1. Raimo Hälinen (2012)
Lahti 14.12.2012

2.  12.00 – 13.30 Action Design Research
 13.30 – 14.00 Cafee break
 14.00 – 15.00 Using Action Design Reseach method
 Discussion how to apply ADR-method
 15.00 – 16.00 Comparison DSR, AR and ADR
methods
 how to generalize results using by deduction and induction
 Summary and conclusion

3. ISDSR Framework Activity Framework for DSR
Dominant
paradigm
Design science Utility theory, Problem theories
Focus Solution focused Problem-oriented, solution focused
Perspective Researcher as experimenter
(intervener)
Researcher as theory developer and
experimenter
Logic Intervention-outcome Enhancement or creation of a method,
product, system, practice or technique
Research question Alternative IS interventions for
classes of problems
Problem space understanding and causes and
consequences
Research product Tested and grounded
technological rules (design
knowledge)
Tested and evaluated product by
Field studies, Experiments
Action research, Simulations
Nature of research
product
Heuristic Iterative cyclical process from theoretical
basis to evaluated and implemented product
Justification Saturated evidence Meta-design and meta-requirements
Type of resulting
theory
Practical and abstract IS design
theory and knowledge
Practical and scientific IS design theory and
knowledge
Source: Walls et al (1992), van Aken (2004), Carlsson (2006), Venable (2006)

4. Paradigmatic dimension Action research Design science research
Ontology Anti-realism Realism or anti-realism
Epistemology Mainly anti-positivism Mainly positivism but
also anti-positivism
especially in evaluation
Methodology Idiographic Constructive (building)
Nomotethic (evaluation)
Idiographic (evaluation)
Ethics Meand-end
Possible interpretive
Unlikely critical
Means-end
Possible interpretive
Possible critical
Source: Iivari and Venable (2009)
“Considering the practical implications of this analysis, we further identify that the employment of
AR in the conduct of DSR needs to be done with care, especially where there is the potential for
significant risk to the client or other stakeholders.”

5. Action design research
approach
Action research
criterion
Design research criterion
Problem identification and
definition
The principle of
research-client
agreement
Design as an artifact
Problem relevance
Build, intervention and
evaluation (BIE)
The principle of cyclical
process model
The principle of theory
Design evaluation
Research rigor
Design as a search process
Reflection and learning The principle of change
through action
The principle of learning
through action
Communication of research
results for practitioners and
researchers.
Formalization of learning Research contribution
Source: Cole, Purao, Rossi and Sein (2005)

6. Action research Design science research
Action research emphasizes the utility aspect of
the future system from the people’s point of
view.
Design science’s products are assessed against criteria
of valua or utility.
Action research produces knowledge to guide
practice in modification.
Design science produces design knowledge (concepts,
constructs, models, and methods.)
Action research means both action taking and
evaluating.
Buildin and evaluation are the two main activities of
design science.
Action researc is carried out in collaboration
between action researcher and and the client
system.
Design science research is initiated by the researcher(s)
interest in developing technological rules for a certain
type of issue. (Each individual case is primarily oriented at solvin
the local problem in close collaboration wtih the local people.)
Action research modifies a given reality or
develops new system.
Design science solves construction problems (producing
new innovations) and improvement problems (improving the
performance of existing entities).
The researcher intervenes in the problem setting. Design science research is initiated by the researcher
(s) interest in developing technological rules for certain
type of issue.
Knowledge is generated, used, tested adn
modified in the course of the action research
project.
Knowledge is generated, used and evaluated through
the building action.
Source: Järvinen P: (2005, 2007)

7. 1. Problem Formulation
Principle 1. Practice-Inspired research
Principle 2. Theory-Ingrained Artifact
Principle 3. Data-inspired research
2.
Building, Intervention, and
Evaluation
Principle 3. Reciprocal Shaping
Principle 4. Mutually Influential Roles
Principle 5. Authentic and Concurrent
Evaluation
3. Relfection
and learning
Principle 6.
Guided
Emergence
4. Formalization of Learning
Principle 7. Generalized Outcomes

8. 1. Identify and concepualize the research opportunity
2. Formulate initial research questions
3. Cast the problem as an instance of a class of problems
4. Indentify contributing theoretical bases and prior technology
advances
5. Secure long-term organizational commitment
6. Set up roles and responsibilities
Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) defined IT artifacts as the “bundles of
material and cultural properties packaged in some socially
recognizable form such as hardware and/or software”.

