Bridging the Practice Research Divide: A Case History of Teaching Practitioner Design Science Research (PDSR) - OSF
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Bridging the Practice Research Divide: A Case History of Teaching
Practitioner Design Science Research (PDSR)
Dr. Tadhg Nagle1, Business Information Systems, Cork University Business School, University College
Cork, Ireland, t.nagle@ucc.ie
Prof. David Sammon, Business Information Systems, Cork University Business School, University
College Cork, Ireland, dsammon@ucc.ie
Dr. Cathal Doyle, School of Information Management at Victoria University of Wellington, New
Zealand, cathal.doyle@vuw.ac.nz
Introduction
Recent articles published by Harvard Business Review, Academy of Management, and the AACSB
(international accrediting body for business schools) all point to the challenge facing business
schools and departments in creating knowledge that is both academically rigorous and applicable to
practicing managers. As noted by Swanson (2014 p.306) the research domain “is presently under
institutional pressure to justify its value by speaking to its actual, not just intended or imagined,
impacts on professional practice”. Furthermore, in a Harvard Business Review article titled “It’s Time
to Make Business School Research More Relevant” (Shapiro and Kirkman, 2018), two particular
problems are outlined: (i) almost no managers turn to academic journals for advice on how to
improve practices (Rynes et al. 2017), and (ii) academic researchers tend to design studies without
input from managers or employees. With this in mind, the authors of this case history have
developed an innovative approach to teach practitioners the problem led/design orientated
research methodology of Design Science Research (DSR) to conduct highly relevant and rigorous
research.
Labelled as Practitioner Design Science Research (PDSR), the innovative teaching approach is
implemented as a core feature of MSc in Data Business, an executive education offering delivered
through University College Cork. Since its inception, 68 practitioners have been guided through an
individual 18-month Practitioner Design Science Research journey with the goal of creating data
centric artefacts to solve wicked data problems and enhance organisational data assets. Examples of
these data centric artefacts include: data visualisations/dashboards, data analytical models (e.g
customer churn models), data integration models, data strategies, data governance models, and
business plans for data initiatives. Highlighting the impact of these data centric artefacts, the value
recorded for artefacts developed reached €90 million (within two years of the approach being
implemented) with other intangible benefits also recorded. Indeed, PDSR has massively contributed
to Data Business becoming “one of the very first programmes of its kind - worldwide - to emphasise
1
This case history was produced in conjunction with the College of Business and Law (University College
Cork) Strategic Research Fund.
1 PDSR Innovative Teaching Approach
the need to develop both business management skills and capability for evidence-based decision- making” (Alan D. Duncan, VP for Data and Analytics Strategy and Chief Data Officer - Gartner). The impact of its output have also been noticed by the likes of Bob Savage (VP Regional CIO for EMEA Dell Technologies) stating the “practicality of the work you are doing is relevant more than anything I have seen”. Furthermore, 15 papers have been published with an additional five under review. The focus of these papers includes the advances made with PDSR and the artefacts developed by the practitioners. Figure 1: PDSR - an innovative teaching approach The innovativeness of the teaching approach is threefold. Firstly, it focuses on DSR, a relatively new research methodology that guides the development of rigorously evaluated solutions/artefacts that contribute to research and practice communities (van Aken et al, 2016). Secondly, as researchers tend to design studies without input from the practice community (Shapiro and Kirkman, 2018) this initiative focuses entirely on practitioners and puts the practice community at the core of the research. The third innovative feature is the focus on wicked and messy problems. These types of problems have been defined as ill-formulated and confusing with wide ranging impacts (Buchanan, 1992). Interestingly, this problem type is not usually tackled by mainstream DSR research, which instead favours problems that are neatly bounded in past research and literature reviews. Indeed, it has been said that much of the DSR published “simplifies the problem space to one in which known theories and solutions readily apply” (Alan Hevner in Rai, 2017), which is a significant shortfall of a methodology designed to target highly relevant problems. However, by leveraging practitioner’s unique access and insight into wicked problems, a substantial opportunity is opened up to conduct both rigorous and relevant research. The motivation to develop the PDSR innovative teaching approach arose from the necessity to do so. Originating in the Information Systems domain, DSR is now being adopted as a complimentary research methodology in more general management domains such as Operations Management (van Aken et al., 2016). However, as noted by van Aken et al. (2016), challenges exist with conducting and publishing DSR. In particular, challenges such as: (i) limited guidelines for DSR, and (ii) limited guidelines for practitioners doing DSR, meant that a teaching approaching that combined both was non-existent. Visualised through the PDSR Canvas (see Figure 2) the approach brings together many components: (i) an environment where wicked problems are explored by practitioners, (ii) input from industry thought leaders to support effective artefact development, and (iii) continual guidance 2 PDSR Innovative Teaching Approach
from mentors (both industry and academic). The following sections of the case history will provide a more detailed description of the teaching approach and ultimately highlight the innovation, ambition, and success of the authors in tackling one of the most pressing problems facing business schools by teaching DSR to practitioners. Motivation and Challenges As mentioned, the development of the PDSR teaching approach arose from two key challenges: (i) poor guidelines for conducting DSR, and (ii) very little guidance for practitioners doing DSR, which ultimately required the development of the teaching approach from the ground up. While the first challenge is not new, it still exists to this day (Peffers et al., 2018). Over 20 years ago Avison et al. (1999, p.96), commented that Action Research (a predecessor of DSR) had “a lack of detailed guidelines for novice researchers and practitioners to understand and engage in action research studies in terms of design, process, presentation, and criteria for evaluation”. Almost 10 years later, Baskerville (2008) reiterated a similar sentiment as he stated DSR “is engaged in a discourse of discovery” and void of any “broad agreement on terminology, methodology, evaluation criteria, etc” (p. 441). Another 8 years on we are still repeating that same sentiment for DSR, which detailed by Iivari (2015, p.107), notes that “the scientific discourse on DSR is still in a state of conceptual confusion”. Indeed, van Aken et al. (2016 p.8) has noted that DSR “is not a specific method with fixed rules; rather, it is a strategy that can be operationalized in various ways”. Finally, even more recently it has been noted by a number of DSR seminal authors that “the many guidelines and objectives published in journals and conferences make it difficult and costly to carry out DSR projects” (Peffers et al., 2018, p.130). The second challenge highlights the lack of guidance for practitioners in general. The majority of practitioners conducting PDSR are essentially novice researchers, however, to adopt the assumption they are similar to mainstream novice academics is to overlook a number of key advantages that practitioners hold. Practitioners are in a better position to identify relevant problems that are difficult to solve and have real organisational impact. Conversely, academic researchers are primarily abstracted from the world of the practitioner, it has been advised they qualify the problems they have identified with practitioners to ensure relevance (Rosemann and Vessey, 2008). Moreover, as highlighted by Davision et al. (2004, p.68) “the re-searcher seldom has complete control over interventions”. In contrast, practitioners will always have areas where they possess a certain degree of control where they can dictate the course of a project and guide its implementation to completion. This is a major advantage as it provides bounded areas that are a rich bed for conducting research with full direct access. These bounded areas also provide protection from the risk of losing control over the environment underpinning the research (Davison et al., 2004). In addition, immersed in the realities of their work, practitioners experience relevant and wicked problems that need to be solved. As mentioned, these wicked problems are a rich source of valuable research for both the academic and research community (Buchanan, 1992). However, without adequate guidance these research opportunities never get explored. 3 PDSR Innovative Teaching Approach
Approach Infrastructure Implementing the innovative teaching approach involved three key components: (i) the development of the PDSR canvas, a visual guide for practitioners completing DSR, (ii) the assembly of a world class faculty team that enabled the practitioners to complete the activities outlined in the PDSR canvas, and (iii) the engagement with practitioners wishing to do problem led research. The first part of the approach involved the development of the Practitioner Design Science Research canvas to overcome the lack of guidelines on DSR (Nagle et al., 2017). Specifically aimed at practitioners, the canvas (see Figure 2) provides a visual conceptualisation of all the components of a DSR project and how they combine to create a rigorous and relevant study. In total, the PDSR took three years to develop and went through three iterative development cycles, which is outlined in Appendix B Composed of three pillars (DSR - central pillar, academic rigour - right pillar, and practical relevance - left pillar), the PDSR canvas provides a guide for practitioners that lends a balanced practice-research focus and differentiates the PDSR project from normal work or consultancy. The central pillar sets out the key activities of a DSR iteration and incorporates three sections, namely: (i) problem definition, (ii) design and build, and (iii) evaluation. The practitioner side of the canvas outlines the activities that need to be completed during a PDSR project to ensure relevance. It is labelled as “Practitioner” as it contains the aspects of a PDSR project that practitioners are most familiar and comfortable with. Mirroring the practitioner side of the canvas, the researcher side follows the same principles, but promoting the rigour aspects of a DSR project. For instance, just as “Problem Definition” on the practitioner side looks at whether the problem is worth solving, the researcher side asks question if the problem is worth researching. 4 PDSR Innovative Teaching Approach
Figure 2: Practitioner Design Science Research Canvas 5 PDSR Innovative Teaching Approach
Developed iteratively over three years, the canvas has been evaluated by practitioners as they
tackled wicked problems and by experts through its presentation at practice research and DSR
conferences. In addition, each component has been backed up theoretically (see Table 1) and further
points to the PDSR canvas as a comprehensive guide that integrates the advice the across domains
into a single visual. The PDSR is designed so it can be printed to A0 and used as a collaborative tool
with supervisors using sticky notes. It can also be used in PowerPoint formats to present progress of
projects to wider audiences. It each case the output of using the PDSR is to create a shared
understanding of research project between the primary stakeholders.
