The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Anatomy of a Design Theory
Open accessAbstract
Design work and design knowledge in Information Systems (IS) is important for both research and practice. Yet there has been comparatively little critical attention paid to the problem of specifying design theory so that it can be communicated, justified, and developed cumulatively. In this essay we focus on the structural components or anatomy of design theories in IS as a special class of theory. In doing so, we aim to extend the work of Walls, Widemeyer and El Sawy (1992) on the specification of information systems design theories (ISDT), drawing on other streams of thought on design research and theory to provide a basis for a more systematic and useable formulation of these theories. We identify eight separate components of design theories: (1) purpose and scope, (2) constructs, (3) principles of form and function, (4) artifact mutability, (5) testable propositions, (6) justificatory knowledge (kernel theories), (7) principles of implementation, and (8) an expository instantiation. This specification includes components missing in the Walls et al. adaptation of Dubin (1978) and Simon (1969) and also addresses explicitly problems associated with the role of instantiations and the specification of design theories for methodologies and interventions as well as for products and applications. The essay is significant as the unambiguous establishment of design knowledge as theory gives a sounder base for arguments for the rigor and legitimacy of IS as an applied discipline and for its continuing progress. A craft can proceed with the copying of one example of a design artifact by one artisan after another. A discipline cannot.
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 · cited 1×
“Increasing attention is being paid to this type of research in IS, notably by March and Smith (1995) and Hevner et al. (2004). The ISWorld website now has a section on design research with a current overview provided by Vaishnavi and Kuechler (2004/5).”
Design science in information systems research
(2004) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.5555/2017212.2017217 · Cited by 8,254
A relational model of data for large shared data banks
Codd, E. F. (1970) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/362384.362685 · Cited by 5,547
A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems1
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249410 · Cited by 5,263
The Nature of Theory in Information Systems1
Gregor, S. (2006) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148742 · Cited by 3,306 · cited 7×
“Gregor (2006) suggests that this type of theory (Type 1) can be assessed by considering whether any framework developed is useful in aiding analysis; whether elements of the framework are meaningful, natural and well-defined; and whether any categorization is complete and exhaustive.”
InfluentialSelf-citationInformation Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research
Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.34.5.583 · Cited by 2,108
Cited by
Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)
Graham, C. R. (2011) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.010 · Cited by 709
Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research
Goldkuhl, G. (2012) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2011.54 · Cited by 541
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
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
Burton-Jones, A., McLean, E. R., & Monod, E. (2015) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2014.31 · Cited by 167
Fashion Waves in Information Systems Research and Practice1
Baskerville, R. L., & Myers, M. D. (2009) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/20650319 · Cited by 137
Buyers' trust and mistrust in e-commerce platforms: a synthesizing literature review
Soleimani, M. (2022) · Information Systems and e-Business Management · doi:10.1007/s10257-021-00545-0 · Cited by 130
“Future studies can benefit from available research design and methods (Hevner 2007; Gregor and Jones 2007) and extend the existing literature on prescriptive work to improving trust in e-commerce.”
Kalischko, T., & Riedl, R. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633031 · Cited by 96
Seven Paradoxes of Business Process Management in a Hyper-Connected World
Beverungen, D., Buijs, J. C. A. M., Becker, J., Di Ciccio, C., van der Aalst, W. M. P., Bartelheimer, C., vom Brocke, J., Comuzzi, M., Kraume, K., Leopold, H., et al. (2021) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-020-00646-z · Cited by 89
Theory-oriented software engineering
Stol, K.-J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2015) · Science of Computer Programming · doi:10.1016/j.scico.2014.11.010 · Cited by 63
The sensemaking-coevolution-implementation theory of software design
Ralph, P. (2015) · Science of Computer Programming · doi:10.1016/j.scico.2014.11.007 · Cited by 60
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
Designing for mobile value co-creation—the case of travel counselling
Schmidt-Rauch, S., & Schwabe, G. (2014) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-013-0124-8 · Cited by 46
(2011) · DiVA (Linkoping University) · Cited by 41
Lins, S., Schneider, S., Szefer, J., Ibraheem, S., & Ali, A. (2019) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.04425 · Cited by 26
Chohan, S. R., Hu, G., Khan, A. U., Pasha, A. T., & Sheikh, M. A. (2021) · Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy · doi:10.1108/tg-05-2020-0079 · Cited by 26
Hobert, S., & Berens, F. (2020) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39540-7_18 · Cited by 24
(2016) · Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation · Cited by 8
Review of Design-Oriented Green Information Systems Research
Brendel, A. B., Chasin, F., Mirbabaie, M., Riehle, D. M., & Harnischmacher, C. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14084650 · Cited by 6
Reframing AI Literacy in Higher Education: Designing Curricula for Ethically Competent Managers
Confetto, M. G., Covucci, C., Manta, O., & Califri, C. (2026) · Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1177/10525629261468213
Metadata
- Authors
- Central Queensland University, A., Jones, D., Gregor, S., & The Australian National University, A.
- Venue
- Journal of the Association for Information Systems
- Publisher
- Association for Information Systems
- Published
- 2007-05
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 312-335
- ISSN
- 1536-9323 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2169571673
- Cited by
- 1,490
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 194.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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.
