Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Empirical Grounding of Design Science Research Methodology

  • Conference paper
Book cover New Horizons in Design Science: Broadening the Research Agenda (DESRIST 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 9073))

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to empirically ground design science research methodology (DSR). We claim that popular DSR methodologies lack solid empirical grounding since they are based on reconstructions of studies conducted for other purposes. Thus, we have systematically collected methodology users’ empirical experiences and reflections from DSR projects. The overall findings show that the experiences are mainly positive. However, there are negative experiences such as the guidelines’ granularity, lack of rigorousness concerning evaluation of new knowledge, and support for collaboration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alturki, A., Bandara, W., Gable, G.G.: Design science research and the core of information systems. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds.) DESRIST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7286, pp. 309–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Bodenbenner, P., Feuerriegel, S., Neumann, D.: Design science in practice: designing an electricity demand response system. In: vom Brocke, J., Hekkala, R., Ram, S., Rossi, M. (eds.) DESRIST 2013. LNCS, vol. 7939, pp. 293–307. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Gill, T.G., Hevner, A.R.: A fitness-utility model for design science research. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS) 4(2), 5 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Goldkuhl, G.: Design Theories in Information Systems - A Need for Multi-Grounding. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA) 6(2), 59–72 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hevner, A.: A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19(2), 87–92 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75–105 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hinds, P.S., Vogel, R.J., Clarke-Steffen, L.: The possibilities and pitfalls of doing a secondary analysis of a qualitative data set. Qualitative Health Research 7(3), 408–424 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hovorka, D.S., Pries-Heje, J.: Don’t Ignore the Iceberg: Timely Revelation of Justification in DSR. In: vom Brocke, J., Hekkala, R., Ram, S., Rossi, M. (eds.) DESRIST 2013. LNCS, vol. 7939, pp. 228–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Iivari, J.: A Paradigmatic Analysis of Information Systems as a Design Science. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19(2), 39–63 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Indulska, M., Recker, J.C.: Design Science in IS Research: A Literature Analysis. In: Proceedings 4th Biennial ANU Workshop on Information Systems Foundations, Canberra, Australia (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lee, J., Wyner, G.M., Pentland, B.T.: Process grammar as a tool for business process design. MIS Quarterly, 757–778 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mayer, J.H.: Managing the Future—Six Guidelines for Designing Environmental Scanning Systems. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 276–290. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Tuunanen, T., Vaezi, R.: Design science research evaluation. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds.) DESRIST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7286, pp. 398–410. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24(3), 45–77 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Piirainen, K.A., Briggs, R.O.: Design theory in practice – making design science research more transparent. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 47–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Reynoso, J.M.G., Olfman, L., Ryan, T., Horan, T.: An information systems design theory for an expert system for training. Journal of Database Management (JDM) 24(3), 31–50 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rudmark, D., Lind, M.: Design Science Research Demonstrators for Punctuation – The Establishment of a Service Ecosystem. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 153–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action Design Research. MIS Quarterly 35(1), 37–56 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds.) DESRIST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7286, pp. 423–438. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Weedman, J.: Client as designer in collaborative design science research projects: what does social science design theory tell us. European Journal of Information Systems 17(5), 476–488 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wilson, J.: Responsible Authorship and Peer Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 8(2), 155–174 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gregor, S., Hevner, A.R.: Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly 37(2), 337–356 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Borås, Allégatan 1, 501 90, Borås, Sweden

    Stefan Cronholm & Hannes Göbel

Authors
  1. Stefan Cronholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hannes Göbel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Cronholm .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland

    Brian Donnellan

  2. Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

    Markus Helfert

  3. Intel Labs Europe, Leixlip, Ireland

    Jim Kenneally

  4. Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA

    Debra VanderMeer

  5. University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

    Marcus Rothenberger

  6. Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Robert Winter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cronholm, S., Göbel, H. (2015). Empirical Grounding of Design Science Research Methodology. In: Donnellan, B., Helfert, M., Kenneally, J., VanderMeer, D., Rothenberger, M., Winter, R. (eds) New Horizons in Design Science: Broadening the Research Agenda. DESRIST 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9073. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18714-3_40

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18714-3_40

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-18713-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-18714-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation