See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321138680

Mapping a Design Science Research Cycle to the Postgraduate Research Report

Conference Paper · November 2017

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-69670-6_21

CITATIONS READS

6 2,933

3 authors:

Alta Van der Merwe Aurona Gerber

University of Pretoria University of Pretoria
129 PUBLICATIONS 1,552 CITATIONS 83 PUBLICATIONS 783 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hanlie Smuts
University of Pretoria
90 PUBLICATIONS 344 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hanlie Smuts on 23 September 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Mapping a Design Science Research Cycle
to the Postgraduate Research Report

Alta van der Merwe, Aurona Gerber, and Hanlie Smuts(B)

Department of Informatics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

{alta.vdm,aurona.gerber,hanlie.smuts}@up.ac.za

Abstract. Design science research (DSR) is well-known in different

domains, including information systems (IS), for the construction of arte-
facts. One of the most challenging aspects of IS postgraduate studies
(with DSR) is determining the structure of the study and its report,
which should reflect all the components necessary to build a convincing
argument in support of such a study’s claims or assertions. Analysing
several postgraduate IS-DSR reports as examples, this paper presents
a mapping between recommendable structures for research reports and
the DSR process model of Vaishnavi and Kuechler, which several of our
current postgraduate students have found helpful.

Keywords: Design science research · Students’ report writing · Design

science report · Postgraduate education · Research reports

1 Introduction
Design science research (DSR) adopts a pragmatic research paradigm to develop
artefacts that are innovative and solve real-world problems [12]. DSR is relevant
for information systems (IS) research because it directly addresses two of the
discipline’s key aspects, namely the central role of the IS artefact in IS research
and the perceived lack of professional relevance of IS research [9]. The notion
of ‘design as research’ in the IS domain is relatively new. The adoption of DSR
in IS research is mainly due to [10], wherein an IS research framework (ISRF)
is provided that emphasises the rigour and relevance of the research. At the
same time, [23] introduced a process model for DSR with awareness, suggestion,
development, evaluation and conclusion as subsequent phases. This model is dis-
cussed in more detail in Sect. 2. In IS, research often includes the construction
of some kind of artefact. Exactly what such an artefact entails is often also the
topic of rigorous debate [19,22]. Although [7] provides a framework for report-
ing in a research project, it do not discuss the process model of DSR in the
same way as [23]. Independently of the research approach followed for a research
project, students find the process of structuring the research report in such a
manner that it forms a valid argument to be a challenge. This is often especially
true in postgraduate studies that include the construction of an artefact in the
research project. In such cases, students need to develop a document structure
c Springer International Publishing AG 2017
J. Liebenberg and S. Gruner (Eds.): SACLA 2017, CCIS 730, pp. 293–308, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69670-6_21
294 A. van der Merwe et al.

that supports the research contribution, and which includes an artefact compris-
ing more than one component. The purpose of our paper is to consider the DSR
process model as in [23], and propose possible document structures to support
the research contribution in the research report. Using an analysis of several
postgraduate research reports that successfully adopted DSR, this paper devel-
ops a mapping between the proposed structure of a research report and the DSR
process model of [23]. The mapping is presented in four scenarios and validated
with two examples of completed research reports. The mapping and scenarios
were subsequently validated in a workshop with doctoral degree candidates. The
feedback results indicated that the mapping was useful for all DSR students who
needed to structure their research reports.

