Action Design Research according to Sein et al

From Design Science Research Methods
Revision as of 09:23, 5 November 2022 by MichiGau (talk | contribs) (→‎Further Readings)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Introduction

"Two paradigms characterize much of the research in the Information Systems discipline: behavioral science and design science. The behavioral science paradigm seeks to develop and verify theories that explain or predict human or organizational behavior. The design-science paradigm seeks to extend the boundaries of human and organizational capabilities by creating new and innovative artifacts. Both paradigms are foundational to the IS discipline, positioned as it is at the confluence of people, organizations, and technology." (Hevner et. al.) [1]

In many publications, essays, editorials or books describing the Design Science Research (DSR) method the authors aim to support researchers to conduct DSR projects for example by providing guidelines [2] [3] or how to extend on existing design knowledge [4] and many more. Gregor and Hevner provide foundational guidance by describing their understanding and application of DSR concepts and providing guidance for researches on how to:

  1. Appreciate the levels of artifact abstractions that may be DSR contributions
  2. Identify appropriate ways of consuming and producing knowledge when you are preparing journal articles or other scholarly works
  3. Understand and position the knowledge contributions of your research projects
  4. Structure a DSR article so that it emphasizes significant contributions to the knowledge base

Their focal contribution is the DSR knowledge contribution framework with two dimensions based on the existing state of knowledge in both the problem and solution domains for the research opportunity under study. In addition, they propose a DSR communication schema with similarities to more conventional publication patterns, but which substitutes the description of the DSR artifact in place of a traditional results section. [5]

Other researchers propose a set of core dimensions of a Design Science Research project that facilitates effective capture of the most relevant aspects of a DSR project to efficiently plan and communicate key considerations and conceptualizations of a DSR project. In this work, the authors represent six dimensions in the form of a DSR grid, a one-page visualization of the DSR project that is adjustable to the specific purpose for using the concept. [6]

Another important role in DSR is how to specify design theory so that it can be communicated, justified, and developed cumulatively. In the essay of Gregor and Jones they focus on the structural components or anatomy of design theories in IS [7] . Baskerville and Pries-Heje focus on how design theories are explanatory. In their work, they demonstrate that design theories deliver functional explanations with a simple and elegant structure explaining generalized solution components by the related generalized requirements [8] .

In the book, Design Science Research Cases [9] several DSR cases are presented by experienced researchers in the field. It offers readers access to real-world DSR studies, together with the authors’ reflections on their research processes. The description of the cases supports researchers in addition to existing introductions to DSR methods and processes.

Process description

Action Design.png

Action design research is a research method for generating prescriptive design knowledge through the building and evaluating ensemble IT artifacts in an organizational setting. It deals with two seemingly disparate challenges:

  1. addressing a problem situation encountered in a specific organizational setting by intervening and evaluating
  2. constructing and evaluating an IT artifact that addresses the class of problems typified by the encountered situation

The responses requested by these two challenges result in a method that focuses on constructing, intervening, and evaluating an artifact that represents not only the researchers 'theoretical precursors and purpose but also user impact and ongoing use in context. [10]

Problem Formulation

Description

Tasks to be performed in the problem formulation activity:

  1. Identify and conceptualize the research opportunity
  2. Formulate initial research questions
  3. Cast the problem as an instance of a class of problems
  4. Identify contributing theoretical bases and prior technology advances
  5. Secure long-term organizational commitment
  6. Set up roles and responsibilities

Examples

Practice Inspired Research:
The research was driven by the need for better IT support of competence management in knowledge-intensive organizations.

Theory Ingrained Artifact:
The theory used was the skill-based model of competence and a competence typology.

Further Readings

Literature Review according to vom Brocke et al

Sein, Maung K.; Henfridsson, Ola; Purao, Sandeep; Rossi, Matti; and Lindgren, Rikard. 2011. "Action Design Research," MIS Quarterly, (35: 1) pp.37-56.

Webster J and Watson RT (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future - Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly 26(2), xiii-xxiii.

