Design [Science] [1] Research in IS: A Work in Progress

Abstract

Information Systems (IS) is a relatively new field of study that investigates information and communications technology (ICT) in organizational settings; originally a branch of Management Science focused on organizational computing. IS became an independent field in the late 1960’s but still retains strong ties to business schools and the empirical (logical positivist) research traditions of its parent. Since its inception IS has become progressively more focused on technology and recently IS design research (ISDR) has become a distinct area of study within the field. This paper first sets forth the emergence of ISDR within IS research and then outlines its current state in accord with recent literature. We then propose that ISDR is still a rapidly evolving area and raise four questions that will need to be addressed as it continues to define itself. We suggest directions for answering those questions based on the theory and philosophy of Design Research (DR) in fields where it has a much longer history.

The Origin of IS and the Emergence of IS Design Research

The introduction of computers into large corporations beginning in the late 1950’s had a profound effect on the business environment. Unprecedented quantities of information were available, potentially at least, to guide management decision making and human-computer systems to capture and distribute this information became known as management information systems. Within organizations and within the academic Management Science community, the area of study of the design, implementation and organizational effects of these systems, took the same name as the object of their study, Management Information Systems (MIS). Although design has always implicitly been a critical component of MIS, neither corporate practitioners nor academic MIS researchers initially considered design per se to be a pertinent topic of study for the new field. In the remainder of this section of the paper we describe the growth of MIS and the emergence of design as a topic in its own right within MIS.

By the late 1960’s MIS had become significant enough in organizations that, along with notable successes, a number of poorly performing yet very expensive system implementations had become widely publicized [4] . An influential Management Science paper published during that time entitled “Management Misinformation Systems” (Ackoff, 1967) criticized the increasing number of dysfunctional information systems. Significantly, Ackoff’s primary criticism was of the design and design criteria for these systems. However, likely due to the strong operations research background of many MIS academics, design continued to be considered one of many factors in a complex MIS optimization function rather than a separable, core topic of MIS studies. Despite cautionary articles such as Ackoff’s, the growth of information systems in corporations continued unabated and by the late 1960’s a number of more progressive and influential schools of business, such as Minnesota’s Carson school and MIT’s Sloan school, had introduced departments of MIS.  MS and Ph.D. degrees began to be conferred in the subject and MIS began to exert a strong influence on the undergraduate business curriculum.

The emergence of a new field, replete with its own jargon, acronyms and research streams from the older discipline of Management Science, was noted by some with apprehension. “MIS is a Mirage” declared John Dearden in an influential 1972 Harvard Business Review paper. While the critique was aimed for the most part at the ill-conceived concept of an omniscient all-purpose MIS that was being promoted by IS academics of the day, Dearden was also highly critical of the field itself. MIS specialists trained by the new MIS programs he opined, would have “little impact on most of the information supplied to management, particularly at upper levels” (Dearden, 1972, p. 91). MIS academics, still struggling for acceptance at their universities, felt the criticism especially strongly and interpreted it as a threat to the new field that could only be dealt with by closing ranks around the rigorous, traditional, statistically based empirical research paradigms of the parent MS field (Benbasat and Weber, 1996). Design did not figure in any way in MS research paradigms and the topic lay fallow for many years.

When design ultimately emerged as a research area in MIS it was via a historical accident. Although MIS departments in universities faced some early threats, the influx of information systems into global organizations was unstoppable and the accelerating pace of the computerization of commerce carried the academic field with it. By the early 1980’s MIS departments were found in almost all schools of business and a shortage of professors had reached desperate proportions. “Boot camps” for MIS academics were formed at some of the larger universities to induct interested scholars from other fields such as computer science and engineering into the area. After as little as six weeks indoctrination in MIS rudiments, these inductees were readily placed in business schools across the US and internationally. Notably, many of the inductees had been originally trained in fields with a strong design tradition, and some of them brought that tradition to bear on the research of their adopted discipline.

