Content uploaded by Frederik Möller
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Frederik Möller on Jul 08, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
COVER SHEET
This is the author’s version of the following source:
Möller, F., Schoormann, T. & Otto B. (2021): ‘Caution – Principle Under Construction’
A Visual Inquiry Tool for Developing Design Principles. In Chandra Kruse, L., Seidel, S.,
Hausvik, G. I. (eds.) 16th International Conference on Design Science Research in Infor-
mation Systems and Technology (DESRIST), Kristiansand, Norway.
The final publication is available at: 10.1007/978-3-030-82405-1_23
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030824044
-Author’s Accepted Manuscript-
Users may only view, print, copy, download and text – and data-mine the context, for the purposes of academic research.
The content may not be (re-)published verbatim in whole or in part or used for commercial purposes. Users must ensure
that the author’s moral rights as well as any third parties’ rights to the content or part of the content are not compro-
mised.
‘Caution – Principle Under Construction’
A Visual Inquiry Tool for Developing Design Principles
Frederik Möller1,2, Thorsten Schoormann3 and Boris Otto1,2
1 TU Dortmund University, 2 Fraunhofer ISST, 44227 Dortmund, Germany
Frederik.Moeller@tu-dortmund.de, Boris.Otto@tu-dortmund.de
3 University of Hildesheim, 31141 Hildesheim, Germany
thorsten.schoormann@uni-hildesheim.de
Abstract. Researchers and practitioners often face challenges in structuring
larger design projects and, therefore, struggle to capture, discuss, and reflect on
essential components that should be considered. These first steps are, however,
of great importance because decisions such as in terms of selecting an underpin-
ning (kernel) theory, following certain development approaches, or specifying
knowledge sources impact the resulting design solution. To provide a frame for
developing one of the dominant forms of prescriptive knowledge in information
systems (IS), we present the ‘Principle Constructor’ that seeks to support the it-
erative endeavor of formulating design principles. This so-called visual inquiry
tool is grounded in previous research on design knowledge and an empirical anal-
ysis of IS articles that present principles, built according to available guidance
for this class of tools, and evaluated through several workshops. Doing this, we
provide an underlying structure with building blocks for creating design princi-
ples and complement research on their anatomy and development procedures.
Keywords: Visual Inquiry Tool, Design Principles, Design Knowledge
1 Problem Awareness
The primary goal of Design Science Research (DSR) is to accumulate prescriptive de-
sign knowledge that explains how something should be [1–4]. Design principles are the
prevailing mechanism in IS to codify such knowledge [5], and thus are an essential
outcome of DSR projects [6–8], even though there has been an ongoing discussion on
the topic of valid results of DSR (i.e., material artifacts versus design theory) [9].
To arrive at an adequate set of design principles, novice researchers frequently nav-
igate the literature on design science and design theory to identify and distill methodo-
logical guidance on how to develop such principles. They are tasked with publishing
design-oriented research transparently and understandably to their peers and reviewers
to, for example, allow knowledge accumulation. From our analysis and personal expe-
riences, we know the former to be a significant challenge. This is also evident by state-
ments of participants in this study’s design cycles (see, for example, Section 3 and 5)
who stressed hurdles in terms of planning design projects (e.g., considering the main
2
parts at the beginning of a project to be able to derive well-grounded design knowledge
afterward), following an underlying structure, collaborating with different roles and
stakeholders, translating principles into practice.
Since design principles are an increasingly published meta-artifact [10] and gain im-
portance for DSR, we propose a tool—the ‘Principle Constructor’—that seeks to sup-
port design principle development and communication to enrich papers with a clear
structure and an argumentative bedrock. For that purpose, we draw from the notion of
visual inquiry tools, which are appropriate to make complex design endeavors under-
standable, transferable, and communicable. In addition to existing methodological
guidance, visual inquiry tools foster intuitive collaboration (e.g., academic-practice
teams) and can contribute to the standardization of how design principles are developed
and published [11, 12]. These tools give researchers a ‘checklist’, enabling them to keep
in mind what they should reflect when developing principles. Hence, we argue that the
artifact will be a significant extension of the accessibility of design principle develop-
ment and complement existing approaches in this field (e.g., [8, 13, 14]). Hence, we
formulate the following research question (RQ): How to design a visual inquiry tool to
structure design principles development and communication?