9.  Principle 1. Practice-Inspired Research
The principle emphasizes to consider field problems (real-world
problems)
Action design research method is applied to study intersection of
technological and organizational domains.
The researcher can investigate how technological solutions can be
used to improve organizational processes and achieve better results.
An action design Researchers should try to generate knowledge that
can be applied at the class of problems. (The cases are examples of
the recognized class of problem).
The result from the research activity is problem-inspired.

10.  Principle 2. Theory-Ingrained Artifact
The principle emphasizes that created artifacts are based on theories.
Gregor (2006) explored systems of statements that allow
generalization and abstraction to be theories. Gregor’s theory of Type
IV (explanation and prediction theories) or Type V (design theories)
The applied theories can be universal laws of natural science or ADR-
researcher can utilize the specific theory (e.g. TAM, IS-succes) .
1. Identify problem, 2. Identify potential solutions, 3. design guide.
Ingrained artifact is subject to organizational practice and it provides
basis for cycles of intervention, evaluation and further reshaping.

11. ADR
team
The Generic Schema for IT-dominant building, intervention and evaluation
Practitioners
End-users
Artifact
Design principles
Contribution
to the specific
ensemble being
designed
Utility for
the users
Researcher(s)
Alpha version
Beta version

12. Researcher(s)
Practitioners
End-users
Alpha version Beta version
Implementation of
Artifact
Design principles
Contribution
to the specific
ensemble being
designed
Utility
for the users
ADR
team
The Generic schema for Organization-Dominant BIE
1. Discover initial knowledge creation target
2. Select or customize BIE form
3. Execute BIE cycle(s)
4. Assess need for additional cycles, repeat
Implementation
of an artifact can lead
to modification of
organizational processes
and work flows.

13. Researchers
Practitioners
End-users
ARD
team
Alpha version Beta versin
The Generic Schema for Data-Dominant BIE
Database
Utility for
the users
Contribution
to the specific
database being
designed
Design
principles

14.  Principle 3: Reciprocal Shaping
The iterative process that are described is based on DeGrace and Stahl
(1990) recursive cycles.
Scrum process
Source: scrumalliange.org, DeGrace P and Stahl L. (1990), Sutherland J. (2010)
Scrum meeting 30 min.
1. What did you do yesterday?
2. What will you do today?
3. What obstacles got in your way?
The roles of Scrum project
1. The product owner
2. The Team
3. The Scrum Master
The basic concecpt
1. The product backlog
2. The Sprint
3. Sprint planning
4. Daily scrum meeting
5. Sprint review and retrospective

15.  Principle 4: Mutually Influential Roles
The action design researcher’s role is to share the knowledge of
theory and technological advances.
The practitioner’s role is to consider practical hypotheses and
knowlegde of organizational work practices.
Researchers and practitioners’ role are complementary and complate
each others.
The clear assigment of these responsibilities is important that
reflection and experience can be utilized during the research
projects.

16.  Principle 5: Authentic and Concurrent Evaluation
The evaluation is essential activities in building, intervention and
evaluation process.
The evaluation is not a separate stage as it is e.g. March and Smith
(1995) state-gate models or compared to Peffers et al.’s (2008) model.
The evaluation is ongoing and continues from start to the end of the
project. The style of evaluation is formative (Remenyi and
Sherwood-Smith (1999).
The summative evaluation is utilized for beta version evaluation.
The controlled evaluation may be difficult to achieve, so it should
be carried as part of natural controls where possible.

