A Design Science Research Roadmap

Transcription

1 Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) PACIS 2012 Proceedings Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS) A Design Science Research Roadmap Ahmad Alturki Information Systems Discipline, Queensland University of Technology, 126 Margaret St., Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, a.alturki@student.qut.edu.au Follow this and additional works at: Recommended Citation Alturki, Ahmad, "A Design Science Research Roadmap" (2012). PACIS 2012 Proceedings. Paper This material is brought to you by the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in PACIS 2012 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact elibrary@aisnet.org.

2 A DESIGN SCIENCE RESEARCH ROADMAP Ahmad Alturki, Information Systems Discipline, Queensland University of Technology, 126 Margaret St., Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, Abstract Design science research (DSR) has become an accepted approach for research in the Information Systems discipline. Although, DSR literature reflects healthy discussion, it reveals a lack of consensus on methodology for conducting DSR. Views and prescriptions on the methodology of DSR appear particularly disparate. Little effort has been made thus far to consolidate and synthesize a comprehensive DSR methodology. Thus, pragmatic guidance for novice DSR researchers is spotty and often conflicting. The need for detailed, more specific guidance, becomes stark in comparison with research methodology in different paradigms. This study is motivated by this lack and the perceived need for a structured DSR Roadmap to guide researchers across the DSR lifecycle. Therefore, this doctoral research is aiming to develop a detailed, integrated, and complete methodology (Roadmap) for conducting DSR. This goal is pursued through two main phases: (1) Roadmap construction and (2) Roadmap evaluation. In this research report, we demonstrate how we addressed the first phase of his doctoral research by depicting DSR Roadmap construction process. Furthermore, in progress and planned DSR Roadmap validation are expressed. Key words: Design Science Research Methodology, Roadmap for Design Science Research, Idealized Model for Theory Development, Information Systems.

3 1 OUTLINE THE RESEARCH TOPIC (INTRODUCTION): Design science research (DSR) has become an accepted approach for research in the Information Systems (IS) discipline (Iivari, 2007; Kuechler & Vaishnavi, 2008), with dramatic recent growth in related literature 1 (Goldkuhl & Lind, 2010). Though this literature reflects healthy discussion, it quickly reveals a lack of consensus on even the fundamentals; e.g. DSR methods (Winter, 2008). DSR yet being in its genesis (Iivari & Venable, 2009; Kuechler & Vaishnavi, 2008). Views and prescriptions on the methodology of DSR appear particularly disparate, e.g. (Baskerville, Pries-Heje, & Venable, 2009; Hevner, 2007; Jay F. Nunamaker, Minder, & Titus, 1991; March & Storey, 2008; Peffers, Tuunanen, Rothenberger, & Chatterjee, 2007; Rossi & Sein, 2003; Vaishnavi & Kuechler, 2004; Venable, 2006). Little effort has been made thus far to consolidate and synthesize the collective knowledge of DSR methodology. Archival analysis by Indulska and Recker (2008) of papers reporting studies that claim to conform to the Hevner et al. guidelines, which has been widely cited, reveals few instances of their actual application. Walls, et al. (2004) observe a few papers explicitly address their Information System Design Theory. Winter observes there is a lack of a commonly accepted reference process model for design research, suggesting that a more complete methodology is a key lack in DSR (2008, p. 470). Recently, Venable (2010) investigated the opinions of IS scholars on the importance of Hevner, et al. s (2004) guidelines, noting extensive disagreement on what guideline areas should be used as criteria and standards for evaluation (2010, p. 121) of DSR research, implying that either the existing guidelines are not sufficiently clear, or they are at too high a level of abstraction (Peffers, et al., 2007) and hence difficult to implement by apprentice researchers. Consequently, pragmatic guidance for novice DSR researchers is spotty and often conflicting. This lack of detailed, more specific guidance, becomes stark in comparison with research methodology in the behavioural sciences, where guidance on methods e.g. experimentation (e.g. (Campbell, Stanley, & Gage, 1966)) and analytical techniques e.g. structural equation modeling (e.g. (Kline, 2005)), has evolved to become highly prescriptive and specific. And though the dangers of overly constraining designers imaginations and creativity through prescription is recognized (e.g. (Iivari, 2007)), there would too seem to be a general consensus that some level of generality of approach and more detailed guidance is possible, and in some areas of DSR more extensively possible. This study is motivated by this lack and the perceived need for a structured and detailed DSR Roadmap to guide researchers across the DSR lifecycle. Therefore, the principal objective of this doctoral research is the development of a detailed, integrated, and complete methodology (Roadmap) for novice researchers to conduct of DSR in Information System (IS). This goal is pursued through two main phases: (1) Roadmap construction and (2) Roadmap evaluation. The reader should note that as this paper is for PACIS doctor consortium, this study is not complete yet and some further work is needed especially for the evaluation phase. 2 RESEARCH QUESTION(S): 1. How can Design Science research be undertaken successfully? Is it possible to design detailed steps (Roadmap) to conduct DSR? 2. Is the Roadmap complete? Does the Roadmap contain all required components and steps to conduct DSR? 1 Strong, relatively recent interest in DSR (Kuechler & Vaishnavi, 2008; Samuel-Ojo et al., 2010) has stimulated journal special issues (e.g MISQ 32:4 (March & Storey, 2008)); specialized conferences in the area (e.g. DESRIST begins in 2006); and publication in 2007 of the first textbook on ISDR methods (Vaishnavi & Kuechler, 2007).

4 3. Is the Roadmap useful? Is the Roadmap easy to understand, especially by novice researchers? 4. Is the Roadmap rigorously developed? To what extent is the Roadmap consistent with kernel theories such as system theory, decomposition theory, process theory etc 3 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS: The study commenced with inductive synthesis of a detailed a priori roadmap from the methodological DSR literature (Alturki, Gable, & Bandara, 2011) The Roadmap evolved iteratively through cyclical validation and refinement. Various theories have been identified and the value of others is being considered as alternative lenses on the Roadmap. In example, the Idealized Model for Theory Development (IM4TD) proposed by Fischer and Gregor (2011) was used to deductively reflect on the Roadmap, confirming the value of two alternative perspectives in Roadmap validation (construction and use), this analysis also revealing strong conformance of the Roadmap with IM4TD as well as valuable refinements. Other theories being explored (kernel theories for roadmap construction) include: systems theory, decomposition theory, process theory and analytic theory. 4 PROPOSED METHODOLOGY: There are two main stages can be identified in this study: 1) the Roadmap construction and 2) the Roadmap evaluation. In construction the Roadmap was built from existing DSR literature (see (Alturki, et al., 2011) for details of the literature search process and criteria). The Roadmap was constructed iteratively, with our evolving knowledge-base. In parallel with the Roadmap s appearance, Fischer and Gregor (2011) proposed an Idealized Model for Theory Development (IM4TD) which suggests how scientific knowledge is developed in DSR. They position 3 forms of reasoning within the contexts of Discovery and Justification and demonstrate their model can be revealing when used to examine DSR methods in Information Systems. In the 2 nd phase - Roadmap evaluation - we assume two perspectives on the Roadmap through the IM4TD lens; see figure below. The first perspective is on the Roadmap s construction; how it evolved; the key steps followed in building the Roadmap. This perspective is considered Design Science, which is part of the DSR paradigm. The Roadmap is a detailed methodology for the conduct of DSR. Understanding DSR as a paradigm influences construction of the Roadmap. We note that this reflection on the DSR process model (the Roadmap) development, is similar to thinking in (Goldkuhl, 2004). Figure 1 Positioning the two perspectives of the Roadmap in this study. The 2 nd perspective is on the Roadmap s outputs; artifacts resulting from following the Roadmap as a DSR methodology. This view represents any DSR which applies the Roadmap as a guide. This perspective corresponds to Design Research, which is part of the DSR paradigm. Such application of the Roadmap can yield insights into its design improvement. We further suggest two levels of the Roadmap. The Abstract Level shows its components and highlevel relationships; addressing the what question. The Detailed Level shows specifics of the abstract level; how the Abstract Level is to be conducted; addressing the how question.