For answering this, we utilized the DSR framework from Hevner et al. [15], applied
the general build-evaluate pattern, and derived our artifact, the ‘Principle Constructor’.
In terms of building, we grounded our artifact in available research on design
knowledge (deduction), reviewed IS articles presenting design principles (induction),
and iteratively designed/refined our tool within the author team. Furthermore, as design
principles, per se, have a “(…) practical ethos” [16 p. 1] and should be reused, we draw
from the design principles for visual inquiry tools as proposed by [12]. For evaluation,
we conducted a workshop with several IS researchers in which we reflected on typical
challenges, ranked the importance of building blocks, and discussed possible tool de-
signs. With this, we hope to leverage the full potential of design principles by contrib-
uting to the joint development (e.g., academic-practice collaboration), the structure and
building blocks to be considered, and the reporting of the findings.
Our paper is structured as follows. Following the Introduction, Section 2 briefly out-
lines the background of design principles. Section 3 describes this study’s research de-
sign. Section 4 illustrates our findings, which are evaluated in Section 5. Finally, Sec-
tion 6 presents our contributions, limitations, and avenues for further research.
2 Research Background
Design principles help to codify design knowledge in prescriptive linguistic statements
[17]. There are various ways to generate design principles, foundationally, differing
between reflective ex-post and supportive ex-ante approaches [13]. Design principles
can be classified as the theory of design and action in [18]’s taxonomy of theory and
follow the basic paradigm of prescriptions of [19]’s technological rules. Rather than
addressing a single instance of a problem or a solution, design principles should be
adequately abstract to address a class of problems and artifacts [17].
Fundamentally, design principles are a key element of design theory [17, 20], for
which reason we draw from [21]‘s concepts of an Information Systems Design Theory.
They require a solution objective that describes what the intended artifact is supposed
to do [22]. From solution objectives, one can derive meta-requirements using a variety
of underlying knowledge bases (e.g., empirical evidence [13] that addresses the class
of goals rather than the instance [23]). Recent research proposes different formulation
templates in terms of the actual linguistic formulation [24].
3 Research Design
To achieve our overall goal, designing a visual inquiry tool, we follow the DSR para-
digm as an iterative framework that oscillates between rigor and relevance [15] (see
Fig. 1) and ran through two main design cycles. We decided to create such a type of
tool because they promote joint innovation, improvement, and communication (e.g.,
based on a non-verbal and shared understanding across disciplines), and some of them
are of increasing interest in academia and practice alike [12]. Accordingly, we believe
that a visual inquiry tool is fruitful for design principles as well, especially to allow
communication of (interim) results with all stakeholders, to plan and reflect on im-
portant project decisions before and during a design project (see aforementioned chal-
lenges in Section 1), and address the iterative nature of developing principles.
BUILD EVALUATE
(1) Conceptualize design
principle terminology,
anatomy
(2) Analyse IS literature
proposing design principles
(3) Develop / revise the visual
inquiry tool
(4) Perform workshop with
researchers to evaluate the
visual inquiry tool
(5) Compare the visual inquiry
tools with guidance on how
such tools should be
designed (logical arguments)
KNOWLEDGE
BASE
ENVIRONMENT
Theoretical
knowledge
Design
experience
Prototyping
Qualitative
evaluation
People
developing
design principles
(Novice)
Researchers
Academic-
practice
collaborations
Fig. 1. Research framework based on [15] and [25].
In terms of building the first version of our artifact, we performed three main activities
for (1) conceptualizing available knowledge (see Section 2), (2) analyzing articles that
publish design principles, and (3) developing a visual inquiry tool. The knowledge we
are looking for is engraved in the literature on DSR and design principles.
