Design science research — a short summary
Design science research (hereafter DSR) is a relatively new approach to research (Reubens, 2016) with a goal to construct a new reality (i.e. solve problems) instead of explaining an existing reality, or helping to make sense of it (Iivari and Venable, 2009). While van Aken (2004) states that DSR looks to develop valid and reliable knowledge for designing solutions he leaves out the actual utilisation and problem-solving capabilities. Both Horváth (2007) and Baskerville et al. (2015) bring out the dual mandate of the DSR: (1) to utilise the gained knowledge to solve problems, create change or improve existing solutions; and (2) to generate new knowledge, insights and theoretical explanations. Furthermore, Horváth (2007) described a subtype of DSR that includes a study of actual creative design actions between explorative and confirmative research actions — the design inclusive research (hereafter DIR). In short, DIR divides the DSR into three phases (Horváth, 2007): (1) exploration, induction and deduction of the problem, the context and the activities and setting hypothesis; (2) design and testing of the solutions; (3) verifying hypothesis, validation of the research and generalising towards other applications.
DSR process generally includes six steps or activities (Peffers et al., 2007; Lapão et al., 2017; Teixeira et al., 2017): (1) identification of the problem, defining the research problem and justifying the value of a solution; (2) definition of objectives for a solution; (3) design and development of artefacts (constructs, models, methods, etc.); (4) demonstration by using the artefact to solve the problem; (5) evaluation of the solution, comparing the objectives and the actual observed results from the use of the artefact; and (6) communication of the problem, the artefact, its utility and effectiveness to other researches and practicing professionals. Peffers et al. (2007) state that researches don’t have to always start from the first step (i.e. identification) but mostly go through all of the steps in a way or another, moving outward from the point of entry of the research. Result of the DSR project is always a purposeful artefact which “can be a product or a process; it can be a technology, a tool, a methodology, a technique, a procedure, a combination of any of these, or any other means for achieving some purpose” (Venable and Baskerville, 2012, p. 142).
Because most projects focus on people (users) and the outcome will be used or practised by the people in order to achieve interaction between people, or between products and people, the designers and researchers need to focus on the people (Enninga et al., 2013). Therefore, for the paramount outcome it is best to take cues, actions, methods and ideas from the realm of general design, user-centred design, service design and design thinking processes as “the focus on people and their individual experiences, needs and daily habits has become commonplace and forms the basis of practically every design process” (ibid., p. 14).
There are many different ways of explaining the design process like Moritz’ (2005) six stages of service design (understanding, thinking, generating, filtering, explaining, realising), UK Design Council’s (2015) double diamond (discover, define, develop, deliver), Stickdorn and Schneider’s (2012) four-step service design process (exploration, creation, reflection, implementation), Brown’s (2009) three spaces of innovation (inspiration, ideation, implementation), Katoppo and Sudradjat’s (2015) three stages of human-centred design (hear, create, deliver) or Colin and Chavez’ (2015) five steps of user-centred design process (inquiry, definition of systems, definition of variables, definition of instruments, evaluation). They all implement divergent and convergent thinking in different stages (Enninga et al., 2013), generate large number of ideas, use trial and error to learn from the mistakes and root out unimplementable ones, try out solutions by prototyping and overall, intervene and observe rather than describe or analyse (McDonnell, 2015) in order to find the best solution under the set restriction (time, money, scope, etc.). Johansson-Sköldberg et al. (2013) narrowed the phases into two distinct ones: (1) an analytic step of problem definition; (2) synthetic sequence of problem-solving.
Chammas et al. (2015) and Mao et al. (2005) point out that the technical standards of the user-centred design (hereafter UCD) approach are determined by the International Organization of Standardization (ISO 9241–210, ISO 13407 and ISO TR 18529). Chammas et al. (2015, pp. 5399–5400) describe six characteristics of a UCD project: (1) “based on the explicit understanding of users, his [or her] tasks and environments” and the context of the use; (2) users are involved in every part of the process; (3) implements progressive assessment focusing on the users’ needs and desires and how and if they are met; (4) iterative in nature reviewing and refining the solution based on the acquired new knowledge during the design process; (5) addressing the entire user experience; (6) includes multidisciplinary skills and perspectives.
To focusthe project at hand on the end-users, we need to take into account that people’s behaviour can differ from their intended behaviour or expressed attitudes. As Martiskainen (2008, p. 87) explains “Even though a person’s attitude may be positive towards certain … behaviours and the person may have an intention of undertaking that behaviour, his or her habits can get in the way and prevent that behaviour from happening, or the person may act opposite to his or her intention without even realising it”. She (ibid.) advocates that we need to consider the three groups of influences on people’s behaviour: (1) internal factors (personal values, attitudes, beliefs); (2) external factors (regulations, institutions, cultural settings); and habitual factors (habits and routines). Young (2010, p. 18) suggests that “Taking a human-centred approach shifts perspective from the technical to one in which human biases and heuristics play a role, and where personal values, attitudes, beliefs, cultural settings are considered when designing solutions”.
