Gregor & Jones (2007) The Anatomy of a Design Theory

Gregor, Shirley and Jones, David

Abstract

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.

Citation Shirley Gregor, David Jones (2007). The Anatomy of a Design Theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 8 no. 5, pp. 312–335. Article

BibTex entry for this article:

BibTex entry for this article:

@article{gregor2007anatomy,
author = {Gregor, Shirley and Jones, David},
journal = {Journal of the Association for Information Systems},
number = {5},
pages = {312--335},
title = {{The Anatomy of a Design Theory}},
volume = {8},
year = {2007}
}

Key ideas

Notes

Introduction

Approaches to Design Theorizing

Proposed specification for ISDT

The Eight Components of an Information Systems Design Theory

1. Purpose and scope

2. Constructs

3. Principles of form and function

4. Artifact mutability

5. Testable propositions

6. Justificatory knowledge

7. Principles of implementation

8. Expository instantiation

Tables and figures

Table 1: Example of the skeleton of a design theory (from Codd, 1970, 1982) ~ (p. 315)
Article details The design theory anatomy
The introduction says better database technology is needed to increase human productivity.
(Motivation is also provided: This need is significant because current approaches are failing.)
The purpose and scope of the theory are stated.
The relational database model has principles such as “the order of rows in the tables
is arbitrary and irrelevant.”
Principles of form and function
incorporating underlying constructs (such as “table”) are given.
The argument is made that the relational model allows for relatively simple adaptation
and change to base tables, while user views appear unchanged.
Artifact mutability is addressed.
Statements are made such as “A relational database can perform as well as a non-relational database.”These statements are testable propositions.
It is shown how the relational model works, by reference to underlying set theory
and also human cognitive processes.
Justificatory knowledge (kernel theory) is provided.
Guidelines are given on how to produce a relational database through normalization procedures.Principles of implementation are given.
An illustration of working relational databases is provided.An expository instantiation is given.

Table 2: Eight components of an Information Systems Design Theory ~ (p. 322)
ComponentDescription
Core components
1) Purpose and scope (the causa finalis)“What the system is for,” the set of meta-requirements or goals that specifies the type of artifact
to which the theory applies and in conjunction also defines the scope, or boundaries, of the theory.
2) Constructs (the causa materialis)Representations of the entities of interest in the theory.
3) Principle of form and function (the causa formalis)The abstract “blueprint” or architecture that describes an IS artifact, either product or method/intervention.
4) Artifact mutabilityThe changes in state of the artifact anticipated in the theory, that is,
what degree of artifact change is encompassed by the theory.
5) Testable propositionsTruth statements about the design theory.
6) Justificatory knowledgeThe underlying knowledge or theory from the natural or social or design sciences that gives a
basis and explanation for the design (kernel theories).
Additional components
7) Principles of implementation (the causa efficiens)A description of processes for implementing the theory (either product or method) in specific contexts.
8) Expository instantiationA physical implementation of the artifact that can assist in representing the theory both as an expository device and for purposes of testing.

Table 3: Comparison of design theory approaches ~ (p. 323)
Proposed anatomical skeleton Dubin (1978) Walls et al. (1992)
1. Purpose and scope Boundaries Meta-requirements
2. Constructs Units
3. Principles of form and function Laws of interaction Meta-description
4. Artifact mutability System states
5. Testable propositions Propositions Product hypotheses
Process hypotheses
6. Justificatory knowledge Product kernel theories
Process kernel theories
7. Principles of implementation Design method
8. Expository instantiation Hypotheses and empirical indicators

