Cole, R. , Purao, S., Rossi, M., Sein, M. 2005. Being Proactive: Where Action Research meets Design Research. International Conference on Information Systems. (ICIS) Las Vegas, NV, December 11-14. Originally presented at ICIS.

1. BEING PROACTIVE: WHERE ACTION RESEARCH MEETS DESIGN RESEARCH Robert Cole School of Information Sciences and Technology Penn State University University Park, PA U.S.A. [email_address] Matti Rossi Department of Management Helsinki School of Economics Helsinki, Finland [email_address] Sandeep Purao School of Information Sciences and Technology Penn State University University Park, PA U.S.A. [email_address] Maung K. Sein School of Management Agder University College Kristiansand, Norway [email_address] Presentation at ICIS 2005, Nevada, Las Vegas

5. Design research must be presented effectively both to technology-oriented as well as management-oriented audiences. 7. Communication of Research The search for an effective artifact requires utilizing available means to reach desired ends while satisfying laws in the problem environment. 6. Design as a search process Design research relies upon the application of rigorous methods in both the construction and evaluation of the design artifact. 5. Research Rigor Effective design research must provide clear and verifiable contributions in the areas of the design artifact, design foundations, and/or design methodologies. 4. Research Contributions The utility, quality, and efficacy of a design artifact must be rigorously demonstrated via well-executed evaluation plans. 3. Design Evaluation The object of design research is to develop technology-based solutions to important and relevant business problems. 2. Problem Relevance Design research must produce a viable artifact in the form of a construct, a model, a method, or an instantiation. 1. Design as an artifact Description Criterion Design Research Criteria (From A. R. Hevner, S. T. March, J. Park, and S. Ram, “Design Science in Information Systems Research,” MIS Quarterly (28:1), 2004, p. 83. Copyright © 2004, Regents of the University of Minnesota. Used with permission.)

7. Considered reflection and learning allow a researcher to make both a practical and theoretical contribution. 5. The Principle of Learning Through Reflection Action and change are indivisible research elements related through intervention focused on producing change. 4. The Principle of Change Through Action Theory must play a central role in action research. 3. The Principle of Theory The CPM consists of the stages diagnosing, action planning, action taking, evaluating, and specifying learning. 2. Principle of Cyclical Process Model (CMP) The RCA provides the basis for mutual commitment and role expectations. 1. Principle of Researcher-Client Agreement (RCA) Description Criterion Canonical Action Research Criteria (Adapted from Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., and Kock, N. “Principles of Canonical Action Research,” Information Systems Journal (14:1), 2004, pp. 65-86.)

11. Applying AR Criteria to DR Exemplar No explicit evidence of progress reporting but evidence of strong client engagement; reporting of research outcomes 5. The Principle of Learning through Reflection Behavioral change evident at both the individual and organizational levels 4. The Principle of Change through Action Theory played central role in artifact development and theoretical contribution was made 3. The Principle of Theory Iterative design/evaluate process followed 2. The Principle of Cyclical Process Model (CPM) No explicit RCA but clear evidence of motivational factors 1. The Principle of Researcher-Client Agreement (RCA) Evidence found in the DR Exemplar AR Criterion

15. Applying DR Criteria to AR Exemplar Results were communicated to both practitioners and researchers 7. Communication of Research Four CPM cycles executed before the risk management approach was evaluated as stable and usable 6. Design as a Search Process Explicit discussion of adherence to canonical criteria and logic behind SPI 5. Research Rigor Several theoretical contributions present 4. Research Contributions Evaluation based on utility to practitioners 3. Design Evaluation Clear evidence of relevance due to high resource commitment by organizations involved 2. Problem Relevance Instantiation of SPI models and methods (implicit) 1. Design as an Artifact Evidence found in the AR Exemplar DR Criterion

19. DR1 - Identifying a need AR1 - Diagnosing a problem Problem Definition DR2 - Building AR2 - Action planning AR3 - Action taking DR3 - Evaluating AR4 – Evaluating reflecting AR5 – Specifying learning DR4 – Learning DR5 - Theorizing Intervention Evaluation Reflection and Learning An Integrated Research Process

21. BEING PROACTIVE: WHERE ACTION RESEARCH MEETS DESIGN RESEARCH Robert Cole [email_address] Sandeep Purao [email_address] Matti Rossi [email_address] Maung Sein [email_address] Presentation at ICIS 2005, Nevada, Las Vegas Questions? Frågor? Kysymyksiä? Vragen? ¿Preguntas?