🤖 AI Summary
This study addresses the insufficient validation of artifact effectiveness in Design Science Research (DSR). It systematically evaluates how three dominant DSR frameworks—Baskerville et al., Hevner et al., and Gregor & Jones—support five established validity types: instrumental, technical, design, purpose, and generalizability. While all frameworks explicitly emphasize purpose validity, they exhibit structural gaps in instrumental and design validity, undermining research credibility. To remedy this, we propose, for the first time, a revised DSR framework that comprehensively integrates all five validity types. Each type is formally defined and illustrated with concrete examples. Through qualitative comparative analysis and methodological reconstruction, the framework renders validity assessment systematic and operationally feasible. The revised framework enhances the rigor, transparency, and cross-contextual applicability of DSR artifacts and outcomes.
📝 Abstract
Although the methodology of Design Science Research (DSR) is playing an increasingly important role with the emergence of the"sciences of the artificial", the validity of the resulting artifacts is occasionally questioned. This paper compares three influential DSR frameworks to assess their support for artifact validity. Using five essential validity types (instrument validity, technical validity, design validity, purpose validity and generalization), the qualitative analysis reveals that while purpose validity is explicitly emphasized, instrument and design validity remain the least developed. Their implicit treatment in all frameworks poses a risk of overlooked validation, and the absence of mandatory instrument validity can lead to invalid artifacts, threatening research credibility. Beyond these findings, the paper contributes (a) a comparative overview of each framework's strengths and weaknesses and (b) a revised DSR framework incorporating all five validity types with definitions and examples. This ensures systematic artifact evaluation and improvement, reinforcing the rigor of DSR.