References in gregor2007anatomy

  • alexander1977pattern Alexander, C., S. Ishikawa, and M. Silverstein (1977) A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Au2001Design Au, Y. (2001) “Design Science I: The Role of Design Science in E-Commerce Research,” Communications of the AIS, (7).
  • Avison1990Multiview Avison, D. and T. Wood-Harper (1990) Multiview : An Exploration in Information Systems Development, Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill.
  • Ball2001Design Ball, N. (2001) “Design Science II: The Impact of Design Science on E-Commerce Research and Practice,” Communications of the AIS, (7).
  • Bhaskar1989Reclaiming Bhaskar, R. (1989) Reclaiming Reality, London: Verso. Bunge, M. (1979) “Philosophical Inputs and Outputs of Technology” in G. Bugliarello and D. Doner (eds.) The History of Philosophy and Technology, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 262-281. (Abridged in Scharff and Dusak, 2003).
  • Burrell1989Absence Burrell, G. (1989) “The Absence of Philosophy in Anglo-American Management Theory,” Human Systems Management, (8), pp. 307-312.
  • Bush1945Think Bush, V. (1945) “As We May Think,” The Atlantic Monthly, July.
  • Carlsson2005Developing Carlsson, S. (2005) “Developing Information Systems Design Knowledge: A Critical Realist Perspective,” The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methodology, (3)2, pp. 93-102.
  • Chiang2004Fault Chiang, I. R. and V. S. Mookerjee (2004) “A Fault Threshold Policy to Manage Software Development Projects,” Information Systems Research, (15)1, pp. 3-21.
  • Codd1970Relational Codd, E. F. (1970) “A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks,” Communications of the ACM, (13)6, pp. 377-387.
  • Codd1982Relational Codd, E. F. (1982) “Relational Database: A Practical Foundation For Productivity (The 1981 Turing Award Lecture),” Communications of the ACM, (2)25, pp. 109-117.
  • Cross2001Design Cross, N. (2001) “Design / Science / Research: Developing a Discipline,” in the 5th Asian Design Conference: International Symposium on Design Science, Seoul, Korea: Su Jeong Dang Printing Company.
  • Cushing1990Frameworks Cushing, B. E. (1990) “Frameworks , Paradigms and Scientific Research in Management Information Systems,” Journal of Information Systems, (2)4, pp. 38-59.
  • Dahlbom1996Informatics Dahlbom, B. (1996) “The New Informatics,” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, (8)2, pp. 29-47.
  • David2000Design David, J., G. Gerard, and W. McCarthy (2000) Design Science: Building the Future of Accounting Information Systems, SMAP.
  • Davis2000Information Davis, G. (2000) “Information Systems Conceptual Foundations: Looking Backward and Forward” in R. Baskerville, J. Stage, and J. DeGross (eds.) Organizational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology, Boston: Kluwer.
  • Dubin1978Theory Dubin, R. (1978) Theory Building, revised edition, London: Free Press.
  • Duhem1962Structure Duhem, P. (1962) The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, New York: Atheneum.
  • Fernandez1998Building Fernandez, E. B. (1998) “Building Systems Using Analysis Patterns,” Third International Workshop on Software Architecture, Orlando, FL: ACM.
  • Fowler2003Patterns Fowler, M. (2003) Patterns of Enterprise Architecture, Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Gamma1995Design Gamma, E., et al. (1995) Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Gane1979Structured Gane, C. and T. Sarson (1979) Structured Systems Analysis: Tools and Techniques,, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Glass1996Relationship Glass, R. (1996) “The Relationship Between Theory and Practice in Software Engineering,” Communications of the ACM, (39)11, pp. 11-13.
  • Godfrey-Smith2003Theory Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003) Theory and Reality, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Gregg2001Understanding Gregg, D., U. Kulkarni, and A. Vinze (2001) “Understanding the Philosophical Underpinnings of Software Engineering Research in Information Systems,” Information Systems Frontiers, (2)3, pp. 169-183.
  • Gregor2002Theory Gregor, S. (2002a) “A Theory of Theories in Information Systems in S. Gregor and D. Hart (eds.) Information Systems Foundations: Building the Theoretical Base, Canberra: Australian National University, pp. 1- 20.
  • Gregor2002Design Gregor, S. (2002b) “Design Theory in Information Systems,” Australian Journal of Information Systems, Special Issue, pp. 14-22.
