Chapter 1

What Is Design Science?

To do a design science project, you have to understand its major components,

namely, its object of study and its two major activities. The object of study is
an artifact in context (Sect. 1.1), and its two major activities are designing and
investigating this artifact in context (Sect. 1.2). For the design activity, it is important
to know the social context of stakeholders and goals of the project, as this is the
source of the research budget as well as the destination of useful research results. For
the investigative activity, it is important to be familiar with the knowledge context
of the project, as you will use this knowledge and also contribute to it. Jointly, the
two major activities and the two contexts form a framework for design science that
I describe in Sect. 1.3. In Sect. 1.4, I show why in design science the knowledge that
we use and produce is not universal but has middle-range scope.

1.1 The Object of Study of Design Science

Design science is the design and investigation of artifacts in context. The artifacts
we study are designed to interact with a problem context in order to improve some-
thing in that context. Here are two examples, one technical and one organizational.
We will use these examples many times later, and so I introduce acronyms for
them:
 In the direction of arrival (DOA) project [10], algorithms for estimating the DOA of a satellite TV
signal were tested. Each of the tested algorithms is an artifact, and the context for each of them is
an IT infrastructure for watching TV in the backseats of a car.
 In the data location compliance (DLC) project [8], a method was developed that allows cloud
service providers to show compliance to the European data location regulations. The method is
an artifact, and the context consists of cloud service providers who want to offer their services on
the European market.

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014 3

R.J. Wieringa, Design Science Methodology for Information Systems
and Software Engineering, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-43839-8__1
4 1 What Is Design Science?

Soware,
SW component/system, Hardware,
HW component/system, People,
Organizaon, Organizaons,
Business process, Business processes,
Service, Services, Methods,
Interacon
Method, Techniques,
Technique, Conceptual structures,
Conceptual structure, Values, Desires, Fears,
... Goals, Norms,
Budgets, ...

Arfact Context

Fig. 1.1 The subject of design science: an artifact interacting with a context

The two examples illustrate that design science problems are improvement prob-
lems. Each of the problems has a context in which some improvement is aimed for,
and to understand the design problem, this context has to be understood.
The examples also illustrate that the concept of an artifact is to be taken broadly,
including algorithms and methods. We will even consider conceptual structures as
artifacts, as tools for the mind, that may be usable and useful for particular purposes.
Figure 1.1 illustrates the wide variety of useful things that can be designed as an
artifact. It shows by implication what can not be an artifact. People, values, desires,
fears, goals, norms, and budgets appear in the context of an artifact but cannot be
designed by a design researcher. They are given to the design researcher, as part of
a problem context, and the researcher must investigate these elements of the context
in order to understand them, but not to change them.
Finally, Fig. 1.1 shows that the artifact itself does not solve any problem. It is the
interaction between the artifact and a problem context that contributes to solving
a problem. An artifact may interact differently with different problem contexts
and hence solve different problems in different contexts. It may even contribute to
stakeholder goals in one context but create obstacles to goal achievement in another
context. The design researcher should therefore study the interaction between
artifacts and contexts rather than artifacts alone or contexts alone.

1.2 Research Problems in Design Science

The two parts of design science, design and investigation, correspond to two kinds
of research problems in design science, namely, design problems and knowledge
questions (Fig. 1.2). Table 1.1 lists a number of example design problems and
knowledge questions.
Design problems call for a change in the real world and require an analysis
of actual or hypothetical stakeholder goals. A solution is a design, and there are
usually many different solutions. There may even be as many solutions as there are
1.2 Research Problems in Design Science 5

Designing an arfact to Arfacts & contexts to invesgate Answering knowledge

improve a problem quesons about the
context Knowledge and new design problems arfact in context

Fig. 1.2 Design science research iterates over two problem-solving activities

Table 1.1 Some example design science research problems. In the top half of the table, the knowledge
questions are motivated by the design problems. In the lower half, the design problems are motivated
by the knowledge questions
Design problem Knowledge question

Design a DOA estimation system for satellite Is the DOA estimation accurate enough?
TV reception in a car

Design an assurance method for DLC for cloud Is the method usable and useful for cloud
service providers service providers?

Design a DOA prototype Is the DOA estimation accurate enough?