As a result of the varied backgrounds of its practitioners, its newness and its diverse subject matter, MIS was and remains very self-conscious of its lack of a cumulative, paradigmatic research tradition. The late 1980’s were a time of reflection for the field throughout the world. Two of the first explicit mentions of design as a legitimate object of study came from outside the United States where IS has historically been more closely aligned with computer science [5] . Iivari’s (1986) long range program for information systems design [italics ours], while grounded in the scientific, engineering approach to IS design, outlined a reflective approach where design methods themselves were necessary and legitimate objects of research. Weber, from the University of Queensland, in 1987 issued a call for the establishment of a paradigmatic base for IS research in the study of “discrete artifacts that have longevity” (Weber, 1987, p. 4).  Weber then defines “purposeful design research” as that which “would focus on those hypotheses that are equivocal. The design would instantiate the controversial hypothesis as a basis for testing it empirically.” We note that in addition to its early mention of design research, Weber’s paper shows the trend, in evidence by the mid 1980’s, of dropping the ‘M’ from MIS. This is not coincidental; with the explicit emergence of design into the field, study of information systems as interesting artifacts in their own right, not merely their impact on or benefit to management, was beginning to be legitimized. Weber was also one of the first IS publications to cite Simon’s Sciences of the Artificial (1981; third edition, 1996) as justification of the need for and legitimacy of DR, a book that has since achieved almost canonical status in the IS design research field [6] . 

Research on artifacts and their design grew slowly in the US, however, and was still viewed with suspicion by the management oriented majority of IS researchers who adhered to a strict Popperian vision of theory and its empirical testing. An influential paper from the technology oriented IS department of the University of Arizona (Nunamaker, et al., 1991) arguably marks a turning point after which research into artifacts and their design, while still a stepchild in the field, was openly pursued by a small minority of IS researchers. All of the authors on this paper had computer science or similar design-oriented training, and the paper and the rigorous development in it of a framework for IS research that included design and design research as an integral component of the collective study of information systems in general is still widely cited.

Still, evidence of the resistance to design and other artifact-based research was demonstrated by the virtual impossibility of publishing such research in the premier IS journal, MIS Quarterly, during this period. While a number of IS academic journals such as the Journal of Management Information Systems (JMIS) and related field journals such as Decision Sciences did selectively publish artifact-based research, the perceived need for a premier journal focused on artifact-based research led to the introduction of Information Systems Research (ISR) as a top-tier outlet for design, design methodology and constructivist research papers.

Not coincidentally one of the seminal papers on design in IS (Walls, et al., 1992) was published in ISR shortly after its inception. The work sets out a notion of an information systems design theory (ISDT) that strongly resembles DR models from engineering fields (Evbuonwan, et al., 1996). An ISDT for Walls, et al. is a prescriptive statement of how to develop a specific class of artifact which rigorously derives its design rationale from more fundamental research in the natural and social sciences that is referred to by the collective term “kernel theories.”

Artifact-based research in IS, including DR, gained momentum and matured through the 1990’s. The first academic conference focused on IS artifacts, the Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems (WITS) began in 1991 as a pre-event to the IS academic community’s largest and longest established conference, the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). The motivation for WITS was identical to that which let to the creation of ISR - ICIS at the time was steadfastly concerned with management-oriented behavioral research and the maturing design community found it necessary to create its own venue for the discussion of artifact-oriented research. While not solely focused on design research, WITS has provided a sympathetic outlet for IS design research. 

Following Walls, et al. the number of papers published by IS academics on artifacts, their construction and design increased steadily. Perhaps more importantly, during that time research about design, built on the conceptual basis set forth in Nunamaker, et al., Walls, et al. and others, continued to formalize the distinctions between design research [7] and empirical research as practiced in the natural and management sciences (March and Smith, 1995). Following Nunamaker, et al. the DR theory papers were ecumenical, suggesting that IS research in total was a multi-methodological endeavor and proposing an important place for design research alongside traditional empirical studies.

Most design science theoretical papers were also insistent on the need for relevance in IS research.  This was not so much a direct criticism of empirical research as a positioning of design research as a methodology inherently likely to generate results of interest to IS practitioners. Other papers however, including some from outside the design science research camp have been openly critical of the lack of relevance of much traditional empirical IS research (Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001; Benbasat and Weber, 1996). While not intended to champion design research over empirical research, the criticism of empirical studies have made the potential contribution of design science to the IS field more widely salient. The potential of design research for relevance was brought out to the entire IS establishment during the “IS core debates”, an extended series of publications in academic journals concerning the putative focus of IS programs and research. In a special issue of the Communications of the AIS devoted to the IS core discussion, Iivari (2002) proposed IS as an “applied science of meta-artifacts.” Within this vision IS research is relevant, theoretically grounded and incorporates reflective (meta) design research as an integral component. 

