Johannesson and Perjons state “Design science is the scientific study and creation of artefacts
as they are developed and used by people with the goal of solving practical problems of general interest. An artefact is an object made by humans with the intention to be used for addressing a practical problem.” [73].
Wieringa distinguishes between knowledge problems and practical problems leading to differences in research questions. In his paper “Design Science as Nested Problem-Solving, the author claims; Practical problems call for a change of the world so that it better agrees with
some stakeholder goals. Knowledge problems by contrast do not call for a change the world for a change our knowledge about the world [143]. To solve knowledge problems requires
knowledge-oriented questions. Wieringa refers to “problem investigation” methods to avoid research methodology challenges and proposes a framework of guidelines for design science researchers to achieve certain goals. In his guidelines Wieringa defines the regulative cycle
as an important step after identifying the type of problem, e.g. a practical or a knowledge problem. In this regulative cycle various stakeholders are involved: architects, product managers, system engineers, etc. In this sense the regulative process is the general structure of a rational problem-solving process. The proposed guidelines are closely related to Nunamaker and Chen’s [144] guidelines for system development. These authors also propose a regulative process but in contrast to Wieringa focus less on problem investigation and problem nesting. In the case of BIS this is important since we sometimes think practical problems can be solved by technology rather than by knowledge. Johannesson and Perjons also propose such a regulative process in the form of explicating the problem via a structured method of defining knowledge problems and design problems. In this research we follow Johannesson and Perjons’s guidelines since this framework is not limited to the design of requirements but also covers demonstration and evaluation of the artefact. The BIS problem is nested in three knowledge domains. First there is a lack of awareness, which is mainly due to a lack of knowledge about the context (regulations, forces of power, influences) and how to interact and perform at a certain maturity level within this context. Second there is the problem of how to get a grip on the topic, i.e. knowledge about managerial parameters. This topic brings technological, legal, personal and financial issues into the organisation and makes it complex to monitor and manage. The last domain is knowledge, meaning and understanding (i.e. epistemology), i.e. what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which knowledge pertinent to any given subject or entity can be acquired. It asks the question: “how do we know when we have done enough?” At what level of knowledge does this end, or does it perhaps not end and can we only contribute to solving these issues by designing and establishing knowledge acquisition and sharing vehicles to address and solve these problems? The research goal in this project is to address three types of practical problems that are of general interest:
− knowledge problems − awareness problems and − design problems.
One limitation of DSR is the need for continuous alteration and maintenance of the artefact. Validation of the artefact, in order to execute DSR, has been attempted by numerous authors [145] and it is also seen as one of the limitations of DSR publications, since validating is hard and complex [145]. Another limitation is objectivity; this refers to the extent to which research is impartial and freed from the subjective judgement of the researcher, especially with interpretivist research such as BIS [77]. DSR is sometime limited in precision due to the absence of rigour in practical environments. The output of the research iterations largely depends on the way the problem is framed. When the input into the design science framework is insufficient or incomplete, the outcome is poor. As Johannesson and Perjons state in their book on design sciences “The problem needs to be precisely formulated and
justified by showing that it is significant for some practice. The problem should be of general interest, i.e. significant...” [73]. This identification and explication process within BIS research
would ideally come from literature, GSS and/or Delphi research methods. In Figure 12 the DSR steps in the framework are visualised.
Artefacts are developed, tested and validated through the use of the design science frameworks such as those used by Johannesson and Perjons [73], Wieringa [146] and Hevner in 2004 [138]; see Figure 11. In Hevner et al. [138] on the right is a representation of the theoretical knowledge base that provides the materials through which design science is accomplished. This Body of Knowledge consists of prior established frameworks, foundations, theories or constructs. The knowledge base in fact establishes the academic rigour of the design sciences. On the left side the practical business environment is represented. This defines the problem space in which the topic and its related problems arise. The environment encompasses people, organisational systems (structures, processes and relational mechanisms), technology, etc. and confirms the relevance of design science. In the centre of the framework the design science artefact is crafted by process activities related to designing, building, developing and evaluating an artefact that meets an identified business need. As a follow-up to Hevner’s work Johannesson and Perjons present seven DSR guidelines [73] – guidelines that can assist researchers in understanding the requirements for effective DSR. Although design science is mainly focused on the artefact and not primarily on the execution of procedural steps, these structured steps offer strict guidance during the artefact establishment phases and I therefore propose to use the framework developed by Johannesson and Perjons for this research project.