Worth Solving
What is the practical significance “The objective of design-science research is to develop technology-based solutions to important and
of the problem? relevant business problems” (Hevner et al., 2004 p.83).
What is the scope of the problem? Problem needs to be described in a ‘holistic fashion’ (Baskerville, 1999 p.15)
Problem
Worth Researching?
What is the research significance “A DSR project has the potential to make different types and levels of research contributions depending
of the problem? on its starting points in terms of problem maturity and solution maturity” (Gregor and Hevner, 2013
p.344).
Is there a call for the research or In Myers (2013) the link between research gap and resulting contribution is made.
identification of a research gap?
Well Organised?
What were the project steps, Mathiassen et al. (2012) highlight the element of “the methods guiding the problem-solving cycle” or
iterations and timeline? MPS.
Design and Build
What design and development The rigor in design science research must be pursued in the methods employed in the development of
frameworks/tools were used and the artifact (Goes, 2014).
how?
Well Documented?
Was there adherence to a Mathiassen et al. (2012) highlight the element of “the methods guiding the research cycle” or M R.
research methods and alignment
with project plan?
Was there use of existing research “Needs to be informed by principles that both embody a sound theoretical base and are accepted by a
in the artefact development? research community that supports their reflective and appropriate application in problem contexts”
(Davison et al., 2004 p.66).
What Results?
Evaluation
What was the performance of Criteria to measure such performance includes: quality of the artefact, utility of the artefact, and
artefact? efficacy (Venable et al, 2012).
What findings?
Was there learning from Ability to explore through design from which reflection-in-action is key (Holmström et al., 2009)
reflection?
Business Impact?
Was there local and/or general Goldkuhl (2012) differentiates between local and general practice impact.
practice impact?
What was the explicitness of Impact can be detailed with four levels of explicitness from observable to financial (Ward et al., 2008).
Impact
impact?
Research Impact?
What is the contribution to the “The main objective is to create knowledge through meaningful solutions that survive rigorous
body of knowledge? validations through proof of concept, proof of use, and proof of value. (Goes, 2014 p. 6)
What is the format of Mathiassen et al. (2012) outlined five formats: (i) experience report, (ii) field study, (iii) theoretical
contribution?
Table 1: Theoretical development, (iv) problem-solving method, and (v) research method.
support for the PDSR approach
The second key aspect of the teaching approach has been the assembly of a world class faculty
team. As well as a strong local faculty, a number of thought leaders were brought in to guide
practitioners on both the practical and academic side of their research. Key industry figures such as
Prof. Tom Davenport, Dr. Ken Collier, Dr. Tom Redman, and Alan Duncan provide unique guidance to
practitioners as they grapple with wicked problems and craft contributions to the academic body of
6 PDSR Innovative Teaching Approachknowledge. Highlighting the fit of these through leaders to the PDSR approach, Table 2 provides a list
of their outputs as well as the PDSR area they support.
Thought Leader Specialisation (publications) PDSR support area
Prof. Tom Davenport Business Analytics Strategy (with over 100 All areas
articles published in outlets such as HBR. Also
has one of the seminal books on leveraging
analytics for competitive advantage).
Dr. Ken Collier (the agilist) Agile data solutions (published one of the few Artefact Design/Build
books on the topic agile analytics.
Dr. Tom Redman (data doc) Data quality issues (several articles on data Problem, Design/Build
quality in HBR and Sloan Management Review.
Also has a number of very successful books on
the topic).
Alan D. Duncan (Gartner) Business Cases (numerous industry reports on Business Impact
the business value of data and the role of the
Chief Data Officer.
Table 2: Role of industry thought leaders.
