Communicate Artefact Knowledge

Design science results are typically to be communicated to research as well as practitioner communities, which may include both tech‐

nology‐oriented and management‐oriented audiences. Furthermore, some design science results can be of such a broad interest that they are worthwhile to communicate to the general public.

Communicating results to researchers requires attention to rig‐

our so that they can evaluate the results and build on them in future work. In particular, the knowledge base should be carefully de‐

scribed as well as its relationship to the results produced. The choice of research strategies and methods should be well justified. The ap‐

plication of the chosen research strategies and methods should also be described in detail including discussions on validity and reliabil‐

ity.

These concerns about methodology and related research are less relevant for communication to practitioners. The focus is then rather on problem and practice as well as concrete outcomes in terms of construction, function, usability and effects.

Technology‐oriented audiences benefit from extensive details on the construction of an artefact, i.e. its components and their relation‐

ships. This allows practitioners to construct and implement the arte‐

fact in a practice, and researchers to further develop the artefact.

Management‐oriented audiences are primarily interested in the problem the artefact addresses, what benefits it can bring to a prac‐

tice, how easy it is to use, and its overall effects, e.g. on efficiency and agility in an organisational setting. Knowledge about these aspects will enable managers to determine whether or how to apply the arte‐

fact. The construction of the artefact is less relevant, though manag‐

ers will still need a basic knowledge of the inner workings of the artefact in order to appreciate its significance and understand its application. When communicating to the public, the main focus is often on the effects of a novel artefact, including its ethical and socie‐

tal consequences. The interests of different audiences are graphically illustrated in figure 10.1.

  Figure 10.1 Different interests for different audiences 

When disseminating design science results, the researcher has to select the right communication channels depending on the target.

For research communities, results are primarily communicated

through academic journals, conferences and workshops. Workshops the communication, it is valuable to present results in a clear and easily understandable structure. For example that provided by the design science method as depicted by the IDEF0 diagrams and the design science canvas. This structure is in many respects also similar to the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion) struc‐

ture, which is frequently used for organising empirical research pa‐

pers.

Is design theory the same as design science?

Short answer: No

Long  answer:  In  this  book,  design  science  has  been  presented  as  a  knowledge  building  endeavour,  which  can  be  carried  out  according  to  the design science method presented in Chapters 4 to 9. In contrast, a  design theory focuses on the results of the design science activities and  shows how these can be structured. A design theory consists of a num‐

ber  of  interrelated  components  that  describe  abstract  artefacts  like  models and methods (each component is here exemplified using Codd’s 

Constructs.  Representations  of  the  entities  of  interest  in  the  theory. 

These entities can be physical as well as abstract. (Attribute, tuple, n‐ary  relation, domain of values.) 

Principle  of  form  and  function.  The  abstract  blueprint  or  architecture  that describes an artefact. For a model, its components and their rela‐

tionships and functions would be described. For a method, its steps and 

their  order  and  purpose  would  be  given.  (A  relation  is  defined  over  a  domain of values and includes attributes and tuples.) 

Artefact  mutability.  The  changes  in  state  of  the  artefact  anticipated  in  the  theory,  that  is  the  degree  of  artefact  change  encompassed  by  the  theory. (The relational model allows for easy adaptation and change to  base tables, while user views appear unchanged.) 

Testable propositions. Testable propositions about instantiations of the  artefact under consideration. Typically, these propositions state that if a  model or method is instantiated then it will work, or it will have certain  characteristics.  (A  relational  database  can  perform  as  well  as  a  non‐

relational database.)  

Justificatory  knowledge.  The  underlying  knowledge  or  theories  that  provide a basis and justification for the design. (Set theory and behav‐

ioural science about human cognitive processes.) 

Principles  of  implementation.  Processes  for  implementing,  i.e.  instanti‐

ating,  the  artefact  to  which  the  theory  applies  (model  or  method)  in  specific  situations.  (Guidelines  on  how  to  create  a  relational  database  through normalization procedures.) 

Expository  instantiation.  An  implementation  of  the  artefact  that  can  assist  in  representing  the  theory  both  as  an  expository  device  and  for  purposes of testing. An instantiation can support communication about  the artefact of a design theory. (A working relational database with ta‐

bles filled with data.)

While the design science method focuses on organising research activi‐

ties,  a  design  theory  aims  at  structuring  the  knowledge  about  an  arte‐

fact.  However,  they  are  closely  related  in  the  sense  that  applying  the  design  science  method  should  result  in  a  design  theory.  The  Explicate  Problem and Define Requirements activities should result in defining the  purpose and scope of the design theory. The Design and Develop activi‐

ty  should  identify  the  constructs  and  specify  the  form  and  function  of  the  artefact.  Testable  propositions  should  be  deduced  by  the  Evaluate  Artefact  activity,  and  an  expository  instantiation  should  be  shown  by  the  Demonstrate  Artefact  activity.  Justificatory  knowledge  is  to  be  ad‐

dressed by all the activities of the design science method. Artefact mu‐

tability and principles of implementation can also be addressed by sev‐

eral activities.  

Further Reading 

An established and easy to read textbook on scientific communica‐

tion was written by Booth et al. (2008). Sörensen (2005) has written an entertaining paper on how to and how not to write scientific arti‐

cles. Dixit (2011) has provided a concise introduction to the IMRAD format.

11  The Design Science Method and