Design scientists strive to create concepts, models, methods and instantiations that are innovative and valuable. A number of steps to conduct Design Science are presented in the literature and are summarised in Table 3.1. March & Smith (1995) state that the Design Science research process has two fundamental activities: creating things that serve human purposes and evaluating their performance in use; “Design Science consists of two basic activities, build and evaluate. Building is the process of constructing an artefact for a specific purpose; evaluation is the process of determining how well the artefact performs” (March & Smith, 1995, p. 254).
81
et al. (2007) propose a detailed sequence of steps towards a Design Science strategy which are similar to what Van Aken (2004) refers to as the problem solving cycle (problem identification, name and frame, plan intervention, apply and evaluate).
Table 3.1 shows the three common steps for Design Science, i.e. 1) identifying a problem; i.e. finding a problem that is practically relevant which also has potential for a theoretical contribution (Kasanen et al.,1993; Lukka, 2003; Vaishnavi & Kuechler, 2007 and Peffers et al., 2007), 2) developing a solution; i.e. creating a solution that solves the problem at hand (Kasanen et al., 1993; March & Smith, 1995; Lukka, 2003; 2007 and Peffers et al., 2007) and 3) evaluating that solution; demonstrating that it works and analysing its theoretical contribution (Kasanen, 1993; Lukka, 2003; Vaishnavi & Kuechler, 2007 & Peffers et al., 2007).
Table 3.1: Different approaches to Design Science (Kasanen et al., 1993; March & Smith et al., 1995; Lukka, 2003; Vaishnavi & Kuechler, 2007; Peffers et al., 2007)
82
Peffers et al. (2007) proposed a process model for Design Science application in response to the lack of a set of steps serving as a commonly accepted framework for Design Science. The same authors (Peffers et al., 2007) further argue that this may have contributed to the slow adoption of Design Science. Peffers et al. (2007) process model for Design Science incorporates principles, practices, and procedures consistent with prior literature to provide 1) a nominal process for the conduct of Design Science research 2) a mental model for presenting and evaluating Design Science research.
Peffers et al. (2007) process model was chosen as a guide for this research as it was found to be most suited to the nature of the research and provides a clear structure identifying the different stages of the Design Science process. Peffers et al. (2007) model includes six steps which do not always follow a sequential order: 1) problem identification and motivation, 2) definition of the objectives for a solution, 3) design and development, 4) demonstration, 5) evaluation, and 6) communication.
3.5.5.1 Step 1: Problem identification and motivation
The authors (Peffers et al., 2007) argue that a thorough definition of the problem and justification of the value of a solution is essential for the development of effective artefacts. Since the problem is used as basis for the solution, it is necessary to analyse the problem adequately so that the solution can capture its complexity. Justifying the value of the solution is important for motivating the researcher and the audience of the research to pursue the solution and to accept the results and helps to understand the reasoning associated with the researcher’s understanding of the problem (Peffers et al., 2007).
3.5.5.2 Step 2: Define the objectives for a solution
The second step infers the objectives of a solution from the problem definition and knowledge of what is possible and feasible (Peffers, et al., 2007). The objectives can be quantitative (how a solution is better than current ones) or qualitative (how a new artefact is expected to support solutions to problems not addressed until this point). The objectives should be inferred rationally from the problem specification and the resources required for this include knowledge of the state of problems and current solutions, if any, and their efficacy (Peffers, et al., 2007).
83
3.5.5.3 Step 3: Design and development
The third step focuses on the creation of the artefact. Such artefacts are potentially concepts, models, methods, or instantiations. This activity includes determining the artefact’s desired functionality and its architecture and then creating the actual artefact. Resources required moving from objectives to design development include knowledge of theory that can be brought to bear in a solution (Peffers et al., 2007).
3.5.5.4 Step 4: Demonstration
The fourth step is concerned with the demonstration of the use of the artefact to solve the problem. Demonstration can be in the form of experimentation, simulation, case study or other appropriate activity. Resources required to carry out the demonstration stage include effective knowledge of the use of the artefact to solve the problem.
3.5.5.5 Step 5: Evaluation
The evaluation of the artefact is concerned with the observation and measurement of how well the artefact supports a solution to a problem. This activity involves comparing the objectives of a solution to actual observed results from use of the artefact in the demonstration. It requires knowledge of relevant metrics and analysis techniques (Peffers et al., 2007). The evaluation can take many forms; it could include comparing the artefacts functionality with the solution objectives or include quantifiable measures of system performance, such as response time or availability (Peffers et al., 2007). An important part of the evaluation is also to determine the theoretical significance of the artefact.
3.5.5.6 Step 6: Communication
In the final step the problem and its importance, the artefact, its utility and novelty, the rigour of its design, and its effectiveness is communicated to relevant audiences such as researchers and practising professionals (Peffers el al., 2007). Communication can take the form of scholarly research papers and reports.
84
3.5.5.7 Discussion
While the six steps above are presented in a linear fashion, Peffers et al., (2007) explains that the process is not linear and may evolve in different ways (Section 3.4). Typically, a problem- centred approach would be taken where a researcher would start with a problem and begin at step 1. Research may proceed in this sequence if the research resulted from observation of the problem or from suggested future research from a research project already carried out (Peffers et al., 2007).
The process could also begin at step 2 if it were an objective centred solution. This could occur through the definition of a research or industry need that can be addressed by developing an artefact. A research idea could also be initiated from the existence of an artefact that has not yet been formally thought through as a solution for the explicit problem domain in which it will be used. This is considered to be a design and development-centred approach (Peffers et al., 2007).
Finally, a research need could arise from a client / context initiated solution whereby a solution was developed in practice and it was observed that the practical solution was effective (Peffers et al. 2007), as is the case in this research work. In the case of this research process, the researcher is in a sense “working backwards” to apply rigor to the process (Peffers, et al., 2007, p. 14).
“A problem-centred approach is the basis of the nominal sequence, starting with activity one. 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-centred solution, starting with activity two, could be triggered by an industry or research need that can be addressed by developing an artefact. A design and development-centred approach would start with activity three. It would result from the existence of an artefact that has not yet been formally thought through as a solution for the explicit problem domain in which it will be used. Such an artefact 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, a client/context initiated solution may be based on observing a practical solution that worked; it starts with activity four, resulting in a DS solution if researchers work backwards to apply rigor to the process retroactively. This could be the by- product of a consulting experience”.
85