The application of a prescriptive and a constructive perspective to design-science research

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, DESRIST 2008

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 191-211

  Van Steenbergen, Marlies ^a   Bos, Rik ^b   Brinkkemper, Sjaak ^b  

^a Sogeti Netherlands BV ^*  (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Architecture effectiveness model; Design research methodology; Design science; Enterprise architecture

Indexed keywords

BUSINESS GOALS; DESIGN RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES; DESIGN SCIENCE; DESIGN-SCIENCE RESEARCHES; EFFECTIVENESS MODELS; ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE;

INFORMATION SYSTEMS; RESEARCH;

DESIGN;

EID: 77958095235     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (30)

1. Aken, J.E. van (2004). Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: the Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules. Journal of Management Studies 41:2, pp.220-246.
2. Arnott, D. (2006). Cognitive biases and decision support systems development: a design science approach. Information Systems Journal 16, pp. 55-78.
3. Bahadur, K., Desmet, D. and Bommel, E. van (2005). Smart IT Spending: insights from European banks. McKinsey on IT, no.6, pp. 23-27.
4. Benbasat, I. and Zmud, R.W. (1999). Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance. MIS Quaterly, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 3-16.
5. Berg, M. van den and Steenbergen, M. van (2006). Building an enterprise architecture practice. Springer, Dordrecht.
6. Bucher, T., Fischer, R., Kurpjuweit, S. and Winter, R. (2006). Enterprise Architecture Analysis and Application - An Exploratory Study. In: EDOC workshop TEAR 2006. Hong Kong.
7. Davenport, Th.H. and Markus, M.L. (1999). Rigor vs. Relevance: Response to Benbasat and Zmud. MIS Quaterly, vol.23, no. 1, pp. 19-23.
8. Davison, R.M., Martinsons, M.G. and Kock, N. (2004). Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal 14, pp. 65-86.
9. EACE (2007). Enterprise Architecture Conference Europe, London. www.irmuk.co.uk/eac2007.
10. Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J. and Ram, S (2004). Design Research in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, vol.28, no.1, pp.75-105.
11. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, vol.70, nr. 1, pp. 71-79.
12. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2000). Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it. Harvard Business Review, September-october 2000, pp.1-11.
13. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2006). Alignment: using the balanced scorecard to create corporate synergies. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
14. Klein, H.K. and Myers, M.D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in Information Systems. MIS Quaterly, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 67-94.
15. Kwakman, F. and Postema, A. (1996). Het team als probleemoplosser. Kluwer, Deventer.
16. Lankhorst et al. (2005). Enterprise Architecture at Work. Springer, Heidelberg.
17. Lee, A.S. (1999). Rigor and Relevance in MIS Research: Beyond the Approach of Positivism Alone. MIS Quaterly, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 29-33.
18. March, S.T. and Smith, G.F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems 15, pp. 251-266.
19. Markus, M.L., Majchrzak, A. and Gasser, L. (2002). A Design Theory for Systems that Support Emergent Knowledge Processes. MIS Quaterly, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 179-212.
20. Martinsons, M., Davison, R., and Tse, D. (1999). The balanced scorecard: a foundation for the strategic management of information systems. Support Systems, 25, pp.71-88.
21. Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, vol.29, no.3, pp.363-377.
22. Raadt, B. van der, Slot R. and Vliet, H. van (2007). Experience report: assessing a global financial services company on its enterprise architecture effectiveness using NAOMI. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii Intenational Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07).
23. Schelp, J. and Stutz, M. (2007). A balanced scorecard approach to measure the value of enterprise architecture. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, vol.3, no. 4, pp. 8-14.
24. Schekkerman, J. (2005). The economic benefits of enterprise architecture. Trafford Publishing, UK.
25. Steenbergen, M. van, Brinkkemper, S. and Berg, M. van den (2007). An instrument for the development of the enterprise architecture practice. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pp.14-22.
26. th Enterprise Architecture Practitioners Conference. www.opengroup.org/paris2007.
27. Verschuren P. and Hartog R. (2005). Evaluation in Design-Oriented Research. Quality & Quantity, 39, pp. 733-762.
28. Wagter, R., Berg, M. van den, Luijpers, L., Steenbergen, M. van, 2005. Dynamic Enterprise Architecture: how to make it work. Wiley, Hoboken.
29. Weiss, D. (2006). Enterprise Architecture Measurement Program, Part 1: Scoping. ID Nr G00142314.
30. Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research, design and methods, third edition. SAGE Publications, London.