Recently four seasoned IS design researchers published a mature and rigorous consolidation of over twenty years of design science theorizing in IS (Hevner, et al., 2004). The paper expresses the view of the nature and place of IS design research that we believe is currently held by a majority of those practicing in the field; this view is self-consciously pre-paradigmatic and so Hevner et al. have chosen to present its core concepts as guidelines that circumscribe the domain without fully explicating it. The paper is also notable in having been published in MIS Quarterly; arguably, publication in this venue indicated design science was approaching a parity of status with managerially focused empirical IS research.

Drawing from Hevner et al. and other contemporary work, the next section of the paper presents the current conception of design science research in information systems.

The Current State of IS Design Science Research

As we have noted, many of the earliest advocates for and most widely published proponents of design science in IS research have backgrounds in computer science and engineering. It is no surprise then that the current majority view of IS design research closely adheres to the engineering model (Eekels and Roozenburg, 1991). The origins of academic IS in colleges of business is also clearly visible. The essential points of the IS design science worldview are:

• The raison d’etre of information systems is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of organizations. The raison d’etre for information systems research is to improve the ability of information systems to achieve their goal (Hevner, et al. 2004, p. 78).

• IS research occurs at the confluence of people, organizations and technology; therefore two distinct and complementary paradigms are necessary to acquire the information required to improve information systems: (1) behavioral (natural) science and (2) design science (op cit, p. 79).

• Design [8] addresses research through the building and evaluation of artifacts designed to meet the business needs identified in the course of behavioral (natural science) research (op cit, p. 80). The design-build-evaluate cycle is at the core of any IS design science research methodology. It is inherently a problem solving process (op cit, p. 82).

• Design research is distinguished from design by its addressing of important unsolved problems in unique or innovative ways or in the development of more effective and efficient solutions to previously solved problems. Routine design applies existing knowledge to organizational problems. Design research addresses wicked problems, that is, problems characterized by ill defined requirements (Brooks, 1987).

• Design research may proceed atheoretically in that intuitively or empirically guided designs for artifacts may validly further organizational goals; explication of the theoretical basis for the effectiveness of the designs may lag their implementation.  

The epistemology inherent in the design worldview is obviously pragmatist. “. . . truth and utility are inseparable” declare Hevner, et al. Likewise the implicit  axiology is utilitarian and pragmatic -  ‘[design] methodologies do not describe any external reality. . . their scientific merit should be evaluated on the basis of their practical value” (Iivari, 1986). These bases give rise to Hevner, et al.’s set of seven guidelines for design research in IS that are strongly bound to commonsense notions of business utility and forcefully promote the strongly felt need of the entire IS academic cohort for legitimacy through relevance:

1. Design research in IS (ISDR) produces artifacts. [The result of an ISDR project is a “purposeful IT artifact” addressing “an important organizational problem” (Hevner, et al., 2004, p. 82.). An artifact is broadly defined as “those bundles of cultural properties packaged in some socially recognizable form such as hardware and software” (Orlikowski and Iacono, 2001). The notion of artifact is further qualified as more likely to be an idea, practice or partial product than a ready-for-business-use information system (op cit, 83).]

2. ISDR must be relevant. [The artifact resulting from an ISDSR must be relevant to a technology solution to a “hitherto unsolved and important business problem” (op cit, p. 86). cf. guideline 5.]

3. The design of the ISDR artifact must be rigorously evaluated (op cit, p. 87). [A formal evaluation of ISDSR results, in addition to defining the research contribution, sets ISDSR apart from the practice of IS design.]

4. ISDR must provide a novel contribution. [Novelty is probably the key distinguishing feature between design research and design practice. The contribution is usually in the form of a designed system (or component) artifact but may also take the form of foundational knowledge for the design knowledge base or methodologies.  Methodologies are explicitly defined in this guideline as evaluation methods or evaluation metrics which seemingly excludes design or implementation methodologies. However, system development methodologies are considered artifacts based on guideline 1.]