Subsequently, we opt for a systematic literature review [26]. Our literature search
strategy strives to collect a representative sample that adequately gives insight into how
design principles are developed and published [27]. We construct the sample consisting
of both high-quality papers from journals and conference proceedings. We draw from
the recently published sample of papers publishing design principles in [25] to obtain
journal articles. We completed this by using AISeL and Scopus to search for articles in
ICIS, ECIS, and DESRIST. We used the keyword “design principle” in Title and Ab-
stract to find papers. We then screened each paper’s full-text and excluded those that
do not explicitly report on design principles. We collected a sample of 156 (see Fig. 2)
4
articles that we have randomized and reduced to a sub-sample of 40 conference papers
and 20 journal articles. Based on that search strategy, we analyzed inductively for de-
sign principle development components until theoretical saturation [28].
Subsequently, we formulated a strategy for analyzing the data. Two researchers an-
alyzed each paper using an initial a priori defined coding scheme. The initial codes
stem from our experience in design principle development and include, for example, a
knowledge base for the design principles. We then refined the coding scheme through
inductive analysis. Through the generation of codes, we develop initial building blocks.
Fig. 2. Our sample classified alongside publication outlets (left) and the publication year (right).
In terms of evaluation, we (4) held a workshop with six PhD-students knowledgea-
ble in the field of design principles [29]. Three of the participants had successfully
published design principles before or are very advanced in developing design princi-
ples. Two of the participants are in the midst of developing principles but are not yet
finished. One participant is at the beginning of developing design principles. Having a
heterogeneous group enables us to gather feedback from knowledgeable researchers
that can reflect on their individual (sometimes multiple) design principles projects and
give feedback on our artifact's usefulness. Additionally, having participants that are
currently developing design principles enables us to collect feedback from potential
users of the visual inquiry tool in the early stages of their projects. After giving a short
introduction (purpose of the workshop, definitions of terminology, questions) and dis-
cussing typical challenges within the group, we asked the participants to rank and sort
building block candidates that we have identified in the literature.
In design cycle 2, based on the lessons learned obtained from the evaluation episodes
performed during the first cycle, we refined our canvas and (4) discussed how the guide-
lines for visual inquiry tools from [12] are addressed by our artifact.
38
30 30
2
5 5
21
6
16
21
31
27
20
19
10
1111
9
6
5
7
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
4 A Visual Inquiry Tool for Design Principles
4.1 The ‘Principle Constructor’ and Its Building Blocks
Based on our initial, mainly conceptually driven understanding of design principle de-
velopment, the advancement of this understanding through examining IS articles re-
porting design principles, and our evaluation, we present the current version of the
‘Principle Constructor’ (see Fig. 3). Our tool comprises 16 building blocks arranged
across four major and interrelated areas, namely ‘foundation and grounding’, ‘problem
and goal’, ‘solution’, and ‘design and evaluation’. We decided to incorporate more
building blocks to allow a more specific and in-depth reflection and communication of
design principles—which is also requested by the participants during the evaluation.
Problem and goal Solution (Output knowledge)
Design requirement
Foundation and grounding (Input knowledge)
Theoretical grounding
Design and evaluation
Empirical grounding
Solution objective
Testable proposition
Design method
Problem class
Specific problem Design paradigm
Evaluation subject
Evaluation method
Design team
Design principle
Design feature
Instantiation
Formulation template
E1 E2
E4
Project
Date
Version
E3
PRINCIPLE CONSTRUCTOR
Fig. 3. A visual inquiry tool for design principles.
In the following, we describe the areas and the building blocks in more detail. Thereby,
we provide references to our approach for identifying the blocks: We first identified
pertinent literature concepts that conceptualize the design principles' nature and how
they are developed (i.e., deduction), and then used these concepts as a theoretical lens
to analyze papers proposing design principles (i.e., induction) [30].
