De la Revolución de 1904 al fin de la Primera Guerra Mundial

Literature suggests that there are various phases and steps in developing a design science framework, as illustrated in Figure 11. Offermann, Levina, Schӧnherr, and Bub (2009) suggest that “researchers vote for a combination of research perspectives and their respective research methodologies; rigour and relevance as requirements in design science are generally accepted. What has been lacking is a formalisation of a detailed research process for design science that takes in to account all requirements” (Offermann, Levina, Schӧnherr, & Bub, 2009, p.86). Offermann, Levina, Schӧnherr, and Bub’s (2009) research has resulted in the development of a design science research process that combines methodologies such as participative action research through use of case studies and observation. Although their research is specifically geared toward management research and information systems; this thesis continues their research and proposes a design science research framework with an action research approach for the facilities management industry.

Illustrated in Figure 12 is the proposed design science research framework that was designed for this thesis. After a thorough literature review, design of the exemplary case study, and further case study explorations, the research framework was divided in to three design science research phases: 1) Identify Problem; 2) Design Solution; 3) Evaluation. Within each phase are various steps to conduct research outcomes.

Phase one is the identification of the research problem. In this phase the researcher works closely with the case organisation conducting exploratory research which will provide more information about the case organisation, and determine what the real organisation problems are that need to be addressed. First phase of the literature analysis takes place to gain a better understanding of the research, research methodology, case organisation content, and current issues. During this phase, the researcher and research participants

79

determine the value of the research to the organisation, as well as the participants. There is a continuous cycle looping the literature analysis phase one back to the identification of the problem; then linking the identification of the problem to conducting exploratory research. Always keeping in mind how identifying the problem phase is linked to accessing the value of the research. The loop resembles the Deming continuous improvement cycle of plan, do, check, and act (PDCA). In this case it is more research oriented and the loop may resemble: plan, research, check, and accomplish (PRCA). Asking the research question: What seems to be the real life problem(s)? Another question leading to phase two might be: What type of artefact could be designed to solve the current research problem(s)?

80

In Phase Two, the actual design of an artefact takes place, and a more comprehensive literature review is conducted to better integrate the design of the artefact with organisational strategies. The researcher becomes more familiar with the initial organisational problem(s) and designs the most comprehensive artefact in order to mitigate the problem statement(s). The continuous improvement cycle may look more like: plan, discover, examine, and implement (PDEI).

There is an “inadequate theoretical base upon which to build” an artefact that has a big enough impact on a facilities management organisation. “A constructed artefact embodies the designer’s knowledge of the problem and solution. In new and emerging applications and technology, the artefact itself represents an experiment.” It is in the “execution, we learn about the nature of the problem, the environment, and the possible solutions, hence, the importance of developing and implementing prototype artefacts” (Newell & Simon, 1976, In Hevner, March, Park, & Ram, 2004, p.99). In the third phase, only when the artefact is being manipulated in the organisation by participants can its importance, value, and reliance be determined. There are questions to ask at this stage such as: Is the artefact working as planned?; Has it done what it was expected to do?; and Has it solved a real life organisation problem(s)?

At this stage action research comes in to the mix. The artefact is being implemented, and is being used by the case study organisations operatives. The operatives and the researcher are participating in the process actively and creating the research outcomes through using the designed artefact in action. In conventional research knowledge is created, while “action research is an approach to research which aims at both taking action and creating knowledge or theory about the action. The outcomes are both an action and a research outcome” (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010, preface). Another aspect of action research is the collaborative qualities, “in that the members of the system which is being studied (in this case an FM department and their operatives) participate actively in the cyclical process” (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010, preface). Where, in traditional research an operative or organisation may be the actual object of the investigation (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010).

The final stage in phase three evaluation is reviewing the research exploration findings and writing up the outcomes. This can be in the form of a report that gets distributed to

81

the research organisation and participants, or a research thesis as in this case. The success of the artefact implementation is determined by how well it was designed to mitigate the original statement problem. Not every attempt at designing an artefact and implementation will be successful. This could depend upon the continued length of the research study.

A significant detail to this case research occurred a few days prior to the first designed artefact implementation. The case organisation, a university facilities management services department offered the researcher a part-time position as a reception/helpdesk support team associate. This was at the beginning of phase three when researching in action began to take place. An additional literature review was conducted to find out how to interconnect design science with an action research approach. Reading Havner’s (2007), Järvinen’s (2007) and Offermann’s (et al, 2009) research philosophy made it all seem logical. Through the researchers’ theory development, the case study could be re- evaluated and design science research with an action research approach framework was developed, illustrated in Figure 12. The next section will describe action research more in-depth.