5. ISDR must balance rigor and relevance. [The assumption here is that much prior IS research has abstracted away the relevant, real world aspects of an area of investigation in pursuit of rigor, i.e. it investigates only what it has the tools to rigorously describe.]

6. An ISDR contribution must be functional. [A demonstration of the effective functioning of an artifact and the repeatable processes to duplicate the functionality (how) take precedence over theoretical development (why). See the discussion of the atheoretical nature of ISDR above.]

7. Design research results must be communicated to both technical and management oriented audiences.  [Implicit here is the notion that the research results will be of interest to both technical and practitioner audiences.]

The ISDR worldview and guidelines have been very widely promulgated to the entire academic IS design research community. Moreover, an increasing portion of the IS behavioral research community is at least aware of ISDR as a legitimate alternate paradigm due to the importance of design research to the IS-wide debates on the need for relevance and the status of theory in IS research in general. Other significant indicators of the maturity ISDR are: the recognition of the need to encourage DR from within the IS community which has resulted in at least one Ph.D. level course in DR methods (2002); a conference dedicated completely to ISDR - Design Science Research in Systems and Technology (DESRIST, beginning in 2006); the inclusion of a Design Science Research track in ICIS (beginning in 2006); a forthcoming MISQ special issue on design research; and the publication in 2007 of the first textbook on ISDR methods.

However ISDR is still decidedly pre-paradigmatic. Some members of the design research community (including the authors of this paper) are concerned that the pressure for relevance and the understandable desire for ‘definitional closure’ for the area are prematurely narrowing the perception of ISDR; focusing it on ‘prescriptive design theories (models) for low level artifacts’ (IT mechanisms) rather than allowing it to have the breadth it has achieved in other design fields. As evidence of the perceived limits of ISDR scope, the authors of this paper point to a decidedly fixed and narrow view of ISDR that they have encountered in the process of reviewing multiple papers on DR over the past two years, especially from those who are relatively new to DR. Two attributes stand out in this view, a view that is amazingly standardized given the actual state of conceptual flux of the field: (1) ISDR is completely defined by the seven guidelines of Hevner, et al. (2004) and (2) the output of ISDR is an artifact and a corresponding ISDT per Walls, et al. (1992). The authors of these papers self-consciously justify their ‘DR correctness’ by repeated reference to Hevner, et al., Walls, et al, and Simon in a manner that is reminiscent of medieval scholasticism. Yet despite their justifications, these papers all too frequently have the form of DR (per its foundational cannons) but lack the substance - they are actually conceptual papers without the essential heart of DR - learning by building.

A primary purpose of this paper is to serve as a call to address the many unanswered questions on the nature and scope of ISDR. As noted above, some seem to feel that Hevner, et al. (2004) combined with the design discussion of Sciences of the Artificial supply all the definition required and circumscribe the field. However, the foundational literature itself is inconsistent. For example Hevner, et al. (2004), taken literally, seems to downplay the role of theory or theoretical development in ISDR, yet March and Smith (1995) in their widely cited paper distinguishing ISDR from other types of IS research specifically note theory development (“theorize” in their terminology) as a design research activity. Simon, in Sciences of the Artificial, also cites the need for theory development, not only on the workings of artifacts but also on the very nature of design itself; certainly a wider role for DR than the current notion of an ISDT. We propose that ISDR is in a transitional state: it has achieved acceptance, is being actively practiced, and yet the field itself is still a work in progress.

Since space in any single paper is limited, we limit ourselves in the remainder of this paper to the discussion of four important open questions on ISDR:

1. What is the scope of ISDR?
2. What is the role of theory within ISDR; indeed, which of the multiple “types” of theory identified by Gregor (2006) within the IS field are applicable to ISDR?
3. What is the basis for the assumption that DR is inherently more relevant to practice than behavioral IS research?
4. What is the broader context of ISDR; where does it fit within the overarching scope of IS research in general?

