Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management

Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management

Roadmap for Information Technology Artifacts Research with the Approach of Design Science

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Fateme Aghapour 1
Shaban Elahi 2
Alireza Hassanzadeh 3
nasser Shahsavari-pour 4
1 Ph.D. Candidate in Information Technology Management, Department of Information Technology Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Jalale Ale Ahmad, Tehran, Iran. E-mail address
2 PhD in Management; Professor; Management Department; Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences; Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan;
3 PhD in Systems Management; Professor; Department of Information Technology Management; Faculty of Management and Economics; Tarbiat Modares University.
4 PhD in Industrial Engineering; Professor; Department of Industrial Management; Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences; Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan.
10.22034/jipm.2024.711363
Abstract
The research method provides a way to solve or a systematic answer to the research problem. It is a framework for
The research method provides a way to solve to a research problem or a systematic answer to it. It is a framework for collecting, organizing, analyzing and presenting data to study the research problem. Design science research has emerged as an important approach in information systems research. Thus, this study is a systematic review of theoretical literature with a narrative analysis approach to create a comprehensive understanding of key concepts and specialized attitudes around design science research methods. A road map is designed to express how to use DSR to find the answer to the research question(s) about the design of information technology artifacts. The research is conducted with a systematic review method in two main steps. In the first step, the search for reliable sources was carried out using automatic approaches and snowball forward and backward in reliable databases. After the qualitative evaluation of the obtained sources, 52 articles were approved and selected based on specific criteria. In the second step and during the study, based on the narrative analysis method, four narratives emerged: the philosophical foundations of design science research, the theoretical development approach of research in design science, the methodological choice of design science research, and the strategy of design science research. Finally, using the narratives and concepts identified in each narrative, a mapping of the concepts and topics related to the four emerged theme of design science research was done and summarized and drawn in the form of a road map. The compiled roadmap presents the process of using the design science research method in the information technology artifacts design in a structured and accurate way for conducting design science research.
 