The heart of our inquiry tool addresses the actual solution (i.e., output knowledge)
and distinguishes between building blocks for design principle, formulation template,
design feature, and instantiation. We begin with the design principles addressing the
requirements and goals. Some authors use pre-defined templates to formulate their prin-
ciples, e.g., by [17]. To guide how to operationalize design principles, studies provide
6
design features (e.g., [31]) that bridge the gap between abstract knowledge and con-
crete/situated implementations. We integrated a block for instantiation, taking different
forms such as a software prototype (e.g., [32]) or a process (e.g., [33]).
To arrive at those solutions, the foundation and grounding (i.e., input knowledge)
area capture two building blocks for a theoretical and an empirical grounding of the
design principles [4]. In this spirit, the grounding of design principles follows a bottom-
up strategy that draws on empirical data engraved, for instance, in existing literature
use cases, artifacts, documents, and in the experience of experts/users; or a top-down
strategy in which principles build upon a theoretical foundation such as a kernel theory
that explains why the prescriptive design knowledge should work [21]. In our sample,
diverse kernel theories were used, e.g., sensemaking [32] or organizational learning
theory [34]. Additionally, in line with knowledge accumulation and evaluation, the the-
oretical-driven approach can draw from existing design principles or general design
knowledge (e.g., [35]) to develop new or extended (e.g., [36]) design principles.
The area problem and goal differentiate in the problem space between building
blocks for a specific problem and the more abstract problem class and, from a solution-
oriented view, between solution objective (i.e., the goal the artifact is supposed to fulfill
[13, 22]) and design requirement. We can observe substantial heterogeneity in the ter-
minology used to describe elements of design principles in our sample, for instance,
key challenge [37], user requirement [38], design requirement [39], and meta-require-
ment [40]. That differentiation is usually associated with a dichotomy between theory-
driven and practice-driven research (e.g., through the point of artifact design [13]).
ADR projects typically do not elicit meta-requirements [13]. That can be explained by
the inductive nature of ADR that generates design principles from a design study and
specific cases [8, 13, 41]. Even though the term meta-requirement is often used for
requirements derived from theory and user/design requirements for requirements de-
rived from empiricism, our visual inquiry tool refers to design requirements that can be
derived both theoretically and/or empirically.
Regarding the actual goal of a study, research articles in our sample frequently report
research questions. Based on the analysis, we obtained three types of questions:
First, principle-driven question (what) asking specifically for “[w]hat are the appropri-
ate design principles for (…)?” (e.g., [42]). Second, requirements-driven questions
(what) asking “[w]hat are the meta-requirements of (…)” (e.g., [43]). Third, design-
driven questions (how) asking “[h]ow can we develop (…)” (e.g., [12]). Although most
papers in our sample use what-questions, we recommend using the how-questions to
emphasize the overarching goal of a design study.
Design and evaluation comprise building blocks for developing principles, includ-
ing design paradigm, design method, design team, evaluation method, evaluation sub-
ject, and testable proposition. The design paradigm describes the underlying strategy
to develop design principles, e.g., whether they are reflected from a design process or
a case study. Next to ADR [8], the two dominant DSR methods in our sample are [44,
45]. For evaluation, the articles in our sample draw on the rich body of DSR methods
and thus use, for example, instantiations to demonstrate the principle’s applicability
(e.g., [39]), focus groups to discuss the expected usefulness with practitioners (e.g.,
[46]), and case studies (e.g., [47]). Subsequently, the evaluation method refers to ‘how’
the design principles are evaluated, and the evaluation subject specifies with and for
‘whom’. Testable propositions refer to short statements that guide the user of design
principles to be tested against the meta-requirements [48]. Table. 1 explains each
‘building block’ through formulating key questions that they address.
4.2 Recommendations for Using the ‘Principle Constructor’
We present exemplary key questions that should be reflected during the inquiry tool`s
application (see Table. 1), which we have derived during its construction and evalua-
tion phase. Moreover, we propose entry points (see E1-E4, Fig. 3) to start a project.
Table. 1. Building blocks and exemplary key questions.
Area
Building block
Key questions
Problem and goal
Specific
problem
What is the actual problem to be addressed?
Which use case/scenario raises a specific problem?
Problem class
To which class of problems does a specific problem belong?
Which class of problems is addressed?
