Source
doi:10.2307/25148625 — original publication (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)
Summary
Hevner, March, Park and Ram’s “Design Science in Information Systems Research” (MIS Quarterly, 2004) is the foundational statement of design-science research (DSR) as a research paradigm, contrasting it with behavioural science: where behavioural science develops and justifies theories that explain or predict organisational and human phenomena, design science extends human and organisational capability by building and evaluating novel, purposeful artifacts. The paper supplies a concise conceptual framework, an iterative build-and-evaluate cycle sitting between the relevance of the business environment and the rigor of the knowledge base, together with seven guidelines for conducting and assessing rigorous DSR. For the Neobiome project it is the methodological anchor that frames Neobiome Intelligence as a designed artifact whose Develop and Deliver stages are design science research.
Key thesis insights
- Two complementary but distinct paradigms — behavioural science vs design science. Behavioural science seeks to develop and justify theories that explain or predict human and organisational behaviour; the design-science paradigm “seeks to extend the boundaries of human and organizational capabilities by creating new and innovative artifacts.” Both are foundational to the IS discipline. The thesis uses this split to position Neobiome Intelligence as design-science output (an artifact built to solve a problem), not a behavioural theory to be tested. LIT_101
- Knowledge is produced by building AND evaluating. The governing principle is that “knowledge and understanding of a design problem and its solution are acquired in the building and application of an artifact” (p. 82). The paper models this as an iterative build/evaluate cycle drawing relevance from the environment (people, organisations, technology) and rigor from the knowledge base (theories, methods, prior artifacts), then feeding results back to both. This directly underwrites the thesis’s Develop/Deliver framing. LIT_101
- The seven design-science research guidelines. (1) Design as an Artifact — produce a viable artifact; (2) Problem Relevance — address an important, unsolved problem; (3) Design Evaluation — rigorously demonstrate utility, quality and efficacy; (4) Research Contributions — provide clear, verifiable contributions; (5) Research Rigor — apply rigorous methods in construction and evaluation; (6) Design as a Search Process — iteratively search for an effective artifact using available means; (7) Communication of Research — present effectively to both technology-oriented and management-oriented audiences. These give the thesis an explicit checklist for what a defensible artefact chapter must demonstrate. LIT_101
- The deliverable can be a construct, model, method, or instantiation. Drawing on March and Smith (1995), DSR artifacts need not be finished production systems. This licenses the thesis to claim Neobiome Intelligence, a framework and calculation layer, as a legitimate design-science contribution rather than requiring a fully engineered software product. LIT_101
Notes
- Provenance caveat. The PDF held is a faithful reprint hosted on the VUB repository (wise.vub.ac.be), not the AIS eLibrary canonical copy. Identity confirmed against the file: the title page carries all four authors and affiliations, and running footers read “MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 75-105/March 2004”. Treat as equivalent to the published article for citation.
- Read scope. Focus-read of the Abstract, Introduction, and the “Guidelines for Design Science in Information Systems Research” section (Table 1 plus Guidelines 1-7). The three IS exemplar case studies and the closing “challenges of high-quality DSR” discussion were skimmed, not read in full.
Connections
Referenced by
Concepts (1): Research Methodology