ACTION DESIGN RESEARCH Ola Henfridsson Viktoria Institute University

ACTION DESIGN RESEARCH Ola Henfridsson Viktoria Institute & University of Oslo (in collaboration with M. Sein, S. Purao, M. Rossi, and R. Lindgren)

What kind of research is this? – – – – Objective: to improve some kind of organizational capability 1+ year process study Develops a new perspective on this organizational capability Draws on contemporary theory Design and release of multiple versions of a technology Developing innovative features of a technology Eventually causing a change in organizational strategy Developing design principles for a particular type of information system

Available approaches Design Research Action Research

Candidate 1: Design Research • Fundamentally, develop prescriptive design knowledge through building and evaluating IT artifacts intended to solve an identified class of problems – Technical novelty – Must be abstracted to develop knowledge • Relevance of technology artifacts evaluated by utility • DR separates evaluation from building, rarely accomplishing it in authentic settings • The problem of separation and sequencing

Candidate 2: Action Research • Fundamentally, a study of change – Central assumption: complex social processes are best studied by introducing change into these processes and observing their effects • Focus on practical problems with theoretical relevance • Produces results relevant to the organization while simultaneously informing theory • Sees the technology artifact as a black box • No clear emphasis on the technology artifact

What is an IT artifact? • An Ensemble: – The material and organizational features that are socially recognized as bundles of hardware and/or software (cf. Orlikowski and Iacono 2001) • ”technology as structure”: – Structures of the organizational domain are inscribed into the artifact during its development and use

What is an IT artifact? (2) • An emergent thing: – Neither fixed nor independent, instead, emerges from ongoing social and economic practices (Orlikowski and Iacono 2001) • Where does emergence come from? – Interaction between technology and an organizational context (Truex et al. 1999) – Shaped by the interests, values, and assumptions of a wide variety of communities of developers, investors, users, etc. (Orlikowski and Iacono 2001)

What is an IT artifact? (3) • Many artifacts are only partly the work of the designer. – Numerous local actions (e. g. , use, interpretation, negotiation, and redesign) • Cannot be anticipated by reference to any a priori design (Iivari 2003)

Considering the candidates • DR and AR offer incomplete solutions for us – DR supports abstraction and innovation but relegates authentic intervention as secondary – AR supports intervention and knowledge emergence in authentic settings but innovation and abstraction are secondary goals

Our thesis • To study ensemble artifacts, we need a research method that can account for – Both technological and organizational contexts – Shaping of the artifact via design and use – Influences of designers and users

Combining. . . • AR and DR: – Are similar (Järvinen 2007; Lee 2007; Figueiredo and Cunha 2007) – Should be kept apart (Iivari 2007) – Have commonalities (Cole et al. 2005) • Suggestions for combining – Use the two in sequence (Iivari 2007) – Interleave the processes (Lee 2007) – Map commonalities (Cole et al. 2005)

Sequencing Start a DRStart process a DR: process: Identifying a need Building Evaluating Reflecting Start process: Start anan ARAR process : Theorizing

Interleaving Start an AR process: Diagnosing a problem Action planning Action taking Start a DR process : Evaluating, reflecting Specifying learning Build

A New DR Method: ADR • Provides explicit guidance for accomodating building, intervention, and evaluation in a concerted research effort • An approach to produce knowledge by – intervening in an organization – through developing an innovative IT ensemble artifact • Knowledge that – adds to, refines, or generates theory or theories – supports IS practitioners in solving immediate problems

ADR

Stage 1: Problem formulation • An immediate or anticipated problem: – perceived by organizational participants, and framed by the researcher • Identify the class of which the specific problem is an instance • Formulate initial research questions • Identify contributing theoretical bases • Identify prior technology advances

Stage 1: Problem formulation (2) • Practice-inspired Research – Field problems as knowledgecreation opportunities (rather than theoretical puzzles) • Theory-ingrained artifact – Artifacts as carriers of theoretical traces – Iterations based on influences from theory

Stage 2: Building, Intervention, and Evaluation (BIE) • BIE intends to support an iterative process at the intersection of the IT artifact and the organizational environment • Building, intervention, and evaluation are interwoven • Two forms of BIE: – IT-dominant BIE – Organization-dominant BIE

IT-Dominant BIE

Organization-Dominant BIE

Forms of BIE 1. IT-Dominant BIE 2. Organization-Dominant BIE

Stage 2: BIE Principles • Reciprocal shaping – Emphasizes the inseparable influences from two domains: the IT artifact and the organizational context • Mutually influential roles – Mutual learning among participants in an ADR project • Authentic and concurrent evaluation – Formative evaluation

Stage 3: Reflection and Learning • Analyze intervention results • Articulate learning in terms of theories selected • Ongoing evaluation of adherence to principles

Stage 3 principle: Guided Emergence • Captures seemingly incongruent perspectives • Initial design by researchers, shaped by ongoing organizational use and reflected in redesign (Garud et al 2008; Iivari 2003) • Combination of – preliminary design of the artifact (Principle 2) – refined by ongoing interactions among perspectives and participants (Principles 3 and 4 respectively) – outcomes of formative evaluation (Principle 5)

4. Formalization of Learning • Abstract results to a class of field problems • Focused on transferability of results and communication of outcomes • Outcomes specified as design principles and contributions to theory

Stage 4: Principle • Generalized Outcomes: – Generalizing the problem instance – Generalizing the solution instance – Deriving design principles from the design research outcomes • BIE is an inductive step that connects design principles to a class of solutions and a class of problems

ADR

Comparing DR, AR, and ADR

Our contribution • ADR: a customization of Design Research that – – Overcomes Stage-Gate Models for Design Research Recognizes the inherently ensemble nature of IT artifacts Captures innovativeness for both IT and org-dominant versions Reconciles one-case Utility against abstraction to Design Principles • As it – Brings together technology and behavioral IS researchers – Ensures relevance to build bridges with practice

What kind of research is this? – – – – Objective: to improve some kind of organizational capability 1+ year process study Develops a new perspective on this organizational capability Draws on contemporary theory Design and release of multiple versions of the technology Developing innovative features of the technology Eventually causing a change in organizational strategy Developing design principles for a particular type of information system

Many thanks for your attention!