The third key aspect of the teaching approach is access to practitioners. This was achieved through
implementing the approach within the executive educational offering MSc in Data Business. The
course is delivered through the Irish Management Institute the executive education arm of
University College Cork. All participants in the course are practitioners/executives with 10 years or
more experience across all business functions (e.g. sales, procurement, production, IT, HR, and
customer support). They hail from a wide spectrum of organisations such as: EMC, Dell, Facebook,
Microsoft, Johnson and Johnson, and Central Bank. In addition, while they all see data as a key
success factor in delivering value to their organisation, they struggle with wicked problems on a
regular basis.
Impact of the Approach on the Users/Participants
Completing their Practitioner Design Science Research journey each practitioner documents their
research in a 16000 word thesis that is aligned with the PDSR canvas. Following their thesis
submission, the practitioners present their research to the public in the form of an open showcase,
promoting engagement and dissemination of their results. During the first showcase (2015) a 6
minute video was commissioned to capture the event as well as the feedback of the practitioners. As
can be seen in the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-N9kYPtiVU&t=15s) the practitioners
themselves become champions of PDSR within their own organisations. For some they have gone
the extra mile and pursued a PhD to further their research, sacrificing full-time employment to do
so. The practitioners fully appreciate the research competencies developed throughout their DSR
journey and place a huge amount of value on their: new practitioner-researcher mind-set, increased
awareness of the need for more problem exploration, and ability to implement iterative/agile
solutions. Indeed, these sentiments are demonstrated in the participant comments below.
The DSR approach, and in particular, the approach of the Practitioner Researcher, to solving business problems
could be of interest to any organisation who have an agile mind-set and who do not have an already
established research department” (Practitioner, 2017)
7 PDSR Innovative Teaching Approach“This DSR project has witnessed both setbacks and victories; ultimately it is regarded as a success, but with more work to come. It has understood and addressed a real and significant problem with an innovative solution, whilst leveraging and creating valuable research insights” (Practitioner 2018). “During my research, I used PDSR over a period of one year. My research contributes to a resolution of the problem of repeating ex-learner allowances through the development of the artefact” (Practitioner, 2020) “I started this DSR journey as a practitioner….Having embraced this researcher side, I will never approach a single problem again without exploring the prior research for such issues so I am fully informed and have gained the learnings from those before me who have worked with similar problems” (Practitioner, 2020) Figure 3: First Data Business Showcase (2015) The learning outcomes The first achievement is the development of 68 Practitioner-Researchers, each conducting rigorous research that goes to the edges of industry problem solving and pushes the boundary. Furthermore, the impact of these PDSR projects is substantial with €90 million potential value recorded in just two years of the approach being implemented. The value was classified across activities such as: eliminating waste, improving operations, developing new benefits. The projects focused on developing data centric artefacts such as: analytical models, dashboards/visualisations, governance frameworks, and data quality processes. However, not all artefact impacts can be measured financially. For instance, one practitioner created a checklist/app to help Cystic Fibrosis patients to overcome information challenges encountered during medical appointments. The checklist is now being used by CF patients in Ireland, UK, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Israel and Australia. From an academic perspective, the authors in collaboration with the practitioners have pushed the boundary of what’s possible through PDSR. In total, there have been 15 publications and a further 5 under review originating from this initiative. These include: (i) 11 papers plus 3 under review on artefacts created by practitioners (e.g. Magee et al. 2016), (ii) 3 papers plus 1 under review on how to bridge the practice research divide through PDSR (e.g. Nagle et al. 2016), and (iii) 2 papers on 8 PDSR Innovative Teaching Approach
current data practices of organisations, one of which was published in Harvard Business Review
(https://hbr.org/2017/09/only-3-of-companies-data-meets-basic-quality-standards) which has been
viewed over 50,000 times and has led to further requests to the authors, from industry, to engage in
their respective data strategy design work.
Future Plans
The first step of implementing the teaching approach focused on conducting PDSR as it aimed to
solve wicked problems and produce rigorous research. Having successfully completed the
implementation with noteworthy results, the next step of the PDSR evolution is to focus on
effectively publishing the outputs. While there has been significant success in publishing the
studies, it has proven to be challenging. However, it must also be appreciated that researchers of all
types have found it difficult to publish DSR studies, partly because of the multiple guidelines and
partly because of the undifferentiated nature of DSR studies that make it problematic for reviewers.
Indeed as recent as 2018, a lack of DSR empirical studies in highly ranked journals has been
explicitly called out (Baskerville et al., 2018). Furthermore, the excessive focus on theory as an
output makes it difficult to get academic recognition for organisational impacts through rigorously
executed practice-based research (Dennis, 2019).
14
12
10 MISQ
JSIS
8 JMIS
JIT
6 JAIS
ISR
4 ISJ
EJIS
2
0
1992 1996 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Figure 4: DSR papers reviewed
As the result, the next phase of development is starting to provide guidance on how best to publish
PDSR studies. Over the last 18 months, the authors conducted a literature review of all 111 papers
published in the Senior Scholar Basket Information Systems journals (see Figure 4). The Information
Systems domain was chosen due to the seminal DSR articles published in the domain as well as the
high prevalence of DSR articles in its top ranked journals. From initial analysis, the lack of practice-
inspired papers is immediately striking. Only 13% of the papers focus on an instance of problem
versus 86%, which focuses on theoretical defined problems (see Figure 5). This highlights that only
one in eight papers had a real problem being experienced by an organisation as the starting point of
their article. The other seven derived their problems from literature. The analysis also demonstrates
a high prevalence of ‘black box prototyping’ where very little insight into the artefact development
process is offered. This initial analysis alone demonstrates the challenge in publishing PDSR, which
9 PDSR Innovative Teaching Approachis primarily practice-inspired and emphasises the innovative development of artefacts.
Alternatively, this may just be an indication of the types of papers expected in the IS domain and
serve as a benchmark for other domains such as Operations Management (van Aken et al., 2016),
which are more practice-aligned and more open to PDSR.
Figure 5: Breakdown of DSR papers.
Nonetheless, the literature review identified four dominant styles of papers, which essentially
provide a set of templates for the practitioners to follow. However, given the insights above it is not
surprising to learn that only one template (demonstrated in 9 articles) presented the development
of artefact design, which is best aligned to PDSR. Nevertheless, as part of the literature review a
complete index of the 111 papers was recorded and published in the Open Science Framework
(osf.io) at https://osf.io/s98kw/. This will allow researchers quickly locate papers with similar
characteristics to their DSR study (e.g. evaluation methods, artefact types, and impacts), providing
another source of guidance in presenting their research and increasing their chances of publication.
In conclusion, while significant progress has been made in developing Practitioner Design Science
Research as an innovative teaching approach, there is more work to be done in enabling
practitioners to fulfil their research journey with a high quality publication as an output. Further
closing the practice research divide.
References
Avison D, Lau F, Myers M, Nielsen PA (1999) Action research. Communications of the ACM 42 (1):94-97
Baskerville RL (1999) Investigating Information Systems with Action Research Communications of the
Association for Information Systems 2 (1):2-32
Baskerville, R. (2008) What design science is not. European Journal of Information Systems 17, 441-443.
10 PDSR Innovative Teaching ApproachBaskerville, R., Baiyere, A., Gregor, S., Hevner, A., & Rossi, M. (2018). Design science research contributions: finding a balance between artifact and theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(5), 358- 376. doi: 10.17705/1jais.00495 Buchanan R. Wicked problems in design thinking. Design issues. 1992 Apr 1;8(2):5-21. Davison, R., Martinsons, M. G. and Kock, N. (2004), "Principles of canonical action research", Information Systems Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 65-86. Dennis, A. (2019). An Unhealthy Obsession with Theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(9), 13. Goes PB (2014) Editor's Comments: Design Science Research in Top Information Systems Journals. MIS Quarterly 38 (1):iii-viii Goldkuhl G (2012) From Action Research to Practice Research. Australasian Journal of Information Systems 17 (2):57-78 Gregor S, Hevner AR (2013) Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact. MIS Quarterly 37 (2):337-356 Hevner A, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly 28 (1):75-105 Holmström J, Ketokivi M, Hameri AP (2009) Bridging Practice and Theory: A Design Science Approach. Decision Sciences 40 (1):65-87 Iivari J (2015) Distinguishing and Contrasting Two Strategies for Design Science Research. European Journal of Information Systems 24 (1):107-115 Magee, B., Sammon, D., Nagle, T., O’Raghallaigh, P. (2016). Introducing data driven practices into sales environments: examining the impact of data visualisation on user engagement and sales results, IFIP 8.3, pp. 313-328. Mathiassen L, Chiasson M, Germonprez M (2012) Style Composition in Action Research Publication. MIS Quarterly 36 (2):347-363 Myers MD (2013) Qualitative Research in Business and Management. 