2 Background: DSR
DSR is primarily concerned with research on design as science [1,6,7,13–15,23].
The intent of DSR is to create an artefact through a balanced process that
combines the highest standards of rigour with a high level of relevance. One
of the measures of DSR is whether the research resulted in a relevant artefact,
but also whether the process was rigorous [8,24]. Figure 1 depicts the ISRF of
[8,10]. Using this framework, DSR is described as research building and evalu-
ating computing artefacts designed to meet identified needs [8]. The goal of the
artefact is the fulfilment of a specific need or utility. The description of the needs
would provide the requirements for the artefact. In the building of the artefact,
knowledge from the applicable knowledge base is used. During evaluation, the
artefact is measured against the needs to evaluate its utility [22]. One of the
central discussions in DSR is what is recognised as an ‘artefact’ in the DSR par-
adigm [19,22]. One of the reasons is that the artefact is not always tangible, but
more often intangible (such as a model, software, a framework or architecture).
In DSR, it is accepted that the artefact embodies or is part of the design theory
[21]. The following three discussions on DSR artefacts appear in [18]:

– Constructs, models and methods are DSR ‘artefacts’ in [25], whereas con-
structs, models, methods, instantiation and better theories are DSR ‘outputs’
in [23].
– DSR ‘outputs’ were analyzed in [21], identified as constructs, models, methods
and instantiations, as well as social innovations or new properties of technical,
social or informational resources. Accordingly, an ‘artefact’ is any designed
object with an embedded solution to an understood research problem.
– In [19] we can find an exhaustive list of acceptable DSR artefacts that included
software, algorithms, methods, models, frameworks and architecture, grouped
into eight types: system design, method, language or notation, algorithm,
guideline, requirements, pattern and metric.

For the purpose of this paper, it is accepted that the IS DSR artefact is anything
that is delivered by a rigorous research and development process and that can
be shown to fulfil an identified need.
 Mapping a Design Science Research Cycle 295

Fig. 1. Information systems research framework according to [10]

2.1 DSR Methodology

One of the most-cited methods accepted by DSResearchers is the design cycle

or process model of [23], (see Fig. 2). The method was derived from other DSR
advocates such as [8,9,16]. In [23] the following five phases for the execution of
a typical DSR project are recommended:

1. Awareness of the problem: The awareness could be generated from prac-

tical experience or from related disciplines. The output from this phase is a
proposal.
2. Suggestion: The suggestion is closely related to the awareness of the prob-
lem (as indicated by the dotted line). The suggestion is often included as a
tentative design in the complete proposal as output. However, an approach to
develop a suggestion might be included in the proposal if a possible solution
is not immediately evident.
3. Development: The tentative design is implemented during this phase and
the technique for implementation will differ depending on the artefact.
4. Evaluation: When the artefact has been developed, the evaluation of the
artefact is mandatory, usually according to requirements and criteria speci-
fied during the suggestion phase (as part of the proposal). The result of the
evaluation should be carefully noted and explained. This phase may result in
the refinement of an awareness, a suggestion or a development, especially if
the result of the evaluation is not satisfactory.
296 A. van der Merwe et al.

Fig. 2. Design science research process model (DSR cycle) according to [23]

5. Conclusion: This is the final phase when the research results and contri-
bution are identified. This not only includes the artefact, but all additional
knowledge with regard to the process, construction and evaluation that were
acquired. The output of this phase is an acceptable research contribution.

The notion of ‘iteration’, as indicated by the arrows on the left in Fig. 2, is

embedded in the DSR method. It is possible to branch back to awareness during
the execution of development, evaluation and conclusion. Several cycles of the
abovementioned notions are often executed during the construction of a DSR
artefact. Circumscription is due to the discovery of constraint knowledge about
the theories gained through the detection and analysis of contradictions, but in
practice these cycles also occur because development, evaluation and conclusion
in DSR often expose new problems that could be entered into the DSR cycle at
the awareness stage [23].
The DSR process model of [23] summarises the phases that are necessary to
execute a DSR project. Nowadays, the approach is often adopted by researchers
and postgraduate students in IS as an acknowledged, repeatable process for the
construction of a useful artefact and research contribution. Given the adoption
of this approach, it is possible to argue that the specific process model for DSR
plays a valuable role in ensuring that computing research is more rigorous and
repeatable, but also relevant and useful. For the remainder of this paper, refer-
ence will be made to the DSR process model of [23] (Fig. 2) simply as ‘the DSR
process model’.
 Mapping a Design Science Research Cycle 297