5 The two perspectives and two levels should be considered in validation of the Roadmap. Furthermore, while the validation of the 1 st perspective addresses rigor of the Roadmap at the two levels, the validation of the 2 nd addresses the relevance of the Roadmap to DSR novices at the two levels. Figure 1 shows how IM4TD is applied retrospectively into the overall research design. Figure 2 The Overall Research Design 5 CURRENT STAGE OF THE RESEARCH Following, main milestones are presented; the strategy being to incrementally publish as the parts crystallize and milestones are achieved. 5.1 The Roadmap construction: The a priori Roadmap was communicated with the DSR community at DESRIST 11 (Alturki, et al., 2011). The Roadmap is a structured and detailed methodology for conducting DSR. The Roadmap usefully inter-relates and harmonies many otherwise seemingly disparate, overlapping or conflicting concepts. It covers the entire DSR lifecycle, from the early spark of a design idea, through to final publication. Figure 2 below depicts the last version of the Roadmap; it is compressed because of space limitation and for readable version please see Figure 3 in (Alturki, Gable, Bandara, & Gregor, 2012). It is believed that the Roadmap is the most comprehensive DSR methodology because of its details, integrations, and adaptation and merging many concepts. The Roadmap gives step by step guide to conduct DSR in IS. Furthermore, it suggests novel component which is Central Design Repository. This nature of the Roadmap resolve the need for a comprehensive and accepted methodology for DSR (Peffers, et al., 2007; Purao et al., 2008; Winter, 2008), and may be the solution for unclearness obser-

6 vation from analysing seminal DSR efforts (Indulska & Recker, 2008; Venable, 2010; Walls, et al., 2004). Figure 3 The last version of DSR Roadmap The Roadmap (see Figure 1 in (Alturki, et al., 2011)) consists of four main interrelated components: (A) Activities and Cycles; (B) Output, (ultimately, Information System Design Theory - ISDT (Gregor & Jones, 2007)); (C) Risk Management; and (D) Central Design Repository (CDR). Component (A) incrementally populates and draws from component (D) which ultimately contributes to component (B). Component (C) and Component (A) are executed in parallel, both again using component (D). Consequently, components (B) and (D) are the sources that contribute to both practice and the knowledge-base. Each component is further explained following Component A: DSR activities and cycles This component focuses on the detailed DSR activities, covering main steps needed to conduct DSR. The relationships between these steps and other components of the Roadmap are presented in detail in Alturki et al. (2011). This component consists of sixteen steps commencing from how the DSR is initiated, through to the publication of DSR output (ISDT) Component B: Output of the DSR This component represents the results of DSR deriving from use of the Roadmap. Alturki et al. (2011) argue ISDT (Gregor & Jones, 2007) is the ultimate and most comprehensive output of DSR. The ISDT consists of eight elements: (1) purpose and scope, (2) constructs, (3) principle of form and function, (4) artefact mutability, (5) testable proposition, (6) justificatory knowledge, (7) principles of implementation, and (8) expository instantiation Component C: Central Design Repository (CDR) Since DSR entails much iteration, documentation in DSR is important to codify circumstances of all successful and failed attempts, while progressing the DSR. The CDR consists of two parts, design- product and design process. The former codifies knowledge about an artifact such as properties, and structure; the latter is knowledge about the process of how to build and implement a designed solution or artefact as an instantiation. The output, ISDT elements, are incrementally populated and communicated from the content of the CDR, component by component during design progression, or at one time when the DSR is complete.

