Skip to main content
Log in

The design construct in information systems design science

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Information Technology

Abstract

This paper arose from concerns regarding the current conceptualizations of ‘design’ in the emerging literature on design science (DS) in information systems (IS). In this paper, we argue that current conceptualizations of design in IS are overly narrow, which necessarily limits what is viewed as acceptable DS research. In response we advance a more encompassing view of design. The revised view extends the current perspectives of design in the IS literature to embrace broader conceptualizations of design, which are evident in many intellectual communities outside IS where design is viewed as a critical component of both research and practice – such as management, engineering, architecture and others. In addition to the fairly common conceptualizations of design as product and design as process or action, design is also conceived as: intention; planning – including modeling and representation; communication; user experience; value; professional practice; and as service. Further, whereas the current conceptualization of design in IS views IS design knowledge as split across two paradigms, namely DS and behavioral science, in this paper we argue for a broader and more integrated view of design: one that emphasizes both the construction-centered and human-centered aspects of design in IS. Building from our broader view, we discuss some of the implications for design-oriented research in IS, and consider ways in which this human-centered perspective might impact on the context and content of design research in IS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For brevity hereafter, we will simply refer to this perspective as the Hevner view or perspective.

  2. The position adopted by Hevner et al. (2004) regarding the IT artifact seems consistent with the Benbasat and Zmud (2003) call for making the IT artifact the core of IS research. This position is not necessarily shared by the rest of the IS community, however (Hirschheim and Klein, 2003).

  3. This view is commonly shared by the ACM HCI community, some of whom are actively engaged in research of this type that would be of interest to design researchers. See http://www.sigchi.org.

References

  • Abbasi, A. and Chen, H. (2008). Cybergate: A design framework and system for text analysis of computer mediated communication, MIS Quarterly 32 (4): 811–837.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, L. and Courtney, J. (2004). Achieving Relevance in IS Research Via the DAGS Framework, in Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Honolulu, USA); Michigan: IEEE Computer Society Press 1–10.

  • Adomavicius, G., Bockstedt, J., Gupta, A. and Kauffman, R. (2008). Making Sense of Technology Trends in the Information Technology Landscape, MIS Quarterly 32 (4): 779–809.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almquist, J. and Lupton, J. (2010). Design-oriented Research from the Humanities and Social Sciences, Design Issues 26 (1): 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alter, S. (2006). Work Systems and IT Artifacts – Does the definition matter? Communications of the Association of Information Systems 17 (1): 299–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreasen, M.M., Wognum, N. and McAloone, T. (2002). Design Typology and Design Organization, in D. Marjanovic (ed.) Design, Vol. 1, Dubrovnik: The Design Society, pp. 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, B. (1979). Whatever Became of Design Methodology? Design Studies 1 (1): 17–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnott, D. (2006). Cognitive Biases and Decision Support Systems Development: A design science approach, Information Systems Journal 16 (1): 55–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Au, Y.A. (2001). Design Science I: The role of design science in electronic commerce research, Communications of the Association for Information Systems 7 (1): Article 1.

  • Avital, M., Boland, R.J. and Lyytinen, K. (2009). Introduction to Designing Information and Organizations with a Positive Lens, Information and Organization 19 (3): 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayazit, N. (2004). Investigating Design: A review of forty years of design research, Design Issues 20 (1): 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I. and Zmud, R.W. (2003). The Identity Crisis within the IS Discipline: Defining and communicating the discipline's core properties, MIS Quarterly 27 (2): 183–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boland, R.J. (2004). Design in the Punctuation of Management Action, in R.J. Boland and F. Collopy (eds.) Managing as Designing, Stanford: Stanford Business Books, pp. 106–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boland, R.J., Collopy, F., Lyytinen, K. and Yoo, Y. (2008). Managing as Designing: Lessons for organizational leaders from the design practice of Frank O. Gehry, Design Issues 24 (1): 10–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boztepe, S. (2007). User Value: Competing theories and models, International Journal of Design 1 (2): 55–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A.L. (1992). Design Experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings, Journal of the Learning Sciences 2 (2): 141–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (1989). Declaration by Design: Rhetoric, argument and demonstration in design practice, in V. Margolin (ed.) Design Discourse, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 91–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking, Design Issues 8 (2): 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (1996). Myth and Maturity: Towards a new order in the decade of design, in V. Margolin and R. Buchanan (eds.) The Idea of Design, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 75–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J.P. (1977). On the Nature of Organizational Effectiveness, in P.S. Goodman, J.M. Pennings et al. (eds.) New Perspectives in Organizational Effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 13–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao, J., Crews, J.M., Lin, M., Deokar, A., Burgoon, J.K. and Nunamaker, J.F. (2006). Interactions Between System Evaluation and Theory Testing: A demonstration of the power of a multifaceted approach to information systems research, Journal of Management Information Systems 22 (4): 207–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, S.A. (2006). Design Science in Information Systems: A critical realist perspective, in Seventeenth Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Adelaide, 6–8 December.

