Design Science

The term design science was introduced in 1963 by R Buckminster Fuller (Fuller and McHale 1963) who defined it as a systematic form of designing. Design science was taken up in Gregory’s 1966 book of the 1965 Design Methods conference (Gregory 1966) where he drew the distinction between “design as a science” and the “science of design”. Gregory was clear in his view that design was not a science and that design science referred to the scientific study of design. Hebert Simon in his 1968 Karl Taylor Compton lecture (Simon 1996) used and popularized these terms in his argument for the scientific study of the artificial (as opposed to the natural). Over the intervening period the two terms have co-mingled to the point where design science has come to have both meanings, with the meaning of scientific study of design predominating.

Science of design

The first edition of Simon’s The Sciences of the Artificial, published in 1969 (third edition available as: Simon 1996), built on previous developments and motivated the development of systematic and formalized design methodologies relevant to many design disciplines, for example architecture, engineering, urban planning, medicine, computer science, and management studies (e.g. Baldwin and Clark 2000; Banathy 1996; Cross 1984; Long and Dowell 1989; Romme 2003; Van Aken 2004; Warfield 1990). Simon's ideas about the science of design also motivated the development of the scientific study of designing (Cross, Naughton, and Walker, 1981; Gero 2008). In his book Simon also used the idea of a theory of design alluding to design science as a science of design. For example, the axiomatic theory of design described in (Suh, 1990) presents a domain independent theory that can explain or prescribe the design process. The scientific study of design does not require or assume that the acts of designing are themselves scientific and an increasing number of research programs take this view (Gero 2004). Cross (Cross 2006) uses the term designerly to distinguish designing from other kinds of human activity.

Design as science

There is growing pressure on architects, engineers, lawyers, managers and other design-oriented professionals to act and decide on the basis of a systematic body of evidence (cf. Van Aken and Romme 2009). Hevner and Chatterjee (2010) provide a reference on Design Science Research (DSR) in Information Systems, including a selection of papers from the DESRIST conferences, a look at key principles of DSR, and the integration of action research with design research. Robert Winter stated that the book shows an increased demand for more relevant design-oriented research on real-world business problems. In 2010 122 professors promoted design science in information system research by signing a memorandum (cf Österle et al. 2010).

Design as science in information systems

Hevner et al. (2004) provide a set of seven guidelines which help information systems researchers conduct, evaluate and present design-science research. The seven guidelines address design as an artifact, problem relevance, design evaluation, research contributions, research rigor, design as a search process, and research communication (Hevner et al. 2004).

According to Hevner and co-authors, the first guideline addresses design as an artifact. This states that “design-science research must produce a viable artifact in the form of a construct, a model, a method, or an instantiation” (Hevner et al. 2004, p. 83). Furthermore, Hevner’s group defines IT artifacts as “constructs (vocabulary and symbols), models (abstractions and representations), methods (algorithms and practices), and instantiations (implemented and prototype systems)” (2004, p. 77).

The second guideline describes problem relevance where “the objective of design-science research is to develop technology-based solutions to important and relevant business problems” (Hevner et al. 2004, p. 83).

The third guideline describes the importance of using rigorous evaluation methods for the design. Specifically, “The utility, quality, and efficacy of a design artifact must be rigorously demonstrated via well-executed evaluation methods” (Hevner, et al. 2004, p. 83).

The fourth guideline addresses the importance of the work being considered as a contribution to the academic world. It states that the IS research effort should be considered a contribution to the field. “Effective design-science research must provide clear and verifiable contributions in the areas of the design artifact, design foundations, and/or design methodologies” (Hevner et al. 2004, p. 83). March and Smith propose that building an innovative and creative system is, in and of itself enough to be considered a contribution to the research community. “Building the first of virtually any set of constructs, model, method, or instantiation is deemed to be research, provided the artifact has utility for an important task. The research contribution lies in the novelty of the artifact and in the persuasiveness of the claims that it is effective. Actually, performance evaluation is not required at this state” (March and Smith 1995, p. 260).

The fifth guideline focuses on research rigor and states that “Design-science research relies upon the application of rigorous methods in both the construction and evaluation of the design artifact” (Hevner, et al., 2004).

The sixth guideline relates to design as a search process. It states that ‘the search for an effective artifact requires utilizing available means to reach desired ends while satisfying laws in the problem environment (Hevner, et al., 2004, p. 83).

The last guideline addresses the importance that the work be published in both the academic community and in the practitioner’s community.

Later extensions of the Design Science framework detail how design and research problems can be rationally decomposed by means of nested problem solving (Wieringa, 2009). It is also explained how the regulative cycle (problem investigation, solution design, design validation, solution implementation, and implementation evaluation) fits in the framework.

See also

• Evidence-based medicine
• Modular design

References

• Baldwin, C. Y. and K. B. Clark (2000). Design Rules, Vol. 1: The Power of Modularity. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• Österle, H., Becker, J., Frank, U., Hess, T., Karagiannis, D., Krcmar, H., Loos, P., Mertens, P., Oberweis, A., Sinz, E. J., Memorandum on design-oriented information systems research, in: European Journal of Information Systems, 20, Nr. 1, pp. 7-10
• Banathy, B.H. (1996). Designing Social Systems in a Changing World. Plenum, New York/London, U.K.
• Brown, H., Cook, R., and Gabel, M. (1975). Environmental Design Science Primer. Advocate Press, New Haven, CT
• Cross, N., Naughton, J., and Walker, D. (1981). "Design method and scientific method", Design Studies, 2 (4), 195-201.
• Cross, N. (ed.) (1984). Developments in Design Methodology. Wiley, New York.
• Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing, Springer
• Fuller, R. Buckminster and McHale, J. (1963). World Design Science Decade, 1965-1975, Southern Illinois University
• Gero, J. S. (2004).The PhD Program in Design Science at the University of Sydney, Development and Prospects of PhD Programme in Design Science Education, Chaoyang University of Technology, Taiwan, pp. 17-22.
• Gero, J. S. (ed) (2008). Design Computing and Cognition'08, Springer
• Gregory, S. A. (1966). The Design Method, Butterworths
• Hevner, A.R., S.T. March, J Park, and S. Ram (2004), "Design science in information systems research". MIS Quarterly, 28, 75-105.
• Hevner, A.R. & Chatterjee, S (2010) Design Research in Information Systems, Integrated Series in Information Systems, Volume 22, Springer.
• Long, J. and J. Dowell (1989). "Conceptions of the discipline of HCI: Craft, applied science, and engineering". In: A. Sutcliffe and L. Macaulay (eds.), People and Computers, V. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 9–32.
• March, S.T. and G.F. Smith (1995). "Design and natural science research on information technology". Decision Support Systems, 15, 251-266.
• Romme, A.G.L. (2003). "Making a difference: Organization as design". Organization Science, 14, 558–573.
• Simon, H.A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial, third edition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• Suh (1990), The Principles of Design, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-504345-6
• Van 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, 219-246.
• Van Aken, J.E. and A.G.L. Romme (2009). "Reinventing the future: adding design science to the repertoire of organization and management studies". Organization Management Journal, 6, 5-12.
• Warfield, J. (1990). A Science of Generic Design. Intersystems Publishers, Salinas, CA.
• Wieringa, R. (2009). "Design Science as nested problem solving". 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, ACM, 1-12.