Design a simulation of plane wave arrival at a
moving antenna

Design a usability and usefulness test with Is the method usable and useful for cloud
consultants as subjects service providers?

designers. These are evaluated by their utility with respect to the stakeholder goals,
and there is not one single best solution.
Knowledge questions, by contrast, do not call for a change in the world but ask
for knowledge about the world as it is. The answer is a proposition, and when we
try to answer a knowledge question, we assume that there is one answer only. We
do not know the answer, and we may give the wrong answer; we may give a partial
answer or an answer to a slightly different question than what was asked; we may
have degrees of (un)certainty about the answer, and the answer may be true in most
but not all cases. But answering a knowledge question would be meaningless if there
would be as many answers as researchers. And answers to knowledge questions are
evaluated by truth, which does not depend on stakeholder goals. Rational discourse
implies the assumption of single truth but must be combined with the assumption
of fallibilism: we can never be sure that we have actually found the answer to an
empirical knowledge question.
The distinction between design problems and knowledge questions is often
camouflaged in reports about design science research, because design problems are
often formulated to look like a knowledge questions. We then read:
• “ What is an accurate algorithm for recognizing DOA?”
instead of
• “Design an accurate algorithm for recognizing DOA.”
6 1 What Is Design Science?

Table 1.2 Heuristics to distinguish design problems from knowledge questions

Design problems Knowledge questions
Call for a change of the world Ask for knowledge about the world
Solution is a design Answer is a proposition
Many solutions One answer
Evaluated by utility Evaluated by truth
Utility depends on stakeholder goals Truth does not depend on stakeholder goals

This is confusing, because the way design problems must be treated differs from
the way knowledge questions must be answered, and the results are evaluated
differently. Design problems are treated by following the design cycle, which is the
subject of Part II of this book. Knowledge questions may be analytical or empirical,
and in this book we consider empirical knowledge questions. These can be answered
by following the empirical cycle, which is the subject of Parts IV and V of this
book. Table 1.2 summarizes the distinction in terms of heuristics that you can use to
classify your problem.
Problems can create new problems, and a design science project is never
restricted to one kind of problem only. This generates an iteration over design
problems and knowledge questions in design science [2,11]. One possible sequence
is that starting from a design problem, we can ask knowledge questions about the
artifact, about its problem context, and about the interaction between the two. For
example, we can ask about the performance of the artifact and the effects it has on
entities in the problem context. The knowledge-question-answering activity returns
knowledge to the design problem-solving activity.
Conversely, the activity of answering a knowledge question can lead to new
design problems, for example, to build a prototype of the artifact, to simulate its
context, or to design a measurement instrument. The artifacts that result from these
design activities are returned to the question-answering activity and can be used to
answer knowledge questions.

1.3 A Framework for Design Science

The problem context of an artifact can be extended with the stakeholders of the
artifact and with the knowledge used to design the artifact. This extended context
is the context of the design science project as a whole. The resulting picture is a
framework for design science, shown in Fig. 1.3. This is similar to the framework of
Hevner et al. [3], but it contains some important differences, such as the separation
of design and investigation [12].
The social context contains the stakeholders who may affect the project or
may be affected by it. Stakeholders include possible users, operators, maintainers,
1.3 A Framework for Design Science 7

Social context:
Locaon of stakeholders

Goals,
Designs
Budgets

Design science
De s ig n I n v e s t ig a t i o n
Designing an arfact to Arfacts & contexts to invesgate Answering knowledge
improve a problem Knowledge & new design problems quesons about the
context arfact in context

Exisng problem- New problem-

Exisng answers New answers
solving solving
to knowledge to knowledge
knowledge, knowledge,
quesons quesons
Exisng designs New designs

Knowledge context:
Mathemacs, social science, natural science, design science, design specificaons, useful facts,
praccal knowledge, common sense