7 5.1.4 Component D: DSR Risk Management Risk in DSR is a potential problem that would be detrimental to a DSR project s success should it materialize (Pries-Heje, Baskerville, & Venable, 2008, p. 330). Researchers could avoid or mitigate risks if s/he could predict them. Risk management in DSR Roadmap relates to and overlaps with all of the Roadmap components and steps. Researchers should be aware, define, document and monitor any possible risk associated with each step in the DSR Roadmap. Pries-Heje et al. (2008) propose a framework to address risk management in DSR through four tasks: (1) Risk Identification, (2) Risk Analysis, (3) Risk Treatment and (4) Risk Monitoring. 5.2 Positioning the Roadmap within the Information System Discipline We further position the Roadmap on IS map (Alturki, Bandara, & Gable, 2012). One of the issues that needs clarification is what (core) phenomena of IS can DSR address? This publication seeks to argue the relevance of DSR as a paradigm to address the core of the IS discipline, as defined by Wand and Weber (Wand & Weber, 1990, 1993, 1995; Weber, 1997). It mainly contributes to further encouraging the use of DSR in IS, by drawing the link between DSR related concepts and the core of IS as per Wand and Weber s view of the IS core. Thus, contributions are twofold: 1) it shows what and where should we use DSR in the IS discipline; 2) it partially contributes to the delineation of many related DSR areas. This helps researchers especially, novice, to understand DSR paradigm better. Wand and Weber believe IS is being used to represent or to mirror, or to simulate phenomena in the real world provides a representation of some real-world systems as perceived by someone or some group of people (Weber, 1997, pp ). Representation is the key aspect of IS. Next four subsubsections, show the justifications of DSR injection to the IS core, based on Wand and Weber s view Design Science Research addresses the Core of Information System Wand and Weber (1990, 1995; 1997) believe that IS has two views; external and internal. The external view focuses on individuals and organizations that use, implement, and deploy IS. The internal view consists of: 1) surface structure phenomena; 2) deep structure phenomena, and 3) physical structure phenomena. The deep structure phenomena describes the characteristics of the real-world phenomena that the IS is intended to represent. They believe the deep structure is the core of IS because IS embody and manifest representations of the real-world system and its behavioural. Based on the definition of deep structure as the core of IS and our understanding of DSR, both share the intention of constructing things for users needs or solving problems. Therefore, DSR must focus on the core of IS. This supports the call to go back to the applied roots of IS, and see IS as Design Representation aspect in IS and Design Science Research Wand and Weber (1990, 1995; 1997) believe that representation is the key aspect of IS, it represents things in the real-world. Accordingly, IS constitutes historical and behavioural representations of things in the real-world in the ways IS designers chose to envisage these things. Representation in DSR could be seen in its process and its outputs. For the former, work at its basic level is a construction or system of many related things which interact with each other to produce artefacts for unsolved real problems, or build innovations for needs. Researchers then symbolize their invented solution/artefact and determine things such artefacts structure, prosperities, and functions. Researchers actually represent two real-worlds: 1) researcher s mind about the reality (problem and solution), and 2) the real-world itself. Thus, all DSR is representations in essence. For outputs, two camps have been identified for DSR outputs (Gregor & Hevner, 2010). The first camp believes DSR produces a special type of theory, so-called Design Theory (Baskerville & Pries- Heje, 2010; Gregor & Jones, 2007; Walls, Widmeyer, & El Sawy, 1992). The second camp believes

8 outputs are constructs, models, methods, and instantiations (Hevner, et al., 2004; March & Smith, 1995). Close attention to these camps depicts representation is existent in both camps IS, Design Science Research and Routine Design Relationship Based in DSR definitions such as in (Aken, 2004; Hevner, 2007; Iivari, 2007) and the IS core (deep structure), DSR addresses the IS core. Furthermore, based on the differentiations between IS Design Research, IS Design Science 2, and Routine Design, we argue the core of IS (deep structure) is divided into two parts: 1) IS deals with unsolved problems and unknown solutions, and 2) IS deals with known problems and solutions which are the focus of Routine Design. DSR addresses only the first part which requires building novel solutions (new knowledge), enhance current solutions, or invent something new for a conceivable need/problem; see figure below: Information System (Routine Design) Relevance Design Research Rigor Design Science DSR Design Science Use Reflect Design Research The core of IS (Deep structure) Constitute Feed Routine Design The Transformational Nature in IS and Design Science Research Transformations are in the construction process of IS and DSR. Both produce artifacts which eventually are transformed through different iterations. In IS construction, basically we generate scripts to provide descriptions of the real-world. Since developing this is complex, we generate different kinds of scripts to meet different needs. Ultimately, these scripts are transformed into different forms until can be read by machine. Figure adjacent shows two notions that depict representation goodness of the reality (Weber, 1997). The first one is the users model of the realworld (Box B) which represents the realword from its users viewpoints and is the focus of theories from other disciplines. The second (Box C) is the script that represents the first model (Box B); this is the focus of IS practice; both represent the realworld. We can argue designers in DSR execute Box B and C. Based in the relationship between IS and Design Research, Design Science, and Routine Design mentioned above, we see the Box C represents Routine Design if the knowledge in the Box B is already known. However, together boxes B and C 2 Winter (2008, pp ) distinguishes between (IS) Design Science and (IS) Design Research; stating design research is aimed at creating solutions to specific classes of relevant problems by using a rigorous construction and evaluation process (i.e., construction and evaluation of specific artefacts) design science reflects the design research process and aims at creating standards for its rigour...(i.e., reflection and guidance of artefact construction and evaluation processes). Similar distinctions from DSR experts are found in (Kuechler & Vaishnavi, 2008; Peffers, et al., 2007; Purao & Storey, 2008).