Fig. 3. Structure of a research report in [4]

3 Typical Structure of a Research Report

Multiple considerations, such as subject chosen and research approach, drive the
planning around the structure of a postgraduate study or research report [20]. In
theoretical and textual studies the introduction is normally followed by chapters
that reflect the analysis of secondary literature and the conclusion. In contrast,
the structure of an empirical study is largely dictated by the methods utilised.
Generally, for most studies, the student will have to include a chapter that
explains the research design, another on the analysis and presentation of findings,
as well as a discussion and recommendations [17,26]. Therefore, the structure
of a research report (dissertation or thesis) followed by students in most disci-
plines usually consists of an introduction, background, body (core) and conclu-
sion [4,11]. As mentioned in [4] (see Fig. 3), all sections in a research report are
connected. The report’s conclusion connects to the goal, and the background
acts as input to the core or body of the work.
In [11] it was proposed that the text consists of an introduction, literature
review, method, body and conclusion, (see Fig. 4). The purpose of the introduc-
tion is to give an overview of the report, and includes sections on the research
questions, objectives, a problem statement and a brief chapter overview. The
second section in this document structure is the literature review, where the
theory base for the study is introduced: from a high-level or broad perspective,
as well as an in-depth discussion of relevant topics. This section might consist
of more than one chapter. The method chapter, which provides an overview of
the research design, including the research instruments for data analysis and
data collection, follows the literature review. The body section of the research
report usually consists of the evidence of how the student either proved his or
her hypothesis if working deductively, or how he or she derived at a contribution
298 A. van der Merwe et al.

Fig. 4. Structure of a research paper or research report in [11]

if working inductively. The body might be more than one chapter, depending on
the format in which the student presents the work. Lastly, the conclusion of the
work consists of a summary of the findings and the contribution. The questions
that guide this structure, although not explicitly mentioned, are the following:
what do I want to know? (Sect. 1); what do I know? (Sect. 2); what will I do?
(Sect. 3); what did I find when I executed my plan? (Sect. 4); what is the solution
or contribution? (Sect. 5).
Despite the proposed structure of a research paper or research report discussed
above, students often find it difficult to structure a study that adopts a DSR
method. It is, for instance, not clear how to integrate the DSR process model
into the proposed document structure. Awareness of a problem could typically fit
in Sect. 1 of the document structure, but where would the suggestion then fit in?
The literature review should support the problem and therefore the awareness. So
does the literature review follow the awareness or does the awareness description
follow the literature review? How would the development phase be included given
the proposed document structure, especially if more than one development cycle
was included in artefact development? Including different theory sections for
different development cycles to accommodate the rigour requirement of [10] is
even more confusing.

4 Research Report Structures for DSR Process Models

Since the acceptance of DSR as an acceptable research approach for IS research,
several discussions about the structure of a DSR research project have com-
menced. For example, [7] proposed the publication scheme summarised in Table 1
for DSR studies. Due to the wide-spread adoption of the process model of [23],
 Mapping a Design Science Research Cycle 299

Table 1. Publication scheme for DSR studies according to [7]

Section Contents
1. Introduction The introduction should include the problem definition,
significance or motivation, an introduction to key
concepts, research questions or objectives, scope of the
study, an overview of methods and findings, theoretical
and practical significance, as well as the structure of the
remainder of the paper.
2. Literature review The literature review includes prior work that is
relevant to the study, including theories, empirical
research studies and findings or reports from practice.
3. Method The method section includes the research approach that
was employed.
4. Artefact description The artefact description should be a concise description
of the artefact at the appropriate level of abstraction to
make a new contribution to the knowledge base
5. Evaluation The evaluation is evidence that the artefact is useful.
6. Discussion The interpretation of the results includes stating what
the results mean and how they relate to the objectives
stated in the introduction section. The discussion can
include a summary of what was learnt, a comparison to
prior work, limitations, theoretical significance, practical
significance, and areas that require further work.
7. Conclusions The concluding paragraphs restate the important
findings of the work

