Using scenarios of use to support Design Science Research Methodologies in the case of invention

Amandine Pascal, Evelyne Rouby

Abstract


This article focuses on Design Science Research methodologies (DSR) in the case of in- vention ie when there is no theoretical and practical knowledge to understand the problem to be solved and to guide the design work. In this case, it is crucial to clarify the problem. It rises to a real challenge to conventional DSR methodologies that ignore it, always consid- ering the problem to be solved as a priori well defined. It is also key to ensure the relevance of the created artifact because misunderstanding the initial problem may compromise its success. The contribution of our work is therefore to provide a methodological response to the clarification problem by the design of scenarios of use.

Our contribution is not limited to the introduction of these scenarios into DSR meth- odologies. It also consists in proposing an original version by anchoring them in a struc- turationist perspective. The design of scenarios of use was applied to the KMP project, an innovative web portal of skills to promote innovations between firms and between firms and research laboratories. Their integration into DSR methodologies is useful because it gives a more complete methodological framework for researchers wishing to implement an DSR approach in the case of an invention. 


Keywords


Design Science Research, Methodology of Design Science Research, Scenarios of use, Structuration theory, Innovative design.

Full Text:

 Subscribers Only

References


Agar M. H. (1986), “Speaking of Ethnography”. Beverly Hills, CA : Sage.

Bardram J. E. (2000), “Scenario-Based Design of Cooperative Systems Re-designing an Hospi- tal Information System in Denmark”, Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 9, p. 237-250.

Baskerville R. (2008), “What Design Science is Not”, European Journal of Information Sys- tems, vol. 17, p. 441-443.

Baskerville, R., Kaul, M., Pries-Heje, J., Storey, V. C., Kristiansen, E. (2016). “Bounded Creativity in Design Science Research”, Thirty Seventh International Conference on Information Systems, Dublin.

Bate P., Robert G. (2007), “Toward more user- centric OD : Lessons from the field of ex- perience-based design and a case study”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 43, p. 41-66.

Benbasat I., Zmud R. (1999), “Empirical Research in Information Systems : The Practice of Re- levance”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 23, n°1, p. 3-16.

Buur J., Bødker S. (2000), “From usability lab to “design collaboratorium” : Reframing usability practice”, Proceedings of DIS 2000, New York, NY : ACM, p. 297-307.

Carlsson S.A. (2007), “Developing Knowledge Through IS Design Science Research : For Whom, What Type of Knowledge, and How”, Scandinavian Journal of Information Sys- tems, vol. 19, n°2, p. 75-86.

Carlsson S.A (2010), “Design Science Research in Information Systems : A Critical Realist Ap- proach” in Design Research in Information Systems : Theory and Practice, A. Hevner and S. Chatterjee (Eds), New York, Springer, p. 209-233.

Carroll J. M. (1995), Scenario-based design : Envisioning work and technology in system development, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Carroll J. M. (2000), Making use : Scenario-based design of human-computer interactions, The MIT Press, Cambridge.

Carroll J.M. (2003), HCI models, theories and frameworks : Toward a multidisciplinary Science, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco.

Carroll J. M. (2006), “Dimensions of Participatory Design in Simon’s Design”, Design Issues, vol. 22, n°2, Spring, p. 3-18.

Carroll J. M. (2016), “Theorizing the Unprece- dented” in Theory Development in the In- formation Sciences, D. H. Sonnewald (Eds), University of Texas Press, Austin, chapter 10.

Carroll J. M., Rosson M. B., Chin G., Koenemann, J. (1998), “Requirements Development in Scenario-Based Design”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 24, n°12, p. 1156- 1170.

Carroll J.M., Rosson M.B. (1992) “Getting around the task-artifact cycle : how to make claims and design by scenario”, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 10, p. 181-212.

Carrol J. M., Rosson M. B. (2008), “Theorizing Mobility in Community Networks”, Interna- tional Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 66, p. 944-962.

Carroll J.M., Kellogg W.A., Rosson M.B., (1991), “The Task Artifact Cycle”, in Designing Inte- raction : Psychology at the Human-Interac- tion Interface, J.M. Carroll (Eds), Cambridge University Press.

Choi Y. (2010), “Effects of Contextual Factors on Image Searching on the Web”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 61, p. 2011-2028.

Conrad C. F. (1982), “Grounded theory : An alternative approach to research in higher education”, Review of Higher Education, vol. 5, p. 259-269.

Cook P., Huggins R. (2003), “High-Technology Clustering in Cambridge (UK)” in The Insti- tutions of Local Development, F. Sforzi (Eds), Aldershot : Ashgate, p. 51-74.

Davenport T.H, Markus M.L. (1999), “Rigor vs. Re- levance Revisited : Response to Benbasat and Zmud”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 23, n°1, p. 19-23.

Dennis A. R. (2001), “Relevance in Information Systems Research”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, n°6, p. 40-42.

Forest F., Lavoisy O., Chanal V. (2009), “Inte- grated Scenario-based Design Methodology for Collaborative Technology Innovation. The Future of Innovation”, International Journal of Innovation Management, June, p. 99-120.

Giddens A. (1984), The Constitution of Society, Berkeley, California : University of Canada Press.

Glaser B. G., Strauss A. L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory : Strategies for Qualita- tive Research, Chicago : Aldine.

Go K., Carroll J. M. (2004), “The Blind Men and the Elephant : Views of Scenario-Based System Design”, Interactions, November-December, p. 44-53.

Gregor S., Hevner A. R. (2013), “Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 37, n°2, p. 337-356.