In the next section we elaborate on these open questions and propose some directions for their investigation by considering both the context of the current environment of IS and the manner in which those questions have been addressed in more mature design-oriented fields. 

The Trajectory of IS Design Research: Open issues and Informed Prognostication

The scope of ISDR

ISDR in the preliminary, narrow definition that seems to be solidifying around it lacks any notion of a grounding meta-level. Within this definition the concept of “design” is received knowledge and is take as a given; somehow ISDR practitioners come to know what a design is (design as noun), understand how to design (design as verb and process) and this knowledge is complete and timeless. However we, along with researchers from IS (Peffers, et al., 2006; Bajaj, et al, 2005; Goldkuhl, 2004), engineering (Klingsheim and Aaserud, 1992) and computer science (Preston and Mehandjiev, 2004; Taylor, 2000)  believe that many aspects of systems design are still not well understood and that a narrow, unreflective view of design is seductive but naïve and ill suited to an area of rapid technological change.

Thus, we propose for consideration as an integral part of ISDR the investigation of the design process in IS - how it can be (better) accomplished, how design can be represented (Vahidov, 2006), communicated, taught, etc. We note that these are also topics of interest to practitioners in IS and so their inclusion in ISDR would not seem to diminish their relevance.

The role of theory in ISDR

The role that theory can or should play in ISDR is inextricably bound up with the broader debate on the role of theory in Information Systems generally. Greatly simplifying that debate, its polar positions are: (1) the field requires a core underlying theory base to distinguish it from other research areas (Weber, 2006) vs. (2) the objects of study of the IS discipline are (rightfully) so diverse and rapidly changing that it is difficult to conceive of a coherent underlying theory base (King and Lyytinen. 2004; Mason, 2006).

Within the ISDR community also, the perceived role of theory varies substantially (Venable, 2006). The polar positions within ISDR, conveniently (if artificially) stated, range from Weber’s proposal that ISDR be the empirical, theory testing portion of IS theory building (the artifact as experiment) to the narrow view of ISDR developed earlier, in which ISDR uses the theories of other fields (‘kernel theories’) that are useful in the construction of artifacts. This activity gives rise to the prescriptive information system design theories (ISDT’s) of Walls, et al. (1992). In the narrow view theorizing beyond ISDT’s, even when the researcher stays within the narrow view’s realm of low-level artifacts, is subtly discouraged.

Here again our contribution is not to promote a position but rather to make the state of conceptual and terminological diversity concerning theory in ISDR obvious (cf. Alter, 2000). Two of the more significant open issues concerning theory in ISDR, issues visible in published ISDR research as well as in papers about ISDR:

• What is a theory for ISDR? Gregor (2006) notes at least four different types of theory in common use in the IS field. Is ISDR limited to only one? For example is an ISDR theory a prescription for how to design a narrow class of artifacts [9] - a notion so confining that some philosophers of science refuse even to deign it ‘theory’ (Popper, 1983) Or, can (or should) ISDR support multiple notions of theory, as it investigates the multiple areas of and related to artifact design and construction in IS?

• How central is theory to ISDR? One of the most distinctive and valuable attributes of DR is its ability to produce new, valuable, interesting knowledge in the absence of theory. However, should all ISDR be required to focus on areas in which there is a sparse theory base, or can the field accommodate the notion of artifact as empirical experiment (Weber, 2006; Vaishnavi and Kuechler, 2004)

Relevance in ISDR

In the address of ISDR to relevance also, we feel it is necessary to take into account the broader context in which ISDR is embedded. As this paper is written, colleges of business administration in their entirety are under heavy criticism for lack of relevance to the very fields they claim to be preparing students to enter (Bennis and O’Toole, 2005).

The response of the IS community has been a call for relevance in research accompanied by an ongoing debate on what relevance is, to whom, and how to achieve it (Benbassat and Zmud, 1999; Weber, 2003; King and Lyytinen, 2004; Mason, 2006).