Solution
objective
What is the artifact supposed to do (intended effects)?
For whom is a corresponding solution important?
Design
requirement
Which are the main requirements for a solution?
From what sources can the requirements be extracted?
Founda-
tion
Theoretical
grounding
Which (kernel) theories support the phenomena investigated?
Which available design knowledge can be (re-)used?
Empirical
grounding
Which sources can be used to inform the design?
What data is available and can be (re-)used to inform the design?
Design and evaluation
Design
paradigm
What is the underpinning research paradigm?
How do I enter the design process?
Design method
Which basic structure (procedure model) can be followed?
Which (research) method can be used and why?
Design team
Who develops the design principles (academic/practice)?
What experts can be consulted?
Evaluation
method
What are quantitative and/or qualitative methods can be used?
What are the potential benefits and shortcomings of a method?
Evaluation
subject
Which are the main solution’s target user groups?
Who evaluated the design principles and why?
Testable
proposition
What are the effects occurring from using the solution?
How can an effect be tested and/or measured?
Solution
Design
principle
What is the intended principle’s level of abstraction?
Which class of artifact do the design principles address?
Formulation
template
How can the design principles be formulated?
Which design principle anatomy components are addressed?
Design feature
How can the design principles be operationalized?
What is needed to further guide the operationalization?
Instantiation
What are exemplary instantiations of the design principles?
How does an instantiated artifact look like?
In line with other DSR methodologies [44], we deduced four entry points from our
sample, from which the rest of the fields should be filled out:
8
• E1 (theory-driven de-abstraction): Deductive approach translating theoretical
knowledge (e.g., kernel theory) into requirements and design principles.
• E2 (empiricism-driven abstraction): Inductive approach generalizing empirical
knowledge (e.g., interview transcripts) into more abstract design principles.
• E3 (artifact-driven abstraction): Inductive approach generalizing knowledge ob-
tained from (using) a specific instance into more abstract design principles.
• E4 (use case-driven abstraction): Inductive approach reflecting on interventions and
activities within a specific use case/problem scenario to generalize specific
knowledge into more abstract design principles.
5 Demonstration and Evaluation
For ensuring the applicability and usefulness of our artifact, we next summarize se-
lected results and observations that emerged from the evaluation (see also Section 3)
and discuss how our artifact addresses the guidelines for visual inquiry tools from [14].
Table. 2. Design principles of visual inquiry tools as proposed by [12 p. 22].
DP
Implementation in this study’s artifact
Conceptual
model
Frame
The tool has mutually exclusive/collective exhaustive blocks.
Rigor &
relevance
The tool builds on available knowledge and practices on devel-
oping and communicating design principles from IS literature.
Parsimony
The tool consists of 16 building blocks across four areas, more
than other canvas-based approaches. Participants during evalua-
tion asked for more guidance on what should be reflected.
Shared
visualization
Functionality
The tool’s building blocks are represented as empty problem
spaces to support the directions for use
Arrangement
The tool draws on logical flow, e.g., in the solution area, from
abstract knowledge in the top to specific knowledge. The areas
themselves are summaries of interrelated ‘building blocks’.
Facilitation
The tool has small icons for graphical support.
Direc-
tions
Ideation
The tool provides four different entry points that guide users in a
certain situation or objective within a project. Ideas, problems,
and (interim) results can be stored and jointly refined.
Prototyping
Presentation
During our evaluative workshop, participants agreed and supported several chal-
lenges when developing design principles, such as the ‘start dilemma’, which refers to
the planning stage of design projects' complexity; important design decisions need to
be carried out. After ranking our tool’s building blocks and discussing a preliminary
version, participants stressed the relevance and expected usefulness. They argued, for
instance, that the tool will be beneficial in the early stages to creatively and jointly plan
design projects with different stakeholders from both academia and practice. Moreover,
they highlighted the kit-inspired functionality of our tool that helps novice researchers
reflect on important decisions such as selecting methods and underpinning theories and
getting impulses on what components should be considered. Based on a five-point Lik-
ert scale (from 1 not agree to 5 agree), several building blocks were ranked as highly
important with an average over 4.3: empirical foundation, (meta) requirement, design
principle, solution objectives, formulation template, underlying paradigm, development
method, and evaluation method. In a nutshell, all blocks suggested were classified as
necessary, which is evident by an overall average value of 4.05.
