Research approach

Research is defined as an activity that contributes to the understanding of a phenom-ena, typically a natural phenomena [VK07] and research methods are a set of research activities that a research community considers appropriate for the production of under-standing. It is generally accepted the existence of two main research methodologies:

quantitative and qualitative and these form the majority of research work in the field of Information Systems (IS) [Rec12]. Two additional approaches are emerging in the IS field, the Mixed Methods approach and the Design Science approach. The Mixed Methods approach combines quantitative and qualitative methods for data collection and analysis, which are orchestrated either in sequence or concurrently.

Design Science research is a prominent research method that as emerged as a re-sponse to criticisms aimed at either quantitative or qualitative methods [Rec12]. The natural science research methods, in which quantitative and qualitative approaches are

1.3 Research approach 9 placed, are suited to study naturally existing or emergent phenomena but are alleged insufficient to study the core of the IS field that faces ’wicked organisational prob-lems and challenges’. Design Science has emerged has a paradigm shift to support research when developing novel, innovative solutions to problems faced by organiza-tions [HC10]. The design science paradigm as its roots in engineering and the sci-ence of the artificialand has emerged as a problem-solving approach to IS research.

Practitioners adopting design research seek to develop new ideas, practices, technical capabilities, and products through which the analysis, design, implementation, and use of information systems can be effectively and efficiently accomplished.

Our research considered Design Research as the main research method. Design science research is defined by Havner [Rec12] as:

”... a research paradigm in which a designer answers questions relevant to human problems via the creation of innovative artefacts, thereby contributing new knowledge to the body of scientific evidence. The designed artefacts are both useful and funda-mental in understanding that problem.”.

The methodology of a design cycle is defined by [VK07] and depicted in Figure 1.1. The methodology defines a sequence of steps, a set of expectable outputs and the flow of knowledge between the steps.

The Design Cycle begins with awareness of the problem where the problem is identified and defined. The next step asuggestion for a problem solution is expected to be inferred from existing knowledge or theories, or a tentative solution can be de-veloped using a research methodology. The actualdevelopmentof an artefact follows the suggestion step and is performed iteratively using as starting point a first tenta-tive design for the solution. As the implementation of the artefact is completed, the evaluationstep is performed according to functional specification implicit or explicit in the suggestion phase. Evaluation is important to determine how well the artefacts works and often requires the use of empirical methods that relate to theory testing (for confirmatory purposes) methods and techniques, namely action research, controlled experiments, simulation, or scenarios.

A Design Science Research methodology for IS research is proposed by [PTRC07]

that incorporates principles, practices, and procedures required to carry design re-search. The goal of the methodology is to have a common acceptable framework to carry out design research in IS field and a mental model for its presentation.

The design research process includes six activities, elaborated in [HC10] and sum-marized next.

• Activity 1. Problem identification and motivation. The research effort begins

Figure 1.1: The general methodology of design science research (in [Rec12]).

with defining the problem, preferably in its canonical form. The goal is to have the problem described in a common and unique representation to ensure a broad understanding of the elements that are part of the problem domain. Adequate justification for a solution is necessary both to motivate the researcher and the research audience in pursuing the solution and to make clear the researcher rea-soning about the research effort. Resources relevant for this activity include knowledge about the state of the problem and the relevance of the solution.

• Activity 2.Define the objectives for a solution. In this step the goal is to infer the objective of a solution from the problem definition. Objectives can be quantita-tive, describing how the desired solution can be better than current ones and/or qualitative, describing how the new artefact can support solutions to problem not addressed before. The resources required for this step are the knowledge of the state of the problem and existing solutions and their efficacy if available.

• Activity 3. Design and development. The third step involves creating a poten-tial solution to the problem, an artefact. Examples of artefacts are potenpoten-tially constructs, models, methods, or instantiations [HMPR04]. The design and de-velopment activity aims to define the artefact desired functionality and its ar-chitecture and to create the actual artefact. Resources required to perform this activity include knowledge of theory that can lead to the an actual solution to the problem.

• Activity 4. Demonstration. The fourth step involves demonstration of using the artefact to solve one or more instances of the problem. Demonstration can be achieved experimentation, simulation, case study, proof, or other support

activ-1.3 Research approach 11 ity. For the demonstration step knowledge is required of how to use the artefact to solve the problem.

• Activity 5. Evaluation. In the fifth step the objective is to observe and measure how well the artefact supports a solution to the problem. Evaluation can be performed by comparing the objectives for the solution with the actual results observed from the use of the artefact in the demonstration. Relevant metrics and analysis techniques are relevant to this evaluation step, where quantitative functional and non-functional measures are desired for an effective comparison.

The evaluation can be sustained by empirical evidence or logical proof and at the end of this step researchers may choose to execute a new design and development iteration going back to step three to improve the solution result or may choose to proceed o the next step of communication of results.

• Activity 6. Communication. The final step of the research process involves com-munication. The research is not complete if the results are not made available to the research community and other relevant audiences like practitioners. The communication must be complete by describing the problem and its importance, the details of the artefact developed, its utility and novelty and its effectiveness.

Validation of design research results can focus on the technical aspect of the arte-fact developed or an evaluation of the social-technical aspect including usefulness and organizational impact[HC10]. When considering the technical performance aspects of the artefact, analytical modelling, simulation, or measurements provide a good base to conduct evaluation. When considering the organizational impact of the artefact one can opt to perform studies using quantitative surveys or qualitative interviews.

Whether a more technical or social-technical evaluation is performed the approach taken to perform such evaluation can be based onobservational case studieswhere the artefact is evaluated in a specific business environment orexperimentalmethods where the quality attributes of the artefact are analysed in a controlled environment.

When not possible to evaluate the artefact through observation in the environment or in controlled experiments one can opt to follow adescriptive evaluationof the arte-fact. A descriptive evaluation may reside on the informed argument method where claims about the ability of the artefact in providing a solution to the problem are stated and are logically sound in the basis of the knowledge base of the problem domain.

The contributions of these dissertation are supported by instances of the design cycle research methodology. The primary source of validation of our research work considered the following:

• Demonstration and descriptive evaluation - informed argument based on the

knowledge base are used along with the scenarios defined to develop a con-vincing argument of the utility of the solutions proposed.

• Communication: results were peer reviewed in the context of international sci-entific conferences that provided an external assessment of the soundness of our proposals. The content of chapter 3, 4 and 5 and 6 was published in peer re-viewed international conferences.