- > the design of IT artifact involves interpreting and converting design principles of the theory into artifact features.
Page 19
- > We term the features designed specifically to instantiate design principles of a design theory focal features.
Page 19
- > Cases 1 and 2 show that instantiating abstract design principles requires making implementation decisions that cannot be determined from the principles alone. Additional knowledge must be brought to bear by a practitioner to complete the project. In the Appendix, we provide a detailed analysis to show that in real-world development following a design theory, design of focal features involves a series of transformations of the design principles, in which each iteration brings additional knowledge (from outside the design theory). The mapping between design principles and focal features is not 1:1 as there can be many ways to instantiate a principle (e.g., collecting information “in terms of attributes” in Case 1), each leading to different outcomes – a concept known as multifinality (Kruglanski et al., 2013; Prat et al., 2015).
Design prescriptions have multifinality
Page 19
- > As there may be many ways of manifesting an abstract principle and no specific guidance on how to select the best design choices, the question arises whether and to what extent outcomes are contingent on specific focal features. In some cases, the eventual design might produce the predicted outcome, but in others it might not. Table 2 illustrates this for Case
Page 20
- > 2, showing that the same design principle was converted into focal features in multiple ways – all assumed to be consistent with the principle – resulting in different outcomes
This example also points to a “implementers me make mistakes” dimension of DTI. In this case I wouldn’t count melting ice underneath a polar bear as “direct feedback”, it is really more like a causal illustration of the effect of energy consumption.
Edit: the authors discuss this later
Page 20
- > Design principles may be orthogonal – meaning that the focal features derived from one principle do not interact with any focal features derived from another. Alternatively, design principles might be oblique – in this case design features derived from one design principle might interact with design features derived from a second one. This means the complexity of instantiating multiple principles, each of which may be operationalized in several ways via different focal features, can be very high and instantiation of one principle may interfere with another. Such interactions might either strengthen or weaken effects on outcomes of interest.
Page 21
- > Thus, a challenge is providing effective support and guidance for practitioners to instantiate design principles into appropriate focal features such that the predicted outcomes occur. Accordingly, we propose Dimension 1.1 (Focal features) of DTI as indeterminacy when designing focal features based on design principles of the design theory.
Page 21
- > The need to make IT artifacts work requires the practitioner to develop features that relate to requirements other than the design principles or other components of the design theory. We term these auxiliary features. These features are commonly needed to ensure good design (Baskerville, Kaul, & Storey, 2018), provide generally expected functionality, physical infrastructure, or comply with legal, cultural or ethical norms (assuming these are beyond the scope of a given theory).
Page 22
- > It is possible that, even when all focal features are instantiated properly, the presence of auxiliary features may mitigate or even reverse the “desired” effects stipulated by the design theory. Lukyanenko et al. (2015, 2014) view this as a threat to instantiation validity – ensuring that an artifact designed to instantiate a theory (e.g., for the purpose of behavioral theory testing or development of an IT artifact based on a design theory) not only faithfully operationalizes the focal theory, but is also free of confounds due to the presence of additional features necessary to make the artifact work.
Page 22
- > As discussed before, an IT artifact is a complex and open system. This implies it may not be reducible to the sum of its focal and auxiliary features. Instead, it may have emergent features – elements of form and behavior that emerge from the complex interaction between its focal and auxiliary features (Prat, Comyn-Wattiau, & Akoka, 2014). Following Prat et al. (2014), we argue DSR research needs to consider both individual IT features and an IT artifact as a whole.
Page 23
- > we propose Dimension 1.3 (Emergent features) of DTI as indeterminacy in ensuring any emergent features of the artifact accord with the design theory and do not prevent the attainment of the target outcome(s).
Page 24
- > design theories typically do not specify the full causal chains linking the artifact to the outcomes. They routinely omit potentially pertinent moderator and mediator constructs and their interrelationships (e.g., when a mediator is moderated by another variable, see Tams, Legoux, & Leger, 2018). A moderating construct is a construct that influences the direction or magnitude of the relationship between the antecedent and outcome constructs.
Page 25
- > antecedent and outcome constructs A mediating construct, on the other hand, is one assumed to stand between the
Page 25
- > In sum, to increase the likelihood of a desired outcome following the instantiation of a design theory into an artifact, the causal chains connecting the artifact to the outcomes in the deployment setting need to be well-understood and managed. Lack of guidance on how to do this creates ambiguity and uncertainty in practice.
Page 25
- > we propose Dimension 2.1 (Causality) of DTI as indeterminacy when deploying the artifact in the specific real-world context to ensure that the target outcomes are attained.
Page 26
- > DSR lacks the practice of sharing measurement instruments and making them publicly available for practitioners. As a result, a practitioner might reach incorrect conclusions following the deployment of the artifact design based on the design theory.
Page 26
- > we define Dimension 2.2 (Measurement) of DTI as indeterminacy in ensuring that the outcomes attained are properly measured and valid conclusions are reached.
Page 26
- > in an artifact, specification of causality, and measurement. it involves uncertainties related to additional features of the artifact, the interaction of features that we do not conceptualize DTI as merely a challenge of translating design principles. Rather, DTI is a multidimensional problem. These dimensions (summarized in Table 3) show
