BENAIS Program Interactive Design Science – 11th of June 2010

13.45 – 16.15 in Spiegel 7 - University of Twente – Enschede – The Netherlands
Invited Speaker:
Alan Hevner
Professor and Eminent Scholar
Citigroup/Hidden River Chair of Dist. Technology
Information Systems and Decision Sciences
College of Business
University of South Florida

  1. Arrival in Spiegel building (13.30) University of Twente
  2. Opening by Chair (Ton Spil – 13.45)
  3. Frequently Asked Questions (14.00)
  4. The attendants are asked in advance to formulate their most prominent questions about design science, these are discussed in the group.
  5. Design Science Research in Information Systems (14.45) - Alan Hevner
  6. A World view (15:45)
  7. Final case introducing our netbook lab live updating the wiki page on design science
  8. Closure and Drinks (16:15)

Guidelines of Design Science

Design-Science research has a set of seven guidelines which help the researcher conduct, evaluate and present design-science research. The seven guidelines address design as an artifact, problem relevance, research rigor, design as a search process, design as an artifact, design evaluation, research contributions and research communication (Hevner, et. al., 2004).

According to Hevner, et al, the first guideline addresses design as an artifact. This states that “design-science research must produce a viable artifact in the form of a construct, a model, a method, or an instantiation” (Hevner, et al, 2004, p. 83). Further, Hevner’s group defines IT artifacts as “constructs (vocabulary and symbols), models (abstractions and representations), methods (algorithms and practices), and instantiations (implemented and prototype systems)” (2004, p.77).
  1. The second guideline describes problem relevance where “the objective of design-science research is to develop technology-based solutions to important and relevant business problems” (Hevner, et al., 2004, p. 83).
  2. The third guideline describes the importance of using rigorous evaluation methods for the design. Specifically, “The utility, quality, and efficacy of a design artifact must be rigorously demonstrated via well-executed evaluation methods” (Hevner, et al., 2004, p. 83).
  3. The fourth guideline addresses the importance of the work being considered as a contribution to the academic world. It states that the IS research effort should be considered a contribution to the field. “Effective design-science research must provide clear and verifiable contributions in the areas of the design artifact, design foundations, and /or design methodologies” (Hevner, et al., 2004, p. 83). March and Smith propose that building an innovative and creative system is, in and of itself enough to be considered a contribution to the research community. “Building the first of virtually any set of constructs, model, method, or instantiation is deemed to be research, provided the artifact has utility for an important task. The research contribution lies in the novelty of the artifact and in the persuasiveness of the claims that it is effective. Actually, performance evaluation is not required at this state” (March and Smith, 1995, p. 260).
  4. The fifth guideline focuses on research rigor and states that “Design-science research relies upon the application of rigorous methods in both the construction and evaluation of the design artifact” (Hevner, et al., 2004).
  5. The sixth guideline relates to design as a search process. It states that ‘the search for an effective artifact requires utilizing available means to reach desired ends while satisfying laws in the problem environment (Hevner, et al., 2004, p. 83).
  6. The last guideline addresses the importance that the work be published in both the academic community and in the practitioner’s community.

Hevner, A, March, S, Park, J & Ram, S (2004)”Design Science in IS research”MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 75-105/March 2004