Building, Intervention, and Evaluation

Description

Tasks to be performed in the building, intervention, and evaluation (BIE) activity:

  1. Discover initial knowledge-creation target
  2. Select or customize BIE form
  3. Execute BIE cycle(s)
  4. Assess need for additional cycles, repeat

Examples

Articulated design principles.
Examples for evaluation:

  • Case study: Study artifact in depth in business environment
  • Field Study: Monitor use of artifact in multiple projects

Further Readings

Evaluation Patterns for Design Science Research Artefacts

Sein, Maung K.; Henfridsson, Ola; Purao, Sandeep; Rossi, Matti; and Lindgren, Rikard. 2011. "Action Design Research," MIS Quarterly, (35: 1) pp.37-56.

Hevner AR, March ST, Park J and Ram S (2004) Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75-105.

Gregor, S., Chandra Kruse, L., & Seidel, S. (in press). The Anatomy of a Design Principle.Journal of the Association for Information Systems.

Chandra Kruse, L. and Nickerson, J. V. (2018), Portraying Design Essence (January 2018). Paper presented at the 51st Hawaii International Conference in System Science (HICSS)

Reflection and Learning

Description

Tasks in the reflection and learning activity:

  1. Reflect on the design and redesign during the project
  2. Evaluate adherence to principles
  3. Analyze intervention results according to stated goals

Further Readings

Sein, Maung K.; Henfridsson, Ola; Purao, Sandeep; Rossi, Matti; and Lindgren, Rikard. 2011. "Action Design Research," MIS Quarterly, (35: 1) pp.37-56.

Formalization of Learning

Description

Tasks to be performed in the formulation of learning activity:

  1. Abstract the learning into concepts for a class of field problems
  2. Share outcomes and assessment with practitioners
  3. Articulate outcomes as design principles
  4. Articulate learning in light of theories selected
  5. Formalize results for dissemination

Further Readings

Sein, Maung K.; Henfridsson, Ola; Purao, Sandeep; Rossi, Matti; and Lindgren, Rikard. 2011. "Action Design Research," MIS Quarterly, (35: 1) pp.37-56.

References


  1. ↑ Hevner AR, March ST, Park J and Ram S (2004) Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75-105.
  2. ↑ Hevner AR, March ST, Park J and Ram S (2004) Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75-105.
  3. ↑ van der Merwe A., Gerber A., Smuts H. (2020) Guidelines for Conducting Design Science Research in Information Systems. In: Tait B., Kroeze J., Gruner S. (eds) ICT Education. SACLA 2019. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1136. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35629-3_11
  4. ↑ vom Brocke, J., Winter, R., Hevner, A., Maedche, A. (2020), Accumulation and Evolution of Design Knowledge in Design Science Research – A Journey Through Time and Space, in: Journals of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS), 2020, forthcoming (ABDC_2016: A*; ABS: 4; ISI: 3.487; ISI: 2.109; VHB_3: A).
  5. ↑ Gregor S and Hevner AR (2013) Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact. MIS Quarterly 37(2), 337-55.
  6. ↑ vom Brocke, J., Maedche, A. (2019), The DSR Grid: Six Core Dimensions for Effectively Planning and Communicating Design Science Research Projects, in: Electronic Markets, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 379–385 (ABDC: A; ABS: 2; ISI: 2.121; VHB: B).
  7. ↑ Gregor S and Jones D (2007) The Anatomy of a Design Theory. Journal Of The Association For Information Systems 8(5), 312-335.
  8. ↑ Baskerville, R.; Pries-Heje, J.: Explanatory Design Theory, in: Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2, 5, 2010, pp. 271-282.
  9. ↑ Brocke, J. vom, Hevner, A., and Mädche, A. (eds.). 2020. Design Science Research. Cases, Progress in IS, Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46781-4.
  10. ↑ Sein, Maung K.; Henfridsson, Ola; Purao, Sandeep; Rossi, Matti; and Lindgren, Rikard. 2011. "Action Design Research," MIS Quarterly, (35: 1) pp.37-56.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.mydesignprocess.com/index.php?title=Action_Design_Research_according_to_Sein_et_al&oldid=788"