Additionally, for evaluating our artifact by means of logical arguments, we compare
our artifact with the general principles for visual inquiry tools (see. Table. 2).
6 Conclusions, Limitations, and Outlook
There are many ways to develop design principles [13]. Complementing existing meth-
odological guidance, the ‘Principle Constructor’ is helpful for researchers that endeavor
to publish design principles and use it as a ‘checklist’. Subsequently, we contribute to
the overall corpus of DSR as we enable researchers in all stages of their academic ca-
reers to develop design principles more rigorously and transparently. Our framework
can innovate new ways of design principle development, challenge existing approaches,
and intuitively communicate findings to reviewers. A significant advantage to existing
methodological (e.g., [13], [14]) or formulating guidance (e.g., [17], [20]) is the acces-
sibility of the visual inquiry tool, which, intuitively, represents the most essential build-
ing blocks for design principle development that need to be ‘filled out’. Methods and
formulation schemes both have a place in our tool, rather than making it an umbrella
that complements, contextualizes, structures, and organizes design principle develop-
ment. Other visual inquiry tools for DSR (e.g., [49] or [50]) are scoped to represent a
complete DSR process, while our tool narrowly and explicitly focuses on the meta-
artifact design principle. Whereas other approaches are rather methodic and rigid, our
tool has the same benefits as any visual inquiry tool, fostering innovation through col-
laborative and iterative design. It allows for freely innovating and planning and also
gives clear conceptual borders particular to design principles. The visual inquiry tool
contributes to the broader discussion on tool-support for design science research [51].
Our work is subject to limitations, opening avenues for future research. Even though
we reached theoretical saturation, naturally, the sample can be extended. While we
incorporated knowledge from researchers, there is room for further testing in future
research projects. Also, naming our building blocks is a consensus of the authors. Oth-
ers might use different terminology (e.g., instead of design requirements, one might use
meta-requirements), making it a product, to some extent, of our interpretation on how
to develop design principles and the constructs in that process. Moreover, our work is
restricted to the timespan of its development and thus is a snapshot in time. In the next
steps, we plan to set up additional evaluation studies (e.g., longitudinal studies), employ
them in academic-practice collaborations, and gather feedback on their performance.
We hope to complement the valuable stream of research on guiding design principle
development (e.g., anatomy, formulation, methods) that is already available within the
IS discipline by shedding light on what components should be reflected during corre-
sponding projects. The initial evaluations indicate promising results, especially sup-
porting novice researchers to perform, develop, and report design principles jointly.
10
References
1. van Aken, J.E.: Management research as a design science: Articulating the research products
of mode 2 knowledge production in management. British journal of management 16, 19–36
(2005)
2. Vom Brocke, J., Winter, R., Hevner, A., Maedche, A.: Accumulation and Evolution of De-
sign Knowledge in Design Science Research - A Journey Through Time and Space. Journal
of the Association for Information Systems 21, 520–544 (2020)
3. Legner, C., Pentek, T., Otto, B.: Accumulating Design Knowledge with Reference Models:
Insights from 12 Years’ Research into Data Management. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems 21, 735–770 (2020)
4. Niiniluoto, I.: The aim and structure of applied research. Erkenntnis 38, 1–21 (1993)
5. Chandra Kruse, L., Seidel, S.: Tensions in Design Principle Formulation and Reuse. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 12th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information
Systems and Technology (2017)
6. Gregor, S., Hevner, A.R.: Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maxi-
mum Impact. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems 37, 337–355 (2013)
7. Chandra Kruse, L., Seidel, S., Purao, S.: Making Use of Design Principles. In: Proceedings
of the 11th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems
and Technology, pp. 37–51 (2016)
8. Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R.: Action Design Research.
MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems 35, 37–56 (2011)
9. Baiyere, A., Hevner, A., Gregor, S., Rossi, M., Baskerville, R.: Artifact and/or Theory? Pub-
lishing Design Science Research in IS. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference
on Information Systems (2015)
10. Iivari, J.: Towards information systems as a science of meta-artifacts. Communications of
the Association for Information Systems 12, 568–581 (2003)
11. Chandra Kruse, L., Nickerson, J.: Portraying Design Essence. Proceedings of the 51st Ha-
waii International Conference on System Sciences, 4433–4442 (2018)
12. Avdiji, H., Elikan, D.A., Missonier, S., Pigneur, Y.: A Design Theory for Visual Inquiry
Tools. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 21, 695–734 (2020)
13. Möller, F., Guggenberger, T., Otto, B.: Towards a Method for Design Principle Develop-
ment in Information Systems. In: Hofmann, S., Müller, O., Rossi, M. (eds.) Designing for
Digital Transformation. Co-Creating Services with Citizens and Industry. Springer Interna-
tional Publishing, Cham (2020)
14. Kuechler, W., Vaishnavi, V.: A Framework for Theory Development in Design Science Re-
search: Multiple Perspectives. Journal of the Association of Information Systems 13, 395–
423 (2012)
15. Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design Science in Information Systems Re-
search. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems 28, 75–105 (2004)
16. Iivari, J., Hansen, Perlt, Magnus Rotvit, Haj-Bolouri, A.: A Framework for Light Reusability
Evaluation of Design Principles in Design Science Research. In: Proceedings of the 13th
International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technol-
ogy (2018)
17. Chandra Kruse, L., Seidel, S., Gregor, S.: Prescriptive Knowledge in IS Research: Concep-
tualizing Design Principles in Terms of Materiality, Action, and Boundary Conditions. In:
Proceedings of the 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2015)
18. Gregor, S.: The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly: Management In-
formation Systems 30, 611–642 (2006)
19. Bunge, M.: Scientific Research II: The Search for Truth. Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2012)
20. Gregor, S., Chandra Kruse, L., Seidel, S.: The Anatomy of a Design Principle. Journal of
the Association for Information Systems 21, 1622–1652 (2020)
21. Walls, J.G., G, J., Widmeyer, R, G., Sawy, O., A, O.: Building an Information System De-
sign Theory for Vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research 3, 36-59 (1992)
22. Heinrich, P., Schwabe, G.: Communicating Nascent Design Theories on Innovative Infor-
mation Systems through Multi-grounded Design Principles. In: Proceedings of the 9th In-
ternational Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technol-
ogy, pp. 148–163 (2014)
23. Koppenhagen, N., Gaß, O., Müller, B.: Design Science Research in Action - Anatomy of
Success Critical Activities for Rigor and Relevance. In: Proceedings of the 20th European
Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1–12 (2012)
24. Cronholm, S., Göbel, H.: Guidelines Supporting the Formulation of Design Principles. In:
Proceedings of the 29th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (2018)
25. Schoormann, T., Behrens, D., Fellmann, M., Knackstedt, R.: On Your Mark, Ready, Search:
A Framework for Structuring Literature Search Strategies in Information Systems. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 16th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik (2021)
26. Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature
Review. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems 26, xiii–xxiii (2002)