9 represent Design Research because they are not known; we face a problem that is not solved yet or see a need to invent something new. Therefore, the role of the researcher in DSR is twofold: 1) he/she needs to transform the represented real/foreseen problem (real-world) or conceive need to show all aspect of the problem; 2) he/she needs to transform his solution and creativity onto forms that solves the problem and needs to transform any justificatory knowledge imported from the knowledgebase either in the IS discipline or other disciplines. Researchers then generate an instantiation of representation of (box B and C) Validating DSR Roadmap: Through Lens of the Idealised Model for Theory Development The Roadmap evaluation, second main stage of achieving thesis objective, entails considering the two perspectives of the Roadmap, Roadmap s construction and use. Deductive and inductive forms of reasoning are employed to conduct the evaluation phase based in IM4TD. While deductive form of reasoning is discussed in (Alturki, Gable, et al., 2012), inductive evaluation is going to be conducted later. Analyzing the Roadmap using deductive form of reasoning evaluates how well the Roadmap addresses core requirements posited by the IM4TD (Fischer & Gregor, 2011). In viewing the Roadmap through the IM4TD lens, we use the two different Roadmap s perspectives mentioned earlier. Ultimately, we aim to show that the contexts of discovery and justification, and the three forms of reasoning are considered from both perspectives, in the Roadmap design. Though analysis employing the IM4TD lens suggests the Roadmap is reasonably complete, it too highlights valuable potential refinements. Analysis suggests value in differentiating and considering separately the contexts of discovery and justification, and the three forms of reasoning. This awareness points to several useful refinements to the Roadmap. Many lessons have also been learned from this analysis; while some relate to refinements, others confirm some of the Roadmap concepts. All lessons are reported in (Alturki, Gable, et al., 2012). The table below summarizes the status of the Roadmap evaluation. First perspective Second perspective Abstract level Deductive Planed. Inductive progressing (focus group/ Interview) Deductive Planed. Inductive progressing (focus group or Interview) 6 PLANS FOR COMPLETION. Detailed level Deductive relatively done. Inductive progressing (focus group/ Interview) Deductive relatively done Inductive progressing (focus group or Interview) Continuing Roadmap validation within scope of the PhD will primarily entail the other form of reasoning - inductive validation; from both construction and application perspectives. Deductive validation further to that reported in (Alturki, Gable, et al., 2012) is being considered, employing alternative theories listed earlier. Inductive reasoning is going to be employed in gaining feedback from Roadmap users; both DSR experts and novices. Experts have the ability to judge the rigor and completeness of the Roadmap s construction and can also give valuable feedback on its application. This part is concerned with the rigor of development of the Roadmap. Novice researchers bring a valuable perspective on clarity, utility and ease of use of the Roadmap; they being interested in DSR, but having little prior experience of DSR. An expert panel or interviews, and a structured focus group format, are suitable to gain feedback from experts and novices, respectively. Appropriate protocols are developed to validate the Roadmap construction and its use/application, taking account of the differing perspectives of the participants. Instruments and approach will be piloted and evolved iteratively. Protocols will be developed in three stages: Planning, Running, Analysis and Reporting.

