Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Konsortialforschung

Eine Methode für die Zusammenarbeit von Forschung und Praxis in der gestaltungsorientierten Wirtschaftsinformatikforschung

Consortium Research

A Method for Researcher-Practitioner Collaboration in Design-Oriented IS Research

  • Aufsatz
  • Published:
WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK

Zusammenfassung

Gestaltungsorientierte Forschung in der Wirtschaftsinformatik strebt Ergebnisse an, welche den Anforderungen wissenschaftlicher Strenge und praktischer Relevanz gleichermaßen genügen. Jedoch stehen Forscher heutzutage vor der Herausforderung, überhaupt Zugang zur Wissensbasis in der Praxis zu erhalten und dieses Wissen zu erfassen. Vor diesem Hintergrund schlägt dieser Aufsatz eine Methode für Konsortialforschung vor, welche die multilaterale Zusammenarbeit zwischen Forschern und Praktikern im Forschungsprozess ermöglichen soll. Der Entwurf der Methode basiert auf einem selbstbewertenden Gestaltungsprozess, welcher sich über einen Zeitraum von über zwanzig Jahren erstreckte. Der Aufsatz trägt in zweifacher Weise zur wissenschaftlichen Diskussion bei. Zum einen adressiert er die wissenschaftliche Grundlage gestaltungsorientierter Forschung, denn er liefert Forschern eine Handlungsanleitung für die Zusammenarbeit mit Praktikern bei der Gestaltung von Artefakten. Zum anderen stellt die Methode selbst ein Artefakt dar, also das Ergebnis eines gestaltungsorientierten Forschungsprozesses.

Abstract

Design-oriented research in the Information Systems (IS) domain aims at delivering results which are both of scientific rigor and of relevance for practitioners. Today, however, academic researchers are facing the challenge of gaining access to and capturing knowledge from the practitioner community. Against this background, the paper proposes a method for Consortium Research, which is supposed to facilitate multilateral collaboration of researchers and practitioners during the research process. The method’s design is based on a self-evaluating design process which was carried out over a period of 20 years. The paper’s contribution is twofold. First, it addresses the science of design, since it proposes guidance to researchers for practitioner collaboration during the process of artifact design. Second, the method is an artifact itself, hence, the result of a design-oriented research process.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1

Literatur

  • Argyris C, Schön DA (1978) Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Back A, von Krogh G, Enkel E (2007) The CC model as organizational design striving to combine relevance and rigor. Systemic Practice and Action Research 20(1):91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville RL, Wood-Harper AT (1996) A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research. Journal of Information Technology 11(3):235–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat I, Zmud R (1999) Empirical research in information systems: the practice of relevance. MIS Quarterly 23(1):3–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinkkemper S (1996) Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology 38(4):275–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucher T, Riege C, Saat J (2008) Evaluation in der gestaltungsorientierten Wirtschaftsinformatik – Systematisierung nach Erkenntnisziel und Gestaltungsziel. In: Becker J, Krcmar H, Niehaves B (Hrsg) Wissenschaftstheorie und gestaltungsorientierte Wirtschaftsinformatik. Arbeitsbericht Nr. 120 des Instituts für Wirtschaftsinformatik. Universität Münster, S 69–86

  • Carlile PR (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science 13(4):442–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavana RY (2001) Applied business research: qualitative and quantitative methods. Wiley, Milton

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert RM, Goodman PS (1997) Creating effective university-industry alliances: an organizational learning perspective. Organizational Dynamics 25(4):45–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David P, Foray D (1994) Accessing and expanding the science and technology knowledge base. DSTI/STP/TIP(94)4, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

  • EC (2008) Information society research and innovation: delivering results with sustained impact (evaluation of the effectiveness of information society research in the 6th framework programme 2003–2006). European Commission, DG Information Society and Media

  • Ethridge D (1995) Research methodology in applied economics: organizing, planning, and conducting economic research. Iowa State University Press, Ames

    Google Scholar 

  • Følstad A (2008) Living labs for innovation and development of information and communication technology: a literature review. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks 10:99–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank U (2000) Evaluation von Artefakten in der Wirtschaftsinformatikforschung. In: Häntschel I, Heinrich LJ (Hrsg) Evaluation und Evaluationsforschung in der Wirtschaftsinformatik. Oldenbourg, München, S 35–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank U (2007) Evaluation of reference models. In: Fettke P, Loos P (Hrsg) Reference modeling for business systems analysis. IGI Publishing, Hershey, S 118–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill G, Bhattacherjee A (2009) Whom are we informing? Issues and recommendations for MIS research from an informing sciences perspective. MIS Quarterly 33(2):217–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor S (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly 30(3):611–642

    Google Scholar 

  • Guide VDRJ, van Wassenhove LN (2007) Dancing with the devil: partnering with industry but publishing in academia. Decision Sciences 38(4):531–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutzwiller T (1994) Das CC RIM-Referenzmodell für den Entwurf von betrieblichen, transaktionsorientierten Informationssystemen. Physica, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich LJ, Heinzl A, Roithmayr F (2007) Wirtschaftsinformatik: Einführung und Grundlegung. Oldenbourg, München

