A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research
Evaluation is a central and essential activity in conducting rigorous Design Science Research (DSR), yet there is surprisingly little guidance about designing the DSR evaluation activity beyond suggesting possible methods that could be used for evaluation. This paper extends the notable exception of...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Conference Paper |
| Published: |
Springer-Verlag
2012
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/49584 |
| _version_ | 1848758270706057216 |
|---|---|
| author | Venable, John Pries-Heje, J. Baskerville, Richard |
| author2 | Peffers, K. |
| author_facet | Peffers, K. Venable, John Pries-Heje, J. Baskerville, Richard |
| author_sort | Venable, John |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Evaluation is a central and essential activity in conducting rigorous Design Science Research (DSR), yet there is surprisingly little guidance about designing the DSR evaluation activity beyond suggesting possible methods that could be used for evaluation. This paper extends the notable exception of theexisting framework of Pries-Heje et al [11] to address this problem. The paper proposes an extended DSR evaluation framework together with a DSR evaluation design method that can guide DSR researchers in choosing an appropriate strategy for evaluation of the design artifacts and design theories that form the output from DSR. The extended DSR evaluation framework asks the DSR researcher to consider (as input to the choice of the DSR evaluation strategy) contextual factors of goals, conditions, and constraints on the DSR evaluation, e.g. the type and level of desired rigor, the type of artifact, the need to support formative development of the designed artifacts, the properties of theartifact to be evaluated, and the constraints on resources available, such as time, labor, facilities, expertise, and access to research subjects. The framework and method support matching these in the first instance to one or more DSR evaluation strategies, including the choice of ex ante (prior to artifactconstruction) versus ex post evaluation (after artifact construction) and naturalistic (e.g., field setting) versus artificial evaluation (e.g., laboratory setting). Based on the recommended evaluation strategy(ies), guidance is provided concerning what methodologies might be appropriate within the chosenstrategy(ies). |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T09:41:19Z |
| format | Conference Paper |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-49584 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T09:41:19Z |
| publishDate | 2012 |
| publisher | Springer-Verlag |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-495842023-02-07T08:01:23Z A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research Venable, John Pries-Heje, J. Baskerville, Richard Peffers, K. Rothenberger, M. Kuechler, B. Information Systems Evaluation Research Methodology Evaluation Strategy Design Science Research Evaluation Method Evaluation is a central and essential activity in conducting rigorous Design Science Research (DSR), yet there is surprisingly little guidance about designing the DSR evaluation activity beyond suggesting possible methods that could be used for evaluation. This paper extends the notable exception of theexisting framework of Pries-Heje et al [11] to address this problem. The paper proposes an extended DSR evaluation framework together with a DSR evaluation design method that can guide DSR researchers in choosing an appropriate strategy for evaluation of the design artifacts and design theories that form the output from DSR. The extended DSR evaluation framework asks the DSR researcher to consider (as input to the choice of the DSR evaluation strategy) contextual factors of goals, conditions, and constraints on the DSR evaluation, e.g. the type and level of desired rigor, the type of artifact, the need to support formative development of the designed artifacts, the properties of theartifact to be evaluated, and the constraints on resources available, such as time, labor, facilities, expertise, and access to research subjects. The framework and method support matching these in the first instance to one or more DSR evaluation strategies, including the choice of ex ante (prior to artifactconstruction) versus ex post evaluation (after artifact construction) and naturalistic (e.g., field setting) versus artificial evaluation (e.g., laboratory setting). Based on the recommended evaluation strategy(ies), guidance is provided concerning what methodologies might be appropriate within the chosenstrategy(ies). 2012 Conference Paper http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/49584 Springer-Verlag restricted |
| spellingShingle | Information Systems Evaluation Research Methodology Evaluation Strategy Design Science Research Evaluation Method Venable, John Pries-Heje, J. Baskerville, Richard A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research |
| title | A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research |
| title_full | A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research |
| title_fullStr | A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research |
| title_short | A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research |
| title_sort | comprehensive framework for evaluation in design science research |
| topic | Information Systems Evaluation Research Methodology Evaluation Strategy Design Science Research Evaluation Method |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/49584 |