  • Carlsson, S.A. (2007). Developing Knowledge Through IS Design Science Research: For whom, what type of knowledge and how, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19 (2): 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J., Nazareth, D. and Jain, H. (2010). Implementing Service-Oriented Architecture in Organizations, Journal of Management Information Systems 26 (4): 253–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crilly, N. (2011). The Design Stance in User-System Interaction, Design Issues 27 (4): 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crilly, N. and Clarkson, P. (2007). What the Communicated-Based Models of Design Reveal and Conceal, in Design Semiotics in Use: 6th Nordcode Seminar & Workshop, 6–8 June, Helsinki, Finland.

  • Crilly, N., Good, D., Matravers, D. and Clarkson, P.J. (2008b). Design as Communication: Exploring the validity and utility of relation intention to interpretation, Design Studies 29 (5): 425–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crilly, N., Maier, A. and Clarkson, P.J. (2008a). Modelling the Relationship Between Designer Intent and Consumer Experience, International Journal of Design 2 (3): 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crilly, N., Moultrie, J. and Clarkson, P.J. (2009). Shaping Things: Intended consumer response and the other determinants of product form, Design Studies 30 (3): 224–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2001). Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design discipline versus design science, Design Issues 17 (3): 49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Aubeterre, F., Singh, R. and Iyer, L. (2008). A Semantic Approach to Secure Collaborative Inter-Organizational eBusiness Processes (SSCIOBP), Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9 (3): 231–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilnot, C. (1984a). The State of Design History, Part I: Mapping the field, Design Issues 1 (1): 4–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilnot, C. (1984b). The State of Design History, Part II: Problems and possibilities, Design Issues 1 (2): 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilnot, C. (1982). Design as a Socially Significant Activity: An introduction, Design Studies 3 (3): 139–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dipert, R.R. (1995). Some Issues in the Theory of Artifacts: Defining ‘artifact’ and related notions, The Monist 78 (2): 119–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K. (2006). Design Problems and Design Paradoxes, Design Issues 22 (3): 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D.C. (2002). Design Research: What we learn when we engage in design, Journal of the Learning Sciences 11 (1): 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Sawy, O.A. (2003). The IS core – IX: The 3 faces of IS identity: Connection, immersion and fusion, Communications of the Association of Information Systems 12 (1): 588–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallman, D. (2003). Design-Oriented Human – Computer interaction, CHI Letters 5 (1): 225–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B. (2008). Value Sensitive Design, in D. Schular (ed.) Liberating Voices: A pattern language for communication revolution, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 366–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, K. (2003). Theory Construction in Design Research: Criteria, approaches and methods, Design Studies 24 (6): 507–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galle, P. (1999). Design as Intentional Action: A conceptual analysis, Design Studies 20 (1): 57–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Germonprez, M., Hovorka, D. and Collopy, F. (2007). A Theory of Tailorable Technology Design, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8 (6): 351–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S. and Jones, D. (2007). The Anatomy of a Design Theory, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8 (5): 312–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatchuel, A. (2001). Towards Design Theory and Expandable Rationality: The unfinished program of Herbert Simon, Journal of Management and Governance 5 (3): 260–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hevner, A.R., March, S.T. and Park, J. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly 28 (1): 75–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilpinen, R (1995). Belief Systems as Artifacts, The Monist 78 (2): 136–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H. (2003). Crisis in the IS Field? A critical reflection on the state of the discipline, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 4 (5): 237–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooker, J.N. (2004). Is Design Theory Possible? Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 6 (2): 63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T.P. (1987). The Evolution of Large Technological Systems, in W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes and T.F. Pinch (eds.) The Social Constructions of Technological Systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iivari, J. (2007). A Paradigmatic Analysis of Information Systems as a Design Science, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19 (2): 39–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelinek, M., Romme, G.L. and Boland, R.J. (2008). Introduction to the Special Issue: Organization Studies as a Science for Design: Creating collaborative artifacts and research, Organization Studies 29 (3): 317–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. (2003). Theory After the Postmodern Condition, Organization 10 (3): 503–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D., Gregor, S. and Lynch, T. (2003). An Information Systems Design Theory for Web-Based Education, IASTED Symposium on Web-Based Education, Rhodes, Greece, Anaheim: IASTED, pp. 603–608.