the purpose of our paper is to extend the publication scheme by integrating the
DSR process model and mapping it to the proposed research report structure
(as discussed in the previous section). Postgraduate research reports (theses and
dissertations) of students that successfully adopted the DSR process model were
analysed and four different scenarios were identified. In the first scenario, the
student only had one DSR design cycle, and a single artefact was constructed
during the design. In the second, third and fourth scenarios, the students devel-
oped composite artefacts that consisted of more than one component. The DSR
process therefore included more than one cycle.

4.1 Scenario 1: One Cycle of Design

Often in students’ curricula, especially at master’s degree level, a student might
be involved in the design of a simple artefact with a single function, as opposed
to a composite artefact that consists of more than one component. Examples of
such artefacts include a system with a single defined function, such as a mobile
application. It is also possible to have one single cycle when the artefact consists
of more than one component, but the components are predeveloped and the
300 A. van der Merwe et al.

designer is only involved in the assembly of existing components in the DSR

process. Presenting research of this nature can then be presented using a single
mapping from the DSR process model, as illustrated in Fig. 5. In Fig. 5 the
mapping between the DSR process model and the research report structure is
indicated with numbered arrows (1–8).
Mapping 1: Introduction and Awareness of the Problem. In Sect. 1 of a research
report (the introduction), the student should already introduce the problem.
This this correlates with the awareness phase of the DSR process model.
Mapping 2: Introduction and Suggestion. In Sect. 1 of the research report (the
introduction), the student already provides an indication of the type of solu-
tion (artefact) for the problem (as discussed in Mapping 1).
Mapping 3: Literature Review and Awareness of the Problem. In the literature
review, the student provides proof of the identified problem by, for instance,
discussing a problem that is experienced in practice (relevance) and/or pro-
viding proof that the problem has not previously been resolved in literature.
Usually, this section should include a comprehensive discussion of the existing
related literature and should indicate the lack of a solution in literature.
Mapping 4: Literature Review and Suggestion. The student could already sug-
gest an artefact that could provide a solution for the problem at the end
of the literature review. This artefact could be a construct, model, method,
instantiation or better theory. At this stage, the student might also introduce
any theories that will be used if applicable (to address the rigour requirement
of [10]). It is also possible to only provide the suggestion in the body of the
research report.
Mapping 5: Method and Development. In the method section of the research
report, the student includes a description of the adopted and adapted DSR
process model, which includes the planning of the development of the pro-
posed artefact. Depending on the type of artefact, the student includes how
the artefact will be constructed. For an experimental study, the plan may
include how the artefact will be built and tested. For a qualitative study, the
student may include the questionnaires and analysis methods to be used to
collect data to build the artefact, such as in the case of a construct, method or
conceptual model. The study may also outline how the artefact will be tested.
Depending on the scope of the study, this may include a proof of concept and
not a full test.
Mapping 6: Body and Development. The student includes all the data relevant
to the building of the artefact in the body of the report. For an experimental
study, it might include data on the experiment conducted during the devel-
opment. For the development of a software artefact, the body might include
the description of the system itself and the different screens and functional-
ity. For a qualitative study, the results might be the data that was collected,
as well as the analysis of the data. The body section includes the results of
the study, including the artefact itself. Generally, in a more inductive study,
the artefact is presented at the end, while a more deductive study proposes
the artefact in the beginning of the body section and then follows a more
descriptive process of the development of the artefact.
 Mapping a Design Science Research Cycle 301

Fig. 5. Mapping for a single design science research process cycle

Mapping 7: Body and Evaluation. The body section, usually consisting of sev-
eral chapters, also includes the results of any evaluation that was done. In
a more experimental study, such as the development of an application, this
section includes the testing results of the application. For an inductive quali-
tative study (where the main component of the study consists of constructing
the artefact), the evaluation may include a proof of concept or validation using
data collected from focus groups or interviews, depending on the scope of the
study.
Mapping 8: Conclusion. The last section of the research report summarises
the study and research contribution, including how the artefact as research
contribution has value from a rigour and relevance perspective [10].