IS design researchers seem uniformly in agreement with the need for relevance. Indeed, within the ISDR literature there seems to be a presumption, rarely explicitly stated, that DR is inherently more likely to produce relevant research than IS behavioral studies. We believe the presumption of greater relevance for ISDR derives from ISDR’s focus on artifacts; much of the criticism of IS behavioral research has been directed at the fact that an IS artifact is missing from many behavioral investigations. However, a focus on artifacts per se is no more likely to generate relevant research than would any other type of research. The core of relevance is alignment with the goals of the group to which the research should appear relevant. Our intention here is not to question the need for relevance in IS research but rather to raise questions about the presumption of business-ISDR alignment that is a prerequisite of relevance, as the term is used in the ISDR literature (Truex, 2001). 

The presumption of alignment between ISDR and business goals and needs is found at multiple places in the ISDR foundational literature (Nunnamaker, et al. 1991, March and Smith, 1995, Hevner, et al., 2004). However, alignment between IS and organizational goals is very difficult to achieve even within business organizations; it has been in the top five CEO goals for IS for as long as IS researchers have been investigating the issue (McGee, 2006). It is thus interesting to speculate on the mechanisms by which IS academic researchers, whose focus is on papers rather than profits, can achieve and maintain alignment with business needs. Below we set out three of the significant issues regarding ISDR relevance; they are emphatically not limited to ISDR, but are shared with all IS research (if not with all academic research):

• The pace of technological evolution in industry is very rapid, especially relative to the time it takes to produce meaningful, rigorous research. Topics with short life-spans, however interesting to business, seem poor investments of academic resources.

• Many IS/IT areas of substantial business interest (due to the dollars involved) are poor research candidates for topic reasons. If there is little novelty in the underlying problem, then irrespective of the business interest in the topic there is diminished opportunity for publishing work in the area.

• Practically, what percentage of academics are senior researchers who maintain close relationships with industry and spend substantial amounts of time necessary to investigate and understand industry needs and who also have the prestige to regularly bring to print novel research areas based on their industry investigations (cf. Markus, et al., 2002)? At the risk of ostracism, we admit to not being such individuals; instead we choose many of our research topics the way studies of multiple academic fields indicates that most scholars do - by staying conversant with the literature - ISDR literature for the most part - and seeking to join a “research conversation” already in progress. While this strategy increases the likelihood of publication, it decreases the likelihood of timely relevance to business.

One possible solution to the alignment issue for design researchers is alluded to in Hevner, et al. (2004) and Nunnamaker, et al. (1991) - that ISDR exists as a community within the larger field of IS and as such its researchers can rely on discovering industry needs in the IS behavioral/management research (ISBR). An unfortunate but obvious problem with the ISDR community taking its cue from ISBR is that ISBR has consistently been criticized over the last ten years for its lack of relevance! Of course, some IS behavioral research is both timely and relevant. A more fundamental concern for the ability of ISBR to inform ISDR is a basic goal misalignment - IS behavioral researchers are focused on organizational issues which frequently are not amenable to artifact-based solutions. A comprehensive summary of IS research relevance discussions is set out in Steinbach and Knight (2006).

            The Position of the ISDR Community within the IS Field

The final question we raise concerning ISDR is one that exerts a substantial influence on all the others: where does ISDR fit in the broader area of information systems generally; what should be its interactions with and contributions to the other communities in our field? Beginning with Nunamaker, et al. (1991) many foundational papers on ISDR have envisioned a close synergy between the behavioral and the design science research communities. The vision is a compelling one; however, it is not one that we find to be fully realized in practice. The difference in interests between the ISDR and ISBR communities is very strong and likely to keep the two camps in a “separate but equal” status barring concerted, well considered overtures for joint ventures.

Although the differences between the natural sciences and IS (as a science of the artificial) have been explicated multiple times (cf. Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991) the natural science model does have considerable overlap with Weber’s (1987, 2003) vision for IS. According to this model, briefly discussed earlier, IS artifacts are constructed to test theory, and the theory or theories tested are about the nature of the artifact including, possibly, its interaction effects with humans and organizations. While this model of research has great potential as demonstrated by its success in other fields, it is problematic for IS in that it requires a commitment to a strong theoretical base for the field - still a debated issue - and requires also research in areas that are currently sparsely explored - we assume due to lack of interest - by both ISDR and ISBR communities. However, in a paper exploring the benefits of greater interaction between organization studies and IT research, Orlikowski and Barley (2001) suggest the collaboration between social and computer scientists in the study of CSCW as a model for interaction between the organizational and IT research communities. We feel this model has much to offer in the exploration of collaboration between the ISBR and ISDR communities as well.