  • Kazmierczak, E. (2003). Design as Meaning Making: From making things to the design of thinking, Design Issues 19 (2): 45–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, P. (2007). Developing a Design Science for the Use of Problem Structuring Methods, Systems Practice and Action Research 20 (4): 333–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, L. (2011). Designing for Service as One Way of Designing Service, International Journal of Design 5 (2): 41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschoten, G. and De Vreede, G. (2009). A Design Approach for Collaboration Processes: A multimethod design science study in collaboration engineering, Journal of Management Information Systems 26 (1): 225–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (1996). On the Essential Contexts of Artifacts or on the Proposition That ‘Design is Making Sense (of Things)’, in V. Margolin and R. Buchanan (eds.) The Idea of Design, Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroes, P. (2001). Technical Functions as Dispositions: A critical assessment, TECHNE 5 (3): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, C. and Cross, N. (2006). Solution Driven Versus Problem Driven Design: Strategies and outcomes, Design Studies 27 (5): 527–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuechler, W. and Vaishnavi, V. (2008). The Emergence of Design Research in Information Systems in North America, Journal of Design Research 7 (1): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Wyner, G. and Pentland, B. (2008). Process Grammar as a Tool for Business Process Redesign, MIS Quarterly 32 (4): 757–778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louridas, P. (1999). Design as Bricolage: Anthropology meets design thinking, Design Studies 20 (6): 517–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundgren, N. (1978). Transportation and Personal Mobility, in B. Wilkins (ed.) Leisure in the Twentieth Century, London: Design Council, pp. 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunenfeld, P. (2003). The Design Cluster, in B. Laurel (ed.) Design Research: Methods and Perspectives, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, S.T. and Smith, G. (1995). Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology, Decision Support Systems 15 (4): 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M.L., Majchrzak, A. and Gasser, L. (2002). A Design Theory for Systems that Support Emergent Knowledge Processes, MIS Quarterly 26 (3): 179–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marxt, C. and Hacklin, F. (2005). Design, Product Development, Innovation: All the same in the end? A short discussion on terminology, Journal of Engineering Design 16 (4): 413–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKay, J. and Marshall, P. (2005). A Review of Design Science in Information Systems, in B. Campbell, J. Underwood and D. Bunker (eds.) Socialising IT: Thinking about the people: Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2005), Sydney, Australia, pp. 1–11.

  • McKay, J. and Marshall, P. (2007). Science, Design, and Design Science: Seeking Clarity to Move Design Science Research Forward in Information Systems, ACIS 2007 Proceedings Paper 55, http://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2007/55.

  • Miller, W.R. (2004). Definition of design. [WWW document] http://www.google.com.au/search?q=...+static.userland.com%2Frack4%2Fgems%2Fwrmdesign%2FDefinitionOfDesign1.doc&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a (accessed 9 June 2007).

  • Mittleman, D.D. (2009). Planning and Design Considerations for Computer Supported Collaboration Spaces, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10: 278–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, E. (2000). A Socio-technical Approach to Systems Design, Requirements Engineering 5 (2): 125–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niehaves, B. (2007a). On Epistemological Pluralism in Design Science, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19 (2): 99–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niehaves, B. (2007b). On Epistemological Diversity in Design Science – New vistas for a design-oriented IS research? In Twenty-Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Montreal.

  • Niehaves, B. and Becker, J. (2006). Epistemological Perspectives on Design Science in IS Research, in Proceedings of the Twelfth Americas Conference on Information Systems (Acapulco, Mexico); 4–6 August.

