Skip to main content
Log in

Erklärende Designtheorie

Explanatory Design Theory

  • Aufsatz
  • Published:
WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK

Zusammenfassung

In letzter Zeit wurde dem Design, der Designforschung und der Design Science vermehrt Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt. Dies führte zu einem stärkeren wissenschaftlichen Fokus auf Design, was wiederum Anlass zum Überdenken der Definitionen des Konzepts der Designtheorie gab. Viele Wissenschaftler aus dem Gebiet Information Systems gehen davon aus, dass eine Designtheorie komplexe und sorgsam ausgearbeitete Strukturen erfordert. Während eine derartige Struktur infolge ihrer Vollständigkeit und Komplexität attraktiv erscheint, hat sie doch zu wissenschaftlicher Kritik an der Einfachheit und Eleganz solcher Design-Science-Theorien geführt, die bestimmte ”notwendige” Elemente nicht enthalten. Solche Kritik führt zu der Frage, ob die Designtheorie überhaupt als Theorie angesehen werden kann.

Auf Basis einer Untersuchung verschiedener bedeutsamer Designergebnisse aus den Bereichen Architektur, Finanzen, Management, kognitive Psychologie, Informatik sowie Information Systems und Wissenschaftsphilosophie zeigen die Autoren, dass eine Designtheorie aus zwei Teilen besteht: einer Theorie der Designpraxis und einer erklärenden Designtheorie. Eine Erklärende Designtheorie umfasst eine funktionale Erklärung, warum eine bestimmte Lösung bestimmte Komponenten im Sinne von Anforderungen enthält, die im Design formuliert werden. Für eine erklärende Designtheorie sind nur zwei Elemente zwingend notwendig: Anforderungs- und Lösungskomponenten. Die These wird logisch und empirisch begründet; die Autoren geben Beispiele für Designtheorie aus dem Bereich Information Systems und anderen designbezogenen Gebieten, um zu zeigen, dass Designtheorie sowohl einfach als auch vollständig sein kann. Der Beitrag schließt mit einem Vorschlag für eine erklärende Designtheorie.

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6
Abb. 7
Abb. 8
Abb. 9
Abb. 10
Abb. 11
Abb. 12
Abb. 13
Abb. 14
Abb. 15

Literatur

  • Alexander C (1964) Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander C, Ishikawa S, Silverstein M, Jacobson M, Fiksdahl-King I, Angel S (1977) A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville R, Myers M (2002) Information systems as a reference discipline. MIS Quarterly 26(1):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brohman M, Piccoli G, Martin P, Zulkernine F, Parasuraman A, Watson R (2009) A design theory approach to building strategic network-based customer service systems. Decision Sciences 40(3):403–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole R, Purao S, Rossi M, Sein MK (2005) Being proactive: where action research meets design research. In: Avison D, Galletta D, DeGross JI (Hrsg) Proc 26th international conference on information systems. Association for Information Systems, Las Vegas, S 325–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Coplien JO, Harrison NB (2005) Organizational patterns of agile software development. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz JLG (2006) Enterprise ontology: theory and methodology. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gamma E, Helm R, Johnson R, Vlissides J (1995) Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl G (2004) Design theories in information systems – a need for multi-grounding. JITTA: Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 6(2):59–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman N (1955) Fact, fiction, & forecast. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor S, Jones D (2007) The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8(5):312–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall D, Paradice D, Courtney JF (2003) Building a theoretical foundation for a learning-oriented knowledge management system. JITTA: Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 5(2):63–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28(1):75–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooker JN (2004) Is design theory possible? Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 5(2):73–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovorka D (2010) Incommensurability and multi-paradigm grounding in design science research: implications for creating knowledge. In: Pries-Heje J, Venable J, Bunker D, Russo NL, DeGross JI (Hrsg) Human benefit through the diffusion of information systems design science research. IFIP AICT, vol 318. Springer, Berlin, S 13–27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Järvinen P (2007) Action research is similar to design science. Quality and Quantity 41(1):37–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasper GM (1996) A theory of decision support system design for user calibration. Information Systems Research 7(2):215–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lidwell W, Holden K, Butler J (2003) Universal principles of design. Rockport Publishers, Gloucester

    Google Scholar 

  • March ST, Smith GF (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems 15(4):251–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz HM (1952) Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance 7(1):77–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus ML, Majchrzak A, Gasser L (2002) A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes. MIS Quarterly 26(3):179–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H (1980) Structure in 5’s: a synthesis of the research on organization design. Management Science 26(3):322–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H (1983) Structure in fives: designing effective organizations. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel E (1961) The structure of science: problems in scientific explanation. Routledge & Kegan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngai E, Poon J, Suk F, Ng C (2009) Design of an RFID-based healthcare management system using an information system design theory. Information Systems Frontiers 11(4):405–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman DA (1988) The design of everyday things, 2002 Aufl. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ockham W (1964) Philosophical writings: a selection. Translated by Boettner P. Bobbs-Merril, Indianapolis

  • Orlikowski WJ, Iacono CS (2001) Research commentary: desperately seeking “IT” in IT research – a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research 12(2):121–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parnas DL, Clements PC (1986) A rational design process: how and why to fake it. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 12(2):251–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial, 3 Aufl. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein EW Zwass V (1995) Actualizing organizational memory with information systems. Information Systems Research 6(2):85–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton RI, Staw BM (1995) What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(3):371–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Aken JE (2004) Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. The Journal of Management Studies 41(2):219–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walls JG, Widmeyer GR, El Sawy OA (1992) Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research 3(1):36–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walls JG, Widmeyer GR, El Sawy OA (2004) Assessing information system design theory in perspective: how useful was our 1992 initial rendition? JITTA: Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 6(2):43–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley J (2000) The development of Lockean abstraction. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 8(3):395–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wehmeier S (Hrsg) (2000) Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary, 6 Aufl. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE (1995) What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(3):385–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Pries-Heje.

Additional information

Angenommen nach drei Überarbeitungen durch Prof. Dr. Winter.

This article is also available in English via http://www.springerlink.com and http://www.bise-journal.org: Baskerville R, Pries-Heje J (2010) Explanatory Design Theory. Bus Inf Syst Eng. doi: 10.1007/s12599-010-0118-4.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baskerville, R., Pries-Heje, J. Erklärende Designtheorie. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 52, 259–271 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11576-010-0237-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11576-010-0237-z

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation