Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Author(s): Alan R. Hevner, Salvatore T. March, Jinsoo Park and Sudha Ram
Source: MIS Quarterly , Mar., 2004, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Mar., 2004), pp. 75-105
Published by: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of
Minnesota
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25148625?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Salvatore T. March
Own Graduate School of Management Abstract
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN 37203 Two paradigms characterize much of the research
U.S.A. in the Information Systems discipline: behavioral
Sal.March@owen.vanderbilt.edu science and design science. The behavioral
science paradigm seeks to develop and verify
Jinsoo Park
theories that explain or predict human or organi
College of Business Administration zational behavior. The design-science paradigm
Korea University seeks to extend the性能boundaries of human and
Seoul, 136-701 organizational capabilities by creating new and
KOREA
innovative artifacts. Both paradigms are founda
jinsoo.park@acm.org tional to the IS discipline, positioned as it is at the
confluence of people, organizations, and techno
logy. Our objective is to describe the performance
of design-science research in Information Sys
tems via a concise conceptual framework and
clear guidelines for understanding, executing, and
evaluating the research. In the design-science
paradigm, knowledge and understanding of a
problem domain and its solution are achieved in
the building and application of the designed arti
fact. Three recent exemplars in the research
1Allen S. Lee was the accepting senior editor for this
paper. literature are used to demonstrate the application
science and behavioral-science to address funda artifact, the instantiation (system), although other
mental problems faced in the productive applica research efforts have also focused on the
tion of information technology. Technology and evaluation of constructs (e.g., Batra et al. 1990;
behavior are not dichotomous in an information Bodart et al. 2001; Geerts and McCarthy 2002;
system. They are inseparable (Lee 2000). They Kim and March 1995) and methods (e.g., Marakas
are similarly inseparable in IS research. Philo and Elam 1998; Sinha and Vessey 1999).
sophically these arguments draw from the prag Relatively little behavioral research has focused
matists (Aboulafia 1991) who argue that truth on evaluating models, a major focus of research
(justified theory) and utility (artifacts that are in the management science literature.
effective) are two sides of the same coin and that
scientific research should be evaluated in light of Design science, as the other side of the IS
its practical implications. research cycle, creates and evaluates IT artifacts
intended to solve identified organizational prob
The realm of IS research is at the confluence of lems. Such artifacts are represented in a struc
people, organizations, and technology (Davis and tured form that may vary from software, formal
Olson 1985; Lee 1999). IT artifacts are broadly logic, and rigorous mathematics to informal
defined as constructs (vocabulary and symbols), natural language descriptions. A mathematical
models (abstractions and representations), basis for design allows many types of quantitative
methods (algorithms and practices), and instan evaluations of an IT artifact, including optimization
tiations (implemented and prototype systems). proofs, analytical simulation, and quantitative
These are concrete prescriptions that enable IT comparisons with alternative designs. The further
researchers and practitioners to understand and evaluation of a new artifact in a given organi
address the problems inherent in developing and zational context affords the opportunity to apply
successfully implementing information systems empirical and qualitative methods. The rich
within organizations (March and Smith 1995; phenomena that emerge from the interaction of
Nunamaker etal. 1991a). As illustrations, Markus people, organizations, and technology may need
et al. (2002) and Walls et al. (1992) present to be qualitatively assessed to yield an under
design-science research aimed at developing standing of the phenomena adequate for theory
executive information systems (EISs) and systems development or problem solving (Klein and
to support emerging knowledge processes Meyers 1999). As field studies enable behavioral
(EKPs), respectively, within the context of "IS science researchers to understand organizational
design theories." Such theories prescribe "effec phenomena in context, the process of constructing
tive development practices" (methods) and "a type and exercising innovative IT artifacts enable
of system solution" (instantiation) for "a particular design-science researchers to understand the
class of user requirements" (models) (Markus et problem addressed by the artifact and the
al. 2002, p. 180). Such prescriptive theories must feasibility of their approach to its solution
be evaluated with respect to the utility provided for (Nunamaker et al. 1991a).
the class of problems addressed.
The primary goal of this paper is to inform the
An IT artifact, implemented in an organizational community of IS researchers and practitioners of
context, is often the object of study in IS behav how to conduct, evaluate, and present design
ioral-science research. Theories seek to predict science research. We do so by describing the
or explain phenomena that occur with respect to boundaries of design science within the IS
the artifact's use (intention to use), perceived discipline via a conceptual framework for under
usefulness, and impact on individuals and organi standing information systems research and by
zations (net benefits) depending on system, developing a set of guidelines for conducting and
service, and information quality (DeLone and evaluating good design-science research. We
McLean 1992, 2003; Seddon 1997). Much of this focus primarily on technology-based design
behavioral research has focused on one class of although we note with interest the current explora
tion of organizations, policies, and work practices organizations to engage new forms and new
as designed artifacts (Boland 2002). Following structures-?to change the ways they "do busi
Klein and Myers (1999) treatise on the conduct ness" (Drucker 1988,1991; Orlikowski 2000). Our
and evaluation of interpretive research in IS, we subsequent discussion of design science will be
use the proposed guidelines to assess recent limited to the activities of building the IS infrastruc
exemplar papers published in the IS literature in ture within the business organization. Issues of
order to illustrate how authors, reviewers, and strategy, alignment, and organizational infrastruc
editors can apply them consistently. We conclude ture design are outside the scope of this paper.
with an analysis of the challenges of performing
high-quality design-science research and a call for To achieve a true understanding of and appre
synergistic efforts between behavioral-science ciation for design science as an IS research
and design-science researchers. paradigm, an important dichotomy must be faced.
Design is both a process (set of activities) and a
product (artifact)?a verb and a noun (Walls et al.
1992). It describes the world as acted upon (pro
A Framework for IS Research cesses) and the world as sensed (artifacts). This
Platonic view of design supports a problem
Information systems and the organizations they solving paradigm that continuously shifts perspec
support are complex, artificial, and purposefully tive between design processes and designed
designed. They are composed of people, struc artifacts for the same complex problem. The
tures, technologies, and work systems (Alter design process is a sequence of expert activities
2003; Bunge 1985; Simon 1996). Much of the that produces an innovative product (i.e., the
work performed by IS practitioners, and managers design artifact). The evaluation of the artifact then
in general (Boland 2002), deals with design?the provides feedback information and a better
purposeful organization of resources to accom understanding of the problem in order to improve
plish a goal. Figure 1 illustrates the essential both the quality of the product and the design
alignments between business and information process. This build-and-evaluate loop is typically
technology strategies and between organizational iterated a number of times before the final design
and information systems infrastructures (Hender artifact is generated (Markus et al. 2002). During
son and Venkatraman 1993). The effective transi this creative process, the design-science re
tion of strategy into infrastructure requires exten searcher must be cognizant of evolving both the
sive design activity on both sides of the figure? design process and the design artifact as part of
organizational design to create an effective the research.
organizational infrastructure and information
systems design to create an effective information March and Smith (1995) identify two design
system infrastructure. processes and four design artifacts produced by
design-science research in IS. The two processes
These are interdependent design activities that are build and evaluate. The artifacts are coa7
are central to the IS discipline. Hence, IS research structs, models, methods, and instantiations.
must address the interplay among business Purposeful artifacts are built to address heretofore
strategy, IT strategy, organizational infrastructure, unsolved problems. They are evaluated with
and IS infrastructure. This interplay is becoming respect to the utility provided in solving those
more crucial as information technologies are seen problems. Constructs provide the language in
as enablers of business strategy and organiza which problems and solutions are defined and
tional infrastructure (Kalakota and Robinson 2001; communicated (Schon 1983). Models use con
Orlikowski and Barley 2001). Available and structs to represent a real world situation?the
emerging IT capabilities are a significant factor in design problem and its solution space (Simon
determining the strategies that guide an organiza 1996). Models aid problem and solution under
tion. Cutting-edge information systems allow standing and frequently represent the connection
_ . strategy Information
DUSineSS Alignment ? ,
o_ _ ? fc Technology
Strategy ? ^^
??-1 I 1 -gr?