The relationship between ISDR and ISBR has also been addressed indirectly as part of the IS-wide relevance discussion (Davenport and Markus,1999; Benbasat and Zmud, 1999).  Davenport and Markus maintain that emulating the core values inherited from other academic management fields is the wrong model for IS research and recommend the medical and legal disciplines as appropriate models.  The critical distinction of these fields compared to current IS research is that many, possibly most, faculty are also active practitioners.  Recommendations by Davenport and Markus thus propose that IS research should be even more closely related to the interests of IS practitioners seems equivalent to a recommendation for increased emphasis on design science in IS research combined with increased action and other field-based research from the behavioral community.

Concluding Remarks

We believe that design research has largely achieved acceptance as an alternate research direction within the field of information systems. The publication of Hevner, et al. (2004) has given ISDR a solid definitional base point from which to evolve. However, we believe that the area is still a work in progress, and wish to see it expand in scope to be able to provide the IS field with the full range of benefits that DR has provided for other, older design-based fields. These include not only the generation of design models for classes of artifacts (ISDT’s) but a deeper understanding of the process of design especially in ways that are unique to IS. If the core of information systems is the artifact then its heart is the design process by which these artifacts are brought into being.

In addition to suggesting a broader scope of ISDR we have raised three other issues that the ISDR community must address as it matures. They are: the role of theory, realizing and sustaining the promise of increased research relevance, and the role of ISDR within the IS community as a whole. We have suggested directions for addressing these issues, sometimes from the history and practice of other, older design-based fields and sometimes from our own IS literature. However, whether the choice is for broad or narrow scope, whether ISDR moves toward becoming tightly paradigmatic or becomes a fragmented adhocracy within a fragmented adhocracy; ultimately these issues can only be decided by the ISDR community itself as it grows and matures.

References 

Ackoff, R. (1967). "Management Misinformation Systems." Management Science 14(4): 147-156.

Alter, S. (2000). "Same Words, Different Meanings: Are Basic IS/IT Concepts Our Self-Imposed Tower of Babel?" Communication of the AIS 3 (Article 10).

Bajaj, A., Batra, D., Hevner, A., Parsons, J. and Siau, K. (2005). "Systems Analysis and Design: Should we be Researching What We Teach?" Communication of the AIS 15: 478-493.

Benbasat, I. and Weber, R. (1996). "Rethinking "Diversity" in Information Systems Research." Information Systems Research 7(4): 389-399.

Benbasat, I. and Zmud, R. (1999). "Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance." MIS Quarterly 23(1): 3-16.

Bennis, W. and O’Toole, J. (2005). “How Business Schools Lost Their Way.” Harvard Business Review, May 2005, pp. 96-104.

Brooks, F. (1987). “No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering”, IEEE Computer 20:4 (April), pp. 10-19.

Davenport, T. and Markus, L. (1999) “Rigor and Relevance Revisited: Response to Benbasat and Zmud.” MISQ 23(1): 19-23

Dearden, J. (1972). "MIS is a Mirage." Harvard Business Review (January-February): 90-99.

Eekels, J. and Roozenburg, N. (1991). “A methodological comparison of the structures of scientific research and engineering design: their similarities and differences,” Design Studies 12:4, pp. 197-203.

Evbuonwan, N, Sivaloganathan, S. and Jebb, A. (1996). “A Survey of design philosophies, model methods and systems,” Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers 210 pp. 301-320.

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

Gregor, S. (2006) “The Nature of Theory in Information Systems,” MISQ 30(3), 611-642.

Hevner, A., March, S., Park, J. and Ram, S. (2004). "Design Science in Information Systems Research." MIS Quarterly 28:1, 75-105.

Iivari, J. (1986). "Dimensions of Information Systems Design: A Framework for a Long-range Research Program." Information Systems Frontiers 11(2): 185-197.

Iivari, J. (2002). "The IS Core - VIII - Towards Information Systems as a Science of Meta-Artifacts." Commmunications of the AIS 12: 568-581.

