The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Last Research Mile: Achieving Both Rigor and Relevance in Information Systems Research
Open accessAbstract
From our desk chairs it may be tempting to work up an idea, build a quick prototype, test it in a lab, and say, “Our work here is done; the rest is merely details.” More scholarly knowledge awaits discovery, however, by researchers who shepherd an information systems (IS) solution through the last research mile, that is, through successful transition to the workplace. Going the last research mile means using scientific knowledge and methods to address important unsolved classes of problems for real people with real stakes in the outcomes. The last research mile proceeds in three stages: proof-of-concept research to demonstrate the functional feasibility of a solution; proof-of-value research to investigate whether a solution can create value across a variety of conditions; and proof-of-use research to address complex issues of operational feasibility. The last research mile ends only when practitioners routinely use a solution in the field. We argue that going the last research mile negates the assumption that one must trade off rigor and relevance, showing it to be it a false dilemma. Systems researchers who take their solutions through the last research mile may ultimately have the greatest impact on science and society. We demonstrate the last research mile with cases from our own work and the work of others spanning more than forty years.
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
Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model1
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250921 · Cited by 8,767 · cited 1×
“People who felt dissatisfied with their experience, even for reasons having nothing to do with technology, would nonetheless decline to use the system [7], even in the face of compelling evidence that they derived substantial financial benefits from the system.”
BackgroundThe Nature of Theory in Information Systems1
Gregor, S. (2006) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148742 · Cited by 3,306 · cited 2×
“When the literature does not fully explain observed phenomena, a last mile researcher develops and tests new theories to better understand constructs that may support or interfere with successful deployment of proposed solutions (e.g., the Yield Shift Theory of Satisfaction [18, 34]).”
BackgroundExploratory Research in the Social Sciences
Stebbins, R. (2001) · doi:10.4135/9781412984249 · Cited by 1,840
On Expanding the Scope of Design Science in IS Research
Briggs, R. O., & Schwabe, G. (2011) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20633-7_7 · Cited by 48
Self-citation
Cited by
Sarker, S., Chatterjee, S., Xiao, X., & Elbanna, A. (2019) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2019/13747 · Cited by 576
Kim, B., Park, J., & Suh, J. (2020) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2020.113302 · Cited by 182
Herath, S., Bashardoust, A., Bole, Y., & Shrestha, Y. R. (2026) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2026.2616042 · Cited by 16
Gnewuch, U., & Reinkemeier, F. (2026) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2025/18742 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Nunamaker, J. F., Briggs, R. O., Derrick, D. C., & Schwabe, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-07-03
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 10-47
- ISSN
- 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-928X
- OpenAlex
- W2238669505
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 23.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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.