Activities JL JL AD?si
_5_ _^ Activities
Infrastructure lr?*#*-nr?-?*ij"k?
Organizational Alignment _^ inT
Infrastructure 4 * Syst
Infrastructure
between problem and solution components people, (business) organizations, and their
enabling exploration of the effects of design existing or planned technologies (Silver et al.
decisions and changes in the real world. Methods 1995). In it are the goals, tasks, problems, and
define processes. They provide guidance on how opportunities that define business needs as they
to solve problems, that is, how to search the are perceived by people within the organization.
solution space. These can range from formal, Such perceptions are shaped by the roles,
mathematical algorithms that explicitly define the capabilities, and characteristics of people within
search process to informal, textual descriptions of the organization. Business needs are assessed
"best practice" approaches, or some combination. and evaluated within the context of organizational
Instantiations show that constructs, models, or strategies, structure, culture, and existing busi
methods can be implemented in a working sys ness processes. They are positioned relative to
tem. They demonstrate feasibility, enabling con existing technology infrastructure, applications,
crete assessment of an artifact's suitability to its communication architectures, and development
intended purpose. They also enable researchers capabilities. Together these define the business
to learn about the real world, how the artifact need or "problem" as perceived by the researcher.
affects it, and how users appropriate it. Framing research activities to address business
needs assures research relevance.
Figure 2 presents our conceptual framework for
understanding, executing, and evaluating IS Given such an articulated business need, IS
research combining behavioral-science and research is conducted in two complementary
design-science paradigms. We use this frame phases. Behavioral science addresses research
work to position and compare these paradigms. through the development and justification of
theories that explain or predict phenomena related
The environment defines the problem space to the identified business need. Design science
(Simon 1996) in which reside the phenomena of addresses research through the building and
interest. For IS research, it is composed of evaluation of artifacts designed to meet the iden
J-^ J-^
Environment Releva
I-p_n-K_r x-1
Pe?P,e I-1 Foundat
Roles Develop/Build -Theories
Capabilities Theories -Frameworks
Characteristics Artifacts -Instruments
TZ__b?r \^
Capabilities |_| I_ _I
tified business need. The goal of behavioral artifact and the need to refine and reassess. The
science research is truth.2 The goal of design refinement and reassessment process is typically
science research is utility. As argued above, our described in future research directions.
position is that truth and utility are inseparable.
Truth informs design and utility informs theory. AnThe knowledge base provides the raw materials
artifact may have utility because of some as yet from and through which IS research is accom
undiscovered truth. A theory may yet to be devel plished. The knowledge base is composed of
oped to the point where its truth can be incorpor foundations and methodologies. Prior IS research
ated into design. In both cases, research assess and results from reference disciplines provide
ment via the justify/evaluate activities can result in foundational theories, frameworks, instruments,
constructs, models, methods, and instantiations
the identification of weaknesses in the theory or
used in the develop/build phase of a research
study. Methodologies provide guidelines used in
the justify/evaluate phase. Rigor is achieved by
2Theories posed in behavioral science are principled
appropriately applying existing foundations and
explanations of phenomena. We recognize that such
theories are approximations and are subject to numermethodologies. In behavioral science, methodol
ous assumptions and 标准conditions. However, they areogies are typically rooted in data collection and
解释的
evaluated against the norms of truth or explanatory empirical analysis techniques. In design science,
power and are valued only as the claims they make are
borne out in reality. computational and mathematical methods are
primarily used to evaluate the quality and effec has produced a considerable literature on design
tiveness of artifacts; however, empirical techni (Dym 1994; Pahl and Beitz 1996; Petroski 1996).
ques may also be employed. Within the IS discipline, many design activities
have been extensively studied, formalized, and
The contributions of behavioral science and become normal or routine. Design-science
design science in IS research are assessed as research in IS addresses what are considered to
they are applied to the business need in an be wicked problems (Brooks 1987, 1996; Rittel
appropriate environment and as they add to the and Webber 1984). That is, those problems
content of the knowledge base for further research characterized by
and practice. A justified theory that is not useful
for the environment contributes as little to the IS unstable requirements and constraints based
literature as an artifact that solves a nonexistent upon ill-defined environmental contexts
problem.
complex interactions among subcomponents
One issue that must be addressed in design
of the problem and its solution
science research is differentiating routine design
or system building from design research. The
inherent flexibility to change design pro
difference is in the nature of the problems and
solutions. Routine design is the application of cesses as well as design artifacts (i.e.,
existing knowledge to organizational problems, malleable processes and artifacts)
such as constructing a financial or marketing
information system using best practice artifacts a critical dependence upon human cognitive
(constructs, models, methods, and instantiations) abilities (e.g., creativity) to produce effective
existing in the knowledge base. On the other solutions
hand, design-science research addresses impor
tant unsolved problems in unique or innovative a critical dependence upon human social
ways or solved problems in more effective or
abilities (e.g., teamwork) to produce effective
efficient ways. The key differentiator between rou solutions
tine design and design research is the clear iden
tification of a contribution to the archival knowl
edge base of foundations and methodologies. As a result, we agree with Simon (1996) that a
theory of design in information systems, of
In the early stages of a discipline or with signifi necessity, is in a constant state of scientific
cant changes in the environment, each new revolution (Kuhn 1996). Technological advances
artifact created for that discipline or environment are the result of innovative, creative design
is "an experiment" that "poses a question to science processes. If not capricious, they are at
nature" (Newell and Simon 1976, p 114). Existing least arbitrary (Brooks 1987) with respect to
knowledge is used where appropriate; however,
business needs and existing knowledge.
often the requisite knowledge is nonexistent
Innovations, such as database management sys
(Markus et al. 2002). Reliance on creativity and
trial-and-error search are characteristic of such tems, high-level languages, personal computers,
software components, intelligent agents, object
research efforts. As design-science research
results are codified in the knowledge base, they technology, the Internet, and the World Wide
become best practice. System building is then the Web, have had dramatic and at times unintended
routine application of the knowledge base to impacts on the way in which information systems
known problems. are conceived, designed, implemented, and
managed. Consequently the guidelines we
Design activities are endemic in many profes present below are, of necessity, adaptive and
sions. In particular, the engineering profession process-oriented.
Our purpose for establishing these seven Our definition of IT artifacts is both broader and
guidelines is to assist researchers, reviewers, narrower then those articulated above. It is
editors, and readers to understand the require broader in the sense that we include not only
instantiations in our definition of the IT artifact but
ments for effective design-science research.
Following Klein and Myers (1999), we advise also the constructs, models, and methods applied
against mandatory or rote use of the guidelines. in the development and use of information
Researchers, reviewers, and editors must use systems. However, it is narrower in the sense that
their creative skills and judgment to determine we do not include people or elements of organi
when, where, and how to apply each of the guide zations in our definition nor do we explicitly
lines in a specific research project. However, we include the process by which such artifacts evolve
Guideline 6: Design as a Search The search for an effective artifact requires utilizing available
Process means to reach desired ends while satisfying laws in the
problem environment.
over time. We conceive of IT artifacts not as 1997; Tsichritzis 1998). This definition of the
independent of people or the organizational and artifact is consistent with the concept of IS design
social contexts in which they are used but as theory as used by Walls et al. (1992) and Markus
interdependent and coequal with them in meeting et al. (2002) where the theory addresses both the
business needs. We acknowledge that percep process of design and the designed product.
tions and fit with an organization are crucial to the
successful development and implementation of an More precisely, constructs provide the vocabulary
information system. We argue, however, that the and symbols used to define problems and
capabilities of the constructs, models, methods, solutions. They have a significant impact on the
and instantiations are equally crucial and that way in which tasks and problems are conceived
design-science research efforts are necessary for (Boland 2002; Schon 1983). They enable the
their creation. construction of models or representations of the
problem domain. Representation has a profound
impact on design work. The field of mathematics
Furthermore, artifacts constructed in design
was revolutionized, for example, with the con
science research are rarely full-grown information
structs defined by Arabic numbers, zero, and
systems that are used in practice. Instead, artif
place notation. The search for an effective prob
acts are innovations that define the ideas,
lem representation is crucial to finding an effective
practices, technical capabilities, and products design solution (Weber 2003). Simon (1996, p.
through which the analysis, design, implemen 132) states, "solving a problem simply means
tation, and use of information systems can be representing it so as to make the solution
effectively and efficiently accomplished (Denning transparent."
