A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research

By John R. Venable, Jan Pries-Heje, Richard L. Baskerville. International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, 2012

549 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Mechanical Engineering, Sociology and Political Science, Human-Computer Interaction

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/26fed4d26126b357ef5a236d692834b2bfb926b9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Jan Pries-Heje
2. John R. Venable
3. Richard L. Baskerville
4. P. Burnap
5. Geoff Walsham
6. Shirley Gregor
7. Göran Goldkuhl

In Human-Computer Interaction

1. Richard L. Baskerville

Citations in the corpus

• A review of cyber security risk assessment methods for SCADA systems (2016, methodology): “The general guidance on choosing an evaluation method (or a combination of them) could be found in Venable et al. (2012), where methods are categorised into naturalistic (evaluation in real settings) and artificial (evaluation in laboratory settings, analytical evaluation, simulations etc.) as well…”
• FEDS: a Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research (2016, background): “The research reported in this paper extends the authors’ earlier work (Pries-Heje et al, 2008; Venable et al, 2012) to answer the above research question by (1) developing and (2) evaluating the utility of (a) a new, enhanced Framework for Evaluation in Design Science (FEDS), which revises the…”