17.  Principle 6: Guided Emergence
The designed artifact will reflect preliminary design and ongoing
shaping by organizational use, perspective and participants.
Component of ISDT Design product
1. Meta-requirement
2. Meta-design
Describes the class of goals to which the theory
applies.
Describes a class of artifacts hypothesized to meet
meta-requirements.
3. Kernel theories Theories from natural or social sciences governing
design requirements.
4. Testable design
product hypotheses
Used to test whether the meta-design satisfies the
meta-requirements.
Design process
1. Design method A description of procedure(s) for artifact
construction.
3. Kernel theories Theories from natural or social sciences governing
design process itself.
4. Testable design
process hypotheses
Used to verify whether the design method results in
an artifact which is consistent with meta-design.
Source: Walls et al. (1992, 2004)
Kernel
theories
Meta-
requiremens
Meta-design
Testable
desing
product
Kernel
theories
Desing
method
Testable
design
process

18.  The objective is to formalize the learning.
 According to Van Aken (2004), the situated
learning should develop general solution
concepts for a class of field problems.
 Principle 7: Generized Outcomes
1. Generalization of the problem instance
2. Generalization of the solution instance
3. derivation of design principles from the design research
outcomes.

19. 1. Absract the learning into concepts for a class of real-
world problems.
2. Share outcomes and assessment with practitioners
3. Articulate outcomes as design principles
4. Articulate learning in light of theories selected
5. Formalize results for dissemination
Tsang and Williams (2012) Definition of statements:
a statement is empirical when and only when it cannot be ascertained to
be true or false without experience or observation.
a statement is theoretical when and only when it is a generalization that
purports to predict and explain the phenomena to which it refers.

20. Evidence
Cause Effect
Prescribed
action
Explanatory statement
Goal
Prescribtive statement
Articact
evaluation
Kernel
theories
Mid-range
theories
Design
theories
Theory development
Might lead to
Is installed to lead to
Source: Kuechler and Vaishnavi (20008)
can be confirmed byleads to revision of
Kuechler and Vaishnavi (2008) pointed out to need for to create mid-range
theories. The mid-range theories act as a bridge between kernel theories
and design theories.

21. Design Theory
Design
Principles
Design
process
Class of
Problems
Problem
Solution as
an artifact in
use
Class of
Solutions
Four levels in conceptual process:
1. Generalization of the problem
instance
2. Generalization of the solution
instance
3. Emerging design knowledge in the
form of design principles
4. Feedback to design theory
Level 1 Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Rossi, Purao and Sein (2012)

22.  Trying to generalize results of the research project can be
characterized using by Yin’s process(1994, p.31).
Theory Rival theory
Population
characteristics
Sample of
research
Case study
findings
Experimental
findings
Subjects
Level-2
inference
Level-1
inference

23.  Lee and Baskerville (2003) considered generalization problem and
proposed the framework.
Generalizing
empirical statements
Generalizing to
theoretical statements
Generalizing from
empirical statements
(EE)
Generalizing from data to
description.
Measurement, observation or
other description.
It may be Inductive analogy.
(ET)
Generalizing from desription
to theory.
Measurement, observation or
other description to a theory
Generalizing from
theoretical statements
(TE) (emprical testing)
Generalizing from theory to
description.
Confirmed in one setting, to
descriptions of other settings.
(Deduction)
(TT) ?
EE = emprical to emprical, ET = empirical to theory
TE = theory to empirical, TT = theoretical to theory
Accroding to Järvinen P review this framework may be problematic?

24. Theory
Same
population
Different
population
Different
context
Different
time
Within-population
generalization
Cross-population
generalization
Contextual
generalization
Temporal
generalization
Sample
Particular
instance
Theoretical
generalization
Inductive analogy
Statistical syllogism
Empirical level
Source: modfied from Tsang and Williams (2012)

25. Types Definition
Theoretical Generalization from research findings to theories
Within-
population
Generalizing from the characteristics of a sample to those of the corresponding
population.
Cross-population Generalizing from a sample in one population to members of another population,
with both population existing in a similar context and a similar period of time.
Contextual Generalizing from a sample in one population to members of another population,
with both population existing in a significantly different context but a similar
period of time.
Temporal Generalizing from a sample in one population at one point in time to members of
the same or a different population at another point in time, assuming that the
context remains more or less the same.
Statistical
syllogism
An inference of the form
P1 N % of Fs are Gs.
P2 X is an F.
C X is a G.
where “N” denotes a precise statistic or a vague range of statistics as in “Most” or
“Nearly all.”
Inductive
analogy
An inference of the form
P1 X has properties a, b, c … and z
P2 Y has properties a, b, c …
C Y has property z
Source: adopted from Tsang and Williams (2012