The entity-relationship model (Chen 1976), for To illustrate further, prior to the construction of the
example, is a set of constructs for representing first expert system (instantiation), it was not clear
the semantics of data. It has had a profound if such a system could be constructed. It was not
impact on the way in which systems analysis and clear how to describe or represent it, or how well
database design are executed and the way in it would perform. Once feasibility was demon
which information systems are represented and strated by constructing an expert system in a
developed. Furthermore, these constructs have selected domain, constructs and models were
been used to build models of specific business developed and subsequent research in expert
systems focused on demonstrating significant
situations that have been generalized into patterns
improvements in the product or process (methods)
for application in similar domains (Purao et al.
of construction (Tarn 1990; Trice and Davis 1993).
2003). Methods for building such models have
Similar examples exist in requirements determi
also been the subject of considerable research
nation (Bell 1993; Bhargavaetal. 1998), individual
(Halpin 2001; McCarthy 1982; Parsons and Wand
and group decision support systems (Aiken et al.
2000; Storey et al. 1997).
1991; Basu and Blanning 1994), database design
and integration (Dey et al. 1998; Dey et al. 1999;
Artifact instantiation demonstrates feasibility both Storey et al. 1997), and workflow analysis (Basu
of the design process and of the designed pro and Blanning 2000), to name a few important
duct. Design-science research in IT often ad areas of IS design-science research.
dresses problems related to some aspect of the
design of an information system. Hence, the
instantiations produced may be in the form of Guideline 2: Problem Relevance
intellectual or software tools aimed at improving
the process of information system development. The objective of research in information systems
Constructing a system instantiation that auto is to acquire knowledge and understanding that
mates a process demonstrates that the process enable the development and implementation of
can, in fact, be automated. It provides "proof by technology-based solutions to heretofore unsolved
construction" (Nunamaker 1991a). The critical and important business problems. Behavioral
nature of design-science research in IS lies in the science approaches this goal through the devel
identification of as yet undeveloped capabilities opment and justification of theories explaining or
needed to expand IS into new realms "not predicting phenomena that occur. Design science
previously believed amenable to IT support" approaches this goal through the construction of
innovative artifacts aimed at changing the pheno
(Markus et al. 2002, p. 180). Such a result is
mena that occur. Each must inform and challenge
significant IS research only if there is a serious
the other. For example, the technology accep
question about the ability to construct such an
tance model provides a theory that explains and
artifact, there is uncertainty about its ability to
predicts the acceptance of information techno
perform appropriately, and the automated task is
logies within organizations (Venkatesh 2000).
important to the IS community. TOP Modeler
This theory challenges design-science re
(Markus et al. 2002), for example, is a tool that searchers to create artifacts that enable organi
instantiates methods for the development of zations to overcome the acceptance problems
information systems that support "emergent predicted. We argue that a combination of
knowledge processes." Construction of such a technology-based artifacts (e.g., system concep
prototype artifact in a research setting or in a tualizations and representations, practices, tech
single organizational setting is only a first step nical capabilities, interfaces, etc.), organization
toward its deployment, but we argue that it is a based artifacts (e.g., structures, compensation,
necessary one. As an exemplar of design-science reporting relationships, social systems, etc.), and
research (see below), this research resulted in a people-based artifacts (e.g., training, consensus
commercial product that "has been used in over building, etc.) are necessary to address such
two dozen 'real use' situations" (p. 187). issues.
Formally, a problem can be defined as the crucial component of the research process. The
differences between a goal state and the current business environment establishes the require
state of a system. Problem solving can be defined ments upon which the evaluation of the artifact is
as a search process (see Guideline 6) using based. This environment includes the technical
actions to reduce or eliminate the differences infrastructure which itself is incrementally built by
(Simon 1996). These definitions imply an environ the implementation of new IT artifacts. Thus,
ment that imposes goal criteria as well as evaluation includes the integration of the artifact
constraints upon a system. Business organiza within the technical infrastructure of the business
tions are goal-oriented entities existing in an environment.
economic and social setting. Economic theory
often portrays the goals of business organizations As in the justification of a behavioral science
as being related to profit (utility) maximization. theory, evaluation of a designed IT artifact
Hence, business problems and opportunities often requires the definition of appropriate metrics and
relate to increasing revenue or decreasing cost possibly the gathering and analysis of appropriate
through the design of effective business pro data. IT artifacts can be evaluated in terms of
cesses. The design of organizational and inter functionality, completeness, consistency, accu
organizational information systems plays a major racy, performance, reliability, usability, fit with the
role in enabling effective business processes to organization, and other relevant quality attributes.
achieve these goals. When analytical metrics are appropriate, designed
artifacts may be mathematically evaluated. As
The relevance of any design-science research two examples, distributed database design algo
effort is with respect to a constituent community. rithms can be evaluated using expected operating
For IS researchers, that constituent community is cost or average response time for a given
the practitioners who plan, manage, design, characterization of information processing require
implement, operate, and evaluate information ments (Johansson et al. 2003) and search
systems and those who plan, manage, design, algorithms can be evaluated using information
implement, operate, and evaluate the tech retrieval metrics such as precision and recall
nologies that enable their development and (Salton 1988).
implementation. To be relevant to this community,
research must address the problems faced and Because design is inherently an iterative and
the opportunities afforded by the interaction of incremental activity, the evaluation phase provides
people, organizations, and information technology. essential feedback to the construction phase as to
Organizations spend billions of dollars annually on the quality of the design process and the design
IT, only too often to conclude that those dollars product under development. A design artifact is
were wasted (Keil 1995; Keil et al. 1998; Keil and complete and effective when it satisfies the
Robey 1999). This community would welcome requirements and constraints of the problem it
effective artifacts that enable such problems to be was meant to solve. Design-science research
addressed?constructs by which to think about efforts may begin with simplified conceptuali
them, models by which to represent and explore zations and representations of problems. As
them, methods by which to analyze or optimize available technology or organizational environ
them, and instantiations that demonstrate how to ments change, assumptions made in prior
affect them. research may become invalid. Johansson (2000),
for example, demonstrated that network latency is
a major component in the response-time perfor
Guideline 3: Design Evaluation mance of distributed databases. Prior research in
distributed database design ignored latency
The utility, quality, and efficacy of a design artifact because it assumed a low-bandwidth network
must be rigorously demonstrated via well where latency is negligible. In a high-bandwidth
executed evaluation methods. Evaluation is a network, however, latency can account for over 90
percent of the response time. Johansson et al. Design, in all of its realizations (e.g., architecture,
(2003) extended prior distributed database design landscaping, art, music), has style. Given the
research by developing a model that includes problem and solution requirements, sufficient
network latency and the effects of parallel pro degrees of freedom remain to express a variety of
cessing on response time. forms and functions in the artifact that are
aesthetically pleasing to both the designer and the
The evaluation of designed artifacts typically uses user. Good designers bring an element of style to
methodologies available in the knowledge base. their work (Norman 1988). Thus, we posit that
These are summarized in Table 2. The selection design evaluation should include an assessment
of evaluation methods must be matched appro of the artifact's style.
