Design Science Research according to Peffers et al

Problem identification and motivation

Description

Define the specific research problem and justify the value of a solution. Since the problem definition will be used to develop an effective artifactual solution, it may be useful to atomize the problem conceptually so that the solution can capture the problem’s complexity. Justifying the value of a solution accomplishes two things: it motivates the researcher and the audience of the research to pursue the solution and to accept the results and it helps to understand the reasoning associated with the researcher’s understanding of the problem. Resources required for this activity include knowledge of the state of the problem and the importance of its solution (Peffers et al. 2007).

Further Readings

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., and Chatterjee, S. 2007. “A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research,” Journal of Management Information Systems (24:3), Taylor & Francis Ltd, pp. 45–77. (https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302).

Objectives of a solution

Description

Infer the objectives of a solution from the problem definition. The objectives can be quantitative, e.g., terms in which a desirable solution would be better than current ones, or qualitative, e.g., where a new artifact is expected to support solutions to problems not hitherto addressed. The objectives should be inferred rationally from the problem specification. Resources required for this include knowledge of the state of problems and current solutions and their efficacy, if any (Peffers et al. 2007).

Further Readings

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., and Chatterjee, S. 2007. “A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research,” Journal of Management Information Systems (24:3), Taylor & Francis Ltd, pp. 45–77. (https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302).

Design and development

Description

Create the artifactual solution. Such artifacts are potentially, with each defined broadly, constructs, models, methods, or instantiations (Hevner et al. 2004). This activity includes determining the artifact’s desired functionality and its architecture and then creating the actual artifact. Resources required moving from objectives to design and development include knowledge of theory that can be brought to bear as a solution (Peffers et al. 2007).

Further Readings

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., and Chatterjee, S. 2007. “A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research,” Journal of Management Information Systems (24:3), Taylor & Francis Ltd, pp. 45–77. (https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302).

Demonstration

Description

Demonstrate the efficacy of the artifact to solve the problem. This could involve its use in experimentation, simulation, a case study, proof, or other appropriate activity. Resources required for the demonstration include effective knowledge of how to use the artifact to solve the problem (Peffers et al. 2007).

Further Readings

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., and Chatterjee, S. 2007. “A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research,” Journal of Management Information Systems (24:3), Taylor & Francis Ltd, pp. 45–77. (https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302).

Evaluation

Description

Observe and measure how well the artifact supports a solution to the problem. This activity involves comparing the objectives of a solution to actual observed results from the use of the artifact in the demonstration. It requires knowledge of relevant metrics and analysis techniques. Depending on the nature of the problem venue and the artifact, evaluation could include such items as a comparison of the rtifact's functionality with the solution objectives from activity 2 above, objective quantitative performance measures, such as budgets or items produced satisfaction surveys, client feedback, or simulations. At the end of this activity, the researchers can decide whether to iterate back to step 3 to try to improve the effectiveness of the artifact or to continue on to communication and leave further improvement to subsequent projects. The nature of the research venue may dictate whether such iteration is feasible or not (Peffers et al. 2007).

Further Readings

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., and Chatterjee, S. 2007. “A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research,” Journal of Management Information Systems (24:3), Taylor & Francis Ltd, pp. 45–77. (https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302).

Communication

Description

Communicate the problem and its importance, the artifact, its utility and novelty, the rigor of its design, and its effectiveness to researchers and other relevant audiences, such as practicing professionals, when appropriate. In scholarly research publications, researchers might use the structure of this process to structure the paper, just as the nominal structure of an empirical research process (problem definition, literature review, hypothesis development, data collection, analysis, results, discussion, and conclusion) is a common structure for empirical research papers. Communication requires knowledge of the disciplinary culture (Peffers et al. 2007).

Further Readings

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., and Chatterjee, S. 2007. “A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research,” Journal of Management Information Systems (24:3), Taylor & Francis Ltd, pp. 45–77. (https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302).