  • Gregor2004Formulation Gregor, S. and D. Jones (2004) “The Formulation of Design Theories” in Linger, H. et al.(eds.) Constructing the Infrastructure for the Knowledge Economy: Methods and Tools, Theory and Practice, New York: Kluwer Academic, pp. 83-93
  • Habermas1984Theory Habermas, J. (1984) Theory of Communicative Action. Reason and the Rationalization of Society, (Vol. 1), London, U.K.: Heinemann.
  • Hall2003Building Hall, D., D. Paradice, and J. Courtney (2003) “Building a Theoretical Foundation for a Learning-oriented Management System,” Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, (2)5, pp. 63-85.
  • Heidegger1993question Heidegger, M. (1993) “The question concerning technology” in Basic Writings, San Francisco: Harper, pp. 311 - 341 (Translated from Martine Heidegger (1954) Vortrage and Aufsatze, Gunther Neske Verlag, Pfullingen, pp. 13-44.
  • Herzberg1966Work Herzberg, F. (1966) Work and the Nature of Man, Cleveland: Western Publishing.
  • Hevner2003Information Hevner, A. and S. March (2003) “The Information Systems Research Cycle,” IEEE Computer, (36)11, pp. 111- 113.
  • Hirschheim2004Crisis Hirschheim, R. and H. K. Klein (2004) “Crisis in the Field: A Critical Reflection on the State of the Discipline,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems, (5)4, pp. 237-293.
  • Hooker1996Aristotle Hooker, R. (1996) Aristotle : The Four Causes - Physics II.3, http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/4CAUSES.HTM
  • Iivari2003Towards Iivari, J. (2003) “Towards Information Systems as a Science of Meta-artifacts,” Communications of the AIS, (12)37, Nov., pp. 568-581.
  • Iivari1998Paradigmatic Iivari, J., R. Hirschheim, and H. K. Klein (1998) “A Paradigmatic Analysis Contrasting Information Systems Development Approaches and Methodologies,” Information Systems Research, (9)2, pp. 164 – 193.
  • Jarvinen2001Research Jarvinen, P. (2001) On Research Methods, Tampere, Finland: Opinpajan Kirja.
  • Kasanen1993Constructive Kasanen, E., K. Lukka, and A. Siitonen (1993) “The Constructive Approach in Management Accounting Research,” Journal of Management Accounting Research, (5), pp. 241-264.
  • Kelly2003Research Kelly, A. E. (2003) “Research as Design,” Educational Researcher, (32), pp. 3-4.
  • Lau1997Review Lau, F. (1997) “A Review on the Use of Action Research in Information Systems Studies” in L. A. Liebenau and J. DeGross (eds.) Information Systems and Qualitative Research, London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 31-68.
  • Lee2001Editorial Lee, A. S. (2001) “Editorial ”, MIS Quarterly, (25:1), pp. iii-vii.
  • Lewin1945Research Lewin, K. (1945) “The Research Centre for Group Dynamics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology,” Sociometry, (8), pp. 126-135.
  • Love2000Philosophy Love, T. (2000) “Philosophy of Design: A Meta-theoretical Structure for Design Theory,” Design Studies, (21), pp. 293-313.
  • Lukka2000Issues Lukka, K. (2000) “The Key Issues of Applying the Constructive Approach to Field Research” in T. Reponen (ed.) Management Expertise for the New Millennium: In Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Turku, Finland: Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, pp. 113-128.
  • Lyytinen2002Designing Lyytinen, K. (2002) “Designing of What? On the Ontologies of Information System Design,” Workshop on Managing as Designing: Creating a Vocabulary for Management Education and Research, Weatherhead School of Management, June 14-15, http://design.case.edu/2002workshop/index.html (current June 2004).
  • Magee1998Confessions Magee, B. (1998) Confessions of a Philosopher, London: Phoenix.
  • Markus2002Design Markus, M., L. A. Majchrzak, and L. Gasser (2002) “A Design Theory for Systems That Support Emergent Knowledge Processes,” MIS Quarterly, (26)3, pp. 179-212.
  • Markus1988Information Markus, M. L. and D. Robey (1988) “Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research,” Management Science, (34)5, pp. 583-598.
  • McNurlin2002Information McNurlin, B. C. and R. H. Sprague (2002) Information Systems Management, 5th edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Mingers2000Contribution Mingers, J. (2000) “The Contribution of Critical Realism as an Underpinning Philosophy for OR/MS and Systems,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51(11), pp. 1256-1270.
  • Morrison1995Exploring Morrison, J. and J. F. George (1995) “Exploring the Software Engineering Component in MIS Research,” Communications of the ACM, (7)38, pp. 80-91.
  • Nagel1979Structure Nagel, E. (1979) The Structure of Science, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co.