26. Property Design research Action research Action design
research
Artifact Central Peripheral Central
Organizational impact Peripheral Central Central
Subject participation in
research design
Possible Mandatory Mandatory
Subject Feedback Discrete Continous Continous
Transferability Explicit Implicit Explicit
Success measure Quantifiable
measures of artifact
behaviour
Organizational
impact
Organizational
learning and artifact
generalizability
Source: Henfidsson (2011)

27. Orientation Quantitative Qualitative
Assumption about
the world
A single reality and specified real-
world phenomenon.
Multiple realities and real-world phenomena.
Purpose of the
research
Trying to establish relationships
between measured variables.
Trying to understand social situation from
participants’ perspective.
Methods and
processes
Research procedures and activities are
established before research begins.
Hypotheses are formulated before
study can begin.
Deductive approach.
Research procedures and activities varies depending
on data gathering and how the study is proceeding.
Saturation point is essential for data collection process.
Inductive approach.
Researcher’s role Ideally an objective observator. The researcher participates in the study activities, and
it can have different roles during the research project.
Participant’s role No active role during the research
project.
Participants’ role is the active participant from start to
the end of the project.
Research results
and
generalizability
Generalizations are context-free
depending on sample size and
population.
Generalizations are based on context-detailed data and
analysis.
Source: Modified from Thomas (2010)

28. Contingency
variables
Strategy
Structure
Size
Environment
Technology
Individual
Task
Management
information
system
Design
Management
implementation
investment
Use
Implementation
Management
information
system
Performance
Firm
Performance
Use
Satisfaction
Success
Effectiveness
Perception
Financial
Source: Weil and Olson (1987)

29. Intensive cases Comparative cases
Purpose Developing theory from intensive
exploration.
Developing concepts based on
case comparison.
Assumption Creativity through comparison with
existing theories.
Comparison of cases leads to
more useful theory.
Examples
Situation Usually evolves out of a researcher’s
intensive experience with culture or
organization
Usually concepts are
developed from one case
compared with another case.
Types Narratives, tabulation, explanatory
or interpretative
Case comparison, case survey,
interpretative comparison.
Source: Järvinen (2011)

30. Stage Key Charasteristics
Identify research
problem and
question(s).
Phenomenon is examined in a natural
setting. The focus is on contemporary
events.
Determine type of case
study.
The complexity of the unit is studied
intensively.
Select participants or
groups.
One or view entities are examined
(person,group, organization)
Collect data. Data are collected by multiple means.
Analyze data. Independent and dependent variables
are not specified in advance.
Within-case or cross-case analysis.
Compose the report. Why and How questions are useful in
case studies.
Evaluate the validity
and reliability.
No experimental controls or
manipulation are involved.
Write proposals. The resultss derived depend heavily
on the intergrative powers of
investigator.
Write contributions.
The research
situation
Problem
analysis
Field insights
and data
gathering
Resourse
development
evaluate the
validity and
reliability
Write
Proposals
Real-world
situation
A single
case
Source: modified from Benbasat et al. (1987), Eisenhardt K.M. (1989) Järvinen P. (2012)

31.  How and Why questions are important
 The focus is contemporal
 The purpose of case studies:
 Description of phenomena
 Grounded theory can be applied to explore
phenomena
 Explorative approach is used to validate, confirm or
falsify developed theory or model based on collected
data.