27. Cooper, H.M.: Organizing Knowledge Syntheses: A Taxonomy of Literature Reviews.
Knowledge in Society 1, 104–126 (1988)
28. Randolph, J.J.: A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review. Practical Assess-
ment, Research & Evaluation 14, 1–13 (2009)
29. Tremblay, M., Hevner, A., Berndt, D.: Focus Groups for Artifact Refinement and Evaluation
in Design Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 26, 599–
618 (2010)
30. Niederman, F., March, S.: The "Theoretical Lens" Concept: We All Know What it Means,
but do We All Know the Same Thing? Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 44, 1–33 (2019)
31. Hönigsberg, S.: A Platform for Value Co-creation in SME Networks. In: Proceedings of the
15th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and
Technology, pp. 285–296 (2020)
32. Schoormann, T., Behrens, D., Knackstedt, R.: The Noblest Way to Learn Wisdom is by
Reflection: Designing Software Tools for Reflecting Sustainability in Business Models. In:
Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Information Systems (2018)
33. Wiethof, C., Tavanapour, N., Bittner, E.: Design and Evaluation of a Collaborative Writing
Process with Gamification Elements. In: Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on
Information Systems (2020)
34. Kolkowska, E., Karlsson, F., Hedström, K.: Towards analysing the rationale of information
security non-compliance: Devising a Value-Based Compliance analysis method. The Jour-
nal of Strategic Information Systems 26, 39–57 (2017)
35. Babaian, T., Lucas, W., Xu, J., Topi, H.: Usability through System-User Collaboration. In:
Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) Global Perspectives on Design Science Research, pp.
394–409. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (2010)
36. Parsons, J., Wand, Y.: Extending Principles of Classification from Information Modeling to
Other Disciplines. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 14, 245-173 (2013)
37. Feine, J., Morana, S., Maedche, A.: Designing a Chatbot Social Cue Configuration System.
In: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Information Systems (2019)
38. Wambsganss, T., Rietsche, R.: Towards Designing an Adaptive Argumentation Learning
Tool. In: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Information Systems (2019)
12
39. Chanson, M., Bogner, A., Bilgeri, D., Fleisch, E., Wortmann, F.: Blockchain for the IoT:
Privacy-Preserving Protection of Sensor Data. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems 20, 1274–1309 (2019)
40. Meier, P., Beinke, J.H., Fitte, C., Behne, A., Teuteberg, F.: FeelFit–Design and Evaluation
of a Conversational Agent to Enhance Health Awareness. In: Proceedings of the 40th Inter-
national Conference on Information Systems (2019)
41. Iivari, J.: Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research. Euro-
pean Journal of Information Systems 24, 107–115 (2015)
42. Pan, S.L., Li, M., Pee, L.G., Sandeep, M.S.: Sustainability Design Principles for a Wildlife
Management Analytics System: An Action Design Research. European Journal of Infor-
mation Systems, 1–22 (2020)
43. Herterich, M.M.: On the Design of Digitized Industrial Products as Key Resources of Ser-
vice Platforms for Industrial Service Innovation. In: Maedche, A., Vom Brocke, J., Hevner,
A. (eds.) Designing the Digital Transformation, pp. 364–380. Springer International Pub-
lishing, Cham (2017)
44. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A Design Science Research
Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Sys-
tems 24, 45–77 (2007)
45. Kuechler, B., Vaishnavi, V.: On theory development in design science research: anatomy of
a research project. European Journal of Information Systems 17, 489–504 (2008)
46. Horlach, B., Schirmer, I., Drews, P.: Agile Portfolio Management: Design Goals and Prin-
ciples. In: Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems (2019)
47. Nguyen, A., Tuunanen, T., Gardner, L., Sheridan, D.: Design principles for learning analyt-
ics information systems in higher education. European Journal of Information Systems, 1–
28 (2020)
48. Gregor, S., Jones, D.: The Anatomy of a Design Theory. Journal of the Association of In-
formation Systems 8, 312–335 (2007)
49. Morana, S., Scheid, M., Gau, M., Benke, I., Vom Brocke, J., Fettke, P., Maedche, A.: Re-
search Prototype: The Design Canvas in MyDesignProcess. In: Proceedings of the 13th In-
ternational Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology
(2018)
50. Vom Brocke, J., Maedche, A.: The DSR grid: six core dimensions for effectively planning
and communicating design science research projects. Electronic Markets 29, 379–385
(2019)
51. Morana, S., Vom Brocke, J., Maedche, A., Seidel, S., Adam, M., Bub, U., Fettke, P., Gau,
M., Herwix, A., Mullarkey, M., et al.: Tool Support for Design Science Research-Towards
a Software Ecosystem: A Report from a DESRIST 2017 Workshop. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems 43 (2018)