Fig. 1.3 A framework for design science

instructors, etc., of the artifact to be designed. They also include the sponsors of
the design project. Sponsors provide the budget for the project and set goals to
be achieved by the project. Sponsors may be government, in which case they will
probably require the research project to have a goal that is relevant and useful for
society, or they may be private enterprises, in which case they will probably require
the project to deliver a design that is useful for the company.
The knowledge context consists of existing theories from science and engi-
neering, specifications of currently known designs, useful facts about currently
available products, lessons learned from the experience of researchers in earlier
design science projects, and plain common sense [9, pp. 208–224]. The design
science project uses this knowledge and may add to it by producing new designs
or answering knowledge questions. Here is the context of our two examples:
 The stakeholders in the social context of the DOA project [10] are the chip manufacturer NXP
(sponsor), car component suppliers, car manufacturers, garages, car drivers, and passengers.
The knowledge context is very diverse. The project uses a mathematical theory (matrix calculus)
and a natural science theory (signal processing). Three existing algorithm designs are tested,
and these are taken from the knowledge context too. The project also uses some basic theory
of properties of algorithms. The knowledge context in addition contains useful facts, such as the
maximum rotation speed of a car, and lessons learned from experience, such as how to use Matlab
and how to program the experimental Montium processor used in this project.
8 1 What Is Design Science?

 The stakeholders in the social context of the DLC project [8] are KPMG (sponsor), KPMG
consultants (end users of the method), cloud service providers, and European companies who
are or want to become clients of cloud service providers.
In the knowledge context, we find theories about people and organizations: theories of auditing,
cloud business models, knowledge about different designs of cloud computing architectures,
and design theories about security properties of those architectures. Useful facts include facts
about current cloud service providers in the market and their architectures and business models.
Lessons learned from experience used in the project are how to do interviews, how to understand
regulations, and consultancy.

Knowledge available prior to the project is called prior knowledge; knowledge

produced as a result of the project is called posterior knowledge. As shown in
Fig. 1.3, there are many sources for prior knowledge:
• Scientific literature: Scientific theories from the basic sciences and the engineer-
ing sciences, implementation evaluation studies, and problem investigations
• Technical literature: Specifications of artifacts used in a problem context, other
than the artifact you are currently studying
• Professional literature: Experiences of others described in professional mag-
azines, information about artifacts currently on the market, documentation
provided by their vendors, etc.
• Oral communication: Lessons learned by others and heard in conferences, in the
lab, or from their colleagues
If you need an answer supported by rigorous scientific evidence and current
scientific literature does not provide an answer, then you have to do your own
research. This usually scales up the budget of time and money needed to answer
your knowledge questions by an order of magnitude. Research is expensive. The
decision to do research to answer a knowledge is therefore in practice always made
together with the sponsor, who must provide the money and pay the time to do the
research.

1.4 Sciences of the Middle Range

We can further structure the knowledge context of design science research by

identifying different knowledge disciplines (Fig. 1.4). Basic science is the study of
the fundamental forces and mechanisms of nature and includes physics, chemistry,
and some parts of biology that can claim validity in the entire universe. Basic
sciences aim at universal generalizations, which are generalizations that start with
“for all x, : : :.” They achieve this goal at the cost of idealizations, which are
abstractions that are known to be false in the real world, such as point masses,
frictionless surfaces, etc. [1, 4, 5, 7]. Idealizations serve to make the research
problems conceptually manageable. One of the purposes of laboratory research is to
approximate these idealized conditions as much as possible.
1.4 Sciences of the Middle Range 9

Generalizaon

Basic sciences
Universal Physics, Chemistry, parts of
generalizaon Biology

Special sciences (about the earth):

Biology, Psychology, Sociology, …
Applied sciences:
Astronomy, Geology, Meteorology, Polical
Existenal sciences, Management science, …
generalizaon Design sciences:
Soware engineering, Informaon systems,
Computer sciences, Electrical engineering,
Mechanical enghineering, ...

Case research:
Engineering, Consultancy,
Case
Psychotherapy, Health care,
descripon
Management, Polics, ...
Realism
Idealized condions Realisc condions Condions of pracce

Fig. 1.4 The place of design sciences among other sciences

At the other extreme is case research, which is the knowledge acquisition about
single cases that takes place in engineering, consultancy, psychotherapy, health care,
and other professions. These professions must solve problems in the real world and
cannot idealize away any of the factors or components that play a role in the problem
they are trying to solve. Unmanageable conditions in the real world will not go away
merely by the fact that a professional ignores them or builds an idealized model
in the laboratory. We call these unignorable real-world factors and components
conditions of practice [6, pp. 692–693].
The professions do not aim to generalize beyond the cases that they work with.
Their primary aim is to help the cases they work with. But a side effect of solving
particular cases is that the professional builds up generalizable knowledge. Even in
the real world, there are plenty of justifiable generalizations to be made, but they do
not have universal scope.
The production of these limited generalizations is the focus of the sciences of the
middle range that sit between the extremes of basic sciences and case research.
Special sciences such as parts of biology, psychology, and sociology are quite
happy to generalize about interesting sets of objects of study but do not aim to
generalize about the universe. They study phenomena under realistic conditions,
and many of their generalizations are existential, which means that they start with
“for some/many/most x, : : :.”
In the middle range, we also find applied sciences such as astronomy, geology,
and management science, which apply results from other sciences but also have
developed considerable knowledge of their own. And we find the design sciences
such as software engineering and information systems research. We call these
sciences middle range because they do not aim at universal but at existential
10 1 What Is Design Science?

