DESIGN SCIENCE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Notes
By
Vambe, William T (Ph.D.)
Introduction
Design Science Research Methodology constitute of two compounds words the “Design
Science” and “Research Methodology” to better understand this concepts and further
relate them to Information Systems and Computer Science research as a methodology,
we have to understand what these compound words are before explaining what relevant
literatures are saying about Design Science Research Methodology in the computer
Science and the Information Systems research. Firstly we will look at some definition and
a little explanation of the terms “Design Science” and “Research Methodology”.

Design Science is coin in 1957 by R. Buckminster Fuller, and is seen as a systematic

type of designing and is concern with knowledge acquisition that relate to designs and its
activity (Alturki, Gable, & Bandara, 2011). Design Science lays emphasis on the
systematic, testable and communicable methods (Gacenga, Cater-Steel, Toleman, &
Tan, 2012). Design Science is also seen as an outcome base methodology which offer a
specific guide to for evaluation and iteration within a projects (“Wikipedia, Design science
(methodology),” 2016). The design science as a paradigm has its root in engineering and
science of the artifact, its fundamentally on solving problem through creative innovations
which define the ideas, practices, technical capabilities, and products in which analysis,
design, implementation, and information system use which can be effectively and
efficiently reached(Ayanso, Lertwachara, & Vachon, 2011).

Research Methodology this is seen is concern with a way of thinking on and studying a
specific phenomenon of interest by a researchers (Alturki, Gable, & Bandara, 2013).
Research methodology is also seen as an action plan, strategy, process, or design laying,
behind the choice of and methods and linking the choice of methods use (Alturki et al.,
2013). This just a little of definition from the many views of different authors in the
Information Science, and Computer Science next we will conduct an explanation of the
concept.
Design Science Research (DSR) creates and evaluate IT artifact intended to solve the
identified organizational problems (Gacenga et al., 2012). Design Science Research
(DSR), has been seen to constitute the third form of science “Artificial” in addition to the
natural sciences and the human sciences (Alturki et al., 2013). Also it is seen as a
research activity that build new or invents, innovate artifacts for problems solving or
improvement attainment such new innovative artifact create a new reality, rather than the
existing reality been explain or trying to make sense from it, it creates, and evaluates IT
artifact which is intended to solve some identified organizational problems (Alturki et al.,
2013). The Design Science Research Methodology is relatively a new approach in the
field of Information Systems, and Computer Science because of it prominence rapid
growth in the discipline (Alturki et al., 2013). Bayazit, (2004) also define Design Science
Research Methodology as a systematic inquiry which goal is knowledge of, configuration
embodiment, structure, composition, purpose, value, and meaning in man made things
and systems. Design Science Research Methodology basic logic of discovery is
deductive, because an unsolved problem is taking and tries to find a justificatory
knowledge or a kernel theory which help in solving the problem (Piirainen & Gonzalez,
2014).

Design Science Research Methodology (DSR) is seen as the other side of IS research
cycle that creates, evaluates information Technology artifacts intended to solve problems
identified in an organization (Hevner R., Salvator T., Jinsoo Park, & Sudha Ram, 2004).
In IS design science research is seen represent the most important aspect of the
Information System (IS) research landscape (Gleasurea, 2015). To further understand
the (DSR) as an IS research methodology, a dichotomy must be faced, by seeing it as
both process(set of activities), and a product (artifact) both verb and noun, it describe the
world as acted upon(processes) and the world as sensed(artifact)(Hevner R. et al., 2004).
Research in Information systems is subject to people, business organization, and their
planned or existing technology (Hevner R. et al., 2004). The Design science research
goal is utility and behavioral science research goal is truth, both design and behavioral
research are inseparable, where the truth informs design and utility informs theory
(Hevner R. et al., 2004). Furthermore in the design science research, mathematical
methods and computational methods are primarily use to evaluate the effectiveness and
quality of the artifacts; with empirical techniques been employ (Hevner R. et al., 2004).
Design science research contribution in Information Systems is measure in the way it is
apply to business needs in an appropriate environment and in ways in which it add to
content of knowledge base for further research and practice, and artifact solve existing
problem, therefore there is no justify theory which is not useful to for the environment
contributes little to the IS literature as an artifact the solve nonexistent problems (Hevner
R. et al., 2004). Notwithstanding there is an issue that must be address in the design
research methodology which is the routine design/system building from design research,
the difference between these two are the nature of problem and the solutions, in IS
research design science research addresses problems considered as the “wicked”
problems (Hevner R. et al., 2004). These “wicked” problems are said to occur in vast and
complex interconnected socio- technical systems which observation can’t be apply with
the outcomes of specific actions to predict (Gleasurea, 2015; Bisandu et al., 2018). These
problems are characterized by the following;
 Unstable requirements and constraints based upon ill-defined environmental
context
 complex interactions among subcomponents of the problem and its solution
 flexibility is inherent to change processes of design as well as design artifacts
(malleable artifacts, and it processes)
 a critical dependence upon human cognitive abilities (e.g., creativity) to produce
effective solutions
 human social abilities is a critical dependence upon (example, teamwork) to
produce solutions that are effective
STAGES OF DESIGN SCIENCE