32.  Conceptual requirements:
 Construct validity
 Internal validity
 External validity
 Reliability
 Structural requirements:
 Relevance for the audience
 Voyage of discovery
 Controversies
 Include all necessary data but not too much
 Formal structure and elaboration

33. Plan the human
centred process
Specify the
context of use
Specify user
requirements
Specify
organizational
requirements
Specify main
features of an
application
Design and
develop an
application
Evaluate appication
against user
requirements
Evaluate application
against organizational
requirements
Demonstrate
application against
speficied features
(Field experiment)
Information
related work
systems
Test processes
module test
Incremental
Acceptance test
verification
Practitioners
Users, managers and executices
participates to define needed features.

34.  Baskerville and Wood-Harper’s strategies:
 Establish an ethical client-system infrastructure
 Design data gathering process carefully
 Follow the planned iterative phases:
 plan action
 take action
 evaluate action
 Promote collaboration by the subject and support their
subjects’ learning cycles.
 Write the report that disseminate the scientific knowledge
in a way that it is possible to carry out future research
and by this way confirm or refute any causal suggestions
or claims of generilized theory.

35.  The following slides include examples, how ADR-method
has been applied by other researchers.
 Saarinen L. (2012) Dissertation in Aalto University
 Rothengatter D. (2012) Dissertation
 Modified action design reserch method:
 Bilandzic and Venable (2011): Participatory Action Design
Research method, a new method applied to urban
informatics in Australia
 Wieringa and Morali (2012) Technical Action Research as a
Validation Method in ISDS.
 Papas, O’Keefe and Seltsikas (2012) The Action research vs
design science debate: reflection from an intervention in
eGovernment. They point out that ADR-method is meta-
method.

36. Source: Saarinen (2012) Dissertation

37. Source: Rothengatter (2012) Dissertation

38. Literature review
Initial design
Problem formulation
Domain analysis
Implementation of
improved design
Evaluation of
improved desing
Building, intervention and
evalluaution
Donain analysis
Implementation of
initial design in case
Evaluation
Design updating
based on evaluation
Building, implementing
and evaluation
Analysis of initial
design
Analysis of
evaluation of desing
Analysis of improved
desing
Reflection and learning
Update of underlying
theories
Formalization of final
design
Formalization of learning
Rothengatter’s meta-level
process in ADR included
two building, intervention
and evaluation states.
First iteration stage focus is
to develop version 1.
Second iteration stage
includes an improvement of
version one after evaluation
is carried out, and results are
available.
Reflection and learning
include three analyses.
Rothengatter applied
contingency theory to
achieve IS performance
and organizational
performance of
Information system
design (ISD).

39. Source: Bilandzic and Venable (2011)
Diagnosis and
Problem formulation
Action planning
Action taking: design
Impact evaluation
Reflection and
learning
Participative problem setting
Ethnographic study
Opportunity identification
Participative planning
Participative design
Prototyping and installation
Ethnographic study
Participative evaluation
Participative client learning
Design theorizing for UI
Urban informatics
Community, Urban dwellers
Social good
Well-being, healt, social
connectedness
Government, public institution
Open, mobile, diverse
Public, access for all
Public
Completely discretionary
Essential

40. IT-artefact
problem
investigation
IT-artefact
design
It-artefact
design
validation
It-artefact
implementation
Implementation
evaluation
Research
problem
investigation
Research
design
Research
design
validation
Research
execution
Analysis of
research results
and publishing
Client-system
problem
investigation
Treatment
design
Design
validation
Implementation
in the Client-
system
Implentation
evaluation and
applying results

41. Engineering
cycle
Engineering
cycle
Idealizing assumptions Realistic assumptions
o o o o
Framework for IS design science
Environ-
ment
IS design sccience
Knowledge
base
Improvement
problem
solving
Knowledge
question
investigation
Goals
Artifact
Knowledge

42. Real-world practices and values
Local
Practices
Design
Research
Practice
Reserch
Practices
Knowledge base and values
Contribution to
general practice
Contribution to
knowledge base
Practical Realm Academic Realm
Purely practical
contribution
Practical and scientific
contribution
Purely scientific
contribution
Practical
advancement
Scientific advancement
No
contribution
Source: modified from Sjöström and Donellan (2012