Hevner A. R., Chatterjee, S. (2010), “Design Re- search in Information Systems : Theory and Practice”, Integrated Series in Information Systems, vol. 22, Springer.

Hevner A.R., March S.T., Park J., Ram S. (2004), “Design Science in Information Systems Re- search”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 28, p. 75-106.

Hollan J., Hutchins E., Kirsh D. (2000), “Distri- buted Cognition : Toward a New Foundation of Human-Computer Interaction Research”, Transactions on Computer-Human Interac- tion, vol. 7, n°2, p. 174-196.

Horning M. A., Robinson H. R., Carroll J. M. (2014), “A Scenario-Based Approach for Projec- ting User Requirements for Wireless Proximal Community Network”, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 35, p. 413-422.

Hutchins E. (1990), The technology of team’s navigation, in Intellectual teamwork : social and technical bases of collaborative work, Galegher J., Kraut R. and Egido C. (Eds), Er- lbaum Hillsdale.

Iivari J. (2015). Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research. Eu- ropean Journal of Information Systems, vol. 24, n°1, p.107-115.

Jarke M., Bui X. T., Carroll J. M. (1998), “Scenario Management : An Interdisciplinary Approach”, Requirements Engineering, vol. 3, p. 155-173.

Jeonghyun K. (2012), “Scenarios in Information Seeking and Information Retrieval Research : A Methodological Application and Discussion”, Library & Information Science Research, vol. 34, p. 300-307.

Kuechler W., Vaishnavi V. (2008), “The Emergence of Design Research in Information Systems in North America”, Journal of Design Research, vol. 7, n°1, p. 1-16.

Langley A. (1999), “Strategies for theorizing from process data”, Academy of Management Re- view, vol. 24, n°4, p. 691-710.

Lee A. S. (1999), “Rigor and Relevance in MIS Research : Beyond the Approach of Posi- tivism Alone”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 23, n°1, p. 29-34.

Lincoln Y. S., Guba E. G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Newbury Park, CA : Sage.

Markus M.L., Majchrzak A., Gasser, L. (2002), “A Design Theory for Systems that Support Emer- gent Knowledge Processes”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 26, p. 179-212.

Miles M. B., Huberman A. M. (1984), Qualitative data analysis, Newburry Park, CA : Sage.

Norman D. (1991), “Cognitive artifacts in De- siging Interaction, Psychology at the human Computer Interface”, J.M. Carroll (Eds), Cam- bridge Series on Human Computer Interac- tion, Cambridge University Press.

Nunamaker J.F., Chen M., Purdin T.D.M. (1990), “Systems Development in Information Sys- tems Research”, Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 7, n°3, p. 89-106.

Pascal A. (2012). « Le design science dans le domaine des systèmes d’information : mise

en débat et perspectives ». Systèmes d’Infor- mation et Management, vol. 17, n°3, p. 7-31.

Pascal A., Thomas C., Romme A. G. L. (2013). “Developing a Human-centred and Science- based Approach to Design: The Knowledge Management Platform Project”. British Jour- nal of Management, vol. 24, n°2, p. 264-280.

Orlikowski W. (2000), “Using Technology and Constituting Structures : a Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations”, Or- ganization Science, vol. 11, n°4, p. 404-428.

Peffers K., Tuunanen T., Rothenberger M. A., Chatterjee S. (2007), “A design science research methodology for information systems re- search”, Journal of management information systems, vol. 24, n°3, p. 45-77.

Robertson S., Robertson J. (2013), Mastering the Requirements Process : Getting Require- ments Right, Pearson Education, Westford, Massachusetts.

Rojot J. (1998). La théorie de la structuration, Revue de gestion des ressources humaines, vol. 26-27, p. 5-19.

Rojot J. (2000), « La théorie de la structuration chez Anthony Giddens », in D. Autissier et F. Wacheux (eds), Structuration et manage- ment des organisations, Paris, p. 47-57.

Rosson M. B., Carroll, J. M. (2002), “Scena- rio-based Design” in The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook : Fundamentals, Evol- ving Technologies and Emerging Applica- tions, J. Jacko and A. Sears (Eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. 1032-1050.

Sein M. K., Henfridsson O., Purao S., Rossi M., Lindgren R. (2011), Action Design Research, MIS Quarterly, vol. 35, n° 1, p. 37-56.

Simon H. (1996), The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed., MIT Press, Cambridge.

Spardley J. P. (1980), Participant observation, New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Stahl G. (2011), “Theories of Cognition in CSCW”,

Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Aarhus, Denmark.

Straub D., Ang, S. (2008), “Readability and the Relevance versus Rigor Debate”, MIS Quaterly, vol. 32, n°4, p. iii-xiii.

Strauss A. S. (1967), Qualitative analysis for social scientists, Cambridge, MA : Cambridge University Press.

Talja N., Nyce J. M. (2015), “The problem with problematic situations : Differences between practices, tasks, and situations as units of analy- sis”, Library & Information Science Research, vol. 37, p. 61-67.

Vicente K.J. (1999), Cognitive Work Analysis. Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Com-

puter-Based Work, Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- ciates Publishers, London.

Volkoff O., Chan Y.E., Newson E.F.P. (1999), “Lea- ding the development and implementation of collaborative interorganizational systems”, Information & Management, vol. 35, p. 63-75.

Walls J. G., Widmeyer G. R., El Sawy O. A. (1992), “Building an Information System Design Theo- ry for Vigilant EIS”, Information Systems Re- search, vol. 3, n°1, p. 36-58.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.9876/sim.v22i4.743