priately with the designed artifact and the selected
evaluation metrics. For example, descriptive The measurement of style lies in the realm of
methods of evaluation should only be used for human perception and taste. In other words, we
especially innovative artifacts for which other know good style when we see it. While difficult to
forms of evaluation may not be feasible. The define, style in IS design is widely recognized and
goodness and efficacy of an artifact can be appreciated (Kernighan and Plauger 1978; Wino
rigorously demonstrated via well-selected evalua grad 1996). Gelernter (1998) terms the essence
tion methods (Basili 1996; Kleindorfer et al. 1998; of style in IS design machine beauty. He de
Zelkowitz and Wallace 1998). scribes it as a marriage between simplicity and
power that drives innovation in science and formalisms, ontologies (Wand and Weber
technology. Simon (1996) also notes the impor 1993, 1995; Weber 1997), problem and
tance of style in the design process. The ability to solution representations, design algorithms
creatively vary the design process, within the (Storey et al. 1997), and innovative
limits of satisfactory constraints, challenges and information systems (Aiken 1991; Markus et
adds value to designers who participate in the al. 2002; Walls et al. 1992) are examples of
process. such artifacts.
often assessed by adherence to appropriate data comparability, subject selection, training, time,
collection and analysis techniques. Over and tasks. Methods for this type of evaluation are
emphasis on rigor in behavioral IS research has not unlike those for justifying or testing behavioral
often resulted in a corresponding lowering of theories. However, the principal aim is to deter
relevance (Lee 1999). mine how well an artifact works, not to theorize
about or prove anything about why the artifact
Design-science research often relies on mathe works. This is where design-science and
matical formalism to describe the specified and behavioral-science researchers must complement
constructed artifact. However, the environments one another. Because design-science artifacts
in which IT artifacts must perform and the artifacts are often the "machine" part of the human
themselves may defy excessive formalism. Or, in machine system constituting an information sys
an attempt to be mathematically rigorous, tem, it is imperative to understand why an artifact
important parts of the problem may be abstracted works or does not work to enable new artifacts to
or "assumed away." In particular, with respect to be constructed that exploit the former and avoid
the construction activity, rigor must be assessed the latter.
with respect to the applicability and generali
zability of the artifact. Again, an overemphasis on
rigor can lessen relevance. We argue, along with Guideline 6: Design as a
behavioral IS researchers (Applegate 1999), that Search Process
it is possible and necessary for all IS research
paradigms to be both rigorous and relevant. Design science is inherently iterative. The search
for the best, or optimal, design is often intractable
In both design-science and behavioral-science for realistic information systems problems.
research, rigor is derived from the effective use of Heuristic search strategies produce feasible, good
the knowledge base?theoretical foundations and designs that can be implemented in the business
research methodologies. Success is predicated environment. Simon (1996) describes the nature
on the researcher's skilled selection of appropriate of the design process as a Generate/Test Cycle
techniques to develop or construct a theory or (Figure 3).
artifact and the selection of appropriate means to
justify the theory or evaluate the artifact. Design is essentially a search process to discover
an effective solution to a problem. Problem
Claims about artifacts are typically dependent solving can be viewed as utilizing available means
upon performance metrics. Even formal mathe to reach desired ends while satisfying laws
matical proofs rely on evaluation criteria against existing in the environment (Simon 1996).
which the performance of an artifact can be Abstraction and representation of appropriate
measured. Design-science researchers must means, ends, and laws are crucial components of
constantly assess the appropriateness of their design-science research. These factors are prob
metrics and the construction of effective metrics is lem and environment dependent and invariably
an important part of design-science research. involve creativity and innovation. Means are the
set of actions and resources available to construct
Furthermore, designed artifacts are often com a solution. Ends represent goals and constraints
ponents of a human-machine problem-solving on the solution. Laws are uncontrollable forces in
system. For such artifacts, knowledge of behav the environment. Effective design requires knowl
ioral theories and empirical work are necessary to edge of both the application domain (e.g., require
construct and evaluate such artifacts. Constructs, ments and constraints) and the solution domain
models, methods, and instantiations must be (e.g., technical and organizational).
exercised within appropriate environments.
Appropriate subject groups must be obtained for Design-science research often simplifies a prob
such studies. Issues that are addressed include lem by explicitly representing only a subset of the
Generate
C Design ?--.
Alternatives \^
Test Alternatives /
Against *^^
Requirements/Constraints
relevant means, ends, and laws or by decom may not be possible to determine, let alone
posing a problem into simpler subproblems. Suchexplicitly describe, the relevant means, ends, or
simplifications and decompositions may not belaws (Vessey and Glass 1998). Even when it is
realistic enough to have a significant impact on possible to do so, the sheer size and complexity of
practice but may represent a starting point. the solution space will often render the problem
Progress is made iteratively as the scope of the computationally infeasible. For example, to build
design problem is expanded. As means, ends,a "reliable, secure, and responsive information
and laws are refined and made more realistic, the systems infrastructure," one of the key issues
design artifact becomes more relevant andfaced by IS managers (Brancheau et al. 1996), a
valuable. The means, ends, and laws for ISdesigner would need to represent all possible
design problems can often be represented using infrastructures (means), determine their utility and
the tools of mathematics and operations research. constraints (ends), and specify all cost and benefit
Means are represented by decision variablesconstants (laws). Clearly such an approach is
whose values constitute an implementable design infeasible. However, this does not mean that
solution. Ends are represented using a utilitydesign-science research is inappropriate for such
function and constraints that can be expressed in a problem.
terms of decision variables and constants. Laws
are represented by the values of constants used In such situations, the search is for satisfactory
in the utility function and constraints. solutions, i.e., satisficing (Simon 1996), without
explicitly specifying all possible solutions. The
The set of possible design solutions for anydesign task involves the creation, utilization, and
problem is specified as all possible means thatassessment of heuristic search strategies. That
satisfy all end conditions consistent with identifiedis, constructing an artifact that "works" well for the
laws. When these can be formulated approspecified class of problems. Although its con
priately and posed mathematically, standard struction is based on prior theory and existing
operations research techniques can be used todesign knowledge, it may or may not be entirely
determine an optimal solution for the specified clear why it works or the extent of its generaliza
end conditions. Given the wicked nature of many bility; it simply qualifies as "credentialed knowl
information system design problems, however, itedge" (Meehl 1986, p. 311). While it is important
to understand why an artifact works, the critical should be committed to constructing (or pur
nature of design in IS makes it important to first chasing) and using the artifact within their specific
establish that it does work and to characterize the organizational context. Zmud (1997) suggests
environments in which it works, even if we cannot that presentation of design-science research for a
completely explain why it works. This enables IS managerial audience requires an emphasis not on
practitioners to take advantage of the artifact to the inherent nature of the artifact itself, but on the
improve practice and provides a context for knowledge required to effectively apply the artifact
additional research aimed at more fully explicating "within specific contexts for individual or organi
the resultant phenomena. Markus et al. (2002), zational gain" (p. ix). That is, the emphasis must
for example, describe their search process in be on the importance of the problem and the
terms of iteratively identifying deficiencies in novelty and effectiveness of the solution approach
constructed prototype software systems and realized in the artifact. While we agree with this
creatively developing solutions to address them. statement, we note that it may be necessary to
describe the artifact in some detail to enable
The use of heuristics to find "good" design solu managers to appreciate its nature and understand
tions opens the question of how goodness is its application. Presenting that detail in concise,
measured. Different problem representations may well-organized appendices, as advised by Zmud,
provide varying techniques for measuring how is an appropriate communication mechanism for
good a solution is. One approach is to prove or such an audience.
demonstrate that a heuristic design solution is
always within close proximity of an optimal solu
tion. Another is to compare produced solutions
with those constructed by expert human designers
for the same problem situation. Application of the Design
Science Research
Guidelines wmmmimmmm
Guideline 7: Communication
of Research To illustrate the application of the design-science
guidelines to IS research, we have selected three
Design-science research must be presented both exemplar articles for analysis from three different
to technology-oriented as well as management IS journals, one from Decision Support Systems,
oriented audiences. Technology-oriented audi one from Information Systems Research, and one
ences need sufficient detail to enable the from MIS Quarterly. Each has strengths and
described artifact to be constructed (implemented) weaknesses when viewed through the lens of the
and used within an appropriate organizational above guidelines. Our goal is not to perform a
context. This enables practitioners to take advan critical evaluation of the quality of the research
tage of the benefits offered by the artifact and it contributions, but rather to illuminate the design
enables researchers to build a cumulative knowl science guidelines. The articles are
edge base for further extension and evaluation. It
is also important for such audiences to under Gavish and Gerdes (1998), which develops
stand the processes by which the artifact was techniques for implementing anonymity in
constructed and evaluated. This establishes Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS)
repeatability of the research project and builds the environments
knowledge base for further research extensions by
design-science researchers in IS. Aalst and Kumar (2003), which proposes a
design for an exchangeable Routing Lan
Management-oriented audiences need sufficient guage (XRL) to support electronic commerce
detail to determine if the organizational resources workflows among trading partners
Markus, Majchrzak, and Gasser (2002), GDSS environment and then study the individual,
which proposes a design theory for the group, or organizational implications using a
development of information systems built to behavioral-science research paradigm. Several
support emergent knowledge processes such GDSS papers have appeared in MIS
Quarterly (e.g., Dickson et al. 1993; Gallupe et al.
The fundamental questions for design-science 1988; Jarvenpaa et al. 1988; Sengupta and Te'eni
research are, "What utility does the new artifact 1993).
provide?" and "What demonstrates that utility?"
Evidence must be presented to address these two The central role of design science in GDSS is
questions. That is the essence of design science. clearly recognized in the early foundation papers
Contribution arises from utility. If existing artifacts of the field. The University of Arizona Electronic
are adequate, then design-science research that Meeting System group, for example, states the
creates a new artifact is unnecessary (it is need for both developmental and empirical
irrelevant). If the new artifact does not map ade research agendas (Dennis et al. 1988; Nuna
quately to the real world (rigor), it cannot provide
maker et al. 1991b). Developmental, or design
utility. If the artifact does not solve the problem science, research is called for in the areas of
(search, implementability), it has no utility. If utility
process structures and support and task struc
is not demonstrated (evaluation), then there is no
tures and support. Process structure and support
basis upon which to accept the claims that it
technologies and methods are generic to all
provides any contribution (contribution). Further
GDSS environments and tasks. Technologies
more, if the problem, the artifact, and its utility are
and methods for distributed communications,
not presented in a manner such that the implica
group memory, decision-making methods, and
tions for research and practice are clear, then
anonymity are a few of the critical design issues
publication in the IS literature is not appropriate
for GDSS process support needed in any task
(communication).
domain. Task structure and support are specific
to the problem domain under consideration by the
group (e.g., medical decision making, software
The Design and Implementation development). Task support includes the design
of Anonymity in GDSS: of new technologies and methods for managing
Gavish and Gerdes and analyzing task-related information and using
that information to make specific, task-related
The study of group decision support systems decisions.
(GDSS) has been and remains one of the most
visible and successful research streams in the IS The issue of anonymity has been studied
field. The use of information technology to effec extensively in GDSS environments. Behavioral
tively support meetings of groups of different sizes research studies have shown both positive and
over time and space is a real problem that negative impacts on group interactions. On the
challenges all business organizations. Recent positive side, GDSS participants can express their
GDSS literature surveys demonstrate the large views freely without fear of embarrassment or
numbers of GDSS research papers published in reprisal. However, anonymity can encourage free
the IS field and, more importantly, the wide variety riding and antisocial behaviors. While the pros
of research paradigms applied to GDSS research and cons of anonymity in GDSS are much
(e.g., Dennis and Wixom 2001; Fjermestad and researched, there has been a noticeable lack of
Hiltz 1998; Nunamaker et al. 1996). However, research on the design of techniques for imple
only a small number of GDSS papers can be menting anonymity in GDSS environments.
considered to make true design-science research Gavish and Gerdes (1998) address this issue by
contributions. Most assume the introduction of a designing five basic mechanisms to provide
new information technology or process in the GDSS procedural anonymity.
Gavish and Gerdes base their GDSS anonymity All messages are encrypted with a unique
designs on past research in the fields of crypto session key
graphy and secure network communication proto
cols (e.g., Chaum 1981; Schneier 1996). These The sender's header information is removed
research areas have a long history of formal, from all messages
rigorous results that have been applied to the
design of many practical security and privacy All messages are re-encrypted upon retrans
mechanisms. Appendix A of the exemplar paper mission from any GDSS server
provides a set of formal proofs that the claims
made by the authors for the anonymity designs Transmission order of messages is ran
are correct and draw their validity from the domized
knowledge base of this past research.
Artificial messages are introduced to thwart
traffic analysis
Design as a Search Process
The procedures and communication protocols that
The authors motivate their design science implement these mechanisms in a GDSS system
research by identifying three basic types of anony are the artifacts of this research.
mity in a GDSS system: environmental, content,
and procedural. After a definition and brief dis
cussion of each type, they focus on the design of Design Evaluation
mechanisms for procedural anonymity; the ability
of the GDSS system to hide the source of any The evaluation consists of two reported activities.
message. This is a very difficult requirement First, in Appendix A, each mechanism is proved to
because standard network protocols typically correctly provide the claimed anonymity benefits.
attach source information in headers to support Formal proof methods are used to validate the
reliable transmission protocols. Thus, GDSS sys effectiveness of the designed mechanisms.
tems must modify standard communication proto Second, Section 4 presents a thorough cost
cols and include additional transmission proce benefit analysis. It is shown that the operational
dures to ensure required levels of anonymity. costs of supporting the proposed anonymity
mechanisms can be quite significant. In addition,
The design-science process employed by the the communication protocols to implement the
authors is to state the desired procedural anony mechanisms add considerable complexity to the
mity attributes of the GDSS system and then to system. Thus, the authors recommend that a
Research on workflow modeling has long been There are two clearly identifiable artifacts pro
based on rigorous mathematical techniques such duced in this research. First, the workflow lan
as Markov chains, queueing networks, and Petri guage XRL is designed. XRL is based on Petri
nets (Aalst and Hee 2002). In this paper, Petri net formalisms and described in XML syntax.
nets provide the underlying semantics for XRL. Interorganizational business processes are
These formal semantics allow for powerful analy specified via XRL for execution in a distributed,
sis techniques (e.g., correctness, performance) to heterogeneous environment.
be applied to the designed workflow models.
Such formalisms also enable the development of The second research artifact is the XRL/flower
automated tools to manipulate and analyze com workflow management architecture in which XRL
plex workflow designs. Each language construct described processes are executed. The XRL
in XRL has an equivalent Petri-net representation routing scheme is parsed by an XML parser and
presented in the paper. The language is exten stored as an XML data structure. This structure is
sible in that adding a new construct simply read into a Petri-net engine which determines the
requires defining its Petri-net representation and next step of the business process and informs the
adding its syntax to the XRL. Thus, this research next task provider via an e-mail message. Results
draws from a clearly defined and tested base of of each task are sent back to the engine which
modeling literature and knowledge. then executes the next step in the process until
completion. The paper presents a prototype
implementation of the XRL/flower architecture as
Design as a Search Process a proof of concept (Aalst and Kumar 2003).
XRL is designed in the paper by performing a Another artifact of this research is a workflow
thorough analysis of business process require verification tool named Wolfan that verifies the
ments and identifying features provided by leading soundness of business process workflows.
commercial workflow management systems. Soundness of a workflow requires that the
Using the terminology from the paper, workflows workflow terminates, no Petri-net tokens are left
traverse routes through available tasks (i.e., behind upon termination, and there are no dead
business services) in the electronic business tasks in the workflow. This verification tool is
environment. The basic routing constructs of XRL described more completely in a different paper
define the specific control flow of the business (Aalst 1999).
process. The authors build 13 basic constructs
into XRL: Task, Sequence, Any_sequence,
Choice, Condition, Parallel_sync, Parallel_no_ Design Evaluation
sync, Parallel_part_sync, Wait_all, Wait_any,
While_do, Stop, and Terminate. They show the The authors evaluate the XRL and XRL/flower
Petri-net representation of each construct. Thus, designs in several important ways:
the fundamental control flow structures of
sequence, decision, iteration, and concurrency are XRL is compared and contrasted with lan
supported in XRL. guages in existing commercial workflow
systems and research prototypes. The
The authors demonstrate the capabilities of XRL majority of these languages are proprietary
in several examples. However, they are careful and difficult to adapt to ad hoc business
not to claim that XRL is complete in the formal process design.
sense that all possible business processes can be
modeled in XRL. The search for a complete set of The fit of XRL with proposed standards is
XRL constructs is left for future research. studied. In particular, the Interoperability Wf
XML Binding standard (WfMC 2000) does not Information Systems Design for
at this time include the specification of control Emergent Knowledge Processes:
flow and, thus, is not suitable for inter
Markus, Majchrzak, and Gasser
organizational workflows. Electronic com
merce standards (e.g., RosettaNet) provide Despite decades of research and development
some level of control flow specification for efforts, effective methods for developing infor
predefined business activities, but do not mation systems that meet the information require
readily allow the ad hoc specification of ments of upper management remain elusive.
business processes. Early approaches used a "waterfall" approach
where requirements were defined and validated
A research prototype of XRL/flower has been prior to initiating design efforts which, in turn, were
implemented and several of the user interface completed prior to implementation (Royce 1998).
screens are presented. The screens demon Prototyping approaches emerged next, followed
strate a mail-order routing schema case by numerous proposals including CASE tool
study. based approaches, rapid application development,
and extreme programming (Kruchten 2000).
The Petri-net foundation of XRL allows the
Walls et al. (1992) propose a framework for a
authors to claim the XRL workflows can be
prescriptive information system design theory
verified for correctness and performance. aimed at enabling designers to construct "more
XRL is extensible since new constructs can
effective information systems" (p. 36). They apply
be added to the language based on their this framework to the design of vigilant executive
translation to underlying Petri-net repre information systems. The framework establishes
sentations. However, as discussed above, a class of user requirements (model of design
the authors do not make a formal claim for
problems) that are most effectively addressed
the representational completeness of XRL. using a particular type of system solution
(instantiation) designed using a prescribed set of
development practices (methods). Markus et al.
Research Contributions (2002) extend this framework to the development
of information systems to support emergent
The clear contributions of this research are the knowledge processes (EKPs)?processes in
design artifacts?XRL (a workflow language), which structure is "neither possible nor desirable"
XRL/flower (a workflow architecture and its (p. 182) and where processes are characterized
implemented prototype system), and Wolfan (a by "highly unpredictable user types and work
Petri-net verification engine). Another interesting contexts" (p. 183).
contribution is the extension of XML in its ability to
describe and transmit routing schemas (e.g.,
control flow information) to support interorgani Problem Relevance
zational electronic commerce.
industries. Such organizations recognize the in over two dozen 'real use' situations." (p. 187).
need to integrate organizational design and infor In summary, this work effectively used theoretical
mation system design with manufacturing opera foundations from IS and organizational theory,
tions. They recognize the potential for significant applied appropriate research methods in
performance improvements offered by such developing the artifact, defined and applied
integration. Yet few have realized that potential. appropriate performance measures, and tested
Markus et al. argue that this is due to a lack of an the artifact within an appropriate context.
adequate design theory and lack of scientifically
based tools, noting that existing information
system development methodologies focus on Design as a Search Process
structured or semi-structured decision processes
and are inadequate for the development of sys As discussed above, implementation and iteration
tems to support EKPs. TOP Modeler, the artifact are central to this research. The authors study
created in this research effort, squarely addresses prototypes that instantiate posed or newly learned
this problem. Not surprisingly, its development design prescriptions. Their use and impacts were
attracted the attention and active participation of observed, problems identified, solutions posed
several large, high-tech manufacturing organi and implemented, and the cycle was then
zations including "Hewlett-Packard, General repeated. These interventions occurred over a
Motors, Digital Equipment Corporation, and Texas period of 18 months within the aforementioned
Instruments" (p. 186). companies as they dealt with organizational
design tasks. As a result, not only was the TOP
Modeler developed and deployed but prescrip
Research Rigor tions (methods) in the form of six principles for
developing systems to support EKPs were also
The presented work has theoretical foundations in
devised. The extensive experience, creativity,
both IS design theory and organizational design
intuition, and problem solving capabilities of the
theory. It uses the basic notions of IS design
researchers were involved in assessing problems
theory presented in Walls et al. (1992) and poses
and interpreting the results of deploying various
a prescription for designing information systems to
TOP modeler iterations and in constructing
support EKPs. Prior research in developing
improvements to address shortcomings identified.
decision support systems, executive information
systems, and expert systems serves as a foun
dation for this work and deficiencies of these
Design as an Artifact
approaches for the examined problem type serve
as motivation. The knowledge-base constructed
The TOP Modeler is an implemented software
within TOP Modeler was formed from a synthesis
of socio-technical systems theory and the system (instantiation). It is composed of an
empirical literature on organizational design object-oriented user interface, an object-oriented
knowledge. It was evaluated theoretically using query generator, and an analysis module built on
standard metrics from the expert systems top of a relational meta-knowledge base that
literature and empirically using data gathered from enables access to "pluggable" knowledge bases
numerous electronics manufacturing companies representing different domains. It also includes
in the United States. Development of TOP tools to support the design and construction of
Modeler used an "action research paradigm" these knowledge bases. The TOP Modeler sup
starting with a "kernel theory" based on prior ports a development process incorporating the six
development methods and theoretical results and principles for developing systems to support
iteratively posing and testing artifacts (prototypes) EKPs. As mentioned above, TOP Modeler was
to assess progress toward the desired result. commercialized and used in a number of different
Finally, the artifact was commercialized and "used organizational redesign situations.
The existing knowledge base is often insuffi Much of the research published in MIS Quarterly
cient for design purposes and designers must employs the behavioral-science paradigm. It is
rely on intuition, experience, and trial-and passive with respect to technology, often ignoring
error methods. A constructed artifact em or "under-theorizing" the artifact itself (Orlikowski
bodies the designer's knowledge of the and lacono 2001). Its focus is on describing the
problem and solution. In new and emerging implications of technology? its impact on indivi
applications of technology, the artifact itself duals, groups, and organizations. It regularly
represents an experiment. In its execution, includes studies that examine how people employ
we learn about the nature of the problem, the a technology, report on the benefits and difficulties
environment, and the possible solutions? encountered when a technology is implemented
hence, the importance of developing and within an organization, or discuss how managers
implementing prototype artifacts (Newell and might facilitate the use of a technology. Orman
Simon 1976). (2002) argues that many of the equivocal results
eMarketer. E-Commerce Trade and B2B Ex Johansson, J. M., March, S. T., and Naumann, J.
changes, March 2002 (available online at D. "Modeling Network Latency and Parallel
http://www.emarketer.eom/products/report.p Processing in Distributed Database Design,"
hp?ecommerce_trade). Decision Sciences Journal (34:4), Fall 2003.
Feigenbaum, E., and McCorduck, P. The Fifth Kalakota, R., and Robinson, M. E-Business 2.0:
Generation: Artificial Intelligence and Japan's Roadmap for Success, Addison-Wesley
Computer Challenge to the World, Addison Pearson Education, Boston, MA, 2001.
Wesley, Inc., Reading, MA, 1983. Keil, M. "Pulling the Plug: Software Project
Fjermestad, J., and Hiltz, S. R. "An Assessment Management and the Problem of Project
of Group Support Systems Experimental Re Escalation," MIS Quarterly (19:4) December
search: Methodology and Results," Journal 1995, pp. 421-447.
of Management Information Systems (15:3), Keil, M., Cule, P. E., Lyytinen, K., and Schmidt, R.
Winter 1998-99, pp. 7-149. C. "A Framework for Identifying Software
Gallupe, R., DeSanctis, G., and Dickson, G. Project Risks," Communications of the ACM
"Computer-Based Support for Group Prob (41:11), November 1998, pp. 76-83.
lem-Finding: An Experimental Investigation," Keil, M., and Robey, D. "Turning Around Troubled
MIS Quarterly, (12:2), June 1988, pp. 277 Software Projects: An Exploratory Study of
298. the Deescalation of Commitment to Failing
Gavish, B., and Gerdes, J. "Anonymous Mecha Courses of Action," Journal of Management
nisms in Group Decision Support Systems Information Systems, (15:4) December 1999,
Communication," Decision Support Systems pp. 63-87.
(23:4), October 1998, pp. 297-328. Kernighan, B., and Plauger, P. J. The Elements
Geerts, G., and McCarthy, W. E. "An Ontological of Programming Style (2nd ed.), McGraw-Hill,
Analysis of the Primitives of the Extended NewYork, 1978.
REA Enterprise Information Architecture," Kim, Y. G., and March, S. T. "Comparing Data
The International Journal of Accounting Modeling Formalisms," Communications of
Information Systems (3:1), 2002, pp. 1-16. the ACM (38:6), June 1995, pp. 103-115.
Gelernter, D. Machine Beauty: Elegance and the Klein, H. K., and Myers, M. D. "A Set of Principles
Heart of Technology, Basic Books, NewYork, for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive
1998. Field Studies in Information Systems," MIS
Glass, R. "On Design," IEEE Software (16:2), Quarterly (23:1), March 1999, pp. 67-94.
March/April 1999, pp. 103-104. Kleindorfer, G., O'Neill, L., and Ganeshan, R.
Halpin, T. A. Information Modeling and Relational "Validation in Simulation: Various Positions
Databases, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, in the Philosophy of Science," Management
NewYork, 2001. Science (44:8), August 1998, pp. 1087-1099.
Henderson, J., and Venkatraman, N. "Strategic Kruchten, P. The Rational Unified Process: An
Alignment: Leveraging Information Techno Introduction (2nd ed.), Addison-Wesley, Inc.,
logy for Transforming Organizations," IBM Reading, MA, 2000.
Systems Journal (32:1), 1993. Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolu
ISR. Editorial Statement and Policy, Information tions (3rd ed.), University of Chicago Press,
Systems Research (13:4), December 2002. Chicago, IL, 1996.
Jarvenpaa, S., Rao, V., and Huber, G. "Computer Kumar, A., and Zhao, J. "Workflow Support for
Support for Meetings of Groups Working on Electronic Commerce Applications," Decision
Unstructured Problems: A Field Experiment," Support Systems (32:3), January 2002, pp.
MIS Quarterly (12:4), December 1988, pp. 265-278.
645-666. Lee, A. "Inaugural Editor's Comments," MIS
Johansson, J. M. "On the Impact of Network Quarterly (23:1), March 1999, pp. v-xi.
Latency on Distributed Systems Design," Lee, A. "Systems Thinking, Design Science, and
Information Technology Management (1), Paradigms: Heeding Three Lessons from the
2000, pp. 183-194. Past to Resolve Three Dilemmas in the
Present to Direct a Trajectory for Future Norman, D. The Design of Everyday Things,
Research in the Information Systems Field," Currency Doubleday, NewYork, 1988.
Keynote Address, Eleventh International Con Nunamaker, J., Briggs, R., Mittleman, D., Vogel,
ference on Information Management, Taiwan, D., and Balthazard, P. "Lessons from a
May 2000 (available online at http://www. Dozen Years of Group Support Systems
people.vcu.edu/~aslee/ICIM-keynote-2000). Research: A Discussion of Lab and Field
Leymann, F., and Roller, D. Production Workflow: Findings," Journal of Management Informa
Concepts and Techniques, Prentice-Hall, tion Systems, (13:3), Winter 1996-97, pp.
Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2000. 163-207.
Madnick, S. E. "The Challenge: To Be Part of the Nunamaker, J., Chen, M., and Purdin, T. D. M.
Solution Instead of Being Part of the Prob "Systems Development in Information Sys
lem," in Proceedings of the Second Annual tems Research," Journal of Management
Workshop on Information Technology and Information Systems (7:3), Winter 1991a, pp.
Systems, V. Storey and A. Whinston (eds.), 89-106.
Dallas, TX, December 12-13, 1992, pp. 1-9. Nunamaker, J., Dennis, A., Valacich, J., Vogel, D.,
Marakas, G. M., and Elam, J. J. "Semantic and George, J. "Electronic Meeting Systems
Structuring in Analyst Acquisition and Repre to Support Group Work," Communications of
sentation of Facts in Requirements Analysis," the ACM, (34:7), July 1991b, pp. 40-61.
Information Systems Research (9:1), March Orlikowski, W. J. "Using Technology and Con
1998, pp. 37-63. stituting Structures: A Practice Lens for
March, S. T., Hevner, A., and Ram, S. "Research Studying Technology in Organizations."
Commentary: An Agenda for Information Organization Science (11:4), December 2000,
Technology Research in Heterogeneous and pp. 404-428.
Distributed Environment," Information Sys Orlikowski, W. J., and Barley, S. R. "Technology
tems Research (11:4), December 2000, pp. and Institutions: What Can Research on
327-341. Information Technology and Research on
March, S. T., and Smith, G. "Design and Natural Organizations Learn From Each Other?," MIS
Science Research on Information Techno Quarterly (25:2), June 2001, pp 145-165.
logy," Decision Support Systems (15:4), Orlikowski, W. J., and lacono, C. S. "Research
December 1995, pp. 251-266. Commentary: Desperately Seeking the 'IT' in
Markus, M. L., Majchrzak, A., and Gasser, L. "A IT Research?A Call to Theorizing the IT
Design Theory for Systems that Support Artifact," Information Systems Research
Emergent Knowledge Processes," MIS Quar (12:2), June 2001, pp. 121-134.
terly (26:3), September, 2002, pp. 179-212. Orman, L. V. "Electronic Markets, Hierarchies,
McCarthy, W. E. "The REA Accounting Model: A Hubs, and Intermediaries," Journal of Infor
Generalized Framework for Accounting Sys mation Systems Frontiers (4:2), 2002, pp.
tems in a Shared Data Environment," The 207-222.
Accounting Review (58:3), 1982, pp. 554 Pahl, G., and Beitz, W. Engineering Design: A
578. Systematic Approach, Springer-Verlag, Lon
Meehl, P. E. "What Social Scientists Don't don, 1996.
