Rigorous Research With Demonstrable Impact

Article

Tuesday, March 18, 2025

By Timothy Hor, Georges Romme, Christoph Seckler, Bert Verhoeven, Vishal Rana

Photo by iStock/Talaj

Management and entrepreneurship scholars can use design science methodology to create practical tools that solve real-world problems.

Using design science, scholars identify a problem, iterate solutions, and extract insights that have practical relevance while informing management theory.
Because scholars concentrate on solving real-world challenges, they move away from the crowded waters of theoretical debate and into the “blue ocean” of underexplored issues.
The growing popularity of design science reflects the fact that funding bodies, universities, and governments are increasingly prioritizing research with measurable societal impact.

Why do some startups thrive while others fail? How do organizations adapt to disruptive technologies? When management and entrepreneurship scholars address complex questions such as these, they often develop theoretical frameworks and guiding principles that can shape future inquiry.

But they could take another, more practical approach by following the principles of design science (DS). This methodology stresses the creation of actionable solutions that directly address real-world problems and the implementation of tools that are useful for practitioners in business, government, and society.

First advocated by Herbert Simon in The Sciences of the Artificial, DS has been used in fields as diverse as engineering, architecture, and information systems—and, more recently, management and entrepreneurship. By adopting a DS approach, scholars can build a bridge between theoretical rigor and practical relevance. They also can amplify the reach and relevance of their work.

What Is Design Science?

Unlike traditional research methods that center on inductive reasoning or deductive hypothesis testing, DS emphasizes creating and evaluating interventions. Its design principles, or design propositions, follow a simple formula, such as: “In setting S, intervention X activates mechanism M to generate outcome O.”

DS differs from conventional research in ways that highlight the distinct benefits of both, as illustrated by the graphic below. We developed the graphic to codify and visualize the main differences between DS and conventional research in the management field, based on our collective experience in using both approaches.

Strategy Canvas: Management and Entrepreneurship Research

While both approaches demonstrate strong scientific rigor, mainstream research places greater emphasis on descriptive knowledge, empirical generalizability, and hypothesis testing. DS is geared toward practical impact, prescriptive knowledge, artifact creation, iteration and refinement, and stakeholder engagement.

Researchers who employ the DS method typically follow an iterative cycle that incorporates five phases:

Identifying a real-world problem faced by businesses, entrepreneurs, or policymakers.
Reviewing the extant literature, including theories in adjacent areas.
Developing an artifact that is informed by these guidelines but pushes beyond existing knowledge.
Testing and refining the artifact by implementing it in a real-world setting, collecting feedback, and improving it.
Extracting insights that generalize from the specific problem solved to a broader class of problems and their potential solutions.

Because DS has a dual focus on rigor and research, it spans the gap between scholarship and practice by combining artifact development with rigorous testing.

DS also draws insights from diverse research areas. This makes the process especially well-suited to addressing wicked problems such as digital transformation, climate change, and social inequality. By leveraging interdisciplinary synergy, DS creates artifacts that drive transformative impact.

The ‘Blue Ocean’ Opportunity

One of the greatest advantages of the DS method is that it leads scholars away from the crowded spaces of incremental theoretical research and encourages them to strike out on new interdisciplinary pathways. This is an approach advocated by W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne in their book Blue Ocean Strategy, which argues that organizations succeed by creating uncontested market spaces rather than competing in saturated ones. The same logic applies to research.

Many areas of management and entrepreneurship are crowded with theoretical debates on who, what, when, where, and why. By contrast, scholars who employ DS are able to enter unexplored spaces where they can solve real-world “how-to” challenges such as fostering entrepreneurial ecosystems or creating frameworks for scaling sustainable business models. In these less crowded areas, scholars can:

Move beyond purely descriptive and explanatory contributions that have limited practical applicability.
Reduce the overemphasis on publishing in academic journals for the sake of publishing and instead prioritize research with real-world relevance and broader impact.
Raise the level of engagement with practitioners and other stakeholders.
Create new pathways for impact by developing actionable solutions.

Design Science in Action

One of the most well-known examples of how DS has resulted in a practical business solution is the Business Model Canvas (BMC) created by Alexander Osterwalder. For his doctoral dissertation (completed in 2004 under the supervision of Yves Pigneur), Osterwalder explored how business models can be visually represented on a nine-block canvas that shows relationships among elements such as value propositions, target customers, and distribution channels.

