Source
doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302 — original publication (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)
Summary
Peffers, Tuunanen, Rothenberger and Chatterjee’s A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research (JMIS 2007) is the canonical methodology paper for design science research (DSR) in information systems. It synthesises seven prior design-process models from IS and other disciplines into a single, commonly-usable design science research methodology (DSRM): a nominal process model of six activities for building and evaluating an artifact, plus a mental model for presenting and evaluating that work. The authors state three objectives for the DSRM, that it be consistent with prior DSR literature, that it provide a nominal process model for conducting DSR, and that it provide a mental model for presenting and evaluating DSR, and they demonstrate it against four worked case studies. For the thesis this is the primary methodological warrant for the whole project: the Neobiome Intelligence artifact is a design-science artifact (a calculation/knowledge instrument built to solve a real problem), so the DSRM supplies both the process the research follows and the reporting structure of the artifact chapters. It is cited alongside the design-science foundation of Hevner et al. (2004) and the human-centred / double-diamond design frames.
Key thesis insights
- The DSRM is a six-activity process model. (1) Problem identification and motivation, define the specific problem and justify the value of a solution; (2) Define the objectives for a solution, infer quantitative or qualitative objectives from the problem and what is feasible; (3) Design and development, create the artifact (constructs, models, methods or instantiations); (4) Demonstration, use the artifact to solve one or more instances of the problem (experiment, simulation, case study, proof); (5) Evaluation, observe and measure how well the artifact meets the objectives, with the option to iterate back to activity 3; and (6) Communication, convey the problem, the artifact, its utility, novelty and rigour to researchers and practitioners. This sequence is the backbone the thesis uses to structure the artifact’s Methodology, Findings and Discussion split.
- The sequence is nominal, not obligatory, with four possible entry points. The activities are laid out in a nominally sequential order, but a project may start at almost any step and work outward: problem-centered (start at activity 1), objective-centered (start at activity 2, triggered by an industry or research need), design- and development-centered (start at activity 3, when an artifact already exists but has not been formally reasoned as a solution), or client/context-initiated (start at activity 4, working backward from a practical solution already observed to work). This licences the thesis to describe its own actual, non-linear research path honestly rather than forcing a tidy linear narrative.
- Evaluation feeds back into design (iteration is built in). At the end of evaluation the researcher decides whether to iterate back to design and development to improve the artifact, or to proceed to communication and leave further improvement to later work. The build-demonstrate-evaluate loop, rather than a one-shot pipeline, is a first-class feature of the method, matching how the Neobiome Intelligence engine was developed and refined.
- The method doubles as a presentation / mental model. Beyond a process, the DSRM gives a “mental model” for how DSR should be written up and judged: researchers may use the six activities to structure the paper itself, exactly as the empirical-research skeleton (problem, literature, hypotheses, data, analysis, results, discussion, conclusion) structures empirical papers. This is the specific reason it is cited to justify the thesis’s report structure, not only its conduct.
- It is the community’s shared warrant that a built artifact is legitimate research output. The paper’s motivating claim is that DSR had been slow to gain acceptance in IS partly for want of a commonly accepted methodology and presentation template; the DSRM fills that gap. For a Masters project whose primary deliverable is a designed artifact rather than a hypothesis test, this is the authoritative citation establishing that designing and evaluating such an artifact is a rigorous, recognised research contribution.
Notes
- Provenance. Authoritative primary download, official Taylor & Francis / JMIS reprint (ISSN 0742-1222 print, 1557-928X online), from a CERN Indico full-text attachment. Author list, venue, volume/issue (24:3), pages (45–77) and DOI (10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302) were all confirmed on the PDF cover.
- Read scope. Read verbatim: the abstract, the introduction, and the “Procedures: A Process Model and Mental Model for DSR” section that states the six activities and presents Figure 1 (the DSRM Process Model). The four demonstration case studies and the concluding discussion were not read; the insights above are drawn only from the sections read.
- Scope. Information-systems methodology. No NZ-specific data and nothing that feeds an NI calculation cell.
data_quality: high(seminal, peer-reviewed, single authoritative source; notverified, which the project reserves for quantitative figures corroborated by an independent source, and this paper carries no such figures). - Companion citations. Sits alongside Hevner et al. (2004) Design Science in Information Systems Research (the DSR guidelines/foundation) and the design-council double-diamond and human-centred-design (OT_007) frames.
Connections
Referenced by
Concepts (1): Research Methodology