4.2 Scenario 2: DSR Process Model with Many Cycles of Design

In doctoral degree studies it is often the case that a composite artefact that
consists of more than one component is constructed. In such a scenario, the same
general format that was discussed in the previous section could be followed, with
extensions in the method (Mapping 5, which influences the development) and the
body (Mapping 6, which influences the development): see Fig. 6. As indicated in
Fig. 6, the research report will still include a main DSR cycle as the main guiding
structure, such as the one discussed in the first scenario. However, the method
section might include a description of several subcycles that are then included in
the body of the research report. The awareness of the first subcycle will form part
302 A. van der Merwe et al.

Fig. 6. Design science research process model with many cycles

of the development of the main DSR process when the student realises that the
development of the main artefact consists of the development of subcomponents.
For the components, there will then be separate cycles that follow the DSR
process model, as indicated by the arrows in Fig. 2. These subresearch cycles
could also extend into further cycles. Each artefact component may be evaluated
separately, or the testing and evaluation could be included in the evaluation of
the complete artefact in the main research cycle.

4.3 Scenario 3: Problem Establishment as Part of the Research

Process
A variation of Scenario 2 occurs when the student cannot provide sufficient
motivation for the research problem from the literature review and needs to
provide additional evidence by, for instance, conducting a pre-study as part of
his or her research study. In this case, the same structure as in Fig. 5 is proposed,
however the awareness and suggestion phases of the DSR process model are
included in the body of the research report, after the literature review.

4.4 Scenario 4: Change in the Research Report Structure

As a final scenario for a DSR research report, it is possible to include the method
section before the literature review. This structure could be problematic and
students are cautioned against its use. This structure might be confusing to the
reader (examiner), as he or she will be confronted with the research design in
the method section before the awareness of the problem (problem description)
and the suggestion are presented.

5 Examples of the Use of the DSR Process Model

As discussed in the previous section, four possible scenarios were identified to
map a research report structure to a study that adopted the DSR process model.
In this section, some examples are discussed to illustrate the proposed mapping.
 Mapping a Design Science Research Cycle 303

Fig. 7. Design science research process model in [2], with the student’s additional com-
ment: “This research design consists of five steps: awareness of the problem, suggestion,
development, evaluation and conclusion. For the awareness of the problem, a literature
review was conducted, while theory analysis, theoretical study and artefact building were
conducted for the suggestion and development. Verification using a proof of concept was
conducted for the evaluation and conclusion”
304 A. van der Merwe et al.

Fig. 8. Design science research process model as a strategy in [5]

5.1 Example of Scenario 1: One Cycle of Design

An example of Scenario 1 can be found in [2] wherein a decision-making tool was
develped to guide users when selecting a technology that integrates ontologies
with relational databases. In this case the student did not map his chapters to
the DSR process model of [23] diagrammatically, but his verbal description in
[2] (chpt. 1) gives evidence of a mapping according to Scenario 1: see the caption
text (in italics) to Fig. 7). In [2] (chpt. 1), the student already introduced the
problem (awareness) and proposed a tool (suggestion), but only linked the DSR
model to his document structure at the end of [2] (chpt. 1) after discussing the
DSR process model.

5.2 Example of Scenario 2: DSR Process Model with Many Cycles

of Design
A conceptual framework for financial reporting was developed and presented in
[5]. The chapter map of that doctoral thesis is depicted in Fig. 8. The develop-
ment of the conceptual framework as an artefact consisted of one main research
cycle and four subcycles. Figure 8 illustrates that the main cycle is documented
in [5] (chpt. 1–3). The development phase branches off into four subcycles, which
are reported on individually in the body [5] (chpt. 4–7). Cycles 1 and 4 include
 Mapping a Design Science Research Cycle 305

Fig. 9. PRIF developed in [3]

evaluation activities, however cycles 2-3 do not. These components are tested in
the main research cycle, which is described in [5] (chpt. 8). The conclusion is
in [5] (chpt. 9): it summarises the study’s contribution. The method used in [5]
aligns with the discussion of Scenario 2 (see above) where a main DSR cycle is
proposed with a number of subcycles as part of the development phase.

5.3 Example of Scenario 3: Establishment of the Problem as Part

of the Research Process

As mentioned, it is possible to also include the awareness and suggestion in the

body of the research report. In the another example [3] we can also find more
than one cycle for the development of a process reuse identification framework
(PRIF), as illustrated in Fig. 9. In contrast to [5], a survey was conducted in [3]
to establish the research problem clearly. This problem is then discussed in the
body of [3]. The problem is introduced in the introduction and literature review
306 A. van der Merwe et al.

sections, but since the evidence was not conclusive, the problem was confirmed
to align with the relevance requirement of [10] by providing the survey results
after the method section in the body of the report [3] (chpt. 5). The subcycles are
all reported on individually in [3] (chpt. 7–9), and the evaluation and conclusion
are provided in [3] (chpt. 10). The structure in [3] is an example of Scenario 3,
which provides additional evidence for the problem identification.

6 Discussion
In the past few years, we encountered several postgraduate students in comput-
ing (both under our supervision, as well as research reports examined externally)
that adopted DSR, more specifically, the DSR process model of [23] as their pre-
ferred research approach. During a PhD workshop conducted with postgraduate
second- and third-year DSR PhD candidates who were involved in the struc-
turing of their research reports, the different scenarios presented in Sect. 5 were
proposed. The discussions included the presentation of examples from completed
research reports that adopted DSR. All postgraduate students (n = 7) found the
scenario discussions, as well as the examples of other students’ work and DSR
structures of value. The discussion on the DSR process model of [23] and how
it relates to the students’ own cycles of design and development of the artefact
resulted in enthusiastic interaction. Discussions during the session included the
fact that each student’s work is unique and that it is necessary for each stu-
dent to construct his or her own research report workflow. Students specifically
emphasized the usefulness of the mapping and the scenarios, as they may be
applied to both qualitative and quantitative research, and already accommodate
some of the unique nuances of their research. In addition, students emphasised
particular advantages of their applications of the mapping and scenarios:
– The first advantage pertained to the approach to their research when exe-
cuting multiple design cycles. As the challenge for a student often lies in the
‘how to’, students at the workshop reflected that the scenario of multiple
cycles provided clear guidelines for their approach and illustrated how one
cycle informed the next in the context of what they know to be (through
theory) their required research output.
– The second advantage students identified related to the write-up of their
research reports. Students who were in the process of writing up their disser-
tations or theses, highlighted the fact that a major challenge they experienced
was to write up their research in a way that an examiner or external stake-
holder may follow the presented argument. In this instance, the mapping and
scenarios provided a solid recommendation on structuring a DSR study in
order to produce an organised research report that correctly reflected the
results and outcomes of their research.
– Lastly, students reflected that research papers, such as journal papers and
conference proceedings, in the DSR literature accommodated and referred
to multiple stances that were aligned to many research methodologies and
approaches where they were applied—an incidence that makes it more difficult
 Mapping a Design Science Research Cycle 307

for the students to find their own way. The scenarios and mapping provided a
perfect vantage point—like a one-stop shop—from where the students could
make sense of the DSR body of knowledge and particular application in their
research study before embarking on a study of the broader DSR domain. This
pointed to an inside-out consideration, rather than an outside-in approach,
which, with such a focused starting point, provided clear direction and saved
time when dealing with DSR research reports.