  • Norman, D.A. (2009). Systems Thinking: A product is more than the product, Interactions 16 (5): 52–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, J. and Wand, Y. (2008). Using Cognitive Principles to Guide Classification in Information Systems Modeling, MIS Quarterly 32 (4): 839–868.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A. and Chatterjee, S. (2008). A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research, Journal of Management Information Systems 24 (3): 45–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purao, S. (2002). Design Research in the Technology of Information Systems: Truth or dare, Atlanta: GSU Department of CIS Working Paper.

  • Redstrom, J. (2006). Towards User Design? On the shift from object to user as the subject of design, Design Studies 27 (2): 123–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redstrom, J. (2008). RE: Definitions of Use, Design Studies 29 (4): 410–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romme, A.G.L. (2003). Making a Difference: Organization as design, Organization Science 14 (5): 558–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, S. (1999). The State of Design Research, Design Issues 15 (2): 18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, D. (1997). Enzo Mari and the Process of Design, Design Issues 13 (3): 9–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B. (2007). Design as Practice, Science and Research, in M. Ralf (ed.) Design Research Now: Essays and selected projects, Basel: Birkhauser, pp. 207–218.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Secomandi, F. and Snelders, D. (2011). The Object of Service Design, Design Issues 27 (3): 20–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siponen, M., Baskerville, R. and Heikka, J. (2006). A Design Theory for Secure Information Systems Design Abstract Methods, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 7 (11): 725–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, S. (2011). Interpreting Design Thinking, Design Studies 32 (6): 515–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stolterman, E. (2008). The Nature of Design Practice and Implications for Interaction Design Research, International Journal of Design 2 (1): 55–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storey, V., Burton-Jones, A., Sugumaran, V. and Purao, S. (2008). CONQUER: A methodology for context-aware query processing on the World Wide Web, Information Systems Research 19 (1): 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umapathy, K., Purao, S. and Barton, R. (2008). Designing Enterprise Integration Solutions Effectively, European Journal of Information Systems 17 (5): 518–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Aken, J., Berends, H. and van der Bij, H. (2007). Problem Solving in Organizations: A methodological handbook for business students, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Aken, J.E. (2004). Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules, Journal of Management Studies 41 (2): 219–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Aken, J.E. (2005a). Valid Knowledge for the Professional Design of Large and Complex Processes, Design Studies 26 (4): 379–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Aken, J.E. (2005b). Management Research as Design Science: Articulating the research products of Mode 2 knowledge production in management, British Journal of Management 16 (1): 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Aken, J.E. (2007). Design Science and Organization Development Interventions: Aligning business and humanistic values, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 43 (1): 67–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Aken, J.E. and Romme, G. (2009). Reinventing the Future: Adding design science to the repertoire of organization and management studies, Organization Management Journal 6 (1): 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walls, J.G., Widmeyer, G.R. and El Sawy, O.A. (1992). Building an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS, Information Systems Research 3 (1): 36–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walls, J.G., Widmeyer, G.R. and El Sawy, O.A. (2004). Assessing Information System Design Theory in Perspective: How useful was our 1992 initial rendition? Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 6 (2): 43–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wangelin, E. (2007). Matching Bricolage and Hermeneutics: A theoretical patchwork in progress, Design Semiotics in Use, SeFun International Seminar (Helsinki, Finland); 6–8 June.

  • Wastell, D. (2010). Managing as Designing: ‘Opportunity knocks’ for the IS field? European Journal of Information Systems 31: 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieringa, R. and Heerkens, H. (2007). Designing Requirements Engineering Research, Proceedings of the Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering Conference (CERE 07), New Delhi, India.

  • Willem, R.A. (1990). Design and Science, Design Studies 11 (1): 43–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolford-Ulrich, J. (2004). Seeing Servant Leadership Through the Lens of Design, Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, August 2004. [WWW document] http://www.regent.edu/acad/sis/publications/conference_proceedings/servant_leadershiup_roundtable/2004pdf/ulrich_seeing_servant.pdf (accessed 26 May 2007).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Matt Levy for assistance with Table 2 of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McKay, J., Marshall, P. & Hirschheim, R. The design construct in information systems design science. J Inf Technol 27, 125–139 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2012.5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2012.5

Keywords

Navigation