generalizations, and they do not make unrealistic idealizations in order to acquire

knowledge, but aim to make only realistic assumptions about their object of study.
We call these existential, realistic generalizations middle-range generalizations.
The lower-left part of the diagram is empty. It would contain sciences that aim
to make idealized descriptions of individual cases. There are no such sciences,
for they would produce no generalizable knowledge and, due to the high level of
idealization, would not even produce knowledge of an individual case. However,
in design science we may start with simple simulations of new technology under
idealized conditions of the laboratory to see if something is possible at all. This is
the start of a process called scaling up new technology.
The upper right of the diagram is empty too. It would contain sciences that pro-
duce universal generalizations about cases without making any idealizing abstrac-
tions. These sciences would say that despite the huge variety in conditions of
practice in different problem contexts, some artifact will always produce the
intended effect. Usually, this is an attempt to sell snake oil. The world is too
complex, and our minds are too small, for us to produce such generalizations with
certainty.
However, the design sciences do aim to push the limit of realism and generaliz-
ability. They are aiming to produce knowledge about the real world that does not
make any unrealistic abstractions and that has a scope of validity that is as large as
possible. We will never be able to reach the upper right corner, but when scaling
up new technology from the idealized conditions of cases studied in the laboratory
(lower left) to populations that live in the real world to conditions of practice (upper
right), we aim to get as far as possible.

1.5 Summary

• Design science is the design and investigation of artifacts in context.

• Design science iterates over solving design problems and answering knowledge
questions.
• The social context of a design science project consists of stakeholders who may
affect or may be affected by the project.
• The knowledge context consists of knowledge from natural science, design
science, design specifications, useful facts, practical knowledge, and common
sense.
• Generalizations produced by design science research are middle range. They
may abstract from some conditions of practice but do not make unrealizable
idealizations. They generalize beyond the case level but are not universal.
References 11

References

1. N. Cartwright, How the Laws of Physics Lie (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1983)
2. H. Heerkens, A. van Winden, Geen Probleem: Een Aanpak voor Alle Bedrijfskundige Vragen
en Mysteries (Van Winden Communicatie, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2012)
3. A.R. Hevner, S.T. March, J. Park, S. Ram, Design science in information system research. MIS
Quart. 28(1), 75–105 (2004)
4. R. Laymon, Applying idealized scientific theories to engineering. Synthese 81, 353–371 (1989)
5. R. Laymon, Experimentation and the legitimacy of idealization. Philos. Stud. 77, 353–375
(1995)
6. E.T. Layton, American ideologies of science and engineering. Technol. Cult. 17, 688–701
(1976)
7. E. McMullin, Galilean idealization. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 16(3), 247–273 (1985)
8. J. Noltes, Data location compliance in cloud computing. Master’s thesis, Faculty of Electrical
Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Twente, August 2011. http://
essay.utwente.nl/61042/
9. W.G. Vincenti, What Engineers Know and How They Know It. Analytical Studies from
Aeronautical History (Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, 1990)
10. J.D. Vrielink, Phased array processing: direction of arrival estimation on reconfigurable
hardware. Master’s thesis, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer
Science, University of Twente, January 2009. http://essay.utwente.nl/62065/
11. R.J. Wieringa, Design science as nested problem solving, in Proceedings of the 4th Inter-
national Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology,
Philadelphia (ACM, New York, 2009), pp. 1–12
12. R.J. Wieringa, Relevance and problem choice in design science, in Global Perspectives on
Design Science Research (DESRIST). 5th International Conference, St. Gallen, Lecture Notes
in Computer Science, vol. 6105 (Springer, Heidelberg, 2010), pp. 61–76