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Heym M (1993) Methoden-Engineering: Spezifikation und Integration von Entwicklungsmethoden für Informationssysteme. Rosch-Buch, Hallstadt

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin T, Holtom BC, Klag M (2007) Collaborative research: developing mutually beneficial relationships between researchers and organizations. Organizational Dynamics 36(1):105–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange C (2005) Ein Bezugsrahmen zur Beschreibung von Forschungsgegenständen und -methoden in Wirtschaftsinformatik und Information Systems. 1, ICB Research Reports, Institut für Informatik und Wirtschaftsinformatik der Universität Duisburg-Essen

  • Leydesdorff L, Etzkowitz H (2001) The transformation of university-industry-government relations. Electronic Journal of Sociology 5(4)

  • Lindgren R, Henfridsson O, Schultze U (2004) Design principles for competence management systems: a synthesis of an action research study. MIS Quarterly 28(3):435–472

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March ST, Storey VC (2008) Design science in the information systems discipline: an introduction to the special issue on design science research. MIS Quarterly 32(4):725–730

    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 

  • Mathiassen L (2002) Collaborative practice research. Information Technology & People 15(4):321–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathiassen L, Nielsen PA (2008) Engaged scholarship in IS research: the Scandinavian case. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 20(2):3–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller DC, Salkind NJ (2002) Handbook of research design and social measurement. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan DL, Krueger RA (1993) When to use focus groups and why? In: Morgan DL (Hrsg) Successful focus groups. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 3–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company: how japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker JF, Chen M, Purdin TDM (1991) Systems development in information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems 7(3):89–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Olle WT (1991) Information systems methodologies. Addison-Wesley, Kent

    Google Scholar 

  • Österle H, Otto B (2009) A method for consortial research. Institute of Information Management, University of St. Gallen, Arbeitsbericht Nr. BE HSG/CC CDQ/6

  • Otto B, Österle H (2010a) Practical relevance through consortium research? Findings from an expert interview study. In: 5th international conference on design science research in information systems and technology (DESRIST 2010), St. Gallen, Switzerland

  • Otto B, Österle H (2010b) Relevance through consortium research? A case study. In: 18th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2010), Pretoria

  • Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger MA, Chatterjee S (2008) A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24(3):45–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew AM (2001) Management research after modernism. British Journal of Management 12(Special Issue):S61–S70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philbin S (2008) Process model for university-industry research collaboration. European Journal of Innovation Management 11(4):488–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchey T (2006) General morphological analysis: a general method for non-quantified modeling. http://www.swemorph.com/pdf/gma.pdf. Accessed 2008-07-07

  • Rosemann M, Vessey I (2008) Toward improving the relevance of information systems research to practice: the role of applicability checks. MIS Quarterly 32(1):1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi M, Sein MK (2003) Design research workshop: a proactive research approach. In: Design research workshop within the IRIS26

  • Rynes SL, Bartunek JM, Daft RL (2001) Across the great divide: knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal 44(2):340–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz M, Hatch MJ (2005) Building theory from practice. Strategic Organization 3(3):337–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Starkey K, Madan P (2001) Bridging the relevance gap: aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of Management 12:S3–S26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomke S, von Hippel E (2002) Customers as innovators: a new way to create value. Harvard Business Review 80(4):74–81

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Ven AH (2007) Engaged scholarship. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • vom Brocke J (2007) Design principles for reference modeling: reusing information models by means of aggregation, specialisation, instantiation, and analogy. In: Fettke P, Loos P (Hrsg) Reference modeling for business systems analysis. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, S 47–75

    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 

  • Wilde T, Hess T (2007) Forschungsmethoden der Wirtschaftsinformatik. Eine empirische Untersuchung. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 49(4):280–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter R (2008) Design science research in Europe. European Journal of Information Systems 17(5):470–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter R, Schelp J (2006) Reference modeling and method construction – a design science perspective. In: Liebrock, L.M. (Hrsg) 21st annual ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC2006). ACM Press, Dijon, S 1561–1562

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Universität St. Gallen, Müller-Friedberg-Strasse 8, 9000, St. Gallen, Schweiz

    Hubert Österle &  Boris Otto

Authors
  1. Hubert Österle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Boris Otto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hubert Österle.

Additional information

Angenommen nach drei Überarbeitungen durch Prof. Baskerville, Ph.D.

This article is also available in English via http://www.springerlink.com and http://www.bise-journal.org: Österle H, Otto B (2010) Consortium Research. A Method for Researcher-Practitioner Collaboration in Design-Oriented IS Research. Bus Inf Syst Eng. doi: 10.1007/s12599-010-0119-3.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Österle, H., Otto, B. Konsortialforschung. WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 52, 273–285 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11576-010-0238-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11576-010-0238-y

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation