A four-cycle model of IS design science research: capturing the dynamic nature of IS artifact design

We propose to extend the well-known three-cycle view for design science research (DSR) with a fourth cycle (change and impact cycle) that captures the dynamic nature of IS artifact design for volatile environments. The appropriation of in-innovative designs results in organizational changes that happen outside the new artifacts' immediate application contexts. The intention behind introducing the fourth cycle is to integrate recent advances in the DSR discourse conceptually within the DSR cycle model. We critically review such recent advances and integrate them into an extended model. We show how this change and impact (CI) cycle adds an important facet to DSR to cope with dynamic application contexts as well as artifact-induced organizational change and the resulting need for follow-up design efforts. Iterations of the CI cycle represent the continuous design evolution required to keep up with changing organizational environments

Design science research for holistic climate services

The innovated fitness-utility Systems Design Research (SDR) model is generalized from the Extended Action Design Research (EADR) model and discussed in terms of the Design Science Research (DSR) framework. In the context of SDR as well as the recent Paris Agreement, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Agenda for Humanity the challenges of holistic climate services are discussed. As an application of the trans-disciplinary SDR holistic grass-root mobile climate services are developed for local farmers in communities of an African developing country

Effectuation and its implications for socio-technical design science research in information systems

We study the implications of the effectuation concept for socio-technical artifact design as part of the design science research (DSR) process in information systems (IS). Effectuation logic is the opposite of causal logic. Ef-fectuation does not focus on causes to achieve a particular effect, but on the possibilities that can be achieved with extant means and resources. Viewing so-cio-technical IS DSR through an effectuation lens highlights the possibility to design the future even without set goals. We suggest that effectuation may be a useful perspective for design in dynamic social contexts leading to a more dif-ferentiated view on the instantiation of mid-range artifacts for specific local ap-plication contexts. Design science researchers can draw on this paper’s conclu-sions to view their DSR projects through a fresh lens and to reexamine their re-search design and execution. The paper also offers avenues for future research to develop more concrete application possibilities of effectuation in socio-technical IS DSR and, thus, enrich the discourse

Domain design principles for managing complexity in conceptual modeling

Complexity is a problem that can be found in many aspects of research that deals with design. In particular, complexity is found in various business processes that must be modeled and represented in a meaningful way. One of the ways to address complexity is by using decomposition, for which a number of decomposition principles have been proposed. However, there are two domain specific areas in which these principles are lacking: the scope and the context of the problem. This research addresses this problem by deriving two new principles for managing complexity, and evaluates the proposed principles through an example case to illustrate their potential use

Validation criteria for the outcomes of design research

Design research can be described as a form of research that involves the design of some human creation or artefact. These artefacts are designed for some purpose, i.e., they aim at responding to some human necessity, either existing or foreseen. Although these artefacts are inescapable in design research, the actual outcome of design research is knowledge about the artefacts. The knowledge resulting from design research is named knowledge-for-a-purpose. It is contrasted with knowledge-for-understanding, the knowledge resulting from other forms of research. The article addresses the validity of knowledge-for-a-purpose. Four elements for such validity are presented, namely: success of the corresponding artefacts, generality, novelty and explanation capability. In order to attempt to clarify the view underlying the article, design research and its outcomes are contrasted with several other concepts that are common in the design research discourse: design activity, design science, and design science research.Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT

Add the cool factor:An empirical investigation of the effect of positivity and pictorial images on review coolness

Cool excites, attracts, drives trends, stands out, and is considered a characteristic quality of appealing brands, products, or people. Despite the value cool online reviews provide to review contributors by drawing attention and peer recognition to them, and the potential value of cool reviews to focal businesses being reviewed, little has been done to understand what factors impact user perception of coolness in online reviews. In this paper, we explore some of these factors. We find that positive and favorable reviews are more likely to be perceived as being cool compared to negative and unfavorable reviews. Similarly, having pictorial images increases the likelihood of an online review being perceived as cool. However, we do find that the inclusion of pictorial images in online reviews is skewed towards highly positive reviews suggesting that review contributors may be adding pictorial images to support their very favorable reviews compared to unfavorable reviews

Pragmatizing the Normative Artifact: Design Science Research in Scandinavia and Beyond

In this panel report, we analyze the discussion that unfolded during the “Design Science Research: A Scandinavian Approach?” panel held at the third Scandinavian Conference on Information Systems in Sigtuna, Sweden, in August, 2012. The second author of this paper chaired the panel, which also included Tone Bratteteig, Shirley Gregor, Ola Henfridsson, Alan Hevner, Jan Pries-Heje, and Tuure Tuunanen as panelists. Three themes that highlight how the design of artifacts contributes to knowledge production emerged during the panel. The first theme addresses our responsibility, as a research community, to come up not only with descriptions of the world but also to try to change things into preferable states. The second theme emphasizes that knowledge production also happens through the design of artifacts. The third theme identifies an apparent pragmatic turn in our discipline