All in all, design science research looks to find user insights first and then design a solution based on the findings, not the other way around. Follow these seven steps for the best design solutions. First, carry out end-user research to gain insights and discover the active and latent needs and values of the users, and understand the factors of behaviour (what do people think, why they do what they do or do not do what they are supposed to do, what are their attitudes towards the problem, their belief systems; and cultural, political, legislative and social context; etc.). Second, define clear objectives and restrictions based on the findings (does the solution need to be a new physical object, label; or an intangible service or a process according to which something is made easier; etc.). Third, using different techniques (like brainstorming, experience sketching, feature trees, etc.) gather different ideas for the solution. Fourth, filter out the viable and feasible ideas for testing (evaluate the ideas). Fifth, test the chosen ideas on and with the end-users to find out the best solution (do the end-users understand the solution or not; can they use it without extra instructions; etc.). Sixth, iterate by reviewing, refining and retesting the solution in order to get to the best possible solution that can be generalised. Seventh, compare the solution with theories, develop on the existing theories, generalise the outcome and share the knowledge with appropriate audiences (people, companies and policy makers).
This article is an edited versions of a section I wrote for a group paper for the Research Methods in Management Studies class at Estonian Business School’s MBA program in Digital Society.
References
van Aken, J. E. 2004. Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules: Paradigm of the Design Sciences. Journal of Management Studies, 41 (2), pp. 219–246.
Baskerville, R. L., Curtin University, Kaul, M., University of Nevada, Storey, V. C., and Georgia State University 2015. Genres of Inquiry in Design-Science Research: Justification and Evaluation of Knowledge Production. MIS Quarterly, 39 (3), pp. 541–564.
Brown, T. 2009. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: Harper Collins.
Chammas, A., Quaresma, M., and Mont’Alvão, C. 2015. A Closer Look on the User Centred Design. Procedia Manufacturing, 3 (Supplement C), pp. 5397–5404.
Colin, L. M. and Chavez, A. R. 2015. User’s Typology for Designing. Procedia Manufacturing, 3 (Supplement C), pp. 6005–6012.
Enninga, T., Manschot, M., van Gessel, C., Gijbels, J., van der Lugt, R., Visser, F. S., Verhoeven, F., and Godfroij, B. 2013. Service design, insights from nine case studies. Utrecht: HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht.
Horváth, I. 2007. Comparison of three methodological approaches of design research. In: DS 42: Proceedings of ICED 2007, the 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, France, 28.-31.07.2007. Presented at the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’07, Paris, France.
Iivari, J. and Venable, J. 2009. Action research and design science research-Seemingly similar but decisively dissimilar. In: ECIS 2009 Proceedings (online). Presented at the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2009/73 (25.11.2017).
Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., and Çetinkaya, M. 2013. Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22 (2), pp. 121–146.
Katoppo, M. L. and Sudradjat, I. 2015. Combining Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Design Thinking (DT) as an Alternative Research Method in Architecture. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 184 (Supplement C), pp. 118–125.
Lapão, L. V., da Silva, M. M., and Gregório, J. 2017. Implementing an online pharmaceutical service using design science research. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 17 (1).
Mao, J.-Y., Vredenburg, K., Smith, P. W., and Carey, T. 2005. The State of USER-CENTERED DESIGN PRACTICE. Communications of the ACM, 48 (3), pp. 105–109.
Martiskainen, M. 2008. Household energy consumption and behavioural change — the UK perspective. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the Sustainable Consumption Research Exchange (SCORE!) Network: Framework for Action; Brussels, Belgium; 10–11 March 2008. Presented at the 2nd Conference of the Sustainable Consumption Research Exchange (SCORE!) Network, Brussels, Belgium, pp.73–90.
McDonnell, J. 2015. Gifts to the Future: Design Reasoning, Design Research, and Critical Design Practitioners. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 1 (2), pp. 107–117.
Moritz, S. 2005. Service design: Practical access to an evolving field. Cologne, Germany: Köln International School of Design.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., and Chatterjee, S. 2007. A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24 (3), pp. 45–77.
Reubens, R. 2016. To craft, by design, for sustainability: Towards holistic sustainability design for developing-country enterprises. PhD. (online). Delft University of Technology. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:0c2c14c8-9550-449d-b1ff-7e0588ccd6c2 (25.11.2017).
Stickdorn, M. and Schneider, J. 2012. This is Service Design Thinking: Basics, Tools, Cases. Amsterdam: BIS Publ.
Teixeira, J. G., Patrício, L., Huang, K.-H., Fisk, R. P., Nóbrega, L., and Constantine, L. 2017. The MINDS Method: Integrating Management and Interaction Design Perspectives for Service Design. Journal of Service Research, 20 (3), pp. 240–258.
UK Design Council 2015. The Design Process: What is the Double Diamond?Design Council (online). https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/design-process-what-double-diamond (25.11.2017).
Venable, J. and Baskerville, R. 2012. Eating our own Cooking: Toward a More Rigorous Design Science of Research Methods. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 10 (2), pp. 141–153.
Young, G. 2010. Design thinking and sustainability. Zumio Meaningful Innovation, 61 (0), pp. 1–27.