  • Nunamaker1990Systems Nunamaker, J. F., M. Chen, and T. Purdin (1990-91) “Systems Development in Information Systems Research,” Journal of Management Information Systems, (7)3, pp. 89-106.
  • O'Hear1989Introduction O'Hear, A. (1989) Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
  • Owen1997Design Owen, C. (1997) “Design Research: Building the Knowledge Base,” Journal of the Japanese Society for the Science of Design, (5)2, pp. 36-45.
  • Passmore1967Logical Passmore, J. (1967) “Logical Positivism” in P. Edwards (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Volume V), New York: Macmillan, pp. 52-57.
  • Popper1980Logic Popper, K. (1980) The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London: Unwin Hyman.
  • Popper1986Unended Popper, K. (1986) Unended Quest an Intellectual Autobiography, Glasgow: Fontana.
  • Preston2004Framework Preston, M. and N. Mehandjiev (2004) “A Framework for Classifying Intelligent Design Theories,” Proceedings of WISER-04, November, Newport Beach, CA.
  • Purao (2002) Design Research in the Technology of Information Systems: Truth or Dare Purao, S. (2002) “Design Research in the Technology of Information Systems: Truth or Dare,” GSU Department of CIS Working Paper, Atlanta: Georgia State University.
  • Rossi2003Design Rossi, M. and M. Sein (2003) “Design Research Workshop: A Proactive Research Approach,” Presentation delivered at IRIS 26, August 9 – 12, 2003, http://tiesrv.hkkk.fi/iris26/presentation/workshop_designRes.pdf (current Jan. 16, 2004).
  • Sarker2002Using Sarker, S. and A. Lee (2002) “Using a Positivist Case Research Methodology to Test Three Competing Theories-in-use of Business Process Reengineering,” Journal of the AIS, (2)7.
  • Savelson2003Science Savelson, R. et al. (2003) “On the Science of Education Design Studies,” Educational Researcher, (1)32, pp. 25-28.
  • Scharff2003Philosophy Scharff, R. C. and V. Dusek (2003) Philosophy of Technology: The Technological Condition: An Anthology, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Schön1983Reflective Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner, New York: Basic Books.
  • Shneiderman1998Designing Shneiderman, B. (1998) Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Simon1981Sciences Simon, H. (1981) The Sciences of the Artificial, 2nd edition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Simon1996Sciences Simon, H. (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Sommerville2001Software Sommerville, I. (2001) Software Engineering, New York: Addison-Wesley.
  • Takeda1990Modeling Takeda, H. et al. (1990) “Modeling Design Processes,” AI Magazine, (11)4, Winter, pp. 37-48.
  • Turban2001Decision Turban, E. and J. Aronson (2001) Decision Support Systems and Intelligent Systems, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Tsoukas1989Validity Tsoukas, H. (1989) “The Validity of Idiographic Research Explanations,” Academy of Management Review, (14)4, pp. 551-561.
  • Van Aken2004Management Van Aken, J. (2004) “Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-tested and Grounded Technological Rules,” Journal of Management Studies, (41)2, pp. 219-246.
  • Van Aken2005Management Van Aken, J. (2005) “Management Research as a Design Science: Articulating the Research Products of Mode 2 Knowledge Production in Management,” British Journal of Management, (16)1, pp. 19-36.
  • Venable2006Role Venable, J. (2006) “The Role of Theory and Theorising in Design Science Research,” First International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, Claremont, California, pp. 1-18.
  • Walls et al. (1992) Building an Information System Design Theory for Vigilant EIS Walls, J. G., G. R. Widemeyer, and O. A. El Sawy (1992) “Building an Information System Design theory for Vigilant EIS, Information Systems Research, (3)1, pp. 36-59.
  • Weber1987Toward Weber, R. (1987) “Toward a Theory of Artifacts: A Paradigmatic Base for Information Systems Research,” Journal of Information Systems, (1)1, Spring, pp. 3-19.
  • Weber1997Ontological Weber, R. (1997) Ontological Foundations of Information Systems, Melbourne: Coopers & Lybrand.
  • Wyssusek2004Onotology Wyssusek, B. (2004) “Onotology and Ontologies in Information Systems Analysis and Design: A Critique,” Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York, New York
Keywords:

Design Science, artifacts, constructive research, design science, design theory, information systems, information technology, philosophy of science, theory structure

Print/export