After publishing his dissertation, Osterwalder prototyped his framework and continued to refine it until it became the BMC as we know it now. Today, this tool is widely used by practitioners and scholars in the field of strategy and entrepreneurship; it is taught in basic entrepreneurship courses around the world. Moreover, Osterwalder’s pioneering work has fueled a rich theoretical discourse about business modeling. Osterwalder’s development of the BMC highlights how the DS approach solves real-world challenges while also advancing theory.

One reason for the popularity of design science could be that some scholars believe management research should be at the forefront of helping society design a better future.

>Other DS scholars also have made an impact with their research, particularly in the entrepreneurship and management domains. For instance, the DS-informed doctoral work of Saras Sarasvathy resulted in a paper and related book on effectuation theory, which posits that entrepreneurs can take small, planned steps to achieve predetermined goals. Entrepreneurship professionals and educators across the globe now draw on Sarasvathy’s effectuation perspective

Similarly, research on circular organizational design, which initially was developed by Gerard Endenburg, is used to help organizations transfer knowledge between different projects. Its principles inspired Brian Robertson to design the holacracy method, which enables leaders to determine what and how to delegate. Holacracy and the related theory of sociocracy—which emphasizes creating psychologically safe spaces for workers—have been implemented in hundreds of companies and organizations worldwide, especially in the ICT industry.

Recent publications highlight the many ways DS can be used to create actionable solutions while advancing theoretical understanding (see “Further Reading” below).

A Growing Demand

Why has there been such an increase in popularity for design science? Perhaps because some scholars believe management research should be at the forefront of helping society design a better future. That’s the argument made in a 2023 article by Christoph Seckler (a co-author of this article), René Mauer, and Jan vom Brocke.

The authors emphasize that management scholars must go beyond explaining existing phenomena—they must actively develop and evaluate practical solutions. By accumulating design knowledge, researchers can enhance problem-solving and innovation capabilities, making their work more relevant to real-world challenges.

To achieve this, businesses, business schools, and academic journals must embrace design science by integrating its principles into education, rewarding design-oriented research, and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration.

Across academia, the pressure to demonstrate the impact of research has never been greater. Funding bodies, universities, and even governments are increasingly prioritizing research that can show measurable benefits to society. DS is instrumental in responding to this demand by focusing on solutions rather than explanations.

Moreover, business executives and policymakers are grappling with unprecedented challenges—from navigating digital transformation to addressing climate change. They are seeking actionable insights that directly inform their strategies and decisions—not the self-contained research found in academic reports. Scholars who adopt DS can position themselves as essential contributors to these conversations, creating tools and other frameworks that provide immediate value.

First Steps for Scholars

Academics interested in applying design science to their research can find many introductions to the methodology. A short primer appears in the CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation. More detailed information can be found in a 2004 paper in MIS Quarterly, a 2021 article in the Journal of Business Venturing Design, a 2022 editorial in Technovation, and a 2023 editorial in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.

Scholars also can begin by following these four practical steps:

Engage stakeholders early. Collaborate with practitioners, industry experts, and policymakers to identify pressing challenges and co-create solutions. Make it clear that you’re not a consultant looking for short-term results, but a long-term collaborator interested in implementing effective, evidence-based solutions.

Start small. Develop a pilot artifact—such as a prototype framework or an intervention—and test it in a controlled setting. Include top-line executives in the team running the pilot project so they can decide if they want to develop the artifact further and/or test it in other parts of the organization.

Embrace iteration. Refine the artifact through repeated feedback loops, ensuring it meets user needs and aligns with real-world constraints.

Focus on making dual contributions. Document the artifact’s practical impact by creating and maintaining extensive logbooks. But also document its implications for theory by writing academic papers that describe its generative mechanisms and design principles.

A Call to Action

For too long, traditional research models have described the world as it is. By contrast, design science shapes the world as it could or should be. If management and entrepreneurship scholars truly wish to shape business practice for the future, they must rethink their approach to research.

In a time when research impact is paramount, design science is more than a methodology—it’s a strategic imperative.

By factoring in stakeholder engagement and practical impact, DS scholars produce actionable tools and frameworks that resonate with practitioners. At the same time, by meeting the requirements of journal publications, they also reach academic audiences. This dual approach ensures that their research could have a broad impact with both executives and researchers.

In a time when research impact is paramount, DS is more than a methodology—it’s a strategic imperative. By embracing this blue ocean approach, scholars can escape crowded theoretical debates, carve out new intellectual territory, and deliver tangible value to the stakeholders who need it most.