7 Conclusion

We acknowledge that there will be slight variations in the structure, depending

on the unique research problems and approaches. However, in general, it is pos-
sible for studies that adopt DSR to map the requirements of a research report
to the DSR process model. Given the feedback that was discussed above, the
scenarios presented in this paper should provide valuable guidance for students
who need to structure a DSR research report.

Acknowledgments. Thanks to Neels van Rooyen for his help with the type-setting
of this paper.

References
1. Baskerville, R., Vaishnavi, V.: Pre-theory design frameworks and design theorizing.
In: HICSS Proceedings 49th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, pp. 4464–4473 (2016)
2. Chimamiwa, G.: Using ontologies to structure information in a web information
portal. Dissertation: University of South Africa (2011)
3. de Vries, M.: A process reuse identification framework using an alignment model.
Doctoral Dissertation: University of Pretoria (2012)
4. Evans, D., Gruba, P., Zobel, J.: How to Write a Better Thesis. Springer, Cham
(2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04286-2
5. Gerber, T.: The conceptual framework for financial reporting represented in a
formal language. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pretoria (2015)
6. Gill, T.G., Hevner, A.R.: A fitness-utility model for design science research.
In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS,
vol. 6629, pp. 237–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-642-20633-7 17
7. Gregor, S., Hevner, A.: Positioning and presenting design science research for max-
imum impact. MIS Q. 37, 337–355 (2013)
8. Hevner, A.: A three-cycle view of design science research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19(2),
87–92 (2007)
9. Hevner, A., Chatterjee, S.: Design science research in information systems. Design
22, 209–233 (2010)
10. Hevner, A., March, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28,
75–105 (2004)
11. Hofstee, E.: Constructing a Good Dissertation. EPE (2006)
 308 A. van der Merwe et al.

12. Hovorka, D.S.: Design science research: a call for a pragmatic perspective. In: Pro-
ceedings of SIGPrag Workshop, Sprouts Working Papers on Information Systems
(2009)
13. Kuechler, B., Vaishnavi, V.: Extending prior research with design science research:
two patterns for DSRIS project generation. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P.
(eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 166–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20633-7 12
14. Kuechler, B., Vaishnavi, V.: On theory development in design science research:
anatomy of a research project. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 17, 489–504 (2008)
15. Kuechler, W., Vaishnavi, V.: The emergence of design research in information
systems in North America. J. Des. Res. 7(1), 1–16 (2008)
16. March, S., Storey, V.: Design and natural science research on information technol-
ogy. Decis. Support Syst. 15(4), 251–266 (2008)
17. Mouton, J.: How to Succeed in Your Masters and Doctoral Studies. Van Schaik
(2008)
18. Naidoo, R., Gerber, A., van der Merwe, A.: An exploratory survey of design science
research amongst South African computing scholars. In: Proceedings South African
Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, SAICSIT 2012,
pp. 335–335 (2012)
19. Offermann, P., Blom, S., Schönherr, M., Bub, U.: Artifact types in information
systems design science – a literature review. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S.
(eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 77–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13335-0 6
20. Olivier, M.: Information Technology Research: A Practical Guide for Computer
Science and Informatics. Van Schaik (2004)
21. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science
research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(3),
45–77 (2008)
22. Vahidov, R.: Design researcher’s IS artifact: a representational framework. In: Pro-
ceedings of 1st International Conference on Design Science Research in Information
Systems and Technology, DERIST 2006, pp. 19–33. Claremont (2006)
23. Vaishnavi, V., Kuechler, B.: Design science research in information systems. Asso-
ciation for Information Systems, Technical Report (2004)
24. Venable, J.R.: Design science research post hevner et al.: criteria, standards, guide-
lines, and expectations. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010.
LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 109–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-642-13335-0 8
25. Winter, R.: Design science research in Europe. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 17(5), 470–475
(2008)
26. Zobel, J.: Writing for Computer Science, 3rd edn. Springer, London (2014). https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6639-9

View publication stats