 
Keywords
Design Science
Information Technology Artifacts
Research Method
Information System
Design Science Research Roadmap
Subjects
حسان، رضا، رحمان شریف‌زاده و امیرحسین صدیقی. (1399). روش‌شناسی پژوهشی علم طراحی به‌ مثابۀ یک روش‌شناسی راه‌حل‌محور. روش‌شناسی علوم انسانی 26 (105): 35-50. https://doi.org/10.30471/mssh.2020.6139.1980
References:
Baker, L. R. 2004. The ontology of artifacts. Philosophical explorations 7 (2): 99-111.
Barnett-Page, E. & J. Thomas. 2009. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol 9, 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-59
Baskerville, R. 2008. What design science is not. European Journal of Information Systems, 17 (5), 441-443. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.45Baskerville, R., A. Baiyere, S. Gregor, A. Hevner & M. Rossi. 2018. Design science research contributions: Finding a balance between artifact and theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 19 (5): 3.
_____, M. Kaul, & V. C. Storey. 2015. Genres of inquiry in design-science research. Mis Quarterly 39 (3): 541-564.
Benbasat, I., & R. W. Zmud. 1999. Empirical research in information systems: The practice of relevance. Mis Quarterly 23 (1): 3–16. https://doi.org/10.2307/249403
_____. 2003. The identity crisis within the IS discipline: Defining and communicating the discipline's core properties. Mis Quarterly. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/30036527
Bichler, M. 2006. Design science in information systems research. Wirtschaftsinformatik 48 (2): 133-135.
Brereton, P., B. A. Kitchenham, D. Budgen, M. Turner, & M. Khalil. 2007. Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of systems and software 80 (4): 571-583.
Burks, A. W. 1946. Peirce's theory of abduction. Philosophy of science 13 (4): 301-306.
Campbell, R., P. Pound, C. Pope, N. Britten, R. Pill, M. Morgan, & J. Donovan. 2003. Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Social science & medicine 56 (4): 671-684.
Chatterjee, S. 2015. Writing My next design science research master-piece: But how do i make a theoretical contribution to dsr? European Conference on Information Systems(ECIS) Completed Research Papers. Paper 28. ISBN 978-3-00-050284-2.   
Dewey, J. 1931. Philosophy and civilization. Minton, Balch & Company. https://archive.org/details/philosophycivili00dewe
https://archive.org/details/philosophycivili0000dewe_i7s5 (accessed June 14, 2023)
Elragal, A., & M. Haddara. 2019. Design science research: Evaluation in the lens of big data analytics. Systems 7 (2): 27.
Goldkuhl, G. 2004. Meanings of pragmatism: Ways to conduct information systems research. The 2nd International Conference on Action in Language, Organisations and Information Systems ALOIS-2004, 2004, 13. Retrieved from https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-23047.
_____. 2012a. Design research in search for a paradigm: Pragmatism is the answer. Practical Aspects of Design Science: European Design Science Symposium, EDSS 2011, Leixlip, Ireland, October 14, 2011, Revised Selected Papers 2 (pp. 84-95). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 
_____. 2012b. From Action Research to Practice Research. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 17. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v17i2.688
Gregor, S. 2009. Building theory in the sciences of the artificial. Proceedings of the 4th international conference on design science research in information systems and technology. Philadelphia, USA.
_____, & A. R. Hevner. 2011. Introduction to the special issue on design science. Information Systems and e-Business Management 9: 1-9.
_____. 2013. Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly 37 (2): 337-355.   
_____, & D. Jones. 2007. The anatomy of a design theory. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst., 8, 19. DOI: 10.17705/1jais.00129 
Haig, B. D. 2018. An abductive theory of scientific method. Method matters in psychology: Essays in applied philosophy of science : 35-64.
Hevner, A. R. 2007. A three cycle view of design science research. Scandinavian journal of information systems 19 (2): 4.
_____. 2010. Design science research in information systems. In: Design Research in Information Systems. Integrated Series in Information Systems, vol 22. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5653-8_2
_____, & S. T. March. 2003. The information systems research cycle. Computer 36 (11): 111-113.
_____, J. Park, & S. Ram. 2004. Design Science in Information Systems Research. Mis Quarterly 28 (1): 75-105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625
_____. 2008. Design science in information systems research. Management Information Systems Quarterly 28 (1): 6.
Hovorka, D. S. 2010. Incommensurability and multi-paradigm grounding in design science research: implications for creating knowledge. Human Benefit through the Diffusion of Information Systems Design Science Research: IFIP WG 8.2/8.6 International Working Conference, Perth, Australia, March 30–April 1, 2010. Proceedings,
Iivari, J. 2007. A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scandinavian journal of information systems 19 (2): 5.
_____. 2017. Information system artefact or information system application: that is the question. Information systems journal 27 (6): 753-774.
Johannesson, P., & E. Perjons. 2014. An introduction to design science (Vol. 10). Cham: Springer.   
Kaplan, A. 1969. The Conduct of Inquiry Methodology for Behavioural Science (1st ed.). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315131467
Keele, S. 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. In: Technical report, ver. 2.3 ebse technical report. ebse.
Klein, H. K. 2003. Crisis in the IS Field? A Critical Reflection on the State of the Discipline. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 4 (1): 10.
