with Information Systems , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[5]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial - 3rd Edition , 1981 .

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

[7]  John N. Hooker,et al.  Is Design Theory Possible , 2004 .

[8]  William Lidwell,et al.  Universal Principles of Design , 2003 .

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

[10]  P. Järvinen.  Action Research is Similar to Design Science , 2007 .

[11]  Dianne Hall,et al.  Building a Theoretical Foundation for a Learning-Oriented Knowledge Management System , 2003 .

[12]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations , 1983 .

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

[14]  Neil B. Harrison,et al.  Organizational Patterns of Agile Software Development , 2004 .

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

[16]  Dirk S. Hovorka,et al.  Incommensurability and Multi-paradigm Grounding in Design Science Research: Implications for Creating Knowledge , 2010, Human Benefit through the Diffusion of Information Systems Design Science Research.

[17]  A. Adam.  Whatever happened to information systems ethics? Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea , 2004 .

[18]  David Lorge Parnas,et al.  A rational design process: How and why to fake it , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[19]  Nelson Goodman,et al.  Fact, fiction, & forecast , 1955 .

[20]  Albert Sydney Hornby,et al.  Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary , 1974 .

[21]  Christopher Alexander.  Notes on the Synthesis of Form , 1964 .

[22]  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..

[23]  Colin Potts,et al.  Design of Everyday Things , 1988 .

[24]  George M. Kasper,et al.  A Theory of Decision Support System Design for User Calibration , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

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

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

[27]  Deborah Bunker,et al.  Human Benefit through the Diffusion of Information Systems Design Science Research - IFIP WG 8.2/8.6 International Working Conference, Perth, Australia, March 30 - April 1, 2010. Proceedings , 2010, Human Benefit through the Diffusion of Information Systems Design Science Research.

[28]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  Structure in 5's: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization Design , 1980, Management Science.

[29]  Sandeep Purao,et al.  Being Proactive: Where Action Research Meets Design Research , 2005, ICIS.

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

[31]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Information Systems as a Reference Discipline , 2002, MIS Q..

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

[33]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Enterprise ontology - theory and methodology , 2006 .

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

[35]  Philotheus Boehner,et al.  Philosophical writings : a selection , 1964 .

[36]  Omar A. El Sawy,et al.  Assessing Information System Design Theory in Perspective: How Useful Was our 1992 Initial Rendition? , 2004 .

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

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

[39]  Max Jacobson,et al.  A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction , 1981 .