1. Problem identification and motivation. Define the specific research problem and justify
the value of a solution. Since the problem definition will be used to develop an effective
artifactual solution, it may be useful to atomize the problem conceptually so that the
solution can capture the problem’s complexity. Justifying the value of a solution
accomplishes two things: it motivates the researcher and the audience of the research
to pursue the solution and to accept the results and it helps to understand the reasoning
associated with the researcher’s understanding of the problem. Resources required for
this activity include knowledge of the state of the problem and the importance
of its solution.
2. Objectives of a solution. Infer the objectives of a solution from the problem definition.
The objectives can be quantitative, e.g., terms in which a desirable solution would be
better than current ones, or qualitative, e.g., where a new artifact is expected to support
solutions to problems not hitherto addressed. The objectives should be inferred rationally
from the problem specification. Resources required for this include knowledge of the state
of problems and current solutions and their efficacy, if any.

3. Design and development. Create the artifactual solution. Such artifacts are potentially,
with each defined broadly, constructs, models, methods, or instantiations (Hevner et al.
2004). This activity includes determining the artifact’s desired functionality and its
architecture and then creating the actual artifact. Resources required moving from
objectives to design and development include knowledge of theory that can be brought
to bear as a solution.
4. Demonstration. Demonstrate the efficacy of the artifact to solve the problem. This could
involve its use in experimentation, simulation, a case study, proof, or other appropriate
activity. Resources required for the demonstration include effective knowledge of how to
use the artifact to solve the problem.

5. Evaluation. Observe and measure how well the artifact supports a solution to the
problem. This activity involves comparing the objectives of a solution to actual observed
results from use of the artifact in the demonstration. It requires knowledge of relevant
metrics and analysis techniques. Depending on the nature of the problem venue and the
artifact, evaluation could include such items as a comparison of the artifact’s functionality
with the solution objectives from activity 2 above, objective quantitative performance
measures, such as budgets or items produced satisfaction surveys, client feedback, or
simulations. At the end of this activity the researchers can decide whether to iterate back
to step 3 to try to improve the effectiveness of the artifact or to continue on to
communication and leave further improvement to subsequent projects. The nature of the
research venue may dictate whether such iteration is feasible or not.

6. Communication. Communicate the problem and its importance, the artifact, its utility
and novelty, the rigor of its design, and its effectiveness to researchers and other relevant
audiences, such as practicing professionals, when appropriate. In scholarly research
publications researchers might use the structure of this process to structure the paper,
just as the nominal structure of an empirical research process (problem definition,
literature review, hypothesis development, data collection, analysis, results, discussion,
and conclusion) is a common structure for empirical research papers. Communication
requires knowledge of the disciplinary culture.

This process is structured in a nominally sequential order; however there is no

expectation that researcher(s) would always actually proceed in sequential order from
activity 1 through activity 6. Instead they may actually start at almost any step and move
outward. A problem-centered approach is the basis of the nominal sequence, starting with
activity 1. Researchers might proceed in this sequence if the idea for the research resulted
from observation of the problem or from suggested future research in a paper from a prior
project. An objective centered solution, starting with activity 2, could be the by-product of
consulting experiences, where, for example, the results of system development activities
that fell short of hopes and clients wished that we could do a better job of scheduling
offshore programming. A design and development centered approach would start with
activity 3. It would result from the existence of an artifact that has not yet been formally
thought through as a solution for the explicit problem domain in which it will be used. Such
an artifact might have come from another research domain, it might have already been
used to solve a different problem, or it might have appeared as an analogical idea. Finally,
observing a practical solution that worked, starting with activity 4, might result in a design
science solution if researchers work backwards to apply rigor to the process retroactively.

NB: You can read further in literature