1- Introduction
Soft entry into the general field/topic: Create attention to the topic and give a context.
Introduction to the key concepts/terms and terminology (so that your problem and research question/objective can be better understood).
Define the problem (or opportunity) and its significance.
Clarify the research gap - the gap between what is available as possible solutions in the literature and what is needed to solve the problem.
Define the research objective.
As this is a DSR, you propose a design artifact in the form of a model, method, construct, or instances of tools/software.
The research objective (RO) should briefly specify the goals that are required for the artifact to be developed (though the details can be left to the Research Design Section 3).
Pose an RO statement: "Therefore, the objective of this research is to develop <the artifact, which is a method, model, tool, construct, or instances of tools/software> to support organizations in <the reason for developing the artifact, and/or the reason why organizations should adopt it>.
Very brief overview (1-3 sentences each) of the:
The scope of study (things that are assumed, kept out of the scope, …),
Research design (including the methods used),
Findings,
Explanation of the contribution and its importance.
Structure of the remainder of the thesis/paper/report
2 - Background and Related Work (or Review of the Literature)
Background on the existing concepts, tools, techniques, and frameworks that you use(d). Give sufficient info so that -when you refer to them in the coming chapters- the reader can have a better understanding of what you talk about.
Review of related works - those with the same or similar research questions/objectives - and how your work differs from these studies to justify the case for your work.
3- Research Design
A summary of what research activities you have performed (to address your research objective or answer your research questions), including the research methods you used.
What are the main research steps you followed?
You refer here to the Design Science Research methodology/paradigm and to one of its process templates, such as Peffers et al. (2008), Sonnenberg et al. (2012), Tuunanen et al. (2024), or Gregor et al. (2014).
A figure to describe the process (research steps and phases) you went through, including the research methods used in each research activity (step) and the outputs generated.
E.g., check and customize Figure-1 in Peffers et al. (2008), or adopt Fig.3 in Sonnenberg et al. (2012) and customize it to your context.
If you adopt Peffers et al. (2008), you will broadly have the following research phases: Problem Identification, Solution Objectives Definition, Design and Development, Demonstration and Evaluation. It is a good practice to have subsections under Section 3 dedicated to each of these phases. ( See Gregor et al. (2013), Table 1 for more explanations).
Here, you describe the research methods you used in these steps (e.g., surveys, interviews, focus groups). Very briefly explain these methods, and make sure that you answer the question of 'why you chose them”, and briefly explain how you used these methods.
<<<<
Your MS Thesis Proposal comprises the first three sections above (and perhaps Chapter 4, too) plus the study plan/schedule.
In the proposal, you adopt the future tense for Section 3 as it will only be a plan for the research.
>>>>
4- Description of the Artifact (i.e., method, technique, tool, framework, conceptual model, ...whatever the solution to your problem is)
A concise description of the solution artifact at the appropriate level of abstraction to make a new contribution to the knowledge base.
This section (or sections) should occupy the major part of your thesis/paper.
The format is likely to be variable but should include at least the description of the designed artifact and, perhaps, the design search process.
This section should be self-sufficient for an outside reader (e.g., target user of your artifact, practitioner) to apply your artifact.
5- Evaluation
Evidence that the artifact is of some use or makes sense, has some utility, is effective, etc.
The artifact is evaluated to demonstrate its worth with evidence addressing criteria such as validity, utility, quality, and efficacy.
If deemed necessary, provide more details about how you applied the research methods you specified in Chapter 3.
And, of course, explain what results you achieved.
(Check Sonnenberg et al. (2012) for evaluation of artifacts.)
6- Discussion
Summary and interpretation of the (evaluation) results: what the results mean and how they relate back to the research objective (question) stated in the Introduction section (and possibly solution objectives/requirements that you specified for your artifact in Section 3).
Limitations of the artifact
Summary of what was learned and comparison with prior work.
Limitations of the research: Limitations imposed on the research due to the research methods used. (This sub-section can also be in the form of "content validity, construct validity, and other threats to the validity”, particularly if evaluation involves empirical studies, such as surveys.) If possible or available, the actions taken or decisions made to address each limitation (or decrease the risk of the limitation). (As a limitation, you were the sole designer in this study. However, by following established guidelines, defining clear solution objectives, and providing a rationale for your decisions, you mitigated this limitation to some extent. This approach helps the reader understand both the nature and the extent of the limitation. @Tnks to Baris Ozkan for this point!)
Future research: Areas requiring further work to address the limitations mentioned above. Limitations and future research can be coupled in a single sub-section.
7 - Conclusions
Brief overview of what is described/was done in the study.
What was your research objective (questions), and what did you do about it (in brief)? Restate the important findings of the work.
