Design Science in Action ...

Design Science in Action:
Developing a Framework for Introducing IT
Systems into Operational Practice
test case situation to-be
s’

?
s situation as-is
P 1
generic situation to-be
2a 4
problem t’
2b
? t
hypothesis 3
GP
generic situation as-is
generic problem

Ilia Bider - DSV SU
Paul Johannesson – DSV SU
Erik Perjons – DSV SU
Lena Johansson – DSV SU
Presentation at ICIS 2012, Orlando, Florida December 18, 2012
Pre-proceedings: http://bit.ly/YXp47r
Proceedings: http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2012/proceedings/EngagedScholarship/4/

DSV - Stockholm University
1

Dual Goal with the presentation

1. Present our view on Design Science Research (DSR) as a
process of generating and testing hypothesis for adoption in
practice.

This process can be driven in numerous ways beside the
traditional cycle of
problem->requirements->solution->demonstration->
evaluation
Bider, I., Johannesson, P., and Perjons, E. 2012. "Design science research as
movement between individual and generic situation-problem-solution spaces," (to
appear) in Baskerville R., De Marco, M., and Spagnoletti, P. (eds.) Organizational
Systems. An Interdisciplinary Discourse, Springer.

2. Present an example that serves to illustrate and be a test case
for the above view

2

Difference between DSR and
empirically-based research (EMR)
EMR DSR
Timeline Past & Present Future
Aimed at Explaining the world as it Suggesting a new world that
was or as it is does not yet exist
Process Establishing facts and Generating and testing
developing theories that hypothesis for adoption
explains these facts
Relation to Follow practice Lead practice
practice

Example: communism as designed by K. Marx and his followers

3

DS process as movement between
the two worlds

s’

+1 s situation as-is
P http://bit.ly/YXp47r
problem generic situation to-be
t’

0 t
hypothesis
GP
generic problem

4

Example to be discussed - Generic
innovation

s’

?
s situation as-is
P 1
generic situation to-be
2a 4
problem t’
2b
? t
hypothesis 3
GP
generic problem

5

Situation at hands

Organization
• Non-for-profit (interest) organization
• Association of tenants in West region of Sweden
• Central office – about 60-70 employees
• Democratic management style with a strong CEO
trying to become process oriented
• With the help of an IT system


System – a BPS system based on the
shared spaces & collaborative planning

Structure of the process case/instance


System - continuing

Plans for a particular user


Problem – the users do not use the
system

• General comment – It might be a good system, but I do not
understand what I should use it for?

• Specific problem - Collaborative planning not intuitive

• New processes introduced at the same time (customer
feedback) – no experience of dealing with them

• Previously totally ad-hoc processes (lobbying) are to be
structured – requires adaptation

Generalization

Generic situation:
• Introduction in organizational practice of an IT systems
that aim at changing the work and communication
practices of an organization = organizational change
• The introduction process = ad hoc and already started
Generic problem
• The process stammer – nothing happens
Generic solution required
• Introduction process model – methodology of driving an
introduction process
• That can be used in the middle of an unsuccessful
introduction process

Developing a solution – theoretical
background

• State-oriented view of business processes
• Kotter’s [1996] eight stages for change management
• Sharma and Yetton [2003]
• The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(UTAUT)


State-oriented view on
business processes

• For each item Ordered = Delivered • Invoiced = To pay
• To pay = Total + Freight + Tax • Paid = Invoiced

• Ordered > Delivered shipment

• To pay > Invoiced invoicing

Kotter’s eight stages for change
management

1. Establishing a sense of urgency
2. Creating the guiding coalition
3. Developing a vision and strategy
4. Communicating the change vision
5. Empowering broad-based action
6. Generating short-term wins
7. Consolidating gains and producing more change
8. Anchoring new approaches in the culture


Sharma and Yetton suggestions on
institutional context changes

1. New structures, e.g. create a training group, or introduce a help-desk.
2. New performance control systems -the ones that favour system usage,
e.g. introduce a system that rewards active users.
3. New coordination mechanisms. New IT systems often require
changes in existing work processes, which have to be redesigned in
order to ensure benefits from the system.
4. Changes to performance goals. An introduction process is often
characterized by a period of decline in performance, which should be
planned in advanced.


The Unified Theory of Acceptance and
Use of Technology (UTAUT)

Factors that define users’ behaviour:

1. Performance expectancy – how much I will gain
2. Effort expectancy - how hard I need to work
3. Social influence – what happened if I don’t do it.
4. Facilitated conditions – how much help I will get from the
organization


Solution – the A3 framework
General Scheme


Solution – the A3 framework
Process model


Reflections from the project

• DS is difficult to plan in advance
• Tight deadlines so that not to miss an opportunity for
testing a solution in the current case
• Even when a known problem have known solutions there
could be an opportunity for DS if the context is different
• The demonstration phase requires tight cooperation
between researchers and practitioner to implement the
solution


Thank you for your attention!

Main Contact
Ilia Bider, SU/IbisSoft
Email: ilia@{dsv.su,ibissoft}.se

19

Design Science in Action ...

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Design Science in Action ...

Similar to Design Science in Action ... (20)

More from Ilia Bider

More from Ilia Bider (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Design Science in Action ...