10 Reference Aken, J. E. (2004). Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), Alturki, A., Bandara, W., & Gable, G. (2012). Design Science Research and the Core of Information Systems. Paper presented at DESRIST, Milwaukee,USA. Alturki, A., Gable, G., & Bandara, W. (2011). A design Science Research Roadmap. Paper presented at DESRIST, Milwaukee,USA. Alturki, A., Gable, G., Bandara, W., & Gregor, S. (2012). VALIDATING THE DESIGN SCIENCE RESEARCH ROADMAP: THROUGH THE LENS OF THE IDEALISED MODEL FOR THE- ORY DEVELOPMENT. In Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS). Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J. (2010). Explanatory Design Theory. Business & Information Systems Engineering, Baskerville, R., Pries-Heje, J., & Venable, J. (2009). Soft design science methodology In DESRIST (pp. 9): ACM. Campbell, D. T., Stanley, J. C., & Gage, N. L. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Dallas: Houghton Mifflin. Fischer, C., & Gregor, S. (2011). Forms of reasoning in the design science research process. Paper presented at DESRIST, Milwaukee,USA. Goldkuhl, G. (2004). Design theories in information systems-a need for multi-grounding. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 6(2), Goldkuhl, G., & Lind, M. (2010). A Multi-Grounded Design Research Process. Paper presented at DESRIST Switzerland. Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. (2010). Introduction to the special issue on design science. Information Systems and E-Business Management, 9(1), 1-9. Retrieved from doi: /s Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(5), Hevner, A. R. (2007). A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), Iivari, J. (2007). A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), Iivari, J., & Venable, J. (2009). Action research and design science research seemingly similar but decisively dissimilar. Paper presented at 17th European Conference on Information Systems. Indulska, M., & Recker, J. C. (2008). Design science in IS research: a literature analysis. In Proceedings 4th Biennial ANU Workshop on Information Systems Foundations. Jay F. Nunamaker, Jr., Minder, C., & Titus, D. M. P. (1991). Systems development in information systems research. J. Manage. Inf. Syst., 7(3), Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Kuechler, W. L., & Vaishnavi, V. K. (2008). The emergence of design research in information systems in North America. Journal of Design Research, 7(1), March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), March, S. T., & Storey, V. C. (2008). Design science in the information systems discipline: an introduction to the special issue on design science research. MIS Quarterly, 32(4), Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3),

11 Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R., & Venable, J. (2008). Evaluation Risks in Design Science Research: A Framework. In Third International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology. Purao, S., Smith, B., Baldwin, C. Y., Hevner, A. R., Storey, V. C., Pries-Heje, J. (2008, October 9). The sciences of design: observations on an emerging field. Retrieved from Purao, S., & Storey, V. C. (2008). Evaluating the adoption potential of design science efforts: The case of APSARA. Decision Support Systems, 44(2), Rossi, M., & Sein, M. K. (2003). Design research workshop: a proactive research approach. Presentation delivered at IRIS, 26, Samuel-Ojo, O., Shimabukuro, D., Chatterjee, S., Muthui, M., Babineau, T., Prasertsilp, P. (2010). Meta-analysis of Design Science Research within the IS Community: Trends, Patterns, and Outcomes. Paper presented at DESRIST. Vaishnavi, V., & Kuechler, W. (2004, February 20, 2004). Design research in information systems. Retrieved 10 JAN 2010, 2010from ISWorld, Vaishnavi, V., & Kuechler, W. (2007). Design science research methods and patterns: innovating information and communication technology: NY: Auerbach Publication, Taylor & Francis Group. Venable, J. (2006, May 2006). A Framework for Design Science Research Activities. In Information Resource Management Association Conference (CD): Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA. Venable, J. (2010). Design Science Research Post Hevner et al.: Criteria, Standards, Guidelines, and Expectations. Paper presented at DESRIST, Switzerland. Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (2004). Assessing information system design theory in perspective: How useful was our 1992 initial rendition. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 6(2), Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1990). Toward a theory of the deep structure of information systems. In (Vol. 1990, pp ). Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1993). On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Information Systems Journal, 3(4), Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1995). On the deep structure of information systems. Information Systems Journal, 5(3), Weber, R. (1997). Ontological foundations of information systems: Coopers & Lybrand. Winter, R. (2008). Design science research in Europe. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(5),