“In this essay, we argue that both design science and behavioral science paradigms are needed to ensure the relevance and rigor of IS research.”

The goal of Information Systems (IS) research is to produce knowledge that enables the application of information technology for managerial and organizational purposes. In pursuing this goal, IS researchers follow two complementary but distinct paradigms: advocates of the behavioral science paradigm view information systems as a social science, while adherents of the design science paradigm regard it as a technical science. This duality of research paradigms has not been well understood, leading to many instances of "us vs. them" issues based on a lack of appreciation of other paradigm.

Since behavioral science research has been the dominant paradigm of IS research, our goal in this paper is to make the role and value of design science IS research more visible. We describe the performance of design science research in IS via a concise conceptual model and clear guidelines for understanding, executing, and evaluating the research. Thus, this paper is being cited frequently as a basis for the performance of design science projects in the IS field.

This work is titled a "Research Essay" in MIS Quarterly. In this essay, we, as senior design science researchers in the IS field, present a conceptual model of IS research that clearly demonstrates the synergistic nature of the behavioral and design science paradigms.

The behavioral science paradigm has its roots in natural science research methods. It seeks to develop hypotheses and empirically justify theories that explain or predict organizational and human phenomena surrounding the analysis, design, implementation, and use of information systems. Such theories ultimately inform researchers and practitioners of the interactions among people, organizations, and technology that must be managed if an information system is to be effective in the contextual organization.

The design science paradigm has its roots in engineering and what Herbert Simon, the 1978 Nobel Laureate in Economics, termed "the sciences of the artificial" (The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed., MIT Press, 1996). Design science seeks to create innovations, or artifacts, that embody the ideas, practices, technical capabilities, and products required to efficiently accomplish the analysis, design, implementation, and use of information systems.

The goal of behavioral science research is truth; the goal of design science research is utility. Truth and utility are two sides of the same coin: the former informs design and the latter informs theory. An artifact may have utility because of some yet undiscovered truth, while a theory may not yet be developed to the point where its truth can be incorporated into design. In both cases, justify/evaluate activities—analyses, case studies, experiments, field studies, and simulations—can identify weaknesses in the theory or artifact and the need for refinement and reassessment.

In this essay, we argue that both design science and behavioral science paradigms are needed to ensure the relevance and rigor of IS research. Given the artificial nature of organizations and the information systems that support them, the design science paradigm must play a significant role in addressing the fundamental challenges that face IS research: effectiveness, efficiencies, discipline boundaries, human behaviors, and technology.

I have performed design science research for over 25 years in the areas of information systems development and database system design. My co-authors, Salvatore March of the Owen Graduate School of Management at Vanderbilt University, Sudha Ram of the Eller College of Management at the University of Arizona, and Jinsoo Park of Korea University’s College of Business Administration, are well-known design science researchers in the IS community. We experienced the frustration of many of our research colleagues who felt that excellent design science research efforts were not sufficiently valued by IS journals and conferences due to a lack of understanding of the design science research paradigm. At a recent professional conference, we were challenged by the then Editor-in-Chief of MIS Quarterly, Dr. Allen Lee, to write a research essay that would explain the intricacies of design science research to the broad IS community. We hope the resulting essay has contributed to a better appreciation of the richness, rigor, and relevance of design science research in IS.

Design science is active with respect to technology, engaging in the creation of technological artifacts (e.g., information systems) that impact people, organizations, societies, and political entities (e.g., countries). Its focus is on problem solving but it often takes a simplistic view of the social, political, and the organizational contexts in which designed artifacts must function. The design of an artifact, its formal specification, and an assessment of its utility, often by comparison with competing artifacts, are integral to design science research. These must be combined with behavioral and organizational theories to develop an understanding of business/social problems, contexts, solutions, and evaluation approaches to support the research and development of more effective and efficient information systems for our world.