2 edn. Sage, London Nagle T, Sammon D, Doyle C (2016) Meeting in the Middle: Bridging the Practice Research Divide from Both Sides. Paper presented at the European Conference of Information Systems, Istanbul, June 2016 https://cora.ucc.ie/handle/10468/5163 Nagle, T., Sammon, D., Doyle, C. (2017). Insights into Practitioner Design Research, International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology. Springer, Karlsruhe, Germany. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-59144-5_25 Peffers K., Tuunanen T., & Niehaves B. (2018) Design science research genres: introduction to the special issue on exemplars and criteria for applicable design science research, European Journal of Information Systems, 27:2, 129-139, DOI: 10.1080/0960085X.2018.1458066 Rai, A. (2017). Diversity of Design Science Research. Mis Quarterly, 41(1), iii-xviii. Rosemann, M. and Vessey, I. (2008), "Toward improving the relevance of information systems research to practice: The role of applicability checks", MIS Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1-22. 11 PDSR Innovative Teaching Approach
Rynes S, Bartunek J, Daft R, (2017) Across the Great Divide: Knowledge Creation and Transfer Between Practitioners and Academics, Academy of Management Journal (44:2), https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/3069460 Shapiro L and Kirkman B (2018), It’s Time to Make Business School Research More Relevant, Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2018/07/its-time-to-make-business-school-research-more-relevant Swanson E (2014) A Simple Research Impacts Model Applied to the Information Systems Field. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 35 (1):16 van Aken, J., Chandrasekaran, A. and Halman, J., 2016. Conducting and publishing design science research: Inaugural essay of the design science department of the Journal of Operations Management. Journal of Operations Management, 47, pp.1-8 Venable J, Pries-Heje J, Baskerville R A comprehensive framework for evaluation in design science research. In: International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems, 2012. Springer, pp 423-438 Ward J, Daniel E, Peppard J (2008) Building better business cases for IT investments. MIS Quarterly Executive 7 (1):1-15 Appendix A: Example of the PDSR canvas in use. 12 PDSR Innovative Teaching Approach
Appendix B: Development of the Practitioner Design Science Research Canvas
Iteration 1 (May 2014 - Jan 2016: Iteration 2 (Feb 2016 - July
Iteration 3 (Aug 2016 – June 2017)
21 months) 2016: 6 months)
Date: May 2014 - Dec 2014 Date: Feb 2016 - Mar 2016 Date: July 2016 - Aug 2016
Problem Definition
Description: After the first Description: Need to support general IS
Description: Need to aid
iteration, the need was practitioners in conducting DSR projects
practitioners in understanding the
widened to focus on supporting
dual role (of researcher and
practitioners in conducting DSR
practitioner) within DSR projects.
projects
Date: Jan 2015 - Aug 2015 Date: April 2016 - May 2016 Date: Aug 2016 - Sept 2016
Description: Built version 1 of the Description: Version 2 of the Description: Version 3 (see Fig. 1) of the
canvas with a focus of enabling canvas included a modified canvas was designed to align more with the
Design and Build
practitioners to conduct DSR structure of that aimed to language of DSR in literature and to link to
projects. Key emphasis was to get make it more intuitive to use previous research for clear guidelines on how
the practitioners to be mindful the and aid practitioners to to complete the sections on the canvas (see
dual role (researcher and implement the key aspects of Table 2). The link to literature was also to
practitioner) in DSR and to do more DSR. make the canvas itself more robust and
than just routine design. potentially more consumable by
practitioners outside of the reach of the
authors.
Date: Sept 2015 - Jan 2016 Date: June 2016 - July 2016 Date: Sept 2016 – June 2017
Data sources: (i) request for Data sources: (i) request for Data sources: (i) 14 practitioner DSR
comment, (ii) conference paper comment, (ii) conference projects, (ii) conference presentations to
review, (iii) use in 16 practitioner presentations, (iii) simulation. practice research and DSR academic
DSR projects. audiences.
Evaluation
Analysis: User evaluation Analysis: Expert evaluation Analysis: Highlighted an appetite from
highlighted good usability and highlighted a need for more practitioners and supervisors in simplifying
impact results. Had issues with the depth and rigour to verify the the DSR journey. Also, highlighted a need to
structure and ability of the canvas emergent structure of the focus on the publishing as well as the doing
to represent the iterative nature of canvas and provide more of PDSR.
design rather than being a waterfall guidance in utilising the canvas.
approach ending with contributions
as the last phase.
13 PDSR Innovative Teaching ApproachYou can also read
