1 Detmar W. Straub was the accepting senior editor for this paper. The appendices for this paper are located in the "Online Supplements" section of the MIS Quarterly's website (http://www.misq.org). MIS Quarterly Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 337-355/June 2013 337 We contend that ongoing confusion and misunderstandings of DSR's central ideas and goals are hindering DSR from having a more striking influence on the IS field. A key problem that underlies this confusion is less than full understanding of how DSR relates to human knowledge. The appropriate and effective consumption and production of knowledge are related issues that researchers should consider foremost throughout the research process-from initial problem selection, to the use of sound research methods, to reflection, and to communication of research results in journal and conference articles. However, this issue becomes paramount in reflection and communication, and for this reason we focus on these activities in this essay. The essay aims to help researchers (1) appreciate the levels of artifact abstraction that may be DSR contributions, (2) understand knowledge roles in DSR and so identify appropriate ways of consuming and producing knowledge when they are preparing journal articles or other scholarly works, (3) understand and position the knowledge contributions of their research projects, and (4) structure a DSR article so that significant contributions to the knowledge base are clear and present. In addition to being of interest to authors, the essay should engage editors and reviewers who seek guidance on what to expect from knowledge contributions in DSR. Contributing to knowledge is seen as the foremost criterion for the publication of research (e.g., Straub et al. 1994 1. Are the problems discussed in the paper of substantial interest? Would solutions of these problems materially advance knowledge of theory, methods or applications? 2. Does the author either solve these problems or else make contributions toward a solution that improves substantially upon previous work? 3. Are the methods of solution new? Can the proposed solution methods be used to solve other problems of interest? 4. Does the exposition of the paper help to clarify our understanding of this area of research or application? Does the paper hold our interest and make us want to give the paper the careful reading that we give to important papers in our area of specialization? The current essay aims to satisfy these questions for a DSR publication. Experience shows that many authors, reviewers, and editors struggle to present and interpret DSR work well with a clear understanding of knowledge contributions. The difficulties here likely arise from a combination of factors, which include the relative youth of the information technology disciplines, and the comparatively recent recognition of DSR as a distinct, yet legitimate, research paradigm. Even within the design science paradigm, some differences of opinion have emerged. One case of this is the bifurcation into a design-theory camp Markus et al. 2002; Walls et al. , 2004 ) and a pragmatic-design camp Nunamaker et al. 1990-91) , with the two camps placing comparatively more emphasis on design theory or artifacts respectively as research contributions. One aim of the current paper is to harmonize what we see as complementary rather than opposing perspectives, a repositioning that can enhance the conduct and reach of rigorous and impactful DSR. The guidance we provide below for DSR positioning and publishing could mean that important and relevant work will reach a wider audience, dissemination of which contributes to both research and professional practice. This essay also provides theoretical significance in the philosophy of technology because there are still unanswered questions about how, and to what extent, DSR contributes to knowledge and generalized theory Kuechler and Vaishnavi 2012) . Thus, we clarify issues concerning the role of theory and how partial or incomplete attempts at theorizing via artifact development can contribute to evolving theory. 2 This is true especially when the IT disciplines are compared to the natural sciences, which grew to maturity during the 18 th century Enlightenment, and to the social sciences, which began their rapid growth in the Victorian period. See . 338 The scope of the essay should be noted. A significant DSR program typically encompasses many researchers over several years with any number of intermediate research results during its evolution. For the purposes of this essay we primarily target the publication of single research articles and when the word project is used it refers to a portion of a larger program of research that is presented in one article. The importance of overall research programs that encompass many smaller projects is acknowledged in our recognition that single articles and projects can be interim attempts at theorizing but still be of value (see Weick 1995). While this essay is primarily aimed at DSR in information systems, it has clear implications for other fields engaged in DSR, particularly in associated areas concerned with information technology (such as the Computer Science and Engineering disciplines). Information Systems specifically is seen as a discipline that concerns the use of information technology-related artifacts in human-machine systems (see Lee 2001, p. iii). We assert that the ideas and discussions contained here apply to a broad range of IT-related fields. The essay proceeds as follows. The following section provides background from the extant literature for the main themes of our study. Here we address design theorizing and the definition and role of the IT artifact as a basis for appreciating levels of artifact abstractions that may be DSR contributions. The following three sections deal with the main themes of the essay: the roles of descriptive and prescriptive knowledge in relation to the economics of knowledge, the DSR contribution framework, and the DSR communication schema. We conclude by discussing the impact of these ideas on future DSR projects.
In this section, the authors are required to give a "[…] concise description of the artifact at the appropriate level of abstraction […]" REF . But no guidance is given on how to describe the design of a complex information system.
Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact
MIS Quarterly
MIS Quarterly
Computer Science