43. Research object Questions AR DR ADR
The artefact What is the role of the artefact?
Is the design of the artefact to improve organizational practice?
Is the use cases needed to before artefact development?
? ? ?
The process and
research cycles
How is the research problem going to be determined and agreed?
Is a predetermined cycle of activity going to be followed?
Is a software development method a necessary part of the activities?
? ? ?
The focus of
evaluation
Can evaluation be a by-product of the research cycle?
Is it necessary to carry out explicit evaluation activities?
(e.g. ex-ante, ongoing, ex-post, verifaction and validation)
How are acceptance tests included to research cycle?
? ? ?
The role of
knowledge
How is the role of knowledge concerning researchers understanding of
real-world phenomena?
How is the role of knowledge about practitioners understanding of the
research processes?
? ? ?
The role of learning What expectations are in question of learning in organizational
practices?
? ? ?
The role of
practical results
How important is the artefact or improvement of the organizational
process during the research process?
? ? ?
The role of
scientific results
To what extent is to develop scientific knowledge during the research
process?
? ? ?
Source: modified from Papas et al. (2012)

44. Identify real-world situations (P)
and
desired outcomes (O)
Review (kernel theories)
and
previous research
Propose/refine
design theory
Test design theory
Source: Carlsson et al. (2007), Hrastinski et al. (2007)
O=f(p,i,c,m),
where
P = problem
I = IS initiative
M = Mechanism
C = Context
O = Outcomes
A realist
Information
Systems
intervention

45. Research area Research objects
Design science
research
Design research
method are used
more int the future.
Design and designers
are selected to the
research objects.
Design science theory
is developed and
studied in the future.
Healt care and
IT
Safety and efficiency
healt-care systems.
e-recipes, electronic
medical records.
clinical decision
support systems.
Design challengies are
multiple.
Green
technology and
IT
Carbon footprints:
1. Primary
2. Secondary
Renowable energy
and energy usage in
IS.
Green computing:
Algritm efficiency
Computer
virtualization
Telecommuting
Collaboration Two-way
information channels
Collaboratice design Education
Web 2.0 (3.0) Semantic web Social media Voice over IP
Game industry Designer Software developers Animators
Source: modified from Hevner et al. (2010)

46.  Bilandzic, M., & Venable, J. (2011). Towards Participatory Action Design Research: Adapting Action
Research and Design Science Research Methods for Urban Informatics. Journal of Community
Informatics. Special Issue: Research in Action: Linking Communities and Universities, 7(3).
 Carlsson, S.A. (2006): Towards an Information Systems Design Research Framework: A Critical Realist
Perspective, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Design Science in Information Systems and
Technology (DESRIST 2006), 192-212.
 Henfridsson O. (2010) Action Design Research, presentation slides, University of Oslo
 Hevner A and Chatterjee S. (2010) Design Research in Information Systems, Theory and
Practice, Integrated Series in Information Systems 22, Springer.
 Järvinen P. (2012) On baundaries between field experiment, action research and design
research, University of Tamper, School of Information Sciences, Reports in Information Sciences
14, Tampere
 Järvinen P. (2010) IS reviews, Department of Computer Sciences, University of Tampere, DE-2010-
16, Tampere
 Lee, A. S., and Baskerville, R. L. 2003. “Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems
Research,” Information Systems Research (14:3), pp. 221-243.
 Rothengatter D. (2012) Engineering situational methods for professional service organization, An
action design research approach, CTIT Ph D. Thesis Series No. 11-225, Enchede.
 Saarinen L. (2012) Enhancing ICT Supported Distributed Learning through Action Design
Research, Department of Information and Service Economy, Aalto University, Doctoral Dissertation.
 Sein, Henfridsson, Purao, Rossi and Lindgren (2011), Action Design research, MIS Quarterly, Vol.
35, No. 1, pp. 37-56
 Sjörström and Donellan (2012) Design research practice: A product semantics interpretation, The
International workshop on IT Artefact Design & Workpractice Intervention, 10 June 2012, Barcelona
 Tsang E. W. K. and Williams J.N. (2012) Generalization and induction: Clarifications, and a
classification of induction, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 729-748.
 Yin R.K, (2003 ) Case Study Resaarch, 3rd edition, Sage Publication.