Significance of the work - theoretical and practical (how can/should researchers and practitioners use your artifact?) (By the way, this part may as well be under the discussion section!)
Contributions to (or implications for) research
Contributions to (or implications for) practice
1.1. What is DSR?
Hevner et al. (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28:75–105
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eGykfxrv41MILleBvrdzfe0nNLDxJ0mm/
This is a seminal paper on Design Science Research, clarifying what DSR refers to and how it differs from behavioral science research.
We perform both types of research in our research team, but mostly DSR.
You will see parts that are (yellow) highlighted in this paper.
You can pay more attention to Sections 1 (Intro) and 2 (A framework for IS research).
>>> Parts that are particularly relevant are:
- Figure 2
- Table 2 (… evaluation)
1.2. How do you perform DSR Research?
Peffers et al. (2014) A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302
This work proposes a process for conducting DSR research.
>>> Pay attention to "Figure 1-Design science research process (DSRP) model” and relevant text.
You can adopt this process and customize it with research steps (and relevant research methods, such as SLRs, interviews, Delphi studies, and surveys) specific to your research.
1.3. How to evaluate a DSR Artifact?
DSR research results in design artifacts (e.g., methods, techniques, models, tools).
These artifacts must be rigorously evaluated for various attributes, particularly for validity and utility (for their target users).
Tuunanen et al. (2024). Dealing with Complexity in Design Science Research ... MIS Quarterly, 48(2), 427-458.
https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2023/16700
>>> Pay attention to Table 1 for the DSR process, validation criteria, and relevant techniques.
Sonnenberg et al. (2012) Evaluations in the Science of the Artificial ... DESRIST 2012.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29863-9_28
>>> Pay attention to Figure 3 and Table 3.
This paper aligns with Tuunanen et al. (2024) and proposes a DSR process (like the one from Peffers et al.'s), but this time with explicit evaluation moments after each phase. You can also adopt this process (instead of Petters et al.'s).
Venable et al. (2016) FEDS: a Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research. European Journal of Inf. Sys. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.36
1.4. How to communicate DSR research?
Shirley Gregor and Alan Hevner (2013). Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eh-aP2Bk0SJk3WYnanC9mspzekYzv1dl
>>> Pay attention to: Figures 1-2-3, and Table 3. Publication Schema for a DSR Study
I find this table quite useful in structuring a paper, thesis or any other professional report.
- Take a look at Table 1 as well, and position your artifact accordingly (Level 1-2-3?)
- You can also check Appendix C for an example.
1.5. Example papers
Example 1: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12599-018-0565-x
OK, this is one of my papers, and probably not the best in communicating DSR research ;) so, use it with care and do a better job, please :)
Example 2: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-024-00892-5
2.1. A seminal paper on literature reviews:
Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future- Writing a Literature Review-Webster-2002
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4132319
2.2. How to perform and report a Systematic Literature Review?
- A recent paper that also investigates the use of GenAI in SLRs: Tingelhoff et al. (2024) A guide for structured literature reviews in business research: The state-of-the-art and how to integrate generative artificial intelligence. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/02683962241304105
2.3. Sample SLR papers:
a) Lara Machado et al. (2023) Methods that bridge business models and business processes: a synthesis of the literature.BPMJ. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-08-2022-0396
b) van de Ven et al. (2023) Key performance indicators for business models: a systematic review and catalog. ISeB. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10257-023-00650-2
c) Szelagowski et al. (2024) BPM challenges, limitations and future development directions-a systematic literature review. BPMJ, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-06-2023-0419
d) Tarhan et al. (2016). Business process maturity models: A systematic literature review. IST.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2016.01.010
2.4. Additional sources
a) Literature Review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines by Synder 2019.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296319304564
b) Guidelines for reporting systematic reviews: Page et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.N71
c) The original report: Detailed guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews by Kitchenham: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFwCqPg895IBk_9mmaprt0jis34Cqr-e/
2.5. Multi-Vocal Literature Reviews (to include also the grey literature)
If your review would benefit from looking at the grey literature (practice-oriented sources like white papers, company reports, blogs, etc.), then you can perform a "multi-vocal literature review”.
The following paper is an example of a multi-vocal literature review and also provides some pointers to other papers that describe how such a review can be performed:
3.1. I find this work quite useful too ... as it clarifies several concepts (e.g., research methodology, res. process ...) and gives a good overview of available research options, including how they relate to each other:
Wohlin and Aurum (2014) "Towards a decision-making structure for selecting a research design in empirical software engineering". Empirical Software Eng. DOI 10.1007/s10664-014-9319-7.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cxQkaGj4FVSOaMVSyrbcEnbCztpKsllx/
In particular, Fig. 2 Research decision-making structure is informative … acts almost like a table of contents.
The rest might be a heavy or a standard read (if you are not interested in a particular method).