Understand," in Metatheoryin Social Science, Parsons, J., and Wand, Y. "Emancipating
D. W. Fiske and R. A. Shweder (eds.), Instances from the Tyranny of Classes in
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, Information Modeling," ACM Transactions on
1986, pp. 315-338. Database Systems (25:2), June 2000, pp.
Newell, A., and Simon, H. "Computer Science as 228-268.
Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search," Petroski, H. Invention by Design: How Engineers
Communications of the ACM (19:3), March Get from Thought to Thing, Harvard Univer
1976, pp. 113-126. sity Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996.
Purao, S., Storey, V. C, and Han, T. D. "Im Storey, V. C, Chiang, R. H. L., Dey, D., Goldstein,
proving Reuse-Based System Design with R. C, and Sundaresan, S. "Database Design
Learning," Information Systems Research with Common Sense Business Reasoning
(14:3), September 2003, pp. 269-290. and Learning," ACM Transactions on
Rittel, H. J., and Webber, M. M. "Planning Prob Database Systems (22:4), December 1997,
lems Are Wicked Problems," in Develop pp. 471-512.
ments in Design Methodology, N. Cross (ed.), Tarn, K. Y. "Automated Construction of Knowl
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1984. edge-Bases from Examples," Information
Robey, D. "Research Commentary: Diversity in Systems Research (1:2), June 1990, pp. 144
Information Systems Research: Threat, 167.
Opportunity, and Responsibility," Information Tichy, W. "Should Computer Scientists Experi
Systems Research (7:4), 1996, pp. 400-408. ment More?" IEEE Computer (31:5), May
Royce, W. Software Project Management: A 1998, pp. 32-40.
Unified Framework, Addison-Wesley, Inc., Trice, A., and Davis, R. "Heuristics for Recon
Reading, MA, 1998. ciling Independent Knowledge Bases," Infor
Salton, G. Automatic Text Processing: The mation Systems Research (4:3), September
Transformation, Analysis, and Retrieval of 1993, pp. 262-288.
Information by Computer, Addison-Wesley, Tsichritzis, D. "The Dynamics of Innovation," in
Inc., Reading, MA, 1988. Beyond Calculation: The Next Fifty Years of
Schneier, B. Applied Cryptography: Protocols, Computing, P. J. Denning and R. M. Metcalfe
Algorithms, and Source Code in C (2nd ed.), (eds.), Copernicus Books, NewYork, 1998,
John Wiley and Sons, New York, January pp. 259-265.
1996. Venkatesh, V. "Determinants pf Perceived Ease
Schon, D. A. The Reflective Practitioner: How of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motiva
Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, tion, and Emotion into the Technology Accep
NewYork, 1983. tance Model," Information Systems Research
Seddon, P. B. "A Respecification and Extension (11:4), December 2000, pp. 342-365.
of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Vessey, I., and Glass, R. "Strong Vs. Weak
Success," Information Systems Research Approaches to Systems Development,"
(8:3), September 1997, pp. 240-253. Communications of the ACM (41:4), April
Sengupta, K., and Te'eni, D. "Cognitive Feedback 1998, pp. 99-102.
in GDSS: Improving Control and Conver Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., and El Sawy, O. A.
gence," MIS Quarterly (17:1), March 1993, "Building an Information System Design
pp. 87-113. Theory for Vigilant EIS," Information Systems
Silver, M. S., Markus, M. L., and Beath, C. M. Research (3:1), March 1992, pp. 36-59.
"The Information Technology Interaction Wand, Y., and Weber, R. "On the Deep Structure
Model: A Foundation for the MBA Core of Information Systems," Information Systems
Course," MIS Quarterly (19:3), September Journal (5), 1995, pp. 203-233.
1995, pp. 361-390. Wand, Y., and Weber, R. "On the Ontological
Simon, H. A. The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd Expressiveness of Information Systems
ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996. Design Analysis and Design Grammars,"
Sinha, A. P., and Vessey, I. "An Empirical Inves Journal of Information Systems (3:3), 1993,
tigation of Entity-Based and Object-Oriented pp. 217-237.
Data Modeling: A Development Life Cycle Weber, R. "Editor's Comments: Still Desperately
Approach," in Proceedings of the Twentieth Seeking the IT Artifact," MIS Quarterly (27:2),
International Conference on Information June 2003, pp. iii-xi.
Systems, P. De and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Weber, R. Ontological Foundations of Information
Charlotte, NC, December 13-15, 1999, pp. Systems, Coopers & Lybrand, Brisbane,
229-244. Australia, 1997.
Weber, R. "Toward a Theory of Artifacts: A base design, and electronic commerce. His
Paradigmatic Base for Information Systems research has appeared in journals such as Com
Research," Journal of Information Systems munications of the ACM, IEEE Transactions on
(1:2), Spring 1987, pp. 3-19. Knowledge and Data Engineering, and Informa
WfMC. "Workflow Standard?Interoperability Wf tion Systems Research. He served as the Editor
XML Binding," Document Number WFMC-TC in-Chief of ACM Computing Surveys and as an
1023, Version 1.0, Workflow Management associate editor for MIS Quarterly. He is currently
Coalition, 2000. a senior editor for Information Systems Research
Winograd, T. Bringing Design to Software, and an associate editor for Decision Sciences
Addison-Wesley, Inc., Reading, MA, 1996. Journal.
Winograd, T. "The Design of Interaction," in
Beyond Calculation: The Next 50 Years of Jinsoo Park is an assistant professor of infor
Computing, P. Denning and R. Metcalfe mation systems in the College of Business Admin
(eds.), Copernicus Books, NewYork, 1998, istration at Korea University. He was formerly on
pp. 149-162. the faculty of the Carlson School of Management
Zelkowitz, M., and Wallace, D. "Experimental at the University of Minnesota. He holds a Ph.D.
Models for Validating Technology," IEEE in MIS from the University of Arizona. His
Computer (31:5), May 1998, pp. 23-31. research interests are in the areas of semantic
Zmud, R. "Editor's Comments," MIS Quarterly interoperability and metadata management in
(21:2), June 1997, pp. xxi-xxii. interorganizational information systems, hetero
geneous information resource management and
integration, knowledge sharing and coordination,
and data modeling. His published research
About the Authors articles appear in IEEE Computer, IEEE Transac
tions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, and
Alan R. Hevner is an Eminent Scholar and Pro Information Systems Frontiers. He currently
fessor in the College of Business Administration at serves on the editorial board of Journal of Data
the University of South Florida. He holds the base Management. He is a member of ACM,
Salomon Brothers/Hidden River Corporate Park IEEE, AIS, and INFORMS.
Chair of Distributed Technology. His areas of
research interest include information systems Sudha Ram is the Eller Professor of MIS at the
development, software engineering, distributed University of Arizona. She received a B.S. in
database systems, and healthcare information Science from the University of Madras in 1979,
systems. He has published numerous research PGDM from the Indian Institute of Management,
papers on these topics and has consulted for Calcutta in 1981 and a Ph.D. from the University
several Fortune 500 companies. Dr. Hevner of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, in 1985. Dr.
received a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Ram has published articles in such journals as
Purdue University. He has held faculty positions Communications of the ACM, IEEE Transactions
at the University of Maryland at College Park and on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Information
the University of Minnesota. Dr. Hevner is a Systems Research, and Management Science.
member of ACM, IEEE, AIS, and INFORMS. Her research deals with interoperability in hetero
geneous databases, semantic modeling, data
Salvatore T. March is the David K. Wilson Pro allocation, and intelligent agents for data manage
fessor of Management at the Owen Graduate ment. Her research has been funded by IBM,
School of Management, Vanderbilt University. He National Institute of Standards and Technology
received a B.S. in Industrial Engineering and M.S. (NIST), National Science Foundation (NSF),
and Ph.D. degrees in Operations Research from National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Cornell University. His research interests are in (NASA), and the Office of Research and Devel
information system development, distributed data opment of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).