Klingsheim, K. and Aaserud, O. (1992). Design theory; the foundation for concurrent engineering. Reliability and Maintainability Computer-Aided Engineering in Concurrent Engineering, 1990 and 1991, Combined Proceedings of the 1990 and 1991 Leesburg Workshops, pp. 43-50.

King, J. and Lyytinen, K. (2004). “Reach and Grasp” MIS Quarterly 28:4, pp. 539-551.

March, S. and Smith, G. (1995). "Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology." Decision Support Systems 15, pp.  251 - 266.

Markus, M., Majchrzak, A., and Gasser, L. (2002). "A Design Theory for Systems that Support Emergent Knowledge Processes." MIS Quarterly 26(3): 179-212.

Mason, R. (2006). “Comments on the Weber commentary and Lyytinen/King response,” Journal of the AIS 7:11, pp. 722-724.

McGee, M. (2006). “Top Worries for CIOs.” InformationWeek. 9/18/2006 Issue 1106, p.14-15.

Mori, G., Paterno, F., and Santoro, C. (2002). "CTTE: support for developing and analyzing task models for interactive system design." IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(8): 797 - 813.

Nunamaker, J., Chen, M. and Purdin, T. (1991). "Systems Development in Information Systems Research." Journal of Management Information Systems 7(3): 89-106.

Orlikowski, W. and Baroudi, J. (1991). “Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions.” Information Systems Research 2:(1): 1-28.

Orlikowski, W. and Iacono, C. (2001). "Desperately Seeking the "IT" in IT Research - A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact." Information Systems Research 12(2): 121-134.

Orlikowski, W. and Barley, S. (2001). “Technology and Institutions: What Can Research on Information Technology and Research on Organizations Learn from Each Other.” MIS Quarterly 25:2, pp. 145-165.

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rossi, M.,  Virtanen,V., Bragge, J, and Hui, W. (2006). The Design Science Research Process: A Model for Producing and Presenting Information Systems Research. DESRIST 2006, Claremont, CA.

Popper, K. (1983). Realism and the Aim of Science (W. W. Botten II, Ed), Routledge, London.

Preston, M. and Mehandjiev, N. (2004). A Framework for Classifying Intelligent Design Theories. WISER'04, Newport Beach, CA, ACM.

Simon, A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial, 3^rd Edition. MIT Press, Cambridge (MA).

Steinbach, T. and Knight, L. (2006). The Relevance of Information Systems Research: Informing the IS Practitioner Community; Informing Ourselves. 2006 Informing Science and IT Education Joint Conference, Salford, UK, Informing Science.

Taylor, P. (2000). Designerly thinking: what software methodology can learn from design theory. Software Methods and Tools, 2000. SMT 2000, Proceedings. International Conference on.

Truex, D. (2001). “Three Issues Concerning Relevance in IS Research: Epistemology, Audience and Method.” Communications of the AIS 6:24, pp. 1-10.

Vahidov, R. (2006). Design Researcher's IS Artifact: a Representational Framework. Proceedings DESRIST 2006, Claremont, CA.

Vaishnavi, V. and Kuechler, W. (2004). “Design Research in Information Systems” January 20, 2004, last updated January 18, 2006. URL: http://www.isworld.org/Researchdesign/drisISworld.htm

Venable, J. (2006). The Role of Theory and Theorizing in Design Science Research. Proceedings DESRIST 2006, Claremont, CA.

Walls, J., Widmeyer, G. and El Sawy, O. (1992). "Building an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS." Information Systems Research 3(1): 36 -59.

Walls, J., Widmeyer, G., and El Sawy, O. (2004). "Assessing Information System Design Theory in Perspective: How Useful was our 1992 Initial Rendition." Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 6(2): 43-58.

Weber, R. (1987). "Toward a Theory of Artifacts: A Paradigmatic Base for Information Systems Research." Journal of Information Systems 1(2): 3-19.

Weber, R. (2003). “Still Desperately Seeking the IT Artifact,” MIS Quarterly, 27:2, pp. iii - x.

Weber, R. (2006). “Reach and Grasp in the Debate over the IS Core: An Empty Hand?” Journal of the AIS 7:11, pp. 703-713.