1ZM140: Summary Quiz 3
Article 2: Mixing Oil with Water, How to Effectively Teach Design
Science in Management Education (Keskin & Romme, 2020)
Design thinking: design approaches used in management discourse where managers learn to think in
the way designers think and approach business problems as the way designers address design
problems. Design-oriented research has especially been proposed as a way to bridge the gap between
theory (i.e. rigor) and practice (i.e. relevance). Criticism management education: lack of relevance to
practitioners. Also, there is a lack of consistent methodology for design science. It is like mixing oil with
water: easy to provide the recipe on paper, but difficult to produce and sustain the mix. The idea of
design, concept definitions and its implications for management education are still unclear, ambiguous
and disputed. This paper offers a combined framework of existing taxonomies to enhance the
consistency of language and key terms used, based on 3 DS frameworks. 2 criteria: each framework
should have had a major impact (i.e. be widely applied) and offer straightforward guidelines for
application.
1. Van Aken’s framework
The relevance-rigor gap in management research can be mitigated by complementing description-
driven research with prescription-driven research based on the paradigm of design science.
Intervention-outcome logic: “if you want to achieve Y in situation Z, then perform action X”. A class of
problems refers to problems that are experienced in different contexts but share common
characteristics. The framework makes a distinction between the problem-solving (i.e., regulative) cycle
and the reflective cycle. Problem solving cycle: problem definition, diagnosis, design of alternative
solutions, selection, implementation and evaluation. Key question: “whether an intervention works or
not”. The reflective cycle, on the other hand, is concerned with the field-testing of technological rules
through the evaluation of interventions in the context of their intended use. Key question: “what
makes an intervention work?” Self-guided crafting: without the involvement of a facilitator.
2. Romme’s framework
Framework for communication and collaboration between the science and design modes of research
in the field of organization and management studies, arguing that a key element of the interface
between science and design involves the notion of design propositions (which inform the development
of solutions for particular management problems). This type of research would enable collaboration
between the design and science mode. To guide practitioner-academic projects in the form of a
research cycle involving five components or steps: organization science, construction principles, design
rules, organization design, and implementation and experimentation. Organization design: the process
of developing representation of the intended organizational design on the basis of the design rules.
Design principles can alternatively be derived in an emergent fashion through experimenting with new
practices and solutions.
3. Holmström, Ketokivi and Hameri’s framework
The design science approach for the field of operations management. In DS, the objective is to develop
“a means to an end”, an artifact is designed to solve a problem. Novelty is an important criterion for
the evaluation of the artifact and the generalization of specific findings arising from a DS research
project. The four DS research phases: solution incubation, solution refinement, explanation
substantive theory, and explanation formal theory. Substantive theory phase: solution design is
evaluated from a theoretical point of view to produce and advance a relevant context-dependent
theory. In the phase of formal theory development, the DS scholar seeks to develop formal theory,
which is not limited to the empirical context of the solution design initially developed, or specific type
of organization or industry.
Article 2: Mixing Oil with Water, How to Effectively Teach Design
Science in Management Education (Keskin & Romme, 2020)
Design thinking: design approaches used in management discourse where managers learn to think in
the way designers think and approach business problems as the way designers address design
problems. Design-oriented research has especially been proposed as a way to bridge the gap between
theory (i.e. rigor) and practice (i.e. relevance). Criticism management education: lack of relevance to
practitioners. Also, there is a lack of consistent methodology for design science. It is like mixing oil with
water: easy to provide the recipe on paper, but difficult to produce and sustain the mix. The idea of
design, concept definitions and its implications for management education are still unclear, ambiguous
and disputed. This paper offers a combined framework of existing taxonomies to enhance the
consistency of language and key terms used, based on 3 DS frameworks. 2 criteria: each framework
should have had a major impact (i.e. be widely applied) and offer straightforward guidelines for
application.
1. Van Aken’s framework
The relevance-rigor gap in management research can be mitigated by complementing description-
driven research with prescription-driven research based on the paradigm of design science.
Intervention-outcome logic: “if you want to achieve Y in situation Z, then perform action X”. A class of
problems refers to problems that are experienced in different contexts but share common
characteristics. The framework makes a distinction between the problem-solving (i.e., regulative) cycle
and the reflective cycle. Problem solving cycle: problem definition, diagnosis, design of alternative
solutions, selection, implementation and evaluation. Key question: “whether an intervention works or
not”. The reflective cycle, on the other hand, is concerned with the field-testing of technological rules
through the evaluation of interventions in the context of their intended use. Key question: “what
makes an intervention work?” Self-guided crafting: without the involvement of a facilitator.
2. Romme’s framework
Framework for communication and collaboration between the science and design modes of research
in the field of organization and management studies, arguing that a key element of the interface
between science and design involves the notion of design propositions (which inform the development
of solutions for particular management problems). This type of research would enable collaboration
between the design and science mode. To guide practitioner-academic projects in the form of a
research cycle involving five components or steps: organization science, construction principles, design
rules, organization design, and implementation and experimentation. Organization design: the process
of developing representation of the intended organizational design on the basis of the design rules.
Design principles can alternatively be derived in an emergent fashion through experimenting with new
practices and solutions.
3. Holmström, Ketokivi and Hameri’s framework
The design science approach for the field of operations management. In DS, the objective is to develop
“a means to an end”, an artifact is designed to solve a problem. Novelty is an important criterion for
the evaluation of the artifact and the generalization of specific findings arising from a DS research
project. The four DS research phases: solution incubation, solution refinement, explanation
substantive theory, and explanation formal theory. Substantive theory phase: solution design is
evaluated from a theoretical point of view to produce and advance a relevant context-dependent
theory. In the phase of formal theory development, the DS scholar seeks to develop formal theory,
which is not limited to the empirical context of the solution design initially developed, or specific type
of organization or industry.