Kolko, J. 2010. Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design issues 26 (1): 15-28.
Lee, A. S., M. Thomas & R. L. Baskerville. 2015. Going back to basics in design science: from the information technology artifact to the information systems artifact. Information systems journal 25 (1): 5-21.
March, S. T., & G. F. Smith. 1995. Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision support systems 15 (4): 251-266.
Markus, M. L., A. Majchrzak, & L. Gasser. 2002. A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes. Mis Quarterly : 179-212.
Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. G. Altman, & P. Group. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine 151 (4): 264-269.
Molina-Azorin, J. F., D. D. Bergh, K. G. Corley, & D. J. Ketchen. 2017. Mixed methods in the organizational sciences: Taking stock and moving forward. In (Vol. 20, pp. 179-192): Los Angeles CA.: Sage Publications Sage.
Nastasi, B. K., J. H. Hitchcock, S. Sarkar, G. Burkholder, K. Varjas, & A. N. Jayasena. 2007. Mixed Methods in Intervention Research: Theory to Adaptation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1: 164-182.  
Niehaves, B., S. Köffer, & K. Ortbach. 2012. IT consumerization–a theory and practice review. AMCIS 2012 Proceedings. 18. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2012/proceedings/EndUserIS/
Orlikowski, W. J., & C. S. Iacono. 2001. Research commentary: Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research 12 (2): 121-134.
Parnas, D. L., & P. C. Clements. 1986. in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering ( vol. SE-12, no. 2, pp. 251-257, Feb. 1986, doi: 10.1109/TSE.1986.6312940
Peffers, K., T. Tuunanen, & B. Niehaves. 2018a. Design science research genres: introduction to the special issue on exemplars and criteria for applicable design science research. European Journal of Information Systems 27 (2): 129-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2018.1458066
_____. (2018b). Design science research genres: introduction to the special issue on exemplars and criteria for applicable design science research. In (Vol. 27, pp. 129-139).   https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2018.1458066
Peffers, K., T. Tuunanen, M. A. Rothenberger, & S, Chatterjee. 2007. A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24 (3): 45-77.
Popay, J., H. Roberts, A. Sowden, M. Petticrew, L. Arai, M. Rodgers, N Britten, K, Roen, & S. Duffy. 2006. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme Version, 1 (1): b92.
Pries-Heje, J., R. Baskerville, & J. Venable. 2008a. Strategies for Design Science Research Evaluation. ECIS 2008 Proceedings. 87. http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2008/87
_____. 2008b. Strategies for design science research evaluation. 16th European Conference on Information Systems, Galway, Ireland. Rai, A. 2017. Editor's comments: Diversity of design science research. Mis Quarterly 41 (1): iii-xviii.
Romme, A. G. L. 2003. Making a difference: Organization as design. Organization Science 14 (5): 558-573.
Saunders, M., P. Lewis, & A. Thornhill. 2019. Research Methods for Business Students. Pearson. https://books.google.de/books?id=LtiQvwEACAAJ (accessed June 5, 2023)
Shakerian, M., M. Jahangiri, M. Alimohammadlou, M. Nami, & A. Choobineh. 2019. Individual cognitive factors affecting unsafe acts among Iranian industrial workers: An integrative meta-synthesis interpretive structural modeling (ISM) approach. Safety Science 120: 89-98.
Silver, M. S., & M. L. Markus. 2013. Conceptualizing the SocioTechnical (ST) artifact. Systems, Signs & Actions 7 (1): 82-89.
Simon, H. A. 1969. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT press..
_____. 2019. The Sciences of the Artificial, reissue of the third edition with a new introduction by John Laird. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Tariq, S., & J. Woodman. 2013. Using mixed methods in health research. JRSM short reports 4 (6):?
Vaishnavi, V., & B. Kuechler. 2004. Design Science Research in Information Systems. Computer Information Systems Department, Georgia State University. Distant Production House University (DPHU).
_____. 2015. Design science research methods and patterns: innovating information and communication technology.: Crc Press. Boca Raton. https://doi.org/10.1201/b18448
Venable, J. 2006. A framework for design science research activities. Emerging Trends and Challenges in Information Technology Management: Proceedings of the 2006 Information Resource Management Association Conference. Washington, DC: Idea Group Publishing. 
Venable, J., J. Pries-Heje, & R. Baskerville. 2012. A comprehensive framework for evaluation in design science research. Design Science Research in Information Systems. Advances in Theory and Practice: 7th International Conference, DESRIST 2012, Las Vegas, NV, USA, May 14-15, 2012. Proceedings 7,
Weber, R. 1987. Toward a theory of artifacts: A paradigmatic base for information systems research. Journal of Information Systems 1 (2): 3-19.
Weick, K. E. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of management review 14 (4): 516-531.
Weigand, H., P. Johannesson, & B. Andersson. 2021. An artifact ontology for design science research. Data & Knowledge Engineering 133: 101878.
Wieringa, R. J. 2014. Design science methodology for information systems and software engineering. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43839-8.
Winograd, T., F. Flores, F. F. & Flores. 1986. Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. (Vol. 335). Norwood, NJ: Ablex publishing corporation.  
Wohlin, C. 2014. Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. Proceedings of the 18th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering, London.

  • Receive Date 17 September 2023
  • Revise Date 16 January 2024
  • Accept Date 31 January 2024