The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
FEDS: a Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research
Open accessAbstract
Evaluation of design artefacts and design theories is a key activity in Design Science Research (DSR), as it provides feedback for further development and (if done correctly) assures the rigour of the research. However, the extant DSR literature provides insufficient guidance on evaluation to enable Design Science Researchers to effectively design and incorporate evaluation activities into a DSR project that can achieve DSR goals and objectives. To address this research gap, this research paper develops, explicates, and provides evidence for the utility of a Framework for Evaluation in Design Science (FEDS) together with a process to guide design science researchers in developing a strategy for evaluating the artefacts they develop within a DSR project. A FEDS strategy considers why, when, how, and what to evaluate. FEDS includes a two-dimensional characterisation of DSR evaluation episodes (particular evaluations), with one dimension being the functional purpose of the evaluation (formative or summative) and the other dimension being the paradigm of the evaluation (artificial or naturalistic). The FEDS evaluation design process is comprised of four steps: (1) explicate the goals of the evaluation, (2) choose the evaluation strategy or strategies, (3) determine the properties to evaluate, and (4) design the individual evaluation episode(s). The paper illustrates the framework with two examples and provides evidence of its utility via a naturalistic, summative evaluation through its use on an actual DSR project.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Design Science in Information Systems Research1
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148625 · Cited by 10,707
Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60 · Cited by 10,697
Design science in information systems research
(2004) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.5555/2017212.2017217 · Cited by 8,254
A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222240302 · Cited by 7,832 · cited 2×
“…of literature within and outside DSR that identifies different methods and paradigms for how to evaluate (e.g., in Nunamaker et al, 1990/1991; March & Smith, 1995; Hevner et al, 2004; Vaishnavi & Kuechler, 2004; Venable, 2006; Peffers et al, 2008; Sein et al, 2011; Kuechler & Vaishnavi, 2012).”
Method
Cited by
Design science research contributions: Finding a balance between artifact and theory
Georgia State University, Baskerville, R., Baiyere, A., University of Turku, F., Gergor, S., Australian National University, Hevner, A., University of South Florida, Rossi, M., & Aalto University (2018) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00495 · Cited by 437
Self-citationFischer, M., Imgrund, F., Janiesch, C., & Winkelmann, A. (2020) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2019.103262 · Cited by 417
A Taxonomy of Evaluation Methods for Information Systems Artifacts
Prat, N., Comyn-Wattiau, I., & Akoka, J. (2015) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2015.1099390 · Cited by 278
Designing a feature selection method based on explainable artificial intelligence
Zacharias, J., von Zahn, M., Chen, J., & Hinz, O. (2022) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-022-00608-1 · Cited by 109
Development of a Digital Transformation Maturity Model for IT Companies
Gollhardt, T., Halsbenning, S., Hermann, A., Karsakova, A., & Becker, J. (2020) · 2020 IEEE 22nd Conference on Business Informatics (CBI) · doi:10.1109/cbi49978.2020.00018 · Cited by 69
Capabilities and metrics in DevOps: A design science study
Amaro, R., Pereira, R., & da Silva, M. M. (2023) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2023.103809 · Cited by 21
Herath, S., Bashardoust, A., Bole, Y., & Shrestha, Y. R. (2026) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2026.2616042 · Cited by 16
(2016) · Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation · Cited by 8
Gnewuch, U., & Reinkemeier, F. (2026) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2025/18742 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R.
- Venue
- European Journal of Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 77-89
- ISSN
- 0960-085X (ISSN-L)
- 1476-9344
- OpenAlex
- W2079484041
- Cited by
- 1,061
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 92.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.